Skip to content
MTGCombos
MenuClose

Share your combos and save your decks.

Join for freeLog in
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!]  





sacrifice each turn

Hover a card name for a preview. Tap or click an image to zoom, or open its rules below.

Isochron ScepterEnlarge

Isochron Scepter

{2}

Artifact

Mirrodin

Read rules for Isochron Scepter
Imprint — When this artifact enters, you may exile an instant card with mana value 2 or less from your hand. {2}, {T}: You may copy the exiled card. If you do, you may cast the copy without paying its mana cost.

Full card details & printings ›

Date Posted: Tue Apr/30/13 at 8:21 am

playa24601
Posts: 11
Joined: 30-Apr-13

Island is Far // Away

imprint Far, but you can cast away


[Edited by playa24601 on 30/Apr/13 at 8:22AM]
Date Posted: Tue Apr/30/13 at 8:44am

Academic
Posts: 1305
Joined: 29-Mar-12

This is pretty much the same rules exploit I'd used in my 'Return Migration' combo, but I don't mind you having submitted this iteration. It's a solid rules exploit. :D
Date Posted: Tue Apr/30/13 at 8:08pm

playa24601
Posts: 11
Joined: 30-Apr-13

interesting comment "I don't mind you having submitted this"
 
It makes it sound like you had some say in the matter
 
 
Date Posted: Tue Apr/30/13 at 8:46pm

Academic
Posts: 1305
Joined: 29-Mar-12

That's a lot of nerd rage over someone calling out your unoriginal crap, dudebro! :D
Date Posted: Tue Apr/30/13 at 10:29pm

playa24601
Posts: 11
Joined: 30-Apr-13

Its not called rage, it's actually called speaking the truth. 
 
As for originality, I never claimed it to be, but then again its not like yours was either.  The idea of imprinting a split card to the scepter or the mirror has been around for awhile, its not like you thought of the concept.  Or is it you consider the choice of imprinted card as giving it originality? 
 


[Edited by playa24601 on 30/Apr/13 at 10:30PM]
Date Posted: Tue Apr/30/13 at 10:37pm

Academic
Posts: 1305
Joined: 29-Mar-12



[Edited by Academic on 30/Apr/13 at 10:38PM]
Date Posted: Wed May/01/13 at 12:16am

playa24601
Posts: 11
Joined: 30-Apr-13

the insertion of a random element... a simplistic form of deflection.  
I suppose that is easier and less compromising then answering the question.
Date Posted: Wed May/01/13 at 12:25am

Academic
Posts: 1305
Joined: 29-Mar-12

Well, politely, you've taken the time to edit your question in the interim. I also have a habit of ignoring dumb deflective statements couched in pseudo-questions, which is what you were doing here. You were basically playing internet Socrates, really, really badly.

And your dumb statement has been made a million times before - and it's always been answered the same way. No one cares on this site, unless you fail to give credit where credit is due.

And I think it's been established now that people don't care about other sites. :D

Anyway, I was the one who got to claim the find for the split card rules exploit on this site.

And I wasn't deflecting - you started to cry, dudebro. Replying to your dumb inferences with babies crying was a fair response. Sorry, nerddork! :D

(Pssst - welcome back, spaz)
Date Posted: Wed May/01/13 at 11:37am

playa24601
Posts: 11
Joined: 30-Apr-13

While most of that was misguided perception, there were two points you made that stick out
1)  "unless you fail to give credit where credit is due"
2)   I was the one who got to claim the find for the split card rules exploit on this site.
 
So your saying originality is based on the concept behind the combo, and I should have given you credit since I used the same concept...
 
So how do you explain this...< a href="http://www.mtgcombos.com/view.php?fid=2&tid=45794" >Double Explotation 
 
Now tell me Academic...
 
Are you aware of your hypocrisy or is it just blind ignorance


Edit fixed link

[Edited by playa24601 on 1/May/13 at 11:40AM]
Date Posted: Wed May/01/13 at 11:50am

Academic
Posts: 1305
Joined: 29-Mar-12

.....At which point you should be giving credit to the original idea, and so should I, dumbass. /:D

"I WILL BE MORALLY SUPERIOR DAMNIT AND I WILL DO IT BY BEING IN NO WAY BEING MORALLY SUPERIOR"






-edit- And it's *still* funny that you went all internet tough guy. It's like a little kid hopping off of his bicycle and growling at everyone afterward. Adorable. -/edit-


[Edited by Academic on 1/May/13 at 11:56AM]
Date Posted: Wed May/01/13 at 8:04pm

playa24601
Posts: 11
Joined: 30-Apr-13

.....At which point you should be giving credit to the original idea, and so should I, dumbass. /:D

Then why don't you? 

As you said above its been said a million times and this is not the first time its been proven you ripped off someone else without giving credit.  Yet you continue to do it, and then after you take someone's idea  you run around demanding others respect your lack of originality.

Hypocritical or Ignorant?

 
Date Posted: Wed May/01/13 at 8:15pm

Academic
Posts: 1305
Joined: 29-Mar-12

So someone opened their mouth without having their facts in order.

Want to try again, dudebro? /:D
Date Posted: Wed May/01/13 at 9:13pm

Academic
Posts: 1305
Joined: 29-Mar-12

Also, binary thought is a sign of a limited mind :)
Date Posted: Thu May/02/13 at 12:36am

playa24601
Posts: 11
Joined: 30-Apr-13

Oh look another red herring, How predictable. 
 
Listen sweetie, my facts are very much in line...but you know that, which is why you throw up the deflection, if you could have proved me wrong, you would. But you can't. 
You know when you were called out, but tell you what, I'm going to throw you a bone.  Recently in Knarf's Zhur-taa Druid combo, he pointed out you didn't give credit to the bloomtender combo you used in Dragon's Maze victory.  There you go, you even acknowledge its there.  Now I know what you're going to say "I didn't use it , dumbass /:D" You cited it, therefore you need to credit it, that's basic research writing 101, as someone who claims to be an academic you should be aware of that.  But your not, So your either oblivious to it or your too full of yourself, both of which makes you ignorant bitch. So how about this honey, take some time to clean your house before you talk about how I run mine.
 
And now we reached the end, with all your deflections it's obvious you don't have a logical counterpoint to make in your defense, and you can't be more ignorant then you already are.  So rather then sit through more of your sad derailing attempts, I am choosing to end this conversation, and I am even going to be a gentleman and let you have the final word, though it will probably be a red herring.
 
Date Posted: Thu May/02/13 at 2:21am

Academic
Posts: 1305
Joined: 29-Mar-12

Holy god, that's a lot of stupid. From the top, I guess.

"Oh look another red herring, How predictable."

If you're refering to me calling your ignorant statement out, and giving you a chance to review the facts a 'red herring', then no, that was me throwing you a bone. If you're referring me pointing out that reliance on duality is a mark of a lesser mind, not only is that not a red herring - I'm right. Dualism is a form of logical fallacy.

For the record, a 'Red Herring' is something which detracts from the issue at hand - each of my statements pertain directly to the issues you've raised in this thread as you've shifted the goalposts around.

"Listen
sweetie"
Lol, look at them dudebro tears

"my facts are very much in line"
In line with what? :D
"...but you know that"
"which is
why you throw up the deflection, if you could have proved me wrong, you
would. But you can't. "
Well, the only cogent point that you've brought up was my point - that people need to credit ideas to their progenitors - which I did, when you'd pointed out my error in the matter in an attempt to disempower my claims by engaging in the to quoque fallacy.

No, really, idiot. Go take a look-see.

There's no deflection on my part, idiot - I owned up, and you kept busting out insecure impotent bullshit. And you're still deflecting from any responsibility on your part because then you'd have to be wrong. :D
Thing is, you're still wrong, even if I were being a hypocrite - which I'm flatly not, tardbutt, I'm owning my shit.

"You know when you were called out, but
tell you what, I'm going to throw you a bone."
You're too dumb to be throwing anyone a bone. :D

(Psst - that was an ad hominem. :) )

"Recently in Knarf's
Zhur-taa Druid combo, he pointed out you didn't give credit to the
bloomtender combo you used in Dragon's Maze victory."
So, you're choosing engaging in the to quoque fallacy again. Okay, cool.

