Magic Arcana / Card of the Day / Daily Deck for August, 2013

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of magicthegathering.com's Magic Arcana, Card of the Day, and Daily Decks features for the month of August, 2013.
Is it me, or are like 90% of the decks LSV features at least part blue? Do you think maybe we could have a couple of attack decks once in a while (and less editorializing about "OMG I love counterspells" every week)?
I dont like blue, but for me this feels way better than the ''omg I am sam black, look which other deck I build MYSELF'' every week..
Is it me, or are like 90% of the decks LSV features at least part blue? Do you think maybe we could have a couple of attack decks once in a while (and less editorializing about "OMG I love counterspells" every week)?

It is just you.  Out of the seventeen decklists LSV has posted, only nine of them have even contained blue.  Of those nine a full third don't even run a single counterspell in their main.

I find this type of criticism to be incredibly lazy and pointless.  Besides the blantant falsehoods it also treads on the tired persecution complex some players have with pro players and blue cards.

The decks LSV has curated for us are all interesting and much more highly varied than normal.  I've enjoyed his run much more than many other authors and I hope the remainder of his run has the same high quality.   
Unless someone dresses up in a 20ft Nicol Bolas costume, Ajani wins. Everyone else looks spot on, but playing human can't be an 8ft cat.
Ask Wizards continues to be an absolute joke. Just dump it and point people towards the tumblrs of Maro, Tabak and Beyer. 
Proud member of C.A.R.D. - Campaign Against Rare Duals "...but the time has come when lands just need to be better. Creatures have gotten stronger, spells have always been insane, and lands just sat in this awkward place of necessity." Jacob Van Lunen on the refuge duals, 16 Sep 2009. "While it made thematic sense to separate enemy and allied color fixing in the past, we have come around to the definite conclusion that it is just plain incorrect from a game-play perspective. This is one of these situations where game play should just trump flavor." - Sam Stoddard on ending the separation of allied/enemy dual lands. 05 July 2013
It saddens me that no original characters were shown. I guess it's the Johnny in me saying this, but I like magici n presenting your own ideas, your own stories, your own planeswalkers. I've built decks based around characters I have played in other games. I hope wizards picks a really cool original costume for one of the winners.
White Samurai needs better clues. You're left with 3 options and I was thinking Konda the whole time.
Regarding the 8/08/2013 Daily Deck: Apostle Hustle (www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.a...),
I've been working on a similar deck.  demon of death's gate was a great find.
I'd suggest dark supplicant  and his pal scion of darkness.

Balthor the Defiled is a good commander for shadowborn apostle 
Royal Assassin
Fade from Memory
Stolen Identity
Supreme Verdict
Cruel Ultimatum

Looks like the theme this week for CotD is the Bourne trilogy.
Wow, I really love that Life Loss deck. Very innovative.

PORTRAIT OF A PLANESWALKER – Coming October 13th, 2013

IMAGE(http://sprites.pokecheck.org/i/385.gif)

Looks like we have a Game of Thrones Card of the Day theme this week.

How can Death's Shadow be a 20/20?  It's a 13/13 that gets -X/-X for each life point you have.  Going negative doesn't matter, it's always at most a 13/13. 


How can Death's Shadow be a 20/20?  It's a 13/13 that gets -X/-X for each life point you have.  Going negative doesn't matter, it's always at most a 13/13. 



The rules section of Gatherer disagrees.  Apparently Magic sticks to the math rule that a double negative is a positive.

If you're on MTGO check out the Free Events via PDCMagic and Gatherling.

Other games you should try:
DC Universe Online - action-based MMO.  Free to play.  Surprisingly well-designed combat and classes.

Planetside 2 - Free to play MMO-meets-FPS and the first shooter I've liked in ages.
Simunomics - Free-to-play economy simulation game.


How can Death's Shadow be a 20/20?  It's a 13/13 that gets -X/-X for each life point you have.  Going negative doesn't matter, it's always at most a 13/13. 



The rules section of Gatherer disagrees.  Apparently Magic sticks to the math rule that a double negative is a positive.



Thanks for explaining this.  I'll take your word for it.

I believe the language of the card is flawed, but it's a moot point if that's the way the rules interprets it. 
I see nothing wrong with the wording on the card. "Death's Shadow gets -X/-X, where X is your life total." 13 - (-7) = 20.
Curious.  And I know that im wrong... as LSV knows whats hes talking about...  but, shouldn't you die through paying the life for plunge or spoils?  I know you said that Angels grace will protect you...  but that only stops damage from reducing your life total.  Paying life or losing life should still cause you to lose the life right?  Its not damage.  of course...  with the current rules changes every few months I quit trying to keep up...


Never mind...  angels grace "you cant lose this turn"     was overlooking that.  
Just because it gets -X/-X for having a positive life total doesn't mean it should get +X/+X for having a negative life total.  Yes, I know that's how math works.  However, I read the card to mean that 13/13 is static and this number can be decreased by the value of your positive life total....13/13 expresses the height of the card and it can go down but not up.  It doesn't matter because apparently my interpretation is wrong, and I'm not offended by that, but that's how I read it initially.  I get it, but I don't like it
Certainly an interesting deck... was my thought when Jake van Lunen shared the deck with us on this site last Thursday. There must be more than one new deck idea in the world to write about, right? Nothing on LSV, but perhaps a little stricter editing for dailyMTG?...
Just because it gets -X/-X for having a positive life total doesn't mean it should get +X/+X for having a negative life total.  Yes, I know that's how math works.  However, I read the card to mean that 13/13 is static and this number can be decreased by the value of your positive life total....13/13 expresses the height of the card and it can go down but not up.  It doesn't matter because apparently my interpretation is wrong, and I'm not offended by that, but that's how I read it initially.  I get it, but I don't like it

I think we'd have to agree that it's a less-Vorthos card this way.  But the rules work better with literal interpretations over conceptual ones.  And certainly a negative life total isn't the kind of situation the card was made for.  But unusal interactions are part of Magic's appeal.

Certainly an interesting deck... was my thought when Jake van Lunen shared the deck with us on this site last Thursday. There must be more than one new deck idea in the world to write about, right? Nothing on LSV, but perhaps a little stricter editing for dailyMTG?...

Considering that many Monday decks are explicitly showing off the winning deck from that weekend's big tournament, which is also linked in several other places, I don't think uniqueness is that big of a priority.

If you're on MTGO check out the Free Events via PDCMagic and Gatherling.

Other games you should try:
DC Universe Online - action-based MMO.  Free to play.  Surprisingly well-designed combat and classes.

Planetside 2 - Free to play MMO-meets-FPS and the first shooter I've liked in ages.
Simunomics - Free-to-play economy simulation game.

Just because it gets -X/-X for having a positive life total doesn't mean it should get +X/+X for having a negative life total.  Yes, I know that's how math works.  However, I read the card to mean that 13/13 is static and this number can be decreased by the value of your positive life total....13/13 expresses the height of the card and it can go down but not up.  It doesn't matter because apparently my interpretation is wrong, and I'm not offended by that, but that's how I read it initially.  I get it, but I don't like it

I think we'd have to agree that it's a less-Vorthos card this way.  But the rules work better with literal interpretations over conceptual ones.  And certainly a negative life total isn't the kind of situation the card was made for.  But unusal interactions are part of Magic's appeal.




I'm not sure that I can explain logically why I feel negative about the way the card works under the rules.  All that I know is that it doesn't feel right to me.  My logical brain tells me just to accept the way the card works and to shut up about it but I simply feel that I don't like that two negatives make a positive in this case.  So I agree that's a Vorthos reaction on my part despite the fact that I don't consider myself to be a very Vorthos player.      
Just because it gets -X/-X for having a positive life total doesn't mean it should get +X/+X for having a negative life total.  Yes, I know that's how math works.  However, I read the card to mean that 13/13 is static and this number can be decreased by the value of your positive life total....13/13 expresses the height of the card and it can go down but not up.  It doesn't matter because apparently my interpretation is wrong, and I'm not offended by that, but that's how I read it initially.  I get it, but I don't like it

I think we'd have to agree that it's a less-Vorthos card this way.  But the rules work better with literal interpretations over conceptual ones.  And certainly a negative life total isn't the kind of situation the card was made for.  But unusal interactions are part of Magic's appeal.



This is another one of those situations that boggles players. The same set of rules allows things like saccing Mogg Fanatic after combat damage and getting to deal both combat and activated damage abilities, as well as the "ORing Trick" of blinking a card that exiles another card for a duration to allow you to permanently exile that card, but keep yours. (I used the latter trick in a deck designed solely for it, and was told in no uncertain terms this was "Bull****!")

Player expectation reads Death's Shadow as:

"This cards's power and toughness are reduced by your life total."

As a positive value isn't a reduction, it cannot go in the opposite direction; and -x/-x is a reduction. So player expectation is that the reduction of this number doesn't round the bend, even if in math it does (and not just because, logically, negating a negative reinstates a positive the original negative applies against).

The logic is sound when dealt from a mathematics standpoint, and when you understand the process, the values are intuitive. But without that standpoint, they are not. And this is not to knock yoiur average player, who may have gotten through high school algebra decently well enough, but most players don't "get" this, or feel they have to take the rules' word for it ("They say it is so, so it must be," tacitly accepting the argument from authority rather than a logically coherent argument for it.)

The Rules Team often sets the precedent that the logic of the system should follow intuition, or come down to the lowest common denominator in an average Magic game setting (say, an FNM), and so to preserve the game in the eys of the players, the function of numbers should be intuitive. And having a negative lifetotal pumping Death's Shadow doesn't make sense on a casual, intuitive level.

Of course, it can make sense in several other ways. It can make sense from the standpoint of math, as noted above; and it can make sense from the standpoint of magic. (That's with a little "m.") Imagine you are a demon, and your summoner is this bright and cheery fellow. Well, you're not gonna stick around for long, will you? But what if that fellow were a lich or a necromancer, promising bags full of goodies -- the very lifeforce he'd given up to grain great knowledge? You'd be stronger, is what. Instead of being weaker, he'd get stronger.

If it comes down to it, explaining the situation in a Magic setting would be more conducive to progress. You can then, once relaxed, work on the logic of mathematics to explain the equation. But ... this doesn't always work out; it certainly didn't work out for the Fanatic, though it works out well enough for Oblivion Ring.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
It's always great to see our great pauper brewers getting their due; even if most authors never take the time to figure out provenance of a deck and instead credit whoever netdecked and won with it. Which is fine, I suppose - I know that brewing is never done in a vacuum, and that it's much easier to check the "What's Happening" list than to do a lot of research (time that could be spent writing articles or playing Magic!). 

All that aside, this deck, named AzoriusKitty, is a David Shaffer brew (ShaffaWaffa5) and owes some credit to Deluxeicoff for playing / repopularizing BorosKitty, which was a similar red-white deck brewed by TurboKitty3000 (mtgo-stats.com/decks/59357). 

The first iteration / article on AzoriusKitty was here, and a follow-up here.
Travis Woo hardly came up with that deck, there was a 3-1 list on MTGO the 2nd day M14 was legal.  Was different by about 3 cards, Faithless Looting.  I think Woo can't make a deck without looting anymore, something inside his brain snapped lol
There is no tighter shirt!
Travis Woo hardly came up with that deck, there was a 3-1 list on MTGO the 2nd day M14 was legal.  Was different by about 3 cards, Faithless Looting.  I think Woo can't make a deck without looting anymore, something inside his brain snapped lol


His most recent brew.

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?

So, I could thell this is a Modern deck by context but the page had zero mention of the format.  Sure I can click the hyperlink to coverage but isn't that a big oversight when you're trying to appeal to noobies?

There is nothing particularly White about Marath. It is a more Commander-y version of Ulasht, in that he grows on the basis of his interaction with the command zone. Yet, two of his abilities are Green (+1/+1 counters en masse, and making Elemental tokens), whilst one is Red (direct damage). It is arguable that the +1/+1 counter ability is White, but the problem is is that it is also firmly Green, and this means the card struggles to be three colored.

"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)