A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
Exclusive: Sword of Truth and Justice
  • posted a message on Bola's Citadel and Morph cards
    You can't cast the card face down at all with Citadel. As to the amount of life to pay, it depends on the CMC of the face-up card. Scornful Egotist will cost you 8 life while Birchlore Rangers will cost you 1 life. Morph or the cost to cast to face down, will not factor into anything with Citadel.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Bola's Citadel and Morph cards
    You can cast Visions off Citadel because it gives you a payable cost; you are not trying to use 2 alternate costs there. You are *only* using Citadel's cost to cast the Visions. It doesn't matter that Visions normally has an unpayable cost because you aren't paying that.

    In the case of Morph, you are trying to use both the Morph cost (turn it face down, cast for 3) and Citadel (pay 0 life now that it is face down). And you can't combine alternate costs.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Bola's Citadel and Morph cards
    Not in this case, no. Both the cost from the Citadel and Morph are alternate costs and you can only use 1 alternate cost when casting a spell. And, in this case, only one cost lets you cast it from the top of your library.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Mangara's Tome and The new Karn
    Please use card tags:

    Karn, the Great Creator
    Mangara's Tome

    Nothing about the Tome, or the rules of the game, says that face-down cards in exile are turned face up just because the source of the effect that exiled them is gone. They will remain face-down and Karn cannot grab them from Exile.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on New Judge Promo's Announced
    Quote from SpeedGrapher »

    Are they out of their mind? Judges get paid in promos currently.
    Judges *don't* get paid with promos. I am not aware of any way to get the promos currently without a) going to a Judge Conference or b) being nominated for Exemplar. There are likely a lot of judges, more likely in rural areas, that never got Judge promos at all because they were not a form of payment. This model "fixes" that and guarantees promos to every judge. And the "pay" they do get (whether it is cash or boxes or free entry into events at smaller things) shouldn't change. Since the judge promos should always be more than $100 for the year, anyone who wants to can simply sell their promos to pay the dues. Most likely, they could sell half, keep half, and pay the dues.

    The rest of your post is ridiculous nonsense and I believe this is, overall, just a troll post. But I do think the point above is still important enough to clarify.

    Quote from MeatPileMagic »

    Outside of the very lengthy monologue, I agree the fee structure does not support a volunteer community. Too many people here are making analogies to industrial and working certificates when the judge program is supposed to be a VOLUNTARY program. They are the street corner and soap box supporters of the game, and now they are being asked to take out their wallets and throw more money at the hard work they already put their blood sweat and time into. Its insulting and unrealistic. They asked for pay and most cannot receive it as an LGS 9/10 is hard pressed to make revenue on magic as the cost basis keeps going up and the player base shops more online.
    It is actually very possible that this doesn't work out the way the Judge Academy wants it to. $100 is not chump change for a lot of people and the structure does have some things that could cause people to question their own involvement in the program. The idea seems to be that the promos could pay for the dues (or, another way to look at it, that the dues pay for the promos) which may or may not be enough of an incentive for people to continue.

    I think there are a lot of good points being made about the difficulties in making this a membership program but there are some benefits to judges as well. The main issue is that an organization like this needs money to function and now that Wizards is taking a step out, that money needs to come from somewhere. Good or bad, the best source is the judges themselves and they are trying to add in enough value (the Judge Promos mainly) to make those dues worth it.

    I am not saying it is all going to be sunshine and rainbows; it has some pitfalls simply by virtue of it being unknown at this time. I do think we need to see where it leads to as the organization hasn't even officially begun yet so we will see how many people feel the value in the dues is enough and how many won't. If enough don't, another solution would have to come along and we will start over at that time.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Arena - first mass banning for an event?
    This seems like a cool idea to me. I don't see this as being a testing ground for bannings (though maybe we can extrapolate something from it if cards *do* get banned later). Instead, it seems like exactly what it says it is: a Standard Shake-up. People, for better or worse, don't like playing against certain decks because they are top tier. And, for the most part, this list hits a lot of different decks. For people that are tired of playing against RDW or tired of playing against Esper, this format gives a form of reprieve from that without any real overarching changes to Standard. It is a fun event that they could really only do in Arena and it only lasts 3 days.

