It is though. That difference matters in .00001% of cases. If you can count changing a creature type as a functional reprint, why would a change like that which interacts with almost nothing be considered different? It takes control of a creature like threaten, untaps it like threaten, and givess it haste like threaten, all for 2R like threaten. If it looks like threaten, tastes like threaten, and functions like threaten, it's probably threaten.
I understand your points, however my point was more that there was a functional change, not necissarily that the functional change was one of profound impact. The fact that creature type changes are not being considered barriers to something being a functional reprint is because that is how the OP framed this discussion, that creature type changes do not count. More to the point my post was not aimed at showing the enormity of the difference in functionality caused by the different wording, but rather to correct a previous poster who claimed that the change in wording had no functional impact.
Nope, the text is not functionally different. In your example, your enchantment's trigger ability will only go on the stack after Act of Treason/Threaten resolves (by game rule, triggers only get placed on the stack when a player has priority), regardless of where on the card the "untap this creature" wording appears.
The difference in wording between Act of Treason and Threaten is likely due to templating clean-up. There is no functional difference.
Sorry to disagree but the OP was correct, there is a functional difference here. If I have something that triggers off a permanent becoming untapped, like Wake Thrasher for instance, if a creature i control is hit by Threaten then my Wake Thrasher will get a +1/+1, but with Act of Treason, since the creature untaps after the opponent gains control my Wake Thrasher does not get the bonus. Now yes you are correct that the trigger will not be put on the stack until the spell finishes resolving, but it will be generated all the same.
Edit: In reviewing my post it looks like for clarity's sake i need to explain a little bit more explicitly. You are correct that a trigger is not placed on the stack until a player gains priority, so a trigger cannot be put on the stack until after a spell finishes resolving for instance. However triggers are generated whenever there trigger condition happens. So in this example, you threaten my creature, and while threaten resolves the creature untaps under my control, at that point my wake thrasher's triggered ability generates a trigger. when threaten finishes resolving, then that trigger goes on the stack.
So in summation, Act of Treason is not a functional reprint of threaten, at least it isn't until the Oracle changes are announced and we find out if Threaten is being errated to Act of Treason's wording.
Little info here according to http://blogs.msdn.com/xblops/default.aspx the situation with the xbl marketplace is under control (i.e. they are currently working on fixing it). Though this is by no means definite, in the blog someone working on the problem estimates it will be fixed by 8:45 PM (Pacific Time). Again this is not a guarantee that it will be working then, but it is at least a hopeful sign
Could one have on turn 8, six lands in play with a golden lotus already on the playing field and play a 2nd lotus and sac both lotuses before the legends rule happens and get 18 mana?
Well well well, my apoc hydra and banefire just got a new toy!!!
just to answer your question, no you can't sac both lotuses before the legend rule applies. When you play the second lotus SBE will be checked before you gain priority to play the tap and sac ability, and in that SBE check, the legend rule will apply, and both of the lotuses will go to your graveyard. The only way to do what you are describing would require sacrificing the first lotus, playing the second... then well you would need something like Early Harvest only without the restriction of untapping just basic lands, or turn golden lotus into a basic land, both possibilities not really existing as far as i can tell.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that even if you could play the second lotus and tap and sac one of em before the legend rule applies, you still couldn't sac both as no matter what you do, that second lotus is coming in to play tapped, and so cannot be sacrificed for its ability.
Please excuse this post, it is nothing but spitballing interesting things you can do with this land...
T1- forest, BoP
T2- Summer Bloom, play any three lands, then Golden Lotus
T3- 11 mana available
Summer Bloom is in ninth so i guess this would be extended legal, though more than likely this is gonna be more for casual than competition, either way, truly awesome
I'm fairly certain that now that they have made some colored artifacts, it is likely they will make more. I however hope that colored artifacts do not return. I can understand the flavorful idea of artifacts that are somehow both organic and artificial, and therefore being colored. However it seemed to me that the majority of the time, at least in Esper colored artifacts were a gimmick, as all that really happened is creatures that would have been printed as non artifacts got printed with the additional type "artifact" on them, thus opening them up to more removal.
Anybody thought of windbrisk heights? Head games or Identity Crisis under a windbrisk can allow u to do this turn 5 or 6 but who said u need to do all this in 1 turn. As for what to get, if u combo this turn u get the combo pieces removed. If u plan on getting rid of something else fill their hands with something that will be redundant.
I really cannot understand the point of this. If i have just resolved a Head games against my opponent, and presumably filled their hand with trash, why would I need another combo piece to further muck up their hand and graveyard? Isn't giving them a hand of garbage enough? I know of course there are scenarios that the OP or anyone else defending this idea could bring up were it totally would be a good idea to do all the footwork necessary to play these spells as a combo, it just seems that in the vast majority of cases, just the head games is enough. Honestly if you are in a situation were taking your opponent's hand and remaking it into the worst hand there deck could produce at that time is not enough to get you a win, you probably were not going to win anyway.
I still contend that giving Cascade a number does not add new design space. If the goal is a cascade spell that cascades for an amount different than what you actually paid for it (a spell with a converted mana cost of 3 cascading for cards with a converted mana cost of 4 or less etc.) it can easily be achieved without changing cascade. Give the spells the mana cost you want them to cascade for, and then also give them an alternate cost that has a rider of "if you pay for this spell by its alternate cost it has cascade" or something similar. You achieve the same effect, but do not have to change cascade
Why add the number, you ask? It all goes back to "Design Space" I suppose. I keep thinking that I want more Cascade in the future and as it is, its set in stone. You can't have cards like:
Bloodbraid Elf's Idiot Cousin - 1RG
Cascade 2 (When you play this spell, remove cards from the top of your library from the game until you remove a nonland card that costs less than 2. You may play it without paying its mana cost. Put the removed cards on the bottom in a random order.)
3/2
Or, it could go in the opposite direction..
Bloodbraid Elf's Hot Cousin - 2RG
Cascade 5 (When you play this spell, remove cards from the top of your library from the game until you remove a nonland card that costs less than 5. You may play it without paying its mana cost. Put the removed cards on the bottom in a random order.)
0/1
I don't think this design space is necessarily closed off with the current wording of cascade. All you really need to replicate the one with a cascade number higher than the mana cost is some sort of alt. casting cost, say something similar to evoke. Now it is true that the other one, a cascade number lower than the casting cost would be more difficult to replicate, it can still be done, say an alt. cost that is higher than the mana cost, along with some built in penalty if the spell is played using its regular cost, rather than the alt. cost.
Both of these ideas are not very elegant, but they do exist, so i think what you mean to say is not that the cascade design eliminates this design space, just that it doesn't lend itself toward it.
The easiest way to look at this problem is to observe how "play" is used your examples. When play is being used as a verb ("as you play, when you play") that is referring to the action of playing the card (as a spell, or land etc.) if however, play is being used as a noun ("put this card into play, when this card comes into play") then play simply denotes the zone that the card is entering or leaving etc.
One good thing for you sir, supposedly when M10 comes out the verb usage of play will be replaced with "cast" so this confusion will be eliminated.
I think that A. you have to stop at the first lower cc spell you find, you cannot continue to search if you do not want to play the revealed spell, and B. this one I am less sure on, but i believe that once you have revealed the first lower cc spell, if you choose not to play it, then it and everything else revealed is put on the bottom of your library in random order. Still though, hard to say for sure until we get to see cascade's entry in the rules, or at least the associated FAQ, which was oddly not included in Tom LaPille's article on cascade.
Can someone help me with the rarity distribution? Is it 10 Mythic, 35 rares, 50/50? Or is it something else?
I'm confused and i thought the information might need to be provided here since we have 22 spoiled rares and 8 spoiled Mythic Rares.
If I remember it is 15 mythics, but I can't seem to locate where I read that, or even a full rarity breakdown for this set. Oh well to add to the compiled info though, here is the current breakdown of what has been spoiled so far(4/18/09, or 47/145)...
Mythic-8
Rare-23
Uncommon-5
Common-11
Total=47
As you can see, so far the spoiler has been very top heavy (almost at a 2:1 ratio, 31 Mythic/Rares to 16 Un/commons) which means a lot of how this set is gonna function, especially in limited is unknown. Anywhoo if someone could find the actual rarity distribution that would be much appreciated.
Has anyone else seen this card in the Draft simulator?
I haven't.
This was not a real simulator; we all saw the same packs.
Unless someone else can confirm seeing this, I call fake.
(not to mention that those creatures look like Kithkin, which are NOT in Alara.)
Go back and reread the thread, or for your convenience, open up the draft viewer, select Tom Riddle as your player, pack two, first pick, Terminate is the very last card (bottom right corner).
Can any one explain why 1 drops in ARB is necessary? To me it seems that the only reason why a particular cmc, even the cmc of 1 is absolutely necessary is for draft, sealed, and constructed decks so they can attempt a curve (and other various reasons i can't think of right now). Otherwise there is no reason why 1 drops are necessary, and since this is the third set in the Alara block, the previous sets having many one drops, the necessity for ARB to have one drops to satisfy limited and block constructed formats is not present as you can get your 1 drops from the other sets.
Now does that argument necessarily mean that 1 drops won't be in some form in ARB? no probably not, more than likely I think that WotC will include some form of one drop, though likely a 1 drop w/o a cmc of 1. The question I have for everyone who thinks that 1 drops should be, or even must be, in ARB, is why? And I ask this not in a snide or sarcastic manner, I am truly interested, why do you think 1 drops need to be in ARB?
I don't really mind mana burn going away. Really what purpose has it served recently? it mostly seems to have been a cruel reminder to newer players that they need to manage their mana properly, otherwise it just generates unfun combos (one that i run into a lot in my casual play group is playing Upwelling and then waiting until players have floated a lot of mana across turns with it, and then disenchant the upwelling) Really what is the value of mana burn that would make you want to keep it around? I can't see any reason to not get rid of it, save the massive eratta necessary...
On the other changes, cast is cool, but i dislike battlefield and whatever RFG would be changed with. RFG however makes sense to change(it is about as vague a zone name as possible) Battlefield, though appearing more confirmed makes less sense to me. Putting flavor issues aside, it seems the main reason to change playing a spell to casting a spell is to clear up the play/in play confusion. If you change play to cast then, why also change the in play zone to something else? Battlefield has other problems though, it just seems like it would be counter-intuitive to people to put non-creature artifacts or non-aura enchantments on the "battlefield" it makes me wonder if perhaps the in play zone won't get renamed, just the red zone will get it's own distinct name. The only reason i can see why it would be good to change the in play zone to battlefield is that since they are pushing for acquisition it might seem good to WotC to change the name so as to emphasize the combat aspect of the game.
In summary...Mana burn going away, fine with me, Play to cast, awesome, in play to battlefield, not a big fan, I say change play to cast to get rid of the play/in play confusion and keep in play as it is.
I understand your points, however my point was more that there was a functional change, not necissarily that the functional change was one of profound impact. The fact that creature type changes are not being considered barriers to something being a functional reprint is because that is how the OP framed this discussion, that creature type changes do not count. More to the point my post was not aimed at showing the enormity of the difference in functionality caused by the different wording, but rather to correct a previous poster who claimed that the change in wording had no functional impact.
Sorry to disagree but the OP was correct, there is a functional difference here. If I have something that triggers off a permanent becoming untapped, like Wake Thrasher for instance, if a creature i control is hit by Threaten then my Wake Thrasher will get a +1/+1, but with Act of Treason, since the creature untaps after the opponent gains control my Wake Thrasher does not get the bonus. Now yes you are correct that the trigger will not be put on the stack until the spell finishes resolving, but it will be generated all the same.
Edit: In reviewing my post it looks like for clarity's sake i need to explain a little bit more explicitly. You are correct that a trigger is not placed on the stack until a player gains priority, so a trigger cannot be put on the stack until after a spell finishes resolving for instance. However triggers are generated whenever there trigger condition happens. So in this example, you threaten my creature, and while threaten resolves the creature untaps under my control, at that point my wake thrasher's triggered ability generates a trigger. when threaten finishes resolving, then that trigger goes on the stack.
