Thank y’all for your responses. I understand what y’all are saying, and it makes sense. I am willing to accept this answer (and certainly would if a judge in the game I’m involved in said it). However, for thoroughness’ sake, I want to make sure.
First, y'all are saying that if hands are revealed, each player will know what the previous player is discarding to Liliana of the Veil before making their own choice if Zur's Weirding is in play? That doesn't seem right, but I guess it could be. Note that the ruling for Liliana doesn't say anything about separating the card.
Y’all’s determinations seem to be predicated on the words “clearly indicate” in Rule 101.4a, but those words are not on the card, not in the ruling (the ruling says “clearly separate,” and it’s the applicability of that ruling that is at issue here), and is not defined in the comprehensive rules at all. The wording of the ruling which says how to choose a card obviously intended for the ruling to apply when the hand isn’t revealed because it specifically says “without revealing it,” and it isn’t at all clear that’s how choosing a card was meant to work in all situations.
In fact, the comprehensive rules seem to anticipate the possibility of using other methods for indicating something rather than simply changing its location. For example, Rule 707.6 says “Common methods for distinguishing between face-down objects include using counters or dice to mark the different objects . . . “
Also, it seems to me that Rule 101.4a should be interpreted through the lens that it was meant to prevent players from changing their mind about what to choose. It does not say that the only way to clearly indicate a card is by setting it aside. Rather, it says to "clearly indicate" it without saying what that means, and then further says that the chosen cards are not revealed (again, calling into question its applicability).
Finally, I agree that the cards stay revealed under rule 400.11, but I’m not looking to conceal a revealed card. I’m looking to conceal a choice about those cards. The ruling at issue here, and the comprehensive rules in toto, all seem geared toward preventing a player from changing their choice, and not toward forcing a player to reveal their choice before the appointed time in the ability.
TL;DR – If it weren’t for the Gatherer ruling, it seems like we would all be in agreement that I could indicate my choice in any manner I saw fit, so long as it prevented me from changing my choice (correct me if I’m wrong in that assumption). The Gatherer ruling itself seems to not necessarily apply, seeing as it says “without revealing it,” and was meant as the method for indicating a card when hands are hidden. So, are we sure that there’s no other way to make the choice other than to set the card aside, and therefore reveal the choice early?
The Gatherer ruling says "To choose a card in your hand, clearly separate it from the rest of your hand without revealing it." However, if your hand is already revealed, separating a card will make it obvious which one you chose. Is it legal to use another method for choosing a card, such as writing it on a sticky note, numbering the cards and setting a die to the chosen card's number, or whispering the card's name to a judge? Any help would be appreciated!
Actually first rare creature that's useless in commander
5 spells cast in multi-player no problem.
Unless you're using Hapatra, but even then it's just okay.
Yes, or Nest of Scarabs. Every spell your opponents cast gives you a token, and then, if they haven't killed it, make it unblockable or at least hard to block, remove all the counters and start over. That's a lot of value.
Based on this thread, it seems that people are forgetting that being the Monarch nets you an additional card on each of your turns. And that you can also become the Monarch by dealing combat damage to the current Monarch. Marchesa is essentially a howling mine that also makes deathtouch tokens, on a hasty 3/3 deathtoucher for 4. She is awesome.
I think it's important to note that state-based actions (which would cause a creature to go to the graveyard for having zero toughness) are not checked while applying layers; they wait until all layers are applied before being checked. So even if Night of Soul's Betrayal's effect is applied before Honor of the Pure's due to time stamps, they are still both applied before you determine if your creature dies (effectively canceling out like FourDogsInAHorseSuit said).
I think the only artifacts I'd want in the deck are mana rocks (Fellwar Stone or Mind Stone) or 1-mana card-drawers like Relic of Progenitus. Otherwise, I'm not too interested in artifacts, I don't think. I want as few permanents as possible so that after I land a Shared Fate, my opponent cannot advance his board state in any way.
Has anyone considered Phage the Untouchable as an alternate win condition? I've been playing this deck online some. It hasn't had an incredible win percentage, but I've probably won about 40% of my matches against tiered decks, which I think is respectable. Thing is, I've won several matches where I keep the board clear and grind us both into topdeck mode, then topdeck a Phage. The opponent has exactly 1 turn to draw an answer, or else they lose. Since the goal of the deck is to keep the board clear and grind your opponent into topdeck mode (to clear the way for Shared Fate), it seems like other cards that benefit from that strategy might be useful. Other than the win conditions, the whole deck is draw, discard, counters, and kill spells (especially heavy on the draw and discard, which are, of course, useless after Shared Fate comes down. I'm thinking something like this:
They would still take 15. Emrakul as a spell on the stack can be targeted by Essence Backlash, which doesn't require that the spell be countered to do the damage.
Rules question: I assume the "You may put that card on the battlefield . . ." means that you don't have to even if it's a permanent with CMC 3 or less, right? So, if you reveal an Oblivion Ring with nothing on the opponent's side, you can put it into your hand rather than on the battlefield. Am I reading that right?
Rules question: I assume the "You may put that card on the battlefield . . ." means that you don't have to even if it's a permanent with CMC 3 or less, right? So, if you reveal an Oblivion Ring with nothing on the opponent's side, you can put it into your hand rather than on the battlefield. Am I reading that right?
I don't think so- it would need say "if you don't" for that to be true.
As written, I'm fairly sure it can only go to your hand if it's over CMC3.
Dang, well, now I have two competing answers. Anyone feel confident enough to tell me to disregard the others' opinions?
Rules question: I assume the "You may put that card on the battlefield . . ." means that you don't have to even if it's a permanent with CMC 3 or less, right? So, if you reveal an Oblivion Ring with nothing on the opponent's side, you can put it into your hand rather than on the battlefield. Am I reading that right?
Oath of Jace looks great with Starfield of Nyx. Play the first oath, discard a second. Then each turn you can resurrect an oath to draw three discard two, then send one to the graveyard for the legend rule and do it again next turn. That's a ton of synergy out of cards that are already good on their own. Scry X, draw three, discard two every upkeep in an Enchantment/Planeswalker control shell is huge.
In older formats, I like how Oath of Jace synergizes with Venser, the Sojourner and Sun Titan. Should be able to fit nicely into that UW Emeria Control deck that's been floating around in Modern.
It's not just colorless. It has colorless mana in the cost of the same card, I don't understand how this is even a question (assuming these are real)
Thank you for proving my point from a few posts up about how it's currently ambiguous and there is no current way to specify "only colorless."
No, Kozilek does not have 8 colorless and <><> in his cost. He has 8 generic and <><> in his cost; the 8 generic-mana cost can be paid with green mana, for example (and probably will be, most of the time). If WotC wanted to specify that 2 of the 10 generic mana used to play Kozilek must be colorless, how would they currently do that? Making a symbol to mean colorless solves that problem.
I agree with pierrebai above that this is not the definitive truth and everyone else is certainly wrong. I think it's a very likely explanation, though.
you have to keep in mind that <> exists in cost AND on cards and thus i stick to version nr1
for cards:
after the update Sol Ring would read "T: Add <> <>" cause Sol Rings generate colorless mana
in casting costs however the 1 doesnt stand for colorless mana, it stands for generic mana
the <> clears that up
for costs:
Kozileks costs are 8<><> so you can pay 2WWUUBBRR for him WWUUBBRRGG wont work though cause you need 2 of those to be colorless, hence the <>
you just have to remember that 1 in casting costs does NOT mean colorless. it means generic
This is elegant. It supports Converge well without making <> mana basically just like S, which it would be if they made it required, as snow mana is. They wouldn't want to make it "another snow mana" anyway. MaRo would simply never allow that. It's boring and unimaginative, even by his (yes, sometimes squishy and arbitrary) standards.
For the record, I hope it is like this. Far less disruptive effect..
Only real problem I see is A LOT of new players will be confused as hell over this. Old players will get it pretty quick but even then it takes a few seconds to understand it.
I think this is it. They've created a colorless mana symbol to differentiate "colorless" from "generic." There will be non-functional errata on all cards that formerly produced generic mana (which, if you think about it, doesn't even make sense) to now producing specifically colorless mana, and all future cards will used this new symbol to indicate colorless.
In that article, MaRo answered two questions that I think clarify a lot of the things people here are speculating about. First:
Evan Erwin @misterorange: @maro254 What design concept/idea are you afraid to try (or believe is too dangerous)?
MaRo: I'd say adding a sixth color. That idea is fraught with so many perils.
So I think it's pretty clear that <> is not a sixth color, nor even a close approximation of it. Then there's this:
Андрей Галилейский @Andrey_KsH: @maro254 what do you like most abot the spring 2016 block?
MaRo: I think it cleverly solved an ongoing problem we've been having
Now, obviously, OGW is not the Spring 2016 block, but MaRo isn't known for his sharp reading skills when answering questions in rapidfire like this, so I think he read that as OGW (which was the Spring 2016 set when it was in early design). I immediately thought of a colorless basic land when I read this last week, well before these spoilers came out.
There is a major problem with colorless basic lands: why have them at all? They only appeal to a very small audience, those who want to use Karn, Silver Golem, Kozilek, Butcher of Truth, Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre, or Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger as a commander, and who also are either afraid of non-basic land hate and/or can't afford an all colorless landbase. No one else has any reason to use a colorless basic land beyond that very small subset of players. And yet, in order for there to be enough colorless basics in circulation to get those players their colorless land, the lands need to be put into a main set (not a supplemental product) and made a major theme of the set to explain why there is suddenly a new basic land (like snow had to be a major theme for there to be snow basics). It's very hard to make a colorless basic as a gimmick when they are completely undesireable.
"Colorless matters" alone wouldn't be enough of a pull for a colorless basic, because there would still be no reason to run a colorless basic over a Forest or Island. In fact, you would be disadvantaged because you would lose access to the colored cards which are easily splashed into your colorless deck (like how GR Tron splashes in Ancient Stirrings, Sylvan Scrying, and Pyroclasm in its otherwise colorless deck, just because it can and it loses nothing to do so, or how Affinity adds red for Galvanic Blast or blue for Thoughtcast).
No, WotC needs to require players to use colorless mana, which is basically impossible to do without giving colorless its own identity separate and apart from "generic." My elf combo deck often casts Emrakul for GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG, despite him requiring 15. Until now, there was no way to differentiate colorless and generic mana. You could not instruct a player to "spend only colorless mana" like you could other colors, simply because there was no way to refer to it. And even if there was, putting it on a ton of cards in a set would be inelegant and confusing for cards like Kozilek ("At least two of the mana you spend to cast Kozilek must be colorless"? Gross). Giving colorless a symbol solves all of these issues at once: it allows them to specify colorless mana as a cost, which in turn provides a very real use for colorless basics (at the very least in limited), which then allows them to produce colorless basics en masse for the audience that needs them for Commander.
I think it's a very elegant solution and one that's easily grokked, even by newer players. All it will take is a simple explanation that if a card says it produces 1, it actually produces <>, and when it comes to mana production, the two are synonymous. 1 will now only be used for costs to truly mean generic, and will no longer be a type of mana that a mana source can produce. Folks here might say that's confusing, but I don't think it's any more confusing in the long run than 1G currently meaning 1 of any color and one green when referring to a cost, and meaning one colorless and one green when referring to mana production. I know newer players that have thought that "Add 1 to your mana pool" meant one mana of any color until it was explained to them otherwise.
EDIT: Also found this from awhile ago stating that the generic symbol 1 created a complexity issue for Barry's land [which would be fixed by having a dedicated colorless symbol].
My favorite card is Elvish Archdruid, because he was a linchpin in my first "good" deck, Elfdrazi (and is still getting it done for me in Modern Combo Elves). I love how he ramps when you need ramp and pumps up your team when you need aggro, and the way he powers up otherelflords just pushes him over the top.
