If I haven't named a deck yet that means I still don't give a shit about it. The moment I actually enjoy a deck it gets a name. Even if it's a very simple name.
My dinosaur deck is named Rawr, for example. Because it's about dinosaurs mauling your face, you see. It's nominative descriptivism! Or my UG beatdown based on +1/+1 counters and proliferate is called Counter Roads (take me hooome...♪). And so on.
Just hit a weird bug where my game wouldn't auto-pass into combat randomly? Not sure if it was the client or something my laptop was doing but that game went on like four turns longer than it should have since there were several turns where I wanted to swing in but couldn't.
If the shuffler doesn't need work then I must have the worst luck ever.
First hand - 1 land, mulligan
Second hand - 1 land, all but 1 card is different, mulligan
Third hand - 4 lands, a 2 drop and 2 4 drops, keep, put land and a 4 drop to bottom
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
furbat is there a deck archetype you actually like? I think I've seen you slag off almost all of them at this point.
Only decks I've complained about have been RDW for representing a 1/3rd of the meta for 9 months straight and Nexus in Bo1 because it was broken as shit.
Uh, on this very page you're calling combo decks 'unfair'. I guess I would call that complaining too.
Combo decks typically are unfair. That is a term used to describe alternate win cons/going infinite. Pretty much any strategy that isn't concerned with maintaining a board presence to win is considered 'unfair'.
Scapeshift is a pretty good example of this, yeah.
I don't think this is how most people use the term when talking about Magic.
It's pretty close to how I use it -- a broad descriptor for strategies that cheat on a certain resource (usually mana) in order to get an effect that is more impactful than the sum total of resources spent.
Well yeah, but board presence isn't really necessary for that, nor does a board of punchymans mean your deck is fair. Hogaak is unfair and has a whole lot of board presence. Draw-go control decks tend to have an engine or two but are about as fair as you can get.
Agreed on all counts, but I don't think OP was saying that the only strategies that are considered "unfair" are ones that don't care about board presence. Just that any strategy that DOESN'T care about board presence is likely an unfair one. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares type of thing
But that's completely wrong. Board presence and fairness are basically independent.
I'm debating whether that's true. The only counterexample I can think of is draw-go control (as you mentioned) but I'd argue that draw-go decks care very much about board presence, just not about establishing their OWN board presence. They have a lot of tools to ensure that they don't fall behind on board.
Any deck that lets an opponent establish a huge board without doing anything to manage it is probably setting up to kill you with a flying 20/20 or fifteen copies of Tendrils of Agony or whatever.
But maybe I'm just arguing to argue. I don't really have a dog in this fight! (I still like my definition of "unfair" better anyway.)
I would argue that the deck has to primarily be proactive to be 'unfair'. The difference between draw-go control is that it is reactive vs proactive.
So, esper control isn't really 'unfair' and doesn't really cheat anything into play or go infinite.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
edited July 2019
Well, just hit diamond in constructed. I’ll take it for my first month.
Got to platinum 1 with Boros Feather but just couldn’t break through. Built a Jank mono red Chandra Aggro creature deck and won five straight.
Congrats @jmcdonald I’m at Platinum (my first month too) and probably sticking there. Mostly played Precons, but towards the end I built Simic Flash (a Bo1 version without SB).
+1
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
honestly the fact that you can designate a "cover" card art for each deck is the biggest reason why I don't bother naming them. I had to name my decks in MTGO, but giving each one a defining cover art in Arena is enough to distinguish them.
If the shuffler doesn't need work then I must have the worst luck ever.
First hand - 1 land, mulligan
Second hand - 1 land, all but 1 card is different, mulligan
Third hand - 4 lands, a 2 drop and 2 4 drops, keep, put land and a 4 drop to bottom
and I have to say, that is an extremely funny deck to play.
"Oh no, RDW! They've got a spitfire, 3 lavarunners, a steam kin, and all I have is this arboreal grazer and what's this now I have sixteen 2/2s ololol"
Heh, beat Nexus in bo3 by running out the clock. They had a wincon but it was supremely durdly and it was evident they were unfamiliar with actually executing the later stages. He ended up using 20 minutes of priority in game 2 and then ran out of time in game 3.
Heh, beat Nexus in bo3 by running out the clock. They had a wincon but it was supremely durdly and it was evident they were unfamiliar with actually executing the later stages. He ended up using 20 minutes of priority in game 2 and then ran out of time in game 3.
Hey I literally just did this too! I scapeshifted like 18 zombies onto the board and then he sat there and tried to callus dismissal them for like 8 minutes until he ran out of time.
If the shuffler doesn't need work then I must have the worst luck ever.
First hand - 1 land, mulligan
Second hand - 1 land, all but 1 card is different, mulligan
Third hand - 4 lands, a 2 drop and 2 4 drops, keep, put land and a 4 drop to bottom
First 6 draws, all lands.
That is how random works, yes.
I think what people are trying to say is that is was never this bad before M20. Even in paper magic this doesn't happen to this extent.
Because if you're going to attempt to squeeze that big black monster into your slot you will need to be able to take at least 12 inches or else you're going to have a bad time...
If the shuffler doesn't need work then I must have the worst luck ever.
First hand - 1 land, mulligan
Second hand - 1 land, all but 1 card is different, mulligan
Third hand - 4 lands, a 2 drop and 2 4 drops, keep, put land and a 4 drop to bottom
First 6 draws, all lands.
That is how random works, yes.
I think what people are trying to say is that is was never this bad before M20. Even in paper magic this doesn't happen to this extent.
Unless you are running meticulous random sample studies over hundreds of games to measure the distribution you have no idea of the extent.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
People are incredibly bad at identifying randomness and a lot of people seem to think pile shuffling is a random result. I absolutely trust a computer randomizer more than a human shuffler.
People get salty at rng when they end up on the bad end of the curve.
It's a pretty reasonable response.
That being said I myself have had some astronomically bad luck with the mtga shuffler. Even without taking into account the fact that it draws multiple hands or what have you, it was still pretty close to five standard deviations.
The shuffler probably isn't broken, just like it wasn't broken then, but I'm also within my rights to complain about horrendous luck and feel really bad about what happened without someone telling me that my choice of hobby is unhealthy for me.
Someone already did a study of a million or so games and confirmed it's not truly random. And even if it was, if it doesn't feel good and it's not fun, they might as well skew it to feel more fun instead of less fun, as it currently is.
Someone already did a study of a million or so games and confirmed it's not truly random. And even if it was, if it doesn't feel good and it's not fun, they might as well skew it to feel more fun instead of less fun, as it currently is.
It actually is weighted toward giving you better starting hands I believe, but unfortunately that doesn't stop all statistical anomalies
The thing I read says it tries to do that...it just fails. If you take an opening hand with less land, it will then give you almost no land draws. If you take more land, it will give you even more land in draws.
The person who posted that was a P-Harking moron who had no idea what he was talking about, fyi. He basically just went through the data and threw random charts together until he found ones that gave results he wanted showing the shuffler wasn't truly random while ignoring the rest.
E: See this link to understand why that sort of thing isn't a good way to interpret data.
Someone already did a study of a million or so games and confirmed it's not truly random. And even if it was, if it doesn't feel good and it's not fun, they might as well skew it to feel more fun instead of less fun, as it currently is.
It actually is weighted toward giving you better starting hands I believe, but unfortunately that doesn't stop all statistical anomalies
Someone already did a study of a million or so games and confirmed it's not truly random. And even if it was, if it doesn't feel good and it's not fun, they might as well skew it to feel more fun instead of less fun, as it currently is.
It actually is weighted toward giving you better starting hands I believe, but unfortunately that doesn't stop all statistical anomalies
I believe that's also only bo1
That is correct. One of the whole points of Bo3 is to mitigate the randomness, so smoothing opening hands would be a little redundant (and possibly giving even more emphasis on the die roll than is anyway there).
