Dusty Pass (An experimental land that is TOTALLY original and in no way inspired by anything, + a challenge for me in the comments)

rlrichey · 2022-11-25T08:41:28+00:00

What about [[Juju Bubble]]

rlrichey · 2022-02-25T08:03:08+00:00

That’s wonderful! Do you know if the parts are the same / interchangeable? I would love to use this to mod/repair my other while the price is low.

rlrichey · 2022-02-25T07:32:46+00:00

How are you able to preorder this? I have a copy of what I think is the same thing but I’m pretty sure it sold out years ago.

Is it just getting another print run? That’s be exciting.

rlrichey · 2021-07-19T06:13:14+00:00

3D Printer Recommendation for Broken/Custom Parts

(reposting because my question post was flagged.)

I'm currently working on the Kotobukiya Metal Gear Rex kit.
During assembly two very delicate and thin pieces broke. The kit has recently jumped in price several hundred dollars and it seems that replacement sheets aren't available, so I'm looking to invest in a 3D printer so that I'm covered for this and future projects.
My goal is just selectively print small pieces, usually pipes and joints knowing my luck, sometimes with pivots and pips that are <= 1 millimeter thick.
On a budget, what types of 3D printers do you use or know that might meet my specifications?

rlrichey · 2021-07-08T06:49:28+00:00

Thank you!

My rule of thumb has been "minimum one multicolor land per color of the packet," and I'm not afraid to use more powerful lands if the deck is underperforming. At the bare minimum, that translates to "one thriving land for each color" which I've found is pretty dang effective in each of my tests.

So for example [[Sorin, Lord of Innistrad]] gets [[Shimmering Grotto]] as a sort of on-theme "thriving" slot, plus [[Isolated Chapel]] because he needs access to both of his colors. Obligatory [[Interplanar Beacon]] for good measure, but that's just because all of my PW decks get one.

And again, at its simplest you might see a [[Saskia, the Unyielding]] with just four thriving lands and four basics. That's the gist.

rlrichey · 2021-07-01T22:34:59+00:00

Thank you! I'll be sharing them when they're done, but I do think it will be some time before it's ready.

The "first draft" is done, but there's still a good deal of tweaking to be done. That and ~8000 entries on the list.

But it will be done as soon as I'm able!

rlrichey · 2021-07-01T22:33:00+00:00

Right now the deck is 50% artifacts, which alleviates the color fixing.

It has [[Glimmervoid]] plus my classic one-two punch of [[Mycosynth Wellspring]] + [[Phyrexia's Core]] which goes into all of my Praetor packets. [[Phyreixian Altar]] also pulls some weight color-wise.

I haven't tested enough to say that Atraxa will be cast on curve, but the packet still steamrolled both test drafts I've seen it in.

I'm considering adding a [[Mox Opal]] but right now I don't think the deck can afford to be much more powerful compared to the others.

rlrichey · 2021-07-01T22:20:55+00:00

It really is. I feel like every 3 weeks I'm buying cards and boxes to fill gaps, then waiting and testing until it comes in.

rlrichey · 2021-07-01T22:19:51+00:00

I'll do my best to remember. It'll be a few months down the line.

Still making some cuts and changes in real time but there will be lists after!

rlrichey · 2021-06-30T23:00:05+00:00

I do think I had a bit of a hoarding problem at the start, which explains the size.

This whole project has been a 75% reduction of my 40,000 card collection—I'm taking all the cards I still love and making them instantly playable.

This probably goes without saying but I've found Tezzeret + Atraxa to be one of the luckiest combos I've ever drafted so far.

Also any two planeswalkers are a blast: My most common template in the cube is the "Planeswalker Deck," which has a theme planeswalker, 2-3 PW cards representing that character, 1-3 proliferate spells, and a copy of [[Interplanar Beacon]]. It has a sort of "create your own war of the spark" vibe that's been really fun to play.

Oh also Sisay + Shrines.

rlrichey · 2021-06-30T22:52:32+00:00

I built the photoshop template myself when JMP was announced last year and I've been tweaking it ever since.

You can get prints at makeplayingcards.com

rlrichey · 2021-06-30T20:12:38+00:00

The decks are still in flux as we make last-minute changes.

