Cascade and split card ruling!

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Let's take Boom//Bust and BloodBraid Elf for example. The current ruling is such that if you cascade into Boom//Bust from BloodBraid Elf you are allowed to cast the Bust portion of the card because you can technically cast the Boom portion since it is the same card. I get the logic behind it but it was poorly concluded because this is becoming a problem in the modern format or I wouldn't be here. Instead of banning either card just change the ruling so that you are only allowed to cast the portion of the card that actually costs less than the card that has cascade. This is way more balanced and you won't lose the deck archetype in doing so. It'll just shift a bit. I'll keep posting this until someone changes the rules or I get kicked off this site. I spent 15 minutes creating a profile and all, just so I could complain here. 
The problem with "just changing the ruling" is that the ruling isn't why it works that way. The ruling is simply an explanation of the way the rules already worked; this result is a natural outgrowth of the way split cards function.

If you want the ruling to change, you're going to need to come up with a way to rewrite the rules for split cards...well, pretty much from the ground up. And remember, since those rules impact way more than just this one situation, you'll also be altering many other situations involving split cards.

You're welcome to take a crack at it if you like, but don't be surprised if we poke a bunch of holes in your initial attempts.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

This is basically a discussion about two things: How the rules can be made to allow it, and how much agreeable it is to have it work that way.As such, I think it'd be a good idea to open a discussion over at the design forum (or whatever forum is appropriate for it) to see how agreebale it really is to have work the way you want. It'd also help in hearing the opposition. Maybe this "cheaty" interaction is not as bad as you portray it? Or maybe your proposal can actually be worse for the game? Maybe banning cards is the right way to go aftet all? I don't think these things can be fully discussed in a rule-theory thread (I think there's some leeway to consider the effects a rule or oracle change would have on design, but in this split-card discussion you already assume this is bad and that changing the rules is the only way to go)

It is also important to note there would still be "cheaty" ways to cast the expensive side using the cheaper side, for example using Isochron Scepter, Panoptic Mirror etc.

...

Now, as for finding a way to do it, we'd basically want two things here: One is to restirct what side can be cast, if instructed to cast a card of specific qualities. And second, to restrict what side can be cast, if before we got to the casting instruction, the card was found, revealed, targeted or otherwise identified based on specific qualities. Perhaps this can be do by adding rules for this restrictions without changing other parts of the split-card section:

mock-up of rules to add:


  • 708.2b If a player is instructed to cast a card of specific qualities, that player can only  cast the half that meets that criteria by itslef. If neither half meets this criteria, neither can be cast. 
     

  • 708.2c If a spell or ability instructs a player to cast a card targeted by that spell or ability, that player can only cast a half that meets the targetting restriction by itself. If neither half meets this criteria, neither can be cast. 
     

  • 708.2d If  a spell or ability instructed a player to exile, discard, reveal, choose or search for a card of specific qualities, and later instructs the player to cast that card,  that player can only cast the  half that meets that criteria by itslef. If neither half meets this criteria, neither can be cast.



I'd like to note that under such a change, a card like Crime/Punishment could still be found using Sunforger since it fits the criteria as a whole, but it would not be possible to cast either half since neither side fits the criteria by itself. With Sunforger this is not a problem since we can go back and find another card, but this could be a problem if a future cascade like ability would be printed that cared about two or more qualities. Such an ability would stop when the appropriate whole card is found but if neither half would fit the criteria, none would be possible to cast.

So, are there any other complications with adding such rules? Would it result in any contradictory interactions? Would it be confusing for players?
Isn't it easier to change cascade to check that the spell you're casting fits the criteria when you cast it?

That said, this really is a problem to be solved by banning, and I don't think boom//bust is dominating modern. I'm guessing you never played when Land Destruction was a deck on its own, right?
Check out my cube!
Show
My sig was so awesome it broke Browsers, [url= http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29455423/For_some_reason...]I had to remove it.[/url] Support Magic Fiction! Or Bolas will eat you
57193048 wrote:
You should never explain layers to people unless one of the following is true: they're studying for a judge exam, you're both in a Ben Affleck movie and it's the only way to save the world, or you hate them.
56663526 wrote:
We try to maintain the illusion that Magic cards are written in English.
56333196 wrote:
69511863 wrote:
Hell, if they steal from us, we'd be honored.
oh my god, AWESOME! Then changing the Slivers was your idea! haha lol
56734518 wrote:
Occassionally when catering, I've been put the task of arranging Fruit and Cheese or Grilled Vegetable platters. More than once a high class buffet has started with the mark of Phyrexia upon it. Since i've got a good eye for color so it looks great to people who don't get the "joke" (it's a niceley divided circle after all: the outline gives you 4-6 "regions" to work with), this has actually got me put on platter design more often, resulting in Phyrexia's presence at more private and industry events.
I have 6917 Planeswalker points, that's probably more than you. [c=Hero's Resolve]"Destiny, chance, fate, fortune, mana screw; they're all just ways of claiming your successes without claiming your failures." Gerrard of the Weatherlight[/c]
Isn't it easier to change cascade to check that the spell you're casting fits the criteria when you cast it?

First, I'm not sure how cascade can be modified to restrict this without rules to support it (or without specifically mentioning split cards inside cascade which would be awkward). Second, what about other cards that are meant to allow casting cards with CMC lower than X (Sunforger, Epic Experiment and Kaho, Minamo Historian)? Also, this "problem" will repeat itself if any future cascade-like mechanic that could be printed.

Isn't it easier to change cascade to check that the spell you're casting fits the criteria when you cast it?


But why change just cascade and not say Isochron Scepter?

[<o>]


But why change just cascade and not say Isochron Scepter?


Neither has easy rules support, but changing cascase could be easier than rewriting casting spells without paying the mana cost.

I'll keep posting this until someone changes the rules or I get kicked off this site. I spent 15 minutes creating a profile and all, just so I could complain here. 

You dont expect that to HELP your case, do you?
It's simply a statement of his conviction. The rules don't get changed based on one man's opinion, though.

@OP: If you want the rule to be changed, the best thing to do is to get people to see your side. Explain to them why the rules are unintuitive, not fun, inaccessible, or otherwise bad for the game. The more people you can get to agree with you, the more likely you are to get the tide turning in your favor.

Personally, I'm on your side -- I think it's pretty unfair that cards like Research // Development can go under an Isochron Scepter -- but I have no idea how it'd even work otherwise.
Solved by banning 7 days later. lol.
Check out my cube!
Show
My sig was so awesome it broke Browsers, [url= http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29455423/For_some_reason...]I had to remove it.[/url] Support Magic Fiction! Or Bolas will eat you
57193048 wrote:
You should never explain layers to people unless one of the following is true: they're studying for a judge exam, you're both in a Ben Affleck movie and it's the only way to save the world, or you hate them.
56663526 wrote:
We try to maintain the illusion that Magic cards are written in English.
56333196 wrote:
69511863 wrote:
Hell, if they steal from us, we'd be honored.
oh my god, AWESOME! Then changing the Slivers was your idea! haha lol
56734518 wrote:
Occassionally when catering, I've been put the task of arranging Fruit and Cheese or Grilled Vegetable platters. More than once a high class buffet has started with the mark of Phyrexia upon it. Since i've got a good eye for color so it looks great to people who don't get the "joke" (it's a niceley divided circle after all: the outline gives you 4-6 "regions" to work with), this has actually got me put on platter design more often, resulting in Phyrexia's presence at more private and industry events.
I have 6917 Planeswalker points, that's probably more than you. [c=Hero's Resolve]"Destiny, chance, fate, fortune, mana screw; they're all just ways of claiming your successes without claiming your failures." Gerrard of the Weatherlight[/c]
Perhaps that was his nefarious plan all along!
Sign In to post comments