It's a common strategy nowadays for Nykthos players to float extra mana when using Polukranos, so that if the opponent responds to the Monstrosity ability with a removal spell they can just use the ability again. However, wouldn't it make more sense to let the Monstrosity ability resolve and then respond to the Monstrous trigger? Am I missing something in the rules that makes this line of play invalid? I see players do the "float extra mana" thing all the time so it seems like common knowledge that it works, but I can't see how that helps against someone who responds to the Monstrous trigger and then casts say a Valorous stance. Reusing the Monstrosity seems like it would do nothing if Polukranos is already monstrous.
Wizards knows it would royally piss off these retailers if they tanked the value of their inventory, and they also know how important these people are to the publicity of the game.
None of the high-profile reprints of the recent years (ie. Thoughtseize, Scavenging Ooze, Fetch Lands) have been greeted with anything but joyful acceptance from both retailers and players. It's only speculators that complain, and they are a tiny minority of the customer base. We've all heard the doom/gloom predictions with every reprint and it just never happens.
IMHO, WotC doesn't reprint Tarmo because it is in their best interest to have some kind of Black Lotus-like card acquiring mythical status that players can aspire to. It gives you those Pascale Maynard moments and such.
Also, with the price of Tarmo being what it is, it helps players justify their card budgets to themselves (ie. you don't have a serious problem even if you just dropped $100 on Den Protectors and Deathmist Raptors because at least you still aren't the type of player who buys Tarmos).
male nerd culture tends to dismiss and undervalue the severity of some feminist issues
The ideological lines are drawn on feminist/authoritarian vs egalitarian/libertarian lines, not male/female, nerd/non-nerd or even liberal/conservative lines.
This isn't a punishment. Wizards aren't saying "hey, we don't think the courts did a good enough job, so we're going to punish you some more".
It's even worse. Wizards are saying "hey, some guys are raising a stink about you on Twitter so we're banning you to make the problem go away." Let's not kid ourselves here. Jesse is not being banned for his history as a sex offender. Jesse is banned for running afoul of an online Twitter mob.
Even if we assume that Jesse should never have been allowed to play MtG competitively because he's dangerous, disgusting or reprehensible the correct course of action would be to implement a policy disallowing sex offenders from competitive MtG. This ad hoc nonsense is pure applesauce. Complete jiggery-pokery.
I really have to wonder why a guy who doesn't even acknowledge what he is done is wrong given people the impression he is reformed.
It's what he hadn't done: rape someone. If you're a reformed thief, all that matters is whether you're still thieving. If you're not, you're reformed. If you are, you're not reformed whether you acknowledge that stealing is wrong or not.
Also I would like to throw my own hat in the ring as someone who doesn't think that Zach should have been banned, but would support a clear policy or rule that would lead to his banning. The idea that Zach was banned for PR reasons is what irks me the most about this whole debacle.
This format, to me, is defined by two main things. Powerful threats and efficient but situational answers. Because of this dynamic, it's very easy for cards to either take over a game unchecked or get efficiently answered for a devastating loss in tempo. Thus, in actual gameplay, a lot of games are simply decided by how draws line up. Is drawing card X good? It depends on whether my opponent drew card Y. It's like every draw step is a mini-game of rock/paper/scissors and the eventual victor largely depends on who won more of these minigames. Basically the skills that revolve around predicting the metagame and then crafting an optimal build of the deck with good sideboarding are paramount. The decisions involved when actually playing the game tend to be relatively trivial because the cards are simultaneously quite powerful and very narrow.
Basically the rise of high-impact threats and situational answers in Standard have increased the randomness of the game, leading to more games where one player simply "never gets to play". My theory is that this new mulligan rule is an attempt to reduce the randomness back to historic levels.
You can say that 7 riffle shuffles are the solution to everything, but personally I don't want people I don't know or trust to bend my $1,000+ cards 30 times a day.
Yeah, this is why I tend to avoid high REL tournaments nowadays (unless someone loans me a deck and they don't mind having it shuffled of course). I'd rather take the chance of getting cheated out of a modest prize than risk damaging my cards. I mean, I double-sleeve already and do everything I can to preserve the condition of my cards but once my opponent has my deck I am watching it like a hawk for any possibly damaging shuffles. It's funny thinking about it now but some of those opponents probably assumed I was watching them for cheating.
I don't mind my opponent using the mash method to shuffle my deck but the moment I detect a riffle I stop them and request them to do a different type of shuffle. If they just need to riffle then I just wish them good luck, concede, drop from the tournament and leave with my cards in mint condition.
I would be on board with op's suggestion just to help preserve the condition of my cards. I don't really care about the cheating part. I mean, if it helps prevent cheating well and good but that's not what I care about. If both methods can't stop cheating then I would prefer the table cut method.
Not only would I draft the foil Goyf 100% of the time, I wouldn't even have to think about it. This is so obvious to me that it boggles my mind how anyone could even consider not taking the Goyf for even a fraction of a second. If I wanted to spend a ton of cash buying marginal percentage points of winning prizes, I'd buy some lottery tickets.
Buying "Toaster pastries" instead of Poptarts is like playing a knock-off of Magic instead of Magic. You're deciding that the difference in quality isn't worth the difference in price.
I think the main issue with regard to these new knock-offs is that they are approaching the point where there is no more detectable difference in quality. Or like I said, maybe they've already got there and we just haven't realized it.
Tournament rules aren't there to protect victims from being scammed. They're there to ensure players use WotC products instead of Chinese knockoffs.
Tournaments exist to promote MtG. It's terrible PR to have stories floating around of players getting ripped off on cards and then getting disqualified from events as an added insult to injury.
For all we know perfect counterfeits are circulating right now. By definition, they would be undetectable.
On top of all of this, various state statutes and cases may define things like civil theft and fraud or similar claims in different ways. But, again, why does it matter?
In the case of this specific instance, it matters quite a bit. Theft is wrong because it is evil, and it would be evil even if it wasn't illegal. Copyright Infringement is wrong solely because the government says it is illegal.
Example:
If the copyright on a book expires tomorrow and I make a copy today, that would be illegal and wrong. If I did the exact same thing tomorrow it would be legal and just fine. This is because the act of copying a book or a card or anything else is not inherently bad. It is only the violation of the monopoly granted by the government to the IP holder that makes copyright infringement wrong.
Does someone think that using fake cards becomes ethically fine as long as it's not violating this law or other?
Ethics never comes into play when intellectual property is concerned. Intellectual Property exists because it is useful, not because it is right. It is meant to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
There is a concept of moral rights for IP, which the United States does not subscribe to. Neither do I. I am with Thomas Jefferson on this one:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
The fact is that counterfeits are not changing anything and won't be changing anything any time soon because they're:
a.) not good enough
b.) will never be able to pass off as the real thing
Of course, if they ever did become good enough, we'd never know it.
Yes there is a legal differentiation and specific laws that cover the differences between theft and copyright infringement, but they still fall in to the same areas of law.
Actually they don't. Theft is criminal. Copyright infringement, in and of itself, is civil. Criminal copyright infringement exists but it requires a few extra factors be present on top of the copyright infringement by itself.
It isn't polite to say that I'm making ridiculous statements. Also, it is theft. Message boards can be a place where we talk to each other with respect.
I reserve my respect for the individual, not the idea. I don't know you personally, so I won't say anything to disparage you as a person. But I stand by what I said. Your statement was ridiculous. Like I said before, these words mean things and we can't just make up new meanings whenever we want. To say that copyright infringement is theft would be like saying that jaywalking is littering, murder is kidnapping or instants are sorceries.
I can say "jaywalking is like littering in some ways", or "jaywalking might as well be the same as littering for the purpose of this discussion" or "jaywalking is identical to littering in every way that is relevant to this discussion". But I cannot say that "jaywalking is littering". That would be ridiculous.
We're not talking about copying decklists. We're talking about the people that own and maintain the game. Whenever someone creates and sells a fake as a real card it is theft.
Simply wrong. Theft is theft. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. These aren't just random words that we can redefine as we see fit. They have actual meanings and must be used correctly. If I broke into a WotC warehouse and took a few cases of product, that would be theft. If I made my own MtG cards and played them in my kitchen table, that would be copyright infringement.
No, it's theft. Someone is stealing an idea and passing it off as their own.
This isn't Inception. You can't "steal an idea". It's impossible. That's not how ideas work. If someone else came up with the idea for building Esper Dragons and I copied it, we would both have the same idea of the sixty card deck, Esper Dragons. If someone else built an Esper Dragons deck and I stole it, I would have an Esper Dragons deck and he would be deprived of it.
In the case of intellectual property infringement the government has declared copying ideas illegal, but the fact that two actions are both illegal does not make them the same.
Why does it have to be a CRIME for lying to be bad? Are Magic players really that autistic?
Lying isn't even a crime, save for some special cases (ie. under oath). Getting into the morality of counterfeiting is not worthwhile. It'll end up in a morass of starving artists and starving farmers.
Intellectual property infringement is unambiguously illegal. That's all that really matters. There is no need to pretend it is theft or contend that it is evil.
None of the high-profile reprints of the recent years (ie. Thoughtseize, Scavenging Ooze, Fetch Lands) have been greeted with anything but joyful acceptance from both retailers and players. It's only speculators that complain, and they are a tiny minority of the customer base. We've all heard the doom/gloom predictions with every reprint and it just never happens.
IMHO, WotC doesn't reprint Tarmo because it is in their best interest to have some kind of Black Lotus-like card acquiring mythical status that players can aspire to. It gives you those Pascale Maynard moments and such.
Also, with the price of Tarmo being what it is, it helps players justify their card budgets to themselves (ie. you don't have a serious problem even if you just dropped $100 on Den Protectors and Deathmist Raptors because at least you still aren't the type of player who buys Tarmos).
The ideological lines are drawn on feminist/authoritarian vs egalitarian/libertarian lines, not male/female, nerd/non-nerd or even liberal/conservative lines.
It's even worse. Wizards are saying "hey, some guys are raising a stink about you on Twitter so we're banning you to make the problem go away." Let's not kid ourselves here. Jesse is not being banned for his history as a sex offender. Jesse is banned for running afoul of an online Twitter mob.
Even if we assume that Jesse should never have been allowed to play MtG competitively because he's dangerous, disgusting or reprehensible the correct course of action would be to implement a policy disallowing sex offenders from competitive MtG. This ad hoc nonsense is pure applesauce. Complete jiggery-pokery.
It's what he hadn't done: rape someone. If you're a reformed thief, all that matters is whether you're still thieving. If you're not, you're reformed. If you are, you're not reformed whether you acknowledge that stealing is wrong or not.
Also I would like to throw my own hat in the ring as someone who doesn't think that Zach should have been banned, but would support a clear policy or rule that would lead to his banning. The idea that Zach was banned for PR reasons is what irks me the most about this whole debacle.
Basically the rise of high-impact threats and situational answers in Standard have increased the randomness of the game, leading to more games where one player simply "never gets to play". My theory is that this new mulligan rule is an attempt to reduce the randomness back to historic levels.
Yeah, this is why I tend to avoid high REL tournaments nowadays (unless someone loans me a deck and they don't mind having it shuffled of course). I'd rather take the chance of getting cheated out of a modest prize than risk damaging my cards. I mean, I double-sleeve already and do everything I can to preserve the condition of my cards but once my opponent has my deck I am watching it like a hawk for any possibly damaging shuffles. It's funny thinking about it now but some of those opponents probably assumed I was watching them for cheating.
I don't mind my opponent using the mash method to shuffle my deck but the moment I detect a riffle I stop them and request them to do a different type of shuffle. If they just need to riffle then I just wish them good luck, concede, drop from the tournament and leave with my cards in mint condition.
I would be on board with op's suggestion just to help preserve the condition of my cards. I don't really care about the cheating part. I mean, if it helps prevent cheating well and good but that's not what I care about. If both methods can't stop cheating then I would prefer the table cut method.
I think the main issue with regard to these new knock-offs is that they are approaching the point where there is no more detectable difference in quality. Or like I said, maybe they've already got there and we just haven't realized it.
Tournaments exist to promote MtG. It's terrible PR to have stories floating around of players getting ripped off on cards and then getting disqualified from events as an added insult to injury.
For all we know perfect counterfeits are circulating right now. By definition, they would be undetectable.
In the case of this specific instance, it matters quite a bit. Theft is wrong because it is evil, and it would be evil even if it wasn't illegal. Copyright Infringement is wrong solely because the government says it is illegal.
Example:
If the copyright on a book expires tomorrow and I make a copy today, that would be illegal and wrong. If I did the exact same thing tomorrow it would be legal and just fine. This is because the act of copying a book or a card or anything else is not inherently bad. It is only the violation of the monopoly granted by the government to the IP holder that makes copyright infringement wrong.
Ethics never comes into play when intellectual property is concerned. Intellectual Property exists because it is useful, not because it is right. It is meant to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
There is a concept of moral rights for IP, which the United States does not subscribe to. Neither do I. I am with Thomas Jefferson on this one:
Of course, if they ever did become good enough, we'd never know it.
Actually they don't. Theft is criminal. Copyright infringement, in and of itself, is civil. Criminal copyright infringement exists but it requires a few extra factors be present on top of the copyright infringement by itself.
I reserve my respect for the individual, not the idea. I don't know you personally, so I won't say anything to disparage you as a person. But I stand by what I said. Your statement was ridiculous. Like I said before, these words mean things and we can't just make up new meanings whenever we want. To say that copyright infringement is theft would be like saying that jaywalking is littering, murder is kidnapping or instants are sorceries.
I can say "jaywalking is like littering in some ways", or "jaywalking might as well be the same as littering for the purpose of this discussion" or "jaywalking is identical to littering in every way that is relevant to this discussion". But I cannot say that "jaywalking is littering". That would be ridiculous.
Simply wrong. Theft is theft. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. These aren't just random words that we can redefine as we see fit. They have actual meanings and must be used correctly. If I broke into a WotC warehouse and took a few cases of product, that would be theft. If I made my own MtG cards and played them in my kitchen table, that would be copyright infringement.
Then you should make that point without saying ridiculous things like "copyright infringement is theft".
This isn't Inception. You can't "steal an idea". It's impossible. That's not how ideas work. If someone else came up with the idea for building Esper Dragons and I copied it, we would both have the same idea of the sixty card deck, Esper Dragons. If someone else built an Esper Dragons deck and I stole it, I would have an Esper Dragons deck and he would be deprived of it.
In the case of intellectual property infringement the government has declared copying ideas illegal, but the fact that two actions are both illegal does not make them the same.
Lying isn't even a crime, save for some special cases (ie. under oath). Getting into the morality of counterfeiting is not worthwhile. It'll end up in a morass of starving artists and starving farmers.
Intellectual property infringement is unambiguously illegal. That's all that really matters. There is no need to pretend it is theft or contend that it is evil.