I would rather have that troll reesa from ck give me a lapdance than read this article again,its THAT BAD....Please stop writing and do us all a favor.
Actually it's more than 'morally incorrect', it's against the Terms of Service as well and can lead to your account being banned completely, and it happened pretty recently (someone posted a message about it on the boards which got removed by the ORC's).
But make no mistake, if you share your account you are risking losing it.
I agree that it's not morally right as in real life where you can't get someone to play for you under your name.. but if you have to for some reason or another, it is a real option that unfortunately cannot be properly addressed.
I for one have not played pauper in a long time and to be honest I kinda miss it. But to be honest I agree with this post if you remove the mass sweeper than slivers, RG beats, and thalids would run all over the format.
I'm not saying if it's legal or not and I'm not saying that anyone is actually doing it but.......
Allowing others to use your account to allow it to participate in more games than you otherwise physically could as an individual strikes me as not totally legal. I have no basis for this other than a moral standpoint and if it's OK then it's OK. Just feels wrong.
I've built a dream halls combo (list is posted at CQ) and where I feel you're going wrong (same with whiffy) is you're putting your combo cards in the main deck. Instead you should put in a research/development or two main, move your kill to the sideboard and win that way. This makes it so you don't have to keep all those bad cards in your maindeck, as they're dead without dream halls. Instead fill up the main deck with control cards, 4 dream halls, 4 conflux, 1 research and 1 cunning wish (incase research gets removed or discarded)
Meh Crypt Rats is fine imo... it's a mid-range game changer what's it does is keep G/W Slivers, Thallids, and Storm(less so) from being dominating decks. Remove Crypt Rats, and you lose that sweeper, and basically you have very few ways to counter those mentioned decks. Makes me wonder though if Crypt Rats were banned how long before these other decks would run rampant greatly limiting deck creativity?
I disagree with your assertion that Rats violates my first two items. Limiting creativity does not mean "every deck should win," but rather to me, that if the deck has to pack specific hate main to beat the card, then it is a problem (and if that hate isn't drawn, the game is over). There are numerous decks out there (WW, RB Husk, MUC, Fish, UG Deep Dog) that can easily navigate MBC without altering their maindecks to the point of being creativly limited. Look at the top 16 of both PEs- While MBC holds a plurality, there are a number of other viable decks and only one true "Hate" deck. This goes hand in hand with number three.
Fun is a bad criteria, since everyone interprets fun differently. To me, fun was a way to get at attendance. Pauper's numbers have not been hurt by Crypt Rats in a meaningful way. Now, if this weekend's PE has say, fewer than 50 competitors, and the reason people give for missing it is "Crypt Rats" a majority of the time, then I could easily see revisiting the issue.
The culprit here is not Crypt Rats- if any card should be banned (and no card needs to be banned in Pauper), it's Tendrils of Corruption. This is the card that is more of a nail in a coffin for aggro as it is more or less a Time Walk and a removal spell against beat down. It also gives MBC the life cushion it needs to be able to Rats effectively. MBC only became the "powerhouse" it is today with the advent of Tendrils- not Rats. However, I am NOT ADVOCATING THE BANNING OF ANY CARDS.
Ive read your posts in the thread at pdcmagic.com numerous times. Here is an analogy for how I feel:
Cryptic Command is a limiting factor in Standard- you have to take it into account when preparing for a Standard event. If not, you are refusing to play by the "rules" of the format. Command does not deserve to be banned.
replace Cryptic Command with Crypt Rats and Standard with Pauper, and the same is true- a strong card for sure and one that provides a limiting factor to the format but is by no stretch of the means worthy of a ban.
A mostly well presented version of the non-ban standpoint from the debate, but, as I have stated elsewhere, I feel these points do not really get to the heart of the matter. And to many people (I sense that most who disagree with this point are those who want to ride MBC to the bitter end) Crypt Rats go against the first two of your numbered ban-worthy points. To me, it violates #3 as well. Don't have to time to elucidate more at the moment, but I will hopefully find some time to respond here or via article.
Great job on these articles! I liked how you didnt bother recapping the total losses. Then again, since I need all the help I can get on drafting, looking at any draft set helps me. I hope you keep up the writing.
Nah, I'm not going to read too much into descriptions. I'm a smart enough player to see what is going on after picking up the deck to play, or looking at the list and running it myself.
If you happen to submit a list with explanations though, I will use them when (if) I reveal your deck as a top ten selection.
I would rather have that troll reesa from ck give me a lapdance than read this article again,its THAT BAD....Please stop writing and do us all a favor.
This part should actually be removed from the article because it's against the terms of service. Where's our editor when we need him?
All limited-decks are saved on your computer.C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\Wizards of the Coast\Magic Online\3.0\Decks\TournamentDecks
Sounds fun! o.O
Champions of Kamigawa, Betrayers, Saviors
Aka Kami Block
aka: Open a dragon and/or a jitte or lose to a dragon and/or a jitte block.