So in summation, Act of Treason is not a functional reprint of threaten, at least it isn't until the Oracle changes are announced and we find out if Threaten is being errated to Act of Treason's wording.
just to answer your question, no you can't sac both lotuses before the legend rule applies. When you play the second lotus SBE will be checked before you gain priority to play the tap and sac ability, and in that SBE check, the legend rule will apply, and both of the lotuses will go to your graveyard. The only way to do what you are describing would require sacrificing the first lotus, playing the second... then well you would need something like Early Harvest only without the restriction of untapping just basic lands, or turn golden lotus into a basic land, both possibilities not really existing as far as i can tell.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that even if you could play the second lotus and tap and sac one of em before the legend rule applies, you still couldn't sac both as no matter what you do, that second lotus is coming in to play tapped, and so cannot be sacrificed for its ability.
T1- forest, BoP
T2- Summer Bloom, play any three lands, then Golden Lotus
T3- 11 mana available
Summer Bloom is in ninth so i guess this would be extended legal, though more than likely this is gonna be more for casual than competition, either way, truly awesome
I really cannot understand the point of this. If i have just resolved a Head games against my opponent, and presumably filled their hand with trash, why would I need another combo piece to further muck up their hand and graveyard? Isn't giving them a hand of garbage enough? I know of course there are scenarios that the OP or anyone else defending this idea could bring up were it totally would be a good idea to do all the footwork necessary to play these spells as a combo, it just seems that in the vast majority of cases, just the head games is enough. Honestly if you are in a situation were taking your opponent's hand and remaking it into the worst hand there deck could produce at that time is not enough to get you a win, you probably were not going to win anyway.
I don't think this design space is necessarily closed off with the current wording of cascade. All you really need to replicate the one with a cascade number higher than the mana cost is some sort of alt. casting cost, say something similar to evoke. Now it is true that the other one, a cascade number lower than the casting cost would be more difficult to replicate, it can still be done, say an alt. cost that is higher than the mana cost, along with some built in penalty if the spell is played using its regular cost, rather than the alt. cost.
Both of these ideas are not very elegant, but they do exist, so i think what you mean to say is not that the cascade design eliminates this design space, just that it doesn't lend itself toward it.
One good thing for you sir, supposedly when M10 comes out the verb usage of play will be replaced with "cast" so this confusion will be eliminated.
If I remember it is 15 mythics, but I can't seem to locate where I read that, or even a full rarity breakdown for this set. Oh well to add to the compiled info though, here is the current breakdown of what has been spoiled so far(4/18/09, or 47/145)...
Mythic-8
Rare-23
Uncommon-5
Common-11
Total=47
As you can see, so far the spoiler has been very top heavy (almost at a 2:1 ratio, 31 Mythic/Rares to 16 Un/commons) which means a lot of how this set is gonna function, especially in limited is unknown. Anywhoo if someone could find the actual rarity distribution that would be much appreciated.
Go back and reread the thread, or for your convenience, open up the draft viewer, select Tom Riddle as your player, pack two, first pick, Terminate is the very last card (bottom right corner).
Now does that argument necessarily mean that 1 drops won't be in some form in ARB? no probably not, more than likely I think that WotC will include some form of one drop, though likely a 1 drop w/o a cmc of 1. The question I have for everyone who thinks that 1 drops should be, or even must be, in ARB, is why? And I ask this not in a snide or sarcastic manner, I am truly interested, why do you think 1 drops need to be in ARB?
On the other changes, cast is cool, but i dislike battlefield and whatever RFG would be changed with. RFG however makes sense to change(it is about as vague a zone name as possible) Battlefield, though appearing more confirmed makes less sense to me. Putting flavor issues aside, it seems the main reason to change playing a spell to casting a spell is to clear up the play/in play confusion. If you change play to cast then, why also change the in play zone to something else? Battlefield has other problems though, it just seems like it would be counter-intuitive to people to put non-creature artifacts or non-aura enchantments on the "battlefield" it makes me wonder if perhaps the in play zone won't get renamed, just the red zone will get it's own distinct name. The only reason i can see why it would be good to change the in play zone to battlefield is that since they are pushing for acquisition it might seem good to WotC to change the name so as to emphasize the combat aspect of the game.
In summary...Mana burn going away, fine with me, Play to cast, awesome, in play to battlefield, not a big fan, I say change play to cast to get rid of the play/in play confusion and keep in play as it is.