Can X be paid if I Cascade into Chord of Calling?
Asked by godswearhats 12 years ago
Here's the scenario:
I have multiple creatures on the battlefield. I cast Bloodbraid Elf . When the Cascade trigger resolves, I exile Chord of Calling . Can X be anything other than zero? I initially thought no, but after reading the comprehensive rules I'm not sure.
The pertinent rule for Cascade is after exiling cards "you may cast that card without paying its mana cost", which rule 117.9 says is an alternative cost. Convoke is an additional cost (see 117.9d). Reading through 601.2 (the rules on casting costs), it seems like I would be able to declare X as 3 (for example) and then pay by tapping three of my creatures.
I'm actually pretty certain that X has to be zero, and that's what I'd rule if I was judging, but I'm trying to find the precise rules that would say so. I've asked my local Level 2 judge and I'm waiting to see what he comes back to me with, but I thought the more rules-minded of you on this site might find this interesting.
Epochalyptik says... Accepted answer #3
When you cast a spell without paying its mana cost, you cannot pay for X (as X is part of the mana cost).
107.3b If a player is casting a spell that has an X in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 601, "Casting Spells."
September 4, 2012 3:12 p.m.
godswearhats says... #4
Aha! That was the missing piece. Thanks Epochalyptik.
At least I'll still be able to fetch up Dryad Arbor :-)
September 4, 2012 3:41 p.m.
hunter9000 says... #5
Cascade says exile cards until you exile a non-land card, so Dryad Arbor doesn't count.
September 4, 2012 10:54 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #6
A cascaded Chord of Calling has X=0, so it can find Dryad Arbor .
September 4, 2012 11:07 p.m.
hunter9000 says... #7
Oh right, I completely misunderstood what he was saying. Carry on -__-
September 4, 2012 11:21 p.m.
Straight from the WotC rulings of Maelstrom Nexus : "If its mana cost includes X, take the chosen value of X into account." I know that normally if a spell would be cast for free X=0, but it sounds to me like you can choose any amount for X when searching with cascade ability. Meaning if the spell you cast cost 7 CMC, with cascade, you could pull Chord of Calling and cast it with X=3. However, you could not utilize the Convoke ability as the ruling also states "Ignore any alternative costs, additional costs, cost increases, or cost reductions." Furthermore, this would also mean you can choose 20 for X just to continue exiling cards if you didn't want to cast a card with X that comes up.
June 28, 2013 3:46 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
@Dawaxer: That is incorrect. When you cast something without paying its mana cost, all X values in the mana cost are set to 0 by default. I'm not really sure what you mean by "you can choose 20 for X just to continue exiling cards."
Also, this question was asked and answered almost a year ago.
June 28, 2013 3:58 p.m.
@Epochalyptik: It's easy just to say 'you're wrong'. I provided examples of official rulings you can find on Wizards of the Coast's Magic the Gathering website and you said nothing to refute them. I understand that in general X=0 at any point unless the card is being cast from your hand. However, the rulings I posted previously provide for extenuating circumstances (i.e. the Cascade ability).Also, when the question was asked has no bearing, in this case, as to how correct (or incorrect) the given answer is.
July 7, 2013 4:54 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #11
@Dawaxer: I don't need to refute the rule. The rule is correct. Your interpretation is wrong.
The Oracle ruling for Maelstrom Nexus :
5/1/2009: A spell's converted mana cost is determined solely by the mana symbols printed in its upper right corner. If its mana cost includes X, take the chosen value of X into account. Ignore any alternative costs, additional costs, cost increases, or cost reductions.
If the first spell you cast on each turn will trigger Maelstrom Nexus 's ability. If that spell has X in its mana cost, you use the value of X in determining that spell's CMC. This is only relevant because the CMC of this spell will determine the maximum CMC of the spell into which you can cascade.
When you cast a spell without paying its mana cost, as per the rule I quoted when I first answered this question, any X value in that spell's mana cost becomes 0 because those X values are only chosen if you pay the mana cost.
July 7, 2013 5:15 p.m.
You just repeated the ruling I already quoted and then repeated your old argument. You've written nothing to refute what I said except to say I'm wrong. Your argument holds no merit where logic is concerned.
July 15, 2013 1:14 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #13
@Dawaxer: Actually, the entire post refutes your argument. I don't really know how else you want it explained to you, because each detail I quoted supports my answer.
I explained that the ruling you quoted applies only to the first spell you cast each turn - the one to which Maelstrom Nexus 's static ability gives cascade. That doesn't even matter, though, because the question can be answered by looking at two simple concepts from the CR:
The definition of cascade:
702.83a Cascade is a triggered ability that functions only while the spell with cascade is on the stack. Cascade means "When you cast this spell, exile cards from the top of your library until you exile a nonland card whose converted mana cost is less than this spells converted mana cost. You may cast that card without paying its mana cost. Then put all cards exiled this way that werent cast on the bottom of your library in a random order."
The rules for casting a spell without paying its mana cost:
107.3b If a player is casting a spell that has an X in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesnt apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 601, "Casting Spells."
