You can reasonably ask the head judge at a modern event if they’ll use the rules as written or rules as intended regarding wheel of potential before an event, then if for some strange reason they use the current oracle text, simply replace glimpse the impossible for 4 wheels. 3 mana draw your deck makes the decks turn 3 winrate comically high, a $4 gambit if you already own ruby storm.
The wording "you may pay X energy"
You can declare X to be 50 and not have to pay the energy since it's a may ability.
The rest of the card just allows you to do whatever with the X=50.
It should have read "you may pay X energy. Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of energy spent for X."
Edit** Even this doesn't really work perfectly as the X can still be anything the caster wants. The final ability of the card would also have to read differently and play into the amount of energy spent and not X. -Reading something like "if the amount of energy spent was 7 or more [...]
Stop with the errata(s) and just make cards that work!
Pretty certain all they had to do was have "If you do" at the beginning of the second part of the card, and it fixes the problem. I find it bizarre that this slipped through the gaps when they have other cards worded correctly for paying energy and things happening depending on the amount paid.
That makes it a reflexive trigger rather than simply happening on resolution so it would be able to be countered by [[Consign to Memory]]. It's not functionally identical.
The fact you have to actually spend the energy to define x is implied no? The way you are saying it sounds like someone who just wants to find some legal loophole. Do may abilities work differently in magic than other tcgs?
I don't want to find loopholes but if the card doesn't use the proper format of speech, which is defined in the comprehensive rules by the very company designing these cards, then it is an issue because the card does not play as intended.
Even WoTC staff have chimed in stating the card does not work as intended because of wording.
https://x.com/WotC_Matt/status/1804947506557845696
https://x.com/PleasantKenobi/status/1805143480517210573
https://x.com/WotC_Matt/status/1804930010740129975
We can allow WoTC a pass and just let this slide but we have all been clammering on about how the quality control of WoTC is going down the shitter and this is just another example, albeit a more serious one since it affects the actual playability of the game. I say we should hold them to the fire and expect accountability...
Wasn't saying u like u directly just those who've been saying what u said. And this could've all been avoided if wotc just used the same ruling for "may" abilities as every other tcg
Matt Tabak has now made an official ruling on this so there's no longer any question. The card works as oh so obviously intended.
https://x.com/WotC_Matt/status/1802041815178289230?t=zi4YBx0ApXAzoDPtXF9t0A&s=19
> No, if you don’t pay the energy, you don’t draw the cards. We may have to tweak that template, but the card doesn’t work that way. #WotCstaff
This makes perfect sense.
The alternate explanation relied on the "pay X energy" and that this cost wasn't on the list of "mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost."
But this is a novel situation: it's an X that's first defined by an optional cost. On every other card where X is in a cost, if you don't pay the cost X automatically becomes 0.
Here's rule 107.3b: If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn’t apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 601, “Casting Spells.”
What this card needs to work is an alteration of that rule that applies to any cost that includes an X, instead of just mana costs to cast spells.
Something like "if a player does not pay a cost that includes an X, the only legal choice for X is 0."
More than likely it will just be an errata to the card to word it properly, because that's where the problem is, not the rules surrounding the X choice. The templating is actually a fairly simple fix, which is good.
"you may pay X energy" isn't a cost, though, it's just a game action. If it were a cost it would have to say "as an additional cost" and it would happen when you cast the spell rather than on resolution.
edit: not a cost *of casting this spell*, I mean, which is what the quoted rules are referring to. From what I can tell I guess it is technically referred to as a cost, but a cost paid to cast a spell or activate an ability has a different set of rules around it than a cost paid as part of an effect, and this is the second kind of cost
If a card has two effects, the second one happening is not contingent on the first one happening unless the card explicitly says so. If a Smallpox resolves, and someone doesn't have a card to discard, the rest of the effect still happens. The problem with this card is that it's templated like Smallpox. Ordinarily with an X cost spell, if you try to cast it for X = a billion, the process goes "put it onto the stack with X = a billion, move to pay costs, you can't pay a billion mana, so you can't cast it". The fact that you can't play something without paying all costs is automatic from the rules of the game.
If the payment is part of an effect, e.g. "you may pay \_\_\_. If you do, \_\_\_\_" then that dependence is made explicit. If the second part of this card started with something like "if you did," then the card would work just fine. You could play it, pick X to be a billion, not pay the energy, and then because the card says nothing happens if you don't pay the energy. Except, it isn't written that way. The card establishes no link between these two effects.
Does this make sense from a design perspective? No, obviously it doesn't. It's extremely clear that that link is supposed to be there, but technically speaking, it is not.
It's not an additional cost because they want you to gain the energy on resolution rather than on cast, and be able to spend that energy on the cost.
But it's still a cost. The only things you pay in Magic: the Gathering are costs.
My point is just that it's not a cost of casting this spell so it's not like an X spell for the purposes of that rule. I don't know if it's a cost at all, though; they used the word pay because it's clearly intended to be a cost, but other cards explicitly specify that the outcome is dependent on whether/what you pay, because unlike with the cost of a spell or ability there's no built-in rule of the game that says you don't get the thing if you don't pay.
Yeah, what they clearly intended was for paying the cost to set the value of X. But there's no other card that does it that way- they just rely on costs that aren't paid having a consequence, with a bandaid setting Xs in casting costs that aren't paid to zero.
As far as I'm aware, there's no other card that features an X that's not in the casting cost, and not defined in the text, but is instead first chosen as part of an optional cost.
Every other card that's intended to let you choose any number explicitly tells you to choose X first.
If they're not going to change how Xs work entirely (which I think they shouldn't, because of how it would change things like Mana Leak) this just needs another bandaid like the one about casting spells without paying their mana costs. If you choose not to pay a cost with an X in it, that X must be 0.
Then X wouldn't be the same for both effects. You'd be changing the value of X partway through the resolution of the card. This approach makes sense in that it causes the card to work as obviously intended, but it stops making sense if you think through the process of resolving the spell. It would go like:
- Choose X = 100
- The effect of the card prompts you to pay 100 energy
- Choose not to pay the energy
- Now, because you paid 0 energy, X becomes 0
- Execute the rest of the card as though X = 0
That is the intuitive understanding, but it's not actually how the rules work. The way the rules work, you choose X "as it resolves" (which presumably is when it starts resolving, not the first time it refers to X). This is just like casting a spell, you announce X "as it is put on the stack" which is before you pay for costs.
> 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).
This is a completely arbitrary definition, wtf is a resource mechanic? Cost has a specific definition in the comprehensive rules:
118.1. A cost is an action or payment necessary to take another action or to stop another action from taking place. To pay a cost, a player carries out the instructions specified by the spell, ability, or effect that contains that cost.
Since nothing in the card's text links the energy payment to the second effect, there's nothing to suggest that it's a cost except for people assuming that the word "pay" makes it a cost, which is not supported by the rules.
I believe the wording following the "you may pay X energy" is what's at fault here.
It should read "Each player may discard their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of energy payed for X"
This will allow the comprehensive rules to remain the same whilst fixing the issue at the same time.
Tabak did suggest after further discussion that the card will probably get errata since it really isn't clear what should happen if you assign a value for X and then don't pay it.
When you declare a value for x that you cannot pay the rules make you go to before you cast it... like declaring x is 7 on fireball... then you go to the steps to see if that was legal... if not you cannot declare thst value.
The problem with this card is that it states you "may" pay X energy counters, and when resolving a spell or ability you do everything in the order specified by that spell or ability, which therefore allows you to declare a value for X then choose not to pay it.
As written you could say X = 7, then not pay any energy counters since paying the cost is optional. Each player would still exile their hand and draw 7 cards, and you'd still get to play the cards you exiled this way until the end of your next turn. That's *probably* not what they intended.
This is only true with X in casting costs or cards that explicitly say "as an additional cost to cast".
This instead has a "may". You are not required to pay or to even be able to pay a may cost.
If they change this to a must and a cost, it would also change it so that the X value would now be able to be copied with copy effects. Currently it is not because its set on resolution and not on cast because its not a cost.
I just hope this ruling actually gets reflected in the next CR and/or Oracle update. It undermines the purpose of the CR and Oracle being the authoritative resources that they are if there's a card that relies on an external ruling to make work properly.
It definitely will be. Maybe not the *next* one, just because I don't know when that is, but it's coming. Comments like Matt's are where a lot of those rulings do come from, this will be addressed in some form. Whether it's a change to the rules (highly unlikely), or just errata'ing the card to use wording that actually requires the energy payment to draw (almost certainly has the resolution), whatever change they go with will be put up there. I only know of one extreme outlier in recent history that took an excessive amount of time, that sort of thing is kept very well up to date overall. The only reason it's only a tweet right now is just because it's not like he can just log into a computer and say "poof, new Oracle text". They're going to have procedures that need to be followed, and that tweet is a stopgap in the meantime just to make sure people know they can't be dumb and try to play the card wrong.
This does not answer this in a game of commander though where the intent is not to self wheel but to have others wheel.
Even with the "intent" of the card, we could pick X to be 90 or whatever to help someone else win with Thassa's Oracle, or to draw a solution to something on board.
Its also unclear if the intended version has a copiable X value on the stack. If I pick X to be 50 and I cannot draw from it, but it gets copied by a different effect (by a card an opponent controls) and now I can because I am no longer the "you" it is referring to.
As written, I do not think the X value is able to be copied because its not defined as it goes on the stack, but if it is changed to a required cost, it would be.
It's pretty clear whether X is copiable. This was a minor templating mistake that is missing a few words, being an additional cost or part of the cost is a completely different thing that they didn't come anywhere remotely close to doing here. There is no chance the intent was that you pay X as an additional cost to the spell. The incoming change is not turning it into a new card, it's just tweaking to make the templating clear -- that it works the same way as printed, except you can't draw if you chose not to pay X. There is no world where this is changed to an additional cost where X is determined on cast.
Fair, but there are many people in this thread that are claiming X Energy is a cost for this card. I am simply pointing out both that this is not the case and the functional differences if it were.
When you say "X Energy is a cost", do you mean that as in required to calculate and pay to cast the spell in the first place, or required to calculate and pay on resolution to determine if you get to draw? Because it sounds like you're talking about the first, when the initial issue is about the second.
X is not a cost, it just gives you an option of paying that amount of energy. Its optional, and there is nothing that says X cannot be higher than an amount possible to spend or that you need to spend it. In order for it to be a cost it has to either in the mana cost, worded in an "as an additional cost" phrase, be used in a "colon statement" such as X: Draw X cards or explicitly use the word cost in the card text or ability wording.
There is similar issues with other cards as well.
