Also note that if a trample creature's blocker is removed after damage is assigned, you don't get to reassign that damage.

Say you've got a 5-power trampler running into a 2-toughness blocker. If you move past declare blockers step and start assigning damage, you assign 2 to the creature and 3 to the player. Even if the blocker's bounced after that, the player will still only take 3 damage, not 5.

Aha, here it is.

I don't believe it's possible. Trample simply modifies the way you are allowed to assign damage, and at the time you are assigning a creature's damage, its power is 'locked in'. Removing trample before assigning damage means you can't assign damage to the player, and pumping the creature after assigning damage doesn't retroactively let you assign more.

Let's see, you could turn the Transreliquat into Time Bomb before the end of an opponent's turn (using the second ability). During your turn, you get a counter, then you can pay again to turn into Vault, tap and remove to get an extra turn, then change back to Bomb before the end of turn, and repeat. So yeah, seems like it.

Just for confirmation, there's a ruling right on Ledgewalker's Gatherer page:

Feb 1, 2006 - Silhana Ledgewalker can be blocked by creatures that can block as though they had flying.

Extraction doesn't instruct you to reveal the hand, though, simply to search it. If it was cast on an opponent, obviously they have to show you their cards for you to be able to search. But if it's on yourself, it doesn't seem like you'd need to reveal.

Technically, they will trigger at the same time. But yes, you can put both triggers on the stack and resolve them one right after another.

Instead of having it CIP with counters and count down, you can have it come into play empty and build up to a certain number, which avoids having to have two separate CIP triggers.

I agree that this should be colored though, blue or black. Also, looking at Long-Term Plans, I would probably push for a cost of 2.

Storm (When you play this spell, copy it for each spell played before it this turn. You may choose new targets for the copies.)

Replicate (When you play this spell, copy it for each time you paid its replicate cost. You may choose new targets for the copies.)

They're worded exactly the same, save for the condition that generates the copies. Why should they act differently?

Nope.


Forbidden Orchard's token generation is a triggered ability. After it resolves, your opponent will have priority at least once and be able to sac the token before you can get to a point where Oath would trigger.


Correct. He'd have to have the token at the beginning of your turn, through the untap step into the upkeep, and only then would Oath see it there and trigger. Once players have priority in the upkeep step, it's too late for beginning-of-upkeep triggers to occur.


See above, it is too late.


No way that I can see. Note, too, that regardless of Forbidden Orchard giving your opponent priority, the Oath trigger also uses the stack. If you did manage to get your opponent to have a creature for the beginning of your upkeep and let Oath trigger, he could sac the creature with the ability still on the stack, and it would fail to resolve when it re-checked the condition.

You mean to ask if the pro black will protect it from Necroplasm's ability somehow? Necroplasm doesn't target the creatures to destroy, so pro black can do nothing to save them.

You can't use a Dredge 3 ability if you have only one card in your library, even if it is a DSC. If you had three cards, one being DSC, and it kept getting shuffled to the top, I *believe* that would work and leave your library unchanged. It depends on whether or not the mills are handled like draws ('draw x' = x separate 'draw a card' events), or if all cards are milled simultaneously.

You're correct here, so let's take a look at the exact wordings from comp rules:

“If a player would discard this card, that player discards it, but may remove it from the game instead of putting it into his or her graveyard�

So, at the time you pay costs for Firestorm, you can discard the Wurm and choose to apply the effect, removing it from the game.

“When this card is removed from the game this way, until that player passes next, the player may play it any time he or she could play an instant by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. When the player passes next, he or she puts this card into his or her graveyard.�

After Firestorm goes on the stack, the Wurm is RFG'd and you have priority. Now is the time to activate LED and get your mana. Even though it has the 'can only be played as an instant' clause, it doesn't use the stack, so you don't have to pass priority to have it resolve. So, you'll get your with the Wurm still removed, voila.


Correct, correct, and correct. Wizards decided the 'announce a spell, then pay costs with LED once it's out of your hand' play was not intended and too strong, so they fixed it.


Beginning of turn is beginning of turn, no getting around that. It has to be there at the beginning of the untap step.


This happens because of a discrepancy between 'at end of turn' and 'until end of turn'. Effects that last 'until end of turn' truly mean that, they are removed during the cleanup step and there's no way to get them to last into a different turn. 'At end of turn' effects are different, because they're actually triggered abilities that go on the stack at the beginning of the end step. The catch here is that the end step is a time when players can get priority, so if you play an ability with an 'at end of turn' trigger after the current turn's end step has already begun, the trigger won't retroactively activate, so it'll have to wait until the next turn's end step to trigger. It's the same idea as putting something into play that has an 'at the beginning of your upkeep' trigger into play during your upkeep - it obviously won't trigger for that upkeep, you'll have to wait for the next one.

I don't think this works as intended. 'Your next turn' still means just that, your next turn, not you during your opponent's turn. Think of activating a Mindslaver during your opponent's turn - you don't end up controlling them during your turn, you wait until their next turn and control that. That being said, I can't think of an easy way to word this other than 'You control target player's next turn and that player controls your turn during that turn', which is pretty messy. 'that player controls (you|your actions) during that turn' is less messy, but there are currently no rules that support such a wording.

On the same note, you can argue that while you can't build a deck specificially around it, it can easily be useful in any deck that can manage to cast it. After all, it's a card that turns losing into winning, and the goal of any deck you're going to face will be to make you lose, no?

If your opponent is playing a deck that is not combo, you almost certainly are aware of when he can and can not kill you.

Ah, sorry, in the line before that you had mentioned "only affects one affect" so I thought you were thinking it did that and not all spells/abilities until eot. Yeah, I didn't include combat damage, mainly because it seemed silly for you to produce all that mana and then have your pool empty right away. There might be a trick or two it could've been useful for, though, who knows.

One-shot mana acceleration isn't, but getting creatures into play is. Yes, it's a fine line, but the Piper example is a good one. You want one-shot? Lure of Prey. Natural Order. Thicket Elemental. Root Elemental. Myojin of Life's Web.

I think this is directly comparable to Tooth and Nail, in a sense. Tooth is meant to be an expensive spell that gets big creatures into play. This will be a cheap spell that gets small/medium creatures into play.

What's the best way to resolve tricky memory issues?

Counters, of course!

"Whenever a card is removed from the game, put a +1/+1 counter on ~this~."

Yes, I'm aware this is functionally quite different, but for all the reasons mentioned above, I'm not sure the original wording could be plausible.

It... already is?

As for instant on #4, it has potential. Notice though, that all examples of instant LD are definitely costed higher - Rain of Rust gets added onto Pillage, Rith's Charm is three colors and even then can only hit nonbasics, and so on. I really don't understand what would be so broken about instant-speed LD, but it seems like R&D has definitely shied away from it, and I imagine they have some reason for it.

That being said, what about making this instant would make it more desirable over Stone Rain? Often you want to cast your land destruction as soon as possible anyhow, as waiting until their eot lets them drop another land and play a higher cost spell than if you had just gotten rid of it on your turn. So, I'm not seeing what would make this so appealing...

Ugh, 2 is winning. I don't even want to begin to think of how to cost that thing.

I honestly don't see what's so enticing about 4, mainly because there seems to be no way to cost it interestingly. I can't see it costing any less than three, since more often than not it will be just as good as Stone Rain. So, say it's - when would you rather have this than Stone Rain? Would you really cast this as a terrible Crop Rotation often enough? If you want to argue that it's a lot less useful against red decks and so could be more aggressively costed, okay, but at {R} it might be too strong - Sinkhole didn't last long for a reason. Besides that, you'd be pretty much losing the mana-fixing side of things entirely if you require double red to cast it in the first place. Perhaps alternate costs could be involved somehow, but I don't know.

I definitely like 3, there are a bunch of interesting equipment cards that just don't see play because of cost issues, things like Fireshrieker and Spellbinder, and maybe you could even do fun stuff with Worldslayer. It's very strong and very versatile, and would probably come at a pretty high cost itself,  but it'd be a very interesting card to develop.

Number 2 is very interesting as well, but as was mentioned before, would need to cost a lot. I kind of don't like how it's a single card that lets you totally diregard board position - as in, you cast this and it can change 'I'm going to lose the game next turn' into 'I win the game next turn', no matter what's in play - but it still might be interesting enough.

The first choice, well, I'm a bit biased, obviously. But I do like it.

Those don't create multiple search effects, only one search looking for multiple cards. This guy's replacement effect would only happen once, replacing the entire search with one shuffle-and-draw.

Are you honestly saying you think a deck running Flame Rift, random burn, this accelerator we haven't even costed yet, Dragonstorm, and a bunch of Dragons would be good? It'd be a clunky and hard-to-get-working combo deck with an impressive yet still disruptable finisher, a casual player's dream, which makes me want this card even more. If it really seems like an issue, it could always be tweaked to opponents only rather than any player, which is probably a good idea anyway because it seems silly to burn yourself off your own Book Burning just because.

Er? I fail to see where this is coming from.


This is very different, because it's triggered and not activated. You can't choose to remove a fade counter at your will, you only remove one per upkeep. It's the same net effect as the counters the way they currently are.

Flavor is nice and all, but looking at those wordings, the counters would be nothing but glorified fade counters. I kind of like the idea of using the already-existing fade mechanic for some simplicity, but the fact that you'd have to give it the Fading 0 ability to make it work might make it more messy.

Fading 0
As Withering Library comes into play, pay any amount of life and Withering Library comes into play with that many fade counters on it.
Whenever you remove a fade counter from Withering Library, draw a card.
When Withering Library leaves play, discard your hand.


I dunno, could work.


Edit: Hm, you could also change the draw ability to simply trigger on upkeep. Or draw step - then you don't get a free extra card when it's out of fade counters.

I'd argue that's because the equip ability is countered on resolution for lack of target. If you never get to resolving the ability, you never get to the word 'attach', and thus you never actually execute anything regarding attaching.

'This ability' always refers to that specific instance of that ability on that card, so no, I don't think it would prevent the other Battle from triggering.

Right, I should have quoted, I was echoing Limbo's sentiments on being able to equip the same creature with the same equipment. Let's see...


Personally, I think the words take it from where it currently is are key here. Sure, the net effect of activating a Stasis Cell attached to a Bramble Elemental targeting the same Elemental are that it stays in the same place. To me, however, the phrase "take it from where it currently is" implies that the first step is to take it off whatever it's currently on, regardless of its destination. Thus, an attach to the Elemental means that you take it from the Elemental and then put it back on, which would satisfy the condition of 'becoming attached'.

I remember thinking that exact same thing once. When Lightning Greaves was the only 0 equip cost, you had to have two creatures to bounce the equip back and forth to do Daru Spiritualist tricks, so I think it stuck in my head that way, not realizing the only reason it was that way was because of the untargetability.

Since the cards are drawn one at a time, and Dredge is a replacement effect that you choose to use at the exact moment you would draw a card, is it possible to draw the first card from Bazaar normally, then choose whether or not to Dredge for the second draw knowing what you drew?