We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Dismiss
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next
  • 1

    posted a message on Infinite Reflection and Huntsmaster of the Fells
    Quote from Boyachi »
    Wouldn't they transform into Huntmaster of the Fells when the enchanted Ravanger transforms? Not due to whether or not they are DFCs, but because the enchanted card's printed attributes changed sides (I'm assuming the DFCs definitely would, no question.)?
    No, the characteristics that a copy effect uses are the copiable values of the copied object when the copy effect begins, they are set permanently, they do not "update" when the copied object's copiable values change later. Now of course, new creatures that enter the battlefield after the original transforms will enter as Huntmaster of the Fells, since that's when the copy effect begins for them and that's what the copiable characteristics are at that point in time.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Infinite Reflection and Huntsmaster of the Fells
    Two main things to know here:

    - A double-faced permanent's copiable values are those of the face that's currently up.
    - A permanent that's not an actual double-faced card cannot transform.

    So Player B's creatures all become Ravager of the Fells, and if they are not DFC's themselves and they would transform, nothing happens, they remain Ravager of the Fells.

    If they are actual DFC's, they do transform, but the copy effect making them be a copy of Ravager of the Fells is still in place, so they transform from Ravager of the Fells to Ravager of the Fells, which triggers the damage ability.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on wall of hope vs 12/12 trample
    Quote from rehnny1989 »
    Hi everyone
    Just wondering. I have a 12/12 trample and im attacking a wall of hope . The wall dies but does my opponent gain 12 life and take 9 damage? Or only gain 3 life because my creature has trample?
    Thanks
    Unless you choose to assign more of your 12/12's power to the Wall than the minimum 3, they only gain 3 life. You assign 3 to the Wall and 9 to the player because of trample, the Wall only gets dealt 3 damage.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Bristling Hydra
    Deadlock Trap's ability will not fizzle (be countered on resolution), since when it resolves, the Hydra's ability hasn't resolved yet. So for what it's worth, Bristling Hydra will get tapped by Deadlock Trap, but as was said above, its ability that's already on the stack will not be stopped, because it's already been activated. So it still gets hexproof before Skywhaler's Shot resolves, and the Shot is countered on resolution for lack of a legal target (which means they don't get to scry either since the whole spell is countered).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Shielded By Faith Question
    Quote from Mig2014 »
    Quote from willdice »

    So, when the Ornithopter enters the battlefield, the Shielded's ability triggers and goes to the stack. Your opponent can then respond to this ability by removing the Ornithopter. If they do, Shielded stays where it is, attached to the other creature.


    Does this mean that by removing the Ornithopter before the trigger resolves, the option to attach the aura to it is also removed, even if the goal was to get rid of the aura?
    Even if there was no 'may' and moving Shielded by Faith was mandatory, it wouldn't budge if the new creature was removed in response to the trigger. An aura that's attached to a permanent cannot move to a permanent that no longer exists. That instruction being impossible, nothing happens, so it stays where it is.
    303.4j. If an effect attempts to attach an Aura on the battlefield to an object or player it can't legally enchant, the Aura doesn't move.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Authority of the Consuls vs Vehicles
    Crewing a vehicle does not make it enter the battlefield. For you to crew it, the vehicle must already be on the battlefield. It was on the battlefield and it stays on the battlefield the whole time, it just becomes a creature. Authority of the Consuls doesn't mess with anything that's happening here. For the purpose of Authority's "creatures enter tapped" effect, a creature entering the battlefield means a creature card that wasn't on the battlefield, enters the battlefield from another zone (the stack, the hand, the graveyard...) or a creature token is created. That's it.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Word of Command and excess mana
    Quote from peteroupc »
    Quote from psly4mne »
    Quote from peteroupc »
    The phrase "mana they produce" on Word of Command means "all the mana produced as a result of resolving those mana abilities this way". In this case, the mana abilities can be activated only if all the mana produced this way is also spent to play the card.

    I come down on the opposite side here. There is no reason to think "mana" should be read as "all of the mana" rather than "any of the mana". If you tap Boros Garrison for RW and spend R of that to cast Lightning Bolt, then you have spent mana that was produced by Boros Garrison to cast Lightning Bolt, which satisfies Word of Command's requirement.

    In that case, "mana they produce" is ambiguous.
    Not according to the rules of the English language, no. "I drank juice from this bottle" without a preposition before "juice" is a true statement whether you drank all of the juice or just some of it. Word of Command's condition is satisfied even if you use only some of the mana a land produced.
    Quote from peteroupc »
    I have now requested a response on this matter from Wizards of the Coast customer service.
    I've been wanting to point this out to you for a while now... From experience, I can tell you that WotC customer service, unfortunately, is not a reliable reference for rules questions. You yourself are far more knowledgeable about the rules than most of the people who work in that division of the company. Answering advanced rules questions is not what they're there for. I understand you thinking that asking the company means you will get an official answer, but the reality is that outside the rules manager Eli Shiffrin himself, the company leaves rules interpretation to the community, the judge community in particular. Some judges are appointed as official representatives, though. In particular, MTGSalvation user and fellow rules guru Natedogg, who can be reached via private message here on the site, has the title of "Wizards Rules NetRep", a representative of WotC on the Internet, whose answers are considered official.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Split cards not showing full text in our cards database
    Hi! Sorry if this has been reported before, and I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, move it if needed... In our cards database (where card tags link to), it seems we currently only see the text of the second half of any given split card. Example : Hit // Run. Can it be fixed?
    Posted in: Forum Software Feedback and Bug Reports
  • 0

    posted a message on Walking Ballista question!
    This thread originated in the Standard forum and was moved here because the original post was a rules question. The rest of the thread is strategy discussion which can't continue here, though, so I'm locking this. Lock
    -MadMage
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Morphling shroud ability
    Quote from Mig2014 »
    I take it that after morphling gets shroud he won’t be able to benefit from his other abilities until the end of turn. Is this correct?
    No, that's incorrect. None of Morphling's abilities target him. A spell or ability that targets will always use the actual word 'target' in its text, or in its rules definition in the case of a keyword (Equip, for example). Introducing my favorite rule in the whole book :
    114.9a. Just because an object or player is being affected by a spell or ability doesn't make that object or player a target of that spell or ability. Unless that object or player is identified by the word "target" in the text of that spell or ability, or the rule for that keyword ability, it's not a target.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Burgeoning and Sire of Stagnation Triggers Stacking - simple question
    Your understanding is correct. Both Sire and Burgeoning's triggered abilities are placed on the stack at the same time, and you order them how you want since you control them both. You don't select a land to put on the battlefield with Burgeoning until its trigger resolves, so you can indeed put the Sire's trigger on top of the stack so it resolves first, then put a land on the battlefield that you drew off it. Something that allows for additional land plays like Rites of Flourishing doesn't change anything to the process, it just makes it so it can happen twice in the same turn. The land plays must be done one at a time on an empty stack. Your triggers would happen each time. Your opponent could not play their second land until the two triggers from them playing their first land have resolved.

    (Just a small correction, Burgeoning doesn't have you play lands, it has you put them on the battlefield. So that would not, for example, trigger an opponent's own Burgeoning in turn.)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Spellskite and Return to Dust
    Quote from VidarThor »
    I think the awnser is 'no'. The reason for this would be, if I am right, that Return to Dust can not target the same thing twice, the way it is worded.

    6/1/2011 By activating Spellskite's ability multiple times, you can change each target of a spell or ability with multiple instances of the word "target" to Spellskite, one at a time.

    6/1/2011 If changing one target of a spell or ability to Spellskite would make other targets of that spell or ability illegal, the targets remain unchanged.

    6/1/2011 If a spell or ability has a variable number of targets, you can't change the number of targets.

    Had return to dust been worded differently, it would be no problem. Currently, the secind time you redirect to spellskyte (or first if spellskyte was one of the original 2 targets) the spell will not be redirected as it would be illagel to target one thing twice with return to dust.

    Mind you, the way Return to dust now is worded you could cast it as an instant, chose a first target and then target spellskite with the second target, even though the second target would not do anything. This would render spellskite quite inert to interfere even at instant speed.
    Just to confirm since you appeared uncertain, you are correct. Spellskite cannot have both parts of Return to Dust target it because of the word 'other' which affects each target's legality in relation to the other. Its controller can activate it targeting Return to Dust as many times as they can pay for, but it will have no effect, the targets will remain unchanged if Spellskite already is one of the targets. And you can indeed exile a single thing outside of your main phase (it's not really about "instant timing" per se, as it could be during your main phase but in response to something else and it would still work, it's really just about which phase we're in) and target Spellskite with the second targeting instruction just to prevent it from being able to change the target that's actually getting exiled.
    Quote from Gatherer »
    Regardless of when Return to Dust is cast, its controller may choose one target or two targets. It can always be cast even if there’s only one legal target. If it’s cast at a time other than its controller’s main phase and a second target is chosen, nothing will happen to that target.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 1

    posted a message on Double-face cards in Tournament setting
    As long as the extra copy outside of your deck is in different sleeves, that is perfectly fine. You're allowed any number of double-faced cards in your deck box and for in-game use if they correspond to cards played in your deck and/or sideboard and they're sleeved differently than your deck. From the Infraction Procedure Guide :
    If there are extra cards stored with the sideboard that could conceivably be played in the player’s deck, they will be considered a part of the sideboard unless they are:
    •Promotional cards that have been handed out as part of the tournament.
    •Double-faced cards represented by checklist cards in the deck.
    •Double-faced cards being used to represent the ‘night’ side of cards in the deck. These cards must not be sleeved in the same way as cards in the main deck and/or sideboard.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 1

    posted a message on Sovereign's Realm and starting hand question
    Your maximum hand size is still 7. Starting Hand Size and Maximum Hand Size are separate concepts.
    Quote from Comprehensive Rules Glossary »
    Starting Hand Size: The number of cards a player draws as a game begins. In most games, each player's starting hand size is seven. See rule 103.4.
    103.4. Each player draws a number of cards equal to his or her starting hand size, which is normally seven. (Some effects can modify a player's starting hand size.) [...]
    Quote from Comprehensive Rules Glossary »
    Maximum Hand Size: The number of cards in hand a player must discard down to during his or her cleanup step. See rule 402.2 and 514.1.
    402.2. Each player has a maximum hand size, which is normally seven cards. A player may have any number of cards in his or her hand, but as part of his or her cleanup step, the player must discard excess cards down to the maximum hand size.


    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Enchanted Evening + Cleansing Meditation
    Yes, that combo works fine (as long as you have 7 or more cards in your graveyard before Meditation resolves). Meditation's threshold effect will return every card in your graveyard that got there because it was previously an enchantment on the battlefield that the Meditation just destroyed. It doesn't matter what card type the cards are once in your graveyard. If it could only return actual enchantment cards, it would say "all enchantment cards in your graveyard destroyed this way".
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Waste Not BB mana and Phyrexian Tyranny
    Waste Not and Phyrexian Tyranny's triggers are all put on the stack in the order of your choice after Wheel has resolved (although they trigger at different times during Wheel's resolution, they can't be put on the stack until it's done resolving, and the order in which they triggered doesn't matter, you place them on the stack how you want). For the sake of simplicity, you probably want to put all of Waste Not's triggers on top of the stack above Tyranny's triggers, so they all resolve and give you the mana before any of Tyranny's triggers resolve.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on How to keep a creature with 0 printed toughness from dying when entering
    Question asked, question answered. It bordered on strategy and asking for card suggestions to begin with, so it's not surprising that card examples and suggestions came, but this amount will be enough. Lock
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Mindslaver/Emrakul question
    Quote from davidb32 »
    Quote from Rezzahan »
    That turn was created when Emrarul's ability resolved and the death of the player does not take it away.

    Sorry to bring back a five day old thread, but I must point out that this isn't correct. The ability does not create an extra turn when it resolves. Rather, Emrakul's ability creates a rule changing effect that causes the controlled player to take another turn immediately after the turn in which they were controlled. Otherwise the following Oracle ruling wouldn't be possible:

    • 7/13/2016 If the targeted player skips his or her next turn, you’ll control the next turn the affected player actually takes, and the extra turn the player takes will be after that turn.
    Because the timing of the controlled player's next turn is not known when the ability resolves, the extra turn cannot be created then.
    Furthermore, if the controlling player leaves the game before the start of the would-be controlled player's next turn, the controlled player will not get an extra turn.
    No, Rezzahan was correct. I'd agree you can consider extra turn adding as a rules-changing effect that affects the turn order rules, but that doesn't make anything that was said above wrong. The concept that extra turns are created in advance is present in the rules.
    500.7. Some effects can give a player extra turns. They do this by adding the turns directly after the specified turn. If a player is given multiple extra turns, the extra turns are added one at a time. If multiple players are given extra turns, the extra turns are added one at a time, in APNAP order (see rule 101.4). The most recently created turn will be taken first.
    This implies that an extra turn can be created, and then take place at a later time than where it was originally "slotted" because another extra turn is created afterwards.

