It looks like this is a pretty timely question. I'm eager to see this document.
As perhaps a second part to the question, if you were watching the game, and saw the new player "give [his] Shade +5/+5," would you intervene immediately, before the opponent had a chance to respond? Would you consider the play inappropriate for communication purposes? Again, we'll probably need to see this document to know the answer for the future.
For 5 times a shortcut isn't necessary. Just say, pay B respond ? no ? ok. pay B, respond ?
Wouldn't take that long.
I think it's understood that strategically, it's in one's best interest to go the long way around and resolve each activation individually (if all the opponent has is a Shock). The point of the scenario is that the new player doesn't realize this. He doesn't know what he's doing at all.
I'm aware of the game mechanics behind this question with regard to priority, but it's the judge procedure that I'm interested in. A judge I know and I are interested in the correct call in this situation.
Say a newer player unaware of the finer points of shortcuts and priority, and possessing a basic but often functional understanding of the stack, attacks his opponent with a Looming Shade. Immediately after blockers have been declared, this newer player (the active player) taps five swamps and says "I give my Looming Shade +5/+5." The opponent, more experienced and possessing absolute knowledge of the mechanics of the situation, responds to this declaration by playing Shock targeting the Looming Shade, still 1/1. It is at this point that the newer player calls a judge because he's unclear as to what is going on.
Some specific questions:
--Was the newer player assumed to have taken a shortcut, despite not totally knowing what he was doing?
--If so, was his declaration assumed to have meant "I play Looming Shade's ability. In response, I play the same ability. [repeat twice more, all in response to the last]"? If not that, then what?
--Was this player even allowed to say what he said, and can his opponent legally ignore this possibly erroneous play and continue respond?
--Can the judge explain what the newer player should strategically done (let each ability resolve before playing the next) and decide that that was what happened? How about at a Friday Night Magic? If yes, at any REL, should the opponent lose his shock to a currently 6/6 creature?
--Finally, what would you do if you were the judge here?
I haven't met that many jerks, but that's probably because I have to travel quite a bit to find a tournament larger than FNM, and so the biggest I've ever been in was a JSS. Fourth round I'm paired against another 3-0, and he crushes me game 1. My deck always lost game one vs that one, but the plan is to side in something like 12 cards. In any case, I win game 2 easily, and game 3 I drop Ivory Mask. Well in control many turns later, with him apparently holding nothing but burn, I cast Careful Consideration, asking for responses. He says 'none' and with him staring at my deck, I draw the first card (but I can't target myself, due to Mask). He immediately calls a judge. I accept the game loss (losing the match) but ask why he didn't warn me at least. It would have been courtesy, I reason. The judge intervenes, saying he definitely wouldn't have given me the penalty if he thought my opponent knew I was targeting myself. I had no way of proving that he was staring at my deck oddly as I resolved the spell or that he called the judge so immediately, but my opponent just laughed at me as the judge walked away. Later I find out that him and the judge are close friends.
Three big points that stick out to me, as already mentioned, are first that there are no collector's numbers. Secondly, there are errors on a huge number of cards. Are they translations? The leaker would have mentioned. Finally, it's pretty sketchy claiming to withhold some info due to lawsuit fears, but give other info away freely.
I loved the article, and it's cool how the discussion pages on mtgsalvation articles about errata bring all the oracle's attendants out of the woodwork for some serious discussion.
I think one major thing hangs over (almost) this entire issue, colouring it in the background: Sixth Edition. It messed things up, and everyone has to get over it. It ruined every creature's original functionality with regard to tapped blockers dealing combat damage (they didn't). It ruined many things that will go (mostly) ignored, and many things that will fixed many times before anyone's happy. In the end, let's not forget our common enemy, and that's whoever forgot to make a time machine and bring Sixth Edition insight to Alpha. (Let's not attack each other for the problems VI created.)
As for Pithing Needle, while I hold the ink in high esteem for post-Sixth cards (no comment at this point on earlier ones) such as it, I hold elegance in high enough esteem to agree with Gottlieb's admittedly very subjective judgment call. Perhaps it's not for everyone, but it's very beautiful from a rules perspective, reflecting similarly satisfying changes such as Gob King and his ilk now saying "Goblin creatures."
Thallid Ice Cream Man: the approach to the rules question is similar to getting Ravenous Rats'd when you have no cards in hand. You can't discard a card that doesn't exist. Similarly, the wording you suggest would allow you to circumvent the abilities of the two lands as long as all your lands were tapped, for example. It would be difficult, though not impossible, to not have 12 power on the board with Dreadnought in play, and similarly awkward is calling a judge over to verify that in fact you have no land to discard to your Mox, though this hassle allows you to similarly avoid your payment. (Such situations where a judge is technically required to inspect a player's hand do exist, though I see them as unfortunate but probably unavoidable blemishes produced by the sea of interactions between 8800+ cards.)
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned this one yet. 2/3 Tarmogoyf thanks to a instant and a land, he tries to kill it with Volcanic Hammer or some other such sorcery, and I have to be the bearer of bad news that my creature doesn't die.
So that no arguments start, it works like so. The removal spell is resolving, and deals 3 damage. As the last part of the resolution, it is put into its owner's graveyard. Thanks to the game continuously checking Goyf's P/T, it grows immediately. SBE's (in this case, creatures dead due to lethal damage) are checked only AFTER the resolution of the spell.
This also worked with my old Wildfire-Magnivore deck. 2/2 Magnivores survived Pyroclasm and 4/4 Magnivores survived Wildfire.
And example I feel is relevant is my brother's Odyssey-Onslaught T2 Reanimator. He generally didn't want to draw his 1-ofs (Akroma, Anger, etc.) and his deck had huge redundancy thanks to Burning Wish, leaving him mostly hoping to draw creature removal against the dominant Goblin and Madness decks, if I recall correctly. He had always felt something was off about the land base, I believe mulling between 23 and 24, like Zadok001. 61 cards seemed like a reasonable solution, and he took that deck to a good few turn-4 kills.
Every time I've dated a girl and taught her how to play Magic, it's been a mistake. Universally, they've found it to be totally nerdy, boyish, and extremely un-fun. I'm not talking about popular girls, condescending girls, nothing like that at all. One was an ultimate anime fan. Another played D&D obsessively.
So yeah, I have really bad experiences mixing girls and Magic.
Although they obviously didn't print some select utterly broken cards like in IA block, they just kept the really underpowered low-range ones. Sets these days are all middle, few in the bottom and few in the top range of power, and that's the way it should be. They should have kept that for CS.
One thought though: why isn't this black? It seems like a totally seamless fusion of the "shade" ability (see Nantuko Shade) and the "upkeep recur" ability (see Nether Traitor), both of which appear lots lots lots in black. Yes, they appear a bit in red, and you fixed it perfectly with flavour, but it just feels like it'd be a real clincher in black. Not to mention it's a creature that can't survive without a greedy supply of mana. (suicidal)
*Shrug* Anyway, you're a winning card designer, not me!
I loved Crime and Punishment, and I'll be sad to see it leave. This is a barely acceptable replacement. It's pretty underpowered, but it's cool, as are all the Beacons.
It's a good card, but I still prefer Ashen Powder, probably for nostalgia reasons, but it is1 cheaper, and creatures are a far more likely target for reanimation.
With Beacon, you can get something from your own graveyard. Ashen Powder is much more limited.
Keep in mind that Wizards has a policy against printing mechanics in Core that are named for what they do. They only print mechanics in Core named for what they are in flavour.
For example, they didn't call it untargetability because, among other reasons, it's empty flavour-wise. Shroud evokes plenty of flavour. Ditto deathtouch and reach.
Playing 8 white lands and not using them, while splashing a colour for only one card makes me cry...
Currently I've replaced Incinerate for Goyf in my build and it's earning its keep. To pump him up, Seal of Primordium has replaced Grip in SB. (so you don't have to count on dredging an Assault to get an enchantment in there.)
As perhaps a second part to the question, if you were watching the game, and saw the new player "give [his] Shade +5/+5," would you intervene immediately, before the opponent had a chance to respond? Would you consider the play inappropriate for communication purposes? Again, we'll probably need to see this document to know the answer for the future.
Thanks for the responses so far.
I think it's understood that strategically, it's in one's best interest to go the long way around and resolve each activation individually (if all the opponent has is a Shock). The point of the scenario is that the new player doesn't realize this. He doesn't know what he's doing at all.
Say a newer player unaware of the finer points of shortcuts and priority, and possessing a basic but often functional understanding of the stack, attacks his opponent with a Looming Shade. Immediately after blockers have been declared, this newer player (the active player) taps five swamps and says "I give my Looming Shade +5/+5." The opponent, more experienced and possessing absolute knowledge of the mechanics of the situation, responds to this declaration by playing Shock targeting the Looming Shade, still 1/1. It is at this point that the newer player calls a judge because he's unclear as to what is going on.
Some specific questions:
--Was the newer player assumed to have taken a shortcut, despite not totally knowing what he was doing?
--If so, was his declaration assumed to have meant "I play Looming Shade's ability. In response, I play the same ability. [repeat twice more, all in response to the last]"? If not that, then what?
--Was this player even allowed to say what he said, and can his opponent legally ignore this possibly erroneous play and continue respond?
--Can the judge explain what the newer player should strategically done (let each ability resolve before playing the next) and decide that that was what happened? How about at a Friday Night Magic? If yes, at any REL, should the opponent lose his shock to a currently 6/6 creature?
--Finally, what would you do if you were the judge here?
Thanks.
Edit: typo.
I think one major thing hangs over (almost) this entire issue, colouring it in the background: Sixth Edition. It messed things up, and everyone has to get over it. It ruined every creature's original functionality with regard to tapped blockers dealing combat damage (they didn't). It ruined many things that will go (mostly) ignored, and many things that will fixed many times before anyone's happy. In the end, let's not forget our common enemy, and that's whoever forgot to make a time machine and bring Sixth Edition insight to Alpha. (Let's not attack each other for the problems VI created.)
As for Pithing Needle, while I hold the ink in high esteem for post-Sixth cards (no comment at this point on earlier ones) such as it, I hold elegance in high enough esteem to agree with Gottlieb's admittedly very subjective judgment call. Perhaps it's not for everyone, but it's very beautiful from a rules perspective, reflecting similarly satisfying changes such as Gob King and his ilk now saying "Goblin creatures."
Thallid Ice Cream Man: the approach to the rules question is similar to getting Ravenous Rats'd when you have no cards in hand. You can't discard a card that doesn't exist. Similarly, the wording you suggest would allow you to circumvent the abilities of the two lands as long as all your lands were tapped, for example. It would be difficult, though not impossible, to not have 12 power on the board with Dreadnought in play, and similarly awkward is calling a judge over to verify that in fact you have no land to discard to your Mox, though this hassle allows you to similarly avoid your payment. (Such situations where a judge is technically required to inspect a player's hand do exist, though I see them as unfortunate but probably unavoidable blemishes produced by the sea of interactions between 8800+ cards.)
So that no arguments start, it works like so. The removal spell is resolving, and deals 3 damage. As the last part of the resolution, it is put into its owner's graveyard. Thanks to the game continuously checking Goyf's P/T, it grows immediately. SBE's (in this case, creatures dead due to lethal damage) are checked only AFTER the resolution of the spell.
This also worked with my old Wildfire-Magnivore deck. 2/2 Magnivores survived Pyroclasm and 4/4 Magnivores survived Wildfire.
So yeah, I have really bad experiences mixing girls and Magic.
Although they obviously didn't print some select utterly broken cards like in IA block, they just kept the really underpowered low-range ones. Sets these days are all middle, few in the bottom and few in the top range of power, and that's the way it should be. They should have kept that for CS.
One thought though: why isn't this black? It seems like a totally seamless fusion of the "shade" ability (see Nantuko Shade) and the "upkeep recur" ability (see Nether Traitor), both of which appear lots lots lots in black. Yes, they appear a bit in red, and you fixed it perfectly with flavour, but it just feels like it'd be a real clincher in black. Not to mention it's a creature that can't survive without a greedy supply of mana. (suicidal)
*Shrug* Anyway, you're a winning card designer, not me!
That's totally ridiculous. 8th Edition had Searing Wind and Hammer of Bogardan. Ravnica had Char and Flame Fusillade. Invasion had Ghitu Fire and Urza's Rage. This isn't even counting cards like Inferno as burn. Why would you say something with so little basis?
Ba-doom, chshhhh.
With Beacon, you can get something from your own graveyard. Ashen Powder is much more limited.
For example, they didn't call it untargetability because, among other reasons, it's empty flavour-wise. Shroud evokes plenty of flavour. Ditto deathtouch and reach.
Currently I've replaced Incinerate for Goyf in my build and it's earning its keep. To pump him up, Seal of Primordium has replaced Grip in SB. (so you don't have to count on dredging an Assault to get an enchantment in there.)