In a 4 player commander game, if I have K'rrik, Son of Yawgmoth and Crypt Ghast out, does K'rrik's payment ability work on extort? The next spell I play, can I pay 2 life to cover the extort cost and then gain 3 life, effectively doing it for free and netting 1 life to boot?
If I have multiple extort triggers on board, is this as awesome as I think it is?
Currently in the rules Yes, K'rrik's ability allows you to pay 2 life instead of B for extort.
118.12. Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, “[Do something]. If [a player] [does, doesn’t, or can’t], [effect].” or “[A player] may [do something]. If [that player] [does, doesn’t, or can’t], [effect].” The action [do something] is a cost, paid when the spell or ability resolves.
Currently in the rules Yes, K'rrik's ability allows you to pay 2 life instead of B for extort.
118.12. Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, “[Do something]. If [a player] [does, doesn’t, or can’t], [effect].” or “[A player] may [do something]. If [that player] [does, doesn’t, or can’t], [effect].” The action [do something] is a cost, paid when the spell or ability resolves.
On an interesting side note: I don't believe the rules actually support that. B is not the same as (W/B) in terms of the actual symbol. K'rrik looks for just B. Eli has already confirmed a couple times that this does work, so the answer above is correct but I don't think we actually have anything in the rules yet saying it does (which makes sense; it is a new effect after all). The closest we have is:
118.7e. If a cost is reduced by an amount of mana represented by a hybrid mana symbol, the player paying that cost chooses one half of that symbol at the time the cost reduction is applied (see rule 601.2f). If a colored half is chosen, the cost is reduced by one mana of that color. If a colorless half is chosen, the cost is reduced by an amount of generic mana equal to that half's number.
Which, of course, doesn't quite cover it but I expect an analogous rule to be created for things like K'rrik.
Sorry, idk who Eli is but I assume since you a guru is mentioning him he must work for wizards or something? Anyway, just to be clear, I'm safe to start persuing this deck now?
Sorry. Eli Shiffrin is the rules manager for Wizards. He is the guy that makes and updates all the rules. If he says it works, it works.
So, yes, you are fine with pursuing the deck
Also, I don't want people to lose sight of the whole scenario. As user_938036 pointed out, Extort still has a cost based on the rule above. I was simply commenting on the meaning of the mana symbol, but that rule clarifies that there is still a cost the K'rrik can interact with when dealing with Extort.
On an interesting side note: I don't believe the rules actually support that. B is not the same as (W/B) in terms of the actual symbol. K'rrik looks for just B. Eli has already confirmed a couple times that this does work, so the answer above is correct but I don't think we actually have anything in the rules yet saying it does (which makes sense; it is a new effect after all). The closest we have is:
118.7e. If a cost is reduced by an amount of mana represented by a hybrid mana symbol, the player paying that cost chooses one half of that symbol at the time the cost reduction is applied (see rule 601.2f). If a colored half is chosen, the cost is reduced by one mana of that color. If a colorless half is chosen, the cost is reduced by an amount of generic mana equal to that half's number.
Which, of course, doesn't quite cover it but I expect an analogous rule to be created for things like K'rrik.
I believe Eli (the rules manager at Wizards)'s interpretation is that is B, that it is both B and W in every way, a philosophy that stems from this rule defining the symbols:
107.4e. Hybrid mana symbols are also colored mana symbols. Each one represents a cost that can be paid in one of two ways, as represented by the two halves of the symbol. A hybrid symbol such as {W/U} can be paid with either white or blue mana, and a monocolored hybrid symbol such as {2/B} can be paid with either one black mana or two mana of any type. A hybrid mana symbol is all of its component colors.
To Eli, B is short for "black mana symbol", something is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
See also C.R. 601.2b, in which the player casting a spell or activating an ability chooses what hybrid and Phyrexian mana symbols mean before figuring the total cost of that spell or ability (under C.R. 601.2f), which will contain neither hybrid nor Phyrexian mana symbols.
K'rrik's second ability would be clearer if it said "For each black mana symbol" instead of "For each B" (compare Drought as printed in Ice Age with its Oracle text [C.R. 108.1]) (see also C.R. 107.4e-f), but it remains to be seen whether K'rrik's text will be changed to have that clarification.
EDIT: Added second paragraph after comment 11 was posted.
EDIT (Aug. 21): Struck out certain text for correctness.
See also C.R. 601.2b, in which the player casting a spell or activating an ability chooses what hybrid and Phyrexian mana symbols mean before figuring the total cost of that spell or ability (under C.R. 601.2f), which will contain neither hybrid nor Phyrexian mana symbols.
This.
Eli isn't tied to treating {W/B} or {P/B} as "being {B}" for it to be valid that K'rrik interjects when paying off a cost one of whose components is expressed with these symbols, because there is a transformation from these hybrid symbols to a 'purebred' price tag - a cost that singles out a valid type of payment in one of the six canonical types of mana with no room for doubt.
This does imply that this effect is different from Rosheen Meanderer looking for Xs, or that one card that cares about {P}.
... And darn tootin' that he's not, because that's some grade-A malarkey to envision even saying {B} means "a black mana symbol". {B} IS a black mana symbol. You can't have a term be an example of something and also be an indefinite reference to its own class. The syntactic mayhem that invites is terrifying.
The Commander 2019 rules update added rules that cover how costs that include hybrid and Phyrexian mana symbols are paid. For example, as relevant here, "(i)f a cost paid during the resolution of a spell or ability contains a mana symbol that can be paid in multiple ways, the player paying that cost chooses how to pay for that symbol immediately before they pay that cost" (C.R. 118.13b; review C.R. 702.101a). Unfortunately, the update did so in a way that doesn't clarify whether a black hybrid or a black Phyrexian mana symbol (such as (B/P), (W/B), or (B/R)) (C.R. 107.4e-f) is a "B" within the meaning of K'rrik's second ability (which still says "For each B in a cost", rather than, say, "For each black mana symbol in a cost"; compare Drought as printed in Ice Age with its Oracle text [C.R. 108.1]). Note in particular that—
the update didn't modify any rule in C.R. 107, "Numbers and Symbols", and
C.R. 118.13b, for example, doesn't specify that a mana symbol changes (e.g., from (W/B) to B) as a player "chooses how to pay for that symbol".
"For each in a cost" isn't necessarily looking for a symbol, even. It's looking for a cost. Symbols and costs have a close relationship, but they're still different. ' ' expresses the irreducible requirement of one mana of type black, in addition to literally being "the black mana symbol".
Actually, it necessarily is not looking for a symbol, now that I think of it. Costs don't consist of symbols. They are the fee, not the bill. Magic has canonical cost representation - there is exactly one correct way of writing every cost (no multiple currencies) - but it's nonsense to look for a symbol in one. I'm smacking myself.
K'rrik could have referred to any type of mana, or a generic mana cost, including snow, or (and this is part of how symbols and costs are so close in this game) looked for the 'X' sign even though Xs are erased when they get a number chosen. It could have referred to anything, and it has to use a symbol to do that, but it would be referring to a cost. Only structured relationships between costs could bear on this, and CR118.13b says how that goes.
There is no way such an effect could go looking for "a black mana symbol"... just a requirement to pay something black. Which is what it does.
Also this thread brought to light that the site database has K'rrik entered as K'rrick.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
"For each in a cost" isn't necessarily looking for a symbol, even. It's looking for a cost. Symbols and costs have a close relationship, but they're still different. ' ' expresses the irreducible requirement of one mana of type black, in addition to literally being "the black mana symbol".
I see. In this respect, K'rrik's second ability is thus similar to—
delve (C.R. 702.66a; "For each generic mana in this spell's total cost..."),
improvise (C.R. 702.126a; "For each generic mana in this spell's total cost..."), and
convoke (C.R. 702.51a; "For each colored mana in this spell's total cost..." and "For each generic mana in this spell's total cost...").
"For each in a cost" isn't necessarily looking for a symbol, even. It's looking for a cost. Symbols and costs have a close relationship, but they're still different. ' ' expresses the irreducible requirement of one mana of type black, in addition to literally being "the black mana symbol".
I see. In this respect, K'rrik's second ability is thus similar to—
delve (C.R. 702.65a, "For each generic mana in this spell's total cost..."),
improvise (C.R. 702.125a, "For each generic mana in this spell's total cost..."), and
convoke (C.R. 702.50a, "For each colored mana in this spell's total cost..." and "For each generic mana in this spell's total cost...").
See also C.R. 107.4a.
So - you can cast Dismember through Trinisphere by calling the (B/P) symbol symbols as B, then using K'rrik's payment mechanic to change it back to 1 mana and 4 life (or 1B + 2 life)
So the previous post is not accurate according to 118.13a not in the purview of 118.13a. You propose Dismember as 1BB as you cast it - a little-named rule that far predates K'rrik, actually. K'rrik does actually nothing to the {PB} mana symbol makes use of the liberty to pay as you want at the cash register, unlike mana symbols on a mana cost. You can choose either 2 life or , and only one time is given to make that choice. If you propose Dismember as + "pay 4 life", trinisphere adds two mana to the cost later; if you propose the costs as s, then that's your choice already accounting for K'rrik.
K'rrik does nothing to . It lets you take the same freedom with as exists for phyrexian mana, with these choices made at the same time. Spells are proposed with your intentions, costs paid for instructions or special actions are chosen "immediately before you pay". But this fixes the cost, not "what a player actually needs to do {{or spend}} to pay that cost." (CR118.7)
A Tweet from Eli suggests Minoke's answer is correct: there is a difference. Which makes sense. K'rrik's ability applies at the time you attempt to pay the cost after Trinisphere cares about it; Phyrexian mana applies much earlier to the point where Trinisphere *does* care what the cost actually is. 118.13a only applies at the time the choice is made on how to pay for that symbol. You choose to pay for it with black mana thus getting around Trinisphere. Then, in step 601.2h is where K'rrik applies because he changes how you pay for those 2 black mana symbols you chose to pay mana for. It is similar to Delve and Convoke getting around Trinisphere for the same reason; you choose to pay mana up front but later in the process, when you actually pay for the symbols, you choose a different method of payment.
So it's a usage of the language that defines Delve and Convoke. It's too bad that language is used piecemeal in those two places, but, my previous post is incorrect in applying the 118.13's to K'rrik. 118.13 describes the roles of costs, not payment.
I was distracted by the non-mention of such distinctions in the 601.2 sequence. 118.13 is in this sense a red herring; the prize is 118.7:
118.7. What a player actually needs to do to pay a cost may be changed or reduced by effects. If the mana component of a cost is reduced to nothing by cost reduction effects, it’s considered to be {0}. Paying a cost changed or reduced by an effect counts as paying the original cost.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Technically, you quoted a subrule of it, Wizardemain , but if you tell me it was written like this on 3 August, then I need to get my eyes checked and apologize for impugning your honour.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
If I have multiple extort triggers on board, is this as awesome as I think it is?
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Which, of course, doesn't quite cover it but I expect an analogous rule to be created for things like K'rrik.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
So, yes, you are fine with pursuing the deck
Also, I don't want people to lose sight of the whole scenario. As user_938036 pointed out, Extort still has a cost based on the rule above. I was simply commenting on the meaning of the mana symbol, but that rule clarifies that there is still a cost the K'rrik can interact with when dealing with Extort.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Oh, and for anyone that wants to read Eli's responses:
https://twitter.com/EliShffrn/status/1157460202611888129 (covers the hybrid aspect pretty explicitly)
https://twitter.com/EliShffrn/status/1157460081090260992 (covers Extort specifically)
, which will contain neither hybrid nor Phyrexian mana symbols.K'rrik's second ability would be clearer if it said "For each black mana symbol" instead of "For each B" (compare Drought as printed in Ice Age with its Oracle text [C.R. 108.1]) (see also C.R. 107.4e-f)
, but it remains to be seen whether K'rrik's text will be changed to have that clarification.EDIT: Added second paragraph after comment 11 was posted.
EDIT (Aug. 21): Struck out certain text for correctness.
This.
Eli isn't tied to treating {W/B} or {P/B} as "being {B}" for it to be valid that K'rrik interjects when paying off a cost one of whose components is expressed with these symbols, because there is a transformation from these hybrid symbols to a 'purebred' price tag - a cost that singles out a valid type of payment in one of the six canonical types of mana with no room for doubt.
This does imply that this effect is different from Rosheen Meanderer looking for Xs, or that one card that cares about {P}.
... And darn tootin' that he's not, because that's some grade-A malarkey to envision even saying {B} means "a black mana symbol". {B} IS a black mana symbol. You can't have a term be an example of something and also be an indefinite reference to its own class. The syntactic mayhem that invites is terrifying.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
EDIT (Oct. 12, 2022): Update rule citation.
Actually, it necessarily is not looking for a symbol, now that I think of it. Costs don't consist of symbols. They are the fee, not the bill. Magic has canonical cost representation - there is exactly one correct way of writing every cost (no multiple currencies) - but it's nonsense to look for a symbol in one. I'm smacking myself.
K'rrik could have referred to any type of mana, or a generic mana cost, including snow, or (and this is part of how symbols and costs are so close in this game) looked for the 'X' sign even though Xs are erased when they get a number chosen. It could have referred to anything, and it has to use a symbol to do that, but it would be referring to a cost. Only structured relationships between costs could bear on this, and CR118.13b says how that goes.
There is no way such an effect could go looking for "a black mana symbol"... just a requirement to pay something black. Which is what it does.
Also this thread brought to light that the site database has K'rrik entered as K'rrick.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
EDIT (Oct. 2, 2022): Update rule citations.
So - you can cast Dismember through Trinisphere by calling the (B/P) symbol symbols as B, then using K'rrik's payment mechanic to change it back to 1 mana and 4 life (or 1B + 2 life)
So the previous post is
not accurate according to 118.13anot in the purview of 118.13a. You propose Dismember as 1BB as you cast it - a little-named rule that far predates K'rrik, actually. K'rrikdoes actually nothing to the {PB} mana symbolmakes use of the liberty to pay as you want at the cash register, unlike mana symbols on a mana cost.You can choose either 2 life or , and only one time is given to make that choice. If you propose Dismember as + "pay 4 life", trinisphere adds two mana to the cost later; if you propose the costs as s, then that's your choice already accounting for K'rrik.K'rrik does nothing to . It lets you take the same freedom with as exists for phyrexian mana, with these choices made at the same time.Spells are proposed with your intentions, costs paid for instructions or special actions are chosen "immediately before you pay". But this fixes the cost, not "what a player actually needs to do {{or spend}} to pay that cost." (CR118.7)Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
https://twitter.com/EliShffrn/status/1164203871045951489
I was distracted by the non-mention of such distinctions in the 601.2 sequence. 118.13 is in this sense a red herring; the prize is 118.7:
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].