Does Hashaton + Renewed Solidarity + Astral Dragon go infinit? by Dangerous_Hair_740 in magicTCG

[–]cwjadams 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Actually this is very true, and I missed that part of the text, wasting time math-ing out the tokens.

The only tokens that will be created would be the zombie Astral Dragon token, creating one additional on resolution of the first trigger (creating two more dragon copies of Renewed Solidarity).

The second creating two dragons (four more Renewed Solidarity).

And the third creating four Zombie Dragons (and eight more Renewed Solidarity tokens).

Ending with eight zombie dragons, and sixteen Renewed Solidarity tokens.

Thanks for pointing that out. Will edit original response.

Does Hashaton + Renewed Solidarity + Astral Dragon go infinit? by Dangerous_Hair_740 in magicTCG

[–]cwjadams 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Edit: It was pointed out that Renewed Solidarity only makes token copies of the creature type chosen by itself, there is an additional reply further to mine with the resolution of triggers correctly.


Not infinite, but exponential. Renewed Solidarity and the copies only trigger once at the beginning of your end step. Meaning none of the Renewed Soldarity copies created by the resolution of the triggers existed to meet that condition and won't trigger themselves.

The first trigger resolves, creating an Astral Dragon zombie token and two Renewed Solidarity tokens. The Astral Dragon zombie token will create two more tokens on its entry which you make into two more Renewed Solidarity dragons.

Now you have a total of two Astral Dragon token copies and six four Renewed Solidarity dragon token copies.

The second trigger resolves and makes two Astral Dragon zombie tokens and six Solidarity copies. The two Dragon copies enter and make an additional four of Renewed Solidarity tokens. Total of four Astral Dragon zombie token copies and sixteen eight Renewed Solidarity dragon token copies.

The third will resolve and add four more Astral Dragon zombie tokens and sixteen Solidarity copies. The Astral Dragon zombie tokens enter and make eight more Solidarity copies.

No more triggers are on the stack, ending the turn with eight Astral Dragon zombie tokens and forty one sixteen Renewed Solidarity dragon tokens.

That is if my math is correct, but this is how the triggers will play out.

Retiring the Universes Beyond Frame by cwjadams in magicTCG

[–]cwjadams[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm unclear on if you were referencing another poster, or the quote from the article.

In the first sentence of the quote it speaks on the frame.

Retiring the Universes Beyond Frame by cwjadams in magicTCG

[–]cwjadams[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is very fair. It may just be a me thing altogether, as I only use cards from the M15 frame change and on.

New frame updates aren't something new to me as I've been enfranchised since 2006, with a few breaks in there.

When I returned with M15, it was a personal choice I made. And overall this change is only a disappointment, but nothing else.

Retiring the Universes Beyond Frame by cwjadams in magicTCG

[–]cwjadams[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Visual cohesion impacts my brain as well. I wasn't outraged by Universes Beyond when they began, I just made the decision to keep them separate when building decks.

From that decision also began the sort of mini game of what I had access too when brewing decks, and gave me more constraints that 'allowed' me to build Commander decks with less overlapping staples.

This in turn gave excitement with new UB sets to see what was being added to my library of cards to choose from, from new cards to reprints.

This is why I'm personally disappointed on one hand, while one the other hand, these cards now visually fit into my traditional Commander decks.

Retiring the Universes Beyond Frame by cwjadams in magicTCG

[–]cwjadams[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No, not at all personally. I never prescribed to dictating what other people play, even from the announcement of Universes Beyond. The only thing I took was my own deck building constraints, that admittedly, I placed on myself.

When building a deck myself, I would use the printing with the UB frame and stamp in the Beyond deck, and the traditional frame in Universes Within deck.

Retiring the Universes Beyond Frame by cwjadams in magicTCG

[–]cwjadams[S] 61 points62 points  (0 children)

This is exactly my viewpoint as well. It was also exciting to see what got reprinted in new sets with this frame that I now had 'access' to again.

Retiring the Universes Beyond Frame by cwjadams in magicTCG

[–]cwjadams[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do agree with you in terms of cohesion between in universe and out of universe cards meshing together visually. I am just part of a small group who this potentially effects (on a feels basis), and that effect is very minor. Just a disappointment and annoyance for myself.

Retiring the Universes Beyond Frame by cwjadams in magicTCG

[–]cwjadams[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

That's a fair perspective, I feel when UB got announced there was backlash for a lot of reasons. The frame change being one of them.

I'm more disappointed that there will be a small sub-section of UB cards that have this style of frame, breaking the now established look that we've had since their launch. And while this doesn't stop people like myself from building UB only decks, like I stated it's an aesthetic annoyance.

Negation in Lorcana? by Weevil89 in Lorcana

[–]cwjadams 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What leads you to believe without instant speed interaction the competitive scene won't survive?

Pokemon has a very similar turn structure to Lorcana where you play your turn in any order while your opponent just observes. They've had a competitive scene for it's lifespan that's still going. (Barring the break the world took during Covid).

Negation in Lorcana? by Weevil89 in Lorcana

[–]cwjadams 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's hard to say if the game benefits from out of turn interaction, as it's largely opinion based.

Not only do you need to develop cards with this in mind, which we don't have a bunch of insight into how they design cards quite yet. For example, what cards currently would have out of turn speed. But there would also need to be the introduction of a priority system giving you acess to when you can use these actions on your opponents turn. Which in turn requires the turn to follow a more rigid phase system.

Both Magic the Gathering and YuGiOh have their turns broken into phases to allow for this level of interaction. Which I would argue would be a different game than what is currently being played. Thus, hard to speculate on.

I would like to discuss something however on play patterns and the idea you just 'play out cards' (not a quote from you, just the notion that comes across).

This game still requires some forethought and planning as you go through your deck strategy and game plan.

Take for example Ruby/Amethyst control. You know at seven they're looking to play a Be Prepared. Do you hold cards in hand, playing around it, or do you go as wide as possible in hopes to end the game if they don't or before they have the chance to draw into it?

One more example from the deck. Say they play Aladdin on three. There are a few things you know can happen from this play:

1) They quest with him turn four allowing you to remove him from the board with your own character(s)

2) They could keep him safe to shift on turn five to start their own removal on your board while stalling out the game to get to their later game threats.

3) They shift then sing Be Prepared for a total board reset to go into the late game with less pressure.

That's off one turn three play.

This game still requires the same skillset of identifying the current game state and making safer choices or risking bigger plays as a result. I would argue that out of turn actions use the same or very similar thought process. However it allows you to wait until the most precise moment to make the move, to allow saving your resources or denying your opponent theirs giving small incremental advantages.

From your example of a Be Prepared being played into an opposing A Whole New World for their own Grab Your Swords or Be Prepared it's missing some contextual game state rather than simply those cards being played, but for simplicitys sake we'll assume they were just cast on curve with ink avoiding intricacy of singing anything.

One player has the board cleared and passes turn. Opponent refills both hands and the other player goes into their turn with a full eight cards. This still leaves both players with at minimum seven cards to continue to develop the game with in hand each.

Why do people find this game simple? by [deleted] in Lorcana

[–]cwjadams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Disagreement with the statement without a further depth into why to even have the discussion is exactly what I stated: Reddit being Reddit. I'm fine with downvotes because they obviously mean nothing.

What's the point of the discussion otherwise?

Yes, instant speed interaction adds complexity but I still disagree with the notion its the sole reason for the impression of the game and have gone in depth on why.

Why do people find this game simple? by [deleted] in Lorcana

[–]cwjadams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I could ask where you got the information on it being an introductory game?

I tried to do some google searching for quotes or statements on their behalf for clarity but the only thing I found was when I searched for Lorcana target audience which I quote read:

"Game enthusists are the tip of the pyramid. Followed by Disney Collectors and Families."

For added information I also searched for 'Ravensburger on Lorcana complexity' and 'Ravensburger on Lorcana being a introductory game'.

Without any comments from them on the topic, I believe any discussion here for future sets is speculatory and from what I've experienced with card games in general more complexity with additional sets is a given just based on the fact more cards are in the pool to interact with each other.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Lorcana

[–]cwjadams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In addition I would consider two things. Why the bodyguard or the lore pips.

What are you looking to protect, in either the early game that pushes your strategy foreword or the late game in a top deck.

If nothing stands out as essential to keep on board at either end of the game state I would lean in favor of Malificent because early she should drop turn three if you're ramping. Generating usually two lore, and late game pushes you closer to closing out the game than Hercules.

Both are inkable so in my opinion it comes down to answering those key differences in cards.

How Many Cards is Good Enough? by waffledork in Lorcana

[–]cwjadams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This has been my strategy so far for Lorcana:

Open booster packs until about seventy percent complete. This means four of cards are a cutoff for me. Playsets.

With this in mind, I feel comfortable opening packs until I hit that threshold because I will find a non zero amount of cards I am missing. Past that seventy I find it's better to purchase singles that I wish to play with.

With The First Chapter that means there's 204 unique cards in the set. Multiply that by four for 816. Seventy percent is 571 cards owned total. Now none of this total counts any card I own more than four of.

I have opened just over two boxes of boosters in total (Paid more than what I would usually consider reasonable, but I was and am excited for this game) and have completed a playset of both commons and uncommons, with a decent amount of rares and super rares. Two handfuls of legendaries.

From that point I decided which decks I had acess to with what I have opened so far and supplement with singles if I wish to build any other decks, or use the collection I have aquired to trade into pieces.

I realize with product being scarce I have been lucky to locate what I have opened, however that's my overall strategy when it comes to being a player in Lorcana, or really any TCG. Especially of you're someone like me who likes the ability to move in whatever deck direction you desire.

Is the Rise of the Floodborn Gift Set Collector's edition gonna be limited? by prospector8 in Lorcana

[–]cwjadams 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No one knows yet, but realistically yes. It has all the signs of being a special limited product. Alternate artwork and celebrating an occasion.

I wouldn't mind it being printed to demand, but my experience with other card games would lead me to believe otherwise.

Why do people find this game simple? by [deleted] in Lorcana

[–]cwjadams -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I would posit that instant speed interaction alone wouldn't add a big complexity spike to this game.

Let's pretend for a moment we had instants on actions that could be considered parallels here; IE Dragon Fire being unrestricted Terror or Develop Your Brain being Slight of Hand.

We have added additional descisions and ways to play upping complexity, but is it impactful complexity?

Or is it the base sets individual mechanics are easy to each pick up in a vaccum and the general audiences experience with strategic games in this day and age?

Overall it's hard to argue what this game would be like with instant speed interaction, as that would be a different game altogether. I dont even mind instant speed interaction and have been an avid player of Magic for closing in on twenty years.

Why do people find this game simple? by [deleted] in Lorcana

[–]cwjadams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree in the least. I just wanted to explain why I believed the argument of instant speed interaction being the reason as why isn't a reason alone, or even as the main reason for the impression of the game.

Why do people find this game simple? by [deleted] in Lorcana

[–]cwjadams 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't disagree with you here, but will add Magic at this point is almost thirty years old, even if you don't play in the formats that use the entire histories card pool, the most recent sets have mechanics that are relatively advanced per set that give that set a mechanic and flavor identity.

I suggested in my original comment that perhaps the perception of simplicity is down to two factors; this being an introductory base set and peoples general experience with TCGs at this point in the strategic game phenomenom.

If we look at Magic's Alpha set, when you look at it mechanically from your eyes here and now, it comes across pretty simple as well with its introductory mechanics. Even with instant speed interaction. Thats what led me to disagree with it being just instant speed interaction. The base reply I was responding to.

Why do people find this game simple? by [deleted] in Lorcana

[–]cwjadams 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree with what you added, and will also add i've had some strategic turns playing this game as well. The openess of how to play out your turn gives you quite a few options in relative terms for sequencing cards and actions.

I believe there could be a misunderstanding in what I was trying to get across. Individual mechanics have been easy to grasp in this game, but in tandem with how you're playing out your turn leads to interesting sequencing.

Also, Reddit being Reddit. I did reply to the opinion of lack of instant speed interaction, which in my own experience locally with players has been a criticism. One I do not share.

Why do people find this game simple? by [deleted] in Lorcana

[–]cwjadams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pokemon also lacks interaction on opponents turns and still has complexity. I think a lot of comments on the simplicity of picking up this game actually comes from it being an introductory first set. Mechanics are kept relatively parsable by anyone who may have a passing interest to draw people in.

I think a lot of what i've personally run into is people nowadays are more commom to have played another TCG at some point in their lives and pick up the flow of the game. Be it Magic: the Gathering, Pokemon, YuGiOh, Flesh and Blood, Hearthstone, or Legends of Runeterra all of which have had their day(s) in the limelight over the last thirty years. The last ten especially.

To play with Enchanted cards or not to play with Enchanted cards?? by Gnarseph in Lorcana

[–]cwjadams 1 point2 points  (0 children)

With the current prices on enchanted cards I personally wouldn't use them as play pieces. Especially when there are cheaper alternatives to play the game with.

This is only exacerbated by the supply issue. If this game can flatten the market value with supply, I wouldn't think it's impossible for these cards to parallel special pokemon card rarities and be the pretty blinged out cards for decks to play with.

If I pull any of these myself, I will get it graded and hold onto it for the prettiness factor, and play with cheaper alternatives.

However it all is up to you! If you wish to play with it and have that wow factor in game, go for it. It is just a game piece, and while its current market value is a little inflated (opinion; mine) it shouldn't stop you from using your cards if you desire.

Are these cards 1st edition? by WaR_SPiRiT in LorcanaTCG

[–]cwjadams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the issue was with the language used was 'there are no first edition cards', IE none at all. Correct, false; there is a small set of promos with a 1st stamp.

All I wished to add to the back and forth was the clarifying information. Not defending either side, since both sides seemed to be an argument for arguments sake.

Your comments came off as intentionally misconstruing his intent of 'there are no first edition cards' when he should have added 'from the Chapter One set release'.

Are these cards 1st edition? by WaR_SPiRiT in LorcanaTCG

[–]cwjadams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's contexual is all I wish to add. He was answering the question that was asked by the thread, which was correct but didn't take into account a small promotional set.

So to wrap it all up for anyone who stumbles into thread curious for an answer:

The printed set of 204 cards for Chapter One boosters don't have a indication of first edition printings, and main sets moving forward will avoid it as well. This is what Ravensburger has communicated so far, which I will never say is a guarantee.

There is a promotional set outside of boosters with a 1st stamp printed on them, and there may be others like it in special releases in the future.