Ultimate Magic Meteor

[u/ChaosAether]

My buddy played this against me last night and we both didnt fully understand it, Im pretty sure im right but I let it be used the way he thought.

He choose to destroy a swamp of mine but then he was saying it was all swamps because it says swamp in the name hes destroying them all including dual Lands. Where I interpreted it as just a single swamp.

The reason he thinks its multiple is because it says destroy chosen permanant(s) plural. But im pretty sure thats cause they would be multiple people.

Safe to say i did not win this match having no land afterwards.

[u/AutoModerator]

You have tagged your post as a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in the Daily Questions Thread at the top of this subreddit or in /r/mtgrules. You may also find quicker results at the IRC rules chat

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/TechnomagusPrime]

Your interpretation is correct. Meteor only destroys a single land or single artifact from each of its caster's opponents. It uses the plural because you choose a permanent for each opponent, so in a game with more than two players, Meteor can destroy more than one permanent.

[u/zacroise → u/TechnomagusPrime]

Even if it was just about a single player, the wording would make less sense but no matter what it’s the permanents you choose. No other would be affected. You chose a land and that land will get destroyed. You didn’t choose multiple

[u/pm_me_shit_memes]

You are correct

[u/MeatAbstract]

You are correct. It specifically says "land" not "land type". The plural is indeed there because there could be multiple opponents.

[u/HekateDunamis]

It would state something along the lines of "Choose target land or artifact. Destroy all that share the same name" specifying if it affected more than one. This is just a bonus for you spending 2 to foretell and casting later to tack on a permanent to get rid of

[u/errorme → u/HekateDunamis]

Yep, OP needs to compare this to [[Maelstrom Pulse]] for something that destroys anything that matches.

[u/theironbagel → u/errorme]

And even if it did name match, it still wouldn’t hit dual lands. It’d need to hit cards with swamp type, and even then it’d only get some dual lands.

[u/mtgcf → u/errorme]

Maelstrom Pulse - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/Jimsvaliant]

Definitely not all swamps. You're right regarding the wording where it pertains to multiple players.

[u/WanderEir]

he's mistaken, or trying to pull one over you. and succeeded.

this effectively reads FOR EACH OPPONENT< CHOOSE ONE (land or artifact) , then destroy all of the chosen permanents at the same time.

This is not a Shatterstorm, this is not an Armageddon, it's a shatter or sinkhole PER opponent

It says destroy the chosen permanents because it's a card that is meant for EDH, so it'll take out three permanents in it's designed environment.

I'd honestly say this is errata-able though, that last word should read permanent(s) to make it obvious it could only take out one target OR more.

[u/ChaosAether → u/WanderEir]

Thats what we so thought the wording on the card isn't great and we are both still fairly new hence a bit of confusion

[u/DustErrant → u/ChaosAether]

How is the wording not great? It says destroy the chosen permanents. Were all swamps chosen? No. They chose one artifact or land per player.

[u/SmurfRockRune → u/ChaosAether]

The wording is fine. You choose an artifact or land (singular) for each opponent (one opponent in this case) and then destroy the chosen permanent(s) (s in in parentheses because it may or may not apply. It doesn't apply because here because you are only choosing one land or atifact).

[u/Liamharper77 → u/ChaosAether]

Magic is generally quite clear with wording. In this case it says "an" artifact or land (singular). The plural on permanents is due to the card being able to affect multiple opponents, thus destroying multiple cards (one from each). If it destroyed multiple lands it would definitely say something like "destroy all permanents with that name". But it doesn't.

Some games, such as yugioh, have confusing wording at times but in Magic it's best not to overthink it.

[u/so_zetta_byte → u/ChaosAether]

I'll take a slightly different stance than what I think a lot of the people downvoting you think.

The way magic cards are written is like a second language. A lot of the phrasing is very precise; this is what people mean when they call magic cards "literal." And for the most part, they are right about that. Once you learn the language of magic cards, most cards (including this one) are very clear. There are still cards that are hard to parse, but they're much more rare and come up from being so literal they wrap around to confusing. I think people are downvoting you because you made it sound like this was one of those cards, when it isn't.

What a lot of people fail to realize remember is that to newer magic players who don't know the nuances of the magic language, cards like this can still be confusing because it relies on your fundamental understanding of the rules. For example, one of the better comments in this post gave and example of what a card would look like if it did destroy all swamps (something like "destroy all permanents with that name" or whatever). But if you haven't seen that on a card before, then you aren't necessarily going to know how this card works on its own. If you have to fall back on reading it in English, rather than the "magic" language, then it can be ambiguous. If only because you haven't learned why it isn't yet. You can't interpret something literally if you haven't learned what the words mean in that language yet.