    I think I understand your interpretation, but it doesn't change the fact that the extra turn from Emrakul can be added. Emrakul's ability has two effects: one, it makes it so you gain control of the targeted opponent during their next turn (whenever that turn may be, hence the ruling you quoted), and two, it adds an extra turn for the target opponent after his next turn. The second effect is not dependent on the first actually "working". In the phrase "after that turn", that turn still refers to that player's next turn, not "that turn during which you successfully controlled that player".
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Animation Module and Simic Initiate
    Quote from Avatar_of_Doh »
    I control Animation Module. When Simic Initiate initiate enters the battlefield, does the counter it enters with count as placing a counter on it, therefore triggering Animation Module's first ability?
    Yes.
    121.6. Some spells and abilities refer to counters being "placed" on an object. This refers to putting counters on that object while it's on the battlefield and also to an object that's given counters as it enters the battlefield.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Tireless tracker and priority
    Correct. The active player has priority after a spell or ability resolves on their turn. So you can play a land and trigger the Tracker immediately, provided the stack is empty (if you have something that triggers when a creature enters the battlefield, say Aetherstorm Roc, that trigger will go the stack before you can play a land, and your opponent would have a window to respond to that trigger, since you need the stack to be empty to play a land).

    EDIT : Thanknath'd! I'm late to this party.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on LorT Cube: Refining wording and clearing doubts.
    Moved to Custom Card Rulings.
    Posted in: Custom Card Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Mindslaver/Emrakul question
    Quote from FunkyDragon »
    Really? I thought it would create a delayed trigger that would fail to trigger because its owner was no longer in the game.
    No, the extra turn is not created by a separate delayed triggered ability, it's just set to happen when Emrakul's cast trigger resolves, "slotted" in the turn structure after the next turn of the targeted opponent. Extra turn creation doesn't need the use of delayed triggers to work, and there's no reason Emrakul would need it any more than, say, Time Stretch. A triggered ability, delayed or otherwise, is identifiable by the presence of either 'when', 'whenever' or 'at', none of which are used here.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Sad news of Daniel Fox
    I didn't know or ever interacted with DragonFox1001 directly, but I've always felt a connection with all the regulars on Rulings, even moreso since I began moderating the forum and proudly recommended the newest crew of Rules Gurus that he was part of. I thank him on the behalf of our community, and especially on the behalf of everyone he answered here, helping them enjoy of the game we all love. Goodbye, brother.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Hangarback walker
    Quote from GeekPeak »
    Ok. This will not happen but is it legal to do this?

    Pay 3 mana, play one cloud key
    Choose artifact
    Pay 2 mana, play another cloud key
    Choose creature
    Pay nothing and play 4 1/1 hangarback walker
    Sure. By the way, you could also name artifact for both Keys and it would work the same, they would still each reduce the cost by 1.

    Quote from GeekPeak »
    Turn two, pay 4 mana and tip every walker to give them a +1/+1 counter?
    Or is the walker buff also affected by cloud key
    You can activate them all once they stop being affected by summoning sickness (once you begin another turn of yours with them) but it will indeed cost you 4 mana, Cloud Key doesn't reduce the costs of activated abilities, only the cost to cast the artifact/creature cards themselves. An ability is not a spell.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Hangarback walker
    You first choose a value for X, then calculate the cost. For example, if you choose X = 1, the cost is 1 + 1 = 2, to which you then subtract the reductions from the two Cloud Keys, so 2 – 2 = 0. A Walker that enters with 1 counter costs 0 to cast. If X = 2, it's 2 +2 =4, -2 = 2, it costs 2 to cast. And so on.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Nezumi Shortfang flip rulings
    You will have to put one of them in your graveyard (not technically the same thing as a sacrifice BTW, won't trigger something like Mortician Beetle), since they are two legendary permanents you control with the same name (Stabwhisker the Odious). It can be either of them, it doesn't have to be the first to have flipped.
    704.5k. If a player controls two or more legendary permanents with the same name, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners' graveyards. This is called the "legend rule."
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 1

    posted a message on Thundercloud Shaman and Legion's Initiative combo rules
    All of his creatures that were exiled by Legion's Initiative, the Shaman among them, return on the battlefield at the same time. The Shaman's ability triggers and goes on the stack. When it resolves, it counts the number of giants he controls and deals that amount to non-giant creatures. The giants have been back for a while at that point. Such abilities that check the game state to "scale" their effect only do so when they resolve. You could kill some of his Giants with a couple of instants before the ability resolves, and it will deal less.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Flickerwisp question
    Quote from willdice »
    Quote from glembo2 »
    If I have a Panharmonicon on the board and I cast Flickerwisp, can I target the same creature two time with the Flickerwisp ability?

    You can choose the same creature as the target for each time the ability triggers, yes.

    But each ability will resolve separately. Only the first to resolve will be able to affect the creature, exiling it then returning that card to the battlefield. After moving out of the battlefield, the creature is considered a new game object, not the legal target of the remaining ability still on the stack. So that other ability will fizzle.
    Even worse, Flickerwisp doesn't return the exiled permanent right away, only with a delayed trigger at the beginning of the next end step. This makes it even clearer that targeting the same permanent twice is normally useless.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Simple question from new player!
    Quote from OceansXXIII »
    Awesome, alright.

    So, creatures with ETB abilities go on the stack as well? So, are they connected to the creature, or is there no way to counter ETB effects?
    If a creature is allowed to enter the battlefield (one could counter the creature spell so that it doesn't), an ability that triggers from it entering the battlefield will trigger and go on the stack. From there, the triggered ability is independent from its source, Bolting the creature won't stop the ability from happening. For example, Bolting a Cloudblazer will not counter the ability to draw 2 cards and gain 2 life. It's possible to counter a triggered ability directly with some cards like Disallow, but nothing you do to the source of the ability affects the ability once it's on the stack.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Conspiracy Cards and Unformated Constructed
    As peteroupc showed, the rules do not support the use of conspiracies in constructed. A given playgroup can of course house rule anything, but if you really want to introduce conspiracies, I strongly suggest you at least create a rule that limits their number, otherwise things can get very silly, very fast.

