x If you're looking for a specific comment, check the other printings as well.
Player Rating:
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0
Community Rating: 4.410 / 5  (50 votes)
The player rating is the overall rating for the card taking into account all player rating votes.

 
Popular Comments
Hide Comments
Only show me comments rated:
 stars.
1234 >
@ToesOfKrosa
Ninjas are silent, ninjas are deadly. But ninjas aren't always smart. This one is either particularly ignorant, or was hired by R&D's Secret Lair to cause chaos.
Posted By: Kryptnyt (11/5/2011 6:15:43 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


The third official ruling says "Ertai's Meddling can't be cast through any way that doesn't pay its mana cost." WHAT ABOUT ERTAI'S MEDDLING???
Posted By: Fistarnius (9/8/2012 12:40:05 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


@Everyone who claims according to the original wording, the spell remained on the stack: You do realize that the stack was only introduced in 6th Edition, roughly a year post-Tempest? Admittedly, I'm not firm enough in the old "batch" rules, but I'm reasonably sure the spell did not remain targetable. Oracle wording, unless it corrects some drastic mistake, tries to emulate the effect the old wording provided as closely as possible.
So, what SnafinTurtle said. Better than myself.

@MarlinFlake: I'd say definitely yes. The ability to transform is anchored in the white side of Reckless Waif, and that is exactly copied. The weird rule with Morph creatures is because casting creatures with Morph removes their unique identity. At the time of casting a creature face-down, the spell knows nothing of the face-up side. A transformer spell knows about its Night side.

Concerning the "Vanishing vs. Fading" debate. I'm pretty sure it's "Vanishing". Ertai's Meddling sets up a delayed triggered effe... (see all)
Posted By: Lord_of_Tresserhorn (12/25/2012 3:11:51 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


For all you people saying delay is better, READ. Delay needs to counter a spell. This can pretty much save you or at least buy you some time from ANY spell, except for split second.
Posted By: ClericNacho (6/5/2010 5:37:41 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


@Phyreninja
Even if your disintegrate stayed on the stack, Izzet Guildmage would never be able to copy it unless X=1, when x=12 Disintegrate's converted mana cost would be 13.

Apparently no one realizes that back then, (note the card type being interrupt), there was no such thing as "the stack" spells could only be responded to by "interrupts" and "mana sources". there was even a special time period reserved for regeneration, i.e. the moment the creature would die.

The reason the oracle text exists is to keep all cards (minus un-cards) up to date with the current rulings, that's why Mindslaver doesn't have its mana burn clause anymore. For those of you not in the know, mana burn was life loss cause by having mana in your mana pool at the end of a phase or turn, it was removed to simplify the game and create design space.

Trying to play with the old wording via the secret lair makes this card terrible, because the only point at which a spell is "successfully c... (see all)
Posted By: Snafinturtle (3/20/2012 5:06:32 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


Ertai's is worse than Delay for other reasons, too. For example, when the spell has no delay counters, it is put onto the stack, as opposed to the suspend mechanic which casts it. That's a lot of Arcane Laboratory/Rule of Law synergy gone.
Posted By: EternalLurker (2/20/2010 5:06:46 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


The whole bit about "as a copy of the original spell" is just meant to restore the original chosen values (e.g. the value of X), additional casting costs paid (e.g. kicker costs), modal choices, etc.

@Morgrath:
Precursor to Delay, specifically. I'd generally call Ertai's Meddling the worse of the two, especially since X cannot be 0. It still could be used to delay a spell for only one or two turns while you board-wipe. Much like a Greater Gargadon/Equipoise/Sands of Time combo.

The question I have is: Is it cast immediately after the last delay counter is removed, or only when you cannot remove a delay counter? Hey, it's the vanishing-versus-fading difference all over again! Anyways, I suspect that the former is the case, which would justify not letting X be 0.
Posted By: Ragamander (12/31/2009 4:49:50 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


Take THAT, Time Stop!
Posted By: nammertime (7/7/2010 7:18:47 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


THE GOLDEN RULE: WHAT IS PRINTED ON THE CARD MAKES THE RULES!!

Orical doesn't get it, and it makes me mad!!!
When you cast this spell, the spell says on the stack:
"When Target spell is sucessfully Cast put X delay counters on it. X cannot be 0"
"During the upkeep of that spell's caster, remove a delay counter from the spell. If it has no delay counters on it the spell resolves."

Which means that it is always on the stack all the time.
That means: It can be targeted as a spell buy other spells.
--Time Stop does remove it too.
--It can be countered at anytime by anyone, but cannot be delt damage before it resolves(if it is a creature).
--It can be copied anynumber of times buy any number of sorces for X number of turns.
--It never left to exile, it is still a morph creature and it will still morph as normal (if it gets
Desertion ed then the morph ability comes with you.)
--any ... (see all)
Posted By: PhyreNinja (1/22/2011 12:17:27 AM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

 


Pardon me but what's the use of this card? Let's say you paid 3 mana for it thus 2 delay counters. After two turns, the spell resolves. Ok fine, this will buy you some time but... umm... what's the point? If i wanted to counter a spell i would just use counterspell for 2 mana. Hell... even if cancel sucks to most people i would still use it over this card. I just don't get it.

This is a terrible counterspell, i'd still prefer cancel over this. Dumb card, it's a precursor to suspend but that's it. Fun or not, it's very useless.

If i'm totally wrong please just enlighten me because all i'm reading is that the spell gets delayed for x number of turns and then it resolves. Why not just cancel it? The card gets countered definitely unlike this card which just delays it. 1/5 for me, sorry but this is pretty much what i see in it.


EDIT: Scratch that, I can see a use for it although not always very useful. I'll bump it to a 3.0.
Posted By: aznxknightz (9/5/2011 10:51:48 PM)
Rating: 
0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0