C
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
Now that is a fine piece of work!
C
Crackdown
Guest
I sort of liked it also. Somewhat strident at times, but that's his style.
Where I really agreed with him is where he indicates that a driving force to build a rogue deck is one of personality:
Rogue is not a disease or affliction, even if many people think that it is. Rogue is an attitude; a way of looking at things in a different perspective. Rogues know that they are Rogue; it's as much of them as their chromosomes. It's who they are; realizing that you like to approach situations in a manner that deviates from the norm is part of what make a Rogue tick. In Magic and in life, Rogues ask questions that may have already been answered. Rogues ask "why?" ad infinitum, and are rarely satisfied with the explanation
Where I really agreed with him is where he indicates that a driving force to build a rogue deck is one of personality:
Rogue is not a disease or affliction, even if many people think that it is. Rogue is an attitude; a way of looking at things in a different perspective. Rogues know that they are Rogue; it's as much of them as their chromosomes. It's who they are; realizing that you like to approach situations in a manner that deviates from the norm is part of what make a Rogue tick. In Magic and in life, Rogues ask questions that may have already been answered. Rogues ask "why?" ad infinitum, and are rarely satisfied with the explanation
D
Duel
Guest
The thing about Rizzo.....
Well, first off, I don't like this topic. "Rogues" and "Netdeckers" have been overdone. Sure, Rizzo was the first to speak, and his original was amazingly innovative for it's kind. And he has some valid points in there ("A Rogue will hear "card advantage is king" and dive deep into that statement, searching for their own answer by asking their own questions; perhaps phrasing them differently. The end result may be that the Rogue also believes that card advantage is king, but sometimes coming to an acknowledged conclusion yields different results if the manner of interrogation dares to differ enough.")
But alot is overshadowed by simply stating what has come before. Rizzo's writing style, as always, shines. His topic choice, though, is a little off for my tastes.
Well, first off, I don't like this topic. "Rogues" and "Netdeckers" have been overdone. Sure, Rizzo was the first to speak, and his original was amazingly innovative for it's kind. And he has some valid points in there ("A Rogue will hear "card advantage is king" and dive deep into that statement, searching for their own answer by asking their own questions; perhaps phrasing them differently. The end result may be that the Rogue also believes that card advantage is king, but sometimes coming to an acknowledged conclusion yields different results if the manner of interrogation dares to differ enough.")
But alot is overshadowed by simply stating what has come before. Rizzo's writing style, as always, shines. His topic choice, though, is a little off for my tastes.
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
Well, I don't know if I'd say his writing "shines."
"Glares," maybe.
"Glares," maybe.
The subject of 'rogues' might becoming tiresome, but in my web surfing I only go her and the Dojo (and not even there recently because I'm trying to catch up here) so any news to me is "new" news. Besides, he did bring some new insights to the subject (at least to me).