Holy molly is this frame ugly ...
Stuff like this does not look like a magic card at all, watering down their own brand like this is just a recipe for disaster.
Its crazy overloaded and the massive amount of redundant crap on the card just distracts an enormous amount.
They just wanted to throw as much "stuff" on this card as possible, which feels like a designer that just made their very first cards (as they tend to be overly wordy and filled with abilities, as they dont know what really matters, so just throw it all on the card).
If they do a lot of these cards its already a bad example of flooding text boxes all over cards. (and this set already has a bad taste with the increase of money they ask for their product in general).
At the very very least they learned from their Egypt masterpieces that you should at least be able to read the cards and identify the manacosts.
But it hardly saves this mutation of a magic card ...
-
- Lithl
- Registered User
-
Member for 12 years, 9 months, and 17 days
Last active Sun, May, 30 2021 06:03:04
- 4 Followers
- 11,536 Total Posts
- 1448 Thanks
-
Sep 3, 2019
3
Xcric posted a message on Flaxen Inturder (ELD)i ******* haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate this card layout. its jarring and feels disjointed.Posted in: The Rumor Mill -
Aug 27, 20193
Perodequeso posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it@SwordSkill, you missed the mark on comprehending what I was conveying.Posted in: Magic General
I feel like Xeruh, you’ve completely misunderstood every point I was trying to make.
And I’m trying to get how you think I have a negative view of the game from my last statement in my previous post. The point I was trying to make was given how ridiculous, visually, a bird with a hammer and shield attacking dragon looks, the minutia of details relating to realism are moot.
God I hope WOTC never implements anything resembling your idea. -
Aug 26, 2019
2
Perodequeso posted a message on I think it's about time someone says it@SwordSkill, I was under the impression, from your opening post, that you wanted to implement a system where creatures could attack other creatures, to make the game more intuitive, especially for newer players, and to not have to waste slots on removal.Posted in: Magic General
You’re now proposing a new card type, that uses combat to attack other permanents of the same type on the battlefield.
How does this make the game more intuitive for new players? You’re still left with creatures not being able to attack creatures, so no change there. You now are including a new card type that sort of acts like creatures but not really. How the hell is that more intuitive to newer players? Also, this new card type takes up slots that could be used for removal.
Your proposal changes nothing that exists, adds a new card type that just convolutes combat(all so you can capture the flavor of troops attacking troops), and adds yet another complexity to new players(having to explain the vagaries between creatures and summons).
And other than capturing the flavor of troops attacking troops, what exactly does your new card type add to the game? How exactly does it help achieve victory?
The goal in MTG is to reduce your opponent’s life total to zero, not to rout their army. You seem fixated on the dynamic of battlefield interaction without thought to achieving the end goal. To that end creatures fulfill that role, they attack your opponent’s life total and protect your life total.
Your idea of a new card type fails at every level by making combat more complicated, adding another thing new players need to distinguish and ultimately not changing how creatures work. And all for what, some need you have for combat to be more realistic.
When I can send a crow wearing a shield, wielding a sledgehammer to slay a dragon god, realism is the last thing on my mind. -
Aug 25, 20191
The Fluff posted a message on I think it's about time someone says itPosted in: Magic GeneralQuote from SwordSkill »Quote from The Fluff »banning several cards and "mitigating" evasion? for the sake of turning MTG into quasi Yugioh... no thanks.
the basic mtg combat system has been solid for me through the past 10 years, and I wish no changes to it.
First of all, every format has a ban list, this is to keep sure that the game won't break due to specific format rules.
Secondly if you still think that we are talking about yugioh then you clearly still haven't comprehended the basic concept.
In yugioh defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his creature by putting another in the way of attacker.
If you detach your mindset from that yugioh mentality then you would realize that your point is really far off the mark.
Furthermore, there really wouldn't be any changes in the combat since this would only apply to summons, not creatures, so if don't wish to transition then you won't.
This would only be for people who want to try this, not those who don't.
would repeat what I said. Changing the combat system would turn this entirely into a different game -- a lot of people would not be pleased.
well, then goodluck convincing wizards to implement the changes you're planning. And I'm out of this thread.
-
Aug 23, 20191
VoidTimeWalker posted a message on I think it's about time someone says itCards like Moat, camouflage, reverance, brainwash, false orders, raging river basically anything that alters combat in any way harm this system. heck even just protection mskes this system a mess. Basically mother of runes is the best creature for combat ever. There would need to be a banning of thousands of cards due to the unintended consequences of this system.Posted in: Magic General -
Aug 23, 2019
1
Xeruh posted a message on I think it's about time someone says itPosted in: Magic GeneralQuote from SwordSkill »Quote from Xeruh »And I know mechanically what you want to implement, I feel like it isn't a great idea nor is it the only way to solve the original problem, which as I said seems more like it's about Creatures being able to have a strong impact on the board without attacking, making removal of them difficult.
First of all removal of them is already difficult as it is since the only practical way to get rid of them in a standard game would be, well, removals, making them able to attack one another would add even more options as you won't be limited to only one choice.
Again it's more about making the game intuitive than nothing else, it won't necessarily make them neither more "impactful" nor less.
The thing is that when you have more choices then the game becomes more about strategy and skill, rather than luck.
If you have a bunch of smaller creatures and the opponent has a big one, you simply either wait for him to attack (Which he probably won't unless it benefits his or has some combat shenanigan.) so as it currently stands, whoever has the bigger creature pretty much has the upper hand.
So, you can't pretty much do anything until you draw the removal.
And that's the difference, if it was actually implemented then you could still advance even if you had smaller creatures so you wouldn't have to rely only on removals or getting an even bigger creature as it currently stands.
In short, you need to see it for yourself, just make sure to not play with unblockables and add reach to certain creature types and you will realize that the game will become more like strategy and skill rather than luck as it stands right now.
I have no idea why you're repeating the main point I was making, that Creatures with Enchantment like effects are pretty strong. As I said, that's the big thing that I feel is the issue. Trying to argue intuition or lore as the reason isn't terribly great.
I... also have no idea what you're talking about as far as Deathtouch and Spirits go. If I do understand what you're suggesting it's that Spirits, being non-living/generally dead can't be impacted by Deathtouch, which is really, really bad mechanically speaking. It isn't remotely an intuitive thing either, because Deathtouch is not always the exact same across the board. Scrolling up looks like it was too a different person with X in their name, but this still is something that seems extremely wonky so I'll leave it.
As far as the bit on attacking with creatures when you have one big or many small it ultimately becomes a stalemate for both sides, not just one, where the trick to breaking through is dependent on other cards. That doesn't mean it's not tactical, nor do I think your claim that being able to attack creatures directly would make it more tactical. I've played Kaijudo, which works somewhat like you suggest, and it didn't really result in more tactical gameplay.
With regards to your comment on Yugioh, that isn't at all how it works. Having the bigger creature alone is not the only thing that matters, and the presence of Trap cards means that it's very possible to run into issues if you attack recklessly. Yugioh also has a lot tighter synergy with how decks are built due to archetypes, which means that you're not always just looking for the biggest monsters you can stuff into a deck.
-
Aug 22, 2019
2
Xcric posted a message on I think it's about time someone says iti feel one of the things that sets magic apart is not being able to target creatures with attacking creatures directly, that inability to say my dude attacks your dude adds more complexity to the gamePosted in: Magic General
death touch would pretty much be the gold standard for every creature if you could pick and choose what you swing in to
griping about having to run removal for walkers is also a little silly because welcome to magic, where you should be running removal. -
Aug 21, 2019
2
The Fluff posted a message on I think it's about time someone says itPosted in: Magic GeneralQuote from SwordSkill »Quote from The Fluff »Soltari Guerrillas could "attack" other creatures, provided the opponent has no shadow creatures to block it.
However, every creature attacking other creatures becoming the norm would totally wreck the established combat sytem of the game. This would turn into another game entirely.
I don't think this is actually attacking, but redirecting damage as it doesn't give a chance for the defending player to block in order to protect his creature.
Of course it would wreck the game if defending player doesn't even have a chance to protect his creatures, that is why we suggested for this format to have unblockables banned and mitigating the evasion in general.
banning several cards and "mitigating" evasion? for the sake of turning MTG into quasi Yugioh... no thanks.
the basic mtg combat system has been solid for me through the past 10 years, and I wish no changes to it.
-
Aug 20, 20192
HugSeal posted a message on I think it's about time someone says itPosted in: Magic GeneralQuote from SwordSkill »
Well as a matter of fact we have been doing this for over 5 years, since it made most sense to my fellow pupils, and were negative on the idea of using the actual rules since they claim that it doesn't make sense.
As a result we had to ban several cards (Especially cards who dealt with evasion, for example ublockability was banned since it was used as one turn free removal.)
Still the amount of time doesn't matter, what matters is that by making the game more intuitive, it becomes more friendly to newcomers, not to mention that having to think what underlings you have to protect adds an additional layer of strategy.
Could you please explain this notion further?
Having the rules set up so you have to house-ban a bunch of cards makes the game more intuitive? I just don't see how it is intuitive to play the game in a way that makes it very unbalanced and where you have to look to another set of bans for it to be playable?
I also thought you advocated for having a new kind of creature and keep the opld ones working as they already do? How does that make the game more intuitive? - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
1
3
2
Yes, just label all the "other" for everyone to see. That has worked very well in the past. Holy ****.
1
1
T1: Hallowed Fountain untapped, Ponder, drawing Paradox Engine
T2: Island, Lavinia, Azorius Renegade, Mox Amber, EOT Enlightened Tutor for Mana Crypt
T3: Darksteel Citadel, Mana Crypt, Paradox Engine, Aether Spellbomb (untap Crypt and Mox)
Timetwister (free due to PE trigger)
Frantic Search (free due to PE trigger, then untap 3 lands)
Auriok Salvagers (net cost 1 due to PE trigger)
Trinket Mage (free due to PE trigger), tutor Lion's Eye Diamond
Infinite colored mana and infinite storm (Salvagers+LED), infinite card draw (infinite mana+Salvagers+Spellbomb). Aetherflux Reservoir for game
2
... and now I want to respond to someone activating Shaman of Forgotten Ways by flashing in Kederekt Leviathan.
1
6
1
TOP
Counterspell (targeting Blossoming Defense)
Triggered ability of Glistener elf granted by Livewire Lash (targeting something)
Blossoming Defense (targeting Glistener Elf)
BOTTOM
Alternatively, your opponent could allow the Livewire Lash ability to resolve, and then respond to the Blossoming Defense, making the stack look like:
TOP
Counterspell (targeting Blossoming Defense)
Blossoming Defense (targeting Glistener Elf)
BOTTOM
(This being after the triggered ability has already resolved)
Yes. The trigger condition (Glistener Elf was targeted by a spell or ability) was met long before your opponent even had the choice to counter your spell. The Livewire Lash ability does not care if the spell/ability that triggers it resolves. You'll still get to deal your 2 damage.