Thanks for saying so. We as human beings make tactical mistakes, we make technical mistakes, and we make errors in judgment. I'm not immune any of them. I'm going to have my opinions, and hopefully I can state them in a way that sways as many people as possible in my direction.
Sheldon,
Your posts here are timely and appreciated. I'm glad you can see why some of us took umbrage with your article. With that said, we all do make mistakes and I'm sure nobody here will hold one article against you forever. Well maybe - this is the internet, but I know I won't.
Additionally, please make and/or write about more EDH decks. One guy in my playgroup has over 110 EDH decks and counting. He has everything from tribal spiders to an all Unglued / Unhinged EDH deck. One of his EDH decks is all about donating Sorrow's Path and tapping / untapping it a bunch of times until the opponent dies. Don't laugh, this deck has killed whole tables of people when left unchecked.
My point is that, as the face of the format, you carry with you a large readership. People want to read about a multitude of decks, and as a wine connoisseur you know how important variety can be. Bringing us the same 2-3 decks each week simply isn't enough for many of us. Even if the decks weren't totally optimal, most of us would be content reading about the creative processes and card choices that went into making them.
Sorry but the way i see it is if you had no intention of of using his full name, then there is no way it could have got in the article...if you wrote it in at some point than you at least thought about using it, even if you intended to take it out...sorry but it seems like you are doing some serious backpedaling here...just sayn
One of his EDH decks is all about donating Sorrow's Path and tapping / untapping it a bunch of times until the opponent dies. Don't laugh, this deck has killed whole tables of people when left unchecked.
This isn't the time or place... but dear god, I need to see that decklist.
I don't get why people don't understand that people hate being locked out of the game in a format like Commander. I hate prison, land destruction, and non interactive combo because I want to play Commander with other people in a multiplayer game. If you are playing solitare trying to race us it's not fun for people who aren't you. I don't really care if you cast insurrection and kill me with all the powerful creatures I just cast on my previous turn, but if you niv mizzet combo me I don't want to play with you. I'm not a whiner or a scrub, I have no problem with you locking me completely out of a game in a different format. In fact in different formats I am the one trying to lock you out of the game.
I play commander because I want a format that is as fun as Magic used to be when I started playing at a kitchen table.
Actually, you are acting like a whiner, and a scrub. Because you're telling me that you can't stand fully 1/2 of the available deck types in magic and you're going to refuse to play against them. Your insistence that killing you with a bomby Insurrection is somehow more "wholesome" than a combo that locks down the table is ridiculous. Both of them end the game that turn and both of them MUST be responded to or the game is over. What's the difference? Nothing. Other than "what you like"
Sorry but the way i see it is if you had no intention of of using his full name, then there is no way it could have got in the article...if you wrote it in at some point than you at least thought about using it, even if you intended to take it out...sorry but it seems like you are doing some serious backpedaling here...just sayn
He used Jon's full name in last week's article too. It clearly was simply an oversight - he's probably used to using his full name because there are multiple Jons or something.
I believe the origin of 4 is that for what appears to be A LOT of players, turn 4 is when people actually start playing and interacting whereas turns 1-3 were ramping.
So I spend 3 turns trying to ensure that I have 6+ mana on turn 4, in a vacuum, with my head down, and your 4th turn is "infinite loop GG" that's where people get pissed because they felt like the combo guy wasn't "playing by the unspoken rule that nobody does anything before turn 4+".
This varies from group to group (my group you can expect to be interacting very heavily almost from your opening 7) but that seems to be where it originates. So no, it's not necessarily hyperbole, I've battled decks that can knock you off the table on turn 4/5 if you're not ready.
Ultimately, the problems arise when people with different views on acceptable and fun play. I'm sure guys in a YMCA league have as much fun as NBA players do when they play basketball, however, I doubt anyone would enjoy a game between the 2.
Yes, it is hyperbole. You're lying if you say it isn't. To get a turn 4 combo kill in EDH you have to have the god hand that only appears once every 1000 games. then you have to pray that someone isn't holding a krosan grip.
