Admiral Beckett Brass

2

Comments

  • Matthew
    Matthew Posts: 605 Critical Contributor
    Good points, but what I was getting at is that I hope this doesn't turn into a bait-and-switch on their part. Marketing this card as-is, with zero communication about whether or not they're aware of its full functionality is somewhat problematic. If they decide to hit her with a nerf-hammer, she will become a lot less useful.

    And before anyone starts talking about Baral, I'm not trying to make that comparison here. Baral was absurdly broken from the very beginning, and everyone knew it. It was painfully obvious he needed a nerf. Personally, I think nerfing him was one of the few things they got right in the end (both the fact that they even did it, as well as what they turned him into) but I also think selling him in his original form was a piratical move on their part. They knew that more people than usual would buy him merely out of a desire to remain competitive, both offensively and defensively. They knew this because of the early outcry over how broken he was. So they cashed in on those feelings, and then altered him once they'd fleeced us.

    I think this card is different, in that she's not as obviously broken. Otherwise why would we have this thread, eh? So if they decide to nerf her without notifying us while we still have time to make an informed purchase, well, I think that would just be a different kind of shady, but shady nonetheless.
  • DBJones
    DBJones Posts: 803 Critical Contributor
    I wouldn't worry too much about that, Brigby actually mentioned her ability would work the same as Lay Claim before she was buyable. I don't remember which thread it was in though…
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    Bil said:
        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 ....

    Here are a few reasons she's not OP:

    -Casting cost. At 23 mana  she ain't cheap. You need other actually OP cards to reliably put her out on the board quickly. 
    -Reliance on a specific deck build and board state. You need at least another pirate in your deck but best to have two or three. Both Beckett and the pirate have to be on the board and Beckett has to attack the planeswalker in order to trigger the effect. 

    It's a fun card, and I've been getting good mileage out of her so far. But this is far from an OP card,even at its most optimal setting. Being able to destroy the creature instead of steal just puts it over the edge of "worth buying" from "not worth it". 

  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor
    edited February 2018
       I see what you mean but i already have in mind different options to avoid paying such a casting cost  ...  having another pirate on board isnt that much of a problem (cheapest one is almost free of cost) and giving haste to creatures is also very easy ... But its true that we already have worse gamebreaking cards around here with almost no counterparts.

         It might be because of magic paper version but when i see a card that can induce an important card advantage i always take a look at the counterparts and try to see if they can balance it. (Mana, conditions to triger, etc...).
        Of course card advantage isnt that obvious in mtgpq but it exists and it has some consequences.  I think this card represents a huge card advantage as a single card can fill your board with creature and empty the oponents board. Of course there are conditions but they arent too restrictive neither IMO. 
       
       As you quoted too, its obviously a personal point of view and i do not pretend it is unbiased at all. 
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    Yeah but it's also not a single card that gives you such an advantage. By design, for the conditions to be met, you have to play more than one pirate(or Arcane Adaptation, which also brings its own set of complications), AND keep them both on the board, AND have Beckett Brass do damage to the opponent (does not trigger when blocked). As a stand-alone card, Lay Claim is far easier to trigger.
  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor
    Actually, the text says " when this creature deals damage" and doesnt talk about oponent at least in my version of the game  ... If its only when she hits oponent then i must admit things are a bit diferent.
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    Yeah that took me a bit by surprise but I should have inferred that because they didn't say "when this creature attacks" instead. 
  • Kinesia
    Kinesia Posts: 1,621 Chairperson of the Boards
    Mainloop25 said:
    Yeah that took me a bit by surprise but I should have inferred that because they didn't say "when this creature attacks" instead. 

    And we need to know how that works... Because what about berserk, trample and inflict? Is that 3 damage triggers? What about adding doublestrike?

    I'm happy with just "damage" but then it needs a "once per turn" flag, my nightmare example above shouldn't be possible.
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    I agree  There's too much figuring stuff out as we go along. 
  • Brigby
    Brigby ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 7,757 Site Admin
    Hi Everyone. I believe I posted in an earlier thread about this topic, however I confirmed with one of Oktagon's designers, and Admiral Beckett Brass's "steal" mechanic does in fact work like Lay Claim does.

    I will follow up with them to double check that it triggers on damage, as opposed to when the creature attacks.
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2018
    Brigby said:
    Hi Everyone. I believe I posted in an earlier thread about this topic, however I confirmed with one of Oktagon's designers, and Admiral Beckett Brass's "steal" mechanic does in fact work like Lay Claim does.

    I will follow up with them to double check that it triggers on damage, as opposed to when the creature attacks.

    Well seeing as how I have used the card plenty now, I can save you the trouble of asking. It does in fact only trigger before dealing targeted  damage to the opponent planeswalker. 
  • khurram
    khurram Posts: 1,090 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited February 2018
    Brigby said:
    Hi Everyone. I believe I posted in an earlier thread about this topic, however I confirmed with one of Oktagon's designers, and Admiral Beckett Brass's "steal" mechanic does in fact work like Lay Claim does.

    I will follow up with them to double check that it triggers on damage, as opposed to when the creature attacks.
    But with the way the previous stealing spells like Exert Influence, Welcome to The Fold, confiscation Coup worked, lay claim should not be able to work like it is currently.You shouldnt be able to cast it when you have a full board. Can you ask oktagon if they are aware that Lay Claim is potentially bugged?
    So they designed a new card after a bugged card.
  • Kinesia
    Kinesia Posts: 1,621 Chairperson of the Boards
    khurram said:
    Brigby said:
    Hi Everyone. I believe I posted in an earlier thread about this topic, however I confirmed with one of Oktagon's designers, and Admiral Beckett Brass's "steal" mechanic does in fact work like Lay Claim does.

    I will follow up with them to double check that it triggers on damage, as opposed to when the creature attacks.
    But with the way the previous stealing spells like Exert Influence, Welcome to The Fold, confiscation Coup worked, lay claim should not be able to work like it is currently.You shouldnt be able to cast it when you have a full board. Can you ask oktagon if they are aware that Lay Claim is potentially bugged?
    So they designed a new card after a bugged card.
    Most of the others _specifiy_ that they do that though. I've been using Lay Claim specifically because it behaves the way it does even though I have all the cheaper options. I thought it was very very deliberate that Lay Claim did this and also COST a lot more, it seemed a deliberate trade off.

    But it's good it needs to hit the planeswalker, even so... You can give it menace or flying or unblockable, have it go in and steal the bottom blocker and then have your next creature get in safely too.. Not sure I like that.
  • Stormcrow
    Stormcrow Posts: 462 Mover and Shaker
    khurram said:

    But with the way the previous stealing spells like Exert Influence, Welcome to The Fold, confiscation Coup worked, lay claim should not be able to work like it is currently.You shouldnt be able to cast it when you have a full board. Can you ask oktagon if they are aware that Lay Claim is potentially bugged?
    So they designed a new card after a bugged card.
    All of the others have a restriction in their text that they are only usable if you have 2 or fewer creatures in play. Lay Claim doesn't have that restriction. Why is that a bug?

    The behavior of creatures affected by Lay Claim or Admiral Beckett Brass is exactly the same as the behavior you get when you put a fourth creature into play on your side when you've already got 3 on the field, from any other source - token generators, playing them from your hand, fetching them into play, whatever. They all give you the option to replace or discard. Why is that a bug?

    Given that fact, both Lay Claim and the good Admiral behave exactly the way a player familiar with this game would expect them to behave given the wording (and lack of any restrictions) on both cards. That, to me, says they are working correctly and not bugged. Which, indeed, is also what Brigby reports. I really do not understand why people are having such a hard time grasping this, or why (after it being around for literally months) people suddenly think Lay Claim is bugged.
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    Stormcrow said:
    khurram said:

    But with the way the previous stealing spells like Exert Influence, Welcome to The Fold, confiscation Coup worked, lay claim should not be able to work like it is currently.You shouldnt be able to cast it when you have a full board. Can you ask oktagon if they are aware that Lay Claim is potentially bugged?
    So they designed a new card after a bugged card.
    All of the others have a restriction in their text that they are only usable if you have 2 or fewer creatures in play. Lay Claim doesn't have that restriction. Why is that a bug?

    The behavior of creatures affected by Lay Claim or Admiral Beckett Brass is exactly the same as the behavior you get when you put a fourth creature into play on your side when you've already got 3 on the field, from any other source - token generators, playing them from your hand, fetching them into play, whatever. They all give you the option to replace or discard. Why is that a bug?

    Given that fact, both Lay Claim and the good Admiral behave exactly the way a player familiar with this game would expect them to behave given the wording (and lack of any restrictions) on both cards. That, to me, says they are working correctly and not bugged. Which, indeed, is also what Brigby reports. I really do not understand why people are having such a hard time grasping this, or why (after it being around for literally months) people suddenly think Lay Claim is bugged.

    It's because of what happens when the AI uses Lay Claim now, which is it destroying your creature if it has no empty creature slot. 
  • khurram
    khurram Posts: 1,090 Chairperson of the Boards
    Stormcrow said:
    khurram said:

    But with the way the previous stealing spells like Exert Influence, Welcome to The Fold, confiscation Coup worked, lay claim should not be able to work like it is currently.You shouldnt be able to cast it when you have a full board. Can you ask oktagon if they are aware that Lay Claim is potentially bugged?
    So they designed a new card after a bugged card.
    All of the others have a restriction in their text that they are only usable if you have 2 or fewer creatures in play. Lay Claim doesn't have that restriction. Why is that a bug?

    The behavior of creatures affected by Lay Claim or Admiral Beckett Brass is exactly the same as the behavior you get when you put a fourth creature into play on your side when you've already got 3 on the field, from any other source - token generators, playing them from your hand, fetching them into play, whatever. They all give you the option to replace or discard. Why is that a bug?

    Given that fact, both Lay Claim and the good Admiral behave exactly the way a player familiar with this game would expect them to behave given the wording (and lack of any restrictions) on both cards. That, to me, says they are working correctly and not bugged. Which, indeed, is also what Brigby reports. I really do not understand why people are having such a hard time grasping this, or why (after it being around for literally months) people suddenly think Lay Claim is bugged.
    Lay claim is most definitely a bug. And I don't "suddenly" think that. I have infact been expecting them to fix it for months after what they did with confiscation coup. But I guess hibernum folded before they could get around to it.

    Confiscation coup also doesn't have any creature slot restrictions according to it's text. When it was released it used to behave in the same way that Lay claim does. But then they fixed it with later updates.

    If lay claim is intended to work this way they should change it's text. Otherwise it is very much a buggy card doing things that it's text does not specify.
  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor
    edited February 2018
    The fact that you can steal a creature even if you got 3 already seems to be logical and isnt much of a problem considering the cost of lay claim.

    The point that seems more problematic to me is the fact that if you choose not to steal, then it destroys the creature ... Its absurd.

    Its even more problematic with beckett as you can keep your creatures free of summoning sickness and keep destroying your oponent ones.

    If you have to sacrifice a creature when you steal, it moderates a bit the power of the card ... In the good way ... You will probably steal anyways but it costs your 3rd creature slot if you do it every turn.
  • khurram
    khurram Posts: 1,090 Chairperson of the Boards
    Admiral has a condition for stealing. You have to have another pirate. If you end up sacrificing your other creature you won't have another pirate and won't meet the condition for stealing. It will be a dud. I think she is fine the way she is. They just need to clarify the card text a bit.
  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor
    It would be weird to sacrifice your other pirate ... The 3rd creature is the one you would sacrifice if you actually steal a creature and want to keep it.
    The new creature wont be able to attack so you "loose" your 3rd slot each time you steal a creature. As she is now you can choose beetween stealing or destroying ... That makes quite a difference. 
  • andrewvanmarle
    andrewvanmarle Posts: 978 Critical Contributor
    If you keep stealing stuff every turn it's like disabeling your third creature slot every turn.  There are cheaper and better ways to gum up your opponent's'creatures, either with kills or disables.

    As said before, the conditions make her not op. kill her and you have a really big mana advantage, it's'not like there are no answers to her. this is no baral-loop.... not at all comparable.


Categories