2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Revival // Revenge when at 1 life.
    You actually have the math right in your question: you lose .5 life. The card says "but round that up" so you do. You round that to 1. So, you lose 1 life.

    You seem to be misreading it as "your life total is halved rounded up" which is not the same thing. The rounding is done on what you are losing, not what your life total ends up at.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Killing Kalamax in response to their first instant?
    This seems to fall under Last Known Information. The trigger needs to know information about the source of the ability to determine a certain piece of information (whether it is tapped). That source is now gone. As we do in analogous situations, we look at the source's Last Known Information:

    608.2g. If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself, the effect uses the current information of that object if it's in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it's no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object's last known information. See rule 113.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it's the object as it exists--or as it most recently existed--that does it, not the ability.

    So, since the trigger requires information about the source, and the source is gone, it looks at it as it last existed on the battlefield to determined if it was tapped. If so, the trigger resolves as normal.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on cant find foil mythic mystery booster card on internet
    Do you have a picture? Because you are not supposed to be able to get a foil Marchesa: she isn't on the foil sheet. The only foils are these:

    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Banned and restricted announcement (offical announcement)
    Quote from migrena »
    Convoke was significantly changed when it was reprinted. Initially only generic mana could be paid with convoke and now colored mana can be paid as well with matching creature.
    That isn't what changed. They only changed that you could no longer "overpay" for a spell with Convoke, changing it from a cost reduction to a payment method. It was always able to pay for colored mana.

    EDIT: Oh, Dunharrow got to it before me Smile
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Ban and Restricted announcement on 18th May 2020
    Quote from Ryperior74 »
    Quote from the n00b king »
    Pretty much no surprises today. Lurrus getting nuked in older formats.

    I do wonder what that means for Commander though since this is a very special case? I would imagine that the Committee might just put a star on this one and say you can totally play this in EDH, it's fine.

    Wouldn’t surprised of Sheldon announces something like (exaggerating a little)

    “Ok, we said everything banned in vintage is banned in edh but Lurrus is gonna be an exception.”
    Why would they make things that complicated? Just read what they actually *did* do:

    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Gonna be interesting watching the upcoming ban list update next week (reminder: vintage bans = illegal in EDH)

    Zero indication/recognition of Commander using vintage Ban list as a base.


    They seemed to have gone with the simplest solution: don't use the Vintage Ban list as a base anymore.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Looking for art
    Duskfang Mentor?

    Otherwise, here is a search for all the humans in Ikoria so you can review them:

    https://scryfall.com/search?as=grid&order=name&q=(type:creature type:human) set:iko
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Gonna be interesting watching the upcoming ban list update next week (reminder: vintage bans = illegal in EDH)
    Quote from Ryperior74 »
    Guys nothings getting banned in vintages it’s restricted they go to in that

    The only bans in history in vintage are the following

    Ante cards (playing for keeps)
    Conspiracy (has to be draft)
    Throw in the air (these just cause riots from the judges)

    Karn from war of the spark got restricted should be no different for Lurrus

    And yes even with the companion thing and I doubt Sheldon would ban Lurrus in edh all because of vintage
    Out of curiosity, what do you expect restricting Lurrus to do? That seems to be the clear front runner for "problem card" and decks currently play a grand total of 1 copy in their decks as it is now (since he already effectively restricts adding copies of himself to the deck). Restricting the card does literally nothing. Either they ban him or they simply do nothing with him. Which means Vintage remains broken (more broken than it was before).
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Ikoria...
    I have been playing Magic all my life, since 3rd edition and I have never seen such an expansion set before, like in Ikoria that literally breaks Standard, with it's certain broken and busted companions and very obvious and boring 'shells'. A lot of these customary decks in standard just run on rails and are too powerful. So much so, that if your not running these archetypal decks yourself, then your not winning. This leaves a lot to be considered by way of creativity and originality in brewing alternatives. Standard seems like it's dysfunctional, dead and buried with this set already...
    Wait a second....you have been playing since Revised and somehow, some way, you never noticed Combo Winter with Urza's Saga or Affinity with Mirrodin or Cawblade with Worldwake breaking the game?

    I mean games ended on turn 1 with some regularity with Urza's Saga. How many games are doing that now?

    I don't really know how much Ikoria is actually breaking things but if you are going to say that what we currently have is somehow worse than some of the worst things in the history of the game, I don't think I can really take you seriously. Sure, it might be bad (I don't think so beyond me not liking Companion) but I don't think it is nearly as bad as Combo Winter or Affinity.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Question about Ninja from Unstable
    Quote from peteroupc »
    The comprehensive rules do not define an augment keyword. That matter is ultimately up to the players in the game.

