Comments for SameOldSchmidt http://www.sameoldschmidt.com tilt tilt tilt tilt tilt tilt tilt tilt tilt tilt tilt tilt Thu, 02 Sep 2010 05:36:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on Magic Online 4 Pack Sealed by suntitanz http://www.sameoldschmidt.com/?p=147&cpage=1#comment-388 suntitanz Thu, 02 Sep 2010 05:36:22 +0000 http://www.sameoldschmidt.com/?p=147#comment-388 these are always fun i love doing drafts at my local cardshop these are always fun i love doing drafts at my local cardshop

]]> Comment on So, like, um, like… yeah. by tina http://www.sameoldschmidt.com/?p=90&cpage=1#comment-343 tina Thu, 27 May 2010 20:04:09 +0000 http://www.sameoldschmidt.com/?p=90#comment-343 So, if they could like, wear uniforms and stuff, and, like, not hide and stuff, it'd be easier to, like, fight terrorism, which is really, like, what the founding fathers did, right? The founding fathers were terrorists. It's pretty insidious. So, if they could like, wear uniforms and stuff, and, like, not hide and stuff, it’d be easier to, like, fight terrorism, which is really, like, what the founding fathers did, right? The founding fathers were terrorists. It’s pretty insidious.

]]> Comment on The Cost of Cards by Jeff http://www.sameoldschmidt.com/?p=47&cpage=1#comment-281 Jeff Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:38:56 +0000 http://www.sameoldschmidt.com/?p=47#comment-281 You win first comment on my site! :) Mindless Null is terrible because it costs too much mana versus its value on the battlefield. It's a 2/2 for 3 mana, with a significant drawback (can't block unless you also have a vampire). If you're playing constructed format, there are many, many other cards for the same mana cost (or less!) that would be better to play. Now, as is my wishy-washy way: I will say that if you were playing limited format, a 2/2 creature for 3 might fit into that deck depending on the rest of your card pool. You wouldn't be thrilled about it, though. Think of it this way: <a href="http://magiccards.info/zen/en/116.html" rel="nofollow">Vampire Nighthawk</a> costs basically the same mana as <a href="http://magiccards.info/zen/en/103.html" rel="nofollow">Mindless Null.</a> The Nighthawk is clearly a way better black creature for 3 mana. You win first comment on my site! :)

Mindless Null is terrible because it costs too much mana versus its value on the battlefield. It’s a 2/2 for 3 mana, with a significant drawback (can’t block unless you also have a vampire). If you’re playing constructed format, there are many, many other cards for the same mana cost (or less!) that would be better to play.

Now, as is my wishy-washy way: I will say that if you were playing limited format, a 2/2 creature for 3 might fit into that deck depending on the rest of your card pool. You wouldn’t be thrilled about it, though.

Think of it this way: Vampire Nighthawk costs basically the same mana as Mindless Null. The Nighthawk is clearly a way better black creature for 3 mana.

]]> Comment on The Cost of Cards by spkthed http://www.sameoldschmidt.com/?p=47&cpage=1#comment-280 spkthed Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:42:25 +0000 http://www.sameoldschmidt.com/?p=47#comment-280 So, uh, why is the Mindless Null bad? Seems a bit high on the mana cost but a black deck typically has vampire creatures, doesn't it? So, uh, why is the Mindless Null bad? Seems a bit high on the mana cost but a black deck typically has vampire creatures, doesn’t it?

]]>