The question of questions: What is casual?

Discussion in 'General CPA Stuff' started by TheCasualOblivion, Feb 16, 2005.

  1. TheCasualOblivion 10 year Veteran Newbie

    Here we go again...

    So what is considered casual. I think I have a rather specific answer to this, so here it is:

    Casual magic is based on the mid-game, specifically both(or all) decks getting past the early game intact and with board position. This is one of the major reasons multiplayer is as popular among casual circles as it is, since it's very difficult to dominate the early game, or any part of the game for that matter in multiplayer. Tournament decks are the opposite of this. They are built to dominate the early game, or have complete dominance during the mid-game. Specifically, tournament decks are built to ensure the mid-game never happens, though sometimes it does anyway, and its never intentional. This also separates people like us from the bozos over on the MtgSalvation casual boards playing tournament-lite "casual" decks. They play tournament style decks that simply are different and not good enough to win against real decks.

    Just because your deck isn't built to win during the early game doesn't mean you have to abandon it. I personally build fast decks, in order to be in a better position when the mid-game rolls around, by having more out or beating on my opponent and his stuff, or both. I think playing in the middle of the game against another deck that's still on its feet is the most fun magic can be. Sure, its wide open and anyone can win, but that's just part of the game. I build my decks to be nasty at that point in the game anyway. Its also more fun for everyone, even a newbie since the game has some length and they get to play, even if they get stomped in the end.

    The main point is that you don't play a deck that prevents your opponents deck from occuring.
  2. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I think a casual deck is one you're playing where you didn't pay a fee to play or have prizes for finishing in certain places.
  3. DÛke Memento Mori

    I think this question has been asked far too many times and considering the results every time, I have come to this solid conclusion: that there is no such thing as "casual."

    Your defintion doesn't even begin to encompass the variety of playing styles that fall under the umbrella term that is "casual." I, as well as others I am sure, consider ourselves "casual," but we do, in fact, play to dominate, perhaps at times more so than your average tournament player because we actually put a lot of personal thought, efforts, time, and creativity in order to establish the domination process. Hence, the term "casual" in no sensible, reasonable way belongs mostly to those who play multiplayer formats, or those styles in which "winning isn't everything," or "domination isn't everything." There is no black and white here, no "tournament versus casual" understanding, there isn't even only "shades of gray," as a matter of fact, because there is no "casual," and anyone who's anyone that calls himself a "casual player" knows very well that the only "casual" thing about his style is that he plays whatever he wants, almost indefinitely, with great disregard to the hocus-pocus of even the “restrictions” of "casual Magic." And the decks played by so-called casual players range from downright idiotic, to the silly, to the one's that focus on multiplayer, from ones that love to dominate, to one's that like to name it, it's been played casually somewhere, by someone.

    The only sub-specie of "casual" players that is filled with utter dishonesty and blatant self-deception, amongst other things, are those that emphasize how they play "for fun." There is no such thing as playing a game merely, and merely, for fun, without paying the least bit of attention to the probably outcomes. I don't believe it because if I would win against a so-called "casual" deck, I will not be a jerk about it, not at all, but I will happily acknowledge the fact that I indeed have emerged victorious. That, of course, would tick off a good number of players who will quickly become defensive: "but I had more fun," "well it's all about fun for me," "winning isn't everything."

    Winning isn't everything?

    When will people finally become honest for once and just admit few things! and just stop the suffocating pretense!

    Like for example: that they can't compete, hence "winning isn't everything." That there is no shame in winning. That winning is, in fact, part of the fun…I can go on…

    The selflessness and detachment that casual players try to portray from the objectives of the game (mainly, winning), is awe-inspiring and shows just exactly the opposite of what they try to portray: that there is a culture of bitterness and of lacking that sleeps just underneath the noble stature that “casual” players have learnt to display with such fine and unmatched cunning and instinct.

    This, of course, not saying that there isn’t out there some soul who really has no intention whatsoever in regards to victory, but like as in the case of all things, such occurrences are exceptional and rare. A person who really, honestly, deeply has no regards to victory? That is one of the great lies and misconceptions, even exaggerations, that people have come to know as “casual Magic,” extending the concept to people who, essentially, lack the selflessness and the detachment.

