But... well... it won't.
I highly doubt this have a chance to be costed below 3 mana.
I was actually just thinking this. This card would be so much fun with whispering madness and anything that could get through that turn. If you're playing a more control oriented build with hand a hand sitting around 3-5, that's a lot of tokens or draw or ramp. Whispering madness is really the only card that's screaming out to me when I think of this card(and any other cards with similar wheel effects), but I'm sure some fun could be found for it other places. I guess it will really depend on the cost.
The impersonators including Thragtusk are ALL gone in a few months. We are left with Exava, lol.
We haven't seen ETB/haste bombs (alternatives to bombs like Kalonian Hydra) in FOUR SETS. What in the world makes so many think they'll still be here (and thus printed for the first time in over FOUR SETS) when Theros comes around?
I see blinders everywhere and more people complaining about a mythic exploding in the near future when it was so dang obvious how good the card is and they should have jumped on it in the ~$20 range.
Should have jumped on it when it was 3$ is more like it. I'm still rather upset I saw that price but had no money and then when I got paid the next day and checked again the price had more than tripled.
Okay, thank you very much. I thought that was correct but that scenario with my friends deck was making me question if it would work or not, since I couldn't remember the card or the wording on the card he was trying to use.
Edit questions related to this: If arcanist is equipped with Illusionist's Bracers, will the spell created with the bracers also trigger pyromancer and the like? I figure it would since you copy the ability, which copies the spell, and then you would cast the spell. Sounds like it would work, always like to make sure I'm right before I start testing stuff though.
Would playing the exiled spell with arcanist trigger these 3? I remember a similar situation with a friends deck that used copied spells and it didn't trigger them, but I can't remember what the card copying the spells was so I can't remember how the text was written. Now this crossed my mind and I can't remember if it works.
Arcanist wording:Copy the exiled card. You may cast the copy without paying its mana cost. X is the converted mana cost of the exiled card.
Young pyromancer and the others wording: Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell.
The wording leads me to believe arcanist would trigger them, but something's telling me I'm forgetting a rule. Any help is appreciated.
How does it not make sense. Read the ability fuse, if it still doesn't make sense then I just don't even know how to help ya.
It's not even a reference to fuse. It's a reference to how strionic resonator exiles 2 cards, makes you pay the full price of the 2 Cmcs combined, and then gives you a choice of casting none, 1 or both of the exiled spells.
Split cards don't give you that luxury but I feel that the new strionic resonator rule creates a grey area. If arcanist does a check of the exiled card it will find two characteristics and two Cmcs. With the new resonator rule arcanist would look at 2 separate cards exiled with arcanist+resonator much the same way it see a split card, 2 separate characteristics, 2 separate Cmcs, the sums are added together and you can copy/cast 0, one or both of the spells exiled with arcanist. If arcanist sees far//away separately, why would arcanist not let you copy both.
Okay, so basically, if I'm playing Isochron Scepter, Far//Away is :2mana:(of course), on Elite Arcanist is gonna cost :5mana:, and either way I'm only getting Far or Away, not both.
So, in short, you can imprint a split card(or if you somehow manage to get more than one instant imprinted) you can cast one, the other, or both spells, and = corresponding CMC for whatever combination you choose.
No. This is what they are saying it actually does is that if you have far//away exiled onto arcanist, X would be equal to both of the cards CMC combined. So in this instance X=5. You have to pay X=5, tap arcanist, copy the spell and even though you had to pay the sum of both halves, you only get to choose one half of the card to actually cast.
With strionic resonator exiling 2 cards, X is now equal to the sum of both cards. So lets just say silence and cancel. X=4(the sum of the CMC of both silence and cancel). In this case when you pay 4 you copy both spells and you can choose to cast none, one or both of the spells exiled this way.
I believe the difference is in how aggreates are use. For Elite, x is defined by the cmc of the card (so then it gets two answers it adds them - that is, the aggregate function is +). For mirror x is defined by the player. After having choosen x, the abillity is put on stack. After the abillity resolves, the player can then choose a sorcery with cmc x. Since split cards have two cmcs, if one match, then the card matches (that is, the agreagate function is or).
Yeah this seems to be the case in the matter. I've been digging through the comprehensive rules and individual card rules and it's just extremely confusing. Split cards have 2 characteristics(Noun: A feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify it.(so 2 different and separate properties that identify it)), and 2 Cmcs when anywhere other than the stack. So what this is saying is that it should look at each individual identity and I feel like this should mean arcanist looks at the card, say far//away, and see that the card has 2 identities, and 2 Cmcs so the answer to X should be 2 OR 3, but everything is saying it is X is equal to 2 AND 3. I believe it should be OR not AND since they are each considered to have their own features that identify the card and the player should have to choose the feature X refers to, but apparently they don't. I feel this further is complicated by the new rule created because of resonator listed above where exiling 2 spells causes you to add the Cmcs of the exiled cards to find X which then lets you cast none, one or both spells. Once again I don't agree with this either. 2 separate characteristics, 2 separate Cmcs, once again X should be equal to card A's cost OR card B's cost and the chosen identifier is the one that is copied, but it's not.
If they are making us pay X=to the sum of both characteristics why are we not casting none, one or both halves? Council of the absolute has errata saying that you name one half of a split card not both(this isn't even changed in the comprehensive rules yet and it's been quite sometime that this was changed) and his cost reduction effects the one half, and the can't be played part of absolute effects only the one half of the card(it doesn't view both halves of it as one card).
I guess it all comes down to interpretation of the rules WoTC has created, and I believe in this specific case X should equal A OR B, not A AND B, but obviously my interpretation isn't the one that matters. I honestly just give up on this. Whatever. A card that had the possibility to be very interesting, is now not nearly as interesting. Isochron scepter on the other hand will be extremely fun with the ruling on strionic resonator.
Jesus they just keep adding more vagueness to split cards with this. From the update; "If its enters-the-battlefield ability is copied, two instant cards may end up exiled. So, to activate its other ability, you need to determine the value of X. Let's say you exile cards with converted mana costs 2 and 5. So you pay {o2} and {o5} (otherwise known as {o7}), and you get to copy both cards. You can cast none, one, or both copies in either order. Sweet!"
This is in reference to strionic resonator and even though it is a different situation, I'm sure you can see the similarities. I understand the argument for paying the sum of a each half of split cards cmc, but I still don't like the interpretation of the rules referring to split cards, and I still feel it is contradictory. Especially in conjunction with the change to how split cards react with cost reduction. Looking through the rules I just keep feeling like I am in a loop of contradictory statements that refer to each other and also invalidate each other. The guy who wrote that statement above even said he had to create a new rule because of the interaction with strionic resonator. My head hurts.
Yes and that is exactly my problem with what the FAQ says. Everything I look at is saying even though it is one card, each half is looked at separately.
The reference to duskmantle seer and Bob mentioned before is irrelevant and a different situation and yes the CMC of each half is added up because you flip it and it is 2 spells, so of course you would add it up.
In this case though elite arcanist should come into the battlefield and then you exile a card, say far//away. In exile they are considered 2 separate cards with 2 separate effects. You should be able to pay 2 to cast far, or 3 to cast away. If this isn't the case you shouldn't be able to imprint far//away on scepter, but you can.
Yeah I want to ignore fuse for a minute. I really would like some immediate errata on this, because I truly feel the way the FAQ described it is incorrect. From that hunk of rules about split cards it says that a split card has 2 characteristics and 2 Cmcs every where other than the stack, so that would include exile. This should mean that either half should be able to be looked at to decide the CMC, not both and the added together. Whether or not you can cast both halves is a totally different topic and I don't believe it would work.
So wait what is the verdict here? If I exile with arcanist far//away, can I choose to cast far for X=2? I'm not trying to fuse anything here. The FAQ made it sound like you can not do that and that you would have to pay X=5 and only would get to choose half of the spell. That just doesn't seem right.
It was recently brought to my attention that in the M14 FAQ it states that in regard to split cards, X is equal to the sum of the CMCs of the split card. I feel this is contradictory to established and well known errata on isochron scepter and panatopic mirror.
In the case of Isochron scepter the errata states that only one half of the split card must meet the requirement of CMC 2 or less. This implies that each half is considered to have its own CMC independent from the other. If that wasn't the case then you would be unable to imprint the card into scepter since in all cases I can think of the CMC is higher than 2.
Panatopic Mirrior errata states that in the case of split cards, X is equal to the CMC of one half of the split card. Once again this implies that each sides CMC is considered independently.
In my opinion the FAQ should actually read, X is equal to the CMC of the half of the split card chosen, but maybe someone can tell me why arcanist would behave differently than the other two.
Edit: when this card was actually spoiled, the article spoiling it even stated it would behave the way I said, which just further adds to my confusion and makes me believe even more that it was a mistake in the FAQ.
I feel like the explanation in the FAQ kind of contradicts the errata on isochron scepter and panatopic mirror. They are all worded exactly the same when it comes to exiling a card. I don't understand why you can say the converted mana cost of a split card is equal to 2 as long as one side has a converted mana cost of 2 and you can exile a split card with panatopic mirror by paying the mana for only one half, but X for arcanist is the sum of both sides converted mana cost. Why is arcanist different? I feel like what the FAQ should say is that X is equal to whatever side of the split card you are casting.
I was actually just thinking this. This card would be so much fun with whispering madness and anything that could get through that turn. If you're playing a more control oriented build with hand a hand sitting around 3-5, that's a lot of tokens or draw or ramp. Whispering madness is really the only card that's screaming out to me when I think of this card(and any other cards with similar wheel effects), but I'm sure some fun could be found for it other places. I guess it will really depend on the cost.
Should have jumped on it when it was 3$ is more like it. I'm still rather upset I saw that price but had no money and then when I got paid the next day and checked again the price had more than tripled.
Edit questions related to this: If arcanist is equipped with Illusionist's Bracers, will the spell created with the bracers also trigger pyromancer and the like? I figure it would since you copy the ability, which copies the spell, and then you would cast the spell. Sounds like it would work, always like to make sure I'm right before I start testing stuff though.
