|
Entropic posted:Easy way to avoid the "you lose" trigger on the next turn -- just cast another Glorious End in response to it! I'm fairly certian i'm wrong, but shouldn't exiling a spell as it's resolving mean that you stop doing what it says on the rest of it? This is the first time where there's a card that has text after "End the turn", right?
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
Doing my local group's monthly "get hammered and cube" night. The cubemaster just revealed tonight's prizes, and poo poo is undoubtedly gonna get real.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Glorious End is now my favorite card ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
There is definitely a "discard - madness" jund deck somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Snacksmaniac posted:Glorious End is now my favorite card ever.    For a period of like 4 years they did a similar effect regularly and then stopped. Elyv fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
The Best Reminder Text In Magic posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Cauldron Moose posted:I'm fairly certian i'm wrong, but shouldn't exiling a spell as it's resolving mean that you stop doing what it says on the rest of it? Don't think so. Nothing interrupts the steps of resolution of a spell ability detailed on a card. In fact, all abilities are atomic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
It's probably just a worse version of Ad Nauseam but I want to play Hive Mind + Glorious End combo in modern.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Glorious End is basically a red Fog with upside.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
I feel like Noose Constrictor is about to see a lot of play
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
May be a corner case but you can also get someone's fetch land with this. Say they are in the middle of an attack, they want to cast a spell in combat and crack a fetch to do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
sit on my Facebook posted:I feel like Noose Constrictor is about to see a lot of play If you want to blow yourself out against fatal push, yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Sickening posted:If you want to blow yourself out against fatal push, yes. You can just get back every card you pitched with the other part of that combo if they're representing it
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
uninverted posted:It's probably just a worse version of Ad Nauseam but I want to play Hive Mind + Glorious End combo in modern. It's also a worse version of the hive mind decks that used a Pact of the Titan to win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
it's red-flavored reminder text, that's unbeatable card design
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
I want them to print a red card at like 1RR that just advances to the next phase of a turn
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
It's flavour text that's could go on a No Fear tshirt and that makes it Very Good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:You can just get back every card you pitched with the other part of that combo if they're representing it I feel like there are less risky pump spells available in those colors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Cauldron Moose posted:I'm fairly certian i'm wrong, but shouldn't exiling a spell as it's resolving mean that you stop doing what it says on the rest of it? This is why it's a separate clause. Think of the Pact cycle where you lose on your next upkeep if you don't pay the given cost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:This might be in elyv's ghost post Even if it's just once I want to see someone have this out alongside 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:I want them to print a red card at like 1RR that just advances to the next phase of a turn It would be a sorcery 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Anil Dasharez0ne posted:Even if it's just once I want to see someone have this out alongside operation dragon dildos is a go
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Anil Dasharez0ne posted:Even if it's just once I want to see someone have this out alongside Well, get yourself an Enduring Ideal and get to work building a super janky enchantment deck citizen!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Crazy card, clearly meant to combo with Gideon in standard. Whether or not it ends up being good who can say, they at least nailed the feel of a red mythic spell, something they've struggled with in the past. Certainly a cool effect for red to have, and I'm sure people will build some janky jeskai brews with this card, Gideon, and Disallow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Marketing New Brain posted:Crazy card, clearly meant to combo with Gideon in standard. Whether or not it ends up being good who can say, they at least nailed the feel of a red mythic spell, something they've struggled with in the past. I didn't think of it this way but this really is the coolest red mythic in years isn't it
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:It would be a sorcery So that's how you get to beginning of combat!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
sit on my Facebook posted:I didn't think of it this way but this really is the coolest red mythic in years isn't it Searched for red mythics in standard and yeah, this wins hands down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:So that's how you get to beginning of combat! Fuk
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
On the stupid subject of beginning of combat step: When the AP says "combat?" or some derivative of, it is passing priority until the NAP gets priority in the beginning of the combat step, correct? So the NAP is fine saying "sure." immediately followed with "I path your dude [presumably done before attackers are declared because perhaps said dude had an attacking trigger or something]." And this is entirely appropriate rule following, correct, and the AP has left the main phase?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:So that's how you get to beginning of combat! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:
