|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Snow lands have to be the stupidest mechanical idea ever. It checks nothing other than "did you spend a bunch of extra money on your lands". Snow lands is a viable tactic in mono-colored EDH decks. It enables things like Strata Scythe without usually helping opponents. I know there are some other interactions, but that's one.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Snow lands have to be the stupidest mechanical idea ever. It checks nothing other than "did you spend a bunch of extra money on your lands". There's snow way that's a lot of money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:Did you mean to put fetch lands in there or are you seriously imagining when those sets were in print they weren't like 5 cents a snow land? Ice can't believe you made that joke. Snow Swamps are useful in Pauper as well since the best common shade is Chilling Shade. Three mana and flying is pretty nice if you're in the shade business.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I was just thinking that if Double Down* were ever printed and saw play in Modern or Legacy, suddenly all the non-Double Down decks would want to play a mix of basics and snow basics, so the price of snow-covered lands would rocket upwards. Modern & Legacy, two formats known for the amount of basic lands that end up in the graveyard. Double Down was a bad idea anyway, it lets you exile from an opponent's graveyard as a cost and a mirror match would basically be Snap
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
What I'm getting at is there's no real disadvantage to running snowlands over basics (outside of a few hatecards that obviously would never see play in eternal formats) so it's just dumb. It could just check for basic lands instead and it would be effectively the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I think Ice Age had a pretty big print run, it was just 2 decades ago. By the standards of then, yes. By the standards of now, it's a pretty small run.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
A spell like earthquake is very different when it can redirect to one planeswalker vs if it were templated to hit all planeswalkers, it was kind of relevant when there was a standard format with multiple-pw decks and earthquake effects. It helps keep effects like Bonfire in check/elegant to some extent because would you have it hit all pws that player controlled or none of them or one of them? Magmaquake exists but it's certainly very distinct from bonfire in what it does and is specifically templated thusly. I think the case with fated conflagration was they didn't want to print it as a lava axe, but did want it to hit pws, and realistically pw's are such a bundle of "please get rules about me" (what does loyalty do, what are the restrictions on using these abilities, how do I get rid of one) in their template as-is that it's not -that- difficult to have some extra baggage tied to the card type if it simplifies burn spell design. It's probably the least intuitive rule about planeswalkers, but barring cards like fated conflagration where actually letting the spell dome a player would probably be too strong, I don't think there's a downside that burn spells in dome mode effectively read "do x to a player or a planeswalker that player controls". Irony Be My Shield posted:What I'm getting at is there's no real disadvantage to running snowlands over basics (outside of a few hatecards that obviously would never see play in eternal formats) so it's just dumb. It could just check for basic lands instead and it would be effectively the same. Dark Depths with Urborg produces snow mana and this wouldn't be covered by cards that care about snow mana or snow permanents. Never mind that decks that run Dark Depths and Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth don't run any cards from the latter set but it might come up at some point! vvv Also this Zoness fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:What I'm getting at is there's no real disadvantage to running snowlands over basics (outside of a few hatecards that obviously would never see play in eternal formats) so it's just dumb. It could just check for basic lands instead and it would be effectively the same. It's primarily a limited mechanic
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
En Fuego posted:Snow lands is a viable tactic in mono-colored EDH decks. It enables things like Strata Scythe without usually helping opponents. I know there are some other interactions, but that's one. Extraplanar Lens, as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Some more basic details about Magic Origins flavor have been revealed
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
It was basically nothing other than, you will see the planes they are from even though we already knew that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Well, I read two strong possibilities from that article. They're not far off at all from Return to Zendikar, and there's a good chance we may see landfall back in Origins since there's an emphasis on Zendikar for Nissa.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
I thought we knew a bunch of that origns stuff for jace and nissa and chandra
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:I thought we knew a bunch of that origns stuff for jace and nissa and chandra We've never been to any of their home Planes before (except for Nissa's) so that's new.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
We know literally nothing about Chandra other than she's a hothead who gets bamboozled easily. I look forward to learning more about the Bestwalker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
I wonder if all the color cards are going to be associated with only their walker. Seems like an interesting design direction to take.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Cernunnos posted:We've never been to any of their home Planes before (except for Nissa's) so that's new. cool, i hope it turns out jace is from somewhere we've been, since him deleting his memory is so big and all Count Bleck posted:We know literally nothing about Chandra other than she's a hothead who gets bamboozled easily. Well, I think we know that she ended up burning her village down or something and that ignited her spark but yeah, she's the best and I'm not just saying that bc of the anime card of her
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:I look forward to learning more about the Bestwalker. But Tamiyo isn't in this set.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
It's not a bad thing or anything but I'm consistently amazed to find out people care at all about the plot or "characters" of their Wizard poker game pieces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:It's not a bad thing or anything but I'm consistently amazed to find out people care at all about the plot or "characters" of their Wizard poker game pieces. I mean people legitimately care about the story of World of Warcraft so I don't know why this is very amazing. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind. Madmarker posted:But Tamiyo isn't in this set. I'm not seeing the connection here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:But Tamiyo isn't in this set. That's not how you spell Karn
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:It's not a bad thing or anything but I'm consistently amazed to find out people care at all about the plot or "characters" of their Wizard poker game pieces. it's something to talk about when theres nothing else going on, i don't really know much about the story tbh
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Didn't Nissa first planeswalk to Lorwyn and see the fascist elves? Come on Lorwyn come back to us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Hellsau posted:Didn't Nissa first planeswalk to Lorwyn and see the fascist elves? Come on Lorwyn come back to us. I don't know if that was her first destination, but she has been there and can use black mana for stuff. It would nice to see some Lorwyn stuff back in standard though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Did they retcon Nissa's spark igniting into being due to the Eldrazi or am I reading it wrong or did I miss something or what
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Well, I read two strong possibilities from that article. We had bits and pieces of stuff off Zendikar in M15 too. I doubt it means anything noteworthy. Ciprian Maricon posted:It's not a bad thing or anything but I'm consistently amazed to find out people care at all about the plot or "characters" of their Wizard poker game pieces. I personally think its gotten much better now that they don't try and feed it to you with cringeworthy full books and just stick to short-stories. They're doing vaguely better resolving it through the cards themselves too. Its just something to keep it interesting and get people speculating how certain events will reflect in cards, etc. We've gotten a good 10 pages of Narset, Planeswalker chat out of the MTG story and that's not even an actually confirmed thing yet. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:But Tamiyo isn't in this set. you mean Jaya Ballard
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
...Isn't Liliana's plane Innistrad, or is it some other gothic/colonial horror plane?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Gensuki posted:...Isn't Liliana's plane Innistrad, or is it some other gothic/colonial horror plane? No, Innistrad is Sorin Markov's home-plane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
On the subject of multiple planeswalkers and redirecting damage to more than one, how does it work with combat damage. If an opponent has two planeswalkers each with 3 loyalty and I attack with 2 unblocked 3/3's, can I redirect 3 to one and 3 to the other? Can I divide up my damage to both if I'm attacking with a single 6/6?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
You don't get to pick and choose where the damage goes with creatures, you either attack the player or a planeswalker they control.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
MiddleEastBeast posted:On the subject of multiple planeswalkers and redirecting damage to more than one, how does it work with combat damage. If an opponent has two planeswalkers each with 3 loyalty and I attack with 2 unblocked 3/3's, can I redirect 3 to one and 3 to the other? Can I divide up my damage to both if I'm attacking with a single 6/6? Creatures attack planewalkers outright, with no damage redirection shenanigans. You have to send one dude at each of their planewalkers, and if they have one chump-blocker they get to decide which one to save. Your 6/6 only gets to eat one of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
I thought Chandra trained under Jaya
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Elyv posted:You don't get to pick and choose where the damage goes with creatures, you either attack the player or a planeswalker they control. It's weird, I don't understand why they decided to make combat damage interact completely differently with planeswalkers than non-combat damage when writing the rules. It's no wonder a lot of players don't really get it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Xir posted:How much life did you gain before he scooped? I messaged him to ask if he had a way to disrupt it because otherwise I would have unlimited amounts of life gain and mana. I was playing Bob Maher's Crucible Gushbond deck. Starving Autist posted:It's weird, I don't understand why they decided to make combat damage interact completely differently with planeswalkers than non-combat damage when writing the rules. It's no wonder a lot of players don't really get it. Because Lightning Bolt is a spanner in the works for how they want the card to work so they duct taped a solution to it. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Starving Autist posted:It's weird, I don't understand why they decided to make combat damage interact completely differently with planeswalkers than non-combat damage when writing the rules. It's no wonder a lot of players don't really get it. Because it prevents gotcha stuff like a creature attacking you and "whoop actually it was Jace that gets hit". If they could, they'd have made non combat damage work the same way, with the Walker being targeted by the burn spell instead of the current redirect thing. Basically the problem is the non combat damage. The combat damage works as intended
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Starving Autist posted:It's weird, I don't understand why they decided to make combat damage interact completely differently with planeswalkers than non-combat damage when writing the rules. It's no wonder a lot of players don't really get it. Because they could rewrite the rules to fix combat to work the way they wanted to, but would have to errata every burn spell that could hit players in existence to hit planeswalkers and they don't do functional errata anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I messaged him to ask if he had a way to disrupt it because otherwise I would have unlimited amounts of life gain and mana. I was playing Bob Maher's Crucible Gushbond deck. To be honest, just rewriting how new burn spells from that point on would work to say "target creature, player, or planeswalker" would do more to solve the Shock-Bolt problem than 10+ years of a bunch of slightly better shocks
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:To be honest, just rewriting how new burn spells from that point on would work to say "target creature, player, or planeswalker" would do more to solve the Shock-Bolt problem than 10+ years of a bunch of slightly better shocks Honestly, the existing rule is not hard to understand at all. It takes literally 30 seconds or less of thought to understand how it works. If someone is invested enough in the game to be playing with Planeswalkers (all of which are Mythics sans the Lorwyn 5), but didn't bother to take those 30 seconds to understand the redirect rule, I say gently caress 'em. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Speaking of confusing rules, I want to make a fun deck that causes constant rules headaches and is confusing for my opponent. I'll be playing Old Fogey, as well as Muraganda Petroglyphs and some cards to make that more confusing: Scarwood Goblins, which has been errata'd to no longer have an ability, Transguild Courier, which no longer has that ability, and Carnivorous Plant, which has an ability that isn't mentioned on the card. What other baffling cards or interactions should I run?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:51
|
|
