After all of this discussion, I would lean towards being a good sportsman and at least making your opponent aware that, after playing the Demigod, there is a triggered ability on the stack. If you do this, worst case scenario is that a judge is called over, and because you verbalized that there is a trigger, whatever confusion there is should be resolved fairly simply. Otherwise, a judge is summoned and you get this thread performed live at your table. Declaring the trigger will make things run more smoothly, and I, personally, would rather not spend time arguing with a judge and/or my opponent on the matter.
Could someone explain how this happens, because I am quite confused by this. Because if a grizzly bears enchanted by shield of the oversoul gets snakeformed and no longer receives any benefits from the shield, is outrageously counter intuitive. It still is green, so how can it not benefit from being green?
It's all to do with dependency. Unfortunately, Shield of the Oversoul is the one exception to the rule you quoted. (Don't worry; this bugs the hell out of me, too.)
Pretend for a moment that your Grizzly Bears is enchanted with Runes of the Deus. Because the Bears are already green, the aura makes it a 3/3 and gives them trample. Enter Snakeform, which makes it lose all abilities. The Bears were green before Snakeform came around, so the green part of the Runes' ability is dependant on the Bears, not Snakeform. Because it's not dependant on Snakeform, Snakeform takes the trample away. The creature still gets the +1/+1 bonus, though, because Snakeform does nothing to affect power-toughness-affecting static abilities. In the end, you get a 2/2 creature with no abilities.
Now, take that example except swap the Bears out and put Ironclaw Orcs in their place. The Orcs, enchanted with the Runes, will be 3/3 with doublestrike. Enter Snakeform, which makes it lose all abilities and turns it green. Once green, the Orcs wouldn't get double strike anyway, but it doubly doesn't have it because Snakeform takes it away. However, the green part of the Runes' ability is now dependent on Snakeform; thus, you apply the Snakeform's turn-creature-green effect, then you apply the green part of the Runes'. You end up with a 2/2 creature with trample.
The reason why Shield of the Oversoul is the exception is because, unlike the Runes which says, "Enchanted creature has trample," the Shield simply says, "Enchanted creature is indestructible." The former actually gives the ability to the creature it enchants, which is why Snakeform is able to take it away. The latter simply says, "This guy over here? He's cooler now." The aura doesn't actually give indestructibility to the creature, it just says it can't be blown up no more.
At least, that's how I've come to understand it. I don't agree with it, but that's how it is.
< rant >
The reason I don't agree with it is that, from what I can tell, the rules confusion is centered on one of two things: the fact that indestructible is not a keyword ability, even though it really ought to be; or how the indestructible keyword fits grammatically into sentences. The reason this makes me angry is because I highly suspect it's the latter.
My basic understanding of keyword abilities is that they are used to sum up long strings of text as succinctly as possible, thus conserving text space on the actual card. "Indestructible" fits this definition; it means "Lethal damage and effects that say 'destroy' do not destroy [foo]."
However, unlike other keywords that can be given to [foo] from non-[foo] sources, "indestructible" cannot simply because the grammar would be ugly. "Enchanted creature has trample" is okay, but "Enchanted creature has indestructible" is not. That's why the bothShields read "Equipped/enchanted creature is indestructible."
This would lead me to think, "Well, with this grammar confusion, why couldn't the keyword be 'indestructibility' instead?" "Enchanted creature has indestructibility." That works. Of course, things like Darksteel Colossus would have to read "This foo has indestructibility," or simply "Indestructibility." Admittedly, that does not read as nicely as "This foo is indestructible."
This leads me to an interesting question: Why does the indestructible ability have to be phrased "This foo is indestructible"? What's keeping the ability from simple reading "Indestructible"? If it could be templated with the keyword on its own, could other abilities then be changed to read "Enchanted creature has indestructible"?
It still doesn't sound grammatically correct, but think about this: Is "Enchanted creature has trample" grammatically correct? In English, no. In Magicese, however, this is perfectly acceptable. Since the rules of English grammar are already being bent, why can't they be bent some more?
If anyone can educate me and try to explain what is up with indestructible, please let me know. Currently, I'm contemplating collecting my thoughts, reorganizing them and structuring them into more cohesive arguments, and sending Wizards a letter, saying, "Doods, WTF. Like, seriously."
I have heard that, if Player A plays the Demigod and Player B counters it, with neither player making mention of the triggered ability, judges have ruled in favour of Player A; that is, the Demigod gets countered, but its own triggered ability brings it back. This is because whether or not Player B counters the Demigod before or after the trigger is a skill-based decision, and Player A, so far as I know, is under no onus to specifically bring the trigger to Player B's attention.
Of course, not being an official judge, I could be wrong. That's just what I've been told.
In regards to landwalk if one opponent controls that specific type of land can the other block?
You don't attack a head, you attack the whole team. Thus, if one player controls a Forest, nothing can stop your Yavimaya Dryad. This is not to be confused with effects like Dimir Cutpurse's, which affect the opponent it damages. In this case, once unblocked, you would then choose which head takes the damage and ends up suffering the ill effects thereof.
If you mill one deck and that opponent can't draw do you win?
Yes. If either of the heads would lose for whatever reason, that entire team loses.
Also if anyone has the link to the rules for 2HG right off I could use that as well.
If you go the magicthegathering.com, there'll be a Rules section on the right-hand side somewhere. Click on that and click on your prefered format for the full Comprehensive Rules. I don't know for certain, but I think 2HG rules are in the 700 section somewhere.
EDIT: Ha! The CompRules don't go up to 700. I knew the Multiplayer rules were the last section, but I thought the last section was 700, not 600.
The main difference between Armored Ascension and Chameleon Colossus' pumping ability is that the Ascension provides a static effect (it's constantly in effect) and the Colossus' ability is an effect from resolving a spell or ability (it's only in effect when you spend the mana to use it).
Pump effects are applied in Layer 6b, which is, unfortunately for your Colossus, the same layer Snakeform would shrink your jolly green giant. Since they apply in the same layer, assuming dependency isn't an issue (I'm not sure if that's possible in Layer 6b), the effect with the latest timestamp takes precedence. Thus, if someone Snakifies your dood and you pay your mana to give it +4/+4, it'll be an 8/8 momentarily before becoming a measly 1/1. On the other hand, if you activate the pump ability and someone Snakifies it in response, it'll become a 1/1, then get +X/+X, where X equals its new power of 1, and it'll be a 2/2.
On the other hand, Ascension's power-toughness-affectiong ability comes into play two sub-layers after Snakeform. Regardless of what order they are played in, the ascended critter will be a 1/1 with +1/+1 for each Plains you control.
The enchantment counts the number of fish you control when it makes the opponents creature a X/X :isthatso:. But yes, it would fall off.
Except that the effect that gives you the Fish tokens is a triggered ability, whereas the enchanted creature would die to SBE immediately for being 0/0 (unless you controlled an actual Fish). By the time the token-generating trigger resolves and your opponent gets to choose how many tokens you get, his enchanted creature is long dead.
Even if the opponent wanted you to have 1,000,000 tokens to ward you from playing another Codify on his doods, this plans is flawed. The enchant-non-fish-creature aura that makes his dood 1,000,000/1,000,000 will also die to SBE after the same aura, that can only enchant non-Fish doods, turns it into a Fish. Thus, the almost-enchanted creature won't be 1,000,000/1,000,000 long enough to even be flung at something. I don't even think MTGO would ever show you that glorious 1,000,000/1,000,000 on the card, SBEs happen that fast.
Thus, there really is no reason for your opponent to choose anything that is not 0.
EDIT: The Aura in question, when determining the X/X-setting effect, would count the creature it is so-very-briefly enchanting. Therefore, it would never die for being a 0/0, but the Aura still wouldn't be around long enough for the 1,000,000 fish tokens to make it equally huge. I got the specifics a little wrong, but the argument still stands.
EDIT EDIT: The above is true if you are enchanting your own dood, but my original argument is still spot-on if you play it on someone else's. I know that I know what I'm talking about, but I don't know why I can't keep the ability straight.
