2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on [Line] Gatecrash
    Quote from Thiefoftime
    How are prerelease sealed decks going to work when Sinker comes around? RTR will doubtless be all RTR + 1 guild booster, Gatecrash can do the same, but what about sinker? 6 Sinker boosters? 3 sinker, 1 RTR, 1 GTC, 1 sinker guild booster?
    I don't see it working that well since sinker is a small set and they have in the past been 50:50 with the last big set... but there will be two big sets...


    It was stated at the Comic-Con panel that Sinker sealed would be two of each of RTR, GTC, and Sinker. Sinker draft will be 1 of each, in the order Sinker, GTC, RTR.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on What guild will you choose at the prerelease?
    I definitely plan to play in more than one event. This prerelease format has given me a good reason to do so. I'll pick Izzet in the first one I play, and in any others...I'll probably start with Golgari and move on from there.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on What was Magic like in 1999?
    In 1999, Vintage was fun enough that even decks without the Power 9 could be reasonably competitive at times. I nearly top 8'd a Vintage tournament in 2000 despite having very few cards from before Ice Age.

    Standard...ugh. Replenish scared me out of Standard and into Extended, Legacy, and Vintage instead. Then Rebels came along later on...
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on [Line] Gatecrash
    Quote from TK-421
    Which is important, because I've been fumbling around with GCR.


    Well, it made sense, at least. I was also expecting it to be GCR, but I suppose GTC works too. Hopefully this doesn't lead to people speculating that the 3-letter code for Sinker will also have T as its middle letter (RTR, GTC, ...?). Tongue

    In any case, here are the relevant images of the logo and the expansion symbol:



    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on [Line] Gatecrash
    http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/arcana/1016

    The only new information here is that the set's 3-letter code is GTC, but there are clearer images of the new guild symbols/watermarks.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on some question about helvault
    1) When a permanent is "blinked" (which is what Cloudshift does), it is exiled, then immediately returns to the battlefield. It comes back as a completely new object with no memory of its previous existence. It won't be a 5/5 artifact creature, and it will no longer be able to track the creatures it exiled before it was blinked.

    2) The creatures won't come back for the same reason.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Lightning Helix, Willgbender and Planeswalkers
    Your rules guru was correct. You can respond to Lightning Helix by turning your Willbender face up and changing its target to your opponent. However, you can only redirect to a planeswalker non-combat damage from a source you control. Willbender's ability changes the target, but not the controller of the source, so you can redirect it to your opponent, but not to a planeswalker he controls.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Converted mana cost
    Quote from Nivvy=1
    I think it actually would be able to counter it as accordig to gatherer it's cmc is 1 and x= 0 if Galvanoth revealed it.


    While that is the case if you cast Bonfire of the Damned without paying its mana cost due to an effect such as Galvanoth's, as any X in the mana cost would be 0, this isn't the case when casting it normally.

    When you cast a spell with an X mana in its mana cost, all X's on the card have the same value, and the converted mana cost of that card does include the value of X while the spell is on the stack. The value of X in a card's mana cost is 0 in all zones other than the stack as well as outside the game (hence why Gatherer indicates a CMC of 1).

    For example, a Bonfire of the Damned cast with X = 2 would have a CMC of 5. A Bonfire of the Damned cast for its miracle cost with X = 2 still has a CMC of 5, since all X's on the card have the same value. In any case, Mental Misstep can never counter it unless X is 0.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on No longer a legal target at time of resolution
    Yes. Smite the Monstrous checks to see if the targeted creature has power 4 or greater on resolution. When Smite the Monstrous goes to resolve, it will see that its target does not have power 4 or greater, and will be countered on resolution.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Penn State Tragedy
    Quote from bocephus
    I disagree, I dont feel Jopa did wrong here. He reported to who he was suppose to and fired the man off his staff.


    Sandusky wasn't fired. He was allowed to retire, given $168,000, and granted emeritus rank at the university, with full access to all its facilities for himself and his "charity". Paterno and the staff actually didn't do anything at all after the first assaults in 1998.
    Posted in: Talk and Entertainment
  • posted a message on A question about Guile and a ruling:
    Quote from SpacemanSPD
    Alright, I guess it just confused me, so it just exiles the spell prior to it resolving?


    Well, no, it just replaces the counterspell's effect on resolution with "exile that spell". I edited my post with an example.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on A question about Guile and a ruling:
    It means what it says; it's a replacement effect. Guile's ability changes "counter [some spell]" into "exile [some spell] and you may play that card without paying its mana cost". For the purposes of things that look at whether a spell was countered, if Guile's replacement effect applies to a given event, then the spell was never actually countered.

    For example, if Player B has Guile on the battlefield and Player A casts Lightning Bolt, and Player B responds with Delay, then the Lightning Bolt will not be exiled with three time counters on it and gain suspend; instead it will be exiled and Player B can cast it without paying its mana cost. Player B has to choose whether to cast it then, though, as that's the only time s/he can do so. If s/he doesn't, it just remains exiled.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on [IDW]Magic: The Gathering: Path of Vengeance
    Anyway...so there's a new comic coming out. Is there any more information about it?
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Loner Flametongue Kavu
    That's correct. Flametongue Kavu has to target itself if there are no other legal targets for its ETB ability.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on how many rare or mythic rare can be in play?
    Quote from Sidestepper
    Both are destroyed. This is referred to as the "Legend Rule". If two legendary permanents have the same name, they are both destroyed

    The same goes for planeswalkers with the same name. If you have a Garruk, Primal Hunter and your opponent plays a Garruk Relentless, both are destroyed


    Not quite. To clarify:

    - If two legendary permanents with the same name are on the battlefield, all are put into their owners' graveyards as a state-based action. This is not destruction - "destroyed" implies that one or more of them can be regenerated, which they can't.

    - If two or more planeswalkers with the same planeswalker type (not necessarily the same name) are on the battlefield, all are put into their owners' graveyards as a state-based action. Again, this isn't destruction. For example, as you stated, if you control Garruk, Primal Hunter and your opponent puts Garruk Relentless onto the battlefield, both will be put into their owners' graveyards as they both have the same planeswalker type (Planeswalker - Garruk).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.