That isn't true. There have been several spells printed that have no cost (Ancestral Vision, for example). A better definition would be that anything that isn't a land is a spell.
Well, that definition is the definition for nonland cards, not spells. A creature token is definitely not a land, but that doesn't mean that it's somehow a spell. Also, your definition would allow spells to exist in play, which should never happen, because the world would implode into a naked singularity & the 2012 prophecy would come true ahead of time.
A spell is a nonland card on the stack. (<-- Hooray; big words! Plus, apparently, Sarnath'd. Mopey...)
Previously, I would have said Mogg Fanatic, because I'm entirely a fan of randomly sending a mentally deranged creature out to detonate itself all over those people who aren't quite on my A-list.
Now, though? Rhox War Monk. I could utilize his not-quite-subtle gifts for whooping ass &, apparently, being a religious fundamentalist quite well indeed. Plus, rhinos are pretty awesomesauce.
The Orb is being all touchy and annoying to me (I'll have to check when I get home; hopefully it'll be working...), but could someone check Armadillo &/or Cloak? I've been all excited all day with the prospect of reprinted Armadillo Cloaks...
Everyone who mentioned my misuse of terms: Yeah, I'm sort of inclined towards using language with reckless abandon, regardless of what a word may or may not actually mean (generally because I'll forget what a word means from time to time; I went roughly 2 weeks saying 'perforce' all the time without knowing at all what the word actually meant.); I think I was referring to the morality, but after debating it for an hour wherein 'ethical' was used frequently, I had that term in my head.
Thanks for the input, everyone. I'm thinking I'm going to talk to her about it in a few days (whenever I happen to see her, I suppose.).
...It's sort of handy that I can fall back on a large pool of knowledgeable people when I come to an impasse in my normally self-assured decision-making.
Not that it's really important, when my opinion is essentially the same as the average opinion (from what I saw), but...
It depends.
That's an absurdly oversimplified scenario. I know nothing about my hypothetical daughter, her hypothetical suitor, whether this would be occurring now (as opposed to in the near future, the more distant future, the mid-1800s...essentially for the purpose of understanding cultural & social standards.), etc. There's just so much information that you need to have to realistically answer this question that you really can't say 'yes' or 'no' without knowing more. Well, unless you're willing to take an uncompromising position that takes nothing into account beyond age, gender, and stereotypical behavior patterns (that may or may not hold true a plurality of the time, I'll grant you, but...), which I don't really want to do, because it seems sort of stupid to me.
Sympathetic Psychosis1BBB
Enchantment
Enchant player
Whenever enchanted player draws a card, you may discard a card. If you do, enchanted player discards a card.
Tolarian Uteromancer2UUU
Creature - Human Wizard (R) 2U, T: Put 3 time counters on target creature you control. That creature gains "At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a time counter from this creature. When the last time counter is removed from this creature, put a token into play that is a copy of this creature.". "Quickly! Bring the chronozoa extract!"
3/3
I entirely agree with this. Cards that shouldn't be reprinted won't. Those cards have self-evident reasons why they shouldn't be reprinted, be it power level, complexity, lack of compatibility with the modern color pie, what have you.
Wizards shouldn't make a blanket statement when there's no real reason to do so. Collectors don't need to be coddled & protected to the degree of, "We're not going to reprint these cards here, because we want to support you, O bountiful & mighty Collectors!! We'll even go so far as to issue an official statement to that effect. We love you."
If WotC repealed the Reserve List tomorrow, there would be maybe 3 people that cared, or got all bristley and perturbed.
I've been back-and-forth on this topic for a while now, but it's difficult to actually think of a new position when arguing with yourself. Anyway, here's a basic summary:
I met a girl 2 years ago that I really liked (and still do.). We seemed to hit it off fairly well, & shared a few interests, etc. I want to tell her how I feel about her, but she has a boyfriend (who she lives with, actually.).
Basically, would it be unethical to tell this girl about my feelings toward her? And, either way (yes/no), why do you say that?
This has been on my mind for a few months, but I've been a little indecisive in actually choosing a course of action.
I remember there was some statement made about how it was changed from a cost of 2G to the current cost, and that was what pushed it into the realm of Mistake-Land. I can't find where that was said, though, which is irritating, because I remember seeing it recently when reading some old articles.
If I happen to come across it, I'll post the link here. This is starting to piss me off a little bit...it shouldn't be this hard to find.
Rise of the Underclass3WW
Enchantment XWW: Put X 1/1 white Human Mutant creature tokens into play blocking any number of target creatures target opponent controls. When the foreigners attacked, the trailer parks rose up in defense of their mobile homes.
That was funny; I was laughing as I typed.
Next: Make equipment (Artifact - Equipment) tokens that come into play attached to a creature. And make them spiffy (if you make something like Leonin Scimitar, I'll Danza-slap you.).
Wow, that's a mopey plot point. Couldn't they think of anything better than that?
I'm not a Smallville viewer, so I'm going to consciously forget about this information & remain blissfully unaware of this small nugget of poppycock information.
...That's just conceptually retarded. On the basis of that alone, the Joker should win, because that's just so stupid.
Well, that definition is the definition for nonland cards, not spells. A creature token is definitely not a land, but that doesn't mean that it's somehow a spell. Also, your definition would allow spells to exist in play, which should never happen, because the world would implode into a naked singularity & the 2012 prophecy would come true ahead of time.
A spell is a nonland card on the stack. (<-- Hooray; big words! Plus, apparently, Sarnath'd. Mopey...)
Now, though? Rhox War Monk. I could utilize his not-quite-subtle gifts for whooping ass &, apparently, being a religious fundamentalist quite well indeed. Plus, rhinos are pretty awesomesauce.
^^ When you read this & think, "Dude, just hide your non-creatures. She'll lose so much life, it won't even be worth it." WAY too much Magic.
Saying "Mise" a lot is a bad thing? I say it constantly.
Thanks for the input, everyone. I'm thinking I'm going to talk to her about it in a few days (whenever I happen to see her, I suppose.).
...It's sort of handy that I can fall back on a large pool of knowledgeable people when I come to an impasse in my normally self-assured decision-making.
It depends.
That's an absurdly oversimplified scenario. I know nothing about my hypothetical daughter, her hypothetical suitor, whether this would be occurring now (as opposed to in the near future, the more distant future, the mid-1800s...essentially for the purpose of understanding cultural & social standards.), etc. There's just so much information that you need to have to realistically answer this question that you really can't say 'yes' or 'no' without knowing more. Well, unless you're willing to take an uncompromising position that takes nothing into account beyond age, gender, and stereotypical behavior patterns (that may or may not hold true a plurality of the time, I'll grant you, but...), which I don't really want to do, because it seems sort of stupid to me.
Enchantment
Enchant player
Whenever enchanted player draws a card, you may discard a card. If you do, enchanted player discards a card.
Judge - Howler13
...This should be really fun. I approve.
Creature - Human Wizard (R)
2U, T: Put 3 time counters on target creature you control. That creature gains "At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a time counter from this creature. When the last time counter is removed from this creature, put a token into play that is a copy of this creature.".
"Quickly! Bring the chronozoa extract!"
3/3
Wizards shouldn't make a blanket statement when there's no real reason to do so. Collectors don't need to be coddled & protected to the degree of, "We're not going to reprint these cards here, because we want to support you, O bountiful & mighty Collectors!! We'll even go so far as to issue an official statement to that effect.
We love you."If WotC repealed the Reserve List tomorrow, there would be maybe 3 people that cared, or got all bristley and perturbed.
Thanks sir(/ma'am)!
I met a girl 2 years ago that I really liked (and still do.). We seemed to hit it off fairly well, & shared a few interests, etc. I want to tell her how I feel about her, but she has a boyfriend (who she lives with, actually.).
Basically, would it be unethical to tell this girl about my feelings toward her? And, either way (yes/no), why do you say that?
This has been on my mind for a few months, but I've been a little indecisive in actually choosing a course of action.
If I happen to come across it, I'll post the link here. This is starting to piss me off a little bit...it shouldn't be this hard to find.
Rise of the Underclass 3WW
Enchantment
XWW: Put X 1/1 white Human Mutant creature tokens into play blocking any number of target creatures target opponent controls.
When the foreigners attacked, the trailer parks rose up in defense of their mobile homes.
That was funny; I was laughing as I typed.
Next: Make equipment (Artifact - Equipment) tokens that come into play attached to a creature. And make them spiffy (if you make something like Leonin Scimitar, I'll Danza-slap you.).
I'm not a Smallville viewer, so I'm going to consciously forget about this information & remain blissfully unaware of this small nugget of poppycock information.
...That's just conceptually retarded. On the basis of that alone, the Joker should win, because that's just so stupid.