Presumably, the thought is that without the shocklands (or more particularly, the shocklands and fetchlands co-existing) Nacatl wouldn't be as good. Not commenting one way or the other on the correctness, just saying what I think Hinotama's thought is.
MaRo only said he had five loyalty abilities; that leaves room for the possibility of one or both sides having a triggered ability, or less likely a (non-loyalty) activated ability, that transforms him.
And Venser is Venser. He has both a walker and a creature form. Nicol Bolas, too. I just don't see why all the discussion on Garruk being the 5 ability PW when it's all but been officially confirmed.
In both the cases you cite, the creature came first, then the Planeswalker. Short of Garruk actually losing his spark in the storyline (not unprecedented, but as far as we know, not actually the case here), it would not be appropriate to print him as a creature. Garruk Relentless is going to be a planeswalker.
(That doesn't rule out the transformed side being a creature.)
Why is the second planeswalker assumed to be a new Garruk (when one was just printed in the last set), and not Ral Zarek? (I don't mean the fake everyone knows about, just a planeswalker card with that name.)
I know Zarek is probably from Ravnica, presumed setting of the next block, but planeswalkers get around; the original five aren't from Lorwyn, for example. So that alone is no evidence at against his appearing in Innistrad; nor is the enmity between Garruk and Liliana proof positive of his appearance here (Ajani and Bolas haven't appeared in the same set, for example).
So looking at recent tournament results, one would come to the conclusion that mono-green Eldrazi ramp isn't a deck anymore. Why not? At least in a vacuum it seems very powerful to me, what (if anything) makes it not work in the current meta? I'd think it would at least compete with, if not outperform, Valakut, it seemed to before the bannings and M12, but Valakut is all over the place and Eldrazi is nowhere to be seen.
Given how loudly WotC have been trumpeting the swapping in of Gideon and Sorin to the core set, does it make sense to anyone that they'd be keeping mum about entirely new Planeswalkers if there were any? Come on. The other three are going to be reprints. The only legitimate question left is which Chandra.
Rules question: If you use Chandra Ablaze's +1 to discard the phoenix, would it trigger and enter the battlefield?
Yes, you follow the instructions in order, so the Phoenix is in the graveyard by the time the damage is dealt.
I've had interesting experiences with her +1 on MTGO... say I target a creature with the ability then my opponent plays a brave the elements on their creature, the program lets me keep the card in my hand but she still gets the +1 loyalty.
That is as it should be. She gained the loyalty as a cost, as soon as the ability was announced, long before Brave the Elements was played, let alone resolved. (If the creature hadn't been a legal target at the time you played the ability, you wouldn't have been able to play it in the first place.) Then the ability fizzles due to an illegal target, so no part of its effect occurs - it doesn't start to resolve, then stop when it comes to an illegal instruction, it just doesn't resolve at all - but in no way does this go back in time and undo the already-"paid" cost of adding a counter.
Only things that remove abilities entirely. Off the top of my head Titania's Song would be the only way to do it with a single card, but there are lots of ways to make CoA a creature and then use stuff like Sudden Spoiling.
A couple things people sometimes think will accomplish this kind of thing, but don't: countermagic of any kind including stuff like Stifle, giving things Shroud.
I had heard that there was an exception made for this in Two Headed Giant, but I can't find anything about it...
How could 2HG be an "exception" to the rules for individual versus team life totals, when 2HG is the only format that has such rules in the first place?
And yeah, I too am lost as to what IVIemnarch could possibly mean by "control". Certainly not what anyone else in the history of Magic ever did.
Uh-oh. Does that mean that a hypothetical card that says "Destroy the battlefield."[1] would destroy a plane?
1. 400.11. Some effects instruct a player to do something to a zone (such as “Shuffle your hand into your
library”). That action is performed on all cards in that zone. The zone itself is not affected.
No. That comment was trying to give a flavour explanation, not a rigorously accurate account of what the rules say. As far as the rules are concerned, a Plane is an object in the Command zone, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the battlefield.
How many Mythics are in this set? It seems like we have two cycles (planeswalkers and titans) plus one other Mythic in each colour, and at least one mythic artifact. That would make sixteen (maybe more), not the usual fifteen.
As a third (rather unexciting) spoiler from these articles, I'm guessing from Phylactery Lich's FAQ entry that Demon's Horn is in (which presumably would bring that whole cycle with it), so there's five of the fourteen hitherto unrevealed artifact slots wasted confirmed to my satisfaction.
If he actually used those words, ask the judge to show you where in the IPG it proscribes a Game Loss for Cheating.
(if the "cheating" is your term, it's far too loaded for this discussion)
A nitpick just because it amused me, "proscribe" giving a game loss for cheating is exactly what it does. It prescribes (lays down as a rule) disqualification, which implies that it proscribes (forbids or condemns) giving any other penalty such as a game loss.
Let's say you've played 5 spells so far this turn. When you cast Brain Freeze, the storm count will be 5. Then if you Twincast Brain Freeze, the storm on Twincast won't activate as it won't gain storm until after it was cast. Same for the copies made by Echo Mage.
Right final answer, wrong reason. Twincast never gains Storm, and the copy it creates has Storm from the moment it's created; it's not that it gains it after it was cast, it's that it wasn't cast in the first place.
Casting humble will not prevent the token from being indestructible. Something being indestructible is not an ability, it's simply a quality. The functionality has not changed, and the wording was changed to make it more clear.
It's true that being indestructible isn't an ability, but "This creature is indestructible" most certainly is, and is removed by Humble. And without that, there is nothing giving it the quality of being indestructible.
Far from making it clearer that Humble doesn't work (I'm curious how you figured that), the new wording makes it false that Humble doesn't work.
In both the cases you cite, the creature came first, then the Planeswalker. Short of Garruk actually losing his spark in the storyline (not unprecedented, but as far as we know, not actually the case here), it would not be appropriate to print him as a creature. Garruk Relentless is going to be a planeswalker.
(That doesn't rule out the transformed side being a creature.)
I know Zarek is probably from Ravnica, presumed setting of the next block, but planeswalkers get around; the original five aren't from Lorwyn, for example. So that alone is no evidence at against his appearing in Innistrad; nor is the enmity between Garruk and Liliana proof positive of his appearance here (Ajani and Bolas haven't appeared in the same set, for example).
A couple things people sometimes think will accomplish this kind of thing, but don't: countermagic of any kind including stuff like Stifle, giving things Shroud.
How could 2HG be an "exception" to the rules for individual versus team life totals, when 2HG is the only format that has such rules in the first place?
And yeah, I too am lost as to what IVIemnarch could possibly mean by "control". Certainly not what anyone else in the history of Magic ever did.
No. That comment was trying to give a flavour explanation, not a rigorously accurate account of what the rules say. As far as the rules are concerned, a Plane is an object in the Command zone, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the battlefield.
wastedconfirmed to my satisfaction.A nitpick just because it amused me, "proscribe" giving a game loss for cheating is exactly what it does. It prescribes (lays down as a rule) disqualification, which implies that it proscribes (forbids or condemns) giving any other penalty such as a game loss.
Spam warning for nitpicking. -Carsten
Right final answer, wrong reason. Twincast never gains Storm, and the copy it creates has Storm from the moment it's created; it's not that it gains it after it was cast, it's that it wasn't cast in the first place.
It's true that being indestructible isn't an ability, but "This creature is indestructible" most certainly is, and is removed by Humble. And without that, there is nothing giving it the quality of being indestructible.
Far from making it clearer that Humble doesn't work (I'm curious how you figured that), the new wording makes it false that Humble doesn't work.