- HammerAndSickled
- Registered User
-
Member for 12 years, 7 months, and 1 day
Last active Fri, Feb, 2 2018 20:19:14
- 0 Followers
- 844 Total Posts
- 52 Thanks
-
1
MadMageQc posted a message on Defining card ownershipIn a sanctionned tournament, as far as the game is concerned, the owner of a card is the player who started with it in his deck or sideboard. For the effects that mention "owner" or "cards you own", the cards in your deck or sideboard are the only cards you own. Cards like Spawnsire of Ulamog can only find cards in your sideboard. The "legal" ownership doesn't matter.Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives -
1
LandBoySteve posted a message on How About Easing Up On The Heavy Handed ModerationThis is unbelievable.Posted in: Community Discussion
A member calls me a fascist because of my views on copyrights being important for any business to survive.
I report him using the report button, make a post telling him I've reported him for his derogatory comments and I end up getting an infraction for spamming and he just gets a warning?
Seriously? I mean, seriously?
Now I have 2 infractions and have to watch every single word that comes out of my mouth until 9/22 or I get a week's vacation.
In the meantime, he gets off with a warning.
Look, I've gotten infractions before and I've deserved them, but this is crazy. I in no way deserved this one.
I'm not expecting it to be removed because I see how this place is run, but this is insane.
As a mod at another forum, some people let power go to their heads. This forum is a prime example of that.
And it's a shame. -
1
krishnath posted a message on Comic-Con Magic Panel + Jarad, Golgari Lich LordPosted in: The Rumor Mill
So? There is nothing that prevents them from having bottled enough of it to use both for Teferi and Venser.
Regardless, it is pointless to speculate about it at this time, as it has very little influence if any on the RTR block. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
What is a "better design" abstractly? You can't say just based on your current understanding of Wizard's views on power level or "elegance" or any of that Rosewater crap. A good design is one that meets its goals and the needs of the target audience. Here, the goal is "make a black removal spell for Cube that's worthy of the "removal color" and competes with Swords and Path, the two best removal spells in an auxiliary color." The target audience is Cubers, with the implication that this also effects Eternal since their power levels are connected. THEREFORE, any design that simply and efficiently meets these criteria is a good design. Simple as that. The atomic bomb killed plenty of people, but from an engineering perspective that's wholly irrelevant when you're critiquing it's mechanism and design.
It's also not "easy." The two ideas suggested above (Swords to Dust and colorshifted Swords) ARE bad designs. Why? Because they're lazy, they're not creative, and they don't solve the issue. The problem is that Path/Swords take an opponents creature unconditionally, but exchange it for another resource in order to be mana-efficient. The exchange isn't nearly worth it for the opponent. That's not "bad design," it's what makes the card playable and desirable. If it was a fair exchange you'd be investing a card and mana to help your opponent gain marginal value. But the point is that the downside is occasionally very relevant. The challenge of this design when I suggested it in the cube forum was to create a Swords equivalent with a more Black drawback, because the Swords "mirror" (Vendetta) wasn't cutting it.
If anything, you three are trolling just because you see fit to pop in any time I or gmail question the establishment of Bad Cards Limited, Pillow Fight: The Gathering or any of the other design philosophies you espouse based on your limited understanding of the game outside the bounds of Rosewater's design mantras. If the thread specifically asks questions about powerful cards and powerful formats and powerful interactions, maybe you should jus ignore it if you think Armored Cancrix is a baseline for a card.
EDIT: And if legacy is such a "miserable format," why does each legacy GP outperform all of the limited GPs? (Modern Masters nonwithstanding, since it's a set that flies in defiance of your own philosophies on limited.) How come the average value for a draft of even the best limited formats (RoE, Zendikar) is tied mostly to the Eternal playability of the cards in those sets? How come Swords and Brainstorm are still 4$ and up despite many printings and only being playable in Eternal while no common or uncommon in a core set today could be worth that? Duals are still averaging a C-Note, Jace keeps climbing, pack prices on the secondary market keep falling. Face it: people prefer to play with powerful cards.
1
No offense, but they're only considered "mistakes" in the context of Standard and perhaps Limited. In the "real" formats these cards are fine and necessary to keep the balance of power in the era of absurd creatures. Not everyone wants to play Wizards' idea of "Pillow Fight: The Gathering" and considering the OP explicitly asked about Cube and Eternal I don't think your comment was either warranted or constructive.
1
1
You show Emrakul, they show Emrakul, old rules you lose because you lost a Show and a fatty plus any Petals, new rules you lose cause they get the first attack.
You show Emrakul, they show Griselbrand, old rules you lose because they draw 14 and kill you, new rules unchanged.
You show Griselbrand, they show Emrakul, old rules you lose because thy get the first attack step and you're not likely to have mana to do anything with the 14 you draw on your turn, new rules unchanged.
You show Griselbrand, they show Griselbrand, old rules you lose because you wasted a Show and a fatty, new rules you lose because they get the first attack.
As always, if either player shows a Sneak or Omni instead the values change. But don't pretend that the legend rule was the deciding factor.
5
1
2
1
1
1
Look at it this way. It's turn 5, and I have 5 lands in play. Nothing in my hand costs more than 5, so I draw a land and just sit on it, as the MLD player would like you to think is the correct move. Now, I might not have more than a 5 drop in my hand, but I certainly have other things to do with that mana: equipment, storage lands, Top, etc. So every turn I don't play a land, I'm restricting my options. Eventually I might want to cast more than one spell in a turn, and I can't do that on just 5-6 land. Then we get to the point of "holding one land isn't really gonna help me recover from Armageddon, I should really hold 2" and then before you know it we can't even do anything meaningful on our turn because all of our lands are tied up in the hand.
The other problem is that MLD artificially forces curves downward, forcing decks to be more "efficient" and takes away from the big bombiness that we all love about EDH. Eventually you're just playing Vintage highlander sans power and convincing yourself it's fun.