Any MTG fans here?

[RelinaIonna]

So is there anyone here who is a fan of Magic: The Gathering. Heres a question what can beat the combo of Platinum Angel and Diplomatic Immunity? See if you can figure it out.

[AJ]

Magic has gone down the tubes.
I played before/during its prime.

I've still several boxes of cards, including the entire third and fourth editions, iceage and a couple other sets that escape me at the moment.

[Crion]

Give me the exact game text and color/type of Platinum Angel, and I'll see what I can figure out. I'm familiar with Diplomatic Immunity (enchanted creature may not be the target of spells/abilities, Diplomatic Immunity may not be the target of spells/abilities) but not the Angel.

EDIT: Nevermind, found it. Find a creature that destroys artifacts without targeting them, a la Furance Dragon (when Furnace Dragon comes into play, if played from your hand, remove all artifacts from the game) or Hammer Mage (Red Mana, X: Destroy all artifacts with converted mana cost of X or less) or whip out something big like Obliterate (cannot be countered; destroy all artifacts, creatures, and lands; they cannot be regenerated) or if you're feeling really frisky, a card like Apocalypse (remove all permanents from the game; discard your hand) or Worldslayer (when ever equipped creature deals damage to a player, destroy all permanents other than Worldslayer). Of course, what might work best is a simple Pulverize (you may sacrifice two mountains instead of paying Pulverize's casting cost; destroy all artifacts). Likewise, you can do a similar thing with Tranquility (destroy all enchantments) and cards similar to that, and then pick off the angel while he's unprotected. You didn't specify what rules you were playing under, so I just assumed I could use any card to provide a counter.

[Visceral]

Magic has gone down the tubes.
I played before/during its prime. When's the last time you played it? It's more popular than it's ever been right now, and for good reason. Oh, but if you're the kind of person who just glorifies and romanticizes the past and thinks that anything new is automatically shit, don't bother.

And as for what can beat Platinum Angel + Diplomatic Immunity... ever heard of Wrath of God? I hear it's a pretty good card. [/sarcasm] Not to mention you can counter it or the Diplomatic Immunity and prevent them from coming into play in the first place, or kill the Angel with any of a bazillion and one spells in response to Diplomatic Immunity.

[Dark_Soul74]

MTG is fun, though my access to competition is limited. Very limited.

[GrassDragon]

Im a MTG fan, been playing for maybe 4-5 years. Havent done any tournament playing yet though

[AJ]

Magic has gone horribly down the drain in regards to how it's been handled by WOTC.
However, I resent your tone.. It was a better game several years back then it has morphed into most recently.

[Visceral]

Would you care to elaborate instead of just repeating that "it's going down the drain"? If it's being so awfully mishandled by WOTC then why are there more Magic players than ever right now? Why did Hasbro specifically cite strong Magic sales as a key driver of growth in the last quarter? Why is the tournament scene more active than any previous time in Magic's history? All these people playing Magic now aren't just new players, by far - there was a huge upsurge of old-schoolers returning to the game when Invasion was released a couple of years ago. So what exactly is your problem with it? I'm sorry if you find my tone offensive, but my feelings on this run rather high. I've been playing since Revised, I still love the game as much as the day I first learned to play it, and I've grown sick of the closed-minded and irrational arguments of a tiny but vocal minority who seem prejudiced from the beginning against anything that differs in the slightest from the early sets. I'm not saying you're one of those people now, and it was wrong of me to assume you were based on your first post. I'd just like you to elaborate on what exactly it is that you don't like about modern Magic.

[Battlecruiser]

I have a lot of magic though I stopped 1 year ago after I came to 7th grade(I am in 8th now). Just too much homework and we don't have time. In 6th grade it was very popular but not anymore.

[Exedore]

Magic has gone horribly down the drain in regards to how it's been handled by WOTC.
However, I resent your tone.. It was a better game several years back then it has morphed into most recently.

Actually, AJ, Visceral is more correct. Ever since they started developing useful cards and worthwhile new abilities, the game has changed a lot. Whether or not it's cheaper or more fun is up for debate though.

The main thing with MtG is that there's a huge disparity between the old and new players over how the game should ideally be played and how powerful cards should be. I'm one of the old players, but after a lengthy thread at BF a few months ago, the new ways don't seem all that bad. Back in the "old days" most decks were based off a few arch-types. To make them more powerful, you had to obtain more powerful rare cards. Although this process was costly, you were somewhat rewarded with the fact that once you obtained the necessary rare cards, they would still be powerful for years to come.

The reason why a lot of them quit was that WotC wanted to produce a new series (main + 2 followups) per year, but a lot of the cards would end up being worthless. Just look at the Mirage/Visions/Weatherlight block. Not many cards came out of it that were new or innovative. Using the previous notion of spending more to get better cards failed on the new sets because the cards really weren't worth getting. Combine that with the removal of Ice Age/Homelands/Alliances from Type II, and a lot people just didn't really care to get any new cards.

Skip ahead a year or after the Tempest block finished. Most of the old players have long since given up on MtG. However with Urza's saga, WotC released a whole slew of useful cards and worthwhile abilities. And a lot of the cards could be used to make inexpensive and reasonably competative decks. However, when they made the cards more powerful, they eventually developed the game into a 4-turn win game - if you hadn't won or had a lock by the fourth turn, your opponent would. Future sets only reinforced this, narrowing it to 2 or 3 turn wins. However, the easier access to better cards brought a lot of new, younger players into the game who knew little about the "old style" of play.

Now the new players are praising MtG, not having played it in the old days, whereas the old players still hate WotC and MtG for making crappy sets (Mirage and Tempest blocks) and making their old collections less powerful than many new cards.

</rant>

[Visceral]

Actually, AJ, Visceral is more correct. Ever since they started developing useful cards and worthwhile new abilities, the game has changed a lot. Whether or not it's cheaper or more fun is up for debate though.

The main thing with MtG is that there's a huge disparity between the old and new players over how the game should ideally be played and how powerful cards should be. I'm one of the old players, but after a lengthy thread at BF a few months ago, the new ways don't seem all that bad. Back in the "old days" most decks were based off a few arch-types. To make them more powerful, you had to obtain more powerful rare cards. Although this process was costly, you were somewhat rewarded with the fact that once you obtained the necessary rare cards, they would still be powerful for years to come.

The reason why a lot of them quit was that WotC wanted to produce a new series (main + 2 followups) per year, but a lot of the cards would end up being worthless. Just look at the Mirage/Visions/Weatherlight block. Not many cards came out of it that were new or innovative. Using the previous notion of spending more to get better cards failed on the new sets because the cards really weren't worth getting. Combine that with the removal of Ice Age/Homelands/Alliances from Type II, and a lot people just didn't really care to get any new cards.

Skip ahead a year or after the Tempest block finished. Most of the old players have long since given up on MtG. However with Urza's saga, WotC released a whole slew of useful cards and worthwhile abilities. And a lot of the cards could be used to make inexpensive and reasonably competative decks. However, when they made the cards more powerful, they eventually developed the game into a 4-turn win game - if you hadn't won or had a lock by the fourth turn, your opponent would. Future sets only reinforced this, narrowing it to 2 or 3 turn wins. However, the easier access to better cards brought a lot of new, younger players into the game who knew little about the "old style" of play.

Now the new players are praising MtG, not having played it in the old days, whereas the old players still hate WotC and MtG for making crappy sets (Mirage and Tempest blocks) and making their old collections less powerful than many new cards.

</rant>
You're missing a piece of the puzzle here, Exedore. You're absolutely right about Urza's block making games too short; only Alpha can match the number of totally broken overpowered cards in Urza's Saga, Urza's Legacy, and Urza's Destiny. However, the very next block was intentionally weak and underpowered to compensate (except for a couple of cards that were really only a problem in Block Constructed anyway, like Lin-Sivvi), and in the years since then they've gradually inched the power level up from "underpowered" to "very good, but not broken". The latest two sets, Mirrodin and Darksteel, contain a number of very good cards that are powerful and influential in multiple formats but not unbalancing. Also, if you look at recent sets (with a few exceptions, like Legions), there are just fewer useless cards in general than in many past sets.

[Adovid]

I don't know, a few cards have made it pretty near impossible to win without a preconstructed deck made especially to beat them. Then again I am only a casual player and I mostly collect from one or two sets at a time.

I think it would be neat if they held more praise for tournaments based on one or two sets/blocks then players would be able to prepare better for what they have to compete against. Something like "These players here are the champions of mirage" and those over there are "fifth edition pros". Rather than "Whos the best of the best?" Because given so many cards and so many ways to win with preconstructed decks it makes it very hard to prepare for everything with a deck that is less than 100 cards in size. One player may have a deck that can win against 80% of the other players but the 10% who have the decks for stopping it might not be able to even get into the finals.

I think maybe it would be a neat for an idea to come up with something that allows players to pull decks that can be much larger without having to worry about the problem of running into too many of one card or not enough of another when drawing. Then they can worry about how they play what they have rather than if they can make a deck that counters everything they run up against while staying small enough that they dont get any particular number of cards that are useless.

[Visceral]

I don't know, a few cards have made it pretty near impossible to win without a preconstructed deck made especially to beat them. Then again I am only a casual player and I mostly collect from one or two sets at a time.Which cards are you talking about?

[Adovid]

That one card I just described, Prayer or whatever that keeps a player from dying unless they are damaged in a indirect way. I looked through my collection and I didnt have any cards that deal damage to players indirectly. I don't think a black or green deck can deal damage indirectly or maybe there is but the cards that do it are hard to come by.

[RelinaIonna]

Ignoring the brilliant debates going on now and returning to previous posts, cards like wrath of god and other mass killers are targeting everything and their platinum angel would be targeted and destroyed but diplomatic immunity prevents that in my opinion. I am aware they can be countered, but not everyone uses counter spell type cards. Beyond being destroyed in battle or by a card that can target a creature that can't be the target of spells or abilities I don't see a way of beating the combo.

[Raging-Fury]

Actually, AJ, Visceral is more correct. Ever since they started developing useful cards and worthwhile new abilities, the game has changed a lot. Whether or not it's cheaper or more fun is up for debate though.

The main thing with MtG is that there's a huge disparity between the old and new players over how the game should ideally be played and how powerful cards should be. I'm one of the old players, but after a lengthy thread at BF a few months ago, the new ways don't seem all that bad. Back in the "old days" most decks were based off a few arch-types. To make them more powerful, you had to obtain more powerful rare cards. Although this process was costly, you were somewhat rewarded with the fact that once you obtained the necessary rare cards, they would still be powerful for years to come.

The reason why a lot of them quit was that WotC wanted to produce a new series (main + 2 followups) per year, but a lot of the cards would end up being worthless. Just look at the Mirage/Visions/Weatherlight block. Not many cards came out of it that were new or innovative. Using the previous notion of spending more to get better cards failed on the new sets because the cards really weren't worth getting. Combine that with the removal of Ice Age/Homelands/Alliances from Type II, and a lot people just didn't really care to get any new cards.

Skip ahead a year or after the Tempest block finished. Most of the old players have long since given up on MtG. However with Urza's saga, WotC released a whole slew of useful cards and worthwhile abilities. And a lot of the cards could be used to make inexpensive and reasonably competative decks. However, when they made the cards more powerful, they eventually developed the game into a 4-turn win game - if you hadn't won or had a lock by the fourth turn, your opponent would. Future sets only reinforced this, narrowing it to 2 or 3 turn wins. However, the easier access to better cards brought a lot of new, younger players into the game who knew little about the "old style" of play.

Now the new players are praising MtG, not having played it in the old days, whereas the old players still hate WotC and MtG for making crappy sets (Mirage and Tempest blocks) and making their old collections less powerful than many new cards.

</rant>i havent played any mtg except me and my friend splitting a deck and just goofing off but holy crap thats a lengthy explanation i mean geeeeeeze! i used to think pokemon had alot of cards and weird strats to it

[Exedore]

Ignoring the brilliant debates going on now and returning to previous posts, cards like wrath of god and other mass killers are targeting everything and their platinum angel would be targeted and destroyed but diplomatic immunity prevents that in my opinion. I am aware they can be countered, but not everyone uses counter spell type cards. Beyond being destroyed in battle or by a card that can target a creature that can't be the target of spells or abilities I don't see a way of beating the combo.

Wrath of God doesn't "target" anything, so Diplomatic Immunity has no effect on it (neither does protection from white for that matter). Additionally, you can use cards like Diabolic Edict, which force an opponent to sacrifice a creature (sacrifices don't "target" either).

[RelinaIonna]

Well my sect considers that mass efecting stuuf mass targeting, and its sacrafice a creature is targeting that creature. But hey if you don't, and interpret/play it differently then mroe power to you.

[Visceral]

But hey if you don't, and interpret/play it differently then mroe power to you.You don't understand. It's not just a 'different interpretation'. It's THE RULES, spelled out indisputably in the Comprehensive Rulebook (http://www.wizards.com/magic/comprules/MagicCompRules020104.doc).

That one card I just described, Prayer or whatever that keeps a player from dying unless they are damaged in a indirect way. I looked through my collection and I didnt have any cards that deal damage to players indirectly. I don't think a black or green deck can deal damage indirectly or maybe there is but the cards that do it are hard to come by.I'm not sure what card you're talking about; whatever it is I don't think it's a popular tourney card right now that everyone has to build their decks to specifically beat in order to win as you describe. Even if it were, there are a lot of cards that deal damage to players without targeting them, if that's what you mean by "keeps a player from dying unless they are damage in an indirect way". Earthquake (http://www.wizards.com/magic/autocard.asp?name=Earthquake) and other cards with that type of effect work. Combat damage from creatures also works. Black spells that cause the player to "lose life" work, because loss of life != damage (damage causes loss of life, these cards make the player just lose life directly).

[RelinaIonna]

http://globalcorp.com/gsd/puppy11.jpg

Rules are always open to interpretation, and if they inconvience someone they can be changed. I play magic for fun, and arguing over minor details is fun when your playing, but over the forum its just dull.

[GrassDragon]

Casual players do play differently and that's fine. I know that my group had a period where when we ran out of cards in hand, we would draw 3 new (I have NO idea how that got instituted or why we even did it, maybe to speed up games?). Whatever's good...

And as to the card mentioned above, do you mean Worship (http://www.wizards.com/magic/autocard.asp?name=worship)? The way to get around that (obviously) would be to just kill the creature(s). Or enchantment removal. Or several other million combos (I'm sure there are several million combos for everything... or maybe not :?...)

[Valjean]

Wow, I'ma major n00blar. o.o

I had a basic starter deck thingy and when I went to buy some booster packs, I got weird cards I didn't know how to use because the basic rule book thingy didn't cover some of the terms like a mana pool or something. O_o

so around this time, I gave up and have moved on.