- Arkay
- Registered User
-
Member for 14 years, 1 month, and 12 days
Last active Wed, Jan, 19 2011 00:18:51
- 0 Followers
- 747 Total Posts
- 1 Thank
-
Sep 29, 2010Arkay posted a message on Destructive Force [G/R/U - T2]I don't understand how you justify a single shot draw effect as being a better fit in a deck which has a relatively high chance of drawing nothing but lands/ramp and expensive spells. Given all your shuffling effects, Jace can basically dig your entire deck in a couple of turns, and you have the removal and blockers to protect him.Posted in: PhoenixM Blog
-
Sep 21, 2010Arkay posted a message on Destructive Force [G/R/U - T2]Lightning Bolt, Khalni Garden, and into the Roil cannot protect jace. Neither can your titans, garruk, d-force, or jace himself.Posted in: PhoenixM Blog
Makes perfect sense. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Go look at the edh section here. Its 95% people complaining about blue decks, 4% arguing about what the spirit of edh is, and 1% professor magic telling everyone exactly how the game should work and arguing at length that the banlist is mismanaged.
Trolling infraction issued. -viper
I'd appreciate it if someone would explain it to me.
Cephalid Illusionist + Shuko/Kor cards from stronghold
Kird Kitty was Nacatl's playtest name.
If my understanding is correct, master warcraft lets you pick *which* creatures attack, not whom they are attacking. Most of the situations in which it is cast, it either fogs or falters, and when people try to get cute they just get all out swung into.
It is an amusing card, but it doesn't really do enough to be good.
You think its a bad format, you're still playing in it and expounding at length upon what you think would be healthy for it?
Any excuse I guess, right?
"The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure".
Hear that wooshing sound? That is the sound of jokes sailing over your head.
You're completely absurd.
So have you read it, or is this the old debate standby of "OMG YOU'RE MAKING AND ASSUMPTION!!?!?!", while said assumption is correct. I'd default to it being the second one, but you could surprise me.
Thanks! Enjoy your sanctimony!
So you want to replace one eighty dollar mythic with five of them?
That makes sense.
Or do you mean specific games? I played Jeff Phillips at regionals the last year it was regionals, and it was pretty satisfying to choke him out.
Being enlightened while being ignorant is pretty awesome, isn't it?
They teach intolerance, closed mindedness, and inconsistent morals, which I would posit are equally harmful to the child in the long run.
You're also all basing the assumption of harm on a book you've *never read*, and several people outright refuse to.
I'm more or less done having this discussion here, since its not as much fun as trolling amazon and the people are at least as closed minded. Ciao!
Not relevant and arguably not true.
I think that religious texts are harmful to your children and you should not expose them. Should we then burn those too, and would my opinion be valid to you if I espoused that view?
I agree with the statement but not with your intent. I would posit that the people decrying this book would be inordinately offended by people calling to remove a christian book on account of the message it imparted.
Either it is all okay or none of it is, and I for one would have no problem with your hypothetical book.
@ Skander: Arkadia, yeah. Did I typo?
I think this is actually totally hilarious. I can't believe so many people are riled up about an ebook that is almost certainly not graphic and in all honesty isn't that bad. If I had a Kindle I'd buy ten copies just to spite the people shouting for censorship.
And then I'd probably have to talk to the fbi.