I
Foil only, no picture in the frame(it's a mirror, get it!)
1WUBRG
This planeswalker may be your commander. ~ enters play with X loyalty counters, where X is the amount of colorless mana spent to cast X.
+1: something
+0: tap target non-land permanent. It cannot untap as long as ~ is in play.
-15: Win the game.
Considering they've never been shy about the statement what they consider the iconic tribes to be I shouldn't be disappointed with some of the reprints. I *am*, but I shouldn't be.
maro dropped this tidbit in today Ixalan's article: "and a desire to move Unstable away from Kaladesh, as both had a steampunk vibe—although taken in very different directions"
calling CONTRAPTIONS!
Can you "call" something that has already been officially announced and confirmed for a while now?
I just want there to be sufficient silver border legendaries to make EDH-unhinged a thing.
A fun set of Unsung Heroes and Heroines (silver bordered Planeswalkers) would be fun too! Hopefully someone is listening!
I have absolutley no doubt that there will be a set of silver bordered planeswalkers. Possibly even a common planeswalker, just to flip the mythic only paradigm on its head.
Wing Shards is the best storm spell for non-combo use.
Flusterstorm would like a word with you.
Vampires is already in the best colors for creature removal, and has many choices.
Cats is a bit more limited in options, so I understand why they put it there
(though I agree that Swords to Plowshares would have been better).
Is Flusterstorm really that good other than against combo? Otherwise, it's probably a bad Spell Pierce/Negate/Mana Leak/Remand/Counterspell/Memory Lapse. Wing Shards can easily help deal 3 or more creatures at once including indestructible/untargetable ones.
At it's absolute worst it's a counterspell that is U: counter target spell unless it's controller pays (2)
Is it just me or the vampire one generally the most underwhelming of the bunch? It's quite bland, probably the most simplistic of the bunch and just generally a bit meh.
Honestly, I feel that way about all of them. I was excited about tribal, and got piles of Meh. If anything these decks are not parasitic enough.
I get that its a staple but a little variation would be nice.
I suppose, but how would you vary it? They can't (won't) reprint the duals, or close approximations of them, so they need some way to get mana fixing out there. This card is good, and doesn't have *any* impact on eternal formats due to it's design.
personally, I wish they had pulled the trigger on the "snow duals" that they playtested the original commander set with, but I understand the reason why they did not.
Let's be honest here: Jill Stein is operating on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Whether at the direction of Clinton (unlikely), or out of some misguided attempt to shift the election results. In either case, the end goal has absolutely nothing to do with "checking the integrity of the voting process" and everything to do with "what can I do to try and make Hillary win". The selection of states that she filed for a recount in makes that abundantly clear.
What can I do to try and make Hillary win?*
*If she lost due to electoral fraud, because that's kind of an important thing.
If she's worried that electoral fraud changed the outcome of the election, and has a limited budget to investigate, it doesn't seem that unusual to me that she'd investigate the states that were actually in play, as opposed to safe states.
There isn't any evidence (despite Trump's claims) of electoral fraud. None. I'm fine with her requesting a recount. I think it also makes a lot of sense to make the person requesting that recount pay the actual costs of it if they don't have a reasonable chance of winning as a result of it.
As a tax payer in Michigan, Jill Stein is wasting my money. It's made worse because rather than just outright admitting that she's trying to swing it for Hillary she's making a BS claim that she is trying to restore confidence in the electoral system and that she selected the states she did because of their counting process.
So Michigan Republicans hate the idea of people checking the vote, and they're pushing a retroactive law which increases the costs of recounts under certain conditions, in what looks like an attempt to punish Jill Stein for trying to get one. [link]
Honestly, I figured the recounts were just an attempt by Stein to get some support, but the more I hear about Republicans trying to stop them the more I think there might be something to claims of fraud or whatever.
No, Michigan Legislators hate the idea of being on the hook for the costs of a recount instigated by a person who cannot possibly win. The Proposed Michigan retroactive law wouldn't stop the recount it would shift the full cost (rather than just the $1,000,000 of the current law) to a candidate who was not within, I believe, 5% of the winning candidate.
Jill Stein has *absolutely no chance* of winning. She paid her cost, but the state is on the hook for somewhere between 10 and 12 million dollars, at least, to conduct the recount.
Let's be honest here: Jill Stein is operating on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Whether at the direction of Clinton (unlikely), or out of some misguided attempt to shift the election results. In either case, the end goal has absolutely nothing to do with "checking the integrity of the voting process" and everything to do with "what can I do to try and make Hillary win". The selection of states that she filed for a recount in makes that abundantly clear.
1) Nobody likes being called a racist, whether they are a huge racist, or only harbor a few benign prejudices.
2) the argument over whether an idea is "racist" or not is not persuasive. The purpose of a debate is to persuade.
3) Calling an idea racist may be apt, and may actually be appropriate in some circumstances, but it is rarely going to be the argument that persuades the other person that they are wrong.
Within the context of an election post mortem, this should be more evident than ever. Calling everyone who voted for Trump "Racist" serves only to dig them in and make them defensive. It didn't work in the run up to the election, I have no idea why some people think doubling down on it now would work any better.
Note that something like "your arguments about X are both racist and counter-factual because Y" is a legitimate response.
It contains a legitimate response. It also contains an ad hominem attack. If you think about it from the perspective of your opponent, what is more likely to convince *them* that they are wrong:
"Your argument about X is racist. It is also wrong because Y".
-or-
"Your argument is wrong because Y".
From a persuasion standpoint, the first assertion immediately puts your opponent into "defensive" mode and shuts down their willingness to listen to what you have to say. It's worth noting that this is true even if the first assertion is undeniably correct.
I
Foil only, no picture in the frame(it's a mirror, get it!)
1WUBRG
This planeswalker may be your commander. ~ enters play with X loyalty counters, where X is the amount of colorless mana spent to cast X.
+1: something
+0: tap target non-land permanent. It cannot untap as long as ~ is in play.
-15: Win the game.
Others, like mana drain, I'm all for.
Can you "call" something that has already been officially announced and confirmed for a while now?
I have absolutley no doubt that there will be a set of silver bordered planeswalkers. Possibly even a common planeswalker, just to flip the mythic only paradigm on its head.
At it's absolute worst it's a counterspell that is U: counter target spell unless it's controller pays (2)
Honestly, I feel that way about all of them. I was excited about tribal, and got piles of Meh. If anything these decks are not parasitic enough.
That's not going to slot into anything. /me immediately slots this into literally every blue deck he owns.
I suppose, but how would you vary it? They can't (won't) reprint the duals, or close approximations of them, so they need some way to get mana fixing out there. This card is good, and doesn't have *any* impact on eternal formats due to it's design.
personally, I wish they had pulled the trigger on the "snow duals" that they playtested the original commander set with, but I understand the reason why they did not.
There isn't any evidence (despite Trump's claims) of electoral fraud. None. I'm fine with her requesting a recount. I think it also makes a lot of sense to make the person requesting that recount pay the actual costs of it if they don't have a reasonable chance of winning as a result of it.
As a tax payer in Michigan, Jill Stein is wasting my money. It's made worse because rather than just outright admitting that she's trying to swing it for Hillary she's making a BS claim that she is trying to restore confidence in the electoral system and that she selected the states she did because of their counting process.
No, Michigan Legislators hate the idea of being on the hook for the costs of a recount instigated by a person who cannot possibly win. The Proposed Michigan retroactive law wouldn't stop the recount it would shift the full cost (rather than just the $1,000,000 of the current law) to a candidate who was not within, I believe, 5% of the winning candidate.
Jill Stein has *absolutely no chance* of winning. She paid her cost, but the state is on the hook for somewhere between 10 and 12 million dollars, at least, to conduct the recount.
Let's be honest here: Jill Stein is operating on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Whether at the direction of Clinton (unlikely), or out of some misguided attempt to shift the election results. In either case, the end goal has absolutely nothing to do with "checking the integrity of the voting process" and everything to do with "what can I do to try and make Hillary win". The selection of states that she filed for a recount in makes that abundantly clear.
2) the argument over whether an idea is "racist" or not is not persuasive. The purpose of a debate is to persuade.
3) Calling an idea racist may be apt, and may actually be appropriate in some circumstances, but it is rarely going to be the argument that persuades the other person that they are wrong.
Within the context of an election post mortem, this should be more evident than ever. Calling everyone who voted for Trump "Racist" serves only to dig them in and make them defensive. It didn't work in the run up to the election, I have no idea why some people think doubling down on it now would work any better.
It contains a legitimate response. It also contains an ad hominem attack. If you think about it from the perspective of your opponent, what is more likely to convince *them* that they are wrong:
"Your argument about X is racist. It is also wrong because Y".
-or-
"Your argument is wrong because Y".
From a persuasion standpoint, the first assertion immediately puts your opponent into "defensive" mode and shuts down their willingness to listen to what you have to say. It's worth noting that this is true even if the first assertion is undeniably correct.