Magic Market Index for March 15th, 2019
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 8th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 1st, 2019
  • posted a message on [Deck] Modern Slivers
    I dont see why Diffusion Sliver is great. It slows them down by 1-2 turn (and you by 1 turn), does nothing against Awoken Horror and Anger of the Gods
    Maybe Harmonic Sliver should be played mainboard because Whir seems unwinnable without it. Affinity still a big player and it does something against Tron
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • posted a message on [Deck] UBx Mill
    Quote from JonasDash »
    They changed how remembering to pay for Pacts works. It's no longer a game loss when they draw their card. My strategy is very legal. I'm not required to remind my opponent about their triggers until it becomes clear they have forgotten them. Since they changed the way Pacts work for paying them, I have no way of knowing he forgot it until he uses his mana for something else. Once they use their mana for something else, they will not be able to back up and pay for the pact, which mean they lose.

    I think I had a Watery Grave instead of the Swamp actually and didn't remember it correctly
    I found this strategy is legal as specifically said by Toby Elliot in comments of https://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2019/01/21/policy-changes-for-ravnica-allegiance/
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Summoner's Pact
    As the opponent? Listen to judge's ruling.
    As for what I feel should happen, I'm ok with official policy in every REL
    Sorry I didnt get "Should the Pact player now not be responsible for their "lose the game" trigger just because *you* didn't remember it"

    As for my case I convinced myself its cheating
    I choose timing for trigger, thats not what rules say
    I'm aware of this, I do this intentionally and I do this to gain advantage
    So yes investigation should be considered

    If I'm mistaken please point where


    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Summoner's Pact
    If my opp draws a card to help him pay for trigger or to gain information what lands is better to use for trigger then this definitely a cheating
    Manipulating trigger's timing is cheating in this case
    And this resembles situation when you wait good moment to put opp's trigger on the stack
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on [Deck] UBx Mill
    Quote from JonasDash »
    Quote from Dosequiguy »
    How the hell did you lose to Amulet AND Tron?!?!?! The amulet matchup has been a landslide every time I played it. Damn, I'd be so mad too. Especially after beating both shadow and humans... You must have felt like it was your tournament. Pretty *****ty to run into the super low meta Sultai Reclamation.

    Just read all the amulet matches... Sounds like you would have played it the same way I would have lol. A pact trigger is not something an opponent just forgets. I wonder how many other times this has happened to people. I think I remember an Amulet player missing a pact trigger on camera. Maybe it was the same guy you played?

    I like adding the 3rd push to the main and was only different from you with playing the 3rd bridge in the side and a couple different sideboard cards but I'm sure it was essential to beating shadow and humans so maybe I'm wrong with that. Nice report.

    Did the extra Echoing Truth pay off for you? I've always felt comfortable with 2 sideboard slots devoted to non creature permanent removal in the sideboard, especially with Mission Briefing in the deck.


    I never cast the Echoing Truth, but I did side it in a few times. I feel like it was important to try to have a better way of dealing with multiple permanents like Phoenix, Amalgams or Gurmag Anglers since Fatal Push is iffy against them.
    I like Dismember, Id definitely replace one or two pushes with it. It kills many things and its price starts from 1 generic mana
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Summoner's Pact
    Im not sure if waiting till opp taps out can be considered cheating
    You dont call out a trigger, this can be considered as breaking the rules of the game
    You do this intentionally
    You do this to gain an advantage - to put it on the stack when opponent will be tapped out thus winning the game (vs him paying for pact)

