How do people plan to play a format with 20000+ cards if they don't even get what U means? That's like expecting somebody to compete against a Chess Grandmaster when they don't even know what a rook is.Originally Posted by menace13
Or they just give a shit and play Burn.
Burn vs. Chess would be an interesting matchup.
So the majority of Legacy players should submit to a minority-accepted set of deck names because no constituent opinion is worth more pound-for-pound than other constituent opinions?
That is so disgusting lol.
Why on earth is this happening to my format? This is truly the death of Legacy.
And most overblown ridiculous comment goes to....
Obviously. It's irrelevant, though. You're just another consumer, regardless of your level of self-worth.
Ok.
Pretty much. If arbitrary changes irk you that much, show them by not watching the stream, buying from then, or selling/trading to them at events.
There is a disconnect here, because several of you are up in arms about it, and I think it is completely asinine to be upset about it. Regardless, we're not going to change each other's minds, so whatevs; not a big deal.
You didn't catch me pointing out the contradiction
And, people decide if they're going to be "just another consumer".
I get your point (this isn't a big deal, just ignore it), but your advice above is not good.
Imagine the two scenarios:
A.) SCG notices slightly less traffic on their stream
B.) SCG notices angry messages from the community about forcing Khans tribe names on the public on every page that allows comments or feedback
Which of those is more likely to have an effect?
Plus, this thread is intended to complain about SCG and their coverage of the events they hold... Maybe you should start a thread titled "I support or am indifferent to SCG Coverage". Then everyone can rally around you over how indifferent they are to these changes!
This wouldn't be as interesting as you think... Chess typically requires 5 or 6 turns to beat an opponent and has no way to interact with the stack or manipulate the library. Burn can kill on turn 4 pretty reliably. But as the Chess player, you know you've won when your opponent starts to direct burn at your pawns.
Aardvark, if that thing doesn't bother you why do you bother? Also, I don't get why on earth should I swallow something I dislike just becasue you're telling me to do so, but w/e, you're just another anonymous web user, so your opinion may mean jack shit to me...
I'll continue to dislike the recent SCG/WotC quirk and I'll continue to oppose it. I really don't understand why you're so adamant in supporting something that in your own words is not worthy the effort, but yeah, maybe it has something to do with whores and anals.
This wouldn't be as interesting as you think... Chess typically requires 5 or 6 turns to beat an opponent and has no way to interact with the stack or manipulate the library. Burn can kill on turn 4 pretty reliably. But as the Chess player, you know you've won when your opponent starts to direct burn at your pawns.
The second one is probably more likely to get a response, but both should really get an equal measure of attention, IMO. And for my advice not being good, I also mentioned not giving them any money, or dealing with them in any way (although I forgot to mention to avoid playing in Opens, since you pay them for that also); since the first response most subsets of the Magic community seems to have when WotC does something they disagree with is to "vote with your wallet", I assume it would be the same for SCG in similar circumstances. Either way.
Well, it's intended to discuss their coverage.And yes, I must find like-minded people to rally around casual indifference!
Initially, my reasoning was because I didn't really understand the reasoning behind being upset about the changes, nor the vehemence behind the responses to it. Continuing is just from a desire to have a discussion about it in more general terms. However, I should have realized that it would boil down to dueling viewpoints of (in very general terms) "change is bad" vs. "haters gonna hate".
It's all good.
I've heard it stated that American politics are filled with extremists (on both ends) because only the crazy people are motivated enough to run for office. It is tough to get moderates who aren't passionate about an issue excited enough to take an active role.
Indeed.
The stream is still the same as before... ok, the deck names are strange, but it's still the same cards and the same game that is played :)
I do agree there was no reason to change it now, and the names sounds bad as they are NEW. However, I don't care, as long as the game is still as good as before!
You found one. I don't understand how people can care about how others decide to call a pile of cards. I just name every deck I play King Beetle on a Coconut Estate and wouldn't be offended if some coverage-team decided to change that name to Patriotic Sultai Hocus Pocus Abzan Delver.
Your trouble is that you're not reading what the people write... Either that or maybe my American sucks.
One of my concerns are not the silly names (one may even argue that they're not silly), but the fact that their usage is futile (plus the fact that SCG dudes pretend that these are established terms while they're clearly not; KTK are out for less than a week) as the decks already got their names under which they are recognized.
Moreover, and this is my main cocnern, I don't understand why should I stand their blatant attempt to force me into the very same customers' bracket that occupies the average Type II dude not knowing what the activated ability is and never even caring to learn that.
Inb4 any other "you are not worthy more than any other human being" or any similar pseudo-philosophy: we're not discussing salvation through meekness or any other religious terms/state. All that I'm trying to communicate is my unwillingness to be a pawn in SCG's/WotC's Marketing Schemes and like it or not, this is my right that you seem to deny. Which, ironically enough, you support by repeating over and over that the whole decks' terminology change is something to not bother about, while you clearly bother about; that's where my mere reason of a mere human being stops to function.
To sum it up:
So while your idea that the change is irrelevant (an idea that seems to be a minor opinion) is legitimate, my idea that this change is relevant (and annoying) seems to be illegitimate. Clearly we're discussing on a different level, coz it seems like one of us is somehow superior human being to the other one.
So while my stance (oppose the change) is illegitimate, your stance (addopt the change) is legitimate. Clearly we're discussing on a different level, coz it seems like one of us is somehow superior human being to the other one.
So while my unwillingness to be a part of demographic I dislike (however silly or arrogant stance it may be) is illegitimate, your mentoring of my person is legitimate. Clearly, you speak to me from some moral heights and this reminds me of bad religious talks; "Son, don't exalt yourself above your humble Standard brothers."
And all of this you verbalized in a manner similar to what one infamous forum member uses. Well played sir, have my like.
I wouldn't say I don't understand why people care about how others decide to name a pile of cards, I just don't understand why they care so much. I see where they are coming from and I would have liked if they kept the old names. However, it doesn't bother me that they use the new ones.
So forgive me if I find it irritating that I'm being forced into a marketing scheme designed to attract a group that may not care what an activated ability is, and more than likely won't playing Magic in a few months.
Counterpoint: The shards and most Ravnica guilds did not sound bad to me when I heard them the first time. These Klans? They do.
They're trying to homogenize Standard and Legacy names, that's the problem. As Standard deck names, they're fine. Mardu Midrange can be expected to contain cards of that clan, play abilities associated with that clan and more or less employ strategies promoted by that clan. The name accurately conveys information from the speaker to the listener. I assume the hope is, that by reusing Standard names for Legacy decks, they can carry over their much larger Standard audience into the Legacy coverage, in the mistaken hope that the familiar names will aid in their understanding. The problem is that Sultai Delver does not aid the viewer in understanding what it is they are watching. The deck does not contain cards of that clan, does not play abilities associated with that clan and does not more or less employ strategies promoted by that clan. Promoting misunderstanding and ultimately failed expectations is not what a broadcasting outfit should be aiming to do. Relying on coincidence that two decks share the same colors does not entitle them to refer to them as the same.
A nice resume of what my previous rants were about. Salute you, sir
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
Understood. I don't find that irritating. Our opinions are different and there is a good chance that neither of our opinions will change.
Not a big deal.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote