Please login to comment
The intended Scarecrow is blinked, which removes him from Scarecrone's targeting.
Scarecrone's ability attempts to resolve; It checks to see if mana is paid and if a creature was sacrificed. The mana checks out, and the targeted creature does not check out.
Since I paid the mana, but I can not sacrifice the intended Scarecrow, do I still get to draw a card or no?
May 18, 2017 3:06 p.m.
Quantumsandwich, thanks. I just wanted to be sure before I start designing a deck that doesn't actually work.
May 18, 2017 2:26 p.m.
I know it's a really stupid question, but it's not actually explicitly stated within the card's rulings. Figured it wouldn't hurt to ask; It'd just make me look stupid lol.
The actual reason I am asking is because of the 05/01/2008 ruling: "This ability doesnt overwrite any previous colors. Rather, it adds another color."
So my Shock is still a red spell, but it could also be a blue spell. Since that is the case, I was wondering if this also in turn means I can cast it using blue mana.
May 18, 2017 2:04 p.m.
To quote the ACCEPTED ANSWER of FancyTuesday; _"The wording on Impact Resonance is "X is the greatest amount of damage dealt by a source to a permanent or player this turn", not "the greatest total amount of damage dealt by a source."
The damage dealt by Purphoros is 2. It may deal it many times to many targets, but it deals 2 damage. That is the greatest amount that source has dealt."_ -
May 15, 2017 5:40 a.m.
Any massive +1/+1 counter deck needs to consider running Hindervines. Just saying :)
May 12, 2017 10:29 p.m.
I'm looking to get two alters of Savage Beating, replacing the Vulshok Warriors with a Minotaur. I'm running a Rakdos Minotaur Tribal deck in Modern right now and it is crushing my group, and I'd like the card to match the rest of the set.
I hope I posted this in the proper forum. If there's a better place for this please relocate as needed. Thanks :)
May 12, 2017 2:01 p.m.
So I was always under the impression that I declare attackers (Attacking my opponent, obviously) and any damage that goes through is directed at my opponent. Once this damage goes through (Unblocked / Trampled over) I may redirect it toward their Planeswalker(s) as seen fit.
A guy in our playgroup started to fight this, saying I must declare my creatures attacking his Planeswalker specifically, which he than blocks with creatures. If any damage goes through, it goes to the Planeswalker first.
So my question is; Must I specifically state I am attacking the Planeswalker and not him, or am I attacking him and damage is redirected?
May 10, 2017 12:08 p.m.
By the way, here's a couple of fun cards to prevent mana from emptying.
May 10, 2017 12:05 p.m.
The above-mentioned situation is correct.
Gideon's Lawkeeper, as a blocker, does not need to tap. However, she can still activate his ability to tap him. Here in lies the problem.
When she declares him as a blocker, Furnace Whelp must have already been declared as an attacker. Therefore, in order to do such a feat, she would have needed to tap him prior to combat (During your 1st main phase). But, at this point, I am unsure on whether or not Lawkeeper can block, since he is now currently tapped.
Therefore, a better question is; Can Gideon's Lawkeeper block if I already tapped to activate his ability?
May 10, 2017 12:02 p.m.
Ryjo, I saw your post about the card being exclusive, and I've read this online as well (On MTG's official website). What I'm confused about is if this claim is true, how did I get one in a fatpack and another in a stand-alone booster pack?
I think this is more of a false marketing ploy than anything. That, or I got insanely lucky in the worst possible way.
May 8, 2017 1:46 p.m.
May 8, 2017 8:07 a.m.
Crivaro, I've run a Yasova deck before and it's a powerhouse. Something you should really consider is Xenagos, God of Revels. What you're going to want to do is pump Yasova up a ton so you can gain control of almost anything on the battlefield, than during the beginning of combat on your turn give her +X/+X with Xenagos so you can take control of even more stuff.
This solves two problems at once; If you're lacking in pumps, he can be a swift boost that you need. And if you're low on creatures, he's an Indestructible tank.
Another beautiful God is Kruphix, God of Horizons. Sit back and tap your mana and pool it all together into one big colorless clump. When it comes time during the beginning of your combat phase, dump all of the colorless to pay for the cost, so that you can free up your mana base for more costs. Essentially, if you plan right, you can open up approximately 30% more mana since you no longer need to tap for that . And again, you get another Indestructible tank.
May 8, 2017 5:22 a.m.
Also on TCG there is one listing at $2.99. The others are $0.25. Card Kingdom also lists at $0.25. I think that one sole seller on TCG is just being silly (To use a less-aggressive word).
May 7, 2017 3:17 a.m.
Purely from a mechanic standpoint, he's a tank.
Think about it. If you get multiple of these out, your opponent most likely will not want to attack you purely out of fear of you using them to block. They also can pelt your opponent for 1 damage apiece, more if you equip or enchant them. Again, out of fear of removal. He's essentially a monoblack burn spell rolled up into a creature. And he can bring extra hate if you fuel any "sac-a-creature" abilities.
I don't think he should be valued at $3 like you say, but I'd definitely say he's at least $0.50, maybe $0.75 foil.
May 7, 2017 3:14 a.m.
I know this is a silly question but I hadn't thought about it until just now. So, I have out a Chandra, Fire of Kaladesh Flip and a handful of burn spells. I tap her for 1 damage, cast a spell and untap, and repeat.
My question is this; Because her ability states:
"If Chandra has dealt 3 or more damage this turn, exile her,(...)"
and not; "If Chandra has dealt 3 or more damage this turn, you may exile her,(...)" is this automatic?
In other words, suppose I can tap her to deal 4, or even 5 damage in a single turn, am I allowed to or once she hits 3 damage is it an automatic exile into Chandra, Roaring Flame Flip? I am asking because, let's face it, if you can get a few more points of burn damage out of her why not do it, right? I just didn't know if this was technically a "legal" move or not.
May 7, 2017 3:07 a.m.
1.) If I Exert a creature who has Vigilance, do I still need to tap it? I know Exert is not a tap ability, per se, but I also know that it specifically says that an Exerted creature doesn't untap during your next untap step. So, if my guy has Vigilance, do I merely waltz right past that secondary condition altogether?
2.) Suppose the above is true, if I Exert a creature who has Vigilance, and during the time between my declare attackers phase and my next upkeep where I would untap everything suppose my opponent casts a spell to tap said creature. It was Exerted, but did not have to tap thanks to Vigilance, but now IS tapped thanks to a spell or an ability my opponent controls... So, does it untap during my untap step or no? It is Exerted, after all, so... I'm thinking it doesn't?
May 6, 2017 9:26 a.m.
SCORE: 1 | 190 VIEWS
|Avg. deck rating||2.00|
|Good Card Suggestions||2|
|Last activity||1 week|