Would there be any demand for a simple online guide to telling apart Japanese from other Asian languages, or is there already an easy way for non-Japanese-speaking people to do this? (I could make such a guide fairly easily...) I just see people unaware of the language their cards are in so often that I wonder if there's any resource for this tailored to Magic cards.
Another one is my opponent's only card left in library being Beacon of Immortality, and I've got 2 Gaea's Blessings and a basic land (so I won't deck myself) somewhere in library, hand, and graveyard, the rest of my grave removed by a Tormod's Crypt let's say.
This is possible in my metagame, too. I hope I don't get matched up against that MartyrTron deck...
negotiate
Pronunciation: ni-'gO-shE-"At, ÷-sE-
Function: verb [...]3 a: to successfully travel along or over
Here with the connotation of having done so only with some degree of difficulty or annoyance.
Also, Pyrexian Dreadnought has new new wording if you look it up in the Wizards database, but not in the mtgsal one. Maybe that's where the confusion came from. I don't see where "36 damage" came from, though.
Dreadnought comes into play (12 from Pandemonium); in response to trigger, sacrifice it to Brion Stoutarm (12 more damage). Looks like a clean 24 for the kill. Of course, the combo could get some added redundancy with cards like Fling, but when it comes to Legacy awesomeness, we all know that the more, the merrier.
I suggest Wall of Roots. Also, Guile is a win-more card. Sure it's powerful once it hits the board, but it's not efficient, because you're paying for an ability that shouldn't matter once you've played your win condition.
Evertree would say "1/3 green Treefolk creature token" or some combination with the word "creature".
Soul of Ire would say "the beginning of your NEXT post-combat main phase."
These points, as well as the enormous power level of Evertree, raise my suspicions as to the validity of this leak. Wouldn't the wordings be right if the leaker has details such as collector's numbers?
I think Jeska is saying it must have been something other than a Ledgewalker, Jin.
Also, SumPhatGuy's explanation is definitely what your friend was referring to. It's crucial that you tap your mountain during your Beginning of Combat step so you don't mana burn when you move onto your Declare Attackers step. Remember, your pool only empties at the end of phases.
A player may not request priority and take no action with it. If they decide they do not wish to do anything, the request is nullified and priority is returned to the player that originally had it.
What does "may not" mean? Also, when are they talking about requesting priority? Obviously I don't have to request it after my opponent plays a spell, since it's assumed they passed priority, and it's therefore intrinsically mine.
If I do somehow "request priority" and then have a change of heart, there seems to be no problem, as my 'infraction' (read: "may not") is "nullified." I ask, then, why the first sentence is there at all.
useless_kodama and Sutherlands, I believe you are misinterpreting this section of the policy. I'll copy out the relevant section for convenience, and add emphasis.
Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, they are assumed to be passing priority unless they explicitly announce that they intend to retain it. If they add a group of objects to the stack without explicitly retaining priority and a player wishes to take an action at a point in the middle, the actions should be reversed up to that point.
One infers that it is possible to add a group of objects to the stack, meaning that here, five abilities are on the stack at once. Player 1 here was being sloppy, responding to his own activations (the only possible way to get multiple abilities on the stack at once) but not explicitly keeping priority. Player 2 can now take advantage of this assumption of understanding by saying "actually, you only responded to yourself twice, so 3 activations are on the stack, at which point I play a spell."
With this interpretation, the first sentence of the above excerpt still pertains, because here the Shade's controller is assumed to have passed priority after adding a group of objects (3 activations) to the stack. He should have said specifically that he keeps priority after each activation if that's what he wanted, but clearly adding several objects at once implies not passing priority as long as the non-active player allows it.
If my interpretation is correct, then I approve of this quoted section, as, though it implies much, it seems to reward the player who bothered to learn about the rules, and punish those who would make sweeping assumptions about priority during tricky maneuvers.
I was certain I understood the process of playing spells and putting them on the stack until I came across these wordings in the CR:
"502.31a Affinity is a static ability that functions while the spell is on the stack.[...]"
"502.32a Entwine is a static ability that functions while the spell is on the stack.[...]"
Affinity reducing a cost to play a spell and Entwine affecting both choices of a spell and also additional costs, wouldn't they function while the spell is being played? Why are they relevant once the spell is already on the stack? Obviously the abilities still work because it's spelled out quite clearly later on what they do precisely, but it seemed too curious to drop. Hopefully I can learn something here. Why are these rules worded this way?
Does anyone know why they didn't just make them Legendary? Or just "build it in," which they did anyway, but omit the type?
I feel patronized with the cards telling me the PW's first name twice. Very inelegant. There had better be a very good rules reason I'm totally missing. The only possible reason I can think of is if eventually they want to make multiple PW's with type "Liliana" or "Garruk" and I can have a Garruk deck with 10 of them, which is just stupid.
As a Canadian, I was taught French from age 3 or 4, despite living in English-speaking neighborhoods and having native-English-speaking parents. I'm pretty comfortable in the language. It wasn't difficult at all, save for advanced, obscure grammar that came only in way later years. Classroom "immersion" is almost nothing, though, compared to the intense experience of living in a totally Francophone neighborhood for 3 months, during an exchange. These 3 months of being forced to speak almost exclusively French helped me more than years of hard study could.
If I remember right, Warhammer Fantasy was just starting to get dull (and expensive) and my brother's friend, who got us both into Warhammer, showed us a new game. Onslaught was just coming out at the time. He played old-school slivers with what seemed like immensely powerful life-gain spells. My brother and I made really bad decks and just played each other for a while, and finally when Legions was released we started making actual T2 decks and playing in FNM's. Then I discovered that there was Magic info on the internet, and my interest skyrocketed.
This is possible in my metagame, too. I hope I don't get matched up against that MartyrTron deck...
Also, Pyrexian Dreadnought has new new wording if you look it up in the Wizards database, but not in the mtgsal one. Maybe that's where the confusion came from. I don't see where "36 damage" came from, though.
Dreadnought comes into play (12 from Pandemonium); in response to trigger, sacrifice it to Brion Stoutarm (12 more damage). Looks like a clean 24 for the kill. Of course, the combo could get some added redundancy with cards like Fling, but when it comes to Legacy awesomeness, we all know that the more, the merrier.
Evertree would say "1/3 green Treefolk creature token" or some combination with the word "creature".
Soul of Ire would say "the beginning of your NEXT post-combat main phase."
These points, as well as the enormous power level of Evertree, raise my suspicions as to the validity of this leak. Wouldn't the wordings be right if the leaker has details such as collector's numbers?
Also, SumPhatGuy's explanation is definitely what your friend was referring to. It's crucial that you tap your mountain during your Beginning of Combat step so you don't mana burn when you move onto your Declare Attackers step. Remember, your pool only empties at the end of phases.
A player may not request priority and take no action with it. If they decide they do not wish to do anything, the request is nullified and priority is returned to the player that originally had it.
What does "may not" mean? Also, when are they talking about requesting priority? Obviously I don't have to request it after my opponent plays a spell, since it's assumed they passed priority, and it's therefore intrinsically mine.
If I do somehow "request priority" and then have a change of heart, there seems to be no problem, as my 'infraction' (read: "may not") is "nullified." I ask, then, why the first sentence is there at all.
One infers that it is possible to add a group of objects to the stack, meaning that here, five abilities are on the stack at once. Player 1 here was being sloppy, responding to his own activations (the only possible way to get multiple abilities on the stack at once) but not explicitly keeping priority. Player 2 can now take advantage of this assumption of understanding by saying "actually, you only responded to yourself twice, so 3 activations are on the stack, at which point I play a spell."
With this interpretation, the first sentence of the above excerpt still pertains, because here the Shade's controller is assumed to have passed priority after adding a group of objects (3 activations) to the stack. He should have said specifically that he keeps priority after each activation if that's what he wanted, but clearly adding several objects at once implies not passing priority as long as the non-active player allows it.
If my interpretation is correct, then I approve of this quoted section, as, though it implies much, it seems to reward the player who bothered to learn about the rules, and punish those who would make sweeping assumptions about priority during tricky maneuvers.
"502.31a Affinity is a static ability that functions while the spell is on the stack.[...]"
"502.32a Entwine is a static ability that functions while the spell is on the stack.[...]"
Affinity reducing a cost to play a spell and Entwine affecting both choices of a spell and also additional costs, wouldn't they function while the spell is being played? Why are they relevant once the spell is already on the stack? Obviously the abilities still work because it's spelled out quite clearly later on what they do precisely, but it seemed too curious to drop. Hopefully I can learn something here. Why are these rules worded this way?
I feel patronized with the cards telling me the PW's first name twice. Very inelegant. There had better be a very good rules reason I'm totally missing. The only possible reason I can think of is if eventually they want to make multiple PW's with type "Liliana" or "Garruk" and I can have a Garruk deck with 10 of them, which is just stupid.