I guess the same way Tarmogoyf or Guile can be win conditions. They're creatures. They don't have defender and have power greater than 0, so they can attack and deal damage. Damage causes loss of life, and a player with 0 or less life loses the game. When each of a player's opponents has lost the game, that player wins the game.
lol. Funny, and true. yes, you CAN beat with them - it works surprisingly well.
Where is the Saltblast? The title promised me one...
I'm pretty sure Liliana Vess would be better than Mind Shatter. At least she can do something even if the opponent doesn't have cards in hand. You have so many 2-ofs in the deck that the tutoring ability could be really useful as well.
LOL, sorry, no saltblast.
However, Vess DOES seem like a cool choice - though I don't like risking the life loss. I think I'll change it up a bit, with:
-3 Mind Shatter
-2 Disintergrate
+2 Lilana Vess
+2 Profane Command
+1 Pyroclasm
I suppose this change is "utility over other stuff" and I think it might work out well. With all the removal, I just wanna see vess's last ability go off
I have come to the conclusion that we are multiplying beyond sustainable numbers. I think often of how much better the world would be if the total global population was 10% of what it was now. Anyone else agree? Disagree?
We can only hope that promiscuity and drug abuse finally kills off the liberal breed, but I doubt it would happen.
Still, smaller population always = better living. Then again, with the drastically safe way wars are fought today, we can't count on that for population control... maybe we SHOULD make all drugs and suicide legal (from the other thread, and yes, I am kidding)
Not enough win conditions for my liking. Not to mention the mana base makes me want to cut my wrists and go cry in a corner.
MD pithing needle seems less than spectacular too.
I have yet to yearn for a win condition. Between Disintergrates/Hellkites/Maws/Bellows, I have 11 win conditions, which has always been more than enough. I have been swapping out disintegrates for profanes to see how they work (They are good too), but I haven't made a final decision on it yet.
Told ya, don't ***** @ the mana base - it is massive WIP.
Pithing needle is remarkably useful against a ton of decks... it stops revillark combo dead, it deals with mutavault and treetop (problem cards for this deck) and it stops crap like planeswalkers and huge colossi.
Don't ask about the name... Here is a tenative decklist for what is essentially BRw big mana with hate for everything that is popular to play. Read the decklist, I don't really feel like explaining this junk >_>;
The deck is simple - a ton of control elements, massive virtual card advantage, and big X effects. The decklist is still a WIP, so yeah... Try it out.
Maindeck Pithing is actually insanely useful against a variety of decks - it shuts down revillark combo, gets around pesky manlands (are quite a pain for this deck, en masse), makes chameleon colossus crappier, and gets rid of planeswalkers without wasting oblivion rings.
A note - the mana base (and nonexistent sideboard) are still tentative, so don't complain about it being as scattered as broken glass. I'm experimenting with the mana to make all three colors readily avaliable, while making it so that you don't loose out on life and tempo. So stfu, and deal with it
Now let's say there is a new cd out of a band you have never heard of. You don't even know what kind of band they are, but you wanna try it. Steep price, it costs 25 bucks. Before you buy it and want to fork out that kind of dough, and possibly try to return it because "it sucks", why not listen before you spend that money. If you don't like that cd, you can get rid of it, and invest it in a band you are more comfortable listening to. Of course, you can't try the delicious chicken before you buy it, but it's the fact that you would prefer to know what you are investing in before you purchase it.
Im trying to stay out of this debate because the pro-pirating arguments that are being presented are absolutely idiotic. However, I am going to shoot this crap down right now.
Songs: If you want to test a CD, go to borders/online/whatever. Many, many places have 10-20 seconds clips of some of the songs on the cd. if that doesn't give you a good enough awareness oof what is on the cd, you may be an idiot.
Movies: This is what previews are for. You can see trailers on TV, go read reviews online and in the newspaper, and see longer trailers online. All of this is legal and ok, but it isnt stealing. Don't tell me that you have to see a movie for free before you pay to see it. Please, you are lying through your teeth.
Programs: Thankfully, not much of an issue anymore. Programs have high security, and many programs offer month-long full demos. I am still sad to see things like a bruteforce keygen for Vista, but it happens. I don't think that anyone can really argue FOR stealing software.
There, I'm done venting. To all you P2Pers - you are thieves, at least damn admit it. You are stealing something, even if it isnt physical. Also, you annoy me beyond all known reason.
I'm okay with a 4/3 for 3GG. Either way feels right to me, actually.
Do you guys think it should be rare? I don't feel that it's overly powerful, but it's obviously decent. I think at 5/3 and 2GGG, rare is a given, but the 4/3 3GG and 5/2 2GGG could be uncommon, I think.
Yeah, I could devote my time to white cards, but like Kenaron said, I can't influence Standard (or any format) in any way, so "helping" white actually doesn't help it. I wish players had more input, but we don't.
He needs to be a rare. He is a powerful tutor effect attached to a aggressively costed body - and I KNOW that he is much better than Primal Command If he was an uncommon, you would have to add 2 or so to his mana cost, imo :/
Hodoku: I must say I'm simply astounded by some of your claims. You basically want to protect people from themselves by banning anythings thats dangerous to them. Honestly, you seem extremely boring. How can you live life and never take a little risk?
Not an idiot != boring. I have quite a bit of fun in life, I just don't have to resort to life-threatening activites and drugs for my jollies. If you can't find excitement in less dangerous things, then you are incredibly shallow.
Also, you didn't answer my question. Why exactly do you feel such a need to regulate what other people are dong with their own private life? Why should government control people that much?
I believe that anyone that does things to endanger themselves without any actual benefit (compare: cutting yourself as opposed to drinking a glass of wine a day) are NOT in a stable mental frame and are unable to make clear and concise decisions. As such, I believe that the government should protect disturbed people from themselves. I stated this concept earlier - the reasoning I have behind banning these sorts of activities comes from the same reasoning that doesn't let someone write a will while senile/delirious, ande why we don't take the testimony of a delusional witness in court - none of these people are capable of making a sound judgment, as are people that do some of the activities that we are discussing.
My scenario assumed that the individuals were either snipped/tied so children were out of the equation. I'll even go a step further and add sterile/barren people to that list. And AIDS is clearly life threatening, as is that virus (can't remember the name) that increases risk of cervical cancer in women. So should casual sex between fixed/sterile/barren/etc. people be banned?
It can't be regulated, regardless of whether or not it should be. Then again, sex is a basic human function. Getting high is not.
Who said anything about jobs? Mainly I was referring to those religious fanatics that intentionally play with venomous snakes as a proof of their faith, but just your average eccentric pet owner fits fine here too. Should people who stand to gain nothing but enjoyment or religious satisfaction from playing with rattlesnakes be banned from them?
Again, if you need a license for it, and you get it, I see no problem with it. The issue here is the degree of severity - people don't usually die from snake bites, especially if they are prepared for it. The things that I am talking about are guaranteed to be lethal, a snake bite just hurts. Just drop this one.
Assume headphones, or a super loud concert within a facility that keeps the external decibel level within legal limits; these are acts that are supposed to only be harming the individual. Where's the line here? Smoking doesn't immediately kill you, it just increases the chances of dying younger than you should have. Having your hearing impaired clearly increases the risk of getting injured or dying. What "quantifiable" line can you draw for these kind of things?
I'm actually getting tired with these random, minor, and nearly inapplicable examples you are using to try and emphasize a point. You draw the line between activities that WILL kill you, and activities that wont. I won't waste my time on this random junk anymore.
So would eating peyote be fine under your definition? It does provide nutrition after all, bad or otherwise. What about pot brownies? Clearly there is now a "quantifiable benefit" to activity.
EDIT: my responses. Major points bolded for your reading enjoyment.
---YES---
1) Skydiving/BASE Jumping -- Increased risk of low altitude trauma
-Idiotic, and I wouldn't mind banning base jumping at all. HAS RESULTED IN DEATH
6) Swimming in ice cold water (a la Polar Bear Club) -- Increased risk of hypothermia
This should very much be bannable, considering that people die of this every year. HAS RESULTED IN DEATH
4) Erotic asphyxiation -- Increased risk of suffocation
If it was possible to regulate this, I believe that this is a dangerous activity (I can;t find it at the moment, but I know that there have been deaths as a result of this). However, regulating sex is near impossible. HAS RESULTED IN DEATH
---Not so much---
2) Frequent unprotected sex with multiple partners (assume "fixed", procreation not a consideration) -- Increased risk of STDs
I'm a republican, I believe that this exact activity should be highly discouraged. However, since there can be positive results (a child), this is in different league. Casual sex is bad, but not exactly life threatening.
5) Snake handling -- Increased risk of getting your dumb ass snake-bit
Well, handling ANY animal is dangerous. Don't you need a license to even own exotic pets? Its a dangerous job, but its a job.
3) Listening to music at really high volumes -- Increased risk of hearing loss
Isn't this disturbing the peace in suburbs? Iono, but I wouldn't mind making this fineable if it already isn't. However, note that this is not NEARLY on the same level as suicide/drug use and should never be treated as if it were nearly as close in severity. Fine people for it - but its not even close to the "yes"s
---Not at all---
7) Eating only hamburgers while leading a slothful lifestyle -- Increased risk of becoming a bed-ridden, obese, ****tard with additional risk of serious heart condition, diabetes, and fail. Bad nutrition is still nutrition. Food is food, and no, you can't ban food (unless it is human babies).
While i'm loathed to speak out when we don't have enough details to really tell what happened, this really does sound like a point that needs addressing.
That they sherriffs dept. should recognise that a strip search should be carried out by same sex officers, but in this case it's okay for male officers to strip a woman naked because it's not technically a strip search seems off. Surely the policy should be "it's against the rules for male officers to strip a woman" not "it's against the rules for a male officer to strip search a woman". Why does the conditions of the stripping suddenly make it more acceptable?
From the way that she was jerking around in that video, I would honestly assume that the conditions were "the female officers could not sufficiently restrain her alone" - and I would be totally ok with that.
he needs to be easy to kill. Considering that he replaces himself instantly, anything that isnt easy to kill might generate too much tempo/CA for my tastes... YuGiOh sucks :/
Watching horror movies raises your blood pressure; increased risk of heart attack.
What does it matter if enjoyment isn't "quantifiable" or whatever the heck you want to call it? I don't recall anybody ever talking about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of four meals and 10 servings of vegetables a day".
Show me a study that proves a positive correlation between horror moviegoers and heart attacks and we'll talk. Until then, there are countless studies that show that smoking weed or cigs, regardless of how little you do it, increases risks for cancers and lung diseases.
EDIT: The entire point of the quantifiable benefit bit is to show that some of the crap that nan listed in the OP isn't strictly killing yourself, while others are. If you believe that suicide should be legal, considering that people who kill themselves are trying to fulfill their immediate desires, then we fundamentally disagree and should really not try to argue with eachother. If you don't believe that suicide should be legal, then I win?
In practical terms, you can't stop people who are really commited to suicide anyway; they'll find one way or another eventually. So when you do stop someone from the immediate act and then they fail to kill themselves again shortly after (which is the majority of cases), it calls into question just how dedicated and important suicide is to them, and whether letting them fufill some short-term emotional wants is worth the resulting aftermath of them going through with it.
People who attempt suicide are not sane. There are mentally ill and are not capable of making rational decisions. If we are going to allow suicidal people to kill themselves, then senile people should write their own wills, and delusional people should be allowed to testify in court.
But how do you define "quantifiable benefit"? Does enjoyment not count as a "quantifiable benefit"? If you tell a guy he shouldn't be allowed to get high because the enjoyment he gets from that isn't a "quantifiable benefit", then would you say the same to a guy who likes horror movies? After all, what "quantifiable benefit" does Saw IV provide other than enjoyment? Where do you draw the line? Or how do you even define it?
The difference here being, that while saw has no benefit beyond entertainment, it doesn't slowly kill you. So no, enjoyment is not a quantifiable benefit when it comes to harming yourself. Quantifiable benefits of some of the other things listed include: Better health, Antioxidants, Muscle Building/Exercise. See? We are talking about physical harm here, so I am talking about physical benefits (the only ones that should matter, when it comes to the law).
To be honest, green has enough goodness as is. I would not like to see any incarnation of the card under 7 CMC printed ever, in upcoming sets. R_E, design cards for white instead - green doesn't need your pushing anymore.
One could argue that it had something to do with if it affects someone else or not, but then again there is no precedent for that as marijuana is illegal mostly while alcohol is not. But alcohol is known for a much greater damage to the surroundings and society.
However, alcohol is healthy in moderation (see wine), while weed is just a drug. Just wanted to point that out.
IMO, people should not be able to do anything that has no quantifiable benefit beyond harming themselves. This basically takes out all drugs, tobacco, suicide, self mutilation, ect. Crap like that. However, if something that can harm you can also have positive effects, then it should be allowed. Example: Extreme sports are very good exercise, wine is very good for your health.
My problem with banning ALL harmful activity, is that nearly anything can be proven to be harmful. However, I believe that anything that is purely hedonistic (drugs) while being harmful or just plain bad for you (suicide, mutilation) should not be done, and can not be done in a normal state of mind. To that degree, the state should have the right to protect people "from themselves".
lol. Funny, and true. yes, you CAN beat with them - it works surprisingly well.
LOL, sorry, no saltblast.
However, Vess DOES seem like a cool choice - though I don't like risking the life loss. I think I'll change it up a bit, with:
-3 Mind Shatter
-2 Disintergrate
+2 Lilana Vess
+2 Profane Command
+1 Pyroclasm
I suppose this change is "utility over other stuff" and I think it might work out well. With all the removal, I just wanna see vess's last ability go off
We can only hope that promiscuity and drug abuse finally kills off the liberal breed, but I doubt it would happen.
Still, smaller population always = better living. Then again, with the drastically safe way wars are fought today, we can't count on that for population control... maybe we SHOULD make all drugs and suicide legal (from the other thread, and yes, I am kidding)
I have yet to yearn for a win condition. Between Disintergrates/Hellkites/Maws/Bellows, I have 11 win conditions, which has always been more than enough. I have been swapping out disintegrates for profanes to see how they work (They are good too), but I haven't made a final decision on it yet.
Told ya, don't ***** @ the mana base - it is massive WIP.
Pithing needle is remarkably useful against a ton of decks... it stops revillark combo dead, it deals with mutavault and treetop (problem cards for this deck) and it stops crap like planeswalkers and huge colossi.
3 Shriekmaw
2 Cruel Edict
2 Incinerate
3 Spitebellows
4 Oblivion Ring
Mass Removal - 7
2 Pyroclasm
3 Damnation
2 Void
2 Pithing Needle
3 Mind Shatter
2 Bogardan Hellkite
3 Disintergrate
Mana 'facts - 6
4 Mind Stone
2 Prismatic Lens
Lands - 23
2 Swamp
2 Mountain
1 Plains
3 Vivid Marsh
2 Vivid Crag
2 Terramorphic Expanse
1 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
1 Shimmering Grotto
2 Forbidding Watchtower
4 Sulfurous Springs
1 Battlefield Forge
2 Caves of Koilos
Maindeck Pithing is actually insanely useful against a variety of decks - it shuts down revillark combo, gets around pesky manlands (are quite a pain for this deck, en masse), makes chameleon colossus crappier, and gets rid of planeswalkers without wasting oblivion rings.
A note - the mana base (and nonexistent sideboard) are still tentative, so don't complain about it being as scattered as broken glass. I'm experimenting with the mana to make all three colors readily avaliable, while making it so that you don't loose out on life and tempo. So stfu, and deal with it
Im trying to stay out of this debate because the pro-pirating arguments that are being presented are absolutely idiotic. However, I am going to shoot this crap down right now.
Songs: If you want to test a CD, go to borders/online/whatever. Many, many places have 10-20 seconds clips of some of the songs on the cd. if that doesn't give you a good enough awareness oof what is on the cd, you may be an idiot.
Movies: This is what previews are for. You can see trailers on TV, go read reviews online and in the newspaper, and see longer trailers online. All of this is legal and ok, but it isnt stealing. Don't tell me that you have to see a movie for free before you pay to see it. Please, you are lying through your teeth.
Programs: Thankfully, not much of an issue anymore. Programs have high security, and many programs offer month-long full demos. I am still sad to see things like a bruteforce keygen for Vista, but it happens. I don't think that anyone can really argue FOR stealing software.
There, I'm done venting. To all you P2Pers - you are thieves, at least damn admit it. You are stealing something, even if it isnt physical. Also, you annoy me beyond all known reason.
He needs to be a rare. He is a powerful tutor effect attached to a aggressively costed body - and I KNOW that he is much better than Primal Command If he was an uncommon, you would have to add 2 or so to his mana cost, imo :/
Not an idiot != boring. I have quite a bit of fun in life, I just don't have to resort to life-threatening activites and drugs for my jollies. If you can't find excitement in less dangerous things, then you are incredibly shallow.
I believe that anyone that does things to endanger themselves without any actual benefit (compare: cutting yourself as opposed to drinking a glass of wine a day) are NOT in a stable mental frame and are unable to make clear and concise decisions. As such, I believe that the government should protect disturbed people from themselves. I stated this concept earlier - the reasoning I have behind banning these sorts of activities comes from the same reasoning that doesn't let someone write a will while senile/delirious, ande why we don't take the testimony of a delusional witness in court - none of these people are capable of making a sound judgment, as are people that do some of the activities that we are discussing.
It can't be regulated, regardless of whether or not it should be. Then again, sex is a basic human function. Getting high is not.
Again, if you need a license for it, and you get it, I see no problem with it. The issue here is the degree of severity - people don't usually die from snake bites, especially if they are prepared for it. The things that I am talking about are guaranteed to be lethal, a snake bite just hurts. Just drop this one.
I'm actually getting tired with these random, minor, and nearly inapplicable examples you are using to try and emphasize a point. You draw the line between activities that WILL kill you, and activities that wont. I won't waste my time on this random junk anymore.
No drugs. Stop trying.
---YES---
1) Skydiving/BASE Jumping -- Increased risk of low altitude trauma
-Idiotic, and I wouldn't mind banning base jumping at all. HAS RESULTED IN DEATH
6) Swimming in ice cold water (a la Polar Bear Club) -- Increased risk of hypothermia
This should very much be bannable, considering that people die of this every year. HAS RESULTED IN DEATH
4) Erotic asphyxiation -- Increased risk of suffocation
If it was possible to regulate this, I believe that this is a dangerous activity (I can;t find it at the moment, but I know that there have been deaths as a result of this). However, regulating sex is near impossible. HAS RESULTED IN DEATH
---Not so much---
2) Frequent unprotected sex with multiple partners (assume "fixed", procreation not a consideration) -- Increased risk of STDs
I'm a republican, I believe that this exact activity should be highly discouraged. However, since there can be positive results (a child), this is in different league.
Casual sex is bad, but not exactly life threatening.
5) Snake handling -- Increased risk of getting your dumb ass snake-bit
Well, handling ANY animal is dangerous. Don't you need a license to even own exotic pets?
Its a dangerous job, but its a job.
3) Listening to music at really high volumes -- Increased risk of hearing loss
Isn't this disturbing the peace in suburbs? Iono, but I wouldn't mind making this fineable if it already isn't. However, note that this is not NEARLY on the same level as suicide/drug use and should never be treated as if it were nearly as close in severity.
Fine people for it - but its not even close to the "yes"s
---Not at all---
7) Eating only hamburgers while leading a slothful lifestyle -- Increased risk of becoming a bed-ridden, obese, ****tard with additional risk of serious heart condition, diabetes, and fail.
Bad nutrition is still nutrition. Food is food, and no, you can't ban food (unless it is human babies).
From the way that she was jerking around in that video, I would honestly assume that the conditions were "the female officers could not sufficiently restrain her alone" - and I would be totally ok with that.
Show me a study that proves a positive correlation between horror moviegoers and heart attacks and we'll talk. Until then, there are countless studies that show that smoking weed or cigs, regardless of how little you do it, increases risks for cancers and lung diseases.
EDIT: The entire point of the quantifiable benefit bit is to show that some of the crap that nan listed in the OP isn't strictly killing yourself, while others are. If you believe that suicide should be legal, considering that people who kill themselves are trying to fulfill their immediate desires, then we fundamentally disagree and should really not try to argue with eachother. If you don't believe that suicide should be legal, then I win?
People who attempt suicide are not sane. There are mentally ill and are not capable of making rational decisions. If we are going to allow suicidal people to kill themselves, then senile people should write their own wills, and delusional people should be allowed to testify in court.
The difference here being, that while saw has no benefit beyond entertainment, it doesn't slowly kill you. So no, enjoyment is not a quantifiable benefit when it comes to harming yourself. Quantifiable benefits of some of the other things listed include: Better health, Antioxidants, Muscle Building/Exercise. See? We are talking about physical harm here, so I am talking about physical benefits (the only ones that should matter, when it comes to the law).
However, alcohol is healthy in moderation (see wine), while weed is just a drug. Just wanted to point that out.
IMO, people should not be able to do anything that has no quantifiable benefit beyond harming themselves. This basically takes out all drugs, tobacco, suicide, self mutilation, ect. Crap like that. However, if something that can harm you can also have positive effects, then it should be allowed. Example: Extreme sports are very good exercise, wine is very good for your health.
My problem with banning ALL harmful activity, is that nearly anything can be proven to be harmful. However, I believe that anything that is purely hedonistic (drugs) while being harmful or just plain bad for you (suicide, mutilation) should not be done, and can not be done in a normal state of mind. To that degree, the state should have the right to protect people "from themselves".
4/3 sounds fair