this is an excellent discussion.
i think, for this week atleast, we'll stick with land rule. there really is a lot of strategies that deal with lands. i do like the emblem, and i'll most certainly use the emblem at some later time, but not yet.
as for formalizing the rules, ive updated the first post.
the gist is the same as my original rules, but made more "formal".
i was trying to make it less formal, but since not everyone likes that i went with a more restrictive format to cover my bases. hopefully i did good.
i kept the lands having shroud so we can still play vindicate or whatever, but the new rule does ban crack the earth, et al.
and i agree that i shouldnt have to make judgment calls in receiving decks. i dont want to go power hungry. so if you can break the format rules, i should have made better rules.
i will also agree that randomization is no fun. and ill head over to the format thread now.
one last thing:
hey, i break formats sometimes
just not when im moderating...
Cool, thanks! The only issue I see is a very silly one - I presume that "mana pools cannot be emptied" was not intended to preclude spending all your mana to cast a spell, or having your pool empty as steps and phases end
EDIT: Oh, those rules don't "ban" Crack the Earth. They actually potentially make it better, I'm pretty sure. Since lands can't change zones, you can't choose them to sacrifice, so you'll have to sacrifice something else.
Cool, thanks! The only issue I see is a very silly one - I presume that "mana pools cannot be emptied" was not intended to preclude spending all your mana to cast a spell, or having your pool empty as steps and phases end
oh. shoot.
ill get rid of that and change the wording from "produce" to "spend" on what you cant do.
that will also get rid of upwelling, but that seems fine to me.
Oh, I don't think that's necessary - you could just update it to the second ability on the emblem I proposed - "If an effect with a source other than a basic land he or she controls would change the amount of mana in a player's mana pool, instead it doesn't."
players may not submit a deck that can, under any circumstances, spend more mana in a turn cycle than the number of turns started or prevent an opponent from being able to spend that amount.
I see a few problems with this rule:
1. "Turn cycle" is undefined. If I take an additional turn due to an effect, am I still within the same turn cycle?
2. It's not clear to me whether to understand "number of turns started" as the number of turns that player has started or the total number of turns that both players have started.
3. It's not clear to me what counts as preventing an opponent from spending mana. Is Pithing Needle banned because it prevents my opponent from spending mana on an activated ability?
4. "Under any circumstances" could be problematic because it means you have to account for an opponent's actions. Is Mox Opal banned because an opponent could Donate an artifact?
2. It's not clear to me whether to understand "number of turns started" as the number of turns that player has started or the total number of turns that both players have started.
clarified. its number of turns started by that player.
3. It's not clear to me what counts as preventing an opponent from spending mana. Is Pithing Needle banned because it prevents my opponent from spending mana on an activated ability?
no. pithing needle is definitely ok. i think ill go back to the "produce" wording.
4. "Under any circumstances" could be problematic because it means you have to account for an opponent's actions. Is Mox Opal banned because an opponent could Donate an artifact?
mox opal would definitely be banned. theres plenty of situations in which it could produce more mana.
if any card has a mana ability, you cannot submit it.
even mistveil plains would be illegal, despite the basic land rule, because what if your opponent played eureka.
The problem with "Any circumstances" (just for reference, I'm not suggesting changing the rules again) is that it leaves the door open for really complex proofs of why some weird card is or isn't illegal, based on the entire set of existing magic cards that might be in the opponent's deck, which is not really something we want to make people think about.
Under these rules, Tangle Wire would seem to be legal, as it does not change the amount of mana you can produce - just when you can produce it. Or is it illegal because it prevents your opponent from producing n mana if they decline to do so before the ability resolves? Wouldn't that also make Sundial of the Infinite illegal?
Except maybe artifacts are illegal anyway because your opponent might somehow give you a Tolarian Academy? Or is that not a concern because Tolarian Academy is illegal, since your opponent might play Eureka and then turn your other permanent into an artifact (since lands can't change type)? But if you play Academy with no way of generating another permanent, I'm pretty sure there is no way for your opponent to give you an extra land drop and an artifact. Though I could be wrong. So, is Tolarian Academy / Tendrils of Corruption a legal deck? If not, what set of circumstances allow it to produce extra mana?
I think a simple wording could fix the problems:
If your deck has a line of play against any deck whereby you can produce more than N mana in the Nth turn cycle, assuming your opponent plays to prevent you from doing that, your deck is illegal.
If your deck has a line of play against any deck that prevents your opponent from having access to N mana of any color combination of their choice at any time they have priority in the Nth turn cycle (or N-1 before their first main phase), your deck is illegal.
This would leave a few "loopholes", like allowing Flooded Woodlands and mana denial that is depending on your opponent playing a spell or something, but I think it captures the intent and isn't broken.
