Lich's Mastery

Mburn7

WiLDRAGE said:

I don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but since it doesn't reinforce, casting multiples means that if one gets destroyed, the other instances of it effectively negate the damage.

Sure you discard more cards, but with Eternalize creatures and Aftermath still being in the format, it's not exactly a big deal.

Actually, someone tested it and found they don't negate their own damage.  So multiple copies could hurt pretty bad

mrixl2520

Played against this today: It's nuts. If ever there was a support that needed to auto-lose shields every turn...

Mburn7

mrixl2520 said:

Played against this today: It's nuts. If ever there was a support that needed to auto-lose shields every turn...

Or if they made it more like the paper version where every time it prevents damage you exile something, and lose when it leaves the board.  

For us it would be discard a card whenever you would take damage and it loses a shield if you can't (instead of just discard at end of turn).  Probably ok to keep the 30 damage instead of instant loss to be consistent with Demonic Pact (which had the same thing)
Maybe up it to more base shields if you do that, but it would be much more fair.

madwren

Mburn7 said:

WiLDRAGE said:

I don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but since it doesn't reinforce, casting multiples means that if one gets destroyed, the other instances of it effectively negate the damage.

Sure you discard more cards, but with Eternalize creatures and Aftermath still being in the format, it's not exactly a big deal.

Actually, someone tested it and found they don't negate their own damage.  So multiple copies could hurt pretty bad

Sometimes it negates its own damage.

I had an RtO match where I had a 1-shield LM out, so I dropped a second copy. The next turn, my original got matched away, and I took 0 damage and obtained the damage objective.

However, one of my fellow Goblins had the opposite experience, where he dropped a second copy of LM and he DID take damage.

Therefore, there's clearly something else influencing it. Unfortunately, it's hard to know what the INTENDED effect is without clarification from the dev team.

Thuran

Maybe the second prevents damage from the first, but the first does not prevent from the second? 

andrewvanmarle

Thuran said:

Maybe the second prevents damage from the first, but the first does not prevent from the second? 

possible, the effects like that go in order

ALEJANDROID

I have sometimes lost life when one is destroyed while having multiple on the field, still don't know why it happens only sometimes

andrewvanmarle

I figured it out.

If your first is destroyed you get damage, if the sound ons is destroyed and the first is still in play it protects you