Another Cascade interaction

[Cire]

I saw this in MTGsalvations Cranial Insertion

-----------
Q: What happens when I cascade into Bond of Agony? If my life total is greater than my opponent's can I pay enough life to kill him?

A: It's usually the case when you're getting a free spell that X has to be zero.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glossary: X
If you're playing a spell that has 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.

...buuuuuut that isn't true for Bond of Agony! You're not getting off without paying any cost that includes X, because you still have to pay the additional cost of X life. If you have more life than your opponent when you cascade into this card, you can just win outright.
-------------

Is this true? And if so can it viable in Legacy?

[Apex]

Any confirmation on this? Because sometimes Cranial Insertion can be wrong at times. Though I googled "Bond of Agony + Cascade" and I found a thread at mtgsal that talked about it. Seems legit. Does that mean a new extended combo deck? Like New Age-ChannelFireball?

[Wrath_Of_Houlding]

Assuming this is true, there is a cascade card (Captured Sunlight) that gains you four life, then cascades. That seems like quite the combo, winning for just 2GW, assuming nothing else occurs.

[Dark_Cynic87]

Like New Age-ChannelFireball?

Only waaaaaaaaaaaaay more amazing. This is ChannelFireball in one card.

Pce,

--DC

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You know what's easy? Getting to four mana with more life than your opponent when you're not running anything costing less than four mana.

[/sarcasm]

[/stickwithhypergenesis]

Also, that's a Hell of a thing to get countered.

[Apex]

Well, I mean, with cascade+hypergenesis, that was a really complicated kill condition, and took up alot of slots. This seems alot easier, all it wants you to have is more life than your opponent when you play 1 of 12 cascade spells that cost 3, accelerating using Spirit Guides. Particularly with the amount of Ancient Tomb/Fetches/Dark Confidants/City of Brass/etc that sees play in legacy, having 1 more life point than your opponent doesn't seem to be that hard.

So something like:

4 of FoW/Misdirection/Unmask + 8 Spirit Guides + 12 Cascade Spells + some lands and a Bond of Agony + either some alternating costs cards that dealing damage, or gains life seems like a decent starting point (basically cascade-hypergenesis with less slots dedicated to actually killing).

Edit: Renewed Faith? 3 cmc dodges cascade, and gains life while not really costing a card (cycle) and can be cycled on turn 2, leading to cascade turn 3. Or Rift Bolt, 3 cmc dodges cascade, and can deal 3 to the head.

[TheCramp]

Listen to Jack. You out and out lose to Daze, not to mention FoW.

[Roman Candle]

It might not be so bad. Soul Spike and Spinning Darkness are both outside of Cascade range, and you could power it out turn 2 with Spirit Guides and Invasion sac lands.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Soul Spike, anyone?

edit - Fucking ninja'd.

Also, Renewed Faith.

[TheCramp]

The better question is if cascade swans can me morphed into a legacy deck. I have little hope for that, but it seems more likely to work.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Saying that the Hypergenesis combo costs more is only really relevant if you can use those freed up slots to do something. As it happens, with the Cascade requirements, you can't.

A deck that loses to Force of Will and Fireblast is generally to be avoided.

[ykpon]

A deck that loses to Force of Will and Fireblast is generally to be avoided.
but they both can be FoW'ed/Misdirected/Unmasked too, right?

[Valtrix]

This interaction doesn't make sense to me:


409.1b [Stuff before] If the spell or ability has a variable cost that will be paid as it's being played (such as an {X} in its mana cost), the player announces the value of that variable at this time. If the spell or ability has alternative, additional, or other special costs that will be paid as it's being played (such as buyback, kicker, or convoke costs), the player announces his or her intentions to pay any or all of those costs (see rule 409.1f).

It doesn't seem like you can pay an X cost of both 0 and your life total. They should have to be the same, and since cascade is saying you may play the spell without paying it's mana cost, then X must be 0 for both. Because otherwise what happens when the card resolves? It should see that you paid X=0 mana, but also X=your life? What X value does it use?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

but they both can be FoW'ed/Misdirected/Unmasked too, right?

Yes, they can.

The trouble is that it's much easier to use those spells to force a spell through than to use those spells to force a spell through while remaining at a superior life total.

Like, much, much, much, much harder.

[quicksilver]

This is correct. As long as you pay a cost that includes X, X may be something other than 0.


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.

This scenario does not apply to Bond of Agony since you still need to pay a cost that includes X.

The X in the casting cost is the same as the X you pay in life (so say you payed 19 life, then the spell would have a converted mana cost of 20 while on the stack). Cascade allows you to not have to pay this mana cost, no matter what the mana cost may be.

Also cascade checks converted mana cost of the card before you play it, so you can definitly cascade into this.

[majikal]

X in the mana cost and X life have to be the same number. Whoever wrote the response to the letter above is wrong.

edit: Sarnath'd. :P

[quicksilver]

Assuming this is true, there is a cascade card (Captured Sunlight) that gains you four life, then cascades. That seems like quite the combo, winning for just 2GW, assuming nothing else occurs.
It cascades, then gains you 4 life. So you still need to start out at high life than them.

[ykpon]

we can use Refreshing Rain + Urborg, lol

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Captured Sunlight and Bloodbraid Elf are also terrible since you need to ditch the Spirit Guides and any kind of Grip or Deed answer to play them. Bad news bears all around.

[Forbiddian]

I believe that every control deck has countermagic and every aggro deck will be able to do a bit of damage to you before you can cast this.

[Gocho]

Countermagic isn't a problem. You can play FOW, Misdirection and Unmask.

Perhaps something like Belcher trying to combo in your first or second turn. You only need a land and 2 spirits in hand.

4 Ardent Plea
4 Demonic Dread
4 Violent Outburst

1 Bond of Agony
4 Misdirection
4 Force of Will
4 Unmask

11 Free slots

4 Simian Spirit Guide
4 Elvish Spirit Guide
4 Gemstone Mine
4 Archaeological Dig
4 Pillar of the Paruns
4 Tendo Ice Bridge

This way, you can do 19 damage to all the other players (anyone play multiplayers games?). You need another card to do 1 damage or gain life before you play the Cascade Card. ¿Any blue ideas?

No one would pith his Fetchlands in your second game.

[RoddyVR]

Isnt X zero, when the spell is played off cascade?

[zabuza]

Perhaps Psionic blast, puncture blast, rift bolt, fireblast or any 3cc lightning you can think of.

[Elfrago]

You know what's funny? You can't even use Force of Will!!!!
Because, often you'll have to pay X-1 life to that thing, where X is your life total and then you can't pay 1 life for the FOW.

Stick with Misdirection and Unmask.

[Carabas]

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.

Sorry to burst your bubble, y'all. But the rules don't like your idea of how this interacts with cascade. You choose X as 0 for the spell cost, and such you choose 0 for the life you pay. Your opponents lose 0 life as well.

[quicksilver]

Sorry to burst your bubble, y'all. But the rules don't like this. You choose X as 0 for the spell cost, and such you choose 0 for the life you pay. Your opponents lose 0 life as well.

Did you just say that the comprehensive rules were wrong? Really?

The rules state that if you do not pay a cost that includes X, and X is not defined by something else, X must be zero. In this case however you do pay a cost that includes X, so X does not have to be zero.

[mujadaddy]

I, too, am dismayed at how long this discussion has gone on. I'm pretty sure the "0 on stack = 0 cost paid" ruling is the proper one.

[majikal]

I'm pretty sure the rules mean "without paying [any cost that includes x]" rather than "without paying any cost that includes x". So if you are not paying even one cost that includes x, you must choose zero, unless you are paying a alternate cost that defines x (like disrupting shoal).

[Anusien]

quicksilver is correct, and posted the correct CR excerpt. The interaction has been confirmed by an [O]fficial NetRep, LeeSharpe. Because you pay a cost that includes X, you can set X.


X: Many cards use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. All instances of X on an object have the same value. If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of playing the spell or ability. (See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities.") While the spell or ability is on the stack, the {X} in its mana cost equals the announced value. 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. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities." If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value. If a cost associated with a special action, such as a suspend cost or a morph cost, has an "{X}" in it, the value of X is chosen by the player taking the special action as he or she pays that cost. If a card in any zone other than the stack has {X} in its mana cost, the value of {X} is treated as 0, even if the value of X is defined somewhere within its text. In other cases, X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost or activation cost. If the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value. Note that the value of X may change while that spell or ability is on the stack. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X.

For bonus points, you can also play Spoils off War with Cascade and X will be whatever X is supposed to be.

[quicksilver]

I think some of th confusion is coming from how X is determined. When you play a spell, before you pay any mana for that spell, you choose a value for X. Then the costs of that spell are determined based on what you chose X to be. Then you pay those costs.

Then there is a special clause saying that if you do not pay any of the costs that include this X then 0 is the only legal choice for X. In the case of cascading into fireball, there is only one cost that includes X and you do not have to pay it, therefore X is 0.

In the case of cascading into Bond of Agony, you still have to pay a cost that includes X, therefore you are free to choose a value of X other than 0.

So you can in fact Bond of Agony for 19 and have the spell with a converted mana cost of 20 (which you don't have to pay).


The big key factor here is X is NOT determined by how much mana you payed for the spell but in fact how much mana you pay for the spell is determined by the value of X.

The only reason you cannot normally choose any value for X when you cascade into it is because of the special clause that prevents you choosing any value if you pay no costs that include the X. This clause does not apply to bond of agony.

[majikal]

I'm under the impression that there is no official ruling on this yet.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18712223&postcount=57

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=3924415&postcount=31

It's being discussed right now, and they expect some official word within a few weeks(!).

[Dark_Cynic87]

Anyone remember that Life.dec could be used? There's Delusions of Mediocrity, not to mention tempo hosers such as Propaganda that doesn't get in the way of Cascade, then there's stuff like Trinisphere (btw, Does Trinisphere get in the way of playing a card off of cascade? Do you have to pay 3? I would think so, but I'd like to know anyway).

You can use Pyrokinesis for removal against aggro, ichorid and etc., Misdirection works wonders against a Fireblast, and you can play fireblast yourself if you want.

There are Evoke creatures that don't get in the way of Cascade that come in handy as utility along with late game beats if you draw your Bond of Agony.

Don't make crappy arguments like "FoW pwns this" because if that were the case, combo would never be played.

Teeg can be scary, though. You have to play Force of Will; Teeg against Cascade is actually a pretty good plan IMO. There's O-Ring for removal along with Vindicate, or Maelstrom Pulse (crap imo, but w/ever). Deed would work well.

Anyway, maybe these are good suggestions, maybe not, but I would never shut down a brainstorming session because of something called counter-magic.

Pce,

--DC

[quicksilver]

Anyone remember that Life.dec could be used? There's Delusions of Mediocrity, not to mention tempo hosers such as Propaganda that doesn't get in the way of Cascade, then there's stuff like Trinisphere (btw, Does Trinisphere get in the way of playing a card off of cascade? Do you have to pay 3? I would think so, but I'd like to know anyway).

You can use Pyrokinesis for removal against aggro, ichorid and etc., Misdirection works wonders against a Fireblast, and you can play fireblast yourself if you want.

There are Evoke creatures that don't get in the way of Cascade that come in handy as utility along with late game beats if you draw your Bond of Agony.

Don't make crappy arguments like "FoW pwns this" because if that were the case, combo would never be played.

Teeg can be scary, though. You have to play Force of Will; Teeg against Cascade is actually a pretty good plan IMO. There's O-Ring for removal along with Vindicate, or Maelstrom Pulse (crap imo, but w/ever). Deed would work well.

Anyway, maybe these are good suggestions, maybe not, but I would never shut down a brainstorming session because of something called counter-magic.

Pce,

--DC

Trinisphere would make you pay 3 mana for the spell you cascade into.

[mujadaddy]

So you can in fact Bond of Agony for 19 and have the spell with a converted mana cost of 20 (which you don't have to pay).So does this work with Bond on Isochron Scepter, too? That would be re-stupi-ted.

[TheCramp]

Well you can't imprint bond to a scepter, but it looks like it.

[mujadaddy]

Well you can't imprint bond to a scepter, but it looks like it.Ah, instant, my bad.

Still, I understand where the idea that you can cascade into Super-Bond comes from, but .... golly, that's really not a good thing for Magic.

[majikal]

Yeah that seems almost Flash-level broken. Unless there ends up being an official ruling that this does not work, then I'd say either the cascade spells or the things they break might see the banhammer come the 20th.

[bruno_tiete]

If so, Bond of Agony should have been discovered in Mind's Desire decks for the last three years, right?

Also, Ravnica Block Constructed via Sins of The Past.

[TheCramp]

I guess, but none of those things "tutor" the way cascade does.

[quicksilver]

It doesn't seem great to me, you have to be at more life than you opponent to do it. Also you pay the life before the spell resolves, so you are extremly suceptible to burn.

[Anusien]

Interesting. Just got done talking with Scott Marshall who is in on the discussion with Gavin. Apparently Lee's answer on this one is not Official.


[13:40:30] <ScottWrk> like I said, it's under discussion
[13:40:48] <Anusien> So yes, it's a non-[O] answer?
[13:40:48] <ScottWrk> that may be how we think it works now, but not necessarily how it will work when all is said & done
[13:40:56] <ScottWrk> none of the above
[13:41:07] <Anusien> So "This is how it works now, that interaction may change in the future"?
[13:41:25] <ScottWrk> more like "This is how Lee (and some) interpret it, but not how others interpret it"
[13:41:36] <ScottWrk> and we're discussing, and "The Decider" has yet to speak on it
[13:41:49] <ScottWrk> last I recall, The Decider is consulting with R&D for intent

[TheCramp]

yeah losing to islands and mountains seems rough. Winning when you have more life than your opponent for 3 mana however, seems savage. If its true, extended is going to have a problem.

"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."

The value of X is certainly defined by the text of the spell. Which would indicate there is another legal choice for X. Watch, it will be up to what it could cascade for (i.e. x = 1 off a cmc 3 cascade, x = 2 off cmc 4 cascade etc.), in a super awesome Phasing + Equipment style ruling.

[Dark_Cynic87]

If you hit a non-lethal Tendrils with your Mind's Desire, it sure seems like another win-con. But a second Tendrils is a better choice on that (and most other) logic so it's probably a moot point in the first place.

I think it's good for cascade, but there are better choices otherwise. I'm gonna play this. It's like new-age storm or some shit, only with less math.

Pce,

--DC

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

What does the manabase for this deck look like?

Also, Extended has both counters and burn.

I think this deck fails for simple reasons of resiliency, namely it's lack of any. You have basically zero game if you get hit a couple of times by a Kird Ape.

[Dark_Cynic87]

However, there's a different approach that could be taken.

If you cascade into hypergenesis, it allows you to play more cascade spells (enchantments, creatures) which in turn allows you to do even more of that. If you drop one of those, gain 20 life and then drop a second Cascade spell to hit the Bond of Agony. You could also still play your big beatsticks like Progenitus, etc. to drop with your Hypergenesis, just so you are more versatile in your approach. A +20 life can really do wonders in your game against slower Tendrils lists, the aggro matchup, burn, etc.

Why not mix the two? There are creatures that gain you life when they come into play, and they are actually even pretty beefy sometimes. Loxodon Heirarch for example. Not a 10/10 pro-everything, but still an additional 1/5 of your beginning life-total, which against control decks can often be enough if not more than enough to get ahead of them in life totals. I feel that in a list with no fetches, it would be best if this combo didn't use lands that pinged them. It's going to be touchy, I think, but the mana-base will probably be the hardest part of CascadingAgony.dec. No pinging in a fetchland-infested meta will help the higher life-total.

Pce,

--DC

[Cire]

Well lets say the rulling is correct and we are to have a hypothetical decklist; heres an attempt

- Lands (allows you to hit riftbolt turn 1, and any cascade spell turn 2)
4 Volcanic Island
4 Forbiden orchard
4 Gemstone Mine
3 Plataue

- Accel
4 Simian Spirit Guide
4 Elvish Spirit Guide

- Cascade
4 Violent Outburst
2 Ardent Plea
2 Demonic Dread

- The Combo
2 Bonds of Agony

- Ensuring you have more life
4 Rift bolt
4 Soul Spike

- Protection
4 Misdirection
4 Unmask

-Other
11 other (probably should be blue/black to count for misdirect/unmask/soulspike)

thats pretty much it, a turn 2 combo, that has 8 protection spells...

[quicksilver]

yeah losing to islands and mountains seems rough. Winning when you have more life than your opponent for 3 mana however, seems savage. If its true, extended is going to have a problem.

"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."

The value of X is certainly defined by the text of the spell. Which would indicate there is another legal choice for X. Watch, it will be up to what it could cascade for (i.e. x = 1 off a cmc 3 cascade, x = 2 off cmc 4 cascade etc.), in a super awesome Phasing + Equipment style ruling.

The value of X is certainly not defined by the text of the spell, the caster chooses what X is. An example of X being defined by the spell would be AetherBurst where you do not get to choose what the value of X is but it is defined elsewhere.

That rule still fails to apply because of the next clause "an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X". Cascade does not do this because you still need to pay a cost that incldues X. So the limitation of X being zero does not apply for that reason.



Interesting. Just got done talking with Scott Marshall who is in on the discussion with Gavin. Apparently Lee's answer on this one is not Official.

I would not be surprised if they changed this since it is pretty unintuitive.

[Happy Gilmore]

although the interaction is quite interesting it still seems that the building of the deck would be extremely difficult. Control decks use life as a resource more than any other in legacy. I am unsure how you can build this deck correctly without low cc spells. The only thing that comes to mind is Mystical Tutor as a way of turning it into a 2 card combo that might be ok.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

However, there's a different approach that could be taken.

If you cascade into hypergenesis, it allows you to play more cascade spells (enchantments, creatures) which in turn allows you to do even more of that. If you drop one of those, gain 20 life and then drop a second Cascade spell to hit the Bond of Agony. You could also still play your big beatsticks like Progenitus, etc. to drop with your Hypergenesis, just so you are more versatile in your approach. A +20 life can really do wonders in your game against slower Tendrils lists, the aggro matchup, burn, etc.

Why not mix the two? There are creatures that gain you life when they come into play, and they are actually even pretty beefy sometimes. Loxodon Heirarch for example. Not a 10/10 pro-everything, but still an additional 1/5 of your beginning life-total, which against control decks can often be enough if not more than enough to get ahead of them in life totals. I feel that in a list with no fetches, it would be best if this combo didn't use lands that pinged them. It's going to be touchy, I think, but the mana-base will probably be the hardest part of CascadingAgony.dec. No pinging in a fetchland-infested meta will help the higher life-total.

Pce,

--DC

If you resolve Hypergenesis, you should already win. It's already difficult enough to get that far and not have to worry about what else your opponent is dropping into play; adding yet more cards to the list that do nothing except screw up your Cascade order and greatly reduce the number of scenarios in which you can actually win are not needed or desired. Adding Bonds would do nothing to improve the deck's matchups and everything to weaken them.

[TheCramp]

The value of X is certainly not defined by the text of the spell, the caster chooses what X is. An example of X being defined by the spell would be AetherBurst where you do not get to choose what the value of X is but it is defined elsewhere.

That rule still fails to apply because of the next clause "an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X". Cascade does not do this because you still need to pay a cost that incldues X. So the limitation of X being zero does not apply for that reason.




I would not be surprised if they changed this since it is pretty unintuitive.

Maybe I'm missing something. I don't get it. "an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X". what? can someone explain why that would alow you to Bond of Cascade? The Aetherburst example fails to illuminate, since, you know, it doesn't have X in its cost.

[Barook]

Quick question: How do split cards interact with Cascade again?

Let's say I play a 3cc Cascade spell and it reveals Fire/Ice, does it count as a 2cc or 4cc spell?

The wording in the comp rules somewhat confuses me due to Cascade's wording.

Edit: Ok, found it, Cascade checks both halfs, meaning it would be 2cc. :(

[mujadaddy]

Let's say I play a 3cc Cascade spell and it reveals Fire/Ice, does it count as a 2cc or 4cc spell?Yes. :tongue: ...b/c the game sees both.

It looks at Ice. It sees 4. Not low enough.

It looks at Fire. It sees 2. Low enough! Cast it!
Maybe I'm missing something. I don't get it. "an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X". what? can someone explain why that would alow you to Bond of Cascade? The Aetherburst example fails to illuminate, since, you know, it doesn't have X in its cost.
The idea is that when a Cascade card reveals Bond of Agony, since x=0, the CMC = :1: ... One as of yet NON-OFFICIAL interpretation is that since the card allows you to pay :x: life, you can choose to pay the cost as any chosen value of :x:, and not be forced into having :x: at the top govern what :x: life you pay as a cost.

What I think they're ignoring, though, is that once x=:0: at the top of the card, you can't pay X+1 or X+2 life as a cost -- you MUST pay exactly X life as a cost or the spell can't be cast. Their interpretation of the rules is that the X in the body of the spell isn't the X at the top of the spell.

But it is.

G24.1f (http://crystalkeep.com/magic/rules/summaries/indexes/rule-general-G24.php#G24.1) only deals with spells that DO NOT have X in their mana costs.

G24.1c (http://crystalkeep.com/magic/rules/summaries/indexes/rule-general-G24.php#G24.1) says that in the Cascade situation, the only legal value for X = 0.

The. ONLY. Legal. Value.

Again, which rule says that you can choose a different X? Because I don't see it. (*rereads thread carefully*)

The only reason you cannot normally choose any value for X when you cascade into it is because of the special clause that prevents you choosing any value if you pay no costs that include the X. This clause does not apply to bond of agony.The special clause in G24.1b? About announcements? Sure, if you're paying X mana, you can choose X life for Bond of Agony. G24.1c should trump that. In post 47, you clearly recognize that the value of X isn't defined by the text of the spell, but rather by the amount of mana paid for it. Which is :0: ..."the only legal value"...

[quicksilver]

The only time you are forced to choose a value of 0 for X is when you pay no costs that include X.


Yes. :tongue: ...b/c the game sees both.

It looks at Ice. It sees 4. Not low enough.



Ice has a converted mana cost of 2, not 4.




What I think they're ignoring, though, is that once x=:0: at the top of the card, you can't pay X+1 or X+2 life as a cost -- you MUST pay exactly X life as a cost or the spell can't be cast. Their interpretation of the rules is that the X in the body of the spell isn't the X at the top of the spell.

But it is.

G24.1f (http://crystalkeep.com/magic/rules/summaries/indexes/rule-general-G24.php#G24.1) only deals with spells that DO NOT have X in their mana costs.

G24.1c (http://crystalkeep.com/magic/rules/summaries/indexes/rule-general-G24.php#G24.1) says that in the Cascade situation, the only legal value for X = 0.

The. ONLY. Legal. Value.

Never ever get rulings from crystal keep, they will almost certianly be wrong.

The X that you pay in life is indeed the X in the mana cost.

The value of X is the same throughout the entire card. We are not interpretting that X is different values. Just because you do not pay the mana cost of the spell, doesn't mean X can't be somethign other than 0.




Again, which rule says that you can choose a different X? Because I don't see it. (*rereads thread carefully*)
The rule was posted numerous times (even in the opening post).

In the wording of cascade there is nothing that says an X spell must have a value of X. In fact you can choose any value of X you want and not have to pay the mana. Except for the fact that there is one rule in the comprehensive rules that states you must choose 0 if you play a spell with X in a cost and you do not pay any of thsoe costs. However with bond of agony you still pay a cost that has X, thus you are not forced to choose 0.

I cannot stress this enough here, cause it seems to be the point of confusion.
X is NOT determined by how much mana you pay, but in fact how much mana you pay is determined by the value of X

So if you do not have to pay a cost that uses X, then you are no longer limited by what values of X you can choose. There is a clause in the rules that if X is a cost and you skipping paying ALL costs that include X, you must choose a 0 for X.



Maybe I'm missing something. I don't get it. "an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X". what? can someone explain why that would alow you to Bond of Cascade? The Aetherburst example fails to illuminate, since, you know, it doesn't have X in its cost.
Aether burst was an example of a card where X is defined by the card, not player choosen. You pointed out the incorrect clause and I was pointing out the kinds of cards that that clause effected.

"an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X":
Cascade let's you play a spell without paying it's mana cost. Many spells that have X only have X in one cost, the mana cost. So if you don't have to pay the mana cost, you must choose zero for X. If you could choose any number then you could cascade into fireball for a billion. As long as you pay at least one cost with X in it, you are not limited to choosing 0 as the value for X.

[mujadaddy]

Ice has a converted mana cost of 2, not 4....and I've just been outed as not a player of blue.

Never ever get rulings from crystal keep, they will almost certianly be wrong.Wasn't looking at rulings, just the rules.

Are we at the point where this ruling comes down to the word "any" before "cost"?

That seems like an easy rules fix. Add "mana" after "any."

[Anusien]

mujadaddy, what you're looking at are rulings, not rules. If you want the rule, go check the Glossary entry for X. Or look here (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=349731&postcount=29) because I quoted the entire fucking thing and went to the trouble of highlighting the relevant section in bold.

This is way most judges who have discussed it believe that it works. But this whole thing is a fwapfest, because they're updating the CompRules on the 20th and this interaction may be changed. So, have fun, but don't argue about whether it works or not.

(Side note: Ever notice how these threads have all the judges on the site on one side of them, and generally all people with less than 300 posts on the other side? Pro Tip: The judges are right.)

[mujadaddy]

I disagree that at a tournament you'd get consistent rulings from judges on this situation.

Also, other than a few typos, Crystal Keep's "rulings" read the same in this instance as the official comprehensive rules (I went and checked).

This is extremely narrow, and almost certainly not intentional.

[Anusien]

There is a hyperlinked version of the CompRules.

The glossary isn't broken up by header like that. Posting that just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. It looked so wrong that I thought it was the rulings on Gatherer instead of the CompRules.

If the interaction is here to stay (and we'll know on the 20th) I can easily make sure that everybody knows about it. But it's stone cold useless to speculate before then.

[mujadaddy]

/shrug ... magiccards.info links to there, from Bond of Agony. It's WAY faster from work than the official site for card lookups.

[TheCramp]

This is way most judges who have discussed it believe that it works. But this whole thing is a fwapfest, because they're updating the CompRules on the 20th and this interaction may be changed. So, have fun, but don't argue about whether it works or not.

/thread

Thanks quicksilver, that did clear things up for me a lot. So I can cascade into Kaervek's Purge just fine hitting Kuro Pit Lord or Force of Nature as I chose; no confusion among the judges there, right?

[mujadaddy]

So I can cascade into Kaervek's Purge just fine hitting Kuro Pit Lord or Force of Nature as I chose; no confusion among the judges there, right?Not at all -- you don't get to choose an X cost when you cast Purge. Bond of Agony lets you pay X life as a cost.

Stupid, isn't it? :tongue:

[TheCramp]

Isn't the value of X defined by the text of the spell on purge? You chose the target, purge demands you pay its cmc as x. you don't chose x, just the target that the spell sets it at.

[quicksilver]

Isn't the value of X defined by the text of the spell on purge? You chose the target, purge demands you pay its cmc as x. you don't chose x, just the target that the spell sets it at.

I think he was agreeing with you that there was no confusion. The card defines what X is so you can indeed kill almost any creature if you cascade into it.

[Maveric78f]

The big advantages I see between this combo compared to the other cascade combos are that you instantly win and that you are not affected by chalice or counterbalance. Fireblast (but there is the terrible drawback of playing a lot of mountains here) and rift bolt are probably the best life difference makers, because they don't create card disadvantage (and your hand is alread much affected by your protection spells and your mana boost cards). Renewed Faith is also OK but it's cost may be problematic. Well most of the time, the cascade agony player will have to rely on the opponent fetches, surprise, and luck...

[rufus]

But this whole thing is a fwapfest, because they're updating the CompRules on the 20th and this interaction may be changed. So, have fun, but don't argue about whether it works or not.

Too True.
Put me on the "it doesn''t work" side.

AFAICT The only card where X is in the CC and could not be zero to date is Spoils of War.

N.B.:
A similar reading of the rules would cause Spoils of War, Bargaining Table, Reflecting Mirror, Soul Foundry, Voodoo Doll and Chromatic Armor to have issues because of:


104.3c The symbol {X} represents an unspecified amount of mana. When playing a spell or activated ability with {X} in its cost, its controller decides the value of that variable.

of course, (1)nobody is silly enough to interpret the rules this way in real life, and (2) none of those cards are all that playable in constructed.

[Finn]

So who is going to call Bovinous and tell him that we are actually having a discussion that looks like Pitch World?

[Maveric78f]

That game was awesome:

I'm stuck at 2 manas with all the combo in hand but no mana.

