Quote from Negator_402 »You need to learn to write without personal attacks or invectives. Your voice is so weak.
No, the 4th Amendment applies to government search and seizure. However, absent a burden of proof, the public opinion pillory becomes a witch hunt. Gee, did we ever have a history of people being black-balled due to empty allegations on a sensitive subject? Oh yes, the MCCARTHY ERA!
I ask you, on the topic of harassment: who marches in our streets and claims to punch people who are "Nazis"? Is it the "Alt-Right?" No sir, its the Alt-Left. There is no "Punch A Communist" or "Punch A Mujahideen" movement in the US, is there?
It's funny, because your posts include plenty of personal attacks directed at other posters, which I have avoided. Why are you so triggered by this?
By the way, there IS proof, which is why the offending video got taken down by Youtube for violating ToS.
But yeah, I want more dwarves. I also want more Orcs, and thankfully it looks like we'll be getting them in Khans. I also kinda want Homarids, because they are an interesting concept.
Hate: Vampires. Mainly because Wizards forced them too hard when they first came out, and basically built the standard deck for us. Most vamp decks look exactly the same, even today, and I always find them annoying to play against. Just one must answer threat after another, with very little thought behind the plays. The sad part is, its possible to make interesting vamp decks (I have a vamp tribal based on sacrificing), but most people just see the raw power of nocturnus and the dude from innistrad that poops out vamp tokens and can't help but go down that same boring path.
Oh, and Eldrazi for being pure cheese. And I kind of hate Vedelkan, only because I can't seem to build a Veldelkan tribal deck. Their powerful cards don't really compliment each other that well. I always end up wanting to go the Master of Etherium route, but it never satisfies.
Well, Evil Cartman was a pretty swell guy, so I guess the evil twin relationship is like multiplying by a negative number. Two evils make a good, like two negatives make a positive. But two wrongs don't make a right, because that's addition. or someting
That would be Dominaria.
Not all Djinn or Efreeti had drawbacks. M10 had Djinn of Wishes which was an air elemental with a cool ability tacked on, and the first Ravnica block had Tidespout Tyrantwhich was a flying fatty with a powerful effect and no downside, and Djinn Illuminatus which had no downside and gave all your spells replicate. Even Arabian Nights had the downside free Old Man of the Sea. Djinn don't have to have a downside. As for the Efreeti, the printed a number without downsides as well, I just don't feel like linking any more cards.
I also agree with Sanguimancy being terrible. Black Oak has its uses,especially in a control deck that has inspired creatures, and Claim of Erebos is easily the best of a bad cycle, as its effect can be worth it on a stalled board, and is definitely worth it on most inspired creatures. Neither are good, but I've played both and they've played well, but they absolutely don't fit everywhere. Sanguimancy fits nowhere.
Either way, this is a great resource. Thanks again!
Now, I also have to say I'm not knocking noobs. All veterans start off as noobs, and many noobs go on to be veterans. Noobs only become problematic when you start catering to the ones who wouldn't otherwise stay with the game. The more people who start playing, the further the average player is from the core base of players (the ones who are most naturally inclined to play and enjoy the game). A game that focuses to strongly on this core group will fail, because this group is not large enough to drive profits. As your audience grows, you start attracting players who may not be as naturally inclined to the game as the core group, but are still pretty into what makes it tick. This group genuinely enjoys the game, but they aren't die hards, so they will leave if you don't innovate, and their tastes are broader and lean more toward the general population. They are also more plentiful than the core base. This is a good group to focus your product too, as they are numerous enough to keep you in business and making good money. Their tastes are close enough the the core base's that what makes them happy will also please the base well enough, and close enough to the general population that the game will draw in noncommittal players for a short time for more money but not let them take over. The last group, the problematic one, are the noncommitted players who are only slightly inclined toward the game. They are inclined enough to try it out, but not enough to stick with it over the long term if they run into anything they don't like. They are usually drawn for the same reasons as the other groups, such as enjoying similar games, enjoying fantasy, or having friends who play, but never really get invested in the game for its own sake. Servicing this group turns away the core, and risks weakening the product enough to drive away some of the middle group, yet this outer group is less likely to stay with the game long term on its own, which can lead to the failure of the game. They also gravitate toward flashy, big, easy to understand effects. They want an easy button, clear powerhouse cards with no drawbacks. The more popular the game gets, the more it relies on the outer groups of players. An unpopular game relies on the diehards, a popular game relies on the middle group, and a super popular game relies on the outer group. This is both because, the further you get from the core base, the bigger the group. There are more potential players in the middle than the core, and more in the outer group than the middle. The core group also picks up the game first, the middle second, and the outer last. This means that, in order for a game to grow its audience, it has to move further from the core. They key is realizing when you've reached a nice, sustainable base and stop forcing further growth, relying on population growth to grow your audience and targeting your game to retaining core and middle group players. A game that tries to force itself to grow beyond its natural audience, both diehard and discerning, will lose what makes it special and it will fail. You can't be all things to all people, but you can be what you need to be to the people that matter, the ones who will be reliable long term customers, in order to have a sustainable product. I believe that magic is currently aimed to the middle group, but skews a bit more to the outer group than the core. This is okay as long as they don't cross over to pandering to the outer group. The all important middle will be mostly happy, us core players will be annoyed at times but generally satisfied, and the outer group will be intrigued, temporarily pleased, and ultimately fickle and temporary.
Neither card is terrible though. The fact that spellheart is the worst gold card shows that they did a pretty good job designing gold cards for this set.