|
Anil Dasharez0ne posted:I'd like to read this, and anything else on the subject that isn't from an official organ of WotC. TheKingofSprings posted:Same here, listening to stories of WotC's organizational incompetence is always a good time I can't remember if it was on a podcast or an old Twitch stream. But yeah I think we're really starved for any perspective on what Magic R&D is like from someone who isn't presently trying to sell us Magic cards. Imagine getting Randy Buehler drunk and listening to him complain about Rosewater forever.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
their decision to turn magic into a superhero team comic immediately after several well-done blocks of their own brand of storytelling is still inexplicable to me, and the decisions that have followed from that are putting the game in a hole that didn't need to be there
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Tales of Woe posted:their decision to turn magic into a superhero team comic immediately after several well-done blocks of their own brand of storytelling is still inexplicable to me, and the decisions that have followed from that are putting the game in a hole that didn't need to be there Didn't that overlap with some new department head and an increased emphasis on merchandising?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Didn't that overlap with some new department head and an increased emphasis on merchandising? Okay that's fine but you don't need to try and step into a market that's already over-saturated like superheroes. You can go into almost any retail store and they have at least two aisles dedicated to Marvel, DC, Transformers and the like. You aren't going to be able to compete for that audience's attention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:Okay that's fine but you don't need to try and step into a market that's already over-saturated like superheroes. You can go into almost any retail store and they have at least two aisles dedicated to Marvel, DC, Transformers and the like. You aren't going to be able to compete for that audience's attention. I'm not defending it, I'm trying to figure out where the blame should be attributed for what
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:I'm not defending it, I'm trying to figure out where the blame should be attributed for what Market Research said Jace should be spotlighted more so you can blame their marketing team for this. Like I don't care if you have the Jacetice League on every plane just don't put their cards in every set. We have 3 Nissas, 3 Gideons, and 2 Lilianas in the same standard and that's just nauseating. I guess the Intro Deck walkers don't count but still. Count Bleck fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:Market Research said Jace should be spotlighted more so you can blame their marketing team for this. Don't forget 1 Jace and 2 Chandra!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Captain Capitalism posted:Don't forget 1 Jace and 2 Chandra! I don't think a single Jace is bad, like if we had one Jacetice League walker per block, sure whatever. But that didn't happen and it's awful now. I'm happy Chandra has good walker cards now though. Edit: Also, friendly reminder that Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas is 22 dollars on SCG now for some reason. I want Thopter Sword to be good too but come on. Count Bleck fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:Market Research said Jace should be spotlighted more so you can blame their marketing team for this. To be fair, with the original rotation It was just 1 Gideon, 1 Jace, 2 Liliana, 1 Chandra and 2 Nissa.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
man these gideon to roman reigns comparisons keep lining up
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:I don't think a single Jace is bad, like if we had one Jacetice League walker per block, sure whatever. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
I didn't mean "there are bad Jace cards", I meant it in the context of hey, there are multiple cards that say "Planeswalker - Jace". its me glenda posted:man these gideon to roman reigns comparisons keep lining up I'm not really a wrestling guy but go on. Count Bleck fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:From Top Level Podcast, according to the link I saw on Tumblr This will need an errata since it removes the discarding half of cycling costs as well lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:This will need an errata since it removes the discarding half of cycling costs as well lol. WHOOPS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:This will need an errata since it removes the discarding half of cycling costs as well lol. Oh my god it does hahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:This will need an errata since it removes the discarding half of cycling costs as well lol. "Cycling X" just means "X, discard this card: draw a card". The X there is the cycling cost, there's no way to remove the discard as it's part of the keyword.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Tales of Woe posted:"Cycling X" just means "X, discard this card: draw a card". The X there is the cycling cost, there's no way to remove the discard as it's part of the keyword. The discard is also part of the cost, since it's before the colon, and since it's a replacement and not any kind of reduction it should replace that too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
