I think Sheldon was completely right here in singling out Jon Funwreckers. If people want to wreck other people's fun, I think they should be singled out and made fun of.
I think people like Jon should just stop playing Magic all together because they make other people have less fun.
I think Sheldon was completely right here in singling out Jon Funwreckers. If people want to wreck other people's fun, I think they should be singled out and made fun of.
I think people like Jon should just stop playing Magic all together because they make other people have less fun.
This can't be a serious post. You're advocating making fun of another player in a strictly community based format because their playstyle/deck doesn't conform with your idea of fun?
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.
Ok now this i can understand, but i think you will agree that things looked a bit shady without this explanation haha.
I think that what jon did was fine. He played arcum and won on turn 10 with it after receiving almost no disruption. That doesn't seem problematic to me.
I think that what jon did was fine. He played arcum and won on turn 10 with it after receiving almost no disruption. That doesn't seem problematic to me.
You didn't actually read the article did you? The issue was that even John S (Arcum) wasn't having a good time.
You didn't actually read the article did you? The issue was that even John S (Arcum) wasn't having a good time.
I look sheepish when I'm attacking with an inferno titan equipped with a basilisk collar and none of my opponents get answers for it for the 6 turns it takes for him to end the game.
In fact, when your opponents didn't design their deck to answer your threats, it feels odd and isn't fun. In some cases, its inferno titan plus basilisk collar that prevents some level of interaction while it takes the time it needs to win.
In other cases, someone should have known to demonic tutor for krosan grip or disenchant.
Basically, once the back and forth is gone, the game is over. As long as someone is playing threats and someone else is trying to answer them while the original person tries to answer their answers, good stuff is happening.
What is an acceptable way to win a game? Locking people out/combo is apparently unfun. Is trading hill giants the only way to please some people?
If a game of edh has a prize, guess what, i'm probably trying to win and i'm also expecting everyone else to. If there are no incentives other then having fun, then yea, don't be a jack@ss.
as for Sheldon's article. I don't like what he did, he said sorry though. I hope his next article has an apology in it too. We cant expect him to change his opinions either, just be more tasteful expressing them. My advise would be to put less of your own views in your articles though. Do we really need to know that you apparently don't think much of Beth?
Not instantly. But over the course of a few turns.
Like with time stretch?
Or would orim's chanting the player who could do something better?
What if turn 1: mana crypt, sol ring, fetch into dual, thran dynamo, signet
Turn 2: shockland, city of solitude, then Recurring insight
Turn 3: Land, Rafiq, Time warp,
Turn 4: Land, finest hour, play and equip whispersilk cloak, swing
But what if
Its not combo, and it relies on creature combat, so it must be more interactive than wrathing aggro, identifying and removing (StP to bojuka bog) or countering key danger cards for long enough that I can get to 13 mana.
Meanwhile, looking to protect your academy ruins from the plethora of available Land D, politicking to delay and protect your pieces. Then tutoring up mindslaver, resolving it with counterspell backup after baiting key counterspells, then picking the right person to mindslaver so you can beat the other players. Politicking, wrathing, baiting counterspells, exiling and removing what you hope is a meaningful card, weighing the chances that the player to his left will have something that you need to counter is totally noninteractive compared to aggro killing you on turns 2 through 6.
Stopped reading your post about 3 lines in. God hands totally prove all points! I was a) joking b)totally meant time stretch, duh what else c) B was sarcasm d) should have sad full cycles of turns, not just one player taking turns. But really you knew that before you started posting. e) Taking more then 2 turns in a row is widely considered douchy. Even the rules in his league punish you for it.
And there are plenty of ways decks can be interactive outside of the combat step. No one has said otherwise. Do you really think anti combo people are anti all non creature cards? If that is the case you lack a good understanding of the issue.
