We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Dismiss
 
The Magic Market Index Amonkhet Set Review
 
The Magic Market Index for April 21, 2017
 
The Magic Market Index for April 14, 2017
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next
  • 0

    posted a message on North Korea
    Quote from Firevine »
    ^ Precisely that.

    The missile barrage on the empty airfield in Syria occurred while Xi Jinping was here in the states. Trumps moves are showing that he's not going to play these games, and it's making China step up and say "Maybe we should stop playing too then". 80% of North Koreas trade is with China, so when China says "enough is enough", this little dog and pony show is over.


    That would be a lot more comforting if that was actually Trumps motivation behind the strike. And the strike acutually doing something useful.

    As all the indications we have are that Trump doesn't think that far ahead and the strike was only good at generating headlines. Not to mention that he either deliberately lied about a Carrier groups movements or lost track of it there are very few reasons to feel to comfortable at the moment.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on North Korea
    North Korea's antics are North Korea's fault. Always.

    But it's the responsibility of the US President and other world leaders to respond to those antics and keep them from boiling over into a shooting war. Trump is very capable of screwing that part up.


    This. There has been a well practiced game that has regularly been held with North Korea, with every player knowing their moves and making them with a common goal. So far the game has always ended in an honourable draw, with North Korea getting some of what it needs and the rest of the world breathing easier that that Nuclear Armageddon has ben avoided again for a while.

    We now have had a new player sit down at the table that appears to be playing by a different set of rules and apparently a different set of objectives to the other players.

    Whilst Trump is not responsible for this round of the game starting, he does have a responsibility to ensure it ends with out escalating either into a Kinetic war which would mean that Seoul is very likely to glow in the dark or a Cyber War which the Americans are likely to lose very badly. Unfortunately he appears to be fond of the large grandstanding actions which are almost exactly what you don't need in this situation.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Volcano Hellion and Nearheath Pilgrim
    You choose the amount of damage that the Volcano hellion will do when the ability comes to resolve not when it goes on the stack. By the time your opponent knows how much damage you are going to do to the target and yourself it will already have been dealt and you will already have gained the life.

    If your opponent wants to stop you from gaining the life he will have to disrupt the soulbound before the ability resolves but at that point you can always choose to deal 0 damage.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on North Korea
    I don't like the usual characterisation tha Kim Jong-un is unhinged or deranged. Its a lazy characterisation that means we dkon't have to more closely examine his motivations and can just write his actions off as a mad man doing mad things with nuclear weapons.

    Taking a closer look at what is happening, what he is doing is very logical admittedly a very twisted sense of logic. Since the end of the Korean war a pattern has emerged where North Korea has run out of something important like food or other neccesities and in order to get an increase supply has rattled its sabre and then demanded concessions and supplies in exchange for not doing it again in the near future whilst looking pointedly at Seoul. The obvious implication being sod the Americans and Japanese I already have millions of innocents in range not just of rockets and missiles but with conventional artilery as well. This tactic has largely worked with the major powers not wanting to provoke first Kim Jong-il and now Kim Jong-um into doing anything rash.

    Unfortunately now it appears that we have someone in the White house that appears to be as unpredictable as the world fears Kim Jung-un is and is using his millatry to gain favorable headlines by acting abroad to divert attention away from domestic failngs.

    Also as a factual correction. North Korea have no problems blowing up nuclear bombs. The only problems they appear to have is sticking them in missiles that are capable of reaching Japan or Hawaii or the West Coast of America. If they are actually invaded, unless we manage a massive first stike that takes out their entire Nuclear aresnal Seoul is going to glow in the dark...
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Bending the Rules for the Sake of Politics
    Quote from Hungerstriker »

    But after he cast the Thug, I realized there was a small problem. In order to cast my kill spell, he needed to pass priority. Meaning, he'd immediately go to combat without having a chance to draw and bestow the Nighthowler. It would have been no problem at all if we were playing two headed giant, but this was a five player free-for-all. (That's how I'm pretty sure the rules work, anyway. I'm 99% sure)


    The game won't move to the next step or phase until all players pass priority over an empty stack with out any player adding anything to it. There is nothing in the scenario as you have described it that comes anywhere near bending the rules regardless of the type of game being played.

    Once his thug resolves you will still have the oppertunity to cast any instant you chose and once that resolves priority will eventually pass back to the active player and they will still be in their mainphase and able to act as such including casing creatures spells and auras.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • 0

    posted a message on Old time mtg sets to keep an eye out for
    They might have had enough players, but did they have enough customers? That question you do not appear to have answered. If MTG was profitable in your area the stores that used to support and sell it would continue to do so.

    For all of them to move away from selling MTG products as even a sideline and only sell comics very strongly signals that the area will not be able support a store dedicated to MTG. Unless you are able to overcome whatever issues they had, which are most likely going to be being unable to compete with Walmat in the sealed product market and being unable to get sufficient numbers of people willing to trade with them on the secondary market, you are going to have exactly the same issues but nothing to fall back on if the MTG side falls through as it did for the previous stores.

    You need to do a lot more research than you appear to have done at present. Especially on your start up costs as I could very easily see you needing to sink approx 30K into the shop before you get your first customer, more if you want to stock the old cards. From there the ongoing expenses are just going to keep on mounting up.

    As for the old cards you are very unlikely to get packs of old sets in sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile. If you can, avoid them like the plague, those packs are going to have been sitting around in cases unopened since those sets were in standard. If they weren't opened then it means there was not a demand for them back then and there is not going to be a market for them now. All you will do is but stock that will sit around until the 1 person in the state who wants them turns up or you can manage to convince enough people to do a retro draft/sealed event.

    If you want to sell the old cards it is going to be done as singles which means you will either need to have a large enough personal collection that you are willing to sacrifice to start your stock or get lucky with people cashing out the hobby willing to sell you there collections and hoping that you have enough money to do so and they have enough valuable cards you can then sell on to make it worth your while. Your final option for this would be to purchase the old packs and open them yourself but then you are running the risk of not opening sufficient money cards to sell that you can offset against your sunk cost purchasing and opening the sealed product.
    Posted in: Community Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Any tips for a First-Timer on a pre release event?
    One thing that I am surprised has not been brought up.

    Rules enforcement, whilst it is at the lowest level of rules enforcement with penalties more geared towards educating a player rather than punishing them if something goes wrong, they still exist.

    At the start of the tournament the judge should stand up and give a quick spiel about how the tournament is going to be run, i.e you get x amount of time to open and register pools
    then swap them with person x
    then create your deck from the pool you received.

    Round length and where the pairing are going to be placed for each round.

    If you are at a large enough event to warrent more than one judge they should all be identified and hopefully easily identifiable.

    During the tournament if you think anything is off or you have a rules question raise a hand and call 'judge', keep that hand up until a judge arives. Explain the situation to them/ask them the question. Don't try and fix the issue yourself. For all you know your opponnent might have been doing shady things all day and not been noticed if he is cheating. In the case of a rules query the Head Judge is the one who has the authority to issue official rulings for the purposes of that event.

    If you feel that the ruling is incorrect, don't argue during the event come away and either have a look at the rules yourself or ask somewhere like here after the event.

    Don't worry if it takes a long time to resolve a situation, get an answer you should get a time extension on your match to cover it.

    Above all else try and have fun. And as others have said you could be looking at a 4+ hour event where whilst you aren't going to be physically active it still can be mentally draining so do what ever you can to help yourself stay awake and in the best condition.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on Lich's Mirror timing and a possible follow-up
    Quote from MMLgamer »
    My question was: does ALL of that happen as one event (Both Lich's Mirror and me losing after Lich's Mirror is applied), or do multiple checks result in multiple events?


    With Erebos and Liches mirror it is 2 seperate events causing you to lose the game.

    The first one replaced with Liches mirror doing its stuff. The second when SBA are rechecked and you are still at or below 0 life.

    In most cases this is just technicallities outside of a potentially very small number of corner cases in a multiplayer game it is not relevant. You lose the game and it ends.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Lich's Mirror timing and a possible follow-up
    Quote from MMLgamer »
    Okay, so two follow-up questions and a 3rd possible follow-up after this.

    1. What happens if I own the Erebos?


    If you own Erebos he would return under your control. As you can never be your own opponent, you would gain life.



    2. Does the Lich's Mirror effect and my eventual game loss happen simultaneously, or are they two separate events since state-based actions were checked twice?


    With Erebos being owned by your opponent there are 2 rounds of SBA in the first one the game sees you should lose then applies the effect on Liches mirror. After this the game instantly does another check of SBA to see if any more need to be applied and sees you at 0 life then makes you lose the game.

    With out Erebos in the scenario the second round of SBA would do nothing so the game would progress to the relevant player having priority.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 1

    posted a message on Avatar and Winding Constrictor question
    3. The counters are being put on the avatar as a single action so the game would see you put counters on the Avatar and the replacement effect from the constrictor would interfere and tell you to add an extra counter.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Supreme Court Justice Nominees Gorsuch and Garland
    Quote from joandeMRA »
    Your just going to have to get over it the way conservatives have had to get over the million times the left have cheated the system. Garland was to the left of everyone but Sotomayor, who has made it clear again and again that furthering left wing political agendas comes before the job of actually safeguarding the American peoples constitutional rights. The constitution is an incredible safeguard against tyranny but it requires people who will fight government tyranny and that's not who the left nominates, they nominate political activists who view government tyranny as an acceptable means to an end in their never ending march to transform America into anything other then America.


    So you are saying the only way to support and protect the constitution was to violate the constitution?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on dose this loop work
    No this doesn't work.

    After Eternal Witness resolves, it ETB ability triggers and is put on the stack, when this happens you need to have a choose a legal target that is already in your graveyard. So by the time you would get priority to cast when of your other spells, the ability is already on the stack.

    Hope that helps.


    This is incorrect.

    The ETB is only put on the stack once the spell or ability that exiled it has completely resolved so the spell that caused it to leave the battlefield is in the graveyard long before the ability on Eternal witness hits the stack and needs it target declared.

    This interaction has not changed since momentary blink wsa first released.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on dose this loop work
    Your loop does work. Whilst the ability from Eternal witness would fire during the resolution of the spells it is not put onto the stack and targets declared until the spells have completely resolved, by which time the cards are in the graveyard so a valid target for the Witnesses ability.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 1

    posted a message on Two questions. Dryad and Constrictor
    Quote from The Fluff »
    Hi. Here's two questions. Smile

    1. If an opponent uses Unsummon on my Dryad Millitant. Would the unsummon get exiled by the Dryad?


    No it would not. As with spells like murder the Dryad leaves the battlefield whilst unsummon is still resolving so it has gone and its static abiility has ended long before the unsummon card would leave teh stack



    2. Have 2 Winding Constrictor in play, then I revolt a Narnam Renegade. How many +1/+1 counters would be put on the renegade?



    Presuming a creature has left the battlefield. 3 +1/+1 counters. When you have multiple replacement effects apply to the same event you chose which one to apply first then if the remainder still would apply they you apply those.

    This is explicitly covered in the gatherer rulings for Winding Constrictor

    Quote from gatherer »
    If you control two Winding Constrictors, the number of counters placed on the artifact or creature is the original number plus two. Three Winding Constrictors adds three to the original number, and so on.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Trump has now decided that Barrel bombs are bad as well.

    White House warns of potential US 'red line' over Syria barrel bomb attacks
    The Trump administration has signalled much broader grounds for future military intervention in Syria, suggesting it might retaliate against the Assad regime for barrel bomb attacks.

    On the eve of a critical visit to Moscow at a time of high US-Russian tensions over Syria, the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, appeared to go even further, saying his country would come to the defence of innocent civilians “anywhere in the world”.

    The administration had initially stressed strictly limited objectives for a cruise missile strike last week on a Syrian air force base, saying it was intended to deter the repeat of a chemical attack on Tuesday against civilians and that the focus of US efforts in Syria remains combating the Islamic State (Isis).

    On Monday, however, the White House spokesman, Sean Spicer, widened the criteria for retaliation. “When you watch babies and children being gassed, and suffer under barrel bombs, you are instantaneously moved to action,” he said. “I think this president’s made it very clear that if those actions were to continue, further action will definitely be considered by the United States.”

    On Tuesday diplomats gathered in Italy for a second day of G7 talks dominated by the war in Syria, as officials in Washington, the UK and elsewhere floated the possibility of new sanctions on the Syrian and Russian military.

    US intelligence believes Assad carried out last week’s attack with the chemical agent sarin, killing dozens of civilians including children. But Spicer made the first mention of the use of barrel bombs – crude munitions that can cause indiscriminate casualties.

    Pressed on whether chemical warfare as opposed to conventional warfare constitutes a red line, he replied: “I think the president’s been very clear that there were a number of lines crossed last week ... The answer is if you gas a baby, if you put a barrel bomb into innocent people, I think you will see a response from this president. That is unacceptable.”

    The White House said later that Spicer was referring to barrel bombs carrying industrial chemicals like chlorine. But that would still represent a substantial expansion of the US rules of engagement in Syria. The regime is suspected of using chlorine gas in its attacks on dozens of occasions since 2013.

    Tillerson made his remarks during a visit to the site of a 1944 Nazi massacre in Italy, but they clearly referred to the Trump administration’s decision on Thursday to launch missile strikes against a Syrian airbase from which the US said a regime chemical attack had been launched against civilians in a rebel-held town.

    Tillerson is in Italy for a G7 foreign ministers’ meeting dominated by discussion of western policy towards Damascus and Moscow. The UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, who cancelled his own planned visit to Moscow on Monday, said the ministers would be “discussing the possibility of further sanctions certainly on some of the Syrian military figures and indeed on some of the Russian military figures who have been involved in coordinating the Syrian military effort”.

    The ministers met again early on Tuesday Morning before Tillerson flies on to Moscow. According to one G7 source, Tillerson plans to offer the Putin regime a bald choice, between cutting Bashar al-Assad loose and being rewarded with a thaw in relations with the west; or continuing to back him, and risking a Libyan-style outcome. The Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was violently deposed and killed in 2011 by rebels lent air support by Nato powers, including the UK.

    Whitehall sources say Britain has been instrumental in helping to persuade the US to support the idea that Assad – and his family – must be removed from power before progress can be made. Johnson is pushing for the strongest possible conclusion, including the threat of targeted sanctions against Syrian and Russian military commanders – a proposal he judges more likely to win support than wider economic penalties against Moscow.

    The decision to approve the missile strike on the Shayrat Syrian air force base marked a sharp change in direction for Donald Trump, who had furiously opposed any such intervention by the Obama administration, and had pledged an “America first” foreign policy that would focus on counter-terrorism and narrowly defined US national interests.

    Trump emphasised the child victims of the poison gas in justifying the launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at infrastructure at the Shayrat base, Spicer’s comments suggested the president’s concern for Syrian children extended to victims of conventional bombing too. Over half a million people have been killed in the six years of the Syrian war. Tillerson’s comments suggested that the administration was even open to humanitarian intervention elsewhere.

    Speaking to journalists at the site of the 1944 massacre in the Tuscan village of Sant’Anna, the secretary of state said: “We rededicate ourselves to holding to account any and all who commit crimes against the innocents anywhere in the world.”

    The remarks appeared to conflict with Tillerson’s own comments on Sunday in which he claimed the administration’s priority in Syria had not changed; it remained the defeat of Isis, and only after that could Syria’s political stability be considered. On the same today, the US envoy to the UN, Nikki Haley, said “getting Assad out” was one of “multiple priorities” held by the administration.


    There is more at the link.

    Yet more Wag the Dog. Barrel bombs were bad when Assad first used them before the initial Chemical attacks and Trump was busy saying we should not get involved. What has changed in the region now to demand such an about face??
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from MinaHarcourt »
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from MinaHarcourt »

    Kahedron, do you not know that behind the lines of Assad's Syria, life is not all that bad?


    I'm not sure what the relevance of this statement is. Are you trying to claim that beacuse he is nice to the people he isn't dropping bombs on he can't possibly be behind the Chemical attack? Or because he is nice to some of his people we should ignore the fact that he is a mass murderer?


    You're drawing conclusions based on things I did not say. But no, nevermind. You've repeatedly ignored statements made by several people. I'm obviously not the one to change your mind either.


    No I am not drawing conclusions. I am asking a couple of questions as to the relevancy of your initial question. If you want an answer to your non sequiter. I sure that there are still some areas of Syria that have not been touched by the civil war where life might be very pleasant.

    Now please tell me how that is relevant that is when looking to apportion blame for a chemical attack?

    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Do you get cards ability if you don't morph?
    If you cast it normally Thousand winds will enter the battlefield face up so there is nothing for its triggered ability to fire off.

    If you want it to work as an upheaval you have to turn it face up either by ending the morph state or after it is turned face down by something like Ixidron.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Russian computer programmer held in Spain 'under US warrant'

    A Russian computer programmer has been arrested in Barcelona, a spokesman for the Russian embassy in Madrid said on Sunday.

    It was unclear why Pyotr Levashov was arrested. The embassy spokesman declined to give details and Spanish police and the interior ministry were not available for comment.

    RT, the Russian government-backed television channel, reported that Levashov had been arrested under a US international arrest warrant and was suspected of being involved in hacking attacks linked to alleged interference in last year’s US election.

    Peter Carr, a spokesman for the criminal division of the US justice department, said: “The US case remains under seal, so we have no information to provide at this time.”


    More at link

    Oh boy this is going to get interesting.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Supreme Court Justice Nominees Gorsuch and Garland
    Quote from Surging Chaos »

    It was very much a partisan jab. Ginsburg is very left-leaning and she clearly despises Trump. Supreme Court justices normally stay silent on such matters and what she did was unprecedented.



    Yeah what she said was not helpful but as for unprecedented not so sure about that one. From Article you linked to it mentions comments made by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who allegedly said that Gore being declared the winner in Florida was Terrible and then went on sit on the panel that decided the case to deny the recount in Florida. And it did not appear to affect her later career in the Supreme court.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Supreme Court Justice Nominees Gorsuch and Garland
    Quote from Surging Chaos »

    The other reason is that whole point of a life term for a justice was so that they would not become beholden to politics and could instead focus on being a justice. However, we have clearly seen that has been a massive failure. You have justices like RBG who now are super partisan and have basically broken the "code" of justices to stay out of politics.


    Who is RBG, and what have they said against Trump?

    As for staying out of politics is that a blanket ban or a much confused request/requirement that they stay clear of Party Political matters?

    Cause if it is the latter some criticism of Trump being unprepared and spending to much time away from Washington is valid regardless of who it is coming fro,.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from MinaHarcourt »

    Kahedron, do you not know that behind the lines of Assad's Syria, life is not all that bad?


