Ohboy said: Objectives are meant to throw some detour along the way for you to fulfill to gain bonus points, not encourage you to do the things you're already going to do to steamroll the ai opponent. Those would be redundant objectives and horribly boring. Like the cycling objective.
Brakkis said: Posts regarding the usefulness of her 2nd/3rd abilities are irrelevant to the point at hand: the tertiary objective is directly in opposition to, and punishes you, for using her 1st ability. Given that she is required for the node, the objectives should have played to her strengths, not punish you for them.
madwren said: Ohboy said: Objectives are meant to throw some detour along the way for you to fulfill to gain bonus points, not encourage you to do the things you're already going to do to steamroll the ai opponent. Those would be redundant objectives and horribly boring. Like the cycling objective. If that is actually the case, then they should be consistent in their implementation of objectives. As Tilwin pointed out in the opening post, that hasn't happened. If Nissa3's Trial of Strength objectives had been "cycle 2 or less cards", then people would have been rightfully annoyed.
bken1234 said: madwren said: Ohboy said: Objectives are meant to throw some detour along the way for you to fulfill to gain bonus points, not encourage you to do the things you're already going to do to steamroll the ai opponent. Those would be redundant objectives and horribly boring. Like the cycling objective. If that is actually the case, then they should be consistent in their implementation of objectives. As Tilwin pointed out in the opening post, that hasn't happened. If Nissa3's Trial of Strength objectives had been "cycle 2 or less cards", then people would have been rightfully annoyed. Nissa's first ability has nothing to do with cycling -- the objectives are playing to her later abilities. It's exactly the same here.
Brakkis said: bken1234 said: madwren said: Ohboy said: Objectives are meant to throw some detour along the way for you to fulfill to gain bonus points, not encourage you to do the things you're already going to do to steamroll the ai opponent. Those would be redundant objectives and horribly boring. Like the cycling objective. If that is actually the case, then they should be consistent in their implementation of objectives. As Tilwin pointed out in the opening post, that hasn't happened. If Nissa3's Trial of Strength objectives had been "cycle 2 or less cards", then people would have been rightfully annoyed. Nissa's first ability has nothing to do with cycling -- the objectives are playing to her later abilities. It's exactly the same here. No, not it is not. Her second ability returns a dead zombie to the field, and her third deals damage when a zombie enters the field.Neither of those abilities "play to the objectives". Returned zombies from her ability don't count towards Reanimator. Her third ability has no bearing on any objective at all. Her first ability punishes you for using it. So no, the objectives don't play to her abilities.
Since you're already playing zombies to meet the objective, it's a huge momentum swing to bring back one of your zombies with the second ability. You don't need to waste loyalty on the first ability to turn them into a zombie.
Bring a couple kill spells and that new bounce spell (Consign). I haven't seen anyone run hexproof. Play your zombies and keep control. If your zombie drops, bring it back with a huge buff.
This is a simple and effective strategy that revolves around her second ability. Other players chose to build around her third ability.
It's not a new concept to build around a specific loyalty ability instead of synergizing with all three at once.
Steeme said: Brakkis said: bken1234 said: madwren said: Ohboy said: Objectives are meant to throw some detour along the way for you to fulfill to gain bonus points, not encourage you to do the things you're already going to do to steamroll the ai opponent. Those would be redundant objectives and horribly boring. Like the cycling objective. If that is actually the case, then they should be consistent in their implementation of objectives. As Tilwin pointed out in the opening post, that hasn't happened. If Nissa3's Trial of Strength objectives had been "cycle 2 or less cards", then people would have been rightfully annoyed. Nissa's first ability has nothing to do with cycling -- the objectives are playing to her later abilities. It's exactly the same here. No, not it is not. Her second ability returns a dead zombie to the field, and her third deals damage when a zombie enters the field.Neither of those abilities "play to the objectives". Returned zombies from her ability don't count towards Reanimator. Her third ability has no bearing on any objective at all. Her first ability punishes you for using it. So no, the objectives don't play to her abilities. Since you're already playing zombies to meet the objective, it's a huge momentum swing to bring back one of your zombies with the second ability. You don't need to waste loyalty on the first ability to turn them into a zombie.Bring a couple kill spells and that new bounce spell (Consign). I haven't seen anyone run hexproof. Play your zombies and keep control. If your zombie drops, bring it back with a huge buff.This is a simple and effective strategy that revolves around her second ability. Other players chose to build around her third ability.It's not a new concept to build around a specific loyalty ability instead of synergizing with all three at once.
Brakkis said: Seemingly going in circles here with people.
bken1234 said: versus being put in brackets of 500
versus being put in brackets of 500
Brakkis said: Steeme said: Brakkis said: bken1234 said: madwren said: Ohboy said: Objectives are meant to throw some detour along the way for you to fulfill to gain bonus points, not encourage you to do the things you're already going to do to steamroll the ai opponent. Those would be redundant objectives and horribly boring. Like the cycling objective. If that is actually the case, then they should be consistent in their implementation of objectives. As Tilwin pointed out in the opening post, that hasn't happened. If Nissa3's Trial of Strength objectives had been "cycle 2 or less cards", then people would have been rightfully annoyed. Nissa's first ability has nothing to do with cycling -- the objectives are playing to her later abilities. It's exactly the same here. No, not it is not. Her second ability returns a dead zombie to the field, and her third deals damage when a zombie enters the field.Neither of those abilities "play to the objectives". Returned zombies from her ability don't count towards Reanimator. Her third ability has no bearing on any objective at all. Her first ability punishes you for using it. So no, the objectives don't play to her abilities. Since you're already playing zombies to meet the objective, it's a huge momentum swing to bring back one of your zombies with the second ability. You don't need to waste loyalty on the first ability to turn them into a zombie.Bring a couple kill spells and that new bounce spell (Consign). I haven't seen anyone run hexproof. Play your zombies and keep control. If your zombie drops, bring it back with a huge buff.This is a simple and effective strategy that revolves around her second ability. Other players chose to build around her third ability.It's not a new concept to build around a specific loyalty ability instead of synergizing with all three at once. Everything you have mentioned is in regards to simply winning. This is not a discussion of winning or losing. It's about meeting the secondary objectives of the node, of which the previous ToS locked Planeswalkers were played to their strengths with the objectives keeping their abilities in mind.This time, the objectives actively punish you for using the first ability, and are irrelevant to the second and third ability. Seemingly going in circles here with people.
hawkyh1 said: Brakkis said: Steeme said: Brakkis said: bken1234 said: madwren said: Ohboy said: Objectives are meant to throw some detour along the way for you to fulfill to gain bonus points, not encourage you to do the things you're already going to do to steamroll the ai opponent. Those would be redundant objectives and horribly boring. Like the cycling objective. If that is actually the case, then they should be consistent in their implementation of objectives. As Tilwin pointed out in the opening post, that hasn't happened. If Nissa3's Trial of Strength objectives had been "cycle 2 or less cards", then people would have been rightfully annoyed. Nissa's first ability has nothing to do with cycling -- the objectives are playing to her later abilities. It's exactly the same here. No, not it is not. Her second ability returns a dead zombie to the field, and her third deals damage when a zombie enters the field.Neither of those abilities "play to the objectives". Returned zombies from her ability don't count towards Reanimator. Her third ability has no bearing on any objective at all. Her first ability punishes you for using it. So no, the objectives don't play to her abilities. Since you're already playing zombies to meet the objective, it's a huge momentum swing to bring back one of your zombies with the second ability. You don't need to waste loyalty on the first ability to turn them into a zombie.Bring a couple kill spells and that new bounce spell (Consign). I haven't seen anyone run hexproof. Play your zombies and keep control. If your zombie drops, bring it back with a huge buff.This is a simple and effective strategy that revolves around her second ability. Other players chose to build around her third ability.It's not a new concept to build around a specific loyalty ability instead of synergizing with all three at once. Everything you have mentioned is in regards to simply winning. This is not a discussion of winning or losing. It's about meeting the secondary objectives of the node, of which the previous ToS locked Planeswalkers were played to their strengths with the objectives keeping their abilities in mind.This time, the objectives actively punish you for using the first ability, and are irrelevant to the second and third ability. Seemingly going in circles here with people. when tos locked g3 it was lose 3 or fewer creatures.(from memory) hardly playing to his strengths.I've always read cast/lose/kill x or less creatures/spells/supports as win as fast as possible oncethe other objective is met.casting and reinforcing zombies to make largezombie creatures is a strategy that could getyou both objectives and win.she has 3 abilities to help her deal with differentsituations. her 3rd ability is totally relevant whenplaying zombie creatures.HH
Brakkis said: hawkyh1 said: Brakkis said: Steeme said: Brakkis said: bken1234 said: madwren said: Ohboy said: Objectives are meant to throw some detour along the way for you to fulfill to gain bonus points, not encourage you to do the things you're already going to do to steamroll the ai opponent. Those would be redundant objectives and horribly boring. Like the cycling objective. If that is actually the case, then they should be consistent in their implementation of objectives. As Tilwin pointed out in the opening post, that hasn't happened. If Nissa3's Trial of Strength objectives had been "cycle 2 or less cards", then people would have been rightfully annoyed. Nissa's first ability has nothing to do with cycling -- the objectives are playing to her later abilities. It's exactly the same here. No, not it is not. Her second ability returns a dead zombie to the field, and her third deals damage when a zombie enters the field.Neither of those abilities "play to the objectives". Returned zombies from her ability don't count towards Reanimator. Her third ability has no bearing on any objective at all. Her first ability punishes you for using it. So no, the objectives don't play to her abilities. Since you're already playing zombies to meet the objective, it's a huge momentum swing to bring back one of your zombies with the second ability. You don't need to waste loyalty on the first ability to turn them into a zombie.Bring a couple kill spells and that new bounce spell (Consign). I haven't seen anyone run hexproof. Play your zombies and keep control. If your zombie drops, bring it back with a huge buff.This is a simple and effective strategy that revolves around her second ability. Other players chose to build around her third ability.It's not a new concept to build around a specific loyalty ability instead of synergizing with all three at once. Everything you have mentioned is in regards to simply winning. This is not a discussion of winning or losing. It's about meeting the secondary objectives of the node, of which the previous ToS locked Planeswalkers were played to their strengths with the objectives keeping their abilities in mind.This time, the objectives actively punish you for using the first ability, and are irrelevant to the second and third ability. Seemingly going in circles here with people. when tos locked g3 it was lose 3 or fewer creatures.(from memory) hardly playing to his strengths.I've always read cast/lose/kill x or less creatures/spells/supports as win as fast as possible oncethe other objective is met.casting and reinforcing zombies to make largezombie creatures is a strategy that could getyou both objectives and win.she has 3 abilities to help her deal with differentsituations. her 3rd ability is totally relevant whenplaying zombie creatures.HH His objective was supposed to be Sacrifice (Lose 3 or more) and read as such but was bugged and only awarding you if you lost 3 or less. This was pointed out frequently during the event.
hawkyh1 said: my counter claim is his objective had an error,supposed to be and coded as lose 3 or fewerbut the description was incorrect?(half glass problem)HH
Brakkis said: hawkyh1 said: my counter claim is his objective had an error,supposed to be and coded as lose 3 or fewerbut the description was incorrect?(half glass problem)HH Nah, they admitted it was bugged and should have been lose 3 more. Was fixed for the following ToS as I recall.
Nope. The objective was lose 2 or fewer creatures. It was an error in the text description, as they pointed out, and which was confirmed the next time the event was run where the text description was corrected to read "lose 2 or fewer".
Brakkis said: Everything you have mentioned is in regards to simply winning. This is not a discussion of winning or losing. It's about meeting the secondary objectives of the node, of which the previous ToS locked Planeswalkers were played to their strengths with the objectives keeping their abilities in mind.This time, the objectives actively punish you for using the first ability, and are irrelevant to the second and third ability. Seemingly going in circles here with people.
As hawkyh mentioned, the "Lose X or less objective" basically means win as quickly as possible before your opponent can drop your creatures. So, this is a discussion of winning as quickly as possible. L3's second ability coupled with control and discard is exactly playing to her strengths as you keep the momentum and overrun your opponent.
Myself and others discovered new strengths with L3 simply because we avoided her first ability. Like I said, it's not a new concept to build around different abilities.
If you feel like you're "going in circles here with people", you should take a step back and figure out why.