mistmeadow skulk

Novajoe · Joined: 18 Feb 2008 Posts: 138

Ok mistmeadow skulk has protection from cc 3 or greater.

So would he be pumped by glorious anthem? Could he escape being tapped by cryptic command? Would wrath of god not kill him?

same with redeem the lost. If an opponent plays a blue spell that targets all creatures or all of my creatures and in response I play redeem the lost on one of my creatures, would that creature be unaffected?

wakummaci · Joined: 02 Mar 2008 Posts: 1

Imo yes it'd be pumped, coz GA isn't making any targets, and having a protection means not to be able to be targeted, so by wrath of god, mistmeadow would be also killed, because wrath isn't choosing any targets, thats why shroud isn't an option to get a defence againts it.

Novajoe · Joined: 18 Feb 2008 Posts: 138

ok here's another question...

say I have mistmeadow skulk in play and my opponent plays a creature who normally has cc of 3 or greater, but plays it for a prowl cost or morph cost that costs 2 or less? Do I go by the prowl/morph cost or the regular cost at the top of the card?

what if there's a banneret of some sort in play? Do creatures that would normally cost 3 now count as 2?

Middleman · Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 53

From Ask Wizards - January, 2002:

January 25, 2002

"Does the protection static ability protect from cards that do not target the creature specifically? For example, If a creature has protection from white, will Wrath of God still affect that creature? Also, do global enchantments like Knighthood affect creatures with protection from white?"
-- Josh Sanders, Holmen, WI

A: From Aaron Forsythe, Content Manager:
"Now I'm no judge, but I've played enough Magic to know the answer to this one. Let's look at the four things that 'protection' does, using 'protection from white' as the example:

a) A creature with protection from white can't be the target of white spells or abilities from white sources.
b) A creature with protection from white can't be enchanted by white enchantments.
c) All damage done to it by white sources is prevented.
d) If it attacks, it cannot be blocked by white creatures.

"Wrath of God is indeed a white spell, but it doesn't target anything; it just destroys all creatures. So Wrath of God would destroy a creature with protection from white. Similarly, Knighthood would grant the creature first strike, because it says 'all your creatures,' not 'target creature.'

"Note that a creature with protection from red would not die from a big Earthquake, however, because Earthquake deals damage, and the protection ability would prevent it all.

From Ask Wizards - November, 2007 :

November 26, 2007 – Magic Rules Corner

Q: Does a card that adds to the cost of another spell affect that card's actual converted mana cost? Sphere of Resistance, for example, adds to the cost of all spells played. Does this mean that an enchantment like Veiled Sentry, which relies on the converted mana cost of a spell being played, would be affected?
–Andreas, Hudiksvall, Sweden

A: From the Magic Rules Corner:

Well, Andreas, when Gaddock Teeg and Thorn of Amethyst are in play—oh, sorry, your question is about Sphere of Resistance and Veiled Sentry. But Mr. Teeg should listen up, too, because his presence in Lorwyn and on the tournament scene has brought questions about converted mana cost to the forefront.

The quick answer to your question is no, Veiled Sentry sees the same value regardless of what was actually paid for the spell. With a few exceptions that we'll get to (X Mana being the doozy), the mana cost of a card—whether it's a permanent in play, a spell on the stack, or a card anywhere else—is exactly what's printed in the upper right-hand corner of the card (or the upper left-hand corner of the art, in the case of Future Sight "timeshifted" cards). This is true regardless of what you actually paid for the spell (again, with a few exceptions we'll cover shortly)—cost reducers, cost increasers, additional costs, alternative costs, whatever. Mana cost is mana cost is mana cost.

Mana cost isn't the same thing as converted mana cost, but they're closely related. An object's mana cost includes color, so the mana cost of (say) Wrath of God is 2 ManaWhite ManaWhite Mana. An object's converted mana cost is a number equal to the total amount of mana in its mana cost, regardless of color. So Wrath of God‘s converted mana cost is 4—and that's true no matter where it is and no matter how much was actually paid for it. How much you pay for a spell when playing it is its total cost, but that's a term you won't see used outside the Comprehensive Rules.

Confusing the issue somewhat is the fact that older cards such as Veiled Sentry use some words we don't use anymore. Casting cost is an obsolete term for mana cost, and total casting cost is an obsolete term for converted mana cost, which causes some confusion with "total cost."

Okay, on to the exceptions. The converted mana cost of a spell with X Mana in its mana cost is calculated treating X as zero anywhere but on the stack, and treating X as the value was actually paid for it when the spell is on the stack. So a Blaze on the stack with X=3 has a converted mana cost of 4, but the same Blaze in your graveyard has a converted mana cost of 1. A Blaze with X=3 with a Thorn of Amethyst in play has a total cost of 4 ManaRed Mana, but its converted mana cost is still 4. A Fireball with X=3 that's dividing X between three targets has a total cost of 6 ManaRed Mana, but its converted mana cost is also 4, because the extra mana paid for multiple targets is an additional cost. So your Veiled Sentry would end up as a 4/4 in all of these cases.

(Incidentally, this is why Gaddock Teeg prevents noncreature spells wth X Mana in their mana cost from being played entirely—to forgo the rules oddities that would arise if he was trying to keep you from playing a spell whose converted mana cost was going to be 4 or greater.)

The second exception is split cards. A split card on the stack has the mana cost (and name, color(s), etc.) of only whichever side you played—so Boom would cause Veiled Sentry to become a 2/2, while Bust would make it a 6/6. However, and this is where things get weird, a split card anywhere else has the mana cost of both sides. That doesn't mean they're added together—it means that any time you look at a split card's mana cost or converted mana cost, you get both answers. (The same is true for all other qualities of a split card that isn't on the stack.) Rough // Tumble‘s converted mana cost is 2 and 6. That means that if you (for instance) mill it away with Lammastide Weave, you'll gain 2 and 6 life, for a total of 8. But if a player plays Void and chooses 2, a Rough // Tumble in your hand will be discarded, because its converted mana cost is 2.

This is especially bizarre when clashing. If you play Oaken Brawler and reveal Kithkin Greatheart (converted mana cost 2) while I reveal Dead // Gone (converted mana cost 1 and 3), we both win the clash—we each revealed a card that had a higher converted mana cost. That means that your Oaken Brawler does get the +1/+1 counter, but I also draw a card off of Sylvan Echoes. Everyone's a winner!

And that, hopefully, is more about converted mana cost than you'll ever need to know.