2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Questions about MTGO
    The great thing I love about mtgo is that I can play formats I dont get to irl. No one in KC has a pauper night/tourney and I love that format. Plus, as Ravarshi said, I don't have to put on pants.
    IF you see me online feel free to message me and I too can give you some cards. I really only have commons and uncommons extra though but you're welcome to what I can give.
    MTGO = UnkleJ

    (that really goes for anyone who needs common and uncommons. I draft a lot so I usually end up with a bunch.)
    Posted in: Other Formats
  • posted a message on Black/Red superfriends
    Using caress of phyrexia as card draw is just bad. It costs too much. For 3 less you can use sign in blood. I don't think the deck will do too well the way you have it. It'll be fun as heck to play but against any tier 1 deck you'll most likely be slaughtered. Good luck though!
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on [M12] Grand Abolisher
    He is amazing. Both for control and agro decks. I've always liked creature enchantments but never found them playable because of the 2 for 1 that usually comes. This guy could make the new 4 mana enchantment playable in a ww style constructed deck.
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on Red-White Superfriends
    I'm still advocating wur super friends. The interaction of Venser and the new white dignitary is to good. Also blue gives you mana leak if you want to go with it. And of course access to draw spell and bounce. I like your list for what it is though I see no reason to include karn. I just don't see him as that playable. I'd rather have inferno titan really. Pyroclasm should be sideboard at best. Unless your meta is filled with weenie decks there is no reason to main deck it.
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on A Pox on Thee: Standard MBC post M12
    No distress? Seems to me that with it back its the best discard mbc has. Obviously you'd still want some mix of the 3 one cost discard but I see no reason not to run this.
    Posted in: New Card Discussion
  • posted a message on lord of the unreal + phantasmal image + phyrexian metamorph
    Phantasmal Image
    Creature - Illusion
    You may have Phantasmal Image enter the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield, except it's an Illusion in addition to its other types and it gains "When this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it."
    Illus. Nils Hamm #72/249
    0/0

    Lord of the Unreal
    Creature - Human Wizard
    Illusion creatures you control get +1/+1 and have hexproof.
    "The dream does not end until I say so."
    Illus. Jason Chan
    2/2

    I have a phantasmal image on the battlefield as a copy of lord of the unreal. I then cast phyrexian metamorph. If I chose to have the metamorph copy phantasmal image is it simply a phantasmal image and 0/0 or will I get to chose what the copied phantasmal image copies? Or would it simply enter as a lord of the unreal with creature type human wizard illusion?
    Posted in: Rumored Card Rulings
  • posted a message on Rules Advisor!
    Had to say congrats since I too just took and passed this test this morning. Good luck on reaching L1!
    Posted in: Special Occasions
  • posted a message on Show and Tell + Phyrexian Metamorph
    Apnap doesn't apply here as all players may put something on the field as the spell resolves. Basically both shall put down a creature at the same time. In all honesty you are supposed to choose your creature (artifact or whatever) and drop it at the same time. If ap dropped first then nap could choose whatever was in their hand that best dealt with ap's drop.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on [M12] Chandra, Garruk and Jace aren't in Lorwyn Form
    Quote from LTZ
    you can see garruk's legs in his pic


    Not through the text box. Outside the art box. Look at Ajani goldmane, his axe or whatever extends out.
    Posted in: Rumor Mill Archive
  • posted a message on Metamorph question
    Quote from Rats
    To answer your first question:
    Phyrexian Metamorph doesn't actually target the creature , it comes into play as a copy of a creature.
    I only bring up this technicality because it can come into play *as* something with shroud or protection from blue/artifacts.


    Fixed to aleviate confusion. Everything you said was correct except that word.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Crop Rotation & Hickory Woodlot
    Quote from Exsam
    No, you would not sacrifice it if Hexmage removed the depletion counters.
    The sacrifice is part of the mana ability.


    Wow. Now that I have re-read woodlot and woken up a little I realize what I was thinking and also that I was completely thinking the wrong way. I don't really know now why I was thinking about sba's or why I even thought for a sec that they would be checked in between. I know sba's rules even! It's apparently too early in the morning for me to be thinking of rules judgements. You are correct of course. Thanks for straightening me out.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Crop Rotation & Hickory Woodlot
    Hmm. I guess I wasn't thinking that the sac due to no counters was part of the mana ability. Seems counter-intuitive as if you use hex parasite to remove its counters it still gets sacrificed. I guess I assumed the sac was a state based effect which aren't checked during paying costs for a spell.

    EDIT: Thanks for the rules quote. I had forgotten that mana abilities must be activated BEFORE costs are paid. Obviously sbe's would be checked in between activating and paying?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Crop Rotation & Hickory Woodlot
    Is that correct? When you cast a spell you announce it and put it on the stack. Then you get pay all costs. Since an additional cost is to sacrifice a land it would be paid at the same time as mana. since activating mana abilities doesn't use the stack I would assume that the woodlot would still be there to sacrifice.
    Basically, how can woodlot be sacrificed due to no counters while you are in the process of paying costs for a spell? Isn't that kind of like trying to activate an ability during the resolution of an ability and impossible?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Azusa, Lost but Seeking leaving the battlefield?
    She has to be on the battlefield in order for you to play extra lands. Once she is gone that effect of letting you do that is gone too.
    If she had something that read until end of turn then you would still be able to after she was gone.
    Explore allows you to play an extra land THIS turn. Meaning it gives you that option until end of turn.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Stacked Abilities and Invalid Targets at the time of Resolution
    Q1: abilities are independent of their source once on the stack. If mystics ability is activated and you kill it in response its ability will still resolve after its put in the grave. Removing the source does not stop an ability from resolving.

    Q2: same as one in a sense. Koth would end up with 4 counters removed since they activated the parasite twice for 2.

    Q3: tapping an alloy myr to generate a mana is a mana ability and cannot be responded to. You cannot burst lightning in that situation.

    Q4: searing blaze has 2 targets. For a spell to be countered upon resolution (do nothing) ALL targets have to be illegal at time of resolution. So, even though the hawk will not receive damage your opponent will.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.