Would the rules support double-faced cards that have no distinct front half? These have a mana cost on both sides and an ability on both sides that states "You may cast either side of this card." Outside the battlefield, they'd have to behave like split cards, that is, if something tries to determine the characteristics of the card, you get two answers. If an effect puts the card onto the battlefield from anywhere but the stack, you get to choose which side enters the battlefield.
Of course, there would have to be a distinct front half for packaging purposes and sleeving the cards in your deck.
The rules do not currently support this, but whatever is needed could be included in the keyword that allows you to play either side. Specifically, the keyword's hidden rules would need to address:
CR 202.3b
711.1a/711.1b
711.3a
711.4a/711.4b
711.7
711.8
711.9a
The checklist card should probably include both sides in the list of available card names similar to the way that split card names are written out.
[ ] Card 1A (Mana cost) / Card 1B (Mana cost)
[ ] Card 2A (Mana cost) / Card 2B (Mana cost)
[ ] Card 3A (Mana cost) / Card 3B (Mana cost)
[ ] Card 4A (Mana cost) / Card 4B (Mana cost)
[ ] Card 5A (Mana cost) / Card 5B (Mana cost)
Thinking about it more, I don't know if you'd gain anything by making both sides coequal. The important thing is that you can cast both sides. It would be a flavor win to have both sides coequal, but reanimate effects/blink effects would probably be too confusing with those cards.
So, there needs to be made an exception to rule 711.7, and rule 711.1a/711.b has to be expanded to include whatever the new symbol is.
while this does not make coequal sides, you could have something like a normal dfc, with an alternate casting cost that says, "if you cast the spell for this cost it enters the battlefield transformed". The unfortunate part is that the back side will have the front sides mana cost, not it's own, and this doesn't work with two instant or sorcery cards, but that is kind of the point of split cards anyway. This would work under the current rules.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you knew anything about the lore you'd see that they were clearly hinting that the madness on Innistrad was caused by Uncle Istvan wearing Urza's Power Armor ... tainted with Phrexyian Oil"
Graham from Loading Ready Run
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Of course, there would have to be a distinct front half for packaging purposes and sleeving the cards in your deck.
Completed sets:
Iamur — The Underwater Set
Overworld — Pirates vs. Octopuses
Esparand — The Sands of Time
Unfinished Sets:
Siege of Ravnica — Eldrazi in Ravnica
Shandalar — The Mana Set
Iamur Reimagined — Iamur v2
You can find more creative projects on my page Antaresdesigns!
CR 202.3b
711.1a/711.1b
711.3a
711.4a/711.4b
711.7
711.8
711.9a
The checklist card should probably include both sides in the list of available card names similar to the way that split card names are written out.
[ ] Card 2A (Mana cost) / Card 2B (Mana cost)
[ ] Card 3A (Mana cost) / Card 3B (Mana cost)
[ ] Card 4A (Mana cost) / Card 4B (Mana cost)
[ ] Card 5A (Mana cost) / Card 5B (Mana cost)
So, there needs to be made an exception to rule 711.7, and rule 711.1a/711.b has to be expanded to include whatever the new symbol is.
Completed sets:
Iamur — The Underwater Set
Overworld — Pirates vs. Octopuses
Esparand — The Sands of Time
Unfinished Sets:
Siege of Ravnica — Eldrazi in Ravnica
Shandalar — The Mana Set
Iamur Reimagined — Iamur v2
You can find more creative projects on my page Antaresdesigns!
Graham from Loading Ready Run