There are only two cards that put a non-time counter on a card in exile, and only one of those does it to a different card: Ertai's Meddling exiles spells and puts delay counter on them (All Hallow's Eve puts scream counters on itself). In both cases, the effect is essentially the same as it would be if they were time counters instead, so this is indeed a new effect.Quote from The Emortal »Other than Jhoira giving stuff suspend. Are there any other cards before Mairsil that put counters on other cards in exile?
- Registered User
Member for 9 months and 20 days
Last active Wed, Aug, 23 2017 08:20:28
- 0 Followers
- 98 Total Posts
- 29 Thanks
Aug 10, 2017Posted in: The Rumor Mill
Aug 10, 2017Posted in: The Rumor Mill
While cards that have commander specific mechanics on them like Eminence or Partner are definitely not going to ever see print in standard, core set or otherwise, cards/characters showing up in Commander precons doesn't in itself preclude ever appearing in a Standard legal set: take Scavenging Ooze or Hornet Queen - those were both printed in the first set of Commander decks and later made their way into standard via core sets. On the character side of things, Ghoulcaller Gisa and Stitcher Geralf being printed in C14 certainly didn't stop Gisa and Geralf from showing up later in Eldritch Moon; the Commander specific versions certainly won't get reprinted into standard but we can have multiple versions of characters, so a Ludevic that doesn't suck can still happen (and probably will next time they visit Innistrad).Quote from magac »Minor off-topic nitpicking here, but it annoys me that they've several times finally made cards for popular/well-known/important characters, only to slap said cards into Commander decks which means they can NEVER be printed in normal set (like Core Set). Before Edgar here, we have Ludevic (and Ludevic is also pure suck)
Aug 8, 2017GildanBladeborn posted a message on Commanders Brew Previews - Territorial Hellkite & Scalelord ReckonerPosted in: The Rumor Mill
Yes, the ability triggers at the beginning of combat, after it resolves you have priority to do something else before moving to the declare attackers phase. The requirement to attack the selected player will only apply if you were able to choose one, when the Dragon is tapped because a player could not be chosen, no such attack requirement is created. So if you have a way to untap it, you would be free to attack whoever you want.Quote from KandykidZero »Is there a point where after the 6/5 taps that you can untap it and still attack? If so, can you choose to attack anyone with it?
Jul 17, 2017There's also Comeuppance, though that only redirects damage to players if they were sending non-creature damage your way (creatures that were going to damage you or your planeswalkers just hit themselves instead).Posted in: Magic General
Jul 17, 2017Posted in: Magic General
If you are looking for clear sleeves specifically DragonShield makes those (in regular or matte styles), but really any sleeves should be fine. I double sleeve all the cards I keep in my "not for trade" binders in DragonShield Matte black sleeves myself (except for the double-faced cards, those get clear DragonShields), but I will freely admit it is probably overkill.Quote from FaerieHearthWitch »I also read that the cards should be sleeved because people have found that if they keep their cards in the binders for any length of time, without moving them (6-8 months) the back of the cards stick to the black plastic of the binder and ruin the card. I guess this is a pretty common problem. So should I find clear sleeves for them, and if so, what brand is best? Or should I use my Dragon Shields?
On the topic of binders specifically, Monster is a brand I don't have personal experience with, but from what I've seen their binders are roughly equivalent to the standard Ultra Pro binder (perhaps a bit nicer), and those are fine but nothing spectacular. Personally I would recommend the Ultimate Guard Xenoskin Zipfolio, the Pirate Lab Summoner Deluxe Trade Binder, or the Legion Dragon Hide Binder.
Jul 11, 2017Posted in: Magic General
I find the whole "refer to G/B midrange decks as "Rock" thing rather funny already because of its origins (Rock "the Dwayne" Johnson), so now I'm going to chuckle a bit every time I hear Junk. Thanks!Quote from void_nothing »Junk is called that because it was similar to both Jund and Rock decks. Jund + Rock = Junk.
