Landcycling/Fluctuator

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

I am not certain whether Fluctuator will work with landcycling abilities.
While I have a Fluctuator in play, can I mountaincycle a Chartooth Cougar
paying 0 mana?

The comprehensive rules are not exactly clear about this:

502.18c Landcycling is a variant of the cycling ability. The phrase "[Land
type]cycling [cost]" means "[Cost], Discard this card from your hand: Search
your library for a [land type] card, reveal it, and put it into your hand.
Then shuffle your library." Any cards that trigger when a player cycles a
card will trigger when a card's landcycling ability is played. Any effect
that stops players from cycling cards will stop players from playing cards'
landcycling abilities.

The involved cards:

Fluctuator
{2}
Artifact
Cycling costs you up to {2} less to play.

Chartooth Cougar
{5}{R}
Creature -- Cat Beast
4/4
{R}: Chartooth Cougar gets +1/+0 until end of turn.
Mountaincycling {2} ({2}, Discard this card from your hand: Search your
library for a Mountain card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. Then
shuffle your library.)

Thank you in advance!
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Langermann <jan.langermannREMOVETHIS@cloac.de> wrote:
>I am not certain whether Fluctuator will work with landcycling abilities.

Landcycling is a form of cycling; Fluctuator will reduce the cost you pay to
play a landcycling ability. (Much like "snow-covered landwalk" is a variant on
landwalk that's more specific, "landcycling" is a variant of cycling that has
a different kind of effect.)

>While I have a Fluctuator in play, can I mountaincycle a Chartooth Cougar
>paying 0 mana?

I see no reason why not.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

"Jan Langermann" <jan.langermannREMOVETHIS@cloac.de> writes:
> I am not certain whether Fluctuator will work with landcycling abilities.
> While I have a Fluctuator in play, can I mountaincycle a Chartooth Cougar
> paying 0 mana?

I would think yes, as landcycling is just a variant of cycling. But,

> The comprehensive rules are not exactly clear about this:
>
> 502.18c Landcycling is a variant of the cycling ability. The phrase "[Land
> type]cycling [cost]" means "[Cost], Discard this card from your hand: Search
> your library for a [land type] card, reveal it, and put it into your hand.
> Then shuffle your library." Any cards that trigger when a player cycles a
> card will trigger when a card's landcycling ability is played. Any effect
> that stops players from cycling cards will stop players from playing cards'
> landcycling abilities.

I would think that those last two sentences are just examples, but
they seem to be the only explanation about what a "variant" means.

> The involved cards:
>
> Fluctuator
> {2}
> Artifact
> Cycling costs you up to {2} less to play.

Another, unrelated question to add to the mix: Does that "up to" in
there imply that the reduction is optional? That is, can I choose to
not take the reduction, or only take a reduction of {1}? Most of the
cost reducers I've seen just say that it costs less to play, not that
it costs up to a certain amount less to play.

> Chartooth Cougar
> {5}{R}
> Creature -- Cat Beast
> 4/4
> {R}: Chartooth Cougar gets +1/+0 until end of turn.
> Mountaincycling {2} ({2}, Discard this card from your hand: Search your
> library for a Mountain card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. Then
> shuffle your library.)

--
Peter C.
Political T.V. commercials prove one thing: some candidates can tell
all their good points and qualifications in just 30 seconds.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Peter Cooper Jr. <pete@cooper.homedns.org> wrote:

> Another, unrelated question to add to the mix: Does that "up to" in
> there imply that the reduction is optional? That is, can I choose to
> not take the reduction, or only take a reduction of {1}? Most of the
> cost reducers I've seen just say that it costs less to play, not that
> it costs up to a certain amount less to play.

It means that it can still apply to the colorless part of a cycling cost
like {1}{W} (and that a second one will be useful for a cycling cost of
{3}). The cost reducers you've see that just say that it costs less to
play -- how many of them reduce the cost by only {1}?
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Peter Cooper Jr. <pete@cooper.homedns.org> wrote:
>> Fluctuator 2 Artifact
>> Cycling costs you up to 2 less to play.
>
>Another, unrelated question to add to the mix: Does that "up to" in
>there imply that the reduction is optional? That is, can I choose to
>not take the reduction, or only take a reduction of {1}?

Yes, and yes. Compare to Memory Crystal, which isn't optional, and Dream
Chisel, which also isn't.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:36:35 -0500, panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W.
Johnson) wrote:

>Peter Cooper Jr. <pete@cooper.homedns.org> wrote:
>
>> Another, unrelated question to add to the mix: Does that "up to" in
>> there imply that the reduction is optional? That is, can I choose to
>> not take the reduction, or only take a reduction of {1}? Most of the
>> cost reducers I've seen just say that it costs less to play, not that
>> it costs up to a certain amount less to play.
>
>It means that it can still apply to the colorless part of a cycling cost
>like {1}{W} (and that a second one will be useful for a cycling cost of
>{3}). The cost reducers you've see that just say that it costs less to
>play -- how many of them reduce the cost by only {1}?

I can find seven that says "cost up to X less":

Catalyst Stone
Fluctuator
Mana Matrix
Planar Gate
Power Artifact
Stone Calendar
Urza's Filter

Of those seven, only Stone Calendar does not reduce cost by 2, but
instead only by 1.

There are a lot more that says "cost X less". Far most of those only
reduce cost by 1 (eg. all with affinity), but some does do more:

Dragonspeaker Shaman
{1}{R}{R}
Creature -- Barbarian
2/2
Dragon spells you play cost {2} less to play.

Edgewalker
{1}{W}{B}
Creature -- Cleric
2/2
Cleric spells you play cost {W}{B} less to play. This effect reduces
only the amount of colored mana you pay. (For example, if you play a
Cleric with mana cost {1}{W}, it costs {1} to play.)

Krosan Drover
{3}{G}
Creature -- Elf
2/2
Creature spells you play with converted mana cost 6 or more cost {2}
less to play.

Urza's Incubator
{3}
Artifact
As ~this~ comes into play, choose a creature type.
Creature spells of the chosen type cost {2} less to play.


So, I wonder. Does that explanation you gave above mean, that if I
have Urza's Incubator in play with Myr as the chosen type. Then my Myr
Mindservant will still cose 1 to play, since its cost of 1 cannot be
reduced by two?
That would really seem counter intuitive, as well as clash with the
reminder text of Edgewalker...

I think/believe/hope that "cost up to ... less" and "cost ... less"
are two slightly different ways of saying exactly the same.

--
Regards
Simon Nejmann
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Simon Nejmann <snejmann@worldonline.REMOVETHIS.dk> wrote:
>panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson) wrote:
>>It means that it can still apply to the colorless part of a cycling cost
>>like {1}{W} (and that a second one will be useful for a cycling cost of
>>{3}). The cost reducers you've see that just say that it costs less to
>>play -- how many of them reduce the cost by only {1}?

No - reducing a cost of 1W by 2 means you pay W. It doesn't mean "it did not
have the full 2-generic cost there to reduce, so Do Nothing", it means "you
can only reduce this cost by 1 generic, so do as much as you can".

>So, I wonder. Does that explanation you gave above mean, that if I
>have Urza's Incubator in play with Myr as the chosen type. Then my Myr
>Mindservant will still cose 1 to play, since its cost of 1 cannot be
>reduced by two?

No, it means that the Mindservant will cost 0 to play, since it -can- be
reduced by 1 but that's the most you can reduce it. (And since Urza's Incubator
does NOT say "this can't reduce the cost below 1" or "if this would reduce the
cost to less than 1, it instead reduces it to 1".)

>I think/believe/hope that "cost up to ... less" and "cost ... less"
>are two slightly different ways of saying exactly the same.

Nope. The former is optional, and variable; you can apply as much of the
reduction as you want. The latter is not optional, and you apply as much as
you can.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Simon Nejmann <snejmann@worldonline.REMOVETHIS.dk> wrote:

> So, I wonder. Does that explanation you gave above mean, that if I
> have Urza's Incubator in play with Myr as the chosen type. Then my Myr
> Mindservant will still cose 1 to play, since its cost of 1 cannot be
> reduced by two?
> That would really seem counter intuitive, as well as clash with the
> reminder text of Edgewalker...
>
> I think/believe/hope that "cost up to ... less" and "cost ... less"
> are two slightly different ways of saying exactly the same.

Well, I see David DeLaney has already posted the correct answer: "up to"
makes it optional, and any excess cost reduction simply stops at zero.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom