Parallax Wave
David Weinlick
Parallax Wave
2WW
Enchantment
Fading 5
Remove a fade counter from Parallax Wave: Remove target creature from
the game. That card remains removed from the game as long as Parallax
Wave remains in play.
or...one similar to Coffin Queen?
Parallax Wave
2WW
Enchantment
Fading 5
Remove a fade counter from Parallax Wave: Remove target creature from
the game. Return that creature to play when you don't control Parallax
Wave.
I'm just trying to explore some potential solutions and understand why
they do or do not work.
--
David Weinlick
<da...@tcinternet.net>--<fus...@tcinternet.net>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2383/
Laurie Cheers
> Remove a fade counter from Parallax Wave: Remove target creature from
> the game. That card remains removed from the game as long as Parallax
> Wave remains in play.
Hmm... there don't actually exist any cards that have a "zone change
with a duration" of the sort you're trying to create here. I foresee
problems if this went ahead.
> or...one similar to Coffin Queen?
>
> Remove a fade counter from Parallax Wave: Remove target creature from
> the game. Return that creature to play when you don't control
> Parallax Wave.
Yes, that works. (...to play **under its owner's control** when you...)
> I'm just trying to explore some potential solutions and understand why
> they do or do not work.
The second one will certainly prevent the "rfg creatures permanently"
abuse. Of course, it doesn't stop the "Opalescence lets you rfg PWave
indefinitely" abuse though.
Another wording that works:
Remove a fade counter from ~: If ~ hasn't left play, remove target
creature from the game.
When ~ leaves play, return...
--
Laurie Cheers (lrc...@york.ac.uk)
Only fools can't see
the emperor's new .sig:
David Weinlick
> David Weinlick wrote:
> > Remove a fade counter from Parallax Wave: Remove target creature from
> > the game. That card remains removed from the game as long as Parallax
> > Wave remains in play.
>
> Hmm... there don't actually exist any cards that have a "zone change
> with a duration" of the sort you're trying to create here. I foresee
> problems if this went ahead.
Good point. It seems that this concern is the same one that led Waylay to
be written as a triggered ability, and subsequently to cause such an
uproar.
> > or...one similar to Coffin Queen?
> >
> > Remove a fade counter from Parallax Wave: Remove target creature from
> > the game. Return that creature to play when you don't control
> > Parallax Wave.
>
> Yes, that works. (...to play **under its owner's control** when you...)
>
> > I'm just trying to explore some potential solutions and understand why
> > they do or do not work.
>
> The second one will certainly prevent the "rfg creatures permanently"
> abuse. Of course, it doesn't stop the "Opalescence lets you rfg PWave
> indefinitely" abuse though.
I'm not sure how that is abuse. If the creatures come back, but PWave
doesn't, is that really a problem? Perhaps I'm missing something.
> Another wording that works:
>
> Remove a fade counter from ~: If ~ hasn't left play, remove target
> creature from the game.
> When ~ leaves play, return...
I like the simplicity, and it really aims right at the actual problem.
Ingo Warnke
: > The second one will certainly prevent the "rfg creatures permanently"
: > abuse. Of course, it doesn't stop the "Opalescence lets you rfg PWave
: > indefinitely" abuse though.
: I'm not sure how that is abuse. If the creatures come back, but PWave
: doesn't, is that really a problem? Perhaps I'm missing something.
The creatures come back but are sick, so you could make all of his
creatures (or at least those without haste) unable to attack forever.
Ingo Warnke
David DeLaney
>Hmm... there don't actually exist any cards that have a "zone change
>with a duration" of the sort you're trying to create here.
And bethmo says this is a Not Going To Be Done Ever thing, also; quote -
"We very very definitely do not want zone changes
happening as part of a continuous effect. Zone changes should always be a
discrete event, part of the resolution of a spell or ability."
It's bad enough we have things like Old Man of the Sea, where -controller-
depends on continuous changes in power...
>Another wording that works:
>
>Remove a fade counter from ~: If ~ hasn't left play, remove target
>creature from the game.
>When ~ leaves play, return...
This stops the "remove them forever" combo. It does _not_ stop the combo
with Opalescence & Kyren Negotiations, however; you need some way to
not have it regain fading counters, or some other trick, to get around
the "it removes itself and immediately reappears with five more fade counters"
problem.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Ingo Warnke
: This stops the "remove them forever" combo. It does _not_ stop the combo
: with Opalescence & Kyren Negotiations, however; you need some way to
Wasn't the policy "2 card 'I win' combos are bad", but "3 card 'I win'
combos are OK"? Endrung Renewal + Goblin Bombardement + 0cc creature
is a 'good combo', but certainly not so dominating that we need to worry
about it. It looks like Opalescence + Parallax Wave + Kyren Negotiants is
a similiar but more expensive combo.
Ingo Warnke
David Chapman
news:86p1ab$dec$1...@penn.dii.utk.edu...
> This stops the "remove them forever" combo. It does _not_ stop the combo
> with Opalescence & Kyren Negotiations, however; you need some way to
> not have it regain fading counters, or some other trick, to get around
> the "it removes itself and immediately reappears with five more fade
counters"
> problem.
How about something like the free spell errata?
"If Parallax Wave comes into play from your hand, it gains Fading:5 when it
comes into play."
Or even, "Fading:0. If Parallax Wave comes into play from your hand, put 5
fade counters on it when it comes into play."
--
I was always going to be something someday.
And eventually, they're going to find out what it is.
Justin Sexton
>
> David DeLaney (d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu) wrote:
> : This stops the "remove them forever" combo. It does _not_ stop the combo
> : with Opalescence & Kyren Negotiations, however; you need some way to
>
> combos are OK"? Endrung Renewal + Goblin Bombardement + 0cc creature
> is a 'good combo', but certainly not so dominating that we need to worry
> about it. It looks like Opalescence + Parallax Wave + Kyren Negotiants is
> a similiar but more expensive combo.
to put into a Replenish-based deck. Replenish is already very dominant.
Perhaps giving it another I win combo (also one that's less disruptable)
is too unbalancing. This is just a WAG, as I don't play Replenish.
--
Justin Sexton
"Heavens! The Scarlet Puh-puh-puh-pumpernickel!"
-Sylvester
address munged - prune foliage to reply
David Weinlick
Why wouldn't they recover from summoning sickness on the following turn?
David Weinlick
> David DeLaney (d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu) wrote:
> : This stops the "remove them forever" combo. It does _not_ stop the combo
> : with Opalescence & Kyren Negotiations, however; you need some way to
>
> Wasn't the policy "2 card 'I win' combos are bad", but "3 card 'I win'
> combos are OK"? Endrung Renewal + Goblin Bombardement + 0cc creature
> is a 'good combo', but certainly not so dominating that we need to worry
> about it. It looks like Opalescence + Parallax Wave + Kyren Negotiants is
> a similiar but more expensive combo.
I think that the DCI has come to accept that combos will be pretty strong in
Extended, but that Standard should not be so dominated. Perhaps this would
be another reason for potential concern.
It seems to me that the free spell errata would be appropriate. It has
precedent, and seems to stop the overpowered capability of PWave.
David Weinlick
> > Wasn't the policy "2 card 'I win' combos are bad", but "3 card 'I win'
> > combos are OK"? Endrung Renewal + Goblin Bombardement + 0cc creature
> > is a 'good combo', but certainly not so dominating that we need to worry
> > about it. It looks like Opalescence + Parallax Wave + Kyren Negotiants is
> > a similiar but more expensive combo.
>
> I would imagine that as all three are enchantments, they are even easier
> to put into a Replenish-based deck. Replenish is already very dominant.
> Perhaps giving it another I win combo (also one that's less disruptable)
> is too unbalancing. This is just a WAG, as I don't play Replenish.
Many of the problems that we're facing, including the dominance of Replenish
(and the once T2 Pande-Plescence), have their source in Opalescence. IMO, it
was just stupid to print the card as is. Perhaps if it had been closer to
Titania's Song, which removed artifact abilities when it made them creatures,
we would not be facing all of these headaches. There certainly wouldn't be an
entire rulings archive regarding Opalescence-Humility insanity.
Laurie Cheers
> Ingo Warnke wrote:
> > David Weinlick (fus...@tcinternet.net) wrote:
> > : > The second one will certainly prevent the "rfg creatures
> > : > permanently" abuse. Of course, it doesn't stop the "Opalescence
> > : > lets you rfg PWave indefinitely" abuse though.
> >
> > : I'm not sure how that is abuse. If the creatures come back, but
> > : PWave doesn't, is that really a problem? Perhaps I'm missing
> > : something.
> >
> > The creatures come back but are sick, so you could make all of his
> > creatures (or at least those without haste) unable to attack
> > forever.
>
> Why wouldn't they recover from summoning sickness on the following
> turn?
Because on the following turn, you RFG them again with PWave, and then
RFG the PWave itself to put more counters on it.
Laurie Cheers
> Many of the problems that we're facing, including the dominance of
> Replenish (and the once T2 Pande-Plescence), have their source in
> Opalescence. IMO, it was just stupid to print the card as is.
> Perhaps if it had been closer to Titania's Song, which removed
> artifact abilities when it made them creatures, we would not be facing
> all of these headaches. There certainly wouldn't be an entire rulings
> archive regarding Opalescence-Humility insanity.
Hmm...
Hu + 2x Op with this version of Op. Ops depend on each other (because
each can remove the other's abilities) and on Hu (which can also remove
their abilities). Hu depends on both Ops (because each can remove Hu's
abilities, as well as changing the set of creatures in play.)
So we have a locked dependancy loop.
Hu Op Op: Enchantments, except for the first Op, are X/X creatures
without abilities. Creatures are 1/1 without abilities.
Op Hu Op / Op Op Hu: Enchantments, except for the first Op, are X/X
creatures without abilities. Creatures are X/Y with normal abilities.
You're right, it is simpler.
David DeLaney
>David DeLaney (d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu) wrote:
>: This stops the "remove them forever" combo. It does _not_ stop the combo
>: with Opalescence & Kyren Negotiations, however; you need some way to
>
>combos are OK"? Endrung Renewal + Goblin Bombardement + 0cc creature
>is a 'good combo', but certainly not so dominating that we need to worry
>about it. It looks like Opalescence + Parallax Wave + Kyren Negotiants is
>a similiar but more expensive combo.
Apparently playtesting, once they were notified it Was There, figured out
that such decks would be dominant over everything else, or some such. They
Don't Want It To Work.
_Some_ three-card combos are not-to-worry about ... but given the events of
the last year or two - Tolarian Madness, Bargain Basement Days, etc. ... they
may (or may not - I'm not in the loop there) be paying a bit more attention
to them.
David DeLaney
>Ingo Warnke wrote:
>> David Weinlick (fus...@tcinternet.net) wrote:
>> : > The second one will certainly prevent the "rfg creatures permanently"
>> : > abuse. Of course, it doesn't stop the "Opalescence lets you rfg PWave
>> : > indefinitely" abuse though.
>> : I'm not sure how that is abuse. If the creatures come back, but PWave
>> : doesn't, is that really a problem? Perhaps I'm missing something.
>> The creatures come back but are sick, so you could make all of his
>> creatures (or at least those without haste) unable to attack forever.
>Why wouldn't they recover from summoning sickness on the following turn?
Because he does it again during that player's next turn's upkeep.
David DeLaney
>IMO, it
>was just stupid to print the card as is. Perhaps if it had been closer to
>Titania's Song, which removed artifact abilities when it made them creatures,
>we would not be facing all of these headaches. There certainly wouldn't be an
>entire rulings archive regarding Opalescence-Humility insanity.
Well, it's certainly too late now ... and it waas apparently too late even
when I first said, approximately, "EEEYIKES! I hope this card I saw in the
spoiler from mtgnews -removes their abilities-..." That was the only card
that actually caught my eye and dragged it to a full stop as I went down
that list the first time through.
David Chapman
> fus...@tcinternet.net writes:
> >IMO, it
> >was just stupid to print the card as is. Perhaps if it had been closer
to
> >Titania's Song, which removed artifact abilities when it made them
creatures,
> >we would not be facing all of these headaches. There certainly wouldn't
be an
> >entire rulings archive regarding Opalescence-Humility insanity.
>
> Well, it's certainly too late now ... and it waas apparently too late even
> when I first said, approximately, "EEEYIKES!
So what's it going to be? Errata for Opalescence, or banning Replenish?
Mat Brown
> This stops the "remove them forever" combo. It does _not_ stop the combo
> with Opalescence & Kyren Negotiations, however; you need some way to
> the "it removes itself and immediately reappears with five more fade
counters"
> problem
I posted a card text to fix this on MtG-L. Now that I have reliable access
to this newsgroup, I'll post it here too. It was inspired by the current
wording for Oubliette. Please tell me what you think.
Parallax Wave
2WW, Enchantment, Rare
Fading 5
Remove a fade counter from Parallax Wave: target creature phases out. That
creature cannot phase in as long as Parallax Wave remains in play. When
Parallax Wave leaves play, all cards phased out by Parallax Wave phase in.
This fixes the remove forever problem.
This fixes getting more counters.
This will bring the creatures back with Haste, but they will maintain their
state of tapped or not, so that will make it better in some situations,
worse in others, but I don't think broken, and this seems (to me) an
acceptable price to fix the other problems.
The one problem I see with this, and it is a big one, is that it uses an
"obsolete" ability.
My hope is that the spoiler text is in error, and nothing that broken made
it to press. However, if it did, I think that text would un-break the card,
while maintaining the spirit of the card. While it does use an obsolete
ability, it is an ability that does already exist in Magic.
Mat Brown
matb...@nidlink.com
http://www.nidlink.com/~matbrown/
Opinions expressed above are mine, but you're encouraged to share them.
Disclaimer: Any errors in spelling, tact, or fact are transmission errors.
David Chapman
news:873g4...@enews1.newsguy.com...
I can see an even bigger problem; the creatures removed by Parallax Wave
will then return to play at the beginning of their controller's next turn.
And contrary to what you claim, it will return them untapped (unless they
normally don't untap).
The idea of the Wave is to remove creatures for a length of time which is
determined by how many creatures you remove. Your fix removes all the
strategy from the card.
Mat Brown
> "Mat Brown" <matb...@nidlink.com> wrote in message
> > 2WW, Enchantment, Rare
> > Fading 5
> > Remove a fade counter from Parallax Wave: target creature phases out.
That
> > creature cannot phase in as long as Parallax Wave remains in play. When
> > Parallax Wave leaves play, all cards phased out by Parallax Wave phase
in.
>
> will then return to play at the beginning of their controller's next
turn.
Wrong. Notice the phrase, "That creature cannot phase in as long as
Parallax Wave remains in play." This wording comes from Oubliette, and is
also used on Tawnos's Coffin, and it works quite well on both of those.
> And contrary to what you claim, it will return them untapped (unless they
> normally don't untap).
Wrong again. Here's a quote from D'Angelo's General Rulings Summary:
G.27.7 - Permanents "phase in" in the same tap/untap state they were when
they phased out. [Mirage, Page 2]
Most people don't realize this since permanents usually phase in at the
beginning of Untap.
> The idea of the Wave is to remove creatures for a length of time which is
> determined by how many creatures you remove. Your fix removes all the
> strategy from the card.
Still wrong. If you try the remove forever trick, the creatures you remove
will phase back in at the beginning of their controller's Untap since the
Parallax Wave that phased them out is no longer in play to keep them from
phasing in. If, however, you don't do that, and just leave the Parallax
Wave in play, it will keep them phased out until you cannot remove a
counter and are forced to sacrifice the Parallax Wave, just like it does
now.
David Chapman
> > I can see an even bigger problem; the creatures removed by Parallax Wave
> > will then return to play at the beginning of their controller's next
> turn.
>
> Wrong. Notice the phrase, "That creature cannot phase in as long as
> Parallax Wave remains in play." This wording comes from Oubliette, and is
> also used on Tawnos's Coffin, and it works quite well on both of those.
>
OK, I missed that line.
> > And contrary to what you claim, it will return them untapped (unless
they
> > normally don't untap).
>
> Wrong again. Here's a quote from D'Angelo's General Rulings Summary:
>
> G.27.7 - Permanents "phase in" in the same tap/untap state they were when
> they phased out. [Mirage, Page 2]
>
> Most people don't realize this since permanents usually phase in at the
> beginning of Untap.
>
My mistake; I didn't feel it necessary to mention that the creatures will
promptly untap before anyone gets priority, as it's totally obvious to
anyone with a brain.
David DeLaney
>> Parallax Wave
>> 2WW, Enchantment, Rare
>> Fading 5
>> Remove a fade counter from Parallax Wave: target creature phases out. That
>> creature cannot phase in as long as Parallax Wave remains in play. When
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Parallax Wave leaves play, all cards phased out by Parallax Wave phase in.
>
>will then return to play at the beginning of their controller's next turn.
Um - see above. Mat -did- include the text necessary to deal with that, just
like Oubliette and Tawnos' Coffin do.
>And contrary to what you claim, it will return them untapped (unless they
>normally don't untap).
No. Cards that phase in remember whether they were tapped or untapped,
and phase back in in the same position. If they phase back in "normally",
they return just -before- the mass untap, and untap; if they phase back
in at other times (or under another player's control), this doesn't help them.
David DeLaney
>I posted a card text to fix this on MtG-L. Now that I have reliable access
>to this newsgroup, I'll post it here too. It was inspired by the current
>wording for Oubliette. Please tell me what you think.
>Parallax Wave >2WW, Enchantment, Rare
>Fading 5
>Remove a fade counter from Parallax Wave: target creature phases out. That
>creature cannot phase in as long as Parallax Wave remains in play. When
>Parallax Wave leaves play, all cards phased out by Parallax Wave phase in.
That is, essentially, the way I would have fixed it....
>The one problem I see with this, and it is a big one, is that it uses an
>"obsolete" ability.
...which is apparently a big enough problem to have it not be Usable. But I
appreciate the support. (And yes, this would fix all the 'broken' parts of
the card - phased-out stuff will eventually phase in on its own unless
something prevents that, after all...)
Laurie Cheers
> I was always going to be something someday.
But now I wish I'd been a little more specific.
David Chapman
> "David Chapman" <sent...@globalnet.co.uk> writes:
> >> Parallax Wave
> >> 2WW, Enchantment, Rare
> >> Fading 5
> >> Remove a fade counter from Parallax Wave: target creature phases out.
That
>
> >> creature cannot phase in as long as Parallax Wave remains in play. When
> >> Parallax Wave leaves play, all cards phased out by Parallax Wave phase
in.
> >
> >will then return to play at the beginning of their controller's next
turn.
>
> Um - see above. Mat -did- include the text necessary to deal with that,
just
> like Oubliette and Tawnos' Coffin do.
>
> >And contrary to what you claim, it will return them untapped (unless they
> >normally don't untap).
>
> No. Cards that phase in remember whether they were tapped or untapped,
> and phase back in in the same position. If they phase back in "normally",
> they return just -before- the mass untap, and untap; if they phase back
> in at other times (or under another player's control), this doesn't help
them.
But it was an error concomitant with having missed that line.
--
I was always going to be something someday.
David DeLaney
>David Chapman wrote:
>> I was always going to be something someday.
>
Cheer up, everyone; Oracle's been updated again. (And in a few days they'll
be putting the Nemesis Oracle up also...)
Dave "still only the Extended sets though" DeLaney
David Welsh
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>... and one PW can still remove -another- to 'reset' it - but
you can't
>get a loop, because if you try, at least one PW won't be in
play when =its=
>ability resolves, causing the ability to do nothing.
>
You *can* get a loop but it requires 3 PW and an Opalescence.
PW1 removes PW3. PW2 removes PW1. Return PW3. PW3 removes PW2.
Return PW1, etc. Since the unbounded combo is now 5 cards
instead of 3 (including the Angelic Chorus or whatever other
effect you want to achieve) this would seem to solve the problem.
David Welsh
---
"Everyone is more or less master of his own fate."
AEsop
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Laurie Cheers
> the "Baroken Combos" with PW/Opalescence won't work with the Errata.
However, I note that a (considerably less baroken) combo with
Opalescence and _two_ PWs still works.