Jul 11, 2017Posted in: Magic General
Well two of those terms you listed refer to creatures - the titans were a cycle of 6 CMC mythic giants with ETB abilities that also trigger when they attack (for example, Inferno Titan), which are generally considered in retrospect to be too strong, which is why comparable cycles printed nowadays are compared against them (just like how red burn spells are inevitably compared to Lightning Bolt).Quote from FaerieHearthWitch »Not necessarily. I am looking for a list of terms. I have heard people name their type/style of Commander decks too, so it seems to be in all formats.
Eldrazi is a creature type, which has the distinction of being an almost entirely colorless tribe despite being in all 5 colors (they would be entirely colorless but some of the drones from Rise of the Eldrazi were colored). The original versions (apart from the drones) all had the Annihilator ability, which is famously unfun to play against, and were all very expensive to cast; Eldrazi as a deck type didn't really take off until Oath of the Gatewatch brought a slew of smaller and more aggressively costed versions, which could be further discounted by lands legal (at the time) in Modern from the first sets with the eldrazi. That led to "eldrazi winter", where the eldrazi deck was unquestionably the best deck in modern, which is why Eye of Ugin is banned in the format now.
Junk is just an old slang term for the color wedge now known as Abzan (White/Black/Green), though I couldn't tell you why it was referred to that way (RUG and BUG for Temur and Sultai on the other hand are fairly obvious if you're familiar with the WUBRG color designations).
Jul 5, 2017Posted in: The Rumor Mill
Not that they couldn't in the future, but they didn't work for what we were trying to accomplish. I mentioned last year that we were moving more toward printing full cycles of lands in a block to make the mana work for Constructed and for Block Constructed. That isn't changing.
Part of keeping Standard interesting over the long haul is constantly rotating what the dual lands in the environment do.
No where in that article is ten lands as a cycle ever mentioned. Full cycle can be interpreted as 5, which is par for most things. You still have not proven that ten is the full cycle.
If it's all nonsense, why do you even care that they don't make it? You have nearly no way of getting what you want them to make. Play with what you have.
...Are you for real? For the final time, let's examine why I keep telling you that your assertions are utter nonsense (not the idea of completing land cycles, that's something a great many players want and a constant source of frustration whenever WotC does not): For cards to be considered a cycle, the design must be such that each shares certain mechanical similarities, such that having seen one example the text for other cards in the cycle can be partially/completely guessed at. For a cycle to be complete it must have a representative card for each color combination in the scope of the cycle. If that is a set of 5 mono-color spells, or lands that only produce 1 color of mana, then 5 would be a "complete cycle", because there are 5 colors in Magic. When you add in a second color, you now require 10 cards to comprise a full cycle, because there are 5 colors in Magic.
You are arguing that what Sam Stoddard meant when he said "we are moving more towards printing full cycles of lands in a block" was that WotC intended to release 5 lands in either the ally or enemy color pairs in any given bock, and that whenever they do just that, they are living up to their word. Here is why that is ludicrous - the part of that sentence where the words "we are moving toward" is, cannot possibly be interpreted (by a reasonable person) to mean "continue doing exactly what we always have since Revised", because that makes no sense whatsoever; if the end result is the status quo, there is nothing to move towards. This is the clearest possible repudiation of your argument and the fact you refuse to acknowledge it is maddening. Particularly because every single "incomplete (ie, ally colors only) cycle of lands that produce 2 different colors of mana are not only from the same block, they were printed in the same set. Full stop.
You seem to think that stuff like the Future Sight ally-color duals were not a weird exception (a partial cycle itself comprised of 5 other incomplete cycles), but across the entire history of Magic and its various types of "dual lands", there are only two other sets of those lands that break the standard 5 ally/enemy breakdown: the tainted lands from Torment (a cycle of 4 cards, 1 for every color pair with black in it), and the tribal lands from Lorwyn (a mixture of ally and enemy color dual lands that corresponded to the colors each tribe was in). That's it, a set containing all 5 ally color producing lands and then maybe years and years later the corresponding 5 enemy color producing lands is the long established pattern, so when a Magic developer tells us multiple times that their design philosophy is shifting towards printing full cycles of lands in blocks, there's just no grounds to interpret that statement to conclude "5 lands in just the ally colors is a full cycle" like you have.
That a full cycle of dual lands by definition must contain 10 lands (at least) or be considered incomplete, that's not something I need to prove, it's how numbers work, but I went the extra mile and provided statements from the developers to back up all my points, and the cards themselves support my position - if you continue arguing that WotC has in fact not said one thing and then done the opposite, Sam Stoddard's statements must be pointless and nonsensical for your interpretation to be correct (one does not "move towards" continuing to do the same thing you've already been doing for 20 years). Unless you are seriously going to suggest that his statements are in fact nonsense, the only possible number of lands he could be referring to when he says a "full cycle", in the context of dual lands, is 10.
Telling me to "play with what I have" is both patronizing and completely besides the point.
Jul 3, 2017GildanBladeborn posted a message on Checking on if this nest a scarabs infinite works or notWhile the loop you propose does indeed work, and will mill your opponents out, it is important to note that if you have The Scorpion God on the battlefield during that process you will also draw a card each time a 1/1 dies (the draw trigger is not a "may"), so you would need to end the loop before you run out of cards in your library. Otherwise taking that process through a functionally infinite number of repetitions kills you first.Posted in: Magic Rulings
Jun 30, 2017So... you didn't read the article I cited (and are still stuck on the nimble maze tangent), or you would know I glean what the definition of a completed dual land cycle is directly from the articles members of the development team post on the membership. A cycle of lands that generate two different colors of mana is a complete cycle if it has 10 cards, because there are 10 color pairs in the game of Magic (unless it's something like River of Tears, where completing the cycle would take 20 cards because there could be 2 different functional cards per color pair).Posted in: The Rumor Mill
You are debating basic semantics to argue that WotC is sticking to their word, but what you are arguing is nonsense because the example you keep returning to was a 1-off exception that, at the time players were told to expect more complete cycles in blocks, was from a set that came out 6 years prior. If they were talking about Nimbus Maze, there would not have been a reason to say anything in the first place: they were already not repeating that scenario, and had been for the better part of a decade.
Releasing 4 to 5 new ally color dual land types for every 1 cycle they complete, usually years later (if ever), for the enemy color pairs has pretty much been the pattern for most of Magic's history, you are arguing that 4 years ago the players were told to expect exactly that going forward, and got excited. That does not make any sense.
Jun 29, 2017GildanBladeborn posted a message on 3x Commons & 1x Uncommons spoiled by PasteMagazine (Zombie Camel!)Posted in: The Rumor Mill
Fun fact - design doesn't come up with the card names (at least not finalized versions) and they most certainly don't pick the art. Blaming Mark Rosewater for this is silly, it's Development you have an issue with (and the art director).Quote from entombedhydra »I hate Dutiful Servants so much it's not even funny. You know Wizards did this on purpose. And poorly designed zombie camel aside, this may be the insult that breaks my back. It's a poorly designed vanilla, with art and flavor purposely designed to trick you to confuse it for another card in the same block. This is the sort of thing that leads to entirely preventable gameplay mistakes in limited. And somehow MaRo said "Print it."
Well, I'm sorry MaRo, but peddle your joke cards elsewhere. And I'm sorry piss-poor designers, but PAY ATTENTION to what you do.
As ridiculous as most of the things you complain about are (like suggesting WotC should have made Rhonas' Last Stand go from questionable to straight out garbage by costing it at 3 CMC, presumably because it offended your sense of symmetry by costing less than the other 2 cards in the cycle that were spoiled at the time), almost NONE of those things are indicative of bad design. In point of fact, almost all of the complaints everyone makes about cards on this forum can be blamed on Development. Why does this card cost so much, it would be so much better if it didn't have this clause, etc etc... odds are the version Design handed off did cost less, and didn't have those riders that render it basically unplayable. It may also have been horrendously broken and cause no end of complaint for entirely different reasons if Development passed it through unchanged, no way to know for sure unless they release an M-Files article on it.