First, y'all are saying that if hands are revealed, each player will know what the previous player is discarding to Liliana of the Veil before making their own choice if Zur's Weirding is in play? That doesn't seem right, but I guess it could be. Note that the ruling for Liliana doesn't say anything about separating the card.
Y’all’s determinations seem to be predicated on the words “clearly indicate” in Rule 101.4a, but those words are not on the card, not in the ruling (the ruling says “clearly separate,” and it’s the applicability of that ruling that is at issue here), and is not defined in the comprehensive rules at all. The wording of the ruling which says how to choose a card obviously intended for the ruling to apply when the hand isn’t revealed because it specifically says “without revealing it,” and it isn’t at all clear that’s how choosing a card was meant to work in all situations.
In fact, the comprehensive rules seem to anticipate the possibility of using other methods for indicating something rather than simply changing its location. For example, Rule 707.6 says “Common methods for distinguishing between face-down objects include using counters or dice to mark the different objects . . . “
Also, it seems to me that Rule 101.4a should be interpreted through the lens that it was meant to prevent players from changing their mind about what to choose. It does not say that the only way to clearly indicate a card is by setting it aside. Rather, it says to "clearly indicate" it without saying what that means, and then further says that the chosen cards are not revealed (again, calling into question its applicability).
Finally, I agree that the cards stay revealed under rule 400.11, but I’m not looking to conceal a revealed card. I’m looking to conceal a choice about those cards. The ruling at issue here, and the comprehensive rules in toto, all seem geared toward preventing a player from changing their choice, and not toward forcing a player to reveal their choice before the appointed time in the ability.
TL;DR – If it weren’t for the Gatherer ruling, it seems like we would all be in agreement that I could indicate my choice in any manner I saw fit, so long as it prevented me from changing my choice (correct me if I’m wrong in that assumption). The Gatherer ruling itself seems to not necessarily apply, seeing as it says “without revealing it,” and was meant as the method for indicating a card when hands are hidden. So, are we sure that there’s no other way to make the choice other than to set the card aside, and therefore reveal the choice early?
The Gatherer ruling says "To choose a card in your hand, clearly separate it from the rest of your hand without revealing it." However, if your hand is already revealed, separating a card will make it obvious which one you chose. Is it legal to use another method for choosing a card, such as writing it on a sticky note, numbering the cards and setting a die to the chosen card's number, or whispering the card's name to a judge? Any help would be appreciated!
P.S. - You can thank an Isperia the Inscrutable EDH deck for this nonbo of a situation...
Yes, or Nest of Scarabs. Every spell your opponents cast gives you a token, and then, if they haven't killed it, make it unblockable or at least hard to block, remove all the counters and start over. That's a lot of value.
This isn't getting the attention it deserves. It's absolutely beautiful.
Has anyone considered Phage the Untouchable as an alternate win condition? I've been playing this deck online some. It hasn't had an incredible win percentage, but I've probably won about 40% of my matches against tiered decks, which I think is respectable. Thing is, I've won several matches where I keep the board clear and grind us both into topdeck mode, then topdeck a Phage. The opponent has exactly 1 turn to draw an answer, or else they lose. Since the goal of the deck is to keep the board clear and grind your opponent into topdeck mode (to clear the way for Shared Fate), it seems like other cards that benefit from that strategy might be useful. Other than the win conditions, the whole deck is draw, discard, counters, and kill spells (especially heavy on the draw and discard, which are, of course, useless after Shared Fate comes down. I'm thinking something like this:
4 Serum Visions
4 Gitaxian Probe
1 See Beyond
Discard (9)
3 Thoughtseize
3 Inquisition of Kozilek
3 Raven's Crime
Counters (4)
4 Mana Leak
2 Dismember
2 Devour Flesh
2 Damnation
Win Conditions (7)
4 Shared Fate
2 Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
1 Phage, the Untouchable
Lands (25)
4 Island
4 Swamp
4 Exotic Orchard
4 Polluted Delta
4 Temple of Deceit
2 Ghost Quarter
2 Watery Grave
1 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
The See Beyond is for putting away excess Shared Fates mainly. Sideboard to taste (transformative, more pinpoint control, different win-cons, etc.)
