Support NeoGAF

[Firemind]

Green gets better card draw than blue and better graveyard recursion than black. Seems fair.

 

[Ashodin]

Green gets better card draw than blue and better graveyard recursion than black. Seems fair.

Green and White are gods right now

Everyone else is strugglin'

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Yeah but it already had that in seasons past. And historically since Eternal Witness.

 

[Ashodin]

GB there's an EMN.xml for cockatrice out YESSSSS

 

[Crocodile]

I'd assume you'd aggressively mulligan for Languish against MWH

INteresting artwork on wizard's eldritch moon site for cards we don't have yet

I'm not convinced these are arts for new cards. They look like photoshops of the original rather than new compositions that reference the past. Like compare them to that Grapple with Past card. The reference to "Make a Wish" is clear but its also clear the new card is new artwork, not reconfigured old artwork.

 

["God's Beard!"]

Tezzerator off the top of my head seems like a decent starting point for Whispers of Emrakul. Lots of card types and you could even play bitterblossom with sword of the meek alongside Thopter Foundry.

GB there's an EMN.xml for cockatrice out YESSSSS

Why, when there are so few cards spoiled?

 

[Firemind]

Yeah but it already had that in seasons past. And historically since Eternal Witness.

This post makes me feel old.

 

[Crocodile]

Yeah but it already had that in seasons past. And historically since Eternal Witness.

I mean Eternal Witness is an awesome card but its also clearly overpowered. I still don't know how in all this time we still don't have a straight up awesome Gravedigger in Black. Both White and Green return creatures from the graveyard at higher power levels even if its less frequently. It's annoying - Black is supposed to be the best at this no?

 

[El Topo]

Yeah but it already had that in seasons past. And historically since Eternal Witness.

Regrowth.

 

[Ashodin]

[QUOTE="God's Beard!";208791954]Tezzerator off the top of my head seems like a decent starting point for Whispers of Emrakul. Lots of card types and you could even play bitterblossom with sword of the meek alongside Thopter Foundry.



Why, when there are so few cards spoiled?[/QUOTE]

Testing never stops

 

[Angry Grimace]

Everyone seems to love Bant but it's not my preferred strategy. Two Bant Charms though!

I lost immediately anyways. My opponent was playing 4 color "nothing but removal." He had Jund Charm, 3 Magma Sprays, the -2/-2 sorcery, Naya Battlemage, Esper Battlemage, the pinger unearth guy, several others. Just couldn't push through when I could never get any attacks in.

I guess I don't get why these drafts are single elimination (well other than $$$$). It's fun to try them out but I almost always get scrubbed out by someone who understands the various formats better than I do.

 

[Simply Sarah]

I mean Eternal Witness is an awesome card but its also clearly overpowered. I still don't know how in all this time we still don't have a straight up awesome Gravedigger in Black. Both White and Green return creatures from the graveyard at higher power levels even if its less frequently. It's annoying - Black is supposed to be the best at this no?

Green has always returned stuff from the graveyard to your hand and has always been the best at it. Black's strength with pulling from the graveyard is it's the best at putting stuff (well, creatures) from there into play.

 

[Maledict]

So, just going to put this out there.

I don't like the direction they have taken with the Eldrazi, and particularly Emrakul in this set. It's *way* too close to Phyrexia in terms of effect, and seems to be further and further away from the "Lovecraftian" horror that was first talked about. I think it's going to be hard for them to differentiate what how Phyrexia is different to Emrakul thematically or mechanically when we next return to them - heck, we've already had a "corruption" set with the same themes as this with Phyrexia.

 

[kirblar]

So, just going to put this out there.

I don't like the direction they have taken with the Eldrazi, and particularly Emrakul in this set. It's *way* too close to Phyrexia in terms of effect, and seems to be further and further away from the "Lovecraftian" horror that was first talked about. I think it's going to be hard for them to differentiate what how Phyrexia is different to Emrakul thematically or mechanically when we next return to them - heck, we've already had a "corruption" set with the same themes as this with Phyrexia.

This was a huge problem with the black/green stuff in BFZ block - get sick, die, come back evil is the Phyrexian shtick.

