I think you could treat the video as just another opening video and write out the math/results in the article. I think what you're trying to find out is unique enough to warrant writing about.
That sounds interesting, and certainly something I can try (even if examining things for constructed isn't my strength).
On a semi-related note, an article I've been thinking about is taking my Treasure Chest theory and actually testing it. I'd take a lot of my MTGOTraders credit that's been collecting dust, buy a bunch of chests (I'm thinking 100) and open them in a video--that's what most streamers/video producers have done, but instead of just keeping track of ticket value, I'd drill into the math: see what each slot gives, check the probabilities, etc. I'd have to overcome some hurdles though: I'd be editing the video (unlike my experiments at the beginning of the MFS), I need to decide how much should be in the video versus the article, and for that matter, if I could get away with text or have to do voiceover. Is this something people would be interested in, and is it high-enough quality content (different enough from the typical gambling video)?
The fun thing about this is that the clause does not care how the creature gets exiled just as long as it does, so unearth does not stop for example, momentary blink from bringing the creature back. One of my favorite weird rules interactions.
Well, the Treasure Chest update is out, and there isn't much there. I can go deep into some of the math (and the MTGO economy in general), but I don't know if I'll hit my word count. Anyone else have stuff they want me to write about? If I don't have anything else, I've started that MM19 wedge-focused design I talked about in my design article, but my last two-year-ahead design article I pitched got shot down due to being too speculative.
Yeah but that's what clued him in...I should never have mentioned the helmet bouncing...at once he knew what it was. :/ AJ's really sharp with the visual stuff. Thanks for your commentary and for listening :D
Thanks for this podcoast. I also find it hard to see all the details in the art on Aid from the Cowl. Beautiful art, but I don't think it completely hits the nail on the head here.
The artist is very talented, but there is something about the drawing which distracts from the central theme of it, which should be about a whole heap of random beasts and monsters coming from the forest to smash consulate constructs. Perhaps the busy-ness of the art was intentional, to capture the chaos of what it's like when random permanents hit the battlefield from the top of the library, however why is it trying to look like a "stampede" card with all the same creature types attacking? This art is more suited to a card which states "All Elephants you control gain +4/+4 and trample". The original art on Overrun, for example, captures the idea of a varied group of creatures attacking, in all different shapes and sizes.
(Also, it was very amusing to hear poor AJ trying to guess the card from clues like "I think there is a helmet bouncing at the bottom of the picture!")
This is a favorable matchup for my GW Hexproof deck. My bogles can go "over the top" of your bogles. I snowball, whereas you push damage through in linear increments (on the whole). I do like the list though, it does look potent and fun. I especially like the fact that you can draw a creature-heavy hand and be good to go, whereas I quickly lose games if I get too flooded with creatures.
I might give this list a try in the League, and see how it goes.
Since you bring up the plane of Bant, it's worth noting that WotC have already set a precedent by having names undergo changes on that plane, and especially so with human soldiers.
Gideon's name changed from Kytheon to Gideon after travelling from Theros to Bant, and the reason given by the MTG story-writer was most strange (it was because the first woman he met on Bant mispronounced his name and Kytheon just rolled with it, not joking here).
So Bant has a strange thing of doing that with names, it's perfectly excusable AJ Impy. You're actually thinking of a place called Earlos, but some people mispronounced it and after a while it became Eos to most people. Plus, neither the Ranger nor Eos are legendary people/places, so there can be more than one throughout an imaginary multiverse. Heck, we even have lots of examples on earth of two cities with the same name.
As to the change from a human to a dwarf, oh that one's too easy. You see, the people on many planes of existence consider dwarves to be no less human and specifically call them humans to reflect this fact (look again to planet earth as an example). Plus the two dudes in question aren't legendary, so no conflict there.
I would also accept a Ranger of Eos on the Kaladesh plane, who could be a tech-savvy dwarf commanding a Hangarback Walker and a Walking Ballista. A missed opportunity.
I oppose new artwork for all Invitational cards in fact. Those cards should retain their original art in light of their iconic and unique nature. It is almost a betrayal to the players featured in the original art. The fact that there is only one hawk in the art adds further insult to injury. First world problems I know, but come on, what was the Art Director thinking? I'd love to get paid for a full-time job to goof off at work and not notice basic things that even unpaid folks like me spot instantly.
Also, who ever fetches a Suntail Hawk with a Ranger of Eos? If they absolutely needed a bird in the art, then at least give us two beautiful birds of paradise.
So you have the commentators saying the same things (or keeping shut because there isnt anything new to say) when commentating a new match in coverage of an event. Bombshell cards (mostly mythics) only fit together with so many cards of the lower rarities and that makes for great repetition of cards/decklists among the players.
You want LSV and the likes to say "This deck seems to want to do this or that..." when seeing a decklist or seeing cards in play, you do not want LSV and other commentators to say "This deck does this." and be right every time about it.
Everything becomes static, the game and the pilot factor disappear (it becomes too easy to spot what the opposing deck will do), PTs are decided by the the random factors this game has and Judges who rule randomly because there arent clear enough rules for the game - on top of that you have some players who see this clearly and decides to cheat - or "cheat" because the game isnt clear enough on what is or isnt cheating - and the cheats are hard to spot because the judges are, ... , well, wrong, too often at least.
Except the fact that he should be seen contributing TWO creatures to the battle. It's his defining characteristic. That looks more like the art for some kind of falconer.
I can't say I agree with you on the art. I think the new Snapcaster is super visually boring; the design of the mage is very generic, especially when compared with how weird and different Tiago Chan Snappy looks, the background is an indistinct, nothing environment and they went way too hard on the blue, so there isn't enough contrast between the different elements. I like the concept behind the Goblin Guide but I actually think there's too much detail in the picture for the size of a Magic card and parts of it become too busy and indistinct, particularly the goblin's face and the bottom left of the image.
They could be, but they announced MM17 in the fall update (the one that announced Amonket), right? Assuming they keep the Masters set in the March slot (between blocks), that means they would announce it in the fall, along with the Spring 2018 block. Then again, they're still getting used to this new schedule, so there could be changes (bold prediction: Commander 2017 not only gets announced in a couple weeks, it moves to around August to fill the gap between blocks).
Ah but now that they are centralizing the TO responsibilities into the new ChannelFireball Events organization maybe this plan of GPs being run on mtgo can be a thing. Monopolies tend to have less problems profit wise vs overhead right?
Did NOT expect to see that
I think you could treat the video as just another opening video and write out the math/results in the article. I think what you're trying to find out is unique enough to warrant writing about.
That sounds interesting, and certainly something I can try (even if examining things for constructed isn't my strength).
On a semi-related note, an article I've been thinking about is taking my Treasure Chest theory and actually testing it. I'd take a lot of my MTGOTraders credit that's been collecting dust, buy a bunch of chests (I'm thinking 100) and open them in a video--that's what most streamers/video producers have done, but instead of just keeping track of ticket value, I'd drill into the math: see what each slot gives, check the probabilities, etc. I'd have to overcome some hurdles though: I'd be editing the video (unlike my experiments at the beginning of the MFS), I need to decide how much should be in the video versus the article, and for that matter, if I could get away with text or have to do voiceover. Is this something people would be interested in, and is it high-enough quality content (different enough from the typical gambling video)?
An analysis of the monarch mechanic and how relevant it is likely to be in various official or unofficial formats and subformats?
The fun thing about this is that the clause does not care how the creature gets exiled just as long as it does, so unearth does not stop for example, momentary blink from bringing the creature back. One of my favorite weird rules interactions.
A blinked unearthed creature gets exiled. From the unearth reminder text: "...Remove it from the game at end of turn or if it would leave play."
Well, the Treasure Chest update is out, and there isn't much there. I can go deep into some of the math (and the MTGO economy in general), but I don't know if I'll hit my word count. Anyone else have stuff they want me to write about? If I don't have anything else, I've started that MM19 wedge-focused design I talked about in my design article, but my last two-year-ahead design article I pitched got shot down due to being too speculative.
Yeah but that's what clued him in...I should never have mentioned the helmet bouncing...at once he knew what it was. :/ AJ's really sharp with the visual stuff. Thanks for your commentary and for listening :D
Thanks for this podcoast. I also find it hard to see all the details in the art on Aid from the Cowl. Beautiful art, but I don't think it completely hits the nail on the head here.
The artist is very talented, but there is something about the drawing which distracts from the central theme of it, which should be about a whole heap of random beasts and monsters coming from the forest to smash consulate constructs. Perhaps the busy-ness of the art was intentional, to capture the chaos of what it's like when random permanents hit the battlefield from the top of the library, however why is it trying to look like a "stampede" card with all the same creature types attacking? This art is more suited to a card which states "All Elephants you control gain +4/+4 and trample". The original art on Overrun, for example, captures the idea of a varied group of creatures attacking, in all different shapes and sizes.
(Also, it was very amusing to hear poor AJ trying to guess the card from clues like "I think there is a helmet bouncing at the bottom of the picture!")
Thanks for this article.
This is a favorable matchup for my GW Hexproof deck. My bogles can go "over the top" of your bogles. I snowball, whereas you push damage through in linear increments (on the whole). I do like the list though, it does look potent and fun. I especially like the fact that you can draw a creature-heavy hand and be good to go, whereas I quickly lose games if I get too flooded with creatures.
