|
11 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 12:47PM
#1
|
|
|
This thread is for discussion of this week's Limited Information, which goes live Wednesday morning on magicthegathering.com.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 9:49PM
#2
|
- Warm, wet and squishy inside
|
It seems like, if you are trying to build a "bad" deck that's not likely to win anyway, you can embrace the badness by building an explosive deck like you described as "bad". Something along the lines of the Tormented Soul  / Dark Favor  pairing. Yes, you lose (or fall behind) if your opponent has removal, but taking a big gamble on maximizing your cheap (and easy) wins seems to be the best way to go if your reliable paths to victory aren't available. I would hesitate to make a "bad" deck anyway, but capitalizing on an opponent's unluckiness has a surprising tendency to pay off, especially if you can do it consistently.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 12:49AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2010
|
kind of a lame article, I doubt i'll ever play this and most of his advice was pretty obvious...
Contest Winners
Show
Random Words
Show
Round 1: Maraxas-of-Keld, Cryos_Icy_Manipulator
Round 2: Dr_Demento, UltraMaximum
Round 3: Dr_Demento, Keino
Round 4: KunouNoHana
Round 5: Maraxas-of-Keld, Stigma_Lasher
Round 6: royinator
Round 7: forty2j
Round 8: Qazior
Round 9: Qazior
Round 10: Could be you link Split Cards
Show
Winner: dberry02 Pac-Man
Show
Round 1: Fallingman WorldprismQuotes
Show
I just love how focused the YMtC community is.
That's what I love about posting on these forums. Everyone's an expert(except for me).
really no need to be so bitchy.
@Edacade: Awright kid you go on ahead and do your thing and don't let anyone tell you different y'hear
City of Asymmetrical Beings
Land
 , sacrifice a creature: Destroy target creature with the same converted mana cost as the sacrificed creature.
Might I just interject that making this a meme is the worst idea in magic in my opinion. It is too overpowered. It encourages cheating it in play. Essentially 99/100 times it is cheated in play instead of hardcast. Not only that, but you essentially win when it comes into play.
Make five-color hybrid tribal instant with buyback, kicker, cycling, card draw, token production, a steal effect, alternate casting cost and landfall that embodies the love that your mom and I share.
I think you just killed all chances of my card being elegant.
Ardency :1mana::symwu::symbr:
Tribal Instant - Soldier
You may have target opponent gain control of 3 permanents you control rather than pay ~'s mana cost.
As an additional cost to cast ~, choose two creatures you control, and sacrifice the rest. If you control a soldier, you can't sacrifice permanents this turn.
Landfall - If you had a land enter the battlefield under your control this turn, instead choose 4 creatures.
Kicker  
You get an emblem with "As long as you control both chosen creatures, they have protection from everything."
If ~ was kicked, creatures you control get +1/+1 for each creature card in your graveyard until end of turn.
Cycling :2mana:
When you cycle ~, put two 2/2 Soldier creatures onto the battlefield.
Would this EVER fit on a card?~
Aside from a few wording mishaps (should say "each chosen creature" because it's not necessarily two) this is nice. Very simple and elegant. I like the alternate cost a lot, and the kicker goes nicely with the sacrifice. However, the cycling seems a bit powerful (4 power and a card for 3? Cycling is supposed be ba  d  . 8/10
EDIT: Just looked up "ardency". Lol.
I'm immortalized too as long as no one deletes this post!
But in the shadow of the great one lurked many who sought to partake of his eternal glory.
Since when am I "many"?
You're a whole damn city.
Ahem.
Vivisect  
Sorcery
As an additional cost to cast Vivisect, sacrifice a creature.
Draw three cards.
"For the sake of humanity," the surgeon whispered. The knife had never felt heavier in his hand.
I don't think a world that sacrifices so much would want to stop the making of children  .
Vivisect =/= vasectomy
Now I just feel silly.
I read over two hundred webcomics on a regular basis. "Terrible" doesn't even begin to describe me.
I think that this is the first wizards-community thread that actually made me laugh out loud. Maraxas, I love you.
batman is a jerk in all of my dreams
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 2:36AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2007
|
I'm sad to say that Sadin has become a master at producing walls of text that don't really say anything. His advices are so general and chock full of "if"s and "but"s and "however"s that I - as the reader - am left no wiser having read it.
I think his column would be much more interesting if he could come up with some bold statements and actual scenarios (draft picks/sealed builds/gameplay situations) that could cause some controversy and discussion on this forum.
For example, for this "Team Sealed" article he could have provided an actual pool of twelve M13 boosters, and discussed possible decks.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 3:24AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2003
|
I agree that a lot of the text of this article didn't contribute much for someone familiar with building team sealed decks. However, I thought the point about diminishing returns to removal was both salient and interesting. Receiving reduced value from additional removal spells comes up in normal Limited, but never to the point that you'd choose not to run as many Murder  s as possible. I also wonder if it could make sense with some pools to try to build two great decks and one horrible one, especially if one player on the team is substantially weaker than the other two (although this is likely to lead to a miserable day for him/her). For example, for this "Team Sealed" article he could have provided an actual pool of twelve M13 boosters, and discussed possible decks.
I was hoping/expecting to see that, and disappointed not to. It might have provided a good source of concrete examples for the other points he was trying to make.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 4:32AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2007
|
However, I thought the point about diminishing returns to removal was both salient and interesting. Receiving reduced value from additional removal spells comes up in normal Limited, but never to the point that you'd choose not to run as many Murder s as possible.
I don't think he was saying that you shouldn't run all your removal spells, but that you should consider distributing them between your three decks. This way you will likely maximize the potential of your removal by using it on powerful threats rather than mediocre threats (you can probably deal with that Wind Drake without Murdering it).
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 7:42AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
|
For example, for this "Team Sealed" article he could have provided an actual pool of twelve M13 boosters, and discussed possible decks.
I was hoping/expecting to see that, and disappointed not to.
You were expecting an actual Limited walkthrough? On the flagship's Limited column? When has Steve ever done a Limited walkthrough? Lots of people have asked him to, but I can't recall a single occasion when it's happened.
"Walls of text that don't really say anything" is the truth. The masterpiece was a few weeks back when he sincerely informed us that we were probably best off not playing vanilla 1-drops like Merfolk of the Pearl Trident  . Without any self-consciousness or indication that this might be something already obvious. I mean, I play Limited a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount that the target audience here do, and I figured that out years ago.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 9:23AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2011
|
i don't know, guys; i'm thinking that a lot is obvious to you guys, but as someone still developping my limitted skills, i'm picking up a lot from even the basic basic information he goes over?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 11:24AM
#9
|
- Warm, wet and squishy inside
|
For example, for this "Team Sealed" article he could have provided an actual pool of twelve M13 boosters, and discussed possible decks.
That would make for a nice follow up article. He's already given the introduction, so he can skip straight to the building and say "See here for explanation".
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 6:57PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2011
|
For example, for this "Team Sealed" article he could have provided an actual pool of twelve M13 boosters, and discussed possible decks.
That would make for a nice follow up article. He's already given the introduction, so he can skip straight to the building and say "See here for explanation".
Agreed. "Here's an example!" would be a great follow-up.
|
|
|
Kicker Aggro (Invasion Block)
