Lands in standard
Standard forum
Posted on Feb. 19, 2014, 9:51 p.m. by hassankachal
This has been bugging me for about 2 months now. So are basic lands from a set that is not standard legal legal in play? Can I use M13 lands in standard these days or does it have to be RTR to the Theros block?
Unforgivn_II says... #4
Yeah, the way the rules work is that you can use any card that has the same name as a card printed in a set that is standard legal. Since basics were printed in RtR, M14 and Theros, they've got it covered. Since snow-covered lands don't have the same English name as the basics currently in standard, they aren't technically legal. However they are functionally the same, so if you've gotten an ok from the judge, then you can. And as Ryuzaki said, it just depends on how strict they are.
Another example is Pithing Needle . If you have a Betrayers of Kamigawa version, you can play it in standard because it was reprinted in RtR
February 19, 2014 10:11 p.m.
clockworkcactus says... #5
You can play any printing of a Standard-legal card. You could play the Mercadian Masques Last Breath if you wanted to. This is, of course, also true about basic lands.
And what ryuzaki32667 said is not accurate. Snow-Covered lands are not "iffy", they're not legal in any format that doesn't include Ice Age or Coldsnap. Playing them in the current Standard environment is not legal, and even at the lowest rules enforcement levels will result in a game loss and then a match loss if you don't fix it.
February 19, 2014 10:13 p.m.
Functional reprints are not legal though, you can't use a Llanowar Elves in your deck even though Elvish Mystic is more or less the same thing.
February 19, 2014 10:14 p.m.
ryuzaki32667 says... #7
Thats why i included the "depending how strict your location is" , if its an fnm it may slide cause fnm is usually a bit more laid back and competitive REL, but at a major event no snow-covered are not ok unless the set they were in are legal like said above
February 19, 2014 10:33 p.m.
clockworkcactus says... #8
Even an FNM at REL 1 prescribes a game loss for playing a card that's not legal in the current environment. There's no reason to complicate it.
February 19, 2014 10:40 p.m.
Servo_Token says... #9
If someone went to the trouble to put snow lands in their deck to play at FNM, I as well as every other judge that I talk to would allow it on the grounds that there are no snow permanents in standard, and we merely treat it as we would an altered art card. If the opponent has an issue with them, we explain this to them, and if they still have an issue with it, we tell them to suck it up because there's no reason to take the time to swap out every land in someone's deck when the intention is clear that they are strictly for show.
FNM is, at least around here, a place to have fun, and learn about the game. We don't tolerate rule sharking if the only intent is to either get a cheap win or make the other person feel bad about themselves. If you call someone out on having snow basic lands instead of standard basics, we consider that the former.
February 20, 2014 12:02 a.m.
clockworkcactus says... #10
You treat a card with a different name as an "altered art" card? I doubt you're a judge, but if you are, I feel bad for the people in your tournaments. I don't know if you are aware, but judges are there to enforce rules. Regardless of whether you give a match loss or just a warning, you're shirking your duties if you turn a blind eye to such a blatant rules infraction. I feel especially bad for new players who see this kind of behavior from judges.
February 20, 2014 12:38 a.m.
ChrisHansonBiomancin says... #11
Actually, the job of a LGS judge (aka owner/employee) is to make sure customers are having a good time in a casual environment like FNM so they'll come back to the store and spend more money. Rewarding people for seeking cheap wins due to technicalities will create a bitter culture that isn't going to appeal to the majority of the FNM crowd. I feel bad for new players who are exposed to people who get bent out of shape over infractions that make no competitive difference.
February 20, 2014 1:39 a.m.
CrazyLittleGuy says... #12
I'm not quite sure why you're getting so bent out of shape clockworkcactus. A lot of people have small quirks with the way they play the game that ultimately has no impact on the match. These are prevalent in any tournament, whether it be FNM or a PT. One of the most common ones is to drop a spell from your hand to cast, then tap the mana for it once it's on the stack (this happens in PTs all the time). That's technically an illegal play, but no one cares. It's still a game, and calling a judge over based on tiny things is just as likely to get you a warning for unsportsmanlike conduct. I remember vaguely a famous case where a player in a SCO, losing his match, picked up his deck and pretended to shuffle it for no reason. He then silently placed it in front of his opponent, and when the innocent guy went to cut it out of confusion the player called a judge over. He wanted his opponent disqualified for illegally cutting his deck. The judge turned around and DQed him for unsportsmanlike conduct.
