|
mr. mephistopheles posted:They can't block each other. derp  Okay, if they theoretically got into a bar fight...
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:derp I had part of an effort post on how I thought that losing protection would be harmful, as it would likely be replaced with more annoying keywords and it wasn't that hard to remember the 3 things that protection does under normal circumstances. Guess I was wrong about at least the last part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
This illustrates perfectly why restricting protection may have been an okay idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
 Wondering if I should try out Brimaz, King of Oreskos in here. but I don't think he fits this aggro deck
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
RME posted:they never reprinted armadillo cloak during the functional errata phase, so they were actually able to revert it Armadillo cloak doesn't even have old lifelink functionality--the controller of the aura gains the life, not the controller of the creature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Armadillo cloak doesn't even have old lifelink functionality--the controller of the aura gains the life, not the controller of the creature. Note: this is what he is talking about
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Onmi posted:
Brimaz is great in an aggro deck if you can consistently cast him on turn 3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Note: this is what he is talking about No it isn't though? They're saying that if Armadillo Cloak were reprinted in 10E, it would have had lifelink, which doesn't match their errata policy because that's a significant functional change when you put it onto an opponent's creature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:No it isn't though? They're saying that if Armadillo Cloak were reprinted in 10E, it would have had lifelink, which doesn't match their errata policy because that's a significant functional change when you put it onto an opponent's creature. What happens if you get a Loxodon Warhammer on one of your opponents creatures?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Brimaz is great in an aggro deck if you can consistently cast him on turn 3. 22 lands is a little tight for it but almost every land counts as a plains except Teetering Peaks and the one mountain. So I have... 17 Plains in the deck basically. 12 being dual lands, 4 being fetchlands and 1 just being a Plains. The best thing with Arid Mesa is it fetches Plateu and Sacred Foundry (though not Teetering Peaks and Clifftop Retreat) this may be a bug, but if it is I'm abusing it for now. But the question becomes "What do I remove for Brimaz, and how many copies?" It's the Legendary argument again, should I put 4 in the deck? Or some in the board?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Onmi posted:22 lands is a little tight for it but almost every land counts as a plains except Teetering Peaks and the one mountain. So I have... 17 Plains in the deck basically. 12 being dual lands, 4 being fetchlands and 1 just being a Plains. The best thing with Arid Mesa is it fetches Plateu and Sacred Foundry (though not Teetering Peaks and Clifftop Retreat) this may be a bug, but if it is I'm abusing it for now. But the question becomes "What do I remove for Brimaz, and how many copies?" It's the Legendary argument again, should I put 4 in the deck? Or some in the board? Personally I would add 3 brimaz, then cut 2 legion's initiative and 1 ajani vengeant, legion does nothing as a topdeck and your creature count needs to be more for an aggro deck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:No it isn't though? They're saying that if Armadillo Cloak were reprinted in 10E, it would have had lifelink, which doesn't match their errata policy because that's a significant functional change when you put it onto an opponent's creature. Except that this is exactly what happened to loxodon warhammer. Granted, it's tougher to end up with it on an opponent's creature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:Except that this is exactly what happened to loxodon warhammer. Granted, it's tougher to end up with it on an opponent's creature. Reread the mirrodin text of the warhammer. The creature's controller has always gained the life. e: This is because warhammer grants an ability to the creature, whereas armadillo cloak just has an ability of its own. Thus, the "you" in the ability warhammer grants refers to the controller of the creature that has that ability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
akulanization posted:I had part of an effort post on how I thought that losing protection would be harmful, as it would likely be replaced with more annoying keywords and it wasn't that hard to remember the 3 things that protection does under normal circumstances. Guess I was wrong about at least the last part. But protection does 4 things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:But protection does 4 things. 
