Magic The Gathering Combos
Search Cards & Combos:

Home     Submit A Combo     Deck Builder     Forums     Picture Guess     Help

You are not logged in [click to login] - [Join For Free!]  





Forum Overview >> General Chat
Title: X mana question
Date Posted: Mon Jun/21/10 at 1:51pm

Phyto
Posts: 55
Joined: 19-Jun-10

Okay you deal damage to an opponent with Maelstrom Archangel and from her ability you can play a card without paying its mana cost.

could you use an X spell like Blaze and declare that X = 20?
Date Posted: Mon Jun/21/10 at 2:26pm

Skybreak22
Posts: 327
Joined: 01-Feb-10

Actually, Blaze's converted mana cost is "R"......therefore, you get to play it for the free cost of one red mana......X is an additional cost you pay as you cast it, therefore you would still have to pay the additional amount that you want pumped into it.
Date Posted: Mon Jun/21/10 at 2:53pm

Phyto
Posts: 55
Joined: 19-Jun-10

Okay I thought so

If the cards mana cost was just XX would you be able to?
Date Posted: Mon Jun/21/10 at 4:15pm

Skybreak22
Posts: 327
Joined: 01-Feb-10

Nope. XX means that card's converted mana cost is 0. At which point you have to pay 2 mana/per to pump it to your needs.
Date Posted: Mon Jun/21/10 at 5:08pm

Zark-the-Damned
Posts: 523
Joined: 24-Feb-10

Afraid you're wrong there Skybreak.

If a spell has an 'X' in it's mana cost, that value must be declared as part of putting the spell on the stack.

While on the stack, X is whatever value was declared for it. So if X=6, Blaze has a CMC of 7 on the stack.

If you have the opportunity to play an 'X' spell without paying the spell's mana cost, X is automatically 0. So Maelstrom Angel won't help with Blaze.

However, if X is NOT defined in the mana cost, such as 'as an additional cost, sacrifice X lands' then you can pay them as normal.

TLDR: Using Maelstrom Angel to play spells with X in their cost forces you to pick 0 for X.

EDIT: Grabbed the ruling from MTG Gatherer-
2/1/2009 If you cast a card with X in its cost this way, X must be 0.

[Edited by Zark-the-Damned on 21/Jun/10 at 5:10PM]
Date Posted: Mon Jun/21/10 at 5:14pm

Skybreak22
Posts: 327
Joined: 01-Feb-10

Sigh......ok, when you cast your next Erratic Explosion, and you reveal Blaze from the top of your library, have fun trying to claim your Blaze has a "converted mana cost" of anything other than 1.
Date Posted: Mon Jun/21/10 at 5:24pm

Skybreak22
Posts: 327
Joined: 01-Feb-10

In other words, all I'm saying is, since day 1 of MTG......"converted mana cost" has always been the physical amount of mana symbols on the face of the card. X has always been irrelevant in determining a card's CMC. This stack you speak of has no bearing on a card's CMC. Unless WotC has changed that ruling, (which wouldn't surprise me because they've managed to f*** up everything else), then my original assessment is correct.
Date Posted: Mon Jun/21/10 at 7:25pm

lin sivvi
Posts: 1608
Joined: 14-Jan-10

Zark is entirely correct skybreak but he wasn't mentioning anything about converted mana cost. just saying that you would play blaze and deal 0 damage to your target.

Strange note: some players made a house rule saying that X in a mana cost increased the cmc by .5.
Date Posted: Mon Jun/21/10 at 8:02pm

Skybreak22
Posts: 327
Joined: 01-Feb-10

Of course it would deal 0 damage....unless you paid the mana to pump up the Blaze. Even though the Archangel would allow you to play the Blaze itself for free, the cost of X is still an option to you at that point, but you do have to pay the mana for it. So at this point, I've had two people tell me I am wrong about something, yet no one yet has shown what I am wrong about. Every statement I have made has been correct so far.
Date Posted: Mon Jun/21/10 at 9:07pm

JMDin83
Posts: 880
Joined: 30-Jul-09

except where you keep stating that you have the option of paying the additional X.  Which is wrong.  as he plainly wrote from the gatherer rules

"2/1/2009 If you cast a card with X in its cost this way, X must be 0."

therefore, you have 2 options, play it for 0 damage, or dont play it at all.  paying the X is NOT an option.

X is not an Additional cost.  its a required cost.  and whenever it is used in calculations other than how much you want to pay for it when you can*  X is always 0

*which with the archangel, you cant.
Date Posted: Mon Jun/21/10 at 10:04pm

Phyto
Posts: 55
Joined: 19-Jun-10

Your both right just stating the same thing in different ways.

Thanks for the answer :D
Date Posted: Tue Jun/22/10 at 12:27am

shakii23
Posts: 5711
Joined: 08-Sep-09

Declaration of the X cost is before playing the spell... but if counting for CMC, X is always 0... same with playing a spell with X cost , X is 0...


[Edited by shakii23 on 24/Jun/10 at 3:06AM]
Date Posted: Tue Jun/22/10 at 7:48am

Zark-the-Damned
Posts: 523
Joined: 24-Feb-10

Time for some comp rules wizardry:

107.3a If a spell or activated ability has a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, and/or activation cost with an {X}, [-X], or X in it, and the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of casting the spell or activating the ability. (See rule 601, "Casting Spells.") While a spell is on the stack, any X in its mana cost equals the announced value. While an activated ability is on the stack, any X in its activation cost equals the announced value.

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."

107.3c If a spell or activated ability has an {X}, [-X], or X in its cost and/or its text, and the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value. Note that the value of X may change while that spell or ability is on the stack.
Date Posted: Tue Jun/22/10 at 10:20am

Skybreak22
Posts: 327
Joined: 01-Feb-10

Ok, so the only rule that applies to my statements is 107.3b.....evidently you can not choose to pay the X when the Blaze is granted as a free spell. However, relating to the question that was originally posted, X can not be any random number as he was asking. So I did answer his question correctly.

As far as the CMC, my point was valid there. A card always has a value even if it is 0. The value of X is always 0 until a spell is cast, and then as Zark mentioned, the value of the CMC may change at that point due to the value added in casting the spell. That essentially becomes the value of that "spell", not the card itself. To be fair, the CMC of Blaze is indeed 1, until it is cast. I guess my point with that was based on my incorrect assessment of being able to pump a Blaze that was cast as a free spell.

So, blah blah bliggity blah....
Date Posted: Tue Jun/22/10 at 10:32am

JMDin83
Posts: 880
Joined: 30-Jul-09

no skybreak, you didnt, because you still originally told him it was an option to pay the X or XX.  So you didnt.

please stop arguing now.  you were wrong. its no big deal, but now its just getting into confusingland for the new players.
Date Posted: Tue Jun/22/10 at 11:35am

Ephemerance
Posts: 913
Joined: 18-Jun-09

Skybreak wasn't talking about casting in terms of the Maelstrom Archangel, and that's where the confusion is coming in.

And when someone pointed out that x damage wasn't like a kicker, he agreed and even pointed out erratic explosion. He gets this guys, no worries. He was just articulating the rules in a way that risked misinterpretation, and that's what everyone is so upset about.

Everyone gets it.
Date Posted: Tue Jun/22/10 at 12:24pm

Skybreak22
Posts: 327
Joined: 01-Feb-10

Yup, I was wrong about being able to pump the Blaze. And blah blah bliggity blah....I'm not arguing. Giggity.
Date Posted: Tue Jun/22/10 at 3:33pm

JMDin83
Posts: 880
Joined: 30-Jul-09

Who else but Quagmire?!
Date Posted: Wed Jun/23/10 at 2:46pm

Turbine
Posts: 10194
Joined: 26-Oct-09

Family Guy is nothing more than a copy of The Simpsons.
Date Posted: Wed Jun/23/10 at 7:37pm

shakii23
Posts: 5711
Joined: 08-Sep-09

Well, maybe with a little  difference but a copy nonetheless...
Date Posted: Wed Jun/23/10 at 10:16pm

Turbine
Posts: 10194
Joined: 26-Oct-09

And The Cleveland Show is a copy of Family Guy entirely.
Date Posted: Wed Jun/23/10 at 10:39pm

gericault5
Posts: 2788
Joined: 13-Oct-09

it deals with a character from family guy, how offbeat do you think they would go.  remember the spinoff from friends "joey" see what happened with that when they changed the formula
Date Posted: Wed Jun/23/10 at 11:16pm

shakii23
Posts: 5711
Joined: 08-Sep-09

Isn't this becoming of topic? But yet i still want to join in on the fun...
Do the anchor smash


[Edited by shakii23 on 24/Jun/10 at 3:08AM]

[Edited by shakii23 on 24/Jun/10 at 3:10AM]
Date Posted: Thu Jun/24/10 at 3:08am

JMDin83
Posts: 880
Joined: 30-Jul-09

EVERYTHING is a copy of the simpsons. damn show has been around for 20 years now....
*for references of how everything copies the simpsons, see the southpark episode where butters keeps trying to do evil plans as Professor Chaos, only to be repeatedly told "SIMPSONS DID IT!"
Date Posted: Thu Jun/24/10 at 3:11am

shakii23
Posts: 5711
Joined: 08-Sep-09

That's just sad...
Date Posted: Sun Jun/27/10 at 1:39pm

Turbine
Posts: 10194
Joined: 26-Oct-09

Futurama isn't a copy of The Simpsons. .  .
Date Posted: Sun Jun/27/10 at 7:38pm

shakii23
Posts: 5711
Joined: 08-Sep-09

Have you seen/watched futurama? check out the way that the characters were drawn... Looks familiar?



Forum Overview >> General Chat

©2006-2023 MTGCombos.com