#Anti-milling

[mtgacentral]

Save Your Deck with Elixir of Immortality - MTG

Welcome to our comprehensive guide on the Elixir of Immortality, a card that has been making waves in the world of deck building. Whether you're a seasoned player or a newcomer to the game, this guide will provide you with all the information you need to understand and effectively use this powerful card.

Importance of the Elixir of Immortality in Deck Building The Elixir of Immortality is more than just a card; it's a game-changer. This artifact has the power to turn the tide of a game, making it a must-have in any deck. But why is it so important? - Anti-Milling Strategy: The Elixir of Immortality is a key component in anti-milling strategies. Milling is a tactic where your opponent tries to deplete your deck, forcing you to lose by not having any cards left to draw. The Elixir counters this by shuffling itself and your graveyard back into your library, effectively making your deck immune to milling. - Life Gain: The Elixir doesn't just protect your deck; it also gives you life. When you use it, you gain five life, which can be a significant boost in tight games. - Recycling Cards: The Elixir's ability to shuffle your graveyard back into your library means you can use your cards again. This is particularly useful for decks that rely on certain combos or strategies, as it allows you to reuse key cards. - Versatility: The Elixir of Immortality is not tied to any particular color, meaning it can fit into any deck. This makes it a versatile tool that can enhance a wide variety of strategies. Let's talk about the mechanics of the Elixir of Immortality, how to build your deck around it, and how to use it to its full potential. So whether you're looking to improve your current deck or build a new one from scratch, stick around for some invaluable insights.

Understanding the Elixir of Immortality

To truly appreciate the power and potential of the Elixir of Immortality, we need to delve into its origins and mechanics. This understanding will provide a solid foundation for building and refining your deck. History and Origin of the Elixir of Immortality Read More About The Elixir Of Immortality Here Read the full article

[feminist-space]

Tweet by Briana Mills, LMFT, dated June 22, 2024:

"The term 'cost of living' should radicalize you."

[kathrahender]

Some people always get angry when a villain is redeemed. They say things like "Stop redeeming the villain" "Villain redemption is such a terrible trope" "Not all villains deserve redemption" "Villains redemption are ruining media" "You are afraid of villanous characters because you can't bear people making mistakes" "Villain redemption is toxic/unhealthy" "You shouldn't try to fix someone!" and- Well- I have to talk about this because I seriously don't understand why people don't want to accept villains redemption.

"Villain redemption is such a terrible trope" "Villains redemption are ruining media". No, it's not a bad trope. Is not ruining media. It's an awesome trope, a wholesome trope, and I'm gonna say why. A villain redemption means nothing more than a person realizing they did bad things. It means a villain becoming a better person, a villain leaving the Dark Side because humanity and honor were more important than evilness and cruelty for them. And that's a beautiful concept. A villain becoming good? A villain who stops being bad because after all, they have a good side, because they are human? Where's the bad thing there? Where's the bad thing in realizing how much pain you've caused, and changing your morals for good? Seriously, people who hate villains redemption, where's the problem in this trope?

"Not all villains deserve redemption". Again with this tiring argument. When will you understand it? A villain redemption is not based on if they deserve it or not. It's based on the villain himself. It's based on their thoughts, on their morals. It's based on them changing from "I want to hurt/kill everyone who is against me" to "Oh God I'm a monster, what have I done?". Villains don't "deserve" redemption. They just redeem, or they don't, and it has nothing to do with "deserving" it. Some of you could think "Not all villains should be redeemed then!". I will talk about that argument in the last paragraph.

"You are afraid of villanous characters because you can't bear people making mistakes". That's definitely not true. That's bullshit. We're not afraid of people making mistakes. If that was true, we would be afraid of a hero making mistakes. And we aren't afraid of heroes who make mistakes. Because making mistakes makes you human. But- realizing you made a mistake also makes you human. That's what we like about this trope. A bad person, a villain or an anti-villain being actually human deep down.

"Villain redemption is toxic/unhealthy!" Actually- you know what's actually toxic? Hate. Hate is actually toxic. Hating someone is unhealthy. Of all the things you can do in your life, hating someone is the worst thing you can do. Why losing time hating when you can do better things for your heart and for your soul? Because the only thing you will get with hate is your heart/soul corrupted. A villain redeemed is not toxic nor unhealthy. Why a person changing for the better would be toxic or unhealthy?

"You shouldn't try to fix someone". Why? Why shouldn't I try to fix someone? Why shouldn't I want a bad person to turn good? Why shouldn't I want a villain becoming a hero? Why should I want the hate in this world to grow? Why should I want evilness to win? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. I want to fix villains because I believe in goodness! Because I want the good side to win! I want people having a happy ending, and the only way a villain can get a happy ending is being redeemed. And I want the villains to have a happy ending too because dying or getting tortured/being imprisioned after being suffering in your past is horrible. Yeah, I know villains hurt people, but some of them also were hurt, and although I don't justify them, I still want their pain to end and I want them to live, not just survive. I want them to change for the good, why is that so bad?

And even if they were "born evil" (what I doubt because for me villains are made not born) and "didn't suffered"- I want them to have a happy ending after redeeming because I want to believe in their goodness, in their humanity, and I don't want them to die because I think they also deserve a second chance in life and a chance to be happy (because if you can't be happy in this life, what's even the point?).

"But why would you want a villain having a happy ending after all they did????" Because I don't want them to suffer. "They made other people suffer, why would you want them to have a happy ending?" Because I believe no one deserves to have a bad ending in life. "So you defend the monsters in real life??? You support the real killers?? You are a murder apologist!!" Now hold on a fucking second. There's a fucking difference between liking a villain in fiction and want them to have a happy ending and want the real life villains to have a happy ending. Fiction is not fucking reality and you should know that. I want villains in fiction to redeem because I want to believe in their goodness, because I want to believe everyone is capable of being good, because I want to believe love and goodness can conquer all. Because I want to believe that no matter what, the good side will always win. Besides, most of the villains live in magic worlds, where sometimes death is not permanent, where you can see your loved ones even if it's not for a long time. And in fiction time-travel also exist. None of these things happen in reality. There's no magic, there's no time turner who can help you travel back in time to erase the villain's actions, there aren't Force Ghosts of your family or friends. Real life villains' actions are irrevocable and unforgivable. You can't bring back the dead because in this world once a person dies, that's the end of the line. But that doesn't happen in fiction. So stop comparing a real life villain actions with a fictional villain actions. They're not the same.

To end this post I want to say that the ones who like villains redemption (I'm a part of those people, of course) don't want all villains to be redeemed. There are villains we hate with all our heart, villains who are pure evil who doesn't deserve anything good. Villains like Gerard Argent, Dolores Umbridge, Sheev Palpatine, Captain Turner, Sebastian Shaw and Azulon. And more villains like those. So yeah, we do not want to see every villain redeemed.

[oautincorrectquotes]

Regina: I met someone..

Cora: Yes, the wanted thief, I'm so proud.

[thedisdainfullysilentvisitor]

Just thought I'd ask; how badly do people want a ouat fanfic where Graham's assault is addressed and Regina isn't catered to?

[clericxhood777]

No, actually, why on my fifth re-watch of OUAT did I notice that Emma went from the masc to femme when she started dating Killian. You won't see that shit with Regina or Neal. The embraced who she is, but she felt more insecure and more femme with Killian. Idfk, but it's more telling tbh. She's not herself around Killian. Again, FORCED RELATIONSHIP FOR NO FUCKING REASON Maybe, it's due to the fact that I'm in way too many fandoms and tend to pick this shit up, but low-key what's with misogynistic tropes in media 😭

[greenqueenhightower]

So my father was an idiot. Of course he was an idiot! Oh.

[shewhotellsstories]

This reminds me a bit of my Regina Mills problem with Once Upon a Time. In OUAT they wanted to redeem Regina, but they spent three seasons showing her being an unrepentant child abuser, mass murderer, and rapist. They couldn't make the audience unsee her reign of terror (although there were way too many Regina apologists), so they relied on making her victims disregard their valid distrust and anger or lowering characters she'd been at odds with to make her look better.

The Bridgerton and Once Upon a Time writers couldn't make Penelope and Regina's actions less egregious. Hence, they had no choice but to invalidate everyone's feelings and vilify them to make their pets look better.

