IMO you forced esper too soon, but you were obviously well rewarded for it with multiple bombs in pack 3.
I would have taken Blightning over Rhox War Monk, because Monk is effectively a 5th or 6th turn play unless you're full bant and running fixers. Blightning is awesome in limited and when used correctly, it's better than hymn to tourach.
Inkwell Leviathan 5UUUU
Artifact Creature - Leviathan
Islandwalk
When Inkwell Leviathan comes into play, choose a color.
Inkwell Leviathan has protection from the chosen color.
Unearth UUUU
7/8
My answer to the original question of this thread:
Not necessarily, but it's wrong to completely censor other ideologies. Children learn pretty much everything independently, and an hour or so per week of storytelling and ritual isn't going to severely alter their way of thinking about the world. They will, at any rate, eventually decide for themselves if these stories and enough of the other ones are true, sooner or later.
A similar question: should children be taught politics?
Religious belief's do affect other people. Life saving medicine that isn't available because of religious sentiment, children who don't recieve treatment because of religious sentiment, and people pushing religious law into public law.
Children should not learn to adapt to a religion early, how can they possibly choose "The Right One™", there are as of the last census 32800 denominations of christianity in america, let alone the world. Then we have all the OTHER myriad of religions. There is no way I could have chosen christianity of my own supposedly free will when I began going to sunday school as a child. I was put into a christian pre-preschool at age 2!
Good storytelling? Sure, as long as you don't say I need to think it happened or I will be tortured forever.
Religious belief doesn't affect other people when their rights are being protected by the government. If separation of church and state is adequately enforced, just like the right to worship, then people pushing religion into public law couldn't happen. The problem is not religion, it's the way we make our laws and the extent to which we protect the rights of man.
Regardless of what they're told, all people are only going to believe something if they have determined it to be true for themselves. You can't force a mind to think. Threatening children with everlasting metaphysical torture might be pretty bad, but it's impossible to force them to believe it.
The way I see it, the beliefs of another person neither break my leg or pick my pocket. Children should learn to adapt to religion early, but only through drawing their own conclusions. It isn't right to force your beliefs on someone else, but bringing your kids to church definitely doesn't cross the line. It might be educational for children who are going to end up living in a society with religion. At any rate it's at least to the most secular atheist good storytelling, right?
Oblivion Ring, because it's less color intensive and removes any permanent, including 4 toughness or greater creatures, and the odds of 2 for 1ing someone with Branching Bolt when it matters aren't that great.
I know this is a rules question, but does fatestitcher really shut down exalted like that? Can you really tap their only attacker, or could they just attack with a different creature that would then get all of the exalted bonuses?
This was from this week's FNM, P1P2 after moneydrafting tezzeret:
I decided on Resounding Thunder, and I happened to be well rewarded for it. P1P3 was Jund Battlemage. And then pack 2 pick 1, 2 and 3 were Flameblast Dragon (foil), Vein Drinker, and Spearbreaker Behemoth. Then P3P1 was Mycoloth, then P3P2 was Skullmulcher. So, although I had no dragon fodder or elvish visionary, I thought my Jund deck was pretty hard to beat. It turned out (as I wouldn't have guessed from the cards being passed) that the guy directly to my left during the draft had an even more awesome Jund deck, and I lost the match against him 0-2.
1. Get away
2. If 1 is not possible, make situation so 1 is possible
system?
This is good. I see it more like this though:
1a. Decide how to react to the situation.
1b. If you are able to get away without opening yourself to attack, then do so. Congratulations, you're safe!
1c. If not, and you have a technique that is applicable to the situation, then use it. At that point you're fighting, so do your best to end the fight with no loss of life on either side.
At any rate, this all has to happen at once, as a single decision, if you're in range of someone who intends to attack you. If you know the technique and it's applicable, then it may come out only as fast as you decide that that is what you're doing. It may not be that you're looking for a fight, but in this situation the fight is being brought to you whether you like it or not.
If a fight can be avoided, then that is best. If a fight cannot be avoided, then do your best to end it without any casualties. I think that does equal making the situation so that getting away is possible. Maybe we don't really disagree on this at all.
Macgyver, you're an idiot if you would actually, if attacked by someone who was armed and expressed a desire to harm you, would not take whatever measure to run away. And I honestly have no problem with your stupidity, but I'm worried that someone here would actually listen to it.
I wouldn't make running away my top priority. I would make staying alive my top priority.
A lot of the time this does mean running away. But each and every time this situation happens to anybody, it most certainly requires a decision about what to do.
If they have weapons, then that has to be taken into account, but if you also have weapons, then using them isn't always a terrible plan.
Automatically turning your back to an opponent who does have a weapon, and is close enough to use it, disregarding your capability to defend yourself, if you have it... I really can't go on about this any more. If my stance on this makes me an idiot, then I'm glad to be one. Guilty as charged.
I took Bant Charm over Deft Duelist because Bant doesn't have that much hard removal. Fortunately another duelist was passed, and I did end up taking it. But on P1P2 I couldn't let myself pass such a solid removal spell in favor of a 2/1 for 2, even though it has 2 awesome abilities. It's so important to remove those threats, and sometimes Resounding Silence, and Excommunicate don't quite cover the job. And I never saw an Oblivion Ring all draft, so I think it ended up being the right choice.
What are you talking about? It's not like human beings are readily capable of killing each other.
The point of any art that teaches weaponless fighting is to not be unarmed even when you only have empty hands. If you know karate, you really aren't weaponless. Empty hands are your weapon.
We are quite readily capable of killing each other. How easy is it for someone to pick up a lead pipe and beat someone else over the head with it? Our brain and hands actually make us the most deadly species around, because they allow us to make and use tools.
We aren't (talking about the same thing). I'm talking about martial arts. I think you're talking about something you saw out of a movie.
I guess actual combat only happens in movies and never in real life. In fact, why would anyone ever learn a martial art? Since you're never going to encounter conflict in real life, and there's never anyone who might want to harm you, why bother? And it's not like you're life is worth defending even if someone was to try and take it, right?
No. I think you're talking about an athletic competition. I'm talking about martial arts that were created to be used in combat.
But what wouldn't be harmful is standing your ground and fighting someone whom you know nothing about? What the hell kind of logic are you operating under?
You do know one thing: they are trying to kill you. You don't know what they are capable of, but given that you know an applicable technique, unless you have reason to believe they aren't a real threat, it only makes sense to make use of it. Standing your ground versus running away? You could barely have any time at all to decide.
But if the threat is real and you have to stand your ground and fight for your life, there is no harm in that. In fact, the point of doing so is to prevent harm. There's a lot of potential for harm in turning your back to a serious opponent though.
Anyway, if your primary concern is getting out of there alive, and running away doesn't help you do that, and someone is trying to kill you, and they are an actual threat, what do you do?
I hope the answer is something like: "I would make sure to defend myself, but I would also save my opponent's life if possible."
If not, then you really don't understand the purpose of the existence of any martial art at all.
I would have taken Blightning over Rhox War Monk, because Monk is effectively a 5th or 6th turn play unless you're full bant and running fixers. Blightning is awesome in limited and when used correctly, it's better than hymn to tourach.
Also I think Soul's Fire and Kederekt Creeper would have done better in the mainboard.
5UUUU
Artifact Creature - Leviathan
Islandwalk
When Inkwell Leviathan comes into play, choose a color.
Inkwell Leviathan has protection from the chosen color.
Unearth UUUU
7/8
Not necessarily, but it's wrong to completely censor other ideologies. Children learn pretty much everything independently, and an hour or so per week of storytelling and ritual isn't going to severely alter their way of thinking about the world. They will, at any rate, eventually decide for themselves if these stories and enough of the other ones are true, sooner or later.
A similar question: should children be taught politics?
Religious belief doesn't affect other people when their rights are being protected by the government. If separation of church and state is adequately enforced, just like the right to worship, then people pushing religion into public law couldn't happen. The problem is not religion, it's the way we make our laws and the extent to which we protect the rights of man.
Regardless of what they're told, all people are only going to believe something if they have determined it to be true for themselves. You can't force a mind to think. Threatening children with everlasting metaphysical torture might be pretty bad, but it's impossible to force them to believe it.
2. Flameblast Dragon
3. Battlegrace Angel
4. Sarkhan Vol
5. Mycoloth
This was from this week's FNM, P1P2 after moneydrafting tezzeret:
Bant Charm or
Rhox Charger or
Executioner's Capsule or
Resounding Thunder or
[card]Infest
[/card]
I decided on Resounding Thunder, and I happened to be well rewarded for it. P1P3 was Jund Battlemage. And then pack 2 pick 1, 2 and 3 were Flameblast Dragon (foil), Vein Drinker, and Spearbreaker Behemoth. Then P3P1 was Mycoloth, then P3P2 was Skullmulcher. So, although I had no dragon fodder or elvish visionary, I thought my Jund deck was pretty hard to beat. It turned out (as I wouldn't have guessed from the cards being passed) that the guy directly to my left during the draft had an even more awesome Jund deck, and I lost the match against him 0-2.
This is good. I see it more like this though:
1a. Decide how to react to the situation.
1b. If you are able to get away without opening yourself to attack, then do so. Congratulations, you're safe!
1c. If not, and you have a technique that is applicable to the situation, then use it. At that point you're fighting, so do your best to end the fight with no loss of life on either side.
At any rate, this all has to happen at once, as a single decision, if you're in range of someone who intends to attack you. If you know the technique and it's applicable, then it may come out only as fast as you decide that that is what you're doing. It may not be that you're looking for a fight, but in this situation the fight is being brought to you whether you like it or not.
If a fight can be avoided, then that is best. If a fight cannot be avoided, then do your best to end it without any casualties. I think that does equal making the situation so that getting away is possible. Maybe we don't really disagree on this at all.
I wouldn't make running away my top priority. I would make staying alive my top priority.
A lot of the time this does mean running away. But each and every time this situation happens to anybody, it most certainly requires a decision about what to do.
If they have weapons, then that has to be taken into account, but if you also have weapons, then using them isn't always a terrible plan.
Automatically turning your back to an opponent who does have a weapon, and is close enough to use it, disregarding your capability to defend yourself, if you have it... I really can't go on about this any more. If my stance on this makes me an idiot, then I'm glad to be one. Guilty as charged.
You're right, we don't have any really obvious weapons like that.
The point of any art that teaches weaponless fighting is to not be unarmed even when you only have empty hands. If you know karate, you really aren't weaponless. Empty hands are your weapon.
We are quite readily capable of killing each other. How easy is it for someone to pick up a lead pipe and beat someone else over the head with it? Our brain and hands actually make us the most deadly species around, because they allow us to make and use tools.
I guess actual combat only happens in movies and never in real life. In fact, why would anyone ever learn a martial art? Since you're never going to encounter conflict in real life, and there's never anyone who might want to harm you, why bother? And it's not like you're life is worth defending even if someone was to try and take it, right?
No. I think you're talking about an athletic competition. I'm talking about martial arts that were created to be used in combat.
You do know one thing: they are trying to kill you. You don't know what they are capable of, but given that you know an applicable technique, unless you have reason to believe they aren't a real threat, it only makes sense to make use of it. Standing your ground versus running away? You could barely have any time at all to decide.
But if the threat is real and you have to stand your ground and fight for your life, there is no harm in that. In fact, the point of doing so is to prevent harm. There's a lot of potential for harm in turning your back to a serious opponent though.
Anyway, if your primary concern is getting out of there alive, and running away doesn't help you do that, and someone is trying to kill you, and they are an actual threat, what do you do?
I hope the answer is something like: "I would make sure to defend myself, but I would also save my opponent's life if possible."
If not, then you really don't understand the purpose of the existence of any martial art at all.