@Topical_Island I don't think so. I had a similar question about Bosium Strip awhile back, and the resolution was that "Suspend" is not "casting" the spell, it's an ability the card has while in your hand. Just like Cycling.
Posts made by MaximumCDawg
RE: How good is Monastery Mentor as of this afternoon?
@Smmenen The nice thing about the restriction is that you can do this: prove your case that our was incorrect using actual data.
I am curious about how well mentor fares in the hands on less veteran pilots, buy well see.
RE: Vintage: Gush and Gitaxian Probe is restricted.
They went and did it.. !
Time to see whether Smemmen or his detractors was right! I love me a good experiment.
RE: SMIP Podcast #64: Amonkhet Preview, Eternal Weekend Europe and a Restricted Mentor
One thing that I always note about @Smmenen is that I've never heard him take off his lawyer goggles for any discussion. It makes these discussions really engaging because of the commitment to being right and the technical nature of the arguments.
I agree, and I think he's less persuasive than he could be as a result. I've engaged in some discussions with Steve on the Drain over the last decade,*FN and I've learned something. He is usually 100% correct, but it is sometimes hard to tease out exactly what he means. This is particularly true when he starts to debate about debating (“No, you said this, then I said that”).
I mean, here’s an example:
Regarding the substantive description of the polarization problem: Although you said that you've been making the same argument Adam has been for years now, the way you just articulated it is substantively and conceptually different than how Adam Pierce articulated it in the second post in this thread.
Why not just say this:
But, let’s talk about the problem you brought up: decks get polarized to fight either Gush or Shops. You claim that you’re making the same argument Adam Pierce has been for years now, but I think the way you’re presenting it is meaningfully different from his. Look at what Adam said in the second post of this thread.
I’m not trying to insist on editorial excellence in posts, just pointing out that Steve tends to say things in a much more complicated and jargony way than he probably needs to. But – and this is the biggest point – no one should disregard what he’s trying to say based on how he says it. It’s worth the extra effort to understand what he means, because he’s usually right.
REGARDING SHADOW OF DA GRAVE
SIMP’s analysis was right on - the only time we discard in Vintage is as a cost to get some other effect. You don’t get any benefit out of Shadow unless you’ve discarded as a cost to do something else. Seen from that perspective, Shadow is not actually a recursion engine at all; it’s a cost-reducer. Or, more specifically, it’s a cost-unwinder. It is almost like it said, “Add mana to your mana pool equal to the casting cost of the last spell you cast.”
From that perspective, the only feasible home for Shadow is where a cost is massive, the effect is massive, and unwinding the effect puts you in an insane position. Basically, wheel effects. Memory Jar into Shadow is legit terrifying. Based on this interaction alone, I suspect it may be possible to fashion some kind of storm/belcher/outcome deck that loads up on Draw 7s and uses Shadow.
But, I’m skeptical. I can’t see wanting to run too many copies of Shadow, and if you’re running a tutor target, then Yawgwill seems like a superior choice. So, my verdict? Vintage playable, but won’t see play.
FOOTNOTE* = The funniest one was a thread about Power Level Errata. Steve was trying to convey the point that this term really only applies to Oracle text which was enacted with the specific intention of lowering a card's power level and does not really apply to Oracle text that my have the effect of lowering a cards' power level if the change was justified by something else, such as original ruled function. This took about six pages for me to parse out. :D
RE: Restricted List Poll
@Smmenen Is it really too much to ask for posters to be civil?
Not all. We must insist upon it.
But I take offense to the implication that I am otherwise. Critiquing someone's posts or arguments is not the same thing as attacking the person. I never attack people; only bad arguments or faulty data.
I know where you're coming from. I'm in your profession, and I know language matters. That said -- and I mean this with the utmost respect -- sometimes we all need to be aware that there are two sides to what someone says. There's the actual words, and then there's the idea the person is trying to convey. Ideally, those two things are one and the same, but sometimes, they're not.
It's human to realize that sometimes people speak imprecisely, and be gracious to them when they do. In other words, give someone the benefit of the doubt. Whether it's Wizards mixing up "Sample Size" and "Sample," or someone misconstruing an on-line poll, we should give someone the benefit of the doubt when they speak and try to understand what they mean.
I've noticed people get into endless semantic bickering around here, and sometimes it feels like it arises out of not doing this. Maybe just a little bit of, "Hey, I what you actually said is not true because X but I think your bigger point is Y, and here's what I think about that" seems like a more respectful way to address the situation.
Just my two cents.
If a rule of civility precluded critique, then there would be no debate on any point of disagreement.
The cost of making sure to express respect for someone while disagreeing with them is very small compared to the benefits of doing so, though.
The only clear effect of unrestricting balance would be to wipe out creature strategies. In the era of tokens, I'm not sure that's really all downside.
Yeah, it might work out that way, but then again... can decks really afford to put a playset of Balance into their sideboard while still protecting against decks like Dredge, that can win with haste, or combo?
And, here's another idea: would unrestricted Balance chance the "balance" between Horizontal and Vertical growth? We've had powerful cards like Thing in the Ice and Managorger Hydra forever, but they see
no playonly fringe play because vertical growth is so bad compared to horizontal growth.
Yet, Balance in that situation hits the horizontal growth deck harder. If I Balance, my Hydra lives and all your monk tokens get sacced. A deck with horizontal growth can run Forbidden Orchard to totally protect its one large threat against Balance, but monk tokens remain vulnerable. I'm curious to see how this would develop.
It might just be that Balance with no creatures is just so common that these distinctions are marginal, and all creature strategies get hosed. But, hard to know!
RE: [AKH] Grasping Dunes
Seems like an upgrade from Quicksand, though, since the opponent will never walk a Thalia to the quicksand, but now you can make the quicksand walk to the Thalia!
Seriously, though, this seems like a pretty fringe effect. Cabal Pit and Barbarian Ring exist. Is being colorless a big enough deal that this will see play where they really don't anymore?
RE: SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?"
We just need.....
Costs of Life
Cost of Life always costs one green mana.
Cost of Life cannot be countered.
Players cannot cast spells unless they have lands on the battlefield equal to the spells converted mana cost.
Right, because Devotion was a fine mechanic for Vintage and I'd love to see something similar come back and apply to all cards. :-o
I mean, point taken though. You CAN design cards that specifically destroy Mentor. The trick is to do one that isn't too narrow and that doesn't just make life miserable anyway.