People shouldn't play by rules that do not exist.
Actually, you are acting like a whiner, and a scrub. Because you're telling me that you can't stand fully 1/2 of the available deck types in magic and you're going to refuse to play against them. Your insistence that killing you with a bomby Insurrection is somehow more "wholesome" than a combo that locks down the table is ridiculous. Both of them end the game that turn and both of them MUST be responded to or the game is over. What's the difference? Nothing. Other than "what you like"
This guy is just stupidly bitter about how he lost a multiplayer game to a combo. He makes a lot of assumptions throughout his analysis, and he's even a big sexist. "Beth has demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of what's going on in this game" and "...but want to give Nate a chance to get us back into it (I don't have much faith that Beth has any real answers."
Maybe I'm being oversensitive and I hate to call someone a sexist but it seems like he was just dumping on Beth the whole time...
I'll agree that it's not fun to lose to someone who wipes out the board and runs a really complex combo. But not every multiplayer game is going to be absolutely perfect. Three players had 10 turns (or however many it was) to find an answer. Sometimes you have really fun games - it looks like the second one was - but sometimes it's just anti-climactic and there's nothing to be done about that.
A lot of stores I hear about have their own house rules to avoid stuff like this...certain legends banned, etc.
To those saying "EDH needs a new face"--who would (or should) it be? Batman? My buddy's alcoholic mother? Do we vote? Whoever has the best EDH home page? Lol. Easier said than done.
Sheldon is only human. He's allowed to make mistakes y'know. Just because he's a major figure doesn't mean he's infallible. Hopefully he'll take something away from all this and be more mindful in the future. That's all we can ask for really. Case closed.
Sheldon is obviously an important figure in the EDH community, but his views are very biased. I think a more progressive and open minded "face" will naturally emerge as the format continues to grow.
To those saying "EDH needs a new face"--who would (or should) it be? Batman? My buddy's alcoholic mother? Do we vote? Whoever has the best EDH home page? Lol. Easier said than done.
Sheldon is only human. He's allowed to make mistakes y'know. Just because he's a major figure doesn't mean he's infallible. Hopefully he'll take something away from all this and be more mindful in the future. That's all we can ask for really. Case closed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the tyranny of magical cards.
This guy is just stupidly bitter about how he lost a multiplayer game to a combo. He makes a lot of assumptions throughout his analysis, and he's even a big sexist. "Beth has demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of what's going on in this game" and "...but want to give Nate a chance to get us back into it (I don't have much faith that Beth has any real answers."
Maybe I'm being oversensitive and I hate to call someone a sexist but it seems like he was just dumping on Beth the whole time...
I'll agree that it's not fun to lose to someone who wipes out the board and runs a really complex combo. But not every multiplayer game is going to be absolutely perfect. Three players had 10 turns (or however many it was) to find an answer. Sometimes you have really fun games - it looks like the second one was - but sometimes it's just anti-climactic and there's nothing to be done about that.
A lot of stores I hear about have their own house rules to avoid stuff like this...certain legends banned, etc.
I wouldn't go as far as saying he's a sexist lol.
His problem with Beth is she was oblivious to the Arcum threat for far too long, and when she finally realized it, her deck apparently had no appropriate means to deal with it. She being a woman had nothing to do with it, at least not at face value.
Now, in competitive play I would understand his frustration but as he likes to point out time and time again, EDH is a casual format. It's all about having fun. Well, casual players have no obligation whatsoever to even know what Arcum does, let alone know how dangerous it is. The least he could do is point out the Arcum threat to Beth. After all, if you want to be the person in the table promoting fun, you'll hardly achieve it by being narrow-minded.
Sheldon is obviously an important figure in the EDH community, but his views are very biased. I think a more progressive and open minded "face" will naturally emerge as the format continues to grow.
It sure wouldn't be from 95% of the people that posted in this lynch-thread. I don't get why people can't read it, think "hey that was uncool," and then go back to playing their own game.
I had no intention of using his full name, and it crept in nonetheless, and it was my (and only my) mistake to let it happen.
Quote from Sheldon 2 »
I'm seated with Beth (Wort, Boggart Auntie), Nate (Momir Vig, Simic Visionary) and Jon Sweet (Arcum Dagsson).
If it was the only last name you used, how could it have "crept in?"
You even state in the next sentence:
Quote from Sheldon 1 »
I'm fine with calling attention to undesirable behavior, but have no need to be petty about it.
It's clearly part of your methodology to "call people out" and you took the opportunity of your article to do so. I'm not sure how you can claim it "crept in."
Quote from Sheldon 1 »
I'm not so much anti-combo as I am anti-lock and anti-grief.
Quote from Sheldon 2 »
Jon in three or four turns takes out all of us, winning the table by a small margin.
If he only wins by a bit, how was it a lock?
Also, if your "anti-grief" what would you call your article?
Quote from Sheldon 2 »
I'm so irritated with the direction he's taken that I actually consider dropping the land in my hand to give Jon a further -2, but it seems stupid to just be vindictive.
Quote from Sheldon 2 »
I promise to let everyone know Jon's new name is Jon Funwrecker.
Apparently, give someone a -2 in the game is overly vindictive, but using a public podium to slander them is not?
Also, trying this hard to give someone a negative nickname seems like "griefing" to me.
In the end, I have to try to articulate the vision that I've had, and while it's not my preferred state of affairs, if some folks dislike it or me because of it, I'll take the hit.
Look, let me first say that I respect anyone that comes out and faces the music.
I know you're a smart guy and I'm just some random forum dweller, but I just going to say I'd really like if you thought about what you're doing with articles like that. I know you're trying to correct Jon's play style because you feel that it's hurting the game, but take a moment to look at your own actions. I mean, if you feel that casting Armageddon ruins the fun of others (enough to give them a penalty for it), think about what attacking someone publicly, and in such a way they can't even defend themselves, is like.
Is it "fair?" Is it "fun?"
I know, at least for me, poor-sports are more painful to play against than Land Destruction. It's not a person's deck that makes me not enjoy a game, it's the person. A casual game, to me, is about playing with friends, people I like hanging out with. It's not their play style that takes away from the fun, it's their attitude. And I can say, from reading this article, I don't think I would enjoy playing a casual game with you. In fact, I would be scared to do so; in fear of what might happen if I offended you. I wonder how many people in your group feel the same.
You might be effectively changing the kind of decks people play, but at what cost?
Anyway, I know I'm just some random schmuck on a forum, and you'll probably not even read my words, but if you do, please, think about what I said. It's not the person's deck that makes the game fun, it's the person.
If it was the only last name you used, how could it have "crept in?"
You even state in the next sentence:
It's clearly part of your methodology to "call people out" and you took the opportunity of your article to do so. I'm not sure how you can claim it "crept in."
Dude, can people seriously drop this? Sheldon used Jon's full name in last week's article as well (When he wasn't trying to "slander" anyone). He's probably just used to using his full name. Jon is a very common name, using a full name is not at all uncommon.
If he only wins by a bit, how was it a lock?
Also, if your "anti-grief" what would you call your article?
He had a paragraph or two expressing his distaste. The rest of the article doesn't even mention it. I'd call it sharing his experiences.
Apparently, give someone a -2 in the game is overly vindictive, but using a public podium to slander them is not?
Also, trying this hard to give someone a negative nickname seems like "griefing" to me.
It sure wouldn't be from 95% of the people that posted in this lynch-thread. I don't get why people can't read it, think "hey that was uncool," and then go back to playing their own game.
This. Really. A lot of people are really searching for ways to attack Sheldon.
A lot of people are really searching for ways to attack Sheldon.
yeah this thread is done... but maybe this response is more then hateful people crushing sheldon. maybe people are frustrated that the "face" of their favorite format is extremely biased and writes in a childish way. This is lashing out is not just about this article and his "attack" on some guy. EDH is evolving as a format and sheldon's not keeping up. bigger picture
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the tyranny of magical cards.
