That's right! It's back again for another year, the SCG Con P9 Series was announced at SCG Philly this weekend.

https://scgcon.starcitygames.com/power-9-series.php

One notable thing about this year is that this year's event is only one day ( Swiss+Top 8 ) and that Top 8 competitors all get a bye to US Eternal Weekend's NA Vintage Champs 2019.

I am hopeful to be there myself again this year. Going to depend on some factors but will do my best.

For episode 38, Geoff Moes (@ThallidTosser on Twitter), Nat Moes (@GrandpaBelcher), and Josh Chapple (@joshchapple) talk with Matt Hazard (@winedope) about the most recent invitational Vintage tournament he held at his house, and how you can host similar local events.

http://www.eternalcentral.com/serious-vintage-episode-38/

00:30 – Matt Hazard, Magic Man
01:00 – Just Because We Haven’t Adequately Tested London Mulligan Doesn’t Mean We Can’t Share Extremely Uninformed Opinions About It
08:20 – The Return of the Hazardvitational and How to Host Your Own
Total runtime: 40:43

  • To me, the only good three drop worth playing is Monastery Mentor and to a lesser extent, Narset. I love me some low mana curves.

    Lurrus is better than Trinket Mage. But is he better than Dack Fayden?

    read more
  • @smmenen said in B&R Announcement - May 18, 2020:

    You and Matt claim that I misrepresented his position by posting the first tweet doesn't even make sense on its face. The second tweet in the same image dispels any illusions that I was attempting to demonstrate a contradiction with anything in this thread.

    It was your truncation of his thread that gave an inaccurate portrayal of his position, hence the misrepresentation. Juxtaposing those two statements together made him appear fickle and inconsistent.

    That's because the second tweet in the same image was consistent with his position in this thread.

    There was nothing wrong with the second tweet.

    So, here you are claiming not that I misrepresented his position, but that I was trying to "make him look bad"? How exactly? By suggesting a contradiction? I thought I already answered that charge before: the juxtaposition of the two tweets demonstrate not a contradiction, but a 10 day change of opinion, based upon intervening experiences.

    Again, the overall effect made him look volatile and ridiculous. It was reminiscent of an attack ad.

    Like most pseudo-controversies on The Mana Drain, the analysis does not actually call for legal skills.

    No, it doesn't call for it, but it does help from time to time. Law provide clarity and well-worn guidance. Law has established workable definitions and elements that can be applied to adduce evidence or draw conclusions that might support one claim over another.

    Matt claims I misrepresented his views. In law, a "misrepresentation" is a "false statement of a material fact."

    No, there is no universal and ubiquitous definition of misrepresentation in "law." There may be one in some edition of Restatement of Torts. Some jurisdictions may decline to use it. It's used in Contract Law in ways that are not identical to Torts. It shows up in multiple additional areas of law, random subsections of statutes, international law, and of course then must be defined in any number of languages which opens the quest for precision up to any further number of adulterating factors.

    Additionally, a misrepresentation is not simply a lie or a false statement of fact as one would find in defamation. A true statement of material fact can be presented in a manner that misrepresents its truth in context. For instance, "Bette said 'I ate my children' " is technically true because Bette did use those words when stating "I deny that I ate my children." But the former statement conveys something close to contradictory to what the full statement actually conveys. Hence, her statement was misrepresented.

    Applied here, it is more likely that participants in this thread used the term misrepresentation as it is understood colloquially rather than legally, even setting aside the lack of a universal term definition. That means there was no shying from engaging with your technical analysis; I simply found it inapposite as I believe I've communicated previously.

    If he or you wish to accuse me of something else, I would certain consider that accusation on its merits, but let's be as clear as possible about what it is we are accusing me of. Because if my "crime" is something else, then don't label me as misrepresenting his views. Call it for what it is.

    You are not being accused of any crime or being sued.

    My point was far more important than Matt's comparatively trivial tweets. I was arguing that DCI policy should be more balanced, and that a swift banning was too fast. Matt's tweet was buried in the middle of this much larger point. You seem to think that the main purpose of my post was to jab Matt. Quite the contrary. The purpose was to argue against a swift banning, and Matt's tweets nicely illustrated some of the premises to my argument.

    I don't believe you're unable to understand how positioning two contradictory statements by one person next to each other is unflattering. Surely you remember a certain someone who "voted for" the war "before I voted against it" and how damaging that clip was. Saddest November of all time.

    read more
  • E

    I disagree---I think Lurrus with a -1 hand size penalty is still completely busted in a Underworld Breach shell, and possibly other deck configurations as well.

    The bonus card is icing on the cake but it's the ability to "wish" Lurrus into play at will once you're ready to combo off that makes him so strong.

    read more
  • If they nerf companions, all would be underwhelming cards in Vintage. Nerfed Lurrus costs too much/has too slow of an effect. He’s only good as the 8th card in your hand in the context of a fair Vintage meta.

    Hopefully they follow the advice in my email and unrestrict at least 10 cards.

    read more
WAF/WHF