And yeah, I actually have a deck that this card becomes win-win no matter what they choose. (And it was already in color too!) I love it when a plan comes together..
Check out the artwork on Horrible Hordes. Yes, there is a very angry lamp in that picture, as well as a very angry...box of pencils (bottom left), I think? Every time I see this card, I just have that wtf? reaction. I also want to start collecting this card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
In Modern:
:symu::symw::symr: Holy Rollers (Geist Tempo)
I'm not sure if this counts for consideration for a 'weird' card, but I always thought it interesting that Demonic Consultation did not explicitly tell you to put the card in your hand (if you didn't find it on the first attempt). The surprising thing about it is that it took WotC 5 years to make the correction - especially interesting when one considers how powerful of a card it is.
I dunno, maybe it's just me.
It has to be Goblin Game. It is the only card I know of that is currently legal that involves players performing a physical, out of game action. Cards like Chaos Orb did that, but those were cards from before there was really any clear idea of the direction of the game. Those cards have been since stricken from the game, but not this one. If it just said "Each player secretly chooses a number" the card would be fine (even if still awful.)
Shaharazad I love this card. Mechanically its a headache. From a designer standpoint its almost genius. Really I wish the subgame was like..."each player starts with only 5 life" or something. And increase the mana cost. Usually this card is "pay 2; watch your opponent scoop as they don't want to play a worthless game of magic with you."
The Wish cards are all kinda weird...and the Ring of Maruuf of course.
Timmerian Fiends is just weird...especially when combined with a Wish card and Mirror Weave. Would you give your opponent a token to permanently own one of their artifacts? I combined this with Splendid Genesis and City of Solitude to steal all of Mark Rosewater's artifacts, only to get the reply "sorry, I have a card in my collection that says other players can't steal my cards".
I still don't get chains. I'm considering buying a playset for magic online (they are inexpensive there), just to muck around with.
It helps to think about it this way: if you want to draw a card (excepting the card you draw each turn from your draw step) Chains steps in and says, "Feed me a card from your hand first!" If you can discard a card, i.e. feed Chains, you get to draw a card. If you can't feed Chains then Chains screams, "No card for you!" and mills you for one. Things get really confusing, though, with multiples.
Musician. 'If the card doesnt have 'If this card has a music counter..''
Was that really needed text?
You're right that Musician has horrible errata. Wow. I see the need for it, the creature is basically supposed to mirror Musician's cumulative upkeep as long as you keep going after the same creature, but the errata is just wonky.
And to continue with wonky errata and to be on topic: Johan's Oracle wording is just crazy and makes me nominate him for weird card.
Probably Battle of the Wits since you can't get a library of 200 cards in the first place
You sure can.
Also, while Chains of Mephistopheles does get complicated in multiples, it is a great card and does exactly what it says. I do not find it that weird. But then again, I love that card and use it in one of my favorite decks. Really hurts tempo decks.
It has to be Goblin Game. It is the only card I know of that is currently legal that involves players performing a physical, out of game action.
It's not really a physical action. "Hiding items" can very well be replaced with "writing down a number". Actually, I really don't get why they didn't worded it that way, it's a lot more functional and less ambiguous - and it would feel considerable less un-style.
But yeah, that card gets my vote nonetheless.
Musician. 'If the card doesnt have 'If this card has a music counter..''
Was that really needed text?
It was if you believe the original intent was not to have repeated activations increase the effective cumulative upkeep cost exponentially. (Also, that's not the text; check it again).
From where I'm standing, it looks like templating was advanced enough to treat it like modern, so really, it shouldn't need to ask that question. Seems suspiciously like power-level errata.
I'd say it's because it is a 4/4 for four, or a "four-four" (sometimes "square creature").
@fahrenheits: Nameless-Race was originally Nameless-Race (which made no sense). Then it lost that type. Then the Great Creature Type Update gave it the type again, because every creature was supposed to have one. Then some people e-mailed Gottlieb and he realized how bloody stupid that was, and they removed the type again.
For me it's probably Goblin Game. Or... Dead Ringers. Why, why cannot Magic have the lexical items to get through this simple logical idea any easier?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
And yeah, I actually have a deck that this card becomes win-win no matter what they choose. (And it was already in color too!) I love it when a plan comes together..
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
Yeah. That one is really weird.
I don't see how Winter's Night is that weird. It's just dull.
In Modern:
:symu::symw::symr: Holy Rollers (Geist Tempo)
My NovelJoy author profile: http://www.noveljoy.com/userInfo?wid=189
I write mainly horror/scifi/fantasy type short stories. Please read and feel free to send me feedback.
I dunno, maybe it's just me.
by far the strangest card ever
Was that really needed text?
Sign up for League of Legends!
The Wish cards are all kinda weird...and the Ring of Maruuf of course.
Timmerian Fiends is just weird...especially when combined with a Wish card and Mirror Weave. Would you give your opponent a token to permanently own one of their artifacts? I combined this with Splendid Genesis and City of Solitude to steal all of Mark Rosewater's artifacts, only to get the reply "sorry, I have a card in my collection that says other players can't steal my cards".
Custom Set: Pokemon: Generation 1
My mind numbing DC-10 stack!
It immediately turbo-charges your Ensnaring Bridge. It also ramps up a Rakdos deck that employs the Hellbent mechanic.
The Great Creature Token Project
It helps to think about it this way: if you want to draw a card (excepting the card you draw each turn from your draw step) Chains steps in and says, "Feed me a card from your hand first!" If you can discard a card, i.e. feed Chains, you get to draw a card. If you can't feed Chains then Chains screams, "No card for you!" and mills you for one. Things get really confusing, though, with multiples.
You're right that Musician has horrible errata. Wow. I see the need for it, the creature is basically supposed to mirror Musician's cumulative upkeep as long as you keep going after the same creature, but the errata is just wonky.
And to continue with wonky errata and to be on topic: Johan's Oracle wording is just crazy and makes me nominate him for weird card.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
You sure can.
Also, while Chains of Mephistopheles does get complicated in multiples, it is a great card and does exactly what it says. I do not find it that weird. But then again, I love that card and use it in one of my favorite decks. Really hurts tempo decks.
or Tidal Influence just a weird card.
—Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer
But yeah, that card gets my vote nonetheless.
Best Celeb Gossip Ever: http://www.twitter-tracker.com/
Currently building: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=170776
Now a great discussion thread!
Amazing new card: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=184683
It was if you believe the original intent was not to have repeated activations increase the effective cumulative upkeep cost exponentially. (Also, that's not the text; check it again).
From where I'm standing, it looks like templating was advanced enough to treat it like modern, so really, it shouldn't need to ask that question. Seems suspiciously like power-level errata.
Who cares, though?
I'd say it's because it is a 4/4 for four, or a "four-four" (sometimes "square creature").
@fahrenheits: Nameless-Race was originally Nameless-Race (which made no sense). Then it lost that type. Then the Great Creature Type Update gave it the type again, because every creature was supposed to have one. Then some people e-mailed Gottlieb and he realized how bloody stupid that was, and they removed the type again.
For me it's probably Goblin Game. Or... Dead Ringers. Why, why cannot Magic have the lexical items to get through this simple logical idea any easier?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
(Trade Thread)
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=3837882#post3837882