Admiral Beckett Brass

Froggy
Froggy Posts: 511 Critical Contributor
edited February 2018 in MtGPQ General Discussion
Well, I got Admiral Beckett from the vault. First test runs in TG and a Vraska Pirate build - man, this card is crazy powerful.

The only thing I don’t get is why her ability only activates if you already have two pirates on your board. The game does not allow more than three creatures on a board. So instead of stealing the creature and adding it to your play field, it destroys it. Granted, it’s pretty awesome. But that means the only time you’d actually steal a creature is if you happened to have your twin brother card pirate in the opponent’s play field... And we know that this is not very common...

Other than that, the card is crazy powerful and works wonders in boosting your own Pirates and crippling your opponent. Used with Vraska’s second... OHCH!!!

EDIT: She steals even if you have one other pirate... 
«13

Comments

  • Laeuftbeidir
    Laeuftbeidir Posts: 1,841 Chairperson of the Boards
    Yeah, she's a pirate herself.. Still, even if she could only destroy : dam, she's powerful
  • khurram
    khurram Posts: 1,090 Chairperson of the Boards
    Interesting. So you don't find it expensive.
  • Matthew
    Matthew Posts: 605 Critical Contributor
    @Froggy

    Just to clarify, you're saying that she works like Lay Claim? So if you steal but you have a full board, the creature you were going to steal gets destroyed?
  • Froggy
    Froggy Posts: 511 Critical Contributor
    Matthew said:
    @Froggy

    Just to clarify, you're saying that she works like Lay Claim? So if you steal but you have a full board, the creature you were going to steal gets destroyed?
    Yes. She works like Lay Claim. Except, it automatically takes the first creature your opponent has in play. Even if hexproof - like GR...
  • andrewvanmarle
    andrewvanmarle Posts: 978 Critical Contributor
    edited February 2018
    So you you dont get the choice to keep the creature switching it for another?

    Edit:
    I just tried her: she works just like lay claim, you can choose to replace a creature.
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    But what happens if you don't steal the creature? Does it destroy the creature instead? 
  • Matthew
    Matthew Posts: 605 Critical Contributor
    Mainloop's question is what I was hoping to have answered. Thank you for clarifying, buddy.
  • nerdstrap
    nerdstrap Posts: 180 Tile Toppler
    https://youtu.be/QhmwksdaxRs Video of her interactions 
  • TheF3C3SK1ng
    TheF3C3SK1ng Posts: 31 Just Dropped In
    Haha, I _just_ played your deck. (Thought I recognized the name from the forums) and it was played really well by greg. I only pulled off the win with Samut (I had ~35 life left in the end) with a couple well timed HoD's and constant creatures. You stole a lot of them though, and had quite the pirate hoard as well.

  • andrewvanmarle
    andrewvanmarle Posts: 978 Critical Contributor
    The admiral is my new fave, move over baral!
  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor
        She looks kind of overpowered to me ... The only thing that could justify such a powerful ability is the required presence of another pirate ... But its a very low price if you steal any creature cast by your oponent. 
        When you think about the red mythic dino that deals 3 damage to a creature ... Such a disparity is a nonsense... Or is it opening the path to a more pay-to-win game?
  • ElfNeedsFood
    ElfNeedsFood Posts: 944 Critical Contributor
    @Bil she is powerful but consider the white avatar as the dino to compare to. You can sweep all the opponent’s creatures immediately or start taking one per turn starting on your next turn.  She’s slower but more lockdown. 
  • Gideon
    Gideon Posts: 356 Mover and Shaker
    edited February 2018
    @Froggy Just to clarify. If I give her double strike and my opponent has 2 creatures do I steal them both?
  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor
    edited February 2018
        You got a point, that goes against the pay to win argument ... But well ... Another OP card isnt gonna bring anything good to this game ...   Particularly if anyone is able to have it by paying money.
        That's just a personal point of view and it's cool people enjoy playing her. After alI ... I might even get seduced too as you hardly fight bombs with forks and knifes ....
  • ElfNeedsFood
    ElfNeedsFood Posts: 944 Critical Contributor
    I didn’t buy Becket myself, but don’t see her ruining the fun for everyone else like the first version of Baral did. 
  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor
    Of course not, it's not beckett by itself that concerns me but the fact that instead of looking after card balance (as it had been more or less announced in the blogs) we are seeing more and more op cards among very bad ones ... But that might be a bit off-topic so i sticked to beckett's in my first post.
  • julianus
    julianus Posts: 188 Tile Toppler
    edited February 2018
    Gideon said:
    @Froggy Just to clarify. If I give her double strike and my opponent has 2 creatures do I steal them both?
    I don't have the card, but I'd say it's likely, based on other cards with similar wording.

    • Emperors' Vanguard says, "Whenever this creature deals combat damage, it Explores 1", and the Explore effect triggers with each hit on doublestrike.
    • The Admiral says, "When this creature deals damage, if you control 2 or more Pirates, gain control of the first creature your opponent controls."

    Sounds like the same mechanic to me.
  • Matthew
    Matthew Posts: 605 Critical Contributor
    Now that we've had some clarification on how the card interacts with the battlefield, I have a follow-on question. I expect it won't get answered by the people in charge, but at least we can discuss it for ourselves.

    Do any of you think this was the actual, intended design for how this card should work? Lay Claim says nothing on the rules text about destroying the chosen creature if you decide not to replace one of your own. Neither does this card. I have to wonder if this was intentional or not.
  • Gideon
    Gideon Posts: 356 Mover and Shaker
    It may not have been intentional but it is one of the effects that make the abilities on the cards worth playing. Lay claim and the Beckett would suck if you chose to not replace one of your creatures and they just get it back.
  • Tilwin90
    Tilwin90 Posts: 662 Critical Contributor
    Matthew said:
    Now that we've had some clarification on how the card interacts with the battlefield, I have a follow-on question. I expect it won't get answered by the people in charge, but at least we can discuss it for ourselves.

    Do any of you think this was the actual, intended design for how this card should work? Lay Claim says nothing on the rules text about destroying the chosen creature if you decide not to replace one of your own. Neither does this card. I have to wonder if this was intentional or not.
    I actually imagine it was intentional for Lay Claim given the cost... maybe for Beckett Brass too. The only reason they did not include it in the card text is because
    1. Their templating sucks
    2. This should actually be part of the rulings. There are quite a few unwritten rules in MTGPQ that make card template vs. actual effect look funky
    - discards (no "first"/"last" specified) don't always discard last card
    - put cards to hand if full hand is inconsistent (sometimes it allows, other times it prohibits it... sometimes it prevents casting, other times it does not...)
    - discard as mandatory cost vs. optional (Pull from Tomorrow vs. Cathartic Reunion anyone?)
    - cards with multiple effects for which some have all mandatory destinations (Doomfall) other only partial (Anguished Unmaking), others none (Kefnet's Final Word used to be like that, not sure if it still is)
    - confirmations here and there
    - support destruction sometimes destroys the gem, other times only the support

    And I could go on... bottom line, the effects have random implementations and most often these interactions are neither standardized nor formalized in any way. 
    I keep saying this, but I think Tabak would laugh, then cry at the inconsistencies regarding the rules and implementations in this game.

Categories