leaf-crowned elder

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
Leaf-Crowned Elder

I am confused about how it works. At the beginning of my upkeep, if I look at the top card and it shares a creature type, but I don't want to play it (like a Lignify), what happens to the card? Do I get to draw 2 cards in any case? How does the card actually work?
I am confused about how it works. At the beginning of my upkeep, if I look at the top card and it shares a creature type, but I don't want to play it (like a Lignify), what happens to the card?

If you choose not to play it, it remains where it is: on top of your library. Assuming nothing else happens in the upkeep step, you then proceed to the draw step and draw the card you looked at.
Do I get to draw 2 cards in any case?

Leaf-crowned Elder never lets you draw an additional card.
How does the card actually work?

At the beginning of your upkeep, you have the option to look at the top card of your library. If that card shares a creature type with the elder (usually that means it is a treefolk and/or a shaman), you have the option to reveal it. If you reveal it, you have the option to play it without paying its mana cost. After this point, the ability has finished resolving. If there is nothing else done in the upkeep step, you proceed to the draw step, and draw your card for the turn.
So, If I chose not to play it, I just draw my card in my draw step?

If it shares a type and I did play it, I still draw a card in my draw step, right?
Leaf-crowned elder does not change the fact that you draw a card at the beginning of your draw step. At the start of your draw step, you draw a card, regardless of what the outcome of resolving the elder's ability was. Clearly though, if you played the top card during your draw step, a different card will now be on top of your library when it comes time to do your normal card draw.
what would happen if i had 2 Leaf-Crowned Elders in play? If im thinking correctly do i look at the top card and its a treefolk or shaman do I show that and play it and then look at the next card for the 2nd elder? or does the kinship work for both cards and i just play the one treefolk?

so basically if my thinking is correct it will go like this
upkeep, look top card, reveal treefolk, play treefolk, then look at next card for 2nd elder reveal tree or shaman, play card, then draw my card for my draw step? is this correct

thanks to all in advance it will really help me out cause there is so many mix feelings about this in my group.
Both Elders will trigger at the same time. When they do, their triggered abilities are put on the stack.

You would let the first ability resolve. You kinship, and if it shares a type, you can reveal it and put it into play.

Then the second ability will resolve. You kinship, and if it shares a type, you can reveal it and put it into play.

After the upkeep step ends, you enter your draw step and draw a card.

Note: you don't play the cards revealed this way, you put them into play.
you do play it. Dedendre's a nub, never listen to him, he's a crazy man he is. Point an laugh. Haw Haw, he can't read.
what would happen if i had 2 Leaf-Crowned Elders in play?

Once you understand how to resolve 1 leaf-crowned elder, resolving 2 of them shouldnt be much of a leap, you just resolve them one at a time
  • Resolve the first leaf-crowned elder
  • Resolve the second leaf-crowned elder
  • Proceed to your draw step and draw a card

Depending on what the top two cards are of your library and what choices you make, this can result in you playing either 0, 1, or 2 cards before moving to your draw step.
Note: you don't play the cards revealed this way, you put them into play.

Read the card again. You do play the revealed card.
Note: you don't play the cards revealed this way, you put them into play.

Actually, you do play them; read the Elder's text again.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Note: you don't play the cards revealed this way, you put them into play.

Actually, you do play the revealed card:[indent]If you do, you may play that card without paying its mana cost.[/indent]
Note: you don't play the cards revealed this way, you put them into play.

Many cards put things into play, but not Leaf-Crowned Elder. RTFC :D

Gerdef
Magic Judge Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Rules Theory and Templating: "They may be crazy, but they're good." --Matt Tabak, Rules Manager*
I need to learn to read. /sigh

I knew that too. Everyone point and laugh.
I need to learn to read. /sigh

I knew that too. Everyone point and laugh.

LOL!!!!
I need to learn to read. /sigh

I knew that too. Everyone point and laugh.

once again
mantra to self (and Dedendre as well)

RTFC...RTFC...RTFC...

I lost a game for not reading the frickin' cards...

playing sealed Tenth Edition
opponent had Platinum Angel in play and he was sitting at -27 life
I had Hurkyl's Recall in hand from the start of the game but for some reason thought it functioned like Recall pulling artifacts back from the GY. It was the deciding game. He couldn't attack because my army of flyers would block and kill his Angel. I decked and lost, then someone pointed out the card and asked why I didn't play it.

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

 

Taking offers on my set of unopened limited edition full art judge foil basic lands, message me if interested.
 

once again
mantra to self (and Dedendre as well)

RTFC...RTFC...RTFC...

I lost a game for not reading the frickin' cards...

playing sealed Tenth Edition
opponent had Platinum Angel in play and he was sitting at -27 life
I had Hurkyl's Recall in hand from the start of the game but for some reason thought it functioned like Recall pulling artifacts back from the GY. It was the deciding game. He couldn't attack because my army of flyers would block and kill his Angel. I decked and lost, then someone pointed out the card and asked why I didn't play it.

That's great, but not terribly relevant. The thread's been dead for hours, and was answered early yesterday evening. There's no need to bump it.