Search results

I'm not blaming you or anyone else trying to get paid or whatever your reasons are for sending to another site :), I was just stating that there are some members here who write, just not for the CPA (at least, that's what I was trying to express).

I thought the words in italics were an "aside" to us at the CPA and not part of the article, which is in quotes. I think the article's okay from where it stands now.

You coulda left me a Rainshaper ;)

That's probably a good question for Ask Wizards, about what happened to "card art". I suspect it's probably the way you describe it - in the early days of Magic, it was just general fantasy so artists could draw whatever they thought the card title might mean. Nowadays (and I don't know when...

I think it's time for you guys to get some new decks then :) But if you guys have known each other for a fairly long time, then a discussion like this should go pretty easy on whether such verbal politiking is allowed or not. :)

This is kind of similiar to Isty's thread a while back. I basically agree with Mikeymike. And his words that either it should be agreed upon at the start of the game/evening whether "politiking" should be allowed or not (and I guess it also depends on who the players are - I'm guessing from...

Oh KJ, the Foglios's art are one of my favorite. Along with Ron Spencer... :)

It helps when discussing these types of things. Otherwise you veer off into control parts or combo parts (the latter which I think Sneak falls more under, since you're getting around the casting cost of the creature), etc. And if you don't define the terms, why bother labeling them anyway? :)

Juest read that the second brother had been born. The article's still calling them "twins" :)

Well, at Least He Won't Be Fathering More Fans... Man, who needs Lorena Bobbitt?

Happy Belated!

Happy Belated!

Indians

Only if they're inflatable... Do you watch Joey?

Patrick's and Si'Nat's results have been PMed to them.

Yeah, it's a bit hard, that's why the [card] tags would sure come in handy :)

What's "without any combo assistance"? Hard-casting them just using mana (and does mana elves fall under this)? Not getting them out via Sneak or reanimate or whatever?

I think we have to go back and define "aggro". My impression is that it's a deck focused on creatures and tries to win in x turns (I'll throw out a number, 5 or less turns). It just wants to overwhelm the opponent and trusts in combat to remove the opposing creatures as opposed to...

I'll take the Mirror-Mage and Peer Through the Depths.

I definitely don't have time, nor keep up with playing enough either to get "good stuff" going. The maintenence and "upkeep" of posting articles and replies is pretty much all I can devote time towards... But I definitely agree that jorael, Limited, and CasualOblivion have helped to stimulate...