No, he is right. That is ironic. You expect an improvement to make things better.... if an improvement makes things worse, that is ironic.
Flashing in SD isn't really irony, since there wasn't really an expectation to be reversed.
If I have a creature with first strike and my opponent blocks with a Stuffy Doll , the situation did not become ironic. First strike did not make the situation worse. The bad part is attacking into that Stuffy Doll with no combat tricks. That's foolishness.
If my opponent swings for lethal and I flash in the Stuffy Doll to block, which in turn hits them for lethal, then it's ironic.
I'll throw in my 2c here given that the first thought I had when I saw the "it would be ironic that they'd lose the game if it had first strike" post was "how would that be ironic?". If it has first strike due to something like, say, Hyena Umbra (ie. it was present when it was declared as an attacker), it's not ironic, it's just foolish.
Dictionary.com (yes, it's not Websters) has this definition of irony: anoutcomeofeventscontrarytowhatwas,ormighthave been,expected.
In the case of attacking while already having first strike and leading to a loss is quite expected. Casting Double Cleave after the creature has been declared as an attacker makes the situation about as ironic as you can get in MTG (you'd expect Double Strike to generally be beneficial, but after knowing its effect is going to be applied the loss becomes expected). The same can be said for flashing in the SD while the creature already had first/double strike - the beneficial effect becoming the cause for a game loss is not expected, until the existence of the SD becomes known.
If you want a good example of irony in Magic, it'd be something like a monored deck having to use Chaos Warp on an opponent's Avacyn, Angel of Hope in order to save themselves, and having their opponent flip over an Iona, Shield of Emeria (because you wouldn't C-Warp a Avacyn and expect the situation to get worse).
I'm all about super-control in MTG. If you're able to stop my shenanigans, then there aren't enough shenanigans.
I'll throw in my 2c here given that the first thought I had when I saw the "it would be ironic that they'd lose the game if it had first strike" post was "how would that be ironic?". If it has first strike due to something like, say, Hyena Umbra (ie. it was present when it was declared as an attacker), it's not ironic, it's just foolish.
Dictionary.com (yes, it's not Websters) has this definition of irony: anoutcomeofeventscontrarytowhatwas,ormighthave been,expected.
In the case of attacking while already having first strike and leading to a loss is quite expected. Casting Double Cleave after the creature has been declared as an attacker makes the situation about as ironic as you can get in MTG (you'd expect Double Strike to generally be beneficial, but after knowing its effect is going to be applied the loss becomes expected). The same can be said for flashing in the SD while the creature already had first/double strike - the beneficial effect becoming the cause for a game loss is not expected, until the existence of the SD becomes known.
If you want a good example of irony in Magic, it'd be something like a monored deck having to use Chaos Warp on an opponent's Avacyn, Angel of Hope in order to save themselves, and having their opponent flip over an Iona, Shield of Emeria (because you wouldn't C-Warp a Avacyn and expect the situation to get worse).
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.
The issue isn't whether or not a benificial ability that you have ends up causing you to lose the game is ironic (which it is); the issue is whether or not attacking into a Stuffy Doll that is already on the battlefield, and by doing so the attacker loses the game because the Stuffy Doll blocked is ironic (which it's not).
No. No, I disagree completely. This right here is the perfect example of what is wrong with America's youth. No one should be allowed to say whatever they want while using the wrong words just as long whoever they're speaking to understands what they meant. This is promoting ignorance and laziness. It's because of attitudes like this that the English language is decomposing inside our very dictionaries. Do not let people get away with misusing words. It's not an issue of who's smarter than who, it's an issue of educating the ignorant.
