Business Casual
Getting Kamboozled
By Mark Slack

---

---
-Ryan O'Connor
Associate Content Manager, WoW TCG

RynoTheShort - Lvl 70 Gnome Warlock - Icecrown

You realize that if the opponent has no creatures and you have wand + anders out, that when the dot ticks you will have to target anders if there are no other legal targets right?

---

My Life For Auir

Player Management Level 1 Judge
Rules Knowledge Level 1 Judge

no it doesn't.. you can choose 0 as a number.

---

Alan

while this seems like a fun deck and wand fits right in.. it will get smoked by 3/4 of the decks out there. Any solo ish type deck will destroy it, as will any rush deck, as will most control decks, etc etc.  Not enough protection from attacks and not enough offense to trade allies with.  Don't get me wrong, I know this is a casual deck but lets be real about it.

---

Alan

Telling yourself that 3/4 of the decks out there will annhialate you is the #1 thing that stifles creativity. 


New ideas bring forth interactions you wouldn't typically think of.

1287839:

no it doesn't.. you can choose 0 as a number.

Actually that is incorrect.

Comprehensive Rules - Adding Links:

---

My Life For Auir

Player Management Level 1 Judge
Rules Knowledge Level 1 Judge

Well, although this is a casual deck, I think it stands a pretty good chance against Pinprik!! :)

Cheers.

---

Man Utd to retain the Premiership!!
Latest result: Man Utd 5 Stoke City 0 (Yeah!!!)
My most recent High Level result: 3-4 DMF Anaheim
Level 1 TCG AND Minis Rules

1189990:

Well, although this is a casual deck, I think it stands a pretty good chance against Pinprik!! :) Cheers.

/facepalm

---

"What if Zombie Lincoln wants to make a Mecha Markoff to lead his zombie Ninja bikers?!?!"

The Official WoW TCG Forums Cross-Dressing Englishman From Hawaii

You're right Twylite, but by the way card reads, you could make the case 0 is a valid choice when you're told any number of targets. I'm glad you pointed out the ruling.

~DF

Edit: My friend built a similar style deck last week, but he ran Marlowe Christophers. Sure, he wasn't able to run Unstable Affliction or Siphon Life, but it gave him access to a wonderful turn 6 flip. (Which in often cases was game). He also ran Incinerate and Shadow and Flame for extra burst damage. (Fel Fire, Immolate or Shadow and Flame can all deal fire damage).

Could also include Myriam and Sarmoth if you wanted.

---

Proud member of Team Chubb.

"Can you see without your Glouses?"

I've actually been playing a deck very simialr to this and it works really well.  However the deck  needs more protectors for ex. Defender Nagalaas works great for this. these could easily replace Curse of Contagion.  I also believe that  with The Wand of Seer, Corruption should be replaced with with 4 Immolates and finally the icing on the cake two Hoxie Metllemelts and Two Fel Armors to finish your opponet.

1997716:

1287839:

no it doesn't.. you can choose 0 as a number.

Actually that is incorrect.

Comprehensive Rules - Adding Links:

707.1d If the link has targets (706), the player must choose those targets in any order that allows all of them to be chosen. If the link is modal, the player only chooses targets for the chosen modes. If the link has a variable number of targets, the player must first choose that number and then choose those targets. If a link divides counters or damage among multiple targets, the player must specify a division such that each target is assigned 1 or more counters or damage. If a link requires information from the game to determine the amount of counters or damage it divides, that information is locked in first. The player can’t choose to divide a non-zero amount of counters or damage among zero targets. A link can’t be added unless legal choices can be made for all of its targets.

I'm a bit confused. Why would Wand of the Seer make you target Anders? Nothing in the first highlighted sentence says 0 is not an option, and the second sentence only applies if you have to target Anders.

Pretty sure the part near the end that says "The Player can't choose to divide a non-zero amount of counters or damage among zero targets." covers it.  The wand doesn't say that you "may" divide and apply damage, nor does it say 'opposing' allys only.  If there was at least one ally in play, regardless of owner, then the Wand would drop the damage on it.

The solution is kinda simple.  You could wait until the opponent drops a few allies onto the board so that you're guaranteed to drop the divided number amongst his allies.  Alternatively you replace Anders with some other hard-to-kill ally that has Untargetable.  Also, if you're up against an equipment-only person, sidedeck some Immolates and Talian Bladebender into the mix.

Ah, I was paying too much attention to the highlighted area, while ignoring the rest of the text. It's an official oopsies.

Now that I think about it, Steal Essence would be highly valuable in this deck too.