Community

Let's take Boom//Bust and BloodBraid Elf for example. The current ruling is such that if you cascade into Boom//Bust from BloodBraid Elf you are allowed to cast the Bust portion of the card because you can technically cast the Boom portion since it is the same card. I get the logic behind it but it was poorly concluded because this is becoming a problem in the modern format or I wouldn't be here. Instead of banning either card just change the ruling so that you are only allowed to cast the portion of the card that actually costs less than the card that has cascade. This is way more balanced and you won't lose the deck archetype in doing so. It'll just shift a bit. I'll keep posting this until someone changes the rules or I get kicked off this site. I spent 15 minutes creating a profile and all, just so I could complain here. 

This is basically a discussion about two things: How the rules can be made to allow it, and how much agreeable it is to have it work that way.As such, I think it'd be a good idea to open a discussion over at the design forum (or whatever forum is appropriate for it) to see how agreebale it really is to have work the way you want. It'd also help in hearing the opposition. Maybe this "cheaty" interaction is not as bad as you portray it? Or maybe your proposal can actually be worse for the game? Maybe banning cards is the right way to go aftet all? I don't think these things can be fully discussed in a rule-theory thread (I think there's some leeway to consider the effects a rule or oracle change would have on design, but in this split-card discussion you already assume this is bad and that changing the rules is the only way to go)

It is also important to note there would still be "cheaty" ways to cast the expensive side using the cheaper side, for example using Isochron Scepter , Panoptic Mirror etc.

...

Now, as for finding a way to do it, we'd basically want two things here: One is to restirct what side can be cast, if instructed to cast a card of specific qualities. And second, to restrict what side can be cast, if before we got to the casting instruction, the card was found, revealed, targeted or otherwise identified based on specific qualities. Perhaps this can be do by adding rules for this restrictions without changing other parts of the split-card section:

mock-up of rules to add:

• 708.2b If a player is instructed to cast a card of specific qualities, that player can only  cast the half that meets that criteria by itslef. If neither half meets this criteria, neither can be cast. 
   
• 708.2c If a spell or ability instructs a player to cast a card targeted by that spell or ability, that player can only cast a half that meets the targetting restriction by itself. If neither half meets this criteria, neither can be cast. 
   
• 708.2d If  a spell or ability instructed a player to exile, discard, reveal, choose or search for a card of specific qualities, and later instructs the player to cast that card,  that player can only cast the  half that meets that criteria by itslef. If neither half meets this criteria, neither can be cast.

I'd like to note that under such a change, a card like  Crime/Punishment could still be found using Sunforger since it fits the criteria as a whole, but it would not be possible to cast either half since neither side fits the criteria by itself. With Sunforger this is not a problem since we can go back and find another card, but this could be a problem if a future cascade like ability would be printed that cared about two or more qualities. Such an ability would stop when the appropriate whole card is found but if neither half would fit the criteria, none would be possible to cast.

So, are there any other complications with adding such rules? Would it result in any contradictory interactions? Would it be confusing for players?

Jan 15, 2013 -- 8:42AM, EyeHunter wrote:

Isn't it easier to change cascade to check that the spell you're casting fits the criteria when you cast it?

First, I'm not sure how cascade can be modified to restrict this without rules to support it (or without specifically mentioning split cards inside cascade which would be awkward). Second, what about other cards that are meant to allow casting cards with CMC lower than X ( Sunforger , Epic Experiment and Kaho, Minamo Historian )? Also, this "problem" will repeat itself if any future cascade-like mechanic that could be printed.

Jan 15, 2013 -- 9:22AM, will_dice wrote:

But why change just cascade and not say Isochron Scepter ?

Neither has easy rules support, but changing cascase could be easier than rewriting casting spells without paying the mana cost.

Jan 15, 2013 -- 12:02AM, Hardman_anderson wrote:

I'll keep posting this until someone changes the rules or I get kicked off this site. I spent 15 minutes creating a profile and all, just so I could complain here. 

You dont expect that to HELP your case, do you?

Solved by banning 7 days later. lol.