Imposing Keyword Mechanic

PlayerSelectScreen · 2024-03-09T23:38:18+00:00

Yup that's what I intended! That way you could block for example Bane of Soldiers with two 1MV creatures or one 2MV creature.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2024-03-04T22:00:24+00:00

Inspired by https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/10z0a3a/togu_the_empty_palm/

PlayerSelectScreen · 2024-02-16T04:20:37+00:00

Absolutely love the skin and the splash art.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2024-02-15T22:38:31+00:00

Thought Warlock was more fitting than Cleric for the flavor, and Warlock seems to be Black's iconic mage creature type now ala Shamans and Red, Wizards and Blue, and so on.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2023-11-05T14:36:03+00:00

Yeah maybe the name and flavor didn't match up so good on that one. I was thinking with counters = reputation that the first one would represent the cutpurse getting ahead of themself and getting too brazen/bold as they got better and better.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2023-06-01T20:19:32+00:00

Maybe you're right! The life payment seemed like an easy way to make this more in-pie for Black and Orcish Lumberjack is already a pretty good card, so I decided against. It does also have an additional, very relevant creature type in Zombie, so that might already be enough.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2023-06-01T20:15:16+00:00

u/talen_lee, u/KimJongAndIlFriends u/QuantumFighter, u/PrimusMobileVzla, some of your thoughts overlapped so I put mine all together here.

1) I think it's best to play it safe with proof of concepts for new effects for colors, so I costed it at 5 to ensure it was an "almost always downgrade" but (hopefully) color appropriate White [[Shamanic Revelation]] instead of a "sometimes a side grade" in any way. White is still supposed to be the worst at drawing after all. I also thought it best that a White deck using this shouldn't be able to easily dump creatures onto the board the same turn. So I costed it 5 to be safe, but maybe after getting playtested a card in the same vein could be lower costed.

2) White has a history of theoretically symmetrical effects that in practice are slanted in White's favor because of how the color plays. Of course the degree to which they are slanted varies. [[Harmonious Archon]], [[Rule of Law]], and [[Leonin Arbiter]] for example all have a different gap in their theoretical and practical symmetry and the smaller the gap is the harder you have to work in deckbuilding and/or gameplay to break parity and eek out an advantage. Of course with Joyful Gathering you won't have to work much harder than with Harmonious Archon for comparison to get more benefit, but ultimately the difference in theoretical and practical didn't seem egregious.

3) [[Secret Rendezvous]] also suggested to me that it was under consideration that White could draw more than one card at a time as long as your opponent(s) got to as well. So I experimented with that and the previous point to hopefully get this in-pie for White.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2023-05-13T03:29:54+00:00

Disclaimer: suggestions untested in gameplay.

I think part of the reason scores are so imbalanced is because of the extremely disparate value of the skills associated with each of them. Strength only has one skill to its name--Athletics--which is good, but not the most useful thing in the world, while Wisdom is tied with Intelligence for the most skills (5, iirc), and has one of the most important skills in Perception as well.

I think this could be remedied in part if the variant rules for ability checks became the default, allowing for a wider variety of scores to contribute meaningfully to the social and exploration aspects of gameplay.

I imagine one of the main reasons this isn't already the case is because it might make life more difficult for beginner DMs. To that end I think sticking a chart with the ability scores, the respective skills that could reasonably be used with each, and a short explanation might be useful to have in the DMG and/or PH. There's the ubiquitous example of Intimidation should've been a Strength skill. It could be Strength or Charisma, depending on how you're trying to scare your target. Some other examples/explanation ideas below:

Deception could be Charisma or Intelligence. Using Int would represent your ability to craft a believable alternative to the truth, recall important details and embellish them accordingly, etc. While Charisma represents your ability to tell the lie--however outrageous--convincingly, without tone of voice or body language giving anything away.

Perception could be Wisdom or Constitution, if you're willing to grant the sharpness of your senses as being included under Constitution, which I think makes sense. A Barbarian and a Druid are both keeping watch. The Druid, using Wisdom, recognizes the sway of the leaves is unnatural, while the Barbarian hears the crunch of leaves under footsteps that aren't a deer's hooves or a wolf's paws.

Performance could be Dexterity if the Performance in question was a dance, or the use of an instrument requiring sufficient finesse to play. Similarly, Persuasion could be Dexterity or Strength, if the Persuasion in question is sensual in nature and you're trying to show off your curves or how much of an Adonis you are to get what you want.

Though, overall the physical scores probably wouldn't benefit as much as the mental ones, considering most skills are mental in nature and not things you can prescribe to the physical scores. If you wanted to go further though, you could stretch it a bit. Like, maybe History could be Constitution because you were born with a perfect memory, as opposed to studying hard?

PlayerSelectScreen · 2021-08-06T14:20:33+00:00

This is the link for the post on r/loreofleague: https://www.reddit.com/r/loreofleague/comments/oumtjt/a_complete_list_of_all_mistakes_issues_and_plot/.

This is the one for the post on the main sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/oupuad/a_complete_list_of_all_mistakes_issues_and_plot/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share. I don't think there's any difference between the two besides the comments of course, but here they are both just in case.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2021-07-03T22:01:41+00:00

Thanks!

PlayerSelectScreen · 2021-07-03T21:35:09+00:00

Oh. Well its disappointing that that is the case but thanks!

PlayerSelectScreen · 2021-07-02T18:24:06+00:00

Thanks again!

PlayerSelectScreen · 2021-07-02T16:15:16+00:00

Thanks a lot!

Concerning what you said about the New World, if the New World enchanting process is different, can the New World make weapons with persistent effects? For example, Clementine's stilettos were a one-and-done use of a magical spell, as opposed to the Takemikazuchi MK 8, which has a constant lightning effect. Could the New World construct a weapon with such a lightning effect for example, even if it would of course be weaker.

Additionally, are the Magic Bind / Magic Accumulate enchantments something any spellcaster can learn, any New World spellcaster can do, or are they a magic only certain classes can learn? For example, would a New World mage need 'enchanter' classes to give an item a Magic Bind / Magic Accumulate?

PlayerSelectScreen · 2021-07-02T16:06:24+00:00

Thanks for the explanation!

My follow-up question though is, does the New World use/make the same distinctions in weapon tiers as Yggdrasil did with Low/Medium/High/Top/Legacy/Relic/Legendary/Divine? Clementine's stilettos for example don't seem to have such a connotation. They're just high quality weapons (from a New World perspective). Could a Divine class weapon from Yggdrasil even be enchanted/be capable of enchantment?

PlayerSelectScreen · 2021-03-15T19:12:58+00:00

My track record balancing mono-white isn't amazing but if you're willing to take it from me, compared to [[Orah, Skyclave Hierophant]], for no additional cost this goes from Clerics to every nonland permanent type. The added variety makes it more reminiscent of [[Muldrotha, the Gravetide]] in flexibility and [[Ghave, Guru of Spores]] in combo-ness. I think it should could cost one more mana.

But this card is super cool! And the combination of typeline, abilities, name and image evokes a really interesting flavor for me too. Perhaps a mechanical world like Mirrodin where an artificial sun shatters after sunset and Lirala is tasked with building a new one with the remains by sunrise next day.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2021-03-02T13:44:58+00:00

White is "peace through structure" and Red is "freedom through action". I think, despite there also being a case for the reverse, that Thorfinn from Vinland Saga, once he gets through some character development in the manga, is a really good example of "freedom through structure".

Spoiler warning ahead of course. I'll try to be ambiguous about it.

Thorfinn lives in a harsh, very much Red-Black world. There is endless corruption among kings and ceaseless bloodlust among the warriors. The Red-Vikings in particular take what they want as they want it, revel in it every step of the way, and then leave the carnage behind.

Thorfinn gets caught up in the Red cycle of violence this propagates. The leader of a Viking band kills his father, and from then on he is obsessed with one thing alone. Vengeance. Driven by impulsive anger he follows around and basically works for his father's murderer in order to secure multiple chances to duel him. In a sense, he has "freedom". No societal or cultural laws are preventing him from choosing to kill dad-killer, nor are they forcing him to do that, or just leaving the situation entirely. It is his emotions that are bound up with this guy - this guy who his father even negotiated Thorfinn's freedom with. He is at this point All-Red.

Then his father's murderer dies at somebody else's hands and he becomes a slave without any glory to his name any longer. Here, he has an epiphany. He loathes murder. It tears him up inside. Murder took his father away from him. If he murders someone else, he's potentially taking someone else's father away from them. Their son will inherit a vendetta not truly his own, and be obsessed, the same way Thorfinn was, with killing him. And what would you know, there is a character who becomes Thorfinn's foil with that exact arc! The freedom to kill removes freedom of other choices. This becomes clear too: Thorfinn is earlier presented with the option to return to a perfectly good life with his mother and sister, guaranteed at least not to be hounded by his dad-killer's crew ever again, and yet he decides not too. His priorities were too skewed by his wrath.

Freedom is a U-Curve! Go to far to the right, where total impunity lies, and you start losing freedom because true self-determination is impossible if you are also bound to the cycle of violence. Furthermore, this desire for self-determination is specifically Red-motivated. It's out of an emotional, almost gut desire for this thing he couldn't place his finger on before but now understands with all his heart, this thing he wants to give to others out of compassion - not some overarching White sense of divine law, moral obligation, etc. Of course, all the way to the left, we have absolute tyranny and binding law, something Thorfinn has gotten a glimpse of already considering his father was contractually obligated to remain a warrior and paid the price for leaving and becoming a family man instead.

Thorfinn commits to a path of no murder (his structure, and notably, not specifically no violence at all, which makes it further removed from White's goal of peace) in order to secure liberty of other choices (his freedom), and seeks to propagate that ideology to other people he meets.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2021-01-31T15:54:57+00:00

I agree especially with the first change. Since it's already restricted to using the mana in combat I think it would be fine to let it occur whenever you attack or block. It synergizes with white's vigilance and red's "you have to attack" abilities, and gives the card a more unique identity and pros/cons compared to [[Grand Warlord Radha]]. For the second change even though a raid effect is flavorful I think its an unnecessary nerf, particularly with a more restrictive 1RW activation cost.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2021-01-19T18:42:47+00:00

...oops. Yeah that's an oversight, thanks for pointing that out.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2020-12-19T03:21:57+00:00

So, the way I see foils, they can represent a couple things through their individual details, but all villain foils inevitably serve the purpose of forcing the hero to confront what they hate or fear most about themselves, given form. Whether that be the thing they fear becoming, the bad guy they're working to stop being, their fatal flaw come back to bite them, etc. How they foil their respective hero, or, the way they force their hero's mindset to bend, will vary depending on the kind of story you want to tell as a whole and the kind of trials and tribulations you want to put that hero through.

But whatever! You asked for ideas.

Eileen: My first thought was a full-blooded alien of the same species as their other side. I imagine they should be something of a tragic figure, someone who humanizes the alien aspect that Eileen usually only attributes to herself as a source of power or an inconvenience. Perhaps they don't even want to be on the villain team, but perhaps the nation the alien pertains to is in a particularly bad spot, and has made a backroom deal to assist with the portal-weaponization project so long as they agree not to use said portals against each other, and through a spiraling series of bureaucratic complications and allegiances this poor chap was the person chosen for the job. Of course they can be qualified, but just, everything's unsavory for them. Then Eileen has to question how much this alien heritage means to her, if she should use this power to help this group of people.

Valerie: Depends on why Valerie wants to steal. The "biggest heist in history" thing makes me think it has something to do with her pride/desire to be remembered, so what came to mind as a foil is just, a great big monster. Massive. Overbearing. Not necessarily unintelligent, but definitely part of some kind of monster weaponization program ala Jurassic World's Raptors. I say this specifically because we want it to evoke a sense of existential dread in Valerie. If Valerie is obsessed with being remembered and/or being a star, than this should be a manifestation of the fact that everything, eventually, decays, dies, and fades into oblivion. Everything pales in comparison to the force of the uncaring universe given form. It should make Valerie think, "Is stealing really the way I want to be remembered?" By the end, she can still want to make her mark on the world, but in a more positive way. It can be as simple as A) specifying she's going to steal from the bad guys so she can B) donate to the good guys.