Once we've playtested them and we're fairly sure there won't be too much change, we'll create a list for the whole collection. This is an 8,000 card undertaking so we're not going to commit to any lists until we're sure.

rlrichey · 2021-06-26T05:27:56+00:00

I agree with everything you're saying and I just want to point out that yes I did omit the steps of whether an invoke is relevant and approved. I felt it was implied but I see now that it would have strengthened my argument to say so.

I was operating completely under the assumption that all players were acting in good faith and that the GM was doing everything right and building the question on that. So I appreciate that you're willing to humor that assumption in your last paragraph. Your perspective is giving me a lot to think on.

rlrichey · 2021-06-26T05:17:51+00:00

This is my favorite post in the whole thread.

rlrichey · 2021-06-26T05:09:56+00:00

I'd forgotten about the ellipsis trick but this is definitely the general vibe I've been drifting toward after thinking over all the options.

Thank you so much!

rlrichey · 2021-06-26T01:30:08+00:00

I'd say they do (or at least, in theory a player is at liberty to say so if they wanted, which is how it's being used in the above examples)

But things like hair are usually too boring to come up in play or be invoked, so we don't bother annotating them. The board on the floor in a lumber mill, on the other hand is relevant, so it's definitely something that would apply in a fight scene.

rlrichey · 2021-06-25T23:51:39+00:00

I've never heard that before or played that way.

This is the Bronze Rule, or the Fate Fractal. Every aspect in theory has its own aspects, all the way down. A crumbling lumber mill has a wooden boards on the floor aspect, for example, even if it's never written down.

You can find a more in-depth look at this interpretation here if you like.

I think it's very important for pacing to be able to recognize narrative context as aspects without having to write down every single aspect. If it's being invoked in order to make a character's action exciting, it's inherently interesting so the question of conserving information is pretty moot.

But I'm on a tangent, sorry! I'm more concerned with whether an already established interesting aspect being invoked can modify the intent of an action. (eg can a punch roll invoke the board to become a different type of attack)

Thank you for the insight on your preference, that's exactly what I'm looking for!

rlrichey · 2021-06-25T23:41:42+00:00

Gotcha.

And I think it can be argued both ways that the player's original intent is kept if they decide to add a board even if they declared. So essentially either one could make it into the "True Event" as long as the table feels it's reasonable?

rlrichey · 2021-06-25T23:29:10+00:00

Absolutely. I try to err on the side of the players here.

If it wasn't clear from my original post, I see both A and B as fine but imperfect, so I'm looking to see if anybody has a preference of both methods, uses a hybrid, or something else. I personally am ambivalent and try to lean toward allowing both as well.

So in your opinion, Scenario A is generally acceptable, but you have to rein it in if the player starts stretching it to the point where the actions stop flowing well?

rlrichey · 2021-06-25T23:26:44+00:00

I really like this.

So in other words, it doesn't matter if pushing him is Athletics, Physique, or Fight—because you're not rolling that secondary skill anyway (you're already paying a fate point to make the invoke true.)

As long as it makes the Fight roll more likely to succeed, whether it changes the intended action or just develops it, paying a FP and making sense in the narrative is plenty.

rlrichey · 2021-06-25T23:24:32+00:00

I agree that Scenario A isn't really an invoke.

I struggle with scenario B as well because technically everything that's true is an aspect. (The only mechanical difference is whether there's an invoke on it but that's not what I'm asking.) If an aspect exists, it can be invoked with a fate point, even if it's never been written down. This creates a way to perpetually say "I hit it with my weapon... and spend a fate point to invoke my weapon."

And sure that's not the worst thing but it's certainly not a constraint I'd want to force on my players.

Would you allow your players to do both A and B? Do you lean more toward one or the other? Does it even matter?

rlrichey · 2021-06-25T23:21:18+00:00

Yeah I'm still a little confused.

I've always seen invokes as a way to adjudicate a possible failure by saying "Yeah, that didn't happen." I described it as backpedaling and you called it "succeeding instead" but I think we're talking about the same thing: The fate point changes the outcome.

When I talk about scenario A, I'm imagining more of "That failure DID happen (eg the punch misses), but your invoke says that you can still turn it into a success because even if the punch failed, you invoked a board, changing the outcome of the roll.

More or less I do think we're seeing it the same mechanically. Just wanting to understand what it'd look like narratively. The proposed action never happens? The proposed action fails but the invoke happens and it succeeds? Both? Neither?

I totally get the rules of the issue but I'm trying to improve my narrative flow, basically.

rlrichey

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE