استریم

دسته: تغییرات و بهینه‌سازی‌ها

  • Causing an opponent to cause you to discard?

    Causing an opponent to cause you to discard?


    Some abilities, such as Nullhide Ferox, like to be discarded by a spell or ability an opponent controls. I am seeking ways to proactively cause these abilities to trigger. A few ideas I had are…

    • In Yu-Gi-Oh!, there are cards similar to this, and there are text-changing effects obviously designed to pair with them. I have found some text-changing in MTG, but nothing related to discarding yet.
    • Exchanging control to an opponent of Siren of the Silent Song or Deadbridge Shaman, or similarly exchanging control of spells, but these combos require three specific cards to be drawn and are clunky.
    • Controlling an opponent…while they already have a discard option available, but they would have likely used it anyhow.
    • An ideal card might be something like an X-and-a-green Instant with an effect "search your library for creatures with the same name as each other with mana value X and put one of them onto the battlefield under each player’s control." This could grab, i.e., Acquisitions Expert. I thought something like this might exist, but I couldn’t find anything.

    Are there sensible (i.e., at most two drawn cards and four mana) strategies to use these abilities proactively, or are they only good for the sideboard? I am mostly interested in Pioneer format options.



    Source link

  • In Battlestar Galactica can a character use actions from cards while in the brig?

    In Battlestar Galactica can a character use actions from cards while in the brig?


    In Battlestar Galactica can a character use actions from cards while in the brig or is the sole action available to the character, during his turn, is to try to get out? Also can other action cards that have effects on rolling, crisis resolution, etc. be used? Thanks in advance for the help!



    Source link

  • In Battlestar Galactica what can Helo do while he’s still not on the board?

    In Battlestar Galactica what can Helo do while he’s still not on the board?


    Helo can do anything other than move or take actions while stranded, i.e. he skips the Movement Step and the Action Step during his turn. He still does the Receive Skills and Crisis steps. He still participates in skill checks, can use his once per game ability, etc. Other than skipping Movement and Action, he can do anything any other player can do.



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – Do exchanged creatures’ equipment still grant you benefits?

    magic the gathering – Do exchanged creatures’ equipment still grant you benefits?


    I’ve been thinking about building a Slicer, Hired Muscle commander deck where I load it up with equipment/auras and have it reap the “on attack/combat” benefits multiple times a turn cycle. The only problem: is this how it actually works?

    I know that if, for example, an equipment you control grants hexproof to an opponent’s creature, you still can’t target it since the creature has the keyword and you don’t control the creature (explained here). But is the general rule, therefore, that if an equipment/aura controlled by you grants a keyword or ability (i.e. “creature gains/has ‘X’”), it benefits the opponent, whereas if it doesn’t grant the keyword or ability it benefits you?

    As an example, take Diamond Pickaxe. It has:

    Equipped creature gets +1/+1 and has “Whenever this creature attacks, create a Treasure token.”

    So when an opponent attacks with my Slicer equipped with Diamond Pickaxe, who creates the treasure token? I assume the opponent, in this case, since the treasure creation is an ability given to the creature, which my opponent controls. On the other hand, I assume that if Slicer was instead equipped with a Bitterthorn, Nissa’s Animus, which says, in part:

    Whenever equipped creature attacks, you may search your library for a basic land card, put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle.

    then when Slicer attacks on my opponent’s turn, it’s still me that gets to search for a land, since the ability is on the equipment, which I control. Have I got the right understanding in both cases, and in either case, where is this addressed in the rules?



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – Is it a crime if the target is no longer valid?

    magic the gathering – Is it a crime if the target is no longer valid?


    Yes

    Targets are selected when a spell or ability goes on the stack. Magda’s ability goes on the stack as soon as it’s triggered, i.e. when the target of Lightning Bolt is selected upon casting. Her ability is triggered and on the stack even before the targeted creature can become hexproof. The creature becoming hexproof will not remove Magda’s ability from the stack, nor prevent the targeting which already happened. It just turns the targeted creature into an invalid target.

    115.1. Some spells and abilities require their controller to choose one or more targets for them. The targets are object(s) and/or
    player(s) the spell or ability will affect. These targets are declared
    as part of the process of putting the spell or ability on the stack.
    The targets can’t be changed except by another spell or ability that
    explicitly says it can do so.

    The stack and resolution will look something like one of the below – things can resolve in slightly different orders, but the outcome is basically the same barring other effects:

    1. Lightning Bolt is cast and goes on the stack. Magda’s ability triggers and goes on the stack. Hexproof spell/ability is put on the stack. Hexproof resolves. Magda’s ability resolves and creates a treasure. Lightning Bolt fails to resolve with an invalid target.

    2. Lightning Bolt is cast and goes on the stack. Magda’s ability triggers and goes on the stack. Magda’s ability resolves and creates a treasure. Hexproof spell/ability is put on the stack. Hexproof resolves. Lightning Bolt fails to resolve with an invalid target.



    Source link

  • bidding – Did I have too strong a hand for my “weak” bid?

    bidding – Did I have too strong a hand for my “weak” bid?


    With both sides vulnerable, partner opened one spade in second seat.

    After the intervening opponent doubled (takeout) I jumped in a minor (clubs) with ♠ K3 ♡93 ♢Q4 ♣ KJ87632. We are playing 2 over 1 (game forcing), so this hand is too weak for two clubs. We are also playing inverted minors so three of a minor after one of the same minor means 6-9 points and a six card suit (partner may have only two clubs for a one club bid). I would have opened three clubs if first to speak except in fourth position.

    Give me a third spade and I would raise spades. Replace the king of spades with a spot card and I would definitely bid three clubs. Take away the queen of diamonds instead, and I would probably bid three clubs. In any event, I felt I was bidding a single purpose hand that couldn’t play in either red suit, and could play well opposite a singleton spot club (which she had). It could make game in spades, but only if partner had heavy “extras,” say 17 points with a good five card suit, or 15 points with a six bagger. It might also make game in no trumps if partner had stoppers in the red suits AND “transportation” to my hand.

    I felt I was too strong to pass, but too weak to make an encouraging bid. I had a “standalone” hand that could make four or five tricks by itself but only if clubs were trump, and nine tricks if partner came through the with four or so tricks promised by an opening hand. On the other hand, I felt that my long but weak clubs were useless opposite partner’s presumed singleton and that my five high card points and two trumps (outside my clubs) did not constitute enough support to raise to two spades.

    Was mine a good response or was there a better bid, perhaps 1NT, that would have been less descriptive but imposed fewer limitations on partner?



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – Does Maddening Imp affect creatures cast after combat?

    magic the gathering – Does Maddening Imp affect creatures cast after combat?


    Maddening Imp does destroy creatures that enter after its ability has resolved.

    The main relevant rule is rule 611.2c:

    If a continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability modifies the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects, the set of objects it affects is determined when that continuous effect begins. After that point, the set won’t change. (Note that this works differently than a continuous effect from a static ability.) A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability that doesn’t modify the characteristics or change the controller of any objects modifies the rules of the game, so it can affect objects that weren’t affected when that continuous effect began. If a single continuous effect has parts that modify the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects and other parts that don’t, the set of objects each part applies to is determined independently.

    The first part of Maddening Imp’s ability is a continuous effect that does not change any objects’ characteristics or controller, so it can affect objects that weren’t affected when the ability resolved. The delayed triggered ability is then not associated with any particular set of creatures when it is created, so it determines the set of creatures to destroy as it resolves in the end step.

    This is confirmed by the rulings in this Reddit thread.



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – Trick Bind for end game

    magic the gathering – Trick Bind for end game


    You can use Trickbind with Flubs or Song of Creation to make it very difficult for your opponent to stop you from winning with Laboratory Maniac.

    Once Laboratory Maniac resolves, any card draw instruction allows you to win the game. If you have Flubs, the Fool or Song of Creation and you cast Trickbind or another spell with Split Second, the card draw triggered ability will trigger from casting that spell, and go on top of the stack over the Trickbind. That means that it will resolve while Trickbind is still on the stack, so it will be protected from all of the types of interaction that Trickbind prevents.

    Depending on what exactly you cast the Trickbind in response to, the opponent may have the chance to cast a spell before you cast the Trickbind. But that doesn’t help your opponent, because you can just cast the Trickbind in response to their spell and win while their spell is still on the stack. If they have their own Split Second
    removal spell and a chance to cast it, you would have a problem.

    I said this makes it “difficult” for your opponent to stop you, not “impossible”, because Split Second does allow for some interaction. Split Second does not prevent players from activating mana abilities or taking special actions, and doing that can in turn trigger abilities that may be able to interfere with the combo. For example, your opponent could sacrifice Perilous Myr to activate Ashnod’s Altar‘s abiltiy, and have Perilous Myr’s triggered ability deal 2 damage to Laboratory Maniac.

    I also want to address a common misconception with using Split Second to protect combos like this: you cannot use Split Second to protect spells and abilities that are already on the stack. Spells and abilities on the stack resolve one at a time. After the top spell or ability on the stack resolves, each player has an opportunity to play spells or activate abilities before the next object on the stack resolves. This means that if you try to use Trickbind to stop an opponent from interacting with a spell or ability that would win the game that is already on the stack, the opponent can simply wait for Trickbind to resolve before using their interaction.



    Source link

  • King of Toyko 5-6 players Tokyo Bay Attacker

    King of Toyko 5-6 players Tokyo Bay Attacker


    We played a game of King of Tokyo last night with 6 players. Here’s the scenario:

    5 players remain.

    The player in Tokyo Bay rolls 5 attack claws and a power charge.

    All 3 players outside of Tokyo die.

    TC player believes the player from TB now has to leave Tokyo because Tokyo Bay is now closed.

    TB player believes he should remain because he killed everyone else, and logically he shouldn’t be punished for success.

    The rule examples only depict scenarios where the player in TC is the attacker.when the player count drops under4, (or a player in Tokyo is dying, so the issue resolves itself.)
    I’m torn because logically Tokyo Bay and Tokyo city are really just super positions, representing both players being in the attack position. Logically, I’d interpret that as whomever has the dice is in the Tokyo alpha position.

    But the rules just say “Tokyo bay closes” so I understand why the Tokyo city player thinks the the TB player has screwed himself and is now kicked out.

    What’s the ruling?



    Source link