I like tantarus' idea about combo scooping when it wins, but I think it should be expanded to all players who win. If a player uses primeval's trigger more than twice, he should scoop and allow everyone else, who are at the same tempo, to continue playing for second. Really it should be if you have four more lands than any opponent before turn 8, you should scoop and allow the rest of the players to continue. Also, if someone plays overrun and swings for lethal, they should concede.
I like tantarus' idea about combo scooping when it wins, but I think it should be expanded to all players who win. If a player uses primeval's trigger more than twice, he should scoop and allow everyone else, who are at the same tempo, to continue playing for second. Really it should be if you have four more lands than any opponent before turn 8, you should scoop and allow the rest of the players to continue. Also, if someone plays overrun and swings for lethal, they should concede.
Weak sarcasm aside. I would agree with the last part of your post if it was a early green ramp win. I have seen people concede when they would wipe out everyone with a early god hand. It is called being a friendly player and wanting your friends to have a good game. I know you don't believe it. But it is not all about crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
Weak sarcasm aside. I would agree with the last part of your post if it was a early green ramp win. I have seen people concede when they would wipe out everyone with a early god hand. It is called being a friendly player and wanting your friends to have a good game. I know you don't believe it. But it is not all about crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
Doing what this suggests would push into the area of someone affecting a game and then conceding. If several people have committed resourced to dealing with the threat it would be annoying to see that threat evaporate. I would rather be legitimately beaten than have part of my game declared prematurely null because all that work I did to try and stop Player A from winning doesn't matter as they just conceded. It also creates (what I consider) an unwanted selection mechanism in group play. No one wants or needs to deal with threats at hand if everyone concedes instead of winning. All you have to do is ride out the storm, keep your board position steady and build resources without causing a stir.
For me the game has to have a winner to be complete. I don't mind if I'm not amongst them but my sense of what a game is needs to be appeased.
On topic: Sheldon's excuses seem legitimate and plausible. Being the head/face of EDH does not grant one the power to write moving, memorable or meaningful articles which is why I can't fault him for being an average writer. Difficulty exists in translating one's true meaning from thoughts into normal speech let alone into polished writings.
Ditto. Actually, taking the time to respond to your readers is a GREAT way to make your articles seem more personal.
Also, in case anyone is interested, we were studying Romans 12 today and (at least to me) it seems to directly apply to this kind of scenario.
Agree - and also with Surge, everyone else.
I know I said some things earlier and the tone might not have been spot on, but I totally understand the reasons why Sheldon wrote what he did (even though I don't agree with the tone, I'd have been upset about that incendiary command as well) ... and the main issue is just the slip with protection of anonymity. Hopefully we can all move on and continue to enjoy sheldon's articles as they appear.
Sheldon's post about "what he likes in edh" really makes sense and, to be fair, it's the type of game that allows everyone to have some fun.
Quick lock and/or griefer type situations often aren't fun because it turns the table into 1vX if people have a clue.
So you get stuff like tuned arcum or braids cabal minion and if the person playing such a general is having fun, they're sort of a jerk if the goal is for everyone to have fun (similar to trying to play white weenie against a tolarian academy / stroke deck in urza block). If they're not having fun either - maybe play a different deck. Social considerations are important and you need to have a relatively even playing field for all players to have fun. I could build highly tuned, nasty stuff that wins way too fast --- but it's more fun to lose sometimes and see everyone slowly add wrinkles, come up with new ideas....and the meta grows.
I've seen some actually fun arcum decks where the little guy just tinkered up forcefield, ensnaring bridge and the like (it also helped when they said "no winter orb, no tanglewire) - so then we can let them play, we all have fun and no one has to overreact.
So, I think, such a deck would be "fun" as it doesn't totally shut players out of interacting with the board.
Maybe there needs to be a penalty in Sheldon's league for certain kinds of locks along the lines of chasm or possibly more severe. That might prevent players from resorting to certain decks in the hopes of being able to secure a win over being able to play and get points through sheldon's large list of scenarios.
A final suggestion might be to try to award some prizes for play and deckbuilding - perhaps things like: I'm blinded by the light (most/best foiled deck), most creative deckbuilder, most fun to play against, etc. Winning might still count, but these "non game state / non winning based" prizes might encourage other people to invest the time to create something new and interesting, as sheldon and others on MTGS (surging (I can't resolve sisay any longer because of his thread ), khymera, Killkeny (Rakdos 1v1 was AWESOME), Hephlathio (people don't dismiss wort in multiplayer any longer) - along with many, many others) have done.
Thanks again, Sheldon, for the format, and please continue to write. Many of us will enjoy the perspective, despite any differences of opinion.
Maybe there needs to be a penalty in Sheldon's league for certain kinds of locks along the lines of chasm or possibly more severe. That might prevent players from resorting to certain decks in the hopes of being able to secure a win over being able to play and get points through sheldon's large list of scenarios.
The thing is, there ARE.
If Sheldon and the people at the table had all started dropping lands and giving Jon -2 each time, I bet Jon would never had played that deck ever again. However:
Quote from Sheldon »
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.
So, instead of deterring Jon's play style using the rules of the game, Sheldon took this root:
Quote from Sheldon »
I promise to let everyone know Jon's new name is Jon Funwrecker.
As Sheldon said, we are all entitled to our opinion, and in my opinion Sheldon made the wrong choice when choosing how to deter Jon's play style. (and I know I've made lots of wrong choices in my life too, and I guess which is the right way to stop Jon's play style does come down to opinion.)
I was more referring to "winter orb followed by tangle wire the next turn" -6 or something of that nature instead of just -2.
But right - two options. I don't fault sheldon for saying that playing against Arcum is unfun (because it is, you need specific decks and/or cards to keep up - so it really drastically limits design space if you have to play against the prison tinkerer every week - for instance, I couldn't realistically play 4 of my decks against that deck and hope to win because I don't have tons of cheap spot removal for creatures or artifacts). Being vindictive is a call many might make, many of us can't write about how such locks that prevent a fluid gamestate aren't really the purpose of EDH. When you're going 1v1 the game is much less social, but when you're playing with 4-5 people if your playgroup is not having any fun, you will rapidly be reduced to goldfishing by yourself.
Honestly, ive been in the anti-sheldon camp for a while. Arcum Dagsson does that. They should have known. He didnt even "combo out" he locked the land-based mana destruction.
For him to call someone out online who obviously was browbeat for his actions at the table is completely uncalled for. Sheldon seems like a poor sport. I think thats all there is to it. He's fine when he's beating face, and a dick when someone beats him. He's a bad face of EDH, and to do something like that is completely utterly uncalled for.
Anecdote:
The issue isnt what happened in the game, but afterwards
I was playing a pick up game at a store i rarely frequent. I happened to have my EDH decks with me, and 2 others were sitting around so we decided to play. I picked my weakest deck (Jenara, enchantress based) because i dont know the table and its not fun
to just whomp unexpecting people.
Im against Lin Sivvi and Doran.
Im not gonna say much about Lin Sivvi, as that deck really didnt do much. It was pretty casual and did nothing to deal with the game.
Doran's first four turns went:
Land
Land, Lightning Greaves
Land, Doran, Equip Greaves, Swing at Jenara (me)
Land, something, Swing at Jenara
My first four turns went:
Land
Land, Land Tax
Land, SDT
Land, Academy Rector.
I didnt want to play the rector, but i knew i needed a blocker against a very powerful general that already had me down 10 damage. I told this group from the start that this was an enchantress based deck, so i figured that would be a giant signal that said "DONT ATTACK ME!!"
Turn five, doran swings at me, into my rector. I fetch out Mana Reflection. Top told me i had a thran dynamo and a sol ring up top, so now i have a ton of mana, i cast jenara and make her large enough to block doran well enough, and proceed to win the game after a few turns (they ended up scooping around turn 12 or so, mainly when I landed a runed halo calling doran).
----------
Doran player says "See, this is why i dont like this game, people like you run insane decks that just do crazy things and ruin the game." I apologized, let him know that the deck is usually very slow, usually plays the delay game through Propaganda and its cousins. He is up in a tizzy and i leave the store feeling a bit crappy.
Then in my car going back home i think it over, originally feeling bad, but at the end... what the hell!?
1.) He had a live attacking, untargettable doran on turn three beating my face, but i was the overpowered one.
2.) I told everyone that i was playing an enchantress deck and he still swung into my Academy Rector.
3.) I was playing against a mono white deck, and a deck with green and white. Where were the disenchant effects?
4.) I was playing against a mono white deck and a deck with black -- where was the creature destruction?
---------
I left a table feeling bad because i won. I left the table feeling bad because one guy was a sore loser who pitched a game.
This is what i imagine sheldon does to his group routinely.
Thanks for sharing this, it makes the point very clear and I appreciate you telling us about it. Thats screwy, and I feel bad whenever I see it happen.
I feel bad for people who look at griefer decks and say "this is why I hate the game" and make the person with powerful cards and ideas feel bad. There is an answer to everything in this game, thats why its fun. I feel like they are missing out because of their bad attitude.
I can understand that sometimes it can suck to get blown out by insane combos or locks, but its not right to hurt other people because of your lack of performance in a GAME. Suck it up, play again, and if the group is still not having fun, maybe politely ask if they could try using a different deck. If they dont have one, let them borrow one maybe or something. The wrong thing to do is insult them and make them feel bad over it just so you dont have to play with them again.
I dunno, just my opinion I suppose. I just dont think its cool to call someone funwrecker when you are the one who is in a sense causing/perpetuating the lack of fun by being a prick. shrug
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The true mind can weather all the lies and illusions without being lost. The true heart can tough the poison of hatred without being harmed. Since beginning-less time, darkness thrives in the void but always yields to purifying light.
I invision a future where one is not mighty when he can silence a crowd with brutality,
but when he leaves them speechless with wisdom.
Indeed he is! And what a great name! He should definitely write his own "articles." He and Sheldon could even jab at each other through them! Haha.
I think people like Jon should just stop playing Magic all together because they make other people have less fun.
Blimpy's Aggro-Focused Cube (powered 360)
I'm always open to suggestions on how to improve my cube. Take a look and ask a question, or give a constructive critique whenever you can.
This can't be a serious post. You're advocating making fun of another player in a strictly community based format because their playstyle/deck doesn't conform with your idea of fun?
Fun is totally subjective.
Just in the future, please think twice before saying something, especially if the context is extremely relevant.
Ditto. Actually, taking the time to respond to your readers is a GREAT way to make your articles seem more personal.
Also, in case anyone is interested, we were studying Romans 12 today and (at least to me) it seems to directly apply to this kind of scenario.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Ok now this i can understand, but i think you will agree that things looked a bit shady without this explanation haha.
Sharuum the Hegemon
Mayael the Anima
Wort, Boggart Auntie
Sliver Overlord
Drana Kalastria Bloodchief
99 mountain Ashling
I think that what jon did was fine. He played arcum and won on turn 10 with it after receiving almost no disruption. That doesn't seem problematic to me.
Legacy:WUBG Jace Rock
Trade thread
Sig by: heroes of the plane studios
You didn't actually read the article did you? The issue was that even John S (Arcum) wasn't having a good time.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
According to sheldon he wasn't have a good time. We don't know what his state of mind was at the time of playing the deck.
I look sheepish when I'm attacking with an inferno titan equipped with a basilisk collar and none of my opponents get answers for it for the 6 turns it takes for him to end the game.
In fact, when your opponents didn't design their deck to answer your threats, it feels odd and isn't fun. In some cases, its inferno titan plus basilisk collar that prevents some level of interaction while it takes the time it needs to win.
In other cases, someone should have known to demonic tutor for krosan grip or disenchant.
Basically, once the back and forth is gone, the game is over. As long as someone is playing threats and someone else is trying to answer them while the original person tries to answer their answers, good stuff is happening.