Yes, that was the excuse he used to avoid conceding a point to a girl. He also busted out grade-A sexist drivel, and homophobic attacks to try and dominate a girl who might be smarter than him.

The next paragraph says you're Kethiju. :D

" There you go, you
even acknowledge its there.  Now I know what you're going to say "I
didn't use it , dumbass /:D" You cited it, therefore you need to credit
it, that's basic research writing 101, as someone who claims to be an
academic you should be aware of that.  But your not, So your either
oblivious to it or your too full of yourself, both of which makes you
ignorant bitch. So how about this honey, take some time to clean your
house before you talk about how I run mine."
Chump-change sexism-by-numbers, misunderstandings of the functions and affairs of academicians, empty rhetoric, a propensity for presuming the motivations of others, and really clumsy and awkward sentence structure. If you're not Kethiju, you're doing one hell of a Kethiju impression. :D

"And now we
reached the end, with all your deflections it's obvious you don't have a
logical counterpoint to make in your defense"

Well, my point so far has been "You need to give credit to people who come up with ideas first", and you're still impotently trying to deflect (since you're pretty clearly enamored by the use of the word) the point instead of acknowledging that you might have fucked up and going "Oh, right, my bad!"
Calling me out on it was fine. And when you did it, I fixed things on my end. So in this regard, at least?

I'm flat-out better than you. :D

"and you can't be
more ignorant then you already are.  So rather then sit through more of
your sad derailing attempts, I am choosing to end this conversation,"
No, you're stopping because you're running on empty, son.

"and
I am even going to be a gentleman"
Gentlemen aren't sexists - gentlemen have cool heads - gentlemen concede their errors - gentlemen are firmly civil - gentlemen aren't insecure - gentlemen don't point out that they're gentlemen, because others will do it for them - gentlemen understand formal debate.

Which you demonstrably don't. Sorry! :D

"and let you have the final word,
though it will probably be a red herring."
.....Your whole reply was a red herring, a form of ad hominem known as an appeal to hypocrisy. Sorry, asshat. :D

You didn't 'let' me do anything. I'm getting the last word because I'm right, and you can't change that fact.






[Edited by Academic on 2/May/13 at 3:55AM]
Date Posted: Thu May/02/13 at 2:53am

MtGNoob
Posts: 3
Joined: 02-May-13

Sorry to interrupt, but could how this works be explained to me without me having to look it up?
Date Posted: Thu May/02/13 at 3:11am

Academic
Posts: 1305
Joined: 29-Mar-12

It relies on an exploit of the characteristics of split cards.

"In every zone except the stack, split cards have two sets of
characteristics and two converted mana costs. As long as a split card is
a spell on the stack, only the characteristics of the half being cast
exist. The other half's characteristics are treated as though they
didn't exist."

Also,

"An effect that asks for a particular characteristic of a split card
while it's in a zone other than the stack gets two answers (one for each
of the split card's two halves). "

So when Far//Away isn't on the stack, it has two separate CMCs - two, and three, and since Isochron Scepter only really cares about if a card has a CMC of two (and it doesn't specifically state that it can't have another, higher CMC), you get to copy the whole split card to the scepter. When you cast a split card, even a copy, you get to choose whichever half of the card you want to cast - and you can do it without paying any mana cost, thanks to the scepter.
Date Posted: Thu May/02/13 at 3:18am

MtGNoob
Posts: 3
Joined: 02-May-13

So, can you cast both sides?  Or just one?  Thanks for the info so far.
Date Posted: Thu May/02/13 at 3:24am

Academic
Posts: 1305
Joined: 29-Mar-12

You can still only cast one side at a time - but you can choose to cast either side when you copy the spell, without having to pay the mana cost.

And no problem, dude. Welcome to the forum. :D
Date Posted: Thu May/02/13 at 3:31am

MtGNoob
Posts: 3
Joined: 02-May-13

Nice, and thanks again.
Date Posted: Thu May/02/13 at 10:20am

Boyachi
Posts: 1553
Joined: 02-Nov-11

Sorry about the site being down last night. I was trying to catch up and apparently opened too many tabs. Good to see everything up and running.