You'll be taking a step I've contemplated but never had the energy for. In my case, I'm sure it would be a lot fewer cards, so much respect to you. My only add-on is that if you play commander, your need for a number of variety of cards skyrockets. Particularly if you hope to make new EDH decks in the future. That would add up to a bigger slice of the total pie, but maybe not mathematically all that significant.
He submitted it last night, and my edit to add the KTK in place of where he had mentioned it did not save apparently, so I will pull it down and try again.
Not sure what time you submitted your article but while Flashback Standard was taken away, there's not just an empty void. 3x Khans is available, go get your Solemn Visitor and fetches!
Thanks for doing this--I thought about rushing out an article of my own, but since I have a lot of articles coming already (two-part Invasion block article, then likely a lot of MM17 coverage), combined with the fact that KTK is still relatively new, it wasn't worth it to rush out an article in 24 hours.
If you want a quick primer, Morph is the main mechanic, but even if you can't memorize all the morphs, remember that a morph will always trade or bounce with another morph unless you unmorph for five+ mana. There are 10 archetypes: 5 wedges and 5 enemy color pairs.
Edit: We even have reprint set news: Monarch cards will be in the MM17 Treasure Chest update! http://wizardsmtgo.tumblr.com/post/157618022699/becoming-the-monarch
We know of three cards currently (Palace Jailer, Queen Marchesa, and Thorn of the Black Rose), and while they aren't saying every Monarch card will show up, "many" will. Furthermore, Alex Ullman got Alli Medwin's ear as a follow-up Twitter conversation, and pointed out other Conspiracy cards Pauper wants--nothing's a guarantee, and they wouldn't show up until Hour of Devastation at the earliest, but it's a start :)
Ironically I was wondering if you understood the difference between what YOU believe and provable facts. How coincidental that you asked that of him a little less directly.
Let's look at some different statements:
a) Joe concedes to Sue. Provable, they both signed the sheet and it is in the tourney record.
b) Joe and Sue are friends. Also provable because of seeing how they interact with each other. Observable proof is easily available and other people can corroborate with positive testimony.
c) Joe conceded to Sue because Sue is planning to reward Joe later even though neither person ever said a word about rewards, packs or otherwise giving compensation for the act of concession.
a and b are provable facts.
c) is not a provable fact. In order to prove it you would have to get them to confess to it or have witnesses to their conversation about it.
If both Mike and Pete heard Joe say to Sue before their match or during their match: "Hey I am going to concede to you, give me some x packs later" and also heard Sue say "OK Joe, sounds fair." Or some other similar conversation, that's corroborated evidence (the two witnesses independently back each others' statements up.)
What you do have is supposition. You can conjecture about motive and probability and human nature and "how things work" but none of that adds up to c) being factually provable. You believe it to be true and you have experiential evidence to help you make that belief in your head but you don't have proof. So you can't claim it as a fact. Just because no one else can disprove it does not make it so.
Even if you take the next statement into account:
d) Joe walks into the store the next day bragging about the great swag he cracked the night before FROM packs he got from Sue.
you can't prove c with that. You could maybe should be suspicious if d) occurs but you still can't prove what you're trying to prove. You need a) witnesses b) a confession c) some other method of collecting evidence (such as catching the whole thing on camera.) Hope this helps.
I am really looking forward to playing this format. It was my introduction to Limited and I have fond memories of beating people down with Armadillo Cloak, or the one deck where I had 3 Phyrexian Scuta. Good times.
He's not. He's been polite to you thus far and you responded with "...", which comes across as passive aggressive.
As far as collusion goes, there's insufficient evidence to conclude that it's collusion. It sounds fishy and would warrant an investigation, but you can't prove for sure it's one or the other. Unless you can connect the boosters with the concession, you can't say it is or it isn't.
The mtg rules, spoke of them a lot recently.
Ah yes that was a first I think. We don't usually get card objects that aren't actual cards. But AJ got it anyway.
Which rules are you speaking of?
The Demon token.
Glad to hear that :D Anything in particular strike your fancy?
Any news about the rules, have they been fixed yet ?
Thanks for this podcast, I enjoyed.
I did this a while back, and yeah the need for EDH stuff that was once owned that is no longer owned is large.
Speaking of tweaks the Pure ban list need, I just realized we banned Scapeshift twice, as it was already part of the Regular ban list.
You'll be taking a step I've contemplated but never had the energy for. In my case, I'm sure it would be a lot fewer cards, so much respect to you. My only add-on is that if you play commander, your need for a number of variety of cards skyrockets. Particularly if you hope to make new EDH decks in the future. That would add up to a bigger slice of the total pie, but maybe not mathematically all that significant.
Oh that's sweet!
Pauper is a lot more fun and diverse than you give it credit. You do yourself a disservice by dismissing it.
Also, the flashback's changed structure. 3-0 is now 240 points, 2-1 is 80 points.
He submitted it last night, and my edit to add the KTK in place of where he had mentioned it did not save apparently, so I will pull it down and try again.
Not sure what time you submitted your article but while Flashback Standard was taken away, there's not just an empty void. 3x Khans is available, go get your Solemn Visitor and fetches!
Thanks for doing this--I thought about rushing out an article of my own, but since I have a lot of articles coming already (two-part Invasion block article, then likely a lot of MM17 coverage), combined with the fact that KTK is still relatively new, it wasn't worth it to rush out an article in 24 hours.
If you want a quick primer, Morph is the main mechanic, but even if you can't memorize all the morphs, remember that a morph will always trade or bounce with another morph unless you unmorph for five+ mana. There are 10 archetypes: 5 wedges and 5 enemy color pairs.
Edit: We even have reprint set news: Monarch cards will be in the MM17 Treasure Chest update!
http://wizardsmtgo.tumblr.com/post/157618022699/becoming-the-monarch
We know of three cards currently (Palace Jailer, Queen Marchesa, and Thorn of the Black Rose), and while they aren't saying every Monarch card will show up, "many" will. Furthermore, Alex Ullman got Alli Medwin's ear as a follow-up Twitter conversation, and pointed out other Conspiracy cards Pauper wants--nothing's a guarantee, and they wouldn't show up until Hour of Devastation at the earliest, but it's a start :)
No, I'm really trying to be polite. I intended to end the interaction, and I thanked you for coming by the site.
That's it.
Nice post Paul, I agree with you 100%.
Since Hearts is taking some time to respond, can I try to respond on his behalf by saying:
"All conjecture. Doesn't prove anything". "..."
Ironically I was wondering if you understood the difference between what YOU believe and provable facts. How coincidental that you asked that of him a little less directly.
Let's look at some different statements:
a) Joe concedes to Sue. Provable, they both signed the sheet and it is in the tourney record.
b) Joe and Sue are friends. Also provable because of seeing how they interact with each other. Observable proof is easily available and other people can corroborate with positive testimony.
c) Joe conceded to Sue because Sue is planning to reward Joe later even though neither person ever said a word about rewards, packs or otherwise giving compensation for the act of concession.
a and b are provable facts.
c) is not a provable fact. In order to prove it you would have to get them to confess to it or have witnesses to their conversation about it.
If both Mike and Pete heard Joe say to Sue before their match or during their match: "Hey I am going to concede to you, give me some x packs later" and also heard Sue say "OK Joe, sounds fair." Or some other similar conversation, that's corroborated evidence (the two witnesses independently back each others' statements up.)
What you do have is supposition. You can conjecture about motive and probability and human nature and "how things work" but none of that adds up to c) being factually provable. You believe it to be true and you have experiential evidence to help you make that belief in your head but you don't have proof. So you can't claim it as a fact. Just because no one else can disprove it does not make it so.
Even if you take the next statement into account:
d) Joe walks into the store the next day bragging about the great swag he cracked the night before FROM packs he got from Sue.
you can't prove c with that. You could maybe should be suspicious if d) occurs but you still can't prove what you're trying to prove. You need a) witnesses b) a confession c) some other method of collecting evidence (such as catching the whole thing on camera.) Hope this helps.
Do you understand the difference between fictional and non-fictional literature ?
I am really looking forward to playing this format. It was my introduction to Limited and I have fond memories of beating people down with Armadillo Cloak, or the one deck where I had 3 Phyrexian Scuta. Good times.
He's not. He's been polite to you thus far and you responded with "...", which comes across as passive aggressive.
As far as collusion goes, there's insufficient evidence to conclude that it's collusion. It sounds fishy and would warrant an investigation, but you can't prove for sure it's one or the other. Unless you can connect the boosters with the concession, you can't say it is or it isn't.
You are (trying to be) dismissive on the net, that is pathetic.
I do like your build a lot Michelle and find it sad that it isn't more we'll known.
Also your comment about Serene heart is quite hilarious!
Have a good one Hearts, thanks for stopping by the site!