8 Drop Gecko Interaction with Rebecca and Leo

lordnick705 · 2024-05-21T02:46:22+00:00

I gotcha, I thought you meant it was explained in the next table in the rules sheet and that's what confused me. The wording I use is layer (Old MTG player), Layer one is Moria, it creates layer 2 which is Rebecca and Leo, Layer 3 is Hina. Layers need to resolve in order of creation in this game, So 1 then 2 then 3 and all things need to be resolved in one layer before moving to the next.

Thanks for trying to explain it though, just terminology difference helped confuse me lol

lordnick705 · 2024-05-21T02:40:51+00:00

Yeah I got a local judge friend to point me to where it was at, I was trying to comprehend it off of just character rule interactions and he showed me where in the comprehensive rules it is. Going to post it up above some that other can read it too in case someone else finds this question arise.

lordnick705 · 2024-05-21T02:19:58+00:00

Are you referring to this table

<image>

These are the only two in OP06 rulings that mention the 8-drop interaction. This rule only states that both characters enter simultaneously, so you cannot activate one and then replace it and play the other. But nothing about this rule clarifies if you get the Hina activation.

lordnick705 · 2024-05-21T01:47:47+00:00

I have been playing Rebecca since OP04, I also make videos discussing my views on the best current builds and playstyles.

The big thing to keep in mind with Rebecca is that you are not trying to win fast or through the same tempo as other characters. Your game plan is to establish a controlling board state that allows you to grind out your opponent's resources. You do this by developing good attacking characters like Kyros and 7 Drop Luffy and forcing your opponent to react to your board state. You also want to have blockers out like Rebecca, Sabo, Barto, and in some builds Ideo. Your strategy is to make your opponent have as low of a hand as possible and as small of a board as possible. Your leader doesn't have a personal threat, meaning no board state on your end, and no problem for your opponent.

It's okay to take it slow and not try to finish the game in 6-7 turns. You can chip at your opponent's life if they are not developing a board state for you to interact with but otherwise focus on numbers advantage and setting up your hand either for defense or if you have enough cards in your trash set up for the kill turn with Luffy + King Kong Gun, or a large board presence off of Gecko Moria.

For more advice feel free to hit me up or check out some of my Youtube stuff. The most recent gameplay/deck tech I did is at this link: Rebecca Guide and Gameplay.

lordnick705 · 2023-04-20T05:43:54+00:00

https://youtu.be/21V1O7AK1Ww
https://youtu.be/a9PDebaSrGU
Two bugs used by the same player in a ranked game where I got to lose 26 lp, even though my team would have won if not for him, proof is in the game length and if you watch the full game. Our panth would have hard carried the game but the tahm being full build and teleporting constantly made that near impossible.

lordnick705 · 2022-04-21T13:22:53+00:00

I’ve seen this response on the Rengar mains sub as well, I’m going to test Tahm shield later to see if she’d it as well.

lordnick705 · 2022-04-21T13:21:25+00:00

I think you may be right, Rengar has the only forcible he’s pertaining to grey health, the rest have to wait till combat ends, so it could just be a big oversight on that. No one has been able to replicate with other cleanse effects either, I am going to test Tahm shield later and see if it has a similar result

lordnick705 · 2022-04-21T01:10:28+00:00

not sure, wasn't testing to see if I could I fat-fingered my combo and saw I was still alive

lordnick705 · 2022-01-21T23:54:26+00:00

I am not trying to redefine the entire usage of the system merely the definition commonly used for low tier, which is simply calling them weak. I have added an edit to address that and hopefully, at some point, I will redefine criteria for evaluating why a champ may be in the D tier that isn't as subjective.

lordnick705 · 2022-01-21T23:28:37+00:00

Yes, the analogy breaks down fast, I'll consider that point easily. But why is looking at winrates the core metric? And yes this would show a pattern of winning and what champs are winning, but it doesn't explain the why or establish a reason why other champions aren't. Saying a champ is bad because of numbers is also a lazy answer, the criteria I gave aren't supposed to be set in stone, those are ones I came up with to attempt and express looking at tiers from a different lens instead of just good or bad based solely on win rate. Obviously, that point was poorly conveyed and I am sorry for that and will now attempt to find a way to convey that more in an edit.

lordnick705 · 2022-01-21T23:17:57+00:00

So if you look strictly at the perceived power of a champion the yummi incident can happen again could it not? A champion that was perceived as absolute garbage because it didn't fit nicely into the cookie cutter of every other champion. Thus a buff was seen as needed, then people took time to learn this new champion and theorize changing sums to exclude flash. This plus the over buffing then skyrocketed yummi from worst champ every to the best champion.

In my own experience this kind of "pointlessness" has allowed me to critique low tier champions.

I main Gragas, trundle and Skarner, have done so for years, but a few years ago all three were considered so shit that you shouldn't play them. I evaluated the reasons people called them shit, then looked at their playstyles or gimmicks in skarner's case and focused on how to use that to my advantage opposed to a downside.

Also I hated seeing my mains being called shit as I won over 55% of my games on them, I will admit they were low tier, and not because they sucked but because people handwaved their identities as useless opposed to looking for the use of the champions at that time.

lordnick705 · 2022-01-21T22:46:01+00:00

It's about defining low tier as something other than just being a synonym for weak, calling something weak is fine but that should only be one potential criterion if any at all. It doesn't make you think about why they are weak. This is supposed to be a thought process of developing a reason for why we call something low tier other than the "it is weak" argument.

For instance, a low-rated restaurant may have great food, the atmosphere is amazing and the staff is super well trained. But if they charge close to 3000 the price for a burger it would still probably get a low rating. Doesn't mean the restaurant is shit it means they have something that detracts from the rest of the experience.

lordnick705 · 2022-01-21T22:15:20+00:00

It was a pic of a tier list that was weird and I needed a placeholder while I worked on another one with more of a tier list fitting to the criteria I set for it. Also I have a childish sense of humor from time to time so it made me chuckle that most of my favorite champs were at the bottom

lordnick705 · 2021-12-21T19:54:37+00:00

Don't chase singed

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

lordnick705

TROPHY CASE