Ultimate Masters: MMI Review
Magic Market Index for Dec 7th, 2018
Magic Market Index for Nov 30th, 2018
  • posted a message on Multiple abilities at the end of the turn and priorities
    MTG:A does a lot of things automatically. You can take full control by hitting the Control key and that should let you act between Teferi triggers.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Corpsejack Menace + Nissa vs. terminate
    Yes. The doubling only occurs if Menace is on the filed when the ability resolves, and if your opponent resolves Terminate on the Menace it won't be around when Nissa's ability resolves.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Skullclamp rules in use
    Static effects, like Skullclamp and other equipments, are only in affect what they say they do. Once Skullclamp is moved, it's no longer equipped to the Wolf token, so it is no longer the equipped creature and does not benefit from the P/T modifications.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Self pumping interactions: functions
    The ability on Dread Shade doesn't require tapping the creature, so it can be activated even if the creature is tapped.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on The Worse Rules of Magic
    Dude I give up. You are hopeless. I'm just repeating the same issues that you are completely unable to see (or, even worse, purposely ignoring). I have better ways to spend my time honestly.

    So no defense to the challenges I purposed? Nouns and verbs are just different words, regardless of your feelings.

    If you don't know why it would be better if this rule was changed, even slightly, to make people understand better how this game works, then there's nothing I can do for you. Have a nice day.

    You brought up shroud and hexproof and mentioned that if you see the word "target" it doesn't work.
    Auras don't include the word target on the card anywhere. So can I enchant your hexproof or shroud creature? According to you, it should work.
    What happens when I use Sun Titan's ability to bring an Aura back to the battlefield - can I put it on your hexproof/shroud creature? Remember, use the cards to explain your answer because according to you there's no need to reference the CR for how it works.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on The Worse Rules of Magic
    Well, since that's not what it says...

    Yes, it is what it says.

    Silent Arbiter : No more than one creature can attack each combat.

    if my Silent Arbiter says that no more than one creature should be able to attack me each combat?"

    So what the card says and what you pretended it says are different? Okay, so I was right. Thanks!

    Words in Magic rules don't always mean what they mean in English. That should be a given.

    When somebody is attacking me with Kaalia, she put a creature in play that is attacking me. With the results that two creatures, and not only one, are attacking in combat.

    You see where is the problem? Is the use of the same exact word, from cards there's no way to make a distinction of why Kaalia attacking got a different meaning compared to the fatty cheated with Kaalia that is also attacking.

    And from cards there's literally no way to know what your hand size is. When a card says "Draw two cards." where do you draw them from? Your opponent's deck? What happens if you have no cards left in your deck - what card tells you that? Are we expected to go Pot of Greed levels of detail on every card?

    That's why I am saying that adding the "declared as attacker" clause would make things much, much more cleaner, and players would recognize from cards themselves the difference between a card attacking because it was declared as attacker at the beginning of combat, and attacking because it entered the battlefield later on that declaration, because rulewise those are 2 completely different beasts and from cards alone is completely impossible to tell any difference since they use the same exact words with diffeent implications.

    Maybe, I don't know, read the rules?
    Maybe it's a language barrier, but "attack" and "attacking" are different words. Attack being used as a noun is different from attacking (the verb).
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on The Worse Rules of Magic

    Anyway, still better than "What the hell mean that with Kaalia I am attacked effectively from 2 creatures if my Silent Arbiter says that no more than one creature should be able to attack me each combat?"

    Well, since that's not what it says...
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on People who buy a box
    I usually get a couple of boxes a year as part of judge comp. I can either sell them for $75-80 or get with some friends and crack them for the fun and addiction that is cracking packs. I usually do the latter, and I've noticed that when I do it at my LGS about half the time someone will buy a box immediately after I'm done. So I'm having fun for free (almost - I didn't pay for the box but I "miss out" on selling it) and the LGS makes a sale they might not have. Win/win.

    My last DOM box I cracked had a Karn, Teferi, and a Lyra so I didn't miss out on value. The first one I opened had a Karn, History, and a Lyra.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on [Primer]Lands
    Played in an Eternal Weekend Trial last weekend.
    5 rounds of Swiss then a top 4.
    R1) Dredge - 2-1W.
    Game one Dredge did dredge things. Game two I sided in Trackers and KReturn and Bojuka Bog. I swung with a Tracker and then cast KReturn and managed to exile all 4 bridges. Next turn I flooped Lage and killed him. G3 I had a turn 2 Lage and killed him faster than he could go off.
    R2) Burn - 0-2L.
    Price of Progress is a hell of a card. He saw 2 in each game.
    R3) Unexpected Show - 2-0W.
    Like Eureka Show but using Unexpected Results instead of Eureka. I flooped faster than he did G1, G2 went long enough that I ended up paying the 30 mana for a Lage.
    R4) D&T - 2-1W.
    Game one I Wasted his plateau, quartered his Karakas, played a Tabernacle then dredged a Loam that had 2 more wastes and a Quarter and he saw the writing on the wall and scooped. Game 2 he curved perfectly and had a path for my Lage. Game 3 I had a KReturn to clear the Flickerwisps out of the way for my Lage.
    R5) 4c Control/Delver 0-0-3 ID
    Draw into top 4. Played for fun and he dominated me.

    Top 4: Same opponent as R5. 2-1W
    Game one I flipped quickly, G2 he tempoed until Tombstalker killed me, G3 went long and the turn I flooped he could only get me down to one or himself up to 20 with the Deathrites. Either way he lost.

    Finals: UBRg Delver. Went to G3 and I didn't float a mana from a land I sacced to Rotate which got Dazed. Then I Gambled and he picked the card I needed. Then he top decks the Diabolic Edict.

    I love this deck so much. A little tighter plays and I will be set for Eternal Weekend.
    Posted in: Control
  • posted a message on The Worse Rules of Magic


    As it works at the moment the distinction is between attacks/attack and attacking. Attack is when its declared an attacker. Attacking is simply a creature attacking someone.

    THe point is that Attack is when its declared an attacker and Attacking is simply a creature attacking someone is nowhere distinguishable from the cards.

    When you learn a new game, especially one where the instructor says "Just as a heads up, there are some mechanics that may seem difficult to grasp.", you should be expected to have to turn to something more than the game pieces to learn how to play.

    For example, what card defines how many cards minimum in your deck? What card tells you to present your deck already shuffled before the game starts? What card defines your starting life total as 20? What card defines a converted mana cost? What card defines a mana cost? What card defines a mana pool? What card explains the different phases in the game?

    Isn't it simpler to just explain that distinction instead of introducing a a lot of new ambiguities?

    No it isn't. New players feels cheated when you try to explain that, I can tell you that for direct experience.

    Anecdotal evidence isn't.
    I've done literally that multiple times and offered to walk through the rules with the person and it's been accepted multiple times.
    I'm not offering that anecdote to tell you you're wrong, merely as a counter to your anecdote.

    It's the best for the game that cards makes a less ambiguous distinction from something "attacking because it was declared as attacker" and "attacking because for any other reasons" like it was equally necessary to bring a distinction between "play/to plat" and "end of turn/ until end of turn" (why everyone here is straightly ignoring and skipping those fitting examples?), and that was because "simply to just explain the distinction" isn't enough!

    They aren't fitting examples, really.
    "End of turn" refers to a very ambiguous time. End Step? Cleanup? Where in cleanup? Where in the End Step? Needed to be clarified.
    "Play/into play" was changed because the battlefield didn't exist - it was "the play area". So you had casting a spell verbiage tied to the place your lands and creatures lived. That doesn't make sense.

    In your current "attacking" example you have "Creatures that were declared as attacker" and "Creatures that were not declared as attacker, but are still attacking." There's no way you can shrink the second one to reasonably fit on a card - not that you should need to. Explain the interaction, cite the relevant CR, and move on.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on [[Official]] Unreleased and New Card Discussion
    You still get infinite creatures entering and dying - you just only keep the one at the end of your loop.
    With Rite you still get infinite copies of whatever you want on the battlefield, you just end with the one Naru at the end of your loop.

    Don't need to work around anything.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Burn
    I'd drop the Manamorphose for Skullcracks, go down a fetch for the 4th crack.

    I could see Reveler in games that are likely going to go long - you'll end up in top deck mode so he's a RR draw 3.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Is this combo tournament playable?
    Quote from Searys »
    The question then is, considering there is no randmoness at all, can i repeat this operation 1 million time?

    There is randomness. You have to shuffle. Sure, in this configuration you're guaranteed to hit the combo every time unless you're cheating, but because it involves a randomized library you can't shortcut it.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Burn
    Quote from Raghouz »
    Thank you for this answer elconquistador1985.
    I have also tested Dire fleet daredevil. A real spicy card of sideboard on my opinion. Not so expensive at 20 lands, you can just exile an instant/sorcery against a snapcaster, or recast a lightning bolt.

    Daredevil only hits opponent's spells, so you can't recast your stuff. Huge limitation IMO.

    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on Undoing mana abilities
    Quote from Rezzahan »
    Quote from rigeld2 »
    You have to rewind to a legal game state - that means rewinding the LED as well.

    How then do you do this, if you discarded a Progenitus and shuffled it into the library?

    Let's take this scenario:

    You have a Thorn of Amethyst. I tap 2 lands and cast Infernal Tutor, cracking LED in response, discarding Proggy and shuffling. You point out that I can't cast the Tutor for 2 mana while I'm shuffling. JUDGE!

    First, identify the point of error - in this scenario, that's the casting of the Tutor.
    Next, identify what's happened since then - Two tapped lands, Tutor on stack, LED in Graveyard, Proggy revealed, Proggy goes to library
    Now, reverse it - get Proggy from Library, put it back to hand, put LED back on the field, put Tutor back in hand, untap two lands.

    The only damage to the game state is a) you've revealed Progenitus and now your opponent knows you have it. Not that critical - you could reveal it any time. and b) you shuffled a library.

    After I typed all that I found 720.1:
    720.1. If a player takes an illegal action or starts to take an action but can’t legally complete it, the entire action is reversed and any payments already made are canceled. No abilities trigger and no effects apply as a result of an undone action. If the action was casting a spell, the spell returns to the zone it came from. The player may also reverse any legal mana abilities activated while making the illegal play, unless mana from them or from any triggered mana abilities they triggered was spent on another mana ability that wasn’t reversed. Players may not reverse actions that moved cards to a library, moved cards from a library to any zone other than the stack, caused a library to be shuffled, or caused cards from a library to be revealed.

    So LED doesn't get reversed in the above scenario. Current policy doesn't allow it, nor, do I think, it covers what happens with the Infernal Tutor.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.