Can I choose the value for X for spells cast with Bolas's Citadel?












7















There is a new card called Bolas's Citadel which says:




You may play the top card of your library. If you cast a spell this way, pay life equal to its converted mana cost rather than pay its mana cost.




Can use my life to pay for any X spell?










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    Huh. I'm actually not sure. The relevant rule is 107.3b "If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0." The question is, does "Pay life equal to its converted mana cost" count as an "alternative cost that includes X"? I could see it ruled either way, and I couldn't find any other cards that worked similarly.

    – Arcanist Lupus
    Apr 21 at 6:52











  • @ArcanistLupus How does the alternative cost from Bolas's Citadel include X? It literally defines the life cost as equal to CMC, not X, and X is zero outside the stack.

    – Hackworth
    Apr 24 at 16:49













  • @Hackworth You can see from my answer that I agree with your conclusion, but I think the part that is tripping people up is that that rule is talking about the situation when you are casting a spell and at that time, the card is on the stack, and in general the calculation of CMC of a spell on the stack does include the chosen value of X.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 25 at 0:40
















7















There is a new card called Bolas's Citadel which says:




You may play the top card of your library. If you cast a spell this way, pay life equal to its converted mana cost rather than pay its mana cost.




Can use my life to pay for any X spell?










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    Huh. I'm actually not sure. The relevant rule is 107.3b "If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0." The question is, does "Pay life equal to its converted mana cost" count as an "alternative cost that includes X"? I could see it ruled either way, and I couldn't find any other cards that worked similarly.

    – Arcanist Lupus
    Apr 21 at 6:52











  • @ArcanistLupus How does the alternative cost from Bolas's Citadel include X? It literally defines the life cost as equal to CMC, not X, and X is zero outside the stack.

    – Hackworth
    Apr 24 at 16:49













  • @Hackworth You can see from my answer that I agree with your conclusion, but I think the part that is tripping people up is that that rule is talking about the situation when you are casting a spell and at that time, the card is on the stack, and in general the calculation of CMC of a spell on the stack does include the chosen value of X.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 25 at 0:40














7












7








7








There is a new card called Bolas's Citadel which says:




You may play the top card of your library. If you cast a spell this way, pay life equal to its converted mana cost rather than pay its mana cost.




Can use my life to pay for any X spell?










share|improve this question
















There is a new card called Bolas's Citadel which says:




You may play the top card of your library. If you cast a spell this way, pay life equal to its converted mana cost rather than pay its mana cost.




Can use my life to pay for any X spell?







magic-the-gathering






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 21 at 9:23









TheThirdMan

6,79811444




6,79811444










asked Apr 21 at 5:15









Shara SharaShara Shara

1349




1349








  • 2





    Huh. I'm actually not sure. The relevant rule is 107.3b "If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0." The question is, does "Pay life equal to its converted mana cost" count as an "alternative cost that includes X"? I could see it ruled either way, and I couldn't find any other cards that worked similarly.

    – Arcanist Lupus
    Apr 21 at 6:52











  • @ArcanistLupus How does the alternative cost from Bolas's Citadel include X? It literally defines the life cost as equal to CMC, not X, and X is zero outside the stack.

    – Hackworth
    Apr 24 at 16:49













  • @Hackworth You can see from my answer that I agree with your conclusion, but I think the part that is tripping people up is that that rule is talking about the situation when you are casting a spell and at that time, the card is on the stack, and in general the calculation of CMC of a spell on the stack does include the chosen value of X.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 25 at 0:40














  • 2





    Huh. I'm actually not sure. The relevant rule is 107.3b "If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0." The question is, does "Pay life equal to its converted mana cost" count as an "alternative cost that includes X"? I could see it ruled either way, and I couldn't find any other cards that worked similarly.

    – Arcanist Lupus
    Apr 21 at 6:52











  • @ArcanistLupus How does the alternative cost from Bolas's Citadel include X? It literally defines the life cost as equal to CMC, not X, and X is zero outside the stack.

    – Hackworth
    Apr 24 at 16:49













  • @Hackworth You can see from my answer that I agree with your conclusion, but I think the part that is tripping people up is that that rule is talking about the situation when you are casting a spell and at that time, the card is on the stack, and in general the calculation of CMC of a spell on the stack does include the chosen value of X.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 25 at 0:40








2




2





Huh. I'm actually not sure. The relevant rule is 107.3b "If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0." The question is, does "Pay life equal to its converted mana cost" count as an "alternative cost that includes X"? I could see it ruled either way, and I couldn't find any other cards that worked similarly.

– Arcanist Lupus
Apr 21 at 6:52





Huh. I'm actually not sure. The relevant rule is 107.3b "If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn’t defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0." The question is, does "Pay life equal to its converted mana cost" count as an "alternative cost that includes X"? I could see it ruled either way, and I couldn't find any other cards that worked similarly.

– Arcanist Lupus
Apr 21 at 6:52













@ArcanistLupus How does the alternative cost from Bolas's Citadel include X? It literally defines the life cost as equal to CMC, not X, and X is zero outside the stack.

– Hackworth
Apr 24 at 16:49







@ArcanistLupus How does the alternative cost from Bolas's Citadel include X? It literally defines the life cost as equal to CMC, not X, and X is zero outside the stack.

– Hackworth
Apr 24 at 16:49















@Hackworth You can see from my answer that I agree with your conclusion, but I think the part that is tripping people up is that that rule is talking about the situation when you are casting a spell and at that time, the card is on the stack, and in general the calculation of CMC of a spell on the stack does include the chosen value of X.

– murgatroid99
Apr 25 at 0:40





@Hackworth You can see from my answer that I agree with your conclusion, but I think the part that is tripping people up is that that rule is talking about the situation when you are casting a spell and at that time, the card is on the stack, and in general the calculation of CMC of a spell on the stack does include the chosen value of X.

– murgatroid99
Apr 25 at 0:40










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















8














No, you cannot choose any value for X other than 0 when casting cards using Bolas's Citadel.



The phrase "rather than pay its mana cost" or "rather than pay [card name]'s mana cost" is a standard phrase in Magic indicating that the cost specified is an alternative cost. This is stated explicitly in rule 117.9:




Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell's text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell's mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, "You may [action] rather than pay [this object's] mana cost," or "You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost." Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.




So if you cast spells using Bolas's Citadel's second ability, you are required to pay an alternative cost of life equal to the spell's converted mana cost. Then rule 107.3b applies:




If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 601, "Casting Spells."




So, you are required to choose 0 for X when casting spells with X in the mana cost.



This is confirmed by an official ruling on Bolas's Citadel's Gatherer page:




If a spell has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost.







share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    You may like to cite rulings on existing cards until we have the WAR rulings article, e.g. the Expertise cycle all include the ruling "If the card has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost."

    – doppelgreener
    Apr 21 at 7:35






  • 3





    The rules here seem to contain all of the relevant information. I don't see what an existing ruling would add.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 21 at 16:14






  • 1





    Ok, no problem. 👍 I think once the WAR rulings arrive it will at least state it plainly and unquestionably that yes those rules apply like this to this card, but another card's rulings aren't relevant like that.

    – doppelgreener
    Apr 21 at 17:44













  • "...nor an alternative cost that includes X" seems relevant here. Wouldn't the life paid include x and therefore satisfy the condition to allow x to be non-0?

    – km6zla
    Apr 23 at 15:32











  • I believe that phrase is very literal. The cost specified on Bolas's Citadel does not contain the word "X", so it doesn't satisfy that condition. For an example that goes the other way, Bonfire of the Damned has a Miracle alternative cost that explicitly includes {X}.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 23 at 17:03












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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f45939%2fcan-i-choose-the-value-for-x-for-spells-cast-with-bolass-citadel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









8














No, you cannot choose any value for X other than 0 when casting cards using Bolas's Citadel.



The phrase "rather than pay its mana cost" or "rather than pay [card name]'s mana cost" is a standard phrase in Magic indicating that the cost specified is an alternative cost. This is stated explicitly in rule 117.9:




Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell's text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell's mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, "You may [action] rather than pay [this object's] mana cost," or "You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost." Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.




So if you cast spells using Bolas's Citadel's second ability, you are required to pay an alternative cost of life equal to the spell's converted mana cost. Then rule 107.3b applies:




If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 601, "Casting Spells."




So, you are required to choose 0 for X when casting spells with X in the mana cost.



This is confirmed by an official ruling on Bolas's Citadel's Gatherer page:




If a spell has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost.







share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    You may like to cite rulings on existing cards until we have the WAR rulings article, e.g. the Expertise cycle all include the ruling "If the card has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost."

    – doppelgreener
    Apr 21 at 7:35






  • 3





    The rules here seem to contain all of the relevant information. I don't see what an existing ruling would add.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 21 at 16:14






  • 1





    Ok, no problem. 👍 I think once the WAR rulings arrive it will at least state it plainly and unquestionably that yes those rules apply like this to this card, but another card's rulings aren't relevant like that.

    – doppelgreener
    Apr 21 at 17:44













  • "...nor an alternative cost that includes X" seems relevant here. Wouldn't the life paid include x and therefore satisfy the condition to allow x to be non-0?

    – km6zla
    Apr 23 at 15:32











  • I believe that phrase is very literal. The cost specified on Bolas's Citadel does not contain the word "X", so it doesn't satisfy that condition. For an example that goes the other way, Bonfire of the Damned has a Miracle alternative cost that explicitly includes {X}.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 23 at 17:03
















8














No, you cannot choose any value for X other than 0 when casting cards using Bolas's Citadel.



The phrase "rather than pay its mana cost" or "rather than pay [card name]'s mana cost" is a standard phrase in Magic indicating that the cost specified is an alternative cost. This is stated explicitly in rule 117.9:




Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell's text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell's mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, "You may [action] rather than pay [this object's] mana cost," or "You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost." Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.




So if you cast spells using Bolas's Citadel's second ability, you are required to pay an alternative cost of life equal to the spell's converted mana cost. Then rule 107.3b applies:




If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 601, "Casting Spells."




So, you are required to choose 0 for X when casting spells with X in the mana cost.



This is confirmed by an official ruling on Bolas's Citadel's Gatherer page:




If a spell has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost.







share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    You may like to cite rulings on existing cards until we have the WAR rulings article, e.g. the Expertise cycle all include the ruling "If the card has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost."

    – doppelgreener
    Apr 21 at 7:35






  • 3





    The rules here seem to contain all of the relevant information. I don't see what an existing ruling would add.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 21 at 16:14






  • 1





    Ok, no problem. 👍 I think once the WAR rulings arrive it will at least state it plainly and unquestionably that yes those rules apply like this to this card, but another card's rulings aren't relevant like that.

    – doppelgreener
    Apr 21 at 17:44













  • "...nor an alternative cost that includes X" seems relevant here. Wouldn't the life paid include x and therefore satisfy the condition to allow x to be non-0?

    – km6zla
    Apr 23 at 15:32











  • I believe that phrase is very literal. The cost specified on Bolas's Citadel does not contain the word "X", so it doesn't satisfy that condition. For an example that goes the other way, Bonfire of the Damned has a Miracle alternative cost that explicitly includes {X}.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 23 at 17:03














8












8








8







No, you cannot choose any value for X other than 0 when casting cards using Bolas's Citadel.



The phrase "rather than pay its mana cost" or "rather than pay [card name]'s mana cost" is a standard phrase in Magic indicating that the cost specified is an alternative cost. This is stated explicitly in rule 117.9:




Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell's text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell's mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, "You may [action] rather than pay [this object's] mana cost," or "You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost." Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.




So if you cast spells using Bolas's Citadel's second ability, you are required to pay an alternative cost of life equal to the spell's converted mana cost. Then rule 107.3b applies:




If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 601, "Casting Spells."




So, you are required to choose 0 for X when casting spells with X in the mana cost.



This is confirmed by an official ruling on Bolas's Citadel's Gatherer page:




If a spell has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost.







share|improve this answer















No, you cannot choose any value for X other than 0 when casting cards using Bolas's Citadel.



The phrase "rather than pay its mana cost" or "rather than pay [card name]'s mana cost" is a standard phrase in Magic indicating that the cost specified is an alternative cost. This is stated explicitly in rule 117.9:




Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell's text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell's mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, "You may [action] rather than pay [this object's] mana cost," or "You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost." Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.




So if you cast spells using Bolas's Citadel's second ability, you are required to pay an alternative cost of life equal to the spell's converted mana cost. Then rule 107.3b applies:




If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 601, "Casting Spells."




So, you are required to choose 0 for X when casting spells with X in the mana cost.



This is confirmed by an official ruling on Bolas's Citadel's Gatherer page:




If a spell has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost.








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Apr 24 at 16:45

























answered Apr 21 at 7:33









murgatroid99murgatroid99

48.9k8125209




48.9k8125209








  • 2





    You may like to cite rulings on existing cards until we have the WAR rulings article, e.g. the Expertise cycle all include the ruling "If the card has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost."

    – doppelgreener
    Apr 21 at 7:35






  • 3





    The rules here seem to contain all of the relevant information. I don't see what an existing ruling would add.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 21 at 16:14






  • 1





    Ok, no problem. 👍 I think once the WAR rulings arrive it will at least state it plainly and unquestionably that yes those rules apply like this to this card, but another card's rulings aren't relevant like that.

    – doppelgreener
    Apr 21 at 17:44













  • "...nor an alternative cost that includes X" seems relevant here. Wouldn't the life paid include x and therefore satisfy the condition to allow x to be non-0?

    – km6zla
    Apr 23 at 15:32











  • I believe that phrase is very literal. The cost specified on Bolas's Citadel does not contain the word "X", so it doesn't satisfy that condition. For an example that goes the other way, Bonfire of the Damned has a Miracle alternative cost that explicitly includes {X}.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 23 at 17:03














  • 2





    You may like to cite rulings on existing cards until we have the WAR rulings article, e.g. the Expertise cycle all include the ruling "If the card has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost."

    – doppelgreener
    Apr 21 at 7:35






  • 3





    The rules here seem to contain all of the relevant information. I don't see what an existing ruling would add.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 21 at 16:14






  • 1





    Ok, no problem. 👍 I think once the WAR rulings arrive it will at least state it plainly and unquestionably that yes those rules apply like this to this card, but another card's rulings aren't relevant like that.

    – doppelgreener
    Apr 21 at 17:44













  • "...nor an alternative cost that includes X" seems relevant here. Wouldn't the life paid include x and therefore satisfy the condition to allow x to be non-0?

    – km6zla
    Apr 23 at 15:32











  • I believe that phrase is very literal. The cost specified on Bolas's Citadel does not contain the word "X", so it doesn't satisfy that condition. For an example that goes the other way, Bonfire of the Damned has a Miracle alternative cost that explicitly includes {X}.

    – murgatroid99
    Apr 23 at 17:03








2




2





You may like to cite rulings on existing cards until we have the WAR rulings article, e.g. the Expertise cycle all include the ruling "If the card has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost."

– doppelgreener
Apr 21 at 7:35





You may like to cite rulings on existing cards until we have the WAR rulings article, e.g. the Expertise cycle all include the ruling "If the card has {X} in its mana cost, you must choose 0 as the value of X when casting it without paying its mana cost."

– doppelgreener
Apr 21 at 7:35




3




3





The rules here seem to contain all of the relevant information. I don't see what an existing ruling would add.

– murgatroid99
Apr 21 at 16:14





The rules here seem to contain all of the relevant information. I don't see what an existing ruling would add.

– murgatroid99
Apr 21 at 16:14




1




1





Ok, no problem. 👍 I think once the WAR rulings arrive it will at least state it plainly and unquestionably that yes those rules apply like this to this card, but another card's rulings aren't relevant like that.

– doppelgreener
Apr 21 at 17:44







Ok, no problem. 👍 I think once the WAR rulings arrive it will at least state it plainly and unquestionably that yes those rules apply like this to this card, but another card's rulings aren't relevant like that.

– doppelgreener
Apr 21 at 17:44















"...nor an alternative cost that includes X" seems relevant here. Wouldn't the life paid include x and therefore satisfy the condition to allow x to be non-0?

– km6zla
Apr 23 at 15:32





"...nor an alternative cost that includes X" seems relevant here. Wouldn't the life paid include x and therefore satisfy the condition to allow x to be non-0?

– km6zla
Apr 23 at 15:32













I believe that phrase is very literal. The cost specified on Bolas's Citadel does not contain the word "X", so it doesn't satisfy that condition. For an example that goes the other way, Bonfire of the Damned has a Miracle alternative cost that explicitly includes {X}.

– murgatroid99
Apr 23 at 17:03





I believe that phrase is very literal. The cost specified on Bolas's Citadel does not contain the word "X", so it doesn't satisfy that condition. For an example that goes the other way, Bonfire of the Damned has a Miracle alternative cost that explicitly includes {X}.

– murgatroid99
Apr 23 at 17:03


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f45939%2fcan-i-choose-the-value-for-x-for-spells-cast-with-bolass-citadel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029