4 Card Blind

[dte]

For Sirocco and Tyrannize, should this instead be, they are affected by the special rule if and only if the player can't pay the life? ​ (due to either not having enough or Platinum Emperion)


Is the interaction of this rule with Flay the same as the interaction of Mindslaver effects with the Pact spells?

I would say yes to both.

Also, if we're worried about Animate Land, we should be in good shape.

Exactly:)

other thing: ​ Would basic lands be exempt from banning?

Yes

[jfb1337]

You could say that "lands with no other card types" have immunity, so urza's saga is still intractable by enchantment removal, and randomly playing artifact lands carries some risk

[dte]

You could say that "lands with no other card types" have immunity, so urza's saga is still intractable by enchantment removal, and randomly playing artifact lands carries some risk

Sure. You're the second to raise concerns over Saga, so let's do your phrasing.

[Wrath of Pie]

It is "you can chose". So madness works the same. I think "can't cause" is dangerous as it can be exploited, e.g. if you have a plains and a Marit Lage and your opponent has a smokestack with one counter, you can chose to sacrifice your plains.

Not seeing how this is a problem.

[dte]

Not seeing how this is a problem.

Well, crack the earth would be crazy good, one sided innocent blood that can take artifact/enchantment.

That might not sound so scary, but it would change from "what happens if hand and lands are safe?" to "how could I abuse the special rule?". Which is fine if most players prefer that.

[Wrath of Pie]

Well, crack the earth would be crazy good, one sided innocent blood that can take artifact/enchantment.

That might not sound so scary, but it would change from "what happens if hand and lands are safe?" to "how could I abuse the special rule?". Which is fine if most players prefer that.

Crack the Earth is way worse to the point of unplayability when the opponent will virtually always sacrifice a land, then the special rule applies. (The controller still has to sacrifice a permanent because it's not the opponent causing the sacrifice.)

Trying to distinguish between force/cause is rather tedious as well, may as well keep it simple.

[dte]

Crack the Earth is way worse to the point of unplayability when the opponent will virtually always sacrifice a land, then the special rule applies. (The controller still has to sacrifice a permanent because it's not the opponent causing the sacrifice.)

Trying to distinguish between force/cause is rather tedious as well, may as well keep it simple.

With the (current) special rule, crack the earth works normally as long as the opponent does not only have lands. The opponent can chose to sacrifice either a land or their other permanent. It is not a great card, but might be playable.

But let's do a poll: who would prefer rule 1 or rule 2?

Rule 1:
"Special rules: If a source controlled by an opponent would force a card in your hand or a land with no other card type on the battlefield under your control to change zone, you can chose to ignore that effect."

Rule 2:
"Special rules: Source controlled by an opponent can't cause a card in your hand or a land with no other card type on the battlefield under your control to change zone."

[jfb1337]

Option 1; crack the earth works like normal.
Option 2; crack the earth becomes better than usual (in some situations) since they can't chose to sac a land to save another permanent

Another option would be to not use the "force" wording, i.e. "If an effect an opponent controls would cause a card to leave your hand or a land you control with no other card types to leave the battlefield, you may ignore that effect".

That resolves uncertainties about what "force" means in cases where the discard could have been avoided by other choices you could have made in the resolution of the effect, including paying a cost. However it makes crack the earth worse than usual (opponent could choose to sacrifice the land, and then actually not sacrifice it).

[Wrath of Pie]

Another option would be to not use the "force" wording, i.e. "If an effect an opponent controls would cause a card to leave your hand or a land you control with no other card types to leave the battlefield, you may ignore that effect".

Same with cards in hand, here's my vote.

[jfb1337]

Also, the anti-labman rule as written still allows Thassa's Oracle to win if you manage to put a card in your library first. If this isn't intended, it's probably easier to simply pre-ban Thassa's Orcale, Labratory Maniac, and Jace, Wielder of Mysteries, than it is to find good way to word a rule to rule out these effects. The danger of course is that if they decide to print a new version of this effect and no one catches in time to ban it before the round starts then it is legal.

