One of the challenges there though is that would allow you to target that Lagrella, thus exiling herself, though yes the wording is ridiculously confusing! I know how it works now, but don't see how those words mean that. If it said "up to one other creature controlled by each player" maaaybe?
Thank you, I just drafted this card, your video is the first one that popped up, great info and judging by how many views this has, everyone was confused, I think it needs to be reworded to make sense
@@HamHocks42 I played this at a recent draft at my LGS and had her in my draft deck she legit had me win because everyone who read the card had the same idea i did where i can remove everything with her and then when she leaves everything comes back. We all said this seemed way to busted, but "reading the card explains the card" My last match was the final and i legit won because i pulled patch up, and put her back on the field which let me lock every card since thats how myself and everyone else read her. The card was very confusing and like stated in the video it seems WAY to strong for a 3 drop card based on how its wording is.
@@scorp9171 The card states "controlled by different players". Because there is no way to target multiple creatures controlled by one player, one is the limit by default.
I know I’m late to the party but I just got into magic a few months ago, and I’ve been looking into checking out different cards/archetypes than the few I’ve been playing as I got used to various mechanics and stuff. I’ve been really wanting to try some blink mechanics and got a lagrella as an award for a win last week but haven’t been able to figure out wtf exactly she does and HOW she does it 😂. Thank you for this video, you explained everything perfectly! I subbed 😊
I played this at pre-release incorrectly and even as it happened I and my opponent knew that wasn't correct, problem is no one could work out how it was meant to be played. In the end, we were so confused we convinced each other the +2/+2 boost would apply to your opponent's creature/s as a kind of draw-back if they popped Lagrella. Ironically that caused me to lose the game.
Yeah, they thought the "controlled by different players" was a clear enough limiting statement, but it just isn't. Thank you for checking out the video, and I'm sorry it didn't work out at the prerelease for you.
Man they've worded this horribly.. Ya its exactly what I thought. Exile any number of the ops creatures until she leaves the battlefield.. Ouff the for the Clarity
Thanks for the succint explanation and going over some possible builds. I watched an explanation when it was first previewed and then promptly forgot it until now when I cracked a copy haha.
Ok can someone explain to my why I can’t choose more than one? I looked online and on the errata and everywhere and in no place in the official rules does it say I can’t choose more than one. What I illustrating is that if I have two legal targets other than Lagrella and my opponents have two legal targets each what is stopping me from declaring two or greater? I’m well aware that it has to (or should at least) level out. Any clarity on this would be greatly appreciated.
I faced this card in pre-release and it was played wrong. My opponent exile all my creatures and what confused me is that the word creature is in plural so I thought he was right. badly worded card
That’s my point too it’s worded wrong and there is no ruling on wotc website that I can fine. There is no one any where. Where are we getting single target per player. Wotc fed up in my opinion and they need to go with how it’s written or just band the card cuz they messed up
@@shawnwillbok It targets creatures controlled by different players. You can't target two creatures controlled by the same player because creatures controlled by the same player aren't controlled by different players.
@Dapperghast Meowregard that could also be read as different players other than yourself though. The any number bit is what's the worst as it implies just that.
If it was meant to be "up to 1" they could have printed it that way.... I'm still confused, don't know what the heck this card does. About to play it on MTGa to find out
shes honestly the perfect commander for my Bant boardwipe tribal recursion deck. combine her with angel of serenity, eternal and timeless witness, achreaomancer, menmonic wall, and a few others with only land ramp spells (because your going to be continuously getting rid of everything anyways) and deck reshufflers like kozilek or elixir of immortality. its a recipe thats shown its self time and time again to be hated by many lol. so finding out this commander existed only makes it stronger which now i have to re build it XD
So I agree with this interpretation, until Wotc brings out an errata or official statement. Till then, might bluff unsuspecting Ops into fearing a three mana board wipe
Wizards seems to be getting worse and worse at wording cards in such a way that players can easily understand them. And this one is so easy to fix “For each player, choose up to one target creature that player controls”
So I’m still confused on this ruling. Mainly how any number means 0 or 1. When in cases of let’s say Ao, the dawn sky any number can be the up to the max (in ao’s case 7 if some are 0 mana cost). So how does any number of other targets controlled by different players mean only one??? I’ve only been able to find explanations that change the wording the explain it.
