WtF happened?!?

54 posts / 0 new
Last post
I am flabbergasted! I have this card unlocked: Rite of Replication. Text says:

Put a token on the battlefield which is a copy of the target creature. If you kick it for 5 or 6 you get to place 5 token.

So I play this card and choose a horrid monster to be copied 5 times: Kozilek, butcher of truth. I had that creature on my tableau. And then it disappears!

So how does Rite of Replication work, please?!
Kozilek, Butcher of Truth is a legendary creature. There can only ever be one copy of one of those creatures on the battlefield. So when you replicate it, they all disappear.
OK, clear. Figures, come to think of it. Pity they don't prevent the casting of this card on such a creature.
But using it to copy a Legendary (so they all die) is a valid use of the spell. Preventing casting on it would make it worse.
But using it to copy a Legendary (so they all die) is a valid use of the spell. Preventing casting on it would make it worse.



Technically you are right, pragmatically I strongly disagree, based on common sense.
Rite of Replication is the second best way to deal with Eldrazi (Path to Exile being the best) in this format. Preventing the player from casting it on Legendary creatures would be a horrible, horrible design decision.
Yeah, one Ulamog is already pretty bad for the opponent but 6 Ulamogs? That would be ridiculously unfair.

IMAGE(http://oi39.tinypic.com/14mvxh5.jpg)

Ive cast RoR on an eldrazi in a two headed giant mode, i didnt kick it because i knew it was a cheap way to destroy it. My team mate flashed a lot, then quit. Moron.
Another wtf moment: My random 2HG partner used Bribery on a GK player. Next thing we see is a Defeated! message. It took me all of half a second to realize he tried to take Phage the Untouchable. An unfortunate case of not knowing/reading the card.
Another wtf moment: My random 2HG partner used Bribery on a GK player. Next thing we see is a Defeated! message. It took me all of half a second to realize he tried to take Phage the Untouchable. An unfortunate case of not knowing/reading the card.



I think the game also automatically takes the highest CMC card in the deck if the invisible timer runs out while using Bribery.

Yet another thing that needs to be fixed! 
I don't think that's the case unless it's specifically the case for Bribery. I ran out of time on my treefolk fetch card and it put a forest on top of my deck o.0.
But using it to copy a Legendary (so they all die) is a valid use of the spell. Preventing casting on it would make it worse.



Technically you are right, pragmatically I strongly disagree, based on common sense.



Oh and this quote. Seriously? They should not allow a card to function a way it is intended to function because some people don't take the time to understand the rules of the game? Seriously? THAT is the antithesis of common sense. It's also unfortunately the mentality WotC panders to with things like not being able to manually tap lands or at least select the lands you'd like to use.

I've used Rite of Replication numerous times specifically as a way to deal with a particularly nasty legend with a deck that has virtually no creature removal.
But using it to copy a Legendary (so they all die) is a valid use of the spell. Preventing casting on it would make it worse.



Technically you are right, pragmatically I strongly disagree, based on common sense.



Oh and this quote. Seriously? They should not allow a card to function a way it is intended to function because some people don't take the time to understand the rules of the game? Seriously? THAT is the antithesis of common sense. It's also unfortunately the mentality WotC panders to with things like not being able to manually tap lands or at least select the lands you'd like to use.

I've used Rite of Replication numerous times specifically as a way to deal with a particularly nasty legend with a deck that has virtually no creature removal.


Yes, seriously.
But to be honest: I did not consider the use this card as a weapon to destroy a legendary of my opponent. Learned something.
Next time I will try not to let emotions and confusion have the better of me. I will wait a while, cool down untill I am a rational machine again. I will follow all the courses of How To Know Everything About DotP, even though I have not played CCG before I dl-ed Duels. Then I will join Scary to pedantly and arrogantly talk down to newbies and surely, certainly forget I was a newbie once...

I don't think there was anything arrogant about what I posted. You're the self-professed newbie, but you're also the one who when presented with an explanation as to what happened, how the two cards interact and clarification that they resolved as expected and intended under the rules offered not only that you "strongly disagree"  that the cards should be allowed to function as intended, but that further it goes against "common sense" to argue anything else.

How does allowing a card to work as the rules say it should go against "common sense" ? If anything I was expressing a level of disbelief at your arrogance to suggest that "common sense" would dictate that the developers should have blocked a card from functioning correctly because you didn't take the time to familiarize yourself with the particular conditions of Kozilek, Butcher of Truth as a legend. DotP tells you what each function (except persist on Woodfall Primus for some reason) if you examine the card, including legendary creatures.

I hadn't played MtG since Portal and as such I didn't know what haste, vigilance, double strike, persist, intimidate, and another number of effects did so I read the descriptions. It seems arrogant to me that someone who didn't do that would state that WotC/Stainless should have intentionally made a card less useful and not function as intended because you were confused by how it would interact with a legendary creature. Additionally, if you took my original tone as talking down to you, I apologize, but telling people that they aren't comporting with common sense simply because you disagree with a game mechanic that is functional seems to me the most condescending thing said here.

EDIT: I understand this game can be confusing, especially to new players, I just have an issue with someone who says "Hey, I don't understand the rules, can you help?" and then when offered the requested help basically says "Well, even though I just said I don't know what I'm talking about I think they messed up letting the game function properly because it's confusing to me and to say otherwise goes against common sense."

This example is a particularly bad case because Rite of Replication on a legend is a great way to remove a legendary creature for 4 mana. Particularly, one like Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre , who is almost impossible to remove in this game without Path to Exile or any number of -X/-X counter cards.

If you had suggested a card like Go for the Throat shouldn't be able to target something that is indestructible like Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre I'd be more understanding, but even still there are scenarios where maybe you'd want to use that kill card to no avail on an indestructible. For example, maybe you have 3 Demon's Horn , you have 9 life and no creatures on the field and Ulamog is going to hit you for 10 and kill you; even though your spell won't kill Ulamog it will still give you the three life and let you survive (albeit barely) for at least another turn. For that reason, if the rules say you CAN cast a spell then I think you should be allowed to.

For example, maybe you have 3 Demon's Horn



3 Demon's Horn on the battlefield? You probably deserve to lose. ;)

Well, yea. I think you know I was just giving an example. All those life gainers are pretty crap tastic. I was just giving an example that I could think of that in the perameters of DotP 2012 decks might be a situation you'd actually want to *waste* a kill card on something with indestructibility. That was the first one I could think of.

It's like how maybe you'd actually want to hit an attacking enemy creature with something like Giant Growth or Primal Bellow in 2 headed giant if your ally has Stuffy Doll or either of Dark Heaven's black walls on the field and make them suicide into it. Today I hit my own Magma Phoenix with Spitting Earth to wipe my enemy's tree folk including his shrouded maro. Just because usually you'd hit an enemy's creature with your kill card doesn't mean it's always your best bet.

In any event, sometimes the most common or more obvious use for a spell isn't always your best option and that's why I'm saying just because you might screw yourself up by doing something like replicating a legend doesn't mean it should be removed from the game. Heck, the challenges basically ask you to think outside the box.
But using it to copy a Legendary (so they all die) is a valid use of the spell. Preventing casting on it would make it worse.


Technically you are right, pragmatically I strongly disagree, based on common sense.



I'll try to sound as less arrogant as I can, since I'm no means an expert in the game (although I've been well trained by few friends of mine who've played the game since the early 90s), but you obviously "don't get" the game.

Magic is not a game about let's see who draws the best cards and then wins. Though relatively easy to learn it's mechanics are really complex and hard to master. The game follows really well thought out rules and results of actions. This allows multiple solutions and combinations to deal with endless different scenarios, and makes possible for spells be used in ways they might not be generally meant for.

And being the competitive game it is, it also needs to give people the opportunity to make mistakes. What you are suggesting is like first person shooter game where you can't kill yourself (with your own explosives and such). Or a game of poker where you can't raise or call when community cards form the nuts (= the pot and all bets are split).

And remember that duels is just a virtual version of a collectable card game, when you play real magic you don't have cursors to show which cards you can play and which not, eventually you will play cards you can't play, target creatures with shroud only to see your card go straight to the graveyard.
IMAGE(http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/images/smilies/manab.gif)IMAGE(http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/images/smilies/manab.gif)IMAGE(http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/images/smilies/manab.gif)
And remember that duels is just a virtual version of a collectable card game, when you play real magic you don't have cursors to show which cards you can play and which not, eventually you will play cards you can't play, target creatures with shroud only to see your card go straight to the graveyard.


Well, kinda. A spell with an untargetable creature as the propsed target can't actually be cast. You can't cast Feast of Blood on a Simic Sky Swallower for example. It's not that the spell fizzles with no effect, it simply cannot be cast in the first place.

