This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Off Topic: Land Ho!. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
The one axiom is the land can't be better than a basic land. I do roll my eyes at this a little. In Legacy or Vintage, we have dual lands that are basically better than basic lands. Thee only reason players play with basic lands is because of Wasteland. If Wasteland was banned from the classic formats, there would be even less basic lands in those formats. There is Blood Moon and friends, but those cards are rarely seen nowadays. So don't mind if I take the axiom with a grain of salt.
I used to think you knew what you were talking about. I wonder if you'll start using Psionic Blast as an example of how the colour pie works, or Ice Cauldron as an indicator of default text amount.
Seriously though, basic lands are at the core of the game. Nonbasic lands are supposed to supplement your mana, but with a drawback. The fact that Wizards once printed something strictly better than a basic land doesn't mean anything, because a) this was in the first set ever, before they realised how powerful they were, then they stopped printing them after Revised, and b) they now consider them a giant mistake and something never to repeat.
Otherwise, it was an interesting article on non-ETBT drawbacks on lands. I personally made a dual-land cycle that got "worn out" and turned into colourless mana if you had a bunch of other lands. Good for fixing early-game, but never going to make 5C overpowered.
Quick quip: Basic lands are not at the core of the game. Not anymore. We still play them occassionally to fill commander decks or when there are not better options. I you look at legacy, most decklists only have three or four basic lands. In standard, less than half of the lands are basic. If there are better options, people will play with them. This is ignoring Dungrove Elder and the like. People will always play with nonbasic lands. Basic lands have little value.
Lands I would say are the cornerstone of Magic. Times have changed. Basic lands are not the driving force they used to be in Magic. It is the sacred cow nobody wants to slaughter even though it is dead. It is dead. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. People still play with land. They will always play with land, but they aren't going to play with basics when there are better options. This won't change unless the environment gets flushed with nonbasic land hate. I guarentee that if I offered somebody a choice between a good nonbasic land or a basic, they would choose the nonbasic land almost everytime.
Basic lands matter in limited unless you've got a pretty weird sealed pool/draft deck...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...the pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless. If it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it or the wise make plans against it.
-- Sun Tzu, The Art Of War
I'd encourage you not to discard the basic land metric. As you've noted, even without wizards printing lands that violate this precept nonbasic lands still account for over half the mana base in most t2 decks. I feel like you haven't really thought through the full effects of "better-than-basics" seeing print, but really that seems beside the point because the cards you propose in your article don't fit that bill.
I really like the enemy scry drawback. It's not particularly sexy, but it strikes me as very fair which I find to be a bigger victory in a card's design. It also feels very new.
I'd also point out the converse side of your "encroach" lands. They can lock you out of a color as surely as they can grant you access to one. Come turn three if i have two mountains out and draw an island expanse it's only hurting my multicolor strategy. That's not to say the lands aren't worth making, it's just that a downside that sharp seems less than rare-worthy.
Also, any updates on the planeswalkers you showed us last week?
As I said before, I'm a realist. It is what it is. Nothing more. I'm not calling people who think Magic is expensive lazy. It is expensive. A lot of people do have a sense of entitlement to affordable Magic. People feel entitled all the time. I should get this. I always ask why? Why are you so special? It is a product that costs money that is largely dictated by any other product by the free market. If you want to play, it costs this much. There is no law or bill of rights stating everyone should have affordable gaming.
One of the reasons I thought of this off topic was from a conversation at work. The topic was about the history of retirement. People not working after a certain age is a new concept that was invented/coined by a guy trying to sell real estate. All of a sudden the new keeping up with the Jones' was retirement. You were rich if you could afford a retirement. It was the new goal for people in life. Nowadays, everyone feels entitled to a retirement. In reality, pre 20th century people worked till you died. In a lot of countries, it is still that way. You work till you drop. A lot of farmers still function in a similar manner, but some of that is purely obsession. We, the players, are not entitled to cheap Magic cards. Get over it.
The other part of the point is plain laziness. This isn't meant to be a general or blanket statement. There are, however, those bunch of players who have no ambition or drive. They are also sometimes in the category of players who feel entitled to affordable game play. They often don't have jobs or live with mom and pops. They feel society owes them or something. Sure, some have a sob story or two, but so do a lot of other people. This isn't a competition. A person can't control what already happened. What can be controlled is the future and ensuring a person is positioned in a positive manner. Stop complaining. Stop whining. Get motivated and do something about it.
