All your creatures have toughness 2 or less and you run 4 volcanic fallouts. Does that work or does it harm you more than help?
I'm thinking of actually trying to play constructed, blogs like this help me out! thanks!
-
- dimir impersonator
- Registered User
-
Member for 18 years and 7 months
Last active Sun, Oct, 19 2014 21:20:00
- 0 Followers
- 2,930 Total Posts
- 7 Thanks
First off, I didn't hate it, but I'm going to tear it down a bit.
This entire film was an excuse to milk the franchise by resetting the timeline. They could have done that in 20 minutes and made the film about something interesting.
Extra cards? Obviously you've not seen my online collection.
No card game can even begin to compare to Magic because none of them has made it other than Pokemon but Pokemon is a very special case. It has a built in audience and a billion cartoons to sell its product. Those other games only failed because they weren't as good.
Printing Vintage Masters every year might be a bit extreme. I'd rather see Wizards get rid of the Mythic rarity and get rid of the no reprint list. That would be enough for me.
I don't believe this at all and never have. We'll never know for sure because its never been done, but to me the fun is in deck building and game play. If everyone had easier access to all cards it would kill the secondary market, yes, but we'd have more creativity in deck building, IMO. We'd also have more interest in vintage style formats. The only anyone in my local area can play vintage is by playing in tournaments that allow proxies.
I guess I just have a totally different perspective on this set release. This doesn't seem like greed at all. It feels like Wizards catering exclusively to the people with bottomless pockets for Magic and secondary dealers. If it was a money grab they'd have cost the packs normal price and not had a limited run. If this set was on sale forever and drafted forever, they'd make money off of it for all time. Players would never, ever stop buying it and playing. That would be better for their bottom line.
I know they don't make money in the secondary market and that they have to keep that in mind for things like this, but there's no real reason to put a cap on the supply of this set from their end. The cards are not redeemable so they don't have to worry about that. Again, they have no stock in the secondary market but they are intentionally driving price up. It doesn't benefit them to do this.
All said, I'm a nut bag when it comes to this game so my opinion is for crap. For example, if I was in charge at Wizards Vintage Masters would be a paper set as well and I'd print it every year. To hell with the secondary dealers. This game, IMO, is more fun when everyone can access the cards. I prefer deckbuilding and experimenting over collecting the cards.
Yes. I know.
But it hadn't been on my mind until the announcement of this set because I've been playing primarily online for the last 2 years.
I expect the limited format for this to run at full tilt pretty much the entire time the cards are available. I also expect people to play it when they release limited events again for the set down the road (you know they will, they do it with all "limited time only" sets). I expect them to be popular despite the cost for the obvious reasons that there are some money cards in there and the opportunity to own power nine cards, even fake ones, is pretty appealing to a lot of players.
This set has had me thinking a lot about the artificial supply and demand that Wizards creates for this game. It sometimes just makes me sick to my stomach...
Doctor that list to fit with the different supply/demand of online and you're going to knock some dollars off.
Also, If players play the hell out of Vintage Masters we may be able to flood the market with some of these cards. I don't expect power nine cards to be cheap but, cards like FoW that are reprinted in the set will put more into the secondary market (plus, yeah, you're way off on the cost of that particular card!) and I can see some of those cards dipping a bit.
There also may be a deleted scene or two or even some that weren't ever shot that explain more back story on his character. I think you're on to something, I just wish the film fleshed it out better.
I like to look at the film as a giant monster procedural. There are characters in the film, like David Strathairn who exist only to forward the military action. He's a terrific actor playing a character that literally never says anything about himself as a person, and I actually liked that! He's like the detective character in a procedural show whose sole character trait is doing his job. I think the film is actually better than a lot of people give credit because it forgoes cheesy, unnecessary character scenes in favor of a disaster movie feel. I really liked it.
Some films are all plot. Some aren't. Some are bad. Some are good. Quality doesn't have to be divorced from plot, but it can be. Especially when it comes to prequels. You don't have to be the slightest bit concerned that the Matrix sequels weren't good because the first one was great on its own.
Proof that my highly evolved mind is superior to (most) humans.
You're sort of making my point for me. The audience shouldn't ever have to ignore anything. A sequels plot is informed by the previous film, not its quality. Films and TV shows and books and comics can be enjoyed in a vacuum. You are right about one thing, I am an a-hole who thinks it's bonkers that people can't separate elements of fiction. I'll concede that point.
Perfect example, and strangely ignored by a lot of the people who feel the opposite of me. No one I've ever met will say Indy 4 took away their enjoyment of the original(s) yet I've encountered plenty of people who say the Matrix sequels make the first one not look as good. Weird.
I don't hate Indy 4 as much as many people do, but I don't watch it the same way I watch the originals. I watch it as sort of a campy b-movie. Maybe that's what they wanted us to do...
See, I disagree with this entirely. You can watch and enjoy individual films in a vacuum. You can watch just The Matrix and enjoy it for what it is and ignore the sequels knowing that they stink. Also, despite not liking any of them, I continue to watch the Resident Evil films because the first couple of video games were so awesome when I originally played them. The films are all terrible, but I've watched every one of them (on DVD, come on, I'm not THAT big of a masochist). If they ever make one that isn't awful, I'll admit that it's the good one in the bunch. I'm a huge fan of the original Friday the 13th films, except the 5th one is terrible and it follows the loose continuity of those films and includes a main non-Jason role from 4 and 6 so it's canon, as far as those films go. I don't have to like it or even watch it to enjoy the others in the series, even the ones that involve the story's continuity.
If only we could...
Thank you, that's what started this debate in my head. Canon is as much in the eyes of the fans as it is the creators.
I don't think it can. I can watch the original trilogy, stupid edits included, and still enjoy them. I prefer the unaltered originals, but I can still watch and enjoy the crap versions because of what those films mean to me.
Valanarch acts like he will never enjoy the new films because they wrecked the EU (which, IMO, was never canon anyway) which is beyond absurd because the two universes can co-exist. Hell, the films themselves can contradict each other and it doesn't matter because it's a fictional world that's limited only by our imaginations.
The end of Terminator 2 completely contradicts everything that happened in the course of the two films and destroys any sense of internal logic and I still love those films. There's plenty of gaping plot holes that don't prevent me from enjoying a film or TV show. There's Lost, a show that the entire premise hangs on the hope that the audience will forgive the fact that they drop dozens of plot threads which many people were more than happy to do. I wasn't one of them, I think Lost sucks ass.
Bottom line, we don't have to be tied down by the rules we've set up in our heads. Instead of trying to tie these things permanently together we can love them individually or even as little 3-film chunks. Or one film chunks, if that's what we choose. I decide to be optimistic in my partaking of entertainment. I read mediocre books (The Maze Runner series comes to mind) if they have an interesting premise but suck in the execution. I will read a cliche comic if I like the artwork. I will watch a slow moving, plotless film if it has amazing cinematography. And I can enjoy The Matrix without the sequels.
The sane one, IMO, is the one who finds enjoyment instead of aggravation.