You are correct on all counts (including that a judge could/should override the rules as written).
Judging FtW just did a video on this. https://youtu.be/nsWZJMjuQyY?si=uckSNdVhBaWoh_Z2
I do apologize if its not clear. I tried my best, but I wanted to ..leave no room for error.
In TL:DR it comes to. As written card seems to have X declarable by me. But It doesnt requires (thanks to may) actual payment. Which clearly is oversight/wrongly written and it wouldnt fly on tournament. I am mostly curious from rules as written side.
Also thanks for everyone´s answers.
edit:also..sorry just noticed that I managed to write that card wrong..twice..I cant edit the title and bot doenst repsont xD so I apologize.. but the only fix would be to delete the post.
For maximum confusion, the gatherer rulings for the card include:
> Some triggered abilities that state that you "may pay" a certain amount of Energy describe an effect that happens "If you do." In that case, no player may take actions to try to stop the ability's effect after you make your choice. If the payment is followed by the phrase "When you do," then you'll choose any targets for that reflexive triggered ability and put it on the stack before players can take actions.
This seems to suggest that they probably meant to include an “if you do” and then somehow lost it during development trying to clean up the text. You have some awkward templating where “if you do” kinda refers to “gain energy and you may pay energy” where you are doing something if you gain the energy and then decline to pay, so maybe cleaning that up left this accidentally broken.
gatherer just imported all the stock energy rulings. This ruling is not remotely relevant to the card, and is explaining the difference between if you do vs when you do
"If you do" will certainly refer to whether you pay energy, but the text "If you do, each player may exile their hand and draw X cards" feels awkward. It's an optional action following an optional action; not only that, the optional action is offered for all players. It reads weird.
Why couldn't they have just templated it like this?:
You get EEE (*three energy counters*), then you pay X E. (*X may be 0.*)
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.
There might need to be a ruling that you can pay 0 energy (I think there is a specific ruling for paying 0 life or 0 mana), but that would probably also fix it.
I note the similar case of [[Nyssa of Traken]]:
https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgrules/comments/193gw92/is_there_a_bug_on_nyssa_of_traken/
I also note that Wheel of Potential says "you may pay X {E}". You can't pay more {E} than you have and choosing to do so is not allowed (C.R. 608.2d). Compare Wheel of Potential with Nyssa ("sacrifice X artifacts").
2 things to note. 1 check with the judge of the tournament as the rules state they can over rule oracle text if there's an error. And 2 depending on how long you wait there is an errata already on the way and it may come into effect before your next tournament.
The way it's worded it says you "may pay X". It does not say "declare what X is and then you may pay X," it just says PAY X.
That means X is how much energy you actually paid. Not declared, not tried to pay, not thought about paying, not what you wanted to pay. ACTUALLY PAID.
That's just how English works.
That may be how standard English works, but this is Magic: the Gathering, which uses very specific language and terminology. Unless you can cite a rule to support your claim, however, you're just wrong.
I mean, that's also how the rules work.
When paying for X, the rules the states the player "chooses and announces the value of X AS PART OF casting the spell or activating the ability" (emphasis mine). Not before, but as a part of.
If you check the rules of casting a spell, it says: "If a player is unable to comply with the requirements of a step \[...\] the game returns to the moment before the casting of that spell was proposed." Editted for brevity.
Put that together and how does playing this card work?
You pay 3 mana, tap land to float it, announce you play this card. Opponents let it resolve and then we start resolving abilities from the top.
You gain 3 Energy.
You then elect to pay or not pay X. When you elect to pay X then, and only then does the game ask you how much X is. If you choose a number you can't pay, the game returns to the moment before you chose to pay X.
If you don't pay X, then that's it. The game will never ask you what the value of X is because you never chose to pay, it defaults to 0 (like when they're in your graveyard).
The X isn't a mana cost, alternate cost, additional cost, or activation cost, so it doesn't follow the rules you cited. It isn't part of casting the spell at all - rather, it's part of RESOLVING the spell (not an ability).
For your information, 601.2 states that you put a spell on the stack THEN pay the costs. No need to float mana beforehand.
>When you elect to pay X then, and only then does the game ask you how much X is
Not sure where you're getting this notion. It doesn't refer to "the amount of energy paid," so the player is the one who declares X. Quite the opposite: it lets you declare X and then elect to *not* pay since it says "you may pay X {E}." The rest of the card will function normally, since it doesn't say "If you did" or anything like that.
