Off the top of my head, running only one extra combat phases card seems like a mistake. There are more than a few setups that could see you drop most of your deck on the table by abusing multiple combats, then win.
The healthy design and interaction space for this concept is INCREDIBLY narrow, and otherwise it interacts in countless undesirable ways with existing cards. There's just not a lot of compelling gameplay to be derived from a mechanic like this.
I'm just marveling over how little hype Mirror-Mad Phantasm has gotten in this thread. It's gotten a mention or two, but the card is legitimately bonkers and can very quickly set up very ugly cages and wins. If you dump an Anger and, say, Gilded Lotus with the appropriate land on the field, you're good to go. Need your entire deck in the yard right this second? 1U, abuse the CZ, there it is.
What you're missing is that it lets EVERY player search up a basic, not just the person you wrenched. In an EDH pod, you're ramping everyone but yourself and the target.
Those new arts for the Kamigawa dragons are GORGEOUS. I love them, they feel much, much... bigger, more imposing than the old arts. Having landcscapes in background really adds a sense of grandeur here.
User's wording would actually result in something much more broken than that, Watchwolf: if you can make one opponent lose and have 20 life to pay, you just win. Regardless of any remaining opponents.
So, spoilers to tv shows or Movies are also good, right?
Because a bad conclusion can destroy a show or movie, so if you know the end is good, its good to know that in advance?
I mean, none of such spoilers would change the show or movie, and if its a good movie, its all right, isn´t it?
This is so very, very apples to oranges. The payoff of MtG sets isn't exclusively in the narrative/story. When advance knowledge enhances you experience (being better equipped to engage in the gameplay aspect because you've had time to absorb mechanical implications), spoilers can have a positive effect. When knowing about the thing IS the whole, or majority of, the experience (the narrative of a movie/show), knowing it ahead of time can disrupt the desire to experience it further. These aren't the same thing.
Leaks are not good as such, but they are better than how absolutely terrible WotC's own preview approaches are. The extremely short window of previews, the tendency to heavily frontload the vast majority of interesting reveals to cover for how few exciting cards most sets actually contain, the sanctimonious attitude toward negative player feedback, all of it, often leaves players enjoying leaks and unofficial spoilers more than the official process. WotC needs to tighten up their procedures to limit leaks, sure, but they also need to work on how official spoilers are released.
According to Petro each additional copied ability does not have the once per turn restriction. Which makes sense to me.
When it comes to rules interactions, random MTGS poster doesn't trump rules manager no matter how well reasoned the argument is. Until Eli changes his ruling, clarifies his ruling, or something is rewritten to be clearer (either errata on Mairsil or an edit to the CR), I would follow that.
If the rules manager told us that Mountains tap for U, would that make it so? I'm obviously exaggerating a good deal to create a less subtle example, but the fact remains that what the rules manager has said appears to be in direct conflict with the CR and the text of the card and the available precedent info on how copied abilities behave. In many regards, Eli's ruling actually makes it LESS clear how the hell this is meant to work, as the situation is now "the CR indicates it should work like so and so, except for Mairsil because the rules manager said it's like this instead," resulting in what comes across as a very bizarre directive to ignore the CR and text as written.
But that still doesn't actually explain Eli's ruling, as we have nothing so far that clearly appends Mairsil's restriction to the text of the abilities it acquires. It doesn't make any sense for Mairsil's static rule to affect the abilities it copied through an effect other than the Caging block of text, not from the information we're looking at so far.
I'm not completely certain if this works, though I do believe your reasoning checks out. If it does work, the reason you don't see this being used in any lists is that it's pretty much very winmore. The cool interaction you're looking at would only turn on when you already have what most Brago lists consider a win condition, and outside of the Strio-loop Queller doesn't provide a Brago list that much value.
I'll third what has been said. It seems clear that you are pretty strongly undervaluing how strong this mechanic (and just about any storm-like) is. Another aspect of how storm-templated mechanics are disproportionately strong that hasn't been touched on is how much more resistant to control storm-like cards are: counterspells are much weaker against Hard Rain than, say, a metalcrafted Molten Psyche.
Mostly proxies in colored/themed deckboxes, packed with two 1,000-count longboxes of staple cards and cardstock commons in a big blue duffel-bag on wheels. Typically have ~25 decks with me in that, any not in the travel rotation stay in an old copper-foiled cassette tower I refurbished for deck storage and display.
Rule of Law and Humility derivatives are pretty much the best all-around combo-killers.
This is so very, very apples to oranges. The payoff of MtG sets isn't exclusively in the narrative/story. When advance knowledge enhances you experience (being better equipped to engage in the gameplay aspect because you've had time to absorb mechanical implications), spoilers can have a positive effect. When knowing about the thing IS the whole, or majority of, the experience (the narrative of a movie/show), knowing it ahead of time can disrupt the desire to experience it further. These aren't the same thing.
If the rules manager told us that Mountains tap for U, would that make it so? I'm obviously exaggerating a good deal to create a less subtle example, but the fact remains that what the rules manager has said appears to be in direct conflict with the CR and the text of the card and the available precedent info on how copied abilities behave. In many regards, Eli's ruling actually makes it LESS clear how the hell this is meant to work, as the situation is now "the CR indicates it should work like so and so, except for Mairsil because the rules manager said it's like this instead," resulting in what comes across as a very bizarre directive to ignore the CR and text as written.
Warning issued for unsure answer. -MadMage