Eh, there were people who agreed on the other thread, I'm just willing to be more obnoxious about it. It's not gonna be popular to say 'it sucks that there's a new deck in legacy' before people are sick of it, but I think lots of people with Foil Brainstorms - i.e. a lot of people here - are gonna get sick of it before long.
Regardless, don't think anybody looking at the format could think that D+T is actually in a worse off place than it was before, if anything it's probably marginally better off. Eldrazi is a t1 deck that is 50-50 at worst. A lot of the rougher combo matchups get pushed out of the format with Chalices everywhere, but the Chalices aren't always great vs D+T. I beat Eldrazi all the time. I just think the games suck.
I have to give you credit, this is the 3rd thread I've witnessed you argue with each person, and as they give up and a new one takes their place, you press on.
Personally, I think the Eldrazi players will get sick of the new deck before the brainstorm players. I think a lot of the people playing it are either only playing with their new toy, or think its the best deck in the format. The people who are playing with their new toy will find something new that's shinier and the players who are playing it because they think its the best deck in the format will drop it when its not that dominant (I think its a good and tier 1, but not some tier 0 monster that it was in modern). The only people left are the dudes that just jam stompy and have been jamming stompy long before Eldrazi was a glint in wotc's eye, they will continue jamming.
Nice way of putting words in someones mouth. Where did I state that the ability to answer anything is a bad thing? All I said was that that is the kind of thing Spikes gravitate towards, period. I never said it was a bad thing, and I most certainly never said it was unfair.
Also, there's interacting and casting-a-single-card-that-kills-it-entirely. But hey, according to your logic the 1 mana "Fuck you, blue" artifact should be perfectly fair b/c, and I quote:
I say print that shit as a common and let's shake up the format.
On a sidenote: If CotV gets banned, so should all graveyard hate. Either we all get fucked in the ass occasionally, or noone does. Seriously, if something as easy to deal with as CotV gets banned there's someting seriously wrong with the people that do the banning.
Many people like the Eldrazi deck because 1. It is cheap compared to rest of the decks 2. It is easy to play 3. It is fun to play for certain people that like casting big creatures and attacking with them 4. It is new and adds some long-needed change to the format.
I don't see why you are the person who is complaining either. You play Death and Taxes, a deck that isn't ruined by a chalice on 1. Maybe if you were playing some delver deck but death and taxes? Most decks in legacy right now have a chance against Chalice on 1. Chalice on 1 adds some interesting challenges and changes for players of most of legacy decks right now. For delver players I suggest changing their deck until chalice is no longer popular
Also, legacy is already a format of uneven matchups. Miracles vs Elves, 12post vs miracles, Storm vs BGx, etc. The variance added by chalice is comparable to playing 12post, you might go against the best deck in the format or you might go against storm. Variance is a part of magic and I don't see a problem with it.
Again, I'm not complaining because of self-interest for my pet deck's win % - as you said, D+T will do fine - I'm complaining because I like legacy for its complex and interesting games and I think Eldrazi decreases the number of interesting games that get played.
Sometimes arguments come to the point were you've done and said all you can to try and challenge your opponent's opinion, but your opponent still holds that opinion. You can't prove an opinion wrong, you can only change someone's opinion. I have stated my opinion and you have stated yours. Don't know what else to say, but that I have realized that those who try and change your mind are wasting their time.
Yes, trying to change my opinion on what type of magic I enjoy playing is like trying to change my opinion on what flavor ice cream I like.
This is the third(?) thread with a similar discussion (but in my opinion is no discussion at all), which ends in this stalemate. Why do people argue without listening? If you have an opinion, and won't even consider discussing it, just don't bother to discuss. Just saying, not judging.
What's the point of discussing? I said my opinion, what else am I supposed to say? We've discussed with this guy every single pro of the Eldrazi deck and he says that the cons still outweigh the pros. But one thing for sure, this guy's opinion is not popular and Chalice will never be banned in legacy.
I actually do research related to mathematical decision theory (I do economic modelling). I agree with the point you make, though technically, you aren't referring to a "pure variance" effect here. Instead, its many effects commingled when comparing those two cards.
A pure variance effect will always reduce the impact of skill. A pure variance comparison would be to take Cabal Therapy, and then add text to it that says, say, with probability .5, switch the card you named to a random card from the entirety of magic history. Clearly, that kind of effect can only reduce skill - it's almost by definition the case.
On the other hand, and the point you raise (which is an interesting one - one I will actually think about for the sake of my own research), is that there is a common correlation in a lot of different activities in economics where skill is correlated with variance. If the set of possible actions a player can take (or say, an action taken by a CEO) is purely deterministic, then clearly there is no skill. A lot of times, raising the set of possible actions that can be taken is accompanied by raising the variance of the outcome conditional on a selected action.
I'd argue this doesn't reduce skill at all. To play your card optimally requires the exact same problem solving skills as are required to play Cabal Therapy optimally.
Your modification does not in any way detract from the skill intensity of the card. It only effects the extent to which superior skill is rewarded.
So I guess it depends on why a person wants strategic depth. Personally I want to be faced with difficult and challenging decisions. I want the opportunities to outplay my opponents - that's strategic depth. Whether superior play gives me a 5% edge or a 20% egde is kind of trivial. I don't need a gold star every single time I outthink the opposition.
Supremacy 2020 is the modern era game of nuclear brinksmanship! My blog:
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com
You can play Lands.dec in EDH too! My primer:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/t...lara-lands-dec
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)