Man this deck is really fun, just finished destroying two control decks and a Scapeshift deck. Turns out 50 zombies can't out pace Pelakka wurms that just keep crawling out of the grave.
Random done via machine/code is not true random. Hence the broken ass shuffler.
And it has been stated by a wizard employee that they altered the shuffler to produce something specific (i forget what/where specifically), but it is an edited shuffler, ie: its not even 'pseudo-random'.
Random done via machine/code is not true random. Hence the broken ass shuffler.
And it has been stated by a wizard employee that they altered the shuffler to produce something specific (i forget what/where specifically), but it is an edited shuffler, ie: its not even 'pseudo-random'.
The shuffler isn't altered to produce something specific, but there is an algorithm that picks between two hands/top X cards of the library in Bo1. That's not a change in the shuffler.
You are just looking for excuses to be mad at this point.
Random done via machine/code is not true random. Hence the broken ass shuffler.
And it has been stated by a wizard employee that they altered the shuffler to produce something specific (i forget what/where specifically), but it is an edited shuffler, ie: its not even 'pseudo-random'.
Now, magic has a lot of problems, among them chief the fact that the mana system is bad because it's both prone to just killing you without recourse at random and too baked into the game for it to be possible to actually fix. But I feel I should point out that "machines can't do true random" is a bit misleading here. Sure, machines can't do true random, but neither can a human being shuffling a reasonable amount of time. We just settle for "close enough", in both cases, doing shit like "use the thirteenth set of bytes from the left in a ram position as seed" or "pile shuffle first then mash shuffle twice".
But I can shuffle a few times and be 100% certain I have no idea what order the cards are in, while the computer can 'shuffle' an infinite number of times yet it still knows exactly what order my cards are in.
But I can shuffle a few times and be 100% certain I have no idea what order the cards are in, while the computer can 'shuffle' an infinite number of times yet it still knows exactly what order my cards are in.
Yeah, because it has to in order to determine what card you draw. If a judge were to shuffle your deck and then record the exact order in order to keep a vigilant watch on cheating, it would still be randomized to you and your opponent. The fact that a neutral 3rd party knows the order is irrelevant.
I wouldn't trust that judge to be neutral just like I don't trust the computer. I've had plenty of judges allow the regular players in their shops to get away with some wild stuff. One of my best friends was also a judge and I definitely wouldn't trust him at all.
At least here your opponent can't demand they handle all of your cards and reshuffle your deck for you, I guess. Not having to deal with actual people is definitely the main selling point of Arena.
I wouldn't trust that judge to be neutral just like I don't trust the computer. I've had plenty of judges allow the regular players in their shops to get away with some wild stuff. One of my best friends was also a judge and I definitely wouldn't trust him at all.
At least here your opponent can't demand they handle all of your cards and reshuffle your deck for you, I guess. Not having to deal with actual people is definitely the main selling point of Arena.
This is actually a requirement for competitive magic. You cannot be the last person to adjust the ordering of your own deck after it has been shuffled.
Posts
The Mirari Conjecture hits Chapter 3.
I cast Doublecast.
I cast Finale of Promise with X=10, targeting Lightning Strike and Heroic Reinforcements.
With my first copy of Finale, I target Heroic Reinforcements and Expansion (targeting Heroic Reinforcements)
My opponent concedes.
C'mon, person. At least wait until combat.
My dinosaur deck is named Rawr, for example. Because it's about dinosaurs mauling your face, you see. It's nominative descriptivism! Or my UG beatdown based on +1/+1 counters and proliferate is called Counter Roads (take me hooome...♪). And so on.
First hand - 1 land, mulligan
Second hand - 1 land, all but 1 card is different, mulligan
Third hand - 4 lands, a 2 drop and 2 4 drops, keep, put land and a 4 drop to bottom
First 6 draws, all lands.
I would argue that the deck has to primarily be proactive to be 'unfair'. The difference between draw-go control is that it is reactive vs proactive.
