| Author |
Message |
| syndrome |
![]() Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:58 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 423
Location: A cold place.
|
Pestilence is another one that is good at tying 
Albeit, it’s quite old.
Godly with the newer card that kills all creatures if they take damage  |
| http://myspace/delicatesituation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pipsqueak |
![]() Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:16 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 331
Location: A northerner down south
|
| Next question: The rules say that you can only play things if nothing is on the stack. But I could play more than one enchantment even if there was already one on the stack. What’s up? |
Long live the southern bros.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
| La_Sin_Grail |
![]() Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:41 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Maryland
|
The stack they are referring to is the figurative stack, the process through which all spells are played. An enchantment in play has nothing to do with the stack, it’s merely an enchantment in play.
What the rules means is sorceries, creatures, and artifacts, unless otherwise specified, can only be played when there isn’t another spell currently trying to resolve. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pipsqueak |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:13 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 331
Location: A northerner down south
|
| Next question: What’s a good formation for a deck? Like how many lands, creatures, etc. |
| Long live the southern bros. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| La_Sin_Grail |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:50 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Maryland
|
Depends on what kind of deck it is. Usually, agro decks can fly with 21-22, while control plays 22-24.
There’s no real set formation of creatures and things here. Because MTG is incredibly popular and has been around for ages, there’s been many comboish cards and many player to find them. Usually, if you don’t play a style of deck you won’t win.
For example, in the Zoo, there are about 21 land, 27 creatures and 12 removal (in some builds) but in emminent domain there are never more than eight creatures played; the concept there is play mana accelerators (cards that tap to add mana) and cards that steal opposing lands, followed by wildfire.
There are also some basic tendancies, such as green is more creature heavy, white is usually rush/agro(creatures and remova), blue is usually many more spells than creatures and more. What kind of deck you play really determines the ratio of creatures to lands to spells. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pipsqueak |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 5:43 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 331
Location: A northerner down south
|
| Next question: I’ve played Duel Masters once or twice, but i never really did like it that much. Then, i started learning about Magic. Isn’t Duel Masters just a watered-down kid version of Magic? |
| Long live the southern bros. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| La_Sin_Grail |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:40 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Maryland
|
Most trading card games are watered down versions of Magic. You’ll notice I never take cracks at LOTR because it’s very different. I tend to not be very nice about people who ask me why I don’t play Pohkeemahn or yoogee-o. From what I’ve seen, Yugioh is an unbalanced version of MTG, but granted I couldn’t stand to looka them long enough to make a good judgement... on the balance. Pokemon definately is, but I liked it a lot in elementary school. I was so obsessed I won a tourney 
But yeah... there are three types of trading cards in my eyes. Magic, other original games, and imitators of Magic.
I noticed that Magic tends to be played by mostly twenty-somethings, while some upper tier players are in their thirties and most bad ones are in their teens. There are some exceptions (I hope as a teenager I am!), but at States, there was only one kid in a team younger than me who finished above me. Lotsa college kids and just outta college kids. Lots and lots of em. Wizards makes knock-offs to attract the elementary and low middle school age people who may not like thinking about the stack and complicated things like that to get them hooked on cards. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pipsqueak |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:52 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 331
Location: A northerner down south
|
La_Sin_Grail wrote: You’ll notice I never take cracks at LOTR because it’s very different.
Is there something wrong with being different? I played pokemon too in elementary, then some friends showed me duel masters, then i started my first-ever real hardcore strategy game: LOTR. It was the only one i ever really got into. So much strategy. But Magic is very different from LOTR. I still decided to take a shot at it though (mostly because working at Sports Cards Unlimited requires it, lol). Now looking at it, if i had played Magic first, i would have had a lot harder time learning to play LOTR. I think something about LOTR made me comprehend other TCC’s better. For some reason or other, i tend to catch on pretty quickly. |
| Long live the southern bros. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| La_Sin_Grail |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:29 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 806
Location: Maryland
|
| No, I was actually complimenting it. By different I meant not a copycat like so many other games are. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pipsqueak |
![]() Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:13 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 331
Location: A northerner down south
|
My bad.
Next question: How many lands should you have in your hand, to determine wether to take a mulligan or not? |
| Long live the southern bros. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum index » Magic: The Gathering » MTG Gameplay Questions