MTG Salvation

Quote from PlasticineGuy

We've known the art since PAX East.

Yet it is still 'unconfirmed' and people are arguing that it is fake with wording semantics.

If this card is real, Intrepid Hero is actually a decent answer, because regeneration makes a creature tap.

But the best answer is Olivia Voldaren.

EDIT: Riders of Gavony also works.

Quote from Hagalaz

The effect isn't the regeneration, and that is only so in this case due to this being an anomaly and frankly poorly templated.

The fact that a part of a replacement effect is another replacement effect doesn't change the fact that the first replacement tries to replace the cause with the whole clause of the effect.

A is replaced by B and C. If B is another replacement effect, why is it relevant? Really. Why?

No one is arguing that regeneration isn't a replacement effect. We're arguing that this templating hints at the existence of not one, but -> TWO <- replacement effects, and we are all talking about the first. And that is not a good thing.

There is no FIRST or SECOND replacement. Jesus, dumdum. Regeneration IS the mechanism of replacement. Nowhere in this ability aside from regenerate's rules text is anything being replaced.

Please go and read comp rules clauses 701.12a and b. Notice the distinction. Regenerate isn't creating a regeneration shield, it is THE replacement effect of the ability. There aren't two replacement effect, because the ability is all one effect.

TL;DR: The act of actually regenerating it is part of this ability, it isn't a seperate effect.

The problem of course is that static abilities are fundamentally different to activated/triggered abilities and spells. This means the CR has to be exact on the issue. The card works the way most players think it does; most players who misunderstand it are those who think they know the rules better than they do and are trying to find holes in it.

That said, they only very rarely use the second templating, specifically on Mossbridge Troll and this card. And looking at those two cards, it's very easy to grok what happens for newer players: Whenever this thing would get killed, regenerate it. If something makes it so it can't be regenerated, it dies. The complications really only come up when you've learned enough of the rules to know what a replacement effect usually is, but not the specific exceptions and how they work.

Edit: This particular card still has some issues I'm not sure about with things like Incinerate and dealing exactly lethal damage, but that's something that can be cleared up fairly easily eventually.

Here's a question, how often does wizards use the word destroyed?

Exactly this often.

//gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?text=+[destroyed">"]No, its more often than that.

The distinction is ultimately irrelevant though because it works exactly in the manner it seems like it does. The only even moderately different interaction is that if something kills, prevents regen, and cares about the dead creatures power, the counter isn't there. Beyond that the distinction practically matters for nothing.

Quote from nick_yan

There is plenty of those words in other cards, many cards use "...destroyed this way..." etc.

I meant in terms of "if this would be destroyed, regenerate it", but it looks like we've found another example.

Would make for an interesting general, where you fairly much have to use regeneration blockers or exile based abilities. Considering he's black, that basically takes out several destroy effects to directly kill him off.

Overall, with Rancor or similar abilities he's very interesting. If this is truly the champion, then the Jarad and Varolz will be great additions to black/green legendary pool. Equally, this "aggressive regenerator" adds something that some of the other black/green legends lack and this more of a life/death focus. This guy is just straight aggression, sort of like the Hulk in his Green Scar persona.

Quote from Exodite

Sure, the confusion only starts when you're using the exact same keyword for these completely different things.

The "Regenerate" keyword in both 701.12a and 701.12b refers to this part:
"...Instead remove all damage marked on [permanent] and tap it. If it’s an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat."

That it can be layered on top of replacement abilities and activated abilities makes sense to me.

If true, How would Varolz interact with a lethal Pillar of Flame?

I hope this card is real for the sake of all those people (including me) that have commented on it. Otherwise, guyz at 4chan must be having lots of fun.

And, from my experience if a card causes 35 pages of debate and discussion without any reconciliation at all, it won't be worth playing.

Dies to threadballing effect. RIP Varolz.

Quote from shinquickman

If true, How would Varolz interact with a lethal Pillar of Flame?

to die is not be dealt lethal damage, to die is to go to the graveyard.

Quote from shinquickman

If true, How would Varolz interact with a lethal Pillar of Flame?

It never dies (goes to the graveyard), so it will be regenerated, stay on the battlefield and get a counter.

I'm gonna go with it being real. Sure, it could totally be fake but it just seems like the MTGsallly crew cries fake on nearly EVERY card and is has a really high tendency to be wrong.

I honestly can't understand all the fuss going on about the templating of a card that has a reasonable chance to even be fake.

Especially if the templating is perfectly legit.

As others stated before, this is a static ability. Regeneration is indeed a replacement effect.

to the rules junkies: You should know that static abilities and replacement effects can occur, work or stop working right during resolving a spell or a state-based action.

Now, let's look at said ability. It says:

"If this would be destroyed, regenerate it and put a +1/+1 counter on it."

First of all, there is no 'instead' at the end, so this ability clearly isn't replacing ANYTHING. This means that his destruction in not replaced, it's just preceded by the regeneration and the counter. This means, that, everytime he would be destroyed, he gets a regeneration shield and a counter and the shield is consumed instantly, preventing his death. There are no redundancies. Also: If something that doesn't let him regenerate would kill him, he dies with the counter, since effects always try to do as much as they can. This can cumulate into the following awkward situation: Varolz has 1 damage marked on him and no counters. He then gets hit by Incinerate. His Static ability grants him a regeneration shield and a counter. Then his shield fails at stopping his death and he dies of lethal damage WITHOUT having lethal damage, because his destruction was never replaced in the first place.

Quote from Culthero

And, from my experience if a card causes 35 pages of debate and discussion without any reconciliation at all, it won't be worth playing.

Dies to threadballing effect. RIP Varolz.

Yeah, but the debate's less about the quality of the card and more about whether it's real. This isn't the Vexing Devil discussion.

Wait, people are still talking about this as if it's real?

A card released on 4chan? On April Fools Day?

Really?

I know we are desparate for previews and all, but come on guys.

Quote from Exodite

No one is claiming any different at this point.

The templating is still, however, bad because of the inconsistent use of the "Regenerate <this>" between an activated and static ability.

By legit, I actually meant that the inconsistency many of you seem to see just isn't there. But I have to admit that I haven't made that very obvious.

Also, to anyone who doesn't want to read much: Subbak basically just posted the TL;DR version of my previous post.

Quote from Vertain

I honestly can't understand all the fuss going on about the templating of a card that has a reasonable chance to even be fake.

Especially if the templating is perfectly legit.

As others stated before, this is a static ability. Regeneration is indeed a replacement effect.

to the rules junkies: You should know that static abilities and replacement effects can occur, work or stop working right during resolving a spell or a state-based action.

Now, let's look at said ability. It says:

"If this would be destroyed, regenerate it and put a +1/+1 counter on it."

First of all, there is no 'instead' at the end, so this ability clearly isn't replacing ANYTHING. This means that his destruction in not replaced, it's just preceded by the regeneration and the counter. This means, that, everytime he would be destroyed, he gets a regeneration shield and a counter and the shield is consumed instantly, preventing his death. There are no redundancies. Also: If something that doesn't let him regenerate would kill him, he dies with the counter, since effects always try to do as much as they can. This can cumulate into the following awkward situation: Varolz has 1 damage marked on him and no counters. He then gets hit by Incinerate. His Static ability grants him a regeneration shield and a counter. Then his shield fails at stopping his death and he dies of lethal damage WITHOUT having lethal damage, because his destruction was never replaced in the first place.

That's actually a bad example. If he has 1 damage and gets 3 more, he has 4 damage marked on him, but he'll get that counter before state based effects check, so he'll have 5 toughness. It's not like they check until the ability is finished and someone would get priority.

If this does end up being fake, this troll should reveal himself to receive a well-deserved round of applause.

Great card, though-provoking design. 36 pages. Tremendous!

~M

Just for posterity's sake, I'm going to call this fake now, before we find out the truth. Will be fun to review my predictions after the set comes out. It's a fakerinousky.

In a week or two we will find out JUST WHO AROUND HERE IS BEING TROLLED