Drewjitsu posted:

Magic: the Gathering - No Commander for Old Wizards.

I feel the same way - I played in a commander group with my friends and all it took was one player to start playing money for the game to sort of spiral out of control.

I was never a big fan, but that really cemented it for me. I do get the allure of established players be able to leverage their entire collection to get some use out of cards that haven't seen play in a while or never at all in constructed formats.

HootTheOwl posted:

Yes that would be the point of my card.

Lone Goat posted:

Elvis_Maximus posted:

Ah I see

Man templating is super hard in MTG. The fact that they can get so many cards as concise as they can with some pretty complicated effects is pretty crazy

Toph Bei Fong posted:

Yeah, my collector's boosters came in last Friday.

Would still love to have the actual deck show up, but thems the breaks

Reynold posted:

Yeah I got mine pretty quickly after they said they'd start shipping.

ilmucche posted:

i think if we're going to dig out weirdly worded cards then anything from before modern became a format is cheating lol

Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:

You'd be shocked how many 5th edition cards have identical oracle text to printed text. That's when they put in the legwork to standardize rules text.

Jiro posted:

Here have some Delirium as far as confusing words.



So the creature you take over, can't be destroyed? Only exiled if they wanted to prevent damage? Would infect kill them?

Here, more word salad.

Jiro posted:

Here, more word salad.

Pablo Nergigante posted:

Wizards should make only good cards that I like. And also send me a million dollars

Jiro posted:

Here have some Delirium as far as confusing words.



So the creature you take over, can't be destroyed? Only exiled if they wanted to prevent damage? Would infect kill them?

Jiro posted:

Here have some Delirium as far as confusing words.



So the creature you take over, can't be destroyed? Only exiled if they wanted to prevent damage? Would infect kill them?

Here, more word salad.

HootTheOwl posted:

You don't take over a creature. You tap it. It can still be destroyed.
Where did you get exile from the text?
It will deal damage as infect counters, yes.

Arivia posted:

to be clear, i picked dead ringers because i knew the printed card text was the exact oracle text still. i don't think that applies to either of these cards.

Jiro posted:

I was on a call when I posted Delirium, my attention was split. It was more of a question of since the creature you are tapping neither deals nor receives combat damage this turn, would a way of negating the damage be to exile the creature itself? I guess I'm hung up on the part that talks about combat damage, but I guess a damage spell would be able to kill it also since it's not during combat. I don't know I'm confused, Delirium is one of those cards I've always tried to fit into any deck with Red/Black colors in it as a SURPRISE kind of card if someone were to whip out a Blightsteel and go for lethal or some other threat and just have it turn on it's owner killing them instead.

https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?printed=false&multiverseid=1631

As far as Gatherer goes, there's been no revisions to it.

ilmucche posted:

I love this card

Arivia posted:

"Return to your hand all enchantments you both own and control, all Auras you own attached to permanents you control, and all Auras you own attached to attacking creatures your opponents control. Then destroy all other enchantments you control, all other Auras attached to permanents you control, and all other Auras attached to attacking creatures your opponents control."

That's significantly differently worded with updated language (Auras). Dead Ringers is exactly the same. I'm not talking something like Oubliette now working with phasing, to avoid accusations of dirty pool Dead Ringers was a good choice because the printed card is still completely correct today in 2022.

LeafHouse posted:

The gatherer wording is bizarre to me. Doesn’t “return all enchantments you both own and control” imply the following two lines as well as meaning that Auras you have cast on opponents creatures that are not attacking also get returned?

The way gatherer words it seems to suggest that a Pacifism I cast on my opponents creature would be destroyed since it is an aura on a permanent I do not control that is not attacking.

HootTheOwl posted:

Its done that way for templating: It first lists everything that will return to your hand (and auras you control but don't own can't go to your hand) And then it lists everything that will be destroyed.
The Pacifism you cast on your opponent's creature is an enchantment you own and control, so it's litterally the first thing mentioned that goes to your hand.

LeafHouse posted:

Yeah, that’s my point.

“Return to your hand all enchantments you both own and control”

Encompasses

“all Auras you own attached to permanents you control, and all Auras you own attached to attacking creatures your opponents control.”

Kalli posted:

No no, I just realized the edgecase.

You cast Holy strength on your Serra Angel

Then use Zedruu The Greathearted to give your opponent control of the Holy Strength. You own the Holy strength and the Serra Angel, but don't control the Holy Strength, so the first clause wouldn't return the Holy strength, but the all auras you own attached to permanents you control would.

quote:

X,ocT: Put a charge counter on Ice Cauldron, and put a spell card face up on Ice Cauldron. Note the type and amount of mana used to pay this activation cost. Use this ability only if there are no charge counters on Ice Cauldron. You may play that spell card as though it were in your hand.
ocT: Remove the charge counter from Ice Cauldron to add mana of the type and amount last used to put a charge counter on Ice Cauldron to your mana pool. This mana is usable only to cast the spell on top of Ice Cauldron.

Devor posted:

Also keep in mind it's from 1994 - one year before they put their brains together and came up with this templating on Icy Cauldron. They were still learning

A Moose posted:

oh man, Ice Age was just lousy with novel length card text that didn't actually do anything.

Snowfall, Balduvian Shaman, Winter's Chill, Ice Cauldron, Phantasmal Mount, Krovikan Sorcerer and that's just the blue cards

Toph Bei Fong posted:

Toph Bei Fong posted:

Devor posted:

JUDGE, please check my opponent's trade binder for Volcanic Islands, I think he's cheating

kalel posted:

that's just wretched

Bugsy posted:

Qwertycoatl posted:

I love how old cards often have helpful lines of text to clarify some questions you never asked.

"The Wretched does not tap or untap those creatures."

Qwertycoatl posted:

I love how old cards often have helpful lines of text to clarify some questions you never asked.

"The Wretched does not tap or untap those creatures."

TotalHell posted:

Lone Goat posted:

The rulebook back then was a thirty page insert so you had to explain all the rules on the card because there was nowhere else to explain it.



Players definitely needed to be told you don't keep the card after the game ends.