r/magicTCG • u/chainsawinsect Boros* • Jun 28 '26
Rules/Rules Question This card has really weird Oracle text compared to its printed text.
357
u/callahan09 Duck Season Jun 28 '26
What’s the deal with the “only you may activate this ability” text? Isn’t that just the default, unless it explicitly says that any player may activate it? The only thing I can think of is if an opponent gains control of the creature later in the turn, they can’t activate the ability? But can YOU still activate it even after the opponent controls it?
360
u/Ak-Xo Duck Season Jun 28 '26
I think that’s the best way to maintain the original flavor of “you may redirect to target creature you control” as written - the creature needs to gain the ability, since players can’t have abilities, but since only “you may direct” it needs that last sentence to make sure an opponent can’t steal it and use the redirection effect
54
u/callahan09 Duck Season Jun 28 '26
Yeah that makes sense, thank you. So does the fact that it explicitly lets you activate the ability mean that you can still activate it if an opponent does take control of it? Or you can only activate it as long as you still control it?
41
u/thisisjustascreename Orzhov* Jun 28 '26
No, you can’t activate abilities of creatures you don’t control unless the ability itself lets you. Martyrdom restricts who can activate the ability, not grants additional access to it that wouldn’t normally exist.
4
u/gooder_name COMPLEAT Jun 29 '26
Are you sure you can't activate the ability? I would have thought the "only you may..." was the key phrase to allow it.
8
u/lasagnaman Jun 29 '26
That doesn't say that you may activate the ability at a time when you wouldn't normally be able to. It only disallows others from activating the ability.
2
2
9
u/thisisjustascreename Orzhov* Jun 29 '26
602.2. To activate an ability is to put it onto the stack and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Only an object’s controller (or its owner, if it doesn’t have a controller) can activate its activated ability unless the object specifically says otherwise.Martyrdom doesn't say you can activate this ability even if you don't control the creature, it says *only* you can activate it.
4
u/RazzyKitty WANTED Jun 29 '26
Martyrdom doesn't say you can activate this ability even if you don't control the creature
It doesn't have to. "Only you can activate this ability" just means that you can activate the ability, regardless of who controls it.
Look at [[Detention Vortex]], which states "Only your opponents may activate this ability." It simply means that the opponents of the controller of the creature can activate it.
Martrydom says that the controller of the spell that granted the ability can activate it, so you can activate it even if you don't control the creature.
2
u/thisisjustascreename Orzhov* Jun 29 '26
That's an aspect of the object itself, which is covered in the rule
unless the object specifically says otherwise.Martyrdom is not the creature, the ability it grants to the creature doesn't say the caster of Martyrdom can activate it, the quotes end right at the end of the redirection ability:
“{0}: The next 1 damage that would be dealt to target creature, planeswalker, or player this turn is dealt to this creature instead.”
→ More replies (1)3
u/Espumma Jun 29 '26
The original text mentions a 'creature you control'. If you lose that creature, both old and current text agree that you may no longer redirect to it.
2
u/gooder_name COMPLEAT Jun 29 '26
I've already been convinced by someone else on the activating, but AFAIK once the effect is started it doesn't care if you stop controlling it, and neither should the old wording. If there was some kind of effect that allowed other players to activate abilities of opponents permanents, presumably it would allow you to activate it.
→ More replies (10)4
u/gooder_name COMPLEAT Jun 29 '26
It's interesting right? The word "Target" is only checked twice – on casting and resolution, after that point it's just "whatever the object dictated when this effect was started". Once it's resolved, that's the creature and only you can do the redirecting. Not 100% on the activating if you don't control it.
18
u/AnnoraxGames Dân Jun 28 '26
It wasn't always that way, the rules used to support players having activated abilities. Channel used to be worded "Until end of turn, you gain 'Pay 1 life: Add C to your mana pool.'" Nowadays they only want players gaining hexproof and shroud.
6
u/GeeJo Jun 29 '26
Nowadays they only want players gaining hexproof and shroud.
Protection, too, insofar as they use Protection at all. [[Seht's Tiger]], [[Noble Heritage]], [[The Stasis Coffin]].
1
u/Spectator9857 Dandadan Jun 29 '26
Does it prevent opponents from stealing it and using the effect? Who is „you“? Is it the controller or the owner?
→ More replies (3)1
u/Flyrpotacreepugmu Elesh Norn Jun 29 '26
The creature doesn't need to gain the ability. They could've done something like [[Channel]] instead. And now that there are cards that care whether creatures have abilities, copy other creatures' abilities, prevent players from activating abilities of certain creatures, remove creatures' abilities, etc, that has serious side effects.
1
1
39
u/Hellas2002 Duck Season Jun 28 '26
I think it’s just to better match the text on the original card. If it were not included, then somebody could steal your creature and activate the ability. This obviously would not have been possible in the original rules text, so they’ve added that line to better match the effect in the game to the original effect.
→ More replies (4)7
u/CSDragon Jun 28 '26
I guess because the original wording didn't check if you still control the creature, you could still redirect to it. This fixes both issues of, "if your opponent takes it they cannot activate the ability", and "if your opponent takes it you can still activate the ability".
3
u/BaconIsntThatGood Colorless Jun 29 '26
I guess it blocks it if another player gains control of that creature during the turn?
Like [[unexpected request]]?
2
u/BuckUpBingle Jun 28 '26
Technically, the effect doesn't care who own the creature when the redirecting is happening, only when the spell is being cast. That's why it says "only you" may activate it. If after casting the spell someone steals the creature, you still maintain the ability to activate the redirect ability.
2
u/Trespin Dân Jun 29 '26
You do not maintain the ability to activate, but the opponent is not able to activate.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Strange-Damage901 Wabbit Season Jun 29 '26
Because someone can gain control of the creature after you cast this spell.
1
u/The_Accident_Prone Golgari* Jun 30 '26
The opponent gaining control is the exact scenario for that wording
1
u/CreepyDentures Duck Season Jun 30 '26
I believe it’s to cover the creature changing controller. I believe you can no longer activate the ability in that case, but it’s probably the best way they could come up with to maintain the cards original intended effect. Of course, the new effect has lots of unintended stuff in there, but what can ya do.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Jimmynids Wabbit Season Jun 28 '26
If a player steals it at instant speed, they would be able to use the ability too, hence the specificity
337
u/messedupmessup12 Wabbit Season Jun 28 '26
I can't wait to dodge this by hitting their battles
21
u/TheLastDudeOnEarth Dân Jun 28 '26
Why would you want to hit their battles?
You would need battles for that to work.
85
u/messedupmessup12 Wabbit Season Jun 28 '26
Don't act like you know how battles work. No one's used then since pre release. None of us remember anything except they are a damage target and another type for my boy tarmogoyf
41
u/TheRealArtemisFowl Twin Believer Jun 28 '26
Nooo my sweet [[invasion of ikoria]] don't listen to him I remember you.
11
u/LordZeya Jun 28 '26
Nobody has ever attacked an invasion of ikoria, tbh.
6
u/Lilium_Vulpes Can’t Block Warriors Jun 29 '26
I once flipped my opponents Invasion of Ikoria to bait them into full swinging at me next turn, which led to me winning after I killed the creature before damage happened due to them being unable to block lethal from my surviving creatures.
3
u/AalphaQ Dan Jun 29 '26
I had to defend some battles last weekend. Caught me off guard and that invasion was a bitch
4
u/Flyrpotacreepugmu Elesh Norn Jun 29 '26
Pioneer mono green devotion at some point sure did. It was very common for them to be able to get just enough damage through for that, then have a massive swing the next turn where Zilortha could easily make it lethal.
3
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Jun 28 '26
2
4
u/Dakito Duck Season Jun 28 '26
I have that in my sliver deck but it's the only one I have seen used.
9
u/TheRealArtemisFowl Twin Believer Jun 28 '26
There's also [[invasion of gobakhan]] that I've seen once or twice in Pioneer, but it was in a very fringe deck.
7
u/ThisIsKhrox Dandadan Jun 28 '26
I use the Azorious one that gives you knights when cast and turns into a Tefari planeswalker in my Knights deck
2
u/BrewerAndHalosFan Orzhov* Jun 29 '26
I love that one for my [[Rocco Street Chef]] EDH deck, since that's theoretically 2 casts from exile
4
u/United-Passage7864 Dan Jun 28 '26
I use [[Invasion of Zendikar]] in my ramp deck, it's bang-on rate for ramping two lands.
I used to see [[Invasion of Ergamon]] in some cheesy BO1 Standard dinosaur reanimator decks. Use the ETB to ramp to 4 mana for [[Zombify]] as well as discarding your reanimation target and drawing a new card. There was also some combo deck using [[Invasion of Arcavios]] but I have no recollection of what it was doing.
1
1
1
u/MerculesHorse Duck Season Jun 29 '26
I remember that Arcavios involved Omniscience, but I can't remember what they'd search for, and then I think once Marang River Regent got involved eventually they just started looping the Regent to either draw, or bounce everything.
3
u/InternetProtocol Wabbit Season Jun 28 '26
Saw someone drop the one that's like [[Explosive Vegetation]] on etb and earlier today in a b3 game
5
1
u/MerculesHorse Duck Season Jun 29 '26
That and Encroaching Dragonstorm are very underrated cards if you can abuse the fact that they are permanents. Eg when played with Panharmonicons - both very good in Yarok decks. The Dragonstorm was one of the best draws in my upgraded Temur Energy Saheeli precon, but I didn't include the battle because turning battles into creatures involves some messy rules as you might expect.
9
u/eightdx Left Arm of the Forbidden One Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
Hey man my muldrotha deck has included battles for a while. They're another permanent type that has herbs and whatever that do things. There is a black one that's a boardwipe baybeeeee
Edit: I think I meant "words", but I'll leave it for posterity
3
4
3
u/Zoanzon Golgari* Jun 29 '26
Oh, I make sure to keep a few Battles in [[Winter, Misanthropic Guide]] for a reason
3
u/Flyrpotacreepugmu Elesh Norn Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
And [[Invasion of Alara]] is both a hard to remove 5 color permanent and another type for [[Happily Ever After]] as well as potentially finding and playing it from your library.
2
1
u/nimbusnacho COMPLEAT Jun 29 '26
I literally just played a bunch in an azula deck because theyre pretty sweet to copy during combat. And i also played some recently in a yorion deck because theyre blink targets that are pretty hard for opponents to interact with
1
u/PM_ME_JINX_RULE34_ Abzan Jun 29 '26
I'll have you know I put [[Invasion of Gorbakhan]] in almost all my white decks
1
1
u/Googleflax Wabbit Season Jun 30 '26
I actually recently added [[Invasion of Gobakhan]] into my [[Rocco, Street Chef]] deck and have so far been very happy with its performance. That said, I do agree that Battles see little-to-no play 99% of the time in Commander.
1
u/Heroic_Sheperd Dân Jul 01 '26
My boy Tarmogoyf is still missing Tribal cards giving him that sweet additional +1
1
118
u/NEcatfish Dandadan Jun 28 '26
Pretty sure it has to do with the fact that it's any amount of damage instead of a specific number or all of the damage. Rules wise, idk if there's a way to structure that in the modern game without making it an ability or having you pick an amount of damage to prevent when the spell resolves.
31
u/Yarius515 COMPLEAT Jun 28 '26
This oracle text was probably clarified after [[Shaman En-Kor]] dropped. Shaman works the same way
9
3
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
Yeah that's the key difference (compared to Gideon's Intervention). And it does have mechanical significance, as if you had a 0/6 creature and were taking 6 damage, you could choose to absorb 1 yourself so the creature survives.
40
u/thebaron420 I am a pig and I eat slop Jun 28 '26
If you think that's weird, check out [[camouflage]]
30
u/badger2000 Duck Season Jun 28 '26
Or [[Simulacrum]]. Functionally it does the same thing (net effect), but the idea that with the revised oracle text you now "gain life," it opens up a host of possibilities.
14
u/procrastinarian Golgari* Jun 28 '26
Haha these are bonkers. Honestly I like how Simulacrum basically does the same thing (or so it seems to me) but has straightforward wording, but Camouflage seems very weird oracle text.
3
u/ScyllaGeek Dan Jun 29 '26
Lol read the Alpha version of Simulacrum's text, it took a few printings to get the wording down to a reasonable length haha
1
u/Menacek Izzet* Jun 29 '26
I think one difference with both simulacra would if an effect checked whether a player has taken damage at end step.
The old wording implies you didn't actually take the damage (since it affects things retroactively), while with the new one you did. Also would have ramifications for commander damage.
7
u/Muspel Brushwagg Jun 28 '26
It also avoids weird rules questions. For example, if something triggered when you took damage, then you retroactively did not take the damage, does that mean you have to rewind the game to undo the trigger?
6
12
u/LazarusRises Colorless Jun 28 '26
Why does the Camouflage oracle text say the piles are assigned at random when the original doesn't??
28
u/Fruan Duck Season Jun 28 '26
Assigning randomly to face up piles is functionally the same as getting to choose face down piles.
Camouflage doesn't want to turn things face down anymore, because that has a meaning these days, so this maintains the effect with the slight downside of turning the card into a logic puzzle.
7
→ More replies (2)2
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
I knew about that one, and also [[Raging River]], and the super weird Oracle text on [[Animate Dead]], and things like [[Chains of Mephistopheles]] and [[Oubliette]]. But this card, Martyrdom, I guess I had never seen the Oracle wording of before.
12
u/BadlyCamouflagedKiwi Izzet* Jun 28 '26
I think the issue here is that back when this was printed, they were inexact about what an instant could do. Today, it has to set up specific effects or future triggers, it can't leave this redirection around until end of turn without something to attach it to.
You also can't do it in response to damage any more, you have to do this pre-emptively (I think you could do that before, although who knows, it was all a bit chaotic).
10
u/SeattleWilliam Left Arm of the Forbidden One Jun 28 '26
Yes, there used the be a damage prevention “half step” so you could activate abilities that prevented or redirected damage after damage had been “dealt” but before it was “marked” or applied.
1
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
Well, we have lots of other instants/sorceries that do stuff like this—[[Channel]] is one I mentioned earlier, but [[First Day of Class]] is a much more recent example. This one seems a lot weirder than all of those.
1
1
u/fergun Wabbit Season Jun 29 '26
Couldn't it just set up a may replacement for all damage? "Until the end of turn, if an object would be dealt damage, you may have that damage be dealt to target creature instead"? Like [[Blood of the Martyr]]
2
u/EvYeh Liliana Jun 29 '26
Not without functional errata.
This card doesn't say all damage, it says any amount.
1
u/fergun Wabbit Season Jun 29 '26
You're right, I've missed it. Still, I feel like this could be solved with maybe a clunkier version
12
u/Alexm920 COMPLEAT Jun 28 '26
Only now realizing this doesn’t say “you control” in the second clause, so one could potentially have opponent A swing out at opponent B, and you could redirect some or all of that, blocked or otherwise (except battles lol) to a spite-creature you control (stuffy doll, spitemare, Boris reckoner). Flexible, more interesting than I thought just reading the printed text.
2
23
u/TheRealArtemisFowl Twin Believer Jun 28 '26
It's interesting that you need to target the object that will be damaged for every point of damage you want to redirect, so a creature with Shroud could not be saved by this, which doesn't seem to be the initial intent.
9
u/ChalkyChalkson Duck Season Jun 28 '26
The oracle text also repeatedly targets like the en kors, so it works for breakfast combo. The original text doesn't read like it would cause arbitrary amounts of targeting events.
Maybe "choose" for the redirect would have been a better modernisation
2
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
It also means it creates infinite free triggers with cards like [[Crackdown Construct]], which seems dumb to me. (In the sense that it's not consistent with the way the original card would/should/was intended to work.)
2
u/Savings-Monitor3236 Dan Jun 29 '26
If you want to do this, there are six en-Kor creatures with a similar 0 cost ability, no resolving a trick needed. [[Nomads en-Kor]] being the cheapest. [[Seeker of Skybreak]] also goes infinite
5
u/WanderEir Duck Season Jun 28 '26
initial wording wouldn't allowed a shrouded creature to get the effect either, the spell DOES say "target creature"
12
u/TheRealArtemisFowl Twin Believer Jun 28 '26
I'm not talking about the creature you target with the spell, but the creature you target with the ability granted by the spell.
1
10
17
u/Leon4107 Duck Season Jun 28 '26
So synergy with when you activate a activated ability do X. This being a free 0 cost activation infinite amount of times.
→ More replies (7)
6
u/yaiga91 Dandadan Jun 28 '26
I use this with my taunter deck since each 1 point of damage can be redirected and any damage doublers will let you outright kill folks
8
u/Sir_Jimmy_Russles Dan Jun 28 '26
[[crackdown construct]] is a great target.
2
u/austin-geek Grass Toucher Jun 28 '26
But [[Brash Taunter]] and [[Stuffy Doll]] are better.
1
1
u/anace Jun 29 '26
crackdown construct is an infinite combo, giving you a +inf/+inf creature. taunter and doll say "until end of turn, all damage is dealt to the chosen player instead". if you don't have a damage source then they won't do damage on their own
7
u/MagicPoindexter Wabbit Season Jun 28 '26
Biggest change I see is that Grand Abolisher would shut that down, so if you did this in response to a player getting a combo piece for an infinite damage loop, they could delay starting the loop until after they cast a Grand Abolisher or similar type of ability blocker.
3
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
Yes, great point! This is another good example of how the current wording doesn't actually capture the spirit of the original effect correctly.
5
Jun 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Jun 28 '26
All cards
Exile - (G) (SF) (txt)
Phelddagrif - (G) (SF) (txt)
Force of Will - (G) (SF) (txt)
Thawing Glaciers - (G) (SF) (txt)
Helm of Obedience - (G) (SF) (txt)
Diminishing Returns - (G) (SF) (txt)
Time Spiral - (G) (SF) (txt)
Demonic Consultation - (G) (SF) (txt)
Krovikan Horror - (G) (SF) (txt)
Elvish Spirit Guide - (G) (SF) (txt)
Gustha's Scepter - (G) (SF) (txt)
Nature's Chosen - (G) (SF) (txt)
1
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
That's funny, I wasn't around when that set was released so I didn't realize it was a source of a lot of these old weird effects.
Nature's Chosen isn't really exhaust, if I'm reading it right. It's once each turn, not once while this card is face up on the field. However, there are examples of (functional) exhaust from before exhaust was keyworded: [[Stalking Leonin]] is an example. Personally, I think they should go back and errata those to use exhaust, so they interact with cards like [[Afterburner Expert]].
13
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 28 '26
I know there are some weird old cards like [[Oubliette]] that they had to tinker with a bit over the years, but this one came as a shock to me. The effect seems reasonably simple to implement, and the Oracle text doesn't really seem to fit it. It gives the creature a new ability, that only you can activate? (I guess to stop some kind of [[Act of Treason]] effect doing something strange with it.) And you can't redirect damage that would be dealt to battles?
It seems like this card is meant to just be [[Gideon's Sacrifice]] (or something like it), but for some reason it's strange as all heck.
And other old cards that give the "player" an effect, essentially, don't work like this. (See, for example, [[Channel]].)
27
u/Kicin0_0 Train Suplexer Jun 28 '26
It's because of the "may" in the original card. Gideon's sacrifice is not optional compared to this card, so this card needs to have some way to make it optional for the rest of the turn. The way to make that work in the rules is to just give an activated ability
2
u/IceBlue Jun 28 '26
So in the original version it works against split second if you cast it before a card like [[Sudden Shock]]. But in the updated one you can’t redirect the damage in response.
8
u/Kicin0_0 Train Suplexer Jun 28 '26
I'm fairly certain split second wasn't even a thing when this card was printed.
If you take the original text of this card, it just functionally doesn't work with the modern rules of magic. A lot of old cards use a lot of vague text that dont provide the abilities or functions they are supposed to anymore which is why they have been updated.
Plus the original version of the card isn't a triggered ability or a replacement effect. It's just a sentence so you would never actually get the option to redirect the damage
1
2
12
u/noknam Duck Season Jun 28 '26
The main difference to Gideon's is that the redirection is optional and you can even choose to redirect damage partially.
I really like that they went out of their way to keep the card exactly as originally designed while still fitting within the current rules and mechanics.
1
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
It's not really exactly as originally designed, though. As noted elsewhere in the thread, it creates infinite triggers with cards like [[Crackdown Construct]], interacts weird with things that cause creatures to lose abilities like [[Dress Down]], and has a very unusual non-interactability with battles. If they wanted to word this exact effect on a newer card today, obviously they'd probably tweak it a bit to make it more cognizable under the rules (maybe it's a Flash Aura that sacrifices at end of turn, for example), but I am sure it wouldn't do all those weird things I just mentioned.
3
u/SkritzTwoFace COMPLEAT Jun 28 '26
The reason is that it *may* be done all turn, so you need a way to decide whether it *will* be done at any point in the turn.
2
u/josega572 Duck Season Jun 28 '26
Dang, Gideon’s Sacrifice is nice in [[Commander Eesha]].
1
1
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
It also represents the culmination of the War of the Spark saga in the MTG lore, when Gideon sacrificed himself to save Liliana Vess (and died doing so).
→ More replies (1)1
3
u/Shnook817 Jun 28 '26
I looove martyrdom!!! I put it in a 60 card kitchen table deck and managed to mill out the elf player who was attacking me for 200 by casting this targeting a [[Swans of Bryn Argoll]]. And I only drew the Martyrdom by casting [[Disenchant]] on my own [[Darksteel Ingot]] and then using [[Arcane Denial]] on said disenchant to draw 3 on the elf player's upkeep, hitting Martyrdom on the 3rd card and acting sad to bluff. Oh, and I let his combat damage kill all the other opponents too.
By far my favorite win of all time. Super specific turbo fog win-con and I love it to death.
1
1
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
lol! I'm sad I didn't find out about it until today. Maybe one day we'll get a printing with the modern templating.
1
u/crackenpuff Dandadan Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
I love this card too. It does so much. I have in a 60 card monowhite weenie-ish sort of deck. It's used primarily to hit [[Favored Hoplite]] since it'll prevent everything that hits it after its Heroic ability triggers. It's also used as a Fog and whatever else it needs to do.
EDIT: I also just realized I've been playing this interaction wrong for years according to the Oracle text. Rather than giving the Hoplite only one +1/+1 counter as I have been, it should be getting counters equal to the damage prevented.
1
3
u/Blenderhead36 Sultai Jun 28 '26
In 1999, there was a massive overhaul of Magic's rule's system for 6th Edition. The concept of the Stack, the way that spells resolve by default, originates here. It also moved Magic rules to being much more rigorously templated.
A lot of the weirdest Oracle text rulings stems from cards designed before this update needing to work after it. That results in stuff like the original Counterspell and Dark Ritual having card types that don't exist anymore (Interrupt and Mana Source, respectively), and results in weird stuff like this. My favorite weird errata is [[Lion's Eye Diamond]] having the limiter, "activate only as an Instant," in order to make it work as intended (the TL;DR is that, without that line, you could cast a spell from your hand using the mana from LED. Restricting it to Instant speed, rather than the faster-than-Instant of mana abilities, prevents this).
