I still have fond memories of the guy at my uni who played a deck with all the "Double" cards from Unglused, and had a dedicated notebook to record which of them he'd played in his last game against each person he played against.
A bunch of us at my work have picked up the format recently, it seems quite fun so far. Gets a lot of what I love about EDH, but shifts it into a format that really works as something we can do quickly at work - short games, low cost of entry to get more people into it, and focused on 1v1.
I've started by pulling half the cards out of my Omnath EDH deck, but am working on a couple more decks that are built specifically for the format.
I do think that CMD damage is necessary however, otherwise life gain will just slap you across the face. The amount of CMD damage could be discussed of course, but it should definitely be included.
The official Tiny Leader rules do not include commander damage:
The Tiny Leaders format ignores play rule 10: "If a player has been dealt 21 points of combat damage by a particular Commander during the game, that player loses a game."
I'm assuming if you Windbrisk Heights a split/fuse card, you get both sides correct?
No. Any time you cast (play) a split card, you chose one half to cast.
Quote from Comprehensive Rules »
708.2a If a player casts a split card without using fuse, that player chooses which half of that split
card he or she is casting before putting it onto the stack. Only that half is evaluated to see if it
can be cast. Only that half is considered to be put onto the stack.
Note it doesn't say this only applies when casting from your hand. Windbrisk Hieghts still has you cast the spell, and thus make the choice of which half, it just lets you avoid paying the mana cost.
I had a specific question for Ready // Willing ...if you Windbrisk Heights it (at instant speed as you tap to attack) the part on Ready that says "untap each creature you control" How does that work if you already tapped to attack? Do they have fake vigilance? Aren't attacking anymore? Or untap post combat? I'm assuming you would just wait and activate Windbrisk heights in response to damage after blockers are declared, then you could untap them while still killing their blockers and what not, but any insight?
The earliest stage you could activate Windbrisk Heights is when you gain priority in the Declare Attackers step - which is after all the attacking creatures have been tapped, but before blockers are declared. Untapping them at this point (or any later point in the combat phase) doesn't remove them from combat, it just untaps them. They're still attacking creatures, but no longer tapped. You can do this any time after declaring attackers without any significant difference in the result - your attacking creatures will still be attacking, but won't be tapped.
It doesn't give an advantage, it gives a more proper randomization. The more shuffled and random your deck is, the better it will be. So the more random it is, you will have more of an advantage theoretically. The only reason you do a mana weave is to be sure that your cards arent bunching up and grouping in weird ways.
An actually randomised deck is very likely to contain bunched and clumped groups of similar cards. Randomness is not neat and tidy and evenly spaced. If doing the weave is actually having any effect that lets you "be sure that your cards arent bunching up and grouping in weird ways" then it is making your deck less random, by making it more predictable.
So here in NZ we've had the bank for a few days now, but I only found time to try it out last night. Is anyone else feeling frustrated by the process of transferring pokemon from B/W to the bank? Unless I'm missing something, there's no way to move multiple pokemon around at once like there was in 4th gen, and there's no 'deposit/withdraw all' in poke transfer like there was for moving a whole box to/from the wii ranch. And it won't even let me pick which box to upload from on white or too on the bank, I have to move 30 pokemon (one by one) to box 1 in White, open poke transfer and wait for it to connect, move all 30 one-by-one again into the transfer box, close that, open the bank, wait for that to connect, move 30 pokemon from the transfer box to a different box of the bank (still one at a a time)... and all that for every box of pokemon (with it taking longer each time because I have to move them further to find a free box in the bank).
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the bank exists, and I'm looking forward to completing my living pokedex and getting access to some of my favourite 'mons. But the UI of the poke transfer and the bank seems ill-suited to moving lots of pokemon - which surely is the primary thing people would do with it? I know they could do so much better than this because they already did with the ranch, so this feels like such a step backwards.
I thought after I was done with the silly minigame to transfer things from 4th gen to 5th it'd be smooth sailing form there...
If a Runner makes a run at your R&D, using 4 clicks, so four runs, does he access the top 4 cards of your R&D or just the first?
