I'm sure someone has brought this up before...but...
I built a silly casual classic legal deck on MTGO using enchant lands to ramp up to warp world and win with silly stuff like blitz hellion, and aethersnipe. It's not a tournament deck by any stretch, but it's just strong enough to win in 2 turns by turn 8-11ish. It's silly and fun.
But, everyone knows the casual room is only sometimes casual. In 1 game I was land screwed and my oppoenent knew it since my turn 3 consisted of me playing a fertile ground on a forest and not playing a 3rd land. My oppoenent, who had already dropped more money in dual lands than my entire deck is worth, used turn 3 to play vindicate (a friggin' $20 card) targeting my enchated land. I took the low road and conceded right there, but it got me into the "What does the CASUAL room mean?" mood right then and there. Should anyone ever go into a casual game running cards that cost as much as vindicate does? Should people run decks that win by turn 4-5? I'm all for combo decks, but should people run combos where they spend 10 minutes playing stuff while their opponent sits and watches?
What are the (socially acceptable) limits to the casual room? What sort of home rules do your local casual play groups use? And finally, don't you wish you could climb through your computer and just punch those guys who vindicate your fertile ground land right in the nose?
I've always considered a "casual" deck to be any deck that isn't solely built around maximizing one's chance of victory; that is, any deck that isn't "competitive". Decks can be expensive or powerful and still be casual.
Casual is a format that can be incredibly vicious at times before any house rules, rather than fun. Casual is the place of P9 card playsets. Should people include costly, powerful cards like Vindicate? Sure they can. Nothing is technically banned in the format. If they do though, next time I play them it will be with everyone's favorite decks: either land destruction or something somewhat heavy on counterspells and the like.
As land collector said, Casual is the format of playsets of tinker, power 9, yawgwin; no restrictions whatsoever. Since MTGO doesnt have any boundaries, you are likely to face some of these things in the casual room. FOr me and my playgroud, casual consists of our best decks with no boundaries.
Making good plays is the meaning of any game of Magic. So playing Vindicate on a Fertiled land is always allowed. I wouldn't always do it. If I know my opponent and I know him having a bit of mana won't trouble me, I'll let him keep the land. But in a random matchup, I'll Vindicate that land to take the win.
But is taking the win in a casual match worth that level of hate? Is winning the only reason you play the game?
It is when I payed money to play and there is a prise on the line, but is it worth the time to play the game if you vindicate their land and then they concede? Isn't that a waste of both person's time?
I wouldn't blame the other guy for making the best play he could. Just because it's a casual room doesn't mean the guy should have to play like an idiot.
Some people play to win. There's nothing wrong with that.
And 'casual' basicly only means 'everything that's not a tournament or tournament preparation', the details are to be determined by each group for themselves. So groups that love proxied playsets of P9 in all their decks and groups that hate every card that's more expensive than 50 cents both play casual but with different house rules.
But is taking the win in a casual match worth that level of hate? Is winning the only reason you play the game?
It is when I payed money to play and there is a prise on the line, but is it worth the time to play the game if you vindicate their land and then they concede? Isn't that a waste of both person's time?
Some people do get enjoyment out of winning. Hell, some might even enjoy beating you senseless and then making fun of your mother.
And except for the mother part, it's not against casual rules (although I'm not really familiar with MTGO casual room rules). After all, it's everyone's game. Why should they be forced to play to your ideology?
My group only follows the banned and restricted lists when making decks for casual play. They do it mostly because it is not fair for the newer players in the group and because they don't like crushing everyone into oblivion unless so easily.
They only thing i really hate in casual are combos that take 10 minutes to go off, it is just wasting time and no one is really having any fun. I won't stop anyone from playing it in a group game though, they can play whatever cards they want in casual.
Any deck is casual. There's no price limit on cards, no "Counterspells, Land Destruct, Discard, and Elves aren't casual!" rule.
People are defining the word casual to mean whatever kind of deck it is they want to play, and anything else isn't casual, but that's not what it means.
There are also waaayyyy too many people who hide behind the word casual to try to force games where their deck's weakness does not become obvious and fatal by restricting the cards that deck can't deal with.
The meaning of the word Casual is simply that it is not a Tournament. Nothing more. People redefining it to suit their game preferences has been a major problem on MTGO since the first few weeks.
Seriously, if everything that people on MTGO scream isn't casual was banned from play, about the only legal card left would be Ornithopter, as I'm pretty certain that even lands would end up banned, given how many people drop at the first sight of an Island/Swamp/Mountain/Forest.
Yes, but there's no global definition of fun. Different people enjoy different things.
In my group we play with Necropotence, Skullclamp and whatever we can afford and have a good time doing so, doesn't mean everyone will enjoy this.
I think your opponent was probably toying with you, albeit mean-heartedly. I bet it was very satisfying for him to just completely kick you in the anus while you were down.
I'm lolling just imagining the smile on his face while he did it, actually. Sorry man. It's kinda funny.
Catch me on the right day, I'd totally do that. It's just so utterly unnecessary it borders on hilarious.
I dunno. After a play like that, I just chuckle at its absurdity, and then challenge them to a rematch. Best 2 outta 3. With a smile. It's always just a game.
If it really bothers you, just find another opponent or something. At least on MtGO, you have that option. That's a nice trade-off eh?
By and large many people seem to define "casual" as "anything not as good as what I have." Whinging on that subject is the main reason I was never able to get into MTGO. Either people complain that your deck is too good for the casual room or people in the tournament practice room say you're wasting their time and they only want to play "real" decks.
I don't think money has anything to do with what makes a casual deck. Pauper decks can be plenty competitive, too.
Ultimately I don't think it's a question that can be answered in any clear-cut objective way that people are going to agree on. If someone's deck is too good for your taste, then play someone different next time.
It seems inconsistent to me for someone to on one hand complain that some people only care about winning and then on the other hand complain that they couldn't win themselves. If all you care about is playing for the fun of playing, why are you so upset about losing once in a while? The notion that you shouldn't destroy someone's land when they're clearly manascrewed seems preposterous to me. If your opponent had been top-decking lands for five turns in a row and then finally played a creature, would you just sit on your removal spell for the sake of giving him a "fair chance"?
While winning isn't everything, I'm not sure I see what the point of playing is if you aren't even trying to win.
Money is a bad way to gauge casual. I'd say Casual decks are ones built simply by people who aren't looking to go for a pro tour win and don't see a huge value in building decks that everyone else builds, but still enjoy the game for it's competitive and creative outlet. If he was playing B/W Orzhov Control.dec, it doesn't mean he's not going to want to play his best and enjoy watching some kind of wacky combo that he's built in go off. For all you know he was running four Teysa and four Twlight Drover. That's not going to win him a Legacy tourney, but it might be good enough to hold it's own at the offee table.
How about this for a situation: I recently made some decks to use in teaching MTG to kids at the library where I volunteer. Each of these decks was one color, very simple, and contained at least one example of each of the basic spell types excepting artifacts. The creatures in the decks had basic abilities and there were no hybrid colors or non basic lands. As simple as simple can be. I brought them into work where I play with a couple of friends of mine during our lunch break as a joke and just for a little fun. We played them and really enjoyed the kind of "back to basics" feel of the game.
Now, one of the guys I play with is constantly harping on about how he doesn't think that we play causual enough decks to suit him. Afte rplaying these decks he proposes that everyone make their own "pauper casual" type decks in line with the teaching decks that I had made.
Fast forward from Friday to Monday and we are back in the company cafeteria playing cards over brown bag lunches. I have made the last teaching deck I needed, blue, and am playing it as part of our "casual pauper" play time when the Whiner plays a Dash Hopes in response to my Unsummon. Does he deserve to be smacked?
By and large many people seem to define "casual" as "anything not as good as what I have." Whinging on that subject is the main reason I was never able to get into MTGO. Either people complain that your deck is too good for the casual room or people in the tournament practice room say you're wasting their time and they only want to play "real" decks.
I don't think money has anything to do with what makes a casual deck. Pauper decks can be plenty competitive, too.
Ultimately I don't think it's a question that can be answered in any clear-cut objective way that people are going to agree on. If someone's deck is too good for your taste, then play someone different next time.
It seems inconsistent to me for someone to on one hand complain that some people only care about winning and then on the other hand complain that they couldn't win themselves. If all you care about is playing for the fun of playing, why are you so upset about losing once in a while? The notion that you shouldn't destroy someone's land when they're clearly manascrewed seems preposterous to me. If your opponent had been top-decking lands for five turns in a row and then finally played a creature, would you just sit on your removal spell for the sake of giving him a "fair chance"?
While winning isn't everything, I'm not sure I see what the point of playing is if you aren't even trying to win.
I played that deck in about 10 games and I only won 2 of them. I don't play to win in the casual room, I play to have fun. I just can't see how making the play he made is fun for him or me. Although Morphling did make me see the humor in it, yes it can be funny to utterly screw with someone. But, what does it acomplish? He probably would have won in the long run anyway, why couldn't he save the vindicate for a threat instead of my land?
And money is never the issue, I was just trying to illustrate the absurdity of me playing my $3 deck and him playing 3 cards that cost more than my entire online collection. I love to play against decks with crazy cards I could never afford, but I don't like being treated like it's the final round of a Pro-Tour when I'm playing a casual/fun/silly deck. It's not so much the cards he played as it is the manner in which he played it.
Can anyone honestly say in the context of casual magic that he simply couldn't have held onto the vindicate until I dropped a creature, artifact, etc.?
I played that deck in about 10 games and I only won 2 of them. I don't play to win in the casual room, I play to have fun. I just can't see how making the play he made is fun for him or me. Although Morphling did make me see the humor in it, yes it can be funny to utterly screw with someone. But, what does it acomplish? He probably would have won in the long run anyway, why couldn't he save the vindicate for a threat instead of my land?
Well you can see it the other way around. Why waste time playing a game you already won out of courtesy instead of just finishing it and starting a new game that could be interesting?
Can anyone honestly say in the context of casual magic that he simply couldn't have held onto the vindicate until I dropped a creature, artifact, etc.?
Yes, because that isn't a good play. It makes more sense to prevent you from being able to play those things than it does to wait for you to play them. If you continue to be short on land, one Vindicate effectively answers your entire hand instead of just one card from it.
So if a match is "casual" then people are supposed to just deliberately make bad plays? Do you just, for example, skip playing a land every other turn or so because "this is just a casual game" and trying too hard to win isn't casual? Of course you don't. While you may not have cards as expensive as your opponent's, you're still going to play in a manner that you think will help you win. Why shouldn't he do the same?
To me, casual is the deck that's hella fun to play, but not tournament-worthy.
It may or may not include a playset of Vindicate; that's one of my favorite cards, so....
Some people find certain decks to be remarkably unfun to play against, and so they call them "not casual". There's this guy at one of the shops I go to who despises one of my decks, even though it's not that great, because he considers Duress broken because it disrupts his deck. There's another player who thinks anything with counterspells should be set on fire.
And yes, no incantatrix for you. Or anyone. That class makes puppies cry. Mostly because they are the former Big Bads who have been Baleful Polymorphed into said puppies. By you. Because you're an incantatrix.
Quote from Yukora »
This is Deraxas we're talking about.
Remember, the girl that just killed an aspect of herself before literally consuming her?
Yeah, I don't see her handling a pissing match in any way other than a duel.
Quote from RedDwarfian »
Yes mistress...
Quote from About epic-level D&D »
There are only so many epic, psuedonatural barbarian/blackguard half-dragon akutenshai vampire balor paragons they can throw at you, right?
Quote from Concerning breeding habits of humans in fantasy games »
I suppose it's true. Though the logistics implied in a human/Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon pairing makes me shudder.
...Something tells me that even should all arcane casters in the world unite, that the Grease spell would NOT be sufficient.
What are the (socially acceptable) limits to the casual room? What sort of home rules do your local casual play groups use? And finally, don't you wish you could climb through your computer and just punch those guys who vindicate your fertile ground land right in the nose?
This is something that comes up all the time on MTGO. And the big problem is that everyone has their own definition of what is and what isn't casual. Their definitions are usually based on personal experience and how they play with their friends. However you may want to base your definition of "casual" really has no bearing on the "casual room" on MTGO. If you want to define what should and shouldn't be played there, you have to look at what the other options are - what other rooms can a person play in. All of the other rooms have more spicific names (tournament practice, beginners, anything goes...)and whatever doesn't fit into those rooms falls into the category of casual.
I haven't been in the tournament practice room for quite a while (a few years). I know that it used to be that you could only play best 2 of 3 in the TP room, not single games - it may still be that way right now, I just don't know. Whether or not that is the case definitely has a bearing on what gets played in the casual room.
I don't play in constructed tournaments, I mostly play release tourneys, drafts and leagues (when they existed). I have made a few decks over the years using cards from the drafts and leagues I've played in. Some of the decks have been very aggressive. I've been told off by many people in the casual rooms for the number of rares in my decks or for specific cards I've played.
The past couple of years I've been playing and tweaking an extended W/R deck that generally builds up to an Obliterate. It doesn't necessarily need to cast Obliterate to win, but ralrely loses when I do cast it. I have been called all kinds of names, blocked, ranted about in the chat room... for playing Obliterate. For a while, I would calmy just ask the person where they thought I should be playing a single game using a deck that would get wrecked in an actual tourney. I almost never got an answer. Now I don't bother with that any more because people don't know how to answer that question and still tell me I'm not being casual.
Honestly, you just have to figure out what you want out of the casual room. The great thing is that the games have no bearing on anything. Losing a game means nothing. I'm at a point now, where I'm playing as much for the chance to see other people's decks work as I am for the opportunity to win - but that's just me, not everyone wants to take that attitude.
All that being said, it is very annoying when someone plays a tier 1 deck in the casual room. Individual cards and/or killer combos don't bother me too much - but a proven tourney winning deck seems a little inapropriate for the casual room to me.
Broken casual- anything running quantities of cards not allowed in Vintage or Legacy decklists (multiple p9, etc... I'm not talking Brainstorm here, folks)
Casual casual- this one's the toughie. Some people define anything packing disruption as noncasual. Some define anything that locks an opponent noncasual (Stasis, this means you )
And yes, no incantatrix for you. Or anyone. That class makes puppies cry. Mostly because they are the former Big Bads who have been Baleful Polymorphed into said puppies. By you. Because you're an incantatrix.
Quote from Yukora »
This is Deraxas we're talking about.
Remember, the girl that just killed an aspect of herself before literally consuming her?
Yeah, I don't see her handling a pissing match in any way other than a duel.
Quote from RedDwarfian »
Yes mistress...
Quote from About epic-level D&D »
There are only so many epic, psuedonatural barbarian/blackguard half-dragon akutenshai vampire balor paragons they can throw at you, right?
Quote from Concerning breeding habits of humans in fantasy games »
I suppose it's true. Though the logistics implied in a human/Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon pairing makes me shudder.
...Something tells me that even should all arcane casters in the world unite, that the Grease spell would NOT be sufficient.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I built a silly casual classic legal deck on MTGO using enchant lands to ramp up to warp world and win with silly stuff like blitz hellion, and aethersnipe. It's not a tournament deck by any stretch, but it's just strong enough to win in 2 turns by turn 8-11ish. It's silly and fun.
But, everyone knows the casual room is only sometimes casual. In 1 game I was land screwed and my oppoenent knew it since my turn 3 consisted of me playing a fertile ground on a forest and not playing a 3rd land. My oppoenent, who had already dropped more money in dual lands than my entire deck is worth, used turn 3 to play vindicate (a friggin' $20 card) targeting my enchated land. I took the low road and conceded right there, but it got me into the "What does the CASUAL room mean?" mood right then and there. Should anyone ever go into a casual game running cards that cost as much as vindicate does? Should people run decks that win by turn 4-5? I'm all for combo decks, but should people run combos where they spend 10 minutes playing stuff while their opponent sits and watches?
What are the (socially acceptable) limits to the casual room? What sort of home rules do your local casual play groups use? And finally, don't you wish you could climb through your computer and just punch those guys who vindicate your fertile ground land right in the nose?
Thanks goes to SpiderBoy4 for this banner. Check out the following thread link for more: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=91142
But is taking the win in a casual match worth that level of hate? Is winning the only reason you play the game?
It is when I payed money to play and there is a prise on the line, but is it worth the time to play the game if you vindicate their land and then they concede? Isn't that a waste of both person's time?
Trade Thread
Modern
RWGBurnGWR
GUInfectUG
GRTronRG
UWGifts TronWU
URBGrixis DelverBRU
RGWZooWGR
Legacy
BUWTinFinsWUB
UROmniTellRU
BURTESRUB
GElves!G
GBPSIBG
RGBelcherGR
UBRGWDredgeWGRBU
UBAffinityBU
RBurnR
Vintage
UBGDoomsdayGBU
0Martello Shops0
GElves!G
UBTPSBU
UBelcherU
0Dredge0
And 'casual' basicly only means 'everything that's not a tournament or tournament preparation', the details are to be determined by each group for themselves. So groups that love proxied playsets of P9 in all their decks and groups that hate every card that's more expensive than 50 cents both play casual but with different house rules.
And except for the mother part, it's not against casual rules (although I'm not really familiar with MTGO casual room rules). After all, it's everyone's game. Why should they be forced to play to your ideology?
They only thing i really hate in casual are combos that take 10 minutes to go off, it is just wasting time and no one is really having any fun. I won't stop anyone from playing it in a group game though, they can play whatever cards they want in casual.
GBW Teneb EDH
BW Titan control
People are defining the word casual to mean whatever kind of deck it is they want to play, and anything else isn't casual, but that's not what it means.
There are also waaayyyy too many people who hide behind the word casual to try to force games where their deck's weakness does not become obvious and fatal by restricting the cards that deck can't deal with.
The meaning of the word Casual is simply that it is not a Tournament. Nothing more. People redefining it to suit their game preferences has been a major problem on MTGO since the first few weeks.
Seriously, if everything that people on MTGO scream isn't casual was banned from play, about the only legal card left would be Ornithopter, as I'm pretty certain that even lands would end up banned, given how many people drop at the first sight of an Island/Swamp/Mountain/Forest.
Not necesarrily to win but something like:
"Make as many tokens as you can and attack for 50 damage"
Deck Types In Progress: R, WB, GU
Trade list
Help me fix my decks please!
Banner by Le_Gambit
In my group we play with Necropotence, Skullclamp and whatever we can afford and have a good time doing so, doesn't mean everyone will enjoy this.
I'm lolling just imagining the smile on his face while he did it, actually. Sorry man. It's kinda funny.
Catch me on the right day, I'd totally do that. It's just so utterly unnecessary it borders on hilarious.
I dunno. After a play like that, I just chuckle at its absurdity, and then challenge them to a rematch. Best 2 outta 3. With a smile. It's always just a game.
If it really bothers you, just find another opponent or something. At least on MtGO, you have that option. That's a nice trade-off eh?
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
I don't think money has anything to do with what makes a casual deck. Pauper decks can be plenty competitive, too.
Ultimately I don't think it's a question that can be answered in any clear-cut objective way that people are going to agree on. If someone's deck is too good for your taste, then play someone different next time.
It seems inconsistent to me for someone to on one hand complain that some people only care about winning and then on the other hand complain that they couldn't win themselves. If all you care about is playing for the fun of playing, why are you so upset about losing once in a while? The notion that you shouldn't destroy someone's land when they're clearly manascrewed seems preposterous to me. If your opponent had been top-decking lands for five turns in a row and then finally played a creature, would you just sit on your removal spell for the sake of giving him a "fair chance"?
While winning isn't everything, I'm not sure I see what the point of playing is if you aren't even trying to win.
Now, one of the guys I play with is constantly harping on about how he doesn't think that we play causual enough decks to suit him. Afte rplaying these decks he proposes that everyone make their own "pauper casual" type decks in line with the teaching decks that I had made.
Fast forward from Friday to Monday and we are back in the company cafeteria playing cards over brown bag lunches. I have made the last teaching deck I needed, blue, and am playing it as part of our "casual pauper" play time when the Whiner plays a Dash Hopes in response to my Unsummon. Does he deserve to be smacked?
I played that deck in about 10 games and I only won 2 of them. I don't play to win in the casual room, I play to have fun. I just can't see how making the play he made is fun for him or me. Although Morphling did make me see the humor in it, yes it can be funny to utterly screw with someone. But, what does it acomplish? He probably would have won in the long run anyway, why couldn't he save the vindicate for a threat instead of my land?
And money is never the issue, I was just trying to illustrate the absurdity of me playing my $3 deck and him playing 3 cards that cost more than my entire online collection. I love to play against decks with crazy cards I could never afford, but I don't like being treated like it's the final round of a Pro-Tour when I'm playing a casual/fun/silly deck. It's not so much the cards he played as it is the manner in which he played it.
