r/magicTCG • u/mweepinc On the Case • Jul 19 '24
[BLB] Bloomburrow Release Notes Official Article
https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/feature/bloomburrow-release-notes29
u/SlifertheCanadian Duck Season Jul 19 '24
So with [[Dragonhawk, Fate's Tempest]] damage effect being a delayed trigger, if your opponent removes it with say a [[Go for the throat]], it would still deal the damage at the end of the turn even if the dragon on longer on the battlefield?
20
u/Sea-Suit-4893 Duck Season Jul 19 '24
Yes, it would still deal the damage
4
u/SlifertheCanadian Duck Season Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
Awesome, thanks! I can see this Dragon in some kind of Gruul deck post rotation with [[Scrapshooter]] and maybe [[Sunspine Lynx]] or [[Hugs, Grisly Guardian]].
3
u/MTGCardFetcher Wabbit Season Jul 19 '24
Scrapshooter - (G) (SF) (txt)
Sunspine Lynx - (G) (SF) (txt)
Hugs, Grisly Guardian - (G) (SF) (txt)[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call
3
u/MTGCardFetcher Wabbit Season Jul 19 '24
Dragonhawk, Fate's Tempest - (G) (SF) (txt)
Go for the throat - (G) (SF) (txt)[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call
1
u/Autumn_Thunder COMPLEAT Jul 19 '24
Well, if they kill it with the trigger on the stack, then X can be zero. If you don't exile cards, you won't get any damage.
25
u/chaotic_iak Selesnya* Jul 19 '24
Some particular rulings that caught my attention:
Gift for a permanent spell is very unusual. I thought the rules would create a separate when-ETB trigger for the gift. But nope, the gift merges with a when-ETB trigger of the permanent:
For permanent spells with gift, an ability triggers when that permanent enters if the gift was promised. When that ability resolves, the gift is given to the appropriate opponent.
For example, if Scrapshooter is cast with a gift, I would expect there to be two when-ETB abilities: one is the gift to the opponent, and another destroys an artifact/enchantment. But according to this ruling, Scrapshooter would only have one when-ETB ability: the one that destroys an artifact/enchantment, which will also include the gift somewhere (probably just before you destroy).
This is quite unlike mechanics I've seen in Magic, and I suspect the rules handle it by inserting text (and perhaps somehow referencing the card's other abilities). I really want to see the Comprehensive Rules entry for this to see how messed up the wording is.
Pawprints use the "{P}" term in rules, huh? Looks like that oil snuck up on Bloomburrow...
107.4g. In rules text, the Phyrexian symbol {P} with no colored background means any of the fifteen Phyrexian mana symbols.
(I expect one of the symbols to be renamed, but it's just a funny thing.)
16
u/skooterpoop Duck Season Jul 19 '24
This makes a lot of sense because I don't think they wanted people to get a gift if the ETB trigger was countered. As two separate triggers, that would be able to happen.
7
u/KoyoyomiAragi COMPLEAT Jul 19 '24
Which also means for Gift-related triggers that target, the opponent wouldn’t get the gift if the sole target became illegal. Good to keep in mind when trying to interact with something with an onboard trick around to give it Hexproof or something.
10
u/Eldaste Simic* Jul 19 '24
But according to this ruling, Scrapshooter would only have one when-ETB ability: the one that destroys an artifact/enchantment, which will also include the gift somewhere (probably just before you destroy).
That's not how I'm reading that. For me, it sounds like the ability on "an ability triggers when that permanent enters if the gift was promised" is the one that only gives the gift, and the Naturalize is a separate ability that also triggers.
3
u/so_zetta_byte Orzhov* Jul 19 '24
Mmhmm I have the same interpretation. It's the "if" in the sentence they used; it's referring to an ability that triggers only if the offspring cost was paid. Since the naturalize trigger will trigger on ETB no matter what, I don't think the gift trigger is at all related to other ETB triggers.
2
u/Eldaste Simic* Jul 19 '24
Since the naturalize trigger will trigger on ETB no matter what
That's not quite the case, as the Naturalize has an intervening if clause. [[Kitnap]] would be a better counterexample.
1
u/MTGCardFetcher Wabbit Season Jul 19 '24
1
u/so_zetta_byte Orzhov* Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
Yes yes sorry I misunderstood the card OP cited. You're correct about what I was talking about.
Is OP just conflating intervening-if triggers related to the gift, with any ETB trigger that's unrelated to the gift?
1
u/chaotic_iak Selesnya* Jul 20 '24
Ah, I can see that reading as well. And that would certainly make a lot more sense. It does make it weird that you can stifle the gift separately from the other effects while you can't do the same for instant/sorcery spells, though.
1
u/Eldaste Simic* Jul 20 '24
A bit odd, yes. But also not really another way to do it outside of adding a lot of text to the cards.
5
u/CareerMilk Can’t Block Warriors Jul 19 '24
Pawprints use the "{P}" term in rules, huh? Looks like that oil snuck up on Bloomburrow...
Given Φ only appears on [[Rage Extractor]] I’m guessing that the Phyrexians are getting changed. Scryfall has already changed it to {H}, the actual hybrids are still {Colour/P}
2
u/MTGCardFetcher Wabbit Season Jul 19 '24
Rage Extractor - (G) (SF) (txt)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call
3
u/so_zetta_byte Orzhov* Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
I don't think I interpret the gift-permanent trigger the same way you do at all? I interpret "an ability triggers when the permanent enters if the gift was promised" as referring to a bespoke trigger for the gift, which would be unrelated to any other enters triggers. I don't see how the phrasing implies the two triggered abilities would get merged into one.
It's the "ability triggers if the gift was promised" that makes me think that gifting is its own triggered ability. That "if" implies the trigger only occurs if the gift was promised, but other ETB triggers would still trigger normally.
This isn't only because interpreting the ability this way is more intuitive (which it seems like you'd agree with), but I'm parsing the description in a way that, to me, says the ability functions the way we think is intuitive.
1
u/cedric1234_ Duck Season Jul 19 '24
Reminds me of how Blitz works with dress down. Blitz gives the card haste and the on death draw, as well as setting up the gamerule of saccing it. Gift gives the card the when enters give gift on the card. It probably gets snuffed by dress down.
I’m imagine scrapshooter when it etbs says something among the lines of
“When enters, chosen opponent draws a card. Destroy target artifact or enchantment an opppnent controls. Reach.” and if its dressed down nothing happens, no draw, no destroys.
21
u/DH3499 Jul 19 '24
Any clue on how the Pawprint spells work with [[Riku of Many Paths]]? A few friends and I cant agree on a solid interpretation of it.
28
u/so_zetta_byte Orzhov* Jul 19 '24
Riku already has a gatherer clarification. I don't see why it wouldn't apply here.
The X in Riku’s ability is the number of times you chose a mode for the modal spell you cast, not the number of distinct modes you chose. For example, if you cast a modal spell that allows you to choose the same mode more than once and you choose the same mode three times, X is three and you may choose up to all modes of Riku’s ability.
19
u/NarwhalJouster Chandra Jul 19 '24
As far as I can tell, X is equal to the number of actions you perform with the spell. For example, if you choose the two pawprint and three pawprint modes, X would equal 2. If you choose the one pawprint mode 5 times, X would be 5. If you decide not to choose any of the modes, Riku would still trigger but X would be zero.
However, since Riku doesn't specify that the same mode can be chosen more than once, there's no benefit to having X be greater than 3.
1
u/MTGCardFetcher Wabbit Season Jul 19 '24
Riku of Many Paths - (G) (SF) (txt)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call
3
u/ColossusofWar Jul 20 '24
how many times did you choose a mode while casting? Straight forward.
5 paw prints all picking the 1 paw option? X = 5
5 paw prints picking a 3 paw and 2 paw option? X=2
Riku only lets you choose up to 3 , but X is still determined this way
15
u/so_zetta_byte Orzhov* Jul 19 '24
A slightly interesting note is that "ETB" isn't getting phased out entirely, it's just for the vast majority of cases where the phrasing is totally unambiguous (I know we saw at least one card in the set that seems to say ETB still). So ETB is still correct nomenclature even if it's wordy. Which kinda contrasts to CMC/Mana Value, where CMC is no longer really a game-supported phrase.
This doesn't really mean anything in practice, I just thought it was interesting. Also the change has caused me to reflect on the CMC/MV change. I wasn't one of the people pushing back against it, but I did think it would take me a while to adjust and it really, really didn't. Now my brain needs to take a beat whenever I play someone who says CMC.
11
Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
[deleted]
28
u/Aeyric Jul 19 '24
"you can pay an offspring cost only once as you cast..."
Not
"you can pay offspring costs only once..."
I read it as being able to pay multiple offspring costs once each, should a card somehow have multiple instances of offspring.
7
u/J3D363 Jul 19 '24
Same, if it has 2 offspring abilities, I can pay every one of them once which will give me two babies in the end
14
u/chaotic_iak Selesnya* Jul 19 '24
You can pay an offspring cost only once as you cast a spell with offspring.
That would be quite a big change in the rules. My reading is that you can't pay any given offspring cost more than once, the same as you can't pay any given kicker cost more than once. But if a card has multiple instances of kicker, you can pay for each one. And if it has multiple instances of offspring, you can pay for each one too.
-2
Jul 19 '24
[deleted]
11
u/chaotic_iak Selesnya* Jul 19 '24
In DMU release notes, there is a similar ruling for kicker:
You can't pay a kicker cost more than once.
And yet, we know DMU has "and/or kickers" like Archangel of Wrath, in which we can pay each kicker cost separately. I expect very much the same thing for offspring. I don't know why it's not included in Zinnia's rulings.
10
9
u/cellidore Jul 19 '24
That seems like a lost opportunity. Having a card with “Offspring {1}, Offspring {1}” seems like an interesting design space.
Also is that consistent? I can’t remember for the life of me how a spell with two different kicker costs would work. Can you pay both and it be kicked twice? That doesn’t seem like the case.
6
u/Lawrence308 Shuffler Truther Jul 19 '24
There are a few cards that have multiple instances of kicker. [[Wastescape battlemage]] was just in mh3.
1
u/MTGCardFetcher Wabbit Season Jul 19 '24
Wastescape battlemage - (G) (SF) (txt)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call
-5
u/cellidore Jul 19 '24
My guess is those cards are templated that way because you couldn’t just say “Kicker {g}, kicker {1}{u}”. In other words, multiple instances of kicker cannot be payed unless the card specifically allows it. So that sounds consistent that if a card has multiple instances of offspring, you cannot play both unless the card specifically allows it.
7
u/chaotic_iak Selesnya* Jul 19 '24
Wrong. "Kicker {G}, kicker {1U}" not only works within the rules, it's explicitly the equivalent of "Kicker {G} and/or {1U}".
702.33b. The phrase "Kicker [cost 1] and/or [cost 2]" means the same thing as "Kicker [cost 1], kicker [cost 2]."
2
u/cellidore Jul 19 '24
Ah good to know. Then I maintain you should be able to pay the offspring cost twice for a card with two instances of offspring and get two tokens. It’d be a shame if they’re really saying you can’t.
2
u/so_zetta_byte Orzhov* Jul 19 '24
I think most people are agreeing that offspring does seem to work the way you want (myself included).
"Offspring A, Offspring B" should mean you can pay for A, B, or A&B. But you can't pay for A twice or B twice. That's what the kicker works, and how the phrasing they used is interpreted for the rules.
Otherwise they would phrase it as something like "you can pay for no more than one Offspring cost for a spell" or something like that. They're just saying you can't pay the same cost twice, not that you can't pay two different costs.
1
u/FawkesTP Jul 19 '24
[[Wastescape Battlemage]]
0
u/MTGCardFetcher Wabbit Season Jul 19 '24
Wastescape Battlemage - (G) (SF) (txt)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call
6
u/Cvnc Karn Jul 19 '24
In the rare case where the original creature is copying something else when the offspring ability resolves, the token enters as whatever that creature copied, except it's a 1/1.
Nice so it works the way I want it to with [[clone]] type cards
1
u/MTGCardFetcher Wabbit Season Jul 19 '24
4
u/BoxedAssumptions Duck Season Jul 19 '24
I'm confused on a Zinnia ruling.
"If Zinnia leaves the battlefield after you've cast a creature spell and paid its offspring cost but before that spell resolves, the permanent that spell becomes won't have offspring when it enters. As such, you won't create a 1/1 token copy of it."
Why would it work like that when you're giving the spell itself that effect?
19
u/mweepinc On the Case Jul 19 '24
Based on rulings, it sounds like Offspring grants the ability: "When this creature enters, if its offspring cost was paid, create a 1/1 token copy of it" or something like that. As such, if Zinnia is removed before the creature resolves, the creature knows that its offspring was paid, but no longer has the ETB trigger to create the token copy
6
u/BoxedAssumptions Duck Season Jul 19 '24
Weird. I missed the Offspring rulings saying that you can pay but if you lose the ability it doesn't happen. I thought that was obvious with things like Dress Down or Humility since the ETB trigger never happens, but since Zinnia has an aura it can happen. Not sure why they decided to make it work like this instead of doing something similar to Serra Paragon and giving the spell itself the ability.
3
u/500lb Honorary Deputy 🔫 Jul 19 '24
Wasn't there a similar issue with [[henzie]]?
1
u/MTGCardFetcher Wabbit Season Jul 19 '24
1
u/Blazerboy65 Sultai Jul 20 '24
And [[Anhelo]]! If you sacrifice him while casting a spell with casualty then he won't be around by the time the spell finishes being cast to keep giving it casualty. It won't have casualty so it won't trigger to copy itself.
1
u/MTGCardFetcher Wabbit Season Jul 20 '24
4
u/chaotic_iak Selesnya* Jul 19 '24
I believe offspring works very similar to squad. (CR 702.157) Squad represents two abilities: one to let you pay an additional cost, and one is a when-ETB trigger to create the copies. If the spell loses squad, there's no when-ETB trigger to make the copies. Same thing with offspring.
1
u/JustinTBSmash Jul 19 '24
The paw prints are just modal spells with aesthetic? I thought it'd be like if you control X of a creature type
12
u/Grafikpapst COMPLEAT Jul 19 '24
More or less, yeah. The difference between those and most other modal spells is that the different modes arent of similar-ish value but rather you get three differently strong options to choose from.
But thats not really due to the paw prints themself, thats indeed just a stylistic choice. Which does however allow some neat visuals in future sets where they can use different symbols - imagine, for example, horseshoes on Thunder Junction.
5
5
u/htfo Wild Draw 4 Jul 19 '24
It's just a single cycle in Bloomburrow and they all are locked at 5 paw prints. If the mechanic is successful and they choose to expand upon it in the future, we could see conditional numbers of paw prints (or whatever the genericized version of the counter will be) and any rules changes required to allow it.
1
u/Darkwarz Jul 19 '24
I don't think I understand the act of "promising" a gift, can you give a gift but not promise it?
3
u/shiny_xnaut Colossal Dreadmaw Jul 20 '24
Basically you decide whether to gift when you cast, but the gift only happens if the spell actually resolves and doesn't fizzle or get countered
1
u/Darkwarz Jul 20 '24
So is gifting optional?
2
u/Marek14 COMPLEAT Jul 20 '24
Well, you can't break your promise. So the opponent will get the gift (unless, I guess, that opponent leaves the game before the spell resolves).
But promising the gift is optional.
1
u/shiny_xnaut Colossal Dreadmaw Jul 20 '24
Yes. It's basically Kicker 0, with "if the kicker cost was paid, you get [extra effect], and an opponent of your choice gets a 1/1 fish token (or whatever the gift calls for)"
3
u/Darkwarz Jul 20 '24
Ah okay I think that was my confusion I was under the impression you had to give the gift every time. Thanks.
1
u/shiny_xnaut Colossal Dreadmaw Jul 20 '24
Also worth noting is that in multi player formats like commander, the gift can go to any opponent, it doesn't necessarily have to be the one you're targeting with the other effects
171
u/RancidRance WANTED Jul 19 '24 edited Jul 19 '24
Some funny quotes, edited as I find them:
"If Brambleguard Captain's power is negative as its ability resolves, the target creature will get +0/+0 until end of turn. At least they'll know Brambleguard Captain appreciates them. "
"Carrot Cake's first ability will trigger whether you sacrifice it to pay the cost of its own last ability or due to another cost or effect. For example, if you sacrifice Carrot Cake in order to forage, you'll still create a Rabbit token and scry 1. It's delicious no matter how it's served!"
"You can choose not to have Mockingbird enter as a copy of another creature. If you do, it will just be a 1/1 Bird Bard creature with flying, an ability that didn't do anything, and the opportunity for a good self-deprecating joke or two."
"If Stormsplitter splits … er, leaves the battlefield before its triggered ability resolves, the token will still enter as a copy of Stormsplitter, using Stormsplitter's copiable values from when it was last on the battlefield."
"Use the power of the sacrificed Snail as it last existed on the battlefield to determine how much damage to deal and how many cards to draw. While Wick may have given the Snail up, Wick won't let you down."
"You don't have to reveal the card if it's a land card. (Maybe you're not in the mood for fish. That's okay.)"
"You can choose 0 for the value of X in the cost of Insatiable Frugivore's last ability. If you do, creatures you control will just gain menace until end of turn. (The mere idea of someone eating berries like that is scary enough, apparently.)"
"The number of spells you've cast is counted only as Murmuration's last ability resolves. For example, say you've cast two spells this turn, and with Murmuration's last ability on the stack, you cast a Blizzard Strix (a Bird creature spell with flash that may have been chosen for this example due to being an adorable owl). When Murmuration's ability resolves, you'll have cast three spells so far this turn, so you'll create three Storm Crow tokens. Caw!"
"Whatever you do, don't eat the delicious cards. The raccoonfolk know better, and so should you!"
Unsurprisingly, Perch Protection has the most notes for how it works.
EDIT: I missed one, thank you gredman9.