- Stagnant_
- Registered User
-
Member for 15 years, 10 months, and 26 days
Last active Thu, Feb, 4 2016 04:47:29
- 0 Followers
- 1,013 Total Posts
- 2 Thanks
-
Aug 29, 2008Stagnant_ posted a message on Being a budget player at heart...Hai...Posted in: Cabalwannabe Blog
-
Aug 25, 2008...Posted in: The Cadet's Random Idiocies
What?
I'm sorry if I'm not clairvoyant, and it's hard to tell when you're annoying people when they just don't say anything, but I don't see anything wrong with this. I do not want to troll anybody.
**** it, as much as I hate to admit it, looking back, that's too far. I apologize. But I really don't mean to piss anyone off. -
Aug 5, 2008Stagnant_ posted a message on I love being me.@Tekno: when he comes back about four more times within the next half-hour after I IP ban him, no.Posted in: The Cadet's Random Idiocies
@Saph: This is a problem I have. I mean, it's like whenever I see something like that, my first reaction is to ***** about it and complain in around 10 different places. I know that it's wrong, but I really can't resist it. I mean, the correct reaction would be to get off the computer and do something else for a while, or at least look at something funny instead of sinking myself into this ****. I honestly don't know. I think I should look for some kind of psychological help. -
Aug 4, 2008Stagnant_ posted a message on I love being me.@Listen Here Now: Thank you. That post was truly helpful.Posted in: The Cadet's Random Idiocies
@MikeyG: You're right. -
Aug 3, 2008Stagnant_ posted a message on I love being me.Have any advice? I AM a pariah. Seriously. If there was a poll, "Who is the most hated user of MTGS", I would come about ten votes below spambots! So what do I do, huh? How do I address the problem? I have no idea.Posted in: The Cadet's Random Idiocies
Actually, that's probably a good topic for Real Life Issues. -
Aug 2, 2008Stagnant_ posted a message on Yay for PTQs for Block.Actually, I'm pretty sure that Faeries regularly get at least 80% of the envelopes in block.Posted in: Knowledge Blog
-
Aug 2, 2008Stagnant_ posted a message on God, I love this place...Er... Idiocy?Posted in: The Cadet's Random Idiocies
That was me not thinking straight. -
Aug 1, 2008Stagnant_ posted a message on God, I love this place...Oh, I did.Posted in: The Cadet's Random Idiocies
Sorry, I was angry. When I'm angry, I have trouble thinking straight - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Instant
As an additional cost to play Illusory Mask, exile a card from your hand face-down.
Reveal the exiled card. If it is an Instant or Sorcery, You may pay X, where X is that card’s converted mana cost. If you do, Illusory Mask gains all effects of that card. If necessary, you may choose new targets for Illusory Mask.
If Illusory Mask is put into your graveyard from play, you may shuffle it into your Library and draw a card.
This... probably does not work as written.
The point of this spell is to "mask" your next move. That is, you throw down the Mask, and the opponent has to take a wild guess whether what you play is actually worth losing a counterspell over. What's more, if they do counter it, you don't get 2-for-1'd; you merely lose the card you would have lost anyways.
Firstly there's the issue of the recursion effect. I don't want this to make for two-for-ones. It's not that amazing of an effect, you're paying extra for it, and it shouldn't also cost you an additional card. What I don't want is this becoming the next big incredibly stupid thing for Dredge (or making LED even more broken). I'm not sure if it works as worded, though, and I'm not sure how you could get that effect without directly mentioning the stack (which is apparently a big no-no?). What I'm more worried about is the "gains all effects of that card". Would that still work? Can you get the effects of that spell to resolve? How could I get around this? I want the opponent to have to decide to counter or not before they can know what I'm actually casting, and I don't know how I could make that work. Any thoughts?
Anyways. Christ, been a while hasn't it? God. MTG. It's a thing. Being totally bi. It's also a thing. Half a bottle of rum. Definitely a thing. Just got back into magic. Sup?
Where should I ask about playstyles and such? Like, right now I'm running a deck which is very heavy in cards like Grizzled Leotao and Jaddi Lifestrider, which become huge with Doran, and Eland Umbra and Hero's Resolve, which make other dudes huge with Doran. Is this a bad idea?
@2: Shame. Was hoping that would be more useful for me. Ah well, still a ludicrously amazing synergy between the two. I need to run more treefolk... Thanks!
2. My commander is Doran, the Siege Tower. I play him, then remove him from the game with Unstoppable Ash. Can I:
In general, how does the "Champion" mechanic interact with commanders?
My friend's objection to the "he can shoot 10 times" thing is that once the stack starts resolving, you can't throw anything else on there once everyone has passed priority to the first resolving spell/effect. Is he correct?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers?page=1
Same row of bills.
Now, it's true, the morality of abortions is questionable (I find it a non-issue because I do not feel that human rights themselves are justified, but that's an issue for another thread). However, the morality of the murder of living, breathing, THINKING people-people who are unquestionably alive... This is disgusting. This is patently disgusting. And I have no doubt that within a few months of this bill being passed, we're going to see cases of legal murder against abortion doctors.
This has to stop. I honestly think that George Carlin got it right. "Fetus? You're golden. Alive? You're on your own."
...I suppose this is only slightly related, but ☺☺☺☺. I really hope this stuff doesn't pass, but I'm fairly sure that unless there's rioting in the streets or the supreme court steps in, that bill is going to pass in Iowa.
I'll bite. Why is freedom of speech not an issue?
In case it wasn't mentioned. Gnosticism on either side is fairly ridiculous at this point. Atheism does not ensure surety; neither does theism. It merely indicates that you believe something; if you aren't sure then it doesn't mean you can't still believe anyways.
I'm behind Highroller on this one; it's just a liiiittle bit ridiculous to claim that this is not religion-based.