Additionally, I explained that you were misinterpreting the Oracle ruling and trying to apply it to X values in the mana costs of the cards exiled by cascade. This is not an application of the ruling. The premise of your argument is wrong. The Oracle ruling only exists to clarify that if the first spell you cast in a turn has X in its mana cost, the value of X will be used to determine the maximum mana cost of the card cascade will allow you to cast.
July 15, 2013 1:28 a.m.
My argument is based on a ruling made for the actual ability in question: Cascade. While your argument is is based on a general rule about CMC for cards with X. When 2 rulings seem to conflict with each other it only makes sense to go with the one pertaining to the specific case in question. Therefore your argument is invalid.
Anyway, you just keep repeating your original argument in different words without actually making any new points ever; so I'm done with this thread.
July 17, 2013 2:03 p.m.
Also fyi: your last statement makes no sense. "The Oracle ruling only exists to clarify that if the first spell you cast in a turn has X in its mana cost, the value of X will be used to determine the maximum mana cost of the card cascade will allow you to cast." There would be absolutely no point to this clarification if X were a constant (0). The only way it makes any sense to clarify that X needs to be factored in to the mana cost is if it can change; otherwise there IS nothing to factor into the cost. So you just further proved my point.
Last statement, I swear.
July 17, 2013 2:08 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #16
@Dawaxer: The last statement does make sense. None of the rulings here conflict with one another. You just aren't able to apply the rulings properly, and you're misinterpreting the purpose of the Oracle ruling because you're convinced that it must exist to conflict with the CR. In actuality, the opposite is true. It exists to serve as an extension of what the CR says.
Cascade use the CMC of the spell with cascade to determine the maximum CMC of the spell into which you can cascade. For example, cascade determines that Bloodbraid Elf has CMC 4 and thus calculates that the maximum CMC of any castable revealed card is 3 or less.
The ruling exists for the reason you state: to clarify that X needs to be factored into the mana cost if it can change. You're just factoring it into the mana cost of the wrong spell.
When a spell has X in its mana cost, X is equal to 0 in all zones except the stack. When a spell with cascade has X in its mana cost, cascade will see whatever value was chosen for X and use that to determine what you can cast with the cascade ability. For example, you control Maelstrom Nexus and cast Blaze as your first spell of the turn. Blaze was cast with X=5. The total CMC of Blaze while on the stack is 6. Cascade will allow you to cast a revealed card with CMC 5 or less.
The Oracle ruling does NOT apply to the spells revealed with cascade because you are not paying their mana costs. Any time an effect allows you to cast a spell without paying its mana cost, any X values derived from mana cost are set to 0 by default. This is a universal rule and has never been overridden. Those X values are chosen as a casting decision only when you cast the spells for their mana costs.
You're welcome to bring this up in any rules debate on any Magic site or with any judge and get proven wrong.
Rhadamanthus, mafteechr, or any other judge, RA, or guru would be happy to explain the situation in another way.
July 17, 2013 2:40 p.m.
You see, now once you stop going in circles repeating yourself and actually explain something other than saying "you're wrong", your argument makes sense.
You see in the ruling for Maelstrom Nexus , it never states that it is only talking about cards cast with both the cascade ability and X in the cost- NOT about the cards being exiled with the ability and X in the cost. That is where I was confused, but it does make more sense the way you put it.
Thank you for the clarification.
July 17, 2013 2:53 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #18
I also explained it in post #13. Regardless, I'm glad we resolved this.
Oracle rulings that contradict CR rulings typically give a specific reason or case for the contradiction. In this case, the Oracle ruling is merely a definition of CMC. It doesn't say anything further because it is meant to be used in conjunction with existing rules.
July 17, 2013 2:58 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #19
For future reference: It's impossible for card-specific rulings to be in conflict with the Comprehensive Rules, because they're specifically developed to explain how the card works within the rules.
If you ever find yourself in a situation where there seems to be a conflict between the CR and a card-specific ruling, that means you're interpreting one or both of them incorrectly. For this example, the tip-off was the fact that "take the chosen value of X into account" doesn't make sense if it's interpreted as referring to an X on the card you're cascading into. If it can't mean that, then it has to mean something else.
July 17, 2013 4:43 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #20
Wait a minute, WTF? Did you really necro a thread from almost a year ago to post that? Trust me, if there was such a glaring mistake in the accepted answer, someone would have caught it a long time ago.
Sorry, I just now realized that and it kind of caught me off-guard. No offense meant but seriously, damn.
July 17, 2013 4:46 p.m.
godswearhats says... #21
I have learned never to dispute a rule with Epochalyptic (more than once in a thread) :-)
September 3, 2013 5:31 p.m.
godswearhats says... #22
It would help if I spelled his name right too (sorry dude!)
AyeDavanita10 says... #1
the way I see it, just an opinion, Cascade states that t the converted mana cost has to be less, therefore, if you use Bloodbraid Elf when it cascades the mana cost has to be 3 or less, so by that logic if you were to exile Chord of Calling X would have to be 0 in order for it to be cast.It's just my thought dude, I agree with you and it's actually a pretty good question.
September 4, 2012 2:52 p.m.