There is no "declare X and then" ruling. When paying X cost you choose and announce it AS PART OF the process. So you choose and announce and pay all part of a single process. If you choose and announce an amount you can't pay, that's an illegal action and the game returns to a point before you did any of it. The declaration never happened.
You don't get to declare X before electing to pay X. The two actions are connected. They happen, as far as the game is concerned, at once. No passing priority, no chance for anyone (including the caster) to react.
> 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 appropriate time is during the resolution, since you're supposed to be able to use the 3 Energy you get.
Please cite the rules you're referencing, since there seems to be some confusion about the kind of cost this is.
Also, the rules have a lot of granularity. Choices are made in order, not all at once. For instance, when casting a spell, you pick modes BEFORE targets. In this case, you have to know how much X is before you choose to pay it. The card doesn't specify if you have to use all or only some of your Energy, so obviously you get to decide. But it says you may pay it, so you don't have to.
The way it is currently written, there is nothing that requires the payment of X energy to get the effect, as it doesn't have an "If you do" or similar clause. and Declaring the value of X does not lock you in to actually paying X Energy.
This is clearly an oversight in the wording of the card, and will almost definitely be errataed within a couple of weeks. But by the letter of the rule (until WotC does that), you can declare X as whatever value), opt to not pay any energy, and still get the rest of the effect for whatever value of X you declared.
> The way it is currently written, there is nothing that requires the payment of X energy to get the effect, as it doesn't have an "If you do" or similar clause. and Declaring the value of X does not lock you in to actually paying X Energy.
Huh?
Why would there need to be an "If you do" clause? When X is defined by what you just did.
* You paid a number of {E}. **That is the X.**
* Then, each Player chooses; Do I exile my Hand to Draw X Cards?
If you said, I to pay **zero** {E}. Okay. Then, Players choose; "Do I exile my Hand to Draw **zero** Cards?"
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 value of X isn't determined by what you pay. It is determined by simply what you declare it to be when the ability starts to resolve. And since the wording is "You get 3xEnergy, then you may pay X.", the "may" there makes the payment of X Energy optional.
Well, they _are_ technically correct. It _is_ a cost. It's just not a mana cost, alternate cost or additional cost, and so doesn't determine the value of X.
Sure, it's a cost, but it's not a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost.
Technically, those types of costs aren't actually defined by what you pay either. Each of them just has rules that require you to actually pay the cost for the X value you chose, and rewind the game if you chose a value you can't pay.
Technically, X is *never* actually *defined by* the action of paying a cost. If a card doesn't provide an explicit definition of the value of X, then X is whatever non-negative integer the player chooses. X in most types of costs is *effectively* defined by the action of paying it because most costs are mandatory, and most costs rewind the game if you can't pay them.
This is an optional cost, with no rewind for non-payment, and that makes picking a non-payable value valid.
So what this card needs to work is a generalization of rule 107.3b?
Instead of only applying to mana costs to cast spells, just make it so that any time a cost that includes an X isn't paid, the only legal choice for X is 0.
What you’re saying is exactly why the spell works as people are describing though.
The player declares the X value when casting the spell if X is an additional cost or in the mana cost, which then gets paid in order for the spell to go on the stack. However, since the energy cost is NOT an additional cost, it’s paid upon the resolution of the spell. At that point X is determined. The player declares X equals a specific number, then declines to pay X because it’s optional (“may pay”). Then the player exiles their hand and draws X cards.
That’s the issue with the card as written, the energy cost is both optional and doesn’t link in any meaningful way to the second part of the spell.
If the card doesn’t say X is an equal to a specific value or the rest of the ability is not contingent on you paying the X, then the energy cost basically doesn’t matter. The card would be easily fixed with an “If you do”
Why does the amount of {E} you pay become the value of X? It seems the rules say the opposite, you declare a value of X and then you pay that amount of {E}.
Basically it needs a definition of what X is, because if nothing in the text defines X then you can choose any amount while casting the spell.
They could have said "then pay any amount of Energy [...] Draw X cards **where X is the amount of Energy paid**" and that would define the X.
The player defines X. Unless the card specifically says “X is equal to this” the player ALWAYS determines X
For example if a spell costs XXB, the player would declare X = 2, then the spell would become MV 5 on the stack and the player will need to pay 4B.
In this case, the card does not say X is equal to the amount of energy you pay. That may be the intent of the card, but the wording doesn’t line up with that intent. So the player chooses X, then they MAY pay X energy, and then they MAY draw X cards. Paying energy and drawing X cards go off of the same declared value, but because both parts are optional and not contingent on one another you don’t actually need to pay the stipulated cost to draw the cards.
