Please login to comment

In the future, please remember to hit the green "Mark as Answer" button to indicate your question has been resolved. As this has been answered for a couple days without any follow-up questions, I have gone ahead and marked an answer on your behalf.

October 17, 2019 7:03 p.m.

In the future, please remember to hit the green "Mark as Answer" button to indicate your question has been resolved. As this has been answered for a couple days without any follow-up questions, I have gone ahead and marked an answer on your behalf.

October 17, 2019 7 p.m.

Notion Thief is a great way to keep your opponents from refilling their hands. Cards like Wheel of Fortune and Windfall have great synergy with both Notion Thief and Narset, allowing you to refill your hand while keeping your opponents from drawing.

October 17, 2019 4:27 p.m.

You are misreading the card--the Book Burning referenced in the card's rules text is itself.

So, just to walk through how it works:

  1. Player A casts Book Burning .

  2. Book Burning resolves, so you are going to do what the card says to do.

  3. Player A and B (and C, D, E, F, etc. if multiplayer, with each player having the choice in order) can choose to have the resolving copy of Book Burning deal 6 damage to them. I'm guessing Player A will rarely want to take 6 damage from their own spell, but the rules text does allow that.

  4. If no player takes the 6 damage, then the target player puts the top 6 cards of their library into their graveyard.

  5. If one player takes the 6 damage, then there is no additional effect.

October 17, 2019 11:33 a.m.

This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum (auto-generated comment)

October 17, 2019 9:49 a.m.

Said on Toxicity of our ......

#7

TappedOut is a great little section of the internet, with one of the most helpful and kind communities I have experienced. However, this is still the internet, and trolling is always a possibility.

For a little over a year, there has been one person in particular who has made dozens of alternate accounts to circumvent uncounted mutes. It appears you, and others, had the misfortune of encountering some of those accounts, which is quite a shame. Those accounts have been dealt with, but I would not be surprised if others sprung up to take their place.

Now, seeing as this is the internet, I think it is important to remind everyone not for feed the trolls. In the future, if you encounter either this troll, or any troll on any site, the best course of action is disengage and ignore.

All that said, let’s not allow entropy to spread further than this one individual. It is not overly helpful to create threads to discuss individual users, even problematic ones. I am going to close this thread, lest it lead to more problems than it solves.

October 17, 2019 8:40 a.m.

Said on Funkydiscogod...

#8

I happened to notice from one of your recent posts that links were not enabled for your account--I went ahead and enabled them for you. Cheers!

October 16, 2019 3:35 p.m.

Said on Resolve-spell...

#9

I like this a lot. It's elegant in the simplicity of its design yet has incredible depth in terms of application. This seems like something that could perfectly fit in a Commander Precon or other supplemental set.

I'm not sure you really need too much in the way of reminder text--given the somewhat complex steps set forth in Rule 608, I think any reminder text might serve to overly complicate what is a fairly intuitive concept. I'd keep it somewhat simple: (That spell's controller still controls the spell.)

October 16, 2019 3:30 p.m. Edited.

Said on Glistening Mists...

#10

That's probably more reasonable, giving this some thought--twice was probably a bit too aggressive.

October 16, 2019 3:15 p.m.

Said on Glistening Mists...

#11

That seems reasonable enough to me.

October 16, 2019 3:03 p.m.

Said on Glistening Mists...

#12

The main problem I have with that is there is really no reason to crack it on any turn other than the one it is dropped. It basically becomes a sorcery, albeit a sorcery that takes two rounds of priority to function.

Realistically, there is only one situation where you would want to wait around for fewer poison counters--a match where at least one other opponent is playing infect and proliferate. Otherwise, there's really no harm in having more poison counters (no risk of opponents giving you the 8 additional needed to lose), and lots to be gained through giving your opponents more of the things.

Now, you could add some sort of effect to make it more punishing to activate the ability early: Something like:

When ~ leaves the battlefield, each player gets X poison counters, where X is the number of time counters on ~. For each poison counter you put on a player this way, you lose 2 life.

This causes you to disproportionately suffer, and encourages the player to think about letting the artifact sit around for a while before firing it off. It also scales nicely in commander - giving 4 players 3 poison counters each is nice; taking 24 damage as a result.. Ouch.

October 16, 2019 2:18 p.m.

Said on Glistening Mists...

#13

~ is just shortform for the card’s own name. It would read “Destroy Glistening Mists.”

October 16, 2019 1:19 p.m.

Said on Glistening Mists...

#14

It’s similar language to The Rack . If there are 3 time counters on it when it LTB, 0 poison counters will be applied (3 - 3 = 0); if there are 0 time counters on it, it would be 3 poison counters (3 - 0 = 3). The “3” in that ability is a static number.

October 16, 2019 12:58 p.m.

Said on Glistening Mists...

#15

I have two main issues with the card as designed - first, that it gets weaker as time goes on. I understand the flavour is that the mist is dissipating, but I think you could make the case that more of the mist has been inhaled the longer it is on the battlefield.

I also am not a fan of the ETB tapped and ETB lose life, alongside a keyword ability and another ability. It starts to make the card feel a bit cluttered. Properly, the ETB tapped ability is a replacement effect so should be on a separate line from the triggered life-loss ability, further cluttering the card.

I would go with something like the below, which has not benefit the turn it is dropped, but gets stronger the longer it remains on the battlefield (also puts you back in enchantment territory):

Vanishing 3 (Vanishing replaced the very similar Fading)

When ~ leaves the battlefield, each player gets X poison counters, where X is three minus the number of time counters on ~.

(if artifact, can add to cost): Destroy ~. It can't be regenerated.

October 16, 2019 12:38 p.m.

Said on Hail to the ......

#16

Personally, I would add a few combos that add infinite Blue mana, as that will allow you to win the game on the spot by milling out your opponents. Some strong options include:

Then add a few tutors to find your combo pieces as swiftly as possible.


If you do not want to go down the combo route, my recommendation would be taking out a whole bunch of the higher costed cards. While those cards have powerful effects, an average CMC of 3.97 is really high, and means you're often going to run into situations where you just can't quite play what you have.

I would add some more ramp and mana fixing ( Birds of Paradise would be a good inclusion), as well as some more interaction in the form of efficient removal and counterspells.

If you still want to have a bunch of high-costed creatures, Defense of the Heart would be a good inclusion, since it allows you to cheat into play some creatures you might not otherwise be able to realistically cast.

October 16, 2019 11:55 a.m.

Said on Glistening Mists...

#17

Falcoshin - If this were a Storm Scale issue, you'd be correct, and the distinction between designed-for-Standard and designed-for-other-formats would matter. But it's not a Storm Scale issue--this speaks to the fundamental identity of the permanent type, a concern which transcends the format for which the card is designed.

October 16, 2019 10:54 a.m.

Said on Glistening Mists...

#18

This should be a coloured Artifact, not an Enchantment, for one fairly simple reason-- Enchantments do not tap.

Currently, there are only two non-artifact, non-creature enchantments in the entire game that tap as a cost to activate an ability-- Second Wind and Witch's Mist --and they are both from Future Sight, which is a set where Wizards was purposefully doing strange things that had never been done before and might never be done again.

I don't think those set a strong enough precedent to justify the inclusion of a tap-based activated ability on future Enchantments. In fact, I would suggest the key distinction between coloured Artifacts and Enchantments is that the former has the ability to tap, and it would be bad for the game to further blur the line between those two permanent types.

October 16, 2019 10:38 a.m. Edited.

Said on Can You add ......

#19

This will work with Estrid's +2.

To start, Loyalty Abilities are activated abilities. Like all activated abilities, you pay a cost as part of putting the ability on the stack. In the case of a Loyalty Ability, that cost is adding or removing loyalty counters from the planeswalker.

Estrid's first ability does not target, so you can pay the cost (adding 2 loyalty) and put the ability on the stack, regardless of whether that ability is going to have an effect or not. The ability resolves, and nothing happens, but that's irrelevant to your question--by that point the loyalty has already been put on Estrid.

Notably, however, this will not work if the planeswalker ability requires a target AND there are no legal targets for that ability--you cannot activate a targeted ability (and thus cannot pay the cost of gaining loyalty), unless you are able to satisfy the targeting requirements.

In practice, however, that's not going to be a big deal--Wizards went out of its way to ensure the + loyalty abilities will almost always have a sufficient number of valid targets. This is done in four ways:

  1. The + loyalty ability will say something like "Up to one target" meaning you can choose 0 targets. This allows you to activate the loyalty ability with 0 targets, so you can still "pay" the cost of adding loyalty to your walker. Example: Huatli, Dinosaur Knight .

  2. The planeswalker's ability will always have a target because it can target itself. Example: Ajani Vengeant .

  3. The planeswalker might not be able to activate one of its + loyalty abilities due to lack of valid targets, but will have a second + loyalty ability that can be activated in the absence of targets. Example: Garruk, Apex Predator

  4. The target of the loyalty ability will be an opponent, since you'll always have an opponent. Example: Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver .

So, the only situation where a player can't activate at least one + loyalty ability is going to involve a loyalty ability that requires a target and a complex boardstate rendering all those targets unavailable. For example, if Leyline of Sanctity gives your opponent hexproof, you will not be able to activate Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver 's +2 ability due to a lack of valid targets.

October 16, 2019 10:22 a.m. Edited.

Said on CordellWambach...

#20

Saw your post on the Card Creation thread - I have enabled links and images for your account.

October 15, 2019 8:40 p.m.

Decks

240 Card Modern Battle of Wits

Modern Caerwyn

SCORE: 43 | 23 COMMENTS | 8743 VIEWS | IN 9 FOLDERS

Pinball Wizard - Karona, False God EDH

Commander / EDH Caerwyn

SCORE: 23 | 40 COMMENTS | 3073 VIEWS | IN 5 FOLDERS

Mr. Smith Goes to Ravnica

Modern Caerwyn

SCORE: 29 | 10 COMMENTS | 1575 VIEWS | IN 5 FOLDERS

Finished Decks 31
Prototype Decks 27
Drafts 0
Playing since Seventh Edition
Points 6228
Avg. deck rating 27.00
T/O Rank 6
Helper Rank 14
Good Card Suggestions 350
Last activity 2 hours
Joined 3 years