EDIT EDIT EDIT: RTFC, sclocke42. *headdesk* The token-creating trigger triggers when you play the Aura, not when it comes into play. So, alright, if the creature's controller doesn't want it to be a 0/0 just long enough for it to die, that creature's controller can give you a single 0/1 Fish token. This doesn't change the fact that the Aura still implodes upon itself.
If Player A, with the Spitemare, is the one that plays Firespout, then exactly the opposite thing happens.
Player A will stack his Spitemare ability, targeting Player B, then Player B will stack his Finks' abilities in whichever order he chooses. The topmost item on the stack resolves, and this time it's the first Finks' persist ability. Those Finks will come into play and their life-gaining comes-into-play trigger will trigger. Barring shenanigans, the trigger will resolve and Player B will gain 2 life. The same thing will happen again when the second Finks' persist ability resolves.
The Spitemare's ability is the last on the stack, and by the time it resolves and deals 3 damage to Player B, he'll still have the 4 life he just gained from the Finks'. Both players are still alive and the game moves on from there.
It's Player B's turn. He's the one with two Finks. He plays Firespout, dealing three damage to all creatures, including his Finks and Player A's Spitemare.
Before Spitemare's ability triggers, state-based effects are checked, and they see three creatures that have taken lethal damage and whisks them all away to the graveyard. When state-based effects are finished clearing the dead doods from the table, then triggered abilities go on the stack--so Spitemare's ability triggers now, and, since the Finks just went from in-play to the graveyard, their persist abilities trigger also.
Because multiple triggers trigger from the same event and can't actually go on the stack at the same time, they are ordered on the stack is APNAP order (Active-Player, Non-Active Player). Player B, the active player, will place his two persist abilities on the stack, in whichever order he chooses. Then, Player B, the non-active player, will place his Spitemare ability on the stack, presumably choosing Player A as its target.
Assuming no other shenanigans, the topmost item on the stack resolves. Spitemare deals its damage to Player B, which just so happens to be enough to bring Player B's life total to 0. Before the Finks' persistence can resolve, state-based effects come along again, see Player B with 0 or less life, and whisk him away from the game much the same way it did to his Finks.
Thus, Player B is dead long before the Finks' persist abilities resolve, and if you're in a multiplayer game, those abilities left on the stack get whisked away with Player B also.
Hope that helps.
EDIT: Also:
Quote from CI »
Q: A friend of mine came up with a deck that uses Devoted Druid + pump effects to generate large amounts of mana. During a recent game, he announced Bogardan Hellkite, then wanted to use a pump spell while paying costs, allowing him to use the Druid enough times to afford the Hellkite. Is this legal?
A: Not at all. As we’ve seen above, no player gains priority to play spells and abilities until after the spell being played has gone onto the stack. That means it’s already been paid for. “Pay all costs” doesn’t mean “play Giant Growth on your mana creature;” it means use mana from mana abilities, pay life, discard cards, etc.—whatever the costs are on the spell or ability being played. If your opponent can’t pay for his Hellkite with what he has available, then he’s committed an illegal action, and the entire sequence is reversed.
Three things about this.
First, the "Put a -1/-1 counter on ~: Untap ~" ability isn't a mana ability, so it also cannot be played mid-resolution of said Hellkite.
Second, the shenanigans the player is trying to pull off do work, so long as he does it all before he tries playing the spells for which he needs all that mana.
You announce, say, Blinkmoth Infusion. You calculate the cost of the spell as (I believe) the second-last part of actually playing the spell. At this point, the Infusion sees your four Stars and the six other random artifacts you control, reducing the Infusion's cost from 12UU to 2UU.
The last (I believe?) step of playing the spell is paying its costs (in any order, which matters for things like Diabolic Intent). Because the Stars' abilities are mana abilities (they are mana abilities because they give you mana), you can sacrifice them at this point in order to help pay that arduous UU in the Infusion's cost. If you have Spheres instead of Stars, you'll even be able to draw cards for them as the spell is being put on the stack, which could be handy if you need to assert your authority to ensure your Infusion infuses things. It won't matter that they won't be in play while the spell is on the stack; the artifacts were there when you announced the spell, and therefore are calculated into the spell's cost-reducing ability.
Now that the round is over, I'd like to point a few things out:
Quote from erikcu »
Codify
Enchantment - Aura Enchant non-Fish Creature
When you play Codify, target opponent chooses a number. Put that many blue 0/1 Fish token creatures into play under your control.
Enchanted creature becomes an X/X Fish creature in addition to its other types, where X is the number of Fish you control.
First, even if you put this Aura on an opponent's creature, the Fish tokens would still be put into play under your control. Thus, barring effects like your opponent controlling Essence Warden or other shenanigans, there's no reason why your opponent wouldn't choose 0.
Second, the aura type and the last ability do not play nice with each other. You can only play it on a non-Fish, but the last ability turns it into a Fish. Thus, the Aura would fall off as soon as this hits the table, regardless of what you play it on.
Now, if that last ability only counted other Fish you control, it'd be all kinds of a rules headache. The Aura would fall off, but the creature would be killed because the Aura still turned it into a 0/0.
That is all. Congrats to cannon, whose card was actually very nifty. Good luck to everyone on the next challenge.
Go back to the Jund post on the first page. I'm guessing the second attachment is going to be a Mountain. I see a gaint flaming face in this landscape, and for that reason I am looking to get as many of these foiled as I can. I'm not the only one who sees the giant flaming face, am I?
Also: Sucks indeed that Niv-Mizzet's flavour text was changed. The original flavour text was about the best flavour text ever. That's really the only downside for me, though, as I can see why everything else is in there. Except maybe Draco. Draco is just bad, but none of the other artifact dragons are much better.
And just to add insult to injury if they really last that long next turn slap Gift of the Deity on the Overlord.
...or Fists of the Demigod, which is almost as redundant and a whole lot cheaper. Deathtouch is godly with trample and double strike, but the lure ability works unwell with flying.
Oh, and for those itching to put him into your Vintage and Legacy decks. I checked. He's not legal until the 29th.
...which is still a solid month earlier than he would be if we didn't see him until Shards was released. So, for those itching to Oath him out, you can do so as soon as From The Vault: Dragons is available for retail sale.
Everyone complains meanwhile I'm happy with it. I mean yeah "woohoo" high mana cost but complaining about that is pretty stupid. Personally it's one mother of a dragon.
I'd have to agree. The Overlord's needs for specific coloured mana really aren't that much of a drawback. The thing costs eight mana, and regardless of whether you're playing a three-colour deck or you're playing red with a splash of black and green, you should be able to get all coloured mana sources needed by the time you can produce eight mana.
And if you can't, at least not on a regular basis, then you're a sucker that can't build a mana base.
What I meant though is if someone is gonna say that this is the most powerful dragon ever printed I'd want the biggest P/T, best effect, OR at least the best efficiency. This guy is not that surprising, it's just an average joe dragon, gold, three different colors, amazing stats, and not going anywhere. If this is going to be the most powerful dragon I want it to obviously be the most powerful dragon.
Draco has the highest P/T, Kokusho arguably has the best effect, but as far as efficiency on a dragon is concerned, I'm really curious to know what you consider more efficient than an 8-mana 8/8 with five awesome abilities.
I'm also curious as to how you can say this is "just an average joe"; how many other dragons have flying and trample and haste and firebreathing and regeneration? The "not going anywhere" bit also confuses me; does the first line of the Overlord's text box mean nothing to you?
Quote from Donkey000 »
Maybe it´s the large red guy on this pic:
I'm likely getting 'nathed on this, but no, the Hellkite Overlord image is the one shown at the bottom of the most recent preview article on mtg.com.
It's all to do with dependency. Unfortunately, Shield of the Oversoul is the one exception to the rule you quoted. (Don't worry; this bugs the hell out of me, too.)
Pretend for a moment that your Grizzly Bears is enchanted with Runes of the Deus. Because the Bears are already green, the aura makes it a 3/3 and gives them trample. Enter Snakeform, which makes it lose all abilities. The Bears were green before Snakeform came around, so the green part of the Runes' ability is dependant on the Bears, not Snakeform. Because it's not dependant on Snakeform, Snakeform takes the trample away. The creature still gets the +1/+1 bonus, though, because Snakeform does nothing to affect power-toughness-affecting static abilities. In the end, you get a 2/2 creature with no abilities.
Now, take that example except swap the Bears out and put Ironclaw Orcs in their place. The Orcs, enchanted with the Runes, will be 3/3 with doublestrike. Enter Snakeform, which makes it lose all abilities and turns it green. Once green, the Orcs wouldn't get double strike anyway, but it doubly doesn't have it because Snakeform takes it away. However, the green part of the Runes' ability is now dependent on Snakeform; thus, you apply the Snakeform's turn-creature-green effect, then you apply the green part of the Runes'. You end up with a 2/2 creature with trample.
The reason why Shield of the Oversoul is the exception is because, unlike the Runes which says, "Enchanted creature has trample," the Shield simply says, "Enchanted creature is indestructible." The former actually gives the ability to the creature it enchants, which is why Snakeform is able to take it away. The latter simply says, "This guy over here? He's cooler now." The aura doesn't actually give indestructibility to the creature, it just says it can't be blown up no more.
At least, that's how I've come to understand it. I don't agree with it, but that's how it is.
< rant >
The reason I don't agree with it is that, from what I can tell, the rules confusion is centered on one of two things: the fact that indestructible is not a keyword ability, even though it really ought to be; or how the indestructible keyword fits grammatically into sentences. The reason this makes me angry is because I highly suspect it's the latter.
My basic understanding of keyword abilities is that they are used to sum up long strings of text as succinctly as possible, thus conserving text space on the actual card. "Indestructible" fits this definition; it means "Lethal damage and effects that say 'destroy' do not destroy [foo]."
However, unlike other keywords that can be given to [foo] from non-[foo] sources, "indestructible" cannot simply because the grammar would be ugly. "Enchanted creature has trample" is okay, but "Enchanted creature has indestructible" is not. That's why the both Shields read "Equipped/enchanted creature is indestructible."
This would lead me to think, "Well, with this grammar confusion, why couldn't the keyword be 'indestructibility' instead?" "Enchanted creature has indestructibility." That works. Of course, things like Darksteel Colossus would have to read "This foo has indestructibility," or simply "Indestructibility." Admittedly, that does not read as nicely as "This foo is indestructible."
This leads me to an interesting question: Why does the indestructible ability have to be phrased "This foo is indestructible"? What's keeping the ability from simple reading "Indestructible"? If it could be templated with the keyword on its own, could other abilities then be changed to read "Enchanted creature has indestructible"?
It still doesn't sound grammatically correct, but think about this: Is "Enchanted creature has trample" grammatically correct? In English, no. In Magicese, however, this is perfectly acceptable. Since the rules of English grammar are already being bent, why can't they be bent some more?
And one final, closing comment: "Enchanted creature has indestructible" doesn't sound nearly as dumb or lame as "Permanents with ice counters on them are snow," "If that card is snow," or "Target nonsnow permanent becomes snow."
< /rant >
If anyone can educate me and try to explain what is up with indestructible, please let me know. Currently, I'm contemplating collecting my thoughts, reorganizing them and structuring them into more cohesive arguments, and sending Wizards a letter, saying, "Doods, WTF. Like, seriously."
Of course, not being an official judge, I could be wrong. That's just what I've been told.
You don't attack a head, you attack the whole team. Thus, if one player controls a Forest, nothing can stop your Yavimaya Dryad. This is not to be confused with effects like Dimir Cutpurse's, which affect the opponent it damages. In this case, once unblocked, you would then choose which head takes the damage and ends up suffering the ill effects thereof.
Yes. If either of the heads would lose for whatever reason, that entire team loses.
If you go the magicthegathering.com, there'll be a Rules section on the right-hand side somewhere. Click on that and click on your prefered format for the full Comprehensive Rules. I don't know for certain, but I think 2HG rules are in the 700 section somewhere.
EDIT: Ha! The CompRules don't go up to 700. I knew the Multiplayer rules were the last section, but I thought the last section was 700, not 600.
Binary is right on the money--2HG is section 606.
The main difference between Armored Ascension and Chameleon Colossus' pumping ability is that the Ascension provides a static effect (it's constantly in effect) and the Colossus' ability is an effect from resolving a spell or ability (it's only in effect when you spend the mana to use it).
Pump effects are applied in Layer 6b, which is, unfortunately for your Colossus, the same layer Snakeform would shrink your jolly green giant. Since they apply in the same layer, assuming dependency isn't an issue (I'm not sure if that's possible in Layer 6b), the effect with the latest timestamp takes precedence. Thus, if someone Snakifies your dood and you pay your mana to give it +4/+4, it'll be an 8/8 momentarily before becoming a measly 1/1. On the other hand, if you activate the pump ability and someone Snakifies it in response, it'll become a 1/1, then get +X/+X, where X equals its new power of 1, and it'll be a 2/2.
On the other hand, Ascension's power-toughness-affectiong ability comes into play two sub-layers after Snakeform. Regardless of what order they are played in, the ascended critter will be a 1/1 with +1/+1 for each Plains you control.
Except that the effect that gives you the Fish tokens is a triggered ability, whereas the enchanted creature would die to SBE immediately for being 0/0 (unless you controlled an actual Fish). By the time the token-generating trigger resolves and your opponent gets to choose how many tokens you get, his enchanted creature is long dead.
Even if the opponent wanted you to have 1,000,000 tokens to ward you from playing another Codify on his doods, this plans is flawed. The enchant-non-fish-creature aura that makes his dood 1,000,000/1,000,000 will also die to SBE after the same aura, that can only enchant non-Fish doods, turns it into a Fish. Thus, the almost-enchanted creature won't be 1,000,000/1,000,000 long enough to even be flung at something. I don't even think MTGO would ever show you that glorious 1,000,000/1,000,000 on the card, SBEs happen that fast.
Thus, there really is no reason for your opponent to choose anything that is not 0.
EDIT: The Aura in question, when determining the X/X-setting effect, would count the creature it is so-very-briefly enchanting. Therefore, it would never die for being a 0/0, but the Aura still wouldn't be around long enough for the 1,000,000 fish tokens to make it equally huge. I got the specifics a little wrong, but the argument still stands.
EDIT EDIT: The above is true if you are enchanting your own dood, but my original argument is still spot-on if you play it on someone else's. I know that I know what I'm talking about, but I don't know why I can't keep the ability straight.
EDIT EDIT EDIT: RTFC, sclocke42. *headdesk* The token-creating trigger triggers when you play the Aura, not when it comes into play. So, alright, if the creature's controller doesn't want it to be a 0/0 just long enough for it to die, that creature's controller can give you a single 0/1 Fish token. This doesn't change the fact that the Aura still implodes upon itself.
Player A will stack his Spitemare ability, targeting Player B, then Player B will stack his Finks' abilities in whichever order he chooses. The topmost item on the stack resolves, and this time it's the first Finks' persist ability. Those Finks will come into play and their life-gaining comes-into-play trigger will trigger. Barring shenanigans, the trigger will resolve and Player B will gain 2 life. The same thing will happen again when the second Finks' persist ability resolves.
The Spitemare's ability is the last on the stack, and by the time it resolves and deals 3 damage to Player B, he'll still have the 4 life he just gained from the Finks'. Both players are still alive and the game moves on from there.
It's Player B's turn. He's the one with two Finks. He plays Firespout, dealing three damage to all creatures, including his Finks and Player A's Spitemare.
Before Spitemare's ability triggers, state-based effects are checked, and they see three creatures that have taken lethal damage and whisks them all away to the graveyard. When state-based effects are finished clearing the dead doods from the table, then triggered abilities go on the stack--so Spitemare's ability triggers now, and, since the Finks just went from in-play to the graveyard, their persist abilities trigger also.
Because multiple triggers trigger from the same event and can't actually go on the stack at the same time, they are ordered on the stack is APNAP order (Active-Player, Non-Active Player). Player B, the active player, will place his two persist abilities on the stack, in whichever order he chooses. Then, Player B, the non-active player, will place his Spitemare ability on the stack, presumably choosing Player A as its target.
