I still don't understand how this is worse than Painter dropping a Moon turn one.
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
Originally Posted by Spam
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
- On the play, decks can fetch around it. One basic is often the difference between Blood Moon being game-winning and a totally dead card. If you know you're playing vs a Painter deck, you immediately have a higher win %. The card gets worse g2/g3. Whereas most decks can't fetch or mull past Chalice and it still has to be answered g2/g3.
- T1 Blood Moon requires a 3 card combo with built in card disadvantage, so you can FoW it without falling behind.
- Even if it resolves, the Painter deck takes a while to set up its combo and applies practically no pressure. Whereas the Eldrazi deck is nothing but sphere effects and reliable clocks.
But this is how it already is for a lot of decks.
Play Delver? Shit, matched against Lands/D&T/Super-Midrange-Deck
Play Burn? Shit, matched against Reanimator/SneakShow
Play Junk? Shit, matched against Storm/Miracles
Play Sneakshow? Shit, matched against D&T/Delver
The only thing added here was a deck that is bad against midrange and good against Delver/Storm/Miracles. It's not good against "All Blue." It's bad against Lands, Shardless, and D&T. See how it nestles right in there?
You're just claiming that this wasn't already a thing; which it was, as pointed out above.
What if your playing Shardless and don't have any Basics? Honest question since we are looking at Chalice as the end of the world for decks, might as well have a parallel.
You can run and aggressive chain in Painter. Last week I locked out someone and then chained Recruiters into a Jaya. Once the moon is down, how you kill is often not relevant.
Once the lock is down you can sometimes lose yes, but that's the same for any deck. Bug could Wasteland an Eldrazi player, drop a Goyf and win. I don't see how it's any different here.
I just don't see it personally. I don't see the reason for the hate on this one deck other than its good enough to be played. If a deck being good enough to be played is the benchmark for hate these days... well, nothing really has changed has it?
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
If it's popular enough to make running brainstorm deck a bad idea, I still don't understand how brainstorm deck is still the objectively correct deck.
I never said it was never a thing. It's always somewhat of a thing in every format. And it's now more of a thing. It's bad for spikes and good for everyone else. Not everyone or even the majority of people are spikes, and I accept that. From a purely utilitarian POV, this wrench in the format might make more legacy players happy. Totally possible.
I don't personally like it. I think more spikes will begin to growl over time, just like they are right now in vintage. Maybe the format isn't ultimately for them, just like vintage isn't.
Then you go home and say to yourself 'Maybe I should find room for 2 basics in this deck'.
It's not popular enough to make running Brainstorm bad. Brainstorm remains the best card in legacy and '4 Brainstorm' remains the safest way to start any decklist. It just provides a landmine that those Brainstorm players are going to step on once in a while.
"Maybe I should find room for artifact removal in this deck. "
I think we agree on something, build around your bad matches and make them stronger. Not a bad idea.
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
Maybe they can print a dual land that can be fetched by a fetchland and has a shatter effect when it ETBs. (For the record - as a DnT player I am...against this.)
Otherwise your game 1 shatter is gonna be stuck somewhere in your deck and your 20 cantrips won't be much help in finding it.
You act like Chalice is this all powerful item that is always in the opening hand and you always have one of the 7/8 the lands you need to cast it. This is Eldrazi, not Vintage Dredge where you run 4 of a card that on its own wins you the game and 4 copies of "Help me find my win card."
It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
I agree, it's not nearly as consistent as vintage decks. It doesn't always have t1 lock piece, t2 TKS. But those hands aren't *that* rare either. That's why it's a t1 deck but not 'clearly the best deck'.
In fact it's probably a deck that top players are going to underplay relative to its raw power because it doesn't give you much room to leverage your skill compared to something like Miracles.
A lot of us are very fine with and have been wanting this to be the case for a long time. If you don't like eldrazi, then after next week #GoPlayModern
So...
