Watsa
@watsabeholder.bsky.social
Just a nerd trying to tone down his toxicity online. Feel free to call me out on it.
If that's what you need for your own mental health, then you do you.
It's normal to dislike something about the game and to feel free to talk about it, though. Most people I see who take issue with UB have a lot they love about the game, which is why the one issue stings.
It's normal to dislike something about the game and to feel free to talk about it, though. Most people I see who take issue with UB have a lot they love about the game, which is why the one issue stings.
August 27, 2025 at 3:10 PM
If that's what you need for your own mental health, then you do you.
It's normal to dislike something about the game and to feel free to talk about it, though. Most people I see who take issue with UB have a lot they love about the game, which is why the one issue stings.
It's normal to dislike something about the game and to feel free to talk about it, though. Most people I see who take issue with UB have a lot they love about the game, which is why the one issue stings.
And as someone who is disillusioned with the game, but does love it immensely, this argument really doesn't work for someone like me.
I guess you can add that to your anecdotes.
I guess you can add that to your anecdotes.
August 27, 2025 at 3:07 PM
And as someone who is disillusioned with the game, but does love it immensely, this argument really doesn't work for someone like me.
I guess you can add that to your anecdotes.
I guess you can add that to your anecdotes.
There are people that are determined to be mad at WOTC, that's for sure. But those same people need to be pulled back from directing that anger at people who like what WotC is doing. I'm still interested in doing that to make the mtg community better.
August 27, 2025 at 3:06 PM
There are people that are determined to be mad at WOTC, that's for sure. But those same people need to be pulled back from directing that anger at people who like what WotC is doing. I'm still interested in doing that to make the mtg community better.
I've seen the argument before and I've seen more people pushed away by it.
If you want to call me a pedant, then okay. I don't care if you think I'm being pedantic. To me it matters, sorry if it mattering to me is frustrating or something.
If you want to call me a pedant, then okay. I don't care if you think I'm being pedantic. To me it matters, sorry if it mattering to me is frustrating or something.
August 27, 2025 at 1:45 PM
I've seen the argument before and I've seen more people pushed away by it.
If you want to call me a pedant, then okay. I don't care if you think I'm being pedantic. To me it matters, sorry if it mattering to me is frustrating or something.
If you want to call me a pedant, then okay. I don't care if you think I'm being pedantic. To me it matters, sorry if it mattering to me is frustrating or something.
Not yelling at you on the other side of this or anything*
Voice to text likes to cut at really weird points.
Voice to text likes to cut at really weird points.
August 27, 2025 at 1:44 PM
Not yelling at you on the other side of this or anything*
Voice to text likes to cut at really weird points.
Voice to text likes to cut at really weird points.
Intention is hard through text. I am chill. I'm not on the other side of this. Trying to yell at you or anything. I already responded about it in another comment to you because blue sky is a little weird and I thought that was the response to this.
I understood you as discussing a disagreement.
I understood you as discussing a disagreement.
August 27, 2025 at 1:44 PM
Intention is hard through text. I am chill. I'm not on the other side of this. Trying to yell at you or anything. I already responded about it in another comment to you because blue sky is a little weird and I thought that was the response to this.
I understood you as discussing a disagreement.
I understood you as discussing a disagreement.
That's fine. Look back at what I said. Referencing a change of one word is me saying that's a signpost that the intention of the story might be different.
Add in all the discussion of transmutation, alchemy and Gaia... And it becomes clear this is not intended as sci-fi.
Add in all the discussion of transmutation, alchemy and Gaia... And it becomes clear this is not intended as sci-fi.
August 27, 2025 at 1:30 PM
That's fine. Look back at what I said. Referencing a change of one word is me saying that's a signpost that the intention of the story might be different.
Add in all the discussion of transmutation, alchemy and Gaia... And it becomes clear this is not intended as sci-fi.
Add in all the discussion of transmutation, alchemy and Gaia... And it becomes clear this is not intended as sci-fi.
I don't actually disagree with this. My point was more that the argument being made does not look good and does not play good to people who disagree with you.
If it does, neither of those things, we shouldn't rely on it when talking about the current state of magic.
If it does, neither of those things, we shouldn't rely on it when talking about the current state of magic.
August 27, 2025 at 1:26 PM
I don't actually disagree with this. My point was more that the argument being made does not look good and does not play good to people who disagree with you.
If it does, neither of those things, we shouldn't rely on it when talking about the current state of magic.
If it does, neither of those things, we shouldn't rely on it when talking about the current state of magic.
But making the argument to people who may disagree with you that the current state of magic is what Garfield intended or is close to what Garfield wanted, looks incredibly disingenuous. It is what makes people who disagree with you dig in rather than see your side.
August 27, 2025 at 1:25 PM
But making the argument to people who may disagree with you that the current state of magic is what Garfield intended or is close to what Garfield wanted, looks incredibly disingenuous. It is what makes people who disagree with you dig in rather than see your side.
Garfield was pretty clear that he meant for for Arabian nights to be a part of Magic's world. If we take Garfield as the arbiter of what is true magic then it was intended.
A lot of wizards work is built or based on external IP. It's when that is integrated into the world that it's all right.
A lot of wizards work is built or based on external IP. It's when that is integrated into the world that it's all right.
August 27, 2025 at 1:24 PM
Garfield was pretty clear that he meant for for Arabian nights to be a part of Magic's world. If we take Garfield as the arbiter of what is true magic then it was intended.
A lot of wizards work is built or based on external IP. It's when that is integrated into the world that it's all right.
