|
jeez that hullbreacher card
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
Aranan posted:I haven't played pauper since they banned gush and git probe. I don't regret that choice. lmao delver is stronger now that it's turned into faeries, gush and probe probably wouldn't even be in the deck any more And tribe was a bullshit combo that you couldnt interact with so gently caress that deck
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
Silhouette posted:lmao delver is stronger now that it's turned into faeries, gush and probe probably wouldn't even be in the deck any more Blitz was a harmless bystander in this conflict and was taken from us too soon 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
Silhouette posted:
You take that back or I’ll fight u. I miss tribe so much. Now I’m playing cycling storm in pauper and I have no regrets
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
A new Akroma was spoiled, didn't see it posted in here: https://twitter.com/ghirapurigears/status/1324006199470161920?s=20 I love how they resorted to using "and so on". It makes sense, but I can just picture them thinking, "Look, I know we want a card that has every keyword on it ever, but there's only so much we can do without it looking like Bureaucracy."
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
That looks banging with rick from the walking dead. Both commanders have to have partner though right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Found my target for the new Sakashima.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
InterrupterJones posted:A new Akroma was spoiled, didn't see it posted in here:
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
I think they're forced not to use colons since that's how costs are syntaxed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
poo poo, yeah you're right. It could still be formatted like "...gets +1/+1 if it has flying; the same is true for deathtouch et al." and save more space, as well as following the syntax of other similar abilities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
InterrupterJones posted:A new Akroma was spoiled, didn't see it posted in here: it's missing landwalk, bands with others, flanking, and bushido. no sale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
The thing I wonder is, would it have been broken, or even materially different, if it just "for each keyword is has". A little less flavorful, but heck partner is on there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
Probably to avoid all the people who would misplay poo poo like threshold as a keyword. A shame, because Akroma giving creatures +1/+1 for having Horsemanship would be great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
Some Goon posted:The thing I wonder is, would it have been broken, or even materially different, if it just "for each keyword is has". A little less flavorful, but heck partner is on there. What's a keyword? Once you can answer this in a way that is rather clear and unambiguous, you can use "keyword" in rules text.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
Yeah, is Flashback or Kicker a keyword? Devoid? Mutate? Mill? Extort? it's not a simple distinction, and even if there was a rule that clarified what keywords were, it would still have to be a list in the comprehensive rules that says what abilities are "keywords."
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Yeah, is Flashback or Kicker a keyword? Devoid? Mutate? Mill? Extort? it's not a simple distinction, and even if there was a rule that clarified what keywords were, it would still have to be a list in the comprehensive rules that says what abilities are "keywords." This is the rule defining what keywords are, if you're curious (check 701 for keyword actions), and it does have a list of every single keyword ability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
Tulul posted:This is the rule defining what keywords are, if you're curious (check 701 for keyword actions), and it does have a list of every single keyword ability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
In a hypothetical Magic 2.0, digital-only move, or expecting that designers in the early 90's would have the foresight to do this, keywords would have been in bold or have some other signifier. Like Tribal, it's too many hurdles to overcome for what would be a nice addition to the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I guess my point was that the natural language of "combat-relevant keywords" that aren't actually shortcut descriptions isn't actually very natural and would just be a hand-picked list of abilities anyway. Didn't say "combat relevant". "Each keyword ability" works just fine in the rules and is much shorter. I don't think there's any loss for getting a buff for echo besides flavor, but I'm not sure, hence why I asked. E: gameplay-wise. I'm sure it would be a nightmare trying to get people to accept what is and isn't a keyword ability at a table, even if it's spelled out in the rules. Fantastic Foreskin fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Nov 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
new conspiracy theory: wotc hates the implication of the word Pauper, so they make the format about avoiding being one (no pauper monarchs hehe)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I guess my point was that the natural language of "combat-relevant keywords" that aren't actually shortcut descriptions isn't actually very natural and would just be a hand-picked list of abilities anyway. Ah yes, the combat relevance of Partner
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
All of the cards like this new Akroma, Odric, etc. just saying "keyword ability" would be so much nicer and more elegant. It's a shame it'll never happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
This one was revealed with her and it seems pretty bonkers. Great for alpha striking and for protecting your board from wraths. Akroma's Will {3}{W} Instant Choose one. If you control a commander as you cast this spell, you may choose both. • Creatures you control gain flying, vigilance, and double strike until end of turn. • Creatures you control gain lifelink, indestructible, and protection from all colors until end of turn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:new conspiracy theory: wotc hates the implication of the word Pauper, so they make the format about avoiding being one (no pauper monarchs hehe) This card was already in Pauper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
Framboise posted:This card was already in Pauper. rip
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
Lone Goat posted:Ah yes, the combat relevance of Partner Partner is a deckbuilding alteration, so I guess Rat Colony has a keyword and Tevesh Szat has two.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Partner is a deckbuilding alteration, so I guess Rat Colony has a keyword and Tevesh Szat has two. ???
