Comments on: Zac Hill’s Loss is Your Gain

By: CMH2003

CMH2003 — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:14:02 +0000

Does this mean Im famous like Mike now?

By: thewachman

thewachman — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 04:21:43 +0000

Thanks for your take on this.
I’ll digest all of these things and if I need follow up you’ll know.
Eric from Saint Louis

Listen to My Podcast at http://www.mtgcast.com
or
http://mtgcast.com/?cat=16

By: wrongwaygoback

wrongwaygoback — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:28:53 +0000

Suggesting there’s no such thing as a card is only slightly worse than the suggestion that everything has haste (which I had a think about here). If there’s no such thing as cards, then I’m assuming I’m gonna kick ass with my empty deck box at my next FNM (“look, you don’t understand… I win! I do! I didn’t even need a card to do it!).

Ok. I get it’s a metaphor. Of sorts. But Zac also uses the term “literally” in the worst possible way. So, there’s also that.

By: Aten

Aten — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:14:40 +0000

This is the best thing you have written in a long time.

By: KZipple

KZipple — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:42:37 +0000

Thanks for writing this. I had actually been thinking recently how all card advantage is virtual, so interaction theory is not really new. I just didn’t have a good way to codify that. The one thing that I didn’t like about this post was that, “EVERY SINGLE PULL YOU MAKES OPERATES THE EXACT SAME WAY.” I think the point is that every card you draw only matters to the extent that it actually does something [kills Blood Pet, removes Sulfuric Vortex, whatever], but that could use more explanation I think.
Anyway, very useful. Looking forward to a new MWC list.