 

[Ashodin]

Emrakul does something similar, but Emrakul is more about turning things into weird shapes and nothing as a reflection of itself.

Phyrexian Compleatness is grafting metal and making you stronger than you were (we have the technology)

 

[Maledict]

Emrakul does something similar, but Emrakul is more about turning things into weird shapes and nothing as a reflection of itself.

Phyrexian Compleatness is grafting metal and making you stronger than you were (we have the technology)

Mechanically and in card form its the same though - we get new versions refencing old cards, with new and (often better) effects.

I agree there is a difference, but that difference has really narrowed and doing another "everything you knew corrupted" is definitely treading on phyrexia territory (given we've already had a phyrexia corruption set with the same themes).

I know I've complained about this before, with the Ingest mechanic being way too Phyrexian and not Eldrazi, but it just seems even more pronounced now.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I mean, the phyrexians are the Borg

 

[Ashodin]

I mean, the phyrexians are the Borg

Your biological and technological distinctiveness will become our own.

You will be made to service us.

 

[explodet]

I was going to compare it to the Lorwyn/Shadowmoor block, where you get Daytime/Nighttime versions of cards.
But that block I went into hard and I kinda fell off both before and after that.

These guys just love to dichotomize.

 

[El Topo]

I mean, the phyrexians are the Borg

The Borg on Star Trek: Voyager.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Everytime I see Esper Charm I'm reminded of Cedric Phillips being an asshole.

 

[Ashodin]

Everytime I see Esper Charm I'm reminded of Cedric Phillips being an asshole.

Explain

Thalia, Heretic Cathar is the real deal. Testing is going well.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Explain

A guy said "Esper Charm targeting myself," so Cedric calls a judge and forces him to discard two cards, and then writes an SCG article about how smart he is for doing it.

If you attempt to enforce the rules in a way that involves seriously considering whether your opponent might be justified in waiting for you in the parking lot, you should reconsider whether you want to do it.

 

[Ashodin]

A guy said "Esper Charm targeting myself," so Cedric calls a judge and forces him to discard two cards, and then writes an SCG article about how smart he is for doing it.

If you attempt to enforce the rules in a way that involves validly considering whether your opponent might be justified in waiting for you in the parking lot, you should reconsider whether you want to do it.

Okay I laughed

Yeah so he forced the clarification that if he was targeting himself, he was using the third mode (since it's the only mode that references targeting a player?) instead of drawing two cards?

Yeah it's a pretty dick move.

 

[divisionbyzorro]

A guy said "Esper Charm targeting myself," so Cedric calls a judge and forces him to discard two cards, and then writes an SCG article about how smart he is for doing it.

If you attempt to enforce the rules in a way that involves validly considering whether your opponent might be justified in waiting for you in the parking lot, you should reconsider whether you want to do it.

Correction: he wrote an SCG article defending himself from people attacking him for not allowing his opponent to take back an unforced error. He did absolutely nothing wrong (in that particular situation).

 

[Angry Grimace]

Okay I laughed

Yeah so he forced the clarification that if he was targeting himself, he was using the third mode (since it's the only mode that references targeting a player?) instead of drawing two cards?

Yeah it's a pretty dick move.

I will freely admit I'm a lot more paranoid about fucking with people I don't know than some people. You can't know how someone will react if you don't know them.

 

[OnPoint]

To quote Cedric in an article on SCG explaining it:

It is round 4 of the Midwest Master Series in Columbus Ohio. I am 3-0 playing Turboland against a gentleman playing some type of Esper Control deck. I am up a game and the following play occurs:

Him: End of your turn Esper Charm targeting me.
Me: [brief pause] Esper Charm targeting you?
Him: Yes. Esper Charm targeting me.
Me: You're targeting yourself?
Him: Yes. I am targeting myself.
Me: Judge!

A judge comes over.

Me: My opponent said Esper Charm targeting himself. Do you agree with that?
Him: Yes. I said Esper Charm targeting myself.
Judge: Okay.

Opponent goes to draw two cards.

Me: You have to discard two cards. The only mode on Esper Charm that targets a player is “discard two cards.”
Him: [confused look].
Judge: This is correct. The only part of Esper Charm that targets is the discard portion.

Opponent discards a land and Martial Coup. The game ends a few turns later.

I've asked opinions on this play from quite a few people and it came up on both GGSLive my Facebook and the coverage of the StarCityGames.com Legacy Open in St. Louis this past weekend. Some have said it's perfectly acceptable. Others have said it's a scumbag maneuver. What is your opinion?

To those who say it is a scumbag maneuver I'd love to hear your rationale why. Every person who I have heard say that it is a scumbag maneuver normally follows it up with "I don't like to win games that way."

What does that... even... mean?

You don't like winning games by playing by the rules? Nothing I did was illegal. I actually confirmed with my opponent that this was his play numerous times and even called a judge over before I let the spell resolve. What more do you want me to do without saying "don't choose that mode”…?

To those who say "I don't want to win the game that way" how exactly do you want to win the game? Do you point out every may effect that your opponent controls to make sure he/she doesn't miss them? Do you let your opponent take free mulligans during a match? People say they want to play an honest game but that simply isn't true. No one feels sorry for the other person when they mulligan to five during a match. Those that say they do are lying to themselves and to the person across the table from them.

 

[Hero]

Somehow I missed that story about Cedric. He really did that? What a scumbag.

 

[duxstar]

Explain

Thalia, Heretic Cathar is the real deal. Testing is going well.

I haven't seen you online =[,

I keep trying to think of a way to break the new green natural order, and I can't really think of a way thats super impressive, theres no real 3 to 5 jump that just screems amazing, and there's no real 5 to 7 jump that's screaming "busted" to me, at least not in standard. Same thing with "craterhoof eldrazi" There's no immediate idea's that are screaming out to me to get the cost down enough to make it playable.

Although At quick thought I would imagine this makes Den Protector/Deathmist raptor looping more plausible for a little bit till dragons rotates out.

I mean i guess this allows me to more easily put in a Reality Smasher/Linvala package into a g/w shell, and maybe pushes people away from tokens. As it is now, none of the tokens help with the the emerge mechanic.

Don't know, maybe I'm just getting worse at deckbuilding

 

[Ashodin]

I mean I get it, it's Competitive REL. If you can rules lawyer someone to win some people will do it.

I haven't seen you online =[,

I'll be online after I finish my legendrule video.

Which reminds me. Today's card is based off of Maalfeld Twins:

-> http://i.imgur.com/LXYJSuu.png

Not posting it in the thread as an image because it's a fake.

 

[divisionbyzorro]

When you play Comp. Rel, you're responsible for knowing what your own damn cards do.

If his opponent said "I cast Esper Charm" and Cedric responded with something like "targeting who?" you might have a case for "scumbag." But he's not obligated to give his opponent takebacks. Give me a break.

 

[OnPoint]

Here's why I agree with him:

You don't like winning games by playing by the rules? Nothing I did was illegal. I actually confirmed with my opponent that this was his play numerous times and even called a judge over before I let the spell resolve. What more do you want me to do without saying "don't choose that mode”…?

Always stop to pause and double check what you're doing if you're in this type of situation.

 

[kirblar]

When you play Comp. Rel, you're responsible for knowing what your own damn cards do.

If his opponent said "I cast Esper Charm" and Cedric responded with something like "targeting who?" you might have a case for "scumbag." But he's not obligated to give his opponent takebacks. Give me a break.

If it was just this, it'd be w/e, but he's got a laundry list of shittiness.

 

[Angry Grimace]

The argument I always hear in favor of Rules Lawyering is that "it's competitive!" even though there are lots of competitive tournaments in lots of areas and rules lawyering is looked down upon in almost almost all of them. You can't even "rules lawyer" in court most of the time without getting sanctioned. The George Brett incident is an incident for a reason.

The only reason why poor sportsmanship is tolerated in Magic tournaments is because its a niche game where there's not enough eyeballs on the product to stop people from doing morally grey things.

 

[OnPoint]

I mean I agree with Cedric but I guess I'm not that cutthroat in real life. I once was playing in a Modern event.

Game 3 begins -- I have Leyline of Sanctity in my opening hand, it goes onto the battlefield. I announce this and my opponent picks it up to read it.

Turn 2, my board is two lands, his is one land, nothing else in play. My opponent plays a Mountain, taps it, and attempts to Lightning Bolt me.

I actually explained to him that he would have to target himself given the board state since the Leyline prevents him targeting me and that there were no other legal targets, then I suggested he just untap his land and put the card back in his hand.

He shrugged and said, guess I'm targeting myself then. I won with a turn 4 Emrakul.

 

[Daedardus]

It was still pretty clear what the opponent was trying to do. The way he kept asking and referring to it in a 'you sure you target, like really sure, let me call a judge and repeat that but I will never mention that it means you didn't chose the mode that we both knew you were trying to do'. It's perfectly legal, but it's still a shit move. It's like businesses making use of weird tax exemptions. It's not legally evading taxes, but that doesn't mean it's perfectly fine to do.

 

[Ashodin]

Some people won't do take backs in Competitive REL. If they screw up, they own it.

I tend to do that as well.

 

[divisionbyzorro]

I mean I agree with Cedric but I guess I'm not that cutthroat in real life. I once was playing in a Modern event.

Game 3 begins -- I have Leyline of Sanctity in my opening hand, it goes onto the battlefield. I announce this and my opponent picks it up to read it.

Turn 2, my board is two lands, his is one land, nothing else in play. My opponent plays a Mountain, taps it, and attempts to Lightning Bolt me.

I actually explained to him that he would have to target himself given the board state since the Leyline prevents him targeting me and that there were no other legal targets, then I suggested he just untap his land and put the card back in his hand.

He shrugged and said, guess I'm targeting myself then. I won with a turn 4 Emrakul.

This is different though. He's trying to do something he's not allowed to do. If you called a judge, he'd get a warning, untap his land, and put the Lightning Bolt back in hand.

In the Esper Charm scenario, the opponent isn't trying to do anything illegal - he's just making a mechanical error. And Cedric is right about one thing here - once you start going down the road of correcting your opponent's mistakes, where do you stop?

 

[Angry Grimace]

This is different though. He's trying to do something he's not allowed to do. If you called a judge, he'd get a warning, untap his land, and put the Lightning Bolt back in hand.

In the Esper Charm scenario, the opponent isn't trying to do anything illegal - he's just making a mechanical error. And Cedric is right about one thing here - once you start going down the road of correcting your opponent's mistakes, where do you stop?

Actually, OnPoint would have gotten at least a warning, possibly a DQ depending on whether the judge thought he was trying to cheat because picking a target is a part of putting Lightning Bolt on the stack. If you attempt to do something illegal, the spell won't go on the stack. You can't be forced to Lightning Bolt something you didn't want to, and most judges I know would be pretty leery of a story where one player tried to convince the other guy to bolt himself.

 

[Infinite Stars]

What happened(according to Cedric, so grain of salt) is his opponent went "Esper Charm targeting me", Cedric checked "Targetting you?", Opponent confirmed, Cedric passed priority, opponent went to draw and a judge was called.

It's a completely fair reaction considering what the card says. I mean, it's a bit of a dick move, but no more dickish then any other "Card is worded in an initiative way".

Like, a guy at my LGS runs 8Rack, and his copies of The Rack say Target Opponent, so Game 2/3 I brought in Leyline of Sanctity. Turns out the Oracle text is Choose, not target, which means my Leyline was useless. Was my opponent a dick because of it? No, not really, I should have asked a judge before I played the Leyline.

 

[SigmasonicX]

Granted, the opponent probably should have noticed something was up when Cedric kept asking him to confirm, but it was a case where the intention was obvious to anyone.

Still, there's a reason why charms made after that point don't seem to allow for mix-ups like that.

 

[Keru_Shiri]

I don't know, I can see Cedric's logic, and I agree the onus should be on the player to know how their cards work and not let slide sloppy play/wording during a competitive REL event, but this...

To those who say "I don't want to win the game that way" how exactly do you want to win the game? Do you point out every may effect that your opponent controls to make sure he/she doesn't miss them? Do you let your opponent take free mulligans during a match? People say they want to play an honest game but that simply isn't true. No one feels sorry for the other person when they mulligan to five during a match. Those that say they do are lying to themselves and to the person across the table from them.

seems a bit disingenuous. A person who "doesn't want to win the game that way" is clearly arguing for a preference to win the game on strategic choices of gameplay instead of exploiting a semantic error, which I don't think is an unreasonable attitude to take. I guess my stance is, I agree with Cedric, but I still wouldn't feel good about winning that way.

 

[Ashodin]

Oh god, my RW Equipment deck is a mess. All the new cards are fuckin' up my mojo fam

 

[divisionbyzorro]

Actually, OnPoint would have gotten at least a warning, possibly a DQ depending on whether the judge thought he was trying to cheat because picking a target is a part of putting Lightning Bolt on the stack. If you attempt to do something illegal, the spell won't go on the stack. You can't be forced to Lightning Bolt something you didn't want to, and most judges I know would be pretty leery of a story where one player tried to convince the other guy to bolt himself.

I was referring to what would have happened if OnPoint raised his hand and called for a judge in response to his opponent trying to Bolt him instead of (errantly) trying to fix the problem himself.

I actually think people should call judges way more often than they do. It's one of the reasons I'm on Cedric's side of the Esper Charm incident. He asked the opponent to repeat himself, recognized that the current situation was weird, and called a judge. Everything played out according to the rules. If his account is accurate (and at this point nobody has any account to the contrary), the situation resolved exactly as it was supposed to.

 

[El Topo]

I don't know. Deliberately using poor semantics/phrasing of your opponent to win is legitimate, but it leaves a bad taste. Imagine if you called a judge every time your opponent did not shuffle sufficiently (mathematically).

 

[Angry Grimace]

I was referring to what would have happened if OnPoint raised his hand and called for a judge in response to his opponent trying to Bolt him instead of (errantly) trying to fix the problem himself.

I actually think people should call judges way more often than they do. It's one of the reasons I'm on Cedric's side of the Esper Charm incident. He asked the opponent to repeat himself, recognized that the current situation was weird, and called a judge. Everything played out according to the rules. If his account is accurate (and at this point nobody has any account to the contrary), the situation resolved exactly as it was supposed to.

I mean, this entire discussion is kind of the same thing as Bob Huang's Borborygmos fiasco.

I think its wrong morally and I don't think it should be right within the rules. The point of the game is strategic choices. The umpire were within the rules to call George Brett out for his pine tar being above some arbitrary line on the bat (despite having nothing to do with his home run), or to call someone out for not running in the chalked base-line, but that doesn't typically happen in practice because its considered poor sportsmanship to rules lawyer. Yet it happens all of the time in Magic. Why? Why is "doing anything to win" considered okay in Magic, but not in other competitive sports? I'd posit that its because Magic is because its a niche product without a lot of eyeballs on it and therefore the players believe they can get away with it. Which to me, is gross.

It's a hard enough game as it is to screw over someone attempting to make an obviously valid play based on an errant slip of the tongue when everyone involved knew what was supposed to be happening.

 

[OnPoint]

Actually, OnPoint would have gotten at least a warning, possibly a DQ depending on whether the judge thought he was trying to cheat because picking a target is a part of putting Lightning Bolt on the stack. If you attempt to do something illegal, the spell won't go on the stack. You can't be forced to Lightning Bolt something you didn't want to, and most judges I know would be pretty leery of a story where one player tried to convince the other guy to bolt himself.

Lmao I told him I'm not a legal target and to take it back! He chose to bolt himself! That was his doing haha

 

[Daedardus]

I think winning should be about being the best player, not about exploiting fringe situations. If an opponent really fucked up, or tries to deliberately trick you, that's when you call a judge. Sometimes, people want to win so badly that winning is all that matters to them, forgetting winning is actually about showing off how good you are at the game.

 

[Keru_Shiri]

As a side note, aren't you supposed to declare which mode you are using for a modular spell before announcing any targets?

 

[Toxi]

Mechanically and in card form its the same though - we get new versions refencing old cards, with new and (often better) effects.

Uh, there's a pretty big difference mechanically between Transform cards and anything in Scars of Mirrodin.