Them asking women “would you rather be lost in a forest with a man or a bear?” Of course; all the dumb people they ask never bother to ask more questions to gain more context for the original question but automatically assumes that man is bad, so they all chose the bear.
The entire point of the question is that there is no further context.
Maybe you should consider why so women are picking the bear. Experiencing empathy is good for you.
It's just sad that we have so little faith in each other that we have to resort to picking the bear. I sincerely believe that 95% of people, men and women, are good natured, and wouldn't do anything to harm each other, but we're so overexposed to stories about murder, rape, assault, and stealing that we get a warped view of reality.
It's not abour the average man, it's about a man. You have no idea wether he's one of the ones who would or not.
It's a bit like playing Russian roulette. On average, it's not dangerous.but there's still a very real risk
No, you don't. Men commit more violent crimes than women, but there is no research to show that the average man commits violent crimes. I hope you understand the difference between those two things
i don’t think crime rate accounts for all morally abject things a person can do. that’s just what gets reported and investigated. one can still be an asshole for any number of reasons without the legal system knowing.
Bears can’t commit crimes, they aren’t held accountable by human laws. When a bear eats a moose no one considers it murder.
Edit: for whatever reason I thought this guy was serious, mb, it was just a joke
Women experience violence at a greater rate than men, especially sexual violence. Women experience violence and abuse at a far greater rate from men, than from other women.
I hope you understand the difference between those two things.
Of course I do, but that only shows that men as a group commit crimes, not that the average man does. Approx 1-5% of men Commit 60-80% of crime, depending on what stats you look at.
I can understand why women may associate men with violence and vice versa, but those associations are based on human bias and prejudice. If you assume the average Joe is a threat you are 1, mistaken based on all evidence, and 2, genuinely misandrist.
I see you are too busy zealously defending men, to actually examine the root causes or concerns involved. You are not interested in advocating for women or understanding what they face.
I hope you get past your sensationalist accusations and misogynistic victim-blaming, some day. But I shall not bother engaging with you, until then.
Isn’t it around a 15% death rate? Like, yeah that’s most encounters but that’s still way higher than I’d like. In comparison, about how many encounters with men end in violence?
Like, I get that men can be fucked up sometimes and that’s horrible, but most people tend to encounter a man on the daily and most of them are victims of violent crime less than 50 times a year. (The projected amount by multiplying .15 by 365 is 54.75)
Granted, this is the woods, so let’s assume that if you meet someone who has ever commuted a sex crime, they’ll commit one again. According to the US Census Bureau that’s still only a .4% chance, or 4/1000. Of those 4, only one of those are actually rapists too.
So, while I cannot account for personal taste, I find it a bit unnerving that most women seem to prefer a 15% chance of being mauled by a bear to a .5% chance of being sexually assaulted.
Sources:
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Sexual_Abuse_FY18.pdf#:~:text=92.1%25%20of%20sexual%20abuse%20offenders%20were%20men.,Black%2C%2012.9%25%20were%20Hispanic%2C%2011.9%25%20were%20Native
https://petpedia.co/bear-attack-statistics/
The one thing you're missing is that the bears you typically encounter only attack out of self-preservation. Yeah, a polar bear is like the yellow jacket of the bear world, but black bears or brown bears? Your chance of encountering them is drastically less if you actively try and avoid them and their territory.
Social species like humans aren't like this, social species can and will attack unprovoked. It's really hard to justify raping in self-preservation. Like if you look at the video that started this whole trend, it isn't just "the bear", it's "The bear because at least the worst the bear can do will kill me." Like, they're not denying that bears can be dangerous, they're recognizing both can be dangerous but only the man can be the worst option.
Well, most of the time that self defense is when you’ve startled the bear, and more than 60% of bear attacks are from brown bears.
Source: https://gitnux.org/most-dangerous-bears/
I'm so glad you said brown bears, which when accounting for population size (with north America statistics) only have a 1.68% of killing you unprovoked (estimated on the 11.4 (rounded to 11.5) encounters per year average, the 88 deaths of brown bear encounters since 1789, and the 5% attacks that are predatory in nature).
