Poker Chess Magic The Gathering Baccarat

Well since you have listed as 4 points I will tackle those as they are put.

1) Net-decking - I have been playing mtg online intensely for 10 years plus at casual and tourney level.  Netdecking is an accusation people level when they see a few good cards or an archetype as I mentioned before.  Out of hundreds of decks I have made, literally, I have netdecked twice and followed someone elses idea once - the first two instances were to build the pauper turn 1 kill balustrade spy just since it was so weird and to take the shell of spanish inquisition and make something for vintage from the legacy deck; the last was that a friend and I saw someone use some cards together and both decided to make our own versions of his deck, each improving in different ways.  This does not mean I reject netdecking - it is the opening theory.  Like with opening theory it has a place as long as it is understood and not blindly followed.  You say 90%?  I say not.  I have known many more players than almost all "paper" mtg players ever would.  If you want me to have sympathy for anyone who spends money trying to netdeck before they learn to play then thats the wrong play to get to me.

2) A/B/U/R - This was in answer to power creep but is not limited to those.  Sure we have whispering madness but its no windfall or wheel of fortune (never mind the pale shadow wheel of fate).  I still use phyrexian arena in some competent modern builds - the apocalypse printing, so not a new thing obviously.  What better draw for black in general, given that dark confidant is so limited in scope albeit strong?  Lets just run through some others - burgeoning, exploration, sylvan library, demonic tutor (and its 2 little brothers plus grim tutor), sol ring/crypt/vault, land tax, library of alexandria, swords to plowshares, counterspell, mana drain, force of will - none of those is legal in modern for good reason and not due to ban, they are all older.  Modern is as you probably know 8th edition and onwards so please lets not say power creep.  I could list hundreds of cards that would split decks open that are not and will not be modern legal ever since they will not risk reprint.

3) If you are confused by storm then you dont understand it.  Storm copies the effect which is totalled as it goes on the stack not when it resolves.  It is a triggered effect of casting the card whereas buyback is part of the resolution of the text and kicker is a conditional trigger which goes on the stack after card resolves.  Follow the text sequence and look at the comprehensive rules.  If that blows your mind then consider - split second loses out to morph.  I could explain but better you seek to understand the game state changes.  As for Tolarian academy that only wins against me if they manage to lock early with the golem/sphere/etc.  I seldom see jar or spiral used though I have done so myself - they are not that omnipotent compared to yawg bargain.

4) Seriously you are comparing creatures.  Remove soul and various kill/sac spells.  Creatures dont win real games.  Obliterator with backlash, same for blightsteel - or similar effects to backlash like ....im old cant remember name, some white and red thing from ravnica?  Maybe not but there are some.  Ever steal emrakul with sarkhan vol?  I have repeatedly.  Stifle/voidslime the extra turn? Clone or zealous the emmy?  Bribery it?  Remember this is a 15 mana card after all and there are ways to deal with everything.

Dark Ritual/Isochron Scepter/Twiddle/and "that one" artifact card=Infinite black mana in your mana pool every turn...

I was given a few thousand ice age cards nearly a few decades ago by some people that I knew who were trying to get me into the game.

Reading this thread, I am glad I rejected the game. Not because it is not an interesting game...it is. But to to see how it is clearly just a money dump is makes me glad I walked away.

Then read it properly Jimmykay.  The point is if you want to play professional level it costs a lot, whereas you can make a fun deck to play with friends for a buck.

Yes like Rebuild, Hurkyls recall or any number of ways of destroying artifacts dont exist, never mind counters.  Are you talking about having 2 isochron scepters and the other elements?  Good luck surviving till then.  Also remember that proper matches are 2/3 where the sideboard destroys a lot of gimmick decks.

Read what properly? I said I am glad that I did not start playing because it is expensive to do so. What are you presuming I misread? Perhaps you need to read what I said properly.

Jimmy, you said that "Reading this thread, I am glad I rejected the game. Not because it is not an interesting game...it is. But to to see how it is clearly just a money dump is makes me glad I walked away."

The person who started complaining about the money to wotc was saying that his friend who had maxed his credit cards had done so to play competitively.  Casual play is non tourney.  In chess we are rather complacent about tourneys since it is just entry fee and no other costs rather than transport or accommodation.  With mtg a lot more is casual with friends and for those games I have stressed that you only need to spend a tiny amount to get a playable deck that you can have fun with.  Your friends gave you some cards?  Great, take 60 and make a deck - 36 will be nonland and 24 land so thats not a lot to have to work with to make something that you can have fun with and then think how to shape it into something that would be entertaining.  A money dump is where you are trying to buy a lot of top cards to be a top player.  I have indicated that at top level people pool cards and play as teams.  Anyone who tries to buy a deck and think they will then be competent to play is delusional.  You need the actual skills, something many players think they have but dont.

So the point that I have made over a number of posts is that casual play doesnt take money.  This is what you need to pick out.

I have had to defend the game on a number of points that were unfair but lets now play devils advocate against wotc rather than against the innacurate statements from people that I have attacked.  Wotc have screwed up the online formats for play.  They have brought in awful client systems which have meant many have left.  The online play requires a credit card and is not accessible to youngsters.  The regulation methods are draconian.  Overall you have to really love the game to play it online - which since Glasgow is not the best place for "paper" play, I am forced into.  I could rant for hours about how Wotc have screwed up with their product but I cannot accept the arguments about fiscal control.

How much does the average casual Magic player spend on Magic per year?

How much does the average casual Chess player spend on Chess per year?

All of your ranting and raving will not change the fact the even casual Magic players spend MUCH more on Magic than Chess players.

I chose not to spend theat money, you did, and that is fine. Just don't pretend that even casual Magic players don't spend MUCH more than chess players.How do you think Wotc has lasted this long?

Magic is a product that has been around a few decades. Chess is a game that has been around for hundreds of years.

I did not rant nor rave.  I mentioned rant as "I could" but my arguments have been concise and targetted.  Chess has been here for thousands of years, not hundreds although "mad queen chess" has been here for hundreds.  Chess players I know tend to pay club fees and transportation to league or clubs, chess books.  Make one or two decks at a dollar each for mtg and you can play as much as you want.

Unless you know your subject do not attempt to argue a case, just discuss.  Since you clearly cannot comprehend the things you say, let alone what I say, then just give up now.  A rant would be the unfocused nonsense you have just spilled.

Things like "Read what properly? I said I am glad that I did not start playing because it is expensive to do so. What are you presuming I misread? Perhaps you need to read what I said properly." which clearly missed the point and then tried to reflect are not good argument nor a basis for discussion.

The assertion "even casual Magic  players spend more on Magic than Chess players" has no basis.  You do not even attempt to back it up.  I know people that have been playing for over 11 years, regularly, with a basic $10 investment.  I play in free player run tournaments sponsored by store owners and there is no static charge.  Anything I do buy can then be sold on since I do not blindly buy new cards.  I buy old ones for eternal formats mainly and have in fact sold well at times, since I understand the economic forces.

As to how wotc have lasted, it is because people spend money because they choose to do so.  If you play a game with a static fee or xbox live etc then you are paying for the game.  With mtg there is no static fee, you buy what you want.  You just want one deck, go ahead and play with that one deck.  You want the top deck...your choice, spend it.  How much per month is the world of warcraft type game?  Multiply that by 5 years and how much have you spent?  Spend a buck or even just use the thousands of worthless cards you friends gave you and make some decks for mtg.  Just please dont tell me that mtg is a money dump.

Anyone reading that? 

I have been out of Magic for at least a decade now, but it's certainly possible to play competitively/competently without a lot of time invested.  You definitely could not do it just buying random booster packs, though.  But you could win a tournament with a $20 deck easily.

The problem is that many players get obsessive about it and buy 4 boxes of booster packs for every expansion.  No different than an MMOG, or pretty much any other hobby.  You've never known anyone that went rock climbing indoors one time and then went out and spent $800 on gear the next day saying they were going to climb half-dome in Yosemite?

People make their own money sinks.  I will say that Magic is well-designed to fleece those kind of people though.  

mike_tal wrote:

Chess, in the current form, has been around for hundreds, not thousands of years. The ancient game from which it came is a different game, just as humans are a seperate species from that which we evolved.

