2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Visions of duplicity
    Wow....I don't know how or why I interpreted it the way I did, after reading your post and going back to the card it couldn't be more clear. Interpretation is so crazy... how I could misunderstand something so clearly dictated. Thanks!
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Visions of duplicity
    I came across this card during a draft visions of duplicity and thought it was crazy good. It seems I may be missing something but it seems incredibly cheap to cast for what it does.

    My understanding is that the card allows you to just take permanent control of any 2 of your opponents creatures. For limited formats doesn't this give alot of value for the cost? One of my friends who has more experience seemed to think the card sucked but did not elaborate.

    In what scenarios does this card suck? When does it work well? My perspective is 2 potentially powerful creatures for 3 mana cost seems greatly overpowered. Thoughts?
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Enduring Angel, daybound/nightbound question
    Thanks for the clarification! I appreciate it!
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Enduring Angel, daybound/nightbound question
    So my friend and I like to draft over 2 sessions, draft the cards, then next day play the decks we've created.

    While looking at my cards I picked up an enduring angel. My question is 2 fold.

    1. If a card does not have text written on it saying daybound/night bound does it not adhere to said rules? It has the sun/moon symbol on the top left so it feels like it should transform but am not sure if the symbol is all that is needed to infer daybound/nightbound mechanic, or if it has to be printed on the card.

    2. If enduring angel does not obey day/night bound rules then the last part of the card seems verrrry situational. If it does obey day/night bound, then it would seem more likely that I would not be able to transform for instance, my life total becomes 0 on my opponents turn while it is still day, and therefore I cannot transform enduring angel because of the daytime designation.

    Similar situation with bereaved survivor. It seems to clearly say transform only occurs when another creature i control dies...but also has the day night symbols on top left of the card.

    Might be overthinking this but just need some clarification.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Dungeon of the mad mage triggers
    So, at least it seems we did everything correctly, but I did learn from your post to differentiate between the wording "cast" vs. "Play", so when It says you may cast one of the 3, lands are excluded.

    So basically, by drawing 3 lands as the last trigger I was royally screwed over. Lovely!
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Dungeon of the mad mage triggers
    So I was playing a game last night and came across some things with dungeon of the mad mage I had questions about.

    Exile top 2 cards of your library, you may play them

    I understand this only applies to this one time, in that I won't be able to cast these creatures from exile after this point if I so choose not to cast them once the dungeon ability is resolved, correct?

    Secondly, I got to the very last trigger of the dungeon anddddd drew 3 lands. This occurred after I had already played a land that turn, and we reasoned since the trigger states you may play a card without paying its cost, and lands don't cost anything to cast, that i couldn't use the ability to play a land anyways. Is this the case? Can I play a land this way, what about a second land?

    Lastly, for both situations, the exiled cards, or the 3 cards drawn at the last trigger, if this occurs on opponents turn can I play a land? Or is that completely trumped by the never play a land on an opponents turn?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Arm for Battle vs. Reap the Tides
    So, had a rematch last night, same exact decks. I was able to pull of a win due to 21 commander damage pretty quickly. All it took was a sol ring and brass squire.

    Cast my commander turn 3, using brass squire was able to attach several equipment pieces to the commander that provided power buffs, and just about everything else under the books (vigilance, hexproof, haste, trample, first strike, indestructible, etc.) Also had an enchantment which granted double strike. This quick damage, along with the commanders draw cards ability meant a quick death for my opponent....but all seemed to hinge on my sol ring and brass squire, so we shall see about future matches with these decks.
    Posted in: 1 vs 1 Commander
  • posted a message on Arm for Battle vs. Reap the Tides
    Thanks for the response. When comparing deck lists the issue I am describing becomes very obvious. The reap the tides deck has 30 creature cards. Arm for battle has 11 creature cards. So, 1 out of every 10 cards might be a creature, so how the hell is this deck supposed to work reliably when my opponent has 3 8/8 kraken played by the time I've even drawn a second or 3rd creature? Am I missing something with the deck being soooo low on the creature count?
    Posted in: 1 vs 1 Commander
  • posted a message on Arm for Battle vs. Reap the Tides
    So. Just taught a family member how to play magic, and we had our first go at commander a few nights ago. Neither of us has used either of the decks, and we both used completely unmodified pre-constructed legends decks. I used arm for battle, opponent was using reap the tides.

    I lost the game 45 to nothing....did I just have bad luck or do I not understand how to use the deck? It seemed arm for battle was vastly underpowered in the match up.

    Essentially, I was able to start playing artifact/auras from turn 2, played commander on turn 4. The issue i ran into is that opponent returned the commander to my hand both subsequent attempts at playing him, and I did not draw another creature (of which there are very few in the deck) the entire game.

    What gives? *****ty deck? *****ty draws? Or am I just *****ty at MTG? Ultimately opponent played several kraken type creatures and just demolished my life total over a few turns. I did have about 10 artifacts on the board though, but all useless equipment since I didn't have any creatures to put them on.
    Posted in: 1 vs 1 Commander
  • posted a message on Tapped creature being forced to attack?
    Thanks for the reply Ashrog.....I just don't like the answer ...in my mind a tapped creature should not be targetable by savage stomp, since in any other scenario it cannot block (which is not attacking as you put it) or attack while tapped. I get what you are saying that "fighting is not the same as attacking" so let me get this straight. My opponent has a big creature, 10/10 let's say,that is used as an attacker during first main phase. The creature survives battle, and is then tapped. they play savage stomp during their second main phase, and choose to have the tapped 10/10 creature fight another one of my creatures. This is legal?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Tapped creature being forced to attack?
    We ended up deciding that the creature would not be able to attack. Here is the setup

    My opponents Drowsing tyrannodon was enchanted with my waterknot. On my opponents turn, they played savage stomp. The only creature they had out at the time was the tyrannkdon. Now, we decided the +1/+1 would go on the tyrannodon, but because waterknot prevents the enchanted tyrannodon from attacking (because it was tapped at the time that savage stomp was played)the other part where it says the creature attacks target creature you don't control does not resolve because the tyrannodon is not a legal creature to attack with. Did we handle this correctly?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Super noobs, very casual play, few simple questions
    I really appreciate the information! Still have some confusion reagarding some situation.

    Lets say there are 4 players, and we decide you can only attack the player to your left. So in order from first to last, or clockwise, we have players 1, 2, 3, 4.
    1 can attack 2, and so on, until player 4's turn who will be able to attack player 1.
    Now lets assume it is player 1's turn, so player 1 can attack player 2 who can defend themselves.
    Lets say player 1 declares attackers, player 2 declares blockers, can player 3 choose to play spells at this point (instants/enchantments/etc.) that might give life to/damage/etc any of the other players (player 1, 2, or 4?). Or since player 3 is not involved in blocking or attacking, do they just sit the turn out entirely along with player 4?

    Can player 3 cast something against player 4 (given priority after player 2 has declared blockers), and if player 3 passes priority to player 4, can player 4 cast something against players 1, 2, 3?

    What I am ultimately getting at is that it seems possible for people to still team up if they can cast things against players that are involved in attacking/blocking, which is what I thought the "attack only in one direction" rule was meant to avoid.

    Thanks in advance!

    Lastly, can player 2 (the blocking player in this case) cast anything against the attacker (since this attacker would be on the blockers right side and not left).
    Posted in: Multiplayer
  • posted a message on Semantics question about defender card moat piranhas
    Quote from user_938036 »
    Creatures with defender do deal damage. Your interpretation that attacking isn't dealing damage is correct. Attacking is only being declared as an attacker. It isn't anything else.

    Most thing in magic are exactly the thing they say they are. They aren't also various other things that may be part of the first thing. "Can't attack" means "can not be declared as an attacker". An ability would have to say "prevent all damage this card would deal" and there are card with similar effects.



    Thanks for the response...but just to clarify the main thing that this card cannot do is BE DECLARED AS AN ATTACKER. Dealing damage (while blocking) is not classified as attacking. That is my take away and that is how we will continue playing with that card and similar cards.

    Second Example
    Opponent declares a 2/3 creature as attacking.
    I declare piranhas as blocker
    damage is dealt and the attackers creature dies, piranhas survive.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Semantics question about defender card moat piranhas
    So my family and I are getting into magic, and have some very simple questions but will start with one that caused an argument last night.

    Moat Piranhas was played and it clearly states that this creature cannot attack.

    Now, my interpretation is that the piranha cannot be declared as an attacker.

    So, the argument arose when the moat piranhas was used to block. The blocking player stated that since the moat piranha is BLOCKING, and not ATTACKING, that the attacking creature would still be dealt damage equivalent to the piranhas power (3), which would have killed the attacking players creature and the piranhas (attacker was 3/3 as well). He was upset because the card "clearly states it can't attack but somehow it is attacking his creature". We tried to clarify that dealing damage while blocking was not the same as dealing damage while declaring an attacker.

    The ultimate conclusion we all came to is WHY THE HELL would a card say it cannot attack, but simultaneously be granted some power if it was not able to be used at some point, like in the blocking scenario I mentioned.

    The semantics in this game can really be confusing as some of the terms that have rules are also just words people use to describe things in general that are going on.

    So, who was right, the pirhana can damage an attacking creature if piranhas are declared as blockers, or, does the piranhas not do any damage, even when blocking, and the power on the card is there for use potentially with some other card (that removes the cant attack rule or something?)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Super noobs, very casual play, few simple questions
    So, short backstory, started collecting magic during ice age, group of friends was way too young to really comprehend the game, so just traded ones we thought looked cool, didn't have, etc. Eventually started playing but definitely not following all of the rules but had the gist of the game. Priorities were off, etc,etc. Fast forward, sold all my cards to pay rent in my 20s lol, fast forward again now to my 30s and have family doing game nights, my choice has been magic.

    Bought a game night set, and several commander decks. We have played several games and had a bunch of fun, no commander yet, but have run in to some questions regarding the 3 player games we have been playing.

    We decide whether to rotate left or right at the beginning of game with dice roll, and can only attack players directly next to us in the decided direction.

    The issue we have not decided on , is whether this only applies to our combat phase. In other words can I cast enchantments, sorceries, instants, etc, that damage or do some other action against the player I am not allowed to attack if I cast those when I have priority during my main phase? What about when I am neither attacking or blocking (since one player in the 3 player game will kind of be idle each turn), is that player allowed to cast things directed at either opposing player (given they have priority, which we pass around the players the same direction as turns.

    Sorry if this makes no sense is is painfully obvious and thanks for any help provided!
    Posted in: Multiplayer
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.