Metalman:
Titanic Ultimatum is fine but I don't think it's worth discarding a tower gargoyle and a sanctum gargoyle for it. Also it might not mean naya is open. It could be that the guy who opened it picked a woolly thoctar, than pick2 a wild nacatl and naya is anything but open. While Cruel Ultimatum is almost always GG, Titanic Ultimatum can be reduced with a removal spell. It's fine taking it when you're clearly in naya but it's never a good option going for naya because of it specially when you're giving up 2 good cards.
Pack2 pick8 was very sad for me. Both the mace and the zombie are better cards than the elemental but the deck needed more defense than the late game winner mace. Zombie would fit the defensive part better than the elemental if not for the UB mana cost. If it was the pro red guy (costs UW) it would have been an easy pick.
The 2/3 flier vs the 3/6 defender I didn't wanna risk not getting the 3/6 and I already had the 2/* flier from conflux which would be 2/3 most of the time and doesn't need blue.
marengo:
P1P7: I almost sided it in against grixis but in the end I decided that the white capsule was better as I needled a solution for both his equipments.
P2P1: I agree that my manabase became a bit worse with him but I don't agree that I should have not played it. The UW borderpost and the 2 3/6 defender allowed me to almost always get 2 swamos or 1 swamp and 1 mountain with sphere. I just needed the double black and red by turn 8. I think Nicol Bolas is that good. In the finals I'm pretty sure the guy had a better deck (and Malfagor was devastating) but I won it on the back of Nicol Bolas.
P2P8: the mace would have been great as well as the zombies but like I said I think that the elemental was what my deck needed the most (needed more the zombie but the mana base didn't allow it).
P2P9: Yeah this was one of few the picks I didn't like because if I had thought about it a bit more I would have probably taken Unsummon.
P2P13: Maybe but one less terminate against me sounded better than a possible sb card that I never really used before.
P3P1: I'm not really sure about how good Finest Hour is yet in limited. I know it can be a beating but I think it won't win you games you are losing. It wins races and is great when you are the aggressor but although Nicol Bolas costs 3 more it's also much more likely to win me the pack. If I was playing an aggressive deck that could play both no problem I would prefer Finest Hour but in this case I think Nicol Bolas is still superior.
P3P6: I actually think architects is underrated. It goes so late. I mean it's an hill giant which as always been a decent filler but it also cycles for 1 and has a nice comes into play effect. Nothing game breaking but it's information and I value information pretty high. Zealous is nice but I still dunno it's power in limited. If it was in aggressive colors like GW, GR, RW or even BG or BR it would see play in more aggressive shards naya and jund. Defensive decks don't really need tricks but the -1/-1 part can be devastating. If this was the wrong pick it's clearly because I don't have played with zealous enough in limited.
P3P8: That guy always comes very late and like I said an hill giant is not bad but I didn't have that many artifacts so the possible bigger than hill giant but no cycling and no comes into play effect I prefer tge architects.
Anonymous1:
P1P13: Yeah I could very well have taken the better card overall even though it's not really anything special in esper. When in esper I always like taking filler artifacts over other fillers in case I end up with cards that really benefit from other artifacts that I'll want as many as I can.
Anonymous2:
Naya Charm is the best charm in limited but there were 3 esper cards in the pack and also an esper panorama. Esper seemed open too so I went with what I had more. And Blitz Hellion is like 5 mana deals 7 to the head but with the drawback of not being able to steal games when your opp has many blockers while burn can. I don't think I would ever be happy to play Blitz Hellion.
My only concerns with this are one minor point, and one major point. The minor is the change to the stack and damage dealing. I don't mind this change, however, for the purposes of simplifying that aspect of the game, I'm not sure how this was accomplished when it took a page and a half (with diagrams) to explain it. Frankly, this seemed to contradict the very thing they were trying to alleviate. But, meh, it's a minor annoyance. The rule itself, I can live with (though needing to make special rules for other effects, i.e. deathtouch, really doesn't simplify it any better).
But mana burn is the major point. Taking away a fundamental foundational rule of the game just isn't right. It changes not only the dynamic of the game, but several card interactions of the game. As far as I can tell, the ONLY reason this change is being put into place is to 1)alleviate misunderstandings of what is or is not in your mana pool come end of phase (or steps under the new rule, which to be blunt, was something that was ADDED after the initial game, in other words, they had to complicate it to dumb it down, huh?) and 2) because there are "tricks" one can do with mana. Sorry, I find these arguments not only invalid, but seriously flawed. First, the mana pool is ALWAYS monitored by players, and thus, you would have to remove it altogether (which is essentially the case), or as the case currently is, let really poor lazy and destracted players (the casual ones) determine the way in which the rules SHOULD be interpreted. Eh? Mana burn is a concept that everyone gets, and the fact that some don't know how or when it is caused in a casual game, is no reason to remove it altogether, especially considering that the very article referenced says that it doesn't come up that often in card play. Therefore, it's usually a result of a misplay, mistake, or someone overpaying for something. This is no reason at all to remove it. Of all the changes, this one is about the most ridiculously rationalized one of the bunch.
So, my last point is simply. Does everyone that played back in the beginning remember the Duelist article before the changes in 6th Ed. came out about responding to effects? It involved the Prodigal Sorcerer pinging something in response to something else (something that later became the stack). WotC didn't really know which way to go, and thus asked the player base what should be the rule. The player base overwhelmingly voted for the idea that responding was the correct method (the one that eventually became the stack). BUT WotC ruled a month later against the player base (why did they ask us in the first place?) and changed the rule to the more unintuitive method. Fortunately for us, 6th Ed. came out later and the rule was changed back to the stacking of responses. I get the feeling, that the mana burn rule won't last, much like that one, because most of the player base doesn't want to do away with the rule, and WotC will eventually come to their senses.
Actually Deathtouch makes sense! This is not original thought with me, but once i read it I went OK.
We prioritize the creatures and must deal LETHAL damage in order. Well, with Death Touch, lethal damage is 1! So, while they listed death touch as an exception, it really isn't, right?
You can still chump with STE and after declare blockers, sac him to get a land. The only thing he can't do now is stack damage and then sac. The only situation this changes is if that 1 point of damage matters.
- I honestly thought that Sovereigns had flying, no idea how I missed that - the Whippoorwill gets another friend. With this in mind, He's a lot worse - not unplayable as a big exalted guy, but I'd only grab him around 5th or 6th.
- I wrote this before the rules changes were announced, luckily the only card that is impacted is the Shieldmage, which I think is still pretty decent, but loses a bit by not being able to wait until damage is on the stack... Then again though, the best time to play it was, and still will be during the declare attackers step as he's another blocker who won't die.
- Finally, I know that this isn't the most timely article, nor one that looks at something that already hasn't been looked at before. And I know that with a lot of the cards I'm not really re-inevnting the wheel - ie: Glassdusk Hulk. But thats not really what I'm trying to accomplish with this series, all I'm trying to do is explain my thought process for these cards when I'm drafting in the hopes that it might help someone - be it a newer player, or someone who learns more by seeing how others would approach a similiar situation. I guess what I'm saying is that I respect and understand the criticism (and indeed, I want people to tell me why I got a card ranking wrong, this is just my opinion, not the truth...) but that I feel you've missed the point to the article.
Good article, but I still don't like the feel the no combat tricks gives the combat phase. One of my favorite semi-combo's Sakura-Tribe Elder use to chump blocking to avoid damage then sacrificing it to draw land. Going forward you can A: chump block to avoid damage, or B: sac it for a land, but not both :(. IMO if a effect can be used for land it should circumvent the combat rules just like deathtouch will. See what I did there, I just gave every one, and his brother a way to bug WOTC why doesn't my card X have the same effect as deathtouch please explain?
Btw. Montolio, it is "only" combat damage that does not use the stack anymore, which makes it simpler to explain to new players. Futheremore I consider it alot more reasonable that a creature in mortal combat can't do much else while there from a flavor standpoint.
I know where WotC is going with these changes. The majority of them i can live with. However I am very worried about the loss of mana burn and the loss of the stack. These are monumental changes & move away from alot of the intricacies that make the game so fun.I have been following alot of the posts on the WotC forums and I emplore Wizards to not change the game so drastically. It is like the NHL breaking all tradition and making the nets larger. It would drive a large portion of the fans and traditionalists mad. It just isn't right! I have a strong feeling that these changes are great enough to push me out of the game.
p.s. Great article Whiffy. Always look forward to reading your stuff.
Montolio
i always enjoy to read your article man, go on ! I like the concept of untouchable creature. I did an extend deck on this topic some weeks ago adding many Split Second spell to build a deck inclunding untouchable creature/uncounterable spell. Pretty funny vs blue decks. Pretty casual also :)
i fully agree with your comments. I put here a post i wrote on dedicated Classic Quarter thread (i am lazy to write it again) :
"I forgot to mention that while these changes will have a big impact on current decks, new decks will come to replace them that are just as powerful." (quote of previous post)
i agree with that : these new rules are only changing the "play value" of some cards to me.
Some of these will be better now, some will be less powerful. But all in all, we will ever find solutions to make our deck good & competitive ... Honestly, at the moment, i am not sure i could say the entire game will be better or not.
Yes, if one of your favorite card is impacted by these new rules, you could be disapointed, but i can bet you will find another creature to replace it with an equivalent result at the end. All these change involve we have to change our way to read the potential of many cards, to find new way to abuse of some situation. Is this THAT bad ? I dunno ... financialy maybe due the the fall of some prices, intellectualy i really dont know. Plus i think these changes could open some new door to wizard R&D to developp new cards, new effects ... Let's see.
The only point i a bit scared of is mana pool points, and especialy the fact mana burn no more exists : it seems to be a strong advantage for combo which wasnt really necessary ... but maybe i am wrong.
because your pumped creature still won't have power equal to the attacker's toughness
in the new system, if a 4/6 attacks and you block with 3 1/1s and giant growth 'the first blocker' you trade a 1/1 and giant growth for the 4/6, whereas with the current rules each of your creatures would get at least 1 point on it so you'd lose 2 even if you had giant growth
I just have to commend Josh a littel here. Thanks for getting this article up less then 12 hours after it was subbmitted for editing he also gave credit to the design of the Block deck to Mr. Chapin, which I didn't know.
Also something that I find interesting which I missed while writing this article, The block deck actually costs more then the Classic deck!
As a player who played Magic back when it was Revised and 4th Edition, stopped playnig soon after Ice Age and has recently returned to Magic:online with Shards of Alara release, I actually think a lot of these new rules make sense. For instance:
One of the 'new rules' I didn't understand right away: a creature is removed from play, how is it possible that it returns? That made no sense.
Lifelink as a static ability seems right:
- When at three life opponent attacks with a Sengir Vampire (4/4) and a Canyon Minataur. You will be able to block Sengir Vampire with Battlegrace Angel and stay alive at 1 live total. This makes way more sense to me.
BUT OMG, WHAT IS UP WITH DEATHTOUCH?
All these rule changes, one of which is the new blocker-combat-damage-assignment, probably could make sense. And then Wizards do something like making deathtouch as broken as possible: it ignores the all new rule that says you can no longer assign combat damage as you like, instead deathtouch can go around this new rule and do whatever it wants.......omg omg omg. This makes deathtouch ridiculously strong and makes absolutely no sense to me.
BTW:
Don't these rule changes make 'unsummon' rather useless? Since u can no longer unsummon a creature with damage stacked upon it but before damage resolves?
Just some thoughts. I hope the comment makes any sense. I'm not a native English speaker and/or writer. But please let me know what u guys think!
while it's true that card valuations are not static, his descriptions don't really help. For example, Glassdust Hulk, he just describes what the card does (which is quite static). It's the same for Wall of Denial, etc. read Sadin's article this week, something like that is cool - picks out underrated cards, describes their past weakness and why they are good now.
This is actually quite helpful, since card valuations are never static. Though I would say that you should've held off on this article until the rule changes, since a lot of cards will become radically worse
and sovereigns of lost alara doesn't have flying, and I'd say that mimeomancer is generally a much better creature than wall of denial unless you're playing 5cc
everyone's already drafted this reborn ever since it came out, please don't do anymore reviews of the cards or the set - we already know all there is to know. if you look at the mothership, Steve Sadin has even already written an article about the sleeper pics of reborn - that's how old it's been. this would be nice like during the week of pre-release or something, but now anymore. i understand your life gets in the way, but this doesn't help too many people.
Removal in response to your Giant Growth makes that play a 4 for 1 in your opponents favor; I can't see any reason why you would ever want to play it as such as opposed to simply blocking with one pumped creature to minimize potential losses. The fact that this is the only "novel" combat trick I've seen anyone come up with under the new rules is doing nothing to quell (what are, in my mind, accurate) claims that combat has been over simplified.
Im Canadian, and am wondering if the debit card payment option only applies to Americans because i cant seem to get it to work and i would love to use my debit card because it would make my mtg experience alittle easier.?
I'm just too sad to see my favorite card, Momentary Blink, downgraded and probably disappearing forever from any future limited environment. In any case, I'm not quitting the game, and the only change that bothers me is the new combat system / no stacked damage.
I'm with you up until P1P5. At that point I'd take the Charm, follow the (crystal clear at that point) Naya signals, and never look back. Seriously, Blitz Hellion at P3P7?
That said, I respect a player that makes a plan and sticks with it. You wanted that Esper, and drafted a fine deck to make it work.
Just one question: wasn't Zealous Persecution even an option at P3P6?
Metalman:
Titanic Ultimatum is fine but I don't think it's worth discarding a tower gargoyle and a sanctum gargoyle for it. Also it might not mean naya is open. It could be that the guy who opened it picked a woolly thoctar, than pick2 a wild nacatl and naya is anything but open. While Cruel Ultimatum is almost always GG, Titanic Ultimatum can be reduced with a removal spell. It's fine taking it when you're clearly in naya but it's never a good option going for naya because of it specially when you're giving up 2 good cards.
Pack2 pick8 was very sad for me. Both the mace and the zombie are better cards than the elemental but the deck needed more defense than the late game winner mace. Zombie would fit the defensive part better than the elemental if not for the UB mana cost. If it was the pro red guy (costs UW) it would have been an easy pick.
The 2/3 flier vs the 3/6 defender I didn't wanna risk not getting the 3/6 and I already had the 2/* flier from conflux which would be 2/3 most of the time and doesn't need blue.
marengo:
P1P7: I almost sided it in against grixis but in the end I decided that the white capsule was better as I needled a solution for both his equipments.
P2P1: I agree that my manabase became a bit worse with him but I don't agree that I should have not played it. The UW borderpost and the 2 3/6 defender allowed me to almost always get 2 swamos or 1 swamp and 1 mountain with sphere. I just needed the double black and red by turn 8. I think Nicol Bolas is that good. In the finals I'm pretty sure the guy had a better deck (and Malfagor was devastating) but I won it on the back of Nicol Bolas.
P2P8: the mace would have been great as well as the zombies but like I said I think that the elemental was what my deck needed the most (needed more the zombie but the mana base didn't allow it).
P2P9: Yeah this was one of few the picks I didn't like because if I had thought about it a bit more I would have probably taken Unsummon.
P2P13: Maybe but one less terminate against me sounded better than a possible sb card that I never really used before.
P3P1: I'm not really sure about how good Finest Hour is yet in limited. I know it can be a beating but I think it won't win you games you are losing. It wins races and is great when you are the aggressor but although Nicol Bolas costs 3 more it's also much more likely to win me the pack. If I was playing an aggressive deck that could play both no problem I would prefer Finest Hour but in this case I think Nicol Bolas is still superior.
P3P6: I actually think architects is underrated. It goes so late. I mean it's an hill giant which as always been a decent filler but it also cycles for 1 and has a nice comes into play effect. Nothing game breaking but it's information and I value information pretty high. Zealous is nice but I still dunno it's power in limited. If it was in aggressive colors like GW, GR, RW or even BG or BR it would see play in more aggressive shards naya and jund. Defensive decks don't really need tricks but the -1/-1 part can be devastating. If this was the wrong pick it's clearly because I don't have played with zealous enough in limited.
P3P8: That guy always comes very late and like I said an hill giant is not bad but I didn't have that many artifacts so the possible bigger than hill giant but no cycling and no comes into play effect I prefer tge architects.
Anonymous1:
P1P13: Yeah I could very well have taken the better card overall even though it's not really anything special in esper. When in esper I always like taking filler artifacts over other fillers in case I end up with cards that really benefit from other artifacts that I'll want as many as I can.
Anonymous2:
Naya Charm is the best charm in limited but there were 3 esper cards in the pack and also an esper panorama. Esper seemed open too so I went with what I had more. And Blitz Hellion is like 5 mana deals 7 to the head but with the drawback of not being able to steal games when your opp has many blockers while burn can. I don't think I would ever be happy to play Blitz Hellion.
My only concerns with this are one minor point, and one major point. The minor is the change to the stack and damage dealing. I don't mind this change, however, for the purposes of simplifying that aspect of the game, I'm not sure how this was accomplished when it took a page and a half (with diagrams) to explain it. Frankly, this seemed to contradict the very thing they were trying to alleviate. But, meh, it's a minor annoyance. The rule itself, I can live with (though needing to make special rules for other effects, i.e. deathtouch, really doesn't simplify it any better).
But mana burn is the major point. Taking away a fundamental foundational rule of the game just isn't right. It changes not only the dynamic of the game, but several card interactions of the game. As far as I can tell, the ONLY reason this change is being put into place is to 1)alleviate misunderstandings of what is or is not in your mana pool come end of phase (or steps under the new rule, which to be blunt, was something that was ADDED after the initial game, in other words, they had to complicate it to dumb it down, huh?) and 2) because there are "tricks" one can do with mana. Sorry, I find these arguments not only invalid, but seriously flawed. First, the mana pool is ALWAYS monitored by players, and thus, you would have to remove it altogether (which is essentially the case), or as the case currently is, let really poor lazy and destracted players (the casual ones) determine the way in which the rules SHOULD be interpreted. Eh? Mana burn is a concept that everyone gets, and the fact that some don't know how or when it is caused in a casual game, is no reason to remove it altogether, especially considering that the very article referenced says that it doesn't come up that often in card play. Therefore, it's usually a result of a misplay, mistake, or someone overpaying for something. This is no reason at all to remove it. Of all the changes, this one is about the most ridiculously rationalized one of the bunch.
So, my last point is simply. Does everyone that played back in the beginning remember the Duelist article before the changes in 6th Ed. came out about responding to effects? It involved the Prodigal Sorcerer pinging something in response to something else (something that later became the stack). WotC didn't really know which way to go, and thus asked the player base what should be the rule. The player base overwhelmingly voted for the idea that responding was the correct method (the one that eventually became the stack). BUT WotC ruled a month later against the player base (why did they ask us in the first place?) and changed the rule to the more unintuitive method. Fortunately for us, 6th Ed. came out later and the rule was changed back to the stacking of responses. I get the feeling, that the mana burn rule won't last, much like that one, because most of the player base doesn't want to do away with the rule, and WotC will eventually come to their senses.
My two mana worth.
Actually Deathtouch makes sense! This is not original thought with me, but once i read it I went OK.
We prioritize the creatures and must deal LETHAL damage in order. Well, with Death Touch, lethal damage is 1! So, while they listed death touch as an exception, it really isn't, right?
You can still chump with STE and after declare blockers, sac him to get a land. The only thing he can't do now is stack damage and then sac. The only situation this changes is if that 1 point of damage matters.
Bloodbraid Elf into Ball Lightning?
Just a few comments:
- I honestly thought that Sovereigns had flying, no idea how I missed that - the Whippoorwill gets another friend. With this in mind, He's a lot worse - not unplayable as a big exalted guy, but I'd only grab him around 5th or 6th.