EDIT: Could Zendikar Resurgent be used in Modern Green Devotion as an alternative to Genesis Wave?
In older formats, I like how Oath of Jace synergizes with Venser, the Sojourner and Sun Titan. Should be able to fit nicely into that UW Emeria Control deck that's been floating around in Modern.
No, Kozilek does not have 8 colorless and <><> in his cost. He has 8 generic and <><> in his cost; the 8 generic-mana cost can be paid with green mana, for example (and probably will be, most of the time). If WotC wanted to specify that 2 of the 10 generic mana used to play Kozilek must be colorless, how would they currently do that? Making a symbol to mean colorless solves that problem.
I agree with pierrebai above that this is not the definitive truth and everyone else is certainly wrong. I think it's a very likely explanation, though.
Part of the reason I think this is the case is this: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/know-what-2015-11-16
In that article, MaRo answered two questions that I think clarify a lot of the things people here are speculating about. First:
So I think it's pretty clear that <> is not a sixth color, nor even a close approximation of it. Then there's this:
Now, obviously, OGW is not the Spring 2016 block, but MaRo isn't known for his sharp reading skills when answering questions in rapidfire like this, so I think he read that as OGW (which was the Spring 2016 set when it was in early design). I immediately thought of a colorless basic land when I read this last week, well before these spoilers came out.
There is a major problem with colorless basic lands: why have them at all? They only appeal to a very small audience, those who want to use Karn, Silver Golem, Kozilek, Butcher of Truth, Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre, or Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger as a commander, and who also are either afraid of non-basic land hate and/or can't afford an all colorless landbase. No one else has any reason to use a colorless basic land beyond that very small subset of players. And yet, in order for there to be enough colorless basics in circulation to get those players their colorless land, the lands need to be put into a main set (not a supplemental product) and made a major theme of the set to explain why there is suddenly a new basic land (like snow had to be a major theme for there to be snow basics). It's very hard to make a colorless basic as a gimmick when they are completely undesireable.
"Colorless matters" alone wouldn't be enough of a pull for a colorless basic, because there would still be no reason to run a colorless basic over a Forest or Island. In fact, you would be disadvantaged because you would lose access to the colored cards which are easily splashed into your colorless deck (like how GR Tron splashes in Ancient Stirrings, Sylvan Scrying, and Pyroclasm in its otherwise colorless deck, just because it can and it loses nothing to do so, or how Affinity adds red for Galvanic Blast or blue for Thoughtcast).
No, WotC needs to require players to use colorless mana, which is basically impossible to do without giving colorless its own identity separate and apart from "generic." My elf combo deck often casts Emrakul for GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG, despite him requiring 15. Until now, there was no way to differentiate colorless and generic mana. You could not instruct a player to "spend only colorless mana" like you could other colors, simply because there was no way to refer to it. And even if there was, putting it on a ton of cards in a set would be inelegant and confusing for cards like Kozilek ("At least two of the mana you spend to cast Kozilek must be colorless"? Gross). Giving colorless a symbol solves all of these issues at once: it allows them to specify colorless mana as a cost, which in turn provides a very real use for colorless basics (at the very least in limited), which then allows them to produce colorless basics en masse for the audience that needs them for Commander.
I think it's a very elegant solution and one that's easily grokked, even by newer players. All it will take is a simple explanation that if a card says it produces 1, it actually produces <>, and when it comes to mana production, the two are synonymous. 1 will now only be used for costs to truly mean generic, and will no longer be a type of mana that a mana source can produce. Folks here might say that's confusing, but I don't think it's any more confusing in the long run than 1G currently meaning 1 of any color and one green when referring to a cost, and meaning one colorless and one green when referring to mana production. I know newer players that have thought that "Add 1 to your mana pool" meant one mana of any color until it was explained to them otherwise.
EDIT: Also found this from awhile ago stating that the generic symbol 1 created a complexity issue for Barry's land [which would be fixed by having a dedicated colorless symbol].