Another Cascade interaction

[Anusien]

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.

[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

[TheCramp]

yeah losing to islands and mountains seems rough. Winning when you have more life than your opponent for 3 mana however, seems savage. If its true, extended is going to have a problem.

"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 value of X is certainly defined by the text of the spell. Which would indicate there is another legal choice for X. Watch, it will be up to what it could cascade for (i.e. x = 1 off a cmc 3 cascade, x = 2 off cmc 4 cascade etc.), in a super awesome Phasing + Equipment style ruling.

[Dark_Cynic87]

If you hit a non-lethal Tendrils with your Mind's Desire, it sure seems like another win-con. But a second Tendrils is a better choice on that (and most other) logic so it's probably a moot point in the first place.

I think it's good for cascade, but there are better choices otherwise. I'm gonna play this. It's like new-age storm or some shit, only with less math.

Pce,

--DC

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

What does the manabase for this deck look like?

Also, Extended has both counters and burn.

I think this deck fails for simple reasons of resiliency, namely it's lack of any. You have basically zero game if you get hit a couple of times by a Kird Ape.

[Dark_Cynic87]

However, there's a different approach that could be taken.

If you cascade into hypergenesis, it allows you to play more cascade spells (enchantments, creatures) which in turn allows you to do even more of that. If you drop one of those, gain 20 life and then drop a second Cascade spell to hit the Bond of Agony. You could also still play your big beatsticks like Progenitus, etc. to drop with your Hypergenesis, just so you are more versatile in your approach. A +20 life can really do wonders in your game against slower Tendrils lists, the aggro matchup, burn, etc.

Why not mix the two? There are creatures that gain you life when they come into play, and they are actually even pretty beefy sometimes. Loxodon Heirarch for example. Not a 10/10 pro-everything, but still an additional 1/5 of your beginning life-total, which against control decks can often be enough if not more than enough to get ahead of them in life totals. I feel that in a list with no fetches, it would be best if this combo didn't use lands that pinged them. It's going to be touchy, I think, but the mana-base will probably be the hardest part of CascadingAgony.dec. No pinging in a fetchland-infested meta will help the higher life-total.

Pce,

--DC

[Cire]

Well lets say the rulling is correct and we are to have a hypothetical decklist; heres an attempt

- Lands (allows you to hit riftbolt turn 1, and any cascade spell turn 2)
4 Volcanic Island
4 Forbiden orchard
4 Gemstone Mine
3 Plataue

- Accel
4 Simian Spirit Guide
4 Elvish Spirit Guide

- Cascade
4 Violent Outburst
2 Ardent Plea
2 Demonic Dread

- The Combo
2 Bonds of Agony

- Ensuring you have more life
4 Rift bolt
4 Soul Spike

- Protection
4 Misdirection
4 Unmask

-Other
11 other (probably should be blue/black to count for misdirect/unmask/soulspike)

thats pretty much it, a turn 2 combo, that has 8 protection spells...

[quicksilver]

yeah losing to islands and mountains seems rough. Winning when you have more life than your opponent for 3 mana however, seems savage. If its true, extended is going to have a problem.

"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 value of X is certainly defined by the text of the spell. Which would indicate there is another legal choice for X. Watch, it will be up to what it could cascade for (i.e. x = 1 off a cmc 3 cascade, x = 2 off cmc 4 cascade etc.), in a super awesome Phasing + Equipment style ruling.

The value of X is certainly not defined by the text of the spell, the caster chooses what X is. An example of X being defined by the spell would be AetherBurst where you do not get to choose what the value of X is but it is defined elsewhere.

That rule still fails to apply because of the next clause "an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X". Cascade does not do this because you still need to pay a cost that incldues X. So the limitation of X being zero does not apply for that reason.

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.

I would not be surprised if they changed this since it is pretty unintuitive.

[Happy Gilmore]

although the interaction is quite interesting it still seems that the building of the deck would be extremely difficult. Control decks use life as a resource more than any other in legacy. I am unsure how you can build this deck correctly without low cc spells. The only thing that comes to mind is Mystical Tutor as a way of turning it into a 2 card combo that might be ok.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

However, there's a different approach that could be taken.

