I never said you had no integrity? Your need to defend are stable mate is confusing you methinks.
I also framed the integrity statement in terms of 'in general' not in relation specifically to Ith.
Your, well intentioned, advocacy for Ith I am uncomfortable with as it makes a bigger deal out of this than I intended. I have said all I intend on saying in a public forum. I have messaged Ith and will talk to him if he responds.
I detect what feels like a defenisiveness to accepting that you have a responsibility to your readers to be either 1) transparent about your bias or 2) attempt to be objective.
Also, for clarity, you are saying that naming a player, and calling into question their character is something that this site, and its writers are quite comfortable doing?
Edit: Language like "your side of the story" is adverserial, I am resisting an adverserial 'us and them' way of communicating, which is related to my problem with the article
I would be more inclined to agree if you didn't have the power to defend yourself. I used to decry that sort of thing when I wrote for Neutral Ground Online for instance because we had no forum there. Only the featured Writers were guaranteed a voice and by and large most of us were fair to our readers, but occasionally someone did get called out.
Once again, this is not a journal, nor any kind of professional publication though it is often the home of some very fine magic writers. We write for a pittence and are glad for that because the site provides us all with a voice. Integrity? I think you are confused. My personal integrity is just fine. I have no qualms at all and sleep well when I do. I suspect that is true of Ith as well.
Also it is not the site content manager's job to censor his writers in order to not offend anyone. Rather it is the writer's job to choose his or her subject matter and within reason give us something worth reading. Now if you think Ith has told false hoods it is incumbent on your own integrity that you set the record straight and forthwith, holding back no pertinent details even those which might harm your case.
I did in fact called someone out while writing for NGO who was rude to me in person and though I did not regret my statements I did regret that he had no voice to refute what I said (though there were plenty of witnesses to naysay him should he have found one.) I do not feel the same way here. You are here and you are able if you want to give your side of the story.
Do so and do not claim foul because you aren't being paid for it. You could write an article about it if you so chose (though Id think it would either be immensely well written and in that case a waste of your talents or just be a waste of everyone else's time. No real winners there. But since this is an open forum, go ahead and tell us what really happened. If you feel Ith has wronged you, tell us how.
So there no code, or expecation?
You are being paid, is there no obligation to represent your employer in a manner that reflects positively?
Impartial point of view on mtgo is meh, you are right, it prolly doesn't exist.
Impartial point of view on people is just good manners, good business and... good manners.
It is lazy, and reflects poorly on the author and the site (not refering to the above now, just in general).
Using a position of power to call someone out, by name, is something I am also uncomfortable with - this is a public forum, and right of reply is either... tokenistic, or could just degenerate into a flame war. Neither of which are overly dignified.
It says much, though, for the standard of writing if there is no acknowledgement or attempt to abide by any kind of journalistic measure of integrity.
Before someone comments, I relize I wrote Edwin Irvin instead of Evin Irwin. Even after proof reading it like 20 times I still didn't catch this until after I published it. But I do have the name right in the deck box.
This is not a journal. There is no reporting going on here. The news is not dealt with much on this site beyond editorializing. If you are seeking an impartial point of view seek elsewhere. If you want to argue and discuss various opinions this is your place, and Welcome. Ith is doing what most of the writers on this site do. He is giving his opinion and opening it up for criticism and discussion. Now given all that I agree that maligning a person's character because of something they said/did is generally bad form. Though I understand it when there is provocation.
Good discussion both of you - though I think it comes back,in the end, to it being unrated. Any definition after that is subjective. The word 'fun' is used to 'censor' games too, but it is a subjective idea also...
I would be better, imho, if wotc created an unrated and rated games room. Would still be crying but...
On the negative response of other players affecting noobs thing... completely agree. Happens in all of the rooms.
Problem is, and I have stated this elsewhere, there is a cultural bias towards anglo-american euphamisms, language and humour. I have seen kids ragequit over a comment from my partner, and it was really puzzling. Problem is, that humour does not translate well, and people tend to assume they are being made fun of, if they don't understand. Even when they aren't.
In future, your writing may be more accurate if you were to do some more research. Perhaps talk to the people in question. I am not a new person to the boards, and you have made the mistake in the past, behaving towards other niks I have like I know nothing because I have a low post count.
You are, naturally, entitled to your assessment of a given situation, and whilst I have had conflict with you, wouldn't categorise your thinking as narrow or lazy. Normally you are pretty comprehensive (occasionally a little overbearing and a little cocky, but meh... who isn't).
I might also suggest that you may have a responsibility to your role in the community, and your online writing employer, to avoid lazy writing (I think implying someone is a newb, and thus their ideas are suspect is lazy), and avoid naming kids in a manner that reflects poorly on their character. (This is what you have done with theclonedone). Sure make observations about a person's play, decks, choices, even report their actions and let them speak for themselves, but your comment above is too much editorial about players character, and not enough journalism, imho.
Anyway. Good luck with your writing etc, and will catch you on the boards or client.
Glad you like. And you really can get as creative as possible with the stuff. Personally, I'm brainstorming about a RWU Allies deck called "America's Only Got Interests" :-)
In the first game of round 1, you should have run Assault Griffin out a lot earlier. If it trades with the Liliana's Specter, then it frees up your Cloud Crusader to get some hits in, as you have the only flyer on the board. It also "overloads" his Alluring Siren a bit more, as he can't force you to swing in with both your Assault Griffin AND your Palace Guard on the same turn. Given that you drew your third flyer before he drew his second, you really could have had a significant window of air superiority to force damage through. With him playing over-conservative on the ground, that was the way to go I think.
I also think it was worth considering running either the Mighty Leap or the Inspired Charge, so you have some form of combat trick available. Without any combat tricks in your deck at all, your opponent can make perfect blocking and attacking decisions every time, and you can never punish him for assuming you have no trick in hand.
You say 4 stone rain or 1 wasteland in a deck is more excusable. But with your policy of "quit the game and block them if they play one early LD spell", you'd never know that was the composition of their deck. You only find that out if you keep playing. That's one of the reasons I find "quit at the first sign of a spell I don't like" to be an overreaction.
I think the question of how likely a deck is to fall apart and lose is entirely relevant to the discussion, and "LD still might lose" is an understatement of my position. Which is "LD will *usually* lose". If it was just "might occasionally lose" I'd agree with you that's not too relevant, but it's a weak deck archetype that will generally lose well over 50% of its games. At least, the ones people play out and don't ragequit on turn 4.
There are combo decks that might go off one game out of ten, and some people might not like being "combo-ed out on". But if you sit down to play one of them, you can't say "I won't get to play the game 'cause he has a combo" - the fact is, you have a 90% chance your deck will get to do what your deck does, which is pretty good. It's the same with most LD decks, odds are you'll get to play out your cards and win eventually, it's just going to take a lot longer to get started most times. If you're impatient it's fine to put up "No LD" in your game description, but I think it's reasonable for players to play mid-range decks or decks that seek the long game, whether they do it with walls and ghostly prison and ensnaring bridge, or whether they do it with wrath of god, doom blades, discard spells, or the methods you personally dislike more than wrath and doom blades and discard - LD and counterspells. Me, I dislike Wrath more, it kills 5 of my guys I spent a lot of time and effort getting out there, and leaves me with a mostly empty hand unlike LD where I have plenty of in-hand resources ready for later.
Some decks seek to slow down the game so they can cast 8 mana fatties, some so they can assemble a 5 piece combo. Some just try to keep you from having creatures on the board so they can hit you with little guys till they win. All perfectly valid strategies. Magic is so enjoyable because it has more diversity of playstyles, and through deck design everybody can pick a different style or even "invent their own". That multiplies out when you throw two decks against each other, the number of combinations of two different decks fighting creates millions of possible situations to experience. Restricting diversity just means you see less variety, in my view.
