Just wanted to brag that I got married on September 29, 2017 to my beautiful bride, Huanhuan Wu. Score one for a vintage player. I feel like I married up.
For anyone interested, here is a YouTube video.
Lover of all things magic, especially eternal formats. However, there is nothing better than vintage. I've been apart of the vintage community for a little over a year now. I love blue decks and currently really loving playing Painter's Servant. My all time favorite artifact.
Love the flavor text: "It gathers hues from the twilight mist so that its master can paint a better world"
And oh, all hail the Eldrazi. :) Love those guys too.
On a personal note, I work as a System Administrator for a company in Michigan. It's an amazing job and an amazing environment of people to work with. I have a great family and a wonderful girlfriend.
Favorite Creature Type: Eldrazi
Favorite card: Vampire Nighthawk
Favorite Video Game: Super Mario Brothers 3, Uncharted series, The Last of Us, etc.
Favorite Movie: Return of the Jedi
Favorite Book: Harry Potter series, Harry Dresden Files
Favorite TV series: Smallville, Flash, Arrow, Supernatural, Supergirl, Big Bang Theory, etc.
Just wanted to brag that I got married on September 29, 2017 to my beautiful bride, Huanhuan Wu. Score one for a vintage player. I feel like I married up.
For anyone interested, here is a YouTube video.
Forgive any typos. I'm doing this on my phone.
I'm basically a newborn in vintage. I've been around since sometime late November of 2015. Something like that, so I've only been around during the Gush era. Take that as you will, positively, negatively, or neutral. Obviously, we all have a right to share our opinion.
My concern with the banning, is not the banning itself. I think there was/are legitimate concerns about Gush and Probe (not to mention other cards). It could very well be the right move for a better format. However, I don't want to get into my exact feelings on whether I agree or disagree with the restrictions of the cards, but of bannings/restrictions itself.
The concern I have about is this restriction seems to be more about outcry of people than actual data. During the prior b/r announcement they explicitly said they wanted more data and feedback... and explicitity mentioned the European vintage championship. Unless I'm mistaken (please correct me if I'm wrong), there was no domination by Gush in that tournament. I'm not sure where they are getting that data.
Granted, I do understand that this is a multi layered on how you can view the meta and Gush's affect on it. I won't disagree with that. For example, you can make an argument for Shops dominance because of the the way blue decks are constructed. You're right, low land counts and free spells are awful against shops.
However, how can you possibly quantify exactly how much Shops dominance is because of Gush and how much is because Shops is just damn good (which it is)? Honestly please tell me if you can.
Shops will always be a strong deck against blue. Its purpose in itself is to take advantage of the things blue players crave - cheap spells. That's the nature of Shops. Outside of WOTC nuetering the deck completely, that's not going away.
I feel the same people (not all) who complained about the VSL having an affect on the meta are the same people cheering this on. That doesn't make sense to me. How can you rip into WOTC for listening to the VSL, but cheer WOTC on for this? If the VSL honestly influenced the DCI on multiple occasions for multiple restrictions, I argue that is not a good thing. Regardless if the restrictions are the right call. The VSL is entertainment, it's not supposed to be a snapshot of a true vintage meta game.
Another concern I have is a general concern about the Magic community that I've seen a lot of lately. There seems to be an overriding focus (and I'm not speaking just of vintage), the solution to any deck or archetype becoming number 1 is to ban/restrict a card. Banning/restrictions should only happen, in my opinion, as an absolute last resort.
Let's look at Modern as an example. They ban Eye of Ugin (a very legitimate format warping move). After a while, things start moving very fast. To curb some of the speed, people cried for a Become Immense/Probe/etc banning. Wizards then banned Gitaxian Probe. Now Death Shadow archetype is number 1 and people call for that banning.
Is that the solution magic players go to now? Instead of finding ways to attack the best deck, we call for a ban/restriction immediately? There will always be 1-2 (most of the time) best decks in the format. If you ban/restrict a key card, something else will move in to take its place.
The same thing is happening in Legacy. They ban sensei's divining top and people are now calling for a ban of Deathrite Shaman. Before any magic has been played, tested, and letting the dust settle, another ban outcry is happening. That to me, is a concern.
