routergnome#42116
My feedback
11 results found
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment routergnome#42116
shared this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment routergnome#42116
commented
And Spree cards interact poorly with ward for that reason. In other conditions the first order of business processes first. Spree is a separate mechanic. You go down the order on the card like other kinds of 'modal' options, but it's not just a normal modal card. If it's a 'Spree' then it is expected behavior to not simply be exactly like every other modal option.
Cast glamer with both options. Target both creatures. Card then processes each Spree modality separately: target 1 -> effect. Target 2 -> ward -> effect.
Maybe that's not how they want it to function or maybe they can't without altering the rules, but from my intuitive sense, a "spree" means doing one thing and then doing another, with them being performed in sequence. I like Spree cards generally, but not with how they interact with ward as i already explained. I don't have a problem with other modal cards triggering all wards for all modal options, because it's not expected to behave that way--its doing all things simultaneously, placed on the stack as you describe.
routergnome#42116
shared this idea
·
-
1 voteroutergnome#42116
shared this idea
·
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment routergnome#42116
commented
I had this problem when attempting to use the card to both copy and redirect a saddling action.
It allows me to copy the saddling action but does not allow me to add a new target, meaning that it does nothing.
It does not allow me to change the target of the saddling action with the second part of the spree (it won't let me pay the mana cost), with or without the first part of the spree.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment routergnome#42116
commented
I opened a new bug because i was having it with a specific card combination, but if what Rezzahan says is the case then it is inconsistent with Tawnos Endures. I routinely exile a card multiple times and the "perpetually gains" increases stay. If it's a new object then no increase should apply, as it's functionally a different card (by what i infer from your statement). That interpretation isn't intuitive though, since the word "exile" means a singular entity leaving (and sometimes coming back, ie "out of exile").
While "perpetually gains" and "gets x for each time [named card] attacks" is somewhat different, i would think that they should behave the same. The entire point of Tawnos Endures is to leave play and come back stronger (on no basis other than going to exile). I would think that the creature coming back from exile would be treated the same way. That is different from losing counters, which are always wiped however a creature leaves play.
Edit - to clarify further, the difference between "perpetually gains" and "gets x for each attack" is demonstrated when a card is copied/cloned. The perpetual would transfer, while the "gets" would not.
-
2 votesroutergnome#42116
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment routergnome#42116
commented
I had this same problem with Leonin Warleader. I attacked with three creatures because it says that the tokens are created and attacking. I don't have to "declare" attackers for attackers to be attacking.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment routergnome#42116
commented
But apparently hexproof doesn't stop a crime from being committed. Whether you return a spell to a player's hand or make the target of a crime hexproof so the spell never casts, the crime is committed. Derp.
An error occurred while saving the comment routergnome#42116
commented
Apparently the target not existing and the target being hexproof is completely different. When it's hexproof it seems to make the spell fizzle, but if the target doesn't exist it still counts as a crime, go figure.
An error occurred while saving the comment routergnome#42116
commented
When I posted I thought I was the starting player, but if what you say is how it should behave, then perhaps I was mistaken and it simply didn't do anything because I wasn't.
However, I just had a similar issue the opposite way. The opponent cast Intruder's Inquisition on my King Darien XVIII and I sacrificed the target to make it invalid. The opponent had a Vadmir, New Blood which adds a counter when they commit a crime. The spell didn't do anything because my target no longer existed, making it an illegal spell, so why was a "crime" committed? Isn't that the same thing as making a target hexproof--the target becomes invalid so, in the case of Intruder's Inquisition, which only has one function, it should simply fizzle? Or is fizzling not a thing? I don't get it. Is it just that when a spell is cast, regardless of whether it does anything, that is the "crime"? I would think the "crime" would be thwarted by the fact that it doesn't do anything.
I guess I've just been having a lot of these kinds of issues where I can't seem to make sense of what triggers what or what doesn't.
routergnome#42116
shared this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment routergnome#42116
commented
Maybe I'm still thinking in terms of how the game used to work or something, where someone tries to cast a spell and i add a spell to the stack that resolves first, making the source be unable to trigger (because it's no longer in play) on the spell that casts afterwards.
Of course, I also thought that if the target of a spell (that only has one function) is removed the spell fizzles, which also appears to not be the case.
routergnome#42116
shared this idea
·
-
2 votesroutergnome#42116
shared this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment routergnome#42116
commented
That makes sense. I guess I was thinking that the creatures dying and me dying would be in the same place on the stack, and so "when a creature dies" is equivalent of a stack interrupt/instant, and a player losing the game would be at the very end of the stack, after any triggers occur.
routergnome#42116
shared this idea
·
-
3 votesroutergnome#42116
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment routergnome#42116
commented
I had a similar issue with this card, where I paid X=5, targeted one of the opponent's creatures, and the opponent made the target hexproof. The card states, "up to one target creature". Is the implication that if I didn't target the creature the spell would have worked? Expected behavior is for the effect to trigger even if my target becomes invalid. I had Rusko, Clockmaker in my graveyard, which has a mana value 4, but the spell did not work.
The rules aren't quite applying that way based on the interaction with Reflection Net.
1. Reflection Net exiles Rampaging Ursaguana
2. Reflection Net applies itself to a creature
3. Creature is a copy of the card that was exiled, retaining its attack history
4. Reflection Net is destroyed, and Rampaging Ursaguana returns to play.
5. Rampaging Ursaguana's attack history has been wiped.
Edit - it's possible that this scenario is a separate bug where, despite the target being affected "becoming a copy of a card exiled by Reflection Net", it actually is retaining the target's attack history, despite it supposedly becoming a copy of the card from exile, which supposedly has lost its attack history upon entering exile.