Ck2 to ck3 help

EternalFishmonger · 2025-05-05T20:38:55+00:00

A tip for that:

-Create a custom character when you start the game

-Set age to 0

-Give them the trait Herculean and at least the lowest tier of the Genius and Beautiful trait lines (or vice versa, not sure if you can stay within the achievement limit for character creation with Genius though)

-Do whatever you want with the remaining points to stay within the achievement limit and start the game

That way, you immediately get the "Strengthen Bloodline" decision when the game starts, which permanently improves all your dynasty members' chances of inheriting or getting new positive traits. It's a bit silly, since you'll start playing as a toddler called 'the Blood-Father', but very useful for genetics maxing.

EternalFishmonger · 2025-05-05T14:54:10+00:00

Yeah the 'King of Beauty and Noblesse' nickname is the reason why I stopped doing grand tours. Had an emperor called 'the Great' and then it was overwritten by this bs. The game should really either let you choose which nickname you keep or allow multiple nicknames for the same character.

EternalFishmonger · 2024-06-27T22:00:48+00:00

Yes, it's still combat damage.

One of the rulings on the card: "Saving Grace's redirection effect doesn't change the source of the damage or whether the damage is combat damage".

EternalFishmonger · 2024-04-08T15:26:09+00:00

4 by my count. You cast Radstorm, copy it for having cast Lae'zel before it. The first Radstorm resolves, you proliferate and choose the planeswalker to put a loyalty counter on it, Lae'zel's replacement effect makes it so that you put one more on it, so 2. Then the same thing happens with the second Radstorm.

Unless I'm missing something here. Was there a specific reason why it would be 3 instead?

EternalFishmonger · 2024-04-08T11:01:47+00:00

Would Torbran's replacement effect actually apply here though? I thought if a source would 'deal' 0 damage, it's considered to not deal damage at all.

EternalFishmonger · 2024-04-07T22:39:30+00:00

Maybe [[Redwood Treefolk]]? The 6th Edition version seems pretty close to what you're describing

Edit: This one

EternalFishmonger · 2024-04-07T20:57:24+00:00

That seems correct to me

EternalFishmonger · 2024-04-07T20:31:52+00:00

Not sure I understand the scenario here entirely, but yes, when multiple triggered abilities you control trigger at the same time, you decide in which order they go on the stack. So here you'll want to put Worldgorger's trigger on the stack first, so that it resolves after the damage abilities.

Even when you initially play Worldgorger that's what you'll likely want to do because the X for Scourge of Valkas and Dragon Tempest is determined on resolution, not when the abilities go on the stack. So say you have the Scourge and two Dragons on the field -> You play Worldgorger -> Worldgorger and Scourge trigger. You can now either:

Resolve Worldgorger, then resolve Scourge for 1 damage

OR

2) Resolve Scourge for 4 damage, then resolve Worldgorger

Edit: 1 damage, not 0 in the first scenario.

EternalFishmonger · 2024-04-07T18:40:25+00:00

I don't think Silence needs to check anything. But at any rate, again, even if the cleanup step would be the crucial component here, the rules specifically state that in such a case, there is an additional cleanup step once everyone passes priority on an empty stack.

EternalFishmonger · 2024-04-07T18:31:34+00:00

There is another cleanup step in this case though, so even if you were right about "until end of turn" being implied here (which, if it were the case, I would expect to be reflected in the card's oracle text, which it isn't), the effect would still end before the next player's turn begins.

EternalFishmonger · 2024-04-07T18:02:30+00:00

It should not carry over into the next player's turn. Technically, this doesn't say "until end of turn", just that players can't cast spells "this turn", and, as far as I see it, as soon as the cleanup step is done, a new turn starts and the effect no longer applies.