If you don't fall in this catergory, am I talking to you? No. I've been there. I'm not being an elitist. I grew up poor, went through college poor, and worked those worse of the worse jobs. Instead of getting negative about it, I kept pointing myself forward. I got an education. I worked hard. The key word here is work. If you have a job that doesn't pay well, but you are extremely happy, good for you. Congrats, but that is a choice you made and you have to accept the consequences.
Everything I do and you do has consequences because of our choices. The clincher is we always have a choice. When I don't exercise, that is my choice. It has consequences. There is always a choice and consequences. Own up to your choices and accept the consequences of your choices.
As I get off my high horse, basics. They are what they are. They serve a certain function. I realize they are a measuring stick with a lot of leeway. What we shouldn't do is delude ourselves. Basics aren't the best thing since sliced bread. They have a purpose and a function. That is it. Let's don't make them out to be more than what they are in this game. They are great and I wished they were more important. I'm just being realistic. As it has been said, fancy/rare lands sell packs. A lot of gamers want them. They are basically better than basics. Let's don't kid ourselves and pretend that they are worse than basics. They aren't. They are better. It is why I chuckle at the illusion they aren't as good as a basic land. They are better. Let's just accept that fact. They provide options which are always better. Always, except a Blood Moon or two. If you have a disdain for those lands, you aren't the target audience for those cards.
As I get off my high horse, basics. They are what they are. They serve a certain function. I realize they are a measuring stick with a lot of leeway. What we shouldn't do is delude ourselves. Basics aren't the best thing since sliced bread. They have a purpose and a function. That is it. Let's don't make them out to be more than what they are in this game. They are great and I wished they were more important. I'm just being realistic. As it has been said, fancy/rare lands sell backs. A lot of gamers want them. They are basically better than basics. Let's don't kid ourselves and pretend that they are worse than basics. They aren't. They are better. It is why I chuckle at the illusion they aren't as good as a basic land. They are better. Let's just accept that fact. They provide options which are always better. Always, except a Blood Moon or two. If you have a disdain for those lands, you aren't the target audience for those cards.
Phew.
They are usually better. Nobody denied that. It's just that the way you're using "better", you seem to believe that you can make strictly better basics, completely outshining them, for no good reason besides "it's been done before". Most nonbasics are better than basic lands, and you usually want to run them, but there is still a bit of a balance. It's part of what makes building a mana base more difficult - how many of what nonbasics do you run, and what percentage will you run of basics? For most two-colour decks, sure, you just cram a bunch of nonbasic dual lands in, but how about three colour? Those mana bases are still pretty tough to build in Modern, because the arguable "best" dual lands WILL kill you if you play too many, and especially standard. Making nonbasics strictly better takes a lot of the thinking out of mana base building. Legacy has Wasteland keeping the duals in check. Other formats don't.
They are better. Nobody denied that. It's just you seem to believe that you can make strictly better basics, completely outshining them, for no good reason besides "it's been done before".
Wizards isn't going to stop making them. I, keyword here, feel like you think I am being malicious in my intent to print better than basics. I guarantee, every set/block, designers are asked to make a dual land. I made a set of dual lands. They aren't going to make horrible rare dual lands. I'm not going to make horrible dual lands.
I am in the: let's promote basics camp. Again, I wished basics were more important. They should be, but most sets and cards don't emphasize them. They are an area of design that is largely ignored except the occassional this creature is this big for the number of basic X you have. Don't stick me in I hate basics lands camp. I'm simply not skewing my outlook of them.
This may be my first, last and only post on this forum.
RE: Off Topic: Financial What?
You sir/ma'am, are on the ball. I agree with everything you've said in this bit of your article. I gave up haggling for things because like you said, it was an inefficient use of one's time and it was just simpler to spend the money on the singles I wanted and using the time saved playing the game.
Don't worry, you don't sound like a "crotchety old man"; you sound like a person who knows that awesome things are never free and it takes a job, education, sweat, blood, and perhaps other bodily fluids to earn the great things in life.
Self-entitlement - epidemic, lifestyle, culture, it is something and it infests the majority of Magic players, more than any other social group I've encountered. You hear it all the time, "Magic is just cardboard." It's not just cardboard, it's a hobby. Magic is no better or worse recreation and certainly no different a money sink than bikes, cars, travel, organized sports, philanthropy, video games, music, liquor, film, casinos, politics, fine arts, prostitutes, fine dining, clubbing, hunting, theater, et al. It's not ironic that you're pro-welfare. I'm pro-welfare as well but being supportive of welfare doesn't mean we are pro-sitting-on-your-rear-doing-nothing-waiting-for-a-handout-thinking-you-deserve-it.
