I don't understand how any reasonable player would ever get upset losing to this, yet it happens all the time. Lighthouse is in a this weird spot where it acts like a litmus test for your playgroup. You play it and your group is nothing but whiny, angry scrubs or you never get a chance to play it because your group is too fast.
You playing him is not what makes your opponents scrubs. A scrub is someone who would rather ***** for hours on end about how unfair it is than slot in a damned removal instant. Being a bad player is one thing; insisting that everyone let you win while you're being a bad player is another.
I'm not insisting anyone "let me win."
If it wasn't clear, my point is that anyone who complains about lighthouse chronologist is a scrub. If a player complains about him, I can pretty much tell I don't want to play against that player.
I also wouldn't want to play against players who just "let" anyone win. Where did I say playing him automatically makes opponents scrubs? However, playing him will readily reveal the scrubs at the table.
To make it clearer, my stance is that Lightihouse cannot be played in many groups because:
A.) He's not a good enough card to run against players with good decks. Even decks that aren't built to win asap, but decks that are just tuned to run well will easily dispatch him.
B.) He's a card that draws complaints from people who play poorly built decks.
There is more to magic than playing the most broken cards ever printed.
There is more to magic than playing the most broken cards ever printed.
I know. Isn't that why we're discussing Lighthouse Chronlogist here? A large part about why this card is controversial is entirely predicated on how some players react to the prospect of other players taking an extra turn(s).
Magic is about having fun. Which is where Lighthouse factors in. He's not a good card. He's not even abusable. He's fun. However, some players just throw a fit when you play him and level up. It's supposed to be an in-game achievement being able to do that, but players complain.
I'm on the side that says he's fun. And that the people who complain about him aren't fun to play with because they are likely to complain about everything else that you could do as well.
There is more to magic than playing the most broken cards ever printed.
I know. Isn't that why we're discussing Lighthouse Chronlogist here? A large part about why this card is controversial is entirely predicated on how some players react to the prospect of other players taking an extra turn(s).
Magic is about having fun. Which is where Lighthouse factors in. He's not a good card. He's not even abusable. He's fun. However, some players just throw a fit when you play him and level up. It's supposed to be an in-game achievement being able to do that, but players complain.
I'm on the side that says he's fun. And that the people who complain about him aren't fun to play with because they are likely to complain about everything else that you could do as well.
It seems like the concept of being fun to play against is difficult for you to grasp.
I wasn't talking about you. I was referring to the people who say "infect/Eldrazi/combo/counterspells/land destruction is unfair".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
A scrub is someone who would rather ***** for hours on end about how unfair it is than slot in a damned removal instant.
It doesn't even need to be an instant, since Chronologist doesn't do anything until the end step of the player after its controller at the earliest.
Well, if I'm not directly to your left, it does have to be an instant, but I see your point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
It seems like the concept of being fun to play against is difficult for you to grasp.
I didn't realize that I hurt your feelings.
I also didn't realize that you are the arbiter who actually gets to decide what's fun in EDH. If you don't find ultra-casual cards like Lighthouse Chronologist fun, it doesn't mean other players that do enjoy Lighthouse have an invalid concept of fun.
You assume that a game is automatically less fun with it leveled up. However, most casual tables feature threats of higher power level than a leveled up Lighthouse Chronologist. Lighthouse has no ETB trigger, no leave play trigger, can't take advantage of flash, doesn't have hexproof, gets removed effectively at sorcery speed, and costs 1UUUUUUUU. I understand the controversy. Yet, I'm convinced there's nothing to legitimately have a gripe about here regardless of the points you have yet to make.
1.) A table of well built decks (and not just those combo decks that you have made your rallying cry against) can/will deal with it or it's okay to lose to it, because it's okay to lose and not win every game.
2.) Maybe an active Lighthouse will not always lead to a win on its own in decks already making sub-optimal choices. Just like how turn 1 Sol Ring in those decks aren't an auto-win.
It seems like the concept of being fun to play against is difficult for you to grasp.
I didn't realize that I hurt your feelings.
I also didn't realize that you are the arbiter who actually gets to decide what's fun in EDH. If you don't find ultra-casual cards like Lighthouse Chronologist fun, it doesn't mean other players that do enjoy Lighthouse have an invalid concept of fun.
You assume that a game is automatically less fun with it leveled up. However, most casual tables feature threats of higher power level than a leveled up Lighthouse Chronologist. Lighthouse has no ETB trigger, no leave play trigger, can't take advantage of flash, doesn't have hexproof, gets removed effectively at sorcery speed, and costs 1UUUUUUUU. I understand the controversy. Yet, I'm convinced there's nothing to legitimately have a gripe about here regardless of the points you have yet to make.
1.) A table of well built decks (and not just those combo decks that you have made your rallying cry against) can/will deal with it or it's okay to lose to it, because it's okay to lose and not win every game.
2.) Maybe an active Lighthouse will not always lead to a win on its own in decks already making sub-optimal choices. Just like how turn 1 Sol Ring in those decks aren't an auto-win.
You are very abrasive. It does not surprise me that you ignore how others feel.
A leveled up lighthouse chronologist is annoying to play against because it changes how often you get to take your turn and play the game.
It's that simple. People don't like this.
This is like sensei's divining top. Unhealthy cards that make the game less fun to play in many peoples eyes.
It has nothing to do with the card's power.
I never said other people have an invalid concept of fun.
I said that there is a concept of being fun to play against.
Many people, and you admit this through your posts, complain about this card, so they obviously don't want to play against it.
You then go and call them names, so who's the one trying to be the arbiter of fun?
You are very abrasive. It does not surprise me that you ignore how others feel.
A leveled up lighthouse chronologist is annoying to play against because it changes how often you get to take your turn and play the game.
It's that simple. People don't like this.
This is like sensei's divining top. Unhealthy cards that make the game less fun to play in many peoples eyes.
It has nothing to do with the card's power.
I never said other people have an invalid concept of fun.
I said that there is a concept of being fun to play against.
Many people, and you admit this through your posts, complain about this card, so they obviously don't want to play against it.
You then go and call them names, so who's the one trying to be the arbiter of fun?
Neither of your two posts left remarks about the card in question. I mean, I can spend replies passing judgment on you as well without commenting on the card, but it's not personal.
At some point, you do have to ignore what others will feel about a card (such as when it's unwarranted). "Fun to play against" is very vague phrasing. I'm sure that's your intention because it's impossible to outline. If people feel as if they're never going to get another turn again, it's more likely other factors than just Lighthouse itself (i.e. the Lighthouse player could have already won or pushed ahead using some other big mana play)- or slow play from more than one player (which is universally, unequivocally unfun to play against).
R&D researched and knows that extra turns are fun and powerful. So they printed the card. Yet they made it bad and hard to achieve because that's also an aspect of its fun. However, because you personally make a distinction between "fun" and "fun to play against," no one should play it even though some find it fun. Regardless of how you stated it, you are definitely invalidating someone's concept of fun.
You don't get it. I'm not the one who gets to say what's fun. The point is that no one gets to tell another player what's fun. I dislike planeswalkers (most of which are stronger than Lighthouse), but I don't get to tell opponents to stop playing them.
It has everything to do with power. Since Lighthouse is one of the crappiest tactics someone could employ to take an extra turn. A leveled-up chronologist isn't even active. Top is a horrible parallel due it being practically indestructible/hexproof and such a poor value proposition to attempt to remove. I'm not ignorant of tacit banned lists. Not playing Sage of Hours in a Ezuri, Claw of Progress deck is explainable. But how in the world is Lighthouse a house-ban? Other than the unfortunate text "take another turn" (which I acknowledge some players just won't get over, kinda like how some players cannot get over "Counter Target Spell", even Force Spike) what else is there? You'd wonder what else is on that house-ban list?
Let's be honest, many people are just mad when it's played against them. Labeling someone who chooses to complain about such an easily interacted with creature a scrub is no more name calling than labeling someone who favors "xyz" unfairly an "xyz"-ist.
On many threads, you typically list cards that interact with the card in question. I wonder why you chose to leave those off in this case? It's not as if the answers to Lighthouse Chronologist aren't affordable/available, reasonable to include in all archetypes/decklists, or already featured in most decks.
If he gets out and stays out, you win. He's a bit more versatile in that you can play him for 2 mana without losing anything, and then just let him sit there menacingly until you can afford 7 mana and still keep counterspells up. On the other hand, as a creature that needs a high mana investment after he hits the board, you stand to lose a lot more if he bites it.
Honestly? Time Stretch is a bit winmoar in my opinion. It's so much easier to just repeatedly blink Archaeomancer and Time Warp. (Making sure to do a jump to the left and a step to the right each time.)
Wow, now I want to make a Rocky Horror theme deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
There is more to magic than playing the most broken cards ever printed.
I know. Isn't that why we're discussing Lighthouse Chronlogist here? A large part about why this card is controversial is entirely predicated on how some players react to the prospect of other players taking an extra turn(s).
Magic is about having fun. Which is where Lighthouse factors in. He's not a good card. He's not even abusable. He's fun. However, some players just throw a fit when you play him and level up. It's supposed to be an in-game achievement being able to do that, but players complain.
I'm on the side that says he's fun. And that the people who complain about him aren't fun to play with because they are likely to complain about everything else that you could do as well.
It seems like the concept of being fun to play against is difficult for you to grasp.
On phasing:
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Well, if I'm not directly to your left, it does have to be an instant, but I see your point.
On phasing:
I didn't realize that I hurt your feelings.
I also didn't realize that you are the arbiter who actually gets to decide what's fun in EDH. If you don't find ultra-casual cards like Lighthouse Chronologist fun, it doesn't mean other players that do enjoy Lighthouse have an invalid concept of fun.
You assume that a game is automatically less fun with it leveled up. However, most casual tables feature threats of higher power level than a leveled up Lighthouse Chronologist. Lighthouse has no ETB trigger, no leave play trigger, can't take advantage of flash, doesn't have hexproof, gets removed effectively at sorcery speed, and costs 1UUUUUUUU. I understand the controversy. Yet, I'm convinced there's nothing to legitimately have a gripe about here regardless of the points you have yet to make.
1.) A table of well built decks (and not just those combo decks that you have made your rallying cry against) can/will deal with it or it's okay to lose to it, because it's okay to lose and not win every game.
2.) Maybe an active Lighthouse will not always lead to a win on its own in decks already making sub-optimal choices. Just like how turn 1 Sol Ring in those decks aren't an auto-win.
You are very abrasive. It does not surprise me that you ignore how others feel.
A leveled up lighthouse chronologist is annoying to play against because it changes how often you get to take your turn and play the game.
It's that simple. People don't like this.
This is like sensei's divining top. Unhealthy cards that make the game less fun to play in many peoples eyes.
It has nothing to do with the card's power.
I never said other people have an invalid concept of fun.
I said that there is a concept of being fun to play against.
Many people, and you admit this through your posts, complain about this card, so they obviously don't want to play against it.
You then go and call them names, so who's the one trying to be the arbiter of fun?
Neither of your two posts left remarks about the card in question. I mean, I can spend replies passing judgment on you as well without commenting on the card, but it's not personal.
At some point, you do have to ignore what others will feel about a card (such as when it's unwarranted). "Fun to play against" is very vague phrasing. I'm sure that's your intention because it's impossible to outline. If people feel as if they're never going to get another turn again, it's more likely other factors than just Lighthouse itself (i.e. the Lighthouse player could have already won or pushed ahead using some other big mana play)- or slow play from more than one player (which is universally, unequivocally unfun to play against).
R&D researched and knows that extra turns are fun and powerful. So they printed the card. Yet they made it bad and hard to achieve because that's also an aspect of its fun. However, because you personally make a distinction between "fun" and "fun to play against," no one should play it even though some find it fun. Regardless of how you stated it, you are definitely invalidating someone's concept of fun.
You don't get it. I'm not the one who gets to say what's fun. The point is that no one gets to tell another player what's fun. I dislike planeswalkers (most of which are stronger than Lighthouse), but I don't get to tell opponents to stop playing them.
It has everything to do with power. Since Lighthouse is one of the crappiest tactics someone could employ to take an extra turn. A leveled-up chronologist isn't even active. Top is a horrible parallel due it being practically indestructible/hexproof and such a poor value proposition to attempt to remove. I'm not ignorant of tacit banned lists. Not playing Sage of Hours in a Ezuri, Claw of Progress deck is explainable. But how in the world is Lighthouse a house-ban? Other than the unfortunate text "take another turn" (which I acknowledge some players just won't get over, kinda like how some players cannot get over "Counter Target Spell", even Force Spike) what else is there? You'd wonder what else is on that house-ban list?
Let's be honest, many people are just mad when it's played against them. Labeling someone who chooses to complain about such an easily interacted with creature a scrub is no more name calling than labeling someone who favors "xyz" unfairly an "xyz"-ist.
On many threads, you typically list cards that interact with the card in question. I wonder why you chose to leave those off in this case? It's not as if the answers to Lighthouse Chronologist aren't affordable/available, reasonable to include in all archetypes/decklists, or already featured in most decks.
The salt. I guess it was turn for the Lighthouse player to be the scrub.
I pretty much almost always see Expropriate win a game with the amount of advantage acquired.
I consider this card inefficient and if you can't level it up fully in one turn, you may very well die before you get another turn.
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
If he gets out and stays out, you win. He's a bit more versatile in that you can play him for 2 mana without losing anything, and then just let him sit there menacingly until you can afford 7 mana and still keep counterspells up. On the other hand, as a creature that needs a high mana investment after he hits the board, you stand to lose a lot more if he bites it.
- Rabid Wombat
Wow, now I want to make a Rocky Horror theme deck.
On phasing: