MTG Salvation

Comment Hidden

What.

One of my pet peeves is people using cards in the graveyard and placing them facedown for tokens, often it's the card that generated the token.

Quote from Annorax »

The name on the creature side shouldn't butt up against the mana cost like that; they'd change the name or reduce the size of the type a bit to get some space in there.

The activated ability is also templated wrong; they don't use a legendary creature's full name more than once in the rules text of a card. The second mention should just say "Chandra deals 1 damage..." at the start.

Copyright is definitely 2014 on the creature side as well.

Bad fake is fake. Archive-bound this is.

Quote from Sirius_B »

It is a good red card.
A good red planeswalker no less.
It's so obviously fake it's not even funny.

Quote from mrbrightside »

Card on the left says "2014" next to the copyright info.
Card on the right says "2015" next to the copyright info.

#caseclosed

It's funny how "obviously" fake that people thought it was at first

Quote from EvincarCrovax »

You guys seem very generous selling things at or below TCG low. In my area here everyone wants SCG or TCG player high for their cards. Stores are also fairly pricey, usually cards are at or above SCG values.

Well, if you want a full-proof way to buy a card at TCG low, here it is:

Buy the card at tcgplayer.com

Real Life: The MTG MMO



Explore the incredibly vast wold, Visit Games stores to acquire new cards to make your deck more powerful. Play against real people from all over your geographical area.
Travel to massive Thousand-player events to show off your skills.

Can you reach the top of the Pro Tour?

Quote from TomCat26 »

Quote from Stairc »

I would say that would make you a nerd with a very different skill set from other engineers. I'd say most engineers work day by day with numbers as their source material, notwithstanding the usual meeting or 'TPS report'. The ability to comprehend the main point of arguments and communication in general is what I'm getting at

It seems we've gone from, "Nerds miss the big picture" to, "Engineers have trouble easily communicating with non-engineers."

Okay then.

This is precisely what I mean by missing the big picture. Let's take a look at what happened.
Let's say you win at making your point ok?

You managed to show Tomcat is dumb. He went from nerds miss the big picture to engineers have trouble communicating with non-engineers. You nit picked at something definition based, and there has been no substantive advancement on any point of particular merit.

I'm showing this to you because even if you are correct, even if I choose to stand down, all you have shown is that you object to the ambiguity of the term "big picture".

Do you think I opened this thread because I wanted to do nothing more than argue about the breadth of the term "big picture"?
Probably not.

That's what I mean when nerds miss out on the big picture. I had an intent to try to communicate an idea. You however are critiquing the form in how I broached the topic.
It's pedantic, and if you win, you still win nothing.

If I concede, all you win is a me opening another thread this time worded in a way that is more satisfying to you.
It just completely misses the point.

Ask yourself this: In your opinion, what is the most valuable subject matter or content exchanged between you and I in the last few responses?

In my opinion, there is almost no value, because like I said, even if you win, you might get me to use another term besides 'big picture'. You might get me to word something differently.

Now Take a look at my exchange with Iso. What value was exchanged there? Alot. We didn't necessarily agree, but he laid forth an outline for how nerds generally think, and I critiqued the consequences of that pattern of thinking. This is substantive content. This is an example of engaging the authors point and purpose. One doesn't have to agree, but at least there is substance exchanged.

It looks like you're missing the point behind what Staric is saying. You're not seeing the big picture.

It looks to me like he disagrees with your core observation that nerds tend not to see the big picture.
He also looks like he's saying that your entire thesis is unclear, since "nerds" and "big picture" can mean different things depending on the specific context.


I kinda agree with him. I haven't known nerds to fail to see the big picture any more than other people, and you really shown me anything that can convince me that your observation is the correct one

The Equilorians were apparently pretty darn powerful. It's hard to say whether or not they were more powerful than Urza and Yawgmoth. They were certainly more knowledgeable though.

Quote from Sephon19 »

First, "bad" cards need to exit. Not just per definition (remember that all cards are good in a vaccuum. All cards need weaknesses relative to other cards regardless of what you do - otherwise your variations in card design would be hugely limited and the game wouldn't exist anymore) but secondly:

That does not make any sense. What "bad cards exist" means to me that you have a class of cards that you always want to play(the good cards) and a class of cards that you never want to play if you can avoid it(the bad cards). That is the opposite of ALL cards having a weakness relative to other cards.

Because it allows better players to construct better decks and win more. This is true in any level of play, be it limited, constructed or kitchen table Magic. It's impossible to get all cards at equal functional strength, otherwise the game would pretty much suck. Now, why does it mean we have cards as ineffecient as we do? Well, from the top of my head:

What you're describing is a very very shallow definition of skill. Anyone can just look up which cards are "good" and which cards are "bad". When there's a class of just inferior cards, it takes almost no skill at all to identify them. It's a lot more skill testing when you ask a player to choose between goblin guide and pyroclasm, than when you ask them to choose between goblin guide and Smoldering Efreet

Fourthly, I don't know if you remember your entry into Magic (that is, if you entered Magic with your buddies around say age fourteen, without going to FNMs and learning tournaments exist and what card advantage is etc), but when you're a kitchen table player, there's a huge amount of deck building space to explore. Getting variant cards and realizing that some cards are better than others, building your deck with the few pieces you get when you buy boosters... That experience is incredibly exciting and one of the reasons Magic sells so well. Making opening boosters an exciting lottery is one of the reasons the game is addictive. This also has to do with Mythic rares, that are always splashy in some way, either having a huge effect, being incredibly flavorful or being a powerful tournament card. Regardless of how ripped off you feel when you open a crap rare, the booster variance has huge upside in that it's simply that fun to open a booster, both to old and new players. Magic's sense of exploration both through tournament deck crafting and newbie card/strategy discovery is why the metagame is so amazing - throughout all levels of play.

Not very many people are arguing about variant cards. The problem is with the bad, uninteresting cards such as pillarfield ox, hill giant, smoldering efreet, and the like. Sure, cards like that might add a lot more tedium toward deck building, but in the end, they don't make it more interesting in the least.

Varied and unique cards are fine. It's okay to have unplayed cards. Cards like one with nothing and Heroes' Reunion are okay because they actually do something that no other card does (at least no other card in a modern frame). It's the bulk that's the issue.

By not putting "Haste" on the token, you can print one token for spells that make both hasty and non-hasty tokens. See Goblinslide vs. Hordeling Outburst in Khans of Tarkir.

Comment Hidden

That makes absolutely no sense, especially given that women tend to be socialized to apologize for conflict even if they aren't at fault at all. There are a lot of posts that seem to exist only to belittle the two women for not knowing how their cards work (despite being fairly casual and this being a prerelease), but this one seems to go a step farther than most, and that's rather unfortunate.

If you really want to believe my comment was meant to make this about sex, then go ahead, but you're very wrong. I wasn't making this a feminist argument. I was stating the obvious. People apologize when they feel like something is their fault. This particular sister felt it was her, or her sister's fault, that the conflict arose, so she apologized. You can't claim that they apologized just because they're women, because that is definitely NOT what I said. I'm taking this at human level, not at a gender-based level. It is rather unfortunate that you'd take my comment out of context and use it to belittle me in a way that you claim makes me sexist. Frankly, I'm offended. Not only that, but the fact that people want to make everything a sex-based issue is sad. Can't you look at a situation and realize that these are all people? Not everything is a gender issue, and not everyone who agrees with Spike Squared is a sexist. I'm not belittling them because they are women, and I'm 100% sure I am not making this a sexist issue, so maybe you should stop accusing people of it.

Also, I don't get how you think it doesn't make sense? The definition of apologize is as follows: Expressing regret over something one has done wrong. With this in mind, one must look at this situation and assume the team that apologized was in the wrong. That's literally the nature of apologies. If you don't get it, I'm sorry. It is crystal clear.

Quote from Teia Rabishu »

Quote from Sam I am »

Since playing by the rules is the still the only allegation against them in this thread, my opinion that they did nothing wrong still stands. Vague "trust me, it was really bad" statements hold no water with me.

I think the bigger concern is their clearly unsportsmanlike behaviour, which is problematic at all rules enforcement levels. Don't downplay foul behaviour like it's not a real issue, because that's the kind of attitude that legitimizes acting like a boor and ultimately pushes newer players away.

Not allowing someone to take back a legal mistake is unsportsmanlike behavior?

Quote from asmallcat »

Magic, like all "nerdy" communities, has a toxicity problem. Just look at the comments on this cfb video.

http://www.channelfireball.com/videos/channel-marshall-holiday-cube-draft/

It really is a shame, but you see it in a lot of communities around gaming. Not sure what to do about it.

"Nerdy" communities don't have any more of a "toxicity" problem than any other. They only have that reputation because it seems like no one can stop from falling over themselves to say negative things about "nerds".

Is it my imagination, or is the question a slightly modified Trolley problem? (Or, maybe not modified at all.)

"Should you kill X to save >X ?" The common response is "probably not." Certainly "no" when you chance it to "Should you kill X to maybe save >X ?"
I guessing you could even write an algorithm to maximize public positive response.

Quote from Infallible »

This is bull. This infuriates me on a level I didn't know existed. I have personal feelings about this, bc my best friend and boss is a convicted felon. Spent 7 years in prison for manslaughter and came out as the best human being I've ever met in my life. If I get him into Magic and he gets on the PT will this happen to him too? Zach can't even have a ******* facebook now because of Drew Levin and the rest of the angry SJW's who don't even know what really happened between Zach and that girl.

I'm on the side he shouldn't be banned, but there is no way I'll sign that petition, and it's not because I'm afraid to stand up for a rapist but rather because it completely misses the point. The point is that if Wizards is going to ban people (which is completely within their right to do) they need to be doing so based on specific articulated and transparent policies and not singling out random unpopular people. "Banning Zach Jesse" is not an ok policy, "banning sex offenders" is ok policy even if I disagree that doing so makes Magic a better game.

Let me try to articulate what I see as the problem here. There's no question that Wizards, as a private company, has the legal right to ban whomever they please for essentially any reason they please. The relevant question is whether Wizards' decision was prudent and whether they've established a good precedent for when this type of issue arises again in the future.

Let's step away from the specific person and crime for a moment, and ask the madlibs version of the question: "How should Wizards handle the situation where Player has been convicted of Serious Crime?"

Broadly speaking, there are two ways they could go about it. Option 1 is to have a rules-based approach. For example, have a rule written down that lists certain types of convictions that result in automatic banning. So far, Wizards doesn't have a policy like this. Option 2 is the case-by-case approach. Have someone look at each case as it arises and determine whether a banning is warranted. This is the approach Wizards has taken.

For the case-by-case approach to work, there needs to be at least one clearly defined end goal. Otherwise, the process will be random and arbitrary. Wizards hasn't clearly stated what its ultimate goal(s) are here, but I've heard two thrown around. First, the goal might be to maximize player safety at tournaments - both actual safety and the perception or feeling of safety. Second, the goal might be to avoid negative public opinion about WotC or competitive Magic.

Based on the circumstances, I don't think the safety goal is playing much of a role in the Zach Jesse banning. As others have argued, he seems to be rehabilitated and there is nothing that indicates a risk of re-offending. Another issue is that, while I'm not aware of anyone ever having been raped at an MTG tournament, thefts are extremely common. If Wizards was concerned foremost about safety, they would be hyper-vigilant about anyone with a theft-related criminal record.

So the only goal that remains is managing and improving public perception. It should be obvious that this is Wizards' primary motivation for the ban, and clearly there are good reasons for a company like Wizards to care about its public image. But let me suggest that this is a questionable goal to pursue through bannings. If Wizards makes case-by-case banning decisions on the basis of public perception, it's very easy to end up in a world where (1) bans are arbitrary and unjust, and (2) the list of bannable offenses is unpredictable and potentially limitless. The arbitrariness component comes from the fact that the ability of the public to care about something is limited so only the squeakiest wheel will get the grease. If two people with similar criminal records enter the same tournament but only one gets their name and offense tweeted about, then only the one who got tweeted about will be banned. The other person's crime didn't draw attention and thus there is no public perception reason to ban them. This is manifestly unjust. The potential for growing the list of bannable offenses is possibly even more concerning. For example, why should bannable offenses be limited to crimes? What about expressing an unpopular opinion? If someone gets on the MTGS debate forums and expresses opposition to gay marriage or expresses support for the Baltimore rioters, these types of opinions could spread and result in public backlash. Should this be grounds for a ban? What about Jim Davis' SCG article? Some people thought that article was sexist, why shouldn't he be banned for it? Or maybe it comes out that a very popular pro committed a serious crime, but this pro is so popular that most people don't care and want to let it slide. Should the banning criteria be based on a popularity/likability contest?

It's easy to see how an ad-hoc banning policy based on public perception is throwing the door wide open for problems down the line. If Wizards thinks that certain criminal convictions need to be off limits at tournaments, it needs to set out a clear, written policy.

Quote from asmallcat »

Now, obviously this has little to do with whether or not a convicted rapist should be banned from playing a card game, but every time someone says something awful and has to deal with the consequences, and every time the ever-shrinking proportion of shrieking conservatives jumps up to shout about how unfair it is that we no longer turn a blind eye to this crap, it makes me smile.

This really isn't a conservative/liberal issue. It's a popular/unpopular issue.

It so happens today that liberal social values are enjoying enormous popularity (and as a supporter of things like gay marriage and gender equality, I'm happy about that). But things have not always been this way, and might not be this way in the future. What if another 9/11 happens and anyone who doesn't come off as a super-patriotic American is suddenly seen with suspicion and moral disapproval? It's happened before and could happen again. Would you favor WotC banning someone for protesting US involvement in a war or for sharing pro-communist quotes on Twitter?

And another poster brought up atheism. A shockingly large number of people think that atheists are immoral or just all-around bad people. Should Wizards be banning atheists? Why not, if it turned out that the public favored doing so?

Ensnaring bridge!

The Zach Jesse story was so ridiculous that I wrote a 3 page letter to WotC and cc'd their local newspaper. Hopefully that will get some traction and have WotC explain what is going on.

WotC's actions epitomize the idea of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Zach's crime pre-dates the banning by 10 years, and WotC has no proof since then that Zach has committed any other crimes.

Their pretense of community safety has only backfired. The question players should ask is whether WotC intends to ban "undesirables" from the game and who counts as one. Apparently an old conviction for drugs doesn't count. What if Donald Trump wants to play? What if Chick-fil-A wants to open a store? The idea of judging people outside their conduct at the table is appalling and I think constitutes a massive intrusion into a person's privacy. Nobody in the "pro" Magic community is a paid athlete where the media follows them all the time. Players follow our MtG "pros" when they are primarily playing Magic. We don't usually look to them for dating, financial, or social advice. They are not the proto-typical "role models" you think of. What they do outside their game time should primarily be their own business. WotC is not a nanny-state, nor should they be. What anybody has done in the distant past should especially not be WotC's business unless recent events dictate otherwise. So far, I haven't seen a thing.

That said, WotC's policy is hamfisted and Zach's ban needs to be reversed. If he is going to be banned for any period of time, WotC needs to articulate some guidelines and show how it applies. Clearly Zach's banning is no longer a "private matter," which is the weasle-word used by companies and the government to say "we really don't want to explain ourselves." This is now a public concern of great importance to the MtG community.

If nothing changes, WotC needs to have all players fill out a questionnaire under penalty of perjury, so WotC has fair access to ALL potentially embarrassing/concerning/damaging information to the brand, such as have you ever stolen anything, lied to your mother, overused your credit card, did drugs, cheated on an exam, cheated on an SO, thinks Greedo shot first, and so forth. Otherwise, you are going to have opposition researchers like Levin (look up his bio, he used to do political campaign work) pick out individuals for targeting and with a few followers, persecute individuals into an arbitrary punishment by WotC.