My pool in Vegas actually had 2x Goyfs and I passed it. I ended up not making day 2 so I regret the decision in retrospect, but I value making day 2 more than whatever that is worth so it was a chance I was willing to take.
The start time doesn't matter as much to me as long as the content quality is good whenever it does go live. The biggest problem is the announce team. I don't want to call out specific people and some are better than others, but as a whole, they are unacceptable. There should be a pro in the booth at all times, two if possible.
I'm confused about how this issue has escalated to the point that you sound legitimately angry. If I went to give one of my guests a cheap beer and they complained, my response would calmly be, "yeah man, I told you this is what I'd have." Is this what you said or did you act immediately offended? How did they respond? How did you expect them to respond? I would assume they most likely didn't fully read the invitation (an easily forgiveable mistake). If you expected them to just drink it to be polite or something, you are in the wrong. No one is obligated to do something actively unpleasant at what should be a fun event. As I see it, they have the following choices:
1. Choke it down
2. Leave
3. Run out to the store
4. Hang-out and not drink
5. Hang-out, not drink, and constantly complain all night
If they did any of the first four, you should be totally cool with it (although, like I said, you have no right to expect #1). If they sat around and complained all night, they were being rude and only then do you have a right to be angry. Your premise that they should be grateful regardless doesn't hold though. You know the expression, "it's the thought that counts?" If your thought was, "hmm...what will my guests most enjoy?" and they still ***** on your effort, yeah, they're ********s. But your thought was, "ok...what is cheapest?" It's certainly a valid way to approach shopping, it just doesn't demand the same degree of gratefulness given that it was inherently about yourself. Granted, I realize you could have just provided nothing, but the thing is, to some of them, you may as well have.
In the future, rather than cut out some of your friends, this could be solved with a 15 second text. "Hey man, I'm buying <whatever> again and you didn't seem thrilled about it last time, so feel free to bring whatever you want." They can do with that what they want, but at least they're forced to a knowledge that the onus is on them if they want something enjoyable to drink.
If I'm an interviewer for an unskilled labor job, I really don't care why you want what you want.
Yes, I feel free to not hire you simply because you are both less available, and, more importantly, seem less concerned with doing whatever it takes to get this job - which makes me think you don't want it as much and will be less motivated to do quality work within it.
Is it "fair to you"? Who cares, your the one who came here to want to enter into an arrangement with me and the company. I don't owe you a job, no one does, I'm simply here to select the person who will be the most reliable. If there's any equivalent applicants who seem to be making themselves more available, well guess who I hire. This is a job any idiot can do, but only the motivated will bother to do well, and I'm suppose to choose the applicant who doesn't bother to make herself available during the very first week of the job.
This. This is what you're missing OP.
You have stated many times that her choosing the job over you is NOT the reason you're mad. You're mad because she promised to request a later start date. However, we can see from her actions that during the interview she concluded that merely asking could be threatening to her chances of getting the job. Given this, you being upset at her breaking this promise is equivalent to you being upset this she didn't put her job in jeopardy for you. Even if you genuinely didn't want her to turn down the job for you (and I believe this is the case), your actions suggest otherwise once she's realized that making the request you wanted could be risky.
Should she have not made this promise in the first place? Perhaps, but at the time she made it, she likely thought it would be no big deal to make the request, so she made the promise to make you happy. During the interview she got new information and was immediately forced to choose between keeping her promise and hopefully getting the job. She chose the job assuming that you would understand this.
So I think the misunderstanding is within your question of "do interviewers really expect interviewees to not have a life?" The answer, as least for unskilled laborers, is, "they don't care. They just need bodies when they need them. And those bodies are a dime a dozen."
You need to understand that breaking a promise does not inherently mean someone is not trustworthy. Someone is untrustworthy when their intent is to deceive.
Who started this 'white border cards aren't legal' idea?
The fourth set ever released was white bordered, there have been white bordered cards for years.
Do you think people had to go out and get beta cards because revised was a legal set but white border cards weren't...?
White bordered cards were never illegal. Only things like Portal, Starter, and un sets were not tournament legal when they were printed, and that's not because of white borders.
Nobody said they weren't legal. I'm just suggesting an immediately identifiable way to identify non-standard cards. Telling a new player that the cards with a white border are for a different purpose is a lot easier than referring them to a list of cards they'd have to memorize or an easy to miss set symbol.
I respectfully disagree. White borders are atrocious imo.
I agree and that's precisely the point. It creates a large price disparity between the attractive and unattractive versions ensuring that longtime owners maintain their investment without locking out new players who just want to play on a more modest budget.
Make them white bordered too. This makes their illegality crystal clear for standard players, ensures that old versions retain 100% of their value, and ensures that the price of the new copies stay dirt cheap for players trying to enter the format.
Yeah because they play one of the other 9 or so formats that aren't limited...
Having cards that are only meaningful in 10% of formats is really annoyingly wasteful. That's not usually true of any other formats. Even commander's influence on a higher number of legendary things doesn't make them USELESS in other formats, just less useful than they could have been in a playset.
I posted to defend Boulderfall against erroneous claims that it's bad in limited. If someone happens to not be a fan of limited that is a preference they're welcome to have, but frankly, I'd suggest that they get used to it, because it isn't possible to make every card constructed worthy.
It's very easy to separate the good limited players from the bad limited players in this thread.
To recap:
1. This card is a removal spell that will alway reach the player the wants it (the RG player) or the player that needs it (the guy who wasn't able to pick up better removal).
2. Not only is it removal, but it's mass removal.
3. The notion that only gigantic creatures matter in the late game is silly. Midsized creatures will be topdecked. Bestow creatures will fall off. Deathtouch guys will stall games.
4. This card kills people (even in situations where your opponent has stabilized the board).
5. This card triggers heroic (likely in addition to doing the above).
6. This card is an instant.
7. This card is common.
Is this a good card? No. Does this card fill enough roles to justify its existence and warrant consideration by a limited player? Absolutely. Granted, that limited player will usually correctly conclude that be has better options. It's a good thing for cards like this (underpowered and versatile) to exist, because it is very skill testing to be able to recognize when you're in the rare situation where that bad card is the card you want. One of the strengths of Theros limited is the depth of sideboards. The vast majority of people don't even bother with them though.
Yet people are calling this bad with reason like, "you'd rather just have another monstrous creature or a cheaper burn spell." Of course you would, but you don't always have that luxury. That's what makes limited fun and different from constructed. You need to find the 40 optimal cards for each game out of what you have.
I'd like to clarity something here. I'm not against my son being religious. I don't care what he chooses, even if he chooses to not be inquisitive at all, just so long as he gets that choice. All my life, it has been wrong to ask questions. It has been wrong to disagree with parts of the message. It has been wrong not to go to church, even though I don't agree with everything. It has been wrong to want to know about other religions. I will not let my son grow up under that level of influence.
Just as an update, things have only been getting worse. My wife and brother are still the only ones who seem to know about my change of beliefs. I haven't spoken to my brother a second time yet, but I have had a few more conversations with my wife. I'm not getting through to her at all.
She has no sense of compromise about this. She's demanding that I never discuss my beliefs with our son and that I lie to him if he ever does ask faith questions. She has started trying to restrict which friends I'm in contact with (the ones she knows are atheists - never mind that I'm not an atheist). The conversations I've had with her lately have usually ended with her resorting to insults.
"You don't love him enough [to lie to him about my faith]."
"You just made up what you believe."
"You believe stupid things that don't make any sense."
"Well, you just believe anything you're told these days."
"Because I don't want you to hang out with him so you can hear him say 'yay, you're an idiot like me now.'"
I'm trying to hang on here, but I don't know how much of this I can take.
Without giving my whole backstory, I'll just say I can relate. My situation is better than yours, but I still felt physically ill reading about your situation. I'm really sorry.
That said, to put it bluntly, your request to compromise is illogical. The given is that your wife believes that any path that is not Christianity leads to Hell. For better or worse, that is the reality. This means that her and your son's salvation are of infinite value to her. Nothing compares. Not her health, not your marriage, nothing. There is literally nothing for her to gain from a compromise about how to raise your son that even begins to compare to the risk she would be taking. She is 100% incentivized to protect your son from you. Some Christians are not as extreme as this, however, it sounds like in the case of your wife, she is. You will get no compromise, or at least not an enforceable one.
But then, this was basically stated in the OP, so I'm not telling you something you don't know. This means you want someone to tell you you're wrong or that it'll get better. I'm sorry, but nothing you've said leads me to believe that that is the case. I agree with the person who said to get a good lawyer.
(Forgive me if any assumption I made were incorrect, I was trying not to project my own experiences, but it's hard.)
The point here is not that this card is inherently powerful. The OP has stated numerous times that it won't go in high tier decks. Given this, every attempt to argue that this card is "bad" is completely missing the point. Yes, we could all name dozens of more powerful draw spells. However, this is EDH, not vintage. Given a game consisting of cards at a comparable power level, this card will create interesting game states far more often than those other equally powerful cards. For this reason, I think this card is very well designed. If you're decks are all optimized I'm not surprised you dislike this card, but I'd much rather play in a game where this card is relevant.
Bad rares do not exist. One does not have to be blindly loyal to WotC to realize they're not BSing when they say, "if you don't like a card, it just means its not for you." I looked through the rares in M14. I can count on one hand the number of cards I find suspect, and I'm just one person. I'm sure there's an audience I'm not aware of for the few rest. Even if there's not, that's a very reasonable failure rate. I did the same for Dragon's Maze with the same result. I expect the trend would continue if I kept moving back. If you think it's even possible for every rare to be playable in your pet format, you don't understand game design. If you think it's possible for every rare to be worth more than the price of a pack, you don't understand economics.
Commons/uncommons are another topic all together. If every common were constructed playable, you'd have, at best, the most boring limited format ever.
And Stab Wound is a perfect example, the card is absolute garbage in any format other than draft. It should never have been printed. Leave out limited chaff and putt quality cards inn sets. MM had quality cards and it was th ebst drfat set ever. Cubes are the perfect example of how incredibly powerful sets of cards with ZERO jank in them can be an absolute blast to draft.
You very clearly have no clue what makes Limited function if Stab Wound is your choice of card to call out.
Constructed is about finding the most efficient way to get a job done. How large do you honestly think the design space of cards that would see play along side Doom Blade is? Try this...M14 has six black non-Doom Blade non-creature removal spells. Can you design six removal spells that are all playable in standard (we won't even bother with eternal formats) along side Doom Blade? Let's assume you can. Can you do it four times a year indefinitely without blatantly power creeping? Again, for the sake of argument, let's assume you can. Would any of those cards involve as many decisions as Stab Wound? Stab Wound was a brilliant design in that it functioned as a threat 50% of the time and an answer 50% of the time. Getting that much utility unto a card in such a simple and concise way is awesome. Or I guess draft decks could just have a bunch of Doom Blades...sounds great...
Also, even bringing up cube shows that you only speak for experienced players. Granted, I'm not without my own issues with NWO, but guess what? It's necessary and it works. Complexity creep is a real thing. I know what I'm doing and even I was overwhelmed during my first cube draft. Sure, it's fun now, but that's because I had the foundation to learn the archetypes. If I had barely known the rules? I'd be playing Dominion or yugioh right now. And ultimately having more players in the game benefits everyone.
I will grant that I dislike the existence of cards like Search Warrant. I refuse to believe that anyone is going out of their way to play this card. I don't think commons that aren't even playable in limited need to exist. I would much prefer weak cards that enable archetypes (Barrage of Expendables) or cards that play interestingly (Stab Wound). Whether they also happen to be constructed playable (Grisly Salvage) or not (Act of Treason) doesn't matter. If they do, great, but we already established that the design space isn't large enough for all of them to.
So what do you guys keep in mind when trading away cards? I cant stand the feeling of trading cards then they increase in value by a lot.
This is why, like you said, it's important to not trade down or across formats without being very careful. If you traded your Force of Wills for Voices, yeah, in a couple years you'd really be kicking yourself. If, instead, you traded them for Dark Confidants you're relatively safe, because Bobs are just as likely to increase in value as Forces.
Or trading cards you don't need now, but 6 months later you wish you still had them.
No problem. One of two things are true. 1) You're still happy to have the cards you traded said cards away for. 2) You no longer what the cards you traded for. If 1 is true, your situation is no better or worse than the situation you would be in had you not made that trade six months ago. In both cases there are two cards you want, one of which you have. No reason to be mad. If 2 is true, just find someone who wants the cards you traded for and who has the cards you traded away. Assuming you didn't make a bad trade in the first place (see above), it's not like your collection lost equity by making the first trade.
Feeling bad for winning by a long shot against a kid is a personal hang up and not an issue with a format, store or game. It's worth asking yourself this: Is the kid still enjoying the game? Is he coming back every week despite losing to older players?
Personally, I love playing against younger kids. Not because they're easier to beat than the next guy, but because it's the only time I see people who come to an event that have completely original decks that are just playing something they love to play; not having copied a list off of the latest Top 8 that they may or may not even enjoy playing, just for the sake of winning. It reminds me of when I first started playing and I thought Prophecy was the coolest thing ever just because I loved the expansion symbol and had an Avatar of Fury. Playing a kid is a blessing, for me, because it gets tiresome playing uptight, hand-shuffling wannabe pro locals that take the game too seriously despite probably never seeing Day 2 of an event larger than FNM in their life.
Feeling bad for beating a kid is a sign that too many people lose sight of Magic just being a game. Does the kid care that you're running fetchlands and he isn't? Probably not - if he gets to play the Planeswalker he pulled out of a pack his parents bought him, he'll be happier than he would have winning without it. Too often, Magic players try to assume their feelings for how the game should be or what is right or wrong applies to everyone.
So in conclusion, there's no "problem" here or anything that needs fixed. The only thing that needs fixing is a lot of player's need to push their opinion of how the game should be on everyone else; and, for those players to quit assuming how another player will feel, regardless of their age or experience.
I think you completely missed the point of the OP. He isn't saying he feels bad for dream crushing these younger players. He didn't even say they were unhappy, quite the opposite in fact. I find it odd that you seem to be accusing OP of losing sight of this just being a game. No, actually, that's all he's asking for...an engaging game of magic the gathering. What he's getting, however, is a game of solitaire. Granted, this problem is his alone, not the kids' nor the store owner's, but that doesn't make the complaint unreasonable, especially when you consider that the terrible prize payout means the entry fee is really only paying for an experience. Basically it's just an unfortunate situation because no one is doing anything wrong pre se.
1. Choke it down
2. Leave
3. Run out to the store
4. Hang-out and not drink
5. Hang-out, not drink, and constantly complain all night
If they did any of the first four, you should be totally cool with it (although, like I said, you have no right to expect #1). If they sat around and complained all night, they were being rude and only then do you have a right to be angry. Your premise that they should be grateful regardless doesn't hold though. You know the expression, "it's the thought that counts?" If your thought was, "hmm...what will my guests most enjoy?" and they still ***** on your effort, yeah, they're ********s. But your thought was, "ok...what is cheapest?" It's certainly a valid way to approach shopping, it just doesn't demand the same degree of gratefulness given that it was inherently about yourself. Granted, I realize you could have just provided nothing, but the thing is, to some of them, you may as well have.
In the future, rather than cut out some of your friends, this could be solved with a 15 second text. "Hey man, I'm buying <whatever> again and you didn't seem thrilled about it last time, so feel free to bring whatever you want." They can do with that what they want, but at least they're forced to a knowledge that the onus is on them if they want something enjoyable to drink.
This. This is what you're missing OP.
You have stated many times that her choosing the job over you is NOT the reason you're mad. You're mad because she promised to request a later start date. However, we can see from her actions that during the interview she concluded that merely asking could be threatening to her chances of getting the job. Given this, you being upset at her breaking this promise is equivalent to you being upset this she didn't put her job in jeopardy for you. Even if you genuinely didn't want her to turn down the job for you (and I believe this is the case), your actions suggest otherwise once she's realized that making the request you wanted could be risky.
Should she have not made this promise in the first place? Perhaps, but at the time she made it, she likely thought it would be no big deal to make the request, so she made the promise to make you happy. During the interview she got new information and was immediately forced to choose between keeping her promise and hopefully getting the job. She chose the job assuming that you would understand this.
So I think the misunderstanding is within your question of "do interviewers really expect interviewees to not have a life?" The answer, as least for unskilled laborers, is, "they don't care. They just need bodies when they need them. And those bodies are a dime a dozen."
You need to understand that breaking a promise does not inherently mean someone is not trustworthy. Someone is untrustworthy when their intent is to deceive.
Nobody said they weren't legal. I'm just suggesting an immediately identifiable way to identify non-standard cards. Telling a new player that the cards with a white border are for a different purpose is a lot easier than referring them to a list of cards they'd have to memorize or an easy to miss set symbol.
I agree and that's precisely the point. It creates a large price disparity between the attractive and unattractive versions ensuring that longtime owners maintain their investment without locking out new players who just want to play on a more modest budget.
I posted to defend Boulderfall against erroneous claims that it's bad in limited. If someone happens to not be a fan of limited that is a preference they're welcome to have, but frankly, I'd suggest that they get used to it, because it isn't possible to make every card constructed worthy.
To recap:
1. This card is a removal spell that will alway reach the player the wants it (the RG player) or the player that needs it (the guy who wasn't able to pick up better removal).
2. Not only is it removal, but it's mass removal.
3. The notion that only gigantic creatures matter in the late game is silly. Midsized creatures will be topdecked. Bestow creatures will fall off. Deathtouch guys will stall games.
4. This card kills people (even in situations where your opponent has stabilized the board).
5. This card triggers heroic (likely in addition to doing the above).
6. This card is an instant.
7. This card is common.
Is this a good card? No. Does this card fill enough roles to justify its existence and warrant consideration by a limited player? Absolutely. Granted, that limited player will usually correctly conclude that be has better options. It's a good thing for cards like this (underpowered and versatile) to exist, because it is very skill testing to be able to recognize when you're in the rare situation where that bad card is the card you want. One of the strengths of Theros limited is the depth of sideboards. The vast majority of people don't even bother with them though.
Yet people are calling this bad with reason like, "you'd rather just have another monstrous creature or a cheaper burn spell." Of course you would, but you don't always have that luxury. That's what makes limited fun and different from constructed. You need to find the 40 optimal cards for each game out of what you have.
Without giving my whole backstory, I'll just say I can relate. My situation is better than yours, but I still felt physically ill reading about your situation. I'm really sorry.
That said, to put it bluntly, your request to compromise is illogical. The given is that your wife believes that any path that is not Christianity leads to Hell. For better or worse, that is the reality. This means that her and your son's salvation are of infinite value to her. Nothing compares. Not her health, not your marriage, nothing. There is literally nothing for her to gain from a compromise about how to raise your son that even begins to compare to the risk she would be taking. She is 100% incentivized to protect your son from you. Some Christians are not as extreme as this, however, it sounds like in the case of your wife, she is. You will get no compromise, or at least not an enforceable one.
But then, this was basically stated in the OP, so I'm not telling you something you don't know. This means you want someone to tell you you're wrong or that it'll get better. I'm sorry, but nothing you've said leads me to believe that that is the case. I agree with the person who said to get a good lawyer.
(Forgive me if any assumption I made were incorrect, I was trying not to project my own experiences, but it's hard.)
Commons/uncommons are another topic all together. If every common were constructed playable, you'd have, at best, the most boring limited format ever.
You very clearly have no clue what makes Limited function if Stab Wound is your choice of card to call out.
Constructed is about finding the most efficient way to get a job done. How large do you honestly think the design space of cards that would see play along side Doom Blade is? Try this...M14 has six black non-Doom Blade non-creature removal spells. Can you design six removal spells that are all playable in standard (we won't even bother with eternal formats) along side Doom Blade? Let's assume you can. Can you do it four times a year indefinitely without blatantly power creeping? Again, for the sake of argument, let's assume you can. Would any of those cards involve as many decisions as Stab Wound? Stab Wound was a brilliant design in that it functioned as a threat 50% of the time and an answer 50% of the time. Getting that much utility unto a card in such a simple and concise way is awesome. Or I guess draft decks could just have a bunch of Doom Blades...sounds great...
Also, even bringing up cube shows that you only speak for experienced players. Granted, I'm not without my own issues with NWO, but guess what? It's necessary and it works. Complexity creep is a real thing. I know what I'm doing and even I was overwhelmed during my first cube draft. Sure, it's fun now, but that's because I had the foundation to learn the archetypes. If I had barely known the rules? I'd be playing Dominion or yugioh right now. And ultimately having more players in the game benefits everyone.
I will grant that I dislike the existence of cards like Search Warrant. I refuse to believe that anyone is going out of their way to play this card. I don't think commons that aren't even playable in limited need to exist. I would much prefer weak cards that enable archetypes (Barrage of Expendables) or cards that play interestingly (Stab Wound). Whether they also happen to be constructed playable (Grisly Salvage) or not (Act of Treason) doesn't matter. If they do, great, but we already established that the design space isn't large enough for all of them to.
This is why, like you said, it's important to not trade down or across formats without being very careful. If you traded your Force of Wills for Voices, yeah, in a couple years you'd really be kicking yourself. If, instead, you traded them for Dark Confidants you're relatively safe, because Bobs are just as likely to increase in value as Forces.
No problem. One of two things are true. 1) You're still happy to have the cards you traded said cards away for. 2) You no longer what the cards you traded for. If 1 is true, your situation is no better or worse than the situation you would be in had you not made that trade six months ago. In both cases there are two cards you want, one of which you have. No reason to be mad. If 2 is true, just find someone who wants the cards you traded for and who has the cards you traded away. Assuming you didn't make a bad trade in the first place (see above), it's not like your collection lost equity by making the first trade.
I think you completely missed the point of the OP. He isn't saying he feels bad for dream crushing these younger players. He didn't even say they were unhappy, quite the opposite in fact. I find it odd that you seem to be accusing OP of losing sight of this just being a game. No, actually, that's all he's asking for...an engaging game of magic the gathering. What he's getting, however, is a game of solitaire. Granted, this problem is his alone, not the kids' nor the store owner's, but that doesn't make the complaint unreasonable, especially when you consider that the terrible prize payout means the entry fee is really only paying for an experience. Basically it's just an unfortunate situation because no one is doing anything wrong pre se.