All B/R update speculation.

For reference:

New wording
{oX}: You may choose a creature card in your hand whose mana cost could be paid by some amount of, or all of, the mana you spent on {oX}. If you do, you may cast that card face down as a 2/2 creature spell without paying its mana cost. If the creature that spell becomes as it resolves has not been turned face up and would assign or deal damage, be dealt damage, or become tapped, instead it’s turned face up and assigns or deals damage, is dealt damage, or becomes tapped. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.

Thanks for clearing that up wizards....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leftconsin

There was a rules update for Planechase, which includes new wording on Illusionary Mask. http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazin...ure/54b&page=2 The new wording is very weak power wise compared to the old one because you now have to pay colors and the creature spell can be countered. This new version can probably come off the ban list.

---

Didn't wizards say it was banned for monetary reasons as well?

This is sort of a myth. Wizards has never said that "card x" is banned because it costs too much.

See this article:
http://wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Ar...com/daily/af30

The relevant quote: "We tried to strike the fine balance between accessibility and, well, balance of play." They never explicitly mention card $$ anywhere (to my knowledge).

Tabernacle can now be build around with indestructibles, if that appeals to anyone. This kills the flavor of magus of the tabernacle though.

I remember playing knight of the holy nimbus once against a tabernacle, so I guess this stuff is somewhat relevant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by workingdude

Tabernacle can now be build around with indestructibles, if that appeals to anyone. This kills the flavor of magus of the tabernacle though.

I remember playing knight of the holy nimbus once against a tabernacle, so I guess this stuff is somewhat relevant?

---

Neither regeneration nor indestructibility do anything against tabernacle, since it's sacrifice and not destroy (and even if, regeneration would still tap your knight of the holy nimbus). You either pay or your creature goes to the bin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manhattan

Neither regeneration nor indestructibility do anything against tabernacle, since it's sacrifice and not destroy (and even if, regeneration would still tap your knight of the holy nimbus). You either pay or your creature goes to the bin.

---

Except for the part where Mr. Gottlieb said in the article that it's going to be a destroy effect now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whienot

For reference:

New wording
{oX}: You may choose a creature card in your hand whose mana cost could be paid by some amount of, or all of, the mana you spent on {oX}. If you do, you may cast that card face down as a 2/2 creature spell without paying its mana cost. If the creature that spell becomes as it resolves has not been turned face up and would assign or deal damage, be dealt damage, or become tapped, instead it’s turned face up and assigns or deals damage, is dealt damage, or becomes tapped. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.

Thanks for clearing that up wizards....

---

It's not going to come off the banned list for Legacy with that wording. For one thing is still allows you to sneak a Phyrexian Dreadnought into play without sacrificing 12 power worth of creatures. The other thing of course is that anything that requires record-keeping to verify the legality of a play at a later time is just too clunky and likely to cause problems for judges in actual tournament play later. Just try having yourself and your opponent write something down at the same time and then see how reliably it matches a few turns later when it is compared. Life scores being the perfect example, where players are constantly adjusting by a bit here or there because one or the other forgot to record something or recorded it wrong. Judges would have no good way to resolve the situation if one player said he paid appropriate mana costs for the play (and at the time the issue arose had the right mana on the board) and the other said he had not. He says, she says is a judges worst nightmare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Gottlieb, Wizard of the Coast Rules Manager

The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
"Destroy" on the printed card became "sacrifice" in Oracle.

New wording
All creatures have "At the beginning of your upkeep, destroy this creature unless you pay {o1}."

---

Note that this is the only "Tabernacle" effect that recieved errata. Both Pendrell Mist and Magus of the Tabernacle are printed with the sacrifice clause, while Tabernacle is printed with destroy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PunkRocker1134

Didn't wizards say it was banned for monetary reasons as well?

