|
4 years ago ::
Jun 07, 2009 - 8:17PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2007
|
502.85a Cascade is a triggered ability that functions only while the spell with cascade is on the stack. "Cascade" means "When you play this spell, remove cards from the top of your library from the game until you remove a nonland card whose converted mana cost is less than this spell's converted mana cost. You may play that card without paying its mana cost. Then put all cards removed from the game this way that weren't played on the bottom of your library in a random order." * If you play a card "without paying its mana cost," you can't pay any alternative costs, such as evoke or the alternative cost provided by the morph ability. If it has X in its mana cost, X must be 0. However, you can pay optional additional costs, such as conspire, and you must still pay mandatory additional costs, such as the one on Goldmeadow Stalwart. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1180889There is your answer right there. The X here is mandantory to play. Your life, Thus you can pay as much as you have life. Even if the converted mana cost would end up as 20  . Technically it will resolve as 0 .
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 07, 2009 - 8:20PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
That's my point. The rules team should have had any and all possible interactions accounted for and answered before the cards were released.
This is a complicated game, and so they can't possibly get everything working PERFECTLY before they release something. Close to it? Yes. Perfect? No.
MTG Rules Advisor 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 07, 2009 - 8:21PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
MTG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 07, 2009 - 8:26PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
People just aren't thinking. there is nothing to work out.
x=0.
To play the bond you have to pay the mana, pay the life, then it does it's thing.
If x=0 you paid no mana. therefore you can only pay 0 life. It doesn't work.
It's quite simple when you think about it.
Please stop presuming to understand the rules. You obviously don't. What you pay into the mana cost  does not affect what you choose for X, so not paying anything into the mana cost has nothing to do, directly, with why X=0 in most cases. Without the rule that specifically says otherwise, you could Cascade into Blaze and choose X=.
The question here is, since you are paying some cost that includes X, do or do not the rules preclude you from choosing some non-zero value for X? That is, is the rule meant to mean 'as long as you pay any X cost, you can choose some value for X' or is it meant to mean 'as long as the effect letting you play the spell includes paying an X as part of the effect's resolution, you can choose some value for X (and if not, X=0)'?
MTG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 07, 2009 - 8:45PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2004
|
That's my point. The rules team should have had any and all possible interactions accounted for and answered before the cards were released.
There are a lot of cards out there; trying to figure out every possible interaction would result in paralysis, especially when you consider that people come and go from their jobs on the rules team--it isn't as if there had always been a single rules lead with a single concept of how the rules should work. They also have to incorporate the crazy things R&D wants to try out, which would distort any such constant vision. In short, it's a tough job, and they do a pretty good job; having no answer to a question is rare.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 07, 2009 - 8:45PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2008
|
Please keep the discussion civil and on topic, do not make any personal attacks or flame others for their thoughts.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 07, 2009 - 8:51PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
Please keep the discussion civil and on topic, do not make any personal attacks or flame others for their thoughts.
I do apologize for the flame, but it was not for his thoughts. It was for his presumption to berate the rules team for missing something that isn't seen all that often (how many cards with an X cost have it somewhere besides their mana cost?), as if he was better than they. I will refrain from such in the future, though.
MTG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 07, 2009 - 8:56PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Dec 14, 2008
|
I do apologize for the flame, but it was not for his thoughts. It was for his presumption to berate the rules team for missing something that isn't seen all that often (how many cards with an X cost have it somewhere besides their mana cost?), as if he was better than they. I will refrain from such in the future, though.
Apology accepted. There was no presumption or beratement on my part. Just a statement of my opinion.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 07, 2009 - 9:01PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
Apology accepted. There was no presumption or beratement on my part. Just a statement of my opinion.
You might not have intended presumption, but the very act of saying that the rules team should catch everything before cards are printed is, in and of itself, presumptuous.
Back to the topic...
MTG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 07, 2009 - 9:07PM
#40
|
|
|
I do apologize for the flame, but it was not for his thoughts. It was for his presumption to berate the rules team for missing something that isn't seen all that often (how many cards with an X cost have it somewhere besides their mana cost?), as if he was better than they. I will refrain from such in the future, though.
No, you apologize not for flaming my thoughts but for flaming what you presumed I presumed about the rules team. When my original statement was based on logic in conclusion. I don't know all the rules. As an observer I would like to think that if x=0 You can only pay 0 life. My opinion had in no way shape or form bias towards the rules team. Just towards people who complicate things because they are incapable of thinking with a little common sense.
|
|
|
, but 21. (Converted mana cost is a number and has no type or color of mana.)
