New Illusionary Mask oracle wording

[Anusien]

These cards you're referring to all have been errata'ed to work properly.  The rules worked differently back then, so restoring them to printed wording would not have the right effect.

[Darkenslight]

The thing I have to ask is:

The original wording made it absolutely clear that you needed to pay the remainder of the CMC once the card was turned up, right?

The new Oracle wording doesn't state this, so it would be better than the original, as the original also cast the damn card.  The effect has always been, as far as I can tell, counterable by both Remove Soul and Stifle.

[Harlequin]

@ Original Intended Function...
I distinctly remeber my An-Zerrin Ruins not being such a bomb if my opponent had Aysen Bureaucrats, Aysen Crusader, and Beast Walkers all in play.   

However: Autumn Willow, Baron Sengir, and Eron the Relentless - we were good to go! An-Zerrin Ruins would have been a house!

Original intent my left foot!

If you ever are interested in seeing the depth of the rabit hole - this is a great thread:
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=38171.0

[ELD]

Mask + Glimpse + Kobolds = a crap ton of 2/2's?

[Phele]

... that become sweet useless 0/1s as soon as you do anything with them.

[The Atog Lord]

... that become sweet useless 0/1s as soon as you do anything with them.

You need Sword of the Ages for the kill.

[Bill Copes]

... that become sweet useless 0/1s as soon as you do anything with them.

You need Sword of the Ages for the kill.

I was thinking Pandemonium 

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

Does this mean I can now go: shop-> mask-> play nought face down all off shop mana?

[TheWhiteDragon]

Yes it does...that is the ONE thing that makes the errata better....but that is really piss poor compared to the cons.

[Harlequin]

No you can't.  Having an activated ability cast a spell is not anything alien.  Isochroic Secptor has been doing this for a whille.  Its really not that hard, you activate an activated ability of cost and then play a spell "for free" with the restriction that the spell has to have a mana cost that could have been played with the mana used for .  Shop cannot be used to activate abilites.

[TheWhiteDragon]

My bad...Harlequin is right.  Shop cant cast the drednaught.  Mask is now not worth the paper it is printed on.

[nineisnoone]

Hi everyone.

This is my first message in the forum and i just have to say that i will play my masks, with friends and in non official events, as if this "evolution" never happened. I will NEVER play in DCI or any other "official" event again.

The game belongs to the players, not to someone that don't know exactly what is doing.
If the mask has to be changed to the original text, i say that lotus vale, mox diamond, scorched ruins MUST be changed too. They must choose one path and follow it for EVERY card.

Best reagards to everyone.


Now in portuguese:

Esta é a minha primeira mensagem neste forum e só tenho a dizer que vou continuar a jogar com as minhas mascaras como se esta evolução nunca tivesse acontecido. Nunca mais vou jogar em eventos oficiais.

Este jogo pertence aos jogadores a não a alguem que não sabe bem o que está a fazer.
Se a mascara tem de ser mudada para o texto original, então eu digo que o vale de lotus, a mox diamante e as ruinas devastadas também têm de ser alteradas. Eles têm de escolher um caminho e segui-lo para todas as cartas.

Cumprimentos a todos.

The game might belong to the players... it might not.  But a DCI sanctioned event certainly belongs to the DCI (within the context of rules).

That said... viva la revolution!  

[miguelmatix]

That's Spanish....

"Viva a revolução!"

[nineisnoone]

That's Spanish....

"Viva a revolução!"

obrigado!

[Scyther]

when will this shitty wording be legal?

not that ive been waitin for it, no, i hate it. just curious..

also curious aboo the source!?..

[LotusHead]

when will this shitty wording be legal?

not that ive been waitin for it, no, i hate it. just curious..

also curious aboo the source!?..

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/58a&page=3

Illusionary Mask
This card got a crazy new wording in the last update, but I mistakenly implemented the second-to-last version of that wording, not the final version. The Illusionary Mask effect is supposed to end once the face-down creature is turned face up for the first time (in case it's Wall of Deceit, for example). It's always worked the intended way in Masters Edition III; only the Oracle wording was inaccurate.

New wording
{oX}: You may choose a creature card in your hand whose mana cost could be paid by some amount of, or all of, the mana you spent on {oX}. If you do, you may cast that card face down as a 2/2 creature spell without paying its mana cost. If the creature that spell becomes as it resolves has not been turned face up and would assign or deal damage, be dealt damage, or become tapped, instead it's turned face up and assigns or deals damage, is dealt damage, or becomes tapped. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.

There is also something in there about Oath of Druids and involves the word TARGET

New Oath of Druids wording
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player chooses target player who controls more creatures than he or she does and is his or her opponent. The first player may reveal cards from his or her library until he or she reveals a creature card. If he or she does, that player puts that card onto the battlefield and puts all other cards revealed this way into his or her graveyard.

[MirariKnight]

So Ivory Mask/True Believer shut off Oath now. Yay for stupid irrelevant changes with no official (or widely disseminated) announcement.

[LordHomerCat]

So Ivory Mask/True Believer shut off Oath now. Yay for stupid irrelevant changes with no official (or widely disseminated) announcement.

...other than the article on the WOTC Website by the MTG rules manager, which he writes every time a new set comes out and they make Oracle changes.  You know, that unofficial, hard-to-find announcement. 

[LotusHead]

So Ivory Mask/True Believer shut off Oath now. Yay for stupid irrelevant changes with no official (or widely disseminated) announcement.

...other than the article on the WOTC Website by the MTG rules manager, which he writes every time a new set comes out and they make Oracle changes.  You know, that unofficial, hard-to-find announcement. 

Drawing attention to Vintage and it's environs is what LordHomerCat was complaining about.

Oath now Targets.  Oath is a played Vintage deck, and has been for years.  Illusionary Mask has been played for years.  WOTC doesn't draw attention to that specifically, and we feel blighted.

(well I don't)

Vintage players still get upset when their meta/dreams get steamrolled over.

[BruiZar]

So if I understand correctly now you can mill your (confidantless) Tezzeret opponent that went tinker -> Inkwell with Oath of Druids?

[MirariKnight]

No, because it's still a may, so they don't have to mill themselves.

And the article addressing these changes did not mention anything about Oath of Druids.

[BruiZar]

No, because it's still a may, so they don't have to mill themselves.

And the article addressing these changes did not mention anything about Oath of Druids.

Exodus Oath Cycle
These have largely the same problems as the Keepers. As printed, their trigger conditions contained "intervening 'if'" clauses that had targets. The modern rules says this is also a no-no: The clause is checked to see whether the ability even triggers, but the target isn't chosen until after that point. So, again, it's a paradox. There are also issues involving the phrase "target opponent." The way these cards are supposed to work, the player whose turn it is chooses the target, and that target is supposed to be an opponent of that player. However, unless the ability explicitly says otherwise, the player who actually chooses the target—and the player the target must be an opponent of—is the player who controls the ability (that is, the player who controls the Oath when it triggers), not the player whose turn it is.

Again, these were handled in different ways. Four of them kept their "intervening 'if'" clauses, except now they checked all players. One (Oath of Mages) used a complex targeting parameter instead.

These are all getting new wordings, and they're all getting complex targeting parameters like Oath of Mages. This lets the player whose turn it is choose the target, and have that target be one of his or her opponents. Targeting parameters, like "intervening 'if'" clauses, are checked both at the point when the ability would trigger and the point when it resolves, so that remains consistent. (This is a difference between the Oaths and the Keepers.)

New Oath of Lieges wording
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player chooses target player who controls more lands than he or she does and is his or her opponent. The first player may search his or her library for a basic land card, put that card onto the battlefield, then shuffle his or her library.

New Oath of Scholars wording
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player chooses target player who has more cards in hand than he or she does and is his or her opponent. The first player may discard his or her hand and draw three cards.

New Oath of Ghouls wording
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player chooses target player whose graveyard has fewer creature cards in it than his or her graveyard does and is his or her opponent. The first player may return a creature card from his or her graveyard to his or her hand.

New Oath of Mages wording
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player chooses target player who has more life than he or she does and is his or her opponent. The first player may have Oath of Mages deal 1 damage to the second player.

New Oath of Druids wording
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player chooses target player who controls more creatures than he or she does and is his or her opponent. The first player may reveal cards from his or her library until he or she reveals a creature card. If he or she does, that player puts that card onto the battlefield and puts all other cards revealed this way into his or her graveyard.

[MirariKnight]

Nevermind, I apologize for being stupid. I thought that you were still referring to the original article regarding Mask; I didn't realize they changed it again.

[majikal]

To be fair, Oath targets in its original wording as well. I highly doubt there will be any difference in gameplay.

Mask got fucked though. They should just ban the card due to unmanageable card text and get it over with.