Arcanist wording:Copy the exiled card. You may cast the copy without paying its mana cost. X is the converted mana cost of the exiled card.
Young pyromancer and the others wording: Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell.
The wording leads me to believe arcanist would trigger them, but something's telling me I'm forgetting a rule. Any help is appreciated.
It's not even a reference to fuse. It's a reference to how strionic resonator exiles 2 cards, makes you pay the full price of the 2 Cmcs combined, and then gives you a choice of casting none, 1 or both of the exiled spells.
Split cards don't give you that luxury but I feel that the new strionic resonator rule creates a grey area. If arcanist does a check of the exiled card it will find two characteristics and two Cmcs. With the new resonator rule arcanist would look at 2 separate cards exiled with arcanist+resonator much the same way it see a split card, 2 separate characteristics, 2 separate Cmcs, the sums are added together and you can copy/cast 0, one or both of the spells exiled with arcanist. If arcanist sees far//away separately, why would arcanist not let you copy both.
Correct. Sucks, don't it.
No. This is what they are saying it actually does is that if you have far//away exiled onto arcanist, X would be equal to both of the cards CMC combined. So in this instance X=5. You have to pay X=5, tap arcanist, copy the spell and even though you had to pay the sum of both halves, you only get to choose one half of the card to actually cast.
With strionic resonator exiling 2 cards, X is now equal to the sum of both cards. So lets just say silence and cancel. X=4(the sum of the CMC of both silence and cancel). In this case when you pay 4 you copy both spells and you can choose to cast none, one or both of the spells exiled this way.
I am quite dissapointed by this.
Yeah this seems to be the case in the matter. I've been digging through the comprehensive rules and individual card rules and it's just extremely confusing. Split cards have 2 characteristics(Noun: A feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify it.(so 2 different and separate properties that identify it)), and 2 Cmcs when anywhere other than the stack. So what this is saying is that it should look at each individual identity and I feel like this should mean arcanist looks at the card, say far//away, and see that the card has 2 identities, and 2 Cmcs so the answer to X should be 2 OR 3, but everything is saying it is X is equal to 2 AND 3. I believe it should be OR not AND since they are each considered to have their own features that identify the card and the player should have to choose the feature X refers to, but apparently they don't. I feel this further is complicated by the new rule created because of resonator listed above where exiling 2 spells causes you to add the Cmcs of the exiled cards to find X which then lets you cast none, one or both spells. Once again I don't agree with this either. 2 separate characteristics, 2 separate Cmcs, once again X should be equal to card A's cost OR card B's cost and the chosen identifier is the one that is copied, but it's not.
If they are making us pay X=to the sum of both characteristics why are we not casting none, one or both halves? Council of the absolute has errata saying that you name one half of a split card not both(this isn't even changed in the comprehensive rules yet and it's been quite sometime that this was changed) and his cost reduction effects the one half, and the can't be played part of absolute effects only the one half of the card(it doesn't view both halves of it as one card).
I guess it all comes down to interpretation of the rules WoTC has created, and I believe in this specific case X should equal A OR B, not A AND B, but obviously my interpretation isn't the one that matters. I honestly just give up on this. Whatever. A card that had the possibility to be very interesting, is now not nearly as interesting. Isochron scepter on the other hand will be extremely fun with the ruling on strionic resonator.
This is in reference to strionic resonator and even though it is a different situation, I'm sure you can see the similarities. I understand the argument for paying the sum of a each half of split cards cmc, but I still don't like the interpretation of the rules referring to split cards, and I still feel it is contradictory. Especially in conjunction with the change to how split cards react with cost reduction. Looking through the rules I just keep feeling like I am in a loop of contradictory statements that refer to each other and also invalidate each other. The guy who wrote that statement above even said he had to create a new rule because of the interaction with strionic resonator. My head hurts.
The reference to duskmantle seer and Bob mentioned before is irrelevant and a different situation and yes the CMC of each half is added up because you flip it and it is 2 spells, so of course you would add it up.
In this case though elite arcanist should come into the battlefield and then you exile a card, say far//away. In exile they are considered 2 separate cards with 2 separate effects. You should be able to pay 2 to cast far, or 3 to cast away. If this isn't the case you shouldn't be able to imprint far//away on scepter, but you can.
In the case of Isochron scepter the errata states that only one half of the split card must meet the requirement of CMC 2 or less. This implies that each half is considered to have its own CMC independent from the other. If that wasn't the case then you would be unable to imprint the card into scepter since in all cases I can think of the CMC is higher than 2.
Panatopic Mirrior errata states that in the case of split cards, X is equal to the CMC of one half of the split card. Once again this implies that each sides CMC is considered independently.
In my opinion the FAQ should actually read, X is equal to the CMC of the half of the split card chosen, but maybe someone can tell me why arcanist would behave differently than the other two.
Edit: when this card was actually spoiled, the article spoiling it even stated it would behave the way I said, which just further adds to my confusion and makes me believe even more that it was a mistake in the FAQ.
Article spoiling arcanist: http://www.gatheringmagic.com/andrew-wilson-magic-2014-spoiler07012013-welcoming-elite-arcanist/