- Rosy Dumplings
- Registered User
-
Member for 17 years, 2 months, and 22 days
Last active Sun, Mar, 17 2024 19:46:30
- 0 Followers
- 2,638 Total Posts
- 855 Thanks
-
3
DementoRecraves posted a message on Generous PatronMy Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons commander deck just made a friend.Posted in: Generous Patron -
2
Ander228 posted a message on Josu Vess, Lich Knight9 zombies for 10 mana in a meta that has Scarab God. He's also good at PoloPosted in: Josu Vess, Lich Knight -
3
ShadowZealot7 posted a message on Gilded LotusWell, I've been wanting a reprint for this, but I sure didn't expect it to come to standard.Posted in: Gilded Lotus -
2
tchntm43 posted a message on Dark BargainPasses one of the most important tests of card draw spells - it's an instant. This will probably see some play.Posted in: Dark Bargain -
1
Kryptnyt posted a message on Sphinx's DecreeWithout a cantrip, this is a poor man's Abeyance.Posted in: Sphinx's Decree -
4
Aejann posted a message on Very Cryptic Command"Forest" is one word, right?Posted in: Very Cryptic Command -
3
tchntm43 posted a message on Sky TerrorThis is the first creature with both Menace and Flying since Two-headed Dragon in 8th Edition. The only other one is Wind Spirit which was last printed in 6th Edition. This is the only one of those to actually call it "menace" rather than spelling out what it does.Posted in: Sky Terror -
2
DaniDL posted a message on Fell FlagshipI miss some Islandwalk in this kind of vehicles. Some kind of evasion, y'know.Posted in: Fell Flagship -
3
FourDogsInAHorseSuit posted a message on Vona, Butcher of MaganEDH Vindicate General in a format with 40 life in the colors of life gain?Posted in: Vona, Butcher of Magan -
2
Bit Twiddle posted a message on Arguel's Blood FastHmm... wonder how well this would work with Kefnet the Mindful. Flip this into Temple and when you want to mass draw again, bring it back to your hand with Kefnet.Posted in: Arguel's Blood Fast - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
You seem to believe in "principle-based game design". In your mind, as long as you follow certain game design philosophies properly, you are creating a good game. Having a good game with this philosophy has no direct relation to how many people like or understand the end result, though the general underlying assumption is that your game will be understandable and well-liked if you follow the game design philosophies.
We believe in "player-based game design". MTG, like most games, uses a lot of focus group (or A-B testing) before it makes big changes in the game. They gather a lot of feedback from a wide array of people regarding the possible options to see which is more liked and which is most understood. Then, they typically go with what the people want more.
You propose ideas and all of your feedback has been negative. In your philosophy, you did your job properly so the critics must therefore be in the wrong. In our philosophy, a good idea is defined by one that attracts positive feedback and your lack of positive feedback means that your idea is not good.
If you feel that an idea that would (by reports from a large groups of players) increase legibility and accessibility (or increased the perceived fun of play) while actively going against your design principles would be a bad thing, that just looks like you care about the "sanctity of the game" more than you care about the players.
1
And that's your opinion.
I just revealed the official rules. Saying that they are the official rules is objective. That is how rules work.
1
1
Of course, we are open to any objective arguments that are not opinions and that do not involve existing rules (we can amend the comprehensive rules as needed), formats (the intended play environment for this card should be readily apparent and other formats aren’t worth considering), or cards (is is oppression to restrict this card’s use based on the mistakes of other designers).
2
There are powerful competitive decks that want to shove as many cards in your graveyard but you deny that when your cards are appraised in that light.
There are powerful competitive decks that try to string together as many card draw and ramp effects together as possible but you deny that when your cards are appraised in that light.
There are powerful competitive decks that reliably win by getting two specific cards but you deny that is possible when your cards are appraised in that light.
There are powerful competitive decks that rely on getting specific nonbasic land but you have just recently claimed that the ability to grab those lands is irrelevant in appraising the power of your cards.
As a “professional”, I imagine you’d want your cards stress-tested appraised in the real meta of the current day where Dredge decks, Storm decks, Combo decks, Tron decks, and other decks: to be judged from the context where anything that makes these hyper efficient decks even better is a terrible idea
Me judging by the standards of the real game is an objective look at what exists.
2
Wut?
1
The apparent misunderstanding is:
1. Paying life is a much less severe cost than discarding a card in most situations. That is why Vexing Devil, book burning, browbeat, breaking point, risk factor, blazing salvo, molten influence, and skullscorch (plus the colorshifted imp's mischief, dash hopes, and temporal extortion from planar chaos)ALL make the alternate cost being dealt damage/paying life. Life gain decks are not a major force in most metas and losing on card advantage is much more impactful than losing life unless specific burn decks are currently a bit piece of the meta.
2. You seem to not grasp that this effect essentially creates a punisher effect every turn instead of just once like the above effects and do not see that as impactful as you apparently assume that your opponent will always have a removal card in hand and will have never used it on something else? Even if you have 8 pieces of removal in your deck, you are the one who is always reporting that combos are unrealistic and that you can't count on getting 2 cards in your opening hand.
2
Using Reap-logic, it seems obvious that the “or” in the original card text wasn’t intended to symbolize that opponents had a choice but rather to signal a consequence for failing to complete a mandatory action.
The ability was clearly meant to be a word of command style effect (which would require an opponent to show their hand to show they aren’t cheating) which was worded terribly. I am only able to discern this meaning because I have seen enough reap design and have learned to speak “terrible designer” as a result.
Reap already coined the term “modal or” so I’m going to preemptively name this the “consequential or”.
EX: Do what I want OR you will face the consequences.
Wait, what’s that? Even the example above would technically be offering the person the choice to face the consequences? Ignore that. The English language can be fixed with specific rulings. When someone says to pay your taxes OR you will go to jail, the obvious meaning is that you are physically compelled to pay your taxes by force and that people who are incapable of doing so are shipped right to jail. That’s how the English language is intended to work.
1
Actually, you are both wrong.
The odds of an event with a 97% chance of happening (not opening one of these) 36 times in a row means multiplying 0.97 by itself 36 times. The end result of which is ~0.334 (a 33.4% chance of opening nothing), meaning that you only have a 66.6% chance (100% - 33.4%) of opening one or more lost legend cards.
If you want the odds of failure to drop below 5% (if 95% success is close enough to "guaranteed"), you'd have to open around an additional 5 collector boxes (a total of 99 packs, more specifically).
Let's be realistic here for a moment. These Lost Legends are not for most of us us as they don't appear in traditional booster packs like the original hidden treasures did as the supply of first printings (which is probably going to have all of these cards) is going to be snapped up by major whales who buy by the pallet. While I still expect to see an occasional "this dude at my LGS opened a Moat" story, I expect this to be less common than it was the first time around by a considerable degree (especially as the products holding the cards cost more and the packs holding the legends would never be cracked in most lgs limited events).
This announcement will make major whales more comfortable with ordering more product up-front, however, meaning that single prices for the actual cards in the set should be very reasonable. That is a very nice consolation prize, I think.
1