|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 5:21AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 26, 2007
|
If i got Lobber Crew  in game, cast Invoke the Firemind  and copy it with Izzet Guildmage  , does the copy trigger the Lobbercrew to untap? And, if i cast Invoke the Firemind for x=3, does the copy also have x=3? And may i choose, that the copy deals damage instead of drawing cards?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 5:24AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
a copy of a spell is a spell but it is not cast so for example you can exile the copy for Nivmagus Elemental  , but it would not trigger Lobber Crew the copy copies the modes and the value of X so the copy will also have X=3 and draw cards
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 5:38AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2004
|
You do get certain situations (most notably, Isochron Scepter  ) where a spell card is copied then cast - in that case, it's a copy that WOULD trigger Lobber Crew because you're actually casting the copy. But yes, in the circumstance suggested where you copy a spell that's already on the stack, Enigma's answer's completely right. Just watch out for the difference!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 6:08AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 6:09AM
#5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 6:14AM
#6
|
|
|
Actually, Fireming has a CMC of 3+X. (while on the Stack)
Aha, correct!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 6:30AM
#7
|
|
|
You do get certain situations (most notably, Isochron Scepter ) where a spell card is copied then cast
That statement is not correct, I'm afraid.
When you create a copy of another object, the copy appears in the same zone as the object being copied. Since spells only exist on the stack, a copy of a spell must be created on the stack.
The definition of casting a spell includes taking the card that represents the spell from the zone it is in and moving it onto the stack. An object created on the stack can't be moved on to the stack because it never existed in anotehr zone before the copy was made, therefore it is not possible to cast the copy of the spell. Questions along this line are asked and answered every month on every major Internet forum that deals with Magic rules.
The reason you can castthe copy created by Isochron Scepter is that the Scepter copies a card - not a spell. The copy is created in the Exile zone and can therefore be moved from there to the stack.
It's imortant to keep this distinction in mind or you will wind up confusing others.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 10:33AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2004
|
You do get certain situations (most notably, Isochron Scepter ) where a spell card is copied then cast
That statement is not correct, I'm afraid.
When you create a copy of another object, the copy appears in the same zone as the object being copied. Since spells only exist on the stack, a copy of a spell must be created on the stack.
The definition of casting a spell includes taking the card that represents the spell from the zone it is in and moving it onto the stack. An object created on the stack can't be moved on to the stack because it never existed in anotehr zone before the copy was made, therefore it is not possible to cast the copy of the spell. Questions along this line are asked and answered every month on every major Internet forum that deals with Magic rules.
The reason you can castthe copy created by Isochron Scepter is that the Scepter copies a card - not a spell. The copy is created in the Exile zone and can therefore be moved from there to the stack.
It's imortant to keep this distinction in mind or you will wind up confusing others.
I appreciate the attempt at clarification but I'm really not seeing where my statement is incorrect - I deliberately used the word "card" in my post to make exactly the distinction you're referring to. I suppose you could argue I shouldn't have used the word "spell" in there at all, but that seemed the best way to distinguish it from other (ie land) cards that aren't cast.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 10:45AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
I suppose you could argue I shouldn't have used the word "spell" in there at all
That's exactly what he's saying.
but that seemed the best way to distinguish it from other (ie land) cards that aren't cast.
That's not what "spell" means. A spell is a card or copy on the stack, so a spell card is a card that's on the stack.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 10:50AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2004
|
OK, fair enough. I wasn't aware that "spell card" was a specific term, I thought anything on the stack was simply a spell. Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
