Natural Order - Prog was a deck for a while in TWL. Oh and S&T:Emrakul needs no icing on the cake to be a game winner. Though I like Stingscourger as an answer :p

Really very nice work perform by the admin. Unique collections. Bank PO Coaching | UGC NET Coaching

Hate is such a strong word. She is extremely op and Annihilator 6 is what really irks me. The rest makes her just a more powerful Progenitus who is also on my list of jerk faces. The two of them are so unfun to be on the other end of. At least with prog you typically have a turn to wrath him away (as unlikely as that may be) but with Emrakul the odds go from slim to none. Also She doesn't die to one of my favorite sweepers: Blasphemous act. 15 toughness! :/

The enablers make these monsters super easy (Natural Order: Prog anyone?) to get out and their inate abilities make them insane to deal with. That's why I don't like them.

Cumulative answer (to the stuff on Facebook too).

AJ_Impy: yes, I very much want to see all those Painter's Servant combos! :)

Winter.Wolf: "I have issues with the banned list being so arbitrary". Exactly! Me too!

We have to agree on a working definition of "annoyance". A card able to create a powerful endgame combo isn't an annoyance per se. We have plenty of them in the pool: this is Legacy. An annoyance is a card that impacts the meta. And the keyword here is "meta", meaning not the "Legacy pool", but "Tribal Apocalypse and its playing community". There are cards very clearly wrong for the format, and we can easily set them apart and go all "hic sunt leones" on them: stuff like Hypergensis, Glimpse of Nature, and Goblin Lackey. But I don't think it's warranted to ban a card just because it's theoretically possible to build a power deck with them. This concept doesn't say anything about our meta.

In my opinion, a good share of our players aren't even really aware that, for instance, Doomsday is banned. And wouldn't care, as far as they are concerned. In order to build a Doomsday deck in tribal, you need a certain mindset. I feel safe to say it's not the prevalent mindset here and will never be. Why do I say so? Because most players come here to play tribal decks. For better or for worse, they enjoy the linear building of classic tribes. And on the other hand, the ones among us that will enjoy a good Doomsday combo, aren't players that will be willing to do that EVERY WEEK. I'd go as far as to say that Doomsday combo (and stuff like that) is INHERENTLY a kind of deck that you don't want to play too often, unless there's some serious competition involved. I'm sure Ayanam1 will try it. Once. I don't see many other players even wanting to do that, because it boils down to a series of actions that most players would find boring after a while.
So what I'm saying is: Doomsday isn't an issue because a) it will not be played if occasionally, b) a power card that only shows up occasionally doesn't affect the meta, and c) if some jackass will try and exploit it to go undefeated often, we will just intevene (by suspending/banning it again). But I want to intervene AFTER the problem arises. Because otherwise, the banning will be arbitrary like Paul said.

Here's the thing: we can't go Modern with Legacy. We can't say, "Ok, there's Valakut, and there's Dredge, and there's Cloudpost, and there's Pyromancer Ascension/Storm. Let's ban all of them, and we're done". We will be never done with Legacy. We can't "purify" Legacy. What we're currently doing is having an arbitrary selection where Dream Halls, Aluren and Goblin Charbelcher are ok, but Sneak Attack, Doomsday, and Helm of Obedience aren't.

And here's a proof of what I said before: 70 events with Goblin Charbelcher free and legal, 1 Goblin Charbelcher deck. Is it because our players are stupid? Or they don't want to win? Or is it maybe because you have to be willing to put yourself behind a Charbelcher deck, and pretty much nobody cared so far? Even grapplingfarang, who won the one event he piloted it, isn't so eager to do it again. We definitely see Charbelcher again, but barring someone becoming really enamored of the archetype, it will never be an issue.

And please don't tell me, "this deck consistently wins in 3 turns". Do you know which decks consistently win in 3 turns? Goblin decks. And Elf decks. I lost to both by turn 3 plenty of times. I never had the pleasure to lose to Charbelcher in turn 3, or Aluren, or whatever other combo might be deemed "too powerful". And it would have been a pleasure for sure, compared to losing to the same Elf combo or the same combination of hasted goblins and burn, again and again and again. THAT's an issue for the meta. Punishing Fire >>>[put infinite symbols here]>>>> Goblin Charbelcher in the meta.

And guys, do you know which other deck consistently wins by turn 3? Pretty much any fattie deck with Show and Tell. No, I correct myself: that would be turn 2; can't be too hard to drop Noble Hierach or Birds of Paradise on turn 1 and show and tell some indestructible or hexproof fattie on turn 2, while the opponent has still just one land in play. When these plays are possible (and still the sky didn't fall), are we really going to be concerned about some guy who one day will bring a Sneak Attack deck? I want to see the Sneak Attack deck and how it can win on turn 1! At least it will be new.

Which bring me to another consideration. In Legacy, I want to see things that make me learn more about this game. I want to play against broken combos that I don't know. What I don't want is to play against the same broken combo every week. Becase that would be been there, done that. That's why we need to free as much cards as possible. (Although I really think those proposed unbannings would result in absolutely nothing, because almost nobody here even owns a set of LED, for instance).

And I want to worry MORE when I build a deck, not less. This brings me to mihahitlor (and yes, I once Teferi's Moated you! :P). I hear you in general, but on one thing I disagree: it's not good to let tribes like the ones you mention live and prosper with no worry about cards like Moat. They need to have the Moat problem in deckbuilding. They need to find ways to fight power enchantments, or take the risk and occasionally fold to them. It's only healthy. It's not that Goblins or Merfolks or Vampires aren't strong to begin with. They don't need help. Quite the contrary: they need challenges to overcome in the meta. Once you meet a deck with a strategy you never met, you'll go back to the drawing board and make some changes to your deck. That's part of the fun, not a concern. And of course, if Moat would become the next Punishing Fire, THEN will become an issue. But we played with Moat on Tribal Apocalypse. For a lot of time. It was banned halfway through the first year of the Blippian Era, which means, what, 3-4 years of Moat in Tribal Apocalypse? There weren't dark times, Goblins and Merfolks and Vampires were still winning tribes.

However, the Moat debate: that's moot, folks (no pun intended). We can't decide on the Moat. I'll write a letter to WotC as soon as I find some time to do it, and I'll let AJ, Paul, Blippy and everyone interested know and discuss the text (I'll probably put it in an article). But that's it. Everyone is free to write a different letter petitioning against the unbanning of Moat. This has little to do with Tribal Apocalypse.

The Emrakul question: Paul, you really hate the spaghetti monster! :P But to me what I said in the article needs to be pondered. Isn't possible that Emrakul is more about the psychological impact (on both whom plays with him and whom is beated by him) than anything else? When somebody drops a Colossus or Ulamog on you, try and think if Emrakul would cause a worse situation, or just the same. Anyway, he's not proposed for unbanning. Among the Trifecta, I would be happier to unban Progenitus first, and maybe just that.

RexDart (Chris Wynes: that's you, right?): What you say about the Endangered being important to you concerns me. That's the reason I originally proposed to have 2 non-regular events per month, but I understand that would piss off MORE players, the ones who just want to come and play regular Tribal Wars, without shenanigans of sort. It's hard to make everyone happy (let's say: impossible). I invite you to try out both Singleton and Double anyway: I don't know how they will turn out to be, but I hope they will allow for more card variety. To console you, I can say that Endangered will always be the format of choice for Special Weeks, meaning that, for instance, the rest of the year will have a cycle of Singleton, Double, Endangered, Singleton, Double, Endangered, ending on November 3 (December will not have one of these special weeks because there are already 3 very special events scheduled: Commander, Christmas, New Year). And January will start again with Endangered, so there will always be more of Endangered than the other two (this on the assumption that we don't stop doing one of them or both altogether, if they're not well-received).

I think you guys are right on both counts, thanks for the clarification. Demonic Taskmaster still looks sweet! Abundant growth less so, outside of limited anyway.

Accounting is easy. It only gets hard when you take multiple accounting classes at once!

I am sooo glad you are back doing these videos its been rough for me drafting ISD i learn a lot from watching draft videos. I am glad your back and feeling better. as usual great job and glad ur back.

Story Circle would indeed be better. Hangover from building lots of pauper decks, so my knowledge of commons is often better...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be easier just to run 4x Story Circle instead of 2 of each circle?

RE: Fanaticism... everything in moderation is a tough way to live. I think some people do manage it. My own approach is abstain from the things I absolutely know I can't handle (alchohol, cigs, drugs, smokes, sugar...). So far so good.

Also I know what you mean by ridiculous ex-trends. I was a bandana collector in high school. I had every possible color of bandana I could find and wore as many as I could manage at one time. Silly right? *shrugs* Then I went through a rock/punk buttons phase. If I liked their music I would gather buttons from any band and wear denim vests or jackets with buttons all over.

I also wore my hair very long (below my waist) for a while in my 20s. Granted that was part of the music scene I was immersed in so may be not entirely pointless, but boy was it a drag cleaning and caring for it.

Anyway I don't think of these things as uncool (as I do my drinking and getting high as a teenager. Those things nearly ended me.) I think people having quirks, flaws and obsessions is as natural as trees having leaves. I worry more about those who strive so hard to appear cool that they won't admit to being geeky, nerdy, fanatical or screwed up. Those people are truly dangerous.

Glad to see you are keeping your hand in it but I am severely disappointed in the lack of cartoons (3 frames??) in this episode. Next time moar drawing, grrr!

Just an fyi, Abundant Growth only taps for one mana...it's not like Wild Growth, but it is decent mana fixing in limited.