    Yes I know it is ok to not call opp's trigger
    But this situation is different from just not calling a trigger
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Summoner's Pact
    Thank you for your answers.
    If opp misses trigger, draws, casts his stuff and uses all his mana, what should be the decision if I remind about trigger now? I heard because of "significant decisions have been made based on the effect not happening" the trigger will not pe put on the stack at all because he cant pay now.
    Also is it legal to remind about trigger now if I knew he missed the trigger the moment he drew?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Summoner's Pact
    What are current rulings of missed Summoner's Pact trigger on different RELs?
    Is it legal to wait until he taps all mana to pay for different things and then remind about missed trigger?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on [Deck] UBx Mill
    I think you should call a judge when he draws (first game too)
    Im not sure your strategy is legal and it definitely worked against you
    G3 I didnt get how could you play Mission Briefing with UB
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Necropotence Lich's Mastery
    "Choosing to do nothing" is not the same same thing as "choosing to do something".
    They are same from game theory point of view.
    Game in state A, player chooses a move to progress the game to either state B or state C. He has two moves available and he has to choose one of them. Same situations.
    If this game was played in mtg arena, game engine wouldnt fast forward like you cant do anything, it would stop at every step because player would have a choice: use Necropotence ability or pass
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Necropotence Lich's Mastery
    I think rules involved are inconsistent with discarding Nexus of Fate with Lich's Mastery on the other side ruling
    Both players (Nexus and Necropotence) make a choice (and I'm using choice in general sense, not as mtg term) but one is forced to end the loop and the other is not
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Necropotence Lich's Mastery
    Opponent has Necropotence but no threats in his whole deck to kill me or get rid of my permanents and he decides to do nothing on each of his turns
    I have Lich's Mastery on the board but no threats in my whole deck to kill my opp either
    I eventually deck myself by drawing cards for a turn but I dont die thanks to Mastery
    Now I have 7 irrelevant cards in hand and my opp has 7 irrelevant cards in hand with 30 cards left in his library
    And we start taking infinite turns
    Is my opp required to take actions (use Necropotence) and eventually kill himself because he can do so?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on [Deck] UBx Mill
    Quote from Lojek »
    Quote from JonasDash »
    Essentially if your opponent is just drawing and discarding for their turn, and not doing anything else, they are not advancing the game state.


    Per a lvl 2 judge I asked specifically about the discard loophole you mentioned

    Q: If a player is just discard a card and passing the turn, either Nexus of Fate specifically or otherwise doing nothing until they reduce their library to only Nexus of Fate via this process of draw, discard, pass turn - am I able to call a judge to stop this tactic, and when can I do so?

    A:If you feel that the player can make a play that isn't discarding Nexus, you can call a judge to confirm this.

    Q: would that include discarding another card and losing the game?

    A: Correct. An exception would be if they could move the game forward, like attacking with a 1/1, and use the nexus discard to stay in.



    I feel like this is wrong, i'm asking some judges, and there is a difference between casting endless turn without wincons and just discarding to handsize.
    When you discard to handsize, you make the game move forward, cause your opponent got their turn, draw their cards, and do some stuff.

    Corner cases can be if the mill player got himself immune to mill. But i can't see discarding to handsize beiing a problem, if it doesn't take 1 minute to do.
    I wanted to make a thread in rules section but thats just a no brainer for me
    Of course you can discard Nexus to hand size
    Thats not a loop
    Game progresses for sure as your opp draws a card and is one step closer to decking himself
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Skred Red
    I checked mtggoldfish statistics and it actually showed more Dragons finishes than Classic Skred over the last year
    Recent Dragons lists gravitate towards including Simian Spirit Guide and not including Draconic Roar and Heart of Kiran
    Also Thunderbreak Regent is often substituted for Verix Bladewing
    I think this makes a lot of sense, SSG enables t2 Blood Moon and t2 Sarkhan t3 5mana dragon
    Draconic Roar looked bad to me from start, Dragons dont care much about 3 toughness creatures and thats a not a very aggressive deck like Burn
    I like Verix Bladewing more too, 3 damage isnt much if you have no dragon but mana sink and card advantage are nice

    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on Modern Horizons (Updated)
    I dont know why wouldnt they sell another modern masters. If iconic masters was a failure they can learn from their mistakes and make a good masters set.
    Reprinting legacy stuff for modern is not what modern wants, let legacy be legacy and modern be modern.
    Modern wants modern reprints to be excited to open them and to make modern cheaper.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.