Cards that didn't translate well from paper

Options
Plastic
Plastic Posts: 762 Critical Contributor
edited August 2016 in MtGPQ General Discussion
So I got Declaration in Stone today and I had to look up the paper version just to be sure if it's really this bad.

PQ version

Paper version

The paper version is way better. I'm not sure if it can be coded to actually destroy cards based on creature name each time it's cast, but in its current PQ form, it's a worse option due to the cost (and a higher rarity!) than other spells that do the same thing.

What are some other cards you guys noticed are in the same boat?

Edit: changed creature type to creature name to better reflect language

Comments

  • KroNoS
    KroNoS Posts: 38
    Options
    it exiles based on NAME not creature type in the link you posted.

    what better WHITE creature destruction do you propose?

    its better than the go to of scour.

    smite the monstrous has limitations on power size for 2 less.

    anguished unmaking is 12 for creature/support destruction at the additional cost of 6 life.

    so not sure what you are talking about really?
  • Plastic
    Plastic Posts: 762 Critical Contributor
    Options
    KroNoS wrote:
    it exiles based on NAME not creature type in the link you posted.

    what better WHITE creature destruction do you propose?

    its better than the go to of scour.

    smite the monstrous has limitations on power size for 2 less.

    anguished unmaking is 12 for creature/support destruction at the additional cost of 6 life.

    so not sure what you are talking about really?

    It exiles based on name in paper. In PQ it just destroys one creature and for more mana than other, arguably better, options.
  • nexus13
    nexus13 Posts: 191 Tile Toppler
    Options
    With reinforcement rules there is only one of a creature on the board on a side at a time so that effect is the same and therefore naming is pointless. They haven't implemented a distinction between destroy and exile so I wouldn't expect it for just this card. Yes the card seems more expense compared to other translations from paper to pq.

    Try Runaway Carriage for a poor translation from paper.
  • Pqmtg-
    Pqmtg- Posts: 282
    Options
    It's a perfectly acceptable white creature removal.

    I main deck it.

    It does exactly what it does on paper except for the investigate part, so it's arguably better. Casting cost could be lower I guess.
  • Morphis
    Morphis Posts: 975 Critical Contributor
    Options
    For me it was oath of Gideon.

    The paper version summoned creatures and improved loyalty of played planeswalkers.

    Now here we do not play planeswalker cards but we do have loyalty.
    So it could have simply improved loyalty generation(1 each turn, X amount on landfall, whatever).
    Would have been an effect not yet seen in the game and more in line with paper version.
  • Rootbreaker
    Rootbreaker Posts: 396
    Options
    Pqmtg- wrote:
    It's a perfectly acceptable white creature removal.

    I main deck it.

    It does exactly what it does on paper except for the investigate part, so it's arguably better. Casting cost could be lower I guess.
    Do you play it over smite the monstrous or humble the brute, or are you running all three? I play both those cards over it, because they're cheaper, and because smaller creatures seem to matter so little in this game.
  • Pqmtg-
    Pqmtg- Posts: 282
    Options
    Rootbreaker wrote:
    Pqmtg- wrote:
    It's a perfectly acceptable white creature removal.

    I main deck it.

    It does exactly what it does on paper except for the investigate part, so it's arguably better. Casting cost could be lower I guess.
    Do you play it over smite the monstrous or humble the brute, or are you running all three? I play both those cards over it, because they're cheaper, and because smaller creatures seem to matter so little in this game.


    I definitely play it over humble the brute and scour of existence.

Categories