Just for clarity, yes, I understand how the card is *meant* to work, this video was more a "PSA" more than anything, as the card will likely be errated this week. Magic: The Gathering is a game of Rules Consistency. Every card interacts with every other card. That is one of the reasons I love this game is because there is literally an answer for anything. Having a card that creates ambiguity, especially among judges, is bad for the game and goes against why this game is so great. "Intent" does not belong in a game with a 300+ page rule book 😂
@@ubertuna1 I actually got it from a message on Discord. Not to mention all the discourse on Twitter that prompted me to make this. I have a tonne of respect for JudgingFTW and wouldn't stoop so low to plagiarize them. **Edit** Looking at JudgingFTW channel, I can see they made an Ulamog ruling video after me, do I think they copied me? Not in the slightest. Even if they did, (which they didn't), I don't have exclusive claims to MTG Discourse and MTG rules. If something is popular in MTG and people are talking about it, I'm probably going to make a video about it. You can check my video library to see that.
@@attackoncardboard Alright sorry that may have been a bit harsh. It was my understanding that JudgingFTW started the discourse on this one (I hesitate to say discovered because they don't claim that themselves), but I can't find any discussion or reference to these points prior to their vid, and your vid somewhat mirrors Dave's if just by nature of having the same points to cover. Maybe your discord users found out about it from there. Anyways, sorry. You know how easy it is for channels to copy eachother's content. I thought your channel was a lot bigger too and that's part of why I reacted that way. You are totally right that this is a piece of magic news and everyone has the right to cover it, I woulda just loved to see a link to Dave's vid if that's where you learned about this stuff. Peace
Here's another issue being overlooked: Even if I'm not abusing it to draw my deck, there's still the problem where I can say X is equal to the amount of energy I have, refuse to pay, and I still draw the cards and keep my energy
@@ubertuna1For extra clarity, the Discord message linked me to a MTG Rocks article about this card and because I live on Twitter, I just saw everyone talking about the card (hence the Twitter screen shots in the video) so it prompted me to make this video. Again, I love JudgingFTW's content. I even do a full shout out to him and his channel in my video from a month ago where I talk about Judges. He explains rules content far better than I can and has helped me out previously with a rules question. Hope that clears things up and I hope you enjoy the rest of the content. 🙂
@@hlaw2830 no, have you not understood anything said in the video? You MAY pay X but you dont need to... Ask yourself why every other card has an "if you do" added
If anything, they can fix it by removing one word: the "may" in "you may pay X [Energy]." Change it to, "you pay X Energy." Now you can't decline to pay the cost. You can still declare the cost of X=0, which would mean you draw zero cards, but now that there is no "may pay" clause, then you define X by the amount of energy you pay. As soon as you take that out, the rest of the card works as written and ruled.
The only thing this would change is effects that happen when it is copied. It would be a forced energy expenditure. Which is actually an interesting rules question for this card. Is X defined on the stack or only during resolution? If X is not defined on the stack, then the value for X is not able to be copied. However if it is, then it is copied with any effect that would copy. I assume it does not get X defined while on the stack and only during resolution.
@@attackoncardboard You should use Nyssa of Traken as an example of another card you can set X to be used to draw large amounts of cards by setting X higher than its perhaps intuitive limit.
Yeah, the "you _may_ pay" clause makes a lot more sense on the other cards in the video, since one requires 1 or more energy and the other targets a card in your graveyard and uses it's mana value for energy. In either case, you may want to cast the card and spend zero energy, which wouldn't be allowed without the "may". This feels like a mistake of always copying the "you may pay" template for energy cards, even when "any amount" (ie zero) is an allowable option.
The thing is, the "may" is a worse culprit than the lack of "if you do". Removing the "may" also has the same effect as "if you do", because you can't pay more than what you have, so you wouldn't be able to draw your deck if you do not have the same amount of energy paid. It falls in the same "you can't pay with life that you don't have" scenario.
@@drillerkiller9 Yes, the rules let you choose 0. Relevant is as follows: 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 or in any alternative cost or additional cost it has equals the announced value. While an activated ability is on the stack, any X in its activation cost equals the announced value. 107.1b Most of the time, the Magic game uses only positive numbers and zero. You can’t choose a negative number, deal negative damage, gain negative life, and so on. However, it’s possible for a game value, such as a creature’s power, to be less than zero. If a calculation or comparison needs to use a negative value, it does so. If a calculation that would determine the result of an effect yields a negative number, zero is used instead, unless that effect doubles or sets to a specific value a player’s life total or the power and/or toughness of a creature or creature card.
@@drillerkiller9 See the thing is that you always have at least zero energy counters, IIRC the only reason you need a special rule for paying zero life is that you can pay zero life when you have negative life i.e. not at least zero life. Unless I'm misunderstanding something there is nothing in the rules that would prevent you from paying zero energy counters without any energy counters.
It's not quite the same, because if you wanted to cast the spell solely to gain the energy, it instead forces you to allow your opponent to exile their hand and draw 0. Granted, there aren't many situations where they would want to do that and you wouldn't want them to. Maybe they knew you were about to steal something from their hand, or make them discard something so you can reanimate it.
@@MetaKaios they mean remove "may" from the FIRST line. Instead of "You may may x energy" just say "Pay x energy". The caster can declare X to be 0 if they want to pay no energy, it still functions.
The scary part is, this made it to print like this. How many people are reviewing the card file before it goes to the printers? 3?! Goodness. And this is a premium product. Which apparently just means it costs more, not that they work harder on it 😔
But look at these aaamaaazing crossovers! Or these new Secret Lair Boxes! Don't tell me you don't love Fortnite, or that you never wanted a Magic card in Comic Sans! /s
@@sebastianahrens2385 I’m too old apparently. I’m off this train now. The world has passed me by. The game is now in the hands of newer players. And I just don’t understand anymore. I don’t like a lot of the things now. I’ve lost touch. Because apparently, they sell more than ever, so most players must really love this.
I can understand how they missed it in play testing,either because these players were used to the “if you do” wording they assumed it, or because the test version had it spelled out but it was missed in final version that went to the printers. But it does seem like now they know the issue the rule change should be immediate and not at some point in a week or two. If they want Mark or some judges to write a blog post explaining it later they can, but the errata could be done, proof read and proof read again a 100 times in less than a day.
@@KrisRogos They probably had different wording during playtesting and then they wanted to simplify it for clarity. I could easily see them truncating the wording to this and making it a functionally different card then intended.
It's been errataed: "You get {E} {E} {E} (three energy counters), then you may pay any amount of {E}. Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of {E} paid this way. If 7 or more {E} was paid this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn."
I find it strange that they can print this card, as it is, alongside so many other cards that say "If you do,". Why all of a sudden did they not put that clause, or another check when every other energy card like this does 😂
@@attackoncardboardIt's so hard to not oversee something like this. I'm currently working on a TCG in editing, too. And it can just slip through, even when I try my hardest to don't let it😅
@@attackoncardboard exactly!! Doesn’t it feel like an inconsistent take on card design? Was it really made on purpose? Super bizarre!! On the bright side, your work is a masterpiece, really! Keep up the great work!
@@caveira2099 I appreciate you taking the time to comment. While I dont consider this one a master piece 😅 I'm glad to hear you're enjoying my efforts 😃
Well the oracle text doesnt have an error, its not intended by the design of the card, but by the rules its not an oracle error, thats what the card reads and WotC has not given a new oracle text. In the end, the head judge still decides, but that leads to the problem that at some events its "Rules as written" and some other headjudges just overall it as "Rules as intended" ... and thats pretty stupid. Why WotC takes so much time with this is also mind boggling, they should absolutely ASAP oracle the card to make it functional and not waste time to do that.
@@ryaninteresting8815 After reading the rulings of the card, it doesn't look like it is fixed. It seems to just be generic rulings for energy, but nothing specific for the card to state that the x energy has to be paid in order to draw the x cards
@@ryaninteresting8815can you quote a specific ruling? None of the ones I see fix the issue. Some look like they do, but don't apply to this card given how it is worded. This one doesn't apply since it doesn't use "if you do" "Some triggered abilities that state that you "may pay" a certain amount of Energy describe an effect that happens "If you do." In that case, no player may take actions to try to stop the ability's effect after you make your choice. If the payment is followed by the phrase "When you do," then you'll choose any targets for that reflexive triggered ability and put it on the stack before players can take actions." This one doesn't apply since the problem isn't with paying more than you have, but with deciding not to pay an optional cost. "If an effect says you get one or more Energy, you get that many energy counters. To pay one or more Energy, you lose that many energy counters. You can't pay more energy counters than you have. Any effects that interact with counters a player gets, has, or loses can interact with energy counters."
@@ryaninteresting8815 I'm looking at the gatherer page right now. There is no rule there that fixes the printing of the card. There are generic rules for energy and how to interact with "if you do" and "when you do" statements, but no rule in the notes adds "if" or "when" or removes "may" from teh card's text.
@@Robophill The new ruling is quite literally YOU MAY PAY X. X is now DEFINED FOR THE REST OF THE CARD BY HOW MUCH YOU PAID. SO IF YOU PAID 0 IN THE TOP PART, WHATEVER PLAYER DISCARDS THEIR HAND WOULD GET 0 CARDS BACK...
Reminds me of the classic Garfield Errata on Braingeyers he was asked to sign where he wrote "X is of course, equal to 10," where is says you draw or force an opponent to draw X cards.
@@GodotGodfreyThat makes absolutely no senses. The templating should be something like "You get EEE, then you may spend any amount of energy. When you do, each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of energy spent this way. If at least 7 energy was spent this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn". It should be an If Then templating, no matter what, because as-printed it is a nightmare.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t this fix the issue? “You get 3 energy, then you may pay any amount of energy. If you do, each player may exile their hand and draw x cards, where x is the amount of energy paid this way”
There are 3 ways to fix the card: - if you do (the most logical choice) - when you do (creates a delayed trigger) - make the payment mandatory (with paying 0 being an option) Making the payment mandatory was the first thing I thought of but it should be "if you do" in my opinion to make it similar to other effects
Well official ruling is now whatever you pay for the you "MAY PAY X (energy)" IS now the total value of X. So if the caster pays 0 energy, whoever discards their hand gets back 0 cards. Which was the easiest fix in the world and the card technically reads like that, its just magic has an older rule for their cards that makes that not the case. So basically the card currently reads "You get EEE (three energy counters), then you may pay X E. Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards. If X is 7 or more, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn." But the intended effect is "You get EEE (three energy counters), then you may pay X E. Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards, where X is the Energy paid. If X is 7 or more, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn." And without the previous rule in MTG that allows people to define X regardless of paying anything, the top and bottom already say the same thing.
As a judge, people arguing in this comment section is why its so important for wotc to quickly acknowledge wording anf gatherer mistakes. Without a central authority anymore, I’m forced to use DDR#780 and “head judges rulings are final”, which sucks. This is a problem with ultra specific wording, which most mtg players just won’t get unless they’re abusing it. I made the mistake of not specifically mentioning this card before a modern event, and of course, someone came to abuse it. I had to explain to both players why we’re allowed to run the card as intended rather than written, but also why I’m not giving any infarction to the wheel player attempter since he broke no rules. It makes players angry, and rightfully so. I can’t blame them, it IS bs. WoP fits right in modern ruby storm, and after trying it, it’s disgusting. You get the turn 3 win basically 100% of the time, and it makes turn 2 wins common. Who knew 3 mana draw your entire deck is good? Its suddenly worth it to play green to get 1-drop dorks to get 3 mana on turn 2 because any hand with wheel+2 lands+dork is a turn 2 win.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. It's good to get some real world examples. It's situations like these, that while painful right now, do end up creating better rules for the game. Especially if it's before a major tournament. IE Pithing Needle incident, Dryad Arbor in Lands incident etc.
Isn't the official ruling now [YOU MAY PAY X. X is now DEFINED FOR THE REST OF THE CARD BY HOW MUCH YOU PAID. SO IF YOU PAID 0 IN THE TOP PART, WHATEVER PLAYER DISCARDS THEIR HAND WOULD GET 0 CARDS BACK... THATS LITERALLY IT. AND THAT IS THE OFFICIAL RULING NOW AS WELL. ] Which is basically what most veteran players (who weren't trying to abuse) used the wording as?
@@FirewynnTV It’s not an official ruling (yet, i hope it is tbh) since its not in cr or even on the gatherer. Still, judges have been told to rule it like that since … it just makes sense lol. Hopefully thats a real announcement and I’m just missing it though
@@FirewynnTV There are 73 cards that are either instants or sorceries with the text "sacrifice a creature" (anywhere on the card) and none of them fit your description.
@@FirewynnTV Yep They remembered the idiot text for energy because it’s still a “new” (2016) But forgot the the idiot text for X Obviously cards check what WAS paid
This problem @1:38 still absolutely eludes me. It doesnt check on any of the X cards if X was actually and quite literally played, and no one just declares a number
For cards with X in the mana cost, you do actually just declare a number (107.3a, 601.2b), but then during the normal process for casting a spell, if you can't pay the cost the entire process of casting the spell is reversed since it was an illegal action. The problem is, this isn't a mana/alternate/additional/activation cost and it is optional. Because of that, you choose a number before being asked to pay (107.3f), but then are given the choice to not pay and it then never asks if you actually did pay. Compare it to something like Rise of the Hobgoblins which does say "if you do". Relevant rules: 601.2b: If the spell is modal, the player announces the mode choice (see rule 700.2). If the player wishes to splice any cards onto the spell (see rule 702.47), they reveal those cards in their hand. If the spell has alternative or additional costs that will be paid as it's being cast such as buyback or kicker costs (see rules 118.8 and 118.9), the player announces their intentions to pay any or all of those costs (see rule 601.2f). A player can't apply two alternative methods of casting or two alternative costs to a single spell. If the spell has a variable cost that will be paid as it's being cast (such as an {X} in its mana cost; see rule 107.3), the player announces the value of that variable. If the value of that variable is defined in the text of the spell by a choice that player would make later in the announcement or resolution of the spell, that player makes that choice at this time instead of that later time. If a cost that will be paid as the spell is being cast includes hybrid mana symbols, the player announces the nonhybrid equivalent cost they intend to pay. If a cost that will be paid as the spell is being cast includes Phyrexian mana symbols, the player announces whether they intend to pay 2 life or a corresponding colored mana cost for each of those symbols. Previously made choices (such as choosing to cast a spell with flashback from a graveyard or choosing to cast a creature with morph face down) may restrict the player's options when making these choices. 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 or in any alternative cost or additional cost it has equals the announced value. While an activated ability is on the stack, any X in its activation cost equals the announced value. 107.3f: Sometimes X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X at the appropriate time (either as it's put on the stack or as it resolves).
A bunch of people in the comments here are saying "obviously this isn't broken, and people are only pretending it is so they can cheat!" If that was true, it would be pretty weird for those cheaters to make youtube videos saying "this card is broken and wizards should errata it."
@@alwaysabiggafish3305 - well, no - the X is just a number chosen, the payment is a "may". If this were programming it would be broken, because the computer does exactly what you say, with no regard to what you actually want.
It does not say chose a number then decide if you want yo pay You always pay You can pay O Then it check ( notice the coma [ , ] ) Then the rest of the card knows what X means
@@poetguillaume659 You don't always pay. That's what "you may pay" means. The comprehensive rules say that when a card has an X that isn't defined elsewhere on the card, and isn't part of its casting cost, you can choose any value. The card says that you *may* then pay X energy, or not. Those two choices are completely independent. There's nothing either on the card or in the rules to say that if you choose X=5 for the first choice, you can't then choose not to pay for the second choice.
I've got a couple cards with typing errors, where they are missing important words. An Ashnod's Altar thats missing the first half of the ability (Sacrifice a creature) so it cant be used, because theres no activation (its obviously an error, and works as normal) and an Ivylane Denizen that simply says "whenever a Creature" instead of "Whenever a green creature".
Not the first to say, but just remove that first 'you may'. Wizards should know by now that if you give a player an option, it's instructive to explore every variation of that option. E.g., ask your selves, "What if they don't"? This is a lesser version of the Oko error. Or Skullclamp.
why are people arguing in the comments did you not watch the video?? There is no argument to be made; the rules are unambiguous(ly wrong) in this situation.
Removing the "may" disables the ability to simply gain energy counters if that's all you want to do at that time, so adding "if you do" is really the only option.
Then pay X, 0 can stil be a legal value for 0. Of course after paying X you still MAY (or may not) exile your hand to draw X, where X is 0 so both players refuse. You still end up with net 3 energy
@@hlaw2830 Wizards DID write this card wrong. The way it is written you can exploit it as described, unless Wizards is changing the rules to make it work this way for energy in general
the caster did follow the instructions though, they gained the energy counters and chose whether to pay X energy (X being decided at... maybe when casting the card?? i dont remember, but its something where you choose the value for X even if you don't pay the cost)
Can you do a video or explain here how Ulalek works with multiple copies of echos of eternity on the field. I'm having trouble resolving at the triggers in the order they should resolve. Thanks!
You get EnergyEnergyEnergy (three energy counters), then you may pay any amount of Energy. Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of Energy paid this way. If 7 or more Energy was paid this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn.
Let’s pretend algebra doesn’t exist The card would read : You gain (E)(E)(E) then you may pay any amount of (E) Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of (E) paid. If more than 7(E) was paid this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn. The WoTC wording saves twelve words (the black ink is the most expensive) Remember kids algebra follows rules too
I think they shouldn’t change a thing about that card since it’s their fault to word it poorly and not make sure the card isn’t busted in other formats. I don’t understand why they have a problem with busted cards now because they have made overpowered creep cards for weeks with their overprint sets that’s the problem here overprint cards to point they just don’t have time to polish them.
@@MagicApocalypseTCG as much as I don't love Ragavan and the Evoke elementals, there is quite a big difference between those and 3 mana draw your deck...
I pulled this card and the ruling from the day of the pre-release date (June 7th 2024) says this "Some triggered abilities that state that you 'may pay' a certain amount of Energy describe an effect that happens 'If you do,' In that case, no player may take actions to try to stop the ability's effect after you make your choice. If the payment is followed by the phrase 'When you do,' then you'll choose any targets for that reflexive triggered ability and put it on the stack before players can take actions." meaning that it is just a misprint on the card itself
That ruling doesn't apply to this card since it doesn't say "if you do" or "when you do". It's purpose is the distinguish between effects that are reflexive triggers and therefore course a second ability to go on the stack versus those that are just part of the same spell or ability and therefore happen during its resolution. For example, there is a functional difference between the structure of the triggered abilities on Throwing Knife versus Spare Dagger even though, other than the damage amount, they appear to do similar things. Throwing Knife says "if you do". That means when you attack with a creature, you choose a target. Once the ability resolves, you get the choice to sacrifice it. If you sacrifice it, it immediately deals the damage. If an opponent with Snakeskin Veil wants to protect their creature, they need to cast it when you first target the creature. If they do, the ability fizzles without you needing to sacrifice it. Spare Dagger says "when you do". When you attack with it, you get a trigger. As the trigger resolves, you get the choice to sacrifice it. If you do, you then choose a target and another ability will go on the stack to deal damage the damage to that target. If an opponent has Snakeskin Veil, they can cast it after you have sacrificed the equipment but before the damage is dealt for a larger blow out.
I'd argue you don't declare / decide a value for X until you pay / don't pay the cost. Since X isn't part of the spell's cost, it doesn't need to be determined prior to resolution.
That is a sensible way to make this game. But there are a lot of cards like Access Denied that don't care about you paying X, so it's too late to go down that path.
If that’s an official statement, they recognize that the car does in fact work that way, even though it was not intended So an official setting, it should be played the way. It is not the way it’s intended out of spirit.
Until they officially errata the card's text, the rules as written on the card are the rules to play by. Considering how easy it is to add text to the gatherer site, it's inexcusable that they haven't done so yet. They can say "what we meant was", but until there is an official errata, the statement is meaningless.
I'm assuming Jolted Awake works with Ornithopter? If an Ornithopter attacks for zero damage, it doesn't trigger any "dealt damage" effects, because dealing zero doesn't count as dealing damage. Does paying zero energy to reanimate my Ornithopter also not count as paying energy for the "if you do" clause on Jolted Awake? Judge!
The text on the cards become on every edition longer...and it becomes more important to check it in detail... understanding what the card should do and written to the card are different things. But cost saving on the WotC side plus increasing powerlevel (to increase prices) will not help the game. Beta Testing is outsourced...they can save much time and money....
Incidentally, playing the card as written would draw ZERO cards if you don't pay X. It doesn't say CHOOSE X, it says PAY it. The only way to define X is that payment. All instances of X in the game are zero until the value is paid, or otherwise defined by an ability. Fireball cast without paying its mana cost, opting not to spend extra mana on a hydra creature, it doesn't matter. As far as the judges: "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."
@@attackoncardboard The key point of it is, "the controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value." X's value is defined by the energy payment line, so whatever value you pay into X, even zero, is what value is used in the rest of the card.
@@terakhanthisbeing asked to "pay X" is not enough to define X. Is generally done through wording such as "where X is". Champions of Minas Tirith and Urgent Necropsy are both examples of cards with an X cost that is defined. Instead of the cost defining X, X in any X cost defines what the cost is. If you read the ruling you quoted, you will notice that it applies to cases where X is in a cost AND x is defined. That should make it pretty clear that being a cost isn't enough to define it on its own. X is chosen by the controller whenever it isn't defined. 107.3: Many objects use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. Some objects have abilities that define the value of X; the rest let their controller choose the value of X. This even includes when casting an X spell, it's just that there paying the cost in mandatory if you want to cast the spell. 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 or in any alternative cost or additional cost it has equals the announced value. While an activated ability is on the stack, any X in its activation cost equals the announced value. The reason it's 0 if you cast it without paying the mana cost is because of this specific rule: 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." Notice that you still choose, you just only get the one choice.
107.3 Many objects use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. Some objects have abilities that define the value of X; the rest let their controller choose the value of X. X is not defined anywhere in the text (look at Aether Refinery for a card from the main set that does define X based on an energy payment), so yes, you do choose X. Why are you correcting judges when you don't even know how X costs work?
You pick a value for X, its not defaulted to 0. Then you follow the card with each instance of X being replaced by the chosen value. The only times where you cannot choose a different value for X would be if that value is not legal (If X is in the casting cost or in the targeting such as defining a number of targets, neither of which are the case here).
Ok, I'll entertain this. This fall under Rule 107.3c in the comp rules. "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." Since X is defined as X energy counters, then X energy = X cards drawn. This is like when the game was in beta testing, and Time Walk read "Target player loses next turn (as opposed to you gaining an extra turn) and the playtest group was using to force game losses because of how it was worded.
X is not defined anywhere in the text though. X is defined by the line of text "Where X is equal to [definition]." So unless you want to point me to that exact line of text in Wheel of Potential, I'm surprised you would quote this ruling without knowing this. If you take a look at other cards that say "You may pay X", such as Flameblast Dragon or Halo Forager, their rulings explicitly state that you choose the value of X, because it is not defined.
@@alicetheaxolotl The verbiage "where x is equal to ____" is used to define the value of x by a nonpayment vaiable, like number of creatures on the field or equal to the mana value of a spell. On this card, it explicitly states "pay x {E} ({E} being the symbol for energy counters)." That defines a payment (your choice of however many energy counters you want to pay, of course) and establishes a value for X. Now if the card got rid of everything else and literally just said "Draw X cards" with nothing else, and no other mention of X in the text of the spell,no {X} in it's casting cost, then in that instance you can choose a value for X. There's not going to be any errata or anything like that. They literally created a rule specifically for instances like this.
@@Another1-db5sp "where X is equal to" is also used for payments. Champions of Minas Tirith and Sphere of Safety both use it. The correct rule to look at would thus be: 107.3f: Sometimes X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X at the appropriate time (either as it's put on the stack or as it resolves).
that's exactly how I read it and hence said it's broken and people argued with me.. as always..didn't play in a while and Arena plays itself.. but I'm glad I still have the most useful skill in MTG. reading the card explains the card.. altho I had to read it like 5 times to get it 😅
isnt it just a base rule that a card the refers to X checks for what was used for paying X if you pay 0 energy for X X=0 so then the second effect is each player may exile the hand and draw 0 cards.
Because those cards are asking you to pay an additional cost for casting the card. The energy cards payment is during the card's resolution so you have to choose a legal amount based on your own energy for the X.
@@attackoncardboard It's a stylistic language choice which has changed over time. Older cards with similar abilities tend not to have the "if you do" line, because it is extremely obvious that you would have to make the additional payment. Anybody saying they believe otherwise is just straight up lying and everybody knows it. Why are we even pretending to believe this "interpretation"? It's obviously ridiculous. It's like saying I can Fireball somebody for 20 damage by just paying R and not the additional 20 because the card never says the extra damage only happens if I pay the 20.
@@attackoncardboard that's actually fine, because I like to play Storm Cauldron with other effects like Confounding Conundrum and/or Burgeoning! Also the primary reason is to make every land a bounce land for Kodama combos
@@attackoncardboard 608.2d If an effect of a spell or ability offers any choices other than choices already made as part of casting the spell, activating the ability, or otherwise putting the spell or ability on the stack, the player announces these while applying the effect. The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible, with the exception that having a library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action (see rule 121.3).
Choosing a number for X that is higher than my energy amount isnt illegal or impossible. For example, on 'Elenda and Azor', I can set X to be 100, even if I only have 10 mana available to me. I then decline to pay that cost. The card then checks if I paid that cost. "Notes and Rules Information for Elenda and Azor: - You choose the value of X as the first triggered ability resolves. " For the sake of discussion, let's say I have 20 Energy. I decide X is 20 and then I decide not to pay it. The way the card is worded, I'm still drawing 20 cards.
@@attackoncardboard if you have 20 energy, you could draw 20 cards without spending the energy. But you can't draw more than that 608.2d If an effect of a spell or ability offers any choices other than choices already made as part of casting the spell, activating the ability, or otherwise putting the spell or ability on the stack, the player announces these while applying the effect. The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible, with the exception that having a library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action (see rule 121.3)
IMO there are not 3 missing words, there is one word to much. If they simply remove the "may" from the you may pay X", then I think the card should work just fine?
Another way to have templated the card in a way that doesn't break like this, would have been to not use the word "may". X can be 0, after all; weird tech against Ignite Memories, I guess...
@@attackoncardboard At the casual event a friendly reminder for the first instance and warning for 2nd, At comp irl Warning upgraded to disqualification
@@albakingification what rule would you cite them for breaking? You can't issue warnings and DQs because you feel like it, there's an IPG for a reason.
Good old WotC. Too busy getting ready to rush the winter release to the printers before the fall releases spoilers finish days ahead of the current release hitting the store shelves to sell.
They should keep the card the way it is since the commander format does a poor job banning two card combos. What’s one more. If Dimir can have a Shasta’s combos. So can Izzet
This is an issue because they tried to make the wording easier to read and understand but they removed the restriction on it. The issue is that they want the cost and choosing of X to be paired, but everyone else gets the option to wheel to. The easiest way to fix this is to have the wheel effects for "you" and "everyone else" be different lines with everyone else not having the energy pay requirement. As written, X can be large, even higher than your current energy and you do not need to pay in order to wheel as that is written that everyone gets that option.
I think the line of reasoning is "may" applies to the entire clause; so you either pick a value for X and pay it (including 0), or you don't interact with that clause. But, imo, that's more of a RAI reading than a strict and literal RAW reading.
@@eruantien9932 it would need to be in the same sentence for that to be true. Suppression Ray works that way, but Mnemonic Deluge still exiles itself even if you choose not to cast the copies.
Are people actually trying this with judges allowing it? Because honestly, that seems counterintuitive to me. First off, it says "you may pay X Energy". Well... You didn't pay any Energy. Where does it say you still get to decide on a value for X? No other card lets you decide what X is without paying for X. Second, "if you do" ruins the card entirely. The reason they didn't include it is because they don't want the effect to exile your hand to be optional. "[...] you may pay X{E}. If you do, each player may exile their hand and draw X cards. [...]" Okay, I didn't pay X Energy, so all the card does is give me 3 Energy, no wheel effect at all. But that's not what they wanted. They wanted it to be that everyone that opts into the effect exiles their hand and draws X cards, where X is what was paid. Maybe you paid nothing and exile your hand, wanting an empty hand for another card's effect. Or maybe you paid 7 and a few others want a fresh hand of 7 cards, not having anything in their hand they care about. Clearly, that was the intent, but adding "if you do" kind of removes that. Which brings me to what I expect the fix to be. Instead of "if you do", it's more words. "[...] and draw X cards, where X is the amount of Energy paid." That way, you can still make X equal to zero and exile your hand for whatever reason instead of having to pay something to exile your hand. Or, judges can just go with the common sense point of "well you didn't pay anything, so X is zero"
In the Comprehensive Rulebook is where it says you choose the value of X. 107.3 Many objects use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. Some objects have abilities that define the value of X; the rest let their controller choose the value of X. And your point about no card letting you choose X then not pay it is incorrect. Flameblast Dragon, another card with an ability that says "You may pay X(and a red)" has a ruling explicitly stating that you choose X, then decide if you want to pay X. But because it says "if you do", you don't actually get the effect if you don't pay.
Womp womp, wizard of the coast is such a huge company they had more than enough recources to catch this mistake. The card does what it says on the cardboard so i am not gonna pay shit and draw my library 😂
Now it has: "You get {E} {E} {E} (three energy counters), then you may pay any amount of {E}. Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of {E} paid this way. If 7 or more {E} was paid this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn."
The card isn't broken. Look at Galvanic Discharge: "You get EEE (three energy counters), then you may pay any amount of E. Galvanic Discharge deals that much damage to that permanent." You can't choose "any amount" to be say, 20, then choose not to pay it, since it says "may", and then have the spell deal 20 damage. The damage dealt is the amount paid, not the amount of a choice. "May pay X E" isn't two steps, choosing X and then choosing whether to pay it. It's a single step where you have to actually pay a cost to determine the value of X.
@@lokijantzen8940 There's no difference in the rules between "any amount / that much" and "X". Wheel uses "X" to save space. Suppression Ray is the same way, using "X" instead of "any amount / that much" to save space.
This comparison doesn’t work. The problem here is that WoP is templated in a way that disconnects the two lines. This means both Xs can be different, and nowhere in the rules does it say that this templating would make the first payment set the value of X. In fact, theres several possible templated they could’ve used that all work, they just made a new one and didnt support it in the rules lol Check out DDR#780 to see how different templates affect how it works, and why it doesnt work right now. It’s already been ruled to not work as written. Modern events rn have the head judge ruling on what wording to use since theres also a rule that players cant abuse gatherer mistakes. Card works differently depending on what they choose though. If they use galvanic discharge’s templating (You get EEE, then you may pay any amont of E. Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of energy paid this way. If you paid 7 or more energy, you may play cards you own exiled this way until end of turn) it would work as intended, but is very wordy and wotc has stopped using this template at all since it confuses players. IMO, its still the best template, since without a CR rules change, any other wording changes the card.
107.3f Sometimes X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost. If the value of X isn’t defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X at the appropriate time (either as it’s put on the stack or as it resolves). 107.3i Normally, all instances of X on an object have the same value at any given time. The confusion comes from a combination of two things. Typically, X is part of the casting cost of a card, and being unable to pay X means that when you reach the point that you are unable to pay X mana, you rewind the casting of the spell. Largely because of this, players tend to conflate choosing a value for X, and paying X. As others have said, any reasonable person who reads this card will understand that the intent of this card was that X was not meant to be decoupled from actually paying X energy. Because of how robust and well, comprehensive, the comprehensive rules are, the wording of cards must match the precision of those rules. The reason that this sticks out so much as an example is because WotC is normally so precise in their templating of cards.
@@Amazementss The only confusion lies in players that believe that what they declare>what they pay. The game state does not care if you declare any amount that can not be legally paid for.
I don’t understand why there is such confusion about this card. The comprehensives rules state that X can only be legal choice ( 608.2d). The player cannot choose a value for X that they couldn’t otherwise pay. In other words, as the spell is resolved they may choose a legal value for X which could not exceed the amount of energy they have available to pay. The same would be true if the card said pay X life or sacrifice X creatures. The player casting/controlling this spell may not choose a value for X that they could not pay. The X’s on the card are linked. If the casting player chose to pay 3 energy then the X is 3. If the casting player chose to pay 3 energy but later chose not to play, as argued as possible in this video, this is an illegal game action. The player announced the intent to pay X energy and must do so. If they elect not to pay then X is zero - no energy was paid. The “if you do” is not needed because the second part of the card is distinct from the first part as indicated by the second clause that is not on either Localized Destruction or Jolted Awake. The rest of the card follows the amount of energy paid. Players in APANP order choose whether to exile their hands and draw X cards. See more language in 608: resolving spells and abilities.
Incorrect, choosing X greater than the number of energy counters you control isn't illegal because paying the the energy cost is optional. This is a misunderstanding of the very specific templating used in magic the gathering oracle text. The card should work that way but currently that is not how the rules work.
@@CrystalLily1302 This is not a X costed spell, you do not declare anything. you go through the process of fully resolving the card. If the spell is allowed to resolve you gain 3 energy counters, then choose how much energy you are willing to pay.
Given how X can be 0, I don't see the problem. If a spell or activated ability has 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. Given how X is defined by the number of energy counters used to pay for it, X would be 0 if you choose not to pay any amount of energy counters for the effect. From there, each player exiles their hand and draws no cards.
107.3f has X be chosen “at the appropriate time”, and nowhere in the card says the first X sets the second X, even though thats obviously how it was intended to work. It would probably use the current templte of “Pay Any number of E. Each player may draw cards equal to the number of E paid this way….” which would work as intended. WOTC probably wanted to use a new, more readable X template for this (since theyve retired the old one since it was confusing for players apparently), but forgot to update the rules to make it work
@@Cedric1234_ 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. Wheel of Potential has an additional cost of X energy counters that may be paid. If it is not, then X is 0. That is effectively what defines X for the card, as the controller is the one paying X energy counters. The controller can't just say "X is 50 energy counters" and then not pay 50 energy counters, because X is the number of energy counters the controller pays for the additional cost. They may pay 3 energy counters, they may pay no energy counters, but they can not set an arbitrary value to X. As for 107.3f, the "appropriate time" for Wheel of Potential is when the card's effect goes onto the stack. It begins by giving the controller 3 energy counters and then allowing the controller to pay however many energy counters they want for X. After that, X is the number of energy counters the controller paid, not whatever number the controller chose. Edit: noted 107.3a for 107.3c. Corrected with the proper rule.
@@williamdrum9899 The problem with that is that X is however many energy counters the controller pays for X. Rule 107.3c notes that when X is defined by the text of the card, the controller does not get to declare whatever value they want to X. For Wheel of Potential, it's defined by the number of energy counters the controller pays after receiving 3 energy counters. They may pay however many energy counters they want, but they have to actually pay the amount.
@@bugashi Where is X defined as the amount of energy paid? To define X, an effect needs to explicitly state the value of X, and thankfully, due to Aether Refinery from M3C, we have an example of defining X with the payment of energy counters that came out at the same time as this card.
This doesnt actually work, rule 608.2d basically says you cannot choose a value for x you cannot pay. So even tho it says you may pay x and doesnt have "if you do" the rule stops you from drawing your deck. It states " cannot choose a option that is illegal or impossible" you can only choose a number that you COULD pay with the energy you have.
The card would still be worded wrong since (for example) I have 10 energy and can draw 10 cards and still have 10 energy after the spell is resolved fully
I still don’t understand where the value of x is coming from. It doesn’t state how you get x. I would assume you get nothing as a value was never established. Doesn’t say you decide x, unless that’s part of a ruling for x, then I guess so.
It is part of the ruling for X. 107.3f: Sometimes X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X at the appropriate time (either as it's put on the stack or as it resolves).
what do you mean i get the reward for not putting the energy to inverst in it? this is such a stupid joke i had to get it out of my head. the fact that you can just do draw 90+ outside of an energy deck is nothing but hilarious
There is no option to choose x and bypass the costs. As soon as the spell resolves paid costs for X would be checked as 0. So there is no oracle error.. its just a semantic scenario
X is an additional cost. You don't choose X *before* the spell resolves. You choose X as it's resolving. 107.3f Sometimes X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost. If the value of X isn’t defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X at the appropriate time (either as it’s put on the stack or as it resolves
@@naiustheyetti The bigger issue here is that the way the game's rules work, the card doesn't care if you actually paid X energy or not, you're still drawing X cards.
Cards are resolved top to bottom meaning the check to put in for X exists on the card before the rest resolves. The phrasing is fine your understanding is wrong
Just as an FYI, I'm not misunderstanding the card. I understand how the card is *intended* to work, and would rule as such at any event I'm the HJ at. Magic is a game of consistency. The rules need to be able to applied without ambiguity. This card doesnt help that.
I understand that. But there's a difference between a card being written properly and people deliberately misinterpreting it. I'm commenting on the latter. :)
If WotC has said for years "If a card is templated like this, you can do this. " and then they print a card with that template and then say "Oh, actually we *meant* this", it is not the players fault if it is played as written. If they're going to change the templating and the rules that go with that template, they need to communicate that and apply erratas where necessary.
@@attackoncardboard Again, this is about the players, not the rules. It's like this: ruclips.net/video/f0uYJjDHeDU/видео.html People know what the card is intended to do, based on the phrasing of the card. If it was intended to be played as the rules state, the card would say something like... Pick any number, each player may exile their hand and draw that many cards. You may also expend that much energy. So rules wise, it's legal. But in terms of player social interaction (which is what I'm referring to) the person is clearly an asshole.
Of course it's meant to. We all agree on what was intended. The issue is it was worded incorrectly for that purpose and Wizards' response was "No, it works how we say it does" and they've never done that without updating the official rulebook
The card isn't worded incorrectly, magic players don't understand how X works on cards. The first instance of X on a card locks in the rest of the X's. You can't pay 0 for the first X and then declare the 2nd X as a different number.
@@attackoncardboard Choosing not to pay [or not being able to pay IE. pay w/o paying mana costs for an X spell] causes X to be 0. If you decline paying the Energy X becomes 0 for the rest of the card. Very weird case that could have very easily been handled with the 'if you do' clause for sure. 'If you do' isn't technically needed here but it would have prevented a lot of fun convos.
Sounds like you're the one that doesn't understand X costs 107.3 Many objects use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. Some objects have abilities that define the value of X; the rest let their controller choose the value of X. Because Wheel of Potential doesn't have an ability that explicitly states the value of X (see Aether Refinery for a card that does define X by how much energy is paid), the rules state that you can choose any number for X. This is backed up by other cards that say "You may pay X" in their rules text, such as Flameblast Dragon, who have rulings explicitly stating you choose whatever value you want for X before choosing to pay that cost. The difference is those other cards all have an "if you do" clause that prevents you from getting the 2nd half of the effect when the cost isn't paid.
@@alicetheaxolotl" Some objects have abilities that define the value of X; " In this case, that value is defined by the energy spent at the top of the card?
Its more like people are INTENTIALLY misinterpreting the card to cheat. The second half of the card tells you what happens if you pay the X energy cost. Energy rules state you pay the cost, like mana. While yes the card is missing some important words, how the rest of the energy system works is how the card is played.
X is not a cost on this card, it is part of the full effect. You cannot choose a number over your energy because you have to actually pay that amount of energy.
That's not true at all. If that was the case, the card would have the stipulation "X can't be greater than the amount of energy you have." Ref: Shanna, Purifying Blade
@@VegtamTheWonderer There are only 4 cards (based on scryfall) that have the text "Can't be greater than" because very few effects are broken like this.
@@Oxygen1004 Shanna is a different case because, it seems that, her intended game plan is to force it's users to gain life to get that effect going. she is restricted because her designers want people to gain life, and pay mana, to get that advantage. There is a big difference in these two effects and you would have to be disingenuous to the levels of angle-shooting to try and force this meme of a ruling. when you resolve the spell you get 3 energy and you get to pay and amount of energy into x, whatever you declare is irrelevant to the effect if is not paid.
Just for clarity, yes, I understand how the card is *meant* to work, this video was more a "PSA" more than anything, as the card will likely be errated this week.
Magic: The Gathering is a game of Rules Consistency. Every card interacts with every other card. That is one of the reasons I love this game is because there is literally an answer for anything. Having a card that creates ambiguity, especially among judges, is bad for the game and goes against why this game is so great. "Intent" does not belong in a game with a 300+ page rule book 😂
You know you got this from Judge Dave's channel, how about paying a little credit where it's due eh?
@@ubertuna1 I actually got it from a message on Discord. Not to mention all the discourse on Twitter that prompted me to make this.
I have a tonne of respect for JudgingFTW and wouldn't stoop so low to plagiarize them.
**Edit** Looking at JudgingFTW channel, I can see they made an Ulamog ruling video after me, do I think they copied me? Not in the slightest. Even if they did, (which they didn't), I don't have exclusive claims to MTG Discourse and MTG rules.
If something is popular in MTG and people are talking about it, I'm probably going to make a video about it. You can check my video library to see that.
@@attackoncardboard Alright sorry that may have been a bit harsh. It was my understanding that JudgingFTW started the discourse on this one (I hesitate to say discovered because they don't claim that themselves), but I can't find any discussion or reference to these points prior to their vid, and your vid somewhat mirrors Dave's if just by nature of having the same points to cover. Maybe your discord users found out about it from there. Anyways, sorry. You know how easy it is for channels to copy eachother's content. I thought your channel was a lot bigger too and that's part of why I reacted that way. You are totally right that this is a piece of magic news and everyone has the right to cover it, I woulda just loved to see a link to Dave's vid if that's where you learned about this stuff. Peace
Here's another issue being overlooked: Even if I'm not abusing it to draw my deck, there's still the problem where I can say X is equal to the amount of energy I have, refuse to pay, and I still draw the cards and keep my energy
@@ubertuna1For extra clarity, the Discord message linked me to a MTG Rocks article about this card and because I live on Twitter, I just saw everyone talking about the card (hence the Twitter screen shots in the video) so it prompted me to make this video.
Again, I love JudgingFTW's content. I even do a full shout out to him and his channel in my video from a month ago where I talk about Judges. He explains rules content far better than I can and has helped me out previously with a rules question.
Hope that clears things up and I hope you enjoy the rest of the content. 🙂
"Say a number and pay if you feel like it, draw that many cards"
@@hlaw2830 no, have you not understood anything said in the video? You MAY pay X but you dont need to... Ask yourself why every other card has an "if you do" added
@@anzeigefehler6495 That's what they're saying: "pay if you feel like it" = "you may pay".
@@olaf7441 I was commenting on another user who didnt understood that
@@anzeigefehler6495 Oh yeah my bad, looks like they deleted their comment.
"Say a number, draw that many cards. If the energy you have is too heavy, you can go ahead and get rid of it if you feel like it"
If anything, they can fix it by removing one word: the "may" in "you may pay X [Energy]."
Change it to, "you pay X Energy." Now you can't decline to pay the cost. You can still declare the cost of X=0, which would mean you draw zero cards, but now that there is no "may pay" clause, then you define X by the amount of energy you pay.
As soon as you take that out, the rest of the card works as written and ruled.
The only thing this would change is effects that happen when it is copied. It would be a forced energy expenditure.
Which is actually an interesting rules question for this card. Is X defined on the stack or only during resolution? If X is not defined on the stack, then the value for X is not able to be copied.
However if it is, then it is copied with any effect that would copy.
I assume it does not get X defined while on the stack and only during resolution.
Correct.
@@attackoncardboard You should use Nyssa of Traken as an example of another card you can set X to be used to draw large amounts of cards by setting X higher than its perhaps intuitive limit.
Yeah, the "you _may_ pay" clause makes a lot more sense on the other cards in the video, since one requires 1 or more energy and the other targets a card in your graveyard and uses it's mana value for energy. In either case, you may want to cast the card and spend zero energy, which wouldn't be allowed without the "may".
This feels like a mistake of always copying the "you may pay" template for energy cards, even when "any amount" (ie zero) is an allowable option.
@@zekegoX is defined on resolution. Because of that, copies won't let the same X as they only keep the things that must be chosen on cast.
The thing is, the "may" is a worse culprit than the lack of "if you do". Removing the "may" also has the same effect as "if you do", because you can't pay more than what you have, so you wouldn't be able to draw your deck if you do not have the same amount of energy paid. It falls in the same "you can't pay with life that you don't have" scenario.
This is fine for the most part except for X=0. There is no rule that specifically states that paying 0 is legal
@@drillerkiller9 Yes, the rules let you choose 0. Relevant is as follows:
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 or in any alternative cost or additional cost it has equals the announced value. While an activated ability is on the stack, any X in its activation cost equals the announced value.
107.1b Most of the time, the Magic game uses only positive numbers and zero. You can’t choose a negative number, deal negative damage, gain negative life, and so on. However, it’s possible for a game value, such as a creature’s power, to be less than zero. If a calculation or comparison needs to use a negative value, it does so. If a calculation that would determine the result of an effect yields a negative number, zero is used instead, unless that effect doubles or sets to a specific value a player’s life total or the power and/or toughness of a creature or creature card.
@@drillerkiller9 See the thing is that you always have at least zero energy counters, IIRC the only reason you need a special rule for paying zero life is that you can pay zero life when you have negative life i.e. not at least zero life. Unless I'm misunderstanding something there is nothing in the rules that would prevent you from paying zero energy counters without any energy counters.
It's not quite the same, because if you wanted to cast the spell solely to gain the energy, it instead forces you to allow your opponent to exile their hand and draw 0.
Granted, there aren't many situations where they would want to do that and you wouldn't want them to. Maybe they knew you were about to steal something from their hand, or make them discard something so you can reanimate it.
@@MetaKaios they mean remove "may" from the FIRST line. Instead of "You may may x energy" just say "Pay x energy". The caster can declare X to be 0 if they want to pay no energy, it still functions.
The scary part is, this made it to print like this. How many people are reviewing the card file before it goes to the printers? 3?!
Goodness. And this is a premium product. Which apparently just means it costs more, not that they work harder on it 😔
But look at these aaamaaazing crossovers! Or these new Secret Lair Boxes! Don't tell me you don't love Fortnite, or that you never wanted a Magic card in Comic Sans!
/s
@@sebastianahrens2385 I’m too old apparently. I’m off this train now. The world has passed me by. The game is now in the hands of newer players. And I just don’t understand anymore. I don’t like a lot of the things now. I’ve lost touch. Because apparently, they sell more than ever, so most players must really love this.
Well they released a lot of working force last year, no wonder why that happens
I'm guessing because if you didn't pay X energy, there would be no defined X in the first place. And most undefined values default to 0 in Magic.
Eh, this isn't as bad as when they had to change how game rules checked x costs.
I cannot believe this evaded the much needed day 0 errata.
Looking at the WotC responses on Twitter, it looks like it either slipped through the cracks or they thought "she'll be alright" 😂
They're basically saying "f it, the card works how we say it does" which is funny because in the old days it was like that
I can understand how they missed it in play testing,either because these players were used to the “if you do” wording they assumed it, or because the test version had it spelled out but it was missed in final version that went to the printers. But it does seem like now they know the issue the rule change should be immediate and not at some point in a week or two. If they want Mark or some judges to write a blog post explaining it later they can, but the errata could be done, proof read and proof read again a 100 times in less than a day.
@@KrisRogos They probably had different wording during playtesting and then they wanted to simplify it for clarity. I could easily see them truncating the wording to this and making it a functionally different card then intended.
The card already says X = the amount of energy payed.
It's been errataed:
"You get {E} {E} {E} (three energy counters), then you may pay any amount of {E}.
Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of {E} paid this way. If 7 or more {E} was paid this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn."
The fact that this card is broken in this way is hilarious
I find it strange that they can print this card, as it is, alongside so many other cards that say "If you do,".
Why all of a sudden did they not put that clause, or another check when every other energy card like this does 😂
@@attackoncardboardIt's so hard to not oversee something like this. I'm currently working on a TCG in editing, too. And it can just slip through, even when I try my hardest to don't let it😅
@@attackoncardboard Like Good Morning Vietnam: _"If you do..."_
@@attackoncardboard exactly!! Doesn’t it feel like an inconsistent take on card design? Was it really made on purpose? Super bizarre!! On the bright side, your work is a masterpiece, really! Keep up the great work!
@@caveira2099 I appreciate you taking the time to comment. While I dont consider this one a master piece 😅 I'm glad to hear you're enjoying my efforts 😃
Well the oracle text doesnt have an error, its not intended by the design of the card, but by the rules its not an oracle error, thats what the card reads and WotC has not given a new oracle text.
In the end, the head judge still decides, but that leads to the problem that at some events its "Rules as written" and some other headjudges just overall it as "Rules as intended" ... and thats pretty stupid.
Why WotC takes so much time with this is also mind boggling, they should absolutely ASAP oracle the card to make it functional and not waste time to do that.
Look at the gatherer page for it they made a ruiling on 6/7/2024 issue is already fixed
@@ryaninteresting8815 After reading the rulings of the card, it doesn't look like it is fixed. It seems to just be generic rulings for energy, but nothing specific for the card to state that the x energy has to be paid in order to draw the x cards
@@ryaninteresting8815can you quote a specific ruling? None of the ones I see fix the issue. Some look like they do, but don't apply to this card given how it is worded.
This one doesn't apply since it doesn't use "if you do"
"Some triggered abilities that state that you "may pay" a certain amount of Energy describe an effect that happens "If you do." In that case, no player may take actions to try to stop the ability's effect after you make your choice. If the payment is followed by the phrase "When you do," then you'll choose any targets for that reflexive triggered ability and put it on the stack before players can take actions."
This one doesn't apply since the problem isn't with paying more than you have, but with deciding not to pay an optional cost.
"If an effect says you get one or more Energy, you get that many energy counters. To pay one or more Energy, you lose that many energy counters. You can't pay more energy counters than you have. Any effects that interact with counters a player gets, has, or loses can interact with energy counters."
@@ryaninteresting8815 I'm looking at the gatherer page right now. There is no rule there that fixes the printing of the card. There are generic rules for energy and how to interact with "if you do" and "when you do" statements, but no rule in the notes adds "if" or "when" or removes "may" from teh card's text.
@@Robophill The new ruling is quite literally
YOU MAY PAY X.
X is now DEFINED FOR THE REST OF THE CARD BY HOW MUCH YOU PAID.
SO IF YOU PAID 0 IN THE TOP PART, WHATEVER PLAYER DISCARDS THEIR HAND WOULD GET 0 CARDS BACK...
Reminds me of the classic Garfield Errata on Braingeyers he was asked to sign where he wrote "X is of course, equal to 10," where is says you draw or force an opponent to draw X cards.
Wizards apparently forgot how to template for energy counters because this wasn't an issue with cards like Harnessed Lightning or Confiscation Coup
They had a perfectly acceptable template in the same via Galvanic Discharge.
Just getting sloppy. But it won’t stop us addicts from buying. So Wizards don’t care
The reason this is templated differently is because this has an additional effect if a certain amount of energy is spent.
@@GodotGodfrey and they botched it lol. Don’t worry, us fools will buy anything.
@@GodotGodfreyThat makes absolutely no senses. The templating should be something like "You get EEE, then you may spend any amount of energy. When you do, each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of energy spent this way. If at least 7 energy was spent this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn". It should be an If Then templating, no matter what, because as-printed it is a nightmare.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t this fix the issue? “You get 3 energy, then you may pay any amount of energy. If you do, each player may exile their hand and draw x cards, where x is the amount of energy paid this way”
That could certainly be a fix too!
Actually no, because if you add "when you do" it becomes a triggered ability and player may respond to this tregger.
@@gobzlink 🤦♂ Yes you're right!
@@gobzlink I don’t know why I wrote “when you do” instead of “if you do”, but this works as errata for the card
The other thing is that it becomes a lot more wordy, because you still need the X is 7 or more part as well
Oh so this is an actual mistake in the syntax, that’s fucking hilarious wow. Really feeling those lay offs aren’t they good lord
@@WinterGray8888 don’t worry Wizards making record profits. That’s all that matters 😅
There are 3 ways to fix the card:
- if you do (the most logical choice)
- when you do (creates a delayed trigger)
- make the payment mandatory (with paying 0 being an option)
Making the payment mandatory was the first thing I thought of but it should be "if you do" in my opinion to make it similar to other effects
Well official ruling is now whatever you pay for the you "MAY PAY X (energy)"
IS now the total value of X.
So if the caster pays 0 energy, whoever discards their hand gets back 0 cards.
Which was the easiest fix in the world and the card technically reads like that, its just magic has an older rule for their cards that makes that not the case.
So basically the card currently reads
"You get EEE (three energy counters), then you may pay X E.
Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards. If X is 7 or more, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn."
But the intended effect is
"You get EEE (three energy counters), then you may pay X E.
Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards, where X is the Energy paid. If X is 7 or more, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn."
And without the previous rule in MTG that allows people to define X regardless of paying anything, the top and bottom already say the same thing.
Well, at least they got Tribal errata'd. Good job, WotC!
And here I felt bad for having errors go to print in my homebrew expansion, but I'm just one guy, not a multi-billion dollar company.
Your WHAT?!
@@MultiDEVOSTATOR Wastes of Veldmar
I was only joking because people often have dislike towards custom cards but that name actually sounds pretty badass.
@@MultiDEVOSTATOR I have videos about it on my other channel if you're interested, otherwise no worries. 😁
Yeah I think I’d like to check it out. Sounds cool
As a judge, people arguing in this comment section is why its so important for wotc to quickly acknowledge wording anf gatherer mistakes. Without a central authority anymore, I’m forced to use DDR#780 and “head judges rulings are final”, which sucks. This is a problem with ultra specific wording, which most mtg players just won’t get unless they’re abusing it. I made the mistake of not specifically mentioning this card before a modern event, and of course, someone came to abuse it. I had to explain to both players why we’re allowed to run the card as intended rather than written, but also why I’m not giving any infarction to the wheel player attempter since he broke no rules. It makes players angry, and rightfully so. I can’t blame them, it IS bs.
WoP fits right in modern ruby storm, and after trying it, it’s disgusting. You get the turn 3 win basically 100% of the time, and it makes turn 2 wins common. Who knew 3 mana draw your entire deck is good? Its suddenly worth it to play green to get 1-drop dorks to get 3 mana on turn 2 because any hand with wheel+2 lands+dork is a turn 2 win.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. It's good to get some real world examples.
It's situations like these, that while painful right now, do end up creating better rules for the game. Especially if it's before a major tournament. IE Pithing Needle incident, Dryad Arbor in Lands incident etc.
Isn't the official ruling now
[YOU MAY PAY X.
X is now DEFINED FOR THE REST OF THE CARD BY HOW MUCH YOU PAID.
SO IF YOU PAID 0 IN THE TOP PART, WHATEVER PLAYER DISCARDS THEIR HAND WOULD GET 0 CARDS BACK... THATS LITERALLY IT.
AND THAT IS THE OFFICIAL RULING NOW AS WELL. ]
Which is basically what most veteran players (who weren't trying to abuse) used the wording as?
@@FirewynnTV It’s not an official ruling (yet, i hope it is tbh) since its not in cr or even on the gatherer. Still, judges have been told to rule it like that since … it just makes sense lol.
Hopefully thats a real announcement and I’m just missing it though
@@FirewynnTV There are 73 cards that are either instants or sorceries with the text "sacrifice a creature" (anywhere on the card) and none of them fit your description.
@@FirewynnTV I also went through every Ikoria card too. None coming up there either.
I was looking at this card on release, and I was like "Surely it doesn't work this way - there has to be some sort of hidden rule I am not getting."
If I was a judge I would have ruled "Play cards as written" just to watch the fireworks in that tournament xD
It is written correctly
Explain why fireball doesn’t say “an amount of damage equal to its casting cost minus one”
@@FirewynnTV
Yep
They remembered the idiot text for energy because it’s still a “new” (2016)
But forgot the the idiot text for X
Obviously cards check what WAS paid
This problem @1:38 still absolutely eludes me. It doesnt check on any of the X cards if X was actually and quite literally played, and no one just declares a number
For cards with X in the mana cost, you do actually just declare a number (107.3a, 601.2b), but then during the normal process for casting a spell, if you can't pay the cost the entire process of casting the spell is reversed since it was an illegal action.
The problem is, this isn't a mana/alternate/additional/activation cost and it is optional. Because of that, you choose a number before being asked to pay (107.3f), but then are given the choice to not pay and it then never asks if you actually did pay. Compare it to something like Rise of the Hobgoblins which does say "if you do".
Relevant rules:
601.2b: If the spell is modal, the player announces the mode choice (see rule 700.2). If the player wishes to splice any cards onto the spell (see rule 702.47), they reveal those cards in their hand. If the spell has alternative or additional costs that will be paid as it's being cast such as buyback or kicker costs (see rules 118.8 and 118.9), the player announces their intentions to pay any or all of those costs (see rule 601.2f). A player can't apply two alternative methods of casting or two alternative costs to a single spell. If the spell has a variable cost that will be paid as it's being cast (such as an {X} in its mana cost; see rule 107.3), the player announces the value of that variable. If the value of that variable is defined in the text of the spell by a choice that player would make later in the announcement or resolution of the spell, that player makes that choice at this time instead of that later time. If a cost that will be paid as the spell is being cast includes hybrid mana symbols, the player announces the nonhybrid equivalent cost they intend to pay. If a cost that will be paid as the spell is being cast includes Phyrexian mana symbols, the player announces whether they intend to pay 2 life or a corresponding colored mana cost for each of those symbols. Previously made choices (such as choosing to cast a spell with flashback from a graveyard or choosing to cast a creature with morph face down) may restrict the player's options when making these choices.
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 or in any alternative cost or additional cost it has equals the announced value. While an activated ability is on the stack, any X in its activation cost equals the announced value.
107.3f: Sometimes X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X at the appropriate time (either as it's put on the stack or as it resolves).
A bunch of people in the comments here are saying "obviously this isn't broken, and people are only pretending it is so they can cheat!" If that was true, it would be pretty weird for those cheaters to make youtube videos saying "this card is broken and wizards should errata it."
Not broken. Because, like with basic programming, the X is only a number equal to energy spent. You're welcome.
@@alwaysabiggafish3305 Well that's not what the comprehensive rules say, but we can just agree to disagree.
@@alwaysabiggafish3305 - well, no - the X is just a number chosen, the payment is a "may".
If this were programming it would be broken, because the computer does exactly what you say, with no regard to what you actually want.
It does not say chose a number then decide if you want yo pay
You always pay
You can pay O
Then it check ( notice the coma [ , ] )
Then the rest of the card knows what X means
@@poetguillaume659 You don't always pay. That's what "you may pay" means.
The comprehensive rules say that when a card has an X that isn't defined elsewhere on the card, and isn't part of its casting cost, you can choose any value. The card says that you *may* then pay X energy, or not. Those two choices are completely independent. There's nothing either on the card or in the rules to say that if you choose X=5 for the first choice, you can't then choose not to pay for the second choice.
Sigh, Thassa's Oracle. The boring design mistake that keeps benefiting from other, less intentional design mistakes like this and Nadu.
I've got a couple cards with typing errors, where they are missing important words.
An Ashnod's Altar thats missing the first half of the ability (Sacrifice a creature) so it cant be used, because theres no activation (its obviously an error, and works as normal) and an Ivylane Denizen that simply says "whenever a Creature" instead of "Whenever a green creature".
Well im still running this in my energy deck. Still fun to play with
Not the first to say, but just remove that first 'you may'.
Wizards should know by now that if you give a player an option, it's instructive to explore every variation of that option. E.g., ask your selves, "What if they don't"? This is a lesser version of the Oko error. Or Skullclamp.
My friend just opened one of these in an MH3 booster. He's gonna love this lol
Enjoy it while it lasts 😂
I didn’t even realise the rulebreak looking at the card, I look forwards to seeing more of these on my feed!
I love talking about the rules of MTG, so you can definitely expect to see plenty more 😁
why are people arguing in the comments
did you not watch the video?? There is no argument to be made; the rules are unambiguous(ly wrong) in this situation.
The rules on the card state
X = the amount of energy PAIDE
Removing the "may" disables the ability to simply gain energy counters if that's all you want to do at that time, so adding "if you do" is really the only option.
Then pay X, 0 can stil be a legal value for 0.
Of course after paying X you still MAY (or may not) exile your hand to draw X, where X is 0 so both players refuse.
You still end up with net 3 energy
One way of looking at it: Instructions in the first paragraph are not followed by the caster so any further actions do not occur.
The main thing here is the clarity. MTG is a game of rules consistency, there should be no "will they, wont they" situations.
Magic rules aren't up for interpretation. They are very explicit.
@@hlaw2830 Dude, stfu. Quit spamming almost every comment.
@@hlaw2830 Wizards DID write this card wrong. The way it is written you can exploit it as described, unless Wizards is changing the rules to make it work this way for energy in general
the caster did follow the instructions though, they gained the energy counters and chose whether to pay X energy (X being decided at... maybe when casting the card?? i dont remember, but its something where you choose the value for X even if you don't pay the cost)
Can you do a video or explain here how Ulalek works with multiple copies of echos of eternity on the field. I'm having trouble resolving at the triggers in the order they should resolve. Thanks!
You had ONE job Wizards!
I'd really like to know, how something like this happens...
"I'll errata your favorite card"
No, don't make Prosper's treasure enter tapped! D8
You get EnergyEnergyEnergy (three energy counters), then you may pay any amount of Energy.
Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of Energy paid this way. If 7 or more Energy was paid this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn.
Another friend for R&D's Secret Lair ☺️
if wizards """intended""" that card to be fair, then they fucking shouldve written it correctly
Play this with R&D's Secret Lair and you'll always get the draws.
Let’s pretend algebra doesn’t exist
The card would read :
You gain (E)(E)(E) then you may pay any amount of (E)
Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of (E) paid. If more than 7(E) was paid this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn.
The WoTC wording saves twelve words
(the black ink is the most expensive)
Remember kids algebra follows rules too
I think they shouldn’t change a thing about that card since it’s their fault to word it poorly and not make sure the card isn’t busted in other formats. I don’t understand why they have a problem with busted cards now because they have made overpowered creep cards for weeks with their overprint sets that’s the problem here overprint cards to point they just don’t have time to polish them.
@@MagicApocalypseTCG as much as I don't love Ragavan and the Evoke elementals, there is quite a big difference between those and 3 mana draw your deck...
I pulled this card and the ruling from the day of the pre-release date (June 7th 2024) says this "Some triggered abilities that state that you 'may pay' a certain amount of Energy describe an effect that happens 'If you do,' In that case, no player may take actions to try to stop the ability's effect after you make your choice. If the payment is followed by the phrase 'When you do,' then you'll choose any targets for that reflexive triggered ability and put it on the stack before players can take actions." meaning that it is just a misprint on the card itself
According to WotC staff, it's not a misprint 😅
That ruling doesn't apply to this card since it doesn't say "if you do" or "when you do".
It's purpose is the distinguish between effects that are reflexive triggers and therefore course a second ability to go on the stack versus those that are just part of the same spell or ability and therefore happen during its resolution.
For example, there is a functional difference between the structure of the triggered abilities on Throwing Knife versus Spare Dagger even though, other than the damage amount, they appear to do similar things.
Throwing Knife says "if you do". That means when you attack with a creature, you choose a target. Once the ability resolves, you get the choice to sacrifice it. If you sacrifice it, it immediately deals the damage. If an opponent with Snakeskin Veil wants to protect their creature, they need to cast it when you first target the creature. If they do, the ability fizzles without you needing to sacrifice it.
Spare Dagger says "when you do". When you attack with it, you get a trigger. As the trigger resolves, you get the choice to sacrifice it. If you do, you then choose a target and another ability will go on the stack to deal damage the damage to that target. If an opponent has Snakeskin Veil, they can cast it after you have sacrificed the equipment but before the damage is dealt for a larger blow out.
Great video! I love MH3 energy, it’s so fun in limited
The designs in MH3 have been great. I imagine we won't see energy in standard again till the Deathrace set next year.
I went 1-3 in Limited against "players" with a billion alt accounts played 24/7/365 until constructed-level "draft" decks are made up, so I disagree.
They accidentally gave wheel of potential too much potential, lol
I'd argue you don't declare / decide a value for X until you pay / don't pay the cost.
Since X isn't part of the spell's cost, it doesn't need to be determined prior to resolution.
That is a sensible way to make this game. But there are a lot of cards like Access Denied that don't care about you paying X, so it's too late to go down that path.
If that’s an official statement, they recognize that the car does in fact work that way, even though it was not intended
So an official setting, it should be played the way. It is not the way it’s intended out of spirit.
Until they officially errata the card's text, the rules as written on the card are the rules to play by. Considering how easy it is to add text to the gatherer site, it's inexcusable that they haven't done so yet. They can say "what we meant was", but until there is an official errata, the statement is meaningless.
Something itched at me about paying X on this card but I didnt click what it was until then!
I'm assuming Jolted Awake works with Ornithopter? If an Ornithopter attacks for zero damage, it doesn't trigger any "dealt damage" effects, because dealing zero doesn't count as dealing damage. Does paying zero energy to reanimate my Ornithopter also not count as paying energy for the "if you do" clause on Jolted Awake? Judge!
You can pay 0 Energy and reanimate Ornithopter.
They're really taking their sweet time in errating it.
Because there is no need for an errata. It is clearly an interpretation issue by the OP and not an error with the card.
The text on the cards become on every edition longer...and it becomes more important to check it in detail... understanding what the card should do and written to the card are different things.
But cost saving on the WotC side plus increasing powerlevel (to increase prices) will not help the game. Beta Testing is outsourced...they can save much time and money....
Incidentally, playing the card as written would draw ZERO cards if you don't pay X.
It doesn't say CHOOSE X, it says PAY it. The only way to define X is that payment. All instances of X in the game are zero until the value is paid, or otherwise defined by an ability. Fireball cast without paying its mana cost, opting not to spend extra mana on a hydra creature, it doesn't matter.
As far as the judges:
"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."
That rule changes nothing. As written, the card says you MAY pay X.
@@attackoncardboard The key point of it is, "the controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value."
X's value is defined by the energy payment line, so whatever value you pay into X, even zero, is what value is used in the rest of the card.
@@terakhanthis that's not how the card is written.
@@terakhanthisbeing asked to "pay X" is not enough to define X. Is generally done through wording such as "where X is". Champions of Minas Tirith and Urgent Necropsy are both examples of cards with an X cost that is defined.
Instead of the cost defining X, X in any X cost defines what the cost is.
If you read the ruling you quoted, you will notice that it applies to cases where X is in a cost AND x is defined. That should make it pretty clear that being a cost isn't enough to define it on its own.
X is chosen by the controller whenever it isn't defined.
107.3: Many objects use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. Some objects have abilities that define the value of X; the rest let their controller choose the value of X.
This even includes when casting an X spell, it's just that there paying the cost in mandatory if you want to cast the spell.
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 or in any alternative cost or additional cost it has equals the announced value. While an activated ability is on the stack, any X in its activation cost equals the announced value.
The reason it's 0 if you cast it without paying the mana cost is because of this specific rule:
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."
Notice that you still choose, you just only get the one choice.
I tought somebody checked the cards before printing
Cards have fallen through the cracks before. Henzi from New Cappena was a major one that technically didn't work
You may exile your hand and pay 0. If you pay 0 then you just exile your hand. There is no pick a number and draw.
107.3
Many objects use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. Some objects have abilities that define the value of X; the rest let their controller choose the value of X.
X is not defined anywhere in the text (look at Aether Refinery for a card from the main set that does define X based on an energy payment), so yes, you do choose X. Why are you correcting judges when you don't even know how X costs work?
You pick a value for X, its not defaulted to 0. Then you follow the card with each instance of X being replaced by the chosen value. The only times where you cannot choose a different value for X would be if that value is not legal (If X is in the casting cost or in the targeting such as defining a number of targets, neither of which are the case here).
Ok, I'll entertain this. This fall under Rule 107.3c in the comp rules. "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." Since X is defined as X energy counters, then X energy = X cards drawn. This is like when the game was in beta testing, and Time Walk read "Target player loses next turn (as opposed to you gaining an extra turn) and the playtest group was using to force game losses because of how it was worded.
X is not defined anywhere in the text though. X is defined by the line of text "Where X is equal to [definition]." So unless you want to point me to that exact line of text in Wheel of Potential, I'm surprised you would quote this ruling without knowing this.
If you take a look at other cards that say "You may pay X", such as Flameblast Dragon or Halo Forager, their rulings explicitly state that you choose the value of X, because it is not defined.
@@alicetheaxolotl
X(symbol I can’t find on my keyboard)
@@alicetheaxolotl The verbiage "where x is equal to ____" is used to define the value of x by a nonpayment vaiable, like number of creatures on the field or equal to the mana value of a spell.
On this card, it explicitly states "pay x {E} ({E} being the symbol for energy counters)." That defines a payment (your choice of however many energy counters you want to pay, of course) and establishes a value for X.
Now if the card got rid of everything else and literally just said "Draw X cards" with nothing else, and no other mention of X in the text of the spell,no {X} in it's casting cost, then in that instance you can choose a value for X.
There's not going to be any errata or anything like that. They literally created a rule specifically for instances like this.
@@Another1-db5sp Wrong. Matt Tabak outright said they were working on an errata.
@@Another1-db5sp "where X is equal to" is also used for payments. Champions of Minas Tirith and Sphere of Safety both use it. The correct rule to look at would thus be:
107.3f: Sometimes X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X at the appropriate time (either as it's put on the stack or as it resolves).
would have been fun to just draw out over and over at the pre release when i pulled this just for giggles
that's exactly how I read it and hence said it's broken and people argued with me.. as always..didn't play in a while and Arena plays itself.. but I'm glad I still have the most useful skill in MTG. reading the card explains the card.. altho I had to read it like 5 times to get it 😅
Wait this hasn't been fixed yet. I thought it would get errata'd day 1
Still up in the air 😅
Hope
It’s worded correctly
isnt it just a base rule that a card the refers to X checks for what was used for paying X if you pay 0 energy for X X=0 so then the second effect is each player may exile the hand and draw 0 cards.
Literally. this card is only broken if players want to act obtuse.
So why does practically every other card templated this way have the words "if you do"?
Because those cards are asking you to pay an additional cost for casting the card. The energy cards payment is during the card's resolution so you have to choose a legal amount based on your own energy for the X.
@@attackoncardboard X is how much energy you paid for...
@@attackoncardboard It's a stylistic language choice which has changed over time. Older cards with similar abilities tend not to have the "if you do" line, because it is extremely obvious that you would have to make the additional payment. Anybody saying they believe otherwise is just straight up lying and everybody knows it. Why are we even pretending to believe this "interpretation"? It's obviously ridiculous.
It's like saying I can Fireball somebody for 20 damage by just paying R and not the additional 20 because the card never says the extra damage only happens if I pay the 20.
Just make sure that you get it in writing!! 😅
WotC have since issued an errata for this card now and it's fixed! (Along with Suppression Ray)
I'd use this with sheoldred.
I guess to Wotc hiring the freaking Pinkeron just sounds cooler than hiring someone to triple check that their cards are worded properly.
My favorite card is Storm Cauldron, how would you errata it?
Does it need errata?
@@seandun7083 well no because I am subscribed to the channel. I just was being cheeky about the subscription threat at the end of the video 😁
@@crovax1375ah, missed that.
Each *other* player may play an additional land during each of their turns. 😂
@@attackoncardboard that's actually fine, because I like to play Storm Cauldron with other effects like Confounding Conundrum and/or Burgeoning! Also the primary reason is to make every land a bounce land for Kodama combos
You can't choose a number that is impossible. You can only choose up to the amount of energy that you have.
Where does it say that on the card? (Or in the rules?)
@@attackoncardboard 608.2d
@@attackoncardboard 608.2d If an effect of a spell or ability offers any choices other than choices already made as part of casting the spell, activating the ability, or otherwise putting the spell or ability on the stack, the player announces these while applying the effect. The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible, with the exception that having a library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action (see rule 121.3).
Choosing a number for X that is higher than my energy amount isnt illegal or impossible.
For example, on 'Elenda and Azor', I can set X to be 100, even if I only have 10 mana available to me. I then decline to pay that cost. The card then checks if I paid that cost.
"Notes and Rules Information for Elenda and Azor:
- You choose the value of X as the first triggered ability resolves. "
For the sake of discussion, let's say I have 20 Energy. I decide X is 20 and then I decide not to pay it. The way the card is worded, I'm still drawing 20 cards.
@@attackoncardboard if you have 20 energy, you could draw 20 cards without spending the energy. But you can't draw more than that
608.2d If an effect of a spell or ability offers any choices other than choices already made as part of casting the spell, activating the ability, or otherwise putting the spell or ability on the stack, the player announces these while applying the effect. The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible, with the exception that having a library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action (see rule 121.3)
IMO there are not 3 missing words, there is one word to much. If they simply remove the "may" from the you may pay X", then I think the card should work just fine?
Did it get programmed correctly on Arena and MTGO?
You're not given the "may" choice on either.
Another way to have templated the card in a way that doesn't break like this, would have been to not use the word "may". X can be 0, after all; weird tech against Ignite Memories, I guess...
As a judge it is clear what the card should do and if anyone tried to do this at an event I was working I would 100% be issuing a penalty
What would the penalty be? And what rule would you cite them for breaking?
@@attackoncardboard At the casual event a friendly reminder for the first instance and warning for 2nd, At comp irl Warning upgraded to disqualification
@@albakingification what rule would you cite them for breaking? You can't issue warnings and DQs because you feel like it, there's an IPG for a reason.
Good old WotC. Too busy getting ready to rush the winter release to the printers before the fall releases spoilers finish days ahead of the current release hitting the store shelves to sell.
And here i thought "reading the card explains the card" RIP
🔫 Never has been
Reading the card explains the card?
They should keep the card the way it is since the commander format does a poor job banning two card combos. What’s one more. If Dimir can have a Shasta’s combos. So can Izzet
Cant they just remove the first may? Just have x be 0 if they dont want to pay
This is an issue because they tried to make the wording easier to read and understand but they removed the restriction on it. The issue is that they want the cost and choosing of X to be paired, but everyone else gets the option to wheel to. The easiest way to fix this is to have the wheel effects for "you" and "everyone else" be different lines with everyone else not having the energy pay requirement.
As written, X can be large, even higher than your current energy and you do not need to pay in order to wheel as that is written that everyone gets that option.
The circular arguing in the comments is hilarious.
^BuT yOu HaVe To PaY tHe CoSt_
*may pay*
I think the line of reasoning is "may" applies to the entire clause; so you either pick a value for X and pay it (including 0), or you don't interact with that clause. But, imo, that's more of a RAI reading than a strict and literal RAW reading.
@@eruantien9932 it would need to be in the same sentence for that to be true. Suppression Ray works that way, but Mnemonic Deluge still exiles itself even if you choose not to cast the copies.
Are people actually trying this with judges allowing it? Because honestly, that seems counterintuitive to me.
First off, it says "you may pay X Energy". Well... You didn't pay any Energy. Where does it say you still get to decide on a value for X? No other card lets you decide what X is without paying for X.
Second, "if you do" ruins the card entirely. The reason they didn't include it is because they don't want the effect to exile your hand to be optional. "[...] you may pay X{E}. If you do, each player may exile their hand and draw X cards. [...]" Okay, I didn't pay X Energy, so all the card does is give me 3 Energy, no wheel effect at all. But that's not what they wanted. They wanted it to be that everyone that opts into the effect exiles their hand and draws X cards, where X is what was paid. Maybe you paid nothing and exile your hand, wanting an empty hand for another card's effect. Or maybe you paid 7 and a few others want a fresh hand of 7 cards, not having anything in their hand they care about. Clearly, that was the intent, but adding "if you do" kind of removes that.
Which brings me to what I expect the fix to be. Instead of "if you do", it's more words. "[...] and draw X cards, where X is the amount of Energy paid." That way, you can still make X equal to zero and exile your hand for whatever reason instead of having to pay something to exile your hand.
Or, judges can just go with the common sense point of "well you didn't pay anything, so X is zero"
In the Comprehensive Rulebook is where it says you choose the value of X.
107.3
Many objects use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. Some objects have abilities that define the value of X; the rest let their controller choose the value of X.
And your point about no card letting you choose X then not pay it is incorrect. Flameblast Dragon, another card with an ability that says "You may pay X(and a red)" has a ruling explicitly stating that you choose X, then decide if you want to pay X. But because it says "if you do", you don't actually get the effect if you don't pay.
Womp womp, wizard of the coast is such a huge company they had more than enough recources to catch this mistake. The card does what it says on the cardboard so i am not gonna pay shit and draw my library 😂
3 weeks later
It has not been eratta'd yet.
Now it has:
"You get {E} {E} {E} (three energy counters), then you may pay any amount of {E}.
Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of {E} paid this way. If 7 or more {E} was paid this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn."
The card isn't broken. Look at Galvanic Discharge: "You get EEE (three energy counters), then you may pay any amount of E. Galvanic Discharge deals that much damage to that permanent." You can't choose "any amount" to be say, 20, then choose not to pay it, since it says "may", and then have the spell deal 20 damage. The damage dealt is the amount paid, not the amount of a choice. "May pay X E" isn't two steps, choosing X and then choosing whether to pay it. It's a single step where you have to actually pay a cost to determine the value of X.
This would be true if Wheel of Potential used the same wording of "that many", which it does not.
@@lokijantzen8940 There's no difference in the rules between "any amount / that much" and "X". Wheel uses "X" to save space. Suppression Ray is the same way, using "X" instead of "any amount / that much" to save space.
This comparison doesn’t work. The problem here is that WoP is templated in a way that disconnects the two lines. This means both Xs can be different, and nowhere in the rules does it say that this templating would make the first payment set the value of X. In fact, theres several possible templated they could’ve used that all work, they just made a new one and didnt support it in the rules lol
Check out DDR#780 to see how different templates affect how it works, and why it doesnt work right now. It’s already been ruled to not work as written. Modern events rn have the head judge ruling on what wording to use since theres also a rule that players cant abuse gatherer mistakes. Card works differently depending on what they choose though.
If they use galvanic discharge’s templating (You get EEE, then you may pay any amont of E. Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of energy paid this way. If you paid 7 or more energy, you may play cards you own exiled this way until end of turn) it would work as intended, but is very wordy and wotc has stopped using this template at all since it confuses players. IMO, its still the best template, since without a CR rules change, any other wording changes the card.
107.3f Sometimes X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost. If the value of X isn’t defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X at the appropriate time (either as it’s put on the stack or as it resolves).
107.3i Normally, all instances of X on an object have the same value at any given time.
The confusion comes from a combination of two things. Typically, X is part of the casting cost of a card, and being unable to pay X means that when you reach the point that you are unable to pay X mana, you rewind the casting of the spell. Largely because of this, players tend to conflate choosing a value for X, and paying X.
As others have said, any reasonable person who reads this card will understand that the intent of this card was that X was not meant to be decoupled from actually paying X energy. Because of how robust and well, comprehensive, the comprehensive rules are, the wording of cards must match the precision of those rules. The reason that this sticks out so much as an example is because WotC is normally so precise in their templating of cards.
@@Amazementss The only confusion lies in players that believe that what they declare>what they pay. The game state does not care if you declare any amount that can not be legally paid for.
I don’t understand why there is such confusion about this card. The comprehensives rules state that X can only be legal choice ( 608.2d). The player cannot choose a value for X that they couldn’t otherwise pay. In other words, as the spell is resolved they may choose a legal value for X which could not exceed the amount of energy they have available to pay. The same would be true if the card said pay X life or sacrifice X creatures. The player casting/controlling this spell may not choose a value for X that they could not pay.
The X’s on the card are linked. If the casting player chose to pay 3 energy then the X is 3. If the casting player chose to pay 3 energy but later chose not to play, as argued as possible in this video, this is an illegal game action. The player announced the intent to pay X energy and must do so. If they elect not to pay then X is zero - no energy was paid.
The “if you do” is not needed because the second part of the card is distinct from the first part as indicated by the second clause that is not on either Localized Destruction or Jolted Awake.
The rest of the card follows the amount of energy paid. Players in APANP order choose whether to exile their hands and draw X cards. See more language in 608: resolving spells and abilities.
Thank you.
Its literally only a problem because of problem players who want a free pass to cheat
Incorrect, choosing X greater than the number of energy counters you control isn't illegal because paying the the energy cost is optional. This is a misunderstanding of the very specific templating used in magic the gathering oracle text. The card should work that way but currently that is not how the rules work.
@@CrystalLily1302 This is not a X costed spell, you do not declare anything. you go through the process of fully resolving the card. If the spell is allowed to resolve you gain 3 energy counters, then choose how much energy you are willing to pay.
107.3i Normally, all instances of X on an object have the same value at any given time.
Hell! Yeah I'm doing this
Enjoy it while it lasts 😂
I wonder what arena does with it at the moment and it's been over a week, did they fix it?
Arena plays the card as intended.
WotC staff said an errata was coming, but maybe they're too busy with the upcoming Nadu ban 😅
@@attackoncardboard thank you.
Given how X can be 0, I don't see the problem. If a spell or activated ability has 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. Given how X is defined by the number of energy counters used to pay for it, X would be 0 if you choose not to pay any amount of energy counters for the effect. From there, each player exiles their hand and draws no cards.
107.3f has X be chosen “at the appropriate time”, and nowhere in the card says the first X sets the second X, even though thats obviously how it was intended to work.
It would probably use the current templte of “Pay Any number of E. Each player may draw cards equal to the number of E paid this way….” which would work as intended. WOTC probably wanted to use a new, more readable X template for this (since theyve retired the old one since it was confusing for players apparently), but forgot to update the rules to make it work
Problem is this X isn't a cost so you can declare whatever you want.
@@Cedric1234_ 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.
Wheel of Potential has an additional cost of X energy counters that may be paid. If it is not, then X is 0. That is effectively what defines X for the card, as the controller is the one paying X energy counters. The controller can't just say "X is 50 energy counters" and then not pay 50 energy counters, because X is the number of energy counters the controller pays for the additional cost. They may pay 3 energy counters, they may pay no energy counters, but they can not set an arbitrary value to X.
As for 107.3f, the "appropriate time" for Wheel of Potential is when the card's effect goes onto the stack. It begins by giving the controller 3 energy counters and then allowing the controller to pay however many energy counters they want for X. After that, X is the number of energy counters the controller paid, not whatever number the controller chose.
Edit: noted 107.3a for 107.3c. Corrected with the proper rule.
@@williamdrum9899 The problem with that is that X is however many energy counters the controller pays for X. Rule 107.3c notes that when X is defined by the text of the card, the controller does not get to declare whatever value they want to X. For Wheel of Potential, it's defined by the number of energy counters the controller pays after receiving 3 energy counters. They may pay however many energy counters they want, but they have to actually pay the amount.
@@bugashi Where is X defined as the amount of energy paid? To define X, an effect needs to explicitly state the value of X, and thankfully, due to Aether Refinery from M3C, we have an example of defining X with the payment of energy counters that came out at the same time as this card.
This doesnt actually work, rule 608.2d basically says you cannot choose a value for x you cannot pay. So even tho it says you may pay x and doesnt have "if you do" the rule stops you from drawing your deck. It states " cannot choose a option that is illegal or impossible" you can only choose a number that you COULD pay with the energy you have.
The card would still be worded wrong since (for example) I have 10 energy and can draw 10 cards and still have 10 energy after the spell is resolved fully
Matt's last name is pronounced "TAY-back".
Noted.
Well I guess now it’s this or Nadu.
I still don’t understand where the value of x is coming from. It doesn’t state how you get x. I would assume you get nothing as a value was never established. Doesn’t say you decide x, unless that’s part of a ruling for x, then I guess so.
It is part of the ruling for X.
107.3f: Sometimes X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X at the appropriate time (either as it's put on the stack or as it resolves).
what do you mean i get the reward for not putting the energy to inverst in it?
this is such a stupid joke i had to get it out of my head. the fact that you can just do draw 90+ outside of an energy deck is nothing but hilarious
That card will be changed by wizards afterwards
That's what WotC staff have mentioned. Needs to happen this week though before the major tournament in Amsterdam.
WOTC qc at its finest. It's like they don't play test their cards.
I would play this with stormcrow
Me & my friend caught this but he played it how it was intended because we r not degenerates😅
There is no option to choose x and bypass the costs. As soon as the spell resolves paid costs for X would be checked as 0. So there is no oracle error.. its just a semantic scenario
X is an additional cost. You don't choose X *before* the spell resolves. You choose X as it's resolving.
107.3f Sometimes X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost. If the value of X isn’t defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X at the appropriate time (either as it’s put on the stack or as it resolves
@@attackoncardboard Which then tells you to pay X energy, and you pay however much energy you want.
107.3i Normally, all instances of X on an object have the same value at any given time.
@@naiustheyetti The bigger issue here is that the way the game's rules work, the card doesn't care if you actually paid X energy or not, you're still drawing X cards.
@@naiustheyetti the problem is that is says you MAY pay X. So you set X to some number, then choose to not pay X energy, the draw X cards.
Online plays as intended. Errata incoming
Magic card qc is pretty shit, I'd expect this kinda shit to happen again
Cards are resolved top to bottom meaning the check to put in for X exists on the card before the rest resolves. The phrasing is fine your understanding is wrong
Just as an FYI, I'm not misunderstanding the card. I understand how the card is *intended* to work, and would rule as such at any event I'm the HJ at.
Magic is a game of consistency. The rules need to be able to applied without ambiguity. This card doesnt help that.
The intent of the card is clear. It's just people being assholes about it.
Ambiguity has no space in this game.
I understand that. But there's a difference between a card being written properly and people deliberately misinterpreting it. I'm commenting on the latter. :)
If WotC has said for years "If a card is templated like this, you can do this. " and then they print a card with that template and then say "Oh, actually we *meant* this", it is not the players fault if it is played as written.
If they're going to change the templating and the rules that go with that template, they need to communicate that and apply erratas where necessary.
@@attackoncardboard Again, this is about the players, not the rules.
It's like this:
ruclips.net/video/f0uYJjDHeDU/видео.html
People know what the card is intended to do, based on the phrasing of the card. If it was intended to be played as the rules state, the card would say something like...
Pick any number, each player may exile their hand and draw that many cards. You may also expend that much energy.
So rules wise, it's legal. But in terms of player social interaction (which is what I'm referring to) the person is clearly an asshole.
It is obviously meant to draw the X paid at the start. People playing this otherwise are being obnoxious.
Of course it's meant to. We all agree on what was intended. The issue is it was worded incorrectly for that purpose and Wizards' response was "No, it works how we say it does" and they've never done that without updating the official rulebook
Wizards is getting lazy
Everyone with half a brain knows how this card works. Loopholes don't make you a better player.
It's not about loopholes so much as it is about Wizards dropping the ball.
uh as written if you don't pay x energy you draw zero cards because x is zero no where does it say you can just draw as many cards as you want
That's not how X works as written in this case.
The card isn't worded incorrectly, magic players don't understand how X works on cards. The first instance of X on a card locks in the rest of the X's. You can't pay 0 for the first X and then declare the 2nd X as a different number.
We're not choosing a different number for X? We're simply choosing *not* to pay X as we're given the choice to pay it or not.
@@attackoncardboard Choosing not to pay [or not being able to pay IE. pay w/o paying mana costs for an X spell] causes X to be 0. If you decline paying the Energy X becomes 0 for the rest of the card. Very weird case that could have very easily been handled with the 'if you do' clause for sure. 'If you do' isn't technically needed here but it would have prevented a lot of fun convos.
That's not how the card is worded and that's the issue.
Sounds like you're the one that doesn't understand X costs
107.3
Many objects use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. Some objects have abilities that define the value of X; the rest let their controller choose the value of X.
Because Wheel of Potential doesn't have an ability that explicitly states the value of X (see Aether Refinery for a card that does define X by how much energy is paid), the rules state that you can choose any number for X. This is backed up by other cards that say "You may pay X" in their rules text, such as Flameblast Dragon, who have rulings explicitly stating you choose whatever value you want for X before choosing to pay that cost. The difference is those other cards all have an "if you do" clause that prevents you from getting the 2nd half of the effect when the cost isn't paid.
@@alicetheaxolotl" Some objects have abilities that define the value of X; "
In this case, that value is defined by the energy spent at the top of the card?
Its more like people are INTENTIALLY misinterpreting the card to cheat. The second half of the card tells you what happens if you pay the X energy cost. Energy rules state you pay the cost, like mana. While yes the card is missing some important words, how the rest of the energy system works is how the card is played.
X is not a cost on this card, it is part of the full effect. You cannot choose a number over your energy because you have to actually pay that amount of energy.
That's not true at all. If that was the case, the card would have the stipulation "X can't be greater than the amount of energy you have."
Ref: Shanna, Purifying Blade
@@attackoncardboard Shanna, Purifying Blade is literally a completely different scenario. It doesn't even make sense as a comparison here.
@@VegtamTheWonderer There are only 4 cards (based on scryfall) that have the text "Can't be greater than" because very few effects are broken like this.
You don’t have to pay anything. It says “you may pay”.
@@Oxygen1004 Shanna is a different case because, it seems that, her intended game plan is to force it's users to gain life to get that effect going. she is restricted because her designers want people to gain life, and pay mana, to get that advantage.
There is a big difference in these two effects and you would have to be disingenuous to the levels of angle-shooting to try and force this meme of a ruling. when you resolve the spell you get 3 energy and you get to pay and amount of energy into x, whatever you declare is irrelevant to the effect if is not paid.