[Phasmoid]

I like jfb's suggestion for the hand/land rule:

"If an effect an opponent controls would cause a card to
leave your hand or a land you control with no other card
types to leave the battlefield, you may ignore that effect"




For the anti-labman rule, I'm thinking,


"If an effect would allow a player to win the game due to

an empty library
ot
a comparison involving the number of cards in a library
or
a reveal-from-library-until effect running out of
cards rather than reaching its normal end condition

, ​ that effect is ignored."


.



(The last of those 3 parts is just future-proofing:

I'm not aware of Wizards having printed or otherwise
released any reveal-from-library-until effect which does
anything special if it doesn't find what it's looking for.)

[Wrath of Pie]

So what happened to this?

[dte]

So what happened to this?

My apologies, I should have written here.

What first happened is that you were the only one to send me a deck before the deadline - you won our MU 6-0 btw, and your deck would have beaten almost all the ones I thought of.
I thought I would give it one more week, but I never received anything else.

Clearly the automated deadlines systems without reminders does not work.

I have stopped trying to organise the new season, and I am sorry I never wrote earlier.

[Asthereal]

My apologies, I should have written here.

What first happened is that you were the only one to send me a deck before the deadline - you won our MU 6-0 btw, and your deck would have beaten almost all the ones I thought of.
I thought I would give it one more week, but I never received anything else.

Clearly the automated deadlines systems without reminders does not work.

I have stopped trying to organise the new season, and I am sorry I never wrote earlier.

I kept an eye on this forum to see when it would start, but I think I may have missed the post with the link to the spreadsheet?
I didn't know the season had already started. I just reckoned you were busy and needed a bit more time to get things going.

[Wrath of Pie]

My apologies, I should have written here.

What first happened is that you were the only one to send me a deck before the deadline - you won our MU 6-0 btw, and your deck would have beaten almost all the ones I thought of.
I thought I would give it one more week, but I never received anything else.

Clearly the automated deadlines systems without reminders does not work.

I have stopped trying to organise the new season, and I am sorry I never wrote earlier.

I did not plan on winning the season by default.

[FTW]

I kept an eye on this forum to see when it would start, but I think I may have missed the post with the link to the spreadsheet?
I didn't know the season had already started. I just reckoned you were busy and needed a bit more time to get things going.

Same. I noticed the rule on automated deadlines, but I did keep checking here for some sort of initial announcement confirming:
-the final set of rules used (as there was much rules discussion above)
-the season was starting when originally scheduled (due to the very long break between seasons)
-the season was still happening at all (no discussion in this thread for over 1 month)
-link to spreadsheet etc.

Perhaps that info was posted higher up and I missed it.

I thought maybe the season wasn't happening anymore due to decreased interest, so I did not submit. I figured at worst I would get 0 for 1 round (removed in scoring) and join for round 2. When no Round 1 results were posted, and still no discussion on this thread, I assumed the season was dead.

Edit: Congrats to Wrath of Pie on your season victory!

[Phasmoid]

(I realize it's 2 weeks later now, but:)
I too had kept checking this thread for anything more on the season, since my reply
had been the only one to the Thassa's Oracle consequence that jfb pointed out.

Even looking back now, I don't see where any start date was announced.

[dte]

(I realize it's 2 weeks later now, but:)
I too had kept checking this thread for anything more on the season, since my reply
had been the only one to the Thassa's Oracle consequence that jfb pointed out.

My thought on this were that Thassa's oracle was perfectly fine, you could still win with it but extremely unlikely it could be good - and that the season was underway, I already had received WoP deck.

Even looking back now, I don't see where any start date was announced.

It was announced there, but it was mixed with other things in the post, so it got unnoticed I guess.
I definitely did not communicate clearly enough, as no one but WoP picked up on it.

Start date, Thursday April 30th, at 19h CEST!
Like this we have a bit of time to fix and decide things.

Overall I did not communicate clearly, I am sorry for the aborted season and the mess around it.

It would be great if someone else would take over to start a new one.

[Wrath of Pie]

April 30th wasn't even a Thursday!

[dte]

April 30th wasn't even a Thursday!

Yes, definitely wasn't good :)