Why is exile often an intermediate step?Why does Cascade exile?How often does the standard set change?Will spells that exile enchantments also exile enchantment artifacts?MTG Myr Welder Exile questionReturning from exile at end stepIs there a significant advantage to being at an 8 person pod over a 6 person pod?In a multiplayer game, if a player is controlling another player's turn, may they reveal that player's hand?“Beginning of end step” questionWhat decides whether a card is exiled or returned as a player loses?How often can I activate planeswalker abilities with Teferi's emblem?
How far can gerrymandering go?
Can dual citizens open crypto exchange accounts where U.S. citizens are prohibited?
Early 2000s movie about time travel, protagonist travels back to save girlfriend, then into multiple points in future
Fully submerged water bath for stove top baking?
The alcoholic village festival
Does "boire un jus" tend to mean "coffee" or "juice of fruit"?
German idiomatic equivalents of 能骗就骗 (if you can trick, then trick)
How useful would a hydroelectric power plant be in the post-apocalypse world?
Why didn't Caesar move against Sextus Pompey immediately after Munda?
Why will we fail creating a self sustaining off world colony?
Where to connect the fuse and why?
English idiomatic equivalents of 能骗就骗 (if you can cheat, then cheat)
Why is exile often an intermediate step?
Is my guitar action too high or is the bridge too high?
Tricolour nonogram
Copy group of files (Filename*) to backup (Filename*.bak)
Is it theoretically possible to hack printer using scanner tray?
Why doesn't SpaceX land boosters in Africa?
Checkmate in 1 on a Tangled Board
Subset of knight's move in chess.
Is there a list of all of the cases in the Talmud where תיקו ("Teiku") is said?
How to count the number of bytes in a file, grouping the same bytes?
Does friction always oppose motion?
How do I tell my girlfriend she's been buying me books by the wrong author for the last nine months?
Why is exile often an intermediate step?
Why does Cascade exile?How often does the standard set change?Will spells that exile enchantments also exile enchantment artifacts?MTG Myr Welder Exile questionReturning from exile at end stepIs there a significant advantage to being at an 8 person pod over a 6 person pod?In a multiplayer game, if a player is controlling another player's turn, may they reveal that player's hand?“Beginning of end step” questionWhat decides whether a card is exiled or returned as a player loses?How often can I activate planeswalker abilities with Teferi's emblem?
When card text says to place a card into exile, and then do something else with that card, what is the purpose of putting it into exile temporarily?
For example, cards often either let your draw from your library into exile, or remove cards from a graveyard into exile, and then cast them from exile. Dire Fleet Daredevil for example.
As someone who did not play for many years, this seems wordy and over complicated. I find myself reading such cards 2 or 3 times before mentally connecting the trigger to the end result without the seemingly pointless intermediate step of exiling cards.
I assume this is a common practice now to avoid some overpowered combo or weird condition. I'd like to have a better understanding of what the rule/card designers accomplish/prevent by having exile as an intermediate step.
Note, I am not asking for an explanation of what exile does in general, nor am I asking why a player would prefer to exile over destroy.
magic-the-gathering
New contributor
add a comment |
When card text says to place a card into exile, and then do something else with that card, what is the purpose of putting it into exile temporarily?
For example, cards often either let your draw from your library into exile, or remove cards from a graveyard into exile, and then cast them from exile. Dire Fleet Daredevil for example.
As someone who did not play for many years, this seems wordy and over complicated. I find myself reading such cards 2 or 3 times before mentally connecting the trigger to the end result without the seemingly pointless intermediate step of exiling cards.
I assume this is a common practice now to avoid some overpowered combo or weird condition. I'd like to have a better understanding of what the rule/card designers accomplish/prevent by having exile as an intermediate step.
Note, I am not asking for an explanation of what exile does in general, nor am I asking why a player would prefer to exile over destroy.
magic-the-gathering
New contributor
add a comment |
When card text says to place a card into exile, and then do something else with that card, what is the purpose of putting it into exile temporarily?
For example, cards often either let your draw from your library into exile, or remove cards from a graveyard into exile, and then cast them from exile. Dire Fleet Daredevil for example.