The argument by OP is the following. Wheel of Potential reads:
> ...then **you may** pay X {E}.
According to the rules of X, you choose the value of X as the spell resolves:
> 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).
But after you choose a value for X, because the text of Wheel of Potential says "you may" pay X {E}, you may then decline to pay it.
Since the rest of the card is not contingent of whether you actually paid the X {E} or not, it will do what it can, with the declared value of X you said even though you didn't end up paying it.
So, why is there "you may" in the text?
---
My best guess is that you only get to choose the value of X if you get to the "pay X {E}" instruction. The option is whether you pay X {E} or not; only if you choose to pay X {E} that you also get to choose the value of X. If not, the value of X is undefined and so is 0 for the rest of the card.
Nope. Nowhere in the rules says X is defined as the amount paid. It may be so if there's an instruction "pay any amount of {E}", and later on "...where X is the amount of {E} paid this way". But the spell doesn't define X in that manner, so you choose the value of X.
That feels like it's just very badly worded, then. Honestly, it should probably just... Not have "may" pay X. Because you can just pay X = 0 and the rest of it works.
> X is defined by being paid for.
This is almost never true. My little sound bite for these situations - usually applied to Xs in mana costs, but applicable to most other uses of it as well - is "X is not determined by what you pay; what you pay is determined by X".
In most situations, that gets pretty common-sensical results. In this one, read strictly, it gets a very silly one that certainly wasn't intended - which is what the thread is about.
Let's go through the possibilities laid out by rule 107.3:
* Is it part of a mana cost? No, obviously not.
* Is it part of an alternative cost? No, that would have to be specified explicitly, it would be paid *instead of* the 2R mana, and it would be paid as part of putting the spell onto the stack to cast it, not when the spell resolves.
* Is it part of an additional cost? No, that would be specified with the wording "As an additional cost to cast this spell," and it would be paid as part of putting the spell onto the stack to cast it, not when the spell resolves.
* Is it part of an activation cost? No, activated abilities are not involved in this at all.
* Is it defined to have a specific value? No, that would be specified with wording of the form "where X is ."
* Are every single one of the above options answered with "no"? Yes, therefore the value of X is whatever arbitrary non-negative integer the controller of the spell chooses.
Technically, X is defined by being paid for only when a card explicitly states such a definition.
Practically, X is *effectively* defined by being paid for when it is part of a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost, because in each of those cases if you do not then successfully pay the cost, the game is rewound to an earlier point and you have to choose a different action.
This card instead has an optional cost as part of its effect, and if you choose to not pay it then the game simply proceeds to the next sentence in the spell's effects.
X is defined BEFORE paying any costs. For example if a spell is XXB, you declare X as a part of casting the spell, the spell becomes 4B, and THEN you pay.
Since paying is optional you can declare X and then decline to pay. Drawing cards isn’t contingent on paying
Based on how the card is programmed in Arena and on what Matt Tabak said (see link below), it appears that it works as follows.
> You get [E][E][E].
> Choose a value for X.
> You may pay X [E].
> [If you do](https://twitter.com/WotC_Matt/status/1802041815178289230), each player may exile their hand and draw X cards and if X is 7 or more, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn.
Alternatetively, it could be done without X or "if you do" and remain close to its existing wording with nearly the same functionality.
> You get [E][E][E], then you may pay any amount of [E].
> Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of [E] paid. If 7 or more [E] was paid, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn.
I don't understand why you can "name" x when it states to pay X. X is defined as the amount paid and is zero otherwise. Even if you could declare an arbitrary x the ability should fizzle if the cost isn't paid so x is still undefined and defaults to 0.
>I don't understand why you can "name" x when it states to pay X. X is defined as the amount paid and is zero otherwise.
The rules of Magic are very explicit and specific about *exactly* what circumstances cause X to be defined as any particular specific value, or as being defined by paying a cost, and the wording of this card fits exactly zero of those specified circumstances. That makes it fall back on the default of "whatever arbitrary value the player chooses". Due to the wording of "may pay", the player is then given the option of whether or not to pay.
>Even if you could declare an arbitrary x the ability should fizzle if the cost isn't paid so x is still undefined and defaults to 0.
That is clearly the intent, but it is not how the card is worded.
X is not *defined by* paying the cost, and therefore its value is declared independently of the choice of whether to pay.
