The biggest reason to believe that BB will give you one instance of this effect is that otherwise you could say 'do this process X times' rather than 'repeat this process X times'.
The biggest reason not to believe that BB will give you one instance of this effect is that if it did, they could just use the old pattern and it would fit perfectly.
Because of the latter, I think you have to pay at least 1BB to get one instance of this effect, as they've never had a repeated process scale with mana before using an X...
I just realized that Torment of Scarabs was your opponents upkeep, not yours. So they will immediately have to take the curses effect after you cast it. I definitely will be making a casual deck with that curse and Torment of Hailfire as my only two wincons.
Torment of Hailfire is really only good if you can sink a ton of mana in to it. Your opponent is given three choices: discard a card, sacrifice a nonland permanent, or lose 3 life. When evaluating cards like this, assume your opponent will always choose the least detrimental option.
Torment of scarabs and hailfire look promising. Curve one into the other (with X=3) would be very punishing. The curse, in multiples, is just scary.
PS: "Repeat the following X times" pretty much 100% means X=0, you do it 0 times. At the very least, if you had a free one, the repeat clause would come *last*. That's how it was worded in previous instance where you had free instances. Look at the strive mechanic.
I don't think the power level is broken if when x=0 the effect is done one time. It's still just "opponent chooses to pay 3 life or sacrifices any permanent" which is a weaker Cruel Edict for BB. This makes the scaling effect make sense (gets better with more mana, but weaker at is lowest setting) - so its not a power level thing. It's just seriously worded in the most confusing way possible.
I would put serious money on X=0 being 0 effect. They're clearly meaning "iterate" when they're saying "repeat"; people are getting hung up on the implication that you can't repeat something that you haven't done already. That same logic would lead to the conclusion that you can't Unsummon a creature put into play by Collected Company -- how can I return something to your hand that was never in your hand in the first place? But we all know the answer to that one.
I would put serious money on X=0 being 0 effect. They're clearly meaning "iterate" when they're saying "repeat"; people are getting hung up on the implication that you can't repeat something that you haven't done already. That same logic would lead to the conclusion that you can't Unsummon a creature put into play by Collected Company -- how can I return something to your hand that was never in your hand in the first place? But we all know the answer to that one.
If it was clear, this discussion wouldn't be taking place. Also once a permanent is on the battlefield, it has no memory of any previous states, so the Unsummon argument doesn't really apply here, although I see your point.
C'mon guys, basic English. Repeat means do something again. If the spell is cast for 0, you REPEAT the process 0 times. You ALWAYS do the action the first time.
C'mon guys, basic English. Repeat means do something again. If the spell is cast for 0, you REPEAT the process 0 times. You ALWAYS do the action the first time.
"C'mon guys, basic English. Return means put something back where it was. If the creature was never in a hand, you can't RETURN it to a hand."
Magic terminology doesn't always match exact English usage in edge cases.
EDIT: An open question: If you were writing a card that worked like I am claiming this card works (X=0 means 0 iterations), how would it be worded other than how this card is worded?
C'mon guys, basic English. Repeat means do something again. If the spell is cast for 0, you REPEAT the process 0 times. You ALWAYS do the action the first time.
"C'mon guys, basic English. Return means put something back where it was. If the creature was never in a hand, you can't RETURN it to a hand."
Magic terminology doesn't always match exact English usage in edge cases.
EDIT: An open question: If you were writing a card that worked like I am claiming this card works (X=0 means 0 iterations), how would it be worded other than how this card is worded?
"C'mon guys, basic English. Return means put something back where it was. If the creature was never in a hand, you can't RETURN it to a hand."
Magic terminology doesn't always match exact English usage in edge cases.
EDIT: An open question: If you were writing a card that worked like I am claiming this card works (X=0 means 0 iterations), how would it be worded other than how this card is worded?
X can't be zero.
But that doesn't solve the confusion of whether X=1 is one or two iterations.
It looks like Melissa DeTora confirmed on Twitter that X = 1 is one iteration. I admit I assumed X = 0 would give you one iteration, since I figured the current wording was functionally identical to, "Each opponent loses 3 life unless that player sacrifices a nonland permanent or discards a card. Repeat this process X times." (EDIT: I would have worded this as "Perform the following process X times")
Torment of Hailfire: Do the thing X times. Not X+1.
C'mon guys, basic English. Repeat means do something again. If the spell is cast for 0, you REPEAT the process 0 times. You ALWAYS do the action the first time.
This card really is formatted in defiance of basic English. You are correct, repeat means do something again, which means the repeat clause should be AFTER the action being repeated (ie Ad Nauseam), which would then create X+1 instances of the action. "Perform" would have been a better choice if the action is taken X times.
X will equal 10, which means some mixture of 10 sacrifices and/or discarding and/or life loss. which means if your opponent tries to tank the brunt of it with their hand while trying to preserve their board they will feed into Waste Not which allows for tokens/mana/card draw. Which then puts them in a bind of if they actually want me to draw cards, get more mana and/or assemble some blockers. Worst case scenario they choose to lose 30 life in order to preserve their hands and board states.
Torment of Scarabs is another curse? Yay! Hopefully there is more curses so I can finally make that five colored deck filled with curses and enchantment support.
Torment of Venom seems alright as a removal spell, best case scenario it makes them lose two creatures. Worst case scenario it makes them lose 3 life in addition to the -1/-1 counters on one of their creatures.
Farm // Market is alright although I don't see the synergy for it.
C'mon guys, basic English. Repeat means do something again. If the spell is cast for 0, you REPEAT the process 0 times. You ALWAYS do the action the first time.
This card really is formatted in defiance of basic English. You are correct, repeat means do something again, which means the repeat clause should be AFTER the action being repeated (ie Ad Nauseum), which would then create X+1 instances of the action. "Perform" would have been a better choice if the action is taken X times.
Agreed. The word choice of "Repeat" was a bad choice. Even something like "Do the following X times:" would have been easier to understand.
The biggest reason not to believe that BB will give you one instance of this effect is that if it did, they could just use the old pattern and it would fit perfectly.
Because of the latter, I think you have to pay at least 1BB to get one instance of this effect, as they've never had a repeated process scale with mana before using an X...
My thoughts too. I just tweeted to Melissa De Tora and Maro, and hoping for an answer......
PS: "Repeat the following X times" pretty much 100% means X=0, you do it 0 times. At the very least, if you had a free one, the repeat clause would come *last*. That's how it was worded in previous instance where you had free instances. Look at the strive mechanic.
PPS: better example: ad nauseam, countryside crusher, firemind's foresight, forbidden ritual ...
I don't think the power level is broken if when x=0 the effect is done one time. It's still just "opponent chooses to pay 3 life or sacrifices any permanent" which is a weaker Cruel Edict for BB. This makes the scaling effect make sense (gets better with more mana, but weaker at is lowest setting) - so its not a power level thing. It's just seriously worded in the most confusing way possible.
Custom Set
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hu9uNBSUt92PwGhvexYlwFvsh6_SJBlEEIUV3H9_XyU/edit?usp=sharing
If it was clear, this discussion wouldn't be taking place. Also once a permanent is on the battlefield, it has no memory of any previous states, so the Unsummon argument doesn't really apply here, although I see your point.
The Deep Ones
Cyborg Huey's Bosh, Iron Golem Deck
Cyborg Huey's Rosheen Meander Deck
BUGThe Dunwich Horror and Other Lovecraftian TalesBUG
"C'mon guys, basic English. Return means put something back where it was. If the creature was never in a hand, you can't RETURN it to a hand."
Magic terminology doesn't always match exact English usage in edge cases.
EDIT: An open question: If you were writing a card that worked like I am claiming this card works (X=0 means 0 iterations), how would it be worded other than how this card is worded?
X can't be zero.
The Deep Ones
Cyborg Huey's Bosh, Iron Golem Deck
Cyborg Huey's Rosheen Meander Deck
BUGThe Dunwich Horror and Other Lovecraftian TalesBUG
But that doesn't solve the confusion of whether X=1 is one or two iterations.
Link: https://twitter.com/MelissaDeTora/status/878283951437078528
Yes, something like it for sure. Love that card, even if it will cost me in time and money to find out its jank.
Spirits
"Perform the following process X times."
Or as a keyword.
"Torment each opponent X times."
It's a 3 card vertical cycle. It does not deserve a keyword.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
According to the article, it was a keyword, but it sucked having to do this over and over during the course of a game, so they dialed it back.
X will equal 10, which means some mixture of 10 sacrifices and/or discarding and/or life loss. which means if your opponent tries to tank the brunt of it with their hand while trying to preserve their board they will feed into Waste Not which allows for tokens/mana/card draw. Which then puts them in a bind of if they actually want me to draw cards, get more mana and/or assemble some blockers. Worst case scenario they choose to lose 30 life in order to preserve their hands and board states.
Hailfire Torment seems like a great card to me.
Torment of Scarabs is another curse? Yay! Hopefully there is more curses so I can finally make that five colored deck filled with curses and enchantment support.
Torment of Venom seems alright as a removal spell, best case scenario it makes them lose two creatures. Worst case scenario it makes them lose 3 life in addition to the -1/-1 counters on one of their creatures.
Farm // Market is alright although I don't see the synergy for it.
Struggle // Survive has some potential as removal and tomb management.
Agreed. The word choice of "Repeat" was a bad choice. Even something like "Do the following X times:" would have been easier to understand.
Psssh, Torment of Hailfire is nice though.