Azthor

I would like to direct the discussion towards point II, first and foremost. I'd ill advise discussing alternative concepts without first properly contending with the present system's desirability.   Is it  reasonable to still consider those creatures rare, and justify their might by such? Whether or not is so, should every creature, max level assumed, be somehow feasible in a highly competitive environment, or should the system culminate in a given limited number of them, with others being steps in the ladder?   Additionally, changing Target (All) to anything else will have

@DarkDemon: I suspected that to be the case, from my own experience with other auras and Frozen creatures. While I will wait for another confirming test before updating the first post, we should, by now, mostly work on the assumption that Frozen creatures cannot proc Antifreeze.   Of course, if that is true, and given the current order for the tokens, the attacker can potentially freeze every single creature of the opponent's with no resistance at all; note, however, that, all things considered, all of six creatures being Frozen is overwhelmingly unlikely, and hence the defender is stil

The divergence between Ary Endleg and DarkDemon is the very reason I brought said point III up. Further testing is, indeed, required.   The tokens, according to the tests conducted within the other thread, would be nigh entirely useless. While that might be working as intended, I find it more likely they simply aren't well integrated with the action order, going by Chewett's previous comments.   Finally, concerning Bloodrop2, are  you positive of which it in no way or fashion implies an initiative bonus might come as a result of a given combination of principles?

Disclaimer: I have not, in any way or fashion, checked the veracity of the data below, it being taken directly from http://magicduel.inv...92-combat-talk/. Should you find any factual mistakes, inform me of such within this thread and this post will be edited accordingly. New suggestions, where pertinent to the topic, will likewise be added.   I - With the inherent stats of creatures supposedly reduced in value in view of significantly greater personal and token-derived stats, the targeting variant concentrates much of a creature's worth within a ritual. Target: All, being able to targe

A few things, if I may, so I can edit the present topic.   I - Has Chewett been sent the details on the token descriptions, or can anyone otherwise check them and pass them forward? The only ones I have access to are the following:     But I do not know to what extent they are correct.   II - Am I correct in understanding that the two relevant tokens apply: for the attacker, before the defender's auras, and, for the defender, after the attacker's auras?   III - Does the Antifreeze aura of Frozen creatures proc on themselves, or does being Frozen prevent the

Happy Birthday!

Disclaimer: I have not, in any way or fashion, checked the veracity of the data below, it being taken directly from http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15492-combat-talk/. Should you find any factual mistakes, inform me of such within this thread and this post will be edited accordingly. New suggestions, where pertinent to the topic, will likewise be added.   I - Antifreeze tokens (Antifreeze & Blooddrop2, with the appropriate Principle combination) are applied before Auras, hence being only useful in extremely circumstantial scenarios (Out-of-MP Creature & Prot-Freeze)

Which section of New Ideas, Get Involved and General Forum would be most suitable for the following topics to placed in?   - Auras/Bonuses (Creature Boost, Skill Drain, Vitality Drain, Freeze & Antifreeze) & Tokens: Availability, Order & Opportunity Value   - Target (All): Creature Diversity & Creature Upgrade Value   - Defend, Intoxicate, Martyrism & Protect: Availability, Opportunity Value & Targets   - Heal & Regenerate: Opportunity Value, Targets & Upper Limit   - Rustgold Drachorns, Reindrachs & Wind Dragons: Mutual Cr

I, too, would like to participate.

Betelgeuse: http://storenow.net/my/?f=7e0ea272d92a0353647b58f5f48cc669   AmberRune: http://storenow.net/my/?f=116c53154d8ed1c0cd00d95661830dba   Time: 10:00 - 10:30 ST.   Betelgeuse, a new MP3 player, first presented the problem as the Lesser Regeneration Ritual failing to heal his dead creatures; he was asked to repeat the attempt and, should it fail, take a screenshot so that it could be submitted as part of the report - as is.   AmberRune, upon emulating the occurrence for verification, instead arrived at the error presented in the second screenshot.

Are you looking to appoint a number of individuals, or do you wish for the general public to submit title descriptions for consideration?

Unlike many features, the reputation system has no underlying purpose other than that of the myriad votes that gave birth to its current incarnation. Given the looseness of its purpose, it is outright unlikely that all will agree upon a given format. Resolving this through discussion alone may as well be an exercise in futility.   Myself, I see no reason to alter it in any form or fashion. We can ill agree on what constitutes misuse in many cases, and the clearly abusive cases are much more a symptom than the cause of the problem. If someone retroactively assigns negative reputatio

If I may, once five points are awarded for a correct reason, as opposed to a very close one, can they still be bested by an exact phrasing of the reasons, or are they good enough that even the exact phrasing would not supersede them?

Brown team.

Happy birthday! I, for one, salute your death-evading, life-saving ways.  :))

It took me two hours to try and come up with a way of expressing the following without making an ass out of myself. I've probably failed.   The discussion on the two relevant threads is on the verge of shifting to be one and the same. In a sense, it was always one and the same, and one in the same with countless others, and most know that well enough, even as we continue to avoid facing it for what it is as though it were the Black Death.   Contained, it has become a discussion over whether or not titles should come at the exclusion of tags. Much more so, however, it is an eviden

For the sake of fairness, note: I - 1, II - 2, III - 3, IV - 4, V - 5 are paired as premise and conclusion. I - V were not meant to be actual entries on their own, though, in hindsight, I should have stated as much. If three out of the ten seem tautological, that is, more likely than not, because three from 1 to 5 are correct, and three from I to V mirror them in fashion.

I - lashtal sought to act in accordance with his True Will. lashtal's True Will is his Nature.    II - lasthal sought to act in accordance with his True Will. The nature of lashtal's True Will is Love.   III - lashtal sought to act in accordance with his True Will. lashtal's True Will is that of God.    IV - lashtal sought to act in accordance with his True Will. As lashtal' True Will is that of God, lashtal is God.   V - lashtal sought to act in accordance with his True Will. lashtal's True Will seeks the Transcedent, and as such he seeks his destruction.

1. To learn from Mur's death.   2. To fulfill the mandate of balance.   3. For the experience of the deed itself.   4. To discover what the denial of a god would entail.   5. To see how it would change him (the killer).   6. To bring god before their (god's) creation.   7. To free god from the world.   8. It was not a choice. It was his role to do so.

Not quite what I'd originally have gone with, but:   1. To deny the god of MD. 2. To deny Mur as the the god of MD. 3. To deny MD has a god. 4. To deny Mur's godhood. 5. To deny Mur regardless of whether or not he might be ultimately denied. 6. As an act of love for Mur. 7. To allow Mur to be reborn, or to be reborn himself. 8. Because love became desire. 9. As a form of self sacrifice. 10. To deny god so that he might not stray from god.

To pass Mur a message.

Generally, if I go as far as to express formal disapproval, I feel it is only fair that I address how and why so, likewise giving the other party an opening to address the complaint. While I certainly appreciate the gesture when others do the same, I do not presume upon it as a mutual obligation. I would not use the reputation system as you just did, against each other, for instance, but nor do I believe that to be an incorrect usage passive to public admonishment. (...) What occasion in particular brought forth BFH's comment is rather clear; likewise, from that comment, I can imagine how B

It was likely meant as a figure of speech for how unusual the entire affair is. Quite frankly, it is verily nonstandard, which is also, often enough, a significant source of wariness.

As you probably had meant to link to the respective threads, note the links currently refer back to this thread. Here:   http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/14781-announcements-quest-its-actually-a-bet/ http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/13983-dom-first-experience/ http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15361-the-never-repeating-word-challenge/

  Though I believe you had only meant to reinforce your position, I hope you will understand when I say you have come off rather unnecessarily condescending. That said, I can only emulate that which was said by Chewett and yourself, respectively.   Those who have donated to the game are unlikely to be particularly bothered by this, as, regardless of their own opinion on the matter, only that amount specifically donated to this purpose will be used. I find that a rather important point, even if, in practice, the money is Mur's once donated.   Those who have invested an excep