So my friend recently scored a Gideon of the Trials and his ultimate concerns me, considering he's only got a converted mana cost of 3. I've heard of some cards that counter activated abilities like Squelch, but I've searched my entire collection and found no cards with similar effects. Is there any way to counter the instant emblem or do I just have to beat him before he plays Gideon?
Sorry if this is a repost, the only thread on the topic I could find is a year old and didn't have the info I needed on it.
EDIT: I just reread the ultimate to see that it says "As long as you control a Gideon planeswalker" so killing Gideon removes it.
No, Gideon of trials emblem only works if a Gideon planeswalker is in play. Kill Gideon before you would win or get him to a loss condition then kill Gideon.
EDIT: I just reread the ultimate to see that it says "As long as you control a Gideon planeswalker" so killing Gideon removes it.
Just to be clear Gideon's emblem does not go away when Gideon is destroyed. If your friend plays another Gideon it will have to be destroyed before you can win the game.
Disallow is currently in Standard. It can stop an activation for a turn, giving you a chance to deal with Gideon (or kill your opponent) without the emblem being around.
Once an emblem is made it cannot be removed, but there is a way to get rid of it. The only thing that can be done about them once they are out is to restart the game with Karn Liberated's third ability.
I imagine there will be a time where there are cards that can remove them. Sooner or later something can always be stopped, much like how Planeswalkers didn't have cards that expressly targeted them, but now we do.
Once an emblem is made it cannot be removed, but there is a way to get rid of it. The only thing that can be done about them once they are out is to restart the game with Karn Liberated's third ability.
I imagine there will be a time where there are cards that can remove them. Sooner or later something can always be stopped, much like how Planeswalkers didn't have cards that expressly targeted them, but now we do.
I see no reason for them to create something that interacts with emblems. They were literally created as a reminder for rules that change the game. Go look at the first printing of Elspeth, Knight-Errant, and compare it to the later ones. Emblems were only created as an easy way to reduce the amount of information that players have to remember.
Tangentially related, it could be argued that spells like Riding the Dilu Horse should create an emblem that lasts as long as the creature is in play. Something along the lines of "Target a creature, you gain an emblem with "The Targeted creature gets +2/+2 and gains horsemanship", exile this emblem when that creature leaves play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
L1 judge since 1/30/12 (lapsed as of 1/30/13)
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
Once an emblem is made it cannot be removed, but there is a way to get rid of it. The only thing that can be done about them once they are out is to restart the game with Karn Liberated's third ability.
I imagine there will be a time where there are cards that can remove them. Sooner or later something can always be stopped, much like how Planeswalkers didn't have cards that expressly targeted them, but now we do.
I see no reason for them to create something that interacts with emblems. They were literally created as a reminder for rules that change the game. Go look at the first printing of Elspeth, Knight-Errant, and compare it to the later ones. Emblems were only created as an easy way to reduce the amount of information that players have to remember.
Tangentially related, it could be argued that spells like Riding the Dilu Horse should create an emblem that lasts as long as the creature is in play. Something along the lines of "Target a creature, you gain an emblem with "The Targeted creature gets +2/+2 and gains horsemanship", exile this emblem when that creature leaves play.
Interesting you say that they are reminder for rules that change the game and yet Wizards has actually not errata'ed two cards to include emblems. Those two cards being Stigma Lasher, Praetor's Counsel, and all of the Epic spells. Even Cyclopean Tomb you could argue might need to make an emblem.They only want planeswalkers to create emblems even though we have had other cards that have affect the game for just as long. Counsel and the Epics are easy enough to show you have its effect by just leaving it on the field like any other emblem, although as the Epics don't exile you can target them again which would make a small memory headache if it's not in the graveyard, but Stigma Lasher is a little harder to do that on the fly for multiplayer.
I'm not saying that every card ever has to get rid of them, but it wouldn't surprise me if we get something to clear all emblems from the game or just from a player, kind of like how Leeches is the only thing to remove poison counters. I'm sure sooner or later it will happen.
