EDIT: Actually, allow me to amend that. The biggest risk to pucatrade is that the owner(s) can give themselves any points at all, because if they exchange them for cards then that represents more loss when the system inevitably closes, period. That is the big payoff of the pyramid scheme, is that they can exchange a non-existent entity that will eventually lose all value and which they can generate in infinite quantity, which can then be traded to others for physical value. It is very easy to obscure that, and I'm sure it does happen. The question then becomes how long it's worth risking the use of the system before it shuts down and the value vanishes.
-
- AzureShadow
- Registered User
-
Member for 10 years, 5 months, and 18 days
Last active Sat, May, 15 2021 14:54:51
- 0 Followers
- 2,357 Total Posts
- 158 Thanks
-
Oct 3, 2015
AzureShadow posted a message on The Magic Street Journal: Wizards Always Hurts The Ones They LoveJust because it's pyramid scheme doesn't mean it's bad, per say. It provides a service that nowhere else does, just like one could argue that Bitcoin does, albeit an illegal one in that case. It does, though, absolutely fit the textbook definition of what a pyramid scheme is. The initial referers or payees have the highest amount of value in the system, and that collectively decreases as it spreads to the bottom.Posted in: Articles
The biggest risk to pucatrade is that the owner can give himself an account with, say, a few million points and buy up a huge pile of cards, then shut the entire thing down. I don't think that's particularly likely, but it is possible.
EDIT: Actually, allow me to amend that. The biggest risk to pucatrade is that the owner(s) can give themselves any points at all, because if they exchange them for cards then that represents more loss when the system inevitably closes, period. That is the big payoff of the pyramid scheme, is that they can exchange a non-existent entity that will eventually lose all value and which they can generate in infinite quantity, which can then be traded to others for physical value. It is very easy to obscure that, and I'm sure it does happen. The question then becomes how long it's worth risking the use of the system before it shuts down and the value vanishes. -
Jul 31, 2011
AzureShadow posted a message on All is Fair in Love and MarketingHuh. Well that's certainly a different opinion on the whole deal than what I've seen before.Posted in: Mockingbird Blog
I'm inclined to agree with you, for the most part. Sexualization of pretty much anything happens in fantasy environments, so it's come to be expected by me and a few of my friends, who just shrug it off and ignore how silly it is.
An interesting read, for sure. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Radiate changes targets to Word of Seizing, but Word of Seizing still resolves first. Then when Radiate moves to resolve, it finds an invalid target because Word is no longer on the stack, and fails to resolve. Radiate has to be on the stack after Word does for it to copy it, and that can't normally happen because of Split Second.
But yeah we are wildly off topic. Radiate should not be banned.
E: Root Elemental into Dualcaster Mage also works.
But yeah the point is you can do similarly griefy things with a lot of cards that make Painter look like chump change in comparison. It really won't be a problem other than the stigma that's been attached to it by its prior banning, just like Staff of Domination and Worldgorger Dragon and such weren't before it.
In mono-white, you do whatever you can because it is very easily the weakest of all color combinations in this format. Even then, I really don't think Mind's Eye or Staff of Nin are worth playing.
Reach Through Mists is so astronomically far from making the cut it's ridiculous.
So it turns Ugin and AiD into a more expensive Armageddon/Jokulhaups that also requires a second card in play? How is that oppressive or problematic at all? If a painter is already in play, nobody is going to use those two cards without very blatantly deciding that blowing up the board is what they want to do, there's nothing accidental about it at all.
In that situation though, why would you cast Anarchy? You're still deliberately making the choice to destroy all permanents (something which plenty of other cards can already do, by the way) which isn't at all accidental. If there is a Painter naming white on the battlefield, don't cast Anarchy unless you have a reason to destroy all permanents, i.e. an indestructible beater you can quickly win the game with unopposed or something similar.
Like I said before, there is nothing that can be done with Painter's Servant that accidentally ruins a game. It is all pretty deliberate, either with people playing bad cards or color hosers in their deck specifically to abuse them with Painter or with people deliberately using a card like Iona/AiD/Ugin while there is a painter on the board, instead of choosing not to ruin the game.
All of those are intentional though. If you are playing Painter and Lifeforce or Gloom together, you are doing so very deliberately to shut off your opponents from doing things. You could instead play Leyline + Helm combo or Mike + Trike or some Tooth and Nail stack and kill them instantly, so that isn't a concern at all. The RC has very deliberately stated they will no longer combo-police, as with the unbanning of Worldgorger Dragon and LED and such. Unintentional game damage is what is supposed to be banned for, and absent Iona existing that should never happen with Painter. The social contract exists for that exact reason.
I've seen the exact same terrible argument when it was Staff of Domination being talked about, and that got unbanned and has since ruined approximately zero games unintentionally.
Painter+Ugin is explicitly worse than a lot of other cards that do the same thing, in that it's two cards and costs more mana, and Painter was banned only because of Iona being printed. So what are you referring to, exactly?
No because then it will drop to $20-50, like it was before it started getting played in EDH. Also Mana Crypt isn't really iconic in the way that Moxen, Lotus, Library, etc. all are.
Barrier to Entry will presumably never again be applied to new cards, because of how the format has such a huge affect on price and because of the iconic part of that rule.