It’s any number as long as each one is controlled by a unique player. As a result, it ends up being one creature per player. The wording as printed is offensively bad.
Wow! I know nothing about the legal bar exam, but I'm wondering how many bar exam takers would correctly answer a question with this wording adapted to a legal situation. Thanks for explaining this confusing wording! Another aspect of this card that confuses me is: can it exile token creatures? I'm currently assuming that it cannot exile token creatures since it would be impossible for a token creature to remain in exile "until Lagrella leaves the battlefield." I'm also currently assuming that Lagrella could exile token creatures if the text would be truncated to just its first 18 words, that is: "When Lagrella, the magpie enters the battlefield, exile any number of other target creatures controlled by different players." That would make Lagrella very powerful in that it could put out of existence strong token creatures, for example, a zombie army with 20 +1/+1 counters. Are my current assumptions correct? Thanks!
Sorry for the late reply. This card actually CAN exile tokens as written. You are correct, though, that those tokens don't come back to play when Lagrella leaves the battlefield, so using her to pick off a pesky token is a strong play. This is also how Brutal Cathar works.
Unfortunately, there are two rulings for Lagrella on Gatherer and neither offer clarification on this point. I was leveraging multiple sources prior to making this video including licensed judges who were commenting on this card specifically. The restrictive clause is actually "controlled by different players." Because of that line, each creature must have a different controller than any other creature selected. That said, you can target one creature from any number of players. This wording seems to be intended to make the card viable in Commander.
It doesn't, it means "any number." the catch is it more specifically means "Any number of legal targets," and two creatures controlled by the same player would not be a legal target, as creatures controlled by the same player aren't controlled by different players.
Thank's for your explanations ! Are you sure about the stealing creature part ? Because on the card there is no mention that the creature comes back under it's owner control. Is it by default then ?
Any creature that returns to the battlefield returns to its owner's side of the field by default, in the same way that any card sent to the grave will go to its owner's graveyard, not the player that controlled it..
Like ryanmiller already said. But it's worth noting that some cards exile creatures you control and bring them back to the board under your control, not its owner's control, like Cloudshift or Conjurer's Closet, which is handy if you steal a creature with Merieke Ri Berit and want to keep it without it dying.
In theory, because it says any number of creatures, as long as it's the same amount of creatures, could I exile 2+ of each players creatures or only 1?
I'm afraid it's only one because it says "controlled by different players" -- this means that each creature needs to be controlled by a different player.
But “controlled by different players” is a very poorly worded restrictive clause that means each creature needs to have a different controller than any other creature targeted. It is as unintuitive as it could possibly be.
@@HamHocks42 the only thing that supports your interpretation of the card is the second sentence. It says when, not whenever which means that each time lagralla comes back only (an) meaning one exiled card can come to your battlefield with the counters on it. But yeah this is still a very breakable 3 cmc blink card that basically can be looped to provide infinite counter triggers to all your creatures, even though only each creature can have up to 2 added each time they come back you can use other cards to stack triggers to add counters to each creature not being blinked
@@auronsmist No it can be multiple cards. If you exile a creature you control and a creature you own but an opponent took control of, when Lagrella leaves you get both creatures back. With the wording of the last sentence, I would interpret it as both creatures get the +1/+1 counters.
@@HamHocks42 Why hasn't wizards added rulings clarification on gatherer for it? It makes no sense to me. Also, if I pick two creatures owned by player A and three creatures owned by player B, have I not satisfied selecting any number of targets owned by different players? It doesn't say each must be owned by different players.
As far as I gather: 1. It says other. So if you're insinuating you can Exile itself no. Otherwise you have no legal targets on your board so move on. 2. Yes 1 or 0 pretty binary. What sucks is this card is worded horribly.
Quick question. When playing graft, graft says this creature comes into play with x +1/+1 counters. If lagrella exiles (removes from play) would the creature I control come back into play with the x +1/+1 counter plus the 2 from lagrella or just the 2 from lagrella?
"Controlled by different players" is a targeting restriction that requires each target to have a different controller than any other target. That's where the one per player is coming from. My apologies if I didn't explain that clearly in the video.
Feel like you're trying to fit the card into a mold of what you think it should do based on the cmc/mv. It's an overpowered uncommon in it's current state. If the functionality is meant to match your explanation of how you think it works, the card will need errata. Not sure how it got past QA in its current state.
I can see how it might seem that way, but I’ve heard multiple sources including judges speak about this card and I promise it works the way I described. I would agree that an errata to clarify it would be great.
I adore that this comment keeps coming in so many years after I uploaded this video. The sentence continues. It's poorly worded and super confusing, but there is an additional clause on the sentence.
@@HamHocks42 how hard is it to just write "for each player" and "up to one"? Anyhow thanks for the clarification. Totally almost built a commander that cheats because the whole reading the card.
Yes, you absolutely can. That said, when you exile your opponent's commander, they'll get the option to move it back to their command zone (exactly the same as if it had died). If they chose not to, it will be exiled under Lagrella until she leaves the battlefield.
i have no idea how you came up with "one", it clearly states "any number". The 3cmc is made up that you can kill lagrella and they all get counters which is a trade
It’s any number of creatures “controlled by different players.” Each creature needs to have a unique controller. Also, only your creatures come back with counters. You are welcome to be frustrated that the wording is confusing, but I promise you, that’s how it works.
Because you might have more than one opponent and you can select no creatures, or one per player, or one for select players and none for others. It's incredibly awkward, and I sustain it's the worst templating in MTG history.
So, in other words, "When LtM ETBs, choose any # of players, for each of those players, exile one of their critters until LtM leaves the battlefield. When an exiled card enters the battlefield under your control this way, put two +1/+1 counters on it." Cuz what they ACTUALLY WROTE on the card is, "When Lagrella ETBs, wipe your opponents' boards, attach Lightning Greaves to Lagrella, then cast Overrun, and win the game."
Yes, your version is much clearer and more consistent with other MTG cards they've printed in the past. I think the problem with the current wording is that it's open to interpretation. It feels like a riddle we're supposed to solve instead of a functional game piece.
No, what they actually wrote on the card is basically the first one with a few caveats (most importantly she can't exile herself), they just forgot to translate it from Magic-ese to English.
Okay I'm pretty new to this game so please don't take any offense to this, but how can I really 'trust' what you are saying right now? I mean from all i know this could just your interpretation. Did you like get this from any sources from inside the Wizards of the Coast or... Again, I don't mean this in an offensive way, I just want to know what you're saying about this, seemingly, OP card is true or not. Peace and love to you. :)
2 роки тому+1
if it works like this it should say ... "you may choose to exile up to 1 creature for each player, each target creature must be controlled by a diferent player".. so..
I personally thought this card was super strait forward. It's a short check list to go through. 1) Are you targeting Creatures? 2) Are they controlled by different players? Once you can answer yes to both of those qualifiers, you're good to go. Reading the card explains the card ;)
Just because it's worded badly doesn't mean it doesn't do the broken effect it's telling you. Any Number of Other Target Creatures Controlled by different players. Any number is Any Amount. Other Target Creatures Controlled by Different Players. Different is litterly everyone on at the table. Until they Errata this, this is a board wipe.
Judges at sanctioned events and the coding on Arena and MTGO will not agree with that interpretation. “Controlled by different players” is a limiting statement. A confusing one, but a limiting statement.
"Any number" does not give you permission to ignore targetting restrictions. Agadeem's Awakening doesn't let you get back two creatures with the same mana value just because it says "Any number."
"Controlled by different players" means each creature needs to have a unique controller. It's not written well, but that is the intent and how the card will work. I promise.
I completely understand that because of the mana weight and other values of the card that this card shouldn't mean what it seems because it seems inconsistent. But.... Depopulate is in the same set as a 4 mana value and wipes the board. Also, it would have been less words to say something like ..."up to 1 target creature ..." I think the wording isn't weird but flexible. But if you are correct about it only being " up to 1 creature per player" then the language says the opposite ( because grammatically it does). I mean no offense by saying this, and I know the whole point of your video is to help people. But if you are right about what it says then wizards of the coast dropped the ball on this one and needs to rectify it. Wizards does not make the rules for english grammar. Again, you are just trying to help and it is appreciated- thank you.
why is written so weirdly? who decided to write it like a college essay and they need to make as many words as possible? lol. this would go well with fiend hunter
I wish I had a satisfying answer for you. It appears, to me, that the templating was designed to make the card easier to understand for multiplayer formats like Commander, but it massively missed the mark. I dig the fiend hunter idea. Any kind of blink shenanigans could result in some interesting turns with Lagrella for sure - Soul Herder, Yorion, Charming Prince, etc.
If there are 8 players in the game, you could exile up to 8 creatures because you can get any number as long as they're each owned by different players. The sentence isn't incorrect when you read it entirely, just super confusing as evidenced by the entire comment section on this video.
Thank you for the comment. I assure you the card does work as I described. I'm not making up my own rules. Because it says "controlled by different players," each creature has to have a different controller in order to be an eligible target. My apologies if I didn't explain that clearly in the video.
The most necessary "how it works" yet
I wouldn't even say it's confusing, more that it just doesn't do what the card clearly says it can do which is amazing that this got printed.
They should have just said up to one creature controlled by each player. They need to errata this card
I couldn't agree more.
One of the challenges there though is that would allow you to target that Lagrella, thus exiling herself, though yes the wording is ridiculously confusing! I know how it works now, but don't see how those words mean that.
If it said "up to one other creature controlled by each player" maaaybe?
Finally someone that explains The card without linking us to their deck builds…SUBSCRIBED
Thank you, I just drafted this card, your video is the first one that popped up, great info and judging by how many views this has, everyone was confused, I think it needs to be reworded to make sense
Thank you for the kind words! I think you're right, this card is confusing everyone right now and I'm really glad this video was able to help.
This is one of the worst wordings on a magic card that I've seen in my entire life playing this game.
I'm right there with you, which is unfortunate because a cool card design is getting overshadowed by a confusing text box.
Read Book Burning lol.
@@HamHocks42 I played this at a recent draft at my LGS and had her in my draft deck she legit had me win because everyone who read the card had the same idea i did where i can remove everything with her and then when she leaves everything comes back. We all said this seemed way to busted, but "reading the card explains the card" My last match was the final and i legit won because i pulled patch up, and put her back on the field which let me lock every card since thats how myself and everyone else read her. The card was very confusing and like stated in the video it seems WAY to strong for a 3 drop card based on how its wording is.
@@5inso344Doesn’t it say any number ? Why is one the limit? What rule makes one the limit?
@@scorp9171 The card states "controlled by different players". Because there is no way to target multiple creatures controlled by one player, one is the limit by default.
I know I’m late to the party but I just got into magic a few months ago, and I’ve been looking into checking out different cards/archetypes than the few I’ve been playing as I got used to various mechanics and stuff. I’ve been really wanting to try some blink mechanics and got a lagrella as an award for a win last week but haven’t been able to figure out wtf exactly she does and HOW she does it 😂. Thank you for this video, you explained everything perfectly! I subbed 😊
I played this at pre-release incorrectly and even as it happened I and my opponent knew that wasn't correct, problem is no one could work out how it was meant to be played. In the end, we were so confused we convinced each other the +2/+2 boost would apply to your opponent's creature/s as a kind of draw-back if they popped Lagrella. Ironically that caused me to lose the game.
Yeah, they thought the "controlled by different players" was a clear enough limiting statement, but it just isn't. Thank you for checking out the video, and I'm sorry it didn't work out at the prerelease for you.
Thank you sooo much for explaining this so well. I'll be using her differently in the future.
