106.6. Some spells or abilities that produce mana restrict how that mana can be spent, or have an additional effect that affects the spell or ability that mana is spent on. This doesnt affect the manas type. #
Also there is no plural for mana ( manas haha are you kinding?) once the 2 is added to your mana pool you may split it like 1 and 1 and by the 106.6 each of these 'halfs ' have that abilities.
serious lets move on ( i did dig this and now im tired), there is no rule problem just you guys that think WotC is wrong :\
The additional effect is contingent upon meeting a condition. "If that mana is spent on a creature spell" (emphasis mine).
The word "a" implies non-plural, but this is not unambiguous.
In addition the phrase "that mana" is ambiguous as the condition may or may not be met by using some but not all of "that mana". Again, comes down to English language nuances. The card does not specify whether this is a property of the mana as allowed by 106.6, or whether it is a part of the Generator Servant activated ability.
The card should have been templated as follows:
"T, sacrifice ~: Add 2 to your mana pool. Creature spells cast using any of this mana gain haste."
OR
"T, sacrifice ~: Add 2 to your mana pool. If all of this mana is used to pay for a single creature spell, that spell gains haste."
I think the design intention is the former, but the card *as written* is the very clunky second one, based on the word "a" absolutely excluding plurals in the English language. This means the card does not work within 106.6 and a new section of the Comprehensive Rules would be required to cover it (much as previous new cards such as Mindslaver have required new rules to work).
So, if I'm understanding your argument correctly, a Hall of the Bandit Lord that's tapped while Mana Reflection is out would fall under the second one? Because with Mana reflection out, Hall of the Bandit Lord says "T, Pay 3 Life: Add 2 to your mana pool. If that mana is spent on a creature spell, it gains haste." after applying replacement effects. This, under your reading, would require both mana to be spent on a single creature spell in order to have any effect, but that is not the case, because Magic grammar /= English grammar. For example: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/magic-rulings-archives/263515-mana-reflection-hall-of-the-bandit-lord
The only room for ambiguity here is because people deliberately introduced it. The first reading of the card gets the intention across to everyone, and within magic rules, functions perfectly.
I've never thought to check how the HotBL/Mana Reflection interaction works, and I do not think many people would have bothered to either as it's an interaction between two terrible cards.
106.6 simply isn't clear enough on how to determine what happens when that mana is spent on more than one spell or ability.
Part of the strength of Magic's rules system is that it (now at least) gives unambiguous answers to pretty much any convoluted system you can imagine. This is not the case here as there are two interpretations of the rules, one intuitive and one counter-intuitive, and the intuitive one doesn't quite work due to the plural/singular disparity in English (but might work in a different language where the plural does not exclude the singular).
Ugh, WOTC, just *issue a darn clarification already*, and make sure the card works correctly on MTGO.
Pretty sure you just don't want to admit you're wrong. Let's pretend our mana is represented as M&Ms. Servant gives us two M&Ms. The granting haste ability applies to both of the M&Ms. I can split them up however I want. I can hold one in my left hand and the other in my right hand. I eat one from my left hand for a creature. It gets haste. I eat the other one and give another creature haste. It's not like the two M&Ms are joined together.
You are wrong that this card fits unambiguously under 106.6 as currently written.
Reviewing what you linked, Mana Reflection/Hall of the Bandit Lord works intuitively *because of a specific ruling*, not because of 106.6.
There is *currently* no ruling applying to Canadian Guy. Hopefully it will get a ruling in line with Mana Reflection's ruling, then this stupid discussion can be resolved.
Not responding again on this topic, just going to close by restating that your interpretation does not gel with a *strict* English language interpretation of the card, unless you use a non-intuitive definition of the word 'that' (to imply partial rather than complete use of the mana). WotC provide clarifications for things the rules actually do unambiguously cover (such as Oblivion Ring shenanigans), where there is no linguistic ambiguity, so they should for this card, and that will be the end of the matter.
On the M&M analogy - the rules do not clarify that at all. It is not clear whether you get haste for 1 M&M ("that mana" allows a subset) or 'all the M&Ms' ("that mana" does not allow a subset). Linguistics analysis of the exact wording implies "that mana" does not permit a subset, but that is unlikely to be the intent. I admitted the point I was wrong on.
Also ugh, need to stop paying attention to notifications from this thread.
See, wizards, this is how it's done. You don't need to reinvent the wheel, but making it a square is just plain crazy. This sliver looks like a sliver while at least providing a new aesthetic and showing off how slivers would look on other worlds. This is what I meant with variations on the sliver morphology while staying true to their identity.
