There was a strong debate in this thread about the interaction between the cascade ability and the card Bond of Agony. It appears that it works thanks to this part of the comprehensive rule:
This is quite clear that the Bond of Agony cost is not reduced to nothing (since one has to pay X life). So it's quite clear that X can be something else than 0.G24.1 - X
G24a - If a cost has an "{X}" in it, the value of X must be announced 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 amount announced as part of playing the spell or ability. If a card in any other zone has {X} in its mana cost, the amount is treated as 0. If you're playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost and an effect lets you play it without paying any cost that includes X, the only legal choice for X is 0. This does not apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See Rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities." [CompRules 2005/10/01]
G24.1b - In triggered abilities, X is defined when the ability resolves. It may be defined by the text of the ability, by a keyword ability of the card, or by the trigger event. See Rule 410, "Handling Triggered Abilities." [CompRules 2003/07/01]
G24.1c - In other cases, X is defined by the text of a spell or ability. If X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X. All Xs on an object have the same value.
However some people (including level 2 judges???) still consider that it might not work. I don't get why.
Let's start with a basic question, "where are those rules from?" The comprehensive rules currently posted on the WoTC site are a little different:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/comprul...ules090501.txt
The salient sentence is the same though:
The contentious issue for me is whether the bolded "X" in the cited passage refers to a mana cost. (For example like Verdeloth the Ancient.) Since it's not "{X}" I'm going to have to change my mind, and say that the interaction is legal....
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.
...
X is obviously not the mana cost but the numerical value given to X. It's clear about this. And the life paid include this value (typically 19 after the opponent fetched).
I found that (well actually somebody found it for me in a french forum).
I'm surprised that nobody has ever mentionned it, because it answers (negatively unfortunately) completely the question. Btw, who is Jeff Jordan? Why didn't he change the wording since 2005?The original ruling on this is from 2005, and was posted by Jeff Jordan, then the MTG-L mailing list NetRep:
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:55:14 -0500
Reply-To: "Magic: The Gathering Discussion" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: "Magic: The Gathering Discussion" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Jeff Jordan <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [o] Digest Reply #2005-19
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Skeletal Scrying Confusion From:
Rikkert ******ink <[log in to unmask]>
> I have a Skeletal Scrying imprinted on an Isochron Scepter. I play the
> ability of the Scepter and when it resolves, I play the copy of the
> Skeletal Scrying. Must I choose X=0?
Yes.
> My initial thought was: "Of course you must choose X=0", but then
> someone showed me to the following sentence in the rules: "If you're
> playing a spell that has X in its mana cost and an effect lets you
> play it without paying any cost that includes X, the only legal
> choice for X is 0."
That sentence is worded poorly, and I'm trying to get it clarified.
What it is supposed to mean is that if the spell or ability has a cost (any kind of cost) with an X, some effect lets you play it using an alternative for that cost, and the alternative does not include the X (playing a spell "without paying its mana cost" is an alternative cost of nothing), then you must choose X=0. That way, alternative costs like the new Shoals are allowed to use X, but alternative costs like Isochron Scepter and Fist of Suns are not.
> Now perhaps it is my grasp of English that is failing, but it seems
> to me that this sentence is indeed saying that as long as I pay at
> least one cost with an X in it, I don't have to pick X=0.
No, it means that if there is a cost that includes X, you must either account for the X in that cost when paying for the spell or ability, or choose X=0. What isn't clear is that "account for the X in that cost" can include paying an alternate cost for it that has the same X.
Jeff
Obviously, the bolded portion, though added by me, is what the clause should read. Compare to the underlined portion.Originally Posted by rufus
I don't know who Jeff Jordan is either -- doesn't he race NASCAR? -- but BondCascade is a degenerate loophole that can be closed with the word "mana."
Jeff Jordan is an official NetRep (Net Representative aka official source to answer rules questions on the public MTG-L mailing list). That answer was right in 2005 but it has since changed because of Conflagrate. This point has already been raised and dismissed.
As stands right now, it is correct according to many high-level judges that you can indeed set the value of X. It is not guaranteed, and [O]fficial sources (there are NetReps at least for DCIJUDGE-L, MTGRULES-L, MTG-L and #mtgjudge) refuse to comment on it Officially until there has been a discussion at Wizards of the Coast. Let me quote myself:
(Scott Marshall is the NetRep for DCIJUDGE-L and Gavin Duggan is the NetRep for MTGRULES-L. The decider in this case is probably Mark Gottlieb, Rules Manager.).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.
Why is this even a thread?
Magic Level 3 Judge
Southern USA Regional Coordinator
Because I have a tourney tomorrow and I'd like to play that deck. I want an official ruling to support my combo. Is it lottery if I go to my tourney with that deck?
Spoils of War and split cards both show that it is possible to play a card with converted mana cost 5 off a Bloodbraid Elf's cascade, if that's what you're worried about.Spoils of War {XB} |Sorcery| X is the number of artifact and/or creature cards in an opponent's graveyard as you play Spoils of War. / Distribute X +1/+1 counters among any number of target creatures.
Magic Level 3 Judge
Southern USA Regional Coordinator
For what it's worth, this is the first judge I've heard from say that he expects it to say. It seems to be general opinion that it's unintuitive and unexpected and should be changed.[08:58:19] <derflippi> the words directly from Sheldon:
[08:58:20] <derflippi> The official answer is currently "yes." The Rules Manager is reviewing whether this is actually the correct answer.
[08:58:20] <derflippi> The reason it works this way is that Cascade only pays the mana cost. You're still playing the spell, and it's subject to other benefits and/or limitations. You're still responsible for any mandatory additional costs, and you have the option of paying optional ones.
[08:58:20] <derflippi> Again, this is still under review. I expect an answer shortly after PT HNL, but I'm suspecting it will stay as is (but be warned that stranger things have happened).
[09:00:45] <^ShelAFK> That's the latest that I have
Magic Level 3 Judge
Southern USA Regional Coordinator
This isn't really a cascade issue, since, for example, Kaho->Skeletal Scrying is also affected.
I wouldn't be suprised if the ruling is changed to somethign along the lines of:
"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 all costs that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0."
This seems more intuitive.
You need to consider the Shoal series of spells, Spoils of War and Firecat Blitz, and Conflagrate. I suspect that it would be easier for WotC to modify the text of those cards so that paying those alternative costs defines X as a side effect.
I have a tournament the 20th of June, can I safely play this?
I don't think so. Make sure to bring another deck and ask the head judge for a clear statement before the tournament.
Do you guys have to start a rules forum flamewar for the first time in ever while I'm at the PT? Sheesh.
"Play without paying mana cost" and alternate X costs does work for the moment, as Anusien thoroughly covered. Feel free to discuss elsewhere whether this is broken.
Locked.
Edit: Post-M10, this will no longer work - http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=86
Last edited by cdr; 06-12-2009 at 05:32 PM.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
Update: It has been ruled that this interaction no longer works as of now, not just after the M10 update.
After consideration, the rules manager has informed me that as part of the 2010 magic update, that sentence will be clarified to bring it in line with the desired interpretation: non-zero values for X are not allowed when the X-mana cost of a spell is not being paid. In the meantime, it has been ruled to work the same way... Bonds of Agony + Cascade does NOT work.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
