Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

@fsecco said in [STX] Strict Proctor:

@botvinik so I guess just Mystic Sanctuary then? So yeah, it's not worth it.

We could also evaluate a new card in the context of deck creation possibilities, rather than boxing it in to the current meta. Although new cards can be evaluated based on their effect on the current meta, that's not the only purpose of evaluating new cards.

For example, this also works with Phyrexian Dreadnought and Lotus Field. Now, would I create a deck with either card and play it in vintage? Lotus Field probably not, Phyrexian Dreadnought maybe (I've always liked the card.) The point is that I picked two random cards outside of the current vintage "meta" that have interesting synergy with this newly spoiled card.

There are hundreds of cards with ETB triggers. Most of those probably aren't going to appear in Top 8 decks, but I think it's worthwhile (at least for deck creators,) to see what's within the realm of possibility.

posted in Vintage News read more

@protoaddict said in Lurrus unbanned:

Honestly after rereading them I actually question the way a few of them are worded. Zirda, the Dawnwaker should probably say all instead of EACH because we know all includes 0, each is not as explicit. I realize we use them the way we use them because WOTC can just say by edict that it works this way, but the templating seems sloppy to me.

I would say that if Zirda said "All" instead of "Each," that would be ambiguous because it could imply that all cards would have the same activated ability. The use of "each" implies that for each permanent card in your deck, they each have their own activated ability.

If the templating were instead "All permanent cards in your starting deck each have their own activated ability," that would be redundant. The templating, as worded, uses "each" to save space and use fewer words on the card

I used to work in publishing, and it always boiled down ensuring the typesetting and format of a page not only made sense, but looked "as clean as possible."

posted in Vintage News read more

I've been testing my old Lurrus Combo PO deck. A bunch of good stuff, and my protection is discard instead of coutermagic. So far, with the companion rule change, Lurrus is more fair but still incredibly strong.

Their rationale provided by Wizards is that the "companion tax" is more detrimental in vintage. However, because Lurrus is such a cheap companion at only 3CMC the tax only delays the powerful plays, usuallly by only a turn.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

No, if you choose 19, you'd lose 19 life. Then, you'd discard your hand and draw 7.

You discard and draw 7 if you chose the larger number, and if you choose the smaller number, you lose that amount of life but don't discard or draw.

Edit: Actually, upon further thought, if you choose the smaller number I don't think you lose life either. Each player has to choose the same number (e.g., the largest number) and you'll both lose that amount of life and draw 7.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

@vaughnbros said in [CMR] Opposition Agent:


Any list with this needs Dark Ritual, and probably other fast mana (Elvish Spirit Guide?). So I'd add that.

I'd add 2 more Ouphes, 1 Null Rod, and 1 Chalice of the Void. Need to deny their moxen.

Cut Liliana too slow. Cut Demonic, and the Symetries. Also too slow.

I'd try with the 3 Maralen, but probably cut that 1 eventually. That's just a random finisher for the game. You need a lock before you can play her.

I don't think I would ever cut Demonic Tutor. I can't see how it's ever too slow, especially with rituals. And Scheming Symmetry seems great also.

I'm looking at blowout lines of play such as... flash Agent EOT (or earlier in the turn depending), and on your turn cast Symmetry, find your best card, find their best card (ancestral?) Their ancestral doesn't go on top of their library, it's exiled and you can play it and pay any color mana (notably for this deck, B.)

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

Currently I'm testing:
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Ruby
1 Lotus Petal
4 Simian Spirit Guide
3 Ancient Tomb

The combo of ancient tomb + SSG help to power a turn 1 Blood Moon if needed (since I'm running no off-color moxen.)

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

@tittliewinks22 said in Conspicuous Snoop:

Friends and I have been testing mono red gob list. Basically an aggro list with red blast and null rod for disruption.

Snoop is a great value engine, and theres minimal deckspace requirement to run a copy of kiki and mogg fanatic.

We do not run ringleader or matron, both engines are too slow for vintage we've determined.

Yes, I've also been testing a mono-red goblins list. I do run 1-of Ringleader and Matron, just because I like the flexibility. But they are a bit slower. I'm also running 4x Blood Moon as disruption, because if it hits the battlefield, it's exceptional.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

@ambivalentduck said in Conspicuous Snoop:

Also, I think this is a VERY consistent turn 2 kill. Eg. Turn 1 Recruiter (Snoop, Torch Courier, Kiki), Turn 2 play Snoop, Play Courier, Sac Courier, Go Infinite, Copy Recruiter to put Fanatic on top. I think some combination of Lightning Bolt and countermagic disrupts most of the disruption, too.

You need RRR on turn 2, which isn't necessarily a consistent turn 2 line of play. I think you need Mox Ruby to facilitate the turn 2 win, because if you opened with Black Lotus, you'd have cracked in T1 for the Recruiter.

posted in Single-Card Discussion read more

@serracollector said in [ELD] Once Upon a Time:

Have people not considered this for Hermit Druid decks? With the new Mulligan rule and this, getting a turn one Hermit (especially with 4-8 Guides) seems very strong.

I play a Hermit druid deck, and I'll be testing some number of these. Hermit druid decks can already mulligan aggressively, so I see this card as an interesting option.

posted in Vintage News read more

@vaughnbros said in SMIP: My Suggested B&R List (2019):


What’s crazy is restricting Mystic Forge and expecting to have any lasting impact. You are band-aiding the real problem in that Vintage manabases are too consistently powerful.

Workshops can consistently drop a 4 CC spell on turn 1/2. Dredge can consistently mulligan to a single card and then hit creatures on its first dredge. Blue can consistently fix a 3 or 4 color manabase with basics. These break fundamental balancing rules that cards are printed with in mind now as none of these mechanics are returning.

What will be printed is another Mystic Forge.

While you’ve provided an explanation, your reasoning is going in so many directions I can’t even follow your logic.

1.) Why would you restrict Narcomoeba? Your primary argument is restricting mana bases.

2.) I am confused by “blue can consistently fix a 3 or 4 color mana base...” If I assume you mean decks that are built primarily using blue cards, I still don’t understand your explanation. Every deck can utilize mana fixing/fetching if needed. If you are specifically mentioning blue because of the powerful blue cards that have been printed, that’s why we have a restricted list. If your original argument is that the restricted list is a band-aid and the mana bases are the real problem, then would it be fine if WOTC printed another Ancestral Recall or Demonic Tutor with restricted dual lands?

3.) That last point bring me to my final area of confusion: to which fundamental balancing rules are you referring?