-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
@MorphBerlin: I dunno man, it's not that hard to grasp: are you able to state your opinion without insinuating that those who don't share it are antisocial, lack patience or aren't true intellectuals like you? Does the self-expression of your taste have to go through the belittlement of "somebody like me"? Are you like that in real life? It's a cardboard game, Jesus. Some people enjoy different things out of it, period. If you derive your sense of superiority over others from a specific aspect of a corporate fantasy collecting card game for 13+ years old, I don't know what to tell you.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MorphBerlin
TBH Miracles is much more interesting than you describe, yeah sometimes they are treading a lot of water and you have to know when it's time to concede even if you are not at 0 yet. but they are very beatable if you know how but I am sure somebody like you lacks patience and strategic planning over several turns to poke holes at the right time to gain incremental advantages. That's what I would argue most people find interesting about legacy: tight technical gameplay with lots of little decisions to pull ahead. The degenerate combo/prison stuff is unfortunately unavoidable because of the big card pool
If you're just about slamming those MUs are probably boring if you are not conceding after they had said "yes" to your "do you have it" strategy and take time to actually won the game.
wtf even does this paragraph mean. Why are you even implying that a prison player isn't patient or smart enough to pick their spots and play tight. You sound like an idiot insinuating that prison players aren't smart enough to beat miracles without chalices.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Megadeus
wtf even does this paragraph mean. Why are you even implying that a prison player isn't patient or smart enough to pick their spots and play tight. You sound like an idiot insinuating that prison players aren't smart enough to beat miracles without chalices.
I was talking about chunderbucket specifically. He said it himself, he wants to win quickly or loose quickly and he hates that miracles takes long to kill when pulling ahead. He wants to throw how shit on the table and the game should be over with one way or the other.
Why would I talk like that about prison in general? Chalice+Cloudpost is probably the easiest way to beat miracles.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chunderbucket
@MorphBerlin: I dunno man, it's not that hard to grasp: are you able to state your opinion without insinuating that those who don't share it are antisocial, lack patience or aren't true intellectuals like you? Does the self-expression of your taste have to go through the belittlement of "somebody like me"?
... it took you THIS LONG to realize that? ;)
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MorphBerlin
I was talking about chunderbucket specifically. He said it himself, he wants to win quickly or loose quickly and he hates that miracles takes long to kill when pulling ahead. He wants to throw how shit on the table and the game should be over with one way or the other.
Why would I talk like that about prison in general? Chalice+Cloudpost is probably the easiest way to beat miracles.
Lol you make it sound like I only play oops or something. I said I enjoy fast combo and prison. I like Stax, I like Pox, I like Depths, and I like Tin Fins. It doesn't mean I want every game to be over turn 1, but it does mean that, why yes, if you don't do anything to stop me in the early turns of the game you're going to lose quickly. That's called 'playing impactful cards' and I'm pretty sure all decks have to run some if they want to win games. Fortunately most games aren't over turn 1 because opponents usually have impactful answers and there's a pleasant back-and-forth between my combo/lockpieces and their answers, the whole of which can be called a game of Magic: the Gathering in Legacy. Except in the mind of some players where playing Chalice on 1 means you are literally sadistic. You can't make that up.
The reason I dislike Miracles is entirely subjective and I acknowledge that. I'm not trying to make a grand point about skill or decision trees or anything. I just find it boring to watch the Miracles play Ponder, then Brainstorm, then Fetch, then Portent, pass, Terminus on upkeep. When an Elves opponent does tricks or goes off you can watch them live and think 'damn, that player's good'. When a Storm opponent plays the Ad Nauseam blackjack you're both super tense and wondering what's needed to find the precise line for them to kill you. When Lands plays bunch of recursion and displays all their cool lands in a row, saccing them and playing them as needed as they navigate all the complex lines before your eyes you're in awe. When Dredge goes off it's just hilarous, and when Stax stacks all the upkeep triggers it's funny too. But with Miracles, you don't see any of that, just the one counterspell/removal, and that's it. That's why I find it boring, that's all there is to it, don't try to justify your tastes to me, I don't care and won't think less of you if you have a poster of JTMS above your bed.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
I've come to more or less accept that people who dislike chalice enjoy playing magic more than the deck selection and construction parts of the game. Personally I don't like playing magic very much unless it's a deck I've built.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kinda
I've come to more or less accept that people who dislike chalice enjoy playing magic more than the deck selection and construction parts of the game. Personally I don't like playing magic very much unless it's a deck I've built.
I think the deck building portion ofof magic that takes a lot of skill that people don't ever talk about. That's one of my favorite parts of the game personally is the choices that go into creating something and thinking about possible lines of play or neededneeded outs. Thanks to the internet it's aa skill that I feel is lost on many good players.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kinda
Personally I don't like playing magic very much unless it's a deck I've built.