Lancelot fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
Protection is unintuitive though, the fact you basically need a mneumonic for it demonstrates that (the enchanting part isn't even irrelevant when you have aura based removal in the format). I think they might also be moving away from creatures with 'protection from colour' since they basically just bone certain decks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
What happens if you have Debilitating Injury in play, flicker it and return enchanting a pro-black 2/2? Exactly. Protection is a bad mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:What happens if you have Debilitating Injury in play, flicker it and return enchanting a pro-black 2/2? Creatures with protection can't be enchanted by auras of the color they have protection against. It's not that complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:What happens if you have Debilitating Injury in play, flicker it and return enchanting a pro-black 2/2? You can't do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Creatures with protection can't be enchanted by auras of the color they have protection against. It's not that complicated. Yeah but the only restriction when the aura returns to the battlefield is its enchant ability, protection from black doesn't stop you from choosing the pro-black creature as the creature the aura comes back enchanting. Protection only kills the Aura when SBEs are checked — which is exactly the same time when creatures with 0 toughness are put into their owner's graveyard. So the Aura and the creature it's enchanting both die at the same time; that is, it's exactly the result you get if it didn't have pro black.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Creatures with protection can't be enchanted by auras of the color they have protection against. It's not that complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:But protection does 4 things. The untargetable part makes the unenchantable part moot under normal circumstances. Which is why I had that proviso in the sentence you quoted. Lancelot posted:Yeah but the only restriction when the aura returns to the battlefield is its enchant ability, protection from black doesn't stop you from choosing the pro-black creature as the creature the aura comes back enchanting. Protection only kills the Aura when SBEs are checked — which is exactly the same time when creatures with 0 toughness are put into their owner's graveyard. So the Aura and the creature it's enchanting both die at the same time; that is, it's exactly the result you get if it didn't have pro black. quote:303.4a An Aura spell requires a target, which is defined by its enchant ability. Protection prevents targeting. I guess this ability really is too complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
Lancelot posted:Yeah but the only restriction when the aura returns to the battlefield is its enchant ability, protection from black doesn't stop you from choosing the pro-black creature as the creature the aura comes back enchanting. Protection only kills the Aura when SBEs are checked — which is exactly the same time when creatures with 0 toughness are put into their owner's graveyard. So the Aura and the creature it's enchanting both die at the same time; that is, it's exactly the result you get if it didn't have pro black. Thanks for proving my point. The White Knight or whatever never could have been enchanted in the first place. If it was somehow the only creature in play when Debilitating Injury came back, your Debilitating Injury would come into play and immediately die due to SBEs. But if the creature was a Conifer Strider, your Debilitating Injury could return attached to it and the whole pile would die. I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
akulanization posted:Protection prevents targeting. I guess this ability really is too complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Thanks for proving my point. I just built the deck on MTGO. It cost me like $0.15 to buy the White Knights, which is annoying but whatever. As you can see here the Debilitating Injury stays RFG'd because it has no legal targets. So everybody was wrong. I was close at least. I thought it would come back and die because it couldn't enchant anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
303.4f If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player’s control by any means other than by resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it onto the battlefield doesn’t specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield. The player must choose a legal object or player according to the Aura’s enchant ability and any other applicable effects. Emphasis on "legal object" and "other applicable effects". If there is no legal choice, the aura does not change zone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
That's loving retarded. If you flicker debilitating injury, you can't attach it to a creature with pro black. Per the rules, specifically 303.4f: If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player’s control by any means other than by resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it onto the battlefield doesn’t specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield. The player must choose a legal object or player according to the Aura’s enchant ability and any other applicable effects. Edit: beaten, but Jesus loving Christ, are you trying to be more mcmagic than mcmagic?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:So everybody was wrong. I've never actually read the rules of magic the catherine so this is just conjecture but I assume it has something to do with how auras fall off if something gains protection, whereas they don't if something gains hexproof. Whatever difference in rules causes that presumably also causes this. EDIT: Beaten by people who actually did read the rules
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
