You can't get around color pie restrictions with flavor.
Sure you can. Its called bending, breaking and reshaping. Using the color philosophy with the color wheel in order to develop new card interactions instead of retreading old ground as you view the color pie as guidelines than rules. Also flavor dictates a lot of what the colors can do based on the color philosophy behind them. Without that very flavor their is zero reason for the restrictions, the strengths and weaknesses, that each color possesses. By using dual color philosophy you stay within the strengths and weaknesses while also bending and reshaping it. Without that sort of thought process, card creation has no room for experimentation.
Take the simple and frankly recent concept of Red's ability to exile the top card of their library and then cast that card, that is expanding the color. Its a trick the color couldn't do before and would have been restricted to Blue as they are about library manipulation, not really red. What Red could do in the past was instead use the top cards of their library as a fuel-like source like with Arc-Slogger or Chaos Harlequin. The very first instance of this ability to exile then cast the top card(s) of your library were from Magic 2015 (Release Date: July 9th, 2014). Twenty-one years since the game's very inception in 1993 and Act on Impulse was the first official instance of Red being capable of that. This mechanic that is only about 2 & 1/2 years old.
Should I go over how Red has been quietly knicking Blue's ability to tap permanents and not allow them to untap during their controller's untap step with the cards Chandra's Revolution and Stensia Innkeeper and how its likely more like those are coming down the pipeline? It wouldn't be unreasonable before we saw a card like:
Seismic DisturbanceXRR
Sorcery
Tap X target lands. They don't untap during their controller's next untap step.
This kind of card would have been argued by others such yourself as being blue and your same argument of "You can't get around color pie restrictions with flavor" would have been applied to my fictional card called Seismic Disturbance if I made this before Stensia Innkeeper was a thing.
Why yes, I would buy booster packs if the cards inside weren't worth anything. In fact I would also buy singles to round out my collection so I can enjoy the game more. The only people ever hurt by reprints is those who try to make a profit out of this game via rare and hard to come by cards. It doesn't become less special if such a card like Library of Alexandria got reprinted tomorrow. The only ones who would ever view it as such, are the same as those see reprints as a thing that makes their merchandise go down in price. What is honestly astonishing though is how a simple little fact is often true: People WILL pay the big bucks for an older version of a card for that sense of uniqueness. The only time it really would ever cut into someones profits and make those cards worth a penny is if they overly-reprinted. You know what hurts a game more than reprints though? No reprints. That rare and expensive card that is worth more than your apartment bill? Its accidentally destroyed, damaged and/or lost. So you got to go proxy-up (AKA: fake one) to replace it. Speaking of proxies, the stigmata behind them is frankly scarab waste. I would rather go proxy up an entire Vintage decklist than spend a single penny on obtaining them for the exorbitant prices that many of the cards have.
...And if I only cared about over powered cards in modern do you REALLY think I woulda devoted years of my life to death and taxes? Making otherwise unplayable cards work is pretty much what that deck does.
Poor example.
It gets the rare win. Yes it's not a brew. But you have to stretch pretty far to even claim its tier 2.
I mean in the sense that Death & Taxes is a fairly competitive deck and its not top tier like you said but also that the cards in it are not as unplayable anymore because its actually become a fairly competitive deck. You could have left it with as:
It's not about having it be the next Tarmogoyf, but throwing UB a freaking bone after screwing the color combo for years would have been nice.
...And if I only cared about over powered cards in modern do you REALLY think I woulda devoted years of my life to death and taxes? Making otherwise unplayable cards work is pretty much what that deck does.
@ Blair Phoenix: Its not that disrespectful, The action of not allowing your a opponent a "re-do". It would be how the opponent denies the "re-do". Their tone, their body language, how much attention they gave to the match, etc. Which would be more disrespectful if it was said in a rude and/or overbearing manner.
Its less about the rule and more about the individual. If the individual is polite and friendly but denies the "re-do" request, it wouldn't sting as badly as say one who was angry and impolite who denies the request.
...Are you not reading what I'm saying? I'm not talking about the action of not allowing your opponent a re-do being disrespectful. I'm talking about bolting your opponent's face instead of their 2/2 bear being disrespectful because, unless you forgot their Dragon's Claw is on the table, it's clearly showing a lack of respect for your opponent's intelligence in that you're expecting them to miss their trigger.
Either the attempt is seen as silly and futile or it is praised and considered clever. Its still not disrespectful to your opponent. If your opponent forgets, they forget. If your opponent remembers, they remember.
@ Blair Phoenix: Its not that disrespectful, The action of not allowing your a opponent a "re-do". It would be how the opponent denies the "re-do". Their tone, their body language, how much attention they gave to the match, etc. Which would be more disrespectful if it was said in a rude and/or overbearing manner.
Its less about the rule and more about the individual. If the individual is polite and friendly but denies the "re-do" request, it wouldn't sting as badly as say one who was angry and impolite who denies the request.
Well if the spike is regularly rude then, he or she, should have gotten a warning or a DQ. It is quiet unacceptable to let that behavior continue to happen without reprimand.
@ Shorue:
But then to say your opponent is a dick, that makes you unsportsmanlike. As it shows your now being a sore loser or even a sore winner.
@ Blair Phoenix:
I choose to ignore the Baloth argument for a simple reason which is: I crafted the original situation to be 50/50 chance of winning, not a 25/75. Both sides in the original situation are equally viable to win.
Besides who do you think allows you "re-dos" in a match to begin with? Your opponent. If you are not careful and you do end up forgetting your triggers, reading cards incorrectly, misplaying your cards at the wrong time... your opponent is within full rights to decline you a "re-do". Also BP, as a rules lawyer yourself, you must be familiar with how that is an actual rule in the game so it can't be immoral or unsportsmanlike as compared to say a house rule at your friend's flat. As if it were such a thing, then the entire game of MTG itself is immoral and unsportsmanlike as a result, which cannot be possibly true.
If you take full credit for your mistake then you would accept that you missed a trigger and choose to lose gracefully, no? As trying to make a big deal out of it in anyway is quiet unsportsmanlike as well and could result in a shouting match like in the original post.
But you know what is really immoral to me? Cheaters. Like that Stephen Speck fellow who palmed that 7-card combo to reach two Top 8s in the pro tour. Those folks make the immoral and active decision to cheat to win. Just think of how many well-meaning and non-cheating players were effectively robbed of a victory because of cheaters.
A good player doesn't need to cheat to win and even if they lose they should accept their defeat gracefully.
What about the other way? The player with the dragon claw remember his trigger, and the one playing the bolt forgot about it. Would you let him take back his bolt to kill your bear?
If the spell resolved, did its 3 damage to the face, the opponent got their +1 life off the bolt being cast, then the bolt hits the graveyard... No
If the spell hasn't resolved and the opponent gained +1 life off the bolt which hasn't resolved... Yes
What kind of event is this and what is the age/skill level of your opponent? Did you give ample time for your opponent to respond to your spell being on the stack before it resolved? In what way did you say no, and how exactly did you phrase the fact that they missed the trigger for Dragon's Claw? I understand that a lot of people who play this game are socially inept, but the way you word your statements and the tone in which you speak can play a HUGE part in making you sound informational vs making you sound like a douche.
Well if we are taking into account my tone, I don't have a douchey personality. I am usually happy and not patronizing towards my opponent. I am however fair and just.
The event is Prerelease.
Well the age of my opponent would be their age such as your age, no?
Well the skill of my opponent would be their skill such as your skill, no?
Beyond all of that though, yeah, you're still unsportsmanlike. Had all things been fair/equal(The point of sportsmanship) you should have lost. You're not enjoying the game for its own sake at that point, you're getting more enjoyment from winning off a technicality. I will never understand people who take enjoyment from winning in this way. When I win, I want to win because I earned it, not because my opponent forgot an easy to forget trigger. There is no joy in winning in that way.
I should have lost because of my opponent's mistake? Oh please.
You make it sound immoral to win off a technicality.
I personally don't take joy from it, I take joy from the match with my opponent. You assumed I do take such joy from that. You obviously have never met me and assume such things. You might think of me as a "douche" to kids. Acutally I am not. In fact, when its not a tournament I give them helpful and non-patronizing tips on how to win. As at the end of the day what matters more is the friendship amongst players, growth of tactical knowledge and allowing newer generations of MTG players to become better at the game and thus stronger players.
Mind you, this is what you say in your next paragraph...
Mind you, the game isn't always about sportsmanship. I have rules lawyered plenty at competitive events that I payed to attend, because I am not only there for the fun of the game, I am there to win. I expect all of my opponents to do the same. I don't consider prereleases competitive events though. Maybe you do. These kinds of things aren't black and white.
It matters little if its a prerelease or it isn't in terms of a environment with prizes on the line. You can have a fun time but one must accept that your opponents are not only here to have a good time, but to win as well. You want that Top 8 promo? That requires winning. You want that Prerelease Playmat? That requires winning. To expect any less of your opponents with prizes on the line is to be discrediting your opponent in wanting to win a game.
Also, to call another unsportsmanlike because of a fault of your own, is quiet unsportsmanlike as you are in fact shifting the blame of your own mistake onto your opponent.
Since playing by the rules is the still the only allegation against them in this thread, my opinion that they did nothing wrong still stands. Vague "trust me, it was really bad" statements hold no water with me.
I think the bigger concern is their clearly unsportsmanlike behaviour, which is problematic at all rules enforcement levels. Don't downplay foul behaviour like it's not a real issue, because that's the kind of attitude that legitimizes acting like a boor and ultimately pushes newer players away.
Not allowing someone to take back a legal mistake is unsportsmanlike behavior?
Lets say this was the situation:
Me: 2 Life, (no other cards in hand or in play besides Mountains)
You: 3 Life, Dragon's Claw and Grizzly Bears in play (no other cards in hand)
It is my turn and I had drawn Lightning Bolt, I choose to bolt your face to win the game. This is potentially a game winning play. You allow the damage to go through and accidentally missed the trigger for your Dragon's Claw as it is a may trigger.
Then after the spell and damage have resolved, you ask to be allowed to take the trigger from your Dragon's Claw as you had just remembered. I say no as you missed the trigger for your Dragon's Claw.
Am I the person being unsportsmanlike because I decline your request?
Are you in any way, shape or form being unsportsmanlike from my response to your request on a mental or emotional level?
Sure you can. Its called bending, breaking and reshaping. Using the color philosophy with the color wheel in order to develop new card interactions instead of retreading old ground as you view the color pie as guidelines than rules. Also flavor dictates a lot of what the colors can do based on the color philosophy behind them. Without that very flavor their is zero reason for the restrictions, the strengths and weaknesses, that each color possesses. By using dual color philosophy you stay within the strengths and weaknesses while also bending and reshaping it. Without that sort of thought process, card creation has no room for experimentation.
Take the simple and frankly recent concept of Red's ability to exile the top card of their library and then cast that card, that is expanding the color. Its a trick the color couldn't do before and would have been restricted to Blue as they are about library manipulation, not really red. What Red could do in the past was instead use the top cards of their library as a fuel-like source like with Arc-Slogger or Chaos Harlequin. The very first instance of this ability to exile then cast the top card(s) of your library were from Magic 2015 (Release Date: July 9th, 2014). Twenty-one years since the game's very inception in 1993 and Act on Impulse was the first official instance of Red being capable of that. This mechanic that is only about 2 & 1/2 years old.
Should I go over how Red has been quietly knicking Blue's ability to tap permanents and not allow them to untap during their controller's untap step with the cards Chandra's Revolution and Stensia Innkeeper and how its likely more like those are coming down the pipeline? It wouldn't be unreasonable before we saw a card like:
Seismic Disturbance XRR
Sorcery
Tap X target lands. They don't untap during their controller's next untap step.
This kind of card would have been argued by others such yourself as being blue and your same argument of "You can't get around color pie restrictions with flavor" would have been applied to my fictional card called Seismic Disturbance if I made this before Stensia Innkeeper was a thing.
Wrong analogy. Its not that nothing exists. Its that the contents inside are worth nothing.
I mean in the sense that Death & Taxes is a fairly competitive deck and its not top tier like you said but also that the cards in it are not as unplayable anymore because its actually become a fairly competitive deck. You could have left it with as:
Poor example.
Totally preordering just a copy of her.
Yes I have, thank you for pointing it out.
Either the attempt is seen as silly and futile or it is praised and considered clever. Its still not disrespectful to your opponent. If your opponent forgets, they forget. If your opponent remembers, they remember.
Its less about the rule and more about the individual. If the individual is polite and friendly but denies the "re-do" request, it wouldn't sting as badly as say one who was angry and impolite who denies the request.
But then to say your opponent is a dick, that makes you unsportsmanlike. As it shows your now being a sore loser or even a sore winner.
@ Blair Phoenix:
I choose to ignore the Baloth argument for a simple reason which is: I crafted the original situation to be 50/50 chance of winning, not a 25/75. Both sides in the original situation are equally viable to win.
Besides who do you think allows you "re-dos" in a match to begin with? Your opponent. If you are not careful and you do end up forgetting your triggers, reading cards incorrectly, misplaying your cards at the wrong time... your opponent is within full rights to decline you a "re-do". Also BP, as a rules lawyer yourself, you must be familiar with how that is an actual rule in the game so it can't be immoral or unsportsmanlike as compared to say a house rule at your friend's flat. As if it were such a thing, then the entire game of MTG itself is immoral and unsportsmanlike as a result, which cannot be possibly true.
If you take full credit for your mistake then you would accept that you missed a trigger and choose to lose gracefully, no? As trying to make a big deal out of it in anyway is quiet unsportsmanlike as well and could result in a shouting match like in the original post.
But you know what is really immoral to me? Cheaters. Like that Stephen Speck fellow who palmed that 7-card combo to reach two Top 8s in the pro tour. Those folks make the immoral and active decision to cheat to win. Just think of how many well-meaning and non-cheating players were effectively robbed of a victory because of cheaters.
A good player doesn't need to cheat to win and even if they lose they should accept their defeat gracefully.
That or a warning at the very least for both teams.
If the spell resolved, did its 3 damage to the face, the opponent got their +1 life off the bolt being cast, then the bolt hits the graveyard... No
If the spell hasn't resolved and the opponent gained +1 life off the bolt which hasn't resolved... Yes
Well if we are taking into account my tone, I don't have a douchey personality. I am usually happy and not patronizing towards my opponent. I am however fair and just.
The event is Prerelease.
Well the age of my opponent would be their age such as your age, no?
Well the skill of my opponent would be their skill such as your skill, no?
I should have lost because of my opponent's mistake? Oh please.
You make it sound immoral to win off a technicality.
I personally don't take joy from it, I take joy from the match with my opponent. You assumed I do take such joy from that. You obviously have never met me and assume such things. You might think of me as a "douche" to kids. Acutally I am not. In fact, when its not a tournament I give them helpful and non-patronizing tips on how to win. As at the end of the day what matters more is the friendship amongst players, growth of tactical knowledge and allowing newer generations of MTG players to become better at the game and thus stronger players.
Mind you, this is what you say in your next paragraph...
It matters little if its a prerelease or it isn't in terms of a environment with prizes on the line. You can have a fun time but one must accept that your opponents are not only here to have a good time, but to win as well. You want that Top 8 promo? That requires winning. You want that Prerelease Playmat? That requires winning. To expect any less of your opponents with prizes on the line is to be discrediting your opponent in wanting to win a game.
Also, to call another unsportsmanlike because of a fault of your own, is quiet unsportsmanlike as you are in fact shifting the blame of your own mistake onto your opponent.
Lets say this was the situation:
Me: 2 Life, (no other cards in hand or in play besides Mountains)
You: 3 Life, Dragon's Claw and Grizzly Bears in play (no other cards in hand)
It is my turn and I had drawn Lightning Bolt, I choose to bolt your face to win the game. This is potentially a game winning play. You allow the damage to go through and accidentally missed the trigger for your Dragon's Claw as it is a may trigger.
Then after the spell and damage have resolved, you ask to be allowed to take the trigger from your Dragon's Claw as you had just remembered. I say no as you missed the trigger for your Dragon's Claw.
Am I the person being unsportsmanlike because I decline your request?
Are you in any way, shape or form being unsportsmanlike from my response to your request on a mental or emotional level?