|
Cernunnos posted:Spells with multiple targets don't fizzle when one of them is removed/becomes illegal. Only spells with a single target fizzle when their target is removed. Yeah that's exactly what he was saying.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Cernunnos posted:Spells with multiple targets don't fizzle when one of them is removed/becomes illegal. Only spells with a single target do. Yes, and I wish single-target spells worked the same way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:I like the assertion that something is 'dumb' and 'bad' without actually stating what is dumb/bad about it. It totally is a backdoor 6th color, it just comes without any of the parasitism or demands for future that a 6th color would bring. They can bring this back or not as they will, because the only requirement for it, colorless mana, will remain a mainstay of Magic. The weird thing is, if they did everything but print a card that required colorless to cast, it would just be a rules clarification. We already produce colorless mana in the game. It just has the same, obviously confusing symbols as generic mana payments. It should have its own symbol because sometimes (2) means one thing, and sometimes it means another. Urza's Tower and Cranial Plating the (2) means different things. There should be a good way to distinguish and ♦ is a perfectly logical idea. Every other mana that is generated has a simple symbol, why not colorless? Also colorless has always been the 6th color. Legacy MUD, Modern Affinity, Tron decks. This is the biggest clarification that changes nothing that people are having a hard time with. Sigma-X posted:I think it's really stupid because it's a backdoor 6th color for bullshit reasons and fucks with templating with zero actual designspace gain that isn't a parasitic 6th color, and furthermore their marquee 6th color card is something that historically has not been a 6th color thing and that was the whole point of them. I look at decks like Tron and MUD and Affinity and they are decks that operate based on their identity of being colorless. MUD wouldn't exist if lands that produced extra colorless mana didn't exist. Colorless has an in game identity. Also Eldrazi has always been colorless as a very specific deliberate thing. This is just further clarification that colorless is a separate distinct thing from color in Magic. The issue might be is the biggest identity of colorless is ramp, and that is a green thing. It is hard to separate green and colorless when they both have tools that benefit each other in terms of ramp to game winning threats. Assuming all this becomes official, thats what I'm really interested in seeing, if they'll mention it or just pretend like Tron/Cloudpost/Sol Lands to giant colorless stuff isn't the same sort of bailiwick as green ramp. jassi007 fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Yes, and I wish single-target spells worked the same way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Algid posted:How? Just resolve whatever non-targeting portion it has or rewind the cast? Lol. The first, which is to say, everything you can that makes sense. Just follow the same procedure you do today with multitarget spells where one target has gone away. The fact that multitarget and single target spells behave differently is a leftover and hardly necessary. Unfortunately because of modo I don't see this one ever changing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Like I have 2 3/3s, you bolt one, I protect it, so the other dies? gently caress that Edit: ah I see
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
I think they mean like, you Prophetic Bolt a thing, it gets bounced, you still get to impulse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
I think that 90+% of the time, when a spell with a single target is countered on resolution but you really wanted it to resolve, the thing you missed out on doing is some form of drawing a card. In that case it's kind of a feature, not a bug-- strategically removing your own dudes to deny your opponent value. Like Remanding your own Cryptic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:♦BG is not cost-wise different than WBG, which is why I'm calling it a backdoor 6th color. It's exactly the same functionality as another color, and it's being done for bad reasons (supporting their bad colorless flavor for eldrazi this go around). To be fair, I doubt they'd make a card that costs ♦BG. They're probably limiting it to just colorless cards. Unless they keep devoid, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:I think that 90+% of the time, when a spell with a single target is countered on resolution but you really wanted it to resolve, the thing you missed out on doing is some form of drawing a card. In that case it's kind of a feature, not a bug-- strategically removing your own dudes to deny your opponent value. Like Remanding your own Cryptic. And it's good that if you try this trick with Carom, you get a completely different result. I mean it's not like a huge deal, it's just one of those rules that isn't pulling its weight and I expect to go away someday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
In my experience the "colorless mana versus generic mana have the same symbol!!!!" issue doesn't actually exist. New players don't treat them as different things, they just call them both colorless and know that you can spend colored mana as if it were colorless. It's okay though, we've solved the imaginary new player confusion problem... as long as new players are never exposed to any card printed in the last 22 years, many of which won't be reprinted ever. Or, you know, to any cards in the set being drafted with OGW, where you're expected to just know that cards like Kozilek's Channeler can pay for ♦.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Let me try to sum up the arguments: It's good because (1) means different things on non-basic lands/artifact ramp (you get 1 mana that is colorless and cannot be used to pay for colored costs) and on everything else (you may pay for this without regard to where the hell the mana comes from.) You don't have to use (1) to pay for (1) costs, unlike with every other mana symbol in the game, and that's weird. Also, it restricts tge power of decks running no cards that make colorless mana, which helps weaken fetchlands, possibly significantly. It's bad because it is essentially a 6th color for cost purposes. That's weird as hell for reasons ranging from a lack of mechanical identity for colorless things to powerlevel concerns for such pillars of fair magic (this is sarcasm) as shops, tron, 12-post etc. Also it involves an absolute ton of errata.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:The weird thing is, if they did everything but print a card that required colorless to cast, it would just be a rules clarification. We already produce colorless mana in the game. It just has the same, obviously confusing symbols as generic mana payments. It should have its own symbol because sometimes (2) means one thing, and sometimes it means another. Urza's Tower and Cranial Plating the (2) means different things. There should be a good way to distinguish and ♦ is a perfectly logical idea. Every other mana that is generated has a simple symbol, why not colorless? Also colorless has always been the 6th color. Legacy MUD, Modern Affinity, Tron decks. This is the biggest clarification that changes nothing that people are having a hard time with. There is no colorless identity to those decks, though. Affinity is heavily colored, and is artifact themed. MUD is artifact themed primarily (although they keep printing good colorless planeswalkers so it's less that). Tron is GIANT FUCKIN MANA themed, not colorless themed - frequently you're using that colorless themed mana to GSZ for 6G. All of those decks abuse lands that produce multiple colorless instead of a single color, but there isn't an identity like they're trying to establish with eldrazi. I don't think ♦♦ on Kozilek is going to break the game or make it less fun (I think it's a dumb mechanic and unexciting but I feel that way about every card in standard right now except Tasigur) but it's adding a lot of change that accomplishes very little for the amount of disruption it adds to existing templating. About the only justification I will be satisified with is if, in a year from now, they can point to some survey / user research data that indicates that adding a colorless mana symbol to lands that produce colorless mana has made teaching the game easier. The ♦♦ cost bullshit is super boring and combined with devoid is indicative of their failure to recapture what made the eldrazi interesting the last time around. e: it does not require errata at all. From all designery perspectives it is very elegant. From a user standpoint it's just dumb, and the marquee card they made to demonstrate how cool it is is loving terrible, and it easily invites a lot of bad design in the future if they go full retard on this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:I think that 90+% of the time, when a spell with a single target is countered on resolution but you really wanted it to resolve, the thing you missed out on doing is some form of drawing a card. In that case it's kind of a feature, not a bug-- strategically removing your own dudes to deny your opponent value. Like Remanding your own Cryptic. The Oblivion Ring trick was also very much a feature and not a bug, at least in the analogous edge cases, and they still dumpstered it--though that was by templating things differently and not by changing the way the underlying rules worked. In other words, I agree with you that it's an interesting feature but I wouldn't expect that to protect it forever if someone gets a bee in their bonnet to change it the way cheetah7071 is describing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:The Oblivion Ring trick was also very much a feature and not a bug, at least in the analogous edge cases, and they still dumpstered it--though that was by templating things differently and not by changing the way the underlying rules worked. For what it's worth, i'm pretty sure O-Ring getting dumpstered is entirely the work of Luis Scott-Vargas. Weird as it was, there wasn't really a reason to get rid of it until LSV managed to hard-lock MODO with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:♦BG is not cost-wise different than WBG, which is why I'm calling it a backdoor 6th color. It's exactly the same functionality as another color, and it's being done for bad reasons (supporting their bad colorless flavor for eldrazi this go around). Quantify this please. A WBG card can have double strike, or cheap flying, or be a life-based alt wincon. What can a DBG card do that a BG card can't? The problem with a sixth colour is that it would need to take design space from the other colours, which this doesn't do. At most it does the things that colourless already does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Niton posted:For what it's worth, i'm pretty sure O-Ring getting dumpstered is entirely the work of Luis Scott-Vargas. Weird as it was, there wasn't really a reason to get rid of it until LSV managed to hard-lock MODO with it. If a banishing light effect could target your own permanents you could still do that lock. That's not the reason for the re-template.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
I think you and Lottery are overstating the 'disruption'. Cards that used to say add 1 will now say add <>, or 2 and <><> etc. Old cards won't, but old cards already do things like say "play a spell" rather than cast, don't include errata-ed creature subtypes, and have a different look. It won't be a big deal and will become less of a deal as the old way falls further and further into the past. We already have cards that spell out "spend only foo mana on x", nine of them in fact. We now have an in grained way to say spend only colourless. Now that we have it, they can use it as much or as little as they want. It multiplies the number of streams you can draft in a way that doesn't add on a sixth colour and all the issues that would entail. It gives them another dial for tweaking the power level of nonbasic lands. It does a whole lot. Also under the no fizzle rule power levels of certain cards change around a lot. Path gets quite a bit worse!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Allstone posted:Quantify this please. A WBG card can have double strike, or cheap flying, or be a life-based alt wincon. What can a DBG card do that a BG card can't? The problem with a sixth colour is that it would need to take design space from the other colours, which this doesn't do. At most it does the things that colourless already does. I have no idea, that's why I'm saying it's loving retarded, and the notion of taking design space from other colors to build a future "colorless" identity is garbage, but that's about all the design space that ♦ as a cost adds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Niton posted:For what it's worth, i'm pretty sure O-Ring getting dumpstered is entirely the work of Luis Scott-Vargas. Weird as it was, there wasn't really a reason to get rid of it until LSV managed to hard-lock MODO with it. Keeping LSV from doing things, to the game, for value only requires the "an opponent controls" clause. The rewording so that you can't get rid of your Oblivion Ring replacement before its etb resolves to perma-exile something has nothing to do with what LSV did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:I have no idea, that's why I'm saying it's loving retarded, and the notion of taking design space from other colors to build a future "colorless" identity is garbage, but that's about all the design space that ♦ as a cost adds. Artifacts, but cheaper and less splashable is already a gigantic design space.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Allstone posted:Artifacts, but cheaper and less splashable is already a gigantic design space. yeah they're called other colors
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Yes, and I wish single-target spells worked the same way. I like how it works because it makes affinity w/ inkmoth and ravager in play have a decent amount of counterplay against cryptic command Zoness fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
I hosed up with this spell on prerelease despite knowing the rules. (suicided the targeted creature with a fight spell, but forgot it would also negate the fog effect e:I was on the receiving end of Channel Harm, for clarity) I think it's fairly unintuitive, especially with how multi target spells work. Rinkles fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:I have no idea, that's why I'm saying it's loving retarded, and the notion of taking design space from other colors to build a future "colorless" identity is garbage, but that's about all the design space that ♦ as a cost adds. Your objections seem to be based entirely on what wizards may or may not choose to do in the future IF colorless as a specific cost becomes a recurring mechanic and IF they use that recurring mechanic to try to give colorless its own identity and IF that identity overlaps with things other colors can do, THEN specifically colorless costs are a dumb idea This sounds to my untrained ear like complaining for the sake of complaining
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
MCMAGIC: are you comfortable calling FIVE (5) top 8 decks featuring Painful Truths in the next THREE (3) months, by March 8th, 2016 Anno Domini in ONE HUNDRED PLUS (this gimmick is hard, 100+) person events success in legacy for the purposes of our bet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Does that have to be five distinct decks? Or just five top 8s?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:Lol. I'd be shocked to see it go because it gets pretty weird on why things to stuff. It probably largely would be mechanically functional but thematically it's really loving stupid on a huge pile of cards. I DRAIN YOUR LIFE, well I didn't drain your life, but I still got some life out of thin air. And really changes some card results from what it is now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
If they upend a pretty straightforward thing for the sake of a one and done gimmick, that's not really better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:yeah they're called other colors No as in literally: modular, equip, mana rocks, indestructible, living weapon, artifacts/colourless matters, affinity (Incidentally a great way to put a minimum cost on colourless affinity cards), charge counters, etc. The mechanics that artifacts are currently using.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Zoness posted:Nagle hates dredge which makes me dread him returning to set leads. I hope he gets therapy for his grave trolling. He really shouldn't burn his bridges with graveyard creatures, I hope he comes to some kind of breakthrough with that angle of design. Graveyard is the best place on the board.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:Your objections seem to be based entirely on what wizards may or may not choose to do in the future Everyone's excitement seems to be based entirely on the notion that WotC will go full retard on this, and I think that would be the worst thing they can do. I assume that people are excited by them going full retard because Kozilek's implementation is dumb as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:Everyone's excitement seems to be based entirely on the notion that WotC will go full retard on this, and I think that would be the worst thing they can do. I assume that people are excited by them going full retard because Kozilek's implementation is dumb as poo poo. I'm sure it's the only card with the ♦ in the set.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Neo Kozilek owns
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
retard was a card in time spiral i dont think they'd reprint that
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Keeping LSV from doing things, to the game, for value only requires the "an opponent controls" clause. The rewording so that you can't get rid of your Oblivion Ring replacement before its etb resolves to perma-exile something has nothing to do with what LSV did. No, you're correct, I forgot they changed two things from O-Ring to the current wording. Sigma-X posted:Everyone's excitement seems to be based entirely on the notion that WotC will go full retard on this, and I think that would be the worst thing they can do. I assume that people are excited by them going full retard because Kozilek's implementation is dumb as poo poo. I'm excited by the prospect of cards being printed which don't neatly fit into their "colored" 3C and 4C decks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
GeneX posted:Let me try to sum up the arguments: There's also me saying it's fake, but I've accepted no one here believes me, so I am saying it at my cats. Hey, Willy, Mirrorpool is faaaaake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:I'm sure it's the only card with the ♦ in the set. There's also that mythic rare land that can copy spells/creatures, which brings me to my point: There haven't been official spoilers yet, and the cards with this new mechanic have been mythic rares, which tend to not have reminder text IIRC. I bet you we'll see a Eldrazi bear that costs 1♦ or ♦♦ and says (♦ may only be paid for with colorless mana.) Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:There's also me saying it's fake, but I've accepted no one here believes me, so I am saying it at my cats. If and when you acquire a copy of Mirrorpool, take a picture of you holding it up and apologizing to your poor cats.  (Or just provide a picture of your cats  )
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
bhsman posted:There's also that mythic rare land that can copy spells/creatures, which brings me to my point: There haven't been official spoilers yet, and the cards with this new mechanic have been mythic rares, which tend to not have reminder text IIRC. I bet you we'll see a Eldrazi bear that costs 1♦ or ♦♦ and says (♦ may only be paid for with colorless mana.) 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Someone complained about there being no reminder text on Kozilek. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 01:09
|
|