Sure, why not? Might be an issue if you don't play with sleeves, but I don't think you're planning on that.
As long as you can't tell the card from other cards in your deck from the back (and if you have opaque, identical sleeves, you probably can't), you can play with the card.
Why are 3rd party adapters for electronics that copy the original legally sold? Why are there a plethora different video games that use same game play/mechanics legal? Think of all the different first person shooters, bullet hell, MMO, and RPGs. What makes most this games different is usually the art and story not the game rules. Wizards does have a patent which is the only thing that can protect game rules. However their patent is overly broad and may not even be enforceable. The fact wizards is enforcing the patent at the end of its life is interesting because if the courts rule that its too generic and invalidate it. It was going to expire soon any way so they are not too worried about losing their patent. I actual think that Hex can put together solid defense at whatever wizards throws at them. I find it unfortunate this going to cost wizards and cryptozoic potentially millions in legal costs which could be used to make both magic and hex better.
It's largely a matter of how similar the products are. There are so many similarities between Magic and Hex (hand size, starting life totals, the five "colors", and lots more) that it's pretty easy to make the case that one is derived from the other. That's the main thing a judge is going to look at if it goes to trial. And keep in mind it's not just a patent dispute, Wizards is also filing a copyright claim. Copyright doesn't expire for a while.
As a side note, there's an awful lot of patents involved in video game creation, and chances are there are dozens of patent holders you need to pay before you can produce your own game. IP law is super complicated.
You can target a god with Animate Dead if you don't have the devotion to keep it a creature. However, when it comes into play, the god won't be a creature and the Animate Dead won't be able to attach to it, so both it and the creature will be sacrificed.
Top-down design: "Okay, I want to design a killer robot. A killer robot would probably be a 4/4 Artifact Creature, maybe with deathtouch. And since it's a mindless killing machine, it has to attack every turn"
Bottom-up design: "Okay, we need an uncommon artifact creature. Let's make it...oh, 4/4 with deathtouch, and to make it a little cheaper we make it attack every turn. Now what can we call this? Oh, I know! Killer Robot."
The end result is the same, the difference is in the creative process.
I'm not sure why they would think this. Why wouldn't an opponent be a player?
Maybe section 102 of the Comp Rules will help clarify it:
102. Players
102.1. A player is one of the people in the game. The active player is the player whose turn it is. The
other players are nonactive players.
102.2. In a two-player game, a player’s opponent is the other player.
102.3. In a multiplayer game between teams, a player’s teammates are the other players on his or
her team, and the player’s opponents are all players not on his or her team
1 - The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: You're using it for a personal project which you don't plan on selling.
2 - The nature of the copyrighted work: Artwork and card design of a very rare and valuable collectible which you are not trying to pass off as genuine.
3 - The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: You're using (I presume) the artwork alone or a portion of it, and using the entire thing
4 - The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Negligible.
So you have a case for fair use, but the only way to find out for sure is to get sued and taken to court and present it as a defense. And to be perfectly honest, I highly doubt it would ever come to that.
Metal Worker is reserved? I thought it was jank. Was a bulk rare during my first stint as a magic player a long time ago. I just liked playing silly artifact decks.
You say "watered down" I say "appropriately balanced".
I used to play moxes and lotuses made with textas. It got boring fast. The game isn't good with cards that are too powerful.
The list isn't based upon power. It's just 80% of the rares they didn't reprint in the next core set.
As long as the match result isn't dependent on the prizes themselves, there's nothing wrong with this. You can pretty much agree to split the prize at any time.
What you cannot do is offer a split in exchange for a win or a draw. But if you're going to split regardless of the outcome, there's no issue.
No. At the time the opponent makes the choice, the spell is in the middle of resolving. Once they choose to take the damage, it's too late to play something that modifies it.
Fork makes the copy red, Reverberate doesn't. Slight changes like that might be a good way around the Reserved List if they feel like following the letter of the Reserved List for whatever reason.
Since it wasn't an exact, functional reprint, it stays within the letter of the RL. However, MaRo has admitted, it was so close to the original that WotC thought it violated the spirit of the list.
I am still lost as to what the "spirit" of the list does that makes it even necessary, given how we have the list, the criteria for what is allowed/not, and what violates said rules/doesn't.
The Reserve List says, in effect "We won't reprint Fork".
They printed a card that was, for all intents and purposes, Fork.
While it didn't actually violate the list because of a technicality, it did do what the list was trying to prevent.
As long as you can't tell the card from other cards in your deck from the back (and if you have opaque, identical sleeves, you probably can't), you can play with the card.
Set looks fine to me, it tries to do some weird things, but none of those things are too hard to understand if you get the basic nature of the set.
It's largely a matter of how similar the products are. There are so many similarities between Magic and Hex (hand size, starting life totals, the five "colors", and lots more) that it's pretty easy to make the case that one is derived from the other. That's the main thing a judge is going to look at if it goes to trial. And keep in mind it's not just a patent dispute, Wizards is also filing a copyright claim. Copyright doesn't expire for a while.
As a side note, there's an awful lot of patents involved in video game creation, and chances are there are dozens of patent holders you need to pay before you can produce your own game. IP law is super complicated.
Reanimate effects such as Rise from the Grave work perfectly fine, however.
Bottom-up design: "Okay, we need an uncommon artifact creature. Let's make it...oh, 4/4 with deathtouch, and to make it a little cheaper we make it attack every turn. Now what can we call this? Oh, I know! Killer Robot."
The end result is the same, the difference is in the creative process.
Maybe section 102 of the Comp Rules will help clarify it:
1 - The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: You're using it for a personal project which you don't plan on selling.
2 - The nature of the copyrighted work: Artwork and card design of a very rare and valuable collectible which you are not trying to pass off as genuine.
3 - The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: You're using (I presume) the artwork alone or a portion of it, and using the entire thing
4 - The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Negligible.
So you have a case for fair use, but the only way to find out for sure is to get sued and taken to court and present it as a defense. And to be perfectly honest, I highly doubt it would ever come to that.
The list isn't based upon power. It's just 80% of the rares they didn't reprint in the next core set.
Also, Metalworker is pretty darn powerful.
Clearly they do. That's how the Reserved List came into play in the first place.
Technically, no. You can't say, "I'll scoop if you split" or "I'll give you a share of what I win if you scoop".
But there are ways around it. "Wanna split whatever prizes we win?" "Okay" "Alright then, I scoop" is fine.
They key question is, "Is something being offered directly in exchange for a win/draw?" If yes, then it's bribery. If not, then the deal is okay.
What you cannot do is offer a split in exchange for a win or a draw. But if you're going to split regardless of the outcome, there's no issue.
Keep in mind that your mana pool empties at the end of each step, so in mist cases there's not much point in doing so.
The Reserve List says, in effect "We won't reprint Fork".
They printed a card that was, for all intents and purposes, Fork.
While it didn't actually violate the list because of a technicality, it did do what the list was trying to prevent.