    At the end, it is few honest glimpses here and there, slips, by all means, that highlight what a “casual” player really is about:
    This example of elitism, of raw bitterness that can be smelt hundreds of miles away…it is the secret that many “casual” players hold on most dearly to, at times perhaps trying to overcome, at others just safely guarding it behind many beautiful terminology and concepts. In truth, no tournment player can be made to feel as guilty as the "casual" player because such a player hides nothing and is proud of all the facts, whereas the so-called casual player, like a self-loathing teenager who over compensates, is simply just that: a partly self-loathing his words you hear all kinds of beautiful things and ideals, and even in his actions, but if you were to just read between the lines, spend some time with him, and maybe even win few games yourself, the truth soon would not be so containable.

    Appearances can be deceiving, and so can words. Be ware of the term "casual," especially when it's flaunted as the Second Coming, by people who think they are the Second Coming.
  4. Killer Joe Active Member

    Somewhat agree with Spidey. I think a "technical" or "mechanical' definition of what is casual is playing the game in a non-tournament setting.

    Now, if you ask the question: "What kind of stratagy and/or deck best represents your definition of casual game play?"

    Well, any answer will do.
  5. TheCasualOblivion 10 year Veteran Newbie

    Try this one. Its a simplification of my first point:

    You let your opponent play the game.

    And now, DUke...

    Lets sum up your points:

    1. There is no casual. Certain people(including DUke) call themselves casual, but play to dominate, even when a lot of people say that isn't "casual." Casual includes everything and therefore doesn't exist.

    2. People who say they play "for fun" are bozos and liars.

    3. The game is about winning. Anyone who can't admit that is deluding themselves, and moreover, is using the statement "winning isn't everything, having fun is the point" as an excuse for them sucking.

    4. Casual players(or at least certain players) are an elitist cult, hiding behind their arcane rules determining what is appropriate and what isn't. They are no better than the tournament players they whine about, and probably worse.

    Excuse me if I missed anything, but here's a retort:

    1. If casual doesn't exist, we might as well go back to our lives and abandon this site. If trying to discuss exactly what it is, again, what is the point of these boards? I'm just trying to put a small point out for others to discuss: Playing "casual" is letting your opponent play the game. Its not difficult to build decks to prevent your opponent from playing the game. Doing so is a winning strategy, and the best strategy for winning in the game. Note that this statement can apply to everything, even tournaments. It just requires that you let your opponent play the game. If you are both playing top-tier tournament decks, your opponent has every opportunity to play the game. Its just that tournament decks are exclusive. You play a game against a deck like that with a bad newbie deck, or a multiplayer deck and there isn't going to be a game. Not everybody is good at this game.

    2. So "Fun" is a metaphor for bad decks. People throw that word around so they don't have to play "good" decks and can just lie in the mud with their crappy decks? I assert that "fun" means both players having fun. For example: You're not that good at the game, and you play against a top-tier net-deck and somebody who can handle it and the game isn't fun. I can assure you of that. I play with one rule, I let my opponent play the game. Aside from that one caveat, I play the most focused, powerful and lethal deck I can come up with. Against that same bad newbie deck, I guarantee I'll win 19 out of 20 games. But I also guarantee that newbie will have a much better time playing me, because my deck(s) will let him actually play.

    3. I've never said otherwise. What I do say is that you can play to win without playing to drive your opponent out of the game, and that is what I call "casual." One of the nice side effects of that is that no matter how bad the deck you're against playing is, they can still play their deck and make a game of it. Important point here--

    **In regard to the statement about using "for fun" as a crutch to cover the fact that you suck, I put this out. I don't build decks to dominate the game from turn 1. Tournament decks are like that, I play against them occasionally. I usually decline to play against those decks, because there isn't really any point. They will establish control first, and that will be the game. My decks aren't designed to contest that. I build decks to let my opponents into the game, and then destroy them. It is a different game. I don't really look down on people who go the tournament-style road. I don't appreciate that they consider themselves superior since their decks beat mine. I'm not trying to play their game, and play by a different set of standards.