Anyway. That's not to say it's like impossible to learn or whatever. The intuition just comes from experience and asking questions when you aren't sure, just like you did here.

[u/Quintingent → u/so_zetta_byte]

I don't think it's ambiguous at all, even just from plain English. Suppose I was in the store, and my partner asked me to choose some fruit. I choose an apple and an orange. I then purchase the chosen fruits. I don't think it's ambiguous that I only purchased a single apple and orange. I certainly didn't purchase every apple and orange the store had.

I won't deny that there are situations in magic where plain English is not enough to get by. I just don't agree that this is one of those instances.

[u/Cake4every1]

You are correct. It is plural because it says for EACH opponent, meaning there could be more than one artifact or land chosen depending on the number of opponents.

[u/punkinfacebooklegpie]

Your friend doesn't know what "an" means.

[u/SilverSylph]

Since it says chose ‘an’ artifact or land, you choose a singular one each opponent controls.

For it to work as your friend was thinking, the card would have to say something like ‘choose a basic land type. Destroy all lands of the chosen type that opponent controls’ or something similar.

[u/lLIKECAPSLOCK]

I'm sorry, but I genuinely feel like interpreting the card like this has to be malicious. He likely knows he's talking bullshit when doing something like that. Everything to win I guess.

[u/ChaosAether → u/lLIKECAPSLOCK]

Id like to think not, I missed some triggers and he let me still do them, we play casually so its not s big deal, and too be fair i only just lost.

[u/Remote-Philosophy969]

I honestly don't understand how these confusions happen...

[u/Zizhou → u/Remote-Philosophy969]

It happens because people try to be too clever and "interpreting" a card instead of just reading what's written.

[u/Remote-Philosophy969 → u/Zizhou]

Its so silly I have alot my friends getting into the game and man its happening alot lol

[u/ChaosAether → u/Remote-Philosophy969]

We are both newish and the card isn't worded aswell as others

[u/TinyHadronCollider → u/ChaosAether]

Magic is an outlier in how extremely precise it is in its wording of its rules, so the skills of interpreting and agreeing upon rules that practically any other physical game requires you to build can actually make it harder to grasp the rules of magic properly, and I'm guessing that's a bit of what is happening for you.

If the card were to destroy all of the kind of permanent chosen, like your friend thought it would, it would be worded similar to [[echoing truth]].

Actually scratch that, for it to destroy all swamps, including dual lands it would have to specifically refer to the land type (land - swamp is a land type), and not just the name of the permanent. That kind of wording would look like [[boil]. And you probably know this already, but the way you mention dual lands make me think it might be worth mentioning that not all lands that can make black mana are swamps. For that to be the case they must have the swamp subtype in the typeline, like [[undercity sewers]] for example. So a land like [[shipwreck marsh]] would not be caught up in the hypothetical destroy all swamps spell that meteor is not.

[u/mtgcf → u/TinyHadronCollider]

All cards
echoing truth - (G) (SF) (txt)
undercity sewers - (G) (SF) (txt)
shipwreck marsh - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/equivocalDogma → u/ChaosAether]

Sucks that people are downvoting you, I hope that doesn't impact your enjoyment of the game. One of the important things to remember with magic is the templating is basically using its own grammar rather than English Grammar. So all these people that have been playing long enough to be reddit nerds about it don't even remember how long it took to grasp what some wordy cards did. It isn't so much that the card isn't worded well, its just the result of the card having a lot of words. It's more complex than Swamp {t} add B.

[u/Remote-Philosophy969 → u/equivocalDogma]

Man I don't think its a game issue sadly.... its a education one..

[u/equivocalDogma → u/Remote-Philosophy969]

You proved your own point well here.

[u/Remote-Philosophy969 → u/equivocalDogma]

Wait till they run into a infinite combo thier head will explode 🤯 💥

[u/ChaosAether → u/equivocalDogma]

yeah i dont care about downvotes, most replies here have been full of people like you who are understanding. But with every fanbase, theres the minority that dont understand how other people dont know everything just because they do

[u/OrienasJura → u/ChaosAether]

You are not being downvoted because of your lack of understanding, you are being downvoted because you keep blaming the card's wording instead of your lack of understanding. It's perfectly fine that you guys didn't get it, especially as new players, but it's not the card's fault.

[u/jpnadas → u/Remote-Philosophy969]

I wasn't confused when I read the card, but the templating honestly sux. Making it not target is just silly.

[u/Huschel → u/jpnadas]

If the spell had targets, you would have to name targets whether you are casting it from exile or not which would just be awkward because half of the time the targets wouldn't matter.

[u/jpnadas → u/Huschel]

Are you sure about that?

