[mtgnexus] Random Card of the Day - North Star

[DirkGently]

Likely because as an instant, it would only affect things on the battlefield as it resolves, instead of preventing a flicker effect from undoing the humility effect. . .

"Until end of turn, creatures lose all abilities and can't gain abilities."

Idk exactly what would be needed but if Kardur, Doomscourge's trigger can effect creatures that enter afterwards then I'm pretty sure it's possible.

Unfortunately, Kardur's ability works because it sets up an attack requirement on the *opponents*, not the creatures themselves.

"until your next turn, creatures your opponents control attack each combat if able and attack a player other than you if able."

I don't see how that effects opponents and not their creatures. Just remove the "your opponents control" clause and it would still work the same way (aside from effecting your own creatures), wouldn't it?

So then just replace "attack each combat..." with "lose all abilities."

[Mookie]

I don't see how that effects opponents and not their creatures. Just remove the "your opponents control" clause and it would still work the same way (aside from effecting your own creatures), wouldn't it?

Oracle ruling:

Kardur's first ability affects all creatures your opponents control, including any that enter the battlefield after the ability resolves.

It's a very weird interaction, especially if you're familiar with goad effects like Disrupt Decorum. I believe the reason is because Kardur creates a continuous effect which happens to have a duration of 'until your next turn'. Remove the first clause and just have the text 'creatures your opponents control attack each combat if able and attack a player other than you if able.' and it makes perfect sense - consider Thantis, the Warweaver or Fumiko the Lowblood.

In contrast, 'goad target creature' is a one-shot effect that modifies a creature to have the 'goaded' attribute. I'll point to Baeloth Barrityl, Entertainer as another card that bypasses the goad action and sets that attribute directly. It's sort of like the difference between 'attack' and 'attacking' - when you attack with a creature, it becomes an attacking creature... but if you cheat it out with Kaalia of the Vast, that creature is attacking even though it didn't declare an attack (so it can bypass stuff like Moat and Master of Cruelties's restriction).

[DirkGently]

@Mookie I understand all of that quite well, I'm just saying that if the technology exists for Kardur to work the way he does, I see no reason it couldn't work for an instant version of Dress Down.

If Kardur was worded "until your next turn, your opponents must attack with all their creatures..." then it would seem less applicable to Dress Down, but as written I see no reason that the same template couldn't be applied to make Dress Down into an instant.

[Mookie]

@Mookie I understand all of that quite well, I'm just saying that if the technology exists for Kardur to work the way he does, I see no reason it couldn't work for an instant version of Dress Down.

Ah, noted. My best guess is that it's intended to be a callback to Humility and to fit into MH2's enchantress subtheme. Humility itself may be a bit too much for Modern... but a one-shot version of it is a pretty sweet effect from a design perspective.

Beyond that... rules / templating? This effect is usually worded like Sudden Spoiling - 'until end of turn, creatures (target player controls) lose all abilities'... which doesn't quite do the same thing. I imagine some very awkward wording is necessary to make it function as desired.

[Dunadain]

Besides, since it's an engagement, I can do Hall of Heliod's Generosity funsies.

Also, wasn't this released in the same set as Underworld Breach?Maybe we'll eventually have a full cycle of enchantments that sac themselves eot.

[materpillar]

Likely because as an instant, it would only affect things on the battlefield as it resolves, instead of preventing a flicker effect from undoing the humility effect. . .

"Until end of turn, creatures lose all abilities and can't gain abilities."

Idk exactly what would be needed but if Kardur, Doomscourge's trigger can effect creatures that enter afterwards then I'm pretty sure it's possible.

I'd always assumed it's because it is easier to remember sitting on the battlefield as an enchantment than in the graveyard.

[3drinks]

Sunday, October 29th, 2023; Boldwyr Intimidator

Man. This card isn't good, but that text is right up there with the land continues to burn after Obsidian Fireheart has left the battlefield.

[Lifeless]

Iconic text no doubt. Reminds me of my favorite bit of old rules text on Floral Spuzzem. I mean I added him to my deck so I should trust his judgement, but I think I should be making the gameplay decisions as opposed to Mr Spuzzem.

[Dunadain]

Flavor text? Where were going we don't need flavor text.

[WizardMN]

@Mookie I understand all of that quite well, I'm just saying that if the technology exists for Kardur to work the way he does, I see no reason it couldn't work for an instant version of Dress Down.

If Kardur was worded "until your next turn, your opponents must attack with all their creatures..." then it would seem less applicable to Dress Down, but as written I see no reason that the same template couldn't be applied to make Dress Down into an instant.

Wall of text that went on longer than intended

Show

Hide

Kardur sets up a game rule (essentially). Dress Down changes the characteristics of creatures. They have always been two different types of effects governed by two different sets of rules. Adding/Removing abilities or changing characteristics when done on a trigger or an instant or sorcery can only affect the subset of objects it wants to affect when the ability/spell resolves. Once the effect applies, it is done. It won't continue applying to new objects in that set.

So, Dress Down as an Instant can't work against something on the stack and can't shut down triggers at all. You can't set up a Continuous Effect on a resolving spell or ability that affects more than the objects in the current set because the rules specifically don't allow it.

It is the reason Sudden Spoiling (which I believe was mentioned above) can't affect new creatures. it is the reason Craterhoof can't effect new creatures. It is the reason Languish can't affect new creatures.

Kardur on the other hand just says something true about the game itself: that person's creatures must attack. It is not changing anything about the creature's themselves which is why, incidentally, Dress Down wouldn't change anything about the requirement. It is not a characteristic or ability of the creature itself. Similar to how Rogue's Passage doesn't set a characteristic of the creature either. Which means Dress Down can't remove the Unblockability.

It would take a lot of rules text to make it work as an Instant/Sorcery to get around the current rules of resolving spells or abilities and changing the rules to suit it is out of the question. Otherwise other interactions, such as the ones above, get messed up. The way Sudden Spoiling works is how this would work if put onto an Instant. Putting it onto an enchantment offers the functionality Wizards wanted in a reasonably elegant way, if a little outside the norm.

On an added note, and I am sure this isn't really their intent, but Dress Down still lets things get their abilities back in the End Step whereas Sudden Spoiling wears off in the Cleanup Step. There aren't a lot of situations where this distinction matters but for something like Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur it does. Sudden Spoiling would still cause the person controlling Jin to discard to 7 cards. Dress Down does not. Again, a very niche interaction and one that I am guessing isn't really the reason for anything, but an interesting side note about the two different effects.

[DirkGently]

@WizardMN I guess that makes sense, I still don't like that the same words can effect different sets of things though. If you wanted to remake Kardur to only effect things currently on-board, how would that work? "Each creature your opponents control"? I had intuited that putting the timing clause in front of the selection clause was how Kardur worked differently, i.e. if Kardur said "Creatures your opponents control attack [...] until your next turn." then it wouldn't effect new creatures, in the same way that craterhoof says "creatures you control get +x/+x until end of turn" and doesn't effect new creatures. But you're saying it's just based entirely on which types of effects they are and there's no way to know from the words alone, unless you know which category the effect falls into? Gotta say I really don't like that.

[Wallycaine]

@Mookie I understand all of that quite well, I'm just saying that if the technology exists for Kardur to work the way he does, I see no reason it couldn't work for an instant version of Dress Down.

If Kardur was worded "until your next turn, your opponents must attack with all their creatures..." then it would seem less applicable to Dress Down, but as written I see no reason that the same template couldn't be applied to make Dress Down into an instant.

Wall of text that went on longer than intended

Show

Hide

Kardur sets up a game rule (essentially). Dress Down changes the characteristics of creatures. They have always been two different types of effects governed by two different sets of rules. Adding/Removing abilities or changing characteristics when done on a trigger or an instant or sorcery can only affect the subset of objects it wants to affect when the ability/spell resolves. Once the effect applies, it is done. It won't continue applying to new objects in that set.

So, Dress Down as an Instant can't work against something on the stack and can't shut down triggers at all. You can't set up a Continuous Effect on a resolving spell or ability that affects more than the objects in the current set because the rules specifically don't allow it.

It is the reason Sudden Spoiling (which I believe was mentioned above) can't affect new creatures. it is the reason Craterhoof can't effect new creatures. It is the reason Languish can't affect new creatures.

Kardur on the other hand just says something true about the game itself: that person's creatures must attack. It is not changing anything about the creature's themselves which is why, incidentally, Dress Down wouldn't change anything about the requirement. It is not a characteristic or ability of the creature itself. Similar to how Rogue's Passage doesn't set a characteristic of the creature either. Which means Dress Down can't remove the Unblockability.

It would take a lot of rules text to make it work as an Instant/Sorcery to get around the current rules of resolving spells or abilities and changing the rules to suit it is out of the question. Otherwise other interactions, such as the ones above, get messed up. The way Sudden Spoiling works is how this would work if put onto an Instant. Putting it onto an enchantment offers the functionality Wizards wanted in a reasonably elegant way, if a little outside the norm.

On an added note, and I am sure this isn't really their intent, but Dress Down still lets things get their abilities back in the End Step whereas Sudden Spoiling wears off in the Cleanup Step. There aren't a lot of situations where this distinction matters but for something like Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur it does. Sudden Spoiling would still cause the person controlling Jin to discard to 7 cards. Dress Down does not. Again, a very niche interaction and one that I am guessing isn't really the reason for anything, but an interesting side note about the two different effects.

Thanks for the longer explanation that was hopefully clearer than the one I was able to provide. I believe the closest you could get to the functionality on an instant would be to set up two seperate effects: one that removes all abilities from creatures currently on the battlefield, and another that sets up a replacement effect ala Don't Blink. However, doing so with a duration of a turn would be clunky and potentially confusing, as it would have to say "Until end of turn, if one or more creatures would enter the battlefield, they enter the battlefield with no abilities until end of turn instead." And that would probably involve adding something to the comprehensive rules about "Replacement effects that apply an effect with a duration", as I don't think there's currently anything that does that. Not an impossible bar, but certainly harder than an enchantment that works, even if it's weird.

[WizardMN]

@WizardMN I guess that makes sense, I still don't like that the same words can effect different sets of things though. If you wanted to remake Kardur to only effect things currently on-board, how would that work? "Each creature your opponents control"? I had intuited that putting the timing clause in front of the selection clause was how Kardur worked differently, i.e. if Kardur said "Creatures your opponents control attack [...] until your next turn." then it wouldn't effect new creatures, in the same way that craterhoof says "creatures you control get +x/+x until end of turn" and doesn't effect new creatures. But you're saying it's just based entirely on which types of effects they are and there's no way to know from the words alone, unless you know which category the effect falls into? Gotta say I really don't like that.

Total War is probably the closest wording to do what you want. Which, in my opinion, is very verbose (and potentially confusing) for not a lot of gain. Otherwise, Kardur would need to grant an ability, and an ability would need to be created in the rules, that would force something to attack. And, even then, that granting of the ability would need to be temporary. "Until end of turn, creatures your opponents control gain <ability>". Which, of course, changes functionality. In short, there really isn't a good way to re-word Kardur to do what you are suggesting.

If an effect changes a characteristic of a permanent, that only takes into account the permanents that existed at the time the effect started. Assuming an ability, instant or sorcery resolving (anything on the battlefield can continue to affect new things). Since Kardur doesn't change things about the creatures themselves, the rules are different. I would disagree that there is no way to know from the words alone. Kardur says nothing about "creatures gain" or "creatures have" or "creatures get". Thus he doesn't affect the characteristics of the creatures. By contrast, Dress Down says "creatures lose". Which means the creatures' characteristics are affected.

[Jemolk]

Rewriting Kardur to only affect stuff already on board is pretty easy. "When Kardur, Doomscourge enters the battlefield, goad each creature your opponents control." That would make it affect creatures' attributes directly.

[3drinks]

Monday, October 30th, 2023; Curse of Verbosity

I've seen this come up a lot in lots of budget brews. Is this actually good, or at least better than it appears and we're all missing it? It's certainly not Curse of Opulence but, like, is it actually playable?

[Lifeless]

It reminds me of a significantly worse Edric at first glance. Maybe people use it as a budget replacement for Rhystic Study or something, plus the minor political component of course.

[yeti1069]

Probably better now than it was at release, what with all the goad available.

[Dunadain]

It would probably be fine in white, but if you are in blue you have so many better options

[Serenade]

Curse synergies!

[Hawk]

This is the 2nd most played curse after Curse of Opulence and that doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Opulence is strong at its MV. This is pretty pricey at 3 mana, and you need to be fairly sure everyone else is playing decks with creatures and they'll agree to the archenemy bet for it to pay for itself. The problem really is that there's very few spells like Curse of Opulence - Ragavan, Nimble Pilferer and Magda, Brazen Outlaw are closest but both are much more fragile and Ragabro is also a wallet-breaker so seeking budget alternatives is legit. Meanwhile, Blue has a long, long list of ways to draw cards such that even in decks like UWx Fliers or aggressive Ux tribal decks like Ninjas, Rogues, Snakes, Merfolk, etc., you tend to have much better options that don't also let your opponents draw cards. For instance, if you are an aggressive blue-based deck, you can get Military Intelligence for one less and Reconnaissance Mission or Bident of Thassa for one more. Nevermind Rhystic Study and Mystic Remora.

So you really want to also be using the light political effect here, but this is also much weaker in a group-huggy deck than Temple Bell and its ilk. Basically what I'm getting at is, I think this is wildly unplayable outside of Lynde, Cheerful Tormentor who really does want to run every printed curse. It's legit to say it's "fun" in a deck like Gwafa Hazid, Profiteer (who is terrible) or Firkraag, Cunning Instigator (who is also weak) but from a purely optimizing standpoint I think this is a weak card.

[Jemolk]

It really depends on how easily the people you play with are seduced by card draw. If it's very easily, as with a certain SaffronOlive, then this is both a means of drawing cards and also a way of keeping attacks off you. Its ceiling is basically a free goad on each non-cursed opponent's one free chip damage attacker plus three extra cards per turn cycle. That's kinda nuts. On the other hand, its floor is a big target on your forehead and everyone attacking you instead of the cursed player, in exchange for one extra card per turn cycle. That is absolutely not worth it at all, for any mana cost.

Realistically, it's going to be somewhere in the middle, but where in the middle? The problem here is that it's not reliable. Still, it's not unlikely to draw you some extra cards and direct attacks elsewhere, which is probably worth three mana. And unlike things that force people to swing elsewhere, mere encouragement to do so is likely to cause the other players at the table to be happy with you, rather than annoyed. In practice, it's probably pretty solid, even if a lot of that comes from table dynamics rather than strictly from the text of the card,

[onering]

I run it in Grixis Group Hug (Ludevic and Vial Smasher). It does good work there.

I have a philosophy for Group Hug that ramping mana is terrible but handing out cards is fine if you break parity, and handing out creatures is good. The deck operates by giving opponents creatures and then reasons to attack each other. This curse is ideal here because it gives that incentive, breaks parity (I benefit the most), and can be placed on the player that I feel least comfortable giving cards to, which also hastens their demise. So long as I'm drawing more than my opponents, giving out cards doesn't let people get out of control because I'll usually have enough answers to mop up whatever threats I need to that other opponents don't answer first. They actually need the mana to cast their spells so drawing cards usually has diminishing returns (while I'm prepared to take advantage of drawing so many) unless it draws them into a combo (which I'm prepared to answer). I really want opponents attacking each other so things like this, and the ones that make zombies, are in it (plus some things to force attacks, or make things hard to block, etc.)

[3drinks]

Tuesday, October 31st, 2023; Standstill

[TheAmericanSpirit]

It's not great in EDH, but I really like the old Legacy Landstill decks that used this to great effect.

I think it could be playable in some kind of group hug control deck, but giving out up to 9 cards is a big gamble.

[materpillar]

"Screw the players seated to my left"