Another Cascade interaction

[Gocho]

Countermagic isn't a problem. You can play FOW, Misdirection and Unmask.

Perhaps something like Belcher trying to combo in your first or second turn. You only need a land and 2 spirits in hand.

4 Ardent Plea
4 Demonic Dread
4 Violent Outburst

1 Bond of Agony
4 Misdirection
4 Force of Will
4 Unmask

11 Free slots

4 Simian Spirit Guide
4 Elvish Spirit Guide
4 Gemstone Mine
4 Archaeological Dig
4 Pillar of the Paruns
4 Tendo Ice Bridge

This way, you can do 19 damage to all the other players (anyone play multiplayers games?). You need another card to do 1 damage or gain life before you play the Cascade Card. ¿Any blue ideas?

No one would pith his Fetchlands in your second game.

[RoddyVR]

Isnt X zero, when the spell is played off cascade?

[zabuza]

Perhaps Psionic blast, puncture blast, rift bolt, fireblast or any 3cc lightning you can think of.

[Elfrago]

You know what's funny? You can't even use Force of Will!!!!
Because, often you'll have to pay X-1 life to that thing, where X is your life total and then you can't pay 1 life for the FOW.

Stick with Misdirection and Unmask.

[Carabas]

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.

Sorry to burst your bubble, y'all. But the rules don't like your idea of how this interacts with cascade. You choose X as 0 for the spell cost, and such you choose 0 for the life you pay. Your opponents lose 0 life as well.

[quicksilver]

Sorry to burst your bubble, y'all. But the rules don't like this. You choose X as 0 for the spell cost, and such you choose 0 for the life you pay. Your opponents lose 0 life as well.

Did you just say that the comprehensive rules were wrong? Really?

The rules state that if you do not pay a cost that includes X, and X is not defined by something else, X must be zero. In this case however you do pay a cost that includes X, so X does not have to be zero.

[mujadaddy]

I, too, am dismayed at how long this discussion has gone on. I'm pretty sure the "0 on stack = 0 cost paid" ruling is the proper one.

[majikal]

I'm pretty sure the rules mean "without paying [any cost that includes x]" rather than "without paying any cost that includes x". So if you are not paying even one cost that includes x, you must choose zero, unless you are paying a alternate cost that defines x (like disrupting shoal).

[Anusien]

quicksilver is correct, and posted the correct CR excerpt. The interaction has been confirmed by an [O]fficial NetRep, LeeSharpe. Because you pay a cost that includes X, you can set X.

X: Many cards use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. All instances of X on an object have the same value. If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of playing the spell or ability. (See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities.") While the spell or ability is on the stack, the {X} in its mana cost equals the announced value. 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. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities." If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value. If a cost associated with a special action, such as a suspend cost or a morph cost, has an "{X}" in it, the value of X is chosen by the player taking the special action as he or she pays that cost. If a card in any zone other than the stack has {X} in its mana cost, the value of {X} is treated as 0, even if the value of X is defined somewhere within its text. In other cases, X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost or activation cost. If the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value. Note that the value of X may change while that spell or ability is on the stack. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X.

For bonus points, you can also play Spoils off War with Cascade and X will be whatever X is supposed to be.

[quicksilver]

I think some of th confusion is coming from how X is determined. When you play a spell, before you pay any mana for that spell, you choose a value for X. Then the costs of that spell are determined based on what you chose X to be. Then you pay those costs.

Then there is a special clause saying that if you do not pay any of the costs that include this X then 0 is the only legal choice for X. In the case of cascading into fireball, there is only one cost that includes X and you do not have to pay it, therefore X is 0.

In the case of cascading into Bond of Agony, you still have to pay a cost that includes X, therefore you are free to choose a value of X other than 0.

So you can in fact Bond of Agony for 19 and have the spell with a converted mana cost of 20 (which you don't have to pay).


The big key factor here is X is NOT determined by how much mana you payed for the spell but in fact how much mana you pay for the spell is determined by the value of X.

The only reason you cannot normally choose any value for X when you cascade into it is because of the special clause that prevents you choosing any value if you pay no costs that include the X. This clause does not apply to bond of agony.

[majikal]

I'm under the impression that there is no official ruling on this yet.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.p...3&postcount=57

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showp...5&postcount=31

It's being discussed right now, and they expect some official word within a few weeks(!).

[Dark_Cynic87]

Anyone remember that Life.dec could be used? There's Delusions of Mediocrity, not to mention tempo hosers such as Propaganda that doesn't get in the way of Cascade, then there's stuff like Trinisphere (btw, Does Trinisphere get in the way of playing a card off of cascade? Do you have to pay 3? I would think so, but I'd like to know anyway).

You can use Pyrokinesis for removal against aggro, ichorid and etc., Misdirection works wonders against a Fireblast, and you can play fireblast yourself if you want.

There are Evoke creatures that don't get in the way of Cascade that come in handy as utility along with late game beats if you draw your Bond of Agony.

Don't make crappy arguments like "FoW pwns this" because if that were the case, combo would never be played.

Teeg can be scary, though. You have to play Force of Will; Teeg against Cascade is actually a pretty good plan IMO. There's O-Ring for removal along with Vindicate, or Maelstrom Pulse (crap imo, but w/ever). Deed would work well.

Anyway, maybe these are good suggestions, maybe not, but I would never shut down a brainstorming session because of something called counter-magic.

Pce,

--DC

[quicksilver]

Anyone remember that Life.dec could be used? There's Delusions of Mediocrity, not to mention tempo hosers such as Propaganda that doesn't get in the way of Cascade, then there's stuff like Trinisphere (btw, Does Trinisphere get in the way of playing a card off of cascade? Do you have to pay 3? I would think so, but I'd like to know anyway).

You can use Pyrokinesis for removal against aggro, ichorid and etc., Misdirection works wonders against a Fireblast, and you can play fireblast yourself if you want.

There are Evoke creatures that don't get in the way of Cascade that come in handy as utility along with late game beats if you draw your Bond of Agony.

Don't make crappy arguments like "FoW pwns this" because if that were the case, combo would never be played.

Teeg can be scary, though. You have to play Force of Will; Teeg against Cascade is actually a pretty good plan IMO. There's O-Ring for removal along with Vindicate, or Maelstrom Pulse (crap imo, but w/ever). Deed would work well.

Anyway, maybe these are good suggestions, maybe not, but I would never shut down a brainstorming session because of something called counter-magic.

Pce,

--DC

Trinisphere would make you pay 3 mana for the spell you cascade into.

[mujadaddy]

So you can in fact Bond of Agony for 19 and have the spell with a converted mana cost of 20 (which you don't have to pay).

So does this work with Bond on Isochron Scepter, too? That would be re-stupi-ted.

[TheCramp]

Well you can't imprint bond to a scepter, but it looks like it.

[mujadaddy]

Well you can't imprint bond to a scepter, but it looks like it.

Ah, instant, my bad.

Still, I understand where the idea that you can cascade into Super-Bond comes from, but .... golly, that's really not a good thing for Magic.

[majikal]

Yeah that seems almost Flash-level broken. Unless there ends up being an official ruling that this does not work, then I'd say either the cascade spells or the things they break might see the banhammer come the 20th.

[bruno_tiete]

If so, Bond of Agony should have been discovered in Mind's Desire decks for the last three years, right?

Also, Ravnica Block Constructed via Sins of The Past.

[TheCramp]

I guess, but none of those things "tutor" the way cascade does.

[quicksilver]

It doesn't seem great to me, you have to be at more life than you opponent to do it. Also you pay the life before the spell resolves, so you are extremly suceptible to burn.