Magic Market Index for March 15th, 2019
Magic Market Index for Feb 8th, 2018
Magic Market Index for Feb 1st, 2019
  • posted a message on Modern Spirits
    Quote from StreexIT »
    Very decent card, it stands its own on an empty field, it represent a different threat than curious obsession against control, it's very good at generating tempo against midrange and it's always a sweet card against burn. I ve used it to replace obsession because I wanted to diversify a little bit.
    Digging ten is crazy yet very slow, and if you ultimate fast you were winning the game already most of the times. I'm hoping for improved 3cmc PW in the future, but this is definitely a reasonable one.

    Think he might be a reasonable sideboard choice in UW? I don't think I can replace my obsessions in the main because Thalia, but the attention and long-term value might be good for my build, too.
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on "Excess damage" - How to put "trample" on spells
    Quote from Manite »

    Basically, "excess damage" is any amount more than necessary to destroy a particular creature or planeswalker. I could even see a case being made for excess damage on players in multiplayer formats.

    Would that make the damage split based on how much would be dealt or how much is needed, then? Let's take casting Rolling Boulder on Cho-Manno, Revolutionary and Lymph Sliver as examples. If either of these creatures blocked a 5/5 creature with trample, then damage assignment would allow the attacking player to control how much damage the defending player receives and whether or not Lymph Sliver takes lethal damage, but you don't have that luxury.

    Cho-Manno cannot take any amount of damage (assuming there isn't anything like Skullcrack to stop prevention) but he does have 2 toughness. If your definition cares only about how much damage would be needed based on toughness and other damage marked on the creature, then Cho-Manno's controller would take 3 damage and the creature would take no damage and survive. Under a definition based on the damage that actually gets deal, Cho-Manno would eat the whole Rolling Boulder with no damage dealt to his controller.

    Now, Lymph Sliver. Absorb means that, despite the creature having 3 toughness, 4 damage needs to be dealt to destroy it. Under the damage needed based on toughness and marked damage definition, then an undamaged Lymph Sliver would take 3 damage (1 prevented) and its controller would take 2. Lymph Sliver would survive. Under the damage dealt definition, Lymph Sliver would take 4 damage (1 prevented), hit lethal damage, and its controller would take 1.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Man-o'-War + Portcullis
    Yes, assuming you control both triggers. Portcullis has an intervening-if clause that checks the number of creatures on trigger and on resolution, so you will get to keep your Man-o'-War if the "other creature" count drops below 2 before the Portcullis trigger resolves.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Modern Spirits
    How is Dovin working out for you?
    Posted in: Aggro & Tempo
  • posted a message on "Excess damage" - How to put "trample" on spells
    The excess damage wording has been in trample's reminder text for some time now. Core Set 2019 creatures with trample have the same reminder text as Super-Duper Death Ray, but older cards have trample longer reminder text that more accurately describes how the mechanic functions. The thing is, trample's functionality hasn't changed even though its reminder text has.

    My stance on this type of mechanic is that there can be a mechanic that functions similarly to trample for noncombat damage, but you can't put actual trample on something that deals noncombat damage because of how differently damage is handled inside and outside of combat. For example, removing a creature blocking an attacker with trample will cause all combat damage to be dealt to the player or planeswalker being attacked, but removing Death Ray's target will cause the spell to fizzle and deal no damage. There are a bunch of other inconsistencies that I mentioned back when people advocated that actual-factual trample end up on black border instants and sorceries in Death Ray's spoiler thread, but I don't need to go into that here.

    That being said, I like the approach that you've taken here, especially since you've distanced spell trample from the real McCoy. All you need is a consistent definition for excess damage (Does it count the damage the spell would deal or is actually dealt? What if I cast Rolling Boulder on Cho-Manno, Revolutionary? What about absorb?) as you use it here. In particular, I really like Overkill. It would make a fine set mechanic for either Rakdos, Gruul, or Jund.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Equipment Mana Rocks
    Quote from 1110mystic »
    Really random idea - but would something like this work within the rules? (taking some language from battlemages)

    ~ 2
    Artifact - Equipment
    If ~ was equipped with its 1 equip cost, [put a charge counter on ~, and] equipped creature has "0: add W to your mana pool. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery and only once each turn."
    If ~ was equipped with its 3W equip cost, equipped creature has "X"
    [If ~ would become unequiped from a creature remove all charge counters from it]
    Equip 1 or 3W

    Bracketed language to deal with memory issues needed? Edit 2 to deal with the fact that you didn't want the creature to tap. . . and . . . i've made it too complex haven't I? Final edit - this I think allows for infinite targeting combos, unfortunately . . .

    I'd balk at putting that kind of dual equip ability on a rare, much less a common designed to fill the mana rock niche. While the general idea of a piece of equipment that can serve multiples purposes is interesting, your execution is far too busy.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Anafenza Blade
    Have you considered Squee, Goblin Nabob as your Squee of choice? He isn't as good on the battlefield as the Dominaria one, but he generates card advantage with Jaya and Nahiri.
    Posted in: Budget (Modern)
  • posted a message on Which decks are terrible matchups for Amulet Titan?
    Death and Taxes variants also have strong Amulet matchups due to land destruction. Flickerwisp on a bounceland is just plain ugly.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Challenger decklists for this year!

    The deck with Arclight Phoneix is a good one to grab because Arclight will remain legal in Standard for another year.

    And its status in modern could buoy its value beyond rotation unless it eats a ban.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Eye of the Storm is Insane
    1. When you cast a normal or fuse split card with Eye of the Storm, you get to choose which side of the card gets cast, though you can't fuse since that only works from hand because Eye casts from exile. For Aftermath cards, you can only cast the normal, "right side up" half of the card because Aftermath stipulates that the sideways half can only be cast from the graveyard.

    2. With both enchantments on the battlefield, you casting a card (not a copy) will trigger both enchantments, and, since you control both, you get to choose the order in which they go on the stack. Either you may first have Thousand-Year Storm copy the spell for each spell cast previously, or you may first have Eye exile the spell and cast all spells exiled with it. Either way, the number of copies generated by the first Storm trigger doesn't change. The copies cast by Eye will each trigger Storm, and the later spells cast will be copied more times. Let's look at your example:

    1. You cast Lightning Bolt. Eye and Storm trigger, though Storm will do nothing due to not having previously cast spells (Storm count: 1) Stack: bolt, eye

    2. Eye resolves, exiling bolt from the stack and casting a copy of bolt. Storm triggers. (Storm count: 2) Stack: copy bolt, storm

    3. Storm resolves, putting a copy of bolt onto the stack. (Storm count: 2) Stack: copy bolt, copy bolt

    4. Presumably, you let the bolts resolve.

    Now, it gets interesting.

    5. You cast Brainstorm from hand. Eye and Storm trigger. (Storm count: 3) Stack: brain, Eye*, Storm*

    6. Storm* resolves, creating 2 copies of brain. (Storm count: 3) Stack: brain, Eye*

    7. Eye* resolves, exiling the original brain and casting bolt* and brain*. Storm triggers. (Storm count: 4 for the first spell and 5 for the second) Stack: brain copy*, bolt copy*, Storm 1, Storm 2

    8. Storm 2 resolves, creating 4 copies of bolt* Stack: brain copy*, bolt copy*, Storm 1, 4x bolt copy

    9. Bolt copies resolve Stack: brain copy*, bolt copy*, Storm 1

    10. Storm 1 resolves, creating 3 copies of brain* Stack: brain copy*, bolt copy*, 3x brain copy

    11. Everything else resolves

    *: Order and spell may vary
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Ashling question
    Heck, she could even explode with less than 3 +1/+1 counters. If your opponent respond to you activating her ability for the third time in a turn to take her from a 3/3 to a 4/4 with Splendid Agony, then Ashling would still explode even with only one +1/+1 counter.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Tibalt, Diabolic Sadist
    Quote from Legend »
    And I don’t really get why your counter argument is “there should be three nearly identical card types instead of just two.”
    You may have missed it, but the artifact:enchantment discussion has been had ad nauseum. In short, there are notable mechanical differences between many artifacts and enchantments such as tapping and equipping. There’s also flavor and immeasurable design space.

    Except they wouldn't be nearly identical, not even close. Planeswalkers are still going to be attackable legendary permanents with loyalty abilities, regardless of any other abilities on the cards. Loyalty abilities create a mechanical gap, same as tapping, and their legendary status, character-related type, and special card frames use flavor to distance them. What makes the artifact differences you pointed out more valuable than the planeswalker differences I mentioned?
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Tibalt, Diabolic Sadist
    Quote from Legend »
    It’s more enchantment than planeswalker.

    And Panharmonicon is more enchantment than artifact. I don't really get the enchantment concerns around giving planeswalkers non-loyalty abilities. Unlike artifacts, PWs have tons of rules baggage that differentiates them from other card types, and they'll always have some number of loyalty abilities. Artifacts don't even have that. All that separates artifacts from enchantments is that artifacts are usually colorless, except for the ones that aren't. Both of Vanquisher's Banner's abilities have appeared on enchantments before, and Rage Extractor takes a role usually reserved for red enchantments. Yet, nobody talks about artifact/enchantment overlap. Why do planeswalkers get treated like static and triggered abilities would make them indistinguishable from enchantments?
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Arclight phoenix trigger
    Arclight Phoenix has a mandatory triggered ability, so you are required to put your Arclight(s)' triggers on the stack and them onto the battlefield as long as you've cast three or more instants or sorceries before the beginning of combat on your turn. If the trigger is missed (by accident of course, as intentionally missing mandatory triggers is cheating and will be met by a DQ), your opponent will be able to decide whether or not to put it onto the stack.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Tibalt, Diabolic Sadist
    There's an awful lot going on with that triggered ability. A trigger condition that works when attacking and blocking, a usage restriction, a mana cost, a rummage effect that's missing the best part about rummaging, and the loyalty gain. It could stand to be pared down a bit.

    First, the rummage feels tacked-on, and it isn't necessary to the trigger-loyalty ability synergy.

    Next, the brainlessly easy triggered ability clashes awkwardly with a very clunky mana cost exacerbated by Tibalt's frailty. Only triggering from damage to players lifts the condition beyond attacking or blocking with any creature that has 1 or more power, and the mana cost can be brought down to 1 in light of the fact that Tibalt's controller already paid 3 mana for him.

    Finally, seeing a -X ability on a planeswalker that starts with only 2 loyalty and gains loyalty inconsistently (and not immediately unless cast behind curve) looks rather gratuitous. A -1 ability that creates one of the devil tokens would suffice, while maintaining the same synergy with the trigger.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.