Show Posts
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
|
1
|
Eternal Formats / Eternal Article Discussion / Re: [Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays: The Return of Burning Long!
|
on: October 11, 2012, 10:44:23 am
|
Hey Steve, nice list. Demonic Consultation is weaker now that we can't consult for LED, making it a Demonic Tutor for anything but mana (generally), though that's still pretty strong.
I've actually been consulting for lotus regularly with this list. Very rarely (but occasionally) do I wish I hadn't. I've been consulting for all kinds of restricted stuff and, unless I run it over in the initial rfg, I haven't had an issue winning because of it. Once I had one burning wish left, but one is all you need. It's entirely possible that I haven't even played enough test games for Demonic Consultation to come up. Mostly, I'm just remembering the deck from before any restrictions when Consulting for LED was an extremely strong (and common) play, given that it was an unrestricted Lotus so you were never going to kill yourself by doing it. There were rare occasions to Consult for a restricted card, back in the day, but most often you just needed either Burning Wish or LED. It's been so long since I've even used Demonic Consultation very much that I could just be forgetting how relatively safe it is. Dropping the Duress for a maindeck Shattering Spree does seem like good advice, and also brings into focus how much I probably just don't care if they beat me game 1 with a Chalice or two. I'd rather not lose the Duress, so Shattering Spree probably isn't worth putting main.
|
|
|
3
|
Eternal Formats / Eternal Article Discussion / Re: [Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays: The Return of Burning Long!
|
on: October 09, 2012, 01:30:13 pm
|
Hey Steve, nice list.
Having played Burning Long extensively when it was so ridiculous it lead to 2 restrictions (and having Brainstorm restricted eventually), I'm extremely excited to see an honest-to-goodness update that's definitely stronger against shops and doesn't lose much in terms of speed.
If we were wanting to squeeze a MD answer to chalice (probably a Shattering Spree, though there are arguments for other cards, too), what would be the card you'd be willing to cut? Windfall is the "weakest" draw 7, though it is certainly still a great card. Demonic Consultation is weaker now that we can't consult for LED, making it a Demonic Tutor for anything but mana (generally), though that's still pretty strong. Maybe a Chrome Mox, though I don't really like the idea of cutting any accel at all. Maybe the 4th Oath? Every card is strong (otherwise it wouldn't be in the deck), but I feel that Chalice might be something that needs to be addressed main. Maybe I'm just a worrier.
I'd also really like to see a way to get Xantid Swarm into the board, since the matchups where it's good are generally not the same ones where Oath is good, so there could be something of a straight swap.
|
|
|
4
|
Eternal Formats / Bazaar-Based Decks / Re: Sideboard against Ichorid in Blue/Black Control
|
on: November 20, 2009, 05:02:03 pm
|
I'm a big fan of bringing in 1-2 copies of 3 or 4 different answers, strictly because not only does it force them to dilute their deck down which inherently slows them down (making your gameplan all the more potent), but it also forces them to have the correct answer at the correct time, whereas all of your cards will at least do something. I really like the idea of 2 Ravenous Trap, 2 Yixlid Jailer, 1 Tormod's Crypt, 2 Pithing Needle, and maybe even some number of Relic of Progenitus. Is it a lot to bring in? Yes. But it's also somewhat flexible against different decks, and when all of it is in, it becomes a very bad game for Ichorid.
I ran close to this plan when I was playing Remora (a la PT-GT's sideboard) and it turned a bad matchup into something that was winnable, and very favorable post-board. Granted, that deck also had a lot of chaff to bring out and was extremely dominant against whole swathes of the metagame, so such a large sideboard was actually both synergistic and pragmatic.
|
|
|
5
|
Eternal Formats / Ritual-Based Combo / Re: [Free Article]A closer look at The Perfect Storm
|
on: July 31, 2009, 05:59:23 pm
|
I think it's a mistake to mention the Bargain play, because it was clear from the article that, for some reason, you believed that the opponent was holding Force, despite the rather obvious fact that he let Yawgmoth's Will resolve. Whether or not Will is fatal, it must be countered in almost any situation, but considering that you had access to Vampiric Tutor and Ponder, along with Lotus and a Ritual, that's almost always enough gas to get you there. So from that fact, I would say that the opponent clearly did not have the Force.
That aside, if you wanted to play more conservatively (the Desire plan), then it would have been 100% the correct play to Vamp and Ponder before your Mind's Desire anyway to maximize your chances of winning, and potentially draw out that counterspell that you were worried about to add to storm.
|
|
|
6
|
Eternal Formats / Miscellaneous / Re: B/R Changes Explained - An Actual Vintage Article on MTG.com
|
on: June 26, 2009, 02:02:14 pm
|
What pleased me about this article is that they have come out and stated specifically why they ban cards, and thus why they would not ban Time Vault. I'm really excited because their reasoning hasn't changed, despite the opinion of some that it will have to at some point. Also, it pleased me that they noted that this is the smallest B/R list since 1999, which is something that I'm glad to see they're striving towards.
And, of course, I'm glad that they gave it an actual article. While I'm still on the fence about restricted Thirst for Knowledge, I can see their position and how they really didn't have any other options.
|
|
|
7
|
Eternal Formats / General Strategy Discussion / Re: June 2009 B/R List Changes
|
on: June 19, 2009, 10:20:17 am
|
Very interesting.
I never cast Thirst for Knowledge, so I don't care on a visceral level, but why did it have to go? It seems to me that the DCI can't just unrestrict cards and let things shake out, they have to restrict something else, or else they aren't doing their job. Logic would suggest that, in the new metagame created by unrestricting 4 cards, Tez may not be the best deck anymore, making this move pointless and counter-productive, at least until we see how the metagame develops. But maybe these unrestrictions are so safe that they will have no noticeable impact on the metagame.
Either way I'm glad to have a net decrease in the size of the B/R list.
|
|
|
8
|
Eternal Formats / Miscellaneous / Re: Key/Vault is so broken it now has its own thread
|
on: May 21, 2009, 08:51:42 pm
|
I have to agree with Meadbert here, and I'm shocked at you, Vegeta, for your post. You're usually very cool-headed, or at the very least, constructive. Your post was neither.
If we have differing definitions of "best", then we should define "best". Is best defined as most number of Top 8's? Is it most efficient? Is it most "powerful"? (which would, again, need to be defined) Is it easiest to fit into any deck? I think that it's hard to argue that Tinker + Robot is at a deficiency in any of these metrics. Efficient? It's one card and three mana, in the most played color in Vintage, which also feeds into it being able to be played in virtually any deck, from combo to control to Fish to Stax. Meadbert has mentioned a number of top 8's. I haven't checked myself, but unless anyone has any evidence to the contrary, then we should probably use his data.
As far as the whole banning question, I don't think it's a given that cards will have to be banned eventually. Taking the last few rounds of restrictions/un-restrictions into account, there has been a large number of cards that have moved around. For reference:
2007:
Black Vise is unrestricted Gifts Ungiven is restricted Gush is unrestricted Mind Twist is unrestricted Voltaic Key is unrestricted
Shahrazad is banned
2008:
Brainstorm is restricted Flash is restricted Gush is restricted Merchant Scroll is restricted Ponder is restricted
Chrome Mox is unrestricted Dream Halls is unrestricted Mox Diamond is unrestricted Personal Tutor is unrestricted Time Spiral is unrestricted Time Vault is errata-ed / restricted
In the last two years, the B/R list hasn't really grown or shrunk. It's actually smaller by a card. Going back even further, the only card to be restricted since 2004 (other than those entering from the portal sets, but that's clearly a net gain of potential 4-ofs) is Trinisphere. I don't see a lot of evidence that there are more Vintage decks that are close to Highlander formats. And there is at least some evidence that the list can shrink further in the next few rounds, even if that's far from certain. With the last move being a massive amount of unrestrictions, I see evidence that bannings are not even close to necessary.
Vault/Key decks have been in existence for 2 potential restriction periods. That's nothing. Gush was around for a full year, and even then, there was evidence that the metagame was correcting itself before the DCI imploded the format. Assuming it takes at least that long, then we've still got a few months of innovation and metagaming before we should even consider going to a banning or restriction or power-errata (which is probably the worst possible way to solve the problem) to fix the problem deus-ex machina style.
|
|
|
10
|
Eternal Formats / Miscellaneous / Re: Meadbert's testing results with some new lists.
|
on: April 29, 2009, 11:43:01 am
|
Alright, I'll bite.
What did Arcane Denial.dec lose to? Apparently, it's quite good in the Oath-heavy metagame that comprised the Top 8, but what about against the standard decks? It does look really interesting, and I'm always a fan of decks that draw an insane number of cards.
I think that the fact that "good" decks lost in early rounds is a good sign that the system works, because statistically speaking, good decks will lose early in a large tournament. Luck happens. The only information that this analysis didn't give us was about the mirror matches, but it was specifically designed so that that would be impossible. The basic thing that you can take away from this is, in a wide-open metagame, the top decks might shake out this way.
I do want to commend you on what was obviously a lot of testing. And if the result is a sweet new deck, then all the better!
|
|
|
11
|
Eternal Formats / Miscellaneous / Re: A Meditation on Mystic Remora
|
on: April 28, 2009, 09:35:25 pm
|
Mayby I was to relaxed when I wrote the first post. I actually thought the deck out very thoroughly. I would run this deck in a tournament. The cards I chose are to play against the highest level of play. I have not lost a single match so far. In a Tezzeret metagame I don't see how psionic blast could be called a bad choice. When I say I have not lost a single match so far that must mean that this has some potential. Also when I say I play with the cards I like that means I try not to limit myslef to net decking but I will actually think for myself every now and then. If you think this is one for the casual forum I would hate to see what you think of half of the other lists posted on here. I don't come here for petty arguments and I'm not going to roll over and take it.
I guess you're going to play whatever you want to play, and not really take any of our advice. I will try one more time, though. Psionic Blast costs 3 mana and 2 life. In Vintage, something that costs 3 mana should either draw you a tremendous amount of cards, or win you the game, or both. Examples: Tinker, Yawgmoth's Will, Meditate. If you want something to deal with Tezzeret, Thoughtseize costs a third of the mana and the same 2 life, and also gives you knowledge about your opponent's game-plan. Duress does the same without the loss of life. Will either of them stop a Tezzeret in play? No. But you have 11 counterspells and sundry bounce spells to deal with Tezzeret. Not only that, Psionic Blast does not deal with a Tezzeret with more than 4 counters on it. If you are really, really worried about Tezzeret being in play, then you can consider the red splash. Red Elemental Blast only costs a single mana, is an instant, and has the added benefit of protecting a lot of your own spells and winning counter battles. The Red splash really isn't all that difficult, either; 2 or 3 Volcanic Island, and you're there. You don't even have to fetch them out against decks that have Wasteland, because REB is the best reason to play red, and even if they have wastelands, you only really need a single red mana at a single point in the game, most of the time. But the biggest reason to not play Psionic Blast: it's way easier to protect REB or Thoughtseize with Mana Drain. That play only costs 3 mana total, rather than 5. Incidentally, I Glen Elendra is a really strong card. Really, it is. But the deck already has so many counterspells. It's certainly not better than Mana Drain or Force of Will or Commandeer. If you need more counterspells than that, then I don't know. You probably weren't going to win that game anyway. It is good, believe me. It's probably just unnecessary. But I haven't tested. At the least, it might be worth a sideboard spot or three.
|
|
|
12
|
Eternal Formats / Miscellaneous / Re: A Meditation on Mystic Remora
|
on: April 24, 2009, 10:51:30 pm
|
Another reason I like it is because you can kill the opponent with it. Also If you noticed this deck has no red in it. You can give them a pretty good beating with the psycatog so the blast has some pretty good potential. Like I said I just play what I like to play. As long as you make halfway intelligent decisions it doesn't really matter what deck your running.
The version I play doesn't currently run red, either, but in that case, I don't care about Tezzeret. Bring in Thoughtseize and you're fine. At the very least, Meditate #4 or Mystic Remora #4 are both superior to Psionic Blast. You will win more games with an optimal list than you will with a random Psionic Blast. Make no mistake, the justification "As long as you make halfway intelligent decisions, it doesn't matter what you're running" is flat out incorrect. There is a set of cards out there that will win the most number of games on average. That is the correct list to be playing. Just because the deck is so powerful that you can afford to run sub-optimal cards without losing every game does not give you justification to run sub-optimal cards. You will lose more games than you should. If you're okay with that, then by all means, play whatever you want to play. Personally, I'd prefer to win.
|
|
|
13
|
Eternal Formats / Miscellaneous / Re: A Meditation on Mystic Remora
|
on: April 24, 2009, 04:04:57 pm
|
I think it should be four mystic remora after some more testing. I can't even test archmage due to a bunch of eventide cards somehow blocked from my masterbase. I think archmage would be a very good card because it counters then comes back. Psionic blast is for tezzeret for the most part. Mind funeral seems awesome because it can't be misdirected and I would say most vault decks do not run commendeer. It seems pretty good as a 1 of to me because the opponent is going to lose a good part of his important cards because of this. It would set them up for the yawgmoth's will if it comes through his path but that's an if. I'll try the fourth meditation and see what it does for me. As for this not being a good deck. How big of an impact has the other list made on the tournament seen?
If Psionic Blast is just for other Tezzerets, then Red Elemental Blast is strictly better in any situation.
|
|
|
15
|
Eternal Formats / Global Vintage Tournament Reports and Results / Re: Ubastax parties like its 2005 at chicago side event 3-8-09
|
on: April 19, 2009, 04:03:04 pm
|
Pastimes is hosting vintage champs.
I wonder how many people will hold true to their decision stated in this thread not to attend Pasttime events and skip this. My guess is few will.