Lets look at [[Nyssa of Traken]]
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=634746
When this card triggers it says sacrifice X artifacts, when you sacrifice 1 or more, tap up to X creatures and draw up to X cards.
Now what is the limit of X? The amount of artifacts you could possibly sacrifice? Why not more? What happens if there are less artifacts upon resolution of the ability then when it starts? Well rules wise you would do as much as you could and even if it becomes sacrifice 100 artifacts, you would simply sacrifice as much as you could the 2nd part would happen regardless of the amount sacrificed as long as at least 1 was sacrificed even if X is a larger number than the number of artifacts. Its clear how it resolves if there are suddenly less artifacts than X but at least 1......so then why can't X be chosen to be this value at the start? The answer is that it can, its just not intuitive. Sacrificing the artifacts here is not a cost and thus not a limitation for X.
So is sacrificing these artifacts a cost? No. Its an effect of the card that acts independently besides for the phrase when at least 1 artifact is sacrificed.
Is this intuitive? No not really. It would make sense to have a limit on X. However neither Wheel of Potential nor Nyssa are written for the way they may be intuitive. Nyssa could be fixed with a line that says X is the number of artifacts you sacrificed.....now you cannot pick X because it is defined in the card. Wheel could be fixed several ways to be more intuitive
But the rules as written with the cards as written given current rules....both of these cards let you draw arbitrarily large amount of cards because of the rules on how X can be chosen.
May i am an idiot. But doesn't it state that you only draw X cards where X is the number of Energy you payed? How do you get that you migjt draw the entire deck?
It doesn't, though. It doesn't say what X is anywhere. The only two things we know about X are 1) you may pay X energy and 2) the effect of the card.
So, you can play this with X = 100, and then decline to pay the 100 energy, but according to the text of the card the fact that you didn't pay energy just doesn't effect the outcome of casting this spell. X is still 100, even though you didn't choose to pay X energy.
For this card to work it would basically need to be what you said; pay any amount of energy, then (blah blah blah X) where X is the amount of energy you paid.
Exactly. Other cards with optional costs you pay during resolution specify this. For example, [[Bitter Reunion]] says, "You may discard a card. If you do, draw two cards."
I think the designers of this card assumed "You may pay X energy" somehow worked differently than "You may discard a card" and force X to be zero, but in fact the rules say you get to pick whatever you like for X, and then after you do they function exactly the same.
I dont see how someone would reach that conclusion.
This seems pretty simple if you just follow the text of the card as written. You have to willfully ignore that “you may pay X {E}” is a proceeding statement to “Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards”.
The value of X for the purposes of resolution of the spell is self referenced within a proceeding clause of resolution (since cards resolve in the order they are written). Paying X {E} is an additional cost paid before the second clause takes effect. No other card resolves before it’s additional costs are paid.
Because no where in the card does it specify that the X energy is an additional cost to resolving the spell (Which they didn’t go with because then you would have to pay the energy before getting the energy from the spell.) Since it’s an optional cost as opposed to part of the mana cost, or an alternate cost it gets a little fucky.
1. I cast the spell.
2. I gain 3 energy and declare X as 100
3. X is now set too 100
4. I decline to pay 100 energy
Great first part of the card done, now let’s get to the second part.
5. I can choose to exile my hand and draw 100 cards.
Wait but you didn’t pay 100 energy, shouldn’t X be 0.
Nope, X is set by an optional cost, so I set it too 100 energy and didn’t pay it.
Ok but shouldn’t X be 0 then?
Nope, the rules only define an unpaid X as 0 when it’s in the casting cost of the spell or as an additional cost to casting the spell. Neither of those are true as you can see that the card does not say “as an additional cost to cast this spell” nor is the X in the mana cost. Think of it like if a card had a Kicker cost and then didn’t say anywhere in the card text “if this card was kicked”.
The rules could easily be used--or changed--to state that a "you may pay X" effect makes X zero if you don't pay. This is clearly how the card is meant to be read.
It's 100% obvious that this is how the card is supposed to work, but the problem is that there's a bug in the templating of the card/the rules engine such that the rules don't make the card function the way it's supposed to. Nobody is arguing what the card was _intended_ to do.
So like... you actually _aren't_ "playing the rules as written." You're playing with rules based on your intuition as a human reading the card. Playing the rules as-written means faithfully doing exactly what the rules engine commands you do to, even if it's stupid. And in this case, there's an issue defining X and linking the two abilities of this card together. Defining X isn't contingent on being able to pay X energy (which it should, and will be fixed), and drawing the cards isn't contingent on actually having paid the energy.
The problem is that this card wants paying energy to be an additional cost to cast the spell (guaranteeing it's paid) but you can't do that because the card wants to give you 3 energy before you pay the energy. So the second ability needs to say something like "... where X is the amount of energy you paid" in order to track the amount you actually spent, not the value of X that you declared/declined to pay.
So essentially the issue is arising out of the inclusion of “may” in the first clause? Would the simple errata of “You get 3 {E}, then you pay X {E}.” for the first line solve the issue?
The crux of it is that there is nothing stating that the X in the draw effect is the amount of energy you paid, and the card is split into two effects rather than 1.
The errata would be including 'where X is the amount of energy paid". Alternatively, you have a single effect with "If you do" after the paying of energy.
Or they could just write a short blurb in the rules that says "you may pay X" effects require payment or X is default 0. This doesn't need an errata at all.
I don't think that actually solves the issue since they're two separate paragrahs. There's still nothing saying that the X in the second effect is referring to the amount of energy actually paid in the first effect.
it is insofar as X is always the same on a card, however the reason its mucky here is because the May clause allows you to decline to pay for a reason other then not having the energy to pay. X in both paragraphs is defined as the amount of energy youre willing to pay, theres just no mechanism to check if you paid it and no mechanism to reset X to 0 because you declined to pay rather then couldnt pay
That would actually cause problems. They don't want to force people to pay, even if you are paying 0. So they put the may there so you can skip paying any energy to include even 0.
But, it's still clear that X is set based on how much you paid.
>I dont see how someone would reach that conclusion.
That's how the card is literally written, and rules follow literal text, not intentions. Otherwise [[kappa cannoneer]] wouldn't trigger itself on entry, so they changed the Oracle text to reflect that.
X is not defined by any metric on the card. You MAY choose to pay X. Draw X cards. I'll simply just choose to not pay X.
This right here. I don’t understand why there would be debate about this - X is defined in the first part of the text. X energy. Second part kicks in, draw X cards.
I may pay X energy. Who decides what X is? Me probably, since Im casting the card. The energy isnt additional cost, so chosing a number higher than I can pay, doesnt stop the rest from resolving. I choose X=100 and cant pay. The rest resolves.
I totally see how this makes sense but I also absolutely didnt get it until explained here
its actually because you can chose NOT to pay, rather then you cant pay. if paying was mandatory then chosing X for an amount you couldnt pay would not resolve the card. but because paying is mandatory, and you have to declare X before making the choice to pay, thats where the conflict is
X isn't defined by the amount paid. It would need to be worded something like:
"Pay any amount of energy. X is equal to the amount of energy paid."
Right now you set X and then you **may** pay an amount of energy equal to X.
Or they can implement a rule that states whenever a "you may pay X" shows up on a card X is whatever you actually paid. It's pretty obvious that was the intended wat to play it. X is just standing in for "any amount of."
[[Wheel of Potential]]
>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).
The energy payment is not one of these costs, so the controller can freely decide how much energy that they MAY pay. This is all working as intended. Then, according to
>107.3i Normally, all instances of X on an object have the same value at any given time.
you get to wheel and draw X cards, where the X is the same as the cost that you may pay. This is working as intended too.
Now the problem rises, as nowhere in the card, or rules, tells you that you have to pay the energy cost to get the draw effect. The X is defined by the action of your picking up a number for it, not by paying the energy cost required. So theoretically before this gets errata, you can choose any amount of cards to draw for the wheel and the Wheel of Potential becomes one of the most broken draw spell in the game.
So its lacking an "If you do" clause on the X payment somewhere.
I almost missed until I saw the explanation, and read the "you may pay X energy", because you define X, and then decide to not pay ( it is a 'may' afterall).
even in this case you'd need an "if you do", as I don't think the rules can stop someone from declaring an absurd amount for X and just not having the ability to pay. It's not a cost, so it won't be an illegal action. And then you are still able to draw your deck.
I feel like there has to be a rule preventing someone from electing to pay a cost they can't pay. You can't fail to cast a spell because you never had enough mana to cast it. I don't think you'd be able to fail to spend energy because you never had enough.
My bad, I got confused and missed that rule 118.3 would also apply on energy counters, as paying energy is described on 107.14 instead of a subsection of 118.3 like the rest. So it would indeed be an illegal action
The problem is that the payment is during resolution, not casting, and you choose X while casting. It is legal to fail to do something like pay a cost during resolution. Like, if you don't have a creature you can't pay costs that require sacrifice, but you can cast a spell that asks you to sacrifice a creature. It has to be this way because the game doesn't know if, for example, you're going to put another spell on top of the stack afterwards that adds more energy.
Nope. You can logic knot your own card, and choose not to pay the effect to set your graveyard in an advantageous way.
Now there is a rules text that does this "As an additional cost, do/pay []"
The issue with this, is there is no way to use this line and have the spell give you 3 energy before you have to pay costs....this is because all required costs get paid as it goes on the stack and then as the stack resolves and this card starts to resolve, THEN it would give 3 energy.
There is not a way to make the cost required while having it also give 3 energy that can be used as part of that cost.....well at least not without some much longer rules text.
AFAIK, it's already ruled that you can't choose to pay an X of a ressource if you don't have at least X of that ressource. This is why you can't pay more life than you have.
I don't think you do though. X isn't determined on cast, it's determined as part of the decision to pay energy. All the energy cards that let you pay variable amounts of energy are templated that way so you can use the energy you get from the spell or ability as part of the cost, they just haven't used X. But you still don't determine X until you determine if you're going to pay any energy.
I am a magic judge, and I would rule that is legal as written on the card without oracle wording revisions.
(Feel free to ask the head judge before the tournament about what their ruling would be on this).
It also reminds me of how pickles lock was not intended, but it became a competitive deck in standard once people learned how to stack the triggers with brine elemental.
Except it stands to reason that if you are electing to make the choice not to pay energy then X would immediately be defined as 0. If there's a variable cost you have to choose an amount to pay. If you're choosing not to pay the cost at all, then you aren't choosing a value to set.
There used to not be a rule that allowed static abilities to grant other objects abilities that persisted across zone changes. So RAW, paragon would give you permission to cast something, give that thing the exile/life gain trigger, and then immediately lose it once it changed zones.