WhatElse taps Forest
WhatElse plays Wild Growth from Hand
<WhatElse> Ok?
<Maveric78f> Wait!
Maveric78f plays Misdirection from Hand
<Maveric78f> Wait!
<Maveric78f> Thinking
Maveric78f plays Misdirection from Hand
Maveric78f puts Misdirection to RFG from Play
Wild Growth is enchanting Plateau now
<Maveric78f> you still draw
WhatElse draws a card
WhatElse draws a card
WhatElse draws a card
Maveric78f puts Misdirection to Graveyard from Play
<WhatElse> i know
WhatElse taps Forest
WhatElse plays Wild Growth from Hand
<WhatElse> Ok?
<Maveric78f> Ok
Wild Growth is enchanting Forest now
WhatElse draws a card
WhatElse draws a card
WhatElse draws a card
WhatElse taps Forest
WhatElse taps Birds of Paradise
WhatElse plays Solitary Confinement from Hand
<Maveric78f> Ok
<WhatElse> End my turn
Maveric78f taps Plateau
Maveric78f taps Gemstone Mine
Maveric78f plays Violent Outburst from Hand
Maveric78f puts Gemstone Mine to Graveyard from Play
Maveric78f puts Bond of Agony into play from Library
<Maveric78f> X=16
Maveric78f's life total is now 9 (-10)
Maveric78f's life total is now 3 (-6)
<System> Player Lost

This cascade deck is better than the other ones I could play, because it wins instantly and it does not fear any hate apart from countermagics (and meddling mage but it can be dealt with rift bolt and a lot of SB hate): confinement, chalice, counterbalance and runed halo.

[Cire]

Maveric78f how'd you build your deck?

[heroicraptor]

AFAICT The only card where X is in the CC and could not be zero to date is Spoils of War.

Ertai's Meddling :P

[Cire]

Ertai's Meddling :P

wait so what happens there?? Cascade --> Ertai's Meddling > Rules?

or is it simply you can't cast Ertai's Meddling off Cascade

[Maveric78f]

My list was very simple:


// Lands
4 [CHK] Forbidden Orchard
4 [U] Volcanic Island
4 [A] Plateau
4 [WL] Gemstone Mine
1 [AL] Sheltered Valley

// Creatures
4 [PLC] Simian Spirit Guide
4 [AL] Elvish Spirit Guide
3 [ARB] Architects of Will
4 [ARB] Glassdust Hulk

// Spells
2 [DIS] Bond of Agony
4 [TSP] Rift Bolt
4 [ON] Renewed Faith
4 [MM] Misdirection
4 [AL] Force of Will
2 [ARB] Demonic Dread
4 [ARB] Violent Outburst
4 [ARB] Ardent Plea

// Sideboard
SB: 4 [CS] Commandeer (not sure)
SB: 3 [AL] Sheltered Valley (good to beat LD and to ensure to have more life than the opponent)
SB: 4 [FNM] Fireblast (really not sure)
SB: 4 [BOK] Terashi's Grasp (2 in 1 card)

[heroicraptor]

you can't cast Ertai's Meddling off Cascade
Bingo.

[Willoe]

My list was very simple:

That list actually looks workable. But are Architects of Will and Glassdust Hulk good enough? I mean, even though they're fodder for FoW and MisD, they only dig one card! Are there any better alternatives, or is this the near the optimal decklist?

[Maveric78f]

That list actually looks workable. But are Architects of Will and Glassdust Hulk good enough? I mean, even though they're fodder for FoW and MisD, they only dig one card! Are there any better alternatives, or is this the near the optimal decklist?

I donno. Propose... You got it, the point is to have 22/24 blue spells. Actually, I'd like to have 30 because the cycling guys are gone very soon in the game, but it's impossible.

[rufus]

I donno. Propose... You got it, the point is to have 22/24 blue spells. Actually, I'd like to have 30 because the cycling guys are gone very soon in the game, but it's impossible.

Brainstorm? Mulldrifter?

[Willoe]

Brainstorm? Mulldrifter?

Brainstorm will get hit by Cascade, making it even harder to "combo" off. Also, Mulldrifter seems incredibly slow for this deck's strategy.

I really guess the two cycling dorks are the best choices, for now.

EDIT: Just realized that even though they suck, the cyclers have some advantages:

-Don't get hit by a Chalice@1, Counterbalance or a Trinisphere.
-FoW and MisD fodder.
-Can be played in a pinch if your life total is just the least threatened by combat damage from i.e. a Kird Ape. This will be irrelevant in most situations, but you get the picture.
-Architects of Will can actually help you win the game as it serves as a noob-Ponder, or some disruption for the opponent. Again, this is irrelevant in most cases, but it will perhaps come in handy.

But still, they:
Only dig one freaking card. That sucks balls, really.

And I just remembered of a card that would be able to deal with threats and improve our chances of having more life than the opponent and then winning of a cascaded Bond of Agony.
Clutch of the Undercity
Even though this card is crap, it might be good 'cause it bounces and burns. The transmute effect can't search for Cascade cards, and that sucks, but if we play some other handy 4cc silver bullets, this card could perhaps actually be maindecked. What do you think?

[Cire]

Brainstorm? Mulldrifter?

Brainstorm runs into obvious problems...

Also i looked at the mtgsalvation boards, and while no one explored this combo in legacy, in extended they've gone an Sligh route, with burn, and Aggro Beats, The bonds of agony combo is just there as an oops i win, otherwise youll simply cascade into a goyf or similar threat.

---

But im still enthralled by the Maveric78f's version, although i would love to make room for soulspike...maybe replacing blue for unmask, snuff out, Shriekmaw, ect...lol.

Just wondering though, has the life loss from force ever brought you to <= life than your opponent?

[Finn]

Clearly soulspike has the effect that you want but the 2 black cards is going to be a deal breaker I think. Commandeer may actually accomplish the same thing and not be so hard to manage.

[Willoe]

Remember that Comandeer says noncreature spell. What spells can you really control to accomplish your goal of having more life than the opponent? Of course, Lightning Bolt and Lightning Helix in particular, but other than that?

[Maveric78f]

Contrarily to Cascade end, we cannot overextend in the pitchable colours, becasue the basis of the deck is neither blue nor black (SSG, ESG, violent outburst, lands*17+, rift bolt, renewed faith). As a consequence, we have to focus on a single pitch colour. Blue looks like the obvious choice with 3 pitching cards. Commandeer is nothing else than misdirection*5-8 in this deck because the only annoying permanents are trinisphere and creatures (meddling mage/cannonist). Stealing brainstorms looks completely stupid too. The cycling cards are great because they offer you redundancy into the rest of the deck. The main problem is that they require blue/white mana and that spirit guides can't provide that. Sometimes, I conder if a simple %2 blue cycler would not be better.

[rufus]

Doh! Regarding Brainstorm. How about Serum Powder?

[dahcmai]

Ok, lemme get this straight. You can literally play Bonds off a cascade spell and this works?

Ok, so if it does work this way does it work this same way with other cards that allow you to play a card without paying the casting cost? Example in mind being Windbrisk Heights. I'd much rather cast off of that instead of having a ton of high casting cost cards in my deck.

Seems much easier to use a white weinie or some such to get ahead in life and combo out with a bonds. Sui Black might not even have a problem with this. It's so similar to Hatred all over again.

Well, if that works I have a deck already waiting for it.

[Maveric78f]

This works yeah. But the huge advantage of the cascade build it that cascade tutors as well as it plays BoA. The other advantage is that it can do that on turn 2 and then win before facing any damage.

The burn MU looks impossible with cascade agony. Your only chance is to have misdirection/commandeer + a turn 1 or 2 win, which is very rare.

[majikal]

It's actually not quite certain yet if it works or not. We're still waiting on an official ruling.

[Maveric78f]

I personnally fail to understand where the doubt of this ruling comes from. The rules say that nothing prevent you from choosing X=any value except in some specific contexts which are not encountered with bonds of agony.

[phoenix33]

I personnally fail to understand where the doubt of this ruling comes from. The rules say that nothing prevent you from choosing X=any value except in some specific contexts which are not encountered with bonds of agony.

I've heard Level 2 Judges rule both ways. This is by no means clear.

[Zinch]

I don't see how this could work...
If you play it for free, then X=0 and then move to pay the additional costs. In this case, 0 life.
If you can play it with x=0 and 19 life to make x=19, then... why not play it this way always (paying only one mana)?

[Maveric78f]

I don't see how this could work...
If you play it for free, then X=0 and then move to pay the additional costs. In this case, 0 life.
If you can play it with x=0 and 19 life to make x=19, then... why not play it this way always (paying only one mana)?

Read the #$% thread?


I've heard Level 2 Judges rule both ways. This is by no means clear.
I got that. But I did not get what were the arguments against the validity of the combo.

[Willoe]

Sometimes, I conder if a simple %2 blue cycler would not be better.

You mean, like Rebuild? That's actually a pretty good card!

But I'm still pretty into Architects of Will. That's a "one-drop", at least!

Other cards with alternative costs could be possibilities as well.

[Watcher487]

I've heard Level 2 Judges rule both ways. This is by no means clear.

I've had a Level 2 judge tell me I could NOT Stifle when someone cycled Decree of Justice.

I've had a Level 2 judge tell me that Humility makes all creatures 1/1 regardless of what else is going on, this includes Glorious Anthem, +1/+1 counters AND Engineered Plague.

When Chuck (cdr) addresses this as far as I'm concerned, it's final.

[Maveric78f]

Did cdr address this question?

Quicksilver did, which is as final as when cdr does imo. But anyway, most of all, I like to understand the rulings, and in this case, I don't get why the comprehensive rules would not apply, as clunky as they are currently. I don't care if people think that the ruling will change post 20th June. I want to try to exploit the breach within this time.

[Skeggi]

Picture this: you're on the draw. Your opponent fetched to a Tropical Island, played a Sensei's Divining Top and passes the turn.

You're sitting comfortably behind a hand that consists of 1 Simian Spirit Guide, 1 Elvish Spirit Guide, 1 Violent Outburst, 1 Tropical Island, 2 Force of Will, 1 Flooded Strand and you draw a second Violent Outburst. But that's ok, because you got him where you want him. He's at 19 life because he fetched. Little does he know or you will completely and utterly rip his heart out with your awesome Cascade into Bond of Agony combo. You play the Tropical Island, remove the 2 Spirit Guides and cast Violent Outburst. Cascade triggers... you reveal cards from the top of your library until... there it is, Bond of Agony presents itself. You declare you pay 19 life for X to kill him. Your opponent frowns, beads of sweat roll over his forehead. Then, he picks up his Tropical Island and lays a Daze on the table. You smirk, and cast a Force of Will pitching a Force of Will... but unfortunately that costs you 1 life. Since you already payed 19 life for the Bond of Agony the game doesn't even result in a draw, but you die to a state-based effect the next time a player recieves priority. Great combo; you can kill yourself turn 1.

Whether it's a legal combo or not, it's total and utter crap, perhaps mostly because you rely on your opponent to use a fetchland. This combo could have been invented by Cavius, perhaps it will see popularity in Germany.

[DrJones]

Picture this: you're on the draw. Your opponent fetched to a Tropical Island, played a Sensei's Divining Top and passes the turn.

You're sitting comfortably behind a hand that consists of 1 Simian Spirit Guide, 1 Elvish Spirit Guide, 1 Violent Outburst, 1 Tropical Island, 2 Force of Will, 1 Flooded Strand and you draw a second Violent Outburst. But that's ok, because you got him where you want him. He's at 19 life because he fetched. Little does he know or you will completely and utterly rip his heart out with your awesome Cascade into Bond of Agony combo. You play the Tropical Island, remove the 2 Spirit Guides and cast Violent Outburst. Cascade triggers... you reveal cards from the top of your library until... there it is, Bond of Agony presents itself. You declare you pay 19 life for X to kill him. Your opponent frowns, beads of sweat roll over his forehead. Then, he picks up his Tropical Island and lays a Daze on the table. You smirk, and cast a Force of Will pitching a Force of Will... but unfortunately that costs you 1 life. Since you already payed 19 life for the Bond of Agony the game doesn't even result in a draw, but you die to a state-based effect the next time a player recieves priority. Great combo; you can kill yourself turn 1.Right, that's why it has been said that you play foil and misdirection instead of Force of Will.

Edit: Also, daze sucks against a deck with eight spirit guides, yet people seem to assume the opposite.

[rufus]

...
Whether it's a legal combo or not, it's total and utter crap, perhaps mostly because you rely on your opponent to use a fetchland. This combo could have been invented by Cavius, perhaps it will see popularity in Germany.

A more stable alternative would be to cascade into Skeletal Scrying (which would also work under the same sort of rules-interpretation.)

[TheCramp]

A more stable alternative would be to cascade into Skeletal Scrying (which would also work under the same sort of rules-interpretation.)

That's really interesting, because you can put scrying on a scepter. "Hi, all my spells and fetches cantrip, what's your name?"

[rufus]

That's really interesting, because you can put scrying on a scepter. "Hi, all my spells and fetches cantrip, what's your name?"

Well, you'd have to pay 2 mana for scepter activation, and 1 life per card. Not to mention it would probably take a bit to stabilize. I'm not sure how much value repeated use would get anyway.

I was thinking it would be very interesting with Psychatog or Lorescale Coatl and friends.

(N.B. I don't actually think any of this works, mind you.)

[Cire]

is Skeletal Scrying the only other card this potential ruling could effect?

anyway yeah i was testing with Maveric78f and my only changes were

-4 Force
+2 Commandeer
+2 Foil

i've also changed the mana base slightly to allow for more islands, so you can lay down foil.

Other than that the deck has been really good, Rift bolt or the opponents themselves ussually put themselves on less life than me, and renewed faith randomly helps as well, i combo out turn 2 alot, and if not turn 3 is ussually feasible.

Also against one game against burn i had

Gemstone mine
Bonds of Agony
Misdirect
Volcanic Island
Ardent Plea
Violent Outburst
Elvish Spirit Guide

Lol
me Turn 1 - Volcanic ISland
him Turn 1 - Mountain - Lighting Bolt - i misdirect it (hes at 17)
me Turn 2 - Gemstone mine + SSG --> Violent outburst --> WIN! lol

Misdirect +Commandeer + RiftBolt + Renewed faith + the amount of fetchalands people play is more than enough to ensure that your life > their life in the beggining of the game, basically you have to combo out by turn 2-3 or else your life total will drop from all the beats...

[rufus]

is Skeletal Scrying the only other card this potential ruling could effect?

My quick search turned up the following as questionable:
Abandon Hope
Aether Tide
Bond of Agony
Scorched Earth
Skeletal Scrying

And Spoils of War can clearly have non-zero X.

[Cire]

Hmm.. To cascade into the following:

Abandon Hope: Each player discards their hand turn 2?? could be good in a hellbent deck with demonic Dread and Violent Outburst? meh
Aether Tide: Suck
Bond of Agony: Duh
Scorched Earth: What if you play as many man-lands as possible, then cascade into this for a onesided armogeddon? Still sucks but meh.
Skeletal Scrying: I dont really see this as a good thing to cascade into...
Spoils of War: Also not very good.

So really only Bonds of Agony are effected by the upcoming ruling...the other cards wouldn't be played anyway alongside cascade.

[TheCramp]

Well, you'd have to pay 2 mana for scepter activation, and 1 life per card. Not to mention it would probably take a bit to stabilize. I'm not sure how much value repeated use would get anyway.

I was thinking it would be very interesting with Psychatog or Lorescale Coatl and friends.

(N.B. I don't actually think any of this works, mind you.)

Yeah, I was thinking something with neather shade,braids/stax, tombs etc. Jitte could provide life gain to stabilize. Might make Black Stax better. Which is to say close some distance on white stacks, and still be inferior. Seems sick in EDH, which if it works, is where I will put it for sure.

[Maveric78f]

Picture this: you're on the draw. Your opponent fetched to a Tropical Island, played a Sensei's Divining Top and passes the turn.

You're sitting comfortably behind a hand that consists of 1 Simian Spirit Guide, 1 Elvish Spirit Guide, 1 Violent Outburst, 1 Tropical Island, 2 Force of Will, 1 Flooded Strand and you draw a second Violent Outburst. But that's ok, because you got him where you want him. He's at 19 life because he fetched. Little does he know or you will completely and utterly rip his heart out with your awesome Cascade into Bond of Agony combo. You play the Tropical Island, remove the 2 Spirit Guides and cast Violent Outburst. Cascade triggers... you reveal cards from the top of your library until... there it is, Bond of Agony presents itself. You declare you pay 19 life for X to kill him. Your opponent frowns, beads of sweat roll over his forehead. Then, he picks up his Tropical Island and lays a Daze on the table. You smirk, and cast a Force of Will pitching a Force of Will... but unfortunately that costs you 1 life. Since you already payed 19 life for the Bond of Agony the game doesn't even result in a draw, but you die to a state-based effect the next time a player recieves priority. Great combo; you can kill yourself turn 1.

Whether it's a legal combo or not, it's total and utter crap, perhaps mostly because you rely on your opponent to use a fetchland. This combo could have been invented by Cavius, perhaps it will see popularity in Germany.

I thought you were more insightful than that Skeggi. I'm really disappointed.

1/ Why on earth play tropical island in cascade agony?
2/ Why on earth play fetchlands in cascade agony?
3/ Why on earth go off turn 1 in the scenario you described?

In your example, the player is the utter crap, definitely not the deck.

In my testings, yesterday, I played 6 match, twice with no g2 because my opponent left after losing the first game. I lost a total of 2 games and won all my matches. My opponents clearly did not know how to play around the deck. It's a bias but currently we can expect the same kind of misplays in tourney:
- countering the cascade spell
- siding in (or keeping) useless cards as chalice, counterbalance, solitary confinement, runed halo
- fetching too early, using tomb, not knowing the interaction between trinisphere and cascade.

(Greatest plan ever. - Nihil)

As for myself I kept Force of Will MD. It's a bad protection when your opponent has only fetched and that's a pity, but it's the first target for duress/seize. It can be used against several fetches, against ancient tomb, against thoughtseize, etc... It's also a good protection against creatures that would be coming into play too early. Foil requires to change the manabase, which is a really bad point. Commandeer is useless against creatures. But most of all we can't afford another 2CD.

For game 1, I wonder if more Sheltered Valley MD would not replace Renewed Faith that has the disadvantage of requiring white and cost 2. Valley is real bomb because it is not legendary, meaning that you can tap it play the second and get the mana from the second (for daze mainly).

[MTG-Fan]

I've had a Level 2 judge tell me that Humility makes all creatures 1/1 regardless of what else is going on, this includes Glorious Anthem, +1/+1 counters AND Engineered Plague.


Really?? I find it hard to believe there are Level 2 judges so ignorant of basic layering effects.

[Anusien]

Really?? I find it hard to believe there are Level 2 judges so ignorant of basic APNAP stuff.
This is very amusing because Interaction of Continuous Effects (aka layers) has nothing to do with APNAP.

[MTG-Fan]

This is very amusing because Interaction of Continuous Effects (aka layers) has nothing to do with APNAP.

Right. Had a brain fart there.

[Maveric78f]

(Greatest plan ever. - Nihil
That has quite been the game plan of ichorid for a long time now (playing against unprepared players).

[Nihil Credo]

That has quite been the game plan of ichorid for a long time now (playing against unprepared players).

With the critical difference that "preparing" for Ichorid requires putting a half-dozen specific cards in your sideboard, rather than simply reading the cards and knowing the rules.

[Cire]

With the critical difference that "preparing" for Ichorid requires putting a half-dozen specific cards in your sideboard, rather than simply reading the cards and knowing the rules.

Well as long as people continue to play large amounts of Fetchlands, Ancient Tomb and even FOW, combined with your rift bolt, you should pretty much always have more life around turn 2 against most decks. (assuming you want to go off turn 2, going of latter of course runs the risk of losing life to creatures ect) Combined with the fact that you play protection for your combo (Foil (im in the process of making the mana base more foil friendly lol), Commander, Misdirection or Force of Will) make this a pretty reliable strategy IMO.

For your opponent playing around the deck, means actually placing importance on life as a resource. It's generally understood that life is the least important resource avialable to you, and only improtant if your staring at lethal damage, this deck reverses that thinking forcing your opponent to prioritize life above other resources which is already disorienting. Game 2 will be played against an opponent wary of using his own fetchlands, which are in todays metagame are am significant percentage of mana bases. Its almost like playing with an imaginary one-sided blood moon effect sometimes.

[Maveric78f]

I continued my testings tonight. I still have won all my match. Of course, I could have lost some of them. But anyway, it did not happen. And playing against ichorid requires some SB tools, mmmh right. Playing against that deck requires countermagics, because the rest is quite useless. Not mentioning how half the opponent cards are useless : antipermanents, cards with high CC, etc...

Sheltered valley is great tech too.

[MTG-Fan]

I continued my testings tonight. I still have won all my match. Of course, I could have lost some of them. But anyway, it did not happen. And playing against ichorid requires some SB tools, mmmh right. Playing against that deck requires countermagics, because the rest is quite useless. Not mentioning how half the opponent cards are useless : antipermanents, cards with high CC, etc...

Sheltered valley is great tech too.

lol, the Valley is a nice find.

This deck is serious business. I've been toying with it too,and the Bond of Agony combo is just SICK because it's so easy to pull off. This is going to devastate Ext, if not Legacy too.

[joey223]

guys does pyrostatic pillar do anything about cascade?

[rufus]

guys does pyrostatic pillar do anything about cascade?

It basically cripples this combo because of the life resource issue. Not really that effective in a more general sense.

[Cire]

How about scars of the veteran as some tech? It basicaly acts like a free counter against aggro decks (Ichorid and burn included)...

[Mantis]

@maveric:
How strong do you feel your build is? Does it wreck the format or is it 'just' another deck? I can't test on MWS at the moment so I might give it a shot tomorrow when testing with friends. But I'm thinking about bringing this to a tournament although I don't have the Plateaus so I'm not sure if I'll get everything together on time.

[Skeggi]

I thought you were more insightful than that Skeggi. I'm really disappointed.

1/ Why on earth play tropical island in cascade agony?
2/ Why on earth play fetchlands in cascade agony?
3/ Why on earth go off turn 1 in the scenario you described?
1/ Green mana and returnable for Daze
2/ I dunno. You tell me. I just had to add a card.
3/ Because going off turn 1 is the wet dream of every combo player.

They were just an illustration Maveric, not a suggestion for a decklist or a great play. Fact remains, this combo is crap unless your opponent is crap as you explained yourself. And I'm sorry, but I take MWS testing with a pinch of salt.

[Maveric78f]

Mantis: it's really good.

Skeggi1: play daze in a cascade deck? Really?

Skeggi2: against any thresh, can you imagine it play with 10 lands? That's what he must do if he does not want to give you the advantage in PVs. Did you notice that sheltered valley and rift bolt are very difficult to answer? The same reasoning can be made with almost every deck in the metagame. Apart from burn and some few others, all decks spend some life in early game in order to get started faster (thoughtseize, fetches, ancient tomb, dark confidant). There is also the surprising oups-I-win effect that comes in play. And all you say show that you definitely don't understand anything to the deck. You'd better test before inserting comments on a concept.

[Skeggi]

Skeggi1: play daze in a cascade deck? Really?

Oops. Overlooked that. You're right :smile:.

Skeggi2
All I'm saying is that litteraly dying to countermagic seems pretty weak in a format that's defined by it (well, you'll be at 1 life or so...). But by all means, please go ahead and prove me wrong :smile:.

[Maveric78f]

I'd like to. But it's not legal...

How can it be dying to countermagic with 4 FoW and 4 Misdi MD + 4 city of solitude in SB ? It dies to direct damages though. That's the main (and single actually) issue.

[Anusien]

I'm trying to get cdr- to edit this into the rules thread. But until then, the interaction is going to go away soon.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18786652&postcount=86

[mujadaddy]

I'm trying to get cdr- to edit this into the rules thread. But until then, the interaction is going to go away soon.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18786652&postcount=86

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.

The word 'mana' -- I called it. :tongue:

[cdr]

It has also now been ruled by the rules manager that the interaction now longer works as of two days ago, not just after M10. So much for this thread :P


After consideration, the rules manager has informed me that as part of the 2010 magic update, that sentence will be clarified to bring it in line with the desired interpretation: non-zero values for X are not allowed when the X-mana cost of a spell is not being paid. In the meantime, it has been ruled to work the same way... Bonds of Agony + Cascade does NOT work.

[TheCramp]

For whats it's worth, this means I cannot cast Karvec's Purge for free to any effect too, right? not that I give a gamn, I just want to know.


It has also now been ruled by the rules manager that the interaction now longer works as of two days ago, not just after M10. So much for this thread :P

[heroicraptor]

For whats it's worth, this means I cannot cast Karvec's Purge for free to any effect too, right? not that I give a gamn, I just want to know.

I believe that you can destroy a creature with converted mana cost of 0. Because you can't pay mana for X in the cost, it defaults to 0. Then when you choose a target, the legal targets are those with the quality <CMC=X>. Since X = 0, you may target a creature with CMC 0.

[rufus]

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.

This text is technically ambiguous for effects which replace one mana cost with another like Fist of Suns or Kentaro because with those, the player is still paying a mana cost to play the spell.

[mujadaddy]

This text is technically ambiguous for effects which replace one mana cost with another like Fist of Suns or Kentaro because with those, the player is still paying a mana cost to play the spell.Ambiguous? Not really. Fist of Suns doesn't let you play a Fireball with x=One million, does it?

[rufus]

Ambiguous? Not really. Fist of Suns doesn't let you play a Fireball with x=One million, does it?

If the rule is like the cited passage, then it (arguably) could:
Announce fireball with x=10^100, and then pay {W}{U}{R}{B}{G} rather than using Fist of Suns. The quoted rule (arguably) doesn't specify that the mana cost paid for the spell must include X.

[mujadaddy]

The quoted rule (arguably) doesn't specify that the mana cost paid for the spell must include X.
Yeh, it does -- we don't have final wording quite yet, but it says,

alternative cost that includes X... so there's that.

[rufus]

Obviously it's (a) contrary to intent and (b) splitting hairs, but :w::b::r::u::g: is a mana cost, right?

any mana cost or alternative cost
that includes X

[mujadaddy]

Obviously it's (a) contrary to intent and (b) splitting hairs, but :w::b::r::u::g: is a mana cost, right?
You missed the meaning of the sentence:

"without paying any mana cost or alternative cost that includes X" is the relevant clause. The mana cost or in this case the alternative cost does NOT include X, so, no dice.

That is, "without paying [any ({mana cost} or {alternative cost}) that includes X]" ...to use lazy diagramming :laugh:

[rufus]

You missed the meaning of the sentence:
"without paying any mana cost or alternative cost that includes X" is the relevant clause. The mana cost or in this case the alternative cost does NOT include X, so, no dice.

The clause in question could be read as
"without paying any [mana cost] or [alternative cost that includes X]"
rather than
"without paying any [mana cost or alternative cost] that includes X"

Under the former interpretation, paying :w::u::r::b::g: (which is a mana cost) to play a spell allows the player to choose a non-zero X.

A less pedantic issue is that playing, say, Bonds of Agony for :w::u::r::b::g:+X life using Fist of the Suns still seems like it should qualify as an alternative cost that includes X, but probably violates the intent of the ruling.

I think that the intent is closer to:
"without paying the spell's mana cost or an alternative cost specified by the spell"

[Carabas]

nope.

Mana Cost
The mana cost of a card is indicated by the mana symbols printed on its upper right corner.

your WUBRG isn't a mana cost. It's an alternative cost, that doesn't include X

[rufus]

nope

Comprehensive Rules Glossary
Mana Cost
The mana cost of a card is indicated by the mana symbols printed on its upper right corner.
your WUBRG isn't a mana cost. It's an alternative cost, that doesn't include X

"Mana cost" is also used in in the rules in ways that don't refer specifically to objects' mana costs. For example:


104.3b Numeral symbols (such as {1}) are generic mana costs and represent an amount of mana that can be paid with any color of, or colorless, mana.

or


104.3i The snow mana symbol {S} represents a cost that can be paid with one mana produced by a snow permanent. This is a generic mana cost that can be paid with any color of, or colorless, mana. Effects that reduce the amount of generic mana you pay don't affect {S} costs.

Considering that WotC has, as far as I am aware, not printed any cards with {S} in the card's mana cost, it seems that the meaning of "mana cost", even within the rules, must be more generic than just the mana costs of in-game objects.

[Dark_Cynic87]

So do we have a definite ruling on Bond of Agony? I need to know...

Pce,

--DC

[Anusien]

So do we have a definite ruling on Bond of Agony? I need to know...

Pce,

--DC
Yes, cdr posted it. It doesn't work, it will never work. </Thread>

[mujadaddy]

So do we have a definite ruling on Bond of Agony? I need to know...

Pce,

--DC
Yes. The rule will change in The Rules on June 20 or whatever, but THE COUNCIL has come back and said it does not work.