Bloody Baron vs Monster Consume

[mfool123]

Bloody Baron vs Monster Consume

*Please merge this post if there's already a thread for this topic.*

I was messing around with monster consume today for a change of pace and ran into someone who was playing a machine Bloody Baron NR deck and he got his Bloody Baron up to 39 points because everytime something was consumed on my side of the board it would boost his Bloody Baron. I cannot see how this could be a intended mechanic. Bloody Baron should only be boosted if something on his side of the board destroys something on my side of the board. Bloody Baron currently boosts by one whenever an enemy is destroyed...

 

[Mancoon1980]

No wonder an opponent dropped a 30plus point baron against my monster deck the other day

 

[4RM3D]

The same is happening with Axemen vs Light Longships. The Longships boost the Axemen for free.

 

[partci]

Yes, those were always so bizarre to me. I guess they do need different wording to not be sch a clumsy mechanics, especially in the Consume/Baron part. Though, Derran...

 

[1990BW]

I also noticed it and it's definitely a bug, consume is something else than destroy.
The light longships/axeman boost isn't a problem they function like described.
But I think playing against the same deck, maybe even the entire same faction and NG mirror is stupid in general.

 

[FG15-ISH7EG]

Another of these weird interactions is playing against Dol Blathanna Bowmen with Odrin, who basically kills himself, or even worse with a self-movement archetype.

I believe all cards that aren't especially designed to trigger by enemy actions shouldn't do so, similar to how Mangonel was changed.
Getting defeated by your own win condition is one of the most depressing things that I encountered in the game so far.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

consume is something else than destroy

It is? I dont see a big difference here. In both times the destroyed card get to the graveyard. Consume only gets you the points for this card, nothing more.

 

[Void_Singer]

I find all of these interactions to be be perfectly sensible... engines should always have something that works as a power parasite in limited circumstances.... much preferable to straight engine removal from a gameplay perspective

 

[1990BW]

It is? I dont see a big differenz here. In both times the destroyed card get to the graveyard. Consume only gets you the points for this card, nothing more.

In relation to the bloody baron it has another purpose

 

[Fimbulthrym]

But only because it is said is has to be a bug. I find this is a totally legit interaction bewtween two cards. Before i dont get the official answer, that it is a bug, it isnt for me.

 

[sfruzz]

I find all of these interactions to be be perfectly sensible... engines should always have something that works as a power parasite in limited circumstances.... much preferable to straight engine removal from a gameplay perspective

I find this is a totally legit interaction bewtween two cards. Before i dont get the official answer, that it is a bug, it isnt for me.

I agree. To me it is a reasonable interaction that encourages consume players to have some kind of removal in their deck (igni, artefact compression, mandrake,...) and not go "full greed".
I like anti-synergy effects that allow for counter options.

 

[Khreygond]

Things like the interaction stated above are why the baseline consume is so horrid, and the greedy version of it is so powerful if left unchecked.

 

[TheEpicWhale]

Lorewise it would still make sense.
I don't think anything should be changed here, not like it is raining bloody barons all of a sudden.