MaRo is responsible for a lot of stuff, but gets blamed for even more.
Jun 29, 2017Posted in: The Rumor Mill
It can, what would happen is you would have 2 replacement effects trying to apply to the same event, so you would choose which happens first... and then there's nothing for the other replacement effect to modify because the actions they have you perform are mutually exclusive.
It's also worth pointing out that while wheel of the sun and moon does negate the downside of exiling cards with cycling if they would go to your graveyard for reasons other than being cycled there, it also totally hoses your ability to cast cycling cards from your graveyard (the reason you would run this artifactin the first place) by preventing you from putting cards into it at all. Mixing a form of graveyard recursion with a card that turns your graveyard off strikes me as something of a nonbo.
Jun 29, 2017Posted in: The Rumor Mill
For the life of me I can't find the original article on the Mothership that gave us the impression WotC was moving towards printing complete cycles of lands in blocks (not going back and "finishing" the future sight cycles, that's something that people often request but is emphatically NOT what this is about and never has been, I don't know how you got that impression), but I did turn up this article by Sam Stoddard that refers back to it (aggravatingly without actually linking to it, he just say "when I talked about this last year...") - magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-mana-2014-06-27.
They followed that article up with a complete cycle of new taplands in Khans block, so when the BFZ duals were revealed many players were expecting them to complete the cycle for the enemy color pairs... but they didn't. I'm sure there's some post somewhere on social media where they backtrack such that we arrive back here, where it's business as usual and land cycles might get completed a mere 5 years later (if ever), but before BFZ happened, expecting that stuff like the Temples from Theros, where we got all of them across the course of the block, expecting that cycles like that were what we would see in new blocks as the rule and not an exception, well that wasn't an unreasonable expectation because they literally told us exactly that on the mothership.
Jun 28, 2017Posted in: The Rumor Mill
That's not even remotely what the "commitment to complete land cycles" was supposed to mean and you know it - the entire point is that they had been releasing partial (aka, ally colors only) cycles of lands for decades, and rarely ever got around to making versions for the enemy color pairs. Claiming that, when they told us they were going to stop making incomplete cycles, what they actually meant was "continue exactly as they always have and change nothing", is absurd.
Not all Land cycles come in 10. We still haven't got 10 Snow tap-dual.
It's what they still ended up doing of course, but that's not WotC living up to their promise, it's them going back on it.
Jun 27, 2017GildanBladeborn posted a message on Mothership Spoilers 6/27 Impending doom Rampant Growth+Posted in: The Rumor Mill
There's no intervening if clause for this ability, so it would only check to see whether or not it would trigger, the condition does not have to be true when it resolves.Quote from Crispen_Smith »Quote from Bradipo322 »Quote from pierrebai »Quote from Bradipo322 »As a rule of thumb when resolving a spell or an ability read trought the entire card and resolve one card before resolving the others, normally cards don't offer the possibility of half-resolving.
It's hard to tell if you're disagreeing or condescending. If the later, then please make sure you're right before pontifying.
The first part ("Whenever you cast a spell with converted mana cost equal to the number of doom counter on ~") is a triggered ability. It triggers on cast and goes on the stack. You cast the second lightning bolt in response, so it triggers again. It works.
The only issue is the confused wording, it's unclear if "that much damage" refer to the number of doom counters or the CMC of the spell.
You are absolutely right, i was just saying that for whoever was dubious about the rules.
Isnt this a static triggered ability that check both when it goes on the stack and when it resolves? If so the ability should fail on resolution as the number of counters is no longer equsl to the cc of the spell.
If it had been worded "Whenever you cast a spell, if its CMC is equal to the number of doom counters on [cardname], do [effect], then put a doom counter on [cardname]", then it would work like how you are suggesting, because performing the action is tied to the triggering condition still being true as the triggered ability resolves.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.