This spell costs 2 less to cast, if it targets a blue spell
Counter target spell, unless its controller pays 3
I guess with cards supporting monocolor, it's only natural to also have cards that hose them. Unlike previous hosers though, this one is versatile but heavily depends on the meta.
Countering blue spell with a single U is likely a good thing in older formats.
I wonder if this is a cycle. A counter that’s cheaper against blue ... creature removal cheaper against black, direct damage cheaper against red, fight cheaper against green, damage prevention cheaper against damage from a white source?
I wonder if this is a cycle. A counter that’s cheaper against blue ... creature removal cheaper against black, direct damage cheaper against red, fight cheaper against green, damage prevention cheaper against damage from a white source?
I wonder if it's a "dispute cycle" - Primal dispute, fiery dispute, verdant dispute, righteous dispute, and wretched dispute.
Oh well, I can't see any reason for NOT boarding this in Standard. As an MB 3-mana counter I'd much rather spring for UU and play Sinister Sabotage, but this should be an all-star against Baby Teferi in particular, or against a T2 Thought Erasure. Thought Spell Pierce was annoying? Get a load of THIS, 1-mana Mana Leak.
I wonder if this is a cycle. A counter that’s cheaper against blue ... creature removal cheaper against black, direct damage cheaper against red, fight cheaper against green, damage prevention cheaper against damage from a white source?
Damage prevention sounds a bit weak, although it could work against the knight/equipment archetype. My guess is an o-ring variant as the white dispute.
is anyone else tired of the best counterspells only hosing blue? this is 2-3 recently. blueis supposed to GET counters, not be the easiest target for them
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
is anyone else tired of the best counterspells only hosing blue? this is 2-3 recently. blueis supposed to GET counters, not be the easiest target for them
"Poor, lost mage. Your feet are on land, yet you're in over your head, aren't you?"
You ever notice how, whenever a character of one gender is dominating a character of a different gender in the art, it's always a female dominating a male? Why don't we ever see the reverse? It's hard to call it equal representation when the representation isn't actually equal.
Mod Note: Hey everyone, while we like to foster discussion, there comes a limit to where things get to be overly political or too sensitive. The discussion following this is one of those times.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
You ever notice how, whenever a character of one gender is dominating a character of a different gender in the art, it's always a female dominating a male? Why don't we ever see the reverse? It's hard to call it equal representation when the representation isn't actually equal.
wouldn't want to cause another ***** storm ala Triumph of Ferocity is my best guess.
You ever notice how, whenever a character of one gender is dominating a character of a different gender in the art, it's always a female dominating a male? Why don't we ever see the reverse? It's hard to call it equal representation when the representation isn't actually equal.
wouldn't want to cause another ***** storm ala Triumph of Ferocity is my best guess.
Just to clarify for everybody here, my umbrage isn't with Mystical Dispute itself. It's the long-term trend Magic's had of favoring women over men whenever it comes to a conflict between the two even though it's supposed to be giving fair treatment, and seeing yet another example of bias in the art direction just kinda brought me to a boiling point. I wouldn't take issue with this if there were just as many examples of male characters dominating females, but I can't even name five examples from the last five years where the male is dominant in the art. Liliana's Defeat, Chandra's Defeat, Nissa's Defeat, and In Bolas's Clutches are the closest examples I can think of, and then the male in question is a giant elder dragon. I guess you could throw in Captured by the Consulate, but there's also a female soldier taking Pia away.
We don't get anything like Sorin caressing his latest female neckbite victim or Tibalt savoring the pain he's causing to some female knight, it's always some dommy female like Liliana, Kaya, or Vraska who's got some male pinned or otherwise subdued. And any time a female character is being dominated, it's either by another female, some kind of nonhumanoid monster, or even an ambiguous predator altogether. Look, if someone in Wizards is into dominant women, I understand, but please, is it too much to ask for a little more actual equality here?
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Wizard's artistic choices are grounded on history and the subversion of dominant power. There is a movement in the United States called the "Black Lives Matter" movement. This came out of the disproportionate amount of police shootings involving unarmed black men. In the United States black populations have come to believe that their lives don't matter due to issues of equity in the country. The movement chose the name Black Lives Matters to specifically highlight the notion that Black Lives have long been ignored when factoring in the wellbeing of a society as a whole. Due to the name of the movement, [white] people are sometimes offended, arguing, "Well, don't all lives matter??" - And of course, the answer is yes, all lives do matter. Yet, despite the universal understanding that all lives matter, there is still a distinct inequality amongst races in the United States, indicating that the notion of all lives mattering isn't really understood by most [white] people. When we say "Black Lives Matter", we really mean "Black Lives Matter (Just As Much As Everyone Else's, But People Seem To Be Ignoring That)." We say this because historically that has not been true - Black Lives Matter is an attempt to subvert historic norms and view black lives through a new lens.
I use this example to connect to WotC's decision to not depict women being dominated by men. Men throughout history have been the dominant sex - putting themselves in positions of power. In much media, there is a tradition of depicting women as the victims. Very often in media men abuse women, and women are allowed to gain agency only through victimhood - i.e. Because you made me a victim, I will now act against my gender norms and seek revenge. This is an issue, as you can imagine - it is an issue when any person, regardless of race or gender, can only receive agency (i.e. power) through the prerequisite of victimhood. When a woman is depicted as dominating a man - and there is no reference to her ever being a victim - then this is what we call cultural subversion. We are going against the norm and depicting an empiric truth that has not otherwise been accepted by society as a whole. It is okay to show women dominating because of the history of sexism. Any negative "ism" - such as Racism and Sexism - is grounded on the establishment of one particular race or gender having an inherent upper hand against the other. It does not go "both ways" - there is no reverse sexism or racism. These isms are based on one specific group dominating another.
When WotC shows a woman dominating a man, they are breaking new ground - they are ignoring cliche traditions that have only hurt women through the ages. When they show men dominating women, they are only upholding outdated beliefs that women are to be dominated eternally by men, and that they can only gain power through victimhood. This misgiving cannot be corrected if we are to continue to show men dominating women. The only way to move past this harmful history is to rewrite the future in terms of equity - women need to be shown in power to correct the wrongs of the past. Men don't need to be seen dominating women because that has already been the norm for centuries, and it has harmed women.
tl;dr: Women dominating men = progressive. Men dominating women = regressive.
Thank you for explaining in so many words what I don't have the time to.
The "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism" arguments are so very tired and most often not made in good faith. When men are subjugated to the point where magic art becomes a harmful reinforcement of exploiting an exploited class, then we can talk about the harmful representation. Until then we'll just have to get over it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Protection from reason (Decadent_Creed can't be blocked, targeted, dealt damage, or enchanted by reason.)
This feels like a clear way to do Gainsay-style sideboard-only cards in a way that doesn't make it dead in Arena best-of-one.
That aside, I'm sure this will see play, but am fuzzy on how playable mana leak is in slow control mirrors. Maybe it's also there so that no single version of a blue control deck can get out of control, letting some fraction prey on others not optimized for the mirror at the cost of sideboard slots.
tl;dr: Women dominating men = progressive. Men dominating women = regressive.
I'm not even going to start touching upon the BLM movement, because we're skating on thin ice here as it is.
I will however point out that your statement is incredibly sexist, and demonstrates the problem I have with the feminist movement. They are basically trying to replace one kind of sexism with another. I'm supposed to be submissive to a woman simply because I was born male and she wasn't? My sex dictates the role I'm supposed to play, now? How long before "cultural subversion" becomes the culture to be subverted? How long before we're "allowed" to have a "masculinist" movement to return rights to men? And how long before that movement becomes just another reverse sexism movement to be countered by another feminist movement?
Not to mention there's extreme moral myopia at play here. *****es like Liliana are allowed to get away with their ***** because it's "subversive"? If we had "Davriel's Caress" showing him telling a woman that it might not hurt as much if she doesn't fight, everybody would have thrown an utter *****storm over the heavy undertones of sexual assault. But since it's a woman telling a man not to fight, it's okay?
See, I'm asking for a fairly even representastion of men and women in dominant roles, and I'm being told "no, women should be dominant now". You choosing whether someone should be dominant or not based on their sex, and relative to another character's sex at that, is the very definition of sexism. What you're doing is trying to balance out one wrongdoing with another. You want to counter historic pro-male sexism with pro-female sexism. Basically, the old "Eye for an eye". And when men like me get sick and tired of being told "no, you're men, you should be submissive", just like what happened to women in centuries past, we're gonna fight back. And then we're gonna have another round of counter-sexist *****fighting, followed by another round of counter-sexist revolution. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseam.
At what point will men have suffered enough? At what point will we all have suffered enough? And why should the men of tomorrow have to suffer for the sins committed by the men of yesterday? That's even more sexist, the idea that I have to be submissive because men who lived 100 years ago were forcefully dominant. Hell no! That's the exact kind of mentality Judeo-Christians use as an excuse to oppress women, because don't you know, Eve tempted Adam to commit the original sin, so now all women are guilty!
As long as society has the attitude that one sex or the other should be dominant or submissive, it's a sexist society, and therefore problematic. We can only truly be a fair, just society if we quit trying to force roles upon one sex or the other. And right now, you're advocating forcing roles upon somebody because of their sex. You are trying to establish a fundamental difference in status and role between men and women, which is exactly what the patriarchical societies of old did, but for a different sex. That is not fair, that is not just, that is not progressive, that is not right! Sex-based oppression (or oppression of any kind, for that matter) isn't right when it's done against women, it isn't right when it's done against men, it isn't right at all.
And this isn't even taking into account transgenders and transsexuals. A transgender man is supposed to be submissive to a woman even though biologically he was once a woman himself? A transgender woman is allowed to be dominant now because she's no longer a man, or didn't identify as one to begin with? And how the flying fuzz do nonbinaries figure into the whole picture? Why are we choosing whether or not someone is "supposed" to be dominant or submissive based on gender or sex? How about we judge based on a person-by-person basis instead?
People need to learn the difference between allowing equality and forcing it. Allowing equality creates a benevolent, progressive system where people can choose their role and express themselves without fear of being prejudiced and punished. Forcing "equality" creates an oppressive, dictatorial system driven by arbitrary quotas that ignores actual personal merit, dismisses complaints of unprotected demographics, and punishes anybody who dares to speak out against the system's dogmas. Right now I'm living in a society that forces "equality", where the very idea of a person of one particular sex being dominant is viewed as regressive purely because of the sex in question rather than the actual personal dynamic at work.
The funny thing is, if I was a woman writing all this, you'd be telling me I should be dominant because I'm a woman. All I have to do is undergo a sex change and suddenly I qualify for the dominant role, even though I'm still the same person on the inside.
This post is most likely going to get moderated because it's controversial and barely on-topic. Normally I'd spoiler such a lengthy post for the sake of sparing scrolling, but I want my statements to be seen and heard before they get nuked. I'm not going to let fear of punishment silence me prematurely. I have a right to speak out against a perceived injustice, just as everyone else does, and I'm going to exercise that right to the fullest extent possible. I'm saving screencaps of our comments for posterity.
Public Mod Note
(bobthefunny):
Warn - Spam/Off-topic/Flaming/Trolling
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Good lord. Can we stay on the topic of Magic cards in the Magic card forums from now on. No one wants to be harangued with politically-charged dogma. I know I don't want to see the MRA talking points ever again.
This post is most likely going to get moderated because it's controversial and barely on-topic.
You're right that none of what you brought up was on topic. Can you please not go into a political tirade because you saw a fish woman magically restraining a human man? Save it for 4chan bro.
You know, your entire post would gain a lot more substance if you established how you're actually suffering in practice, and not just in principle. Like, what are some of the real-world harms you're going through because of a pattern of dominant women being perpetuated in some forms of media?
Go ahead and give me your best actual examples. Let us know the actual forms of your suffering that your post hints at so strongly. Because for each one you give me, I'll give you two examples of the reverse being the case.
You ever notice how, whenever a character of one gender is dominating a character of a different gender in the art, it's always a female dominating a male? Why don't we ever see the reverse? It's hard to call it equal representation when the representation isn't actually equal.
Mate, you know exactly why it's like that hehe
Same with all pump spells where a creature gets +2/+2 and first strike. Always that way.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Mystical Dispute 2U
Uncommon - Instant
This spell costs 2 less to cast, if it targets a blue spell
Counter target spell, unless its controller pays 3
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffCard looks solid to me. Complicate versus most things, Dispel/Gainsay in mirrors. I'd board this in Standard for sure.
Nevermind, found it. Source Andrea Mengucci's Twitter.
I guess with cards supporting monocolor, it's only natural to also have cards that hose them. Unlike previous hosers though, this one is versatile but heavily depends on the meta.
Countering blue spell with a single U is likely a good thing in older formats.
Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest WUR Voltron Control
Temmet, Vizier of Naktamun WU Unblockable Mirror Trickery
Ra's al Ghul (Sidar Kondo) and Face-Down Ninjas
Brudiclad, Token Engineer
Vaevictis (VV2) the Dire Lantern
Rona, Disciple of Gix
Tiana the Auror
Hallar
Ulrich the Politician
Zur the Rebel
Scorpion, Locust, Scarab, Egyptian Gods
O-Kagachi, Mathas, Mairsil
"Non-Tribal" Tribal Generals, Eggs
I wonder if it's a "dispute cycle" - Primal dispute, fiery dispute, verdant dispute, righteous dispute, and wretched dispute.
