Man.... all that Oath hate :( it stopped me this weekend. I played one guy who in one turn hit me with Erase (which I countered), Wispmare (which I stifled), and then another Wispmare which finally got through -- all in one turn! Why don't you go pick on dredge or something? Just kidding, obviously you earned it by knowing the meta and preparing your deck. Congrats on the win, and I'll see you next week with hate for your hate.
I'm so glad the Classic Challenges are firing regularly now!
By the way guys I could hear Hammy Typing through out this cast. Perhaps angling the mic away from the keyboard would be good? Is that possible? Not a big deal of course but I kept thinking to myself..."Who is he texting/Iming???"
In other news: 4x Extinction purchased. Let's hope they haven't realized their horrible mistake and reban it :p
I kid. I did get 4 but I don't expect them to dominate. I do expect them to be useful as is An-Zerrin ruins.
I look forward to hearing who makes the cut for the new podcasts. I would love to give it a go as a guest sometime but I haven't the foggiest what I could contribute to what you guys already do so well. Anyway thanks for another tuesday hour spent.
I don't play casual much, but just for the fun of it I recently put together a Sneak Attack Dragons deck that was strong but could never hold up in the TP room. It was really rough and very easily disrupted. I got so scolded by one guy when I got out a dragon on turn 2. He was so mad that I wasn't paying retail for my fatties and called me a cheater. Here's the thing, though - the dragon was like a 5/5, so he wasn't dead. And Sneak Attack makes me sac the dragon at end of turn. And after all the acceleration I had to use, I was down to one card in hand. All he needed was a Disenchant and I was done for. But all he could see was an 8cmc creature on turn 2. Sometimes there's a bigger picture than just the threat right in front of you.
In general I think it's a flaw of the casual room that people play single games rather than matches. There's just no way to build a deck without a sideboard that can handle the infinite variety of casual decks. Sometimes a deck, fair or not, will just beat you by doing something you have no way to stop. If matches were more common, people could prepare for more threats. They'd also see the more sides of different decks. Maybe a combo deck won with something you weren't expecting. But in game 2, maybe you'd see that guy just got lucky and his deck really isn't consistent. Or you've seen how the combo works and maybe it's actually very easy to stop. With single games, you just concede and get upset about how unfair that guy's deck is.
When I first began playing Magic, I gravitated towards red and that's where my heart has stayed ever since. My first more serious decks were Ponza and Wildfire. I love blowing things up and the chaos that ensues. Where I think you are mistaken is equating LD with victory. So many times I have tried to make Ponza work in either Legacy or Pauper, but it always turns out that I lose more than I win. It's a labour of love trying to get this dying strategy to win. Yes, my goal is to deny my opponent the resources to continue, but that isn't easy in a world of Wild Nacatls and Birds of Paradise. Most LD is 3cc or higher, meaning that by the time I can even begin attacking your resources, you may have a few threats down already. If I add mana acceleration then I deplete my strategy and open myself up to drawing accel and no LD. Similarly, I need a win condition. So many times I draw win conditions and no LD, or one LD spell, hardly enough to halt an onslaught. From my perspective as an LD player, it IS a gargantuan and improbable task: I feel like I am David fighting Goliath. Yet, more often than not, I can't succeed. One last thing, the LD player's goal is not to stop you from playing – or at least, it would be stupid for him to attempt that – instead it's to slow your progression enough so that he can put out a threat you can't deal with, but let's face it, it usually never goes as scripted in our dreams.
The same could be said of counter magic. I play a deck I love, mono blue Faeries, in Pauper and most of the games I play are close and enjoyable. My Faeries are so weak that I can't have a very strong board presence, and I use counters as a way to help control the game, but (again) it doesn't always work that way.
In short, despite your arguments, I'm personally not swayed. I hate life gain (the bane of red mages) and don't really enjoy playing against a line of Calcite Snapper, Aven Riftwatcher, Kor Skyfisher, etc., but I'm not going to decide what someone can or cannot play: that's what the banned lists are for.
On the separate issue of blocking, yeah, I think your stance before was harsh and I also think just conceding is equally harsh as that implies it is impossible to have a good and interactive game against those various archetypes. For the reason I mentioned above, those games are not auto-lose and they can be a good struggle for resources and eventually the win.
I completely agree with blocking because of being rude and I would also encourage people to report abusive behavior. Remember that using tricks to circumvent the censors so that you can launch abuse is against the MTGO code of conduct and can be reported. If I find someone particularly rude, I will always concede.
They should use all that $ to make the game better in many ways... they get so much $$ out of the playing population. It's just wrong to sit there on the fact that we will pay them regardless of improvements.
Yes it is. Wondering what Wizards are doing with all that money. Poor security, bad interface, inefficient customer service. This is what we get for paying to play the game we enjoy.
