Not quite. The green one is 5 mana (4 + sac land) for +1 land, while Explosive is 4 mana (and 1 card in hand) for +2 lands. It's more along the lines of a Rampant Growth in terms of mana acceleration.
More like an harrow that costs 2 more. (Because you must tap this land to activate it.)
Not quite either of these either though. You run it instead of ramp (or on top of it) not instead of land. That way it's more like an explosive Vegetation that's a bit worse early game but much much better late game.
Wow...unless I'm mistaken the green one is a strictly better Explosive Vegetation? EDH staple for years...
Edit: I suppose the downside is you're using up your land drop for the turn, but that's a small price to pay for having a ramp spell that can tap for mana when you don't want to invest in any more ramp.
Actually it was said that she's showing off her ass, which implies that she's being sexualized. Which was so so absurd I just had to comment on it. It's a silly position, for sure, but it's supposed to be an action pose. The focus is clearly on her weapon, not her butt. Fantasy art is over-sexualized enough, we don't need to go finding issues that aren't there.
Showing ass =/= being sexualized, as our good friend Sarkhan the Mad shows Seriously, WTF is that pose.
I think you actually just proved my point. Thanks! Not all silly poses are about showing off the subject's ass. Especially when said character is wearing half a dozen layers.
Oh man, look at the booty in that picture. I mean, it's under several layers of clothes and armor, but yeah, totally sexualized...somewhere under there...
Again, if you're going to be a smartass at least try to say something that makes sense. Nobody said she was sexualized. It was only pointed out that she is in a totally ridiculous position, which is totally true. Is it that hard to admit that you were wrong and just move on?
Actually it was said that she's showing off her ass, which implies that she's being sexualized. Which was so so absurd I just had to comment on it. It's a silly position, for sure, but it's supposed to be an action pose. The focus is clearly on her weapon, not her butt. Fantasy art is over-sexualized enough, we don't need to go finding issues that aren't there.
Oh man, look at the booty in that picture. I mean, it's under several layers of clothes and armor, but yeah, totally sexualized...somewhere under there...
Its always amusing to see wizards jump through hoops like this when making new characters from older cards. "The lithomancer was actually stoneforge mystic all along and she's not really about imprisoning things but about making swords. Oh and I guess she was on Zendikar all along..."
Hmmm...I feel like they should've gone with a more epic character for these special commamder-walkers. He's got good abilities but he doesn't have quite the epic story/history the other walkers have.
Should a Jewish wedding planner be forced to serve a family of neo-Nazis?
Are you seriously comparing gay people to a bunch of racists? They are not threatening you, unless you are so insecure about your own sexuality and feel that they really are undermining heterosexual relationships (they're really not).
Sometimes I wonder if that study that said most homophobes are actually in the closet is true, and it must repulse you that you could be gay. But it's okay if you're gay. Just because you were raised in an environment that said being gay is wrong doesn't mean it's true. And what Paul said in the Bible? Screw him. He used to be known as Saul and persecuted Christians. I think Jesus's message of love is far greater. It's important to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but it's possible that you hate yourself for possibly being gay.
I think the moral of the Bible is that if you can accept God for what a terrible being he is, you can accept anyone else, but many Christians seem to hate other people for being different from them.
Congratulations, you completely missed the point. It's not about comparing two groups of people, it's about legal rights. You unethical/stupid/hypocritical to say "Oh, well, this group of people should have these rights but other people shouldn't be able to have them."
But you ARE comparing them. Some restaurants don't allow gay people and you came up with an example "But should a Jewish restaurant serve neo-Nazis?". You can't conflate the two. No one's saying that a certain group should have no rights at all, but discrimination against and/or actively harming a group is illegal. Should gay people be allowed to go any restaurant? Yes. Is killing Jews a right? No. No one has the right to kill anyone.
1. Sorry, I was not actually calling you stupid. I was working on a paper for one of my classes while responding to you and must've forgotten a couple words in that sentence.
2. Nope. You're missing the point yet again. When did I say anyone has a right to kill Jews? I'm saying the law shouldn't be able to pick favorites. It is immoral and hypocritical for the law to say "Gays should have these rights, but skinheads? Nobody likes them, so it should be okay to discriminate against nazis." This is not a value judgment in any way, in fact it is the lack of a value judgment. When the government begins making value judgments on which classes should get particular rights you have have an unjust government.
But I find it very hard to believe that such a transaction would occur without incident, given the extremely hateful ideologies of Neo-Nazis.
Actually, I'm friends with a serious metalhead who hangs out with some Neo-Nazis. I try to avoid them at all cost on principle, but I have observed that they are quite placid if they are put into a situation (like say, being served by a black waiter) that requires them to hide their "unpopular" views. In short, it would be wrong to not give skinheads the same rights as anyone else just because you think they will cause trouble. This applies to Communists and Socialists as well.
Should a Jewish wedding planner be forced to serve a family of neo-Nazis?
Are you seriously comparing gay people to a bunch of racists? They are not threatening you, unless you are so insecure about your own sexuality and feel that they really are undermining heterosexual relationships (they're really not).
Sometimes I wonder if that study that said most homophobes are actually in the closet is true, and it must repulse you that you could be gay. But it's okay if you're gay. Just because you were raised in an environment that said being gay is wrong doesn't mean it's true. And what Paul said in the Bible? Screw him. He used to be known as Saul and persecuted Christians. I think Jesus's message of love is far greater. It's important to love your neighbor as you love yourself, but it's possible that you hate yourself for possibly being gay.
I think the moral of the Bible is that if you can accept God for what a terrible being he is, you can accept anyone else, but many Christians seem to hate other people for being different from them.
Congratulations, you completely missed the point. It's not about comparing two groups of people, it's about legal rights. You unethical/stupid/hypocritical to say "Oh, well, this group of people should have these rights but other people shouldn't be able to have them."
Not quite either of these either though. You run it instead of ramp (or on top of it) not instead of land. That way it's more like an explosive Vegetation that's a bit worse early game but much much better late game.
Edit: I suppose the downside is you're using up your land drop for the turn, but that's a small price to pay for having a ramp spell that can tap for mana when you don't want to invest in any more ramp.
I think you actually just proved my point. Thanks! Not all silly poses are about showing off the subject's ass. Especially when said character is wearing half a dozen layers.
Actually it was said that she's showing off her ass, which implies that she's being sexualized. Which was so so absurd I just had to comment on it. It's a silly position, for sure, but it's supposed to be an action pose. The focus is clearly on her weapon, not her butt. Fantasy art is over-sexualized enough, we don't need to go finding issues that aren't there.
Oh man, look at the booty in that picture. I mean, it's under several layers of clothes and armor, but yeah, totally sexualized...somewhere under there...
Oh man, I'm so tired of her doing that! She does that in...wait, what card again?
1. Sorry, I was not actually calling you stupid. I was working on a paper for one of my classes while responding to you and must've forgotten a couple words in that sentence.
2. Nope. You're missing the point yet again. When did I say anyone has a right to kill Jews? I'm saying the law shouldn't be able to pick favorites. It is immoral and hypocritical for the law to say "Gays should have these rights, but skinheads? Nobody likes them, so it should be okay to discriminate against nazis." This is not a value judgment in any way, in fact it is the lack of a value judgment. When the government begins making value judgments on which classes should get particular rights you have have an unjust government.
Actually, I'm friends with a serious metalhead who hangs out with some Neo-Nazis. I try to avoid them at all cost on principle, but I have observed that they are quite placid if they are put into a situation (like say, being served by a black waiter) that requires them to hide their "unpopular" views. In short, it would be wrong to not give skinheads the same rights as anyone else just because you think they will cause trouble. This applies to Communists and Socialists as well.
Congratulations, you completely missed the point. It's not about comparing two groups of people, it's about legal rights. You unethical/stupid/hypocritical to say "Oh, well, this group of people should have these rights but other people shouldn't be able to have them."
Warning for flaming. - Blinking Spirit