Community

The early days of white weren't all sunshine and roses .  As Mown pointed out, there is nothing to be gained for the game by having each color be so flat and stagnant. 

The only design there that can't be justified as monowhite is Angry Mob, but as a monowhite design, I've already explained it the best I could before. It's just like the angry mob from Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. Sure it's a angry mob (chaotic, very red), but as I've said before, those hidden meanings have to be discerned. They're out to protect themselves from something that's a danger to them (like the Frankenstein monster). Goblins are dangerous, they can't be reasoned with, so destroying them all falls under the same category. And I'm sure there must have been hidden meanings to Infinite Authority which connected it strongly to holiness, protection, or order, but the most I can see off the bat is that it represents the authority of a righteous being that only destroys the wicked.

So what you're saying is that this is overall a detrimental thing to the game, but it should be kept because it (according to you) is the most realistic approach to it, even if you can't tell me that the realism has a positive contribution to the game.

It's a fantasy game, not a documentary.

I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. I'm just defending the truth based on the actual events that have transpired over the years; from the game's creation and the content back then, until whose been in control and the content created now.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:14PM, GM_Champion wrote:

And I'm sure there must have been hidden meanings to Infinite Authority which connected it strongly to holiness, protection, or order, but the most I can see off the bat is that it represents the authority of a righteous being that only destroys the wicked.

I kinda wish you had read the story about the Hand of Justice .  You'd be surprised how that kind of thing can quickly go awry.  Also, black totally gets to take a step in the religious lime-light in the early days.

So we can agree that white and black's development as colors are overall beneficial to the enjoyments of Magic: the Gathering from a games standpoint?
Terrific, that's all I need.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, GM_Champion wrote:

I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. I'm just defending the truth based on the actual events that have transpired over the years; from the game's creation and the content back then, until whose been in control and the content created now.

Except for the bit where if Richard Garfield was really so fed up with where "his" game has gone, he would've left it - and he never has. He would speak out against it - and he does not. He could walk away at any time, and speaking as a writer myself if he felt that his vision wasn't being respected, he'd do exactly that. Instead, Garfield's done phenomenal work with the flavor department, and is actually responsible for a lot of the flavor and story from the Innistrad block - one of my personal favorites.

So, no. You're wrong. You have, in fact, invented entirely new ways to be wrong. My only wish is that Mr. Garfield would pop on to inform you of this fact so that you might, I dunno, become a participating member of the community instead of a third-rate troll.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:20PM, AzureShade wrote:

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:14PM, GM_Champion wrote:

And I'm sure there must have been hidden meanings to Infinite Authority which connected it strongly to holiness, protection, or order, but the most I can see off the bat is that it represents the authority of a righteous being that only destroys the wicked.

I kinda wish you had read the story about the Hand of Justice .  You'd be surprised how that kind of thing can quickly go awry.  Also, black totally gets to take a step in the religious lime-light in the early days.

Devil worshiping and Piety (obeying the command of God) is not to be confused with each other. The term religion is very open-source and isn't to be understood as being always holy in any sense. Intention is what decides holiness or unholiness, good or evil. Now obviously, evil religious actions aren't to be confused with innocent ones. People who do things in the name of a religion, which break the laws set by that religion, detach themselves as devote followers. People who do evil things in the name of a pure religion aren't following their own rules, and thus cast themselves out from being related. They become the wicked, the sinner, those who turn their backs on their own kind and on God (who cares for them like children). To bite the hand that feeds is not holy, and that's why your "religious lime-light" is suited to black; it depicts an evil religious operation, or a violation of a pure religious law.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:26PM, Jessica_Morgan wrote:

My only wish is that Mr. Garfield would pop on to inform you of this fact so that you might, I dunno, become a participating member of the community instead of a third-rate troll.

To be fair, third-rate trolls don't often garner this level of attention for this long.  He's a pretty good troll.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:26PM, Jessica_Morgan wrote:

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, GM_Champion wrote:

I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. I'm just defending the truth based on the actual events that have transpired over the years; from the game's creation and the content back then, until whose been in control and the content created now.

Except for the bit where if Richard Garfield was really so fed up with where "his" game has gone, he would've left it - and he never has. He would speak out against it - and he does not. He could walk away at any time, and speaking as a writer myself if he felt that his vision wasn't being respected, he'd do exactly that. Instead, Garfield's done phenomenal work with the flavor department, and is actually responsible for a lot of the flavor and story from the Innistrad block - one of my personal favorites.

So, no. You're wrong. You have, in fact, invented entirely new ways to be wrong. My only wish is that Mr. Garfield would pop on to inform you of this fact so that you might, I dunno, become a participating member of the community instead of a third-rate troll.

He created Mirror-Mad Phantasm , one of the spookiest cards, which has crazy johnny potential in corner cases where you can make your opponent activate their token copy of MMP and suddenly exile their library (unless, you know, they're also playing MMP).

I miss odd corner case cards like this. Seems that Richard Garfield is the only one that can design them. 

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:26PM, Jessica_Morgan wrote:

So, no. You're wrong. You have, in fact, invented entirely new ways to be wrong. My only wish is that Mr. Garfield would pop on to inform you of this fact so that you might, I dunno, become a participating member of the community instead of a third-rate troll.

Don't be so quick to decide. It appears as though you never even took in the possibility that control of the game is beyond his grasp. People are socially awkward by nature. They wage social war with each other in secret much more than they confront things out loud and face-to-face. You must know this from experience if you really are a girl. How many girls do underhanded things toward each other, insinuating ill will, but never actually come out and say "I hate you"? Well? Guys are no different. The same things can happen between them, it's primitive human nature.

One doesn't simple tell the company what to do either. There are a lot of people you have to go through, and it can be an impossible thing to discuss. It could be so that he gets by just fine by belting out a masterpiece design once and awhile to show them how it's done and show them who is boss. Meanwhile, they go over his head because they can and belt out whatever they want regularly, and the only thing he can do is deal with it because by the time he figures out, it's too late.

When you don't have to work in an office everyday, are you going to anyways? That's what it would take to control the Magic content as you've suggested he could do. I'm pretty sure most people would rather do other things, like kick back at home, work on personal business matters, or spend time with their family.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:41PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:26PM, Jessica_Morgan wrote:

So, no. You're wrong. You have, in fact, invented entirely new ways to be wrong. My only wish is that Mr. Garfield would pop on to inform you of this fact so that you might, I dunno, become a participating member of the community instead of a third-rate troll.

Don't be so quick to decide. It appears as though you never even took in the possibility that control of the game is beyond his grasp. People are socially awkward by nature. They wage social war with each other in secret much more than they confront things out loud and face-to-face. You must know this from experience if you really are a girl. How many girls do underhanded things toward each other, insinuating ill will, but never actually come out and say "I hate you"? Well? Guys are no different. The same things can happen between them, it's primitive human nature.

One doesn't simple tell the company what to do either. There are a lot of people you have to go through, and it can be an impossible thing to discuss. It could be so that he gets by just fine by belting out a masterpiece design once and awhile to show them how it's done and show them who is boss. Meanwhile, they go over his head because they can and belt out whatever they want regularly, and the only thing he can do is deal with it because by the time he figures out, it's too late.

When you don't have to work in an office everyday, are you going to anyways? That's what it would take to control the Magic content as you've suggested he could do. I'm pretty sure most people would rather do other things, like kick back at home, work on personal business matters, or spend time with their family.

A lot of time and energy goes into a set. It's not like people can just sneak their designs into the set, there is a huge window of time for him to bring up any concerns, and given how white hasn't been the infallable holy colour it was apparently intended to be since (supposedly) alpha, it would appear that isn't a concern.

Also, stop bringing gender into everyting.

Any design can be slipped in as long as the content hasn't been sent to Cartimundi for production. It's a very simple operation to take out a design in the same CMC and replace it.

Are you suggesting this is done with the entirety of white in every set? That also doesn't seem a very good way for someone to keep a job.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:41PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:26PM, Jessica_Morgan wrote:

So, no. You're wrong. You have, in fact, invented entirely new ways to be wrong. My only wish is that Mr. Garfield would pop on to inform you of this fact so that you might, I dunno, become a participating member of the community instead of a third-rate troll.

Don't be so quick to decide. It appears as though you never even took in the possibility that control of the game is beyond his grasp. People are socially awkward by nature. They wage social war with each other in secret much more than they confront things out loud and face-to-face.

You've never met Garfield have you?  I have, and he's far and away the most aproachable, socially inviting person I know.  I've played Magic with the guy.  He's a wonderful conversationalist and a rather good sport. 

I'm just saying that it's a shame things have turned out this way. Sure it would be lovely to restore the integrity of the game (and White as the holy color) then keep it that way, but you can't take back all the corrupt content that's been produced over years. I'll just continue to defend the truth and design my custom content in-line with what it should be.

sage this

Oct 1, 2012 -- 6:28PM, Fallingman wrote:

I think it's weird how in the commentary for the Wall you described hybrid design as loose and easygoing while gold-multicolor was highly demanding and restrictive.  I've always found the opposite.

Of course that's probably because I believe in the integrity of the color pie....  So yeah, I guess that explains itself.

LOL, loved this. I thought "ki mastery" is hilarious. Ignoring that we try not to get into planar flavor, at the bare minimum, it means popping a black/red hybrid to destroy an enchantment. At worst, you're looking at Overrun .

Hybrids can be tough to design. I can just make something like

Storm Dove

Creature--Bird

Flying 1/2

Bah-dah-bing, bah-dah-boom, possible late pick. That's one huge reason no color has a monopoly on a keyword.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 12:20AM, GM_Champion wrote:

Not every hybrid design does something that "fits into either color". For example, Spitemare . That's why I said that when it comes to simple things, one color may be neglected. That's never true for solid multicolor. There is always one ability from each color. For example, Sabertooth Nishoba .

Yeah, but yours fit into neither color. Seriously, "ki mastery" leads to black/red having a three-mana Overrun ! Yes, black/red has a green effect!

Oct 2, 2012 -- 10:43AM, GM_Champion wrote:

White being pure good is a fixed position, essential because it's the exact opposite of black (pure evil). If white's not pure good, under what basis is it the counterpart of black? You can't even begin to say that white isn't the counterpart of black, the two have been mortal enemies since the dawn of time (HELLO! Order of the Sacred Torch , Gloom ?!).

Destroy a plane. Kill 'em all and let a creatively-named deity sort 'em out. Yeah, um, "crusade" is up there with "final solution". Lie your ass off.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 10:43AM, GM_Champion wrote:

In the beginning of Magic, meanings weren't as obvious for all designs. There were a lot of designs with very complex meanings. Even the colors themselves had hidden meanings which one could only discern by paying close attention to the fine details.

That still happens. I still say this is a Herxheimer reaction, and this is a missionary bearing wonderful gifts like smallpox, measles, and cholera.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 10:43AM, GM_Champion wrote:

For example, black not only was the color of pure evil, as a subsidiary, it was symbolic of anything related to the undead. This includes entities which are void of intention (like Zombies). Zombies don't have malicious intention. They have no ability to process logic, they just act on the bodies' most basic instincts to sustain itself. Not all vampires are totally evil either, but being that they are a member of the undead, detacted from chains of mortality, passeding that threshold through death, they're represented by black as a symbolism of that. These are the finer details you'll only catch if you've got a sharp sense of discernment.

Interesting. I'd say plants are completely incapable of processing logic.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 10:43AM, GM_Champion wrote:

As for Wrath of God and Armageddon, they represent the destruction of evil only. I understand that they wipe out your own creatures/lands in the process, but the intended meaning of Wrath of God draws from the Judeo-Christian bible's representation; of which God's wrath falls only on the wicked. Does anyone wish to argue that the Judeo-Christian God destroys the innocent? You can't (even if you wanted do). There is a passage where God would spare several places if there is but a single innocent person among them. All throughout the Judeo-Christian bible there is a great emphasis on the preservation of innocent and only the destruction of the wicked. Armageddon expands to represent the destruction of the world under the basis that the entire world has become corrupted and there are no innocent people amongst it.

You're going there? LOL Well, let's.

Well, let's see: Genesis 18:20-33 and (to see the odd definition of "righteous" given) Genesis 19:30-38? Exodus 12:29-30? Genesis 6:17? I've dealt with more intelligent missionaries than you (after getting vaccinated, of course).

As an aside, I do love that you'd think nobody is aware of the Bible. That it's "hidden" in some way.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 1:34PM, GM_Champion wrote:

White only has a bad side according to your hijacked version of Magic, but in reality what should white be? The holy color, pure good; need I go on? No. I rest my case.

And you're wrong. White thinks it's improving things. This is why communism is white. And fascism. And religious fanatics of all stripes. Nazis are more green/white. Notice that Magic's white antagonists generally want something good. Farrel (like all apocalyptic thinkers) felt hopeless and nihilistic to the point that he wished for the end. Radiant wanted to preserve order in Serra's Realm. (I'd argue Urza is also a villain, but whatever.) Konda wanted to prevent a war. Augustin wanted absolute order. Elesh Norn wants to perfect all life and make us all into one being.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:26PM, Jessica_Morgan wrote:

Except for the bit where if Richard Garfield was really so fed up with where "his" game has gone, he would've left it - and he never has. He would speak out against it - and he does not. He could walk away at any time, and speaking as a writer myself if he felt that his vision wasn't being respected, he'd do exactly that. Instead, Garfield's done phenomenal work with the flavor department, and is actually responsible for a lot of the flavor and story from the Innistrad block - one of my personal favorites.

So, no. You're wrong. You have, in fact, invented entirely new ways to be wrong. My only wish is that Mr. Garfield would pop on to inform you of this fact so that you might, I dunno, become a participating member of the community instead of a third-rate troll.

I actually love this. Kevin speaks for Richard Garfield more than Richard Garfield does. I've heard of Death of the Author, but who knew? Thing is, Richard Garfield designs good cards, cards with such unique corner-case potential that we can say "I would've never thought of that." and then, upon seeing how it's played, he can reply with the exact same comment. When I saw ki mastery, my first thought was disenchant. My second thought was "screw that, overrun". Then "hell, armageddon". And they all cost the same. Three mana.

Hey everybody! 2 things:
1. I'm back!

2. I realize talking with GM never accomplishes anything but I figure a little spirited debate would do my soul some good. If nothing else I can always count on GM as someone to focus my fustrations on.

GM you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that white is not nor ever was the way you envision it.  You've taken a single facet of white's ethos and zoomed in on it until it filled your whole field of vision. In order to back up this view you go so fart as to rationalize cards like angry mob into working within your preconceptions by use of hidden meanings.
Instead recognize that the simplest solution is that white doesn't match up perfectly with your views. White has a lot of good parts but it has some bad aspects too and often gets carried away with the good until it turns into something horrible (ex. purge the bad -> nuke the board, or law and order -> facism). This completely fits white's current and past philosophy. If you don't see much of it in older cards it's probably because they were mostly going for low-hanging fruit flavour-wise, getting the most basic aspects of white across first.
White's philosophy didn't so much deviate from what you saw as the only themes (but were merely the most prevalent) as the increasing number of cards that were getting released opened up a larger window into white's ethos. There have been some real changes in white's ethos over time, I can admit that but more significantly the people at WOTC better learned how to express their understanding of the color pie. Writer's go through many drafts to get what they want to express onto paper in a way that the reader can understand (do you ever retype sentences that didn't turn out right?). This does not make the original a more pure version of what they wanted to say, quite the opposite actually.
I would say that many of the deviations that occured throughout Magic's history are a result of designers extrapolating on clumsily expressed or superflous concepts (ex. Black's removal not working on other black creatures getting grandfathered onto dozens of cards based on one card where the effect only made sense on that particular card). Further I'd say that most of the recent  changes to the color pie have been about correcting these sort of grandfathered deviations on the original vision of the color pie.
If you sat down with Richard Garfield and discussed it with him I'm sure you'd find out that your conceptions of the game and what it ought to be do not match up with his original vision at all. It's not just a "corruption" of white's meaning over the years.
Finally, please, please, please stop trying to reconcile an aspect of someone else's fantasy card game with your own unorthodox thinking. What you beleive is true may or may not be right but if you are right Richard Garfield's vision is his own and does not have to align with yours. Please stop taking a revisionist approach to his work just so the two match up.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 2:56PM, GM_Champion wrote:

I'm just saying that it's a shame things have turned out this way. Sure it would be lovely to restore the integrity of the game (and White as the holy color) then keep it that way, but you can't take back all the corrupt content that's been produced over years. I'll just continue to defend the truth and design my custom content in-line with what it should be.

It is quite disturbing that you consider one school of fantasy card game design thought to be "true" and the way "it should be" while another is "corrupt" (and probably not just in the sense that it has changed but is actually worsened on an ethical level).

For anyone who didn't catch it, this was bay's deny everything said and spam bs post. 

Next time bay, save your time.


How sad is it that you're going to note a few little Genesis and Exodus passages, then just simply ignore THE GREATER MAJORITY of Judeo-Christian biblical content which presses the preservation of the innocent and the destruction of ONLY the wicked? Seriously, this was the nail in the coffin against your Wrath of God/Armegeddon "white is evil" concept which you've foolishly clung to all this time. This is the denial stage Bay_, it will soon come to pass. You'll hopefully eventually be able to accept you misunderstood the intended meanings of those designs and clung to your defense out of desperation.


Oh and I'll love to the efficiency of your deck which you've got two cards that only serve the single purpose of interacting with each other (AND require a sizeable battlefield advantage). Simply put, if you think you're going to slap ki mastery creatures into your deck and own by casting spells of other colors that are nothing but dead weight without those ki mastery creatures, you're in for a rude awakening.   

As I say,


"Trust in yourself, surely you know better than I."
   

Oct 2, 2012 -- 3:29PM, TPmanW wrote:

GM you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that white is not nor ever was the way you envision it.quote]

On the contrary my friend, it's quite the opposite.


Take a look for yourself (this link).

Blessing , HOLY Armor , HOLY Strength , Guardian Angel , Death Ward , PURElace (and that's just from Alpha). If there isn't a strong holy overtone here, well, there is so let's not bother with what if's, okay?  

Just as I told bay,


"Trust in yourself, surely you know better than I."        

Oct 2, 2012 -- 3:37PM, GM_Champion wrote:

For anyone who didn't catch it, this was bay's deny everything said and spam bs post.

Spam? Yeah, your posts are pink and taste like pure salt.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 3:37PM, GM_Champion wrote:

How sad is it that you're going to note a few little Genesis and Exodus passages,

You do realize which Biblical passages I cited, right? Please, look them up, would you? (Hint: They're some pretty well-known stories. Told all the time in Sunday school.)

Oct 2, 2012 -- 3:37PM, GM_Champion wrote:

This is the denial stage Bay_, it will soon come to pass. You'll hopefully eventually be able to accept you misunderstood the intended meanings of those designs and clung to your defense out of desperation.

No, I feel anger at "five stages of grief" and other psychobabble.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 3:37PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Oh and I'll love to the efficiency of your deck which you've got two cards that only serve the single purpose of interacting with each other (AND require a sizeable battlefield advantage). Simply put, if you think you're going to slap ki mastery creatures into your deck and own by casting spells of other colors that are nothing but dead weight without those ki mastery creatures, you're in for a rude awakening.

I'm sure you're right. Oh wait I have this and this and this . Or just Conspiracy set to mercenary.

Ah, I get it now GM: You've decided that White is Christianity. And as a christian, you therefore feel that it's your moral duty to defend it. 

What you're not getting is: White isn't Christianity. White is Law and Order.

Fitting white into the biblical narrative:
White was quite happy with the structure of Egypt before Moses freed the Jews. The methods used in that process were essentially red/black, maybe a teeny splash of blue, but no green or white.
White was on the side of the Rabbis in Israel. White was on the side of the Romans. White would happily crucify a troublemaking rabble-rouser.

You don't need to defend white. White is not, and never has been, the side of christianity.
Not to say that white lacks any aspects of christianity. Catholicism is very white. Evangelicals are more red. Quakers are closer to green. Televangelists are black.
I'll admit, I can't really see any blue in christianity, but that's probably 'cause I'm not looking hard enough.

