Since V4 was released was the destruction of Foils of MTGO.
Being a Foil collector and having invested a large sum of money and time into collecting them i have never given up hope that they can make the foils look good again.
V2 was the pinnacle of great looking foils with the swish on them.
They did do a Foil fix about a year ago, but it was a pathetic attempt to make them better.
That was all the time they have given Foils.
They are terrible.
I can't imagine this is hard for them to fix, but they just won't allocate the needed resources to address Foils.
Please WOTC V2 quality Foils again.
I have played in 5 sealed leagues. And apparently I suck at the format. It is very expensive to play if you are just learning the format. 3 wins to semi break even has ruined my account :)
I hope they introduce a more casual league structure. Or maybe I will just have to stick to drafting. It seems like the number of players has dropped from 5200 to 4700, so maybe I am not the only one who thinks it is a little too expensive.
I go with Option 2. Get as much damage through as you can when you can. If they have removal or Cryptic Command you are just screwed either way. Since you are playing aggro, you can't worry about what they might have. You have to go all out and try to win before they stabilize and they will stabilize if you give them a chance. Yes, they might have Path or Cryptic, but they might have a hand of all land and be bluffing, too.
Yea I would lean to option 3 as well. Sometimes in aggro you can't play around everything. Cryptic would be more of a stall than a loss so things like that don't bother me much. If you make them answer every attack you are going in the right direction as an aggro player. Thanks for the input.
I wrote about losing my Collection after my first When Should I article. That is why I took the hiatus from writing them and then went towards rebuilding my collection. I should have been more clear about that.
First you have to consider what you do if you can actually attack. If I'm the opponent I have to use Cryptic Command to tap your creatures + draw otherwise I take 5 down to 5 and lose to double bolt and/or bolt+helix if I tap out for Verdict. Assuming you can attack, I would imagine they have no Cryptic Command.
If they play with Restoration Angel, they will likely play it to block one of your creatures. If they Angel you then you should Bloodrush the creature they block. This puts them to 5. If you bloodrush the unblocked creature then they go to 4, but there's not really a difference between 5 and 4 when you deal damage in 3s with your burn.
I don't think you can beat a Path to Exile if they drew one. You can try to play around it by bloodrushing the creature they block, likely forcing them to path that creature and they take 5.
Since your opponent MUST Supreme Verdict next turn to survive, I believe the best play is to Bloodrush the blocked creature. There's no difference between 9 and 8 in terms of your Bolt, so the only difference is whether or not you want to be better off if they have a Path. You can't beat removal + wrath, but you can beat wrath so that's what I would play towards.
You wrote, "Losing my MTGO collection changed my priorities..." but then didn't tell us what happened. Seems to me like there is a lot more to tell than just drop this bomb and move on like nothing happened.
How did you lose your MTGO collection?
This card is pretty cool. I can't see it seeing a lot of Modern play but it is interesting.
Personally I like pairing Engulf the Shore with Snapcaster Mage. Bouncing all their creatures end of turn and getting your Snapcaster Mage back in hand is a pretty sweet deal. You could then even Snapcaster the Engulf a few turns later after they've replayed all their creatures. It could also work nicely with cards like Vendilion Clique. That said this is a bit slow and durdly.
I like the idea of using it in the Taking Turns deck too.
Yes, I'm inclined to agree. I think Eye is the card that is more likely to become a problem again in the future if it stays unbanned. I don't think they will really want to revisit the issue.
there is something like bug blog that lists all known issues and that is hosted on wizards.com. i think the link is on modo home screen. but i guess not so many people pay attention to it because many players ask me what is wromg when modo acts weird and it is even stated on the home screen.
This happened to me also and I just attacked killing my opponent this way, I did not put much thought in it at that time (except that something that was not supposed to happen happened). My opponent complained about it. That's also why I usually pass the card anyway so I don't need to deal with it.
I am well aware that sometimes the bugs are actually pretty major and nothing can be done with that. For example you won't stop playing Containment Priest even if it removes itself from the game if you want to stop Griselbrand entering play via Oath or Show and Tell. You might lose a match from time to time because of that...(happened to me...as I needed to deal damage with that creature rather than having the effect in play) When Containment Priest stopped working altogether they actually fixed it quite soon.(but that week that were like 4 fixes that required a download and few more fixes that did not require that)
In a tournament all we can do is play the game as the client allows us. I don't actually see how one could deal with Soulflyer in this case. If my only way of dealing with the creatures is actually trading with it what can you do? If the creature can't block your 5/5 flyer in combat then the game is already altered for you as well not only for the player having Soulflayer without the abilities it is supposed to have (because you need the creature to block your flyer). There is no way how to deal with this situation. Both players want to win the game if you won't attack it will just help your opponent win the game. So I would just end the game and your opponent can file for reimbursement)
I wouldn't call this particular situation exploiting a bug though. The player who picked Soulflayer will have to accept the creature being bugged next time he picks it or avoid it (file for reimbursement the first time it happened to him. but from my point of view if you use a bugged card as a reason for reimbursement a second time something is wrong, since a normal person would try to avoid anything bugged and from my point of view it would be 'cheating'). I think that we as players should use our reason well and avoid situations like this if possible.
But if someone just decides to remove my Jace, Telepath Unbound with Hallowed Moonlight or Containment Priest I would certainly be upset because this can be viewed as exploiting a bug. If the player plays the card while the Jace trigger is on stack it clearly shows that your oponent is aware of the bug and I would probably report this because from my point of view this is cheating. This is the same if you play Myr Superior with mana not produced with your creatures. Normally you wouldn't play Myr Superion using your Ancient Tomb or whatever (unless you really have no idea what the card does, but in a (modern) tournament you are supposed to know the cards you play and your opponent's cards - depends on rules enforcement.). If you play it though like this I would see that as cheating (or exploiting a bug in this case).
For example if someone would convoke a Scion and sacrifice it for mana to get two mana of that I would also consider that cheating but the player for example might not be aware that this is not possible rules-wise so there might not have been any intention to cheat behind this.
In the Superion or Jace case I don't really see how a player could not know what would happen. Flipped Jace is not a planeswalker so playing Moonlight/Priest/whatever does not make sense any sense game-wise. I mean it could possibly if you believe that the player just decided to draw a card at this particular moment rather than at the end of turn. But how likely is that? Normally you wouldn't play a card ignoring it's restriction unless you wanted to cheat or were really unaware of the restriction (which is very unlikely).
I'm just saying, they don't go overboard. They are quite surgical about bannings as far as I can tell, almost waiting until it is too late. Banning Eye serves the message up more solidly imho. That way they don't end up banning it anyway later.
I think banning Batterskull would just have been wrong. Batterskull is a good card but the problem was Stoneforge Mystic tutoring it up and dropping it into play on Turn 3. There were also the Swords for Stoneforge to tutor if Batterskull wasn't around. Batterskull wasn't even available when Caw Blade broke out at Pro Tour Paris 2011. Stoneforge Mystic and Jace were the problems and Wizards eventually banned the problems.
If you can preserve other decks that's great and they should definitely avoid banning more cards than necessary where a problem has been recognised. I would suggest in general they have a good track record of just banning what is necessary in these situations. Some cards on the Modern banlist are probably an exception to that previous statement I will concede.
What makes the Eye of Ugin/Eldrazi Temple debate interesting is that banning either one is probably enough to sufficiently weaken the Eldrazi deck. Banning Eye has an adverse impact on another existing deck and banning Temple will not. Does that mean they should ban only Temple even if Eye is probably the more powerful of the two? Should they just ban both? It's not an easy question to answer.
I think in this instance you are wrong about WOTC. I think they have shown restraint in their banning history. Batterskull was the card many people expected to go in Caw. Yes they do take measures but I think they tend to err on the side of caution except in the case of Ancestral Visions which is just plainly a mistake they haven't figured out yet.
Yes my point was they almost never post anything like this there. Instead they post on twitter, on their myriad social networks and sometimes on the wizards.com site somewhere.
The game is usually in the session process. Most especially that there are so many who wanted to join. - Bath Planet
Since V4 was released was the destruction of Foils of MTGO.
Being a Foil collector and having invested a large sum of money and time into collecting them i have never given up hope that they can make the foils look good again.
V2 was the pinnacle of great looking foils with the swish on them.
They did do a Foil fix about a year ago, but it was a pathetic attempt to make them better.
That was all the time they have given Foils.
They are terrible.
I can't imagine this is hard for them to fix, but they just won't allocate the needed resources to address Foils.
Please WOTC V2 quality Foils again.
I have played in 5 sealed leagues. And apparently I suck at the format. It is very expensive to play if you are just learning the format. 3 wins to semi break even has ruined my account :)
I hope they introduce a more casual league structure. Or maybe I will just have to stick to drafting. It seems like the number of players has dropped from 5200 to 4700, so maybe I am not the only one who thinks it is a little too expensive.
You can't get rid of foils online. Part of the appeal is the possibility of a paper foil set, which you need an online foil set to redeem.
Orzhof Pontiff is in GPT and Infernal Tutor is in Dissension. You are correct in that they shouldn't be passed
I go with Option 2. Get as much damage through as you can when you can. If they have removal or Cryptic Command you are just screwed either way. Since you are playing aggro, you can't worry about what they might have. You have to go all out and try to win before they stabilize and they will stabilize if you give them a chance. Yes, they might have Path or Cryptic, but they might have a hand of all land and be bluffing, too.
No Problem
Thanks.
Well it was mainly for those who have been following my journey back. But here http://puremtgo.com/articles/mtgo-hero
And how are we gonna find that article when we are too lazy to look and you havent linked it ? =)
Yeah it's pretty cool. I've seen some Zoo builds using the card. I like the synergy with Burning-Tree Emissary. I look forward to your article.
I am hoping the format will open up with the Eldrazi ban.
I am using Bushwacker in a Zoo build. I will be writing/doing videos with it probably after all this Eldrazi nonsense but I do enjoy it thus far.
Yea I would lean to option 3 as well. Sometimes in aggro you can't play around everything. Cryptic would be more of a stall than a loss so things like that don't bother me much. If you make them answer every attack you are going in the right direction as an aggro player. Thanks for the input.
I wrote about losing my Collection after my first When Should I article. That is why I took the hiatus from writing them and then went towards rebuilding my collection. I should have been more clear about that.
I too am interested in how he managed to loose his mtgo collection.
First you have to consider what you do if you can actually attack. If I'm the opponent I have to use Cryptic Command to tap your creatures + draw otherwise I take 5 down to 5 and lose to double bolt and/or bolt+helix if I tap out for Verdict. Assuming you can attack, I would imagine they have no Cryptic Command.
If they play with Restoration Angel, they will likely play it to block one of your creatures. If they Angel you then you should Bloodrush the creature they block. This puts them to 5. If you bloodrush the unblocked creature then they go to 4, but there's not really a difference between 5 and 4 when you deal damage in 3s with your burn.
I don't think you can beat a Path to Exile if they drew one. You can try to play around it by bloodrushing the creature they block, likely forcing them to path that creature and they take 5.
Since your opponent MUST Supreme Verdict next turn to survive, I believe the best play is to Bloodrush the blocked creature. There's no difference between 9 and 8 in terms of your Bolt, so the only difference is whether or not you want to be better off if they have a Path. You can't beat removal + wrath, but you can beat wrath so that's what I would play towards.
You wrote, "Losing my MTGO collection changed my priorities..." but then didn't tell us what happened. Seems to me like there is a lot more to tell than just drop this bomb and move on like nothing happened.
How did you lose your MTGO collection?
It seems to be a challenged to all. That is why it is important to be so open with the situation. - Bath Planet
This card is pretty cool. I can't see it seeing a lot of Modern play but it is interesting.
Personally I like pairing Engulf the Shore with Snapcaster Mage. Bouncing all their creatures end of turn and getting your Snapcaster Mage back in hand is a pretty sweet deal. You could then even Snapcaster the Engulf a few turns later after they've replayed all their creatures. It could also work nicely with cards like Vendilion Clique. That said this is a bit slow and durdly.
I like the idea of using it in the Taking Turns deck too.
Yes, I'm inclined to agree. I think Eye is the card that is more likely to become a problem again in the future if it stays unbanned. I don't think they will really want to revisit the issue.
there is something like bug blog that lists all known issues and that is hosted on wizards.com. i think the link is on modo home screen. but i guess not so many people pay attention to it because many players ask me what is wromg when modo acts weird and it is even stated on the home screen.
This happened to me also and I just attacked killing my opponent this way, I did not put much thought in it at that time (except that something that was not supposed to happen happened). My opponent complained about it. That's also why I usually pass the card anyway so I don't need to deal with it.
I am well aware that sometimes the bugs are actually pretty major and nothing can be done with that. For example you won't stop playing Containment Priest even if it removes itself from the game if you want to stop Griselbrand entering play via Oath or Show and Tell. You might lose a match from time to time because of that...(happened to me...as I needed to deal damage with that creature rather than having the effect in play) When Containment Priest stopped working altogether they actually fixed it quite soon.(but that week that were like 4 fixes that required a download and few more fixes that did not require that)
In a tournament all we can do is play the game as the client allows us. I don't actually see how one could deal with Soulflyer in this case. If my only way of dealing with the creatures is actually trading with it what can you do? If the creature can't block your 5/5 flyer in combat then the game is already altered for you as well not only for the player having Soulflayer without the abilities it is supposed to have (because you need the creature to block your flyer). There is no way how to deal with this situation. Both players want to win the game if you won't attack it will just help your opponent win the game. So I would just end the game and your opponent can file for reimbursement)
I wouldn't call this particular situation exploiting a bug though. The player who picked Soulflayer will have to accept the creature being bugged next time he picks it or avoid it (file for reimbursement the first time it happened to him. but from my point of view if you use a bugged card as a reason for reimbursement a second time something is wrong, since a normal person would try to avoid anything bugged and from my point of view it would be 'cheating'). I think that we as players should use our reason well and avoid situations like this if possible.
But if someone just decides to remove my Jace, Telepath Unbound with Hallowed Moonlight or Containment Priest I would certainly be upset because this can be viewed as exploiting a bug. If the player plays the card while the Jace trigger is on stack it clearly shows that your oponent is aware of the bug and I would probably report this because from my point of view this is cheating. This is the same if you play Myr Superior with mana not produced with your creatures. Normally you wouldn't play Myr Superion using your Ancient Tomb or whatever (unless you really have no idea what the card does, but in a (modern) tournament you are supposed to know the cards you play and your opponent's cards - depends on rules enforcement.). If you play it though like this I would see that as cheating (or exploiting a bug in this case).
For example if someone would convoke a Scion and sacrifice it for mana to get two mana of that I would also consider that cheating but the player for example might not be aware that this is not possible rules-wise so there might not have been any intention to cheat behind this.
In the Superion or Jace case I don't really see how a player could not know what would happen. Flipped Jace is not a planeswalker so playing Moonlight/Priest/whatever does not make sense any sense game-wise. I mean it could possibly if you believe that the player just decided to draw a card at this particular moment rather than at the end of turn. But how likely is that? Normally you wouldn't play a card ignoring it's restriction unless you wanted to cheat or were really unaware of the restriction (which is very unlikely).
I'm just saying, they don't go overboard. They are quite surgical about bannings as far as I can tell, almost waiting until it is too late. Banning Eye serves the message up more solidly imho. That way they don't end up banning it anyway later.
I think banning Batterskull would just have been wrong. Batterskull is a good card but the problem was Stoneforge Mystic tutoring it up and dropping it into play on Turn 3. There were also the Swords for Stoneforge to tutor if Batterskull wasn't around. Batterskull wasn't even available when Caw Blade broke out at Pro Tour Paris 2011. Stoneforge Mystic and Jace were the problems and Wizards eventually banned the problems.
If you can preserve other decks that's great and they should definitely avoid banning more cards than necessary where a problem has been recognised. I would suggest in general they have a good track record of just banning what is necessary in these situations. Some cards on the Modern banlist are probably an exception to that previous statement I will concede.
What makes the Eye of Ugin/Eldrazi Temple debate interesting is that banning either one is probably enough to sufficiently weaken the Eldrazi deck. Banning Eye has an adverse impact on another existing deck and banning Temple will not. Does that mean they should ban only Temple even if Eye is probably the more powerful of the two? Should they just ban both? It's not an easy question to answer.
I think in this instance you are wrong about WOTC. I think they have shown restraint in their banning history. Batterskull was the card many people expected to go in Caw. Yes they do take measures but I think they tend to err on the side of caution except in the case of Ancestral Visions which is just plainly a mistake they haven't figured out yet.
Yes my point was they almost never post anything like this there. Instead they post on twitter, on their myriad social networks and sometimes on the wizards.com site somewhere.