u/VoidImplosion

I came across https://www.reddit.com/r/shorthand/comments/sjpaqp/5x_forkner_acw_qotw_2022w5x/ . I wanted a transcript, but none was included. I googled "qotw" and found out it means "Quote of the Week". I googled qotw 2022w5x , and found no transcript. I googled qotw w5 and found nothing. i came to reddit here and searched (using the search bar) qotw2022w5x, qotw2022w5, qotw 2022 week 5, and still cannot find the post that gives me whatever this quote of the week is.

I'm frusterated! I don't know how to find the Quote of the Week from past weeks at all! Is this by design?

... and I very much hope that once 17lands data come out, it will prove my worries wrong and this post will look stupid.

I'm worried that red and black will be by far the strongest colours, the same way blue and white were in Marvel Super Heroes.

---

My tilt of going 0-2 was drafting two strong white rares (the one that bounces your creatures and makes 4/4 fliers, and the one that gives an anthem to your creatures of one type and also is an X adventure spell that makes 2/2 tokens).

It felt like recruit was just .. so slow. I was unhappy when one opponent played an artifact that gave them a treasure every time I drew my 2nd card. I was VERY unhappy when my two 1/1 tokens and my 3/1 flyer got one damage dealt to all of them from a red adventure.

But mostly, I'm unhappy with just how explosive red black seems to be. It seems to have the most important removal in this format, and the ability to make their amass creatures grow SO fast and SO explosively, that it's nearly impossible to keep up. All from mostly commons.

Both of my opponents were red.

---

Hopefully I just had a bad experience with unusually strong decks.

Looking at the spoilers, I was excited for a low-powered format where a lot of mixing-and-matching synergies could happen. But maybe the colour imbalance will prevent that.

---

(Ok. 17lands, please prove this post wrong when you start reporting stats)

On the plus side, I can try to grind my daily quests over the next month to earn a Gollum avatar, so .. that's something?

... and write some analysis on what they seemed bad at, or why you lost, or why other decks seemed better.

I know people enjoy showing off their 7-0 wins, but I actually (personally) learn more from seeing decks that perform more average-ly and poorly.

Thanks!

Considering that the rares seem to be less powerful than in Marvel Super Heroes, I'm thinking that some strange synergy decks might be more viable?

I notice that MAYBE there's a blue-red deck possible. I'd like to hear any other possible off-colour decks.

Draw two:

• In Red, there is the common [[Oin the Brave]] creature that has a repeatable loot ability. This is the main card that I'm thinking might support blue's "Draw Two" theme

• (In Red, there are some other cards that draw cards. At common: ]]Ragged Short Spear]] does it once. At rare, [[Balin, Loremaster]] lets you discard your hand and draw that many cards, any time you play a Dwarf)

• In Blue, the draw-two payoff at common is [[Lakeshore Apothecary]]. At uncommon, the mill-strategy [[Master's Councillors]] exists, and also (ugh) the terrible flyer [[Ravenhill Flock]] exists. And of course, there are many, many ways to draw cards in blue.

Also, uh, if you draft the blue rare [[Wizard's Staff]] equipment that can be cheaply equipped to a Wizard, a mythic red wizard [[Gandalf, Goblins' Bane]] exists, and an uncommon red wizard [[Gandalf, Spark Starter]] exists.

---

Yeah, so I guess there isn't a real red-blue deck, but I wanted to try to see if there might be. I just like seeing weird decks, I guess.

Tell me other ideas for off-colour decks, if you spot any!

A card from the upcoming set [[The Hobbit]], called [[Moment of Glory]], is an Instant that says: "Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature you control. If this spell was cast from a graveyard, also put a +1/+1 counter on each other creature you control".

I'm wondering if I cast Moment of Glory from my graveyard, if:

• First I put a +1/+1 on the target creature I control, and then I put a +1/+1 counter on the other creatures I control,
• or instead, I put a +1/+1 counter, simultaneously, on all creatures I control ?

The reason it sounds like the latter to me, is that if it was the former, wouldn't it make more sense to just delete the word "also"? As in: "Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature you control. If this spell was cast from a graveyard, put a +1/+1 counter on each other creature you control", where different sentences are each done sequentially, as is normally the case? (Then again, if it was the former, maybe the sentence would use "instead" instead of "also"? I guess I'm not 100% sure about the purpose of that word "also"!).

---

For a scenario where this matters, suppose I control an [[Invisible Woman, Sue Storm]] (which says "Whenever you put one or more +1/+1 counters on one or more other Heroes you control, you may create a 0/4 colorless Wall creature token with defender."), and I also control two other Hero creatures (say, two [[Hero in Training]] ) ; and then I cast Moment of Glory (from my graveyard) on one of my Hero in Training.

i haven't actually drafted a small set before. i kind of like that learning the cards won't be as time consuming. the cards seem to be simpler than (say) cards in Marvel Super Heroes. i am not someone whp is very familiar with the story of The Hobbit, but i admit that i enjoy the cute furry creatures in green.

anyways, i just want to read other people's hype levels and why you are excited or not excited to start playing with the set

When looking at the new Storied ability in The Hobbit, I assumed that it works like Ascend / City's Blessing. I have questions about that.

Question 1: Do I get the City's Blessing if I control exactly ten permanents only in the middle of an ability/spell resolving, but not when the ability/spell is done resolving?

> 702.131b. Ascend on a permanent represents a static ability. It means "Any time you control ten or more permanents and you don't have the city's blessing, you get the city's blessing for the rest of the game."

"Any time you control.." almost sounds like a triggered ability, but it isn't, since it doesn't say "at/when/whenever". Can you explain how this works?

Does it mean that, if a game state (even in the middle of resolving an ability!) ever has me have 10 or more permanents, I immediately get the City's Blessing during that game state itself ?

For example, suppose I control eight Islands, and a [[Stitcher's Apprentice]]. That is a total of nine permanents. Suppose I activate Sticher's Apprentice, creating a Homunculus token, and then I sacrifice that Homunculus token. It's only in the middle of resolving that ability that I control 10 permanents.

Is it true that:

• the game pretends that the game state where I only have the Homunculus token but no City's Blessing NEVER EXISTED,

• but instead it's as if the game considers that the following game states happen DIRECTLY one after the otehr: a) I control 8 Islands and a Stitcher's Apprentice -> to DIRECLTY b) I control 9 Islands, and a Stitcher's Apprentice, and a Homunculus token, AND I have the City's Blessing designation?

Question 2: I want to make sure I understand the "continuous effects" part following rule:

> 702.131d. After a player gets the city's blessing, continuous effects are reapplied before the game checks to see if the game state or preceding events have matched any trigger conditions.

Suppose I control

• an [[Illustrious Wanderglyph]] , which says (in part) "Other artifact creatures you control get +2/+2 as long as you have the city's blessing",

• and a [[Mycosynth Lattice]], which says (in part) "All permanents are artifacts in addition to their other types",

• a 1/1 Insect creature token

• and a [[Stitcher's Apprentice]], enchanted by my own [[Feral Invocation]] (an aura that gives +2/+2),

• and one Forest, two Islands and one Plains, and no other permanents.

That makes nine permanents that I control.

Suppose, also, that my opponent controls two [[Plague Engineer]]s, each having chosen the creature type "Homunculus". (Each Plague Engineer has "Creatures of the chosen type your opponents control get -1/-1").

Suppose I then activate and resolve my Stitcher's Apprentice's ability, choosing to sacrifice my 1/1 Insect creature. Does my 2/2 Homunculus token survive?

Suppose my [[Wakandan Royal Guard]]'s ability triggers and is on the stack. I target my [[Hero in Training]]. With the ability on the stack, my opponent uses the last ability of [[Amoeboid Changeling]] to cause my Wakandan Royal Hero to lose all its creature types.

My Wakandan Royal Guard is no longer a Hero. When its ability resolves ("When this creature enters, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. If that creature is another Hero, put two +1/+1 counters on it instead"), will it only put one +1/+1 counter on my Hero in Training, since my Wakandan Royal Guard is no longer "another" Hero?

---

If you can help back up your answer with some passage(s) in the Comprehensive Rules, or other official rulings, I'd really like that! (Ctrl-F searching for the word "another" in the CR brings up over 200 times that "another" appears in the CR, haha)

Here is the link to my 17lands for this draft, including decks: https://www.17lands.com/deck/935bd2d44f664e0783e04aa377098246/1

(note that I'm not asking about my draft picks; instead I'm primarily asking asking about analysis on the weakness and (if any) strengths of my deck, and (if you have the patience) watching my 2 games to analyse my deck)

---

This is a deck that went 0-2 in Pick Two in Silver. (i'm not a very good player, and i'm extra-unfamiliar with how aggro decks work).

My deck is basically:

• a lot of 2 mana-value creatures, some 3 mana-value creatures, 4 combat tricks.
• Two creatures that care about me targetting my own creatures. Two white common creatures that could tap my opponent's creatures down [[Raft Security Officer]] .
• A few power-up creatures that can power up for 6, so that I have something to do with 6 mana in the later game.
• A few artifact creatures for my stupid red rare [[Fin Fang Foom]] (3/5 flyer that can get two +1/+1 counters if I target an artifact).
• a [[Hire a Crew]] to give +1/+0 to my creatures
• two two mana-value removal spells that i forgot about when writing the title of my post! (thanks to a commenter for pointing this out!)

I don't have much removal. I thought "oh, maybe i don't need removal; maybe my combat tricks can push damage through!".

---

But I found out that the red uncommon combat trick that gives double strike and trample ( [[Team Tactics]] ) did push damage through but required my creature also die. I thought that if I draw my late game flyers or a hasty creature, I could put the game away.

Against my (weak, like me) first opponent, I got them to 2 life.

Against my second opponent, I got them down to something like 11, but they easily stabilitied with two copies of that green common (Pet Avengers, I think?) that is a 4 mana 4/4, that can power up to make a creature token. I found no way to push past those.

---

I vaguely remember the idea that back in the day, you could just load up on cheap creatures and combat tricks, maybe a +1/+0 to all your team, and you don't need removal. That is considerd an aggro deck and it'll work.

Is that still true? Looking at my deck, is it just destined to fail in this format? If so, why in particular does it fail, when it tries to play out its games? What small changes could be made to make it more viable ; ie, what is it missing from being able to make a viable gameplan?

Suppose my opponent controls a creature with Ward (such as [[The Serpent Society]], and a 2/2 [[Runeclaw Bear]] creature with no other abilities.

Suppose I control a [[Speedball]]. I then cast [[Atlatis Attacks]], choosing only the second mode ("return two nonland creatures to their owners' hands"). I target my Speedball and my opponent's creature with Ward.

(My Speedball triggered ability will go on the stack, and on top of that my opponent's Ward triggered ability will go on the stack. Suppose I pay the Ward cost).

As my Speedball triggered ability resolves, I want to "choose new targets" by changing one of the targets of my Atlantis Attacks from my Speedball, to my opponent's 2/2 creature with no abilities. I want to "keep" the other target of my opponent's creature with Ward the same.

My question is: will the Ward trigger again? I'm confused if "You may choose new targets" means that I have to "re-choose" ALL new targets, and even if I do have to "re-choose" all target, if one of the targets is "identical", does my opponent's creature with Ward "become" the target of a spell or ability yet another time?

(That is, I learned long ago that "When this creature becomes untapped" triggers only when the creature goes from a state of being tapped, to a state of being untapped. It will not trigger if it is untapped, and I cast a spell saying "Untap target creature" on it. In my above example, my opponent's creature with Ward goes from being targetted by my Atlantis Attacks, to ... still being targetted by my Atlantis Attacks?)

(For my reference, Ward in the Comprehensive Rules says:

> 702.21a. Ward is a triggered ability. Ward [cost] means "Whenever this permanent becomes the target of a spell or ability an opponent controls, counter that spell or ability unless that player pays [cost]."

)

---

(If you can back up your answer with Comprehensive Rules or card-by-card official rulings, I'd appreciate it! That is, I mostly ask these questions not for the practical answer, but instead for learning better how the system of rules outlined in the CR, works.)

I forgot how damn complicated sets led by Humpherys are. The last one I played was Kaldheim.

I feel a little better exposing my stupidity publically. (All my poor gems, down the drain!). At least the loss of gems might inspire other people to share their stupidity with me, too.

---

• with [[Photon Blast Barrage]], the copies aren't cast. This is important if you control (for example) a white uncommon 2/2 creature that gets a +1/+1 counter any time you cast a spell that targets one of your own creatures. Pinging one of my own creatures with a copy is a bad idea.

• also, with [[Photon Blast Barrage]], I won't deal a total of X damage. I'll deal a total of X+1 damage.

• I felt so clever using [[Shuri, Wakandan Inventor]] to make an artifact I control a copy of an artifact creature with power up. I felt so clever knowing that the power up ability that gets copied over is considered "unused", even if the original artifact creature that i'm copying already "used up" it's power up.

• I didn't feel so clever when I didn't realize that Shuri's ability can only be played at sorcery timing.

• I felt so clever using [[Vision Quest]] on my [[Iron Lad]]. Hasty flier with a bunch of +1/+1 counters! Yes! And oh look, an artifact is on top of my deck. I can attack with my vigilant Iron Lad, and then use his tap ability to draw the card!

• I didn't feel so clever when I didn't use Iron Lad's ability on my turn. I thought I could use Iron Lad's tap ability on my opponent's turn. Nope -- Vision Quest grants haste only until end of turn.

• Thank you mtga for letting me know that the blue mana from my blue 2/3 Defender [[Hydraulic Helper]] can be used with the common filter land [[Surveillance Room]]. I wasn't colour screwed after all! I was too stupid to see this myself, until I wondered why mtga politely highlighted the card in my hand that I thought I couldn't cast.

• I didn't ever realize that Food requires tapping to activate its ability. I thought I was clever with attacking with my artifact creature, and then thinking I could make my tapped artifact creature into a copy of my Food token, and then to sac both of them to gain me 6 life and win me the race. I only could gain 3 life. I lost that race.

• If I have two legendary permanents with the same name, I am supposed to click the one I want to KEEP, not the one I want to sacrifice. No, keeping my [[Frozen In Ice]] Iron Lad was not the correct decision. I should have kept the Iron Lad that I had just cast.

• I shouldn't have been afraid to use Shuri to copy my legendary artifact creatures. My worry that I would have to sacrifice one of them was not a correct worry.

---

On the plus side, I actually was amused to see someone take control of my turn. They tapped down all four of my 2/3 Defenders, sacced my 6 treasures, chump attacked my two key creatures. I lost that game with my opponent at 2 life. It's a fun sort of powerlessness to see my permanents tap themselves by some invisible hand.

P.S. I grieve that the Equipment dream doesn't seem very viable. Not when I tried it, nor when my three opponents tried it. :(

Suppose my opponent has a creature with a +1/+1 counter on it, and I control a [[Lasting Tarfire]], and a [[Powerful Broker]]. I use the Powerful Broker's ability, targetting my oponent's creature.

Does my Lasting Tarfire trigger from this?

---

That is, The Powerful Broker causes me to "give" my opponent's creature another +1/+1 counter on it. But which player "puts" that counter on it?

The only CR rules that seemed to maybe have relevance that I could find, are probably not relevant:

> 122.6 Some spells and abilities refer to counters being put on an object. This refers to putting counters on that object while it's on the battlefield and also to an object that's given counters as it enters the battlefield.

This rule doesn't make clear to me whether "put" that Lasting Tarfire refers to, is also referring to Powerful Broker "giving" a counter on a creature that's already on the battlefield (instead of "giving" counters to a creature as it's entering the battlefield, as this rule talks about).

> 122.6a. If an object enters the battlefield with counters on it, the effect causing the object to be given counters may specify which player puts those counters on it. If the effect doesn't specify a player, the object's controller puts those counters on it.

This rule only talks about creatures that enter the battlefield with counters, which isn't happening in my scenario.

(Tangentially, it is interesting to me that this rule uses the word "give" (in "the creature to be given counters") without defining it. It makes me wonder if there is a technical definition of "to give an object counters" (as opposed to "putting" a counter on an object) that i missed seeing in the CR?)

Can someone confirm this? Suppose I have [[Taskmaster, Mercenary Mimic]], and I also control any creature with the Power Up ability. Suppose that creature already activated its power up ability in a previous turn.

Is it true that: if Taskmaster uses its ability to become a copy of my creature with the power up ability, then my Taskmaster is still able to activate its power up ability?

Is it also true that: suppose the above answer is "yes, Taskmaster can activate the power up ability", then during my next turn, my Taskmaster can target the very same creature again, and again use its power up ability?

I think the answer to these two questions is "yes", but only by my not-confident understanding I came away with after reading this thread and some other links from that thread.

on both my windows laptop and my tablet, Gemini is now double spacing all of its answers. this is so frustrating. vertical space is already at a premium, and i hate having to scroll twice as much now to read the same amount.

If there is a streamer with a video of this, I'd be interested in watching it. Or, if you have your own story, I'd be interested to hear how enjoyable such games are (or are not).

It inirigues me that playing low / no-creature dekcs makes all the creature removal in your opponents' decks to be useless cards. I'm curious what it looks like when two such decks play against each other, and thus find their own removal to be useless.

edit: why am i getting downvoted? is my post against the rules of this subreddit?

Most spells exist on the stack, as I understand it.

I know very occassionally, an ability might create a spell in exile, usually (always?) so that the player has the option of casting that spell.

Can a spell exist anywhere other than these two places? For example, I'm thinking about if a copy of a spell on the stack is put on top of its owner's library ([[Commit]]) or returned to its owner's hand ([[Failure]] or [[Reprieve]]), that it will exist briefly in a library or hand before State Based Actions cause it to stop existing?

(Indeed, if a spell that is also a card is the target of Commit or Failure, is it still considered a spell when in their owner's hand or library, during the resolution of Commit or Failure?)

And are there maybe other cases that I'm not thinking about, where a spell can somehow end up in the library, hand, or even other zones that aren't the stack or exile?