type 0 deck

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy (More info?)

Refresh my memory:
Type 0?

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy (More info?)

Sorcier wrote:

> Refresh my memory:
> Type 0?
>
Number of matchs won = 0

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy (More info?)

type 0 is anything goes no banned or restricted

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy (More info?)

also no limit on cards in deck eg more than 4 of a type
"J H" <spyderman80@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25856-40C0A12C-42@storefull-3155.bay.webtv.net...
> type 0 is anything goes no banned or restricted
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 6/2/2004

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy (More info?)

In article <n32wc.3030$0h.56@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
"bmarjanac0614" <bmarjanac0614@rogers.com> wrote:

> also no limit on cards in deck eg more than 4 of a type

I don't think so. The limit to 4-of-a-card except for basic land and the
minimum deck size of 60 are in the rules themselves. If you decide you
can violate those, things are just silly. It's not that hard to build an
8-card deck that can win 1st turn 100% of the time.

--
Jason Finney

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy (More info?)

your forgetting fifth dawn's relentless rats. i've played magic since
tempest and i'm really diapointed with fifth dawn. it just really
doesn't do a whole lot for me and relentless rats is a bad idea and i
hope that this type of card doesn't happen again. well theres my opinion
of fifth dawn kinda wondering what you guys think.

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy (More info?)

"J H" <spyderman80@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5746-40C14546-120@storefull-3154.bay.webtv.net...
> your forgetting fifth dawn's relentless rats. i've played magic since
> tempest and i'm really diapointed with fifth dawn. it just really
> doesn't do a whole lot for me and relentless rats is a bad idea and i
> hope that this type of card doesn't happen again. well theres my opinion
> of fifth dawn kinda wondering what you guys think.

Thing is, they originally printed it in Alpha, kinda. Plague Rats was
made without any 4-card limit in mind. That limit only came in once stupid
decks like 25 Bolts + 15 mountains came around, and Plague Rats was an
incidental casualty. Now they're trying it again. There was an article on
the Wizards site saying that if Relentless Rats stays under control (and I
think it will) they may make more no-limit cards.
As for Fifth Dawn in general, it's OK. It certainly seems aimed at the
combo players, and I'm not really big on combos, but it's not a bad set
overall.

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy (More info?)

yeah i think it will stay under control too i mean i don't think it can
really get that out of hand. i'm wondering what could be done with eon
hub, i mean skip your upkeep think about that. stasis decks would be
crazy, illusions doesn't need donate and there are other things. i think
its funny that they are banning skullclamp in type 2 and yet one of the
fifth dawn precons has it in it. oh well i got a free playset of
lightning bolts tonight so i'm happy.

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy (More info?)

Jason Finney wrote:
> In article <n32wc.3030$0h.56@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> "bmarjanac0614" <bmarjanac0614@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>>also no limit on cards in deck eg more than 4 of a type
>
>
> I don't think so. The limit to 4-of-a-card except for basic land and the
> minimum deck size of 60 are in the rules themselves. If you decide you
> can violate those, things are just silly. It's not that hard to build an
> 8-card deck that can win 1st turn 100% of the time.
>

This isn't strictly true. 4-of-a-kind and 60 are the rules for
*constructed* deck design, and only *enforceable* in tournament or other
organized play. You would be perfectly justified [1] in taking a
25-bolt, 15-mountain deck into a casual game [2].

[1] Just not likely to make any friends.
[2] And in light of #1, you should be a lot bigger or faster than your
opponent, in case they take offense at your flaunting of the "rules".


There are no such limits on cards-per-deck (only a 40-card minimum) for
*limited* play (sealed, draft, etc.). If you open a pack with 11 Shocks,
you can play them. You might want witnesses to prove the cards came out
of the pack, but that's a different story.

[Really, discussions like this belong on .rules.]


--
(Posted from an account used as a SPAM dump. If you really want to get
in touch with me, dump the 'jboes' and substitute 'mur'.)
________
Jeffery Boes <>< jboes@qtm.net

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy (More info?)

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 23:59:17 -0500, spyderman80@webtv.net (J H) wrote:

>yeah i think it will stay under control too i mean i don't think it can
>really get that out of hand. i'm wondering what could be done with eon
>hub, i mean skip your upkeep think about that. stasis decks would be
>crazy, illusions doesn't need donate and there are other things. i think
>its funny that they are banning skullclamp in type 2 and yet one of the
>fifth dawn precons has it in it. oh well i got a free playset of
>lightning bolts tonight so i'm happy.