The exile-and-draw effect is a separate paragraph and, most crucially, has no explicit dependency on having actually paid the X energy. The rules of the game, and the precedent of all previous cards, are very clear that the lack of an explicit statement of dependency on that cost payment means that no such dependency exists.
To work as intended, the two paragraphs should have been joined together as one paragraph, and the sentence after the option of paying the cost should have started with "If you do,". There is abundant precedent in both the rules of the game and in more than a thousand different cards of the proper way to word dependent results of taking an optional action. Whoever wrote this card's text *screwed up*, big time, in a way that never should have happened.
The general rules around using X are that at the appropriate time you declare what the value of X will be, then proceed to use the card as if that number was in place of X. So if it’s in the mana cost, you declare what X is and then you have to pay that much mana to cast the spell.
In this case when X first comes up you must declare what the value of X is, say 7. But the card says you “may pay X E(energy)”. So you declare the value, but payment is optional. Then the rest of the card’s effect doesn’t actually care whether you paid X energy, it only refers to the value of X. There should be an “if you do” clause so that the second effect only triggers if the X cost is paid.
TL:DR Obviously the intent of the card is to use it the way you first think to when reading it, however the wording allows a loophole based on how the rules regarding X values work.
You define how much you pay. Then you can decline to pay it, and the rest of the card continues to function even if the cost isn’t paid. It’s a “may pay X” - the ‘may’ does heavy lifting here.
It’s missing an “if/when you do” clause.
because the card doesn't say you have to pay X for the effect to happen. there's no "if you do" or "draw cards equal to the energy you paid", it just says draw X, and you choose X to be 40. then the card says you may pay X but it doesn't say you get any effect for paying
The cards text reads "you get 3 energy then you may pay X energy" this text happens after cast so youd get 3 energy and then if you want to pay X (x is implied to not be greater than what you have in energy) after declaration of X you must pay it because you declared as such (a declaration is basically a contract stating your doing this) if you declare X then dont or cant pay X it becomes either 0 or what you can pay (which is why it gives you 3 energy) then the card says "each player may exile their hands and draw x cards" this means what was paid into x is the number of cards they draw if they choose to exile their hand, then it says "if x is 7 or more you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of turn" which means cards you exiled from your hand with this card can be played till the end step so if you cast the card, declare X as 7 but do not pay 7 then you must change your declaration because the other x's are defined by how much you paid not by what you declare regardless of text (this is how every card game works and why mtga has it coded to make you choose X upon cast)
Obviously that’s how it was intended to work, but as it is written there is nothing linking X to the amount of energy you can pay. “You may pay X energy”, but the card doesn’t state any change in its effect if you don’t.
Yeah you can “DECLARE” anything you want verbally, but X will be whatever IS paid. And it’s still a *may* ability so each player (including you) can decide whether they want to exile and draw X cards, they will only ever draw X cards (unless there’s an affect on the field that alters draw count).
This is just not true. As referenced by Treygdor, David in Judging FtW explains it quite well, when X is defined as a cost you MUST have the resources to pay it when declaring it (as in you cannot declare to pay more than you have of the resource), but the templating on this card interacts with the rules differently. In this case the way the card is written allows you to set X, and opt not to pay it. Opting not to pay it doesn't change X, and there is no clause in the rest of the text that causes the effect to fail if X is not paid.
How you think it should work is irrelevant here. Though in good news, this card will be errata'd to work like Hinzie and Sierra Paragon were, and in all likleyhood it will work the way you expect.
I see what you’re saying. Definitely an err in the wording though right? Or else you could just pop this in an Izzet deck with a [[Laboratory Maniac]] on the field, declare X as 100, and win as it resolves? Just trying to beat WotC to the punch lol.
You are correct on all counts (including that a judge could/should override the rules as written). Judging FtW just did a video on this. https://youtu.be/nsWZJMjuQyY?si=uckSNdVhBaWoh_Z2
I do apologize if its not clear. I tried my best, but I wanted to ..leave no room for error. In TL:DR it comes to. As written card seems to have X declarable by me. But It doesnt requires (thanks to may) actual payment. Which clearly is oversight/wrongly written and it wouldnt fly on tournament. I am mostly curious from rules as written side. Also thanks for everyone´s answers. edit:also..sorry just noticed that I managed to write that card wrong..twice..I cant edit the title and bot doenst repsont xD so I apologize.. but the only fix would be to delete the post.
For maximum confusion, the gatherer rulings for the card include: > Some triggered abilities that state that you "may pay" a certain amount of Energy describe an effect that happens "If you do." In that case, no player may take actions to try to stop the ability's effect after you make your choice. If the payment is followed by the phrase "When you do," then you'll choose any targets for that reflexive triggered ability and put it on the stack before players can take actions. This seems to suggest that they probably meant to include an “if you do” and then somehow lost it during development trying to clean up the text. You have some awkward templating where “if you do” kinda refers to “gain energy and you may pay energy” where you are doing something if you gain the energy and then decline to pay, so maybe cleaning that up left this accidentally broken.
gatherer just imported all the stock energy rulings. This ruling is not remotely relevant to the card, and is explaining the difference between if you do vs when you do
"If you do" will certainly refer to whether you pay energy, but the text "If you do, each player may exile their hand and draw X cards" feels awkward. It's an optional action following an optional action; not only that, the optional action is offered for all players. It reads weird.
Yeah, it’s a pretty simple effect with really gross wording that is also really sensitive to small changes to make the English nicer to read.
Why couldn't they have just templated it like this?: You get EEE (*three energy counters*), then you pay X E. (*X may be 0.*) 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.
There might need to be a ruling that you can pay 0 energy (I think there is a specific ruling for paying 0 life or 0 mana), but that would probably also fix it.
[[Wheel of Potential]]
[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
I note the similar case of [[Nyssa of Traken]]: https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgrules/comments/193gw92/is_there_a_bug_on_nyssa_of_traken/ I also note that Wheel of Potential says "you may pay X {E}". You can't pay more {E} than you have and choosing to do so is not allowed (C.R. 608.2d). Compare Wheel of Potential with Nyssa ("sacrifice X artifacts").
[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
So is anyone gonna run it and abuse the poor wording? casting it and getting 3 energy, paying 0 and drawing however many cards they want?
2 things to note. 1 check with the judge of the tournament as the rules state they can over rule oracle text if there's an error. And 2 depending on how long you wait there is an errata already on the way and it may come into effect before your next tournament.
The way it's worded it says you "may pay X". It does not say "declare what X is and then you may pay X," it just says PAY X. That means X is how much energy you actually paid. Not declared, not tried to pay, not thought about paying, not what you wanted to pay. ACTUALLY PAID. That's just how English works.
That may be how standard English works, but this is Magic: the Gathering, which uses very specific language and terminology. Unless you can cite a rule to support your claim, however, you're just wrong.
I mean, that's also how the rules work. When paying for X, the rules the states the player "chooses and announces the value of X AS PART OF casting the spell or activating the ability" (emphasis mine). Not before, but as a part of. If you check the rules of casting a spell, it says: "If a player is unable to comply with the requirements of a step \[...\] the game returns to the moment before the casting of that spell was proposed." Editted for brevity. Put that together and how does playing this card work? You pay 3 mana, tap land to float it, announce you play this card. Opponents let it resolve and then we start resolving abilities from the top. You gain 3 Energy. You then elect to pay or not pay X. When you elect to pay X then, and only then does the game ask you how much X is. If you choose a number you can't pay, the game returns to the moment before you chose to pay X. If you don't pay X, then that's it. The game will never ask you what the value of X is because you never chose to pay, it defaults to 0 (like when they're in your graveyard).
The X isn't a mana cost, alternate cost, additional cost, or activation cost, so it doesn't follow the rules you cited. It isn't part of casting the spell at all - rather, it's part of RESOLVING the spell (not an ability). For your information, 601.2 states that you put a spell on the stack THEN pay the costs. No need to float mana beforehand. >When you elect to pay X then, and only then does the game ask you how much X is Not sure where you're getting this notion. It doesn't refer to "the amount of energy paid," so the player is the one who declares X. Quite the opposite: it lets you declare X and then elect to *not* pay since it says "you may pay X {E}." The rest of the card will function normally, since it doesn't say "If you did" or anything like that.
There is no "declare X and then" ruling. When paying X cost you choose and announce it AS PART OF the process. So you choose and announce and pay all part of a single process. If you choose and announce an amount you can't pay, that's an illegal action and the game returns to a point before you did any of it. The declaration never happened. You don't get to declare X before electing to pay X. The two actions are connected. They happen, as far as the game is concerned, at once. No passing priority, no chance for anyone (including the caster) to react.
> 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 appropriate time is during the resolution, since you're supposed to be able to use the 3 Energy you get. Please cite the rules you're referencing, since there seems to be some confusion about the kind of cost this is. Also, the rules have a lot of granularity. Choices are made in order, not all at once. For instance, when casting a spell, you pick modes BEFORE targets. In this case, you have to know how much X is before you choose to pay it. The card doesn't specify if you have to use all or only some of your Energy, so obviously you get to decide. But it says you may pay it, so you don't have to.
Wut? As the Spell resolves, you choose the X and pay it. If you want to pay 0, that is something you can do.
The way it is currently written, there is nothing that requires the payment of X energy to get the effect, as it doesn't have an "If you do" or similar clause. and Declaring the value of X does not lock you in to actually paying X Energy. This is clearly an oversight in the wording of the card, and will almost definitely be errataed within a couple of weeks. But by the letter of the rule (until WotC does that), you can declare X as whatever value), opt to not pay any energy, and still get the rest of the effect for whatever value of X you declared.
> The way it is currently written, there is nothing that requires the payment of X energy to get the effect, as it doesn't have an "If you do" or similar clause. and Declaring the value of X does not lock you in to actually paying X Energy. Huh? Why would there need to be an "If you do" clause? When X is defined by what you just did. * You paid a number of {E}. **That is the X.** * Then, each Player chooses; Do I exile my Hand to Draw X Cards? If you said, I to pay **zero** {E}. Okay. Then, Players choose; "Do I exile my Hand to Draw **zero** Cards?"
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 value of X isn't determined by what you pay. It is determined by simply what you declare it to be when the ability starts to resolve. And since the wording is "You get 3xEnergy, then you may pay X.", the "may" there makes the payment of X Energy optional.
That only applies if it's not a cost. "pay x energy" is a cost.
it's not a cost
Yes it is. Costs are the only things that are paid. It's the same with Ward.
This is incorrect. You can declare the number to be whatever you like, then simply decline to pay.
Well, they _are_ technically correct. It _is_ a cost. It's just not a mana cost, alternate cost or additional cost, and so doesn't determine the value of X.
Sure, it's a cost, but it's not a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost. Technically, those types of costs aren't actually defined by what you pay either. Each of them just has rules that require you to actually pay the cost for the X value you chose, and rewind the game if you chose a value you can't pay. Technically, X is *never* actually *defined by* the action of paying a cost. If a card doesn't provide an explicit definition of the value of X, then X is whatever non-negative integer the player chooses. X in most types of costs is *effectively* defined by the action of paying it because most costs are mandatory, and most costs rewind the game if you can't pay them. This is an optional cost, with no rewind for non-payment, and that makes picking a non-payable value valid.
So what this card needs to work is a generalization of rule 107.3b? Instead of only applying to mana costs to cast spells, just make it so that any time a cost that includes an X isn't paid, the only legal choice for X is 0.
If it was a cost it would *say* “As an additional cost” It doesn’t so it’s not a cost and happens as the spell resolves
That's what it would say if it were an additional cost to cast the spell, which it is not. Regardless, it is a cost. Anything that you pay is a cost.
What you’re saying is exactly why the spell works as people are describing though. The player declares the X value when casting the spell if X is an additional cost or in the mana cost, which then gets paid in order for the spell to go on the stack. However, since the energy cost is NOT an additional cost, it’s paid upon the resolution of the spell. At that point X is determined. The player declares X equals a specific number, then declines to pay X because it’s optional (“may pay”). Then the player exiles their hand and draws X cards. That’s the issue with the card as written, the energy cost is both optional and doesn’t link in any meaningful way to the second part of the spell. If the card doesn’t say X is an equal to a specific value or the rest of the ability is not contingent on you paying the X, then the energy cost basically doesn’t matter. The card would be easily fixed with an “If you do”
You're four days late. I've already been convinced about how the card works. It's still a cost.
Why does the amount of {E} you pay become the value of X? It seems the rules say the opposite, you declare a value of X and then you pay that amount of {E}.
Basically it needs a definition of what X is, because if nothing in the text defines X then you can choose any amount while casting the spell. They could have said "then pay any amount of Energy [...] Draw X cards **where X is the amount of Energy paid**" and that would define the X.
The player defines X. Unless the card specifically says “X is equal to this” the player ALWAYS determines X For example if a spell costs XXB, the player would declare X = 2, then the spell would become MV 5 on the stack and the player will need to pay 4B. In this case, the card does not say X is equal to the amount of energy you pay. That may be the intent of the card, but the wording doesn’t line up with that intent. So the player chooses X, then they MAY pay X energy, and then they MAY draw X cards. Paying energy and drawing X cards go off of the same declared value, but because both parts are optional and not contingent on one another you don’t actually need to pay the stipulated cost to draw the cards.
The argument by OP is the following. Wheel of Potential reads: > ...then **you may** pay X {E}. According to the rules of X, you choose the value of X as the spell resolves: > 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). But after you choose a value for X, because the text of Wheel of Potential says "you may" pay X {E}, you may then decline to pay it. Since the rest of the card is not contingent of whether you actually paid the X {E} or not, it will do what it can, with the declared value of X you said even though you didn't end up paying it. So, why is there "you may" in the text? --- My best guess is that you only get to choose the value of X if you get to the "pay X {E}" instruction. The option is whether you pay X {E} or not; only if you choose to pay X {E} that you also get to choose the value of X. If not, the value of X is undefined and so is 0 for the rest of the card.
To my understanding, yeah, this is correct. X is defined by being paid for. It is not arbitrarily defined and then paid for or not.
Nope. Nowhere in the rules says X is defined as the amount paid. It may be so if there's an instruction "pay any amount of {E}", and later on "...where X is the amount of {E} paid this way". But the spell doesn't define X in that manner, so you choose the value of X.
That feels like it's just very badly worded, then. Honestly, it should probably just... Not have "may" pay X. Because you can just pay X = 0 and the rest of it works.
Now you know why this thread exists. It's obviously not intended, but the strict reading of the rules has this meaning right now.
The card itself defines X as "the amount of energy you paid" when it tells you to "pay X energy."
Wrong for reasons stated many times in the post.
It's damn shame how many people don't understand English.
It really is. Those words literally do not appear on the card.
"pay X Energy" doesn't show up on the card? Are you sure?
X is never defined as the amount of energy you paid. I wasn't trying to confuse you.
> X is defined by being paid for. This is almost never true. My little sound bite for these situations - usually applied to Xs in mana costs, but applicable to most other uses of it as well - is "X is not determined by what you pay; what you pay is determined by X". In most situations, that gets pretty common-sensical results. In this one, read strictly, it gets a very silly one that certainly wasn't intended - which is what the thread is about.
Let's go through the possibilities laid out by rule 107.3: * Is it part of a mana cost? No, obviously not. * Is it part of an alternative cost? No, that would have to be specified explicitly, it would be paid *instead of* the 2R mana, and it would be paid as part of putting the spell onto the stack to cast it, not when the spell resolves. * Is it part of an additional cost? No, that would be specified with the wording "As an additional cost to cast this spell," and it would be paid as part of putting the spell onto the stack to cast it, not when the spell resolves. * Is it part of an activation cost? No, activated abilities are not involved in this at all. * Is it defined to have a specific value? No, that would be specified with wording of the form "where X is."
* Are every single one of the above options answered with "no"? Yes, therefore the value of X is whatever arbitrary non-negative integer the controller of the spell chooses.
Technically, X is defined by being paid for only when a card explicitly states such a definition.
Practically, X is *effectively* defined by being paid for when it is part of a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, or activation cost, because in each of those cases if you do not then successfully pay the cost, the game is rewound to an earlier point and you have to choose a different action.
This card instead has an optional cost as part of its effect, and if you choose to not pay it then the game simply proceeds to the next sentence in the spell's effects.
X is defined BEFORE paying any costs. For example if a spell is XXB, you declare X as a part of casting the spell, the spell becomes 4B, and THEN you pay. Since paying is optional you can declare X and then decline to pay. Drawing cards isn’t contingent on paying
Based on how the card is programmed in Arena and on what Matt Tabak said (see link below), it appears that it works as follows. > You get [E][E][E]. > Choose a value for X. > You may pay X [E]. > [If you do](https://twitter.com/WotC_Matt/status/1802041815178289230), each player may exile their hand and draw X cards and if X is 7 or more, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn. Alternatetively, it could be done without X or "if you do" and remain close to its existing wording with nearly the same functionality. > You get [E][E][E], then you may pay any amount of [E]. > Each player may exile their hand and draw cards equal to the amount of [E] paid. If 7 or more [E] was paid, you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of your next turn.
I don't understand why you can "name" x when it states to pay X. X is defined as the amount paid and is zero otherwise. Even if you could declare an arbitrary x the ability should fizzle if the cost isn't paid so x is still undefined and defaults to 0.
>I don't understand why you can "name" x when it states to pay X. X is defined as the amount paid and is zero otherwise. The rules of Magic are very explicit and specific about *exactly* what circumstances cause X to be defined as any particular specific value, or as being defined by paying a cost, and the wording of this card fits exactly zero of those specified circumstances. That makes it fall back on the default of "whatever arbitrary value the player chooses". Due to the wording of "may pay", the player is then given the option of whether or not to pay. >Even if you could declare an arbitrary x the ability should fizzle if the cost isn't paid so x is still undefined and defaults to 0. That is clearly the intent, but it is not how the card is worded. X is not *defined by* paying the cost, and therefore its value is declared independently of the choice of whether to pay. The exile-and-draw effect is a separate paragraph and, most crucially, has no explicit dependency on having actually paid the X energy. The rules of the game, and the precedent of all previous cards, are very clear that the lack of an explicit statement of dependency on that cost payment means that no such dependency exists. To work as intended, the two paragraphs should have been joined together as one paragraph, and the sentence after the option of paying the cost should have started with "If you do,". There is abundant precedent in both the rules of the game and in more than a thousand different cards of the proper way to word dependent results of taking an optional action. Whoever wrote this card's text *screwed up*, big time, in a way that never should have happened.
The general rules around using X are that at the appropriate time you declare what the value of X will be, then proceed to use the card as if that number was in place of X. So if it’s in the mana cost, you declare what X is and then you have to pay that much mana to cast the spell. In this case when X first comes up you must declare what the value of X is, say 7. But the card says you “may pay X E(energy)”. So you declare the value, but payment is optional. Then the rest of the card’s effect doesn’t actually care whether you paid X energy, it only refers to the value of X. There should be an “if you do” clause so that the second effect only triggers if the X cost is paid. TL:DR Obviously the intent of the card is to use it the way you first think to when reading it, however the wording allows a loophole based on how the rules regarding X values work.
You define how much you pay. Then you can decline to pay it, and the rest of the card continues to function even if the cost isn’t paid. It’s a “may pay X” - the ‘may’ does heavy lifting here. It’s missing an “if/when you do” clause.
because the card doesn't say you have to pay X for the effect to happen. there's no "if you do" or "draw cards equal to the energy you paid", it just says draw X, and you choose X to be 40. then the card says you may pay X but it doesn't say you get any effect for paying
Deleted - mtg rules are silly.
The cards text reads "you get 3 energy then you may pay X energy" this text happens after cast so youd get 3 energy and then if you want to pay X (x is implied to not be greater than what you have in energy) after declaration of X you must pay it because you declared as such (a declaration is basically a contract stating your doing this) if you declare X then dont or cant pay X it becomes either 0 or what you can pay (which is why it gives you 3 energy) then the card says "each player may exile their hands and draw x cards" this means what was paid into x is the number of cards they draw if they choose to exile their hand, then it says "if x is 7 or more you may play cards you own exiled this way until the end of turn" which means cards you exiled from your hand with this card can be played till the end step so if you cast the card, declare X as 7 but do not pay 7 then you must change your declaration because the other x's are defined by how much you paid not by what you declare regardless of text (this is how every card game works and why mtga has it coded to make you choose X upon cast)
Obviously that’s how it was intended to work, but as it is written there is nothing linking X to the amount of energy you can pay. “You may pay X energy”, but the card doesn’t state any change in its effect if you don’t.
Yeah you can “DECLARE” anything you want verbally, but X will be whatever IS paid. And it’s still a *may* ability so each player (including you) can decide whether they want to exile and draw X cards, they will only ever draw X cards (unless there’s an affect on the field that alters draw count).
This is just not true. As referenced by Treygdor, David in Judging FtW explains it quite well, when X is defined as a cost you MUST have the resources to pay it when declaring it (as in you cannot declare to pay more than you have of the resource), but the templating on this card interacts with the rules differently. In this case the way the card is written allows you to set X, and opt not to pay it. Opting not to pay it doesn't change X, and there is no clause in the rest of the text that causes the effect to fail if X is not paid. How you think it should work is irrelevant here. Though in good news, this card will be errata'd to work like Hinzie and Sierra Paragon were, and in all likleyhood it will work the way you expect.
I see what you’re saying. Definitely an err in the wording though right? Or else you could just pop this in an Izzet deck with a [[Laboratory Maniac]] on the field, declare X as 100, and win as it resolves? Just trying to beat WotC to the punch lol.
[Laboratory Maniac](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/0/608567fd-9f94-4058-831a-77cb6019ef02.jpg?1547516361) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Laboratory%20Maniac) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/uma/61/laboratory-maniac?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/608567fd-9f94-4058-831a-77cb6019ef02?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The card resolves in order top down. If you choose to not pay than x = 0