Not trolling, but the title is fine because you are all missing the "relative clause."
"The planeswalker LSV will be spoiling is Jace" is simply excluding the relative clause marker (that, which, who, whom, or whose). This is, in fact, a complex sentence with two clauses which are separately dependent and independent. Relative clauses can often exclude the relative pronouns by making the verbs progressive.
Your brain wants to read, "The planeswalker, that LVS will be spoiling, is Jace."
Structure:
Determiner (the)
subject and antecedent (planeswalker)
relative marker / second clause object (that)
relative clause subject(LVS)
relative clause future progressive transitive verb (will be spoiling)
first clause linking verb (is)
predicate noun (jace).
More on point, I'm praying that this jace will be properly costed and can be splashed for some form of card advantage. I'd hope for 3 mana, but I doubt Wizards would be that generous.
Not trolling, but the title is fine because you are all missing the "relative clause."
"The planeswalker LSV will be spoiling is Jace" is simply excluding the relative clause marker (that, which, who, whom, or whose). This is, in fact, a complex sentence with two clauses which are separately dependent and independent. Relative clauses can often exclude the relative pronouns by making the verbs progressive.
Your brain wants to read, "The planeswalker, that LVS will be spoiling, is Jace."
Structure:
Determiner (the)
subject and antecedent (planeswalker)
relative marker / second clause object (that)
relative clause subject(LVS)
relative clause future progressive transitive verb (will be spoiling)
first clause linking verb (is)
predicate noun (jace).
It should also be noted that the misinterpretation is plainly ungrammatical:
[S [NP The planeswalker LSV [RC *(that) will be spoiling]] [VP is Jace]]
The that can't be the subject of spoiling because the verb here is most emphatically not passive, and its antecedent ("the planeswalker LSV") would have to be its object, not its subject. (There may be other issues with this misinterpretation, but they're more obscure.)
The sentence itself is perfectly well-formed, though.
More on point, I'm praying that this jace will be properly costed and can be splashed for some form of card advantage. I'd hope for 3 mana, but I doubt Wizards would be that generous.
My entry into the wild speculation contest: what if this Jace has convoke? It fits with the Guildpact theme and there's a blue card with a new use for convoke. Planeswalkers haven't had keywords like this, and a mythic is a good place to do something new. Of course, we'll find out soon enough that Jace does not, in fact, have convoke.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am so stupid that I cannot understand philosophy; the antithesis of this is that philosophy is so clever that it cannot comprehend my stupidity. These antitheses are mediated in a higher unity; in our common stupidity."
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
I think a "convoke" walker would be entertaining (in regard to dropping two walkers in one turn). But I know that that would take up too much text on a three-ability walker. It'd be like looking at a f-d up J,tMS.
Not trolling, but the title is fine because you are all missing the "relative clause."
"The planeswalker LSV will be spoiling is Jace" is simply excluding the relative clause marker (that, which, who, whom, or whose). This is, in fact, a complex sentence with two clauses which are separately dependent and independent. Relative clauses can often exclude the relative pronouns by making the verbs progressive.
Your brain wants to read, "The planeswalker, that LVS will be spoiling, is Jace."
Structure:
Determiner (the)
subject and antecedent (planeswalker)
relative marker / second clause object (that)
relative clause subject(LVS)
relative clause future progressive transitive verb (will be spoiling)
first clause linking verb (is)
predicate noun (jace).
More on point, I'm praying that this jace will be properly costed and can be splashed for some form of card advantage. I'd hope for 3 mana, but I doubt Wizards would be that generous.
Lol, are we really doing this? Can we just play something else?
"The planeswalker LSV will be spoiling is Jace" is simply excluding the relative clause marker (that, which, who, whom, or whose). This is, in fact, a complex sentence with two clauses which are separately dependent and independent. Relative clauses can often exclude the relative pronouns by making the verbs progressive.
Your brain wants to read, "The planeswalker, that LVS will be spoiling, is Jace."
Structure:
Determiner (the)
subject and antecedent (planeswalker)
relative marker / second clause object (that)
relative clause subject(LVS)
relative clause future progressive transitive verb (will be spoiling)
first clause linking verb (is)
predicate noun (jace).
More on point, I'm praying that this jace will be properly costed and can be splashed for some form of card advantage. I'd hope for 3 mana, but I doubt Wizards would be that generous.
Because he was sculpting our minds so we couldn't see what was really going on!
[S [NP The planeswalker LSV [RC *(that) will be spoiling]] [VP is Jace]]
The that can't be the subject of spoiling because the verb here is most emphatically not passive, and its antecedent ("the planeswalker LSV") would have to be its object, not its subject. (There may be other issues with this misinterpretation, but they're more obscure.)
The sentence itself is perfectly well-formed, though.
My entry into the wild speculation contest: what if this Jace has convoke? It fits with the Guildpact theme and there's a blue card with a new use for convoke. Planeswalkers haven't had keywords like this, and a mythic is a good place to do something new. Of course, we'll find out soon enough that Jace does not, in fact, have convoke.
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
Lol, are we really doing this? Can we just play something else?