I can understand why this wasn't really a good card in most of the other formats, but I feel the need to beat on the dead horse when I say, that I have no idea why you wouldn't run this in EDH. In my opinion, Distant Memories can trump most of these cards...though I say most.
I would have to first agree that the overall better card would be Library of Lat-Nam, both in form and in function. DM requires you to first show the opponent what you're searching for, putting it face-up in exile and letting them decide if it's better for you to have it or to risk forgoing it and letting you draw three.
The problem it presents here for players in EDH, is that in such a format in EDH, most have to assume, especially from blue players, that no matter what you're making them, or letting them, do is going to help them get out on top. It's the idea of Fact or Fiction, but I'm going to explain why you should run DM if you can't get the Library for whatever reason.
First off, let's talk about what it's opposition can't do and what DM or Library, CAN do. Cards mentioned like Gifts Ungiven, Fact or Fiction and Intuition give all the options to the opponent. You're not allowed to pick what you're getting rid of. The piles mean that unless you're playing against an opponent who doesn't understand that function well enough or understand which cards are truly of value enough for the player in question, you're going to lose out on potential cards. Sure, if you have the ability to recur anything you lose, have at it. The problem becomes though is balancing what you're getting and what your board state is.
If you're low on mana and you're trying to pile up mana generators, a keen opponent will take advantage of that. They will dump the mana generators in one pile and force the better cards on the other, essentially breaking your choice of whether you want the better cards and hope for the best, or if you go for the safe option and take the generators with potentially a much later pay-out. Especially for mono-blue, if you don't have the ability to play instants or sorceries from your graveyard (and if you're mono-blue, why don't you?), dumping those cards into your graveyard is a horrible trade-off.
The problem is worse for Commander. A well-built Commander deck doesn't necessarily care about these questions, but if luck is not your mistress and you Fact or Fiction into a Snapcaster Mage or equivalent card in that pile and the rest are duds for your current board-state, you're looking at a lose-lose situation. Players will use your card to punish you and, more than likely, you're not going to retake the Snapcaster if you require the other pile that much more.
It's problems like these that make me second guess playing with cards that function like F-o-F. Once in awhile you get an ignorant player or you're playing in a new play-group, but especially these days, most people understand the function of F-o-F and know how to read between the lines of those few cards. Carefully considering what cards to put in what piles, compared to your board state, can make it very hard for EDH players to get the best use out of these spells. Several of my play groups have simply stopped running them for the simple fact that unless someone is being obnoxiously generous, you're not going to get what you want, rendering it moot.
At absolute worst, people don't want to risk you having cards at all and many will simply decide to counter it on the off-chance that they won't be sure what to do with it or look at your board-state and decide it's best for you to get nothing out of it anyway.
With a card like Distant Memories, if you're playing with it, you're at the advantage. You can trick a player or show them a threat you may not need entirely to win and grant yourself three extra cards or an opponent may consider the card a fair trade for three cards. As previously stated, a well-built Commander deck won't care at all what kind of threat they show the player. You put them into a lose-lose situation, not the other way around.
Which is why Library of Lat-Nam overall, yes, is the better card to use here. You don't show and tell, you just ask them what to do and unless they know your deck inside and out, like say from Jester's Cap, they're going to be put against the wall. Give you a threat? Or give you three cards? DM is just being polite about it.
We can discuss the what-if's all day long, but at the end of the day, Distant Memories and Library of Lat-Nam are the better cards to run. Playing footsie with an opponent in a game of cards, especially in EDH, simply is going to end badly.
You can put snow cards like Scrying Sheets and Mouth of Ronom in any edh deck. Snow is a super type not a color. From a rules point of view, "Snow" is a property that a card can have. Any mana a Snow permanent produces is Snow mana. No rules in EDH deck construction prevent that. Hope that makes sense.
Well that makes my life a lot easier. I hadn't looked too deep into Snow until now, mostly because I hadn't taken a large interest in Snow till I ran out of Commander deck ideas. I thought I had heard or seen cards with Snow mana in their costs, but my searching around now after your replies I guess confirms that is not a color concern. My only concern now is if Snow theme would work well in tangent with Azorius.
I hate to be the one kicking the dead horse, but thus far from topics I've seen, no one seems to have directly come to answer this, so I want to make this as cut and dry as possible.
My question is this: With no hand-waving or house-rules going on, can a Commander who does not have Snow in his, technical, color identity, allow for the use of cards that produce or require Snow costs?
I have seen topics tip-toe around the question by opting to look for play-groups to allow for unconventional Commanders for this type of deck to work, without giving a solid "yes" or "no" either way.
I really want to try it, but I only see current value in it if I can play this deck in my local store with people who do rules-lawyering as much as I do. My gut instinct is to say that I can't but I don't have the materials to say otherwise, so I'm directly asking the question, since I am not aware of, nor found, a Commander who actually has the Snow identity to work for the deck, which is truly a shame. We should've had *one* Legendary Snow creature for that very purpose.
So we were in a two player game where one player is using Ezuri, Claw of Progress. He has several hybrid creatures on the board that are Green/Blue. The other player mono-blue, plays Breaching Leviathan, casting it from his hand, which says when it's cast, tap all non-blue creatures. Several of us could not establish a proper ruling, and so we left it as them being tapped.
Our question is how does Breaching Leviathan interact with these hybrid costed creatures?
My question is how the ability resolves on the stack.
so, I play sidisi. Enter battlefield trigger goes off. no response from opponent. I choose a non sidisi target to exploit. opponent kills sidisi in response to choosing to sacrifice said creature. sidisi is no longer on the battlefield. do I get to choose not to sacrifice? do I get to search for a card? or did I get two for one'd?
The correct ordering of events is as follows:
1) Sidisi enters the battlefield.
2) Sidisi's exploit ability triggers.
3) You get priority and pass. Your opponent gets priority and passes.
4) The exploit trigger resolves. At this point, you choose whether or not you will a sacrifice a creature, and if so, which one. (Note that your opponent will not get a chance to respond at this point.)
5) If you chose a creature to sacrifice, that creature is sacrificed.
6) Regardless of whether or not Sidisi was the chosen creature to be sacrificed, Sidisi's second triggered ability will go onto the stack.
If your opponent wants to kill Sidisi before the second ability resolves, then the following will have to happen instead:
1) Sidisi emters the battlefield.
2) Sidisi's exploit ability triggers.
3) You get priority and pass.
4) Your opponent gets priority and casts some kill spell.
5) Your opponent gets priority and passes. You get priority and pass.
6) The kill spell resolves, killing Sidisi. At this point, the exploit trigger is still on the stack, waiting to resolve.
7) You get priority and pass. Your opponent gets priority and passes.
8) The exploit trigger resolves. At this point, you choose whether or not you will a sacrifice a creature, and if so, which one.
9) Because Sidisi is no longer on the battlefield at this point, there is no second ability that triggers.
In other words, you will still choose whether or not you want to sacrifice a creature. The choice of whether to sacrifice a creature is not done until resolution, so if your opponent asks which creature you want to sacrifice (if any), they're assumed to want to pass priority until after the resolution of the exploit ability.
What you've said is essentially correct, except for one thing that I'm pointing out because I'm not positive I understand from you correctly.
What is "Pass" supposed to mean? If Sidisi hits the Battlefield, you must choose if you are going to sacrifice a creature or not.
You cannot act as if you are not going to and then right after choose to sacrifice something. I do not know if "Pass" has an alternative meaning, but it sounds like you're saying that you can say no and then sacrifice. That is not how it works, if that is the case. You must declare that you will take advantage of Exploit and then, and only then, can the opponent react to it to try and either stop it or get rid of Sidisi so it cannot resolve without her on the field. If you choose not to use Exploit when it comes onto the Battlefield, you do not get to choose to sacrifice afterwards.
I may be inferring wrong from you, but if it's your own word there, I'd recommend saying something other than "Pass", which sounds like you're saying you can ignore it/say no and then proceed to do it. And just to make sure that everyone understand the Legend rule, for good, the second Sidisi you play is the only one that can resolve, as long as it was there at the time that a creature was sacrificed for Exploit, not when Exploit triggers.
It is the one initiating the Exploit effect and that only happens after the Legend rule forces you to get rid of it or the other, and the Legend rule comes into play only after the creature has been cast onto the Battlefield. You cannot choose to Exploit the second Sidisi if you choose to destroy it by the Legend rule. Because it does hit the Battlefield, sacrificing a creature can happen, but as in the same instance of a spell killing Sidisi before Exploiting herself, she's no longer there to see a creature or herself die to allow you to search for a card.
The second Sidisi must have been on the field during the time that the choice of a creature, or herself, to Exploit was made for the second effect to resolve. Choosing herself to Exploit resolves the trigger. If she's not on the field when you've chosen a creature to Exploit, it does not count, since the card needs her present on the field to act as her doing the effect. All that happens is another creature dies instead, if you choose to sacrifice at all and, of course, you cannot Exploit the first Sidisi you had because the Legend rule took effect and destroyed it before it could be a legal target for Exploit or for the resolution of the effect.
There should be no question of this, but, just in case this means that you do not get two searches. I shouldn't even have to say that, but as we clearly see, this argument is a testament to just how much a card can be interpreted and/or abused, depending on your point of view.
Scrubland is a Swamp and a Plains, same as shocklands. Anything that cares about lands being Swamps or Plains will apply to Scrubland. So Crypt Ghast adds an extra B. Liliana Emblem gives it the ability to tap for BBBB in addition to the intrinsic abilities to tap for W or B. Genju of the Fields and Genju of the Fens can enchant it and so on. But its not a BASIC Swamp or Plains so Gauntlet of Power on white or black will NOT apply to Scrubland's mana abilities. All this also applies to Godless Shrine.
Thank you both for your prompt replies and information about it. I could've sworn it was considered a Basic Land, but this is why I double check these things just in case. Thanks again for your time.
Just as I posed the question in the title, I need to confirm if this is something that can officially happen with Crypt Ghast. It's either an insanely obvious answer or just no one's brought it up before, that in either case I feel needed to be asked.
I know from experience that these old dual lands are not like Shock or typical Dual Lands because these are still considered Basic Lands and can be affected by conditions that already target normal lands of their type. What I'm asking is essentially to resolve this debate if anyone else runs into this interesting pairing.
With something like Scrubland would Crypt Ghast be able to allow me to tap for either White and Black or two Black mana at once, because of his effect? It seems like it could to me and the rulings I looked up on it seem to deem it so, but someone else may know better, which is why I pose the question...
And I suppose while I'm at it, I might as well ask if this could extend to Liliana of the Dark Realms' abilities, both in searching it from my deck and if Scrubland gains the ability to tap for 4 Black if her emblem is on the field?
It might be worth pointing out, in case you weren't aware, that lands are in fact permanents. A board state empty save for lands isn't uncommon, but it is rare to play a game where your opponent doesn't have any permanents at all.
Thank you also for the input. I was aware of that, hence why I specified that he was the only *creature* permanent I control. I could destroy lands, but that price sucks. I would hope that a game would end long before I need to be destroying my own stuff, which is why I wanted to know if the lich would be an appropriate target for the effect and if it would do what I intend; in essence, never having to sacrifice my own stuff for as long as he, and anything else that is indestructible, is on the field.
Okay, so, say I have Phylactery Lich on the board as the only permanent creature available to me. His counter is placed on Argentum Armor and he is equipped with it. If I swing while an opponent controls no permanents, I know that at this point I have to choose my own, but what happens if I had to choose Phylactery Lich?
Because he's indestructible, and on the field, while Argentum Armor carries his token, does the armor's effect just hit the Lich and do nothing? I am pretty sure this is what is happening with it, since Indestructible by itself doesn't mean it can't be targeted by effects that destroy, but rather, effects that would normally destroy something do not in the case of something with the Indestructible effect.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm answering my own question a bit, but I do not know of any loopholes that may still kill the Lich or if something else has to happen and wanted to put this up for some clarification if my thought process is correct or not. Thank you for your time : )
I would have to first agree that the overall better card would be Library of Lat-Nam, both in form and in function. DM requires you to first show the opponent what you're searching for, putting it face-up in exile and letting them decide if it's better for you to have it or to risk forgoing it and letting you draw three.
The problem it presents here for players in EDH, is that in such a format in EDH, most have to assume, especially from blue players, that no matter what you're making them, or letting them, do is going to help them get out on top. It's the idea of Fact or Fiction, but I'm going to explain why you should run DM if you can't get the Library for whatever reason.
First off, let's talk about what it's opposition can't do and what DM or Library, CAN do. Cards mentioned like Gifts Ungiven, Fact or Fiction and Intuition give all the options to the opponent. You're not allowed to pick what you're getting rid of. The piles mean that unless you're playing against an opponent who doesn't understand that function well enough or understand which cards are truly of value enough for the player in question, you're going to lose out on potential cards. Sure, if you have the ability to recur anything you lose, have at it. The problem becomes though is balancing what you're getting and what your board state is.
If you're low on mana and you're trying to pile up mana generators, a keen opponent will take advantage of that. They will dump the mana generators in one pile and force the better cards on the other, essentially breaking your choice of whether you want the better cards and hope for the best, or if you go for the safe option and take the generators with potentially a much later pay-out. Especially for mono-blue, if you don't have the ability to play instants or sorceries from your graveyard (and if you're mono-blue, why don't you?), dumping those cards into your graveyard is a horrible trade-off.
The problem is worse for Commander. A well-built Commander deck doesn't necessarily care about these questions, but if luck is not your mistress and you Fact or Fiction into a Snapcaster Mage or equivalent card in that pile and the rest are duds for your current board-state, you're looking at a lose-lose situation. Players will use your card to punish you and, more than likely, you're not going to retake the Snapcaster if you require the other pile that much more.
It's problems like these that make me second guess playing with cards that function like F-o-F. Once in awhile you get an ignorant player or you're playing in a new play-group, but especially these days, most people understand the function of F-o-F and know how to read between the lines of those few cards. Carefully considering what cards to put in what piles, compared to your board state, can make it very hard for EDH players to get the best use out of these spells. Several of my play groups have simply stopped running them for the simple fact that unless someone is being obnoxiously generous, you're not going to get what you want, rendering it moot.
At absolute worst, people don't want to risk you having cards at all and many will simply decide to counter it on the off-chance that they won't be sure what to do with it or look at your board-state and decide it's best for you to get nothing out of it anyway.
With a card like Distant Memories, if you're playing with it, you're at the advantage. You can trick a player or show them a threat you may not need entirely to win and grant yourself three extra cards or an opponent may consider the card a fair trade for three cards. As previously stated, a well-built Commander deck won't care at all what kind of threat they show the player. You put them into a lose-lose situation, not the other way around.
Which is why Library of Lat-Nam overall, yes, is the better card to use here. You don't show and tell, you just ask them what to do and unless they know your deck inside and out, like say from Jester's Cap, they're going to be put against the wall. Give you a threat? Or give you three cards? DM is just being polite about it.
We can discuss the what-if's all day long, but at the end of the day, Distant Memories and Library of Lat-Nam are the better cards to run. Playing footsie with an opponent in a game of cards, especially in EDH, simply is going to end badly.
Well that makes my life a lot easier. I hadn't looked too deep into Snow until now, mostly because I hadn't taken a large interest in Snow till I ran out of Commander deck ideas. I thought I had heard or seen cards with Snow mana in their costs, but my searching around now after your replies I guess confirms that is not a color concern. My only concern now is if Snow theme would work well in tangent with Azorius.
Thanks for the quick responses.
My question is this: With no hand-waving or house-rules going on, can a Commander who does not have Snow in his, technical, color identity, allow for the use of cards that produce or require Snow costs?
I have seen topics tip-toe around the question by opting to look for play-groups to allow for unconventional Commanders for this type of deck to work, without giving a solid "yes" or "no" either way.
I really want to try it, but I only see current value in it if I can play this deck in my local store with people who do rules-lawyering as much as I do. My gut instinct is to say that I can't but I don't have the materials to say otherwise, so I'm directly asking the question, since I am not aware of, nor found, a Commander who actually has the Snow identity to work for the deck, which is truly a shame. We should've had *one* Legendary Snow creature for that very purpose.
So we were in a two player game where one player is using Ezuri, Claw of Progress. He has several hybrid creatures on the board that are Green/Blue. The other player mono-blue, plays Breaching Leviathan, casting it from his hand, which says when it's cast, tap all non-blue creatures. Several of us could not establish a proper ruling, and so we left it as them being tapped.
Our question is how does Breaching Leviathan interact with these hybrid costed creatures?
What you've said is essentially correct, except for one thing that I'm pointing out because I'm not positive I understand from you correctly.
What is "Pass" supposed to mean? If Sidisi hits the Battlefield, you must choose if you are going to sacrifice a creature or not.
You cannot act as if you are not going to and then right after choose to sacrifice something. I do not know if "Pass" has an alternative meaning, but it sounds like you're saying that you can say no and then sacrifice. That is not how it works, if that is the case. You must declare that you will take advantage of Exploit and then, and only then, can the opponent react to it to try and either stop it or get rid of Sidisi so it cannot resolve without her on the field. If you choose not to use Exploit when it comes onto the Battlefield, you do not get to choose to sacrifice afterwards.
I may be inferring wrong from you, but if it's your own word there, I'd recommend saying something other than "Pass", which sounds like you're saying you can ignore it/say no and then proceed to do it. And just to make sure that everyone understand the Legend rule, for good, the second Sidisi you play is the only one that can resolve, as long as it was there at the time that a creature was sacrificed for Exploit, not when Exploit triggers.
It is the one initiating the Exploit effect and that only happens after the Legend rule forces you to get rid of it or the other, and the Legend rule comes into play only after the creature has been cast onto the Battlefield. You cannot choose to Exploit the second Sidisi if you choose to destroy it by the Legend rule. Because it does hit the Battlefield, sacrificing a creature can happen, but as in the same instance of a spell killing Sidisi before Exploiting herself, she's no longer there to see a creature or herself die to allow you to search for a card.
The second Sidisi must have been on the field during the time that the choice of a creature, or herself, to Exploit was made for the second effect to resolve. Choosing herself to Exploit resolves the trigger. If she's not on the field when you've chosen a creature to Exploit, it does not count, since the card needs her present on the field to act as her doing the effect. All that happens is another creature dies instead, if you choose to sacrifice at all and, of course, you cannot Exploit the first Sidisi you had because the Legend rule took effect and destroyed it before it could be a legal target for Exploit or for the resolution of the effect.
There should be no question of this, but, just in case this means that you do not get two searches. I shouldn't even have to say that, but as we clearly see, this argument is a testament to just how much a card can be interpreted and/or abused, depending on your point of view.
Thank you both for your prompt replies and information about it. I could've sworn it was considered a Basic Land, but this is why I double check these things just in case. Thanks again for your time.
I know from experience that these old dual lands are not like Shock or typical Dual Lands because these are still considered Basic Lands and can be affected by conditions that already target normal lands of their type. What I'm asking is essentially to resolve this debate if anyone else runs into this interesting pairing.
With something like Scrubland would Crypt Ghast be able to allow me to tap for either White and Black or two Black mana at once, because of his effect? It seems like it could to me and the rulings I looked up on it seem to deem it so, but someone else may know better, which is why I pose the question...
And I suppose while I'm at it, I might as well ask if this could extend to Liliana of the Dark Realms' abilities, both in searching it from my deck and if Scrubland gains the ability to tap for 4 Black if her emblem is on the field?
Thank you for your time.
Thanks very much for the reply : )
Thank you also for the input. I was aware of that, hence why I specified that he was the only *creature* permanent I control. I could destroy lands, but that price sucks. I would hope that a game would end long before I need to be destroying my own stuff, which is why I wanted to know if the lich would be an appropriate target for the effect and if it would do what I intend; in essence, never having to sacrifice my own stuff for as long as he, and anything else that is indestructible, is on the field.
Because he's indestructible, and on the field, while Argentum Armor carries his token, does the armor's effect just hit the Lich and do nothing? I am pretty sure this is what is happening with it, since Indestructible by itself doesn't mean it can't be targeted by effects that destroy, but rather, effects that would normally destroy something do not in the case of something with the Indestructible effect.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm answering my own question a bit, but I do not know of any loopholes that may still kill the Lich or if something else has to happen and wanted to put this up for some clarification if my thought process is correct or not. Thank you for your time : )