(3*) Can you play a Howl from Beyond with Valgavoth? Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2... A: Yes, but only for X=0
I don't think there's anything that uses this templating (?) To the best of my knowledge, everything that offers an alternative casting cost either uses a keyword defined by the rules (blitz, overload, whatever) or uses the phrase "rather than paying its mana cost"
The bit about "X in an alternative cost" is really meant to refer to when the spell itself offers an alternative cost that lets you pay X instead of the X in the mana cost. I think there may be a different rule also, that clarifies that unrelated Xs basically need to be treated separately. So a second card saying "pay this alternate cost that actually does have an X in it because of the way this card works" doesn't get you out of the "X must be 0 [for the purposes of the X in the spell you're castng]" rule.
I don't think it would be different, because it would be a distinct instance of X, not related to the one on the spell being cast. The "there's an X in the alternate cost" thing is in there to cover cards like, for example, Devil's Play, which has an X in its cost, and also has a Flashback cost (which is an alternate cost) that contains X. It doesn't really come into play for alternative costs created by a different card.
I really liked your walking through, and using the concrete example of Bolas' Citadel here. Very through explanation. I kind of wanted a challenge question, but I'm also glad you settled on an unambiguous point.
I just saw a comment in my archive binge of your channel (about 7 months ago) proposing a slight change of wording to your signoff, which I noticed you used here. I probably would've never thought twice about old phrasing, since I certainly can't remember which way you've been doing it in other more recent videos, but now I'll have to be listening to see if you made that permanent change haha. If so, very cool of you to welcome suggestions like that in good cheer.
I suspect that this is very much intentional. Lets go back to your earlier example of Blaze, now if you were able to pay life instead of mana for X, then as long as you have 2 more life then your opponent, it'd be a instant win. (Assuming it doesn't get countered etc ofc).
this one really surprises me, I sorta assumed that the fact 19 mana was being used to pay for the x would carry over when the mana cost was converted to life. I can kinda comprehend why it doesn't, but it's still a strange ruling.
How would you word the effect to work with X spells - something like "You may cast that spell. Until you have paid the cost of that spell, you may pay life up to its mana value, each life pays for one mana of any color in that spells cost." This would also allow things like kicker - I think?
I recently got an answer about an interaction that I would like a second opinion on because the first answer doesn't feel right in my heart. My opponent controls a Platinum Angel. I control a Laboratory Maniac. When I try to draw from my empty library, what happens? I know I don't win because Platinum Angel prevents it, but what else happens in that interaction and what is my status in the game?
@@Jtsqueaker nothing happens. The card draw is replaced with winning the game, but since that can't happen, it won't. The card draw is still replaced, so you never tried to draw from an empty library and won't die. Ruling on Lab Man: "If for some reason you can't win the game (because your opponent has cast Angel's Grace this turn, for example), you won't lose for having tried to draw a card from a library with no cards in it. The draw was still replaced."
Hi can you please please do a video on "Shifting Woodland" and "Exchange of Words"? Specifically at end of turn, what does shifting woodlands look like? It's normal self or does it have the exchanged words but now a land?
If you turn it into creature A and Exchange of Words it with creature B, at end of turn Shifting Woodland is a land with the text of creature B and creature B still has the text of creature A. Rulings: "Exchanging two creatures’ text boxes means that each one loses its rules text and replaces it with the rules text the other one had. In Un- games, this also means the text boxes themselves are exchanged, including the flavor text and watermarks in those text boxes. In both cases, this is a text-changing effect." "Once the exchange has happened, either of the two creatures leaving the battlefield has no effect on the other creature’s text box. The exchange will only end once Exchange of Words is no longer on the battlefield. Similarly, further changes to either creature’s text box won’t change the other’s text box."
@@seandun7083 amazing! Thank you so much.. I'm actually quite surprised about that. I would think that when you first activate shifting woodland's ability, at that point it would remember the attributes of itself, and that is what would go onto the stack at end of turn. But that is just intuitively, I don't have any rules to backup that claim. I'm guessing the same would apply for things like mirage mirror?
@@brianl2607 it doesn't create a delayed trigger to turn it back into itself. Instead, the effect turning it into something else just ends. Mirage Mirror would work the same.
Does anyone else find their wording of "if a card you DIDN'T control would be..." The change of tense in the replacement effect is jarring from a plain english perspective and a shift from the previous convention. It also makes the rules much more confusing. "Yes I control it now, but how far back can I look to satisfy the "didn't"?" Is there a rules reason they changed the tense here or was it an attempt to make replacement effects more intuitive?
So what would it take to word Valgavoth to allow this? I know convoke works with X spells, so I checked the CR and convoke deals instead with the _total_ cost. So maybe “for each mana in its total cost, pay 1 life instead of paying that mana”? Of course, Wizards is unlikely to want to print anything that says “total cost”-most people won't know what that means, and messing with the total cost seems like it would eventually lead to needing _another_ calculation for the for-real total cost
Pretty reasonable wording, K'rrik has very similar wording. But it feels wrong, because the "for each" part feels like it is leading up to a series of choices or events, but it isn't. You pay it all, or pay none, there are no partial payments. When you're outright replacing entire costs like this, Xs are treated as 0s. That's kind of the rule. You'd need new templating and maybe a new rule to support it being different. Something like "you pay life rather than mana" might work, with support.
