|
Soul Glo posted:Here's a dumb rules question you guys might be able to help me with: No, it doesn't.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
Soul Glo posted:Here's a dumb rules question you guys might be able to help me with:
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Soul Glo posted:Here's a dumb rules question you guys might be able to help me with: You've got it right. "sacrifice a creature" is the cost for nantuko husk's ability. Activated abilities look like "cost:effect" meaning that you have to pay the cost to that ability to get the effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:If a card has been transformed and has no rules text on the face up side to transform again, transform triggers on the stack will have no effect. My guess is they just make it so that the phrase "transform Archangel Avacyn" only applies to Archangel Avacyn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Quick rules question, if I have Leonin Arbiter in play, other player pays 2, activates fetchland, with fetch on the stack, I flicker Leonin Arbiter, can he pay an additional 2 and still fetch or is he SOL because the fetch is already on the stack?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
6/8 of top 8 at GP Detroit is Eldrazi. Competitive diversity something something
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Thanks guys. Made a casual Aristocrats deck and want to play it correctly. Appreciate the help!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:My guess is they just make it so that the phrase "transform Archangel Avacyn" only applies to Archangel Avacyn. I suggested it earlier, but the more I think about it, the uglier it is. It's creating a specific exception to a rule for no real reason. They could easily have templated avacyn to not have this issue, but now if they're changing the rule to be "~ refers to this object, except when you're talking about transform, then it doesn't" that's not at all a nice solution to the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Thisuck posted:Quick rules question, if I have Leonin Arbiter in play, other player pays 2, activates fetchland, with fetch on the stack, I flicker Leonin Arbiter, can he pay an additional 2 and still fetch or is he SOL because the fetch is already on the stack? If it's on the stack, then there will be a round of priority before the fetch search resolves during which he could pay 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Thisuck posted:Quick rules question, if I have Leonin Arbiter in play, other player pays 2, activates fetchland, with fetch on the stack, I flicker Leonin Arbiter, can he pay an additional 2 and still fetch or is he SOL because the fetch is already on the stack? He can pay again because he gets priority before the fetch resolves. A big flaming stink posted:6/8 of top 8 at GP Detroit is Eldrazi. Living End ban incoming. suicidesteve fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Cool thanks, that's what I thought as well, I just had a conflicting answer from someone who is usually very good with rulings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
My guess is they'll make it so that transforming makes it a new game object. It'll make Civilized Scholar able to dodge removal but most transforms are triggers
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:I suggested it earlier, but the more I think about it, the uglier it is. It's creating a specific exception to a rule for no real reason. They could easily have templated avacyn to not have this issue, but now if they're changing the rule to be "~ refers to this object, except when you're talking about transform, then it doesn't" that's not at all a nice solution to the problem. Just make it so ~CARDNAME~ refers to "this card, with this name."
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
That would mess up like, the whole rules system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Bonus posted:That would mess up like, the whole rules system. Necrotic Ooze would lose half of its activated abilities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Just make it so ~CARDNAME~ refers to "this card, with this name." This makes poo poo like necrotic ooze and sakashima the imposter work very very differently. It would also make cryptoplasm not work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:This makes poo poo like necrotic ooze and sakashima the imposter work very very differently. I suppose. I don't know all of the cards, but they've already got some kind of solution ready to go given Tabak's blog.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:I suggested it earlier, but the more I think about it, the uglier it is. It's creating a specific exception to a rule for no real reason. They could easily have templated avacyn to not have this issue, but now if they're changing the rule to be "~ refers to this object, except when you're talking about transform, then it doesn't" that's not at all a nice solution to the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Go Ralph Petesh, the last hope against the Eldrazi menace! (also a local at my store)
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Aaron forsythe is on stream is on stream suggesting the eldrazi isn't a big problem. Okay maybe not, but still not wanting to emergency anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Sickening posted:aaron forsythe is on stream is on stream suggesting the eldrazi isn't a big problem. You do know lower Defcon numbers are worse right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Aaron forsythe is on stream is on stream suggesting the eldrazi isn't a big problem. He just effectively said that they're going to ban something from it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Yeah it's weird that in the first half of the interview he kind of danced around it and then just said "Yeah, there will be intervention but it's not 100% what that will be yet"
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:He just effectively said that they're going to ban something from it. Very true at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
He did say he wants the deck to be around in some form.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Is there even a relevant modern event before the B&R now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
mehall posted:Is there even a relevant modern event before the B&R now? Nothing like a GP or SCG Open.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
mehall posted:Is there even a relevant modern event before the B&R now? Its basically blind stubbornness at this point. He acknowledged this is the worst anything has been in a long time but kept referencing the update date. The only upside is pretty nill by waiting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
And when things were bad before they waited until the normal time to ban something. An emergency ban was never on the table.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Nothing like a GP or SCG Open. Nope, this was the event that everyone kept insisting someone would solve the issue by.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Emergency bans aren't on the table unless whatever is up for ban is making people quit the game en masse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Cernunnos posted:Emergency bans aren't on the table unless whatever is up for ban is making people quit the game en masse. If it hurts sales, its banned. If it helps sales, it stays unbanned longer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
That's not true. The one and only emergency ban ever was on a new card (Memory Jar).
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
They have not banned cards outside of the ban date before. The last emergency ban was adding a card to the banlist after the update was announced, when they used to announce them a month prior to the ban date.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:They have not banned cards outside of the ban date before. The last emergency ban was adding a card to the banlist after the update was announced, when they used to announce them a month prior to the ban date. Who honestly gives a poo poo about this but WOTC? I am asking honestly. I just don't see how waiting benefits you, me, or anyone. Updating the banned list isn't this colossal effort of communication. Now if this means that this can't happen because of MTGO or something then  .
Sickening fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:That's not true. The one and only emergency ban ever was on a new card (Memory Jar). There was also an emergency restriction in vintage on Mind's Desire before it was released, which at the time meant it was banned in type 1.5 which no one cares about before they changed the ban lost and called it Legacy
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:That's not true. The one and only emergency ban ever was on a new card (Memory Jar). Memory Jar was kind of a unique case context-wise because it came out just as they were grappling with the fallout from the previous set, which had already shat all over a bunch of people's desire to play Magic. There was probably a very real feeling that Memory Jar could be the nail in tournament Magic's coffin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Even then they didn't just come out and say "Memory Jar is now banned", but they announced that it would be banned in a month or something. The B&R dates makes it so players know they'll get to play with their cards for at least some time, instead of having their decks banned just as they're going to take them to FNM or a larger event.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
I really wonder what exactly they were thinking when Urza's block was in design, given it was coming off of a relatively low powered block.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
I dunno if the block as a whole was overpowered, they just went to some very dangerous places (free spells, lands that tap for a lot of mana) without proper caution.Bonus posted:Even then they didn't just come out and say "Memory Jar is now banned", but they announced that it would be banned in a month or something. The B&R dates makes it so players know they'll get to play with their cards for at least some time, instead of having their decks banned just as they're going to take them to FNM or a larger event.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 00:01
|
|