Each run (costing one click) is separate. The first run, he'll access the top card of R&D. If it's an agenda, he'll steal it, and the next run will be on the card below, which is now the top card. If it has a trash cost, he can pay to trash it - if he does then the next run will be on the next card, which is now on top, if he doesn't pay to trash it, or can't because it doesn't have a trash cost, that card will stay on top of R&D, and if he chose to run again, it'll still be the top card and thus the one he accesses - so he'd probably chose to do something else with those clicks.
If the runner makes 4 consecutive runs on your HQ, does he choose a card at random and then return it to the your hand, repeat 3 more times or does he choose 4 cards at once?
Again, each run is resolved separately. He'll access one card at random each run, and if it's not an agenda and doesn't get trashed, it'll stay in HQ and he might get it at random again next time.
CodGod, would you be willing to trade one of your Ocean pattern Vivillon?
Sure! I'm trying to get full sets for myself and the friend who's supplying me with ocean patterns, so I need quite a few. I'm good for Garden, Ocean, Elegant and Modern, but I'm happy to trade the spares of those for pretty much anything else atm, since the ones I've collected one of I need two so I can pass one to my friend. I've only got a few Ocean ones left, but I'm happy to keep one for you, and I should be able to get more on Friday.
Feel free to send me a trade request if you see me online.
I'm doing the same (stupid) thing I do every pokemon game: named each box for 30 pokemon (box 1 is 1-30, 2 is 31-60, etc.), arranged each pokemon by nationaldex number, and am now filling in all the blanks. Yes, this includes first and second evolutions. X and Y actually reward you for this, a little bit, because you catch so many mid or final evolutions in the wild.
I'm doing the same thing, but I haven't gotten into the full swing of it yet - I'll be more focused on doing the full dex once the bank is out and I can transfer the older ones I have sitting in the Wii ranch. Currently I'm alternating between catching as many dittos as I can from a safari for later breeding, breeding, and catching scatterbugs to evolve to Vivillons to trade on the GTS for other colours to try to complete the set.
If anyone needs garden pattern Vivillons, I have a limitless supply of those, and a semi-constrained supply of ocean patterns through a friend. Plus a few spares of the modern and elegant patterns.
Thanks angbagal for compiling the up-to-date list, I've now added everyone there (and The Waffle King, who's friend code was on the following page) so anyone there who wants anything from my safari (Ferroseed, Bronzong and Skarmory) only needs to add me to get access.
Also, got a good starting base of combees so far from Truesight's safari (not enough females yet, curse that gender bias!), and while I was in there got my first shiny: a Masquerain. Not sure what to do with that yet
If anyone wants a steel-type friend safari with Ferroseed, Bronzong and Skarmory, my friend code is 5214-9793-2718.
I haven't read all through the thread yet, so not sure which version of the friend code list is up to date, but I'm happy to add anyone who wants me.
Also, Truesight, I saw you apparently have Combees in your safari? Vespequen is my favorite pokemon, so I'd love to be able to catch some safari Combees for breeding, so I've added the code I saw for you, would love it if you could add me back, thanks.
So I'm designing a wedge-themed set just for fun, and I'm a bit unsure about the viability of some of my keywords. Here they are:
I'm calling the UBG wedge's (which I call Oozy) keyword corpsegraft for now. It works like this:
Corpsegraft - This creature has all abilities of all creatures in your graveyard with corpsegraft.
Is that too complicated? Too powerful? Would it work with ETB effects, or would I have to add an "at all times" clause or something? Thoughts?
It does work with ETB triggered abilities ("When ~ enters the battlefield..." because it's got that ability when it has entered and is checking for things to trigger, but I believe it won't with replacement effects modifying how things enter ("~ enters the battlefield with 4 +1/+1 counters" and the like), because they are applying 'before' it's on the battlefield. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong on that point.
The parasitism of this mechanic has been covered already, but if one end of it could be left open (all creatures get abilities from dead things with corpsegraft, or living things with corpsegraft get all abilities from dead things) then that could be solved. Note that the first is probably better since it means you have control over what abilities get passed around, and can keep it simpler for commons, etc.
There could also be more limits (dead green creatures with corpsegraft grant their abilities only to other green creatures, for example).
The second major problem I see with this mechanic is that even in a parasitic corpsegraft deck, nothing stops you running off-colour corpsegrafters and jsut discarding them or otherwise putting them in the graveyard - why play the UBG corpsegraft deck when I can play mono-B, have no mana issues, and if I have a few discard outlets I can still cropsegraft off-colour abilities like flying and trample from the blue and green discarded creatures onto my black ones? The best precedent for this I can see is the //gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&subtype=+[%22Incarnation%22">&block=+[%22Odyssey%20Block%22]"]Incarnations, where most of them required a land of the appropriate colour (and the ones that didn't had activated abilities requiring that mana).
This actually pushes me further in favour of only sharing abilities with creatures that share a colour, as I mentioned above, but there are other ways this could be solved.
I do think there's some potential here, but it needs a rework. One thing that comes to mind, look at how creatures with bloodrush always grant their abilities, but they spell out those abilities specifically, which makes each individual interaction easier to understand.
So something like this (please ignore balance, example purposes only): Corpsetrampler3U
Flying Corpsegraft - As long as ~ is in your graveyard, blue creatures you control have flying.
2/2
Note that this gets around the 'as this enters' problem above as well.
Corpsegrower2G
~ enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it Corpsegraft - As long as ~ is in your graveyard, green creatures you control enter the battlefield with an additional +1/+1 counter on them.
0/0
Since this spells everything out, I'd say you could handle keyword abilities and maybe one-off triggered abilities (enters/leaves the battlefield) at common, and more complicated things at higher rarities, but that still might not give enough to do at common.
This still has issues, but it's been an interesting exercise, and I hope it helps you move the ability to a place where it serves the purpose you need. For my part, thanks for the inspiration, I had fun following this train of thought -I like what this ability is trying to do, if not how it currently does it.
The WBG wedge I call Ghastly, and it's keyword is this:
Resurrect X - Whenever a creature you control with toughness less than X dies, you may COST. If you do, return that creature to the battlefield for as long as you control ~.
The COST will be something I haven't quite decided on yet. Maybe tapping, maybe discard, maybe mana. I'm not sure. I think the mechanic's a bit too complicated, but I'm not sure if there's a good way to make it simpler. Is it too powerful? I'm not sure.
I'd steer clear of this in it's current form. In addition to the problems mentioned so far, this has a big strike against it - memory issues. You're required to remember, permanently, for each thing you resurrect, which specific thing with resurrect was used to resurrect it. If this ability is common enough to be the theme, then I'm going to have a lot of things with resurrect in block limited, and keeping track of which thing's ability I used to resurrect each creature is going to be a nightmare over a long game - particularly since the best practice is to split them up as much as possible, so you don't lose all your resurrected creatures to a single doom blade.
You could uncouple it from the creature doing the resurrecting (lose the "for as long as you control) but that probably makes it too powerful, and makes the "why would I have more than one thing with this" even worse, as then there's no reason not to just have one thing with the ability.
Maybe you could keyword Tenacious Dead's ability, thus having each creature only resurrect itself?
I briefly considered having all creatures with resurrect entering the battlefield with a single counter, and having that counter be removed when they resurrected something (so each one only gets one thing - but if that thing has resurrect itself, it refreshes it's counter and can save something else in turn) but that's starting to push the limits or what we can do at common. I guess it's not that much more complicated than Undying/Persist, but in a wedge block, with 4 other wedge keywords to keep track of as well, having the ability on a creature other than the one that dies might be too much.
The last mechanic is for the URG wedge, which I call Dynama.
Wonder - Whenever you draw a card, do something.
This one I'm worried might be too simple, already explored, or low on design space. I feel like it captures the flavor of Dynama well, and there are lots of interesting interactions that fit, (like Wheel of Fortune effects, which are very URG, but it might not be enough.
Honestly, I think you may have hit the jackpot here - "too simple" is not a phrase I'd use, rather "elegantly simple". I think there's plenty of design space for this, and it's not at all parasitic, as drawing cards pretty much always happens in any game of magic. My only warning would be about keeping the power level not too high on any one ability, as drawing cards is already powerful in itself. You could do a version as "whenever you draw the first card in a turn...", which can do more powerful things, and has interesting interactions with instant-speed draw to get them to trigger on the opponent's turn as well, but it loses some of that simplicity.
I've rambled long enough. I hope some of this feedback is useful to you.
I agree with Marelt Ekiran on the mechanics changing - Previous slivers were printed at a time when the norm was for lords to affect all creatures, and the new ones are in a time when the norm is to affect only your own (and affecting all is actively avoided). I'd have preferred they keep the slivers different in that way, but it's not a deal-breaker.
The horribly stomping all over the flavour/visual identity of slivers is. None of these actually look like slivers, and the fact that slivers weren't just another bipedal 'humans with X difference' race and actually had an original and alien body structure was one of their coolest features. There's no reason I can see to make these slivers if they're not actually going to be slivers, and the things depicted in those card arts are clearly not slivers.
Wizards has taken something that I loved, and "brought it back" while removing everything that was actually great about it. I'd have no problem with them printing these as slivers with actual sliver art, or printing them as a new creature type, even if that meant the permanent retiring of slivers from future magic in favour of the new replacements. But applying the name to something that clearly doesn't fit rubs me very much the wrong way, as a long-term sliver fan.
Pre-ordered the 3ds bundle, and have been enjoying what I've played, but unfortunately due to work being very busy, haven't had time to get far.
The original Tri was my first MH game, so I'm enjoying coming back to it with new stuff, although so far I haven't encountered much new - I imported Portable 3rd for PSP and played that in Japanese, so the monsters from that game, such as the 3 new pelagus/fanged beasts, aren't new to me. I'll have to wait until I reach things like the new Lagiacrus subspecies, which I'm looking forward to.
I'm taking the opportunity to expand my weapon knowledge. I played hammers in Tri and then Gunlances in FU and P3 (and thus got to experience the wonderful improvements to the gunlance moveset in p3 that have continued in 3U), and while I'm intending to continue with both of those, I'm taking advantage of the easier quests at the start to learn my way around a Heavy Bowgun, which is an interesting departure from my experience with the other weapons.
Using "they" as a singular, gender-neutral pronoun is universally comprehended by native speakers...
...I think "they" sounds completely natural when used in almost any case, and never have I heard anyone propose a superior option.
There is absolutely 0 reason for people to try constructing an artificial singular, gender-neutral pronoun.
As a native speaker, I disagree - it sounds right to native speakers in cases where the person in question is unknown, but as pointed out earlier in the thread, "I wish Anne would park their car..." sounds off to native speakers, and in fact, so would omitting the pronoun; "I wish Anne would park Anne's car..." sounds forced and odd.
There is not a gender-neutral pronoun suitable for describing this situation - the sentence can't be put in a way that both sounds right to a native speaker and doesn't explicitly state Anne's gender, despite Anne's gender having nothing to do with what's discussed.
While yes, "he" or "she" work reasonably well here most of the time, an unknown person is not the only reason for wanting a gender neutral pronoun. There are people who don't fit into traditional gender categories, or who don't want their gender revealed for whatever reason, etc. And there are quite reasonable arguments that it should be possible to talk about Anne without explicitly stating, or even knowing, Anne's gender.
"They" works for specific cases, but not for all cases where a gender-neutral pronoun would be desirable. So there's nothing wrong with people exploring the options towards finding one that would (or attempting to change/promote usage of 'they' until it doesn't sound odd in those cases anymore, I guess).
Not that I have a better solution, but it's simply not true that "they" fits the bill completely and there's no reason to look for another option.
I've started by pulling half the cards out of my Omnath EDH deck, but am working on a couple more decks that are built specifically for the format. The official Tiny Leader rules do not include commander damage: so this issue has already been addressed.
Note it doesn't say this only applies when casting from your hand. Windbrisk Hieghts still has you cast the spell, and thus make the choice of which half, it just lets you avoid paying the mana cost.
The earliest stage you could activate Windbrisk Heights is when you gain priority in the Declare Attackers step - which is after all the attacking creatures have been tapped, but before blockers are declared. Untapping them at this point (or any later point in the combat phase) doesn't remove them from combat, it just untaps them. They're still attacking creatures, but no longer tapped. You can do this any time after declaring attackers without any significant difference in the result - your attacking creatures will still be attacking, but won't be tapped.