I can't sacrifice lands to pay additional costs this week, correct? Akki Avalanchers doesn't do much?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some facts of magic:
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
you can sacrifice lands. thats the opposite of accelerating
you just cant make opponents sacrifice them.
edit: though remember you cant target your lands. theyve got shroud, not hexproof.
But lands can't change zones? How does that work?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some facts of magic:
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
oh i see the problem now. in my head, its still my intended "rule" and not any actual rules.
you should be able to sacrifice lands. ill add in "against a players will" at the end of that rule.
oh i see the problem now. in my head, its still my intended "rule" and not any actual rules.
you should be able to sacrifice lands. ill add in "against a players will" at the end of that rule.
Ok, thanks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some facts of magic:
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
While I appreciate the detail going into this format, I have to ask, quick show of hands--has anyone submitted a deck that's in any way affected by the subtle differences between these versions of the rules?
I almost submitted a deck that involved sacrificing lands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some facts of magic:
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
i think, for this week atleast, we'll stick with land rule. there really is a lot of strategies that deal with lands. i do like the emblem, and i'll most certainly use the emblem at some later time, but not yet.
as for formalizing the rules, ive updated the first post.
the gist is the same as my original rules, but made more "formal".
i was trying to make it less formal, but since not everyone likes that i went with a more restrictive format to cover my bases. hopefully i did good.
i kept the lands having shroud so we can still play vindicate or whatever, but the new rule does ban crack the earth, et al.
and i agree that i shouldnt have to make judgment calls in receiving decks. i dont want to go power hungry. so if you can break the format rules, i should have made better rules.
i will also agree that randomization is no fun. and ill head over to the format thread now.
one last thing:
hey, i break formats sometimes
just not when im moderating...
EDIT: Oh, those rules don't "ban" Crack the Earth. They actually potentially make it better, I'm pretty sure. Since lands can't change zones, you can't choose them to sacrifice, so you'll have to sacrifice something else.
oh. shoot.
ill get rid of that and change the wording from "produce" to "spend" on what you cant do.
that will also get rid of upwelling, but that seems fine to me.
I see a few problems with this rule:
1. "Turn cycle" is undefined. If I take an additional turn due to an effect, am I still within the same turn cycle?
2. It's not clear to me whether to understand "number of turns started" as the number of turns that player has started or the total number of turns that both players have started.
3. It's not clear to me what counts as preventing an opponent from spending mana. Is Pithing Needle banned because it prevents my opponent from spending mana on an activated ability?
4. "Under any circumstances" could be problematic because it means you have to account for an opponent's actions. Is Mox Opal banned because an opponent could Donate an artifact?
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
lets define turn cycle as from the beginning of your turn until the beginning of you next turn
clarified. its number of turns started by that player.
no. pithing needle is definitely ok. i think ill go back to the "produce" wording.
mox opal would definitely be banned. theres plenty of situations in which it could produce more mana.
if any card has a mana ability, you cannot submit it.
even mistveil plains would be illegal, despite the basic land rule, because what if your opponent played eureka.
any circumstances means any circumstances.
updated first post.
Except maybe artifacts are illegal anyway because your opponent might somehow give you a Tolarian Academy? Or is that not a concern because Tolarian Academy is illegal, since your opponent might play Eureka and then turn your other permanent into an artifact (since lands can't change type)? But if you play Academy with no way of generating another permanent, I'm pretty sure there is no way for your opponent to give you an extra land drop and an artifact. Though I could be wrong. So, is Tolarian Academy / Tendrils of Corruption a legal deck? If not, what set of circumstances allow it to produce extra mana?
I think a simple wording could fix the problems:
If your deck has a line of play against any deck whereby you can produce more than N mana in the Nth turn cycle, assuming your opponent plays to prevent you from doing that, your deck is illegal.
If your deck has a line of play against any deck that prevents your opponent from having access to N mana of any color combination of their choice at any time they have priority in the Nth turn cycle (or N-1 before their first main phase), your deck is illegal.
This would leave a few "loopholes", like allowing Flooded Woodlands and mana denial that is depending on your opponent playing a spell or something, but I think it captures the intent and isn't broken.
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
More facts of magic
you can sacrifice lands. thats the opposite of accelerating
you just cant make opponents sacrifice them.
edit: though remember you cant target your lands. theyve got shroud, not hexproof.
But lands can't change zones? How does that work?
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
More facts of magic
oh i see the problem now. in my head, its still my intended "rule" and not any actual rules.
you should be able to sacrifice lands. ill add in "against a players will" at the end of that rule.
Ok, thanks.
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
More facts of magic
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
More facts of magic