Reclamation is going to be a nightmare when WAR drops and you can hit newVivien on 3, Reclamation on 4, and then flash in your double-mana Hydroids.
Maybe...
I think decks have had a hard time running reclamation because it is a do nothing card without nexus of fate. Adding in a planeswalker those decks can't protect on board seems hard to justify.
Even with a wishboard, when do you bring in Conqueror’s Galleon? A two turn setup (t1 cast Karen, t2 galleon, t3 it can attack) to swing in with a 4/4 that turns into a land if it survives just seems super narrow; what decks can let you durdle your t4 and t5 play, but also can’t answer a 4/4 including via blocks?
Not sure if there is enough support for him to be played. Best artifacts to pull are probably compass, map, and spy glass. Possibly fountain. Galleon would be a win con much like using mastermind to find a clear the mind.
Is there enough support for it? Mono black is solidly tier 2. Right now though, outside of esper and super aggressive aggro decks, nothing is really viable.
Man, I love Conqueror's Galleon. It's an essential combo piece in my Esper Commander deck. Flip Galleon then Walk the Aeons for infinite turns until I can cast Approach of the Second Sun twice for the win. (Of course I have other win-cons but I enjoy the combo so much)
What's interesting is that LSV and Matt Nass suggest a possible solution to improving Bo1 is an extensive ban list to include teferi, chainwhirler, and history etc.
If you don't want to watch this is what they say.
1. Format boils down to extremes. WW, red, esper all attack on different fronts. No card improves your deck against esper and WW.
2. For a format to be good, there needs to be mid range. Bo1 pushes mid range out.
3. Games against aggro are over in 3-4 turns and don't allow playing magic. Esper mirror matches are slow and low skill. They stated this was the lowest skill match in standard.
4. Options to fix include: 1) Do nothing, let Bo1 be broken. 2) Extensive Ban lists. 3) Additional Bo1 only cards.
The only thing I didn’t love about the tournament was the duo format. The way the format worked meant there was very little innovation to be seen, as there was only a small number of viable decks. I honestly think that a deck that wins without playing creatures (like both versions of Esper) has no place in best-of-one since it then becomes too punishing to play creature removal, which warps everything. There were some very epic Esper mirror games, but for the most part those games are insanely boring, and we saw the same matchups played over and over.
There’s also the fact that Duo Standard is a bit of a pairings lottery. For example, on Day 1 Matt Nass played Jessica Estephan. Matt had Esper + Red, Jessica had Naya Angels with four Lyra and Temur Reclamation. Matt queued Esper into Naya Angels, and then Red into Temur Reclamation, which meant he won easily. Had the pairings been reversed, I believe she would have won easily. As soon as each of them played their first land drop, it became clear who was going to win the entire match, because a mismatch on one side is always going to come with the same mismatch in game two, so whomever has the advantage in one game will most likely have it in both, which felt like too much to hinge on what was essentially a coin flip. This of course doesn’t take anything away from the Top 4, all of whom had an incredibly hard path to get there and are very deserving winners, but in the future if we have this sort of thing again (and I hope we do!), I’d like to see at least a small change to address those issues. One potential option is to just go harder on the separate ban list, and, for example, make sure that the Teferi decks simply cannot exist, which would then let people play enough removal to combat WW and Red.
Last time there was a video like this nexus was banned in Bo1 shortly afterwards. It's almost like these guys roll ideas out for WotC to see what kind of reaction they get...
furbat on
0
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2019
Just let bo1 be a little busted and have its own mini ban list
You can't go carving entire archetypes out of a format and the idea of cards only allowed in bo1 is silly
So I think the problems with Bo1 were exacerbated by the duo deck format, the format at the mythic invitational made Bo1 even worse than it usually is. On ranked right now, not every deck is either Esper or Mono color aggro at least according to the notes I've seen by people who've made mythic this season but that specific pairing was by far the norm at the invitational.
I think the reason for that was because of game 3, you got to choose your deck and you wanted to give your opponent no easy choice on what deck to bring. If you had two decks that attacked along widely different axises, you made it impossible for your opponent to know what deck he should bring. On the other hand, if people had just played a single deck then maybe you would have seen more people hedging against the field and trying to pick up percentages in their bad match ups as they couldn't just hope to win the coinflip and never play their deck into the bad matchups. I don't think Sulti would have shown up still as I believe that deck has a horrible game 1 against Esper/Mono colored aggro but you might have seen some more innovation beyond what we saw at the invitational.