This also describes me.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kinda
I've come to more or less accept that people who dislike chalice enjoy playing magic more than the deck selection and construction parts of the game. Personally I don't like playing magic very much unless it's a deck I've built.
That's an interesting take, but I don't think that in a format with this kind of price tag it's totally fair—or, at least, it's not universally true. I'm nowhere close to having a full set of Legacy's most useful staples, so I'm not necessarily in a position to strike out in my own direction and expect anything I build to work very well. Tangentially, I will concede that if I'd sunk my initial seed trade cards into City of Traitors and the like, I might have a very different opinion about Chalice. (I actually owned three Chalices, including a pack-to-binder foil from Mirrodin, for over ten years, but I didn't have anything else that would really make them work. Wanted me some Underground Seas.)
I've started tinkering with a BUG Nic Fit shell in part for that very reason. It's not exorbitantly expensive to put together if you've got the lands for it, and the fact that the shell is so flexible (though many would say that it's weak) means that I can really start messing around with card choices and experimenting. Commander is also a really good place for this, but I digress.
Homogeneity in decklists hasn't really bothered me in a long time. When I got back into the game after grad school in 2013, I bemoaned the "netdecking" that had cropped up everywhere and taken over the game (at the time I only played casual and Standard, and my spectacular deck choice was Naya "Aggro"), but I then realized that "netdecking" was a natural consequence of the Internet's existence and that it's actually really helpful to have the whole world as a resource to help you synthesize ideas about cards and playstyle. I'm not too fussed about the fate of most cards that get outclassed or replaced en masse because that's just part of the nature of an evolving game. I AM bothered when I can't play any of my decks to positive results against a turn-1 play, and I'm not exclusively a "cantrip player." (Most of my decks actually don't run Brainstorm or Ponder, though my favorite Legacy deck does.)
I actually think that Leyline card suggestion would probably be fine. Out of curiosity, Rules Gurus of The Source, is a replacement effect like a Dredge still stopped by something that says you can't draw multiple cards?
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ronald Deuce
Out of curiosity, Rules Gurus of The Source, is a replacement effect like a Dredge still stopped by something that says you can't draw multiple cards?
No, because you are not drawing cards. Wait until someone lays out Library and three Life from the Loam in front of you. It all becomes a mess.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
(disclaimer: as should always be obvious without saying, all that follows is just a subjective POV -and often a borderline trolling tone, among more 'serious' considerations)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chunderbucket
It's a cardboard game, Jesus (...) a corporate fantasy collecting card game for 13+ years old
behave [like] a civil adult (...) we're all civilized grownups (...)
https://i.imgur.com/uyjO5Wf.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chunderbucket
I tolerate your playstyle, you tolerate mine
I don't. I am not bound to respect every opinion. If I choose to play in a tournament where it can happen to me to play against some kind of decks/people, I just am bound to accept that I can't forbid you to subscribe what is a technically legal decklist (though a chunderbucket).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chunderbucket
after the game we laugh and go for drinks
Or we don't. I suspect that if you were playing in a "kitchen magic" environment only decks that turn1 kill you or lose, you wouldn't find so many friends willing to play with you, don't you think? Why could this ever be possible, I wonder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chunderbucket
Why people want to ruin this for everyone is beyond me
Precisely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chunderbucket
It doesn't mean I want every game to be over turn 1 (...) Fortunately most games aren't over turn 1 because opponents usually have impactful answers and there's a pleasant back-and-forth between my combo/lockpieces and their answers
I find a hard time believing that the person who is writing this is the same who just wrote this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chunderbucket
I don't want to interact. I want to t1 you. I want to lock you out of the game
The first one I can respect, the second one I still think he's an hater ^_^
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dice_Box
Since you are happy to admit there is an answer but view it as not worthwhile, thus suggesting that besides all your posturing, Chalice is not actually that big of an issue for you. If it was, you would play an answer but you value the solution lower than the cost it inflicts upon you
You are right but I think you are mixing two different questions. "Is Chalice so big of an issue WHEN YOU HAVE TO FACE IT?" can't be considered alone without also thinking about "how frequently you have to face it?". So as I already said the better solution in terms of expected value against the metagame (while chalice.deck are not so frequent) could be to just ignore them. Since it's rational, then it follows also that you (I don't mean you-Dice) shouldn't mock people who speak of "landmine" and complain when they did the right choice and were just unlucky with the pairings. If and when chalice.deck (prison, stompy, blood moon, you name what) would/will become more present the right choice could change of course.
