Well crap. Now I'm not going to have anywhere to ask rules questions or scope out cool deck lists for various formats.
In my opinion this has been the best resource for the game. Now I'm just wander around the internet trying to find a substitute. Bullocks I tell you!
- Perodequeso
- Registered User
-
Member for 10 years, 10 months, and 20 days
Last active Tue, Apr, 23 2024 16:10:46
- 0 Followers
- 652 Total Posts
- 165 Thanks
-
Nov 30, 2017Perodequeso posted a message on If You Can't Take Criticism of Jeremy Hambly, You're Part of the ProblemI agree with the vast majority of this opinion piece, however: in one paragraph it states that policing peoples thoughts is abhorrent, and in another paragragh it states one should be OK with shooting people for their thoughts.Posted in: Articles
Nazis in Normandy were an occupying force waging a war of aggresson and comitting human rights violations. Modern American nazis are just a**holes with their heads lodged, we should shoot them? If and when they become violent prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law sure, but to espouse idealogical violence is dangerous, extreme thinking. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One for each dwarf and Bilbo.
Thanks!
Thank you. Was having a rules discussion in another forum, and this was the conclusion we came to but it's nice to have your clarification.
Say during my upkeep my opponent Mana Shorts me, can I dump mana in to a Circle of Protection: Red and then wait until later in the turn to choose what that source will be?
Or are both out redundant?
I think for your video it was better to play the way you did. More people are familiar with the rules on reddit than those posted here.
I'm considering adopting it that way for my playgroup.
And besides, SpiceTrader56 is doing a much better job at curating the format than I.
I saw both, very cool. That dude wearing red is a stitch. Happy to see people enjoying this, I never really expected anyone outside my playgroups to even consider it.
I just want to point out a tiny rules nitpick; in my version of the rules non-Vehicle creatures can attack planeswalkers and can block attacking vehicles. The guys over on the subreddit amended the rules to only allowing vehicles to attack and block. I think their way is more intuitive.
I just discovered there's a subreddit dedicated to the format. That's just crazy to me.
Glad you're all enjoying it.
Follow up question: if a player, in multiplayer, casts their second Approach of the Second Sun and another player responds with Angel's Grace,
that would get around the Approach, correct?
Does only player 1 lose?
He is free from the influence, power, and machinations of the other powerful beings of Middle-earth. He is independent from the influence of the rings. And he is ancient beyond time, when compared to the Maiar. Only Eru and Melkor are more powerful than Tom, that we can say we know of. While it is entirely, hypothetically possible in a straight out battle that Sauron, in possession of the Ring, could have defeated Tom, that's not the sort of thing Tom would even engage in.
Tom, unlike Sauron for instance, is power but he does not wield power.
So much this.
Right. My thought is that in MTG the God creature type is the only power level to express Tom.
From what I've read he's the most powerful character that's encountered in the story.
@caulkwrangler, it's been many years since I've read all the source material, but I remember specifically coming away with the impression that Tom Bombadil
was indeed the most powerful character in Middle-Earth.
I'm thinking no, because of the Gatherer rulings. That destroying one of the targets renders the ability null.
Is "no target" the same as an illegal target for the purposes of Gauntlets of Chaos' ability?
Once the targets are chosen, those targets are then "locked in", correct?
EDIT: I think I got my answer in CR 115.1. That once chosen those are the targets.