Quote from Ertai Planeswalker »As much as I dislike this change as the next guy, I do want to remind everyone that if you did not pay for anything, you are not entitled to anything.
So, hypothetically, if you are given a hot dog, you're not entitled to being assured that it is reasonably safe (not diseased, rotten, etc - no parasites, no mold on the bun, etc)?
I mean, I'd say there is some extent in which your statement makes sense, but as an absolute doesn't seem logical.
Yeah, I'm "that guy" sometimes.
Maybe a lot of them (not all, obviously) shouldn't come off like pompous pricks, namecalling, trying to shame people over disliking the RL, putting words in the mouths of those who dislike the RL at all/as it is, and chose making it difficult to civilly talk about the RL... basic cause and effect, IMO.
(And yes, I do mean "not everybody" - some people, hell, a lot of people, are capable of civil, polite discussion, and openmindedness, I've seen it, it exists.
The RL only covers, if I recall, tournament legal cards - which gold and silver bordered cards are not... why MaRo stated that gold bordered reprints would violate the RL a while back, with that fact in mind, is beyond me.
Maybe I am overthinking it, but I could enjoy building a deck with counter multipliers like [[Doubling Season]], Proliferate abuse, Transguild Courier of course, and lots of cards with hybrid mana costs (since the number of counters added is 1 for **each of the spell's colors**).
Silly question: By this, what exactly is meant? As in, whether there is wear, or how the card looks after being worn (or both)?
I've noticed this too - anything from at **least** 4th Edition and earlier (including Arabian Nights, Revised, Beta, etc) will most likely have a darker back, compared to more recent sets (though this may not be absolute... ?)
I thought it *was* established that this is going to be a paper product (paper AND digital?)? Am I off on that?
Eh, I dunno, since you seem to be trying to draw a contradiction that doesn't exist - a "community" is not a hive mind, it is made up of lots of people, with differing opinions - not everyone will agree, some people will like aspects others dislike. Therefore, there can't be a toxic contradiction. There can be toxic behavior, but I feel it is more a case of people being human.
The mechanics themselves I am tempted to doubt, since what can be patentable I thought is fair game now, since their patents expired, if I recall, and outside of that, I thought it'd be hard to enforce individual mechanics falling under copyright, versus how they are written/presented? Someone with the knowledge, please help clarify.
Anyways, on topic, I have to concur in my unprofessional opinion, the dot patterns do look good, and what you would expect from a legit card.
IMO, the idea that a border is pure black, no other colors of any sort, is just not as absolute as what we've been almost indoctrinated to believe, and there is some variance, or some variations. By variations, assume we're talking about cards that have not become inflicted with a printing error of some kind - colors running light, or dark, bleeding, other funky things like that, but instead are talking about cards that have had the image(s) printed correctly color wise (if that makes any sense).
For example, in the thread concerning the authenticity of a Force of Will from Alliances, there are some very good images of the card close up. Of particular interest is this image of the mana symbols on the FoW in question, which also shows the black border. The image clearly shows the a consistent turquoise dot pattern in the border of the card, which appears to be part of the card, and not a result of the picture being compressed into a jpeg as others have speculated when I brought this pattern up.
Bend test? Really? In this day and age, with all the alternate tests, combined with the age of the cards in question, and the fact that recent fakes can pass the test (and real cards can fail), it'd seem like the bend test is archaic, a relic at best.
The Road to Rugby Fitness. I'd be much appreciative if y'all could check it out, and help by sharing this with anyone you know who might be interesting (and subscribing if you do like it/are interesting).
I HATE how YouTube requires 100 subscribers before you become eligible for a custom URL. Even if it is less than the previous requirement of 500 that existed at one point, I mean seriously, how is a new channel supposed to look quasi-professional if their url is a jumbled mash of letters and numbers? I am presently 45 subs sky of this. >_<
BTW I am aware of some a/v synchronization issues in the first episode, in clips where I am speaking directly into the camera. That won't be a problem in my next episode, which comes out not this Sunday, but the following Sunday, the 19th.
IMO, that is kinda irrelevant to the central issue of ad behavior, as you can acknowledge that without liking specific ads - which is a concept that (from my limited observations) people at Curse seem to have trouble understanding (that problems with ad behaviors, etc =/= problems with ads themselves).
Jesus, Curse really needs to get its ***** together.