0: draw a card

>power creep

So is this mythic because it has embalm? I don't get why it is.

...

Does the discard count as part of the cost?

Take Banisher Priest or Fiend Hunter, which are already uncommon.
Give them an evergreen keyword. This is a minor complexity bump that wouldn't change rarity.
Allow them to target nonland permanents instead of creatures. This is a larger complexity bump that is worth bumping it up to rare.
Give them a relatively complex set mechanic or set keyword, such as Embalm. This leads to a moderate complexity bump.

It teeters between Rare and Mythic Rare, in terms of complexity. It does a lot of stuff and has a lot of moving parts and options.

Holy shit is that a male angel? Gabriel has a friend now.

>Equal to Kamigawa bulks rares in terms of power level
>Creep

Maro fuck right off, over a decade later and you STILL don't learn from mistakes.

I assume because you have to double removal it.
Also, being able to get a removal+evasive beatstick from the yard without something like Unburial Rites is pretty strong.

It deserves to be mythic because it's a great card that can easily 3-for-1 your opponent.

All the angels in Amonkhet are male

>Printing Nagas was a mistake
>Lets print Nagas again this time WITH snakes

Though to be fair with MaRo he was againt this.

"Approach of the Second Sun"
6W
Sorcery
If Approach of the Second Sun was cast from your hand and you cast another spell named Approach of the Second Sun this game, you win the game. If not, you gain 7 life and put Approach of the Second Sun back into your library as the 7th card from the top.

The discard is part of the activation cost, but it is not part of the cycling cost.

I'm honestly surprised they didn't make that mythic instead/also.

>inb4 gabriel reprint

ebin

I see. I just wish they had made it one point more beefy in the attack and defense of the card. But I so like it. And like said, it's interesting that all of the angels on Amonkhet are male.

It's part of the cost, but there's a rule stating that this only changes the variable cost, aka the mana cost

>you cast another spell named Approach of the Second Sun this game

Memory issues.

You need a judge observing the game at all times in order to confirm that you did, in fact, play Approach of the Second Sun at one point.

Why, so that you need to buy more (((Booster Packs))) of course user, come support your favourite game and Standard format!

>aka the mana cost
Not quite. Don't forget Street Wraith.

Yeah, no way something like this would be banned in legacy and restricted in vintage

Cycling is an ability that lets you discard this card, to draw another.
Cycling cost it the cost you pay to use that ability, not the cost of the ability itself.

Ah you're right, fuckign futureshifted cards fucking me once again.

/this

Cycling is literally shorthand for an activated ability that reads "[variable cost], discard this card: draw a card", so the discard is part of the cost.
The enchantment still doesn't make the draw free because of

Disgusting.

It does. Learn the rules.

But you know what this implies for the future right?

Female demons

Variable cost = cycling cost

They're never gonna do that shit, don't get your hopes up.

>drawing a card for 1 life is the same as being able to discard a card and then draw a card if it has a keyword

Who let you play magic?

its a self recurring flying threat with an oblivion ring attached to it. what is it that you dont get?

Is it just me or are there a lot more confusing rules cards in this set than there have been, between As Foretold, Soul Scar Mage's interaction with Gideon and now this.

I get "lol learn the rules and RTGDMFC" but this is some comprehensive rules stuff going on here I've had to refer to quite extensively over the past few days.

Maro isn't lead.
Same as in Oath of the gatewatch set.

There's the argument that, since New Perspectives makes the cost 0, it means that you don't need to discard the card, since discarding is part of the cost. You could cycle one card over and over and over and over for free.

At least, that's the argument. I'm waiting for the Ask A Judge threads before making any concrete decisions.

Except new perspectives only wins you the game if just sbout everything in your deck has cycling. Hell even then it might not because you still have to discard them.

Super glad I don't play with such fucking cunts that this would be an issue

You should play time spiral block limited

>if just about everything in your deck has cycling
well, we do have 20 lands that cycle...

Misinterpreting the rules =\= "an argument"

FOR FUCK SAKE
"Cycling cost" is the mana or thing you pay to be "ALLOWED" to cycle in the first place.
Discarding and drawing are conjoined.

Cycling cards could just as well say.
Draw a card: Discard this card.

Now you wouldn't say this card would make you discard but not draw, right?

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. You still have to discard, but now you do it for free.

Given how it actually works, yes. If it was just have 7 cards, 0: draw a card like in OP it would be on the same level

twitter.com/TabakRules/status/850382830030864385
>Everything before the colon is a cost, "Costs may include... discarding cards" So you can draw your deck?
>No, we have a new rule clarifying the term "cycling costs" so we can have better words on this card. :)

Cycling LITERALLY means "Pay X, Discard this card: Draw a card"

It's right there in the reminder text

No i don't see any confusing rules. Then again i have played since Invasion.

CYCLING =/= CYCLING COST

>702.28a Cycling is an activated ability that functions only while the card with cycling is in a player’s hand. “Cycling [cost]” means “[Cost], Discard this card: Draw a card.”

You are fucking retarded. I hate spoiler season, it brings out the casuals that can't play

Dude read , it's not up for debate.
>Cycling cards could just as well say.
>Draw a card: Discard this card.
This is wrong on so many levels, don't make the other guy more confused than he actually is.

But I don't know if I'm right or not, so I'll keep an open mind and ask an expert
It could say that, but it instead says "Discard this card: Draw a card."

Also, unrelated, but does New Perspectives work with other kinds of cycling, like basic land cycling or wizard cycling, or is that treated as a new ability?

discard is the cycling cost, or else they wouldn't have the ruling.
>702.1a If an effect refers to a “[keyword ability] cost,”it refers only to the variable costs for that keyword.

>6 mana do stuff for free

If it created a counter or an emblem, it would be simple. But this relies on something as fallible as memory and the casting of the card doesn't create any evidence or leave a mark of the game-state that it has been cast.

Mark my words, any shitlord worth his neckbeard will be claiming that anyone casting Approach of the Second Sun for a second time is only casting it for the first time. There will be all manner of grognards ruining games over the use of this card.

My point is.
Imagine cycling said:
Cycling (cost) (Draw a card: Discard this card.)

Which it very well could, there would be no change to how cycling works.

People wouldn't ask if New Perspectives made you unable to draw cards.

RESEARCH, YOU KNUCKLEDRAGGING WUNDERKIND

GOOGLE THINGS
THINK
USE YOUR GODDAMN MIND AND ACTUALLY TYPE IN "cycling mtg"

>muh open mind
No, your fucking decayed mind.
>these people are allowed to vote
Jesus Christ, no wonder society went to shit.

What?
So i can draw, and cast the card while the ability is on the stack?

Cycling means to discard then draw.
There's no cycling without discarding the card.

Cycling cost LITERALLY means the cost you pay BEFORE you discard.
You pay the cost to cycle.
Then you cycle by discarding this card, and draw a card.

Cycling: (cycling cost) (Discard this card: Draw a card.)

>there would be no change to how cycling works
Yes there would be. You'd draw the new card before discarding the cycled one, since paying cost is instantaneous and can't be responded to while the discard effect would go on the stack.
Until the effect resolved you'd keep the cycled card in hand, and could activate cycling again as long as you can pay the mana costs, all the while retaining priority.

That would be a huge difference actually. You'd be able to cast and cycle on the stack and keep cycling as long as you had the mana. You seriously need to work on your understanding of the game and its mechanics.

Spoiler season really brings out the casuals.

If it was worded like that, you draw a card then discard the other card.
Costs and effects are simultaneous, there's no stack or room inbetween.

The way you wrote it if your cycle was stifled you'd draw a card but don't discard.

I have researced. I have listened. With all the info I have now, I'd agree with you and say that you still have to discard the card.
But, I trust the word of an expert more than I trust my understanding of minutia. So I'm not gonna take a solid stance when I don't need to.

Yes they'd complain about that. They'd probably say shit like "6-mana-do-nothing good job Wizards!" or "Wizards confirmed for can't design cards."

I'm pretty sure you two are aggreeing

...

>gonna wait until I have an authority's advice
You have to be over 18 to post here dude.

...

Nope.

If the effect were independent it would.
But remember the fucking cyclign cost.

You wouldn't be able to use cycling if it weren't in your hand.
And upon paying the cycling cost, you would draw a card then discard the other card.

git gud faggots

>Cycling: (cycling cost) (Discard this card: Draw a card.)

Sorry user, the rules doesn't agree with you.
>702.28a Cycling is an activated ability that functions only while the card with cycling is in a player’s hand. “Cycling [cost]” means “[Cost], Discard this card: Draw a card.”
Cycling simply means : “[Cost], Discard this card: Draw a card.”
There's no cost paid first or discard first. Both are the cost and are paid simultaneously.
New Perspectives still needs you to discard when you cycle because
>702.1a If an effect refers to a “[keyword ability] cost,”it refers only to the variable costs for that keyword.
This ruling specifically said that the ability only absolve you from paying the mana cost.

Oh yes we are agreeing, but we're not agreeing on what the cycling cost are.

expert ≠ authority. My doctor's an expert, but I don't have to listen to what he says.

This looks strong.

Elvish Piper, how I've missed you

Oh wow they're pushing Green.

We aren't disagreeing.
My point was that discarding and cycling is an ability that triggers after paying cycling cost.
They happen, as you said simultaneously, but can't happen without the other.
That's why I say it wouldn't matter in what order they were, cause the cycling cost forces both to happen, and you would only be able to pay cycling cost if both COULD happen.

And that's a really sad thing to say because Elvish Pauper has existed for ages by now and both die just as easily to Bolt.

Oh of course, because cycling has split second now and can't respond to it
Oh wait it doesn't

Hill Giant + Elvish Piper = ?

I like it, but if they are going to go through of all trouble of shoehorning nagas back in the game, they might as well make Champion of RHONAS one.

Should be rare. Not mythic.

It's a creature that fails the vanilla test with no keywords and fits green's portion of the color pie perfectly.

At 3G, I don't see what sort of problem you could have with it?

Why are people in this thread thinking you don't still need to discard the cycling card before drawing? Wouldn't common sense dictate that the alternative would mean "if you have a cycling card in hand, draw as many cards as you want for free"? That would be preposterous.

oooohhh shit

Uh, yeah he is. Regardless if who they "put in charge if a set", he's still the lead behind most things, and had a hand in almost everything. He's ruined tons of sets, and he's one of the major reasons magic I'd getting constantly watered down and going to shit. It's like he's afraid to make power cards. Just look at the fucking gods from this set. Garbage.

Nah, that totally makes sense. Just compare it to Deathpact Angel: an evasive beatstick with janky built-in recursion is firmly mythic material.

I'm more miffed that there are Angels on this plane at all. Give me my fucking sphinxes, Wizards.

There are people who think the preposterous alternative is the truth and the card needs to be errata'd.

Please stop responding to custom card posters. It does nothing but shitting up the thread even more.

It's getting pretty absurd.

I'm expecting the Green God to be absurdly easy to use compared to Red and Blue.

> 5/5 Indestructible Trampler
> Cannot Attack or Block unless you control a creature with 7 Power or higher
> 2G: All creatures you control get +1/+0 until end of turn

If I were playing someone who tried to pull that, I'd just put them on my list and NEVER play them again.

Pay 0 mana to play zombie spells. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to misinterpret this.

This is a fucking mess from a flavor perspective. Why would a champion of the trial of strength be BRINGING in another creature? From the text, it sounds like it should be like Hunted Wumpus: you get an undercosted fatty, but the OPPONENT gets to put a creature into play for it to "fight" and prove its strength.

You mean besides the fact that it's a 5-mana repeatable effect on a 3/3 body?

>Also, unrelated, but does New Perspectives work with other kinds of cycling, like basic land cycling or wizard cycling, or is that treated as a new ability?
Yes it does.
>702.28e Typecycling abilities are cycling abilities, and typecycling costs are cycling costs. Any cards that trigger when a player cycles a card will trigger when a card is discarded to pay a typecycling cost. Any effect that stops players from cycling cards will stop players from activating cards’ typecycling abilities. Any effect that increases or reduces a cycling cost will increase or reduce a typecycling cost.