|
On January 15 2016 15:59 deth2munkies wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 20:22 Gorsameth wrote:On January 14 2016 20:17 TheYango wrote:On January 14 2016 20:10 Gorsameth wrote:
you are not allowed to use any proxy what so ever, even just a Forest with Plain written on it in marker, in a sanctioned store regardless of whether you are playing in a sanctioned event or just a casual game on a Thursday afternoon between friends. WotC clarified that the latter case is fine. It's just the store can't be directly involved in the event. However, stores are NOT required to police casual play by players. If players wish to play amongst one another in a tournament-like manner at the store, so long as the store has zero involvement (including no use of Event Reporter), this is not a violation. This seems ridiculously easy to loophole though, and makes it really unclear where the line is drawn. Rofl so yeah now its meaningless again. "Johnny the totally not store employee is holding a personally organized tournament with his own price support that is totally not provided by the store" guess Wizards already backed out of their ruling:p No, it just can't be a sanctioned DCI event. If they want to run a tournament and NOT report the results or use the Wizards bracket software and such, then they're free to allow proxies. You just can't use them in sanctioned tournaments. I really don't understand the backlash at all. That's like saying if you want to compete in an official, Blizzard sanctioned online SC2 tournament you have to have a non-pirated copy of the game.
Because the initial message did not say that at all
According to Wizards Play Network policy, *no* proxies are allowed at WPN-sanctioned venues, regardless of whether the event is sanctioned or not.
Source
That quote is why there was a backlash and it clearly says you cant use it outside of a sanctioned event in a sanctioned store.
Wizards later clarified/backtracked.
|
On January 15 2016 20:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 15:59 deth2munkies wrote:On January 14 2016 20:22 Gorsameth wrote:On January 14 2016 20:17 TheYango wrote:On January 14 2016 20:10 Gorsameth wrote:
you are not allowed to use any proxy what so ever, even just a Forest with Plain written on it in marker, in a sanctioned store regardless of whether you are playing in a sanctioned event or just a casual game on a Thursday afternoon between friends. WotC clarified that the latter case is fine. It's just the store can't be directly involved in the event. However, stores are NOT required to police casual play by players. If players wish to play amongst one another in a tournament-like manner at the store, so long as the store has zero involvement (including no use of Event Reporter), this is not a violation. This seems ridiculously easy to loophole though, and makes it really unclear where the line is drawn. Rofl so yeah now its meaningless again. "Johnny the totally not store employee is holding a personally organized tournament with his own price support that is totally not provided by the store" guess Wizards already backed out of their ruling:p No, it just can't be a sanctioned DCI event. If they want to run a tournament and NOT report the results or use the Wizards bracket software and such, then they're free to allow proxies. You just can't use them in sanctioned tournaments. I really don't understand the backlash at all. That's like saying if you want to compete in an official, Blizzard sanctioned online SC2 tournament you have to have a non-pirated copy of the game. Because the initial message did not say that at all Show nested quote +According to Wizards Play Network policy, *no* proxies are allowed at WPN-sanctioned venues, regardless of whether the event is sanctioned or not. SourceThat quote is why there was a backlash and it clearly says you cant use it outside of a sanctioned event in a sanctioned store. Wizards later clarified/backtracked.
Honestly, it's obvious what they meant before since it's been their stance for years. You really believe they could enforce "no proxies ever"? Admittedly the statement is somewhat poorly worded, but anyone with half a brain would interpret it to mean sanctioned events since they're the only ones Wizards actually has some modicum of control over.
|
United States24814 Posts
Wizards recently sent message to one or more local game stores that were allowing proxies in vintage unsactioned tournaments to stop. Maybe the backlash is causing them to back off somewhat, but they were definitely saying, at least at one point recently, that stores can't condone proxies in any way, whether in a sanctioned or unsanctioned event.
|
On January 16 2016 00:57 micronesia wrote:
Wizards recently sent message to one or more local game stores that were allowing proxies in vintage unsactioned tournaments to stop. Maybe the backlash is causing them to back off somewhat, but they were definitely saying, at least at one point recently, that stores can't condone proxies in any way, whether in a sanctioned or unsanctioned event.
If you read their statement, it was reported to them that they were allowing proxies in sanctioned tournaments, which is why they reacted as they did. I only read their statement and an account from Twitter, but I was under the impression they WERE sanctioned tournaments, though if they weren't I could see why there was confusion.
The point is that their policy has been clear forever and it didn't change because of this. Wizards CAN'T ban anything in unsanctioned tournaments.
|
On January 16 2016 06:37 deth2munkies wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 00:57 micronesia wrote:
Wizards recently sent message to one or more local game stores that were allowing proxies in vintage unsactioned tournaments to stop. Maybe the backlash is causing them to back off somewhat, but they were definitely saying, at least at one point recently, that stores can't condone proxies in any way, whether in a sanctioned or unsanctioned event. If you read their statement, it was reported to them that they were allowing proxies in sanctioned tournaments, which is why they reacted as they did. I only read their statement and an account from Twitter, but I was under the impression they WERE sanctioned tournaments, though if they weren't I could see why there was confusion. The point is that their policy has been clear forever and it didn't change because of this. Wizards CAN'T ban anything in unsanctioned tournaments.
again
regardless of whether the event is sanctioned or not.
Now you can argue they cannot enforce that statement but that does not change what the words say.
|
United States24814 Posts
|
Watching this unfold with no dog in the fight, it seems like wizards bumbled the statement and the community was already going to start overreacting regardless.
|
On January 16 2016 09:35 Judicator wrote:
Watching this unfold with no dog in the fight, it seems like wizards bumbled the statement and the community was already going to start overreacting regardless.
This is definitely a community issue, as its a topic WotC can't ever really officially say is okay. "You can totally play in our tournaments without our product" is not something any company would ever support--but somehow WotC is expected to be okay with that. Getting butt hurt over a marketing gaff is hilarious and sad at the same time.
|
United States24814 Posts
I don't know the history beyond this incident, but I don't quite see how/why Wizards is being made out to be a victim here.
|
On January 16 2016 09:55 micronesia wrote:
I don't know the history beyond this incident, but I don't quite see how/why Wizards is being made out to be a victim here.
Some tournaments ran DCI sanctioned events that allowed proxies, WotC made a statement saying they can't support proxy tournaments, community whines.
|
United States24814 Posts
I don't see the relevance. In the current situation, it seems people are complaining about Wizards stating (whether it was a goof, or not) that proxies cannot be used at local game stores in sanctioned or unsanctioned events. While some folks may have whined about stupid things in the past (i.e., not being allowed to use proxies in a sanctioned event), that doesn't make it sad when people raise the alarm when they hear Wizards is going to blacklist stores that allow unsanctioned events with proxies.
I don't see why you would call it 'sad' unless you entered this conversation with the intention of calling people who whine about proxies sad.
|
On January 16 2016 11:09 micronesia wrote:
I don't see the relevance. In the current situation, it seems people are complaining about Wizards stating (whether it was a goof, or not) that proxies cannot be used at local game stores in sanctioned or unsanctioned events. While some folks may have whined about stupid things in the past (i.e., not being allowed to use proxies in a sanctioned event), that doesn't make it sad when people raise the alarm when they hear Wizards is going to blacklist stores that allow unsanctioned events with proxies.
I don't see why you would call it 'sad' unless you entered this conversation with the intention of calling people who whine about proxies sad.
I think that line of reasoning was community produced, aka someone or people looking for a reason to pick up their pitchforks. Wizards gave clarification a soon as it realized what I considered to be a reasonable misinterpreting of the original event.
The thing that doesn't add up here for me and maybe a TO or store owner can clarify, the original post that started this shitstorm was that WotC sent a warning to a store running an unsanctioned proxy event. However, since the event wasn't in the event reporter, how would Wizard know in the first place?
|
United States24814 Posts
I think it had to do with them streaming the event online, which makes the whole thing murky.
|
|
|
Bout fucking time they banned Twin. I am surprised they didn't hit Amulet rather than Summer Bloom.
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On January 16 2016 14:30 deth2munkies wrote:
Bout fucking time they banned Twin. I am surprised they didn't hit Amulet rather than Summer Bloom.
I think banning Summer Bloom over Amulet makes sense, since Amulet is the more interesting effect. Also most people who were advocating for a ban (including Bloom players) thought Summer Bloom was the card that made more sense to ban.
The Twin ban is surprising considering that Twin hasn't changed at all in the past year. It'll be interesting to see which decks if any will try to replace twin.
Also it looks like this banned list was published early by Wizards due to leaks from MTGO beta.
|
On January 16 2016 14:30 deth2munkies wrote:
Bout fucking time they banned Twin. I am surprised they didn't hit Amulet rather than Summer Bloom.
