|
mcmagic posted:Wait, so you can't have negative life? No, he's saying that having negative life won't make Death's Shadow bigger. Death's Shadow gets "-X/-X where X is your life total," and with the old rules that basically read, for example with -2 life, "-(-2)/-(-2)" or "+2/+2." You can see why the change will affect the combo.
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Is Dismember on an attacking Wild Beastmaster still a blowout?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:You can, but it doesn't make Death's Shadow any bigger. That is super bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Is Dismember on an attacking Wild Beastmaster still a blowout? 6/27/2017 If this creature’s power is negative as its ability resolves, X is considered to be 0. (This is a change from previous rulings.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
I'm glad that a fairly intuitive and mathematically sound mechanic has been changed to allow for fewer interesting interactions while also making the mechanic less intuitive.
ThePeavstenator fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Bottom Right hand corner. I still don't see it. But then I'm phone posting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I still don't see it. But then I'm phone posting. It has a 4/4 printed
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:I'm glad that a fairly intuitive and mathematically sound mechanic has been changed to allow for fewer interesting interactions while also making the mechanic less intuitive. its a fairly dumb change yeah. at least deaths shadow isnt played or anything...wait
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
lol if you care about an opponent playing proxies/counterfeits
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:its a fairly dumb change yeah. at least deaths shadow isnt played or anything...wait I mean, it's a stupid change, but no one plays DS with Phyrexian Unlife but that one guy's friend Elyv fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
80s James Hetfield posted:lol if you care about an opponent playing proxies/counterfeits
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
80s James Hetfield posted:lol if you care about an opponent playing proxies/counterfeits
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Elyv posted:I mean, it's a stupid change, but no one plays DS with Phyrexian Unlife Yeah but it's literally any interaction where X is negative. It's like where removal spells have had the "creature opponent controls" text more often in the name of making the game easier to understand. What it actually does is make the rules more complicated because it keeps adding exceptions and it eliminates unintended interactions that new players don't even think about at first but later can lead to cool lines of play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:Yeah but it's literally any interaction where X is negative. It's like where removal spells have had the "creature opponent controls" text more often in the name of making the game easier to understand. What it actually does is make the rules more complicated because it keeps adding exceptions and it eliminates unintended interactions that new players don't even think about at first but later can lead to cool lines of play. Yeah I agree, I was just objecting to that one comment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Elyv posted:I mean, it's a stupid change, but no one plays DS with Phyrexian Unlife but that one guy's friend i saw it on cam at SCG once or twice, cuz i remember an announcer explaining the interaction but it's not just DS/Phry Unlife, DS has a bunch of weird interactions with "you can't lose the game" effects too so I can see this coming up casually a (relatively) lot
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
"We want a less homogeneous metagame!" *Publishes less data, showing fewer interesting brews* *Eliminates weird corner case interactions that a deck could be built around* ThePeavstenator fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Gonna chime in and say that this is a weird rule change that fixes apparently nothing to make the game less intuitive. Like, what, were we worried about some new build of Ad Nauseum that won by flinging a Death's Shadow or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
When I first learned how to play I was told that the golden rules of magic included one unwritten one: follow all text on the card as literally as possible. It made it much easier to understand weird interactions I had never seen before. Eliminating the weird interactions where you interpreted the card as literally as possible would have actually made it harder to learn the game IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Seems more intuitive to me  . I always assumed that the rules were already this way, until I saw the old Wild Beastmaster ruling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
They're trying to get away from the GOTCHA moments. poo poo like Oblivion Ring triggers stacked weird and such. I love those weird interactions because of the fact that you can make stupid decks that catch people. I know it's boring to explain the rules as to why you just softlocked your opponents with a Teferi/Possibility Storm but gently caress you I want to do it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
80s James Hetfield posted:lol if you care about an opponent playing proxies/counterfeits I do like wins though
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
En Fuego posted:They're trying to get away from the GOTCHA moments. poo poo like Oblivion Ring triggers stacked weird and such. I love those weird interactions because of the fact that you can make stupid decks that catch people. I know it's boring to explain the rules as to why you just softlocked your opponents with a Teferi/Possibility Storm but gently caress you I want to do it anyway. The gotcha stuff was actually really useful when I started playing though. It helped me learn the rules when I first started because it really hammered home the idea that "cards do exactly what they say" which I could use to make decks with interactions that I figured out on my own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
ShaneB posted:I do like wins though Yeah but if you take pride in winning because you beat someone at an LGS tourney where they're playing a Tier 2.5-3 deck and you're playing a Tier 1 (because you can afford it and they can't) you're kind of a grognard
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:You can, but it doesn't make Death's Shadow any bigger. But would Phyrexian Unlife ever let you have negative life? Wouldn't you have 0 and poison markers? Is there some way to get negative life and then play an enchantment without triggering a game end? (I assume so, since this was apparently a viable combo, but I don't know how.) Edit: I guess if you had Platinum Angel, got negative life, then played PU, and then killed the angel? Flip Yr Wig fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
80s James Hetfield posted:Yeah but if you take pride in winning because you beat someone at an LGS tourney where they're playing a Tier 2.5-3 deck and you're playing a Tier 1 (because you can afford it and they can't) you're kind of a grognard That's completely different than somebody using fake cards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:But would Phyrexian Unlife ever let you have negative life? Wouldn't you have 0 and poison markers? Is there some way to get negative life and then play an enchantment without triggering a game end? It makes you take damage as poison counters; however life loss continues to accumulate. edit: Watch a stream or two of Ad Nauseam to see the interaction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:But would Phyrexian Unlife ever let you have negative life? Wouldn't you have 0 and poison markers? Is there some way to get negative life and then play an enchantment without triggering a game end?  (Just kidding. I'm not that much of an rear end in a top hat. The card says "damage", loss of life is different).
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
odiv posted:Let's read the card! Gotcha! I think just learned this in another context, though I don't remember what.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Also with Unlife, if someone deals more damage than your life total from a single source, you'll end up in negatives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
80s James Hetfield posted:Yeah but if you take pride in winning because you beat someone at an LGS tourney where they're playing a Tier 2.5-3 deck and you're playing a Tier 1 (because you can afford it and they can't) you're kind of a grognard If an affinity opponent is using fake glimmervoids so obvious they have 4/4 on them I'm not gonna feel guilty about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
80s James Hetfield posted:Yeah but if you take pride in winning because you beat someone at an LGS tourney where they're playing a Tier 2.5-3 deck and you're playing a Tier 1 (because you can afford it and they can't) you're kind of a grognard Is affinity a tier 3 deck now? Also like the assumption that he or she is playing a tier 1 deck not that it actually has any bearing on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Is affinity a tier 3 deck now? Also like the assumption that he or she is playing a tier 1 deck not that it actually has any bearing on the matter. Affinity is always stuck in a quantum metagame where it is both a Tier 3 and 1 deck until the sideboards in the room have been observed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
ShaneB posted:If an affinity opponent is using fake glimmervoids so obvious they have 4/4 on them I'm not gonna feel guilty about it. That was more of my point. If someone is dumb enough to play with proxies with glaring mistakes like that then its kind of open season. The funny thing is that you really don't notice the glaring mistake unless you are already trained to see it. Also keep an eye out for trades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Is affinity a tier 3 deck now? Also like the assumption that he or she is playing a tier 1 deck not that it actually has any bearing on the matter. No, the point is that they have to use counterfeits in order to afford a T1 deck. There's no way I'd even notice the 4/4 if I were playing against that, and even if I did, I wouldn't call them out on it. I don't really feel the need to act as an inspector for WotC, and I'd rather see people being able to play the deck they want than to throw a tantrum over who printed the cardboard sitting across from me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Brownhat posted:That's completely different than somebody using fake cards. It's not. Anyone who uses proxies in a tournament does so (I'm assuming 95%) because they don't have the real life cash to fund the deck they want. Even if I had a Tier 1 deck myself I wouldn't give a poo poo about someone playing me with their Affinity deck that was 90% made up of fake cards. I'd rather play the good match ups vs. playing a bunch of Tier 2 and 3 level decks because those people can't afford the real cards. I do have a problem if they turn around and try to trade those cards for store credit or sell them knowing their fakes Same thing in Legacy if I played it. Hell, most people you play Legacy with now at your local stores I would bet 50% of their deck is fake. Yes, I understand those particular Voids are horrendous as hell but if you're someone who'd actually care enough to call a judge so you could get a free win you're still a grognard Pontius Pilate posted:Is affinity a tier 3 deck now? Also like the assumption that he or she is playing a tier 1 deck not that it actually has any bearing on the matter. I think you missed the point ShadeofBlue posted:No, the point is that they have to use counterfeits in order to afford a T1 deck. There's no way I'd even notice the 4/4 if I were playing against that, and even if I did, I wouldn't call them out on it. I don't really feel the need to act as an inspector for WotC, and I'd rather see people being able to play the deck they want than to throw a tantrum over who printed the cardboard sitting across from me. This is the point
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:No, the point is that they have to use counterfeits in order to afford a T1 deck. There's no way I'd even notice the 4/4 if I were playing against that, and even if I did, I wouldn't call them out on it. I don't really feel the need to act as an inspector for WotC, and I'd rather see people being able to play the deck they want than to throw a tantrum over who printed the cardboard sitting across from me. I wouldn't really call it a tantrum to call a judge on obvious fakes at a competitive event.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Can we all agree that it's a funny card?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:I wouldn't really call it a tantrum to call a judge on obvious fakes at a competitive event. I'd call it angle shooting
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Fake card arguments are like tip arguments. I wish we lived in a world where proxies were accepted and that servers weren't reliant on tips. Since I don't live in that world, don't half-rear end proxies and make sure you tip when you go out to eat. Seriously though, I'd rather play four rounds of people playing with B&W printed proxies than against random draft leavings thrown together to make a deck because some cardboard costs $20 a pop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Mtg: Proxy a card, unbookmark this thread: Gain a life
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 21:04
|
|
