It might be one thing if it's just friends playing around the kitchen table, but there is no such thing as "just FNM." It's a sanctioned tournament, and all of the rules of the game still apply. There are no "takebacks". The correct thing to do in this case, and in every case when there's a disagreement over what happened, is to call the judge.
Yes, part of FNM is that it's supposed to help you learn to play in a more competitive environment, but you don't learn that by ignoring the rules.
Beast is already a relevant subtype. They would be losing interactions with all cards that cared about beasts. It would be like saying boggarts, akki, or moggs aren't goblins anymore. You make them less interactive with existing cards without really adding anything.
It's good that they try to reuse a certain set of creature types as much as they can, even in sets that aren't specifically tribal in theme. Maybe nothing in the current block cares about whether or not something is a beast, but casual kitchen table-types might find one of those cards and think it would be really cool in his beast deck. It adds flexibility and interactivity. What does creating a new Baloth creature type really add to the game? Just one more word in the comprehensive rules.
Don't get me wrong, I love House but this season is starting to grate especially with the whole tell-tale heart thing. Honestly, another episode that goes over that and I'm going to consider watching something else.
I agree. I'm a big fan, but I thought last night's episode was terrible all around. I can't remember ever seeing an episode I disliked as much.
I'm also sick to death of the story of Chase's murder. While I don't think they should have just waved it away after one episode, I really just wish they hadn't done it in the first place. They just wrote themselves into a corner and no matter what they do to get out of it is going to seem ridiculous.
If you want these From the Vault sets to be sold at reasonable prices, the people to complain to are Wizards, who causes the prices to be inflated by printing them far short of demand. I don't blame stores for charging a realistic price for them. It's not like game stores are tremendously profitable to begin with.
If Wizards insists on deliberately making these things "chase" items, they should at least set a realistic MSRP so stores who inevitably charge the actual market value of them don't come off as looking like such price gougers.
Can anyone honestly say in the context of casual magic that he simply couldn't have held onto the vindicate until I dropped a creature, artifact, etc.?
Yes, because that isn't a good play. It makes more sense to prevent you from being able to play those things than it does to wait for you to play them. If you continue to be short on land, one Vindicate effectively answers your entire hand instead of just one card from it.
So if a match is "casual" then people are supposed to just deliberately make bad plays? Do you just, for example, skip playing a land every other turn or so because "this is just a casual game" and trying too hard to win isn't casual? Of course you don't. While you may not have cards as expensive as your opponent's, you're still going to play in a manner that you think will help you win. Why shouldn't he do the same?
By and large many people seem to define "casual" as "anything not as good as what I have." Whinging on that subject is the main reason I was never able to get into MTGO. Either people complain that your deck is too good for the casual room or people in the tournament practice room say you're wasting their time and they only want to play "real" decks.
I don't think money has anything to do with what makes a casual deck. Pauper decks can be plenty competitive, too.
Ultimately I don't think it's a question that can be answered in any clear-cut objective way that people are going to agree on. If someone's deck is too good for your taste, then play someone different next time.
It seems inconsistent to me for someone to on one hand complain that some people only care about winning and then on the other hand complain that they couldn't win themselves. If all you care about is playing for the fun of playing, why are you so upset about losing once in a while? The notion that you shouldn't destroy someone's land when they're clearly manascrewed seems preposterous to me. If your opponent had been top-decking lands for five turns in a row and then finally played a creature, would you just sit on your removal spell for the sake of giving him a "fair chance"?
While winning isn't everything, I'm not sure I see what the point of playing is if you aren't even trying to win.
While I'm guessing Stewart and Colbert are both generally liberal on issues, neither is a mouthpiece for the Obama administration and both are happy to call him out when he does something stupid. I'm sure they're both happier to have Obama in the White House than McCain, but that doesn't mean he's going to get a free ride. If your job is political satire, it's more effective to go after the ones in power. Yes, they could each just show Fox News clips and make fun of them all day, but you can't aim exclusively for the low-hanging fruit. They already do that more than I'd like.
I don't think Colbert or The Daily Show really push ideological agendas as an integral part of the shows. In the last days of the Bush administration everyone kept saying "What will they do now without Bush and the Republicans to make fun of?" The shows have never been about promoting one political party and attacking the other. They're about pointing out the ridiculousness of those "running the show", regardless of their political affiliations. It's just that Bush and the Republicans have been in charge throughout most of each show's history.
The idea that "the media" would "blast" Colbert for expressing his true feelings, or the idea that he would even care if they did, is pretty ridiculous, in my opinion.
Well, I play in a more casual situation, FNM is free and it's more about having fun than winning 3 packs.
And are you having fun when you have to wait for this extremely slow person? Is every single other person in the entire tournament having fun while waiting for the next round to start because this guy's match is still going? It's not just about this guy's fun, it's about everyone's. And if he isn't told that playing unnecessarily slowly is annoying and illegal (even when you're not doing it on purpose) then it's never going to get better.
Nearly zero, but NOT zero. The edge is very small, but it is undeniably there, and therefore there would be no reason not to play this Uber-Expanse that put lands into play untapped. Even if only one out of a hundred games is decided by the time you draw gas instead of the land you would have gotten had you not fetched it out earlier, that's still enough reason to play them. It's all about giving yourself the best chance to win.
If you really want to get to know the rules of the game, you're eventually going to have to get comfortable finding things in the comp rules. This doesn't necessarily mean reading the whole thing beginning to end in one sitting, though. For practice, you could go to the rulings forum, look at people's questions, and then try to find the answers in the comp rules. Even if you already know the answer to the question, learning how to find it in the comp rules is valuable. Each time you go back into the document, you'll pick up a little bit more.
People have been having this same "What's with these kids today/society's going down the toilet/it was so much better in my day" argument for literally thousands of years. If the curmudgeons of every generation had been correct, you'd think we'd all be crazed, feral beasts by now.
Yes, part of FNM is that it's supposed to help you learn to play in a more competitive environment, but you don't learn that by ignoring the rules.
It's good that they try to reuse a certain set of creature types as much as they can, even in sets that aren't specifically tribal in theme. Maybe nothing in the current block cares about whether or not something is a beast, but casual kitchen table-types might find one of those cards and think it would be really cool in his beast deck. It adds flexibility and interactivity. What does creating a new Baloth creature type really add to the game? Just one more word in the comprehensive rules.
I'm also sick to death of the story of Chase's murder. While I don't think they should have just waved it away after one episode, I really just wish they hadn't done it in the first place. They just wrote themselves into a corner and no matter what they do to get out of it is going to seem ridiculous.
Greater Gargadon is an excellent sac outlet if you can manage to reach into red just a bit.
If Wizards insists on deliberately making these things "chase" items, they should at least set a realistic MSRP so stores who inevitably charge the actual market value of them don't come off as looking like such price gougers.
Yes, because that isn't a good play. It makes more sense to prevent you from being able to play those things than it does to wait for you to play them. If you continue to be short on land, one Vindicate effectively answers your entire hand instead of just one card from it.
So if a match is "casual" then people are supposed to just deliberately make bad plays? Do you just, for example, skip playing a land every other turn or so because "this is just a casual game" and trying too hard to win isn't casual? Of course you don't. While you may not have cards as expensive as your opponent's, you're still going to play in a manner that you think will help you win. Why shouldn't he do the same?
I don't think money has anything to do with what makes a casual deck. Pauper decks can be plenty competitive, too.
Ultimately I don't think it's a question that can be answered in any clear-cut objective way that people are going to agree on. If someone's deck is too good for your taste, then play someone different next time.
It seems inconsistent to me for someone to on one hand complain that some people only care about winning and then on the other hand complain that they couldn't win themselves. If all you care about is playing for the fun of playing, why are you so upset about losing once in a while? The notion that you shouldn't destroy someone's land when they're clearly manascrewed seems preposterous to me. If your opponent had been top-decking lands for five turns in a row and then finally played a creature, would you just sit on your removal spell for the sake of giving him a "fair chance"?
While winning isn't everything, I'm not sure I see what the point of playing is if you aren't even trying to win.
I don't think Colbert or The Daily Show really push ideological agendas as an integral part of the shows. In the last days of the Bush administration everyone kept saying "What will they do now without Bush and the Republicans to make fun of?" The shows have never been about promoting one political party and attacking the other. They're about pointing out the ridiculousness of those "running the show", regardless of their political affiliations. It's just that Bush and the Republicans have been in charge throughout most of each show's history.
The idea that "the media" would "blast" Colbert for expressing his true feelings, or the idea that he would even care if they did, is pretty ridiculous, in my opinion.
And are you having fun when you have to wait for this extremely slow person? Is every single other person in the entire tournament having fun while waiting for the next round to start because this guy's match is still going? It's not just about this guy's fun, it's about everyone's. And if he isn't told that playing unnecessarily slowly is annoying and illegal (even when you're not doing it on purpose) then it's never going to get better.
No. It just means that you have 14 days to download it. After 14 days you just won't be able to download it again. Nothing happens to your file.