Yeah, it really does. They stick Relic of Progenitus, you lose. At that point you can bounce it, but sneaking a 1 mana artifact under a counter wall is really easy. I was really excited about running this until I ran into a control player packing Relics in the side for Reveillark decks. Relic is better than Jund Charm, Macabre, etc because it is a continuous effect. Kelpie isn't big about putting multiple cards into the graveyard at once, so they can just use the tap ability to see to it you never get to use an unearth or retrace, which means you're playing less than subpar cards (without their ability). I thought I might still run a Kelpie/unearth, but with Reveillark rising, I expect more people to pack the Relic, so I've decided to build something else.
I'm not dismissing your build. It looks pretty good, and if you don't expect to see many Relics, run it.
Already tried a version of it (right down to the "same" deck name idea). It dies horribly to Relic of Progenitus. It's good against control (so long as they don't pack the Relic).
I've been testing this and I think it may be pretty strong against the field right now. 5 Color Control hates the discard and Faeries hates the combo of Soul Snuffers and Infest. I have considered moving Agony Warp main, but I love the fact that Grixis Charm kills Mistbind Clique. It also has enough targeted/mass removal to hang with Kithkin (though, it is a little slow). I'd like to fit a single Oona, Queen of the Fae into the deck as a finisher, but I can't figure what to cut. Suggestions? Comments?
I present a piece by Judith Jarvis Thomson. I'd like to see some good counters to the arguments she makes in this, specifically the metaphor of the violinist and the robber analogy.
Ok, just read the Phillapa Foot rebuttal:
From the Wikipedia article:
" Foot discredits the suggested mirror-situation between the violinist and abortion by applying and weighing negative and positive rights. First, Foot derives the moral difference between killing and letting die:
…There are rights to noninterference, which form one class of rights; and there are also rights to goods or services, which are different. And corresponding to these two types of rights are, on the one hand, the duty not to interfere, called a ‘negative duty’, and on the other the duty to provide the goods or services, called a ‘positive duty’.[3] The rights to noninterference constitute ‘negative rights’ and the rights to goods or services constitute ‘positive rights’.
Important to note is Foot’s claim that, “Typically, it takes more to justify an interference than to justify the withholding of goods or services…”[4]. In other words, ceteris paribus, a negative right holds greater moral weight than a positive right, and so it is harder to morally justify overriding a negative right than a positive right. Foot builds on this by specifying, “So if, in any circumstances, the right to noninterference is the only right that exists, or if it is the only right special circumstances have not overridden, then it may not be permissible to initiate a fatal sequence, but it may be permissible to withhold aid”[5]. Notably, Foot classifies initiating a fatal sequence as a morally objectionable act, while legitimizing the morality of not aiding.
This holds substantial implications for Thomson’s violinist experiment. Whereas Thomson requests the reader to draw a moral parallel between unhooking oneself from the violinist and a woman aborting her fetus, Foot seeks a deeper explanation of why this should be the case. But, in Foot’s opinion, under her framework, things are not as Thomson would like. Foot notes, “According to my thesis, the two cases must be treated quite differently because one involves the initiation of a fatal sequence and the other the refusal to save a life”[6].
The distinction arises from the rights due to the violinist and fetus, and the duty one holds not to violate them. In the case of Thomson’s experiment, the violinist holds only a positive right to be saved: he requires the service of being hooked up to another’s body. Now, as the argument will go, if you find yourself hooked up to the dying violinist, you have an obligation to not ‘kill him’ by separating yourself from him. However, it is important not to allocate rights to which the violinist is not entitled. You, the person to whom he is attached, did not bring about the sequence of his death, and so cannot be burdened with, say, the negative duty ‘not to kill the violinist’ – since, ultimately, it is the ailment that is killing the violinist. Consequently, the only right to which the violinist has a claim is a positive right. And, Foot explains, “…although charity or duties of care could have dictated that the help be given, it seems perfectly reasonable to treat this as a case in which such presumptions are overridden by other rights—those belonging to the person whose body would be used.”[7] Thus, in this case one may unhook from the violinist, since his positive right does not hold enough weight to justify disregarding another’s right to his or her own body.
Foot gives an account of the other case, abortion:
The case of abortion is of course completely different. The fetus is not in jeopardy because it is in its mother’s womb; it is merely dependent on her in the way children are dependent on their parents for food. An abortion, therefore, originates the sequence which ends in the death of the fetus, and the destruction comes about “through the agency” of the mother who seeks the abortion.[8] Abortion is uniquely different from the violinist case, since the fetus holds a negative right not to be killed (since it holds a full right to life, as granted to it by Thomson). The mother, by having an abortion administered, directly initiates the event which takes the fetus’s life, completely violating its negative right. For this reason, in any normal circumstances a mother cannot morally legitimize having an abortion."
In cases other than rape, Thomson's "argument" is completely fallacious.
Composite DCI Rating - 1735 # of Relationships in the Past 3 Years - 1 Number of Months Spent in a Relationship (Out of 36) - 36
Relationship Status (Single/In a Relationship/Engaged/Married) -Married Gender - Male
...
Now, were I to plug in the numbers in the three years prior to meeting my wife (when I was also playing Magic), you get:
Composite DCI Rating - Roughly 1630
# of Relationships in the Past 3 Years - 13 Number of Months Spent in a Relationship (Out of 36) - 32
Yeah, it really does. They stick Relic of Progenitus, you lose. At that point you can bounce it, but sneaking a 1 mana artifact under a counter wall is really easy. I was really excited about running this until I ran into a control player packing Relics in the side for Reveillark decks. Relic is better than Jund Charm, Macabre, etc because it is a continuous effect. Kelpie isn't big about putting multiple cards into the graveyard at once, so they can just use the tap ability to see to it you never get to use an unearth or retrace, which means you're playing less than subpar cards (without their ability). I thought I might still run a Kelpie/unearth, but with Reveillark rising, I expect more people to pack the Relic, so I've decided to build something else.
I'm not dismissing your build. It looks pretty good, and if you don't expect to see many Relics, run it.
Already tried a version of it (right down to the "same" deck name idea). It dies horribly to Relic of Progenitus. It's good against control (so long as they don't pack the Relic).
4 Crumbling Necropolis
4 Reflecting Pool
1 Graven Cairns
4 Sunken Ruins
3 Cascade Bluffs
4 Vivid Creek
3 Vivid Marsh
2 Island
1 Swamp
Creatures
3 River Kelpie
4 Sedraxis Specter
4 Soul Snuffers
3 Shriekmaw
4 Mulldrifter
4 Grixis Charm
1 Oona's Grace
2 Makeshift Mannequin
4 Cryptic Command
1 Infest
2 Infest
4 Agony Warp
3 Faerie Macabre
4 Fulminator Mage
2 Mind Shatter
I've been testing this and I think it may be pretty strong against the field right now. 5 Color Control hates the discard and Faeries hates the combo of Soul Snuffers and Infest. I have considered moving Agony Warp main, but I love the fact that Grixis Charm kills Mistbind Clique. It also has enough targeted/mass removal to hang with Kithkin (though, it is a little slow). I'd like to fit a single Oona, Queen of the Fae into the deck as a finisher, but I can't figure what to cut. Suggestions? Comments?
Ok, just read the Phillapa Foot rebuttal:
From the Wikipedia article:
" Foot discredits the suggested mirror-situation between the violinist and abortion by applying and weighing negative and positive rights. First, Foot derives the moral difference between killing and letting die:
…There are rights to noninterference, which form one class of rights; and there are also rights to goods or services, which are different. And corresponding to these two types of rights are, on the one hand, the duty not to interfere, called a ‘negative duty’, and on the other the duty to provide the goods or services, called a ‘positive duty’.[3] The rights to noninterference constitute ‘negative rights’ and the rights to goods or services constitute ‘positive rights’.
Important to note is Foot’s claim that, “Typically, it takes more to justify an interference than to justify the withholding of goods or services…”[4]. In other words, ceteris paribus, a negative right holds greater moral weight than a positive right, and so it is harder to morally justify overriding a negative right than a positive right. Foot builds on this by specifying, “So if, in any circumstances, the right to noninterference is the only right that exists, or if it is the only right special circumstances have not overridden, then it may not be permissible to initiate a fatal sequence, but it may be permissible to withhold aid”[5]. Notably, Foot classifies initiating a fatal sequence as a morally objectionable act, while legitimizing the morality of not aiding.
This holds substantial implications for Thomson’s violinist experiment. Whereas Thomson requests the reader to draw a moral parallel between unhooking oneself from the violinist and a woman aborting her fetus, Foot seeks a deeper explanation of why this should be the case. But, in Foot’s opinion, under her framework, things are not as Thomson would like. Foot notes, “According to my thesis, the two cases must be treated quite differently because one involves the initiation of a fatal sequence and the other the refusal to save a life”[6].
The distinction arises from the rights due to the violinist and fetus, and the duty one holds not to violate them. In the case of Thomson’s experiment, the violinist holds only a positive right to be saved: he requires the service of being hooked up to another’s body. Now, as the argument will go, if you find yourself hooked up to the dying violinist, you have an obligation to not ‘kill him’ by separating yourself from him. However, it is important not to allocate rights to which the violinist is not entitled. You, the person to whom he is attached, did not bring about the sequence of his death, and so cannot be burdened with, say, the negative duty ‘not to kill the violinist’ – since, ultimately, it is the ailment that is killing the violinist. Consequently, the only right to which the violinist has a claim is a positive right. And, Foot explains, “…although charity or duties of care could have dictated that the help be given, it seems perfectly reasonable to treat this as a case in which such presumptions are overridden by other rights—those belonging to the person whose body would be used.”[7] Thus, in this case one may unhook from the violinist, since his positive right does not hold enough weight to justify disregarding another’s right to his or her own body.
Foot gives an account of the other case, abortion:
The case of abortion is of course completely different. The fetus is not in jeopardy because it is in its mother’s womb; it is merely dependent on her in the way children are dependent on their parents for food. An abortion, therefore, originates the sequence which ends in the death of the fetus, and the destruction comes about “through the agency” of the mother who seeks the abortion.[8] Abortion is uniquely different from the violinist case, since the fetus holds a negative right not to be killed (since it holds a full right to life, as granted to it by Thomson). The mother, by having an abortion administered, directly initiates the event which takes the fetus’s life, completely violating its negative right. For this reason, in any normal circumstances a mother cannot morally legitimize having an abortion."
In cases other than rape, Thomson's "argument" is completely fallacious.
If they do it animated. And it's The Brother's War.
I wanna see Urza go boom.
Seriously, an animated MTG movie could work.
4x Stromgald Crusader
4x Oona's Prowler
4x Skirk Ridge Exhumer
2x Haakon, Knight of Stromgald
3x Undead Warchief
3x Lord of the Undead
3x Korlash, Heir to Blackblade
4x Nameless Inversion
2x Graveborn Muse
4x Shriekmaw
23x Swamp
Inserting the Haakon engine seems strong. That, and Undead Warchief makes Nameless Inversion only one black mana. Korlash may be overkill, and could probably be replaced, by I like the deck thinning capabilities of Korlash, Heir to Blackblade + Lord of the Undead.
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=7473
# of Relationships in the Past 3 Years - 1
Number of Months Spent in a Relationship (Out of 36) - 36
Relationship Status (Single/In a Relationship/Engaged/Married) -Married
Gender - Male
...
Now, were I to plug in the numbers in the three years prior to meeting my wife (when I was also playing Magic), you get:
Composite DCI Rating - Roughly 1630
# of Relationships in the Past 3 Years - 13
Number of Months Spent in a Relationship (Out of 36) - 32
I thought it did, but the "state-based effects" token wackiness now has me confused.
1R
Magus of the Wastes
Creature -Wizard Rare
Tap: Sac~ to destroy target nonbasic land.
2/1
You have already received a warning about the use of card-tags that is required in Magic Rulings. This time it's an infraction...