(4*) How did templating transform Wheel of Potential from bulk rare to combo king? Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2qrQqTL18rRsJ9
@mattabrams3841 It's a reference to Panglacial Wurm, a card that is an incredible rules nightmare. The joke is that the card already has rules issues, and that would make it even worse.
Interestingly, that corresponds to the Plunge into Darkness fix if I'm understanding correctly, the one I thought would be more difficult to implement digitally!
@@JudgingFtW from software development perspective, it's easier, because it's basically "global energy variable +=3, user input x, [check if x is less or equal to energy variable], if x>7 do A, if not, do B". Part in brackets is probably already tracked by the another system, so final result is even shorter. It's much easier to track one variable instead of 2, because if we implement card as written, you need to track x_energy, which is the amount of the energy spent and other x, which is x_user_input and also implement user input call twice, one for energy, one for the mystical x.
@@danilkinilya1242 I often tell people that MtG rules make a lot of sense to programmers. The rules try to emulate the logical sequencing required in programming in my view.
@@dwpetrak they do and they don't. Depends on the rule and on the invasiveness, some of DDRs show this. Some of those rules are very easy to implement, some are a nightmare, because you need to modify some core mechanics for them to work and pray, that your code still works with all related cards or that those cards aren't playable enough anymore. I think that the most challenging is to program effects that happen simultaneously, it's not impossible, but you need to have a transaction-like process, which simulates action A and board state A*, action B and board state B* and then merges A* and B* into the one derived board state AB* with any conflicts already resolved. This can be easy for a human, because we can imagine, what parts of the "simulated" battlefield can be omitted, not that easy for a machine, because answering this question reliably is almost as complex as to give the answer without it. Other issue can be with infinite or very big numbers, scientific notation helps a lot, but with some cards, capable of exponential growth (Devilish valley, iirc), you still need to handle this data somehow. Trust me, you don't want to be in a situation, where you are asked why some abysmally big number minus infinity is 42. So, to conclude, the basic Magic rules are well-written and easy to implement. More complicated rules are a mess. Remember, every MTG mechanic is a kicker, so the question is not, can you implement this, but how many "if"s do you need. /j
The only downside is that this is a functional change. In the case where you cast it just for the 3 energy, you now give your opponent the opportunity to exile their hand. Not that I expect that to come up or be an issue often, but it is a thing.
@@oelboy I think what he is saying is, if it was worded with the "if you do" clause, and you wanted to play the card JUST to get energy, it works different. If it was worded that way, then you could play the card, not pay the cost, and now the second part doesn't occur, so the opponent no longer has the ability to choose to exile their hand.
@@loublacksail1614 The variable is not tied to the cost. Nothing on the card determines what the value of X is, so the controller chooses X. From the CR 107.3: "Some objects have abilities that define the value of X; the rest let their controller choose the value of X." If the cost were mandatory, it would be illegal not to pay it, so the rule from the video would kick in and any actions involved in resolving the card would be undone (including choosing X). This is what makes it seem like X is "tied to the effect" in other cases, but according to the rules it's always either determined by an ability on the card or it's a free choice (even if some of those choices will always lead to undoing the choice).
07/06/2024Some triggered abilities state that you "may pay" a certain amount of . You can't pay that amount multiple times to multiply the effect. You simply choose whether or not to pay that amount of  as the ability resolves
By the way, another new card "Suppression ray" has the exact same wording as this, letting you tap any number of creatures and put stun counters on them for zero energy.
I'm not a judge but I wonder if the rest of the ability being in the same sentence on Suppression Ray makes it different. I.e. "You may (pay X {E}), then choose up to X creatures tapped this way." vs. "You may (pay X {E}, then choose up to X creatures tapped this way)." I think there's some syntactic ambiguity in English there that I'm not sure how the rules officially resolve.
@@XelnasTV I don´t think the premise is wrong. If you talk in english your right, but we´re talking magic. That is it´s own language that just uses words from the english language @Grizonil I think you are correct, that the abilities on Suppresion Ray being in one sentence makes the abilities work diffrent.
@@fd7003I respectfully disagree, the word "then" in Suppression Ray only means that you first choose whether or not to pay X amount of energy, then choose X amount of creatures. You perform the two actions in a specific order but they are not dependent on each other, despite the intent
07/06/2024Some triggered abilities state that you "may pay" a certain amount of . You can't pay that amount multiple times to multiply the effect. You simply choose whether or not to pay that amount of  as the ability resolves
By my understanding, the "if you do" version gives you two different ways not to pay energy: declining to pay, in which case the card's effect stops, or choosing to pay 0 energy, in which case each player gets the option to exile their hands in exchange for nothing (usually inadvisible, but you never know). I wouldn't expect this from the original wording.
@@notmyrealname9588 then I guess a "X cannot be 0" is needed for the "if you do" version, and in that case, maybe it's a lot of text and there could be a better phrasing. Maybe something like "if you paid at least 1 energy that way" ... would be better
I think the first, wordiest fix would be the closest to the card's intended behavior, but we should be able to make it less wordy by reintroducing X, albeit a little differently. My propsed errata would be "You get {E}{E}{E}, then you may pay any amount of {E}. Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards, where X is the number of {E} paid this way. If X is 7 or more, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn."
I think the cleanest way to clean up the oracle text is: “You get {E}{E}{E} then you may pay any amount of {E}. Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards, where X is the amount of {E} paid. If X is 7 or more, you may play cards exiled this way until end of turn”
Yep. I think the original problem for WotC was templating the 3 {E} gain in a spell ability. It should just say “Gain {E}{E}{E}. . You may pay any amount of {E},” then word-for-word what you have.
Getting rid of the "you may" so it just becomes pay X energy, lets you have X be 0 and force you to be able to pay the X. And if readability is an issue, there's space for "(X can be 0)" reminder text
But it doesn't need to be. A basic understanding of the rules of the game would denote that. You don't see any reminder text on how to assign damage for the same reason.
@@TheSpiritombsableyereminder text is, quite literally, never a functional part of the game, outside unplay. It is always only there to help make sure the card is understood.
@@TheSpiritombsableye Literally no reminder text needs to be anywhere. Its reminder text. Its there to remind you things. Some people don't have a basic understanding of the rules of the game and reminder text is helpful for them. What a peculiar hill to die on.
I read the card, said to myself “I see nothing that would prevent this card from working”, then when you pointed out the issue I immediately saw it. Whoops!
This could have been solved with another (maybe new) template: Gain 3 energy, then you may pay any amount of energy. Each player may exile their hand, then draw X cards, where X is the amount of energy paid. Etc...
Stayed for the whole video, because I love seeing the nitty gritty of cards and their interactions, but still loved you put the “twist” at the beginning! Really love your content and can’t wait to see more!
I didn't catch it at first but as you started explaining I paused, read the card a bunch of times, then facepalmed at the unconnected "you may" What an oversight... I hope no issues arise from this
why couldn't they word this spell like the card Aether Spike? "You get [3 energy] then you may pay any amount of [energy]. Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards where X is the number of [energy] spent this way. If 7 or more [energy] was spent this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn."
Great video, MH3 has really shown how stretched the magic team has been with the deluge products. Nadu and the common Writhing Chrysalis alongside this massive insight just is a great revelation on how hard it is to make and balance magic cards to work within the confines of this game we all love.
Essentially, because it says you "may" pay X, you can choose a value of X like 50, declare that you're declining to pay the 50 energy, and then draw 50 cards.
If you pay X mana, X can always be 0 (unless stated otherwise). If you pay X life, X can always be 0. I would argue that if you pay X energy, X can always be 0 (and if it isn't the case, it should be added to the rules) Making the payment mandatory was the first fix I thought of, but if there is only 1 other card that works like that, it should be worded "if you do" to make it the same as similar effects. No more nonsense of impulse draw having different effects (play/cast and until end of turn/until end of your next turn/etc)
I think a targeted rules fix is actually the cleanest option here too: "Some effects both allow the controller to choose X, and to choose whether to pay a cost containing X. If the controller chooses a non-zero value for X, they must choose to pay the cost."
It took me a while to understand the issue so I'll explain it as best I can. (And please correct me if my understanding is still wrong) You can declare X as any number then choose not to pay it. Then you can still draw X cards because it doesn't check if you paid X. It just checks for what X was.
0:21 “you may pay X energy” I haven’t even continued past this point in the video, and I already see the problem… “No, I don’t think I’ll be paying the X energy today. But X is 10” 😂
Not making two separate paragraphs or tying both effects together with a "then" would work. Maybe finding a way to make it a linked ability would work also.
I think the smoothest possible fix would actually be to join the two clauses together with an "if you do", rather than having it be two paragraphs, and changing nothing else. "You may pay X energy, IF YOU DO, each player etc etc". This (should, there could be a corner case issue I am forgetting) mean that you have to pay X as the intended draw amount and everything flows from there.
It’s unlikely to come up, but “if you do” is a small functional errata (both to as written and the “correct” X is what you pay). Currently, no matter what I chose for X, my opponent has the option to discard their whole hand, while “if you do” makes paying 0 and declining to pay with X=0 different.
@@GeoQuagsure, though given that we know the current case isn't the intended one, it's hard to make any hard judgements on the details of how exactly it's supposed to work. Any fix is technically a functional change since it removes the broken part.
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”
You would probably want to use "if you do" rather than "when you do". Otherwise, giving everyone a choice to draw pitch their hand and draw cards is a reflexive trigger. That's a bit of an issue since someone could flash in Bowmasters after you payed but before you got the choice to draw which we don't want. Otherwise though, that should work.
8:23 I'm a software engineer, and your final fix would work just fine from a programming perspective. For the UI, just start X at 0. For the logic, just allow the chosen number to be 0. Done. Also, I like that fix best.
WotC thought that "You may pay X {E}." qualifies as a definition of X in a card's text in the semce kf rule 107.3c., which I guess would be equivalent to: "You may pay any amount of {E}. X is equal to the amount of {E} you paid.". That would be consistent with the reverse-logic favoured by WotC rulemakers, where a future choice influences a former payment (like with Rout).
For bonus abuse, make your deck ~62 or 63 cards so that when you play it you can make X higher than your opponent's deck size. If they choose to draw they lose the game, so they can't draw into free interaction to use against your combo.
This reminds me of the whole Bane of the Living situation, where the way it was supposed to work was obvious but it didn't quite work. I wonder if some kind of linked abilities-style CR rule making X costs and X effects in a card text box linked could do some work.
I do think a a modification to an existing rule, may be worth adding for this, as it will allow for simpler Wheel-like templating in the future (akin to the move to adopt "enters" instead of "enters the battlefield"). I think it would just take a small change that mostly amounts to a clarification, i.e. an addendum to "107.3f Sometimes X appears in the text..." specifically calling out that if X is part of a cost, the controller may only choose a value for X that they are able to pay.
Energy is similar to that of your life points, where if you want to pay 2 but only have 1, you just cant and we revert to before you made the decision. You can declare X to be 50 on Wheel, but if you do not pay the energy then it will just revert to before you chose a number and have you choose an amount again. Until you pick a number for X that you can successfully pay Energy for, then the spell will remain on the stack. That is how I have read this card since I first seen it.
It does that for costs where you must pay, but notice that Plunge into Darkness's doesn't have a "you may" whereas this card does meaning it is perfectly legal to choose not to pay.
That is correct because of the rules with Energy. On all spells related to spending energy, the cost has always been a may. The only times it has been mandatory is in the activation of something's ability, such as Aether Hub, Whirler Virtuoso, and Aetherworks Marvel. I find the issue is that people are trying to mix up the energy rule with the on cast rule when looking at the X value. In this spell it says you may pay XE, which is determined at resolution. Then intent is simple and follows the normal rules of energy spells. If the spell goes to resolve. add the stated amount of energy to the player, and then set the value of X. Every other energy card could get this exact same X template, would that make it so Galvanic Discharge can now deal 1000 damage and I spend zero energy, no it would never work that way. To template it differently would make the spell restrictive to what WoTC wanted which was to make it an energy sink. The template change for Galvanic Discharge would be. Choose a creature or planeswalker. Gain EEE, then you may pay XE. Galvanic Discharge does X damage to that permanent.
@@xerogaming3593 Galvanic Discharge works specifically because of the way it's worded. If this card was worded that way ("you may pay any amount of {E}" and "draw X where X is the amount of energy you payed"), then we wouldn't have a problem. If Galvanic Discharge was changed to use this template but then said "if you do, Galvanic Discharge deals that much...", that would also work. The issue is this rule which applies to X values that are not in the costs to cast a spell or activate an ability and are not otherwise defined. 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). Also, Greenbelt Rampager is an example of a mandatory energy cost on a triggered ability.
Greenbelt Rampager is a mandatory cost because it has the "If you can't" which is different from Galvanic Discharge and Wheel of Potential. Discharge follows the same template as Wheel but does not use X because there are no addition steps beyond the decision of what X is that need a defining characteristic of what X is. It doesn't get any simpler, you pay this energy then you get this result. On Discharge the "Pay any amount" and "that much damage" are the X in the spell. Those that believe you can define X and not pay the cost are separating the XE and trying to define X without E
@@xerogaming3593there is a section in the rules that applies to the use of X (107.3). WoP uses that section because it uses X, but GD doesn't use X so it's functionality is not defined by the rules in that section and we can instead use the plain English wording. 107.3 is pretty clear that wether it's you or the card which is defining what X is, X is always 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. Because of that, you still need to define X even if you aren't planning on paying it since other effects of the spell refer to it. X is not set to 0 if you don't pay. Other sections of 107.3 explicitly call out scenarios where X will be set to 0 and this is not one of them.
Great video, I had no issues following all your points, however, I think it may be useful to put JUST text on the screen and match it up with card you're comparing to. Then you can highlight how the wording affects the card we are looking at. Like I said great video, just a suggestion!
So far gatherer doesn’t have any info on the issue with this card; there’s even a section in “rulings” that explains the difference between “if you do” and “when you do” 😅
For the B grade fix, couldn't you drop the "if you did"? The seven or more clause only references exiled cards under the first part, which already has if you do stapled to it.
Yeah, I definitely think this will be like the Dark Ritual + Yawgmoth's Will situation from awhile back: it technically worked, but expect judges at events to rule against it because it obviously wasn't the intended outcome. There is zero chance Wizards intended to print 'Wheel of Fortune, but better' into Modern.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about the new Ulamog wrt intent versus a strict reading. As it's written, if you flicker Ulamog, it seems like it would enter with at least 10 +1/+1 counters from it being in exile before ETBing - this doesn't feel like the intent of the card though?
Thank you always for the great content. Criticism on video format, tilt camera down lower 😅 you're a great speaker and deserve more space in your videos.
Can you please go over the card Ulamog, the Defiler? There seems to be a lot of confusion with blink/flicker mechanics as well as cascade and other mechanics that cast from exile.
There have been a couple of templating errors in the past decade or so of magic that I feel didnt used to be present. Were there issues before khans of tarkir along these same lines?
You're not alone. The editing, templating, and rules-writing are noticeably worse than they have been. I've been playing for over 20 years, and it's not like there weren't mistakes like this before (Oboro Envoy and Marath, Will of the Wild come to mind), but they were caught internally, after the cards were printed, but before they were released, so the updates came from WotC before anyone played with the cards. Starting around BFZ is where I think the caring became less about stuff like this. Bannings in Standard became commonplace, rather than once-per-decade moonshots, rules explanations became more handwave-y, focus on kitchen table games started to take precedence over maintaining workable tournament policy and organized play system.
I live in east VA and after about 3 boxes of nit getting waste elemental blast, it's product placement. That's the mist valuable card here in old amerca: Yorktown area
This does seem to me like a situation where the spirit of the rule is fairly clear, if at odds with its letter. Whether that's good enough if money / tour points are involved, or even when it comes time to write code for the digital version of this card, is another matter. For a social/political format like Commander, tho, you could argue the ambiguity is a plus, heh
I think, I already saw someone paying 0 energy while resolving a spell. It often comes up, when you raptor into the "energy bolt" (not sure, whats its name is atm). And if the raptor is the only target, you target it and pay 0 energy to net the energy of the spell
A question regarding your point about paying costs up to the amount of that resource you have. (Pay 10 life but you only have 5) if you had zero energy before casting this card and as it resolves you only have 3, would 3 be the maximum allowable number to choose X to be?
Nope, you could still chose any number you wanted for X. When the card then asked you if you wanted to pay X energy, if it was more then the 3 you had, the rules would step in and tell you you cant pay X and must chose not to.
It's very weird to phrase it that you *may* pay X and then be able to declare X as zero. Pay X energy (X may be zero) is functionally the same, right? Edit: Since "the each player may" phrase is there already in paragraph 2 this should work on arena with no changes, allowing you to choose to exile your hand for 3 mana if you'd like to.
Counterpoint: anyone can make a mistake. Your interpretation means the Oracle entering process didn't have any mistakes, but still allows that the templaters or editors could have made a mistake.
@@twhittaker4343 sure, but now we're arguing about "what constitutes an error" which is exactly a hairy and abstract enough question for it to be reasonable to delegate to the head judge. so we've arrived at the rule as written.
The cited rule in the video basically says "you can't use errors or omissions to abuse the rules". It sounds like you're trying to abuse the rules to capitalize on an accidental omission, so in terms of magic tournament policy, it's an open and shut case. There are two axes of wiggle room, whether it was a "mistake" or whether what you're doing is "abuse", but in either case, that determination will be up to the head judge.
07/06/2024Some triggered abilities state that you "may pay" a certain amount of . You can't pay that amount multiple times to multiply the effect. You simply choose whether or not to pay that amount of  as the ability resolves
If I'm not wrong, for your last fix, you would not need the last rule change allowing you to pay 0 energy, as it's impossible to have negative energy. Mathematically, being at a negative life total means you do not have 0 life to pay, hence the rule, but energy are counters attached to the player, not a numerical status. feel free to correct me if I'm missing something!
How do you feel about this one: You get {E}{E}{E}, then you may pay any amount of {E}. Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards, where X is the amount of {E} you paid. If X is 7 or more (etc).
Am I missing something? From the gatherer page for this card: "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." You can't pay more counter than you have and you are declaring how many you are paying after the energy after you get the counters, this formatting doesnt allow you to abuse the draw and allows you to (for some reason) choose to just use it for the 3 energy. At least that seems to be the case, could be wrong
What you're missing is that choosing X isn't a cost but rather an effect of the spell. Because of that, rule 107.3e applies. You choose the value for X, then you choose whether or not you pay that energy as part of the effect of the spell. Since the payment is optional and there's no "if you do" statement, X is still that value regardless of whether or not you paid the energy. That's where I think a lot of people are getting mixed up. Paying the energy is not a cost. It's an effect.
@@drewhoffmaster2969107.3f would actually be the relevant one. E would be for if it was an additional cost. 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).
Hello judge, excuse me but I have a question, it is about the interaction between Vadrik and the Torpor Orb, if there is a Torpor Orb on the field before Vadrik enters the battlefield, does it prevent it from checking if it is day or night?
Vadrik's ability isn't a triggered ability. I think it might be a replacement effect that alters the game action of Vadrik entering the field. It's unusual templating, so I'm not entirely sure. In any case, not an ETB and not a triggered ability, so Torpor Orb has nothing to say about it.
4:28 Wait, why not? "You get 3 energy then may pay any amount of energy. Each player may exile their hand and draw x cards, where x is the amount of energy paid. If x is 7 or more...".
How do you overrule the text as a head judge? Do you have to provide new oracle text or "No, you draw same amount of cards as the amount of energy spent" is enough?
Anecdotally, for a card with a known conflict like this, the head judge might make an announcement during the player meeting to explain how the card is going to be interpreted at that event specifically; this would not be new Oracle text.
"...then you pay up to X where X is the amount of (energy) you have" definitely wordier but that would be a decent implementation of the type of templating you mentioned being almost unfeasible. removing "may" for "up to" also feels like a clearer communication that it can be 0-X while defining X as such prevents skirting the cost &/or making X something ridiculous that you couldnt even while still allowing for response on the stack to increase energy prior to resolving, thus increasing X potential
I was going to make a joke about MTR 3.6 meaning I can't require players to omit Battle from the card type count for Tarmogoyf, but it looks like they did an update 2 weeks ago fixing this (though amusingly the card type list ruling is still dated to 2021 despite being updated at the same time).
What do you mean? Tarmogoyf's oracle has been "Tarmogoyf’s power is equal to the number of card types among cards in all graveyards and its toughness is equal to that number plus 1." sinci it was printed. It has never gotten any oracle updates.
@@Datuna-vw3un under the rulings is one defining the different card types, which did not include battles for over a year after their introduction in MOTM.
The card says you may pay X energy. Because of this, X must be defined BEFORE the energy is paid, because X tells you how much energy to pay, if you choose to pay it. So, at the very latest, we determine X IMMEDIATELY before it asks if we want to pay. You then proceed through the rest of the spell with that X value.
The problem is that it's sort of strange to give a positive benefit as part of the cost. It would also act very differently against counter spells to have both the giving of energy and the payment be on cast rather than resolution.
I watched the full video but I don't fully understand the problem. How can I say "I want X to be 50" then NOT pay the 50 energy and still draw 50 cards? What in the card's text imply that will be the case?
The payment is a "may", there is no "if you do" and X is determined beforehand due to this rule. 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).
To pay X energy, you must first know what X is because it is an instruction telling you how much energy to spend (like how Propaganda tells you to pay 2 mana for each attacking creature). So, basic logic says X must be determined before the cost is paid. Once that has been determined, the spell reads "You may pay 50 energy. You may exile your hand, then draw 50 cards." It has 2 seperate instructions, an optional cost of 50 energy and an optional wheel for 50. Because of the line break, these 2 effects are entirely unrelated to each other.
Alternate solution, use the Blaze template, don't give any energy, and just draw X+3 cards. It's pretty obvious they want you to use the energy on the wheel itself, just bake it in. Seems like they made this card overly complex for no reason (common theme these days) and got caught with their pants down.
Most of the effects that both give you energy and give you an option to pay any amount will do it that way so that you have the choice of paying less than you get to keep it for your next energy card so the choice is very much intentional. One fairly common scenario is if your last 2 cards in hand are 2 copies of it. In that case, you might want to cast the first and pay 0, then cast the second and pay 6.
The problem with this is that if I have my head higher up, it will get covered up anytime I put a CR citation on the screen. Putting the CR texts at the bottom of the screen was unpopular because that's the default area for subtitles to go.
For the Plunge into Darkness scenario, why does 730.1 apply? Why doesn't 101.3 kick in and just say it's an impossible action and not do that part of the ability?
It never makes sense to mention X unless it comes up twice. A pronumeral in one place means nothing. With this card, it's clear that it must be the same X. The amount of energy you choose to pay is the number of cards each player gets to draw. Maybe the wording could be better, but it seems very clear. Eg) If the effect of a spell is "gain X life", you know that there's an X somewhere in the casting cost. And a lot of cards say "do X something, where X is blah blah blah".
