ok... according to a recent article on this site... if you cascade (or any other play without paying the mana cost ability) into bond of agony, you can choose what X will be (as long as you have the life to pay for it)... my question is... if this is true, and i choose to pay 19 life... will the CMC of bond of agony on the stack be 20? (and thus nearly uncounterable with spellstutter sprite)
Based on other ways of playing cards with X in them besides casting them from your hand, I say X=0 if you play bonds of agony from cascade. Look at what happens if you remove a fireball with Intet, the Dreamer. X = 0 if you use an alternate way to cast an x spell. If you are not paying the mana cost for a spell with X in its mana cost, then X = 0.
Bond of Agony says "as an additional cost, pay X life." You don't get to choose what X is in this case with cascade, so it is 0. So you pay an 0 life as an additional cost.
As an additional cost to play bond of agony, pay X life.
No, it's not a valid move. You played bond via cascade, and the X of it is 0. The amount of life you pay into it is equal to the mana you poured into it. You didn't pay any mana into X, you can pay exactly that much life into it.
im aware of playing 'normal' x spells off cascade... however... as Merestil Haye pointed out, bond of agony may be the exception to the rule... refer to a multitude of forums to see the debate (yay google)...
also... who is the FINAL word on rulings?... and why dont we get them involved so the debate ends?
I think the biggest confusion here is with what X means what. Here is how I see it:
Cascade into Bonds of Agony, X in the mana cost gets set to 0, initially setting all instances of X in the cards to 0. Now additional cost ruling applies allowing you to pay the X in any amount of life you choose. This however, does not change the previously set instances of X to the amount in additional costs, becuase additional costs do not change the CMC (example: kicker). The mana cost X still remains 0 and the opponent loses life equal to the X in the mana cost, not additional cost.
However, if the card read: "your opponent loses life equal to the amount of life you paid", then it would work as many would hope. Then again, magic rulings are always more intricate then simple, so we will see.
figure of destiny = charmander
mulldrifter = counsel-man
profane command = pro manuver
Bond of Agony says "as an additional cost, pay X life." You don't get to choose what X is in this case with cascade, so it is 0. So you pay an 0 life as an additional cost.
No, it's not a valid move. You played bond via cascade, and the X of it is 0. The amount of life you pay into it is equal to the mana you poured into it. You didn't pay any mana into X, you can pay exactly that much life into it.
also... who is the FINAL word on rulings?... and why dont we get them involved so the debate ends?
figure of destiny = charmander
mulldrifter = counsel-man
profane command = pro manuver
Cascade into Bonds of Agony, X in the mana cost gets set to 0, initially setting all instances of X in the cards to 0. Now additional cost ruling applies allowing you to pay the X in any amount of life you choose. This however, does not change the previously set instances of X to the amount in additional costs, becuase additional costs do not change the CMC (example: kicker). The mana cost X still remains 0 and the opponent loses life equal to the X in the mana cost, not additional cost.
However, if the card read: "your opponent loses life equal to the amount of life you paid", then it would work as many would hope. Then again, magic rulings are always more intricate then simple, so we will see.