111–120 of 127 posts
25% of players would not teach you the rules unless you convince them. only 55% would if you ask.
Can somebody comment on the reasons?
I have been asked few times in my life to teach chess and that was always a great boon. 'Someone wants to get into my hobby and I can be the one to show them the ropes' was always my though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another genre is "deckbuilding" where all the cards are in a shared pool and you construct a deck during the gameplay by various means.
that event type sounds interesting - I think it would be fun.. a more common and similar version where your deck is not pre-built (usually at home) - that is/was played a lot around thee parts is/was 'draft' although it's official nomenclature may be 'sealed' ( https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/formats/seal... ) so it's a pool of packs you get, and you get to choose a card then pass.. so it's not totall…
> although it's official nomenclature may be 'sealed'
Sealed and Draft are two different formats.
Sealed = You open six boosters, make a deck from those cards.
Draft = 8 players around a table, each one opens a booster, picks a card, passes left, until all cards have been picked. Repeat again, this passing right. Repeat a third time, passing left again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another genre is "deckbuilding" where all the cards are in a shared pool and you construct a deck during the gameplay by various means.
that event type sounds interesting - I think it would be fun.. a more common and similar version where your deck is not pre-built (usually at home) - that is/was played a lot around thee parts is/was 'draft' although it's official nomenclature may be 'sealed' ( https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/formats/seal... ) so it's a pool of packs you get, and you get to choose a card then pass.. so it's not totall…
I find it funny when people assume that something that is common within their subgroup is unique to their subgroup. I liked that this article called out spades’ role in African American culture. But the game isn’t unique to US African American culture. So it’s interesting how it’s presented as unique or special to a particular culture or subgroup. It would be like if I grew up in Iowa and everyone played spades, and…
Geezus, now card games are being ruined by racial narrative, too. I and many other people grew up playing Spades, and this is the first whiff of any such historical rewriting that I've encountered (though I shouldn't be surprised). I have no doubt that blacks as a group developed an affinity for the game -- but this piece tries to claim what is otherwise a unifying game is really all about black history. This is righ…
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...
Apparently no mention of the variant that, in my experience as a kid, was by far the most common: no bidding, 1 point to the winning team, or 2 if you win 10 books. Commonly, you bet 5 or 10 as a team and won for being first to the amount bet. I played or watched probably thousands of games in middle and high school and I don't think I ever saw anyone play the formal way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've demonstrated that only the rich can compete; not really refuting the point, is it? But limiting our attention to strictly pro-level play is a bit silly, as it ignores the overwhelming majority of players. When I was in high school, two of my friends had a lot more money than the rest of us. We'd get a few boosters of a new expansion, they'd get a case. Consequently, their decks were nigh unbeatable.
> You've demonstrated that only the rich can compete; not really refuting the point, is it? You are moving the goalposts now. But anyway: - The entire argument doesn't even apply to 50% of Magic. - Even only considering constructed, it's objectively not the case that more money = more results. Sure, if you want to play competitively you have to dump ~1k/yr in it, but that's not unusual for games/sports. If you are no…
>> You've demonstrated that only the rich can compete; not really refuting the point, is it?
> You are moving the goalposts now.
Am I? Was it you who set the goalpost wherein Magic is only about tournament-level play and not a casual game? Or does it seem to you that the OC's comment might be a statement about the economic situation in the broader cultural context that the game exists in?
I like how you say "almost competitive decks." Granted, I haven't played for over a good decade, but through the ~15 years that I did play, powerful rares were typically between several dollars and tens of dollars. The decks of my richer friends were stuffed to the gills with such cards -- it adds up, and a good deck can cost a couple hundred bucks. That might be spare change for you, but it isn't for a lot of magic players. And like, a draft game is fun but at a cost of 4 boosters per player, that's not pocket change. We'd use rules like "all commons" to level the playing field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You've demonstrated that only the rich can compete; not really refuting the point, is it? You are moving the goalposts now. But anyway: - The entire argument doesn't even apply to 50% of Magic. - Even only considering constructed, it's objectively not the case that more money = more results. Sure, if you want to play competitively you have to dump ~1k/yr in it, but that's not unusual for games/sports. If you are no…
OC> And richer players have access better to cards that poorer payers can never hope to be dealt. >> You've demonstrated that only the rich can compete; not really refuting the point, is it? > You are moving the goalposts now. Am I? Was it you who set the goalpost wherein Magic is only about tournament-level play and not a casual game? Or does it seem to you that the OC's comment might be a statement about the econom…
It's either a competitive game, and therefore comparable to other competitive games and sports, that can cost you similar amounts, or it's a casual game, where you are not after 100% efficiency.
> I like how you say "almost competitive decks."
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/decks/budget/standard#paper
Help yourself. Most of those decks are underpowered when compared to tier-1 competitive decks, but can definitely steal games. None of them are anywhere close $200, and that's at standard-legal prices. Rotated cards are effectively $0.
> We'd use rules like "all commons"
https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/formats/paup...
> And like, a draft game is fun but at a cost of 4 boosters per player, that's not pocket change
If you're going to the store to draft, you're paying $12-$15 for a tournament that's going to last several hours, played in the exact same format they're playing at the Pro Tour, and with prizes. That's the price of a movie ticket.
I understand that's still a lot to many people, but it's a far cry from "only the rich can compete". The prices are high and they could be lower, but they're not marginally higher than those of many other sports/games/activities.
Also, there's online play. If you're good at the game, you actually NET money.
I find it funny when people assume that something that is common within their subgroup is unique to their subgroup. I liked that this article called out spades’ role in African American culture. But the game isn’t unique to US African American culture. So it’s interesting how it’s presented as unique or special to a particular culture or subgroup. It would be like if I grew up in Iowa and everyone played spades, and…
It doesn't have to be unique to the group to be special to the group.
Not in this article, but I read an account how someone’s childhood includes a tradition/habit/whatever of parents forcing their child to pick a switch to then use for beating and how it was unique to their subpopulations and region. I remembered it because I thought everyone did this and I was in a different region and subpopulations. I don’t have a chance to talk with the author, but I wonder if what they thought was unique to their family and group was actually more common.