If it was the only last name you used, how could it have "crept in?"
You even state in the next sentence:
It's clearly part of your methodology to "call people out" and you took the opportunity of your article to do so. I'm not sure how you can claim it "crept in."
If he only wins by a bit, how was it a lock?
Also, if your "anti-grief" what would you call your article?
Apparently, give someone a -2 in the game is overly vindictive, but using a public podium to slander them is not?
Also, trying this hard to give someone a negative nickname seems like "griefing" to me.
Look, let me first say that I respect anyone that comes out and faces the music.
I know you're a smart guy and I'm just some random forum dweller, but I just going to say I'd really like if you thought about what you're doing with articles like that. I know you're trying to correct Jon's play style because you feel that it's hurting the game, but take a moment to look at your own actions. I mean, if you feel that casting Armageddon ruins the fun of others (enough to give them a penalty for it), think about what attacking someone publicly, and in such a way they can't even defend themselves, is like.
Is it "fair?" Is it "fun?"
I know, at least for me, poor-sports are more painful to play against than Land Destruction. It's not a person's deck that makes me not enjoy a game, it's the person. A casual game, to me, is about playing with friends, people I like hanging out with. It's not their play style that takes away from the fun, it's their attitude. And I can say, from reading this article, I don't think I would enjoy playing a casual game with you. In fact, I would be scared to do so; in fear of what might happen if I offended you. I wonder how many people in your group feel the same.
You might be effectively changing the kind of decks people play, but at what cost?
Anyway, I know I'm just some random schmuck on a forum, and you'll probably not even read my words, but if you do, please, think about what I said. It's not the person's deck that makes the game fun, it's the person.
Taylor yet again your ability to articulate has left me astounded. I couldn't have said it better.
To get a turn 4 combo kill in EDH you have to have the god hand that only appears once every 1000 games. then you have to pray that someone isn't holding a krosan grip.
Not correct. Vig combo, as an example, can definitely kill a table on turn 4 with more frequency than 1/1000 games, and you need probably 2-3 Krosan Grips to actually stop it, and that might not even do it. If someone doesn't have the removal or counter for Vig on turn 3, the game is probably over on turn 4 barring a weird draw.
That might be an extreme example, but decks that can win that quickly do exist, and it's not hyperbole, especially if the deck is an unknown quantity in the playgroup.
Sorry but the way i see it is if you had no intention of of using his full name, then there is no way it could have got in the article...if you wrote it in at some point than you at least thought about using it, even if you intended to take it out...sorry but it seems like you are doing some serious backpedaling here...just sayn
I wasn't going to try to explain, but it's habit with this particular person, since we don't refer to him at the shop by his first name alone, but by both names, as if they were one. Since I often try to write in a more the-way-we-talk style, that's how it happened. No backpedaling, just an honest mistake and result of my own poor editing.
I wasn't going to try to explain, but it's habit with this particular person, since we don't refer to him at the shop by his first name alone, but by both names, as if they were one. Since I often try to write in a more the-way-we-talk style, that's how it happened. No backpedaling, just an honest mistake and result of my own poor editing.
Have you talked to this person since the article? Just wondering what their stance on it is. I'm sure you apologized if you have seen him since and if Jon is treating it as water under the bridge or didn't give a ☺☺☺☺ to begin with we should all probably shut up about the whole thing.
Have you talked to this person since the article? Just wondering what their stance on it is. I'm sure you apologized if you have seen him since and if Jon is treating it as water under the bridge or didn't give a ☺☺☺☺ to begin with we should all probably shut up about the whole thing.
I dont think thats the issue. Honestly, Sheldon is the current face of EDH. If he makes a gaffe like this, his feet are held to the fire regardless of what the parties involved feel.
I do think its honorable that Sheldon came and owned up to his mistakes. That was nice, and it goes a long way.
I think another issue is that Sheldon plays an EDH that a lot of people dont play. I play an EDH where i encourage Land Destruction, Winter Orbs, and Mindslavers in my opponents decks. I love playing against them, and i think the added challenge is a blast. I appreciate the creation of the format, its all i play any more. That being said, i think holding on frantically to what EDH was, while its already out of your control, is going to cause these gaffes more and more.
I dont think thats the issue. Honestly, Sheldon is the current face of EDH. If he makes a gaffe like this, his feet are held to the fire regardless of what the parties involved feel.
I do think its honorable that Sheldon came and owned up to his mistakes. That was nice, and it goes a long way.
I think another issue is that Sheldon plays an EDH that a lot of people dont play. I play an EDH where i encourage Land Destruction, Winter Orbs, and Mindslavers in my opponents decks. I love playing against them, and i think the added challenge is a blast. I appreciate the creation of the format, its all i play any more. That being said, i think holding on frantically to what EDH was, while its already out of your control, is going to cause these gaffes more and more.
Well, what's done is done... Just seeing if there's been any damage control on his end.
And I agree with your play style. I like playing against combo/mass removal/disruption etc. You keeps you on your toes and IMO helps when tweeking your decks and your over all play. Also, I don't like hour+ games so turn 10-11 "lol infinite mana mind slaver I get 500000000 turns" is fine by me and I applaud the guy doing it and kick myself for not seein it coming.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The EDH stax primer When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
To those saying "EDH needs a new face"--who would (or should) it be? Batman? My buddy's alcoholic mother? Do we vote? Whoever has the best EDH home page? Lol. Easier said than done.
Sheldon is only human. He's allowed to make mistakes y'know. Just because he's a major figure doesn't mean he's infallible. Hopefully he'll take something away from all this and be more mindful in the future. That's all we can ask for really. Case closed.
WotC. That is the only "face" a format needs. If they're going to be supporting the format with custom made products then they're the ones that need to put a face on it.
Sheldon,
Your posts here are timely and appreciated. I'm glad you can see why some of us took umbrage with your article. With that said, we all do make mistakes and I'm sure nobody here will hold one article against you forever. Well maybe - this is the internet, but I know I won't.
Additionally, please make and/or write about more EDH decks. One guy in my playgroup has over 110 EDH decks and counting. He has everything from tribal spiders to an all Unglued / Unhinged EDH deck. One of his EDH decks is all about donating Sorrow's Path and tapping / untapping it a bunch of times until the opponent dies. Don't laugh, this deck has killed whole tables of people when left unchecked.
My point is that, as the face of the format, you carry with you a large readership. People want to read about a multitude of decks, and as a wine connoisseur you know how important variety can be. Bringing us the same 2-3 decks each week simply isn't enough for many of us. Even if the decks weren't totally optimal, most of us would be content reading about the creative processes and card choices that went into making them.
Thanks,
Ambo Laq
P.S. Ban Sol Ring.
Legacy Deck:
Punishing Jund
Sorry but the way i see it is if you had no intention of of using his full name, then there is no way it could have got in the article...if you wrote it in at some point than you at least thought about using it, even if you intended to take it out...sorry but it seems like you are doing some serious backpedaling here...just sayn
Sharuum the Hegemon
Mayael the Anima
Wort, Boggart Auntie
Sliver Overlord
Drana Kalastria Bloodchief
99 mountain Ashling
This isn't the time or place... but dear god, I need to see that decklist.
Actually, you are acting like a whiner, and a scrub. Because you're telling me that you can't stand fully 1/2 of the available deck types in magic and you're going to refuse to play against them. Your insistence that killing you with a bomby Insurrection is somehow more "wholesome" than a combo that locks down the table is ridiculous. Both of them end the game that turn and both of them MUST be responded to or the game is over. What's the difference? Nothing. Other than "what you like"
Um, no.
The EDH stax primer
When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
He used Jon's full name in last week's article too. It clearly was simply an oversight - he's probably used to using his full name because there are multiple Jons or something.
Commander/EDH:
WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator WU
GW Saffi Eriksdotter GW
BW Selenia, Dark Angel BW
W Heliod, God of Sun W
Retired:
Jenara, Asura of War Thada Adel, Acquisitor Jaya Ballard, Task Mage Lin Sivvi, Defiant Hero Lyzolda, the Blood Witch Akroma, Angel of Wrath Nath of the Gilt-Leaf Tajic, Blade of the Legion Selvala, Explorer Returned Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Tiny Leaders:
W Mangara of Corondor W
People shouldn't play by rules that do not exist.
thank god someone else said.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
Maybe I'm being oversensitive and I hate to call someone a sexist but it seems like he was just dumping on Beth the whole time...
I'll agree that it's not fun to lose to someone who wipes out the board and runs a really complex combo. But not every multiplayer game is going to be absolutely perfect. Three players had 10 turns (or however many it was) to find an answer. Sometimes you have really fun games - it looks like the second one was - but sometimes it's just anti-climactic and there's nothing to be done about that.
A lot of stores I hear about have their own house rules to avoid stuff like this...certain legends banned, etc.
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/jackaltoashes
PS3 Jackal_to_Ashes
Sheldon is only human. He's allowed to make mistakes y'know. Just because he's a major figure doesn't mean he's infallible. Hopefully he'll take something away from all this and be more mindful in the future. That's all we can ask for really. Case closed.
lets trade:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=509405
Pauper Cube
I cube, I play EDH, and I can't afford Legacy. The other formats can suck it.
I wouldn't go as far as saying he's a sexist lol.
His problem with Beth is she was oblivious to the Arcum threat for far too long, and when she finally realized it, her deck apparently had no appropriate means to deal with it. She being a woman had nothing to do with it, at least not at face value.
Now, in competitive play I would understand his frustration but as he likes to point out time and time again, EDH is a casual format. It's all about having fun. Well, casual players have no obligation whatsoever to even know what Arcum does, let alone know how dangerous it is. The least he could do is point out the Arcum threat to Beth. After all, if you want to be the person in the table promoting fun, you'll hardly achieve it by being narrow-minded.
It sure wouldn't be from 95% of the people that posted in this lynch-thread. I don't get why people can't read it, think "hey that was uncool," and then go back to playing their own game.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
If it was the only last name you used, how could it have "crept in?"
You even state in the next sentence:
It's clearly part of your methodology to "call people out" and you took the opportunity of your article to do so. I'm not sure how you can claim it "crept in."
If he only wins by a bit, how was it a lock?
Also, if your "anti-grief" what would you call your article?
Apparently, give someone a -2 in the game is overly vindictive, but using a public podium to slander them is not?
Also, trying this hard to give someone a negative nickname seems like "griefing" to me.
Look, let me first say that I respect anyone that comes out and faces the music.
I know you're a smart guy and I'm just some random forum dweller, but I just going to say I'd really like if you thought about what you're doing with articles like that. I know you're trying to correct Jon's play style because you feel that it's hurting the game, but take a moment to look at your own actions. I mean, if you feel that casting Armageddon ruins the fun of others (enough to give them a penalty for it), think about what attacking someone publicly, and in such a way they can't even defend themselves, is like.
Is it "fair?" Is it "fun?"
I know, at least for me, poor-sports are more painful to play against than Land Destruction. It's not a person's deck that makes me not enjoy a game, it's the person. A casual game, to me, is about playing with friends, people I like hanging out with. It's not their play style that takes away from the fun, it's their attitude. And I can say, from reading this article, I don't think I would enjoy playing a casual game with you. In fact, I would be scared to do so; in fear of what might happen if I offended you. I wonder how many people in your group feel the same.
You might be effectively changing the kind of decks people play, but at what cost?
Anyway, I know I'm just some random schmuck on a forum, and you'll probably not even read my words, but if you do, please, think about what I said. It's not the person's deck that makes the game fun, it's the person.
He had a paragraph or two expressing his distaste. The rest of the article doesn't even mention it. I'd call it sharing his experiences.
See above responses.
This. Really. A lot of people are really searching for ways to attack Sheldon.
Commander/EDH:
WU Hanna, Ship's Navigator WU
GW Saffi Eriksdotter GW
BW Selenia, Dark Angel BW
W Heliod, God of Sun W
Retired:
Jenara, Asura of War Thada Adel, Acquisitor Jaya Ballard, Task Mage Lin Sivvi, Defiant Hero Lyzolda, the Blood Witch Akroma, Angel of Wrath Nath of the Gilt-Leaf Tajic, Blade of the Legion Selvala, Explorer Returned Maga, Traitor to Mortals
Tiny Leaders:
W Mangara of Corondor W
yeah this thread is done... but maybe this response is more then hateful people crushing sheldon. maybe people are frustrated that the "face" of their favorite format is extremely biased and writes in a childish way. This is lashing out is not just about this article and his "attack" on some guy. EDH is evolving as a format and sheldon's not keeping up. bigger picture
lets trade:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=509405
Taylor yet again your ability to articulate has left me astounded. I couldn't have said it better.
Like smashing face? Like not worrying about pitiful tokens or life gain? Check out Stonebrow, Krosan Hero for all your face smashing needs
Not correct. Vig combo, as an example, can definitely kill a table on turn 4 with more frequency than 1/1000 games, and you need probably 2-3 Krosan Grips to actually stop it, and that might not even do it. If someone doesn't have the removal or counter for Vig on turn 3, the game is probably over on turn 4 barring a weird draw.
That might be an extreme example, but decks that can win that quickly do exist, and it's not hyperbole, especially if the deck is an unknown quantity in the playgroup.
I wasn't going to try to explain, but it's habit with this particular person, since we don't refer to him at the shop by his first name alone, but by both names, as if they were one. Since I often try to write in a more the-way-we-talk style, that's how it happened. No backpedaling, just an honest mistake and result of my own poor editing.
Have you talked to this person since the article? Just wondering what their stance on it is. I'm sure you apologized if you have seen him since and if Jon is treating it as water under the bridge or didn't give a ☺☺☺☺ to begin with we should all probably shut up about the whole thing.
Censor evasion warning issued. -viper
The EDH stax primer
When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
I dont think thats the issue. Honestly, Sheldon is the current face of EDH. If he makes a gaffe like this, his feet are held to the fire regardless of what the parties involved feel.
I do think its honorable that Sheldon came and owned up to his mistakes. That was nice, and it goes a long way.
I think another issue is that Sheldon plays an EDH that a lot of people dont play. I play an EDH where i encourage Land Destruction, Winter Orbs, and Mindslavers in my opponents decks. I love playing against them, and i think the added challenge is a blast. I appreciate the creation of the format, its all i play any more. That being said, i think holding on frantically to what EDH was, while its already out of your control, is going to cause these gaffes more and more.
10.) No taxing cards.
If i wanted to pay 1 more on my Fresh Volunteers, then id just have played Pearled Unicorn.
Well, what's done is done... Just seeing if there's been any damage control on his end.
And I agree with your play style. I like playing against combo/mass removal/disruption etc. You keeps you on your toes and IMO helps when tweeking your decks and your over all play. Also, I don't like hour+ games so turn 10-11 "lol infinite mana mind slaver I get 500000000 turns" is fine by me and I applaud the guy doing it and kick myself for not seein it coming.
The EDH stax primer
When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
WotC. That is the only "face" a format needs. If they're going to be supporting the format with custom made products then they're the ones that need to put a face on it.
or Batman. That would be awesome too!
I empathize with Sheldon to a degree; dickish behaviour something I block people for on MTGO. Doesn't work so well IRL, as this whole fiasco proves.
I second "Ambo Laq's" request: more decks please. Retire Kresh, Merieke, etc. Build us some new ones!
BRGotta Get or Get GotRB
(Avatar courtesy of Heylookitsamoose)