I feel like this deck needs the full 4 Assault Formations. I know that they suck in multiples and blah blah blah but you reaaaaaaaaaaaaally need the first and spares are nice to have around.
Yeah, deck does absolutely nothing without one, but a second really sucks. I'll find the room.
Otherwise the only card that you're missing that I generally play is Wall of Roots. If nothing else I would shave 1 land to make room for 1 but if you could find a way to squeeze in some more I probably would. The list does seem fairly tight for slots though.
1) It bugs me when Ghostway gets manifested and I don't have a way to bounce it to hand, but I don't think that's worth cutting anything for Jeskai Barricade.
2) I'm not sure that this is better than going all-in on Assault Formation. [I'll post another deck that is all-in on Bant Ghostway.]
3) Any other suggestions?
I agree with you that families will optimize the happiness/meaning/joy of decisions to the extent possible taking into account their needs, their partner's needs, their child's needs and other pressures. I also agree with you that biology exists and therefore equilibrium may not be equal.
I disagree with you on these two points: 1) the significance of social norms on an individual's decision making, and 2) while legal protections help, there is too much research to the contrary for me to agree that legality alone is enough to drive equality - among any of the legally protected classes.
Are you saying that just because there is no law to the contrary that everyone has free choice? That's how I read it, but if that's not your actual point, I don't want to waste our time responding to something I misunderstood.
Yes; that's exactly what I am saying. There is nothing preventing people from making that decision if that is what they wish. You do not have to succumb to "social pressure" or anything else if you don't want to, and frankly no one should because that's a horrible way to live your life, trying to appease everyone but yourself. That decision may have consequences, but that's how literally everything in life works. You want to do something, you weight the consequences of doing it vs not doing it, and then you decide what's more important to you. Everyone already has equality in this choice, therefore, I don't understand why there is a need to crusade for it.
I think we're in agreement that gender is a protected legal class and therefore what remains is social pressure (and a long history).
I'm certainly not immune to social pressure. I brush my teeth every day, shower, wear pants, try to maintain my weight, use my polite words... Lots of things that I might not do if no one else was there to observe me.
It may be that women on average value spending time with their children more than men do...
Please share your research! From what I've found via cursory research (and personal experience), this is not true.
We find that both mothers and fathers engaged in child caregiving enjoy their time spent in child caregiving; fathers as much, or even more so, than mothers...
It does not logically follow that just because you personally don't like that a certain percentage of people make a particular decision that there has to necessarily be some unfair influencing factor in that.
I am specifically saying that the disparity in percentage (as well as trend towards more equilibrium) is indicative of unequal social pressure.
I'm not sure how you could look at the statistics or trend and conclude that family decisions are being made entirely independently? I mean, we can learn other people's decisions, so our decisions are not blind...
And this decision is important since it is linked to women's career outcomes (though cause-effect isn't clear, as per the following quote):
[I]t is difficult to distinguish cause and effect in family time allocation. Do women tend to devote more time to housework and childcare than men do because their wages are lower, or are their wages lower because they devote more time to housework and childcare?
Inequality of outcome IS fine if that's what people are choosing to do of their own free will. The playing field here isn't tilted; everyone is just as capable of making any possible decision and thus will often gravitate towards the one that serves them best. There's no law or anything that is dictating inequality (like say segregation laws in the past).
Are you saying that just because there is no law to the contrary that everyone has free choice? That's how I read it, but if that's not your actual point, I don't want to waste our time responding to something I misunderstood.
I am looking at the opportunity of choice and seeing "Yes, the people that made these decisions had the opportunity to make other decisions" which is the only thing that matters. There is nothing preventing families from deciding to have the woman work and the man take care of the children, so to me, it doesn't matter whatsoever if they choose to do that or not. It also doesn't matter how many people make that decision, because all of them make that decision independently of each other.
If decisions were completely free and independent, I might expect to see random distribution - some years might be X, other years might be Y. A long term trend of 100-0 female-male (I'm using hyperbole here) to 84-16 female-male would not appear to be characteristic of free and independent. How would you evidence that decisions have all been freely made and independent? That seems like a pretty difficult assertion to support.
[And to be clear, I'm not saying that taking care of kids is "bad" or not worthwhile. I am saying that this is one example where we have legal freedoms, but social norms still form limitations. And it's not just pressure on women. There are likely a bunch of dads out there that would like to be the stay-at-home parent but don't feel empowered to do so. At least, that's how I read the increase in stay-at-home fathers who did so because they WANTED to (not because they didn't have other options) from 5% to 21% between 1989 and 2012. Since that % started from such a small base, I suspect - but cannot prove today - that this percentage will grow further in future years.]
You might receive the best 1v1 advice in the casual subforum - and there is a primer on Vampires here.
I'd probably swap some of the cards that provide value over a longer game (i.e., Oversold Cemetery, Grave Pact, Sanguine Bond) for some of the usual suspects. This Modern deck might serve as a rough guideline.
You might replace the ridiculously expensive Lilianas with a mix of Geth's Verdict and Sign in Blood. And the manabase could remain 23 swamps and a Nykthos.
I'm not sure how to respond to the thesis that inequality is fine. I don't require 50-50 on all dimensions (women are more effective at breast feeding, for example), but 80-20 (or 84-16) feels like a pretty good indication that women are freely "choosing" from a stacked deck.
I don't know how to address the imbalance. I agree with you that direct intervention would not be either wise or effective. Cultural norms would need to change, and those take a LONG time to shift.
I’ve received many, many times my “fair” share of privilege/advantage/opportunity. I don’t believe that we have reached parity (on any legally protected class) and I’m delighted that there are institutions and individuals advocating for greater parity. I only mourn when these advocates are ineffective or counterproductive and don’t achieve their objective.
Do you think sexism is something that only someone that suffers it everyday can identify or classify?
No, but someone who does suffer it everyday probably has more moral authority on the topic.
What exactly do you mean by that? Does this 'moral authority' holds value in any logical argument? I don't mean to seem cold or insensitive, it is just that I think some things are not justification for other things.
I’m not saying that it’s a logical argument (so I agree with you). I’m saying that logic alone isn’t enough. Feelings and experiences can’t be ignored if you want to change someone’s mind. [And even logical individuals may disagree.]
My only intention was to illustrate a point: that people can start to act irrationally under the flag of their ideology, without stop to thinking about what they're saying, causing overreaction and sometimes even aggressiveness towards people that disagree with them, even if they do so in a polite, reasonable manner.
I agree! Also, your friend approach wasn't at all effective in changing your mind.
I was actually expecting someone here to defend the thesis that Slave Leia's costume was, in fact, sexist, but since no one has said anything it seems everyone agrees with the text (or just didn't read it). I think you can defend that using reasonable arguments (though I'm still inclined to think that it isn't sexist), but not saying 'yeah, it is because I said so and I know what I'm talking about'.
I’m not an authority on sexism. I do think, though, that regardless of how it may have been intended artistically by the content creator in the context of the movie, that Slave Leia’s costume has been appropriated by viewers in an entirely different manner. Though Carrie is trying to take back the narrative...
Right, but women already have the right to choose to not be the one to stay at home, so what is your complaint? That they shouldn't? If that's what they and their partner decide, then what's the problem? You're complaining about something that women already have the ability to do if they want; it's a complete non-issue. If they don't want to be pressured into it, don't have children with people that are going to pressure them into it, or just say no. It's that easy.
Given the large difference in outcomes, you might be underestimating the amount of pressure involved and/or the way that a lot of small pressures can aggregate.
According to Pew, there are 10.4MM stay at home mothers and 2.0MM stay at home fathers.
Since, you know, it’s so odd for men to be stay at home, Pew needed to ask the dads additional questions like – is it because you are unemployed? Retired? Maybe you're too ill to work? Sure enough, only 21% of that 2MM were stay at home dads because they wanted to care for their family. (Anecdotally, my brother is the stay at home dad by choice and he is ACUTELY aware that he is an outlier. Lots of mommy support groups - very few daddy support groups.)
Do you think there is a tendency for groups to shut down dialogue?
I'm going to answer a slightly different question - there appears to be a tendency for groups of like-minded individuals to move towards more extreme views (in any context). See here, for example. Excerpt -
One source of problems in group decisions is that many deliberating groups end up adopting a more extreme version of the position toward which they tended before deliberation began. The problem is especially severe for groups of like-minded people, who typically get more extreme as a result of deliberation.
Do you think sexism is something that only someone that suffers it everyday can identify or classify?
No, but someone who does suffer it everyday probably has more moral authority on the topic.
Going off-script for a moment. You know how you roll separately for Intelligence and Wisdom?
Intelligence - I think you're right that her argument didn't address your perspective.
But given that you started with a specific case where there are divergent viewpoints, it's not unreasonable to have left the conversation with divergent viewpoints. (See also every 5-4 SCOTUS verdict as further evidence that it can be difficult to reach consensus on complex topics. And they have devoted their lives to legal interpretation. And have the benefit of historical precedent, codified rules, advice from leading experts, ...)
Wisdom - what did you hope to achieve with the conversation, and did your conversation reach those objectives?
i.e., were you hoping to dissuade your feminist friend from her feminist ways? If so, did pointing out an article (on a conservative website), then starting a debate about it work? Was she aware that this was supposed to be an intellectual debate only, with no emotions involved?
Do you feel hurt at all that your viewpoints were so summarily dismissed?
I certainly would.
But over time I've come to accept that no amount of "being right" on a technical point is going to change a friend's mind, and certainly not one who is already entrenched.
The idea behind our group is just to have fun, wanted to make sure these cards weren't completely overpowered and wanted to try to stick with the "vampire tribal" theme as much as possible.
From my perspective, these cards may not be considered "fun."
Contamination is not fun - if you can support it by sacrificing a creature each turn, it shuts down decks so some of your opponents can't "play magic," which can lead to scooping (which means no one gets to play), or very irate opponents.
Either Sanguine Bond or Exquisite Blood is fine. Combined, though, they create an infinite combo, which is kosher in some groups, but not others. With only a single copy of each (and no tutors or real ramp), it's not like EVERY game (or even many games) will end that way. But some folks get a little irrational when playing against someone with a known infinite combo and send unneeded hate in that direction.
Exsanguinate is an awesome card. My observation is mostly around running 4 copies. Odds are that you WILL see one of these each game, and it's hard not to just win with the card - which can feel a little abrupt. Abrupt may not be "fun." You may consider shaving the number of copies (FWIW, I typically play 1 or 2) - the deck already has access to a bunch of other life gain options.
Seems like Bridge into Dread Return into Balustrade Spy and Flame-kin Zealot might get there on turn 2 (if no one has a sac outlet or spot removal to kill an opposing Birds, or whatever). Though I haven't tried it, so I can't really say if it ever works.
Thanks - I spent the last hour reading how the deck works (I haven't played this one before) and it does look like an "I win" or "I lose" deck. The type of deck worth pulling out (zero or) once, then putting away for good.
You should try manaless dredge! It's super cheap for a Legacy deck. In the tradition of proper anti-Magic, you win by discarding to hand size on turn 1.
Ah, I thought that was a $500 deck, but it turns out that $300 was the FoWs in the sideboard. Looks fun! How have you modified it for MP?
3x Birds of Paradise
2x Blade Splicer
2x Brago, King Eternal
2x Coiling Oracle
1x Deadeye Navigator
1x Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite
2x Eternal Witness
1x Farhaven Elf
1x Glen Elendra Archmage
1x Mulldrifter
1x Reclamation Sage
1x Restoration Angel
1x Sun Titan
2x Thragtusk
1x Trostani, Selesnya's Voice
2x Venser, Shaper Savant
4x Wall of Blossoms
1x Whisperwood Elemental
2x Breeding Pool
2x Flooded Strand
3x Forest
1x Gaea's Cradle
1x Gavony Township
2x Hallowed Fountain
3x Island
2x Plains
2x Savannah
4x Windswept Heath
Instant (6)
4x Ghostway
2x Path to Exile
1x Wrath of God
Enchantment (1)
1x Luminarch Ascension
Planeswalker (1)
1x Venser, the Sojourner
So many interesting ETB/LTB effects that this ends up looking like a Pod or SotF deck with a bunch of singletons - but without the ability to tutor.
Heavily draws upon the few Modern decks of this ilk. i.e., like this one.
Love it! Didn't know it existed.
Yeah, deck does absolutely nothing without one, but a second really sucks. I'll find the room.
Done.
4 Forest
1 Gaea's Cradle ('cause I have one undecked)
1 Mountain
1 Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx
1 Plains
4 Rootbound Crag
1 Rugged Prairie
1 Skarrg, the Rage Pits
4 Sunpetal Grove
3 Temple Garden
1 Wooded Bastion
4 Axebane Guardian
3 Eternal Witness
4 Overgrown Battlement
1 Reclamation Sage
3 Tree of Redemption
1 Vent Sentinel
4 Wall of Blossoms
3 Wall of Omens
3 Whisperwood Elemental
3 Assault Formation
4 Mastery of the Unseen
Instant (4)
4 Ghostway
Sorcery (2)
2 Wrath of God
I like the engines of Ghostway + Manifest, Ghostway + Eternal Witness, and Ghostway + Wall of Omens/Blossoms. But since it's essentially two decks jammed together (i.e., Assault Formation + Ghostway), it can be a little inconsistent.
1) It bugs me when Ghostway gets manifested and I don't have a way to bounce it to hand, but I don't think that's worth cutting anything for Jeskai Barricade.
2) I'm not sure that this is better than going all-in on Assault Formation. [I'll post another deck that is all-in on Bant Ghostway.]
3) Any other suggestions?
I disagree with you on these two points: 1) the significance of social norms on an individual's decision making, and 2) while legal protections help, there is too much research to the contrary for me to agree that legality alone is enough to drive equality - among any of the legally protected classes.I think we're in agreement that gender is a protected legal class and therefore what remains is social pressure (and a long history).
I'm certainly not immune to social pressure. I brush my teeth every day, shower, wear pants, try to maintain my weight, use my polite words... Lots of things that I might not do if no one else was there to observe me.
Please share your research! From what I've found via cursory research (and personal experience), this is not true.
I am specifically saying that the disparity in percentage (as well as trend towards more equilibrium) is indicative of unequal social pressure.
I'm not sure how you could look at the statistics or trend and conclude that family decisions are being made entirely independently? I mean, we can learn other people's decisions, so our decisions are not blind...
And this decision is important since it is linked to women's career outcomes (though cause-effect isn't clear, as per the following quote):
If decisions were completely free and independent, I might expect to see random distribution - some years might be X, other years might be Y. A long term trend of 100-0 female-male (I'm using hyperbole here) to 84-16 female-male would not appear to be characteristic of free and independent. How would you evidence that decisions have all been freely made and independent? That seems like a pretty difficult assertion to support.
[And to be clear, I'm not saying that taking care of kids is "bad" or not worthwhile. I am saying that this is one example where we have legal freedoms, but social norms still form limitations. And it's not just pressure on women. There are likely a bunch of dads out there that would like to be the stay-at-home parent but don't feel empowered to do so. At least, that's how I read the increase in stay-at-home fathers who did so because they WANTED to (not because they didn't have other options) from 5% to 21% between 1989 and 2012. Since that % started from such a small base, I suspect - but cannot prove today - that this percentage will grow further in future years.]
I would have paid $0 - bulk rares/uncommons/commons have no value to me. And it costs money to ship to buylist...
Did he actually pay $800, or just claim to have provided $800 worth of cards as the birthday present?
I'd probably swap some of the cards that provide value over a longer game (i.e., Oversold Cemetery, Grave Pact, Sanguine Bond) for some of the usual suspects. This Modern deck might serve as a rough guideline.