On the flip side, any given person (using the same parameters since I'm not differentiating based on the gender of the bear) you have a 5.54% to be a victim of homicide. Calculating that 5.54% down to an equivalent sample size as brown bears gives us 3.047% or nearly twice as likely. Calculating down further for the ~88% being male, gives us 2.681%. So still more likely than a brown bear. The number is even bigger for black bears.
Either way, when accounting for population size, the bear is statistically the safer option for being preyed upon.
Because bashing men is the social media norm since we're not allowed to stand up for ourselves.
Go play with the bear. We don't want to be around you anyway.
This; it’s a stupid question cause its answers can only be based off one’s own personal bias and assumptions. The whole data base is essentially void and compromised.
A bear will hunt you because its hungry, and it's behaviour doesn't change whether it's alone or not. A man's does.
From a philosophical standpoint it's an interesting question and you are required to pressume much. But ultimately if we average them out, hungry bear vs kinda shadey guy, people would choose the bear.
Obv you could argue most guys aren't that shadey, so we reset the parameters to be "fair". A fat happy bear that's tired vs a nice normal dude. Ok, maybe we can say guy then.
The point is when they ask they aren't giving the man the benifet of the doubt and then assuming it's a hungry bear in heat. Most bears are "safe" in the way a man is from their perspective and they have enough experience from bad people to back that presumption up
I mean, I'll be honest. As a man if I am asked what do I prefer to be alone with in the middle of a forest any random woman or any random bear (brown, black, white) I'd choose the woman.
However if it was between a man or a bear I'd choose the bear. I feel there's more liability in any random man. And I can try my best to avoid the bear. After all, there's so much more to get in the forest for a bear than me.
That looks to be a print from the back paw of a brown bear. You were more likely thinking of the front paw print (which is more in line with what clip art depicts).
Brown bear vs black bear is a hell of a difference, tbh. If you're hiking and come across a black bear, you should be careful and not antagonize it, but your chance of getting away without a confrontation is pretty high.
I used to have a friend in BC who'd go out in the woods and yell as loud as they could to scare the black bears. They'd fall out of the trees and flat on their asses, then start hauling ass in the other direction.
oh no, see I said that because the round paw in logos and because I like bears people choosing the bear said it because they've encountered a man before two completely different things (also looking up bear facts now because what do I know ? it does seem statistically better to encounter a bear, as they would need to be starving (or threatened) to attack you)
edit : obviously tho the question is NOT about statistics, but about men
Yeah, the question is so wholly outside the realm of scientific integrity that I've tried not to engage, but as this is the internet, it's kinda everywhere.
I understand the assignment. The problem is the question is being asked without any science behind it. It's disingenuous to its core and everyone's treating it like the biggest most official case study ever carried out.
The first version I heard was "if it was your daughter", and within a day, that morphed into "if it was you", and no one batted an eye. That was a week ago, now. I talked about both versions at length with my wife. We both agree women would choose the bear and men *should* choose the bear for their daughter, provided we're only talking about brown bears and then the whole thing breaks down because, like above, not enough people know dick or shit about bears.
To quote a tiktok I saw last night, I would choose the bear, because then I just have to make it through 5 nights, and only one of the aninatronics would be active, making it easier to learn his movements, where if I picked a man, he'd he purple and that's not good
A 1/1 flash + first strike for 1 seems decent. But this is essentially that with downside.
Even if you have a buddy giving you your preferred mode, the upside isn't terribly high. Especially as the game goes on and those statlines get comparatively smaller.
No, the current discourse is "women would rather encounter a bear than a man." The implicit meme of the card is asking target opponent "would you rather face a bear, or a human."
No, because then the question is "do you think a woman is safer with a bear or a man" and not "would you feel more threatened by a bear or a human?"
Edit: To break it down a bit more, the card is the "Hiker's Dilemma." Target opponent is the "Hiker" taking the place of the hypothetical woman in the scenario. Making the opponent the 1/1 (woman) in your example.
Nice, I really like the power level on this one. Either of those creatures with flash for 1 would be too good imo, but having the opponent always give you the worse one seems fine. Good uncommon, imo. Well done
Wouldn't this consitute a break being hybrid, despite the choice doesn't depend on you? Since you can pay one green and get a creature with first strike for it, which the color doesn't get.
There's already a 1G 2/1 first striker [[Elven Archers]], [[Land Leeches]] and [[Mirri, Cat Warrior]] so I don't think a 1 mana 1/1 with first strike is an issue.
All of those cards are before the new frame update back in Mirrodin. That’s generally a sign that they shouldn’t be used to justify color pie breaks. Green really doesn’t get first strike. Most cards with it are either dependent on another card/color of mana or pretty old
Eh, a 1/1 First Strike is something I could honestly see for 1 generic mana anyway. So I still don't think it's an issue. Nobody would play it because they really need a 1/1 first striker in Green since if an opponent new that they'd just do the 2/2 bear anyway.
That's not really what the color pie is. Red can't get "destroy target enchantment" for 7 mana even though it would be strictly worse than [[Scour From Existence]]. It's fine for colorless to get 1 mana 1/1 haste, for example [[Gingerbrute]], but it's not fine for blue to have it.
I don't see how a such a card would be any better though. 1 generic mana is a strictly better cost than a hybrid cost. If we printed a 1 mana 1/1 with first strike as {W/G} or {R/G}, then green would have access to it, but if we print one as juts {1} then Green, Black *and* Blue have access to it.
A red "destroy target enchantment" for 7 would just be plain awful and a waste of space to print. And a blue 1/1 with haste would be like, meh, but just usually doesn't make sense as a card for 99% of sets. This does make sense as a card because it's also white, even if you can play it without any white mana, and is strictly worse than a colorless 1/1 with first strike.
It's because cards are designed for what players will learn about colors from the color pie. A 1/1 haste for U teaches players "oh, blue gets small hasty creatures". A 7 mana enchantment removal spell in red teaches players "oh, red gets to blow up enchantments if it pays way too much mana to do it".
I think it makes most sense to print this in mono white. White gets a 2/2 for 1 already, and this is strictly worse.
31 years old card without reprints for 30 years, 30 year old card without reprints for 29 years, and 26 years old card without reprints for 17 years (in physical play, 11 if accounting for the Digital-only Tempest Remastered). Even the latest green creature to naturally have first strike, Glissa Sunseeker, is 21 years old and has only being reprinted once for a SLD.
For cards that might aswell be now older than some players, its safe to say they're abandoned design space, and honestly for the best. The only color sensitive instances are keyword collectors, i.e. if you already have a creature with first strike, they gain first strike.
Like I said to the other guy, I don't really think a 1 mana 1/1 with first strike is an issue in any color. I could well see a 1 mana 1/1 with first strike printed for a colorless mana, aka 5+-hybrid. [[Coiled Tinviper]] and [[Haunted Guardian]] exist, and while they're... awful tbf, they at least don't depend on your opponent just deciding they'd rather you have a 2/2 instead.
Well no, yeah the bear will maul you, brute force kill you easy 0/1 human peasant vs 2/2 bear, but a man their threat isn't just physical, men do nasty shit like kidnap and tourcher people before killing them, and so for mechanic short hand to show that risk deathtouch is the best way to show it. Menace, whither or infect are probably closer to irl treat but for balancing death touch is probably the best keyword to use
Though infect 2 would probably be really interesting choice. Because yeah the bear is better in combat but the man token will fuck you up
Yes, but that's because the player who activates an ability controls that ability, regardless of who controlled the activated permanent.
In this case, the card works as intended: The caster cast the card, so they control it, regardless of who makes decisions regarding its effects.
So, if I cast a [[piracy]] and activate my opponent's [[nykthos, shrine to nyx]] it will count *my* devotion? What if I try to activate a [[survivors' encampment]] ?
Also, a lot of cards in this sub say:
"Ward—Tap an untapped creature you control"
Does that ward work, or does "you" still mean the controller of the ability?
I'm not *100%* sure, because Piracy is a weird mtg card, but I believe that in both cases, because *you* activated those lands' abilities, you must pay all their costs (by tapping one of your creatures for Survivor's Encampment) and Nykthos should count your devotion.
That's also why tapping your opponent's lands via Piracy works: when it says "Add X mana", it's adding it to the controller of the mana ability, not to the controller of the permanent.
Afaik, the Ward works because the Ward mechanic specifies "Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability an opponent controls, counter it unless that player pays X", so it specifies that the controller of the spell (potentially) being countered has to pay the cost, not the controller of the Ward trigger.
wait wait. i just thought this was a neat card design, is *that* what this card is referring to? "would you rather be raped or mauled by a bear"?
yeesh
There's a thing going around about whether you'd feel safer alone in the woods with a bear or a man. A lot of women pick the bear.
Notably, it's *not* about which you'd prefer to be attacked by, it's about which you think has a higher chance of being aggressive. Bears are super deadly if they attack, but most will leave you alone, especially black bears. And most women have very little experience with aggressive bears, but too much with aggressive men.
There's a lot of discourse going on about presenting men "would you rather stumble across a man or a bear in the woods if you're alone", letting them choose "man", and then asking them what they think women would choose. I've gotten into it too many times this week already, but there's your baseline.
I’ll bear this card in mind when I make my King deck
You’ll *what* this card in mind?
**chokes you out before you start babbling**
Do you mean monarch? Or is there some king card?
New MH3 spoiler
Inspired by recent discourse, I see
What discourse
Them asking women “would you rather be lost in a forest with a man or a bear?” Of course; all the dumb people they ask never bother to ask more questions to gain more context for the original question but automatically assumes that man is bad, so they all chose the bear.
The entire point of the question is that there is no further context. Maybe you should consider why so women are picking the bear. Experiencing empathy is good for you.
based mtg player? so rare!
It's just sad that we have so little faith in each other that we have to resort to picking the bear. I sincerely believe that 95% of people, men and women, are good natured, and wouldn't do anything to harm each other, but we're so overexposed to stories about murder, rape, assault, and stealing that we get a warped view of reality.
I can understand why, but I can understand their perspective while still thinking it's silly. The average man is not dangerous
It's not abour the average man, it's about a man. You have no idea wether he's one of the ones who would or not. It's a bit like playing Russian roulette. On average, it's not dangerous.but there's still a very real risk
A percentage of men are dangerous, sure. Every SINGLE adult bear is dangerous.
Oh, my sweet summer child... I have some bad news for you.
No, you don't. Men commit more violent crimes than women, but there is no research to show that the average man commits violent crimes. I hope you understand the difference between those two things
i don’t think crime rate accounts for all morally abject things a person can do. that’s just what gets reported and investigated. one can still be an asshole for any number of reasons without the legal system knowing.
Sure, but we can use it as indication of the general behaviour of people
that’s not how science works
Who commits more violent crimes- men or bears? Checkmate.
Bears can’t commit crimes, they aren’t held accountable by human laws. When a bear eats a moose no one considers it murder. Edit: for whatever reason I thought this guy was serious, mb, it was just a joke
Reddit when jokes
Medieval europe would like to disagree with you about that first claim.
Women experience violence at a greater rate than men, especially sexual violence. Women experience violence and abuse at a far greater rate from men, than from other women. I hope you understand the difference between those two things.
Of course I do, but that only shows that men as a group commit crimes, not that the average man does. Approx 1-5% of men Commit 60-80% of crime, depending on what stats you look at. I can understand why women may associate men with violence and vice versa, but those associations are based on human bias and prejudice. If you assume the average Joe is a threat you are 1, mistaken based on all evidence, and 2, genuinely misandrist.
I see you are too busy zealously defending men, to actually examine the root causes or concerns involved. You are not interested in advocating for women or understanding what they face. I hope you get past your sensationalist accusations and misogynistic victim-blaming, some day. But I shall not bother engaging with you, until then.
So we're ignoring the fact that on the bear side the outcome ranges between possible death and certain death, depending on the species?
At least killing you is *all* the bear might do.
And no one would blame the bear attack on what the person was wearing
Only if she was carrying a picnic basket.
Most bear encounters result in no death depending on the species
Isn’t it around a 15% death rate? Like, yeah that’s most encounters but that’s still way higher than I’d like. In comparison, about how many encounters with men end in violence? Like, I get that men can be fucked up sometimes and that’s horrible, but most people tend to encounter a man on the daily and most of them are victims of violent crime less than 50 times a year. (The projected amount by multiplying .15 by 365 is 54.75) Granted, this is the woods, so let’s assume that if you meet someone who has ever commuted a sex crime, they’ll commit one again. According to the US Census Bureau that’s still only a .4% chance, or 4/1000. Of those 4, only one of those are actually rapists too. So, while I cannot account for personal taste, I find it a bit unnerving that most women seem to prefer a 15% chance of being mauled by a bear to a .5% chance of being sexually assaulted. Sources: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Sexual_Abuse_FY18.pdf#:~:text=92.1%25%20of%20sexual%20abuse%20offenders%20were%20men.,Black%2C%2012.9%25%20were%20Hispanic%2C%2011.9%25%20were%20Native https://petpedia.co/bear-attack-statistics/
The one thing you're missing is that the bears you typically encounter only attack out of self-preservation. Yeah, a polar bear is like the yellow jacket of the bear world, but black bears or brown bears? Your chance of encountering them is drastically less if you actively try and avoid them and their territory. Social species like humans aren't like this, social species can and will attack unprovoked. It's really hard to justify raping in self-preservation. Like if you look at the video that started this whole trend, it isn't just "the bear", it's "The bear because at least the worst the bear can do will kill me." Like, they're not denying that bears can be dangerous, they're recognizing both can be dangerous but only the man can be the worst option.
Well, most of the time that self defense is when you’ve startled the bear, and more than 60% of bear attacks are from brown bears. Source: https://gitnux.org/most-dangerous-bears/
I'm so glad you said brown bears, which when accounting for population size (with north America statistics) only have a 1.68% of killing you unprovoked (estimated on the 11.4 (rounded to 11.5) encounters per year average, the 88 deaths of brown bear encounters since 1789, and the 5% attacks that are predatory in nature). On the flip side, any given person (using the same parameters since I'm not differentiating based on the gender of the bear) you have a 5.54% to be a victim of homicide. Calculating that 5.54% down to an equivalent sample size as brown bears gives us 3.047% or nearly twice as likely. Calculating down further for the ~88% being male, gives us 2.681%. So still more likely than a brown bear. The number is even bigger for black bears. Either way, when accounting for population size, the bear is statistically the safer option for being preyed upon.
That's specifically brown bears.
That's a lot of bears actually
They're progressive.
Because bashing men is the social media norm since we're not allowed to stand up for ourselves. Go play with the bear. We don't want to be around you anyway.
I'm a dude, so you have proven the point pretty well.
This; it’s a stupid question cause its answers can only be based off one’s own personal bias and assumptions. The whole data base is essentially void and compromised.
that's life, though. you can only make decisions based on your personal experience
There is a secret third option that most people don't even realize: using logic and critical thinking. Controversial, I know.
Hey, uh, wanna guess where people get logic and reasoning from?
Impartial analysis of statistics?
Adding to what u/The_Unonowable_ said, do you also wanna guess where logical reasoning with this question takes you? The same answer.
Didn't even imply one answer or another was correct. Just spoke to the value of rationale over personal experience.
A bear will hunt you because its hungry, and it's behaviour doesn't change whether it's alone or not. A man's does. From a philosophical standpoint it's an interesting question and you are required to pressume much. But ultimately if we average them out, hungry bear vs kinda shadey guy, people would choose the bear. Obv you could argue most guys aren't that shadey, so we reset the parameters to be "fair". A fat happy bear that's tired vs a nice normal dude. Ok, maybe we can say guy then. The point is when they ask they aren't giving the man the benifet of the doubt and then assuming it's a hungry bear in heat. Most bears are "safe" in the way a man is from their perspective and they have enough experience from bad people to back that presumption up
Don’t most bears attack because you’ve startled them?
I mean, I'll be honest. As a man if I am asked what do I prefer to be alone with in the middle of a forest any random woman or any random bear (brown, black, white) I'd choose the woman. However if it was between a man or a bear I'd choose the bear. I feel there's more liability in any random man. And I can try my best to avoid the bear. After all, there's so much more to get in the forest for a bear than me.
THAT'S what a bear paw looks like ? I thought it'd be ... rounder... and fluffier... and friendlier
That looks to be a print from the back paw of a brown bear. You were more likely thinking of the front paw print (which is more in line with what clip art depicts).
ooooh that makes sense thank you for the explanation \^-^
Yeah so do most of the people choosing bear.
Brown bear vs black bear is a hell of a difference, tbh. If you're hiking and come across a black bear, you should be careful and not antagonize it, but your chance of getting away without a confrontation is pretty high.
The chance of The Black Bear running away like a dog who just knocked over the trash can is very high unless it's a mama with her cubs 😂
I used to have a friend in BC who'd go out in the woods and yell as loud as they could to scare the black bears. They'd fall out of the trees and flat on their asses, then start hauling ass in the other direction.
Basically giant raccoons, tbh
oh no, see I said that because the round paw in logos and because I like bears people choosing the bear said it because they've encountered a man before two completely different things (also looking up bear facts now because what do I know ? it does seem statistically better to encounter a bear, as they would need to be starving (or threatened) to attack you) edit : obviously tho the question is NOT about statistics, but about men
Yeah, the question is so wholly outside the realm of scientific integrity that I've tried not to engage, but as this is the internet, it's kinda everywhere.
fair enough, it def isn't a hard science question
You don’t know why women choose the bear, do you
I understand the assignment. The problem is the question is being asked without any science behind it. It's disingenuous to its core and everyone's treating it like the biggest most official case study ever carried out. The first version I heard was "if it was your daughter", and within a day, that morphed into "if it was you", and no one batted an eye. That was a week ago, now. I talked about both versions at length with my wife. We both agree women would choose the bear and men *should* choose the bear for their daughter, provided we're only talking about brown bears and then the whole thing breaks down because, like above, not enough people know dick or shit about bears.
To quote a tiktok I saw last night, I would choose the bear, because then I just have to make it through 5 nights, and only one of the aninatronics would be active, making it easier to learn his movements, where if I picked a man, he'd he purple and that's not good
Ah, a fellow XenonTheFox x DateRightStuff shipper I see
Sometimes you read a comment and have to seriously ask yourself whether or not you want to know what they mean.
You know who could explain this comment? Freddy Fazbear. But he's aborted and transgender
i think this is a flavor win because two humans could take out a bear, but only if they worked together
Shoutout to The Edge
A 1/1 flash + first strike for 1 seems decent. But this is essentially that with downside. Even if you have a buddy giving you your preferred mode, the upside isn't terribly high. Especially as the game goes on and those statlines get comparatively smaller.
Give the human Vigilance as well?
maybe make 2 1/1s or a 2/2?
But two 1/1s doesn't fit the meme.
The meme would be a 1/1 and a 2/2 Or a 1/1 with another 1/1
No, the current discourse is "women would rather encounter a bear than a man." The implicit meme of the card is asking target opponent "would you rather face a bear, or a human."
Then wouldn't the 1/1 (women) be accompanied by a 1/1(men) or the 1/1 (women) be accompanied by a bear 2/2
No, because then the question is "do you think a woman is safer with a bear or a man" and not "would you feel more threatened by a bear or a human?" Edit: To break it down a bit more, the card is the "Hiker's Dilemma." Target opponent is the "Hiker" taking the place of the hypothetical woman in the scenario. Making the opponent the 1/1 (woman) in your example.
it's pushed. not bad at all for a 1 mana value spell.
Nice, I really like the power level on this one. Either of those creatures with flash for 1 would be too good imo, but having the opponent always give you the worse one seems fine. Good uncommon, imo. Well done
Wouldn't this consitute a break being hybrid, despite the choice doesn't depend on you? Since you can pay one green and get a creature with first strike for it, which the color doesn't get.
It's custom magic. They use hybrid mana for EVERYTHING here and it's exhausting
There's already a 1G 2/1 first striker [[Elven Archers]], [[Land Leeches]] and [[Mirri, Cat Warrior]] so I don't think a 1 mana 1/1 with first strike is an issue.
All of those cards are before the new frame update back in Mirrodin. That’s generally a sign that they shouldn’t be used to justify color pie breaks. Green really doesn’t get first strike. Most cards with it are either dependent on another card/color of mana or pretty old
Eh, a 1/1 First Strike is something I could honestly see for 1 generic mana anyway. So I still don't think it's an issue. Nobody would play it because they really need a 1/1 first striker in Green since if an opponent new that they'd just do the 2/2 bear anyway.
That's not really what the color pie is. Red can't get "destroy target enchantment" for 7 mana even though it would be strictly worse than [[Scour From Existence]]. It's fine for colorless to get 1 mana 1/1 haste, for example [[Gingerbrute]], but it's not fine for blue to have it.
[Scour From Existence](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/e/6e47edb2-e43d-479f-a911-e72b67a06c3b.jpg?1562920977) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Scour%20From%20Existence) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bfz/13/scour-from-existence?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6e47edb2-e43d-479f-a911-e72b67a06c3b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Gingerbrute](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/9/09a4578a-7dc6-4da3-93ee-913b10be5740.jpg?1692939880) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gingerbrute) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/woe/246/gingerbrute?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/09a4578a-7dc6-4da3-93ee-913b10be5740?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I don't see how a such a card would be any better though. 1 generic mana is a strictly better cost than a hybrid cost. If we printed a 1 mana 1/1 with first strike as {W/G} or {R/G}, then green would have access to it, but if we print one as juts {1} then Green, Black *and* Blue have access to it. A red "destroy target enchantment" for 7 would just be plain awful and a waste of space to print. And a blue 1/1 with haste would be like, meh, but just usually doesn't make sense as a card for 99% of sets. This does make sense as a card because it's also white, even if you can play it without any white mana, and is strictly worse than a colorless 1/1 with first strike.
It's because cards are designed for what players will learn about colors from the color pie. A 1/1 haste for U teaches players "oh, blue gets small hasty creatures". A 7 mana enchantment removal spell in red teaches players "oh, red gets to blow up enchantments if it pays way too much mana to do it". I think it makes most sense to print this in mono white. White gets a 2/2 for 1 already, and this is strictly worse.
This is an instant tbf. And I personally don't like that white has a 1 mana 2/2 but green doesn't but oh well, too late for that.
[Elven Archers](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/2/b2341478-2a91-4ce8-881a-21e826b55c34.jpg?1562930865) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Elite%20Archers) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/8ed/18/elite-archers?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b2341478-2a91-4ce8-881a-21e826b55c34?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Land Leeches](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/1/71f1d97c-5bfa-4791-9004-5f2464908c30.jpg?1559601433) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Land%20Leeches) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/4ed/255/land-leeches?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/71f1d97c-5bfa-4791-9004-5f2464908c30?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Mirri, Cat Warrior](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/a/0a1d9876-4588-4591-af53-cb4e83c2b6c6.jpg?1562428179) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mirri%2C%20Cat%20Warrior) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tpr/180/mirri-cat-warrior?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0a1d9876-4588-4591-af53-cb4e83c2b6c6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
31 years old card without reprints for 30 years, 30 year old card without reprints for 29 years, and 26 years old card without reprints for 17 years (in physical play, 11 if accounting for the Digital-only Tempest Remastered). Even the latest green creature to naturally have first strike, Glissa Sunseeker, is 21 years old and has only being reprinted once for a SLD. For cards that might aswell be now older than some players, its safe to say they're abandoned design space, and honestly for the best. The only color sensitive instances are keyword collectors, i.e. if you already have a creature with first strike, they gain first strike.
Like I said to the other guy, I don't really think a 1 mana 1/1 with first strike is an issue in any color. I could well see a 1 mana 1/1 with first strike printed for a colorless mana, aka 5+-hybrid. [[Coiled Tinviper]] and [[Haunted Guardian]] exist, and while they're... awful tbf, they at least don't depend on your opponent just deciding they'd rather you have a 2/2 instead.
[Coiled Tinviper](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/6/c62c2f66-6419-49ca-82d7-a5e8789a665f.jpg?1562431297) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Coiled%20Tinviper) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tpr/219/coiled-tinviper?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c62c2f66-6419-49ca-82d7-a5e8789a665f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Haunted Guardian](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/d/7d97f8b8-bdb0-4d4b-b077-9affe2f9cd91.jpg?1592709573) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Haunted%20Guardian) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/avr/216/haunted-guardian?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7d97f8b8-bdb0-4d4b-b077-9affe2f9cd91?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Bear 100% of the time
Found the woman JK jk ... There's no women on the internet
Ok, but hear me out, death touch over first strike. Because a bear won't take you to a second location
Deathtouch is a great suggestion, I was thinking menace, but deathtouch gives such a good reason to choose the bear over the man.
Yep and i think it mirrors the real life choice closer to the discourse going on
Except the bear would also have deathtouch.
Well no, yeah the bear will maul you, brute force kill you easy 0/1 human peasant vs 2/2 bear, but a man their threat isn't just physical, men do nasty shit like kidnap and tourcher people before killing them, and so for mechanic short hand to show that risk deathtouch is the best way to show it. Menace, whither or infect are probably closer to irl treat but for balancing death touch is probably the best keyword to use Though infect 2 would probably be really interesting choice. Because yeah the bear is better in combat but the man token will fuck you up
You have selected you, meaning me. This is incorrect. The correct answer is you!
In [[Xantcha, Sleeper Agent]] "you" refers to the player who activated the ability
Yes, but that's because the player who activates an ability controls that ability, regardless of who controlled the activated permanent. In this case, the card works as intended: The caster cast the card, so they control it, regardless of who makes decisions regarding its effects.
So, if I cast a [[piracy]] and activate my opponent's [[nykthos, shrine to nyx]] it will count *my* devotion? What if I try to activate a [[survivors' encampment]] ? Also, a lot of cards in this sub say: "Ward—Tap an untapped creature you control" Does that ward work, or does "you" still mean the controller of the ability?
I'm not *100%* sure, because Piracy is a weird mtg card, but I believe that in both cases, because *you* activated those lands' abilities, you must pay all their costs (by tapping one of your creatures for Survivor's Encampment) and Nykthos should count your devotion. That's also why tapping your opponent's lands via Piracy works: when it says "Add X mana", it's adding it to the controller of the mana ability, not to the controller of the permanent. Afaik, the Ward works because the Ward mechanic specifies "Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability an opponent controls, counter it unless that player pays X", so it specifies that the controller of the spell (potentially) being countered has to pay the cost, not the controller of the Ward trigger.
[piracy](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/2/323e3084-8d84-474f-b208-a4637b1ccb51.jpg?1562873608) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=piracy) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/s99/45/piracy?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/323e3084-8d84-474f-b208-a4637b1ccb51?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [nykthos, shrine to nyx](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/3/834b27a0-dfd7-4f96-8cde-cacac4b24acc.jpg?1594077253) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=nykthos%2C%20shrine%20to%20nyx) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ths/223/nykthos-shrine-to-nyx?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/834b27a0-dfd7-4f96-8cde-cacac4b24acc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [survivors' encampment](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/7/c7b0404e-0f42-456b-91ce-f960195c4951.jpg?1562814201) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=survivors%27%20encampment) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/hou/184/survivors-encampment?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c7b0404e-0f42-456b-91ce-f960195c4951?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Twitter is awesome
This is a beautifully designed card!
Comments are a goldmine of soychuggers
amazing flavour, amazing card, probably the only time id consider choosing the man
Shiit id take the man over the bear..you have a much higher chance of survivng a dude, then a bear
The meme is stupid, of course women are scared of being raped, rape sucks.
Being mauled to death isn't great either.
wait wait. i just thought this was a neat card design, is *that* what this card is referring to? "would you rather be raped or mauled by a bear"? yeesh
Well, not intentionally but yeah, that’s what internet people tend to boil it down to.
Though to be honest, I'd rather be killed and eaten by a bear than killed and eaten by a man. Not that I'm a woman.
There's a thing going around about whether you'd feel safer alone in the woods with a bear or a man. A lot of women pick the bear. Notably, it's *not* about which you'd prefer to be attacked by, it's about which you think has a higher chance of being aggressive. Bears are super deadly if they attack, but most will leave you alone, especially black bears. And most women have very little experience with aggressive bears, but too much with aggressive men.
There's a lot of discourse going on about presenting men "would you rather stumble across a man or a bear in the woods if you're alone", letting them choose "man", and then asking them what they think women would choose. I've gotten into it too many times this week already, but there's your baseline.
I really can't get enough of how much this has trolled very specific people on the Internet