I think, perhaps, some people are misunderstanding a bit. I like the name for what I believe it represents, not because I want to name my child after a Magic card.
If you like how the name sounds, like what it represents, and think it is a good name for your daughter, you should consider it. What does your partner think of the name? If you both like Phage, does it really matter what MTGS thinks?
Name your child whatever you want. What if you give her a normal name and she grows up wishing it was more unique? Her love and respect for you will not be dependent on her name alone. Just make sure you love her and raise her well. As for bullies, they're creative enough to mock kids for any name, normal or not. And really, how many people actually know the Latin origin of names? And how many of them would actually be rude enough criticize someone's name origin? Not many, I'd guess. Name your daughter what you think would be a good name, not what a random forum thinks.
I'm really happy to hear that Kokusho is unbanned. When I heard that the testing was going well, I got one for each of my black EDH decks and had a great time playing with them. In the few weeks of playing with Kokusho, the card really did not seem broken. It was certainly powerful, but never notably game-warping. Really, if Kokusho stayed banned, I was probably just going to beg my playgroup to let me play with her anyway! I agree that she should not be a general though because that just makes her way to easy to abuse.
I never really had a problem with Primeval Titan, since my playgroup didn't really abuse the card, but it was probably the right card to ban if ramp was becoming a problem.
As for Worldfire, it never really struck me as particularly good in EDH anyway. My favorite deck is a RB land destruction deck that runs both Obliterate and Decree of Annihilation. (They can be really helpful if I'm about to die and need to just get rid of everything my opponents have.) Since enchantments are one of the deck's biggest weakpoints, I was really excited at first to see a red card with "exile all permanents," but the 1 life part really hurts its usefulness. If you're playing against any decks that run more lands or cheaper spells or just have better luck topdecking, you're dead. Unless you have a really cheap general and good luck drawing lands to cast it, Worldfire is just a really dangerous card to play. So, I don't think it will be a big deal that it's banned.
Personally, I think Zendikar is the best set. It had a lot of flavor, a great theme, a fun Limited environment, and an excellent mechanic that was perfect for the set and really fun to play with. Seriously, Landfall rewards players for playing lands, which is something you would generally do anyway, but had all sorts of fun interactions with a bunch of cards.
I also love Shards of Alara for the different playstyles, the cool flavor on some of the shards, and the awesome cards for EDH, but I think overall, Zendikar was a better set.
I don't think I've seen any official life total pads like that, but I haven't been to an FNM in a while, so that might be why. I always use random scraps of paper at tournaments, but there are really lots of options for keeping track of life totals. Dice are good if you aren't worried about them getting knocked over, I believe there are life tracking apps, and I know someone who writes his life total in the Notes section of his Nintendo DS. You can definitely find an alternative to the official paper.
I like Rakdos and Boros the best, so I'm really glad they aren't in the same set. I picked Rakdos as my official guild though because it was much less popular than Boros.
They're shiny, rare, and look impressive in "pimp" decks. Some cards look really awesome in foil because specific parts of the art get highlighted. But mostly, it's just the shininess.
The problem is a lot of the people who dislike the Deckbuilder's Toolkit are judging it by the criteria of "Is this good for competitive Standard players or people who would like to get into Standard?" The reality is the toolkit is not intended for either of these audiences. For new players and many casual players, the toolkit is amazing.
Yes, much like one might put their experiences as a camp counselor or boyscout organizer on their resume, but wouldn't put how they won the egg race as a child at that camp or how they learned how to use the binoculars in the boyscouts on one. Helping children (and, I suppose, child-minded adults) to have hobby days can be a useful activity that shows initiative and ability to organize other people, whereas just playing magic mostly just shows that you like playing with cards with monsters and wizards on them.
Actually, most of my current employers really appreciate the fact that I play Magic. They are all mature adults with good jobs, homes, and families and are not "child-minded" in the slightest, but they enjoy playing Magic. They appreciate that they can ask me any rules questions they have and that they can chat with me about a common interest. I should mention that my job is not actually related to Magic at all, but even my employers that do not play still consider it an acceptable hobby for mature adults. Playing Magic is not something to be ashamed/embarrassed about, even in the workforce.
I understand what you are saying about the majority of people believing Magic is just for children. However, I do disagree. I think the majority of people do not know what Magic is and would therefore be indifferent. I expect that when a time comes when more people become aware of Magic, most of them will still feel either indifferent or accepting because, as other posters have stated, nerdy hobbies are currently becoming more socially acceptable in our society.
I also disagree quite strongly with your repeated implications that adults who play Magic are more child-like than other adults. I have met many people of varying maturities who play Magic or do not play Magic. As I said, the mature, intelligent adults I work with enjoy playing Magic. I have met numerous mature adults who don't care whether someone plays Magic or not, viewing it as just a hobby, like sports or knitting or video games or writing, not anything to look down on someone for. I have met some immature Magic players who cannot handle losing a game without being rude and insulting their opponent. One of the most immature adults I have ever met said that Magic players are immature and need to get a life because they play a game she does not personally enjoy. Playing Magic, or any other game, definitely does not define a person's maturity.
The main villain of the Guildpact novel is Izzet and their whole outlook fits a lot more with neutral, so I don't think they can possibly count as "good guys". Really, I think most of the guilds are neutral.
Selesnya: It seems like the most "good" guild, but its quietmen are not entirely good beings. Furthermore, Mat-selesnya powers the Guildpact, which maintains a balance between the guilds, which seems like a very neutral thing to me.
Izzet: Neutral, no question. They care about experiments, knowledge, etc. and little else. Nothing has ever indicated that the Izzet, as a guild, are good.
Boros: Like the Selesnyans, the Boros are good in their ideals, although the way they enforce these ideals might not always be good. From the looks of Krenko's story, they are currently having conflicts within the guild that could have no-so-good results.
Rakdos: They're evil in a very chaotic, kill-stuff-because-it's-fun-instead-of-planning-major-villainy sort of way, but still evil.
Gruul: As you said, neutral and chaotic.
Orzhov: Neutral. The Ghost Council leans more toward the evil side of things at times, but the guild as a whole is pretty neutral in philosophy and actions.
Dimir: They pretty much just exist to destroy the Guildpact. They have used violent, clearly evil means to achieve this goal, so they're one of the more evil guilds.
Simic: I think they're more neutral than evil, more like the Izzet. Momir Vig was a villain, but the guild as a whole seems more interested in science than world domination.
Azorius: Like the Simic, the whole guild is not evil just because its leader is. Most of the Azorius are just neutral judges with no evil plans.
Golgari: Definitely neutral. It produced some villains, such as Savra and Svogthir, but Jarad, the current guildmaster, was actually one of the heroes of the group. As far as the Golgari's overall philosophy, it is completely neutral, based largely around the natural cycle of life and death.
And on top of this, all of the guilds perform some sort of useful, "good" functions for society as a whole, such as the Simic providing doctors, the Orzhov regulating the market, the Rakdos mining, the Golgari providing food for those without guilds, etc. So, even though some guilds are more good or evil than others, I think most of the guilds can generally be categorized as neutral.
If you like how the name sounds, like what it represents, and think it is a good name for your daughter, you should consider it. What does your partner think of the name? If you both like Phage, does it really matter what MTGS thinks?
I never really had a problem with Primeval Titan, since my playgroup didn't really abuse the card, but it was probably the right card to ban if ramp was becoming a problem.
As for Worldfire, it never really struck me as particularly good in EDH anyway. My favorite deck is a RB land destruction deck that runs both Obliterate and Decree of Annihilation. (They can be really helpful if I'm about to die and need to just get rid of everything my opponents have.) Since enchantments are one of the deck's biggest weakpoints, I was really excited at first to see a red card with "exile all permanents," but the 1 life part really hurts its usefulness. If you're playing against any decks that run more lands or cheaper spells or just have better luck topdecking, you're dead. Unless you have a really cheap general and good luck drawing lands to cast it, Worldfire is just a really dangerous card to play. So, I don't think it will be a big deal that it's banned.
So is Black Cat! Those two made me want to make a cat-themed deck, just because they're so cute.
I also love Shards of Alara for the different playstyles, the cool flavor on some of the shards, and the awesome cards for EDH, but I think overall, Zendikar was a better set.
This is not new. They referenced planeswalker as a card type before they even printed the first planeswalker cards. Look at Tarmogoyf.
Actually, most of my current employers really appreciate the fact that I play Magic. They are all mature adults with good jobs, homes, and families and are not "child-minded" in the slightest, but they enjoy playing Magic. They appreciate that they can ask me any rules questions they have and that they can chat with me about a common interest. I should mention that my job is not actually related to Magic at all, but even my employers that do not play still consider it an acceptable hobby for mature adults. Playing Magic is not something to be ashamed/embarrassed about, even in the workforce.
I understand what you are saying about the majority of people believing Magic is just for children. However, I do disagree. I think the majority of people do not know what Magic is and would therefore be indifferent. I expect that when a time comes when more people become aware of Magic, most of them will still feel either indifferent or accepting because, as other posters have stated, nerdy hobbies are currently becoming more socially acceptable in our society.
I also disagree quite strongly with your repeated implications that adults who play Magic are more child-like than other adults. I have met many people of varying maturities who play Magic or do not play Magic. As I said, the mature, intelligent adults I work with enjoy playing Magic. I have met numerous mature adults who don't care whether someone plays Magic or not, viewing it as just a hobby, like sports or knitting or video games or writing, not anything to look down on someone for. I have met some immature Magic players who cannot handle losing a game without being rude and insulting their opponent. One of the most immature adults I have ever met said that Magic players are immature and need to get a life because they play a game she does not personally enjoy. Playing Magic, or any other game, definitely does not define a person's maturity.
Selesnya: It seems like the most "good" guild, but its quietmen are not entirely good beings. Furthermore, Mat-selesnya powers the Guildpact, which maintains a balance between the guilds, which seems like a very neutral thing to me.
Izzet: Neutral, no question. They care about experiments, knowledge, etc. and little else. Nothing has ever indicated that the Izzet, as a guild, are good.
Boros: Like the Selesnyans, the Boros are good in their ideals, although the way they enforce these ideals might not always be good. From the looks of Krenko's story, they are currently having conflicts within the guild that could have no-so-good results.
Rakdos: They're evil in a very chaotic, kill-stuff-because-it's-fun-instead-of-planning-major-villainy sort of way, but still evil.
Gruul: As you said, neutral and chaotic.
Orzhov: Neutral. The Ghost Council leans more toward the evil side of things at times, but the guild as a whole is pretty neutral in philosophy and actions.
Dimir: They pretty much just exist to destroy the Guildpact. They have used violent, clearly evil means to achieve this goal, so they're one of the more evil guilds.
Simic: I think they're more neutral than evil, more like the Izzet. Momir Vig was a villain, but the guild as a whole seems more interested in science than world domination.
Azorius: Like the Simic, the whole guild is not evil just because its leader is. Most of the Azorius are just neutral judges with no evil plans.
Golgari: Definitely neutral. It produced some villains, such as Savra and Svogthir, but Jarad, the current guildmaster, was actually one of the heroes of the group. As far as the Golgari's overall philosophy, it is completely neutral, based largely around the natural cycle of life and death.
And on top of this, all of the guilds perform some sort of useful, "good" functions for society as a whole, such as the Simic providing doctors, the Orzhov regulating the market, the Rakdos mining, the Golgari providing food for those without guilds, etc. So, even though some guilds are more good or evil than others, I think most of the guilds can generally be categorized as neutral.