|
Heath posted:No, it's all one paragraph and is thus a linked ability. You can't respond only to the "return him to the battlefield at the end step" because that is not a triggered ability. You would have to respond to the exile. There is no "when" or "whenever" in the second part of his ability, only the first part. If you stifle the ability he never leaves in the first place. Shortest Path is correct; did you read 603.7? Norin the Wary has a triggered ability that creates another delayed triggered ability, which you can tell from the part where it says "at the beginning of the next end step." Delayed triggered abilities are still triggered abilities, and can be Stifled and such.
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2022 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
Heath posted:The Internet seems to agree with the above but I feel like it is worded stupid. It's very much an edge case in any situation. If I was playing Norin and someone stifled him I'd probably just scoop and tell them to kiss my rear end tbh It's not really an edge case, it's a pretty common thing throughout Magic's history. For example, there are 223 cards similar to Norin whose oracle text includes "at the beginning of the/your next end step," and they're all parts of other effects (be they spells like Berserk or Ghostway, or triggered abilities like Norin or Feather or Prized Amalgam, activated abilities like Aetherling or Necropotence) that create delayed triggered abilities. There's also "do X at the beginning of the next upkeep" (e.g. Mishra's Bauble), "do X when Y dies this turn" (e.g. Massacre Girl), etc. All of these create triggered abilities that happen at a future time after the original effect. Sometimes, like Prized Amalgam, the entire effect (of the original trigger, in this case) is to create a delayed trigger; other times, like Mishra's Bauble, it's a part of an effect (an activated ability) that does multiple things including create a delayed trigger. The big giveaway is the use of the triggered ability words "when," "whenever," or "at" in reference to something happening in the future. (also, on that note, be on the lookout for "if...instead", "as", and other constructions that don't use those three triggered ability words, which generally signal replacement effects that are not triggers, and "until" which signals that an ongoing effect ends without needing a trigger or anything.) Also you're totally right that stifling Norin is an rear end in a top hat move. DontMockMySmock fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 02:26
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Yeah, to be fair in the bad old days, creatures were much harder to budge off the table outside of combat you know, back when every deck had some combination of lightning bolt, terror, unsummon, dark banishing, fireball, wrath of god, nevinyrral's disk, berserk, psionic blast, disintegrate, earthquake. . . Creatures have gotten better and removal has gotten worse. As useless as banding seems now, it was even worse back then. "Oh boy, I can attack with my 2/2 and two 1/1 banders through their. . . *reads card*. . . durkwood boars??" just play giant growth or lightning bolt or terror or whatever
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
Dizz posted:imo make dockside an uncommon reprint. white and red have guns already  
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:I remember when they introduced this mechanical rules change in, uh, Morningtide I believe, because the R/B set theme for the block was -1/-1 counters, and if you could imagine it there were old heads even then complaining that this was a bad change and keeping track of two different sets of counters on a creature that you then had to do math for every combat was GOOD actually and that was when I promised to never become a “Back in my day” magic boomer. It was that Lorwyn/Morningtide had a +1/+1 counter theme and Shadowmoor/Eventide was going to have a -1/-1 counter theme. Grognards will complain about literally any change. Sometimes they're even right, but in this case they were definitely wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
here's the world's dumbest idea. March of the Machines. Portcullis (with at least two other creatures/artifacts in play). Portcullis loops, removing itself and returning itself indefinitely. Play some sort of flash creature/artifact with a good etb into the portcullis; now it loops forever, too. Venser works (bounce all your opponent's permanents, then bounce Portcullis to stop the loop). Bogardan Hellkite works, I guess, but it's obviously rather expensive. Can't think of anything else that either wins right away or stops the loop, but you can add some sort of flicker effect (restoration angel, momentary blink, etc) and an existing creature that does damage or something, or Vedalken Orrery or similar. Idk. The rest of the deck is left as an exercise for the reader.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2022 04:22
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:Reckless fireweaver maybe one to add just to ping for some damage. Reckless Fireweaver is a nice idea, and I guess Quicksmith Genius works if you have the mana available for Venser. Alright, I'm convinced. So who's the general for this dumbfuck deck? Blue and red are mandatory. Presumably include green for 2nd March, Titania's Song. White for enchantment tutoring? Omnath, Locus of Creation maybe?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2022 08:59
|
|
|
Railing Kill posted:Yeah, I absolutely hate the branded poo poo. It feels somehow more mercenary and cheap than WotC is normally, which is saying a lot. The D&D poo poo is...kind of ok even if it still registers as a cheap marketing stunt. But The Walking Dead and Stranger Things were beyond stupid. It's a genre thing. I have no problem with science fantasy like Kamigawa, so it's not like I need everything to be loving Lord of the Rings. But characters who are from a fictionalized Earth in this game is loving stupid, and even Warhams feel free far from MTG's lore.  , especially about the disconnect between MTG's lore and that of these branded tie-ins. Magic: the Gathering has a tone, and that tone is incredibly different from the tones of The Walking Dead, Stranger Things, or Lord of the Rings. You can stretch it, bend it a little, to maybe do a set that's a little wackier than normal, or a little darker than normal. But you can't take a setting that's about a simple, somewhat neutrally-toned medieval fantasy about conquering armies and powerful wizards and suddenly make it about things as extreme and disparate as the saccharine sentimentality of Grimm's Fairy Tales and the WH40k's "grim darkness". Trying to cram these things into MTG ends up demeaning both MTG and the original IP. It is vapid, offering nothing but something to point at and say "I understood that reference." In turning a narrative work with themes and morals into a set of card mechanics, you remove what made that original IP special, and at the same time introduce thematic incongruity into Magic. Anyway, looking forward to sitting down for a commander game in the future and seeing my three opponents pull out a rapist from a zombie apocalypse, a genocidal space nazi, and a child from 1980s America.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2022 12:22
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:https://twitter.com/spleenface/status/1526418555322916865?s=21&t=1zslhf22RVwEDUVsJF_gpQ Stormy's reasoning is insane. In a ~100 card deck, each land you add makes the probability of drawing a land ~1% higher. Stormy says, 5 percentage points or less is insignificant, and doesn't matter. Taking that logic ad nauseum, the difference between 27 and 26 is also only 1%, which doesn't matter, so you might as well take out a land. And then the difference between 26 and 25 lands is also only one percentage point, so you might as well take a land. Etc., until you've got no lands in your deck. Obviously that's dumb. The nature of the error is this: you draw more than one card over the course of a game of Magic. 1% adds up, when you've drawn 10-12 cards over the course of a game (including the opening hand). Certainly the 5% between the 27 and 32 land decks they were talking about is pretty significant over those same 10-12 trials. Stormy did a superficial analysis, saw a number that looked "insignificant" based on their gut sense of probabilities, and didn't bother to consider the context of that calculation. Spleen is looking at a much more relevant metric, and their numbers demonstrate well the statistical difference between the 27 and 32 land decks that Stormy was talking about. Their statement that Stormy's error stems from rounding the opening hands is incorrect though - that was a weird and mathematically unjustified thing to do, for sure, but it doesn't particularly affect the main error that Stormy was making.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:If it's not you vs the table, your deck sucks. I really do not understand this point of view. If four good decks sit down for a multiplayer game, which one is the one that is vs the rest of the table?? it doesn't make mathematical sense. That said, even in the sane view that everyone getting 1 card is, in fact, equal for everyone, that card is literally just white Divination. You spend 1 card and draw 2 more than your opponents do. Except if one of your opponents is dead already, now it's 3 mana gitaxian probe. Not exactly something I'd be excited to put in my decks.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
Take away the context of this lovely white Divination and imagine, instead, an effect that costs neither a card nor mana nor any other resource from any particular player, and gives 1 card to each player. It is doing literally the same thing for every player. Now, leaving aside the specific board state (e.g. having more cards is more beneficial to the person with more mana), are you going to seriously tell me that this effect is somehow bad for you but good for your opponents? Or is it, in fact, the same for every player? Is it somehow bad for everyone simultaneously?? What if the exact opposite happens? If everyone mulligans to 6 (leaving aside, again, differences in deck composition that might affect the evaluation here), are you at an advantage because 3 opponents have 1 less card each for a total of -3, but you only have 1 less card? Since this situation is also completely symmetric, does that mean everyone is at an advantage over everyone else???
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Framboise posted:I'm not really following your example on the first part. The exact opposite of the second one. Everyone mulligans to 8, if such a thing were possible.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2022 04:35
|
|
|
Framboise posted:Parity is parity, whether everyone has 6 or 8 cards. Like yeah you have 3 other people against you, but in your examples, everyone is starting off with the exact same advantage and disadvantage in terms of card count and opponent count-- card quality notwithstanding. A good mull to 5 will usually do better than a 7-card 1-lander with no ramp or relevant early game plays. Okay, cool, it's symmetric. So if there are two cards that do the exact same thing, except one of them has "everyone draws 1 card" tacked on to the end, it would be insanity to say one of them gives you +0 cards and the other gives you -2 cards, right??? (again, depending on the exact board state, there can be reasons why "everyone draws 1 card" might be better or worse for certain players, but that's extremely situationally dependent and the stuff I'm trying to argue against is general statements.) Toshimo posted:I view myself as at -14 cards at the start of every game and expect to have to pull myself out of the defecit with good cards and strong gameplay to win. but surely if you're at -14, then everyone else who is in the exact same situation as you is also at -14? idk I cannot wrap my head around this point of view
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2022 06:59
|
|
|
If you think you are losing and intentionally cause an infinite-loop draw, then that's a legit way to avoid losing. If you begin the game and set out to cause an infinite-loop draw, you're an rear end in a top hat. MissMarple posted:If it's an infinite that the deck is built to get to then they win. . . . technically causes a draw not a win. . . uhh you see the contradiction there? it's not a win if it's not a win. you're arguing against a tautology
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
As a non-cEDH player, my best guess for what that tweet is supposed to mean is this: If I knew nothing about an opponent's deck and they played Thalia, I'd want to kill it ASAP before my mana gets hosed with even further. I think that she is playing a "fair" deck. Not stax, just something like an aggro deck where she uses Thalia and stuff like that to slow the opponents down long enough to (hopefully) beat down and get value with equipments and stuff. I have a mono-white deck like that; it doesn't play Thalia but it does play other hatebears to slow down the opponents and hold swords. She thinks that her opponents are being stupid for wasting their good removal spells and not saving them for other creatures that are more threatening in that context, like Mirran Crusader or some poo poo. But, at least some of the time, I'd bet what's going on is: her opponents who haven't seen this deck before don't know that her deck isn't stax. They think that the next thing to follow might be Winter Orb or something. So they see Thalia as one piece of a potentially very difficult-to-break lock, and therefore an extremely high-value target. She only sees this as a misplay because she does not understand that stax is a thing and it's a threat to her opponents. But I'm not 100% sure that's what she means. If her deck IS heavy on stax, then she's an idiot for not understanding her own deck. If she is playing aggro and her opponents know she isn't playing stax, then she is maybe kinda right but still being an rear end in a top hat about it. So she's either being an idiot for not understanding that stax is a strategy that exists, an idiot for not understanding the value of her own deck's cards, or just being an rear end in a top hat going "nyah nyah i won, you suck". I cannot think of an interpretation of her words that is more charitable than that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 08:19
|
|
|
Cards that interfere with your ability to use mana stones and stuff like that are annoying, but tolerable. They're just forcing you to play "fair," dropping you back down to the one-land-per-turn standard. Cards that cut you back to below the one-land-per-turn standard are the ones that get hate. In other words,Bust Rodd posted:I think it’s because there is a delineation, however fine, between “now we all have to jump through hoops to play Magic” and “now nobody gets play Magic at all” This is basically it. "I tried to go ham and was stopped" is very different from "I can't do anything at all."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2022 07:37
|
|
|
200 people at 300 bucks each is $60,000. Is the prize pool anywhere near that amount? A quick google tells me that an Unlimited lotus is $20k for a cheap one (they don't specify condition so i assume "not good"). The rest of the prizes I'm too lazy to look up their prices/wtf they even are, but I doubt they total >$20k. And I can't imagine they're spending more than a few thousand on operating costs and advertising; if anything, they're probably making bank from store traffic. It does not seem like a good deal. (I could be wrong; the prices of lotuses and old poo poo like that vary a lot, plus idk what the gently caress half the items in the prize pool are.) Also if you win you have to take home a "Liliana Statue" so can you really consider it a win? edit: just noticed the banner says "guaranteed 30k prize pool." it's normal for like a 1k at a local store to have a prize pool that's 50% of the revenue but that's because operating costs are a much higher proportion of that number (mostly judges/staff) but this tournament absolutely will not need more than two judges and one TO and a house cut of 30k is loving ridiculous edit2: maybe three judges if they're bad judges. DontMockMySmock fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Aug 18, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2022 12:22
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:I just noticed it's a mythic rare. Gross. it's lotus cobra all over again. something that should be an uncommon, or rare at best, but since it has "lotus" in the name it's a loving mythic.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:Except that lotus cobra was good and this is, uh, not. Oh yeah, not a comment on playability but just sayin', really good mana dorks and lovely expensive mana rocks both should be uncommon
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2022 03:17
|
|
|
I remember EDH being around since ~2007 at the latest. It wasn't very popular back then but I was aware of it as a thing, and it might even be much older than that; I was under the impression even then that it was a quite old thing that was just then starting to gain widespread popularity. It slowly gained momentum and was getting pretty popular in the late 00s, and then Wizards made it official with the '11 commander decks and that's when it really exploded. Menery may have gotten the word out at the beginning, but idk if you can give him or any other content creator too much credit; it just spread pretty quick by word-of-mouth. If I would credit anyone I'd say that wizards.com articles about it probably helped more than anything else, as those articles seemed to be fairly popular back then. At that time (~2007-8) I was playing a weird format that was popular in my local area. I don't remember what it was called or all the rules, but it was a 100-card singleton format with mandatory 5-color decks, and certain requirements for color inclusion that were complicated and strict (something like: 10 monocolored cards of each color, 1 of each color pair, 1 wubrg; but I remember it being more complicated than that). That eventually died when EDH took over around '09 or so.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
Silhouette posted:Rainbow Stairwell! Possibly the weirdest format, but cool as hell. No, it wasn't that - it's similar, but it was definitely 100-card decks and didn't have the cmc restrictions. I think the format had "california" in the name but I tried googling around a bit and couldn't find it. edit: scratching the back of my brain is the idea that it maybe had "100-card" in the name too. something like "100-card California highlander" or something like that. I think it was maybe inspired by both EDH and Rainbow Stairwell. DontMockMySmock fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
Zada, as well, requires you to cast a spell targeting Zada. And, crucially, the copies Zada makes aren't "cast." (Copies, in general, aren't cast; but there are exceptions such as Isochron Scepter. You just have to read each card carefully, here.) Vesuvan Duplimancy and Zada don't really go together in any special way. You'll get copies of Zada when you target him with spells but there's really no point in having more than one Zada (other than that you might want more creatures, period). Silverfur Partisan, OTOH, triggers when it "becomes the target," so that includes the copies (that aren't cast) from Zada. The result of that situation, assuming you stack Duplimancy's trigger on top and Zada's trigger on bottom, is two 3/8 reach Zadas, a 2/7 reach Silverfur, and a 2/2 wolf.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2022 21:44
|
|
|
On the subject of why things aren't banned, I'm still baffled why Mox Ruby/Jet/Sapphire/Emerald/Pearl are banned but Mana Crypt isn't. Sol Ring should maybe be on the list too, but at least with Sol Ring, it's available; the cheapest Mana Crypt is $175 (I assume that the RC does not endorse proxies). Of all of these seven cards, I think Mana Crypt is probably the most powerful, especially in a 40-life format.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Newest effect always wins when two cards are trying to change the same thing in the same layer. "Always" is incorrect here; it's true in this case, but if one of the effects depends on the other, the dependency takes precedence over timestamps. E.g., with Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth and Blood Moon: if you applied Blood Moon first, Urborg no longer has an ability, and therefore no longer applies said ability; if you apply Urborg first, Blood Moon is unaffected. In a situation like this, whether or how Urborg applies is "dependent" on whether or how Blood Moon applies, so you apply the "independent" effect first (Blood Moon) and apply the dependent one (or not) based on that (not, in this case, because the ability no longer exists). Also, a clarification: these dependencies are global, not on a card-by-card basis; the order they are applied in is the same for all objects. So in the Blood Moon/Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth example, none of the lands on the battlefield are affected by Urborg's ability, regardless of timestamps or anything; Urborg's ability disappears before it can be applied to anything. Further exception: if both effects are dependent on one another, then we go back to timestamps. That leads into one of my favorite weird-rear end rules questions: Life and Limb vs Blood Moon. What happens if the only 3 permanents on the battlefield are Taiga, LaL, and BM? Whether LaL affects Taiga depends on whether BM has applied and stripped it of forest status, so BM applies first, and Taiga is a Land - Mountain, and LaL doesn't affect it. What happens if the only 3 permanents on the battlefield are a saproling token, LaL, and BM? Whether BM affects the token depends on whether LaL has applied and turned it into a nonbasic land, so LaL applies first, turning it to a Land Creature - Forest Saproling, and then BM turns it into a Land Creature - Mountain Saproling. What happens if the battlefield includes Taiga, a saproling token, LaL, and BM? As we've seen, for the Taiga, LaL depends on BM, and for the saproling, BM depends on LaL. Since we have a "dependency loop," we fall back to timestamp order. If LaL came first, we apply it and then BM; then the saproling is still a Land Creature - Mountain Saproling, but the Taiga is also a Land Creature - Mountain Saproling, since LaL turned it into a creature before BM stopped it from being a Forest. If BM came first, we apply it and then LaL; then the Taiga is still a Land - Mountain, but the saproling is a Land Creature - Forest Saproling, since BM didn't affect it when it wasn't yet a land. To clarify for anyone who is new to the technical side of MTG rules: all of the above is only if they're in the same "layer;" in these cases, layer 4: type-changing effects. If the effects apply in different layers (e.g., Wall of Stolen Identity's copy-with-Wall-subtype effect (layer 1) and Conspiracy's creature-type-changing effect (layer 4)), dependency and timestamp do not matter at all; the effects are applied in layer order (e.g. Wall of Stolen Identity becomes whatever type was chosen by Conspiracy and is not a Wall unless that was what was chosen).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
Kurieg and LGD are correct. First Tyrannic War does not say anything about setting the value of X, only about adding extra +1/+1 counters. The Spore Chimney ability doesn't care about +1/+1 counters, it only cares about what X is, and since Sporocyst wasn't cast, X is 0. I find it sort of amusing that this is essentially a "correlation does not imply causation" error. If you cast Sporocyst normally, the number of +1/+1 counters on it and the number of basic lands you search for will be equal (i.e. they are correlated). But neither one causes the other; both are the result of a common cause (the amount of X paid). Kurieg posted:Yeah there was a rules update a while ago that let permanents remember what their X Value was when cast for the purposes of their ETB. One of the things this enables is if you copy a permanent spell with an X in the cost then both will remember their X value. This only works if you copy it *while* it's a spell. If you copy it once it ETBs then the copied X will be zero. That's not really a new rule. The fact that it is now possible to copy permanent spells on the stack is a new phenomenon (as of about two years ago I think), but it has always been the case that (a) ETB replacement effects and triggers of permanents "remember" X costs paid (this is necessary for any permanent with X in the cost to function at all), and (b) copying spells on the stack copies X costs paid.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2022 07:02
|
|
|
Jiro posted:That's a huge rear end explanation and thanks for clearing poo poo like that up. MTG gets so in depth when it goes in for what effect means what and when. Blood Moon is a type-changing effect, so it applies in layer 4, whereas Chromatic Lantern grants the ability in layer 6, ability granting or removing effects. So nonbasics will be Mountains that have the tap for any color ability. Blood Moon (and other basic land type changing effects that don't have the "in addition" clause) are a little weird in this regard, since they're changing type (layer 4) in a way that, as a side effect, causes abilities to be removed, which is the sort of thing you would expect to be in layer 6.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2022 09:09
|
|
|
Those rules were so ambiguous that I went looking for clarification; I found this video where they explain their rules and it did not help. I kind of think that concepts like "loops"/"infinites" and "'i win definitely right now' cards"/"instant-win combos" are impossible to really codify well. If you try to make it rigorous, you'll leave out lots of corner cases, and if you try to keep it loose, you'll eventually start an argument as to what counts and what doesn't. Hell, I'm not even 100% sure what "unconditional tutor" means.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2022 01:29
|
|
|
Batterypowered7 posted:Cards that's don't say "search your deck for a card of a specific type" like Demo Tutor, Diabolic Intent, Vampiric Tutor, and Imperial Seal. I'm just sayin', if they (or you) mean "cards that search a library for any card" then they should say "cards that can search a library for any card". Batterypowered7 posted:Also, I imagine an I-Win combo is just like Thoracle/Lab Man/Jace, where you win on the spot. For "instant win" stuff, if what they mean is Thoracle et al, then it's probably easier to just ban the few specific cards they mean than to try to codify it as a general rule; there are only 29 cards in Magic that say "you win the game" on them and they probably only want to ban 4 (Thoracle, Lab Man, Jace, and Approach of the Second Sun). But yeah, it wasn't at all obvious from your post or from the video if this is what PTW meant. Batterypowered7 posted:Infinites are probably stuff like Kiki-Jiki or Heliod/Ballista, maybe Malcolm and Glint-Horn? There are no actual infinities in Magic: the Gathering (outside of silver-bordered-land). Stuff like Malcolm and Glint-Horn doesn't even involve doing things an "arbitrarily large" number of times or anything like that, because it stops when your opponents die. "No loops" is approaching a sensible rule, but it leaves out stuff like, say, taking an arbitrary number of extra turns. Of these rules, this is the biggest one that is going to start arguments. What they really mean overall is "no combos that are Too Good," but what exactly "too good" means is going to vary from person to person. If you're playing with friends, this is something you can sort of feel out together over time; for example, my EDH group has long since gone through this and now I don't play my Reveillark deck anymore lmao. I point these ambiguities because, if you're playing with a close friend group, you don't need rules like this to play casual edh; on the other hand, if your intent is to create a set of rules that you can use to define a "casual edh" format for others who aren't part of your regular playgroup (including e.g. people in this thread who might contribute deck ideas), then you need to actually define things.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
LanceKing2200 posted:I just feel like banning the specific cards the group has a problem with is a much more elegant solution. I'm sure we can all agree that a massive ban list sucks but when the alternative is to have these giant discussions about "format intent" where everyone has their own opinion, it would be much easier to just add ~40 cards to the banlist and be done with it. I agree that some judicious banning of a few dozen cards is a better solution for curbing the power of stax, too-good tutoring, fast mana, etc., but not so much for combos in general. There's just too many.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2022 06:25
|
|
|
Batterypowered7 posted:You know, I thought it did. I won the game anyway, at least! Also, removing the counter (or preventing it from being placed, if Solemnity was already in play) doesn't matter. gatherer rulings for The Book of Exalted Deeds posted:The enlightenment counter placed by the last ability serves as a memory aid. It isn't connected to the granted ability. The Angel keeps that ability even if it loses the counter. Similarly, if the counter is somehow moved to another permanent, that permanent doesn't gain the ability.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