One of the reasons I thought of this off topic was from a conversation at work. The topic was about the history of retirement. People not working after a certain age is a new concept that was invented/coined by a guy trying to sell real estate. All of a sudden the new keeping up with the Jones' was retirement. You were rich if you could afford a retirement. It was the new goal for people in life. Nowadays, everyone feels entitled to a retirement. In reality, pre 20th century people worked till you died. In a lot of countries, it is still that way. You work till you drop. A lot of farmers still function in a similar manner, but some of that is purely obsession. We, the players, are not entitled to cheap Magic cards. Get over it.
I don't get that at all. Technology and better economies = retirement possibilities. That's like saying, "Kids used to have to work at 13! Why are they so lazy today?" Or "Sick days? People used to have to work with the plague just to have enough to eat another week!"
Why use that to justify people wanting cheaper cards? If people are complaining about MtG cards being too expensive, that means they're probably close to abandoning purchasing them altogether. WotC would be smart to listen to these players. If they didn't care about the product, they wouldn't complain; they just would stop buying it.
Quote from meyou »
The other part of the point is plain laziness. This isn't meant to be a general or blanket statement. There are, however, those bunch of players who have no ambition or drive. They are also sometimes in the category of players who feel entitled to affordable game play. They often don't have jobs or live with mom and pops. They feel society owes them or something. Sure, some have a sob story or two, but so do a lot of other people. This isn't a competition. A person can't control what already happened. What can be controlled is the future and ensuring a person is positioned in a positive manner. Stop complaining. Stop whining. Get motivated and do something about it.
Who are these people? Have you met many? This seems very much a strawman.
Self-entitlement - epidemic, lifestyle, culture, it is something and it infests the majority of Magic players, more than any other social group I've encountered. You hear it all the time, "Magic is just cardboard." It's not just cardboard, it's a hobby. Magic is no better or worse recreation and certainly no different a money sink than bikes, cars, travel, organized sports, philanthropy, video games, music, liquor, film, casinos, politics, fine arts, prostitutes, fine dining, clubbing, hunting, theater, et al. It's not ironic that you're pro-welfare. I'm pro-welfare as well but being supportive of welfare doesn't mean we are pro-sitting-on-your-rear-doing-nothing-waiting-for-a-handout-thinking-you-deserve-it.
You get it man/girl. You GET it.
This post sounds like something every old person has ever said to any young person.
Promoting basics is a very different position than you seem to take in your article, and certainly would be interesting to discuss at some point. That's not really why I posted.
Could you give us an example of what you mean by a better than basic land, though? I think myself and many other posters were assuming you meant "strictly better" when you were in fact meaning "situationally better." Really the only lands that are considered strictly better than basic lands are the alpha dual lands, whereas I get the idea you'd consider an M10 dual or ravnica shockland better than a basic. From the perspective of a player's joy opening a pack that may be true, and these cards can be extremely viable in a deck, but those cards alone don't do what a basic land does as well as a basic land can.
One ofs of the Kamigawa legendary lands are also strictly better.
In the only formats that can play them, you'd much rather have a basic land you can fetchland into. Unless you're playing Captain Sisay.dek with a bunch of legendary creatures, its effect is going to be minimal too much of the time. I mean, I still don't like them (reckon they should have a bigger effect but ETBT), but they're not that much better. Their additional effects are so minimal that they're probably some of the few lands which are actually balanced out by the nonbasic hate, unsearchability and number restriction.
It is the policy of Wizards to not print lands that are strictly better (ignoring the basic supertype as a bonus, but legendary does count as a drawback) than basics. Many current nonbasics are situationally better, but none are strictly better. Old lands that are in violation of this are not in line with modern design sensibilities, and in some cases have been revisited in a more balanced way (see duals and shocklands).
This keeps basics - the flavor core of the game - relevant and damps power creep.
If you want to do design you should work from the modern design rules since they evolved from the old ones. Wizards did the research and found out what worked and what didn't. To scoff at new conventions in favor of Legacy and Vintage precedent shows a lack of understanding for how much this game has progressed and how much Wizards has learned since the early years.
If your set includes a land strictly better than a basic it broadcasts ignorance of design principles. It certainly does not put your work in a positive light.
How many "lazy" Magic players do you know? What percentage is t compared to the total amount of Magic players you know?
Ah, the forum ploy of making me look like a bad guy to win an argument.
I've known quite a few. I know quite a few who do work hard. As you attempt to imply, I am calling all Magic players lazy. I'm not. That is your interpretation and skewed view of what I wrote. The world is mixed by hard-working and lazy people. So, you are condoning me for calling out a group that does exist? Are you telling me there aren't lazy Magic players?
It is called reality therapy. It entails calling people out on their faults. Dr. Phil is famous or infamous for it. Simon Cowell was hated for it. Basically, it is calling people out on their BS. Instead of tip-toeing or being PC about a subject, you directly confront people on their problems.
Some people need to hear what I've said. Some people need a swift kick in the but. Should we are writers coddle the Magic community? Oh no, I can't say this because I might offend someone. They might not like realism.
If you have issues you wish to discuss as to why you take such offense to my comments, I am free to listen.
Ah, the forum ploy of making me look like a bad guy to win an argument.
I wasn't calling you a bad guy. That would be an ad hominem. I'm saying your argument that "a lot of Magic players are lazy rar rar rar" has no standing behind it, other than your own personal anecdotes. Now, that may resonate with readers who feel the same way you do, but it's not going to convince anyone who feels otherwise.
I've known quite a few. I know quite a few who do work hard. As you attempt to imply, I am calling all Magic players lazy. I'm not. That is your interpretation and skewed view of what I wrote. The world is mixed by hard-working and lazy people. So, you are condoning me for calling out a group that does exist? Are you telling me there aren't lazy Magic players? [QUOTE]
Woah! Beware, strawmen ahead! Let's look at them:
I didn't say that said all Magic players are lazy. In fact, I specifically asked you how many lazy players you had met, and what percentage are they of the total Magic players you knew. If anyone was implying that there were a lot of lazy Magic players, it was you in your original post.
And the only reason I'm calling you out (condoning isn't the word you're looking for) is that you provide no context. If those "lazy Magic players" are only 5 to 10% of the population, then does that really mean anything important? Is it more than 10%? That's why I asked you for the numbers.
The big problem is that the article implies that everyone who complains about the cost of Magic cards is lazy and/or not appreciative of the work being put into Magic cards. That is a big generalization. I would say these comments in particular are odd to me:
[QUOTE]It is just tiresome always being harassed by people who don't have a job. It seems like an epidemic with Magic players some days
All the people I know that play Magic have jobs. Why do you associate with so many that don't if it bothers you? Or are you just assuming they don't have jobs?
It is called reality therapy. It entails calling people out on their faults. Dr. Phil is famous or infamous for it. Simon Cowell was hated for it. Basically, it is calling people out on their BS. Instead of tip-toeing or being PC about a subject, you directly confront people on their problems.
Except you're not directly confronting anyone. You're posting something on the internet. Therefore, you're talking to a very wide audience, including people who are the exact opposite of what you defined. People tend not to enjoy being labeled.
Some people need to hear what I've said. Some people need a swift kick in the but. Should we are writers coddle the Magic community? Oh no, I can't say this because I might offend someone. They might not like realism.
It's fine for you to say this, but you should at least back it up, or try to persuade, or do something that makes that part of the article interesting. As I stated above, the only people who are going to enjoy that part are the people who already agree with you (and I'll take a wild guess that you're in the minority in that opinion.)
If you have issues you wish to discuss as to why you take such offense to my comments, I am free to listen.
It's not so much that I take offense, but I think you should be more clear with your writing. If you had even said, "I ran into this guy who was a douche, and he's nickel and diming me, could you believe that?", it would have been an amusing anecdote. The story fails though when you try to take those 2 or 3 deadbeats you know and extrapolate the data to a large group of Magic players. Without some sort of facts backing you up, or ways for players to change their local MtG community, or some other reason, you just come across as "a crochety old man". But even crochety old men should have a point to telling his story, and he should also recognize the medium and audience with which he works.
Some valid points, but I'm not going 20 rounds over this subject. This is already degenerating. It is the reason I or many other authors don't respond in the forums. I thought I'd start getting more involved in the conversations lately, but I guess that was a mistake. I suppose I could add something we as writers aren't perfect or I was simply trying X, but I don't think that will matter to you. So convinced on the specifics and finding the black and white when we live in a grey world. I shouldn't even be writing this comment. Sure as heck, I'll find another comment how I spelled something wrong in my reply. Sigh.
I will admit there are some truths to what you are saying. You know what. In the end, I really don't care that much.
