|
United States47024 Posts
On May 20 2017 11:36 Alaric wrote: Clearly, I won't get to draft these decks anymore (and I won't get passed Insult // Injury pack 2, or open Angel of Sanctions P1P1, or get passed Neheb then Javelineer pack 3 when my neighbour clearly knows I'm in that pair) as people will warm up to the curve-outs. It's going to take a little more to people "warming up to the curve-outs". Decks in this format legitimately top out at 3 or 4 (even a card like Electrify is too slow for the good versions of some of these decks) and 1-drops that would be unplayable in any other format are actually good picks (e.g. Bloodlust Inciter). People have to recognize that this isn't just a "pretty aggressive" format like KLD draft, it's a format where people are playing 1s and 2s and just attacking past each other with team buffs like Tah-Crop Elite and Trial of Solidarity (Marshall and LSV were even calling this one mythic uncommon status, which is just ridiculous for an Inspired Charge variant).
Draft is self-correcting, but this format is slanted to the point where cards that are normally bad or mediocre are good cards, and people have to recognize that before it can start to correct.
|
You get your aerodactyl Gahlo?
|
On May 20 2017 08:42 Alaric wrote: 3rd 3-0 draft in a row. On one hand, I can't complain. On the other, I haven't played the usual winner once (10-man pod or he wasn't there), I've had busted rares that I drew a lot each time, and I got pretty lucky with my topdecks every time too.
Somehow it doesn't even really feel that good (can't complain about rares 1st pick tho), especially since I ended up more or less aggro thrice (2 were even pretty darn all in) and it felt like drafting (where I got lucky to get the bombs) and building played a bigger role than actually playing out the games, unless mana screw/flood occurs. Plus I can see with my opponents that it's not satisfying for them either to face the steamroller of Bloodrage Brawler or Hooded Brawler sometimes combo'd with Cartouche of Zeal. They probably don't feel like they have much agency when these decks get a good starting hand.
Sure, it's the format, and variance happens, and somebody's gotta play fun police when these archetypes are open... I somehow end up half-feeling guilty for the way my success happens, and that it isn't really tied to me deserving it, and it's not very fulfilling, on top of being wary of getting cocky Meh, it's just a game, one shouldn't overthink it like that, even if it comes with social gatherings. Alaric for the love of fuck
You complain when you win, you complain when you lose. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT
|
On May 20 2017 21:20 mordek wrote: You get your aerodactyl Gahlo?
No, I quit playing.
|
I mean, if you're going to always doubt yourself, I get to have reservations when I meet success too, screw you :f
+ Show Spoiler [Game Day] +Got my worst Game Day performance since I started playing actual decks, 2-2 and barely 8th (draws messing with ranking). First loss was RG getting under my counters with 2x Greenbelt Rampagers and I couldn't deal with 4 toughness before I died game 1, then drew 3 lands and 15 spells game 2.
Second loss was to New Perspectives combo, I couldn't churn through my deck because I stopped drawing lands for awhile after 6 and discarded a lot, and I didn't know his list by heart so when he tried to Traverse after I already dealt with a Sphinx, I used a Gearhulk in reaction, and when he cast Approach again I didn't have enough mana to pay for both his Censors. We both sideboarded 9+ cards, but I won g2 off of turn 4 Gideon and so didn't see a thing. Then game 3 he dropped a Drake Haven turn 3 and I only had Proscription to deal with it, while he sided in counters and I didn't find a Fumigate.
Yango, do you mean Kaladesh block or Kaladesh the set? On paper Amonkhet looks more like Kaladesh than Aether Revolt, what with the "curve-out decks are fast and brutal, slow decks have absurd engines once they're on, drafting is cutthroat and punishes hard enough to trump building/gameplay if you don't respect it, stumbles are death." It feels more like Aether Revolt to me though, but I think that's because my last drafts have all been beatdown while staying open in AER meant "play blue" and UR improvise was by far my most drafted archetype. So cards played for cheap and minor synergies to seize a tempo advantage and ride it is more like it's been for me; using Magma Spray, Compulsory Rest or Cartouche of Ambition to remove a blocker is akin to combining Shock with Menace or First Strike creatures to get 2-for-1s and punch for ~5 per turn. Control decks (aside from slamming Stir the Sands or Sandwurm Convergence well ahead of curve) have been super unsuccessful.
