Sooooo, couldn't find it anymore but today I saw a tweet from Gavin talking about the most damage that could be dealt in three cards excluding infinite combos.
Essentially, if I am following this properly, you Twinflame on Modrak. Legendary rule wipes one. Then Ratadabik triggers and wants to give you one back. Then Modrak's triggers and gives you 2 tokens instead. From here, I believe you activate the ability of Modrak, sacrificing the other two tokens. Ratadabik triggers and wants to give you back 2 tokens. Then the remaining Modrak triggers and gives you 4 instead.
From here you would rinse and repeat. And as more nonlegendary copies of Modrak remain on the battlefield, they increase the token yield you get.
Having 20 life you would be able to do this combo 4 times, leaving you with 4 life, and costing you 5R. However, it appeared as though it was suggested that the token yield you get as the abilities stack is exponential. Meaning if you have three Modrak stacking, it's calculated as 2³ . Back in the day, you used to be able to stack lifelink, but the instances are added together and are not exponential. If you have three instances of lifelink, and deal 1 damage, you get 3 life (1+1+1).
With three instances on the stack, the formula for Modrak's ability should look like: x(2) + x(2) + x(2) = x(6) // and not 2³ = x(8)
What am I missing here that you don't end up with 27 damage? But somehow end up with an exponential amount more? Why is the game handling the stack of ability as exponential and not additional?
Mondrak's first ability creates a replacement effect. The interaction of replacement effects is described in rule 616. When an event the replacement effect cares about would happen, the affected permanent's controller or the affected player chooses one to apply, applies it, then chooses the next to apply from the still applicable effects as well as the now applicable effects, applies it, and so on until no effects are applicable anymore. That's how you end up with exponential numbers: 1 becomes 2 through the first effect, becomes 4 through the second, becomes 8 through the third, and so on. And only after all the modfications to the event have been processed does the event actually happen.
So in Mondrak's case, you start with the event of creating one Mondrak token from Twinflame's resolution. The original and thus far only Mondrak already on the field gives one replacement effect for that, making Twinflame create two tokens instead. The tokens are legendary, so the legend rule applies, which kills two of the Mondraks (preferably you keep the original). This triggers Ratadrabik twice. With one Mondrak remaining on the field, the first trigger creates 2 nonlegendary Mondrak tokens. This makes 3 Mondraks on the field when the second trigger resolves. So 1 token becomes 2 becomes 4 becomes 8 additional nonlegendary Mondrak tokens. So already you have one legendary 4/4 Mondrak and 10 nonlegendary 2/2 Mondrak tokens. Activating a token once by sacrificing the legendary Mondrak and Ratadrabik makes the later trigger once. That trigger will now have 10 instances of Mondrak's replacement effect applying to it. Applying them one after the other as per the rules gives another 1248163264128256512 1024 nonlegendary 2/2 Mondrak tokens. For a total of now 1034 Mondraks on the field. And the fact that they are copies of the Twinflame copies of Mondrak, which modified the copy effect to give the tokens haste as part of their copiable values, means that those 1034 2/2 Mondrak tokens all have haste. And you don't even have to exile them in your end step, because they were not created by Twinflame.
Actual triggered ability and replacement effect aside, I realize this application is entirely at the discretion of Wizards. If Lifelink was "causes you to gain twice that much life", you will still have 2+2+2=6 life from 1 damage. But here, it's obviously suggested that you gain 2 life, then 2 life, then 2 life. While it seems like the game creates an invisible cache, to stack the instances in exponentials, instead of supplication (which it could also do for instances of the same ability).
No, if an effect reads "if you would gain life, gain twice as much life instead", that, too, would result in exponential growth. Because that would be a replacement effect. In fact, such cards exists, and they do work like that (Alhammarret's Archive, Boon Reflection). But they do need a life gain event to start with. Lifelink as it is now, causes that life gain event, it is not a replacement effect affecting such. Multiple life gain events are just that, and they are cummulative. Replacing that life gain with twice as much is exponential. Same goes for multiples of abilities, they are creating multiple events, not replacing one with more effect.
If the wording wasn't a replacement effect though, and was a state-based effect such as lifelink is worded;
D-lifelink (Damage dealt by this creature also causes you to gain twice that much life.)
Then say, D-lifelink could stack; and we have three instances;
A single instance of 1 damage has three instances of D-lifelink, all three gotta be applied for the single instance of damage;
We would end up with x(2) + x(2) + x(2) = L, would we not? The game would choose supplication.
Because that's what it currently does.
702.15e If multiple sources with lifelink deal damage at the same time, they cause separate life gain events (see rules 119.9–10).
But here we have a single instance of token generation, for three replacement effects, and the game chooses exponential multiplication instead; despite being the same universal engagement. And justifies the choice by the fact of it being a "replacement effect", loosely referencing to the comp ruling; yet the nature of this "replacement effect" is the same as a "state-based effect"; yet I think we can agree the game would likely choose supplication there.
This is kind of what had me scratching my head. It seems like the game could choose supplication for these stacked effects, but intentionally doesn't (for simplicity?). Yet it would do exactly that, where the engagement is the same, yet selection of the math module becomes different for no explained reason.
The wording of your D-lifelink only influences the results of damage, it does not influence the other D-lifelink effects. They reference only that initial damage, which doesn't change with the application of a D-lifelink effect. So, you get a simply multiplication of damage times number of D-lifelink effects.
With Mondrak's effect you only change the number of tokens being created, but you still end with a single modified event that creates a number of tokens. The next Mondrak effect cannot reference the original event because that event isn't about to happen anymore. There is only one event about to happen, the one with the modified number of tokens. So that is the event that the effect is going to modify, doubling the number of tokens again. Yes, it could have been made to reference the original number from the original event, but then multiples of the effect would do nothing at all (it's already doubled). Which is a choice the rules team could have made, but didn't. They chose an improved combined effect, and with the rules as they are, that combined effect can only be exponential. There is no supplication possible with the rules as they are.
(What constistutes an event depends on the effects looking for them. Something happening can be seen by one effect as a single event, while another effect can see it as multiple events. The condition for the effect defines the event it's looking for.)
I see what you mean, the effect melds into one another; as a replacement effect it replaces the original instance.
token > twice token
token > twice token > twice token
token > twice token > quad token
Influencing the result of a single token creation.
But in the D-lifelink event, you do have a single instance of damage, yet the game creates a rule to apply them individually. Instead of using the same rule that the game uses to exponent them. It's literally the same context "twice that much of". I think the application of the word 'instead' wants to create an illusion that a different function is happening, when it is actually the engagement (a change or result, a crescendo (stacking abilities), from a single source instance).
If the game has a rule that divides effects individually, then it should also have a rule that supplicates the replacements effects so that their combined effects are calculated with the same module.
Thus, it should have a rule that facilitates the multiple instances as (to match that it divides them into single instances for the same reason of purpose/result);
In your D-lifelink example, you are not doubling the actual damage, you are referencing the damage to gain twice as much life. Then what does the next instance do? Answer: it references the damage and gains you twice as much life. Same with the next instance, and so on. Which lead to
damage
-> damage and gain twice as much life as that damage
-> damage and gain twice as much life as that damage and gain twice as much life as that damage
-> damage and gain twice as much life as that damage and gain twice as much life as that damage and gain twice as much life as that damage
-> etc.
The referenced number (the damage dealt) does not change with the application of the effect, the damage is simply expanded upon with some life gain based on the damage number. You are not changing the amount of damage, nor do you change the amount of life gained from the previous effect.
If, otoh, you actually doubled the damage dealt (Furnace of Rath), you'd be changing the amount of damage being dealt, and as that is what the life gain references, the life gained would also be doubled. The Furnace's effect is exponential in multiples, just like Mondrak's tokens, your D-lifelink is not.
For exclusivity , the game is choosing to use different math modules to facilitate the multiple instances. To differentiate between the functionality of a "state based effect" and a "replacement effect"—and set them apart as unique. And this would explain why the engagement handling isn't universal for multiple instances of the same effect (such as by using the same math module).
