At the present time, a majority of those that care enough to vote want the change to happen. Why should those who don't care enough to vote, or even to show up for the events, overrule that? When was the last time we had thirty people attend?
This may be the most influential blog I have read my life ever and Was desperately looking for an article like this for london bed and breakfast and share with others.
It's simple: I'll keep collecting votes until the quote will be fulfilled otherwise I WON'T finalize anything. Why should I if people don't care? The rule was there from the beginning to ensure that enough people wants the change. If they don't, no change will happen.
And the first potential Kaleidoscope event is for May 17. You can see we're not exactly in a hurry here.
And no, we didn't have a full cycle of events since the vote opened. We didn't even have a full cycle of event since we had the first Kaleidoscope event and I had the idea. The voting opened 10-11 days ago during TribAp 170, got transcribed first on the current article at the time (TribAp 169), then in this one. You can see the timestamp from the first tally being April 5, Sat, 04/05/2014 - 22:55 my time (GMT+1), which is right after TribAp 170 ended.
It's not been over a month, I started the poll during TribAp 170 (when the latest published article was about TribAp 169), so it's 10 days. And now I'll move it to the newsletter.
It has to be large enough to be democratic. We have 100+ regular players. What meaning would have if I just decided after the first 10 votes or so? I might have well decided it without a poll, then.
I really enjoyed the first deck, but I think it should have come with a warning label - I'm still trying to come to grips with this feeling of wanting to play a mill deck filled with walls. :)
I relied heavily on MaRo's blog because it is one of the consistant up to date sources. While MaRo most definitely is not all of R&D I think it is pretty reasonable to think that if he thinks it's a possibility it is. As for Worth and FoW - it was that FoW wouldn't be printed in another Master's Edition, which is what was the case.
Great job once again. I think the person to your left (or someone) could have drafted a good Green devotion deck, but I think U/W was probably correct for your seat. It is hard to pass up an Ornitharch! I have not had much luck w/ Artisan of Forms, but I'm glad that you've had success with it.
A few minor gripes/clarifications (and I liked the article, which is a much-more-detailed agreement with my feelings that they will be printed):
I think you might be overrelying
"zombimokus asked: Will we ever see the old fetchlands in Standard?
Maro: I’d say it’s a possibility."
Keep in mind that Maro is powerful, but he isn't always "right" or the last word - shoot, Worth IS MODO and he said FOW wouldn't be reprinted. He has since found (very reasonable) ways around that. I wouldn't taken one quote in a "chat" setting, albeit a very public one, to be concrete.
It also feels to me like
"Placing fetches in an annual MMA-like release has several issues. First, it means there has to be an annual product. Second it has to have 5-10 rare slots taken each year. Finally, given the likely print run sizes, it may not even be enough to hold down the prices to a reasonable level. Therefore, the evidence and deductions shown are in favor of a Standard reprint."
is missing a few lines of thought, although I don't totally disagree with the ending conclusion.
First, if Modern is an eternal format, who knows what is the "acceptable" price level for a deck or a card? I'm not sure if there is a specific one - I don't really think it is too obscene for Modern decks to hold long-term, semi-stable price levels at $1k-2k - it's eternal! I also think that you've skipped over what reprinting allied fetches does to the prices of all fetches - let's say, today, we say, "All allied fetches are now legal in modern."
We're not reprinting them, but they're legal. Logically that's going to spread out the demand a little bit, especially for non-blue fetches, and lower prices, or stabilize them. I think that the next Modern Masters set could print allied fetches at rare and have a very positive effect on the accessibility of the format.
I could also see a mixture of enemy fetches in a MMA set and allied fetches in M15 (or M16 or the next block, whatever).
Well to be fair it was against a durdling life gain deck so no pressure other than finding defenders for his flyers. Also this was pre Theros. Theros has a whole new set of interesting things to do with Immortal Servitude.
In my article last year (I think I published just one :p) I showed just such a deck and a screen shot of me winning off of immortal servitude into 4xbiovisionary.
Very nice article. I'm always intrigued by your brews and how you do with them. One thing I think would be beneficial is to play full matches instead of just single games. This would be more convincing in terms of proving the playability of the decks. That said, these decks are very interesting. I think an Immortal Servitude/Biovisionary combo would be really interesting, but probably still casual-level. Fun article!
We do have 100 unique players, the question is how many players do we have that care enough to express a preference? We've had a full cycle of all our usual events since the vote opened, this week's singleton should give the fans of that format a chance for a rally. We are in month 4 of 12: How much of the year do you want to allow to pass before finalising this? I suggest at the very least a temporal boundary in addition to the numerical one, if we must have a numerical one.
The reason you can't edit the tally on your original post has to do with the fact that people responded to it. It is an unfortunate "feature" of this site that comments eliminate the ability to edit posts. For what it is worth I also think 30 is arbitrarily large since apparently its been well more than a month and we have only slightly over half this quorum, still needing 12 more votes. At this rate it could take 3-4 months to finally get a decision (by committee).
"Modern Masters had 74 rare slots. If you include the ten dual lands, LED, Cradle, Show and Tell, Workshop, Mana Drain, Wasteland, Rishadan Port, etc., how do you squeeze in enough creatures to build a decent and non-repetitive limited environment? Just saying, don’t expect everything in Vintage Masters. Some of that may be saved until Vintage Masters II."
I'd like to address this part for a minute. Most of the cards on this list see little Vintage play; their high price is a combination of demand for Legacy and/or Modern and their rarity. Of the duals, only Sea, Trop, Volc, and Tundra make the cut in a significant number of decks, and with their prices creeping up into the $30-60 range we could use more in circulation. LED is restricted, so speaking strictly for Vintage play, repritning it isn't a huge deal. Tarmogoyf barely makes the top 100 cards played list (84th), while Cradle, Show and Tell, Port, and Liliana do not.
The 2 cards I agree absolutely do need a reprint if Online Vintage is to become a thriving format are Force of Will and Wasteland. FoW is the 7th most played card in the format, appearing as a full playset in almost 70% of all decks, which is behind only Moxen, Lotus, and Ancestral. It has often been called "the glue that holds the format together", and a healthy format is dependent on this one card, more than any other, being readily available. Wasteland comes in as the 22nd most played card, appearing in 42% of decks at an average of 3.5 copies.
Taking into account only Vintage, I would say that we need to see blue duals, FoW, Wasteland, Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain, and maybe Misdirection. Now, I seriously doubt they'll print 4 cards out of a cycle of 10, so we'll say all duals get in. Assuming 74 rares like MMA, they've got 59 Rares and pretty much carte blanche on uncommons and commons to develop a fun Limited environment. And for my money at $7 for a digital pack, they'd better deliver.
*All card usage statistics taken from mtgtop8.com*
What longtimegone said. Any number would be arbitrary. 30 is not too large (we have more than 100 unique players in the newsletter alone), yet large enough.
I was writing articles about Kaleidoscope before it was even implemented in the client. I wrote a tribal crossover article for it back in the day. Since then, Kscope was expanded to the full legacy cardpool, which adds in a number of interesting extra options. It is possible to build perfectly serviceable 'monocoloured' Kscope decks using hybrid and split cards, using only one type of basic land. Presumptions that duals and fetches are mandatory is misleading, and the better lands in the format such as pillar, reflecting pool and exotic orchard are far cheaper than duals or even shocklands.
I see potential, I see a very interesting restriction and deckbuilding challenge. Also, I'm perfectly willing to answer 'I don't have a Kaleidoscope deck and can't afford to make one' with 'Here, have a Kaleidoscope deck'.
Also, bear in mind the opposition. Singleton has an even narrower range of playable tribes, requiring 20 actively playable unique members. It is absolutely detested by a large number of event participants, according to the recent survey, but it does also have its fans. Any opportunity to dilute the amount of the schedule it occupies is better than the alternative.
** I replied to the wrong post with this, I intended to direct the question to AJ.
Since I see that you voted for Kaleidoscope, do you mind if I ask what you see in that format?
The big drawback to me was that the combination of tribal and multicolored requirements seems to narrow down the playable options to a very small group. Additionally, the color requirements for the multicolored format can mean that those who cannot afford a wide selection of color fixing lands can be excluded. In regular tribal, there are usually at least some good deck options that don't require fetch lands and duals to function well.
At the present time, a majority of those that care enough to vote want the change to happen. Why should those who don't care enough to vote, or even to show up for the events, overrule that? When was the last time we had thirty people attend?
This may be the most influential blog I have read my life ever and Was desperately looking for an article like this for london bed and breakfast and share with others.
For more information visit:
Bed and Breakfast Online Booking
It's simple: I'll keep collecting votes until the quote will be fulfilled otherwise I WON'T finalize anything. Why should I if people don't care? The rule was there from the beginning to ensure that enough people wants the change. If they don't, no change will happen.
And the first potential Kaleidoscope event is for May 17. You can see we're not exactly in a hurry here.
And no, we didn't have a full cycle of events since the vote opened. We didn't even have a full cycle of event since we had the first Kaleidoscope event and I had the idea. The voting opened 10-11 days ago during TribAp 170, got transcribed first on the current article at the time (TribAp 169), then in this one. You can see the timestamp from the first tally being April 5, Sat, 04/05/2014 - 22:55 my time (GMT+1), which is right after TribAp 170 ended.
It's not been over a month, I started the poll during TribAp 170 (when the latest published article was about TribAp 169), so it's 10 days. And now I'll move it to the newsletter.
It has to be large enough to be democratic. We have 100+ regular players. What meaning would have if I just decided after the first 10 votes or so? I might have well decided it without a poll, then.
At PAX East they also said we could expect fetchlands to be reprinted...
Source:
http://www.twitch.tv/pax2/b/519216539
I really enjoyed the first deck, but I think it should have come with a warning label - I'm still trying to come to grips with this feeling of wanting to play a mill deck filled with walls. :)
I relied heavily on MaRo's blog because it is one of the consistant up to date sources. While MaRo most definitely is not all of R&D I think it is pretty reasonable to think that if he thinks it's a possibility it is. As for Worth and FoW - it was that FoW wouldn't be printed in another Master's Edition, which is what was the case.
Great job once again. I think the person to your left (or someone) could have drafted a good Green devotion deck, but I think U/W was probably correct for your seat. It is hard to pass up an Ornitharch! I have not had much luck w/ Artisan of Forms, but I'm glad that you've had success with it.
A few minor gripes/clarifications (and I liked the article, which is a much-more-detailed agreement with my feelings that they will be printed):
I think you might be overrelying
"zombimokus asked: Will we ever see the old fetchlands in Standard?
Maro: I’d say it’s a possibility."
Keep in mind that Maro is powerful, but he isn't always "right" or the last word - shoot, Worth IS MODO and he said FOW wouldn't be reprinted. He has since found (very reasonable) ways around that. I wouldn't taken one quote in a "chat" setting, albeit a very public one, to be concrete.
It also feels to me like
"Placing fetches in an annual MMA-like release has several issues. First, it means there has to be an annual product. Second it has to have 5-10 rare slots taken each year. Finally, given the likely print run sizes, it may not even be enough to hold down the prices to a reasonable level. Therefore, the evidence and deductions shown are in favor of a Standard reprint."
is missing a few lines of thought, although I don't totally disagree with the ending conclusion.
First, if Modern is an eternal format, who knows what is the "acceptable" price level for a deck or a card? I'm not sure if there is a specific one - I don't really think it is too obscene for Modern decks to hold long-term, semi-stable price levels at $1k-2k - it's eternal! I also think that you've skipped over what reprinting allied fetches does to the prices of all fetches - let's say, today, we say, "All allied fetches are now legal in modern."
We're not reprinting them, but they're legal. Logically that's going to spread out the demand a little bit, especially for non-blue fetches, and lower prices, or stabilize them. I think that the next Modern Masters set could print allied fetches at rare and have a very positive effect on the accessibility of the format.
I could also see a mixture of enemy fetches in a MMA set and allied fetches in M15 (or M16 or the next block, whatever).
Anyway, good article.
A non phantom power cube? probably lots. A non-phantom cube with mostly low value rares/mythics would not be exciting.
Well to be fair it was against a durdling life gain deck so no pressure other than finding defenders for his flyers. Also this was pre Theros. Theros has a whole new set of interesting things to do with Immortal Servitude.
That's epic. GBU dredge/mill/combo seems like it would be a really fun spin-off.
In my article last year (I think I published just one :p) I showed just such a deck and a screen shot of me winning off of immortal servitude into 4xbiovisionary.
http://outofthebrokensky.com/mtgo/visionarywin.jpg <---there is the screenie :D
Very nice article. I'm always intrigued by your brews and how you do with them. One thing I think would be beneficial is to play full matches instead of just single games. This would be more convincing in terms of proving the playability of the decks. That said, these decks are very interesting. I think an Immortal Servitude/Biovisionary combo would be really interesting, but probably still casual-level. Fun article!
We do have 100 unique players, the question is how many players do we have that care enough to express a preference? We've had a full cycle of all our usual events since the vote opened, this week's singleton should give the fans of that format a chance for a rally. We are in month 4 of 12: How much of the year do you want to allow to pass before finalising this? I suggest at the very least a temporal boundary in addition to the numerical one, if we must have a numerical one.
Ran up against B/W aggro twice today. The first game feels very difficult, post-board is better but still not good by any stretch.
The reason you can't edit the tally on your original post has to do with the fact that people responded to it. It is an unfortunate "feature" of this site that comments eliminate the ability to edit posts. For what it is worth I also think 30 is arbitrarily large since apparently its been well more than a month and we have only slightly over half this quorum, still needing 12 more votes. At this rate it could take 3-4 months to finally get a decision (by committee).
"Modern Masters had 74 rare slots. If you include the ten dual lands, LED, Cradle, Show and Tell, Workshop, Mana Drain, Wasteland, Rishadan Port, etc., how do you squeeze in enough creatures to build a decent and non-repetitive limited environment? Just saying, don’t expect everything in Vintage Masters. Some of that may be saved until Vintage Masters II."
I'd like to address this part for a minute. Most of the cards on this list see little Vintage play; their high price is a combination of demand for Legacy and/or Modern and their rarity. Of the duals, only Sea, Trop, Volc, and Tundra make the cut in a significant number of decks, and with their prices creeping up into the $30-60 range we could use more in circulation. LED is restricted, so speaking strictly for Vintage play, repritning it isn't a huge deal. Tarmogoyf barely makes the top 100 cards played list (84th), while Cradle, Show and Tell, Port, and Liliana do not.
The 2 cards I agree absolutely do need a reprint if Online Vintage is to become a thriving format are Force of Will and Wasteland. FoW is the 7th most played card in the format, appearing as a full playset in almost 70% of all decks, which is behind only Moxen, Lotus, and Ancestral. It has often been called "the glue that holds the format together", and a healthy format is dependent on this one card, more than any other, being readily available. Wasteland comes in as the 22nd most played card, appearing in 42% of decks at an average of 3.5 copies.
Taking into account only Vintage, I would say that we need to see blue duals, FoW, Wasteland, Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain, and maybe Misdirection. Now, I seriously doubt they'll print 4 cards out of a cycle of 10, so we'll say all duals get in. Assuming 74 rares like MMA, they've got 59 Rares and pretty much carte blanche on uncommons and commons to develop a fun Limited environment. And for my money at $7 for a digital pack, they'd better deliver.
*All card usage statistics taken from mtgtop8.com*
What longtimegone said. Any number would be arbitrary. 30 is not too large (we have more than 100 unique players in the newsletter alone), yet large enough.
What do I see in the format?
Lots.
I was writing articles about Kaleidoscope before it was even implemented in the client. I wrote a tribal crossover article for it back in the day. Since then, Kscope was expanded to the full legacy cardpool, which adds in a number of interesting extra options. It is possible to build perfectly serviceable 'monocoloured' Kscope decks using hybrid and split cards, using only one type of basic land. Presumptions that duals and fetches are mandatory is misleading, and the better lands in the format such as pillar, reflecting pool and exotic orchard are far cheaper than duals or even shocklands.
I see potential, I see a very interesting restriction and deckbuilding challenge. Also, I'm perfectly willing to answer 'I don't have a Kaleidoscope deck and can't afford to make one' with 'Here, have a Kaleidoscope deck'.
Also, bear in mind the opposition. Singleton has an even narrower range of playable tribes, requiring 20 actively playable unique members. It is absolutely detested by a large number of event participants, according to the recent survey, but it does also have its fans. Any opportunity to dilute the amount of the schedule it occupies is better than the alternative.
** I replied to the wrong post with this, I intended to direct the question to AJ.
Since I see that you voted for Kaleidoscope, do you mind if I ask what you see in that format?
The big drawback to me was that the combination of tribal and multicolored requirements seems to narrow down the playable options to a very small group. Additionally, the color requirements for the multicolored format can mean that those who cannot afford a wide selection of color fixing lands can be excluded. In regular tribal, there are usually at least some good deck options that don't require fetch lands and duals to function well.
Presumably because that threshold ensures that a significant number of event participants have a chance to hear about this and make a vote.
Why 30 votes? It seems needless and arbitrary.
I need to master the techniques on this. The game is actually interesting though. - Weather Shield Windows
There are exciting upcoming events. This is exciting. I will join this one. - Weather Shield Windows