Do bear in mind that when you name a card, for Meddling Mage and Nevermore, calling out either half of the split card actually correctly identifies the entire card, and thus it legally qualifies as naming both halfs. For example, if you Nevermore and say "Research" you've uniquely identified "Research // Development" and thus the entire card has been named--either that or if it's a format with Compulsive Research (as an example) then you haven't correctly named ANY card, and you can clarify it by stating 'The split card with Research on it" so long as you've named a unique card.
'Trouble' would uniquely identify Toil//Trouble, but Toil might not, if you're in a format with Toil to Renown or Toils of Night and Day in it. In Standard, Toil IS unique in that format, and thus would identify Toil//Trouble.
when i first cast a spell with cipher, is cipher's encoding implying i exile the spell from the stack?
which would result in the cast spell having no effect?
Cipher is a part of the spell effect--it is impossible to cipher AND the spell have no effect. If you're encoding, you're resolving.
By corollary, if a targetted cipher spell has no legal targets on resolution, because the spell fizzles, it won't be encoded.
The keyrune's ability to be a creature is forgotten once it changes zones--it also cannot be activated in the graveyard, so there is no way to legally target it.
Giving it persist or undying before it dies DOES work because the triggered ability doesn't check. It just pops it back with a +1/+1 or -1/-1 counter--of course it isn't a creature because it's changed zones and forgotten all effects on it.
If you've got both VGM and the bond in play you do not have an infinite loop.
Let's say you're both at 20 life, and you have both in play. You gain 1 life. This triggers VGM, and your opponent loses 1 life. This triggers Exquisite Blood, and you gain 1 life. This puts you at 21 life, and 19 life.
19 more cycles later, and you'll have the opponent at 0 life, and an exquisite blood trigger on the stack. The opponent loses the game as a state-based action, and he is removed. If you are the only player left, you win.
Using an effect that copies a creature doesn't cause a copy of an exiled spell nor does it cause that copy to be encoded onto that creature, which is what is necessary to 'clone' an encoded spell.
The spell resides in the exile zone, NOT on the creature, and is not attached to it in any way.
Taxbear has a ring to it, but... isn't tax something that triggers on opponent's spells? Normally the "tax" cards make them pay more mana, or suffer a drawback. This is purely a buff for your cards, with no downside, and thus not truly a tax.
Shush.
Don't tell Taxbear what he can and can't tax. He's Orzhov and the Church of Deals are experts in this field.
If you prefer a different euphamism, like Tithe, or Penance, or whatever, we can work around it. So long as you pay what you owe.
Pretty much, that's the spirit. Everything could have it's place in competitive play if the card was relevant somehow. Hell, Haunt was really really bad and then we had Orzhov Pontiff.
I dunno, I see Extort as a form of Searing Meditation except in the right guild and an easier to manage trigger. Searing Meditation saw play just being an Enchantment with nothing BUT the ability.
I wouldn't mind if they did all cards to read "Extort :symwb:". You know, we have some repeated keywords. Of course Wizards is trying to force a "guild-exclusive mechanic" but, wouldn't kill if they just put the cost there and, voilà, we wouldn't have Fear and Intimidate.[/b][/color]
Like what they did with Echo... ya.
We haven't seen any monocolored Extort cards yet, so it's too early to say if it's a color-specific mechanic like Fear, or a color-agnostic mechanic like Intimidate. My guess is it's probably the latter, -because- of the lack of cost. I'd wager if they wanted Extort to be for the entire guild, they'd have printed it like "Extort :symwb:" -because- of their desire for color-agnostic keywords.
They've already proven they're not unwilling to reuse guild-exclusive mechanics with bloodlust being the featured return mechanic in one of the Core sets.
If you apply the aura on your Primeval first, all your creatures become Primevals, then your other Aura turns them all into Infernos. If you apply the one on the Inferno first, all the creatures become Infernos, and the aura on your PrimevalInferno makes everything an Inferno again.
As an aside, if both IRs are on creatures you control, the ruling given there is incorrect, according to the rules for layering.
613.6. Within a layer or sublayer, determining which order effects are applied in is usually done using a timestamp system. An effect with an earlier timestamp is applied before an effect with a later timestamp.
613.7b An effect dependent on one or more other effects waits to apply until just after all of those effects have been applied. If multiple dependent effects would apply simultaneously in this way, they're applied in timestamp order relative to each other. If several dependent effects form a dependency loop, then this rule is ignored and the effects in the dependency loop are applied in timestamp order.
Both creatures' IR effects are dependant on each other, so the only way allowed by the rules to resolve it is timestamp order. You cannot simply 'choose which order to resolve them' unless both IRs came out at the exact same time--at which point that decision is set in stone.
The ruling given there is false, and is not supported by the comprehensive rules.
In the same set as Boros, and the same Standard as Zombies, there are going to be white and black permanents that make every spell in your deck a 1-point lightning helix to your opponent or their planeswalker if you have mana open without costing you a card.
If ANY of those permanents are playable without extort, you're going to see extort doing a lot of work in tourneys.
As well, Extort might not require but might only take mana of the color of the permanent--they do prefer to make keywords non-color specific whenever possible. Reminder text isn't precisely rules text, after all.
'Trouble' would uniquely identify Toil//Trouble, but Toil might not, if you're in a format with Toil to Renown or Toils of Night and Day in it. In Standard, Toil IS unique in that format, and thus would identify Toil//Trouble.
Cipher is a part of the spell effect--it is impossible to cipher AND the spell have no effect. If you're encoding, you're resolving.
By corollary, if a targetted cipher spell has no legal targets on resolution, because the spell fizzles, it won't be encoded.
Giving it persist or undying before it dies DOES work because the triggered ability doesn't check. It just pops it back with a +1/+1 or -1/-1 counter--of course it isn't a creature because it's changed zones and forgotten all effects on it.
Let's say you're both at 20 life, and you have both in play. You gain 1 life. This triggers VGM, and your opponent loses 1 life. This triggers Exquisite Blood, and you gain 1 life. This puts you at 21 life, and 19 life.
19 more cycles later, and you'll have the opponent at 0 life, and an exquisite blood trigger on the stack. The opponent loses the game as a state-based action, and he is removed. If you are the only player left, you win.
In multiplayer, it happens with less cycles.
This is not an infinite loop--it's a win-combo.
The spell resides in the exile zone, NOT on the creature, and is not attached to it in any way.
(cough Extort cough)
In all seriousness, they're not going to give Boros Charm a player-only Helix because if ANY charm is getting a player-only Helix, it's Orzhov.
Shush.
Don't tell Taxbear what he can and can't tax. He's Orzhov and the Church of Deals are experts in this field.
If you prefer a different euphamism, like Tithe, or Penance, or whatever, we can work around it. So long as you pay what you owe.
Yes. Cipher stops checking if the creature is a creature once the spell has resolved. After that it only cares if it's done combat damage.
So, the keyrune DOES work with cipher, and that's probably why it got unblockable.
I stand corrected.
Cry of Contrition was pretty good too.
I dunno, I see Extort as a form of Searing Meditation except in the right guild and an easier to manage trigger. Searing Meditation saw play just being an Enchantment with nothing BUT the ability.
Like what they did with Echo... ya.
We haven't seen any monocolored Extort cards yet, so it's too early to say if it's a color-specific mechanic like Fear, or a color-agnostic mechanic like Intimidate. My guess is it's probably the latter, -because- of the lack of cost. I'd wager if they wanted Extort to be
They've already proven they're not unwilling to reuse guild-exclusive mechanics with bloodlust being the featured return mechanic in one of the Core sets.
If you apply the aura on your Primeval first, all your creatures become Primevals, then your other Aura turns them all into Infernos. If you apply the one on the Inferno first, all the creatures become Infernos, and the aura on your
PrimevalInferno makes everything an Inferno again.As an aside, if both IRs are on creatures you control, the ruling given there is incorrect, according to the rules for layering.
613.6. Within a layer or sublayer, determining which order effects are applied in is usually done using a timestamp system. An effect with an earlier timestamp is applied before an effect with a later timestamp.
613.7b An effect dependent on one or more other effects waits to apply until just after all of those effects have been applied. If multiple dependent effects would apply simultaneously in this way, they're applied in timestamp order relative to each other. If several dependent effects form a dependency loop, then this rule is ignored and the effects in the dependency loop are applied in timestamp order.
Both creatures' IR effects are dependant on each other, so the only way allowed by the rules to resolve it is timestamp order. You cannot simply 'choose which order to resolve them' unless both IRs came out at the exact same time--at which point that decision is set in stone.
The ruling given there is false, and is not supported by the comprehensive rules.
If ANY of those permanents are playable without extort, you're going to see extort doing a lot of work in tourneys.
As well, Extort might not require