I struggled with understanding what the debate was about too, but think I get it now.
So let's assume that no rules changes are made to correct what seems like a flaw in the design of this card...
I still don't think it is Legacy playable.
Does it even break Modern? It's difficult to power it out early because almost all fast-mana is banned. Once you have your library in hand, you still need to win on the spot in a way that isn't easily disruptible and with limited mana resources.
Edit: As printed, without any rules changes, my initial reaction is that it is only bannable in EDH. And even then, I'm not certain because stuff like Necropotence exists.
At 6 and with no rule change it's definitely OP as shit. It's like a better Bargain. Seriously. Yes it require you to play a decent number of cyclers, but it's not the worst thing in the world, especially considering that it draw you 3 on ETB.
Could it be better than Ad Naus in modern? One more mana and requires a cycler in hand (granted this stupid trick works, created by a single dev - Judges HATE it!), but you get to replace all of the "don't die because of Ad Nauseum" with useful cycling cards. And you have better mana due to not requiring double black for Ad Naus.Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew
Sure, but (in Modern) what is the most compact win-condition? 4 Simian Spirit Guide and 2 Seismic Assault only take up 6 slots and let you use the lands you'd include anyway to do damage.
Assault is Abrupt Decay-able...
I guess if you can find a way to make, Laboratory Maniac is only a single card that would give you the W. But it's even easier to remove than Assault.
Seems like this is already addressed to me.
I think the biggest thing is the deep seeded emotional understanding that the right play is the right play regardless of outcomes. The ability to make a decision 5 straight times, lose 5 times because of it, and still make it the 6th time if it's the right play. - Jon Finkel
"Notions of chance and fate are the preoccupation of men engaged in rash undertakings."
I'm pretty sure the natural reading of this (that you pay 0 and discard a card now) is likely to be worked into a ruling on this card. Otherwise I'm pretty sure it's beyond overpowered.
Edit: ah, the cheese has clarified. Good to know it works intuitively.
Lands, MUD, Stax, and Miracles.
Since we're digressing, Resounding Thunder could do that.
Right! You mentioned that hours ago. That'd do it.
To continue the shitposting:
702.28c Some cards with cycling have abilities that trigger when they’re cycled. “When you cycle [this card]” means “When you discard [this card] to pay a cycling cost.” These abilities trigger from whatever zone the card winds up in after it’s cycled.
702.28c seems to clearly suggest the discard is part of the cycling cost.
WotC splitting hairs here. It's part of the cost to cycle, but not part of the 'cycling cost.' Don't worry, it's intuitive (tm).
So is this card actually good in modern?
Lightning Greaves, come on downSo is this card actually good in modern?
+ Concordant Crossroads? Combine with some mana dorks and you can get something big out pretty fast. Toss in some untap effects like Vitalize or Quest for Renewal and then some green creature tutors? Basically a green Sneak Attack.So is this card actually good in modern?
EDIT: Could splash red for the other new red exert creature that gives two attack steps. Gain additional haste effects with Anger, binned through Faithless Looting. Sneak by exert limitation with Quirion Ranger, Elvish Scout or Maze of Ith.
looks like an elvish piper to me, but one you can use only half as much
Why is anyone discussing this? It's not even as good as Elvish Piper, which sees no play, nor does Quicksilver Amulet or other things of that nature. Not viable in Modern or Legacy, probably not really viable in Standard either.
Moving on folks.
Has been discussed but I still think Glorybringer is one of the better cards of the set. That's an exert card I really like.
The All Seeing Eye is correct and there's no reason to be excited for this guy in Eternal.
Standard, however, just got a new way to resolve Eldrazi.
Would have been a house a while ago, but they print stuff like Archangel Avacyn, Ishkanah, Reality Smasher, and the gearhulk cycle at 5 cc these days.
It is, but it is the non-variable part of that cost. The question here is not over whether discarding is part of the cost to cycle something - it definitely is. The question is whether or not another card that affects "cycling cost" affects the discard clause as well, and I'm pretty sure 702.1a makes it real clear that it doesn't.
I think the biggest thing is the deep seeded emotional understanding that the right play is the right play regardless of outcomes. The ability to make a decision 5 straight times, lose 5 times because of it, and still make it the 6th time if it's the right play. - Jon Finkel
"Notions of chance and fate are the preoccupation of men engaged in rash undertakings."
You want to look at this:
So on a card with, say, "Cycling 2", the "cycling cost" is 2. That is the part you get out of paying; you still must pay the rest of the activation cost of the ability, which means you still must discard the card to cycle it.702.1a If an effect refers to a “[keyword ability] cost,” it refers only to the variable costs for that keyword.
Example: Varolz, the Scar-Striped has the following ability: “Each creature card in your graveyard has scavenge. The scavenge cost is equal to its mana cost.” A creature card’s scavenge cost is an amount of mana equal to its mana cost, and the activation cost of the scavenge ability is that amount of mana plus “Exile this card from your graveyard.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote