Printable View
Sure. And someone wonders why I start trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watersaw
You seriously think that the color of the animal is more important than his species.
The logic behind the fetchland-hinders-diversity group is "it doesn't matter if it is carnivorous or herbivore, the important distinction is it has 4 legs".
After all it doesn't matter if you are the lion or the gazelle, just start running.
That statement is just pointless because you can always make it with whatever is the best type of dual land available in the format.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watersaw
Except that we keep pointing to that all of them being mammals, just to stick to your chosen anecdote. The joke is that you opt to ridicule the point of grouping them together as mammals, by pointing to the fact that many animals have a neocortex, hair and three middle ear bonesQuote:
Originally Posted by talpa
Nah, it's the usual sort really, just taken to it's logical extreme. Which figures, that over 1000+ pages, years and years, people have consolidated and entrenched their ideological stances.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorphBerlin
We simply can't have a format that isn't exactly 20% White, 20% Blue, 20% Black, 20% Green and 20% Red. No card should be more than 5.6580287427860133529478329749915e-5 of the meta game (yes, that is 1/17674th) or it should be banned for stifling format diversity. Once we ban Fetchlands, we can begin banning any other land that displays the gall to be better than any other. Once we have done that, we can inspect the array of Basics and see if perhaps Island is just a little too good.
The nostalgic desire to return to pre-Onslaught Legacy is pipe dream. It's a nice idea, in theory, but denies the fact that, one, there are orders of magnitude more cards now than there was then, and two, that many of those cards are flatly better than those that came before them. You can ban Fetches and Brainstorm, or what-have-you, but the no one is going to show back up with Hollywood's mono-Green stompy deck and beat people with a River Boa any more. That ship sailed. You can want it back, just like you want your aging children to return to their cute, playful infant selves, but it's not going to happen and so Legacy isn't going to return to it's "former glory" or whatever you call it, recall it, or imagine it was.
Legacy is pretty much predicated on the idea that certain things are just flatly better than others. But I'll leave it at that, because I don't have the time at this moment to go into it and it'll put in my other thread eventually.
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Exactly. And because of that, it's a kind of classification that doesn't help seeing the differences between them but is only able to see them all as equal, even if they aren't.
I wasn't planning on replying but your comment is so laughable and self-denying that I couldn't resist.
The fun thing is that they could simply play another format, like pre-modern. I really can't understand why they keep wanting to change legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
It is like if people enjoying old-school asked for vintage bans instead of making their own format.
Well, I think it is partly because Legacy lacks the clear format definition that Vintage has, due to the nature of it's Restricted List. Without a clear answer to what Legacy should be, you'll get this kind of multiplicity of answers and expectations, many/most of which are just personal preference ideologized.Quote:
Originally Posted by talpa
And, if I recall correctly, a decent part of the rise in interest on Old School (here in the US) was Vintage player's unhappiness about the "current state" of the Format.
Look at Mr. Google Calculator over here.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
As if I am that much of a hipster...I used the Windows Calculator, like a true old fogey.Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
Because someone rather derails the thread with fauna anecdotes than targeting the original question, of how much sense it makes to wait & watch until the next TC, DTT, SDT, DRS, etc emerges, breaks the format and gets banned in a ridiculous and repeditive circleQuote:
Originally Posted by talpa
Exactly, when the thread is going on a broken path, trying to derail it is good. I mean, objectively, indubitably, indisputably good. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Exactly. I subscribe to that, I drink to that, I wait for that. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
This is dishonest. You are putting words in that weren't there. Several times you have restated things with qualifiers added (ie good, more important.) He didn't say what you just said, which means you are adding to it and attacking it as a different thing than what it is. That's a strawman; make it different so you can attack it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by talpa
At this point...
https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.x...2wHaFg&pid=Api
you are obsessed with this, uh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
Don't worry, you don't have to teach me logic, I did university level studies on math and physics and I know what paralogisms and fallacies are.
That's not the case.
The point is you are arbitrarily choosing the classification categories, in a way that happens to support your theory but only because is a very narrow one. That means that your tautology become completely useless if what you really meant to do was doing a sensible classification.
https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/01/05/ti...&y=293&crop=1/Quote:
Originally Posted by talpa
Plz don't dox me bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by CptHaddock
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptHaddock
Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
Just seeing posts from the last couple of months I think i've doxxed more than just you. Sry, friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit
Did pi4meterftw make another account and pretend to be Italian this time? This thread is a mtgthesource gem and I hope it never changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by talpa
Demonstrated again: I haven't arbitrarily chose *any* classification categories. Nor have I attempted to support any theories. I have asked a question, an open-ended one at that, and others have disused it with me. At the most I have made 2 tentative assertions: that some cards would become ok, as in unbanned, if fetchlands left the format (DRS, etc.), and also that without fetchlands rounds would have more time to play magic rather than shuffling.Quote:
Originally Posted by talpa
That's it.
So tell me, using any quote in this thread at all from the past 10 pages, where I categorized decks based on fetchlands or where I presented a structured theory about banning fetchlands. I have speculated, made 2 (tentative) assertions, and even submitted that it might not be correct to ban fetches. Rather I see it as a talking point, something to bat back and forth.
Good luck with university, it's clear you know all about those parallelogram phalluses!
In regards to the thread, and why I keep coming back:
https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.V...9AHaE2&pid=Api
Thank you. You are just a bit late, I graduated fifteen years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
Actually you intervened in defense of watersaw (who claimed it would be right to divide decks based only on fetchland presence here) accusing me of using a strawman when I was asserting that it's not a meaningful way. If we can all agree that there are more appropriate categories then we can move on (and maybe stop considering manabases as a measure of diversity alltogether).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
(EDIT: it's also "fun" that you are the one insisting on strawmen when it's you that started mockery with the sugar metaphor -which was unfounded and was answered not only by me)
As for the shuffle argument I already conceded many times that it is the only reason I consider real, though insufficient for a ban.
As for other currently banned cards becoming less powerful, I can agree in principle for some of them, but personally I think both delve cards and top would remain overpowered nonetheless.
[1] With Fetchlands we are talking about a concept of an overpowered mana-level engine. If we liken this to the Moxen, we are discussing the same prefix not the suffix.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
[2] In the case of Fetchlands, their legality is the sole reason for their dominance (perfect mana at perfect speed and thinning is better than any other model, and this is all before discussing any cards which use that mana, the shuffle effect, or the land in yard). This isn't about recapturing outdated archetypes, this is about decks having the option to employ differing, specialized, and competitive manabase strategies. As long as Fetchlands are legal [and nothing as powerful/more powerful is released for use by a broad array of strategies], consistently competitive decks will all begin with the same model (minus Cavern/Vial and Sol Land outliers).
[3] Things being better isn't a problem when they aren't an engine that so clearly decreases diversity. The other strike against the Fetchland engine is the amount of problems it inevitably generates, which have to be constantly monitored in an ever-expanding card pool (Bstorm, DRS, delve...).
You're throwing on secondary and tertiary analysis, when the point is that if you were trying to create and play a consistently competitive deck without Fetchlands/Cavern+Vial/Sol Lands today you would fail. It takes takes time and/or 'jank' to reverse engineer something that equalizes [or surpasses] the advantage a Fetchland provides - the Fetchland decks don't have to deviate or slow down though, your deck already lost. It is likely that the closest you could possibly get is playing UWx miracles with all Fetchlands swapped to Mirage fetches; but even there you will lose too many games due to negative tempo of ETB tapped lands to compete.