this format seems stupid to me. a good player would just shield the deck that has a high winrate against each opponent. i feel like this is going to reduce the amount of good games we get to see.
mogu cultist is a meme in the making and i can't wait to see someone play a mirror match and have their highkeeper ra get copied by faceless manipulator.
Harrison Jones synergy! 6 mana easy combo for 2 card draw, equip a 2/2 poisonous weapon, and plopping down a 5/4 body!
it also isn't horrible as removal OR as tempo. war axe was a 2 mana 3/2 and was commonly used. this is a 1 mana 2/2 with poisonous with the only "downside" being it gives your opponent a weapon which is good in some cases as weapon removal.
Like I said on the card's page: "It's fine, but...why be a Shaman card? You had Brann Bronzebeard as the Hunter hero; it was right there."
Beyond that, the connection with Shudderwock should be obvious and concerning. Presumably the Shaman will receive new Battlecry minions and/or weapons, and that's more fuel for Shudderwock. At least you cannot easily Hero Power + Shudderwock in the same turn.
Edit: This is being inserted into my Jade C'Thun deck for sure.
shudderwock isn't a big deal with this. firstly, shudderwock costs 9 so either the shaman needs to start with the coin or find a way to reduce shudders cost. 2nd, shudder repeating his own battlecry won't affect the minion so it would only summon more copies to return to hand. unless there is some new card that can make the combo more broken, i don't see it being an issue
i would assume the cost increase is on the card like dire frenzy. a +3/+3 buff would probably be 2 or 3 mana (going by the basic card blessing of kings). throw in the restriction that it requires a beast and it really is well balanced. prelate might become an issue in wild at a later point but that card is also a bit more balanced than people think because if you can bounce it, it loses all the buffs. the only way it can keep the buffs is if it dies.
Here's a screenshot from a Reddit post depicting Kasmina's Transmutation (which has the same rulings) being used on an Ugin's Conjurant with six +1/+1 Counters on it. As you can see, it goes from being a 6/6 to a 7/7, as its base P/T is now 1/1 instead of 0/0, and then the Counters are applied.
This came up a lot around the time that Kasmina's Transmutation was revealed, as newer players made the mistake of thinking it would be a good counter to the Amass mechanic introduced in the same set.
+1/+1 Counters don't set P/T, they add to it. Setting would mean specifying a specific value. I'm struggling to see how the rule specifically detailing how Counters would work with Polymorphist's Jest could be misinterpreted, but I'm confident I've made way sillier mistakes in the past, so who knows.
i get what you're saying but i would really need an official example from say mtg arena or from an mtg tournament to get this across because kasmina's transmutation has the same text and would leave the debate in the same spot.
my brother decided to find what he could about rulings on jest and found this passage "Polymorphist’s Jest overwrites all previous effects that set the creatures’ base power and toughness to specific values. Any power- or toughness-setting effects that start to apply after Polymorphist’s Jest resolves will overwrite this effect.". he took that to mean that the counters wouldn't affect the hydras again until the turn was over. i went to the same rules site (the one i shared) and found this passage "Effects that modify a creature’s power and/or toughness, such as the effect of Titanic Growth, will apply to the creatures no matter when they started to take effect. The same is true for any counters that change their power and/or toughness and effects that switch power and toughness.". to me, that says the counters are still there AND still active but he read it to mean that the counters wouldn't work.
is there someone that can help me find an official ruling from a tournament or maybe some mtg arena gameplay with this interaction or has a ruling from an official? we even had my brother ask his friends (some of whom have played since mtg started) and they were split on the issue.
i wouldn't flip out like the guy did but i would certainly be mad for a couple reasons. first, another token deck. token and aggro decks made me go to wild for the time being because thats all i was ever seeing. second, i wouldn't have drawn any board clears. of course this one depends on how many board clears i run. although a rule of thumb about me i've noticed is that if i don't think the game was competitive, i won't emote and if my opponent does when it was a stomp for them, i just flip off my computer screen. i still get to vent and i don't potentially lose my account.
this format seems stupid to me. a good player would just shield the deck that has a high winrate against each opponent. i feel like this is going to reduce the amount of good games we get to see.
well its 6 mana deal 3, not 4 mana deal 3. gotta pay for the weapon still.
mogu cultist is a meme in the making and i can't wait to see someone play a mirror match and have their highkeeper ra get copied by faceless manipulator.
it also isn't horrible as removal OR as tempo. war axe was a 2 mana 3/2 and was commonly used. this is a 1 mana 2/2 with poisonous with the only "downside" being it gives your opponent a weapon which is good in some cases as weapon removal.
shudderwock isn't a big deal with this. firstly, shudderwock costs 9 so either the shaman needs to start with the coin or find a way to reduce shudders cost. 2nd, shudder repeating his own battlecry won't affect the minion so it would only summon more copies to return to hand. unless there is some new card that can make the combo more broken, i don't see it being an issue
i would assume the cost increase is on the card like dire frenzy. a +3/+3 buff would probably be 2 or 3 mana (going by the basic card blessing of kings). throw in the restriction that it requires a beast and it really is well balanced. prelate might become an issue in wild at a later point but that card is also a bit more balanced than people think because if you can bounce it, it loses all the buffs. the only way it can keep the buffs is if it dies.
thanks a lot for the screenshot
i get what you're saying but i would really need an official example from say mtg arena or from an mtg tournament to get this across because kasmina's transmutation has the same text and would leave the debate in the same spot.
hello,
so me and my brother recently played some mtg together and we ran into a disagreement. i had swung at him for 60 with a 20/20 kalonian hydra https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=420771 and a 40/40 primordial hydra https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=253670 . he then proceeded to play polymorphist's jest https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=433022. his thought process was that because my hydras lose all abilities. that would include 1/1 counters. my thought process was that they wouldn't lose the 1/1 counters as counters are not an ability but the hydras would lose trample as those were abilities.
my brother decided to find what he could about rulings on jest and found this passage "Polymorphist’s Jest overwrites all previous effects that set the creatures’ base power and toughness to specific values. Any power- or toughness-setting effects that start to apply after Polymorphist’s Jest resolves will overwrite this effect.". he took that to mean that the counters wouldn't affect the hydras again until the turn was over. i went to the same rules site (the one i shared) and found this passage "Effects that modify a creature’s power and/or toughness, such as the effect of Titanic Growth, will apply to the creatures no matter when they started to take effect. The same is true for any counters that change their power and/or toughness and effects that switch power and toughness.". to me, that says the counters are still there AND still active but he read it to mean that the counters wouldn't work.
is there someone that can help me find an official ruling from a tournament or maybe some mtg arena gameplay with this interaction or has a ruling from an official? we even had my brother ask his friends (some of whom have played since mtg started) and they were split on the issue.
i wouldn't flip out like the guy did but i would certainly be mad for a couple reasons. first, another token deck. token and aggro decks made me go to wild for the time being because thats all i was ever seeing. second, i wouldn't have drawn any board clears. of course this one depends on how many board clears i run. although a rule of thumb about me i've noticed is that if i don't think the game was competitive, i won't emote and if my opponent does when it was a stomp for them, i just flip off my computer screen. i still get to vent and i don't potentially lose my account.