Not that efficient, doesn't kill everything, minor upside that's only really relevant sometimes, you'll still play it regardless... yup, this sure is a removal printed in the year 2016!
Okay, seriously, spoiling the mediocre commons as if they were a real spoiler is not cool folks. It is better to leave these cards unspoiled until we receive the complete set release.
I'm sorry that there are players that are interested in things that you aren't interested in.
Commander makes sense since they've tinkered with it at some events, could be some market research. Commander would be AMAZING and would bring back a lot of players like myself who've fallen off the wayside...
Problem with competitive Commander (been doing this for a while at the local level) is that people will just Ad Nauseam or so on as quickly as possible. If they were going to make Commander a competitive entity, and Sheldon has said they (the Rules Committee)have no intention of doing so, they'd need to ban a whole mess of tutors and combo enablers. I don't see this as feasible.
An official Duel Commander format with separate rules and bans from regular Commander could work. They could even just bring on the French team like they did with the RC for regular Commander.
Just to chime in on that last one - chess is pretty much solved. Yes, there something like 10 to the 100th power moves available to make, but advantage is easily quantifiable and verifiable and has 0 random factors involved. The advantage is measured in pawns - how many pawns is one player ahead of the next. Nearly every tournament that is covered live also feature computer analysis with:
- 5 to 10 possible next moves, with pawn advantage for each one.
- the next 20 or so moves for each of those possible moves are also detailed and calculated how much advantage they provide.
- much higher ELO (chess rating) than any human on the planet.
In essence, chess is solved, the only issue left before chess AI programmers is how many moves in advance can their software think. The current connumdrum is solving Japanese Go, which has 10 to the 200th power of moves available. Just recently, a computer beat the best Go player in the world, but started with a 4 piece advantage.
The moment a computer can play better than a human in every situation, the game is solved. Have you seen the AI on Duels? We have a long way to go!
In the context of games, "solved" is a technical term with a technical definition, which you have greatly misrepresented. Solving a game is a matter of mathematical proof, and the calculations of advantage you're talking about aren't proofs but heuristics. Chess is solvable, but it isn't solved in any sense of the word.
This would interest me greatly as to the best of my knowledge, it has not been proven that chess is (in the technical sense) even solvable, due to the potential for repeated gamestates within a given game, and effectively repetitive gamestates even. And by "interest me" I mean "This directly involves my thesis work and would really really F***ing blow my mind/ruin the last three years of my life that I've spent working on it" level interest.
I was under the impression that the fifty-move rule and threefold repetition rule took care of those potential situations - however, as a layperson, my level of confidence in this is quite low. I'd be interested in reading what the existing literature has to say about the solvability of chess. Anyway, we're very quickly veering off topic, and this is the last I'll post here on the subject.
Just to chime in on that last one - chess is pretty much solved. Yes, there something like 10 to the 100th power moves available to make, but advantage is easily quantifiable and verifiable and has 0 random factors involved. The advantage is measured in pawns - how many pawns is one player ahead of the next. Nearly every tournament that is covered live also feature computer analysis with:
- 5 to 10 possible next moves, with pawn advantage for each one.
- the next 20 or so moves for each of those possible moves are also detailed and calculated how much advantage they provide.
- much higher ELO (chess rating) than any human on the planet.
In essence, chess is solved, the only issue left before chess AI programmers is how many moves in advance can their software think. The current connumdrum is solving Japanese Go, which has 10 to the 200th power of moves available. Just recently, a computer beat the best Go player in the world, but started with a 4 piece advantage.
The moment a computer can play better than a human in every situation, the game is solved. Have you seen the AI on Duels? We have a long way to go!
In the context of games, "solved" is a technical term with a technical definition, which you have greatly misrepresented. Solving a game is a matter of mathematical proof, and the calculations of advantage you're talking about aren't proofs but heuristics. Chess is solvable, but it isn't solved in any sense of the word.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or any other sort of legal professional. This is my best understanding based on what actual legal professionals have written, but it may not be fully accurate. None of this applies outside of the United States.)
Fair use is not a strict legal standard, and it won't keep Hasbro from suing for copyright infringement if they so choose. Rather, it's a set of guidelines that a judge has to consider when determining whether copyright infringement has occurred. Quoting from the Stanford University Libraries guide:
The four factors judges consider are:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Purpose and character: If you're transforming or adding value to the original work, a judge is more likely to consider your work fair use.
The Nature of the Copyrighted Work: Card art is creative work (rather than factual) and published work (rather than unpublished). This should give you an idea of what precedents are and aren't relevant.
The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken: If you're using the full art of the card, that's a big strike against being fair use. If you're using a small, incidental portion of the card art, your chances are a lot better.
The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market: If your work deprives the copyright owner of income or potential income, you're gonna have a bad time. This generally refers to direct competition with existing products, but can also refer to diluting markets that the copyright owner might choose to enter in the future. Parody and criticism, although they might affect sales of the original, are generally not considered to violate this standard.
That's a broad overview of the complicated and vague legal theory involved. In practice, things are much simpler: If Hasbro doesn't like what you're doing and they tell you to stop, you should stop. Otherwise they will sue you, and their lawyers are far better than yours. If Hasbro likes what you're doing, or at least doesn't mind, you're safe. Historically that hinges on whether it seems like you're doing it for the community or for the money.
Taking it a step further, is it considered fair use on say, a monetized youtube channel? I know Tolarian Community College has been able to do it, but is this simply an exception given his major positive influence on MTG?
The simplest way to answer this question is to ask TCC, or another monetized channel, directly.
Planar Trader1R
Creature - Goblin Rogue (U)
When you draft Planar Trader, you may reveal it. If you do, you may exchange a card you've already drafted for a card in the pack you drafted Planar Trader from.
2/1
Manabonder 2G Creature - Elf Druid (R)
:symtap:: Put a +1/+1 counter on Manabonder, then add to your mana pool an amount of mana of any one color equal to Manabonder's power.
0/1
That would be the one! Ironically the "Conscription" in the name referred to the interaction between two rares (Sovereigns of Lost Alara and Eldrazi Conscription), but between Lotus Cobra, Elspeth, Knight-Errant, and Jace, the Mind Sculptor, there were plenty of money mythics to go around.
I'm sorry that there are players that are interested in things that you aren't interested in.
An official Duel Commander format with separate rules and bans from regular Commander could work. They could even just bring on the French team like they did with the RC for regular Commander.
I was under the impression that the fifty-move rule and threefold repetition rule took care of those potential situations - however, as a layperson, my level of confidence in this is quite low. I'd be interested in reading what the existing literature has to say about the solvability of chess. Anyway, we're very quickly veering off topic, and this is the last I'll post here on the subject.
In the context of games, "solved" is a technical term with a technical definition, which you have greatly misrepresented. Solving a game is a matter of mathematical proof, and the calculations of advantage you're talking about aren't proofs but heuristics. Chess is solvable, but it isn't solved in any sense of the word.
Fair use is not a strict legal standard, and it won't keep Hasbro from suing for copyright infringement if they so choose. Rather, it's a set of guidelines that a judge has to consider when determining whether copyright infringement has occurred. Quoting from the Stanford University Libraries guide:
Purpose and character: If you're transforming or adding value to the original work, a judge is more likely to consider your work fair use.
The Nature of the Copyrighted Work: Card art is creative work (rather than factual) and published work (rather than unpublished). This should give you an idea of what precedents are and aren't relevant.
The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken: If you're using the full art of the card, that's a big strike against being fair use. If you're using a small, incidental portion of the card art, your chances are a lot better.
The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market: If your work deprives the copyright owner of income or potential income, you're gonna have a bad time. This generally refers to direct competition with existing products, but can also refer to diluting markets that the copyright owner might choose to enter in the future. Parody and criticism, although they might affect sales of the original, are generally not considered to violate this standard.
That's a broad overview of the complicated and vague legal theory involved. In practice, things are much simpler: If Hasbro doesn't like what you're doing and they tell you to stop, you should stop. Otherwise they will sue you, and their lawyers are far better than yours. If Hasbro likes what you're doing, or at least doesn't mind, you're safe. Historically that hinges on whether it seems like you're doing it for the community or for the money.
The simplest way to answer this question is to ask TCC, or another monetized channel, directly.
This is horrible legal advice. Personally, I think it's horrible life advice in general, but it's definitely horrible legal advice.
Creature - Goblin Rogue (U)
When you draft Planar Trader, you may reveal it. If you do, you may exchange a card you've already drafted for a card in the pack you drafted Planar Trader from.
2/1
Enchantment (R)
Whenever a nonland permanent you control becomes untapped, draw a card.
Creature - Elf Druid (R)
:symtap:: Put a +1/+1 counter on Manabonder, then add to your mana pool an amount of mana of any one color equal to Manabonder's power.
0/1
Creature - Snake Wizard (U)
:symtap:: Target land becomes a copy of target land until end of turn.
1/3