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the meaning of both "rant" and "rave, because you just did it again. You are extremely defensive. Are you insulted that I do not play your game?

That you can provide one or two examples of people who have only spent $10 on Magic means nothing. That is the exception, and you are being extremely dishonest to put that forth. Many of my friends play Magic, and they spend a lot of money on it.

You are conflating the two ideas that one "does not HAVE to spend much money on Magic" with "Magic players don't spend much money on Magic".

You are either being intellectually dishonest, or you living in a fantasy land. If any regular Magic players reading this can honestly tell me that they have spent $10 or less on Magic, I would love to hear it.

Again, you are far too defensive. I am not criticizing your game. My original statement only said that I was glad that I never got into the game. That you did is fine. Good for you.

Sorry, I have no attention span

Because they could have released their sets at a reasonable rate. Say, two sets a year, a block every 2.5-3 years. Make a block good for 4-5 years. 

And they considered that, too.

But then they realized that wasn't gonna be enough money for them. Lamborghini's don't come cheap, after all. So they rejected that plan, and decided to screw people instead.

Your casino analogy is an interesting point. If the 99.9% of people can gamble responsibly, then casinos are fairly harmless.

If 99%, then casinos are still harmless. For the most part.

If say, only 96% of the people who walk into a casino can gamble responsibly, then we need to stop, and take a look, asking ourselves "Is that casino doing more harm than good?" 

And we need to accept that the answer may be no.

At which point, the casino may say "Well, I never meant to do that!" 

Bullhockey. That's exactly what they were trying to do. To the decimal point.

Now, I'm not saying WotC's dishonesty level is on par with the Gambling Industry. But it's in the same ballpark. 

And it's enough, to be unworthy of my money.

I see also another point. Tournament, competitive MtG for prizes is game of luck, although it appears as game of skill. Why is it so? Because in the usual meta environment, it happens to become classic rock/paper/scissors gamble. It develops this way:

A) The deck to beat - powerful, #1 archetype, beats any other random deck, usually exploring some broken cards, mechanics or loophole in the rules (examples: Flash in Legacy, Affinity in Mirrodin, Necropotence in Black Summer period, Trix in old Extended, Dragon in old 1.5)

B) Anti-A, deck full of hate, designed to beat deck A, but at the expense to perform its own gameplan, losing to most decks other than A

C) Other strong archetypes, beating B, losing to A

D) Casual, experimental and budget decks, usually losing to A and performing variably to B & C

Now, a competent player has to choose and then, even if he plays well and wins mirror matches consistently, he doesn't qualify for top8 final play-offs, if he isn't lucky in the swiss to face enough decks he can beat. Skill means he has only some chance to win a prize, but doesn't guarantee it by far.

Therefore, the only ones with consistent income from MtG are WotC/Hasbro company and local cardshops, not players. A lucky, skilled player can win some money temporarily and then ususally he sinks them.

MtG is very interesting game for casual play (EDH or similar), but not worthy to spend $$$ on it. I recommend to purchase/download Shandalar (abandonware) or MtGForge (free/shareware with almost all printed cards) and play vs computer, but always think twice before buying real paper cards.

Dude "mad queen chess" is the current form.  As I said you dont understand what is said.  And yes your first statement was to the money dump so do not cry innocence.  A rant would be mindless.  Hmm, sounds familiar.  I think I am done answering you Jimmy, but do not count that as a win.  Hell, no.

Polar although I would raise the points about Hall of Fame players, some of what you say makes sense.  I have a friend took a pro tour deck up against a number of really casual "newb" decks and got hammered - his deck was too balanced against the metagame of legacy to survive basic stuff.

That is where you are messed up in the head. Even a conversation for you is about "winning". I am glad that I did not dump money into the game. It is like you think you need to convince me that I should have. What the @#$^ is wrong with you? You are incredibly defensive over the fact that you like the game. You talk as though everyone should be required to play.

Grow up, son.

If anyone is interested, you get to use Clowns in Yugioh.  Just sayin.