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
Damage prevention sounds a bit weak, although it could work against the knight/equipment archetype. My guess is an o-ring variant as the white dispute.
The Vorthos community will await the consequences of the Eldrazi Titans' deaths/sealing. We will keep the watch.
“The wind whispers, ‘come home,’ but I cannot.”
— Teferi
"Poor, lost mage. Your feet are on land, yet you're in over your head, aren't you?"
Mod Note: Hey everyone, while we like to foster discussion, there comes a limit to where things get to be overly political or too sensitive. The discussion following this is one of those times.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
wouldn't want to cause another ***** storm ala Triumph of Ferocity is my best guess.
And yet Liliana's Caress was a-ok...
Just to clarify for everybody here, my umbrage isn't with Mystical Dispute itself. It's the long-term trend Magic's had of favoring women over men whenever it comes to a conflict between the two even though it's supposed to be giving fair treatment, and seeing yet another example of bias in the art direction just kinda brought me to a boiling point. I wouldn't take issue with this if there were just as many examples of male characters dominating females, but I can't even name five examples from the last five years where the male is dominant in the art. Liliana's Defeat, Chandra's Defeat, Nissa's Defeat, and In Bolas's Clutches are the closest examples I can think of, and then the male in question is a giant elder dragon. I guess you could throw in Captured by the Consulate, but there's also a female soldier taking Pia away.
We don't get anything like Sorin caressing his latest female neckbite victim or Tibalt savoring the pain he's causing to some female knight, it's always some dommy female like Liliana, Kaya, or Vraska who's got some male pinned or otherwise subdued. And any time a female character is being dominated, it's either by another female, some kind of nonhumanoid monster, or even an ambiguous predator altogether. Look, if someone in Wizards is into dominant women, I understand, but please, is it too much to ask for a little more actual equality here?
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
I use this example to connect to WotC's decision to not depict women being dominated by men. Men throughout history have been the dominant sex - putting themselves in positions of power. In much media, there is a tradition of depicting women as the victims. Very often in media men abuse women, and women are allowed to gain agency only through victimhood - i.e. Because you made me a victim, I will now act against my gender norms and seek revenge. This is an issue, as you can imagine - it is an issue when any person, regardless of race or gender, can only receive agency (i.e. power) through the prerequisite of victimhood. When a woman is depicted as dominating a man - and there is no reference to her ever being a victim - then this is what we call cultural subversion. We are going against the norm and depicting an empiric truth that has not otherwise been accepted by society as a whole. It is okay to show women dominating because of the history of sexism. Any negative "ism" - such as Racism and Sexism - is grounded on the establishment of one particular race or gender having an inherent upper hand against the other. It does not go "both ways" - there is no reverse sexism or racism. These isms are based on one specific group dominating another.
When WotC shows a woman dominating a man, they are breaking new ground - they are ignoring cliche traditions that have only hurt women through the ages. When they show men dominating women, they are only upholding outdated beliefs that women are to be dominated eternally by men, and that they can only gain power through victimhood. This misgiving cannot be corrected if we are to continue to show men dominating women. The only way to move past this harmful history is to rewrite the future in terms of equity - women need to be shown in power to correct the wrongs of the past. Men don't need to be seen dominating women because that has already been the norm for centuries, and it has harmed women.
tl;dr: Women dominating men = progressive. Men dominating women = regressive.
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
The "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism" arguments are so very tired and most often not made in good faith. When men are subjugated to the point where magic art becomes a harmful reinforcement of exploiting an exploited class, then we can talk about the harmful representation. Until then we'll just have to get over it.
That aside, I'm sure this will see play, but am fuzzy on how playable mana leak is in slow control mirrors. Maybe it's also there so that no single version of a blue control deck can get out of control, letting some fraction prey on others not optimized for the mirror at the cost of sideboard slots.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
I'm not even going to start touching upon the BLM movement, because we're skating on thin ice here as it is.
I will however point out that your statement is incredibly sexist, and demonstrates the problem I have with the feminist movement. They are basically trying to replace one kind of sexism with another. I'm supposed to be submissive to a woman simply because I was born male and she wasn't? My sex dictates the role I'm supposed to play, now? How long before "cultural subversion" becomes the culture to be subverted? How long before we're "allowed" to have a "masculinist" movement to return rights to men? And how long before that movement becomes just another reverse sexism movement to be countered by another feminist movement?
Not to mention there's extreme moral myopia at play here. *****es like Liliana are allowed to get away with their ***** because it's "subversive"? If we had "Davriel's Caress" showing him telling a woman that it might not hurt as much if she doesn't fight, everybody would have thrown an utter *****storm over the heavy undertones of sexual assault. But since it's a woman telling a man not to fight, it's okay?
See, I'm asking for a fairly even representastion of men and women in dominant roles, and I'm being told "no, women should be dominant now". You choosing whether someone should be dominant or not based on their sex, and relative to another character's sex at that, is the very definition of sexism. What you're doing is trying to balance out one wrongdoing with another. You want to counter historic pro-male sexism with pro-female sexism. Basically, the old "Eye for an eye". And when men like me get sick and tired of being told "no, you're men, you should be submissive", just like what happened to women in centuries past, we're gonna fight back. And then we're gonna have another round of counter-sexist *****fighting, followed by another round of counter-sexist revolution. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseam.
At what point will men have suffered enough? At what point will we all have suffered enough? And why should the men of tomorrow have to suffer for the sins committed by the men of yesterday? That's even more sexist, the idea that I have to be submissive because men who lived 100 years ago were forcefully dominant. Hell no! That's the exact kind of mentality Judeo-Christians use as an excuse to oppress women, because don't you know, Eve tempted Adam to commit the original sin, so now all women are guilty!
As long as society has the attitude that one sex or the other should be dominant or submissive, it's a sexist society, and therefore problematic. We can only truly be a fair, just society if we quit trying to force roles upon one sex or the other. And right now, you're advocating forcing roles upon somebody because of their sex. You are trying to establish a fundamental difference in status and role between men and women, which is exactly what the patriarchical societies of old did, but for a different sex. That is not fair, that is not just, that is not progressive, that is not right! Sex-based oppression (or oppression of any kind, for that matter) isn't right when it's done against women, it isn't right when it's done against men, it isn't right at all.
And this isn't even taking into account transgenders and transsexuals. A transgender man is supposed to be submissive to a woman even though biologically he was once a woman himself? A transgender woman is allowed to be dominant now because she's no longer a man, or didn't identify as one to begin with? And how the flying fuzz do nonbinaries figure into the whole picture? Why are we choosing whether or not someone is "supposed" to be dominant or submissive based on gender or sex? How about we judge based on a person-by-person basis instead?
People need to learn the difference between allowing equality and forcing it. Allowing equality creates a benevolent, progressive system where people can choose their role and express themselves without fear of being prejudiced and punished. Forcing "equality" creates an oppressive, dictatorial system driven by arbitrary quotas that ignores actual personal merit, dismisses complaints of unprotected demographics, and punishes anybody who dares to speak out against the system's dogmas. Right now I'm living in a society that forces "equality", where the very idea of a person of one particular sex being dominant is viewed as regressive purely because of the sex in question rather than the actual personal dynamic at work.
The funny thing is, if I was a woman writing all this, you'd be telling me I should be dominant because I'm a woman. All I have to do is undergo a sex change and suddenly I qualify for the dominant role, even though I'm still the same person on the inside.
This post is most likely going to get moderated because it's controversial and barely on-topic. Normally I'd spoiler such a lengthy post for the sake of sparing scrolling, but I want my statements to be seen and heard before they get nuked. I'm not going to let fear of punishment silence me prematurely. I have a right to speak out against a perceived injustice, just as everyone else does, and I'm going to exercise that right to the fullest extent possible. I'm saving screencaps of our comments for posterity.
Anyway, counterblue Mana Leak is counterblue Mana Leak. Whoop-de-doo.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Good lord. Can we stay on the topic of Magic cards in the Magic card forums from now on. No one wants to be harangued with politically-charged dogma. I know I don't want to see the MRA talking points ever again.
You're right that none of what you brought up was on topic. Can you please not go into a political tirade because you saw a fish woman magically restraining a human man? Save it for 4chan bro.
You know, your entire post would gain a lot more substance if you established how you're actually suffering in practice, and not just in principle. Like, what are some of the real-world harms you're going through because of a pattern of dominant women being perpetuated in some forms of media?
Go ahead and give me your best actual examples. Let us know the actual forms of your suffering that your post hints at so strongly. Because for each one you give me, I'll give you two examples of the reverse being the case.
Oh dear god.
Okay, that was ******* hilarious.
Mate, you know exactly why it's like that hehe
Same with all pump spells where a creature gets +2/+2 and first strike. Always that way.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
I was agreeing with you hehe