That really is the important part. It's one thing if two adults are entering into a trade and one doesn't know what they are doing and gets ripped off. Yeah, the shark is a jerk, but I'm not sure I'd feel compelled to step in.
An adult ripping off a minor though, that's different. I'm sorry, I just couldn't allow that.
Well, to put that into perspective, I (who you call "shark") am 13. Does that make it morally more or less acceptable to "rip people off"? What if the other person was slightly younger (10-12)? Age should not be relevant!
Honestly, it boggles me that people are actually taking up this argument.
Well, if I was a store owner who blatantly tries to rip off people, I'd say I deserve that.
Attaching the label "ripping off" someone automatically makes it bad, without actually looking at the facts. It was a mutually agreed upon transaction!
People who "disrupt" people making "unfair" trades are ridiculous. How would you feel if you were a electronics store, selling a TV, and I pointed out to a customer that he/she could get the same TV for significantly less online? You would feel pretty peeved, and rightfully so.
I have no problem with trading, say, a vampire nocturnus for a liliana of the veil. If they don't know the value of their cards, then they deserve to be "taken advantage of".
It's like saying to someone buying a candy bar, "hey, you can get that same candy bar for 50 cents less". The store would be pissed, and rightfully so.
Casual is any non tournament game. Practice for the PT? Casual. Playing mono green grizzly bears against a new player you're teaching? Also casual.
I play casual legacy. The decks are top power, the play is good, but its still casual.
I would define casual as "players are not trying to win" and therefore wouldn't, say, look up good decks or buy singles. Casuals want to buy booster packs because they don't understand how probability works or that magic cards have values.
Once someone understands magic beyond this, they no longer play casually.
I never understood the need for the netdeckers to rail against limited
It's a strange reflex a lot of people on this board have
"It isn't good enough for me to netdeck with! Stupid limited"
I really cannot phathom how their minds functions (which is admittedly maybe the wrong assumption to make!)
Playing and winning with a netdeck is far from unskilled. I'm tired of people complaining about netdeckers; it's akin to "gosh darn it, someone bought a car that goes faster than the one I made out of spare parts!" Racing is a competitive sport, and there's no prize for "most original deck (or car)".
I'm playing elves. I have a progenitus that's on blocking duty against a goyf. I draw a quirion ranger and think "okay, I can hit my opponent and block as well! I attack, then I use the ranger's ability on the progenitus. My opponent says, "protection from everything". I reply, "I knew that".
Modern is the official eternal format and thus its supported by WoTC directly. Its not directly stated but WoTC isn't in the business of supporting formats that they can't make money off of directly. SCG supports Legacy because its one of secondary formats that wouldn't get much support otherwise and there was a demand for it.
You may find that if you explained it to a person he or she may have reasoning superior to that of a fifth grader and may accept it. You could do something to the border or expansion symbol to help with any possible confusion it may cause.
Have you seen casual players? They're as intelligent as puppies on meth. There's no way that they'll understand. We could write an article, but most of them don't use the internet for magic (otherwise they wouldn't be casual players) or are illiterate.
I know that it is a little expensive, but it could have competetive potential. Anyway, consider the alternative is playing BR zombies, delver or RG aggro, all of which cost more than this deck.
Standard: No changes
Modern: Deathrite shaman is banned, Blitterblossom and Wild Nacatl are unbanned
Legacy: No changes
Everything else: no one cares
The DRS ban was ridiculous.
Well, to put that into perspective, I (who you call "shark") am 13. Does that make it morally more or less acceptable to "rip people off"? What if the other person was slightly younger (10-12)? Age should not be relevant!
Honestly, it boggles me that people are actually taking up this argument.
Attaching the label "ripping off" someone automatically makes it bad, without actually looking at the facts. It was a mutually agreed upon transaction!
Nice job backing up your arguments with reason.
It's like saying to someone buying a candy bar, "hey, you can get that same candy bar for 50 cents less". The store would be pissed, and rightfully so.
I would define casual as "players are not trying to win" and therefore wouldn't, say, look up good decks or buy singles. Casuals want to buy booster packs because they don't understand how probability works or that magic cards have values.
Once someone understands magic beyond this, they no longer play casually.
Playing and winning with a netdeck is far from unskilled. I'm tired of people complaining about netdeckers; it's akin to "gosh darn it, someone bought a car that goes faster than the one I made out of spare parts!" Racing is a competitive sport, and there's no prize for "most original deck (or car)".
http://www.starcitygames.com/news/255_Pro+Tour+BotG+Team+Announcement
(Emphasis mine)
Modern is not an eternal format. http://www.wizards.com/Magic/tcg/resources.aspx?x=judge/resources/banned
Eternal means that you can use any card aside from banned ones (as opposed to non-rotating).
Have you seen casual players? They're as intelligent as puppies on meth. There's no way that they'll understand. We could write an article, but most of them don't use the internet for magic (otherwise they wouldn't be casual players) or are illiterate.
Infraction issued for trolling. -Xen