This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Cranial Insertion: Two Numbered Polyhedrons. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
No. Oblivion Ring, while it's a spell on the stack, doesn't have a target. That makes Hindering Light useless against it. The triggered ability that does the heavy lifting does target, so shroud will stop that from working.
Re: Forge Tender vs Seismic Assault and Swans... presumably this attempt to stop the combo will often be even less effective than you make it sound since further Seismic Assault activations could be carried out with the Forge Tender ability still on the stack if the opponent already had one or more additional lands in hand?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
Is the Bond of Agony ruling really accurate? You can choose any value you want for X, as long as you have enough life, and auto-kill any opponent with less life than you?
If so, that's absolutely vicious.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If God spoke to you, and commanded you to kill your own children, would you do it?
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
The X life cost is actually an additional cost, something which Cascade didn't prevent you to pay. So yes, you can choose a number for X, and wins outright.
I'm still confused though, doesn't the x payment of life have to match the x payment in the spell? Since that payment is assumed to be 0 how can you pay more life? Or could I normally play it for 1 as x but pay like 10 life?
The X life cost is actually an additional cost, something which Cascade didn't prevent you to pay. So yes, you can choose a number for X, and wins outright.
This is incorrect.
X is both part of the additional cost of the spell and part of the mana cost of the spell. The fact that the mana cost of Bond of Agony is being "covered" by the cascade trigger, means that the only legal choice for X is 0. You can't choose any other number.
Glossary: "X" If you’re playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn’t apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 409, “Playing Spells and Activated Abilities.”
The rule may not read "cleanly" to some, but that is what it means. Even if you still have to pay the additional cost, the fact that the mana cost is being paid for means that you can't choose any value other than 0.
First thing to remember that Cascade is an alternative to play a spell, so it still follows the golden rule of playing a spell, aka rule 409.1a-h.
Quote from CompRules »
409.1b If the spell or ability is modal (uses the phrase “Choose one —,” “Choose two —,” “Choose one or both —,” or “[specified player] chooses one —”), the player announces the mode choice. If the player wishes to splice any cards onto the spell (see rule 502.40), he or she reveals those cards in his or her hand. If the spell or ability has a variable cost that will be paid as it’s being played (such as an {X} in its mana cost), the player announces the value of that variable at this time. If the spell or ability has alternative, additional, or other special costs that will be paid as it’s being played (such as buyback, kicker, or convoke costs), the player announces his or her intentions to pay any or all of those costs (see rule 409.1f). You can’t apply two alternative methods of playing or two alternative costs to a single spell or ability. If a cost that will be paid as the spell or ability is being played includes hybrid mana symbols, the player announces the nonhybrid equivalent cost he or she intends to pay. Previously made choices (such as choosing to play a spell with flashback from his or her graveyard or choosing to play a creature with morph face down) may restrict the player’s options when making these choices.
So you announce the value of X first. And then follows the rest of the rules, until...
Quote from CompRules »
409.1f The player determines the total cost of the spell or ability. Usually this is just the mana cost (for spells) or activation cost (for abilities). Some cards list additional or alternative costs in their text. Some effects may increase or reduce the cost to pay, or may provide other alternative costs. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. The total cost is the mana cost, activation cost, or alternative cost (as determined in rule 409.1b), plus all additional costs and cost increases, and minus all cost reductions. If the mana component of the total cost is reduced to nothing by cost reduction effects, it is considered to be {0}. It can’t be reduced to less than {0}. Once the total cost is determined, it becomes “locked in.” If effects would change the total cost after this time, they have no effect.
Cascade lets you play a spell without playing its mana cost, however you still need to pay X life to play it as the additional cost. That's how it works.
And BTW, you can't choose a value where you life will become 0 or lower. It's illegal.
Quote from CompRules »
215.4. If a cost or effect allows a player to pay an amount of life greater than 0, the player may do so only if his or her life total is equal to or greater than the amount of the payment. If a player pays life, the payment is subtracted from his or her life total. (Players can always pay 0 life.)
So you announce the value of X first. And then follows the rest of the rules, until...
The only legal choice for X, when the mana cost of the spell is being paid for by an effect and the mana cost includes X, is 0. That a cost including X is being paid for means you can't choose any other value, even if there is an additional cost that includes X (because the choice of X applies to all costs of the spell).
The only legal choice for X, when the mana cost of the spell is being paid for by an effect and the mana cost includes X, is 0. That a cost including X is being paid for means you can't choose any other value, even if there is an additional cost that includes X (because the choice of X applies to all costs of the spell).
In short, this doesn't work.
