2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Adventure Mechanic Question
    No. A player can not use Murder, etc. on a creature card in exile. This can be a little tricky for newer, and even moderately experienced, players, but, essentially, objects in Magic can fall into one of three broad categories: permanents, spells, and cards. An object is a permanents while it is on the battlefield, a spell while on the stack (excluding abilities), and card while in any zone other than the stack or battlefield. The tricky part is that, while anything that affects cards and spells will name cards and spells in their text, permanent status is usually implied.

    For example, take a look at the text of Essence Scatter:

    "Counter target creature spell."

    It says "creature spell," so it only affects creatures on the stack.
    Now look at Raise Dead:

    "Return target creature card from your graveyard to your hand."

    It says "creature card," while naming the graveyard, so it only affects creatures in your graveyard. Anything that affects cards will name the zone.
    Lastly, take a look at the text of Murder:

    "Destroy target creature."

    It says neither spell nor card, so it actually defaults to "creature permanent," even though affecting permanents is only ever spelled out on cards that can affect more than one card type, like Assassin's Trophy. Thus, since Murder does not affect spells nor cards in a given zone, it can only target creature permanents on the battlefield.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Is the value of X defined by Last known info on a flickered creature?
    The Stonecoil Serpent will, after being flickered, enter the battlefield with 0 counters. Neither rule 107.3k nor Last Known Information (LKI) are relevant in this scenario.

    If you cast a Stonecoil Serpent for X=3, it will enter the battlefield with 3 +1/+1 counters. That is what rule 107.3k does; it bridges the gap between X spells, for which X is the chosen value and permanents with X in their casting costs, for which X is 0. To restate that rule, it essentially says that "Yes, Stonecoil Serpent does indeed enter the battlefield with 3 +1/+1 counters even though X is 0 while it is on the battlefield."

    If that same Serpent then becomes the target of Flicker of Fate, Last Known Information will indeed say that it had 3 +1/+1 counters on it when I left the battlefield, which would be important if it had, say, a Leaves the Battlefield trigger that cared about its counters. That's what LKI does, it lets dies and Leaves triggers function, in addition to other effects that care about what used to be in a given zone, but has just moved. The Serpent that re-enters the battlefield will then enter with 0 counters on it, and presumably die. Why? Because the creature that re-entered the battlefield is not the same one as the creature that left it. Once a card changes zones, it becomes a new object. The new Serpent was not cast (that was the one that left), and, as such, X was not set to a particular value, which then defaults to 0.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on oubliette is. Coming soon in a set
    Quote from Lord Void »
    Still utterly fails to explain why it wasn't in Modern Horizons like tons of people were asking for but ok.

    A better question would be to ask why anybody though Modern Horizons would be such a natural fit for it in the first place. The damn thing is near unprintable. For one, it's a relic. Not only does it predate the modern color pie, getting an effect normally reserved for white, it does so with a massive wall of text. The 2-part Oblivion Ring template has been dead for years, so there's no way something with it was going to end up in a product that was supposed to represent the future. All of that text exists to serve a weird aura/counter preservation mechanic that, respectively, results in a wall of text or has been written much more elegantly the few times it has appeared since Oubliette's printing. All told, the sheer number of reasons to not reprint it is damning. It would probably just be forgotten if it wasn't printed at common.

    Folks should be happy that Wizards is thinking at all about how to reprint the unreprintable, not get mad about not jamming cards where they obviously don't belong.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on because playing first is often too much of an advantage
    Quote from sainthyacinth »
    What about a mechanic that works depending on what turn you started?

    Even by the standard of other mechanics that directly reward players for going on the draw, this has serious memory issues. Now, remembering that you were on the draw is no big deal, though it is one more thing to note on top of everything else that happens in the game. The real problem comes in the form of how you adapted this cycle to suit formats with more than two players. Now you have to remember who went first and how many players took their turn before you started, which isn't trivial at all. If you walked up to me four or five turns into a 4-player EDH game and asked me who went first, I would have some trouble answering, and I consider myself above average at tracking complicated boards. If you came back several turns later after one of two players have been eliminated, I would definitely draw a blank unless I wrote the first player down beforehand. EDH game states are complex enough without being asked to remember turn 1, and having the cycle be difficult to use without notetaking is a huge design flaw.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Bronzehide lion with mimic vat
    Bronzehide Lion
    Mimic Vat

    1. Yes, you can choose the order in which they resolve because you control both.

    2. No, the token will cease to exist before the triggered ability resolves. While tokens do go to the graveyard and trigger "dies" abilities, state-based actions are checked every time a player gains priority. Being a triggered ability, it uses the stack, which means players get priority before it resolves. In the case of the actual card, your opponents can get the chance to exile it with graveyard hate. The token will just vanish because state-based actions will be checked in the interim.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Help with synod sanctum.
    For reference: Synod Sanctum

    Your second guess was correct; you will not be able to get the exile permanent(s) back if you bounce sanctum. Sanctum creates what is known as a linked ability, in which the permanents it exiles are recognized as being "exiled with" that permanent, and that permanent alone. Once a permanent leaves the battlefield, it becomes and entirely different game object, so the re-played sanctum is not the same one that was bounced.

