So I was thinking about some of the characters that Wizards has introduced as planeswalkers, but outside of the story line of blocks, and outside of being printed as cards (as of yet):
How do you feel about Wizards creating characters that they have no plan of creating in card form?
Do you feel like you're missing out on part of the character by not having a card representing them in the game? Or does it help to build the world they are creating in the multiverse, with (potentially) many many planeswalkers of varying power and importance? Do you like this idea, or does it infuriate you?
I have seen this kind of issue come up in many speculation treads regarding characters such as Kiora (DotP), Dack Fayden (Comics), and Ramaz (? New character in DotP). Though I don't want to discuss these characters becoming cards, I think that it shows a few possibilities in how Wizards handling new characters.
I feel like conversation on characters such as Urza or other oldwalkers in an entirely different thread.
TL : DR : How do you feel about new characters who are planeswalkers not getting cards?
People are ridiculous on this forum.
I'm unsure of what I would do in such a situation. I'd like to say that I would take the foil and pass the regular one, but I'm not in the chair with the cards in my hand.
I would realistically ask the TO if I could purchase another pack, and if I could I'd probably give the guy I would have passed to something to make up for (effectively) taking the goyf from his pocket.
I certainly wouldn't walk out, and not for an altruistic reason. I showed up to draft the set, and wouldn't want to walk out without playing the game.
This isn't the lottery and this isn't the stock market; its a game that I enjoy playing.
I wasn't aware. Is the list the same? And way to sound wicked rude by the way. Real nice.
For the record, I don't think that he was trying to be rude. Personally, I think it says a lot about your deck building that you came up with a fairly established deck on your own. You built something similar to what people have built collaboratively.
I personally allow it if the opponent catches it right away. If they tap some lands, put down their card and have an "oh ****" moment, then I'll let them switch the lands. Its not a big deal and I don't want to win because of a simple mistake. Now if they notice it after they draw a card, attack, or really gain any other info about my cards, then I have to unfortunately not let them. You don't have to play this way, but that's just the way I am.
I guess its just that I'd like people to let me take back my brain farts that happen, so I make sure to do that for other people.
This answer doesn't actually relate to the rules, warned for spam. ~parinoid
The main problem with Cabal Therapy is the number of 1 of's in vintage. I'm not sure why Thoughtseize doesn't see play over Duress, but I would guess that the two life isn't worth being able to hit creatures.
Honestly, if someone equips a worldslayer onto Avacyn and swings once, the game is over. Swinging the other times is just a formality. When you get hit the first time, scoop your cards up and start a new game.
Also, run counters/removal. You won't always have one, but you don't always have an answer.
I'd like to point out that its not that the company and its leaders are against gays that is the problem. I am a member of the LGBTQ community and I feel that he is entitled to his opinion as much as I am. The problem is the groups that he supports with his money.
Some of the "laudable" causes his donations support: Uganda's "Kill the Gays," Sexual orientation reassignment therapies (which most leading medical and psychological experts agree is mentally damaging), lobbyist groups that want to make kissing someone of the same sex a jail-able offense, etc.
That's the problem and I don't feel that any of that has been blown out of proportion; if anything, the media has spoken about the wrong parts of the problem.
I am currently in school to be a bioengineer. One of the projects I'm currently working on works with prosthetic limbs.
I think the facts that have been brought up about air resistance, the lack of lactic acid build up, the body's lack of providing resources to that part of the body, and the fact that the prosthetic limbs are substantial claims. I'm honestly unsure of what side of the argument to take. I think its absolutely amazing that he as an athlete is able to even raise this question, but I also think that it is amazing that someone developed the technology that he is using to raise this question.
To everyone using the "it is fair because no other athletes will cut their own legs off to use the technology" argument, I propose a question to you: how much of a benefit would a prosthetic limb have to provide for you to sever your own limb to use it? Considering we are talking about the highest level of competition here, I would assume that even if the leg provided a 1% increase in time, it would be used. Would you cut off both of your legs for a 1% increase in running time? What about 10%? What about 100%? Where does this line get drawn? If there was conclusive proof that a prosthetic leg made you run 5% faster, would you cut off your own legs?
I agree that having more types of games and stuff is always good. You've got a lot of space, and a shelf full of board games and a bookshelf with RPG's on it will bring different people into the store. I started playing magic because I saw people playing it when I went into a game store while on vacation to buy a D&D book. Bought about 100 bucks worth of cards and stuff that day.
Also, a small cooler or fridge with candy bars and sodas and bottles of water in it with the small bags of chips on top of it can make you a bit of money, and people are much more likely to stick around for hours if you have that stuff.
Get to know the players there and ask if they want to help give you ideas for events. They all want to play casual tuesday afternoons, cube with prizes on saturdays, and play an extra draft after FNM? Perfect.
How do you feel about Wizards creating characters that they have no plan of creating in card form?
Do you feel like you're missing out on part of the character by not having a card representing them in the game? Or does it help to build the world they are creating in the multiverse, with (potentially) many many planeswalkers of varying power and importance? Do you like this idea, or does it infuriate you?
I have seen this kind of issue come up in many speculation treads regarding characters such as Kiora (DotP), Dack Fayden (Comics), and Ramaz (? New character in DotP). Though I don't want to discuss these characters becoming cards, I think that it shows a few possibilities in how Wizards handling new characters.
I feel like conversation on characters such as Urza or other oldwalkers in an entirely different thread.
TL : DR : How do you feel about new characters who are planeswalkers not getting cards?
I'm unsure of what I would do in such a situation. I'd like to say that I would take the foil and pass the regular one, but I'm not in the chair with the cards in my hand.
I would realistically ask the TO if I could purchase another pack, and if I could I'd probably give the guy I would have passed to something to make up for (effectively) taking the goyf from his pocket.
I certainly wouldn't walk out, and not for an altruistic reason. I showed up to draft the set, and wouldn't want to walk out without playing the game.
This isn't the lottery and this isn't the stock market; its a game that I enjoy playing.
For the record, I don't think that he was trying to be rude. Personally, I think it says a lot about your deck building that you came up with a fairly established deck on your own. You built something similar to what people have built collaboratively.
I guess its just that I'd like people to let me take back my brain farts that happen, so I make sure to do that for other people.
This answer doesn't actually relate to the rules, warned for spam. ~parinoid
Also, run counters/removal. You won't always have one, but you don't always have an answer.
Some of the "laudable" causes his donations support: Uganda's "Kill the Gays," Sexual orientation reassignment therapies (which most leading medical and psychological experts agree is mentally damaging), lobbyist groups that want to make kissing someone of the same sex a jail-able offense, etc.
That's the problem and I don't feel that any of that has been blown out of proportion; if anything, the media has spoken about the wrong parts of the problem.
I think the facts that have been brought up about air resistance, the lack of lactic acid build up, the body's lack of providing resources to that part of the body, and the fact that the prosthetic limbs are substantial claims. I'm honestly unsure of what side of the argument to take. I think its absolutely amazing that he as an athlete is able to even raise this question, but I also think that it is amazing that someone developed the technology that he is using to raise this question.
To everyone using the "it is fair because no other athletes will cut their own legs off to use the technology" argument, I propose a question to you: how much of a benefit would a prosthetic limb have to provide for you to sever your own limb to use it? Considering we are talking about the highest level of competition here, I would assume that even if the leg provided a 1% increase in time, it would be used. Would you cut off both of your legs for a 1% increase in running time? What about 10%? What about 100%? Where does this line get drawn? If there was conclusive proof that a prosthetic leg made you run 5% faster, would you cut off your own legs?
Also, a small cooler or fridge with candy bars and sodas and bottles of water in it with the small bags of chips on top of it can make you a bit of money, and people are much more likely to stick around for hours if you have that stuff.
Get to know the players there and ask if they want to help give you ideas for events. They all want to play casual tuesday afternoons, cube with prizes on saturdays, and play an extra draft after FNM? Perfect.