Either kills the deck so it doesn't really matter.
I don't know how to feel about the Twin ban tbh. While it definitely held a dominant position in the format, it plays very few non-games. Aside from really degenerate combo decks that play no interaction whatsoever (which are even worse for the format than Twin), most Twin matches tended to be fairly decision-heavy and skill-intensive on both sides. It's a double-edged sword where, while it's frustrating to lose to Twin, it's also incredibly satisfying to beat them.
Personally, I've felt recently that RG Tron is the real bogeyman of Modern, since while they hold a respectable win % among Tier 1 decks, Tron plays many more non-games than other similarly-positioned decks. Many games are decided by who drew their sideboard cards/didn't draw blanks rather than by decision-making over the course of the game. That kind of play contributes far more to the feeling that Modern is a format of narrow sideboard hate and getting lucky on matchups than a deck like Twin does.
|
On January 16 2016 15:37 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 14:30 deth2munkies wrote:
Bout fucking time they banned Twin. I am surprised they didn't hit Amulet rather than Summer Bloom. Either kills the deck so it doesn't really matter. I don't know how to feel about the Twin ban tbh. While it definitely held a dominant position in the format, it plays very few non-games. Aside from really degenerate combo decks that play no interaction whatsoever (which are even worse for the format than Twin), most Twin matches tended to be fairly decision-heavy and skill-intensive on both sides. It's a double-edged sword where, while it's frustrating to lose to Twin, it's also incredibly satisfying to beat them. Personally, I've felt recently that RG Tron is the real bogeyman of Modern, since while they hold a respectable win % among Tier 1 decks, Tron plays many more non-games than other similarly-positioned decks. Many games are decided by who drew their sideboard cards/didn't draw blanks rather than by decision-making over the course of the game. That kind of play contributes far more to the feeling that Modern is a format of narrow sideboard hate and getting lucky on matchups than a deck like Twin does.
Its about the play experience more than the actual power/balance.
Since twin "could" combo, but not necessarily--people always felt under the gun.
With tron, its like playing multiplayer magic--except the 7 drops come out turn 3-4. People go "whoa" as opposed to never being sure if tapping out means its a twin combo or not.
|
Except the play experience for Tron is terrible because of the high % of non-games where one side or the other just has a bunch of blanks in hand that don't do anything. Vs. Burn/Infect/Affinity this works against Tron, while vs. BGx it's in their favor. A deck with a bunch of 70/30 and 60/40 matchups is much less healthy for the format than a deck with a bunch of 55/45 matchups because the 70/30 matchups causes more rounds to be decided by matchup/sideboard draw luck.
Twin at the very least is one of the decks that plays very few non-games--the only decks that aren't playing interactive games of Magic with them are the ones that don't want to play interactive games of Magic against anyone.
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On January 16 2016 16:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 15:37 TheYango wrote:On January 16 2016 14:30 deth2munkies wrote:
Bout fucking time they banned Twin. I am surprised they didn't hit Amulet rather than Summer Bloom. Either kills the deck so it doesn't really matter. I don't know how to feel about the Twin ban tbh. While it definitely held a dominant position in the format, it plays very few non-games. Aside from really degenerate combo decks that play no interaction whatsoever (which are even worse for the format than Twin), most Twin matches tended to be fairly decision-heavy and skill-intensive on both sides. It's a double-edged sword where, while it's frustrating to lose to Twin, it's also incredibly satisfying to beat them. Personally, I've felt recently that RG Tron is the real bogeyman of Modern, since while they hold a respectable win % among Tier 1 decks, Tron plays many more non-games than other similarly-positioned decks. Many games are decided by who drew their sideboard cards/didn't draw blanks rather than by decision-making over the course of the game. That kind of play contributes far more to the feeling that Modern is a format of narrow sideboard hate and getting lucky on matchups than a deck like Twin does. Its about the play experience more than the actual power/balance. Since twin "could" combo, but not necessarily--people always felt under the gun. With tron, its like playing multiplayer magic--except the 7 drops come out turn 3-4. People go "whoa" as opposed to never being sure if tapping out means its a twin combo or not.
Completely disagree. Twin was banned for diversity reasons and how strong it was and not at all due to the play experience. Tron wasn't banned because it isn't as strong.
That being said I could see tron being banned in the future for exactly the reasons cited above. Also the fact that tron is strongest against most fringe decks and fair decks definitely works against its chances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