    4. I'm assuming you've been hassled by people other than me, DUke. I've seen some elitism in you. You are biased against bad decks. You really look down on people who play them. I have no problem with people like that. We all start somewhere, and we were all bad once. Its a matter of playing them, showing them how the game works and teaching them the game. The line between tournament and casual is more than a little blurry but it does exist. The casual side does include bad decks and newbies, since they can't really compete on the other side. Knowing people like that are included in the style of magic I play, I don't try to exclude them, or call them names.
  6. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I disagree with this. Because that pretty much shuts out blue in general and I for one like playing trying to play blue control in a game where I don't have to pay a fee or there's prizes. Or if not blue, I like to play control decks like Manabarbs that shuts down my opponent's mana or Pernicious Deed that clears the board while setting up for my kill. Either way, I don't want my opponent "to play the game" inasmuch as HE gets sets up for his creature kill/combo lock/whatever.
  7. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    It's not really a statement that helps anything. Casual can be an ideal to aim for as much as a definition of what has already been achieved. You can say there's no such thing as a perfect man, but that doesnt stop you discussing what properties you think such a man would have.

    If you dont think anybody IS casual, then say what would make a casual player. That's a more constructive comment.

    Casual Oblivion - Duke said nothing of the kind. You shouldn't try to turn people against him by misrepresenting him with soundbites.

    Every game is about winning, but you genuinely dont have to be going all out to try and win. There is a distinction between playing a game you can win, and playing to win. How much emphasis do you put on the word PLAY or the word WIN? Its up to the individual player.

    I don't think that's true about casual players. Just about many of the players here. The CPA doesnt represent 'casual players' in any way - no more than Lenin's Bolsheveiks represented the russian workers. CPA is the radical militants of Magic, claiming a mandate to represent casual play which is disproved by the sheer lack of numbers they can claim. This is the vocal MINority, unrelated to the silent MAJority.
  8. Mikeymike Captain Hiatus

    The only definition for "Casual" that I can see to be truly universal would be a setting and/or deck without the intention to be used in organized competition or in preparation for organized competition. Another aspect might add to this definition would be a game of Magic where the social and gameplay interactions with others is just as important as winning the game, if not more.

    Beyond that, my definition becomes very personal and very subjective, just like most things. A very large part of this is what makes Magic "Fun" to me, which again is very personal and very subjective.


    In summary I tend to agree with Gizmo's first point, trying to define the term "Casual" is likely an exercise in futility.

    Regarding the idea of elitism that's been rearing its head recently, I believe it is utter BS. The examples I've seen of CPA elitism in action have either been A) the byproduct of a private online community and/or B) the reactions of a few specific people. The CPA is likely the most universally welcoming private on-line community I've ever encountered, and I've spent significant time on my fair share.

    And when compared in context to other online Magic communities, the "elitist" tag sounds downright goofy.
  9. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    Casual Magic is when you play socially and for fun.
    It's not a particular deck style (though Stasis decks have a very hard time being casual).
    It's not winning at a particular point in the game.
    It's not even whether your deck is good, mediocre, or awful.
    If you're having fun with it, and everyone around you is having fun too, you're playing casual Magic.

    The opposite would be tournament Magic, where everyone is grim, focused, and generally in it solely to win.
  10. DÛke Memento Mori

    Misrepresentation. Ever since my return to Magic, through Magic Online, I have played hundreds of games. Tournament oriented games, too. I have yet to face an opponent who is focused on solely the victory. In fact, as soon as you break the ice with most players, even the coldest match can be warming and in fact, something to learn from. Certainly, there is no "the opposite to a casual player." It's an unfair judgment made only by those who certainly are stuck up in their own paradigms, call themselves "casual" players, and yet secretly want everyone else to abide by their standards...

    If anything, I have heard the nonsense from none other than our casual friends. Those who cringe as soon as you pull out a Hinder or as soon as you dominate the game via creative processes and card combinations. I haven't observed many snobbish smirks from tournament players, and although indeed they tend to be more serious when playing the game, they are enjoying the game just as much as anyone else, certainly no less. Yes, sure, sometimes they beat you on 3rd or 4th turn with, say, Raffinity. Sometimes they abuse Eternal Witness. Whatever. But they enjoy it. Who am I to say that they're not enjoying it because I'm not enjoying it! Or do I have to entertain you so as to be considered a casual player?

    Frankly, I play to entertain myself. No one else. If your deck sucks, and on top is not fun to play with, that's too bad for you, but don't take it out on me because I know the value of Hinders and Islands, or because I locked you down for good with a Zur's Weirding on turn 5. That's not my problem.

