tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post4605880549258211429..comments2024-03-11T02:32:15.295-04:00Comments on Goblin Artisans: The Usual Suspects: The TapperUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5479847193762153273.post-12917405032908379922021-04-26T11:03:29.539-04:002021-04-26T11:03:29.539-04:00Hey Jeremy, thanks for the post!
I definitely ag...Hey Jeremy, thanks for the post! <br /><br />I definitely agree on the rules engine transparency being a strike against tappers. "Beginning of combat" is a silly thing to have to pay attention to, especially in digital. Planning ahead with racing math for the double-tap turn is a big chunk of strategic complexity.<br /><br />I can't speak much to the 1.5 mana issue- that's more Set Design's area- though I would think that we have some good knobs to balance that with MV and P/T. I played a fair bit of IKO draft and felt like Checkpoint Officer landed in a decent spot. (Pretty contextual since IKO limited was wild, and tapping down a mutate stack doesn't stop them from popping off with it.)<br /><br />A few thoughts to add:<br /><br />One reason some of us are down on common tappers is that they often slow down the game by stopping attacks. It also reduces the opponent's excitement of playing a 6/6 if all it means is that their 4/4 gets out of jail. <br /><br />One advantage of "fire and forget" removal is that it requires discrete decisions rather than repeated decisions, and there's some good lenticular complexity in correctly lining up your removal spells with your opponent's threats. Tappers don't require you to commit to a particular target.<br /><br />Another consideration is density of mana sinks. For example, ZNR has so much smoothing between MDFC lands, kicker, and landfall, that there's just not a bunch of spare mana to go around for repeatable activations. (That, and Makindi Ox is just a cooler and more unique design.)<br /><br />#WotCStaffHavelockVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12698268009797139251noreply@blogger.com