Upcoming change to CMC of split cards

[thefringthing]

Courtesy of Eli Shiffrin and Matt Tabak (current and former Rules Managers at WotC) in this reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/638ws6/torrential_gearhulk_and_aftermath_ruling_from/dfsccuj/).

Starting with the release of Amonkhet, the CMC of a split card while not on the stack will be the sum of the CMCs of each of its halves.

[Noctalor]

Direct nerf to wear tear

[square_two]

Welp. So much for Brain in a Jar / Expertise modern decks that were just now starting to pickup and get refined.

Edit: Yay Countertop getting a tad nerfed though...

[MaximumC]

I am not happy with this change, but I understand the motivations behind it.

In my (very limited) experience, Matt is actually quite keen on stopping un-intuitive interactions on cards. He hates the Oblivion Ring timing trick that you can use to exile things permanently. He did not like how Reconnaissance functioned as pseudo-vigilance. Generally speaking, it seems that if he thinks an interaction is leading to "gotchyas" as a result of an archaic interaction between a card and the Rules, he will want to change it.

That sounds bad, but consider that Matt is still principled. He has not changed how Oblivion Ring and cards like it operate, because power level errata is bad and he knows that. Instead, they started printing fixed versions like Banishing Light. He did initially errata Reconnaissance, but then backed off when he realized the change would do more harm than good. And, with the split card technicality leading to powerful interactions, he did not errata the cards -- he just changed the Rules so that the cards now work differently, which is something Magic does all the time.

So, it's not a great thing, but it's a principled way to kill an interaction that WotC deems bad for Magic.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Is this what we've come to? Official rules changes now happen in the reply section of someone's question on reddit?

[Dice_Box]

My Boom//Bust just became useless.

[morgan_coke]

Well, that's pretty huge, and kills the current version of my Modern tokens deck. Probably a good thing for the game overall though.

[Megadeus]

I am not a fan. Doing somewhat unintuitive things that can kind of break the rules is one of the best, and most unique, things about magic in my opinion. A deck like Gargabalance in modern is an example of this. Being able to build a deck around a spell that is supposed to have a suspend cost but getting around that restriction is sweet, as was getting the busted half of a card for cheap as long as you jumped through some hoops. I like the change to the counterbalance portion because it was kind of weird how with Bob you simply took the damage for both sides added but could choose with CB, but the cheating big things into play is awesome imo. Sweet interactions like the aforementioned oblivion ring trick is what makes for interesting interactions.

[Stuart]

Bummer for some combo decks, but I'll be fine to never see Wear/Tear floating on Top again.

[thefringthing]

Is this what we've come to? Official rules changes now happen in the reply section of someone's question on reddit?It'll be in the rules update they publish along with each set, but don't let that stop you from whining about knowing sooner.

[Barook]

Shame about the cool combo decks, but every nerf to Counterbalance is welcome.

We'll also get a rules update about borders to justify those clown frames they've cooked up with invocations.

[CutthroatCasual]

I don't think this is a nerf nor is it a buff. It's probably more a lateral move as some on Reddit have pointed out. Miracles runs enough 1s and 2s, but it was always low on 3s. We lose a cute interaction but we gain something that still helps us.


My Boom//Bust just became useless.

"just became" :rolleyes::cool:

[MorphBerlin]

I disagree with some anwers here, I welcome the rules change as it was really unintuitve to be able to cast a card with cmc with cmc 2 or less, so you choose the left side of the card which matches the condition but somehow you suddenly get the other side too and cast a cmc 8 mana spell. TO me it was clear that that interaction needed to be fixed.

Also it's obvious, that this was about the Jar/expetise stuff in Modern, I think they couldn't give less shit about CB+W/T... It's not even clear it's a nerf, because now Miracles has more 3s which is normally the tight spot.

[Lemnear]

I disagree with some anwers here, I welcome the rules change as it was really unintuitve to be able to cast a card with cmc with cmc 2 or less, so you choose the left side of the card which matches the condition but somehow you suddenly get the other side too and cast a cmc 8 mana spell. TO me it was clear that that interaction needed to be fixed.

Also it's obvious, that this was about the Jar/expetise stuff in Modern, I think they couldn't give less shit about CB+W/T... It's not even clear it's a nerf, because now Miracles has more 3s which is normally the tight spot.

Agree with all said here. In Legacy this doesn't even proof to be a nerf

[Darkenslight]

Is this what we've come to? Official rules changes now happen in the reply section of someone's question on reddit?

Tabak is officially working on the Oracle updates, which go live the week of Release for a new set. That's his job. he was effectively forced to announce this one beforehand because someone asked him outright, thanks to Aftermath.

I mean, I'm not keen on the change, but it's at least a logical change to the way the cards work.

[Crimhead]

Sadly this cmc change doesn't make it any harder to kill CotV with Wear//Tear.

[TsumiBand]

I find this counterintuitive since split cards have generally just been treated as 2 separate spells that exist on one physical card. I realize Fuse is a thing but that is an exception that proves the rule and isn't that much different from Splice when you get right down to it.

I think the reasoning given by the Mothership is faulty as it is easier to understand the "what's the CMC of this card" questions by remembering that split cards always (used to) answer with "X and Y" instead of just "X". Did you reveal a split card with Dark Confidant? Lose "X and Y" life. Are you tutoring for a card with converted mana cost Y? Split cards historically have a cmc of "X and Y" so this is fine, you get the card - it's as if you tutored for a card with multiple creature types, there's nothing confusing about that, so what makes multiple converted costs any different? I don't see the big reason to change this, really.

[Finn]

I thought the old way was counterintuitive.

[Darkenslight]

I find this counterintuitive since split cards have generally just been treated as 2 separate spells that exist on one physical card. I realize Fuse is a thing but that is an exception that proves the rule and isn't that much different from Splice when you get right down to it.

I think the reasoning given by the Mothership is faulty as it is easier to understand the "what's the CMC of this card" questions by remembering that split cards always (used to) answer with "X and Y" instead of just "X". Did you reveal a split card with Dark Confidant? Lose "X and Y" life. Are you tutoring for a card with converted mana cost Y? Split cards historically have a cmc of "X and Y" so this is fine, you get the card - it's as if you tutored for a card with multiple creature types, there's nothing confusing about that, so what makes multiple converted costs any different? I don't see the big reason to change this, really.

That's an entirely fair reading of the rules change, which is why I'm not really keen on it, as I said earlier.

However, the change can also be logical, given the newer Split cards with Fuse and Aftermath.

[Meekrab]

I find this counterintuitive since split cards have generally just been treated as 2 separate spells that exist on one physical card. I realize Fuse is a thing but that is an exception that proves the rule and isn't that much different from Splice when you get right down to it.

I think the reasoning given by the Mothership is faulty as it is easier to understand the "what's the CMC of this card" questions by remembering that split cards always (used to) answer with "X and Y" instead of just "X". Did you reveal a split card with Dark Confidant? Lose "X and Y" life. Are you tutoring for a card with converted mana cost Y? Split cards historically have a cmc of "X and Y" so this is fine, you get the card - it's as if you tutored for a card with multiple creature types, there's nothing confusing about that, so what makes multiple converted costs any different? I don't see the big reason to change this, really.
The unintuitive interaction is that you can play the Y cmc side of a card with an ability that lets you play the X side without paying its mana cost. Or Fuse them, if it happens to be a Fuse card.

[TsumiBand]

The unintuitive interaction is that you can play the Y cmc side of a card with an ability that lets you play the X side without paying its mana cost. Or Fuse them, if it happens to be a Fuse card.

I guess it depends which interaction you're referring to. If it's Isochron Scepter then it's the same business as before; the card itself has two mana costs and if either one fits then the card is imprinted and works just like any other imprinted card.

I mean usually the card-to-spell ratio is 1:1 so I guess I get why split cards are oddities but really if you just kinda look at them like "there are literally two castable spells on this one card" then it makes better sense, I think. You aren't imprinting the *spell*, you're imprinting the *card*.