Faced with a difficult meta-game decision spikes should... Throw their hands in the air and just play whatever was good this time last year? That's not how it works!
People are already meta-gaming! Cantrip decks have dropped off in number, and those that remain are leaning towards (non-storm) combo or BUG builds that can MD Decays.
Clearly you care a lot about the importance of skill in MTG games. But it's equally obvious that you don't want meta-gaming to also demand skill!
Pros like Standard because they do not like meta-gaming. Standard is often in a spot where there is definitively a single best deck - a deck which is favoured over every other established deck in the format. That way they can get a big edge against everyone who (presumably for budget or "fun" reasons) is playing something different.
And this edge is achievable without using any brainpower - just play what's well known to be the best deck! Real meta-gaming takes real skill - especially at the local level. The Internet can save you from needing deck building skills, but it can't meta-gaming for you when there is no best deck.
- The "long run" is longer than you think! Don't look at individual matches - look at your performance over multiple tournaments. Like poker, there is more variance in bigger tournaments. If you only play WSOP size events, you might never win even if you are the best player there! But if you play smaller games, you should see results much sooner. Similarly in Legacy, if you play 8-20 person weeklies you should place more than average (over the course of, say, a year) if you are above averagely skilled (where in bigger events it will take much longer for your results to reflect your skill).
- This is where meta-gaming comes in! If you are better than the average player at meta-gaming, you should be getting the short end of the stick less than half the time (in the long run). That's called skill paying off.
Yes, this is a swingy situation. But again with superior meta-gaming you should get an advantage from this in the long term.
Also this is inevitable in a format as diverse as Legacy with different decks attacking the game from such varying angles. Either every deck is going to have its poor MUs, or we end up with a format where there is a clear best deck (or a deck which is ~50/50 vs everythng) and people with zero meta-gaming skills can still do very well.
The other option is a format like Standard where decks tend to all have similar strategies. This might help reduce the "non-games", but it also drastically reduces the range of skills one needs to be a good player.
You are attacking the peop!e instead of addressing their arguments. There is an expression for that!
The fact is Variance allows for risk-analysis, which is arguably the most strategy intensive activity that exists (and they key element in decision theory). Chess itself is only good because it's vast and incalculable nature simulates variance.
TLDR:
- If you don't like meta-gaming, Legacy is not the format for you! Bad MUs and rock/paper/scissors has always been a part of classic formats. You can't blame this on a tier one Stompy deck (nor on a tier seven all-in combo deck).
- If you don't like Variance, MTG is not the game for you period!
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
Come on, again with these banal 'America love it or leave it' statements.
I prefer magic with less meta-gaming and less variance. Other people prefer magic with more meta-gaming and more variance. Eldrazi pushes the format in more in those directions and that's why I dislike it. This is ultimately a question of preference and what you personally want the format to look like, there's no 'right answer'.
'Talking about Mark Rosewater'.
I'm not disputing your petsonal preference! I'm disputing your claim that variance reduces strategy.
And Bobby Fischer. You were presented with arguments from both of them. You dismissed those arguments not based on their content, but based on alleged character flaws.
That's weak.
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
Again. This is what I don't get. If you feel that Card A (in this case Brainstorm) falls into a common enough landmine, why continue playing Card A, let alone thinking Card A is the best. Was Card A the best prior to said landmine? Sure. Is it the best now? Probably not due to said landmine. I feel you're using "safest" interchangeably with "previously accepted wisdom" or something like that. Eldrazi deck becoming popular just means we have to revaluate "safest" and "previously accepted wisdom," and I would not be surprised if some 2cmc draw engine is considered to be the best instead of Card A now.
Sure, 'what am I gonna show up with' is an element of strategy, and it's just not one that I personally find particularly interesting or deep compared to in-game strategy.
His 'character flaws' at this point where he was claiming chess wasn't a good game anymore were a little more than alleged, he was genuinely a lunatic. It's the equivalent of citing something Reagan babbled after he went senile in a political debate.
I...would be surprised. There's not even a 2 mana Brainstorm effect fwiw. Time to break out the Dream Caches?
Or that there no "best" card (Brainstorm) or "best" shell (Cantrip Cartel) anymore?
Crimhead is correct. Your position against the merits of what Bobby Fisher and Mark Rosewater said are ad hominem attacks. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html
Pointing out "character flaws", no matter the details does not advance your position in any way whatsoever.
OK. Fine. But what I initially said, pages ago, is that the entrance of Eldrazi is good for Legacy, which it is because it diminishes the prevalence of those cards that decrease variance. I backed it up with considered and studied matching opinions from some pretty knowledgeable people. You attempted to refute this with what I am telling you is a logical fallacy, and I provided another link to prove it. So, it really is time for you to concede this point: variance is an integral part of the game, and messing with it is bad.
You can prefer what you like, but it is irrelevant to this discussion.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason."
"Governing is too important to be left to people as silly as politicians."
"Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals and ethics to stay lawyers."
Okay if we want to talk like first year philosophy majors:
Your position that Bobby Fisher's opinion on whether chess is a well-designed game matters more than anyone else's is an appeal to authority. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html.
However, it is also a not particularly good at even being an appeal-to-authority, because he was certifiably crazy at the time and not a credible authority figure. Some better options for your appeal-to-authority would be 'every other good chess player ever', most of whom believe chess is in fact a *good* and skill-dependent game and are not currently jamming games of Fischerrandom with each other.
The single biggest shift in magic's variance, perhaps ever* happened very recently. It did not have anything to do with Eye of Ugin.
*Or at least 'after the core rules of competitive magic, 60 card decks, mulligan etc. had been developed'
The new scry rule was created for *no reason* other than to significantly lower the variance in the game. Across formats. Over time it will be a massive transfer of expected win % from worse players to better players. The rich get richer. If you are against messing with variance in the game, you should obviously be furious with this new rule change. After all, variance is an integral part of the game and messing with it is bad.
I agree that the new mulligan rule is variance reducing. I do not agree that it will represent a "massive" transfer in win % along skill lines. It will result in a small transfer, arguably a negligibly small one.
More to the point, though, Chalice decks (particularly Sol Land Chalice decks) do have highly polarized draws and generally have to mulligan aggressively to hands that let them operate on the high side of their draw-strength distribution. This isn't the same as increasing variance if done by a skilled player, however. It only takes a modest degree of familiarity with the deck to recognize that a 5 card hand that curves Mimic into Thought-Knot (or even Matter Reshaper) is superior to sevens with turn 1 Chalice but no threats, or no acceleration with a conventionally interactive hand of creatures and removal. The deck can generate powerful starts quite consistently if the pilot is willing to mulligan appropriately.
But of course your issue is that other decks are subject to additional variance when Stompy strategies become a major component of the metagame, as their cantrips don't allow them to smooth their draws in a now non-trivial portion of their matchups. Metagaming and deckbuilding are important parts of the competitive game, even if they aren't the ones you enjoy the most, and perhaps this isn't the time to be streamlining a mana curve and cutting business for cantrips. There are myriad ways of reducing variance in Legacy - repeatable filtering effects like Sylvan Library, raw card draw from Painful Truths or Dark Confidant, tutors like Green Sun's Zenith, Stoneforge Mystic, and Knight of the Reliquary, and engines like Life from the Loam all work to reduce variance and are hardly impeded by Chalice at all. Another option for mitigating variance is to simply increase the density of lands and business spells - specifically generically good, catch-all answers like Council's Judgement and Abrupt Decay - rather than relying on cheap filtering to find a one-of. None of these are bad options or in any way anti-competitive. Nothing is going to drive Brainstorm out of the format, but maybe Ponder's time as a ubiquitous auto 4-of is over.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
