I just want to make sure the following 2 things work as expected.
1. I control a Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero and a Gadrak, the Crown-Scourge. My opponent controls 5 creatures. I cast Wrath of God and all 7 creatures go to the graveyard. Gerrard gets exiled, but Gadrak comes back. So 7 creatures have died this turn. Gadrak will make 7 treasures at the end of the turn, right? It doesn't matter that he was not continuously in play throughout the entire turn, right?
2. I control a Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero and an Aetherworks Marvel. I cast an Hour of Revelation. Gerrard dies, is exiled and Aetherworks comes back. Will I get the 2 energy counters from Gerrard and Aetherworks? Does Aetherworks "see" both itself and Gerrard hit the graveyard?
It's my understanding that if my Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero dies and I respond to his trigger by casting Brought Back targeting him, that he will return to the battlefield along with all artifact and creatures put into my graveyard from the battlefield this turn.
If so, I'm hoping that someone can explain why the rules allow this. Specifically, the part that is unclear to me is why the exile clause doesn't still hit him. Is it because the exile clause is somehow tied to the graveyard and only attempting to exile a Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero from the graveyard?
Thank you, HL, for answering the alt-right/alt-left question before I had a chance to. Alt-right is indeed a self-identifier. There is no group that identifies as the alt-left.
If anything, this thread demonstrates how very much we do not need Debate back.
There are undoubtedly serious problems with debate, especially the expectation that it's going to be moderated with an all-volunteer squad. But sometimes I wonder if the fact that there's a back and forth at all is considered to be part of the problem. I hope it's not.
It was very clear from the beginning of this thread that personal insults and slurs were not desired, nor would they be accepted. But the specific ban on 'alt-left' (preceded by the similar-ish specific ban on 'SJW') on the grounds that they are not self-identifiers is, I've gotta say, pretty odd.
They're not odd in a vacuum: the use of those phrases as insults directed at specific people is likely to sink a thread. But they're odd in context. The context being that you are posting front page articles about this same subject which hurl around 'Nazi' and talk about all of the fictitiously rampant Nazi sympathy that's supposed to exist here. We (likely) all agree that that is a terrible thing to be, and I hardly see why 'alt-left' would be worse simply because it's not a self-identifier. I'd rather be 'alt-left' than a Nazi.
Anyway, article vs. thread... two different things, you might say. But to me it seems like there might be a disconnect in the way the show's being run, that's all.
None of that is the problem that Christine has. The problem Christine has is that she has received death threats, and graphic messages about how people want to rape her. Of course she is going to express disgust at that. That sort of crap is not what any person should reasonably expect.
I'm confused as to why, when I was researching this, the complaints I was finding were about stuff like the gendered insult he made against her (which IMO was pretty cruel and not OK) and people being disgusted by the flip it or rip it game (which IMO is not even in the same stratosphere). It should be more clear that she was receiving death and rape threats because that's a whole different universe than even the gendered insult, let alone the flip it or rip it thing.
This makes it really simple. If you're sending someone death or rape threats, you're a criminal. If you're explicitly encouraging others to do it, you're a criminal. If you're implicitly encouraging others to do it, you're still pretty terrible.
Since TPTB are outlining all of the things this is NOT about: this is NOT about anyone needing to adopt 4th wave feminism or any of the other neo-marxist claptrap that they're going to try to shove down our throats. I say this is about whether we are going to tolerate someone threatening or encouraging others to threaten members of our community. We should also be asking ourselves how we can identify and shut down these situations more rapidly. That's my take, at least.
The thread is veering wildly off-course here. Please correct or we will have to lock it temporarily
Can we just get clear on one point? You want to discuss this situation, but during that discussion, we shouldn't reference the frontpage article on this site which is about this situation? I mean, I totally get that... it's conceivable that we could be urged to ignore that article, it's just a little confusing.
Earlier this year, neo-Nazis staged a tiki torch rally to bring attention to their racist and hateful cause of "Unite the Right" with such wonderful slogans as "sieg heil" and "blood and soil." Naturally, this sparked a little bit of controversy, as Nazis tend to do. One common theme, however, was for those identifying as right wing, especially Trump voters, to take an odd kind of personal offence to the backlash, as if an attack on Nazis is somehow an attack on them. A similar note of extreme defensiveness sprung up with Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus's marketing of "Make America Nazi-Free Again." The very same people who would happily shoot Nazis in Call of Duty: World War II get very anxious when the context is changed to killing Nazis on American soil.
It should go without saying that if you feel personally attacked when someone denounces the Nazis, you ought to take a good, hard, long look inside yourself to find out where that Nazi sympathy comes from. And then you kill it with fire from a good, old-fashioned, American-made M1A1 flamethrower, a fine weapon responsible for killing many Nazis in the actual World War II.
It absolutely is an attack on them. The "Make America Nazi Free Again" is such a bonk you on the head obvious allusion that you're either going to make that connection or you're going to have a migraine. Or both. It's honestly quite disgusting in its blatant exploitation.
Consider an alternative future where Bernie Sanders is elected and this emboldens a very small but vocal set of American communists. The right then moves to associate Bernie with communism, because that is a politically obvious move. What they hope to accomplish in this situation is to tarnish all support of Bernie or any policy that he holds with the communist label. As we mostly (but not fully, because there is an abundance of Marxist or quasi-Marxist sympathy in Hollywood and in the education system) consider communism to be cruel and evil and, as we now associate Bernie and his supporters with that, we begin to dehumanize them.
That is what's going on here and that's precisely what this game wishes to capitalize on. That is why it is such a despicable game.
If you feel that you can't comment on MTGSalvation without being singled out by the mods, ask yourself why that is.
If you find yourself feeling offended when the same call for introspection is repeated back at you, ask yourself why.
Yeah I dont get it, .0025% of the population is a member of the KKK and at the neo-nazi march in Charlotesville at most 500 people showed up and I have seen figures that put it as less then 200, yet somehow there is a Nazi epidemic.
PA didnt vote for Obama twice and then suddenly all of the white supremacist showed up and voted.
People need to get over losing an election.
The vast majority of the people have.
Also, this is not the point of the thread.
It sure seems like it is. We're not the ones writing these articles.
Look, you wanna talk about the man who holds the highest office in the States allegedly groping women and talk about how you think this fits in with a culture that doesn't respect women and here's a woman who wasn't respected, well... great. It feels a little disjointed but there's certainly some connection there. But if you also wanna bring Nazism into this and start associating a large group of people, many of whom explicitly condemn Nazism with that philosophy, yeah, that's political.
And it looks especially silly to go around talking about people being Nazis or having secret Nazi sympathies while you ban "SJW" as a pejorative because, gee, God forbid we offend someone with a really mean label like that.
Or MTGS could not do any of that and we could just talk about a woman who appears to have been mistreated and discuss the actions WoTC or we as individuals should take in response to that.
Earlier this year, neo-Nazis staged a tiki torch rally to bring attention to their racist and hateful cause of "Unite the Right" with such wonderful slogans as "sieg heil" and "blood and soil." Naturally, this sparked a little bit of controversy, as Nazis tend to do. One common theme, however, was for those identifying as right wing, especially Trump voters, to take an odd kind of personal offence to the backlash, as if an attack on Nazis is somehow an attack on them. A similar note of extreme defensiveness sprung up with Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus's marketing of "Make America Nazi-Free Again." The very same people who would happily shoot Nazis in Call of Duty: World War II get very anxious when the context is changed to killing Nazis on American soil.
It should go without saying that if you feel personally attacked when someone denounces the Nazis, you ought to take a good, hard, long look inside yourself to find out where that Nazi sympathy comes from. And then you kill it with fire from a good, old-fashioned, American-made M1A1 flamethrower, a fine weapon responsible for killing many Nazis in the actual World War II.
It absolutely is an attack on them. The "Make America Nazi Free Again" is such a bonk you on the head obvious allusion that you're either going to make that connection or you're going to have a migraine. Or both. It's honestly quite disgusting in its blatant exploitation.
Consider an alternative future where Bernie Sanders is elected and this emboldens a very small but vocal set of American communists. The right then moves to associate Bernie with communism, because that is a politically obvious move. What they hope to accomplish in this situation is to tarnish all support of Bernie or any policy that he holds with the communist label. As we mostly (but not fully, because there is an abundance of Marxist or quasi-Marxist sympathy in Hollywood and in the education system) consider communism to be cruel and evil and, as we now associate Bernie and his supporters with that, we begin to dehumanize them.
That is what's going on here and that's precisely what this game wishes to capitalize on. That is why it is such a despicable game.
If you feel that you can't comment on MTGSalvation without being singled out by the mods, ask yourself why that is.
If you find yourself feeling offended when the same call for introspection is repeated back at you, ask yourself why.
Oh God, I've been playing Magic wrong for about a decade. I get it now! Thanks everyone.
Quote from silentstormraider »
Items (read - spell/ability) on the stack resolve one at a time, not all at once.
I understood that they resolved one at a time and in order, but for some reason, I thought they did this in one big batch which was not something you could respond to once each player had passed once. So weird that I thought that.
This is a legal play. Your confusion seems to come from a misunderstanding of how items on the stack resolve. Something on the stack only resolves once each player has passed without doing anything and this must happen every time something resolves. So after the blue activated ability of Sydri resolves both players will once again be given the opportunity to activate more abilities or cast spells if they want.
But when we let the blue activation resolve, why doesn't the Caltrops damage resolve at that same time? In other words, how is Player B allowing the blue activation to resolve while keeping the Caltrops trigger on the stack? Once both players pass, doesn't everything left on the stack resolve?
I saw someone pull this off the other day and I'm confused as to how it works, so if anyone could offer a step by step explanation as to how the player did it then that would be much appreciated.
Player A attacked Player B with a bunch of creatures. Player B controlled a Caltrops and activated the blue activation on Sydri, Galvanic Genius to turn Caltrops into an artifact creature and also the white/black activation to give Caltrops deathtouch and lifelink. Then the damage resolved and since Caltrops had deathtouch, Player A's entire attacking army was destroyed.
What I don't understand is the order in which these activations go on the stack to make this happen. Player B seems to be using the blue activation as a response to Caltrops original trigger, but Player B seems to need to let the blue activation resolve before using the white/black activation - since Caltrops has to be a creature already before it can be targeted with the white/black activation. But if Player B lets the blue activation resolve, isn't he also allowing the original Caltrops trigger to resolve, thus making it irrelevant that Caltrops later gains deathtouch?
So can someone walk me through step by step how this is happening in a technical way? Or was it an illegal play? Thanks.
For Vein Drinker's activated ability, first Vein Drinker deals damage, then the target creature, rather than both dealing damage simultaneously, because there are two action verbs (here, both "deals") in two different places. Whether or not the word "then" appears in the ability is irrelevant here. In general, each instance of an action verb indicates a separate, sequential action (compare Vein Drinker with Char; under C.R. 608.2c, you "apply the rules of English to the text" of a spell when following its instructions; see also this thread).
It seems like both "draw" and "discard" are action verbs, but the card for some reason includes 'then.' Is it a style situation where including the 'then' is just simpler than saying "Draw 2 cards. Discard 2 cards."?
So, I learned today that when Vein Drinker activates its ability, it deals damage to the targeted creature first. The thing that's driving me crazy is that every time I read the text, I can't figure out how I'm supposed to reach that conclusion. I keep expecting see the word 'then' to start off the 2nd sentence but it's not there.
So the question is why is a 'then' not required here to indicate that Vein Drinker deals it damage first?
Also, from a rules perspective, what, if anything, would be different if there *was* a 'then' to lead off the 2nd sentence?
I just got an Amonkhet bundle pack. I think this is the new term for the old fat packs? Anyway, it comes with this short box inside it with a planeswalker symbol on the top. I believe that the box was empty. Might be a stupid question but what does anyone use this type of box for? It's not the size of the regular full-art box where you might put decks in it.
1. I control a Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero and a Gadrak, the Crown-Scourge. My opponent controls 5 creatures. I cast Wrath of God and all 7 creatures go to the graveyard. Gerrard gets exiled, but Gadrak comes back. So 7 creatures have died this turn. Gadrak will make 7 treasures at the end of the turn, right? It doesn't matter that he was not continuously in play throughout the entire turn, right?
2. I control a Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero and an Aetherworks Marvel. I cast an Hour of Revelation. Gerrard dies, is exiled and Aetherworks comes back. Will I get the 2 energy counters from Gerrard and Aetherworks? Does Aetherworks "see" both itself and Gerrard hit the graveyard?
If so, I'm hoping that someone can explain why the rules allow this. Specifically, the part that is unclear to me is why the exile clause doesn't still hit him. Is it because the exile clause is somehow tied to the graveyard and only attempting to exile a Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero from the graveyard?
There are undoubtedly serious problems with debate, especially the expectation that it's going to be moderated with an all-volunteer squad. But sometimes I wonder if the fact that there's a back and forth at all is considered to be part of the problem. I hope it's not.
It was very clear from the beginning of this thread that personal insults and slurs were not desired, nor would they be accepted. But the specific ban on 'alt-left' (preceded by the similar-ish specific ban on 'SJW') on the grounds that they are not self-identifiers is, I've gotta say, pretty odd.
They're not odd in a vacuum: the use of those phrases as insults directed at specific people is likely to sink a thread. But they're odd in context. The context being that you are posting front page articles about this same subject which hurl around 'Nazi' and talk about all of the fictitiously rampant Nazi sympathy that's supposed to exist here. We (likely) all agree that that is a terrible thing to be, and I hardly see why 'alt-left' would be worse simply because it's not a self-identifier. I'd rather be 'alt-left' than a Nazi.
Anyway, article vs. thread... two different things, you might say. But to me it seems like there might be a disconnect in the way the show's being run, that's all.
I'm confused as to why, when I was researching this, the complaints I was finding were about stuff like the gendered insult he made against her (which IMO was pretty cruel and not OK) and people being disgusted by the flip it or rip it game (which IMO is not even in the same stratosphere). It should be more clear that she was receiving death and rape threats because that's a whole different universe than even the gendered insult, let alone the flip it or rip it thing.
This makes it really simple. If you're sending someone death or rape threats, you're a criminal. If you're explicitly encouraging others to do it, you're a criminal. If you're implicitly encouraging others to do it, you're still pretty terrible.
Since TPTB are outlining all of the things this is NOT about: this is NOT about anyone needing to adopt 4th wave feminism or any of the other neo-marxist claptrap that they're going to try to shove down our throats. I say this is about whether we are going to tolerate someone threatening or encouraging others to threaten members of our community. We should also be asking ourselves how we can identify and shut down these situations more rapidly. That's my take, at least.
Can we just get clear on one point? You want to discuss this situation, but during that discussion, we shouldn't reference the frontpage article on this site which is about this situation? I mean, I totally get that... it's conceivable that we could be urged to ignore that article, it's just a little confusing.
It sure seems like it is. We're not the ones writing these articles.
Look, you wanna talk about the man who holds the highest office in the States allegedly groping women and talk about how you think this fits in with a culture that doesn't respect women and here's a woman who wasn't respected, well... great. It feels a little disjointed but there's certainly some connection there. But if you also wanna bring Nazism into this and start associating a large group of people, many of whom explicitly condemn Nazism with that philosophy, yeah, that's political.
And it looks especially silly to go around talking about people being Nazis or having secret Nazi sympathies while you ban "SJW" as a pejorative because, gee, God forbid we offend someone with a really mean label like that.
Or MTGS could not do any of that and we could just talk about a woman who appears to have been mistreated and discuss the actions WoTC or we as individuals should take in response to that.
It absolutely is an attack on them. The "Make America Nazi Free Again" is such a bonk you on the head obvious allusion that you're either going to make that connection or you're going to have a migraine. Or both. It's honestly quite disgusting in its blatant exploitation.
Consider an alternative future where Bernie Sanders is elected and this emboldens a very small but vocal set of American communists. The right then moves to associate Bernie with communism, because that is a politically obvious move. What they hope to accomplish in this situation is to tarnish all support of Bernie or any policy that he holds with the communist label. As we mostly (but not fully, because there is an abundance of Marxist or quasi-Marxist sympathy in Hollywood and in the education system) consider communism to be cruel and evil and, as we now associate Bernie and his supporters with that, we begin to dehumanize them.
That is what's going on here and that's precisely what this game wishes to capitalize on. That is why it is such a despicable game.
If you find yourself feeling offended when the same call for introspection is repeated back at you, ask yourself why.
I understood that they resolved one at a time and in order, but for some reason, I thought they did this in one big batch which was not something you could respond to once each player had passed once. So weird that I thought that.
But when we let the blue activation resolve, why doesn't the Caltrops damage resolve at that same time? In other words, how is Player B allowing the blue activation to resolve while keeping the Caltrops trigger on the stack? Once both players pass, doesn't everything left on the stack resolve?
Player A attacked Player B with a bunch of creatures. Player B controlled a Caltrops and activated the blue activation on Sydri, Galvanic Genius to turn Caltrops into an artifact creature and also the white/black activation to give Caltrops deathtouch and lifelink. Then the damage resolved and since Caltrops had deathtouch, Player A's entire attacking army was destroyed.
What I don't understand is the order in which these activations go on the stack to make this happen. Player B seems to be using the blue activation as a response to Caltrops original trigger, but Player B seems to need to let the blue activation resolve before using the white/black activation - since Caltrops has to be a creature already before it can be targeted with the white/black activation. But if Player B lets the blue activation resolve, isn't he also allowing the original Caltrops trigger to resolve, thus making it irrelevant that Caltrops later gains deathtouch?
So can someone walk me through step by step how this is happening in a technical way? Or was it an illegal play? Thanks.
Thank you. I see the difference between something like Vein Drinker and Char, as you pointed out. But how would Vein Drinker differ from something like, say, Faithless Looting?
It seems like both "draw" and "discard" are action verbs, but the card for some reason includes 'then.' Is it a style situation where including the 'then' is just simpler than saying "Draw 2 cards. Discard 2 cards."?
So, I learned today that when Vein Drinker activates its ability, it deals damage to the targeted creature first. The thing that's driving me crazy is that every time I read the text, I can't figure out how I'm supposed to reach that conclusion. I keep expecting see the word 'then' to start off the 2nd sentence but it's not there.
So the question is why is a 'then' not required here to indicate that Vein Drinker deals it damage first?
Also, from a rules perspective, what, if anything, would be different if there *was* a 'then' to lead off the 2nd sentence?