A lot of wizards work is built or based on external IP. It's when that is integrated into the world that it's all right.
That wasn't my full argument, but cool straw man.
It's not cool to make fun of people who like universes beyond. We do not need to rely on arguments that are specious like this one to make that point. Because for anyone on the other side, this argument looks disingenuous.
It's not cool to make fun of people who like universes beyond. We do not need to rely on arguments that are specious like this one to make that point. Because for anyone on the other side, this argument looks disingenuous.
August 27, 2025 at 1:22 PM
That wasn't my full argument, but cool straw man.
It's not cool to make fun of people who like universes beyond. We do not need to rely on arguments that are specious like this one to make that point. Because for anyone on the other side, this argument looks disingenuous.
It's not cool to make fun of people who like universes beyond. We do not need to rely on arguments that are specious like this one to make that point. Because for anyone on the other side, this argument looks disingenuous.
It directly means that it isn't IP. Intellectual property is the term, my man. Public domain works are no longer property. You are just categorically wrong on this.
August 27, 2025 at 12:51 PM
It directly means that it isn't IP. Intellectual property is the term, my man. Public domain works are no longer property. You are just categorically wrong on this.
And AN still wasn't an IP at that point, it was public domain and usable by all. A very small team utilizing public domain folklore is not comparable to a huge team directly utilizing another IP
August 27, 2025 at 12:50 PM
And AN still wasn't an IP at that point, it was public domain and usable by all. A very small team utilizing public domain folklore is not comparable to a huge team directly utilizing another IP
Notice how you had to identify them as 'artificers' and not 'engineers?' it's because this is fantasy, not sci-fi.
There's whole cards giving reference to things like alchemy, Gaea, etc. It's but a sci-fi set.
it's not chill to be mean to people who like UB, but let's not bullshit ourselves.
There's whole cards giving reference to things like alchemy, Gaea, etc. It's but a sci-fi set.
it's not chill to be mean to people who like UB, but let's not bullshit ourselves.
August 27, 2025 at 4:39 AM
Notice how you had to identify them as 'artificers' and not 'engineers?' it's because this is fantasy, not sci-fi.
There's whole cards giving reference to things like alchemy, Gaea, etc. It's but a sci-fi set.
it's not chill to be mean to people who like UB, but let's not bullshit ourselves.
There's whole cards giving reference to things like alchemy, Gaea, etc. It's but a sci-fi set.
it's not chill to be mean to people who like UB, but let's not bullshit ourselves.
>"it isn't based on folklore
>"Puts a specific book of folklore directly onto cards"
Pick one, you can't have both. Specifically, your original statement is just factually wrong, because AN wasn't an IP when the set came out because it was no one's property any more than the concept of "dragon."
>"Puts a specific book of folklore directly onto cards"
Pick one, you can't have both. Specifically, your original statement is just factually wrong, because AN wasn't an IP when the set came out because it was no one's property any more than the concept of "dragon."
August 27, 2025 at 4:33 AM
>"it isn't based on folklore
>"Puts a specific book of folklore directly onto cards"
Pick one, you can't have both. Specifically, your original statement is just factually wrong, because AN wasn't an IP when the set came out because it was no one's property any more than the concept of "dragon."
>"Puts a specific book of folklore directly onto cards"
Pick one, you can't have both. Specifically, your original statement is just factually wrong, because AN wasn't an IP when the set came out because it was no one's property any more than the concept of "dragon."
I mean, it is a hat set. Did the original Ravnica set need to borrow a bunch of Clue references to tell the story of a detective in this complex guild focused society? No. It spent way more time expanding the different guilds themselves and building the world.
August 27, 2025 at 4:19 AM
I mean, it is a hat set. Did the original Ravnica set need to borrow a bunch of Clue references to tell the story of a detective in this complex guild focused society? No. It spent way more time expanding the different guilds themselves and building the world.
Probably because it's a really bad oversimplification. Rabiah is based on folklore, not an "external IP." The "sci-fi war" just isn't sci-fi (it's high fantasy magic powering machines, a trope that's existed for ages).
August 27, 2025 at 4:17 AM
Probably because it's a really bad oversimplification. Rabiah is based on folklore, not an "external IP." The "sci-fi war" just isn't sci-fi (it's high fantasy magic powering machines, a trope that's existed for ages).
I get what you're saying, why do you not get what I'm saying?
January 14, 2025 at 7:32 AM
I get what you're saying, why do you not get what I'm saying?
A loss is a loss, homie. What did the game do for his team? This is a team game, after all.
January 6, 2025 at 1:13 AM
A loss is a loss, homie. What did the game do for his team? This is a team game, after all.
Josh Allen lost to 2024 patriots.
The right move was to let a QB that's been fighting an injury, and a fairly injured starting lineup, rest for the week. They've already secured the bye, playing them would literally be stupid
(That's what playing Josh Allen for that garbage performance was, btw)
The right move was to let a QB that's been fighting an injury, and a fairly injured starting lineup, rest for the week. They've already secured the bye, playing them would literally be stupid
(That's what playing Josh Allen for that garbage performance was, btw)
January 5, 2025 at 11:05 PM
Josh Allen lost to 2024 patriots.
The right move was to let a QB that's been fighting an injury, and a fairly injured starting lineup, rest for the week. They've already secured the bye, playing them would literally be stupid
(That's what playing Josh Allen for that garbage performance was, btw)
The right move was to let a QB that's been fighting an injury, and a fairly injured starting lineup, rest for the week. They've already secured the bye, playing them would literally be stupid
(That's what playing Josh Allen for that garbage performance was, btw)