702.28a Cycling is an activated ability that functions only while the card with cycling is in a player’s hand. “Cycling [cost]” means “[Cost], Discard this card: Draw a card.” 702.28b Although the cycling ability can be activated only if the card is in a player’s hand, it continues to exist while the object is on the battlefield and in all other zones. Therefore objects with cycling will be affected by effects that depend on objects having one or more activated abilities. 702.28c Some cards with cycling have abilities that trigger when they’re cycled. “When you cycle [this card]” means “When you discard [this card] to pay a cycling cost.” These abilities trigger from whatever zone the card winds up in after it’s cycled. Discarding a card is part of the cost. Play this card, have seven cards including a cycling card in your hand, draw your entire deck for free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
I can see Tales' point. Here's the explicit text: 702.28a Cycling is an activated ability that functions only while the card with cycling is in a player’s hand. “Cycling [cost]” means “[Cost], Discard this card: Draw a card.” It's open for interpretation I guess and the card's intent is clear. Still, lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:The discard is also part of the cost. It's part of the total cost of the activated ability but not the "cycling cost". its pretty unintuitive but that's how it works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Tales of Woe posted:its pretty unintuitive but that's how it works. just like split cards cmcs right 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
I sorta hope they keep it as printed for a while. It's probably incredibly busted but it'd be fun to see it wreck the format for a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
http://media.wizards.com/2017/downloads/MagicCompRules_20170119.txt posted:702.1a If an effect refers to a “[keyword ability] cost,” it refers only to the variable costs for that keyword. Seems like the card's fine as is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
What's the latest cephalid breakfast shell these days? Either that or ad naus are how to turn drawing your whole deck into a win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Rip_Van_Winkle posted:Seems like the card's fine as is. Doesn't that ruling quite explicitly state the activation cost is paying the mana and exiling the card?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
The great thing is that regardless of how it actually works, there will be room for MTGO to gently caress it up somehow!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Doesn't that ruling quite explicitly state the activation cost is paying the mana and exiling the card? It says the cycling cost is the X and the activation cost is X + discard, and the card we're talking about says cycling cost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:The great thing is that regardless of how it actually works, there will be room for MTGO to gently caress it up somehow! It'll be the scenario where it actually works as intended for once! In that it will work how it is being described here!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Rip_Van_Winkle posted:Seems like the card's fine as is. Ah ok, magic's rules-lawyery nature saves us again
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:It'll be the scenario where it actually works as intended for once! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:Doesn't that ruling quite explicitly state the activation cost is paying the mana and exiling the card? it can be read as "[Cycling cost] + [Activation cost] = Cycle" or "[Cycling cost + Activation cost] = Cycle" which is weirdly ambiguous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Maro does say that starting with Hour of Devastation they're going to cut back on the number of Gatewatch PW cards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:it can be read as "[Cycling cost] + [Activation cost] = Cycle" or "[Cycling cost + Activation cost] = Cycle" which is weirdly ambiguous. It pretty clearly says that it's Variable cost + Keyword Cost = Activation Cost Where variable = cycling cost, keyword cost = discard
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:I'll always remember that story GerryT told about his R&D internship where he was kind of depressed and Tom LaPille took him aside to give him a pep talk like, "you need to understand you're not the smartest guy in the room anymore. get over it" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Nm, I'm dumb
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Rip_Van_Winkle posted:Seems like the card's fine as is. Oh, that makes sense, I forgot about the variable cost changing on keywords granting activated abilities that also have static costs that comes up
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Yep, Naya Exert is gonna be a thing no matter how silly and janky. Buy up those Always Watching's now!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
And for funsies, here is a list of creatures with CMC >=6 from BFZ block - the stuff that R&D were "surprised" would be in standard with Champion of Rhonas. I'm not seeing anything obviously gross other than Ulamog. Drowner and World Breaker are good, obviously. Gladehart Calvary might do something adorable with -1/-1 counters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
 Meh on the combined look
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 19:31
|
|
