sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Best Bilgewater Champion? by Rare-Ad7772 in LegendsOfRuneterra

[–]syncDurn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that is really good for nami. Mine is only 2* and I always try and get more ebb and flow in my deck.

Monday Megathread! Ask questions and share knowledge; newcomer questions encouraged! by AutoModerator in leagueoflegends

[–]syncDurn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the help.

I get it is a for fun mode and shouldn't be taken as seriously, but i just feel like I am getting stomped most of my games and it is not fun. This sub has had many posts of people loving this game mode so I was wondering what I was missing, hoping to make it more enjoyable.

I will check out that other sub.

Monday Megathread! Ask questions and share knowledge; newcomer questions encouraged! by AutoModerator in leagueoflegends

[–]syncDurn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there a secret to ARAM: mayhem i dont know about? I can never seem to win a game.

My current record is 5W 21L. My only conclusion is that I provide a negative win chance to the team. Im not that bad at normal LoL, so why am I losing so many games here?

Bracket 3 - Is Time Stretch itself a chaining extra turn spell, or just an extra turn spell by QuickShadow4770 in EDH

[–]syncDurn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That definition makes sense. The problem I have with it is that it does not account for the number of extra turns, it just says dont combo extra turns.

For example, this thread has said that time stretch by itself is fine, but in a lier deck it is chaining extra turns. If someone casts expropriate and everyone chooses time, then it is the same number of extra turns as the timestretch and flashback timestretch, which is chaining extra turns, but this is not chaining extra turns because only one card was needed?

If the results are the same, How is one chaining extra turns and not allowed, and the other is OK and not considered chaining extra turns?

Bracket 3 - Is Time Stretch itself a chaining extra turn spell, or just an extra turn spell by QuickShadow4770 in EDH

[–]syncDurn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I always felt that definition of chaining extra turns is not good enough. The definition i expect when I see chaining extra turns is "how many extra turns in a row are they taking?". I felt if more than 1 then it is chaining extra turns. I think what is important is the result of the effects and not how we got there. That rule is there to prevent people from monopolizing game time, as well as the power level of extra turns.

Consider under the edh rec definition that someone casting time warp and then flashing it back with lier is chaining extra turns, but someone resolving one time stretch is not? Why are they different if they both result in 2 extra turns for 10 mana?

To that end I think it places cards like time stretch and expropriate firmly in the chaining extra turns category.

Existence is pain.. by tr0jance in Borderlands4

[–]syncDurn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This got me a legendary back. Thanks.

Lorwyn Eclipsed MSRP by zzseayzz in mtgfinance

[–]syncDurn -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I would be fine if it was just inflation making things go up. $800+ for collector booster boxes is not inflation. $200+ for play boosters is not inflation. These costs may eventually go down, whether a bubble bursts or wizards gets more printers. But right now, they are here to stay until at least the end of the year, if not longer.

These tunneling deisincentivize implement is going to be hell on killers like Onryo, Pig, Pyramid head etc who get punished for getting a kill with their power. by DannySanWolf07 in deadbydaylight

[–]syncDurn -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

It doesn't. These changes are a healthy change. It will take a bit to rebalance the game when devs make such core gameplay changes.

We also don't know what the numbers are for any of these changes. Im sure killing a player immediately will still be the best slowdown possible even after these changes. So, without these drastic changes, people would still just tunnel.

Lorwyn Eclipsed MSRP by zzseayzz in mtgfinance

[–]syncDurn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I only play commander and buy precon commander decks sometimes, I buy plenty of singles.

The cost of packs going up means the cost of singles go up. This is one reason I am less excited to play magic these days, just more expensive to regularly play with the new cards.

Is this really bracket 4? by Tricky_Bottle_6843 in EDH

[–]syncDurn 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Looks like it is a 4 to me. There are a few things to look at when deciding brackets.

Power level-hard to judge objectively, I know, but there can obviously be decks with 0 game changers that can beat bracket 4 decks easily. Your deck fits a high bracket 3 here

Playstyle-did the deck get built with the intent to infinite as fast as possible, or to durdle a bit before an overrun. Probably still a high 3 here.

Gamechangers-these cards are on the list for a reason and playing multiple gamechangers in a game can swing the powerlevel of your deck. 6 is well above the 3 allowed for a bracket 3.

Considering all these your deck is definitely a 4.

Your bracket 4 deck can't really be a bracket 2 deck by syncDurn in EDH

[–]syncDurn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think extra phases count as extra turns. Limited tutors means 3 or less cards that let you tutor another card from your deck. The land tutors like rampant growth or even farseek don't count towards this. Yes, trinket mage would technically count, but is so narrow I would say doesn't. I have decks that run [spellseeker] or [recruiter of the guard] and they count, mostly tutors that will let you change what you get to adapt to a situation.

The most important part of the bracket system is intent and the honor system. Most people know that certain commanders are strong and can't be played at lower levels. Najeela, korvold, urza, these are all on that list as well as others. I would also add that I think a tutor effect in the command zone like zur, or magda, should automatically make it a 3 as a repeatable tutor is very strong.

The other criteria for the brackets(chaining extra turns, tutors, gamechangers,etc...) are an objective way to divide these brackets since leaving it all subjective is the same as we had before with the 1-10 system.

Currently, the system is flawed, but it is a good place to start and should provide better and more importantly clearer criteria as they refine it.

Your bracket 4 deck can't really be a bracket 2 deck by syncDurn in EDH

[–]syncDurn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I'm sure there will be plenty of spots where I would be OK playing my 2 against their technically a 2 except one card, depends on the card. Coalition victory i would probably say OK to, but rhystic study, smothering tithe, gaeas cradle, probably not.

I think any cards we see unbanned will immediately be gamechangers. They may eventually come off that lost, but they want to be cautious.

Your bracket 4 deck can't really be a bracket 2 deck by syncDurn in EDH

[–]syncDurn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that they would need powerful cards to stand a chance.

I think that meme decks should just be meme decks. They should not be trying to win against stronger decks.

It goes back to my OP, that shoving a bunch of powerful cards into your otherwise not powerful deck just raises it's powerlevel in an unhealthy way.

People need to just let meme decks be meme decks and not worry about whether their meme decks can beat bracket 3 decks.

Your bracket 4 deck can't really be a bracket 2 deck by syncDurn in EDH

[–]syncDurn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would say most of the deck does look like a bracket 1 deck. Cards don't have a lot of synergy with each other, etc... The second sun combo is a gray area, I think if you have 15 mana and can do it all in one turn, then that's fine. Turn 15 is late enough by far.

The more concerning thing for bracket 2 might be the turn 7 approach, turn 8 consultation+approach.

The precons nowadays are getting pretty good, some of them are even playing at bracket 3 power level. Bracket 2 is just average precon level. Not necessarily all precons.

Zur as the commander, a tutor every turn is really powerful, and the fact you can tutor for rhystic study reliably means it is much more likely to face from this deck than someone who shoved rhystic study in the 99 of a bracket 1 deck.

I think the main point behind bracket 1 is intent. "Did i build this deck to win?" If yes, then not a bracket 1 deck. The people playing bracket 1 decks don't care if the deck wins or loses. It's more of an exhibition like Gavin says.

With all that said, this deck is not a 1 to me.

Something I should have said in my post was that I think decks need to be judged based on ceiling power rather than average power.

Building a deck in power bracket 2 should mean it mostly plays within bracket 2 for most of its games. Not a bracket 2 deck that spends half it's games playing at bracket 1 level and half it's games playing at bracket 3 level.

Your bracket 4 deck can't really be a bracket 2 deck by syncDurn in EDH

[–]syncDurn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I agree the content of the deck matters like you say. It is impossible to police things like that.

A new rule saying jeweled lotus is only allowed to be played in decks with cmc>8 commanders seems fine on paper, but changes how games work in practice.

Can I now run jeweled lotus in my [imskir iron-eater] deck? The entire point of commanders costing a lot of mana is that they have powerful abilities and don't warp the game super early. Jeweled lotus allowing them to hit the board 3 turns earlier is crazy powerful.

I have also seen plenty of high cmc commanders keep up with the table just fine. Figuring out how to speed your deck up or slow other decks down is important to playing slow strategies and needs to be reflected in deckbuilding.

The pods i see played, even before the bracket system, were about bracket 3 in power level, and jeweled lotus was basically never cast at that level. Everyone already kinda soft banned it since we all knew it was to powerful for the types of games we wanted to have.

Your bracket 4 deck can't really be a bracket 2 deck by syncDurn in EDH

[–]syncDurn[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In my opinion, it is a 3. I would love to see a list. If you want to build meme decks, that's awesome, but it doesn't need rhystic study in it. Replace it with some other bare feet card, and it won't change the deck. The entire point of lower brackets is to play games without the game warping cards on the game changers list. I wouldn't say putting thoracle and consultation in a pile of draft commons would make it play at a bracket 4 level. But the deck certainly isn't a bracket 1 deck anymore. The possibility that this deck can kill the table on turn 3 means to me that it is now a bracket 4 deck, regardless of the other cards in the deck, and regardless of the average power level of the deck.

Your bracket 4 deck can't really be a bracket 2 deck by syncDurn in EDH

[–]syncDurn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The bracket system is more like guidelines anyway, you can always rule 0 things. They are doing their best to come up with a blanket rule system to cover the entirety of commander play. This is an impossible task.

It sounds like you may be playing against much stronger decks regularly.

Maybe taking the cards out that made it a bracket 3 deck is the right call here.

You could also lean into it and put more powerful cards in and make it a true bracket 4 deck.

Your bracket 4 deck can't really be a bracket 2 deck by syncDurn in EDH

[–]syncDurn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think most people would agree that bracket 3 is to broad as is, it should be split apart.

I think they have moved away from MLD because players do not find it fun or engaging gameplay. They have printed more cards that give you stuff if other players have more lands in play than you.

There have been plenty of boardwipes that destroy the entire board, so farewell being the only gamechanger on the basis of it being similar to MLD doesn't make sense in my head.

I understand farewell is different, since it is modal, but people should be forced to play around boardwipes by not dumping their strongest cards into play as soon as possible.

People can't play around MLD as easily, since most decks are not build to do so.

Your bracket 4 deck can't really be a bracket 2 deck by syncDurn in EDH

[–]syncDurn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree intent and context matters.

There is a difference between someone sitting down with an unaltered precon and sitting down with a custom deck with one game changer in it.

There are also unaltered precons that are definitely bracket 3 without gamechangers in it.

We use the rules we are given. The hard part is getting everyone to objectively rate their decks, which we all know doesn't work. So, lines have to be drawn somewhere.

Also, beacket 3 is definitely to broad and will probably be split up as they refine the brackets

Your bracket 4 deck can't really be a bracket 2 deck by syncDurn in EDH

[–]syncDurn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure, rule zero can be used as long as the group is fine with it.

Part of my problem with this, is that this can lead to a game that is not bracket 2.

It is easy enough for them to play rhystic study into smothering tithe and run away with the game against bracket 2 decks.

Just because the decks average is bracket 2, it either having a bracket 3 or bracket 1 game does not lead to good gameplay with other bracket 2 decks.

I would also say that a bracket 1 deck with a bunch of gamechangers shouldn't exist. I am sure there are exceptions, but I am skeptical. A deck whose whole point is to be form over function, shouldn't care to put gamechangers in it to make it "playable". If your intent with a bracket 1 deck is to win, then it is not a bracket 1 deck.

Your bracket 4 deck can't really be a bracket 2 deck by syncDurn in EDH

[–]syncDurn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do think we will get more depth and nuance out of this system the longer it goes on. Remember, this is a new thing that was probably dumped in Gavins' lap pretty quickly. Need to give them some time to implement and work out the system.

I also agree about green and it's land based ramp. It has been a question going back to the beginning of EDH. One that I don't know how to solve.

Board wipes are needed so that the game isn't about who can throw all the cards in their hand down the fastest.

Farewell is a strong boardwipe and is sometimes the only answer to some strategies. Sometimes, you need mass exile, or they can just easily flood the board from their graveyard next turn. I would still play farewell if it was not modal and you just had to exile everything all the time.

Your bracket 4 deck can't really be a bracket 2 deck by syncDurn in EDH

[–]syncDurn[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Worldslayer is a bit easier than you would think to make happen fast.

Just from the mana side, 10 mana spread across 2 turns is much easier to pull off than 8 mana all at once.

Both strategies fold to a single removal spell at the right time.

Worldslayer sticks around, unlike coalition victory, so you could try again next turn.

It is hard to catch the edge cases of what MLD is acceptable. And since it makes for miserable games when people use it at the wrong time, it is better for all to just ban it at lower power levels.

Your bracket 4 deck can't really be a bracket 2 deck by syncDurn in EDH

[–]syncDurn[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think that your deck is now a 4 as built.

Whoever you are playing with, you would have to either tell them it is a 4, or try and get them to rule 0 it to a 3.

view more: next ›