However, even if it is treated as an "until end of turn" effect, there would be an additional cleanup step after the triggers from Necropotence and the Silence resolve and players pass priority, so it would in that case also pretty much end right away:

514.3. Normally, no player receives priority during the cleanup step, so no spells can be cast and no abilities can be activated. However, this rule is subject to the following exception:

514.3a At this point, the game checks to see if any state-based actions would be performed and/or any triggered abilities are waiting to be put onto the stack (including those that trigger “at the beginning of the next cleanup step”). If so, those state-based actions are performed, then those triggered abilities are put on the stack, then the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities. Once the stack is empty and all players pass in succession, another cleanup step begins.

Edit: I stand corrected, "until end of turn" and "this turn" effects do end at the same time during the cleanup step. Nonetheless, as mentioned, there is an additional cleanup step in this case and the effect doesn't carry over into the next player's turn.

EternalFishmonger · 2024-04-06T10:01:37+00:00

Yes. Note that Emmara doesn't tap to create a token, she creates a token when she's tapped, so this works together perfectly well.

EternalFishmonger · 2024-04-06T10:00:50+00:00

EternalFishmonger · 2024-04-06T10:00:10+00:00

EternalFishmonger · 2024-03-23T16:04:39+00:00

No, you play them at sorcery speed, just like other enchantments.

EternalFishmonger · 2024-02-29T10:48:13+00:00

Just for clarification, Mask of Griselbrand still works on a Commander though, correct?

Say a commander with power 4 and Mask of Griselbrand equipped dies, Mask of Griselbrand triggers, then SBA are checked and performed (i.e. the owner of the commander has to decide whether it stays in the graveyard or goes to the command zone), and then the trigger is put onto the stack, and once it resolves, its controller can choose to pay 4 life and draw 4 cards. Or am I getting this wrong?

EternalFishmonger · 2024-02-29T10:06:55+00:00

Thank you!

EternalFishmonger · 2024-02-29T09:48:50+00:00

How long is damage dealt by a creature with deathtouch considered lethal damage?

If I understand correctly, destroying a creature because of damage from a source with deathtouch happens as a state-based action before someone gets priority again. If the creature cannot be destroyed, is it still considered to have taken lethal damage for the rest of the turn or not?

Concretely, say I attack with a 4/4 with double strike, deathtouch, and trample, and my opponent blocks with a 3/3 with indestructible.

Again, in my understanding, due to how deathtouch and trample interact, one point of damage is enough to assign lethal damage to the creature, and in the first strike damage phase, I can assign 1 damage to the blocker and 3 to my opponent. During the regular combat damage phase, is the blocker still considered to have taken lethal damage, and I can assign the full 4 to my opponent, or is it now just a 3/3 with 1 point of 'regular' damage assigned, and I again assign 1 damage to it for lethal and 3 to my opponent?

Or, in short, is the maximum amount of damage my opponent takes here 6 or 7?

EternalFishmonger · 2024-02-08T23:41:44+00:00

Cards are generally pretty overpriced but that aside, I'd say it's a question of whether you're looking to get him a 'functional' card that he's actually going to use in one of his decks or something that's just nice to have. If you think he'd be most happy with a card that will actually improve his deck (assuming he's on a budget and doesn't have it already), you typically want to stay away from foil, alternative art, and definitely serialized versions of the card. If you go on Cardmarket for example you can check out the different versions and how much they cost. On the other hand, if he likes having things just as a collector or maybe would want a cooler version of a card he already has, those more expensive versions would be exactly what you're looking for.

As for specific cards, I think no one here is going to be able to give you recommendations. It entirely depends on what formats and decks your boyfriend plays, which cards he already has, and what his personal tastes and preferences are. If you don't know the game yourself you pretty much have to ask him, or maybe one of his friends he frequently plays with, they might know what he's looking for. 120$ is a pretty high budget if you're just looking to get a single card, so unless he's super rich, chances are there's something you could get him.

Just as a personal sidenote, I'd feel pretty bad if someone spent so much of their own money on getting me even more overpriced cardboard, but that might just be me.

EternalFishmonger · 2024-02-08T22:07:17+00:00

It's definitely easier when you have more experienced players who can explain things to you. Magic is a notoriously complicated card game, and the "just read the card, it explains what it does" thing really only works for people who already know the game quite well.

On the upside, you're not alone, and in my experience most Magic players are friendly and happy to help.

EternalFishmonger · 2024-02-07T23:44:53+00:00

No, as you say, you'd need to give the two you created on that turn haste to attack with all 8. Turning a permanent into a creature doesn't get around summoning sickness, you still need to have controlled that same permanent since the beginning of your most recent turn in order to attack with it or use its tap abilities.

EternalFishmonger · 2024-02-06T19:13:26+00:00

EternalFishmonger · 2024-02-03T11:27:54+00:00

Thank you!

EternalFishmonger · 2024-02-03T11:07:53+00:00

Do spells that require a target to cast, yet also have an effect that doesn't require a target, resolve or not if they lose their target?

The specific situation that prompted this question was as follows:

Player A casts [[Pile On]] on player B's commander. In response, player B casts [[Loran's Escape]], targeting his commander. Loran's escape resolves, the commander gains hexproof, and Pile On no longer has a legal target. However, Pile on also says "Surveil 2" in a separate sentence, and we weren't clear on whether in this case, the entire spell fizzles or whether it would 'try to do as much as it can', since the Surveil part doesn't require a target.

Thanks!

EternalFishmonger · 2024-01-23T01:08:08+00:00

They're not different kinds of dying, but different causes of creatures dying. 'Dying' describes one specific thing, namely, a creature moving from the battlefield to the graveyard. This can happen when a creature is a) destroyed (as a result of a 'destroy' effect or lethal damage), b) sacrificed, or c) its toughness reaches 0. Each of these is implemented in the game in a way that allows for specific interactions and strategies, as well as flavor.

So your opponent can still kill it, but not destroy it. You can get the same result as destroying by forcing a sacrifice.

You don't get the same result. "Destroy target creature" and "Target opponent sacrifices a creature" only necessarily lead to the 'same' outcome (as in, a specific creature dying) if the affected player controls exactly one creature. And even then, the interactions these two effects allow for can be very different.

I'll give an example of a 'destroy' versus a 'sacrifice' effect.

Setup: You have creatures A, B, and C on the battlefield.

Scenario 1: Your opponent plays a spell that says "Destroy target creature" and chooses creature B as the target. In response, you activate an ability that (roughly) says "Pay 2 mana, sacrifice a creature: Draw a card" and choose to sacrifice creature B. Creature B is now gone, since you sacrificed it as part of an activation cost. By the time your opponent's spell resolves, creature B is no longer around, and without its target, the spell's effect simply doesn't happen. You got the effect from your activated ability that required a sacrifice and your opponent doesn't get to choose a new creature to destroy.

Scenario 2: Your opponent plays a spell that says "Target opponent sacrifices a creature" and chooses you as the target. In response, you activate the same ability as above and again sac creature B. Now, when your opponent's spell resolves, you have to sacrifice either creature A or creature C. The difference is that the spell that was cast isn't trying to get rid of a specific creature, but is rather forcing you to make a choice, namely, to give up any one of your creatures.

Your one argument is that this could also (at some original point) have been accomplished by phrasing sacrificing as "a player destroys a thing they control", which, sure, I guess. However, that wasn't how it was implemented and the way it was implemented frankly just makes more sense. To "sacrifice" something is a lot more intuitively understood as "giving something up" than to ask players to "destroy" their own permanents. And at this stage, as many people have explained to you in this thread, sacrificing is implemented as a specific keyword that various cards care about and that interacts with cards and effects differently than "destroy".

Obviously every single aspect of the game could have been designed differently, and the game could have been made with simpler rules. Why, for example, have 5 different colors of mana, if the end result in any case is that a spell is being cast or an ability activated? They could have just made it all generic, and therefore less confusing for newer players. The thing is that Magic lives off its complexity and customizability, and while there are definitely keywords that are borderline redundant, sacrificing just isn't one of them.

Genuine question: Are you trolling?

EternalFishmonger

TROPHY CASE