11,034 reputation
13052
bio website
location Sunnyvale, CA
age 29
visits member for 4 years, 4 months
seen 2 hours ago

Jan
28
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
@GendoIkari I think it's a lot more true in tournaments, which is the presumably context that judge was assuming. (Judges are unlikely to show up at your kitchen table!) There are definitely some common brands/colors, but at the same time, the cost of sleeves is relatively small compared to the cost of the cards for a competitive deck, so it's not crazy to spend a bit of money to get ones in your favorite color or with your favorite clan symbol/planeswalker/whatever on the back. If you use plain black, 95% is probably an exaggeration, but if your sleeves are at all unique, probably not!
Jan
28
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
@corsiKa Exactly, as Rainbolt says - if cards tell you to do something impossible, you don't. And it's not much of a reach for this to be impossible. The definition of shuffling mentions library and face-down cards, and assumes that it's possible for them to end up with no player knowing the order - essentially it's assuming they're indistinguishable. If that were an explicit prerequisite, it'd be actually impossible to shuffle here, not just a shortcut.
Jan
28
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
@corsiKa Getting a bit far afield here, but arguably in a 0 or 1 card deck there is no order to know, so it's just vacuously true that you've shuffled. But even if you say it's impossible it doesn't cause problems, I don't think - nothing says "Shuffle your library. If you do, ..." Either way, no one is going to expect you to wave your one card around and say you're shuffling, same as (assuming ownership is public) no one is going to expect you to shuffle two obviously distinct face down creatures.
Jan
28
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
@corsiKa Rainbolt said the problem is breaking randomness, but they could be random yet known. The issue is that the rules for shuffling say "no player knows their order". In practice, it seems pretty clear that ownership is supposed to be public and thus shuffling in that sense is impossible, so when the card says to do it you just don't do it. (Kinda like if a card said to shuffle two facedown permanents but one of them had a +1/+1 counter on it.) But that's apparently not actually written in the rules.
Jan
27
comment Is there a “consensus” definition of what constitutes a “strong” or “weak” deck?
@TomAu Do keep in mind that Rainbolt is only one user, and there are also a few reopen votes - don't feel the obligation to try to edit your question to satisfy every last close voter. (Side note: saying "consensus" lets people say "aha now you're inviting debate about whether everyone agrees!) I really think that asking for the common meaning of a piece of commonly used terminology is totally fine, and this is not the kind of question we need to defer to another site. If you're asking "how strong is this particular deck?" sure, take it elsewhere. But this is fine.
Jan
27
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
I suppose the rules do leave the door open for it to be derived information. But it's a pretty big leap, given that control and zone are free information. And online, cards get the owner clearly marked if they're not controlled by their owner. I guess the rules don't say one way or another, but at least it's pretty easy to see from the rules which way it'd go if they made it explicit.
Jan
27
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
@diego It does say "Free information is information to which all players are entitled access" - it seems like even without making it explicit, we should probably understand that players are entitled to know which cards are theirs.
Jan
27
comment Am I obligated to identify cards owned by an opponent?
@murgatroid99 re "obligation" - seems pretty reasonable. The rules do say "Free information is information to which all players are entitled access" and that it "includes" a list of things (but not that it's limited to that list). Surely anything else the rules say all players should know would also be free information, which you're required to accurately report if your opponent asks.
Jan
27
comment Is there a “consensus” definition of what constitutes a “strong” or “weak” deck?
Fair enough, but you might consider editing a little. Since the OP didn't specify a preference for vintage/legacy, focusing on those formats in your answer without saying so is a little misleading. Perhaps mention that example is based on those formats, or at least edit to avoid making it sound like it's the primary kind of strong deck. Although you call it an example, you only provide the one example of a strong deck (and it's fast), but then say that weak can be many different things, implying that strength mostly means fast.
Jan
27
comment Is there a “consensus” definition of what constitutes a “strong” or “weak” deck?
I don't think the definition is terribly opinion-based. To put it bluntly, if you're reading articles about competitive decks for tournaments, "strong" means winning, not what turn you win on - Chad's answer is not the most common terminology. On top of that, the existence of an alternative answer doesn't mean that the question is primarily opinion-based.
Jan
27
comment Is there a “consensus” definition of what constitutes a “strong” or “weak” deck?
@TomAu It's an issue in the question that could use clarifying, and I don't see where you've done so: are you asking what strong means, and this is just a random guess at what the answer might be? Or does it indicate you're actually trying to find rules to determine how likely a deck is to win (and suggesting this as a possibility)? The latter is a pretty different question, and I advocated reopening based on the former understanding.
Jan
27
revised Is there a “consensus” definition of what constitutes a “strong” or “weak” deck?
added 1175 characters in body
Jan
27
comment Is there a “consensus” definition of what constitutes a “strong” or “weak” deck?
I see. In that case I do think it's a bit beside the point; when you hear someone say "that deck's strong" the primary thing they mean is that they think it can win a lot (though they'll probably think winning is fun). If it's an aggro deck, yes, they also mean it can win fast, if it's a control deck they mean it can take control, and if it's a midrange deck they mean sorta some of both, but really winning is still the primary point. (And unless you mean vintage/casual, the "50% chance of turn one win" is probably not a good example of a strong deck.)
Jan
27
comment Is there a “consensus” definition of what constitutes a “strong” or “weak” deck?
Also, I'm curious: what leads you to guess that maybe strength means speed of games rather than simply chances of winning? In both forms of the question you led people that way, and you've even accepted an answer focusing on that.
Jan
27
comment Is there a “consensus” definition of what constitutes a “strong” or “weak” deck?
@TomAu It's worth noting that in most formats there aren't really decks that can win on turn one, and indeed most decks typically take many turns to win (e.g. even a fast standard deck will take at least 3-4 turns), so people really aren't evaluating strength primarily based on speed as your question and some parts of this answer suggest. In casual anything goes play or vintage where there are tons of crazy fast combos available, sure, but in more sane competitive formats looking primarily at "can I win" makes much more sense. (And even vintage has control decks that take their sweet time.)
Jan
27
comment Is there a “consensus” definition of what constitutes a “strong” or “weak” deck?
I think that's the core of it then: you're focusing a lot on casual play here, much less so on competitive play.
Jan
27
comment Is there a “consensus” definition of what constitutes a “strong” or “weak” deck?
Honestly I think it was fine before. You asked what people mean by these terms, not for us to decide about a specific deck. In both cases you're asking about measuring it, which is mostly impossible, but it's fine, answers can say that.
Jan
27
answered Will a creature cast with Dash still return to your hand if it dies in combat?
Jan
27
awarded  Talkative
Jan
27
comment Why are some decks (i.e. Meandeck Tendrils) not playable in tournaments?
...but some difficult to play decks make players more likely to play too slowly in a way that can result in Slow Play cautions, so decks indirectly do cause Slow Play. These kinds of details are, I think, a bit beyond the scope of the question and absolutely beyond the scope of the comments. I'm just trying to ask the OP to clarify the question a little bit.