|
I think the idea is that it's "brittle" compared to Force of Will since it's not a hard counter? But yeah it would break every format ever.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:I think the idea is that it's "brittle" compared to Force of Will since it's not a hard counter? But yeah it would break every format ever. How would it break every format ever dude
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
Zoness posted:There's already specific templating for Faerie Creatures vs Faerie Cards. Its more confusing than you're suggesting because it breaks your normal expectations about a Faerie or a Dragon or a Rebel is. It is not in fact obvious that when you search your library for a "Faerie" that you could search for an Instant. TheKingofSprings posted:How would it break every format ever dude You couldn't tap out to any deck ever because every single deck ever can play that card because there's no actual color requirements nor restrictions on what it can target.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:How would it break every format ever dude gently caress playing on curve ever again basically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Except MM is irrelevant in a Standard format like 99% of the time. This card would be completely relevant in every deck all the time to the point it would be better than Force of Will in Standard because everyone could play it since it doesn't require you to either reveal the card or the card to even be blue. I get that any deck could cast this against reasonable targets but I think the drawback for the benefit is actually injurious enough such that it would only really get powerful as you move backwards through formats, and even then it is not strictly as powerful as mental misstep was in those formats. This card does two things: protects a combo piece from discard without your opponent being able to interact (since it's the cost). is a daze for a card draw instead of a land drop. Daze wasn't really playable in Standard and even to this day only really sees play in aggro tempo decks because otherwise it is too easy to play around and the drawback is too great for the effect. I think most of the time in a Daze deck you would want Daze over this as the drawback is less injurious (you were probably gonna miss land drop 3/4 anyways so Dazing and replaying a land on turn 3/4 isn't negative). However, this would probably an an auto-include in storm decks/storm sideboards and other unfair blue combo decks as it is another tuck effect to protect your important card, which is separate from the (comparatively lovely) counterspell effect, plus it would then give you the ability to run 4 FoW, 4 this, and some number of spell pierce / flusterstorm for a critical mass of reasonable to play counterspells, and for non-TES/ANT decks you typically have a card(or cards) in hand that you don't give so many shits about so the drawback is minimal (if you're gonna show and tell griselbrand on turn 2 who gives a gently caress what the other 4 cards in your hand are?) I think you'd see a strong shift towards combo/control (ie, Show and Tell, High Tide, something I'm probably forgetting) and the meta would evolve into Blue Control decks and Blue Combo decks and since this, like mental misstep, would still be lovely outside of blue decks, you'd gently caress the whole meta again and warp it into something godawful, but rather than it being A Wide Variety of Blue Tempo Decks it would be powerful combos and guns aimed directly at powerful combos that would get taken out by the idiots who didn't realize that Maverick was not competitive against the Tier 1 combo deck and could only prey on the Tier 2 Control deck. But this is all masturbatory because that card isn't real.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:I get that any deck could cast this against reasonable targets but I think the drawback for the benefit is actually injurious enough such that it would only really get powerful as you move backwards through formats, and even then it is not strictly as powerful as mental misstep was in those formats. I agree with what you're saying except saying it wouldn't be good in Standard because Daze wasn't good in a Standard from almost 2 decades ago that most of us probably don't remember. The difference between Daze and this card is that you have some reasonable indication that someone could play Daze. You can't play around a counterspell that's playable in every single deck where the only real requirement is having 2 cards in your hand. I get what you're saying - it does less for you to win the game than other cards do (especially in Standard that has no combos). But it doesn't matter - enough people *would* play it to completely ruin the format and make it miserable. If my opponent has three untapped islands and I tap my three mountains to cast Goblin Rabblemaster and it gets Dissolved, well I took a calculated risk in casting that spell. If my opponent has three tapped mountains and his own Rabblemaster, and then I cast a Rabblemaster, and then it gets countered, I'm going to be justifiably pissed off. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Yeah OK I guess it's probably not good in EDH.