|
4 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2009 - 1:31AM
#141
|
|
|
p.s. I am unfamiliar with the abbreviation, "fyp." = 'for your perusal?"
Fixed your post. :D
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2009 - 1:40AM
#142
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
When you cascade into a spell with x x=0. jerk.
Im gonna build my blaze fireball cascade deck right now and take it to fnm. I will pwn!!!
No. When you cascade into a spell with X and you are not paying any cost that includes X, the only legal choice for you to make is x=0. The rules do not set it to 0, but the game will not continue until you choose x=0 (and you'll get in trouble for stalling if you try to do otherwise). The question here is whether or not 'any cost' really means 'any cost' or 'any part of the effect allowing you play the spell' is the real meaning of the rule.
MTG Rules Advisor 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2009 - 1:43AM
#143
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2008
|
When you cascade into a spell with x x=0. [s]jerk.
I am literally on my knees, begging you to cite the rules where this insight comes from. Please, please, please quote rules or sthu.
Im gonna build my blaze fireball cascade deck right now and take it to fnm. I will pwn!!!
What part of[INDENT]
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.[/INDENT]
don't you understand?
Let's look at cascading into a Fireball  :
- If you’re playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost check,
- the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell check,
- and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X check,
- then the only legal choice for X is 0.
Now, in contrast, look at cascading into Spoils of War  : - If you’re playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost check,
- the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell not check,
- and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X check,
- then the only legal choice for X is 0.
X=0 is not the only legal choice, as X is defined in the text. Now let's look at cascading into An-Havva Inn  - If you’re playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost not check,
- the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell not check,
- and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X check,
- then the only legal choice for X is 0.
X=0 is not the only legal choice, because X isn't even in the mana cost, and it is defined in the text. Now comes the problematic bit: Cascading into Bond of Agony: - If you’re playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost check,
- the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell check,
- and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X check / not check - we don't know until we get an [o]-ruling,
- then the only legal choice for X is 0.
DCI L2 Judge "When nothing remains, everything is equally possible." - One With Nothing 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2009 - 1:47AM
#144
|
|
|
I am literally on my knees, begging you to cite the rules where this insight comes from. Please, please, please quote rules or sthu.
What part of[INDENT]
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.[/INDENT]
don't you understand?
look one post up. you guys yourself keep saying it, then going back on it.
When you cascade into an x spell you have to choose 0
also what part of pay x additional life is tied into the original x in the spell, you're not choosing it, do you not understand?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2009 - 1:48AM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
When you cascade into a spell with x x=0. jerk.
Im gonna build my blaze fireball cascade deck right now and take it to fnm. I will pwn!!!
my real question here is, do all of you that disagree with me actually want cascading bond of agony decks floating around beating everyone on turn 2 or 3? Why do you fight so hard for such a broken combo!!!
So, the real issue here is that you don't want powerful combos to exist, so you're going to argue for something which has been disproven over and over again so you can try to convince yourself the combo is illegal.
Sorry, but if someone plays a Cascade spell (the cheapest of which costs three) and cascades into their Bond of Agony and manages to win with it, more power to them. If you don't like the combo, ban it in your casual games.
MTG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2009 - 1:52AM
#146
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
look one post up. you guys yourself keep saying it, then going back on it.
When you cascade into an x spell you have to choose 0
also what part of pay x additional life is tied into the orignal x in the spell, you're not choosing it, do you not understand?
You still don't get it. What we are saying is that when you play a spell and don't pay any cost (including additional costs) that includes X, then X must be zero.
You also still think that the X in the text box is dependent on what else you pay for the spell. This is not true. The value for X in the text box is dependent on what you choose for X. The issue here is whether or not the rules allow you to choose a non-zero value for X since you're paying some cost (an additional cost is a cost) that includes X.
You are operating under the delusion that when you choose the value for X, the only cost that affects is the mana cost and then that X is what affects the rest of the X's in the spell. This is not true. When you choose a value for X, you choose a value (the same value) for each X in the spell, and then the appropriate number is applied there (mana cost, additional cost, effect, etc.).
MTG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 08, 2009 - 1:54AM
#147
|
|
|
I'm fairly certain that this matter was brought to the attention of Mark Gottlieb, the Rules Manager, before this thread was even posted. As such, at this point, it's not really very productive to bicker back and forth about the exact interpretation of the existing wording of the relevant rules, since we will almost certainly be receiving an [O]fficial ruling on the matter, an update to the relevant CompRules, or something similar in the near future, and as soon as that happens, the entire debate is moot.
So, because this thread seems to be chasing its own tail at this point (and getting rather heated in the process), I'm just going to close it down now and ask that the matter be shelved until we hear something more from the Rules Team about it.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 2:50PM
#148
|
|
|
As posted by Natedogg here, there has now been an official ruling on this subject: [indent]This interaction will not work post-M10 rules. If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell (as on Spoils of War), and an effect lets that player cast that spell without paying any mana cost or alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. The rule will not take additional costs (as on Bond of Agony) into account.[/indent] This thread will remain locked; if you wish to discuss the ruling, please post in the thread in Rules Issues here.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