This agrees with my reading of the relevant rules as well, although I am obviously not a judge.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If God spoke to you, and commanded you to kill your own children, would you do it?
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
Yes, the article is incorrect. If Bond of Agony had, instead, a mana cost of 1B and an additional cost of "Pay X life." it'd be a different story. Because cascade wouldn't be "paying" for any cost that included X; it's only "paying" for the mana cost of the spell, not the additional cost.
Cascade (When you play this spell, remove cards from the top of your library from the game until you remove a nonland card that costs less. You may play it without paying its mana cost. Put the removed cards on the bottom in a random order.)
A spell only needs to have a CC that's less than that of the Cascade spell while you're revealing cards from your library to qualify to be played off the Cascade. Cascade doesn't have any requirements for the spell's CC for actually playing the spell. Therefore you can choose whatever value you want for X for Bond of Agony, because unlike most X-spells, it has text that defines X in addition to its mana cost that you can use to set the value for X when you play it. That value will match the value of X in the mana cost, but Cascade says you don't need to pay the spell's mana cost. So the article is correct.
Cascade (When you play this spell, remove cards from the top of your library from the game until you remove a nonland card that costs less. You may play it without paying its mana cost. Put the removed cards on the bottom in a random order.)
A spell only needs to have a CC that's less than that of the Cascade spell while you're revealing cards from your library to qualify to be played off the Cascade. Cascade doesn't have any requirements for the spell's CC for actually playing the spell. Therefore you can choose whatever value you want for X for Bond of Agony, ...
Except, the rules say you can't choose any value except 0 in this case.
I mean, I get that the additional cost is not subject to that rule because it's not a mana cost, but you have to announce the value of X you intend to use upon playing the spell, and the rules are pretty clear that when you do that, you can't choose any value except 0.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If God spoke to you, and commanded you to kill your own children, would you do it?
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
Therefore you can choose whatever value you want for X for Bond of Agony, because unlike most X-spells, it has text that defines X in addition to its mana cost that you can use to set the value for X when you play it. So the article is correct.
No, it isn't. The fact that the mana cost is being paid for means that you can't choose any value other than 0 for X. That is entirely what the section of the Glossary entry for "X" I quote means. I'm sorry, but the author made a mistake.
In fact, this interaction is the same as playing a copy of Skeletal Scrying via Isochron Scepter's activated ability. The rules haven't changed in that respect since Jeff Jordan posted the following on the MTG-L listserv...
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:55:14 -0500
Reply-To: "Magic: The Gathering Discussion" <MTG-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sender: "Magic: The Gathering Discussion" <MTG-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
From: Jeff Jordan
Subject: [O] Digest Reply #2005-19
> I have a Skeletal Scrying imprinted on an Isochron Scepter. I play the
> ability of the Scepter and when it resolves, I play the copy of the
> Skeletal Scrying. Must I choose X=0?
Yes.
> My initial thought was: "Of course you must choose X=0", but then
> someone showed me to the following sentence in the rules: "If you're
> playing a spell that has X in its mana cost and an effect lets you
> play it without paying any cost that includes X, the only legal
> choice for X is 0."
That sentence is worded poorly, and I'm trying to get it clarified.
What it is supposed to mean is that if the spell or ability has a
cost (any kind of cost) with an X, some effect lets you play it
using an alternative for that cost, and the alternative does not
include the X (playing a spell "without paying its mana cost" is
an alternative cost of nothing), then you must choose X=0. That
way, alternative costs like the new Shoals are allowed to use X,
but alternative costs like Isochron Scepter and Fist of Suns are
not.
> Now perhaps it is my grasp of English that is failing, but it seems
> to me that this sentence is indeed saying that as long as I pay at
> least one cost with an X in it, I don't have to pick X=0.
No, it means that if there is a cost that includes X, you must
either account for the X in that cost when paying for the spell
or ability, or choose X=0. What isn't clear is that "account for
the X in that cost" can include paying an alternate cost for it
that has the same X.
As I said, the Glossary entry isn't entirely clear, which is why it can be difficult to understand and misleading if read wrong. But, in the situation in the article, 0 is the only legal choice for X.
I agree with epeeguy...
Since the X variable in the cost of Bond of Agony is set at 0, you must pay 0 life.
Therefore, you are casting it for an effect of 0 life-loss to everyone.
What the article is saying goes against the rules.
Otherwise, what would prevent you from paying 0+B and paying 19 life to seriously hurt your opponent and yourself.
The X in the card text must match the X you paid for the cost. Those 2 variables are linked. X equals X.
Currently playing: GRB Kobold Combo (Legacy/1.5) WBR That Bloody Rack! (Extended) R (Pseudo GB) Goblinesque Aggro/Midrange (Standard) UArcanis the Omnipotent (EDH) WUBRGKarona, False God + Slivers (EDH)
"...3 or 4 life isn't that huge of a deal, so who cares if you lose it? Only the last point of life matters, the other 19 are unimportant in the grand scheme..."
X is both part of the additional cost of the spell and part of the mana cost of the spell. The fact that the mana cost of Bond of Agony is being "covered" by the cascade trigger, means that the only legal choice for X is 0. You can't choose any other number.
Glossary: "X" If you’re playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn’t apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 409, “Playing Spells and Activated Abilities.”
The rule may not read "cleanly" to some, but that is what it means. Even if you still have to pay the additional cost, the fact that the mana cost is being paid for means that you can't choose any value other than 0.
You are misreading the rule. The rule means exactly what Aaron said: since you're paying a cost with X, you can choose X. Note that this rule was updated and clarified since JeffJo's email in order to work with Conflagrate.
Otherwise, what would prevent you from paying 0+B and paying 19 life to seriously hurt your opponent and yourself.
If you pay the mana cost, you must pay X mana and X life. If you're not paying the mana cost, you pay X life.
To preempt what I know is coming: No, this does not work correctly on MTGO. "But it doesn't work that way on MTGO" is also not a valid rules argument.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO "I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
You are misreading the rule. The rule means exactly what Aaron said: since you're paying a cost with X, you can choose X. Note that this rule was updated and clarified since JeffJo's email in order to work with Conflagrate.
Except that Conflagrate's alternative cost for flashback includes X as part of the cost. Because that cost includes X, you can choose a value for X. The alternative cost of cascade doesn't include X as part of the cost. Which is exactly the same as the Ischron Scepter/Skeletal Scrying interaction I cited earlier. I realize the rule may have been clarified, but as I said, it hasn't changed in that respect.
The only legal choice for X when playing the spell via the cascade triggered ability, therefore, can only be 0.
So? There is a cost with X being paid. That's all that matters. The rule says that you can only invoke the "must be 0" if no cost is being paid, not if any one cost is being ignored.
You are incorrect for now, though this could of course change with the M10 update if R&D is significantly unhappy with this functionality. If you ask on the MTGRules list, Gavin may be able to find out and publicize whether or not this is to be changed.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO "I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
So? There is a cost with X being paid. That's all that matters. The rule says that you can only invoke the "must be 0" if no cost is being paid, not if any one cost is being ignored.
It's true that a strictly literal interpretation of the rule would seem to mean this, but the ruling Epeeguy cited seems to pretty clearly contradict this interpretation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If God spoke to you, and commanded you to kill your own children, would you do it?
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
It's true that a strictly literal interpretation of the rule would seem to mean this, but the ruling Epeeguy cited seems to pretty clearly contradict this interpretation.
What epeeguy cited is four years old and the rules were changed since then.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO "I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
Fascinating, it's not often that two of our most experienced and renowned judges on Salvation disagree on a rules issue ! I myself cannot be sure, but it does seem from his post that Woapalanne is right, and that the combo does work.
If so, it'll have to be clarified on as many relevant places as possible, and it'll have to be fixed on MTGO very soon, because this could become a powerful extended combo deck. I'm not sure if it would be actually better than the Hypergenesis one, but it's still a distinct possibility, that players should be able to know if it works or not and that they should have the right to test on MTGO if it does.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
If so, that's absolutely vicious.
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
This is incorrect.
X is both part of the additional cost of the spell and part of the mana cost of the spell. The fact that the mana cost of Bond of Agony is being "covered" by the cascade trigger, means that the only legal choice for X is 0. You can't choose any other number.
Glossary: "X"
If you’re playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn’t apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 409, “Playing Spells and Activated Abilities.”
The rule may not read "cleanly" to some, but that is what it means. Even if you still have to pay the additional cost, the fact that the mana cost is being paid for means that you can't choose any value other than 0.
First thing to remember that Cascade is an alternative to play a spell, so it still follows the golden rule of playing a spell, aka rule 409.1a-h.
So you announce the value of X first. And then follows the rest of the rules, until...
Cascade lets you play a spell without playing its mana cost, however you still need to pay X life to play it as the additional cost. That's how it works.
And BTW, you can't choose a value where you life will become 0 or lower. It's illegal.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
The only legal choice for X, when the mana cost of the spell is being paid for by an effect and the mana cost includes X, is 0. That a cost including X is being paid for means you can't choose any other value, even if there is an additional cost that includes X (because the choice of X applies to all costs of the spell).
In short, this doesn't work.
This agrees with my reading of the relevant rules as well, although I am obviously not a judge.
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
Now I'm a confuse guy.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Yes, the article is incorrect. If Bond of Agony had, instead, a mana cost of 1B and an additional cost of "Pay X life." it'd be a different story. Because cascade wouldn't be "paying" for any cost that included X; it's only "paying" for the mana cost of the spell, not the additional cost.
A spell only needs to have a CC that's less than that of the Cascade spell while you're revealing cards from your library to qualify to be played off the Cascade. Cascade doesn't have any requirements for the spell's CC for actually playing the spell. Therefore you can choose whatever value you want for X for Bond of Agony, because unlike most X-spells, it has text that defines X in addition to its mana cost that you can use to set the value for X when you play it. That value will match the value of X in the mana cost, but Cascade says you don't need to pay the spell's mana cost. So the article is correct.
Except, the rules say you can't choose any value except 0 in this case.
I mean, I get that the additional cost is not subject to that rule because it's not a mana cost, but you have to announce the value of X you intend to use upon playing the spell, and the rules are pretty clear that when you do that, you can't choose any value except 0.
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
No, it isn't. The fact that the mana cost is being paid for means that you can't choose any value other than 0 for X. That is entirely what the section of the Glossary entry for "X" I quote means. I'm sorry, but the author made a mistake.
In fact, this interaction is the same as playing a copy of Skeletal Scrying via Isochron Scepter's activated ability. The rules haven't changed in that respect since Jeff Jordan posted the following on the MTG-L listserv...
As I said, the Glossary entry isn't entirely clear, which is why it can be difficult to understand and misleading if read wrong. But, in the situation in the article, 0 is the only legal choice for X.
Since the X variable in the cost of Bond of Agony is set at 0, you must pay 0 life.
Therefore, you are casting it for an effect of 0 life-loss to everyone.
What the article is saying goes against the rules.
Otherwise, what would prevent you from paying 0+B and paying 19 life to seriously hurt your opponent and yourself.
The X in the card text must match the X you paid for the cost. Those 2 variables are linked. X equals X.
Thanks to Le_Gambit at Aether's Sig Shop even you can look cool!
Currently playing:
GRB Kobold Combo (Legacy/1.5)
WBR That Bloody Rack! (Extended)
R (Pseudo GB) Goblinesque Aggro/Midrange (Standard)
U Arcanis the Omnipotent (EDH)
WUBRG Karona, False God + Slivers (EDH)
"...3 or 4 life isn't that huge of a deal, so who cares if you lose it? Only the last point of life matters, the other 19 are unimportant in the grand scheme..."
You are misreading the rule. The rule means exactly what Aaron said: since you're paying a cost with X, you can choose X. Note that this rule was updated and clarified since JeffJo's email in order to work with Conflagrate.
If you pay the mana cost, you must pay X mana and X life. If you're not paying the mana cost, you pay X life.
To preempt what I know is coming: No, this does not work correctly on MTGO. "But it doesn't work that way on MTGO" is also not a valid rules argument.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO
"I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
Except that Conflagrate's alternative cost for flashback includes X as part of the cost. Because that cost includes X, you can choose a value for X. The alternative cost of cascade doesn't include X as part of the cost. Which is exactly the same as the Ischron Scepter/Skeletal Scrying interaction I cited earlier. I realize the rule may have been clarified, but as I said, it hasn't changed in that respect.
The only legal choice for X when playing the spell via the cascade triggered ability, therefore, can only be 0.
You are incorrect for now, though this could of course change with the M10 update if R&D is significantly unhappy with this functionality. If you ask on the MTGRules list, Gavin may be able to find out and publicize whether or not this is to be changed.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO
"I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
More than happy to ask for an [O]fficial answer on this.
It's true that a strictly literal interpretation of the rule would seem to mean this, but the ruling Epeeguy cited seems to pretty clearly contradict this interpretation.
If your answer is "No," then your morality does not come from God's commandments.
If your answer is "Yes," then please, please reconsider.
What epeeguy cited is four years old and the rules were changed since then.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO
"I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
If so, it'll have to be clarified on as many relevant places as possible, and it'll have to be fixed on MTGO very soon, because this could become a powerful extended combo deck. I'm not sure if it would be actually better than the Hypergenesis one, but it's still a distinct possibility, that players should be able to know if it works or not and that they should have the right to test on MTGO if it does.