I feel dumb... what is "CBS" on the draft schedule?
What control cards would you suggest?
Actually it's more than 'morally incorrect', it's against the Terms of Service as well and can lead to your account being banned completely, and it happened pretty recently (someone posted a message about it on the boards which got removed by the ORC's).
But make no mistake, if you share your account you are risking losing it.
I agree that it's not morally right as in real life where you can't get someone to play for you under your name.. but if you have to for some reason or another, it is a real option that unfortunately cannot be properly addressed.
I for one have not played pauper in a long time and to be honest I kinda miss it. But to be honest I agree with this post if you remove the mass sweeper than slivers, RG beats, and thalids would run all over the format.
I'm not saying if it's legal or not and I'm not saying that anyone is actually doing it but.......
Allowing others to use your account to allow it to participate in more games than you otherwise physically could as an individual strikes me as not totally legal. I have no basis for this other than a moral standpoint and if it's OK then it's OK. Just feels wrong.
I've built a dream halls combo (list is posted at CQ) and where I feel you're going wrong (same with whiffy) is you're putting your combo cards in the main deck. Instead you should put in a research/development or two main, move your kill to the sideboard and win that way. This makes it so you don't have to keep all those bad cards in your maindeck, as they're dead without dream halls. Instead fill up the main deck with control cards, 4 dream halls, 4 conflux, 1 research and 1 cunning wish (incase research gets removed or discarded)
Meh Crypt Rats is fine imo... it's a mid-range game changer what's it does is keep G/W Slivers, Thallids, and Storm(less so) from being dominating decks. Remove Crypt Rats, and you lose that sweeper, and basically you have very few ways to counter those mentioned decks. Makes me wonder though if Crypt Rats were banned how long before these other decks would run rampant greatly limiting deck creativity?
Hi thatic can you post the KOdamaas deck?
tnx
I disagree with your assertion that Rats violates my first two items. Limiting creativity does not mean "every deck should win," but rather to me, that if the deck has to pack specific hate main to beat the card, then it is a problem (and if that hate isn't drawn, the game is over). There are numerous decks out there (WW, RB Husk, MUC, Fish, UG Deep Dog) that can easily navigate MBC without altering their maindecks to the point of being creativly limited. Look at the top 16 of both PEs- While MBC holds a plurality, there are a number of other viable decks and only one true "Hate" deck. This goes hand in hand with number three.
Fun is a bad criteria, since everyone interprets fun differently. To me, fun was a way to get at attendance. Pauper's numbers have not been hurt by Crypt Rats in a meaningful way. Now, if this weekend's PE has say, fewer than 50 competitors, and the reason people give for missing it is "Crypt Rats" a majority of the time, then I could easily see revisiting the issue.
The culprit here is not Crypt Rats- if any card should be banned (and no card needs to be banned in Pauper), it's Tendrils of Corruption. This is the card that is more of a nail in a coffin for aggro as it is more or less a Time Walk and a removal spell against beat down. It also gives MBC the life cushion it needs to be able to Rats effectively. MBC only became the "powerhouse" it is today with the advent of Tendrils- not Rats. However, I am NOT ADVOCATING THE BANNING OF ANY CARDS.
Ive read your posts in the thread at pdcmagic.com numerous times. Here is an analogy for how I feel:
Cryptic Command is a limiting factor in Standard- you have to take it into account when preparing for a Standard event. If not, you are refusing to play by the "rules" of the format. Command does not deserve to be banned.
replace Cryptic Command with Crypt Rats and Standard with Pauper, and the same is true- a strong card for sure and one that provides a limiting factor to the format but is by no stretch of the means worthy of a ban.
-Alex
A mostly well presented version of the non-ban standpoint from the debate, but, as I have stated elsewhere, I feel these points do not really get to the heart of the matter. And to many people (I sense that most who disagree with this point are those who want to ride MBC to the bitter end) Crypt Rats go against the first two of your numbered ban-worthy points. To me, it violates #3 as well. Don't have to time to elucidate more at the moment, but I will hopefully find some time to respond here or via article.
Great job on these articles! I liked how you didnt bother recapping the total losses. Then again, since I need all the help I can get on drafting, looking at any draft set helps me. I hope you keep up the writing.
got em thanks!
you'll be designing to beat other budget.
Pendelhaven is legal for the contest as a land, it counts as a rare
The booster pack prize will be awarded on MTGO.
you can enter as many times as you would like.
Copy pasted from lower in the thread
If you search under Kaleidoscope in the MTGO Field and search your collection at <=0 you can see what's legal in the format.
Nah, I'm not going to read too much into descriptions. I'm a smart enough player to see what is going on after picking up the deck to play, or looking at the list and running it myself.
If you happen to submit a list with explanations though, I will use them when (if) I reveal your deck as a top ten selection.
You can enter as many times as you would like. I did not actually say how many times you could in the article.
Jx, do you mind returning to your Kscope article and answering a few more questions in the comments? There are at least 4-6 more good questions.