All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
 
Lineage 2 Revolution DB
 
Eleventh Annual Holiday Exchange
 
Jaya Ballard Returns
  • posted a message on [Primer] Gx Tron
    So, does Nicol Bolas, God-Pharoah mean that Oath of Nissa is worth a second shot in the deck?

    EDIT: The user orlouge82 pointed out in the Hours of Devastation thread that Cascading Cataracts works as well.
    Posted in: Tier 2 (Modern)
  • posted a message on 3 Cards from Hour of Devastation - Nicol Bolas, Black Sorcery and Samut Planeswalker
    So... did Oath of Nissa become good in Modern Tron again?
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on C17 POSSIBLE leaks - real/fake not yet determined


    The Ur-Dragon is the best but also the worst. It's the only one that encourage you to build a real dragon tribal deck. Yet he is so strong (removal magnet) and so costly that 99% of time you won't ever cast him. And wotc knows it, that's why they gave him that braindead ability where you get an advantage just by having him sitting in the command zone and doing nothing else.


    People let me proxy The Ur-Dragon with Scion of the Ur-Dragon yesterday, and I can say you're off in your assessment, but not by as much as I'm about to make it sound.

    The Eminence ability, as you note, is amazing. Expensive Dragons start coming in either on curve or under curve. However, getting the attack trigger rolling is not difficult at all and kind of necessary. 1. Being an attack trigger instead of a damage trigger does make a small difference. 2. It's not like the Dragon Tribal doesn't have access to a number of haste enablers or generic haste enablers. 3. The deck's going to ramp into The Ur-Dragon anyway because even with the eminence ability, there's a lot of mid-to-high range dragons along with color-fixing that also doubles as ramp needed to drop early dragons even earlier. 4. The Ur-Dragon helps mitigate over-extending.

    Do I think The Ur-Dragon will be able to go toe-to-toe with Arcum Dagsson? No. But I think people are underestimating the power this (alleged) leaked commander brings dragon tribal.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on The Ur-Dragon
    Quote from Onering »
    Quote from Beralt »
    Wondering how interesting The Ur-Dragon might be in an Oath Deck, with Dragon Breath giving it Haste. It draws a card and puts a permanent into play with power 10 it's a 2 turn clock.

    Curious as to opinions, I know it's not even an official card yet but it it's certainly intriguing.


    Why not just run Blightsteel instead?


    Yeah, you could put that in with The Ur-Dragon's attack trigger. [/joking]

    The problem with The Ur-Dragon (outside of Commander Dragon Tribal) is that it's coming along after better things have come out, and don't get me wrong, a mini-Eureka that draws a card(s) on a 10/10 evasive dragon is good, but Emrakul, the Aeons Torn, Blightsteel, and arguably Griselbrand all either hit harder, for lethal immediately, or generate enough advantage that you can bury your opponent and effectively win on the spot.

    That being said, it's not impossible for The Ur-Dragon to find it's way into the deck, but it has to find a way to synergize with an already tight decklist with other hard hitters. One thing I will give it kudos for though is that since it's all five colors, an Oath play wouldn't dread drawing it as much as the other finishers I listed because The Ur-Dragon can feed Force of Will.
    Posted in: Vintage (Type 1)
  • posted a message on Debate Forum alums: Where do you debate?
    I started engaging people more in my real life... I am on the lookout for another place though because I can only reach so many people.
    Posted in: Talk and Entertainment
  • posted a message on Why were we here?
    I was here for self-reflection and personal growth. Everybody talks about how society has moved into bubbles, and I am no exception. This was a place for me to evaluate my stances, temper my believes, and be reminded that just because I don't agree with everyone doesn't make those that I disagree with monsters. In the end, I feel like these debates helped me to have a more mature viewpoint about the world.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on What should People Looking Back on this Forum Learn?
    As everyone knows, the Debate Forum is closing May 5th. It will be missed. I'm not sure what I will do with my spare time, but I'm thinking of taking up Magic: the Gathering. I've heard good things about the game.

    Anyway, jokes aside, this forum itself isn't being deleted, and knowing that and being the sentimental type, for those that are looking back on this forum once it's archived, I would recommend reading through various topics. I've learned a lot in terms of raw knowledge and engaging people in disagreements. We had our ups and downs

    When reading through, be sure to pay attention to the posts of Blinking Spirit, bLatch, Highroller, Jay13x, osieorb18, myself...ish (I always felt middling), and I am certain many others that I cannot remember at the moment. Offhand, I can't think of any particular topic to hyperlink at the moment, but I'm sure others will have favorite old topics to share.

    And to be honest, I think what sums up the end of this forum best is Blinking Spirit's signature, which is why I copied it for the week, but if it's gone down the line...

    Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
    candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.


    Which translates to:

    Farewell! and if a truer theory's thine,
    Impart it candidly; if not, use mine.

    -Horace, Epistles I.6.66-7.

    But this isn't about me: this is for all our regular debaters (and observers) to chime in one last time.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Debate is Closing 05/05/17
    Quote from Jay13x »
    Quote from Kryptnyt »
    It was nice to have a place to put potentially vitriolic thoughts where intelligent people could sift through it for you. I was actually trying to find the words for such a thing. It's not something I can do on Dotabuff, haha... Can you suggest any similar forums with a decent mix of political backgrounds like this one has?
    I do not, but if other forum users have good ideas, please let us know. In all honesty, other gaming sites don't have debate sections like this one for some of the same reasons I mentioned above.


    The irony is that the reason you guys are closing this debate site is what has made it so much better than most debate sites that I've perused: our moderators are rarely asleep at the wheel, which says a lot about Blinking Spirit and his various helpers through the years I've been here. They put in the work to keep this forum going, and more importantly, were able to discern infractions from bias triggers quite well. There probably are other decent online debate forums, but I've yet to find one better than this one. I'll be on the lookout.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on North Korea


    Come on. I've seen you post, certainly you don't think that I think getting rid of the DMZ does not include the clear of mines and sundry ordnance? Come on...


    That's not exactly an easy or timely process, and even if it was, it doesn't mean that the Northern border into China is any less tempting.


    But either way, getting back to the bigger picture, everything being discussed goes to show why the region doesn't want a war with North Korea. Everything we're debating is a quagmire for the entire region. There needs to be a solution to the Kim Regime, but the surrounding countries don't want one that either literally and/or figuratively blows up in their faces.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on North Korea
    Quote from MinaHarcourt »


    You think they would rather risk North Korea having nukes?


    I'm going to have to ask how much you know about North Korea because North Korea already has nukes.

    What they don't have is the missile projectiles to launch them long distances, but even then, we're not certain how far they could get a device that can detonate. That's why the phrase "Seoul will glow" has been tossed around in this thread. While there's little chance that a nuclear devise could cross the Pacific to reach the United States (or Australia because they stepped in this as well for some reason), the chances are much, much higher to South Korea, China, and Japan.

    So to answer your question, the answer is that the time to worry about acquisition has passed; North Korea has the technology. They don't want to risk them using it, which means they want to avoid a war.

    Also as Blinking Spirit mentioned, China doesn't want the the United States to have strong ties along the entire Korean Peninsula. It would not be in China's political interests, which is one of the reasons why the Kim regime has lasted so long. So they don't want a war for a second reason as well.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on North Korea
    Quote from Highroller »


    So I disagree with what Kahedron is saying. Avoiding war with North Korea is fine if we believe the hostile regime is going to collapse on its own, but our means of avoiding war has thusfar amounted to providing them with the very money that's keeping them going, and the threat of North Korea dealing a lot of damage before it goes down has only increased with each passing day.

    It's certainly better to avoid a war when a non-military solution to the problem can be found. The thing is, we've had about 64 years of dealings with North Korea since the armistice, and they're not only still around, but they're even more of a threat than they were before. Nothing about this is a solution.


    From what I was reading yesterday, the issue with the US starting a war is I am pretty sure most, if not all, of the Eastern Pacific does not want a second Korean War for one reason or another. Even if the United States were to avert nuclear warfare with Korea and keep it to a conventional war, Japan and South Korea could withdraw their support of the United States and China could cut diplomatic ties. There's a bigger picture than us vs. them, and I'm not sure the diplomatic fallout is worth the risk.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on North Korea
    Quote from MinaHarcourt »
    So even North Korea acting up is Trump's fault? Wow. Just wow.
    North Korea's antics are North Korea's fault. Always.

    But it's the responsibility of the US President and other world leaders to respond to those antics and keep them from boiling over into a shooting war. Trump is very capable of screwing that part up.


    Blinking Spirit is right. I meant it in that way he puts it, but my partisan bias slipped a little too far. I apologize.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on North Korea
    I'm with Kahedron on this. The escalating factor in North Korea is not just North Korea: it's Donald Trump.

    First a little context. North Korea has always been reactionary in how it operates. Whenever North Korea makes headlines, it's because something else happened to provoke them. This does not excuse their horrible regime, but there's a method to North Korea's madness. This is in large part because North Korea has so little that it operates more on posturing than it operates on global influence. Part of that posturing is illustrated in the opening post. Don't be fooled by the caricature of North Korea as a cartoon villain. They present that image to the outside world because they want the outside world to leave them alone. Operating below the radar is off the table for them, so they make themselves look ridiculous, and this has led to people not taking them nearly as serious as they could be.

    This is where Trump comes in. While most world leaders don't fall for North Korea's charades, Donald Trump is doing more than not being intimidated by them. He's responding, allegedly in part because his domestic agenda is not working out the way he'd hope, which is a lot like poking a bear: even a trained professional does not think it's a good idea. But then again, maybe Trump believes engaging North Korea is a bad idea after all.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi
    The first trailer has dropped, so I feel this is officially not jumping the gun.

    Things to note non-trailer related:

    • Since the word "Jedi" is both singular and plural (like the word deer), the "last Jedi" has been used in non-English language titles in the plural.
    • This will be Carrie Fisher's last Star Wars movie. She was going to be integral IX, but Lucasfilm/Disney has opted to write her out rather than use technology or recast the role. I have heard no word if her passing will have an effect on VIII. May Carrie Fisher rest in peace.

    Now then, with those details out of the way... let's get this hype train rolling.
    Posted in: Movies
  • posted a message on Supreme Court Justice Nominees Gorsuch and Garland
    Quote from zoboso »
    Quote from Lithl »
    Quote from zoboso »
    I may concede that the senate did not advise the president, but the senate is not obligated to provide consent to the presidents nominees, lest you want me to lampoon the democratic senators on how they have been acting around his cabinet nominees.
    Congress is not obligated to provide consent, but they are obligated to make a decision. They left Garland in limbo, not even saying "no"

    not making a decision is a decision, as the constitution states that certain nominations must receive the consent of the senate


    Two things:

    1. Saying that not making a decision is a decision makes about as much sense as saying colorless is a color, being naked is an outfit, lacking religion is a religion, etc. Lacking the entire quality is not in of itself the quality. So no, not making a decision is not a decision because that is nonsense under scrutiny.

    2. Are you sure a nominee must have the consent of the Senate? This isn't rhetorical. I'm on my phone and can't look up the Constitution at the moment. If I remember correctly though, there was pressure on Garland and Obama to use the fact that the Constitution was just vague enough that to interpret inaction as relinquishing consent to put Garland on the court and then roll the dice in Court when a challenge arose.
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.