4 Bloodghast
1 Bloodline Keeper
3 Gatekeeper of Malakir
4 Kalastria Highborn
3 Vampire Lacerator
4 Vampire Nocturnus
4 Viscera Seer
4 Liliana of the Veil
Spells [9]
2 Dismember
1 Doom Blade
1 Go for the Throat
4 Thoughtseize
1 Ultimate Price
4 Cavern of Souls
2 Godless Shrine
4 Marsh Flats
2 Mutavault
11 Swamp (258)
1 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
I don't know how to address the imbalance. I agree with you that direct intervention would not be either wise or effective. Cultural norms would need to change, and those take a LONG time to shift.
I’ve received many, many times my “fair” share of privilege/advantage/opportunity. I don’t believe that we have reached parity (on any legally protected class) and I’m delighted that there are institutions and individuals advocating for greater parity. I only mourn when these advocates are ineffective or counterproductive and don’t achieve their objective.
I’m not saying that it’s a logical argument (so I agree with you). I’m saying that logic alone isn’t enough. Feelings and experiences can’t be ignored if you want to change someone’s mind. [And even logical individuals may disagree.]
I agree! Also, your friend approach wasn't at all effective in changing your mind.
I’m not an authority on sexism. I do think, though, that regardless of how it may have been intended artistically by the content creator in the context of the movie, that Slave Leia’s costume has been appropriated by viewers in an entirely different manner. Though Carrie is trying to take back the narrative...
Given the large difference in outcomes, you might be underestimating the amount of pressure involved and/or the way that a lot of small pressures can aggregate.
According to Pew, there are 10.4MM stay at home mothers and 2.0MM stay at home fathers.
Since, you know, it’s so odd for men to be stay at home, Pew needed to ask the dads additional questions like – is it because you are unemployed? Retired? Maybe you're too ill to work? Sure enough, only 21% of that 2MM were stay at home dads because they wanted to care for their family. (Anecdotally, my brother is the stay at home dad by choice and he is ACUTELY aware that he is an outlier. Lots of mommy support groups - very few daddy support groups.)
Does this thread need to move to Debate?
No, but someone who does suffer it everyday probably has more moral authority on the topic.
Going off-script for a moment. You know how you roll separately for Intelligence and Wisdom?
Intelligence - I think you're right that her argument didn't address your perspective.
But given that you started with a specific case where there are divergent viewpoints, it's not unreasonable to have left the conversation with divergent viewpoints. (See also every 5-4 SCOTUS verdict as further evidence that it can be difficult to reach consensus on complex topics. And they have devoted their lives to legal interpretation. And have the benefit of historical precedent, codified rules, advice from leading experts, ...)
Wisdom - what did you hope to achieve with the conversation, and did your conversation reach those objectives?
i.e., were you hoping to dissuade your feminist friend from her feminist ways? If so, did pointing out an article (on a conservative website), then starting a debate about it work? Was she aware that this was supposed to be an intellectual debate only, with no emotions involved?
Do you feel hurt at all that your viewpoints were so summarily dismissed?
I certainly would.
But over time I've come to accept that no amount of "being right" on a technical point is going to change a friend's mind, and certainly not one who is already entrenched.
Contamination is not fun - if you can support it by sacrificing a creature each turn, it shuts down decks so some of your opponents can't "play magic," which can lead to scooping (which means no one gets to play), or very irate opponents.
Either Sanguine Bond or Exquisite Blood is fine. Combined, though, they create an infinite combo, which is kosher in some groups, but not others. With only a single copy of each (and no tutors or real ramp), it's not like EVERY game (or even many games) will end that way. But some folks get a little irrational when playing against someone with a known infinite combo and send unneeded hate in that direction.
Exsanguinate is an awesome card. My observation is mostly around running 4 copies. Odds are that you WILL see one of these each game, and it's hard not to just win with the card - which can feel a little abrupt. Abrupt may not be "fun." You may consider shaving the number of copies (FWIW, I typically play 1 or 2) - the deck already has access to a bunch of other life gain options.
I use Dragonshift in a deck with Vent Sentinel, Assault Formation, and a bunch of defenders. It's "fun," but it's not a "good" deck at all.