Logic: the Processing: Recent Activity
Logic: the Processing: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics | Foreword |
Recent updates to Logic: the Processing: (Generated at 2024-05-07 17:37:41)
Logic: the Processing: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics | Foreword |
Recent updates to Logic: the Processing: (Generated at 2024-05-07 17:37:41)
Feels too similar to indestructible, to me.
I mean, unless you are playing black and can skip damage and go directly to kill; but don't exile - then it really is identical.
So why does black get that loophole?
Resilience to replace regenerate. Befitting undead, illusions, ice creatures.
Flyspeck 1!
You certainly can redefine terminology and the rules to have colours and such be whatever you like. But it makes the card very very confusing when the expectation is that it will be a normal magic card. This rule feels like a confusing tweak on a split card with no benefit except confusion.
... in a set that is about confusing rules and their interations and logical operators. Carry on!
So you can cast this for from your hand, but you have to choose an option that does nothing?
Do you mean Hoth? Endor is rarely associated with snow.
Yep, I personally assume implicit errata "~ deals 1 damage to each damageable permanent and each player." for plenty of cards in every set that includes a new permanent type of that sort.
I appreciate that the rules do not allow certain spells to randomly damage lands that later might get animated, which is why I prefer creating a class of damageable permanents rather than give a blanket pass to damage just anything.
There are uncomfortable questions regarding Vehicles that do not have a right or wrong answer.
Seems like a nice idea.
Card types like this are why I wish "damage to target creature or player" or "every creature" spells could have been templated as "damage to target permanent or player" or "damage to each permanent". I feel like most people would "get" that damaging an enchantment land or artifact doesn't usually do anything. But it would mean, planeswalkers wouldn't need to be a special case.
(And as a side bonus, you could say "1 damage to target permanent" instead of "1 damage to up to one target creature" since almost always someone will have a land, and I don't think allowing minor damage spells to hit planeswalkers is usually a problem.)
See Scene.
See Scene.
Scene is a card type that enhances narrative design. It is the elegant mixture of previous ideas, including planes (or locales), structures, terrains, and quests. The major difference is the scenes' role to convey and bring focus to important or notable plot events.
Scene have very simple rules; so can be put at any rarity. However, the natural frequency of appearance should reflect the core plot events in any given set that the designer and narrator wants to evoke. Anywhere from 3 to 10 is a good start.
Scene is a permanent spell. They are cast like other spells, have costs, and put on the stack to await resolution.
Scene is a damageable permanent. All scenes enter the field with fate counters equal to the value printed on the bottom-right corner of the card. Certain spells or abilities can deal damage directly to scenes. Scenes can also be attacked by opponents' creatures during their combat phase. Each point of damage to a scene removes that many fate counters from it. As soon as a scene permanent on the field loses all of these counters, it is destroyed (state-based effect).
When the controller activates the climax of a scene, e gains 1 Climax point. A player who acquires 3 climax points wins the game.
Examples: The Last Supper ; Falling Apple ; Phyrexian Invasion ; Battle of Hoth
Whirler Virtuoso is multicolor, not composite colored. It is red and blue, not red+blue. Wild-Field Scarecrow is multitype, not composite type. It is artifact and creature, not artifact+creature.
3+3 does not equal 3. QED red+blue does not equal red or blue, and artifact+creature does not equal artifact or creature.
Do you not understand the color of Whirler Virtuoso? That's blue+red. Do you not understand the card type of Wild-Field Scarecrow? That's a "composite" card type.
Alex is close, but still neglecting other characteristics besides cmc.
If 3+3=6, then what is Blue+Red? Is it a new color? The rules don't define composite colours. And Instant+Sorcery? Is that a new card type? The rules don't define composite card types.
Oh, or actually, maybe amuseum is protesting against the split card rules changes.
It used to be that split cards had this very weird set of rules whereby if you ask about their CMC, colour etc, you'd get two answers. So Odds // Ends has a CMC of "2 and 5". This was not the same as 7, though it'd look the same when Dark Confidant makes you lose "2 and 5" life. But when revealed to Counterbalance, it'd counter a 2-drop or a 5-drop but not a 7-drop. You could fetch Odds // Ends with Sunforger because one half of it has a CMC <= 4, even if you then go on to cast Ends which doesn't. You could even fetch Research // Development with Sunforger, because one half of it has CMC <= 4, and one half of it is red, even though those aren't the same half!
But with Amonkhet bringing "splitback" cards like Reduce // Rubble, they tweaked the rules. Now anywhere other than the stack, the split card's characteristics are the sum of its component parts' characteristics. Odds // Ends has CMC 7, as does Research // Development - but when you cast one half of it, that half on the stack has CMC 2 or 5 as appropriate.
It's possible amuseum doesn't like these changes, and so created this card as an oblique protest? I dunno.
4-way split card on the same face = 2 original split cards layered atop each other. 4 rules boxes in 4 corners of the card. The art is in the middle between the two splits; each corner of the art relates to the spell above or below. You can read all the names normally when the card is in normal vertical position when held in hand.
Here the closest is the flip frame which has the art in the middle and the spells above and below it. However, the bottom side is not flipped, but aligned normally. in reality Who is very close, if the top-left is just a single spell and the art is a single piece in the middle between the four spells.
Same naming convention as Sword // Offense.
He's doing aftermath (hence the "X to Y" name rather than "X and Y"). Note the "if you cast this spell from your graveyard" (though this version doesn't have any rules permitting you to cast it from your graveyard). This card would more conventionally be represented like this: Reduce // Rubble. I think amuseum is trying to show that in the same way that any mechanic can be viewed as split cards, or any mechanic can be viewed as kicker, even split cards "don't need" to be represented that way.
So to answer your question, yes, a split card is a much better way to represent it, but it wants to be a half-sideways split card like Reduce // Rubble.
So it's ?
What happens if you pay to cast it?
If you're doing what I think you're doing; is a split-card a better way to represent it?