    I'm not sure what the relevance of this statement is. Are you trying to claim that beacuse he is nice to the people he isn't dropping bombs on he can't possibly be behind the Chemical attack? Or because he is nice to some of his people we should ignore the fact that he is a mass murderer?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from Faust »
    The geopolitics also tells that Assad doesn't have any reason to suddenly start using prohibited weapons in a conflict that he was winning anyway, but there are sides greatly interested in making the world believe he did. When the teleological reasoning is against you, you're usually wrong.



    Another article for you here.

    He might be 'winning' but have you heard the term 'phyrric victory'?

    At this point it is almost irrelevant that he is winning the civil war it has gone on for 6 years and has reduced large parts of the country to rubble. This is going to be very expensive to repair. Even if it were to end in his favour soon. His forces have also been fighting for that 6 year period with only very short breaks for the abortive cease fires.

    Even if his victory is inevietable as some people might like to claim it isn't going to happen quickly so is going to result in a lot more damage to the infreastructure of Syria. Which in all likelihood he is not going to be able to afford to repair. So he ends up the ruler of a pile of dust. With the knowledge that he has got away with using Chemical weapons before. Again you can try to deny this but you have the same problem of finding someone else who can drop them from aircraft, good luck with that. And the fact that they are very good at terrorising civilian populuations. Yeah I can see why he might be tempted to use them again.

    As for Iraq are you forgetting or ignoring the fact that Saddam Hussien used Chemical weapons against the Iranians during the Iraq/Iranian war and then was so concerned about using them that he used them against the Marsh Arabs after the first Gulf War. And after the first Gulf War Iraq was exactly co-operative when it came to the inspections of its weapon sites and manufacturing facilities.


    This is of course ignoring the storys of convoys being sent from Iraq to Syria just after the Invasion in 2003.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from Faust »
    Quote from Kahedron »
    It also does not change the facts how ever much Putin would like to dispute them. Casualty patterns are not consistent with a store of chemical weapons going bang but on the contrary fits the pattern found when the weapons are dropped from aircraft.

    You sound so assured that I would like to see a source, because honestly it doesn't feel like there is a difference than can be perceived as clearly, but I would like to be proven wrong, if it is possible. What exactly are those casualty patterns?



    Here you go. And before you attack the source the Guardian for all is spelling mistakes is one of the few news outlets that values proper investigative journalism.


    Quote from Faust »
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Now I know I still don't care, other than the fact that I have said that your country is the only other one potentially capable of committing this war crime.


    It definitely is capable, right, but is it really the only one? Theoretically, how about Turkey, Jordan, Qatar or Saudi Arabia?

    With the exception of the Qataris the rest of the countries you mentioned are involved in other conflicts in the region and Chemical weapons have not been used in those. For the Qataris the Americans built their airbase and have been using it fairly consistently since the end of the First Gulf war so I doubt that any chemical weapons could have been snuck past them.

    So again our option fairly quickly narrow to Assad or Assad. I get you still don't like the fact your country has thrown itself in with a mass murderer, but history and geopolitics don't really care what you think.

    Quote from Ljoss »
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    He can't do that legally. I mean, I appreciate all the reasonable critiques of his decisions but he can't actually do that. He was stretching the limits just by doing what he did here.
    ...no, he wasn't. This was the "minimum use of force" approach. I'd bet dollars to donuts his advisors gave him a menu of options that got way more explosive.


    I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. He's POTUS, not King. He can't just order a complete bombardment of the state of Syria on a whim. Not to mention that the Russians are there as well.

    Well acutally it looks like he can. He just has to tell congress why he did it within 48 hours and pull the troops out after 60 days if Congress doesn't grant an extension.


    Quoting wiki here just for ease:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution


    The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

    The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.


    I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that he certainly doesn't have the power you're suggesting that he does here. There's been no attack on the United States and no word from congress. That explains why we're already seeing some questions about the legality even of this minimal action that he did take (refer to my previous citation).

    The issue of authority aside, just as a matter of prudence, it seems like a pretty awful idea to start a war with the vassal of a major world power (who even has forces present within the borders of said vassal) without both international and congressional support, neither of which he has. We don't see any other state in the world (even in Europe) trying to do this, either. Hilariously, with this singular action, he's done more against Assad than anyone else has.


    The actions he has undertaken have done nothing to change the situation on the ground and there are portions of Congress attacking him for not going far enough. With the news that for all of the missiles sent against that one airbase having it back in operation less than a week after it was attacked. Those charges are valid.


    Quote from Ljoss »

    It's a brave move for a few reasons.

    1) Questionable legality and opposition by a few lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

    2) Opens him up to criticism for flip-flopping on Syria.

    3) Opposition by anti-war elements on both sides of the aisle - even fervent supporters that are sympathetic to Russia.


    Ljoss we aren't attacking him for carrying out the attack. We are attacking him because the method he choose is absolutely pointless and does nothing to help anyone. All this is, is a very very expensive Wag the dog. He has done the bare minimum neccessary to get some hopefully positive headlines in an attempt distract people from all the things that are going wrong at home with his domestic plans.


    He's kinda getting hit from almost every angle here. You have the anti-war left now claiming him to be a warmonger - or like you said, the whole wag the dog deal. You've got the legal issues with congress. You've got this backlash from the right that either believes that Assad didn't use chemical weapons and this is all some big conspiracy or that, even if Assad is using chemical weapons, the fact remains that he's fighting ISIS and so let's just look the other way. I think this might have helped him with some nations (the U.K., Israel, Saudi Arabia and Australia have expressed support) and maybe certain elements of the media but let's not kid ourselves, this doesn't please a large portion of his base and it doesn't please much of the left, either. [/quote]

    You are reading the UK situation wrong. Pretty much everyone over here wants the bastard gone. But a large part of the polictal scene is still hung up over the Invasion of Iraq back in 2003 and how we should not have invaded then, and how Western Military intervention does not work So we should not ever intervene in the Middle east again.

    Admittedly if we continue to insist on doing interventions on the cheap they have a point. But if we were to properly fund and plan the intervention including having plan for what happens afterwards then there would be a different outcome.

    Unfortunately we appear to be wedded to the do it on the cheap approach, probably beacuase due to the way our societies have been set up our Lords and Masters don't think further ahead than the next election.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Multiple Cases of Identity Theft
    Quote from Granteriner »
    If I have three creatures on the battlefield, two Identity Thief, and one Spire Patrol, can both Thieves target the Spire Patrol as they attack?

    Yes you may but it won't do what you want it to. The triggered ability of identity thief 1 will exile the spire patrol when it resolves. This will mean that the ability on identity thief 2 will lose track of it so will be countered on resolution and that thief will remain a 0/3


    Also, I understand that as Spire Patrol returns from exile its ability will trigger, but am I correct in thinking that the ability does not trigger as Identity Thief becomes a copy, because it is not technically entering the battelfield?


    This is correct the identity thief you have change into the spire patrol does not go anywhere it just ends up looking a little different to how it was before the ability fired. So you won't get the ETB ability.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from Faust »
    Kahedron, is there a reason you're not paying any attention at all to what I am writing?


    Well since you have pretty much parrotted what everyone else has said, just using slightly different words. No you have not been ignored. The same things that are said to them apply to you as well.

    If Assad was not the one who dropped chemicals from aircraft who else in the region has the capability to do so.

    The only other people potentially on the list are the Russians.

    Quote from Faust »
    Quote from Kahedron »
    He was good for the people that supported him. If you didn't fall into his cliques not so much. Remember this started with peacful protests requesting proper elections and the release of political prisoners. Something Assad was not willing to contenance because he might lose.

    So he attempted to send in the army to break it up but some of the army refused and defected.


    The only people who "didn't fall into his cliques" by the time the crisis started, if I'm not mistaken, were the sunni muslims who believed that if they form a majority of the population, they should have the power: a sunni president, a sunni government, a sunni head judge and so on.


    So you are agreeing with me that Assad didn't give a damn about the majority of the people that lived in the country just those of his tribe. Good to know

    Quote from Faust »
    And yes, it comes from a russian, but if you dismiss me as a brainwashed propagandist, is this really the debate section?


    Until you mentioned it neither did I know nor did I care that you are Russian. Now I know I still don't care, other than the fact that I have said that your country is the only other one potentially capable of committing this war crime.

    It also does not change the facts how ever much Putin would like to dispute them. Casualty patterns are not consistent with a store of chemical weapons going bang but on the contrary fits the pattern found when the weapons are dropped from aircraft.

    Assad has Chemical weapons + Assad also has aircraft, no one else has both apply occams razor, which is better than propaganda, = Assad dropped chemical weapons on the town.

    Unless you can come up with another group that has both chemical weapons and aircraft you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone other than a conspiracy theorist that it wasn't Putins friend Assad.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from FearDReaper »
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from FearDReaper »
    I think the whole thing was really sketchy.

    A) No proof Assaud was responsible and I have seen a few reasons to doubt he was.


    The casualty pattern is one that is only consistent with an attack launched by aircraft. Assad is the only person in the area that has aircraft and used chemical weapons before. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that it was Assad again this time. Regardless of what spin the conspiracy theorists and Russians want to put on it.
    I'm sorry but I still think it's super sketchy.