Yet this brings up a bigger question as to why a "replacement effect" is being supplicated (exponenated), when it should be entirely replacing an effect in whole. Whereas we have a state based effect that is being replaced, despite this being opposite of the suggested functionality/uniqueness/exclusivity of a state-based effect (singular effects intended to be supplicated upon one another—or one after the next—without replacing anything).
702.15f Multiple instances of lifelink on the same object are redundant.
This would suggest multiple instances of the same replacement effect should be redundant; because they entirely replace the last instance (unless stated otherwise of course).
702.15f Multiple instances of lifelink on the same object are redundant.
This would suggest multiple instances of the same replacement effect should be redundant; because they entirely replace the last instance (unless stated otherwise of course).
That quote only implies that multiple instances of Lifelink are redundant. You aren't meant to extrapolate anything from it. It's clear-cut. If it was meant to imply what you claim it would instead say "multiple instances of the same replacement effect are redundant" but it doesn't because they are not.
This is like reading the mathematical proof that all squares are rectangles and assuming that all rectangles must be squares. The first part only meant the first part, you shouldn't assume extra.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The combo in question was: Mondrak, Glory Dominus + Twinflame + Ratadabik of Urborg
Essentially, if I am following this properly, you Twinflame on Modrak. Legendary rule wipes one. Then Ratadabik triggers and wants to give you one back. Then Modrak's triggers and gives you 2 tokens instead. From here, I believe you activate the ability of Modrak, sacrificing the other two tokens. Ratadabik triggers and wants to give you back 2 tokens. Then the remaining Modrak triggers and gives you 4 instead.
From here you would rinse and repeat. And as more nonlegendary copies of Modrak remain on the battlefield, they increase the token yield you get.
Having 20 life you would be able to do this combo 4 times, leaving you with 4 life, and costing you 5R. However, it appeared as though it was suggested that the token yield you get as the abilities stack is exponential. Meaning if you have three Modrak stacking, it's calculated as 2³ . Back in the day, you used to be able to stack lifelink, but the instances are added together and are not exponential. If you have three instances of lifelink, and deal 1 damage, you get 3 life (1+1+1).
With three instances on the stack, the formula for Modrak's ability should look like: x(2) + x(2) + x(2) = x(6)
//and not 2³ = x(8)What am I missing here that you don't end up with 27 damage? But somehow end up with an exponential amount more? Why is the game handling the stack of ability as exponential and not additional?
So in Mondrak's case, you start with the event of creating one Mondrak token from Twinflame's resolution. The original and thus far only Mondrak already on the field gives one replacement effect for that, making Twinflame create two tokens instead. The tokens are legendary, so the legend rule applies, which kills two of the Mondraks (preferably you keep the original). This triggers Ratadrabik twice. With one Mondrak remaining on the field, the first trigger creates 2 nonlegendary Mondrak tokens. This makes 3 Mondraks on the field when the second trigger resolves. So 1 token becomes 2 becomes 4 becomes 8 additional nonlegendary Mondrak tokens. So already you have one legendary 4/4 Mondrak and 10 nonlegendary 2/2 Mondrak tokens. Activating a token once by sacrificing the legendary Mondrak and Ratadrabik makes the later trigger once. That trigger will now have 10 instances of Mondrak's replacement effect applying to it. Applying them one after the other as per the rules gives another
12481632641282565121024 nonlegendary 2/2 Mondrak tokens. For a total of now 1034 Mondraks on the field. And the fact that they are copies of the Twinflame copies of Mondrak, which modified the copy effect to give the tokens haste as part of their copiable values, means that those 1034 2/2 Mondrak tokens all have haste. And you don't even have to exile them in your end step, because they were not created by Twinflame.Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
Actual triggered ability and replacement effect aside, I realize this application is entirely at the discretion of Wizards. If Lifelink was "causes you to gain twice that much life", you will still have 2+2+2=6 life from 1 damage. But here, it's obviously suggested that you gain 2 life, then 2 life, then 2 life. While it seems like the game creates an invisible cache, to stack the instances in exponentials, instead of supplication (which it could also do for instances of the same ability).
Rampage 1 >> Rampage 2 >>> Rampage 3
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
D-lifelink (Damage dealt by this creature also causes you to gain twice that much life.)
