[CNS] Council's judgement

[bactgudz]

Council's Judgment
1WW
Sorcery
Will of the council - Starting with you, each player votes for a nonland permanent you don't control. Exile each permanent with the most votes or tied for most votes.

Mono-white vindicate(non-land) that exiles, gets around shroud, hexproof, and even TNN.

[gkraigher]

It kills Emrakul, Blightsteel Colossus, and True-Name Nemesis.  It basically makes Vindicate obsolete and worthless, and tacks on maelstorm pulse's additional bonus. 

Amazing printing!

[Vennie]

Have to say that it's good, but it does not kill lands as vindicate can do in some cases.

[gkraigher]

Ah, good point.  Vindicate does hit lands.  I forgot about that. 

[Samoht]

It says nothing about things with the same name...

[birds of paradise]

It says nothing about things with the same name...

You vote for a permanent, e.g. it wont matter if there is multiples onlines with the same name.

[gkraigher]

It says "each"

[Samoht]

It says "each"

Because they COULD vote for another permanent than you did or there could be more than two players.

edit: If I have two Tarmogoyfs they are separate permanents. You don't vote for all Tarmogoyfs but either Tarmogoyf 1 or Tarmogoyf 2. This holds for any permanent.

[gkraigher]

well if they vote for a different permanent you don't control, then you get to exile two different permanents you don't control.  That is better for you.   

[Samoht]

well if they vote for a different permanent you don't control, then you get to exile two different permanents you don't control.  That is better for you.   

Right, but you don't get to "Maelstrom Pulse" them.  Your confusing what the word each means.

[gkraigher]

if you have 2 true name nemesis in play, and i have zero.  I cast this card and vote for true-name, you vote for anything, then both your true-names are exiled.  So in that regard, it is a malestorm pulse.


Or I name goblin token, I get to exile each goblin token.  

[Samoht]

if you have 2 true name nemesis in play, and i have zero.  I cast this card and vote for true-name, you vote for anything, then both your true-names are exiled.  So in that regard, it is a malestorm pulse.

No. You're not able to vote for True-Name Nemesis in that manner. You have to vote for either True-Name Nemsis (a) or True-Name Nemesis (b). The opponent is likely to vote for the SAME thing you do, in order to minimize the effect. As such, whichever you chose will get Exiled.

[gkraigher]

You're right, I did read the card wrong.  You are voting for a permanent, not the name of a permanent.  

I got the "each" part right, just a different part of the card confused me.  

It is not a malestorm pulse.  

[Samoht]

You're right, I did read the card wrong.  You are voting for a permanent, not the name of a permanent.  

I got the "each" part right, just a different part of the card confused me.  

It is not a malestorm pulse.  

I think the inclusion of the word each is what got you, but all the same now that we agree we can move on.

[fsecco]

Double WW is kinda hard, but anyway, great, great card. Legacy will love this. In Vintage this obviously goes, but only if you can manage the double white with ease. Nice card.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Also, doesn't your opponent's (ostensibly different) choice also get nuked?

Ie, doesn't this read: destroy target and sac a land...at best?

[TorpidNinja]

Also, doesn't your opponent's (ostensibly different) choice also get nuked?

Ie, doesn't this read: destroy target and sac a land...at best?

Your opponent can choose the same "nonland permanent you don't control."

[bactgudz]

Also, doesn't your opponent's (ostensibly different) choice also get nuked?

Ie, doesn't this read: destroy target and sac a land...at best?

"you don't control"

[Samoht]

It's design is for multiplayer commander.

[bactgudz]

I wonder if the extra vote guy might be playable once we see all the will of the council cards.  He is certainly very strong with this.

[ed0]

I wonder if the extra vote guy might be playable once we see all the will of the council cards.  He is certainly very strong with this.

the extra vote wouldn't do you any good.

you vote for a permanent - then the opponent votes for a permanent (which will be the same one you voted for) - now you get another vote which wouldn't change the outcome as you either have two votes on one permanent and one on another (no parity, thus only the one with the two votes is exiled) or three votes on one permanent (which is just as good as 2 votes on it).

[bactgudz]

I wonder if the extra vote guy might be playable once we see all the will of the council cards.  He is certainly very strong with this.

the extra vote wouldn't do you any good.

you vote for a permanent - then the opponent votes for a permanent (which will be the same one you voted for) - now you get another vote which wouldn't change the outcome as you either have two votes on one permanent and one on another (no parity, thus only the one with the two votes is exiled) or three votes on one permanent (which is just as good as 2 votes on it).

ah, true, you'd need two of him in play.  Well, I guess if there ends up being some other will of the council card you are building a deck around him with to break parity, it still could come up...but not as strong as I was thinking.

Edit: Dang, likely that doesn't even work.  It's not clear if you take your extra vote with your first one or at the end; but you likely do it at the same time

[MaximumCDawg]

Wow, this card... targeted removal that does not target.  For white.

In Vintage, I don't see this doing much at the moment.  It's too expensive for reliable removal.  Legacy is a whole different animal, though.

Card's gonna be expensive.

[Protoaddict]

It should be noted this card does have a downside, sorta. If your opponent has something they need to get rid of, like a mana crypt or a confidant, they can cast their vote for it and then both cards would get removed.

Its a corner case and only relevant in 2 player games, but I can see that it could come up in relevant points.

[MrGlantz]

It should be noted this card does have a downside, sorta. If your opponent has something they need to get rid of, like a mana crypt or a confidant, they can cast their vote for it and then both cards would get removed.

Its a corner case and only relevant in 2 player games, but I can see that it could come up in relevant points.

Council's Judgment
1WW
Sorcery
Will of the council - Starting with you, each player votes for a nonland permanent you don't control. Exile each permanent with the most votes or tied for most votes.

Nope.

Edit: Totally misunderstood. You mean that if you cast it, they can also vote for something that they want to destroy. In that case it's a two for one which  still seems fine most of the time.

[Protoaddict]

Yea so if they are at 3 life and have a Blightsteel and a mana crypt out, they can remove their own mana crypt. Like I said it's a pretty corner case, but it exists. In that instance it may still be better than swords to plowshares though, because they will remain at 3 life and be down a mana source.

[vaughnbros]

Yea so if they are at 3 life and have a Blightsteel and a mana crypt out, they can remove their own mana crypt. Like I said it's a pretty corner case, but it exists. In that instance it may still be better than swords to plowshares though, because they will remain at 3 life and be down a mana source.

This is a pretty big stretch to look for a drawback.  Try 3 mana sorcery.  Vindicate and pulse don't see play for a reason, they cost a lot of mana at sorcery speed for a card that can only 1 for 1 your opponent

[Saya]

Too many players misread this text...anyway,that's a great stuff.

[Charlie]

Yea so if they are at 3 life and have a Blightsteel and a mana crypt out, they can remove their own mana crypt. Like I said it's a pretty corner case, but it exists. In that instance it may still be better than swords to plowshares though, because they will remain at 3 life and be down a mana source.

This is a pretty big stretch to look for a drawback.  Try 3 mana sorcery.  Vindicate and pulse don't see play for a reason, they cost a lot of mana at sorcery speed for a card that can only 1 for 1 your opponent

I must be complaining about this while Blightsteel is gone. Besides, this card does work around sac the permanent in response - just vote for something else.

[Guli]

I would want a Grand Abolisher in play before I cast this. Otherwise it is going to get Forced, Flustered, Dazed or Pierced.