Wizards has basically said (in more diplomatic words) that duo standard sucked so I don't think they'll be repeating the experiment again anyway. That would mean they don't have to extend the ban list or do anything. It could be that Bo1 still needs help but I'd like to see it without duo standard first.
Wizards has basically said (in more diplomatic words) that duo standard sucked so I don't think they'll be repeating the experiment again anyway. That would mean they don't have to extend the ban list or do anything. It could be that Bo1 still needs help but I'd like to see it without duo standard first.
Citation? I'd like to read whatever statement they made
0
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
the double+ reclamation working the way it does is unintuitive to me (works the way it does because of the stack, i guess) but i got a lesson in how it works when i got electrodominanced for 28
I really don’t entirely understand it either. “At the beginning of your end step, untap all lands you control.”
How does it work more than once unless your end step begins more than once?
Floating mana only goes away between phases, you can take mana at instant speed, and even though all the Reclamations occur at the same time, they are still resolved one at a time. So between each of them resolving, you can just tap more mana to float until you've tapped enough and then Magic happens.
That’s a helpful explanation but it also makes the order of operations sound even more ridiculous.
Far be it from me to talk about the function of the Stack but stuff like this seems completely unintuitive and needlessly complicated. I’m perfectly fine with combo decks, in fact I love combo decks, but sometimes a play happens or I die and I’m just left with a blank stare on my face because my opponent did some improbable thing that makes sense in almost no other card game.
When looking at different formats, we're trying to balance several levers. We think a healthy format should:
Reward skill;
Be fun to watch;
Be simple to understand and explain; and
Closely resemble your at-home play experience.
We don't think Duo Standard balanced all those levers well and this won't be the final form for esports events on MTG Arena. There are a lot of great learnings and data we'll be digging into over the next few weeks. We're excited to take what we've learned back to the format drawing board and make changes for our next event.
I believe there are 2 more mtga events scheduled this year. They did achieve this at least 'Closely resemble your at-home play experience.'
So I think the problems with Bo1 were exacerbated by the duo deck format, the format at the mythic invitational made Bo1 even worse than it usually is. On ranked right now, not every deck is either Esper or Mono color aggro at least according to the notes I've seen by people who've made mythic this season but that specific pairing was by far the norm at the invitational.
I'm in diamond right now and the meta reflects what I see on ladder. No, not every deck is mono colored or esper. But most games are. RDW, esper, WW, and then gruul are the most common match ups by far. I haven't been using a third party tracker recently (since mtgapro went down) so there's that. People are slightly more likely to bring jank on the ladder, but there were at least 10+ janky brews at the invitational as well. Yes, the share of janky brews is probably double that on ladder, but that should be expected.
the double+ reclamation working the way it does is unintuitive to me (works the way it does because of the stack, i guess) but i got a lesson in how it works when i got electrodominanced for 28
I really don’t entirely understand it either. “At the beginning of your end step, untap all lands you control.”
How does it work more than once unless your end step begins more than once?
Floating mana only goes away between phases, you can take mana at instant speed, and even though all the Reclamations occur at the same time, they are still resolved one at a time. So between each of them resolving, you can just tap more mana to float until you've tapped enough and then Magic happens.
That’s a helpful explanation but it also makes the order of operations sound even more ridiculous.
Far be it from me to talk about the function of the Stack but stuff like this seems completely unintuitive and needlessly complicated. I’m perfectly fine with combo decks, in fact I love combo decks, but sometimes a play happens or I die and I’m just left with a blank stare on my face because my opponent did some improbable thing that makes sense in almost no other card game.
The way to think of it is that with very few exceptions (tapping mana, checking to see if a player loses, etc) everything happens on the same schedule.
Every time something goes onto the stack, you have a chance to respond to it. Every time something resolves, as long as the stack isn't empty, you have the chance to respond to THAT. (and there are obviously other times you receive priority)
In the case of reclamation, the start of your end phase happens simultaneously for each reclamation, so you get four triggers that go on the stack at the same time. As the active player, you'd get to choose what order they go on the stack in, if it mattered, but since they're simultaneous, you don't get priority between them actually getting put on the stack.
Now you've got four things on the stack (that entered simultaneously). Each player gets priority until both players pass, then you resolve the topmost thing on the stack. Then, each player gets priority until both players pass, then you resolve the topmost thing on the stack. You do that until the stack is empty.
That's how you can do things like cast countermagic on other countermagic or stuff like that. It makes sense in no other card game because basically no other card came uses a stack as a resolution tool, but it's actually the ONLY way it makes sense in the context of MTG and the stack. As long as you get a chance to react to those triggers, you must have the chance to react to each trigger individually.
+3
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
the double+ reclamation working the way it does is unintuitive to me (works the way it does because of the stack, i guess) but i got a lesson in how it works when i got electrodominanced for 28
I really don’t entirely understand it either. “At the beginning of your end step, untap all lands you control.”
How does it work more than once unless your end step begins more than once?
Floating mana only goes away between phases, you can take mana at instant speed, and even though all the Reclamations occur at the same time, they are still resolved one at a time. So between each of them resolving, you can just tap more mana to float until you've tapped enough and then Magic happens.
That’s a helpful explanation but it also makes the order of operations sound even more ridiculous.
Far be it from me to talk about the function of the Stack but stuff like this seems completely unintuitive and needlessly complicated. I’m perfectly fine with combo decks, in fact I love combo decks, but sometimes a play happens or I die and I’m just left with a blank stare on my face because my opponent did some improbable thing that makes sense in almost no other card game.
The way to think of it is that with very few exceptions (tapping mana, checking to see if a player loses, etc) everything happens on the same schedule.
Every time something goes onto the stack, you have a chance to respond to it. Every time something resolves, as long as the stack isn't empty, you have the chance to respond to THAT. (and there are obviously other times you receive priority)
In the case of reclamation, the start of your end phase happens simultaneously for each reclamation, so you get four triggers that go on the stack at the same time. As the active player, you'd get to choose what order they go on the stack in, if it mattered, but since they're simultaneous, you don't get priority between them actually getting put on the stack.
Now you've got four things on the stack (that entered simultaneously). Each player gets priority until both players pass, then you resolve the topmost thing on the stack. Then, each player gets priority until both players pass, then you resolve the topmost thing on the stack. You do that until the stack is empty.
That's how you can do things like cast countermagic on other countermagic or stuff like that. It makes sense in no other card game because basically no other card came uses a stack as a resolution tool, but it's actually the ONLY way it makes sense in the context of MTG and the stack. As long as you get a chance to react to those triggers, you must have the chance to react to each trigger individually.
And you with reclamation you react by tapping mana which *doesnt* go on the stack so you can do it all at once and then let one reclamation trigger resolve and then do it again
fuck gendered marketing
+1
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
I think a lot of that makes sense in the context of other plays in the game, like counter counter spells, but for Reclamation it just seems weird.
Your end step starts once, and all reclamation’s activate simultaneously. Ok. But the way it reads to me is that the land should only untap once because your end step only begins once. If all Reclamations activate at the same time, fine but you only have one beginning of an end step, and you can only untap mana that is tapped. Even if four Reclamation’s resolve simultaneously, only one of them should untap tapped lands, because four reclamations can’t simultaneously tap and untap the same land.
So for example, I have six lands on the board, put down Reclamation, and untap them at the beginning of my end step. Next turn, I play another reclamation. All lands are tapped going into the beginning of my end step. Both Reclamations activate simultaneously. But at the beginning of my end step, there are six lands to untap. After my end step begins, there are no lands to untap, because at least one Reclamation has untapped them all. The beginning of my end step is over, regardless of how many more actions I can take in my end step.
If I'm understanding you correctly, all the Reclamations resolve and untap mana at every point because the “beginning of your end step” doesn’t end until the stack is clear. But that also seems contradictory to me because you cannot untap land that’s already untapped because it seems to me that the beginning of my end step is over.
Not trying to be argumentative. It just seems really illogical to me based on the way a turn works. Does my understanding make sense? Or am I really that far off base?
If I'm understanding you correctly, all the Reclamations resolve and untap mana at every point because the “beginning of your end step” doesn’t end until the stack is clear. But that also seems contradictory to me because you cannot untap land that’s already untapped because it seems to me that the beginning of my end step is over.
Not trying to be argumentative. It just seems really illogical to me based on the way a turn works. Does my understanding make sense? Or am I really that far off base?
You're close!
Think of the phrase like this
"At the beginning of your end step, untap all lands you control" ->
"At the beginning of your end step, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Untap all lands you control'"
You can also think of negate like this
"When this spell is cast, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Counter target noncreature spell'"
Or shock:
"When this spell is cast, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Deal 2 damage to any target'"
Instant and sorcery cards do not go onto the stack, though for all intents and purposes, they may as well. Really they create effects and put them on the stack. For negate and shock, the trigger is casting the spell. For reclamation, the trigger is "at the beginning of your end step."
The basic difference in thinking there is that the phrase "at the beginning of your end step" is not when the effect happens but rather the trigger that causes the ability to go onto the stack.
I think a lot of that makes sense in the context of other plays in the game, like counter counter spells, but for Reclamation it just seems weird.
Your end step starts once, and all reclamation’s activate simultaneously. Ok. But the way it reads to me is that the land should only untap once because your end step only begins once. If all Reclamations activate at the same time, fine but you only have one beginning of an end step, and you can only untap mana that is tapped. Even if four Reclamation’s resolve simultaneously, only one of them should untap tapped lands, because four reclamations can’t simultaneously tap and untap the same land.
So for example, I have six lands on the board, put down Reclamation, and untap them at the beginning of my end step. Next turn, I play another reclamation. All lands are tapped going into the beginning of my end step. Both Reclamations activate simultaneously. But at the beginning of my end step, there are six lands to untap. After my end step begins, there are no lands to untap, because at least one Reclamation has untapped them all. The beginning of my end step is over, regardless of how many more actions I can take in my end step.
If I'm understanding you correctly, all the Reclamations resolve and untap mana at every point because the “beginning of your end step” doesn’t end until the stack is clear. But that also seems contradictory to me because you cannot untap land that’s already untapped because it seems to me that the beginning of my end step is over.
Not trying to be argumentative. It just seems really illogical to me based on the way a turn works. Does my understanding make sense? Or am I really that far off base?
The basic misunderstanding here is nothing actually happens until it's resolved on the stack.
It's not four reclamations go off at once.
It's reclamation 1 goes off then 2 then 3 then 4. Since they go off in sequence not simultaneously you can do things between each one.
+3
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
For what it's worth I've always thought that using reclaimation to double or triple etc dip on mana feels like an exploit to me, it may be intended but it's the kind of edge case jank that would be a bug in any other game. Being able to make plays in the nullspace "after" your turns always felt a bit weird as well, but this just drives that wide open.
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2019
Yeah you're not understanding the stack correctly, which is fair cause the stack can be pretty complicated and produce interactions that at first seem unintuitive
Now the internet tells me that there's a manga about mtg.
+3
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
edited April 2019
Ok I think I have a better understanding. It still seems like it shouldn’t work that way with cards like Reclamation, but at least as far as the phases of each turn and the way effects line up as they are played I am getting an idea of what’s going.
GoodKingJayIII on
Battletag: Threeve#1501
PSN: Threeve703
0
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
I think a lot of that makes sense in the context of other plays in the game, like counter counter spells, but for Reclamation it just seems weird.
Your end step starts once, and all reclamation’s activate simultaneously. Ok. But the way it reads to me is that the land should only untap once because your end step only begins once. If all Reclamations activate at the same time, fine but you only have one beginning of an end step, and you can only untap mana that is tapped. Even if four Reclamation’s resolve simultaneously, only one of them should untap tapped lands, because four reclamations can’t simultaneously tap and untap the same land.
So for example, I have six lands on the board, put down Reclamation, and untap them at the beginning of my end step. Next turn, I play another reclamation. All lands are tapped going into the beginning of my end step. Both Reclamations activate simultaneously. But at the beginning of my end step, there are six lands to untap. After my end step begins, there are no lands to untap, because at least one Reclamation has untapped them all. The beginning of my end step is over, regardless of how many more actions I can take in my end step.
If I'm understanding you correctly, all the Reclamations resolve and untap mana at every point because the “beginning of your end step” doesn’t end until the stack is clear. But that also seems contradictory to me because you cannot untap land that’s already untapped because it seems to me that the beginning of my end step is over.
Not trying to be argumentative. It just seems really illogical to me based on the way a turn works. Does my understanding make sense? Or am I really that far off base?
The basic misunderstanding here is nothing actually happens until it's resolved on the stack.
It's not four reclamations go off at once.
It's reclamation 1 goes off then 2 then 3 then 4. Since they go off in sequence not simultaneously you can do things between each one.
Yeah all four reclamations are triggered at once but the effect of each reclamation goes on the stack individually and they resolve one at a time not as a lump
I really like the way the arena UI shows the stack when people start piling up spells and effects
For what it's worth I've always thought that using reclaimation to double or triple etc dip on mana feels like an exploit to me, it may be intended but it's the kind of edge case jank that would be a bug in any other game. Being able to make plays in the nullspace "after" your turns always felt a bit weird as well, but this just drives that wide open.
It probably should have been legendary. But MTG is all about the weird ass edge cases.
0
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
If I'm understanding you correctly, all the Reclamations resolve and untap mana at every point because the “beginning of your end step” doesn’t end until the stack is clear. But that also seems contradictory to me because you cannot untap land that’s already untapped because it seems to me that the beginning of my end step is over.
Not trying to be argumentative. It just seems really illogical to me based on the way a turn works. Does my understanding make sense? Or am I really that far off base?
You're close!
Think of the phrase like this
"At the beginning of your end step, untap all lands you control" ->
"At the beginning of your end step, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Untap all lands you control'"
You can also think of negate like this
"When this spell is cast, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Counter target noncreature spell'"
Or shock:
"When this spell is cast, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Deal 2 damage to any target'"
Instant and sorcery cards do not go onto the stack, though for all intents and purposes, they may as well. Really they create effects and put them on the stack. For negate and shock, the trigger is casting the spell. For reclamation, the trigger is "at the beginning of your end step."
The basic difference in thinking there is that the phrase "at the beginning of your end step" is not when the effect happens but rather the trigger that causes the ability to go onto the stack.
also with shock and negate you declare targets as the spell is cast so really the ability on the stack is "deal 2 damage to this specific named target"
I feel like I'm so deep into MTG that Reclamation seems incredibly normal. It's like casting an instant in someone's end step. It's not null space. It's basically after someone's second main but before the next turn. I think it's more explicit in MTG:O. Arena kinda has to make some compromises to making things more elegant by obscuring a lot of the rules that are usually fairly easy to check.
I don't actually know how you have interactive card game play without using something like the stack and phases. I definitely understand how it's frustrating though- it's basically low-key a programming language.
I feel like I'm so deep into MTG that Reclamation seems incredibly normal. It's like casting an instant in someone's end step. It's not null space. It's basically after someone's second main but before the next turn. I think it's more explicit in MTG:O. Arena kinda has to make some compromises to making things more elegant by obscuring a lot of the rules that are usually fairly easy to check.
I don't actually know how you have interactive card game play without using something like the stack and phases. I definitely understand how it's frustrating though- it's basically low-key a programming language.
In new L5R you have action windows in which each player gets to do stuff until both players pass at the same time, except your cards resolve immediately when you play them. The exception is a concept called reaction which is the only concept in the game that can undercut like that. You don't need a stack because the game isn't built around it- in concept the most complicated it gets is a counterspell war, and it's very uncommon.
So functionally it's the same but you don't need to define the stack because since most rules in the game aren't designed around it, you can have a much simpler rules heuristic based around simply reacting to individual stuff.
As a result the game tends to play around a pattern of one-upmanship, where you do something to make your samurai stronger, and then your opponent will do the same, or maybe do something to make your own samurai weaker, and you repeat until one player either has nothing left to play or decides they've committed enough resources to this fight, etc. It's less about trying to get in before whatever your opponent does happens, and more about reacting to what they've done after the fact.
I'm liking the new Saheeli, you can play burn and weenie at the same time. Mix her with the new Chandra, I guess red's getting some good tools but we'll see.
Saheeli looks very strong. You can do things like create 1/1s at instant speed and then -2 them into a crackling drake. Or run her in jeskai/esper control where she outperforms kaya and provides constant pressure against plainswalkers. Or hell, just run her in a RDW burn deck and use the -2 to create another steamkin..
Saheeli looks very strong. You can do things like create 1/1s at instant speed and then -2 them into a crackling drake. Or run her in jeskai/esper control where she outperforms kaya and provides constant pressure against plainswalkers. Or hell, just run her in a RDW burn deck and use the -2 to create another steamkin..
Saheeli and the new Ral could both see play in a Drakes deck. I play a Drakes deck, so this is ok with me.
i figured they'd have some target multiple things type removal for lazotep plating
do they explain why they think esper control is so low skill? it coming down to who can stick teferi first or what?
They were talking specifically about the Esper mirror in Bo1. They discussed that Game 1 of the Esper mirror typically relies on who can draw the least amount of dead cards and then loop Teferi. This is where they said about the Esper mirror in Bo3 Game 1 is "low skill and slow." Before hand they qualified this by saying that in a Bo3 format games 2 and 3 are very intricate matchups that take up the rest of the time in the round.
Think of the phrase like this
"At the beginning of your end step, untap all lands you control" ->
"At the beginning of your end step, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Untap all lands you control'"
Correct.
You can also think of negate like this
"When this spell is cast, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Counter target noncreature spell'"
Or shock:
"When this spell is cast, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Deal 2 damage to any target'"
Instant and sorcery cards do not go onto the stack, though for all intents and purposes, they may as well. Really they create effects and put them on the stack. For negate and shock, the trigger is casting the spell. For reclamation, the trigger is "at the beginning of your end step."
Incorrect. Every non-land card goes on the stack when cast, at which point it is a spell. There is no trigger created unless the card says so (storm, cascade, various Eldrazi, etc.).
Man, I love Conqueror's Galleon. It's an essential combo piece in my Esper Commander deck. Flip Galleon then Walk the Aeons for infinite turns until I can cast Approach of the Second Sun twice for the win. (Of course I have other win-cons but I enjoy the combo so much)
I feel like there have to be better ways to loop infinite turns than a 6 mana "return card from your graveyard to your hand" ability, tbh.
I ate an engineer
0
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Looking to dip into Bo3 with my Judith Rakdos deck. On my phone and dont have the fulldeck list, but it's what you would expect- 4 Judith, 4 Fireblades, Guuterbones, etc.
What I need help with is the sideboard. I understand what my cards DO, but I'm not overly familiar with what decks OTHER people are playing and the sideboard cards I'll be needing.
Any ideas and commentary? I cannet deck, but those lists don't explain WHY certain cards are included.
The reason there's no midrange in Bo1 right now is that there's not a good Loxodon Hierarch/Kitchen Finks/Obstinate Baloth equivalent in standard, and there hasn't been one for like three years now. Not at all weirdly, that coincides with the period where WotC has had a problem balancing red decks. 4 toughness, 4 lifegain, 3-4 mana. It's not that hard. The closest thing we have now is the WWBB guy, but that casting cost is prohibitive for 95% of decks.
XBL: Morgan Coke Yes, there is a space, not an underscore. I'm old school like that.
Battle.net: morgancoke#1589
you basically need to do it as a 4 or 5 mana play paired with the 2/3 mana explore cards, imo. once it gets to 4 health very hard for mono red decks to kill it if they don't run lava coil
Think of the phrase like this
"At the beginning of your end step, untap all lands you control" ->
"At the beginning of your end step, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Untap all lands you control'"
Correct.
You can also think of negate like this
"When this spell is cast, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Counter target noncreature spell'"
Or shock:
"When this spell is cast, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Deal 2 damage to any target'"
Instant and sorcery cards do not go onto the stack, though for all intents and purposes, they may as well. Really they create effects and put them on the stack. For negate and shock, the trigger is casting the spell. For reclamation, the trigger is "at the beginning of your end step."
Incorrect. Every non-land card goes on the stack when cast, at which point it is a spell. There is no trigger created unless the card says so (storm, cascade, various Eldrazi, etc.).
This is true for the purposes of the spell not being an activated or triggered ability. However, the point of that explanation, though it is not perfectly accurate, is to try and frame the rules in a more simple but also very consistent manner. (...and also without going into the weeds of specifics and edge cases, which there are literally hundreds of pages of in the comprehensive rules)
Posts
Bo3. Their win conditions were either Explosion and/or Niv
Not sure if there is enough support for him to be played. Best artifacts to pull are probably compass, map, and spy glass. Possibly fountain. Galleon would be a win con much like using mastermind to find a clear the mind.
Is there enough support for it? Mono black is solidly tier 2. Right now though, outside of esper and super aggressive aggro decks, nothing is really viable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=_35PXPFQR6Y
What's interesting is that LSV and Matt Nass suggest a possible solution to improving Bo1 is an extensive ban list to include teferi, chainwhirler, and history etc.
If you don't want to watch this is what they say.
1. Format boils down to extremes. WW, red, esper all attack on different fronts. No card improves your deck against esper and WW.
2. For a format to be good, there needs to be mid range. Bo1 pushes mid range out.
3. Games against aggro are over in 3-4 turns and don't allow playing magic. Esper mirror matches are slow and low skill. They stated this was the lowest skill match in standard.
4. Options to fix include: 1) Do nothing, let Bo1 be broken. 2) Extensive Ban lists. 3) Additional Bo1 only cards.
PVDR goes as far as to say the following: https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/mythic-invitational-and-the-future-of-best-of-one/?_ga=2.42499363.748072587.1554771933-994619863.1547145649&_gac=1.16433922.1554680137.EAIaIQobChMIyYb-4JK_4QIVTTxPCh3XKgbZEAEYASAFEgKrqfD_BwE
Last time there was a video like this nexus was banned in Bo1 shortly afterwards. It's almost like these guys roll ideas out for WotC to see what kind of reaction they get...
You can't go carving entire archetypes out of a format and the idea of cards only allowed in bo1 is silly
I think the reason for that was because of game 3, you got to choose your deck and you wanted to give your opponent no easy choice on what deck to bring. If you had two decks that attacked along widely different axises, you made it impossible for your opponent to know what deck he should bring. On the other hand, if people had just played a single deck then maybe you would have seen more people hedging against the field and trying to pick up percentages in their bad match ups as they couldn't just hope to win the coinflip and never play their deck into the bad matchups. I don't think Sulti would have shown up still as I believe that deck has a horrible game 1 against Esper/Mono colored aggro but you might have seen some more innovation beyond what we saw at the invitational.
Wizards has basically said (in more diplomatic words) that duo standard sucked so I don't think they'll be repeating the experiment again anyway. That would mean they don't have to extend the ban list or do anything. It could be that Bo1 still needs help but I'd like to see it without duo standard first.
Citation? I'd like to read whatever statement they made
That’s a helpful explanation but it also makes the order of operations sound even more ridiculous.
Far be it from me to talk about the function of the Stack but stuff like this seems completely unintuitive and needlessly complicated. I’m perfectly fine with combo decks, in fact I love combo decks, but sometimes a play happens or I die and I’m just left with a blank stare on my face because my opponent did some improbable thing that makes sense in almost no other card game.
PSN: Threeve703
I believe there are 2 more mtga events scheduled this year. They did achieve this at least 'Closely resemble your at-home play experience.'
I'm in diamond right now and the meta reflects what I see on ladder. No, not every deck is mono colored or esper. But most games are. RDW, esper, WW, and then gruul are the most common match ups by far. I haven't been using a third party tracker recently (since mtgapro went down) so there's that. People are slightly more likely to bring jank on the ladder, but there were at least 10+ janky brews at the invitational as well. Yes, the share of janky brews is probably double that on ladder, but that should be expected.
Also, speaking of artifact decks and karn...
i figured they'd have some target multiple things type removal for lazotep plating
do they explain why they think esper control is so low skill? it coming down to who can stick teferi first or what?
The way to think of it is that with very few exceptions (tapping mana, checking to see if a player loses, etc) everything happens on the same schedule.
Every time something goes onto the stack, you have a chance to respond to it. Every time something resolves, as long as the stack isn't empty, you have the chance to respond to THAT. (and there are obviously other times you receive priority)
In the case of reclamation, the start of your end phase happens simultaneously for each reclamation, so you get four triggers that go on the stack at the same time. As the active player, you'd get to choose what order they go on the stack in, if it mattered, but since they're simultaneous, you don't get priority between them actually getting put on the stack.
Now you've got four things on the stack (that entered simultaneously). Each player gets priority until both players pass, then you resolve the topmost thing on the stack. Then, each player gets priority until both players pass, then you resolve the topmost thing on the stack. You do that until the stack is empty.
That's how you can do things like cast countermagic on other countermagic or stuff like that. It makes sense in no other card game because basically no other card came uses a stack as a resolution tool, but it's actually the ONLY way it makes sense in the context of MTG and the stack. As long as you get a chance to react to those triggers, you must have the chance to react to each trigger individually.
And you with reclamation you react by tapping mana which *doesnt* go on the stack so you can do it all at once and then let one reclamation trigger resolve and then do it again
Your end step starts once, and all reclamation’s activate simultaneously. Ok. But the way it reads to me is that the land should only untap once because your end step only begins once. If all Reclamations activate at the same time, fine but you only have one beginning of an end step, and you can only untap mana that is tapped. Even if four Reclamation’s resolve simultaneously, only one of them should untap tapped lands, because four reclamations can’t simultaneously tap and untap the same land.
So for example, I have six lands on the board, put down Reclamation, and untap them at the beginning of my end step. Next turn, I play another reclamation. All lands are tapped going into the beginning of my end step. Both Reclamations activate simultaneously. But at the beginning of my end step, there are six lands to untap. After my end step begins, there are no lands to untap, because at least one Reclamation has untapped them all. The beginning of my end step is over, regardless of how many more actions I can take in my end step.
If I'm understanding you correctly, all the Reclamations resolve and untap mana at every point because the “beginning of your end step” doesn’t end until the stack is clear. But that also seems contradictory to me because you cannot untap land that’s already untapped because it seems to me that the beginning of my end step is over.
Not trying to be argumentative. It just seems really illogical to me based on the way a turn works. Does my understanding make sense? Or am I really that far off base?
PSN: Threeve703
You're close!
Think of the phrase like this
"At the beginning of your end step, untap all lands you control" ->
"At the beginning of your end step, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Untap all lands you control'"
You can also think of negate like this
"When this spell is cast, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Counter target noncreature spell'"
Or shock:
"When this spell is cast, put onto the stack an ability that reads: 'Deal 2 damage to any target'"
Instant and sorcery cards do not go onto the stack, though for all intents and purposes, they may as well. Really they create effects and put them on the stack. For negate and shock, the trigger is casting the spell. For reclamation, the trigger is "at the beginning of your end step."
The basic difference in thinking there is that the phrase "at the beginning of your end step" is not when the effect happens but rather the trigger that causes the ability to go onto the stack.
The basic misunderstanding here is nothing actually happens until it's resolved on the stack.
It's not four reclamations go off at once.
It's reclamation 1 goes off then 2 then 3 then 4. Since they go off in sequence not simultaneously you can do things between each one.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
Edit thats re goodking's post
PSN: Threeve703
Yeah all four reclamations are triggered at once but the effect of each reclamation goes on the stack individually and they resolve one at a time not as a lump
I really like the way the arena UI shows the stack when people start piling up spells and effects
It probably should have been legendary. But MTG is all about the weird ass edge cases.
also with shock and negate you declare targets as the spell is cast so really the ability on the stack is "deal 2 damage to this specific named target"
I don't actually know how you have interactive card game play without using something like the stack and phases. I definitely understand how it's frustrating though- it's basically low-key a programming language.
In new L5R you have action windows in which each player gets to do stuff until both players pass at the same time, except your cards resolve immediately when you play them. The exception is a concept called reaction which is the only concept in the game that can undercut like that. You don't need a stack because the game isn't built around it- in concept the most complicated it gets is a counterspell war, and it's very uncommon.
So functionally it's the same but you don't need to define the stack because since most rules in the game aren't designed around it, you can have a much simpler rules heuristic based around simply reacting to individual stuff.
As a result the game tends to play around a pattern of one-upmanship, where you do something to make your samurai stronger, and then your opponent will do the same, or maybe do something to make your own samurai weaker, and you repeat until one player either has nothing left to play or decides they've committed enough resources to this fight, etc. It's less about trying to get in before whatever your opponent does happens, and more about reacting to what they've done after the fact.
Handmade Jewelry by me on EtsyGames for sale
Me on Twitch!
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
Saheeli and the new Ral could both see play in a Drakes deck. I play a Drakes deck, so this is ok with me.
They were talking specifically about the Esper mirror in Bo1. They discussed that Game 1 of the Esper mirror typically relies on who can draw the least amount of dead cards and then loop Teferi. This is where they said about the Esper mirror in Bo3 Game 1 is "low skill and slow." Before hand they qualified this by saying that in a Bo3 format games 2 and 3 are very intricate matchups that take up the rest of the time in the round.
PSN: ChemENGR
Correct.
Incorrect. Every non-land card goes on the stack when cast, at which point it is a spell. There is no trigger created unless the card says so (storm, cascade, various Eldrazi, etc.).
AC:NH Chris from Glosta SW-5173-3598-2899 DA-4749-1014-4697
I feel like there have to be better ways to loop infinite turns than a 6 mana "return card from your graveyard to your hand" ability, tbh.
What I need help with is the sideboard. I understand what my cards DO, but I'm not overly familiar with what decks OTHER people are playing and the sideboard cards I'll be needing.
Any ideas and commentary? I cannet deck, but those lists don't explain WHY certain cards are included.
Battle.net: morgancoke#1589
Titan's Creed: Jump first, don't ask questions, punch everything
This is true for the purposes of the spell not being an activated or triggered ability. However, the point of that explanation, though it is not perfectly accurate, is to try and frame the rules in a more simple but also very consistent manner. (...and also without going into the weeds of specifics and edge cases, which there are literally hundreds of pages of in the comprehensive rules)