Bay, I thought your Storm Dove design down there was awesome.

I'd say Mennonites are green.

Also, blue is the most secular color. Actually, it's kind of funny that blue and green are the most secular colors, and white and black are the most religious colors. I suppose more occult elements of any given religion would be blue.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 3:54PM, theScion wrote:

Bay, I thought your Storm Dove design down there was awesome.

Insert badass Storm Crow meme. It's a good late pick, either way. I didn't design it as anything more. (Unlike Kevin, some of my designs are...weak French vanillas?)

I could've gone green/blue, since green has Willow Faerie , but still...

I don't have to look them up bay, it doesn't invalidate the majority of Judeo-Christian biblical content which states the innocent are in the grace of God and God only destroys the wicked. It's that simple.


Whatever you want to believe Kingreaper, but those aren't monowhite principals. Crucifying someone in general is torture and isn't monowhite (or white at all). If it were white, our law would allow it, wouldn't it? But torture is outlawed by the U.N. Charter, cited in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Article 5. Obviously, anything outlawed today isn't monowhite. Captial Punishiment is the farthest stretch monowhite makes into the obsurities of conflict. Yet, even this, simply put, can be justified. If the person getting Captial Punishment is a danger to everyone and cannot be rehabilitated, there is no other measure of protection that can be taken to ensure this radical element doesn't hurt anyone else. Keeping them around, even in jail, even in solitary confinement, leaves them in this world, where they exist as a danger. It puts in danger all the people who will have to watch over that person for the rest of his/her natural life.


In summery, a lot of stuff you're trying to pass off as monowhite here reaper, just isn't monowhite. They don't have any undivided correlation to protection, or order, or holines (which encompasses both), or anything pure. They're all depiciting monowhite in a negative manner, related to negative actions, which are represented by nonwhite principals (colors other than white). Not all measures taken to maintain order are white, mind you. Just because something is related vaugely to a white concept, doesn't make it monowhite (it begins to blend into multicolor). Some concepts are subsidary and open source, their true nature depends on specifics like intention and outcome (which often veer it into multicolor).      

Oct 2, 2012 -- 4:13PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Whatever you want to believe Kingreaper, but those aren't monowhite principals. Crucifying someone in general is torture and isn't monowhite (or white at all). If it were white, our law would allow it, wouldn't it?

Would our laws allow genocide? No.

But genocide is a very white solution. As you say, crucification is fine as long as they're a damn dirty goblin. Right?


Our laws are not all based on white. Freedom of Speech, for instance, is red.

They're all depiciting monowhite in a negative manner, related to negative actions, which are represented by nonwhite principals (colors other than white).

 
You assume your conclusion. Your logic seems to go: "White is good, therefore anything which is not good is not actually white, therefore white is good, therefore...."

White is not good. It never has been. You have to ignore cards printed in 1993, (the year the game was published) ie. Eye for an Eye  in order to pretend white is good. That means that white has never been what you imagine white to be.

Genocide is not a monowhite solution. It's very red, it's very black. I once made an incarnation design, named Genocide. It was red-black. Chaotic violence is red, orderly violence which destroys the innocent is red. And hate? ( Very red ). Giving up hope on humanity is very black (see Damnation ). Unforgivness, abanddon are also evil. If you're destroying your own people (the good along with the evil), you're not protecting anything because there isn't going to be anyone left to be protected from danger (everyone will be dead). If you destroyed innocent people in the process, it becomes a nonwhite operation. Those lost lives can't be justified, not even as collateral damage. No government on this planet justifies when their innocent people are killed in the crossfires of war. It ALWAYS sparks a bigger fire, because people take it very seriously.

The reason Wrath of God is so two-dimension is because the game is very open to many options. What if you're playing black and splash white for Wrath of God? All your creatures are evil, you shouldn't be able to weild the wrath of god to kill only your opponent's white creatures, should you?  Obviously for this reason, it destroys all creatures as a measure to prevent miss-use as best as possible. People are cheapskates, they can't be expected to stick to strict Vorthos protcol. That's why people always run monoblack ramp to fuel everything they ever do. I'm sure he must have had high hopes for everyone (to stick to undivided, matching content).

Now something like, destroy all non-white creatures was likely overpowered in his eyes back then, and his meanings were implied as I've said, so obviously, it wasn't even an issue because his game group knew what it was supposed to represent (so it can act freely, destroying all creatures without being misunderstood).

Oct 2, 2012 -- 4:47PM, GM_Champion wrote:

 The reason Wrath of God is so two-dimension is because the game is very open to many options. What if you're playing black and splash white for Wrath of God? All your creatures are evil, you shouldn't be able to weild the wrath of god to kill only your opponent's white creatures, should you?  Obviously for this reason, it destroys all creatures as a measure to prevent miss-use as best as possible. People are cheapskates, they can't be expected to stick to strict Vorthos protcol. That's why people always run monoblack ramp to fuel everything they ever do. I'm sure he must have had high hopes for everyone (to stick to undivided, matching content).

Now something like, destroy all non-white creatures was likely overpowered in his eyes back then, and his meanings were implied as I've said, so obviously, it wasn't even an issue because his game group knew what it was supposed to represent (so it can act freely, destroying all creatures without being misunderstood).

At this point you are just making excuses to justify white's evil. God flooded the enitre world, murdering hundreds of innocent people, only sparing Noah because he needed a boat built to keep the animals from going extinct. Even if you somehow justify this with BS like "everyone else was evil", you also have to consider all of the children who would have drowned as well. Were the children evil? And that's only one of the many examples of god slaughtering the innocent to kill evil in the Bible. That is the flavor of Wrath of God.

White isn't evil. There is nothing to justify. You must have not taken the time to read the entire Wrath of God being based on the Judeo-Christian God, which only destroys the wicked. Check again, it's in this thread (many times over). No matter how the card operates, it's intended meaning, secrect or not, stands tall.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 5:21PM, GM_Champion wrote:

White isn't evil. There is nothing to justify. You must have not taken the time to read the entire Wrath of God being based on the Judeo-Christian God, which only destroys the wicked. Check again, it's in this thread (many times over). No matter how the card operates, it's intended meaning, secrect or not, stands tall.

And you must not have read my perfectly valid example of the Judeo-Christian god murdering the innocent to kill people he judges to be evil.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 5:37PM, GM_Champion wrote:

You're beginning to discuss religious specifics and that's now allowed here.

Just want you to be aware the Devil is a deceiver. You need to know by acts. To know the nature of God which is pure and good, one who would never kill the innocent. Then you may see the illusion you and the world have been lead to believe, and that it is a lie. God has been framed many times over. The devil in disguise presents itself as God, and even though you should know God would never do such thing, and would never ask of such a thing, your discernment fails you. 

Have you ever read Job?

Because that's a story where God is evil. (he's also, coincidentally, being a Black character in that story, but that's beside the point) 

If your view of white was how white was intended to be it would be how white is. Simple as that. You can spout whatever nonsense you want about how it "should be" and how it's been "corrupted", but no matter what way you spin it you're just flat out wrong, there isn't any getting around it.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 5:42PM, sage62 wrote:

If your view of white was how white was intended to be it would be how white is. Simple as that. You can spout whatever nonsense you want about how it "should be" and how it's been "corrupted", but no matter what way you spin it you're just flat out wrong, there isn't any getting around it.

Someone new takes things over and starts applying their own POV on things, then things change.


Under this condition, things wouldn't be as they should be today (and that's why they're not).  

Oct 2, 2012 -- 5:44PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Oct 2, 2012 -- 5:42PM, sage62 wrote:

If your view of white was how white was intended to be it would be how white is. Simple as that. You can spout whatever nonsense you want about how it "should be" and how it's been "corrupted", but no matter what way you spin it you're just flat out wrong, there isn't any getting around it.

Someone new takes things over and starts applying their own POV on things, then things change.


Under this condition, things wouldn't be as they should be today (and that's why they're not).  

Except they didn't.

"Trust in yourself, surely you know better than I."

Oct 2, 2012 -- 5:37PM, GM_Champion wrote:

You're beginning to discuss religious specifics and that's now allowed here.

Just want you to be aware the Devil is a deceiver. You need to judge by acts. To know the nature of God which is pure and good, one who would never kill the innocent. Then you may see the illusion you and the world have been lead to believe, and that it is a lie. God has been framed many times over. The devil in disguise presents itself as God, and even though they should know God would never do such thing, and would never ask of such a thing, their discernment fails them.

So what you are saying is that white is good because it's supposedly based on the god in Judeo-Christian mythology, but not the real mythology, it's based on your version of the god in Judeo-Christian mythology because the real version is corrupted by satan much like magic has been corrupted by Maro... Right...

In this case, yes. There is actual evidence for my argument, being that it is how the colour white is and has been represented from the beginning of the game. Your view on the other hand is based entirely on your opinion of how the colour SHOULD be based on some cards with a religious tone and coming to the conclusion that religion is good, white is religious, therefore white can only be good and anything stating otherwise, up to and including the game tiself, is wrong and corrupt.

I'd love to explain the details of my investigation on the matter, but I'm not going to right now. I'm just going to say I have a very good understanding of how and why things have transpired as they have. I undertstand the source of each party's actions and motives.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 5:54PM, sage62 wrote:

In this case, yes. There is actual evidence for my argument, being that it is how the colour white is and has been represented from the beginning of the game. Your view on the other hand is based entirely on your opinion of how the colour SHOULD be based on some cards with a religious tone and coming to the conclusion that religion is good, white is religious, therefore white can only be good and anything stating otherwise, up to and including the game tiself, is wrong and corrupt.

In the opening content you're going to channel the epitome of its meaning into it. Whatever each color first was depictied to represent could be nothing but the core of it's intended relativity. It's that simple. 


White was depicited above all else as the holy color, therefore, holiness is the epitome of its meaning.

Of course you do, it would be foolish to think that you had nothing to do with the founding of the game and know nothing about the events that led to the current realistic colour pie instead of the one that you think should be true. You aren't just holding your own insane standards to a game that you have no involvement in.

As has been said, white wasn't entirely holy in alpha. Yes, there were cards with the word holy in their name. Yes, there are cards that are religious in subject matter. This is a common fantasy theme and white is indeed a religious colour, along with black. Being religious doesn't make it inherently GOOD.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 5:59PM, sage62 wrote:

Of course you do, it would be foolish to think that you had nothing to do with the founding of the game and know nothing about the events that led to the current realistic colour pie instead of the one that you think should be true. You aren't just holding your own insane standards to a game that you have no involvement in.

What is there to know above what I've stated? The greatest evidence of all is the content Garfield presented in his opening product. The basis of this content was the epitome of its intended meaning. Each color and everything it was intended to stand for was clearly presented to us from the very start. Things that deviate from this (and oppose it) aren't staying to to the foundation.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 6:02PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Oct 2, 2012 -- 5:59PM, sage62 wrote:

Of course you do, it would be foolish to think that you had nothing to do with the founding of the game and know nothing about the events that led to the current realistic colour pie instead of the one that you think should be true. You aren't just holding your own insane standards to a game that you have no involvement in.

What is there to know above what I've stated? The greatest evidence of all is the content Garfield presented in his opening product. The basis of this content was the epitome of its intended meaning. Each color and everything it was intended to stand for was clearly presented to us from the very start. Things that deviate from this (and oppose it) aren't staying to to the foundation.

It was a foundtation that was built upon. They chose to build upon it in a different direction than you think they should have. There is nothing more to it than that.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 6:02PM, sage62 wrote:

As has been said, white wasn't entirely holy in alpha. Yes, there were cards with the word holy in their name. Yes, there are cards that are religious in subject matter. This is a common fantasy theme and white is indeed a religious colour, along with black. Being religious doesn't make it inherently GOOD.

Never did I say that religion was what made White holy. It's sticking to the pure virtues that makes it holy. Being incorruptable and kind, being a pious and forgiving person. Then comes order and protection which seek to keep good people in existance because it's pleasure that makes life worth living; evil makes life not worth living (because living in misery is torment).


Religion is based on intention to be good or evil, that's what I said here (this link).

Oct 2, 2012 -- 6:02PM, GM_Champion wrote:

What is there to know above what I've stated? The greatest evidence of all is the content Garfield presented in his opening product. The basis of this content was the epitome of its intended meaning. Each color and everything it was intended to stand for was clearly presented to us from the very start. Things that deviate from this (and oppose it) aren't staying to to the foundation.

Wrath of God and Armageddon both show that White is capable of unilateral destruction.
Which is evil. 

Damnation and Wrath of God are the same thing, just interpreted differently.
Hence the cards having the same text, and Damnation being just a colourshifted Wrath of God.


So, umm, yeah, Alpha sure does show that White is meant to have evil in it. 

Oct 2, 2012 -- 6:07PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Oct 2, 2012 -- 6:02PM, sage62 wrote:

As has been said, white wasn't entirely holy in alpha. Yes, there were cards with the word holy in their name. Yes, there are cards that are religious in subject matter. This is a common fantasy theme and white is indeed a religious colour, along with black. Being religious doesn't make it inherently GOOD.

Never did I say that religion was what made White holy. It's sticking to the pure virtues that makes it holy. Being incorruptable and kind, being a pious and forgiving person. Then comes order and protection which seek to keep good people in existance because it's pleasure that makes life worth living; evil makes life not worth living (because living in misery is torment).


Religion is based on intention to be good or evil, that's what I said here (this link).

Sticking to pure virtues doesn't equal good. Crusade is not a "good" card but implies sticking to your "pure virtues" so much that anyone who doesn't conform to them should be eliminated.

In before thread close?

Black Bear -
Creature - Zombie Bear
While zombies as a whole are slow, you still have to be faster than your friend to survive.
2/2

That's impossible based on the God  Wrath of God correlates to, which according to the text, will not destroy innocent and only destroys the wicked. Many accounts of that God stating it would spare entire, wicked, corrupt nations if just a single righteous person was found among them. That's a seriously strong emphasis about not destroying the innocent; and thus, by only destroying the evil which are a danger to the innocent, the wrath is justified and good (it's not evil).

That's great and all, but it isn't how white comes across or functions in the game or even limited to just Wrath of God . It's more mature than just good vs evil, everything is shades of grey. That's why there are 5 colours instead of just two.

I suggest you read my design notes and highlights for this red-black section. This was the entire purpose of the thread. Maybe you'll have better arguments based on my development applations? Anyways, they're supplied so that you can all see, know, and understand the complexity of each design. To understand its true meaning, because you all act so in the dark about it all the time. Well here are those answers so there's no excuse anymore.

I've said everything I had to say about the cards you posted. The thread has moved on from that and they have no relevence to the topic at hand.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 6:13PM, GM_Champion wrote:

That's impossible based on the God  Wrath of God correlates to, which according to the text, will not destroy innocent and only destroys the wicked.

Except

A) The God in Wrath of God is not the one you worship.
and
B) the God in the bible kills innocents... repeatedly. And orders the death of more innocents.

Many accounts of that God stating it would spare entire, wicked, corrupt nations if just a single righteous person was found among them. That's a seriously strong emphasis about not destroying the innocent; and thus, by only destroying the evil which are a danger to the innocent, the wrath is justified and good (it's not evil).

You say many accounts. What you mean is ONE account. And in that account? Lot, the person God is talking to, is not considered sufficiently righteous.

Although, to be fair, Lot does offer his daughter to some rapists... so maybe God had a point about him not being righteous. 

Wrong again you guys, the only topic ever on hand was supposed to be the designs in the OP and their highlights.

I'm not discussing anything else with you from here on out.

You didn't seem to think that before you were faced with actual logic. Like I said, everything has been said about the cards you posted. A long time ago in fact, you know, when this was no longer on the front page. Then you kept bumping it and this happened.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 6:22PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Wrong again you guys, the only topic ever on hand was supposed to be the design in the OP and their highlights. I'm not discussing anything else with you from here on out.

Lilith is still misworded, due to your arrogance.


Cruelty of Mind and Heart is rather overpowered.
Slaughter Oni is weird, and would be better (flavourfully, and in terms of rules) if it required the creature to actually regenerate to prevent the effect.

Many of your multicolor cards don't feel multicolor, while your hybrid cards (ie. Cruelty) feel like they should be true multicolor.

As an atheist I'd like to cast my vote that (for the most part) religion is a tool, people use that tool for good and for evil, but at least black would admit that it's evil. White would just tell you that they're right and incorruptible and...

Oh dear. GM is a characature of white religious philosophy.

He'll be coming after us with the inquisition and the knights templar soon, because we don't believe exactly what he does and that means we must be evil. 

A lot of details behind this are in the notes if you would just read them.

Slaughter Oni effects creatures with can actively create a regeneration shield and creatures with a regeneration shield on them. It references regenerate as a keyword so it's got to exist as one to be valid.
 
Cruelty of Mind and Heart is multicolor in a sense. And it's also a limited  Terminate you've got to channel through creatures similar to the new green removal Prey Upon . How is that overpowered? It's not. It's indirect and limited by being dependant on other content.  

Oct 2, 2012 -- 5:58PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Oct 2, 2012 -- 5:54PM, sage62 wrote:

In this case, yes. There is actual evidence for my argument, being that it is how the colour white is and has been represented from the beginning of the game. Your view on the other hand is based entirely on your opinion of how the colour SHOULD be based on some cards with a religious tone and coming to the conclusion that religion is good, white is religious, therefore white can only be good and anything stating otherwise, up to and including the game tiself, is wrong and corrupt.

In the opening content you're going to channel the epitome of its meaning into it. Whatever each color first was depictied to represent could be nothing but the core of it's intended relativity. It's that simple. 


White was depicited above all else as the holy color, therefore, holiness is the epitome of its meaning.

That is a notion completely devoid of logical underpinnings. The first iteration of something is not neccesarily the purest manifestation of its creatior's intent. Definately that's what a creator tries to do the first time around but that doesn't mean they realize their "intended reality" on the first try. In Alpha Magic's flavour was mostly as a pastiche of Dungeons & Dragons and other prominent fantasty archtypes draped over the rules system like an ill-fitting garment. They compromised on the purity of their vision as you see it before the first cards ever shipped. The designers felt they had to conform to certain expectations so instead of basing Magic's flavour on say, the color pie they jammed pieces of D&D into the color that came closest to fitting.
So really GM, it is not "that simple".

I will agree with you wholeheartedly that white was the color of holiness more than it represented anything else. Holiness is a huge part of white's identity but even if it represents a majority (and that is pushing it) of what white does that doesn't necessitate that everything white has to stem from holiness. Look at the card White Knight (sorry it's been a while since I linked to a gatherer page). He represents chivalry, valour and goodness- things associated with church and god, but there is never any sort of hint that he is divne or holy. White Knight is an extremely white card but his whiteness has a source other than the divine.

Slaughter Oni is way too strong for a common, absolutely an uncommon and even that may be pushing it.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 6:18PM, GM_Champion wrote:

I suggest you read my design notes and highlights for this red-black section. This was the entire purpose of the thread. Maybe you'll have better arguments based on my development applations? Anyways, they're supplied so that you can all see, know, and understand the complexity of each design. To understand its true meaning, because you all act so in the dark about it all the time. Well here are those answers so there's no excuse anymore.

Even assuming that you were right. Your staggering inability to communicate your ideas clearly gives us plenty of excuse.

In an exchange (meaning you lose Slaughter Oni too) it can only take out a creature w/ a max power of 3 and a max toughness of 4. This is well within common limits. Taking out two creatures with one toughess is as well. Hell, I know it's no Ghosts of the Damned , but that design itself only shines through in a very limited environment. Show me what you expect to get for three mana, multicolor, and common. How about Pyre Zombie ? Rare or not, it's range that matters more than anything.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 6:45PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Show me what you expect to get for three mana, multicolor, and common.

These, of which the closest comparison is probably Rakdos Ickspitter .  As a 1/1 that can ping a creature once per turn, it's quite a bit less powerful than yours.

Cards that can remove 2 creatures are rarely at common, expecially not on a creature. Arc Trail , Forked Bolt , Barter in Blood , Flames of the Firebrand . None of those are even creatures. It's a Disfigure that can split targets and leave a body behind, that is absolutely uncommon.

Lava Zombie is right in-line with Slaughter Oni, only Oni has no potential to destroy creature's with a toughness greater than 4 by itself.

Lava Zombie has a drawback and doesn't function as removal.

Yet its power is permanent and has infinite potential. It's very close.

As the notes say, in the project there are about 30 designs (out of 500) with 1 toughness. You do the math.

What? No.  Why are we talking about Lava Zombie?  

Lava Zombie is a big smashy dude with a drawback to counterbalance its low casting cost.
Your card is a bear that can kill two little guys or one big guy.

The only similarities between the two are in mana cost and size-of-largest-creature-they-could-kill.

Slaughter Oni's power is also permanent(?). It leaves a creature behind. You attached a better Forked Bolt to a Walking Corpse .

For three mana (and monocolor), you can traditionally kill an infinite amount of 1 toughness creatures.


Prodigal Pyromancer or Goblin Sharpshooter


What now?     

Oct 2, 2012 -- 7:06PM, GM_Champion wrote:

For three mana (and monocolor), you can traditionally kill an infinite amount of 1 toughness creatures.


Prodigal Pyromancer or Goblin Sharpshooter


What now?     

They can't do that the instant they come into play: It requires tapping, and they lack haste. If the cost had a tap in it, the card wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful.

Those are both 1/1's, Neither of them can activate their effect the turn they come into play, the pyromancer can only do it once per turn. Sharpshooter can indeed kill an infinite amount but he is a RARE. The closest comparisons would be Cunning Sparkmage of Izzet Staticaster (who is also muticoloured), and lo and behold they are uncommon.

Another way to look at it would be that he is an Undead Executioner that can be activated on demand, split between two creatures and at 1 less cmc.

Being able to active the ability on the turn it enters the battlefield is well within balance due to being only able to do it twice (there is a limit that checks it). Over the course of turns you can take out an infinitate amount of Pyromancer (and Pyromancer was a common for ages). Being that Oni is even more limited than Pyromancer (and multicolor) how can you say it's not balanced? You can, but you're lying to yourself.

I'm not saying he's unbalanced. I'm saying he's too strong for a common. Plus this has 3 distinct advantages over the damn pyromancer.

It can kill a creature with 2 toughness, something the pyromancer could never dream of doing.

It doesn't need to tap to use it's effect, this means it can kill one 2 toughness or two 1 toughness creatures the turn it hits the field, then block, and on the next turn.....

It can actually swing, unlike the measely 1/1 pyromancer who I have never seen attack in my life.

Have you ever even considered, GM, the possibility that you might, sometimes, just on occasion, be wrong about something?

Oct 2, 2012 -- 7:15PM, sage62 wrote:

I'm not saying he's unbalanced. I'm saying he's too strong for a common.

Rarity is a measure of balance, even if it's subsidary to range and other power elements.

Actually, come to think of it, the closest comparison to him would be Grim Poppet , a rare.

Considering it's somewhere between an uncommon effect attached to a common body with the appropriate mana cost and a rare , I can see no better rarity for it than uncommon.

EDIT: Oh, it would appear you got yourself banned again. May have had something to do with the incredibly offensive pm you sent me.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 7:18PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Oct 2, 2012 -- 7:15PM, sage62 wrote:

I'm not saying he's unbalanced. I'm saying he's too strong for a common.

Rarity is a measure of balance, even if it's subsidary to range and other power elements.

Rarity is more than just another factor of a card's power level it also effects limited... oh wait you got banned?
I guess the community won the discussion then?

First things first, welcome back, TPmanW! I remember your contest series, they were awesome.

Also, as someone that believes white is THE evil color in magic, I found your zealous defense of the colour quite amusing to read, GM.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 11:12AM, GM_Champion wrote:

One question Mown, what does the law in your country define evil as?

Be very, very careful when trying to apply law to ethics. Laws are designed to work not only as ethics aplied, but also as a way of making it work as intended. As such, it's difficult to really use it in a philosophical debate.

Also, many law systems have what we could call "criminal responsability". For example, here in Canada, there's a crime for assault, a crime for assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault (which means you caused disfigures or put thelife of the victim in danger)... If you drive too fast, you get a ticket. If you drive too fast and you happen to hit someone, you're going to jail.

These are all examples of where a lot of law system add another layer to the crime without referring to intention. There are even crimes where you don't need any intentions!

However, I do agree with you that on a philosophical level, evil is determined by intent and intent alone. However, it's important to note that there are ways to do what we think is right but still be evil. That's when the vision of righteousness we have is flawed. For example, murder is normally evil, but murdering someone who is just about to make the world explode is good. However, killing everyone you think has the destiny of one day having the power to destroy the world is evil, terribly evil.

All a matter of perspective.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 11:50PM, Fenix. wrote:

First things first, welcome back, TPmanW! I remember your contest series, they were awesome.

Also, as someone that believes white is THE evil color in magic, I found your zealous defense of the colour quite amusing to read, GM.

Yay someone cares!

I'm surprised he made it this long considering I reported him for, possibly, evading Bankai's ban a few years ago.

Oct 3, 2012 -- 10:42AM, TheDeviousFae wrote:

I'm surprised he made it this long considering I reported him for, possibly, evading Bankai's ban a few years ago.

Nah he gets banned all the time, he'll be back in a week or so.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 4:47PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Genocide is not a monowhite solution. It's very red, it's very black. I once made an incarnation design, named Genocide. It was red-black. Chaotic violence is red, orderly violence which destroys the innocent is red.

And yet there was nothing chaotic about the Holocaust at all. It was actually quite orderly. Ship them in trains, enslave the ones who can work, kill the rest, and kill the slaves when they've been worked to the point that they can barely move. And you forget that the Nazis deluded themselves into thinking they were the good guys.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 4:47PM, GM_Champion wrote:

And hate? ( Very red ).

And white

Oct 2, 2012 -- 4:47PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Giving up hope on humanity is very black (see Damnation ).

See Damnation .

Oct 2, 2012 -- 4:47PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Now something like, destroy all non-white creatures was likely overpowered in his eyes back then, and his meanings were implied as I've said, so obviously, it wasn't even an issue because his game group knew what it was supposed to represent (so it can act freely, destroying all creatures without being misunderstood).

Well, first, destroying Alpha creatures isn't OP, and secondly, Balance wasn't an issue in Alpha. (Sorry, red.)

Oct 2, 2012 -- 5:37PM, GM_Champion wrote:

You're beginning to discuss religious specifics and that's now allowed here.

And a few pages back, so were you.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 5:50PM, infinight wrote:

So what you are saying is that white is good because it's supposedly based on the god in Judeo-Christian mythology, but not the real mythology, it's based on your version of the god in Judeo-Christian mythology because the real version is corrupted by satan much like magic has been corrupted by Maro... Right...

"You are of your father, the devil." Probably added so they could get in good with the Romans after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, but still...

Oct 2, 2012 -- 6:59PM, GM_Champion wrote:

Yet its power is permanent and has infinite potential. It's very close.

No. It's not. If your hypothesis were correct, Firebreathing would be insane, and you'd be the only Magic player to know it.

Oct 2, 2012 -- 7:06PM, GM_Champion wrote:

For three mana (and monocolor), you can traditionally kill an infinite amount of 1 toughness creatures.


Prodigal Pyromancer or Goblin Sharpshooter


What now?     

Summoning Sickness. Only once per turn. Sharpshooter is RARE. And they only kill one-toughness guys. It doesn't matter in Constructed, but it's a huge effect in limited.

Oct 3, 2012 -- 11:09AM, sage62 wrote:

Oct 3, 2012 -- 10:42AM, TheDeviousFae wrote:

I'm surprised he made it this long considering I reported him for, possibly, evading Bankai's ban a few years ago.

Nah he gets banned all the time, he'll be back in a week or so.

How many aliases does he have, Vegeta?

Nah, I won't descend to GM's level of fail.

He brings gender into things because he thinks of people as groups. A woman becomes Woman. Or Girl, as he condescendingly says. Also, I get this stalker aura off of his conversations with Jessica.

Oct 3, 2012 -- 4:26PM, bay_falconer wrote:

How many aliases does he have, Vegeta?

See this i find interesting. Lets see if we can guess his next forum-name =)

I'm betting something to do with Naruto next. He strikes me as something of a tasteless Weeaboo.

He sent me a PM once saying "don't forget to change your underwear :3". I reported it but the only thing that happened was it got deleted. Which I probably could have done myself.

Question: do you guys check his thread and read his notes because you care about his designs or more to see what flavor of crazy he's serving up? He seems to get lots of advice on designs which is why I ask.

I didn't see anybody baiting him, at least in the beginning. I seen several people trying to explain why his designs didn't work within the rules and him refusing to make so it did work. I seen one person mention how bad Lilith's anatomy is in that art. A bit later he tried convincing everyone that his templating was correct and the way Wizards templates things is the way that's wrong. There was very little baiting that didn't come from GM... Although he will probably remember it differently whenever he returns in a few days.

Oct 4, 2012 -- 2:55AM, infinight wrote:

 There was very little baiting that didn't come from GM... Although he will probably remember it differently whenever he returns in a few days.

Seems to me, he probably remembers it differently right now /\

Oct 4, 2012 -- 3:41AM, Kingreaper wrote:

Oct 4, 2012 -- 2:55AM, infinight wrote:

 There was very little baiting that didn't come from GM... Although he will probably remember it differently whenever he returns in a few days.

Seems to me, he probably remembers it differently right now /\

True, but we don't have to hear about it yet.

    I've removed content from this thread because inappropriate usernames are a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.

Oct 4, 2012 -- 2:19AM, theScion wrote:

Question: do you guys check his thread and read his notes because you care about his designs or more to see what flavor of crazy he's serving up? He seems to get lots of advice on designs which is why I ask.

I find his creative processes very interesting, and it shows in his cards. The problem is the finish of the design, which he has yet to figure out needs outside assistance.

I also like see the crazy stuff. 

Oct 4, 2012 -- 7:40AM, theis999 wrote:

Oct 4, 2012 -- 2:19AM, theScion wrote:

Question: do you guys check his thread and read his notes because you care about his designs or more to see what flavor of crazy he's serving up? He seems to get lots of advice on designs which is why I ask.

I find his creative processes very interesting, and it shows in his cards. The problem is the finish of the design, which he has yet to figure out needs outside assistance.

I also like see the crazy stuff. 

Pretty much this. Occasionally good cards and the guarantee for some entertainment.

Yeah, the cards are very interesting, although they have awkward little flaws.. Apparently, inappropriate usernames cause your posts to be deleted, but not your whole account and not other posts that mention that username.. Alright, I'll delete my posts that are mentioning that inappropriate username myself, especially since they're refering to something that's not here anymore..

Oct 3, 2012 -- 7:39PM, KunouNoHana wrote:

I'm betting something to do with Naruto next. He strikes me as something of a tasteless Weeaboo.

He "strikes" you? He hits me over the head with a mallet and calls me "Baka!" as one.

Oct 3, 2012 -- 11:25PM, Mata_Hari wrote:

He sent me a PM once saying "don't forget to change your underwear :3". I reported it but the only thing that happened was it got deleted. Which I probably could have done myself.

It puts the lotion on its skin...

I guess I'm lucky. He thinks our disagreement is "ideological". I don't write the rules, though. And it's our job to point out balance issues. (I just find it funny he thinks nobody will play off-color cards just for these interactions, as if that's not the whole point of reanimator deck.) He's also called me a racist before; hilariously, he autocarded Obama's name to Teferi.

What I find funny, for all his talk about women, is that when he uses female nudes (a lot), the anatomy's so off, and without any sense of mystery, that it really isn't erotic. It reminds me of a passage of Tropic of Cancer that I won't bother to quote here because, you know, Tropic of Cancer.

Oct 4, 2012 -- 2:19AM, theScion wrote:

Question: do you guys check his thread and read his notes because you care about his designs or more to see what flavor of crazy he's serving up? He seems to get lots of advice on designs which is why I ask.

A bit of both. I have used his idea of static abilities on planeswalkers, but never anything as OP as "When ~ has more than X loyalty, prevent all damage to ~." And it was written in that way. No altering the comp rules.

On the other hand, I have a bile fascination with this set. It reminds me of a while back, YMTC had some guy suggesting an Indian-themed set "with snow and transform". I took that as a challenge, dropped snow (It's arcane for lands. Seriously.), and expanded transform into enchantments (which became a focus of the set). I then added a graveyard theme and a small multicolor subtheme, because transform can't even carry a single booster pack.

Yeah, in the end, my idea looked nothing like that user's idea. Never posted it, though.

Oct 4, 2012 -- 2:19AM, theScion wrote:

Question: do you guys check his thread and read his notes because you care about his designs or more to see what flavor of crazy he's serving up? He seems to get lots of advice on designs which is why I ask.

For me it's almost a morbid fascination really. I can't help but wonder whether GM is serious or what kind of person he/she is and how they could function in the real world.
Edit- And his designs are usually interesting regardless of feasibility.

MaRo posted something tangentially related to the discussion!

lordgrac asked: I was reading your article about designing the Orzhov, from the original Ravnica block, and you mention that you believe that fantasy is fundamentally about morality. I'd love if you would expand on that.

Each genre was created to answer some core human need. 

Science fiction is about curiosity. (“What if?&rdquo

Fantasy is about morality. 

That is why I believe Magic is actually a science fiction story set in fantasy trapping. 

Star Wars, interestingly, is a fantasy story set in science fiction trapping.

Discuss.