Whatever. I think the Forbidian is actually quite a cool deck to play if you know what you're doing. Although that still only has like 20 actual counterspell-type cards. A 60-card deck running 30 and actually being good is not something I have seen...
Orgg, if your card does what I think it does (it isn't worded "from "anywhere" but it doesn't specify that it had to have resolved in order for the ability to work either, so I'm unsure), wouldn't it be pretty crazy with stuff like Wild Mongrel?
Urza's Block = Mirrodin Block?
Both have overpowered cards that are based around artifacts. They are pretty similar for that.
Mirage = Odyssey
I see a slight resemblence. Neither one is all that well-defined compared to surrounding blocks. Odyssey has more cards based around the graveyard...
Whenever I play Pandemonium and say that it is going to help everyone, they all attack me...
Anyway, this guy is probably just as good as Hunted Wumpus and maybe better, which is not a bad place to be at all...
I expanded it because I didn't know where to start in a search for CPA-posted decks that lack basic lands. You also said that you agreed with Gizmo because it made "more sense." I don't think the issue is whether basic lands are as important in Vintage, but I just wanted to provide evidence to...
I took nothing out of context. I could have quoted the whole post, but it would simply have taken up space. The important detail was the "ALL." You even capitalized it...
As far as my looking up some Vintage decks goes, that was in response to what Spidey said. It didn't really apply to...
Well, it has high prices as far as websites go. Stores around here (if you can actually find one anymore) tend to have lower prices than websites (sometimes cardshark is lower, but that's the only one that comes to mind). I suppose in some areas that SCG has prices which are relatively by...
Sounds more to me like the difference is him building better decks. I'm not usually cut-throat myself, when it comes to casual play, but I'm not about to fault anyone simply for winning...
Oh! That was what you said? I guess that I was in error, because it looked to me like you said this...
Also, I seem to be remembering what I said incorrectly. Wow, I must really be losing it...