3/13/2009 LD: "The Yang of Timmy"

317 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's Latest Developments, which goes live Friday morning on magicthegathering.com.
Way to wave that poll in front of our noses.

And I said that they made some room for colorless manafixing... an all-gold set would be hell on limited, and you'd at least need mana-fixers.
Yeah, I think 145 is not the right answer... but I could be totally off... because I expect there to be at least one uncolored land or colorless artifact in the set to fix mana.

EDIT: OH GOD WHAT IF THEY MAKE THE LANDS HAVE COLOR AND MANA COSTS
I have played against so many griefer timmeys... Land destruction, Counterspellers, heck even a word of law/(whateverthatenchantmentthatcountersthefirstspelloftheturn). They just aren't fun to play; they almost never win unless you do something horribly wrong, and even then you really can't call them practice.
Confessions of a Stasis griefer, lol. What, you think I chose this avatar at random? :P My current favorite griefer card is Tidehollow Sculler. There's nothing more rewarding than taking away the one card that can kill the Sculler, mwahahaha!

Also, the Watchmen reference was hilarious!
Yeah I'm trying to think how multicolored mana fixing would work, and in most cases it's an oxymoron. So I put 101-144, but knowing how they love to commit to a theme it wouldn't shock me if there really were 145.

My intention for this poll was only to learn how many of my readers have actually played in Pro Tour Qualifier tournaments. I understand that competitive Magic is not for everyone.

I know it's a bit off-topic but I like responding to statements like this to remind Wizards that I enjoy competitive Magic, but don't care for high-stakes Magic. And that too often they are tied together. Something about $25 to enter a constructed tournament doesn't seem like a good value proposition to me. Tie that with an hour (or more for many people) drive and an entire day shot, and by round 4 even if I'm winning I find myself thinking "What the hell am I doing with my life? Don't I have better things to spend time and money on?"

I can justify buying cards because then I have them. I can give myself a couple hours of play now and again. And I prefer a high level of play that will challenge me. But something about the whole PTQ structure just personally seems so unappealing to me.

If you're on MTGO check out the Free Events via PDCMagic and Gatherling.

Other games you should try:
DC Universe Online - action-based MMO.  Free to play.  Surprisingly well-designed combat and classes.

Planetside 2 - Free to play MMO-meets-FPS and the first shooter I've liked in ages.
Simunomics - Free-to-play economy simulation game.

Class: Raise your hand if you see "Scepter-Chant" coming into the Extended Scene.
Well, there's going to be some lands and artifacts so no way it's 145...but that looks like furthur proof of a strictly multi colored set. Wow !!!
OH GOD WHAT IF THEY MAKE THE LANDS HAVE COLOR AND MANA COSTS

NO WAY, that would seriously be twisted...and weird, leaving me with a not so fresh feeling
Does anyone else think "Griefer" is a little harsh? Maybe Im the only one, but Im a Johnny/Timmy, and I LOVE stasis locks, counter decks, bounce decks, Etc. But I don't like them becuase I enjoy making my opponents sad or angry, far from it, in fact I always ask if it's ok If I play a mean deck before I do, and often apologize if the other player gets angry.
Its not denying my opponent a good time that I enjoy, It's the sheer Absurdity of actually countering every spell, the ridiculousness of actully pulling something like that off, in fact I always thought it was rooted more in my Johnny side, but it makes sense in timmy.

It's like Timmy control, control brought to it's biggest most flamboyant, rediculous point.

Im just saying Maybe a word that isn't synonymous with Douchebag would be slightly better.

I sudgest "Stasistician"
lol they put 0 as an option when there is one multicolored card already revealed.

I voted 145 btw. MULTICOLORED LANDS AND COLORED ARTIFACTS FTW!
Interesting and it opens a number of questions.

Griefer Timmys shouldn't be given any card; in my experience, they are the players that have the least to offer to the Magic community and even if you win against them, the game was still boring. Problem is, strategies such as counterspell and land destruction.dec have been staples of competitive magic for a long time, and when Griefer Timmy wins consistenly, it tends to drive casual players away from competitive magic, which is sad. This is why fatties, combos and other strategies should have overall better cards in order to compete with this, and not the Godsire like cards that suck in every constructed format.

My guess is that mechanics such as land destruction and permission should have very few slots at low costs so they can't gain critical mass, but giving them bigger, bombier effects at high costs can make them competitive without enabling decks that are all about them. Permission has been treated this way, with Broken ambitions as the only 2 cc flexible spell and Cryptic commands at 4 CC. Land destruction is perfectly fine without Stone rain or Sinkhole, but should be given something good at 4 more mana such as Plow Under or a 5 mana Armageddon variant (at six, it doesn't make the cut).
If Limited gets in the way of printing good Constructed cards... Screw limited
It's official: Wizards actually deliberately caters to A-holes.

Which I guess is sort of okay up to a point. I mean, I feel a strong temptation to just yell "Death to griefers", but this instinct doesn't really accomplish anything. Griefers technically have as much right to their brand of fun as anyone else; the trick is to figure out how to give them some of their fun without taking away everyone else's, even though their fun IS taking away everyone else's. A sadist of any variety can't help getting the jollies when someone else suffers; it's just the way they are. But in the real world, responsible sadists learn that it's possible for them to get their fun without causing undue harm to others; the same tactics can be used in the case of griefers.

* Accurate self-identification. Now that the griefer label has been placed in the public domain, players who enjoy griefing should learn to say up-front "I'm a griefer", so that their opponents know what they're getting into.

* Willing victims. Once the griefers own up to their own nature, players can step up to face off against them with a full knowledge of what they're in for. Some will find this an honorable challenge and will take the risk to prove themselves; a few are masochistic and are willing to be tortured; some just don't take themselves too seriously and don't care. The people who shouldn't find themselves in this match are players like me, ones who "can't take a joke" as it were, ones whose fun is spoiled to such an extent by being griefed that they might quit the game over it, or wish to. Practical jokers learn not to prank anyone who's willing to throw them in jail over it; the same ethic applies to griefers.

* Communication. Even if you're usually okay with the risk of being griefed, you may have days when you're not up for it. So it helps if the griefer keeps the lines of communication open, asking things like "Well, I've got a really evil deck today, do you think you're up for it?" The implicit challenge in such a statement will be just what some opponents need to psyche themselves up for a game against a Strip Mine/Crucible of Worlds deck, but it will also warn off anyone who doesn't have it in them to deal with such a thing at the time.

So there are ways that you can be a griefer without being a complete A-hole. That said, some people in this world just ARE complete A-holes, and Wizards has now publicly admitted that they want to give those people their money's worth as well. They make an effort to balance the fun of someone like me with the fun of the absolute A-hole griefer, figuring out how many times the A-hole can get his fun while I still get my fun a comparable number of times, so both of us will keep paying for the game. Which is understandable, but a little disappointing, because it would be nice if they were willing to give everyone ALL of what they want, instead of just as much of what they want as they can have while everyone else gets a comparable share. (How exactly to pull off giving the audience more than 100% of the pie is a sticky problem, certainly, but I'm still sad that they aren't trying to think of a way.)
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
Does anyone else think "Griefer" is a little harsh? Maybe Im the only one, but Im a Johnny/Timmy, and I LOVE stasis locks, counter decks, bounce decks, Etc. But I don't like them becuase I enjoy making my opponents sad or angry, far from it, in fact I always ask if it's ok If I play a mean deck before I do, and often apologize if the other player gets angry. Its not denying my opponent a good time that I enjoy, It's the sheer Absurdity of actually countering every spell, the ridiculousness of actully pulling something like that off, in fact I always thought it was rooted more in my Johnny side, but it makes sense in timmy.

Okay, so you're a combination Uberjohnny and Adrenaline Timmy who's easily mistaken for a Griefer in bad lighting. Or else an actual Griefer, but a well-behaved, civilized one. Either way, like I said before, at least you own up to it and communicate about it.
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
NO WAY, that would seriously be uckfayed...and weird, leaving me with a not so fresh feeling

Don't worry, I hear they have medicated wipes for that.

*ba-dum TISH*

But seriously... "Griefer Timmy?" Seriously?

I've read (I forget where,) that "griefing" has a player profile all it's own; Dave. And I'm prone to agreeing with it, because a griefer player (henceforth referred to as "Dave" because it's easier to type,) has elements of the other "main three" that don't quite fit in to any of the others.

Dave wants you to suffer. He wants to feel your anquish.
This is very Timmy, yes, but much more one-track. For most Timmies, having fun is the goal. Their opponents' anquish is little more than an unpleasent side-effect.

Dave wants you to suffer. He doesn't care how he does it, he doesn't care what it takes.
This smacks loudly of Spike, who'll frequently go to any length necessary (rules lawyering, netdecking, you name it,) to win. But he just wants to win. His concerns might be a little selfish, but they aren't actively hostile.

Dave wants you to suffer. He'll spend hours upon hours thinking of ways to ruin your day, and will just invent new ones if he can't.
That sounds suspiciously like a Johnny, if only a Johnny who's not looking for combos.

And as far as V/M is concerned, well... To be a Dave is to be inherently Melvin, because what the cards do to make their opponent miserable is, to them, much more important than how a spell that turns you into a dragon would look.

Now, a Dave might learn about the story just enough to know what to misquote or which characters to get mixed up so that it riles up the forum-dwellers, (i.e. STAR TREK SUCKS! THAT SKYWALKER TURD IS SUCH A LOSER!) but in that respect, Dave is little more than a learned troll. (But not a professional one, natch.)
Ahem...

Something completely different...

Not to make any waves here, but...

IMAGE(http://wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/ld/ld29_counterDeck.jpg)

What counterspell is that? It's got the new frame and to the best of my knowledge there is no such thing as a counterspell with the new frame - especially not one which mentions Jace and is illustrated by Jason Chan. Is this some promo card I don't know about or is it... *gasp* ... a sneak preview from M2010?
The counterspell in the picture is from Duel Decks - Chandra vs Jace.
I have a griefer Timmy side. I had a deck before Alara rotated in using the one-sidedness of a Gibbering Descent deck that enjoyed having no cards in hand, because that's what it did to the opponent, while bleeding him continuously. I currently have a Kederekt Parasite/Spiteful Visions deck. The deck is not spikish, it's not johnniesque, it's very appealing to my Timmy side as winning by crushing utterly.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
Way to wave that poll in front of our noses.

And I said that they made some room for colorless manafixing... an all-gold set would be hell on limited, and you'd at least need mana-fixers.

There could be something like a cycle of CDE cards with basic landcycling for 1D.

Also, remember that Alara Reborn won't typically be drafted alone.

It's official: Wizards actually deliberately caters to A-holes.

Spoilered to save space
Which I guess is sort of okay up to a point. I mean, I feel a strong temptation to just yell "Death to griefers", but this instinct doesn't really accomplish anything. Griefers technically have as much right to their brand of fun as anyone else; the trick is to figure out how to give them some of their fun without taking away everyone else's, even though their fun IS taking away everyone else's. A sadist of any variety can't help getting the jollies when someone else suffers; it's just the way they are. But in the real world, responsible sadists learn that it's possible for them to get their fun without causing undue harm to others; the same tactics can be used in the case of griefers.

* Accurate self-identification. Now that the griefer label has been placed in the public domain, players who enjoy griefing should learn to say up-front "I'm a griefer", so that their opponents know what they're getting into.

* Willing victims. Once the griefers own up to their own nature, players can step up to face off against them with a full knowledge of what they're in for. Some will find this an honorable challenge and will take the risk to prove themselves; a few are masochistic and are willing to be tortured; some just don't take themselves too seriously and don't care. The people who shouldn't find themselves in this match are players like me, ones who "can't take a joke" as it were, ones whose fun is spoiled to such an extent by being griefed that they might quit the game over it, or wish to. Practical jokers learn not to prank anyone who's willing to throw them in jail over it; the same ethic applies to griefers.

* Communication. Even if you're usually okay with the risk of being griefed, you may have days when you're not up for it. So it helps if the griefer keeps the lines of communication open, asking things like "Well, I've got a really evil deck today, do you think you're up for it?" The implicit challenge in such a statement will be just what some opponents need to psyche themselves up for a game against a Strip Mine/Crucible of Worlds deck, but it will also warn off anyone who doesn't have it in them to deal with such a thing at the time.

So there are ways that you can be a griefer without being a complete A-hole. That said, some people in this world just ARE complete A-holes, and Wizards has now publicly admitted that they want to give those people their money's worth as well. They make an effort to balance the fun of someone like me with the fun of the absolute A-hole griefer, figuring out how many times the A-hole can get his fun while I still get my fun a comparable number of times, so both of us will keep paying for the game. Which is understandable, but a little disappointing, because it would be nice if they were willing to give everyone ALL of what they want, instead of just as much of what they want as they can have while everyone else gets a comparable share. (How exactly to pull off giving the audience more than 100% of the pie is a sticky problem, certainly, but I'm still sad that they aren't trying to think of a way.)

If someone truly can only have fun by causing someone else an equal amount of misery, that person needs psychological help, at the very least.

If someone likes to play really annoying decks (like the 32 counterspell deck described in the article or an infinite turn combo), that person can still be a net positive influence on the "total amount of fun" in Magic, because it generally isn't terribly painful to play against these decks unless you have to do it repeatedly, and it's usually very satisfying when you finally take them down. (One of the most memorable moments I had playing Magic was when I was playing against a dedicated counterspell deck, and my opponent was bragging about how he was in control and I could never resolve another spell... then I attacked for lethal with the creatures I already had in play.)

However, if that person also has intentionally poor sportsmanship and insults his/her opponents just to make them feel bad, that person should be ostracized, and banned from any public Magic-playing venue.
Class: Raise your hand if you see "Scepter-Chant" coming into the Extended Scene.

What you said, when I saw silence I went like, one mana instant? Are you kidding me, scepter will love that card. Not a whole lot of fun to play against I would say, griefer timmy will be delighted.
How many cards are in the set? Based on nothing beyond the knowledge that you are asking (and there's 145 in the set)? Hmmmm. I went with 145. "All Gold" seems like a gimmick you might run, and you'd be inclined to ask if you were running that gimmick.

Wrath of God is a griefer's delight. What could be better than destroying all the creatures in play, knowing that the majority of decks must rely on creatures to win?
Real Griefers wouldn't declare their intentions upfront - it'd reduce the chances of annoying the opponent.

To that end, Jonmkl: I think you're anything but a griefer. For you, it sounds as if griefing as actually unwanted from your perspective. If anything, you sound like a Johnny/social Timmy.

I would have voted 145 on the poll but don't sets all have the 5 basic lands included now? That would mean that only 140 cards at most could be multicolour.

WANTED!
For the murder of Timmy.

Wizards of the Coast



I had high hopes for Timmy week, but it seems Wizards have only made things worse. There are too many different descriptions of what Timmy is all about, and now that "griefer Timmy" is an official subset of Timmy's, everyone who had a bad stereotype of Timmy can say "oh yeah I was right".

I no longer wish to be identified with "Timmy" at all. I now consider myself 80% Vorthos, 20% Johnny. Timmy is dead to me.
How many different kinds of Johnnies will there be? It seems to me that the Social and Diversity Timmy subsets can just as easily be applied to Johnnies. Maybe instead of subsets they should be referred to as Prestige Classes. Then you will need to satisfy certain requirements before you can become one. For instance:

Griefer Timmy:
Must be able/willing to quote a movie in every other sentence you say, and sneer at those who don't recognize them.

Need to play Stasis-lock deck more than once a year.

Need to cast 2 Dark Rituals on turn one in order to cast that sorcery that makes me discard my entire hand at the beginning of a six player game.
I understand that competitive Magic is not for everyone. I also knew that last week I would be talking about the Pro Tour, so it seemed appropriate to ask how much of my audience had tried to qualify for one.

Wow. I'm rather pleasantly surprised by this comment. I apologise if my comment in last week's thread irritated anyone - I probably stated my disinterest in tournaments more belligerently than was necessary. But I'm very glad to see Tom recognise that a number of us have made a conscious decision not to get into tournament Magic. I certainly don't object to the site covering Kyoto and whatever other tournaments are going on - I mean, where else on the internet should such coverage be if not magicthegathering.com? - since I'm able to just not bother reading those articles.

So my thanks for your gracious comment, Tom.


There could be something like a cycle of CDE cards with basic landcycling for 1D.

Yes, that's what I'm expecting: 145 gold cards, but like Legions provided some pseudo-spells like Bane of the Living and Gempalm Incinerator, I'm expecting Alara Reborn to have CDEs with either basic landcycling 1D, and/or cycling for 1D or 2D with some cycle-triggers like Resounding Roar or the Gempalms.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more a cycle of reverse Resoundings makes sense. It'd be the way round that you'd expect cycling to be - the big effect is the main gold card, the smaller effect is the monocolour cycling.

How many cards are in the set? Based on nothing beyond the knowledge that you are asking (and there's 145 in the set)? Hmmmm. I went with 145. "All Gold" seems like a gimmick you might run, and you'd be inclined to ask if you were running that gimmick.

It's not just based on that. It's also based on the preview card from Monday's Arcana, whose collector number is 1/145. Historically, monocoloured cards have been ordered before gold cards. The Arcana also said "We're sure you can find something interesting here". So the interesting thing was either (a) they're changing the ordering of cards' collector numbers (yawn), or (b) there are no monocolour cards in the set.

Note that there could still be artifacts, lands, hybrid or split cards in the set. But I'm thinking there won't be - I think if they're avoiding monocolour for a set, they're going to go all out and go All Gold.

I would have voted 145 on the poll but don't sets all have the 5 basic lands included now? That would mean that only 140 cards at most could be multicolour.

The Alara Reborn boosters do include Shards of Alara basic lands, but those are Shards of Alara basic lands, with Shards collector numbers. They don't count as Alara Reborn cards.
The Alara Reborn boosters do include Shards of Alara basic lands, but those are Shards of Alara basic lands, with Shards collector numbers. They don't count as Alara Reborn cards.

Hmm.

In that case, I would change my vote if possible, to 145. Might be rather interesting.

Thanks for setting me straight...
One thing I wonder about is the article title. I'm assuming it's a reference to Griefy, but how is Griefy the Yang of Timmy? It should have been called "The Dark Side of Timmy", and in Chinese spirituality, Yang is the bright side of things, the side of life and energy and positivity. "The Yin of Timmy" wouldn't make too much sense either, though, because Yin is passive and reactive. Neither Yin nor Yang describes Griefer Timmy. (As a KOTE nerd, I would go so far as to say that Griefer Timmy is the Yomi side, and thus spends Demon Chi to activate his Disciplines.)
My New Phyrexia Writing Credits My M12 Writing Credits
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing. --Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
Ahem...

Something completely different...

Not to make any waves here, but...

IMAGE(http://wizards.com/mtg/images/daily/ld/ld29_counterDeck.jpg)

What counterspell is that? It's got the new frame and to the best of my knowledge there is no such thing as a counterspell with the new frame - especially not one which mentions Jace and is illustrated by Jason Chan. Is this some promo card I don't know about or is it... *gasp* ... a sneak preview from M2010?

If you would have clicked on the counterspell in your post you would have seen that that printing of counterspell is from the Jace vs Chandra dual deck.
It's hard to tell if someone's a griefer.
I play a 96 card pauper turbofog deck online (96 cards is the win condition and I only have Oona's Grace to speed up the process (or I could beat with one of the three mulldrifters))
I have played Land Destruction and decks with 20+ Counters I currently have a competitive deck with 7 counters in the sideboard to add to the seven main.
I usually play with decks with answers.
I count Beacon of Immortality as a serious win condition.
My Name is Dave.
Does this make me a griefer?



Probably not. I rarely enjoy seeing someone locked out and would never prefer that to winning more.
This ends up like all the other psychological profiles some of the elements apply to most people but never perfectly.
Good play is win more "A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in his own opinions" - Proverbs 18:2
Class: Raise your hand if you see "Scepter-Chant" coming into the Extended Scene.

Now raise your hand if you realize that Scepter rotates out of Extended in October 2010 and the combo will last exactly one season at best.
I hate the old notion that all counterspells, land destruction, and discard effects are just "unfun". Boo-hooh, you can't just goldfish. Grow up!
That said, some people in this world just ARE complete A-holes, and Wizards has now publicly admitted that they want to give those people their money's worth as well.

yes, an important part of capitalism. it's also a sort of metaphor for the evils of capitalism AND democracy. let's look at this equation.

cater to everyone + most people are awful = terrible world.

not that i have a solution or anything.

I've read (I forget where,) that "griefing" has a player profile all it's own; Dave. And I'm prone to agreeing with it, because a griefer player (henceforth referred to as "Dave" because it's easier to type,) has elements of the other "main three" that don't quite fit in to any of the others.

someone brought this up recently on another thread, and i called ******** then and said it was just another version of timmy. i am happy to see wizards agrees with my viewpoint.

Dave wants you to suffer. He wants to feel your anquish.
This is very Timmy, yes, but much more one-track. For most Timmies, having fun is the goal. Their opponents' anquish is little more than an unpleasent side-effect.

how does being "one track" make it less timmy? some timmies are very one track about large creatures, or coin flips. for this timmy, having fun in this way is the goal, the same way another timmy might have fun through darksteel colossus or warp world.

Dave wants you to suffer. He doesn't care how he does it, he doesn't care what it takes.
This smacks loudly of Spike, who'll frequently go to any length necessary (rules lawyering, netdecking, you name it,) to win. But he just wants to win. His concerns might be a little selfish, but they aren't actively hostile.

spike wants to win, dave doesn't. so dave isn't spike. "going to any length necessary" is part of any profile. johnny goes to any length necessary to pull off a weird combo. even vorthos goes to any length necessary to express flavor, and he isn't even a real player profile.

Dave wants you to suffer. He'll spend hours upon hours thinking of ways to ruin your day, and will just invent new ones if he can't.
That sounds suspiciously like a Johnny, if only a Johnny who's not looking for combos.

this is a valid point. i think most "daves" are actually timmy johnnies. but that doesn't make it a new profile. it just makes it a combination of two (and it would be stupid to rename every available combination and their subtypes. or fun, depending on who you are.).

i think people WANT dave to exist, because for him to exist within their beloved timmy or johnny makes them queasy. and since he doesn't care about winning, he isn't spike, the profile everyone loves to hate. sadly enough, guys, wanting to warp (har!) the game around your experience is definitely a timmy, and maybe a johnny thing. we all just have to accept it.
Silence on a Scepter is not nearly as good as Chant. For one thing, Wild Nacatle keeps chewing on you.

I can understand that some people are griefers, but I don't think it's fair to consider all LD or wall of permission players to be griefers. Sometimes that's just the those are the most successful strategies.
Class: Raise your hand if you see "Scepter-Chant" coming into the Extended Scene.

I'm certainly NOT raising my hand, silly teacher. Silence on a stick is inferior to Orim's Chant on a stick by a mile. I'll be gleefully beating those foolish enough to try such a deck in an Extended tournament I'm in with one- and two-drops, creatures with Flash and man-lands. The inability to attack was what made Scepter-Chant a true lock; while it could work on some slow, all sorcery-speed deck like The Rock, it would have too many bad matchups to be any viable, me thinks.

I think Silence will most likely be played in tournaments to some degree, but more as a way to protect combos from countermagic, like Chant has been used for in the past.

About Griefer Timmy : as some people already pointed out here, the community also has been refering to this "sub-psychographic" as Dave for some time. For those who are interested to learn more about the concept and want to know where the term originated, I'll post a link to the article where it all started : The Fourth Psychographic by Daniel Rezendes, published on MTGsalvation.com. Among other things, it exposes the theories that identify Dave as a subset of Timmy (like Tom presents it) or Spike. Make sure to also read the forum discussion linked to it. This subject of "jerk players" has spawned many interesting arguments there and elsewhere.
Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A

WANTED!
For the murder of Timmy.

Wizards of the Coast



I had high hopes for Timmy week, but it seems Wizards have only made things worse. There are too many different descriptions of what Timmy is all about, and now that "griefer Timmy" is an official subset of Timmy's, everyone who had a bad stereotype of Timmy can say "oh yeah I was right".

I no longer wish to be identified with "Timmy" at all. I now consider myself 80% Vorthos, 20% Johnny. Timmy is dead to me.

I think you're overreacting a little there, friend. Don't burry Timmy just yet ! The concept of Griefer Timmy has absolutely nothing to do with the usual Timmy stereotypes, so no one will say "oh yeah I was right" because of it. The more prevalent Timmy stereotype still is the opposite of Griefer Timmy, aka the guy who hates all kinds of distruption.

Overall, I think this week's articles have done a really good job at making readers better understand Timmy and have a higher opinion of him. For one, I had my Spike/Timmy nature strenghtened this week, and I feel prouder about it than ever before. But that's me.

Oh and, by the way, you can't really be 80% Vorthos and 20% Johnny. These two concepts are not on the same axis. I believe you're 100% Vorthos on one axis, and you're 80% Timmy and 20% Johnny on another. Anyone who looks down on you because of that doesn't deserve your attention. Be proud too !
Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A
I voted 145, as "the all-multicolored set" sounds much more impressive than "the 90% multicolored set".
I voted 145, as "the all-multicolored set" sounds much more impressive than "the 90% multicolored set".

I'd love to see it just for the sake of completeness, but I voted "101-144" since there has to be some mana-fixing for limited.

Maybe they could do more stuff like Dryad Arbor in multiple colors, but the summoning sickness on the lands would be a bear to deal with.
Proud member of C.A.R.D. - Campaign Against Rare Duals "...but the time has come when lands just need to be better. Creatures have gotten stronger, spells have always been insane, and lands just sat in this awkward place of necessity." Jacob Van Lunen on the refuge duals, 16 Sep 2009. "While it made thematic sense to separate enemy and allied color fixing in the past, we have come around to the definite conclusion that it is just plain incorrect from a game-play perspective. This is one of these situations where game play should just trump flavor." - Sam Stoddard on ending the separation of allied/enemy dual lands. 05 July 2013
About Griefer Timmy : as some people already pointed out here, the community also has been refering to this "sub-psychographic" as Dave for some time. For those who are interested to learn more about the concept and want to know where the term originated, I'll post a link to the article where it all started : The Fourth Psychographic by Daniel Rezendes, published on MTGsalvation.com. Among other things, it exposes the theories that identify Dave as a subset of Timmy (like Tom presents it) or Spike. Make sure to also read the forum discussion linked to it. This subject of "jerk players" has spawned many interesting arguments there and elsewhere.

i'm not sure what you mean by "exposes." do you mean disproves, or are you just pointing out that he talks about it?

i'll try and attack this from a different angle. if dave is actually a real player profile, which means there can exist a pure dave who is only motivated by dave goals...

why would that person purchase magic cards? why would they learn how to play magic?

the player profiles explain why people play magic, which costs money and time. if someone's single motivation is to irritate, there are easy and cheap as free ways to do that. like standing next to someone and repeating everything they say. or saying random numbers when someone is trying to count. these activities cost zero dollars and take no time to master. but if timmy buys and plays because he likes the fun of laying down the big cards with crazy effects with his friends, and spike buys and plays because he wants to win, and johnny buys and plays to express creativity, why would pure dave buy and play? what does dave enjoy when he's building the deck, or opening the boosters? does he think "heh heh, i can put these cards together to create this really irritating combo" ? if so, he's just johnny. does he think "heh heh, this card will totally throw the whole game into chaos" ? if so, he's probably timmy. most likely, he is a combination of the two. the article you link to explains dave in terms of which profile he falls under, while contradicting itself and saying he isn't any of them. suitcase dave is just spike, he plays to win but he enjoys the annoyance of the losers. rulekillers are johnnies, they build crazy combos to annoy. if dave didn't enjoy making crazy combos, why would he take the time to build them? if he enjoyed coming up with them, he's johnny. if he enjoys annoying people but truly doesn't care how he annoys them (as the article and other posters suggest) then why would he go to the trouble to annoy people within the game of magic the gathering?

just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they're a different psychographic profile. insisting there exists a new profile when you can explain any of dave's different versions with the existing profiles is pointless. the article is really just a tirade about the types of people the author doesn't like as they appear in each psychographic profile. yes, some of this is in the comments on the article but i wanted to say it myself.
Among other decks, some more benign than others, I have made many "griefer" decks over the years. To those that lost to them and stopped playing, I am still not sorry and I would still like a Stasis variant to be printed sooner or later so I can make that deck again. It's not my fault if players don't like challenging situations and like I say a lot, especially when this comes up, you can't play without an opponent.

But I never played for the purpose of making my opponent sad and I don't see how this "Griefer" character is really a variant of Timmy as much as it is a way to try and make the psychographic seem less one-dimensional than it has been in the years since these profiles were first introduced. For starters, those combos seem a lot more Johnny than Timmy.

But more importantly any "griefer" by the given definition is really just a jerk regardless of player type and they are going overboard by saying that players who like effects like Noble Benefactor/Lobotomy are automatically of some sub-profile. I make a variety of decks, from the aggro RDW that I only recently took apart to the bad combo deck that needs 10 mana to go off, to the multitude of midrange and control decks that keep getting rebuilt and refitted. I also make lockdown decks and enjoyed the pickles deck because it was as close as I was going to get to my old favorite, Stasis. Now I am a "griefer?"

Even though griefer Timmy's goal is to make you sad, there is an effective way to deal with him. Simply refuse to be sad in the face of his tricks, and you will deny him his fun. Even more devastating, you can beat him while ignoring his efforts to annoy you. A griefer Timmy who neither wins the game nor makes his opponent miserable is a very sad griefer Timmy indeed. However, be very careful when you do this. If you enjoy a griefer Timmy's misery too much, you will become intimately familiar with the fun that a griefer Timmy can have and you might be tempted to become one yourself!

There is nothing good that can come out of a paragraph like this. Several months ago I came across a mill/library removal deck that was very effective against my control deck. When I got hit by Jester's Cap and my six cards were replaced by six removal spells, I knew I was in a lot of trouble because a large number of my cards were going to be useless against him even if they did not end up in the graveyard before I could get them in my hand. A well-placed Traumatize cost me almost every counterspell I had and all but a few creatures which I was very unlikely to draw and attack with in time to win. I treated the situation as a puzzle, played one of my best games ever, and came within 5 damage of winning anyway. He wasn't a jerk and I didn't have to "refuse to be sad." But as of today, he is now a "griefer."

The purpose of this article was not to say that lockdown players are a part of the game; it was to give everyone a name to call someone who employs this strategy and paint him in the worst light possible so that they have a good reason to nerf control and denial elements of the game. This is about the least subtle I have ever seen R&D (Devin Low used to make little needling comments about control players in general but nothing like this). I have enjoyed Tom's work so far as the LD writer, but this is a serious setback in my eyes.
So they've tried to assimilate Dave as a Timmy? Dave's just about the polar opposite of the social gamer (which does feels more timmy). Social Timmy plays plankton cards Howling Mine and the like.

Dave plays Jester's Scepter.

I voted 145, because they might want to put in fixing but really, if they put in lands or colorless artifacts, it'd just Mistform Ultimus-ify the set (IT'S ALL MULTICOLOR... except for a, b, c and d). If they do the idea, they'll execute it proper (at least I think they would).
I liked the "current" reference to Watchmen, but not really the Rorschach part. I've read the comic, but no where do I see how "becoming what he hates" applies to the character of Rorschach at all. If anything, Rorschach is the epitome of a flat character. He maintains his "black and white, no compromise" views consistently throughout.

Could someone perhaps clear this up? Or agree with me that this is an error, of course. :P