    As of right now, I am not reading anything more into this other than "Wizards hears people don't like certain decks popping up all the time so they are giving us a timed event that eliminates those temporarily". Anyone that doesn't like it can still grind their 6 wins (or just one if they want the XP only) and then go back to playing normal BO1/BO3.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on arixmethes the slumbering isle
    Arixmethes, Slumbering Isle

    Yes, the ability removing a counter is a normal triggered ability and it uses the stack. This can be responded to before it resolves which will allow you to bounce the Herald prior to the Arixmethes no longer being a land.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Tolarian Winds and Library of Leng
    Cards tags are used like this:

    [c]Tolarian Winds[/c] = Tolarian Winds
    Library of Leng

    Both Flux and Winds work the same way with Library of Leng. For each card being discarded, you choose where it goes. Anything you discard to the top of the library will then be drawn by the second half of the spell.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on [C19] Sudden Exchange
    Quote from Gutterstorm »
    Question about this and counterspells:

    Say someone casts a spell, in response I cast Counterspell and hold priority and cast Sudden Exchange. I exchange control of the counterspell and some sweet creature an opponent has. When that opponent retargets the counterspell can it target itself or does it have to target something else?
    I think it has to target something else. I just looked this up, actually, and checked the rulings for Deflection, and it states:

    "10/4/2004 You can’t make a spell which is on the stack target itself."
    A couple of things. They don't have to change the target of the counterspell so they can just leave it as is. This might be their own spell so it might not be ideal for them.

    However, just like Narset's Reversal creating a copy of counterspell, they can simply change the target to the resolving Split Second spell (or the Reversal in that example). The counterspell won't resolve in that case, but it can still be changed to that target.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Question about Volrath, the Shapestealer ability
    No, they don't interact. Note that Rayami says "creature card" while Volrath just says "creature". Any time the game cares about something in a zone other than the battlefield, it is qualified with the use of the word "card". Since Volrath doesn't say "card" he just means a permanent on the battlefield.
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on K'rrik and Extort
    Fair enough. Maybe it will simply come down to interpretation of the current rules that covers this rather than a specific rule for it.

    Oh, and for anyone that wants to read Eli's responses:

    https://twitter.com/EliShffrn/status/1157460202611888129 (covers the hybrid aspect pretty explicitly)
    https://twitter.com/EliShffrn/status/1157460081090260992 (covers Extort specifically)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on K'rrik and Extort
    Sorry. Eli Shiffrin is the rules manager for Wizards. He is the guy that makes and updates all the rules. If he says it works, it works.

    So, yes, you are fine with pursuing the deck Smile

    Also, I don't want people to lose sight of the whole scenario. As user_938036 pointed out, Extort still has a cost based on the rule above. I was simply commenting on the meaning of the mana symbol, but that rule clarifies that there is still a cost the K'rrik can interact with when dealing with Extort.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on K'rrik and Extort
    On an interesting side note: I don't believe the rules actually support that. B is not the same as (W/B) in terms of the actual symbol. K'rrik looks for just B. Eli has already confirmed a couple times that this does work, so the answer above is correct but I don't think we actually have anything in the rules yet saying it does (which makes sense; it is a new effect after all). The closest we have is:

    118.7e. If a cost is reduced by an amount of mana represented by a hybrid mana symbol, the player paying that cost chooses one half of that symbol at the time the cost reduction is applied (see rule 601.2f). If a colored half is chosen, the cost is reduced by one mana of that color. If a colorless half is chosen, the cost is reduced by an amount of generic mana equal to that half's number.

    Which, of course, doesn't quite cover it but I expect an analogous rule to be created for things like K'rrik.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Yarok, the Desecrated
    At some point, if a deck is really "taking over" your games, you need to account for it. While I don't think Phage was really a serious suggestion (it only works against the Artisans anyway) the others are still good cards. I have a tough time fighting through Torpor Orb effects with some of my decks because there are a lot of ETB effects in EDH. As long as you are not hampered too much by them, they are generally good includes in general and they really shut down Yarok.

    "Run more removal" isn't necessarily the definitive answer for things, but "run some good removal" can be. Now, since we don't know your deck, we don't know what you are doing now, but adding more quality removal can be helpful.

    At the end of the day, Yarok will end up running away with games and Yarok will also end up just faltering and doing nothing. It really depends on what you are trying to do during this to determine which scenario occurs more often. It is certainly possible that even with adding the cards above and increasing removal that Yarok is still too much. At which point you may just have to ask your friend not to play the deck or you might have to come up with a completely different deck. It is not at all ideal and nothing may change of course, but that is for you and your friend to figure out.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on NEWB question about rotation
    Quote from JNitmo »
    I was also informed by my FLGS that at least one copy in standard rotation has to be in the deck. Things that are not always in rotation like Llanowar Elves would be a good example of that.
    I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say, but any way I interpret it makes this statement sound wrong. I think you are saying that at least one card must be from a the set printed in Standard so if you have 4 Llanowar Elves, at least one needs to be from M20. Which is incorrect. If you have 4 Llanowar Elves in your deck, all 4 can be from Beta. None of them must be from the set that is actually in Standard.
    Posted in: Standard (Type 2)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.