I understand your point about how LD tries to stop you from playing the game. But really, so does Boros Bushwhacker. If you have a deck based mainly on some cool 3-6 mana creatures (and I certainly have decks like that), a deck that rushes you with Steppe Lynxes and Plated Geopedes and Goblin Bushwhackers and some burn spells will very often kill you dead in 3-5 turns. So will a good Affinity deck, for that matter. I've done it with Allies, and with Beastmaster Ascension decks.
When a game ends after all you've played is a Llanowar Elves, Rampant Growth, and a Ponder, they denied you the ability to play the game. They just did it in a different way than the LD deck - and a faster and more brutal way, in my opinion. In the end, any deck that reduces your life total to zero (or mills you, or Coalition Victories you, etc.) has succeeded in denying your ability to play the game - the only question is whether you got to try to do some stuff before that happened, and whether you enjoyed trying. A deck that grinds you out over 10-15 turns probably will let you do more than the deck that gets the turn 4 win.
Personally, the deck I have that feels most "unfair" to opponents is my Battle of Wits deck. When I get a win on turns 6-8, that spell makes me feel like the other player's likely reaction would be "Oh, I did a bunch of stuff, but it turns out none of it really mattered at all, because this whole game was really just about that one spell in the end". It makes ME feel like none of my spells mattered but my last one, too. (Or maybe that and the tutor that found it.) I don't play that deck much.
But I have no problem with other people playing it, either. It's not like I don't have naturalize effects and oblivion rings in some of my decks. And the ones that don't - hey, that was my decision to take that risk with some of my deckbuilds. If I know they're weak to enchantments, I take the consequences of that decision when I play them.
From long experience, I know I'm MUCH more likely to have an "I couldn't do anything effective at all" experience against a tier 1 tournament deck than I am against LD decks, because LD decks are weak. If you played more than four turns against them, as many times as I have, you might find out that they're not as unpleasant as you think. Sure, that minority of games where they draw the right balance of LD and monsters, and you don't draw a large enough number of lands, it's bad. But so are the random deck vs. random deck games where I get manascrewed or manaflooded. In the majority of games, there's actually a very satisfying ending of "You made me feel frustrated for 9-10 turns, so now that I'm casting creatures and stomping the heck out of you, it feels extra good 'cause it's like my revenge for what you did to me at the beginning of the game." And then you win.
If you can't enjoy winning a game because it started out slow and frustrating for the first half, maybe you need to invest a little less of yourself into the whole "caring how games play out" concern, and take a more relaxed attitude towards Magic. I know it's helped me enjoy the game more than some of the guys at our local cardshop who care way too much about whether they win or lose.
It's still a game, not a job interview or a gun battle against an Al Qaida terrorist. There's a lot less at stake, right?
How about turn 5? I've seen azusa decks drop a primevil titan on turn 3, fetching both eldrazi lands, turn 4 they attack with the titan, fetching temple of the false god or some other accell, fetch Cthulu just before turn 5, hardcast him.
It's a strategy that is very hard to deal with because spot removal and counterspells aren't a big part of the EDH metagame.
Heck, turn 5 in most commander games, I haven't even played a spell yet. While I'm a big advocate for budget casual play, I never advertise 'no eldrazi' or join games like that. But the Azusa deck is making me reconsider.
I don't think I am confused at all. Though I might have confused you.
Casual = laid back, easy going, not formal. Right? Can we agree on this at least? I take those synonyms and extrapolate fun. Semantically you are correct, fun doesn't directly equate to casual or vice versa but they have strongly similar connotations. Relaxing is often a euphemism for having fun. Relaxing is something you do in a casual environment. Worrying about cards and play styles and strategies is typically stressful, and not fun or casual.