Making sure your deck is "spaced properly" is the opposite of randomisation.
Oh, wow, thanks. That'd fix it then. I must have tried pretty much everything else
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the bank exists, and I'm looking forward to completing my living pokedex and getting access to some of my favourite 'mons. But the UI of the poke transfer and the bank seems ill-suited to moving lots of pokemon - which surely is the primary thing people would do with it? I know they could do so much better than this because they already did with the ranch, so this feels like such a step backwards.
I thought after I was done with the silly minigame to transfer things from 4th gen to 5th it'd be smooth sailing form there...
Yes
Again, each run is resolved separately. He'll access one card at random each run, and if it's not an agenda and doesn't get trashed, it'll stay in HQ and he might get it at random again next time.
Can't help you with the decklist thing, sorry.
Feel free to send me a trade request if you see me online.
If anyone needs garden pattern Vivillons, I have a limitless supply of those, and a semi-constrained supply of ocean patterns through a friend. Plus a few spares of the modern and elegant patterns.
Also, got a good starting base of combees so far from Truesight's safari (not enough females yet, curse that gender bias!), and while I was in there got my first shiny: a Masquerain. Not sure what to do with that yet
I haven't read all through the thread yet, so not sure which version of the friend code list is up to date, but I'm happy to add anyone who wants me.
Also, Truesight, I saw you apparently have Combees in your safari? Vespequen is my favorite pokemon, so I'd love to be able to catch some safari Combees for breeding, so I've added the code I saw for you, would love it if you could add me back, thanks.
It does work with ETB triggered abilities ("When ~ enters the battlefield..." because it's got that ability when it has entered and is checking for things to trigger, but I believe it won't with replacement effects modifying how things enter ("~ enters the battlefield with 4 +1/+1 counters" and the like), because they are applying 'before' it's on the battlefield. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong on that point.
The parasitism of this mechanic has been covered already, but if one end of it could be left open (all creatures get abilities from dead things with corpsegraft, or living things with corpsegraft get all abilities from dead things) then that could be solved. Note that the first is probably better since it means you have control over what abilities get passed around, and can keep it simpler for commons, etc.
There could also be more limits (dead green creatures with corpsegraft grant their abilities only to other green creatures, for example).
The second major problem I see with this mechanic is that even in a parasitic corpsegraft deck, nothing stops you running off-colour corpsegrafters and jsut discarding them or otherwise putting them in the graveyard - why play the UBG corpsegraft deck when I can play mono-B, have no mana issues, and if I have a few discard outlets I can still cropsegraft off-colour abilities like flying and trample from the blue and green discarded creatures onto my black ones? The best precedent for this I can see is the //gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&subtype=+[%22Incarnation%22">&block=+[%22Odyssey%20Block%22]"]Incarnations, where most of them required a land of the appropriate colour (and the ones that didn't had activated abilities requiring that mana).
This actually pushes me further in favour of only sharing abilities with creatures that share a colour, as I mentioned above, but there are other ways this could be solved.
I do think there's some potential here, but it needs a rework. One thing that comes to mind, look at how creatures with bloodrush always grant their abilities, but they spell out those abilities specifically, which makes each individual interaction easier to understand.
So something like this (please ignore balance, example purposes only):
Corpsetrampler 3U
Flying
Corpsegraft - As long as ~ is in your graveyard, blue creatures you control have flying.
2/2
Note that this gets around the 'as this enters' problem above as well.
Corpsegrower 2G
~ enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it
Corpsegraft - As long as ~ is in your graveyard, green creatures you control enter the battlefield with an additional +1/+1 counter on them.
0/0
Since this spells everything out, I'd say you could handle keyword abilities and maybe one-off triggered abilities (enters/leaves the battlefield) at common, and more complicated things at higher rarities, but that still might not give enough to do at common.
This still has issues, but it's been an interesting exercise, and I hope it helps you move the ability to a place where it serves the purpose you need. For my part, thanks for the inspiration, I had fun following this train of thought -I like what this ability is trying to do, if not how it currently does it.
I'd steer clear of this in it's current form. In addition to the problems mentioned so far, this has a big strike against it - memory issues. You're required to remember, permanently, for each thing you resurrect, which specific thing with resurrect was used to resurrect it. If this ability is common enough to be the theme, then I'm going to have a lot of things with resurrect in block limited, and keeping track of which thing's ability I used to resurrect each creature is going to be a nightmare over a long game - particularly since the best practice is to split them up as much as possible, so you don't lose all your resurrected creatures to a single doom blade.
You could uncouple it from the creature doing the resurrecting (lose the "for as long as you control) but that probably makes it too powerful, and makes the "why would I have more than one thing with this" even worse, as then there's no reason not to just have one thing with the ability.
Maybe you could keyword Tenacious Dead's ability, thus having each creature only resurrect itself?
I briefly considered having all creatures with resurrect entering the battlefield with a single counter, and having that counter be removed when they resurrected something (so each one only gets one thing - but if that thing has resurrect itself, it refreshes it's counter and can save something else in turn) but that's starting to push the limits or what we can do at common. I guess it's not that much more complicated than Undying/Persist, but in a wedge block, with 4 other wedge keywords to keep track of as well, having the ability on a creature other than the one that dies might be too much.
Honestly, I think you may have hit the jackpot here - "too simple" is not a phrase I'd use, rather "elegantly simple". I think there's plenty of design space for this, and it's not at all parasitic, as drawing cards pretty much always happens in any game of magic. My only warning would be about keeping the power level not too high on any one ability, as drawing cards is already powerful in itself. You could do a version as "whenever you draw the first card in a turn...", which can do more powerful things, and has interesting interactions with instant-speed draw to get them to trigger on the opponent's turn as well, but it loses some of that simplicity.
I've rambled long enough. I hope some of this feedback is useful to you.
The horribly stomping all over the flavour/visual identity of slivers is. None of these actually look like slivers, and the fact that slivers weren't just another bipedal 'humans with X difference' race and actually had an original and alien body structure was one of their coolest features. There's no reason I can see to make these slivers if they're not actually going to be slivers, and the things depicted in those card arts are clearly not slivers.
Wizards has taken something that I loved, and "brought it back" while removing everything that was actually great about it. I'd have no problem with them printing these as slivers with actual sliver art, or printing them as a new creature type, even if that meant the permanent retiring of slivers from future magic in favour of the new replacements. But applying the name to something that clearly doesn't fit rubs me very much the wrong way, as a long-term sliver fan.
The original Tri was my first MH game, so I'm enjoying coming back to it with new stuff, although so far I haven't encountered much new - I imported Portable 3rd for PSP and played that in Japanese, so the monsters from that game, such as the 3 new pelagus/fanged beasts, aren't new to me. I'll have to wait until I reach things like the new Lagiacrus subspecies, which I'm looking forward to.
I'm taking the opportunity to expand my weapon knowledge. I played hammers in Tri and then Gunlances in FU and P3 (and thus got to experience the wonderful improvements to the gunlance moveset in p3 that have continued in 3U), and while I'm intending to continue with both of those, I'm taking advantage of the easier quests at the start to learn my way around a Heavy Bowgun, which is an interesting departure from my experience with the other weapons.
There is not a gender-neutral pronoun suitable for describing this situation - the sentence can't be put in a way that both sounds right to a native speaker and doesn't explicitly state Anne's gender, despite Anne's gender having nothing to do with what's discussed.
While yes, "he" or "she" work reasonably well here most of the time, an unknown person is not the only reason for wanting a gender neutral pronoun. There are people who don't fit into traditional gender categories, or who don't want their gender revealed for whatever reason, etc. And there are quite reasonable arguments that it should be possible to talk about Anne without explicitly stating, or even knowing, Anne's gender.
"They" works for specific cases, but not for all cases where a gender-neutral pronoun would be desirable. So there's nothing wrong with people exploring the options towards finding one that would (or attempting to change/promote usage of 'they' until it doesn't sound odd in those cases anymore, I guess).
Not that I have a better solution, but it's simply not true that "they" fits the bill completely and there's no reason to look for another option.