|
1 year ago ::
May 08, 2012 - 2:14PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2009
|
The thing with paper Magic is that by themselves, the cards dont do anything - the game doesnt run by itself, so we have to move all the pieces forward, both physically and figuratively. The Game doesnt realise it cant do anything for itself, so assumes everything is going along smoothly, and continues to do so even if we drop the ball. So it is up to us to try to make sure that the game we act like we are playing matches the one that is actually going on.
~ Tim
 Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D Sig
Show
That makes no sense to me.
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?
~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise  in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch  . YAY COLOR IDENTITY 
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 08, 2012 - 2:23PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2006
|
Another reason why this rule exists: Lets say I am a fairly good player, and my opponent is rather incompetent. Now, I play with Bitterblossom  (or anything else with a mandatory trigger that is detrimental to me) an conveniently "forget" that I would lose 1 Life each Upkeep. Oops! My opponent doesn't know what Bitterblossom does exactly, so they don't call a Judge. Later, someone notices. When there is no responsibility to maintain a Gamestate, I can get away with this.
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 12:39AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
I believe the rule is both logical and fair. I like it because I find it both logical and fair.
It is logical for the reasons I gave.
Err... what? Where?
All I could find is «I like it» and «It's more fun». Did I miss any?
nobody has any fun. The game would not be fun and not worth playing.
However, this rule only applies to things that are not legal. Everyone is required to point out things that create an illegal game state.
There it is again!
OK, for the third time : I know that such is the rule.
It is fair because it applies to all players... That is what makes it fair.
«Kill them all. Let God sort them» is very fair too, under that form of thinking...
Otherwise lawlessness reigns
Aren't you getting a little over-excited here?
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 12:39AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
I am unfamiliar with the notion of "fairness" Chaikov appears to endorse.
Some player made an illegal play. They punish someone else.
If that seems fair to you, then we agree: you are unfamiliar with my notion of fairness.
When an opponent does something illegal that happens to be to your advantage, knowingly allowing the game to continue after being corrupted in such a manner is not "fairness" but "cheating" which is very nearly the opposite.
Opponents cannot agree on cheating (in the confine of a one-one match).
For cheating to happen, there must be a «victim», and there must be a «perpetrator».
And the victim must be unaware of the cheat (or else he/she would call a judge).
Since both players agree on the game state, and since nothing was done without the knowledge of the other player, it cannot be called cheating.
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 12:39AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
Your issue is that you have to play the judge. If you are competent enough to play the judge, you should be able to recognize faults and call a judge before the mistake can become associated with yourself. Yet, you seem to have a problem with this. Why?
I have no problem acting as Judge.
And I have no problem acting as Player.
My problem is when I’m expected to do both, simultaneously.
(not expected, in fact; required is more accurate... and even more problematic!)
I believe Judges should not Play in the event they judge (except at near-casual levels of play).
Since Judges shouldn’t Play, it is only logical to say that Players should not Judge!
So, my problem is with a rule that DEMANDS that people both act as Players AND as Judge.
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 12:39AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
The thing with paper Magic is that by themselves, the cards dont do anything - the game doesnt run by itself, so we have to move all the pieces forward, both physically and figuratively. The Game doesnt realise it cant do anything for itself, so assumes everything is going along smoothly, and continues to do so even if we drop the ball. So it is up to us to try to make sure that the game we act like we are playing matches the one that is actually going on.
As you say, WE have to move the pieces ourselves.
But who's WE?
In fact, there is no «we»: I draw MY cards; THEY draw THEIRS;
«we» don't draw MY cards; «we» don't draw THEIR cards.
I put MY dead creatures in the Grave; «we» don't put MY creatures in the grave.
And so on.
There is no «WE».
If a piece is not moved according to the rules, «we» are not responsible; someONE is.
That someONE is to blame; not «we»; not anybody else than that ONE player.
Every move of a piece has to be performed by some individual player: that player holds this responsibility, not their opponent.
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 12:40AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
Another reason why this rule exists:
Lets say I am a fairly good player, and my opponent is rather incompetent. Now, I play with Bitterblossom (or anything else with a mandatory trigger that is detrimental to me) an conveniently "forget" that I would lose 1 Life each Upkeep. Oops! My opponent doesn't know what Bitterblossom does exactly, so they don't call a Judge.
Later, someone notices. When there is no responsibility to maintain a Gamestate, I can get away with this.
So, this rule is to protect bad players against their own incompetency. Why not have them draw eight card, since you're at it?
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 12:46AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2006
|
Another reason why this rule exists:
Lets say I am a fairly good player, and my opponent is rather incompetent. Now, I play with Bitterblossom (or anything else with a mandatory trigger that is detrimental to me) and conveniently "forget" that I would lose 1 Life each Upkeep. Oops! My opponent doesn't know what Bitterblossom does exactly, so they don't call a Judge.
Later, someone notices. When there is no responsibility to maintain a Gamestate, I can get away with this.
So, this rule is to protect bad players against their own incompetency. Why not have them draw eight card, since you're at it?
No, this rule is to protect players against cheaters. Why not let the cheaters have free reign, while you are at it?
Look at this video and tell me who should get punished, under your system. The player on the left or on the right?
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 12:51AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
No, this rule is to protect players against cheaters. Why not let the cheaters have free reign, while you are at it?
Agreed: let's punish cheaters!
As I've exposed a few posts before, the cheater (if there was any) is the player calling «Titan».
His opponent is not responsible for that action.
Look at this video and tell me who should get punished, under your system. The player on the left or on the right?
My bandwidth does not allow. Please summarize.
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 09, 2012 - 12:56AM
#50
|
|
|
Look at this video and tell me who should get punished, under your system. The player on the left or on the right?
My bandwidth does not allow. Please summarize.
It's the video of Bertoncheaty "casting" the explore that was still in his GY from the turn before and getting busted by the filmer with 6 lands on t3. When the filmer calls him out on it, his opponent says "No, he's good".
|
|
|