- I wrote this before the rules changes were announced, luckily the only card that is impacted is the Shieldmage, which I think is still pretty decent, but loses a bit by not being able to wait until damage is on the stack... Then again though, the best time to play it was, and still will be during the declare attackers step as he's another blocker who won't die.
- Finally, I know that this isn't the most timely article, nor one that looks at something that already hasn't been looked at before. And I know that with a lot of the cards I'm not really re-inevnting the wheel - ie: Glassdusk Hulk. But thats not really what I'm trying to accomplish with this series, all I'm trying to do is explain my thought process for these cards when I'm drafting in the hopes that it might help someone - be it a newer player, or someone who learns more by seeing how others would approach a similiar situation. I guess what I'm saying is that I respect and understand the criticism (and indeed, I want people to tell me why I got a card ranking wrong, this is just my opinion, not the truth...) but that I feel you've missed the point to the article.
Anyways thats all I have for right now.
Good article, but I still don't like the feel the no combat tricks gives the combat phase. One of my favorite semi-combo's Sakura-Tribe Elder use to chump blocking to avoid damage then sacrificing it to draw land. Going forward you can A: chump block to avoid damage, or B: sac it for a land, but not both :(. IMO if a effect can be used for land it should circumvent the combat rules just like deathtouch will. See what I did there, I just gave every one, and his brother a way to bug WOTC why doesn't my card X have the same effect as deathtouch please explain?
First of all I *like* the changes.
Btw. Montolio, it is "only" combat damage that does not use the stack anymore, which makes it simpler to explain to new players. Futheremore I consider it alot more reasonable that a creature in mortal combat can't do much else while there from a flavor standpoint.
If only everything I read about Magic Rules was as well thought out.
I know where WotC is going with these changes. The majority of them i can live with. However I am very worried about the loss of mana burn and the loss of the stack. These are monumental changes & move away from alot of the intricacies that make the game so fun.I have been following alot of the posts on the WotC forums and I emplore Wizards to not change the game so drastically. It is like the NHL breaking all tradition and making the nets larger. It would drive a large portion of the fans and traditionalists mad. It just isn't right! I have a strong feeling that these changes are great enough to push me out of the game.
p.s. Great article Whiffy. Always look forward to reading your stuff.
Montolio
Please cardlink up the classic deck. Thanks.
Throne is amazingly fun to play and i like your buil, very original. I did one also with Zur/enchantress which was pretty funny also but more usual.
note : the changement of typo make your article a bit bad looking, even if the most important remains what you are explaining into.
i always enjoy to read your article man, go on ! I like the concept of untouchable creature. I did an extend deck on this topic some weeks ago adding many Split Second spell to build a deck inclunding untouchable creature/uncounterable spell. Pretty funny vs blue decks. Pretty casual also :)
i fully agree with your comments. I put here a post i wrote on dedicated Classic Quarter thread (i am lazy to write it again) :
"I forgot to mention that while these changes will have a big impact on current decks, new decks will come to replace them that are just as powerful." (quote of previous post)
i agree with that : these new rules are only changing the "play value" of some cards to me.
Some of these will be better now, some will be less powerful. But all in all, we will ever find solutions to make our deck good & competitive ... Honestly, at the moment, i am not sure i could say the entire game will be better or not.
Yes, if one of your favorite card is impacted by these new rules, you could be disapointed, but i can bet you will find another creature to replace it with an equivalent result at the end. All these change involve we have to change our way to read the potential of many cards, to find new way to abuse of some situation. Is this THAT bad ? I dunno ... financialy maybe due the the fall of some prices, intellectualy i really dont know. Plus i think these changes could open some new door to wizard R&D to developp new cards, new effects ... Let's see.
The only point i a bit scared of is mana pool points, and especialy the fact mana burn no more exists : it seems to be a strong advantage for combo which wasnt really necessary ... but maybe i am wrong.
because your pumped creature still won't have power equal to the attacker's toughness
in the new system, if a 4/6 attacks and you block with 3 1/1s and giant growth 'the first blocker' you trade a 1/1 and giant growth for the 4/6, whereas with the current rules each of your creatures would get at least 1 point on it so you'd lose 2 even if you had giant growth
is this what you're asking?
I just have to commend Josh a littel here. Thanks for getting this article up less then 12 hours after it was subbmitted for editing he also gave credit to the design of the Block deck to Mr. Chapin, which I didn't know.
Also something that I find interesting which I missed while writing this article, The block deck actually costs more then the Classic deck!
As a player who played Magic back when it was Revised and 4th Edition, stopped playnig soon after Ice Age and has recently returned to Magic:online with Shards of Alara release, I actually think a lot of these new rules make sense. For instance:
One of the 'new rules' I didn't understand right away: a creature is removed from play, how is it possible that it returns? That made no sense.
Lifelink as a static ability seems right:
- When at three life opponent attacks with a Sengir Vampire (4/4) and a Canyon Minataur. You will be able to block Sengir Vampire with Battlegrace Angel and stay alive at 1 live total. This makes way more sense to me.
BUT OMG, WHAT IS UP WITH DEATHTOUCH?
All these rule changes, one of which is the new blocker-combat-damage-assignment, probably could make sense. And then Wizards do something like making deathtouch as broken as possible: it ignores the all new rule that says you can no longer assign combat damage as you like, instead deathtouch can go around this new rule and do whatever it wants.......omg omg omg. This makes deathtouch ridiculously strong and makes absolutely no sense to me.
BTW:
Don't these rule changes make 'unsummon' rather useless? Since u can no longer unsummon a creature with damage stacked upon it but before damage resolves?
Just some thoughts. I hope the comment makes any sense. I'm not a native English speaker and/or writer. But please let me know what u guys think!
while it's true that card valuations are not static, his descriptions don't really help. For example, Glassdust Hulk, he just describes what the card does (which is quite static). It's the same for Wall of Denial, etc. read Sadin's article this week, something like that is cool - picks out underrated cards, describes their past weakness and why they are good now.
This is actually quite helpful, since card valuations are never static. Though I would say that you should've held off on this article until the rule changes, since a lot of cards will become radically worse
and sovereigns of lost alara doesn't have flying, and I'd say that mimeomancer is generally a much better creature than wall of denial unless you're playing 5cc
everyone's already drafted this reborn ever since it came out, please don't do anymore reviews of the cards or the set - we already know all there is to know. if you look at the mothership, Steve Sadin has even already written an article about the sleeper pics of reborn - that's how old it's been. this would be nice like during the week of pre-release or something, but now anymore. i understand your life gets in the way, but this doesn't help too many people.
Removal in response to your Giant Growth makes that play a 4 for 1 in your opponents favor; I can't see any reason why you would ever want to play it as such as opposed to simply blocking with one pumped creature to minimize potential losses. The fact that this is the only "novel" combat trick I've seen anyone come up with under the new rules is doing nothing to quell (what are, in my mind, accurate) claims that combat has been over simplified.
Im Canadian, and am wondering if the debit card payment option only applies to Americans because i cant seem to get it to work and i would love to use my debit card because it would make my mtg experience alittle easier.?
I'm against the whole boycotting idea, but here's what I have on classifieds:
Please email WOTC if you're against all/some of the new planned changes. Link to the changes -> http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/42a . Selling...
I asked an ORC, and it isn't against the CoC.
I'm just too sad to see my favorite card, Momentary Blink, downgraded and probably disappearing forever from any future limited environment. In any case, I'm not quitting the game, and the only change that bothers me is the new combat system / no stacked damage.
blitz hellion is borderline unplayable rofl its like breath of malfegor
I'm with you up until P1P5. At that point I'd take the Charm, follow the (crystal clear at that point) Naya signals, and never look back. Seriously, Blitz Hellion at P3P7?
That said, I respect a player that makes a plan and sticks with it. You wanted that Esper, and drafted a fine deck to make it work.
Just one question: wasn't Zealous Persecution even an option at P3P6?
Anyway, well played and nice win.