Now, I guess it'll be awkward playing non-symmetrical slivers and symmetrical slivers in one deck, but I'll manage... Urgh, mirror matches... *shudder*
This is something I totally get behind. Slivers are one of the things Wizards did best over the years, with very strong casual appeal backed by appealing gameplay mechanics. I don't know if they'll be expanding them over core sets, but if they do, I tip my hat off to the person(s) who had the idea.
See, wizards, this is how it's done. You don't need to reinvent the wheel, but making it a square is just plain crazy. This sliver looks like a sliver while at least providing a new aesthetic and showing off how slivers would look on other worlds. This is what I meant with variations on the sliver morphology while staying true to their identity.
This! Exactly this! The M14 "slivers" weren't an update or a variant of the old sliver look, they were a completely different type of creature. Sliver Hivelord on the other hand: Snake-like body, insectoid features, scythe-like claws, no human face... it is clearly a sliver, even if it deviates from the old look a bit. Changing a few features/forms while still keeping the creature recognizable is the way you update an existing and well-known creature type, not that stupidity that happened in M14.
This! Exactly this! The M14 "slivers" weren't an update or a variant of the old sliver look, they were a completely different type of creature. Sliver Hivelord on the other hand: Snake-like body, insectoid features, scythe-like claws, no human face... it is clearly a sliver, even if it deviates from the old look a bit. Changing a few features/forms while still keeping the creature recognizable is the way you update an existing and well-known creature type, not that stupidity that happened in M14.
Couldn't agree more, the m14 change was a real letdown, this art however makes me VERY happy. Glad they gave it another go!
I can understand the nerf in power for the new sliver. Crystalline sliver and this new guy are going to be best friends. Screw u guys who thinks he sucks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To the people that say that a card needs to be a higher rarity because of Limited... I hate you guys so much. I present to you with this.
You are wrong that this card fits unambiguously under 106.6 as currently written.
Reviewing what you linked, Mana Reflection/Hall of the Bandit Lord works intuitively *because of a specific ruling*, not because of 106.6.
There is *currently* no ruling applying to Canadian Guy. Hopefully it will get a ruling in line with Mana Reflection's ruling, then this stupid discussion can be resolved.
Not responding again on this topic, just going to close by restating that your interpretation does not gel with a *strict* English language interpretation of the card, unless you use a non-intuitive definition of the word 'that' (to imply partial rather than complete use of the mana). WotC provide clarifications for things the rules actually do unambiguously cover (such as Oblivion Ring shenanigans), where there is no linguistic ambiguity, so they should for this card, and that will be the end of the matter.
On the M&M analogy - the rules do not clarify that at all. It is not clear whether you get haste for 1 M&M ("that mana" allows a subset) or 'all the M&Ms' ("that mana" does not allow a subset). Linguistics analysis of the exact wording implies "that mana" does not permit a subset, but that is unlikely to be the intent. I admitted the point I was wrong on.
Also ugh, need to stop paying attention to notifications from this thread.
Hall+Mana Reflection only even needed a ruling because of people like you intentionally being obnoxious about it. It was perfectly clear to everyone with a functional brain and any experience with MTG, as was this card. If they wanted to limit it to one creature, they would have made THAT clear, rather than the other way around (for example, some text about how this mana may only be spent on one creature or something). It couldn't be any simpler, especially with the other example of the exact same situation already having its own ruling as a precedent.
So the one weakness of slivers (Removal) can now be dealt with (To an extent), good!
Removal's never been a major problem for slivers since returning Slivers to hand, and phasing slivers out became a thing. Indestructable kinda makes sliver decks slightly less imaginative.
In EDH, it's most definitely not general material. Queen/Overlord are still top of the mound, with Legion a close third. It IS a decent sliver though, should be mythic, and should be 5/5 for 5.
I would rather the elemental was pushed up a rarity and had haste. That would make it much more useful. It's still +2 a turn later, which is nothing to laugh at, but idk...
The amount of time people spend on arguing and making posts to make themselves sound smart on these threads is ridiculous. Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
In the generator's case the "if you cast that mana to cast a creature spell, ..." is a propriety of that mana soo every 1 of the 2 the Generator Servant generated (1 and 1 == 2 ) has that propriety...
its not that dificult to get... is it?
about the haste templete...: Hall of the Bandit Lord (new templete)
magiccards.info/chk/en/277.html
You are referring to what they probably meant, but thats not what they actually wrote. "That" mana is 2, and it can be spent on "a" creature "spell".
edit: Just finished reading the next two pages. This is not an argument that you can "win" by quoting rules of magic at us or cards that did not run into the same issue.
