It feels kind of backwards that the kind of choice that lets you pick an impossible option and escape paying any consequences is called "villainous" when that actually makes it less bad for the victim than a 'normal' choice.
I think it's kind of flavorful for the villain's proposed "choice" to have some sort of fatal flaw that the hero is able to logic their way out of. It makes sense in a cheesy, serialized TV series kind of way.
I'm gonna be honest it didn't even cross my mind "choice" and "villainous choice" worked differently at all, I just assumed it was just basically flavour text.
Even though it's effectively been Doctor Who Week on JFtW, it's as if Dave's challenged himself not to say the words "Doctor Who": he never mentions it in the other videos, and the intro here just talks about "the most recent set". (Maybe he's a Star Trek fan and can't say it for religious reasons.) But finally, at 5:43, he cracks.
One ruling I quite appreciate is this one: 702.124m “Doctor’s companion” means “You may designate two legendary creature cards as your commander rather than one if one of them is this card and the other is a legendary Time Lord Doctor creature card that has no other creature types.” Because while it may be obvious to other people who "The Doctor" is, it's not to me; that is: I don't know of any card named "The Doctor" which is usually what a wording like "doctor's companion" would mean. I'm also not a fan of the lack of a hyphen between Time and Lord in the Time Lord creature type as this is the first occurrence of having two words be one type. Wizards had previously done something similar with the Assembly-Worker creature type except it did have the hyphen. The choice to use a space instead of a hyphen leaves the number of creature types these creatures have ambiguous without consulting the comprehensive rules.
"Time" being a standalone creature type irks me to no end. I have a feeling that idea was probably brought to us by the same people who thought we needed to have convert be a new keyword that's exactly the same thing as transform but only featured on the Transformers cards.
@@miserepoignee9594 as confusing as it might be without reading the comprehensive rules, Gatherer rulings, or the comment you're replying to, "Time" is not a creature type, nor is "Lord" (any cards that say Lord have been errata'd long ago). "Time Lord" is a singular creature type, but "Time" is not a legal name for Cavern of Souls etc. It's still kinda annoying they didn't compromise and add a hyphen to the word, but it's an iconic part of someone else's IP, so I can see how adding the hyphen wouldn't be acceptable. Maybe Gallifreian would have been a better name for the type, but nobody calls them that, and that's where they're from not what or who they are.
Im dying after the chires list analogy 😂. Im going to show thus to all my cousins and see if any parents would stick with the initial list choice inatead of the normal "parents prerogative to chabge my mind" argument 🤣
@Dave If you cast "The End" on a double face card on the back-side let's say Fable Of the mirror breaker reflection side... Do you still get to remove the other copies of the front side from the game? Our reading on it is that with the period after "Exile target card from the game. Search.... " is that it enters exile, then becomes it's front side and you follow the rest of the rules text on "The end" and exile all the fables in their deck/hand/library.
Suggestion for a WOE draft situation I found myself in: I control a Tanglespan Lookout. I cast Unassuming Sage. In response to its trigger, which lets me pay 2 to create a Sorcerer role attached to it, my opponent kills it. If I pay the 2, will Tanglespan Lookout trigger and I draw a card? How does this change if the Sage is returned to my hand with the trigger on the stack, or phased out? What is the ruling on attempting to create roles attached to creatures no longer on the battlefield? Lastly, how would this change if my sage were a Boonweaver Giant instead, and I was attempting to attach a real, non-token aura to a creature no longer on the battlefield? Thank you for the great content!
Have you already? Or can you please create a video about resolving multiple suspended spells? Or a video in general about multiple permanents entering the battlefield, or spells resolving at the same time. Thanks!
The whole choosing an unfulfillable option is quite bad with Dalek Emperor. I've had multiple occasions already when people choose to sacrifice a creature on an empty board.
Wait - so does this mean Ensnared by the Mara casts each of those spells in the middle of its own resolution? Like a crazier Panglacial Wurm? The way you said it sounds like if the first opponent chooses to gives the free spell, that'll resolve before the next person in turn order chooses their villainous choice.
You would cast each spell (put it onto the stack) in the order they are exiled, but none of them would begin to resolve until Ensnared by the Mara itself finishes resolving.
@@StarlitWitchy Because they're being added by each players choice made in APNAP order, one at a time, yes. They go on the stack in the order of the choices made and can't be rearranged. If opponent#1 and #3 let you cast spells, they will be on the stack #3 above #1. You can't put them on #1 above #3 because they aren't trying to be put on the stack at the same time, which WOULD allow you to choose the order.
@@michaelsparks1571 my understanding was that if a spell or ability instructs you to cast a spell then you cast it immediately after that spell or ability resolves, so I thought you might have been able to pick the order they go on the stacks
@@StarlitWitchy Some effects do allow you to pick the order as they instruct you to cast the spells you get all at the same time, necessitating an order be chosen. EbtM's choice mechanic however dictates the spell revealed is put on the stack before the next player even makes their choice.
It's stuff like this that makes MYG so incredibly dense for new players to try to get the hang of. Aside from saying the words 'Villainous Choice', therexs nothing about how the choice is worded that is different from any other choice on a Magic card, but they function completely differently in a way that the term 'Villainous Choice' does not suggest. And there's nothing about the way the normal old MTG choice mechanics that would make these choices broken. But they invent entirely new rules to learn for basically no reason. Like there are a few examples where reading the card doesn't really explain the card, but they tend to be common and consistent. Reading the card definitely doesn't explain the card here, unless you happen to already have the rules for Villainous Choice memorized.
Im actually really disappointed that you cant force choices on your opponent. That means you can make a strong discard focus davros deck and of your deck actually works and makes your opponents hellbent they can just choose to ignore your effects. That gives your opponent's more control over your effects than you. I hope this ruling changes cause it kills the flavor of the cards. Its not a "make your choice doctor, either I win or you lose" into "either I win or you suffer no consequences what so ever!" Like villian catches you walking your dog in the street puts a gun to your head and says. "Gimme $300 or I shoot your dog" Does it make any sense that you can go "I choose to give you $300, heres $3.50 and a bag of warm dog shit." And walk away!? No!
Depending how honorable the villain is, they'd have to respect you rules lawyering them. There are all kinds of stories where someone sells their firstborn to a witch/demon and decides to never have children. Then there's this whole arc where the demon/witch sets out to trick them into having a child. Besides, it's not actually a choice if the victim doesn't have any options. It doesn't have the same impact if they're not forced to choose, and you're just punching them in the face because you can.
It feels kind of backwards that the kind of choice that lets you pick an impossible option and escape paying any consequences is called "villainous" when that actually makes it less bad for the victim than a 'normal' choice.
Turns out the Hero was really a Villain all along 🧛♂️ Bwahahahah!!
I think it's kind of flavorful for the villain's proposed "choice" to have some sort of fatal flaw that the hero is able to logic their way out of. It makes sense in a cheesy, serialized TV series kind of way.
It also forces the player who cast the spell that forces a villanous choice to do it only when it's an actual choice.
I'm gonna be honest it didn't even cross my mind "choice" and "villainous choice" worked differently at all, I just assumed it was just basically flavour text.
Even though it's effectively been Doctor Who Week on JFtW, it's as if Dave's challenged himself not to say the words "Doctor Who": he never mentions it in the other videos, and the intro here just talks about "the most recent set". (Maybe he's a Star Trek fan and can't say it for religious reasons.) But finally, at 5:43, he cracks.
One ruling I quite appreciate is this one:
702.124m “Doctor’s companion” means “You may designate two legendary creature cards as your commander rather than one if one of them is this card and the other is a legendary Time Lord Doctor creature card that has no other creature types.”
Because while it may be obvious to other people who "The Doctor" is, it's not to me; that is: I don't know of any card named "The Doctor" which is usually what a wording like "doctor's companion" would mean.
I'm also not a fan of the lack of a hyphen between Time and Lord in the Time Lord creature type as this is the first occurrence of having two words be one type. Wizards had previously done something similar with the Assembly-Worker creature type except it did have the hyphen. The choice to use a space instead of a hyphen leaves the number of creature types these creatures have ambiguous without consulting the comprehensive rules.
"Time" being a standalone creature type irks me to no end. I have a feeling that idea was probably brought to us by the same people who thought we needed to have convert be a new keyword that's exactly the same thing as transform but only featured on the Transformers cards.
@@miserepoignee9594 as confusing as it might be without reading the comprehensive rules, Gatherer rulings, or the comment you're replying to, "Time" is not a creature type, nor is "Lord" (any cards that say Lord have been errata'd long ago). "Time Lord" is a singular creature type, but "Time" is not a legal name for Cavern of Souls etc.
It's still kinda annoying they didn't compromise and add a hyphen to the word, but it's an iconic part of someone else's IP, so I can see how adding the hyphen wouldn't be acceptable. Maybe Gallifreian would have been a better name for the type, but nobody calls them that, and that's where they're from not what or who they are.
Really great info. Never would have thought villainous choice operated so differently.
Im dying after the chires list analogy 😂. Im going to show thus to all my cousins and see if any parents would stick with the initial list choice inatead of the normal "parents prerogative to chabge my mind" argument 🤣
That difference really does make it resemble how Bond escapes some death traps.
@Dave If you cast "The End" on a double face card on the back-side let's say Fable Of the mirror breaker reflection side... Do you still get to remove the other copies of the front side from the game? Our reading on it is that with the period after "Exile target card from the game. Search.... " is that it enters exile, then becomes it's front side and you follow the rest of the rules text on "The end" and exile all the fables in their deck/hand/library.
Suggestion for a WOE draft situation I found myself in:
I control a Tanglespan Lookout. I cast Unassuming Sage. In response to its trigger, which lets me pay 2 to create a Sorcerer role attached to it, my opponent kills it. If I pay the 2, will Tanglespan Lookout trigger and I draw a card? How does this change if the Sage is returned to my hand with the trigger on the stack, or phased out? What is the ruling on attempting to create roles attached to creatures no longer on the battlefield? Lastly, how would this change if my sage were a Boonweaver Giant instead, and I was attempting to attach a real, non-token aura to a creature no longer on the battlefield?
Thank you for the great content!
So basically hey keyworded a mechanic, but made it work slightly differently from the original cards with that mechanic. Big classic of MTG Rules!
7:08 "exterminated" earned my like 😂
Have you already? Or can you please create a video about resolving multiple suspended spells? Or a video in general about multiple permanents entering the battlefield, or spells resolving at the same time. Thanks!
I'm trying to determine if The Sixth Doctor's ability would get duplicated or not by Clara Oswald. Can you make a video on this? Great content!
The whole choosing an unfulfillable option is quite bad with Dalek Emperor. I've had multiple occasions already when people choose to sacrifice a creature on an empty board.
Wait - so does this mean Ensnared by the Mara casts each of those spells in the middle of its own resolution? Like a crazier Panglacial Wurm? The way you said it sounds like if the first opponent chooses to gives the free spell, that'll resolve before the next person in turn order chooses their villainous choice.
You would cast each spell (put it onto the stack) in the order they are exiled, but none of them would begin to resolve until Ensnared by the Mara itself finishes resolving.
@@michaelsparks1571the spells have to be in that order?
@@StarlitWitchy Because they're being added by each players choice made in APNAP order, one at a time, yes. They go on the stack in the order of the choices made and can't be rearranged. If opponent#1 and #3 let you cast spells, they will be on the stack #3 above #1. You can't put them on #1 above #3 because they aren't trying to be put on the stack at the same time, which WOULD allow you to choose the order.
@@michaelsparks1571 my understanding was that if a spell or ability instructs you to cast a spell then you cast it immediately after that spell or ability resolves, so I thought you might have been able to pick the order they go on the stacks
@@StarlitWitchy Some effects do allow you to pick the order as they instruct you to cast the spells you get all at the same time, necessitating an order be chosen. EbtM's choice mechanic however dictates the spell revealed is put on the stack before the next player even makes their choice.
It's stuff like this that makes MYG so incredibly dense for new players to try to get the hang of. Aside from saying the words 'Villainous Choice', therexs nothing about how the choice is worded that is different from any other choice on a Magic card, but they function completely differently in a way that the term 'Villainous Choice' does not suggest. And there's nothing about the way the normal old MTG choice mechanics that would make these choices broken. But they invent entirely new rules to learn for basically no reason.
Like there are a few examples where reading the card doesn't really explain the card, but they tend to be common and consistent. Reading the card definitely doesn't explain the card here, unless you happen to already have the rules for Villainous Choice memorized.
5:10 does nick physically shuffle or not in this scenario?
I love the chores analogy lol!
I just want to know if "villainous choice" is considered the same as "vote."
Im actually really disappointed that you cant force choices on your opponent.
That means you can make a strong discard focus davros deck and of your deck actually works and makes your opponents hellbent they can just choose to ignore your effects.
That gives your opponent's more control over your effects than you. I hope this ruling changes cause it kills the flavor of the cards. Its not a "make your choice doctor, either I win or you lose" into "either I win or you suffer no consequences what so ever!"
Like villian catches you walking your dog in the street puts a gun to your head and says.
"Gimme $300 or I shoot your dog"
Does it make any sense that you can go "I choose to give you $300, heres $3.50 and a bag of warm dog shit." And walk away!? No!
Depending how honorable the villain is, they'd have to respect you rules lawyering them.
There are all kinds of stories where someone sells their firstborn to a witch/demon and decides to never have children. Then there's this whole arc where the demon/witch sets out to trick them into having a child.
Besides, it's not actually a choice if the victim doesn't have any options. It doesn't have the same impact if they're not forced to choose, and you're just punching them in the face because you can.
Wow, that's really stupid and another reason why I'm glad I'm not a judge any more. "It's an exception because f*** you, that's why."
Hm.. So... You may also throw Risk Factor in here.. Either you take damage or your opponent draws cards.. Sounds villainous enough to me