You do realize that Magic does try and market more towards people who are inclined to purchase the product right? It's called 'A Demographic' people learn that in Marketing, Advertising, or hell, anything you wish to do that involves sales to other people.
But your use of the word sex object is a buzzword like 'Terrorist' at the US NRA convention I swear. You use it without really understanding the meaning.
Here's some Merriam Webster for you.
The most 'sexist' artwork that I could find in the past three years has been Triumph of Ferocity
And thats cause it shows a guy hurting a girl!
Well you know what the great thing is? Equality is equality. Men hit men, and if you want full equality women are going to be apart of the Men hitting things club.
I don't shed a tear when I Murder an Olivia Voldaren because she has breasts. I personally don't care.
You know what bugs me most about Triumph of Ferocity? When it lands and I don't have the creature in play with the highest Power. I could care less if Garruk impales Liliana on his Sharp-Pointed Stabber Glove. In fact it'd be awesome, Liliana usually rips my hand apart.
Your comment on sexism is as frivolous and negligible as the people finding the Virgin Mary in tortillas.
Perhaps you're right and my use of the word 'sex object' was incorrect. I was looking for a word that conveyed women being portrayed in a sexual manner merely for the titillation of males.
But your following points aren't really arguing against anything that I've said. I've got no problem with cards like Triumph of Ferocity, especially when you look at Triumph of Cruelty at the same time. They depict two powerful individuals, one male and one female, fighting it out. In one, the male has the upper hand, in another, the female has the upper hand. I don't find that sexist.
I also don't have a problem with you Murdering an Olivia Voldaren. You're not murdering her because she's a female, you're murdering her because she's a powerful opponent who'll defeat you if you don't.
You've missed my point, and it was that my problem isn't with women fighting with men, defeating men and being defeated by men. That's fine. That's actually progressive. My problem is with the sexualised nature of cards like Liliana of the Veil, Deadly Allure and Skyknight Legionnaire. It's not the fact that these cards depict attractive women, it's the fact that the women in the cards are highly sexualised. That's what my issue is.
To your comments about 'demographics' and 'sales';
Firstly, my argument is not against drawing attractive women. I don't have a problem with cards like Knight Exemplar, for example. That's how you portray a beautiful woman without sexualising her. As that's my issue - sexualisation. There are quite a few attractive men drawn in Magic cards, so there's nothing wrong with drawing attractive women as well. But the attractive men aren't drawn in a sexualised way. So why should the women?
The demographic? Marketing? Return to Ravnica block would have sold just fine without the (admittedly few) cards I take issue with. Magic is a game strong enough to stand on it's own without resorting to sexism. Yes, it is still sexism. Trying to justify it by saying "they're just catering to their demographic!" doesn't make it any less sexist.
I went through every card in Return to Ravnica block and there were maybe two or three problem cards per block, with Gatecrash having the most I think. That's not that many, so Wizards seem to be heading in the right direction. Do you really think that the block would have sold worse if the few problem cards were drawn in a less sexualised manner?
So perhaps I was being a bit too harsh in my initial post, and the problem isn't as great as I originally thought. That's fantastic. That means that fixing it won't be that difficult, because it's not going to take a radical redesign of everything Magic related. It's not that hard to go from two to three to zero.
More on topic with the OP and the thread title, I think we can all agree, no matter what our stances are on the sexism (or lack thereof) in Magic: The Gathering - claiming that a game is sexist because it doesn't show pregnant women swinging axes or hurling fireballs is asinine.
On the whole, I would say that Magic and its community are sexist. Im pretty sure its not the lack of pregancy depection thats the problem and more the fact that 99% of all females are just sex objects.
It's not just the Magic community, it's the gaming culture as a whole.
And I completely agree - saying that a lack of pregnant women is what makes Magic sexist is ridiculous - it's sexist because of the way so many women are portrayed as sex objects.
See this is something that honestly bothers me. There is a difference between Sexism, and preference.
In an artistic medium you have the option to print or portray things of personal preference. WotC portrays a Magical Combat Based world, now when you think about it, the majority of the audience that will enjoy that are Men. Why? Because for the same reason that the majority of Make-Up products will appeal to women.
Its marketing, and branding. WotC can make a sausage fest of a set and of course feminists will complain, 'girl gamers' will complain, but what don't they complain about anymore?
Its people like this that will try and forcibly undermine the artistic right of a company that makes me sad.
The majority of your audience being men does not mean we should be accepting of sexism.
Seriously did you think that through at all before you said it? "Guys prefer looking at cards that portray women as sex objects, so I think it's fine that MtG demeans women. Feminists will complain anyway!"
i'm not the only one, there are 14 other people that think they'd beat the bear...
Then fourteen other people are wrong, unless they've had training with firearms.
You're not beating a bear with a halberd. You'd only get one chance, and do you really think you'd be able to stay calm and deliver a single killing blow when you've got a snarling grizzly bear one second away from tearing you to shreds? You'd swing and fail to kill it on your first strike (you'd only get one hit), the bear would smash into you and you'd be mauled to death.
Even if you luckily managed to get in a good hit and wound it, you're not going to stop the momentum of the bear. It's still smashing into you, you're still going down, and you're still dead.
I'm a 1/1 who gets chased down, mauled and eaten, just like everyone else who doesn't have training in firearms (training in firearms, according to your rules, means they get a gun - and even so, you'd better make sure your shots count. Bears are big and they won't go down to a couple of pot-shots).
I'd like to think that I'd be a 1/3, who'd stand, trade blows and wrestle with the bear, all to an epic soundtrack, but really, I'm a goner.
I can't even climb a tree.
"Don't try to outrun one of Dominia's Grizzlies; it'll catch you, knock you down, and eat you. Of course, you could run up a tree. In that case you'll get a nice view before it knocks the tree down and eats you."
Our group used to dislike them, but over time we've become fine with them. We started using them as a way to test decks before we bought them. Now I also have proxies in decks where I already own the card, but they're in a different deck. I shouldn't have to own two playsets of Restoration Angel just because I'm playing two decks with them in it. Four is enough, so I'll proxy the set in my second deck.
Allowing proxies has also increased the enjoyment of the game for one of our players. He doesn't work and barely has any money, so he can't afford any good cards. The rest of us all play with high to top tier decks with expensive cards in them - he played for awhile with the cards he had and probably had around a 25% - 30% win rate, and would often get depressed while playing. He knew the cards that should be in his deck, but instead he's stuck with the second-rate just because he can't afford the absurd prices of the some of the cards in Standard.
Ever since he started using proxies, he's won at least 50% of his games, possibly more, and he's having much more fun with the game. It's also a lot better for the rest of us, being able to practice against a competitive deck, rather than one with multiple sub-par cards in it.
with the recent prints of Domri rade and gideon, champion of justice its quite clear (unless Domri turns out to be a complete sleeper which i doubt) that we are destined to get nothing but pure crap for planeswalkers becase they don't want another jace the mind sculptor
i dunno i just feel like they should give up on walkers and use the mthic slot for somethin worthwhile. Domri will fit into a few EDh decks, gideon is just awful no matter how hard you try and make him work, so what do you guys think? is it time to drop the walkers?
Nonsense. Jace, Architect of Thought is a very good 'walker, and he's from the second most recent set.
You can't make judgements like that based off of a sample size of one.
Can't stand it. Hate it with a passion. Not that I think it's overpowered or anything, but my opponent getting to search my hand, then pick up my library and go through it, seeing everything in there as they pluck out 3-4 of a card I needed (including that one in my hand I was going to cast next turn) drives me crazy.
My playgroup can attest that nothing makes me tilt more than that card being played against me. If someone I don't know uses it I won't say a word or rage at all, but you know on the inside I'll be seething.
It's basically the deck I've been playing for the last month or so, with minor changes (in come Boros Charm and Aurelia's Fury). I'm sure I'll need to change it more once GTC comes out and I start playing against new decks, but for now, this is what I'm going with.
I need to change the sideboard - just haven't gotten around to sorting it all out yet. I either want 2, 3 or 0 Blind Obediances - I think I'll find room for three first and then see how they test.
Just a one of Aurelia's Fury until I've gotten the chance to test with it a bit. The card seems amazing, but I'll play some games with it before I decide to add more.
Added four Boros Charms because the card is nuts and does everything we need it do. Protecting our threat from a sweeper, removal, combat or burn - or dealing 4 to the face is amazing in a 2cmc instant. The double strike is nearly always useless, but I'm not going to complain about that too much when the other two modes are as good as they are.
This has been my favourite deck in RTR standard so far, and we've gotten a ton of new options with Gatecrash. Can't wait to keep playing, improving and refining.
I really, really like Isperia. And I have no idea why, because she's bad. There's just something about that card I adore. I wish they made her a 4/6 with Vigilance though. =/
Favourite though would have to be Niv-Mizzet, followed closely by Obzedat. Obzedat is definitely the best of the bunch.
Sore losers get my pity. Bad winners just piss me off. Bad winners are definitely worse. I always call out bad winners, and tell them to apologize. Even if they were playing someone else. It's rare around here, but it just really pisses me off.
Me too, I can't stand it. I say very little if I win, online I'll wait for my opponent to gg and then gg back. In person, if I'm playing somebody I don't know I won't say anything until they speak first. If I got really lucky or they got unlucky I'll say something like "Yeah that game was kinda silly ... this game is pretty luck-based."
I used to play Starcraft 2 online a lot, and nothing made me madder than offensive GG's (saying GG as you win, before your opponent concedes the game), or people who called you bad after they beat you (or while they're beating you ... that was worse.)
There's just no excuse for it. If you're winning, why do you feel the need to make your opponent feel like ****? You can be happy about your win without being a dick about it.
One deck I seem to have trouble against is Conley Woods 4 colour midrange deck. It runs creatures like Huntmaster of the Fells, Thragtusk and Armada Wurm, and recasts them from the yard with Unburial Rites if they die. My friend plays it and he's a solid player, and I often lose against it.
I just feel that against that deck, bouncing his guys doesn't really do much for me, and I feel like the underdog in the matchup. Am I approaching it wrong? How do you guys appraoch that kind of game, where your opponent is just getting creatures and life when you bounce their stuff? What kinds of cards would you side in, what would your game plan be?
And on that note, does anyone have any suggestions for changes to the deck? It has felt solid so far, but suggestions and advice are still welcome. =)
Being a bad winner is much worse than being a bad loser in my opinion.
I would rather hear my opponent say "Ugh ffs your deck is cheap why did I lose that game" when I beat him, than hear him say "HAHAH my god your deck is so bad and I'm such a better player than you!" when he beats me.
Being a sore loser is explainable and can be forgiven, the game can be frustrating sometimes, especially when your opponent seems to have all the luck. But once you've got a level head, you can apologize, often with no hard feelings.
Being a bad winner though is just being an ass. There's no excuse for it.
Perhaps you're right and my use of the word 'sex object' was incorrect. I was looking for a word that conveyed women being portrayed in a sexual manner merely for the titillation of males.
But your following points aren't really arguing against anything that I've said. I've got no problem with cards like Triumph of Ferocity, especially when you look at Triumph of Cruelty at the same time. They depict two powerful individuals, one male and one female, fighting it out. In one, the male has the upper hand, in another, the female has the upper hand. I don't find that sexist.
I also don't have a problem with you Murdering an Olivia Voldaren. You're not murdering her because she's a female, you're murdering her because she's a powerful opponent who'll defeat you if you don't.
You've missed my point, and it was that my problem isn't with women fighting with men, defeating men and being defeated by men. That's fine. That's actually progressive. My problem is with the sexualised nature of cards like Liliana of the Veil, Deadly Allure and Skyknight Legionnaire. It's not the fact that these cards depict attractive women, it's the fact that the women in the cards are highly sexualised. That's what my issue is.
To your comments about 'demographics' and 'sales';
Firstly, my argument is not against drawing attractive women. I don't have a problem with cards like Knight Exemplar, for example. That's how you portray a beautiful woman without sexualising her. As that's my issue - sexualisation. There are quite a few attractive men drawn in Magic cards, so there's nothing wrong with drawing attractive women as well. But the attractive men aren't drawn in a sexualised way. So why should the women?
The demographic? Marketing? Return to Ravnica block would have sold just fine without the (admittedly few) cards I take issue with. Magic is a game strong enough to stand on it's own without resorting to sexism. Yes, it is still sexism. Trying to justify it by saying "they're just catering to their demographic!" doesn't make it any less sexist.
I went through every card in Return to Ravnica block and there were maybe two or three problem cards per block, with Gatecrash having the most I think. That's not that many, so Wizards seem to be heading in the right direction. Do you really think that the block would have sold worse if the few problem cards were drawn in a less sexualised manner?
So perhaps I was being a bit too harsh in my initial post, and the problem isn't as great as I originally thought. That's fantastic. That means that fixing it won't be that difficult, because it's not going to take a radical redesign of everything Magic related. It's not that hard to go from two to three to zero.
More on topic with the OP and the thread title, I think we can all agree, no matter what our stances are on the sexism (or lack thereof) in Magic: The Gathering - claiming that a game is sexist because it doesn't show pregnant women swinging axes or hurling fireballs is asinine.
It's not just the Magic community, it's the gaming culture as a whole.
And I completely agree - saying that a lack of pregnant women is what makes Magic sexist is ridiculous - it's sexist because of the way so many women are portrayed as sex objects.
The majority of your audience being men does not mean we should be accepting of sexism.
Seriously did you think that through at all before you said it? "Guys prefer looking at cards that portray women as sex objects, so I think it's fine that MtG demeans women. Feminists will complain anyway!"
Honestly.
I love Korean cards, so it's particularly awesome.
Then fourteen other people are wrong, unless they've had training with firearms.
You're not beating a bear with a halberd. You'd only get one chance, and do you really think you'd be able to stay calm and deliver a single killing blow when you've got a snarling grizzly bear one second away from tearing you to shreds? You'd swing and fail to kill it on your first strike (you'd only get one hit), the bear would smash into you and you'd be mauled to death.
Even if you luckily managed to get in a good hit and wound it, you're not going to stop the momentum of the bear. It's still smashing into you, you're still going down, and you're still dead.
I'd like to think that I'd be a 1/3, who'd stand, trade blows and wrestle with the bear, all to an epic soundtrack, but really, I'm a goner.
I can't even climb a tree.
"Don't try to outrun one of Dominia's Grizzlies; it'll catch you, knock you down, and eat you. Of course, you could run up a tree. In that case you'll get a nice view before it knocks the tree down and eats you."
Allowing proxies has also increased the enjoyment of the game for one of our players. He doesn't work and barely has any money, so he can't afford any good cards. The rest of us all play with high to top tier decks with expensive cards in them - he played for awhile with the cards he had and probably had around a 25% - 30% win rate, and would often get depressed while playing. He knew the cards that should be in his deck, but instead he's stuck with the second-rate just because he can't afford the absurd prices of the some of the cards in Standard.
Ever since he started using proxies, he's won at least 50% of his games, possibly more, and he's having much more fun with the game. It's also a lot better for the rest of us, being able to practice against a competitive deck, rather than one with multiple sub-par cards in it.
Nonsense. Jace, Architect of Thought is a very good 'walker, and he's from the second most recent set.
You can't make judgements like that based off of a sample size of one.
It didn't pay off this time, but I more than doubled my money on my last box, and broke even on the one before that.
You win some, you lose some.
I did notice more duplicates in this box though. I opened three Diluvian Primordial, two Enter the Infinite, two Whispering Madness and Consuming Abberation.
So multiple rares might be a thing if they actually have changed their system, but multiple crap rares is just bad luck.
Can't stand it. Hate it with a passion. Not that I think it's overpowered or anything, but my opponent getting to search my hand, then pick up my library and go through it, seeing everything in there as they pluck out 3-4 of a card I needed (including that one in my hand I was going to cast next turn) drives me crazy.
My playgroup can attest that nothing makes me tilt more than that card being played against me. If someone I don't know uses it I won't say a word or rage at all, but you know on the inside I'll be seething.
1x Runechanters Pike
Creatures: 15
2x Augur of Bolas
4x Snapcaster Mage
3x Restoration Angel
2x Thundermaw Hellkite
4x Geist of Saint Traft
Instants: 20
4x Thought Scour
3x Azorius Charm
4x Boros Charm
1x Aurelia's Fury
2x Unsummon
2x Izzet Charm
4x Searing Spear
4x Hallowed Fountain
4x Steam Vents
1x Sacred Foundry
3x Clifftop Retreat
4x Glacial Fortress
1x Cavern of Souls
3x Sulfur Falls
1x Moorland Haunt
1x Mountain
1x Plains
1x Slayers' Stronghold
1x Blind Obedience
1x Dispel
1x Negate
1x Detention Sphere
1x Counterflux
1x Sphinx's Revelation
3x Purify the Grave
2x Pillar of Flame
2x Bonfire of the Damned
2x Supreme Verdict
It's basically the deck I've been playing for the last month or so, with minor changes (in come Boros Charm and Aurelia's Fury). I'm sure I'll need to change it more once GTC comes out and I start playing against new decks, but for now, this is what I'm going with.
I need to change the sideboard - just haven't gotten around to sorting it all out yet. I either want 2, 3 or 0 Blind Obediances - I think I'll find room for three first and then see how they test.
Just a one of Aurelia's Fury until I've gotten the chance to test with it a bit. The card seems amazing, but I'll play some games with it before I decide to add more.
Added four Boros Charms because the card is nuts and does everything we need it do. Protecting our threat from a sweeper, removal, combat or burn - or dealing 4 to the face is amazing in a 2cmc instant. The double strike is nearly always useless, but I'm not going to complain about that too much when the other two modes are as good as they are.
This has been my favourite deck in RTR standard so far, and we've gotten a ton of new options with Gatecrash. Can't wait to keep playing, improving and refining.
Favourite though would have to be Niv-Mizzet, followed closely by Obzedat. Obzedat is definitely the best of the bunch.
Me too, I can't stand it. I say very little if I win, online I'll wait for my opponent to gg and then gg back. In person, if I'm playing somebody I don't know I won't say anything until they speak first. If I got really lucky or they got unlucky I'll say something like "Yeah that game was kinda silly ... this game is pretty luck-based."
I used to play Starcraft 2 online a lot, and nothing made me madder than offensive GG's (saying GG as you win, before your opponent concedes the game), or people who called you bad after they beat you (or while they're beating you ... that was worse.)
There's just no excuse for it. If you're winning, why do you feel the need to make your opponent feel like ****? You can be happy about your win without being a dick about it.
Here's my decklist
2x Augur of Bolas
2x Thundermaw Hellkike
3x Geist of Saint Traft
4x Snapcaster Mage
4x Restoration Angel
Instants: 20
1x Dissipate
2x Syncopate
2x Izzet Charm
3x Unsummon
4x Azorius Charm
4x Searing Spear
4x Thought Scour
1x Runechanters Pike
Lands: 24
1x Cavern of Souls
1x Moorland Haunt
1x Desolate Lighthouse
1x Mountain
1x Plains
3x Glacial Fortress
4x Steam Vents
4x Hallowed Fountain
4x Sulfur Falls
4x Clifftop Retreat
1x Dispel
1x Feeling of Dread
1x Negate
1x Counterflux
1x Detention Sphere
1x Sphinx's Revelation
2x Pillar of Flame
2x Bonfire of the Damned
2x Supreme Verdict
3x Purify the Grave
One deck I seem to have trouble against is Conley Woods 4 colour midrange deck. It runs creatures like Huntmaster of the Fells, Thragtusk and Armada Wurm, and recasts them from the yard with Unburial Rites if they die. My friend plays it and he's a solid player, and I often lose against it.
I just feel that against that deck, bouncing his guys doesn't really do much for me, and I feel like the underdog in the matchup. Am I approaching it wrong? How do you guys appraoch that kind of game, where your opponent is just getting creatures and life when you bounce their stuff? What kinds of cards would you side in, what would your game plan be?
And on that note, does anyone have any suggestions for changes to the deck? It has felt solid so far, but suggestions and advice are still welcome. =)
Thanks all!
I would rather hear my opponent say "Ugh ffs your deck is cheap why did I lose that game" when I beat him, than hear him say "HAHAH my god your deck is so bad and I'm such a better player than you!" when he beats me.
Being a sore loser is explainable and can be forgiven, the game can be frustrating sometimes, especially when your opponent seems to have all the luck. But once you've got a level head, you can apologize, often with no hard feelings.
Being a bad winner though is just being an ass. There's no excuse for it.