    And that's really all there is to say about this subject that's within the boundaries of this forum, so I'm locking this to avoid it going further into off-topic territory. Lock
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Felidar Guardian + Restoration Angel infinite loop
    No, you can't do that Cat / Angel loop just for the sake of it, because it's not a loop of mandatory actions. Since you have the possibility of not using either effect, you can't do that loop if it doesn't have any result other than wasting time. A loop will make the game end in a draw only if it's comprised solely of mandatory actions. For example, three Oblivion Rings exiling each other with no other nonland permanents on the battlefield to target, actually causes the game to be stuck in the mandatory loop and end in a draw as soon as it's recognized as such.
    719.4. If a loop contains only mandatory actions, the game is a draw. (See rules 104.4b and 104.4f.)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Training grounds on XX
    Quote from Ryperior74 »
    Quote from Mig2014 »
    No, if the cost is 22, that translates into a total cost of 4, so after reduction it is only 2.

    If the cost is 11, that translates into a total cost of 2, so after reduction it is only 1, because that's the minimum.

    If the cost is 11R, that translates into a total cost of 2R, so after reduction it is only R.


    Oh that makes far more sense so how it works is

    33G or whatever = 6G

    So add them together then minus the 2 from training grounds

    This that right?
    Yes. Activating Hydra Broodmaster's Monstrosity ability, for example, with X=3, would cost you 6G without Training Grounds, and 4G with Training Grounds.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Mogis and Brinery
    Yes. Mogis is a creature card in your opponent's deck. His ability that makes him not a creature can only work on the battlefield.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Yahenni, Undying Partisan + Yahenni's Expertise
    Quote from Scogel7 »
    What happens if you you use Yahenni's ability to sacrifice another creature and gain indestructible until the end of the turn. Will it still live even if it goes lower than 0 toughness or does the indestructible give you time to get the counter from your opponents creatures dying and let Yahenni live? I'm new to magic and I don't know the interaction with toughness and indestructible work.
    No, Yahenni will still die. Dying from having 0 or less toughness is not being destroyed. Indestructible only stops being destroyed, and being destroyed only happens because of effects that say 'destroy' and lethal marked damage (damage doesn't reduce toughness, it gets marked on the creature and causes it to be destroyed if it equals or exceeds its toughness, effects that actually reduce toughness like Yahenni's Expertise are different.)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 1

    posted a message on Scrap Trawler (clarification)
    If you control Scrap Trawler, and then it or another artifact you control is put into a graveyard, the Trawler's ability triggers and goes on the stack. You target an artifact card in your graveyard with a smaller converted mana cost (that being the amount of mana in the mana cost in the upper corner of the card) than the artifact that went to the graveyard and triggered the ability, if there is any such artifact card available. When the ability resolves, you return the targeted card to your hand.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on wording combat phases
    Quote from dansemanatee »
    You can either tap creatures to attack or just announce you are about to attack (whether or not you announce you will attack with a certain creature), but every other player can respond either way, for example by saying "Before you attack, I cast...".



    In my case all i wanted to do was back out of my attack before I even got the entire sentence out of my mouth. It went something like "Ill attack you with walkin...." as I tap the creature and immediately untap and say nevermind. did I ultimately pass priority by opening my mouth and tapping my creature. I even read the rules you cited but your answer is very technical and I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around it.
    What you're quoting is peteroupc's answer to question #2, he only answered that one at first. He did edit in an answer to question #1 afterwards, though.
    Quote from peteroupc »
    On your first question:

    If you say you will attack with a certain creature before the point you would declare attackers, this is a shortcut proposal that generally ends after you declare attackers, which the next point in time a player would get priority would be (C.R. 719.2a). Unless another player interrupts this, though (C.R. 719.2b), you will be bound by that declaration and can't declare more attackers, since the game will move to the point after you would do so (C.R. 719.2c).
    This is very much correct, but again, it's the technical answer. There is another, grayer side to your question that's about player communication. If your opponent doesn't want you to let you take it back, whether a judge would allow you not to attack really depends on the exact communication that happened between you. First off, if you have other creatures besides the Ballista, and the Ballista could just be the first attacker you declare among others, taking it back before you declare other attackers is fine, because the whole declaration is considered one simultaneous action and it wouldn't be final by then. But if you're not so lucky, and you did everything needed to fully declare a legal attack, without a doubt that you would be done with the declaration after everything you said and did, well, you completed a legal play, and you may be bound to it. Now, if you didn't even finish you sentence like you're suggesting above and/or didn't put your hand away from your Ballista, the judge may consider that your declaration wasn't final, it depends.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 2

    posted a message on Vial Smasher and From Under the Floorboards
    Five. Converted mana cost is a characteristic of a card that's derived from its mana cost, i.e. what's printed in the upper corner. That characteristic doesn't change no matter you actually pay to cast the spell. From Under the Floorboards always has a CMC of 5.

    An X in the mana cost is the only thing that can make a spell's CMC vary, because that's a variable that's part of the actual mana cost. It's the value chosen for X while the spell is on the stack, and it is considered 0 everywhere else. An X in the alternate cost of a spell will be reported to the CMC if the card has an X in its mana cost, like for Entreat the Angels; but in the case of From Under the Floorboards, the X is only in the madness alternate cost, so it's not taken into account. We only look at the upper corner, and that tells us 5.

    EDIT:
    Quote from willdice »
    From Under the Floorboards has a Converted Mana Cost of 5, so Vial Smasher deals 5 damage. You casting it through an alternative cost such as Flashback won't change that.
    He means Madness. Wink
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Baral & Baral's Expertise
    I assume you want us to read the three bottom rulings, since the other ones have no visible connection with the question at hand­. These three rulings actually support the (correct, well-established) answers given above that you were disputing, they do not further your interpretation.

    7/13/2016 Effects that reduce the cost of spells reduce the total cost, including any escalate costs added.
    This is saying that an effect like Baral, Chief of Compliance's applies to the total cost after additional costs such as Escalate have been added, and can thus effectively "cancel" such additional costs.
    7/13/2016 If an effect allows you to cast a spell that has escalate without paying its mana cost, you pay escalate costs for that spell if you choose more than one mode.
    This is saying that Escalate costs are not "covered" by the "without paying its mana cost" alternative cost given by something like Baral's Expertise. These additional cosst will still be added to the total cost, but that doesn't mean the total cost can't be reduced. I think this may be what you're misreading here. That the ruling says "you pay" doesn't mean that these costs can't be reduced, even to 0, it just means that these costs aren't included in the card's mana cost and thus aren't covered by the alternative cost of "without paying its mana cost".
    7/13/2016 Additional costs don’t affect a spell’s converted mana cost.
    This is saying that Defiance has a CMC of 3 no matter if it's escalated. CMC and what you actually pay are widely different, CMC is just a characteristic of the card, a number derived from its mana cost (also a characteristic of the card, what's printed in the upper corner). What you end up paying (the total cost) can differ from these basic characteristics completely when an alternative cost and/or additional costs are applied.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Emblems
    Like the token cards, the emblem cards you find in booster packs are not actual Magic cards, you can't put them in your deck. They are just game accessories: you may have them on the side, they're practical and nice to have, but they are optional, just like, say, a playmat. Like a token, an emblem will always be created by the effect of a card, you can't just "play" the emblem card. Conversely, if you don't have the official emblem or token accessory card with you, you can use any reasonably fitting object, like a random piece of paper on which you write what it is, to represent an emblem or a token.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Nighthowler and bestow
    There is no such state as "on its way", a card is always in one zone or another, the elf is either on the battlefield or in the graveyard. It's only once it's in the graveyard that Nighthowler becomes unattached and becomes a creature as a state-based action. It's a 1/1 at that point, so it lives.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Declare attackers, combat and priority stuff
    I believe everything within the boundaries of this forum that could be said on this subject has been stated clearly. peteroupc's two last posts (#13 and #16) and post #14 by user_938036 sum it up nicely. Time to lock it up. Lock
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Metallic Mimic, Hardened Scales and Hangarback Walker
    Quote from the_codaddy »
    I don't know if it would be better to ask this question here (because it is very similar) or start a new thread, but I have a similar question about how Metallic Mimic, Winding Constrictor, and Walking Ballista interact.

    If I name "construct" with Metallic Mimic and then cast Walking Ballista with X as 1 with Winding Constrictor in play, the Walking Ballista would enter with 3 +1/+1 counters, right? And if X is 2, then it would have 4 +1/+1 counters? (So, in other words, it's X+2 counters)?

    Thanks in advance.

    That's all correct, the Mimic makes the Ballista enter with one additional counter and so does the Constrictor, because entering with counters qualifies as counters being placed. Together, that's +2 counters over what the Ballista would normally enter with.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Destroying Planeswalkers before they are able to activate ability
    The subject has been fully covered I believe, time to lock this up. Lock
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Pia's revolution
    Each Revolution's ability triggers and resolves separately. If you don't want the artifact to return to their hand, you will have to be dealt damage twice for a total of 6. If you'd rather live with the card returning to their hand, you don't have to take any damage, you let the first trigger to resolve do it, then for the second trigger, you can choose to not take damage again and nothing happens since the card is already gone from the graveyard.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Commander questions
    She does have summoning sickness. You won't be able to activate her ability until you've started a turn of yours with it her on the battlefield under your control. It's the same as when you play a creature from your hand, that she was face up in the command zone instead of in your hand when you cast her doesn't change that.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Rubinia help
    When the Drake enters, before your opponent gets priority to activate Rubinia, you put the Drake's trigger on the stack and target a creature of theirs. If they respond by taking the Drake, then when the Drake's trigger (which you still control, and which target didn't change) resolves, the exchange does nothing since both the Drake and the target creature are controlled by the same player. You can't sacrifice the Drake since you don't control it.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on copy modified spells
    The copy will also give you 6 mana. Spliced text gets copied by effects that create copies of spells. The text gets copied onto the spell and is part of its copiable characteristics.
    702.46a. Splice is a static ability that functions while a card is in your hand. "Splice onto [subtype] [cost]" means "You may reveal this card from your hand as you cast a [subtype] spell. If you do, copy this card's text box onto that spell and pay [cost] as an additional cost to cast that spell." Paying a card's splice cost follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f-h.

    702.46c. The spell has the characteristics of the main spell, plus the text boxes of each of the spliced cards. The spell doesn't gain any other characteristics (name, mana cost, color, supertypes, card types, subtypes, etc.) of the spliced cards. Text copied onto the spell that refers to a card by name refers to the spell on the stack, not the card from which the text was copied.
    706.10. To copy a spell, activated ability, or triggered ability means to put a copy of it onto the stack; a copy of a spell isn't cast and a copy of an activated ability isn't activated. A copy of a spell or ability copies both the characteristics of the spell or ability and all decisions made for it, including modes, targets, the value of X, and additional or alternative costs. (See rule 601, "Casting Spells.") Choices that are normally made on resolution are not copied. If an effect of the copy refers to objects used to pay its costs, it uses the objects used to pay the costs of the original spell or ability. A copy of a spell is owned by the player under whose control it was put on the stack. A copy of a spell or ability is controlled by the player under whose control it was put on the stack. A copy of a spell is itself a spell, even though it has no spell card associated with it. A copy of an ability is itself an ability.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Responding to Triskelion or Walking Ballista
    Quote from Staubibr »
    Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Do you mean that since counters are removed as part of the cost, the ballista dies before anything else?
    That's correct. As soon as its controller is done activating its ability by removing its last counter, state-based actions send the Ballista to the graveyard because it's 0/0, before anyone gets priority (the opportunity to cast or activate something).
    Quote from Staubibr »
    In that case, it would mean that you can't prevent a Ballista draling damage by killing it with an instant?
    That's also correct, and importantly, it would be correct even if the Ballista didn't die before you can respond. Once activated or triggered, an ability is independent from its source. Removal of the source in response to the ability won't prevent it from resolving. For example, if your opponent has Prodigal Pyromancer untapped and not summoning sick, you can't use a kill spell (barring things like split second) to stop it from dealing 1 damage to you. If they activate it while they have priority, you can only kill it with an instant once the ability is done being activated and is an independent object on the stack, and it still resolves even if the Pyromancer is not there. And if you target the Pyromancer while it is untapped, they can activate it in response.
    112.7a. Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won't affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, "Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player") rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it's expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Blocking an Instant
    Okay, this should be enough information for a question that was borderline a rules one. We're going on tangents and into strategy, time to lock this. Lock
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Another check on if possibly with the rings of brighthearth
    Yes. While you couldn't target the Field with its original activation, since you choose targets before you pay costs, you can target it with the copy, since the copy is put on the stack only when Rings' triggered ability resolves, well after the Field has been sacrificed.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Spawnsire of Ulamog in Commander. . . need the DEFINITIVE ruling
    Quote from Ryperior74 »
    Oh this question again

    I make it simple

    If a sanctioned/kitchen table allows side-board in wherever your playing edh

    The 20 ability will work

    If the answer is no that ability does nothing. Only put spawnsire in if the place allows sideboard.

