|
On October 11 2013 14:55 hunts wrote:2: I'm bad at doing m14 drafts which im trying to do to turn my new player tokens into more tickets, are there certain archetypes (aside from blue) that are just good to play in m14? So far the drafts I've won were as blue/black, black/red, and blue/white, but i lose most of the ones I play in.
Force blue and avoid white every draft, it works online. It seems that modo drafters drastically underrate Trained Condor, which I still consider the best common in the set, and you can just pick up 2-3 of those with any random G/R fat. If you're playing U/B, you probably want to be a little more controlling with Archaeomancers and Scroll Thiefs and such. I force blue almost every draft and my winrate is very high, though I can't speak for the new player queues.
The only other good archetypes are G/R and B/R, but they are fairly conditional. I honestly think blue is the only good color in M14 and every other color is not worth playing unless you have bombs. If you do open bombs, don't be afraid to get married to that color, since there's a big disparity in M14 between the best commons and the best uncommons/rares.
By the way, PT Dublin stream is starting soon at http://www.twitch.tv/magic
|
Jeff Cunningham wrote a very good article about revamping the Modern banlist on SCG.
For those of you without premium, here's the conclusion:
The revised banned list would look as follows: - Chrome Mox
- Cranial Plating
- Dark Depths
- Dread Return
- Glimpse of Nature
- Hypergenesis
- Rite of Flame
- Second Sunrise
- Skullclamp
- Stoneforge Mystic
He also says he would "flag" Bitterblossom, Blazing Shoal, Mental Misstep, and Sensei's Divining Top, as the most likely offenders for rebanning. Thoughts?
Personally, I would love to see this happen. When blue can get some real card choice (ponder/pre-ordain), all of a sudden Jund isn't so scary, even with BBE back. Affinity gets a huge boost from artifact lands, but losing Cranial Plating pulls it right back. Postdrazi comes back and runs smack into Dragonstorm. This format would be incredibly cool, and would certainly (at least initially, and likely for some time) remain unsolved, even in the net-deck era.
One card I think Jeff missed on was Green Sun's Zenith. He chose to unban it, but I have to side with Wizards. Not because it is overly powerful, but because you -have- to run it if you're green. Sure, unbanning Nactl makes Naya Zoo incredibly powerful, but Devotion is a good mechanic to introduce some cards which enable other Zoo decks.
Anyways, I'd love to hear your thoughts!
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
Mental Mustep is degenerate and should never be taken off as all that happens is everyone will instantly jam 4 copies in their deck even if it's only to counter their opponent's MM.
But Midern def needs some help.
|
On October 11 2013 16:51 MoonBear wrote:
Mental Mustep is degenerate and should never be taken off as all that happens is everyone will instantly jam 4 copies in their deck even if it's only to counter their opponent's MM.
But Midern def needs some help.
I would love to see a mini-pact. Like, mental misstep with "at the beginning of your next upkeep, pay U or you lose the game.". Keep it honestly blue, but let us have our force of will variant (and don't let it counter itself - pacts cost 0)
|
On October 11 2013 17:21 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 16:51 MoonBear wrote:
Mental Mustep is degenerate and should never be taken off as all that happens is everyone will instantly jam 4 copies in their deck even if it's only to counter their opponent's MM.
But Midern def needs some help. I would love to see a mini-pact. Like, mental misstep with "at the beginning of your next upkeep, pay U or you lose the game.". Keep it honestly blue, but let us have our force of will variant (and don't let it counter itself - pacts cost 0)
That does absolutely nothing, if anything that would probably make the card more broken.
MM was this giant turd of a card that warped so many formats.
Maybe if they made that card Black and a discard spell it would be fair.
Edit:
On October 11 2013 14:45 micronesia wrote:
With the amount of money and effort you guys put in (it makes mine look like nothing) I'm surprised you haven't already done some testing of the software you are using... for mtg testing!
I could write one then check the distributions, but that's a pointless exercise, I am more inclined to check how probabilities come out in different land distributions. I am pretty sure of what I observed and that's good enough for me. I am almost 100% sure that MWS likes chunk their randomization. As for weighting the cards, that I do not believe to be true since there's no apparent marker in the cards to indicate so since MWS isn't just used for Magic.
|
Any podcast/resources for limited you guys can suggest in addition to Limited Resources? Preferably something I can listen to while at work ^^
|
United States24799 Posts
On October 11 2013 22:37 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 14:45 micronesia wrote:
With the amount of money and effort you guys put in (it makes mine look like nothing) I'm surprised you haven't already done some testing of the software you are using... for mtg testing! I could write one then check the distributions, but that's a pointless exercise, Why is it pointless? It could put to rest the question of whether or not it is dealing hands out fairly/randomly. I am more inclined to check how probabilities come out in different land distributions. You can, but as I mentioned in my earlier post, the game might treat land cards differently somehow (not that it should) so your results might be misleading... but since MWS is used for other card games, hopefully that isn't the case.
All I'm saying is, some of you use the program for deck testing while believing it isn't randomizing properly.... wouldn't it be wise to actually check out how good of a job the program is doing if you are going to keep using it for such a purpose?
|
On October 12 2013 00:38 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 22:37 Judicator wrote:On October 11 2013 14:45 micronesia wrote:
With the amount of money and effort you guys put in (it makes mine look like nothing) I'm surprised you haven't already done some testing of the software you are using... for mtg testing! I could write one then check the distributions, but that's a pointless exercise, Why is it pointless? It could put to rest the question of whether or not it is dealing hands out fairly/randomly. Show nested quote + I am more inclined to check how probabilities come out in different land distributions. You can, but as I mentioned in my earlier post, the game might treat land cards differently somehow (not that it should) so your results might be misleading... but since MWS is used for other card games, hopefully that isn't the case. All I'm saying is, some of you use the program for deck testing while believing it isn't randomizing properly.... wouldn't it be wise to actually check out how good of a job the program is doing if you are going to keep using it for such a purpose?
My use of MWS hinges very closely to my own experiences in magic.
I know, for example, that 22 lands can usually support a deck that has a lot of 2-3 mana plays so long as you have 4-8 cantrips/mana elves/etc...
In MWS the feast and famine happens more with my decks with 22 lands. At first I would go up to 24 lands improving my games in MWS. But when I proxy up the deck I just get swamped with lands.
However, majority of the time, the deck works relatively fine. So I simply keep track of whether or not the card interactions are fun and if it seems worth the time to proxy it up, then I do. My results with paper proxies is what I actually use for testing. Brews are what I use MWS for.
|
On October 12 2013 00:38 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 22:37 Judicator wrote:On October 11 2013 14:45 micronesia wrote:
With the amount of money and effort you guys put in (it makes mine look like nothing) I'm surprised you haven't already done some testing of the software you are using... for mtg testing! I could write one then check the distributions, but that's a pointless exercise, Why is it pointless? It could put to rest the question of whether or not it is dealing hands out fairly/randomly. Show nested quote + I am more inclined to check how probabilities come out in different land distributions. You can, but as I mentioned in my earlier post, the game might treat land cards differently somehow (not that it should) so your results might be misleading... but since MWS is used for other card games, hopefully that isn't the case. All I'm saying is, some of you use the program for deck testing while believing it isn't randomizing properly.... wouldn't it be wise to actually check out how good of a job the program is doing if you are going to keep using it for such a purpose?
It's pointless because I would have no way of fixing it. There's no point for me to test under that idea.
|
United States24799 Posts
Well I guess we just have different philosophical views here LOL
I don't use MWS for testing so I won't worry about it anymore XD
|
Question for everyone. In a world where all these non-reanimator/show and tell combo decks run sorceries for finishers. (Belcher, ANTS, Elf, etc...)
Why don't people run Silence in the side?
|
It's funny how Team SCG vs Channel Fireball is blue devotion vs red devotion, and it seems SCG is doing better on day 1.
|
Too narrow and too weak defensively. Comes online too late against belcher and is mostly irrelevant against storm since they will just wait to thoughtseize/duress you before going off unless you have pressure. Elves can just beat down during the silenced turn. also terrible defensively against show and tell which is the main combo deck.
Tldr silence is better for forcing a combo turn through disruption than disrupting a combo turn
|
Every time I hear about how diverse the field is, I want to punch the developers in the face. Very diverse field of where people try to jam the fuck out of bombs since there's no Mana Leak in this format.
|
On October 12 2013 02:53 Judicator wrote:
Every time I hear about how diverse the field is, I want to punch the developers in the face. Very diverse field of where people try to jam the fuck out of bombs since there's no Mana Leak in this format.
Which is the way Magic should be. If you can't play good cards in the format, there's something wrong. All colors are viable in this standard environment, which is much more than can be said for most of them.
|
I think he means, the current format just feels like "who's greedy deck gets luckier" because you can't build consistent decks and the greedy decks are too powerful to interact with on a reasonable level. Which isn't fun for people who want to win off of skill and making the correct choices over the course of 10 or 15 turns each game.
I mean, a format isn't "diverse" despite having 5+ different decks that are viable if they are all the same archtype (combo/aggro/control) regardless of how varied their card choice may be.
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On October 12 2013 01:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Question for everyone. In a world where all these non-reanimator/show and tell combo decks run sorceries for finishers. (Belcher, ANTS, Elf, etc...)
Why don't people run Silence in the side?
1) Because it doesn't do anything against any other deck the same way Force of Will does.
2) You can't save yourself on Turn 0.
3) Storm is going to use their own Silence to lock you out of responding, or will strip your hand of answers with Cabal Therapy or something. Also, Silence doesn't counter a spell so you can't stop the kill condition against Storm and if you pull too early you just add to their Storm count the same way blowing a FoW at the wrong moment does.
4) A lot of decks with White run Blue as well anyway or have other answers that are more flexible against other stuff.
5) You can use Mindbreak Trap if you really want to pay the sideboard tax.
That being said, Silence can be useful. It's just a matter of "is this card useful for me"?
|
United States24799 Posts
If I have a tormented hero in my graveyard, and I target it with return from the underworld or a similar card which targets a creature card in my graveyard, does the heroic ability on tormented hero activate? That is, I gain life? If so, would it happen when return to the underworld resolves, or when tormented hero is removed from the graveyard and put back on to the battlefield?
|
On October 11 2013 22:37 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 17:21 iGrok wrote:On October 11 2013 16:51 MoonBear wrote:
Mental Mustep is degenerate and should never be taken off as all that happens is everyone will instantly jam 4 copies in their deck even if it's only to counter their opponent's MM.
But Midern def needs some help. I would love to see a mini-pact. Like, mental misstep with "at the beginning of your next upkeep, pay U or you lose the game.". Keep it honestly blue, but let us have our force of will variant (and don't let it counter itself - pacts cost 0) That does absolutely nothing, if anything that would probably make the card more broken. MM was this giant turd of a card that warped so many formats. Maybe if they made that card Black and a discard spell it would be fair.
How on earth does that make it more broken? It requires you to have at least token blue presence (or win on that turn - but then pact would be played out of blue hive mind. It would no longer counter itself, and still wouldn't hit remand or leak. So what's the issue?
|
On October 12 2013 07:11 micronesia wrote:
If I have a tormented hero in my graveyard, and I target it with return from the underworld or a similar card which targets a creature card in my graveyard, does the heroic ability on tormented hero activate? That is, I gain life? If so, would it happen when return to the underworld resolves, or when tormented hero is removed from the graveyard and put back on to the battlefield?
You can't use creatures' abilities when they're in the graveyard, unless it's a special case or something. More accurately, while it's in the graveyard, it's not a creature, it's just a creature card.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