Some valid points, but I'm not going 20 rounds over this subject. This is already degenerating. It is the reason I or many other authors don't respond in the forums. I thought I'd start getting more involved in the conversations lately, but I guess that was a mistake. I suppose I could add something we as writers aren't perfect or I was simply trying X, but I don't think that will matter to you. So convinced on the specifics and finding the black and white when we live in a grey world. I shouldn't even be writing this comment. Sure as heck, I'll find another comment how I spelled something wrong in my reply. Sigh.
I will admit there are some truths to what you are saying. You know what. In the end, I really don't care that much.
Adious
If you are trying to be a writer, or a card designer, you will be probably be criticized eventually. I tried to make my criticism of your article fair, and described the places/reasons I thought it failed.
Just above, you said you were willing to listen, and now you're done a post later? Also, you never did tell us what percentage of Magic players of the whole you think are lazy. I think there's a reason you didn't. *shrug*
You can do some crazy things with lands, but every time they have tried to balance them, they have broken the format. I don't want lands to dominate a format like tolarian academy, but I'd like to see lands diversify.
Thundering Canyon
Land (R)
tap Add R to your pool.
When ~ etb, untap all mountains you control.
At the end of the turn, destroy all mountains you control.
A rush of destruction, then silence.
Creeping Forest
Land (R)
tap, Add G to your pool.
At the begining of your upkeep, put a vine counter on target land.
Lands with vine counters are basic forests.
Ghostly Canopy
Land (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, return all lands exiled with ~ to play.
Pay 1 life tap, Add G,B, orW to your pool.
At the end of your turn, exile all your lands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH Commander WUBSharuum the HegemonBUW UGRRiku of the Two ReflectionsRGU
I find myself really disappointed reading this article, and even moreso after subsequent posts by the author. What started as a very interesting article about card design, and a very interesting take on drawback duals, suddenly turns into a needlessly controversial rant about 'lazy people' complaining about the cost of magic.
Not only irrelevant and pointless, it makes you sound like a jerk that got a soapbox and let it go to his head.
Further, and this is probably a rant unto itself, posts you've written since point out everything that is wrong with American internet users, particularly players of this game: personal experience is suddenly fact, and if that fact is questioned, and a defense can't be mounted, they bail with a 'don't care anyway' snarky comment.
Bottom line is this: if you're going to use your platform as a soapbox, be damned sure you're willing to back up your claims or keep your mouth shut.
And before another strawman or personal attack gets tossed around, I'm 31, can afford any deck, am American, and think the prices on cards since mythics came about is ridiculous.
I'm stopping this argument by stopping. I've been down this road before. It becomes a battle of egos rather than rheoteric. It devolves into catty comments about pointing out anything I misspoke on or wrote unclearly. It won't matter how I explain it, defend it, or back-peddle. The conversation will continue pointing out the 1% thing I said wrong instead of trying to understand what I was saying rather pointing out my flaws.
My sense is this is about the fact I called a group of players lazy. Some are lazy. It is being contorted to mean a blanket statement. I sure I will hear a snippet about something blanket statements blah, blah, and blah. The fact somebody wants me to state percentages boggles my mind. Seriously? Instead of it creating a conversation it has turned into a crusade to attack me. That's fine. I've been doing this for what three years now? I'm used to it. In that time, when things devolve, I've learned to just let it go otherwise anything and I mean anything I will say will just keep that wheel turning.
Do I think all players are lazy?
No.
Do I think there are players who lack motivation?
Yes.
Do I think there are group of players out there who feel entitled?
Yes.
I know I shouldn't even be writing this response. There will only be another retort. If I reply, there will be another retort. Most likely a philosophy major pulling out terminology and blah, blah, blah.
I write these articles cause nobody writes about these subjects. Some don't write them because it is a hot topic. Some are bound by corporate, but I think these things are interesting to talk about. Are we entitled as a consumer? I think so. I've thought it.
This is no longer a conversation. I thought my last post might spur a conversation. It has continued with attacks on me. If I cared, I would have stopped writing a long time ago.
I won't continue with this reposting. Even though I am reposting.
The truth is it is like trying to convince any one a political belief that believes Obama is a muslim terrorist. It won't matter what I say. They will still believe what he or she thinks. It is the same here. Frankly, I feel like I am having a conversation with Sheldon.
Anyway, nice post drudge.
I await the predictable reply.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I used to think you knew what you were talking about. I wonder if you'll start using Psionic Blast as an example of how the colour pie works, or Ice Cauldron as an indicator of default text amount.
Seriously though, basic lands are at the core of the game. Nonbasic lands are supposed to supplement your mana, but with a drawback. The fact that Wizards once printed something strictly better than a basic land doesn't mean anything, because a) this was in the first set ever, before they realised how powerful they were, then they stopped printing them after Revised, and b) they now consider them a giant mistake and something never to repeat.
Otherwise, it was an interesting article on non-ETBT drawbacks on lands. I personally made a dual-land cycle that got "worn out" and turned into colourless mana if you had a bunch of other lands. Good for fixing early-game, but never going to make 5C overpowered.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
Lands I would say are the cornerstone of Magic. Times have changed. Basic lands are not the driving force they used to be in Magic. It is the sacred cow nobody wants to slaughter even though it is dead. It is dead. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. People still play with land. They will always play with land, but they aren't going to play with basics when there are better options. This won't change unless the environment gets flushed with nonbasic land hate. I guarentee that if I offered somebody a choice between a good nonbasic land or a basic, they would choose the nonbasic land almost everytime.
-- Sun Tzu, The Art Of War
I really like the enemy scry drawback. It's not particularly sexy, but it strikes me as very fair which I find to be a bigger victory in a card's design. It also feels very new.
I'd also point out the converse side of your "encroach" lands. They can lock you out of a color as surely as they can grant you access to one. Come turn three if i have two mountains out and draw an island expanse it's only hurting my multicolor strategy. That's not to say the lands aren't worth making, it's just that a downside that sharp seems less than rare-worthy.
Also, any updates on the planeswalkers you showed us last week?
One of the reasons I thought of this off topic was from a conversation at work. The topic was about the history of retirement. People not working after a certain age is a new concept that was invented/coined by a guy trying to sell real estate. All of a sudden the new keeping up with the Jones' was retirement. You were rich if you could afford a retirement. It was the new goal for people in life. Nowadays, everyone feels entitled to a retirement. In reality, pre 20th century people worked till you died. In a lot of countries, it is still that way. You work till you drop. A lot of farmers still function in a similar manner, but some of that is purely obsession. We, the players, are not entitled to cheap Magic cards. Get over it.
The other part of the point is plain laziness. This isn't meant to be a general or blanket statement. There are, however, those bunch of players who have no ambition or drive. They are also sometimes in the category of players who feel entitled to affordable game play. They often don't have jobs or live with mom and pops. They feel society owes them or something. Sure, some have a sob story or two, but so do a lot of other people. This isn't a competition. A person can't control what already happened. What can be controlled is the future and ensuring a person is positioned in a positive manner. Stop complaining. Stop whining. Get motivated and do something about it.
If you don't fall in this catergory, am I talking to you? No. I've been there. I'm not being an elitist. I grew up poor, went through college poor, and worked those worse of the worse jobs. Instead of getting negative about it, I kept pointing myself forward. I got an education. I worked hard. The key word here is work. If you have a job that doesn't pay well, but you are extremely happy, good for you. Congrats, but that is a choice you made and you have to accept the consequences.
Everything I do and you do has consequences because of our choices. The clincher is we always have a choice. When I don't exercise, that is my choice. It has consequences. There is always a choice and consequences. Own up to your choices and accept the consequences of your choices.
As I get off my high horse, basics. They are what they are. They serve a certain function. I realize they are a measuring stick with a lot of leeway. What we shouldn't do is delude ourselves. Basics aren't the best thing since sliced bread. They have a purpose and a function. That is it. Let's don't make them out to be more than what they are in this game. They are great and I wished they were more important. I'm just being realistic. As it has been said, fancy/rare lands sell packs. A lot of gamers want them. They are basically better than basics. Let's don't kid ourselves and pretend that they are worse than basics. They aren't. They are better. It is why I chuckle at the illusion they aren't as good as a basic land. They are better. Let's just accept that fact. They provide options which are always better. Always, except a Blood Moon or two. If you have a disdain for those lands, you aren't the target audience for those cards.
Phew.
They are usually better. Nobody denied that. It's just that the way you're using "better", you seem to believe that you can make strictly better basics, completely outshining them, for no good reason besides "it's been done before". Most nonbasics are better than basic lands, and you usually want to run them, but there is still a bit of a balance. It's part of what makes building a mana base more difficult - how many of what nonbasics do you run, and what percentage will you run of basics? For most two-colour decks, sure, you just cram a bunch of nonbasic dual lands in, but how about three colour? Those mana bases are still pretty tough to build in Modern, because the arguable "best" dual lands WILL kill you if you play too many, and especially standard. Making nonbasics strictly better takes a lot of the thinking out of mana base building. Legacy has Wasteland keeping the duals in check. Other formats don't.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
Wizards isn't going to stop making them. I, keyword here, feel like you think I am being malicious in my intent to print better than basics. I guarantee, every set/block, designers are asked to make a dual land. I made a set of dual lands. They aren't going to make horrible rare dual lands. I'm not going to make horrible dual lands.
