[article] the journal of a working boy

[jpmeyer]

All in all, I have to say that I probably had as much fun working the tournament as I've ever had playing in one. I have one important message to leave you with: never, ever leave the wily Ben "Mischievous Quanar" Bleiweiss unattended, lest he engage in all manner of tomfoolery and haberdashery. At your expense.

[Purple Hat]

JP, doesn't failing to discard for chains negate the draw?

So in your example wouldn't the player with 2 cards in hand, casting Ancestral under chains do the following: discard 2, mill 1, draw 2?

[Kowal]

I'm 99.999% certain your chains explanation was wrong, as well, JP.  Though I have issues with the "do it all at once" thing.  The way I've always been told it worked was the "discard, draw, discard, draw, discard, draw."

Otherwise though, great article.  I specifically liked the part about me beating the crap out of Carl with a Big Pimpin'.

[Toad]

You treat each draw separately.

[Purple Hat]

So, using the example, it should be: Discard 1 (one card in hand), draw one (2 cards in hand), discard 1 (one card in hand), draw one (two cards in hand), Discard 1 (one card in hand), Draw 1?

on a side note and somewhat off topic but relevent to chains, did anyone else see matrix go off under chains by milling himself with the bargain in response to casting yawgmouth's will and then using ancestral/wheel to force his opponent to discard his stifles?  That was cool.

Back on topic, kinda.  Even the Judges seemed to be confused as to how Chains works.  On the whole I thought the judging was great but I did see a judge walk over to a table, hear a Chains question, pick up the card and start reading it to see how it was worded.  It almost made me wish someone was playing a Mask deck.

[Jebus]

So, using the example, it should be: Discard 1 (one card in hand), draw one (2 cards in hand), discard 1 (one card in hand), draw one (two cards in hand), Discard 1 (one card in hand), Draw 1?

You've got it.

I think I may have been the only one there who was really confident on how exactly chains works.

However, the most difficult part is explaining it to other players.  I ended up carrying a copy of the oracle text for just chains in my back pocket.

Even the Judges seemed to be confused as to how Chains works. On the whole I thought the judging was great but I did see a judge walk over to a table, hear a Chains question, pick up the card and start reading it to see how it was worded. It almost made me wish someone was playing a Mask deck.

Well, I'm pretty confident that wasn't me.

[DEA]

i think the rulings on one chains in play are quite clear

it's the 2 chains or more that give me a headache
if there are 2 chains in play, you have 7 cards and you brainstorm, you have to discard 2 to draw 1, and you eventually end up with 2 cards in hand, correct?

both chains try to replace the brainstorm draw but only one will succeed
the other will replace the draw from the first, assuming the player discards
does this make sense?

[Dozer]

Playing Chains on a neon-orange day-glow playmat = double headache for your opponent.


Anyway, I liked the article, especially the walk-on-by part where you retell the weird things you've seen. I think any tournament coverage needs more of that, because it lights up that even tournament magic is more fun than some think.

Dozer

[Jebus]

i think the rulings on one chains in play are quite clear

it's the 2 chains or more that give me a headache
if there are 2 chains in play, you have 7 cards and you brainstorm, you have to discard 2 to draw 1, and you eventually end up with 2 cards in hand, correct?

both chains try to replace the brainstorm draw but only one will succeed
the other will replace the draw from the first, assuming the player discards
does this make sense?

Ok, 7 cards in hand.  You Brainstorm (6 cards in hand).

Brainstorm resolves, so you go to draw three.  Now we get crazy.

Instead of just drawing three and putting two back you end up with: Discard (5), Discard (4), Draw (5), Discard (4), Discard (3), Draw (4), Discard (3), Discard (2), Draw (3), then put two cards back (1).

If you meant you had 8 cards and played Brinstorm, so you have 7 cards in hand when brainstorm resolves, you'll end up with 2 cards after putting your two back.

[DEA]

yeah, i forgot about the brainstorm being a card in hand
so it's discard 2 to draw 1, for the reasons which i highlighted?

[Jebus]

yeah, i forgot about the brainstorm being a card in hand
so it's discard 2 to draw 1, for the reasons which i highlighted?

Yes, but you can only assume that when they have cards in hand to discard.  Otherwise, they may end up milling instead of discarding, thus the second Chains won't have a draw to replace.

[Eastman]

You should probably edit the article JP. People are likely to believe that misinformation about Chains.

[Methuselahn]

That and the fact that Trinisphere, Crucible of Worlds, and Chains of Mephistopheles are really potent right now.

Null Rod being potent too, I think you are mostly right in these assessments.  Chains has always been relatively good in a Tog environment, and if Tog is on it's way out for a while then I'm not sure how Chains would become potentially more potent.  Fish, 4cC, and combo (read: blue decks)  have always been around, so the card has always been good, but not meta defining.   I think Trinisphere and Crucible are those meta cards because they actually implement a strategy instead of hating one, like Chains.   I guess one could make an argument to say Null Rod is just hate, but it's reach is just so far stretching.

Anyway, great article.  Too bad the Chains rulings thing detracted people from discussing the rest of the article.

[BreathWeapon]

I'm pretty sure that Chains "should" be defining the metagame, considering there are at best (2) decks that don't use a traditional Draw Engine with any viability right now, FCG and TnT (Which is the Deck using Chains).

I'm reasonably impressed by TnT's (G/r/b with 3-4 MD Chains) place in the metagame. Chains is a Death Knell vs any deck with Blue in it and Survival/Welder is rather adaptable to the metagame. I definately think that Keeper>TnT may be an over statement, because TnT has a ridiculous amount of must counters, and can force issues with Blood Moon from the SB at worst.

[jpmeyer]

...and this is why I said "(Note: I'm not sure if this is right but this is how a judge explained it to me)"

[Jebus]

...and this is why I said "(Note: I'm not sure if this is right but this is how a judge explained it to me)"

You should have asked me.

[jpmeyer]

...and this is why I said "(Note: I'm not sure if this is right but this is how a judge explained it to me)"

You should have asked me.

Right after I made that post, I was so right about to edit in "...who unfortunately was not Jebus."

[Ric_Flair]

All in all, I have to say that I probably had as much fun working the tournament as I've ever had playing in one. I have one important message to leave you with: never, ever leave the wily Ben "Mischievous Quanar" Bleiweiss unattended, lest he engage in all manner of tomfoolery and haberdashery. At your expense.

JP, you know haberdashery is the sale of hats and cuff links and men's clothing doodads, right?  So Ben, if your not careful, is going accessorize you?  Is that the point?  

[jpmeyer]

Yes.

[goober]

I actually brought up the 1 then 1 then 1 thing at the tournament and the Head Judge shot me down so I shut up.  Looking at the ruling I am not so sure if it isn't the 3 then 3 method.

The discard instead of draw is a replacement effect so it happens immediatly  7 cards in hand + Ancestral, here is the stack.

Ancestral on the stack.

Starts resolveing, so it looks like this

Ancestral as 3 Draw1s

Then the replacement kicks in

Ancestral as 3 Discards

So you discard 1.

then the triggered draw if you discard goes on the stack, but the Ancestral needs to finish resolving so you discard 1, then 1 more.  Then the 3 triggered draws all resolve.

Basicly the replacement effect works while the spell is resolving, then the triggered ones come after.  The main reason is because replacments don't use the stack, and triggered abilities do.

I think that was the argument the Judge used against me, but (hopefully) more clear.

I am not sure which one is right, but I am now leaning towards the discard 3 draw 3.

[Jebus]

There are no triggers here, and nothing about chains uses the stack.

I spoke with Matt about Chains quite a bit and it seems you may have been the guy he made an error with.

Suffice to say, each draw is replaced seperately, and with the entire replacement effect not just part of it.  

Ancestral becomes discard, draw, discard, draw, discard, draw (assuming you had cards to discard).

[goober]

I was wrong about the use of if making it triggered, bah.

[Jebus]

I was wrong about the use of if making it triggered, bah.

Remember, triggers will always start with "When", "Whenever", or "At" and never "if".

[Machinus]

I really think they could re-template the card and make it a lot easier to understand. The effect is actually quite simple once you get it, and there isn't a need for all that text on the card. Maybe the card creation forum guys can help with this:


If a player would draw a card, that player instead discards a card, and then draws a card. If that player cannot discard, he or she mills one card.

This does not apply to the first card drawn during a draw step.

[EDIT: I used the word "mill" deliberately in a casual context. I did not mean for this to be the actual text on the card, but rather a simplifying guideline to help players understand what I am trying to write. There is not a WHOLE lot of room for improvement, but the way the card is worded with the draw/discard repetition makes it way more confusing than it has to be. I guess I will post what I would write instead, as ACTUAL text:

If a player would draw a card, that player instead discards a card, and then draws a card. If a player would draw a card and has no cards in hand, that player puts the top card of his/her library into his/her graveyard.

This effect does not replace the first card drawn during a draw step.]

[Jebus]

Using proper templating, it's about as good as it's going to get.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

@machinus: The problem with your template is that it uses the word "mill."  Also, make it clear that if they cannot discard and thus "mill," that they still do not get to draw.  I'm not sure we can really improve that much on the current oracle text.

I'm quite good with rules suff, and I say in all seriousness that chains was the 1 and only card I ever needed to read several times to understand the effect.

Edit: with your draw step clause, I think it would change the effect so that you could "steal" your opponent's draw by casting a cantrip during their draw step, which seems weird and is not possible under the current wording.  I do like seperating it and making it into a clause, however, because having it at the start of an already long replacement effect makes it more confusing.

[Zelc]

By the way, if there are two or more Chains in play, the correct target for targeted card draw would be your opponent.