Warlock's Continuum4 Artifact
Omen (As you cast this spell, you may scry 1, then draw a card. If you do, your opponent may fateseal 1.)
When Warlock's Continuum enters or leaves the battlefield, you may draw a card.
Whenever a player has 7 or more mana in his or her mana pool, that player loses the game.
Lore Card Every stimulation is desensitizing at its worst. The physics offer us but one ultimatum: Savor the moment while you can, before it's gone forever; fight the ebb forever—or the end is nigh.
Warlock's Continuum4 Artifact
When Warlock's Continuum enters or leaves the battlefield, you may draw a card.
Whenever a player adds 7 or more mana to his or her mana pool, that player loses the game. Every stimulation is desensitizing at its worst. The physics offer us but one ultimatum: Savor the moment while you can, before it's gone forever; fight the ebb forever—or the end is nigh.
The lose effect is really easy to play around, as few effects add seven mana all at once. If the intent is just to hose those effects, then this could actually cost 3 instead of 4.
If the intent is to make them lose for adding 7 or more mana total in one turn then it needs to be reworded and also more expensive.
As worded I could see this costing only 2. Hosing Tron is great and a number of decks cast equally large spells but Gaddock Teeg is a more effective means of stopping those cards. If as Rowanalpha suggests and you want to punish spending a total of seven or more mana in a turn. Then I'm not certain what it should cost. Four doesn't sound bad but I would be cautious and start higher before playtesting.
This wording is problematic because the process of paying costs as you cast a spell isn’t direct about how mana enters and leaves the mana pool during casting, whether all at once or one at a time.
Using MtgO as an example, if I tap lands before announcing the spell, the mana of course all goes and sits in my mana pool. However, if I announce a 7 mana spell and then begin individually tapping 7 lands the mana immediately empties from the mana pool one at a time for each land you tap. Arena works similarly with mana getting added and emptied without ever getting to 7 in the mana pool before the costs are paid.
The point being I don’t thing this works to stop someone from casting 7+ mana spells as written
Yeah people can still cast 7 mana spells they just can't float 7 mana so decks like storm will have issues or if you cast Apex of Power. Losing the game is also sort of a randomly harsh penalty. Considering Ichor Wellspring costs 2 mana you could just slap 'if an ability would cause a player to have more than 6 mana in pool instead that ability adds 0 and the pool empties' to it and keep it at 2 with no real issue.
This wording is problematic because the process of paying costs as you cast a spell isn’t direct about how mana enters and leaves the mana pool during casting, whether all at once or one at a time.
Using MtgO as an example, if I tap lands before announcing the spell, the mana of course all goes and sits in my mana pool. However, if I announce a 7 mana spell and then begin individually tapping 7 lands the mana immediately empties from the mana pool one at a time for each land you tap. Arena works similarly with mana getting added and emptied without ever getting to 7 in the mana pool before the costs are paid.
The point being I don’t thing this works to stop someone from casting 7+ mana spells as written
Yeah people can still cast 7 mana spells they just can't float 7 mana so decks like storm will have issues or if you cast Apex of Power.
The rules are quite clear.
601.2g If the total cost includes a mana payment, the player then has a chance to activate mana
abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”). Mana abilities must be activated before costs are paid
601.2h The player pays the total cost.
These are distinct and separate steps in casting a spell. Mana is generated. Then costs are paid. So this would prevent the casting of spells that cost 7 or more. Or more correctly. Cause the caster to lose the game before said spell resolves.
This wording is problematic because the process of paying costs as you cast a spell isn’t direct about how mana enters and leaves the mana pool during casting, whether all at once or one at a time.
Using MtgO as an example, if I tap lands before announcing the spell, the mana of course all goes and sits in my mana pool. However, if I announce a 7 mana spell and then begin individually tapping 7 lands the mana immediately empties from the mana pool one at a time for each land you tap. Arena works similarly with mana getting added and emptied without ever getting to 7 in the mana pool before the costs are paid.
The point being I don’t thing this works to stop someone from casting 7+ mana spells as written
Yeah people can still cast 7 mana spells they just can't float 7 mana so decks like storm will have issues or if you cast Apex of Power.
The rules are quite clear.
601.2g If the total cost includes a mana payment, the player then has a chance to activate mana
abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”). Mana abilities must be activated before costs are paid
601.2h The player pays the total cost.
These are distinct and separate steps in casting a spell. Mana is generated. Then costs are paid. So this would prevent the casting of spells that cost 7 or more. Or more correctly. Cause the caster to lose the game before said spell resolves.
You are correct, but between you announcing the spell, activating all the mana abilities to add the 7 mana and then it emptying to complete casting the spell, there won't be a time for state based action to check - so I'm still not sure the ability would trigger, not unlike how if a spell causes you to go below 0 life and then also go back above 0 as part of the same effect doesn't cause you to lose the game.
The point of my statement wasn't necessarily that the ability DOESN'T work, but rather that it requires a significantly fine detail of rules knowledge that players wouldn't necessarily understand it to play consistently correctly.
You are correct, but between you announcing the spell, activating all the mana abilities to add the 7 mana and then it emptying to complete casting the spell, there won't be a time for state based action to check - so I'm still not sure the ability would trigger, not unlike how if a spell causes you to go below 0 life and then also go back above 0 as part of the same effect doesn't cause you to lose the game.
The point of my statement wasn't necessarily that the ability DOESN'T work, but rather that it requires a significantly fine detail of rules knowledge that players wouldn't necessarily understand it to play consistently correctly.
Triggered abilities don't use state-based checks to trigger.
603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.
603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority.
I don't imagine players have a detailed enough understanding of the rules to think that it does something other than punish you for casting spells that cost 7 or more mana. Though if that's an actual concern I would be on the side of directly referencing the casting of spells with MV of 7 or greater.
You are correct, but between you announcing the spell, activating all the mana abilities to add the 7 mana and then it emptying to complete casting the spell, there won't be a time for state based action to check - so I'm still not sure the ability would trigger, not unlike how if a spell causes you to go below 0 life and then also go back above 0 as part of the same effect doesn't cause you to lose the game.
The point of my statement wasn't necessarily that the ability DOESN'T work, but rather that it requires a significantly fine detail of rules knowledge that players wouldn't necessarily understand it to play consistently correctly.
Triggered abilities don't use state-based checks to trigger.
603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.
603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority.
I don't imagine players have a detailed enough understanding of the rules to think that it does something other than punish you for casting spells that cost 7 or more mana. Though if that's an actual concern I would be on the side of directly referencing the casting of spells with MV of 7 or greater.
I'm a judge and the question is whether the seven mana is all in the pool at once or not (or even goes into the pool instead of going straight to the spell) is both (a) deep enough that I couldn't easily answer the question and (b) something than is not reflected in Mtgo or Arena in the way you described, so expecting a average player to understand correctly is likely too high a bar. My point was that there is probably a way to word this such that there isn't any such confusion.
Warlock's Continuum 4
Artifact
When Warlock's Continuum enters or leaves the battlefield, you may draw a card.
Whenever a player has 7 or more mana in his or her mana pool or spends seven or more mana to cast a spell or activate an ability, that player loses the game.
It wasn't intended to stop people from casting 7+ mana spells.
It's only intended to disrupt the action of adding massive amounts of mana.
Having 7 mana or casting 7 mana spells may not even be relevant to begin with.
This is something special about Reap designs. Everyone else is debating how powerful it is and its impact on the game. Only for Reap to show up and go. "That's not what this does. It does this thing."
I'm fine with redundancy for clarity but this is cut and dry based on the wording of the Comp rules. You can't make partial payments of a spell so all of it has to be sitting in your mana pool before you begin paying. The functions of MTGO and Arena are streamlined for the purpose of functioning on the digital client not adhering to the Comp rules. While they are a fine way of testing how cards are meant to function they aren't a good representation of how the game functions. If we're whipping out judge credentials that's cool. I may never have gotten past level one but that's because I don't network or socialize well. So unless you're higher than 3 it doesn't mean much.
To accomplish what I think Reap wants.
Whenever a player adds mana to their mana pool, if that player has seven or more mana in their mana pool they lose the game.
If you have instant speed methods of spending the mana then this effect won't do anything but it sounds like it accomplishes what Reap wanted. Though I'll need clarification from Reap.
Since Reap has changed the card he originally posted and explained his intention further, we should address the updated version.
User's updated wording is definitely in line with Reaps explanation for how the ability is supposed to work.
The "Omen" ability takes the card from being draw one when you cast to draw 2.5. With this ability it would need to cost more than 4, and it really distracts from the core effects the card already had like most of the Deus Ex abilities tend to.
I think it really carries the feel of a continuum now.
Reminder that there are many decks where having or adding 7 mana is never relevant.
The cost is probably where it wants to be as to not slip into obscurity. It's like making cards that encourage players not to cheat (cause they don't have to).
While the effect is incredibly narrow. The added value of drawing and scrying means that this can't be cheaper or it would be run exclusively for those effects. Overall a functional card if you correct the wording to get the results you actually want. It's just such a narrow effect that I can't imagine anyone actually wanting it.
I think it could be run exclusively for the draw effects as it stands, maybe.
Drawing two cards for 4 is based. It could cost 1 more, but for the place it takes of actual removal, becomes questionable that it needs to. Most decks need cheaper draw—and how much less efficient doesn't matter.
Yet even red might make use of this via an outlet for Crack the Earth.
And I think there are some white commander decks that would definitely consider playing 3W Sorcery Draw two cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Did you think to kill me? There's no flesh and blood within this cloak to kill. There is only an idea. Ideas are bulletproof." - V, V for Vendetta. Alan Moore
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Artifact
Omen (As you cast this spell, you may scry 1, then draw a card. If you do, your opponent may fateseal 1.)
When Warlock's Continuum enters or leaves the battlefield, you may draw a card.
Whenever a player has 7 or more mana in his or her mana pool, that player loses the game.
Lore Card
Every stimulation is desensitizing at its worst. The physics offer us but one ultimatum: Savor the moment while you can, before it's gone forever; fight the ebb forever—or the end is nigh.
Artifact
When Warlock's Continuum enters or leaves the battlefield, you may draw a card.
Whenever a player adds 7 or more mana to his or her mana pool, that player loses the game.
Every stimulation is desensitizing at its worst. The physics offer us but one ultimatum: Savor the moment while you can, before it's gone forever; fight the ebb forever—or the end is nigh.
If the intent is to make them lose for adding 7 or more mana total in one turn then it needs to be reworded and also more expensive.
Note the bait for Perilous Research here additionally.
I was thinking it could be cheaper, but still not by that much (for good measure).
If it had a Deus Ex Machina additionally, it would probably just want to stay where it's at.
Using MtgO as an example, if I tap lands before announcing the spell, the mana of course all goes and sits in my mana pool. However, if I announce a 7 mana spell and then begin individually tapping 7 lands the mana immediately empties from the mana pool one at a time for each land you tap. Arena works similarly with mana getting added and emptied without ever getting to 7 in the mana pool before the costs are paid.
The point being I don’t thing this works to stop someone from casting 7+ mana spells as written
You are correct, but between you announcing the spell, activating all the mana abilities to add the 7 mana and then it emptying to complete casting the spell, there won't be a time for state based action to check - so I'm still not sure the ability would trigger, not unlike how if a spell causes you to go below 0 life and then also go back above 0 as part of the same effect doesn't cause you to lose the game.
The point of my statement wasn't necessarily that the ability DOESN'T work, but rather that it requires a significantly fine detail of rules knowledge that players wouldn't necessarily understand it to play consistently correctly.
I don't imagine players have a detailed enough understanding of the rules to think that it does something other than punish you for casting spells that cost 7 or more mana. Though if that's an actual concern I would be on the side of directly referencing the casting of spells with MV of 7 or greater.
I'm a judge and the question is whether the seven mana is all in the pool at once or not (or even goes into the pool instead of going straight to the spell) is both (a) deep enough that I couldn't easily answer the question and (b) something than is not reflected in Mtgo or Arena in the way you described, so expecting a average player to understand correctly is likely too high a bar. My point was that there is probably a way to word this such that there isn't any such confusion.
Warlock's Continuum 4
Artifact
When Warlock's Continuum enters or leaves the battlefield, you may draw a card.
Whenever a player has 7 or more mana in his or her mana pool or spends seven or more mana to cast a spell or activate an ability, that player loses the game.
There, wording clarified. Is it redundant? Maybe, but redundancy for clarity has been done before.
It's only intended to disrupt the action of adding massive amounts of mana.
Having 7 mana or casting 7 mana spells may not even be relevant to begin with.
I'm fine with redundancy for clarity but this is cut and dry based on the wording of the Comp rules. You can't make partial payments of a spell so all of it has to be sitting in your mana pool before you begin paying. The functions of MTGO and Arena are streamlined for the purpose of functioning on the digital client not adhering to the Comp rules. While they are a fine way of testing how cards are meant to function they aren't a good representation of how the game functions. If we're whipping out judge credentials that's cool. I may never have gotten past level one but that's because I don't network or socialize well. So unless you're higher than 3 it doesn't mean much.
To accomplish what I think Reap wants.
If you have instant speed methods of spending the mana then this effect won't do anything but it sounds like it accomplishes what Reap wanted. Though I'll need clarification from Reap.
User's updated wording is definitely in line with Reaps explanation for how the ability is supposed to work.
The "Omen" ability takes the card from being draw one when you cast to draw 2.5. With this ability it would need to cost more than 4, and it really distracts from the core effects the card already had like most of the Deus Ex abilities tend to.
Reminder that there are many decks where having or adding 7 mana is never relevant.
The cost is probably where it wants to be as to not slip into obscurity. It's like making cards that encourage players not to cheat (cause they don't have to).
Drawing two cards for 4 is based. It could cost 1 more, but for the place it takes of actual removal, becomes questionable that it needs to. Most decks need cheaper draw—and how much less efficient doesn't matter.
Yet even red might make use of this via an outlet for Crack the Earth.
While decks like Balance are a given.
And I think there are some white commander decks that would definitely consider playing 3W Sorcery Draw two cards.