    Contrast with Karn, Scion of Urza, which uses counters and only cares about exiled permanents with said counters, allowing him to retrieve cards exiled by other copies of him.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on THB - Storm Herald
    what the hell was WotC thinking? t1 win- I don't care to go over it right now, but rite of flame, Eldrazi conscription, faithless looting, Storm herald... not too hard or expensive.

    It's not the first T1 win in Legacy, nor will it be the last. Such combos tend not to be as impactful in the house of Force of Will.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on A Proposal: White needs "X"
    Quote from sainthyacinth »
    One option that could work as CA for white is Pull from Eternity but back into hand? It won't work for sideboard cards like a wish but can interact well with many other cards and could be sometype of CA or quality for white.

    I think easy exile interaction is a problem of its own right, not only because of the "second graveyard" issue parodied by AWOL, but also because exile acts like a safety valve for a lot of powerful mechanics. Imagine a deck that gets to recur something like Temporal Mastery multiple times over the course of a game. Easy exile interaction is like building a city on top of a nuclear waste dump; everything that results will be poisoned.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Issac the Bitter
    Quote from cyberium_neo »

    I disagree. It's easy to categorize card effect into specific colors, such as all land fetch must be green or all discard must be black, but it's possible to have similar effect in nontraditional colors by having a twist. For example, black traditionally don't have artifact/enchantment removal but it could be done with effect such as Gate to Phyrexia, Phyrexian Tribute, Mire in Misery, and Pharika's Libation. Similarly, red could draw cards via effect like Risk Factor and Browbeat.

    Not to mention, this card is a multicolor card that could incorporate different facets into one.

    White traditionally has universal discard effect like Balance, Balancing Act, and Restore Balance, and they have effects that would "tax" people to prevent, such as Smothering Tithe/Leonin Arbiter, resource suppression base on card type via cards like Cataclysm/ Limited Resources. Red has punishment effect that make people pay, such as Skullscorch and Breaking Point, discard effect like Sirocco or discard to pay a price such as Chain of Plasma, and effect that make people sacrifice permanents such as Crack the Earth, Rite of Ruin, and Whims of the Fates .

    It may seem odd at first, but in reality Issac isn't doing anything outside of Naya pie, he merely combining what's already there. In fact, he could be complete Boros and it'd still make sense, with enough cards from the past to back it up.

    The only ability that I'm not completely satisfied with is his activation ability. It is a little off to have a mana dump via discard. I will remove that one.

    For record, throwing out a lot of cards that predate the modern color pie is a horrible way to respond to accusations of a pie break. Sirocco is not, never was, and never will be a justification to give red a Duress variant.

    You're still making a lot of generalized statements without directly factoring in this design. I'm not asking you to justify every pie break and outdated design space (and, I assure you, Balance is not something white gets any more), I want to know how you invoking a bunch of early attempts to represent equality translates to "Hmm, I see you have three lands in hand, I guess you have to discard or sacrifice one!"
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on New Format Idea - No Reserve List Vintage
    Something tells me that the things that prevented No-RL Legacy from being popular went beyond being unable to play singletons of Legacy's normal banlist.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Mono-black devotion. Looking for advice
    For 3 drops i decided to go for Underworld Dreams. My deck had a tad too many creatures already, and 3 devotion that is not easily removed, plus pining my enemy for 1 more each draw sounds pretty nice to me.Blight-Breath Catoblepas i replaced with Bolas's citadel for card draw like you recommended, plus 3 devotion. i replaced the witches cottages with normal swamps, as Castles are a little too far off my budget. and i removed one of the ovens. a 1/1 for 1 that dranins when it ETB's is decent, so I'm fine keeping that in.

    sorry about the complaining, I'm just a bit annoyed that most of my posts are getting ignored.

    I've actually played against a mono-black brew that used Underworld Dreams. I can say three good things about it, and one bad thing. The good bits are the BBB mana cost, being great against slower decks, and that it's a nice card to curve Tyramet into, since it'll be harder for your opponent to suddenly yoink away your devotion than with Ayara. The negative is that there's no tempo to it. It's an awful card against anything remotely aggressive (like the Orzhov Knights list I was using), so you'll lose a lot of ground against decks that want you to play removal or a blocker on turn 3.

    Bolas's Citadel is certainly a powerful card advantage generator. Just watch out for Erebos's Intervention, for which you can only pay 1 life and do nothing because X has to be 0 when paying that alternate cost.
    Posted in: Standard (Type 2)
  • posted a message on Mono-black devotion. Looking for advice
    I don't think that comment about being ignored is going to win you any points, but whatever.

    Looking at your curve, you seem to have a need for better 3 drops. Ayara is, of course, fantastic, but you won't always have her in hand. My first recommendation is Murderous Rider. Gains life, kills planeswalkers and creatures, in an all-around house. If that doesn't appeal to you, you have other options at 3. Rotting Regisaur is huge, though the discard may be inconvenient at times. Bloodthirsty Aerialist gives you a bit of flying in your deck, and it grows whenever you use a drain effect. All are good, solid creatures at 3.

    I also notice a few cards here that might not work as well. Blight-Breath Catoblepas might care about devotion, but 6 mana is a lot. He's no Ravenous Chupacabra. Witch's Cottage is cute, but you need lands that come in untapped before turn 4. Get 4 Castle Locthwain ASAP. Omen of the Dead is...ok. Getting one of your important creatures back is not bad, and it does add one to devotion. Still you, have some better things to do there. You could run some form of card draw to not gas out, or a crowd control option like Cry of the Carnarium or Massacre Girl.

    Finally, I, personally, am not a fan of the cat oven combo. I'm not advising you to take it out, since it would require you to retool your deck. Still, I'm not crazy about the idea of running four artifacts that do little on their own except gain you life inefficiently alongside four creatures that don't do much without said artifact. The ceiling is high, sure, but the floor has gotten me some free wins against decks that run this combo.
    Posted in: Standard (Type 2)
  • posted a message on Issac the Bitter
    Nice try, but this is a color pie break, through and through. Red just doesn't get that kind of discard, plain and simple. It's too discriminating, compared to the random looting and wheeling that are the extent of red disruptive discard. I don't see at all how those color pie philosophies you laid out tie into the mechanics you chose for this card.

    What's particularly galling for me is your invocation of "suppression" as if this card were some kind of hatebear. I mean, that's the only thing that comes to mind when you throw such a vague term around. I mean, what other kind of "suppression" does GW get? Certainly not this. It's not even a hatebear, which tend to target at least one specific category of cards or actions.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on 1/13/20 Bannings
    Quote from migrena »
    while i do not agree with splinter twin example but you are correct about everything else. Smile
    i might add that while there is a lot of answers to problematic cards/combos the problem is that most of them are not maindeck cards. no one sane would maindeck lost legacy or return to nature. cards like thoughtseize can be maindecked but they do nothing against topdecks and library manipulation. also filling your deck with answers after sideboarding dilutes your deck and lets your opponents do other stuff their deck is trying to accomplish unimpeded.

    The fact that people were unironically calling Twin a "police" deck while largely acting like the strategies that it pushed out of modern did not deserve to exist by virtue of losing to Twin is, to me, evidence enough that the deck warped Modern. Threats do not police formats, answers do, and that players treated its banning as the removal of a Force of Will-caliber format cornerstone is proof of the myopic effect that personal preference has on perceptions of format health.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on 1/13/20 Bannings
    Quote from buffntuff »
    That's just warping the meta though. If every viable deck has to include the same set of counters to one or two decktypes, you end up with matches that might as well just be two players flipping a coin since they play out the same way over and over.

    This is what got Golgari Grave-Troll (re)banned in Modern.

    One of my biggest pet peeves in ban discussions is when people talk about counterplay as if it were, by its very existence, a valid rebuttal to a ban argument. The fact that a card or strategy is beatable is irrelevant because every strategy in the game is beatable if things go good enough for one player or bad enough for the other. If a bannable card or deck actually does reach the point of being unbeatable, then the metagame has problems deeper than what can be solved with a few bans.

    This is because ban (and nerf, in other games) decisions are based in the metagame, which should take a much wider view of the game than what players get in a game-to-game basis. It's perfectly possible for a strategy that feels 'fair' game-to-game to be a metagame black hole (as was the case of Splinter Twin), or a deck that feels totally broken in individual games to not make a splash in the broader meta (like Neoform combo decks). As such, questions of whether and how a deck can be beaten are not near as important as the question of what effect a deck has on the metagame.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.