D
DÛke
Guest
Exactly. It does not get any clearer than this.HOUTS:
Individuals make friendly, or "fun" play, not a deck.
Exactly. It does not get any clearer than this.HOUTS:
Individuals make friendly, or "fun" play, not a deck.
DÛke said:Exactly. It does not get any clearer than this.
I play like this too TCO, and I know exactly what you are saying. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to play a solid, balanced game with two decks (or more) at equal levels. Those kinds of games, at least to me (and TCO I gather), seem to be much more rewarding.TheCasualOblivion said:I still stand by my statement:
A casual(friendly) game is basically about letting your opponent play the game.
This statement can be perfectly true about two people playing each other with tournament decks. Both decks are in the same ballpark power wise, and should give each other a decent game. This can also be true of Spiderman's mono-blue control deck, if in fact he's playing against people who have a chance of standing up to that. Two guys I know at the local store like playing Legacy-type combo decks, Sneak attack, Enchantress and the like. They pack these with Chrome Mox, and Mox Diamond and I've seen their decks go off turn 2. They really aren't tournament tuned, they just play these for the combos. What they don't do is beat on people who have no business playing against decks like that. That is friendly play.
I carry 14 decks when I go play. Some are better than others. If I'm playing a newbie, or someone I know who plays less serious decks, I will always grab one of my worse decks, and never reach for my R/B beatdown deck, or my U/W/r control/Lightning Angel deck. Its just the nature of a friendly game. I know those decks are a little too much for a newbie or goofball deck to handle, so I leave them in the box and grab one of my lesser decks.
Usually I play a stronger deck the first time I play someone. One of my top 5 at least, unless I'm pretty sure I should grab a lesser one. Its the people I know I usually go easy on.Mikeymike said:Regarding walking into a match underestimating someone's ability, well then you get smoked. Oh well. That said, it isn't difficult to gauge your competition's style without being belittling.
Dang, If "I" can understand this then it must make sense.Individuals make friendly, or "fun" play, not a deck.
Actually there are different levels of rules enforcement in "pro" events, same as in a Casual or home game.HOUTS said:
I really don't see the reason to discuss games that supposed "casual". Reread my main arguement against the actual definition of "casual" players. The definition, standing alone, exudes no boundaries. If there are "take-backs and such" then the game is going outside of the actual rules of MTG. Meaning-it is not a typical game. So, why would you make rules to govern those games that go outside the games own rules?
See what I mean?
This is an oxymoron.
HOUTS
HOUTS said:"I have a pile of creatures. My opponent has no creatures/some creatures, but none that are any threat to mine. I don't attack.
I see this all the time. People don't attack, and don't kill their opponents when they can. Call it bad play, call it stupid, but it happens. I see it all the time, and I've been seeing it ever since I started playing 10 years ago."
Wow, so many variables here....
First off, you are wrong. I wouldn't be offended...UNLESS you are in a major tournament and flaunting the state of the game (in which means you are dominating if you can choose not to attack).
Style? Are you playing Cyberpunk? I may play a deck has little chance to win, but then I try to see how good a plyer I am by winning with it or comming close, It's a test of my ability, not some kind of style contest.
With my friends, I might not attack a turn. Sure, we aren't saying we don't have "fun" in the game. Your taking a general idea and making a specific unrational statement.
"He dies, in a bit higher style than he would have a turn sooner."
Higher style.
*enter laughter*
I know what you mean.
"I see this all the time. People don't attack, and don't kill their opponents when they can. Call it bad play, call it stupid, but it happens. I see it all the time, and I've been seeing it ever since I started playing 10 years ago."
Well, you really aren't being specific here. They don't attack because they forget? Or because they are playing for fun? Or, why?
It's a bad play if they forgot...sure. And if it is a premiere tournament. Not so big if a FNM, or at your friends.
I will highly suggest you reread my comments. You've really overlooked what I was saying.
HOUTS
If I am not too careful, I would almost agree. The only problem here is that there is no "casual" games. Every casual group seems to have its own rules. I didn't like, don't like, and didn't allow people to accidentally draw extra cards and then put them back on their library. Does that make me not casual? I also care a lot if someone forgets his or her upkeeps. Does that make me less caual than anyone else? I rarely play multiplayer games, and more than a part of me actually doesn't like such games. Does that reflect on my playing attitude?Mooseman:
The difference between casual and pro games are mostly the penalties applied to rules infractions.
Um. Like you have not deconstructed anyone's opinion before? isn't that the first thing Gizmo warned you about in this very thread? Why bother? That's the nature of discussion.CasualOblivion:
If you have an argument or opinion, say it. If all you can do is to deconstruct what somebody else said, why bother?
Ferret said:WHEW! That took me 30 minutes to read all those replies! (and who says that the CPA has no activity these days?)
But, I digress. It would appear that the one thing that is being argued over here is semantics. Everyone wants to tell what their definition of "Casual" is. The whole concept is insane. Casual is just a word that we were throwing around to counter the tournament level play that was out there. It wasn't meant to become the basis of a religion or political movement (I wonder if this is how Karl Marx felt).
One of the things that has truly annoyed me is the fact that so many people think that tournament player and casual player are mutually exclusive. Also, people seem to think that playing to win and playing for fun are also contradictions.
Wake up call for everyone: None of these terms are contradictions because everyone is different. Each one of us has our own points of view on everything. Some of us are Gun-Toting Red-State Conservatives while others could be considered Tree-Hugging Blue State Liberals. Some are Xtians going to church every sunday. Some of us think that there is no God, just free will to deal w/ our modern-day problems. Some of us like orange juice. Some like papaya. Yup, so many things. However, none of these terms truly defines us. At no point should any of us be shoved into a group just because of a definition that is too vague to begin with.
Let's face it folks: there's only one thing that truly defines all of us here. We play Magic and we love playing it. Period.
If you find that someone is playing w/ a style that you don't like, here's an easy solution: don't play w/ them. There are millions of other players out there that would probably love to take his/her place.
-Ferret
"Elitism? That has to be the funniest thing I've heard in years!"
TheCasualOblivion said:If you have an argument or opinion, say it. If all you can do is to deconstruct what somebody else said, why bother? Its petty and annoying. State an opinion, don't try to twist words or point out the lack of college english level clarity in a statement made by someone who has a life and doesn't really bother to spend valuable time proofreading or "englishafying" posts for a stupid message board.
I've also noticed that its almost always a certain sort of poster who does things like this.
Yes it does, most casual players prefer multi-player games.DÛke said:I rarely play multiplayer games, and more than a part of me actually doesn't like such games. Does that reflect on my playing attitude?
Who said that? A least one of our group is a tournament player and I have played casual games with at least one Pro tour winner and many who play or have played on the pro tour.DÛke said:The first mistake here is thinking that a person who plays seriously, and to win, is execluded from the circle of "casual" players.Um.
Well, you did say "most." And while I've never been one to turn down a good multiplayer game, I do prefer one-on-one. I think a lot of casual players do prefer multiplayer because of the politics involved, and because they can use less focused decks. Is it a majority? I think so, but I'm not sure. Being an exception doesn't exclude one from being casual though...Mooseman said:Yes it does, most casual players prefer multi-player games.
Ferret said:It's true. No matter how much this discussion might be driving some of us to pulling our hair out. No matter how much some people seem to be contradicting themselves. No matter how many other moderators think that I should just pull the plug on this whole affair, I'm encouraging everyone (that's right, EVERYONE) to send what you think to HOUTS.
Worst case scenario: he comes up w/ something that everyone doesn't like. If that happens, then I encourage anyone to write another article rebuting his views (which, will more-or-less be our views).
The thing is that I wonder: do some casual players take themselves too seriously? Perhaps. Dunno. I'm just curious to see how this plays out.
-Ferret
"I heartily endorse this product and/or service"