Man they've worded this horribly.. Ya its exactly what I thought. Exile any number of the ops creatures until she leaves the battlefield.. Ouff the for the Clarity
Thanks for the succint explanation and going over some possible builds. I watched an explanation when it was first previewed and then promptly forgot it until now when I cracked a copy haha.
Ok can someone explain to my why I can’t choose more than one? I looked online and on the errata and everywhere and in no place in the official rules does it say I can’t choose more than one. What I illustrating is that if I have two legal targets other than Lagrella and my opponents have two legal targets each what is stopping me from declaring two or greater?
I’m well aware that it has to (or should at least) level out. Any clarity on this would be greatly appreciated.
Easy explanation and to the point. Definitely helped me understand it more now
When i first tried reading this card all i thought was DAMNIT my brain is melting. With all the words on this card it should of been an alchemy card.
Super late but appreciate the help. I main Sisay Weatherlight Captain legendary tribal and pull Lagrella when things are about to hit me for too much
Thank you for doing the Lord’s work.
Thanks for clearing that up! What a confusing card.
Played against this at pre release and got 3 creatures exiled and still played through it thankfully
I faced this card in pre-release and it was played wrong. My opponent exile all my creatures and what confused me is that the word creature is in plural so I thought he was right. badly worded card
That’s my point too it’s worded wrong and there is no ruling on wotc website that I can fine. There is no one any where. Where are we getting single target per player. Wotc fed up in my opinion and they need to go with how it’s written or just band the card cuz they messed up
@@shawnwillbok It targets creatures controlled by different players. You can't target two creatures controlled by the same player because creatures controlled by the same player aren't controlled by different players.
@@dapperghastmeowregard when you put it this way it makes total sense!
@Dapperghast Meowregard that could also be read as different players other than yourself though. The any number bit is what's the worst as it implies just that.
If it was meant to be "up to 1" they could have printed it that way.... I'm still confused, don't know what the heck this card does. About to play it on MTGa to find out
Well what happened on arena? I was tempted to do this myself to see how the engine plays the card.
What's a good "creature" replacement for this card?
For each player exile up to one Target creature...... It amazes me how cards like this get made....
It would have actually taken less text to say it right.
I kept reading "this way" and scratching my head.
shes honestly the perfect commander for my Bant boardwipe tribal recursion deck. combine her with angel of serenity, eternal and timeless witness, achreaomancer, menmonic wall, and a few others with only land ramp spells (because your going to be continuously getting rid of everything anyways) and deck reshufflers like kozilek or elixir of immortality. its a recipe thats shown its self time and time again to be hated by many lol. so finding out this commander existed only makes it stronger which now i have to re build it XD
could play her in green with Vorinclex and they come back with 4 counters, right?
That’s correct, and pretty nice. I like it.
So I agree with this interpretation, until Wotc brings out an errata or official statement. Till then, might bluff unsuspecting Ops into fearing a three mana board wipe
Wizards seems to be getting worse and worse at wording cards in such a way that players can easily understand them. And this one is so easy to fix
“For each player, choose up to one target creature that player controls”
So I’m still confused on this ruling. Mainly how any number means 0 or 1. When in cases of let’s say Ao, the dawn sky any number can be the up to the max (in ao’s case 7 if some are 0 mana cost).
So how does any number of other targets controlled by different players mean only one???
I’ve only been able to find explanations that change the wording the explain it.
It’s any number as long as each one is controlled by a unique player. As a result, it ends up being one creature per player. The wording as printed is offensively bad.
Wow! I know nothing about the legal bar exam, but I'm wondering how many bar exam takers would correctly answer a question with this wording adapted to a legal situation. Thanks for explaining this confusing wording!
Another aspect of this card that confuses me is: can it exile token creatures?
I'm currently assuming that it cannot exile token creatures since it would be impossible for a token creature to remain in exile "until Lagrella leaves the battlefield."
I'm also currently assuming that Lagrella could exile token creatures if the text would be truncated to just its first 18 words, that is: "When Lagrella, the magpie enters the battlefield, exile any number of other target creatures controlled by different players." That would make Lagrella very powerful in that it could put out of existence strong token creatures, for example, a zombie army with 20 +1/+1 counters.
Are my current assumptions correct? Thanks!
Sorry for the late reply. This card actually CAN exile tokens as written. You are correct, though, that those tokens don't come back to play when Lagrella leaves the battlefield, so using her to pick off a pesky token is a strong play. This is also how Brutal Cathar works.
Thanks for clarifying! Yes, one of the official rulings for Brutal Cathar explicitly answers my question about tokens.
Where is the ruling of this from wizards? Where is everyone getting one from. It said “any number”. When has “any number” mean 1
Unfortunately, there are two rulings for Lagrella on Gatherer and neither offer clarification on this point. I was leveraging multiple sources prior to making this video including licensed judges who were commenting on this card specifically.
The restrictive clause is actually "controlled by different players." Because of that line, each creature must have a different controller than any other creature selected. That said, you can target one creature from any number of players. This wording seems to be intended to make the card viable in Commander.
100% agree
It doesn't, it means "any number." the catch is it more specifically means "Any number of legal targets," and two creatures controlled by the same player would not be a legal target, as creatures controlled by the same player aren't controlled by different players.
thank you ! it helped me a lot :)
Thank's for your explanations ! Are you sure about the stealing creature part ? Because on the card there is no mention that the creature comes back under it's owner control. Is it by default then ?
Any creature that returns to the battlefield returns to its owner's side of the field by default, in the same way that any card sent to the grave will go to its owner's graveyard, not the player that controlled it..
Any permanent, for that matter. Not just creatures.
Like ryanmiller already said. But it's worth noting that some cards exile creatures you control and bring them back to the board under your control, not its owner's control, like Cloudshift or Conjurer's Closet, which is handy if you steal a creature with Merieke Ri Berit and want to keep it without it dying.
@@CamraMaan Thank you !
In theory, because it says any number of creatures, as long as it's the same amount of creatures, could I exile 2+ of each players creatures or only 1?
I'm afraid it's only one because it says "controlled by different players" -- this means that each creature needs to be controlled by a different player.
@@HamHocks42 but then the +1/+1 is useless
You can target your own creatures too, and if one of those comes back, it does so with a +1/+1 counter on it. I don’t see how that’s useless.
@@HamHocks42 ohhhhh, I think I got it now, you can exile one of each players creatures
If you have a Lagrella on the board, and play another one, can the second one exile the first before the legendary rule goes into effect?
No. The Legendary rule is a state based affect and doesn't go on the stack.
Any number is any number.....
But “controlled by different players” is a very poorly worded restrictive clause that means each creature needs to have a different controller than any other creature targeted. It is as unintuitive as it could possibly be.
@@HamHocks42 the only thing that supports your interpretation of the card is the second sentence. It says when, not whenever which means that each time lagralla comes back only (an) meaning one exiled card can come to your battlefield with the counters on it. But yeah this is still a very breakable 3 cmc blink card that basically can be looped to provide infinite counter triggers to all your creatures, even though only each creature can have up to 2 added each time they come back you can use other cards to stack triggers to add counters to each creature not being blinked
@@auronsmist No it can be multiple cards. If you exile a creature you control and a creature you own but an opponent took control of, when Lagrella leaves you get both creatures back. With the wording of the last sentence, I would interpret it as both creatures get the +1/+1 counters.
@@HamHocks42 Why hasn't wizards added rulings clarification on gatherer for it? It makes no sense to me. Also, if I pick two creatures owned by player A and three creatures owned by player B, have I not satisfied selecting any number of targets owned by different players? It doesn't say each must be owned by different players.
"Reading the card, explains why Wizards need people who understand English as a first language."
thanks man, dunno who let the text go to print the way it is on this one XD XD
1. what happens if Lagrella is the only creature I control?
2. Is the max number of creatures exiled per player restricted to 1?
As far as I gather:
1. It says other. So if you're insinuating you can Exile itself no. Otherwise you have no legal targets on your board so move on.
2. Yes 1 or 0 pretty binary.
What sucks is this card is worded horribly.
@@moodlampActual thanks
Does it work with phasing ?
Quick question. When playing graft, graft says this creature comes into play with x +1/+1 counters. If lagrella exiles (removes from play) would the creature I control come back into play with the x +1/+1 counter plus the 2 from lagrella or just the 2 from lagrella?
I can't get a definitive answer anywhere, but the rules for exile state that the card is removed from play.
It will enter with the counters given to it by graft, as well as the two +1/+1 counters from Lagrella.
Reading the card explains the card
So can she exile herself with this ability, and if so, how does that work out?
Great question. She cannot target herself because it says "other creatures." So, fortunately, we don't need to try and unpack that potential mess.
Thank u, I saw this in my bundle like... why am I not playing this?? Still good card though
can i get my commander out of this exile ? or is it trapped there ?
Kill Lagrella.
It’s says exile until it she leaves the battlefield so can she do it each turn or?
"...enters the battlefield, ..."
Question : i'm able to exile 1 creature of the opponent's and no one of mine ?
That is correct. If you’re in a game with multiple opponents, you can exile one creature from each of them as well.
Just reading this card word for word, I don't have any idea where people are getting confused or coming up with "one creature per player".
"Controlled by different players" is a targeting restriction that requires each target to have a different controller than any other target. That's where the one per player is coming from. My apologies if I didn't explain that clearly in the video.
Feel like you're trying to fit the card into a mold of what you think it should do based on the cmc/mv. It's an overpowered uncommon in it's current state. If the functionality is meant to match your explanation of how you think it works, the card will need errata. Not sure how it got past QA in its current state.
I can see how it might seem that way, but I’ve heard multiple sources including judges speak about this card and I promise it works the way I described. I would agree that an errata to clarify it would be great.
So it says any number but its just 1 for each player?
What is english?
I adore that this comment keeps coming in so many years after I uploaded this video. The sentence continues. It's poorly worded and super confusing, but there is an additional clause on the sentence.
@@HamHocks42 how hard is it to just write "for each player" and "up to one"?
Anyhow thanks for the clarification. Totally almost built a commander that cheats because the whole reading the card.
I get that that's how it works but the wording in unequivocally wrong I don't understand how it got printed like that.
Can you exile an opponent's commander this way??
Yes, you absolutely can. That said, when you exile your opponent's commander, they'll get the option to move it back to their command zone (exactly the same as if it had died). If they chose not to, it will be exiled under Lagrella until she leaves the battlefield.
Thanks for How to
thanks
i have no idea how you came up with "one", it clearly states "any number". The 3cmc is made up that you can kill lagrella and they all get counters which is a trade
It’s any number of creatures “controlled by different players.” Each creature needs to have a unique controller. Also, only your creatures come back with counters. You are welcome to be frustrated that the wording is confusing, but I promise you, that’s how it works.
what is the point of "any number" then.
Because you might have more than one opponent and you can select no creatures, or one per player, or one for select players and none for others. It's incredibly awkward, and I sustain it's the worst templating in MTG history.
So, in other words,
"When LtM ETBs, choose any # of players, for each of those players, exile one of their critters until LtM leaves the battlefield. When an exiled card enters the battlefield under your control this way, put two +1/+1 counters on it."
Cuz what they ACTUALLY WROTE on the card is, "When Lagrella ETBs, wipe your opponents' boards, attach Lightning Greaves to Lagrella, then cast Overrun, and win the game."
Yes, your version is much clearer and more consistent with other MTG cards they've printed in the past.
I think the problem with the current wording is that it's open to interpretation. It feels like a riddle we're supposed to solve instead of a functional game piece.
No, what they actually wrote on the card is basically the first one with a few caveats (most importantly she can't exile herself), they just forgot to translate it from Magic-ese to English.
Crap just built a whole deck around a board wipe ability then got curios and saw this
Yeah, I'm sorry. That's a super easy misunderstanding -- the wording on this card is rough.
Brutal Kathar's big sister 😎
Okay I'm pretty new to this game so please don't take any offense to this, but how can I really 'trust' what you are saying right now? I mean from all i know this could just your interpretation. Did you like get this from any sources from inside the Wizards of the Coast or...
Again, I don't mean this in an offensive way, I just want to know what you're saying about this, seemingly, OP card is true or not.
Peace and love to you. :)
if it works like this it should say ... "you may choose to exile up to 1 creature for each player, each target creature must be controlled by a diferent player".. so..
Damn I thought that I got a cheeky board wipe. SMH
Yeah. Sorry.
I got the cool art version of this card too bad its too big brain for me
I personally thought this card was super strait forward. It's a short check list to go through.
1) Are you targeting Creatures?
2) Are they controlled by different players?
Once you can answer yes to both of those qualifiers, you're good to go. Reading the card explains the card ;)
damn you should be a judge
All creatures
Just because it's worded badly doesn't mean it doesn't do the broken effect it's telling you. Any Number of Other Target Creatures Controlled by different players. Any number is Any Amount. Other Target Creatures Controlled by Different Players. Different is litterly everyone on at the table. Until they Errata this, this is a board wipe.
Judges at sanctioned events and the coding on Arena and MTGO will not agree with that interpretation. “Controlled by different players” is a limiting statement. A confusing one, but a limiting statement.
"Any number" does not give you permission to ignore targetting restrictions. Agadeem's Awakening doesn't let you get back two creatures with the same mana value just because it says "Any number."
@@dapperghastmeowregard When you put it that way, I get it a bit more. I think this is as close as I'll get to accepting some odd word soup.. Thanks!
hi hamhocks42
Hi Aiden! Thank you for the comment! I hope you’re having an awesome day!
maybe it should read "...exile up to one creature belonging to other players..." if it means only one. Wizards has used such text on many cards.
I agree, it should read that way. This templating is incredibly confusing and leads to way too much confusion.
"you may exile up to one target creature from each player until Lagrella leaves play."
@@ramelband But that isn't what it says....
"Controlled by different players" means each creature needs to have a unique controller. It's not written well, but that is the intent and how the card will work. I promise.
I completely understand that because of the mana weight and other values of the card that this card shouldn't mean what it seems because it seems inconsistent. But.... Depopulate is in the same set as a 4 mana value and wipes the board. Also, it would have been less words to say something like ..."up to 1 target creature ..." I think the wording isn't weird but flexible. But if you are correct about it only being " up to 1 creature per player" then the language says the opposite ( because grammatically it does). I mean no offense by saying this, and I know the whole point of your video is to help people. But if you are right about what it says then wizards of the coast dropped the ball on this one and needs to rectify it. Wizards does not make the rules for english grammar. Again, you are just trying to help and it is appreciated- thank you.
why is written so weirdly? who decided to write it like a college essay and they need to make as many words as possible? lol. this would go well with fiend hunter
I wish I had a satisfying answer for you. It appears, to me, that the templating was designed to make the card easier to understand for multiplayer formats like Commander, but it massively missed the mark.
I dig the fiend hunter idea. Any kind of blink shenanigans could result in some interesting turns with Lagrella for sure - Soul Herder, Yorion, Charming Prince, etc.
So not "any number". So the wording isn't confusing, it's just incorrect.
If there are 8 players in the game, you could exile up to 8 creatures because you can get any number as long as they're each owned by different players. The sentence isn't incorrect when you read it entirely, just super confusing as evidenced by the entire comment section on this video.
@@HamHocks42 Then just say up to one creature per player? The sentence is not correct.
I have a sneaking suspicion this card was an attempt to not use pronouns!
Been playing since 93'...for me, this is THE worst worded card EVER.
Should never have gone to print like this...WotC, wtf...?
Incorrect. Haters are hating on this card as its OP. DO WHAT THE CARD SAYS AND DONT MAKE UP YOUR OWN RULES
Thank you for the comment. I assure you the card does work as I described. I'm not making up my own rules. Because it says "controlled by different players," each creature has to have a different controller in order to be an eligible target. My apologies if I didn't explain that clearly in the video.
So can she exile herself with this ability, and if so, how does that work out?
No, the card says 'other'...