Someone on the first page recommended other strategies. That just sounds lazy. How do people complain before even testing this guy?
I bought the intro deck because this card excited me about the new set and i wanted to see how WotC played him. In the BU intro, given an Aura with an enchantment on the field, it is GG. I know it asks for a set up, but so do the titans. You need ramp for example, here you play control and play intelligently. The support for the 'Loner' mechanic isn't incredible but even simply playing a set of Warden of the Wall who you can then sac instead of mr loner. Imagine, i found a use for them! The fettergeist also help, and the Alchemist Apprentices can chump, sac and you stay at one guy in your turn.
Claiming he can't be played without testing? Saying if you want U play Delver? That's the difference been contributing and consuming.
I will say, I never understood the what was going on in the George Pratt Hecatomb. It does look awesome though. Does anyone know if there was a period when Wizards decided against capitalizing the name of cards?
(BTW, I have no idea how t go about linking to pages ot images. Any advice would be appreciated.)
I would think, trying to dredge the little i remember readng between lectures, that the Platonic ideal is still alive yet in a very mutated and alien form.
I do not think for a moment to include it in a discussion of the spirit workd, but rather our preoccupation with determining a contrast, a divide, between two. With a somewhat Platonic mindset, a person would often look for that bridge set in grey. We know better now not much is either one or the other, and even call the situation of choosing A or B a false dilemma. Yet we still see this heavily mpacting such arguements as the misinformed voices counteracting evolution. (some people should be taken outside behind the barn and, well, re-educated)
Just adding my 2c of the Platonic ideal and how it often comlicates matters.
No we don't have the fossil in between. And no, finiding anther one doesn't suddenly create 2 more missing links!
1) I heard a man once say the difference between a great person (Newton, Nietzsche, Darwin) and someone average is larger than the average and a chimpanzee. Now, I wouldn't go so far myself but there is a good point. There is no great way to determine our intelligence since we have no objective scale. We may know much, but as Einstein said we are only able to describe the hands of the clock. We cannot see the mechanics of the universe. It is possible all we know is based on fallacy. But such things we must accept otherwise all argument deteriorates into redundancy.
We are fools with the power to destroy the world using hydrogen - the most abundant resource in the universe. But wise enough not do be so rash.
2) Yes. But drawing a line is such a Platonic ideal. His ideas of the "perfect" something only existing in our minds. We like to believe there is a dividing line between ideas. If we had a skeleton of a modern man (as contradictory as it sounds) and the fossilized remains of a Neanderthal, we could distinguish between the two. But say we had one in between, should we state this is a different species? And what of all those that existed between?
My point, hidden within that analogy, is that intellect is a product of instinct through evolution by natural selection. We have instinct but in this modern day, it's far more useful to have intellect. Rationality trumps "feeling". I mean, without trying to appeal to something emotional, do we trust our own 'gut feeling' over rationality? Instinct has its place and more so, had its place in our history. Animals are cautious of fire. Animals, and ourselves, are even more cautious of brightly coloured insects and arachnids - because the venomous tendency Is greater. Also, we avoid walking the streets alone a night. For rational reasons i do not doubt, but the completely irrational takes hold during those situations. We degrade ourselves into our primal nature. We have had a few thousand years being clever, but it requires much to take those millions of years as instinctive beasts and tell them to go hang.
3) Computation as opposed to intellect? Yes, i would think there is a difference. A dictionary would define computational skill as that ability which allows you to calculate. Intellect would be more closely related to the ability to understand - to learn and apply.
Perhaps I am just an idiot, but he seems fun. He goes against the trend. And i like cards that others dislike without trying to play them.
But then, I really like Venser coupled with a Seancé. (Casual play on occassion allows you to do something that defies the game - double bounce and keep the token! "Dude, that can't be legal".)
But Tibalt can make for very interesting games. His abilities may not interact with the same decks, his 2nd targets control while his 3rd hits beats. Versatility and card filtering - and he's Red!
Such a good-looking devil we have here. And I do like my little red devils, chuckling as they dismember their victims' hands to attach to sticks and wave at the newly widowed wives and bastard'ed sons.
I cannot defend this half(mud?)-blood in response to his abilities. Yet, he is surely attracting too much hate. Consider the random discard as powering up his ultimate. Sure, "random discard, hate hate hate" but it's been looked at in the wrong way. Consider it recklessness heading towards a goal. There is an aim involved and, from personal practice, attempt something drastic enough times and you build up enough chance to succeed. And if they target him? So what? He cost RR and they didn't target you. He's not your bomb.
Random discard is not ideal. But hating something before you try it is silly. If he does find play, and I hope he does, I would truly love to see what he can do and how he would be used.
I bought the intro deck because this card excited me about the new set and i wanted to see how WotC played him. In the BU intro, given an Aura with an enchantment on the field, it is GG. I know it asks for a set up, but so do the titans. You need ramp for example, here you play control and play intelligently. The support for the 'Loner' mechanic isn't incredible but even simply playing a set of Warden of the Wall who you can then sac instead of mr loner. Imagine, i found a use for them! The fettergeist also help, and the Alchemist Apprentices can chump, sac and you stay at one guy in your turn.
Claiming he can't be played without testing? Saying if you want U play Delver? That's the difference been contributing and consuming.
(BTW, I have no idea how t go about linking to pages ot images. Any advice would be appreciated.)
I do not think for a moment to include it in a discussion of the spirit workd, but rather our preoccupation with determining a contrast, a divide, between two. With a somewhat Platonic mindset, a person would often look for that bridge set in grey. We know better now not much is either one or the other, and even call the situation of choosing A or B a false dilemma. Yet we still see this heavily mpacting such arguements as the misinformed voices counteracting evolution. (some people should be taken outside behind the barn and, well, re-educated)
Just adding my 2c of the Platonic ideal and how it often comlicates matters.
No we don't have the fossil in between. And no, finiding anther one doesn't suddenly create 2 more missing links!
We are fools with the power to destroy the world using hydrogen - the most abundant resource in the universe. But wise enough not do be so rash.
2) Yes. But drawing a line is such a Platonic ideal. His ideas of the "perfect" something only existing in our minds. We like to believe there is a dividing line between ideas. If we had a skeleton of a modern man (as contradictory as it sounds) and the fossilized remains of a Neanderthal, we could distinguish between the two. But say we had one in between, should we state this is a different species? And what of all those that existed between?
My point, hidden within that analogy, is that intellect is a product of instinct through evolution by natural selection. We have instinct but in this modern day, it's far more useful to have intellect. Rationality trumps "feeling". I mean, without trying to appeal to something emotional, do we trust our own 'gut feeling' over rationality? Instinct has its place and more so, had its place in our history. Animals are cautious of fire. Animals, and ourselves, are even more cautious of brightly coloured insects and arachnids - because the venomous tendency Is greater. Also, we avoid walking the streets alone a night. For rational reasons i do not doubt, but the completely irrational takes hold during those situations. We degrade ourselves into our primal nature. We have had a few thousand years being clever, but it requires much to take those millions of years as instinctive beasts and tell them to go hang.
3) Computation as opposed to intellect? Yes, i would think there is a difference. A dictionary would define computational skill as that ability which allows you to calculate. Intellect would be more closely related to the ability to understand - to learn and apply.
But then, I really like Venser coupled with a Seancé. (Casual play on occassion allows you to do something that defies the game - double bounce and keep the token! "Dude, that can't be legal".)
But Tibalt can make for very interesting games. His abilities may not interact with the same decks, his 2nd targets control while his 3rd hits beats. Versatility and card filtering - and he's Red!
I cannot defend this half(mud?)-blood in response to his abilities. Yet, he is surely attracting too much hate. Consider the random discard as powering up his ultimate. Sure, "random discard, hate hate hate" but it's been looked at in the wrong way. Consider it recklessness heading towards a goal. There is an aim involved and, from personal practice, attempt something drastic enough times and you build up enough chance to succeed. And if they target him? So what? He cost RR and they didn't target you. He's not your bomb.
Random discard is not ideal. But hating something before you try it is silly. If he does find play, and I hope he does, I would truly love to see what he can do and how he would be used.