|
Angry Grimace posted:I don't understand why the Gatewatch have a wardrobe that consists of one outfit. The inspiration for the Gatewatch is superhero team-ups, and you could say the same things about most superhero outfits.
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
kizudarake posted:What was the reprint after the hangerback? I'm at work and it won't load The others are the green Gearhulk, Mana Crypt and Gauntlet of Power.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Is this the first of Ajani we've seen besides that one random art piece?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
An actual line from today's Magic Story:quote:"You can call me 'Shadowblade,' by the by. With a Y in the 'blade.'"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Veyrall posted:He said, in an article I don't remember where now, that the issue of knowing which type of morph was which was more of a concern in Limited, since in Standard player's could be reasonably assumed to have brought the necessary resources to properly distinguish between morph types in Constructed games. He then said that it became a non-issue as time went by, becase Morph and Megamorph didn't end up really sharing any Limited playspace due to Khans being a split Khans/Dragons block, with Fate lacking any morph cards. Yet they had no problem creating two limited environments where you had to differentiate between manifested cards and actual morphs 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:
This is the most MTGO.txt thing I've read in a long time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Jabor posted:"Adversaire" is singular, so grammatically indicates that it's referring to a single opponent. But there's no wording in there about choosing or targeting the opponent to affect. I thought maybe it could be "each opponent", but apparently that's "chaque adversaire", and "target opponent" is "adversaire ciblé". So it doesn't fit either, nor does it fit "vos adversaires" for "your opponents". I found five cards that use the "your opponent" wording, two of which are silver-bordered and the other three have very unique wording referring to an already-chosen opponent. So it really does seem like it's a legit error.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
odiv posted:Is this on purpose or a gently caress up? They tweeted that they're investigating it so I assume gently caress up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
I can't imagine the whole manual being anything but highly entertaining.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:That Liliana emote though. Who the heck decided to include that one? If they wanted to include a woman in there, there's like a few dozen cards of Jaya and Chandra that would've been much better. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Star Man posted:In the last draft I did, I had to have a judge explain to two different people that if I make the target of their Harnessed Lightning illegal, they don't get the energy from it. Tbf I really think this rule should go the way of mana burn at some point. New players are practically guaranteed to learn it as part of a feelbad "gotcha!" moment, and I don't think what it adds to the game strategically is worth that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Spell fizzle is an important part of the game. Some cards are balanced around them being disrupt-able in this way. Plenty of cards were balanced around combat damage using the stack, and that didn't stop them from changing those interactions. I can see where this would be more dangerous since it's more likely to make cards stronger rather than weaker, but I can't think of any particular examples where it would really break things. The point I realized that the rule feels outdated and probably confounding to new players is when Awaken showed up. You cast Coastal Discovery for its mana cost, you target nothing, you draw two cards every time. You cast it for its Awaken cost, you target something, that target goes away, you draw nothing. The drawing cards part is so clearly independent of the targeting a land part, but by adding a target and then removing it, you lose the original unconditional part of the spell. I feel there's no logical way to explain that interaction other than "that's just the way it is," and I think the fewer rules you have that work counter to a new player's intuition, the better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
The Escalate cards were a good example of them being aware of and designing around the pitfalls of the fizzle rule. On every card that has a mode which chooses a target, all of the modes target, so you never lose the whole spell due to one invalid target. ^^^ Bestow is also a good example of them saying "the fizzle rule would make Bestow feel awful, so we're just going to write a new rule to make fizzle not apply to Bestow." It's clear that in recent design they're trying to avoid it in places where it makes sense to, it would just be a massive undertaking to figure out how to deal with applying it in a blanket sense. Nibble fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Am I too late for landchat? These are the basics I use for my cube:     I've been considering changing the Forest. I wanted to represent Mirrodin as it was a key plane, but now that Innistrad has cemented itself as a staple after its return block, I'd go with this:  I might also want to slot in a Noah Bradley one too, his BFZ cycle is nice (especially Island, but I doubt I'll ever replace the bowls). Nibble fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
You'd also have to explicitly exile the back side when it dies, otherwise you'd just get the front side in the graveyard again to re-embalm.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:Wait, are we getting two Gideon's in this set, Of the Trials and Martial Paragon? That can't be right...can it? Of the Trials is the one in packs, Martial Paragon is specific to the planeswalker deck supplementary product (and, while technically Standard legal, is designed to be not good enough to see play).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
I actually had to look that one up, but it's pretty straightforward: 708.7. Each split card has two names. If an effect instructs a player to name a card and the player wants to name a split card, the player must name one of those names and not both. An object has the chosen name if one of its names is the chosen name.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Tortilla Maker posted:Is "Standard" the old Type II? Yes: Standard is Type 2, Vintage is Type 1 and Legacy is 1.5. Extended is no longer a thing, but Modern has taken its place as an in-between format. quote:Why did they do away with Mana Burn? Mana burn didn't really add anything interesting to the game. There's a story about how they decided to experiment in R&D with removing mana burn for a few weeks, and at the end of it most people forgot they were even doing it because mana burn just never came up. quote:Aside from new creature abilities, what major game mechanics have been introduced, modified, or eliminated since 2002-ish? Besides a ton of new keywords, the biggest thing would be Planeswalkers, a new permanent type. They have their own "life" in loyalty counters, can be attacked as if they were a player, and once per turn you can activate their abilities while adding or removing loyalty counters. They're pretty easy to understand but definitely have a unique play pattern to them. Rules-wise, combat damage no longer goes on the stack, and the mulligan process has gone through a few iterations. quote:Is Magic Duels the cheapest/best way to be reintroduced to the game? Probably. You won't get the full experience, but as a means to learn the basic rules and see most of the new cards, it's a good entry point. quote:Will my 5 or 6-digit DCI number still work? I see the new ones are 2000 digits long. Yes, I still use a 6-digit number.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 20:42
|
|