This is basic English grammar and tense. You can't tell us that Wizards didn't screw up if they meant it to clearly read as up to 2 creature cards. We know what they probably meant to write, but they failed to write it the way they meant.
Wow, disappointed for the sliver lord. Nice ability but insane CC. Shroud cost UW and indestructible cost this?! Lord could cost 2WW and still would see very little play outside of hardcore casual.
It's an instant speed 5/5 trampler for 4. Wtf do you people want seriously? It has applications in populate/ above the curve beats decks, or in Bant control/ flash. I seriously think anyone mad at this card for any reason other than losing an attacker to instant speed wurm, should go home and make their own awesome card game and leave the rest of us alone.
Slightly underwhelming Sliver Mythic. For WUBRG, I feel like they could have been a little stupider. A baby Sliver Legion mechanic (like a flat +2/+2 across the board, or something) would have sweetened that up nicely.
But honestly, that's the only criticism I've had for this set so far.
Wow, disappointed for the sliver lord. Nice ability but insane CC. Shroud cost UW and indestructible cost this?! Lord could cost 2WW and still would see very little play outside of hardcore casual.
I think this card is fine. A well constructed Sliver EDH deck is so hard to stop WITHOUT everything being Indestructible. This just puts the icing on the cake that makes the Sliver player laugh at a board wipe (sans Final Judgement) instead of it being a minor annoyance while they just either return their cards to their hand or put them on the top of their deck with all the various Slivers that give ways to bounce themselves or stack on top of the deck instead. I think 5/5 is reasonable considering Indestructible.
I love the red mana dork so much. Almost all my red generals like to attack the turn they come out AND come out 2 turns earlier! Gonna be picking up as many of these as I can.
Wow, disappointed for the sliver lord. Nice ability but insane CC. Shroud cost UW and indestructible cost this?! Lord could cost 2WW and still would see very little play outside of hardcore casual.
A 5 power stone wall and beater for 2WW that can't lose to combat, wraths, most black removal, and red burn would see very little play? Are you crazy? Standard would be absolutely warped around it.
Wow, disappointed for the sliver lord. Nice ability but insane CC. Shroud cost UW and indestructible cost this?! Lord could cost 2WW and still would see very little play outside of hardcore casual.
A 5 power stone wall and beater for 2WW that can't lose to combat, wraths, most black removal, and red burn would see very little play? Are you crazy? Standard would be absolutely warped around it.
yeah.... if it was 2WW would be extensively played even outside sliver decks
Really should say "All slivers have indestructible". They fix the crappy art mistake from the M14 slivers, but not the horrible flavor and mechanical fail of them losing their symmetry.
If you think normal sliver mirror matches are dumb, wait until none of you can kill each other's creatures. It would be the ultimate stalemate. It is better this way.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
You are wrong that this card fits unambiguously under 106.6 as currently written.
Reviewing what you linked, Mana Reflection/Hall of the Bandit Lord works intuitively *because of a specific ruling*, not because of 106.6.
There is *currently* no ruling applying to Canadian Guy. Hopefully it will get a ruling in line with Mana Reflection's ruling, then this stupid discussion can be resolved.
Not responding again on this topic, just going to close by restating that your interpretation does not gel with a *strict* English language interpretation of the card, unless you use a non-intuitive definition of the word 'that' (to imply partial rather than complete use of the mana). WotC provide clarifications for things the rules actually do unambiguously cover (such as Oblivion Ring shenanigans), where there is no linguistic ambiguity, so they should for this card, and that will be the end of the matter.
On the M&M analogy - the rules do not clarify that at all. It is not clear whether you get haste for 1 M&M ("that mana" allows a subset) or 'all the M&Ms' ("that mana" does not allow a subset). Linguistics analysis of the exact wording implies "that mana" does not permit a subset, but that is unlikely to be the intent. I admitted the point I was wrong on.
Also ugh, need to stop paying attention to notifications from this thread.