Honestly? I'd take even further inspiration from Convoke and Delve, and use keywords. Create a new keyword ("Channeling"?) for spells that can be paid for in life, give it official rules text that does the thing (but reminder text that's phrased more "nicely"), and then give Valgavoth an ability like "If you cast a spell this way, it gains Channeling. You can't spend mana to cast spells this way."
@@LibertyMonk You can in fact replace an entire cost with nonzero X, say by convoking the whole thing. The only difference is that convoke makes the replacement optional for each mana. Everything is “kind of the rule” until it isn't. Half of what makes templating interesting is that sometimes they want certain interactions and sometimes they don't. All that said, yeah, “pay life rather than mana when paying to cast a spell this way” would probably work. (Might need a CR to distinguish it from “rather than paying its mans cost” effects but that's a CR detail.)
@@MenloMarseilles Is it an effect they want to be around that much, though? Free spells are a notorious problem area. Phyrexian mana is much easier to balance since (most) such cards still require some real mana
"Mana in its total cost" would include the 2 extra mana from Curse of Silence for example, so that isn't really what Valg is trying to do - "mana value" is the correct quantity to match the existing effect. Convoke refers to that because you can indeed pay for the Curse tax by tapping creatures, but Valg as currently worded would make you pay life for the mana cost and still pay the Curse tax separately, so presumably it's okay to keep that functionality. Maybe it could say "If you cast a spell this way, it costs an additional X life, and costs X mana of any combination of colors less to cast, where X is its mana value."
Would it work differently if it said "Pay X life instead of that spell's mana cost, where X is its mana value?" 🤔
I don't think there's anything that uses this templating (?) To the best of my knowledge, everything that offers an alternative casting cost either uses a keyword defined by the rules (blitz, overload, whatever) or uses the phrase "rather than paying its mana cost"
I think it would work if it said "you can't pay mana to cast those spells. You may pay life as though it were mana of any type to cast those spells."
Youd have to use life to pay for the mana cost, as opposed to paying life instead of the mana cost
The bit about "X in an alternative cost" is really meant to refer to when the spell itself offers an alternative cost that lets you pay X instead of the X in the mana cost. I think there may be a different rule also, that clarifies that unrelated Xs basically need to be treated separately. So a second card saying "pay this alternate cost that actually does have an X in it because of the way this card works" doesn't get you out of the "X must be 0 [for the purposes of the X in the spell you're castng]" rule.
I don't think it would be different, because it would be a distinct instance of X, not related to the one on the spell being cast. The "there's an X in the alternate cost" thing is in there to cover cards like, for example, Devil's Play, which has an X in its cost, and also has a Flashback cost (which is an alternate cost) that contains X. It doesn't really come into play for alternative costs created by a different card.
I really liked your walking through, and using the concrete example of Bolas' Citadel here. Very through explanation. I kind of wanted a challenge question, but I'm also glad you settled on an unambiguous point.
I got it wrong! Thabks for the DDR!
This is the perfect thing to watch with my morning coffee. Like a little brain teaser, but also important explainers for the comp rules.
Your clarification actually makes this a lot more intuitive. I guess this also helps keep Valgavoth from getting a bit too crazy.
I just saw a comment in my archive binge of your channel (about 7 months ago) proposing a slight change of wording to your signoff, which I noticed you used here. I probably would've never thought twice about old phrasing, since I certainly can't remember which way you've been doing it in other more recent videos, but now I'll have to be listening to see if you made that permanent change haha. If so, very cool of you to welcome suggestions like that in good cheer.
I suspect that this is very much intentional. Lets go back to your earlier example of Blaze, now if you were able to pay life instead of mana for X, then as long as you have 2 more life then your opponent, it'd be a instant win. (Assuming it doesn't get countered etc ofc).
The shade being thrown at 2:28 is hilarious 😂
Ohh very interesting with the mana value vs mana cost - that made it very clear
Could we get a "Master of Keys" + "Secret Arcade" ruling please?
this one really surprises me, I sorta assumed that the fact 19 mana was being used to pay for the x would carry over when the mana cost was converted to life. I can kinda comprehend why it doesn't, but it's still a strange ruling.
How would you word the effect to work with X spells - something like "You may cast that spell. Until you have paid the cost of that spell, you may pay life up to its mana value, each life pays for one mana of any color in that spells cost."
This would also allow things like kicker - I think?
I'd reach for the wording used in Convoke and Dredge. "For each mana in that spell’s total cost, pay one life rather than pay that mana."
You can actually use Kicker with Valg, just not pay life for the kicker costs - pay mana or whatever else the kicker asks as normal.
"Each life you spend while casting a spell this way pays for one mana of any type. You may not spend mana to cast spells this way."
