A) Yes, tapping 3 mana and winning on the spot is still better than tapping 2 and maybe-eventually-winning. I think even if we math it out, you will more consistently have a 5-7 pieces Storm hand in a storm deck than a deck will have a Storm-Hatebear even if they run 4 copies. The idea that the "non-game" created here is bad, when the non-game of storm saying "Cabal therapy, I win" or S&T saying "lol Force your force I win" isn't really different.
B) as mentioned, given the redundancy and the reliabilty of Sneakshow/Storm/Elves, etc.. I disagree. Further, the decks in question don't lose to this. Sneakshow sides Omni and/or removal and/or Moons, Storm sides in removal or just goes off before you can cast it, Elves just kills you before you cast it if they can, but also side in removal (and can hard cast as well.)
C) The problem is you're saying "I mean sure the combo deck wins on the spot with its combo, but the fair deck should have to assemble 3-4 pieces in order to maybe-sort-of-lock the combo player. and still not win for it." That's asinine. If Grisel, Norn, Emmy, etc.. didn't exist, sure. I could see that, but we're in a combo age where the number of derpy 2-card combos that literally instant kill you (or cause an instant kill) or immediately lock you out of the game is just as bad. Saying "Iona go" on T1/T2 or "Omni, Emmy, take a turn, swing" is a non-game. Don't bullshit me that a deck that has a 20% chance to get a T2/T3 lock card that it also needs Force of Wills to get to, and counters to protect, is somehow better or some how more offensive then "most broken cards the game has ever printed, cheated into play T1/T2, in the most broken color, with counterspell and discard backup." Fuck off with that nonsense.
D) You're half right. Instead Defense Grid will shut them out of the game, or Moon will shut them out of the game, or a T1/T2 combo because they didn't draw they're 40% chance protection spell T1 means they lose.
Please realize that the Non-games that happen from derpy hatebears are to the combo player as the combo is to the midrange player. The combo is a derpy "ha you can't do anything about this because the cards that interact with this combo are bad/unplayed/not-likely to be in a keepable hand. I however am a uber-smart netdecker who has shown true skill in having an unanswerable wincon that happens before you've untapped a second time. Revel in my utter genius."
How is "you may eventually lose to this easily removable hate-piece that I will require counterspells/discard to protect and will have to do that for 10 turns" somehow better than "I can deploy a hate piece that locks your entire deck T1, which requires the same answer you use for my combo, which you have a 40% chance of having; and it's not enough to have that but you also need lock pieces or other counters because I'll kill you T3/T4 while you still have only red mana/can't counter my spells/etc.."
There is no logic here to defend this reasoning. The combo deck is in a better position; Full Stop. The Combo deck creates non-games; Full stop. The deck trying to durdle into T2 with a 15-20% chance of having a lock piece, assembling Discard/Counters to hopefully keep you from insta-gibbing them is a lot less of a non-game than you make it out to be. It's not often a 1-piece wonder; and it's far less non-gamey than the "you can't tap for mana, you can't counter my stuff, you die T3" deck.
What's more, the main reasons the lock pieces employed by combo aren't creatures isn't because those creatures don't exist, it's because they're far easier to kill. The lock pieces often used against combo, however, usually are dudes, and then the combo players who don't run any removal whatsoever whinge about a non-game that they didn't bring interaction for. Isn't that the combo player's exact defense of the combo? "You should've brought interaction?"
There is not a single iota of coherent reasoning for your position. Please do not respond unless you can answer that last paragraph; which if you can; is a logical contradiction. Even if you disagree with the mass rants above it, your position is a contradiction of "lol bring interaction for this card that instant-wins the game, protects itself, and has an entire deck built do do it efficiently. What!? I have to interact with your cards that take 10 turns to win the game that you have only a slim chance of having anyway?!"
The second to last paragraph doesn't really have anything to answer. Plenty of combos use creatures whether it's Emmy, Grisel, other reanimation targets, or even Marit Lage. The lock pieces are now wincons, where they formerly were not (i.e. Thorn -> 2/1 first strike or Arcane Lab -> 2/2, etc...) - most hatebear effects' original printing did not tap to attack, nor could they be cast via Cavern or cheated with Vial (these are engine cards). If the hatebear effect isn't slapped onto a wincon, you actually have to have multiple cards (just like any combo player has to have multiple cards) and even more attention to deck design because the humble beats wincon would actually get worse at winning each time it draws non-engine hate (again combos generally have to board anti-engine interaction). Hatebear and artifact/enchantment effect that preceded it are generally at parody with overall cmc, this is not true of creatures which mimic a combo instant/sorc/echantment effect. Reanimate costs 1/Doomed Necromancer types generally cost around 4, SnT costs 3/Elvish Piper effects around 5, PiF costs ~5/Magus of the Will costs 6 - what combo cards have creature versions with reasonable cost parody which aren't being used? I would argue that such creatures are used when reasonably costed (Hexmage, Hapless Researcher, Putrid Imp).
I know why fair decks have to resort to cards that cheese out wins all by themselves because they've chosen to abandon interaction on the stack - it's probably the only way they were going to win a game against combo, because cards aren't really designed over ~25 years with intent of having thought provoking, interactive magic between combo and creature-feature decks.
