|
6 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 3:59PM
#101
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2010
|
LOLOL! Ridiculous. Seriously, wait until they find out that I have an insane amount of enchantment recursion too!
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
----
Autocard is your friend.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] = Lightning Bolt 
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 5:10PM
#102
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2012
|
Liliana's Caress  did not need to get more abuseable. You're also forgetting that the blue and black Primordials work well with this card, as does, of course, Lazav himself. This will be a Standard worthy card, at any level within that. Also, sexy as hell artwork!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 6:34PM
#103
|
Date Joined:
Apr 26, 2006
|
This card is bad and I pity those who think it will see constructed play.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 4:08AM
#104
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2012
|
They need to phrase it that way.
"Any opponent may play this ability" People will subconsciously tack "too" on the end and think they can sacrifice the Enchantment and discard two cards to draw two cards.
"Only an opponent may play this ability" People will subconsciously think that it's only the enchanted creature's controller that can play it, even if there are multiple opponents.
"Only any opponent may play this ability". No ambiguity there, it just sounds a little weird because they have to be so specific.
"Only an opponent" would have been fine. There's an indefinite article, so it means 'one of your opponents'.
Or how about just:
"At any time, any opponent may discard two cards. If someone does, sacrifice Soul Ransom and draw two cards."
While I agree with you on the first comment, your second proposition violates the structure for activated abilities, which inherently changes the card and not merely the wording.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 4:16AM
#105
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2012
|
Am I the only one who had no trouble understanding this card?
Also, watch them try to take back their Tusk and instead you Resto it. Biggest game ever.
Yeah, I don't see how this many people are having trouble understanding it.
OP: This is the ultimate card that I need to test with before I know how good it is. It seems incredibly powerful, but the punisher mechanic is so bad.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 4:37AM
#106
|
Date Joined:
Dec 14, 2012
|
In portuguese its translated to "only an opponent", so its the first time I prefer my native language version of a MTG card.
People calling this punishing mechanic, you do realize that if the opponent does take the punitive route, the card essentially reads "an opponent discards 2 cards and you draw 2 card" for 4 mana?
ok ok, this mught not be so bad in the current meta heavy on recursive spells, but still! And I reckon the exchange of control gives the opponents creature and extra summoning summoning sickness?
I play for fun
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 5:59AM
#107
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2012
|
Volition Reins  used to be my favorite control card.... This is now my favorite!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 6:33AM
#108
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2007
|
Though the shaman rarely got what she wanted, she was never disappointed in the result.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 8:52AM
#109
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2010
|
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
----
Autocard is your friend.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] = Lightning Bolt
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 9:27AM
#110
|
Date Joined:
May 21, 2004
|
And who says discard sucks these days?
he  does.
|
|
|
Pauper Beasts 
Pauper Bleed 
Tap Dance (Blue Tamiyo Control)
