Page Summary
xp_daytripper - (no subject)
x-tarot.livejournal.com - ...
xp_daytripper - Re: ...
x-tarot.livejournal.com - Re: ...
xp_daytripper - Re: ...
x-tarot.livejournal.com - Re: ...
x-cypher.livejournal.com - Re: ...
x-rahne.livejournal.com - (no subject)
x-cloud.livejournal.com - (no subject)
xp_daytripper - (no subject)
x-jubilee.livejournal.com - Wow
x-tarot.livejournal.com - Re: Wow
x-tarot.livejournal.com - Re: ...
x-tarot.livejournal.com - (no subject)
x-jubilee.livejournal.com - *looks innocent*
x-tarot.livejournal.com - Re: *looks innocent*
x-crowdofone.livejournal.com - Re: *looks innocent*
x-tarot.livejournal.com - Re: *looks innocent*
x-crowdofone.livejournal.com - Re: *looks innocent*
x-tarot.livejournal.com - Re: *looks innocent*
x-tarot.livejournal.com - Re: *looks innocent*
x-crowdofone.livejournal.com - Re: *looks innocent*
x-crowdofone.livejournal.com - Re: *looks innocent*
x-tarot.livejournal.com - Re: *looks innocent*
x-tarot.livejournal.com - Re: *looks innocent*
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags

no subject
Date: 2004-06-05 07:30 pm (UTC)...
Date: 2004-06-05 07:32 pm (UTC)Re: ...
Date: 2004-06-05 07:35 pm (UTC)Re: ...
Date: 2004-06-05 07:37 pm (UTC)I just had a thought.
Re: ...
Date: 2004-06-05 07:39 pm (UTC)Re: ...
Date: 2004-06-05 07:40 pm (UTC)Re: ...
Date: 2004-06-05 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-05 08:21 pm (UTC)Oh dear.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-05 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-05 09:43 pm (UTC)Wow
Date: 2004-06-05 10:07 pm (UTC)Re: Wow
Date: 2004-06-05 10:10 pm (UTC)...
Jubilee? Is there something you need to tell me that you know to call Wizards "Wotc" ? I mean, you aren't hiding a big pile of cards around anywhere, are you?
:)
Re: ...
Date: 2004-06-05 11:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-05 11:11 pm (UTC)*looks innocent*
Date: 2004-06-05 11:15 pm (UTC)Re: *looks innocent*
Date: 2004-06-05 11:22 pm (UTC)Oh lord. Jubilee, Miles still tries to argue that skeletons should get to leave the graveyard whenever they want because they're skeletons.
When Doug wakes up, I'll have him see if we can put together a good simple deck for you to learn from that does not follow eight year old logic, if you want.
Re: *looks innocent*
Date: 2004-06-05 11:37 pm (UTC)Which is probably why he still argues, because we tend to use the Madrox/Blaire Variation rules when we play . . .
Re: *looks innocent*
Date: 2004-06-05 11:43 pm (UTC)Are you the one who taught Miles that you use cookies as life counters and you get to eat the life counters of your opponent? Because I could get into that rules variant.
Re: *looks innocent*
Date: 2004-06-05 11:47 pm (UTC)And it doesn't make sense to have Holy Strength and Unholy Strength on the same card. You'd get theologically confused. I mean, one of your arms would be trying to shield and protect the innocent, and the other one would be trying to steal candy from babies (with super-strength!) and you wouldn't be able to fight the other guy's monster. It'd be bad.
Re: *looks innocent*
Date: 2004-06-05 11:51 pm (UTC)If only because Doug's latest deck tries to win with taking away my library and it means I get all the cookies no matter what. ;)
Magic The Gathering Logic is Not as Earth Logic.
Re: *looks innocent*
Date: 2004-06-05 11:54 pm (UTC)Re: *looks innocent*
Date: 2004-06-05 11:55 pm (UTC)Also rats. And sometimes wolves.
And they can climb walls.
And I have two of them in my deck, but that's completely unrelated.
Re: *looks innocent*
Date: 2004-06-05 11:56 pm (UTC)And I'm getting that about the logic.
Re: *looks innocent*
Date: 2004-06-05 11:57 pm (UTC)Then you won't object at all to playing against my green deck with all trees and wood? Vampires are vunerable to wood, you know.
Re: *looks innocent*
Date: 2004-06-05 11:58 pm (UTC)