97543238 wrote:Everybody knows that having your awesome creatures killed before they can do anything is frustrating, but the Red mage in me doesn't seem to understand why it's so bad when his creatures spontaneously combust into Flame Javelins and make his opponent discard something at the same time.
Del 6/1: Should this card wait for the Djinn set to come rather than become "smart pudgy bird" or "baby sphinx"?
Coming up with weird ideas to make everyone happy since 2008!
I have now started a blog as an appropriate place to put my crazy ideas.
So it ought to be just as possible to counter that ability as it is to counter Stream of Life. After all, otherwise, one could make a card with this kind of ability: : Add :1mana: to your mana pool. Target creature or player receives 2 damage.
But yet, I can't break it. ;_;
Are you an artificer? Join the club!
If Immolating Souleater has a mana ability, I would need someone else to explain to me just where in the Comprehensive Rules such a strange thing could have been caused.
50% of players approve of the titans? That's interesting. I don't even know what to make of it, but it's interesting.
I like Reassembling Skeleton because a surprising number of players assume Regeneration does exactly that. So by spelling that ability out on a card, and then putting it next to one with Regeneration, that should encourage them to go look up what Regeneration actually does.
Speaking of new players, I get skeptical when R&D goes around their headquarters looking for throughts from the common man. Suppose you're Bob from Accounts Receivable at WotC. You know how important Magic is to the company, and you've tried it, but it wasn't really your thing and you don't play with any regularity. But one day a member of the Magic Development Team comes up to you.
Developer: Hey you, do you play Magic?Bob: Me? Oh I ... um ... a little?Developer: Oh a Casual Player. That's perfect. Here, look at these two cards. Which one has a mana ability?Bob: Oh uh ... I ... I don't ....Developer: Aha! So the cards are too confusing! Better go nerf Damage on the Stack again. Thanks Bill.Bob: It's ... oh um yeah, no problem.
And so we get cards changed just because some WotC grunt doesn't want to tick off the Powers that Be and get thrown to an Orgg.
I mean hey, look. Benthic Explorers is tricky. I wouldn't blame anyone for failing the "mana ability" quiz on that one. (Especially considering the errata and card text are different now.) But if you don't know that a "mana ability" is an ability that makes mana, I wonder if you even tried to learn the rules? Simplifying and teaching via cards are both good things, but they shouldn't obviate actually learning the rules.
If you're on MTGO check out the Free Events via PDCMagic and Gatherling.
Other games you should try:DC Universe Online - action-based MMO. Free to play. Surprisingly well-designed combat and classes.
Planetside 2 - Free to play MMO-meets-FPS and the first shooter I've liked in ages.Simunomics - Free-to-play economy simulation game.
But if you don't know that a "mana ability" is an ability that makes mana, I wonder if you even tried to learn the rules? Simplifying and teaching via cards are both good things, but they shouldn't obviate actually learning the rules.
But if you don't know that a "mana ability" is an ability that makes mana, I wonder if you even tried to learn the rules? Simplifying and teaching via cards are both good things, but they shouldn't obviate actually learning the rules.The majority of players won't try to learn the rules. Most people will just know what they need to know to play the game. Like a car, they will know how to drive it but won't know what's under the hood. That's how people are, so you either cater to that or lose customers.
Reassembling Skeleton makes far more sense to me than any regeneration creature ever has, both flavor-wise and mechanics-wise.
MR 7/06/10: If you care about aesthetics, the life should be the combination of the power and toughness. AF 7/19: I didn't realize aesthetics had such well-defined answers.
I mean hey, look. Benthic Explorers is tricky. I wouldn't blame anyone for failing the "mana ability" quiz on that one. (Especially considering the errata and card text are different now.)
Although I don't really agree with Mark Rosewater at this point, it also really unnerves me to see cards with an additional "someone loses 1 life" printed on, just for some sillyness reasons... (to give that card a new name and to disguise the lack of creativity (see Geth's Verdict)).
But to return to the Divine Favor. The "+1/+4 & +1 life" version would have felt like a crippled version of Hero's Resolve. But still, in my opinion, white isn't about gaining life, but rather about "don't losing any lifepoints".
@ Grand Abolisher:I don't understand why the Abolisher proibits activated abilities in the first place. It's a break to other white cards with a similar ability: See Silence, Orim's Chant, Oriss, Samite Guardian, Basandra, Battle Seraph, Exclusion Ritual, Angelic Arbiter or Iona, Shield of Emeria.
@ illusions:I don't like this theme. I understand the "pseudo-real until 'touched'" concept similar to D&D illusions, but combat usually means to 'touch' it. Therefore the illusions feel strange, since they can be infected, survive a Pyroclasm, but a minor Cerulean Wisps spell breaks them.
MJ 6/10: strange that blue gets a 2 power 1 drop, but green doesn't. TML 6/16/2010: What two power one drop? I don't see anything...
And this color bleed proves that R&D doesn't have a clue what the mentioned colors are really about. Blue has no control beside Mana Leak and "control color" also seems to mean "can't do anything permanently against cards on the battlefield". White isn't peaceful and defensive, since the flavor text of Gideon's Avenger states the opposite.
And by the way, the reason for the Chasm Drake is a pure smack in the face of flavor, since this proves that R&D doesn't design cards for a specific color, but only to fix off-color or multicolor problems. THIS really made me lose any confidence in the design process at WotC.
I mean hey, look. Benthic Explorers is tricky. I wouldn't blame anyone for failing the "mana ability" quiz on that one. (Especially considering the errata and card text are different now.)Going by the oracle text I'm saying yes. Is it?
Yes. Specifically given erata so it wouldn't be an exception to the Mana Ability rule. That's the sort of thing Mark Gottlieb liked as rules manager, changing errata to match the intent of the card. Matt Tabak leans more toward printed wording so I'm not sure how he'd feel about the Explorers.
Or, if by 'people should just learn the rules,' Amarsir meant 'read the basic rulebook' rather than 'learn the 139 page document that explicitly recomends not reading it'...
For this particular rule to come up, all you need is a little curiosity about play. "Hey can I respond to you tapping for mana? Oh, a 'mana ability'? OK." You play and then it comes up and then you know. But that's not even the point. (Though I'd like to point out that if basic lands actually had words on them, they might explain this sort of thing.)
The majority of players won't try to learn the rules. Most people will just know what they need to know to play the game.
Grand Abolisher is just fine as written, don't get me wrong. But they've referenced this kind of "informal straw-poll" approach before and I worry that the proactive approach is giving bad results. It's one thing to watch someone misplay Blightsteel Colossus against Leyline of the Void and realize they're confused. It's something else entirely to go up to a random person and ask if they know the priority resolution rules for replacement effect.
Benthic Explorers is in a fine place. It can't target the land in the cost, and we've long-held that the "do X to do Y" template should put X in the cost and Y in the effect.Man, you go with the printed wording on like two cards and you get a reputation quick around here. ;-P
Hey I said I didn't know! I was withholding judgment and it's not at all because I have a long-held fondness for Master of Arms and was crushed when you threw him under the bus. Not at all!