December 12, 2019, 08:52:10 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ringkichard

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 80
1
Rules Discussion / Re: Goblin Builder and Mind's Eye
« on: December 25, 2016, 08:26:34 AM »
There are two possibilities:
1) Goblin Builder is meant to use a full action to cast a quick spell as a quick spell.
2) Goblin Builder is meant to use a full action to cast a quick spell as a full spell.

This is excellent.

2
Rules Discussion / Re: Goblin Builder and Mind's Eye
« on: December 25, 2016, 07:32:59 AM »


I would expect Jinx to work.

I'm pretty certain that Jinx does work against a Straywood quickcasting a creature which is exactly the same scenario.

Jinx definetly *does* work against Beastmaster's Quick Summoning ability.

Quote
Quick Summoning
Once per round, the Beastmaster may summon a Level 1 animal creature spell as a *quick spell*

Quote
Jinx
When this creature casts a *quick spell*, you must reveal Jinx during the Counter Spell Step.


But what I described isn't quite exactly the same scenario.

Quote
May cast *Full Spells* as a Quick Action.

The words *quick spell* never appear, and the hypothetical ability never describes the spell as anything other than a Full Spell.

Quote
Goblin Builder
Can cast only Corporeal conjurations which are not attached to an object. He casts those spells as a full action with a range of 0-0.

It's the lack of the magic words *full spell* that are causing this issue.

3
Rules Discussion / Re: Goblin Builder and Mind's Eye
« on: December 24, 2016, 08:10:57 PM »
Maybe a good first question is, "Does Jinx work on Goblin Builder using a full action to cast what would otherwise be a quick spell?"

There is, understandably, not a lot of rules guidance for Goblin Builder, so mostly we're just speculating until we recieve a definitive ruling.

Given that, lets not rely too heavily on Goblin Builder casting as a "full action" rather than as a "full spell" without some previous precident that the distinction comprises a difference. Are there any other cards worded this way? The solution here may be to make a minor erattum to Goblin Builder to bring it in line with other similar cards.

For flavor reasons I can understand why Goblin Builder "might take an action" rather than "cast a spell" but I don't know if this was intended to be more than flavor. Generally, it's kind of out of flavor for the builder to use Minds's Eye, though, so there's minor flavor weirdness in both options.

--

As a thought experiment, if there were a Chronomage with an ability like, "may cast Full Spells as a Quick Action," how would we expect that to work?

I'd expect Jinx to fail, and to be able to cast full spells for my quickcast action, right?

So if you can cast a Full Spell as a Quick Action (hypothetically), it would suggest that you could also cast a Quick Spell as a Full Action if instructed to do so.

Then again, as Jurassic Park wisely points out, you can spend all your effort worrying about if you can, and forget to worry about if you should.
--

If Goblin Builder can use Minds's Eye, I would definetly expect that the range would be 0-0 from the eye, since the goblin is still using its ability to cast the spell, and that ability interprets the spell as range 0-0, and only the source changes to the Eye.

4
One thing to consider when talking about playstyle and strategy preference is an honest self evaluation of skill strengths and weaknesses.

So, for example, I have some difficulty playing multiple long brain-burny games, one after the other. In tournaments, I prefer to play more agressive books so that my games are shorter and I have time to clear my mind inbetween.

On the other hand, I've got a good grasp of the rules and a fiendish design streak, so I'm likely to bring something unorthodox to try to catch my opponent by surprise.

When I'm practicing, I try to drill myself on memorizing proper procedure, so that it costs me less focus to play correctly and so that I can continue proper play even if I get fatigued. This means that I'm more likely to chose cards that can be learned like this, rather than cards that have many different applications and must be reevaluated continuously.

In practice, this means fewer upkeeps or complicated spells, so e.g. I rarely Forcemaster at tournaments.

5


I see. VHS is a jingle, not a song. ;P

That's so perfect.

6
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Mheggeddens other use
« on: November 27, 2016, 09:51:53 AM »
Hmm. Yes. Maybe just Adremelech then.

7
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Mheggeddens other use
« on: November 26, 2016, 10:44:18 PM »
Ideally it would be Dark & non-living so Graveyard summons it. Mort, maybe.

8
Spells / Re: Darkfenne Hydra
« on: November 22, 2016, 10:50:41 AM »
Summoning Gorgon Archer round 1 is a very nasty play against a dedicated rush book, if its creatures are living.

9
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Mheggeddens other use
« on: November 17, 2016, 10:48:00 PM »
Although... just thinking out loud here, Sardonyx could maybe be replaced with Ballad of Courage. Not sure what I'd want the base creature to be.

10
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Mheggeddens other use
« on: November 17, 2016, 08:39:16 PM »
The reason the book runs Sardonyx is its Unstopable and Nonliving traits. Not a lot works to keep it out. It's especially satisfying against Druid, who also has to deal with Deathlock. Just don't feed your Ichthellids to Kralathor.

11
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Mheggeddens other use
« on: November 17, 2016, 02:48:06 PM »
Sardonyx is the real deal, if you can hit with him. Casting Charge on the Dragon and feeding it an Ichthalid from the Altar will end the game very quickly.

12
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Mheggeddens other use
« on: November 17, 2016, 02:44:24 PM »
Yeah, the Necro matchup is not good. The Ichthalids are useless and I lose a battle of attrition without them. I suspect I could hide this weakness by adjusting the rest of the book, but I don't really know what I'd want to do. Zombie Frenzy isn't a great Graveyard strategy, and Skeletons lose to Zombies.

Creatureless Wizard is another bad one, though I'm seeing a lot less of that after the recent changes to Tower.

Brute Spam might be the best plan B, so far.

13
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: Mheggeddens other use
« on: November 17, 2016, 01:56:03 PM »
I've got a Sardonyx/Ichthellid/Altar/Graveyard/Meditation Necro book that I haven't yet updated for Mhegg. It's actually not a bad book. It's not tournament viable because it has some horrible matchups, but it's not just a toy build.

14
Rules Discussion / Re: Holy Familiar
« on: November 11, 2016, 07:33:01 AM »
Zuberi put it much better than I was going to.

A face down Enchantment card in play has no subtype because it represents an unrevealed enchantment.

That same card has all of its subtypes while it represents a prepared spell during the planning phase.

15
Rules Discussion / Re: Slow gaining Fast
« on: November 06, 2016, 08:18:21 PM »
In a lot of ways, this set of rules reminds me of a recurent semi-philosophical rules question. "If you must pay X mana for an effect, and X is calculated to be 0, did you make a mana payment?"

I didn't have an opinion on that question until now, but in light of this, I'm now leaning towards "no."

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 80