No rule says you can't just declare that you win the game and have it be true. Look through the rulebook, you won't find anything forbidding it, so just declare that you win! With split second so your opponent can't declare a win in response!
Or, go with the people who are telling you that truth: the Magic's rules are concerned with specifying what's permitted, not what's forbidden, and that unless a rule permits you to do something you can't do it.
Council's Judgment asks which permanent got the most votes, or which permanents are tied for the most votes.
To which the answer in this case is "Votes? What votes?"
Or, in other words, this comes down to a bit of common sense -- if it's impossible to vote at all, that doesn't mean "everything got the same number of votes", it means there weren't any votes. And if there weren't any votes, there wasn't anything that got the most or tied for the most votes.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here, but I did search through the comp. rules for a technical definition of the word "action" and didn't find one; if you did, please point it out?
Are you suggesting that players need encyclopedic knowledge of the comp. rules in order to figure out what anything in it means?
As Todd pointed out, the rules answer this question
The basic problem is this: suppose there's a word, "floop", that appears on a card. The rules give a definition of "floop".
But now someone will say "all right, but where are the definitions of all the words used in the definition of floop?"
And then "all right, but where are the definitions of all the words used in the definitions of all the words used in the definition of floop?"
And at some point we have to just stop and say -- this is a document written in English. When we need to give a word a different or more specific technical definition as opposed to ordinary English usage, we'll do that. But if we don't, then just read it as normal English.
In this case "action" is one of those words that does not get a special technical definition in the Comprehensive Rules, so you just go by ordinary everyday English usage. Selvala's ability is an action. Since it's not something we can rewind, thanks to it moving cards around, we don't rewind that when it's activated as part of an attempt to cast a spell that ends up being illegal.
Planeswalkers aren't "semi-players". They also don't "count as" players. Only a human person playing the game is a player.
However, planeswalkers do come with two relevant rules:
When you declare attacking creatures in your combat phase, each creature can attack either a player, or a planeswalker.
If something you control would deal non-combat damage to an opponent, you can redirect that damage to a planeswalker that opponent controls.
So if you activate Crypt Rats' ability, that's non-combat damage which would be dealt to an opponent; if the opponent controls a planeswalker, you can redirect the damage that would have been dealt to that player, and have it dealt to their planeswalker instead.
Keep in mind this redirection is an all-or-nothing thing: you can't split up some damage to the player and some to the planeswalker, and if one opponent controls multiple planeswalkers you can't split it among them.
Just to note, I don't think they can pay cash due to international laws. For example: An American Judge judging in France, for example, cannot get paid to do work in a foreign country without the proper visa paper work. In my mind, cash compensation is never going to happen.
Funny. I guess the checks I've received for judging just didn't exist?
I understand this is a bit off-topic, and I can make a new thread if necessary in the appropriate section (or this can be moved or manipulated as mods wish), but why is it that everything that Tabak says regarding the rules of MTG is to be believed? Yes, he's a rules manager, but there are well-established Comprehensive Rules that are also an authority to the game, and Tabak is a person, too. Tabak does make mistakes, and he does potentially make mistakes with rulings, too.
As the Rules Manager, it's his job to take care to provide correct information. And he does that -- you'll notice that Matt really only steps into situations that don't have a clear answer otherwise (as in this case, where the general public doesn't yet know the content of the M15 FAQ, but he already does).
I imagine a scenario as follows, where Tabak says "Lightning Bolt only does 2 damage to creatures and players now" but the Oracle text of the card has not been updated and the CR has not been amended to accommodate this change. Regardless of whether the Oracle text was changed, Tabak has said it, which means people are inclined to believe him, but Tabak is clearly wrong despite his being the rules manager for the game. This is a pretty extreme case, but it is still a case that violates the very CR that he is capable of controlling.
He could in theory do this, but he doesn't. And when speaking as Rules Manager, he's not wrong. He is occasionally wrong about sports teams, though, but he doesn't pick them in an official capacity.
To bring it down to earth, the same is true of every Head Judge of a sanctioned tournament. The ruling of a Head Judge is, by definition, correct, since a Head Judge is defined to be the final authority on card, rules and policy interpretation in the tournament (that's why it isn't possible to appeal to WotC/the DCI/etc. to overturn a Head Judge).
That's very very rarely relevant, though. The only time I've ever personally had to invoke that was at a prerelease where I used HJ fiat to "errata" a stack of basic lands to be Swamps, since we'd run out of those. The only time I've ever heard of that it mattered was the Cyril Grillon story (Google "Cyril Grillon Yawgmoth's Will" for the story), and the DCI backed him up with the "final authority" wording.
pretty sweet for modern and possibly standard, depending on how KTK turns out artifact-wise.
As for the wording, pretty sure it's just to make sure newer players understand exactly how it works without having to get into the whole "Layers" rule-subset. Might even be a hint at rules simplifcation looming on the horizon for layers as a whole.
Remember, core-sets are marketed towards newer players... so this totally makes sense to me.
I am still very very very skeptical of this wording.
