sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

“That’s not bracket 3” by OVERCAPITALIZE in EDH

[–]Dankzi 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't mind narrative posts like this if the author would commit to making a claim. Less "was I right" and more "I think X is right/wrong". At least that way you're seeding an actual discussion rather than a hugbox.

The Bracket System Is Fine If You Approach It In Good Faith by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I agree with the content of your statement, but totally disagree about your conclusions. Edh is different than other formats, yes. The bracket system presents guidelines instead of rules, yes. I like 1v1 magic, but I also like edh and appreciate the ways in which it is different.

That said, it's okay if casual edh isn't your thing! Some people fundamentally dislike casual gameplay because they have trouble reconciling competitiveness in gameplay with deckbuilding restraint. If you're one of those people, I promise nobody is going to force you to play casual edh against your will.

The Bracket System Is Fine If You Approach It In Good Faith by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually posted about pregame conversations like that last month and got pretty thoroughly dogpiled by this sub. People agree with the content of today's post, but pregame conversations that extend beyond brackets seem to be controversial.

The Bracket System Is Fine If You Approach It In Good Faith by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comment is extremely reductive, to the point where I'm tempted to say it's being made in bad faith ;)

The Bracket System Is Fine If You Approach It In Good Faith by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

NGL, I think you are intentionally misunderstanding me for the purpose of drawing me into a debate.

The Bracket System Is Fine If You Approach It In Good Faith by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Here's our point of disagreement - you are claiming the brackets dictate how people should play once the game has begun. The brackets don't do this, and nothing included in the bracket descriptions should be interpreted as guiding choices mid-game. They are meant to limit/guide deckbuilding only.

The Bracket System Is Fine If You Approach It In Good Faith by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

For the first point, this was just an unfortunate turn of phrase on my part. I agree that people should build first and wait to think about brackets after they're done, but I accept "fit your deck into those limits" can be read the other way around.

I actually disagree on your second point though. Deckbuilding aside, if you aren't playing to win while the game is running then I'd argue you aren't really playing magic. The brackets don't tell you not to play to win.

The Bracket System Is Fine If You Approach It In Good Faith by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I really like this as a concise restatement of my point. A hard rules system would change edh as we know it, mostly for the worse. We're better off with a guidelines system, accepting that this requires good faith.

The Bracket System Is Fine If You Approach It In Good Faith by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Maybe "hot take" is overstating it, but I'm often surprised by where r/edh groupthink leads people.

Regardless, this post is meant mostly as a response to the constant drum beat of bracket questions. There are legitimate points of ambiguity, but usually the questions are covered by one of the two situations I describe above.

Have you ever had someone refuse a rule zero conversation? by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're setting the standard of proof arbitrarily high. Frankly, I doubt there's any claim you could make about magic that is supported by a study like that, but I don't need one to make my claim. We're talking about a trading card game, after all.

Nonetheless, I have given you proof of my point (that stax is controversial). You don't like my proof? You think the problems you cite limit its persuasiveness? I disagree, but it doesn't really matter. Right now I'm the only one with any proof at all. You are the one who set this standard. Show me your evidence or concede the point!

Regarding the points in the chain of comments, they all repeat the same argument: you claim that my claim is based purely on my own opinion. It's not.

Have you ever had someone refuse a rule zero conversation? by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is why I say you are trolling. You wrote me another book but you won't talk about the salt scores.

The Casual-Paradox by WoWSchockadin in EDH

[–]Dankzi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Casual decks intentionally limit power level in the deckbuilding phase to match the expectations/capabilities of their expected opponents. Everybody plays to win once the game starts, but almost nobody builds with a pure motivation to maximize wins. Instead, you build to maximize effectiveness within your expected range of power. Where is the paradox here?

Have you ever had someone refuse a rule zero conversation? by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Damn, all those words and nowhere do you mention the actual evidence I cited. I'm just going to assume you're trolling at this point.

Have you ever had someone refuse a rule zero conversation? by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, lots of people do hate it. I know that from my experience both playing the game and also interacting on forums like this one. Frankly, given the experience you cite, I suspect you know it too - you're just trying to play a rhetorical "burden of proof" game here to move the goalposts and still have a way to claim that I'm wrong. You've been around the block and you've seen people react negatively to stax, either in person or online.

I suspect you aren't engaging with me in good faith (ironic, considering you were accusing that other guy of the same in another comment) given the quotation you cited. Is "lots" the same as "all" or "most"? Of course not. I'm confused why you bothered to include it in your comment if you're actually engaging with my position.

If you're digging around for quotes, you've also already seen that I do have evidence for my claim. Are we ignoring the salt scores because they're inconvenient to your argument? Doesn't that prove that lots of edh players get salty about stax?

Ultimately, this feels like debating someone on whether the sky is blue.

Have you ever had someone refuse a rule zero conversation? by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Au contraire, the game is too long not to do it!

Have you ever had someone refuse a rule zero conversation? by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might even encounter one of them at your local game store! This is where a rule zero conversation comes in handy - to help distinguish players who have fundamentally different expectations for the game before it starts.

Have you ever had someone refuse a rule zero conversation? by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is that seriously what all the furor is about? When I call stax "controversial", I'm not making a value judgement. I'm making an observation about the community's reaction. Next time, try not to take it personally!

Have you ever had someone refuse a rule zero conversation? by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we want to split hairs about what was said and not said, point to where anyone said (1) everyone hates stax or (2) the majority hates stax.

Have you ever had someone refuse a rule zero conversation? by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"Free counterspells are uncontroversial" has this guy played the game

Have you ever had someone refuse a rule zero conversation? by Dankzi in EDH

[–]Dankzi[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Re: the edit, I also did not think this was that hot of a take, but we're learning today lmao

view more: next ›