I don't dispute this. My point is that if we accept that Goblin Kings from various tribes can help other tribes (as well as each other under the Ninth edition rules), I see no reason why this same logic cannot be applied to Alpha Wolves and their packs.

As an aside, sorry if I'm derailing your thread, Ephraim.

I am aware of this change. I meant that the names are counter intuitive, to a degree, when they occur in multiples: Elvish Champion works, but how, logically, can there be four kings among goblins in a group of, for example, seven? The title of king seems to imply that there should only be one per group, as does the title of alpha. I can, however, accept this bizzare goblin interaction, and I can also accept that there may be four alpha wolves among a group of seven wolves.

Historically the generic ability for wolves was banding, but that's no longer being used. Most wolves' abilities deal with combat, so this one's probably should too. The only interesting ability I can come up with is (forgive me if the wording on this is terrible) "you choose how creatures ~this~ blocks deal combat damage" but even then, that's a white mechanic (see Defensive Formation). The problem is that almost all combat related abilities seem to be white these days (not that I'm complaining, white needs all the help it can get), but wolves (predominantly green) want these mechanics.

You could take an idea from Dire Wolf and give it something like "~this~ has first strike as long as you control a plains." This would encourage players to play white (which they might want to do for tundra wolves anyways) and keep the mechanic from being bled out too much. Alternatively you could cost it at 1WG.

Wouldn't this work if you got rid of the first pack ability and it had "knights you control have first strike"? I realize that that wording would remove it's first striking if it got hit by an Image Crafter or something, but it makes it much cleaner.
This is somewhat true; a quick check shows that 18 of the 68 knights have first strike or a way of gaining first strike built in. (The main ones without are the portal knights and the flanking knights from Mirage block.) Do note, however, that all of the widely played Knights have first strike, so this ability would often be redundant.

As for the second pack ability, did you want a wording like Sengir Vampire's "whenever a creature dealt damage by ~this~ is put into a graveyard this turn" or a "whenever this deals lethal damage to a creature"?

The second pack ability feels like Debt of Loyalty, might some wording or ideas be taken from that? You could take them and give them Knight in addition to their other creature types.

The reminder text on indestructible does, so it's probably fine.

There are no wolves in 9th edition, but Wizards has printed new wolves recently (Tel-Jilad Wolf), so I think the creature type is fairly safe.


I agree that wolves are green; of the 11 existing wolves(with their editions to show how relevant the precedant is),
- Heart Wolf is red (Homelands)
- Treacherous Werewolf is black (Torment)
- Tundra Wolves is white (Originally from Legends, most recently from 8th Edition)

The other eight are green as is Master of the Hunt (Legends), which creates Wolves-of-the-Hunt tokens
- Artic Wolves (Weatherlight)
- Dire Wolves (Ice Age)
- Howling Wolf (Mercadian Masques)
- Lone Wolf (Originally Urza's Legacy, most recently from 8th Edition)
- Tel-Jilad Wolf (Darksteel)
- Timber Wolves (Alpha, Beta, Unlimited, Revised, 4th)
- Wolf Pack (Portal Three Kingdoms [It'll be a legal card soon!])
- Wyluli Wolf (Originally Arabian Nights, most recently from 6th Edition)

I think that Tundra Wolves is to wolves what Ghazban Ogre is to ogres (although Dire Wolf does encourage you to splash white).

As for not having more than one Alpha Wolf, you could make it legendary, but that's not usually how that supertype is used, and most of the other Lords make no sense in multiples anyways.

Not really, Gamble was from Saga. Did you realize this but consider it to complete the cycle regardless, or was it an oversight?
As for the white vow, it seemed logical to me that the white one should be the hardest to break, as white is this most loyal colour and the most interested in creating and following rules.

Mike Krzywicki is the person you're thinking of, I believe. He wrote an article about it on Star City Games. http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/6734.html

To clarify, my comments were somewhat directed at those who feel as Meanee does.

As for the Hall of Fame itself, I feel it will be good for the game to some degree, and for that reason I support it. To answer your question, yes, I care, particularly about the Mike Long issue.

A point seemingly ignored by the majority of debaters of the Hall of Fame is that members will be invited to future Pro Tours and, further, paid to attend them. This is the major reason for the controversy surrounding the nomination of Mike Long. The idea is to encourage incredible players who have, more or less, stopped playing in recent years to return to the game.
The Hall of Fame is not about making a bunch of random ex-Magic players more famous; it's about convincing former icons to return to the game. It's not just recognition, there's also a fairly large monetary incentive to the Hall of Fame members.

The formatting is fine, look:


As a side note, a friend of mine made top 8 at his first tournament ever by Ancestral Recalling one of his Oath opponents to death two games in a row.
[Edit: It should be noted that his opponent was only running one creature and wasn't running blessing, though.]

Orb is not coming back because it interacts with the game in a completely different way from any other card. Because of this, the rules don't work with it at all. You end up with really forced rules because the game isn't built to support it.

Think of it this way: the card only works in paper magic. It's the only real card (aside from its little brother, Falling Star) that cannot work in any form of Magic, aside from the paper version. Furthermore, rulings become absurd when take into account tokens, counters or Mindslaver. These often result in throwing a table at the game, telling your opponent precisely how to move his or her arm, and the like. Chaos Orb is undoubtedly the greatest rules abomination in rules history. I recall Mark Rosewater, around the time when Unhinged was released, wrote about how some cards were simple enough conceptually, but made no sense when put into the terms of Magic. These are the cards which are appropriate for the "Un-" sets of Magic.

On a different note (since discussing why the rules on Chaos Orb doesn't work in its current form feels like discussing why Black Lotus is a good card), the power of Orb is incredible; it's inexpensive, UNTARGETED, universal removal, and that's not even considering its interaction with artifact-support cards, such as Welder (as Smmenen pointed out) or Tinker. Were it legal, it would be restricted and run in every deck aside from blazingly fast combo, such Meandeck Tendrils. It's power cannot be understated: it's never dead, and, if we use the current rules, has the ability to totally obliterate your opponent's side of the board.

I hope they don't nuke the Orb rules-wise and bring it back. A colourless Vindicate would be powerful, but very bland in comparison to its current form. The banned Chaos Orb is legendary; I hope it stays that way.

I was wondering how much one can draw on a card before it is no longer legal to play said card in a tournament (assume I'm using completely opaque sleeves, so markings on the back of a card should probably be irrelevant). Which features of the card must be distinguishable?

1. the name
2. the casting cost
3. the art
4. the card type
5. the power/toughness (for creatures only, obviously)
6. the expansion symbol, border, et cetera

It seems as if a card could be legal if the only distinguishable features on it were the name and casting cost, taking the recent textless promotional cards as an example.

It also seems as if a card could be legal if only the art was distinguishable (such as the Pyrite Spellbomb in Hi-Val's recent Star City Games article), considering that art is unique to each card (with the exception of some Chinese cards, due to the laws concerning the censorship of human skeletons in China). As long as the owner knows what the card is and what it does, this doesn't seem too different from a card in a language which no one in the immediate vicinity can understand.

The card type and power/toughness can be looked up in the Oracle, but this would be tedious and time-consuming, particularly if many of a players cards were missing this information.

I included the final point due to City in a Bottle variants; if I, for example, draw in green sharpie on the border of a Kird Ape, and draw over the expansion symbol and the copyright information et cetera, how would anyone know whether it dies to City in a Bottle or if it's from Revised. I'm aware that the revised one is lighter, but it could simply be a faded Arabian Nights one. I'm also aware that this situation is rather obscure, but I'm trying to learn all the details concerning the legality of cards.

I have questions concerning the physical shape of a card as well. Is it legal if a card has
1. cut off corners
2. objects pasted onto it
3. indentations
4. one or more holes in it
5. a tear
Assume for all of these that the player is not touching his or her deck frequently, nor that the markings are visible through an opaque sleeve, eliminating the possibility of marked cards. I make a note of the player not touching his or her deck frequently, as this is already somewhat illegal due to the presence of foiled cards.

My initial thought on the corners was no, but in light of the ruling on Alpha cards, I'm not sure why they shouldn't be allowed when opaque sleeves are used, so long as they are minor.

I'm quite sure that having any object pasted to a card makes it illegal, as it changes the thickness of the card, thereby marking it. Despite this, I wanted to ask, just to ensure that my thinking is correct. (Pasted objects would include, but not be limited to, paper, whiteout, other art supplies and foiling peeled off other cards).

By indentations I mean those which might be caused on the back of a card by pressing too hard with a pen on the front. I assume cards with these marking would be illegal, but they're not much more identifiable than foil cards through opaque sleeves. Holes are simply an extension of indentations and included for the sake of completion; I assume cards with holes would not be allowed.

Tears seem as if they could be legal or illegal depending on the size of said tear. Note that by tears I mean not only full tears (such as those which might be something like scissors), but also shallow tears (such as a card which is missing the front half of the bottom quarter of the card, and is therefore thinner on this bottom quarter).

I apologize if this post is a bit long, but I wanted to ensure I received all the facts concerning this rules issue. I searched carefully, but unsuccessfully, before posting this. Thank you in advance for your help.
For reference, this is the aforementioned article by Hi-Val which inspired these questions.

Since Madness has come up, I thought I'd ask a question about the interaction between Duress (or any discard, for that matter) and Circular Logic.

I cast Duress, and see Circular Logic. When Duress resolves, I have will priority while the Circular Logic is in the Madness RFG Zone, so my opponent can counter the next spell I play (assuming sufficient cards in graveyard.) If I pass priority to my opponent, and said opponent passes it back, will the phase end due to nothing being on the stack, or will the Circular Logic leaving the Madness Zone prevent it and give me a chance to play another spell without the chance on the Circular Logic countering it?

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but wouldn't the perfect play (in terms of acheiving the fastest goldfish) with any deck containing The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale be to NOT play it, considering that it is not required to win and slows down the speed of the kill?

Edit: Thanks, fadeblue, I missed that, though how I managed to overlook something so obvious is beyond me. I'm so illiterate. . .