When reverberate resolves it copies twincast and goes to the graveyard. The twicast copy it created no longer has a target and is countered by the game rules.
If you copy hellkite during your beginning of combat step the time for the triggered ability to trigger will have already passed. Your mirror/hellkite will not become tapped and you can attack with it.
So it seems there is no scenario where the player attempting to fetch for arbor into grafdigger's cage gets nothing. Either the game state is left to stand and they keep arbor or the game is rewound and they can select a different land. Is that correct?
This sits as odd to me that I am not allowed to “try” to put arbor into play and have cage block it from entering. Would this extend to a card like clarion ultimatum? With cage in play am I prevented to “chose” a dryad arbor in play as one of the 5 permanents or is only until the searching and finding in the library that cage’s effect is enforced?
So I have cage in play and my opponent activates a fetchland and attempts to put arbor into play. I call a judge. Do they get to select a different land or not? It seems that have clearly chosen the arbor as the card to find. If it were containment priest that my opponent forgot about or misunderstood instead of cage would the arbor go to exile?
As a note, in tournament play it is perfectly legal to tap 8 when you cast Approach and float a mana through its resolution to try to bait your opponent into casting censor. A violation only occurs if a player specially answers a question about free information incorrectly (such as making an incorrect statement about the amount of mana in his/her mana pool when asked).
Uh, that can't be right, can it? 106.4a seems pretty clear that unspent or floated manna is to be declared when passing priority or finishing casting a spell. If it's an accidental oversight or miscount fine, seek a remedy. If I know I'm floating manna or not spending all my mana when I cast a spell and then intentionally do not announce it in violation of 106.4a in order to try to gain an advantage in the game doesn't that have to be cheating?
Is there any chance for a solution where the extra floating manna, having not been properly declared, would be lost and the censor would then counter the approach?
A fix that leaves the player responsible for the error better off seem less than ideal. I realize that if it's determined that such an error was committed intentionally there would be other consequences, but still.
Yes. An in-play jailer will remove the printed abilities on cards in graveyards even if the the cards went to the graveyard after jailer was already in play.
Yixid's ability-removing effect and Snapcaster's ability-adding effect are both applied in layer 6. Since they are in the same layer, they are applied in time-stamp order. Abilities inherent to the card are first removed by jailer then, with jailer already in play, snapcaster adds an ability.
If snapcaster was played first to give a card flashback and jailer came into play after, the ability would be removed.
613.1. The values of an object’s characteristics are determined by starting with the actual object. For a card, that means the values of the characteristics printed on that card. For a token or a copy of a spell or card, that means the values of the characteristics defined by the effect that created it. Then all applicable continuous effects are applied in a series of layers in the following order:
613.1a Layer 1: Copy effects are applied. See rule 706, “Copying Objects.”
613.1b Layer 2: Control-changing effects are applied.
613.1c Layer 3: Text-changing effects are applied. See rule 612, “Text-Changing Effects.”
613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.
613.1e Layer 5: Color-changing effects are applied.
613.1f Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can’t have an ability are applied.
613.1g Layer 7: Power- and/or toughness-changing effects are applied.
903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card’s mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).
When a creature’s ability names itself exactly it means “this creature.” The stolen ability will likewise reference “this creature” and regeneration will work.
201.4b If an ability of an object refers to that object by name, and an object with a different name gains that ability, each instance of the first name in the gained ability that refers to the first object by name should be treated as the second name.
Example: Quicksilver Elemental says, in part, “{U}: Quicksilver Elemental gains all activated abilities of target creature until end of turn.” If it gains an ability that says “{G}: Regenerate Cudgel Troll,” activating that ability will regenerate Quicksilver Elemental, not the Cudgel Troll it gained the ability from.
Yes, it makes a difference.
If it said “when” then that would ba a “triggered ability”. Iona would come into play, the ability would trigger and go on the stack, and there would be a window before the ability resolved where swords to plowshares or the like could be cast even if the ability named white.
The ability says “as” which makes it a “replacement effect.” This means that the ability comes into effect simultaniously with Iona entering the battlefield. The ability does not go on the stack and then resolve separate from Iona entering and so there is no window where Iona is on the battlefield that spells from the prohibeted color can be cast.
The chance events that result in the game state only result in the game state. Discussing and agreeing on who will concede based on that game state is a step of separation that, in my view, matters. Remember, it's not actually the game state that determines the winner in these cases, it's the discussion between the players and a concession.
Your proposals, while they contain the same elements of chance events and an agreed upon concession, are distinguishable from legal methods in that your discussion and agreement does not determine who will concede, it determines which chance event will be instilled with the gravity to not just change the game state according to the rules of magic, but to determine the winner directly.
I grant it's a muddy distinction, but muddy is your best case scenario, I think. Any conclusion that "Method X for determining the winner of a match of magic at random is unequivocally legal" flies in the face of the spirit of the rules and you will always, I think, be at risk for disqualification if you try such a thing, based on the view of the particular judge in charge.
Perhaps you could consult the head judge before the event to get their stance as players do with altered cards and the like.
When reverberate resolves it copies twincast and goes to the graveyard. The twicast copy it created no longer has a target and is countered by the game rules.
This sits as odd to me that I am not allowed to “try” to put arbor into play and have cage block it from entering. Would this extend to a card like clarion ultimatum? With cage in play am I prevented to “chose” a dryad arbor in play as one of the 5 permanents or is only until the searching and finding in the library that cage’s effect is enforced?
See oracle text of: Life Burst or Shadowborn Apostle
Uh, that can't be right, can it? 106.4a seems pretty clear that unspent or floated manna is to be declared when passing priority or finishing casting a spell. If it's an accidental oversight or miscount fine, seek a remedy. If I know I'm floating manna or not spending all my mana when I cast a spell and then intentionally do not announce it in violation of 106.4a in order to try to gain an advantage in the game doesn't that have to be cheating?
A fix that leaves the player responsible for the error better off seem less than ideal. I realize that if it's determined that such an error was committed intentionally there would be other consequences, but still.
Yixid's ability-removing effect and Snapcaster's ability-adding effect are both applied in layer 6. Since they are in the same layer, they are applied in time-stamp order. Abilities inherent to the card are first removed by jailer then, with jailer already in play, snapcaster adds an ability.
If snapcaster was played first to give a card flashback and jailer came into play after, the ability would be removed.
613.1a Layer 1: Copy effects are applied. See rule 706, “Copying Objects.”
613.1b Layer 2: Control-changing effects are applied.
613.1c Layer 3: Text-changing effects are applied. See rule 612, “Text-Changing Effects.”
613.1d Layer 4: Type-changing effects are applied. These include effects that change an object’s card type, subtype, and/or supertype.
613.1e Layer 5: Color-changing effects are applied.
613.1f Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can’t have an ability are applied.
613.1g Layer 7: Power- and/or toughness-changing effects are applied.
903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card’s mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).
201.4b If an ability of an object refers to that object by name, and an object with a different name gains that ability, each instance of the first name in the gained ability that refers to the first object by name should be treated as the second name.
Example: Quicksilver Elemental says, in part, “{U}: Quicksilver Elemental gains all activated abilities of target creature until end of turn.” If it gains an ability that says “{G}: Regenerate Cudgel Troll,” activating that ability will regenerate Quicksilver Elemental, not the Cudgel Troll it gained the ability from.
If it said “when” then that would ba a “triggered ability”. Iona would come into play, the ability would trigger and go on the stack, and there would be a window before the ability resolved where swords to plowshares or the like could be cast even if the ability named white.
The ability says “as” which makes it a “replacement effect.” This means that the ability comes into effect simultaniously with Iona entering the battlefield. The ability does not go on the stack and then resolve separate from Iona entering and so there is no window where Iona is on the battlefield that spells from the prohibeted color can be cast.
Your proposals, while they contain the same elements of chance events and an agreed upon concession, are distinguishable from legal methods in that your discussion and agreement does not determine who will concede, it determines which chance event will be instilled with the gravity to not just change the game state according to the rules of magic, but to determine the winner directly.
I grant it's a muddy distinction, but muddy is your best case scenario, I think. Any conclusion that "Method X for determining the winner of a match of magic at random is unequivocally legal" flies in the face of the spirit of the rules and you will always, I think, be at risk for disqualification if you try such a thing, based on the view of the particular judge in charge.
Perhaps you could consult the head judge before the event to get their stance as players do with altered cards and the like.