I recently got an answer about an interaction that I would like a second opinion on because the first answer doesn't feel right in my heart.
My opponent controls a Platinum Angel. I control a Laboratory Maniac. When I try to draw from my empty library, what happens? I know I don't win because Platinum Angel prevents it, but what else happens in that interaction and what is my status in the game?
@@Jtsqueaker nothing happens. The card draw is replaced with winning the game, but since that can't happen, it won't. The card draw is still replaced, so you never tried to draw from an empty library and won't die.
Ruling on Lab Man:
"If for some reason you can't win the game (because your opponent has cast Angel's Grace this turn, for example), you won't lose for having tried to draw a card from a library with no cards in it. The draw was still replaced."
How does Marvin murderous mimic interact with activated abilities such as ulvenwald captive? Will marvin transform into ulvenwald abomination?
@@shadow_flame2223 a card that isn't double sided can't transform, so nothing will happen.
Hi can you please please do a video on "Shifting Woodland" and "Exchange of Words"? Specifically at end of turn, what does shifting woodlands look like? It's normal self or does it have the exchanged words but now a land?
If you turn it into creature A and Exchange of Words it with creature B, at end of turn Shifting Woodland is a land with the text of creature B and creature B still has the text of creature A.
Rulings:
"Exchanging two creatures’ text boxes means that each one loses its rules text and replaces it with the rules text the other one had. In Un- games, this also means the text boxes themselves are exchanged, including the flavor text and watermarks in those text boxes. In both cases, this is a text-changing effect."
"Once the exchange has happened, either of the two creatures leaving the battlefield has no effect on the other creature’s text box. The exchange will only end once Exchange of Words is no longer on the battlefield. Similarly, further changes to either creature’s text box won’t change the other’s text box."
@@seandun7083 amazing! Thank you so much.. I'm actually quite surprised about that. I would think that when you first activate shifting woodland's ability, at that point it would remember the attributes of itself, and that is what would go onto the stack at end of turn. But that is just intuitively, I don't have any rules to backup that claim.
I'm guessing the same would apply for things like mirage mirror?
@@brianl2607 it doesn't create a delayed trigger to turn it back into itself. Instead, the effect turning it into something else just ends. Mirage Mirror would work the same.
@@seandun7083 ahh that is a nice way of explaining it! Thanks again!
Does anyone else find their wording of "if a card you DIDN'T control would be..."
The change of tense in the replacement effect is jarring from a plain english perspective and a shift from the previous convention.
It also makes the rules much more confusing. "Yes I control it now, but how far back can I look to satisfy the "didn't"?"
Is there a rules reason they changed the tense here or was it an attempt to make replacement effects more intuitive?
So what would it take to word Valgavoth to allow this? I know convoke works with X spells, so I checked the CR and convoke deals instead with the _total_ cost. So maybe “for each mana in its total cost, pay 1 life instead of paying that mana”? Of course, Wizards is unlikely to want to print anything that says “total cost”-most people won't know what that means, and messing with the total cost seems like it would eventually lead to needing _another_ calculation for the for-real total cost
Pretty reasonable wording, K'rrik has very similar wording. But it feels wrong, because the "for each" part feels like it is leading up to a series of choices or events, but it isn't. You pay it all, or pay none, there are no partial payments.
When you're outright replacing entire costs like this, Xs are treated as 0s. That's kind of the rule. You'd need new templating and maybe a new rule to support it being different.
Something like "you pay life rather than mana" might work, with support.
Honestly? I'd take even further inspiration from Convoke and Delve, and use keywords. Create a new keyword ("Channeling"?) for spells that can be paid for in life, give it official rules text that does the thing (but reminder text that's phrased more "nicely"), and then give Valgavoth an ability like "If you cast a spell this way, it gains Channeling. You can't spend mana to cast spells this way."
@@LibertyMonk You can in fact replace an entire cost with nonzero X, say by convoking the whole thing. The only difference is that convoke makes the replacement optional for each mana.
Everything is “kind of the rule” until it isn't. Half of what makes templating interesting is that sometimes they want certain interactions and sometimes they don't.
All that said, yeah, “pay life rather than mana when paying to cast a spell this way” would probably work. (Might need a CR to distinguish it from “rather than paying its mans cost” effects but that's a CR detail.)
@@MenloMarseilles Is it an effect they want to be around that much, though? Free spells are a notorious problem area. Phyrexian mana is much easier to balance since (most) such cards still require some real mana
"Mana in its total cost" would include the 2 extra mana from Curse of Silence for example, so that isn't really what Valg is trying to do - "mana value" is the correct quantity to match the existing effect. Convoke refers to that because you can indeed pay for the Curse tax by tapping creatures, but Valg as currently worded would make you pay life for the mana cost and still pay the Curse tax separately, so presumably it's okay to keep that functionality. Maybe it could say "If you cast a spell this way, it costs an additional X life, and costs X mana of any combination of colors less to cast, where X is its mana value."
Love these videos . Keep it up