I was posting a lot of MTG stuff in my personal blog, so I created a separate blog for MTG.


Backround: My first MTG cards were Odyssey cards back in the early 2000s, and I've been playing off and on since then. I'm mostly a casual player, but I hope to play competitively in the future. Feel free to ask me stuff or leave me comments. I'm usually on here every day.

20th October 2014

Question reblogged from Just Magic Things with 29 notes

howdidigethereimnotgoodwithmagic said: You've mentioned multiple times recently that the world without intentional draws was worse than current. I don't doubt you, but at the same time I don't see what the problem is, perhaps aside from needing tie-breakers but I think there are ways to handle that. So what *was* the big deal?

justmagicthings:

zombiecreaturetoken:

markrosewater:

When two players are both better off when they draw it creates a very odd set of incentives. The Intentional Draw is to allow them to do what is in their best interest instead of resorting to shenanigans.

It seems like the crux of the argument against intentional draws is that a lot of people feel like they *are* shenanigans.

Yes. Intentional draws are taking experience and chances at success away from other players so the ones slightly ahead can keep their lead without actually earning it. It’s all really scummy.

I can see the appeal though. After a long day of Magic I imagine it would be difficult to play a match when both of you know that you could make top 8 by not playing.

People are probably right about players draw-going for 50 minutes to force a draw, which means that unintentional draws would also have to go. I don’t think there’s a clean or satisfying way to do that because determining who was winning a match whem time is up is a fuzzy concept at best. It also wouldn’t stop anyone from playing draw-go because they wouldn’t be affecting each other, so if the person on the draw mulligans one time there should be no difference between them. A judge might be able to penalize both players for slow play or some other infraction in this situation, but if that’s the case then we’d probably just resort to pseudo-games where players try to look like they’re really playing with no intent to win.

I suppose you could change the value of a draw to make it always a negative outcome, such as equating it with a loss, but I don’t know enough about the math involved to foresee the impact this would have on tournament structure. I can only assume that it would make a lot of players unhappy.

I also assume that Wizards and the DCI have considered these possibilities and more and have concluded that allowing intentional draws is the least harmful option. So far I trust their judgment, though I’m not really satisfied with the way draws - intentional or otherwise - are handled.

Source: markrosewater

20th October 2014

Question reblogged from Blogatog with 29 notes

howdidigethereimnotgoodwithmagic said: You've mentioned multiple times recently that the world without intentional draws was worse than current. I don't doubt you, but at the same time I don't see what the problem is, perhaps aside from needing tie-breakers but I think there are ways to handle that. So what *was* the big deal?

markrosewater:

When two players are both better off when they draw it creates a very odd set of incentives. The Intentional Draw is to allow them to do what is in their best interest instead of resorting to shenanigans.

It seems like the crux of the argument against intentional draws is that a lot of people feel like they *are* shenanigans.

19th October 2014

Question reblogged from Disciple of the Cards with 95 notes

chris-law said: Do trends in popular culture ever affect R&D's willingness to do a set theme? Like, did the various popular vampire/zombie books and movies at the time help Innistrad get made, or could Game of Thrones help a medieval (western European) fantasy setting get made?

sarroth:

nefastus:

markrosewater:

Twilight’s popularity helped me internally pitch Innistrad.

WAT

Twilight is to blame for possibly the coolest Magic set ever, flavor-wise.

Of course, MaRo forgets that Magic players are the kind who would HATE Twilight…

MaRo said twilight helped Innistrad get pitched. So MaRo had the ideas I’m his head already. Innistrad is still at its heart a magic property even if it was partially green lit due to the popularity of vampires and werewolves that occurred from Twilight. And I don’t think MaRo needs to remember anything about magic fans issues with twilight. Bad things can cause good things to happen. Recognizing that is an important part of being mature. If magic fans that follow him wish to be mature they can seriously think about this rather than having a knee jerk reaction. I hope they’ll do the former because that’s the kind of person I want to be associated with.

Agreed. Also, if I remember correctly, the concept for Innistrad was formed years before they actually began designing it. The sudden rise in vampire/werewolf/zombie popularity just made it easier to greenlight it.

Source: markrosewater

17th October 2014

Post with 1 note

I had already been planning to take the symmetrical ramp (Magus of the Vineyard, Eladamri’s Vineyard, etc) out of my Omnath deck, but playing it today cemented the decision.

One of my my opponents used it to ramp out Darksteel Forge and Colossus, then used Muzzio to dig for 11 every turn. I had no way to slow down or outpace that and no way to deal with his Nevinyrral’s Disk without just losing the following turn.

I’ll stick to keeping the ramp to myself from now on, or at least make it a bit more restrictive if it helps other people.

16th October 2014

Post reblogged from How to be a better Magic Player with 26 notes

howtobebettermagicplayer:

So is it just me or is it weird what planeswalkers they’re picking for the MTG board game?  They’ve announced Jace, Chandra, Liliana, Nissa… and have not confirmed the 5th walker (assuming a white one)

I would have guessed that the Lorwyn 5 would be the announced walkers. If they’re following the continuity of the TCG then I imagine Nissa took over as “the green planeswalker” now that Garruk is cursed. I figured Ajani would have been announced as well, but maybe they’ll surprise us. He and Garruk are the only two from the Lorwyn 5 who have multicolored versions, so maybe they’ll go with Gideon or something.

15th October 2014

Link reblogged from AbsoluteJank with 5 notes

Do you know what happens when..? →

absolutejank:

zombiecreaturetoken:

turbatron:

The only creature you is a Tarmagoyf (at 2/3). The only creature your opponent controls is a Nessian courser.

You cast prey upon targeting both.

I’ll give this a shot, but I’m not a judge, so someone correct me if I’m wrong.

If there are no sorceries in graveyards when Prey…

The important part, the part that separates you from most, is you asked yourself if there is a sorcery in among the graveyards.

Also you are correct. :-) Good job

Thanks! :)

Source: turbatron

15th October 2014

Post reblogged from AbsoluteJank with 5 notes

Do you know what happens when..?

turbatron:

The only creature you is a Tarmagoyf (at 2/3). The only creature your opponent controls is a Nessian courser.

You cast prey upon targeting both.

I’ll give this a shot, but I’m not a judge, so someone correct me if I’m wrong.

If there are no sorceries in graveyards when Prey Upon resolves, then Tarmogoyf will deal 2 damage to Nessian Courser and Courser will deal 3 to Tarmogoyf, then Prey Upon will be put in the graveyard, making Tarmogoyf a 3/4. State-based actions will check the game and see a 3/4 with 3 damage and a 3/3 with 2, so nothing happens.

If there is already a sorcery in a graveyard, Tarmogoyf will remain a 2/3 and die when SBAs are checked.

In neither situation will Nessian Courser die, unfortunately.

Source: turbatron

9th October 2014

Question reblogged from MTG Talk with 26 notes

horusiswatching said: So if I have a Dictate of the Twin Gods on the field and my opponent uses, say, Lightning Strike on me: if I use Deflection Palm, do I do 12 damage?

mtg-talk:

Yep! Lightning strike deals double of three to you (so six), then Deflecting Palm sees the six that would be hitting you, prevents it, sends it back, and it’s doubled again (twelve), as a new source is dealing the damage.

christianfundamentalistmemes: From Deflecting Palm’s Gatherer rulings:

"9/20/2014 If multiple prevention and/or replacement effects are trying to apply to the same damage, the player who would be dealt damage chooses the order in which to apply them. Notably, if noncombat damage would be dealt to you by a source controlled by an opponent, you choose the order in which to apply Deflecting Palm and the planeswalker redirection effect. If you apply Deflecting Palm first, the damage will be prevented (and damage will be dealt to the source’s controller) and the planeswalker redirection effect won’t apply."

Dictate and Plam are both trying to replace Lightning Strike with their effects, and as the target of the source of damage you can choose to apply Dictate before Palm. This doubles the damage before preventing it and redirecting it to your opponent, at which point it gets doubled again.

 

7th October 2014

Question reblogged from Blogatog with 42 notes

ranapuer said: From "Essay What" Nov 8, 2010: "The hand limit rule is the rule that R&D has spent the most time talking about removing. We're still on the fence, by the way, so if you have any thoughts feel free to share them in the thread or in my email." IMO the hand limit rules does two things: it makes inexperienced, manascrewed players feel even worse, and enables broken dredge decks. Has there been any additional R&D discussion about it? (I know this ruins cards like Spellbook. Only minor negative IMO.)

markrosewater:

We haven’t progressed any on the topic.

I’m inclined to say that maximum hand size is important, but after thinking about it a bit it seems like it doesn’t come up very often in most competitive constructed formats. The formats that like to draw that many cards seem likely to be playing them at about an equal or faster rate. Consider that virtually no competitive decks run cards that remove this restriction.

It’s definitely more of a factor in casual play, but in that case casual play focuses more on fun and interactivity, and having to discard due to max hand size is neither fun nor interactive. Furthermore, casual decks have an easier time finding slots to circumvent the rule since deck space is at less of a premium due to metagame concerns. What ends up happening is that the rule has a relatively small effect because players are either just getting around it or not encountering it. It seems to me like it creates more negative experiences by having the rule than by not having it. I’d be interested in playtesting with no hand size rule to see how the game changes. I expect it would change very little, and where it does change would be for the better.

6th October 2014

Photoset reblogged from Social MTG with 145 notes

socialmtg:

Oh hey look at that picture of Courser! And that other one! And that other one! Oh… a new Standard

from mtgGoldfish

Now all we need is Thragtusk.