Batterypowered7 posted:Damage on creatures hasn't worked like that in like a decade. damage on creatures has NEVER worked like that. To be clear: you can either respond to the first spell, in which case your second spell will kill it and the first spell won't resolve at all 'cause it doesn't have a target; or you can let the first spell resolve, in which case the creature will already be dead and you won't have a target to cast the second spell. Either way, excess damage is only dealt to the creature once. combat damage was the only kind of damage that kinda floated around on the stack way back then, and even that wouldn't let you trigger Aegar twice on the same creature, had Aegar been printed back then. Combat damage just basically worked like a spell would. Way, WAY back in the days pre-sixth edition, you COULD respond to damage in that way, but only with damage-prevention effects like Samite Healer or Healing Salve, not with another Lightning Bolt or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:How do people feel about unglued? I think they're great but people around me get grumpy about it very much a card-by-card basis. If you want to put Carnivorous Death-Parrot in your Kangee deck, fine by me. If you put Spell Counter in your deck, I will loving stab you. Overall, I think it's better to err on the side of excluding un-cards; I don't think there's anything really universally cool that we miss out on, in exchange for excluding a huge variety of stuff that's gonna piss someone off. But if you wanted to join my table and made an impassioned case for playing Clambassadors in your deck, sure, fine, whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2023 07:52
|
|
|
I forgot about subgames, that's probably the second worst thing in un-sets other than "Spell Counter in multiplayer". If you play Enter the Dungeon i will concede the subgame immediately because back hurty when sit on ground  . I haven't really played any unfinity and unstable and i am amazed to discover they printed two new subgame cards. why would they do that
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2023 08:55
|
|
|
Tenasscity posted:How does removing saga counters prevent a third token from triggering the sacrifice? Doesn't triggering the third portion of a saga also set it to sacrifice? A saga is sacrificed as a state-based action if it has lore counters greater than or equal to its highest chapter number, and none of its triggers are currently on the stack. So if you remove a lore counter while the final trigger is on the stack, you keep the saga and it'll trigger again later.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2023 11:09
|
|
|
Ad Nauseam is legal; that'd be my guess for "best deck" under those restrictions. Not sure how many of the modern cedh tools we'd have, but i'm sure it can be made to work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
Batterypowered7 posted:What's the wincon, though? Worldgorger combo or something like that for infinite mana, something something?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2023 21:51
|
|
|
as long as we're doing silly, inefficient poo poo with deathtouch, put Basilisk Collar on Pestilence Demon and give it some way to prevent it from damaging itself (e.g. protection from black).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2023 07:59
|
|
|
orangelex44 posted:Complain about the existence of the Reserved List,, or whatever the hell the 30th anniversary release was, or even how pack opening is essentially exploitative gambling aimed towards minors. idk whether you're new to this thread or what, but Toshimo and others here spend a lot of time complaining about those things too, especially the Reserved List. But there's not as much need to talk about things about which everyone is pretty much in agreement 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2023 06:06
|
|
|
also Gandalf says "you cannot pass" in the movie, a couple lines before saying "you shall not pass" (he says "you cannot pass" four times in the book)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2023 11:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
ChatGPT "understands" the "gist" of gently caress-all, which is evident in how basically every sentence it says about Winota has dumb mistakes that even the most idiot magic player wouldn't make. Remember that it is just cutting up, recombining, and regurgitating text that it got from scouring the internet, which would presumably include tons of people talking about Winota in a way that isn't loving stupid. In light of that, it's kind of amazing how much it fucks up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2023 07:29
|
|