I can no longer count the number of players I know who have quit competitive MTG, or MTGO due to mythics. I have seen at least two whole playgroups dwindle to nothing as a result of an inability to keep up. The reason is simple. If your group is gearing up to play in the current environment before a big tourney, you will need many copies of a given tourney staple card due to many pilots running the same deck concept, with possibly different, or identical builds. This means that if the deck you come up with runs 3-4 Jace (for an example), at 8 pilots, you need minimum 24 Jace as a playgroup. Mythics make this very difficult on the salary commonly generated by the average member of a playgroup of Hobbyists. Even tougher as a single player. In times past you could simply buy enough boxes as a group to generate the rares needed, but mythics make that no longer cost efficient, even for a group. Buying singles is the same, because if you need that many, even finding enough from stores can be tough. Trading is out of the question, because that 10 year old who just pulled a Jace out of a worldwake pack last Saturday afternoon thinks he just found the Holy Grail, and won't trade it for anything.
To be clear.
Mythic Rarity does only 2 things...
1) Makes WoTC lots of unsustainable growth in the short term. This looks awesome on a quarterly report to shareholders (mainly daytraders really), but is damaging to the morale of the player base, and fails to build for the future.
2) Bars the doors almost completely for competitive Standard to those without considerable amounts of disposable income.
My issue isn't with WoTC wanting money. I want WoTC to make money. I want the game here in 20 years. I am a stakeholder in the success of WoTC.
My issue isn't with spending money. I like to spend money on this game. I play classic on MTGO, and can afford to buy the "hot cards". I really like the existence of chase cards, even digital ones. I was one of the very few in my area to embrace foils, when they first glimmered their way onto the paper MTG scene. I like that a player can pull a foil Rare from a pack in a local shop, and someone might trade them an older card of some value (that they could not easily get otherwise) for it, because it's shiny. I have been on both sides of that experience, and it rocks both ways. I like promo cards, with different cool art. There is one major unifying factor to all of these chase cards tho. They are unimportant. They are fun little ways to show off because you took the time/spent the money. They are the "Pimp my Ride" of the card gaming world. Important to note, however, that spinning rims, and a platinum bumper do not make your car faster.
What mythics do is completely different. Mythics are completely different cards, not chase versions, and therefore have a dramatic impact on any environment they are allowed into (just like any other card). The Mythic rarity attached to these cards however simply makes it so that that less people can play with (card X), in much the same way as rares vs uncommons interract, but in the extreme, literally saying "less people can play this".
I actually like the concept of Mythic rarity. The concept in and of itself would be awesome in a completely non competitve gaming environment, such as a legendary (mythic) card in an unglued set that made people wonder if it really exists. However, competitve magic is not that game. I would also totally chase down mythic alternative art versions of cards that exist in regular versions in the set. That would be a great use of mythic rarity, and would still sell more packs.
Perhaps the target demographic for Standard has changed in the view of WoTC. I am not privy to that information, but in previous years it had seemed like the "gamer" had been their bread and butter. This hobby was already relatively expensive to play competitively for a typical American member of that demographic, and to make it moreso, especially in the economic climate today in America (where WoTC is based) seems ludacris. Again, to be clear, I have no qualms whatsoever with spending $80-$100 on a tournament rare (Vintage has always been my favorite format, and I desperatly want it online), but to have to spend that on one that's currently "in print" due to it's elevated rarity, and out of a desire to sell more packs has turned me off to competitve standard alltogether at this point.
In the 15 years I have played this game WoTC's ability to constantly re-invent the wheel, and intrigue me, sometimes disgust me (storm, skullclamp), and still hook me has been amazing. I have seen so many decisions that I disagreed with from them over the years, but almost always they were gaming mechanics. Only once before have I felt that as a company they made a true mistake, which did damage to the longevity of this hobby, and that was the Reserve list.
In closing.. for the two of you who made it through this wall of text, and soapbox ranting.
I truly believe Mythics are a mistake, it is rapidly doing damage to the beginner/core player base of competitve Standard and I really hope they reconsider soon.
Nice gilded drakes to go with vials.. looks very neat.
The counter-top deck isn't really a counter-top deck. It's more like tezz than anything else. (I'm a singular entity too ;p)
THIS JUST IN: Jitte being missed WAS an oversight, and has now been corrected on the initial posting. Umezawa's Jitte IS still banned in Tribal Legacy.
When reading through the first three installments, I was pretty interested. I've been all-in on Pauper for a long time, and can be very Spikey when it comes to constructed. Your articles recalled the same D&D game I also liked, the same time period I used to play, and really captured the spirit of the big-deck multiplayer games that were had before I learend "the rules."
Then you throw Rosseau at me. I'm hooked :-)
I've always kept Commander/EDH in the back of my mind, and I've looked on in curiosity at the local shop as people play. I'm going to have to give it a shot now. Awesome articles!
Yeah, I get what you're saying about Spikes, but from what you say, it sounds like they don't actually like the game on the whole and to some degree it seems like they're not worth Wizards' attention, to be honest. I mean, I like winning as much as the next person, but I too don't feel like sinking lots of money into Standard, so I stick to RDW, and after rotation I will stay on red. Actually, I think I'm going to keep playing only red in Standard forever. Other decks look like fun and I'd love to play them, but I can't (can't read won't pay that much for mythics).
The difference between me and a Spike, however, is I love Magic more than I love winning with the top deck and more than any one format. So it would seem that Spikes are kind of fickle in that they don't really like Magic enough to improvise and instead would rather go home if they can't play with the most expensive toys.
I'm not trying to be harsh or unfair, I just think there are many solutions to the problem that don't involve quitting if you really and truly love the game.
I know Standard is the flagship format, but maybe the format isn't as unhealthy as the mindset of the players. I don't think there are too many hardcore Legacy players who expect to build different decks week in and week out. Look at someone like David Price of New Horizons fame. He brewed that deck and has been playing it for months and months. Or Bryant Cook playing TES for years and years. That seems more reasonable than "I have to build ramp this week and uw control next week... oh damn, I need to build mythic now". The online Legacy meta, especially working up to the Grand Prix, was also a rapidly changing format. I guess I just don't think it's normal or healthy to expect to have every card in the format x 4. That seems excessive, imho.
Postscript: [mini rant]By the way, does anyone want to start a format with no rares/mythics, please? I really don't know why Peasant limits the amount of uncommons. We have:
Pauper: only commons
Peasant: what is it 3 UCs?
Heirloom: value cap.
What about just plain ole no rares/mythics? Just sayin'.[/mini rant]
One thing I notice is that a lotta people seem to want to play the same cards... meaning similar decks... similar weaknesses and a similarity in the format (at top level at least). Examples are Jace 2.0, Tarmy, Bob etc.
Obviously as a business WOTC is not gonna stop printing mythics. What I think would be a good idea to possibly fix this issue is require standard and/or other formats to be restircted in the number of mythics allowed in a deck - has worked in the past for restriced cards - possibly this is the solution that would seem to more people happier. It would get back to the idea of 'forcing' a little more variety in the deck.
Whether it would work in reality or not - I dunno but a solution is needed if people continue to have the same gripe and WOTC notices (probably more on the bottom line than anywhere else).
To be a serious Spike, it's not enough to have a deck. As the metagame switches or new tech arises, you need to be able to say "Jund has trouble with Wall of Omens and Obstinate Baloth, so I'll be running Mythic Conscription now." It's fine to play a cheaper deck if you have faith in it, but if not then you're giving yourself a handicap that others won't have.
And this is more true online because of testing. Even if you have a preferred deck, switching sides to test a bad matchup helps you learn the other deck's weaknesses - which you can exploit when switching back to your preference. In paper you just proxy up and test. But MTGO requires the actual cards, so you either get them or switch to evil unsanctioned programs. That makes the Mythic situation quite onerous.
(For what it's worth, Soul Sisters was really only good against players who didn't know how to beat it yet, and RDW has given way to Koros with Elspeth and sideboarded Baneslayers.)
The alternate formats point is a good one. I certainly partake. But Standard is the flagship format and although Wizards has been good about promoting Pauper I don't think they really want most of their customers to stop collecting after the uncommons.
Repetition of names in the same listing is different versions (e.g. Tempest Time Warp vs M10 Time Warp).
Repetition of names in a different listing is a different category (e.g. biggest numerical gain vs biggest percentage gain).
Looks like fun in the casual room. I have actually been looking for a quirky deck with fast potential to play in the casual room while waiting for someone to join the singleton queues and this might be worth throwing together.
I think this topic is something relevant as many users end up getting better cards (thru trades and time).
For example I have in the last month managed to snag 20 multi-lands in trades - and news like this is a concern for protection of my account.
I know for example that my account pass is relatively secure - what I cannot guarantee is that the WOTC servers are secure - all it would take is to get a access to the encrypted usernames/passwords (assuming that is that they are stored in a one way encryptable string - as they should) - then from that you could easily work out the passwords thru brute generating of passes and comparing. (Approx 3000 - 5000 Hashes can be generated w/out CUDA/GPU via a normal CPU's based brute force currently).
Now if that is not the case (lord hope it is not) no ones account is safe (barr maybe a few exceptions of incredibly complex special char passes - even then they are breakable (with time) - as users of MTGO what do we have as reassurances that such a thing is not occurring.
Just food for thought - you can do all you like to protect your account but in most cases nowadays for most sites where hacked accounts appear - tend to have been gotten thru stolen passfiles off servers, not directly brute forced directly via a login system (as that often has limits/IP blocking).
Well there goes my first post on PureMTGO
Hopefully it is of some interest to my fellow players
Well put - as these comments show you are certainly not alone in your evaluations. I got into MTGO back during TSP/Ravnica and was able to get into a competitive standard deck from a standing start pretty quickly and regularly competed in standard 8 mans - and this was at the height of the griping about the prices of dual lands. I haven't played in a mainstream constructed format in... actually, now that I think about it, it has been since they started releasing mythics.
My with mythics gripe is not that wizards is killing the game. The game is doing fine. My gripe isn't even with the prices. It still isn't *that* expensive compared to some hobbies, especially if you are able to put the work into trading your decks into other decks as needed and not trying to collect whole sets (this is usually a value play for those interested in standard - but is hard to do if you like the longer horizon formats).
My gripe is that WOTC sold us a bill of goods when mythics were originally described. Mythics were sold as being primarily about flavor and awe. As it turns out (not unpredictably) mythics have become *the* axis that standard turns on and as a result made Standard (ie. the "entry level" constructed environment) less approachable. Yes, I am aware that the original description of mythics was vague enough to allow for everything we have seen to date. But WOTC has failed by only living up to the letter and not the spirit of the guidelines they laid down.
C'est la vie - its a good thing this game is still so fun.
I came back to Magic back in 10th edition and enjoyed Lorwyn so much I started buying boxes again. Now I have a reasonable amount of disposable income, but I was able to build a Lark deck for a reasonable price and promptly top 8ed a Northern California regional. After that I had the bug and signed up for MTGO so I could practice constructed online and then put the deck together in paper to play PTQs, States, and Regionals. At this point I was much like the author spending maybe $100 per month on average. Then Mythics were announced and I wasn't happy. As it turned out nothing crazy happened with Mythics for Shards so I made sure I had full playsets of the important rares and Mythics without breaking the bank.
Then Baneslayer happened, then Jace, then Primeval Titan. Magic 2011 was the last time I'll buy paper Mythics to keep up. I can't afford several hundred dollars a month and I resent not being able to buy a few boxes and pretty much have what I need to play constructed. The pre-sales on the 3 planeswalkers for this set in paper is just silly. They're all good and all $50 which makes Spike style constructed deck building far too expensive. So I've switched to being a limited player only in paper. I'm spending my money more on MTGO because there's just more value and they Mythics aren't typically as crazy prices. Even there I'm considering going to strictly limited online. So mine is another story of Wizards losing out on a $100-$150 per month player because of Mythics. Playing online drafts only cuts me down to easily $50 or so per month and leaves me a lot less invested in the game overall.
So I think without a change to they Mythic rarity Wizards is looking at a long term drop in players and dollars spent even if they're booming now.
Diminish is one of the last cards I cut from the list. I consider Diminish to be a mediocre card that is slightly weaker Mighty Leap. You have to go through a lot of hoops in order for Diminish to be good, and it is almost always trumped by Giant Growth, Mighty Leap, or spot removal.
Of course if you've got a couple of Prodigal Pyromancers, it gets significantly better. It's also pretty good with Scroll Thief as Scroll Thief kind of forces blocking.
For what its worth: Carnifex doesn't actually *mean* executioner in Latin, despite what the first several hits on a google search claim. It actually means "butcher". literally "meat-maker" (this would also be a pretty gnarly name for a Demon). It was only later applied as a titular addendum to the executioner of Rome, the post with which it eventually became synonymous.
I decided to go back and read your article on ROE limited. I found your dry, blunt, dark tone to be extremely entertaining. I'm not trying to be snarky - I seriously enjoyed the hell out of that article.
Another fine article. A couple of questions/comments popped up for me as I was building along:
- Did you consider Diminish for your WU build given the scant amount of removal available? What are your thoughts on that card?
- I agree that the use of green was a tough decision in Pool 4. My initial BGw build did include it so I could get the Pacifisms, but I understood after reading what you built (as well as your recently posted comment) that using green for Cultivate amounts to splashing for color-fixing (agreeably a bad idea in most cases). After revisiting the pool, I probably would have just gone BW as green had nothing exciting as a finisher. Glad to see your BR build turned out well.
Congrats on the kid! I know there have been plenty of times when my kids were smaller that I would try to hold them and play. They needed a bottle, but I could sometimes get 5 minutes of play uninterrupted. It's worth it sometimes, when you are feeding the kid at midnight and trying to get some playing time in. Of course, there were plenty of times when it didn't work out quite as well.
Man.... all that Oath hate :( it stopped me this weekend. I played one guy who in one turn hit me with Erase (which I countered), Wispmare (which I stifled), and then another Wispmare which finally got through -- all in one turn! Why don't you go pick on dredge or something? Just kidding, obviously you earned it by knowing the meta and preparing your deck. Congrats on the win, and I'll see you next week with hate for your hate.
I'm so glad the Classic Challenges are firing regularly now!
By the way guys I could hear Hammy Typing through out this cast. Perhaps angling the mic away from the keyboard would be good? Is that possible? Not a big deal of course but I kept thinking to myself..."Who is he texting/Iming???"
In other news: 4x Extinction purchased. Let's hope they haven't realized their horrible mistake and reban it :p
I kid. I did get 4 but I don't expect them to dominate. I do expect them to be useful as is An-Zerrin ruins.
I look forward to hearing who makes the cut for the new podcasts. I would love to give it a go as a guest sometime but I haven't the foggiest what I could contribute to what you guys already do so well. Anyway thanks for another tuesday hour spent.
I don't play casual much, but just for the fun of it I recently put together a Sneak Attack Dragons deck that was strong but could never hold up in the TP room. It was really rough and very easily disrupted. I got so scolded by one guy when I got out a dragon on turn 2. He was so mad that I wasn't paying retail for my fatties and called me a cheater. Here's the thing, though - the dragon was like a 5/5, so he wasn't dead. And Sneak Attack makes me sac the dragon at end of turn. And after all the acceleration I had to use, I was down to one card in hand. All he needed was a Disenchant and I was done for. But all he could see was an 8cmc creature on turn 2. Sometimes there's a bigger picture than just the threat right in front of you.
In general I think it's a flaw of the casual room that people play single games rather than matches. There's just no way to build a deck without a sideboard that can handle the infinite variety of casual decks. Sometimes a deck, fair or not, will just beat you by doing something you have no way to stop. If matches were more common, people could prepare for more threats. They'd also see the more sides of different decks. Maybe a combo deck won with something you weren't expecting. But in game 2, maybe you'd see that guy just got lucky and his deck really isn't consistent. Or you've seen how the combo works and maybe it's actually very easy to stop. With single games, you just concede and get upset about how unfair that guy's deck is.
When I first began playing Magic, I gravitated towards red and that's where my heart has stayed ever since. My first more serious decks were Ponza and Wildfire. I love blowing things up and the chaos that ensues. Where I think you are mistaken is equating LD with victory. So many times I have tried to make Ponza work in either Legacy or Pauper, but it always turns out that I lose more than I win. It's a labour of love trying to get this dying strategy to win. Yes, my goal is to deny my opponent the resources to continue, but that isn't easy in a world of Wild Nacatls and Birds of Paradise. Most LD is 3cc or higher, meaning that by the time I can even begin attacking your resources, you may have a few threats down already. If I add mana acceleration then I deplete my strategy and open myself up to drawing accel and no LD. Similarly, I need a win condition. So many times I draw win conditions and no LD, or one LD spell, hardly enough to halt an onslaught. From my perspective as an LD player, it IS a gargantuan and improbable task: I feel like I am David fighting Goliath. Yet, more often than not, I can't succeed. One last thing, the LD player's goal is not to stop you from playing – or at least, it would be stupid for him to attempt that – instead it's to slow your progression enough so that he can put out a threat you can't deal with, but let's face it, it usually never goes as scripted in our dreams.
The same could be said of counter magic. I play a deck I love, mono blue Faeries, in Pauper and most of the games I play are close and enjoyable. My Faeries are so weak that I can't have a very strong board presence, and I use counters as a way to help control the game, but (again) it doesn't always work that way.
In short, despite your arguments, I'm personally not swayed. I hate life gain (the bane of red mages) and don't really enjoy playing against a line of Calcite Snapper, Aven Riftwatcher, Kor Skyfisher, etc., but I'm not going to decide what someone can or cannot play: that's what the banned lists are for.
*****************************************************************
On the separate issue of blocking, yeah, I think your stance before was harsh and I also think just conceding is equally harsh as that implies it is impossible to have a good and interactive game against those various archetypes. For the reason I mentioned above, those games are not auto-lose and they can be a good struggle for resources and eventually the win.
I completely agree with blocking because of being rude and I would also encourage people to report abusive behavior. Remember that using tricks to circumvent the censors so that you can launch abuse is against the MTGO code of conduct and can be reported. If I find someone particularly rude, I will always concede.
They should use all that $ to make the game better in many ways... they get so much $$ out of the playing population. It's just wrong to sit there on the fact that we will pay them regardless of improvements.
Yes it is. Wondering what Wizards are doing with all that money. Poor security, bad interface, inefficient customer service. This is what we get for paying to play the game we enjoy.
I can no longer count the number of players I know who have quit competitive MTG, or MTGO due to mythics. I have seen at least two whole playgroups dwindle to nothing as a result of an inability to keep up. The reason is simple. If your group is gearing up to play in the current environment before a big tourney, you will need many copies of a given tourney staple card due to many pilots running the same deck concept, with possibly different, or identical builds. This means that if the deck you come up with runs 3-4 Jace (for an example), at 8 pilots, you need minimum 24 Jace as a playgroup. Mythics make this very difficult on the salary commonly generated by the average member of a playgroup of Hobbyists. Even tougher as a single player. In times past you could simply buy enough boxes as a group to generate the rares needed, but mythics make that no longer cost efficient, even for a group. Buying singles is the same, because if you need that many, even finding enough from stores can be tough. Trading is out of the question, because that 10 year old who just pulled a Jace out of a worldwake pack last Saturday afternoon thinks he just found the Holy Grail, and won't trade it for anything.
To be clear.
Mythic Rarity does only 2 things...
1) Makes WoTC lots of unsustainable growth in the short term. This looks awesome on a quarterly report to shareholders (mainly daytraders really), but is damaging to the morale of the player base, and fails to build for the future.
2) Bars the doors almost completely for competitive Standard to those without considerable amounts of disposable income.
My issue isn't with WoTC wanting money. I want WoTC to make money. I want the game here in 20 years. I am a stakeholder in the success of WoTC.
My issue isn't with spending money. I like to spend money on this game. I play classic on MTGO, and can afford to buy the "hot cards". I really like the existence of chase cards, even digital ones. I was one of the very few in my area to embrace foils, when they first glimmered their way onto the paper MTG scene. I like that a player can pull a foil Rare from a pack in a local shop, and someone might trade them an older card of some value (that they could not easily get otherwise) for it, because it's shiny. I have been on both sides of that experience, and it rocks both ways. I like promo cards, with different cool art. There is one major unifying factor to all of these chase cards tho. They are unimportant. They are fun little ways to show off because you took the time/spent the money. They are the "Pimp my Ride" of the card gaming world. Important to note, however, that spinning rims, and a platinum bumper do not make your car faster.
What mythics do is completely different. Mythics are completely different cards, not chase versions, and therefore have a dramatic impact on any environment they are allowed into (just like any other card). The Mythic rarity attached to these cards however simply makes it so that that less people can play with (card X), in much the same way as rares vs uncommons interract, but in the extreme, literally saying "less people can play this".
I actually like the concept of Mythic rarity. The concept in and of itself would be awesome in a completely non competitve gaming environment, such as a legendary (mythic) card in an unglued set that made people wonder if it really exists. However, competitve magic is not that game. I would also totally chase down mythic alternative art versions of cards that exist in regular versions in the set. That would be a great use of mythic rarity, and would still sell more packs.
Perhaps the target demographic for Standard has changed in the view of WoTC. I am not privy to that information, but in previous years it had seemed like the "gamer" had been their bread and butter. This hobby was already relatively expensive to play competitively for a typical American member of that demographic, and to make it moreso, especially in the economic climate today in America (where WoTC is based) seems ludacris. Again, to be clear, I have no qualms whatsoever with spending $80-$100 on a tournament rare (Vintage has always been my favorite format, and I desperatly want it online), but to have to spend that on one that's currently "in print" due to it's elevated rarity, and out of a desire to sell more packs has turned me off to competitve standard alltogether at this point.
In the 15 years I have played this game WoTC's ability to constantly re-invent the wheel, and intrigue me, sometimes disgust me (storm, skullclamp), and still hook me has been amazing. I have seen so many decisions that I disagreed with from them over the years, but almost always they were gaming mechanics. Only once before have I felt that as a company they made a true mistake, which did damage to the longevity of this hobby, and that was the Reserve list.
In closing.. for the two of you who made it through this wall of text, and soapbox ranting.
I truly believe Mythics are a mistake, it is rapidly doing damage to the beginner/core player base of competitve Standard and I really hope they reconsider soon.
Nice gilded drakes to go with vials.. looks very neat.
The counter-top deck isn't really a counter-top deck. It's more like tezz than anything else. (I'm a singular entity too ;p)
THIS JUST IN: Jitte being missed WAS an oversight, and has now been corrected on the initial posting. Umezawa's Jitte IS still banned in Tribal Legacy.
Which is a relief.
When reading through the first three installments, I was pretty interested. I've been all-in on Pauper for a long time, and can be very Spikey when it comes to constructed. Your articles recalled the same D&D game I also liked, the same time period I used to play, and really captured the spirit of the big-deck multiplayer games that were had before I learend "the rules."
Then you throw Rosseau at me. I'm hooked :-)
I've always kept Commander/EDH in the back of my mind, and I've looked on in curiosity at the local shop as people play. I'm going to have to give it a shot now. Awesome articles!
Yeah, I get what you're saying about Spikes, but from what you say, it sounds like they don't actually like the game on the whole and to some degree it seems like they're not worth Wizards' attention, to be honest. I mean, I like winning as much as the next person, but I too don't feel like sinking lots of money into Standard, so I stick to RDW, and after rotation I will stay on red. Actually, I think I'm going to keep playing only red in Standard forever. Other decks look like fun and I'd love to play them, but I can't (can't read won't pay that much for mythics).
The difference between me and a Spike, however, is I love Magic more than I love winning with the top deck and more than any one format. So it would seem that Spikes are kind of fickle in that they don't really like Magic enough to improvise and instead would rather go home if they can't play with the most expensive toys.
I'm not trying to be harsh or unfair, I just think there are many solutions to the problem that don't involve quitting if you really and truly love the game.
I know Standard is the flagship format, but maybe the format isn't as unhealthy as the mindset of the players. I don't think there are too many hardcore Legacy players who expect to build different decks week in and week out. Look at someone like David Price of New Horizons fame. He brewed that deck and has been playing it for months and months. Or Bryant Cook playing TES for years and years. That seems more reasonable than "I have to build ramp this week and uw control next week... oh damn, I need to build mythic now". The online Legacy meta, especially working up to the Grand Prix, was also a rapidly changing format. I guess I just don't think it's normal or healthy to expect to have every card in the format x 4. That seems excessive, imho.
Postscript: [mini rant]By the way, does anyone want to start a format with no rares/mythics, please? I really don't know why Peasant limits the amount of uncommons. We have:
Pauper: only commons
Peasant: what is it 3 UCs?
Heirloom: value cap.
What about just plain ole no rares/mythics? Just sayin'.[/mini rant]
Interesting read here about mythics.
One thing I notice is that a lotta people seem to want to play the same cards... meaning similar decks... similar weaknesses and a similarity in the format (at top level at least). Examples are Jace 2.0, Tarmy, Bob etc.
Obviously as a business WOTC is not gonna stop printing mythics. What I think would be a good idea to possibly fix this issue is require standard and/or other formats to be restircted in the number of mythics allowed in a deck - has worked in the past for restriced cards - possibly this is the solution that would seem to more people happier. It would get back to the idea of 'forcing' a little more variety in the deck.
Whether it would work in reality or not - I dunno but a solution is needed if people continue to have the same gripe and WOTC notices (probably more on the bottom line than anywhere else).
To be a serious Spike, it's not enough to have a deck. As the metagame switches or new tech arises, you need to be able to say "Jund has trouble with Wall of Omens and Obstinate Baloth, so I'll be running Mythic Conscription now." It's fine to play a cheaper deck if you have faith in it, but if not then you're giving yourself a handicap that others won't have.
And this is more true online because of testing. Even if you have a preferred deck, switching sides to test a bad matchup helps you learn the other deck's weaknesses - which you can exploit when switching back to your preference. In paper you just proxy up and test. But MTGO requires the actual cards, so you either get them or switch to evil unsanctioned programs. That makes the Mythic situation quite onerous.
(For what it's worth, Soul Sisters was really only good against players who didn't know how to beat it yet, and RDW has given way to Koros with Elspeth and sideboarded Baneslayers.)
The alternate formats point is a good one. I certainly partake. But Standard is the flagship format and although Wizards has been good about promoting Pauper I don't think they really want most of their customers to stop collecting after the uncommons.
Repetition of names in the same listing is different versions (e.g. Tempest Time Warp vs M10 Time Warp).
Repetition of names in a different listing is a different category (e.g. biggest numerical gain vs biggest percentage gain).
Looks like fun in the casual room. I have actually been looking for a quirky deck with fast potential to play in the casual room while waiting for someone to join the singleton queues and this might be worth throwing together.
Both accurate and disheartening.
I think this topic is something relevant as many users end up getting better cards (thru trades and time).
For example I have in the last month managed to snag 20 multi-lands in trades - and news like this is a concern for protection of my account.
I know for example that my account pass is relatively secure - what I cannot guarantee is that the WOTC servers are secure - all it would take is to get a access to the encrypted usernames/passwords (assuming that is that they are stored in a one way encryptable string - as they should) - then from that you could easily work out the passwords thru brute generating of passes and comparing. (Approx 3000 - 5000 Hashes can be generated w/out CUDA/GPU via a normal CPU's based brute force currently).
Now if that is not the case (lord hope it is not) no ones account is safe (barr maybe a few exceptions of incredibly complex special char passes - even then they are breakable (with time) - as users of MTGO what do we have as reassurances that such a thing is not occurring.
Just food for thought - you can do all you like to protect your account but in most cases nowadays for most sites where hacked accounts appear - tend to have been gotten thru stolen passfiles off servers, not directly brute forced directly via a login system (as that often has limits/IP blocking).
Well there goes my first post on PureMTGO
Hopefully it is of some interest to my fellow players
Well put - as these comments show you are certainly not alone in your evaluations. I got into MTGO back during TSP/Ravnica and was able to get into a competitive standard deck from a standing start pretty quickly and regularly competed in standard 8 mans - and this was at the height of the griping about the prices of dual lands. I haven't played in a mainstream constructed format in... actually, now that I think about it, it has been since they started releasing mythics.
My with mythics gripe is not that wizards is killing the game. The game is doing fine. My gripe isn't even with the prices. It still isn't *that* expensive compared to some hobbies, especially if you are able to put the work into trading your decks into other decks as needed and not trying to collect whole sets (this is usually a value play for those interested in standard - but is hard to do if you like the longer horizon formats).
My gripe is that WOTC sold us a bill of goods when mythics were originally described. Mythics were sold as being primarily about flavor and awe. As it turns out (not unpredictably) mythics have become *the* axis that standard turns on and as a result made Standard (ie. the "entry level" constructed environment) less approachable. Yes, I am aware that the original description of mythics was vague enough to allow for everything we have seen to date. But WOTC has failed by only living up to the letter and not the spirit of the guidelines they laid down.
C'est la vie - its a good thing this game is still so fun.
I came back to Magic back in 10th edition and enjoyed Lorwyn so much I started buying boxes again. Now I have a reasonable amount of disposable income, but I was able to build a Lark deck for a reasonable price and promptly top 8ed a Northern California regional. After that I had the bug and signed up for MTGO so I could practice constructed online and then put the deck together in paper to play PTQs, States, and Regionals. At this point I was much like the author spending maybe $100 per month on average. Then Mythics were announced and I wasn't happy. As it turned out nothing crazy happened with Mythics for Shards so I made sure I had full playsets of the important rares and Mythics without breaking the bank.
Then Baneslayer happened, then Jace, then Primeval Titan. Magic 2011 was the last time I'll buy paper Mythics to keep up. I can't afford several hundred dollars a month and I resent not being able to buy a few boxes and pretty much have what I need to play constructed. The pre-sales on the 3 planeswalkers for this set in paper is just silly. They're all good and all $50 which makes Spike style constructed deck building far too expensive. So I've switched to being a limited player only in paper. I'm spending my money more on MTGO because there's just more value and they Mythics aren't typically as crazy prices. Even there I'm considering going to strictly limited online. So mine is another story of Wizards losing out on a $100-$150 per month player because of Mythics. Playing online drafts only cuts me down to easily $50 or so per month and leaves me a lot less invested in the game overall.
So I think without a change to they Mythic rarity Wizards is looking at a long term drop in players and dollars spent even if they're booming now.
Diminish is one of the last cards I cut from the list. I consider Diminish to be a mediocre card that is slightly weaker Mighty Leap. You have to go through a lot of hoops in order for Diminish to be good, and it is almost always trumped by Giant Growth, Mighty Leap, or spot removal.
Of course if you've got a couple of Prodigal Pyromancers, it gets significantly better. It's also pretty good with Scroll Thief as Scroll Thief kind of forces blocking.
For what its worth: Carnifex doesn't actually *mean* executioner in Latin, despite what the first several hits on a google search claim. It actually means "butcher". literally "meat-maker" (this would also be a pretty gnarly name for a Demon). It was only later applied as a titular addendum to the executioner of Rome, the post with which it eventually became synonymous.
http://MTGOtraders.com
Welcome to puremtgo.com, sponsored by said site.
Yep, mythics are awful for us, the players.
I decided to go back and read your article on ROE limited. I found your dry, blunt, dark tone to be extremely entertaining. I'm not trying to be snarky - I seriously enjoyed the hell out of that article.
Nice work, and keep tellin' it like it is.
Another fine article. A couple of questions/comments popped up for me as I was building along:
- Did you consider Diminish for your WU build given the scant amount of removal available? What are your thoughts on that card?
- I agree that the use of green was a tough decision in Pool 4. My initial BGw build did include it so I could get the Pacifisms, but I understood after reading what you built (as well as your recently posted comment) that using green for Cultivate amounts to splashing for color-fixing (agreeably a bad idea in most cases). After revisiting the pool, I probably would have just gone BW as green had nothing exciting as a finisher. Glad to see your BR build turned out well.
Congrats on the kid! I know there have been plenty of times when my kids were smaller that I would try to hold them and play. They needed a bottle, but I could sometimes get 5 minutes of play uninterrupted. It's worth it sometimes, when you are feeding the kid at midnight and trying to get some playing time in. Of course, there were plenty of times when it didn't work out quite as well.