As someone who did not play for many years, this seems wordy and over complicated. I find myself reading such cards 2 or 3 times before mentally connecting the trigger to the end result without the seemingly pointless intermediate step of exiling cards.
I assume this is a common practice now to avoid some overpowered combo or weird condition. I'd like to have a better understanding of what the rule/card designers accomplish/prevent by having exile as an intermediate step.
Note, I am not asking for an explanation of what exile does in general, nor am I asking why a player would prefer to exile over destroy.
magic-the-gathering
New contributor
When card text says to place a card into exile, and then do something else with that card, what is the purpose of putting it into exile temporarily?
For example, cards often either let your draw from your library into exile, or remove cards from a graveyard into exile, and then cast them from exile. Dire Fleet Daredevil for example.
As someone who did not play for many years, this seems wordy and over complicated. I find myself reading such cards 2 or 3 times before mentally connecting the trigger to the end result without the seemingly pointless intermediate step of exiling cards.
I assume this is a common practice now to avoid some overpowered combo or weird condition. I'd like to have a better understanding of what the rule/card designers accomplish/prevent by having exile as an intermediate step.
Note, I am not asking for an explanation of what exile does in general, nor am I asking why a player would prefer to exile over destroy.
magic-the-gathering
magic-the-gathering
New contributor
New contributor
edited 9 hours ago
Glorfindel
10.6k1 gold badge36 silver badges66 bronze badges
10.6k1 gold badge36 silver badges66 bronze badges
New contributor
asked 9 hours ago
AaronLSAaronLS
1313 bronze badges
1313 bronze badges
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Exiling a card before allowing an action does a couple things:
- It protects the cards from interactions until it is cast. If the Dire Fleet Daredevil has targeted a card, you want it to be uninteractable by the owner until you decide to cast it (assuming it wasn't removed in response to the trigger).
- It acts to remove the card from the game. This is more relevant for graveyard exile than deck exile, where it's more a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Even in the Daredevil scenario, if you never cast the card, it's still exiled.
- It makes the card public information. This applies more to deck exile. It would be "harder" (read "near-impossible") to keep track of which card you exiled if you got to put the card into your hand. Even if the card is not face-up, it's still in a separate area.
It also allows normal ETB stuff to happen without having to create weird special rules (see any of the creatures that flip to planeswalkers like Nicol Bolas, the Ravager). It also makes it easier to understand (for me) rules like 701.27f (multiple delayed transform triggers only result in one transformation rather than multiple) (I can't exile and transform something that isn't on the battlefield vs flipping the same card over multiple times).
– Becuzz
6 hours ago
@Becuzz I didn't address that since I assumed flicker/exile+return weren't part of the question.
– JonTheMon
6 hours ago
This reasoning is illuminating, but I think there's a premise (or conclusion?) that's been left unstated: The cards "earmarked" by these effects have to go somewhere within the game mechanics; the exile zone is the only place that allows an effect like "you get to play a card from an opponent's graveyard" to work while providing the conditions listed in this answer.
– Ryan Veeder
2 hours ago
1
Re "you want it to be uninteractable by the owner until you decide to cast it", For example, if DFD left the card in the graveyard, if the card was somehow removed it from their graveyard, you would no longer be able to cast it (CR 400.7)
– ikegami
2 hours ago
I think the second point is more of a side-effect rather than a reason. Protection and clarity are key here.
– ikegami
1 hour ago
add a comment |
It's not something from recent years; Magic's history is full of cards which remove ... from the game (the old wording for 'exile').
In fact, that terminology is a better indication of what's going on (Wizards of the Coast switched to 'exile' for flavor reasons, and not everybody was happy with this). The cards are removed from the rest of the game in order to make it clear for every player (whether the cards are face up or face down) that they were 'set apart' for a special effect. You'd lose that if they were put in somebody's hand, graveyard or the bottom of their library.
Because they are 'set apart', there aren't that many cards which are able to interact with all cards in the exile zone. (Pull from Eternity is one of the exceptions.) That also means that it's relatively safe for combos by the owner, but also for 'hate' by the opponent (e.g. Tormod's Crypt). In your Dire Fleet Daredevil case, the opponent can't return them to their own hand, or cast them themselves if the spells have flashback.
The Wish cycle used to be able to interact with the removed from game zone, but it cannot interact with the exile zone.
– murgatroid99♦
9 hours ago
Heh, you're right - it's been a long time since I played competitive MtG. I'm on mobile right now - have there been printed any alternatives meanwhile?
– Glorfindel
8 hours ago
There are only a few. Pull from Eternity is probably the simplest one.
– murgatroid99♦
8 hours ago
4
I disagree that "remove from the game" is a better term than "exile". Things that aren't part of the game (e.g. cards not in my deck, Scrabble tiles, etc.) should be essentially irrelevant to someone playing the game. With so many relatively recent cards that interact with cards in exile, exiled cards are a strategic resource for certain types of decks. For the card in question here, it wouldn't make much sense to be able to cast a card that's been "removed from the game" - if I can cast it, it is clearly still part of the game!
– Nuclear Wang
8 hours ago
This ianswer involves a lot of theory crafting and opinions. One or more actual sources would go a long way towards improving this answer.
– Hackworth
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "147"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
AaronLS is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47696%2fwhy-is-exile-often-an-intermediate-step%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Exiling a card before allowing an action does a couple things:
- It protects the cards from interactions until it is cast. If the Dire Fleet Daredevil has targeted a card, you want it to be uninteractable by the owner until you decide to cast it (assuming it wasn't removed in response to the trigger).
- It acts to remove the card from the game. This is more relevant for graveyard exile than deck exile, where it's more a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Even in the Daredevil scenario, if you never cast the card, it's still exiled.
- It makes the card public information. This applies more to deck exile. It would be "harder" (read "near-impossible") to keep track of which card you exiled if you got to put the card into your hand. Even if the card is not face-up, it's still in a separate area.
It also allows normal ETB stuff to happen without having to create weird special rules (see any of the creatures that flip to planeswalkers like Nicol Bolas, the Ravager). It also makes it easier to understand (for me) rules like 701.27f (multiple delayed transform triggers only result in one transformation rather than multiple) (I can't exile and transform something that isn't on the battlefield vs flipping the same card over multiple times).
– Becuzz
6 hours ago
@Becuzz I didn't address that since I assumed flicker/exile+return weren't part of the question.
– JonTheMon
6 hours ago
This reasoning is illuminating, but I think there's a premise (or conclusion?) that's been left unstated: The cards "earmarked" by these effects have to go somewhere within the game mechanics; the exile zone is the only place that allows an effect like "you get to play a card from an opponent's graveyard" to work while providing the conditions listed in this answer.
– Ryan Veeder
2 hours ago
1
Re "you want it to be uninteractable by the owner until you decide to cast it", For example, if DFD left the card in the graveyard, if the card was somehow removed it from their graveyard, you would no longer be able to cast it (CR 400.7)
– ikegami
2 hours ago
I think the second point is more of a side-effect rather than a reason. Protection and clarity are key here.
– ikegami
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Exiling a card before allowing an action does a couple things:
- It protects the cards from interactions until it is cast. If the Dire Fleet Daredevil has targeted a card, you want it to be uninteractable by the owner until you decide to cast it (assuming it wasn't removed in response to the trigger).
- It acts to remove the card from the game. This is more relevant for graveyard exile than deck exile, where it's more a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Even in the Daredevil scenario, if you never cast the card, it's still exiled.
- It makes the card public information. This applies more to deck exile. It would be "harder" (read "near-impossible") to keep track of which card you exiled if you got to put the card into your hand. Even if the card is not face-up, it's still in a separate area.
It also allows normal ETB stuff to happen without having to create weird special rules (see any of the creatures that flip to planeswalkers like Nicol Bolas, the Ravager). It also makes it easier to understand (for me) rules like 701.27f (multiple delayed transform triggers only result in one transformation rather than multiple) (I can't exile and transform something that isn't on the battlefield vs flipping the same card over multiple times).
– Becuzz
6 hours ago
@Becuzz I didn't address that since I assumed flicker/exile+return weren't part of the question.
– JonTheMon
6 hours ago
This reasoning is illuminating, but I think there's a premise (or conclusion?) that's been left unstated: The cards "earmarked" by these effects have to go somewhere within the game mechanics; the exile zone is the only place that allows an effect like "you get to play a card from an opponent's graveyard" to work while providing the conditions listed in this answer.
– Ryan Veeder
2 hours ago
1
Re "you want it to be uninteractable by the owner until you decide to cast it", For example, if DFD left the card in the graveyard, if the card was somehow removed it from their graveyard, you would no longer be able to cast it (CR 400.7)
– ikegami
2 hours ago
I think the second point is more of a side-effect rather than a reason. Protection and clarity are key here.
– ikegami
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Exiling a card before allowing an action does a couple things:
- It protects the cards from interactions until it is cast. If the Dire Fleet Daredevil has targeted a card, you want it to be uninteractable by the owner until you decide to cast it (assuming it wasn't removed in response to the trigger).
- It acts to remove the card from the game. This is more relevant for graveyard exile than deck exile, where it's more a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Even in the Daredevil scenario, if you never cast the card, it's still exiled.
- It makes the card public information. This applies more to deck exile. It would be "harder" (read "near-impossible") to keep track of which card you exiled if you got to put the card into your hand. Even if the card is not face-up, it's still in a separate area.
Exiling a card before allowing an action does a couple things:
- It protects the cards from interactions until it is cast. If the Dire Fleet Daredevil has targeted a card, you want it to be uninteractable by the owner until you decide to cast it (assuming it wasn't removed in response to the trigger).
- It acts to remove the card from the game. This is more relevant for graveyard exile than deck exile, where it's more a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Even in the Daredevil scenario, if you never cast the card, it's still exiled.
- It makes the card public information. This applies more to deck exile. It would be "harder" (read "near-impossible") to keep track of which card you exiled if you got to put the card into your hand. Even if the card is not face-up, it's still in a separate area.
edited 8 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
JonTheMonJonTheMon
9,2061 gold badge22 silver badges51 bronze badges
9,2061 gold badge22 silver badges51 bronze badges
It also allows normal ETB stuff to happen without having to create weird special rules (see any of the creatures that flip to planeswalkers like Nicol Bolas, the Ravager). It also makes it easier to understand (for me) rules like 701.27f (multiple delayed transform triggers only result in one transformation rather than multiple) (I can't exile and transform something that isn't on the battlefield vs flipping the same card over multiple times).
– Becuzz
6 hours ago
@Becuzz I didn't address that since I assumed flicker/exile+return weren't part of the question.
– JonTheMon
6 hours ago
This reasoning is illuminating, but I think there's a premise (or conclusion?) that's been left unstated: The cards "earmarked" by these effects have to go somewhere within the game mechanics; the exile zone is the only place that allows an effect like "you get to play a card from an opponent's graveyard" to work while providing the conditions listed in this answer.
– Ryan Veeder
2 hours ago
1
Re "you want it to be uninteractable by the owner until you decide to cast it", For example, if DFD left the card in the graveyard, if the card was somehow removed it from their graveyard, you would no longer be able to cast it (CR 400.7)
– ikegami
2 hours ago
I think the second point is more of a side-effect rather than a reason. Protection and clarity are key here.
– ikegami
1 hour ago
add a comment |
It also allows normal ETB stuff to happen without having to create weird special rules (see any of the creatures that flip to planeswalkers like Nicol Bolas, the Ravager). It also makes it easier to understand (for me) rules like 701.27f (multiple delayed transform triggers only result in one transformation rather than multiple) (I can't exile and transform something that isn't on the battlefield vs flipping the same card over multiple times).
– Becuzz
6 hours ago
@Becuzz I didn't address that since I assumed flicker/exile+return weren't part of the question.
– JonTheMon
6 hours ago
This reasoning is illuminating, but I think there's a premise (or conclusion?) that's been left unstated: The cards "earmarked" by these effects have to go somewhere within the game mechanics; the exile zone is the only place that allows an effect like "you get to play a card from an opponent's graveyard" to work while providing the conditions listed in this answer.
– Ryan Veeder
2 hours ago
1
Re "you want it to be uninteractable by the owner until you decide to cast it", For example, if DFD left the card in the graveyard, if the card was somehow removed it from their graveyard, you would no longer be able to cast it (CR 400.7)
– ikegami
2 hours ago
I think the second point is more of a side-effect rather than a reason. Protection and clarity are key here.
– ikegami
1 hour ago
It also allows normal ETB stuff to happen without having to create weird special rules (see any of the creatures that flip to planeswalkers like Nicol Bolas, the Ravager). It also makes it easier to understand (for me) rules like 701.27f (multiple delayed transform triggers only result in one transformation rather than multiple) (I can't exile and transform something that isn't on the battlefield vs flipping the same card over multiple times).
– Becuzz
6 hours ago
It also allows normal ETB stuff to happen without having to create weird special rules (see any of the creatures that flip to planeswalkers like Nicol Bolas, the Ravager). It also makes it easier to understand (for me) rules like 701.27f (multiple delayed transform triggers only result in one transformation rather than multiple) (I can't exile and transform something that isn't on the battlefield vs flipping the same card over multiple times).
– Becuzz
6 hours ago
@Becuzz I didn't address that since I assumed flicker/exile+return weren't part of the question.
– JonTheMon
6 hours ago
@Becuzz I didn't address that since I assumed flicker/exile+return weren't part of the question.
– JonTheMon
6 hours ago
This reasoning is illuminating, but I think there's a premise (or conclusion?) that's been left unstated: The cards "earmarked" by these effects have to go somewhere within the game mechanics; the exile zone is the only place that allows an effect like "you get to play a card from an opponent's graveyard" to work while providing the conditions listed in this answer.
– Ryan Veeder
2 hours ago
This reasoning is illuminating, but I think there's a premise (or conclusion?) that's been left unstated: The cards "earmarked" by these effects have to go somewhere within the game mechanics; the exile zone is the only place that allows an effect like "you get to play a card from an opponent's graveyard" to work while providing the conditions listed in this answer.
– Ryan Veeder
2 hours ago
1
1
Re "you want it to be uninteractable by the owner until you decide to cast it", For example, if DFD left the card in the graveyard, if the card was somehow removed it from their graveyard, you would no longer be able to cast it (CR 400.7)
– ikegami
2 hours ago
Re "you want it to be uninteractable by the owner until you decide to cast it", For example, if DFD left the card in the graveyard, if the card was somehow removed it from their graveyard, you would no longer be able to cast it (CR 400.7)
– ikegami
2 hours ago
I think the second point is more of a side-effect rather than a reason. Protection and clarity are key here.
– ikegami
1 hour ago
I think the second point is more of a side-effect rather than a reason. Protection and clarity are key here.
– ikegami
1 hour ago
add a comment |
It's not something from recent years; Magic's history is full of cards which remove ... from the game (the old wording for 'exile').
In fact, that terminology is a better indication of what's going on (Wizards of the Coast switched to 'exile' for flavor reasons, and not everybody was happy with this). The cards are removed from the rest of the game in order to make it clear for every player (whether the cards are face up or face down) that they were 'set apart' for a special effect. You'd lose that if they were put in somebody's hand, graveyard or the bottom of their library.
Because they are 'set apart', there aren't that many cards which are able to interact with all cards in the exile zone. (Pull from Eternity is one of the exceptions.) That also means that it's relatively safe for combos by the owner, but also for 'hate' by the opponent (e.g. Tormod's Crypt). In your Dire Fleet Daredevil case, the opponent can't return them to their own hand, or cast them themselves if the spells have flashback.
The Wish cycle used to be able to interact with the removed from game zone, but it cannot interact with the exile zone.
– murgatroid99♦
9 hours ago
Heh, you're right - it's been a long time since I played competitive MtG. I'm on mobile right now - have there been printed any alternatives meanwhile?
– Glorfindel
8 hours ago
There are only a few. Pull from Eternity is probably the simplest one.
– murgatroid99♦
8 hours ago
4
I disagree that "remove from the game" is a better term than "exile". Things that aren't part of the game (e.g. cards not in my deck, Scrabble tiles, etc.) should be essentially irrelevant to someone playing the game. With so many relatively recent cards that interact with cards in exile, exiled cards are a strategic resource for certain types of decks. For the card in question here, it wouldn't make much sense to be able to cast a card that's been "removed from the game" - if I can cast it, it is clearly still part of the game!
– Nuclear Wang
8 hours ago
This ianswer involves a lot of theory crafting and opinions. One or more actual sources would go a long way towards improving this answer.
– Hackworth
6 hours ago
add a comment |
It's not something from recent years; Magic's history is full of cards which remove ... from the game (the old wording for 'exile').
In fact, that terminology is a better indication of what's going on (Wizards of the Coast switched to 'exile' for flavor reasons, and not everybody was happy with this). The cards are removed from the rest of the game in order to make it clear for every player (whether the cards are face up or face down) that they were 'set apart' for a special effect. You'd lose that if they were put in somebody's hand, graveyard or the bottom of their library.
Because they are 'set apart', there aren't that many cards which are able to interact with all cards in the exile zone. (Pull from Eternity is one of the exceptions.) That also means that it's relatively safe for combos by the owner, but also for 'hate' by the opponent (e.g. Tormod's Crypt). In your Dire Fleet Daredevil case, the opponent can't return them to their own hand, or cast them themselves if the spells have flashback.
The Wish cycle used to be able to interact with the removed from game zone, but it cannot interact with the exile zone.
– murgatroid99♦
9 hours ago
Heh, you're right - it's been a long time since I played competitive MtG. I'm on mobile right now - have there been printed any alternatives meanwhile?
– Glorfindel
8 hours ago
There are only a few. Pull from Eternity is probably the simplest one.
– murgatroid99♦
8 hours ago
4
I disagree that "remove from the game" is a better term than "exile". Things that aren't part of the game (e.g. cards not in my deck, Scrabble tiles, etc.) should be essentially irrelevant to someone playing the game. With so many relatively recent cards that interact with cards in exile, exiled cards are a strategic resource for certain types of decks. For the card in question here, it wouldn't make much sense to be able to cast a card that's been "removed from the game" - if I can cast it, it is clearly still part of the game!
– Nuclear Wang
8 hours ago
This ianswer involves a lot of theory crafting and opinions. One or more actual sources would go a long way towards improving this answer.
– Hackworth
6 hours ago
add a comment |
It's not something from recent years; Magic's history is full of cards which remove ... from the game (the old wording for 'exile').
In fact, that terminology is a better indication of what's going on (Wizards of the Coast switched to 'exile' for flavor reasons, and not everybody was happy with this). The cards are removed from the rest of the game in order to make it clear for every player (whether the cards are face up or face down) that they were 'set apart' for a special effect. You'd lose that if they were put in somebody's hand, graveyard or the bottom of their library.
Because they are 'set apart', there aren't that many cards which are able to interact with all cards in the exile zone. (Pull from Eternity is one of the exceptions.) That also means that it's relatively safe for combos by the owner, but also for 'hate' by the opponent (e.g. Tormod's Crypt). In your Dire Fleet Daredevil case, the opponent can't return them to their own hand, or cast them themselves if the spells have flashback.
It's not something from recent years; Magic's history is full of cards which remove ... from the game (the old wording for 'exile').
In fact, that terminology is a better indication of what's going on (Wizards of the Coast switched to 'exile' for flavor reasons, and not everybody was happy with this). The cards are removed from the rest of the game in order to make it clear for every player (whether the cards are face up or face down) that they were 'set apart' for a special effect. You'd lose that if they were put in somebody's hand, graveyard or the bottom of their library.
Because they are 'set apart', there aren't that many cards which are able to interact with all cards in the exile zone. (Pull from Eternity is one of the exceptions.) That also means that it's relatively safe for combos by the owner, but also for 'hate' by the opponent (e.g. Tormod's Crypt). In your Dire Fleet Daredevil case, the opponent can't return them to their own hand, or cast them themselves if the spells have flashback.
edited 8 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
GlorfindelGlorfindel
10.6k1 gold badge36 silver badges66 bronze badges
10.6k1 gold badge36 silver badges66 bronze badges
The Wish cycle used to be able to interact with the removed from game zone, but it cannot interact with the exile zone.
– murgatroid99♦
9 hours ago
Heh, you're right - it's been a long time since I played competitive MtG. I'm on mobile right now - have there been printed any alternatives meanwhile?
– Glorfindel
8 hours ago
There are only a few. Pull from Eternity is probably the simplest one.
– murgatroid99♦
8 hours ago
4
I disagree that "remove from the game" is a better term than "exile". Things that aren't part of the game (e.g. cards not in my deck, Scrabble tiles, etc.) should be essentially irrelevant to someone playing the game. With so many relatively recent cards that interact with cards in exile, exiled cards are a strategic resource for certain types of decks. For the card in question here, it wouldn't make much sense to be able to cast a card that's been "removed from the game" - if I can cast it, it is clearly still part of the game!
– Nuclear Wang
8 hours ago
This ianswer involves a lot of theory crafting and opinions. One or more actual sources would go a long way towards improving this answer.
– Hackworth
6 hours ago
add a comment |
The Wish cycle used to be able to interact with the removed from game zone, but it cannot interact with the exile zone.
– murgatroid99♦
9 hours ago
Heh, you're right - it's been a long time since I played competitive MtG. I'm on mobile right now - have there been printed any alternatives meanwhile?
– Glorfindel
8 hours ago
There are only a few. Pull from Eternity is probably the simplest one.
– murgatroid99♦
8 hours ago
4
I disagree that "remove from the game" is a better term than "exile". Things that aren't part of the game (e.g. cards not in my deck, Scrabble tiles, etc.) should be essentially irrelevant to someone playing the game. With so many relatively recent cards that interact with cards in exile, exiled cards are a strategic resource for certain types of decks. For the card in question here, it wouldn't make much sense to be able to cast a card that's been "removed from the game" - if I can cast it, it is clearly still part of the game!
– Nuclear Wang
8 hours ago
This ianswer involves a lot of theory crafting and opinions. One or more actual sources would go a long way towards improving this answer.
– Hackworth
6 hours ago
The Wish cycle used to be able to interact with the removed from game zone, but it cannot interact with the exile zone.
– murgatroid99♦
9 hours ago
The Wish cycle used to be able to interact with the removed from game zone, but it cannot interact with the exile zone.
– murgatroid99♦
9 hours ago
Heh, you're right - it's been a long time since I played competitive MtG. I'm on mobile right now - have there been printed any alternatives meanwhile?
– Glorfindel
8 hours ago
Heh, you're right - it's been a long time since I played competitive MtG. I'm on mobile right now - have there been printed any alternatives meanwhile?
– Glorfindel
8 hours ago
There are only a few. Pull from Eternity is probably the simplest one.
– murgatroid99♦
8 hours ago
There are only a few. Pull from Eternity is probably the simplest one.
– murgatroid99♦
8 hours ago
4
4
I disagree that "remove from the game" is a better term than "exile". Things that aren't part of the game (e.g. cards not in my deck, Scrabble tiles, etc.) should be essentially irrelevant to someone playing the game. With so many relatively recent cards that interact with cards in exile, exiled cards are a strategic resource for certain types of decks. For the card in question here, it wouldn't make much sense to be able to cast a card that's been "removed from the game" - if I can cast it, it is clearly still part of the game!
– Nuclear Wang
8 hours ago
I disagree that "remove from the game" is a better term than "exile". Things that aren't part of the game (e.g. cards not in my deck, Scrabble tiles, etc.) should be essentially irrelevant to someone playing the game. With so many relatively recent cards that interact with cards in exile, exiled cards are a strategic resource for certain types of decks. For the card in question here, it wouldn't make much sense to be able to cast a card that's been "removed from the game" - if I can cast it, it is clearly still part of the game!
– Nuclear Wang
8 hours ago
This ianswer involves a lot of theory crafting and opinions. One or more actual sources would go a long way towards improving this answer.
– Hackworth
6 hours ago
This ianswer involves a lot of theory crafting and opinions. One or more actual sources would go a long way towards improving this answer.
– Hackworth
6 hours ago
add a comment |
AaronLS is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
AaronLS is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
AaronLS is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
AaronLS is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Board & Card Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47696%2fwhy-is-exile-often-an-intermediate-step%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown