When searching for the rules regarding this interaction, mtgsalvation was the first result in the search. Where it said that they did not work with one another. I am posting this as a reference for anyone searching for the same.
I emailed wizards and this is the official response.
The effect of Library of Leng is a "may" ability, so you can choose to have the card go to your graveyard instead of placing it on top of your library. You can create an infinite loop of cycling a card for free (and placing it back on top of your library as the card you will draw from the cycle), however, if there is no reason to do this, then a judge would force you to move the game forward since the "may" ability can be denied. So if you have an effect that activates from drawing cards, then you are fine to use this loop. But if you are using it purely to stall, then you would be asked to continue the game instead.
Thank you again for your time. We here at the Temporal Mechanics department truly understand how valuable your time is to you.
The beleif that discarding was a cost is debunked by New Perspectives not removing the requirements for discarding, thus it is a forced effect of cycling.
TL;DR: Per the official response from WOTC, Library of leng allows you to cycle to the top of your deck.
They are wrong. Library of Leng only applies if you're discarding to an effect, not a cost. When you're discarding to cycle, you're discarding as a cost, not as an effect, so the Library will not apply to the card you discard when you cycle it. They're focusing on the wrong part of the wording: they're looking at the word "may" and not the word "effect".
Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
That is the offical wizards ruling, which until told otherwise by wizards should be used. If discarding is cost then New Perspectives would allow cycling for without discarding. Cycling inheritly forces you to discard, idk..
Cycling costs and the cost of cycling are two different things. Cycling costs are just what you have to pay in addition to disarding the card. The cost of cycling is all of the costs you need to pay in order to activate the ability.
702.28a Cycling is an activated ability that functions only while the card with cycling is in a player’s hand. “Cycling [cost]” means “[Cost], Discard this card: Draw a card.”
Like with every other activated ability, everything before the colon is a cost. But the phrase "cycling cost" only refers to the "[cost]" part in this rule.
Where New Perspectives refers to cycling costs, it "refers only to the variable costs for [the cycling] keyword" (e.g., 2 in the case of Scattered Groves) (C.R. 702.1a; see also C.R. 702.28). For example, if you control New Perspectives and have seven or more cards in hand, you may pay "0, Discard this card" rather than "2, Discard this card" to pay for Scattered Groves's cycling ability (C.R. 702.28a).
I don't know why ya'll are trying to prove something, I posted the offical ruling handed down to me by wizards. Until otherwise stated officially by wizards, that is the ruling. Feel free to reach out to them and have them correct themselves.
Where New Perspectives refers to cycling costs, it "refers only to the variable costs for [the cycling] keyword" (e.g., 2 in the case of Scattered Groves) (C.R. 702.1a; see also C.R. 702.28). For example, if you control New Perspectives and have seven or more cards in hand, you may pay "0, Discard a card" rather than "2, Discard a card" to pay for Scattered Groves's cycling ability (C.R. 702.28a).
I will however point out how I worded all my question to wizards covered this rule.
702.1a should not apply to New Perspectives because it says "Costs" with an S. I wrote all of this out plain as day, and specifically pointed out that it can not go both ways unless the wording of NP was changed.
I don't know why ya'll are trying to prove something, I posted the offical ruling handed down to me by wizards. Until otherwise stated officially by wizards, that is the ruling. Feel free to reach out to them and have them correct themselves.
Because that ruling is wrong. It contradicts the official ruling for New Perspectives in its gatherer page. This is the official ruling:
4/18/2017 If you choose to pay New Perspectives’s alternate activation cost, you still discard the card with cycling to activate the ability.
What you've got is a customer service answer made pretty much on the spot. They are not the savvy rules gurus you believe them to be. They made a mistake. That happens. People make mistakes. But the rules will not be changed to make it right. The final authority on this question is the mighty Comprehensive Rules, it trumps any judges or other authorities. We quoted, what the CR says on the matter. And here's another quote from that document, its very first sentence:
This document is the ultimate authority for Magic: The Gathering® competitive game play.
Yes, the contradiction is what I contacted them about. You are twisting the rules to your own perspective (flavor text pun aside) this is why i contacted them directly because the ruling contradicts itself.
Either costs with an S encompassed the entirety of cycling costs including discard, or the discard was a secondary forced effect and library worked, the answer given was due to the ruling of NP that library of leng currently works. I'm not saying they might not have made a mistake, but I spelled out all the rulings alongside my interpretation, and that's why I got back. If they errata new perspectives tho say "cycling cost" instead of "costs" or change the comprehensive rule wording, then this wouldn't have been an issue.
First, a cycling cost can consist of more than just one thing, there is no limit to what that cost can entail. So "costs" would be an appropriate term. But second, NP doesn't even refer to the cycling cost/costs of a particular card, it refers to all your cycling cards, and the cycling costs of all of them. So "costs" is the right term, there are multiple cycling costs because they are found on multiple cards.
Coming from the other side, the discard can't be an effect of cycling, because an effect of an activated ability is only created when that ability resolves. However, the discard already happens when you activate the ability, so it can't be an effect, at least not of cycling. It can't be the result of a rule either, because effects are defined as coming from spells and abilities. That leaves effects of static abilities, but NP does not create any effects to make you discard. So there is no effect to apply the Library's replacement effect to when you cycle, with NP or not.
609.1. An effect is something that happens in the game as a result of a spell or ability. When a spell, activated ability, or triggered ability resolves, it may create one or more one-shot or continuous effects. Static abilities may create one or more continuous effects. Text itself is never an effect.
It is what it is, I'm using the ruling from the official email.
I spelled out exactly what o was asking at one point I specifically stated "since new perspectives has a rule saying I still discard, I'm under the impression that discarding is a forced effect"
There was plenty of key sentences in this email that spelled out everything, if wizards made that big of a mistake, then they need to rethink their hiring process. Much like a card like Mairsil, the Pretender and Quicksilver Elemental interaction... as worded and via comprehensive rules, copying abilities would not append the once per turn restriction to the new abilities, but someone at wizards officialy said it does "just because"
I have one judge ruling from our local GS and an official email from wizards. If wizards made this colossal mistake and missed all the stuff I pointed out in the email, then Wizards needs to publicly append that. I'm not saying your wrong, just that it needs to be clear that as it stands I can't say your right either.
Your skepticism is easily understandable. It's only natural to expect Wizards Customer service to be reliable. But they do make mistakes.
According to my own experience with that minimal-wage-underinformed-overworked staff, such a colossal mistake is no surprise.
Natedogg, on the other hand, is an Official Wizards Rules NetRep, and has provided us with many years of trusted rulings.
Rezzahan and Peteroupc are seasoned rules gurus with extremely low mistake percentages.
I would trust these three over Customer Service any day. AND their answer falls in line the Comprehensive Rulebook.
The choice is yours, of course.
When it comes to the finer points of the game's rules, Wizards customer service employees are a notoriously bad reference, and they are not in any way an authority on how cards work just because they work for the company. This can create problems and arguments such as this one and that is regrettable, but the facts are that the rules can be very tricky to interpret, and that the company doesn't find it reasonable to ask its customer service employees to know the rules as well as the most experienced judges and rules experts in the world, who argue rulings between themselves even at their level.
If I were Wizards, my solution to this problem would be to require customer service employees to systematically put a disclaimer in their responses that they are not an authority on the game's rules and that other services should be used for certainty. I heard that some of them do that, but it seems not to have been said in your case.
The only Wizards employee you can really trust as a direct authority about the rules is the rules manager, Eli Shiffrin. He can be reached on Twitter, among other places, I believe. He probably doesn't answer all rules questions directed at him, and he probably doesn't always answer very fast when he does, but I've seen him help settle debates when he deems his intervention is worth it. The person that I would consider the second most reliable authority on the rules is the first to have answered you in this thread, Natedogg. See the 'Wizards Rules NetRep' below his nickname? There is only one person with that title in the world. He was appointed by Wizards as an official representative, and he has a direct connection to the Rules Manager. When he says his answers are official, he's backed up by the company.
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I emailed wizards and this is the official response.
The effect of Library of Leng is a "may" ability, so you can choose to have the card go to your graveyard instead of placing it on top of your library. You can create an infinite loop of cycling a card for free (and placing it back on top of your library as the card you will draw from the cycle), however, if there is no reason to do this, then a judge would force you to move the game forward since the "may" ability can be denied. So if you have an effect that activates from drawing cards, then you are fine to use this loop. But if you are using it purely to stall, then you would be asked to continue the game instead.
Thank you again for your time. We here at the Temporal Mechanics department truly understand how valuable your time is to you.
The beleif that discarding was a cost is debunked by New Perspectives not removing the requirements for discarding, thus it is a forced effect of cycling.
TL;DR: Per the official response from WOTC, Library of leng allows you to cycle to the top of your deck.
Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
Like with every other activated ability, everything before the colon is a cost. But the phrase "cycling cost" only refers to the "[cost]" part in this rule.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
I will however point out how I worded all my question to wizards covered this rule.
702.1a should not apply to New Perspectives because it says "Costs" with an S. I wrote all of this out plain as day, and specifically pointed out that it can not go both ways unless the wording of NP was changed.
Because that ruling is wrong. It contradicts the official ruling for New Perspectives in its gatherer page. This is the official ruling:
What you've got is a customer service answer made pretty much on the spot. They are not the savvy rules gurus you believe them to be. They made a mistake. That happens. People make mistakes. But the rules will not be changed to make it right. The final authority on this question is the mighty Comprehensive Rules, it trumps any judges or other authorities. We quoted, what the CR says on the matter. And here's another quote from that document, its very first sentence:
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
Either costs with an S encompassed the entirety of cycling costs including discard, or the discard was a secondary forced effect and library worked, the answer given was due to the ruling of NP that library of leng currently works. I'm not saying they might not have made a mistake, but I spelled out all the rulings alongside my interpretation, and that's why I got back. If they errata new perspectives tho say "cycling cost" instead of "costs" or change the comprehensive rule wording, then this wouldn't have been an issue.
Coming from the other side, the discard can't be an effect of cycling, because an effect of an activated ability is only created when that ability resolves. However, the discard already happens when you activate the ability, so it can't be an effect, at least not of cycling. It can't be the result of a rule either, because effects are defined as coming from spells and abilities. That leaves effects of static abilities, but NP does not create any effects to make you discard. So there is no effect to apply the Library's replacement effect to when you cycle, with NP or not.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
I spelled out exactly what o was asking at one point I specifically stated "since new perspectives has a rule saying I still discard, I'm under the impression that discarding is a forced effect"
There was plenty of key sentences in this email that spelled out everything, if wizards made that big of a mistake, then they need to rethink their hiring process. Much like a card like Mairsil, the Pretender and Quicksilver Elemental interaction... as worded and via comprehensive rules, copying abilities would not append the once per turn restriction to the new abilities, but someone at wizards officialy said it does "just because"
I have one judge ruling from our local GS and an official email from wizards. If wizards made this colossal mistake and missed all the stuff I pointed out in the email, then Wizards needs to publicly append that. I'm not saying your wrong, just that it needs to be clear that as it stands I can't say your right either.
According to my own experience with that minimal-wage-underinformed-overworked staff, such a colossal mistake is no surprise.
Natedogg, on the other hand, is an Official Wizards Rules NetRep, and has provided us with many years of trusted rulings.
Rezzahan and Peteroupc are seasoned rules gurus with extremely low mistake percentages.
I would trust these three over Customer Service any day. AND their answer falls in line the Comprehensive Rulebook.
The choice is yours, of course.
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
If I were Wizards, my solution to this problem would be to require customer service employees to systematically put a disclaimer in their responses that they are not an authority on the game's rules and that other services should be used for certainty. I heard that some of them do that, but it seems not to have been said in your case.
The only Wizards employee you can really trust as a direct authority about the rules is the rules manager, Eli Shiffrin. He can be reached on Twitter, among other places, I believe. He probably doesn't answer all rules questions directed at him, and he probably doesn't always answer very fast when he does, but I've seen him help settle debates when he deems his intervention is worth it. The person that I would consider the second most reliable authority on the rules is the first to have answered you in this thread, Natedogg. See the 'Wizards Rules NetRep' below his nickname? There is only one person with that title in the world. He was appointed by Wizards as an official representative, and he has a direct connection to the Rules Manager. When he says his answers are official, he's backed up by the company.