|
4 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2009 - 4:23AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2007
|
You do have a valid argument, because the majority of X-costed spells only have X in the mana cost, not an additional 'x' elsewhere in the cost. However, don't go by the rule that 'if you don't pay the mana cost, X must be zero.' As the rules stand right now (and I seem to recall a ruling issued saying what I'm about to say with no other (more recent) official answer contradicting it...), x must be zero if you're not paying ANY cost that has an X when playing the spell, not just if you're not paying the mana cost.
true, but I was talking about my mathematics argument, that multiple values all using the same variable must be equivilant. But hey, one way or another, someone's gonna make a judgement call. :P
"Screw the rules I have money!"
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2009 - 6:59AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2006
|
true, but I was talking about my mathematics argument, that multiple values all using the same variable must be equivilant. But hey, one way or another, someone's gonna make a judgement call. :P
Right, but just because the X in the mana cost has to be equal to the one in the additional cost and in the effect, doesn't mean that any of the Xs are equal to 0 if you don't pay the mana cost. There's a difference between a cost of 0 and an unpaid nonzero cost. The mana cost of a Flashbacked Conflagrate  for 4 is still   . All the Xs are still the same. You're just not paying one of them.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2009 - 7:20AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Oct 29, 2007
|
it should be noted that this exact issue was brought up in the Rules Issue forum and I don't believe an [o] ruling was ever made...
MtG Rules Advisor &
Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJDJ VortexDCI Certified Rules Advisor from July 14, 2009 to July 14, 2012 DCI #5209514320 Wit found in Rules Q&ARPJesus: "Man, screw the rules, I'll play a game of 2HG Archenemy Planechase Emperor EDH draft yet. Once I figure out the rules for it..." Chaikov: "Of course, casual Magic may be played any way your Pokemon group agrees on..." and "It's not logic. It's Magic!" GainsBanding: "I only play online. The Magic Online shuffler is AWESOME!" Ikegami: "one might think [adult cats] would make excellent tokens. The issue, though, is that they are very hard to exile. They return to the battlefield more often than an undying creature." Astarael7: "Does 121.1 imply that players are supposed to wear their poison counters?" Bimmerbot: "If you move the wrong way and [the poison counters] fall, it's a game rule violation" Helluminatus: "Just remember, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the oracle text says creature - Bunny , then by god, it's a bunny." MadCow21: "Who are you and what have you done with the real Chaikov?" My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2009 - 11:08AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2004
|
it should be noted that this exact issue was brought up in the Rules Issue forum and I don't believe an [o] ruling was ever made...
The latest in that thread ( http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1189841 ) is that the official position is still under discussion.
M:tG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2009 - 2:35PM
#15
|
|
|
Without an [o] ruling yet defining an answer, it should currently be played according to what the Rules actually DO say.
As the Rules are currently worded, you may choose any value for X from 0 up to and including your current life total (assuming it is positive).
We may get an [o] Ruling which says that's not how it is intended to work and giving us the official way to handle it. But we don't yet have that, and speculation on whether we will or won't get it is irrelevant. Currently, the Rules allow you to choose a value for X in the given example.
When we get an [o] Ruling, and if it changes the behavior, hopefully someone will remember to update this thread.
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2009 - 2:49PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2004
|
Without an [o] ruling yet defining an answer, it should currently be played according to what the Rules actually DO say.
What the rules actually say is ambiguous. "Without paying any cost that includes X" can mean either "without paying some particular cost that includes X"[sup]1[/sup] or "in a way such that there is no cost that you pay that includes X." There is at least one more interpretation of the glossary entry, as well: that if any cost including X is replaced with an alternative cost, the alternative cost must include X or X is 0.
I suggest bringing it up with the Head Judge before the tournament begins if you think the situation might come up; they should be able to tell you how they will rule. If you're not playing in a tournament, of course, you can come to any agreement you like with your fellow players.
[sup]1[/sup] This brings up issues with Shining Shoal  et al., but it is a tenable position.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2009 - 6:08PM
#17
|
|
|
this seems to be mainly a wording issue as with most ruling question I encounter. casting cost here is 1 black plus X, with an additional cost of X life, that's technically word for word off the card...... so it never says that both X's have to match, nor does it state that the mana is the cause of the damage dealt. leading me to think that damage dealt is the sum of both parts. like a fireball only you can pump it with life. so i could theoretically pay one black one colorless and 19 life and kill every one at the table.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2009 - 6:12PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Oct 18, 2007
|
it never says that both X's have to match
Sorry, but that's just flat-out wrong. The rules very clearly say that all instances of X on an object have the same value:
[indent]
X
Many cards use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. All instances of X on an object have the same value.
If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of playing the spell or ability. (See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities.") While the spell or ability is on the stack, the {X} in its mana cost equals the announced value.
If you're playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities."
If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value.
If a cost associated with a special action, such as a suspend cost or a morph cost, has an "{X}" in it, the value of X is chosen by the player taking the special action as he or she pays that cost.
If a card in any zone other than the stack has {X} in its mana cost, the value of {X} is treated as 0, even if the value of X is defined somewhere within its text.
In other cases, X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost or activation cost. If the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value. Note that the value of X may change while that spell or ability is on the stack. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X.
[/indent]
DCI Level 2 Judge Please use autocard when you ask a question about specific cards: [ c]Serra Angel[ /c] -> Serra Angel 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2009 - 6:24PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2009
|
The other thread on this matter has already been locked here. There is an [o] ruling in the works. I don't think we need to endlessly debate this issue.
Level 3 Magic Judge
"To face death, that's nothing much. But to feel really stupid when you die, well, that would be insufferable." -Nafai, The Ships of Earth
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2009 - 6:33PM
#20
|
|
|
i'm unclear as to what this zero ruling actually entails.
|
|
|