---

Alpha Illusionary Mask (Banned): $115.99 (MOTL)
Beta Illusionary Mask (Banned): $93.94 (MOTL)
Unlimited Illusionary Mask (Banned): $63.12 (MOTL)
The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale (Legal): $104.31 (MOTL)
Grim Tutor (Legal): $104.67 (MOTL)
Imperial Recruiter (Legal): $140.09 (MOTL)
Juzam Djinn (Legal): $115.03 (MOTL - I threw this one in for fun!)

Cards aren't banned in Legacy over secondary market prices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

It's not going to come off the banned list for Legacy with that wording. For one thing is still allows you to sneak a Phyrexian Dreadnought into play without sacrificing 12 power worth of creatures.

---

Except now Dreadnought can be countered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

The other thing of course is that anything that requires record-keeping to verify the legality of a play at a later time is just too clunky and likely to cause problems for judges in actual tournament play later.

---

How is that different from any other Morph card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m03

Except now Dreadnought can be countered.

---

Dreadnought could be countered before also. Illusionary Mask wouldn't add counterability to the process, just a permanent way to sneak a dreadnought into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m03

How is that different from any other Morph card.

---

Morph is a fixed cost of :3:. There's no record-keeping involved at all. When you flip a morph over the cost to do so is printed on the card that is revealed and the cost is paid at the moment you do it.

This re-wording of Illusionary Mask would require the player to pay the accurate cost to deploy the card normally plus whatever extra they chose to use to disguise it as an addition. They'd need to note the amount spent at the time they did this to allow for verification that they had deployed the card legally when it was ultimately revealed. The opponent obviously would do the same if they were at all competitive and it is in the comparison of the two recordings that problems would arise, particularly if you got to the point where multiple cards had been deployed face down with the mask and not yet revealed.

Ok, so can anyone tell me whats going on with Tabernacle? So "destroy" was originally printed on the card, but the new oracle wording is instead "sacrifice". But if thats the case, why is the new wording "At the beginning of your upkeep, destroy this creature unless you pay {o1}." It seems that it contradicts itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wes

Ok, so can anyone tell me whats going on with Tabernacle? So "destroy" was originally printed on the card, but the new oracle wording is instead "sacrifice". But if thats the case, why is the new wording "At the beginning of your upkeep, destroy this creature unless you pay {o1}." It seems that it contradicts itself.

---

No, the new oracle wording changes it back to destroy. It was updated a long time ago to say "sacrifice", and they just now changed it back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

Dreadnought could be countered before also. Illusionary Mask wouldn't add counterability to the process, just a permanent way to sneak a dreadnought into play.

---

Um, no. It did make it uncounterable according to the old wording. It was one of the arguments presented against unbanning it before.

Quote:

---

X: You may put a creature card with converted mana cost X or less from your hand onto the battlefield face down as a 0/1 creature. Put X mask counters on that creature. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery. The creature's controller may turn the creature face up any time he or she could cast an instant by removing all mask counters from it. This effect ends if the creature is turned face up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

Morph is a fixed cost of :3:. There's no record-keeping involved at all. When you flip a morph over the cost to do so is printed on the card that is revealed and the cost is paid at the moment you do it.

This re-wording of Illusionary Mask would require the player to pay the accurate cost to deploy the card normally plus whatever extra they chose to use to disguise it as an addition. They'd need to note the amount spent at the time they did this to allow for verification that they had deployed the card legally when it was ultimately revealed. The opponent obviously would do the same if they were at all competitive and it is in the comparison of the two recordings that problems would arise, particularly if you got to the point where multiple cards had been deployed face down with the mask and not yet revealed.

---

Actually, you're supposed to keep track with morph, too: you're supposed to put counters on the morphs to indicate the order in which they entered play.

It doesn't come up much, but technically it IS what you're supposed to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattH

Actually, you're supposed to keep track with morph, too: you're supposed to put counters on the morphs to indicate the order in which they entered play.

It doesn't come up much, but technically it IS what you're supposed to do.