I guess we'll see. Champs hasn't been worth going to for a few years, anyway. The first year I went, there were Foil Gemstone Mines down to T16 and tons of boosters. Last time, it was basically first or nothing. What we will have to see is if Pastimes is taking our criticism. And most of the people who have spoken about boycotting Pastimes do so for economic reasons. If Pastimes listens and offers more economic incentive, then the boycott will have worked and there would be no reason to keep boycotting. But I can assure you, Vroman, myself, anyone from the Vintage scene in St. Louis will not be going to another tournament that doesn't make economic sense.
|
|
|
16
|
Eternal Formats / Eternal Article Discussion / Re: [Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays -- Reviving Vintage
|
on: April 16, 2009, 08:11:48 pm
|
There's also a different culture in many parts of Europe, where young adults often continue to live with their parents in their 20s, opening up tons of disposable income that Americans seldom have. I've read articles about how guys in Italy are not moving out even into their 30s!
Holy unfounded assumption, Batman! If this is a factor, it's going to be pretty small. Yes, the Euro is stronger than the dollar. But the cost of living is higher, too. You make far fewer Euros than you would Dollars, but the exchange leaves the purchasing power roughly equal. Hence, these people don't necessarily have tons more disposable income, at least, no more than your average American teenager or college student...the average Magic player. The important point that Marske has been making over and over again is that this "cycle" that you suggest has to have a starting point somewhere. Marske has said everything he's done to build up that cycle. Just because we aren't in the same position now doesn't mean we can't get there.
|
|
|
17
|
Eternal Formats / Eternal Article Discussion / Re: [Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays -- Reviving Vintage
|
on: April 14, 2009, 03:54:01 pm
|
Back in the day, players would slowly accumulate power, and proxies and a culture of letting people borrow power enabled that. Today, there is no incentive at all to acquire or hold onto power. In fact, it's stupid to do so since for most Americans there is only one tournament per year in which you need to own power. This feeds back on itself since players like myself, who used to have 4 Mox Sapphires to loan out, or Marc Perez, who used to have multiple sets of P9 to loan out, only have one for ourselves anymore.
Maybe if there were more than one large tournament a year, sanctioned or low proxy or whatever you want, then there would be more interest in owning power. I think it has very little to do with the "proxy culture" and more to do with simply not having any tournaments that are worth traveling 500 miles to. Heh. You really don't think that having a 15 proxy standard is a good reason not to own power? Now, I definitely didn't say that. I happen to agree with your logic. I also happen to think that there are way more productive lines of reasoning than "proxies are killing vintage in the long term". This would be a non-issue if there were tournaments to attend. I'm pretty sure that when he brought up the rarity of tournaments, he was talking specifically about those that are sanctioned or low-proxy. I suppose it does depend on where you live, but at least around here (NE) there are more than enough tournaments to attend; it's just that they tend to be 10 or more proxy. Regardless, the frequency/location of tournaments isn't really a variable that we have much direct control over as a community. Unless we suddenly have a new wave of people who are willing to bear the flag of hosting more tournaments, what we have now is what we get. The accepted number of proxies is something within our control. I'm quite sure that the NE is the only region in the country that has consistent tournaments. For those of us not living in the original 13 colonies, the only large tournament we get is once a year: Gencon. When that is the case, there is precisely zero interest in playing Vintage Magic, let alone owning power. Who tests for 12 months for a single tournament, with nothing in the mean time? I understand that the point of your post is "it's not an issue, so I'm not going to think it through", but for a lot of the country, it is a rather large issue. But your statement didn't make logical sense. If we don't have any control over when and where tournaments are being hosted, then how do we have any control over the status of proxies at those events? If we are able to tell at TO how many proxies to allow in his tournament, then surely we can tell him to have more/less/bigger tournaments, and where to have them. He or she is going to listen if they think it's worth their while, and are surely not going to take orders. We have managed as a community to convince TOs that proxies = greater turnout. Why is it so hard to believe that we could not similarly convince them that different location = greater turnout? It's not as easy for them to change venue as it is to change the rules of the tournament, but it's not impossible. And when the possible windfall is tournaments with 100+ people (rather than a paltry 30 or 40 or 50), a lot of TOs will listen.
|
|
|
18
|
Eternal Formats / Eternal Article Discussion / Re: [Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays -- Reviving Vintage
|
on: April 14, 2009, 02:13:20 pm
|
Back in the day, players would slowly accumulate power, and proxies and a culture of letting people borrow power enabled that. Today, there is no incentive at all to acquire or hold onto power. In fact, it's stupid to do so since for most Americans there is only one tournament per year in which you need to own power. This feeds back on itself since players like myself, who used to have 4 Mox Sapphires to loan out, or Marc Perez, who used to have multiple sets of P9 to loan out, only have one for ourselves anymore.
