Yes, I understand the Legend rule, that's why I mentioned a one line add to the CR that since they already rules 2 sides of a DFC as the same entity it's a natural extrapolation to to say a DFC that is legendary on both sides suffers from teh legend rule regarless of which side is up when another ETB.
It's a one sentance addition to the CR to say that a DFC triggers the legend rule regardless of which face is up when another enters the battlefield (which is how it would intuitively work to anyone not trying to break the mechanic for no good reason).
Maybe they didn't want the huntmaster affected by clones?
I'm curious: what do you think makes it a great mechanic? What positives exist about this mechanic that overcome the sheer physical design issues, the conditionality of the G/R cards, a conditionality similar to and demonstrated to be bad back in Odyssey block (the Punisher mechanic), the awkwardness of having to have extra cards or sleeves or both to deal with the issues this brings up including losing your cards or being unable to see all the data you need to make decisions as a player?
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't like it and I do recognize that it's 'cool' but I've been playing this game for 18 years and this is one of the worst mechanics I've ever had to deal with so I really don't know why someone would love it. Flavor trumped design and Design 101 says that it should never be this way. So: what about this mechanic is great? Difficulty: It's flavorful cannot be part of the answer.
That last sentence implies that you already know part of the answer.
So I will skip that bit...
I like how using both sides of the card allows each side to be simpler as an object in itself (the cards arent overcrowded, too wordy, and you dont need to wade through irrelevant information that pertains to the side that isnt in play). I also like how each side gets its own art (without looking awful, like the Kamigawa flip cards). By physically turning the card over you get to actually see it transform on the table - you can see at a glance what is what, without having to tell which way up it is, or counting how many counters are on it and comparing them to the numbers in the little boxes.
You dont need to read anything upside-down (Flip cards) or ignore portions of the card (Level Up). You effectively get 2 "cards" for your money, as well (two lots of art, two distinct card faces).
Personally I use checklist cards in my deck, and put my DFCs in clear-backed sleeves. This means I dont need to de-sleeve anything during play, and I get to flip my cards over and slap them down on the table when they transform - and this feels really good.
Yes there are drawbacks, and downsides, and logistical factors to consider, but personally, I feel that the flavor (oops), clarity, extra art, and the pure joy I feel when transforming my cards, more than makes up for it. And TBH, even things like filling in checklists and carrying spare transparent sleeves makes them feel special - not awkward.
Just my personal feelings of course, but I would hate for Wizards to think that no-one likes the mechanic just because some people dont (as usual, the people who are unhappy are more likely to speak up). At my FLGS today, several people stated outright that Transform was one of their favourite mechanics - along with others that didnt like it.
I wouldnt want it all the time, every set, or even every year, but when its appropriate, I would like to see it used again.
If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed?
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
So: what about this mechanic is great? Difficulty: It's flavorful cannot be part of the answer.
That last sentence implies that you already know part of the answer.
He was asking you the question, it wasn't rhetorical.
I like how using both sides of the card allows each side to be simpler as an object in itself (the cards arent overcrowded, too wordy, and you dont need to wade through irrelevant information that pertains to the side that isnt in play).
As noted by LaPille, both sides of Huntmaster of the Fells are just as wordy combined as Ice Cauldron 's Oracle text. That's a lot of effing text. One of the arguments made about two-facing the cards was that it would allow the cards to have more room for flavor or whatever. This works with non-werewolf-cards, but werewolf-cards have this mandatory set of about 6 lines that is required of them to flip back and forth. They don't get away with the wordiness issue because suddenly they are just as wordy (if not more so) than any other common in the set, and most uncommons. Moreover, several of them do not have flavor text, owing to the apparent need to have extra abilities on one or both sides. In some cases, flavor text only occurs on one side, as a demonstration of how wordy they have become. The extra space was given as an excuse to add more flavor, something flip cards lacked, but it is being used to add more rules text.
Like flip cards, many DFCs can't flip back, and one card (Immerwolf ) was printed so as to prevent werewolf-cards from switching faces. This is due to an issue of limited and constructed play where the power of the "main" face of the card had to be severely weakened to make you want to use the other face, and in fact make that the whole point. Thus, they eventually punished you for having a "weaker" face, and allowing your opponent to control when you lost your werewolf and it became a human. This is also why all of the non-werewolf helper cards printed so far are common or uncommon (Full Moon Rise , Moonmist , and now Immerwolf ).
I also like how each side gets its own art (without looking awful, like the Kamigawa flip cards). By physically turning the card over you get to actually see it transform on the table - you can see at a glance what is what, without having to tell which way up it is, or counting how many counters are on it and comparing them to the numbers in the little boxes.
See, now you're just justifying your argument by dissing flip cards. This isn't about flip cards, and really isn't about their feasibility versus other ways to execute the card. There are other ways to have made the cards, but R&D chose this one as a "gimmick," which meant they could go further with them than they needed to because (like flip cards) they would never come back to them.
You dont need to read anything upside-down (Flip cards) or ignore portions of the card (Level Up). You effectively get 2 "cards" for your money, as well (two lots of art, two distinct card faces).
There are a lot of things wrong with DFCs that flip cards get right, and vice versa. One pointing out the pros of DFCs does not validate the argument that they are better.
DFCs: pros
More text room [gameplay] - allowing higher functionality or "cool" things to be had
More flavor text room [flavor]
More card image room [flavor, reception]
The image that the card face represents a single, distinctive card [gameplay, reception]
They are something that Magic: the Gathering has never done before [reception]
DFCs: cons
More flavor text room [flavor] - because this means less rules text
You can't see both sides of the card at the same time [gameplay, reception]
You can't see both arts at the same time [flavor, reception] - this feeds directly into observing "the transformation"
You have to manually turn the card around every time it "transforms" [gameplay] - and this is more troublesome for werewolves than anything else as very few non-Wolf DFCs can transform back
There are memory issues involved with counting spells every turn, instead of just sitting back and playing [gameplay]
They are something that while MtG never did this before, DFCs were made in Wizards' other game Duel Decks where they were kept out of decks on purpose, while the WoW TCG used the mechanic for their heroes (also, not in decks) [gameplay, reception]
The DCI requires you to use checklist cards instead of these in your deck, so you can't actually treat these as deck-cards [gameplay, reception]
You have to show these cards off in draft because otherwise you are intentionally hiding and therefore "cheating" [gameplay]
More in depth listings of the pros, cons, and solutions to them here, here, and here.
Personally I use checklist cards in my deck, and put my DFCs in clear-backed sleeves. This means I dont need to de-sleeve anything during play, and I get to flip my cards over and slap them down on the table when they transform - and this feels really good.
Just as a note, if you "slap them down on the table," you could be disruptive On the other hand, you have to show your opponent you are playing with certain cards, especially if they are werewolves. Do you rotate, pinwheel, whirldwind slam your tokens? The same principle effectively applies!
Yes there are drawbacks, and downsides, and logistical factors to consider, but personally, I feel that the flavor (oops), clarity, extra art, and the pure joy I feel when transforming my cards, more than makes up for it. And TBH, even things like filling in checklists and carrying spare transparent sleeves makes them feel special - not awkward.
To be honest, that means you put the flavor aspects of the DFCs far, far above their technical aspects, and thus enjoy them for a particular reason. I could literally say thing to you and you wouldn't bat an eye at them, because flavor trumps whatever I said. This is an extrapolation. Note above I categorized my comments in regards to a listing of "flavor," "reception," and "gameplay." The first is what you pick to regard as fun, or cool, and thus resonating emotionally within you. These cards speak to you emotionally, and the superego in you has every reason to ensure you stay pleased to the point it drowns out the logical id. Id cares about the "gameplay" aspects, and despite that they outweigh the number of "flavor" aspects, you will side with the self-satisfaction angle, and the ego backs you up.
Just my personal feelings of course, but I would hate for Wizards to think that no-one likes the mechanic just because some people dont (as usual, the people who are unhappy are more likely to speak up). At my FLGS today, several people stated outright that Transform was one of their favourite mechanics - along with others that didnt like it.
Aaron Forsythe recently noted: "It is not without controversy, however, as many players are not fans of the marquee components of the set—the transforming double-faced cards. Let me be clear that such controversy was anticipated and was part of the appeal of doing them for me. I realize they put a logistical strain on the game and throw a hand-grenade of public information into the otherwise pristinely private world of Booster Draft. But their goal was not to be the next great innovation in good gameplay. They were meant to be what they are—a gimmick. A conversation starter. A shocking development that makes you sit up in your chair in disbelief and then compels you to check out the set. They aren't meant to be the future of how Magic will be played—they'll be gone in a few months, replaced by the next cool thing."
So WotC is well aware that the reception was not perfectly positive, nor that it was mostly positive. It has it's fans, but it has its detractors: "To those of you who like them—thank you. I'm very proud that we managed to pull them off. To those of you who aren't fans—thank you for playing along."
So I sincerely doubt we will see them again in any large spattering as we've seen them this "block." It was enough that I chose to stop playing Standard to avoid dealing with the Block, especially since R&D and Creative decided to trample all over the meaning of "Gothic Horror" and just decided to start using "horror movie" tropes to fill the set (down to brain-eating zombies ... ugh! -- you have to hate Romero at this point for starting this trend). See here for more, including that Coulton song that they all so love which stems from this trope (and Romero).
"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)
That last sentence implies that you already know part of the answer.
So I will skip that bit...
Actually, that last sentence is there to ensure nobody squiggles out of the answer by trying to use flavor to justify The Glory Of Cool Things--which is precisely what is wrong with the mechanic.Flavor cannot trump design. Just so we're clear about why I did that.
I like how using both sides of the card allows each side to be simpler as an object in itself (the cards arent overcrowded, too wordy, and you dont need to wade through irrelevant information that pertains to the side that isnt in play). I also like how each side gets its own art (without looking awful, like the Kamigawa flip cards).
You've just said the same thing twice and both of those things have to do with aesthetics, not mechanics.
By physically turning the card over you get to actually see it transform on the table - you can see at a glance what is what, without having to tell which way up it is, or counting how many counters are on it and comparing them to the numbers in the little boxes. You dont need to read anything upside-down (Flip cards) or ignore portions of the card (Level Up). You effectively get 2 "cards" for your money, as well (two lots of art, two distinct card faces).
I can see what you're going for there. That hasn't been my experience at all-I've actually lost games because I couldn't read all the necessary text, due to it being hidden on the underside of the card-but this is mechanically related.
However, I'm going to say that; denying a player necessary information-like what a card does-by covering it up is a huge problem. As an opponent, it is quite detrimental to be unable to just look at the board, read what's on the card and make decisions. Flip cards/level up cards didn't do that.
Personally I use checklist cards in my deck, and put my DFCs in clear-backed sleeves. This means I dont need to de-sleeve anything during play, and I get to flip my cards over and slap them down on the table when they transform - and this feels really good.
How a mechanic feels is not what makes it good; the feeling you get by doing that isn't an evaluation of the quality of a mechanic's execution. That is: it might feel really good to band your creatures together, but that doesn't change the fact that banding is a logistical nightmare, or that storm might feel like a good way to win but it's destructively non-interactive and kills games. See what I'm going for here?
What Transform has done (among other things) is insist that we have more working parts to our decks than we used to have-which you talk about below. In addition, the fact that you have to add more 'stuff' to your deck suggests that this mechanic is inelegant, which is a drawback.
Yes there are drawbacks, and downsides, and logistical factors to consider, but personally, I feel that the flavor (oops), clarity, extra art, and the pure joy I feel when transforming my cards, more than makes up for it. And TBH, even things like filling in checklists and carrying spare transparent sleeves makes them feel special - not awkward.
Everything you like about this is precisely what I take issue with. Flavor is a terrible reason to do something and as soon as you lose or damage an element of your deck because you have to break it into discreet parts I wonder how your special feeling will go then. Not that I wish it on you but the long and short of it is that decks are made up of anywhere from 40-100 pieces [cards] depending on your format and these things can get lost/damaged. The more 'things' there are the more likely it is something bad is going to happen.
The fact that you felt you had to bring flavor into the discussion to justify something that, from a design perspective is not good, tells me that this mechanic is a weak one.
Just my personal feelings of course, but I would hate for Wizards to think that no-one likes the mechanic just because some people dont (as usual, the people who are unhappy are more likely to speak up). At my FLGS today, several people stated outright that Transform was one of their favourite mechanics - along with others that didnt like it.
And I would hate for Wizards to think that this mechanic is a good one, just because some people feel it's cool-because feeling that it's cool is what brought us something that has had some serious issues. Worst of all, the G/R ones are executed so badly I can't believe it passed muster: mechanics that the player cannot control are inherently terrible.
I wouldnt want it all the time, every set, or even every year, but when its appropriate, I would like to see it used again.
~ Tim
I can't say you've convinced me or made an argument for the mechanic so much as you've listed reasons you like the act of transforming cards but I recognize that the game is for many, many players and I'm glad you're enjoying this.
I can't say you've convinced me or made an argument for the mechanic so much as you've listed reasons you like the act of transforming cards but I recognize that the game is for many, many players and I'm glad you're enjoying this.
Thanks.
Just to be clear, I wasnt trying to change anyones mind, or even make arguments - I just wanted to put across an opposing viewpoint.
If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed?
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
I can't say you've convinced me or made an argument for the mechanic so much as you've listed reasons you like the act of transforming cards but I recognize that the game is for many, many players and I'm glad you're enjoying this.
Thanks.
Just to be clear, I wasnt trying to change anyones mind, or even make arguments - I just wanted to put across an opposing viewpoint.
Cheers!
~ Tim
By "argument" I mean a logical progression of thoughts that support a point of view, so I certainly hope that is what you were doing. /smiles
I think, though, it's been demonstrated how this mechanic breaks down in terms of why someone likes it and why someone doesn't and with the data Qilong has provided, it's something we probably won't see again.
I could literally say thing to you and you wouldn't bat an eye at them, because flavor trumps whatever I said.
I'm not getting into this discussion again. Both sides have argued in circles for the past three months, and I'm tired of it. I only come here to point out that this statement applies equally to you. There are definite pros, ones that you do not include in your list, that have been posted in the past discussion, but since you place more importance on the logistical issues, no amount of pointing out the pluses will cause you to bat an eye.
It was enough that I chose to stop playing Standard to avoid dealing with the Block
Which means you have not actually played with them. So how can you make judgment calls on how they play (such as claiming having to remember number of spells played per turn is difficult, or that they disrupt gameplay when you have to turn them over)? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I'd tend to give more weight to someone who has played with them and found them fun than to someone who has just read about them and decided they're more trouble than it's worth.
I can see what you're going for there. That hasn't been my experience at all-I've actually lost games because I couldn't read all the necessary text, due to it being hidden on the underside of the card-but this is mechanically related.
You are allowed to look at both faces of a DFC any time it is in a public zone. So if you'd needed that information to avoid losing, you could have simply asked to see the other face. If your point is that the information isn't available at a glance, then you're right. But I consider this an upside, as you don't have to see all the currently-irrelevant text when you're checking the board over to grok the gamestate.
What Transform has done (among other things) is insist that we have more working parts to our decks than we used to have-which you talk about below. In addition, the fact that you have to add more 'stuff' to your deck suggests that this mechanic is inelegant, which is a drawback.
This isn't a complaint against the gameplay of the mechanic. You're right, it does add to the bookwork outside of the game, but once the DFC is in play, it's really simple, elegant even. It's also emotionally satisfying that your card actually changes when the creature it represents changes.
There are upsides to DFCs besides flavor. To name a few: added capacity for rules (and flavor) text, keeping the board state simple, adding design space to the game (see Garruk Relentless , who could never have been designed without DFC technology), and fun gameplay. Those who are in support of DFCs admit to their downsides, so why can't those who are against them accept the existence of upsides? Some people like them, some people don't. When it comes time to decide if they're bringing the mechanic back, Wizards of the Coast will look at sales data, not old threads on the forums. Can we please drop the discussion now? It's been over three months.
I can see what you're going for there. That hasn't been my experience at all-I've actually lost games because I couldn't read all the necessary text, due to it being hidden on the underside of the card-but this is mechanically related.
You are allowed to look at both faces of a DFC any time it is in a public zone. So if you'd needed that information to avoid losing, you could have simply asked to see the other face. If your point is that the information isn't available at a glance, then you're right. But I consider this an upside, as you don't have to see all the currently-irrelevant text when you're checking the board over to grok the gamestate.
I am aware of what I am allowed to do. This doesn't change the fact that I lost because I couldn't see rules text I needed to and that text is highly relevant: I'm not even sure where you think you can say that there is 'currently-irrelevant' text in a game of Magic.
You like it; great. It's still a design flaw that players cannot merely look at the board, read the available text, and grok the situation. You considering it an upside doesn't actually make it one. As a matter of fact, I think that it's weird that you would consider information that is supposed to be public but is instead hidden an upside: It feels wrong. But to each his/her own.
What Transform has done (among other things) is insist that we have more working parts to our decks than we used to have-which you talk about below. In addition, the fact that you have to add more 'stuff' to your deck suggests that this mechanic is inelegant, which is a drawback.
This isn't a complaint against the gameplay of the mechanic. You're right, it does add to the bookwork outside of the game, but once the DFC is in play, it's really simple, elegant even. It's also emotionally satisfying that your card actually changes when the creature it represents changes.
Actually, it is a complaint against the gameplay of the mechanic, because the mechanic is implimented so inelegantly. Your emotional satisfaction doesn't change the logistical issues, it just means you're willing to overlook them. Fine for you! But as I said earlier: The game is for many, many people.
There are upsides to DFCs besides flavor. To name a few: added capacity for rules (and flavor) text, keeping the board state simple, adding design space to the game (see Garruk Relentless , who could never have been designed without DFC technology), and fun gameplay. Those who are in support of DFCs admit to their downsides, so why can't those who are against them accept the existence of upsides? Some people like them, some people don't. When it comes time to decide if they're bringing the mechanic back, Wizards of the Coast will look at sales data, not old threads on the forums. Can we please drop the discussion now? It's been over three months.
1) Please do not try and tell me what I should or should not talk about. I wasn't even talking to you, so why are you being rude like that?
2) As a customer, I'm going to say what I want to say to the people who make it. Feel free to not have this discussion with me but if you choose to talk to me, then don't expect me to just drop it.
3) 'Fun' is an extremely subjective thing: it is, in a way, at the root of the conversation. So let's just drop that. I'm OK with you liking it! It doesn't change the logistical issues with this mechanic, nor the poor execution of the G/R versions it just means you are willing to overlook those issues and I am not.
4) I have admitted there is coolness here and on my blog and the SCG forums. I've been pretty up front about understanding why people think this mechanic is cool and, as my interactions with LMTRK demonstrate, perfectly happy that they like it. My issue is that this coolness isn't a reason to break what is centuries of established card game setup and the fact that a group of people think it's cool doesn't mean that it's a good mechanic for the game.
5) The mere existence of this (repeated) discussion and my own experience with double faced cards says that this mechanic does not keep the board space simple. If it was simple, we'd all just check it out and move on.
So--go, do enjoy yourself! You can be happy with the existence of these cards, and I can feel better with the knowledge that they will probably never do this again.
I could literally say thing to you and you wouldn't bat an eye at them, because flavor trumps whatever I said.
I only come here to point out that this statement applies equally to you.
Arguably, yes. It applies to everyone. I try, at least, to distance myself from my superego, so that my id takes over. It's a bit of a struggle to avoid personal gratification in trying to tell myself I am right. I'd rather have someone say I am wrong, carefully deconstruct my argument to show me why I am wrong, and build their own argument so I may do the same. Part of this requires divesting myself of as many preconceptions as I can. I prefer the argument and the deconstruction over the pandering.
Which means you have not actually played with them. So how can you make judgment calls on how they play (such as claiming having to remember number of spells played per turn is difficult, or that they disrupt gameplay when you have to turn them over)? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I'd tend to give more weight to someone who has played with them and found them fun than to someone who has just read about them and decided they're more trouble than it's worth.
I have actually played with them. I attended both the paper and digital releases. I decided before I would say anything further beyond my initial posts during the preview weeks that I would give myself the experience of playing with them, and seeing how other people were dealing with them and the logistical complications that were foreseen by R&D, and figure out if they were enough.
You say you give more value to someone who found them fun (paraphrasing) and I think that's part of the problem with the argument. You are more willing to disagree with someone who had a terrible experience of them than to disagree with someone who didn't. You are already set. I have played them, and place the mechanical, functional and dexterity issues above those of flavor and concept because (and this is a big one) this is how constructed PLAY works. I take a different focus on this than you, and thus it would be impossible to agree using those focuses. I am also interested in flavor, and my first link in my post up there explained how interesting and fun I thought the execution. Deconstructing the desigm, however, leads to its errors and flaws ... and one needn't look too deeply.
So here's an excercise: Find all the things that flip cards did better than DFCs. Or Level up. Or any of the myriad other "transform" variants R&D has been attempting to devise since the games inception.
My brother is of the same mind, but wanted to play with Werewolves, solely out of flavor, yet also feels they could be one-faced. In other words, the appeal is the Tribe, not the DFC. Similarly, "transform" could have been enacted in a way that dealt with a single face, a single card, and flip cards were just such a way this was done, regardless of how unpopular they were. This is why R&D's first step in creating DFCs was to diss flip cards as much as possible. You devalue and destroy the other implementations and produce a new form, showing how your form got all the things right which the others got wrong. This is stupid, and it allowed them to ignore what they got wrong.
"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)
You like it; great. It's still a design flaw that players cannot merely look at the board, read the available text, and grok the situation. You considering it an upside doesn't actually make it one. As a matter of fact, I think that it's weird that you would consider information that is supposed to be public but is instead hidden an upside: It feels wrong.
The text of the face-down side of the card is not having an impact on the gamestate, so why should it be mucking up the board, making it harder to find the information that is having an impact? That is all I meant. It's not too hard to pick up the card and look at the other side when you need to know what it does.
But as I said earlier: The game is for many, many people.
As long as the cards have value to a decent number of people, and that's how it seems, then they have a reason to exist. Those who don't want to deal with the hassle of the cards can simply choose not to play with them. The vast majority of the hassle vanishes once they're on the battlefield, and that's the only time you'll ever have to deal with your opponent's DFCs.
Please do not try and tell me what I should or should not talk about. I wasn't even talking to you, so why are you being rude like that?
It was not my intention to be rude, nor to tell you what you can or cannot say. I apologize if it came across that way. I merely meant to express fatigue with the whole debacle. It's been three months. Those who like them, like them; those who dislike them, dislike them. Neither side is likely to be budged at this point, and Wizards isn't going to decide whether or not to bring the mechanic back in the future based on a forum discussion. I'd just like to see us all move on to hating something more recent. Let's not let Wizards get complacent
Arguably, yes. It applies to everyone. I try, at least, to distance myself from my superego, so that my id takes over. It's a bit of a struggle to avoid personal gratification in trying to tell myself I am right. I'd rather have someone say I am wrong, carefully deconstruct my argument to show me why I am wrong, and build their own argument so I may do the same. Part of this requires divesting myself of as many preconceptions as I can. I prefer the argument and the deconstruction over the pandering.
I appreciate that mindset. To clarify, I'm not trying to say that my position holds any more weight than anyone else's. I'm just trying to express the fact that there are merits to both sides.
You say you give more value to someone who found them fun (paraphrasing) and I think that's part of the problem with the argument. You are more willing to disagree with someone who had a terrible experience of them than to disagree with someone who didn't. You are already set.
That was not my intent. I only meant that I placed more weight on the judgment of someone who has tried them than on that of someone who hasn't. Knowing that you have given them a try, I am willing to concede that you find them too much of a hassle to play. Like I said, they're not perfect. It's good to know you at least gave them a shot, rather than dismiss them outright (as many people seem to have done).
