Consider running one copy more than you'd expect if you can fit Crop Rotation into the build. Tap Gaea's Cradle, Crop Rotate it out and put another Gaea's Cradle into play........etc
I vote no - it shouldn't be banned. Banning a card is always the last resort - let the metagame take care of hating it away. Creative metagaming is the answer. Now, I know that in past weeks BG has been brutal, but the essence of Card Blind is the metagame.
If BG dominated both on the draw and on the play, then yes it should be banned. But most decks worth their snuff should be able to win when they go first.
There are definitely solid ways to beat this stupid thing when it goes first - (hint: look at the past decks that have been played for inspiration as to how to do it, the answers are already practically there.) There are at least two very solid decks I have in mind that go 6-0 vs any Cheese variant, without being narrow in the least.
Changes for next week:
- +15 bonus POTM points for anyone whose deck cannot beat the following deck on the draw: Black Lotus x4, Mindslaver
I'd just like a clarification. Which deck is on the draw - mine or Slaver?
I get points if my deck, when playing 2nd, can't beat 4Lotus/Slaver? (This scenario, right?)
or
I get points if my deck, when playing 1st, can't beat 4lotus/slaver?
Nope. I don't see why defense of the heart involves elves, tho I guess pyrostatic pillar has goblins in the art. When you see the answer, you will absolutely know it is the answer. The answer is extremely clearcut, but subtle. Here is another card that fits the pattern: Shifting Sky
Please, PLEASE - I've always wanted a believer to demonstrate or explain how "one can choose to believe." I submit that it is completely impossible to do so (and until I can accept that belief is a choice, how can I accept any religion that places a moral imperative on belief?).
I CANNOT CHOOSE TO BELIEVE AND NEITHER CAN YOU. To defend the veracity of a religion that places a moral imperative on belief itself, you've got to either (a) show that a human can choose his beliefs and therefore should be held accountable for them or (b) concede that a human can't choose belief (ie their formation is beyond my control) but that nonetheless a vengeful God will punish the doubter (which IS NOT an historically unprecedented position for religions to adopt).
Are not one's beliefs the product of several factors: one's experiences in life, one's logical examination of competing claims, the influence of social pressures, etc. If belief is a choice - the same way that sitting down or standing up is a choice - then please, believer, for a few seconds I'd like you to honestly try to believe that God doesn't exist, and then revert to your faith again. You can't do it because your reasoning mind prevents you from it.
I can choose to tell you that I'm a believer; I can choose to go to church and model myself as a believer; I can set myself up to garner the social benefits of avowed belief; I can choose to ignore evidence that's contrary to a given belief; I can even choose to not let myself think about a given topic, so as to ensure that a belief remains intact.
Think of the inverse, now. If I CAN choose to believe and I WILL suffer damnation for not believing, than don't the believers have a moral responsibility to convert the heathens/pagans/infidels? Are not wars waged in order to convert and save souls justified - even demanded? Aren't theocracies which stifle false faiths/freethought justified - even demanded? Isn't colonialism, conversion-at-knife-point, and authoritarianism demanded - since temporary, physical suffering is a small price to pay for salvation?
Why should a religion emphasize the result and ignore the method? What I mean is this: a person of limited intelligence misinterprets a chance event and becomes convinced that it is providence ie a miracle. As a result, he becomes an ardent, life-long believer, takes scripture as fact without examining its claims, admitting its contradictions, or recognizing the terrestrial influences in the text, and goes to heaven. Another person, seeing a similar event, ponders it, examines it, and concludes that it was no miracle. He gives routine thought to the claims of believers, and tries to give each claim as objective an analysis as possible. He scolds non-believers and believers alike, when he encounters false arguments, sloppy thought, and dismissive attitudes but admits to himself after a lifetime of thought that he sees insufficient evidence supporting religious claims. He dies, and burns in hell for eternity. The answer: religions play to the lowest-common-denominator in society, those who can only grasp the simple, good-advice messages and then buy the whole thing as a result. I'm not saying believers are dumb and secularists are smart. I'm saying we all can judge the methods used by others to seek truth and that certain characteristics in those methods (objectivity, transparency, standards for falsifiability, etc) are desirable and sadly lacking in religion.
I'm not being sarcastic when I ask you to explain how one chooses to believe, along with the implications for religions that claim that belief is a moral responsibility. I never can seem to get a straight answer from religious friends and family.
I want to play it. I was playing 5CB on another forum but it's taking too long per round and there aren't enough people. So do I just Private Message my decklist to carrion pigeons???
If BG dominated both on the draw and on the play, then yes it should be banned. But most decks worth their snuff should be able to win when they go first.
There are definitely solid ways to beat this stupid thing when it goes first - (hint: look at the past decks that have been played for inspiration as to how to do it, the answers are already practically there.) There are at least two very solid decks I have in mind that go 6-0 vs any Cheese variant, without being narrow in the least.
DON'T BAN IT - AT LEAST NOT YET.
I'd just like a clarification. Which deck is on the draw - mine or Slaver?
I get points if my deck, when playing 2nd, can't beat 4Lotus/Slaver? (This scenario, right?)
or
I get points if my deck, when playing 1st, can't beat 4lotus/slaver?
Agent of Masks
Pyrostatic Pillar
Fungal Shambler
Nameless One
I could see someone either getting it right away or nobody getting it.
I CANNOT CHOOSE TO BELIEVE AND NEITHER CAN YOU. To defend the veracity of a religion that places a moral imperative on belief itself, you've got to either (a) show that a human can choose his beliefs and therefore should be held accountable for them or (b) concede that a human can't choose belief (ie their formation is beyond my control) but that nonetheless a vengeful God will punish the doubter (which IS NOT an historically unprecedented position for religions to adopt).
Are not one's beliefs the product of several factors: one's experiences in life, one's logical examination of competing claims, the influence of social pressures, etc. If belief is a choice - the same way that sitting down or standing up is a choice - then please, believer, for a few seconds I'd like you to honestly try to believe that God doesn't exist, and then revert to your faith again. You can't do it because your reasoning mind prevents you from it.
I can choose to tell you that I'm a believer; I can choose to go to church and model myself as a believer; I can set myself up to garner the social benefits of avowed belief; I can choose to ignore evidence that's contrary to a given belief; I can even choose to not let myself think about a given topic, so as to ensure that a belief remains intact.
Think of the inverse, now. If I CAN choose to believe and I WILL suffer damnation for not believing, than don't the believers have a moral responsibility to convert the heathens/pagans/infidels? Are not wars waged in order to convert and save souls justified - even demanded? Aren't theocracies which stifle false faiths/freethought justified - even demanded? Isn't colonialism, conversion-at-knife-point, and authoritarianism demanded - since temporary, physical suffering is a small price to pay for salvation?
Why should a religion emphasize the result and ignore the method? What I mean is this: a person of limited intelligence misinterprets a chance event and becomes convinced that it is providence ie a miracle. As a result, he becomes an ardent, life-long believer, takes scripture as fact without examining its claims, admitting its contradictions, or recognizing the terrestrial influences in the text, and goes to heaven. Another person, seeing a similar event, ponders it, examines it, and concludes that it was no miracle. He gives routine thought to the claims of believers, and tries to give each claim as objective an analysis as possible. He scolds non-believers and believers alike, when he encounters false arguments, sloppy thought, and dismissive attitudes but admits to himself after a lifetime of thought that he sees insufficient evidence supporting religious claims. He dies, and burns in hell for eternity. The answer: religions play to the lowest-common-denominator in society, those who can only grasp the simple, good-advice messages and then buy the whole thing as a result. I'm not saying believers are dumb and secularists are smart. I'm saying we all can judge the methods used by others to seek truth and that certain characteristics in those methods (objectivity, transparency, standards for falsifiability, etc) are desirable and sadly lacking in religion.
I'm not being sarcastic when I ask you to explain how one chooses to believe, along with the implications for religions that claim that belief is a moral responsibility. I never can seem to get a straight answer from religious friends and family.