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Its more confusing than you're suggesting because it breaks your normal expectations about a Faerie or a Dragon or a Rebel is. It is not in fact obvious that when you search your library for a "Faerie" that you could search for an Instant. I mean at one point I didn't know creatures were counted in spells but once I learned that was a rule I felt like the concept of tribal wasn't weird. In fact, I had been playing magic for about a year when they did the legend creature type to legendary creature rules change and I didn't actually realize that rules change meant anything. I mean, I think they should emphasize the card part more but it's a game about wizard poker people should look forward to having their expectations broken because that's what makes wizards cool in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Its more confusing than you're suggesting because it breaks your normal expectations about a Faerie or a Dragon or a Rebel is. It is not in fact obvious that when you search your library for a "Faerie" that you could search for an Instant. Ramos posted:gently caress playing on curve ever again basically. Unless I'm tapping out to play something big or it will absolutely lose me the game as a result, I'll personally generally be pretty happy that you've pitched two cards to counter my one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I agree with what you're saying except saying it wouldn't be good in Standard because Daze wasn't good in a Standard from almost 2 decades ago that most of us probably don't remember. The difference between Daze and this card is that you have some reasonable indication that someone could play Daze. You can't play around a counterspell that's playable in every single deck where the only real requirement is having 2 cards in your hand. I started playing competitively during Urza/Masques and later Masques/Invasion block. I actually do remember it and foil / thwart were much more playable (and still not heavily played except for small #s in nether-go decks). Sure it would suck to get countered by this spell in Standard. But your opponent just spent 2 cards for your 1 and while I fully admit I'm not playing Standard right now I can't imagine it's suddenly become a format about fundamental turns where card advantage isn't king over perfect timing. And in the situation where you're trying to run a rabblemaster into their own rabblemaster instead of killing theri rabblemaster you're probably losing anyways, since they're going to untap as a red deck and kill your rabblemaster for only 1 card instead of 2, meanwhile you could have played your 2-mana 3 damage kill spell on the enemy rabblemaster which is both the correct play and naturally plays around this fake-rear end card.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Unless I'm tapping out to play something big or it will absolutely lose me the game as a result, I'll personally generally be pretty happy that you've pitched two cards to counter my one. The actual strategic implications of that card (while certainly relevant) aren't nearly as important as the fact that it is very poor game design. Sigma-X posted:I started playing competitively during Urza/Masques and later Masques/Invasion block. I actually do remember it and foil / thwart were much more playable (and still not heavily played except for small #s in nether-go decks). I'm not saying the game would fundamentally break or you couldn't play around it. I'm saying that card is the opposite of fun. All it does is add randomness to the game and makes it seem less structured by rules. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:The actual strategic implications of that card (while certainly relevant) aren't nearly as important as the fact that it is very poor game design. It's a fake card made by an idiot on the internet, I think it goes without saying that it's bad game design. Talking about the implications this bad design would have is fun to me though 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Having your turn 3 play countered for zero mana by a deck that can goldfish you in 4 turns seems pretty fun.
Irony Be My Shield fucked around with this message at 10:37 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Having your turn 3 play countered by a deck that can goldfish you in 4 turns seems pretty fun. So this goldfishing deck goes T1, 5 cards in hand T2, 3-4 cards in hand T3, 1-3 cards in hand, emptying out to counter your spell T4, swing and cast the 1 cards remaining? And you've made no plays on turn 1 and 2 and they were on the play? Here's pretty much the only deck that can run this counterspell: Mt, Gob Guide, 18 Mt, GG#2, Bolt. 11 Mt, Bolt , COUNTER YOUR poo poo 4 Bolt, -3 (or fireblast for -4) But that's not a standard deck and it's a literally perfect burn draw to just barely get there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
Almost any 7 card Sligh hand does it I think, although the level of early interaction is obviously way higher in modern. I just goldfished 5 times and succeeded three times with T1: Mountain, Swiftspear (19 health, 5 cards) T2: Mountain, Swiftspear, Titan's Strength (12 health, 3 cards) T3: Titan's Strength (5 health, 3 cards) [spend two cards countering Drown/Anger/Courser] T4: Hammerhand (0 health, 1 card) T1: Mountain, Foundry Street (20 health, 5 cards) T2: Mountain, Swift, Swift (15 health, 3 cards) T3: Dragon Mantle, Titan's Strength (5 health, 3 cards) [-2 cards for counter] T5: Hammerhand, or indeed any other spell (0 health, 1 card) T1: Mountain, Swift (19, 5) T2: Mountain, Crusader, Hammerhand (14, 3) T3: Mountain, Dragon Mantle (7, 3) [-2] T4: Nothing (0, 2) So actually on second thoughts I've changed my mind, please print this card Wizards. Anyway I proved nothing but I at least had fun with my goldfishing, peace. Irony Be My Shield fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
After 2 months of losing every round, last night I drafted 3-0 and just wanted to say Alesha + Ponyback Brigade + Collateral Damage is the best thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Almost any 7 card Sligh hand does it I think, although the level of early interaction is obviously way higher in modern. I just goldfished 5 times and succeeded three times with Excuse me its T1: R/w Land (20 / 6) T2: Hero's Blade + Mountain (20 / 6) T3: Anax and Cymede + Land (20 / 5) [-2] T4: Titan's Strength + Temur Battle Rage (-2 / 1) WITH A CARD LEFT OVER
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:
Fakest card I've ever seen
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:
I really wish they would stop trying to make warriors a thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
bhsman posted:Hey if anyone sees a Brittle Will card floating about it is most likely fake. Page 43, guys. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Hey, if anyone sees Will Brittle, he owes me fifty bucks
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Unless I'm tapping out to play something big or it will absolutely lose me the game as a result, I'll personally generally be pretty happy that you've pitched two cards to counter my one. Have you ever been Dazed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:I don't see how tribal is difficult to understand. What was the issue? There's just a lot of weird things about how they ended up having to do it. The basic idea -- make this Enchantment count as a Faerie card, or make this Sorcery count as a Goblin card -- is a cool one, and lets you do neat stuff. But in development they realized that (for vague rules reasons I still don't quite grok) you can't just make a card with the typeline "Enchantment -- Faerie", because types with existing subtypes of their own can't use the creature subtypes too. Because reasons. Ask Matt Tabak. So they had to create a whole new card type (Tribal is a type, not a supertype as people who haven't played with Tarmogoyf tend to assume) just to make it work. That's just ugly even by Magic rules standards. And then you get into an issue they often have with mechanics like this, which is that there's a million past and future cards that seem like they should be tribal but aren't. Goblin Grenade isn't a goblin card? Form of the Dragon isn't a dragon card? Tribal is in a weird spot where the more they use it, the weirder it seems when they don't, and they disliked how they ended up having to implement it enough that they weren't in a hurry to keep using it again, so it fell by the wayside.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
So today we have our regularly scheduled spoilers in like an hour and change, and later we get PAX spoilers (which will probably just be Sarkhan and Origins stuff) right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Hey, if anyone sees Will Brittle, he owes me fifty bucks 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Can anyone give me a rundown on how this prelease will work (I have never done one before)? My LGS already has me signed up for it (I will be paying at FNM tonight), but I see there are 5 different D20 each correspond to a different DragonLord. I am guessing in the seeder-pack (?) depending on which dragon I pick will be the color of the said dragonlord I pick?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
I was planning on going to GP Cleveland to do modern side events but they just published the price/prize structure for them and it sounds kind of poor. Is that typical for GPs? I realize they need to cover the cost of the venue, etc. but I estimate the constructed side events are at around 35% payout vs. the total pay in by players. I especially dislike the chuck e cheese style prize wall with ticket payouts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:
This card is better than Daze lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This card is better than Daze lol Daze is objectively better in one aspect, however. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
bhsman posted:Daze is objectively better in one aspect, however. In the aspect of existence?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
It's BACK! http://www.moxboardinghouse.com/media/dragons-tarkir-spoiler-card/
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
What's with dtk and people faking free counterspells?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
bhsman posted:Daze is objectively better in one aspect, however. Existing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Existing? Well there is that, also, Daze isn't card disadvantage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
So is anyone seeing the value in buying a box yet for this release? I'm talking pure potential on return. i'll still buy a box because i like to open product though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
bhsman posted:Daze is objectively better in one aspect, however. Yeah, it buys me an extra turn with Stasis. It's too bad by that point in time Stasis isn't that good anymore and the best Necropotence deck is Trix.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
moxiemag posted:So is anyone seeing the value in buying a box yet for this release? Cue 4 pages of "BUYING BOXES IS THE DUMBEST THING YOU CAN DO YOU BIG FAT IDIOT"
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Ultimate Price being reprinted in a block with Siege Rhino seems like a cruel joke.mcmagic posted:In the aspect of existence? Chamale posted:Existing? Yep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
I'm late for this, but RE: Tribal mechanic. Part of the problem isn't even the complexity of it being a type. There is definitely a problem with the fact that it's a type that means nothing by itself, but there's a much bigger underlying issue. It would be almost impossible to fairly distribute Tribal types for spells. Bitterblossom is one of the premier examples of this. Why is Bitterblossom a tribal faerie? What about Bitterblossom makes it a tribal faerie and not a tribal rogue or tribal faerie rogue? Especially in the set that explicitly cares more about you being a rogue than being a faerie? In fact, Notorious Throng in the exact same set makes the exact same tokens yet is a tribal rogue. There's very little consistency in the implementation and they have absolutely no reason to want to errata older cards that make perfect sense as tribal spells into tribals. There's no reason Boggart Shenanigans should be a tribal goblin but Goblin Assault can't be one. There's far more cards that don't have the tribal type (basically all token makers) that should have it than cards that actually have the mechanic. WotC has simply said that "this was a bad idea from the beginning, just ignore every card with the mechanic and we will never go forward with it," rather than trying to fix an incredibly broken and inconsistent framework.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
bhsman posted:Ultimate Price being reprinted in a block with Siege Rhino seems like a cruel joke. Just think of it as in a block with Magic Origins to feel better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 16:46
|
|
