Brainstorm
Force of Will
Lion's Eye Diamond
Counterbalance
Sensei's Divining Top
Tarmogoyf
Phyrexian Dreadnaught
Goblin Lackey
Standstill
Natural Order
How many times do you need to be reminded that WotC has made banning decisions before because of % penetration of a single color and % penetration of a single card? One more time apparently.Originally Posted by HSCK
3 different combo decks, two different control archetypes, one aggro deck and two different midrange lists made top 8, but yeah it's a completely **** format, lets start banning things.
Then they were wrong.
inb4unbanmentalmisstep
People like "play magic". Brainstorm allows people to "play magic". Ponder allows people to "play magic". Counterspells don't allow people to "play magic". However, without counterspells, magic becomes solitaire and 50% of everyone in a match doesn't get to "play magic". Therefore, a banning had to be made and mental misstep got axed.
The one example of this is Mental Misstep which is a wildly different card than Brainstorm. It completely killed most combo and forced people to run their own Missteps to protect one-drops while also putting decks with additional counters at a substantial advantage.
The other problem with using Misstep as a precedent is that it was acknowledged to be risky in Eternal formats when it was printed and WotC has admitted as much . It was basically envisioned as having a low threshhold for banning, and was banned when their experiment failed. None of these things is true of Brainstorm.
I dont get why pple keep bringing up random brainstorm facts. Ofc the card is very good but it keeps the format healthy. TC and DTT their powerlevel is absurd and it makes alot of previously played non-blue decks just not competitive anymore. However,should they decide not to ban anything(yet) there are some cards that can safely be unbanned and make other colors actually a bit better(and are still on a lower level then TC/DTT..).
If the power level of Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time are "absurd" then Brainstorm is even more absurd.
That's what gets me when people complain about Treasure Cruise and it being so powerful and warping. That's even more true of Brainstorm.
Ah, yes, all those cut-throats out there with Food Chain, High Tide or other "killer" blue decks. And all those impossible-to-enjoy Delver and Stoneblade decks. Everyone who plays blue plays to win and never has fun? How is such a broad-stroke statement even close to acceptable discourse here?
Except it isn't true of Brainstorm, it's power doesn't warp formats like Cruise/DTT. You can play a lot of different decks with Brainstorm and you can play Brainstorm a lot of different ways. That's why the people who call decks "Brainstorm decks" are idiots, they're ignoring the eccentricities and nuance of multiple decks and the format at large just so they can paint with broad strokes and advance a myopic argument. Brainstorm is played differently in Tempo, Control and Combo decks, and decks don't have to be built a certain way to accommodate Brainstorm (fetchlands are not an example of deck-building being warped by Brainstorm as they are simply the most efficient manner of mana-fixing, note that even non-blue decks play fetches). With Cruise and DTT, you have to build your deck a certain way (heavy on cantrips and cheap/flexible interactions) and aggressively play towards the Delve requirement. Brainstorm isn't forcing anything like that, and so it is not the same sort of power or centralization.
You could. Non-creature spells turn Survival decks into crap though. Survival of the Fittest doesn't care about Brainstorm unlike its cousins Aluren and Food Chain. It coming off the list can bring balance to the for(ce)mat.
Ok, so to adress some more general and important points than "ban this, unban that":
There's firm misunderstanding of why certain people want to see some certain cards banned, and this attitude of theirs is pretty often mocked as "casual bs" and alike, while there's clearly very little casual reasoning behind their position. In short: you wouldn't call parsonwho dislikes pressence of say P9 card in Legacy environment as casual, would you? This is used not to clarify the situation, but rather belittle anyone "not competitive enough" and pre-emptively make his arguments invalid via ad hominem attack.
But no matter what's your exact stance or opinion on what card to ban or unban, this whole point of view is fundamentally senseless, as there's nothing like non-competitive Magic. Magic is a competitive game, period. There's nothing like non-competitive Magic, it's not a collaborative entertainment like role-playing games, neither it's a cooperative game like puzzle. Casual Magic as a term means nothing and it's solely used for obscuration of stances and opinions of speaker, so the very people who resist some particular ban as unnecesary "because it only appeals to the casual crowd whose pet deck is opressed" are exactly the same casuals who simply don't want to lose THEIR pet deck to bans, even if that means that without the necessary step the format will slowly debilitate into four-decks contest.
So the whole party of "I want to win with strong interactions, with Ponder into whatnot" are just another casuals, bu this time they prefer "avoid creature combat" pet decks, mostly because they find creature combat boring (what a competitive stance, right?!) and moreover: I suspect they don't even orient well in the nuances of creature combat or summon-spells based Magic in general. The trained monkey's game of topdecking might have its appeal for them, but anything more complicated or beyond their scope of "fire those cantrips asap" or anything they're unfamiliar with like the whole creatures interaction, board advantage and other aspects of battlefield-based Magic that happens beyond the stack, is labeled "casual" with an inherent sneer that it's not for the best, which quite clearly are they alone. Understandable stance, but I don't think that ego trip should be a base for bannings so that the non-creatures petdecks should dominate.
Would those men be interested in game of skill, they'd never choose Legacy as their go-to format. Of the mainstream MtG formats (and I'm discounting the Tribal Wars and such, as few people play them or even specialize at them), Legacy imho needs the least skill to succeed. I know it, because that's why I play the format. The most skill-requiring formats (in order from the most difficult to master to the least hard to grasp) are:
- limited for obvious reasons; the skill requirements are so much differnt from constructed Magic that I even thought to not even mention it as it's a bit of a totally different game.
- Vintage and EDH, or bette said, every singletonesque format with its endless possibilities and high-impact bombs.
- Standard with its highly dynamic and everchanging nature, one that's only hindered by the small card pool.
- Legacy and Modern as the four-offs, best strategies, predictable metagame formats.
Speaking of skill in context of Legacy and especially in context of some of the Legacy's defining strategies (I'm looking at you, Delver of Secrets) is a good joke. Legacy is (or can be) entertaining, it has (or had) the advantage of being a cheap format, but don't speak about skill level, unless you want to look weird.
As already said, ther's a reason why those "omg im sooo compiteteteve mind" people DON'T play some of the more competitive formats, even ones that have better support and need more knowledge and understanding of more in-game mechanics or aspects. Everyone daring to say he's a competitive soul must have a really good reason to NOT play the formats with better support. "But that format you speak about is boring because of the creature combat that I don't find appealing!" Well, umm, is this some Casual Player's Alliance subforum or are we discussing a competitive play?
And the above paragrph, that's not even me pulling some stuff of my ass. Those ar the opinions supported by their very own attitude towards Magic of the people that got far more experiences with competitive Magic than most of the Sourcers combined. These are the views of my very good friends whose names like Luká Jakovský, Luká Blohon or Martin Jůza shouldn't sound completely unfamiliar. And there's a reason why the real pros, the real competitive minds stay away from Legacy, reason other than the non-support from the WotC, but also the fact that there are much more skill-oriented formats, one where you may bring to bear your knowledge of those "casual" aspects like the dreaded creature combat math.
Because pro points, that's where the real competition is, unless anyone wants to operate by the sheer number of your-daily-eight-men's in which case I've been compettitively smoking back in the times when I was doing three boxes per day.
This boils down to the testing, or the lack of. While many of the people that describe themselves as competitive souls think that they test a lot, what they do in fact is that they merely play a lot. There's a difference between the two, but I thnk everybody gets that. So while the real competitive players (who pretty often have background in other games be it chess, go, or *cough*poker*cough*) test and test, and due to their cross-format experiences are routinely doing well with every kind of main strategy, be it combo, control or aggro, they still sneer at Legacy (and its community) with it's limited mindset, flat metagame and boring repetitive gameplay. Mind you - it wasn't always the same, at least not back when Legacy actually used all five colors.
Which brings us to the "color diversity" and "color balance" and other color-related stuff.
The reason behind the phrases like "blue decks" or "blue metagame" or w/e is not that the people using them are out-of-their-mind casuals, but those are simpl a shortcut. Everyone playing Legacy for more than a few weeks understadns this, and there's little reason to be pissed about this terms. Those terms are space-saving devices to make it easier for the readers, similarly to movie clichés those are (this time mental) pictures that move the reader further without consuming his time and concentration. "Blue deck." Ok, got the concept! Blue metagame? Similar procedure applies.
"But there are no colors in competitive Magic!" is a wrong argument. There are colors in Magic, and I dare to say that they are inherent. You won't be playing Elves without Forests (of any kind) and Natural Order looks for a card with certain characteristics, and the whole idea of "we don't play this or that becasue we're bound to it, we're not [insert color here] mages" is wrong. Maybe you play the particular deck without conscious understanding that it's color(s) are inherent to it, and that they make the strategy work. If there's be a colorless Magic, then by all means yes, I'd say we don't care of color, but it's the exact opposite, some colors allow particular strategies. Now why does this even matter? IDK. Maybe I'm the same filthy casual as the people with their CountToTen petdecks. But maybe I just dislike how the particularly op strategies not only limit the Legacy's environment, but they also have stifling effect on the whole (meta)game due to the already thousand times explained and unravelled facts like prices chokehold and such.
Thus the self-described competitive minds either don't see that (or maybe they don't care about those aspects) at least for as long as they form the unsilent minority on the Legacy-related boards where they're streinghtening their point of view through mutual fellatios of "we're the most competitive minds, 1337", all the while Legacy slowly turns into a boring repetitive format that only the people without real life might participate in - not that the whole Reserve List helps in any way -, especially if they favor unexciting robotic gameplay of "Gitaxian Probe, go, Ponder, go, Preordain, go, Treasure Cruise, go".
There are no "mad skillz bro" necessary for participating in nowadays Legacy, while even few years back (especially before Ponder, Preordain and Delver turned blue decks into machine guns) this was quite the contrary, at least speaking of the metagaming and diversity of tactics and (to lesser extent) diversity of strategies. Four Delver decks are not diverse, sorry for bursting your bubbles.
But make no mistake. This is not a rant against Blue, The Color, neither a call for bans. It's a wish for more colorful metagame with more colorful win conditions and strategies (bad color-related puns intended), one where the gameplay and skill doesn't depend on how many cheap cantrips you topdecked. With good CA and CQ tools being available in non-blue colors, Legacy field would open wide (which is what the casuals amongst us might hate, as the more unpredictable gameplay/tournaments requires a set of skill they might lack), while the all other coveted effects (like relieve of pressure on blue staples' prices) would only help the community which otherwise may begin to deteriorate as the new players simply cannot afford to play Legacy; spare me the elitist comments, please.
And that brings us to Survival of the Fittest. While I do understand that survivaled Teeg with MoR support is what a particular players don't want to see, it's not exactly broken in the sense that it needs to ban the whole archetype. Same is true for w/e the insane scenarios one may come up, even turn3 unopposed Iona or anything else. Legacy, being the format of powerful plays "where I want to win in a great ways" is definitely a format that could stand the occasional absurd wins by what's in its core a creatures' deck, especially considering that the usual Tendrils of Agony piles win on the very same turn. If power level is what appeals to you, than you should be glad that there's more power injected into the format, right?
True competitive mind adresses metagame and would never cry over a loss of a particular card. While in my ever-shrinking collection of Magical Collectible Cardboard there are no other cards than...
- blue spells
- lands that tap for blue
- lands that search for ladns that tap for blue
- and Lightning Bolts
...I still believe that reintroducing Survial of the Fittest would only increase the fun of Legacy.
Argumenting from the position of fun or "I want to feel the power through my veins" is a casual stance, no matter how you paint it. What I dislike is that this doesn't move us any further in the discussion and that it's often time presented like if a certain kind of casual groups (lets say the people who dislike tapping Kird Apes) are somehow better Magic players, more valuable part of community, their position is more legitimate or whatever else. Make no mistake: a casual is a casual, no matter which kind of pet deck he defends. That's especially funny if the very same people who resist the "color identity matters" idea argument from the position of "color identity matters" with sentences like "that's not in Color X's part of pie" or they defend any silly childish planeswalker fluff.
One last note on this: I'm quite inconvenient with the whole "I want to feel the power in my veins" acknowledgement, as it reminds me of my long dead buddies who spoke the same until heroin sent them to untimely grave, so maybe I'm picking on this one unjustifiably.
I'm tired of hearing about the health of the format and the need to not strengthen the non-blue strategies from people who identify themselves as an opposition to anything non-blue. You wouldn't listen to the advices on your marital life from somebody hating/banging your wife, and I find little joy from reading the same old arguments from the same old people who dislike the non-blue creature centric decks for what those decks are, namely as this kind of attitude is often times chanelled by the people who don't merely "play Storm", they "pilot Burning Doomsday Petdeck Tendrils", people who don't just "play UBR", but they "specialize in Jeskai" and who don't simply "cast spells", but rather " go Ponder into Goyf into TNN into SFM into Batterskull".
Legacy might be a format with streamlined predictable decks built around powerful repetitive strategies that lead to a boring robotic gameplay. There's nothing wrong about this, and there's nothing wrong about liking that state of affairs. But it would be only fair if the people who like a particular kind of petdecks would admit it and not hide behind their self-proclaimed status of player:pro.
It's up to us, the people who love Legacy, to move it futher through decks' development, through fair play, through openness to new ideas and new players, through a just and calm discussion. Remember, withut us, there'll be no Legacy at all.
Pro's stay away from Legacy because it isn't a PT format. That's literally the whole reason.
The conspiracy goes deeper than you might think.Can I pay you for not posting in this thread?
A short reply to the wall of text above:
Legacy might be less demanding as a netdecker, and card availablity plays a big factor in the fact that some players can afford only one deck.
But to say it is the least demanding format, you are plain wrong.
It might be harder to metagame in std, to build a sealed deck etc, but in game you have next to no manipulation and most plays are pretty straight forward.
In legacy playstates are much more intricate, amount of hate for certain cards unexhaustable, and playing a game of legacy is like a game of 3D chess where STD is a game of ping-pong!
I LOL'd.
Good post, BDP.
I was playing in a Modern tournament a few weeks ago and an opponent was on a budget UR Delver build of some sort cities of brass/basics/terramorphic expanse instead of fetches/shocks. He told me he had been playing since Theros, and scraped together this deck from what he had and what he could afford. At one point he played a Goblin Rabblemaster. I looked at it, looked at my hand, and realized if I didn't kill that thing now I was beyond screwed. I was able to cut it off but I had to consider it the rest of the match. I also had a play at some point where I was about to commit a second creature to the board and though, wait... what if he has Arc Trail? (I had an x/2 and was looking to add an x/1) I mean, Forked Bolt is $4, I could see him not wanting to buy it. It was fun, even though we were playing very close to the same deck, that he actually had certain wrinkles that while not optimized meant I had to really consider what a player in his position could consider a budget replacement for cards in the stock build. This was in the 2-1 bracket, by the way (though he might have been paired up).
There are unexplored engines in other colors that could support different kinds of strategies. But nothing is even close to as rawly efficient as the blue cantrip suite, which is why we are where we are. It's like I said in the Monastery Mentor discussion: To me the card seems too clunky for legacy, but as I've asserted, with the critical amount of card selection available in the blue shell, most decks could win with a candy bar wrapper, so I would never say never if players of those decks want to brew with it.
LOL
You complain that people that come up with "all colors should be equal!" are mocked as idealistic "casuals" or potentially mistake this thread for being a Miss America contests, but call - and I quote - the whole party of "I want to win with strong interactions, with Ponder into whatnot" "casuals", "trained moneys", "people without real life" or being on an "ego trip" yourself and dare to whine about Ad Homien attacks.
You complain about Delver at the same time you rant about the "avoid creature combat" pet decks of the Brainstorm-supporters, but handily ignore that the little instant is used to support Creatures in most decks (40% of the meta are Delver/blade variants anyways). It just doesn't make sense, dood.
You think, Legacy is a noobs format and free of skill because of all the 4-offs? Fine, maybe EDH or Vintage serves you better then. Didn't you make a giant I-leave-the-format-and-the-forum-because-I-am-so-frustrated post lately? Should I copy&paste it here? This isn't the place to release RL steam, seriously
Colors exist, but for compeditive players they only have mechanical meaning after twenty years of printed colorfixing for eternal formats. Colors do have a flavor and card-characteristics, but there is no reason, that this should affect compeditive deckbuilding. Rather than abusing the individual cards in certain colors, some players demand equalizing effects either via bans of outstanding options in color x or blending colored effect y in other colors. Both is narrow minded and the reason the discussion escalates.
You wish for a more colorful metagame? Really? If people play Decays you point to Counterbalance and say it doesn't count. If people play Pyroblasts you point to Brainstorm and Treasure Cruise and say it doesn't count. If people play Thalia you point to cantrips and say it doesn't count. If people play Discard you point to Brainstorm and say it doesn't count. If people play Elves you say it doesn't count ... because the deck draws cards - like blue!
Honestly, we have SFM, Pyromancer, Elves, Swiftspears, Tarmogoyfs, Entreat and whatnot as non-blue win-conditions compared to Delver and TNN in blue. We have colorless and white lock-decks, green combo decks, BGR Aggro, Meerfolk, Storm or Loam which are able to take down a tournament and you still complain about the lack of "colorful strategies"?
Nice strawman with Survival and Teeg. A bad one, but the try counts, no? Lets talk about Teeg and Iona instead of fucking Griselbrand, Emrakul and whatever WotC is going to print after Vengevine to break Survival again!. Let us ignore that we have a repeatable Tutor, combo engine with cardadvantage all for 1G in form of Survival! Lets ignore that we have a full-fledged combo deck to stick in every green creature deck, taking only a Minimum of slots to do.
First: you're disgusting. Second: a casual is a casual, no matter how much he whines about his deck not being competitive within the current cardpool.
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
Wow this is so wrong on so many levels. First Magic is a game who 2 people play. They agree to play this with their friend. If I play with just a friend it is for fun. This means every game I play under these circumstances are by default non competetive. Competetive Games are games were the main reason is to win. This occurs in every tournment or any other ocasion were you can win a prize.Bed Decks Palyer
But no matter what's your exact stance or opinion on what card to ban or unban, this whole point of view is fundamentally senseless, as there's nothing like non-competitive Magic.
So for Magic this means if I play EDH or just Legacy at home with friends you indeed can have a game for fun were you make your own rules and restrictions and were you only want to have fun and donīt care if you win.
So to differ between these is not senseless. The reason is fun and tournement players have to different mindsets and therefore to differ between them is important if you want to
make the right events for the right audience.
Btw you can also play Roleplaying Games or tabletop for a competetive reason because most of the time they are competetive by default because you look for the higher degree of sucess.
Wrong again. Infact we love the mathamatical advantage ponder presents us. Also playing ponder and brainstorm is great way to stabilize your gameplanSo the whole party of "I want to win with strong interactions, with Ponder into whatnot" are just another casuals,
and get more consistency into it. Playing the most effective cards in a meta is btw a strategy all tournement players do and one which is seting us apart from
casuals because we would switch the deck as soon as another deck is clrearly the strongest in the format. In contrast to that casuals would keep their deck despite
the fact that it canīt win anymore.
For the creature thing. I for my part play creatures Clique,Venser, Snapcaster are some examples. The onyl difference is that they have to be helpfull for my gameplan
and I donīt play them just because I can.
And again donīt talk about thing s you donīt understand. I canīt talk for all but for me I started with a portal like deck with many creatures and sorceries. I also played Goblins and Affinity. I know what boardadvantage can do but I also know that wrath effects are a good way against this. The stack for me is the thing I like because of the options you have to interact with it. Also the interaction with it is more flexible than deploying creatures and doing a little math to figure the right mumber of creatures for an attack out.The trained monkey's game of topdecking might have its appeal for them, but anything more complicated or beyond their scope of "fire those cantrips asap" or anything they're unfamiliar with like the whole creatures interaction, board advantage and other aspects of battlefield-based Magic that happens beyond the stack, is labeled "casual" with an inherent sneer that it's not for the best, which quite clearly are they alone. Understandable stance, but I don't think that ego trip should be a base for bannings so that the non-creatures petdecks should dominate.
Also I donīt lable anyone casual who donīt share my opinion. With people I lable casual are the ones who lack the tournement mindset and prefer to play suboptimal decks while crying for bans instead of working on their own strategies.
There are many good reasons. For me as example it is the money I donīt want to spend regularly for Magic T2 or limited. While Legeacy is expensive at the start you soonAs already said, ther's a reason why those "omg im sooo compiteteteve mind" people DON'T play some of the more competitive formats,
can settle on some key cards which never rotate out and from their on its get cheaper over time.
Also I donīt like the main limited gameplan and interactions which counts also for standard.
Other players will have other reasons but as you also canīt say why not everbody plays chess if they want to have a competitive mind game you canīt say there a no reasons whxy competetive players are playing Legeacy without asking all of them.
You are missunderstanding something here. The sentance there are no colours in competetive Magic is not ment to ignore the colour of the cards. Also we donīt say we are colour Mages because we donīt actually play this colour. The sentence only says that we donīt care which colour we play as long as it is the best deck. This means in season x we maybe play URW miracles while in another we play Dregde if we figure out that it is the best way to win."But there are no colors in competitive Magic!" is a wrong argument. There are colors in Magic, and I dare to say that they are inherent. You won't be playing Elves without Forests (of any kind) and Natural Order looks for a card with certain characteristics, and the whole idea of "we don't play this or that becasue we're bound to it, we're not [insert color here] mages" is wrong.
Really people without reallife? You know that if we want to play most of the time go out of our house meeting with people to play? If we really would have no Reallife this woul not occour because no real life means no social interactions.all the while Legacy slowly turns into a boring repetitive format that only the people without real life might participate in
We never cried about the card. What we mentioned again and again is that the reasons why you want it gone is the wrong. We also agrued about you lack of metagame knowlegde and understanding but never talked about to keep the card just because we like it.True competitive mind adresses metagame and would never cry over a loss of a particular card. While in my ever-shrinking collection of Magical Collectible Cardboard there are no other cards than...
We are not the opposition for anything non blue. We allready said it would be cool if anyone would sit down and invent new non blue strategies to fight blue. We are against the lazy way of demanding ban of blue cards instead of finding ways to punish them (cards for that are enough there).I'm tired of hearing about the health of the format and the need to not strengthen the non-blue strategies from people who identify themselves as an opposition to anything non-blue.
If you are reading the same arguments again and again maybe someone is trying to hint something you canīt see. So if you realy tired of it try to understand us and maybe you suddenly donīt see your self confronted with the same agmument again.I find little joy from reading the same old arguments from the same old people who dislike the non-blue creature centric decks for what those decks are
All that has happened in the meta is that these Delve cards have made the most consistent preforming super-archetype, one based off cantrips, just even more clearly the best preforming super-archetype.
The fact of the matter is that all these cantrips are going to continue to make every possibly good new Blue card even better. This will stagnate the format, since so many people are simply sold on the idea that Brainstorm and Ponder are somehow sacred to Legacy for whatever random reason they have decided upon, and now new Blue cards are just "too good." In that case, shouldn't Vengevine have been banned rather than Survival? Simply banning the new Blue kid on the block every time seems hair-brained to me, honestly.
Where do we go from here?
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
You complain about the existance of a blue supercore (Brainstorm and Ponder) at the same time you want to establish a green supercore (GSZ + Survival)?
You still don't get the difference between a one-shot "look at the top 3 cards" and a repeatable "search your Library for a card" in general, no?
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
We buy some Black Loti and Recalls.
The conspiracy goes deeper than you might think.Can I pay you for not posting in this thread?
First, no, I didn't complain about the existance of either, I have said time and again that I see issues and I want to discuss them. I love Brainstorm and Blue as much as anyone, but I see problems with the format as it is currently headed. You are misinterpreting what I said about Survival. My point is that just banning the new thing doesn't address the fundamental issue which will continue to repeat itself with every new playable card, which honestly you just agreed with. No need for a hostile tone.
I understand perfectly well how both cards work. Doesn't mean I agree that both or either is good for the continued health of the format. One already got the axe though and while I didn't play Legacy at the time, it seems very likely that was the correct action at the time and now. However, I remain unconvinced that Brainstorm and Ponder are somewhere in the realm of "sacred," "necessary," "format-defining," "skill testing," "skillful" or whatever other buzz-word people are justifying them with today.
I see issues and I want to discuss what they mean. I see an attitude of "just ban the new thing and we'll go back top the good old days" attitude about too much now. A Luddite position doesn't impress me, nor does a conservative one for the sake of preserving some frozen-in-time meta simply because it's the one you are used to and/or like.
Magic should be about some kind of change, regardless of if it's slow (Eternal formats) or fast (Standard).
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
Wrong. No matter what's the exact setting in which you tap Grey Ogres, it's still competitive. You're playing to win (and have fun, chat, drink wine, etc.) You're not a part of heroes' companion that explores a dungeon while the story-teller sends the hordes and waves against your blades (collaborative game), neither you're looking for the part 4999/5000 in a PVC bag so that you and your wife may finish the picture of Manhattan (collaborative.)
This is a game who 2 people play: If you are reading the same arguments again and again maybe someone is trying to hint something you canīt see. So if you realy tired of it try to understand us and maybe you suddenly donīt see your self confronted with the same agmument again.
Sorry, but I don't have a smallest clue what you wrote about.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote