Ultimate Masters: MMI Review
Magic Market Index for Dec 7th, 2018
Magic Market Index for Nov 30th, 2018
  • posted a message on How many arguements can this card start?
    I guess it doesn't matter a whole lot if it triggers at upkeep or not.

    Haha do you mean that it doesn't offend your inner designer to make the change or that it has no impact on gameplay, because I can assure you, it matters a whole lot to change it.

    While you can add the extra 2 lines of text to have it enter with a counter for 3 mana, it does make the card FUNDAMENTALLY WEAKER. Maybe if it cost 2 mana?? Either way, you don't want to play this on turn three or later anyway. Best get it down early and try to sway votes.

    You've given me a great idea for a card by the way.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on How many arguements can this card start?
    I done a quick test render of your card and quickly realised how wordy it actually was.

    Here's a couple of points.
    Firstly, there isn't a need to have Xs in the mana cost. It's much to inefficient. 7 mana for three 1/1 tokens? Crazy!! A lightning bolt can do 3 damage for R at instant speed. Just cost it a one hybrid {w/r} mana, remove the starting counters and let the fun begin.

    Secondly, no one would ever choose the "remove a counter option" so let's remove that.

    Thirdly, the last ability could be much shorter since it doesn't actually need to specify what happens in the result of a tie if you template the ability correctly.

    Fourth, for EDH shenanigans, I'd give it indestructible over shroud.

    Fifth, why the hell is this an upkeep trigger??

    Finally, the card is shorter it you combine both triggers into one trigger with a modal choice in the middle.

    At the beginning of your end step, choose one —
    - Put an Influence counter on Political Power.
    - Create a 1/1 white Soldier creature token for each Influence counter on Political Power.
    - Political Power deals damage to any target equal to the number of Influence counters on Political Power.
    Then each player votes for another player. The player with the most votes gains control of Political Power.

    If the event of a tie, there ISN'T a player with the most votes so control doesn't change.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Card Idea. Evoke dependent on color of mana cast for it. Too good?
    I like this card but one thing throws me. I think it should be Boros not Gruul.

    Ever since Onslaught, green began to replace white as the best colour to destroy both artifacts and enchantments equally efficiently. (For eaxmple, White doesn't get a two mana instant speed disenchant since Naturalize was first printed. Red is the destroy target artifact for 2 or less mana. White is the destroy target enchantment for two or less mana. Green is destroy target artifact or enchantment for 2 or less mana.

    So although this card could be Gruul, I think it's a better fit in Boros.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on "Howl of the Hoard" and "Epic Experiment."
    Very comp answer. Thanks.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on "Howl of the Hoard" and "Epic Experiment."
    The rulings for Epic Experiment seem to disagree with WizardMn's opinion.

    10/1/2012 You cast the cards one at a time, choosing modes, targets, and so on. The last card you cast will be the first one to resolve

    I can't see any reason why you couldn't copy the shock.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Switch Shift - Something Simple
    Switch Shift is not a design that Wizards would consider anymore. Unnecessary shuffling slows games down and increases opportunity for cheating for very little advantage.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on [Official] Digital Rendering Thread
    Hey guys, can you help me out.

    Higher quality here. https://imgur.com/VMAekmk

    Work in progress. I've added the legendary crown (I'll finish it when we have hi-res scans) I've also added the colorless symbol to the font file. I'd like to make both available for download but I'm not sure if I'm allowed since I'm altering other people work. Any ideas on how I should proceed? I don't remember who's PSD file I originally used either Frown
    Posted in: Artwork
  • posted a message on Has indestructible, cannot be chosen.
    Hey guys!! I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to write such comprehensive answers. I know this went into much further detail than most answers here and I'm sure it must have been frustrating to you guys but I think I realise now EXACTLY where I was going wrong. If I had to sum it up in one sentence it would be "While you can ignore impossible effects, you can't make impossible choices."

    I hope you enjoyed delving a little deeper into a subject than you usually do.

    I have one last question if you will and a quick comment on Wild Swing.

    Wild Swing targets, which means rule 608.2d doesn't apply to it. Upon resolution, the player is not given a choice to destroy anything. The destroy event happens without the player needing to make any choice on which creature to destroy.

    I mentioned this earlier, but I interpret Wild Swing as indeed offering a choice on resolution. I believe when Wild resolves, it's controller randomly chooses which of the permanents are destroyed.

    http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=wild swing

    "You target three permanents as you cast Wild Swing. You don’t randomly choose which one will be destroyed until Wild Swing resolves. If one of those permanents has become an illegal target by then, you randomly choose between the other two. If two of those permanents have become illegal targets by then, there is no random choice — the remaining permanent is destroyed."

    It's a bit academic, but I'd argue that the player is making a choice between three permanents, (but that choice is determined by chance) and some of those permanents may be impossible choices. If Magic was an entirely digital game, (with no paper version) there would be an inbuilt randomiser and this ruling wouldn't be necessary, but I still wonder if randomly choosing still counts as a "choice." If so, then surely those "choices" should be restricted by the same rules against impossible choices.

    So suppose I choose two of your creatures and my darksteel citadel as the targets. You respond by casting a spell to give one of your creatures hexproof.

    My choices:
    Creature A: Now has hexproof, so it's an illegal target,
    Creature B: Valid target and possible choice
    Darksteel Citadel: Impossible choice because indestructible??

    Would it be an accurate assumption to say that only creature B can be chosen "randomly"?

    Finally, would you mind giving your interpretation of the following scenario, bearing rule 117.12a in mind

    I control two Serra Angels with one of them equipped by Assault Suit. I play Tariff. Can I choose my equipped angel as the creature I'll sacrifice unless I pay 3WW? What happens if I choose not to pay 3WW?

    117.12a. Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, "[Do something] unless [a player does something else]." This means the same thing as "[A player may do something else]. If [that player doesn't], [do something]."

    If I undesrstand 117.12a correctly, Tariff's text reads "You may pay the mana cost of the creature you control with the highest mana cost, if you don't, sacrifice it. If two or more creatures a player controls are tied for highest cost, that player chooses one."

    In which case, I could choose my equipped angel? Would you agree with this ruling??

    Thanks a million guys!! You're awesome!!

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Has indestructible, cannot be chosen.
    Thanks for the support chaikov,

    Unfortunately as we learned from Burning of Xinye, there's a huge difference between

    Destroy four target lands,
    Choose four lands and destroy them
    You destroy four lands

    To me the answer is very simple. The comp rules just needs to add a line to the rules defining the term destroy (701.7) and indestructibility (702.12) explicitly stating that in the case of the last option, it is an illegal action to destroy an indestructible permanent.

    Maybe even change the reminder text of indestructible "(Damage and effects that say "destroy" CAN'T destroy it. If its toughness is 0 or less, it's still put into its owner's graveyard.)" instead of "DON'T destroy it" and add reminder text to the very small set of cards that have received this weird templating (Drop of Honey, Prophyry Nodes and Burning Xinye) explicitly stating that choosing indestructible permanents isn't allowed because it is highly unintuitive.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Has indestructible, cannot be chosen.
    Quote from user_938036 »

    Nodes and Honey are specifically instructing you to destroy a creature, so you can not choose a creature that can't be destroyed.

    It's slightly more complicated than this though, because

    a) you CAN choose a creature that can't be destroyed and if you do, nothing happens.

    and b) It arbitrarily only counts indestructible and not other effects that would prevent a creature being destroyed such as Totem armor.

    7/1/2013 If the creature with the least power has indestructible, the ability does nothing.
    7/1/2013 If there are multiple creatures tied for least power and some but not all of them have indestructible, the ones with indestructible can’t be chosen.

    If there are only two 1/1 indestructible creatures on the battlefield, you may legally choose either, and nothing will happen as Nodes resolves, so you absolutely may choose "impossible" choices. In fact, the only restriction in choice occurs if at least one of the creatures tied for the lowest power doesn't have indestructible.

    To confound things further, if one of those permanents has Totem Armor instead of Indestructible then you have to choose that permanent instead.

    This is where the ambiguity, and questions of common sense and assumption, and the problems with literally readings arise and is what I think OP refers to. There is nothing in the comp rules that states the previous interaction.

    Quote from user_938036 »

    For Wild Swing, the player isn't making a choice so it isn't covered by this rule.

    I respectfully disagree, the player IS CHOOSING, but using a random method to decide the choice. This might seem pedantic but look at the language used in the card rulings. They repeat the phrase "you randomly choose"

    You don’t randomly choose which one will be destroyed until Wild Swing resolves. If one of those permanents has become an illegal target by then, you randomly choose between the other two.

    I like the approach you've taken regarding Cataclysm and the like, But I'm still not sure I agree. Csn you just clarify how many angels I'd have left in the above example please?

    And one last question, I still control two Serra Angels with one of them equipped by Assault Suit. I play Tariff. Can I choose my equipped angel as the creature I'll sacrifice unless I pay 3WW? What happens if I choose not to pay 3WW?

    Finally, thank again for your answers, I'm not trying to be argumentative, my only points are that OPs question is valid and the rules could be clearer.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Has indestructible, cannot be chosen.
    Mods: I know this has ventured a bit so if you need to, can you please move this thread instead of locking it because I find it very interesting. Thanks Smile

    First off, I wanna reiterate that I still think OP's question is really relevant and that "impossible" action requires a proper definition.

    Impossibility is a well-defined English concept, and a logical one - it is whatever is necessarily not the case. But if a companion guide is needed, you may consider 'impossibility' to be defined wherever the word "can't" or "can only" appears.

    I feel that you are trying to establish a precedent that hasn't yet been set or worse use "common sense" in a strange way.

    To me "choosing impossible actions" means that if someone casts Torment of Venom on my creature, I need to actually control another nonland permanent or have a card in hand to choose either of those choices. I can't save 3 life by agreeing to discard a card when I have none in hand. So I'm still not convinced that attempting to destroy an indestructible permanent counts as an impossible action within the framework of the rules.

    Rule 608.2d only applies to cases where the choice is offered upon resolution. I don't know why you've interpreted it to also apply to cases where the choice isn't offered upon resolution.

    Agreed, and my only point here was to state that spells and abilities can legally resolve but not generate the effects that they are supposed to.

    Any way, let's assume the precedent is set that countering uncounterable spells or destroying an indestructible permanent impossible counts as impossible within the framework of the rules, and bearing 608.2d in mind, I have a couple of follow up questions to help me think it through and see where you're coming from.

    Let's suppose I cast Wild Swing choosing my two Darksteel Citadels and my opponents 9/9 creature as targets. My understanding of the rules is there's a 33.3% chance that my opponent's 9/9 will be destroyed, and a 33.3% chance that Wild Swing will fail to destroy Citadel A and 33.3% chance to fail to destroy Citadel B.

    But your precedent suggests that since impossible choices can't be made (presumably even if I chose it randomly) that there's a 100% of destroying the 9/9 since I should only consider choices that are possible actions? Is this the correct conclusion? And if not, why is it different from Drop/Nodes.

    (Incidentally, the rulings for Wild Swing and Nodes were updated on the 01/07/13 even though they don't agree with with other. Nodes says indestructible things can't be chosen, Wild Swing says they can, but nothing happens Grin )

    Next up, let's look at the card Assault Suit, which says "Equipped creature can't be sacrificed." and conveniently has the following ruling

    If an effect instructs you to sacrifice a creature, and you control any creatures other than the creature equipped with Assault Suit, you must sacrifice one of them. You can’t try to sacrifice the equipped creature, fail, and therefore ignore the effect.

    Let's say that I cotrol two Serra Angels and one of them is equipped with Assault Suit. My opponent casts Diabolic Edict I would clearly have to Sacrifice the unequipped Angel.

    But compare that to effects like Balancing Act, Cataclysm and Cataclysmic Gearhulk which make you choose a creature to spare and then you sacrifice the rest.

    In my understanding of the rules, I could choose to save the unequipped Angel. As the spell resolves the equipped Angel would simply not be sacrificed, leaving me with but both angels but your precedent suggests that I would be forced to choose to save the equipped angel since sacrificing it would be impossible. Is this the correct interpretation?

    Finally, for now, let's look at Do or Die. Wrath effects usually just ignore indestructible creatures but going by your definition that "impossible" choices can't be made, it seems that if either pile has an indestructible creature in it, that pile can't be chosen. What happens to the game state if this occurs? Is the caster forced to rearrange the piles until at least one pile contains no creatures that can't be destroyed?

    Imagine I cast Do or Die on my opponent who controls two Darksteel Colossuses, and six 4/4 Beast tokens. My understanding of the rules, is that if I split into two piles each containing a Darksteel Colossus and three 4/4 Beast tokens, then I will destroy the remaining three beasts tokens, leaving my opponent with both Colossi and the three remaining beasts but your ruling suggests that my opponent can't choose either pile??

    So again guys, I'm not convinced that your interpretation of impossible actions is as tight as you think. My only point, is that the rules needs more clarification and it's not as simple as you claim.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Has indestructible, cannot be chosen.
    I hear your points folks, but it still seems like an unintuitive ruling.

    If you choose to destroy a creature with indestructible, you've just chosen to perform an impossible action, which 608.2d doesn't allow.

    Impossible things are never legal choices, so you can't destroy indestructible permanents. There is nothing exceptional about Drop of Honey.

    This is a really interesting discussion because the rules don't explicitly spell it out. It's perfectly legal to attempt the impossible in Magic. The rules of the game allow you to waste a Counterspell on a Supreme Verdict or to cast Terminate on an indestructible creature but not on a creature with hexproof (which would be an illegal play)

    Interestingly, the comp rules both defines and explains how to handle Illegal targets, Illegal Actions and the obsolete term "fizzle" (720) but doesn't define "impossible"

    If I hadn't seen the card specific rulings, I would assume that choosing an indestructible creature for Drop or Nodes is functionally the very same as casting a kill spell. The instructions to move the permanent from the battlefield to its owner’s graveyard would simply be ignored.

    Drop/Nodes is a weird card, let's not pretend otherwise Grin Grin
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Has indestructible, cannot be chosen.
    To answer your question, there is nothing in the comp rules that supports this ruling and I think the card should have been errated instead of arbitrarily adding this ruling.

    The only thing in the comp rules that I can think of being relevant is the following

    608.2d If an effect of a spell or ability offers any choices other than choices already made as part of casting the spell, activating the ability, or otherwise putting the spell or ability on the stack, the player announces these while applying the effect. The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible, with the exception that having a library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action.

    I suppose the argument for is that choosing an indestrucible creature would be "impossible". (Not that I agree with that)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on "Mana of any type" and clues toward upcoming sets/planes
    Hmmm, intersting theory but I think this might have more to do with modern design sensibilities.

    The current design philosophy is that while sideboard cards definitely still exist, most cards should not be better or worse based on your opponents deck. This is why intimidate, protection and landwalk have been either been removed or reduced to deciduous mechanics since Magic Origins.

    I'm presuming this extends to "Cards that allow you too cast your opponents stuff shouldn't be weaken it that stuff requires colorless or snow mana".

    Going forward I think "any type" is just more versatile and futureproof that "any color"
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on Commander 2018 planeswalker face cards speculation
    All I want is commanders and support that make old mechanics more EDH friendly. A proper morph commander, a cycling one, a splice one. So much gold in magics history that could be insane with a little push in Commander products.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.