I might give this list a try in the League, and see how it goes.
Since you bring up the plane of Bant, it's worth noting that WotC have already set a precedent by having names undergo changes on that plane, and especially so with human soldiers.
Gideon's name changed from Kytheon to Gideon after travelling from Theros to Bant, and the reason given by the MTG story-writer was most strange (it was because the first woman he met on Bant mispronounced his name and Kytheon just rolled with it, not joking here).
So Bant has a strange thing of doing that with names, it's perfectly excusable AJ Impy. You're actually thinking of a place called Earlos, but some people mispronounced it and after a while it became Eos to most people. Plus, neither the Ranger nor Eos are legendary people/places, so there can be more than one throughout an imaginary multiverse. Heck, we even have lots of examples on earth of two cities with the same name.
As to the change from a human to a dwarf, oh that one's too easy. You see, the people on many planes of existence consider dwarves to be no less human and specifically call them humans to reflect this fact (look again to planet earth as an example). Plus the two dudes in question aren't legendary, so no conflict there.
In principle, yes, but Eos is in Bant and the card is a Human Soldier.
Oh that would have been super cool!
I'd love to see those two soul sisters :)
I would also accept a Ranger of Eos on the Kaladesh plane, who could be a tech-savvy dwarf commanding a Hangarback Walker and a Walking Ballista. A missed opportunity.
There is a need to keep it fresh. That is why people take that change. - Paradise Home Improvement Charlotte
The guide would help. Most especially if one wants to changed. - Paradise Home Improvement Charlotte
I too stand with invitational winners retaining their likenesses on cards.
Meddling Mage will always be Chris Pikula.
And that Ranger of Eos needed to be surrounded by Soul Wardens :D
I boycott the new Ranger of Eos.
I oppose new artwork for all Invitational cards in fact. Those cards should retain their original art in light of their iconic and unique nature. It is almost a betrayal to the players featured in the original art. The fact that there is only one hawk in the art adds further insult to injury. First world problems I know, but come on, what was the Art Director thinking? I'd love to get paid for a full-time job to goof off at work and not notice basic things that even unpaid folks like me spot instantly.
Also, who ever fetches a Suntail Hawk with a Ranger of Eos? If they absolutely needed a bird in the art, then at least give us two beautiful birds of paradise.
I'm sticking with Antoine Ruel.
Less diversity = less to talk about.
So you have the commentators saying the same things (or keeping shut because there isnt anything new to say) when commentating a new match in coverage of an event. Bombshell cards (mostly mythics) only fit together with so many cards of the lower rarities and that makes for great repetition of cards/decklists among the players.
You want LSV and the likes to say "This deck seems to want to do this or that..." when seeing a decklist or seeing cards in play, you do not want LSV and other commentators to say "This deck does this." and be right every time about it.
Everything becomes static, the game and the pilot factor disappear (it becomes too easy to spot what the opposing deck will do), PTs are decided by the the random factors this game has and Judges who rule randomly because there arent clear enough rules for the game - on top of that you have some players who see this clearly and decides to cheat - or "cheat" because the game isnt clear enough on what is or isnt cheating - and the cheats are hard to spot because the judges are, ... , well, wrong, too often at least.
No complaints about the Ranger, though.
Except the fact that he should be seen contributing TWO creatures to the battle. It's his defining characteristic. That looks more like the art for some kind of falconer.
I can't say I agree with you on the art. I think the new Snapcaster is super visually boring; the design of the mage is very generic, especially when compared with how weird and different Tiago Chan Snappy looks, the background is an indistinct, nothing environment and they went way too hard on the blue, so there isn't enough contrast between the different elements. I like the concept behind the Goblin Guide but I actually think there's too much detail in the picture for the size of a Magic card and parts of it become too busy and indistinct, particularly the goblin's face and the bottom left of the image.
No complaints about the Ranger, though.
They could be, but they announced MM17 in the fall update (the one that announced Amonket), right? Assuming they keep the Masters set in the March slot (between blocks), that means they would announce it in the fall, along with the Spring 2018 block. Then again, they're still getting used to this new schedule, so there could be changes (bold prediction: Commander 2017 not only gets announced in a couple weeks, it moves to around August to fill the gap between blocks).
Ah but now that they are centralizing the TO responsibilities into the new ChannelFireball Events organization maybe this plan of GPs being run on mtgo can be a thing. Monopolies tend to have less problems profit wise vs overhead right?
So much
They might be announcing it sooner, there is supposed to be an announcement day coming up, I think it is today even.