Assuming no other shenanigans, the topmost item on the stack resolves. Spitemare deals its damage to Player B, which just so happens to be enough to bring Player B's life total to 0. Before the Finks' persistence can resolve, state-based effects come along again, see Player B with 0 or less life, and whisk him away from the game much the same way it did to his Finks.
Thus, Player B is dead long before the Finks' persist abilities resolve, and if you're in a multiplayer game, those abilities left on the stack get whisked away with Player B also.
Hope that helps.
EDIT: Also:
Three things about this.
First, the "Put a -1/-1 counter on ~: Untap ~" ability isn't a mana ability, so it also cannot be played mid-resolution of said Hellkite.
Second, the shenanigans the player is trying to pull off do work, so long as he does it all before he tries playing the spells for which he needs all that mana.
Third, this scenario is different than and not to be confused with the tricks you can do with Chromatic Sphere or Chromatic Star and anything with affinity (for artifacts).
You announce, say, Blinkmoth Infusion. You calculate the cost of the spell as (I believe) the second-last part of actually playing the spell. At this point, the Infusion sees your four Stars and the six other random artifacts you control, reducing the Infusion's cost from 12UU to 2UU.
The last (I believe?) step of playing the spell is paying its costs (in any order, which matters for things like Diabolic Intent). Because the Stars' abilities are mana abilities (they are mana abilities because they give you mana), you can sacrifice them at this point in order to help pay that arduous UU in the Infusion's cost. If you have Spheres instead of Stars, you'll even be able to draw cards for them as the spell is being put on the stack, which could be handy if you need to assert your authority to ensure your Infusion infuses things. It won't matter that they won't be in play while the spell is on the stack; the artifacts were there when you announced the spell, and therefore are calculated into the spell's cost-reducing ability.
First, even if you put this Aura on an opponent's creature, the Fish tokens would still be put into play under your control. Thus, barring effects like your opponent controlling Essence Warden or other shenanigans, there's no reason why your opponent wouldn't choose 0.
Second, the aura type and the last ability do not play nice with each other. You can only play it on a non-Fish, but the last ability turns it into a Fish. Thus, the Aura would fall off as soon as this hits the table, regardless of what you play it on.
Now, if that last ability only counted other Fish you control, it'd be all kinds of a rules headache. The Aura would fall off, but the creature would be killed because the Aura still turned it into a 0/0.
That is all. Congrats to cannon, whose card was actually very nifty. Good luck to everyone on the next challenge.
Also: Sucks indeed that Niv-Mizzet's flavour text was changed. The original flavour text was about the best flavour text ever. That's really the only downside for me, though, as I can see why everything else is in there. Except maybe Draco. Draco is just bad, but none of the other artifact dragons are much better.
...or Fists of the Demigod, which is almost as redundant and a whole lot cheaper. Deathtouch is godly with trample and double strike, but the lure ability works unwell with flying.
...which is still a solid month earlier than he would be if we didn't see him until Shards was released. So, for those itching to Oath him out, you can do so as soon as From The Vault: Dragons is available for retail sale.
I'd have to agree. The Overlord's needs for specific coloured mana really aren't that much of a drawback. The thing costs eight mana, and regardless of whether you're playing a three-colour deck or you're playing red with a splash of black and green, you should be able to get all coloured mana sources needed by the time you can produce eight mana.
And if you can't, at least not on a regular basis, then you're a sucker that can't build a mana base.
Draco has the highest P/T, Kokusho arguably has the best effect, but as far as efficiency on a dragon is concerned, I'm really curious to know what you consider more efficient than an 8-mana 8/8 with five awesome abilities.
I'm also curious as to how you can say this is "just an average joe"; how many other dragons have flying and trample and haste and firebreathing and regeneration? The "not going anywhere" bit also confuses me; does the first line of the Overlord's text box mean nothing to you?
I'm likely getting 'nathed on this, but no, the Hellkite Overlord image is the one shown at the bottom of the most recent preview article on mtg.com.
Yeah, I just caught that and edited my last post. My bad.
Draco is bigger, yes. But the Tyrant is still far superior.