I agree that when something is on the line it is more uncasual than when nothing is on the line. Ratings are an interesting thing in that WOTC considers them worthless online (they hide them from everyone but the person they involve and that seems like a step towards phasing them out entirely.)
Like it or not languages are mutable. Even the dictionaries get things 'wrong'. I agree when possible we should find a relatively objective source for common definitions but I don't see WoTC as being that source for me. From MY conversations with ORCS the attitude I got was "shrugs, doesn't matter. Choose your own definition." Which may add a bit to the general confusion over what makes the definition. As far as my assumption goes, I look at the lack of comment by WoTC and make an observation that they don't seem to care one way or another. I could be wrong (happens often enough darn it!) But I think in this case I am closer to the mark than you.
Pardon if I characterized you as pure spike if that isn't the case. (That is my impression.) And as I see it that colors how you define things.
As for prismatic, I tire of the usual "casual" formats and need something to keep my building muscles from stagnating. Byos and Heirloom didn't appeal to me after making a few decks. I remember enjoying prismatic a few years ago (06-07) when my friend dragged me into 2hg games of it. Tough format to build on a budget though. Any suggestions for articles/resources?
The Prizes are also a huge factor and since the packs are worth so low, most grinders will play another format for the same lenght of time, same entry fee, but make approx 50% more per pack.
Most grinders do not really care what format they play as long as they can get the top prizes.
Star City Games does a lot with Legacy.
5ks, aren't they almost every month? And always 100+?
Keeping up with both Paper and Online could easily discourage some players as well. Say i wanted to play CounterThopters, I'd have to shell out 1,600 in Paper and then another 1k on MtGO.
Also we are missing some small cards to flesh out online. Nothing too big, but enough side board material to fill out Vintage/Classic and Legacy are in Masques.
eh one was playing blue and the other had white...i was just of an opinion that both should have answers and its there own fault i made it to turn 14 and had the opportunity to cast him.
Let's not assume what WotC does or does not care about without some sort of concrete evidence. Facts are important for a lot of reasons.I talked to two ORCs today asking about WotC's opinion on the word, and they each said the same thing to me. Unrated and unranked games. Maybe if you asked someone first they would have told you the same thing.
Second:
I didn't choose the narrowest definition I could because I'm a pure 'cut-throat winner takes all' spike. It is the only definition that makes logical sense when applied to multiple scenarios.
Third:
It is not up to us to decide what casual means for us. When I don't know what a word means I can't just make up a definition. Why do you think we have dictionaries? There is a huge difference from playing a fun game and playing a casual game. So let's not mix that up. Casual =/= Fun. Fun = Fun. Casual = Casual. It really is that simple. What you seem to be confusing are the words fun and casual, which is a common misunderstanding apparently. Some strategies are more fun to some people than others. So when they say they want a "casual" game they really should be saying "I want to have fun my way." Which again is where this notion that casual games should be fun comes from. (Incorrectly of course)
And yes, Prismatic is where all the fun really is. ;)
I suspect it was more a matter of Annihilator:6 with no chance of removing it that made them quit than the fact that you dared cast something uncasual.
i actually had two players concede on me the turn i cast emrakul...I thought it was kind of lame that they did this only because it was turn 14...my only ramp with a rakdos Carnarium and a Temple of the false god...but its whatever...
Hey Paul.
Love the post, thoughtful, well worded.
I never said you had no integrity? Your need to defend are stable mate is confusing you methinks.
I also framed the integrity statement in terms of 'in general' not in relation specifically to Ith.
Your, well intentioned, advocacy for Ith I am uncomfortable with as it makes a bigger deal out of this than I intended. I have said all I intend on saying in a public forum. I have messaged Ith and will talk to him if he responds.
I detect what feels like a defenisiveness to accepting that you have a responsibility to your readers to be either 1) transparent about your bias or 2) attempt to be objective.
Also, for clarity, you are saying that naming a player, and calling into question their character is something that this site, and its writers are quite comfortable doing?
Edit: Language like "your side of the story" is adverserial, I am resisting an adverserial 'us and them' way of communicating, which is related to my problem with the article
I would be more inclined to agree if you didn't have the power to defend yourself. I used to decry that sort of thing when I wrote for Neutral Ground Online for instance because we had no forum there. Only the featured Writers were guaranteed a voice and by and large most of us were fair to our readers, but occasionally someone did get called out.
Once again, this is not a journal, nor any kind of professional publication though it is often the home of some very fine magic writers. We write for a pittence and are glad for that because the site provides us all with a voice. Integrity? I think you are confused. My personal integrity is just fine. I have no qualms at all and sleep well when I do. I suspect that is true of Ith as well.
Also it is not the site content manager's job to censor his writers in order to not offend anyone. Rather it is the writer's job to choose his or her subject matter and within reason give us something worth reading. Now if you think Ith has told false hoods it is incumbent on your own integrity that you set the record straight and forthwith, holding back no pertinent details even those which might harm your case.
I did in fact called someone out while writing for NGO who was rude to me in person and though I did not regret my statements I did regret that he had no voice to refute what I said (though there were plenty of witnesses to naysay him should he have found one.) I do not feel the same way here. You are here and you are able if you want to give your side of the story.
Do so and do not claim foul because you aren't being paid for it. You could write an article about it if you so chose (though Id think it would either be immensely well written and in that case a waste of your talents or just be a waste of everyone else's time. No real winners there. But since this is an open forum, go ahead and tell us what really happened. If you feel Ith has wronged you, tell us how.
So there no code, or expecation?
You are being paid, is there no obligation to represent your employer in a manner that reflects positively?
Impartial point of view on mtgo is meh, you are right, it prolly doesn't exist.
Impartial point of view on people is just good manners, good business and... good manners.
It is lazy, and reflects poorly on the author and the site (not refering to the above now, just in general).
Using a position of power to call someone out, by name, is something I am also uncomfortable with - this is a public forum, and right of reply is either... tokenistic, or could just degenerate into a flame war. Neither of which are overly dignified.
It says much, though, for the standard of writing if there is no acknowledgement or attempt to abide by any kind of journalistic measure of integrity.
I know what you mean. It never does bro.. lol
Guess not. :/ But then my humor translator doesn't work terribly well online. :p
Before someone comments, I relize I wrote Edwin Irvin instead of Evin Irwin. Even after proof reading it like 20 times I still didn't catch this until after I published it. But I do have the name right in the deck box.
Sorry Evin if your reading this.
Hi No Peace. :)
This is not a journal. There is no reporting going on here. The news is not dealt with much on this site beyond editorializing. If you are seeking an impartial point of view seek elsewhere. If you want to argue and discuss various opinions this is your place, and Welcome. Ith is doing what most of the writers on this site do. He is giving his opinion and opening it up for criticism and discussion. Now given all that I agree that maligning a person's character because of something they said/did is generally bad form. Though I understand it when there is provocation.
Is it? hmm.. my bad.. I guess my humor didn't translate
Strange since Timmy the Magic psychographic is something else entirely.
Where I come from, we call those "Timmys". lol
Good discussion both of you - though I think it comes back,in the end, to it being unrated. Any definition after that is subjective. The word 'fun' is used to 'censor' games too, but it is a subjective idea also...
I would be better, imho, if wotc created an unrated and rated games room. Would still be crying but...
On the negative response of other players affecting noobs thing... completely agree. Happens in all of the rooms.
Problem is, and I have stated this elsewhere, there is a cultural bias towards anglo-american euphamisms, language and humour. I have seen kids ragequit over a comment from my partner, and it was really puzzling. Problem is, that humour does not translate well, and people tend to assume they are being made fun of, if they don't understand. Even when they aren't.
Ith you seem to be an intelligent man.
In future, your writing may be more accurate if you were to do some more research. Perhaps talk to the people in question. I am not a new person to the boards, and you have made the mistake in the past, behaving towards other niks I have like I know nothing because I have a low post count.
You are, naturally, entitled to your assessment of a given situation, and whilst I have had conflict with you, wouldn't categorise your thinking as narrow or lazy. Normally you are pretty comprehensive (occasionally a little overbearing and a little cocky, but meh... who isn't).
I might also suggest that you may have a responsibility to your role in the community, and your online writing employer, to avoid lazy writing (I think implying someone is a newb, and thus their ideas are suspect is lazy), and avoid naming kids in a manner that reflects poorly on their character. (This is what you have done with theclonedone). Sure make observations about a person's play, decks, choices, even report their actions and let them speak for themselves, but your comment above is too much editorial about players character, and not enough journalism, imho.
Anyway. Good luck with your writing etc, and will catch you on the boards or client.
Glad you like. And you really can get as creative as possible with the stuff. Personally, I'm brainstorming about a RWU Allies deck called "America's Only Got Interests" :-)
In the first game of round 1, you should have run Assault Griffin out a lot earlier. If it trades with the Liliana's Specter, then it frees up your Cloud Crusader to get some hits in, as you have the only flyer on the board. It also "overloads" his Alluring Siren a bit more, as he can't force you to swing in with both your Assault Griffin AND your Palace Guard on the same turn. Given that you drew your third flyer before he drew his second, you really could have had a significant window of air superiority to force damage through. With him playing over-conservative on the ground, that was the way to go I think.
I also think it was worth considering running either the Mighty Leap or the Inspired Charge, so you have some form of combat trick available. Without any combat tricks in your deck at all, your opponent can make perfect blocking and attacking decisions every time, and you can never punish him for assuming you have no trick in hand.
You say 4 stone rain or 1 wasteland in a deck is more excusable. But with your policy of "quit the game and block them if they play one early LD spell", you'd never know that was the composition of their deck. You only find that out if you keep playing. That's one of the reasons I find "quit at the first sign of a spell I don't like" to be an overreaction.
I think the question of how likely a deck is to fall apart and lose is entirely relevant to the discussion, and "LD still might lose" is an understatement of my position. Which is "LD will *usually* lose". If it was just "might occasionally lose" I'd agree with you that's not too relevant, but it's a weak deck archetype that will generally lose well over 50% of its games. At least, the ones people play out and don't ragequit on turn 4.
There are combo decks that might go off one game out of ten, and some people might not like being "combo-ed out on". But if you sit down to play one of them, you can't say "I won't get to play the game 'cause he has a combo" - the fact is, you have a 90% chance your deck will get to do what your deck does, which is pretty good. It's the same with most LD decks, odds are you'll get to play out your cards and win eventually, it's just going to take a lot longer to get started most times. If you're impatient it's fine to put up "No LD" in your game description, but I think it's reasonable for players to play mid-range decks or decks that seek the long game, whether they do it with walls and ghostly prison and ensnaring bridge, or whether they do it with wrath of god, doom blades, discard spells, or the methods you personally dislike more than wrath and doom blades and discard - LD and counterspells. Me, I dislike Wrath more, it kills 5 of my guys I spent a lot of time and effort getting out there, and leaves me with a mostly empty hand unlike LD where I have plenty of in-hand resources ready for later.
Some decks seek to slow down the game so they can cast 8 mana fatties, some so they can assemble a 5 piece combo. Some just try to keep you from having creatures on the board so they can hit you with little guys till they win. All perfectly valid strategies. Magic is so enjoyable because it has more diversity of playstyles, and through deck design everybody can pick a different style or even "invent their own". That multiplies out when you throw two decks against each other, the number of combinations of two different decks fighting creates millions of possible situations to experience. Restricting diversity just means you see less variety, in my view.
I understand your point about how LD tries to stop you from playing the game. But really, so does Boros Bushwhacker. If you have a deck based mainly on some cool 3-6 mana creatures (and I certainly have decks like that), a deck that rushes you with Steppe Lynxes and Plated Geopedes and Goblin Bushwhackers and some burn spells will very often kill you dead in 3-5 turns. So will a good Affinity deck, for that matter. I've done it with Allies, and with Beastmaster Ascension decks.
When a game ends after all you've played is a Llanowar Elves, Rampant Growth, and a Ponder, they denied you the ability to play the game. They just did it in a different way than the LD deck - and a faster and more brutal way, in my opinion. In the end, any deck that reduces your life total to zero (or mills you, or Coalition Victories you, etc.) has succeeded in denying your ability to play the game - the only question is whether you got to try to do some stuff before that happened, and whether you enjoyed trying. A deck that grinds you out over 10-15 turns probably will let you do more than the deck that gets the turn 4 win.
Personally, the deck I have that feels most "unfair" to opponents is my Battle of Wits deck. When I get a win on turns 6-8, that spell makes me feel like the other player's likely reaction would be "Oh, I did a bunch of stuff, but it turns out none of it really mattered at all, because this whole game was really just about that one spell in the end". It makes ME feel like none of my spells mattered but my last one, too. (Or maybe that and the tutor that found it.) I don't play that deck much.
But I have no problem with other people playing it, either. It's not like I don't have naturalize effects and oblivion rings in some of my decks. And the ones that don't - hey, that was my decision to take that risk with some of my deckbuilds. If I know they're weak to enchantments, I take the consequences of that decision when I play them.
From long experience, I know I'm MUCH more likely to have an "I couldn't do anything effective at all" experience against a tier 1 tournament deck than I am against LD decks, because LD decks are weak. If you played more than four turns against them, as many times as I have, you might find out that they're not as unpleasant as you think. Sure, that minority of games where they draw the right balance of LD and monsters, and you don't draw a large enough number of lands, it's bad. But so are the random deck vs. random deck games where I get manascrewed or manaflooded. In the majority of games, there's actually a very satisfying ending of "You made me feel frustrated for 9-10 turns, so now that I'm casting creatures and stomping the heck out of you, it feels extra good 'cause it's like my revenge for what you did to me at the beginning of the game." And then you win.
If you can't enjoy winning a game because it started out slow and frustrating for the first half, maybe you need to invest a little less of yourself into the whole "caring how games play out" concern, and take a more relaxed attitude towards Magic. I know it's helped me enjoy the game more than some of the guys at our local cardshop who care way too much about whether they win or lose.
It's still a game, not a job interview or a gun battle against an Al Qaida terrorist. There's a lot less at stake, right?
Seems like PT is the big culprit there.
How about turn 5? I've seen azusa decks drop a primevil titan on turn 3, fetching both eldrazi lands, turn 4 they attack with the titan, fetching temple of the false god or some other accell, fetch Cthulu just before turn 5, hardcast him.
It's a strategy that is very hard to deal with because spot removal and counterspells aren't a big part of the EDH metagame.
Heck, turn 5 in most commander games, I haven't even played a spell yet. While I'm a big advocate for budget casual play, I never advertise 'no eldrazi' or join games like that. But the Azusa deck is making me reconsider.
I don't think I am confused at all. Though I might have confused you.
Casual = laid back, easy going, not formal. Right? Can we agree on this at least? I take those synonyms and extrapolate fun. Semantically you are correct, fun doesn't directly equate to casual or vice versa but they have strongly similar connotations. Relaxing is often a euphemism for having fun. Relaxing is something you do in a casual environment. Worrying about cards and play styles and strategies is typically stressful, and not fun or casual.
I agree that when something is on the line it is more uncasual than when nothing is on the line. Ratings are an interesting thing in that WOTC considers them worthless online (they hide them from everyone but the person they involve and that seems like a step towards phasing them out entirely.)
Like it or not languages are mutable. Even the dictionaries get things 'wrong'. I agree when possible we should find a relatively objective source for common definitions but I don't see WoTC as being that source for me. From MY conversations with ORCS the attitude I got was "shrugs, doesn't matter. Choose your own definition." Which may add a bit to the general confusion over what makes the definition. As far as my assumption goes, I look at the lack of comment by WoTC and make an observation that they don't seem to care one way or another. I could be wrong (happens often enough darn it!) But I think in this case I am closer to the mark than you.
Pardon if I characterized you as pure spike if that isn't the case. (That is my impression.) And as I see it that colors how you define things.
As for prismatic, I tire of the usual "casual" formats and need something to keep my building muscles from stagnating. Byos and Heirloom didn't appeal to me after making a few decks. I remember enjoying prismatic a few years ago (06-07) when my friend dragged me into 2hg games of it. Tough format to build on a budget though. Any suggestions for articles/resources?
Yeah, that ones pretty nasty, If I wanted to be mean I'd stick on of him in my sedris the traitor king deck.
The Prizes are also a huge factor and since the packs are worth so low, most grinders will play another format for the same lenght of time, same entry fee, but make approx 50% more per pack.
Most grinders do not really care what format they play as long as they can get the top prizes.
Star City Games does a lot with Legacy.
5ks, aren't they almost every month? And always 100+?
Keeping up with both Paper and Online could easily discourage some players as well. Say i wanted to play CounterThopters, I'd have to shell out 1,600 in Paper and then another 1k on MtGO.
Also we are missing some small cards to flesh out online. Nothing too big, but enough side board material to fill out Vintage/Classic and Legacy are in Masques.
eh one was playing blue and the other had white...i was just of an opinion that both should have answers and its there own fault i made it to turn 14 and had the opportunity to cast him.
Let me address a few points here.
First off:
Let's not assume what WotC does or does not care about without some sort of concrete evidence. Facts are important for a lot of reasons.I talked to two ORCs today asking about WotC's opinion on the word, and they each said the same thing to me. Unrated and unranked games. Maybe if you asked someone first they would have told you the same thing.
Second:
I didn't choose the narrowest definition I could because I'm a pure 'cut-throat winner takes all' spike. It is the only definition that makes logical sense when applied to multiple scenarios.
Third:
It is not up to us to decide what casual means for us. When I don't know what a word means I can't just make up a definition. Why do you think we have dictionaries? There is a huge difference from playing a fun game and playing a casual game. So let's not mix that up. Casual =/= Fun. Fun = Fun. Casual = Casual. It really is that simple. What you seem to be confusing are the words fun and casual, which is a common misunderstanding apparently. Some strategies are more fun to some people than others. So when they say they want a "casual" game they really should be saying "I want to have fun my way." Which again is where this notion that casual games should be fun comes from. (Incorrectly of course)
And yes, Prismatic is where all the fun really is. ;)
I suspect it was more a matter of Annihilator:6 with no chance of removing it that made them quit than the fact that you dared cast something uncasual.
Irenicus_Mfs (1st Place)
Pauper Challenge #1624324 on 09/24/2010
Main Deck
60 cards
4 Forgotten Cave
16 Mountain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 lands
4 Keldon Marauders
4 Kiln Fiend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 creatures 4 Chain Lightning
4 Fireblast
4 Incinerate
4 Lava Spike
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Needle Drop
4 Rift Bolt
1 Searing Blaze
3 Staggershock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 other spells
Sideboard
4 Martyr of Ashes
4 Molten Rain
3 Searing Blaze
4 Smash to Smithereens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 sideboard cards
can't argue, maybe switch raze with molten rains
i actually had two players concede on me the turn i cast emrakul...I thought it was kind of lame that they did this only because it was turn 14...my only ramp with a rakdos Carnarium and a Temple of the false god...but its whatever...