There are a variety of auras in the set that I can't decide if they're playable or not. I tend to err on the side of "not" with auras, but in this format, it seems like these may be ok.
These thread is for discussion of cards that are not obviously playable and aren't clearly crap. When do you play these and why:
Tempest Owl: I think both versions are too expensive for what you get, but others have tried to say that it could be good in a UG deck that needs a way to punch through that last bit of damage. So, given that this isn't generally a card you'll want to play, is that a situation when you might?
Pillarfield Ox: My BW deck was short on creatures (only 13) and I was worried that I was going to be in the situation of being able to kill all my opponents' creatures, but not my opponents. I eventually went with a Kor Outfitter because I had one equipment card and it's half the cost, but I could see an argument for this (or even Caravan Hurda) if I ran into a really creature heavy deck.
Kor Outfitter: I just ran this as a 2/2 for 2 because I needed another creature, but I guess that's my question.
Hagra Corcodile: I wasn't especially happy to be using a creature that couldn't block in a deck that was already short on creatures, but this was one of my few creatures that could pass for a "beater" if you squint. Again, I'm not sure that another mediocre or situational creature (like a Bog Tatters or a Pillarfield Ox) or even a non-creature like Bold Defense would have been better.
Crypt of Agadeem: I auto-included this card, but in a deck with only 13 creatures and 2 raise dead effects, I almost never had more than 2 creatures in the yard at any time. How many creatures should you have before this becomes better than a swamp?
Guul Draz Vampire: Obviously, after your opponent is at or below 10, this guy rocks, but this means that for about half the game he's a 1/1 for 1. I'm inclined to like it because if you're not counting on getting your opponent to 10 at some point, then you're counting on losing, but that's kind of chicken-before-the-eggy.
Demolish: For a bit I thought LD would be good in this set, but then I thought that everyone will be running so many lands that it'll be bad. But there are a lot of artifacts. What do you think about LD here?
Goblin War Paint: I would've said this sucked this morning, but the 4-1 deck I beat in the finals played 2 in a very BR aggro deck that just ran over everyone else (I just killed everything until he was out of gas and then I killed him with my mosquito and such).
Makindi Shieldmate: I'm pretty sure the only reason to play these is because your desperate for defense or you've got some actually good allies. I just had two of them and an artifact cat.
Went 5-0 with a BW control deck with a sick removal suite:
2x Mosquitos
2x Journey to Nowhere
1x Horrible End
1x Pitfall Trap
1x Gatekeeper
and the psudeoremoval of 2x Giant Scorpion. I heard some people smack talking those guys, but they're solid defense in a color that doesn't often have something like that.
my deck was able to win despite having basically 1 good beater (Shepard of the Lost) because I had enough removal to neutralize every threat, stabilize, and kill the with 2/2's. Unless I was able to draw Luminarch Ascension, then I just killed them with a swarm of Angels.
I agree that landfall is probably not under-represented. I think that the cc of the set is kind of high between kicker, hard-cast traps, and landfall and all the fetching it'll make sense to be running a lot of land for a variety of reasons.
i still believe sealed is 50:50 in terms of pool and player.... Garruk, foil arch druid, 2x overrun, might of oaks, captain watch, paladin, platinum angel, guardian seraph. with 6-8 soldies and 2 blinding mages, verdicts and pacifisms and tons of playable green stuff.... sad thing was he went 0-3 and dropped...
Doesn't that kind of disprove your point? Your pool matters, but I can't even count the number of times I've looked at a PT winning sealed pool and been totally unimpressed by the cards.
Warning for Double Post. Please edit your previous post next time, if no one has replied before you want to add something. ~Phyrre56
High land counts aren't just good for landfall (18 spoiled commons with landfall), it's also important to pay kicker costs (10 spoiled commons with kicker) which are generally expensive for what you get because you're also paying for the choice. You're also paying a bit extra for all the times you pay full price for a trap, and that full price is often higher than normal because again, you're paying for options.
Another point is that NCLB's assessment process is set up very poorly. NCBL is an implementation of the standards model of instruction, but the standards model requires that not only do the teachers have standards and provide assessments to determine whether the students have learned the standards, but it also requires the teacher be able to get the results of the assessments in time to be able to re-teach the unlearned material. That crucial last step is lacking because teachers don't receive the results of their student's tests until after it's too late to reteach them anything.
It didn't because what FDR tried to do didn't create wealth or jobs it created work. once the work is done you have a net loss again.
In order to get out of a recession like this you have to have a multi-staged bill that covers short term viability with long term growth.
a stimulus check is a short term goal. it gets money into the system now.
tax cuts are long term viability as they cause growth over time.
construction is a long term viability it as it has a long growth cycle.
you need a mix and match of long term and short term goals to end it quick.
a 5000K stimulus check over a 2 year period is short term.
giving a payroll tax holiday for 6 months is short term.
you combine that with tax cuts for investing and businesses and people after that. is long term.
doing construction is long term but has a net 0 effect until the jobs are done.
So another good example of creating long term growth would be universal health care because businesses wouldn't need to pay for their employees' insurance, and people who aren't afraid of a random illness or injury destroying their finances can invest in the economy more.
Wouldn't it also make sense for the government to forgive the debts of people with these crappy loans, since they're all poor anyway, and it would foster the accumulation of intragenerational wealth?
Maybe drastically reducing property taxes on residences while drastically increasing property taxes on vacation homes, etc?
Garbage.... thats all I can say about this guys overly simplistic attempt to confuse the masses.
Thanks for that insight, I had no idea that a seven minute summation of an economist's life work as presented for mass consumption on youtube might be simplified.
He did not imply that workers' wages stayed the same, he said "real wages" which is an economic term referring to the actual buying power of your money. For example, getting paid $1/hr in 1809 is a very different real wage than $1/hr in 2009.
Obviously, there are operating costs besides workers' wages, but unless you're attempting to argue that the advances in production that made the proliferation of cheaper goods possible (including "advances" like sweatshops) made increased production costs, his model still stands, simplified as it is.
It didnt work for FDR
Is this even true? I've heard some people argue that it didn't and some people argue that did.
I have a few thoughts that are more or less unrelated, so I apologize in advance for the piecemeal nature of this post.
It's sad to me that after several days of casual perusal, I've had to come to a Magic website in search of an intelligible explanation of the economic stimulus package (ESP) and the positions of it's proponents and detractors. I wonder if other people would also be interested in collecting informative essays, videos, or articles that explain the ESP and the rationale for people's different positions on it. I am looking for pieces that actually attempt to justify their positions using theoretical or practical evidence, not simple ideological arguments.
---
Politically, I think this bill will have to have an obvious impact for it to be a success. It's so deeply divided the Congress and so undermined the optimistic message that drove Obama's campaign that it really needs to come off as an unambiguously good move. Of course, the Republican party is banking on that not happening, not out of any spite or malice, but because it the party is struggling to maintain its relevance nationally.
---
What makes evaluating the ESP hard for me is that, for the most part, both supporters and detractors site the same source, the government response to the Great Depression. While proponents argue that the government response worked, opponents point to the same set of facts while saying that the government response failed. I'm not really sure what to make of this, except that I want a degree in economics.
1 x Kazandu Blademaster ()
1 x Kor Duelist ()
1 x Noble Vestige (2)
1 x Shepherd of the Lost (4)
2 x World Queller (3)
2 x Journey to Nowhere (1)
1 x Nimbus Wings (1)
1 x Shieldmate's Blessing ()
3 x Sky Ruin Drake (4)
2 x Umara Raptor (2)
1 x Welkin Tern (1)
2 x Cancel (1)
2 x Into the Roil (1)
1 x Ior Ruin Expedition (1)
1 x Paralyzing Grasp (2)
1 x Spell Pierce ()
1 x Trapfinder's Trick (1)
1 x Trapmaker's Snare (1)
1 x Aether Figment (1)
1 x Blood Seeker (1)
2 x Heartstabber Mosquito (3)
2 x Vampire Lacerator ()
1 x Vampire Nighthawk (1)
2 x Hideous End (1)
1 x Soul Stair Expedition ()
1 x Vampire's Bite ()
1 x Bladetusk Boar (3)
1 x Geyser Glider (3)
2 x Goblin Bushwhacker ()
1 x Goblin Shortcutter (1)
2 x Plated Geopede (1)
1 x Ruinous Minotaur (1)
3 x Torch Slinger (2)
1 x Tuktuk Grunts (4)
1 x Mark of Mutiny (2)
1 x Quest for Pure Flame ()
1 x Seismic Shudder (1)
1 x Slaughter Cry (2)
1 x Unstable Footing ()
3 x Grazing Gladehart (2)
1 x Joraga Bard (3)
2 x Mold Shambler (3)
1 x Zendikar Farguide (4)
2 x Baloth Cage Trap (3)
1 x Beast Hunt (3)
1 x Cobra Trap (4)
1 x Gigantiform (3)
1 x Khalni Heart Expedition (1)
1 x Primal Bellow ()
1 x Tanglesap (1)
1 x Vines of Vastwood ()
2 x Stonework Puma (3)
1 x Adventuring Gear (1)
1 x Blade of the Bloodchief (1)
1 x Expedition Map (1)
1 x Khalni Gem (4)
1 x Spidersilk Net (0)
1 x Trailblazer's Boots (2)
1 x Arid Mesa
2 x Forest
2 x Kabira Crossroads
2 x Kazandu Refuge
1 x Mountain
1 x Oran-Rief, the Vastwood
1 x Plains
2 x Swamp
Goblin War Paint
nimbus wings
savage silhouette
Tempest Owl: I think both versions are too expensive for what you get, but others have tried to say that it could be good in a UG deck that needs a way to punch through that last bit of damage. So, given that this isn't generally a card you'll want to play, is that a situation when you might?
Pillarfield Ox: My BW deck was short on creatures (only 13) and I was worried that I was going to be in the situation of being able to kill all my opponents' creatures, but not my opponents. I eventually went with a Kor Outfitter because I had one equipment card and it's half the cost, but I could see an argument for this (or even Caravan Hurda) if I ran into a really creature heavy deck.
Kor Outfitter: I just ran this as a 2/2 for 2 because I needed another creature, but I guess that's my question.
Hagra Corcodile: I wasn't especially happy to be using a creature that couldn't block in a deck that was already short on creatures, but this was one of my few creatures that could pass for a "beater" if you squint. Again, I'm not sure that another mediocre or situational creature (like a Bog Tatters or a Pillarfield Ox) or even a non-creature like Bold Defense would have been better.
Crypt of Agadeem: I auto-included this card, but in a deck with only 13 creatures and 2 raise dead effects, I almost never had more than 2 creatures in the yard at any time. How many creatures should you have before this becomes better than a swamp?
Guul Draz Vampire: Obviously, after your opponent is at or below 10, this guy rocks, but this means that for about half the game he's a 1/1 for 1. I'm inclined to like it because if you're not counting on getting your opponent to 10 at some point, then you're counting on losing, but that's kind of chicken-before-the-eggy.
Brave the Elements: I don't know.
Demolish: For a bit I thought LD would be good in this set, but then I thought that everyone will be running so many lands that it'll be bad. But there are a lot of artifacts. What do you think about LD here?
Goblin War Paint: I would've said this sucked this morning, but the 4-1 deck I beat in the finals played 2 in a very BR aggro deck that just ran over everyone else (I just killed everything until he was out of gas and then I killed him with my mosquito and such).
Makindi Shieldmate: I'm pretty sure the only reason to play these is because your desperate for defense or you've got some actually good allies. I just had two of them and an artifact cat.
2x Mosquitos
2x Journey to Nowhere
1x Horrible End
1x Pitfall Trap
1x Gatekeeper
and the psudeoremoval of 2x Giant Scorpion. I heard some people smack talking those guys, but they're solid defense in a color that doesn't often have something like that.
my deck was able to win despite having basically 1 good beater (Shepard of the Lost) because I had enough removal to neutralize every threat, stabilize, and kill the with 2/2's. Unless I was able to draw Luminarch Ascension, then I just killed them with a swarm of Angels.
Allies ~ Slivers
Warning for Double Post. Please edit your previous post next time, if no one has replied before you want to add something. ~Phyrre56
NOTE: I have not voted in this poll.
Here's a collection of links people have posted:
So another good example of creating long term growth would be universal health care because businesses wouldn't need to pay for their employees' insurance, and people who aren't afraid of a random illness or injury destroying their finances can invest in the economy more.
Wouldn't it also make sense for the government to forgive the debts of people with these crappy loans, since they're all poor anyway, and it would foster the accumulation of intragenerational wealth?
Maybe drastically reducing property taxes on residences while drastically increasing property taxes on vacation homes, etc?
He did not imply that workers' wages stayed the same, he said "real wages" which is an economic term referring to the actual buying power of your money. For example, getting paid $1/hr in 1809 is a very different real wage than $1/hr in 2009.
Obviously, there are operating costs besides workers' wages, but unless you're attempting to argue that the advances in production that made the proliferation of cheaper goods possible (including "advances" like sweatshops) made increased production costs, his model still stands, simplified as it is.
Is this even true? I've heard some people argue that it didn't and some people argue that did.
It's sad to me that after several days of casual perusal, I've had to come to a Magic website in search of an intelligible explanation of the economic stimulus package (ESP) and the positions of it's proponents and detractors. I wonder if other people would also be interested in collecting informative essays, videos, or articles that explain the ESP and the rationale for people's different positions on it. I am looking for pieces that actually attempt to justify their positions using theoretical or practical evidence, not simple ideological arguments.
This is what I've found so far:
Politically, I think this bill will have to have an obvious impact for it to be a success. It's so deeply divided the Congress and so undermined the optimistic message that drove Obama's campaign that it really needs to come off as an unambiguously good move. Of course, the Republican party is banking on that not happening, not out of any spite or malice, but because it the party is struggling to maintain its relevance nationally.
---
What makes evaluating the ESP hard for me is that, for the most part, both supporters and detractors site the same source, the government response to the Great Depression. While proponents argue that the government response worked, opponents point to the same set of facts while saying that the government response failed. I'm not really sure what to make of this, except that I want a degree in economics.