Again? I've never seen you say that before. But given that you seem unable to be positive toward the article writer, why not just stop wasting your time posting? It would not surprise me to find that you think anyone who does not agree 100% with you is a clown, so commentary seems utterly useless to you. (Why would a clown care what you think? They have a circus to run...)
Completely ridiculous about wpn and criminality. If the state/country authority is of the opinion that the given person is not to be behind bars then that is it. Again I think Pete is a clown.
You had me wondering for a bit, but after checking, it's not exactly quite the same: with suspend, the card gets exiled, and the spell gets cast when the last counter is removed (instead of the spell itself getting exiled). That removes a lot of the confusion when it comes to targeting. I guessed Ertai's Meddling was an early template and they learned. :)
Ok, this is very late, but I'm going through all the States of the Programme I've missed the past 3 years or so.
There's actually a mistake in the solution to the answer to the Judge's Question. According to the gatherer: "If the spell was cast using flashback, Ertai’s Meddling will still exile it with delay counters on it. When the card is returned to the stack, it still “remembers” the flashback cost was originally paid. It’ll be exiled when it resolves or otherwise leaves the stack."
It only half makes sense to me. I thought the general rule was that if something gets exiled and comes back, it's a brand new copy with no memory of the past. In this case, the spell remembers everything, the orignal target(s) and how it was cast. I guess this is why 1/ I'm not a judge, and 2/ they don't make these kind of cards anymore.
I don't remember "Sligh" being used in the flashback events... I know "Deadguy Red" (which was the evolution of the original Sligh) was used (I even got to play with it - yay!). I don't remember Ataraka Red being anything other than Atarka Red.
I am know as the "RDW guy" locally - it annoys me because I always call me decks Sligh decks haha.
You still have Hazoret for late game if you manage to resolve it or you are not attacking into a 7/6 Hydra that is.
During the prerelease I asked some players if they are playing in the preview event. They answered 'no'. And I saw them get seated for the prerelease event later. I didn't realize that what we called preview events is obviously not called that anymore ... I asked some people about Type 2 and got the very same blank stares. I think that Type 2 is still widely used for Standard here...at least those people I talk to use that name and I don't think this will ever change. But saying that at an actual Standard event...that makes people go 'what?'.
If by a chance I'd use an old deck name I think they would stare at me with
an even stranger look. On Reddit I had quite a long flame war about the type of decks under one of my articles. Because I said something while others thought otherwise. In the end we figured that it's not because of me choosing archetype/name but rather the fact that Magic changed so considerably that what we used to call control in the past doesn't exist now. There are rather hybrid control decks or midrange decks pretending to be control. Someone had to ask though 'for how long do you play Magic' and that's when it started to make sense. We all were right... just most of the posters were newer players.
Wasn't actually Atarka Red called Sligh? Didn't even that show up in some of the Standard Flashback Gauntlets? (I don't know..I don't remember. I know that Suicide Black was actually renamed because it may offend someone or something).
These young whippersnappers these days don't know what's good for them! Back in MY day, we had Sligh, The Deck, Rock, Fruity Pebbles... and we liked it! Now get off my lawn!
I'm not sure mono-red survives without Ramunap Ruins - that card really did make the deck. It felt soooo good as a red player to actually have late-game inevitability for once. There might be a mono red deck in the format, but I have my doubts now.
As for the name, I'd rather just go back to calling mono red aggro decks Sligh.
Yeah the Pummeler decks got some splash hate, which is unfortunate.
Have you tried the RG version at all? I know people like the UG version, but I just couldn't get the dang thing down, and have access to Glorybringer and Chandra was super nice out of the board.
As a UG Pummeler player, I have been hit by collateral damage since my deck was neither too potent nor too popular, yet losing Attune and Refiner hurts a lot.
Nonetheless, I will need to adapt and accept that my Pummelling will not be as explosive now. I'm still sticking with the Pummeller though, and will up the count of the Elephant Rampager to 4 copies.
How about wotc employing people that scammed the ELO-system (via organizer rights in the wpn software system) with fake tourneys and matches to achieve rating to get invites to high end events like the PT that paid out a lot of money ?
I know about one such person...
And how about Mark Rosewater wanting to induct Mike Long (cheater) in the Hall of Fame for Mtg ?
And how about having judges that rule that you are at declare attackers after asking "combatphase ?" in a PT match when they have written something about it in mtr but not in the cr ?
...
How do sportsmanship survive in the wpn system from the smallest lgs to the greatest PT or worlds when wotc behaves like this ?
I blame every cheat and bad attitude among opponents Ive played in the wpn system on wotc. And I have played a lot, including 3 PTs.
I remember that. I wrote an article the week it came out and I was pretty mad about it. The god book thing struck me as really crossing the line. But mainly because they gave it to someone who was not to be trusted with it. He got what he deserved imho. The giving of a god book to a writer to get the set promotion flowing properly does not really upset me (with some perspective about LGSes and online stores needing some draw to get their sites attention.)
I think the fact that they didn't tell us (the community) that this was being done is the most outrageous mistake they made. Secrecy and lack of transparency with stuff like this is what usually makes customers mad.
Boring is an interesting way to put it. Another way is: lacking in diversity. Both complaints were valid. But both are almost always the case. Very few Standard formats end up interesting and diverse. The bans, I feel, were given out as the habitual appeasement that was due to keep players happyish. I say ish because we all know, MTG players are never all happy at the same time. The most we can have as a group is happyish.
That isn't to say complaining isn't valid but to recognize that complaining seems to have gotten to a point in the game where WOTC just reflexively ban hammers when enough voices are heard. Was I terribly angry with Energy? Not really. I know it was strong to the point of silliness but not to the level of affinity silliness. Did I still brew my own versions of weird decks? Yep and played them against the top tier decks in "Just for Fun". So of course I saw plenty of Temur and 4c Energy. Lots of Cubs and Pummelers too.
It was fun when I won. Winning is fun of course. But also fun to see ideas come to fruition vs top tier decks. Rare though that is. My point being: The bans were necessary because people said they were necessary, not because there were no alternatives.
My timing might be a bit off, but if I recall correctly, the full preview for that set only came out 2 weeks before the PT (in paper magazines at the time, Matignon was a writer for Le Lotus Noir if my memory serves), but Matignon got the god book 2 weeks before that, so he could write the article in time for publishing. He thus had two additional weeks for training.
So on one hand, Wizards gives an edge to a competitive player (one with an actual chance of winning, I might add) because he’s a writer. On the other hand, that player than has to write a review for the set. That’s a messed up conflict of interest in my book, not just “standard practice of working with media to promote a product”.
Nobody was aware of the practice at the time, Wizards had never communicated over it, which makes things quite a bit worst, and learning of that practice got people a lot more riled up than the ban. I’m not saying it’s the worst thing ever. I’m just very astonished you don’t seem to find any fault in this incident whatsoever.
It's okay to have different meaning of scandal to different people.
Pro super teams operate to gain an advantage and yet no scandal there.
A pro tour final was decided by a DQ in 1997. A Pro Tour was once a Prerelease for a set. A world champion couldn't go to certain PT locations because of his nationality, the skins pro tour, rampant PED use, all off the top of my head are things less glorious for the PT than the standard practice of working with media to promote a product release.
Not even sure this will be read, considering how late I am with my comments, but I remember that episode with Matignon very well. Sorry, but it was a bona fide scandal. Many pros were absolutely livid. The principles involved were simple: some PT participants got to start training with the cards way before others could. The fact YOU did not take advantage, or did but still went 0-4, is pretty irrelevant.
Now, I would disagree that that one episode is enough to simply call Wizards unprofessional, but it was certainly a shady practice, and one that was not advertised. Probably one of the least glorious moments of the PT.
I dare say that this even is prosecutable by the person/earlier criminal who is shut out.
Again? I've never seen you say that before. But given that you seem unable to be positive toward the article writer, why not just stop wasting your time posting? It would not surprise me to find that you think anyone who does not agree 100% with you is a clown, so commentary seems utterly useless to you. (Why would a clown care what you think? They have a circus to run...)
Completely ridiculous about wpn and criminality. If the state/country authority is of the opinion that the given person is not to be behind bars then that is it. Again I think Pete is a clown.
V17 singles don't exist online. It's more fake than the "news" from Breitbart
Yeah the early cards forged the way for a lot of improvements later on down the line.
You had me wondering for a bit, but after checking, it's not exactly quite the same: with suspend, the card gets exiled, and the spell gets cast when the last counter is removed (instead of the spell itself getting exiled). That removes a lot of the confusion when it comes to targeting. I guessed Ertai's Meddling was an early template and they learned. :)
Actually they did make more. They all have the suspend mechanic. Ertai's Meddling works the same way.
Ok, this is very late, but I'm going through all the States of the Programme I've missed the past 3 years or so.
There's actually a mistake in the solution to the answer to the Judge's Question. According to the gatherer: "If the spell was cast using flashback, Ertai’s Meddling will still exile it with delay counters on it. When the card is returned to the stack, it still “remembers” the flashback cost was originally paid. It’ll be exiled when it resolves or otherwise leaves the stack."
It only half makes sense to me. I thought the general rule was that if something gets exiled and comes back, it's a brand new copy with no memory of the past. In this case, the spell remembers everything, the orignal target(s) and how it was cast. I guess this is why 1/ I'm not a judge, and 2/ they don't make these kind of cards anymore.
I don't remember "Sligh" being used in the flashback events... I know "Deadguy Red" (which was the evolution of the original Sligh) was used (I even got to play with it - yay!). I don't remember Ataraka Red being anything other than Atarka Red.
I am know as the "RDW guy" locally - it annoys me because I always call me decks Sligh decks haha.
You still have Hazoret for late game if you manage to resolve it or you are not attacking into a 7/6 Hydra that is.
During the prerelease I asked some players if they are playing in the preview event. They answered 'no'. And I saw them get seated for the prerelease event later. I didn't realize that what we called preview events is obviously not called that anymore ... I asked some people about Type 2 and got the very same blank stares. I think that Type 2 is still widely used for Standard here...at least those people I talk to use that name and I don't think this will ever change. But saying that at an actual Standard event...that makes people go 'what?'.
If by a chance I'd use an old deck name I think they would stare at me with
an even stranger look. On Reddit I had quite a long flame war about the type of decks under one of my articles. Because I said something while others thought otherwise. In the end we figured that it's not because of me choosing archetype/name but rather the fact that Magic changed so considerably that what we used to call control in the past doesn't exist now. There are rather hybrid control decks or midrange decks pretending to be control. Someone had to ask though 'for how long do you play Magic' and that's when it started to make sense. We all were right... just most of the posters were newer players.
Wasn't actually Atarka Red called Sligh? Didn't even that show up in some of the Standard Flashback Gauntlets? (I don't know..I don't remember. I know that Suicide Black was actually renamed because it may offend someone or something).
These young whippersnappers these days don't know what's good for them! Back in MY day, we had Sligh, The Deck, Rock, Fruity Pebbles... and we liked it! Now get off my lawn!
No one would know what sligh means other than old people :D
Magic deck names used to be cool!
Or breakfast cereals.
I'm not sure mono-red survives without Ramunap Ruins - that card really did make the deck. It felt soooo good as a red player to actually have late-game inevitability for once. There might be a mono red deck in the format, but I have my doubts now.
As for the name, I'd rather just go back to calling mono red aggro decks Sligh.
Exactly. :D
The data was also interpreted as saying it was necessary.
Yeah the Pummeler decks got some splash hate, which is unfortunate.
Have you tried the RG version at all? I know people like the UG version, but I just couldn't get the dang thing down, and have access to Glorybringer and Chandra was super nice out of the board.
well yeah no one knew about it at the time, because we all sign NDAs and no one, at the time, had been so incredibly irresponsible with the godbooks.
I never said there wasn't any fault.
As a UG Pummeler player, I have been hit by collateral damage since my deck was neither too potent nor too popular, yet losing Attune and Refiner hurts a lot.
Nonetheless, I will need to adapt and accept that my Pummelling will not be as explosive now. I'm still sticking with the Pummeller though, and will up the count of the Elephant Rampager to 4 copies.
How about wotc employing people that scammed the ELO-system (via organizer rights in the wpn software system) with fake tourneys and matches to achieve rating to get invites to high end events like the PT that paid out a lot of money ?
I know about one such person...
And how about Mark Rosewater wanting to induct Mike Long (cheater) in the Hall of Fame for Mtg ?
And how about having judges that rule that you are at declare attackers after asking "combatphase ?" in a PT match when they have written something about it in mtr but not in the cr ?
...
How do sportsmanship survive in the wpn system from the smallest lgs to the greatest PT or worlds when wotc behaves like this ?
I blame every cheat and bad attitude among opponents Ive played in the wpn system on wotc. And I have played a lot, including 3 PTs.
I remember that. I wrote an article the week it came out and I was pretty mad about it. The god book thing struck me as really crossing the line. But mainly because they gave it to someone who was not to be trusted with it. He got what he deserved imho. The giving of a god book to a writer to get the set promotion flowing properly does not really upset me (with some perspective about LGSes and online stores needing some draw to get their sites attention.)
I think the fact that they didn't tell us (the community) that this was being done is the most outrageous mistake they made. Secrecy and lack of transparency with stuff like this is what usually makes customers mad.
Boring is an interesting way to put it. Another way is: lacking in diversity. Both complaints were valid. But both are almost always the case. Very few Standard formats end up interesting and diverse. The bans, I feel, were given out as the habitual appeasement that was due to keep players happyish. I say ish because we all know, MTG players are never all happy at the same time. The most we can have as a group is happyish.
That isn't to say complaining isn't valid but to recognize that complaining seems to have gotten to a point in the game where WOTC just reflexively ban hammers when enough voices are heard. Was I terribly angry with Energy? Not really. I know it was strong to the point of silliness but not to the level of affinity silliness. Did I still brew my own versions of weird decks? Yep and played them against the top tier decks in "Just for Fun". So of course I saw plenty of Temur and 4c Energy. Lots of Cubs and Pummelers too.
It was fun when I won. Winning is fun of course. But also fun to see ideas come to fruition vs top tier decks. Rare though that is. My point being: The bans were necessary because people said they were necessary, not because there were no alternatives.
My timing might be a bit off, but if I recall correctly, the full preview for that set only came out 2 weeks before the PT (in paper magazines at the time, Matignon was a writer for Le Lotus Noir if my memory serves), but Matignon got the god book 2 weeks before that, so he could write the article in time for publishing. He thus had two additional weeks for training.
So on one hand, Wizards gives an edge to a competitive player (one with an actual chance of winning, I might add) because he’s a writer. On the other hand, that player than has to write a review for the set. That’s a messed up conflict of interest in my book, not just “standard practice of working with media to promote a product”.
Nobody was aware of the practice at the time, Wizards had never communicated over it, which makes things quite a bit worst, and learning of that practice got people a lot more riled up than the ban. I’m not saying it’s the worst thing ever. I’m just very astonished you don’t seem to find any fault in this incident whatsoever.
It's okay to have different meaning of scandal to different people.
Pro super teams operate to gain an advantage and yet no scandal there.
A pro tour final was decided by a DQ in 1997. A Pro Tour was once a Prerelease for a set. A world champion couldn't go to certain PT locations because of his nationality, the skins pro tour, rampant PED use, all off the top of my head are things less glorious for the PT than the standard practice of working with media to promote a product release.
Not even sure this will be read, considering how late I am with my comments, but I remember that episode with Matignon very well. Sorry, but it was a bona fide scandal. Many pros were absolutely livid. The principles involved were simple: some PT participants got to start training with the cards way before others could. The fact YOU did not take advantage, or did but still went 0-4, is pretty irrelevant.
Now, I would disagree that that one episode is enough to simply call Wizards unprofessional, but it was certainly a shady practice, and one that was not advertised. Probably one of the least glorious moments of the PT.
"Will they try to nerf Energy?"
Good guess. :)