All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
 
Magic Market Index for April 20th, 2018
 
Pauper Review: Dominaria
 
The Limited Archetypes of Dominaria
  • posted a message on Merfolk
    Is it weird or dis-advisable at this point to run 2 Spell Pierce mainboard? My meta is control heavy. Thanks.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Christine Sprankle and Harassment in the MTG Community
    Quote from Wildfire393 »
    Thank you, HL, for answering the alt-right/alt-left question before I had a chance to. Alt-right is indeed a self-identifier. There is no group that identifies as the alt-left.

    If anything, this thread demonstrates how very much we do not need Debate back.


    There are undoubtedly serious problems with debate, especially the expectation that it's going to be moderated with an all-volunteer squad. But sometimes I wonder if the fact that there's a back and forth at all is considered to be part of the problem. I hope it's not.

    It was very clear from the beginning of this thread that personal insults and slurs were not desired, nor would they be accepted. But the specific ban on 'alt-left' (preceded by the similar-ish specific ban on 'SJW') on the grounds that they are not self-identifiers is, I've gotta say, pretty odd.

    They're not odd in a vacuum: the use of those phrases as insults directed at specific people is likely to sink a thread. But they're odd in context. The context being that you are posting front page articles about this same subject which hurl around 'Nazi' and talk about all of the fictitiously rampant Nazi sympathy that's supposed to exist here. We (likely) all agree that that is a terrible thing to be, and I hardly see why 'alt-left' would be worse simply because it's not a self-identifier. I'd rather be 'alt-left' than a Nazi.

    Anyway, article vs. thread... two different things, you might say. But to me it seems like there might be a disconnect in the way the show's being run, that's all.

    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Christine Sprankle and Harassment in the MTG Community
    Quote from thememan »
    None of that is the problem that Christine has. The problem Christine has is that she has received death threats, and graphic messages about how people want to rape her. Of course she is going to express disgust at that. That sort of crap is not what any person should reasonably expect.


    I'm confused as to why, when I was researching this, the complaints I was finding were about stuff like the gendered insult he made against her (which IMO was pretty cruel and not OK) and people being disgusted by the flip it or rip it game (which IMO is not even in the same stratosphere). It should be more clear that she was receiving death and rape threats because that's a whole different universe than even the gendered insult, let alone the flip it or rip it thing.

    This makes it really simple. If you're sending someone death or rape threats, you're a criminal. If you're explicitly encouraging others to do it, you're a criminal. If you're implicitly encouraging others to do it, you're still pretty terrible.

    Since TPTB are outlining all of the things this is NOT about: this is NOT about anyone needing to adopt 4th wave feminism or any of the other neo-marxist claptrap that they're going to try to shove down our throats. I say this is about whether we are going to tolerate someone threatening or encouraging others to threaten members of our community. We should also be asking ourselves how we can identify and shut down these situations more rapidly. That's my take, at least.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Christine Sprankle and Harassment in the MTG Community
    Quote from Wildfire393 »
    The thread is veering wildly off-course here. Please correct or we will have to lock it temporarily
    Quote from Wildfire393 »
    The thread is veering wildly off-course here. Please correct or we will have to lock it temporarily


    Can we just get clear on one point? You want to discuss this situation, but during that discussion, we shouldn't reference the frontpage article on this site which is about this situation? I mean, I totally get that... it's conceivable that we could be urged to ignore that article, it's just a little confusing.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Christine Sprankle and Harassment in the MTG Community
    Quote from thememan »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    http://www.mtgsalvation.com/articles/49677-if-you-cant-take-criticism-of-jeremy-hambly-youre


    Tiki Torches and Making America Nazi-Free Again

    Earlier this year, neo-Nazis staged a tiki torch rally to bring attention to their racist and hateful cause of "Unite the Right" with such wonderful slogans as "sieg heil" and "blood and soil." Naturally, this sparked a little bit of controversy, as Nazis tend to do. One common theme, however, was for those identifying as right wing, especially Trump voters, to take an odd kind of personal offence to the backlash, as if an attack on Nazis is somehow an attack on them. A similar note of extreme defensiveness sprung up with Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus's marketing of "Make America Nazi-Free Again." The very same people who would happily shoot Nazis in Call of Duty: World War II get very anxious when the context is changed to killing Nazis on American soil.