Legacy:WUBG Jace Rock
Trade thread
Sig by: heroes of the plane studios
If a game of edh has a prize, guess what, i'm probably trying to win and i'm also expecting everyone else to. If there are no incentives other then having fun, then yea, don't be a jack@ss.
as for Sheldon's article. I don't like what he did, he said sorry though. I hope his next article has an apology in it too. We cant expect him to change his opinions either, just be more tasteful expressing them. My advise would be to put less of your own views in your articles though. Do we really need to know that you apparently don't think much of Beth?
Not instantly. But over the course of a few turns.
Just don't take too long, or it makes you a griefer.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Like with time stretch?
Or would orim's chanting the player who could do something better?
What if turn 1: mana crypt, sol ring, fetch into dual, thran dynamo, signet
Turn 2: shockland, city of solitude, then Recurring insight
Turn 3: Land, Rafiq, Time warp,
Turn 4: Land, finest hour, play and equip whispersilk cloak, swing
But what if
Its not combo, and it relies on creature combat, so it must be more interactive than wrathing aggro, identifying and removing (StP to bojuka bog) or countering key danger cards for long enough that I can get to 13 mana.
Meanwhile, looking to protect your academy ruins from the plethora of available Land D, politicking to delay and protect your pieces. Then tutoring up mindslaver, resolving it with counterspell backup after baiting key counterspells, then picking the right person to mindslaver so you can beat the other players. Politicking, wrathing, baiting counterspells, exiling and removing what you hope is a meaningful card, weighing the chances that the player to his left will have something that you need to counter is totally noninteractive compared to aggro killing you on turns 2 through 6.
Legacy:WUBG Jace Rock
Trade thread
Sig by: heroes of the plane studios
And there are plenty of ways decks can be interactive outside of the combat step. No one has said otherwise. Do you really think anti combo people are anti all non creature cards? If that is the case you lack a good understanding of the issue.
My H/W list
Weak sarcasm aside. I would agree with the last part of your post if it was a early green ramp win. I have seen people concede when they would wipe out everyone with a early god hand. It is called being a friendly player and wanting your friends to have a good game. I know you don't believe it. But it is not all about crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
Doing what this suggests would push into the area of someone affecting a game and then conceding. If several people have committed resourced to dealing with the threat it would be annoying to see that threat evaporate. I would rather be legitimately beaten than have part of my game declared prematurely null because all that work I did to try and stop Player A from winning doesn't matter as they just conceded. It also creates (what I consider) an unwanted selection mechanism in group play. No one wants or needs to deal with threats at hand if everyone concedes instead of winning. All you have to do is ride out the storm, keep your board position steady and build resources without causing a stir.
For me the game has to have a winner to be complete. I don't mind if I'm not amongst them but my sense of what a game is needs to be appeased.
On topic: Sheldon's excuses seem legitimate and plausible. Being the head/face of EDH does not grant one the power to write moving, memorable or meaningful articles which is why I can't fault him for being an average writer. Difficulty exists in translating one's true meaning from thoughts into normal speech let alone into polished writings.
Arcum is so awesome.
EDH Decks:
B Toshiro Umezawa B
W Mikaeus, the Lunarch W
G Azusa, Lost but Seeking G
UB Grimgrin, Corpse-Born BU
BGU The Mimeoplasm UGB
GUW Rubinia Soulsinger WUG
GRB Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper BRG
Agree - and also with Surge, everyone else.
I know I said some things earlier and the tone might not have been spot on, but I totally understand the reasons why Sheldon wrote what he did (even though I don't agree with the tone, I'd have been upset about that incendiary command as well) ... and the main issue is just the slip with protection of anonymity. Hopefully we can all move on and continue to enjoy sheldon's articles as they appear.
Sheldon's post about "what he likes in edh" really makes sense and, to be fair, it's the type of game that allows everyone to have some fun.