[sapphic-agent]

In case you were wondering where I stood with any of these characters.

(Yes, Catra is in the middle. She gets her own category because I have complicated feelings about her)

[sprnklersplashes]

me: now it is interesting that emma swan and lorelai gilmore got incredibly similar treatment in their respective fandoms; they were both teen parents, and working-class ones at that, who struggled to make ends meet and made difficult decisions to give their child the best life they could. despite this though, their fandoms can only focus on and exaggerate their shortcomings; in emma's case it was giving henry away and in lorelai's it was being too friendly and immature around rory. still me: by contrast, regina mills and emily gilmore-who are in many ways emma and lorelai's counterparts in regard to motherhood-are hailed as "icons" and also the best mothers on their respective shows despite having significantly more shortcomings than emma and lorelai did. henry is painted as an ungrateful brat despite clear evidence that regina was an unfit if not abusive parent, which in turn demonises emma for "turning" henry against regina. moreover, we see throughout the show that emily is an overbearing and toxic influence on lorelai, criticising every movement she does, and yet lorelai is still called ungrateful. what unites emily and regina is their wealth, as this is used as proof that they gave their children good lives despite their canon actions. still me: in summary, although these are two different shows, their fanbases show the same bias towards upper-class motherhood and a belief that providing for a child's basic needs is somehow a grand gesture, and in turn demonises and belittles the very struggles lorelai and emma had gone through as mothers. take-away delivery guy: ma'am please just take your food.

[hitchell-mope]

Emma: Oh, by the way, if you ever speak disrespectfully again about my husband, I’ll kill you. Sorry, that sounded like a joke. I will ACTUALLY kill you.

[mtgacentral]

Gaeas Blessing: The Ultimate Anti-Milling Card for MTG Arena

Before we dive into the specifics of Gaeas Blessing, let's first understand what milling is in MTG. Named after the card Millstone, milling is a strategy that aims to deplete an opponent's library (deck of cards). The idea is simple: if a player can't draw a card at the start of their turn because their library is empty, they lose the game.

Milling can be a potent strategy, especially in formats like Commander or Two-Headed Giant, where games tend to last longer, giving the milling player more time to whittle down their opponent's library. Milling strategies often use cards that force the opponent to put cards from their library into their graveyard, gradually emptying the library and bringing the opponent closer to defeat. However, like any strategy in MTG, milling has its risks and counters. One of the most effective counters to milling is the use of anti-milling cards, which can protect a player's library or even turn the milling strategy against the opponent. And among these anti-milling cards, Gaea's Blessing stands out as a particularly effective option. In the following sections, we'll delve deeper into the concept of anti-milling, the mechanics of Gaea's Blessing, and how to use this card effectively in your MTG Arena games. Whether you're a seasoned veteran or a newcomer to the game, there's always more to learn in the ever-evolving world of MTG Arena. So, let's get started!

The Anti-Milling Phenomenon

Read More About - Gaeas Blessing Read the full article

[couragehopelovefaith]

During every single OUAT-rewatch I hope I would understand why Regina has such a huge fan-base, but nope. Lana did a good job playing her and I couldn't see anyone else in that role. But the character herself has ruined so many people's lives by her actions - that she constantly and absurdly kept blaming other people for - and her redemption-arc is basically so non-existent that I just can't root for her or any ships or other relationships she's involved in.

[vasfasan]

Dark!Hook would be amazing at Cinemasins

All the Dark Ones 🤝 fucking finally putting Regina in her place

He's got a point, he's an icon, he's a legend, and he is the moment

[camelotroses]

I could watch this all day.

Regina had no right. Killian knew that. Killian stopped her cruelty against Emma.

He'd been against using the dagger to control her from the start. He believed in her enough to help her without using force.

"Are you all right?"

I love that Killian puts the dagger down before asking. He's been in a hurry to get rid of the darkness but since they got there he's been all about "Emma's choice". He's livid at Regina & he knows being controlled by the dagger hurts Emma.

That is true love.

[thedisdainfullysilentvisitor]

Here's your reminder that Swanqueen was never canon. It would be unfortunate if the ship wasn't incredibly toxic.