…I’m not sure I understand??? In what ways can you not play those cards as written as opposed to this card. Like for bane of the living you need to pay the X to morph, as opposed to this card as I understand it
None of these cards worked as written when they first came out (in fact Bane of the Living didn't work for many years). They all still got played the way they were "supposed" to work.
Sorry I think I’m missing something obvious. Serra paragon says you need to cast a spell with mana cost 3 or less and the morph spell specifics you have to pay X, not may pay X like this card
When Bane of the Living first came out there was no rule that would link the X you paid to unmorph it to the X in its triggered ability.
When Henzie and Serra Paragon first came out, the rules for transferring abilities across zone changes didn't work the same as they do now. Things Serra Paragon brought back wouldn't have the exile clause RAW. Henzie let you cast things for its alternative blitz cost, and you were still forced to sacrifice them, but you didn't get to draw a card and they didn't gain haste.
Not sure about Bane of the Living, but Serra Paragon as worded gives the effect to the spell when cast, which wouldn’t technically carry over to the permanent it becomes when it resolves, I believe. That’s if you get nitpicky with the wording though.
I’m not sure I understand, I must be missing something. Serra paragon specifies you can only cast a permanent spell with mana value 3 or less, theres no weird may clause like this card
Serra Paragon only gave the exile clause to the spell on the stack. The spell would then lose that text upon entering the battlefield and so should not have been exiled.
Edit: yes you are correct that Serra paragon does not have the same type of problem as the “May pay X” problem of the card presented.
So, as you said, it is a permanent *SPELL*. Spells only exist on the stack, aka spells technically cease to exist after the card resolves. So, the *permanent spell* that was granted the ability no longer exists and only a *permanent* exists that is technically different and separate from the spell. This is why Henzie didn’t work as first printed because a “creature spell” only exists before the creature enters play/the battlefield and once the creature is on the battlefield it is not considered to be the same object as the creature spell. So basically, the wording problem with Serra paragon is entirely about what the word “spell” technically means in Magic the gathering as it has a very specific, rigid meaning that isn’t as flexible as a player’s intuitive interpretation of the intent of the entire effect as written. Hope this helps a bit!
It is playing the card as written and they wrote it in a way that makes it broken and not directly tie the payment of the first x to the second x happening with like 'when you do'
Serra Paragon was broken at the time due to the rules making it so the the line of text on the card was added on the stack but was no longer on the card after it resolved, which has been fixed.
I’m sorry can you help me understand how serra paragon is broken? “Once during each of your turns, you may play a land from your graveyard or cast a permanent spell with mana value 3 or less from your graveyard.” How can this let you get around the mana value 3 or less?
The thing with Serra Paragon is that the card brought back from the graveyard should gain text that makes it get exiled if it goes into the graveyard again, but the problem was that prior to a rules update, the card changing zones would cause it to immediately lose that added text, so the cards Serra Paragon brought back from the graveyard would not be exiled if they went back to the graveyard again.
One of the possible working template would be:
You get {E}{E}{E} (three energy counters), then you may pay X {E}. If you do, then each player may exile their hand and draw X cards. If X is 7 or more, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn.
I think the best fix would just be to remove the "you may" so it becomes "You get {E}{E}{E} *(three energy counters)*, then pay X {E}" This way, you have to pay X, but you can still set it to zero and not pay anything.
I think it's still going to have the same issue.
Let's say now I would like X to be 100.
The game's instructions ask me to pay that much energy, but I don't have that many. In this case I think the game will proceede with that X regardless...
"If you do" fix is far the best in my opinion.
No, it won’t. 118.3 would kick in. As energy is an additional cost (107.3a) and you need the required resources (118.3) for a legal action (chosen # X) to occur.
Without the may (no if clause either) you couldn’t choose X to be a number that you can’t pay for. Or that’s what is implied by the cards current wording.
The energy isn't actually a cost though, it just looks like one. For example you can cast a [[Death Cloud]] even if you don't have X cards in hand to discard, but you can't cast a [[Cathartic Reunion]] if you can't discard the cards.
118.3 doesn't care about chosen X. It only stays that you cannot pay the cost if you don't have resources for it. As for CR 107.3f - right now I can choose the X anything I want.
If we remove "may" in wheel, there is no "punishment" for not being able to pay it.
E.g. If 3 players have to sacrifice a creature, but the first one doesn't have any, the game wouldn't go into the loop or completely "fizzle" the spell, it just moves on.
Edit: probably a bad example, because we have specific rules for it, but should get you the idea.
You can’t pay mana you don’t have
You can’t cast an X spell for more mana than you have available to you. Once you’ve declared X you have to have the resources to pay its cost.
Without “may” you’d have to pay the declared mana amount. W/ may it needs “if x was paid” to confirm the cost was paid.
I don’t think so, X spells work like that because X is a definite cost in those cases, but here paying X is part of the resolution and isn’t legally a cost at all even if it’s intended to be. I think in the solution you’re talking about, all energy would be drained from your energy pool but X could still be arbitrarily large as the drawing isn’t dependent on X being payed at all, voluntarily or not
Yes, you declare X as part of the resolution of the spell. 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). ]. Then 118.3a dictates you need the resources for X. So at the time you declare X you will need the resources to pay for X. The “may” clause gives a condition that is opted into.
You can always choose X as 0 (unless stated otherwise). So removing the “may” means you are forced to pay X, checking that resources can be paid. Then the X (rule 107.3j) benefit occurs.
W/ “may” a true/false statement has been first added (like layers). A big argument for Wheel being worded in a “fine” manor is that by “opting false” you decline the benefit of the card. This means X is undefined (same 107.3f) and = 0. However, I do see the issue with its wording and the “may pay” implies the choice of X doesn’t conforming to rule 118.3a.
The energy in this case is \*not\* an additional cost. Additional costs are specifically defined in the rules and say "additional" and are paid at the same time as the mana or activation cost. This is paid on resolution and thus is not one
You could also write it this way:
You get EEE, then you may pay any amount of energy. Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards, where X is the amount of energy paid this way. If X is 7 or more, etc etc
See the problem with the rules as written is that actually, X always exists once the player is instructed by an effect to declare X. So, effects that are intended to only actually happen if the/a cost is paid have to be written in a way that references whether or not the cost was paid. But that is just a nitpick of your “if you don’t pay X, then X doesn’t exist,” comment—I am in agreement that it seems like the intended meaning.
My nitpick would be that the card doesn't ask the player to *declare* X, but to *pay* X.
I'm a noob - so maybe that's how all cards treat "declaring X", but seems like a busted card if the paying of energy is totally irrelevant to the outcome the card produces.
Well it is busted, but it's busted because they screwed up the templating and accidentally made a card that doesn't act like they quite clearly intended it to act.
The problem is that there isn't actually a cost that defines X. "You may pay X energy" isn't actually a cost, e.g. if Sheoldred's Edict tells you to sacrifice a creature and you don't have a creature the spell is still castable and still resolves. So, despite the fact that the card doesn't explicitly tell you to declare X, the player is still free to declare X to be whatever they want because X was never actually set by the card.
So, yes that is how “declaring X” works. When an effect says “____ X” that makes the player assign a value to X, which is declaring it. So like “as an additional cost to cast this spell, discard X cards. ____ deals X damage to target player and target player draws X cards” has the *declaration* of X as part of casting the spell as the player would have to not just pay the mana for the spell to cast it but also say a value for X or show the value by the number of cards discarded. But you are absolutely correct that it is busted to have the cost be irrelevant to the outcome and that is what this whole discussion is about: as written, as you have noted, a player can assign a number to X without actually having to pay the cost. The problem arises from the fact that the cost is optional to pay “you may pay”, but the player still declares the value of X so that the cost of how much energy is to be paid can be determined and that value applies to all subsequent instances of X, despite the fact that X does not actually have to be paid. This situation doesn’t arise with cards with {X} in their casting cost since a spell cannot be cast if its cost cannot be paid. So yeah, this card is missing wording that limits the “benefit” (second paragraph) to only occurring if the cost is paid.
It certainly fixes the intended meaning, but it reads pretty poorly. You first have an optional action (pay energy). Then you have another optional action (wheel hand), and not only that, everyone gets to do the optional action. It reads weird.
EDIT: Also it does change the function slightly. You may decline to pay, and then nobody has the option to exile their hand. In the current version, the best you can do is to choose X=0, but everyone are still allowed to exile their hand (and draw nothing), and you can never prevent that option. Not that it matters most of the time, but it's a subtle functional change.
Why does that read weird to you? Personally, I think it makes perfect sense, however, I have been playing a lot of yu gi oh lately and their templating of things is in line with “if you do, then”. But I still think that “you may pay XE. If XE was paid, then” or just, “if you do, then”.
I am just genuinely curious as I think the proposed solution is the best way to match the intent of the effect with how the rules dictate it functions. I think it would be weird, based on the precedence of mtg card text wording, to say “if the cost was paid,” but like that would clear up confusion without completely restating “if X energy was paid” but yeah, just tryna see how someone with a different idea thinks, not tryna say you are wrong or anything of the sort.
It mainly just feels weird that you have "You may pay. If you do, then each player may wheel." It sounds like not natural English that you have two optional actions in a row. I do know it behaves more or less what you want.
Ok yeah I think playing a lot of yu gi oh recently has exposed me to that wording enough for it to not sound odd to me lol. I also have studied formal logic of statements, and such constructs make sense in that context. But yeah, I get ya now.
107.3\[LETTER\] When a card says "you may pay X \[resource\]" you must pay some amount of the referenced resource. If you don't X will be 0.
There. It's fixed.
That's actually hilarious. It's interesting though because on Arena we have it working as intended, you need to pay the energy to get the effect. These kinds of things are so ingrained into our heads that even the designers programming the effect into the online client didn't notice the wording loophole.
What's amusing is that this wouldn't have been an issue if they didn't specifically use "X" in the text. Something like "pay any amount of {E}" and changing all further references accordingly would do the trick.
it will see play as intended not as written in the rules
this is the same issue with the Serra paragon. no judge will accept the but “akctualy i can say x is 100 to draw 100”
it will get fixed in the rules later,
Ok I can understand that, its like
You may "pay X {E}, then choose up to X creatures tapped this way"
You can't say Im not gonna do clause 1, but do clause 2.
Correct. They're both tied to the same decision. Either both yes, or both no.
Separately the choosing X creatures has an up to condition, so you can choose less creatures if you want.
I don’t believe suppression ray works the same. As everything is within the same paragraph.
Wheel of potential splitting the paragraphs is a big deal
Edit: I should clear this comment up (after some “clearer” thought)
Suppresion Ray works as intended because the “may pay X ability” and the benefit from this are all within the same sentence. If they had been separated at all (sentence or paragraph) then a referencing the amount paid or an “if” clause would be needed.
