arceusbeta:

chadwick-the-party-mage:

arceusbeta:

arceusbeta:

the difference between yugioh and magic the gathering (as someone who plays neither) is that a yugioh card says like “if you own a Blorbionicus the King of Red Eyes in your pendulum summon zone (but NOT your left pendulum summon zone) you can special summon (NOT ritual or zexal or pendulum summon) sixteen cards named Blorbimini (excluding Maid Blorbimini) to any zone EXCEPT the super double defense zone” and no one can explain this to me but meanwhile a magic the gathering card says “flying. after the end of your turn draw a card” and people are like oh those fools bc the action only goes on the stack after the end of your turn and because of the use of ‘your’ instead of ‘the owner’s’ and because mercury is in gatorade, technically it only resolves during the opponents third upkeep when explicitly you cant draw cards or else a sniper will shoot you

056dd8bb8c82aa0de0df08f178a7ec3ce93ea270

it is my understanding that because one instance of an ability says “when you tap this card you can gain one mana” and another says “tap this card to gain one mana” they are meaningfully distinct and the former may or may not be legally allowable in multiple situations that the latter clearly is (bc of the definitions of a Mana Ability). this has been explained to me and I even vaguely understand the reasons. i still think it is very fucking funny.

God, I hate that I actually know which card(s) this refers to.

Anyway, have one of my favorite images on the internet.

b0d0eb3e2e16fea2680a3787b507ea90cf7c6da7

thank you so much I hate this. what do you MEAN +2 and -2 don’t cancel out,


Tags:

#anything that makes me laugh this much deserves a reblog #(honestly the single funniest part of this is ”mercury is in gatorade”) #Magic the Gathering #fun with loopholes #this post was queued because my to-reblog list is too long and I didn’t want to dump it on you all at once

garmbreak1:

Indestructible is my least favourite keyword in MTG

 

shieldfoss:

“cannot be countered” might not have a keyword but it, is bad

 

brazenautomaton:

cry more blue mage

what is the slur for blue mages, imagine I said that

 

samueldays:

Fortunately for blue mages, everything can be countered. ;-)

Just cast Time Stop. It’s like Wrath of God for spells, nearly reading ‘Destroy all spells on the stack. Even the uncounterable ones.’ Speaking of WoG, I agree with Indestructible being a terrible keyword, the worse for becoming so normal it began to replace regeneration and circumnerf WoG.

 

rustingbridges:

indestructible was fine as a block keyword that only came on overpriced creatures, at a time when properly priced creatures were more expensive.

idk what it’s like these days


Tags:

#Magic the Gathering #discourse cw? #anything that makes me laugh this much deserves a reblog #(”what is the slur for blue mages‚ imagine I said that”) #((note: I don’t actually speak Magic the Gathering))

allthingslinguistic:

Noam Chomsky: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” is a sentence that is grammatically correct, but semantically nonsensical. 

 Me, a Magic the Gathering player:

Ausir on twitter


Tags:

#I don’t actually speak MtG #but apparently I’m a sucker for ”colorless green ideas sleep furiously” jokes #(this is the third one I’ve reblogged over the years) #language #Magic the Gathering

orb-warded-kor-warlord:

BFZ Allies: Crack paramilitary squad of fighters willing to lay down their lives for Zendikar. Bards are conspicuously absent.

Zendikar-Block Allies: A bunch of cocky assholes who are bound only by the profit motive and would gladly betray each other for a Kit Kat. Bards are present.


Tags:

#anything that makes me laugh this much deserves a reblog #I don’t even *recognise* this jargon let alone speak it #I just find ‘would gladly betray each other for a Kit Kat’ hilarious #(P.S. I poked through the tags other people have used for this and apparently the jargon it’s in is) #Magic the Gathering #(still laughing about Kit Kats)