    It should go without saying that if you feel personally attacked when someone denounces the Nazis, you ought to take a good, hard, long look inside yourself to find out where that Nazi sympathy comes from. And then you kill it with fire from a good, old-fashioned, American-made M1A1 flamethrower, a fine weapon responsible for killing many Nazis in the actual World War II.


    It absolutely is an attack on them. The "Make America Nazi Free Again" is such a bonk you on the head obvious allusion that you're either going to make that connection or you're going to have a migraine. Or both. It's honestly quite disgusting in its blatant exploitation.

    Consider an alternative future where Bernie Sanders is elected and this emboldens a very small but vocal set of American communists. The right then moves to associate Bernie with communism, because that is a politically obvious move. What they hope to accomplish in this situation is to tarnish all support of Bernie or any policy that he holds with the communist label. As we mostly (but not fully, because there is an abundance of Marxist or quasi-Marxist sympathy in Hollywood and in the education system) consider communism to be cruel and evil and, as we now associate Bernie and his supporters with that, we begin to dehumanize them.

    That is what's going on here and that's precisely what this game wishes to capitalize on. That is why it is such a despicable game.


    If you feel that you can't comment on MTGSalvation without being singled out by the mods, ask yourself why that is.


    If you find yourself feeling offended when the same call for introspection is repeated back at you, ask yourself why.


    Yeah I dont get it, .0025% of the population is a member of the KKK and at the neo-nazi march in Charlotesville at most 500 people showed up and I have seen figures that put it as less then 200, yet somehow there is a Nazi epidemic.

    PA didnt vote for Obama twice and then suddenly all of the white supremacist showed up and voted.

    People need to get over losing an election.


    The vast majority of the people have.


    Also, this is not the point of the thread.


    It sure seems like it is. We're not the ones writing these articles.

    Look, you wanna talk about the man who holds the highest office in the States allegedly groping women and talk about how you think this fits in with a culture that doesn't respect women and here's a woman who wasn't respected, well... great. It feels a little disjointed but there's certainly some connection there. But if you also wanna bring Nazism into this and start associating a large group of people, many of whom explicitly condemn Nazism with that philosophy, yeah, that's political.

    And it looks especially silly to go around talking about people being Nazis or having secret Nazi sympathies while you ban "SJW" as a pejorative because, gee, God forbid we offend someone with a really mean label like that.

    Or MTGS could not do any of that and we could just talk about a woman who appears to have been mistreated and discuss the actions WoTC or we as individuals should take in response to that.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Christine Sprankle and Harassment in the MTG Community
    http://www.mtgsalvation.com/articles/49677-if-you-cant-take-criticism-of-jeremy-hambly-youre


    Tiki Torches and Making America Nazi-Free Again

    Earlier this year, neo-Nazis staged a tiki torch rally to bring attention to their racist and hateful cause of "Unite the Right" with such wonderful slogans as "sieg heil" and "blood and soil." Naturally, this sparked a little bit of controversy, as Nazis tend to do. One common theme, however, was for those identifying as right wing, especially Trump voters, to take an odd kind of personal offence to the backlash, as if an attack on Nazis is somehow an attack on them. A similar note of extreme defensiveness sprung up with Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus's marketing of "Make America Nazi-Free Again." The very same people who would happily shoot Nazis in Call of Duty: World War II get very anxious when the context is changed to killing Nazis on American soil.

    It should go without saying that if you feel personally attacked when someone denounces the Nazis, you ought to take a good, hard, long look inside yourself to find out where that Nazi sympathy comes from. And then you kill it with fire from a good, old-fashioned, American-made M1A1 flamethrower, a fine weapon responsible for killing many Nazis in the actual World War II.


    It absolutely is an attack on them. The "Make America Nazi Free Again" is such a bonk you on the head obvious allusion that you're either going to make that connection or you're going to have a migraine. Or both. It's honestly quite disgusting in its blatant exploitation.

    Consider an alternative future where Bernie Sanders is elected and this emboldens a very small but vocal set of American communists. The right then moves to associate Bernie with communism, because that is a politically obvious move. What they hope to accomplish in this situation is to tarnish all support of Bernie or any policy that he holds with the communist label. As we mostly (but not fully, because there is an abundance of Marxist or quasi-Marxist sympathy in Hollywood and in the education system) consider communism to be cruel and evil and, as we now associate Bernie and his supporters with that, we begin to dehumanize them.

    That is what's going on here and that's precisely what this game wishes to capitalize on. That is why it is such a despicable game.


    If you feel that you can't comment on MTGSalvation without being singled out by the mods, ask yourself why that is.


    If you find yourself feeling offended when the same call for introspection is repeated back at you, ask yourself why.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Sydri, Galvanic Genius + Caltrops
    Oh God, I've been playing Magic wrong for about a decade. I get it now! Thanks everyone.

    Quote from silentstormraider »
    Items (read - spell/ability) on the stack resolve one at a time, not all at once.


    I understood that they resolved one at a time and in order, but for some reason, I thought they did this in one big batch which was not something you could respond to once each player had passed once. So weird that I thought that.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Sydri, Galvanic Genius + Caltrops
    Quote from genini2 »
    This is a legal play. Your confusion seems to come from a misunderstanding of how items on the stack resolve. Something on the stack only resolves once each player has passed without doing anything and this must happen every time something resolves. So after the blue activated ability of Sydri resolves both players will once again be given the opportunity to activate more abilities or cast spells if they want.


    But when we let the blue activation resolve, why doesn't the Caltrops damage resolve at that same time? In other words, how is Player B allowing the blue activation to resolve while keeping the Caltrops trigger on the stack? Once both players pass, doesn't everything left on the stack resolve?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Sydri, Galvanic Genius + Caltrops
    I saw someone pull this off the other day and I'm confused as to how it works, so if anyone could offer a step by step explanation as to how the player did it then that would be much appreciated.

    Player A attacked Player B with a bunch of creatures. Player B controlled a Caltrops and activated the blue activation on Sydri, Galvanic Genius to turn Caltrops into an artifact creature and also the white/black activation to give Caltrops deathtouch and lifelink. Then the damage resolved and since Caltrops had deathtouch, Player A's entire attacking army was destroyed.

    What I don't understand is the order in which these activations go on the stack to make this happen. Player B seems to be using the blue activation as a response to Caltrops original trigger, but Player B seems to need to let the blue activation resolve before using the white/black activation - since Caltrops has to be a creature already before it can be targeted with the white/black activation. But if Player B lets the blue activation resolve, isn't he also allowing the original Caltrops trigger to resolve, thus making it irrelevant that Caltrops later gains deathtouch?

    So can someone walk me through step by step how this is happening in a technical way? Or was it an illegal play? Thanks.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Vein Drinker
    Quote from peteroupc »
    For Vein Drinker's activated ability, first Vein Drinker deals damage, then the target creature, rather than both dealing damage simultaneously, because there are two action verbs (here, both "deals") in two different places. Whether or not the word "then" appears in the ability is irrelevant here. In general, each instance of an action verb indicates a separate, sequential action (compare Vein Drinker with Char; under C.R. 608.2c, you "apply the rules of English to the text" of a spell when following its instructions; see also this thread).


    Thank you. I see the difference between something like Vein Drinker and Char, as you pointed out. But how would Vein Drinker differ from something like, say, Faithless Looting?

    Draw two cards, then discard two cards.


    It seems like both "draw" and "discard" are action verbs, but the card for some reason includes 'then.' Is it a style situation where including the 'then' is just simpler than saying "Draw 2 cards. Discard 2 cards."?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Vein Drinker
    Vein Drinker

    So, I learned today that when Vein Drinker activates its ability, it deals damage to the targeted creature first. The thing that's driving me crazy is that every time I read the text, I can't figure out how I'm supposed to reach that conclusion. I keep expecting see the word 'then' to start off the 2nd sentence but it's not there.

    So the question is why is a 'then' not required here to indicate that Vein Drinker deals it damage first?

    Also, from a rules perspective, what, if anything, would be different if there *was* a 'then' to lead off the 2nd sentence?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Question about the MTG bundle packs
    I just got an Amonkhet bundle pack. I think this is the new term for the old fat packs? Anyway, it comes with this short box inside it with a planeswalker symbol on the top. I believe that the box was empty. Might be a stupid question but what does anyone use this type of box for? It's not the size of the regular full-art box where you might put decks in it.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Debate Forum alums: Where do you debate?
    Quote from Highroller »
    A thought I had: would anyone be up for forming a clan with debate alums and then continuing discussion within the clan thread?


    That's a good thought. I suppose it would be within the rules?
    Posted in: Talk and Entertainment
  • posted a message on Debate Forum alums: Where do you debate?
    WELP, bummer about debate closing. I've been terrible at actually contributing to the forum for awhile now anyway. I've been working on a computer ~6 hours per day so I just don't find the energy for it.... maybe my fingers are just tired of typing. I know there were a few posts that I've been meaning to reply to for weeks now and I just can't convince myself to do so. It would've (would still) be cool to engage with some of you in a more verbal format because my voice never seems to tire.

    To actually answer your question, though... nowhere for now. This was nearly the perfect place for discussion back in the day because there was such a diverse but almost universally restrained range of views. The closest thing I can remember to that was the forum for Dan Carlin's Common Sense podcast, but I'm not sure if they still have a forum there. Have you found anything yet?
    Posted in: Talk and Entertainment
  • posted a message on US Missile Strike on Syria
    Quote from Kahedron »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    Quote from Ljoss »
    He can't do that legally. I mean, I appreciate all the reasonable critiques of his decisions but he can't actually do that. He was stretching the limits just by doing what he did here.
    ...no, he wasn't. This was the "minimum use of force" approach. I'd bet dollars to donuts his advisors gave him a menu of options that got way more explosive.


    I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. He's POTUS, not King. He can't just order a complete bombardment of the state of Syria on a whim. Not to mention that the Russians are there as well.

    Well acutally it looks like he can. He just has to tell congress why he did it within 48 hours and pull the troops out after 60 days if Congress doesn't grant an extension.


    Quoting wiki here just for ease:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution


    The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

    The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.


    I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that he certainly doesn't have the power you're suggesting that he does here. There's been no attack on the United States and no word from congress. That explains why we're already seeing some questions about the legality even of this minimal action that he did take (refer to my previous citation).

    The issue of authority aside, just as a matter of prudence, it seems like a pretty awful idea to start a war with the vassal of a major world power (who even has forces present within the borders of said vassal) without both international and congressional support, neither of which he has. We don't see any other state in the world (even in Europe) trying to do this, either. Hilariously, with this singular action, he's done more against Assad than anyone else has.



    Quote from Ljoss »

    It's a brave move for a few reasons.

    1) Questionable legality and opposition by a few lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

    2) Opens him up to criticism for flip-flopping on Syria.

    3) Opposition by anti-war elements on both sides of the aisle - even fervent supporters that are sympathetic to Russia.


    Ljoss we aren't attacking him for carrying out the attack. We are attacking him because the method he choose is absolutely pointless and does nothing to help anyone. All this is, is a very very expensive Wag the dog. He has done the bare minimum neccessary to get some hopefully positive headlines in an attempt distract people from all the things that are going wrong at home with his domestic plans.


    He's kinda getting hit from almost every angle here. You have the anti-war left now claiming him to be a warmonger - or like you said, the whole wag the dog deal. You've got the legal issues with congress. You've got this backlash from the right that either believes that Assad didn't use chemical weapons and this is all some big conspiracy or that, even if Assad is using chemical weapons, the fact remains that he's fighting ISIS and so let's just look the other way. I think this might have helped him with some nations (the U.K., Israel, Saudi Arabia and Australia have expressed support) and maybe certain elements of the media but let's not kid ourselves, this doesn't please a large portion of his base and it doesn't please much of the left, either.
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.