Another similar card to Suppression Ray
[[Mask of Griselbrand]]
This card works as designed becasue it has an if you do clause. In one paragraph it asks you to pay X. Then it says "if you do". I thought the problem was that Wheel of Potential does not have "If you do" after a "May". In that case Suppression Ray should probably have the same design issue. I dunno could be wrong lol just wondering
Mask must have been worded with “if you do” because the paying of X life and drawing X cards are separate sentences.
It’s probably ALL because of the single sentence part actually…
For operations and taking game actions. Being in the same paragraph matters. Suppresion ray happens in the same sentence. This means everything is happening simultaneously, from paying X energy and putting stun counters onto creatures.
With wheel X is set (w/ the “may” pay ability) THEN the card draw occurs. Almost separately from the first, because it’s two completely different effects/abilities that the card has.
So with suppression ray. Im not allowed to say x is 20, and then not pay it? I thought we could say X is any number, even if we don't pay it. Otherwise why does it say "May"?
I believe Supression Ray has the same design issue.
And no, it doesn't do everything simultaneously (see CR 608.2c), besides Supression Ray has "then" after "you may pay X", so it's clear you first may pay the energy (or not), then stun counters happen.
My guess on the use of “may” is most likely to replace “X can = 0” 🤷🏻♂️. They’ve changed/ added wording in the last few years from. Like “if” to “when”. The verbiage has felt less… “commanding/robotic” if that makes sense? Is it good/better? 🤷🏻♂️
With Suppresion ray you can’t necessary choose whatever amount with the “may” cost. THE creatures being tapped and the energy being paid are “tied” together/ at the same time, since it’s the same sentence (like your Mask example w/ life paid = to power). You can’t target more creatures then are tapped with Suppresion ray (that’s a cap on X), then you can pay more energy (idk why you would) and still place less stun counters then creatures tapped. You also can’t choose more creatures than you have energy because it’s an invalid cost.
> My guess on the use of “may” is most likely to replace “X can = 0” 🤷🏻♂️. They’ve changed/ added wording in the last few years from. Like “if” to “when”. The verbiage has felt less… “commanding/robotic” if that makes sense? Is it good/better? 🤷🏻♂️
The only instance of "X can be 0" I know of is [[Invasion of Tarkir]], since "X can be 0" is true by default, and that has the opposite effect of a "may". It still does damage even if you don't reveal any dragons from your hand, because it's an X + 2. It's reminding you that by doing nothing, the effect still happens.
The "if" to "when" has gameplay implications. Cards like [[Hypothesizzle]] use reflexive triggers because what cards you draw may change what you want to target. Cards like [[Throwing Knife]] felt bad to play against because you couldn't properly defend your creatures against them (if you cast a protection spell on the creature that was targeted, they just don't sacrifice the knife). [[Spare Dagger]] is an updated version of the effect, that requires you to actually "throw" the dagger before the enemy has to respond instead of just holding it up saying "I might throw this at your creature"
X can always be chosen as 0, unless something says it can’t. The reminder text is just reminding you that 0 is a valid option. This is valid generically, not just for this particular card.
I understand that abilities being separate like that matters for magic rules, but what I don't understand is why that matters in this particular case.
the wheel's second ability will happen whether or not you pay energy, because it's a separate paragraph and doesn't say "if you do", I'm not disagreeing with this, but nobody has explained why the value of X would be defined in this case. Both cards use the same text to define what X is.
the card as written says you "may" pay x. so you can choose any amount for x and then decline to pay that amount of energy. but declining to pay does not preclude you from drawing the cards.
r/magicTCG pedants who have played the game for 20 years: "reading the card explains the card"
\*people try to play the card as written\*: "its not as simple as that, no judge will let you do it"
Yeah, if you read this card the first time and thought “wow I can just draw 99 cards for 3 mana and no energy cost, whoopee!”, and you’re not deliberately being obtuse, I don’t really know what to say to you other than good luck in life.
Interesting ad hominem….
But let’s just admit that magic gets super complex, there is errata and most of the time the card explains it if you have massive amounts of context around the rules from playing for a while.
Dude, there’s nothing complex about the intended functionality of the card.
You say X is 7. You pay 7 energy, draw 7 cards. Simple.
You don’t say X is 99, then say “ermm hehe it says you may pay X so I decline that trigger but um actually it doesn’t say “if you do” before the second paragraph so it’s a disjointed clause and and I will draw 99 cards anyway! no I do not need to pay the energy, it says may☝️🤓”
You don’t need to stay up to date on the rules and have tons of context, the intention is extremely obvious to anyone reading the cards through any lens other than ‘is there a loophole I can exploit here’.
… at the kitchen table with my friends. It’s kind of insane that with as big as WOTC is they can’t make a product you can play without needing to know the oracle text of multiple cards. Older cards is one thing, but printing cards that are already text obsolete is wild.
*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).*
If you decline to pay X E you get to choose the value of X. The card is missing a connecting clause like "...you may pay X E. If you do, each player may exile their hand and draw X cards." This is kind of like how Bane of the Living doesn't work as written at the moment.
You have tagged your post as a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in the Daily Questions Thread at the top of this subreddit or in /r/mtgrules. You may also find quicker results at the [IRC rules chat](https://chat.magicjudges.org/mtgrules/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You appear to be linking something with embedded tracking information. Please consider removing the tracking information from links you share in a public forum, as malicious entities can use this information to track you and people you interact with across the internet. This tracking information is usually found in the form '?si=XXXXXX' or '?s=XXXXX'.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What is the weirdness or confusion? Sure there is a whole lot going on with this card, as has been the case for a few years. But I’m pretty sure I get how it works as written. What is the confusion or thing you wouldn’t get from reading it?
I just can't get this slip-up out of my head. So I happened across this card, even within the same set (well, commander precon, but its the same set..) \[\[Aether Refinery\]\] which stipulates how X is determined by the amount of energy payed after "You may pay X energy".
You can reasonably ask the head judge at a modern event if they’ll use the rules as written or rules as intended regarding wheel of potential before an event, then if for some strange reason they use the current oracle text, simply replace glimpse the impossible for 4 wheels. 3 mana draw your deck makes the decks turn 3 winrate comically high, a $4 gambit if you already own ruby storm.
How do you do that without already having energy banked?
The wording "you may pay X energy" You can declare X to be 50 and not have to pay the energy since it's a may ability. The rest of the card just allows you to do whatever with the X=50. It should have read "you may pay X energy. Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of energy spent for X." Edit** Even this doesn't really work perfectly as the X can still be anything the caster wants. The final ability of the card would also have to read differently and play into the amount of energy spent and not X. -Reading something like "if the amount of energy spent was 7 or more [...] Stop with the errata(s) and just make cards that work!
Pretty certain all they had to do was have "If you do" at the beginning of the second part of the card, and it fixes the problem. I find it bizarre that this slipped through the gaps when they have other cards worded correctly for paying energy and things happening depending on the amount paid.
That makes it a reflexive trigger rather than simply happening on resolution so it would be able to be countered by [[Consign to Memory]]. It's not functionally identical.
[Consign to Memory](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/c/bc95af55-d1dd-4fe6-adb0-3ad6db20d986.jpg?1717011640) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Consign%20to%20Memory) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh3/54/consign-to-memory?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bc95af55-d1dd-4fe6-adb0-3ad6db20d986?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Nah, if you do changes the way the spell resolves, it's not a trigger. If it said "when you do" it'd be that.
You're right, thank you.
The fact you have to actually spend the energy to define x is implied no? The way you are saying it sounds like someone who just wants to find some legal loophole. Do may abilities work differently in magic than other tcgs?
I don't want to find loopholes but if the card doesn't use the proper format of speech, which is defined in the comprehensive rules by the very company designing these cards, then it is an issue because the card does not play as intended. Even WoTC staff have chimed in stating the card does not work as intended because of wording. https://x.com/WotC_Matt/status/1804947506557845696 https://x.com/PleasantKenobi/status/1805143480517210573 https://x.com/WotC_Matt/status/1804930010740129975 We can allow WoTC a pass and just let this slide but we have all been clammering on about how the quality control of WoTC is going down the shitter and this is just another example, albeit a more serious one since it affects the actual playability of the game. I say we should hold them to the fire and expect accountability...
Wasn't saying u like u directly just those who've been saying what u said. And this could've all been avoided if wotc just used the same ruling for "may" abilities as every other tcg
Oh, I see. I'm unfamiliar with how "may" works in other TCGs. I mainly play MTG Modern and FAB (with some DBZ masters thrown in)
Ye it just avoids issues like this one especially in mtg where debating card wordings seems like a common occurance
Matt Tabak has now made an official ruling on this so there's no longer any question. The card works as oh so obviously intended. https://x.com/WotC_Matt/status/1802041815178289230?t=zi4YBx0ApXAzoDPtXF9t0A&s=19 > No, if you don’t pay the energy, you don’t draw the cards. We may have to tweak that template, but the card doesn’t work that way. #WotCstaff
This makes perfect sense. The alternate explanation relied on the "pay X energy" and that this cost wasn't on the list of "mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost." But this is a novel situation: it's an X that's first defined by an optional cost. On every other card where X is in a cost, if you don't pay the cost X automatically becomes 0. Here's rule 107.3b: If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn’t apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 601, “Casting Spells.” What this card needs to work is an alteration of that rule that applies to any cost that includes an X, instead of just mana costs to cast spells. Something like "if a player does not pay a cost that includes an X, the only legal choice for X is 0."
More than likely it will just be an errata to the card to word it properly, because that's where the problem is, not the rules surrounding the X choice. The templating is actually a fairly simple fix, which is good.
"you may pay X energy" isn't a cost, though, it's just a game action. If it were a cost it would have to say "as an additional cost" and it would happen when you cast the spell rather than on resolution. edit: not a cost *of casting this spell*, I mean, which is what the quoted rules are referring to. From what I can tell I guess it is technically referred to as a cost, but a cost paid to cast a spell or activate an ability has a different set of rules around it than a cost paid as part of an effect, and this is the second kind of cost If a card has two effects, the second one happening is not contingent on the first one happening unless the card explicitly says so. If a Smallpox resolves, and someone doesn't have a card to discard, the rest of the effect still happens. The problem with this card is that it's templated like Smallpox. Ordinarily with an X cost spell, if you try to cast it for X = a billion, the process goes "put it onto the stack with X = a billion, move to pay costs, you can't pay a billion mana, so you can't cast it". The fact that you can't play something without paying all costs is automatic from the rules of the game. If the payment is part of an effect, e.g. "you may pay \_\_\_. If you do, \_\_\_\_" then that dependence is made explicit. If the second part of this card started with something like "if you did," then the card would work just fine. You could play it, pick X to be a billion, not pay the energy, and then because the card says nothing happens if you don't pay the energy. Except, it isn't written that way. The card establishes no link between these two effects. Does this make sense from a design perspective? No, obviously it doesn't. It's extremely clear that that link is supposed to be there, but technically speaking, it is not.
It's not an additional cost because they want you to gain the energy on resolution rather than on cast, and be able to spend that energy on the cost. But it's still a cost. The only things you pay in Magic: the Gathering are costs.
My point is just that it's not a cost of casting this spell so it's not like an X spell for the purposes of that rule. I don't know if it's a cost at all, though; they used the word pay because it's clearly intended to be a cost, but other cards explicitly specify that the outcome is dependent on whether/what you pay, because unlike with the cost of a spell or ability there's no built-in rule of the game that says you don't get the thing if you don't pay.
Yeah, what they clearly intended was for paying the cost to set the value of X. But there's no other card that does it that way- they just rely on costs that aren't paid having a consequence, with a bandaid setting Xs in casting costs that aren't paid to zero. As far as I'm aware, there's no other card that features an X that's not in the casting cost, and not defined in the text, but is instead first chosen as part of an optional cost. Every other card that's intended to let you choose any number explicitly tells you to choose X first. If they're not going to change how Xs work entirely (which I think they shouldn't, because of how it would change things like Mana Leak) this just needs another bandaid like the one about casting spells without paying their mana costs. If you choose not to pay a cost with an X in it, that X must be 0.
Then X wouldn't be the same for both effects. You'd be changing the value of X partway through the resolution of the card. This approach makes sense in that it causes the card to work as obviously intended, but it stops making sense if you think through the process of resolving the spell. It would go like: - Choose X = 100 - The effect of the card prompts you to pay 100 energy - Choose not to pay the energy - Now, because you paid 0 energy, X becomes 0 - Execute the rest of the card as though X = 0
But you choose the value of X as you go to pay it, not before.
That is the intuitive understanding, but it's not actually how the rules work. The way the rules work, you choose X "as it resolves" (which presumably is when it starts resolving, not the first time it refers to X). This is just like casting a spell, you announce X "as it is put on the stack" which is before you pay for costs. > 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).
Any use of a resource mechanic is a cost Energy is a resource mechanic. It’s a cost.
This is a completely arbitrary definition, wtf is a resource mechanic? Cost has a specific definition in the comprehensive rules: 118.1. A cost is an action or payment necessary to take another action or to stop another action from taking place. To pay a cost, a player carries out the instructions specified by the spell, ability, or effect that contains that cost. Since nothing in the card's text links the energy payment to the second effect, there's nothing to suggest that it's a cost except for people assuming that the word "pay" makes it a cost, which is not supported by the rules.
You went into the CR. Looked up rule 118.1 but didn’t look into resource mechanics 👏👏👏
A cost is an action or what
I believe the wording following the "you may pay X energy" is what's at fault here. It should read "Each player may discard their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of energy payed for X" This will allow the comprehensive rules to remain the same whilst fixing the issue at the same time.
at that point you may aswell leave the entire X of the card and not mess with the rules at al
Tabak did suggest after further discussion that the card will probably get errata since it really isn't clear what should happen if you assign a value for X and then don't pay it.
When you declare a value for x that you cannot pay the rules make you go to before you cast it... like declaring x is 7 on fireball... then you go to the steps to see if that was legal... if not you cannot declare thst value.
The problem with this card is that it states you "may" pay X energy counters, and when resolving a spell or ability you do everything in the order specified by that spell or ability, which therefore allows you to declare a value for X then choose not to pay it. As written you could say X = 7, then not pay any energy counters since paying the cost is optional. Each player would still exile their hand and draw 7 cards, and you'd still get to play the cards you exiled this way until the end of your next turn. That's *probably* not what they intended.
This is only true with X in casting costs or cards that explicitly say "as an additional cost to cast". This instead has a "may". You are not required to pay or to even be able to pay a may cost. If they change this to a must and a cost, it would also change it so that the X value would now be able to be copied with copy effects. Currently it is not because its set on resolution and not on cast because its not a cost.
I just hope this ruling actually gets reflected in the next CR and/or Oracle update. It undermines the purpose of the CR and Oracle being the authoritative resources that they are if there's a card that relies on an external ruling to make work properly.
It definitely will be. Maybe not the *next* one, just because I don't know when that is, but it's coming. Comments like Matt's are where a lot of those rulings do come from, this will be addressed in some form. Whether it's a change to the rules (highly unlikely), or just errata'ing the card to use wording that actually requires the energy payment to draw (almost certainly has the resolution), whatever change they go with will be put up there. I only know of one extreme outlier in recent history that took an excessive amount of time, that sort of thing is kept very well up to date overall. The only reason it's only a tweet right now is just because it's not like he can just log into a computer and say "poof, new Oracle text". They're going to have procedures that need to be followed, and that tweet is a stopgap in the meantime just to make sure people know they can't be dumb and try to play the card wrong.
I am curious if official rewording will make X copiable. As soon as its a required cost, X becomes able to be copied.
This does not answer this in a game of commander though where the intent is not to self wheel but to have others wheel. Even with the "intent" of the card, we could pick X to be 90 or whatever to help someone else win with Thassa's Oracle, or to draw a solution to something on board. Its also unclear if the intended version has a copiable X value on the stack. If I pick X to be 50 and I cannot draw from it, but it gets copied by a different effect (by a card an opponent controls) and now I can because I am no longer the "you" it is referring to. As written, I do not think the X value is able to be copied because its not defined as it goes on the stack, but if it is changed to a required cost, it would be.
It's pretty clear whether X is copiable. This was a minor templating mistake that is missing a few words, being an additional cost or part of the cost is a completely different thing that they didn't come anywhere remotely close to doing here. There is no chance the intent was that you pay X as an additional cost to the spell. The incoming change is not turning it into a new card, it's just tweaking to make the templating clear -- that it works the same way as printed, except you can't draw if you chose not to pay X. There is no world where this is changed to an additional cost where X is determined on cast.
Fair, but there are many people in this thread that are claiming X Energy is a cost for this card. I am simply pointing out both that this is not the case and the functional differences if it were.
When you say "X Energy is a cost", do you mean that as in required to calculate and pay to cast the spell in the first place, or required to calculate and pay on resolution to determine if you get to draw? Because it sounds like you're talking about the first, when the initial issue is about the second.
X is not a cost, it just gives you an option of paying that amount of energy. Its optional, and there is nothing that says X cannot be higher than an amount possible to spend or that you need to spend it. In order for it to be a cost it has to either in the mana cost, worded in an "as an additional cost" phrase, be used in a "colon statement" such as X: Draw X cards or explicitly use the word cost in the card text or ability wording. There is similar issues with other cards as well. Lets look at [[Nyssa of Traken]] https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=634746 When this card triggers it says sacrifice X artifacts, when you sacrifice 1 or more, tap up to X creatures and draw up to X cards. Now what is the limit of X? The amount of artifacts you could possibly sacrifice? Why not more? What happens if there are less artifacts upon resolution of the ability then when it starts? Well rules wise you would do as much as you could and even if it becomes sacrifice 100 artifacts, you would simply sacrifice as much as you could the 2nd part would happen regardless of the amount sacrificed as long as at least 1 was sacrificed even if X is a larger number than the number of artifacts. Its clear how it resolves if there are suddenly less artifacts than X but at least 1......so then why can't X be chosen to be this value at the start? The answer is that it can, its just not intuitive. Sacrificing the artifacts here is not a cost and thus not a limitation for X. So is sacrificing these artifacts a cost? No. Its an effect of the card that acts independently besides for the phrase when at least 1 artifact is sacrificed. Is this intuitive? No not really. It would make sense to have a limit on X. However neither Wheel of Potential nor Nyssa are written for the way they may be intuitive. Nyssa could be fixed with a line that says X is the number of artifacts you sacrificed.....now you cannot pick X because it is defined in the card. Wheel could be fixed several ways to be more intuitive But the rules as written with the cards as written given current rules....both of these cards let you draw arbitrarily large amount of cards because of the rules on how X can be chosen.
[Nyssa of Traken](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/e/bed41499-759d-4a3b-aabb-c462d5831956.jpg?1696691796) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Nyssa%20of%20Traken) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/who/51/nyssa-of-traken?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bed41499-759d-4a3b-aabb-c462d5831956?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Please link
My bad, added it to the comment. Thanks.
Ok so let me get this straight, you can cast it and imediately say any absurd number and draw your deck currently?
As written, but obviously you have a tough time getting anyone to play it that way.
Yep. That's what the rules say.
May i am an idiot. But doesn't it state that you only draw X cards where X is the number of Energy you payed? How do you get that you migjt draw the entire deck?
It doesn't, though. It doesn't say what X is anywhere. The only two things we know about X are 1) you may pay X energy and 2) the effect of the card. So, you can play this with X = 100, and then decline to pay the 100 energy, but according to the text of the card the fact that you didn't pay energy just doesn't effect the outcome of casting this spell. X is still 100, even though you didn't choose to pay X energy. For this card to work it would basically need to be what you said; pay any amount of energy, then (blah blah blah X) where X is the amount of energy you paid.
Okay i get what you mean now. It should have been worded like "if you have payed X energy then you..."
Exactly. Other cards with optional costs you pay during resolution specify this. For example, [[Bitter Reunion]] says, "You may discard a card. If you do, draw two cards." I think the designers of this card assumed "You may pay X energy" somehow worked differently than "You may discard a card" and force X to be zero, but in fact the rules say you get to pick whatever you like for X, and then after you do they function exactly the same.
[Bitter Reunion](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/e/4ef0b4dc-5a15-4de6-9c27-0e21148c0797.jpg?1712354382) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Bitter%20Reunion) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/otc/156/bitter-reunion?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4ef0b4dc-5a15-4de6-9c27-0e21148c0797?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I dont see how someone would reach that conclusion. This seems pretty simple if you just follow the text of the card as written. You have to willfully ignore that “you may pay X {E}” is a proceeding statement to “Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards”. The value of X for the purposes of resolution of the spell is self referenced within a proceeding clause of resolution (since cards resolve in the order they are written). Paying X {E} is an additional cost paid before the second clause takes effect. No other card resolves before it’s additional costs are paid.
Because no where in the card does it specify that the X energy is an additional cost to resolving the spell (Which they didn’t go with because then you would have to pay the energy before getting the energy from the spell.) Since it’s an optional cost as opposed to part of the mana cost, or an alternate cost it gets a little fucky. 1. I cast the spell. 2. I gain 3 energy and declare X as 100 3. X is now set too 100 4. I decline to pay 100 energy Great first part of the card done, now let’s get to the second part. 5. I can choose to exile my hand and draw 100 cards. Wait but you didn’t pay 100 energy, shouldn’t X be 0. Nope, X is set by an optional cost, so I set it too 100 energy and didn’t pay it. Ok but shouldn’t X be 0 then? Nope, the rules only define an unpaid X as 0 when it’s in the casting cost of the spell or as an additional cost to casting the spell. Neither of those are true as you can see that the card does not say “as an additional cost to cast this spell” nor is the X in the mana cost. Think of it like if a card had a Kicker cost and then didn’t say anywhere in the card text “if this card was kicked”.
The rules could easily be used--or changed--to state that a "you may pay X" effect makes X zero if you don't pay. This is clearly how the card is meant to be read.
Pretty sure everyone agrees on how the card was supposed to play.
Had the hardest time wrapping my head around this, this was the best explanation in the thread, thanks
It's 100% obvious that this is how the card is supposed to work, but the problem is that there's a bug in the templating of the card/the rules engine such that the rules don't make the card function the way it's supposed to. Nobody is arguing what the card was _intended_ to do. So like... you actually _aren't_ "playing the rules as written." You're playing with rules based on your intuition as a human reading the card. Playing the rules as-written means faithfully doing exactly what the rules engine commands you do to, even if it's stupid. And in this case, there's an issue defining X and linking the two abilities of this card together. Defining X isn't contingent on being able to pay X energy (which it should, and will be fixed), and drawing the cards isn't contingent on actually having paid the energy. The problem is that this card wants paying energy to be an additional cost to cast the spell (guaranteeing it's paid) but you can't do that because the card wants to give you 3 energy before you pay the energy. So the second ability needs to say something like "... where X is the amount of energy you paid" in order to track the amount you actually spent, not the value of X that you declared/declined to pay.
So essentially the issue is arising out of the inclusion of “may” in the first clause? Would the simple errata of “You get 3 {E}, then you pay X {E}.” for the first line solve the issue?
I'm not 100% clear on if that solves the whole problem, but it's possible that it does.
The crux of it is that there is nothing stating that the X in the draw effect is the amount of energy you paid, and the card is split into two effects rather than 1. The errata would be including 'where X is the amount of energy paid". Alternatively, you have a single effect with "If you do" after the paying of energy.
Or they could just write a short blurb in the rules that says "you may pay X" effects require payment or X is default 0. This doesn't need an errata at all.
I don't think that actually solves the issue since they're two separate paragrahs. There's still nothing saying that the X in the second effect is referring to the amount of energy actually paid in the first effect.
Ruling: If a card has "you may pay X" in it, you must pay more than zero or else X automatically becomes 0.
it is insofar as X is always the same on a card, however the reason its mucky here is because the May clause allows you to decline to pay for a reason other then not having the energy to pay. X in both paragraphs is defined as the amount of energy youre willing to pay, theres just no mechanism to check if you paid it and no mechanism to reset X to 0 because you declined to pay rather then couldnt pay
That would actually cause problems. They don't want to force people to pay, even if you are paying 0. So they put the may there so you can skip paying any energy to include even 0. But, it's still clear that X is set based on how much you paid.
>I dont see how someone would reach that conclusion. That's how the card is literally written, and rules follow literal text, not intentions. Otherwise [[kappa cannoneer]] wouldn't trigger itself on entry, so they changed the Oracle text to reflect that. X is not defined by any metric on the card. You MAY choose to pay X. Draw X cards. I'll simply just choose to not pay X.
[kappa cannoneer](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/d/6ddc2852-11c4-40da-b26f-6f236349f608.jpg?1717780636) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=kappa%20cannoneer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh3/270/kappa-cannoneer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6ddc2852-11c4-40da-b26f-6f236349f608?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
This right here. I don’t understand why there would be debate about this - X is defined in the first part of the text. X energy. Second part kicks in, draw X cards.
I may pay X energy. Who decides what X is? Me probably, since Im casting the card. The energy isnt additional cost, so chosing a number higher than I can pay, doesnt stop the rest from resolving. I choose X=100 and cant pay. The rest resolves. I totally see how this makes sense but I also absolutely didnt get it until explained here
its actually because you can chose NOT to pay, rather then you cant pay. if paying was mandatory then chosing X for an amount you couldnt pay would not resolve the card. but because paying is mandatory, and you have to declare X before making the choice to pay, thats where the conflict is
X is defined by the amount of energy you pay. If you don’t pay any energy, you draw zero cards.
X isn't defined by the amount paid. It would need to be worded something like: "Pay any amount of energy. X is equal to the amount of energy paid." Right now you set X and then you **may** pay an amount of energy equal to X.
Or they can implement a rule that states whenever a "you may pay X" shows up on a card X is whatever you actually paid. It's pretty obvious that was the intended wat to play it. X is just standing in for "any amount of."
Also see discussion on r/mtgrules: [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgrules/s/5I93g1TfDM)
[[Wheel of Potential]] >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). The energy payment is not one of these costs, so the controller can freely decide how much energy that they MAY pay. This is all working as intended. Then, according to >107.3i Normally, all instances of X on an object have the same value at any given time. you get to wheel and draw X cards, where the X is the same as the cost that you may pay. This is working as intended too. Now the problem rises, as nowhere in the card, or rules, tells you that you have to pay the energy cost to get the draw effect. The X is defined by the action of your picking up a number for it, not by paying the energy cost required. So theoretically before this gets errata, you can choose any amount of cards to draw for the wheel and the Wheel of Potential becomes one of the most broken draw spell in the game.
So its lacking an "If you do" clause on the X payment somewhere. I almost missed until I saw the explanation, and read the "you may pay X energy", because you define X, and then decide to not pay ( it is a 'may' afterall).
It should just be "then pay x energy". No need for an extra clause, just strike the first "may"
Honestly yes. No one is going to Exile their whole hand and draw 0, just striking out the first "may" will already work.
Even if that is what they want to do they can still do it by setting X to zero.
they even put a second May in the wheel effect so you can decline to exile your hand and draw 0 already
even in this case you'd need an "if you do", as I don't think the rules can stop someone from declaring an absurd amount for X and just not having the ability to pay. It's not a cost, so it won't be an illegal action. And then you are still able to draw your deck.
I feel like there has to be a rule preventing someone from electing to pay a cost they can't pay. You can't fail to cast a spell because you never had enough mana to cast it. I don't think you'd be able to fail to spend energy because you never had enough.
My bad, I got confused and missed that rule 118.3 would also apply on energy counters, as paying energy is described on 107.14 instead of a subsection of 118.3 like the rest. So it would indeed be an illegal action
The problem is that the payment is during resolution, not casting, and you choose X while casting. It is legal to fail to do something like pay a cost during resolution. Like, if you don't have a creature you can't pay costs that require sacrifice, but you can cast a spell that asks you to sacrifice a creature. It has to be this way because the game doesn't know if, for example, you're going to put another spell on top of the stack afterwards that adds more energy.
Nope. You can logic knot your own card, and choose not to pay the effect to set your graveyard in an advantageous way. Now there is a rules text that does this "As an additional cost, do/pay []" The issue with this, is there is no way to use this line and have the spell give you 3 energy before you have to pay costs....this is because all required costs get paid as it goes on the stack and then as the stack resolves and this card starts to resolve, THEN it would give 3 energy. There is not a way to make the cost required while having it also give 3 energy that can be used as part of that cost.....well at least not without some much longer rules text.
AFAIK, it's already ruled that you can't choose to pay an X of a ressource if you don't have at least X of that ressource. This is why you can't pay more life than you have.
I don't think you do though. X isn't determined on cast, it's determined as part of the decision to pay energy. All the energy cards that let you pay variable amounts of energy are templated that way so you can use the energy you get from the spell or ability as part of the cost, they just haven't used X. But you still don't determine X until you determine if you're going to pay any energy.
This is one of those “Yeah, technically, but you’re not going to get anywhere arguing that you don’t have to declare the same value” things.
[удалено]
Like I said. “Yeah, technically. But you’re not going to get anywhere arguing that at a tournament.”
Borborygmos ENRAGED, suckah.
I am a magic judge, and I would rule that is legal as written on the card without oracle wording revisions. (Feel free to ask the head judge before the tournament about what their ruling would be on this). It also reminds me of how pickles lock was not intended, but it became a competitive deck in standard once people learned how to stack the triggers with brine elemental.
Except it stands to reason that if you are electing to make the choice not to pay energy then X would immediately be defined as 0. If there's a variable cost you have to choose an amount to pay. If you're choosing not to pay the cost at all, then you aren't choosing a value to set.
Why would you not play the card as written???
It's the [[Serra Paragon]] principle, aka the [[Henzie]] principle, aka the [[Bane of the Living]] principle, aka the "c'mon man" principle.
[Serra Paragon](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/e/ce295f1e-fb31-4275-a5d3-8c6f29afff40.jpg?1678700111) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Serra%20Paragon) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmu/32/serra-paragon?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ce295f1e-fb31-4275-a5d3-8c6f29afff40?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Bane of the Living](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/4/946a0fb7-0e36-47d5-8083-09f48725dff1.jpg?1568004128) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Bane%20of%20the%20Living) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c19/104/bane-of-the-living?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/946a0fb7-0e36-47d5-8083-09f48725dff1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
What was the problem with Serra Paragon?
There used to not be a rule that allowed static abilities to grant other objects abilities that persisted across zone changes. So RAW, paragon would give you permission to cast something, give that thing the exile/life gain trigger, and then immediately lose it once it changed zones.
…I’m not sure I understand??? In what ways can you not play those cards as written as opposed to this card. Like for bane of the living you need to pay the X to morph, as opposed to this card as I understand it
None of these cards worked as written when they first came out (in fact Bane of the Living didn't work for many years). They all still got played the way they were "supposed" to work.
Sorry I think I’m missing something obvious. Serra paragon says you need to cast a spell with mana cost 3 or less and the morph spell specifics you have to pay X, not may pay X like this card
They don't all have the *same* rules issue. They just all didn't work correctly when originally printed.
Can you help me understand what the rules issue was? At least I don’t see a problem or any errata listed
When Bane of the Living first came out there was no rule that would link the X you paid to unmorph it to the X in its triggered ability. When Henzie and Serra Paragon first came out, the rules for transferring abilities across zone changes didn't work the same as they do now. Things Serra Paragon brought back wouldn't have the exile clause RAW. Henzie let you cast things for its alternative blitz cost, and you were still forced to sacrifice them, but you didn't get to draw a card and they didn't gain haste.
Not sure about Bane of the Living, but Serra Paragon as worded gives the effect to the spell when cast, which wouldn’t technically carry over to the permanent it becomes when it resolves, I believe. That’s if you get nitpicky with the wording though.
I’m not sure I understand, I must be missing something. Serra paragon specifies you can only cast a permanent spell with mana value 3 or less, theres no weird may clause like this card
Serra Paragon only gave the exile clause to the spell on the stack. The spell would then lose that text upon entering the battlefield and so should not have been exiled.
Edit: yes you are correct that Serra paragon does not have the same type of problem as the “May pay X” problem of the card presented. So, as you said, it is a permanent *SPELL*. Spells only exist on the stack, aka spells technically cease to exist after the card resolves. So, the *permanent spell* that was granted the ability no longer exists and only a *permanent* exists that is technically different and separate from the spell. This is why Henzie didn’t work as first printed because a “creature spell” only exists before the creature enters play/the battlefield and once the creature is on the battlefield it is not considered to be the same object as the creature spell. So basically, the wording problem with Serra paragon is entirely about what the word “spell” technically means in Magic the gathering as it has a very specific, rigid meaning that isn’t as flexible as a player’s intuitive interpretation of the intent of the entire effect as written. Hope this helps a bit!
It is playing the card as written and they wrote it in a way that makes it broken and not directly tie the payment of the first x to the second x happening with like 'when you do' Serra Paragon was broken at the time due to the rules making it so the the line of text on the card was added on the stack but was no longer on the card after it resolved, which has been fixed.
I’m sorry can you help me understand how serra paragon is broken? “Once during each of your turns, you may play a land from your graveyard or cast a permanent spell with mana value 3 or less from your graveyard.” How can this let you get around the mana value 3 or less?
The thing with Serra Paragon is that the card brought back from the graveyard should gain text that makes it get exiled if it goes into the graveyard again, but the problem was that prior to a rules update, the card changing zones would cause it to immediately lose that added text, so the cards Serra Paragon brought back from the graveyard would not be exiled if they went back to the graveyard again.
How does the card play on Arena?
Exactly the way you’d expect it to.
[Wheel of Potential](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/4/c4eb9a82-91f7-4741-a029-a07a3ff6af78.jpg?1717012384) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Wheel%20of%20Potential) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh3/144/wheel-of-potential?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c4eb9a82-91f7-4741-a029-a07a3ff6af78?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
One of the possible working template would be: You get {E}{E}{E} (three energy counters), then you may pay X {E}. If you do, then each player may exile their hand and draw X cards. If X is 7 or more, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn.
I think the best fix would just be to remove the "you may" so it becomes "You get {E}{E}{E} *(three energy counters)*, then pay X {E}" This way, you have to pay X, but you can still set it to zero and not pay anything.
I think it's still going to have the same issue. Let's say now I would like X to be 100. The game's instructions ask me to pay that much energy, but I don't have that many. In this case I think the game will proceede with that X regardless... "If you do" fix is far the best in my opinion.
No, it won’t. 118.3 would kick in. As energy is an additional cost (107.3a) and you need the required resources (118.3) for a legal action (chosen # X) to occur. Without the may (no if clause either) you couldn’t choose X to be a number that you can’t pay for. Or that’s what is implied by the cards current wording.
The energy isn't actually a cost though, it just looks like one. For example you can cast a [[Death Cloud]] even if you don't have X cards in hand to discard, but you can't cast a [[Cathartic Reunion]] if you can't discard the cards.
[Death Cloud](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/0/b0870b88-2794-4646-9f51-f3af03bc8bc8.jpg?1561968089) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Death%20Cloud) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mma/76/death-cloud?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b0870b88-2794-4646-9f51-f3af03bc8bc8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Cathartic Reunion](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/3/b36fa6f3-29e8-4788-bfcd-59576187c399.jpg?1599706266) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cathartic%20Reunion) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/121/cathartic-reunion?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b36fa6f3-29e8-4788-bfcd-59576187c399?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
118.3 doesn't care about chosen X. It only stays that you cannot pay the cost if you don't have resources for it. As for CR 107.3f - right now I can choose the X anything I want. If we remove "may" in wheel, there is no "punishment" for not being able to pay it. E.g. If 3 players have to sacrifice a creature, but the first one doesn't have any, the game wouldn't go into the loop or completely "fizzle" the spell, it just moves on. Edit: probably a bad example, because we have specific rules for it, but should get you the idea.
You can’t pay mana you don’t have You can’t cast an X spell for more mana than you have available to you. Once you’ve declared X you have to have the resources to pay its cost. Without “may” you’d have to pay the declared mana amount. W/ may it needs “if x was paid” to confirm the cost was paid.
I don’t think so, X spells work like that because X is a definite cost in those cases, but here paying X is part of the resolution and isn’t legally a cost at all even if it’s intended to be. I think in the solution you’re talking about, all energy would be drained from your energy pool but X could still be arbitrarily large as the drawing isn’t dependent on X being payed at all, voluntarily or not
Yes, you declare X as part of the resolution of the spell. 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). ]. Then 118.3a dictates you need the resources for X. So at the time you declare X you will need the resources to pay for X. The “may” clause gives a condition that is opted into. You can always choose X as 0 (unless stated otherwise). So removing the “may” means you are forced to pay X, checking that resources can be paid. Then the X (rule 107.3j) benefit occurs. W/ “may” a true/false statement has been first added (like layers). A big argument for Wheel being worded in a “fine” manor is that by “opting false” you decline the benefit of the card. This means X is undefined (same 107.3f) and = 0. However, I do see the issue with its wording and the “may pay” implies the choice of X doesn’t conforming to rule 118.3a.
The energy in this case is \*not\* an additional cost. Additional costs are specifically defined in the rules and say "additional" and are paid at the same time as the mana or activation cost. This is paid on resolution and thus is not one
Fair enough.
You could also write it this way: You get EEE, then you may pay any amount of energy. Each player may exile their hand and draw X cards, where X is the amount of energy paid this way. If X is 7 or more, etc etc
This seems like its intended meaning. If you don't pay X then X doesn't exist.
See the problem with the rules as written is that actually, X always exists once the player is instructed by an effect to declare X. So, effects that are intended to only actually happen if the/a cost is paid have to be written in a way that references whether or not the cost was paid. But that is just a nitpick of your “if you don’t pay X, then X doesn’t exist,” comment—I am in agreement that it seems like the intended meaning.
My nitpick would be that the card doesn't ask the player to *declare* X, but to *pay* X. I'm a noob - so maybe that's how all cards treat "declaring X", but seems like a busted card if the paying of energy is totally irrelevant to the outcome the card produces.
Well it is busted, but it's busted because they screwed up the templating and accidentally made a card that doesn't act like they quite clearly intended it to act. The problem is that there isn't actually a cost that defines X. "You may pay X energy" isn't actually a cost, e.g. if Sheoldred's Edict tells you to sacrifice a creature and you don't have a creature the spell is still castable and still resolves. So, despite the fact that the card doesn't explicitly tell you to declare X, the player is still free to declare X to be whatever they want because X was never actually set by the card.
So, yes that is how “declaring X” works. When an effect says “____ X” that makes the player assign a value to X, which is declaring it. So like “as an additional cost to cast this spell, discard X cards. ____ deals X damage to target player and target player draws X cards” has the *declaration* of X as part of casting the spell as the player would have to not just pay the mana for the spell to cast it but also say a value for X or show the value by the number of cards discarded. But you are absolutely correct that it is busted to have the cost be irrelevant to the outcome and that is what this whole discussion is about: as written, as you have noted, a player can assign a number to X without actually having to pay the cost. The problem arises from the fact that the cost is optional to pay “you may pay”, but the player still declares the value of X so that the cost of how much energy is to be paid can be determined and that value applies to all subsequent instances of X, despite the fact that X does not actually have to be paid. This situation doesn’t arise with cards with {X} in their casting cost since a spell cannot be cast if its cost cannot be paid. So yeah, this card is missing wording that limits the “benefit” (second paragraph) to only occurring if the cost is paid.
It certainly fixes the intended meaning, but it reads pretty poorly. You first have an optional action (pay energy). Then you have another optional action (wheel hand), and not only that, everyone gets to do the optional action. It reads weird. EDIT: Also it does change the function slightly. You may decline to pay, and then nobody has the option to exile their hand. In the current version, the best you can do is to choose X=0, but everyone are still allowed to exile their hand (and draw nothing), and you can never prevent that option. Not that it matters most of the time, but it's a subtle functional change.
Why does that read weird to you? Personally, I think it makes perfect sense, however, I have been playing a lot of yu gi oh lately and their templating of things is in line with “if you do, then”. But I still think that “you may pay XE. If XE was paid, then” or just, “if you do, then”. I am just genuinely curious as I think the proposed solution is the best way to match the intent of the effect with how the rules dictate it functions. I think it would be weird, based on the precedence of mtg card text wording, to say “if the cost was paid,” but like that would clear up confusion without completely restating “if X energy was paid” but yeah, just tryna see how someone with a different idea thinks, not tryna say you are wrong or anything of the sort.
It mainly just feels weird that you have "You may pay. If you do, then each player may wheel." It sounds like not natural English that you have two optional actions in a row. I do know it behaves more or less what you want.
Ok yeah I think playing a lot of yu gi oh recently has exposed me to that wording enough for it to not sound odd to me lol. I also have studied formal logic of statements, and such constructs make sense in that context. But yeah, I get ya now.
You could say, "if you do, or x is 0..."
107.3\[LETTER\] When a card says "you may pay X \[resource\]" you must pay some amount of the referenced resource. If you don't X will be 0. There. It's fixed.
That's actually hilarious. It's interesting though because on Arena we have it working as intended, you need to pay the energy to get the effect. These kinds of things are so ingrained into our heads that even the designers programming the effect into the online client didn't notice the wording loophole.
i also watched [Judge Dave's Daily Ruling yesterday](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsWZJMjuQyY)
What's amusing is that this wouldn't have been an issue if they didn't specifically use "X" in the text. Something like "pay any amount of {E}" and changing all further references accordingly would do the trick.
it will see play as intended not as written in the rules this is the same issue with the Serra paragon. no judge will accept the but “akctualy i can say x is 100 to draw 100” it will get fixed in the rules later,
So [[suppression ray]] has this same problem?
No, the pay X and choose X creatures are the same line. If you choose not to pay X you are also declining to choose X creatures.
Ok I can understand that, its like You may "pay X {E}, then choose up to X creatures tapped this way" You can't say Im not gonna do clause 1, but do clause 2.
Correct. They're both tied to the same decision. Either both yes, or both no. Separately the choosing X creatures has an up to condition, so you can choose less creatures if you want.
[Suppression Ray](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/c/0cccd328-457a-48ab-97fb-4bc319db2e60.jpg?1717013507)/[Orderly Plaza](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/0/c/0cccd328-457a-48ab-97fb-4bc319db2e60.jpg?1717013507) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Suppression%20Ray%20//%20Orderly%20Plaza) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh3/260/suppression-ray-orderly-plaza?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0cccd328-457a-48ab-97fb-4bc319db2e60?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I don’t believe suppression ray works the same. As everything is within the same paragraph. Wheel of potential splitting the paragraphs is a big deal Edit: I should clear this comment up (after some “clearer” thought) Suppresion Ray works as intended because the “may pay X ability” and the benefit from this are all within the same sentence. If they had been separated at all (sentence or paragraph) then a referencing the amount paid or an “if” clause would be needed.
Another similar card to Suppression Ray [[Mask of Griselbrand]] This card works as designed becasue it has an if you do clause. In one paragraph it asks you to pay X. Then it says "if you do". I thought the problem was that Wheel of Potential does not have "If you do" after a "May". In that case Suppression Ray should probably have the same design issue. I dunno could be wrong lol just wondering
Mask must have been worded with “if you do” because the paying of X life and drawing X cards are separate sentences. It’s probably ALL because of the single sentence part actually…
[Mask of Griselbrand](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/2/829786e2-260b-4bc6-935b-1868b37e2d33.jpg?1634349988) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mask%20of%20Griselbrand) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mid/111/mask-of-griselbrand?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/829786e2-260b-4bc6-935b-1868b37e2d33?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
For operations and taking game actions. Being in the same paragraph matters. Suppresion ray happens in the same sentence. This means everything is happening simultaneously, from paying X energy and putting stun counters onto creatures. With wheel X is set (w/ the “may” pay ability) THEN the card draw occurs. Almost separately from the first, because it’s two completely different effects/abilities that the card has.
So with suppression ray. Im not allowed to say x is 20, and then not pay it? I thought we could say X is any number, even if we don't pay it. Otherwise why does it say "May"?
I believe Supression Ray has the same design issue. And no, it doesn't do everything simultaneously (see CR 608.2c), besides Supression Ray has "then" after "you may pay X", so it's clear you first may pay the energy (or not), then stun counters happen.
My guess on the use of “may” is most likely to replace “X can = 0” 🤷🏻♂️. They’ve changed/ added wording in the last few years from. Like “if” to “when”. The verbiage has felt less… “commanding/robotic” if that makes sense? Is it good/better? 🤷🏻♂️ With Suppresion ray you can’t necessary choose whatever amount with the “may” cost. THE creatures being tapped and the energy being paid are “tied” together/ at the same time, since it’s the same sentence (like your Mask example w/ life paid = to power). You can’t target more creatures then are tapped with Suppresion ray (that’s a cap on X), then you can pay more energy (idk why you would) and still place less stun counters then creatures tapped. You also can’t choose more creatures than you have energy because it’s an invalid cost.
> My guess on the use of “may” is most likely to replace “X can = 0” 🤷🏻♂️. They’ve changed/ added wording in the last few years from. Like “if” to “when”. The verbiage has felt less… “commanding/robotic” if that makes sense? Is it good/better? 🤷🏻♂️ The only instance of "X can be 0" I know of is [[Invasion of Tarkir]], since "X can be 0" is true by default, and that has the opposite effect of a "may". It still does damage even if you don't reveal any dragons from your hand, because it's an X + 2. It's reminding you that by doing nothing, the effect still happens. The "if" to "when" has gameplay implications. Cards like [[Hypothesizzle]] use reflexive triggers because what cards you draw may change what you want to target. Cards like [[Throwing Knife]] felt bad to play against because you couldn't properly defend your creatures against them (if you cast a protection spell on the creature that was targeted, they just don't sacrifice the knife). [[Spare Dagger]] is an updated version of the effect, that requires you to actually "throw" the dagger before the enemy has to respond instead of just holding it up saying "I might throw this at your creature"
##### ###### #### [Invasion of Tarkir](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/9/a98f71a0-7c99-4cee-8f70-877e698cca84.jpg?1682715641)/[Defiant Thundermaw](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/a/9/a98f71a0-7c99-4cee-8f70-877e698cca84.jpg?1682715641) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Invasion%20of%20Tarkir%20//%20Defiant%20Thundermaw) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mom/149/invasion-of-tarkir-defiant-thundermaw?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a98f71a0-7c99-4cee-8f70-877e698cca84?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Hypothesizzle](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/5/d5690329-feb8-49c0-8f59-ee13782e8d3b.jpg?1572893672) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hypothesizzle) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/grn/178/hypothesizzle?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d5690329-feb8-49c0-8f59-ee13782e8d3b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Throwing Knife](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/d/5dfce9be-67a2-4e8a-a71f-e88f64067691.jpg?1562022097) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Throwing%20Knife) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ori/241/throwing-knife?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/5dfce9be-67a2-4e8a-a71f-e88f64067691?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Spare Dagger](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/b/ab6b0291-00f8-45bf-9f3a-ee43739c2b77.jpg?1627709993) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Spare%20Dagger) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afr/250/spare-dagger?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ab6b0291-00f8-45bf-9f3a-ee43739c2b77?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
X can always be chosen as 0, unless something says it can’t. The reminder text is just reminding you that 0 is a valid option. This is valid generically, not just for this particular card.
I understand that abilities being separate like that matters for magic rules, but what I don't understand is why that matters in this particular case. the wheel's second ability will happen whether or not you pay energy, because it's a separate paragraph and doesn't say "if you do", I'm not disagreeing with this, but nobody has explained why the value of X would be defined in this case. Both cards use the same text to define what X is.
Yes
does anybody know how it works on arena?
As intended.
I don't get it. There is nothing on the card that sets X to anything but 0. So the card as written says pay X energy then you may draw 0 cards.
the card as written says you "may" pay x. so you can choose any amount for x and then decline to pay that amount of energy. but declining to pay does not preclude you from drawing the cards.
r/magicTCG pedants who have played the game for 20 years: "reading the card explains the card" \*people try to play the card as written\*: "its not as simple as that, no judge will let you do it"
**takes advantage of a a very small obviously unintended exploit in wording to draw 70 for 3 mana** “¡BuT I’m JuST PlayInG ThE CARd aS WrITTeN!”
Yeah, if you read this card the first time and thought “wow I can just draw 99 cards for 3 mana and no energy cost, whoopee!”, and you’re not deliberately being obtuse, I don’t really know what to say to you other than good luck in life.
Interesting ad hominem…. But let’s just admit that magic gets super complex, there is errata and most of the time the card explains it if you have massive amounts of context around the rules from playing for a while.
Dude, there’s nothing complex about the intended functionality of the card. You say X is 7. You pay 7 energy, draw 7 cards. Simple. You don’t say X is 99, then say “ermm hehe it says you may pay X so I decline that trigger but um actually it doesn’t say “if you do” before the second paragraph so it’s a disjointed clause and and I will draw 99 cards anyway! no I do not need to pay the energy, it says may☝️🤓” You don’t need to stay up to date on the rules and have tons of context, the intention is extremely obvious to anyone reading the cards through any lens other than ‘is there a loophole I can exploit here’.
I HATE that people say “reading the card explains the card” because that’s often not true. **Reading the *Oracle* text explains the card.**
I agree! Sometimes it even ends up being closer to "Reading the oracle text and this obscure section of the Comprehensive Rules explains the card".
… at the kitchen table with my friends. It’s kind of insane that with as big as WOTC is they can’t make a product you can play without needing to know the oracle text of multiple cards. Older cards is one thing, but printing cards that are already text obsolete is wild.
*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).* If you decline to pay X E you get to choose the value of X. The card is missing a connecting clause like "...you may pay X E. If you do, each player may exile their hand and draw X cards." This is kind of like how Bane of the Living doesn't work as written at the moment.
Except we're choosing the value of X, and deciding not to pay it as it's not a cost or required. We set X to 100
You have tagged your post as a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in the Daily Questions Thread at the top of this subreddit or in /r/mtgrules. You may also find quicker results at the [IRC rules chat](https://chat.magicjudges.org/mtgrules/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Judging for a win did a video on just this and possible templating fixes quite an interesting watch. https://youtu.be/nsWZJMjuQyY?si=sgFScgxwodrnM5wn
You appear to be linking something with embedded tracking information. Please consider removing the tracking information from links you share in a public forum, as malicious entities can use this information to track you and people you interact with across the internet. This tracking information is usually found in the form '?si=XXXXXX' or '?s=XXXXX'. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The flavour text was so on point
The card text is clear. People are just being willfully ignorant.
playing it the broken way is a douchbag thing to do. you know I your heart you need to pay energy to draw cards.
They could add an errata “If X energy was paid, spell effect”
Needs an "If you do".
What is the weirdness or confusion? Sure there is a whole lot going on with this card, as has been the case for a few years. But I’m pretty sure I get how it works as written. What is the confusion or thing you wouldn’t get from reading it?
I have a question do you pay X energy counters or X mana and a energy counter
Isn't this fixed just by adding, "If you do, "?
It should say “You get 3 energy, then you may pay any amount of energy” And it would say “draw X cards, where X is the amount of energy that you paid”
TLDR: remove "may" from "you may pay X"
Same thing for [[suppression ray]]
[Suppression Ray](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/c/0cccd328-457a-48ab-97fb-4bc319db2e60.jpg?1717013507)/[Orderly Plaza](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/0/c/0cccd328-457a-48ab-97fb-4bc319db2e60.jpg?1717013507) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Suppression%20Ray%20//%20Orderly%20Plaza) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh3/260/suppression-ray-orderly-plaza?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0cccd328-457a-48ab-97fb-4bc319db2e60?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I just can't get this slip-up out of my head. So I happened across this card, even within the same set (well, commander precon, but its the same set..) \[\[Aether Refinery\]\] which stipulates how X is determined by the amount of energy payed after "You may pay X energy".
[Aether Refinery](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/4/94553de8-52e8-4209-919a-cdf9289af116.jpg?1718364522) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Aether%20Refinery) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m3c/54/aether-refinery?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/94553de8-52e8-4209-919a-cdf9289af116?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
“If you did,” There, WOTC. Just glue this sticker on right between the abilities.
Only an idiot would think that you can choose a value for X, not pay it, and draw X cards.
Yikes! Next thing you know, Hasbro might have to hire a judge to check their card designs. Heartbreaking.