I've played many games where haveing a resourse is only a bouns,if fact magic is they only one where said bouns can hurt you.Furthermore your examples only helped my point.In neither game are you hindered because you control said resourse.I've not played Diplomacy,but i've played lots of Risk,and never once did I or anyone I know incure a negative for holding a territory.I can say the same for Monoploy.Owning property is a bonus,not a hinderance.
Hurrah for making Magic: The Gathering unique!
Actually they just prove how removing it would be better than keeping it.One is built in land suicide,the other hinders you from doing anything.
But remember: Mana burn very rarely comes up in games. These simply provide more severe means of "reprimanding" players for overgenerating mana.
Neither one is likely to ever be implemented (though the second -- hmm.) They serve simply as a rebuttal against the notion that the only possible change to the mana burn rule is to remove it.
YOU ARE A PLANESWALKER. You summon mages , demons, dragons, leviathans, enchant worlds and so many things. Getting manaburnt for 1? What a joke.
Then why worry about damage from creatures? Why worry about that dude with the sword, or an Angry Mob? Why worry about non-combat damage? What fear should a Planeswalker have of a Lightning Bolt?
Planeswalking simply means you get around. It doesn't mean you've got a bulletproof vest on.
Quote from cheethorn »
And really, there is no way to significantly change Mana Burn other than its removal.
Sure there is.
"At the end of each phase, for each unspent mana in your mana pool, if that mana was produced by a land, sacrifice the land that produced that mana."
"At the end of each phase, for each unspent mana in your mana pool, the next time mana would be added to your mana pool, it isn't."
Neither is a serious proposal, but just to indicate that "mana burn" could be bent in a few different directions.
EDIT:
Mana burn could also be changed into a blessing instead of a curse. It's like compounding interest on a loan.
"At the beginning of each phase, for each unspent colored mana removed from your mana pool last phase, add 2 to your mana pool."
"At the end of turn, empty your mana pool. If eight thousand mana or more is removed this way, you win the game."
There are no such details in The Wrath of Khan. The account is vague, which makes it consistent with what is seen in the new movie.
That doesn't follow..
The recounting doesn't jibe with other recountings of the event. New timeline, so the same incident won't have to have occurred, or have occurred the same way; but the characterization is way off.
Bestower of Grace -- Multiple cheap lifelink can be pretty insane; all you need is one creature with 3 or 4 power, and keep dumping all of your mana into it. At the same time, the rest of the creature is so sub-par it pretty much makes up any advantage you're going to get. LC wouldn't want to crack one open, but it's decent as filler. With the proper flavor, even better.
Thanks for sigging LC, btw.
.
Fyodelar's Mask -- 2
Legendary Artifact - Equipment
Equipped creature is a legendary red and black Creature - Rogue named Fyodelar and has "This creature may deals its combat damage to defending player as though it weren't blocked" and "Whenever this creature deals damage to a player, that player discards a card at random."
Equip 2
This does not follow. Kirk's account and attitudes in The Wrath of Khan are perfectly consistent with what's depicted in the new movie.
No, they're not. Kirk's account in TWOK, for one thing, is rather generalized; the actual details of how he re-programmed the simulation to react are different.
Moreover, Kirk's attitude is quite different. They may both be brash on some level, but they're different flavors of brash.
To come to the actual point of all this, LC doesn't buy that Star Trek's Kirk woud've earned a commendation for re-programming the computer; the commendation came for saving the effing planet -- at which point, reprimanding him for hacking the simulation would've seemed a little off.
The Academy knew he cheated in both timelines; it's hard to call his actions "out-of-character" when they're the same even in spite all that's gone differently in his life.
AFAIK -- and LC isn't the most hardcore fan, admittedly -- there hasn't been an actual depiction of how Kirk cheated on the Kobayashi Maru, other than his recounting in Wrath of Khan (in which they fear "the" Captain Kirk). So, they're definitely not the same actions. And so entirely out of character.
Heck, it even makes a moderate amount of sense this time, considering what warp cores do.
Warp cores don't do anything. Just try and prove it! Oh, in the milieu they're supposed to mumbleymumbleybabbleybabble.
Frankly, this cat is at the point where she wouldn't want to pick up on the old plot lines. What's left to be done? Re-angulate the phase deflector shields one more time?
She was fervently, fervently hoping that the new Trek move would fastidiously avoid technobabble. When you need a solution, think up a solution, don't invent a device that makes a solution happen for you.
Of course, the whole "eject the warp phase coil!" moment in the movie is exactly the craptaculation Le Chat is talking about, so it loses points in that regard.
You really think so? Kirk was about to launch into a very explicit lesson for the instructors at his hearing, when they were interrupted by the news from Vulcan.
Azmod already covered the juvenile delinquent thing.
Not really.
And yes, LC really thinks so: Kirk didn't launch into a lesson (how do we know it was explicit?); that's what allows Le Chat to say, "It wasn't well conveyed in the movie."
But the makers of the new Trek wanted to score points with the younger set, and to do so they made Star Fleet Academy out to be some backwater high school where you can eat in class and look at girls' panties. @whee.
From what I understand, shortly after the Namada was damaged by Kirk's dad and the U.S.S. Kelvin, the Namada and her crew were captured by the Klingons. They were taken to Ura Penthe, and detained their for the 25 years between the time that Kirk was born and the events surrounding the destruction of Vulcan. At which time the message Uhura intercepted was about them escaping Ura Penthe and reclaiming their ship. Not them attacking the colony itself. THAT is why he was unable to do much of anything for 25 years... BECAUSE HE COULDN'T!
Aw geez. There's so much stupid in that it's not worth getting into.
You should know what happens in the movie from watching the movie.
.
On thinking about this entire thread, this is what Le Chat thinks the producers of the new movie were trying to avoid. Stop thinking about the old timeline. Keep what's cool and interesting, and get rid of the rest.
This explains why Cardassian Ale shows up; we need a nod to DS9 fans, but not the backlog and clutter of fanboyism. Let's skip the footnotes, throw away the technical readouts, please dispense with the hokey Star Trek, and get ready for something new.
But what you just called "continuity of character," LC sees as meaning to have been development of character in the movie: ie, JT Kirk was a real jerk as a youth, but that scene provided some sort of impetus to grow up.
The problem is, Le Chat sees it not so much as "steal yer step-dad's car" rebellious youth, but "kill yourself the same way your dad died" suicidalism. The point is made by Pike later at the bar scene -- driving off the cliff wouldn't've saved 800 lives -- but that's also a dozen or so years forward in the timeline of the movie. So that scene never plays off as being reckless in a way that somehow allows Jim Kirk to discover responsibility (we never see the ass-whupping stepdad gives him), OR as a meditation on the meaning of life; just something to give modern audiences something to relate to -- in other words, another thousand tickets in Middle America.
LC's still wondering why young JT drives the car off the edge of the Grand Canyon; I mean, RoboCop behind him is on a motorcycle that flies.
You don't think a cocky cowboy attitude is consistent with the character of Captain James T. Kirk? Especially a young, delinquent James T. Kirk?
Young and cocky? Yes. Juvenile delinquent? No.
"I'm smart enough to re-program the computer hosting the exercise, but dumb enough to show you right off the bat that I did it," no. Le Chat supposes that, as much as Kobayashi Maru was intended to demonstrate a particular lesson to young officers-in-training, Kirk spun it into a lesson for the instructors at Starfleet; but that's a different sort of young and cocky, and not conveyed well in the movie.
Le Chatenjoyed the movie, for all its plotholes. The recognition of plotholes and heavy-handed use of theatrical device is a detriment, but doesn't keep LC from waiting for a sequel to be released.
Hurrah for new actors in old roles. It would have been impossible and unlikeable to have a new cast in the same roles following the TOS cast at the end of the Trek movies; it would be equally difficult to find a new setting for the TOS crew that hasn't already been delved into. And no other [I]Enterprise[/I] crew has as much resonance as the old series. So, logically, Ockham's razor and all that, re-create the origin of Star Trek.
LC thought the Kobayashi Maru segment was loathsome; when you cheat the system, the first rule is that you don't go around looking like you've just cheated the system. Actually, much of Kirk's portrayal seemed to make him more unlikeable and heedless of consequences; exactly not the character of Kirk. Yes, it allows for growth; but at the extreme shown (does he really get whiplash everytime a female walks by?) he wouldn't be left in the rank of Captain.
The "let's fight on the drill platform" sequence made no logical sense (just autopilot a shuttlecraft into it!) but allowed for a pretty decent fight scene, yay.
All of Kirk being jettisoned, big bad snow creatures, Spock in a cave, etc. was regrettable. Scotty's little buddy, by the way, is an Oompa Loompa.
It should have been a Beta Ceti brainworm, or whatever Khan's thing was. That it wasn't seemed like a writer's lapse.
Spock's "live long and prosper" as a kiss-off to the Vulcan Sciece Academy was nice. And unintentionally ironic. How he must hate himself for having said that.
Yay Majel Barrett as the computer!
Nero's "I'm going to make you suffer the way I suffered" makes absolutely no sense, plotwise or emotionally wise, no matter how many times anybody explains it. It could have been handled better. And if it's been the driving force inside him for more than two decades, why doesn't heo tosee how Old Spock takes the sight of his planet's destruction instead of going to Earth?
Is it ever discussed how Nero even knows it's Spock (and solely Spock's) fault? And is it [i]really/i] Spock's fault?
Orion chicks are hawt!
Earth had absolutely no other space vessels .. or starbases .. to defend itself with? Absolutely every other starship was in the Laurentian system? There's absolutely no communication once the Nerada -- a name LC did not learn from the movie -- fires up its drill? Unlikely.
The DP [I]loves[/I] lens flare.
Whoever said the new Star Trek movie is trying to be Star Wars hit it on the head. Blowing up Vulcan -- destroying the cerebral part -- is a very apt metaphor. Star Trek was never the "lived-in universe" that Star Wars was; it was always glossy and shiny and ideal, and God bless it for being that.
Hurrah for making Magic: The Gathering unique!
But remember: Mana burn very rarely comes up in games. These simply provide more severe means of "reprimanding" players for overgenerating mana.
Neither one is likely to ever be implemented (though the second -- hmm.) They serve simply as a rebuttal against the notion that the only possible change to the mana burn rule is to remove it.
Then why worry about damage from creatures? Why worry about that dude with the sword, or an Angry Mob? Why worry about non-combat damage? What fear should a Planeswalker have of a Lightning Bolt?
Planeswalking simply means you get around. It doesn't mean you've got a bulletproof vest on.
Sure there is.
"At the end of each phase, for each unspent mana in your mana pool, if that mana was produced by a land, sacrifice the land that produced that mana."
"At the end of each phase, for each unspent mana in your mana pool, the next time mana would be added to your mana pool, it isn't."
Neither is a serious proposal, but just to indicate that "mana burn" could be bent in a few different directions.
EDIT:
Mana burn could also be changed into a blessing instead of a curse. It's like compounding interest on a loan.
"At the beginning of each phase, for each unspent colored mana removed from your mana pool last phase, add 2 to your mana pool."
"At the end of turn, empty your mana pool. If eight thousand mana or more is removed this way, you win the game."
etc., etc., etc.
That doesn't follow..
The recounting doesn't jibe with other recountings of the event. New timeline, so the same incident won't have to have occurred, or have occurred the same way; but the characterization is way off.
Sorcery
Choose one -- Summon four 1/1 green Creature - Hound tokens; or summon one 3/5 green Creature - Treefolk token.
Thanks for sigging LC, btw.
.
Fyodelar's Mask -- 2
Legendary Artifact - Equipment
Equipped creature is a legendary red and black Creature - Rogue named Fyodelar and has "This creature may deals its combat damage to defending player as though it weren't blocked" and "Whenever this creature deals damage to a player, that player discards a card at random."
Equip 2
No, they're not. Kirk's account in TWOK, for one thing, is rather generalized; the actual details of how he re-programmed the simulation to react are different.
Moreover, Kirk's attitude is quite different. They may both be brash on some level, but they're different flavors of brash.
AFAIK -- and LC isn't the most hardcore fan, admittedly -- there hasn't been an actual depiction of how Kirk cheated on the Kobayashi Maru, other than his recounting in Wrath of Khan (in which they fear "the" Captain Kirk). So, they're definitely not the same actions. And so entirely out of character.
Warp cores don't do anything. Just try and prove it! Oh, in the milieu they're supposed to mumbleymumbleybabbleybabble.
She was fervently, fervently hoping that the new Trek move would fastidiously avoid technobabble. When you need a solution, think up a solution, don't invent a device that makes a solution happen for you.
Not really.
But the makers of the new Trek wanted to score points with the younger set, and to do so they made Star Fleet Academy out to be some backwater high school where you can eat in class and look at girls' panties. @whee.
Aw geez. There's so much stupid in that it's not worth getting into.
You should know what happens in the movie from watching the movie.
.
On thinking about this entire thread, this is what Le Chat thinks the producers of the new movie were trying to avoid. Stop thinking about the old timeline. Keep what's cool and interesting, and get rid of the rest.
This explains why Cardassian Ale shows up; we need a nod to DS9 fans, but not the backlog and clutter of fanboyism. Let's skip the footnotes, throw away the technical readouts, please dispense with the hokey Star Trek, and get ready for something new.
But what you just called "continuity of character," LC sees as meaning to have been development of character in the movie: ie, JT Kirk was a real jerk as a youth, but that scene provided some sort of impetus to grow up.
LC's still wondering why young JT drives the car off the edge of the Grand Canyon; I mean, RoboCop behind him is on a motorcycle that flies.
That was also one of the more hideous parts of the movie.
Star Trek 90210, indeed.
"I'm smart enough to re-program the computer hosting the exercise, but dumb enough to show you right off the bat that I did it," no. Le Chat supposes that, as much as Kobayashi Maru was intended to demonstrate a particular lesson to young officers-in-training, Kirk spun it into a lesson for the instructors at Starfleet; but that's a different sort of young and cocky, and not conveyed well in the movie.
Hurrah for new actors in old roles. It would have been impossible and unlikeable to have a new cast in the same roles following the TOS cast at the end of the Trek movies; it would be equally difficult to find a new setting for the TOS crew that hasn't already been delved into. And no other [I]Enterprise[/I] crew has as much resonance as the old series. So, logically, Ockham's razor and all that, re-create the origin of Star Trek.
LC thought the Kobayashi Maru segment was loathsome; when you cheat the system, the first rule is that you don't go around looking like you've just cheated the system. Actually, much of Kirk's portrayal seemed to make him more unlikeable and heedless of consequences; exactly not the character of Kirk. Yes, it allows for growth; but at the extreme shown (does he really get whiplash everytime a female walks by?) he wouldn't be left in the rank of Captain.
The "let's fight on the drill platform" sequence made no logical sense (just autopilot a shuttlecraft into it!) but allowed for a pretty decent fight scene, yay.
All of Kirk being jettisoned, big bad snow creatures, Spock in a cave, etc. was regrettable. Scotty's little buddy, by the way, is an Oompa Loompa.
It should have been a Beta Ceti brainworm, or whatever Khan's thing was. That it wasn't seemed like a writer's lapse.
Spock's "live long and prosper" as a kiss-off to the Vulcan Sciece Academy was nice. And unintentionally ironic. How he must hate himself for having said that.
Yay Majel Barrett as the computer!
Is it ever discussed how Nero even knows it's Spock (and solely Spock's) fault? And is it [i]really/i] Spock's fault?
Orion chicks are hawt!
The DP [I]loves[/I] lens flare.
Whoever said the new Star Trek movie is trying to be Star Wars hit it on the head. Blowing up Vulcan -- destroying the cerebral part -- is a very apt metaphor. Star Trek was never the "lived-in universe" that Star Wars was; it was always glossy and shiny and ideal, and God bless it for being that.