2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on THB: Nadir Kraken
    I guess I need this for Ephara. Play it with the goddess on the field and they just keep going for as long as you can spare a single mana per turn.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Sealock Monster turns target land into an Island, then dies...
    Also, to maybe make it a little more clear: if the effect had a duration it would include a clause like "for as long as you control sealock monster" or "until sealock monster leaves the battlefield"
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on New info about ikoria
    Quote from Creedmoor »
    Double sided keywords sounds... nuts. I'm not sure how to process this in my brain.
    I guess it`s a punch-out card like the amonkhet ones, with markers that have one keyword on each side to give them as counters to your creatures for the announced build-your-own-monster mechanic.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on A million game study says shuffler is rigged
    Quote from WizardMN »
    1) The Snarespinner Riot interaction sounds like a bug. Bugs happen. Report it and move on.

    Given the general ignorance of Henrick's complaints, a blightbeetle or something similar on the battlefield that he did not consider seems more likely than an actual bug...
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Death by Exile?
    You are correct that an indestructible creature would not be exiled by removal that replaces dying with exile if it could not be killed by said removal.
    Ob Nixilis's Cruelty though is absolutely capable of killing indestructible creatures, since it reduces their thoughness to/below 0 while indestructible just protects against lethal damage and "destroy" effects.
    So, an indestructible creature with toughness 4 or less would not be exiled by a Lava Coil (except it would die as a result of another effect later that turn - the replacement effect would still work in that case).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on [ELD] Torbran, Thane of Red Fell— ZiggyD preview
    Quote from CatParty »
    If it said "another red source" then he'd never deal more damage with buffs - i.e. if he IS a 4/4, and you give this guy a buff like +2/+0, he'll only deal 6, instead of 8. He's actually better with the current templating.

    It's plus 2 though, not double damage, so he doesn't synergize with power buffs anyway.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on [ELD] 4 knight tribal cards from Lordsoflimited
    Quote from SilverWolf_27 »
    Why the f is the trebuchet a wall?

    I find a trebuchet being incorporated in the defensive structures of a castle to be a lot more plausible than it being used to shoot an attacking fairy out of the air, so the reach seems to be the more questionable choice in card design here flavorwise...
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Wizards anounces Historic format coming to Arena
    I'd wait a couple of days before making any decisions based on the 2 wildcards per card ratio. I'm willing to bet that it won't go live as announced.
    The MTGA team seems to have a tendency to include one change in any major update that is just a giant middle finger towards their players, watch the *****storm for a bit and then backpedal on it. No idea if they simply want to test what they can get away with, try to take focus off of other changes or just intend to collect low hanging fruits in terms of "see? we listen to your complaints", but it has become a bit of a pattern.

    For them adding about 15 cards from older sets every 3 months, it seems like a nice way to expand the format without the overhead of implementing whole sets of which 95% won't see play anyway. They just need to be carefull with the specific choices.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on [C19] jumbo commander preview- song of the worldsoul
    It's a great card for a populate deck, but far from broken imo.
    Cmc 6 is much more achievable in this format than in others, but it's certainly not trivial. Also, you need to have a worthwhile target and another spell you can play immediately for this to not be a full turn of doing nothing. If you can keep it on the board for a bit, it will generate a lot of value, but it will probably be a priority target for the rest of the table, so good luck with that.
    Also, I don't see a deck that is focussed on creating big tokens and multiplying them regularly 'storming off', creating a ton of tokens with this.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from SwordSkill »
    Actually new players who haven't got good grasp of the game, already doing this without even knowing that they are doing it wrong, since I've seem many new players saying that their creature is going to attack this creature and then proceed to blockers.
    Trust me it's rather the opposite as it makes it clearer to new players that they can attack any living entity (which they should have been in my humble opinion from the beginning.)

    Yeah, not being able to attack an opposing "army" with most of your "army"(creatures), but with some of them (your new creatures, but not really) should be much less confusing than the current, consistent way of dealing with combat. Rolleyes
    We're either completely talking past each other, or you're trolling hard. Either way, I'm out of this, since I don' see this discussion coming to any constructive result.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    Quote from SwordSkill »
    Assuming that you consider mtg to be a completely different game that what it used to be before planeswalker cards came into being then, I agree.
    As metter stands it will create huge imbalance with different colors, this is why if such a discussion were to be even made, a new card type should probably introduced that would allow one to do such this, as it would not affect already existing cards.
    Planeswalkers were a completely new cardtype. Of course they had to come with a bunch of new rules and adjustments to the game, but this was all in the realm of additions, not revamping something that has been an integral part of the game since it's beginning.
    Now you're talking about introducing a new card type, but frankly that doesn't make much sense to me. You basically want to change how creatures can attack or block, but intend to achieve this with a new "pretty much a creature, but not really" card type?
    This would not really fundamentally change what you seem to be dissatisfied with, but just open a very narrow niche of alternative combat mechanics, making things more complicated and less clear (and especially confusing for newer players).

    Quote from SwordSkill »
    First of all this is the first time we've heard that having more options diminishes strategy.
    Slapping additional utility onto cards you want to run anyway does not really provide more options though. If the cards that advance your game plan can just double as answers to opposing threads, you remove the need to consider how many/what answers you might need.
    Granted, this adds an additional layer of strategy to combat, but in return it makes deck building more trivial.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it
    I think the mechanical problems have been addressed enough to make it pretty clear, that this proposal is at least problematic and requires changes that are too fundamental to implement without creating a whole new format (if not basically pretty much a different game).

    So I want to focus on the idea that you have to "waste slots in [a] deck to put removals that have nothing to do with the rest of the deck's theme".
    If you think of theme in terms of flavor, there are enough options for removal, so you should be able to find something that fits your overall concept.
    I assume you are rather talking about theme as core strategy though, so it seems you are asking to have answers to more problems without any opportunity costs. And as I see it, that would remove a layer of strategy from the game. A deck can't have answers to everything, so you need to identify the things that you have to be able to deal with and build accordingly. If you could just smash everything with the creatures you want to run anyway, that would dumb the game down quite a bit (I'm obviously exaggerating here, but the point should be clear).
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on MTGA won't reinstall/launch
    They improved the updating with the last patch, so we don't have to pretty much download the whole game again every time, but the necessary files will be loaded when just starting the game.
    Because of that, the launcher is no longer needed and if you still have a shortcut, it's now outdated and won't do anything.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Battlefields
    I don't know about "official" names, but each battlefield seems to be strongly connected to a plane or set, so calling them 'Amonkhet', 'Ixalan', 'Ravnica' and 'war of the spark' would be the most obvious choice.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Lightning Stormkin - Eurogamer.de
    Flavor text says "I strike in the same place as often as necessary", if anyone wondered.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.