Absolutely incredible. I want to build a jank-rear end Modern deck that uses this with Sundial of the Infinite. e: whoops meant to edit this into my previous post Fajita Queen fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
ANOTHER beginning of combat question: AP has Surrak, the Hunt Caller on the board. AP says "combat?" If NAP does not want Surrak's ability to trigger, would NAP have to specify "Not yet. At the end of your main phase before beginning of combat step I cast [instant speed removal spell] on Surrak"? Or by NOT AGREEING to the request for "combat?" what is the NAP saying? What is the most correct way for NAP to remove Surrak without giving the AP priority back in the main phase to cast sorcery speed spells?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:So that's how you get to beginning of combat! Edit: ShaneB posted:ANOTHER beginning of combat question: AP has Surrak, the Hunt Caller on the board. AP says "combat?" If NAP does not want Surrak's ability to trigger, would NAP have to specify "Not yet. At the end of your main phase before beginning of combat step I cast [instant speed removal spell] on Surrak"? Or by NOT AGREEING to the request for "combat?" what is the NAP saying? What is the most correct way for NAP to remove Surrak without giving the AP priority back in the main phase to cast sorcery speed spells? Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I think one of the advantages of being AP is that the NAP cannot interrupt that trigger without giving sorcery speed priority back, unless you remove him in one of the non-sorcery speed steps/phases. So draw or upkeep to avoid the trigger and not give AP sorcery speed priority. Lawnie fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
ShaneB posted:On the stupid subject of beginning of combat step: When the AP says "combat?" or some derivative of, it is passing priority until the NAP gets priority in the beginning of the combat step, correct? So the NAP is fine saying "sure." immediately followed with "I path your dude [presumably done before attackers are declared because perhaps said dude had an attacking trigger or something]." And this is entirely appropriate rule following, correct, and the AP has left the main phase? Saying "sure" could be seen as passing priority but I think if it's like, "sure, Path your guy" that's fine. ShaneB posted:ANOTHER beginning of combat question: AP has Surrak, the Hunt Caller on the board. AP says "combat?" If NAP does not want Surrak's ability to trigger, would NAP have to specify "Not yet. At the end of your main phase before beginning of combat step I cast [instant speed removal spell] on Surrak"? Or by NOT AGREEING to the request for "combat?" what is the NAP saying? What is the most correct way for NAP to remove Surrak without giving the AP priority back in the main phase to cast sorcery speed spells? There's no way to do what you want to do. If you want Surrak not to trigger you have to kill him in the main phase which means they get to do things again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
ShaneB posted:ANOTHER beginning of combat question: AP has Surrak, the Hunt Caller on the board. AP says "combat?" If NAP does not want Surrak's ability to trigger, would NAP have to specify "Not yet. At the end of your main phase before beginning of combat step I cast [instant speed removal spell] on Surrak"? Or by NOT AGREEING to the request for "combat?" what is the NAP saying? What is the most correct way for NAP to remove Surrak without giving the AP priority back in the main phase to cast sorcery speed spells? I'm not a judge but I'm pretty sure you can't remove Surrak without the trigger going on the stack and prevent priority from going back to the AP in their Main Phase. It is one or the other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
ShaneB posted:ANOTHER beginning of combat question: AP has Surrak, the Hunt Caller on the board. AP says "combat?" If NAP does not want Surrak's ability to trigger, would NAP have to specify "Not yet. At the end of your main phase before beginning of combat step I cast [instant speed removal spell] on Surrak"? Or by NOT AGREEING to the request for "combat?" what is the NAP saying? What is the most correct way for NAP to remove Surrak without giving the AP priority back in the main phase to cast sorcery speed spells? Agree so that it goes to declare attackers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Saying "sure" could be seen as passing priority but I think if it's like, "sure, Path your guy" that's fine. I figured NAP would have to say "okay BUT before declare attackers I path your creature" because saying simply "path your dude" as a response could be taken as "before we exit the main phase because I didn't say okay when you said 'combat'"? suicidesteve posted:
Yeah, I kind of realized that the only thing between end of first main and beginning of combat would still allow AP to cast sorcery speed spells. HOWEVER, in comp REL, if an op has an "at the beginning of your combat step" ability on a card, and they say "combat?" WITHOUT indicating there is a card that uses the "at the beginning of your combat step" with a TARGETED ability (as Surrak's does) that ability is missed, yes? This seems to indicate something like a Goblin Rabblemaster would not need to be continually acknowledged, but Surrak's would: https://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2016/10/18/do-not-pass-go/ Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Agree so that it goes to declare attackers. Well I'm trying to avoid Surrak's ability triggering in beginning of combat. So I'd have to remove it in APs main phase.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:There's no way to do what you want to do. If you want Surrak not to trigger you have to kill him in the main phase which means they get to do things again. Well if you kill him in response to the trigger they probably won't have Formidable anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Well if you kill him in response to the trigger they probably won't have Formidable anymore. That's a spicy meatball I hadn't considered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:47
|
|