    If it wasn't him who else has the capability to drop chemical weapons from aircraft. Just having a quick look round the forces involved in the area it no one. Either because they are rebels and whilst they may have chemical weapons they can't drop stuff from aircraft or they can drop stuff from aircraft but don't have chemical weapons.

    Much as you might think it is sketchy it is really a rather simple venn diagram and the only person who can fulfil both requirements of having airpower and chemical weapons in the region is Assad.

    IF Assaud even used chemical weapons before (which is also not proven) he would have only used them against the rebels. He wouldn't just attack his own people for no reason.

    He isn't, he is just using it on people who have the misfortune to living in his country and not part of one of his cliques

    Believe it or not he isn't a Tyrant.

    In this you are quite correct he most closely resembles a classical Despot, which was some elected to have pretty much abosolute power. The elections that put him in power were a sham, he ran unopposed.

    His country was relatively peaceful before the civil war started. He's pretty good to his supporters and it makes no sense to gas them when he has the rebels on the run. What's the motive?


    He was good for the people that supported him. If you didn't fall into his cliques not so much. Remember this started with peacful protests requesting proper elections and the release of political prisoners. Something Assad was not willing to contenance because he might lose.

    So he attempted to send in the army to break it up but some of the army refused and defected.

    Also remember that he fairly reguarly uses barrel bombs and he does not really care where those things end up and despite what you feel he has gotten away with using chemical weapons before, from his perspective why wouldn't he use them again.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from FearDReaper »
    I think the whole thing was really sketchy.

    A) No proof Assaud was responsible and I have seen a few reasons to doubt he was.


    The casualty pattern is one that is only consistent with an attack launched by aircraft. Assad is the only person in the area that has aircraft and used chemical weapons before. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that it was Assad again this time. Regardless of what spin the conspiracy theorists and Russians want to put on it.

    @Mina: If you notice I said do what was neccessary in Iraq and Syria. That is get rid of both Isis as we are doing in Iraq and get Assad out of Syria and in front of the Hague. Once that has happened we need to get stuck into the longterm process of rebuilding a society for all the Syrians.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from MinaHarcourt »
    Listen. Deposing Assad is going to make the middle east even worse. In none of those countries life was a cakewalk under these strong men, but certainly a relative peace is better than complete bedlam?


    So instead we should idly stand by whilst someone flagrantly breaks international law and murders their own population using some of the most horrific weapons ever created?

    I'm reminded of a quote by Burke. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

    That applies to what is happening both in Iraq and Syria. What is needed is enough political will for the US, UK and other members of Nato amongst others to form a coaliton and do what is neccessary in Syria and then for the politicians to get the hell out the way so the men on the ground can run it as needed, for as long as it takes.

    The best thing that happened in Iraq after the second invasion was the Surge. Where afterwards the US was able to somewhat stabilise the country. The worst thing to happen was those troops being pulled out with out the Iraqi's having sufficient forces to meet the shortfall, coupled with an administration that seemed to descriminate against a segment of the population that previously had a favoured position.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    He can't do that legally. I mean, I appreciate all the reasonable critiques of his decisions but he can't actually do that. He was stretching the limits just by doing what he did here.
    ...no, he wasn't. This was the "minimum use of force" approach. I'd bet dollars to donuts his advisors gave him a menu of options that got way more explosive.


    I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. He's POTUS, not King. He can't just order a complete bombardment of the state of Syria on a whim. Not to mention that the Russians are there as well.

    Well acutally it looks like he can. He just has to tell congress why he did it within 48 hours and pull the troops out after 60 days if Congress doesn't grant an extension.

    Quote from Ljoss »

    It's a brave move for a few reasons.

    1) Questionable legality and opposition by a few lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

    2) Opens him up to criticism for flip-flopping on Syria.

    3) Opposition by anti-war elements on both sides of the aisle - even fervent supporters that are sympathetic to Russia.


    Ljoss we aren't attacking him for carrying out the attack. We are attacking him because the method he choose is absolutely pointless and does nothing to help anyone. All this is, is a very very expensive Wag the dog. He has done the bare minimum neccessary to get some hopefully positive headlines in an attempt distract people from all the things that are going wrong at home with his domestic plans.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from Faust »
    M
    Moreover, if the base was the one that the chemical attack came from, the bombardment would have trigger another chemical outburst, but it didn't, and the syrians even were able to use the base today as if there was no attack at all.



    That would be because as Spirit has suggested the attack launched by Trump was not designed to do anything useful. Rather it lets him jump up and down and say look at me I'm attacking some one that drops chemical weapons on his own people. Aren't I a nice guy.

    As for not unleashing clouds of chemicals they very specifically avoided dropping a bomb on anything that looked like it might be capable of holding chemical weapons to reduce collateral damage to an absolute minimum.

    If the Syrians have already been able to repair the runway enough to fly jets off it, that just underlines how stupid and pointless Trumps strike was.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from MinaHarcourt »
    So I wonder...are you guys all of the opinion that Assad should be deposed?


    Well he has committed the similar crimes to Slobodan Milošević and he ended up in the Hague.

    So yes Assad should have been deposed the first time used Chemical weapons on his own populace. Now he has done it a second time and despite what Ljoss seems to think is an effective response to this use of chemical weapons, he has continued to use his airforce against his own population fairly indescriminately yes he should be removed.

    But insrtead of doing a half arsed job of it like we did in Iraq this most recent time we have to accept that it is ging to be a long term job, and needs to be done in conjunction with knocking out ISIS in Iraq.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from Ljoss »

    The question, it seems to me, is not whether to do this or whether do something more impactful. It's whether to do this or do something less impactful. He chose the most impactful action in front of him and it's one that puts him at a significant political risk because it's only borderline legal to begin with.


    Well yes he could have done something less impactful. He could have done what he said Obama should have done back when this started. Which was to stay at home and not get involved.

    But you know he has broken that red line of his so we should hope that he might do something useful. But I guess with the precedent set by Muslim ban and talk of the boarder wall I guess that would be to much to ask for.

    And Spirit is correct. We should have gone in along time ago after Assad used his chemical weapons the first time. Unfortunately we the British bottled it and didn't vote to extend airstrikes into Syria and Obamaa did not want to act unilateraly.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Prowess Prowess stack?
    Prowess like Exalted is a triggered ability. These are always cumalative.

    If you have multiple creatures with prowess abilities or a creature with prowess multiple times all of the abilities will fire if you cast a non creature spell.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from Ljoss »
    One very simple question tonight: if Trump is a Russian puppet, why is he actively interfering in Russian operations in Syria?

    Matter of fact, forget about the puppet claim. Let's say that he simply feels indebted to Putin, which is a much more conservative and charitable reading of the mainstream media coverage. How does this behavior fit in with that?


    It appears that he was nice enough to let them know that the missiles were comming. Presumably to avoid an international incident.

    And this is just a single attack against 1 airbase. It has done sod all to actively hinder anyones air operations in the area. IF he had been serious about doing something halfway useful he would have sent a single massive strike and completely obliterated Syria's airpower and air defenses.

    Instead we have had a half-hearted strike launched in response to an atrrocity that won't actually prevent Assad from doing the same thing in the future. This is after all not the first time Assad has used Chemcial weapons against his own people and unless the reprisals are instant and crippling it is not going to be the last. And unless we are incredibly careful it looks like we are going to get dragged into an escalating series of Tit for Tat attacks and retaliations that won't actually do anything useful to fix the situation.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on [The Crafters] will be Embalming its inactive members.
    What sort of zombies are we talking about here?
    Posted in: Clans
  • 0

    posted a message on Muslim Ban and SEE YOU IN COURT
    Has there been any more news on this or has it been buried by the potential Flynn revelations?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Can my LGS run their own invitational qualifier/invitational events?
    Quote from nawillih »
    Yes, this would be allowed - your question is confusing though because Wizards ran an event called the Invitational where the winner could design their own card. Given that, it probably couldn't be called an Invitational.


    Given that Open and invitational are fairly well known terms outside of MTG when referring to competitions and that SCG has its own Open series leading to an Invitational. The OP does not need to worry about this and can call it what ever it wants.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on Supreme Court Justice Nominees Gorsuch and Garland
    Quote from Koopa »
    Should there be a formal rule that Supreme Court seats NOT be filled on election years?
    Absolutely not. The President is the President until 12:00 PM ET on January 20th. He has all the powers of his office, including the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, and the Senate has the responsibility to review and vote on those appointments. What next? The President can't issue vetos during the last six months of a term? No executive orders in the last thirty days? No pardons for the last year and a half? If we say the President can't do something because at some point in the future there might be some other President who would do it differently, why even have a President at all?



    I have to admit I was thinking on similar lines when looking at this but restricting it specifically to elections. If it becomes the normal that Court positions aren't filled during a presidential election how much of a push would it take to say no confirmations during the mid terms either.

    The Supreme Court is pretty much the ultimate check on power in the US and it needs to be filled to function effectively. As User said you are almost better off instituting a rule that is the opposite. That barring truely exceptional circumstances the posts need to be filled with a set time limit of the post becoming available.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Even today, formally speaking, Teresa May is Prime Minister of Great Britain because she was appointed to that office by Queen Elizabeth II -- it's just that the Queen always appoints the leader of the winning party.

    Not always. Most of the time she will ask the leader of the largest party to form a government. But if there is another hung parliament and no one will form a coalition with the largest party she will then look to see who can command the 'Confidence of the House' to form a parliament.

    The same thing happens in Germany. Each of the leaders of the largest parties try to see if they can get enough extra seats to make a majority with the other parties and if the largest party can't do so then again they move down to the next largest party, and then the leader of that party is going to become Chancellor.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Kahedron »

    That would be because it isn't. In fact it is almost expressly designed to be the opposite.
    You're saying the preferential voting system is almost expressly designed to be the opposite, or the US/UK voting system is expressly designed to be the opposite? I'm talking about the preferential voting.


    That was in relation to instant run off helping the third parties. Instant run off pretty much does the opposite of help them out by design, by ensuring that if they are knocked out early votes for them will get moved elsewhere until a party has that 51% of the vote.

    It does not completely hid the vote for them as each round of counts I recorded and reported separately.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Highroller »

    It's been suggested that this system might be better for third parties, or more representative. I don't see either.
    That would be because it isn't. In fact it is almost expressly designed to be the opposite.

    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Kahedron »
    This is part of what both Blinking_spirit and I meant when we said when each of the voting methods has there own issues.
    Agreed. I'm just saying I don't see this preferential voting system as being obviously superior to the US.


    Again it is because both our Countries are happy with the Status quo where you can have a majority of the district vote against a candidate yet they still have win the seat just because they got more votes than any other candidate.

    Though in the UK if we get a couple more cases where the winning party only got ~35% of the total vote yet still gain a majority of the seats and then proceed to cause carnage that may change over here.

    If you really want to benifet the smaller parties like DJK seems to want to mixed member system is probably the way to go.

    In that you still only make 1 vote but it counts twice. Once directly for the member you are voting for which works the same as normal in FPTP voting. The other way it counts is there are a number of 'top up' members these are allocated purely on the percentage of votes each party gets. So even if they didn't manage to win any individual seats in the House of representatives a party like the Greens or Liberatians could still get some representation depending on the percentage of the popular vote there candidates received.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Highroller you only have the option of voting for other parties in Instant roll off voting. If you only want to vote for a single party you can mark them down to have your first preference then leave the rest of the ballot blank.

    If your party is then knocked out in one of the early rounds your vote is then just discarded then total pool of votes and therefore the target number of votes needed to win goes down.

    This is part of what both Blinking_spirit and I meant when we said when each of the voting methods has there own issues.

    In the method that both the US and the UK use for the house of representatives you can have a Representative get the seat with a plurality of the votes but not a majority, with instant run off you are guaranteed to get the 51% of the vote but it throughs up other issues.

    It really is a case of you pays your money you takes your choice of system along with its range of issues.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Voting System in the US

    I agree that voter fraud is a very small amount. But, that shouldn't mean we pretend it doesn't exist. But, please try to realize that it's not just the Right that believes in the existence of voter fraud. Jill Stein, a Leftist-Socialist alleged voter fraud in 3 states last year.


    Circling back to this. The voter fraud that that Jill Stein was worrying about in the latest go round is a vastly different beast to the demon that gets raised by the Republican party.

    Jill was echoing a concern that some voting machines were not fit for purpose and were hacked by parties unknown. With the knowledge that some of the machines are known to be insecure and have been rejected by other jursisticions that could be seen as a valid concern.

    The Demon that Republicans like to raise is hordes of illegal voters piling in and voting 'wrong'. This is a fig leaf designed to provide cover for the fact that people are voting 'wrong' (for people other than the Republican party) and the Voter Id laws are put in place to stop people who make a habit of voting 'wrong' from voting. The threat of large scale In Person Voter fraud has been proved to be nonexistent yet keeps being treated like it is the apocalypse.

    Other than the fact that both raise the concern about Fraud there is nothing that links the 2 sides together.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Baral,Chief of compliance loot abbility
    If your opponent pays the 3 to mana leak you have not countered his spell, there is nothing for Baral to trigger off so you won't be drawing a card.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Kahedron »

    This only happens if people put them down as their first preference. And then they get knocked out in the first round. If they are any further down the preference scale then the additional vote for them does not matter and won't be counted either because they are already knocked out or because the voter had one of the two major parties as their first preference so any remaining preference votes are pointless as they won't ever be counted.

    I am talking about publicity, no it doesn't matter whether it's first preference. It doesn't matter whether they lose and get their votes transferred early, because they still get votes for them on record. As long as they have any real amount of first preference votes, they will still get a show of support that's from a diverse group. The preferential voting shows broad reaching support not just strong supporters or protest voters.



    Again only if they have not put their first preference as a major party as if your chosen party is not eliminated your vote is not touched again.

    That's just a repetition of what you said earlier. No, it doesn't matter, as long as they get a significant amount of primary votes from other people, your secondary votes still make a difference because it generates publicity and being pushed to vote in a preference list like this encourages the voters providing those secondary votes to engage with third parties on some level.


    Yes I have repeated my self. You want to know why? It is still because you have not addressed the fact that unless your first preference party is eliminated your vote is not touched again.

    If it is just chucked into a big pile of votes for the major party and no one bothers to look at the second or third preferences let alone record them how do you work out the support of the minor parties. Answer you can't beyond those who used their first preference to vote for them.

    Again the only thing Instant run off is designed to do and does is make sure the eventual winner has 51%+ of the vote. It does not actively help Third Parties get seats and it sure as hell does not act as a grand opinion pool to find out the 2nd and 3rd preferences of those who voted for a major party as a first preference.

    If you want to find that out commission an Opinion poll to expressly find that information out. Or institute some form of Proportional representation. Don't claim that something designed so it can't provide the information you want is going to do so.

    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on MTG needs a shake up.
    Quote from MinaHarcourt »
    [quote from="Boyachi »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/772905-mtg-needs-a-shake-up?comment=20"]
    Yes, I want something new. And if it is something good somehow, it's not used again unless we're lucky and some nostalgia block or anthology happens along. Cascade was amusing, but if you liked it, you were hung out to dry until you got four pity cards in anthology sets with Etherium-Horn Sorcerer, Maelstrom Wanderer,Shardless Agent, and Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder. Woo.


    Or we return to a world where the mechanic makes sense.

    The problem with what you are suggesting to cure the issue is just as bad as the problem if not worse. If we increase the number of mechanics that can be reused to much we run the risk of the different blocks blurring into a single homogenous mess.

    At least with the current situation there is core of mechanics that are evergreen that we will see again and then there is a wider pool of mechanics that they will add in as and when needed. Some are more likely to get used then others this fine as some are more broken/less liked than others.

    You still haven't asked the fundamental question. Why do we need a shake up of MTG. The recipe is 20+ years old and is still doing well. You remember the old expression about not fixing things that aren't broken?

    Well MTG isn't broken at a fundamental level so not sure what you want fixed.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on MTG needs a shake up.
    Quote from MinaHarcourt »

    Mana burn was not a fundamental change. Not everybody played on mana burn. In fact, in 90% of all games I ever played it was simply not a factor.
    Getting rid of combat damage on the stack changed a little in terms of stacking, but that was just for one phase and mildly changed interactions.


    Whilst you are correct, you wouldn't have thought so by the amount of vitriol that was poured over the changes at the time and stll continues to flow from some quarters.

    To answer your fundamental question, at the moment the rules and mechanics are in good place right now. Why do we need a major shake up? Especially adding in something major.

    The next major change is far more likely to be removing something from the game. And even that is very unlikely as the rules have already been pared down about as far as you can go. The only really easy thing that could be done would be removing the Instant card type and then errataing all former instants to be sorceries with flash.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on Hanweir Garrison and Hanweir Battlements Meld
    The decision is made on resolution of the ability.

    In general the only decisions that are made when an ability is activated are the value ofx, modes and any targets. All other decisions that need to be made are done when the spell/or ability comes to resolve.

    In this case if your opponent wants to disrupt the ability their best shot it to destroy the battlements.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    1. They get a greater show of election support and therefore publicity, because more people will generally show support for them even if secondary to other parties


    This only happens if people put them down as their first preference. And then they get knocked out in the first round. If they are any further down the preference scale then the additional vote for them does not matter and won't be counted either because they are already knocked out or because the voter had one of the two major parties as their first preference so any remaining preference votes are pointless as they won't ever be counted.

    I am talking about publicity, no it doesn't matter whether it's first preference. It doesn't matter whether they lose and get their votes transferred early, because they still get votes for them on record. As long as they have any real amount of first preference votes, they will still get a show of support that's from a diverse group. The preferential voting shows broad reaching support not just strong supporters or protest voters.



    Again only if they have not put their first preference as a major party as if your chosen party is not eliminated your vote is not touched again.


    2. More third party supporters will actually put a vote supporting a third party because their votes will not wasted


    Again only actually matters if it is the first preference of the voter. Anywhere else and it is a feel good sop that won;t actually be counted.

    If you were considering voting for third party under US system, you are very likely to put a third party as your first preference. And even if it isn't firs preference it still does have an impact as per other reasons. Even if that impact isn't very big, or is unreliable, it's still there.



    The only way it has an impact is if your first preference is for a party that got eliminated in the first round and there is another minor party that you had as your second preference.

    If your first vote is for one of the major parties your second and subsequent preferences are irelevant as no one is going to look at them. Your vote is going to be put into the pile for the major party and just left there.



    3. Preference deals help compensate for spoiler effect in US


    Which actively hurts the parties you are professing to help by making it even less likely that they will get the seat as in most cases any vote for them is going to be given to another party.

