Page 331 of 332 FirstFirst ... 231281321327328329330331332 LastLast
Results 6,601 to 6,620 of 6623

Thread: 4 Card Blind

  1. #6601
    Member

    Join Date

    Feb 2014
    Posts

    1,237

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    Quote Originally Posted by Phasmoid View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Asthereal View Post
    Also, if we're worried about Animate Land, we should be in good shape.
    Exactly:)

    Quote Originally Posted by Phasmoid View Post
    other thing: ​ Would basic lands be exempt from banning?
    Yes

  2. #6602

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    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

  3. #6603
    Member

    Join Date

    Feb 2014
    Posts

    1,237

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    Quote Originally Posted by jfb1337 View Post
    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.

  4. #6604

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    Quote Originally Posted by dte View Post
    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.

  5. #6605
    Member

    Join Date

    Feb 2014
    Posts

    1,237

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrath of Pie View Post
    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.

  6. #6606

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    Quote Originally Posted by dte View Post
    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.

  7. #6607
    Member

    Join Date

    Feb 2014
    Posts

    1,237

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrath of Pie View Post
    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."

  8. #6608

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    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).

  9. #6609

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    Quote Originally Posted by jfb1337 View Post
    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.

  10. #6610

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    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.

  11. #6611

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    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.)

  12. #6612

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    So what happened to this?

  13. #6613
    Member

    Join Date

    Feb 2014
    Posts

    1,237

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrath of Pie View Post
    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.

  14. #6614
    Site Contributor

    Join Date

    Jul 2011
    Location

    Maastricht, NL
    Posts

    2,529

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    Quote Originally Posted by dte View Post
    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.
    Join the 4 Card Blind competition!

  15. #6615

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    Quote Originally Posted by dte View Post
    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.

  16. #6616
    Member

    Join Date

    Sep 2011
    Posts

    4,955

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    Quote Originally Posted by Asthereal View Post
    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!

  17. #6617

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    (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.

  18. #6618
    Member

    Join Date

    Feb 2014
    Posts

    1,237

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    Quote Originally Posted by Phasmoid View Post
    (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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phasmoid View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dte View Post
    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.

  19. #6619

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    April 30th wasn't even a Thursday!

  20. #6620
    Member

    Join Date

    Feb 2014
    Posts

    1,237

    Re: 4 Card Blind

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrath of Pie View Post
    April 30th wasn't even a Thursday!
    Yes, definitely wasn't good :)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)