Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
Let's start with a basic question, "where are those rules from?" The comprehensive rules currently posted on the WoTC site are a little different:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/comprul...ules090501.txt
The salient sentence is the same though:
Quote:
...
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 contentious issue for me is whether the bolded "X" in the cited passage refers to a mana cost. (For example like Verdeloth the Ancient.) Since it's not "{X}" I'm going to have to change my mind, and say that the interaction is legal.
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
X is obviously not the mana cost but the numerical value given to X. It's clear about this. And the life paid include this value (typically 19 after the opponent fetched).
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
I found that (well actually somebody found it for me in a french forum).
Quote:
The original ruling on this is from 2005, and was posted by Jeff Jordan, then the MTG-L mailing list NetRep:
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:55:14 -0500
Reply-To: "Magic: The Gathering Discussion" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: "Magic: The Gathering Discussion" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Jeff Jordan <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [o] Digest Reply #2005-19
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Skeletal Scrying Confusion From:
Rikkert ******ink <[log in to unmask]>
> I have a Skeletal Scrying imprinted on an Isochron Scepter. I play the
> ability of the Scepter and when it resolves, I play the copy of the
> Skeletal Scrying. Must I choose X=0?
Yes.
> My initial thought was: "Of course you must choose X=0", but then
> someone showed me to the following sentence in the rules: "If you're
> playing a spell that has X in its mana cost and an effect lets you
> play it without paying any cost that includes X, the only legal
> choice for X is 0."
That sentence is worded poorly, and I'm trying to get it clarified.
What it is supposed to mean is that if the spell or ability has a cost (any kind of cost) with an X, some effect lets you play it using an alternative for that cost, and the alternative does not include the X (playing a spell "without paying its mana cost" is an alternative cost of nothing), then you must choose X=0. That way, alternative costs like the new Shoals are allowed to use X, but alternative costs like Isochron Scepter and Fist of Suns are not.
> Now perhaps it is my grasp of English that is failing, but it seems
> to me that this sentence is indeed saying that as long as I pay at
> least one cost with an X in it, I don't have to pick X=0.
No, it means that if there is a cost that includes X, you must either account for the X in that cost when paying for the spell or ability, or choose X=0. What isn't clear is that "account for the X in that cost" can include paying an alternate cost for it that has the same X.
Jeff
I'm surprised that nobody has ever mentionned it, because it answers (negatively unfortunately) completely the question. Btw, who is Jeff Jordan? Why didn't he change the wording since 2005?
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rufus
...
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 [mana] cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0.
...
Obviously, the bolded portion, though added by me, is what the clause should read. Compare to the underlined portion.
I don't know who Jeff Jordan is either -- doesn't he race NASCAR? -- but BondCascade is a degenerate loophole that can be closed with the word "mana."
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
Jeff Jordan is an official NetRep (Net Representative aka official source to answer rules questions on the public MTG-L mailing list). That answer was right in 2005 but it has since changed because of Conflagrate. This point has already been raised and dismissed.
As stands right now, it is correct according to many high-level judges that you can indeed set the value of X. It is not guaranteed, and [O]fficial sources (there are NetReps at least for DCIJUDGE-L, MTGRULES-L, MTG-L and #mtgjudge) refuse to comment on it Officially until there has been a discussion at Wizards of the Coast. Let me quote myself:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anusien
[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
(Scott Marshall is the NetRep for DCIJUDGE-L and Gavin Duggan is the NetRep for MTGRULES-L. The decider in this case is probably Mark Gottlieb, Rules Manager.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Anusien
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.
Why is this even a thread?
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
Because I have a tourney tomorrow and I'd like to play that deck. I want an official ruling to support my combo. Is it lottery if I go to my tourney with that deck?
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
Quote:
Spoils of War {XB} |Sorcery| X is the number of artifact and/or creature cards in an opponent's graveyard as you play Spoils of War. / Distribute X +1/+1 counters among any number of target creatures.
Spoils of War and split cards both show that it is possible to play a card with converted mana cost 5 off a Bloodbraid Elf's cascade, if that's what you're worried about.
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
Quote:
[08:58:19] <derflippi> the words directly from Sheldon:
[08:58:20] <derflippi> The official answer is currently "yes." The Rules Manager is reviewing whether this is actually the correct answer.
[08:58:20] <derflippi> The reason it works this way is that Cascade only pays the mana cost. You're still playing the spell, and it's subject to other benefits and/or limitations. You're still responsible for any mandatory additional costs, and you have the option of paying optional ones.
[08:58:20] <derflippi> Again, this is still under review. I expect an answer shortly after PT HNL, but I'm suspecting it will stay as is (but be warned that stranger things have happened).
[09:00:45] <^ShelAFK> That's the latest that I have
For what it's worth, this is the first judge I've heard from say that he expects it to say. It seems to be general opinion that it's unintuitive and unexpected and should be changed.
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
This isn't really a cascade issue, since, for example, Kaho->Skeletal Scrying is also affected.
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
I wouldn't be suprised if the ruling is changed to somethign along the lines of:
"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 all costs that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0."
This seems more intuitive.
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
Quote:
Originally Posted by
quicksilver
I wouldn't be suprised if the ruling is changed to somethign along the lines of:
"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 all costs that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0."
This seems more intuitive.
You need to consider the Shoal series of spells, Spoils of War and Firecat Blitz, and Conflagrate. I suspect that it would be easier for WotC to modify the text of those cards so that paying those alternative costs defines X as a side effect.
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
I have a tournament the 20th of June, can I safely play this?
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mantis
I have a tournament the 20th of June, can I safely play this?
I don't think so. Make sure to bring another deck and ask the head judge for a clear statement before the tournament.
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
Do you guys have to start a rules forum flamewar for the first time in ever while I'm at the PT? Sheesh.
"Play without paying mana cost" and alternate X costs does work for the moment, as Anusien thoroughly covered. Feel free to discuss elsewhere whether this is broken.
Locked.
Edit: Post-M10, this will no longer work - http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=86
Re: Cascade + Bond of Agony
Update: It has been ruled that this interaction no longer works as of now, not just after the M10 update.
Quote:
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.