Maybe if there were more than one large tournament a year, sanctioned or low proxy or whatever you want, then there would be more interest in owning power. I think it has very little to do with the "proxy culture" and more to do with simply not having any tournaments that are worth traveling 500 miles to. Heh. You really don't think that having a 15 proxy standard is a good reason not to own power? Now, I definitely didn't say that. I happen to agree with your logic. I also happen to think that there are way more productive lines of reasoning than "proxies are killing vintage in the long term". This would be a non-issue if there were tournaments to attend.
|
|
|
19
|
Eternal Formats / Eternal Article Discussion / Re: [Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays -- Reviving Vintage
|
on: April 14, 2009, 12:02:50 pm
|
Back in the day, players would slowly accumulate power, and proxies and a culture of letting people borrow power enabled that. Today, there is no incentive at all to acquire or hold onto power. In fact, it's stupid to do so since for most Americans there is only one tournament per year in which you need to own power. This feeds back on itself since players like myself, who used to have 4 Mox Sapphires to loan out, or Marc Perez, who used to have multiple sets of P9 to loan out, only have one for ourselves anymore.
Maybe if there were more than one large tournament a year, sanctioned or low proxy or whatever you want, then there would be more interest in owning power. I think it has very little to do with the "proxy culture" and more to do with simply not having any tournaments that are worth traveling 500 miles to.
|
|
|
20
|
Eternal Formats / Eternal Article Discussion / Re: [Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays -- Reviving Vintage
|
on: April 12, 2009, 12:58:23 pm
|
I would hope that everyone reading is intelligent enough to realize that it is impossible to take a phenomenon that is multiply determined (like virtually anything that a group of human beings do) and try to distill it down to one cause. Take tournament attendance.
A store owner decides to run an event. Even better, (s)he decides that he will run two, with one small difference. One will allow proxies, one will not. That owner will record the number of entrants and post the results, and decides that that simple experiment, with only one thing varying, will decide once and for all whether the existence of proxies determines tournament turnout in a significant way. Seems logical, right?
Too bad there are hundreds of confounding variables, most of which are impossible to see. The biggest one is time. Say one is run on Saturday and the other on Sunday. Might the day of the week affect the turnout? Ok, (s)he sees around that, and puts it one week apart, both days on Saturday. Couldn't it also be possible that the week that it is run has an effect? What about less obvious things, like temperature, word of mouth, economic concerns (global and local), group dynamics, work schedules? Any and all of these affect what people do.
There are about three or four variables that have nothing to do with proxies that better explain how tournament entry has declined in the past few years. The one which I believe best explains the data is the lack of consistent, large, well publicized events held by a central authority. We used to have that, we no longer do. What every single other format has on Vintage is the full support of Wizards. Now, eventually eliminating proxies will better streamline Wizard support, but regardless, there was a time when you could plan on going to a large event every few months, and plan those a year in advance. Then, for some reason, those tournaments just stopped happening. Turnout wasn't slipping, but I guess it just doesn't matter.
I do find it interesting that an article published and funded by Starcitygames.com would place the blame for low turnout on an external force, namely, the existence of proxies, rather than the simpler explanation of a lack of consistent tournaments. It's the same argument that Bleweiss put out, only he was directly responsible for stopping the large tournaments. How odd that he wouldn't place the blame on the one decision that he had made directly, and would instead go looking elsewhere for explanations!
This isn't rocket science. If you want players to take stock in Vintage, to feel a connection and pride for their format, then you have to expect the tournament organizers to do the same. When the biggest advocate for the format (Starcitygames) decided to all but abandon it, what did you think would happen?
To be clear, Steven, I'm not saying that your theory doesn't make sense. It does. I'm just saying that there are much simpler theories for the same phenomenon. Not that simpler is always correct, but it is at least equally plausible. It is true that moving Vintage towards Wizard's approval and support will increase tournament turnout in the long run. But it is also true that Starcitygames (or TMD, or any other entity capable of doing so) holding regular tournaments around the country will also increase tournament turnout in the long run. We can place the blame wherever we wish to, but I do wish that SCG, which took such great initiative and practically created Vintage magic in the early days, wouldn't try to pass the buck on to Wizards and to the Vintage community.
|
|
|
21
|
Eternal Formats / Global Vintage Tournament Reports and Results / Re: Ubastax parties like its 2005 at chicago side event 3-8-09
|
on: April 10, 2009, 05:29:41 pm
|
Mutedequilibrium is absolutely right. Alan doesn't need our "thanks". We are expressing our appreciation for him running the tournament by paying him to do so. If he's looking for a "thanks" while he does a poor job running the tournament, then it's not very likely that he's going to get it.
I'm still confused as to why he did a poor job? Is it just because of the 5-8 prizes? Are we really labeling the tournament as poorly run because there weren't enough prizes for your liking? The standard prize for an event of this size has been somewhere in the neighborhood of a full set of power drafted by the top 8. But rather than just that as being evidence of the event being run more poorly than normal, there exists the tournament structure which was terrible. Swiss +1 is the worst, because it adds more luck into the outcome. Those two pieces of evidence lead me to believe that the tournament could have been run better.
|
|
|
22
|
Eternal Formats / Global Vintage Tournament Reports and Results / Re: Ubastax parties like its 2005 at chicago side event 3-8-09
|
on: April 10, 2009, 11:56:49 am
|
I applaud Alan for taking the time to explain his position on this message board, as it seems like people sometimes forgot that stores stay open and stay successful because the owner treats it like a business.
If this guy only pays out 10% of the door, but it keeps his store open and keeps running events, we should be more than happy. He should take as much money off the top as he needs to keep his store running and to live a comfortable life and support his family. Who are we to criticize him for that?
I think we already went over this one. He can do whatever he wants, but if someone else can run a tournament better (more prize support) for the same amount of money or even for cheaper, then that is the person who is going to get my business. The only reason you can even attempt to make this argument is because there isn't enough competition out there. That surely isn't Alan's fault, but it doesn't validate that argument. Mutedequilibrium is absolutely right. Alan doesn't need our "thanks". We are expressing our appreciation for him running the tournament by paying him to do so. If he's looking for a "thanks" while he does a poor job running the tournament, then it's not very likely that he's going to get it.
|
|
|
24
|
Eternal Formats / Miscellaneous / Re: A Meditation on Mystic Remora
|
on: March 26, 2009, 10:09:14 pm
|
After reading that I had to check as I thought it was only when a spell resolves!!
Nah, the card would suck balls if that were the case. And Gerry, I'll have you know that you were my inspiration for playing this at the side event at GP Chicago. When you draw that many cards, nothing but good things can happen. Such as: "But I just draw Key and kill him, so it doesn’t matter." Classic.
|
|
|
25
|
Eternal Formats / Global Vintage Tournament Reports and Results / Re: Ubastax parties like its 2005 at chicago side event 3-8-09
|
on: March 22, 2009, 11:14:31 am
|
And a side note on the head judge: we were calling him Kim Jong-Il at the players meeting, long before we had a chance to be disappointed in the outcome of the tournament. It was not a personal assault on him, nor was it us taking our frustration with the tournament on him, but rather a commentary on what he sounded like. He was shouting in an angry-sounding way in English with an Asian accent. I'm sure he's a great person; what he sounds like has nothing to do with that. As a head judge, it was very difficult to understand him. Very. And while we did not call him Kim Jong-Il to his face, I would hope that his self-esteem is not so fragile so that he could not take a joke had we done so. He's a grown man. If he really has a problem with it, then perhaps he has some maturing to do. Real life is way harder than that.
But I don't think that the head judge is the one who has the problem with it. Political correctness at it's best, people. Actually, he's since been clued into this thread and expressed his unhappiness with some of the things being said in here for sure. By the way, did you actually just say, "If you can't take a racial epithet as a joke, grow up?" If his feelings are really hurt, then I'm sorry. But I stand by my statement that this had nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with the difficulty that we experienced in trying to understand just what the HEAD JUDGE was trying to say. If I was wrong for having a problem with being unable to understand the HEAD JUDGE, then I'm sorry for that, too. This criticism has nothing to do with our head judge and everything to do with Pastimes. If the head judge was really offended, then I'm sorry you got caught in the crossfire. But honestly. Honestly? Welcome to America. We celebrate our differences. Take a joke.
|
|
|
26
|
Eternal Formats / Miscellaneous / Re: A Meditation on Mystic Remora
|
on: March 20, 2009, 07:08:19 pm
|
Ben,
Red is neither here nor there against Ichorid. The only cards that you'll want to board in for the matchup are artifacts or black; whether you have Volcanic Islands in the maindeck isn't a factor. If you have Mogg Fanatics or Chewer, then by all means bring them in; but those aren't cards that you'd want to include in the board just because of the Ichorid matchup.
As for Pithing Needle, I would really be thrilled to see Ichorid players bringing these in against me. They cast Pithing Needle. You Live The Dream and Commandeer it, then drop it on your side of the table naming Bazaar of Baghdad. You'll probably win the game, and have a fun story to tell for the rest of the day.
