Gaming

Bannxored

Posted by armadillo (1st Mar 2005, 08:15) - http://www.wizards.com

For those who care about Magic tournament play, there is good news for type 2.

DCI have really gone all out to make ssure that Ravager Affinity is dead and burried:

Arcbound Ravager - BANNED Disciple of the Vault - BANNED Artifact Lands - BANNED

In related news, portal sets are going to be legal in type 1/1.5 soon.


Back to news index / Refresh page

 Discussion

You can edit or delete your own comments, but you'll have to login first.

read biography for - karne

 karne ( 1st Mar 2005, 10:30, Rank: GSV )  reply

ouch! Not surprising but..

We'll have to discuss how this affects our house rules - I'm mighty tempted to ignore the ruling altogether ];=8)

Portal cards - nifty, though it means I'm never going to get a Zodiac dragon am I?


read biography for - karne

 karne ( 1st Mar 2005, 11:03, Rank: GSV )  reply

talking of magic, I'm looking for a 7th Ed crimson hellkite and a 7th/8th Shivan Dragon - anyone got one? I'ld be happy to trade or exchange for older ones


read biography for - armadillo

 armadillo ( 1st Mar 2005, 12:40, Rank: Peacekeeper )  reply

We probably don't need to restrict the cards, as our play environment is more akin to extended / 1.5, where there are more answers to them. They were degenerate in type 2 cos they were so powerful and had no reasonable countermeasures.


read biography for - karne

 karne ( 2nd Mar 2005, 11:18, Rank: GSV )  reply

yeah, I've no trouble with the art lands and both the others are annoying but no more so than fireball..


read biography for - Beale

 Beale ( 2nd Mar 2005, 21:21, Rank: Cylon Centurion )  reply

So spake the 2 out of 3 people who play Affinity decks... :P

Not that I have any problems with this, I'd rather ban Triskelion. :P


read biography for - Sulkyblue

 Sulkyblue ( 3rd Mar 2005, 12:13, Rank: Nazgul )  reply

Yeah, banning Trisk does sound a better plan to me.

What about limitting the Ravager and Trisk to only one per deck and leaving the artifact lands alone?


read biography for - karne

 karne ( 3rd Mar 2005, 18:31, Rank: GSV )  reply

Must admit, I've stopped using Trisk as it's too annoying. Declaring it and Ravager restricted would be ok by me, thought I'd have to revamp a deck or two and I suspect it would result in seeing Ravager *more* often as my copies get spread around.

Alternatively we could build more imaginative decks, I'ld love to see a ravffinity deck converted to Spikeshot Goblin and Thran Forge/Ashnod's Transmogrant. Spike weaver/feeder would also work well...

Degenerate combos are cool if they're fragile and require multiple cards ]:=8)

Go on someone!


read biography for - Sulkyblue

 Sulkyblue ( 3rd Mar 2005, 18:40, Rank: Nazgul )  reply

I only have trisk in a deck that can't feeds him in single units, he's used for occasional creature removal not game winning.

I'll second the request for more imaginative decks. I've never really seen the challenge in building the same elf/affinity/zombie/whatever deck as everyone else builds, they're dull build and pretty dull to play against the 2nd time.

Build decks that are flakey! You know you want to really. Believe me the 15th time you play it and it actually works you'll be delerious!


read biography for - gaspode

 gaspode ( 3rd Mar 2005, 18:33, Rank: Killer Rabbit )  reply

I think this is exactly the right set of bannings to enforce. People play with banned/restricted cards in the library already and that's never stopped us before.

I'm happy they banned the artifact lands since they were a stupid idea anyway - they only have one real purpose which is to make affinity too fast. If you want to break affinity you don't need help from lands to do it. They're a lame concept both mechanically and creatively.

Both Disciple and Ravager can be played reasonably - though Disciple is really really really good and Ravager adds a bit too much goodness to the Modular creature set.

Overall, yay Wizards, good decision.


read biography for - karne

 karne ( 3rd Mar 2005, 18:39, Rank: GSV )  reply

Personally I loved the art lands, I just wish they'ld been legendary as they were meant to be. Re affinity - yeah it's too fast in duel - in multi though it seems ok (powerful but no more so than many other deck styles). Ravaffinty is another matter but we don't see that much thank goodness.

Personally I felt using affinity to feed things like Broodstar and Chromescale Drake was cool not abusive but your milage may vary.

Disciple is just fecking annoying..


read biography for - Sulkyblue

 Sulkyblue ( 3rd Mar 2005, 18:44, Rank: Nazgul )  reply

I thought the artifact lands were a really nice idea, I don't think they can be blamed for affinity being broken. As long as there are uses for cards without them completely breaking all decks then I don't see any reason to ban them in our games.

We have house rules for a reason - if you're finding a particular deck/combo annoying, tell the person so and request they don't play the deck. Generally they're happy to take recommendations on how to make them more interesting.


read biography for - gaspode

 gaspode ( 3rd Mar 2005, 19:18, Rank: Killer Rabbit )  reply

I can't work out how to post threaded comments on here...

Anyway, the first two sentences in my comment should be read separately. These are the correct set of bannings for Wizards to enforce in Type 2. But we don't play with the banned/restricted lists anyway.

I'm agreeing with Wizards decision, but it doesn't really affect us. And then I go on to give my own personal prejudices against the cards themselves.

I've never liked the artifact lands - making them legendary would have been good mechanically, but as far as flavour goes, I just don't see the point - nobody felt the need to make Blinkmoth Nexus an Artifact Land and it has more right to be flavour-wise than the real Artifact Lands. Why Tree of Tales and not Boseiju Who Shelters All? Or one hundred and one others... It was a gimmick, and an annoying one at that.


read biography for - karne

 karne ( 3rd Mar 2005, 21:15, Rank: GSV )  reply

click on the (!) icon, it's a bit non obvious if you're replying in thread to the last post

re bannings for type 2 - yeah entirely agree, affinity needs to be killed if we're ever going to see some orignal decks again


read biography for - karne

 karne ( 4th Mar 2005, 15:47, Rank: GSV )  reply

soo... do we restrict ravager, trisk, disciple or not? thoughts? votes yay na?

for myself, restrict trisk and disciple, I have no trouble with ravager per se.


Add your burblings

You are not logged in. Any comments submitted will be attributed to random.
Log in/Register

View small text box

Special tags: <user>username</user>,<link>URL</link>,<image (align="right|left|center")>URL</image>,<big>,<small>
Allowed HTML; <b>,<i>,<u>,<strike>,<p>,<br />,<hr />,<pre>,<ul>,<ol>,<li>,<dl>,<dt>,<dd>,<a>,<img>

Back to news index


Recent articles: [2x06!! Stream "The Fall" Season 2 Episode 6 Finale Online] ['Best of SF' article in Felix Today] [Science fiction bonanza in Felix] [Science Fiction Column - "Moon" Review] [Congratulations SpaceX]