Can anyone honestly say in the context of casual magic that he simply couldn't have held onto the vindicate until I dropped a creature, artifact, etc.?
Non-format specific: "I want to use 4 tinkers!"
Fun: "I want to use some extra cards I have laying around."
Currently playing:
M13 Draft
GGGGG Dungrove................(STANDARD)
GWGWG Maverick..................(LEGACY)
Jon Finkel on the PWP System:
Well you can see it the other way around. Why waste time playing a game you already won out of courtesy instead of just finishing it and starting a new game that could be interesting?
Yes, because that isn't a good play. It makes more sense to prevent you from being able to play those things than it does to wait for you to play them. If you continue to be short on land, one Vindicate effectively answers your entire hand instead of just one card from it.
So if a match is "casual" then people are supposed to just deliberately make bad plays? Do you just, for example, skip playing a land every other turn or so because "this is just a casual game" and trying too hard to win isn't casual? Of course you don't. While you may not have cards as expensive as your opponent's, you're still going to play in a manner that you think will help you win. Why shouldn't he do the same?
It may or may not include a playset of Vindicate; that's one of my favorite cards, so....
Some people find certain decks to be remarkably unfun to play against, and so they call them "not casual". There's this guy at one of the shops I go to who despises one of my decks, even though it's not that great, because he considers Duress broken because it disrupts his deck. There's another player who thinks anything with counterspells should be set on fire.
So, it's really up to your group.
"I am in the arcane, and the arcane is in me."
Official Matron Mother of Clan Planar Chaos
Awesome Avatar and signature by DarkNightCavalier
Deraxas, Dark Maiden of Shimia,, still oddly obsessed with a mindmage.
This is something that comes up all the time on MTGO. And the big problem is that everyone has their own definition of what is and what isn't casual. Their definitions are usually based on personal experience and how they play with their friends. However you may want to base your definition of "casual" really has no bearing on the "casual room" on MTGO. If you want to define what should and shouldn't be played there, you have to look at what the other options are - what other rooms can a person play in. All of the other rooms have more spicific names (tournament practice, beginners, anything goes...)and whatever doesn't fit into those rooms falls into the category of casual.
I haven't been in the tournament practice room for quite a while (a few years). I know that it used to be that you could only play best 2 of 3 in the TP room, not single games - it may still be that way right now, I just don't know. Whether or not that is the case definitely has a bearing on what gets played in the casual room.
I don't play in constructed tournaments, I mostly play release tourneys, drafts and leagues (when they existed). I have made a few decks over the years using cards from the drafts and leagues I've played in. Some of the decks have been very aggressive. I've been told off by many people in the casual rooms for the number of rares in my decks or for specific cards I've played.
The past couple of years I've been playing and tweaking an extended W/R deck that generally builds up to an Obliterate. It doesn't necessarily need to cast Obliterate to win, but ralrely loses when I do cast it. I have been called all kinds of names, blocked, ranted about in the chat room... for playing Obliterate. For a while, I would calmy just ask the person where they thought I should be playing a single game using a deck that would get wrecked in an actual tourney. I almost never got an answer. Now I don't bother with that any more because people don't know how to answer that question and still tell me I'm not being casual.
Honestly, you just have to figure out what you want out of the casual room. The great thing is that the games have no bearing on anything. Losing a game means nothing. I'm at a point now, where I'm playing as much for the chance to see other people's decks work as I am for the opportunity to win - but that's just me, not everyone wants to take that attitude.
All that being said, it is very annoying when someone plays a tier 1 deck in the casual room. Individual cards and/or killer combos don't bother me too much - but a proven tourney winning deck seems a little inapropriate for the casual room to me.
Casual Casual
Broken Casual
And throw in some sort of feedback system that would warn/ban folks who repeatedly abuse other users.
Eh?
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
Defining those terms would be very difficult.
Casual casual- this one's the toughie. Some people define anything packing disruption as noncasual. Some define anything that locks an opponent noncasual (Stasis, this means you )
That's the hard one to define.
"I am in the arcane, and the arcane is in me."
Official Matron Mother of Clan Planar Chaos
Awesome Avatar and signature by DarkNightCavalier
Deraxas, Dark Maiden of Shimia,, still oddly obsessed with a mindmage.