Old rule: No one gets a Jace!

New rule: Everyone get a Jace!

New New-Rule: Everyone get's all the Jaces!

I'm glad to see these are a success. I'm eyeballing May to try to make my way to one of these, hopefully dragging a few people from Louisiana with me.

@evouga said:

@Islandswamp Yes, I was a bit dismayed by the dismissiveness of some of the VSL commentators towards the deck. Oath is not optimally-positioned in every metagame, but it is a versatile and powerful strategy that always deserves respect.

Chris Pikula has regarded Oath as "not a real deck" for as long as I can remember. I can recall him saying it in earshot of me at an event in what was probably 2010, then I beat him a round or two later with Oath. Needless to say, he was not pleased.

I'm not really surprised to hear that his opinion is shared by other VSL commentators though.

Nice primer though, I'm sure Greg will weigh in at some point.

Well, if the B&R policy is really an issue (I honestly have no idea if it is, or isn't), at what point do we (paper players, at least) just decide to go the EDH route and come up with our own list?

Just what, besides one or two actually sanctioned events, are we stubbornly sticking to a (plausibly) flawed list? We aren't bound to Wizards in any real way. Most events aren't sanctioned already anyway, what would the harm be in trying?

At what point do we "put our money where our mouth is" and actually run real tournaments and gain real results to test our theories?

Of course, it's easy for me to say, because living in the middle of nowhere and with next to no free time I literally can't do anything. And with that, probably best to just set my status back to lurker...

I believe a couple of us will make the trip. Just waiting to hear back from the potential driver, since my wife need's our van. Might be three of us, but probably just two.

@thecravenone in a game where Birds can hold swords, where a Naga is not a snake, where you can have a vehicle drive another vehicle, or one of many other nonsensical situations, this one doesn't bother me all that much...

@Stuart your lack of appreciation is...unfortunate.

@Brass-Man while I agree with you, it's not anything unique to this update or this particular banning/restriction. Their "explanations" are almost always boarder-line nonsensical. I honestly quit reading them years ago, actions are much louder than words anyway.

If there was doubt before (and there really shouldn't have been) but Wizards does not ban or restrict things based on "hard data." I've said that for years, but it just becomes more apparent to me as time goes on.

Sorry I (unknowingly) brought a bunch of dirty Shops players. They even victimized me.

Hopefully we can find time to make another trip at some point.

I haven't played in quite a while now, but I felt pretty sure Abrupt Decay was underplayed 2 years ago and somehow people are less of it now. I think, in general, the more Decays you play, the better your Mentor matchup will be. It's not a silver bullet by any stretch of the imagination, but tagging their Mentor as soon as they play it giving them only minor value off of it is usually a big deal. I like that the above lists play 2, but I think even 3 might be better.

But like I said, I haven't played in a long while and who am I anyway?

@thecravenone in a game where Birds can hold swords, where a Naga is not a snake, where you can have a vehicle drive another vehicle, or one of many other nonsensical situations, this one doesn't bother me all that much...

Old rule: No one gets a Jace!

New rule: Everyone get a Jace!

New New-Rule: Everyone get's all the Jaces!

@walking.dude I feel you man, I made a post asking why it was that people felt intrinsically bound to Wizards (possibly) flawed list and got only one person to respond.

If I lived in NY any more I'd be apt to try to work with you on it, but I am half the country away and with very little free time.

@fsecco well, I am not a judge, but I think you are correct, because 601.2b does not seem to apply to Hallow One, as far as I can tell.

@Khahan right, I was just trying to understand what he was getting at.

@John-Cox In regards to what? How it would work with Trinisphere?

@prn Unfortunately, reminder text is often not exactly correct in some cases, or can present a sort of simplified version that can sometimes be confusing (looking at you Soulbond). The language of remind text is unfortunately often neither as succinct as the Rules, nor as definite.

Relying on the comprehensive rules in all cases is always the best bet.

@nedleeds A fair point. Isn't that (possibly) all the more reason to just get away from Wizard's list in Paper though? That it simply does not serve nor reflect what is good for the Paper Game?

Well, if the B&R policy is really an issue (I honestly have no idea if it is, or isn't), at what point do we (paper players, at least) just decide to go the EDH route and come up with our own list?

Just what, besides one or two actually sanctioned events, are we stubbornly sticking to a (plausibly) flawed list? We aren't bound to Wizards in any real way. Most events aren't sanctioned already anyway, what would the harm be in trying?

At what point do we "put our money where our mouth is" and actually run real tournaments and gain real results to test our theories?

Of course, it's easy for me to say, because living in the middle of nowhere and with next to no free time I literally can't do anything. And with that, probably best to just set my status back to lurker...

@prn the issue with some of the "rulings" (which usually are not rulings at all, but rather are just examples) is that they can mislead people in some cases, since they don't explain why something is as it is.

I think a key to your understanding is to check out the comprehensive rules section that details the actual steps to "cast a spell." (601.2a-i)

When we consider that Trinisphere's effect will take place in 601.2f, that is, the step in which we are determining the spell's total cost, but Delve and Convoke apply in step 601.2g, because they are not "alternative costs" they are an alternative way to pay mana for a spell with that ability.

So, Delve and Convoke function in step 601.2g which, being after Trinisphere's effect is checked in step 601.2f, the key final sentence of that rule comes into play, "Then the resulting total cost becomes “locked in.” If effects would change the total cost after this time, they have no effect." There is no recursive check, once in step g, we never go back.

Is it intuitive? Not really, but it's just how it is.

EDIT: Here is a link to the current and correct rules document (third party ones are often outdated and wrong): http://media.wizards.com/2017/downloads/MagicCompRules_20170605.txt