If you cascade into hypergenesis, it allows you to play more cascade spells (enchantments, creatures) which in turn allows you to do even more of that. If you drop one of those, gain 20 life and then drop a second Cascade spell to hit the Bond of Agony. You could also still play your big beatsticks like Progenitus, etc. to drop with your Hypergenesis, just so you are more versatile in your approach. A +20 life can really do wonders in your game against slower Tendrils lists, the aggro matchup, burn, etc.

Why not mix the two? There are creatures that gain you life when they come into play, and they are actually even pretty beefy sometimes. Loxodon Heirarch for example. Not a 10/10 pro-everything, but still an additional 1/5 of your beginning life-total, which against control decks can often be enough if not more than enough to get ahead of them in life totals. I feel that in a list with no fetches, it would be best if this combo didn't use lands that pinged them. It's going to be touchy, I think, but the mana-base will probably be the hardest part of CascadingAgony.dec. No pinging in a fetchland-infested meta will help the higher life-total.

Pce,

--DC

If you resolve Hypergenesis, you should already win. It's already difficult enough to get that far and not have to worry about what else your opponent is dropping into play; adding yet more cards to the list that do nothing except screw up your Cascade order and greatly reduce the number of scenarios in which you can actually win are not needed or desired. Adding Bonds would do nothing to improve the deck's matchups and everything to weaken them.

[TheCramp]

The value of X is certainly not defined by the text of the spell, the caster chooses what X is. An example of X being defined by the spell would be AetherBurst where you do not get to choose what the value of X is but it is defined elsewhere.

That rule still fails to apply because of the next clause "an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X". Cascade does not do this because you still need to pay a cost that incldues X. So the limitation of X being zero does not apply for that reason.




I would not be surprised if they changed this since it is pretty unintuitive.

Maybe I'm missing something. I don't get it. "an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X". what? can someone explain why that would alow you to Bond of Cascade? The Aetherburst example fails to illuminate, since, you know, it doesn't have X in its cost.

[Barook]

Quick question: How do split cards interact with Cascade again?

Let's say I play a 3cc Cascade spell and it reveals Fire/Ice, does it count as a 2cc or 4cc spell?

The wording in the comp rules somewhat confuses me due to Cascade's wording.

Edit: Ok, found it, Cascade checks both halfs, meaning it would be 2cc. :(

[mujadaddy]

Let's say I play a 3cc Cascade spell and it reveals Fire/Ice, does it count as a 2cc or 4cc spell?

Yes. ...b/c the game sees both.

It looks at Ice. It sees 4. Not low enough.

It looks at Fire. It sees 2. Low enough! Cast it!

Maybe I'm missing something. I don't get it. "an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X". what? can someone explain why that would alow you to Bond of Cascade? The Aetherburst example fails to illuminate, since, you know, it doesn't have X in its cost.

The idea is that when a Cascade card reveals Bond of Agony, since x=0, the CMC = ... One as of yet NON-OFFICIAL interpretation is that since the card allows you to pay :x: life, you can choose to pay the cost as any chosen value of :x:, and not be forced into having :x: at the top govern what :x: life you pay as a cost.

What I think they're ignoring, though, is that once x= at the top of the card, you can't pay X+1 or X+2 life as a cost -- you MUST pay exactly X life as a cost or the spell can't be cast. Their interpretation of the rules is that the X in the body of the spell isn't the X at the top of the spell.

But it is.

G24.1f only deals with spells that DO NOT have X in their mana costs.

G24.1c says that in the Cascade situation, the only legal value for X = 0.

The. ONLY. Legal. Value.

Again, which rule says that you can choose a different X? Because I don't see it. (*rereads thread carefully*)

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.

The special clause in G24.1b? About announcements? Sure, if you're paying X mana, you can choose X life for Bond of Agony. G24.1c should trump that. In post 47, you clearly recognize that the value of X isn't defined by the text of the spell, but rather by the amount of mana paid for it. Which is ..."the only legal value"...

[quicksilver]

The only time you are forced to choose a value of 0 for X is when you pay no costs that include X.

Yes. ...b/c the game sees both.

It looks at Ice. It sees 4. Not low enough.

Ice has a converted mana cost of 2, not 4.

What I think they're ignoring, though, is that once x= at the top of the card, you can't pay X+1 or X+2 life as a cost -- you MUST pay exactly X life as a cost or the spell can't be cast. Their interpretation of the rules is that the X in the body of the spell isn't the X at the top of the spell.

But it is.

G24.1f only deals with spells that DO NOT have X in their mana costs.

G24.1c says that in the Cascade situation, the only legal value for X = 0.

The. ONLY. Legal. Value.

Never ever get rulings from crystal keep, they will almost certianly be wrong.

The X that you pay in life is indeed the X in the mana cost.

The value of X is the same throughout the entire card. We are not interpretting that X is different values. Just because you do not pay the mana cost of the spell, doesn't mean X can't be somethign other than 0.

Again, which rule says that you can choose a different X? Because I don't see it. (*rereads thread carefully*)

The rule was posted numerous times (even in the opening post).

In the wording of cascade there is nothing that says an X spell must have a value of X. In fact you can choose any value of X you want and not have to pay the mana. Except for the fact that there is one rule in the comprehensive rules that states you must choose 0 if you play a spell with X in a cost and you do not pay any of thsoe costs. However with bond of agony you still pay a cost that has X, thus you are not forced to choose 0.

I cannot stress this enough here, cause it seems to be the point of confusion.
X is NOT determined by how much mana you pay, but in fact how much mana you pay is determined by the value of X

So if you do not have to pay a cost that uses X, then you are no longer limited by what values of X you can choose. There is a clause in the rules that if X is a cost and you skipping paying ALL costs that include X, you must choose a 0 for X.

Maybe I'm missing something. I don't get it. "an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X". what? can someone explain why that would alow you to Bond of Cascade? The Aetherburst example fails to illuminate, since, you know, it doesn't have X in its cost.

Aether burst was an example of a card where X is defined by the card, not player choosen. You pointed out the incorrect clause and I was pointing out the kinds of cards that that clause effected.

"an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X":
Cascade let's you play a spell without paying it's mana cost. Many spells that have X only have X in one cost, the mana cost. So if you don't have to pay the mana cost, you must choose zero for X. If you could choose any number then you could cascade into fireball for a billion. As long as you pay at least one cost with X in it, you are not limited to choosing 0 as the value for X.

[mujadaddy]

Ice has a converted mana cost of 2, not 4.

...and I've just been outed as not a player of blue.

Never ever get rulings from crystal keep, they will almost certianly be wrong.

Wasn't looking at rulings, just the rules.

Are we at the point where this ruling comes down to the word "any" before "cost"?

That seems like an easy rules fix. Add "mana" after "any."

[Anusien]

mujadaddy, what you're looking at are rulings, not rules. If you want the rule, go check the Glossary entry for X. Or look here because I quoted the entire fucking thing and went to the trouble of highlighting the relevant section in bold.

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.

(Side note: Ever notice how these threads have all the judges on the site on one side of them, and generally all people with less than 300 posts on the other side? Pro Tip: The judges are right.)

[mujadaddy]

I disagree that at a tournament you'd get consistent rulings from judges on this situation.

Also, other than a few typos, Crystal Keep's "rulings" read the same in this instance as the official comprehensive rules (I went and checked).

This is extremely narrow, and almost certainly not intentional.

[Anusien]

There is a hyperlinked version of the CompRules.

The glossary isn't broken up by header like that. Posting that just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. It looked so wrong that I thought it was the rulings on Gatherer instead of the CompRules.

If the interaction is here to stay (and we'll know on the 20th) I can easily make sure that everybody knows about it. But it's stone cold useless to speculate before then.

[mujadaddy]

/shrug ... magiccards.info links to there, from Bond of Agony. It's WAY faster from work than the official site for card lookups.

[TheCramp]

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.

/thread

Thanks quicksilver, that did clear things up for me a lot. So I can cascade into Kaervek's Purge just fine hitting Kuro Pit Lord or Force of Nature as I chose; no confusion among the judges there, right?

[mujadaddy]

So I can cascade into Kaervek's Purge just fine hitting Kuro Pit Lord or Force of Nature as I chose; no confusion among the judges there, right?

Not at all -- you don't get to choose an X cost when you cast Purge. Bond of Agony lets you pay X life as a cost.

Stupid, isn't it?