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:All of the cards like this new Akroma, Odric, etc. just saying "keyword ability" would be so much nicer and more elegant. It's a shame it'll never happen. The list of keyword abilities includes Equip, Cumulative Upkeep, and Aura Swap, along with nonpermanent ones like Epic and Buyback, so no go there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:The list of keyword abilities includes Equip, Cumulative Upkeep, and Aura Swap, along with nonpermanent ones like Epic and Buyback, so no go there. Why does that matter though? "creatures gain each keyword ability that each other creature you control has" and "each creature you control gets +1/+1 for each keyword ability it has" don't break anything with that, because the ones that don't work on creatures would never be on creatures to affect that in the first place, and cumulative upkeep, phasing, etc. don't change anything if they're gained temporarily.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Partner is a deckbuilding alteration, so I guess Rat Colony has a keyword and Tevesh Szat has two. read the card that spawned this discussion and count how many times the word "partner" appears on it, the answer may surprise you
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:Why does that matter though? "creatures gain each keyword ability that each other creature you control has" and "each creature you control gets +1/+1 for each keyword ability it has" don't break anything with that, because the ones that don't work on creatures would never be on creatures to affect that in the first place, and cumulative upkeep, phasing, etc. don't change anything if they're gained temporarily. It breaks a few things. Just play a guy with Cumulative Upkeep. Ordic, Lunar Marshall would pass that on to everyone, then thanks to Sphinx of the Second Sun there is an upkeep phase. Now we have to pay Cumulative Upkeep on our creatures. What's the cost? Are they all instantly dead from no cumulative upkeep cost to be paid? Is it based on who gives it? Echo? Fading and Vanishing? Then there's the feelbad of Ordic passing on Defender at the beginning of combat. Whoops! What if Ordic gives every creature Enchant Creature? They'd die instantly due to state-based actions, I guess. Equip, what, an absent equip cost? Things like Devoid and Changeling that are attribute-defining become relevant suddenly, too. Then we have just confusing people, with ability words like Landfall and Adamant that have no rules meaning. Or Adapt or Monstrosity, which are not keyword abilities. You create confusion and rules headaches and your upside is... a little future-proofing so Ordic gets Riot long after Riot could possibly happen?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
Lone Goat posted:read the card that spawned this discussion and count how many times the word "partner" appears on it, the answer may surprise you I lost count. :thinking: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
howdy
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
Dumb deck idea: Akroma/Rograkh. Is it effective? No. Is popping a 0-cost 4/5 you'll dump a bunch of equipments on to try and one-shot someone fun? Probably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:It breaks a few things. Just play a guy with Cumulative Upkeep. Ordic, Lunar Marshall would pass that on to everyone, then thanks to Sphinx of the Second Sun there is an upkeep phase. Giving out keyword abilities, like you've noted, doesn't work so well (ability words aren't keyword abilities either), but merely counting them like on Akroma doesn't have those concerns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
Dias posted:Dumb deck idea: Akroma/Rograkh. Partner combos should be made based on how much you'd like to watch a buddy action show starring them and Kobold being guided by a vengeful superangel sounds dope as hell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2020 22:43
|
|
|
I'm just waiting to explain how partners with is/isn't the same as partner. Unlike bands with which is banding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
Dias posted:Dumb deck idea: Akroma/Rograkh. Akroma, Sakashima, and helm of the host.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 03:40
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:It breaks a few things. Just play a guy with Cumulative Upkeep. Ordic, Lunar Marshall would pass that on to everyone, then thanks to Sphinx of the Second Sun there is an upkeep phase. This isn’t really a hard problem to solve if they wanted to, though. Add a rule that defines a subset of keywords to work with these abilities. Call them “combat keywords” or something. Then Akroma just says your creatures get +1/+1 for each combat keyword they have (plus partner), and the list in the rule can change to include future keywords where the card text can’t.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
That Akroma is a just a really sloppy design. It's not that exciting of an ability and it's a mess to put into legible rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 04:54
|
|