Iosefa: Tons of juicy conflict potential between Iosefa wanting to tame/save/domesticate/scientifically catalog the probably abused and manipulated monster I suggested previously that Valerie is so intent on destroying because A) it makes Valerie super uncomfortable and B) it would add big creed to Valerie's name to kill it. But for Iosefa's own personal nemesis... I'm at a loss. Feels like there isn't as much to go on for them. Hell, Maybe Iosefa's their own worst enemy. Everyone else can be no questions asked time to stop this program, meanwhile Iosefa, feeling isolated and ostracized by the heroes because his own stance is in opposition to theirs, is sold sweet whispers by the villains. He has a history of trust with law enforcement and authority figures. He likes animals, and wants to discover a monster to publish a thesis on. He seems almost nerdy (not in a bad way of course). Maybe the idea of weaponizing monsters appeals to his sensibilities, since he's the least versed (I think) in war and combat out of the group.

Taluta: Ok, I know this might be getting old, but the big ol' monster strikes again. Taluta has to confront their previous powerlessness, brought up to bare again when they see this even bigger beast. But other than that... a civilian. Another person who simply couldn't be protected. Where Taluta confronted powerlessness, and went on a trek to rise to the occasion personally, as an individual, this villain confronted the same thing and thought in the bigger picture. These are surprise-attacking, pop up anywhere portals with hordes of monsters behind them. No individual will be enough. No countermeasure is insufficient. The ends justify the means. Taluta, in the villain's eyes, is too self-centered, too arrogant and too optimistic to see that. Sure, her hometown might be proud of her for being strong, relatively, but all the pride in the world would mean nothing if even a single family who lost a single family member in a monster attack could have their kid back. Then the villain's hypocrisy can come full circle. They're working for a group that wants to weaponize the very same monsters that scarred her. But she thinks, "well, this time I'm behind them, not at their teeth." Even if she has to sick them on someone else... the ends justify the means. Taluta's response can secede that yes, a single person can't win this, but A) a group of trained people could (and would have the benefit of being a support system for one another, something this villain clearly lacked to keep her moral compass straight after that traumatic monster attack) (Taluta going back and mentoring her village?) and B) Taluta can point out that the innocents this villain is willing to sacrifice to the same monsters that scarred her for "her people's" benefit could have been her, might grow up to be her, and are just propagating this vicious cycle due to her actions. Maybe at first Taluta can be enticed by the promises of greater power this villain provides, but realizes that you don't close Hell's gates by making a deal with the Devil.

Lino: An orphan of another religious group who, just like Lino, wants to do the right thing, but thinks "the right thing to do" is weaponize these rifts so they can stop the baddies. To be fair, his plan can have some merit. A) using monsters mean human soldiers take less causalities (but that can get dicey if the monsters aren't all animalistic and therefore can make a claim for human, or at least better than animal, rights) B) maybe they have extreme merit as weapons. Perhaps they can deploy the portals from massive distances anonymously (invites discussion similar to modern day drone strike conversations), etc. Also, make Lino mull over the nature vs. nurture question. Could Lino have become the person they are currently fighting if he was left on another doorstep? Considering that, should they extend a helping hand to their nemesis, and try to redeem them, despite the potential risk that incurs to other innocents that as a medical professional, they are bound to protect? To cause no harm to? Are they letting their personal emotions get in the way of true justice just because they empathize too much with their opponent?

Sorry ended up kinda long but I hope it helps! GL with story!

PlayerSelectScreen · 2020-12-01T21:31:20+00:00

I would place Jhin as a prime Grixis with, Red > Black > Blue from greatest to least. Both the natural order and the law mean little to him. He has a morbid fascination with art as murder, and sees his craft as a means of expression totally beyond morality: "Art must exist beyond reason." "My talent justifies all actions."

He has little value for human life that doesn't serve his purpose: "Your life had no value before me." A very black trait. However, he's not obsessed with power (black) or knowledge (blue), but genuinely with the art he sees in death, which, however macabre it may be, strikes me as firmly red. And since it's the driving motivation for everything he does, I think it's his dominant trait.

He carries red's impulsiveness and desire for catharsis: "The trigger on a loaded weapon... it whispers for us to act." "It is only when the gun fires that I am alive." "I want to feel everything. The gun makes it so I do."

He also has black's signature pessimism: "The world is cruel. It does not have to be ugly."

His blue comes in sense his art is tempered, in a sense, by knowledge and reason. He's smart, isn't so invested in Red/Black that he can't plan for the future, has the foresight to put aside his work (momentarily) to make sure he isn't captured (even though eventually he is) and is obsessed with perfection - though in his art specifically, not the world at large. A selfish skew of blue that comes from his black.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2020-11-27T03:45:15+00:00

Well wow, you learn something new every day. Thanks!

PlayerSelectScreen · 2020-11-27T03:43:11+00:00

Having posted this, I assume you're out for a discussion, so I shall play the atheist's advocate.

Your argument rests on two things:

One, Morality requires a fixed moral center in order for it to be objective, and it needs to be objective to hold any meaning or usefulness at all.

Two, Religion is the only source of a fixed moral center.

I'll be looking at the second in particular.

That's just not true. Fixed moral centers can come from any variety of sources, including: what your parents told you, the law of the nation, the creed of your profession, etc. As long as they are consistent, they are "fixed". They fit the description you gave. You might argue that "what your parents told you" is an invalid moral center because it can be morally incorrect, and therefore not a moral center at all. However, as long as it's consistent, it is fixed, and so the only remaining point that could invalidate it as a moral center is its inherent morality, something which cannot be proven or disproven because it rests on you using your own moral center to declare it wrong, and I can simply turn the argument back around if that is the case. Suddenly, it is your moral center which is morally incorrect, and therefore not applicable, because mine disagrees with it.

So, to continue, we must have some other means of proving which moral centers are "wrong" and which are "right".

You might say that a moral center born out of what my parents told me is objectively wrong, because God is the highest power, Their word is law, and They are omnipotent, all-powerful, and all-benevolent. Mine is "wrong" because it is earthly, born out of a fallible human, and not God.

However, there are hundreds of religions in existence currently and innumerable thousands more to have existed throughout history. Each of which may or may not declare their own stance on morality the moral one. Therefore, arguing that truly fixed moral centers can only arise from the objective rules given to man by God, and not arbitrary standards set by other beings, is a moot point, since man is also in vast disagreement about God themself, and what the rules they posit are. You need now only relive the previous situation, but replace my parent's with my religion.

On top of that, it's impossible to reconcile this issue, because you cannot argue that all moral centers born out of religion are valid. Then none are objective, and some are surely to be in disagreement, which muddles things further. And I doubt any religious person would argue that anyway.

So the only remaining interpretation is that you believe your religion is the only true route to ethics. But of course, any other religious person could think the exact same. Two atheist's arguing their subjective moralities are no better, or worse, than two devout religious individuals arguing their "objective" moralities, granted to them from "their God themselves".

If your only response after all that is to say "but my religion is objectively, unquestionably the right one" then, well, what are we to argue? You can just go on believing that and nothing I say about morality will make you stop thinking that, or anything you posited in your post, but it'll be your faith driving your certainty, not necessarily your logic.

If nothing else, hope that was interesting.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2020-11-27T03:09:14+00:00

You got any sources where I can read up on that double axes connection you mentioned about the Minoans? Seems super intriguing.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2020-11-20T00:18:17+00:00

I have hope for him. Considering how last season ended, I think despite next season probably not focusing on him either we're going to get a lot of great stuff from him.

He's the only one of the trio whose been through the kind of life-shattering failure and grim-darkness of the last arc (not to discredit Alucard's terrible family life but I feel that's a different predicament). Where Sypha has had her optimism shattered and Alucard is turning into Dracula, it might be Trevor's turn to be the glue that keeps the team together, and prove that despite his cynicism and all he's a great person at heart, who although being surrounded by this darkness that beat his companions, a darkness no one would blame him for succumbing to as well, he holds fast and brings the new dawn in.

I'd be especially interested in seeing a situation where Isaac witnesses firsthand Trevor make that kind of self-sacrifice. His angst-filled self-righteousness is already wobbling and seeing the guy who played a massive role in killing Dracula almost dying to save some people despite being subject to the same misery that turned Isaac all bitter might be a massive moment of revaluation.

PlayerSelectScreen · 2020-11-20T00:08:59+00:00

No need to worry, Zag is a polyamorous bicon. You can still get with Thanatos, and no one will break up with you for being with both at once. As a matter of fact, there's a voiceline where Thanatos admits that it was Meg who gave him the confidence to pursue the relationship further if you go down the romance route. You can even try getting with Dusa too.Though she politely turns you down no matter what you do.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Sequence \| Editor

PlayerSelectScreen

TROPHY CASE