February 20, 2014 1:51 a.m.
clockworkcactus says... #13
Judges are given latitude on how they punish infractions, not on which rules they're allowed to enforce. If you honestly don't think "my opponent is playing with cards that aren't even allowed in the format" is a valid complaint worthy of at least a verbal warning, I don't know what you're doing.
Playing a Llanowar Elves instead of an Elvish Mystic makes no competitive difference, either, so I guess we should just let people do that as long as everyone is having a good time. Well, except for the player who had a completely legitimate complaint who you told off because you've decided you get to enforce rules selectively. But to hell with that guy, as long as the people who aren't following the rules and the "judges" who don't have a clue what they're doing are enjoying themselves, he doesn't matter.
February 20, 2014 1:53 a.m.
clockworkcactus says... #14
@CrazyLittleGuy: ...seriously? You consider short cutting (allowed at every REL) and playing a card that's out of format the same thing? This conversation has taken a sharp turn for the retarded. I'm going to just unsubscribe now and go back to the real world where people like you don't actually do the things they say they do on the Internet.
February 20, 2014 1:55 a.m.
CrazyLittleGuy says... #15
@clockworkcactus I don't appreciate being called retarded, for a start, but whatever. I'm also not sure what it is you seem to believe I do during my matches.
That aside, I just don't see any possible scenario where someone playing a Snow-Covered Island in standard would possibly affect the game, so long as the other player was aware that it was just being played as a fancy looking Island. If you can give me an example, I might agree with you. But I'm not seeing it.
February 20, 2014 2:03 a.m.
ChrisHansonBiomancin says... #16
See, a rules stickler has created a "bitter culture" on this thread; let's hope clockworkcactus takes his own advice and doesn't act like such a douche in real life as he does on the internet.
February 20, 2014 2:23 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #17
@Everyone, apparently
Name-calling is never going to move an argument in a relevant direction. Disagreements happen. That doesn't give you an excuse to ignore common decency.
@clockworkcactus: Yes, using a snow land is illegal. If you take a snow-land deck to a "real" tournament, you're going to get the rule hammer dropped hard on your face. FNM doesn't run the same way as any other tournament. Most stores won't care about the little things as long as the spirit of the rule is followed. Using snow lands in no big deal. Using Llanowar Elves instead of a different mana dork is a big deal. The difference is subtle, but it's fairly clear why one would be tolerated and the other would not.
If you feel that your opponent genuinely thinks that snow lands are legal in the format, you can always inform them that they are incorrect, but expecting them to swap their snow lands for normal basics is unreasonable.
February 20, 2014 3:17 a.m.
hassankachal says... #18
Guys I did not create this thread as a universal name-calling station and as NobodyPicksBulbasaur says: CHILL YOUR SHIT. If this continues, I'll take the thread down.
February 20, 2014 10:20 a.m.
CrazyLittleGuy says... #19
And of course now I take the heat for arguing this xP I never intended for there even be an argument, honestly.
I've got a new topic for discussion though, because thinking about it made me legitimately curious. Can someone think of a scenario where, in a Standard match, a Snow-Covered land would affect gameplay? Not in context of the rules of the format, but sayd for example they were legal; does anyone know a card that could take advantage of the fact that they aren't normal basics? Like an Extraplanar Lens for Standard?
February 20, 2014 12:13 p.m.
ryuzaki32667 says... #20
I searched the word "snow" , there isn't card in standard that uses that word. Unless my app lied to me or can't search properly lol
February 20, 2014 3 p.m.
Technically... under the right circumstances, the following cards in Standard could be effected.
Bile Blight
Homing Lightning
Izzet Staticaster
Pithing Needle
Search the City
In most cases, it would require them being animated (Skarrg Guildmage / Hydroform ), or enchanted (Debtor's Pulpit / Racecourse Fury , etc.).
Still... simply treating the "snow" land, as though it does not say "snow", makes them the basic land of the same type...
The only issue is the possibility of confusion for players who may not know the difference... for that reason alone, if I were a judge, I would probably enforce the rules, and ask the player to replace them with the appropriate basic land, and provide them with the land if needed.
ryuzaki32667 says... #2
Absolutely, any basics are legal, the only ones that are iffy are the snow covered ones depending on how strict the your store/location is
February 19, 2014 9:54 p.m.