I have made that play at least twice in testing, and it is definitely a kick to their junk. I do think that you should try to fit in some Jailers, at least, because it means that they have to find creature removal in addition to artifact destruction in order to beat you. For reference, my current board is: 3 Energy Flux 2 Yixlid Jailer 1 Tormod's Crypt 1 Relic of Progenitus 2 Pithing Needle 1 Hurkyl's Recall 3 Thoughtseize 2 Smother I guess the biggest question I have is if the red cards against Stax are good enough to justify having to fetch out a Volcanic Island, as opposed to just sitting on basics for Energy Flux. Again, I haven't actually tested the post-board matchup yet, but I would think that Energy Flux, combined with counterspells, would slow them down enough to beat them. In the matchups where Red Blast matters, we're not likely to face wastelands, so Volcanics aren't an issue. Red Blasts are definitely a good reason for the splash, though my gut tells me that we're already a favorite in the blue control matchups, especially with Thoughtseize.
|
|
|
27
|
Eternal Formats / Miscellaneous / Re: A Meditation on Mystic Remora
|
on: March 20, 2009, 05:27:55 pm
|
How has the version with red been testing against Ichorid? I guess, specifically, post board. I find it to be almost completely unwinnable pre-board, but post I bring in a wide range of threats, which leads me to beat Ichorid something like 90% post-board. Which is a crazy, swingy matchup, but with all of the Ichorids running around lately, it's a board that I can demolish them with.
From the list you posted on page one, it looks like the plan is 7 artifacts. While that does put a big pressure on them, both of those artifacts are also answered by the one thing that they're sure to bring in: Pithing Needle. I would suggest Pithing Needle of your own and Yixlid Jailer. Having a diversified threat base means that they have to mulligan to Bazaar AND the correct answer, not just any answer. In testing, I haven't had any problems dropping a disruption piece turn 1, then drawing into a second or third, which pretty much seals the deal. They can play through 1, but 2 is hard and 3, combined with all of our counterspells, is game.
Note, this is mana-less Ichorid I've been testing against. Idk about the mana versions, but they're probably a little better at fighting off disruption.
I guess the red splash is solely to help out the workshop matchups? I need to get some sideboard games against them, but the current plan against stax is 2 Needle, 3 Energy Flux and 1 Hurkyl's Recall. I imagine that that will be a lot for them to fight off.
Granted, the only major difference between red and not red seems to be -2 fetchlands, +2 Volcanic Island, so I guess it's not a terribly difficult splash to pull off. I just need to test the board against the Stax matchup to see if it needs any help.
|
|
|
28
|
Eternal Formats / Miscellaneous / Re: A Meditation on Mystic Remora
|
on: March 19, 2009, 10:55:20 pm
|
Regardless, Commandeering a Goblin Welder or a Crucible of Worlds can straight-up win the game.
Commandeering a Goblin Welder probably not  Apparently, you have never played the Stax mirror or Control Slaver Vs Stax matchup. Having Welder superiority, even if it's only for a few turns, is the key to beating Stax. His comment was aimed more at the fact that you can't commandeer a goblin welder because it's a creature. Touche. All the more reason to include Old Man or Sower of Temptation!
|
|
|
29
|
Eternal Formats / Global Vintage Tournament Reports and Results / Re: Ubastax parties like its 2005 at chicago side event 3-8-09
|
on: March 19, 2009, 10:54:05 pm
|
2. Prizes. I won’t quote anyone from the forums here, but let’s just say that some of you thought they were not “fair”.
Answer: What’s “fair.” First, please understand what I do for a living… I run events and I sell games. That is how I pay for my kids to eat and how I pay to put a roof over my family’s head. That is what I do. Every week we risk paying for rent, prizes and employees with the hopes to turn a profit so my employees can keep their jobs and I can keep my store. Sometimes we win… sometimes we lose. In this forum you guys are deciding what is “fair” for me to make from this event. In my opinion we gave away about $1100-$1300 in cards (Beta Sapphire, Grim Tutor, a couple Foil Polluted Deltas (I think) and 4 Guru Lands . If only 15 of you had shown up, would you have been “ok” if I had said, “well – we didn’t get enough people to justify giving away the Beta Sapphire, so here is a Library and a Mana Drain instead.” I don’t think that would have sat well with you.
And please consider a couple of other expenses that a store or organizer has when putting on an event… - the venue and the staff. There were three judges for this event (not counting the scorekeeper as he was doing other events as well). The venue was hugely expensive – and yes, there was a big GP to pay for that – but we did not know how many would be there for the GP and we have to count all the events towards the bottom line. You can also throw in the fact that the Vintage event, as part of the overall event, also cost me for: insurance, clean-up, tables, chairs, P/A and security. Those were all costs that I incurred when running this event. And we take all the events income towards those costs.
I also strongly believe that the majority of what we provide is entertainment. If you are not playing Magic for fun… you really are in the wrong thing…. So, my guess is that about half of the people reading this or more have gone to see Watchmen (what did you think? Me, about 2 ½ stars). I know that when I went, I paid $12 for my IMAX ticket and $9 for popcorn and a diet coke – (now you want to talk about unfair!) So I dropped about $20 for a movie that barely entertained me for two hours. There was no personal attention. If I called “judge” during that movie I would have been thrown out! I left with nothing but a memory from the movie and butter stains on my shirt. But I knew going in it was a cost of entertainment. I figured I deserved to take the standee in the lobby as a prize for being there – but silly me, they threatened to call the police! It sounds to me like most folks had a really good time at the GP and at the Vintage tournament – which is my goal. Handing out over a thousand dollars of prize seemed like a fun extra!
I know that a lot of stores run events and give back everything in prizes. I have three comments about that: 1. Look at how many stores have gone out of business in the past 10 years for not worrying about their bottom line. (Pastimes is now in its 18th year) 2. They are not worried about making money on their event (foolish) , they are just hoping you will buy cards, candy or whatever. I hope this works for them – it is not my model. 3. When those stores go out of business, you lose places to play. Support them, they need you and you need them!
As far as handing everything back in prizes, I can’t afford to do this. You all want events – even big events? You need organizers who are willing to take a risk and who will put up prizes (umm… there was a Beta Mox Sapphire guaranteed here) and have certified judges etc… Sometimes we make money on our events, sometime we do not. (Someone said we made 60% from this event - it actually comes out to about 15-20%) I look at our event income at the end of the year and hope it is in the black – so that next year I can be back and seeing you at even more fun events!
Basic economic theory. You do what you think you can afford to do, and the general public will respond in kind. What is "fair"? Whatever the market will bear. If you decide to continue to run tournaments with less than 50% payout, that is your prerogative. But you don't get to complain when people call it unfair. There is an objective "fair" out there. If you're running tournaments at significantly below market value, then you're damn right it's unfair. That's the definition. The Swiss +1 structure is what it is. You advertised it, and lost, by all accounts, quite a few customers because of it. Anyone who entered the tournament knew ahead of time that the tournament structure would be Swiss +1. Honestly, no one who entered the tournament has a right to bitch about the tournament structure, because their entry fee symbolizes their agreement with the tournament structure. Now Alan, you can choose to do whatever you want to do to run your business, but if your customers are freely offering you feedback, then you would be wise to take it. Since you chose to introduce your hungry children into the argument, then these are the people who are feeding your children. I'd advise you not to upset them. If they stop agreeing to pay you to enter your tournaments, then you've got no one to blame but yourself for upsetting them. The payout was not, however, advertised accurately. Pre-tournament, the prizes were stated to be One Beta Mox Sapphire. Okay. Terrible prize support, but again, you can choose to offer whatever you like. Just before registration closed, I was told that the prize would be one Beta Mox Sapphire, plus prizes to the top 8 equaling ~$500. Okay. What we got was not ~$500; even by the most generous of estimates, I would say closer to $400, only 80% of the advertised number (at best), and conveniently falling on the low side. That merits outrage. Once again, you are getting generous, unsolicited feedback. I would strongly advise you to at least consider the idea that you might not be right, and might be alienating a significant percentage of your customer base. "The customer is always right" isn't just a saying. It's the key to conducting business in a (mostly-)free market. In the end, it does not matter what we say on this board, all that matters is if we choose to pay for your events in the future. You have chosen to run this tournament in this manner. If you continue to do so, you will probably see your profits dip greatly as people stop attending, since other companies have shown that they can offer greater percentage of payout. That's not the customer's fault, it's a fundamental law of economics. If you want to keep cutting into the profit margin, then that's your choice as well, but you will lose a lot of customers which will, in the long run, seriously affect your profit margin. Not a threat, just a fact. And a side note on the head judge: we were calling him Kim Jong-Il at the players meeting, long before we had a chance to be disappointed in the outcome of the tournament. It was not a personal assault on him, nor was it us taking our frustration with the tournament on him, but rather a commentary on what he sounded like. He was shouting in an angry-sounding way in English with an Asian accent. I'm sure he's a great person; what he sounds like has nothing to do with that. As a head judge, it was very difficult to understand him. Very. And while we did not call him Kim Jong-Il to his face, I would hope that his self-esteem is not so fragile so that he could not take a joke had we done so. He's a grown man. If he really has a problem with it, then perhaps he has some maturing to do. Real life is way harder than that. But I don't think that the head judge is the one who has the problem with it. Political correctness at it's best, people.
|
|
|
30
|
Eternal Formats / Miscellaneous / Re: A Meditation on Mystic Remora
|
on: March 18, 2009, 01:47:03 pm
|
Regardless, Commandeering a Goblin Welder or a Crucible of Worlds can straight-up win the game.
Commandeering a Goblin Welder probably not  Apparently, you have never played the Stax mirror or Control Slaver Vs Stax matchup. Having Welder superiority, even if it's only for a few turns, is the key to beating Stax.
|
|
|
|