Those are very accurate to what we usually see in MTG. Personally use my own custom scale:
0/1: The same as WotC. Things that can't fight like plants and goats.
1/1: Humanoids (humans, elves, goblins) without fighting skills, small animals (fox,rats).
2/2: Standard fighting humanoids (this is why I break tradition and do 2/2 soldiers). Medium size predators like wolfs and wild cats.
3/3: Humanoids with significant combat advantage like horse riding knights, centaurs, minotaurs, loxodon. Apex predators like tigers, bears and gryphons.
4/4: Large Humanoids like Ogres and Trolls. Supernatural beings like most Angels and Vampires. Fantastical beasts like Baloths and Manticores. Crazy strong animals like Rhinos.
5/5: Enormous humanoids like giants. Large super natural beings like Demons and Djinn. Large Dinosaurs. Large war machines like moderate size warships.
6/6: Dragons, Titans, Giant War Machines, Sea Serpents.
7/7: Wurms. Massive warships.
8/8: Krakens. King Kong size monsters.
9/9: Leviathans.
Usually +1/+1 represents standard combat skill. Most minotaurs are 3/3, a well trained Minotaur would be 4/4. +2/+2 is top notch combat skill. Also I like to interpret even combats as beings 50% winnings chance (so a very well trained human warrior takes on a brute force Minotaur with 50% chance). +3/+3 is stuffy of legends, like a humans being on par with a vampire. Magic may give bonus in similar fashion.
Well, apparently the standard around here is whatever is most convenient for your argument - so I guess my answer should be "people not using the word 'racist' enough". You're the one who's proposed an explanation, back it up with evidence or retract it. Don't try to dodge the issue by asking me for one.
I'm asking because I suspect we have the same explanation for this violence: jihad is a reaction to the perception that the Muslim identity is under attack from Western culture. When at-risk Muslims feel this way, they seek out associates and media which validate those feelings and cut themselves off from the rest, consuming jihadist propaganda until they're ready to die for the Caliphate. When Westerners engage in "clash of civilizations" rhetoric or call Islam an evil religion or threaten to burn a Qur'an, they reinforce this siege mentality and serve as grist for the propaganda mill. Such behavior is to be discouraged. The key to deradicalization and to preventing radicalization is engagement, not demonization.
Gang violence is not all that different. Young men come into socioeconomic circumstances where prosperity through an honest career seems like an impossibility and the pop culture depicts men like them as thugs. If they end up in prison, they're surrounded by other criminals and come out hardened. Again, it's getting cut off from broader engagement and driven into an echo chamber that turns them into dangers to society. And efforts to get them out of gangs focus on things like education and trade skills that can enable them to rejoin that society. Just berating them for being criminals is far less likely to get them to stop.
But white nationalists... what? They're just born bad? I don't think so, and I don't think you think so either. Neo-Nazis get recruited the same way jihadists and gang members get recruited, and they respond the same way to the same sorts of carrots and sticks.
You're just moving the goalposts. Your statement wasn't about what makes people become extremists, it was about what causes people who are extremists to commit violence:
Extremists are more likely to commit violence when they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option.
Isn't that utterly obvious ?
What cause extremists to cause violence is to move further into extreme political/ideological spectrum to a point where ideological goals become more important then basic values such as respect for life, freedom and property.
Perhaps, but not necessarily to persuade the person you're debating with. In many cases, it's to persuade the people listening to or reading the debate.
You don't think Donald and Hillary were trying to change each others' minds, do you?
If you assume that your opposition is not going to be persuaded by you, why aren't you also assuming that the third-party reader doesn't have some preconceived notions that you cannot change?
Mr. A: Mr. B, you're racist
=> Mr. B does not want to be characterized as racist, so he becomes defensive
Mr. A: Hey Mr. C, Mr. B is racist
=> Mr. C does not want to be characterized as racist, so he distances himself from Mr. B
Obviously a simplified version of the situation, and this may not be the case for every "Mr. C", but I hope it gets the point across.
So Mr.A strategy is to segregate Mr.B and deny him any opportunity to even take part in the debate ? The debate regarding the direction of the society he/she is part of (just like Mr.A and Mr.C)...
I'm pretty sure Mr.C is wrong but it doesn't change the fact that we stand in quicksand if we don't live up to our own values.
I think only the invasion cards forms a true cycle (card of color N with kicker of color M where M is the adjacent color to the right). The apocalypse ones are just random cards, but we could make a cycle out of that.
Cards of color N with kicker of color M where M is the second color to the right. So it would be
Desolation Wind 1W
Instant [U]
Kicker 1B
Destroy target artifact or enchantment. If CARDNAME was kicked, it's controller loooses life equal to it's mana cost.
Jilt
Strength of the Night 2B
Sorcery
Kicker 2G
Creature you control gains +1/+0 and Menace until the end of turn. If CARDNAME was kicked, put a 2/2 green Wolf creature token onto the battlefield. It gains Haste until end of turn.
Orim's Wit 1R
Sorcery
Kicker 2W
Draw three cards, then discard three cards. If CARDNAME was kicked, you may return a non-land permenent with converted mana cost 2 or less from your garevyard to the battlefield.
Misdirecting Sounds 1G
Instant
Kicker 2U
Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt this turn. If CARDNAME was kicked, creatures don't untap during their controller's next untap step.
CARD 1: 3UR or 3UU, Rare/Mythic Rare.
CARD 2: B, Rare. Could also be artifact for 1.
CARD 3: 5GGG, Mythic Rare.
CARD 4: Feels like a big Eldrazi (or just a artifact creature) to me, at 10 Rare.
CARD 5: 1W, common.
CARD 6: 3U, uncommon.
I'd agree that none of the guilds can really be considered properly "Good". Remember that during the original Ravnica the leadership of every guild was plotting to take over the plane.
And since when taking over the world makes you evil ? Some good characters might take over the world in order to establish a better life for everyone.
Mat'Selesnya was casting mass Calm Emotions, which is a signature spell for Good clerics.
I always had this problem with Commander banlists. Imo the reason is that the ban criteria is futile - it's meant to preserve the play style of certain players in the detriment of other players, unlike normal banlists that are meant to just balance the format.
My play group have it's own banlist that se manage carefully, the criterium being power level and the healthy of our format instead of just "i hate to play against X lol wotc ban X plz"
The hate against synergy based mechanics (devoid + colorless matters, snowlands, guildgates) is non sense. It means some cards are better if you play then together, which is very important because from a design and development point of view it's undesired that every card adds to the critical mass of cards to each deck. For example, they don't want to give counterspell to every blue deck in Standard but they can give it to decks that play enough dragons.
The very color pie is in itself a mechanics such as this. Arbitrary parasític restrictions is the basis of not only magic but all card games.
The only use I can see for this card is being used as a curve topper for a balls-to-the-wall aggro deck hoping to win the game by using the 4-life drain the next turn, and if that fails, drawing two the next turn. Sure, somebody will craft a deck that aims to give it to an opponent but I'm pretty sure those decks will never take off, I'm not mentioning running cards to "counter" the small side effect for losing the game because if you need to include something to play around your own cards...maaybe you could get rid of the problem card instead.
*Please remember to board these out vs control, they'll just find a way to stall for three turns and then enjoy watching your stupid grin as you choose the suicide option.
A good control player will not let this thing resolve.
A good control player shouldn't let Siege Rhino or Rabblemaster resolve either... I guess there are no more good control players =(
I hate how a card with Devoid still have a colored mana in it´s cost, that makes it so unflavorful.
I disagree. In MtG, te five Colors are very important and meaningful. Those creatures are Devoid of the importance and meaning that their mana costs would normally confer. Or, hey there's this!
Is it a color? Is it not? Why put a color on a card that´s clearly colorless?
Devoid do not put colors on a colorless card, it's literally the opposite.
This is good in limited. Trample would have pushed it to 'bomb' status but it's not good when uncommon creatures are being picked over rares (although this is niche). Anyway, ORI is shaping up to be the best limited set in a while.
His ability is much better then MM and Council of the Absolute because with those cards you might name something that is not going to be played...
This is much more like Tidehollow Sculler cause you play a body and get a temporary hand discard. It's not a great card but people are underrating it (maybe they think the ability can be responded to ?).
I wish it costed 4UU though. Also I don't like this ability in mono blue precisely because of how similar it is to Sculler (who have a very distinctive WB ability). Pie wise, it's too much hand disruption outside black for me.
The focus on the last few decades was a focus on neo-classical economics, lowering taxes and regulations, as well as words like high expectations and competition. The common assumption within our economic policy is that people function as rational individuals and make decisions that they can walk away from. With the arrogance called the Great Moderation that the disappearance of market trends and crashes creates a severe ideological backlash. The left sees groups as the focus since large groups are suffering from economic and sociological issues. The right tends to gravitate towards religion in that God did not favor the country and is now punishing America, individuals aren't starting enough businesses, and that the government is taking too much through taxes and regulations.
To begin, we've been in the Reagan Revolution for a number of decades. There was an assumption called the Great Moderation where there was an assumption within government that we had solved the problems with the economy, hence that it could maintain constant growth. That proved to be a lie and a fallacy through the incorrect ideas about the New Economy which is defined as tech, namely without manufacturing, and service sector jobs. Currently we have high skill jobs and low skill jobs, very little in the middle. In many places where you could start from the bottom and work your way up to the middle class no longer exist, and specific areas with a bad education system no longer offer the capacity for the workplace to directly supplement that education. This also creates an issue where college goers go into debt as a gamble to get a job, which whenever you factor in how long it takes to train someone in college to the effect on the constantly changing standards within the job universe. We must come to the conclusion that business changes too much and is not training enough for the positions that are available. Namely the game is to poach someone, while paying your current workers less and not hiring inexperienced workers while not considering older workers as "being too expensive" which is age discrimination based on a fallacy of myths and stereotypes along with just being cheap.
The business community is in a "do more with less mode," which means that it's trying to enrich itself through lowering government and worker expectations while increasing it's own. This creates a problem in more technical fields that require safety equipment, where people take more risks to underbid each other in contracts and then leads to a less safe work environment with less satisfaction and safety. There have been issues also with a focus on service sector in the name of debt with an increase in debt being the number one service product sold across the America.
With that said, we are in a new age where the ideas of the 1980's and 1990's have failed and there is talk about infrastructure and manufacturing jobs now. That was a mistake with marketing to young people by making everyone think that a college education was the ticket to a "good job." This also means that business leaders failed to address the issue with trades and training by focusing on too much outsourcing and too much focus on short term gains. I feel that some conservatives have come across harshly on the business community with the idea that business leaders expect loyalty and so forth, but whenever their profits take a tick downwards they do a massive lay off. That sends an economic indicator to people to avoid those jobs, especially the next generation. The failure to reward company loyalty is also directly related to a lack of treatment, temporary lay offs and the focus on temp hire further more creates a throwaway work force whenever people want more stable workers but do not want to pay for it.
Families and relationships are the cornerstone of society without necessarily individualism being at the crux of everything. Families create a demand for services and goods, but are priced out of the market in several ways. The lack of focus on family and small business needs to be the problem, not the individual. Individual flexibility is overrated it is individuals being able to connect and play into a larger system some how that allows for people to adapt over time by building on strength to another. THe lack of a viable and differentiated direction for different individuals to become locked into the community is a large fallacy. THe community of the past is not in existence any longer and today as we discover new communities we are aseeing people with stupid ideas come to the forefront. I see we need to change our society to meet our expectations, and not those that are a part of a system in the upper tier that base their lives on success purely in antagonism towards government and family. Rather, that all forms of collectivsim can be a threat to individual liberty and that indivudal liberty can be a threat to collctives in a very unhealthy way. When that is understood, we need to look at ways for people to connect and disconnect in a healhty manner for our species growth. This means places where people can be alone, people can belong and where people can leave without issue. This also means that indivudals understand they can't always escape people, either.
That's a bunch of opinionated affirmations. More then once you said something was a "fallacy" without actually arguing which logical fallacy. You have also made a few dozen of economic affirmations such as "This also means that business leaders failed to address the issue with trades and training by focusing on too much outsourcing and too much focus on short term gains." without any back up to that idea. No business report, no published study not even a well reasoned argument.
"The focus on the last few decades was a focus on neo-classical economics, lowering taxes and regulations, as well as words like high expectations and competition. The common assumption within our economic policy is that people function as rational individuals and make decisions that they can walk away from."
Do you even know what neo-classical economics is ?
I could be wrong but it seems you're just echoing some social scholars/thinkers (utterly garbage and wrong) opinion that mainstream economics is build upon false premises. I won't go further in this argument, just throwing the main points so you know what's really going on:
1) Science must be built on evidence. Historical descriptions is NOT evidence because you can't use inference methods on then. You can't test a theory by describing circumstances in a way your theory sounds convincing.
2) Simple descriptive statistics does not cut it for social sciences because experiments cannot be well controlled or are too expensive to execute. The kind of data analysis social sciences (not just economics) needs greatly benefits from ad hoc mathematical models. Unfortunately only economics is willing to use then in large scale.
3) You can only derive a ad hoc mathematical model by making assumptions. Rational economic agency is a good assumption because, even through the world is full of exception from those, they reveal the trends of human interactions as a whole. Most of the time when you go interact on a market you obey the rationality axioms and the theory does not predict more data or gets more sounding by assuming otherwise.
4) It's important to not mix rationality with institutional design. Against most people belief, rationality still holds under imperfect information and altruism, for example. Incompleteness and asymmetry of information, how contracts are made, bargaining power, all this is institution design. The problem of 50's and 60's economics was not the homus economicus, but the environment (or the lack of one...) he/she was modeled in. This short coming has been the main focus of modern day economics and many ground breaking results comes from this evolution.
0/1: The same as WotC. Things that can't fight like plants and goats.
1/1: Humanoids (humans, elves, goblins) without fighting skills, small animals (fox,rats).
2/2: Standard fighting humanoids (this is why I break tradition and do 2/2 soldiers). Medium size predators like wolfs and wild cats.
3/3: Humanoids with significant combat advantage like horse riding knights, centaurs, minotaurs, loxodon. Apex predators like tigers, bears and gryphons.
4/4: Large Humanoids like Ogres and Trolls. Supernatural beings like most Angels and Vampires. Fantastical beasts like Baloths and Manticores. Crazy strong animals like Rhinos.
5/5: Enormous humanoids like giants. Large super natural beings like Demons and Djinn. Large Dinosaurs. Large war machines like moderate size warships.
6/6: Dragons, Titans, Giant War Machines, Sea Serpents.
7/7: Wurms. Massive warships.
8/8: Krakens. King Kong size monsters.
9/9: Leviathans.
Usually +1/+1 represents standard combat skill. Most minotaurs are 3/3, a well trained Minotaur would be 4/4. +2/+2 is top notch combat skill. Also I like to interpret even combats as beings 50% winnings chance (so a very well trained human warrior takes on a brute force Minotaur with 50% chance). +3/+3 is stuffy of legends, like a humans being on par with a vampire. Magic may give bonus in similar fashion.
5/3
Isn't that utterly obvious ?
What cause extremists to cause violence is to move further into extreme political/ideological spectrum to a point where ideological goals become more important then basic values such as respect for life, freedom and property.
I read the card wrongly (I thought it was a enchantment that gave each player a extra turn every round... I know right).
Yeah, the card could cost 1UU and should have the exile clause.
Then no one can be called racist (type #6) because it's really hard to establish anyone as responsible for structural issues in society.
So Mr.A strategy is to segregate Mr.B and deny him any opportunity to even take part in the debate ? The debate regarding the direction of the society he/she is part of (just like Mr.A and Mr.C)...
I'm pretty sure Mr.C is wrong but it doesn't change the fact that we stand in quicksand if we don't live up to our own values.
Cards of color N with kicker of color M where M is the second color to the right. So it would be
Desolation Wind 1W
Instant [U]
Kicker 1B
Destroy target artifact or enchantment. If CARDNAME was kicked, it's controller loooses life equal to it's mana cost.
Jilt
Strength of the Night 2B
Sorcery
Kicker 2G
Creature you control gains +1/+0 and Menace until the end of turn. If CARDNAME was kicked, put a 2/2 green Wolf creature token onto the battlefield. It gains Haste until end of turn.
Orim's Wit 1R
Sorcery
Kicker 2W
Draw three cards, then discard three cards. If CARDNAME was kicked, you may return a non-land permenent with converted mana cost 2 or less from your garevyard to the battlefield.
Misdirecting Sounds 1G
Instant
Kicker 2U
Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt this turn. If CARDNAME was kicked, creatures don't untap during their controller's next untap step.
CARD 2: B, Rare. Could also be artifact for 1.
CARD 3: 5GGG, Mythic Rare.
CARD 4: Feels like a big Eldrazi (or just a artifact creature) to me, at 10 Rare.
CARD 5: 1W, common.
CARD 6: 3U, uncommon.
And since when taking over the world makes you evil ? Some good characters might take over the world in order to establish a better life for everyone.
Mat'Selesnya was casting mass Calm Emotions, which is a signature spell for Good clerics.
My play group have it's own banlist that se manage carefully, the criterium being power level and the healthy of our format instead of just "i hate to play against X lol wotc ban X plz"
Braids is my favorite Commander lol.
The very color pie is in itself a mechanics such as this. Arbitrary parasític restrictions is the basis of not only magic but all card games.
A good control player shouldn't let Siege Rhino or Rabblemaster resolve either... I guess there are no more good control players =(
Devoid do not put colors on a colorless card, it's literally the opposite.
This is much more like Tidehollow Sculler cause you play a body and get a temporary hand discard. It's not a great card but people are underrating it (maybe they think the ability can be responded to ?).
I wish it costed 4UU though. Also I don't like this ability in mono blue precisely because of how similar it is to Sculler (who have a very distinctive WB ability). Pie wise, it's too much hand disruption outside black for me.
That's a bunch of opinionated affirmations. More then once you said something was a "fallacy" without actually arguing which logical fallacy. You have also made a few dozen of economic affirmations such as "This also means that business leaders failed to address the issue with trades and training by focusing on too much outsourcing and too much focus on short term gains." without any back up to that idea. No business report, no published study not even a well reasoned argument.
"The focus on the last few decades was a focus on neo-classical economics, lowering taxes and regulations, as well as words like high expectations and competition. The common assumption within our economic policy is that people function as rational individuals and make decisions that they can walk away from."
Do you even know what neo-classical economics is ?
I could be wrong but it seems you're just echoing some social scholars/thinkers (utterly garbage and wrong) opinion that mainstream economics is build upon false premises. I won't go further in this argument, just throwing the main points so you know what's really going on:
1) Science must be built on evidence. Historical descriptions is NOT evidence because you can't use inference methods on then. You can't test a theory by describing circumstances in a way your theory sounds convincing.
2) Simple descriptive statistics does not cut it for social sciences because experiments cannot be well controlled or are too expensive to execute. The kind of data analysis social sciences (not just economics) needs greatly benefits from ad hoc mathematical models. Unfortunately only economics is willing to use then in large scale.
3) You can only derive a ad hoc mathematical model by making assumptions. Rational economic agency is a good assumption because, even through the world is full of exception from those, they reveal the trends of human interactions as a whole. Most of the time when you go interact on a market you obey the rationality axioms and the theory does not predict more data or gets more sounding by assuming otherwise.
4) It's important to not mix rationality with institutional design. Against most people belief, rationality still holds under imperfect information and altruism, for example. Incompleteness and asymmetry of information, how contracts are made, bargaining power, all this is institution design. The problem of 50's and 60's economics was not the homus economicus, but the environment (or the lack of one...) he/she was modeled in. This short coming has been the main focus of modern day economics and many ground breaking results comes from this evolution.