3/19/2010 LD: "Worldwake Multiverse Outtakes"

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's Latest Developments, which goes live Friday morning on magicthegathering.com.
KEN 4/3/2009: 'each opponent loses 1 life'? Then it's the little brother of Conflux's Infectious Horror, becomes 2HG-matters at common, and is good in CENSORED.



What is CENSORED?  Can you at least tell us when you can tell us?

CostBenefitBot 04/17/2009: BEEP Smile Not Worth Token Art Commission BEEP Calculation Complete BOOP



Please find out who this is.  Then tell them they're awesome.

Is anyone actually trying to kill it?



I am.  Every time I play against it in ZZW Draft.

I wish I remember what Traveling Salesman Problem did.



Please try to remember.  As a Computer Science major, I'm quite interested.

Edit: To whoever's overseeing the new boards: Please create functionality to do [quote=NAME] tags for quoting by name.  Thanks.

Also, [noparse][/noparse] tags would be appreciated.
targets for a spell are chosen before that spell goes on the stack

Actually, spells are placed on the stack before their targets are chosen. This is a common misconception though. The reason a Cancel can't target itself is because the rules say a spell can't target itself—no special reasoning required.
DCI Level 2 Judge WPN Advanced TO RPGA Herald-Level GM
i'm just curious as to what the original token types for bestial menace were.

Dwarf, human, and giant. Laughing

In practice, using "X" on lavaclaw reaches doesn't actually negatively affect the interaction with ceaseless searblades, as you could still activate it however many times with X=1 each time.
In practice, using "X" on lavaclaw reaches doesn't actually negatively affect the interaction with ceaseless searblades, as you could still activate it however many times with X=1 each time.



It doesn't negatively affect it, no.  The fact that X can be zero, however...
I saw someone killed at the prerelease by their own Kazuul. He had more creatures than the opponent, but he was on 2 life, and the opponent had the Vampire that makes people lose life when a creature ETBs under their control. He didn't have the mana to stop the Ogres showing up and killing him!

I love the hidden sadness to Fledgling Griffin. That makes me love the card a lot more.
I'd already spotted the Lavaclaw Reaches - Ceaseless Searblades combo (the day LCR was previewed, in fact), but if I hadn't then that would also make me love the card a lot more

I love the idea of Join the Ranks making a Human Soldier and a Kor Rogue or some such. Just as well it doesn't, though.

"Del 5/1: (CARDNAME is a spell.) "
Bwahahaha... that's an awesome idea. Sensible not to go with it, but still awesome.

"heads will roll"
Groan. 

This article was great fun; please keep doing ones like this for future sets! 

"Let's take a break for some technical rules discussion."

Yes, let's. This business of changing targets is a little fiddly, and not helped by the faulty explanation here. A spell on the stack is not a legal target for itself - that is a rule all of its own, this business of "a Cancel in nature" is not needed and not correct. Also, as a previous poster has already pointed out, targets are NOT chosen before a spell goes on the stack - quite the reverse. A spell is put on the stack before absolutely everything else, except for simply announcing it. Targets, modes, determining costs, paying costs, splicing things onto it, all comes AFTER it has been put on the stack.

What exactly "a Cancel in nature" has to do with anything I do not know. Were it not for the rule that explicitly states that a spell cannot legally target itself there would be no other bar to this play in the rules as far as I can tell (nor would there be a bar to a Cancel targeting itself in the first place- conceivable if say it's your only card in hand, your opponent is on 4 life and you have Manaplasm in play, or something like that).

Also, it's always interesting to pick up what information we can about what the Developers have been playing in the Constructed Future Future League. Ken mentions that he has been using Ricochet Trap to counter Countersqualls. As far as I am aware, Countersquall is a card that has not really taken off in real life. I guess Control decks would rather use a Negate that they can reliably cast rather than a tougher one to cast that snags a random 2 life. Blightning was a better call, although I don't really see Ricochet Trap being used as sideboard anti-Jund tech..... Yet....

"Personally, I believe $50 is the roof that someone will pay for a Standard card, Mythic or otherwise." - Ben Bleiweiss, StarCity Games ----------------------------------------------------------
I also came here to point out the error in Tom's explanation of the spell-casting process.

As has already been pointed out here, the very first step in casting a spell is moving it to the stack.  What really gets me is that it should be obvious with just a little thought that it must be that way.  If the spell were put on the stack after all the decisions were made, how would your opponent know that you were casting the spell correctly??


I saw someone killed at the prerelease by their own Kazuul. He had more creatures than the opponent, but he was on 2 life, and the opponent had the Vampire that makes people lose life when a creature ETBs under their control. He didn't have the mana to stop the Ogres showing up and killing him!

I'm not sure Kazuul works the way you think it does...  It doesn't matter how much mana Kazuul's controller has; the controller of the attacking creatures is the only one who has the option to spend mana to prevent Ogres from being created.  Still a great story though!
man was i confused by that cancel explanation! i am glad to see i wasn't just going nuts.

@ stern judge: maybe he was talking about limited?

Edit: To whoever's overseeing the new boards: Please create functionality to do [quote=NAME] tags for quoting by name.  Thanks.

Also, [noparse][/noparse] tags would be appreciated.



LOL don't waste your breath. whoever is in charge of making these boards not suck has routinely failed every day since the boards debuted. they don't care about your vbcode desires and they don't care that the boards are garbage and were greatly outclassed by their predecessors.
I don't know, the boards aren't that bad now that auto-carding (which is better than before) and the like are back.

Rules wise, could someone point to a source that says spells are placed on the stack before targets are chosen? I don't recall it ever happening that way, since Terror, Giant Growth, Cancel, and the like always need a target before they could actually be cast.
I don't know, the boards aren't that bad now that auto-carding (which is better than before) and the like are back.

Rules wise, could someone point to a source that says spells are placed on the stack before targets are chosen? I don't recall it ever happening that way, since Terror, Giant Growth, Cancel, and the like always need a target before they could actually be cast.



Source? It's called the Comprehensive Rules, duh, the same source as for all other rules:


601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from the zone it’s in (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Casting a spell follows the steps listed below, in order. If, at any point during the casting of a spell, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the spell was cast illegally; the game returns to the moment before that spell started to be cast [...]

601.2a The player announces that he or she is casting the spell. That card (or that copy of a card) moves from the zone it’s in to the stack. [...]

601.2c The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires. [...]


I had the same feelings as Aaron about feleing like Kazuul was something out of Kamigawa block, but mad props on the putting the finger on the pointy hat.

I voted for 'like' but I have very mixed feelings.  I love the aspect of colorless spells/creatures that aren't artifacts (as long as it's not too common and makes sense to do so... and the cards don't suck).  What I don't like is how swingy* this card is.  If Urzatron or Cloudpost like lands show up then I probably won't be playing much.  Everflowing Chalice is going to be powering these guys out like hotcakes already.

*Admittedly, I'm a bit of a curmudgeon here.  I don't like how swingy the environment has gotten.  I prefer environments where slow incremental advantage like Shadowmage Infiltrator are what win games.
Rules wise, could someone point to a source that says spells are placed on the stack before targets are chosen? I don't recall it ever happening that way, since Terror, Giant Growth, Cancel, and the like always need a target before they could actually be cast.

Ya, that's a little weird, but you can technically start the process of casting a spell like Terror without it having a legal target. It's just that, when you reach the step of rule 601.2c as quoted by FineVintage, if you can't choose a legal target, you have to back up and put the spell back into your hand, and the game considers nothing happened. No one ever does that intentionally, beause the only thing you achieve by that is revealing the Terror from your hand, which you can do at any time anyway. It won't trigger abilities that trigger off players casting spells, because 1) a spell is only considered cast when all steps of the casting process are done and 2) as I said, the game considers nothing happened.
Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A

For the poll about Kozilek, I answered "I'm okay with it". While I have my Timmy side, just an other fattie with frightening abilities is not something that excites me that much (his flavor is great, though). I don't fear him, as a creature that's this hard to get on the battlefield should be able to win his controller the game anyway if it's unanswered. And it's pretty easy to answer with most non-thoughness based removal.

Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A
Kozilek is indeed perfectly answerable, but one of the coolest things about him(?) is that you still draw the 4 cards off her(?) (even if it(?) gets countered).

Good point about Kazuul - I misremembered the story /and/ misread the card. It was played correctly when it happened, though.

I've wished a spell could target itself before: back in Invasion-block, when I had a Disrupt in hand and wanted to just play it, targeting itself, to cycle it for another card. Nup, you've got to wait for someone to cast another instant or sorcery before you can do that.
They were probably referring to Arch Enemy. (I'd like to see more Planechase stuff though.)

Wanna know some more fun one can do with Ricochet Trap?
Enchantments are spells with a single target while on the stack. Had some good laughs with people not getting the outcome expected with Zendikons...

Edit: Forgot about Kozilek. He looks quite fun, stops that Crabby/Hulk combo with a single sideboard, or any other type of main mill deck w/o the ability to exile the graveyard at a key time.
i think the problem with the richochet trap explanation is that it doesn't actually 'counter' the spell.  it just redirects it to another target.

maybe to make things more confusing, they could create another counter-type card that says 'change target of target spell to an illegal target'
@ stern judge: maybe he was talking about limited?



Staggeringly unlikely to have been Limited in any sane universe- you wouldn't normally play Countersquall or Blightning in the same Limited game as Ricochet Trap - different blocks.
"Personally, I believe $50 is the roof that someone will pay for a Standard card, Mythic or otherwise." - Ben Bleiweiss, StarCity Games ----------------------------------------------------------
@ stern judge: maybe he was talking about limited?



Couldn't have been Limited - you can't play Countersquall or Blightning in the same Limited game as Ricochet Trap - different blocks.


There's nothing illegal about playing Limited with a mix of blocks, it just isn't normally done.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Fair enough, although I never said it was "illegal" - I simply suspect that R&D probably don't spend their valuable testing time seeing how cards perform in Alara/Conflux/Worldwake drafts or sealeds though, which is what that would have needed to have been to be Limited. I therefore think the mix of blocks is sufficient evidence to prove to the satisfaction of most individuals that this was in reference to Constructed, rather than Limited.

I'll revise my statement from "Couldn't have been in Limited" to "Staggeringly unlikely to have been Limited in any sane universe".
"Personally, I believe $50 is the roof that someone will pay for a Standard card, Mythic or otherwise." - Ben Bleiweiss, StarCity Games ----------------------------------------------------------