So, esper control isn't really 'unfair' and doesn't really cheat anything into play or go infinite.
Got to platinum 1 with Boros Feather but just couldn’t break through. Built a Jank mono red Chandra Aggro creature deck and won five straight.
Good times.
edit:
Jank Chandra Deck:
4 Chandra's Embercat (M20) 129
20 Mountain (RIX) 195
4 Scorch Spitter (M20) 159
4 Thunderkin Awakener (M20) 162
2 Chandra, Acolyte of Flame (M20) 126
3 Chandra's Pyrohelix (WAR) 120
4 Chandra, Novice Pyromancer (M20) 128
4 Lavakin Brawler (M20) 147
4 Scampering Scorcher (M20) 158
4 Cavalier of Flame (M20) 125
1 Chandra, Awakened Inferno (M20) 127
4 Shock (M20) 160
2 Chandra's Regulator (M20) 131
That is how random works, yes.
and I have to say, that is an extremely funny deck to play.
"Oh no, RDW! They've got a spitfire, 3 lavarunners, a steam kin, and all I have is this arboreal grazer and what's this now I have sixteen 2/2s ololol"
Hey I literally just did this too! I scapeshifted like 18 zombies onto the board and then he sat there and tried to callus dismissal them for like 8 minutes until he ran out of time.
God I love this timer.
I think what people are trying to say is that is was never this bad before M20. Even in paper magic this doesn't happen to this extent.
Unless you are running meticulous random sample studies over hundreds of games to measure the distribution you have no idea of the extent.
It's a pretty reasonable response.
That being said I myself have had some astronomically bad luck with the mtga shuffler. Even without taking into account the fact that it draws multiple hands or what have you, it was still pretty close to five standard deviations.
The shuffler probably isn't broken, just like it wasn't broken then, but I'm also within my rights to complain about horrendous luck and feel really bad about what happened without someone telling me that my choice of hobby is unhealthy for me.
It actually is weighted toward giving you better starting hands I believe, but unfortunately that doesn't stop all statistical anomalies
E: See this link to understand why that sort of thing isn't a good way to interpret data.
I believe that's also only bo1
That is correct. One of the whole points of Bo3 is to mitigate the randomness, so smoothing opening hands would be a little redundant (and possibly giving even more emphasis on the die roll than is anyway there).
Man this deck is really fun, just finished destroying two control decks and a Scapeshift deck. Turns out 50 zombies can't out pace Pelakka wurms that just keep crawling out of the grave.
And it has been stated by a wizard employee that they altered the shuffler to produce something specific (i forget what/where specifically), but it is an edited shuffler, ie: its not even 'pseudo-random'.
"If I just spend another few bucks to get those last few lands I need, I bet I'd stop having mana problems."
The shuffler isn't altered to produce something specific, but there is an algorithm that picks between two hands/top X cards of the library in Bo1. That's not a change in the shuffler.
You are just looking for excuses to be mad at this point.
Now, magic has a lot of problems, among them chief the fact that the mana system is bad because it's both prone to just killing you without recourse at random and too baked into the game for it to be possible to actually fix. But I feel I should point out that "machines can't do true random" is a bit misleading here. Sure, machines can't do true random, but neither can a human being shuffling a reasonable amount of time. We just settle for "close enough", in both cases, doing shit like "use the thirteenth set of bytes from the left in a ram position as seed" or "pile shuffle first then mash shuffle twice".
Yeah, because it has to in order to determine what card you draw. If a judge were to shuffle your deck and then record the exact order in order to keep a vigilant watch on cheating, it would still be randomized to you and your opponent. The fact that a neutral 3rd party knows the order is irrelevant.
At least here your opponent can't demand they handle all of your cards and reshuffle your deck for you, I guess. Not having to deal with actual people is definitely the main selling point of Arena.
This is actually a requirement for competitive magic. You cannot be the last person to adjust the ordering of your own deck after it has been shuffled.