2
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
Interestingly enough, they still use that today. [[Diamond Lion]] (admittedly, a reference to LED, obviously).
When they "demoted" mana sources to regular instants, it was actually a significant nerf to Dark Ritual, come to think of it. It basically use to have split second, and then randomly lost it.
1
3
u/HeyApples Jun 28 '26
The rules around instants and damage prevention were different when it was printed. They were massively overhauled about 3 years later.
5
2
u/NerdbyanyotherName Garruk Jun 28 '26
There are a bunch of these, old cards with super weird effects that ended up getting erratas to update the text with modern formatting while trying to preserve the orignal intent of the card with the rules text having to bend over backward to do so
1
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
Yep, very true. Most well-known case, imo, is [[Animate Dead]]. That sure is a weird one. If it was designed today, I am 100% positive it would work like [[Cloudform]] instead.
1
2
u/CrossXhunteR Wabbit Season Jun 28 '26
Are you a Ben Wheeler watcher?
1
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
I don't even know who that is 👀
2
u/Gamesfreak13563 Wild Draw 4 Jun 29 '26
How the heck did you even hear about this card
1
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
I was on Scryfall looking for cards by Oracle text to try to find something useful for a deck I was building. This card came up in a search, and I read the Oracle text and was like "huh? This came out in the 1990s? This is some crazy ass text for such an old card." Then I read the paper version's effect and I was like "wait what!? That's completely different and way simpler!"
2
u/umpatte0 Garruk Jun 28 '26
Infinite crimes in 1 card. Thanks for reminding me which card it was.
2
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
Sadly, almost every card that cares about # of crimes committed has a "once per turn" clause!
1
u/creeping_chill_44 Wabbit Season Jun 29 '26
there's another one - [[Sentinel]] - but it requires more setup/an active participant
1
2
u/Ursus_Unusualis_7904 Duck Season Jun 28 '26
Not really that weird at all. They have changed the formatting of how certain abilities are worded. This is to help with rules and card interactions.
1
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
Yeah and I guess my issue with this one specifically is that the new effect doesn't actually match the old one well
2
2
u/Absolutionis I chose this flair because I’m mad at Wizards Of The Coast Jun 28 '26
I had no idea this existed.
It's actually kinda funny that I could, as in instant, give my [[Stuffy Doll]] this and redirect someone's entire Craterhoof stampede to someone else's face. You don't even have to be involved in any of this to interfere.
1
2
u/raisins_sec Jun 28 '26
There are "you may" replacement effects. So I honestly don't see a rules problem with the general idea of the original. I think the modern template could be something like this:
Until end of turn, if damage would be dealt to a creature, planeswalker, or player, you may have any amount of that damage dealt to target creature you control instead.
But, I can see a gameplay reason not to do that: it would be REALLY annoying online. Spamming you with prompts for all damage events. The current oracle for the card is way better for that, and is barely functionally different in the end.
2
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
100%. If I never saw this card's Oracle text, and someone asked me to mock up a Magic card with this general flavor/concept, I would come up with something very similar to your text, I believe. (I think it would start it by saying "Choose target creature" and then refer to "that creature" later, but the concept is the same.)
2
u/Wagllgaw Dân Jun 28 '26
I've never seen this card. Seems like it would work for cephalid combo. I guess 3 is just too much mana
2
u/EatMoChikins Dân Jun 28 '26
Combos with Nadu I suppose
1
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
True but with the "only twice per turn" the infinite-ness of it is kinda wasted on him
2
u/lithiumsorbet Wabbit Season Jun 28 '26
one of the cards I'm most excited to draw in my Elesh Norn banding deck...
2
u/Stuntman06 Storm Crow Jun 28 '26
In the early days, they didn't have proper templating for many cards. There was a big project in the 90's that worked on proper templating for various different cards and effects. I surmise that they templated this card to match the templating on cards like [[Warrior en-Kor]].
1
2
u/edron79 COMPLEAT Jun 28 '26
Nice find! Interesting to compare with the more modern [[Gideon's Sacrifice]], which is conceptually similar but with much simpler templating (but note choose vs. target and all vs. any). The fact that the Oracle version stops working if the creature loses all abilities feels very clunky to me.
2
u/htownclyde Jun 28 '26
Goddamn I need to put this in my Task Force infinite toughness Lin Sivvi combo!
2
2
u/Suspinded Jun 29 '26
Pre-6th Edition rules make for some wild patch text for cards.
Lotus Field and Mox Diamond have the text that have because of how triggered abilities work today vs pre-6th edition rules. Pre-6th rules players couldn't use anything on a card until it's trigger costs were paid.
2
u/Main-Rent4757 Dandadan Jun 29 '26
If i cast this on [[anti-venom, horrifying healer]], can I just absorb damage my opponent does to another opponent? Like player 1 swings a 10/10 at player 2. Unblocked. I cast martyrdom on anti venom, and that 20 goes to anti venom?
2
u/NuclearPilot101 SecREt LaiR Jun 29 '26
Would this save you from a [[Blasphemous Act]]? Like target your indestructible creature, activate it a million times and save your whole side?
1
1
2
u/Pigglebee Wabbit Season Jun 29 '26
It is also weird that Oracle makes the card worse by mentioning Target. Should have been untargeted
2
u/CreepyDentures Duck Season Jun 30 '26
Why does it feel like half of the cards with screwed up oracle text like this come from Alliances?
2
u/1K_Games Duck Season Jul 02 '26
It is not that weird if you ever played with the en-Kor cards. Seeing it I just would assume that when they decided to print this sort of things on more cards that they standardized it with those creatures and then errata'd this old text to match.
4
u/thestatusquo Wabbit Season Jun 28 '26
This seems very clear on what it does. You make one of your creatures take the brunt of any damage. It makes sense to me.
1
u/chainsawinsect Boros* Jun 29 '26
Personally, I don't think the modern wording is true to the spirit or the mechanics of the original effect. What it "means" to say is, basically, "Choose target creature. Anytime you would take damage this turn, you may assign any or all of that damage to that creature instead."
What it actually says, in the Oracle wording, sort of kind of achieves that, but it has a lot of strange interactions with things like split second, [[Grand Abolisher]], [[Humility]], [[Wizened Mentor]], etc.
0
u/Vincent_Windbeutel Dân Jun 28 '26
Yeah but the wordings can be mistaken that only 1 dmg per instance can be ptevented.
If I receive 3 dmg (in one effect-result) It dies not seem plausible zo prevent that dmg 3 seperate times.
You have zo realise that you csn just activate it x amount of times before dmg calc.
5
u/MystiqTakeno Duck Season Jun 28 '26
How? Next damage is always next damage, its stackable by defult. I active it 3 times, it will redirect the next 3 damage.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/imnotokayandthatso-k SecREt LaiR Jun 29 '26
It's so it works properly on Magic The Gathering Online computer logic which is also best for how Competitive Rules Enforcement Level games are played.
1
1
u/IAmTheBestIan Dân Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
That edited text makes a LOT of combos nasty that wouldn't otherwise be.
Any creature with "Anytime this creature takes damage" effects... becomes INSANE since you can send damage its way one pt at a time.
IE Flumph... High Priest of Penance... etc
1
1
u/BruhYouFarted Duck Season Jun 30 '26
This card is actually semi relevant, I have tried brewing it in pauper along with Task Force and Devour Flesh for a combo-within-a-control-deck type of thing with Mystical Teachings, but it never being on mtgo made it not worth it.
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 28 '26
You have tagged your post as a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in the Daily Questions Thread at the top of this subreddit or in /r/mtgrules. You may also find quicker results at the IRC rules chat
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.