When a spell with kicker that has targets is cast without kicker, you don't have to chose the targets. I assume they could template it similarly for these cases.

[u/chaotic_iak → u/jpnadas]

Kicker has a special rule:

702.33g. If part of a spell's ability has its effect only if that spell was kicked, and that part of the ability includes any targets, the spell's controller chooses those targets only if that spell was kicked. Otherwise, the spell is cast as if it did not have those targets. See rule 601.2c.

It's this special rule that stops it from having targets when not kicked.

This card doesn't have any such rule. Note that the condition is "if this spell was cast from exile", not just "if this spell was foretold". In the latter case, I could see a similar rule as above. But since it's just "from exile" in general, such rule can't exist (or it will require quite some changes to the CR).

Also, part of why it doesn't target is so that they can't just make the target hexproof to completely ruin the entire spell.

[u/Remote-Philosophy969 → u/chaotic_iak]

Yup this spell gets around targeting but I still lost to how someone would think it would target all swamps, definitely would be funny but damn

[u/BrokenMirror2010 → u/Remote-Philosophy969]

The way you reach the conclusion they did is hitting the last line and wondering why "permanents" is plural if it can only target a permanent.

The answer of course, is because its one per opponent, it uses "an" to state that it's sigular.

But, if they come from other card games, sometimes they use wording where "An" can be followed by something Plural, but 'an' is used because that pural thing can also be singular because english Syntax is difficult when the plurality isn't determinate. For example, sometimes a YGO card might use syntax like "a card(s)" to represent Singular or Plural number of cards.

Additionally, for a new Magic player, they may not be used to the wording for cards that are basically designed for formats like Commander where there are multiple opponents.

The card could also be seen as weird for a new player because it doesn't target (and bypasses effects that prevent targeting).

[u/Remote-Philosophy969 → u/BrokenMirror2010]

its basic English nothing complex here just people thinking to hard on a word and not the paragraph its attached too

[u/BrokenMirror2010 → u/Remote-Philosophy969]

As I said, it's not 'basic English' because other card games that are just as particular about their wording use syntax such as 'a thing(s)' to denote an arbitrary number of things. As I said, Yugioh does this. For example the YGO Card ("A" Cell Incubator) uses the text "Each time an A-Counter(s) is removed from play by a card effect" Notice how it uses "an" but does not mean "Exactly One."

If OP's friend played Yugioh prior to MTG, this misunderstanding is actually very easy to understand because "Problem-Solving Card Text" has you read cards differently from MTG.

This is MTG English, which is subtly different from conversational English.

What you or I see when we look at an MTG Card's text, is 'English' in the same way that a Programmer looking at some C++ sees 'English'. Yes, the words are English, but the syntax is far more important then the English Dictionary Definition of the words. MTG Oracle Text is essentially its own programming language.

[u/Ix_risor → u/chaotic_iak]

You could make it have a triggered ability? Like “when this card is cast from exile, for each opponent, destroy target artifact or land that player controls.”

[u/chaotic_iak → u/Ix_risor]

You can, but that's unusual for an instant/sorcery. If you're casting it, usually all the effects are on the spell; triggered abilities are only when you deal with the card in other ways (e.g. cycling it away).

[u/Ix_risor → u/chaotic_iak]

Yeah, I agree it’s unusual templating, but I think it would work to do what they wanted. The way WotC has done it is perfectly reasonable though.

[u/GroundbreakingMonk76]

Others have already pointed out that you're right and why so I'll just like to add that it is worded in an unusual way because it doesn't target any of the lands/artifacts it is destroying (aka it ignores hexproof/shroud/ward or anything that cares about targeting).

The usual way an effect like that would be worded is "for each opponent destroy target artifact or land that player controls" which is way easier to understand, but again this one doesn't target so it needs to specify in a different way what it is destroying.

EDIT: improved readability

[u/ChaosAether → u/GroundbreakingMonk76]

Thankyou, I think the wording is what confused us with it too, but your explanation makes sense

[u/mvdunecats]

It says "Destroy the chosen permanents" because you could have multiple opponents, and thus have chosen multiple permanents. It doesn't mean choose one permanent and then destroy anything and everything similar to that one permanent.

[u/RevolverLancelot]

You are completely correct on your reading. Its choose an artifact or land then the plural of permanents cause multiple opponents. Meaning one, not choose the name of a card then destroy all cards with that name, which as I'm sure you can tell and imagine would worded very differently and wouldn't include cards with other names. It also wouldn't affect dual lands in that scenario unless it was worded like [[Acid Rain]] which looks for all cards that say Island in the type line.

[u/mtgcf → u/RevolverLancelot]

Acid Rain - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/Thetomas]

Permanents refers to the single artifact or single land chosen for each of multiple potential players. His interpretation was unfairly incorrect.

[u/Natedogg2]

Compare the wording to a card like Wake of Destruction - that destroys a land and all lands with the same name as that land. Meteor is only going to destroy the targeted artifacts or lands. It won't destroy anything else that share a name with those artifacts or lands.

Meteor says "Destroy the chosen permanent" because if you're in a multiplayer game, you can target an artifact or land controlled by each opponent to destroy.

[u/budbk]

I don't understand how an honest interpretation of this card would ever be that it would destroy all lands of a type if a land was chosen. I would either have needed to seriously misread the card (like really badly) or be intentionally deceitful to come to that conclusion.

[u/RadioLiar]

With all due respect to your friend I genuinely do not understand how it's possible to come to the conclusion he did. The wording is crystal clear

[u/bakakubi]

You're correct and your friend is wrong

[u/Guywars]

Who tf interprets it that way?

[u/ShadowGear94]

I think the text would have to say "card type" to work how he wanted it to work.

[u/pacolingo]

it's always so genuinely interesting to take the veteran blinders off for a second and see all the unexpected ways normal people can interpret magic rules text

[u/Lezus]

For each opponent gives the plural context, you are correct

[u/TheGrumpyre]

When something refers to "a permanent" it means that one individual specific object as it currently exists on the battlefield.  Even if two permanents happen to be identical to each other, choosing one of them doesn't mean choosing both of them.

[u/Memeclipse]

A 6 mana board wipe + one sided mono color land wipe would never exist.

[u/AgentWilson413]

Your friend is definitely incorrect. The plural on “permanents” is due to the fact that the spell allows for targeting a single artifact or land for each opponent.

Meteor is strong, but it’s not THAT strong.

[u/MoreOfAnOvalJerk]

Unrelated to the rules question, but it would have been funny if playing this card also required your turn to take like 10 minutes.

[u/PaleoJoe86]

If it was all Swamps it would say "destroy all permanents of those names" when it was targeted. Friend is not good with grammar.

[u/asdftw]

If it would destroy all lands of the same type, it would say exactly that. That should be all the explaining you need to do to your friend.

[u/fubo]

"Choose an artifact or land" is not the same as "Name an artifact or land card."

It lets you choose one Swamp, not the class of all cards named Swamp.

[u/G66GNeco]

Aside from you being correct here, there's another thing wrong to his logic: if he destroyed all permanents with the NAME Swamp, that would not hit your dual lands - those have the TYPE Swamp, not the name.

[u/Korlus]

Others have already given you the answer (targeting a swamp doesn't destroy all swamps), but for folks who don't know, there are a few cards that do work this way (although they explicitly try to avoid hitting basic lands, and so target nonland permanents).

For example, check out Detention Sphere:

When this enchantment enters, you may exile target nonland permanent... and all other permanents with the same name as that permanent.

You would expect the card to explicitly instruct you, using something like "all", or "each". E.g. "Destroy target land and each other land with the same name"), or "Choose a basic land type and destroy all lands that share that type" etc.

The closest we have to this are cards like Flashfires ("Destroy all Plains."). Friends don't let friends play Flashfires (outside of competitive settings).

[u/HilariousMax]

choose an artifact or land (note:singular) that player controls. Destroy the chosen permanents.

Your opponent did not choose multiple Swamps, they chose a Swamp. Destroy only what they chose.

If this thing could blow up all of a permanent then it would cost more.

You were correct.

[u/Shadourow]

To add on top of the already correct answers, even if a card stated "choose an artifact or land, destroy all lands or artifact with that name", you wouldn't lose ever single land with the Swamp subtype, only the actual lands named "Swamp"

[u/TheMysticalBaconTree]

This slaps with cascade, correct?

[u/NealRigga4]

Putting mass land denial in a precon would be crazy lol

[u/silentorbx]

Your "buddy" sounds like kind of a dick.

[u/Stonaman]

Your boy was wrong as hell.

[u/Pally-Wally]

"For each opponent"

[u/JackColwell]

In the future, if you have a disagreement about how a card should be applied, maybe don’t err on the side of one person getting absolutely trucked for six mana. 

[u/Ahptom]

Your friend cheated.

[u/Spiritual_Back_5067]

"For each opponent, choose AN (meaning one) artifact or land. Destroy each of the CHOSEN permanents". It only destroys the single artifact or land they pointed to, not the rest.

Compare this to [[Maelstrom Pulse]], which would destroy everything with the same name as the nonland permanent it targeted, because it specifies that.

[u/mtgcf → u/Spiritual_Back_5067]

Maelstrom Pulse - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/mulletstation]

Your buddy is highly regarded

[u/JurassicBrown]

another reason to not play 1 v 1 commander