Quick lock and/or griefer type situations often aren't fun because it turns the table into 1vX if people have a clue.
So you get stuff like tuned arcum or braids cabal minion and if the person playing such a general is having fun, they're sort of a jerk if the goal is for everyone to have fun (similar to trying to play white weenie against a tolarian academy / stroke deck in urza block). If they're not having fun either - maybe play a different deck. Social considerations are important and you need to have a relatively even playing field for all players to have fun. I could build highly tuned, nasty stuff that wins way too fast --- but it's more fun to lose sometimes and see everyone slowly add wrinkles, come up with new ideas....and the meta grows.
I've seen some actually fun arcum decks where the little guy just tinkered up forcefield, ensnaring bridge and the like (it also helped when they said "no winter orb, no tanglewire) - so then we can let them play, we all have fun and no one has to overreact.
So, I think, such a deck would be "fun" as it doesn't totally shut players out of interacting with the board.
Maybe there needs to be a penalty in Sheldon's league for certain kinds of locks along the lines of chasm or possibly more severe. That might prevent players from resorting to certain decks in the hopes of being able to secure a win over being able to play and get points through sheldon's large list of scenarios.
A final suggestion might be to try to award some prizes for play and deckbuilding - perhaps things like: I'm blinded by the light (most/best foiled deck), most creative deckbuilder, most fun to play against, etc. Winning might still count, but these "non game state / non winning based" prizes might encourage other people to invest the time to create something new and interesting, as sheldon and others on MTGS (surging (I can't resolve sisay any longer because of his thread ), khymera, Killkeny (Rakdos 1v1 was AWESOME), Hephlathio (people don't dismiss wort in multiplayer any longer) - along with many, many others) have done.
Thanks again, Sheldon, for the format, and please continue to write. Many of us will enjoy the perspective, despite any differences of opinion.
Trade/Sell me your Demonic Attorney!
If Sheldon and the people at the table had all started dropping lands and giving Jon -2 each time, I bet Jon would never had played that deck ever again. However:
So, instead of deterring Jon's play style using the rules of the game, Sheldon took this root:
As Sheldon said, we are all entitled to our opinion, and in my opinion Sheldon made the wrong choice when choosing how to deter Jon's play style.
(and I know I've made lots of wrong choices in my life too, and I guess which is the right way to stop Jon's play style does come down to opinion.)
But right - two options. I don't fault sheldon for saying that playing against Arcum is unfun (because it is, you need specific decks and/or cards to keep up - so it really drastically limits design space if you have to play against the prison tinkerer every week - for instance, I couldn't realistically play 4 of my decks against that deck and hope to win because I don't have tons of cheap spot removal for creatures or artifacts). Being vindictive is a call many might make, many of us can't write about how such locks that prevent a fluid gamestate aren't really the purpose of EDH. When you're going 1v1 the game is much less social, but when you're playing with 4-5 people if your playgroup is not having any fun, you will rapidly be reduced to goldfishing by yourself.
Trade/Sell me your Demonic Attorney!
Thanks for sharing this, it makes the point very clear and I appreciate you telling us about it. Thats screwy, and I feel bad whenever I see it happen.
I feel bad for people who look at griefer decks and say "this is why I hate the game" and make the person with powerful cards and ideas feel bad. There is an answer to everything in this game, thats why its fun. I feel like they are missing out because of their bad attitude.
I can understand that sometimes it can suck to get blown out by insane combos or locks, but its not right to hurt other people because of your lack of performance in a GAME. Suck it up, play again, and if the group is still not having fun, maybe politely ask if they could try using a different deck. If they dont have one, let them borrow one maybe or something. The wrong thing to do is insult them and make them feel bad over it just so you dont have to play with them again.
I dunno, just my opinion I suppose. I just dont think its cool to call someone funwrecker when you are the one who is in a sense causing/perpetuating the lack of fun by being a prick. shrug
I invision a future where one is not mighty when he can silence a crowd with brutality,
but when he leaves them speechless with wisdom.