Jump to content

[disc] secret village of the spellcasters

skragtheprophet09

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest PikaPerson01

Guest PikaPerson01

Posted
Posted

Could do well in an all Spellcaster deck, but really, who runs all spellcasters?

 

It might become too much of a risk to use this card IMO...

 

Also, Gravekeepers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kale Newbie

Kale

Posted
Posted

BAd because they are no good spellcasters now apart from Breaker

 

Shut it with your meta-attitude.

 

I think this card has quite a bid of potential.

 

Spellcasters aren't too bad by themselves' date=' and this is a really nice piece of support.

 

[/quote']

oh no you di'int-

 

A response to a bold statement' date=' accusation, or action; slang for "you're going to wish you hadn't said/done that," or "b***h you'll pay for that."

 

"Yo momma's so fat, I poked her in the belly and gravy came out."

 

"Oh no you DI'INT!"

[/quote']

 

i could not help but laugh at that. XD

 

when is this card coming to the US? i hope soon..

 

but judging on the fact that it took years to get Time Machine, who knows?

 

if you ran a spellcaster deck, this would be fun. ^_^

 

i kinda like it. it would slow down some decks a LOT. XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pharaoh_Atem Newbie

Pharaoh_Atem

Posted
Posted

BAd because they are no good spellcasters now apart from Breaker

BAWWW

 

You could do much better to dismantle his case than to say something as baseless as "shut it with your meta-attitude". You make it seem as if it's a bad thing to be in tune with what the current metagame requires.

 

Baseless judgments that tell people to shut up... tend to sound like crying' date=' hence why I condensed your argument into its shorter form, as you will see in the above quote.

 

While he's wrong to consider the card bad for the reason he has given, and while the reason he gave is in and of itself a flawed judgment, the core of that reason is itself in good shape. That core is merely a mix of the premises "It is unwise to do something unwise" and "It is unwise to run a deck wherein you sabotage all of your own chances before you even begin."

 

That mix of premises does NOT equate to Breaker being "the only good Spellcaster at the moment". Being a good card does not require a card to be worth running at the present time; it simply requires that the card be designed well.

 

And no, a card being worth running at the present time does not prove that a card is designed well.

 

This faulty logic of his is why he's wrong, not his meta-attitude. His meta-attitude is actually harmed by his faulty logic, and would become stronger if he'd fix the logic.

 

Since he's not wrong because of his meta-attitude, the only reason for you to tell him to "shut it with [his'] meta-attitude" is to pursue a goal of silencing a viewpoint just for being in tune w/ said "meta-attitude".

 

Hence why you're guilty of BAWWWing --- you want him to shut up simply because he has a view you don't care for. This BAWWWing completely invalidates your opinion, as valid opinions resort to logos, pathos, and/or ethos, but most certainly not the inane sort of rant that only BAWWWing can deliver.

 

So, yeah, you're both wrong, but at least he has an excuse - he's wrong because of a logical error, whereas you're wrong because you come off as an insecure little whiner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...