    Oh not sure where I saw it but possibly the side-board can only have one of's as well and can't be anything in the deck.
    The optional 10-card sideboard rule was on mtgcommander.net for a long time, but it's now retired (of course, a given non-sanctioned playgroup can still use that as a house rule, as they can house rule literally anything). Play Rule #13 I quoted above used to be that these cards would only work with that 10-card sideboard rule, but with it removed, they changed it to a more broad "if you want to use those cards, you'll have to house rule them".
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Spawnsire of Ulamog in Commander. . . need the DEFINITIVE ruling
    Quote from Dr. Shades »
    Quote from peteroupc »
    EDIT: Expanded on last sentence after comment 3 was posted.
    Hi peteroupc,

    Thanks to the expansion to your last sentence, are you saying that MadMageQc is correct, or that he is incorrect?

    I apologize if I'm being slow on the uptake.
    My comment was #5, and peteroupc's edit was before I posted it. #3 is the one with your thanks to him.

    I am not directly contradicting what he said: it is valid from a strict Comprehensive Rules point of view. As I said, if your event isn't sanctioned and thus isn't covered by the Magic Tournament Rules, you can bring his explanation to the organizers to convince them that by the rules, you should be allowed to do what you want, and you'd probably have a convincing argument. It's just that if they refuse to allow it, with the event not being sanctioned, you have no recourse.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Spawnsire of Ulamog in Commander. . . need the DEFINITIVE ruling
    Quote from Dr. Shades »
    Dear participants,

    I've searched for this answer across the Internet, and I still have yet to find the absolute, ultimate, definitive ruling. Hopefully one or more of you good folks here will have it for me.

    I play in a Commander event every Saturday that doesn't do the "10-card sideboard" thing. One of my decks' commanders is Maralen of the Mornsong, so obviously it's mono-black but has lots of colorless spells therein. I also run Spawnsire of Ulamog in the deck.

    Now, if I use the Spawnsire's last ability--"20: Cast any number of Eldrazi cards you own from outside the game without paying their mana costs," What exactly does it mean? Does it mean:

    • I can cast every Eldrazi card I own, even those whose casting costs contain W, U, R, or G, even multiple copies of each?
    • I can cast any Eldrazi card I own, even those whose casting costs contain W, U, R, or G, but only one copy of each?
    • I can cast every Eldrazi card I own whose casting costs contain B or C only, even multiple copies of each?
    • I can cast any Eldrazi card I own whose casting costs contain B or C only, but only one copy of each?
    Thanks in advance for any and all help you can give me.
    As Lithl said, if the event you're playing is DCI-sanctioned (using the DCI reporter software for pairings and such and granting you any planeswalker points), and can thus be called a sanctioned tournament, no matter if it's multiplayer pods, no matter how casual the setting, the Magic Tournament Rules apply, and cards like this work only in sideboards (MTR 3.6, page 19). No sideboard = these effects do nothing.

    Outside of sanctioned events, the "absolute, ultimate, definitive ruling" on this actually is "you can do only what your playgroup allows you to do beforehand". peteroupc's answer makes sense as an interpretation made only by looking at the Comprehensive Rules, but he's missing an important element that comes to us from another official Commander source, the mtgcommander.net website. The committee running this site are the true authority of the Commander format, Wizards is collaborating with them and making products for their format and integrated their rules into the Comprehensive Rules, but it's this committee who calls the shots on any format rules modification, the Commander banlist, etc. This is what their official stance is on cards such as Spawnsire of Ulamog :
    Quote from http://mtgcommander.net/rules.php?PRINT=1, Play rule #13 »
    13. Abilities which refer to other cards owned outside the game (Wishes, Spawnsire, Research, Ring of Ma'ruf) do not function in Commander without prior agreement on their scope from the playgroup.
    So IF the "event" you're playing on Saturdays isn't sanctioned, you'll have to ask the people who run it what you are allowed to do. You can try and bring them peteroupc's argument to convince them they should allow you to do what you want, but they will be the final authority. If they don't agree, you don't really have a recourse.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Help writing house rule
    Moved to Custom Card Rulings.
    Posted in: Custom Card Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Priority after multiple triggered abilities
    Quote from peteroupc »
    The player who gets priority if multiple triggered abilities go on the stack at the same time is the same as if only one triggered ability went on the stack (under C.R. 116.5, triggered abilities go on the stack each time a player, that is, any player, would get priority; eventually, "the player who would have received priority does so"). Note also that a spell or ability on the stack resolves, in general, only if all players pass, meaning that all players necessarily had priority and chose "not to take any actions" (C.R. 116.4, 116.3d).


    Thanks for answering the question!

    Quote from chaikov »
    The appropriate player generally is the Active player, the one whose turn it is. (rule 116.3)
    However, some very unusual situations may have some other player be 'the appropriate player'.


    So it is usually the active player gets the priority to respond after multiple triggered abilities put into the stack in APNAP order, right? Thank you!
    It ends up being so more often than not, but in actuality, the rule is that the player who gets priority is the same who would have gotten it at that point in time if no triggered abilities were put on the stack. That's what is meant by the "appropriate player." The main example is when a player other than the active player casts a spell or activates an ability, and that action causes one or more triggered abilities to trigger. It's the player who cast that spell or activated that ability who gets priority first after that, as they would if no triggered abilities triggered. A given player always gets priority first to respond to their own spell or activated ability (followed by the other players in turn order).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Metallic Mimic - the +1/+1 counters question
    Quote from auaiomrn »
    Thanks, nice that it works like one would hope.
    This is no big deal, but in the future, please post separate questions in a new thread, instead of adding to another thread about the same card. This helps keep threads shorter and more focused, and it makes the forum a better searchable resource as a whole. With your questions answered, I'm going to lock this thread to avoid it becoming a repository for future questions about Metallic Mimic. Lock
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Metallic Mimic - the +1/+1 counters question
    It will work even if the creature wouldn't enter with a +1/+1 counter otherwise. The word "additional" isn't there because there would need to be a counter already, it's there to make it clear that if the creature would already enter with +1/+1 counters, it enters with one more, and that one doesn't "overwrite" others. If the creature would enter with no counters, saying it enters with one more counter still means it enters with one counter, 0 + 1 = 1.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Winding Constrictor + Awaken
    Quote from Mig2014 »
    I would assume the land would become a creature first and then counters placed on it, following the order of layers for continuous effects, and in that case it would get the additional counter from Winding Constrictor.

    How come this does not apply in this situation?
    The layers system has no bearing on the order in which the instructions of a resolving instant, sorcery or ability are followed. That system is for determining what an object which is currently being affected by multiple continuous effects looks like at a given point in time.

    It is entirely possible for something to put +1/+1 counters on a noncreature permanent, then make it a creature after.

    If Awaken was worded the other way around, it's probable that many people who aren't aware of how state-based actions work, would think that the land would be supposed to die while the spell is resolving, before getting the counters, and would be puzzled. Putting the counters first avoids this confusion.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Abeyance and Null rod question
    Moved to Magic General.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on Angel's Grace and combat phase resolving
    Yes, that can happen as described, and it makes sense for your opponent to do that. You need to cast Angel's Grace before the combat damage step (so during the declare blockers step at the latest) in order for it to save you. While your opponent can't respond to the Grace because of Split second, they can let it resolve and, still in the same step, cast an instant to remove his creature. After a spell resolves and the stack is empty, the game doesn't proceed to the next step immediately, players always get priority (an opportunity to cast spells and activate abilities) on the empty stack before that, the game moves on only once all players have passed priority on an empty stack in succession.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Panharmonicon questions I haven't seen asked
    Quote from hisbodyfat »
    The literal example is refering to cards Omenspeaker, and Flamespeaker Adept. Say You have Panharmonicon and Flamespeaker Adept already on the battlefield and you play Omenspeaker. Omenspeaker's ETB would trigger twice so you would Scry2, then Scry 2. Does Panharmonicon cause Flamespeaker Adept's ability to trigger an addition time as well? It's a bit confusing to me because the ETB is causing Flamespeaker to trigger but not because of ETB but rather a by-product of the ETB, being scry. I haven't found any other examples of this type of scenario, so I'm unsure how it resolves.
    You get two Omenspeaker triggers. When each resolves, that triggers Flamespeaker Adept in turn. The Adept thus triggers a total of two times. There's no interaction between Adept and Panharmonicon, Panharmonicon only causes Omenspeaker to trigger twice, and that's what makes it so Adept triggers twice, but that's it.
    Quote from hisbodyfat »
    I have another card that I'd like to use in this same combo only in place of Omenspeaker use Cryptic Annelid. This compounds this question because Cryptic Annelid says, "When Cryptic Annelid enters the battlefield, scry 1, then scry 2, then scry 3." If Flamespeaker Adept was triggered an additional time by Panharmonicon, would that trigger happen again for each Scry (meaning double each trigger) or one additional time only?
    Since Annelid's ability makes you scry three separate times, it makes Adept trigger 3 times by itself. Panharmonicon makes Annelid's ability happen twice, and for each instance, you scry 3 times, so Adept triggers a total of 6 times.

    Quote from hisbodyfat »
    I think another example would be with a card like Sanguine Bond, which says "Whenever you gain life..." if a creature ETB said gain 3 life, that ability would trigger twice but would sanguine bonds ability also trigger twice?
    Twice in total. It would trigger for each instance of the lifegain ability.

    This is no big deal, but in the future, please post separate questions in a new thread rather than posting in an existing thread about the same card, especially if that thread is old (more than two months in this case). That helps keep threads shorter, more focused and in their proper timeframe, and that makes the forum a better searchable resource.

    With your questions answered, I am locking this thread to avoid it becoming a repository for other Panharmonicon questions. Lock
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Improvise
    Quote from Magicman2991 »
    Thanks alot! One other thing. Can you tap an artifact - equipment spell for improvise?
    You sure can, and being tapped usually doesn't affect an equipment in any way, it still works the same. It's basically a freebie.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Improvise
    Improvise can help you pay an alternate cost such as Emerge (as long as that cost includes generic mana).

    Inspiring Statuary doesn't give Improvise to artifact spells, but it does "stack" with cost reductions on nonartifact spells like on Gearseeker Serpent. You first calculate the cost as reduced by the number of artifacts you control, then if you still have generic mana to pay for after the reduction, you can pay for it by tapping artifacts.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Ashcloud Phoenix opponent rebirth
    I highly suspect you were wondering because of the printed wording of the Phoenix, which doesn't specify "under your control". It actually worked the same without that text: by default, the player who controls an entering permanent is the one who is instructed to put it on the battlefield, not necessarily its owner. The "under your control" in the Oracle text is errata that clarifies that fact and is meant to prevent this very confusion. A great many similar "return to battlefield" effects, the majority of similar effects in fact (for example, the Persist and Undying abilities) specify "under its owner's control" instead, but despite being more common, they actually are the ones which need to specify it in order to work the intended way.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Sram's Expertise
    Quote from 22.55 »
    I cast Sram's Expertise.
    As free spell I cast Collective Effort.

    How does the resolving work?

    - Do I get the 3 servo tokens first?
    - Then I cast Collective Effort.
    - Can I use all the 3 modes of Collective Effort by tapping 2 Servo tokens created by Sram's Expertise?
    Yes, assuming the Expertise resolves, you get the 3 tokens first, then cast Effort, so by the time you cast it, you have the tokens to pay the Escalate additional cost. Expertise goes to the graveyard, and you've got a Collective Effort with all three modes chosen on the stack.

    By the way, you don't need to paste the Gatherer Rulings, it takes more space than it is useful. People who answer just have to follow your card links created by card tags to go check them on the Gatherer site.

    EDIT:
    Quote from VidarThor »
    This is in the wrong section.
    No, here is perfectly fine, especially at this point in time where all info has been officially released. Even during spoiler season, we have no problem with questions about spoiled cards being in the main forum if they are cards officially spoiled by Wizards of the Coast. See this rule of the Magic Rulings forum:
    2.4 Only Official Spoilers. Questions about mechanics or cards from unreleased sets are allowed only if the mechanic or card in question has been officially previewed on wizards.com. If the card is in the MTG Salvation spoiler, the [card] tags should already work, but if they don't, you must use [url] tags to link the card image from the wizards.com card image gallery so that people can look up the card you're asking about. Questions about rumors that have not been officially previewed belong in the Rumored Card Rulings forum in the Rumor Mill. This includes hypothetical or custom card designs, questions about non-existent cards or mechanics belong in the Custom Card Rulings forum in Custom Card Creation.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 1

    posted a message on Wharf Infiltrator : Replace Draw Effect
    Yes, the discard will still happen. See this rule :
    117.12. Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, "[Do something]. If [a player] [does or doesn't], [effect]." or "[A player] may [do something]. If [that player] [does or doesn't], [effect]." The action [do something] is a cost, paid when the spell or ability resolves. The "If [a player] [does or doesn't]" clause checks whether the player chose to pay an optional cost or started to pay a mandatory cost, regardless of what events actually occurred.
    [...]
    Example: Your opponent has cast Gather Specimens, a spell that says "If a creature would enter the battlefield under an opponent's control this turn, it enters the battlefield under your control instead." You control a face-down Dermoplasm, a creature with morph that says "When Dermoplasm is turned face up, you may put a creature card with morph from your hand onto the battlefield face up. If you do, return Dermoplasm to its owner's hand." You turn Dermoplasm face up, and you choose to put a creature card with morph from your hand onto the battlefield. Due to Gather Specimens, it enters the battlefield under your opponent's control instead of yours. However, since you chose to pay the cost, Dermoplasm is still returned to its owner's hand.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Question about phasing
    No it doesn't. Your creatures phase out only at end of combat, the last step of the combat phase, which is after the combat damage step, where combat damage has been dealt and lethally damaged creatures have been destroyed.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Annihilator Hexproof ruling
    Your interpretation is correct, a player having hexproof won't help against annihilator, because it doesn't target the defending player.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 1

    posted a message on Counter enchantment on previously bestowed aura.
    Quote from TGendek »
    Hi,

    New player here.
    Just a quick question in regards to using Annul (Counter Enchantment) on an already bestowed Aura.
    Example, I'm attacking with a creature that has been bestowed a +2/+2 (e.g. Leafcrown Dryad)(total now 4/4) aura in a previous turn. The creature is attacking the opponent to win the game (opponent 3HP left). Can Annul (instant) be used to counter the Aura for the attacking turn thus leaving my opponent on 1hp?
    Thanks for any help.

    Tim.
    A card is a spell only while it is on the stack, the zone that nonland cards go through when cast, where they can be responded to (notably by things like Annul that counter spells) before resolving and, in the case of permanents such as enchantments, entering the battlefield. Once an enchantment spell has resolved and is an enchantment permanent on the battlefield, Annul can't do anything against it.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on About supertypes, types and subtypes
    We probably can't tell you much more here than what you've already read on Blogatog. That subtypes are tied to specific card types is rooted in the game's design and structure and has more ramifications than you seem to think, and it seems Wizards thinks changing that would be too profound a change and would cause too many issues, the least of which would be flavor nonsense (worse than what already exists) and balance problems. Possibly the most important thing is that some subtypes such as Aura and Equipment have rules attached to them that are incompatible with other card types.
    Quote from Oreth The Centaur »
    Suddenly your Mirror Entity might cause all your creatures to become Equipments enchanting themselves
    There are rules that specify a creature can't be attached to something else and that a permanent can't be attached to itself, thankfully.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Wording Improvise vs. Convoke
    The addendum to the comprehensive rules for Improvise isn't out yet, so we don't have the exact rules text, but everything we know indicates that the functionality is identical (except as you said that it's artifacts instead of creatures and it can only pay for the generic part of the card's cost). What you're quoting is reminder text (the italized text in parenthesis after the keyword). That's not the true rules text, that's a shortened explanation of what the keyword does that doesn't have to be comprehensive and exact in all ways, and that doesn't even have to appear on all cards with the keyword, they put such text when they have the room and they deem it useful enough. The difference between the two reminder texts here would simply be an attempted improvement over Convoke's reminder text, being both shorter and more efficient and mentioning the fact that tapping permanents that way is not the same as activating mana abilities and that it happens later in the casting process, something that was already true with Convoke since its reintroduction in M15.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Puca's Mischief and Dragon Tyrant
    Question asked, question answered. Locking this to avoid it going further into strategy discussion. Lock
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 1

    posted a message on Mindslaver Control
    Mindslaver's controller, so the player you donated it to, is the one who can activate its ability, they're the one who will then control the ability and choose its target and they're the one who'll get to control the target player. That you own Mindslaver and that it ends up in your graveyard when sacrificed is irrelevant.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Ceremonious Rejection
    Quote from treevamp »
    Quote from Artscrafter »

    To get the creature to be on the battlefield, your opponent has to first cast it. This involves announcing that they are playing the card and paying its cost. The card goes onto the stack, a zone where spells and abilities wait to resolve. Before it resolves, both players have the opportunity to respond to it by casting other spells (specifically instants or spells with flash) or activating abilities. It is at this point where you can respond by casting Ceremonious Rejection to counter it.

    In practice, your opponent will announce that they are playing the creature card, and you need to say that you are casting your counterapell at that time.

    Awesome, thank you all for clearing that up and for being patient with a noob like me. Related question: can Ceremonious Rejection destroy a vehicle like Fleetwheel Cruiser? If so, what difference does it make if the vehicle is crewed or un-crewed?
    Rejection can counter a colorless vehicle spell when it is cast, before it resolves and is on the battlefield. Rejection can't do anything to something that is already on the battlefield.

    For other cards that could affect it on the battlefield, the difference between "crewed" and "uncrewed" is that the vehicle is both an artifact and a creature with power and toughness in the former case, and just an artifact in the latter. It's vulnerable to more things as a creature: damage, effects that destroy creatures, etc., in addition to still being vulnerable to things that affect artifacts. For something that would care about color similar to Rejection, it stays colorless either way.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • 0

    posted a message on Stack rulings for Kozilek, Butcher of Truth.
    Sure, the sequence you describe could happen exactly that way. Objects on the stack resolve one at a time, and after one does, it is possible to cast or activate new stuff before the next object waiting on the stack resolves. So you can indeed use Phyrexian Reclamation, let that resolve, and then activate Stockpile with the other abilities still on the stack, which will trigger Kozilek a second time on top of it all and make you shuffle your graveyard in before it's exiled.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.