Mentor will keep on mentoring and will most likely still be the best blue deck. Shops will still be excellent. I don't know exactly what Mentor will look like, but it will be a mainstay. However, people are already talking about the next restrictions in vintage. Can't we take a step back for a moment, play some games, before getting into that discussion? Or are we going down a path of constant restrictions in vintage? Will we see Mentor, Mental Misstep, Thorn, Preordain, Workshop, Bazaar, Ancient Tomb, etc. get restricted in the future? I sure as hell hope not. The format needs powerful, unrestricted cards to be fun (for me). Obviously that statement is very subjective.
In a lot of ways, this is the biggest concern to me is how people are treating bans/restrictions. Almost as if it's a tool to combat decks they don't enjoy. Which, sadly, starts to mask the true needs of ban/restrictions. B/r's, as I said, should only be used as a last resort. Now, with all the outcry, this picture is becoming muddier and muddier.
When I first came into vintage, it was a new world with new (old) cards that I’ve never gotten to play. I got to play power! Cards I said I never said I would ever own, let alone play. I was excited, I was thrilled, trying out this new world. People were classy and nice to me – people like Joe Fiorini who helped me pick out my first deck. I got to know people, I got to make new friends, and I discovered a local tournament across state. I was enamored by what I perceived to be a group of mature, helpful people. There were some bad apples in the group, but what group of people doesn’t have that?
Things changed at some point. I can’t pinpoint the exact time, but I started to notice people weren’t as nice as I initially thought.
I’m guessing the rose tinted glass came off. People dogged my ideas, my decks, people that enjoy the VSL, and the didn't seem to have any interest in vintage’s growth. Hell, I’ve been told that I shouldn’t voice my opinion, because I don’t play as often as other people do. That my opinion meant nothing. Some people promote their Meta and group of players as the authority on the format. Kind of like an old school boys club.
For example, I’ve been told multiple times that I should not play Painter decks, because Painter is a bad card. I’ve always recognized Painter is not a tier 1 strategy (or tier 2 for that matter), but it’s where I have the most fun. That didn’t matter to these people. They had the attitude if you aren’t playing a tier 1 deck, you’re doing vintage wrong.
On a side note, I would argue Painter is a good card and Grindstone is a bad card. I just love how Painter interacts with the game at an angle no other card does, so I will continue to play the card because I have fun with it. I am certainly not a tier 1 skilled player and I'm under no delusion I will win a major tournament with this deck. I just want to play what I want to play. I'll admit, this does go against the part of me that wants to win and getting enjoyment only out of winning, so I do have internal conflict with myself on this, but that's another topic for another day.
B/R discussions are train wreck syndrome for me. They are broken, ugly, and dirty, but I can’t help but stare.
It’s why I rarely post anymore on the Facebook group or the Mana Drain at this point in time. I’ve been told by people to ignore it, to not let it bother me, but that’s just not the type of person I am. I’ve done the best I can by just turning off all notifications from the Vintage Facebook group unless I feel inclined to post on the site. I still support the Mana Drain, because I believe in the site and what it is. I just see myself viewing the site less and less over time. 95 percent of my viewing of this site anymore is it's still my homepage on my browser, so technically I visit it because of that. Heh.
I have honestly gotten to the point at times where I contemplated (though immediately not that seriously) about selling out. I don’t plan to do it, but it’s a thought that crossed my mind, which in the past it never did.
Don’t get me wrong, I still love the format. It's still my favorite. If it wasn’t for the people like Andy Probasco ( @Brass-Man ), Ben Perry ( @Shaman-Ben ), Kevin Cron ( @CHA1N5 ), Aaron Katz, and many others, I may have walked away from the format. They make vintage what I envision vintage to be. A fun format where I get to sling the most powerful cards in the format's history.
I probably talk to Andy and Ben more about my personal life than anybody else in the vintage community (whether they like it or not haha), because they make me feel comfortable and welcoming.
The best times I’ve had in vintage have actually not been the games (though they have been awesome), but some of the dinners I had after a tournament where everybody has gotten together that played. We joked, we discuss our mistakes, the Meta, where we think things are going, and whatever else. There is no anger, there is no venom, no judging, just people being good people. Those moments have been a blast and put such a huge smile on my face. Those moments remind me why I love vintage.
Sometimes I do believe I love talking strategy, card selections, mana curves, side boarding, more than I actually do enjoy playing the game. I love playing the game, but I find it so much fun talking the game, which is why I think I get along so well with Andy (@Brass-Man).
Maybe part of these issues I have is my anxiety issues and OCD issues. Maybe I take things out of context sometimes (I’m sure I have) and have said some stupid things. I’m sure that’s part of my reasoning, but I think it would be foolish to put the whole stock on what I’ve felt to be because of that. At best it would be a small percentage.
I just think as a community we can do a better job of welcoming people to the format. Honestly, I’ve been at fault myself for making mistakes and getting into petty arguments and being part of the problem. This is not a call out to everybody else and not me, I’m not perfect myself. Maybe its wishful thinking that we could grow as a community, but it’s still something that should all strive for.
I tend to agree with Rich Shay on this one. If vintage was a magic online only format and isn't the format that it is and was more in line of something like Modern or Standard, Shops should be restricted. It's clearly above and beyond better than a lot of restricted cards. It's not even close.
However, vintage is a very unique format. It's not a GP format. It's not a pro tour format. It's a fringe format that some of us are extremely passionate about. Typically, I would say we can't consider player's emotional attachments into b/r considerations. However, something like Mishra's Workshop, in my opinion, is different. You may feel different. You may look at it a lens without emotional decisions. I can't blame players for that one. However, I cannot to be honest.
It's the format where people spend 10,000+ dollars on a deck. I have a 2 Card Monte deck- probably the most expensive deck in the format. I own all of the P9 and 4 Mishra's Workshop. I currently own zero dual lands, no Force of Wills, and 1 single fetch land (wooded foothills). It would be extremely frustrating to have 2,000 dollars of that deck be invalidated. The deck could still be playable sure and, yes, I could sell those cards and get blue duals and be back in a blue deck (not the worse thing in the world). However, what about the players that don't own blue duals or the blue only p9 cards? It may not be feasible for them.
If it was restricted, I'm not sure I would continue playing paper vintage. There's a great chance I would, I'm just honestly not sure.
@Smmenen funny I never saw a single Shops list in my 9 rounds. Could be the losing bracket I was in, but I faced Eldrazi 3 times. Two Jaco and one White Eldrazi. The rest were one Dredge deck, Mentor decks, one landstill, and one dredge. I think it just depends on the luck of a draw a bit (no pun intended).
I don't see what's wrong with that. Not trying to be argumentative. I'm not surprised by the representative of Jaco Eldrazi because it's a cheap deck. A very, very good cheap deck.
I think that's important to the health of the format. It's needed. It brings people into the format and allows it to grow in ways never thought possible. If you hit Ancient Tomb you kill that deck. I don't think that's a good idea.
@Smmenen I'm not sure if what you said was directed at me or not about anger. I'm going to respond as if it was, but my apologies if it wasn't.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be angry about the restrictions. I think that's a legitimate beef and worthy of discussion. It's the anger that basically adds up to grade school name calling I have an issue with. That's the line I'm referring too that has been crossed by some people. That has no place here.
On a side note, I voted no on Shawn's poll, as I'm not happy with the restrictions either. Only on the basis on Wizard's explanation did not add up. I don't know how you could argue that their explanation does.
However, I am still enjoying the format and will take a lot for me not to enjoy it. I've liked watching the changes that have happened, regardless of how I feel. I'm generally a huge proponent of less restrictions and would love to see some love given back to shops (as a non-shops player). Vintage is the place of broken spells, I want to play with broken spells.
Does anyone know what this means that I need a 3+ reputation to post more then 3 posts in 120 seconds?
As a new user, you can only post once every 120 second(s) until you have earned 3 reputation - please wait before posting again"
@smmenen Agreed. I hate Gitaxian Probe as a card and I also hate Mental Misstep as a card, but that doesn't mean a restriction is in order. My bias should not be taken into account.
I've been on record saying I believe both of those should have been restricted in the past, but I've moved away from that way of thinking. I'm generally under the mindset now cards should only be restricted unless absolutely necessary. If they restrict a card and it's proven it shouldn't be restricted, then it should get unrestricted. Now a case could be made not to do more than 1 unrestriction a b/r update, as to see how things play out.
For example, Wizard's specifically said they restricted Gitaxian Probe was restricted because they thought it would lessen Mentor's impact. That was proven false. If their claim was wrong, is there a need to still have it restricted?
Narcomoeba is a may ability as well, so this basically just cuts Dredge off for a turn. You can just decide to not resolve Narco, Ghast, and Ichorid.
Realistically, you'd want to pop this guy in response to a Dread Return, but that would mean you'd need to have it already in play (telegraphing hard what you want to do) or find a way to get it in at instant speed (without flash inherent to the card this is much harder).
I don't know that this is terribly bad personally. Card only works for one turn. Sure, that single turn might be all they need, but it's not like Containment Priest that can just blow you out.
Excellent points I didn't immediately think about. I don't think it's terribly bad though. It still slows down Dredge and Oath (not stops them), which may be enough time. Having a sideboard option when you're not in white that can hit both isn't a bad thing. Still stronger to probably run Grafdigger's cage for that role most likely. But being a creature isn't nothing (but also a detriment).
@protoaddct I would consider this more reactive, but regardless, this effect has been a white effect with Containment Priest and Hallowed Moonlight type cards (or artifacts). I have never seen blue stop creatures from entering the battlefield if they are non tokens if they weren't on the stack. Please, correct me if I'm wrong there if there are similar type of effects in blue, I just don't recall.
I'm not mad that this is in blue, I just wouldn't have expected it. This is, though, giving blue more tools than I would have expected.
This is all initial thoughts.
This sounds like a fantastic sideboard card, regardless of Merfolk or Wizard. Good against both Oath and Dredge. With it being blue, this will be put in a lot of blue side boards, so you don't need to just run Tormod's Crypt or have black (or count on a Leyline in opening hand).
Though, Dredge has moved a lot towards Hollowed One in the sideboard, so it's not as effective coming from the sideboard as it could be. However, certainly a massive hoser still.
One important question. Why is this even in blue?
@Protoaddct As someone that has been a software engineer in the past, I really want to see how it's built out of sheer professional curiosity (honestly). Like, since it's most likely Object Oriented. What do the interfaces look like. How do they program the classes, what properties are given. How do they do the programming? Do they do it test driven (which I'm a huge advocate of) or do they program it and test it later?
It's not to find out how bad or good the code is, I just want to know. Heh
My theory has always been the roots of magic online, the core code, is a mess. Could be for multiple reasons, bad design, poorly paid workers, bad schedules, bad programmers, etc. I’m not sure what language it’s written in. I would have to assume it’s some kind of object oriented code. I would certainly hope so.
Anyway, the tree has sprouted, branches grown. They try to trim the tree every now and then, but it’s a mess and it continues to grow into a bigger mess. They all know it, there’s no good way to fix it... probably without ripping it out from the ground up and starting over.
Don’t get me wrong, the tree is still a tree. It has problems, but I would call it mostly good.
Yes, they could give it a glossy new paint job, make it look nicer, but that doesn’t stop the problems from being there. Businesses being businesses, they see the product making money, so they refuse to fund development of this product to fix it correctly. Especially with their attention divided between this and magic arena. I don’t see much more development time given to this product compared to arena. Arena is the new baby.
And now I realize I went off on a tangent.
@protoaddct said in [BBD] Sentinel Tower:
Kinda like Aetherflux Reservoir but a little more aggressive.
Your math is wrong though. its 1,2,3,4,5, not exponentialNever mind this bit, i see you are calculating damage over time.
I like it, it's a colorless tendrils you have to cast first in many ways. The thing to note is that if you cast it mid turn and then keep casting spells, it does not start at 1, it starts at whatever you already cast +1 for subsequent spells. It also helps you win counter wars which is nice.
Probably a good thing that Probe got restricted. You could have some disgusting ritual turns with this and probe, or honestly just probe turns.
Yeah, sorry, I was writing it at work, so I was trying to be quick. haha
Interesting for Storm? Not saying it's great, but I feel it deserves discussion. You can cast Ritual + Ritual and be able to ping off two creatures on the board and still continue your combo (or just go to your face or planeswalkers).
Cast Number | Total Damage (combined)
1 = 1
2 = 3
3 = 6
4 = 10
5 = 15
6 = 21
By instance or sorcery #6, you have lethal damage. May not need to cast as many spells. However, the obvious inherent weakness is it doesn't count moxen and other artifacts. That in itself makes it much weaker.