I am in the: let's promote basics camp. Again, I wished basics were more important. They should be, but most sets and cards don't emphasize them. They are an area of design that is largely ignored except the occassional this creature is this big for the number of basic X you have. Don't stick me in I hate basics lands camp. I'm simply not skewing my outlook of them.
RE: Off Topic: Financial What?
You sir/ma'am, are on the ball. I agree with everything you've said in this bit of your article. I gave up haggling for things because like you said, it was an inefficient use of one's time and it was just simpler to spend the money on the singles I wanted and using the time saved playing the game.
Don't worry, you don't sound like a "crotchety old man"; you sound like a person who knows that awesome things are never free and it takes a job, education, sweat, blood, and perhaps other bodily fluids to earn the great things in life.
Self-entitlement - epidemic, lifestyle, culture, it is something and it infests the majority of Magic players, more than any other social group I've encountered. You hear it all the time, "Magic is just cardboard." It's not just cardboard, it's a hobby. Magic is no better or worse recreation and certainly no different a money sink than bikes, cars, travel, organized sports, philanthropy, video games, music, liquor, film, casinos, politics, fine arts, prostitutes, fine dining, clubbing, hunting, theater, et al. It's not ironic that you're pro-welfare. I'm pro-welfare as well but being supportive of welfare doesn't mean we are pro-sitting-on-your-rear-doing-nothing-waiting-for-a-handout-thinking-you-deserve-it.
You get it man/girl. You GET it.
I don't get that at all. Technology and better economies = retirement possibilities. That's like saying, "Kids used to have to work at 13! Why are they so lazy today?" Or "Sick days? People used to have to work with the plague just to have enough to eat another week!"
Why use that to justify people wanting cheaper cards? If people are complaining about MtG cards being too expensive, that means they're probably close to abandoning purchasing them altogether. WotC would be smart to listen to these players. If they didn't care about the product, they wouldn't complain; they just would stop buying it.
Who are these people? Have you met many? This seems very much a strawman.
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
This post sounds like something every old person has ever said to any young person.
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Could you give us an example of what you mean by a better than basic land, though? I think myself and many other posters were assuming you meant "strictly better" when you were in fact meaning "situationally better." Really the only lands that are considered strictly better than basic lands are the alpha dual lands, whereas I get the idea you'd consider an M10 dual or ravnica shockland better than a basic. From the perspective of a player's joy opening a pack that may be true, and these cards can be extremely viable in a deck, but those cards alone don't do what a basic land does as well as a basic land can.
In the only formats that can play them, you'd much rather have a basic land you can fetchland into. Unless you're playing Captain Sisay.dek with a bunch of legendary creatures, its effect is going to be minimal too much of the time. I mean, I still don't like them (reckon they should have a bigger effect but ETBT), but they're not that much better. Their additional effects are so minimal that they're probably some of the few lands which are actually balanced out by the nonbasic hate, unsearchability and number restriction.
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
This keeps basics - the flavor core of the game - relevant and damps power creep.
If you want to do design you should work from the modern design rules since they evolved from the old ones. Wizards did the research and found out what worked and what didn't. To scoff at new conventions in favor of Legacy and Vintage precedent shows a lack of understanding for how much this game has progressed and how much Wizards has learned since the early years.
If your set includes a land strictly better than a basic it broadcasts ignorance of design principles. It certainly does not put your work in a positive light.
That tends to happen when you throw out strawmen.
How many "lazy" Magic players do you know? What percentage is t compared to the total amount of Magic players you know?
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Ah, the forum ploy of making me look like a bad guy to win an argument.
I've known quite a few. I know quite a few who do work hard. As you attempt to imply, I am calling all Magic players lazy. I'm not. That is your interpretation and skewed view of what I wrote. The world is mixed by hard-working and lazy people. So, you are condoning me for calling out a group that does exist? Are you telling me there aren't lazy Magic players?
It is called reality therapy. It entails calling people out on their faults. Dr. Phil is famous or infamous for it. Simon Cowell was hated for it. Basically, it is calling people out on their BS. Instead of tip-toeing or being PC about a subject, you directly confront people on their problems.
Some people need to hear what I've said. Some people need a swift kick in the but. Should we are writers coddle the Magic community? Oh no, I can't say this because I might offend someone. They might not like realism.
If you have issues you wish to discuss as to why you take such offense to my comments, I am free to listen.
I wasn't calling you a bad guy. That would be an ad hominem. I'm saying your argument that "a lot of Magic players are lazy rar rar rar" has no standing behind it, other than your own personal anecdotes. Now, that may resonate with readers who feel the same way you do, but it's not going to convince anyone who feels otherwise.
All the people I know that play Magic have jobs. Why do you associate with so many that don't if it bothers you? Or are you just assuming they don't have jobs?
Except you're not directly confronting anyone. You're posting something on the internet. Therefore, you're talking to a very wide audience, including people who are the exact opposite of what you defined. People tend not to enjoy being labeled.
It's fine for you to say this, but you should at least back it up, or try to persuade, or do something that makes that part of the article interesting. As I stated above, the only people who are going to enjoy that part are the people who already agree with you (and I'll take a wild guess that you're in the minority in that opinion.)
It's not so much that I take offense, but I think you should be more clear with your writing. If you had even said, "I ran into this guy who was a douche, and he's nickel and diming me, could you believe that?", it would have been an amusing anecdote. The story fails though when you try to take those 2 or 3 deadbeats you know and extrapolate the data to a large group of Magic players. Without some sort of facts backing you up, or ways for players to change their local MtG community, or some other reason, you just come across as "a crochety old man". But even crochety old men should have a point to telling his story, and he should also recognize the medium and audience with which he works.
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
I will admit there are some truths to what you are saying. You know what. In the end, I really don't care that much.
Adious
If you are trying to be a writer, or a card designer, you will be probably be criticized eventually. I tried to make my criticism of your article fair, and described the places/reasons I thought it failed.
Just above, you said you were willing to listen, and now you're done a post later? Also, you never did tell us what percentage of Magic players of the whole you think are lazy. I think there's a reason you didn't. *shrug*
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Thundering Canyon
Land (R)
tap Add R to your pool.
When ~ etb, untap all mountains you control.
At the end of the turn, destroy all mountains you control.
A rush of destruction, then silence.
Creeping Forest
Land (R)
tap, Add G to your pool.
At the begining of your upkeep, put a vine counter on target land.
Lands with vine counters are basic forests.
Ghostly Canopy
Land (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, return all lands exiled with ~ to play.
Pay 1 life tap, Add G,B, orW to your pool.
At the end of your turn, exile all your lands.
EDHCommanderWUBSharuum the HegemonBUW
UGRRiku of the Two ReflectionsRGU
Clan Limited
Not only irrelevant and pointless, it makes you sound like a jerk that got a soapbox and let it go to his head.
Further, and this is probably a rant unto itself, posts you've written since point out everything that is wrong with American internet users, particularly players of this game: personal experience is suddenly fact, and if that fact is questioned, and a defense can't be mounted, they bail with a 'don't care anyway' snarky comment.
Bottom line is this: if you're going to use your platform as a soapbox, be damned sure you're willing to back up your claims or keep your mouth shut.
And before another strawman or personal attack gets tossed around, I'm 31, can afford any deck, am American, and think the prices on cards since mythics came about is ridiculous.
My sense is this is about the fact I called a group of players lazy. Some are lazy. It is being contorted to mean a blanket statement. I sure I will hear a snippet about something blanket statements blah, blah, and blah. The fact somebody wants me to state percentages boggles my mind. Seriously? Instead of it creating a conversation it has turned into a crusade to attack me. That's fine. I've been doing this for what three years now? I'm used to it. In that time, when things devolve, I've learned to just let it go otherwise anything and I mean anything I will say will just keep that wheel turning.
Do I think all players are lazy?
No.
Do I think there are players who lack motivation?
Yes.
Do I think there are group of players out there who feel entitled?
Yes.
I know I shouldn't even be writing this response. There will only be another retort. If I reply, there will be another retort. Most likely a philosophy major pulling out terminology and blah, blah, blah.
I write these articles cause nobody writes about these subjects. Some don't write them because it is a hot topic. Some are bound by corporate, but I think these things are interesting to talk about. Are we entitled as a consumer? I think so. I've thought it.
This is no longer a conversation. I thought my last post might spur a conversation. It has continued with attacks on me. If I cared, I would have stopped writing a long time ago.
I won't continue with this reposting. Even though I am reposting.
The truth is it is like trying to convince any one a political belief that believes Obama is a muslim terrorist. It won't matter what I say. They will still believe what he or she thinks. It is the same here. Frankly, I feel like I am having a conversation with Sheldon.
Anyway, nice post drudge.
I await the predictable reply.