Perhaps Razormane Masticore...

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy (More info?)

Jeff Boes wrote:
> Jason Finney wrote:
>
>> In article <n32wc.3030$0h.56@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>> "bmarjanac0614" <bmarjanac0614@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> also no limit on cards in deck eg more than 4 of a type
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think so. The limit to 4-of-a-card except for basic land and
>> the minimum deck size of 60 are in the rules themselves. If you decide
>> you can violate those, things are just silly. It's not that hard to
>> build an 8-card deck that can win 1st turn 100% of the time.
>>
>
> This isn't strictly true. 4-of-a-kind and 60 are the rules for
> *constructed* deck design, and only *enforceable* in tournament or other
> organized play. You would be perfectly justified [1] in taking a
> 25-bolt, 15-mountain deck into a casual game [2].
>

No, you wouldn't be "perfectly justified". Even casual magic has
conventions. They are looser with the banned and restricted lists, but
I've never heard anyone but you ever say they would feel justified
showing up with a 25-bolt 15-mountain deck.

Next you'll be telling us you are perfectly justified top posting your
card auctions onto every post made here, violating another convention
that is also not strictly "enforceable".

>
> There are no such limits on cards-per-deck (only a 40-card minimum) for
> *limited* play (sealed, draft, etc.). If you open a pack with 11 Shocks,
> you can play them. You might want witnesses to prove the cards came out
> of the pack, but that's a different story.

Virtually all casual play adopts the 60 card minimum and 4 duplicates
limit, as the regular convention. Many relax on the banned & restricted
lists.

I'll concede that many groups will have an anything goes round, where
the objective is to show off your turn 1 kill deck, or games without
land, where you just draw a card and play it, without regard for mana
costs... and these rounds can be great fun... but showing up expecting
to play a deck tuned for that in the 'regular' game is not merely 'not
likely to make friends' its downright ignorant, arrogant, rude,
antisocial, and any number of additional uncomplimentary adjectives.

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy (More info?)

Jeff Boes <jboes@qtm.net> wrote in message news:<5c94c0e8e610c181fa9f5e9a81db2140@news.teranews.com>...
> Jason Finney wrote:
> > In article <n32wc.3030$0h.56@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> > "bmarjanac0614" <bmarjanac0614@rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>also no limit on cards in deck eg more than 4 of a type
> >
> >
> > I don't think so. The limit to 4-of-a-card except for basic land and the
> > minimum deck size of 60 are in the rules themselves. If you decide you
> > can violate those, things are just silly. It's not that hard to build an
> > 8-card deck that can win 1st turn 100% of the time.
> >
>
> This isn't strictly true. 4-of-a-kind and 60 are the rules for
> *constructed* deck design, and only *enforceable* in tournament or other
> organized play. You would be perfectly justified [1] in taking a
> 25-bolt, 15-mountain deck into a casual game [2].
>
> [1] Just not likely to make any friends.
> [2] And in light of #1, you should be a lot bigger or faster than your
> opponent, in case they take offense at your flaunting of the "rules".
>
>
> There are no such limits on cards-per-deck (only a 40-card minimum) for
> *limited* play (sealed, draft, etc.). If you open a pack with 11 Shocks,
> you can play them. You might want witnesses to prove the cards came out
> of the pack, but that's a different story.
>
> [Really, discussions like this belong on .rules.]

No, you are wrong. If you had spent ANY time looking in the
comprehensive rules you would realize that minimum deck size is
applicable for any constructed deck. If you CONSTRUCT a deck it is a
CONSTRUCTED deck, meaning all applicable rules apply. If it were DCI
rules that stated the minimum deck size, that would be a completely
different story. The comprehensive rules state:

100.2. In constructed play, each player needs his or her own deck of
at least sixty cards, small items to
represent any tokens and counters, and some way to clearly track life
totals. A constructed deck can
have any number of basic land cards and no more than four of any card
with a particular English
name other than basic land cards.

The one point you are correct on is that only tournaments can enforce
these rules. You have this delusion that cheating and violating game
rules is perfectly fine and is 'justified'. I do not believe it is
EVER justified to cheat, but that is where we differ.