|
I play/ed Feln, it didn't go away, it just wasn't top dog like it was the week before I built it. Praxis went under it pretty easily.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
Partial Octopus posted:So I'm wanting to get into this game. I come from a magic background and just finished playing the tutorial. What is a top tier hard control deck that I should build? I don't mind spending money. I had some luck with LightsOutAces Calcium Control. Not exactly sure how it's doing now that the new sets been out for a bit, been playing other stuff the last week. Also given the payoff is Knucklebones you might find it too RNG heavy for your tastes. Fun though. https://eternalwarcry.com/decks/details/FnsNQknxNJ0/calcium-control
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
Feln Control is still pretty okay, at least in high Gold. Run four Annihilates in addition to ICB (and maybe some Deathstrikes, can't be too careful), plus a few chump blockers (Acquisitive Crow is an all-star for that IMO) and you'll be able to answer at least some early Teacher plays. Market is great for Azindel's Gift and edge case cards like Stray into Shadows (sup Dawnwalker?) and Burglarize (to steal the mirror's Azindel's). It's not super-dominant, but I've had good luck against Praxis tokens and most of the Justice decks I've run up against.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
I've pulled 13 legendaries from the new set and three are unbreakable alliance 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
I've opened 4 Tax Collectors including 2 premium.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
Someone is running a no-joke firebomb deck against me in the event right now, this is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Nighthand posted:Someone is running a no-joke firebomb deck against me in the event right now, this is hilarious. Pojo's been at it again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vepGz7huOE
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Oh nice, I was watching him brew that up on stream the other day but I didn't see him get it actually working. The one that I played against just cast Light the Fuse on me, but only one blew up on me and I won fairly handily.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
His only ended up working once tbh, amazing when it did though. I'd like to make a stonescar firebomb mill version with those new umbrens at some point
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Pojo's been at it again This is amazing. I had no idea Reclaimer worked that way. Is that the only card in the game that REALLY shuffles?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
deftest posted:This is amazing. I had no idea Reclaimer worked that way. Is that the only card in the game that REALLY shuffles? I think so. At the very least, it's the only card in the game that has the word "shuffle" on it. (They could have been clearer with the wording on Reclaimer itself, since you can read it as "void cards get inserted into random places without reshuffling the whole deck", even though it's a full reshuffle.) Flamebelcher would be a really horrible card design without some way to reshuffle the opponent's deck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
The number of people playing Svetya or Scourge in this event is absurd, and they're killing any drive I had to get 5 runs in over the weekend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
Svetya isn't too bad if you have mostly fast spells. I've beaten a few. Scourge needs either 10 power or some cheatiness to get into play, if you're packing countermagic and have a reasonably fast clock it shouldn't be too much trouble. I've beaten a few decks that seemed like turbo-Scourge was their plan before they got anywhere close.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 06:55
|
|
|
Is the Devour-Backlash interaction supposed to play out with the unit dying and getting an Entomb effect and only then do you get to negate the draw and lifegain effect? 'cause that seems weird
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 10:34
|
|
|
Knorth posted:Is the Devour-Backlash interaction supposed to play out with the unit dying and getting an Entomb effect and only then do you get to negate the draw and lifegain effect? 'cause that seems weird DWD assumes you will read the words "Sacrifice a unit to draw 2 cards and gain 2 life" and parse them to mean "As an additional cost to cast Altar's Reap, sacrifice a creature. Draw two cards." You are supposed to know that the Magic version has the phrase "additional cost" on it and that additional costs are paid when casting a spell, and not upon resolution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 10:47
|
|
|
That's really dumb
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 10:55
|
|
|
Knorth posted:That's really dumb How is that dumb? Eternal's templating isn't as verbose as Magic so I can see missing that sacrifice is a requirement to cast the spell and not the resolution of the spell which is what the Negate effects block. Similar to something like Cabal Tactic which requires two creatures to cast it. If you deathstrike one creature the spell still resolves
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 13:28
|
|
|
If a Flame Blast gets Backlashed do they spend all their power or only 2? I honestly don't even know
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 13:32
|
|
|
lazerwolf posted:How is that dumb? Eternal's templating isn't as verbose as Magic so I can see missing that sacrifice is a requirement to cast the spell and not the resolution of the spell which is what the Negate effects block. Because negating the entire spell is apparently impossible despite the backlash card being explicitly for exactly that. Sacrificing isn't a requirement similar to the power cost, it's the beginning of the spell as written on the card and should be negated with the negate spell card Your example is not at all the same thing
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 13:36
|
|
|
All the sacrifice effects (Combust, Brimstone Altar, the Offering cycle from FoA, and technically all the other ones like Combustion Cell that don't generate response windows at all) work the same way, so it's not like it's inconsistent. I'm sure someone would be crying foul if you could Devour something, and then in response to that you Devour it again and draw four cards but only lose one creature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
Knorth posted:Because negating the entire spell is apparently impossible despite the backlash card being explicitly for exactly that. Sacrificing isn't a requirement similar to the power cost, it's the beginning of the spell as written on the card and should be negated with the negate spell card Sacrificing IS a requirement of the card is what I'm trying to say. They just don't spell it out on the card the same way that Magic does. It should read code:
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
lazerwolf posted:Sacrificing IS a requirement of the card is what I'm trying to say. They just don't spell it out on the card the same way that Magic does. It is essentially as say no scurvy said it. code:
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Thanks to whoever posted the mono shadow list last time the cast a spell, get a unit event happened, because I remembered how good it was and tried to remake it and went 7-2. There are a number of new cards since the last event that are good for it. Corrupt is kinda nuts in the event, cull the deck is just good draw, both halves of devastating setback do work, holdup to destroy their hand more. Im not sure on The End is Near, I only had one copy so I didnt get to play with it much and the one time I did I was already losing pretty bad but it should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
I went 7-2 with a hooru control list that doesn't run Svetya, with one of the losses due to me keeping a 1 power hand with herald's song + privelege of rank, so just needing 1 power draw to make it busted, but I didn't get it. Of the 9 games, 7 of them were feln control, meaning almost every game I got hit with sabotage immediately. Of the remaining two, one was against a similar deck, though it ran more anti-unit control like permafrost and ran scourge in the main to hope to cast it. The other was some kind of praxis overrun deck that didn't quite pan out. That was my fourth run of the event, I think. I did two runs with a stonescar burn deck I threw together with the hope of burning out people before they could get crazy, and one with the svetya lock that only kind of panned out and went 4-3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
lazerwolf posted:Sacrificing IS a requirement of the card is what I'm trying to say. They just don't spell it out on the card the same way that Magic does. Yeah and that's dumb as poo poo. Love to have a card not do the literal thing written on it because oh it's like that in Magic. It's not even two sentences for goodness' sake, just some of the card words get negated and some don't because ~reasons~
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Well that was rather tilting. Just went 3-0 in a draft then dropped three straight due to a variety of types of power screw. Mulliganned a 1 power hand into a 2 power hand full of 3 cost spells and didn't draw another power in my top eight cards one game. Drew only blue sigils in a 2/3rds red deck with no playable cards till I died in a second game. poo poo happens and I've won plenty of games where the opponent drew badly, but drat. I think I need to work on my shuffling technique.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Knorth posted:Yeah and that's dumb as poo poo. Love to have a card not do the literal thing written on it because oh it's like that in Magic. It's not even two sentences for goodness' sake, just some of the card words get negated and some don't because ~reasons~ All I'm saying is that the devs intended those cards (Combust, Devour) to work the way they do. Saccing a creature is a cost of the card and the effect that can be negated is listed after. They probably should have been more explicit on the card wording to indicate this. You don't even get a window to respond until after the unit is sacced so the only thing that can be negated is the effect that is remaining lazerwolf fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jul 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
Making it more explicit would just shine a light on how stupid a design that is. Like, imagine if backlashing Feeding Time still left a unit being transformed into a pig but didn't kill it because, hey having a creature become a pig is just a requirement for the rest of the spell going off. It's a broken interaction and there should be a response before the creature is sacrificed because that is part of the spell. Knorth fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Jul 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
How would you expect it to work if they cast Devour, and then in response you killed the creature they were devouring?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
The same way it would if you put an aegis on a unit they played a kill spell on. It wouldn't
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Knorth posted:The same way it would if you put an aegis on a unit they played a kill spell on. It wouldn't So completely the opposite of things like Channel the Tempest, which still draws you cards if the target gets Aegis or gets removed in some other way?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
Channel's draw isn't predicated on dealing damage. Like what? If you negated Channel then no, they shouldn't get the draw or deal damage How on earth are you looking at this and coming to the conclusion that the sacrifice is not part of the spell effect and is somehow independent of the draw/life gain 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
So it's really just an issue of wording for you? Or are you objecting to the design of the card itself? FWIW the game is pretty internally consistent about the "{pay cost} to {do something}" wording - even for something like Snow Pelting, you pay the extra power and exhaust the units even if the spell gets countered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 03:20
|
|
|
I mean, I can't think of a wording that makes the sacrifice going through despite the spell being negated not seem like a really dumb design That Magic wording is definitely more clear as to how that interaction would play out but Magic seems like such a weird bloated mess that I'm not surprised it needs to include something like that as part of the power cost Knorth fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Jul 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 03:29
|
|
|
Knorth posted:Like, imagine if backlashing Feeding Time still left a unit being transformed into a pig but didn't kill it because, hey having a creature become a pig is just a requirement for the rest of the spell going off. I would never imagine that because it's obvious that that's all part of the spell effect and not an additional cost for the caster. It's intuitive to me that sacrificing the unit is an additional cost to Devour and not part of the effect. If it's not intuitive to you, I think you're pretty much out of luck. They're consistent with the "{cost} to {effect}" wording, and they're consistent with the fact that a spell or ability being negated prevents the effect, but additional costs such as power, exhausting, or sacrificing remain paid. I highly doubt any aspect of the card design or wording will change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
So if you back lash a spell should they get the mana back? The 'to' means it's part of the cost not part of the effect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
Nibble posted:I would never imagine that because it's obvious that that's all part of the spell effect and not an additional cost for the caster. It's intuitive to me that sacrificing the unit is an additional cost to Devour and not part of the effect. Well, I'll definitely know for next time. It's a broken interaction where we pretend that killing a unit isn't a resolution of a spell by itself let alone part of the effect but yeah, not expecting it'll get changed because ~internalised magic design~ apparently bamhand posted:So if you back lash a spell should they get the mana back? The 'to' means it's part of the cost not part of the effect. Lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
It's really just that you have to learn what specific words mean in Eternal. Like, in magic a colon is used to separate the cost and effect of an ability, which is just some vocabulary you have to learn to play the game. Eternal uses the word "to" to separate costs and effects. The only difference is that Eternal will use the same language on a spell, as an ability on a unit, unlike magic which only uses the notation on creature abilities. (Actually until literally just now, I thought "pay 2 life" was part of the cost on Vampiric Tutor: https://scryfall.com/card/vis/72 but it's just part of the effect. The colon notation doesn't mean anything on a noncreature spell, it turns out.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:It's really just that you have to learn what specific words mean in Eternal. Like, in magic a colon is used to separate the cost and effect of an ability, which is just some vocabulary you have to learn to play the game. Eternal uses the word "to" to separate costs and effects. The only difference is that Eternal will use the same language on a spell, as an ability on a unit, unlike magic which only uses the notation on creature abilities. (Actually until literally just now, I thought "pay 2 life" was part of the cost on Vampiric Tutor: https://scryfall.com/card/vis/72 but it's just part of the effect. The colon notation doesn't mean anything on a noncreature spell, it turns out.) If you look at the gatherer wording on vampiric tutor, they've changed it to just have 'You lose 2 life' as part of the spell to clear up cases like this. Old magic was pretty loose and inconsistent with how cards were worded. E: it's dumb that Devour isn't clear though, since an MTG player would definitely expect it to work the way it does, but it's definitely not clear to someone coming in cold.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
That's just Eternal's templating {additional cost} to {spell's effect} Feed the flames is worded the same way: Discard a card to create and draw two 3/1 Flamefangs with Reckless Do you think they would get the discarded card back from the void if you negated the spell?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 04:48
|
|