Of course he did did, albeit implicitly, mention laws in his posting- "Intellectual Property" refers to various sets of laws. Even "property" (when used in this sense) is a legal phrase.
That said, it is possible to have some kind of "moral feeling" that you shouldn't make proxies of cards, just as it is possible to have moral feelings about pretty much anything (e.g. eating certain foods on certain days or having sex in certain positions). However, given that he presented no moral argument for his claim that making proxies is a sign of lacking moral integrity, his statement can't be reasoned with and shouldn't be taken seriously. If I were to claim that you are immoral because your avatar is a picture of a a man with a beard you'd also ask if I'm trolling.
ad "Do you think that if you created something ...",
That is an extremely general question, and of course the answer to it is "it depends".
When I build a bicycle I want to be able to sell it to someone or to charge him some money to use it. Trivial, really.
However, with ideas and art the situation changes completely. When I come up with some idea and someone else uses it for their personal pleasure I don't think I have any moral right whatsoever to charge him for it. The idea that I would looks completely absurd to me, actually.
Whether you spend $2,000 on the secondary market buying the cards for Shardless BUG or spend $15 on 5 random booster packs, then print the names of the cards from Shardless BUG and glue them onto onto those cards makes no difference. In either case you are compensating the creators of the game for their efforts and have components for playing the game. Obviously Wizards wants you to buy lots of packs, so they don't allow the second options at events they sanction. That's fair, they want to make money. However, you are under no obligation to acquire a collectible item to play a game. Owning the card gives you no special right to use a specific mechanic in the game. I mean imagine this guy:
"Whenever I bring a board game over to game night, I make sure everyone knows that since I bought the game I get special privileges. For example, if we are playing Princes of Florence, only I can buy Jesters. If anyone else wants Jesters, they have to buy their own copy of the game. I mean, I'm the one who paid for it, I deserve something for my efforts. Wolfgang Kramer needs to eat, doesn't he?"
Sounds ridiculous, right?
WotC is kind enough to give us full access to all their game rules for free. I think we should support them. I don't think we should counterfeit their cards. However, I also don't see anything wrong with making our own components to play their game. The three concepts (supporting the game/making our own components/not counterfeiting cards) aren't mutually exclusive. At all.
Whether you spend $2,000 on the secondary market buying the cards for Shardless BUG or spend $15 on 5 random booster packs, then print the names of the cards from Shardless BUG and glue them onto onto those cards makes no difference. In either case you are compensating the creators of the game for their efforts and have components for playing the game.
It is utterly absurd to think that someone would buy three boosters just to sharpie them and play them as proxies. When people play all proxy decks they use the bulk rares they have around, or basics that most people can grab for free at their shop, so they are giving wizards no money in return for use of those game pieces that wizards spent money to create. If you want Wizards to keep making new cards they you'd better hope that other people are paying for the cards they play casually (since the casual market is the biggest chunk of the player base), because Mr. and Ms. All-Proxy aren't. I have read numerous posts from people who admit they don't own any real cards, but purport to be avid players. They either play with all proxies or with free software like Cockatrice. They want to take advantage of all the money and effort that went in to making the game, but have never and may never in the future pay to play it in any way.
Owning the card gives you no special right to use a specific mechanic in the game.
This is based on my personal belief that restrictions breed creativity- What it does in practice (in my experience with friendly EDH) is keep out cards that are dramatically better than other analogs, thus keeping the game from being stagnant. It acts as a de facto banned/restricted list that forces deck builders to dig deeper for card choices.
Frankly, if a casual opponent of mine had worked hard, traded up, and saved so that they could buy even a gold border Gaea's Cradle and wanted to play against me with his Rhys EDH deck I would say he has earned it. I am willing to reward that kind of dedication. I would never do that myself...heck, I have never spent more than the equivalent of $45 on a single card, and even that number has been only twice. I would play against him a few times (and probably be soundly trounced most of those) to give him a chance to have his fun, even though eventually I would ask if he could switch out decks some. That becomes a pseudo-restricted card. Now, if everyone in the play group just proxys their land base then every green deck with creatures would run Gaea's Cradle because there is no need to ever play anything else, and the games become stagnant.
Five boosters. It takes five boosters to have enough cards for a 60 card deck with 15 card sideboard. If you are going to quote me, call my claim absurd, then without any substantive backing go on an unrelated hyperbolic rant at least get the trivial math right. If you don't know how many cards are in a pack, it makes your moral outrage at "those people who don't buy cards to support the game" sound, I don't know, absurd?
I'll proxie decks to test against, or help others test. These are decks I have no current intention on playing seriously, and their only purpose is to test my brews and builds. I don't see this as an issue. I know people that will proxie a full deck before deciding to buy into it, which is also okay. What I don't think is okay is people proxing decks with no intent to maybe get the said cards. My play group will tolerate around a week of a proxy deck before asking questions about it. After that you'd better start trading or buying into the deck.
I don't play other, cheaper card games using fake cards, and I don't play poker, subbing Jokers for Aces. It's one thing to test, it's another to attempt to play with any level of seriousness. At that point you might as well just make up the cards, getting ideas from the card creation forum and such.
I find proxying up an entire meta, not just a deck, to be very useful. Metadeck is a valuable resource for improving my game. I know this isn't necessarily the intent of the questions asked in this thread, but it is an acceptable form of proxying in my opinion. One side effect is that I'm forced to memorize what cards do.
Five boosters. It takes five boosters to have enough cards for a 60 card deck with 15 card sideboard. If you are going to quote me, call my claim absurd, then without any substantive backing go on an unrelated hyperbolic rant at least get the trivial math right. If you don't know how many cards are in a pack, it makes your moral outrage at "those people who don't buy cards to support the game" sound, I don't know, absurd?
You seem to be missing the entire point of proxy.
Proxy is meant for those super expensive cards, or to playtest an expensive deck before purchasing it.
If you really believe that proxies are not an excuse due to being able to buy five boosters, then let us play a game of modern. You bring five boosters of your choice, I bring 60 cards of my choice. Doesn't seem fair, does it?
I've ultimately decided proxies in my play group are to be allowed, but only if they are a deck they plan to buy. My biggest issue with proxies, besides not being able to play with my friends at league, is that they continuously complain that I win all the time (150 dollar deck, no lands outside of what comes in commander 2014), yet they lose with a 500 dollar deck because they constantly switch it around and don't take the time to learn how to play it.
Ultimately, I'd prefer a friend who proxies without intent of buying over a friend who doesn't want to proxy because he will just buy the cards, but never buys the cards.
I'm not a fan of proxies in Commander outside of some niche circumstances. The main reason being that it tends to result in the same cards being played in every deck. You rarely see people proxying up interesting decks, at least in my area. They aren't proxying up that Krark's Thumb or other interesting older card that the local shop doesn't have in stock. Instead they are proxying up Duals/Crypts/Drains/Tutors/Cradles/etc, the expensive broken cards that are fun to see in EDH ONCE IN A WHILE, but unfun to play against every game. It might not be the most equitable way to get the effect, but I do appreciate that financial limitations mean we don't see those cards too often.
I also just think that Commander is the format where you least need proxies. Unless you play in a super-cutthroat environment it is very easy to build a competitive deck for a reasonable price (especially with the mass printing of the precons, which are just overflowing with good EDH cards and have reduced the barrier to entry tremendously). There are just SO many good cards to choose from that aren't very expensive. You might not have the best deck at the table...but as long as everyone else knows that you will be fine. Heck, having a slightly weaker deck will even be an advantage at times, as the guy playing broken stuff is also public enemy #1.
Finally I see a lot of proxyers (not all) actually sabotaging their own long term fun (on top of that of their opponents) by sacrificing a long term satisfaction for short term reward. There is a spike of fun that comes from proxying a new deck and playing with it, but that comes at the expense of the long term reward of going through the process of gradually building a deck, trying out various pieces, upgrading it over time. Long term you will generate much stronger overall experiences with the hobby that way. It is kind of like playing an RPG and being able to start at level 1 or level 99 with a character. Being powerful is fun, but seeing and shaping the development of the character is a big part of the fun too.
Of course that all pertains to Commander specifically. In competitive Magic proxying is a great way to test for tournaments, almost a necessity really.
Proxy is meant for those super expensive cards, or to playtest an expensive deck before purchasing it.
If you really believe that proxies are not an excuse due to being able to buy five boosters, then let us play a game of modern. You bring five boosters of your choice, I bring 60 cards of my choice. Doesn't seem fair, does it?
Of course its fair. Did you read the context of that quote?
Anyways, I wasn't talking about "proxies". I was talking about making your own components. I realize that people use the term interchangeably, but the term "proxy" implies the component isn't "real" which is a connotation that we should be seeking to break. When you make your own component, you are making something that serves the same function as a first party Magic card, but isn't attempting to "be" a first party Magic card. Like, if I'm playing Candyland and I use a paper cutout I made myself as my game piece, it isn't a proxy of the Yellow Gingerbread Man. If I'm playing an economic game and decide to use poker chips or a spreadsheet to track the money, those aren't proxies of the paper money included in the game box. Its an alternate component. The game itself doesn't care which one you use, its all the same to it.
I don't see the problem with proxy Magic at all, as long as it's not a sanctioned event then who cares? It's not taking anything away from you for them to have proxied, and if they didn't they may not be playing in the first place at all, or if they are it could be with a worse list leading to worse games. I own two non proxy Legacy decks and I play in events allowing proxies all the time, it doesn't bother me at all. Same goes with Modern.
lack of loyality from customers, however, should show in them playing something else, not just copying ip from someone they are illoyal to.
IP has limits. Wizards releases full card images for the public to use. I would argue that using those images in any way you like isn't a violation of their IP.
With your definition doing something like quoting the lyrics of a song is a violation of IP and that's not the case.
I used to not be much in favor of proxies, but I've changed my view.
I mostly play FNM, where proxies are not allowed. Yes, I suck it up and play modern and legacy with real cards... for anything sanctioned (vintage excepted) I think only real cards are appropriate. Legacy may eventually become so expensive that I could accept sanctioned proxies there too.
For EDH, cube, and anything at the kitchen table, I could not possibly care less. I am in fact currently working on an all-proxy powered cube. I also have a real peasant cube, but I can build that for ~$250 instead of ~$25,000 for powered (or a hundred or so for powered proxies!). I don't think proxies hurt the game in any way whatsoever. In fact, playing with proxied decks helps people get interested in formats they otherwise would never have an opportunity to play... this gets them interested in building the real think and drives sales of real eternal staples.
EDIT: I will say this, however... I do NOT support "sharpie on a land" proxies, as it's very hard to play that way and it's plain lazy and rude. For god's sake at least print it out and slip a paper over a card so we can all read the cards and understand board states.
EDIT: I will say this, however... I do NOT support "sharpie on a land" proxies, as it's very hard to play that way and it's plain lazy and rude. For god's sake at least print it out and slip a paper over a card so we can all read the cards and understand board states.
I don't even sharpie. I hand write on a slip of paper and stick it in the sleeve. If it's a card that people might not know I write the rules text. I do however try to proxy to some sort of code. I use a same colored dual land for duals, things like a Storm Crow for creatures, and so on.
Five boosters. It takes five boosters to have enough cards for a 60 card deck with 15 card sideboard. If you are going to quote me, call my claim absurd, then without any substantive backing go on an unrelated hyperbolic rant at least get the trivial math right. If you don't know how many cards are in a pack, it makes your moral outrage at "those people who don't buy cards to support the game" sound, I don't know, absurd?
I'm sorry I wrote the wrong number- honestly I was giving them the benefit of the doubt of having at least basic land to for the mana base, but that doesn't really make much sense in hindsight for the hypothetical person who buys boosters to just to turn them into proxies. While what I said does present an extreme of the proxy spectrum, I don't think it was hyperbolic. That is a player type I have encountered on these forums more than once, so they exist. By definition they are giving no money to the people who pay a lot of money to make the game that they are playing.
I find proxying up an entire meta, not just a deck, to be very useful. Metadeck is a valuable resource for improving my game. I know this isn't necessarily the intent of the questions asked in this thread, but it is an acceptable form of proxying in my opinion. One side effect is that I'm forced to memorize what cards do.
This is another Proxy practice that I engage in. I'd forgot about it when I made my original post. I don't do it as much as I once did, but when I was testing a rogue Modern deck for FNM and I wanted to see how it fared against the typical decks I might see I would proxy them up and get my son to test with me. My proxies are made with printouts glued to cards, so I have them somewhere but no decks are still together. There would have been no other way for me to practice since my son merged his cards into my collection years ago, and he really only builds casual and EDH decks. I have another friend who plays, and he would be great to test against since he is better than I am, but he only plays Standard anymore.
My friends generally don't buy cards. We don't play with proxies but I just buy them cards when I'm in a giving mood (e.g. Christmas, birthdays). I know that while magic is fun for them, it's a game that they don't want to spend money on.
I actually think I would be irked out by proxies. I always buy on a budget and don't buy $10+ cards, and if one of my friends proxied a $20 card, I would probably ask them not to.
Ok, Of course its fair. Did you read the context of that quote?
Anyways, I wasn't talking about "proxies". I was talking about making your own components. I realize that people use the term interchangeably, but the term "proxy" implies the component isn't "real" which is a connotation that we should be seeking to break. When you make your own component, you are making something that serves the same function as a first party Magic card, but isn't attempting to "be" a first party Magic card.
If you are making a magic card, and that card is a mechanical copy of an existing magic card, it is a proxy. A proxy is something that stands in for something else that acts as that thing in all mechanical senses. If you make a card that is not a mechanical stand-in for a card that WotC has printed then, yes, you are making some other kind of game component. Yes, a proxy can be considered a game component, but so can a lot of things. We are discussing one potential component.
Like, if I'm playing Candyland and I use a paper cutout I made myself as my game piece, it isn't a proxy of the Yellow Gingerbread Man. If I'm playing an economic game and decide to use poker chips or a spreadsheet to track the money, those aren't proxies of the paper money included in the game box. Its an alternate component. The game itself doesn't care which one you use, its all the same to it.
That is a VERY different situation, because the there are no mechanical differences between the pieces and the game is not designed with collectibility and trading in mind. There is no game function for the pieces outside of marking your place on a score spectrum. All of the mechanics of the game are tied to the board, not the pieces. The pieces are, in effect, life counters on a larger scale. Each unique Magic card (by and large) has a unique function, whereas the shoe and the top hat in Monopoly have no game differences, so any piece is 100% mechanically indistinguishable from the rest. Since all pieces are the same then using pieces that do not come with the game is not really proxying.
Also, and I have seen this used as an example a couple times, a board game is a completely different economic model. A Living Card Game, like Netrunner, is much more analogous to a board game than MTG is.
Every piece in Magic is mechanically indistinguishable from the rest. I don't understand how you are drawing this dichotomy. You seem to really believe that the physical artifact of Magic card has some sort of power that grants you permission to use game mechanics. But, like, only Magic cards. Not components of any other game. That's would be silly.
Every piece in Magic is mechanically indistinguishable from the rest. I don't understand how you are drawing this dichotomy. You seem to really believe that the physical artifact of Magic card has some sort of power that grants you permission to use game mechanics. But, like, only Magic cards. Not components of any other game. That's would be silly.
You misunderstand. Within the scope of MTG Gideon Jura is mechanically different from Tarmogoyf, thus demonstrating that each unique card is (excepting very few cards) is mechanically unique from each other unique card. The shoe and the top hat in Monopoly are 100% mechanically interchangeable, and are thus playing with a green army man in place of the shoe is not in anyway comparable to magic cards.
You maintain that a clearly printed proxy of Tarmogoyf is mechanically identical in a casual to a Tarmogoyf printed by WotC, and frankly I can't argue with that. It is still a proxy by the very definition of the word. It stands in mechanically and functionally for the card that was designed and printed by WotC. You then compare MTG cards to Candyland pieces in this regard, but since there is no mechanical identity to any of the Candyland pieces there is no real way to proxy them. MTG cards are in fact game components, but they are not game components in the same way that Candyland pieces. Yes, making a copy of an existing card is making a component of the game, but it is still a proxy and quite a bit different from making a paisley Candyland figure.
My use of cards printed by WotC in casual play (outside of the circumstances I have stated) has never been based on what it "real" in any mechanical sense. It is based on the simple fact that WotC spent a lot of money to design and develop the cards, and I believe it is the right thing to do to get them in their "official" form.
Let me just add on to what DrWorm was getting on about.
First of all, "proxy", as used in MTG, is a loose term. The original definition of proxy is "the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another", and there stands no definition (given the dictionary I used) that uses it the way MTG uses it.
That being said, if we replace "person" with "object", then TheElGrande is wrong. Anything that subsitutes another is considered proxy. Yet, arguing definitions here is not the point of the original post, and it serves no purpose in determining if proxies are fair or not.
Claiming that buying a magic card means that all proxies are fair is the equivalent of saying that you have a right to proxy The Game of Life because you bought Monopoly, or that you have the right to proxy an add-on for a board game because you bought the original.
That leads me to my most important point. The difference between what is a right (an entitlement) versus what is right (morally correct, or simply acceptable). For example, you do NOT have a right to pirate an add-on for a video game you bought, given you never bought the add-on, but that DOESN'T make it wrong. It is very circumstantial. An example of when it might be acceptable is when you actually plan to buy the add-on later down the road, or when you had bought the add-on for a different system, even though it is still illegal (check the EULA.)
Now, let's move back to magic and plug all this in. There are circumstantial times when it is right and wrong to proxy.
Is it ok to proxy when...
You plan to buy the cards? Yes. You own the cards in one deck? Yes. You want to proxy the meta? Yes. You want to proxy a cube? Yes. Your friends are ok with it? Yes.
You never plan to buy the cards? No. You don't own the cards and they aren't hard to obtain? No. You want to proxy the best of the best? No. Your friends aren't ok with it? No.
It is understandable that people who didn't bother reading the original post would assume the topic is proxying in general, that is ok. What is not understandable is when people decide to sway the topic towards arguing definitions and trying to argue that it is OK to do in all circumstances because it is legal, or because it somehow doesn't fit the definition of a proxy, or that the mechanics are "indistinguishable", and they do not at all take into account the aspect of it being right or wrong as according to playing against friends.
Playing a deck that your friends think are overpowered because it is legal (though breaks the rules of magic) is the equivalent of saying that it is ok to start with extra money in monopoly because it's legal. Sure, everyone could just take the extra money and it would be fair, but that greatly affects the game in a negative way that wasn't intended. When you start proxying the best of the best, all ingenuity is gone. I have seen people beat a 500 dollar deck (proxied) because they were able to make the best of their budget cards. Whether the proxy deck does good or bad doesn't affect that it ruins the fun, in certain circumstances. If it's too good and they play it right, it's unfair for those who don't wish to proxy. If it's too good, but they can't play it right at all, it ruins the fun for those who know their deck well, as the game becomes too easy.
Alright, rant is over. Everyone who came here to argue definitions or legal standpoints can pack up their bags and go home. The rest can continue their mature opinion sharing.
Claiming that buying a magic card means that all proxies are fair is the equivalent of saying that you have a right to proxy The Game of Life because you bought Monopoly, or that you have the right to proxy an add-on for a board game because you bought the original.
You do. As long as it's not for sale you're free to copy their board, make your own pieces, and make the spinner. You can copy 100% of the game. This gets even easier with digital products where there is no cost to reproduce something because it doesn't deal in physical goods.
Do you know what my parents and grandparents called this when I was a kid? Being economical. They didn't see it as theft, and even the law today doesn't see it that way.
For example, you do NOT have a right to pirate an add-on for a video game you bought, given you never bought the add-on, but that DOESN'T make it wrong. It is very circumstantial. An example of when it might be acceptable is when you actually plan to buy the add-on later down the road, or when you had bought the add-on for a different system, even though it is still illegal (check the EULA.)
Actually, you do. Prosecutions for piracy deal with distribution, sending protected data to others. The MPAA and RIAA in particular have tried to sue people for this but they've always ended in settlements rather than trials that produce actual legal opinion. Furthermore, once you have bought a piece of software you're free to modify it in any way you choose. There may be restrictions on you reselling that software or the company continuing to service you but you can't be stopped from changing it. Oh, and EULA's are considered by most courts to not be legally binding.
Playing a deck that your friends think are overpowered because it is legal (though breaks the rules of magic) is the equivalent of saying that it is ok to start with extra money in monopoly because it's legal. Sure, everyone could just take the extra money and it would be fair, but that greatly affects the game in a negative way that wasn't intended.
Do you consider the acquisition of game pieces to be a part of the MtG game?
Unless these people are trying to pass their proxies off as real cards for sale or competitive purposes, I would think the better comparison would be printing slips of paper that say "$100" on them to add to the Monopoly bank - something I'd be surprised if most people objected to.
Do you consider the acquisition of game pieces to be a part of the MtG game?
Game pieces is a very broad term, but it is most certainly a significant part of the life of the game and it's continued growth. It was a huge part of the game as it was envisioned by Garfield, but we moved past that long ago. This game would not be alive today without the acquisition drive humans have. I still, in the ways I already mentioned, think that it shapes how the game is played in a positive way. Having access to all the most powerful cards the game has ever made results in a significant narrowing of the cards played. That harms the game play, IMO.
I don't have a problem with proxies. I'm always letting ppl play proxied decks if they want to try something new before commiting or testing new deck ideas. But I do think it cheapens the game.
What I mean is it makes it less fun IMO. My fondest memories are slamming Hymn to Tourach and Lightning Bolts, swinging with Shivan Dragons pumped with Giant Growths. Playing with proxies doesn't attach those memories to the game or cards you keep around for years. That's the only issue I have with proxies. I don't really care about the money or anything.
You do. As long as it's not for sale you're free to copy their board, make your own pieces, and make the spinner. You can copy 100% of the game. This gets even easier with digital products where there is no cost to reproduce something because it doesn't deal in physical goods.
Do you know what my parents and grandparents called this when I was a kid? Being economical. They didn't see it as theft, and even the law today doesn't see it that way.
Half-truth. It is illegal to do so if you copy any artwork at all. If you recreate the *entirety* of it without copying any artwork, and you do not distribute it, then it is legal. Not the main point of my argument, which was that we are arguing "legal" circumstances and not taking into account the affect on the game.
Quote from robmoore675 »
For example, you do NOT have a right to pirate an add-on for a video game you bought, given you never bought the add-on, but that DOESN'T make it wrong. It is very circumstantial. An example of when it might be acceptable is when you actually plan to buy the add-on later down the road, or when you had bought the add-on for a different system, even though it is still illegal (check the EULA.)
Quote from aazadan »
Actually, you do. Prosecutions for piracy deal with distribution, sending protected data to others. The MPAA and RIAA in particular have tried to sue people for this but they've always ended in settlements rather than trials that produce actual legal opinion. Furthermore, once you have bought a piece of software you're free to modify it in any way you choose. There may be restrictions on you reselling that software or the company continuing to service you but you can't be stopped from changing it. Oh, and EULA's are considered by most courts to not be legally binding.
Have you ever heard of the "Texas Sharpshooter"? It is considered a logical fallacy. It is where you cherry pick data clusters to suit your argument. For example, if a company called Sugarette said that of the 5 countries that their drink sells the most, 3 of them are in the top 10 healthiest countries in the world, is considered "Texas Sharpshooter". In your case, it is saying that because there have been cases where EULA has not been enforceable in court, all courts don't recognize EULA. In fact, here is an article right here that says otherwise In fact, if you take the time to google "Is EULA legally binding?" You'll find a lot of examples in which it is. Most courts have taken onto the ruling that EULA is legally binding if you are forced to accept it.
That being said, the EULA for most games (I have personally read the entirety of the Dark Souls 2 EULA) states that purchasing that copy of the game entitles you to ONE instance of the game, in which they are allowed to revoke at any time. After doing some research, ONE instance applies to downloading it online. If you bought it for say Xbox, and then pirated it online, you have now claimed TWO instances, when you only paid for ONE, thus breaking the EULA.
Playing a deck that your friends think are overpowered because it is legal (though breaks the rules of magic) is the equivalent of saying that it is ok to start with extra money in monopoly because it's legal. Sure, everyone could just take the extra money and it would be fair, but that greatly affects the game in a negative way that wasn't intended.
Do you consider the acquisition of game pieces to be a part of the MtG game?
Unless these people are trying to pass their proxies off as real cards for sale or competitive purposes, I would think the better comparison would be printing slips of paper that say "$100" on them to add to the Monopoly bank - something I'd be surprised if most people objected to.
You again are not taking into account the fun on other people. If you say that acquiring the cards isn't part of the fun, then what is the point of a sealed event? Part of the fun comes from working with what you have instead of just putting in whatever you want.
Furthermore, I really would love to speak to the people you play with, because I question how much fun they would say they have compared to my play group. You do not take into account AT ALL what the other player thinks. If your friends told you that they thought your deck was too powerful, and that the game isn't fun anymore because you are proxying when they don't want to, then you are being flat out selfish.
No, this is not comparable to replacing money with paper. In that instance, you are replacing one thing with the exact same thing. When it comes to proxying in magic, you are taking less powerful cards and replacing them with completely different cards. Furthermore, in monopoly, no one is at a disadvantage for not having that slip of proxy money. In Magic, however, there are absolutely disadvantages to not having proxy access.
Honestly, I am so bewildered that you guys are so caught up in what is "legal" over what your play group thinks. The fact that me saying "Playing a deck that your friends think is overpowered is not ok" was met with "I would think a better comparison is printing slips of paper for monopoly money." If your playgroup is NOT ok with it, and they think it is unfair and unbalanced because they do not want to proxy, WHY would you think it to be ok to go ahead and play a proxy deck anyway?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That said, it is possible to have some kind of "moral feeling" that you shouldn't make proxies of cards, just as it is possible to have moral feelings about pretty much anything (e.g. eating certain foods on certain days or having sex in certain positions). However, given that he presented no moral argument for his claim that making proxies is a sign of lacking moral integrity, his statement can't be reasoned with and shouldn't be taken seriously. If I were to claim that you are immoral because your avatar is a picture of a a man with a beard you'd also ask if I'm trolling.
ad "Do you think that if you created something ...",
That is an extremely general question, and of course the answer to it is "it depends".
When I build a bicycle I want to be able to sell it to someone or to charge him some money to use it. Trivial, really.
However, with ideas and art the situation changes completely. When I come up with some idea and someone else uses it for their personal pleasure I don't think I have any moral right whatsoever to charge him for it. The idea that I would looks completely absurd to me, actually.
"Whenever I bring a board game over to game night, I make sure everyone knows that since I bought the game I get special privileges. For example, if we are playing Princes of Florence, only I can buy Jesters. If anyone else wants Jesters, they have to buy their own copy of the game. I mean, I'm the one who paid for it, I deserve something for my efforts. Wolfgang Kramer needs to eat, doesn't he?"
Sounds ridiculous, right?
WotC is kind enough to give us full access to all their game rules for free. I think we should support them. I don't think we should counterfeit their cards. However, I also don't see anything wrong with making our own components to play their game. The three concepts (supporting the game/making our own components/not counterfeiting cards) aren't mutually exclusive. At all.
Oh, there are a lot more things about me that would cause people moral outrage other than my picture.
It is utterly absurd to think that someone would buy three boosters just to sharpie them and play them as proxies. When people play all proxy decks they use the bulk rares they have around, or basics that most people can grab for free at their shop, so they are giving wizards no money in return for use of those game pieces that wizards spent money to create. If you want Wizards to keep making new cards they you'd better hope that other people are paying for the cards they play casually (since the casual market is the biggest chunk of the player base), because Mr. and Ms. All-Proxy aren't. I have read numerous posts from people who admit they don't own any real cards, but purport to be avid players. They either play with all proxies or with free software like Cockatrice. They want to take advantage of all the money and effort that went in to making the game, but have never and may never in the future pay to play it in any way.
This is based on my personal belief that restrictions breed creativity- What it does in practice (in my experience with friendly EDH) is keep out cards that are dramatically better than other analogs, thus keeping the game from being stagnant. It acts as a de facto banned/restricted list that forces deck builders to dig deeper for card choices.
Frankly, if a casual opponent of mine had worked hard, traded up, and saved so that they could buy even a gold border Gaea's Cradle and wanted to play against me with his Rhys EDH deck I would say he has earned it. I am willing to reward that kind of dedication. I would never do that myself...heck, I have never spent more than the equivalent of $45 on a single card, and even that number has been only twice. I would play against him a few times (and probably be soundly trounced most of those) to give him a chance to have his fun, even though eventually I would ask if he could switch out decks some. That becomes a pseudo-restricted card. Now, if everyone in the play group just proxys their land base then every green deck with creatures would run Gaea's Cradle because there is no need to ever play anything else, and the games become stagnant.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I don't play other, cheaper card games using fake cards, and I don't play poker, subbing Jokers for Aces. It's one thing to test, it's another to attempt to play with any level of seriousness. At that point you might as well just make up the cards, getting ideas from the card creation forum and such.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
You seem to be missing the entire point of proxy.
Proxy is meant for those super expensive cards, or to playtest an expensive deck before purchasing it.
If you really believe that proxies are not an excuse due to being able to buy five boosters, then let us play a game of modern. You bring five boosters of your choice, I bring 60 cards of my choice. Doesn't seem fair, does it?
Ultimately, I'd prefer a friend who proxies without intent of buying over a friend who doesn't want to proxy because he will just buy the cards, but never buys the cards.
I also just think that Commander is the format where you least need proxies. Unless you play in a super-cutthroat environment it is very easy to build a competitive deck for a reasonable price (especially with the mass printing of the precons, which are just overflowing with good EDH cards and have reduced the barrier to entry tremendously). There are just SO many good cards to choose from that aren't very expensive. You might not have the best deck at the table...but as long as everyone else knows that you will be fine. Heck, having a slightly weaker deck will even be an advantage at times, as the guy playing broken stuff is also public enemy #1.
Finally I see a lot of proxyers (not all) actually sabotaging their own long term fun (on top of that of their opponents) by sacrificing a long term satisfaction for short term reward. There is a spike of fun that comes from proxying a new deck and playing with it, but that comes at the expense of the long term reward of going through the process of gradually building a deck, trying out various pieces, upgrading it over time. Long term you will generate much stronger overall experiences with the hobby that way. It is kind of like playing an RPG and being able to start at level 1 or level 99 with a character. Being powerful is fun, but seeing and shaping the development of the character is a big part of the fun too.
Of course that all pertains to Commander specifically. In competitive Magic proxying is a great way to test for tournaments, almost a necessity really.
Anyways, I wasn't talking about "proxies". I was talking about making your own components. I realize that people use the term interchangeably, but the term "proxy" implies the component isn't "real" which is a connotation that we should be seeking to break. When you make your own component, you are making something that serves the same function as a first party Magic card, but isn't attempting to "be" a first party Magic card. Like, if I'm playing Candyland and I use a paper cutout I made myself as my game piece, it isn't a proxy of the Yellow Gingerbread Man. If I'm playing an economic game and decide to use poker chips or a spreadsheet to track the money, those aren't proxies of the paper money included in the game box. Its an alternate component. The game itself doesn't care which one you use, its all the same to it.
IP has limits. Wizards releases full card images for the public to use. I would argue that using those images in any way you like isn't a violation of their IP.
With your definition doing something like quoting the lyrics of a song is a violation of IP and that's not the case.
I mostly play FNM, where proxies are not allowed. Yes, I suck it up and play modern and legacy with real cards... for anything sanctioned (vintage excepted) I think only real cards are appropriate. Legacy may eventually become so expensive that I could accept sanctioned proxies there too.
For EDH, cube, and anything at the kitchen table, I could not possibly care less. I am in fact currently working on an all-proxy powered cube. I also have a real peasant cube, but I can build that for ~$250 instead of ~$25,000 for powered (or a hundred or so for powered proxies!). I don't think proxies hurt the game in any way whatsoever. In fact, playing with proxied decks helps people get interested in formats they otherwise would never have an opportunity to play... this gets them interested in building the real think and drives sales of real eternal staples.
EDIT: I will say this, however... I do NOT support "sharpie on a land" proxies, as it's very hard to play that way and it's plain lazy and rude. For god's sake at least print it out and slip a paper over a card so we can all read the cards and understand board states.
I don't even sharpie. I hand write on a slip of paper and stick it in the sleeve. If it's a card that people might not know I write the rules text. I do however try to proxy to some sort of code. I use a same colored dual land for duals, things like a Storm Crow for creatures, and so on.
I'm sorry I wrote the wrong number- honestly I was giving them the benefit of the doubt of having at least basic land to for the mana base, but that doesn't really make much sense in hindsight for the hypothetical person who buys boosters to just to turn them into proxies. While what I said does present an extreme of the proxy spectrum, I don't think it was hyperbolic. That is a player type I have encountered on these forums more than once, so they exist. By definition they are giving no money to the people who pay a lot of money to make the game that they are playing.
This is another Proxy practice that I engage in. I'd forgot about it when I made my original post. I don't do it as much as I once did, but when I was testing a rogue Modern deck for FNM and I wanted to see how it fared against the typical decks I might see I would proxy them up and get my son to test with me. My proxies are made with printouts glued to cards, so I have them somewhere but no decks are still together. There would have been no other way for me to practice since my son merged his cards into my collection years ago, and he really only builds casual and EDH decks. I have another friend who plays, and he would be great to test against since he is better than I am, but he only plays Standard anymore.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I actually think I would be irked out by proxies. I always buy on a budget and don't buy $10+ cards, and if one of my friends proxied a $20 card, I would probably ask them not to.
If you are making a magic card, and that card is a mechanical copy of an existing magic card, it is a proxy. A proxy is something that stands in for something else that acts as that thing in all mechanical senses. If you make a card that is not a mechanical stand-in for a card that WotC has printed then, yes, you are making some other kind of game component. Yes, a proxy can be considered a game component, but so can a lot of things. We are discussing one potential component.
That is a VERY different situation, because the there are no mechanical differences between the pieces and the game is not designed with collectibility and trading in mind. There is no game function for the pieces outside of marking your place on a score spectrum. All of the mechanics of the game are tied to the board, not the pieces. The pieces are, in effect, life counters on a larger scale. Each unique Magic card (by and large) has a unique function, whereas the shoe and the top hat in Monopoly have no game differences, so any piece is 100% mechanically indistinguishable from the rest. Since all pieces are the same then using pieces that do not come with the game is not really proxying.
Also, and I have seen this used as an example a couple times, a board game is a completely different economic model. A Living Card Game, like Netrunner, is much more analogous to a board game than MTG is.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
You misunderstand. Within the scope of MTG Gideon Jura is mechanically different from Tarmogoyf, thus demonstrating that each unique card is (excepting very few cards) is mechanically unique from each other unique card. The shoe and the top hat in Monopoly are 100% mechanically interchangeable, and are thus playing with a green army man in place of the shoe is not in anyway comparable to magic cards.
You maintain that a clearly printed proxy of Tarmogoyf is mechanically identical in a casual to a Tarmogoyf printed by WotC, and frankly I can't argue with that. It is still a proxy by the very definition of the word. It stands in mechanically and functionally for the card that was designed and printed by WotC. You then compare MTG cards to Candyland pieces in this regard, but since there is no mechanical identity to any of the Candyland pieces there is no real way to proxy them. MTG cards are in fact game components, but they are not game components in the same way that Candyland pieces. Yes, making a copy of an existing card is making a component of the game, but it is still a proxy and quite a bit different from making a paisley Candyland figure.
My use of cards printed by WotC in casual play (outside of the circumstances I have stated) has never been based on what it "real" in any mechanical sense. It is based on the simple fact that WotC spent a lot of money to design and develop the cards, and I believe it is the right thing to do to get them in their "official" form.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
First of all, "proxy", as used in MTG, is a loose term. The original definition of proxy is "the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another", and there stands no definition (given the dictionary I used) that uses it the way MTG uses it.
That being said, if we replace "person" with "object", then TheElGrande is wrong. Anything that subsitutes another is considered proxy. Yet, arguing definitions here is not the point of the original post, and it serves no purpose in determining if proxies are fair or not.
Claiming that buying a magic card means that all proxies are fair is the equivalent of saying that you have a right to proxy The Game of Life because you bought Monopoly, or that you have the right to proxy an add-on for a board game because you bought the original.
That leads me to my most important point. The difference between what is a right (an entitlement) versus what is right (morally correct, or simply acceptable). For example, you do NOT have a right to pirate an add-on for a video game you bought, given you never bought the add-on, but that DOESN'T make it wrong. It is very circumstantial. An example of when it might be acceptable is when you actually plan to buy the add-on later down the road, or when you had bought the add-on for a different system, even though it is still illegal (check the EULA.)
Now, let's move back to magic and plug all this in. There are circumstantial times when it is right and wrong to proxy.
Is it ok to proxy when...
You plan to buy the cards? Yes. You own the cards in one deck? Yes. You want to proxy the meta? Yes. You want to proxy a cube? Yes. Your friends are ok with it? Yes.
You never plan to buy the cards? No. You don't own the cards and they aren't hard to obtain? No. You want to proxy the best of the best? No. Your friends aren't ok with it? No.
It is understandable that people who didn't bother reading the original post would assume the topic is proxying in general, that is ok. What is not understandable is when people decide to sway the topic towards arguing definitions and trying to argue that it is OK to do in all circumstances because it is legal, or because it somehow doesn't fit the definition of a proxy, or that the mechanics are "indistinguishable", and they do not at all take into account the aspect of it being right or wrong as according to playing against friends.
Playing a deck that your friends think are overpowered because it is legal (though breaks the rules of magic) is the equivalent of saying that it is ok to start with extra money in monopoly because it's legal. Sure, everyone could just take the extra money and it would be fair, but that greatly affects the game in a negative way that wasn't intended. When you start proxying the best of the best, all ingenuity is gone. I have seen people beat a 500 dollar deck (proxied) because they were able to make the best of their budget cards. Whether the proxy deck does good or bad doesn't affect that it ruins the fun, in certain circumstances. If it's too good and they play it right, it's unfair for those who don't wish to proxy. If it's too good, but they can't play it right at all, it ruins the fun for those who know their deck well, as the game becomes too easy.
Alright, rant is over. Everyone who came here to argue definitions or legal standpoints can pack up their bags and go home. The rest can continue their mature opinion sharing.
You do. As long as it's not for sale you're free to copy their board, make your own pieces, and make the spinner. You can copy 100% of the game. This gets even easier with digital products where there is no cost to reproduce something because it doesn't deal in physical goods.
Do you know what my parents and grandparents called this when I was a kid? Being economical. They didn't see it as theft, and even the law today doesn't see it that way.
Actually, you do. Prosecutions for piracy deal with distribution, sending protected data to others. The MPAA and RIAA in particular have tried to sue people for this but they've always ended in settlements rather than trials that produce actual legal opinion. Furthermore, once you have bought a piece of software you're free to modify it in any way you choose. There may be restrictions on you reselling that software or the company continuing to service you but you can't be stopped from changing it. Oh, and EULA's are considered by most courts to not be legally binding.
Do you consider the acquisition of game pieces to be a part of the MtG game?
Unless these people are trying to pass their proxies off as real cards for sale or competitive purposes, I would think the better comparison would be printing slips of paper that say "$100" on them to add to the Monopoly bank - something I'd be surprised if most people objected to.
Game pieces is a very broad term, but it is most certainly a significant part of the life of the game and it's continued growth. It was a huge part of the game as it was envisioned by Garfield, but we moved past that long ago. This game would not be alive today without the acquisition drive humans have. I still, in the ways I already mentioned, think that it shapes how the game is played in a positive way. Having access to all the most powerful cards the game has ever made results in a significant narrowing of the cards played. That harms the game play, IMO.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
What I mean is it makes it less fun IMO. My fondest memories are slamming Hymn to Tourach and Lightning Bolts, swinging with Shivan Dragons pumped with Giant Growths. Playing with proxies doesn't attach those memories to the game or cards you keep around for years. That's the only issue I have with proxies. I don't really care about the money or anything.
BUG Reanimator
BWG Nic-Fit
BGR Punishing Nic-Fit
Half-truth. It is illegal to do so if you copy any artwork at all. If you recreate the *entirety* of it without copying any artwork, and you do not distribute it, then it is legal. Not the main point of my argument, which was that we are arguing "legal" circumstances and not taking into account the affect on the game.
Have you ever heard of the "Texas Sharpshooter"? It is considered a logical fallacy. It is where you cherry pick data clusters to suit your argument. For example, if a company called Sugarette said that of the 5 countries that their drink sells the most, 3 of them are in the top 10 healthiest countries in the world, is considered "Texas Sharpshooter". In your case, it is saying that because there have been cases where EULA has not been enforceable in court, all courts don't recognize EULA. In fact, here is an article right here that says otherwise In fact, if you take the time to google "Is EULA legally binding?" You'll find a lot of examples in which it is. Most courts have taken onto the ruling that EULA is legally binding if you are forced to accept it.
That being said, the EULA for most games (I have personally read the entirety of the Dark Souls 2 EULA) states that purchasing that copy of the game entitles you to ONE instance of the game, in which they are allowed to revoke at any time. After doing some research, ONE instance applies to downloading it online. If you bought it for say Xbox, and then pirated it online, you have now claimed TWO instances, when you only paid for ONE, thus breaking the EULA.
You again are not taking into account the fun on other people. If you say that acquiring the cards isn't part of the fun, then what is the point of a sealed event? Part of the fun comes from working with what you have instead of just putting in whatever you want.
Furthermore, I really would love to speak to the people you play with, because I question how much fun they would say they have compared to my play group. You do not take into account AT ALL what the other player thinks. If your friends told you that they thought your deck was too powerful, and that the game isn't fun anymore because you are proxying when they don't want to, then you are being flat out selfish.
No, this is not comparable to replacing money with paper. In that instance, you are replacing one thing with the exact same thing. When it comes to proxying in magic, you are taking less powerful cards and replacing them with completely different cards. Furthermore, in monopoly, no one is at a disadvantage for not having that slip of proxy money. In Magic, however, there are absolutely disadvantages to not having proxy access.
Honestly, I am so bewildered that you guys are so caught up in what is "legal" over what your play group thinks. The fact that me saying "Playing a deck that your friends think is overpowered is not ok" was met with "I would think a better comparison is printing slips of paper for monopoly money." If your playgroup is NOT ok with it, and they think it is unfair and unbalanced because they do not want to proxy, WHY would you think it to be ok to go ahead and play a proxy deck anyway?