    Preference deals aren't done unless it's in both parties interest. A third party isn't required to be involved in them, and a major party can't make it so.
    (Before someone points it out, the spoiler effect was probably not the phrase I was looking for, in retrospect)

    What preference deal? No one has mentioned anything about deals between the parties. This is something you have conconected out of thin air.

    What I am saying here is by the rules of the voting system you have said will magically fix all issues surrounding third parties that if a voters first preference is eliminated their second preference is going to be looked at and given to that party and again in a third round until a candidate gets 51% of the vote. This actively hurts the smaller parties as if they had a plurality but not a majority under the current system they get the seat. Under your proposed system one of the other parties could pick up enough second and third preferance votes to steal the seat off them.

    4. It is shown to the people and parties more clearly where the major parties are getting third party support from


    Again only if it is shown in the first preference votes. If the minor parties are buried further down the preference scale they will get eliminated early and any 2nd/3rd preferences they might have picked up aren't going to be looked at.

    As long as there is sufficient first preference for them to make any real showing, secondary preference come into significance because people do hear about them (again, not big differences, but they matter- hitting a critical threshold of publicity is going to be what usually makes a difference; just getting recognition out there).


    And this happens under the current system where you also don't have that pesky eliminated at the first round problem making your brand look worse.


    Again to boost the third parties or to get them more visibility, changing what happens in the voting booth is the last thing you should do. There are a hell of a lot of other issues that need to be sorted out first.

    I repeat, my priority is not to help third parties in any way. That's a consideration, not a crucial point here.


    Then what is your crucial point? If it isn't ensure that each candidate gets 51% of the vote you are arguing for the wrong voting system cause that is what Alternative Vote/Instant Run off is designed to give you. Not increase the exposure of the minor parties in any way shape or form.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    1. They get a greater show of election support and therefore publicity, because more people will generally show support for them even if secondary to other parties


    This only happens if people put them down as their first preference. And then they get knocked out in the first round. If they are any further down the preference scale then the additional vote for them does not matter and won't be counted either because they are already knocked out or because the voter had one of the two major parties as their first preference so any remaining preference votes are pointless as they won't ever be counted.
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    2. More third party supporters will actually put a vote supporting a third party because their votes will not wasted

    Again only actually matters if it is the first preference of the voter. Anywhere else and it is a feel good sop that won;t actually be counted.
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    3. Preference deals help compensate for spoiler effect in US

    Which actively hurts the parties you are professing to help by making it even less likely that they will get the seat as in most cases any vote for them is going to be given to another party.
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    4. It is shown to the people and parties more clearly where the major parties are getting third party support from

    Again only if it is shown in the first preference votes. If the minor parties are buried further down the preference scale they will get eliminated early and any 2nd/3rd preferences they might have picked up aren't going to be looked at.

    Again to boost the third parties or to get them more visibility, changing what happens in the voting booth is the last thing you should do. There are a hell of a lot of other issues that need to be sorted out first.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Paradox Engine and Sensei's Divining Top
    Quote from cyberium_neo »
    Paradox Engine, Sensei's Divining Top

    Scenario: I tap Top to draw, causes the Engine to trigger, then tap Top to draw again.


    This is incorrect. You have not cast any spells in this sequence of events so there is nothing for the Paradox engine to trigger off. What you have done is activated the ability on Sensei'd divining top once. Nothing is going to cause to untap.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on What Book Are you reading right now?
    Interview with the Vampire, by Anne Rice. I've seen the movie a few times, but never read the book until now. About 2/3rds of the way through. Finding in completely intoxicating! May need to get a few more of her books if they are written as well!


    Only just seen this.

    The follow up books are very different to the film. The film Vampire Lestat takes events of 2 different books, Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned and mashes them together badly.

    The books are able to give a lot more time to Lestat and then provide some set up for the stories of the Vampires that follow, either continuing the modern story or as with Interview and Vampire Lestat giving you the specific vampires history.

    Currently reading: re-reading the Castle Federation, Starship Mage and Odessey One Series. Also Against All Enemies again.
    Posted in: Printed Media
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Highroller »
    You're talking about how you don't like that people have to choose between supporting a third party or voting for an actual viable party in a race in which a third party isn't competitive, because then it's a choice between voting for the party or having to compromise and vote for a candidate who might not fit your ideals as closely as the first candidate. Except your proposed solution doesn't really solve that problem. You've just made the people who voted for their party ALSO people who compromise on their vote to support the viable candidate

    Highroller, did you not just say a vote for a third party in the preferential system is like a vote for a third party in the US? Indicating that in fact, my solution actually does everything it claims to do?
    Stop saying the primary vote doesn't matter, because it does. I have given you multiple reasons for this, to which you have given very limited responses, and it really shouldn't be hard to accept.
    Can we please move on from debating whether a fundamental point of how preferential voting works is actually how preferential voting works?


    No you have given multiple theoretical reasons for your case. But you have kept running into the same cold hard realities of the US situation. That being the minor parties are going to be the ones eliminated early so a vote for them will end up being a vote for the major party most likely ensuring that one of them gets more than 50% of the vote.

    This is what Alternative vote aka Instant run-off is designed to do. Gradually weed out the smaller parties until you have 1 party that secures a majority and do it in a single visit to the ballot box.

    Could this result in a smaller party gaining a seat in parliment that would other wise go to a larger party. Yes if they are fortunate enough to get enough votes in the first round to not be eliminated and then pick up enough second/third preference votes from the people who voted for those eliminated parties. Yes but if that happens it is a happy accident.

    You are arguing that this side effect is the main reason for implenting Instant run off voting. I hate to tell you this but you are wrong it isn't. It is designed to make more people feel like they had an effect on the election with out changing the result to much. Unless the 3rd party/independant candidate is very well liked or is the incumbant one of the 2 major parties is most likely going to get the seat the only difference is that in picking up second and third preferences they are guarenteed 51% of the vote.

    If you truely want to boost 3rd party results purely by changing what happens at the ballot box you need to have some form of proportional representation. Either full proportional representation where you vote for a party list and they work out which people gets the seats or some kind of mixed member representation.

    Otherwise you are just going to get into a similar situation where very little has changed. Independants/Small parties will still be picking up the odd seat here and there where they have good representation but the major parties will still take the majority of the seats.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Trying to understand banding.
    Quote from Ryperior74 »
    Ok I just discovered this mechanic from the grave and this one is interesting.

    I know about creatures band together and can only band with one non-band creature (excluding other band creatures) and all must attack the same target.

    I need to understand how blocking works with it as the attacker and the defender.

    Best scenario I can think of for attack is this

    I use baton of morale to give Ulamog, the ceaseless hunger banding till end of turn and he bands up with Kozilek, Butcher of Truth and he blocks with band with acidic slime if I'm correct I can force the slime to deal damage Ulamog and not Kozilek thus rescueig kozielk. Am I right?


    Correct. If your attacking band gets blocked you as the attacking player get to choose how the defending player assigns damage to your attackers.



    And for block I use baton of morale to band guardian of the gateless for blocking it banded with Athreos, God of Passage (in creature mode Ofcoarse.) th angel block everything since the abilities saids can I have all the damage from the attackers be directed at the god thus keeping the angel alive and maybe even get rid of all the attackers. Did I get this right?


    This however is not correct. You don't form a band whilst blocking, creatures will still block individually so if you send the angel up against everything and Atheros up against a non flying attacker, even though you have given the angel banding Atheros is still only blocking 1 creature and can only have damage from that one creature assigned to it.

    Everything else is only blocking the angel so unless you have made that indestructible it is most likely going to die a very horrible death.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US

    Quote from DJK3654 »
    I think having a popular vote also probably makes sense.
    For Californians and New Yorkers. Not so much for South Dakotans and Alaskans.

    Are you watching what's happening in the UK right now between England and Scotland? Scotland's less populous so it's getting dragged out of the EU against its will? That's an extreme example of the situation that the makeup of the United States Congress (which is what's being reflected in the Electoral College) was constituted to avoid. The interests of the diverse states carry a certain weight irrespective of their population, plus additional weight dependent on their population.


    You've brought up the UK situation a couple of times Spirit and I can't disagree with you the situation is not ideal. But we only have 4 'States' that make up the union and one of those States accounts for 84% of the total population you are very quickly going to run into massive issues if you try and give each state roughly equal representation in the House of Commons.

    Atleast in the US you have 50 states so and disparity between the ideal numbers of representatives and the actual number they have is going to spread over a larger number of states so the effect on each individual state is reduced.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on March 13th Bans?
    Quote from SC1987 »
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from SC1987 »

    So what's Wizards going to do? Clearly banning cards not only didn't fix the format but also made it worse, and establishing the precedence that cards can be banned in Standard likely caused irreversible damage to consumer confidence.
    [/url]
    What precedent has been established in the past 3 months? This is the 4/5th time cards have been banned in Standard and in none of the other cases did people lose confidence in WOTC due to the bans.

    [quote]
    Maybe restrict the OP cards in lieu to banning them? Or maybe restrict certain cards from being played alongside each other in the same deck (i.e. If a deck runs Heart of Kiran, it can't also run Gideon).


    Both of these 'fixes' make things worse not better. Back in Darksteel when Skullclamp was banned from everything they contemplated just restricting it but worked out that instead of making the situation better it just made it worse as the game became a race to get their broken card on the table first and the player that succeeded in that usually won the game.

    And for banning cards in combination this leads to an ever increase banned list as new and degenerate combos are found and need to go on the list. This is also ignoring the logistical issues involved with getting the Deck checks sorted out. Where instead of just looking for individual cards that might appear the judge is now looking either for specific numbers of cards or cards which might be legal is certain circumstances and then illegal in others.

    Whilst it is a very blunt tool the current Banned and restricted list is the best comprimise we are going to get for the problem


    Well if new, degenerate combos pop up, they'll likely get on a B&R list anyway, so would creating a new list that prohibits the use of some cards with others in one deck be so infeasible?


    It will end up being a lot bigger and more complicated than the current one. To take Stone forge mystic as an example. With non degenerate equipment it is fine. But the current list of equipment it falls over with is Batterskull and the swords of cycle.

    If you allowed Stone forge mystic just not in combination with those 6 artifacts where you would have 1 line on the banned list to say no Stoneforged mystic you need 6 to say these specific combos are banned
    Then if for some reason they complete the cycle of swords so it includes the allied pairs that is then 5 more entries that go on the banned and restricted list just to deal with 1 single card that is a problem, Stone forge mystic. Far easier and simpler to say you just can't use the mystic period.


    As far as logistics go, don't they require you to submit a deck list at official tournaments anyway? Even so, some players will catch that, because knowing the rules is part of being good at Magic, and knowing what cards are banned or restricted seem like pretty fundamental rules.


    True but not the problem. Currently deck checks are simple and can be done fairly quickly. Check to make sure that the cards and deck list match up. There are no cards that aren't in the format, check there are no cards on banned and restricted list and make sure there are no more than 4 of any non basic land. something that can be done fairly easily and quickly and the only information a player knows about their opponents deck if a deck check is done is that it is legal.

    With combinations banned you have to take a lot closer look at the deck to make sure the player hasn't slipped something in either by mistake or deliberately which makes the deck check process a lot longer so the tournmanent is going to be significantly disrupted either with the lenght of deck checks or a larger number of judges assigned to them to speed up the process. Again if a deck check is called for by a player who see a SFM it it comes back confirmed that the deck is legal he then knows he doesn't need to worry about Batterskull or any of the Mirrodin swords so has a lot more information than he is otherwise entitled to
    Posted in: Standard (Type 2)
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Education may be mandated on the State level, but State laws cannot supercede Federal laws and if it was determined to be a violation on a Federal level, the States would not have the power to enforce it.
    Read the Tenth Amendment again:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


    I was wondering which amendment referred to separation of powers between the Federal government and the state and for some reason thought it was the ninth.

    What does the Ninth amendment cover?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Lithl »
    Quote from Highroller »
    The usual freedom argument will be brought up, but if taxes are mandatory because they are necessary to maintain government, why shouldn't the vote be mandatory as well
    In addition to how this so obviously violates the freedom of speech, I've always been appalled at the idea of any group of people lobbying for the government to threaten you to go vote, and then calling this in any way acceptable in a free society.
    My understanding of voting in the UK is that, rather than mandatory voting, the government simply nags you until you vote. That would certainly be preferable to a mandate, and would likely increase voter turnout. I don't know how much it would cost to implement, though.


    We just whine about the diabollicaly low turn outs with out doing anything to correct them. Whilst simultaneously disenfranchising vast numbers of people in what was the most important vote in a lot peoples lives.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on March 13th Bans?
    Quote from SC1987 »

    So what's Wizards going to do? Clearly banning cards not only didn't fix the format but also made it worse, and establishing the precedence that cards can be banned in Standard likely caused irreversible damage to consumer confidence.
    [/url]
    What precedent has been established in the past 3 months? This is the 4/5th time cards have been banned in Standard and in none of the other cases did people lose confidence in WOTC due to the bans.

    [quote]
    Maybe restrict the OP cards in lieu to banning them? Or maybe restrict certain cards from being played alongside each other in the same deck (i.e. If a deck runs Heart of Kiran, it can't also run Gideon).


    Both of these 'fixes' make things worse not better. Back in Darksteel when Skullclamp was banned from everything they contemplated just restricting it but worked out that instead of making the situation better it just made it worse as the game became a race to get their broken card on the table first and the player that succeeded in that usually won the game.

    And for banning cards in combination this leads to an ever increase banned list as new and degenerate combos are found and need to go on the list. This is also ignoring the logistical issues involved with getting the Deck checks sorted out. Where instead of just looking for individual cards that might appear the judge is now looking either for specific numbers of cards or cards which might be legal is certain circumstances and then illegal in others.

    Whilst it is a very blunt tool the current Banned and restricted list is the best comprimise we are going to get for the problem
    Posted in: Standard (Type 2)
  • 0

    posted a message on Sovereign's Realm and starting hand question
    Your starting hand is the first one that you draw at the beginning of the match. It has no other meaning in MTG.

    If the only consiparcy you have in play is Sovereign's Realm your maximum hand size is still 7.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Kahedron »

    Lastly try and find some way of making the damn thing cheaper, as the old saying goes he who pays the piper picks the tune. The only people who can currently afford to pay the piper are the large multinationals/multibillionaires and they again have vastly different concerns than the masses and if your local Senator/Representative needs to go to them every 4 years in order to get money out of them they are going to have to play ball when it comes to getting certain bits of legislation passed or dropped.

    Make what cheaper specifically?
    The whole campaign. IT is vastly and needlessly expensive and there are a couple of ways that it could be reduced if their was an appetite for it.

    FourDogs has hit on part of it below with his comments on Air time. Each of the candidates needs to completely fund their own campaigns including the political advertising with their being no restrictions on what the networks can charge for it. This puts some figures to the costs that shows for the last election cycle ~$10 billion was spent just on advertising.

    As it currently stands regardless of what else happens if that figure does not reduce by a lot only 2 sorts of people are going to be able to run for the presidency. Party members or people with vast independant wealth like Trump. And in terms of parties being asked to immeadiatly stump up even $1 billion is going to be difficult.

    Note this is just the advertising costs of the presidential election. It does not touch on the costs of the staffers, venue hire and transport costs that are also going to be involved.

    Another major feature is the length. Including the assorted Primaries the election campaign lasts for 2 years. So again on the Staffing count that is 2 years you need to be paying people to be manning the phones, collecting and interpreting the data and all of the other functions that need to be done for the campaign. Even if you are just hiring minimum wage monkeys to these tasks that is going to add up and a lot of the jobs can't be done by minimum wage monkeys.

    In terms of correcting the issues.

    Taking the advertising first: In the UK there is a strict neutrality on the public Television channels and each party is alloted air time for party political broadcasts paid for out of the public purse. Whilst strict neutrality is not allowable in the US due to the first amendment if their was a public appitite for it the Federal government could have a commission purchase air time for each of the parties at a set rate and then use that airtime as they wished as long as it was shared out equally amongst the parties both in terms of raw hours and the time they are shown.

    REducing the lenght of the campaigns:

    First and simplist option would be scraping the primary stage and creating some other way of selecting the candidates. But that won't happen so we are down to tweaking it. Other than Tradition there is no reason why the Caucusses and Primaries are scattered through out the year. In the same way that every US citizen votes for the president on the same day there is no real reason why there is not 1 day set aside were every state holds the primary/Caucuss.

    Likewise for the Conventions there is no reason why they aren't held on the same weekend, just with some additional planning that ensures that they aren't held in the same city but are rotated around so they don't stay in the same place.

    Lastly for the actual Presidential campaign, it lasted 3 months from July to November. With todays advances in technology there is no need to spend that long getting the message out. It is far easier that it ever was to physically travel to the locations than it ever was. And even then that is not always neccessary as it is also far easier to get the message out by other means. Be it via the Print and online media or Television and Radio.

    Granted it is for a much smaller geographic area but the UK has an electoral campaign that lasts 5 weeks from the complete dissolution of the House of Commons to a new government being in place. Whilst the US is a much larger geographic area you are only voting for a single post.


    For Gerrymandering: The only thing that should be relevant when workng out voting districts is the number of people registered to vote in an area. Any other information is just going to taint the pool in someway shape or form.

    Set your ideal size of electoral district in terms of geographic size and population. Pick a start point and add in Zip codes that are with in the radius of your start point taking the closest and then expanding out until you hit your population limit. Then move onto the next Electoral district and rinse and repeat.

    Is it going to solve the problem where you end up with some districts that heavily favour one group or another. No but that is not the problem with Gerry mandering where you are flat out designing your system to maximise the number of districts that are heavily favoured in your favor.

    Quote from DJK3654 »

    In cases where it doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. But there are cases when preferential voting would apply, and I think it would be an improvement if it did.


    And again this is the US specifically we are talking about, adding in preferential voting when there are only going to be 2 candidates is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Worrying about the massive hole in the ship(why there are only 2 candidates) is going to be far more useful in sorting out the problem.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Perhaps in your country, SPEECH is defined differently. In the US, speech includes any form of expression.

    I can hardly see this interpretation ever working out. 'Any form of expression', that's easily arguable to be a massive percentage of all possible action, even all action. Speech, I would think, is about pure, direct communication. Writing out a vote is probably fair to consider speech, but what I am talking about does not compel anyone to speak any which way.


    Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant. What is relevant is American Law which is as HPB stated. The act of voting and in some cases paying for something is regarded as a matter of speech. Which by the First Amendment is something that is constitutionally guaranteed.

    Does this mean that there are some rulings that would be odd to an outsider like the pair of us, yes but that is what has worked for them like wise they don't understand how you are happy with mandatory appearance at a voting booth.

    It does not mean that either situation is intriniscally better that the other just that they are different.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    The ability to vote for multiple options in a preference list, such that people can provided a more nuanced vote
    That doesn't make any sense. If you have multiple positions, and only X people can fill the position, you should get X votes and no more. If one person can fill the position, you should only be able to vote one person.

    Why? Because with preferences you can specify not just your most preferred candidate, but how the rest rank behind them. That way a candidate can win of the most overall support from the population not just from the most people who prefer specifically them.


    If you had left it at a more general level you might have had a point. But you didn't you specified sorting out US elections where having a more nuanced voting system is utterly pointless. In most cases there are only going to be 2 names on the ballot. In putting your mark against one of them you have already ranked them by saying I like Person A more than Person B, forcing some one to right a number 1 against the one they vote for and a 2 against the other poor schmuck isn't going to make the choice any different it is just going to piss off the voter for no actual gain.

    To actually make a valid difference in the US you are going to need to make some fairly fundamental changes to the set up not just tinkering with what happens when you turn up as I stated in my first post. In effect what you are doing is demand that the US changes the curtains whilst the boiler is in imminent danger of blowing up (granted this is a little hyperbolic but you should get the general idea).
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Lastly try and find some way of making the damn thing cheaper, as the old saying goes he who pays the piper picks the tune. The only people who can currently afford to pay the piper are the large multinationals/multibillionaires and they again have vastly different concerns than the masses and if your local Senator/Representative needs to go to them every 4 years in order to get money out of them they are going to have to play ball when it comes to getting certain bits of legislation passed or dropped.
    I know it's weird for me to say with one of the wealthiest presidents ever (maybe) currently sitting in the Oval Office, but Trump's victory is actually proof that this isn't true. The Clinton campaign was vastly better funded and organized than the Trump campaign. Major conservative donors shunned Trump for a long time. The Koch brothers, the big bogeymen of the rich right, never backed him. Trump won because the masses didn't care.


    True but he is a very odd case. And a lot of it is dependant on the people involved. If the Democrat Candidate was any one other than Clinton the race would have likely have ended with Trump losing by a landslide.

    My concern is more down the road at Congress though. The US has one of the most efficient lobbying industries in the world and they are able to influence policy to an almost unprecedented extent in a democracy. Purely in the intrests of their own bottom line and against the interests of the people who live in an area.

    As an example Cranberry farmers have succeeded in getting them exempted from the clean waters act, so each Autumn they are free to flood there fields for harvesting and then when finished dump the used water back into the local water courses with out filtering out any of pesticides, fertilisers and other chemicals that have been used on them causing environmental issues downstream.

    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Third Annual Pi Day Extravaganza
    22/7 is the one true Pi Day!!!!!!!!


    Down with your Tacky Colonial counterfeit.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Voting System in the US
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from DJK3654 »

    2: Every voting system has its mathematical upsides and downsides.

    That's not really an answer.
    There is no right answer. They all have their undesirable quirks -- it's been proven mathematically that it is impossible to meet all the criteria for a desirable voting system. Instant-runoff voting, for instance, does not meet the monotonicity criterion: it is possible to harm a candidate's chances of winning by ranking them higher.

    So do you genuinely believe all major proposed voting systems are truly equally good? Because I find that hard to believe. Yes, there are all reasonable in their own way, but I think some are a little bit better than others. If for no other reason, I think being able to cast preferences may encourage people to vote more because they don't have to commit to a single candidate.


    They are not equally good or equally bad. All of them have issues. And they can't all be applied to every country.

    With the US in particular which is effectively a 2 party state bar a couple of enterprising independants there is no point in having a nuanced poll as it is effectively a binary choice, vote Republican or vote Democrat.

    In other countries which have more parties like the UK and you still vote for your representative yes it could be better if it was easier to rank the different parties if nothing else to reduce the number of safe seats that exist so the people aren't routinely ignored until elections come round, but that raises different problems as B_S alludes to.

    Likewise if you move away from voting directly for your representative you then surrender that power to the parties themselves and they are going to have vastly different criteria for selecting who they want to see in the Senate, House of Representatives than the voters. If you went to a form of Proportional Representation I would be very surprised is Bernie Sanders remained in the Senate as a true independant.

    The changes to the Voting system in the US that would have the biggest positive effect don't concern the actual mechanics of what you actually do in the voting booth. Its in all the background work that leads up to that point.
    1. Make it easier to vote, either by making it a federal holiday or increasing the availablity of postal voting
    2. Standardised Identification rules across the Union. If a driving licence allows you to vote in Wyoming the same driversID should be acceptable in Texas.
    3. Reduce the amount of Gerrymandering to reduce the amount of safe seats. If the parties aren't guarenteed a seat year in, year out they should pay attention more.

    And then specifically for the Presidential election, stop the practice of winner takes all for allocating a states Electors instead allocate them according to the % gained in the popular vote.


    Lastly try and find some way of making the damn thing cheaper, as the old saying goes he who pays the piper picks the tune. The only people who can currently afford to pay the piper are the large multinationals/multibillionaires and they again have vastly different concerns than the masses and if your local Senator/Representative needs to go to them every 4 years in order to get money out of them they are going to have to play ball when it comes to getting certain bits of legislation passed or dropped.


    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on [Admin] cryogen's Circle of Protection: Spirit of EDH
    Quote from AfroDwarf »
    The Commander Decklists thread I just tried to make was auto-deleted as spam, I'm guessing because it was my first post? What post count do you need to start a new thread?


    There isn't a hard limit. MTGS has an automatic spam filter that it applies to all posts that get made unfortunately as in this case it makes mistakes. With luck when an friendly admin/Technican see this they can go into the filter find it and release it.
    Posted in: Staff Helpdesks
  • 1

    posted a message on Contagion Clasp and Strangleroot Geist
    If those are the only relevant factors then yes you may use the contagion clasp to put a -1/-1 counter on Strangleroot geist and have SBA remove both counters leaving the geist eligible for undying again.

    If the -1/-1 counter would reduce the strangleroot geist to toughness 0 by adding in night of souls' betrayal. Then the geist would be sent to the graveyard and the game would see that it still had both counters on it when it was last on the battlefield so undying would not trigger.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Wild Mongrel discard Slaughterhorn or Ghor-Clan Rampager
    First off please use card tags in this forum as it gives us the up to date wording for the cards you are asking about. Instructions on how to use them can be found here.

    To answer your question, no you can't. Both Bloodrush and the ability on wild mongrel are activated abilities if you want to activate the pair of them you need to pay the costs for them seperately. What you are wanting to do is effectively go up to two different vending machines and get product out of them both with the same dollar bill.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 7

    posted a message on Why is mtg mainly male orientated?
    Quote from SvizacCRO »
    It's male oriented because of 2 things:

    1. Fantasy element
    2. Competition

    Women are less interested in these 2 then men.


    And you are basing this on what precisely?
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on Aetherling ruling during EoT
    No step or phase will end until all players pass priority over an empty stack with out adding to it. So yes your opponent will be able to wait until Ætherling ETB and then target it with a spell or ability before the game moves to your turn.

    Likewise if he does and you can pay the cost you will be able to bounce it out again in response to any spell or ability he casts/activates.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Odric, Lunarch Marshal rules
    With very minor exceptions that don't apply here a card in MTG only does what is says in its oracle text. Odric, Lunarch Marshal does not say it gives creatures ingest, infect, wither etc so it won't share it out if you control a creature with those abilities.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 1

    posted a message on Questions Regarding Scrap Trawler and Tokens
    Quote from tcgnoob »
    Hi everyone,


    Question 1:

    Let's say I had six Servo Token Artifact Creatures on the battlefield and all of them died during my opponent's combat phase.

    Do my six Servo Token Artifact Creatures go to my graveyard or do they go to a separate pile as they are not considered part of a deck?

    When ever a token leaves the battlefield for whatever reason it very briefly goes to the target zone then ceases to exist when SBA are next checked. If the spell/ability attempts to move it to a different zone before SBA are checked like with Momentary blink the token is held in the other zone until SBA are checked and cause it to cease to exist.



    Question 2:
    A few turns later,
    (i) let's assume my six Servo Token Artifact Creatures are in my graveyard and
    (ii) I have a Scrap Trawler on the battlefield that I sacrifice and put into my graveyard through an activated ability of another artifact that I control (as an example).

    Am I able to put a Servo Token Artifact Creature into my hand as it is a Token Artifact Creature with technically zero converted mana cost?


    Thank you for your time and effort as always!


    As per above the token has ceased to exist long before you get the chance to move it anywhere. Even if it did not Scrap trawler specifies you have to return a artifact card to your library and tokens are not defined as cards in the rules.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on [The Crafters] will be Embalming its inactive members.
    Quote from Dox Quaidly »
    I'm writing a tabletop role-playing game!



    If you want a playtester make a forum game and I could help out.

    For me just got Torment: Tides of Numenera which looks a little small at the moment but hopefully the company that created it gets enough support to add in some DLC as it has a nice feel to it. Its also fairly true to the original Planescape: Torment game in that you wake up not knowing who or what you are or where you are.

    The only thing that is missing is a levitating skull.
    Posted in: Clans
  • 0

    posted a message on Multiple Bomat Couriers
    If an ability just names the card it is on it means this card not all cards with the same name.

    You will need to keep the cards exiled by the different couriers seperate and if one of them dies before you activate its ability the cards it exiled are lost.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.