Then say, D-lifelink could stack; and we have three instances;
A single instance of 1 damage has three instances of D-lifelink, all three gotta be applied for the single instance of damage;
We would end up with x(2) + x(2) + x(2) = L, would we not? The game would choose supplication.
Because that's what it currently does.
But here we have a single instance of token generation, for three replacement effects, and the game chooses exponential multiplication instead; despite being the same universal engagement. And justifies the choice by the fact of it being a "replacement effect", loosely referencing to the comp ruling; yet the nature of this "replacement effect" is the same as a "state-based effect"; yet I think we can agree the game would likely choose supplication there.
This is kind of what had me scratching my head. It seems like the game could choose supplication for these stacked effects, but intentionally doesn't (for simplicity?). Yet it would do exactly that, where the engagement is the same, yet selection of the math module becomes different for no explained reason.
With Mondrak's effect you only change the number of tokens being created, but you still end with a single modified event that creates a number of tokens. The next Mondrak effect cannot reference the original event because that event isn't about to happen anymore. There is only one event about to happen, the one with the modified number of tokens. So that is the event that the effect is going to modify, doubling the number of tokens again. Yes, it could have been made to reference the original number from the original event, but then multiples of the effect would do nothing at all (it's already doubled). Which is a choice the rules team could have made, but didn't. They chose an improved combined effect, and with the rules as they are, that combined effect can only be exponential. There is no supplication possible with the rules as they are.
(What constistutes an event depends on the effects looking for them. Something happening can be seen by one effect as a single event, while another effect can see it as multiple events. The condition for the effect defines the event it's looking for.)
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
token > twice token
token> twice token > twice tokentoken>twice token> quad tokenInfluencing the result of a single token creation.
But in the D-lifelink event, you do have a single instance of damage, yet the game creates a rule to apply them individually. Instead of using the same rule that the game uses to exponent them. It's literally the same context "twice that much of". I think the application of the word 'instead' wants to create an illusion that a different function is happening, when it is actually the engagement (a change or result, a crescendo (stacking abilities), from a single source instance).
If the game has a rule that divides effects individually, then it should also have a rule that supplicates the replacements effects so that their combined effects are calculated with the same module.
Thus, it should have a rule that facilitates the multiple instances as (to match that it divides them into single instances for the same reason of purpose/result);
x(2) + x(2) + x(2) = r
damage
-> damage and gain twice as much life as that damage
-> damage and gain twice as much life as that damage and gain twice as much life as that damage
-> damage and gain twice as much life as that damage and gain twice as much life as that damage and gain twice as much life as that damage
-> etc.
The referenced number (the damage dealt) does not change with the application of the effect, the damage is simply expanded upon with some life gain based on the damage number. You are not changing the amount of damage, nor do you change the amount of life gained from the previous effect.
If, otoh, you actually doubled the damage dealt (Furnace of Rath), you'd be changing the amount of damage being dealt, and as that is what the life gain references, the life gained would also be doubled. The Furnace's effect is exponential in multiples, just like Mondrak's tokens, your D-lifelink is not.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
For exclusivity , the game is choosing to use different math modules to facilitate the multiple instances. To differentiate between the functionality of a "state based effect" and a "replacement effect"—and set them apart as unique. And this would explain why the engagement handling isn't universal for multiple instances of the same effect (such as by using the same math module).
Yet this brings up a bigger question as to why a "replacement effect" is being supplicated (exponenated), when it should be entirely replacing an effect in whole. Whereas we have a state based effect that is being replaced, despite this being opposite of the suggested functionality/uniqueness/exclusivity of a state-based effect (singular effects intended to be supplicated upon one another—or one after the next—without replacing anything).
This would suggest multiple instances of the same replacement effect should be redundant; because they entirely replace the last instance (unless stated otherwise of course).
single token>> twice tokentwice token>>> twice tokenThe physics module seems to be going in reverse.
Thanks for the clarification though.
This is like reading the mathematical proof that all squares are rectangles and assuming that all rectangles must be squares. The first part only meant the first part, you shouldn't assume extra.