Yes, core sets are geared at newer players, but cards in core sets don't have a different set of rules/templating. Instead, the core sets stick to fairly simple mechanics and have lots of explanatory reminder text (that's the text in parentheses and italics, which Ensoul Artifact does not have).
And although the core set has been used to introduce new templating for existing things, we've always found out about that through an article on the mothership spoiling a new-wording card and explaining what's happening and why, usually far in advance. When M12 introduced "hexproof" and "dies", for example, we found out through a mothership article published a month before M12 previews even began.
So unless/until we see it on the main WotC image gallery with this wording, I'm going to assume something went wrong with the LRR preview image, since that's the likeliest explanation.
"Game state" is a term that I believe is deliberately a bit ambiguous so as to allow clamping down on loops without needing to play the "I'm not touching you" game.
(meaning the thing some children will do where they argue "But I'm not touching him! The sleeve of my shirt is touching him, and you didn't say my sleeve couldn't touch him!" to try to get out of punishment for things they knew they weren't supposed to do)
For the record, at Regular enforcement the following is the relevant bit of policy:
Certain actions will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Every effort should be made to educate players before and during events; however, ignorance is not an acceptable defence of these actions. Any player engaging in the following must be removed from your event and, at the Organizer's discretion, removed from the venue entirely:
(snip a few of the non-relevant items)
* Intentionally and knowingly breaking or letting an opponent break game or tournament rules, or
lying. (“Bluffing” about cards opponents can't normally see is permitted).
If you need a reference copy to have at the store, you can download and print out the full Regular enforcement judging guide here.
Judging by peoples' responses, I shouldn't have any trouble picking up a Greater Good. Y'all can have your SoFaFs and FoWs (pfft I don't play blue), and I'm fine with my plain old Elesh Norn. But that Greater Good. The huge green mage in me is just jumping for joy.
The first one I get is going in an EDH deck. People underestimate how good the card is there, and what the 9th Edition foil (currently the only foil) goes for as a result.
This is incorrect, as I've explained before. If Conspiracy cards were purple-border, they would be by default Legacy and Vintage legal. Border color is only relevant for TOURNAMENT legality, not FORMAT legality.
I finally see where your misconception lies.
In order to be format-legal, a card must first be tournament-authorized. A purple-bordered card could not be Legacy legal because it could not an authorized card for tournament play.
Dack Fayden is legal in Legacy/Vintage because Legacy and Vintage are defined as essentially all cards released by WotC, minus the banned list. Which means the only way to differentiate a legal from non-legal card is to ask whether it's on the banned list and whether it meets the requirements of a tournament-authorized card.
In other words, the way we know Dack is legal for Legacy/Vintage is that Dack meets the criteria of a tournament-authorized card. Border color is one of those criteria, which is why people mention it. Those criteria, should you be interested in actually reading them, can be found in section 3.3 of the Magic Tournament Rules.
Beyond that, if you'd like to continue arguing with me about how I don't know what makes something legal, I'd invite you to pass the L3 exam first
^Yup, this. My friend called a judge on a guy at a GP, because said guy was playing Undermine in Modern -- he thought it was legal because of modern black border.
Standard and Modern are defined in terms of specific sets, minus their respective banned lists.
Legacy and Vintage are not; in those formats, every card WotC has ever released is fair game for those formats, so long as the format doesn't ban it and it's a genuine black- or white-bordered card, with standard back (or INN-block double-face), non-square corners, and not damaged in a way that would make it marked.
Thus the fact that Dack Fayden is a black-bordered card is what "counts"; the gold borders (and non-standard corners/backs) of some promotional products is what makes them not be legal, and the silver borders of Unglued/Unhinged makes them not be legal.
And while it has been stated that not all cards in Conspiracy will be Legacy/Vintage legal, it's a safe bet that it's because they will fail some part of the criteria listed above (and an almost-as-safe bet that those will be the new card type spoiled at the PAX panel; my personal guess is they'll have non-standard backs and they'll be a one-per-pack thing the way the DFCs were in INN block).
The creature would not be sacrificed. Each player can only sacrifice permanents they control; if a player is instructed to sacrifice something they don't control, they can't do it and the sacrifice doesn't happen.
Or, go with the people who are telling you that truth: the Magic's rules are concerned with specifying what's permitted, not what's forbidden, and that unless a rule permits you to do something you can't do it.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
To which the answer in this case is "Votes? What votes?"
Or, in other words, this comes down to a bit of common sense -- if it's impossible to vote at all, that doesn't mean "everything got the same number of votes", it means there weren't any votes. And if there weren't any votes, there wasn't anything that got the most or tied for the most votes.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
As Todd pointed out, the rules answer this question
The basic problem is this: suppose there's a word, "floop", that appears on a card. The rules give a definition of "floop".
But now someone will say "all right, but where are the definitions of all the words used in the definition of floop?"
And then "all right, but where are the definitions of all the words used in the definitions of all the words used in the definition of floop?"
And at some point we have to just stop and say -- this is a document written in English. When we need to give a word a different or more specific technical definition as opposed to ordinary English usage, we'll do that. But if we don't, then just read it as normal English.
In this case "action" is one of those words that does not get a special technical definition in the Comprehensive Rules, so you just go by ordinary everyday English usage. Selvala's ability is an action. Since it's not something we can rewind, thanks to it moving cards around, we don't rewind that when it's activated as part of an attempt to cast a spell that ends up being illegal.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
So the Demon enters the battlefield, tapped, and then its ability is put on the stack and you choose a target for it.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
However, planeswalkers do come with two relevant rules:
So if you activate Crypt Rats' ability, that's non-combat damage which would be dealt to an opponent; if the opponent controls a planeswalker, you can redirect the damage that would have been dealt to that player, and have it dealt to their planeswalker instead.
Keep in mind this redirection is an all-or-nothing thing: you can't split up some damage to the player and some to the planeswalker, and if one opponent controls multiple planeswalkers you can't split it among them.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
Funny. I guess the checks I've received for judging just didn't exist?
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
As the Rules Manager, it's his job to take care to provide correct information. And he does that -- you'll notice that Matt really only steps into situations that don't have a clear answer otherwise (as in this case, where the general public doesn't yet know the content of the M15 FAQ, but he already does).
He could in theory do this, but he doesn't. And when speaking as Rules Manager, he's not wrong. He is occasionally wrong about sports teams, though, but he doesn't pick them in an official capacity.
To bring it down to earth, the same is true of every Head Judge of a sanctioned tournament. The ruling of a Head Judge is, by definition, correct, since a Head Judge is defined to be the final authority on card, rules and policy interpretation in the tournament (that's why it isn't possible to appeal to WotC/the DCI/etc. to overturn a Head Judge).
That's very very rarely relevant, though. The only time I've ever personally had to invoke that was at a prerelease where I used HJ fiat to "errata" a stack of basic lands to be Swamps, since we'd run out of those. The only time I've ever heard of that it mattered was the Cyril Grillon story (Google "Cyril Grillon Yawgmoth's Will" for the story), and the DCI backed him up with the "final authority" wording.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
I am still very very very skeptical of this wording.
Yes, core sets are geared at newer players, but cards in core sets don't have a different set of rules/templating. Instead, the core sets stick to fairly simple mechanics and have lots of explanatory reminder text (that's the text in parentheses and italics, which Ensoul Artifact does not have).
And although the core set has been used to introduce new templating for existing things, we've always found out about that through an article on the mothership spoiling a new-wording card and explaining what's happening and why, usually far in advance. When M12 introduced "hexproof" and "dies", for example, we found out through a mothership article published a month before M12 previews even began.
So unless/until we see it on the main WotC image gallery with this wording, I'm going to assume something went wrong with the LRR preview image, since that's the likeliest explanation.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
(meaning the thing some children will do where they argue "But I'm not touching him! The sleeve of my shirt is touching him, and you didn't say my sleeve couldn't touch him!" to try to get out of punishment for things they knew they weren't supposed to do)
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
If you need a reference copy to have at the store, you can download and print out the full Regular enforcement judging guide here.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
The first one I get is going in an EDH deck. People underestimate how good the card is there, and what the 9th Edition foil (currently the only foil) goes for as a result.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
If he thinks attacking is an activated ability, ask him to point to the "0: This creature attacks" on an unenchanted creature
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
I finally see where your misconception lies.
In order to be format-legal, a card must first be tournament-authorized. A purple-bordered card could not be Legacy legal because it could not an authorized card for tournament play.
Dack Fayden is legal in Legacy/Vintage because Legacy and Vintage are defined as essentially all cards released by WotC, minus the banned list. Which means the only way to differentiate a legal from non-legal card is to ask whether it's on the banned list and whether it meets the requirements of a tournament-authorized card.
In other words, the way we know Dack is legal for Legacy/Vintage is that Dack meets the criteria of a tournament-authorized card. Border color is one of those criteria, which is why people mention it. Those criteria, should you be interested in actually reading them, can be found in section 3.3 of the Magic Tournament Rules.
Beyond that, if you'd like to continue arguing with me about how I don't know what makes something legal, I'd invite you to pass the L3 exam first
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
Standard and Modern are defined in terms of specific sets, minus their respective banned lists.
Legacy and Vintage are not; in those formats, every card WotC has ever released is fair game for those formats, so long as the format doesn't ban it and it's a genuine black- or white-bordered card, with standard back (or INN-block double-face), non-square corners, and not damaged in a way that would make it marked.
Thus the fact that Dack Fayden is a black-bordered card is what "counts"; the gold borders (and non-standard corners/backs) of some promotional products is what makes them not be legal, and the silver borders of Unglued/Unhinged makes them not be legal.
And while it has been stated that not all cards in Conspiracy will be Legacy/Vintage legal, it's a safe bet that it's because they will fail some part of the criteria listed above (and an almost-as-safe bet that those will be the new card type spoiled at the PAX panel; my personal guess is they'll have non-standard backs and they'll be a one-per-pack thing the way the DFCs were in INN block).
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.