Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Sep-22 11:52 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-24 11:16 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
green slime wrote:
...The biggest problem with poison counters, is that there is nothing else you can do with them (we'll ignore leeches). You can't reduce them, trade them for something else, or give them away...

you can always start the game over....Karn Liberated!!!!!! the ultimate counter to poison.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-28 1:54 pm 

Joined: 2010-Oct-26 5:52 am
Age: Dragon
honestly Tainted Strike bothers the hell out of me. It just feels distateful in a multiplayer format. It's not game winning, it just cuts someone out of the game without warning. In a six man game I got hit with a turn 4 rafiq for 8 general which was promptly made 12 infect by the oona player on the board, and I get to twiddle my thumbs for two hours while while rafiq goes infinite turns and wins, great fun. :facepalm:

Now I know there are plenty of ways for someone to get cut out of a big game early, but most of them you can at least see coming. Obviously you'll know next time to watch for it, but that doesn't mean you'll be in a position to actually react to it.

_________________
Maluko wrote:
We need a clear set of objective rules so that everybody always knows what to expect, and how to prepare for it. As of now, I think I spend more time arguing with players about the format than I do playing fun and interactive games of Commander. And last time I read, this was not the format's purpose.

QFT


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-30 3:51 am 

Joined: 2008-Aug-02 10:17 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Gath Immortal wrote:
honestly Tainted Strike bothers the hell out of me. It just feels distateful in a multiplayer format. It's not game winning, it just cuts someone out of the game without warning. In a six man game I got hit with a turn 4 rafiq for 8 general which was promptly made 12 infect by the oona player on the board, and I get to twiddle my thumbs for two hours while while rafiq goes infinite turns and wins, great fun. :facepalm:

Now I know there are plenty of ways for someone to get cut out of a big game early, but most of them you can at least see coming. Obviously you'll know next time to watch for it, but that doesn't mean you'll be in a position to actually react to it.


Actually I find that the fun about Tainted Strike. It just asks you to calculate in extra possibilities as it makes every 9+ power critter a potential kill if there is B open. This forces you to adjust your strategy, just like a lone Rafiq is very different from a Rafiq with3G open.

_________________

Teneb, the Harvester
Heartless Hidetsugu
Ob Nixilis, the Fallen
Reaper King
Ruhan of the Fomori
Hanna, Ship's Navigator
Ol
oro, Ageless Ascetic
Roon of the Hidden Realm
Nekusar, the Mindrazer



Sapling of Colfenor
Wrexial, the Risen Deep
Niv-Mizzet the Firemind
Ghost Council of Orzhova
Scion of the Ur-Dragon
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary



Child of Alara
Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund
Rith, the Awakener
Brion Stoutarm
Experiment Kraj
Razia, Boros Archangel
Grand Arbiter Augustin IV
Wort, Bogart Auntie
Kaalia of the Vast
Tariel, Reckoner of Souls


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-30 6:23 am 

Joined: 2011-May-16 2:43 am
Age: Wyvern
Infect is boring and stupid. Some Creatures are able to kill a single Player faster than Rafiq. GXX deck: Triumph of the Hordes = GG because you can kick out 3,4 or 5 Players within 1 combat.

But i dont care about stupid global rules any more (like stupid legendary rule(just have a look at my sig)). Stupid rules are stupid rules and if the main EDH-Team is not able to fix these problems, they are not able to fix anything - so we are using houserules. Okay because of this, there are many problems until the house rules are set... but if the main EDH-team does not care at all... ...

normally: 20 lifepoints. EDH: 40.
normally dead: 10 Poisoncounters. EDH 20.

Thats it. Okay, now some people will argue that its not good to have "20 pages of special rules"... but... omfg... no comment for these guys, because they are not able to see the difference between 1 sentence and 20 pages.

And these Players who think, that they are just awesome, because they know how to abuse stupid rules are not welcome in any EDH-Groups i've ever seen because... these poor guys will never understand why EDH should be something social. These stupid "look at my huge penis"-guys are not welcome anywhere.


And yes, im angry because doing "nothing" will never solve any problems.
And ignoring the problems isnt better at all.

_________________
Problems with same commanders in EDH?
Use this:
Commanders do not eliminate other commanders by legendary rule.
Non commander permanents are still able to eliminate commanders by legendary rule.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-30 6:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
maSu wrote:
And yes, im angry because doing "nothing" will never solve any problems.
And ignoring the problems isnt better at all.

I love how you think that the RC does nothing just because they don't always tell us everything that they talk about.

There has been a big thread on here about poison in EDH. I'm sure the RC has discussed it. Just because they may come to a different end result than you does not mean that they are doing nothing or ignoring issues.

You have come across as an angry person, who doesn't listen to what others have to say in counterpoint to your arguments. Thankfully, the RC does seem receptive to discussion and possible changes unlike you.


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-30 6:59 am 

Joined: 2010-Nov-25 9:22 am
Age: Elder Dragon
RC DON"T THINK WHAT I THINK!?
THEY ARE STUIPPPPPPPPPPID DUUUUUR

_________________
A real man's dragon deck
Genomancer wrote:
Our aim is not to make commander an unbreakable tournament format... it continues to be (and hopefully always will be) chock full of crazy powerful plays which you, the players, are trusted to explore rather than exploit.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-30 8:05 am 

Joined: 2011-May-16 2:43 am
Age: Wyvern
Carthain wrote:
You have come across as an angry person, who doesn't listen to what others have to say in counterpoint to your arguments. Thankfully, the RC does seem receptive to discussion and possible changes unlike you.

Sry but 2 things:

me: "hey what to do if 2 players want to ply the same commander?"
group: "just ignore legendary rule for commanders." (not that simple, just look at my sig)

me: "hey how many poison counters should kill a player?"
group: "double life = double poison counters." (okay this is very simple)

So i asked the question and everyone answered nearly the same all the time and absoluty logically.
But "in the internet" there is everything different?! oh yea... nice... i can't believe that there is such a huge difference between real EDH-Players and "some guys "in the internet"".

Maybe i should ask agent mulder and agent scully for the answer but its strange that the "pigheads" are allways and only(!!!) online. Never met someone offline who said "oh no...! 10 poison counter should kill players or im crying like a baby!!!" offline. Im meeting only people who are able to unterstand the problem. They are not intereseted in global rules which are bad, they are just thinking logically and the result is very simple as you can see a view lines above.

these forums are getting more and more weird and these forums seems to be far away from reality.

If the RC is setting up rules which are normally ignored by all EDH-players i ever met, its just very strange for me.

_________________
Problems with same commanders in EDH?
Use this:
Commanders do not eliminate other commanders by legendary rule.
Non commander permanents are still able to eliminate commanders by legendary rule.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-30 8:21 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
maSu wrote:
But "in the internet" there is everything different?! oh yea... nice... i can't believe that there is such a huge difference between real EDH-Players and "some guys "in the internet"".

See, this is where you show to just be an angry person who is raging at us because we don't agree with you.

I play EDH - in person, and not online (I much prefer to play face to face ... and most interfaces for online playing are bulky compared to using actual cards.)

So ... what makes you and your friends "real EDH-Players" and me not? Just because I have different experiences than you? Or is it because I don't agree with you and your friends?

What you have with your "real EDH-Players" is a localized view of the game, influenced by your own metagame. Here online, on these forums, we have a good cross section of players that I'm pretty sure includes people from around the world. So which is better? The narrow localized view? Or the view that is a collective of various gaming strategies and experiences from a much broader area?

maSu wrote:
Maybe i should ask agent mulder and agent scully for the answer but its strange that the "pigheads" are allways and only(!!!) online. Never met someone offline who said "oh no...! 10 poison counter should kill players or im crying like a baby!!!" offline.

I'd say come visit me and I'll tell you that offline (I actually was discussing this with someone I play with earlier today) - but you don't seem like the type of person I care to meet. Ever.


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-30 8:21 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Mar-15 2:19 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Denver, CO
maSu wrote:
So i asked the question and everyone answered nearly the same all the time and absoluty logically.
But "in the internet" there is everything different?! oh yea... nice... i can't believe that there is such a huge difference between real EDH-Players and "some guys "in the internet"".

Maybe i should ask agent mulder and agent scully for the answer but its strange that the "pigheads" are allways and only(!!!) online. Never met someone offline who said "oh no...! 10 poison counter should kill players or im crying like a baby!!!" offline. Im meeting only people who are able to unterstand the problem. They are not intereseted in global rules which are bad, they are just thinking logically and the result is very simple as you can see a view lines above.

these forums are getting more and more weird and these forums seems to be far away from reality.

If the RC is setting up rules which are normally ignored by all EDH-players i ever met, its just very strange for me.

Really, you're poisoning the well to such an extent that I can't expect you to listen to anything I say, but here's an attempt.

Despite the fact that I post on the internet, I am a real person who plays Magic in real life. I live in Salem, Oregon. I regularly play with friends at Willamette University and strangers at Borderlands Games. I have been playing commander for four years across three states, at local games stores, kitchen tables, and GPs.

Everyone I have played with uses the default rules regarding the legend rule and poison counters. People tend to avoid having two of the same general in a game, usually switching decks if there would be overlap. If we were playing in a competitive league where people could not change generals, I could imagine changing the rules. As it is, I've never seen it be a problem.

Poison counters are slightly more contentious. Among the experienced players I know, the majority feel that poison doesn't require format-specific errata. Some people disagree, and I've heard several suggest raising the count to 15. It is usually agreed that raising to 20 would completely invalidate infect as a strategy.

It's fine that your friends agree with you. Glad you've got a group of like-minded people to play EDH with. However, the fact that you guys agree that the rules should be changed does not mean that everyone else does, or that the RC is flagrantly ignoring the voice of the player base.

_________________


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-30 8:32 am 

Joined: 2009-Dec-17 4:27 am
Age: Dragon
Location: Stockholm
maSu wrote:
Infect is boring and stupid.
The infect decks I've met are neither boring nor stupid.
maSu wrote:
Some Creatures are able to kill a single Player faster than Rafiq.
As fast as Rafiq, not faster.
maSu wrote:
GXX deck: Triumph of the Hordes = GG because you can kick out 3,4 or 5 Players within 1 combat.
If giving your guys +1/+1 gives you 30-50 more power than your opponents combined have blockers, then odds are that just playing Overrun would be more than enough to kill your opponents. If you've already got some poison counters on your opponents, then you're playing creatures that already have infect. In that case, Overrun would be about three times better.
maSu wrote:
But i dont care about stupid global rules any more (like stupid legendary rule(just have a look at my sig)). Stupid rules are stupid rules and if the main EDH-Team is not able to fix these problems, they are not able to fix anything - so we are using houserules. Okay because of this, there are many problems until the house rules are set... but if the main EDH-team does not care at all... ...
House rules that make the game more fun for you are encouraged. The majority may not see the need for such rules, though.
maSu wrote:
normally: 20 lifepoints. EDH: 40.
normally dead: 10 Poisoncounters. EDH 20.
To put the 10 poisoncounters into perspective, there is only one block that has infect creatures and only a few of the creatures in that block actually have infect, whereas every single magic set contains a large amount of creatures that do regular damage. If every EDH deck had to choose a single block to have creatures from that also all had to share an ability or creature type or something, then your comparison might have been more fair. Furthermore, poison is inherently weakened by multiplayer, as you can't make use of the damage your opponents do to each other.
maSu wrote:
Thats it. Okay, now some people will argue that its not good to have "20 pages of special rules"... but... omfg... no comment for these guys, because they are not able to see the difference between 1 sentence and 20 pages.
That seems like a comment for those guys.
maSu wrote:
And these Players who think, that they are just awesome, because they know how to abuse stupid rules are not welcome in any EDH-Groups i've ever seen because... these poor guys will never understand why EDH should be something social. These stupid "look at my huge penis"-guys are not welcome anywhere.
Wait, who is abusing stupid rules? People who play infect creatures? First of all, they are not abusing the rules, they are using them exactly as intended by both the people who make the rules for the game and for the format. Secondly, the rules are not stupid. You may not like them, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but they're not stupid.
maSu wrote:
And yes, im angry because doing "nothing" will never solve any problems.
And ignoring the problems isnt better at all.
The rules committee have looked into the issue and (seemingly) come to the conclusion that there is no problem. I agree with them. Tampering with things that are working properly is not likely to make them better.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-30 8:50 am 

Joined: 2011-May-16 2:43 am
Age: Wyvern
you just need an infect-creature with evasion and spells which increase its power to kill an enemy within 1 combat phase. Just use flying+infect as your commander and be happy. With some equipment or +x/+x spells its possible that these commander is able to kill a play within 2(!) turns. rafiq needs 3 and i guess rafiq does not have any evasion?! And if you dont have equipment or +x/+x Spells... hey no problem: 3 Turns. rafiq can be blocked by nearly every creature.

4/4 flying, infect, haste, regeneration... Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon for example is still able to kill within 3 turns.

http://magiccards.info/query?q=o%3Acrea ... v=card&p=2

that list might help a bit. 21 black instants to increase the power of a creature. add all equipments to that list and you get something much more powerful than rafiq is or will ever be! And thats boring! It is still very strong with 20 poisoncounter to kick a player. because every creature is able to do "commanderdamage".



Okay, just another question: i need 21 commanderdamage to kill a player. But the commanderdamge must dealt by a single commander. Why this split up with commanderdamage, but not for infect, which is much easier because there are many infect-creatures??

it is not logically to plit up the commanderdamage but crying about increasing poisondamage which is needed to kick a single player. its just stupid.

_________________
Problems with same commanders in EDH?
Use this:
Commanders do not eliminate other commanders by legendary rule.
Non commander permanents are still able to eliminate commanders by legendary rule.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-30 10:24 am 

Joined: 2009-Dec-17 4:27 am
Age: Dragon
Location: Stockholm
maSu wrote:
you just need an infect-creature with evasion and spells which increase its power to kill an enemy within 1 combat phase. Just use flying+infect as your commander and be happy. With some equipment or +x/+x spells its possible that these commander is able to kill a play within 2(!) turns. rafiq needs 3 and i guess rafiq does not have any evasion?! And if you dont have equipment or +x/+x Spells... hey no problem: 3 Turns. rafiq can be blocked by nearly every creature.

4/4 flying, infect, haste, regeneration... Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon for example is still able to kill within 3 turns.

http://magiccards.info/query?q=o%3Acrea ... v=card&p=2

that list might help a bit. 21 black instants to increase the power of a creature. add all equipments to that list and you get something much more powerful than rafiq is or will ever be! And thats boring! It is still very strong with 20 poisoncounter to kick a player. because every creature is able to do "commanderdamage".
Scion of the Ur-Dragon kills in two hits, can have haste on the first one and allows you to use every colour. It also comes with mass removal, spot removal for a variety of permanent types, the ability to make an opponent discard his or her hand and all kinds of other nasty stuff. Oh, and it fuels reanimation strategies like a boss. Skithiryx is small-time.
maSu wrote:
Okay, just another question: i need 21 commanderdamage to kill a player. But the commanderdamge must dealt by a single commander. Why this split up with commanderdamage, but not for infect, which is much easier because there are many infect-creatures??

it is not logically to plit up the commanderdamage but crying about increasing poisondamage which is needed to kick a single player. its just stupid.
General damage is done by horrible beasts like Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund, Uril, the Miststalker or Thraximundar that you are guaranteed to have access to and can recast if they die. Actually, forget about the general damage, the guaranteed access or the recastability, you'd play these guys without any of that just as normal creatures. Infect damage is dealt by janky creatures like Contagious Nim, Scourge Servant and Blight Mamba. You have to draw them and once they're dead, they're dead. No guaranteed return or even first appearance. Not to mention that if they didn't have infect there's no way that anybody would every play them. Sure, there are some decent infect creatures like Viridian Corrupter and Viral Drake, but if you're playing infect and not just Skithiryx as a general or Blightsteel Colossus for the chance to one-shot someone, you can't just use the good ones. You're going to have to include those Vector Asps and Tangle Anglers just to reach the critical mass of infect creatures required to have a chance of putting those 20-30 poison counters on your opponents that you need to win.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-30 11:37 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2011-Apr-01 7:14 am
Age: Drake
maSu wrote:
4/4 flying, infect, haste, regeneration... Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon for example is still able to kill within 3 turns.


...You are forgetting that his cost is expensive, and his abilities are all mono-black. Being able to whack stuff with him is tricky, especially considering that every opponent is gonna gun for you real soon.

maSu wrote:
Okay, just another question: i need 21 commanderdamage to kill a player. But the commanderdamge must dealt by a single commander. Why this split up with commanderdamage, but not for infect, which is much easier because there are many infect-creatures??


1. Infect creatures are prohibitively expensive.

2. Their recursion is limited to what cards you have in your library. Compared to Commanders, which can come back at any time as long as their cost is paid, infecters are nowhere nearly as bad.

3. "commanderdamage" isn't a word.

4. y u so mad

_________________
In this universe, there's only one absolute ... everything freezes!

Current Decks:

Tsabo Tavoc


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-30 11:40 am 

Joined: 2010-Sep-11 12:19 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Mr. Freeze wrote:


3. "commanderdamage" isn't a word.



By the power vested in me by the Demonic Association of Sadistic Magic Players; I hereby prounounce that "commanderdamage" is now a word.


And then I trademark it.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Phyrexia's Impact on Infect as a Strategy (Spoilers)
AgePosted: 2011-May-30 11:45 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Joz wrote:
By the power vested in me by the Demonic Association of Sadistic Magic Players; I hereby prounounce that "commanderdamage" is now a word.

And then I trademark it.

That's just a plot to get people so stop calling it "Commander" and revert to "EDH", isn't it?


Top
 Online Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Coco and 35 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: