ITT: trigger a MtG player

>>55210756
>childrens card game
>selling proxies as the real deal
>stealing cards just to sell them
>only playing cockatrice for free
>"investing"
>Force of Will is better
>Muh inclussioness

Magic isn't a perfect game, or even the best game.

>>55211082
It is not perfect, but I'd fucking fight someone if they actually thought there was a better card game out there

>>55211120
I enjoy a few other games more, but I understand that some people like it best, and that's okay. It's just an opinion, after all.

So this is like Yu-Gi-Oh!, right?

>>55210855
Is Force of Will better? I have no fucking idea how to play that game but it looks fun.

>>55211146
Fuck you ill kill you

*flick*flick*flick*flick*flick*flick*flick*flick*

>>55211180
Advantges over Magic:
>Land system is better
>Aggro is less dominant
>Colors better balanced
>Cheaper to get into
>Greater variety of aesthetics in any given block
>Chant-Standby is a really interesting mechanic

Disadvantages:
>Lower quality art in general
>Smaller player base
>Smaller card pool due to being a younger game
>Less crazy combos and broken card exploits
>An entire block was pretty much retconned out

>>55211146
What are other cardgames of equal merit and what are their strengths over mtg?

"Oh, you play magic! But you're so skinny and you're sociable!"

>>55211275
I'll start with Yu-Gi-Oh (unironically)

To clear up some common complaints:
>Archetypes (the "supertribals", so to speak) are now becoming more useable as self-contained engines, meaning deck building is a lot more varied than the 5D's and Zexal eras
>While certain glass-cannon decks decide the game on turn 2, one of the top decks in the game right now is effectively midrange

And now, for its strengths and weaknesses compared to Magic:

Strengths:
>Game constantly evolving with actually well-designed new gimmicks and mechanics
>Incredibly low pricepoint of entry and frequent staple reprints makes competitive formats more accessible
>Card art captures a wide variety of aesthetics, between the anime and the ongoing (and unrelated to the anime) metaplots
>Aside from certain glass cannon decks, games less likely to be decided by a bad hand
>Fewer elitists

Weaknesses:
>Worse sides of the community are generally worse
>Memes
>Occasional hypercentralized formats (think Magic's current Standard)
>Some decks are disproportionately expensive for their viability (Nekroz and Darklords are the best example)
>Many Magic players will resent you, possible call you a "traitor" (may not be the case where you live)

Next couple posts will be for Vanguard and Duel Masters

>>55211452
Vanguard

Strengths:
>Budget decks are the cheapest I've seen in any game for a competitive deck
>Every mechanic, theme, etc. gets support later on
>Variety of decks for multiple playstyles, at every level of budget and competitive play
>Relatively balanced below the top tier
>Unique mechanics allow for players to rarely if ever be locked out of playing by bad draws, while still leaving deckbuilding-influenced randomness relevant

Weaknesses:
>"Waifu tax"
>Most players are weebs
>Barely any English community
>More rigid about "supertribal" than any other game
>Some staples for certain clans (as they're called) are $40+ that haven't been reprinted in years
>Some of the fans might look down on you for not watching the shotty anime
>The decks that are tier 1 are obscenely overpowered in too many ways (Gear Chronicle has Birthing Pod keyworded, in a clan full of ETBs)

>>55211517
Duel Masters

Strengths:
>Best mana system I've seen in a game
>Amazing artwork, consistently great over time
>No instants, but between Shield Triggers and Ninja Strike, counterplay is still both possible and plentiful
>Lifegain is meaningful and the decision to attack or not is frequently relevant, even on an empty board
>Easier to learn basics than Magic, but with a much higher learning curve
>Game focused entirely around what is basically Legacy, with all cards balanced around both inevitable power creep and the OP cards from the early days

Disadvantages:
>Hasn't been available outside of Japan since WotC refused to do anything about a deck that centralized the meta for a couple years (despite WotC Japan just banning the card that made it a problem)
>Only remotely active English-language client is outdated
>Over-the-top card names can feel goofy and be hard to remember distinctly
>WotC's shitty attempt at a reboot (instead of just porting the game back over) left a sour taste in a lot of peoples' mouths

>>55211165
you got me triggered.

>>55211452
>pendulum
>well designed
Sorry but you gave yourself away

>>55211679
>Pendulums
>Recent
How's Khans of Tarkir? Those Jeskai guys look fun.

>>55211165
BASED

>>55211679
They're rather easy to deal with. Not even as strong as synchros or xyz.

>>55211714
Pendulum is the second newest gimmick, link hasn't even been out long and it seems to exist just to spite how good pendulum was

>>55211743
Especially after Master Rule 4.

>>55211751
New major mechanic, yes, but compare Yang Zings to Qliphorts to Nekroz to Metalfoes.

>>55211601
Man, I wish Duel Masters was still floating around. I fucking love that game.

>>55211743
being "easy to deal with" doesn't make it "well designed". Being "well designed" doesn't have anything to do with power level in that sense. Something that unplayable shit is its own sort of bad design. Pndulums aren't that bad but still.

File: snek bitch.jpg (263KB, 557x777px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 557x777px

Force of Will has superior waifus

>>55211601
Think you can do one of these for Netrunner?

Our creative consultants have helped us design the new set. It's going to be based in Dominaria and will feature the Gatewatch as the focal point!

>>55211989
ugly as sin art

>>55211989
Power indicated by the hundreds or thousands makes me puke.

>>55211917
What makes it bad design anon?

>>55210756
Neowalkers aren't real M:tG players so this thread is pointless.

File: 1412132311654.gif (232KB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 267x200px

>>55211248

>>55212291
Mishmash of several individual mechanics to make it work (creatures that can becomes spells, okay... and also they go to the extra when destroyed, and also they have different numbers on either side to summon monsters from your hand when you get two, and also you can summon from the extra, etc. when monsters that could be played as spells could be its own thing), an A+B mechanic, an increased reliance on tutoring which increases time spent searching decks and not actually playing, off the top of my head, there's a lot of issues with them.

>>55211248
>>55212327
>"what are you doing?"
>"mana weaving"

>>55211601
Let's be honest, Duel Masters was like a polished MtG that god rid of the sins of the father.

Let me suffer now.

>>55212273
>>55212280
Kill yourselves asscrack neckbears

People who don't want to spend $500 on a deck to try a game out that they haven't played competitively aren't lesser human beings.

>>55212480
>neckbears

>>55210756
MTG is pay to win and is heavily luck based.

>>55212563

People calling any game where there is no way to play 100% free pay to win triggers me in general.

It's more accurate to say these games are "pay intelligently to win".

>>55212563
>magic
>heavily luck based
Have you fucking played hearthstone? Magic is no more luck based than any other card game

>>55212587
I can't play a board game for free but they're generally not pay to win.

>>55212630
Sure you can. Have friends.

>>55212679
I could borrow their magic deck too, therefore MtG isn't pay to win?

File: Black Lotus.jpg (30KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 223x310px

>>55210756
You will never own one that's real. You will never play with a real one. Your collection will never be complete.

>>55211989
Why is that boy wearing a bikini? He doesn't pull it off very well.

File: 1503092320435.jpg (8KB, 208x162px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 208x162px

>>55212513
that's the joke you fucking retard

File: Image.png (117KB, 223x311px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 223x311px

>So wait, everyone has at least one creature?
>Okay, on his upkeep, I target consecrated sphinx.

>>55212842
Now, that could be a reasonable play in some circumstances, maybe, but you are aware Consecrated Sphinx's ability has a "may," right? That doesn't empty everyone's deck or anything.

>>55211251
>Less broken card exploits
>Disadvantage

>>55211120
Poker

File: 1381243380697.png (395KB, 630x627px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 630x627px

>>55212742
>Uncle was a massive neckbeard
>Made a bunch of really good investments with my grandpa when he was a teenager, basically lived on stock dividends and working as a sound engineer at a bar
>Had his own fucking everquest kingdom and everything
>had a FUCKING PLAYSET OF ALPHA BLACK LOTUSES
>Lost them and a huge collection of vintage cards back in 2007 when hurricane Ike came through, fire from a neighbor's house spread

>>55210756
I recently ran across a YouTube video titled, "One With Nothing: A Defense."

I believed that the point of view discussed in the video was well-reasoned and clear and now agree that One With Nothing is a good card.

File: 1486076891504.jpg (147KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 960x720px

>Want to get into MtG for fun
>Worries about super uptight inclusiveness of the community and tryhards

>>55212501

This was the case at my old uni. Unless you spent hundreds of dollars on a card game they looked at you like you were some sort of subhuman and thumbed their noses at you like jackasses.

Jokes on you Anthony I fucked your girlfriend behind your back anyway

>>55213030
That physically pained me to finish reading. The poor bastard

>>55213030
This is why you keep a separate rider on your insurance for any collectible worth tens of thousand. If he had insurance on his collection and proof of what it contained he would have gotten ~90% of its value from the insurance company.

>>55213030
>hurricane (bunch of water flying around) caused a fire

What the fuck are you talking about. Youre uncle sounds like a retard by the way.

>>55213122
I'd say go for it. It's a fun game to play casually, and messing around with the various combinations of flavor and gameplay are entertaining. Nothing like standard's soon to be meta of Dinosaurs in Cars.

>>55213349
>flood water gets to a circuit breaker
>sparks ignite the dry wall above it
It actually happens anon

>>55213359

Im only interested in Commander, it seems the most unique and creative out of any other card game ive played.

>>55213349
>flood breaks telephone poles
>flood breaks gas lines
>broken power lines + gas leaks = ???
You should be able to solve this one

>>55211989
> how can we differentiate our card game?
> add two zeros

>>55213344
Best post I've seen on /tg/ in a fucking week.
This, neckbeards, is called being a fucking adult.

>>55213122
Only do it if you already have friends who play.

>>55213385
Good set for it too.
>dinosaur commander, vamp commander or pirate commander?

>>55213454
tfw everyone forgets merfolk

>>55213477
Oh yeah.

Sorry man, I am excited about them too.

>>55213454

Bought myself a plunder the graves precon after doing alot of research

>>55212380
OH MY FUCKING- there was a guy in the group at my high school that did it all the fucking time. Wouldn't stop.

>>55212944
What makes Magic fun is the fact there are dozens of infinite combos, turn 1 kills and stack abuse tactics.

>>55212587
Magic is pay to win in the sense a LCG is not. Everyone wants the good cards and they are the more expensive, so people are stuck being able to build awful cheap decks which can still play or buy into something actually good.

>>55213713
Magic is expensive because you can invest in expensive cards, buying a staple at relatively low cost and once you have most of the copies, sell them at a higher cost back into circulation.

Literally the same as diamonds, except cardboard.

>>55213365
>>55213387
theres water everywhere though

>>55213900
And that's a good thing because?

>>55213567
>>55213521
Mana weaving means you have less chance overall to not get mana flood/screw. It follows the same idea that if you put cards that you want together, then even after shuffling, you're likely to have those cards nearby, if not right next to each other.

>>55213904
Yes, flood level waters are constantly threatening my circuit breaker here in Indiana. You chucklefuck that shit is only a problem when you have 5 feet of water coming in a building

>>55213967
what are you attempting to convey

>>55213713
that's not what pay2win means though, that just means it costs more money than you are willing to pay to play.

>>55213967

>You chucklefuck that shit is only a problem when you have 5 feet of water coming in a building

But thats what hurricanes and floods do?

Am I missing something here

>>55213964
So you're knowingly rigging your deck to have cards more likely to be in a certain order, and know where those cards are.

>>55214055
Yes? I'm entirely confused how you and >>55214007 don't understand. You have enough water come in to spark a circuit breaker and it burns the drier part of the house above. This happens pretty regularly in floods and hurricanes

>>55214055
The winds regularly put water in places it otherwise would not go.
The winds also can knock down things, like power poles.
The rain can short out things that it would otherwise be too high to reach.
The fact that there is water nearby does not stop a fire from happening, only makes it easier, if that water can be channeled, to douse.
To douse a fire requires a large amount of water, usually a bucket's worth.
In the middle of a goddamn hurricane, you may not be able to get to a bucket quickly, or may have other concerns that you need to prioritize before you deal with a fire that is not threatening human life.

>>55213385
you have good taste anon.

>>55210756
I saw vid on YT about that very card.

>>55211248
Fuckkkkkkkkkkkk I hate flickersssss

>>55213904
Fire isn't elementally opposed to water like people used to think when we thought of "the elements" as fire, earth, air, and water. Fire needs three things to burn: oxygen, heat, and fuel. Water usually puts out fires by choking them of oxygen in the short term or dissipating heat. A fire that isn't submerged (which isn't being choked of oxygen) that is hot enough to sustain itself will continue to burn. Why do you think fire extinguishers aren't just full of water under pressure?

>>55214091
>The fact that there is water nearby does not stop a fire from happening, only makes it easier, if that water can be channeled, to douse.
>To douse a fire requires a large amount of water, usually a bucket's worth.
And, to add to that, if there's any grease or oil on the surface of the water, throwing water on it won't do anything. Grease/oil burns at a temperature that's higher than the boiling point of water, which means that trying to extinguish such a fire with water is ineffective at best and will make the fire spread faster at worst.

>>55210756

> trigger a MtG player
> a MtG
> Uh Em-Tee-Gee

You win.

>>55213521
>Shuffle graveyard into deck
>Shuffle nonlands and lands together
>Shuffle the two stacks together
>Perfectly distributed deck

>>55214184
>trigger a MtG player
>trigger a Magic the Gathering player

HAY BROS WANNA GO PLAY SUM WHY-GEE-OH?

File: bf8aaa92f51bad1a88cbf2c4ad15c7ba.jpg (74KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 720x540px

>>55213964

>>55214249
>Magic the Gathering player

> ctrl + f Magic The Gathering player

Weird, it's like you're the only person that's posted that. OP sure didn't.

>>55212380
>>55213567
>>55213521
I'm the anon that stuck around a thread all night a bit ago defending how I manaweave:
1. Never waste other players time by doing it.
2. Always randomize well afterwards.

I do it because the process of randomizing the cards is largely effective, mostly successful, but never perfect.
This means that in practice, the cards won't always be 100% perfectly randomized.
In such cases, if my land cards are clumped, I will have an increased chance of an unfun game, but if my cards are manaweaved, I will have an increased chance of an actual game.

>>55213964
>manaweaving with the intent of rigging
Kudos for staying on topic.

>>55214249
That's why you shuffle, you braindead retard.

File: Jace.jpg (865KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

865KB, 1200x675px

Best plainwalker. Jacewatch is going to be the next avengers. Can't wait for the movie!

And so on.

>>55214044
It is pay to win because decks under a certain investment will underperform really hard in every format, if the case was that there weren't weak cheap decks and it only demanded hundreds of bucks to play, then you'd be right, but until you reach a rather high threshold anyone can drop three hundred bucks into a deck that costs as much as yours and crush you effortlessly.

>>55214333
If you are sufficiently randomizing, then why are you mana waving in the first place? Your very logic is flawed because if you are sufficiently randomizing, then you shouldn't be getting clumps, and while you are mana weaving you are directly and deliberately stacking the deck in your favor.

>>55214507
Because its not about logic, it makes people feel better, like they've done all they can do to ensure randomization. Think of it like a good luck ritual.

>enter tourney
>Run nothing but basic lands
>Ask what opponents cards do
>Bend cards when you pick them up
>Still get promo token

easy

>>55213638
Stay the fuck away from me and my family.

>>55214080
>>55214091
>>55214125
i just want to let you know that I was only pretending to be retarded. In truth I understood all along and I'm actually way smarter than you.

>>55213936
I didn't say it was?

>>55214062
Kind of. It's not an exact science. There is always the chance you're going to be shuffling so all your lands are in some backwards order or in some big clump at the bottom of the deck, but it minimizes the chances of that happening, yes.

>>55214294
It's not cheating if it isn't against the rules. I never said I want a completely random deck. Good players place well because they know their decks inside out and have worked out their own way to avoid clumps, and even still get screwed 10-15% of the time. Randomness is overrated.

Blue is too masculine and aggressive for our female players, focusing on denial and manipulation. As of now, we're cutting all support for Blue and would like to introduce the replacement color Pink to fill in the 5 MTG colors. Blue cards are hereby banned from all formats of MTG and using a Blue card or a multicolor card that incorporates Blue is grounds for expulsion from official tournaments.

>>55214700
I for one look forward to our new Giant Teddy Bear overlords.

>>55214507
>Your very logic is flawed
You know what makes people's logic sometimes flawed?
The same thing that makes their reading comprehension sometimes flawed.
The fact that they are fallible human beings.
Which is why any human randomization is potentially flawed.
Which is why I manaweave.

>>55214543
>Think of it like a good luck ritual.
Or a safety net.

>Why are you performing with a safety net, aren't you a good trapeze artist?
>I'm extremely good. I never fall.
>SO WHY ARE YOU PERFORMING WITH A SAFETY NET?

>>55214562
I know we're just shitposting in tg but fucking with someone else's property is over the line.

File: mtg_Stasis.jpg (407KB, 750x594px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 750x594px

>>55210756
>*turns the MtG player on their side*

>>55214759
The eternal illogical argument. Mana weaving: its either useless and you're wasting time or it isn't useless and you're cheating. Only two options. This is not a debate.

>Putting your lands in front of your other permanents

>>55214648
>It's not cheating if it isn't against the rules. I never said I want a completely random deck
Fucking seriously?

>103.1. At the start of a game, each player shuffles his or her deck so that the cards are in a random order. Each player may then shuffle or cut his or her opponents’ decks. The players’ decks become their libraries.

>good player's place well because they know their decks inside and out and have worked out their own way to avoid clumps
Yes, because that's why you see players mana weave on SCG tours.

>>55214648
>you are being way too obvious. Haha keep pretending to be retarded. Retard.

>>55214877
Are you talking about the mana weaving, or the investing?

>>55214838
It isn't directly ordering cards. It's putting them in certain places so they're more likely to show up.

The deck is still "random" after shuffling, hence why the weaving is done before shuffling.

>Yes, because that's why you see players mana weave on SCG tours.
Do they? I don't watch many.

>>55214759
Deck manipulation is deck manipulation anon. You can use pretty words to dress it up like safety nets however you want. but at the end of the day you still intentionally directly influenced the order of your deck in a manner that benefits you.

>>55212280
It's a cultural thing. If we didn't use dollars, and just expressed things in pennies, you'd learn it.

File: 1490979239221.jpg (120KB, 623x414px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 623x414px

>>55211248

>>55211120
Go Fish.

>>55211251
>>Lower quality art in general
You're implying some fucking implications there

>>55215025
How long will the value last as eternal formats slowly die due to a lack of influx of new payers?

>>55215389
Force of Will has better art if you're a fucking faggot weeaboo with shit taste, sure.

File: complaining about weaboos on 4chan.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>55215432
>Force of Will has better art if you're a fucking faggot weeaboo with shit taste, sure.

>>55215389
Anon, no it doesn't. MTG has had some serious whiffs of late, but FoW is not without it's share of absolute trash art either. Anime tits are great and all, but you can't supplement an entire game off of them.

t. I play both FoW and MTG.

>>55213122
Really depends on your LGS. At mine everyone is very welcoming to new people and there aren't too many terrible asshats or anything. But of course your LGS may suck

>>55214796
>This is not a debate.
No, it's not.
It's you being stupid.

>its either useless and you're wasting time
My time to waste, just like the time wasted putting up a safety net that is rendered useless by not getting used.

>or it isn't useless and you're cheating
Still haven't been shown that rule, but I get your meaning.
The "rules" that would be "violated" presume a randomized deck.
If the deck is not perfectly randomized, then those rules are operating under false presumption.
If the other players choose not to waste their time setting up safety nets in case the randomization fails, they are free to, but that does not make my efforts to avoid a scenario where I cannot actually play the game are malicious.

>Only two options.
Okay, the problem is that it's Schrodinger's deck.
Either it's perfectly randomized, or it's not.
And we don't know which.

>>55215030
>Deck manipulation is deck manipulation anon.
Shuffling is deck manipulation.

>you still intentionally directly influenced the order of your deck in a manner that benefits you.
And then I made a serious effort to randomize the deck and undo the influence.
The sole benefit is that *if* the deck is not perfectly randomized, I still might be able to play the game as intended.
I am mildly decreasing the slight possibility of having a boring game that provides neither challenge nor entertainment.

What exactly are you defending? And why?

File: neet reading trashy tabloids published by loser birds.jpg (102KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 450x450px

>>55215462
>Anime tits are great and all, but you can't supplement an entire game off of them.

>>55215472
I choose to believe that no one is this stupid, and because the same image cannot be posted multiple times in the same thread I'd like to direct you to this >>55215299

>>55212842
thanks anon, now i have all the cards i could want

you die last

>>55215472
Nice false equivalence fallacy though.

>>55215466
I quit playing MtG for a year because of the LGS. Then I went to one about an hour out. That was a year ago. I've played a couple casual commander games against a friend of mine since then.

File: 1487432344711.jpg (133KB, 444x453px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 444x453px

>>55211248

>>55215515
I am neither stupid, nor shitposting.
I believe what I posted, which has yet to be refuted.
If you feel that only the stupid could post as I have posted, you are welcome to present your reasoning.
Or not.
It's your time, man.

And technically, I'm still on topic.

>>55215537
>Nice false equivalence fallacy though.
Do you just use a Random Fallacy Chart to respond to posts you don't like, or did you have a measure of reasoning there?

>>55214116
Just mana-weaving, bro. What's the problem?
>*flickflickflickflickflickflickflickflickflick...flickflickflickflickflickflickflickflick*

>>55215587
>>55215625
Christ, you aren't worth engaging.

>>55215650
Wait so, you're saying you're NOT going to propose?

Good night, anon.
Feel free to come back if you actually feel like posting using reasoning.

>>55215391
Dunno, but I thought legacy was coming back to the pro tours?

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/organized-play/2018s-pro-tours-and-2017s-worlds-2017-07-19

That would usually indicate more players asking for legacy to be part of the pro tour and mean more people would be exposed to it, which would in turn mean more people would join in, right?

>>55215904
I'm pretty sure that was due to all the backlash they were getting from the existing Legacy community for how little coverage their format got.

>>55215915
I'd be pissed too if I spend thousands of dollars on the manabase alone and spend years perfecting a deck just to find out that WOTC basically doesn't support the format.

>>55216112
>thousands of dollars on the manabase alone
And you expect new people to get into this?

>>55216121
You expect new players to get into MTG by watching PTs?

>>55216139
No, PTs are purely for enfranchised players.

>>55210855
True
Despicable. But selling proxies as proxies is fine.
Despicable.
Fine
"Fine"
True (the mana rules are way better, Modern Force of Will Art is better than current MTG art)
Don't care.

>>55212280
Does the currency in third world countries like Japan trigger you?

File: 800px-Cold_War_alliances_mid-1975.svg.png (106KB, 800x409px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 800x409px

>>55216251
As far as I can tell, Japan isn't actually third world.
They were considered First World by the old Cold War definition, and the the IMF doesn't consider them a "developing country" which puts it outside the modern definition too.

>>55216145
And there you go

>>55216305
But what I'm arguing is that the enfranchised players are angry, but not increasing in number.

>>55211251
How do you retcon a whole block

>>55211517
Vangaurd season 1 is BY FAR one of the best gaming cartoons there is.

It's like am actual slice of life progression of a newbie card player that realisyically teaches you game fundaments amd shows a relatable progression through the game.

It got all magic nonsense later on but shit was cash.

It had an mc who misplayed because he was new and LOST because of it.

An entire episode dedicated to the concept of a wincon.

An actual tournament grind from fns tier stuff to progressively bigger ones.

MCs whose decks evolved ans were tuned over time with real cards just like real people and no bullshit out of nowbwete situtational cards made to advance the plot.

Anyone can lose, no plot armor.

Man it was good.

>>55211601
Kaijudo wasnt a shitty reboot. It was almost the exact same game.

>>55216363
>Stop printing it
>No formats support it
>Stop mentioning it
>Eliminate some of its gimmicks

>>55211989
The flavor text in the same font as the rules text threw me off.

>>55213095
But one with nothing IS a good card. It allows you to end turn one with fucking nothing. I want to pull that off one day to a new player just to see their face as I pass turn.

The value of a card is in how much fun you can have with it.

>>55214333
Manaweaving literally is either slow play or cheating. Their is no "okay" way to do it.

If it has an effect on the deck its cheating, if it doesnt, you are wasting game time.

>>55215025
Manipulating your deck before hand to effect your draws(in this case to help your mana drops) is cheating

>>55216470
So's pile shuffling
But only one is considered slow play under the rueles

>>55215472
Its NOT SUPPOSED TO FAIL. The deck is supposed to be random, thats the literal defintion of shuffling. Deliberately altering your draws before a game is cheating and wasting time in any sanctioned event is slow play.

>>55210855
>stealing cards just to sell them

I actually have plans on busting into my LGS if the hurricane does enough damage. I will loot that place for all its worth.

>>55216470
The deck gets shuffled later so it's fine.

>>55216433
Wait, how does no format support a block?

It doesnt have nonrotating formats?

>>55216509
You are only allowed one pile shuffle a match precisely because of slow play issues.

>>55216525
That's slow play. Also stupid. Why would you do something that takes so much with no (non illegal) effect on the game, before the game starts.

>>55216470
>>55216492
>>55216515
Hey, would it be okay if I took my lands out and riffle shuffled them into my deck instead? That wouldn't take too long in a 60 card deck, surely.

>>55216570
Followed, obviously, by a proper few riffles to ensure randomness. It only takes a few seconds per riffle shuffle, after all.

suppose there exists a player A who scoops and then puts lands atop grave atop hand atop library

let a "bad shuffle" be a legal shuffle in which card placement remains unchanged or within a threshold of 2 cards placement

if A bad shuffles and opponent bad shuffles for his cut, the deck has been 'sufficiently randomized' and the A is screwed out of a first hand

suppose there exists player B who mana weaves

if player B mana weaves and then bad shuffles, then his opponent bad shuffles, player B is less likely to be screwed out of a first hand

thus, it is the correct line that both players mana weave to generate this advantage and also perform no bad shuffles on their opponents' deck

>>55216292
Japan is very far from being third world
It's one of the most advanced country in the world

>>55216570
>>55216594
Riffle shuffling should be banned anyway

>>55216607
>if A bad shuffles
His fault.

Nigga if you come up to me and mana shuffle, Imma do it right back to you when you had me the deck to cut.
If you don't fucking shuffle too, I'mma unweave your mana so you can cry.

File: Core+Set+Booster.jpg (173KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 500x280px

>>55211120
I've been playing a lot of MegaCorp and I think its flat better. The foundation is just so much more stable and I can see it going a lot of ways. It also gets rid of manascrew/flood since the resource deck is separate.

Depending on how it goes I will compleatly give up MTG if enough players get into it in my area.

>>55211248

Literally worse than Hitler.

>>55216655
At which point the judge comes over and gives you both dairy queen for your trouble.

>>55216756
B-but mana weaving is okay!
In all honesty, I'm going to call a judge the second I see someone start to mana weave, and if they say it's okay, I'm going to immediately do the same thing.

>>55214294
>>55213521

"Because it makes me feel better and gives me confidence in my deck"

>>55216470
>>55216470
>slow play
>you are wasting game time.
see the actual post you are responding to:
>>55214333
>Never waste other players time by doing it.

Please actually read posts before replying.

File: The_Spoils_back.jpg (125KB, 200x277px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 200x277px

Suprised no one mentioned The Spoils.

The Spoils was everything better than Magic.

>>55216797
>In all honesty, I'm going to call a judge the second I see someone start to mana weave, and if they say it's okay, I'm going to immediately do the same thing.
Not that anon.
This is fine.

>>55216830
Never heard of it.

MtG investment shows you never learned econ 101.

Even then legacy and vintage are the only non shit formats.

Draft takes 0 skill.

Dredge and chinaman did nothing wrong.

Tribal was the only game type worth playing.

>>55216891
>Draft takes 0 skill.
Opinion discarded

File: mana weave.png (15KB, 842x689px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 842x689px

>>55216826
Mana weaving is always a waste of time. If it's not, you're cheating. Maybe you should've read the post you quoted instead.

>>55216925
This

>>55216978
>Waste of time
>Not mana-weaving between rounds, while waiting for the other matches to end

>>55217029
That's even worse. If you're going to manipulate the deck, at least have the decency to let your opponent know you're doing it so that he can shuffle a few extra times to invalidate your attempt at cheating.

>>55216978
>Affecting your odds of winning in your favor is always cheating.
cute pic

>>55216978
>Mana weaving is always a waste of time.
My time to waste.

>Maybe you should've read the post you quoted instead.
I read the post and the opinion within it that ignores that whether or not manaweaving is "cheating" depends entirely on if the deck is perfectly randomized or not.

I'm gonna ask you what I asked the other anon.
What are you defending and why?

>>55217075
>Not mana-weaving between rounds
>Not shuffling your deck normally at the start of the new round
It's like you don't even new player

>>55210855
>Force of Will is better

And here I am feeling like a fucking retard, because I thought this meme was based on people saying the card Force of Will was a better counter card than even Counterspell.

I didn't even know FoW was a knockoff cardgame of it's own.

>>55217130
>I didn't even know FoW was a knockoff cardgame of it's own.
It's always weird when I read comments like that because FoW is a bigger game than MtG in my FLGS
We even have some traitors that went from MtG to FoW
I would have done the same if I didn't have some self-respect

>>55216515
>Its NOT SUPPOSED TO FAIL. The deck is supposed to be random
But things fail, even when they're not supposed to.
Being prepared for when something fails when it's not supposed to is not "cheating".
That's the literal definition of a "safety net".

>Deliberately altering your draws before a game is cheating
Still waiting on how that rule pertains to manaweaving before shuffling, but whatever.

>wasting time in any sanctioned event is slow play.
see
>>55214333
>Never waste other players time by doing it.

>>55213122

Hope you got a hundred dollars+++ to spend on cardboard. :^)

You could always just play cockatrice.

>>55217198
Just to be clear, as I've had to point it out three times so far in the thread:

I manaweave and I still think that anyone who wastes other player's time by manaweaving should be kicked in the groin repeatedly until it stops being funny.

>>55211452
>Occasional hypercentralized formats (think Magic's current Standard)
You're probably not following current standard as there's like 10+ different viable decks

>>55216925
>>55217012
The only gamemode that takes less skill than draft is EDH.

They are also as insecure as drafties.

>>55217390
You're right about EDH needing no skill but since you think Draft is the same you have no right talking

If Draft doesn't need skills,how come I'm so bad at it?

>>55217390
>>55217412
Drafting takes skill, it is just a format that is has randomness with a larger impact.

My best friend is very good at it and could get into the nuances of it better than I, but knowing what cards are in the draft and which are likely to function as a deck is important.
Also, I've learned that sometimes you end up having to not play the best cards you drafted because you can form a more cohesive deck out of different colors.

>>55212742
*eyetwitch*

>>55217412
If EDH doesn't take skill, how come I'm so bad at it?

>>55217722
Because you don't netdecking enough or are bad at politics

>>55217280
Yep. After they banned a historic number of cards in standard. Face it, standard has been shit for a long time and still is.

>>55216292
I was actually thinking about third world countries like in SEA or something where the countries is just in the thousands for seemingly no reason, but Japan uses Yen in the hundreds and the card games with such numbering are either Japanese or trying to imitate it (eg Duel Masters) so I phrased my post in a tongue in cheek manner.

>>55214759
Retarded analogy. If you fall from a trapeze onto the ground you die. If you get mana clumps you lose one round of a card game.

>>55214507
>if you are sufficiently randomizing, then you shouldn't be getting clumps
That's not true at all. 'Random' doesn't mean 'even distribution of lands across your library', it would be the opposite of that. A properly randomized deck is just as likely to have clumps of mana as not - that's the entire point.

>>55217755
>don't netdecking enough
Then I lack deck building skill.
>bad at politics
Then I lack a required skill.

>>55218170
The analogy is fine.
The scale, cost, and effort of setting up a trapeze safety net is also much higher than the investment involved in manaweaving.

And it's not losing the round.
Losing is part of the game.
It's not being able to play the round.
It is a round without challenge or entertainment.
It's the death of a round.

>>55218214
This.

I've manaweaved clumps of land into my deck, shuffled, and then had more clumps than when I started, which was randomization working as intended.

>>55218538
I think you are the strongest argument for landless card games, like Hearthstone.

File: cockatrice_logo.png (25KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 256x256px

>>55210855
>only playing cockatrice for free

And you can't stop me!

>>55218579
Because my "horrible cheating" shaves a small percentage off the small chance of me not being able to play in a round?
Or because I raised some solid points about how land issues prevent you from actually playing the game?

Personally, I consider the land issues a necessary evil, best mitigated however possible, in order to allow the versatility that land cards present.

>>55210756
>"Meh, it's alright but I don't feel like dropping $200 on cardboard. I could see myself maybe goofing around with a starter deck but the game really didnt seem that interesting or deep to spend much more than that on it."

>>55218807
That's not triggering. That's fucking CHUM. That's blood in the water.

>>55218802
None of that is necessary in Hearthstone where you always get to play the game instead of hoping for good draws.

>>55218830
I get that, but then there is a sacrificing of the resource management aspect of the game.
Which is personal taste, really.

>>55218388
Politics are an unrelated skill, it just helps you being better
It's not because I'm bad in chemistry that I don't know how to cook

Netdecking replace the deckbuilding skill. If you're bad at deckbuilding, you can netdeck a good deck

Since you can be good at EDH with a netdecking deck (removing the deckbuilding skill) and without doing politics (not caring about the optional politics skill), EDH doesn't need skills

>>55218928
You sacrifice none of the resource management aspect since you still get a limited amount of mana to work with in a given turn. It's just an overall well-designed, fun game.

File: 1503518705029.png (130KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1000x1000px

>>55210756
>ITT: trigger a MtG player
Pauper is the 2nd worst format, with only Commander being more shit.

>>55219095
Limited>edh>standard>memedern>legacy>vintage.

In order from least skill, shittiest meta to highest skill ans best meta and best players AND most secure players.

Pauper isn't a format

>>55216830
It was too smart, had better production values, and simply had more effort put into a single card than you see in an entire set of Magic.

But it could never beat something as entrenched as Magic.

>>55218538
I always have a pair of aces up my sleeve when playing poker because having a 2 and a 6 of different suits is like not playing a round

>>55216414
I agree. Personally I liked season 3 as well, simply because of how balls to the wall it takes "card games are serious business". But then it got super gay in Legion.

>>55219095
Ah Pauper, truly the most pleb of formats.

>>55219185
Its a format according to Wizards mate: http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/formats/pauper

Doesn't make it any less shit though.

>>55214408
Having a high barrier of competitiveness isn't pay to win. Are sports pay2win because they have high cost equipment that will improve your game? That's such a scrub-tier argument.

Always to the left.

So.. who wants to play some Hearthstone?

File: Burning Lotus.gif (427KB, 372x500px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 372x500px

>>55210756

File: Mox Opal banplz.jpg (80KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 312x445px

Ban Mox Opal in Modern.
It's clearly a Vintage power level card that has no business in the format.
Simian Spirit Guide and Eldrazi Temple should also go. Much like Mox Opal they exist only to fuel degenerate openings. (Griselbrand, Living End, Eldrazi.)
Ancient Stirrings is a color pie break, allowing green to fetch artifacts in the early game better than blue.
Ancient Stirrings is one of the backbones to Tron, Bant Eldrazi and Lantern Prison.

This would free up a lot more options for competitive deckbuilding.

>>55220029
stop

>>55219033
>You sacrifice none of the resource management aspect since you still get a limited amount of mana to work with in a given turn.
Can you do things to vary and change the rate of mana?
At any rate, managing your land, getting the right land, getting land quicker, utilizing land cards to trigger other effects such as discarding or other mechanisms, and the other ways land adds complexity to the game are all sacrificed.
Land is more than just a limited quantity of mana.

>It's just an overall well-designed, fun game.
Glad you like it.

File: Thicc Girl.jpg (15KB, 190x265px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 190x265px

>>55211989
>not posting a good waifu

>>55211989
she's so gangly, what the fuck man?

>>55214333
Part of randomization is sometimes being mana screwed. Part of randomization is sometimes losing because you are mana screwed. What you've described is literally cheating according to every judge/official interpretation of the rules.

If you find yourself frequently mana screwed, you've mostly likely built a garbage deck.

tl;dr--you are doing nothing right, l2p

>>55218538
It's a piss poor analogy anon. There is no good analogy for mana weaving except cheating, because it is cheating. It is not a safety net that ensures you can play, it is a method to ensure that you will vary rarely have bad draws or have to mulligan down to 6 due to the lands. Going with this trapeze analogy you seem to be dead set on using, it is not a saftey net. It's much more like having a sliding rope attached to you and the string so if you fall, you can pull yourself back up to where you were. And on top of that it's using skill of balancing on a rope versus getting hands that you don't want to.
Pros brick anon. Pros mull to 6, 5, and even 4. Everyone does, it's just part of what comes with this kind of resource. So you taking "extra precautions" to avoid that and "ensure you can play the game" means that you are indeed cheating and manipulating the deck in your favor. Whatever this fucknut >>55216821 is saying is nothing more than psychological hoops to try and justify it. "I feel better when I cheat and know I have an increased chance of not drawing a land next turn due to how I shuffled my deck". No matter how you cut it, it is stacking the deck in your order to give yourself a favorable outcome. If you truly are shuffling after you mana weave, then why do you suddenly have more confidence in yourself? Because when you shuffle you -should- not have a completely random deck, meaning the mana weave did nothing. So by having increased confidence or that you think you now have some "safety net", you directly think that your deck is not shuffled, and therefore have stacked it so that you now have an advantage in the game.

However, I can see that you're so stubborn in this mindset that nothing can change your mind short of getting a DCI ban. You should talk to a judge about this and see what he thinks.

>>55222085
Also, before you reply to me I want you to give this scenario some thought.
>Your opponent sees you pile shuffling before the round and has an issue with it. After you shuffle and present, he calls over a judge to confirm what he's about to do is allowed by the rules (which this is). He takes your deck, and starts to put it into two piles in the order that you mana weave. I assume it's 1 land - 2 spells. So he goes one on the left two on the right until your deck is in two piles. He gives that a few riffle shuffles and presents it back to you.
What is your reaction to this?

>>55221032
Part of randomization is sometimes losing because you are mana screwed.
I don't mind losing.
I mind not being able to play the game at all.

>Part of randomization is sometimes being mana screwed.
I don't mind being mana screwed because of randomization, I mind being screwed because of failed randomization not breaking up clumps of land.

>>55222085
>There is no good analogy for mana weaving except cheating, because it is cheating.
I don't think you know what the word "analogy" means.

>>55222228
>What is your reaction to this?
Additional randomization after I broke up the clumps and shuffled no issue.

>>55222729
If you're getting clumps because you shuffled your deck with all your lands at the bottom, you didn't shuffle well enough.

>>55222816
>Additional randomization after I broke up the clumps and shuffled no issue

Except if the weave actually succeeded in breaking up the clumps, then he just re-clumped them by reversing it.

If your deck was randomized enough that the lands were still unclumped afterwards, then why did you mana weave?

>>55220504
underrated

bring back counterspell

>>55214507
>If you are sufficiently randomizing, then why are you mana waving in the first place?
Almost no-one sufficiently randomizes. Properly shuffling a deck requires more effort than most people are prepared to put in.

>>55216644
>Riffle shuffling should be banned anyway
It's the only way of shuffling properly that doesn't take forever.

If you mana-weave, I bring back the mana burn rule.

>>55218807
>When you know someone that spent several thousand dollars on boxes and got dick.

>>55212931
>>55215533
I was in a five player game where I made that play. everybody had all the cards they wanted. it went downhill from there. one of the players from that game to this day gets triggered thinking about it.

>>55211120
Yu Gi Oh

>>55222729
Thats not failed randomization.

Random means you have totallt no control over the outcome of the shuffle. Mana weaving IS failed randonizatiom because its not random.

Random doesnt mean "evenly distibuted mana" it means "any card cam be anywbete and you have no idea where" that includes clumps.

>>55223154
>If you're getting clumps because you shuffled your deck with all your lands at the bottom, you didn't shuffle well enough.
Indeed.
Imperfect humans cannot reliably shuffle to 100 % randomization 100% of the time.
That's my point exactly.

>>55223197
>by reversing it.
I shuffle afterwards.
Of he could reverse that, I would be impressed.

>If your deck was randomized enough that the lands were still unclumped afterwards, then why did you mana weave?
As a safety net.
Read the above posts.

>>55223348
>Almost no-one sufficiently randomizes.
This is true.

>Properly shuffling a deck requires more effort than most people are prepared to put in.
Also, you can't confirm you've randomized it without having to redo all the work.
Which is one reason I add a safety net.

>>55223470
I love mana burn.

>>55223810
I know this.
I've said that I've sometimes gotten more clumps after weaving than I started with.
Those times, I know I randomized it enough.

>>55223863
>>55223889
When you say you made a "safety net" that means that you added some form of protection to help your game when the rules say that your deck must be random. That's cheating anon.
If you shuffle afterwards, then the mana weave does nothing. However, since you insist on saying it's a safety net, then that means the mana weave serves a purpose in your shuffle and therefore, you are cheating.

>>55223960
Assuming this rule, as it pertains to manaweaving, exists, then it would seem that I am only "cheating" if my deck is not sufficiently randomized after shuffling.
How do you propose that determine this?

>>55224065
How did you define your deck as "not sufficiently shuffled" as the reason you turned to manaweaving? Because you got burned on a few games by getting mana screwed? Poor you anon, but that means that your deck was indeed random because it means that any one card can be next to any other one card. If you shuffle afterwards like you say you do, then the mana weave does nothing. But you again keep insisting that it is a safety net, which in of itself means you admit that you do not shuffle your deck properly. You can say human beings are imperfect all you like, but that's extremely piss poor reasoning for doing it. People who shuffle at casinos are human beings too, that doesn't seem to stop anyone there.

If you can tell there's a difference between when you weave and when you don't, that isn't just placebo, then you are doing something wrong.

>>55217237
>cockatrice
Always the superior choice.

>>55219771
If your sport was one where you purchased muscles then yes.

File: 1486960669202.jpg (89KB, 942x724px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 942x724px

>>55223889
>not counterweaving pile shuffling faggots

>>55224130
>How did you define your deck as "not sufficiently shuffled" as the reason you turned to manaweaving?
By recognizing patterns of cards from the preceding game in the "shuffled" deck.

>>55224920
60 cards, four copies of each non land for most decks.
Assume 1/3 land, that leaves 40 cards at four copies of each that leaves you with 10 different cards. You want multiple copies of everything because it should all be stuff to lead to or protect your wincon. It's entirely possible to see the same cards every game.

Since this is a shit thread I will be testing how links work as I am a newfag.
>>55187746

>>55224948
>see the same cards every game =/= same patterns of cards from the preceding game

>>55225194
You could practice deleting posts, too.
There's a delay to get it to work.
Just saying.

Party on.

>>55225209
How many times were you shuffling? Did you pile shuffle? Because if you're actively seeing patterns of the previous game I cannot imagine you doing anything other than shuffling three or so times and calling it good. I don't pile shuffle every game and I don't get "patterns" of cards. I can get 3 lands in a row, but I can also hit the nuts of double amalgam. That's what "random" means.
And if that's what you imagine as shuffling well, then that speaks volumes on how well you shuffle in general and your mana weave does indeed help you cheat.

File: Whelp_Drake_TTW.jpg (176KB, 745x1040px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 745x1040px

>>55211251
I unironically like a lot of the FoW art

>>55225414
I think that would trigger any hobbiest. I know if you wanted to touch my models or books with those hands I would leave.

>>55225507
Dude, I'd be upset if he wanted to touch my fucking CHEETOS with those fingers. Still fits the thread, though.

File: 64a4b4ee65a941f2d98fdea6acd3fdfe.jpg (261KB, 500x1017px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 500x1017px

It is my actual, unironic belief that this game needs more cheesecake. We need shit like Taarna, not garbage like Samut. Strong women can be sexy too god damn it, why does everyone have to be ugly if they're strong in this god forsaken game?

>>55225647
WotC is probably afraid to trigger people with strong attractive women.

I've been meaning to ask then, assuming i play a deck that will ramp rather hard if I'm not weaving what type of shuffling could i do to ensure that i don't have a massive screw/flood on the way.
Outside of pileshuffling and shit like that

>>55225816
>outside of pileshuffling
Why would you not pileshuffle once followed with a series of mash?

>>55225842
>Alsoamanofculture.jpeg

>>55225842
That's what i normally do
I'm shit at shuffling and i was hopping there was another type that could speed it up.

>>55226004
Learn to riffle, then learn to riddle without bending your cards.

>>55226004
You should have plenty of time to do a pile followed by riffles unless you take a decade sideboarding.

>>55211120

Without commander and drafting MTG is a boring waste of time.

Fuck you bitch.

>>55220303
But that's a fake.

>>55225721
Which is stupid, because women actually like beautiful women in their products. Market research has long proven this no matter what SJWs believe.

File: t006.jpg (203KB, 869x1237px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 869x1237px

Samut is a perfectly acceptable waifu
Also pic related.

>>55226445
Yes but the vocal minority speak for the silent majority, also they use arguments that win in the court of popular opinion unfortunately.

>>55226445
>sjw
>facts

And there's the kicker.

File: inigo1.jpg (55KB, 500x432px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x432px

>>55222729

>>55216414
>>55211517

I'm kind of amazed when I see any reference to Vanguard considering it's been kinda screwed in the west by Bushiroad. I'm agreeing with >>55216414 though, first season was good and it actually followed the rules of the game. Everything after was dumb.

Some friends I have play it as well, but we're getting kinda bored just constantly fighting each other and sad there's no local place for meeting other players.

>>55225292
>How many times were you shuffling?
Then? No idea.
I usually go about 4 or 5 times.

>Did you pile shuffle?
Then? No idea.
I do sometimes, but not always.

File: What.png (173KB, 500x371px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 500x371px

>>55227369
>I usually go about 4 or 5 times.
Found the problem. Jesus Christ man, seriously? You think 4 or 5 shuffles as good to go? And you wonder why you get clumps or "patterns"?

>>55210756
Your game is half luck and half budget. Little to no skill exist in this game.

>>55227722
Your response makes me think we're using the terms differently.
I don't mean 5 riffles or whatever.
I mean I shuffle the deck 4 or 5 times.
And I don't usually count, I just do it for the time allotted.

Please enlighten me on the proper method.

>>55228631
What do you mean by "shuffle" then, if not riffling.

>>55216540
It does. It is just that one of the legacy formats doesn't support it, while the other does.

>>55228783
I shuffle the deck.
Then I do that again 3 or 4 more times.
I guess about 8 weaves-then-cuts per shuffle, but I don't really count.
Sometimes I pile-shuffle once.
If riffling is the term for how you shuffle two stacks of normal cards together, I stopped doing that as my deck protectors kept snagging unless I did it annoyingly slow.

>>55229319
But if you're not riffle shuffling, then what the fuck do you do? You should get some better sleeves, because riffle is like the only way you'll actually get any work done.
So all this mental gymnastics and shit like "human beings are imperfect" is all just because you don't actually shuffle?

File: yea!.png (42KB, 445x283px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 445x283px

>>55211248
Can someone explain pls

Mash shuffle masterrace reporting in, other shuffles not needed. Rifflecucks cant match our speed and rest are just playing with their decks without shuffling properly

>>55229902
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_DkVoHG3z8

the triggering I witnessed on friday at a game store in Omaha was the owner telling a guy that was there for the weekly MtG tourney, "I've told you before, you can't cone in the store unless you shower, using water AND soap."
300 pound guy threw a tantrum outside the store.

>>55215025
You're retarded. Or I'm being trolled.

>>55230361
It's been a while. Is there anything to do in Omaha these days?

>>55234246
I don't know, I only was there for the afternoon, most of which I spent at the Dragon's Lair off Blondo.

Desolator's channel has nearly 30000 subscribers.

>>55230361
How the fuck does someone lack such basic self-preservation instinct as taking a fucking shower once every at least week if not once a day?

>>55230361
I can wrap my head around being so much of a loser that you don't shower for days on end, but I can't even begin to imagine the twisted mind that goes without showering AND throws a tantrum when they leave their dwelling and people take issue with his stink.

Jace would beat Urza in a fight no problem.

>>55229319
What do you think the word shuffle means?

Going solely by this post, it seems you don't do any randomization at all, as neither "weaving" or pile shuffles randomize card position.

>>55234377
Even trainwrecks draw a lot of attention.

File: 6PA4t.jpg (26KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x374px

>>55210756

>>55234377

That really is triggering. The guy knows nothing about Magic. The video where he tries to play Shandalar and blames the game for his own fuckups is one of the most maddening things I've seen on youtube.

>>55211251
you forgot the biggest FoW disadvantage:

50% of the cards are anime girls/girly males and the entire artstyle is based around that with a big overload of cute subjects lot of closeups and very little backgrounds.

for 10% of people that's a plus. for another, probably bigger, percent of people that's unbearable and they just can't touch the game. for most people, who have no problem with the artstyle, it's still objectively bad because it fails to capture a world and its characters as well as mtg, where everything is well rappresented and appeals to everyone( just look at any set visual spoilers).

>>55229381
>if you're not riffle shuffling, then what the fuck do you do?
>riffle is like the only way you'll actually get any work done.
There are other methods.

>You should get some better sleeves
They all do it.

>simple reason = mental gymnastics
>"human beings are imperfect" = shit
Do tell.

>>55235133
>neither "weaving" or pile shuffles randomize card position
You're doing it wrong then.

Maybe "mash" is what I'm doing.
I never sat around discussing proper terms for how I shuffle and randomize my cards.

It's like you all are specifically imagining me cutting my deck a couple times or doing one pile shuffle, putting the cards in the piles in the same order and never mixing the piles at all, then quitting.
My intent is to randomize and I work diligently towards that.
You can shuffle and randomize without riffling.

>>55236912
I disagree. The past few blocks of Magic have been incredibly unappealing to me, and a lot of the artwork is generic, dark, blurry trash that I could see on the cover of a novel at a dollar store.

>>55234377
he is one of my favourite youtubers.
i honestly think he's great.

>>55236912
I think that the artwork is fine. I like it, and not just because of anime titties. All of the cards are full art which helps, and they are just detailed to the point where they look good on the table, but not to the point where they look blurry in play which for a card game is pretty important. A lot of the cards are just interesting and dynamic, though some art isn't as good.

>>55236933
Do you know what randomizing is?

>>55238126
Yes I do.
Why do you ask?

>>55223605
You Gee what now?

>>55238207
My name is not itch, that was a mistype.

File: 1452846131615.jpg (95KB, 447x444px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 447x444px

>>55238207
>>55236933
You can't be doing mash shuffling because then apparently your sleeves would be getting caught. You don't need to know these terms to describe what you're doing. You don't riffle or mash, which is like the only way anyone ever shuffles, so what the fuck do you do? If you watched any mtg video in the history of the game, that's what they do. The only thing that's left that constitutes as "shuffling" by this point is doing the thing where you take around half the deck and dropping parts of it in front of the other half, which gets almost no work done.

So you mana weave because you don't actually shuffle and wonder why you're seeing patterns. Good god anon.

>>55239084
>if you watched any mtg video in the history of the game
Why would anyone?
I shuffle man.
I'll get back to later on this.

File: 1466122688270.gif (4MB, 250x259px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 250x259px

>>55239458
No, you clearly don't shuffle if you're not riffle or mash shuffling. There's a reason why we do those, and it's because we can't do what poker players do with the bridge due to our cardboard being inflated in value and sleeves prevent us from doing that anyways. The substitute is the mash or the riffle. If you are not doing one of those two shuffling methods, you are not randomizing your deck. That's all there is to it The cat's out of the bag anon. You don't shuffle so you mana weave to supplement it.

>>55238199
Are you saying you hate it when people keep their lands separate by color? I do it to make it easier for me and my opponent to see what I have.

>>55238199
motherfucker

>>55213122
I'd recommend only if you have friends who already play. I made the mistake of going to friday night magic with a cheap £30 deck i borrowed from a mate, and ended up making a load of autists sperg when i beat them, which left a pretty bad impression of MtG players on me.

>>55238199
Sir, calm down. Please untap those islands and walk away. There's no need for anyone to get hurt. please just let me cast my mana rock in peace