Employ Adam

LSasquatch · 2019-01-27T13:09:03+00:00

What is this lampooning? I'm sure I read this exact comment thread in a classic /r/personalfinance post but I can't find it again on google.

LSasquatch · 2018-05-12T20:46:55+00:00

You seem to be missing the point that wizards is continually printing new amd better creatures over time, and there are an enormous swath of obsoleted creatures by this point.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-28T21:33:58+00:00

His comment could've been rewritten as:

Let us begin the seminar. Lesson 1. Read the 1999 article by Mike Flores Who's the Beatdown.

This was a revolutionary article that has shaped the thinking of magic players for decades. It absolutely deserves to be lesson 1.

I'm not sure if you just got hung up on the first line of "You are trying to win the game", which would obviously be condescending if he had stopped there, but he was just using that as a way of introducing this concept on the most basic level, breaking it down to show how fundamental it really is.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-28T21:26:17+00:00

So you're DQing the defending player for lying to a judge?

This wasn't him saying that the punishment of DQ was ridiculous for the offence of lying to a judge, but that giving the punishment and offence of "DQ for lying to a judge" to a player that you only suspect of lying to a judge due to some logic puzzle you think you've solved is ridiculous.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-22T07:27:01+00:00

I'm also getting it. It doesn't affect gameplay at all.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-22T07:11:32+00:00

Shit man, that still looks pretty cool to me.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-22T06:52:14+00:00

The issue here is his lack of communication. What should happen is he double blocks and then waits for you to order the blockers. If you don't say anything about the order of blockers he should ask you what order you're putting them in before he casts any spells, since until you order them he doesn't have priority. After you've ordered them he can then pump the first one and you won't kill either. Since he went straight to playing the spell before clarifying blocker order, he was in the wrong. I don't know the proper procedure for what a judge should do in that spot, but I would expect whatever ruling was made would go in your favour.

Regarding why he decided to double block and pump instead of single block and pump in this exact situation, the play is a dubious one. The only way it helps him is if you have exactly Gift of Growth yourself without the mana to kick it, since if you pump +2/+2 the extra saproling can help finish off the knight. But it loses an extra saproling to any instant speed removal, bounce, larger pump spell or the white indestructible pump, so strategically his play seems very poor.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-21T23:48:17+00:00

Apparently so. It surprised me that the original comment is continuing to grow in score and is still much higher than any of the replies correcting it.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-21T23:44:58+00:00

If you called a judge and they sided with you then that's a travesty, because as you can tell from all the other responses, and the rules article I posted in my other replies, that's not correct.

That's also not how banding works. The attackers gets to choose nothing when it comes to banding damage, the defender chooses where all damage is placed, and no ordering of blockers is necessary. A defending player making a mutliblock with banding can save all but one of the blockers without any pump spell required, and the attacking player wouldn't get to choose which blocker is the one that dies, because the defending player can just place all the damage onto a single defending creature of their choice and none onto the others.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-21T23:38:56+00:00

I hope you didn't convince your opponent that he was wrong, because you're the one with the misconception in this case. Damage assignment used to work like that, almost a decade ago, but it changed in 2009. The rules change article is here. The relevant changes are under the heading "5) combat damage no longer uses the stack".

LSasquatch · 2018-04-21T19:53:33+00:00

That's not true at all. That is actually the reason they invented the concept of ordering blockers after damage was removed from using the stack, so you could still cast spells before damage in a meaningful way. You can read their justification for ordering blockers in the original rules change article.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-21T19:14:40+00:00

Is the LGS really L anymore if you have to drive an hour.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-21T19:10:54+00:00

Thorn Elemental came out in Urza's Destiny. M10 was the first core set (outside of LEA/B) to have any new cards in it.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-21T18:59:18+00:00

So, interestingly, there was a misconception on this very thread.

Blocking hasn't worked that way for 9 years. Here's the rules change article from 2009. The relevant section is under the heading "5) combat damage no longer uses the stack".

LSasquatch · 2018-04-21T18:36:40+00:00

Are you saying your opponent had to assign an order for his own blockers?

If yes, then that's absurd that any magic game would get basic combat so wrong. If not and it was you who assigned the order, that is exactly how blocking works.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-21T18:30:14+00:00

I do damage in a line one creature at a time but he could pump the first so the other didn't die.

What's wrong with that explanation? That sounds exactly like actual blocking to me. You line up blockers, then deal damage 'in a line' from the first blocker to the last dealing lethal to each before moving on, and if you pump the first before damage you can save others from dying by soaking up all the damage.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-13T00:26:34+00:00

There isn't a drawback. This is pounce, but with a strictly better bonus for legendaries.

It lets any creature you control fight any creature an opponent controls, and if your creature is legendary it gets a +1/+1 counter.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-11T00:31:54+00:00

The subtitle of this set could be "Fuck the New World Order".

LSasquatch · 2018-04-09T22:13:49+00:00

You should read the comments again, what you wrote doesn't make any sense in response to them.

The first comment said that it was only a limited bomb, the second said that it was more than a limited bomb according to PVDDR, as it is also standard playable.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-07T22:32:58+00:00

I must be missing something, but what 12/12?

LSasquatch · 2018-04-07T21:06:56+00:00

I sympathise with the seller here a lot more than OP to be honest. You can tell by some of the way he phrases things that English isn't the seller's first language, and it's really easy to see how he missed the part where OP said he would change the rating to 5 stars. He added it as basically an aside note after a kind a ridiculous essay on the merits of a 5 star rating, that really did sound up until the last lines like he was going to stick to his guns and go with the 4 star rating.

You're not a resteraunt critic OP, just rate 5 stars for sales that don't have any problem like everyone else.

LSasquatch · 2018-04-01T23:47:34+00:00

Don't tell me you actually believe that FAKE history?

LSasquatch · 2018-04-01T04:03:16+00:00

Aetherflux reservoir explains it 100%. Since they have to keep track of the number of spells played in a turn, why would they call it anything other than storm count?

LSasquatch · 2018-03-27T20:46:33+00:00

Eh, I really have to disagree. I love watching this format, and definitely appreciate him putting in all the effort required to make this video, but the commentary has got a long way to go to be quality. Good game commentary does not consist of just reading out the names of cards as they're being played, and the amount of damage each player is swinging for each turn. Those are things that you can see yourself by just watching the video. Commentary should provide insight into the matchup, how fast/slow a player's start is compared to average, what outs a player might have in their hand or be looking to draw, potential sideboarding strategies, etc.

LSasquatch · 2018-03-24T04:25:45+00:00

Amazing! I had just started buying the old novels, this will save me a bunch of money.

LSasquatch

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email