Haste is one of the "evergreen" keywords in Magic. That means it's present in basically every set printed. Wizards tries to make these evergreen keywords simple; and appropriate to a color, that color's philosophy and its general MO. Haste just so happens to be red-aligned (and green-aligned, to a lesser degree). It feels out-of-place on a white creature. If you're going for something basic, you might consider giving Eminent Soldier a typical white keyword like Vigilance or First Strike. Alternatively, you could move its rarity up to rare, which is occasionally done on cards with novel, off-color abilities. (For example, Elvish Archers.) Hope that helps.
PS - You should write some flavor text to give this dude(tte) some personality!
Cattle of Yem :1mana::symg:
Creature - Cow [R]
Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to and dealt by Cattle of Yem.
When Cattle of Yem dies, draw a card. If that card is named Yem, put it onto the battlefield.
0/2
This seems really flavorful (though I don't know where to find this Shadow of the Colossus). It also feels like it's at just the right power level for multiplayer or Commander, provided it doesn't have an absolutely broken interaction with a particular legendary giant. Very cool.
Harebrained Laggy :1mana::symg:
Creature - Human Rabbit [U]
Haste
Whenever Harebrained Laggy attacks, it doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.
Whenever Harebrained Laggy untaps, put two tokens into play that are copies of Harebrained Laggy.
2/1
Do you really think anyone is going to debate the proposition that widespread rioting, looting, and vandalism are economically damaging?
Well, I am in high school, and I know very little about economics. My first thought, though, was that the rebuilding efforts taking place after each bout of destruction would create jobs, stimulating the economy. At least one user who's commented here—not to mention those harebrained idea-folks who developed the film that inspired this thread—thought the same thing. [EDIT] Here we go:
Reconstructing society would open a lot more jobs, and even though employers would potentially be robbed of their money during the Purge, if it's a government-sponsored thing, then that's what insurance is for. It opens up a whole new type of job markets.
----------
Let me make something clear: I am not saying that the idea of a Purge is feasible. (In my original post, I called it silly and implausible.) I've only been trying to play devil's advocate a little bit. Maybe not too expertly.
Wait, so now the burden of establishing why a ridiculously contrived premise wouldn't work is on me, instead of the person proposing the ridiculously contrived premise? what?
Why not? A premise's apparent ridiculousness shouldn't be enough to automatically place its defenders on lower ground than its challengers. You made a claim, and no claim is invulnerable. When you offered an argument in support of your claim, I tried to refute it. This being the Debate forum, I was simply debating.
most violence occurs as a result of emotion (crimes of passion as it were) and the fact that it wouldn't be profitable to comitt crimes for money during the time period since eveyrone will be aware and konw its coming.
The first point you make here sounds like a very good reason for why a Purge would be ineffective. Your second point seems to to go against that, indicating that a Purge would in fact be minimally destructive. (Or are you saying that a Purge will not lower the frequency of crimes 'for money' during the rest of the year?)
Actually, that raises a question: Would a more destructive Purge be, on the whole, better? Various prominent theorists have made the case that destruction does not benefit society; In Frédéric Bastiat's Parable of the Broken Window,
he argued that, "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed" (Wikipedia). I suppose that if one agreed with him, one would conclude that a Purge would do more economic harm than good.
Basically my thoughts are: most peopple wouldn't do anything. A few people would try and get away with something, forgetting that there are still consequences for legal actions, and then after that it would be disbanded because of the dumb idea that it really is.l
That seems plausible. But you haven't explained your reasoning.
What consequences for legal actions are you speaking of? Social stigma? Social stigma wouldn't be a factor if one committed one's crimes anonymously, or in a community away from one's own. It would also lose its power if immoral behavior became the norm during the Purge. For analogy: Wikipedia calls the "overturning of social conventions" common practice on Mardi Gras; that is, ideas of what is socially right and wrong are suspended. Is it a stretch to say that basic social conventions, like eschewal of physical violence, could similarly disappear in the event of the Purge? Maybe. But you haven't made a good case for why.
A film called The Purge is now in theaters. Judging by its trailer, it seems to be a generally nondescript horror flick, but it has an interesting (granted, silly) premise.
The premise: In the near-future, America that is a "nation reborn." Crime rates are lower than ever and unemployment is at 1%. Why? Because every year, there is a national, state-sanctioned event called the "Purge". During this twelve-hour period, all crime is legal and all emergency services are non-operational. It is called the Purge because allows normal people to freely act upon, and rid themselves of, all their pent-up antisocial tendencies.
No matter how unrealistic this scenario may be, it makes for a compelling sociological thought experiment. (Just for the record, I don't know the first thing about sociology.) For the sake of speculation, let's say your nation will from now on undergo a yearly Purge:
•How will you adapt your life to protect yourself and your family?
•What criminal behavior, if any, will you engage in during the Purge?
•What will happen in inner-city areas? Rural? Suburban?
•What measures will citizens take to protect their neighbors and their communities?
•During the Purge, will people really behave more violently and antisocially (as portrayed in the film) than usual?
•Will crime decrease during the rest of the year?
•Will unemployment decrease during the rest of the year?
•Which people/classes/professions/institutions will be hurt most, and which will profit most?
•How will women and children be affected?
•Will the Purge help or hurt society overall?
Those are all questions to consider. I'm not expecting anyone to answer all of them. I'm just curious to hear your thoughts.
PS - You should write some flavor text to give this dude(tte) some personality!
Creature - Cow [R]
Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to and dealt by Cattle of Yem.
When Cattle of Yem dies, draw a card. If that card is named Yem, put it onto the battlefield.
0/2
Harebrained Laggy :1mana::symg:
Creature - Human Rabbit [U]
Haste
Whenever Harebrained Laggy attacks, it doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.
Whenever Harebrained Laggy untaps, put two tokens into play that are copies of Harebrained Laggy.
2/1
Also, Vindicate. Although, for the longest time, I thought it meant "destroy" because of that card. Then I finally looked it up.
----------
Let me make something clear: I am not saying that the idea of a Purge is feasible. (In my original post, I called it silly and implausible.) I've only been trying to play devil's advocate a little bit. Maybe not too expertly.
When is the proper time to negotiate with men who have beards and pitchforks?
Why not?
Why has the price of pufferfish been rising recently?
Why not? A premise's apparent ridiculousness shouldn't be enough to automatically place its defenders on lower ground than its challengers. You made a claim, and no claim is invulnerable. When you offered an argument in support of your claim, I tried to refute it. This being the Debate forum, I was simply debating. The first point you make here sounds like a very good reason for why a Purge would be ineffective. Your second point seems to to go against that, indicating that a Purge would in fact be minimally destructive. (Or are you saying that a Purge will not lower the frequency of crimes 'for money' during the rest of the year?)
Actually, that raises a question: Would a more destructive Purge be, on the whole, better? Various prominent theorists have made the case that destruction does not benefit society; In Frédéric Bastiat's Parable of the Broken Window,
he argued that, "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed" (Wikipedia). I suppose that if one agreed with him, one would conclude that a Purge would do more economic harm than good.
That seems plausible. But you haven't explained your reasoning.
What consequences for legal actions are you speaking of? Social stigma? Social stigma wouldn't be a factor if one committed one's crimes anonymously, or in a community away from one's own. It would also lose its power if immoral behavior became the norm during the Purge. For analogy: Wikipedia calls the "overturning of social conventions" common practice on Mardi Gras; that is, ideas of what is socially right and wrong are suspended. Is it a stretch to say that basic social conventions, like eschewal of physical violence, could similarly disappear in the event of the Purge? Maybe. But you haven't made a good case for why.
The premise: In the near-future, America that is a "nation reborn." Crime rates are lower than ever and unemployment is at 1%. Why? Because every year, there is a national, state-sanctioned event called the "Purge". During this twelve-hour period, all crime is legal and all emergency services are non-operational. It is called the Purge because allows normal people to freely act upon, and rid themselves of, all their pent-up antisocial tendencies.
No matter how unrealistic this scenario may be, it makes for a compelling sociological thought experiment. (Just for the record, I don't know the first thing about sociology.) For the sake of speculation, let's say your nation will from now on undergo a yearly Purge:
•How will you adapt your life to protect yourself and your family?
•What criminal behavior, if any, will you engage in during the Purge?
•What will happen in inner-city areas? Rural? Suburban?
•What measures will citizens take to protect their neighbors and their communities?
•During the Purge, will people really behave more violently and antisocially (as portrayed in the film) than usual?
•Will crime decrease during the rest of the year?
•Will unemployment decrease during the rest of the year?
•Which people/classes/professions/institutions will be hurt most, and which will profit most?
•How will women and children be affected?
•Will the Purge help or hurt society overall?
Those are all questions to consider. I'm not expecting anyone to answer all of them. I'm just curious to hear your thoughts.