Look how they stick together, one Mod sends infractions at people who point out how the other Mod gets away with blatant insults, and still is getting away with is seeing as B_S has yet to receive a warning for calling a fellow debater "O Illeterate One", something I doubt anyone else would get away with.
Oh, and this IS the place.
When we do something wrong, there is big red text letting everyone know.
When someone like B_S does something wrong, it goes into some obscure private bottom drawer, helpdesk's are no help, and reporting Mods never goes anywhere.
B_S has a habit of belittling people and getting away with it, while handing out infractions himself.
It's called a double standard, it's called hypocrisy. It's called "mod club rules".
When you power drunk self-centered few cross the line, I think we have a duty to call you on it.
To prove my point, I await my new infraction below...
Suspension for disregarding a moderator request. - Blinking Spirit
EDIT: This suspension has been downgraded to an infraction - BlackVise
-
- redthirst
- Registered User
-
Member for 12 years, 7 months, and 9 days
Last active Wed, May, 31 2017 14:34:44
- 71 Followers
- 3,352 Total Posts
- 332 Thanks
-
Sep 18, 2013
1
OperationRemie posted a message on [Primer] Lannister's LegionsPosted in: Standard ArchivesQuote from redthirstThe updated list is better for going long:
A few more relevant threats, a few less answers that are dead against certain MUs.
I think it could easily give Control a real game pre SB while still being able to handle Aggro.
your list is a thing of beauty. -
Sep 13, 2013
4
Domak posted a message on Mistcutter HydraPosted in: New Card DiscussionQuote from LeoninKhaThis is an example of failed design. Just slap more abilities onto it until its "strong" enough.
This is an example of a failed comment. -
Sep 12, 20131
user-11101899 posted a message on [[THS]] Firedrinker ShamanPosted in: New Card DiscussionQuote from DeathsHand245Oh h ey i got a fist full of firedrinkers its an easy keep
Turn 1: fire drinker
Turn 2: swing and play BTE into another firedrinker or anything else
Turn 3: Oppent plays anger of the gods.....
I think he is getting as much hype as Vexing Devil and neither are that good of a card so idk, he will see play and hes what RDW wants but doesnt need
Vexing Devil was getting hype from the people who didnt' understand how bad of a drawback unreliability is. This card is getting flak from people who don't understand how important being a reliable 2-power 1 drop with a drawback that don't matter in aggressive decks is. I am spotting a pattern here? -
Sep 10, 20133
Dechs Kaison posted a message on scry1, does it even matter?Fateseal 1. Does it even matter?Posted in: Magic General -
Aug 31, 2013
2
flynne6 posted a message on Hammer of PurphorosPosted in: New Card DiscussionQuote from jonnybgood23Sorry but I think it's unplayable. Fervor is unplayable.. Plus the card doesn't make sense. You're a red deck but you're running non-haste creatures (to take advantage of hammer effect) and then you're also running tons of land because you can burn some off for Trained Armodons..? What red deck plays a large volume of non-haste creatures over 3 CMC (after you play Hammer) and has lands left to play with? I just don't understand it. Sorry, it just seems bad to make. Theros's flavor and design has been in-freaking-credible for the most part but this one has me scratching my head.
I replied to you in the last thread but I'll repeat here since this is where the discussion should be anyway.
You are making a very common mistake looking at a cards two abilities and saying "neither one of these is that good". Remember options are good. Conversely, Vexing Devil which gave 2 "great" abilities was bad because it gave the two options to an opponent.
More importantly, you are missing the power of the card. Don't think of the haste as for the rest of the deck (though surely it'll help from time to time) but in conjunction with the instant speed 3/3s.
The easiest way for a red deck to lose is flooding out. This card ensures that all you draw is hasty gas, even if its a land. Sweeper coming up? No problem. Sorcery speed removal? Don't sweat it.
Now, granted, cards are impossible to adequately evaluate before a format starts. Hell, desecration demon was deemed powerful, then unplayable and now it's everywhere. I'm not betting my life that this is a staple but I will say it is flat out wrong to say this card's effect is not very, very powerful. -
Jul 22, 20131
Georg51 posted a message on [[Official]] Dega MidrangePosted in: Standard ArchivesQuote from Kamahl, the FallenI think I would rather have them drop Burning earth than Hellrider, Rampager, Aristocrat or a number of other creatures.
Burning Earth is a card I even considered in our SB. Burning Earth against decks with access to continuous sources of life gain outside of casting something is really not that great. Really do not see what all the fuss about this card against us is.
Burning Earth will do considerably more damage to you over time than a Hellrider will.
The fact that this archetype plays anywhere between 1-2 and ZERO basic land cards means playing Burning Earth in our list is more than counterproductive: you're killing yourself.
Tap 5 mana to cast Blood Baron? Take 5 life...... I mean in no world does that seem an even remotely attractive option. -
Jul 18, 20134
WaterSilver posted a message on [[Official]] Dega MidrangePosted in: Standard ArchivesQuote from civilwargoatI would only ask if you have played gideon. if you have then you might change your mind rather than just evaluate the card in a vacuum. reckoner into gideon is pretty strong when opponent has two creatures in play. even two removal spells into gideon leaving them with one creature in play is reasonable depending on the creature. obviously if you do nothing for four turns and then drop a walker vs your agro deck you should just stop playing magic for keeping an awful hand.
cards are played along side or in sequence with other cards. this creates synergies which is what Act II and junk aristocrats get a lot of mileage out of. some decks want to play on a curve as much as possible to maximize there effectiveness. other decks just play the most powerful thing they can at the expense of curve and synergy.
dega doesn't have access to the most powerful cards in standard an is not highly synergistic like aristocrats. so that leaves playing on a curve. sequencing cards to make the next one better. so playing any planeswalker into a board full of creatures and no way to protect it is a bad play. thanks for pointing that out.
Posted from MTGsalvation.com App for Android
The best way to avoid playing him into a board full of creatures is not playing him against a creature deck. You basically just admitted that Gideon is most effective on an empty board, so you pretty much just agreed with what I originally said about him being better against control (no creatures) rather than aggro (lots of creatures).
Why bend over backwards to try and set up a board far a card that's crap in the matchup when you could just play a more relevant card, like Warleader's Helix? Or, you now, not play Gideon at all. Because he sucks. -
Jul 15, 20131
Khaospawn posted a message on [[Official]] Dega MidrangePosted in: Standard Archives - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
1. You said 2-color Aggro isn't viable with ETB tapped lands when there's actual proof to the contrary.
2. You said Gates could not be used in an Aggro deck when there's no proof one way or the other (except for the Zombie deck last season that actually did run Rakdos Guildgate) and - by your own admission - you have very little or no first-hand experience to base that on.
3. You've stated that an Aggro deck can not play a higher land count and 5-drops even though several successful Aggro decks last season did exactly that.
4. You don't seem to know the difference between a true 2-color deck (one that requires 2 colors to cast all its spells) and a mono colored deck that happens to play a hybrid mana spell (that, for all intents and purposes, may as well have a casting cost of BBB) and utilizes a dual land for its extra effect.
Someone may be arguing "just for the sake of being right in their own head" in this thread, but it's not Khaos.
1
No seriously. Aes Sedai was on the Pro Tour from 2007-2009 even though s/he didn't start playing until 2008.
Look at me! Doing SCIENCE again, *****es!
1
You have to be trolling. You can not possibly be this dense without actively trying. No one can miss the point by so far without doing it on purpose.
Honestly, does anyone think Aes Sedai is making relevant points? Does anyone think s/he understands the arguments? Is anyone even under the impression that this person might be a competent player based on what they've said in this thread?
Let's be real: are you a real user or a troll account?
Also,
Which seems weird considering this post from 2009:
You played on the Pro Tour from 2007-2009? That's quite the accomplishment considering you didn't start playing at all until 2008.
I guess you're not above making **** up to try and get your point across.
1
Well, in one of those scenarios you're at 17 with an Ash Zealot in play.
In the other, you're at 20 with a Rakdos Cackler in play.
So yeah, I think most anyone with sense would take the former. Especially in the mirror.
2
READ. THE. POSTS.
Aes Sedai - MOST of the decks at Games Day were RDW.
soebek - Then your meta (a meta where MOST of the decks are RDW) is abnormal.
You - That meta (where MOST of the decks are RDW) isn't abnormal.
I'm not saying "abnormal" is a statistical percentage, I'm saying that "most" is (since the very definition of most is >50%). Further, I'm saying that anything that falls wildly outside an average is "abnormal."
So - and read this carefully - my points are:
1. Most means >50%
2a. According to your source, the average occurance of RDW is 11.73%
2b. Any meta that deviates significantly from that is not normal
3. Abnormal is anything that isn't normal
So, if 11.73% is normal, and >50% deviates significantly from that, then any meta that is >50% RDW (or mostly RDW) can be safely considered abnormal.
Seriously, dude... read.
1
If you're deathly afraid of taking damage that generally doesn't matter then yes, that's a problem.
The only MUs FS isn't good in are the ones that no 1-drop is good in... and in those MUs it's still better than most 1-drops.
1
What I don't get is why do people run Goblin Guide instead of Raging Goblin? It's the exact same card except Raging is a 1/1 and not a 2/2 and RG also doesn't risk drawing your opponent cards when you attack. Isn't sacrificing 1 P/T worth getting rid of that negative?
That's what you sound like. Your argument is exactly that ridiculous.
2
No offense to your article (which is honestly better than anything Ced Phillips ever did), but this is the best thing you've ever written.
1
When your deck is just a collection of good stuff, you can afford to make some mistakes and just count on the power level of your individual cards to get you through. When your deck relies on the synergy between its cards instead of their individual power and being able to milk the most damage possible out of every phase of the game then there's no safety net - you can't afford to mess up and give your opponent 1 extra life because that 1 life is what gives him another turn to stabalize by playing superior cards.
Yeah, it's real easy to beat random scrubs with RDW even if you, yourself, are a scrub, but it's not quite as easy to regularly beat up on polished lists piloted competently.
3