    In general, in a game allowing "silver-bordered" cards such as those in Unglued, Unhinged, and Unstable, the players in the game can agree on modifications to the comprehensive rules ("house rules") to accommodate situations, such as this one, that the comprehensive rules neither regulate nor answer and that are unique to such cards (see also C.R. 100.7). Although Mark Rosewater issues "rulings" on how certain game situations unique to such cards play out, such advice is no more or less valid than the "house rules" agreed to by the players (that is, such players can agree whether to adopt such "rulings" or not).
    Is this really necessary? The answer was provided 10-15 minutes before your comment so it sounds like you are just here to tell people that silver bordered cards don't have rules.

    The suggestion that they can simply ignore what is written on the cards is ridiculous. Yes, they don't exist in the CR but who cares. That is their whole shtick but players still want the cards to function via a set of rules. In the case of Silver Border it is just doing what the card says. Which applies to a lot of black bordered cards to be honest so not being in the CR doesn't really change anything about being able to answer questions. And if the card isn't super clear, Gatherer rulings still offer clarity.

    I have seen you make this comment before and it is unhelpful. You seem to have a ready to go comment you copy/paste each time something silver bordered comes. You don't seem to care much about MaRo's rulings or the fact that the cards don't have CR entries for silver bordered cards. Then just don't answer the questions and let the rest of the players have their fun.

    There are certainly times when "make up your own rules" is a valid response but it doesn't make sense here and you seem to have no desire to base that response on any sort of context. Some of us enjoy answering these off the wall questions and players still want a reasonable answer that is more than just "I don't know; do what you want".
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Search card problem
    Angurius isn't the name of an MTG card. You need to search for the actual name which is Gemrazer. Same with Godzilla, Doom Inevitable. Its MTG name is Yidaro.

    The names at the top of the styles are aesthetic only. The real names are just below that.
    Posted in: Proven (Standard)
  • posted a message on Becoming a new object while staying in the same zone
    The command zone already has an analogous rule in 400.10:

    If an object in the command zone is put into the command zone, it doesn’t change zones, but it becomes a new object that has just entered the command zone.

    As to the question at hand, is there a reason we might care if it is a new object? As you said in that thread, we only look in public zones for Gyruda's ability whether it is a new object or not. "Put the top 4 cards from your library into your library" won't work whether they are new objects or not.

    Also, yes there is a reason rule 400.10 exists: We can just take your example: Derevi is "exiled" under Banishing Light and the ability is activated. It never enters the battlefield and moves from the command zone to the command zone but because it is a new object Light loses track of it.

    EDIT: I do get your point about the cards now being the same cards that were "milled" so there isn't a rule needed. And I just realized Wheel reveals the card so any effects would know what the characteristics are (I thought they were hidden the whole time). So, yeah, it does seem like a weird conundrum. I would lean towards it still not working since that seems right but I am not sure there is really a good rules backup for that. I would lean on rules 400.8 and 400.10 as examples of intent.

    In fact, Eli just added that rule this time around because someone pointed out where it mattered. I would imagine the same would be true for any "zone A to zone A" movement.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Let's talk Companion and EDH
    Quote from Kryptnyt »
    Quote from 3drinks »

    That's only in constructed formats. Commander doesn't follow all these rules, and if it were to not grand companion to commander decks, Sheldon and the RC would have said otherwise by now, rather than banning one card. Pretty basic stuff.

    None of that explains where you got the idea that Companions would use the command zone.

    One thing I'm interested in: It appears to me that you can use a Companion that doesn't fit your color identity, as long as your deck fulfills the Companion's requirements, since the companion isn't considered part of your deck.
    That is incorrect. Your companion also needs to adhere to your commander's color identity. It has been confirmed a couple of times. I think Eli and Sheldon have both said it on Twitter.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Magus of Denial (Is the wording right?)
    Why don't you provide some insight into what you are trying to do then? Why is the wording suggested above different than your original wording in terms of functionality?

    You also didn't address the issue of Flash. I only call this out because I too am curious as to why it has flash. It seems confusing.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on [IKO] Sean Plott - Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy
    Quote from .H. »
    Can anyone possibly clarify how this card would work with something like Heritage Druid or Birchlore Rangers? In the case where you tap the Druid or Ranger itself, does this make +1 mana? Or plus 3 (or 2 for Birchlore)? I'd think it is only +1. In the case of tapping other Elves and not Druid or Ranger, does this make any extra mana?
    It doesn't work with either card no matter what you are tapping. It doesn't work with Urza or anything else that produces mana without the ability having the tap symbol. To "tap for mana" it needs to use the tap symbol and produce mana. Neither of those cards use the tap symbol so they won't work.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.