    Nearly all the bitching I hear, all the unfair traders, all the bitterness, all that underlying and underhanded nonsense I've seen...well, I've seen it all in more casual players than anyone else.
    And that is actually the noblest a person can be: knowing when the lines become just subjective and futile to define, and not try to enforce some abstract, all too vague definitions or concept as to what is, and who is, casual or who isn't.

    Finally, I may have sounded a little bit over generalizing in my first response here. That is my fault. The plain facts are: more casual players show signs of bitterness and spite than any other, which can only lead me to believe that there is more going on under the term "casual" than first meets the eye. I wasn't accusing all casual players or CPA members - I have been a part of the CPA for a good long time (check registration date, if you will), and respect most people, that doesn't mean it's all cake and cookies here though.

    Give up on trying to restrict and divide a colorful and diverse community of players into superfluous categories. That in itself and alone is elitism at its best.

    You hear more casual players flaunt the fact that they are casual players than tournment players flaunting that they are "tournment players." What does that say to you?
  11. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    That description doesn't sound like a single tournament I've ever played in, from shop drafts to Pro Tours. Your average tournament will be 50 or so friends meeting up and having a really good laugh playing the game all love.

    But your description IS a perfect example of the elitist attiude Duke was talking about.

    "Blessed are the casual for they shall inherit the earth"

    Why? When this board is full of people only too happy to dismiss all the other communities as beneath them because they talk about tournament decks.

    My girlfriend has a good point...

  12. Mikeymike Captain Hiatus

    Maybe I'm blind, or have on my orange-and-black visors, but I don't really see that to be the golden rule.

    There are many discussions on here about particular competitive enviros/formats or cards, articles about tournaments, and every once in a blue-moon a deck in the deck-section. There are some who will shun, but I think most will give an opinion/suggestion if they have one.

    Also, I think the tourney-talk is kept minimal b/c A) most of the people here really don't play competitively B) when they do they usually don't seem to do very well :D C) people do not come to the CPA often for tourney advice, they'll go somewhere else.

    And I could be wrong, as I also have a tendency to see the positives before the negatives. Though I will repeat a point I've made twice in two days: the actions/opinions of the few truly seem to be being held for the majority of the CPA. This is the BS I'm referring to.

    (And your girlfriend sounds like a trip. :D)
  13. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    Well, I described every physical Magic tournament I've ever been to. I've witness rampant cheating, harassment tactics...people can and will do everything they possibly can in order to win. Nobody smiles. Nobody has fun, unless they win every game they're in...and if they don't, they raise a huge ruckus, belittle their opponents, and generally act like jerks. And at the only large-scale tournament I've ever been to, my opponent resorted to name-calling, bent my cards (quite deliberately, in that he looked at me and grinned as he was doing it), and generally acted like a total jerk. I define casual as "not that".

    Is it possible that my opinion has been polluted by the experience I've had at RL tournaments? Possible. But our experiences are the boundaries of our consciousness, so you can hardly blame me.

    I'd also like to point out that it's the people who refuse to identify themselves as one of us - casual-haters, I'm calling them - who keep referring to casual players as elitist. I've never seen a casual player state, either explicitly or implicitly, that we're better than tournament players; we're different, that's all. We choose to engage in a part of Magic that many people have no interest in. If anything, it's people like Gizmo and Duke and HOUTS that are elitist - telling us that our decks are 'bad' and our views are 'wrong' and that essentially, casual Magic isn't worth pursuing - that are elitist. Casual players aren't saying that their way is the only right way. Casual-haters are.
  14. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    Am I the only person seeing the dichotomy of the person who says 'refusing to be one of us' in the same sentence as 'he's the elitist one'.

    If you ask me how to make a deck work best I will tell you. If that involves calling your current listing bad, then I will. However I will not wade into a thread and call decks bad unless that person says they want to make it for competition. If you say something that is wrong, then I will tell you it is wrong.

    You're so full of ****.

    See? I think it's true, and so I will tell you it. I've been online many many many years, and you really are the most loathesome wretch it's been my misfortune to come across.
  15. DÛke Memento Mori

    Me? Elitist? "Casual hater"?

    I mean, you make it easy to prove my point.

    For the record, I have never been enrolled in an actual tournment, and all the tournments I've played were just plain old fun, usually set up by few individuals who I know. I don't have a "DCI ranking." I don't even know what DCI, what it stands for, what a ranking is, and...why. I have nothing. Never won money. Never won cards. Nothing. All the decks I've posted in the CPA have been casual, if anything, and that obvious only by the selection of cards and playing style.

    But, again. You make the argument all the easier and sweeter, too.

    Especially when you go on saying "it's people like...blah blah blah..." Really. Take a glimpse in the mirror for once.

    Oh, and...for another record, I've played Magic in real life too before I quit, and although I haven't played any tournments, I've witnessed them, and I have never observed the things you have observed. Not even close.

    Don't mistake someone who plays for other reasons than you do for being a "casual hater," whatever that means. Get off your paradigm for a second. Yes. There is a world out there.
  16. HOUTS New Member

    1. I am going to agree with Duke on this one. What is "casual" has been transformed through the progressive years of MTG, and the players associated with it. I thought I used to be "casual" until I qualified, twice, for a Pro Tour, and I was doing regular PTQ's, States, and Regionals. I was succeeding and progressing, compared to where I was in the past. I felt the stigma was being stagnant in the game, without progression or not one to reach a higher standard, and not succeed in tournaments. I don't count FNM. But, if you start making Top 8's, I don't think you are a "casual" player anymore. Although I considered this idea when I was in the grey line, in-between state, in playing this game. Either I could put more time and energy into and proceed into a "Pro" status, or stay mediocre.
    The flip side to this argument is state of mind. What you consider yourself to merely be a 'decent' player, and you enjoy playing games with your friends than entering a PTQ. However, even those who randomly flip cards around on the weekend find themselves to be competitive, in nature, and will do what it takes, in the game's rules/limits, to win. This competitive drive, or nature, is what pushes you beyond being "casual". However, if you don't want to win, then you aren't playing a game; because essentially a game, by definition, is having the ability to win or lose, otherwise it won't fit the criteria. So I think this competition in the game is what makes "casual" seem like an unreasonable concept by definition of what a game is. Even most "casual" players enter FNM tournaments (and I presume the majority have), in which pushes you beyond the "casual" card flipping games around your kitchen table. Now, you are striving to win, and you've built a deck, and know the rules. There seems to be nothing "casual" about this behavior.
    I disagree that without this definition this website doesn't have any real purpose. At one time, being a "casual" player meant those days of card flipping around the kitchen table with your buddies, without any real understanding of the rules, and whoever won wasn't of great importance than having that social interaction under one construction: MTG. This being the tying connection/bond.

    Classifying 'tiers' of decks doesn't apply toward competitive or "casual" players. The reason is being from perspective, and the overall goal you are seeking in playing each deck against each other. Let's deal with perspective. If player A perceives his deck (random pile of green cards) to be not as good as player's B deck (Affinity deck) is a form of perspective. Does elite tournament play dictate 'tier's of decks over each other? Yes, but only in that tournament structure. Those playing Affinity decks pit against Mono-black will get a sense of how powerful Affinity is over the lesser Mono-black deck. However, if you take Affinity out of that scene, and put it into a FNM, with lesser decks in comparison to the elite structure, you'll see Affinity has taken on a different role. It won't win games as easily, and might lose to random pile of green cards. Trying to level the playing ground is fine, but don't try to define it by 'tiers' of decks.

    Once upon a time long, long ago there was this individual Jamie Wakefield. He liked playing cards that were green. In fact, Jamie played what he liked, and at that time (during DOJO days) he could have been branded as a "casual" player. So, Jamie started playing bigger tournaments...and guesses what? He won! His deck was considered to be lesser than those in the tournament. After it won a few tournaments, they realized his approach had created another area of play, as you would say a "tech" deck. Jamie being a "bad player" won with his deck, where it would be considered "not a game". However, that turned out not to be true.

    2. & 3 "Fun" is not a metaphor for bad decks. Using the Jamie example, fun is from whomever's perspective you are viewing it from-it is subjective. Allowing someone to play...doesn't make sense to me. I could have fun losing to an Affinity deck with a weak combo deck I'd constructed the night before. If you aren't having fun, it isn't because of the deck. The deck contributes to winning, in which is related to having "fun". Allowing your opponent to draw out the game, or as you call "playing out the game" is your way of not having anyone really win or lose. This being game is about winning, and limiting (key word here) your opponent's (I'll use a Texas Hold 'Em analogy here) "outs". You want to limit your opponent's option to win, and limit his time in playing out his deck. If you feel you want to merely throw cards back and forth, then your view of this game is dramatically different from everyone else's; everyone wants to win in all games regardless of competition, doing otherwise contradicts the definition of what a game is. Your conception of winning, or playing is as you state, "I build decks to let my opponents into the game, and then destroy them. " So, you still want to win, but you do it from a control aspect. But, you still want to limit your opponent in winning the game, regardless of how fast you do it. But I will confess that your viewpoint, and definition, is mildly confusing.

