Protector of the Woods2GG Creature - Spike Lammasu
Reach
Protector of the Woods comes into play with four +1/+1 counters on it. 1, Remove a +1/+1 counter from Protector of the Woods: Protector of the Woods deals 1 damage to target creature with flying. 0/0
Temple of Dusk3B Legendary Enchantment
Whenever a creature control deals combat damage to an opponent, you may pay B. If you do, sacrifice that creature. That player loses life equal to half its toughness, rounded up.
Consumptive Voiding(U/B)(U/B) Instant
Counter target spell.
Return a land you control to its owner's hand if U was spent to play this.
You lose 5 life if B was spent to play this.
Mistvale Witch3UB Creature - Faerie Wizard (U)
Flying
Sacrifice a Faerie: Counter target spell unless its controller pays 1.
2/3 The Fae descended in droves, departed in disarray.
Thundercloud Vortex1U Instant (Uncommon)
Thundercloud Vortex deals 2 damage to target creature unless its control pays 2. If that player does, he or she returns it to its owner's hand. The best way to tell if someone is prepared for a storm is to see if you can find them.
EDIT: Uh, I just looked at the rules. Does my joke entry from the previous round count as an entry?
Relentless LouseB Creature - Insect
Creaturewalk (Relentless Louse is unblockable as long as the defending player controls a creature)
Relentless Louse can't block 1/1
A custom set I'm working on has a mechanic similar to Imprint. I'm doubting this will work, but I promised I would ask. Are RFGed cards allowed to have chosen values?
Warding Spell :1mana::symw: Instant
Target creature gains protection from the color of your choice until end of turn.
Infuse :2mana::symw::symw: (You may play this spell for its Infuse cost. If you do, when it is put into a graveyard after resolving, remove it from the game infused to target creature. As long as it remains removed from the game, that creature has “Sacrifice this creature: You may play a card infused to this.”)
If you paid the infuse cost, choose a color. As long as Warding Spell remains removed from the game, the infused creature has protection from the chosen color.
The Thrumming Stone triggers upon the Beacon being played. All the Beacons revealed will be on the stack before any of them start to resolve. In other words, you play the next Beacon. Once you stop revealing Beacons, let the top one resolve, then the next one, so on so forth.
Ok, so red-blue has never, to my recollection, had a "guild" that was viable in tournament play. Izzet was fun to play but was good in competitive. There have been a few RU combo and control decks (Dragonstorm, Izzetron, ect.), but RU doesn't see much play outside of this. Is there any possibility that Eventide may mark a period of good RU aggro-control decks?
It's also imperfect because sometimes you want to distinguish between a different sort of "strong" and "weak" atheism, the latter claiming that God isn't real, and the former that he is not even possible.
You can make a similar distinction within agnosticism ("we don't know if God exists" vs. "we can't know if God exists") and even theism ("God exists" vs. "God necessarily exists").
I just wanted to say that this is one of the most intelligent things I've seen posted in this thread. Oh wait, there's a shorthand for this...
QFT
Words don't mean anything without the ideas behind them, and since the definitions of these two words (agnosticism and atheism) have become so convoluted, you have to ask a non-believer what exactly it is that he or she believes.
Perhaps, but both belief in a god and atheism require decisions without evidence. In such a case, to refrain from making a decision is the most rational thing to do.
I'm not sure if that is the case.
Say we have not been thinking unicorns exist. We cannot prove they exist, but we cannot disprove them either. We are not sure about unicorns.
We cannot disprove leprechauns, werewolves, vampires and the likes. We are not sure about those.
This means we should become "agnostic" in about every object or species ever named. Nothing will ever be sure. That will throw thousands of years of intellectual improvement out of the window.
Shouldn't we be atheistic until we found any reason to doubt and become agnostics?
Many "atheists", label themselves as such because they see no evidence of a God. They may concede that, technically, they are merely agnostic; but they would say they are certain there is no God in the same way they are certain there are no unicorns. flappy has hit it right on the head with his point about uncertainty; but this uncertainty is exactly why we need to change our idea of what "certainty" really is. Since we can't be 100% sure unicorns don't exist, 99% will have to be good enough and act as out our standard for what "certain" is. In short, atheism is practically the same thing as agnosticism. There may be a God, but a frame of reference without any evidence of a God has no need to consider the possibility.
EDIT: To clarify, an agnostic isn't an atheist unless they decide that the lack of evidence of God is reason to operate under the assumption that there isn't a God.
Instant
Until end of turn, if an instant or sorcery would be countered, its controller may copy it instead.
Creature - Spike Lammasu
Reach
Protector of the Woods comes into play with four +1/+1 counters on it.
1, Remove a +1/+1 counter from Protector of the Woods: Protector of the Woods deals 1 damage to target creature with flying.
0/0
Next - Plant Horse
Artifact
WUBRG: Nova Forge deals 5 damage to target creature or player
Next: Two cloaked and silhouetted figures running through a cemetery. There is a green flash in the background.
Legendary Enchantment
Whenever a creature control deals combat damage to an opponent, you may pay B. If you do, sacrifice that creature. That player loses life equal to half its toughness, rounded up.
Next: The red temple
Instant
Counter target spell.
Return a land you control to its owner's hand if U was spent to play this.
You lose 5 life if B was spent to play this.
Creature - Faerie Wizard (U)
Flying
Sacrifice a Faerie: Counter target spell unless its controller pays 1.
2/3
The Fae descended in droves, departed in disarray.
Illus. Phillip Straub
http://www.philipstraub.com
Instant (Uncommon)
Thundercloud Vortex deals 2 damage to target creature unless its control pays 2. If that player does, he or she returns it to its owner's hand.
The best way to tell if someone is prepared for a storm is to see if you can find them.
EDIT: Uh, I just looked at the rules. Does my joke entry from the previous round count as an entry?
Creature - Insect
Creaturewalk (Relentless Louse is unblockable as long as the defending player controls a creature)
Relentless Louse can't block
1/1
Warding Spell :1mana::symw:
Instant
Target creature gains protection from the color of your choice until end of turn.
Infuse :2mana::symw::symw: (You may play this spell for its Infuse cost. If you do, when it is put into a graveyard after resolving, remove it from the game infused to target creature. As long as it remains removed from the game, that creature has “Sacrifice this creature: You may play a card infused to this.”)
If you paid the infuse cost, choose a color. As long as Warding Spell remains removed from the game, the infused creature has protection from the chosen color.
I just wanted to say that this is one of the most intelligent things I've seen posted in this thread. Oh wait, there's a shorthand for this...
QFT
Words don't mean anything without the ideas behind them, and since the definitions of these two words (agnosticism and atheism) have become so convoluted, you have to ask a non-believer what exactly it is that he or she believes.
Many "atheists", label themselves as such because they see no evidence of a God. They may concede that, technically, they are merely agnostic; but they would say they are certain there is no God in the same way they are certain there are no unicorns. flappy has hit it right on the head with his point about uncertainty; but this uncertainty is exactly why we need to change our idea of what "certainty" really is. Since we can't be 100% sure unicorns don't exist, 99% will have to be good enough and act as out our standard for what "certain" is. In short, atheism is practically the same thing as agnosticism. There may be a God, but a frame of reference without any evidence of a God has no need to consider the possibility.
EDIT: To clarify, an agnostic isn't an atheist unless they decide that the lack of evidence of God is reason to operate under the assumption that there isn't a God.