1. Look at the top seven cards of your library. 2. Look at the battlefield. If any of those seven cards have the same name as a permanent on the battlefield, you can put one of them into play. 3. Put the other six cards on the bottom of your library in any order.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
It potentially lets you get a second copy of something you already have.
For example, say you control three Island , one Delver of Secrets , and nothing else. You cast mitotic manipulation , and look at the top 7 cards of your library. If any of those cards are named "island" or "delver of secrets", you may put exactly one island or delver on to the battlefield. All the remaining cards, including all the cards that aren't named "island" or "delver of secrets", then go to the bottom of your library.
It's fairly straightforward, but let's analyze it sentence by sentence:
"Look at the top seven cards of your library."
Okay, so take the top seven cards of your library, and look at them. Don't reveal them to your opponents, just look at them personally. So far, so good.
"You may put one of those cards onto the battlefield if it has the same name as a permanent."
If any of those seven cards share a name with a permanent that's on the battlefield, then you can put one of those seven cards onto the battlefield. For example, if one of the seven cards is an Island , and there's an Island on the battlefield, then you can put the Island you're looking at onto the battlefield.
"Put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order."
The other six cards are then placed on the bottom of your library, in an order of your choosing. If none of the cards has the same name as a permanent on the battlefield, then all seven cards are placed on the bottom of your library.
I think the problem with people misunderstanding this card is because the "permanent" bit implicitly means "permanent on the battlefield". Once you get that, the rest falls into place.
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed?
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
It's fairly straightforward, but let's analyze it sentence by sentence:
If none of the cards has the same name as a permanent on the battlefield, then all seven cards are placed on the bottom of your library.
Technically, even if one or more of the 7 cards shares a name with a permanent, you may still put all 7 on the bottom of your library. You are not obligated to put a matching one out. The only reason I can think of for doing that would be concern over milling and looking for your win card. Well, I suppose Battle of Wits could also be a reason.
Technically, even if one or more of the 7 cards shares a name with a permanent, you may still put all 7 on the bottom of your library. You are not obligated to put a matching one out. The only reason I can think of for doing that would be concern over milling and looking for your win card. Well, I suppose Battle of Wits could also be a reason.
You forgot Legendary permanents, and the Planeswalker uniqueness rule.
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed?
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
Technically, even if one or more of the 7 cards shares a name with a permanent, you may still put all 7 on the bottom of your library. You are not obligated to put a matching one out. The only reason I can think of for doing that would be concern over milling and looking for your win card. Well, I suppose Battle of Wits could also be a reason.
You forgot Legendary permanents, and the Planeswalker uniqueness rule.
~ Tim
Ah yes thank you! There are always multiple reasons for doing things that seem like they have no reason.