Don't you have to choose a legal permanent for it to enchant when it returns from the flicker? You shouldn't be able to put a white Aura - Enchant Creature on a pro: white creature, just like you can't put it on a non-creature card. The aura falling off is governed by the same state-based effect in both cases (704.5n) so it seems as though the question of whether they're a valid choice onto which to flicker an aura (or Sun Titan it, or whatever) should likewise be the same, though I haven't looked up the rule for that yet. e: turns out someone already pointed this out (and quoted the other relevant rule); my bad. JerryLee fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
kizudarake posted:That's loving retarded. If you flicker debilitating injury, you can't attach it to a creature with pro black. ITT: people get mad because people don't know the minutiae of wizards poker rules. I mean, if you read my next post, I think I made it pretty clear that was my entire point. The sequence of events in my original post isn't possible, but I guarantee you the average player doesn't know that because protection is such a wonky ability. mehall posted:If there is no legal choice, the aura does not change zone. I noticed.  This was the part I wasn't sure about. Edit: I guess this is all pretty irrelevant because the average player isn't flickering Debilitating Injuries onto Hexproof creatures either, but 
suicidesteve fucked around with this message at 10:52 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:ITT: people get mad because people don't know the minutiae of wizards poker rules. Really? I mean I agree with Protection not being Evergreen anymore, but I'm a new player and "Is not affected by *Colour/Type/etc. Cannot be blocked by Colour/Type/etc." and the like were all pretty obvious to me. Protection seemed pretty self-explanatory. EDIT: On my own deck building stuff, Brimaz hasn't really had a chance to show himself as good or bad since he hits the field by turn 3 regularly but I'm usually winning so fast it doesn't matter. On the other hand Asaji Vengeant is ridiculous, Just packing a lightning bolt and the ability to keep big guys or land tapped, as well as Mox's when I run into them (very common on 'Main World') decks that gave me ridiculous amounts of trouble before are now very easy. I still wouldn't call the deck 'perfect' (for obvious reasons) but it's much stronger now. I even somehow pulled off a win with a single mana source after 3 turns of having to discard and having no mana because I accidently hit the keep (on a hand with 3 Brimaz, an Iroas and no land) just from the power of 2 drops and lightning bolt. Plus side? Achievement for winning with the 1 land mana screw. 
Onmi fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
Onmi posted:Really? I mean I agree with Protection not being Evergreen anymore, but I'm a new player and "Is not affected by *Colour/Type/etc. Cannot be blocked by Colour/Type/etc." and the like were all pretty obvious to me. Protection seemed pretty self-explanatory. Does not dodging global effects (such as "destroy all creatures") of the color they're protected from also seem intuitive? It didn't to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 10:58
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Does not dodging global effects (such as "destroy all creatures") of the color they're protected from also seem intuitive? It didn't to me. Yes, but I think that's only because I have Yu-Gi-Oh experience. Those effects don't target. EDIT: It's similar to when a card has "Cannot be targeted by X" well yes it can't be targeted but non-targeting effects are still applicable. So Protection from White protects you from a white targeting spell, but Wrath of God for example isn't pointed at the creature with protection from white. so the card is played, the effect goes off, and from there it isn't "This is a White Destruction effect" it's "This is a destruction effect" the card's already resolved. Like if you used Mugging on a Protection from Red creature, the card just fizzles. Again, makes perfect sense to me, the card goes on the stack, and resolves, not targeting the creature with protection. Onmi fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
Onmi posted:Yes, but I think that's only because I have Yu-Gi-Oh experience. Those effects don't target. EDIT: It's similar to when a card has "Cannot be targeted by X" well yes it can't be targeted but non-targeting effects are still applicable. So Protection from White protects you from a white targeting spell, but Wrath of God for example isn't pointed at the creature with protection from white. so the card is played, the effect goes off, and from there it isn't "This is a White Destruction effect" it's "This is a destruction effect" the card's already resolved. This isn't what happens, by the way. The Prot Red guy isn't even a legal target in the first plae so you can't even put the spell on the stack targeting it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
Elyv posted:This isn't what happens, by the way. The Prot Red guy isn't even a legal target in the first plae so you can't even put the spell on the stack targeting it. okay then Forge still has some errors, should probably submit a bug report then. speaking of  That's a terrible choice, I don't want to unlock any of them, mostly because I have Tempest Revised, Portal is vomit and Homelands is... Homelands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
Onmi posted:okay then Forge still has some errors, should probably submit a bug report then. You sure?  (best deck)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:36
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:You sure? I am not sure, also mid KTK Draft using Mardu but clearly I was just misremembering. What's the list?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Onmi posted:I am not sure, also mid KTK Draft using Mardu but clearly I was just misremembering.  (I was just testing your claim)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
what if protection isn't actually a complicated mechanic and you're all just morons
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
suicidesteve posted:ITT: people get mad because people don't know the minutiae of wizards poker rules. Sorry, bro, I thought that was lancelot's poo poo, not yours.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 12:04
|
|