Upcoming Commander decks would be a fine place to not only place emblem removal, but emblem theft and emblem copying, as well. Maybe even sorceries that assign emblems to players.
At any rate, that is one agenda I would push if I were in charge.
Until that day, though, you're pretty much out of luck.
Cheers!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If in the area, check out Gamers N Geeks and Mini War Games in Mobile, Alabama and Underhill's Games in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
The idea of wanting an emblem remover comes up sometimes, and I always have the same thought: there shouldn't be anything that interacts with emblems. They're not spells or permanents, just a reminder that a Planeswalker established a permanent, intangible effect. And to restate what others have said in similar threads, if you don't like your opponent's emblem, the correct route is to try and destroy that Planeswalker first, or at least make sure that it never reaches enough loyalty to create the emblem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH/Commander
UBR Sedris RG Omnath, Locus of Rage UB The Scarab God RUG Maelstrom Wanderer WU Dragonlord Ojutai
I find the idea of dedicated emblem removal to be pointless. The reason why they created emblems is to make them uninteractive. Otherwise, rules-wise they're just enchantments under a different name.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I find the idea of dedicated emblem removal to be pointless. The reason why they created emblems is to make them uninteractive. Otherwise, rules-wise they're just enchantments under a different name.
You mean like the recent Planeswalkers uniqueness rule change? I'm just goofing with you, I get what You're saying.
But I digress.
I think Emblems run counter to WotC's over arching anti-"feel bad" practices. Enough new players get upset over emblems, you can bet that WotC will introduce emblem removal of some type. Karn Liberated not withstanding. Just give it time.
For instance, MaRo's opinion behind Leeches is an odd duck and WotC seems to tiptoe around poison counters in the form of cards like Solemnity as a way to avoid having MaRo go back on his word or get angry or upset or whatever. It's just weird.
I think Emblems run counter to WotC's over arching anti-"feel bad" practices. Enough new players get upset over emblems, you can bet that WotC will introduce emblem removal of some type. Karn Liberated not withstanding. Just give it time.
Emblem removal has two main obstacles to its existence, one based in the design and the other in the game rules.
The design issue is, of course, that emblems are so damn narrow. Planeswalkers are so few in number that removal designed to target them will always have to have some other function because removing planeswalkers and nothing else would render a card unplayable. Emblems take an already narrow card type, cut it down to a fraction that actually use the mechanic, and then frequently slap it on the end of an ultimate that takes multiple turns to charge. The number of planeswalker with non-ult emblems can be counted on one hand. Emblems are so narrow that any metagame problems they cause might as well be solved by banning specific cards rather than introducing hate.
The rules issue is that Wizards would actually have to change the rules behind them to introduce removal in the first place. Check this out:
113.3. An emblem has no characteristics other than the abilities defined by the effect that created it. In particular, an emblem has no name, no types, no mana cost, and no color.
113.5. An emblem is neither a card nor a permanent. Emblem isn’t a card type.
Each and every one of the nuts-and-bolt tools that enable any kind of interaction in MTG fundamentally do not apply to emblems. A spell that reads "destroy target emblem" would not function without a rules change because the infrastructure that recognizes emblems as an object that can be targeted does not exist right now. The most similar example to interacting with emblems would be interacting with face-down cards or Vanguards, except emblems aren't cards. Emblems do not exist under the rules outside of their static, triggered, and activated abilities.
BlazingRagnarok, Arguing the rules won't allow it is non-sequitor. WotC has changed or amended the rules with every (or almost) Modern era set. The set WotC decides to introduce Emblem hate is the same set they amend or update the comprehensive rules.
One of my pet peeves is WotC habitual changes to rules just to fit whatever B.S. they decided to dream up. The border rule change involving Invocations is a the perfect example. They're the ugliest card borders to date and have the most difficult text to read. Yet WotC thought fit to print them and change the border rules to fit.
I have no doubt they'll change Emblem rules to fit whatever whim they have for Standard that season.
BlazingRagnarok, Arguing the rules won't allow it is non-sequitor. WotC has changed or amended the rules with every (or almost) Modern era set. The set WotC decides to introduce Emblem hate is the same set they amend or update the comprehensive rules.
One of my pet peeves is WotC habitual changes to rules just to fit whatever B.S. they decided to dream up. The border rule change involving Invocations is a the perfect example. They're the ugliest card borders to date and have the most difficult text to read. Yet WotC thought fit to print them and change the border rules to fit.
I have no doubt they'll change Emblem rules to fit whatever whim they have for Standard that season.
A fundamental change to the identity of emblems is hardly a non-sequitur, and I did mention that rules changes would be necessary. Non-card objects existing outside of the battlefield and stack is a pretty big deal.
Speaking of non-sequiturs, Invocations are relevant to tournament rules, not the comp rules, which have little effect how most cards actually function. Apples and oranges to emblem discussion.
The number of planeswalker with non-ult emblems can be counted on one hand.
3, to be precise. Out of 34 cards that create emblems (and out of 97 planeswalker cards).
Three? There's Sorin and?
Gideon of the Trials, my guess for third would be Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, it doesn't actually meet the non-ult requirement but I guess they counted it because it can ult the turn its played?
The number of planeswalker with non-ult emblems can be counted on one hand.
3, to be precise. Out of 34 cards that create emblems (and out of 97 planeswalker cards).
Three? There's Sorin and?
Gideon of the Trials, my guess for third would be Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, it doesn't actually meet the non-ult requirement but I guess they counted it because it can ult the turn its played?
They're all the last ability with the highest loyalty? I guess we just don't agree on what an "ult" is.
The number of planeswalker with non-ult emblems can be counted on one hand.
3, to be precise. Out of 34 cards that create emblems (and out of 97 planeswalker cards).
Three? There's Sorin and?
Gideon of the Trials, my guess for third would be Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, it doesn't actually meet the non-ult requirement but I guess they counted it because it can ult the turn its played?
They're all the last ability with the highest loyalty? I guess we just don't agree on what an "ult" is.
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
3, to be precise. Out of 34 cards that create emblems (and out of 97 planeswalker cards).
Three? There's Sorin and?
Gideon of the Trials, my guess for third would be Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, it doesn't actually meet the non-ult requirement but I guess they counted it because it can ult the turn its played?
They're all the last ability with the highest loyalty? I guess we just don't agree on what an "ult" is.
The number of planeswalker with non-ult emblems can be counted on one hand.
3, to be precise. Out of 34 cards that create emblems (and out of 97 planeswalker cards).
Three? There's Sorin and?
Gideon of the Trials, my guess for third would be Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, it doesn't actually meet the non-ult requirement but I guess they counted it because it can ult the turn its played?
They're all the last ability with the highest loyalty? I guess we just don't agree on what an "ult" is.
I definitely don't think a 0 costing ability can be considered an ult regardless of its place on the card. This does mean several walkers don't have ults, mostly Gideons.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry if this is a repost, the only thread on the topic I could find is a year old and didn't have the info I needed on it.
EDIT: I just reread the ultimate to see that it says "As long as you control a Gideon planeswalker" so killing Gideon removes it.
Just to be clear Gideon's emblem does not go away when Gideon is destroyed. If your friend plays another Gideon it will have to be destroyed before you can win the game.
I imagine there will be a time where there are cards that can remove them. Sooner or later something can always be stopped, much like how Planeswalkers didn't have cards that expressly targeted them, but now we do.
I see no reason for them to create something that interacts with emblems. They were literally created as a reminder for rules that change the game. Go look at the first printing of Elspeth, Knight-Errant, and compare it to the later ones. Emblems were only created as an easy way to reduce the amount of information that players have to remember.
Tangentially related, it could be argued that spells like Riding the Dilu Horse should create an emblem that lasts as long as the creature is in play. Something along the lines of "Target a creature, you gain an emblem with "The Targeted creature gets +2/+2 and gains horsemanship", exile this emblem when that creature leaves play.
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
Interesting you say that they are reminder for rules that change the game and yet Wizards has actually not errata'ed two cards to include emblems. Those two cards being Stigma Lasher, Praetor's Counsel, and all of the Epic spells. Even Cyclopean Tomb you could argue might need to make an emblem.They only want planeswalkers to create emblems even though we have had other cards that have affect the game for just as long. Counsel and the Epics are easy enough to show you have its effect by just leaving it on the field like any other emblem, although as the Epics don't exile you can target them again which would make a small memory headache if it's not in the graveyard, but Stigma Lasher is a little harder to do that on the fly for multiplayer.
I'm not saying that every card ever has to get rid of them, but it wouldn't surprise me if we get something to clear all emblems from the game or just from a player, kind of like how Leeches is the only thing to remove poison counters. I'm sure sooner or later it will happen.
At any rate, that is one agenda I would push if I were in charge.
Until that day, though, you're pretty much out of luck.
Cheers!
Krichaiushii on PucaTrade.
UBR Sedris
RG Omnath, Locus of Rage
UB The Scarab God
RUG Maelstrom Wanderer
WU Dragonlord Ojutai
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
You mean like the recent Planeswalkers uniqueness rule change? I'm just goofing with you, I get what You're saying.
But I digress.
I think Emblems run counter to WotC's over arching anti-"feel bad" practices. Enough new players get upset over emblems, you can bet that WotC will introduce emblem removal of some type. Karn Liberated not withstanding. Just give it time.
For instance, MaRo's opinion behind Leeches is an odd duck and WotC seems to tiptoe around poison counters in the form of cards like Solemnity as a way to avoid having MaRo go back on his word or get angry or upset or whatever. It's just weird.
In essence, Emblems and poison counters are a manifestation of the contradictory messages we get from MaRo and WotC. That Emblems are too hard to put in with no future plans to use spells to get rid of them. yet WotC has this seemingly ethereal and shifting concept of unfun where counters, land destruction and 3 damage spells are unfun but Massive world warping uncounterable indestructible fatties are somehow fun.
Emblem removal has two main obstacles to its existence, one based in the design and the other in the game rules.
The design issue is, of course, that emblems are so damn narrow. Planeswalkers are so few in number that removal designed to target them will always have to have some other function because removing planeswalkers and nothing else would render a card unplayable. Emblems take an already narrow card type, cut it down to a fraction that actually use the mechanic, and then frequently slap it on the end of an ultimate that takes multiple turns to charge. The number of planeswalker with non-ult emblems can be counted on one hand. Emblems are so narrow that any metagame problems they cause might as well be solved by banning specific cards rather than introducing hate.
The rules issue is that Wizards would actually have to change the rules behind them to introduce removal in the first place. Check this out:
113.3. An emblem has no characteristics other than the abilities defined by the effect that created it. In particular, an emblem has no name, no types, no mana cost, and no color.
113.5. An emblem is neither a card nor a permanent. Emblem isn’t a card type.
Each and every one of the nuts-and-bolt tools that enable any kind of interaction in MTG fundamentally do not apply to emblems. A spell that reads "destroy target emblem" would not function without a rules change because the infrastructure that recognizes emblems as an object that can be targeted does not exist right now. The most similar example to interacting with emblems would be interacting with face-down cards or Vanguards, except emblems aren't cards. Emblems do not exist under the rules outside of their static, triggered, and activated abilities.
One of my pet peeves is WotC habitual changes to rules just to fit whatever B.S. they decided to dream up. The border rule change involving Invocations is a the perfect example. They're the ugliest card borders to date and have the most difficult text to read. Yet WotC thought fit to print them and change the border rules to fit.
I have no doubt they'll change Emblem rules to fit whatever whim they have for Standard that season.
A fundamental change to the identity of emblems is hardly a non-sequitur, and I did mention that rules changes would be necessary. Non-card objects existing outside of the battlefield and stack is a pretty big deal.
Speaking of non-sequiturs, Invocations are relevant to tournament rules, not the comp rules, which have little effect how most cards actually function. Apples and oranges to emblem discussion.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Three? There's Sorin and?
They're all the last ability with the highest loyalty? I guess we just don't agree on what an "ult" is.
sorin, lord of innistrad
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
I mentioned that one already.