You wouldn't have multiple counters on the same card, they disappear in pairs as a state-based action until only one type remains. Besides, gamewise, why would having both in a block (limited aside) be any different than playing in Scars-Innistrad standard with both Infect and Undying decks around?
Pretty much that's the reason, yes. Otherwise you get into situations of "Ok, so thae blue glass beads are +1/+1 and the red ones ar -1/-1? Or, wait - are those green ones? Are they time? Or did some of your life get misplaced?"
Still, your set, your worries. If you don't mind it occasionally (And seriously, this is a mythic, so no one will ever see it anyway) then don't worry overmuch about it.
maybe worth realising wotc put the rule in place after lorwyn/shadowmoor did it and they found out it was bad, though.
This references the lethrblaka, the Ra'zac's winged mounts. Not sure how much the first book mentions them. I don't like the rule because I think it limits design too much. I would have really liked to see a Pharika based on giving -1/-1 counters and removing -1/-1 counters.
Yeah, you're probably right. It does require less color commitment to cast this and then pop it on the same turn, which I guess must have been what I was talking about. I don't really remember.
What do you hate about that rule, Samuel? It does limit design somewhat, of course, but I find it quite sensible. Then again, for sets that will never be played, there's not much reason to follow it.
I can't say I follow Wizards philosophy perfectly. They would likely never approve of Anydria.
2015-02-20 18:37:06:
Samuel
deleted the card Harsh-Cry Raven from Eragon
Yeah, I like this, the ability to attack makes it feel even more red. Link's right, it is funny, but it must also be perfectly correct even if it hasn't been printed much, just like B and RW both get "X damage and gain X life".
I think "just for a drawback" does work, like on Executioner's Swing so the original version was valid, even though this version is probably better.
You wouldn't have multiple counters on the same card, they disappear in pairs as a state-based action until only one type remains. Besides, gamewise, why would having both in a block (limited aside) be any different than playing in Scars-Innistrad standard with both Infect and Undying decks around?
Pretty much that's the reason, yes. Otherwise you get into situations of "Ok, so thae blue glass beads are +1/+1 and the red ones ar -1/-1? Or, wait - are those green ones? Are they time? Or did some of your life get misplaced?"
Still, your set, your worries. If you don't mind it occasionally (And seriously, this is a mythic, so no one will ever see it anyway) then don't worry overmuch about it.
maybe worth realising wotc put the rule in place after lorwyn/shadowmoor did it and they found out it was bad, though.
It's way too confusing when there are a bunch of different counters around. Good gameplay trumps individual cool cards.
This references the lethrblaka, the Ra'zac's winged mounts. Not sure how much the first book mentions them. I don't like the rule because I think it limits design too much. I would have really liked to see a Pharika based on giving -1/-1 counters and removing -1/-1 counters.
Oh? I don't recall what this is referencing.
FWIW, I love the flavour here.
Yeah, you're probably right. It does require less color commitment to cast this and then pop it on the same turn, which I guess must have been what I was talking about. I don't really remember.
What do you hate about that rule, Samuel? It does limit design somewhat, of course, but I find it quite sensible. Then again, for sets that will never be played, there's not much reason to follow it.
I can't say I follow Wizards philosophy perfectly. They would likely never approve of Anydria.
Yeah, I like this, the ability to attack makes it feel even more red. Link's right, it is funny, but it must also be perfectly correct even if it hasn't been printed much, just like B and RW both get "X damage and gain X life".
I think "just for a drawback" does work, like on Executioner's Swing so the original version was valid, even though this version is probably better.
Actually, this would feel a lot more natural if it was "target player" like Sign in Blood is.
Hmm. I never thought of Sign in Blood as a
card before, but I guess it sort of is. It's a bit odd that red is only there for the drawback, of course