Liliana's Death Majesty and Trial of Strength objective

Options
2»

Comments

  • madwren
    madwren Posts: 2,237 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    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.


  • hawkyh1
    hawkyh1 Posts: 780 Critical Contributor
    edited August 2017
    Options
    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.

    if you include zombie creatures to get the 2nd objective
    then her 1st ability is not that useful on an already
    zombie creature unless it has etb effects.
    (I wonder if I can zombie thopters?)

    HH
  • bk1234
    bk1234 Posts: 2,924 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    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
    Brakkis Posts: 777 Critical Contributor
    edited August 2017
    Options
    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, no 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.
  • Steeme
    Steeme Posts: 784 Critical Contributor
    Options
    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.

  • Gilesclone
    Gilesclone Posts: 735 Critical Contributor
    Options
    In this event I used her 2nd once and her 3rd twice. Can't say that her abilities helped at all.  I come away with the impression I wasted my crystals.
  • Brakkis
    Brakkis Posts: 777 Critical Contributor
    Options
    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.
  • Sarahschmara
    Sarahschmara Posts: 554 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Brakkis said:
    Seemingly going in circles here with people.
    You're doing a good job explaining your viewpoint. But, yeah, there's always a devil's advocate or two.
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    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.




    Are what I said about cycling. Secondary objectives that lie on the route to winning anyway don't deserve to dole out bonus points.

    People would have been annoyed with "cycle x or less cards" of course. Because they're unwilling to step out of their comfort zone and want the bonus points to fall into their lap. 

  • losdamianos
    losdamianos Posts: 429 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    bken1234 said:
    versus being put in brackets of 500 
    citation needed
  • hawkyh1
    hawkyh1 Posts: 780 Critical Contributor
    edited August 2017
    Options
    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 once
    the other objective is met.

    casting and reinforcing zombies to make large
    zombie creatures is a strategy that could get
    you both objectives and win.

    she has 3 abilities to help her deal with different
    situations. her 3rd ability is totally relevant when
    playing zombie creatures.

    HH
  • Brakkis
    Brakkis Posts: 777 Critical Contributor
    Options
    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 once
    the other objective is met.

    casting and reinforcing zombies to make large
    zombie creatures is a strategy that could get
    you both objectives and win.

    she has 3 abilities to help her deal with different
    situations. her 3rd ability is totally relevant when
    playing 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
    hawkyh1 Posts: 780 Critical Contributor
    edited August 2017
    Options
    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 once
    the other objective is met.

    casting and reinforcing zombies to make large
    zombie creatures is a strategy that could get
    you both objectives and win.

    she has 3 abilities to help her deal with different
    situations. her 3rd ability is totally relevant when
    playing 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.

    my counter claim is his objective had an error,
    supposed to be and coded as lose 3 or fewer
    but the description was incorrect?

    (half glass problem)

    HH
  • Brakkis
    Brakkis Posts: 777 Critical Contributor
    Options
    hawkyh1 said:

    my counter claim is his objective had an error,
    supposed to be and coded as lose 3 or fewer
    but 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.
  • Corn_Noodles
    Corn_Noodles Posts: 477 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    If they'd match the wording to what's going on in the game, we'd have less problems.

    Summon and Cast are two different things and the game has never been consistent with how this is implemented. 

    L3 had "Summon 3 or more Zombies in a single fight." Her 2nd ability should cover that without issue, but in reality they wanted you to "Cast 3".

    "Summon" should mean getting on the battlefield in any way (well, maybe not stealing, unless it's a permanent steal), while "Cast" should mean directly from hand by using mana.

    Yes?
  • hawkyh1
    hawkyh1 Posts: 780 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Brakkis said:
    hawkyh1 said:

    my counter claim is his objective had an error,
    supposed to be and coded as lose 3 or fewer
    but 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.

    subsequent tos events were not locked to g3. just
    as the previous black nodes were lose 5 or fewer
    creatures, lilly3 locked black node is lose 3 or fewer.
    they fixed the white node to lose 3 or more but that
    does not say what the g3 locked white node should
    have been.

    HH
  • Steeme
    Steeme Posts: 784 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Brakkis said:
    hawkyh1 said:

    my counter claim is his objective had an error,
    supposed to be and coded as lose 3 or fewer
    but 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.


Categories