The comparison with Vintage doesn't hold, since everybody plays artifact in the format even if they are not MUD, except Dredge, you would be right to take that in consideration when thinking about the metagame. The same goes for the answers, Abrade for example would almost never be a dead card in Vintage, because even if it's probably not worth spending against a mox, it's unlikely that you neither play a creature (mentor, kambal, pyromancer, leovold, ...) nor an artifact worth destroying (even without considering MUD, let's just name Time Vault). The same is not true for Legacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dice_Box
I do not think people playing SnT in the Dig age did so because they wanted to be a cunt, I think they did so because within the rules of the game that was the deck they both enjoyed and they could win with. Regardless of the decks "Fun" factor on the rest of the player base, something I feel was very low
The difference between this deck and something like All Spells or Belcher, though, I think, is that crucial part they could win with it. More on this topic below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kinda
I've come to more or less accept that people who dislike chalice enjoy playing magic more than the deck selection and construction parts of the game.
Precisely. I already said something like this. But if you just enjoyed deckbuilding and not also playing, you wouldn't show up at tournaments. I think you play for either of two reasons (of course they can be both true at the same time): you want to win the prizes; you enjoy the way you are spending your time.
I don't blame everyone that plays Chalice of the Void; for example I think Aggro Loam is a perfectly legit deck.
On the contrary, I do believe that some kind of decks are unfun to play not only against, but even with, because you almost don't have any choice to make at all (except maybe keeping or mulliganing). (Before you ask, yes, I played some of them, from EldNazi to even the Dig era Show, I always end up bored and because of that didn't play them more than once every 4-5 tournaments). Of course one could have different reasons for chosing a deck: for example, you can be limited by card availability. A friend of mine had money problem a while ago and sold a Canadian deck. Now he is testing for a big event where he will be forced to play burn... I can't blame him for that, but if we are playing for fun with proxy allowed he is more likely to still play RUG.
Then why I blame people playing All Spells, Belcher, Stompy etc? Because if it's not for your own entertainment, then I see only to possible options: either you are an hater, or you think you can win with this kind of deck. Except for GP Birmingham (but that's a different story, and even I was cheering for Gary) can you tell me when this kind of deck had real success in recent time? I won't tell out loud whether chosing a dumb deck that rarely wins tells something about the intelligence of the player making the choice... but you can guess what I think. Personally, I met people who where playing burn (for example) at a Day2 at a Grand Prix and they were good players, but I suspect they are exceptions, since generally when I met one at a local event of 6 turns they had trouble counting to three, let alone chose the correct timing.
Personally, I have a competitive behaviour, but still I wouldn't waste my time at tournaments if I didn't enjoyed playing, since I am not so good to actually think I can win money regularly (if it's even possible to end up winning more than you spend on travel and overnight stay); maybe I'm not kind, but I get upset more when I find the opponent is somehow making me wasting my time than for actually losing, and I think that's a legit position (though of course subjective).
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
talpa
The difference between this deck and something like All Spells or Belcher, though, I think, is that crucial part they could win with it. More on this topic below.
Ok, I will admit I do not play Stax to win, I play it because I find it fun and I play Lands to win. That said Stompy in the form of Red (Thanks to new Chandra) Steel or Eldrazi are all decks someone I feel could take to an event and clean house. Each one of these decks is independently good enough to warrant play in Comp REL without any hint of jest.
I think that, like Dig SnT was then, Eldrazi is now a real live option worth playing. Its not a All Spells joke, its a meta call. Its not "AKA "I just want to be an asshole"."
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ace/Homebrew
I agree that casual Magic (most often EDH) has a social aspect which should ideally be considered all the down to deck design. Free time is finite and sacred and if you waste mine I am justified if I get upset.
However tournament Magic is a different animal. It is preferable if everyone involved is having a good time, but that is unrealistic. Money is on the line and that changes things. You don't get to choose your opponents and if you cared about them having a good time then it would require that you concede any wins (this is not a 1-1 ratio, but tournament Magic attracts more of this style player).
<Snipped>
If you want to complain when your opponent uses unfun cards, stick to EDH. Don't try to dictate the way I get to beat you in tournament Magic.
Fun in tournament and casual settings are equally important, even if it would be defined differently or based on different thresholds. The B&R list is full of cards that ended up there because they made tournaments "unfun" by one metric or another. I'd actually say this is the main argument for leaving Chalice alone: the card is hardly having an overwhelming impact on tournaments, so whatever people's personal feelings are, no one can really argue they're taking the fun out of them.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dice_Box
I think that, like Dig SnT was then, Eldrazi is now a real live option worth playing. Its not a All Spells joke, its a meta call. Its not "AKA "I just want to be an asshole"."
Mono Brown Eldrazi Post is possibly the most Timmy-friendly pile of bullshit that we’ve ever had in Legacy, and I love that it’s competitive.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
@talpa: playing is the only way to "prove" your deck building. Plus playing in person is fun and social.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kinda
I've come to more or less accept that people who dislike chalice enjoy playing magic more than the deck selection and construction parts of the game. Personally I don't like playing magic very much unless it's a deck I've built.
There's a reason I play fiddly engine decks with a lot of onboard shenanigans and a crapton of moving parts or that are "honest" resource trading machines if at all possible. Even though I like playing fast combo, T1 glasscannons just feel dull. I sat at the table to play Magic, not to roll dice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dice_Box
Personally? I like Prison because I find the idea of slowly stripping options away and leaving something with no out to be fun. I like the back and forth that comes from both trying to lock someone and then trying to hold it as they attempt to break out. There is nothing like a Smokestack on 3 ticking away as you wipe your board and his, knowing when its done your going to have a Crucible and he is going to have sweet fuck all. Also Stax is bad. If I wanted to win and play Chalice I would play Eldrazi. I don't play Eldrazi.
Some of the best games of Magic I've ever played have been vs. D&T where after playing some turns I realize I have to concede because I just can't play Magic properly anymore. They've managed to construct a prison out of many individual hindrances that add up to being able to do so little the game's unwinnable. Those kinds of games are really, really fun, especially if you can blow some of the stax pieces up, but not all, and have to gauge what you can live with and what you can't. Some of the worst involve Chalices, especially combined with the opponent drawing badly or playing something slow like Tezzerator. It's just turn after turn after turn of drawing blanks because if I draw the out I'm actually still in. If I have to die to a T1 Chalice, please let it be followed up by them derping out a TKS or Smasher so I can scoop in good conscience.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
non-inflammable
How would this make the game any better? It seems one-dimensional and boring. Plus, how many of these can you honestly run in a deck? Then, if it gets disenchanted, you have some number of four mana, do nothing enchantments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dice_Box
What I am seeing here is "But the tempo loss does not exceed the value of the effect" But you have to draw a line, either the card is the worst thing in the world and has to be stopped or its not relevant enough to value the tempo loss of playing an answer. Since you are happy to admit there is an answer but view it as not worthwhile, thus suggesting that besides all your posturing, Chalice is not actually that big of an issue for you. If it was, you would play an answer but you value the solution lower than the cost it inflicts upon you.
This is a slight mischaracterization of the cost - it's not that the answers are a big tempo loss in the context of the stompy matchup itself; it's that they are costly in every other non-stompy matchup.
Ace gets it, and alludes to it here, emphasis mine:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ace/Homebrew
I get you don't have fun losing to a build-around-me card that is easy to deal with (it is, but you have to dedicate slots for a matchup you should just plan to dodge). But the card is not banworthy by even the loosest metric.
One of the reasons chalice is miserable isn't because it's too good or doesn't have any answers, it's because it creates this weird meta-matchup prisoner's dilemma, where you can adjust your deck to beat the chalice decks, but then you lose more often to the real meta decks that didn't, because they are playing efficient cards and not weird answers to stop random ramen stompy.
Chalice is obviously a big enough deal that people who like prison play it, and people whose decks lose to it board answers to it, it's just that it'd be nice to not have to worry that you'll randomly have a coinflip game/match that's decided by opening hands.
Chalice is also just a miserable play experience all around, but I understand this is subjective and you disagree, so I won't harp on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chunderbucket
I find cantrips boring. I don't know how to explain but it feels incredibly boring to watch a pilot do their thing.
This is still a perspective that I don't really understand - cantrips aren't "the thing" they are trying to do, and it always seems weird to me that people have such a visceral reaction to something that seems so innocuous to me. Cantrips are like the ice in your drink - the cocktail is the main event (the Terminuses, the Jaces, the Entreats, the Past in Flames, the Anglers, whatever), but the ice keeps it cool/more palatable. Cantrips just make the game playable, they aren't the thing that is killing you.
How can cantrips be more boring than just watching them draw, look at their hand full of one drops, sigh, and pass?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chunderbucket
Not only that, but the pilots take an excruciatingly long time to kill me once they get ahead.
Some people have already addressed this - if you know you're dead eventually and tired of waiting, why not concede? They wouldn't have had to ban eggs in Modern if people just accepted that sometimes they just have you, no reason to wait five minutes to see if they're not going to play their deck correctly (they're not). If you have to make them play it out, that's on you, not them.
Also, again, apologies for the other posters being rude...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kinda
I've come to more or less accept that people who dislike chalice enjoy playing magic more than the deck selection and construction parts of the game. Personally I don't like playing magic very much unless it's a deck I've built.
I thought it was really interesting that a lot of posters here fell neatly along these lines! Not sure what it ultimately means, but I definitely fit the theory (I'd much rather see an elegant, cool list with interesting interactions and play to it in-game than try to figure out something cute myself, at least in competitive eternal formats).
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Is brainstorm banned yet?
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
taconaut
Some people have already addressed this - if you know you're dead eventually and tired of waiting, why not concede? They wouldn't have had to ban eggs in Modern if people just accepted that sometimes they just have you, no reason to wait five minutes to see if they're not going to play their deck correctly (they're not). If you have to make them play it out, that's on you, not them.
Sure, I'm the one cheating by using the clock as a weapon but have you considered that I couldn't cheat you if you just didn't play to begin with?
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Daze isn't very good atm and dnt numbers are down. Prison/combo/control is the vast majority of the meta which I don't think people like.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
It’s a meta for cultured people from civilized society for sure
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FourDogsinaHorseSuit
Sure, I'm the one cheating by using the clock as a weapon but have you considered that I couldn't cheat you if you just didn't play to begin with?
These are different considerations - I was responding to a poster who said it "takes forever for Miracles to kill them," similar to how the Eggs combo takes a while to resolve. The point is, as long as your opponent is taking meaningful game actions at a reasonable pace, it doesn't matter how many relevant game actions you take in between - it's not slow playing, and it's not cheating. You might not like, it, sure, but that doesn't matter.
The point about concessions is that, if you know you're going to lose, but know it will take a while, the person holding you hostage is you, not your Eggs or Miracles or whatever opponent. If you're wasting time trying to make a point about "making them have it" or whatever when your out is the miniscule chance they will mess up, it's on you.
Slow play, on the other hand, is a penalty, and if they're taking too long thinking about game actions, by all means, call a judge; don't just ban cards because of some specious "logistical" argument, like they did for top and second sunrise. (I understand Miracles may have been too strong and needed a ban anyway, but the point is that they added a line about "tournament logistics" that was both unnecessary and false.)
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
taconaut
These are different considerations - I was responding to a poster who said it "takes forever for Miracles to kill them," similar to how the Eggs combo takes a while to resolve. The point is, as long as your opponent is taking meaningful game actions at a reasonable pace, it doesn't matter how many relevant game actions you take in between - it's not slow playing, and it's not cheating. You might not like, it, sure, but that doesn't matter.
The point about concessions is that, if you know you're going to lose, but know it will take a while, the person holding you hostage is you, not your Eggs or Miracles or whatever opponent. If you're wasting time trying to make a point about "making them have it" or whatever when your out is the miniscule chance they will mess up, it's on you.
Slow play, on the other hand, is a penalty, and if they're taking too long thinking about game actions, by all means, call a judge; don't just ban cards because of some specious "logistical" argument, like they did for top and second sunrise. (I understand Miracles may have been too strong and needed a ban anyway, but the point is that they added a line about "tournament logistics" that was both unnecessary and false.)
You are aware that there's a difference between slow play and stalling right? Like playing slow is a warning and playing to the clock is an explicit disqualification?
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FourDogsinaHorseSuit
You are aware that there's a difference between slow play and stalling right? Like playing slow is a warning and playing to the clock is an explicit disqualification?
Yes, that was the point of my post. Playing decks that take a long time to win are not slow play or stalling. Those penalties are independent of deck choice. You could slow play or stall with Red Deck Wins, or you could do it with Miracles, or any deck.
The poster I was responding to before you objected to those decks taking a long time to win, not that they were eating up too much clock time/causing tournaments to run long. If someone is playing too slowly, call a judge.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
taconaut
Yes, that was the point of my post. Playing decks that take a long time to win are not slow play or stalling. Those penalties are independent of deck choice. You could slow play or stall with Red Deck Wins, or you could do it with Miracles, or any deck.
Except one of those decks has the strategy built into it and the other will lose if you try it.
Quote:
The poster I was responding to before you objected to those decks taking a long time to win, not that they were eating up too much clock time/causing tournaments to run long. If someone is playing too slowly, call a judge.
I'll take "things that mean the same thing" for 200, Alec.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
The flavor of Miracles locally is on Mentor, and if you think it takes a long time to win once they establish Mentor you've never played against it. It's 2 turns usually, 3 max. The cantrip engine gets absurd, it's storm-like in its ability to execute.
Also, and I may be in the minority, but I've never gone to time against a Miracles player. I'm always either on a slow grindy mess of a tier 5 deck like Nic Fit/Rock, some janky shit, or Turbo Depths. Local Miracles players have been the epitome of sportsmanship, taking a normal amount of time to make decisions and rarely go to time even in the mirrors.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr. Safety
The flavor of Miracles locally is on Mentor, and if you think it takes a long time to win once they establish Mentor you've never played against it. It's 2 turns usually, 3 max. The cantrip engine gets absurd, it's storm-like in its ability to execute.
Also, and I may be in the minority, but I've never gone to time against a Miracles player. I'm always either on a slow grindy mess of a tier 5 deck like Nic Fit/Rock, some janky shit, or Turbo Depths. Local Miracles players have been the epitome of sportsmanship, taking a normal amount of time to make decisions and rarely go to time even in the mirrors.
Lucky. Locally ours were fine for the most part. Regionally though there was a guy known as GSMM (glacially slow miracles man), and every event, every round he was in time. I could be wrong, but I think the was a facebook post on a local group where he basically admitted he would play slowly when he was ahead (keep in mind he was already slow even when behind). I'm glad top is gone just so these types of grinder barnacle turds aren't as attracted to the format
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FourDogsinaHorseSuit
Except one of those decks has the strategy built into it and the other will lose if you try it.
I'll take "things that mean the same thing" for 200, Alec.
They don't mean the same thing.
Slow play has a defined rules meaning - that is, taking too long to make a decision that meaningfully affects the board state. It does not mean, "a deck that requires many turns to win," or even, "a deck that requires one long turn to win."
For example, you could perseverate for several minutes about whether your all-in attack with Sligh is a good idea. That would be slow play, and could elicit a judge call and potentially a penalty if it continues.
By contrast, you could perform several top activations, shuffles, and cantrips each turn trying to find your Entreat the Angels. Even if that takes twenty turns to do and your opponent can't do anything because they're locked out by counterbalance, it's not slow play, because you are making meaningful decisions and each of those decisions takes a reasonable amount of time.
Slow play is strategy-independent, and doesn't depend on whether you're winning or losing - you can slow play when you are losing, too.
For Stalling, it matters if the match clock ending will give you some advantage.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Megadeus
Lucky. Locally ours were fine for the most part. Regionally though there was a guy known as GSMM (glacially slow miracles man), and every event, every round he was in time. I could be wrong, but I think the was a facebook post on a local group where he basically admitted he would play slowly when he was ahead (keep in mind he was already slow even when behind). I'm glad top is gone just so these types of grinder barnacle turds aren't as attracted to the format
I wouldn't hesitate to call a judge, and I've made that clear to slow players before. In one situation during a tournament, I figured out how to weasel g1 playing Rock against Esper Deathblade. I had played against him before, and even with fast decks he was slow. So after g1, I just slooooooowed right down to his pace. I'm happy to take a round 1-0, no problem. It grated the whole time though, and it certainly isn't ideal in anything 6+ rounds. If slow play is the only real worry in the current environment, I'll take it. I don't see any cards worthy of banning (grinder barnacle turds, please don't mention Brainstorm...)
Grinder Barnacle Turd is my new favorite insult.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
taconaut
They don't mean the same thing.
Slow play has a defined rules meaning - that is, taking too long to make a decision that meaningfully affects the board state. It does not mean, "a deck that requires many turns to win," or even, "a deck that requires one long turn to win."
For example, you could perseverate for several minutes about whether your all-in attack with Sligh is a good idea. That would be slow play, and could elicit a judge call and potentially a penalty if it continues.
By contrast, you could perform several top activations, shuffles, and cantrips each turn trying to find your Entreat the Angels. Even if that takes twenty turns to do and your opponent can't do anything because they're locked out by counterbalance, it's not slow play, because you are making meaningful decisions and each of those decisions takes a reasonable amount of time.
Slow play is strategy-independent, and doesn't depend on whether you're winning or losing - you can slow play when you are losing, too.
For Stalling, it matters if the match clock ending will give you some advantage.
Turn on your monitor.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr. Safety
after g1, I just slooooooowed right down to his pace. I'm happy to take a round 1-0, no problem
Congratulations, you just admitted cheating.
Infraction procedure guide (October 2018)
3.3 Tournament Error — Slow Play (Sanction: Warning)
Definition: A player takes longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions. If a judge believes a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, the infraction is Unsporting Conduct — Stalling (Sanction: Disqualification)
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
talpa
Congratulations, you just admitted cheating.
Infraction procedure guide (October 2018)
3.3 Tournament Error — Slow Play (Sanction: Warning)
Definition: A player takes longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions.
If a judge believes a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, the infraction is Unsporting Conduct — Stalling (Sanction: Disqualification)
The bit about winning 1-0 is a clear reference to the clock which actually makes it 4.7 Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Stalling
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
talpa
Congratulations, you just admitted cheating.
Infraction procedure guide (October 2018)
3.3 Tournament Error — Slow Play (Sanction: Warning)
Definition: A player takes longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions.
If a judge believes a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, the infraction is Unsporting Conduct — Stalling (Sanction: Disqualification)
Quote:
{paraphrased}...slowed right down to his pace...
Yes, it was definitely wrong to do so. Even with only 5 minutes left in the round (after g1) I should have made every effort to play at a reasonable, even a fast pace, regardless of what my opponent was doing. I admit fault, no question. After grinding out a 45 minute game (edit: correction, rounds were 50 minutes) that should have been 20 minutes, I was salty. Not an excuse, just a show of human weakness and a spiteful desire for manufactured karma.
It's not quite so clear cut, even in hindsight. When I say I slowed down, it means I wasn't playing with 10-20 seconds of time with each action. I took maybe an extra 10 seconds with each play. I was playing to *not lose* in game 2, with 5 minutes left on the clock, fairly well knowing I would likely take the round 1-0. Did this mean I was playing differently than I would have with 20 minutes left? Yes, I was.
Honestly, this is incredibly informative for me. Here I am thinking my opponent is being a turd for slow play (deliberate slow play) and I didn't even question myself for matching his behavior. As long as I've been playing magic, I've never thought that specific rules of slow play were that detailed. Live and learn, believe it or not I appreciate the feedback and clarification of rules.
EDIT: Just so I'm clear, if my opponent is playing slowly I should 100% call a judge? And not only that, I am responsible for reminding my opponent to play faster? I don't want to do this again, the last thing I want is to pick up bad behavior (cheating.)
EDIT #2:
Quote:
For Stalling, it matters if the match clock ending will give you some advantage.
Got it. I was cheating, pretty clear.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
taconaut
They don't mean the same thing.
Slow play has a defined rules meaning - that is, taking too long to make a decision that meaningfully affects the board state. It does not mean, "a deck that requires many turns to win," or even, "a deck that requires one long turn to win."
For example, you could perseverate for several minutes about whether your all-in attack with Sligh is a good idea. That would be slow play, and could elicit a judge call and potentially a penalty if it continues.
By contrast, you could perform several top activations, shuffles, and cantrips each turn trying to find your Entreat the Angels. Even if that takes twenty turns to do and your opponent can't do anything because they're locked out by counterbalance, it's not slow play, because you are making meaningful decisions and each of those decisions takes a reasonable amount of time.
Slow play is strategy-independent, and doesn't depend on whether you're winning or losing - you can slow play when you are losing, too.
For Stalling, it matters if the match clock ending will give you some advantage.
What about 2 minute Brainstorm resolutions? What about responding to my Tarmogoyf with 2 minutes of postulating and shuffling cards in hand? Not saying I wasn't wrong, I just didn't realize my opponent was actually cheating, and I didn't realize me responding in kind was also cheating.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
I had an experience against a Miracles player a few years back that opened my eyes to calling a Judge.
It was game 3 and so there wasn't much time left anyway, and the guy was playing okay to kinda slow anyways, doing 5-6 shuffles of their deck after every fetch instead of my 3-4, shuffling my deck as well after every fetch instead of cutting. But nothing clear cut egregious enough to snap call a judge. Enough to annoy for sure though. But he's playing to win, took a while to kill me game 1, I turn it around quickly game 2 and so here we are with the 10 minutes left.
After the initial volleys he's on the back foot and I only need a few good draw steps to put him in the downward spiral. Then it begins. An excruciating line of play that involves him looking at the clock, resolving a Ponder, thinking, looking at the clock, thinking, shuffling for Ponder, drawing, thinking, looking at the clock, playing a fetch land, cracking the fetch land, shuffling, looking at the clock, playing another Ponder; on and on it went.
There was no one thing that he did that could be called out in my mind. I suspected he was playing to draw but he did have a few outs that could have turned the game around. But every Ponder was thinking time followed by a shuffle, then somehow another shuffle effect, then SCM into Ponder again. Every shuffle effect was like 40 seconds, but they were long the whole match, so it wasn't anything special now. And I didn't want to be the asshole to tell him to speed up only now that it would mean he'd lose faster. Or blindside him with a Judge call for something he's not doing.
But yeah in hindsight none of that matters. We drew and I was salty the whole day. Maybe still even now. But that's something I'll never let happen again. If I think you're playing the clock, I'll invite some Judges to stand around and watch us.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PirateKing
I had an experience against a Miracles player a few years back that opened my eyes to calling a Judge.
It was game 3 and so there wasn't much time left anyway, and the guy was playing okay to kinda slow anyways, doing 5-6 shuffles of their deck after every fetch instead of my 3-4, shuffling my deck as well after every fetch instead of cutting. But nothing clear cut egregious enough to snap call a judge. Enough to annoy for sure though. But he's playing to win, took a while to kill me game 1, I turn it around quickly game 2 and so here we are with the 10 minutes left.
After the initial volleys he's on the back foot and I only need a few good draw steps to put him in the downward spiral. Then it begins. An excruciating line of play that involves him looking at the clock, resolving a Ponder, thinking, looking at the clock, thinking, shuffling for Ponder, drawing, thinking, looking at the clock, playing a fetch land, cracking the fetch land, shuffling, looking at the clock, playing another Ponder; on and on it went.
There was no one thing that he did that could be called out in my mind. I suspected he was playing to draw but he did have a few outs that could have turned the game around. But every Ponder was thinking time followed by a shuffle, then somehow another shuffle effect, then SCM into Ponder again. Every shuffle effect was like 40 seconds, but they were long the whole match, so it wasn't anything special now. And I didn't want to be the asshole to tell him to speed up only now that it would mean he'd lose faster. Or blindside him with a Judge call for something he's not doing.
But yeah in hindsight none of that matters. We drew and I was salty the whole day. Maybe still even now. But that's something I'll never let happen again. If I think you're playing the clock, I'll invite some Judges to stand around and watch us.
Here’s the thing, though: by calling a judge, you’re not being an asshole, and you’re not even necessarily making an accusation. You’re asking a third party to make that call, and a third party who is habilitated and trained to make that call to boot. Be polite about it, point out you want to make sure because there is little time left on the clock if you have to, but I think people don’t use judges enough for fear of looking bad too much when it comes to slow play.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alfy
Here’s the thing, though: by calling a judge, you’re not being an asshole, and you’re not even necessarily making an accusation. You’re asking a third party to make that call, and a third party who is habilitated and trained to make that call to boot. Be polite about it, point out you want to make sure because there is little time left on the clock if you have to, but I think people don’t use judges enough for fear of looking bad too much when it comes to slow play.
That's exactly it. The auspice that we're all having a good time, then suddenly there's a Judge call, no difference then shouting J'accuse! Ruins any goodwill that might have been.
But that's all hogwash, because the alternative is shady people getting away with shady play.
It was a mistake I made once so I'll never have to make it again.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr. Safety
EDIT: Just so I'm clear, if my opponent is playing slowly I should 100% call a judge? And not only that, I am responsible for reminding my opponent to play faster?
I don’t think there can be circumstances under which you could end in trouble for not having reminded your opponent to pick up the pace, but it’s certainly good form to tell them yourself once before calling a judge. But as I said above, if you have an issue with a player playing too slowly, yes, absolutely, do not hesitate, call a judge. It’s the only proper way to solve the problem if your opponent does not react after you engaged with them once, and judges do take slow play seriously.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PirateKing
That's exactly it. The auspice that we're all having a good time, then suddenly there's a Judge call, no difference then shouting J'accuse! Ruins any goodwill that might have been.
But that's all hogwash, because the alternative is shady people getting away with shady play.
It was a mistake I made once so I'll never have to make it again.
My pro tip. Call a Judge, and tell him you need to talk to them away from the table, bring your hand with you and show it to them as if asking about a tard interaction, while you tell them you want them to watch your opponent for slow play. I once had a judge pull out their phone as if checking oracle while getting clarifying information on why I thought my OP was slowplaying. Then you don't look like an asshole to your opponent if you're worried about that, but at the same time you get youc judge review.
-
Re: All B/R update speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PirateKing
That's exactly it. The auspice that we're all having a good time, then suddenly there's a Judge call, no difference then shouting J'accuse! Ruins any goodwill that might have been.
But that's all hogwash, because the alternative is shady people getting away with shady play.
It was a mistake I made once so I'll never have to make it again.
I completely understand the “goodwill” bit. I haven’t played paper in a while, but when I did, I always put on my “stern face” on before every game, not trying to be an asshole, but much colder than I am socially, more like my professional behavior, and certainly no pre-game banter. I did it on purpose because it made it much more easier when I had to point out mistakes and of course, calling judges (and in reverse, I could just look unphazed when I got a judge called on me for a mistake instead of looking sheepish).
It’s not at all who I am, and it made the games and the interactions less enjoyable. But I found it much easier to say “no” if someone asked me to take a play back if they made a mistake or something like that than if we started with jokes and smiles. Role playing and generally looking cold if not mean was the only way I could manage some of the shady tactics used in competitions.
