Trinity PhalanxWW Legendary Enchantment
Whenever one or more creatures you control attack or block, you may choose up to three of them and have one of those creatures get +1/+0, another second creature get +1/+2, and then another third creature get +2/+3 until end of turn.
Cycling W Prayers could hardly begin to carry you past the first shield and sword.
I had originally thought to do this reversed, given a sequence of +1/+0; +2/+1; +3/+2; but in addition to that begin backwards towards unholy strengths, and also color-mixed, I urged myself to reconsider for the effect of tapering down the interactivity with a defensive boost dominance instead. This is just naturally healthier for all reasons: Damage, turns, fighting chance, etc. Don't mention about 'targeting'. This doesn't want to use that function purposely. We are adding interactivity for the design that it's more of a static effect in dynamic form, as it should be by nature and design.
Knight of the Godeyes1WW Creature ― Kor Knight
Knight of the Godeyes can't be countered by monocolored spells.
Shroud
Whenever a spell you control is countered, including this one, you may scry 1, then draw a card. All they see is true and pure. Will they see you or will they see through?
2/4
Bumped up to a full Knight+
The extra beefy defense hopes to come in handy against cheap batterers. This form makes it more interactive, so it should make it more fun (for both players). The additional bit in the third ability makes it feel even more interactive still, and also enables a powerplay where this can be used to bait an opponent's counterspells.
Holy Phalanx is powerful but will be a miserable card to keep straight on the battlefield. Why the cycling though? Feels quite tacked on and unrelated to the flavor. Otherwise I like it. Anthems are cool and I like this one. I can't speak to if it's worded correctly under WotC lingo but it gets the intent across.
I like the knight. I get why you threw Shroud on it but A it's an extinct mechanic and B I'm not sure the anti-counterspell card should be resistant to removal as well. Hate cards like that are at their best when they're impactful in their good match ups and underwhelming elsewhere. But I really like the overall concept!
It should be easy to understand from someone who created a keyword (in Enforcer) to prove that other 'thought to be impossible to balance keywords' (ex. banding) could/do have creative solutions to them.
Shroud is important to cut back on interactivity 'externally' so that the card can do more 'internally' at this cost.
Some might want to argue that scry 1 doesn't offer enough capability because it involves a guessing challenge, where they lose out when they deck the semi-useful top card that they peek with scry, and then get shafted on the blind draw of the next card. Simply put—that is the beauty of it actually. We want to preserve as much aspect of challenge as possible. That is one of the core-elements where the fun of the game lies. Player's simply need to be more concise with their choices, rather than have overbearing options to indulge lazily in the lap of luxury.
Cycling is there on Holy Phalanx because it's legendary and can't be stacked. This provides an outlet option for players running full playsets to do something with additional copies they draw. The effect also starts out very subtle, so that at the cost it has, furthermore facing a resource demand to get better, it is reasonably balanced at the cost that it has.
Furthermore, let me add that it was (and still might be) up-in-the-air if blocking should also be included in the effect, as well as if the first instance should grant a full buff (of +1/+1) instead of simply a half-buff (of +1/+0).
The phalanx is very strong in the right deck, and you are right that targeting isn't necessary and actually preferable because it insures the +2+3 only hits if three creatures are attacking. It probably should cost 2WW and not cycle (as the cycling is kinda superfluous here).
Shroud, Can't Be Countered, and rewarding spells getting countered - especailly with card draw - are blue abilities and this card is in no way white. Cost it UU and it is a fine Magic card, otherwise it is a color pie break.
It should be easy to understand from someone who created a keyword (in Enforcer) to prove that other 'thought to be impossible to balance keywords' (ex. banding) could/do have creative solutions to them.
Shroud is important to cut back on interactivity 'externally' so that the card can do more 'internally' at this cost.
