I am wanting to build a cube that is entirely composed of cards from one set (or one block). Basically, what I would like to see is a cube that mimics the actual limited format of that set/block as closely as possible (i.e. the cube's boosters will try to be as similar as possible to opening an actual booster of the set).
For each rarity, what would be the best distribution of cards to include?
I assume including 1x of each rare is probably the way to go.... but what about commons and uncommons?
I've seen some lists that included 2x of every common/uncommon, but that doesn't seem like it would provide a sufficient number of cards to have the typical 3x uncommon and 10x common pack...
What are your opinions about:
-2x each common and uncommon
-3x of each common and 2x of each uncommon
-4x of each common and 2x of each uncommon
-5x of each common and 3x of each uncommon
etc, etc.
What would generally be necessary to have a sufficient number of cards for an 8 player draft?
The beginning and end of the game were amazing. The raffle scene was one of the most jarring things I've ever experienced in a game. The multiverse ending was really sweet and the twist at the end was a complete surprise for me.
However, the middle was very disappointing and poorly done (after the hall of heroes). It essentially turned into a giant annoying kill-fest with little purpose (time consuming with no real story context). There were so many battles where you were effectively just killing 25 people just to move to a new location, with no story element behind it. Likewise, the fact that vigors were never even explained in the game at all was bizarre.
Story wise it feels like they just gave up midway through the game. The Fink section was terrible, and as a character he paled in comparison to the rich Rapture characters with all the symbolism and meaning behind who they are and what they represent. As was Fitzroy (essentially just a stereotypical angry black woman - no deep context or meaning).
The whole Fitzroy section essentially squashed the whole rather ill-defined race-narrative the game had in the beginning - the revolution couldn't succeed without the help of a martyred white man, alternate-Booker... and the black and Irish were essentially bloodthirsty barbarians. It just changed the dreary kill-fests from policemen into Braveheart looking guys.
My personal view is that anything that is explicitly designed to cause wide spread damage to multiple people with no reasonable purpose other than killing large numbers of human beings at once should be illegal to buy, sell, distribute, or otherwise transfer ownership to anyone.
Anything worse than a shotgun basically. This would include assault weapons, grenades, missile launchers, tanks, etc.
I'm always really surprised that people have such extreme reactions to the prospect of changing a team name.
The team is named after a derogatory name for people that essentially had genocide committed against them. That's really lame.
To me it doesn't even matter what percentage of people are or aren't "offended" - it's embarrassing at a cultural level, and it's the year 2013. We are at the point that we should be cleaning up the legacy of blatantly racist symbols that should have been dumped by 50-60 years ago if we can help it.
I always find it bizarre how people immediately go into Orwellian "PC police" mode where they assume that any discussion of whether or not something should remain is immediately taken as an overt declaration that something must be taken down at the point of a gun. That's a gigantic straw man.
As a private business it's inevitably only at the discretion of the ownership, but that doesn't mean that any utterly moronic thing out there should be held up as something to be celebrated - part of advancing as a culture means putting the spotlight on embarrassing things and shaming people into doing the right thing.
Hopefully this is the right place to be asking this question:
I would like to make an Urza's block cube that essentially mimics actual Urza's limited as much as possible. Basically, it would have all the commons and uncommons, and all the (non-expensive) rares in it.
It would NOT be singleton, in that there would be multiple copies of commons and uncommons.
My big question is, how many copies of commons/uncommons should there be to get a distribution that closely matches actual booster pack distribution? The number that came to mind was something like 4x commons, 2x uncommons, and 1x rares, but I really have no idea.
I'd love to know if people have crunched the numbers on projects like this, so I don't have to buy more cards than I need to. Thanks!
I've always been really surprised at proponents of the "let the states decide" argument, as if this is a just solution or compromise. Since when did states rights become more important than human rights?
There is a long history of the federal government overturning state laws that are blatant violations of human rights - particularly when it comes to basic fair/equal treatment before the law (see 14th amendment equal protection clause).
Legally the US is not a Christian nation. The United States of America has never been legally a Christian nation. Some individual states were explicitly legally Christian pre-constitution, but that was quickly ended (see the first amendment), because it turned out people didn't like paying taxes to support the state's pet church, or having competing preachers jailed.
This is arguably the only relevant fact to consider, as "America is a Christian nation" or "America was founded as a Christian nation" is almost exclusively argued in a political context by people who want to push prayer in school or something similar.
Demographics wise, the US is a pluralistic nation with a majority being Christian. If you're only going off demographics, honestly I don't see how this qualifies the US as a "christian nation." The majority of Americans are white - does that mean America is a white nation? The majority of Americans live in urban cities - does this mean we are an urban nation?
Honestly, the god thing isn't the most offensive thing in there.
I, _______, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.
Another example of right-wing social traditionalists being so blind and stupid that they don't even respect or understand the meaning of the things they're trying to push.
It cheapens and dirties an oath made by volunteers for public service to compel it by extortion.
Ayn Rand specifically said in one of her books that people are justified in procuring unemployment/social security/medicare if they have paid into the systems, even if the systems themselves are unethical.
There's lots of things wrong with Rand on many different levels, but I guess people would rather be lazy and construct straw men without reading her stuff.
I would pass. Always trade Legacy stuff at a 25% premium, minimum, I say.
If someone came into a trade demanding an additional 25% value for their legacy card in exchange for my legacy-playable staple modern cards, I'd simply cut the trade and never bother to trade with that person again.
That's a more reasonable stance for legacy - standard trades, because the prices are so volatile, but modern has generally just kept going up in price.
If it's alright to make an non-consenting decision to cut off a part a of a child's ***** for "health reasons,"... Why not cut off the tips of babies' tongues?
The tip of the tongue has the most taste receptors for sweet foods (which cause obesity, increase diabetes risk, and increase cancer risk). And it's not like it totally removes sweet taste sensation - other parts of the tongue have sweet receptors too. But surely a little loss of pleasurable sensation is worth the decreased health risks. And yes, you could argue that you should just teach the kids to have good habits for health purposes... but isn't this just easier?
Explain to me why this is wrong, but circumcision is right.
It's a slippery slope. It wasn't even a decade ago when Republicans were considering the same thing. During the Bush Era, Republicans basically controlled congress, the presidency, and judiciary (that shifted right after the appointment of alito and roberts to the Supreme Court.)
The democrats had a minority, but could still manage a filibuster at times.
The filibuster may certainly cause obstructionism, but it is also check on power.
and I, even as a moderate liberal would be very hesitant to remove any of our checks on power, even if I share a good number of views with the party in power.
When America was formed, we could have gone the route of concentrated power like so many other nations in history. We didn't. We had a system where "ambition was made to counteract ambition" with the ideal that virtue would rise to the top.
For the majority party in Congress, they will likely always find the filibuster to be obstructionist. But that thorn in the side is also a beacon of liberty to the minority viewpoints.
I think it's best we leave it be.
The filibuster as it currently exists is an entirely modern thing.
It used to be the case where filibusters required actually talking on the floor of the senate, continually. I am not particularly a fan of this either, but I can understand the logic behind keeping this in place. But this is not what we currently have.
Now all the minority party has to do is say "we are filibustering," and the legislative process is shut down, without anybody having to make a rear-end out of themselves. The republicans have made it so routine that a supermajority (60 votes) is needed to get anything to pass at all.
Mitch McConnel recently filibustered a bill that he himself brought to the floor. If that doesn't scream "time to change things" I don't know what would.
My big one would also be to stop catering (almost) exclusively to "investors" or collectors and do more to support actual players of the game.
Specifically speaking of finally giving reasonably priced card support to eternal formats as a routine practice (NOT exclusively via highly limited edition foil sets). The health of popular and/or competitive formats should not be held hostage by whining collectors and a minority of competitive players. At its heart, MTG is a game, not an investment vehicle.
If we grant that a god exists, can a particular religion be established through argument and/or evidence to be true?
For the sake of this thread, assume the following:
1. The Universe was intentionally created by an intelligent, sentient being.
2. This Creator still exists today.
3. This Creator has the capacity to observe and interact with the Universe it created.
Can we get from the above assumptions to Jesus being God? Can we get to any other parts of Christian theology?
[/SPOILER]
I don't believe so, because Christianity at its root is based on historical claims (there was a man named Jesus who was born to a possibly-virgin woman named Mary, he performed miracles, was crucified, and came back to life 3 days later and ascended into heaven). The spiritual core of Christianity may be accepting Jesus as the spiritual savior of mankind, but that proposition can't be established without the above-mentioned historical claims. Without miracles and resurrection, Jesus is just a hippie with some radical ideas and delusions of grandeur.
Even if God's existence were a "given," these claims would still come from scripture, which would still have the same problem it has now: it doesn't do a very good job of being a historical document.
The deal breaker would need to be contemporary, verifiable, and clear messages from above that Christianity is the real-deal (we're talking documented supernatural events and multiple redundant prophets here). Otherwise the conflicts and debates that exist now would be the same - people with opposing historical claims to divinity with no real evidence to back things up.
For each rarity, what would be the best distribution of cards to include?
I assume including 1x of each rare is probably the way to go.... but what about commons and uncommons?
I've seen some lists that included 2x of every common/uncommon, but that doesn't seem like it would provide a sufficient number of cards to have the typical 3x uncommon and 10x common pack...
What are your opinions about:
-2x each common and uncommon
-3x of each common and 2x of each uncommon
-4x of each common and 2x of each uncommon
-5x of each common and 3x of each uncommon
etc, etc.
What would generally be necessary to have a sufficient number of cards for an 8 player draft?
Thanks
However, the middle was very disappointing and poorly done (after the hall of heroes). It essentially turned into a giant annoying kill-fest with little purpose (time consuming with no real story context). There were so many battles where you were effectively just killing 25 people just to move to a new location, with no story element behind it. Likewise, the fact that vigors were never even explained in the game at all was bizarre.
Story wise it feels like they just gave up midway through the game. The Fink section was terrible, and as a character he paled in comparison to the rich Rapture characters with all the symbolism and meaning behind who they are and what they represent. As was Fitzroy (essentially just a stereotypical angry black woman - no deep context or meaning).
The whole Fitzroy section essentially squashed the whole rather ill-defined race-narrative the game had in the beginning - the revolution couldn't succeed without the help of a martyred white man, alternate-Booker... and the black and Irish were essentially bloodthirsty barbarians. It just changed the dreary kill-fests from policemen into Braveheart looking guys.
Anything worse than a shotgun basically. This would include assault weapons, grenades, missile launchers, tanks, etc.
The team is named after a derogatory name for people that essentially had genocide committed against them. That's really lame.
To me it doesn't even matter what percentage of people are or aren't "offended" - it's embarrassing at a cultural level, and it's the year 2013. We are at the point that we should be cleaning up the legacy of blatantly racist symbols that should have been dumped by 50-60 years ago if we can help it.
I always find it bizarre how people immediately go into Orwellian "PC police" mode where they assume that any discussion of whether or not something should remain is immediately taken as an overt declaration that something must be taken down at the point of a gun. That's a gigantic straw man.
As a private business it's inevitably only at the discretion of the ownership, but that doesn't mean that any utterly moronic thing out there should be held up as something to be celebrated - part of advancing as a culture means putting the spotlight on embarrassing things and shaming people into doing the right thing.
I would like to make an Urza's block cube that essentially mimics actual Urza's limited as much as possible. Basically, it would have all the commons and uncommons, and all the (non-expensive) rares in it.
It would NOT be singleton, in that there would be multiple copies of commons and uncommons.
My big question is, how many copies of commons/uncommons should there be to get a distribution that closely matches actual booster pack distribution? The number that came to mind was something like 4x commons, 2x uncommons, and 1x rares, but I really have no idea.
I'd love to know if people have crunched the numbers on projects like this, so I don't have to buy more cards than I need to. Thanks!
There is a long history of the federal government overturning state laws that are blatant violations of human rights - particularly when it comes to basic fair/equal treatment before the law (see 14th amendment equal protection clause).
This is arguably the only relevant fact to consider, as "America is a Christian nation" or "America was founded as a Christian nation" is almost exclusively argued in a political context by people who want to push prayer in school or something similar.
Demographics wise, the US is a pluralistic nation with a majority being Christian. If you're only going off demographics, honestly I don't see how this qualifies the US as a "christian nation." The majority of Americans are white - does that mean America is a white nation? The majority of Americans live in urban cities - does this mean we are an urban nation?
Another example of right-wing social traditionalists being so blind and stupid that they don't even respect or understand the meaning of the things they're trying to push.
It cheapens and dirties an oath made by volunteers for public service to compel it by extortion.
There's lots of things wrong with Rand on many different levels, but I guess people would rather be lazy and construct straw men without reading her stuff.
If someone came into a trade demanding an additional 25% value for their legacy card in exchange for my legacy-playable staple modern cards, I'd simply cut the trade and never bother to trade with that person again.
That's a more reasonable stance for legacy - standard trades, because the prices are so volatile, but modern has generally just kept going up in price.
If it's alright to make an non-consenting decision to cut off a part a of a child's ***** for "health reasons,"... Why not cut off the tips of babies' tongues?
The tip of the tongue has the most taste receptors for sweet foods (which cause obesity, increase diabetes risk, and increase cancer risk). And it's not like it totally removes sweet taste sensation - other parts of the tongue have sweet receptors too. But surely a little loss of pleasurable sensation is worth the decreased health risks. And yes, you could argue that you should just teach the kids to have good habits for health purposes... but isn't this just easier?
Explain to me why this is wrong, but circumcision is right.
The filibuster as it currently exists is an entirely modern thing.
It used to be the case where filibusters required actually talking on the floor of the senate, continually. I am not particularly a fan of this either, but I can understand the logic behind keeping this in place. But this is not what we currently have.
Now all the minority party has to do is say "we are filibustering," and the legislative process is shut down, without anybody having to make a rear-end out of themselves. The republicans have made it so routine that a supermajority (60 votes) is needed to get anything to pass at all.
Mitch McConnel recently filibustered a bill that he himself brought to the floor. If that doesn't scream "time to change things" I don't know what would.
Specifically speaking of finally giving reasonably priced card support to eternal formats as a routine practice (NOT exclusively via highly limited edition foil sets). The health of popular and/or competitive formats should not be held hostage by whining collectors and a minority of competitive players. At its heart, MTG is a game, not an investment vehicle.
I don't believe so, because Christianity at its root is based on historical claims (there was a man named Jesus who was born to a possibly-virgin woman named Mary, he performed miracles, was crucified, and came back to life 3 days later and ascended into heaven). The spiritual core of Christianity may be accepting Jesus as the spiritual savior of mankind, but that proposition can't be established without the above-mentioned historical claims. Without miracles and resurrection, Jesus is just a hippie with some radical ideas and delusions of grandeur.
Even if God's existence were a "given," these claims would still come from scripture, which would still have the same problem it has now: it doesn't do a very good job of being a historical document.
The deal breaker would need to be contemporary, verifiable, and clear messages from above that Christianity is the real-deal (we're talking documented supernatural events and multiple redundant prophets here). Otherwise the conflicts and debates that exist now would be the same - people with opposing historical claims to divinity with no real evidence to back things up.