You're missing the original post though @tescrin, where a [presumably] fair deck player wants DRS/Leo/TNN all banned for [insert reasons]. Now I don't know what deck he/she was on, but this is a thing in legacy where all the hatebear users loathe TNN b/c it's uninteractive, and it's just kind of funny to hear the "it's too uninteractive" argument coming out of players who get wins off the back of Thalia/Ethersworn/C Priest and others. There has to be a realization at some point that hatebear decks are bringing the dreaded TNN fate down upon themselves b/c of some nonsense 0-2cmc spell that says combo (the kind that keeps TNN out of the format) can't win anymore.
Another example could be Sanctum Prelate. I assume that R/G Lands would generally demolish any K-Command deck, furthermore I assume K-Command + Snapcaster is generally really bad news for a hatebear deck. Maybe why R/G Lands isn't protecting you from that is b/c Prelate on x=2 (particularly when combined with RiP for Barb Ring and Revoker for Vortex) is understandably miserable to know you'll run into. I mean R&D won't even give them a non-yard dependent Ramunap Ruins that kills Prelate.
Hatebear decks don't give their cards enough credit for driving legacy towards a DRS+TNN format. It doesn't really matter side you come down on in the subjective debate about hatebears are uninteractive vs combo is uninteractive - just understand that some of the bullcrap "you can't win anymore" 1-card combos will correspond to losses to TNN. So my point is really that bans targeting stuff like Surgical/Cage/RiP/Leyline is a very good way to indirectly decrease TNN usage in the format. Losing to combo decks doesn't feel good (and SnT + fatty in hand is pretty mindless), but combo has its own way of shaping the metagame and it's not always harmful to hatebear decks to set it free a bit - look what effectively banning Counterbalance did for the format. I think there's something to be said for combo-side balance, but I would generally view B/R Reanimator as needing to go.
I'm pretty sure Modern is more popular than Standard right now, given tournament attentance numbers of paper tournaments. Standard and Modern are also on par on MTGO in terms of league attendance. Ignoring that would be pretty silly from a business point of view.
At least their response to that wasn't "People are playing something else than Standard? Blasphemy! Kill it all!" this time.
Pestilence buyout incoming!
https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/co..._had_a_strong/
More info on Magic Digital Next on August 3rd.
MtG: Arena
More info
"AAA" Game (like hell it's going to be, we're talking about WotC here) and mobile. Probably it's the HS clone we've seen earlier this year.
Whenever I see or hear "HasBRO" I have this mental image of a big jock who chugs beer at frat parties on the weekend.
https://www.twitch.tv/magic
Magic Arena reveal is going to start in a few minutes.
Edit: Looks like Hearthstone:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/mtgarena
MTG Arena seems interesting. I'm torn on whether or not i'll like it. They said they created this to be a form of magic that is more streamable but that seems like the wrong reason to create a game for such a narrow purpose. WOTC has MTGO with a PoS interface and now MTG Arena with a respectable interface. MTGArena will likely only be standard forward. It's also designed as a f2p game.
This seems strange to me because if they ever make previous expansions / cards there is going to be overlap with MTGO and MTGO is in desperate need of UI overhaul.
I hope that wotc doesn't waste resources on this game instead of fixing their old game.
One idea that crossed my mind is that they may be using MTGArena to test the waters on a new interface and see if they just jump full hog into a similar interface for MTGO. Probably the biggest design hurdle is the engine to drive turns and card interactions. They already had to build that for this game so it wouldn't be terribly difficult to replicate it for something like MTGO. From a business standpoint it seems weird to have the same game available in multiple digital formats.
Play 4 Card Blind!
Currently Playing
Legacy: Dark Depths
EDH: 5-Color Hermit Druid
Currently Brewing: [Deck] Sadistic Sacrament / Chalice NO Eldrazi
why cards are so expensive...hoarders
So the MTG rules and deck building works the same way in MTGArena, it'll have the same release schedule, F2P, and it'll play limited/sealed/standard as well?
How is this not going to just blow MTGO out of the water?
A lot of people have a lot of money invested in MTGO and they have no fucking clue how to unwind that even though they've realized that a F2P model a la Hearthstone - which they've now created in MTG Arena, is the way of the future.
So yeah, it will totally blow MTGO out of the water, because MTGO has sucked for pretty much it's entire lifespan, and they have no idea about what to do about all the money that people have invested in MTGO right now.
The new Un-set might sell like shit, but goddamn, these are some beautiful basic lands:
Looks like an Energy ban for Standard is coming
While that isn't interesting for Legacy in particular, the design insight behind parasitic mechanics is rather disturbing:
Since when are parasitic mechanics healthy? Because I can't think of good examples. Even the name "parasitic" implies the exact opposite of that. And here I thought R&D finally learned that parasitic mechanics are cancerous. Guess we'll see more garbage in the future.Energy is a parasitic mechanic (a mechanic that only works with itself, doesn't need support from cards without the mechanic, and only exists in one set or block). The energy mechanic doesn't enhance your existing decks, but instead tells you to build a new deck using only energy cards. Most of the time, parasitic mechanics are healthy, because you still need support from other blocks. For example, mana bases and removal spells are usually not tied to a mechanic, so you'll have to go to other sets or blocks to fill out your deck.
Maybe it's a typo?
>Energy is a parasitic mechanic (a mechanic that only works with itself, doesn't need support from cards without the mechanic, and only exists in one set or block).
>Most of the time, parasitic mechanics are healthy, because you still need support from other blocks.
Two contradictory statements on what parasitic mechanics are and how they relate to other blocks. Replace it with "set mechanics" and the paragraph works.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)