That being said, Paper Magic is far more intuitive than Duels. For starters, you have an actual person to inform you that you've meade a mistake rather than ill-programmed software.

I don't think there was anything arrogant about what I posted. 




That is what all arrogant people say.



I'll try to sound as less arrogant as I can,



Failure, sorry.


Magic is not a game about let's see who draws the best cards and then wins. Though relatively easy to learn it's mechanics are really complex and hard to master.



I wonder why you are writing this. I don't think I have suggested such thing. On the hard-to-master part, I wonder about that. As I see it there are 2 parts in the game to consider:

1 - The rules and the mechanics. As you and others correctly pointed out, one needs to understand the abilities of all cards, if and when.

2 - Situational awareness, which consists of being aware of the state of the game (how many cards are played? What cards are likely to be cast with that spell/artifact/creature on the tabel? What deck is my oponent playing?) and psychology, as in every game. Most people are not aware they are (usually) playing a human opponent. The meta-game is as important as the actual game.

Now obviously I have taken my first steps on DofP, and than only the digital game. It is not very likely I will start playing the fysical game. So, since I am a newbie I do not know all the game mechanics. This is because I do not sit and study and contemplate all the ins and outs of a game, unlike other people. I do know people who sit down with a game, read the rules thoroughly, no matter how large the rulesbook, play solo-games until they are expert with the game, although lacking in experience.
I have stated somewhere that I will be at best a casual player. I have no expectations to become a champ. I will learn by trial and error, as I do with most games. Luckily most people are helpful without being condescending. But even so, I learn from everyone, even Scary gave me some inside, although he seem to have forgotten the first few times he played this game.

Tnx for answering all
It doesnt matter if you know the rules in and out, if you can think outside the box then thats where you win.


Eg. If youre playing 2 headed giant, your opponent has a treefolk harbinger and lumberknot on the table, you want to kill the lumberknot but it has shroud. One way to do it is to bounce the treefolk so your ally can play a gatekeeper of malakir. Hes forced to SAC that creatured and blammo its not a threat no more.


Taking control of opponents permanents with mind control or similar is another good way to kill an unwanted creature. Yeah it costs 5 land, but if its dead then thats effectively a kill spell for 5 mana. There are a few in this game that are only kill spells for  5 mana.


Just have a play around with whats possible and try to string out of the box combos together, just like rites of replication says you CAN make 5 tokens, doesnt mean you have to. Also what creature you choose to copy is also pretty crucial, its no good having 6 primeval titans if you have one life left, copy 5 soul wardens and you have +25 life. Ive never played real magic, ide probably get my arse kicked, but i learnt duels from trial and error like you say. Ide be asking people like point05 for advice, or help and not dust them off so quickly, regardless of personality clashes. Itll help you in the long run.


Do you play on steam or XBL?    

I don't think there was anything arrogant about what I posted. 




That is what all arrogant people say.



I'll try to sound as less arrogant as I can,



Failure, sorry.




Essentially, if anyone tells you are wrong they are arrogant. I see why logical solutions to a set of logic driven rules might present a problem to you. Perhaps the game is arrogant also for letting you kill your own Kozilek?

People try to help you on this board (heck, I did on your archenemy question on a different thread), but then when someone tells you "no" based on the very rules of the game you tell them they are flying in the face of "common sense" and then anyone who tries to further explain to you why that's not the case is arrogant?

Get off your high horse, especially when you come asking for help.



Essentially, if anyone tells you are wrong they are arrogant. I see why logical solutions to a set of logic driven rules might present a problem to you. Perhaps the game is arrogant also for letting you kill your own Kozilek?

People try to help you on this board (heck, I did on your archenemy question on a different thread), but then when someone tells you "no" based on the very rules of the game you tell them they are flying in the face of "common sense" and then anyone who tries to further explain to you why that's not the case is arrogant?

Get off your high horse, especially when you come asking for help.



Consider the following:

Your suggestion could be implemented, of course, but you have not thought of the the fact, that this spell can be used against an opponents legendary by casting it upon that...

Now consider this:

Really?! Seriously?! Clearly you are a newbie! You obviously can't think out of the box, newbie! Don't you know that not being able to cast this spell on a legendary you can't use it against your opponent?!?!?

Which answer do you think will be more effective? Let me give yiou a hint: it's not the arrogant one...

I will leave it at this, I don't think I can make you understand the difference.


Rite of Replication is the second best way to deal with Eldrazi (Path to Exile being the best) in this format. Preventing the player from casting it on Legendary creatures would be a horrible, horrible design decision.

You missed the best way to deal with an Eldrazi: Make it yours. Rite is a distant third at best. Path is a distant second at best.
Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Debatable for ancient depths, using rite will get it off the battlefield now, whereas using embrace or mind control will transfer it to your control but you can't attack due to summoning sickness. IF (a big if) they have a mold shambler in hand, then they can get rid of the mind control effect, or they might be able to just mind control it back.

But if you do get to swing in with their eldrazi back at them, then there is a certain amount of satisfaction. 

Robvalue: Copy target bug or glitch. You may choose a new card for the copy...

Will never buy games made by Arena Net again.

Will not buy Duel 2015 until 2HG reinstated.

 

Grei wrote:

Orc_Welfin wrote:
 I've removed content from this thread. 


Nice to know removing content is a company wide policy.
They can Mold Shambler the controlling card (assuming it's a card Mold Shambler can target), they can Mind Control it back, they can Yavimaya's Embrace it making it bigger, and they can Aether Mutation it and get 11 or 12 1/1 creatures. AD's got options.
There are only a very few cards they can use to get it back, and probability coupled with proper planning will prevent them from using any of them 99% of the time.
Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Oh, I forgot to add Ulamog. Ulamog can destroy any targetable controlling card. So that's 1 card out of every 8.5 in a standard deck that can retrieve a stolen Kozilek (1 in 10 for Ulamog). Coupled with AD's impressive card drawing, that's far more than most decks have. Adding further the fact that taking steps to prevent such retrieval requires having mana left over after you steal it, and the whole point of AD is that it moves faster than your deck, I wouldn't put the odds of prevention anywhere near 99% of the time.
Rite of Replication is the second best way to deal with Eldrazi (Path to Exile being the best) in this format. Preventing the player from casting it on Legendary creatures would be a horrible, horrible design decision.

You missed the best way to deal with an Eldrazi: Make it yours. Rite is a distant third at best. Path is a distant second at best.




As far as AD goes, the worst thing that's going to happen if you steal it, is I sac 4 of my 12 lands (that's about how many you'd have out by the time your putting down eldrazi anyways unless you got lucky with the Piper) and then gang block it.   It'll go back in my deck and I'll draw it again soon enough.   More than likely, one of the scenarios splatter laid out would happen.   Path is by FAR the best as it keeps it from going back in their deck.

You're a lose cannon.

 

 

"I played 70 card decks before it was cool to play 70 card decks." -Random M:tG hipster

So you said:


Consider the following:

Your suggestion could be implemented, of course, but you have not thought of the the fact, that this spell can be used against an opponents legendary by casting it upon that...

Now consider this:

Really?! Seriously?! Clearly you are a newbie! You obviously can't think out of the box, newbie! Don't you know that not being able to cast this spell on a legendary you can't use it against your opponent?!?!?

Which answer do you think will be more effective? Let me give yiou a hint: it's not the arrogant one...

I will leave it at this, I don't think I can make you understand the difference.



Now let's look back at how this all unfolded:


OK, clear. Figures, come to think of it. Pity they don't prevent the casting of this card on such a creature.



You said this in response to someone explaining why your legend died.


But using it to copy a Legendary (so they all die) is a valid use of the spell. Preventing casting on it would make it worse.



This seems an awful lot like "Your suggestion could be implemented, of course, but you have not thought of the the fact, that this spell can be used against an opponents legendary by casting it upon that..." except that they didn't suggest it could be implemented because implementation would violate the card's rulings. So, someone responded in the way you indicate you'd be more responsive to. And then you responded like this:


Technically you are right, pragmatically I strongly disagree, based on common sense.


After having the rule explained to you and then the purpose that the card is allowed to be cast on legendary creatures you respond by saying that "based on common sense" you "strongly disagree" [emphasis added] that the game allow a perfectly legal and viable use of the card from being allowed. 

I responded with:


Oh and this quote. Seriously? They should not allow a card to function a way it is intended to function because some people don't take the time to understand the rules of the game? Seriously? THAT is the antithesis of common sense. It's also unfortunately the mentality WotC panders to with things like not being able to manually tap lands or at least select the lands you'd like to use.

I've used Rite of Replication numerous times specifically as a way to deal with a particularly nasty legend with a deck that has virtually no creature removal.



I'll admit I was perhaps a little harsh with the use of emphases I used, but I was pretty flabbergasted that your response to not one but two very calmly and on point responses to your question met with you essentially saying that it goes against common sense that you can use a spell exactly as intended simply because you did not know the rules. If you were playing checkers, would you think it goes against common sense for you to physically be able to move your marker into a space that opens you up to a multi-jump just because you don't understand/realize what you're doing? That's basically what you said and that is absurd. Then you had the ironic reaction of calling everyone who responded to you as "arrogant" after making the aforementioned assertion against common sense. I feel as though your expectation that the game should function not based on the rules of the game but based on your, FreeHansje's, understanding of the game is the most arrogant thing posted in this entire thread.

Also, in my above post please tell me where I said: "Clearly you are a newbie! You obviously can't think out of the box, newbie!"

The only person who called you a newbie was you in another thread about Archenemy. I noted for a self-proclaimed newbie you seemed to think you know better than everyone else with respect to rulings and game mechanics. 

As far as this: "Don't you know that not being able to cast this spell on a legendary you can't use it against your opponent?!?!?"

I don't even know what it means because there's like a triple negative. What I will say is I also never once, nor did anyone else as far as I can tell, suggest that using the spell against an opponent to kill a legendary is intuitive or obvious, which is what I think you're implying I said. It is a bit more of an advanced tactic and I don't fault you for not understanding what happened initially. What I'm faulting you for is solely that once explained the proper ruling you basically told one of the people helping you that their explanation of the plain text ruling doesn't comport with common sense simply because you failed to read what happens when more than 1 copy of a legendary is on the field.

At this point I'm done with this thread. Sorry I got your nose bent out of shape for asking if you seriously believed that the game should be blocking moves, based on "common sense," that are completely legal and viable because you didn't understand the rules. Quite frankly, I still can't wrap my head around how you came to that conclusion.
Debatable for ancient depths, using rite will get it off the battlefield now, whereas using embrace or mind control will transfer it to your control but you can't attack due to summoning sickness. IF (a big if) they have a mold shambler in hand, then they can get rid of the mind control effect, or they might be able to just mind control it back.

But if you do get to swing in with their eldrazi back at them, then there is a certain amount of satisfaction. 



I think Path to Exile followed by Iona's Judgment are easily the best ways to remove an Eldrazi in this game. They don't even go back to the deck like Kozilek, Butcher of Truth would if you hit it with something like Go for the Throat . Stealing an Eldrazi is certainly a good option if you've got no other ways to deal with it, but I'd much rather get it out of the game entirely, followed by completely off the field and out of the owner's hand before taking control of it.

There are too many ways for AD to take back that card. Crap, if you mind control an Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre and they mutate it they're getting it back to their hand AND 11 1/1 tokens AND another opportunity to ping a targetted perm destruction.
simply because you failed to read what happens when more than 1 copy of a legendary is on the field.

Don't really want to get in the middle of this. But I will say that the first time I tried to replicate a legendary creature, I had the same reaction (WTF just happened?). I don't think the fact that there can only be one instance of a specific legendary creature on the battlefield at any time gets explained at all anywhere in DotP (If it is, I missed it). First time I did it it happened in 2HG and of course all other three players are chatting 'legendary! N00b!' etc., etc.

So, I think the assesment is a bit harsh there. Unless you go to the internet and figure this out, it is somewhat counterintuitive.

As I said, don't want to get in between the rest of the argument. 

 I don't think the fact that there can only be one instance of a specific legendary creature on the battlefield at any time gets explained at all anywhere in DotP (If it is, I missed it). First time I did it it happened in 2HG and of course all other three players are chatting 'legendary! N00b!' etc., etc.

A lot of people never use the "More Info" tab that's available when you zoom onto a card. This will typically explain the type (creature, sorcery, instant, aura, etc.) and any other additional "odd" info like keywords and even the supertype Legendary that started this heated discussion.

Maybe it's not clear new players should be using this, nor does the game go out of its way to teach the player these slightly more advanced things. The challenges kind of did this in some ways, but I wouldn't necessarily expect to learn these types of things there. There isn't even a great introductory source that new players can go to in 2012 in my opinion anyways. The first DotP had a better glossary with a whole lot more terms defined about the game including the basic turn structure and game zones. 2012's "How to Play" is a joke in comparison.

Perhaps for 2013 they should have a vastly more indepth interactive tutorial that new players should go through. Make it optional so veterans don't have to slog through stuff they know, but basically hold the player's hand and show the various interactions that will come up in a game. Helping understand targeting issues (shroud/hexproof/pro-X examples), explaining Legendary and showing what happens when two exist. Essentially there would be like a mini-demo for each keyword that in the game so a new player who is interested can go in and check it out and learn by example beforehand instead of learning the hard way.
A lot of people never use the "More Info" tab that's available when you zoom onto a card. This will typically explain the type (creature, sorcery, instant, aura, etc.) and any other additional "odd" info like keywords and even the supertype Legendary that started this heated discussion.



Well, as I said 'if it is, I missed it'. And I did. That tab only shows up in game play, but not in the deck manager, where it would make infinitely more sense to show it (IMO of course). I hope they fix many of these things. I enjoy the game a lot, don't want to spend the money on the 'real' thing, but the inconsistency of the game drives me crazy at times.
Oh, I forgot to add Ulamog. Ulamog can destroy any targetable controlling card. So that's 1 card out of every 8.5 in a standard deck that can retrieve a stolen Kozilek (1 in 10 for Ulamog). Coupled with AD's impressive card drawing, that's far more than most decks have. Adding further the fact that taking steps to prevent such retrieval requires having mana left over after you steal it, and the whole point of AD is that it moves faster than your deck, I wouldn't put the odds of prevention anywhere near 99% of the time.

Anyone who lets AD take a card back screwed up, and either should've known they couldn't take it securely or did know and got cocky. It is EASY to prevent. If you can't, you're never going anywhere in MTG.
Also, AD is the slowest deck in the game. It is not faster than my deck. Ever.
Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Oh, I forgot to add Ulamog. Ulamog can destroy any targetable controlling card. So that's 1 card out of every 8.5 in a standard deck that can retrieve a stolen Kozilek (1 in 10 for Ulamog). Coupled with AD's impressive card drawing, that's far more than most decks have. Adding further the fact that taking steps to prevent such retrieval requires having mana left over after you steal it, and the whole point of AD is that it moves faster than your deck, I wouldn't put the odds of prevention anywhere near 99% of the time.

Anyone who lets AD take a card back screwed up, and either should've known they couldn't take it securely or did know and got cocky. It is EASY to prevent. If you can't, you're never going anywhere in MTG.
Also, AD is the slowest deck in the game. It is not faster than my deck. Ever.


That's a whole lot of talk. Care to explain?
What's to explain? The deck with the most creature theft (ROI) can simultaneously deny all of AD's responses for less than half the cost per card. If you're the first one to take creatures in an AD mirror match without a backup, you deserve what you get. If you're playing UF than AD dies before getting its creatures back. If you're playing BH then AD will use all its control up before it ever gets an Eldrazi out, meaning there's nothing to take it back with. 
Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
What's to explain? The deck with the most creature theft (ROI) can simultaneously deny all of AD's responses for less than half the cost per card. If you're the first one to take creatures in an AD mirror match without a backup, you deserve what you get. If you're playing UF than AD dies before getting its creatures back. If you're playing BH then AD will use all its control up before it ever gets an Eldrazi out, meaning there's nothing to take it back with. 


The only one of those that's 99% certain is UF, and that's assuming UF gets 8 mana to play Insurrection. UF's best solution is to end the game via direct damage, because it's not likely to have Insurrection in hand and 8 mana on the table on the turn an Eldrazi hits.

AD is almost correct. If you're stealing an Eldrazi without backup, it's likely out of desperation. Aether Mutation on an Eldrazi is a game changing prospect, while stealing it is asking for trouble.

For RoI to steal it, they need 7 mana (or have 2 out of 3 cards in the deck in hand) on the table to protect itself from getting it back, which is not nearly as likely. RoI's best response is to bounce/counter it. Your ideal situation requires Bribery/Sower of Temptation+Counterspell. Even then, if AD has enough mana to hard cast Ulamog or Kozilek, then they have enough to play both Mind Control and Aether Mutation in the same turn. So again, not a 99% certainty.

BH Would very much like to have the game over before an Eldrazi ever comes out or the turn after it comes out. Stealing Kozilek requires the Captivating Vampire to already be in play with enough, or close to enough, vamps in play (which is, at best, a desperation move on AD's part). Stealing Ulamog requires the same, PLUS a threat serious enough to be a better target than the Captivating Vamp, which isn't likely. The better way to deal with Ulamog is to make your opponent sac it as stealing it is quite simply almost never likely to ever happen ever.

All this goes back to your original point;

You missed the best way to deal with an Eldrazi: Make it yours. Rite is a distant third at best. Path is a distant second at best.


That's so completely not the case.
 
 
 
The only one of those that's 99% certain is all of them

Fixed.
AD is absolutely correct.

Fixed.
For RoI to steal it, they need 7 mana (or have 2 out of 3 cards in the deck in hand) on the table to protect itself from getting it back, which is not nearly as likely.

Bull. You can delay Eldrazi indefinitely with counters and repulses, guaranteeing 100% success whenever you let it stay on the table. And you can draw faster, further guaranteeing it.And with BH, 99% of the time AD will be dead before getting 10 land. The few times they aren't you have either had the worst luck imaginable or you've made them burn through everything that can stop a captivating vampire, meaning there's absolutely nothing they can do.

In other words, it simply is the case.
Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The only one of those that's 99% certain is all of them

Fixed.
AD is absolutely correct.

Fixed.


Meaningless post is meaningless.


For RoI to steal it, they need 7 mana (or have 2 out of 3 cards in the deck in hand) on the table to protect itself from getting it back, which is not nearly as likely.

Bull. You can delay Eldrazi indefinitely with counters and repulses, guaranteeing 100% success whenever you let it stay on the table.


You will also end the game while delaying it so that makes the bouncing/countering what's keeping the Eldrazi at bay and winning you the game, That makes bouncing/countering better than stealing.

And with BH, 99% of the time AD will be dead before getting 10 land. The few times they aren't you have either had the worst luck imaginable or you've made them burn through everything that can stop a captivating vampire, meaning there's absolutely nothing they can do.


Meaning ending the game before the Eldrazi can attack is better than stealing it.


In other words, it simply is the case.


No. You just defeated your own point. As quoted above you said the best way to deal with Eldrazi was to steal it. You've just described how each deck can deal with Eldrazi better than stealing it. You've sabotaged your core argument.



To put my argument into perspective, I've never been of the position that Eldrazi are unbeatable "I Win" buttons. I'm merely refuting your claim that stealing them is the best way for a deck to deal with them.
simply because you failed to read what happens when more than 1 copy of a legendary is on the field.

Don't really want to get in the middle of this. But I will say that the first time I tried to replicate a legendary creature, I had the same reaction (WTF just happened?). I don't think the fact that there can only be one instance of a specific legendary creature on the battlefield at any time gets explained at all anywhere in DotP (If it is, I missed it). First time I did it it happened in 2HG and of course all other three players are chatting 'legendary! N00b!' etc., etc.

So, I think the assesment is a bit harsh there. Unless you go to the internet and figure this out, it is somewhat counterintuitive.

As I said, don't want to get in between the rest of the argument. 




I understand that and I think I addressed that in my previous posts. I don't think that it's necessarily intuitive that the resolution of Rite of Replicating your own legend is that you actually kill your legend as opposed to have 1/5 copies of it. What I was being harsh about was that after the rules were explained to him and then the reason why it doesn't make any sense to make it so the game makes it impossible to target legends with rite of replication he came back and said that basically the game mechanic went against common sense because he didn't understand what happened and it should have protected him from screwing up.

The funny thing is the game tries to give protections like this with the easy targetting system whereby you aren't allowed to target yourself with harmful effects. The problem is Rite of Replication generally doesn't have a harmful effect against yourself unless you've targetted your own legend.

This has all gone on a little too far, but basically if he had come here and asked his question and then said thanks to the people who helped him instead of telling them that their arguments go against "Common sense" because he screwed up and he shouldn't be allowed to make a mistake or take full advantage of options a card brings I wouldn't have reacted with the "Seriously?" I know itallics are scary and all... The kid posted 3 separate "I need help" threads but then when people help him he gave an attitude and I should've been bigger than that but I had a lapse in judgment. In any event I think it's trollish when helped you tell people they're wrong even though clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
The funny thing is the game tries to give protections like this with the easy targetting system whereby you aren't allowed to target yourself with harmful effects. The problem is Rite of Replication generally doesn't have a harmful effect against yourself unless you've targetted your own legend.


Wait, this part isn't true, you can Incinerate yourself just as easily as anyone else.