Bluetracker

Tracks Blizzard employees across various accounts.

Lurrus - wording - is it correct?

The new Lurrus card says "On each of your turns, you may cast a permanent SPELL with CMC 2 or less from your graveyard."

While in the graveyard, everything is a Card, not a Spell. See [[Muldrotha]] for comparison.

Am I missing something, or is this incorrect?

Edit: I am NOT talking about the difference between play/cast and it has nothing to do with lands. I'm referring to the fact that this says you may cast a SPELL from your graveyard, and not CARD from your graveyard (because they are cards while in the graveyard, as you go to cast them). Both Muldrotha and Kess use the wording of "you may cast a CARD from your graveyard"

EliShffrn

Posted 5 years, 9 months ago (Source)

Want to really have your mind blown?

Go back and re-read Vivien, Monsters' Advocate. :)

#WotCStaff
EliShffrn

Posted 5 years, 9 months ago (Source)

I'm guessing that's insurance against adventures abusing it?

It'd function the same either way - it's just more honest and less confusing with adventurer cards when it says "creature spell" instead of "creature card (but secretly not if you turn it into a noncreature spell)"
EliShffrn

Posted 5 years, 9 months ago (Source)

Oh man, RIGHT when I was at peace with a good reasoning, here ya go messing me up again haha.

Is this a new wording y'all plan to use going forward?

Forward, backward, sideways, etc. Look at Villainous Wealth's reprint, too! I've been waiting for someone to pick up on the change, and the fact that no one's even noticed till now is good.

The reason is greater honesty vis a adventurer cards, morph, etc.
EliShffrn

Posted 5 years, 9 months ago (Source)

Doesn’t this hazard as functional for certain cases? Like, with Lurrus, if it was worded “card” instead of “spell”, it would be able to cast {X} creatures with a spell CMC > 2, no?

Once you choose that value for X, its CMC is too great to be cast. It's no longer a card with CMC <=2, so the casting is illegal. (With the current rules and the "card" wording, that is; the new template makes that more obvious.)

<blockquote class="quoted">
    
</blockquote>
<div class="md"><p>Want to really have your mind blown?</p>

<p>Go back and re-read Vivien, Monsters' Advocate. :)</p>

<p>#WotCStaff</p>
</div> (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/fw8al2/lurrus_wording_is_it_correct/fmmyw6l">EliShffrn</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
    <div class="md"><p>I'm guessing that's insurance against adventures abusing it?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="md"><p>It'd function the same either way - it's just more honest and less confusing with adventurer cards when it says "creature spell" instead of "creature card (but secretly not if you turn it into a noncreature spell)"</p>
</div> (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/fw8al2/lurrus_wording_is_it_correct/fmmzhf4">EliShffrn</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
    <div class="md"><p>Oh man, RIGHT when I was at peace with a good reasoning, here ya go messing me up again haha. </p>

<p>Is this a new wording y'all plan to use going forward?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="md"><p>Forward, backward, sideways, etc. Look at Villainous Wealth's reprint, too! I've been waiting for someone to pick up on the change, and the fact that no one's even noticed till now is good.</p>

<p>The reason is greater honesty vis a adventurer cards, morph, etc.</p>
</div> (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/fw8al2/lurrus_wording_is_it_correct/fmmzcgz">EliShffrn</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
    <div class="md"><p>Doesn’t this hazard as functional for certain cases? Like, with Lurrus, if it was worded “card” instead of “spell”, it would be able to cast {X} creatures with a spell CMC > 2, no?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="md"><p>Once you choose that value for X, its CMC is too great to be cast. It's no longer a card with CMC <=2, so the casting is illegal. (With the current rules and the "card" wording, that is; the new template makes that more obvious.)</p>
</div> (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/fw8al2/lurrus_wording_is_it_correct/fmn0d7d">EliShffrn</a>)
<hr/>

<p><div class="md"><p>Want to really have your mind blown?</p>

<p>Go back and re-read Vivien, Monsters' Advocate. :)</p>

<p>#WotCStaff</p>
</div> (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/fw8al2/lurrus_wording_is_it_correct/fmmyw6l">Source</a>)</p>

<p><div class="md"><p>It'd function the same either way - it's just more honest and less confusing with adventurer cards when it says "creature spell" instead of "creature card (but secretly not if you turn it into a noncreature spell)"</p>
</div> (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/fw8al2/lurrus_wording_is_it_correct/fmmzhf4">Source</a>)</p>

<p><div class="md"><p>Forward, backward, sideways, etc. Look at Villainous Wealth's reprint, too! I've been waiting for someone to pick up on the change, and the fact that no one's even noticed till now is good.</p>

<p>The reason is greater honesty vis a adventurer cards, morph, etc.</p>
</div> (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/fw8al2/lurrus_wording_is_it_correct/fmmzcgz">Source</a>)</p>

<p><div class="md"><p>Once you choose that value for X, its CMC is too great to be cast. It's no longer a card with CMC <=2, so the casting is illegal. (With the current rules and the "card" wording, that is; the new template makes that more obvious.)</p>
</div> (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/fw8al2/lurrus_wording_is_it_correct/fmn0d7d">Source</a>)</p>
    
    <hr/>

Bluetracker

Lurrus - wording - is it correct?

Tweet