Several regulars who hadn't been there in a couple months came back yesterday (they were on the other table though) and some of them tend to play aggro so I'm sure if they keep coming that'll help inform other people's picks. That and me often being wrong on cards means people would be unlikely to heed my opinions. The way I changed my opinion on cards since the beginning of the format illustrates our divide well: + Show Spoiler +Magma Spray > Electrify, because creatures are small so it's more efficient if you're the beatdown, and comes down earlier to stabilise if you're the control. The exile close is minor to me if I'm aggro but that seems to be the main reason they like it over Electrify.
Splendid Agony > Final Reward: against aggro decks (especially RW) you can somewhat easily get a 2-for-1 out of it, or kill an Entangler and cripple a Gust Walker. Most of them plain dislike Agony, I only like Reward as a way to deal with bombs or heavy cartouche/tricks decks.
Bitterblade Warrior > Naga Vitalist: UG isn't as hard to get the cards for as UB or UR, but you still want your payoffs first, then to get the Vitalists... and I'm never running them if I had to switch colours toward aggro/midrange, while the bears are serviceable. Hooded Brawler > quarry Hauler. 3/2 for 2 didn't impress me but it applies pressure so fast and wears a cartouche very well. Hauler looked like a big body + value but it'll usually trade down.
I'm starting to dislike Exemplar of Strength despite the upside because unless you cast it t2 on the play it requires additional work to be decent (non-G cartouches or Shed Weakness when it gets blocked), and it blocks terribly.
Cartouche of Ambition is critical against aggro and you want, need one if you're not BR beatdown (even then you can't go wrong with it for the mirror or other R-based decks).
Tah-Crop Skirmisher > Aven Initiate. You still want 1-2 Initiates probably for your wincons and air force, but the Skirmisher at least forces exert from the 2- and 3-drops, trades otherwise, and can be embalmed for cheap. I think I'd like it more than Dune Beetle or Ancient Crab.
You play multiples of Cartouche of Zeal and it's a common you could easily take before the wheel pack 2-3 if you're drafting a red-based aggro deck (RW, BR, RG). They believe it's the worst—it's the most situational one, but when it's good only the B one is better (in RG aggro your creatures are small enough that you often won't be able to fight without dying with the Cartouche of Strength).
When you end up aggro, you want 10+ creatures at CMC 2-3, and then a single Bloodlust Inciter becomes a very good card. You still only want one. I think only one person aside from me ever played it.
Anointer Priest sucks but I'll include it if I'm playing against a beatdown deck, just because it'll force exert and come back for cheap. Oketra's Monument is busted with it if you're aiming to stabilise. Compulsory Rest reads "you lose your best blocker and I punch for more than 2 additional damage thanks to that so it's worth it. Any 2 mana you spend on the sacrifice ability is mana you don't use on removal or big bodies I can't just Magma Spray out of the way."
Pursue Glory is a card I'd play even without cycle just because by preventing you from blocking and with a ridiculously low cuve it's easy to go wide and finish you with it.
I haven't drafted RW yet and instinctively I had trouble getting what it'd be better at than the others, to be the fastest and best deck in the format, but when I thought about BR's and RG's best cards aside from bombs (hi Neheb), they're always red. Also Cartouche of Ambition and Hooded Brawler. Plus Cartouche of Solidarity is the best to actually not get blocked without having to exert, and putting it on Unwavering Initiative is a beating in the match-up (maybe not more so than Cartouche of Ambiton killing an Entangler or Spearmaster and netting you 4+ life).
Trial of Solidarity is the card I've wanted whenever I draft GW. RG and RW can use the "don't block" and cheap removal effects from red to push a lot of damage early without having to exert, and then it's only about closing out. In GW you need to exert to force blocks, and you lack reach, so vigilance forcing your opponent to block 'cause you'd kill him over 2 turns is another way to clear the board. Not sure I'd call it "mythic" though because there are a lot of other things in this format, but it's clearly that one card I hope for in GW, and it'd immediatly go into my other W decks. I wonder how many zombies I'd need in GW before I consider playing In Oketra's Name...
|
United States47024 Posts
I haven't drafted RW yet and instinctively I had trouble getting what it'd be better at than the others, to be the fastest and best deck in the format, but when I thought about BR's and RG's best cards aside from bombs (hi Neheb), they're always red. RW is the fastest because the good go-wide cards (Tah-Crop Elite at common and Trial of Solidarity at uncommon) are white. This doesn't mean that it's the best deck, but it's the "level one" deck that defines the speed of the format. BR and RG have to define their gameplan by how slow they are relative to RW because if you guys both just attack past each other and then the RW player drops a Tah-Crop Elite, you probably just lose the race right there.
I wonder how many zombies I'd need in GW before I consider playing In Oketra's Name... You really need to be BW Zombies for In Oketra's Name to be good. GW isn't going to get there, especially since cards like Binding Mummy are worse in GW than BW to begin with.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On May 20 2017 08:42 iCanada wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 04:39 Gahlo wrote:On May 20 2017 00:16 Numy wrote:On May 19 2017 09:11 JonGalt wrote: So I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation. I watched a plethora of Star Trek growing up because my mom loved it so I have seen episodes here and there from every different series. I am enjoying it so far (only on episode 3), but is it worth it to watch the original Star Trek first? I'm always watching TNG again, it's pretty dam great. Don't think you have to watch the original. In fact all the Star Treks kind of work on their own to a fairly good degree. @UK old women butt fucking - Shame. Maybe it's not too late to try get back into the EU so your government is stopped from fucking you?!  Wonder why conservative has become synonymous with be an absolute utter asshole to normal people while sucking off companies. Because conservative politics lauds the possibility of capitalism while trying to ignore its downfalls. In an ideal situation, yeah, the people that own companies getting more money and the ability to pay more people through more jobs. Through this, helping the rich helps the poor indirectly. Except then the vast majority of the rich just sit on the majority of the money instead of returning it to the economy in some fashion like a dragon. But they aren't satisfied with just having their money, they're terrified of being poor. I think it would work well if there was a periodic rebalancingof wealth. Obviously capitalism gets a lot right but competition is stifled heavily by wealth disparity. For example taking on the Koch brothers in any of their industries is futile as they can eat it out of pocket for the next century before they'd feel any concern. Unless you have mad capital anything a little guy tries to build will get swallowed up by vebture capitalists or crushed by conglomerates. Without wealth rebalancing capitalism becomes essentially an oligarchy. Little guy can't compete, can't buy, pushed out of the economy essentially. You need the distribution of wealth to be roughly the shape it is right now, otherwise you don't have any companies big enough to start any massive projects, and it'd be all up to the government. Yeah some redistribution of money is reasonable just for stability and empathy's sake, but let's not go all communism here and think there is a reasonable system in which a small guy can compete with the big corps
|
On May 21 2017 07:27 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:42 iCanada wrote:On May 20 2017 04:39 Gahlo wrote:On May 20 2017 00:16 Numy wrote:On May 19 2017 09:11 JonGalt wrote: So I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation. I watched a plethora of Star Trek growing up because my mom loved it so I have seen episodes here and there from every different series. I am enjoying it so far (only on episode 3), but is it worth it to watch the original Star Trek first? I'm always watching TNG again, it's pretty dam great. Don't think you have to watch the original. In fact all the Star Treks kind of work on their own to a fairly good degree. @UK old women butt fucking - Shame. Maybe it's not too late to try get back into the EU so your government is stopped from fucking you?!  Wonder why conservative has become synonymous with be an absolute utter asshole to normal people while sucking off companies. Because conservative politics lauds the possibility of capitalism while trying to ignore its downfalls. In an ideal situation, yeah, the people that own companies getting more money and the ability to pay more people through more jobs. Through this, helping the rich helps the poor indirectly. Except then the vast majority of the rich just sit on the majority of the money instead of returning it to the economy in some fashion like a dragon. But they aren't satisfied with just having their money, they're terrified of being poor. I think it would work well if there was a periodic rebalancingof wealth. Obviously capitalism gets a lot right but competition is stifled heavily by wealth disparity. For example taking on the Koch brothers in any of their industries is futile as they can eat it out of pocket for the next century before they'd feel any concern. Unless you have mad capital anything a little guy tries to build will get swallowed up by vebture capitalists or crushed by conglomerates. Without wealth rebalancing capitalism becomes essentially an oligarchy. Little guy can't compete, can't buy, pushed out of the economy essentially. You need the distribution of wealth to be roughly the shape it is right now, otherwise you don't have any companies big enough to start any massive projects, and it'd be all up to the government. Yeah some redistribution of money is reasonable just for stability and empathy's sake, but let's not go all communism here and think there is a reasonable system in which a small guy can compete with the big corps Maybe over there. It's a different animal over here.
|
>plays high variance game >gets tilted when has bad luck >has existential crisis when has good luck
|
|
|
On May 21 2017 07:27 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:42 iCanada wrote:On May 20 2017 04:39 Gahlo wrote:On May 20 2017 00:16 Numy wrote:On May 19 2017 09:11 JonGalt wrote: So I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation. I watched a plethora of Star Trek growing up because my mom loved it so I have seen episodes here and there from every different series. I am enjoying it so far (only on episode 3), but is it worth it to watch the original Star Trek first? I'm always watching TNG again, it's pretty dam great. Don't think you have to watch the original. In fact all the Star Treks kind of work on their own to a fairly good degree. @UK old women butt fucking - Shame. Maybe it's not too late to try get back into the EU so your government is stopped from fucking you?!  Wonder why conservative has become synonymous with be an absolute utter asshole to normal people while sucking off companies. Because conservative politics lauds the possibility of capitalism while trying to ignore its downfalls. In an ideal situation, yeah, the people that own companies getting more money and the ability to pay more people through more jobs. Through this, helping the rich helps the poor indirectly. Except then the vast majority of the rich just sit on the majority of the money instead of returning it to the economy in some fashion like a dragon. But they aren't satisfied with just having their money, they're terrified of being poor. I think it would work well if there was a periodic rebalancingof wealth. Obviously capitalism gets a lot right but competition is stifled heavily by wealth disparity. For example taking on the Koch brothers in any of their industries is futile as they can eat it out of pocket for the next century before they'd feel any concern. Unless you have mad capital anything a little guy tries to build will get swallowed up by vebture capitalists or crushed by conglomerates. Without wealth rebalancing capitalism becomes essentially an oligarchy. Little guy can't compete, can't buy, pushed out of the economy essentially. You need the distribution of wealth to be roughly the shape it is right now, otherwise you don't have any companies big enough to start any massive projects, and it'd be all up to the government. Yeah some redistribution of money is reasonable just for stability and empathy's sake, but let's not go all communism here and think there is a reasonable system in which a small guy can compete with the big corps
You misunderstand me.
I don't think unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing, I think the unequal starting point and thus unequal opportunities and choices is a bad thing. Give everyone the same opportunity to focus on whatever the hell they want without worrying about pesky things like basic needs; whether we're talking pro-gamer, master theologian, master scientist, master painter, doctor, entrepreneur, banker, master - sit on ass all day - do drugs - er....
I think if you could start the whole world with like a quarter million dollars and just left everything laissez-faire that would be pretty close to my ideal world. I believe pretty strongly that everyone deserves to have the basics met, but I also believe pretty strongly that all things being equal harder / smarter work that achieves more should be rewarded more than lazier / less efficient work that achieves less. Would likely need to create some tweaks here and there, maybe to stop people from butt-fucking the environment and all that but otherwise...
I am not sure that is realistic, however.
|
On May 21 2017 07:27 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:42 iCanada wrote:On May 20 2017 04:39 Gahlo wrote:On May 20 2017 00:16 Numy wrote:On May 19 2017 09:11 JonGalt wrote: So I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation. I watched a plethora of Star Trek growing up because my mom loved it so I have seen episodes here and there from every different series. I am enjoying it so far (only on episode 3), but is it worth it to watch the original Star Trek first? I'm always watching TNG again, it's pretty dam great. Don't think you have to watch the original. In fact all the Star Treks kind of work on their own to a fairly good degree. @UK old women butt fucking - Shame. Maybe it's not too late to try get back into the EU so your government is stopped from fucking you?!  Wonder why conservative has become synonymous with be an absolute utter asshole to normal people while sucking off companies. Because conservative politics lauds the possibility of capitalism while trying to ignore its downfalls. In an ideal situation, yeah, the people that own companies getting more money and the ability to pay more people through more jobs. Through this, helping the rich helps the poor indirectly. Except then the vast majority of the rich just sit on the majority of the money instead of returning it to the economy in some fashion like a dragon. But they aren't satisfied with just having their money, they're terrified of being poor. I think it would work well if there was a periodic rebalancingof wealth. Obviously capitalism gets a lot right but competition is stifled heavily by wealth disparity. For example taking on the Koch brothers in any of their industries is futile as they can eat it out of pocket for the next century before they'd feel any concern. Unless you have mad capital anything a little guy tries to build will get swallowed up by vebture capitalists or crushed by conglomerates. Without wealth rebalancing capitalism becomes essentially an oligarchy. Little guy can't compete, can't buy, pushed out of the economy essentially. You need the distribution of wealth to be roughly the shape it is right now, otherwise you don't have any companies big enough to start any massive projects, and it'd be all up to the government. Yeah some redistribution of money is reasonable just for stability and empathy's sake, but let's not go all communism here and think there is a reasonable system in which a small guy can compete with the big corps Like everything in life there's some kind of middleground to be achieved or attempted. Having massive companies doesn't really move things forward as much as people say, more often than not it stifles innovation and creates a dynamic where instead of people with innovation trying to compete they merely need to create something that can be bought by the massive company and forgotten about or ruined lol.
|
On the other hand, it's not like governments have a better track record there.
|
On May 22 2017 01:53 Fildun wrote: On the other hand, it's not like governments have a better track record there. Wanna trade healthcare systems?
|
Anyone here knows anything about vintage comics? I was moving around some boxes in my hobby room just now and stumbled across a collection I inherited grandfathers' years ago. At the moment I've only found the Lucky Luke and Asterix series but they are awesome and I'm never gonna part with them, they are probably not worth anything anyway. However there's some stashed away that might actually be worth something.
If I remember correctly here's what I got hidden somewhere:
From my biological grandfather there's a whole bunch of WW2 era comics that were smuggled in during the occupation, mostly Captain America. In one of them cap punch Hitler straight to the face, remember that scene clearly lol. There's some hilarious over the top propaganda comics too. They got his name on the backside of the cover, he was part of the resistance and in hiding so I guess he and his comrades all did it to keep track of who owned which magazine. If the anecdote would increase value it can be verified from his handwriting on letters and his name being known by historians. They are in a huge variety of conditions everything from FN+ to poor. They are going to be hard to find, but I know I still have them somewhere.
If a museum would like them I'm considering donating them, my family had quite the ties with the resistance so it could be cool for a WW2 museum to have them. But if they are worth something sizable then #greed might be too strong. 
From my second grandfather there's an entire collection of Donald Duck first print from first release in Denmark and many years forwards. If I remember right aside from the paper on some gradated to slight yellow tint they are in a range from NM- to VG-, iirc #1 is actually in a pretty good condition ~VF+. They are for obvious reasons all in danish.
I guesstimated their condition from memory and looking around on what's considered what on eBay and https://www.mycomicshop.com/help/grading but couldn't really find any similar comics to speculate about values.
|
On May 22 2017 02:14 Jek wrote:Anyone here knows anything about vintage comics? I was moving around some boxes in my hobby room just now and stumbled across a collection I inherited grandfathers' years ago. At the moment I've only found the Lucky Luke and Asterix series but they are awesome and I'm never gonna part with them, they are probably not worth anything anyway. However there's some stashed away that might actually be worth something. If I remember correctly here's what I got hidden somewhere: From my biological grandfather there's a whole bunch of WW2 era comics that were smuggled in during the occupation, mostly Captain America. In one of them cap punch Hitler straight to the face, remember that scene clearly lol. There's some hilarious over the top propaganda comics too. They got his name on the backside of the cover, he was part of the resistance and in hiding so I guess he and his comrades all did it to keep track of who owned which magazine. If the anecdote would increase value it can be verified from his handwriting on letters and his name being known by historians. They are in a huge variety of conditions everything from FN+ to poor. They are going to be hard to find, but I know I still have them somewhere. If a museum would like them I'm considering donating them, my family had quite the ties with the resistance so it could be cool for a WW2 museum to have them. But if they are worth something sizable then #greed might be too strong.  From my second grandfather there's an entire collection of Donald Duck first print from first release in Denmark and many years forwards. If I remember right aside from the paper on some gradated to slight yellow tint they are in a range from NM- to VG-, iirc #1 is actually in a pretty good condition ~VF+. They are for obvious reasons all in danish. I guesstimated their condition from memory and looking around on what's considered what on eBay and https://www.mycomicshop.com/help/grading but couldn't really find any similar comics to speculate about values. I'd suggest asking /r/comicbooks what to do. They'd probably have a better idea than most and are more likely to have somebody in your general area that can aid you better.
|
On May 22 2017 01:53 Fildun wrote: On the other hand, it's not like governments have a better track record there. That's why there needs to be a middle ground. Enough legislation so can't get these mega multi national ultra uber companies and yet not enough that stifles growth/big projects from the ground. Very tricky balancing act.
|
On May 22 2017 02:02 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 01:53 Fildun wrote: On the other hand, it's not like governments have a better track record there. Wanna trade healthcare systems? Most medicines come out of the US now though :p
|
On May 22 2017 05:29 Fildun wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2017 02:02 Gahlo wrote:On May 22 2017 01:53 Fildun wrote: On the other hand, it's not like governments have a better track record there. Wanna trade healthcare systems? Most medicines come out of the US now though :p So? We still pay more for them. Here's an example.
|
Yeah, US prizes suck, but I thought we were talking about innovation and businesses setting up projects that stimulate said innovation. I see a lot more of that in the US than in Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|