Now, I guess it'll be awkward playing non-symmetrical slivers and symmetrical slivers in one deck, but I'll manage... Urgh, mirror matches... *shudder*
turn 2: land drop, generator servant
turn 3: land drop, produce 6 mana (sac servant), Kalonian Hydra 4/4 swing becomes 8/8 Trample
turn 4: Land Drop, kalonian swing 16/16 trample
other candidates are Ruric Thar / Sire of Sanity / Aetherling
just pray they don't have a removal (which is very unlikely)
G Combo Elves G
GW Maverick WG
GWR Punishing Maverick RWG
GWB Dark Maverick BWG
RUG RUG Delver GUR
UWR Miracles RWU
MODERN:
G Coco Elves G
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG
Couldn't agree more, the m14 change was a real letdown, this art however makes me VERY happy. Glad they gave it another go!
RJaya Ballard, Task Mage Mono Red Control Decklist
WNahiri, the Lithomancer Mono White Control Decklist
RGWUKynaios and Tiro of Meletis Aikido Control Decklist
UBGisa and Geralf Tribal Aggro Decklist
URGRiku of Two Reflections Non-combo coolstuff Decklist
RWUBruse Tarl, Boorish Herder and Kraum, Ludovic's Opus Equipments Decklist
WBAthreos, God of Passage Reanimate/Goodstuff Decklist
They already were, this just takes them to an annoying match. It also means I can finally retire my Sliver Queen.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY8h2vp5Xis
Hall+Mana Reflection only even needed a ruling because of people like you intentionally being obnoxious about it. It was perfectly clear to everyone with a functional brain and any experience with MTG, as was this card. If they wanted to limit it to one creature, they would have made THAT clear, rather than the other way around (for example, some text about how this mana may only be spent on one creature or something). It couldn't be any simpler, especially with the other example of the exact same situation already having its own ruling as a precedent.
An enigma as vexing as life itself.
Removal's never been a major problem for slivers since returning Slivers to hand, and phasing slivers out became a thing. Indestructable kinda makes sliver decks slightly less imaginative.
In EDH, it's most definitely not general material. Queen/Overlord are still top of the mound, with Legion a close third. It IS a decent sliver though, should be mythic, and should be 5/5 for 5.
Both the cards are good.
Evaluated.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
You are referring to what they probably meant, but thats not what they actually wrote. "That" mana is 2, and it can be spent on "a" creature "spell".
edit: Just finished reading the next two pages. This is not an argument that you can "win" by quoting rules of magic at us or cards that did not run into the same issue.
This is basic English grammar and tense. You can't tell us that Wizards didn't screw up if they meant it to clearly read as up to 2 creature cards. We know what they probably meant to write, but they failed to write it the way they meant.
But honestly, that's the only criticism I've had for this set so far.
I think this card is fine. A well constructed Sliver EDH deck is so hard to stop WITHOUT everything being Indestructible. This just puts the icing on the cake that makes the Sliver player laugh at a board wipe (sans Final Judgement) instead of it being a minor annoyance while they just either return their cards to their hand or put them on the top of their deck with all the various Slivers that give ways to bounce themselves or stack on top of the deck instead. I think 5/5 is reasonable considering Indestructible.
I love the red mana dork so much. Almost all my red generals like to attack the turn they come out AND come out 2 turns earlier! Gonna be picking up as many of these as I can.
Legacy - GW Enchantress
Modern - U Urzatron (In construction)
Multiplayer - B ZOMBIES
Casual - B Suicide Black
Casual - WURx Krark-Clan Ironworks
Pauper - URBx Affinity
Pauper - B Pestilence
Pauper - W Steel Soldiers
EDH - W Isamaru, Hound of Konda 1V1
EDH - GRB Kresh the Bloodbraided
EDH - GW Trostani, Selesnya's Voice
EDH - UR Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind
EDH - RB Lyzolda, The Blood Witch
EDH - UW Bruna, Light of Alabaster (Reworking)
EDH - UB Grimgrin, Corpse-Born
EDH - UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
EDH - WUG Phelddagrif
EDH - BGR Prossh, Skyraider of Kher
Pauper EDH - G Garruk's Packleader
Pauper EDH - RG Bloodbraid Elf
CUBE:
500 Peasant Cube (52% Foil) Cube Tutor Page
yeah.... if it was 2WW would be extensively played even outside sliver decks
If you think normal sliver mirror matches are dumb, wait until none of you can kill each other's creatures. It would be the ultimate stalemate. It is better this way.
Check out Odds//Ends - My articles on Quirky Cards and Oddball Builds
Long-time PucaTrade member and sometime author. Send me cards!
Currently playing Knight of the Reliquary - Retreat to Coralhelm Combo
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG