Well, they transitioned from a "10 color hosers, 2 per color for each of its enemies" model to a "5 color hosers, 1 per color that hits both enemies" model. So instead of white's color hosers in the core set being COP Red and Black the way they did it in 9E, it gets one hoser: Celestial Purge.
So it doesn't matter that its offensive, so long that the people its offensive to aren't homosexual, mentally handicapped, or rape victims?
And in this forum, apparently offending Christians doesn't matter, at least to you... This perplexes me greatly. Moreover, it offends me that the same group of people crying for the banning of "retarded", "gay", and "raped" out of their context can be so lackadaisical about offending someone else with the use of "Jesus Christ" out of context.
You're missing my point. It matters that people are actually offended. Offensive is a meaningless term outside of words designed to offend, unless people are actually offended. If someone is bothered by the use of Jesus Christ as an interjection, let them speak, but saying that the policy is discriminatory toward religious people when no religious person has actually come forth as saying "by the way, such and such really makes me uncomfortable" doesn't seem valid.
No. Ninjutsu expressly says "onto the battlefield from your hand". The command zone is not the hand; you can cast your general from the command zone, but that doesn't make it in your hand any more than a Flashback spell in the graveyard is.
To add to Hoodoo's response: in Standard, sets are added whenever they become legal. The only time sets leave Standard is in the fall, when the first set of a new block comes out. Then the cards that leave are the block before last (Zendikar, in the fall) and the least recent Core Set (Magic 2011, in the fall).
I assure you, it's my feeling that it is only on the part of the person who becomes offended by a word regardless of its intent, where the offense lies. That being said, I find it extremely curious that as you said, the phrase "Jesus Christ" out of context is being thought of as unoffensive, and the only people who take offense to it are "Christians who take themselves too seriously." Just in the last thread about the banning of the word "raped", I expressed this very sentiment, but was met vehemently with "find a better way to express your point." The same can be said about using "Jesus Christ" out of context.
So, as long as the site appears to be taking a "progressive" path, I see no distinction between the offensive nature of "Jesus Christ" and "gay/retarded/raped".
I also agree with your sentiment on pro-drug/alcohol statements. At times, these can destroy just as many families as someone openly admitting they are homosexual (I have heard stories from people I know which this was the case), or being raped.
So, thanks to Azrael, I ask, why are these things not addressed in the same manner?
The difference is this: Who is offended?
I'm a religious Christian. I hang out with religious Christians in my college's Christian fellowships. Out of all of them, through all these years, I've known one and only one person who was bothered when someone used the name "Jesus Christ" as an interjection. He said so, the person apologized, and we moved on with life. And since then, I've been more careful about my own use of the term in that group, a context where some people are offended.
The point of my original post was that some terms are not necessarily offensive in and of themselves (unlike slurs, which are designed to offend and marginalize); rather, their context makes them inappropriate. If people are offended by their use, then stop. I know people who are bothered by the term "badass" and others who freely drop the f-bomb as though it were punctuation. I respect each of those standards as the situation calls for it.
If people here are bothered by the use of Jesus Christ as an interjection, the appropriate action they should take seems to be to ask the person who used the term, politely, to stop, and the appropriate thing for the other person to do would be to stop.
I have gay friends. I have a retarded cousin. I know people who have been sexually assaulted. When these terms are used to mean negative, insulting things, it cheapens their identity (for the first two categories) and trivializes their struggles (for all of them). It bothers me when people use those terms, and so I'm glad that here on MTGS, the use of them is generally not tolerated.
tl;dr: If people are offended, stop. If people aren't, does it matter?
tl;dr of the tl;dr: Be excellent to each other. Party on, dudes!
EDIT: Also, I am confused by the OP, on further reading. You're implying that the opinions of the forum members are not being acknowledged/respected, but in this very thread, half a dozen regular users are saying that they're fine with the way things are being done; to me that sounds like the administration is, in fact, serving its role in facilitating the existence and good health of this community. If your central thesis is "people don't like the job you're doing" and a bunch of other forumgoers chime in to say "yes, we do", doesn't that undercut your point?
Honestly, if the fact that some people feel strongly enough about the issue to be hurt/offended when certain words are used isn't enough to make someone stop using them, I don't know what to say.
Maybe you don't feel their reaction is called for. Who cares? You can watch what you say. Why distress someone when not doing so costs you nothing? It's not anyone's place (except, say, a therapist they're employing) to tell someone that their feelings and emotional reactions are wrong and they should just suck it up.
You should always call a judge if there's something you aren't sure about. We're here to help; your opponent has an interest in the answer. Your opponent may have learned it wrong or be purposely misleading you.
However, in this instance, your opponent was correct. Mortarpod causes the sacrificed creature to deal the damage, and when the game looks for Inkmoth Nexus, Last Known Information tells it that it was a source with infect, so its damage is infect damage: -1/-1 counters to creatures, poison counters to players.
According to your age listed in your profile you would have been around one or two years old at the time of the release of the game.
If that's not an accurate age, have you always lived in Cleveland? Because I'd probably know you if you played back then at any of the local stores.
I believe I was a month from turning four years old when the game came out. I started playing a few years later, and my family did have a computer with Internet access, which I knew how to use.
The nice thing about the Internet, though, is that it's easy to preserve things for posterity. The original discussions of card advantage and archetypes are still there for anyone to go see. As Geordie LaForge always said on Reading Rainbow, "You don't have to take my word for it."
No. Combat damage is the damage a creature deals, well, in combat: when you attack or block with a creature. Phage's "lose the game" trigger only works when you attack a player with it and it gets through somehow. Noncombat damage won't work.
it's simple - back in the day, the internet wasn't a big part of magic culture. there's no reason for you to pointlessly argue and nitpick against this. we're talking about the differences in mtg culture and community between then and now.
There I disagree with you. A lot of the concepts we throw around today - card advantage, deck archetypes, tempo - had their origin in the early days of Magic, on Usenet and the Dojo.
It's like the rule for paying alternate costs. Force of Will's converted mana cost is always 5, for instance. To calculate CMC, look in the upper right hand corner and add up the CMC of all the symbols you see there. Phyrexian mana and normal hybrid count as 1. Monocolor hybrid counts as 2. X is 0 anywhere but the stack and equal to the announced value of X there.
Correct. There's a difference between "Fortified", "Enchanted", and "equipped", they are NOT interchangable. While all of them are ways for a thing to be attached to another thing, if you equip an aura somehow, anything that refers to "Enchanted creature" won't apply, and vice versa.
This isn't quite what the rules clarification entails (though I may just be misunderstanding you; I don't know what you mean by "equip an aura somehow"). It doesn't matter how something got attached to a permanent; what matters for the purpose of "enchanted blah" "equipped blah" "fortified blah" is what the subtype of the attached object is. In the provided example, Myr Welder is an Aura (from the Licid's ability) but not an equipment; thus, Demonspine Whip's effect doesn't apply to the creature Myr Welder is attached to. However, imagine an Aura (say, Holy Strength) enchanting a creature with Mycosynth Lattice and Bludgeon Brawl on the battlefield. Holy Strength would be an Enchantment Artifact - Aura Equipment and therefore it's considered to both "enchant" and "equip" the creature to which it's attached.
tl;dr: for a thing to be affected by "enchanted blah" "equipped blah" "fortified blah", what matters is that the thing attached to it has the appropriate subtype.
To Majora's sublime explanation, I would like to add that having a basic land type automatically gives that land the corresponding mana ability.
For instance:
I turn an Island into a Mountain. Until end of turn, it is a card named Island, with the type Basic Land - Mountain and the ability T: Add R to your mana pool. It can't tap for blue mana anymore, because it's not an Island.
I turn a Ghost Quarter into a Plains. Until end of turn, it's a card named Ghost Quarter, with the type Land - Plains and the ability T: Add W to your mana pool, with no other abilities. Since Reef Shaman says "becomes the basic land type... until end of turn" and doesn't say "in addition to its other types", lands with special abilities don't have them anymore. On a related note, this is why Blood Moon is awesome against nonbasic lands.
That works, because Bronze Bombshell has the clause "If that player does". Abilities on the stack are independent of their sources; removing a Prodigal Pyromancer in response to its ability doesn't stop the ability. However, Bronze Bombshell's damaging trigger requires that it actually be sacrificed to the ability. If you get rid of it somehow before the trigger resolves (such as sacrificing it to something else, bouncing it, giving it back), you don't take damage.
You're missing my point. It matters that people are actually offended. Offensive is a meaningless term outside of words designed to offend, unless people are actually offended. If someone is bothered by the use of Jesus Christ as an interjection, let them speak, but saying that the policy is discriminatory toward religious people when no religious person has actually come forth as saying "by the way, such and such really makes me uncomfortable" doesn't seem valid.
The difference is this: Who is offended?
I'm a religious Christian. I hang out with religious Christians in my college's Christian fellowships. Out of all of them, through all these years, I've known one and only one person who was bothered when someone used the name "Jesus Christ" as an interjection. He said so, the person apologized, and we moved on with life. And since then, I've been more careful about my own use of the term in that group, a context where some people are offended.
The point of my original post was that some terms are not necessarily offensive in and of themselves (unlike slurs, which are designed to offend and marginalize); rather, their context makes them inappropriate. If people are offended by their use, then stop. I know people who are bothered by the term "badass" and others who freely drop the f-bomb as though it were punctuation. I respect each of those standards as the situation calls for it.
If people here are bothered by the use of Jesus Christ as an interjection, the appropriate action they should take seems to be to ask the person who used the term, politely, to stop, and the appropriate thing for the other person to do would be to stop.
I have gay friends. I have a retarded cousin. I know people who have been sexually assaulted. When these terms are used to mean negative, insulting things, it cheapens their identity (for the first two categories) and trivializes their struggles (for all of them). It bothers me when people use those terms, and so I'm glad that here on MTGS, the use of them is generally not tolerated.
tl;dr: If people are offended, stop. If people aren't, does it matter?
tl;dr of the tl;dr: Be excellent to each other. Party on, dudes!
EDIT: Also, I am confused by the OP, on further reading. You're implying that the opinions of the forum members are not being acknowledged/respected, but in this very thread, half a dozen regular users are saying that they're fine with the way things are being done; to me that sounds like the administration is, in fact, serving its role in facilitating the existence and good health of this community. If your central thesis is "people don't like the job you're doing" and a bunch of other forumgoers chime in to say "yes, we do", doesn't that undercut your point?
Maybe you don't feel their reaction is called for. Who cares? You can watch what you say. Why distress someone when not doing so costs you nothing? It's not anyone's place (except, say, a therapist they're employing) to tell someone that their feelings and emotional reactions are wrong and they should just suck it up.
However, in this instance, your opponent was correct. Mortarpod causes the sacrificed creature to deal the damage, and when the game looks for Inkmoth Nexus, Last Known Information tells it that it was a source with infect, so its damage is infect damage: -1/-1 counters to creatures, poison counters to players.
I believe I was a month from turning four years old when the game came out. I started playing a few years later, and my family did have a computer with Internet access, which I knew how to use.
The nice thing about the Internet, though, is that it's easy to preserve things for posterity. The original discussions of card advantage and archetypes are still there for anyone to go see. As Geordie LaForge always said on Reading Rainbow, "You don't have to take my word for it."
There I disagree with you. A lot of the concepts we throw around today - card advantage, deck archetypes, tempo - had their origin in the early days of Magic, on Usenet and the Dojo.
This isn't quite what the rules clarification entails (though I may just be misunderstanding you; I don't know what you mean by "equip an aura somehow"). It doesn't matter how something got attached to a permanent; what matters for the purpose of "enchanted blah" "equipped blah" "fortified blah" is what the subtype of the attached object is. In the provided example, Myr Welder is an Aura (from the Licid's ability) but not an equipment; thus, Demonspine Whip's effect doesn't apply to the creature Myr Welder is attached to. However, imagine an Aura (say, Holy Strength) enchanting a creature with Mycosynth Lattice and Bludgeon Brawl on the battlefield. Holy Strength would be an Enchantment Artifact - Aura Equipment and therefore it's considered to both "enchant" and "equip" the creature to which it's attached.
tl;dr: for a thing to be affected by "enchanted blah" "equipped blah" "fortified blah", what matters is that the thing attached to it has the appropriate subtype.
For instance:
I turn an Island into a Mountain. Until end of turn, it is a card named Island, with the type Basic Land - Mountain and the ability T: Add R to your mana pool. It can't tap for blue mana anymore, because it's not an Island.
I turn a Ghost Quarter into a Plains. Until end of turn, it's a card named Ghost Quarter, with the type Land - Plains and the ability T: Add W to your mana pool, with no other abilities. Since Reef Shaman says "becomes the basic land type... until end of turn" and doesn't say "in addition to its other types", lands with special abilities don't have them anymore. On a related note, this is why Blood Moon is awesome against nonbasic lands.