|
Yawgmoth posted:Really doubtful. That would involve multiple upkeeps to flip her and hit for 3 which would also involve multiple playing for creatures that can sac themselves. Multiple upkeeps? play avacyn -> sac 3 spawns -> next upkeep hit everything for 6.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Yeah 6 you + kill all other creatures then swing for 6 is pretty strong already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Multiple upkeeps? play avacyn -> sac 3 spawns -> next upkeep hit everything for 6. Yeah it seems like some people (not you) don't understand how triggers work or how transform triggers, specifically, (currently) work. At this point, though, we're arguing in a vacuum since they've pretty clearly hinted they'll change the rules to avoid activating any unnecessary neurons
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
She is the same game object, but does her name change affect how she transforms? The first effect says "transform ~1~"* so I think it would not also transform ~2~ *That is, it references her name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Gensuki posted:She is the same game object, but does her name change affect how she transforms? The first effect says "transform ~1~" so I think it would not also transform ~2~ It currently transforms in both directions, yes (only relevant for a few cards, such as Civilized Scholar), but the judge and tabak's tumblr basically outright said the rules are going to change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Friendly reminder thay we're going to have scion producing creatures and nantuko husk for a while in a standard with Avacyn, so you can instant speed blow up things that aren't yours
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Gensuki posted:She is the same game object, but does her name change affect how she transforms? The first effect says "transform ~1~"* so I think it would not also transform ~2~ 201.4b If an ability of an object refers to that object by name, and an object with a different name gains that ability, each instance of the first name in the gained ability that refers to the first object by name should be treated as the second name. Example: Quicksilver Elemental says, in part, “{U}: Quicksilver Elemental gains all activated abilities of target creature until end of turn.” If it gains an ability that says “{G}: Regenerate Cudgel Troll,” activating that ability will regenerate Quicksilver Elemental, not the Cudgel Troll it gained the ability from. Example: Glacial Ray is an instant with “splice onto Arcane” that says “Glacial Ray deals 2 damage to target creature or player.” If it’s spliced onto a Kodama’s Reach, that Kodama’s Reach deals 2 damage to the target creature or player. Example: Dimir Doppelganger says “{1}{U}{B}: Exile target creature card from a graveyard. Dimir Doppelganger becomes a copy of that card and gains this ability.” Dimir Doppelganger’s ability is activated targeting a Runeclaw Bear card. The Doppelganger becomes a copy of Runeclaw Bear and gains an ability that should be treated as saying “{1}{U}{B}: Exile target creature card from a graveyard. Runeclaw Bear becomes a copy of that card and gains this ability.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Cernunnos posted:It's a 3-pack of random (usually Standard Legal) boosters that were lying around and re-packed. I think they usually cost $12-15. It's me, I'm the guy at wall mart at 2am buying 3 packs with stocking tiger promo cards up front. It helps to have a friend who stocks at night to text you when the card goobers restock. The EV is delicious
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
PleasantDirge posted:It's me, I'm the guy at wall mart at 2am buying 3 packs with stocking tiger promo cards up front. It helps to have a friend who stocks at night to text you when the card goobers restock. The EV is delicious I guess it isn't terrible, but do they actually sell? It seems like a lot of effort to make 30-50 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Multiple upkeeps? play avacyn -> sac 3 spawns -> next upkeep hit everything for 6.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Avacyn is always a win condition, that combo just makes it even stronger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Yeah I hosed that up. But still, you're gonna need a handful of creatures, a sac outlet, and avacyn to make it a wincon. Not impossible, but also not really something they'll go out of their way to change (i.e. altering how flipping and named effects works just to prevent this one trick). Considering that rally is already more than willing to sac its board (yes I know rally is rotating) that would be an extremely shortsighted view to take.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Yeah I hosed that up. But still, you're gonna need a handful of creatures, a sac outlet, and avacyn to make it a wincon. Not impossible, but also not really something they'll go out of their way to change (i.e. altering how flipping and named effects works just to prevent this one trick). Actually, I'm pretty sure they will. If 2 creatures you control die to an effect, you'd get 2 triggers, which would non-intuitively stack and transform Avacyn and then transform her back. Under the current rule you could cast Displacer into Avacyn into Brood Monitor to get infinite triggers. But the more likely problematic issue is 2 creatures die, which results in a double transform, which would confuse a LOT of people. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Actually, I'm pretty sure they will. If 2 creatures you control die to an effect, you'd get 2 triggers, which would non-intuitively stack and transform Avacyn and then transform her back. She doesn't have a transform back clause. And she doesn't transform until the next upkeep. So you can't cast her, sac a guy and swing in the same turn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:She doesn't have a transform back clause. Transform applies both ways. See Moonmist and Insectile Aberration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Watching Wescoe play MTGO is teeth pulling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:She doesn't have a transform back clause. And she doesn't transform until the next upkeep. So you can't cast her, sac a guy and swing in the same turn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but what I am talking about is that, under the current rules, if two guys you control die, it will cause 2 transform triggers to go on the stack. The first will transform Avacyn. The second will transform Avacyn again back into Archangel. Whether Purifier has a transform clause is irrelevant, she can still transform if a trigger says to transform her. Do triggers like that go to the next turn? I always thought if it's a "beginning of the next upkeep" effect it only looked for if a thing happened, not how many times it happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Do triggers like that go to the next turn? I always thought if it's a "beginning of the next upkeep" effect it only looked for if a thing happened, not how many times it happened. it's multiple instances of a delayed trigger. It works exactly like normal triggers, except they don't happen right now. Also UW Eldrazi mirror finals in the two other GPs, who could have predicted such a thing?!?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Nah, each trigger creates its own delayed trigger, which then trigger at the same time
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Bonus posted:Nah, each trigger creates its own delayed trigger, which then trigger at the same time Makes sense. I guess the easy rule change is creatures that don't have a transform back clause cannot transform back. They could have just worded her better with "At the beginning of your upkeep if a non-angel creature you control died last turn transform ~" Errant Gin Monks fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Makes sense. I guess the easy rule change is creatures that don't have a transform back clause cannot transform back. How do you define "transform back clause" in the rules?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Makes sense. I guess the easy rule change is creatures that don't have a transform back clause cannot transform back. I'd think the fix would be to make it so that transform actions referring to one face don't apply to the other face. Not sure how you'd word that in the rules, because I think otherwise you'd want them to be considered the same object.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:How do you define "transform back clause" in the rules? If a card has been transformed and has no rules text on the face up side to transform again, transform triggers on the stack will have no effect. I.e. huntmaster has rules on each side to transform. Delver and avacyn do not. Or even "if there are transform triggers on the stack and the face of the card currently up has no transform rules text that card cannot be transformed." Errant Gin Monks fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
They could do the Marath solution and give her some day zero errata, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Sickening posted:I guess it isn't terrible, but do they actually sell? It seems like a lot of effort to make 30-50 bucks. I'm a night owl anyways, the tigers flew out of my binder and once you are familiar with what packs look like from the side you never buy a 3pack with three garbage core set packs in it. They sell for $11.99 at my bumblefuck wall mart so if the promo is worth $10 or more (very, very rarely) I consider the packs free rolls anyways but YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
They could maybe do a rule like "if an ability from the day side of a DFC would cause it to transform to its day side, nothing happens instead". The game tracks permanents as sources of abilities, so something like this could work, I think?
hey mom its 420 fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Do triggers like that go to the next turn? I always thought if it's a "beginning of the next upkeep" effect it only looked for if a thing happened, not how many times it happened. If it were written "At the beginning of each upkeep, if a non-Angel creature you control died last turn, transform ~", there would be only one trigger even if multiple creatures died. Since it's written "When a non-Angel creature you control dies, transform ~ at the beginning of the next upkeep", there's a new delayed trigger for each dead creature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
And Ben Friedman shows that playing scared is the best way to let a game slip away from you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:And Ben Friedman shows that playing scared is the best way to let a game slip away from you. Yeah it makes a lot more sense to play into things that you can easily play around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
4chan's response to the Sorin/Jace/Avacyn/Tamiyo art My favorite is the last one
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
I used to buy those bundles of 30 random cards and a booster pack all the time when I picked the game up in 2008. I got a Sacred Foundry out of one packed with a Ravnica pack. Also got a weird assortment of old and newish cards. It was how I learned all of the set stmbols.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
GimmickMan posted:She swoops in at the right time to save everyone, but when her power fails and allies die she goes completely nuts and turns into a teamkilling fuckwit. The flavor is really strong. What's the in-story excuse for anyone being dumb enough to let Geralf scavenge demon parts? Jetrauben posted:I'm a bit dubious/disappointed, because it's lazy to keep doing "welp, divine/heroic figure caught Raid Boss Disease; take 'em out back and shoot em." Feels like a waste. Blizzard and WOTC have been doing this for like 15 years now, doesn't seem to change people's opinions one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:But the more likely problematic issue is 2 creatures die, which results in a double transform, which would confuse a LOT of people. Yeah, this is why the rules are going to change. Before SOI, the "double transform" rule was pretty much never relevant: either you mechanically couldn't double transform (e.g. werewolves, flipwalkers, delver) or you technically could but never would (e.g. you could pay 12 mana to have Ludevic's Test Subject transform twice, but why would you). The only two places it could really show up were Civilized Scholar, which with a twiddle effect could use the double-transform to loot three times for the price of two, and Moonmist, if you cast it while the humans-turn-into-wolves trigger was on the stack (which you might do if your opponent responded to the transform trigger by bolting your human werewolf). It was an obscure interaction and you could play countless games without ever running into it. But now, with the set's pushed headline card, the double transform rule would rear its head any time two creatures die in one turn. That would come up by accident too often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Yeah it makes a lot more sense to play into things that you can easily play around. Up to a point, sure. But at some point you have to realize you're just giving your opponent more time to have it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
It's becoming less and less likely that they're reprinting moonmist. Flipwalker + moonmist interaction = 100% fun good times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:It's becoming less and less likely that they're reprinting moonmist. if by good times you mean dead walker, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Its amazing how the graphics team manages to gently caress up so much in such a short time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Here's a dumb rules question you guys might be able to help me with: If I cast Bone Splinters, will the sacrifice cost of that spell also pump Nantuko Husk? I doubt it since cards like Bloodbond Vampire are worded as "whenever you _______, then _______" and Nantuko Husk doesn't have that, but I just wanna be sure. e: Or does the sacrifice ability on Voracious Null also trigger Nantuko Husk? Soul Glo fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:if by good times you mean dead walker, I agree. Yes. Great fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:06
|
|