    4. "Casual players(or at least certain players) are an elitist cult, hiding behind their arcane rules determining what is appropriate and what isn't. They are no better than the tournament players they whine about, and probably worse."

    I have to agree with this sentiment, and especially in applied to this site. And this is coming from a 5 year veteran (enter laughter) who has contributed to this site. It is the attitude displayed here that is deemed elitist. It's true there are 'arcane rules' going on behind the scenes. Just take a peek behind the curtain and you'll see the forums with strict rules/game ethic questions that most "Pro's" don't contribute to on the same level as us. I don't think tournament players whine as much as they do on here. Seems rude for me to say this? Absolutely not. As a person who has come from "casual" to "competitive" (and near Pro) I've noticed the demeanor of individuals that don't want to enter bigger tournaments, play better decks, or strive to improve their game. It is this: They aren't good players, realize it, and settle for mediocrity. After all, not everyone can be good at this game. It is skill based, even with its luck factor (and if you disagree-look at Poker, in which has MORE luck factor but there are still dominating people).
    I enjoy helping out my play group, or local players, build better decks or improve their game. But, I can honestly say there is a division of players. Some don't want to improve their deck. They enjoy losing, playing whatever deck they've constructed, and no reason to enter a competitive tournament other than a FNM. They've settled for mediocrity in their game-play. Their "Fun" is losing. Is losing bad? No, absolutely not, but it has a negative stigma around it. Losing in MTG is like running a 5k race. While you might be the last person across the line, you did what most won't: you did something, for your own good, regardless of who wins or loses. Don't get me wrong. Winning is essential in defining what a game is and it will separate those who are "casual" and those who aren't.

    "The line between tournament and casual is more than a little blurry but it does exist."

    You're correct, the line does exist. To me, it isn't blurry. Those who enter a PTQ, GP, States, or Regionals are deemed as tournament players. [ I would use FNM as an example but it is more of a social gathering ground for MTG'ers in local areas. ] The reason I say this is based on competitive behavior. Even if you go with a random green deck, expect to lose, and play with a "casual" nature, the very act that you wanted to play on a higher ground, with better players, means that you want competition.

    "The casual side does include bad decks and newbies, since they can't really compete on the other side. Knowing people like that are included in the style of magic I play, I don't try to exclude them, or call them names."

    As I said, defining what is a bad deck, or who is a "newbie" is all subjective. But, I will agree that acceptance in not playing tournament decks does separate you from playing on the 'elite' level. However, your 'bad deck' can win over the 'elite deck'. Style of play? I don't understand what you mean. And no one is trying to exclude "casual" players or calling names that have to create a division. After all, John Rizzo played with the Potato Nation team, a "Pro" team. Rizzo would clearly be defined, under your definition, as "casual", but he still entered tournaments, played with better players, and played horrifying bad decks. "Casual" has been transformed, and in my opinion no longer exists.

  17. TheCasualOblivion 10 year Veteran Newbie

    Didn't you hear? Casual magic bans islands. I thought everyone knew that.


    I'm guessing you've had a lot of "casual" players complain about your decks or play style, whine in general, refuse to play you, call you names, make excuses for why they lost to you...

    Any of this sounding familiar?
  18. Mikeymike Captain Hiatus

    CPA now stands for "Casual Philosopher's Alliance". Any more soap-boxes and I'll be able to put Zest out of business :).
  19. TheCasualOblivion 10 year Veteran Newbie

    State one opinion, and get four.
  20. DÛke Memento Mori

    Let me address the most important point made hitherto:
    I thoguht that's what it always meant. ;)

    No, it doesn't sound familiar. If this was a joke, then forgive the echoing silence. No one refuses to play me or complains about me. There isn't really a lot of complaining. I draw my conclusions from the manner in which a player loses. Well, that and obviously how they react when I counter one of their spells. Or play Islands.

    "Casual players" are the sorest losers ever.

Share This Page