Banding's problem isn't that it's hard to balance. It's that it's miserably complex and leads to boring and confusing board states. It's perfectly easy to balance but it's unfun. Shroud is different and they've iterated on it so much (Shourd and Protection > Hexproof and Hexproof from > to ward) because it's hard to balance. And in this case I don't see what shroud offers over hexproof or a high mana ward cost. They are similarly hard to interact with. But more importantly I personally think it's kind of bad design for the anti counter spell knight to be an anti removal spell knight as well but that's not a big criticism. Just a difference of design philosophy.
Some might want to argue that scry 1 doesn't offer enough capability because it involves a guessing challenge, where they lose out when they deck the semi-useful top card that they peek with scry, and then get shafted on the blind draw of the next card. Simply put—that is the beauty of it actually. We want to preserve as much aspect of challenge as possible. That is one of the core-elements where the fun of the game lies. Player's simply need to be more concise with their choices, rather than have overbearing options to indulge lazily in the lap of luxury.
I've never heard anyone argue that scry 1 is a weak ability before. It's pretty universally acknowledged as quite strong. For example the temples were widely regarded as the strongest tapland cycle before the printing of the Triomes.
Cycling is there on Holy Phalanx because it's legendary and can't be stacked. This provides an outlet option for players running full playsets to do something with additional copies they draw. The effect also starts out very subtle, so that at the cost it has, furthermore facing a resource demand to get better, it is reasonably balanced at the cost that it has.
I think you and I just have very different opinions on if it's okay for cards to be situationally bad. You seem to design with the goal that every card be useful in some way at every stage of the game which is just a foreign concept to me.
I really like both of these designs and think that the Knight is a cool avenue to explore for card draw in white but just the flourishes around the edges are hard for me to wrap my head around.
It should be easy to understand from someone who created a keyword (in Enforcer) to prove that other 'thought to be impossible to balance keywords' (ex. banding) could/do have creative solutions to them.
Shroud is important to cut back on interactivity 'externally' so that the card can do more 'internally' at this cost.
Banding's problem isn't that it's hard to balance. It's that it's miserably complex and leads to boring and confusing board states. It's perfectly easy to balance but it's unfun. Shroud is different and they've iterated on it so much (Shourd and Protection > Hexproof and Hexproof from > to ward) because it's hard to balance. And in this case I don't see what shroud offers over hexproof or a high mana ward cost. They are similarly hard to interact with. But more importantly I personally think it's kind of bad design for the anti counter spell knight to be an anti removal spell knight as well but that's not a big criticism. Just a difference of design philosophy.
I just want to chime in that Shroud wasn't retired because it was hard to balance. Hexproof has been less used because its been hard to balance but shroud was retired because(there is a better way to say this but I don't want to) Magic players are dumber than they think they are. Far too often players played cards with shroud as though they had hexproof, despite hexproof not being a thing. Out of all retired keywords it is the one that is the most reasonable to bring back because it actually has significant value to design. You just get the problem of designing cards in spite of your audience rather than for an audience; which is not the mark of a good designer.
While this is easy to miss, I’m fairly certain that Holy Phalanx is not worded as it would be on a card.
If this was a real card, I imagine that it would target the affected creatures. Using your current version gets around shroud and let’s an attack with a single creature get bonuses (if using targets, you would need three creatures or else this effect would fizzle like hex on a field of 5 creatures) but a real version of this card would probably use targets to maintain consistency among similar effects.
While this is easy to miss, I’m fairly certain that Holy Phalanx is not worded as it would be on a card.
If this was a real card, I imagine that it would target the affected creatures. Using your current version gets around shroud and let’s an attack with a single creature get bonuses (if using targets, you would need three creatures or else this effect would fizzle like hex on a field of 5 creatures) but a real version of this card would probably use targets to maintain consistency among similar effects.
Am I wrong here, guys?
It could potentially target or not. The current wording does work if there are fewer than three attacking creatures, but a targeted wording could also work (..up to one other target attacking creature etc. ...) with that functionality. Since you have to choose on resolution, your opponent can't blow out the creature you target with +2/+3 in response to the effect, but you also cannot get that +2/+3 at all if they destroy one of exactly three attackers.
It's well understood by me that the Wizards team isn't building a product with the company in mind, or the consumer in mind, but their own private interests and business concerns. I well long proved this back on the official Wizards forums.
Many would say that about scry. The reason temples are regarded is because it's a something where people are used to nothing.
I would argue that shroud was 'discontinued' because players don't like being locked out of their own design. But as I described, it is a great way to cut-off the 'external' elements so you can do 'internally'. Nothing about shroud or especially hexproof should ever be implemented so much that it's a concern as relayed. It's something whose placement should be so sparing and concise that there's never a question about it.
It's well understood by me that the Wizards team isn't building a product with the company in mind, or the consumer in mind, but their own private interests and business concerns. I well long proved this back on the official Wizards forums.
Many would say that about scry. The reason temples are regarded is because it's a something where people are used to nothing.
I would argue that shroud was 'discontinued' because players don't like being locked out of their own design. But as I described, it is a great way to cut-off the 'external' elements so you can do 'internally'. Nothing about shroud or especially hexproof should ever be implemented so much that it's a concern as relayed. It's something whose placement should be so sparing and concise that there's never a question about it.
People are used to their lands coming in untapped. So being willing to play a tapped land indicates the scry is pretty valuable.
As for Shroud and Hexproof I agree that that is should be used sparingly and when used be so obvious as to why it was used. But that's my point here why is the counterspell hoser also resistant to spot removal? If feels very strange for it to attack both avenues of interaction.
It's well understood by me that the Wizards team isn't building a product with the company in mind, or the consumer in mind, but their own private interests and business concerns. I well long proved this back on the official Wizards forums.
And yet they have better designed cards than you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
It's well understood by me that the Wizards team isn't building a product with the company in mind, or the consumer in mind, but their own private interests and business concerns. I well long proved this back on the official Wizards forums.
And yet they have better designed cards than you.
This.
What people think is fun/exciting is fun/exciting. You thinking that a couple of “objective” measures that you cannot fully articulate in mathematical terms for other people to accurately judge, which you started taking in the Pokémon TCG (EX: domain influence) are the be-all end-all measures of “fun” for a card game, superior to the vast market research and testing that goes into MTG.
Do you hear how deluded that sounds?
You: “I have a mechanic that makes the game better and more fun.”
Poster 1: “I don’t think that is fun”
Poster 2: “I don’t think that is fun”
Posters 3-7: “I don’t think that is fun!”
You: “All of you are incorrect. I can prove mathematically that this is superior so all of you are having fun. You are wrong about not having fun.”
Other Posters: “what about people who like the game how it is?”
You: “The people who play the game right now are wrong. The people who design the game are wrong. I am objectively right. If you are not having fun with my mechanics, you (the people currently playing MTG) are not the right people to be playing MTG”.
You: “I have a mechanic that makes the game better and more fun.”
Poster 1: “I don’t think that is fun”
Poster 2: “I don’t think that is fun”
Posters 3-7: “I don’t think that is fun!”
You: “All of you are incorrect. I can prove mathematically that this is superior so all of you are having fun. You are wrong about not having fun.”
Other Posters: “what about people who like the game how it is?”
You: “The people who play the game right now are wrong. The people who design the game are wrong. I am objectively right. If you are not having fun with my mechanics, you (the people currently playing MTG) are not the right people to be playing MTG”.
Yes, it's unfortunate that any narrow band of posters on a forum, who can group up in biased, does not (and could never) reflect a respectable opinion for millions of unsung players. The group of posters are themselves simply a minority, despite whatever delusions of grandeur you (or they) might want to suggest of their singular, or collective opinions.
Funny how that "Delusions of grandeur " comment comes from you.
Let's say this Forum is a proper reflection of the general consensus of the Magic player base then The people generally don't think your designs are proper or fun. If that's the case you should listen to the feedback given to you on here to improve your design skills.
Now let's say you are right and this forum isn't at all the general consensus aka just a minority. Then in the best case we don't know what the general magic playing population want or find fun but you do, If that's the case you'd still need to show us that you are correct by showing us that more players like your designs than not. If you don't want to do that why post on this forum at all If you don't/rarely listen to feedback and if you think you are correct and we are not.
In the worst case neither you nor us know what the majority wants and likes, in that case you should still listen to our feedback since that just increases your sample size and increases your chance to make more people happy with your design and improve on them sure you don't have to apply every point of feedback directly but you still should listen to it to gather what people like or dislike.
You moved forward to justify your 'minority' as a 'true reflection of the majority'.
No i did not.
I never justified anything I merly explained all the different situations we could have here.
And you also did not "[I] explain[ed] why it's not, and just how impatient and irresponsible that really is." you went on about anti-vaxx (which I agree with user explains a lot about your approach) not in how that relates to Magic design at all.
Reap, the way I see things, you are making one of two arguments.
Argument 1: We have no proof that our views are the majority. You have no proof that your views are the majority. As no one can speak authoritatively on what people truly want and what is good or bad, your designs are no less valid than ours and our criticisms are meaningless.
Argument 2: Because you are working off of principles that you have developed with other card games, your designs are superior to our designs and views of magic. The fact that consensus sides against you is meaningless because we cannot prove that we represent the majority. The fact that the consensus aligns with all of the considerable market research and R&D completed by wizards, which would logically come a lot closer to representing the “majority”, is also meaningless because they want to do whatever makes them money rather than what the majority wants most.
Rebuttals:
Argument 1 is a classic argument from Nihilism, a “we can’t know the truth so none of us is wrong” argument that is virtually never usable in good faith outside of very specific theological/philosophical circles. This argument has very little rhetorical power in the real world as it can be applied to nearly every issue everywhere. I can’t prove that people like Magic as it is but I also can’t prove that Soda is popular, that elected officials were fairly elected, or that owners of tobacco companies know that their products cause health concerns. There is very little that we can realistically “prove” on even large scales so applying that logic to a specific argument is kind of toothless and worthless.
Argument 2, meanwhile, is the definition of a delusion, a “this is true and any ‘evidence’ to the contrary is tainted/wrong” situation. If there is not a hypothetical (and realistic, not “survey every player in the world”) burden of proof that you would set to show that you may be wrong on a matter (other than a very personal matter like “I am happy” or “I like this”, which can never be disproved), then you are deluded. That is the definition of what a delusion is.
To everyone else:
While it has been said in the past a dozen times, I do feel that this is as far as it goes and I think that the issue is basically beaten to death over dozens of threads at this point.
To recap:
1. If you look carefully, Reap is aware that his cards do not conform to modern design. Reap doesn’t deny that shroud is retired but rather claims that being retired does not matter to him.
2. Reap feels that magic “should” be considerably different than the way it is.
3. Realistically, while we can show WHY things are the way that they are and prove that is indeed the way things are, we cannot prove (individually or collectively) that the way things are is the way things SHOULD be. That is simply an argument that cannot be convincingly made even if Reap miraculously is a sober-minded person who is not deliberately trolling us.
4. While the lack of communication, loose definition of terms, insistence of errata, creation of new terms out of nowhere, arrogance/veiled insults, and potential misinformation to new posters is annoying, I don’t feel that any rules are being broken so things are the way they are.
5. Other than making a footnote that Reap’s designs are notoriously bad by the standards of currently printed cards (which Reap does not agree with) so new posters know what’s going on, I don’t see any reason to engage with Reap moving forward. We can show that their ideas do not line up with how things are now but the bigger argument that they SHOULD is unwinnable.
6. While some people have tried using Reap’s posts as an opportunity to discuss design in general, that seems a tad disrespectful and probably gives these threads a lot more traffic than they rightfully deserve. Again, all that these posts need is a “Reap’s cards do not follow the standards of currently printed magic the gathering as Reap disagrees with those standards” disclaimer.
Legendary Enchantment
Whenever one or more creatures you control attack or block, you may choose up to three of them and have one of those creatures get +1/+0, another second creature get +1/+2, and then another third creature get +2/+3 until end of turn.
Cycling W
Prayers could hardly begin to carry you past the first shield and sword.
I had originally thought to do this reversed, given a sequence of +1/+0; +2/+1; +3/+2; but in addition to that begin backwards towards unholy strengths, and also color-mixed, I urged myself to reconsider for the effect of tapering down the interactivity with a defensive boost dominance instead. This is just naturally healthier for all reasons: Damage, turns, fighting chance, etc. Don't mention about 'targeting'. This doesn't want to use that function purposely. We are adding interactivity for the design that it's more of a static effect in dynamic form, as it should be by nature and design.
Knight of the Godeyes 1WW
Creature ― Kor Knight
Knight of the Godeyes can't be countered by monocolored spells.
Shroud
Whenever a spell you control is countered, including this one, you may scry 1, then draw a card.
All they see is true and pure. Will they see you or will they see through?
2/4
Bumped up to a full Knight+
The extra beefy defense hopes to come in handy against cheap batterers. This form makes it more interactive, so it should make it more fun (for both players). The additional bit in the third ability makes it feel even more interactive still, and also enables a powerplay where this can be used to bait an opponent's counterspells.
I like the knight. I get why you threw Shroud on it but A it's an extinct mechanic and B I'm not sure the anti-counterspell card should be resistant to removal as well. Hate cards like that are at their best when they're impactful in their good match ups and underwhelming elsewhere. But I really like the overall concept!
It should be easy to understand from someone who created a keyword (in Enforcer) to prove that other 'thought to be impossible to balance keywords' (ex. banding) could/do have creative solutions to them.
Shroud is important to cut back on interactivity 'externally' so that the card can do more 'internally' at this cost.
Some might want to argue that scry 1 doesn't offer enough capability because it involves a guessing challenge, where they lose out when they deck the semi-useful top card that they peek with scry, and then get shafted on the blind draw of the next card. Simply put—that is the beauty of it actually. We want to preserve as much aspect of challenge as possible. That is one of the core-elements where the fun of the game lies. Player's simply need to be more concise with their choices, rather than have overbearing options to indulge lazily in the lap of luxury.
Cycling is there on Holy Phalanx because it's legendary and can't be stacked. This provides an outlet option for players running full playsets to do something with additional copies they draw. The effect also starts out very subtle, so that at the cost it has, furthermore facing a resource demand to get better, it is reasonably balanced at the cost that it has.
Furthermore, let me add that it was (and still might be) up-in-the-air if blocking should also be included in the effect, as well as if the first instance should grant a full buff (of +1/+1) instead of simply a half-buff (of +1/+0).
Shroud, Can't Be Countered, and rewarding spells getting countered - especailly with card draw - are blue abilities and this card is in no way white. Cost it UU and it is a fine Magic card, otherwise it is a color pie break.
Banding's problem isn't that it's hard to balance. It's that it's miserably complex and leads to boring and confusing board states. It's perfectly easy to balance but it's unfun. Shroud is different and they've iterated on it so much (Shourd and Protection > Hexproof and Hexproof from > to ward) because it's hard to balance. And in this case I don't see what shroud offers over hexproof or a high mana ward cost. They are similarly hard to interact with. But more importantly I personally think it's kind of bad design for the anti counter spell knight to be an anti removal spell knight as well but that's not a big criticism. Just a difference of design philosophy.
I've never heard anyone argue that scry 1 is a weak ability before. It's pretty universally acknowledged as quite strong. For example the temples were widely regarded as the strongest tapland cycle before the printing of the Triomes.
I think you and I just have very different opinions on if it's okay for cards to be situationally bad. You seem to design with the goal that every card be useful in some way at every stage of the game which is just a foreign concept to me.
I really like both of these designs and think that the Knight is a cool avenue to explore for card draw in white but just the flourishes around the edges are hard for me to wrap my head around.
If this was a real card, I imagine that it would target the affected creatures. Using your current version gets around shroud and let’s an attack with a single creature get bonuses (if using targets, you would need three creatures or else this effect would fizzle like hex on a field of 5 creatures) but a real version of this card would probably use targets to maintain consistency among similar effects.
Am I wrong here, guys?
It could potentially target or not. The current wording does work if there are fewer than three attacking creatures, but a targeted wording could also work (..up to one other target attacking creature etc. ...) with that functionality. Since you have to choose on resolution, your opponent can't blow out the creature you target with +2/+3 in response to the effect, but you also cannot get that +2/+3 at all if they destroy one of exactly three attackers.
It's well understood by me that the Wizards team isn't building a product with the company in mind, or the consumer in mind, but their own private interests and business concerns. I well long proved this back on the official Wizards forums.
Many would say that about scry. The reason temples are regarded is because it's a something where people are used to nothing.
I would argue that shroud was 'discontinued' because players don't like being locked out of their own design. But as I described, it is a great way to cut-off the 'external' elements so you can do 'internally'. Nothing about shroud or especially hexproof should ever be implemented so much that it's a concern as relayed. It's something whose placement should be so sparing and concise that there's never a question about it.
People are used to their lands coming in untapped. So being willing to play a tapped land indicates the scry is pretty valuable.
As for Shroud and Hexproof I agree that that is should be used sparingly and when used be so obvious as to why it was used. But that's my point here why is the counterspell hoser also resistant to spot removal? If feels very strange for it to attack both avenues of interaction.
And yet they have better designed cards than you.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
This.
What people think is fun/exciting is fun/exciting. You thinking that a couple of “objective” measures that you cannot fully articulate in mathematical terms for other people to accurately judge, which you started taking in the Pokémon TCG (EX: domain influence) are the be-all end-all measures of “fun” for a card game, superior to the vast market research and testing that goes into MTG.
Do you hear how deluded that sounds?
You: “I have a mechanic that makes the game better and more fun.”
Poster 1: “I don’t think that is fun”
Poster 2: “I don’t think that is fun”
Posters 3-7: “I don’t think that is fun!”
You: “All of you are incorrect. I can prove mathematically that this is superior so all of you are having fun. You are wrong about not having fun.”
Other Posters: “what about people who like the game how it is?”
You: “The people who play the game right now are wrong. The people who design the game are wrong. I am objectively right. If you are not having fun with my mechanics, you (the people currently playing MTG) are not the right people to be playing MTG”.
Yes, it's unfortunate that any narrow band of posters on a forum, who can group up in biased, does not (and could never) reflect a respectable opinion for millions of unsung players. The group of posters are themselves simply a minority, despite whatever delusions of grandeur you (or they) might want to suggest of their singular, or collective opinions.
Let's say this Forum is a proper reflection of the general consensus of the Magic player base then The people generally don't think your designs are proper or fun. If that's the case you should listen to the feedback given to you on here to improve your design skills.
Now let's say you are right and this forum isn't at all the general consensus aka just a minority. Then in the best case we don't know what the general magic playing population want or find fun but you do, If that's the case you'd still need to show us that you are correct by showing us that more players like your designs than not. If you don't want to do that why post on this forum at all If you don't/rarely listen to feedback and if you think you are correct and we are not.
In the worst case neither you nor us know what the majority wants and likes, in that case you should still listen to our feedback since that just increases your sample size and increases your chance to make more people happy with your design and improve on them sure you don't have to apply every point of feedback directly but you still should listen to it to gather what people like or dislike.
Take a look at the vaccine trials. A small group did not reflect the truth of the majority who have suffered illness, disease, death, and miscarriage.
You're the person who OK's the makeshift vaccine for everyone, based on your shallow, empty 'reflection of the majority'.
You did not really adress any point I made like the last time i pressed you to adress something.
Is your Modus operandi just ignore when someone makes a good point when you have no rebuttal for it.
Obscure and Deflect.
You didn't make any good points. What I addressed was the summary of your post. There wasn't anything else there to consider.
You moved forward to justify your 'minority' as a 'true reflection of the majority'.
I explained why it's not, and just how impatient and irresponsible that really is.
No i did not.
I never justified anything I merly explained all the different situations we could have here.
And you also did not "[I] explain[ed] why it's not, and just how impatient and irresponsible that really is." you went on about anti-vaxx (which I agree with user explains a lot about your approach) not in how that relates to Magic design at all.
Argument 1: We have no proof that our views are the majority. You have no proof that your views are the majority. As no one can speak authoritatively on what people truly want and what is good or bad, your designs are no less valid than ours and our criticisms are meaningless.
Argument 2: Because you are working off of principles that you have developed with other card games, your designs are superior to our designs and views of magic. The fact that consensus sides against you is meaningless because we cannot prove that we represent the majority. The fact that the consensus aligns with all of the considerable market research and R&D completed by wizards, which would logically come a lot closer to representing the “majority”, is also meaningless because they want to do whatever makes them money rather than what the majority wants most.
Rebuttals:
Argument 1 is a classic argument from Nihilism, a “we can’t know the truth so none of us is wrong” argument that is virtually never usable in good faith outside of very specific theological/philosophical circles. This argument has very little rhetorical power in the real world as it can be applied to nearly every issue everywhere. I can’t prove that people like Magic as it is but I also can’t prove that Soda is popular, that elected officials were fairly elected, or that owners of tobacco companies know that their products cause health concerns. There is very little that we can realistically “prove” on even large scales so applying that logic to a specific argument is kind of toothless and worthless.
Argument 2, meanwhile, is the definition of a delusion, a “this is true and any ‘evidence’ to the contrary is tainted/wrong” situation. If there is not a hypothetical (and realistic, not “survey every player in the world”) burden of proof that you would set to show that you may be wrong on a matter (other than a very personal matter like “I am happy” or “I like this”, which can never be disproved), then you are deluded. That is the definition of what a delusion is.
To everyone else:
While it has been said in the past a dozen times, I do feel that this is as far as it goes and I think that the issue is basically beaten to death over dozens of threads at this point.
To recap:
1. If you look carefully, Reap is aware that his cards do not conform to modern design. Reap doesn’t deny that shroud is retired but rather claims that being retired does not matter to him.
2. Reap feels that magic “should” be considerably different than the way it is.
3. Realistically, while we can show WHY things are the way that they are and prove that is indeed the way things are, we cannot prove (individually or collectively) that the way things are is the way things SHOULD be. That is simply an argument that cannot be convincingly made even if Reap miraculously is a sober-minded person who is not deliberately trolling us.
4. While the lack of communication, loose definition of terms, insistence of errata, creation of new terms out of nowhere, arrogance/veiled insults, and potential misinformation to new posters is annoying, I don’t feel that any rules are being broken so things are the way they are.
5. Other than making a footnote that Reap’s designs are notoriously bad by the standards of currently printed cards (which Reap does not agree with) so new posters know what’s going on, I don’t see any reason to engage with Reap moving forward. We can show that their ideas do not line up with how things are now but the bigger argument that they SHOULD is unwinnable.
6. While some people have tried using Reap’s posts as an opportunity to discuss design in general, that seems a tad disrespectful and probably gives these threads a lot more traffic than they rightfully deserve. Again, all that these posts need is a “Reap’s cards do not follow the standards of currently printed magic the gathering as Reap disagrees with those standards” disclaimer.
Does that sound reasonable-ish.
Only some wording composition changes to the first, while the second got a full brush up.