Someone pointed out that it says "leaves the battlefield" , so gush turns it on too. That's a card people play. Paradoxical outcome as well...

@Islandswamp said in [Too Aether Too Revolt] Fatal Push:

Someone pointed out that it says "leaves the battlefield" , so gush turns it on too. That's a card people play. Paradoxical outcome as well...

That's pretty nutty. Make a blocker with Pyromancer, kill one threat, chump the other!

The first thing I notice is how wizards has changed the templating on wording.

This is very narrow, but the way they worded this card, will the revolt clause trigger if you ever controlled the permanent.

If you opponent gained control of your 1/1 and then you kill that with a lightning bolt, will that allow you to destroy a 4 cc creature of your choosing even though when the creature died this turn it wasn't controlled by you. This is a two pronged questions:

  1. If control switched this turn
  2. if control switched on a previous turn

Because I could argue it was technically "controlled" at some point in the game. Especially since the card refers to the past tense of the word and specifically uses "controlled"

Magic doesn't have a lot of "past-tense" interactions.

Also can this card target any creature? And only destroys it if it has converted mana cost 2 or lower (or 4 or lower)?

Personally, i think they wanted to make the templating cleaner and instead they made a big mess.

last edited by gkraigher

@gkraigher You're right, this can target any creature regardless of casting cost. Great to make elemental, monks and storm count ❤

I've been waiting for a card like this for a while. If only to stress my theory that one mana is still worth 4 life in the Eldrazi matchup.

@fsecco said in [Too Aether Too Revolt] Fatal Push:

@gkraigher You're right, this can target any creature regardless of casting cost. Great to make elemental, monks and storm count ❤

I'm thinking it's a great way to steal a Marit Lage with a Dack Fayden Emblem.

@gkraigher said in [Too Aether Too Revolt] Fatal Push:

The first thing I notice is how wizards has changed the templating on wording.

This is very narrow, but the way they worded this card, will the revolt clause trigger if you ever controlled the permanent.

If you opponent gained control of your 1/1 and then you kill that with a lightning bolt, will that allow you to destroy a 4 cc creature of your choosing even though when the creature died this turn it wasn't controlled by you. This is a two pronged questions:

  1. If control switched this turn
  2. if control switched on a previous turn

Because I could argue it was technically "controlled" at some point in the game. Especially since the card refers to the past tense of the word and specifically uses "controlled"

Magic doesn't have a lot of "past-tense" interactions.

Also can this card target any creature? And only destroys it if it has converted mana cost 2 or lower (or 4 or lower)?

Personally, i think they wanted to make the templating cleaner and instead they made a big mess.

I dont see how there is any confusion over this. While I haven't found the exact phrasing yet, in 2 different articles from Wizards they describe revolt has happening any time a permanent you control has left the battlefield prior in the turn. Its pretty straight forward. If you controlled it at the beginning of the turn and an opponent steals it and then it leaves play, a permanent you control did not leave play. If you steal a permanent from an opponent and sacrifice it, then a permanent you control left play. The reference to 'at any point in the turn' refers to the permanent leaving play while its under your control. It doesn't refer to you controlling it at any point.

If you have a link to the exact wording in the rules, that would be great. Its not there yet and none of the articles about new mechanics spell out the rule either.

last edited by Khahan

@Islandswamp said in [Too Aether Too Revolt] Fatal Push:

Is swords and fragmentize unplayable because of misstep?

This is a great removal spell. .

No but the decks the internet bring Fragmentize in against dont play Missteps. Or the Misstep your Misstep circlejerk ensues vs something like Oath.

"destroy target creature if it has converted mana cost 2 or less"

So you're saying that this can work late game with dack emblem to steal an opposing Mentor? This card just keeps getting better

last edited by structuremole

@Khahan

"If you controlled it at the beginning of the turn and an opponent steals it and then it leaves play, a permanent you control did not leave play"

You're not staying consistent. You start off by saying I "controlled" the card at some point, then lost control, and when it died I no longer had control. The problem is the card checks to see if I "controlled" it (which means if I ever controlled it, not if I control it when it is dying).

It does not read like morbid. If you are correct, similar cards have read like this in the past: "revolt-... ,if a card you control left the battlefield this turn, then"

Instead they changed the word templating and made it confusing as hell because by the English language I have "controlled" it. Past tense, just like if I had "controlled" it when it died.

They eliminated 2 comas and gave the card ambiguity. It's also a run on sentence with two if statements, and no comma. Where are the commas?

Look you are probably right about th intention of the card, all I'm saying is they had a great template for this and F'ed it up.

Independent of the (terrible) wording, a 1 mana instant speed black removal spell that kills 95% of the creatures in the format is vintage playable.

last edited by gkraigher

@nedleeds said in [Too Aether Too Revolt] Fatal Push:

@Islandswamp said in [Too Aether Too Revolt] Fatal Push:

Is swords and fragmentize unplayable because of misstep?

This is a great removal spell. .

No but the decks the internet bring Fragmentize in against dont play Missteps. Or the Misstep your Misstep circlejerk ensues vs something like Oath.

I'm not trying to argue, I just think the original statement is hyperbolic (perhaps for comedic intent). I agree that Mental Misstep is one of the all-time great mistakes in Magic, but its existence doesn't mean we stop playing Ancestral Recall or other one-drops. As a mater of fact I posit that it's pretty easy to get a bad player to waste their Misstep on something dumb and allow the better player to cast their more important spell.

Anyway I think this is decent removal and it could fill a role. Not losing four life to cast for one mana is huge.

@Islandswamp said in [Too Aether Too Revolt] Fatal Push:

@nedleeds said in [Too Aether Too Revolt] Fatal Push:

@Islandswamp said in [Too Aether Too Revolt] Fatal Push:

Is swords and fragmentize unplayable because of misstep?

This is a great removal spell. .

No but the decks the internet bring Fragmentize in against dont play Missteps. Or the Misstep your Misstep circlejerk ensues vs something like Oath.

I'm not trying to argue, I just think the original statement is hyperbolic (perhaps for comedic intent). I agree that Mental Misstep is one of the all-time great mistakes in Magic, but its existence doesn't mean we stop playing Ancestral Recall or other one-drops. As a mater of fact I posit that it's pretty easy to get a bad player to waste their Misstep on something dumb and allow the better player to cast their more important spell.

Anyway I think this is decent removal and it could fill a role. Not losing four life to cast for one mana is huge.

I get it, but unfortunately the Derpstep is with us and is one of the 3 most played cards in Vintage by a wide margin. ~60% of decks play ~4. So I was pointing the comparables out at "1" mana like Dismember and Snuff Out ... maybe even fringe stuff like Murderous Cut. They kill Smasher, Karn, Trike as well and avoid the ubiquitous skill testing masterpiece that is Misstep. It's worth thinking about. Granted you can play this card and join the fun and play 3-4 Misstep yourself.

@nedleeds But this card is best against the decks that don't run Misstep.

Why are people so worried about Misstep? People can have only 4 in a deck. Misstep can be played around and baited out. Swords is played in the format and no one says you shouldn't play that card due to Misstep.

The card should be judged on its merits not what answers opponents could have at their disposal. This card kills a host of creatures for a single mana with no penalty (I.e loss of life with Dismember or Snuff Out). I think this is a fine card in non white decks like BUG. Probably not more than a 2 of out of the sideboard however.

One could make the argument that the more 1 drops you have in your deck, the worse misstep becomes because it allows you greater flexibility to bait them out, as well as gives you more proactive incentives to run your own.

Force of will sees play in the format too, it does not mean you should not play cards that can be countered in your deck.

Fatal Push is a good card.

But, I'm not even super excited about this card specifically. The Revolt ability is trivial to activate with fetches and other utility lands, and if it results in more undercosted cards like this, things could get nutty. Very fast.

Let's go Revolt Ancestral Recall! 🙂

last edited by MaximumCDawg

@gkraigher said in [AER] Fatal Push:

@Khahan

"If you controlled it at the beginning of the turn and an opponent steals it and then it leaves play, a permanent you control did not leave play"

You're not staying consistent. You start off by saying I "controlled" the card at some point, then lost control, and when it died I no longer had control. The problem is the card checks to see if I "controlled" it (which means if I ever controlled it, not if I control it when it is dying).

It does not read like morbid. If you are correct, similar cards have read like this in the past: "revolt-... ,if a card you control left the battlefield this turn, then"

Instead they changed the word templating and made it confusing as hell because by the English language I have "controlled" it. Past tense, just like if I had "controlled" it when it died.

They eliminated 2 comas and gave the card ambiguity. It's also a run on sentence with two if statements, and no comma. Where are the commas?

Look you are probably right about th intention of the card, all I'm saying is they had a great template for this and F'ed it up.

Independent of the (terrible) wording, a 1 mana instant speed black removal spell that kills 95% of the creatures in the format is vintage playable.

That's why I asked for a link to the actual rules for it. I have yet to see them. Where exactly are you getting this from?

Found it. Today's spoiler has the wording on one of the cards instead of just the keyword: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/aethergeode-miner-2017-01-03

I think you're right. Reading that text it does open the door to losing control of a permanent and having it leave play will cause Revolt to apply.

last edited by Khahan

@Protoaddct said in [AER] Fatal Push:

One could make the argument that the more 1 drops you have in your deck, the worse misstep becomes because it allows you greater flexibility to bait them out, as well as gives you more proactive incentives to run your own.

Force of will sees play in the format too, it does not mean you should not play cards that can be countered in your deck.

I'm fine with Force of Will, it's 2 cards, requires deck building parameters. My point was in this color for "1" mana there are options that dodge Misstep. Hitting a mentor with this might not be enough regardless. The decks where creature removal shines are mostly Thorn decks that tend to not run Misstep.

  • 28
    Posts
  • 15231
    Views