It's not really the clarity to players that's the issue, it's pretty easy to see that they wanted the wheel effect to be contingent on paying, it's the issue with how the rules interpret it that's the problem. In this case, you are the one who defines what X is and you do so regardless of if you actually decide to pay it. Then the value of then X remains the same for the rest of the card, which forgets to actually enforce or check for the payment in any way.
You get EEE, then pay any amount of E. Each player may exile their hand and draw a card for each E spent this way. If you drew 7 or more cards this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn. This was another case of design being too clever for their own good again. This didn't need X in the first place, let alone all the other goofiness. I'm honestly surprised there's not a catch all rule of "In the case of any variable to be determined by a player, 0 is always a valid option." that would address life and this scenario.
Your proposed wording does not work the same way with replacement effects that replace card draws. You would never be able to play exiled cards if you had a Tomorrow, Azami's Familiar, for instance.
@@miserepoignee9594 easy fix would be “if you paid 7 or more energy in this way,” which I think would be functionally identical except for replacement effects like what you’re describing (if had fewer than 7 cards in your library, you could still play your old hand from exile unlike with OP’s wording but that’s very niche and probably not worth considering).
At least when paying mana costs x is normally allowed to be 0, which is funnily enough a thing that's specifically broken other cards before. Marath, Will of the Wild was initially printed without a clause that disallowed paying X=0 for its ability and could therefore make an infinite number of 0/0 elementals at any time for free. 😅
Generally as a judge, I go "you know what they meant -.-" when handling rulings like this. Using the Serra Paragon example, they wouldn't have put the "it gains this ability" text expecting it to be ignored by the game rules, so this is Clearly An Error and works as intended. In this case, very similarly -- they didn't put the energy clause in there for no reason, _and_ you know they would have never printed a card that said 2R: Draw your library. So again, clearly a mistake.
While I think this is the most sensible way to treat something like this, there can often be several very subtly different intended ways. This is even less of a case here, but was more relevant for Serra paragon . For Serra paragon, is the ability that tracks the card still able to find the card if it is blinked? We are already going against the written rules (at the time) to say that the card can follow the card between other zones. It would be a little strange if that was what the card did, but we already had a card that keeps track of what counters the permant had on it as it moves to other zones. We now know what the answer to that question is, but without a rule update, I think there is a compelling argument both ways one you say “clearly this card is following the card between zones.”
It has to do with how a spell is cast. Whenever a spell has an X, it is chosen on cast, but spending the energy must happen on resolution in order to get the 3 energy from the card.
Because to pay X, you have to decide what X is. In this case, actually paying X is entirely optional, and the subsequent effect doesn't care whether X was paid. So, you decide X is 50, then you decide not to pay it, then you move onto the next piece of text.
@@keanureef271 In this case this is not the issue, though. X is chosen on resolution of Wheel, NOT while you are casting and putting it onto the stack.
You do not decide X when you cast this spell. Where does it say that? You determine X when the spell resolves buy paying X energy the same way you determine X by paying X mana in a spell with X in the casting cost when you cast it. Look at the Oracle for Suppression Ray. In the example about only being able to tap a creature that was tapped by the cards effect it says you can put a stun counter on that creature (as long as you paid at least 1 energy). If you pay zero X will be zero and you can’t stun anything. If you want to stun 8 of the creatures you tapped you’d need to pay 8 energy to make X equal 8 Same with Wheel if you decide to pay zero X is zero and you draw no cards. All the judges will get informed of how this is supposed to work & maybe an errata is needed to make it more clear but you can’t just choose a value for X when you cast one of these spells then choose not to pay X as Dave is saying and have it resolve with X whatever you chose.
Make a video comparing this cards rules fail and how Fuse cards were being cast off of a card like Brain in the Jar worked? Head Judges allowed that and I'm confused what changed in the rules... that felt like weird mental gymnastics in that era. Fuse cards spiked for months during that era as well.
When split cards are originally introduced, you could use the mana value of whichever side you wanted whenever an effect checked the mana value of a split card (on the stack it would be the mv of the half you picked, or if fused the combined mv). In addition, whenever you could cast it, you could choose either half. With fuse cards you could choose both if casting it from your hand. That combination meant that you could use the mana value of one half to see if it's equal to Brain in a Jar's charge counters, then when it let you cast it, you could cast the other half, or in the case of fuse cards, both halves. After people were Breaking // Entering Emrakuls for a little bit, they made a change to the rules. Now, when looking at them outside the stack, it always uses the combined MV of both halves meaning you can still Breaking // Entering off of Brain in a Jar, but you need to tick it up to 8 first. That one is a bit less bad since it's a mechanic doing unintentional stuff with other cards whereas this is a card doing unintended things on it's own.
Игры
This wouldn't be a problem if we could cast this card while searching our library
Panglacial Wurm actually solving problems instead of creating them? Impossible!
taranor god
I feel so dumb, but what would this fix?
@mattabrams3841 It's a reference to Panglacial Wurm, a card that is an incredible rules nightmare. The joke is that the card already has rules issues, and that would make it even worse.
For those wondering, the card works as intended on arena, as the ui doesn’t actually ask you to choose X, but to pay an amount of energy.
Interestingly, that corresponds to the Plunge into Darkness fix if I'm understanding correctly, the one I thought would be more difficult to implement digitally!
a rare case where Arena works as intended and the original game doesn't!
@@JudgingFtW from software development perspective, it's easier, because it's basically "global energy variable +=3, user input x, [check if x is less or equal to energy variable], if x>7 do A, if not, do B". Part in brackets is probably already tracked by the another system, so final result is even shorter.
It's much easier to track one variable instead of 2, because if we implement card as written, you need to track x_energy, which is the amount of the energy spent and other x, which is x_user_input and also implement user input call twice, one for energy, one for the mystical x.
@@danilkinilya1242 I often tell people that MtG rules make a lot of sense to programmers. The rules try to emulate the logical sequencing required in programming in my view.
@@dwpetrak they do and they don't.
Depends on the rule and on the invasiveness, some of DDRs show this.
Some of those rules are very easy to implement, some are a nightmare, because you need to modify some core mechanics for them to work and pray, that your code still works with all related cards or that those cards aren't playable enough anymore.
I think that the most challenging is to program effects that happen simultaneously, it's not impossible, but you need to have a transaction-like process, which simulates action A and board state A*, action B and board state B* and then merges A* and B* into the one derived board state AB* with any conflicts already resolved. This can be easy for a human, because we can imagine, what parts of the "simulated" battlefield can be omitted, not that easy for a machine, because answering this question reliably is almost as complex as to give the answer without it.
Other issue can be with infinite or very big numbers, scientific notation helps a lot, but with some cards, capable of exponential growth (Devilish valley, iirc), you still need to handle this data somehow. Trust me, you don't want to be in a situation, where you are asked why some abysmally big number minus infinity is 42.
So, to conclude, the basic Magic rules are well-written and easy to implement. More complicated rules are a mess.
Remember, every MTG mechanic is a kicker, so the question is not, can you implement this, but how many "if"s do you need. /j
“Id like to not pay 1000 energy and draw 1000 cards” judge - “yeah checks out”
I've seen some saying yes it does
"the wheel only has one sure outcome: chaos". Fitting
Crazy that they had 3 and a half ways they could have worded this effect functionally and they somehow figured out how to mess it up
Holy shit Viceroy Bubbles Von Salamancer
It’s what happens when you have people that don’t know how the game of Magic works (commander only players) designing cards for the game
Lol where's the lie @@LawrenciumMTG
Getting rid of "you may" was my very first idea and thus gets my vote.
The only downside is that this is a functional change. In the case where you cast it just for the 3 energy, you now give your opponent the opportunity to exile their hand. Not that I expect that to come up or be an issue often, but it is a thing.
@@Yesnomu maybe I'm misreading it but your opponent has that option under the current wording as well.
@@oelboy I think what he is saying is, if it was worded with the "if you do" clause, and you wanted to play the card JUST to get energy, it works different. If it was worded that way, then you could play the card, not pay the cost, and now the second part doesn't occur, so the opponent no longer has the ability to choose to exile their hand.
@@loublacksail1614 The variable is not tied to the cost. Nothing on the card determines what the value of X is, so the controller chooses X. From the CR 107.3: "Some
objects have abilities that define the value of X; the rest let their controller choose the value of X."
If the cost were mandatory, it would be illegal not to pay it, so the rule from the video would kick in and any actions involved in resolving the card would be undone (including choosing X). This is what makes it seem like X is "tied to the effect" in other cases, but according to the rules it's always either determined by an ability on the card or it's a free choice (even if some of those choices will always lead to undoing the choice).
07/06/2024Some triggered abilities state that you "may pay" a certain amount of . You can't pay that amount multiple times to multiply the effect. You simply choose whether or not to pay that amount of  as the ability resolves
By the way, another new card "Suppression ray" has the exact same wording as this, letting you tap any number of creatures and put stun counters on them for zero energy.
You are correct. That card has the same wording issue.
I'm not a judge but I wonder if the rest of the ability being in the same sentence on Suppression Ray makes it different. I.e. "You may (pay X {E}), then choose up to X creatures tapped this way." vs. "You may (pay X {E}, then choose up to X creatures tapped this way)." I think there's some syntactic ambiguity in English there that I'm not sure how the rules officially resolve.
@@GrizonII No it actually makes no difference, both spells work exactly the same... correctly. this entire videos premise is wrong
@@XelnasTV I don´t think the premise is wrong. If you talk in english your right, but we´re talking magic. That is it´s own language that just uses words from the english language
@Grizonil I think you are correct, that the abilities on Suppresion Ray being in one sentence makes the abilities work diffrent.
@@fd7003I respectfully disagree, the word "then" in Suppression Ray only means that you first choose whether or not to pay X amount of energy, then choose X amount of creatures. You perform the two actions in a specific order but they are not dependent on each other, despite the intent
I reread this card like a dozen times trying to figure out if I was reading it correctly.
Unfortunately I was
07/06/2024Some triggered abilities state that you "may pay" a certain amount of . You can't pay that amount multiple times to multiply the effect. You simply choose whether or not to pay that amount of  as the ability resolves
Dave the Judge with the YT "broken" call outs.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves among Magic creators. This sort of lazy clickbaiting needs to be called out and stopped.
@@JudgingFtW
I agree, it's good that you notice it. Any card can be "broken" In the right combo or situation
I love the "suggested donation" line. Good analogy
I think the "if you do" is the best fix.
Yeah I don't really understand what problem it has, it seems like it makes the card match its obvious intention perfectly.
By my understanding, the "if you do" version gives you two different ways not to pay energy: declining to pay, in which case the card's effect stops, or choosing to pay 0 energy, in which case each player gets the option to exile their hands in exchange for nothing (usually inadvisible, but you never know). I wouldn't expect this from the original wording.
@@notmyrealname9588 then I guess a "X cannot be 0" is needed for the "if you do" version, and in that case, maybe it's a lot of text and there could be a better phrasing.
Maybe something like "if you paid at least 1 energy that way" ...
would be better
I think the first, wordiest fix would be the closest to the card's intended behavior, but we should be able to make it less wordy by reintroducing X, albeit a little differently.
My propsed errata would be "You get {E}{E}{E}, then you may pay any amount of {E}. Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards, where X is the number of {E} paid this way. If X is 7 or more, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn."
Yes! Have them choose an amount to pay, then have the game define X. Very good
I think the cleanest way to clean up the oracle text is:
“You get {E}{E}{E} then you may pay any amount of {E}.
Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards, where X is the amount of {E} paid. If X is 7 or more, you may play cards exiled this way until end of turn”
I think this is the cleanest fix possible
Yep. I think the original problem for WotC was templating the 3 {E} gain in a spell ability. It should just say “Gain {E}{E}{E}. . You may pay any amount of {E},” then word-for-word what you have.
Getting rid of the "you may" so it just becomes pay X energy, lets you have X be 0 and force you to be able to pay the X. And if readability is an issue, there's space for "(X can be 0)" reminder text
X can be 0 for every card unless otherwise noted.
@@TheSpiritombsableye He said it would be in the reminder text.
But it doesn't need to be. A basic understanding of the rules of the game would denote that. You don't see any reminder text on how to assign damage for the same reason.
@@TheSpiritombsableyereminder text is, quite literally, never a functional part of the game, outside unplay. It is always only there to help make sure the card is understood.
@@TheSpiritombsableye Literally no reminder text needs to be anywhere. Its reminder text. Its there to remind you things. Some people don't have a basic understanding of the rules of the game and reminder text is helpful for them. What a peculiar hill to die on.
I read the card, said to myself “I see nothing that would prevent this card from working”, then when you pointed out the issue I immediately saw it. Whoops!
This could have been solved with another (maybe new) template:
Gain 3 energy, then you may pay any amount of energy.
Each player may exile their hand, then draw X cards, where X is the amount of energy paid. Etc...
Stayed for the whole video, because I love seeing the nitty gritty of cards and their interactions, but still loved you put the “twist” at the beginning! Really love your content and can’t wait to see more!
I didn't catch it at first but as you started explaining I paused, read the card a bunch of times, then facepalmed at the unconnected "you may"
What an oversight... I hope no issues arise from this
why couldn't they word this spell like the card Aether Spike?
"You get [3 energy] then you may pay any amount of [energy].
Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards where X is the number of [energy] spent this way. If 7 or more [energy] was spent this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn."
Fantastic episode. The clear and formal delivery style really lends itself to the well placed jokes.
Dont worry a judge said i could this.
Tap 3, Draws my whole deck.
Worked for Hostage Taker until it got an errata.
plot twist : you miscalculate the number of cards in your deck, and mill yourself and lose.
Liking and commenting because you put the good stuff in the beginning. I also watched the whole thing 😊
Great video. I'm always interested to see when cards don't work right, and they change the game or card to fix them.
This is the most excited I have ever seen this man in a video.
thanks dave great content as always
Absolutely perfect, keep it up!
Great video, MH3 has really shown how stretched the magic team has been with the deluge products. Nadu and the common Writhing Chrysalis alongside this massive insight just is a great revelation on how hard it is to make and balance magic cards to work within the confines of this game we all love.
Absolute perfection, as always!
Even though I think I didn't understand completely the issue, it's really interesting to look at actual flaws in design
Essentially, because it says you "may" pay X, you can choose a value of X like 50, declare that you're declining to pay the 50 energy, and then draw 50 cards.
If you pay X mana, X can always be 0 (unless stated otherwise). If you pay X life, X can always be 0. I would argue that if you pay X energy, X can always be 0 (and if it isn't the case, it should be added to the rules)
Making the payment mandatory was the first fix I thought of, but if there is only 1 other card that works like that, it should be worded "if you do" to make it the same as similar effects. No more nonsense of impulse draw having different effects (play/cast and until end of turn/until end of your next turn/etc)
I think a targeted rules fix is actually the cleanest option here too: "Some effects both allow the controller to choose X, and to choose whether to pay a cost containing X. If the controller chooses a non-zero value for X, they must choose to pay the cost."
Please cite this rule for all the idiots
They could have templated it like "You may pay any amount of energy" and then reference that amount with "equal to the amount of energy you paid".
It took me a while to understand the issue so I'll explain it as best I can. (And please correct me if my understanding is still wrong)
You can declare X as any number then choose not to pay it. Then you can still draw X cards because it doesn't check if you paid X. It just checks for what X was.
That's exactly it. The second part works exactly the same whether you paid the energy or not, so you don't have to in order to get the effect.
0:21 “you may pay X energy”
I haven’t even continued past this point in the video, and I already see the problem…
“No, I don’t think I’ll be paying the X energy today. But X is 10” 😂
This is going to be errata'd SO fast.
Great explanation
Not making two separate paragraphs or tying both effects together with a "then" would work. Maybe finding a way to make it a linked ability would work also.
I think the smoothest possible fix would actually be to join the two clauses together with an "if you do", rather than having it be two paragraphs, and changing nothing else. "You may pay X energy, IF YOU DO, each player etc etc". This (should, there could be a corner case issue I am forgetting) mean that you have to pay X as the intended draw amount and everything flows from there.
It’s unlikely to come up, but “if you do” is a small functional errata (both to as written and the “correct” X is what you pay). Currently, no matter what I chose for X, my opponent has the option to discard their whole hand, while “if you do” makes paying 0 and declining to pay with X=0 different.
@@GeoQuagsure, though given that we know the current case isn't the intended one, it's hard to make any hard judgements on the details of how exactly it's supposed to work. Any fix is technically a functional change since it removes the broken part.
@@GeoQuag exile
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”
You would probably want to use "if you do" rather than "when you do". Otherwise, giving everyone a choice to draw pitch their hand and draw cards is a reflexive trigger. That's a bit of an issue since someone could flash in Bowmasters after you payed but before you got the choice to draw which we don't want.
Otherwise though, that should work.
8:23 I'm a software engineer, and your final fix would work just fine from a programming perspective. For the UI, just start X at 0. For the logic, just allow the chosen number to be 0. Done.
Also, I like that fix best.
WotC thought that "You may pay X {E}." qualifies as a definition of X in a card's text in the semce kf rule 107.3c., which I guess would be equivalent to: "You may pay any amount of {E}. X is equal to the amount of {E} you paid.". That would be consistent with the reverse-logic favoured by WotC rulemakers, where a future choice influences a former payment (like with Rout).
Another example was the swap power and toughness card without "until end of turn" text which was recieved erratad very fast.
For bonus abuse, make your deck ~62 or 63 cards so that when you play it you can make X higher than your opponent's deck size. If they choose to draw they lose the game, so they can't draw into free interaction to use against your combo.
This reminds me of the whole Bane of the Living situation, where the way it was supposed to work was obvious but it didn't quite work. I wonder if some kind of linked abilities-style CR rule making X costs and X effects in a card text box linked could do some work.
You found the ruling
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
“This is pretty easy to derive since there is no other source of X.”
Love this channel
I do think a a modification to an existing rule, may be worth adding for this, as it will allow for simpler Wheel-like templating in the future (akin to the move to adopt "enters" instead of "enters the battlefield"). I think it would just take a small change that mostly amounts to a clarification, i.e. an addendum to "107.3f Sometimes X appears in the text..." specifically calling out that if X is part of a cost, the controller may only choose a value for X that they are able to pay.
Energy is similar to that of your life points, where if you want to pay 2 but only have 1, you just cant and we revert to before you made the decision. You can declare X to be 50 on Wheel, but if you do not pay the energy then it will just revert to before you chose a number and have you choose an amount again. Until you pick a number for X that you can successfully pay Energy for, then the spell will remain on the stack.
That is how I have read this card since I first seen it.
It does that for costs where you must pay, but notice that Plunge into Darkness's doesn't have a "you may" whereas this card does meaning it is perfectly legal to choose not to pay.
That is correct because of the rules with Energy. On all spells related to spending energy, the cost has always been a may. The only times it has been mandatory is in the activation of something's ability, such as Aether Hub, Whirler Virtuoso, and Aetherworks Marvel. I find the issue is that people are trying to mix up the energy rule with the on cast rule when looking at the X value. In this spell it says you may pay XE, which is determined at resolution. Then intent is simple and follows the normal rules of energy spells. If the spell goes to resolve. add the stated amount of energy to the player, and then set the value of X. Every other energy card could get this exact same X template, would that make it so Galvanic Discharge can now deal 1000 damage and I spend zero energy, no it would never work that way. To template it differently would make the spell restrictive to what WoTC wanted which was to make it an energy sink.
The template change for Galvanic Discharge would be. Choose a creature or planeswalker. Gain EEE, then you may pay XE. Galvanic Discharge does X damage to that permanent.
@@xerogaming3593 Galvanic Discharge works specifically because of the way it's worded. If this card was worded that way ("you may pay any amount of {E}" and "draw X where X is the amount of energy you payed"), then we wouldn't have a problem. If Galvanic Discharge was changed to use this template but then said "if you do, Galvanic Discharge deals that much...", that would also work.
The issue is this rule which applies to X values that are not in the costs to cast a spell or activate an ability and are not otherwise defined.
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).
Also, Greenbelt Rampager is an example of a mandatory energy cost on a triggered ability.
Greenbelt Rampager is a mandatory cost because it has the "If you can't" which is different from Galvanic Discharge and Wheel of Potential. Discharge follows the same template as Wheel but does not use X because there are no addition steps beyond the decision of what X is that need a defining characteristic of what X is. It doesn't get any simpler, you pay this energy then you get this result. On Discharge the "Pay any amount" and "that much damage" are the X in the spell. Those that believe you can define X and not pay the cost are separating the XE and trying to define X without E
@@xerogaming3593there is a section in the rules that applies to the use of X (107.3). WoP uses that section because it uses X, but GD doesn't use X so it's functionality is not defined by the rules in that section and we can instead use the plain English wording. 107.3 is pretty clear that wether it's you or the card which is defining what X is, X is always 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.
Because of that, you still need to define X even if you aren't planning on paying it since other effects of the spell refer to it. X is not set to 0 if you don't pay. Other sections of 107.3 explicitly call out scenarios where X will be set to 0 and this is not one of them.
Great video, I had no issues following all your points, however, I think it may be useful to put JUST text on the screen and match it up with card you're comparing to. Then you can highlight how the wording affects the card we are looking at. Like I said great video, just a suggestion!
So far gatherer doesn’t have any info on the issue with this card; there’s even a section in “rulings” that explains the difference between “if you do” and “when you do” 😅
i saw that. lol cant wait for people to realize.
Official WotC ruling:
“This is pretty easy to derive since there is no other source of X.”
10:00
That's for Bane of the Living which is a completely different card.
@@seandun7083
👍
"Rules...without them, we live with the animals." -Julia Child
Pretty hype imma enjoy this pre errata time 😂
8:37 It's actually very simple to implement if you already have the "may".
For the B grade fix, couldn't you drop the "if you did"? The seven or more clause only references exiled cards under the first part, which already has if you do stapled to it.
"It says that I MAY pay a million energy...but I'm not gonna!!!"
Yeah, I definitely think this will be like the Dark Ritual + Yawgmoth's Will situation from awhile back: it technically worked, but expect judges at events to rule against it because it obviously wasn't the intended outcome. There is zero chance Wizards intended to print 'Wheel of Fortune, but better' into Modern.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about the new Ulamog wrt intent versus a strict reading. As it's written, if you flicker Ulamog, it seems like it would enter with at least 10 +1/+1 counters from it being in exile before ETBing - this doesn't feel like the intent of the card though?
I completely disagree. There is nothing hinting that intent is for Ulamog to not see itself.
love you dave !
I noticed this but then got buried under all the other awesome cards in the set.
Thank you always for the great content.
Criticism on video format, tilt camera down lower 😅 you're a great speaker and deserve more space in your videos.
Can you please go over the card Ulamog, the Defiler? There seems to be a lot of confusion with blink/flicker mechanics as well as cascade and other mechanics that cast from exile.
There have been a couple of templating errors in the past decade or so of magic that I feel didnt used to be present. Were there issues before khans of tarkir along these same lines?
You're not alone. The editing, templating, and rules-writing are noticeably worse than they have been. I've been playing for over 20 years, and it's not like there weren't mistakes like this before (Oboro Envoy and Marath, Will of the Wild come to mind), but they were caught internally, after the cards were printed, but before they were released, so the updates came from WotC before anyone played with the cards. Starting around BFZ is where I think the caring became less about stuff like this. Bannings in Standard became commonplace, rather than once-per-decade moonshots, rules explanations became more handwave-y, focus on kitchen table games started to take precedence over maintaining workable tournament policy and organized play system.
Time vault, LED, Mox diamond, Lotus vale, Scorched ruins just from top of my head, old magic sure had its oracle text mistakes as well.
The flavor text checks out.
Still no errata on gatherer. Why didn't people just play this at the pro tour??
I live in east VA and after about 3 boxes of nit getting waste elemental blast, it's product placement. That's the mist valuable card here in old amerca: Yorktown area
3 weeks later, still not errata on scry fall or gatherer. 😂🎉
This does seem to me like a situation where the spirit of the rule is fairly clear, if at odds with its letter. Whether that's good enough if money / tour points are involved, or even when it comes time to write code for the digital version of this card, is another matter.
For a social/political format like Commander, tho, you could argue the ambiguity is a plus, heh
X can be 0. There's no reason for a may clause.
there is no world in which i actually rule that a player who chooses not to pay energy gets to draw more than 0 cards
I think, I already saw someone paying 0 energy while resolving a spell. It often comes up, when you raptor into the "energy bolt" (not sure, whats its name is atm).
And if the raptor is the only target, you target it and pay 0 energy to net the energy of the spell
A question regarding your point about paying costs up to the amount of that resource you have. (Pay 10 life but you only have 5) if you had zero energy before casting this card and as it resolves you only have 3, would 3 be the maximum allowable number to choose X to be?
Nope, you could still chose any number you wanted for X. When the card then asked you if you wanted to pay X energy, if it was more then the 3 you had, the rules would step in and tell you you cant pay X and must chose not to.
It's very weird to phrase it that you *may* pay X and then be able to declare X as zero. Pay X energy (X may be zero) is functionally the same, right? Edit: Since "the each player may" phrase is there already in paragraph 2 this should work on arena with no changes, allowing you to choose to exile your hand for 3 mana if you'd like to.
This is kinda neat. It somehow feels like a coding error, but printed on a card.
I would argue that if the card text and oracle text are the same then there isn't a mistake in the oracle text.
The rule simply says you may not use "errors or omissions", not "in relation to the printed text" or whatever.
Counterpoint: anyone can make a mistake. Your interpretation means the Oracle entering process didn't have any mistakes, but still allows that the templaters or editors could have made a mistake.
Might point is it is harder to make a claim of an error when two sources agree.
@@twhittaker4343 sure, but now we're arguing about "what constitutes an error" which is exactly a hairy and abstract enough question for it to be reasonable to delegate to the head judge. so we've arrived at the rule as written.
The cited rule in the video basically says "you can't use errors or omissions to abuse the rules". It sounds like you're trying to abuse the rules to capitalize on an accidental omission, so in terms of magic tournament policy, it's an open and shut case.
There are two axes of wiggle room, whether it was a "mistake" or whether what you're doing is "abuse", but in either case, that determination will be up to the head judge.
Please list all the cards that let you CHOOSE the value of X. A card where X is not check by the card
07/06/2024Some triggered abilities state that you "may pay" a certain amount of . You can't pay that amount multiple times to multiply the effect. You simply choose whether or not to pay that amount of  as the ability resolves
If I'm not wrong, for your last fix, you would not need the last rule change allowing you to pay 0 energy, as it's impossible to have negative energy. Mathematically, being at a negative life total means you do not have 0 life to pay, hence the rule, but energy are counters attached to the player, not a numerical status. feel free to correct me if I'm missing something!
They might still want to future proof things in case they ever print a card that says "you can't pay energy"
It would be necessary. If you have 0 energy as you cast this spell, and there's a Solemnity in play, you would not have any energy to spend.
@@Felixr2Yes, and you still would not have negative energy in this situation. It seems their point has gone over your head.
How do you feel about this one:
You get {E}{E}{E}, then you may pay any amount of {E}.
Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards, where X is the amount of {E} you paid. If X is 7 or more (etc).
@JudgingFtW if I played it in a tournament and you were judge could I play it, get 3 energy and draw my deck?
I'm pretty sure he covered this right at the end. He would rule the card as intended instead of as written.
so how long until wheel of potential gets errataed for "if you do,"?
Am I missing something? From the gatherer page for this card: "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."
You can't pay more counter than you have and you are declaring how many you are paying after the energy after you get the counters, this formatting doesnt allow you to abuse the draw and allows you to (for some reason) choose to just use it for the 3 energy. At least that seems to be the case, could be wrong
What you're missing is that choosing X isn't a cost but rather an effect of the spell. Because of that, rule 107.3e applies. You choose the value for X, then you choose whether or not you pay that energy as part of the effect of the spell. Since the payment is optional and there's no "if you do" statement, X is still that value regardless of whether or not you paid the energy.
That's where I think a lot of people are getting mixed up. Paying the energy is not a cost. It's an effect.
@@drewhoffmaster2969107.3f would actually be the relevant one. E would be for if it was an additional cost.
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).
Hello judge, excuse me but I have a question, it is about the interaction between Vadrik and the Torpor Orb, if there is a Torpor Orb on the field before Vadrik enters the battlefield, does it prevent it from checking if it is day or night?
Vadrik's ability isn't a triggered ability. I think it might be a replacement effect that alters the game action of Vadrik entering the field. It's unusual templating, so I'm not entirely sure.
In any case, not an ETB and not a triggered ability, so Torpor Orb has nothing to say about it.
@@fieldrequired283 Thank you very much for the clarification!
4:28 Wait, why not? "You get 3 energy then may pay any amount of energy. Each player may exile their hand and draw x cards, where x is the amount of energy paid. If x is 7 or more...".
How do you overrule the text as a head judge?
Do you have to provide new oracle text or "No, you draw same amount of cards as the amount of energy spent" is enough?
Anecdotally, for a card with a known conflict like this, the head judge might make an announcement during the player meeting to explain how the card is going to be interpreted at that event specifically; this would not be new Oracle text.
I like the 2nd fix better
"...then you pay up to X where X is the amount of (energy) you have" definitely wordier but that would be a decent implementation of the type of
templating you mentioned being almost unfeasible. removing "may" for "up to" also feels like a clearer communication that it can be 0-X while defining X as such prevents skirting the cost &/or making X something ridiculous that you couldnt even while still allowing for response on the stack to increase energy prior to resolving, thus increasing X potential
Just adding the limit without removing the may means they can still get the effect without paying, they can't do it for a million.
I was going to make a joke about MTR 3.6 meaning I can't require players to omit Battle from the card type count for Tarmogoyf, but it looks like they did an update 2 weeks ago fixing this (though amusingly the card type list ruling is still dated to 2021 despite being updated at the same time).
What do you mean? Tarmogoyf's oracle has been "Tarmogoyf’s power is equal to the number of card types among cards in all graveyards and its toughness is equal to that number plus 1." sinci it was printed. It has never gotten any oracle updates.
@@Datuna-vw3un under the rulings is one defining the different card types, which did not include battles for over a year after their introduction in MOTM.
@@jonothanthrace1530 Card types are defined in CR, it does not matter what ruling says.
When you read the card it's pretty straight forward that the card effect matches the amount of energy you did pay. It's a mute point.
what is intended is not the same as what is actually stated according to how the game actually works.
The card says you may pay X energy. Because of this, X must be defined BEFORE the energy is paid, because X tells you how much energy to pay, if you choose to pay it. So, at the very latest, we determine X IMMEDIATELY before it asks if we want to pay.
You then proceed through the rest of the spell with that X value.
The Wheel is Round, is good
Additional cost would work out, just make it so you get the energy counter as a cost, then pay X energy
The problem is that it's sort of strange to give a positive benefit as part of the cost. It would also act very differently against counter spells to have both the giving of energy and the payment be on cast rather than resolution.
I watched the full video but I don't fully understand the problem.
How can I say "I want X to be 50" then NOT pay the 50 energy and still draw 50 cards? What in the card's text imply that will be the case?
The payment is a "may", there is no "if you do" and X is determined beforehand due to this rule.
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).
To pay X energy, you must first know what X is because it is an instruction telling you how much energy to spend (like how Propaganda tells you to pay 2 mana for each attacking creature).
So, basic logic says X must be determined before the cost is paid. Once that has been determined, the spell reads "You may pay 50 energy. You may exile your hand, then draw 50 cards." It has 2 seperate instructions, an optional cost of 50 energy and an optional wheel for 50. Because of the line break, these 2 effects are entirely unrelated to each other.
Alternate solution, use the Blaze template, don't give any energy, and just draw X+3 cards. It's pretty obvious they want you to use the energy on the wheel itself, just bake it in. Seems like they made this card overly complex for no reason (common theme these days) and got caught with their pants down.
Most of the effects that both give you energy and give you an option to pay any amount will do it that way so that you have the choice of paying less than you get to keep it for your next energy card so the choice is very much intentional. One fairly common scenario is if your last 2 cards in hand are 2 copies of it. In that case, you might want to cast the first and pay 0, then cast the second and pay 6.
great content as usual but please lower you camera, it'd improve the look of the channel so much. Lets get that melon in the middle third of the video
The problem with this is that if I have my head higher up, it will get covered up anytime I put a CR citation on the screen. Putting the CR texts at the bottom of the screen was unpopular because that's the default area for subtitles to go.
Interesting issue with this card, but, What about using similar wording to Wrath of the skies?
For the Plunge into Darkness scenario, why does 730.1 apply? Why doesn't 101.3 kick in and just say it's an impossible action and not do that part of the ability?
It never makes sense to mention X unless it comes up twice. A pronumeral in one place means nothing. With this card, it's clear that it must be the same X. The amount of energy you choose to pay is the number of cards each player gets to draw. Maybe the wording could be better, but it seems very clear.
Eg) If the effect of a spell is "gain X life", you know that there's an X somewhere in the casting cost. And a lot of cards say "do X something, where X is blah blah blah".
It's not really the clarity to players that's the issue, it's pretty easy to see that they wanted the wheel effect to be contingent on paying, it's the issue with how the rules interpret it that's the problem. In this case, you are the one who defines what X is and you do so regardless of if you actually decide to pay it. Then the value of then X remains the same for the rest of the card, which forgets to actually enforce or check for the payment in any way.
@@seandun7083 If it simply says, "you pay X energy" rather than "you MAY pay", that seems to fix it.
You get EEE, then pay any amount of E. Each player may exile their hand and draw a card for each E spent this way. If you drew 7 or more cards this way, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn.
This was another case of design being too clever for their own good again. This didn't need X in the first place, let alone all the other goofiness.
I'm honestly surprised there's not a catch all rule of "In the case of any variable to be determined by a player, 0 is always a valid option." that would address life and this scenario.
Your proposed wording does not work the same way with replacement effects that replace card draws. You would never be able to play exiled cards if you had a Tomorrow, Azami's Familiar, for instance.
@@miserepoignee9594 easy fix would be “if you paid 7 or more energy in this way,” which I think would be functionally identical except for replacement effects like what you’re describing (if had fewer than 7 cards in your library, you could still play your old hand from exile unlike with OP’s wording but that’s very niche and probably not worth considering).
At least when paying mana costs x is normally allowed to be 0, which is funnily enough a thing that's specifically broken other cards before. Marath, Will of the Wild was initially printed without a clause that disallowed paying X=0 for its ability and could therefore make an infinite number of 0/0 elementals at any time for free. 😅
Generally as a judge, I go "you know what they meant -.-" when handling rulings like this. Using the Serra Paragon example, they wouldn't have put the "it gains this ability" text expecting it to be ignored by the game rules, so this is Clearly An Error and works as intended.
In this case, very similarly -- they didn't put the energy clause in there for no reason, _and_ you know they would have never printed a card that said 2R: Draw your library. So again, clearly a mistake.
While I think this is the most sensible way to treat something like this, there can often be several very subtly different intended ways. This is even less of a case here, but was more relevant for Serra paragon .
For Serra paragon, is the ability that tracks the card still able to find the card if it is blinked? We are already going against the written rules (at the time) to say that the card can follow the card between other zones. It would be a little strange if that was what the card did, but we already had a card that keeps track of what counters the permant had on it as it moves to other zones.
We now know what the answer to that question is, but without a rule update, I think there is a compelling argument both ways one you say “clearly this card is following the card between zones.”
why isn't the x determined when you pay the energy?
It has to do with how a spell is cast. Whenever a spell has an X, it is chosen on cast, but spending the energy must happen on resolution in order to get the 3 energy from the card.
Because to pay X, you have to decide what X is. In this case, actually paying X is entirely optional, and the subsequent effect doesn't care whether X was paid.
So, you decide X is 50, then you decide not to pay it, then you move onto the next piece of text.
@@keanureef271 In this case this is not the issue, though. X is chosen on resolution of Wheel, NOT while you are casting and putting it onto the stack.
@@ThePe5e You are right now that I think about it.
You do not decide X when you cast this spell. Where does it say that? You determine X when the spell resolves buy paying X energy the same way you determine X by paying X mana in a spell with X in the casting cost when you cast it. Look at the Oracle for Suppression Ray. In the example about only being able to tap a creature that was tapped by the cards effect it says you can put a stun counter on that creature (as long as you paid at least 1 energy). If you pay zero X will be zero and you can’t stun anything. If you want to stun 8 of the creatures you tapped you’d need to pay 8 energy to make X equal 8 Same with Wheel if you decide to pay zero X is zero and you draw no cards. All the judges will get informed of how this is supposed to work & maybe an errata is needed to make it more clear but you can’t just choose a value for X when you cast one of these spells then choose not to pay X as Dave is saying and have it resolve with X whatever you chose.
Make a video comparing this cards rules fail and how Fuse cards were being cast off of a card like Brain in the Jar worked? Head Judges allowed that and I'm confused what changed in the rules... that felt like weird mental gymnastics in that era. Fuse cards spiked for months during that era as well.
When split cards are originally introduced, you could use the mana value of whichever side you wanted whenever an effect checked the mana value of a split card (on the stack it would be the mv of the half you picked, or if fused the combined mv). In addition, whenever you could cast it, you could choose either half. With fuse cards you could choose both if casting it from your hand.
That combination meant that you could use the mana value of one half to see if it's equal to Brain in a Jar's charge counters, then when it let you cast it, you could cast the other half, or in the case of fuse cards, both halves.
After people were Breaking // Entering Emrakuls for a little bit, they made a change to the rules. Now, when looking at them outside the stack, it always uses the combined MV of both halves meaning you can still Breaking // Entering off of Brain in a Jar, but you need to tick it up to 8 first.
That one is a bit less bad since it's a mechanic doing unintentional stuff with other cards whereas this is a card doing unintended things on it's own.
OH NO