---

Not that I don't believe you, but why would that be of any importance ? Are there cards, mechanics or rules that explicitly use the order in which creatures have entered play ? I can't think of any. Could you provide an example (even a far-fetched one, as I guess it will have to be one anyway) were it would be relevant ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ParkerLewis

Not that I don't believe you, but why would that be of any importance ? Are there cards, mechanics or rules that explicitly use the order in which creatures have entered play ? I can't think of any. Could you provide an example (even a far-fetched one, as I guess it will have to be one anyway) were it would be relevant ?

---

On turn 2, you Eladamri's Call / Wordly Tutor / etc. for a creature card with morph (revealing it to your opponent) and cast it on turn 3. Several turns later, you have an empty hand, the morph is still face-down, then you topdeck and play a second morph. Once you have both in play, it should be public information for obvious reasons which one entered play first and which one later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nihil Credo

On turn 2, you Eladamri's Call / Wordly Tutor / etc. for a creature card with morph (revealing it to your opponent) and cast it on turn 3. Several turns later, you have an empty hand, the morph is still face-down, then you topdeck and play a second morph. Once you have both in play, it should be public information for obvious reasons which one entered play first and which one later.

---

Are face down cards normally public information, even if the identity of one of them is known?

I'm just trying to think what about the particular situation that you've just described confers the right for the opposing player to have a facedown card marked or otherwise delineated as opposed to him just having to keep track himself of which is which?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

Are face down cards normally public information, even if the identity of one of them is known?

I'm just trying to think what about the particular situation that you've just described confers the right for the opposing player to have a facedown card marked or otherwise delineated as opposed to him just having to keep track himself of which is which?

---

by your logic, i can put a face down Birchlore Ranger, then a turn later put a face down Blistering firecat, and through sleight of hand, attack with the face down Firecat, and you'd be none-the-wiser. Hey, wanna play some Magic?:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DownSyndromeKarl

by your logic, i can put a face down Birchlore Ranger, then a turn later put a face down Blistering firecat, and through sleight of hand, attack with the face down Firecat, and you'd be none-the-wiser. Hey, wanna play some Magic?:cool:

---

If your suggestion is that you can blatantly cheat if you choose to do so I guess that's true.

Point take though that facedown cards in play have to be in some way clearly identifiable to prevent blatant cheating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nihil Credo

On turn 2, you Eladamri's Call / Wordly Tutor / etc. for a creature card with morph (revealing it to your opponent) and cast it on turn 3. Several turns later, you have an empty hand, the morph is still face-down, then you topdeck and play a second morph. Once you have both in play, it should be public information for obvious reasons which one entered play first and which one later.

---

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

If your suggestion is that you can blatantly cheat if you choose to do so I guess that's true.

Point take though that facedown cards in play have to be in some way clearly identifiable to prevent blatant cheating.

---

its just like keeping track of your opponent's life, if you're not keeping track of it, its your problem if their records show they have more than what you think they should have. Keep track of everything.

I'd like to ban Goyf for a different reason than most. It's not broken or so good it needs to go. It's far from broken. It dies to most everything. It's not hard to counter with Spell Snare or CB. It's not untargetable or virtually unstoppable. It doesn't even have trample. A single Bitterblossom can keep it in check forever.

I want it out of the format because it outclasses every creature for it's cost and limits the format to choosing creatures that are within the same range and which there aren't any. Is this creature better than a Goyf? No? Guess we don't use it. That happens entirely too much on deck building.

How many decks is Goyf bad in? Not many. I even had them in a board for a Tendrils deck once. We had a joke about this. Stasis? Yup, Goyf makes Stasis better. That's just funny. How many times have you played against it compared to any other creature? It's easily the most played creature ever now. Kind of sad to think every deck out there is trying to find a way to put in green so it can play it.

I'd like to see a little more choices in deckbuilding than trying to beat out the green king. I'd like to play against something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahcmai

I'd like to ban Goyf for a different reason than most. It's not broken or so good it needs to go. It's far from broken. It dies to most everything. It's not hard to counter with Spell Snare or CB. It's not untargetable or virtually unstoppable. It doesn't even have trample. A single Bitterblossom can keep it in check forever.

I want it out of the format because it outclasses every creature for it's cost and limits the format to choosing creatures that are within the same range and which there aren't any. Is this creature better than a Goyf? No? Guess we don't use it. That happens entirely too much on deck building.

How many decks is Goyf bad in? Not many. I even had them in a board for a Tendrils deck once. We had a joke about this. Stasis? Yup, Goyf makes Stasis better. That's just funny. How many times have you played against it compared to any other creature? It's easily the most played creature ever now. Kind of sad to think every deck out there is trying to find a way to put in green so it can play it.

I'd like to see a little more choices in deckbuilding than trying to beat out the green king. I'd like to play against something else.

---

While I do love my little green gaint, i do 100% agree with this.

Also, I feel that banning top would be a bad move... Where, yes it is unfun to play agains it in CounterTop, it also makes other decks more reliable. I would hate the day where I need to remove them form my G/B/W Control Rock deck... :cry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahcmai

I'd like to ban Goyf for a different reason than most. It's not broken or so good it needs to go. It's far from broken. It dies to most everything. It's not hard to counter with Spell Snare or CB. It's not untargetable or virtually unstoppable. It doesn't even have trample. A single Bitterblossom can keep it in check forever.

I want it out of the format because it outclasses every creature for it's cost and limits the format to choosing creatures that are within the same range and which there aren't any. Is this creature better than a Goyf? No? Guess we don't use it. That happens entirely too much on deck building.

How many decks is Goyf bad in? Not many. I even had them in a board for a Tendrils deck once. We had a joke about this. Stasis? Yup, Goyf makes Stasis better. That's just funny. How many times have you played against it compared to any other creature? It's easily the most played creature ever now. Kind of sad to think every deck out there is trying to find a way to put in green so it can play it.

I'd like to see a little more choices in deckbuilding than trying to beat out the green king. I'd like to play against something else.

---

I couldn't agree more.

Goyf isn't broken but it seriously warps the format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahcmai

I'd like to ban Goyf for a different reason than most. It's not broken or so good it needs to go. It's far from broken. It dies to most everything. It's not hard to counter with Spell Snare or CB. It's not untargetable or virtually unstoppable. It doesn't even have trample. A single Bitterblossom can keep it in check forever.

I want it out of the format because it outclasses every creature for it's cost and limits the format to choosing creatures that are within the same range and which there aren't any. Is this creature better than a Goyf? No? Guess we don't use it. That happens entirely too much on deck building.

How many decks is Goyf bad in? Not many. I even had them in a board for a Tendrils deck once. We had a joke about this. Stasis? Yup, Goyf makes Stasis better. That's just funny. How many times have you played against it compared to any other creature? It's easily the most played creature ever now. Kind of sad to think every deck out there is trying to find a way to put in green so it can play it.

I'd like to see a little more choices in deckbuilding than trying to beat out the green king. I'd like to play against something else.

---

I could've sworn I said this like a year ago.

But it's still true. Goyf is boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahcmai

I'd like to ban Goyf for a different reason than most. It's not broken or so good it needs to go. It's far from broken. It dies to most everything. It's not hard to counter with Spell Snare or CB. It's not untargetable or virtually unstoppable. It doesn't even have trample. A single Bitterblossom can keep it in check forever.

I want it out of the format because it outclasses every creature for it's cost and limits the format to choosing creatures that are within the same range and which there aren't any. Is this creature better than a Goyf? No? Guess we don't use it. That happens entirely too much on deck building.

How many decks is Goyf bad in? Not many. I even had them in a board for a Tendrils deck once. We had a joke about this. Stasis? Yup, Goyf makes Stasis better. That's just funny. How many times have you played against it compared to any other creature? It's easily the most played creature ever now. Kind of sad to think every deck out there is trying to find a way to put in green so it can play it.

I'd like to see a little more choices in deckbuilding than trying to beat out the green king. I'd like to play against something else.

---

Yep, couldn't agree more. I mean, I like wild mongrel, and other cool stuff to, but why play them over goyf other then budget reasons. It simply makes deckbuilding dumb...
Example's:
We play a countershell, with cantrips, we need a ceap wincondition: Goyf
We need a backupplan for the combo: Goyf
Loam engine, play goyf, it'll also grow fast,
Mono green dumb creatue deck (okay no reason not to play it)
Hmmm mono red needs something for the lategame: Goyf you even get to play krosan grip.
Sui black needs a better beater, play goyf, you know, as big as negator but no drawback,...
(I can keep doing this all day long)

Pfff. I need a counterspell: Force of Will. It's just as boring, and nobody wants to ban FoW.

Goyf must be banned, teared into pieces and burned out from people's mind just for the absoulutely enormous number of dumb threads it created.

Wait, I thought it's Goyf Discussion thread! People, please stop beating your heads in the wall.

Oh, and I guess The Source needs a special thread. Something like "All Tarmogoyf Shittalk Thread".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shabbaman

Pfff. I need a counterspell: Force of Will. It's just as boring, and nobody wants to ban FoW.

---

But, you can't splash for Force of Will. You need at least another 12 blue cards, and then you're still low.
Goyf can go in every deck, without any other green cards, and probably make it better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hjalte

But, you can't splash for Force of Will. You need at least another 12 blue cards, and then you're still low.
Goyf can go in every deck, without any other green cards, and probably make it better.

---

Agree, Force of Will isn't the same as Tarmogoyf, with out Force of Will we'd no longer have a turn 0 answer. A turn 0 answer is format defining, and it's what allows Storm combo to exist (fairly) and thus creates format diversity. Tarmogoyf doesn't really enable a deck, he just pushes every other non-utility 2 drop to the curb. Also, a diversity of creatures is way, way more important than a diversity of counters, you can only design around the cost efficiency of answers for so long until you reach your threshold (STP is case in point).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shabbaman

Pfff. I need a counterspell: Force of Will. It's just as boring, and nobody wants to ban FoW.

---

Unfortunately for this comparison, Force of Will doesn't obsolete or marginalize every other answer the way that Tarmogoyf obsoletes or marginalizes nearly every other threat. People still play Duress, Thoughtseize, Hymn to Tourach, Wasteland, Sinkhole, Vindicate, Maelstrom Pulse, Chalice of the Void, Smokestack, Tangle Wire, Trinisphere, Maze of Ith, Swords to Plowshares, Path to Exile, Lightning Bolt, Chain Lightning, Lightning Helix, Ajani Vengeant, Pernicious Deed, Wrath of God, Damnation, Engineered Explosives, Umezawa's Jitte, etc., etc.., without going blue for Force of Will.

While decks play other threats, in nearly every case that's after splashing green for Tarmogoyf and needing to supplement that threat.

If Goyf was Force, it would be heavily played as the best threat, but other decks would run entirely different threat suites to complement their strategy.

But everyone plays Goyf. And most decks that don't, should. It's a fantastic card. Heck, it's even an answer to that stupid Tarmogoyf card we all hate.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately for this comparison, Force of Will doesn't obsolete or marginalize every other answer the way that Tarmogoyf obsoletes or marginalizes nearly every other threat.

---

If Force of Will had been printed in Future Sight (and hadn't been printed in Alliances), it would have shocked the magic world as much or more than Tarmogoyf, and we might be having the same conversation, backward.

Cards like Thwart, 4x Counterspell, 4x Duress, and Unmask would instantly get sidelined because they're no longer needed. And I have no doubt those would be played, if Force of Will didn't exist (although decks like Belcher would probably just dominate).

Force of Will obsoletes a LOT of answers, although it also probably single-handedly prevents the metagame from collapsing. Although it did come first, so I don't think "obsoletes" is the right word.


For a case study: I know a guy playing a UWB control deck (it doesn't suck) that does not run Force of Will. His deck runs cards like Wing Shards, Wrath of God, Vindicate, and a hand disruption suite of like Duress, Gerrard's Verdict.

Most of the answers that he runs I don't think see any play in Legacy, and most of that is because Force of Will is a lot more efficient.

Counterspell and Duress saw play when Force of Will was around. They've been sidelined by newer cards. Just like Troll Ascetic and Wild Mongrel and Exalted Angel sidelined older creatures when they were printed, and have been sidelined themselves since.

However, what has not happened is Counterbalance and Thoughtseize dominating every strategy that wants an answer. But this is exactly what Tarmogoyf has done to every strategy that wants a threat.

Talk of banning Goyf seems logical until you step back and remember: Legacy was pretty much not that fun until Goyf came along. Sure, some people loved the fascinating Thresh vs Landstill vs Goblins meta with a few other competitve decks in the mix, but now, for whatever reason, Legacy is this huge format that is fairly healthy and exciting. And it happened right about when Goyf entered the format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walkerdog

Talk of banning Goyf seems logical until you step back and remember: Legacy was pretty much not that fun until Goyf came along. Sure, some people loved the fascinating Thresh vs Landstill vs Goblins meta with a few other competitve decks in the mix, but now, for whatever reason, Legacy is this huge format that is fairly healthy and exciting. And it happened right about when Goyf entered the format.

---

It can be difficult to separate correlation and causation.

Right now, I'd say The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale is the most likely to get the axe. Banning cards for availability and price tag is not unprecedented - in case you haven't checked SCG is buying them for $200 a piece!

Before you get your panties bunched up - I'm not saying that I think it should be banned, just that it is the most bannable from WotC perspective, and solely for availability/price reasons. Also, I realize that buying 4x Tarmogoyf gets you pretty close to the value of a Tabernacle, and the Lhurgoyf is more heavily played - none of those points seem to do much for Illusionary Mask though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunshine

Right now, I'd say The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale is the most likely to get the axe. Banning cards for availability and price tag is not unprecedented - in case you haven't checked SCG is buying them for $200 a piece!

Before you get your panties bunched up - I'm not saying that I think it should be banned, just that it is the most bannable from WotC perspective, and solely for availability/price reasons. Also, I realize that buying 4x Tarmogoyf gets you pretty close to the value of a Tabernacle, and the Lhurgoyf is more heavily played - none of those points seem to do much for Illusionary Mask though.

---

Actually, at the moment, a playset of goyfs has surpassed the value of a single Tabernacle.

Kind of doubt it though since Tabernacle is not integral to playing the format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMogg

Actually, at the moment, a playset of goyfs has surpassed the value of a single Tabernacle.

Kind of doubt it though since Tabernacle is not integral to playing the format.

---

By SCG prices, yes you would pay for a set of Goyfs - I was going by MOTL prices which has a Tabernacle at $218.29 and Goyf at $53.54 at the time of this writing, which does tip the land a little over a set of Lhurgoyfs. Nit picking aside, as it is not really relevant to my point, Tabernacle is the priciest individual card to actually see play in a Tier one deck in a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sunshine

By SCG prices, yes you would pay for a set of Goyfs - I was going by MOTL prices which has a Tabernacle at $218.29 and Goyf at $53.54 at the time of this writing, which does tip the land a little over a set of Lhurgoyfs. Nit picking aside, as it is not really relevant to my point, Tabernacle is the priciest individual card to actually see play in a Tier one deck in a long time.

---

I was going by ebay, actually. MOTL is often slow to update based on ebay as well, so you'll probably see this emerge on MOTL in a week or so.

Yeah and as a 1 of in 1 deck I don't even see it on the ban radar.