This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Cranial Insertion: Leftovers Potluck. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO "I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
Since i cant be going to Worlds, I must Congraulate Both Aaron and Carsten, for a job well done... Also, Wicked last name Aaron
But to stay on topic
Q: If I Skyscribing for 23 while my opponent and I both have fewer than 20 cards in our library, who wins?
A: Me.
Because neither of you sure win. You both died to the happy little state-based effect that says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Happiest Little State-Based Effect 420.5g A player who attempted to draw a card from an empty library since the last time state-based effects were checked loses the game.
Card draws are never simultaneous, but state-based effects are. Both of you fall under this one, so both of you lose the game at the same time, which means the game's a draw.
I thought State Based effects were checked after every phase or action, so in my case SBE's would be checked after Each card drawn, and it should resolve in APNAP order. why this? from what i understood, APNAP is how everything between players is handled, including the 5 turn rule.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ravarshi Kashaku, Ancient Dragon of the Darkened Realms;
The Merciless Lord of Torture, Permanently Bound To: ">[THE PACK] 11/5/63 - 11/25/09 Goodbye mom, i'll always love you...
Since i cant be going to Worlds, I must Congraulate Both Aaron and Carsten, for a job well done... Also, Wicked last name Aaron
But to stay on topic
I thought State Based effects were checked after every phase or action, so in my case SBE's would be checked after Each card drawn,
State-based effects are checked immediately before any player would gain priority. Since players don't gain priority during the resolution of a spell or ability, SBEs aren't checked until Skyscribing has completely finished resolving and is in its owner's graveyard.
and it should resolve in APNAP order. why this? from what i understood, APNAP is how everything between players is handled, including the 5 turn rule.
"APNAP" applies when multiple triggered abilities need to go on the stack simultaneously, or when something requires both players to make a choice. "APNAP" is never used when applying state-based effects; if multiple state-based effects need to be processed, they are always done simultaneously.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Q: What's the difference between ... "each" and "all" on some effects?
A: English. You can point out some definite patterns in the templating and language usage, but as far as the rules care, there is absolutely zero difference between ... "each" and "all."
"Each" and "all" comes down to just how English works and which sounds nicer, though there are some precedents for certain kinds of effects to use one or the other.
Well...., not quite. There is a differences, although often they won't matter, and sometimes the wrong word gets used. "All" means "every one, considered as a group" and "each" means "every one, considered individually."
The difference really doesn't matter to something like "destroy all creatures," although technically that means it is one effect applied to N creatures, and is probably incorrect. "All creatures able to block Taunting Elf do so" really should be "each," since you actually need to count the "must block" effects in some circumstances. This type of thing covers most of the times they get it wrong. You won't, for example, see "[something] does 2 damage to all creatures" since that would mean a total of 2 damage split between all creatures. And that pretty well illustrates the difference.
Also, thanks to you and everybody else that voted for me. I'm a little disappointed that I didn't win, but am proud of how close I came. The silver lining is that I have more spare time to spend answering questions in the Rulings forum. That is, until Moko decides to have me for dinner...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.
I felt like the follow-up question about countering the oblivion ring could have gone into more detail about the priority passing and order of events that is required to pull it off.
Q: Can I counter my own Oblivion Ring instead of removing something?
A: Sure, that's an option.
I omit the flavour sentence...
Outside of the context of the question before it, this provides an incorrect answer and only helps feed the misconceptions about Oblivion Ring.
The next sentence definitely needed to outline how you still have the priority to do that.
I'm sure the way that would happen in game is
A "O ring your dude."
B "Call to heel him."
A "Oh, then I cancel it"
B "Huh...?"
So has O-ring resolved and B is responding to the trigger, or is O-ring on the stack and A has simply announced his intent?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Rancored_Elf »
Welcome to the club of fans that have been attacked by the game they love most.
I'm sure the way that would happen in game is
A "O ring your dude."
B "Call to heel him."
A "Oh, then I cancel it"
B "Huh...?"
So has O-ring resolved and B is responding to the trigger, or is O-ring on the stack and A has simply announced his intent?
Actually, what should happen is this:
A "O ring your dude."
B "Call to heel him."
A "Oh, then I cancel it"
B "Judge!"
And then it's a matter of the judge figuring out at what point B intended to play Call to Heel: in response to the Ring, or in response to the CIP ability. It's likely that he meant the latter, but the judge will have to investigate to determine whether that's actually case. (And if it is, then the Ring has resolved a long time ago and clearly it can't be cancelled.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.
So has O-ring resolved and B is responding to the trigger, or is O-ring on the stack and A has simply announced his intent?
Presuming that the opponent responded to the spell and that the "intended target" was an announcement made well before the comes-into-play ability triggered, then Oblivion Ring is still on the stack. That's at least what I read the scenario to be in the article. Of course, it is possible that the player did "respond" when the comes-into-play ability was put onto the stack, but the action described in the article described that the opponent's action was taken at his or her earliest opportunity, which is just after Oblivion Ring was actually played. I'd agree with Carsten that a follow-up question or two would be well advised, just to ensure the description of the actions taken is accurate in order to nail down that timing.
Many congratulations to Aaron for being selected as the new writer! I think Carsten did a great job as well, and I think easily proves that both would be equally good additions to the CI team.
I, too, offer high praise to Carsten, who's obviously a great writer, as well as a worthy opponent.
Many thanks to to all those who voted, as well as everyone who offered constructive feedback in the forums. As a writer, I need criticism, no matter how much I dislike it.
In my defense, however, I submit that it's easy to make an incorrect determination of gender when given an image less than two inches across that lacks the more obvious anatomical characteristics. But, yes, Ethersworn Canonist is a woman.
There are a couple of other rules about representation of cards; specifically, face down things are face down, and tapped things are turned sideways. Not too sure about flipped, but I know for sure that those two are in the CR.
Q: I play Magma Spray targeting a Murderous Redcap that has not persisted. In response, they Shock it. It comes back into play. Can I Swerve the Magma Spray to the "new" Redcap, even though the Spray doesn't technically have a single target anymore?
A: You've got it a little backwards – the Spray does technically have a single target, even though it looks like it doesn't! That single target is "the Murderous Redcap that was standing right there a second ago but is now gone." The target is nonexistent, but it's still the target, so Swerve away.
wouldnt state based effects counter magma spray because it has no legal targts after the shock resolves?
wouldnt state based effects counter magma spray because it has no legal targts after the shock resolves?
No. State-based effects are not responsible for countering spells that have lost all of their targets. Fizzling, aka countering on resolution, happens when the spell tries to resolve. After Shock resolves, both players receive priority again before Magma Spray resolves. That gives the player the opportunity to Swerve Magma Spray onto the persisted Redcap.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.
I'm pretty sure prophecy isn't supposed to occupy every image slot in the entire article. Although it does make for some rather entertaining captions. We can see you Ihsan's Shade!
I'm pretty sure prophecy isn't supposed to occupy every image slot in the entire article. Although it does make for some rather entertaining captions. We can see you Ihsan's Shade!
Of course it is supposed to ! That's called a running gag, and I liked it a lot.:)
Q: Does the second player take all his mulligans after the first, or do you go back and forth?
A: Some rumor about this has propagated quite a bit; let's jump up and down on it until it dies.
You can see the mulligan rules in section 114 of the Magic Floor Rules and 101.4 of the Comprehensive Rules. Both of these documents agree: the first player takes mulligans until he keeps, and then the second player takes all of his mulligans. There is no back-and-forth.
However, if the second player chooses to perform a mulligan while waiting for the first player to complete his, no one's going to argue.
Should the rules change to enforce back-and-forth mulligans, you'll find that in the MFR and/or CR – updates to the MFR are made every third month (including today!), and the CR with each set, and Yawgatog tracks updates to these documents on his Resources page. Look for these documents to change if you think something's changed; the changes won't first be announced by the coverage team or some random pro player.
Ok, so the mulligan rules really didn't change this year ? Man, the rumor of a change must have gone a long way for the Head Judge at Canadian Nationals to enforce a change ! What he told us is this : from now on, both players should announce first whether they're gonna take a mulligan (the decision being taken in the same order as before, though) and then if both choose to do so, the mulligans are done simultaneously. Rince, repeat until everyone is happy with his/her hand. It made sense to me, and after that I've been teaching that new rule to all players in my area :xd:. I mean, it was the Head Judge at Canadian Nationals ! How could I not believe him ? The worst part is I read the Floor Rules a few weeks later, didn't see the change written, and thought : "ah, it's not updated yet !". Dumb me !
I, too, offer high praise to Carsten, who's obviously a great writer, as well as a worthy opponent.
Many thanks to to all those who voted, as well as everyone who offered constructive feedback in the forums. As a writer, I need criticism, no matter how much I dislike it.
In my defense, however, I submit that it's easy to make an incorrect determination of gender when given an image less than two inches across that lacks the more obvious anatomical characteristics. But, yes, Ethersworn Canonist is a woman.
- Aaron "Rutabaga" Stevenson
Congratulations to you for getting the job and to Carsten for getting so close. As I said last week, even if I voted for him, it was too close for me to mind much about who would win anyway, and that you took the time to answer my concern about Ethersworn Cannonist's gender further convinces me that you'll do great and watch for those small mistakes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
Ok, so the mulligan rules really didn't change this year ?
If I remember correctly (and that's a big if considering that I'm having difficulty remembering what I had for dinner yesterday), there was some event in the not-so-distant past during which a suggested change to the mulligan rule was tested. The actual rule has not changed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.
Correct, it was tested at Canadian Nationals (I can't speak for elsewhere). More than one judge leaving that event thought it was an actual change however, so I suspect the "testing" part was not communicated well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Rancored_Elf »
Welcome to the club of fans that have been attacked by the game they love most.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO
"I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
But to stay on topic
I thought State Based effects were checked after every phase or action, so in my case SBE's would be checked after Each card drawn, and it should resolve in APNAP order. why this? from what i understood, APNAP is how everything between players is handled, including the 5 turn rule.
The Merciless Lord of Torture, Permanently Bound To: ">[THE PACK] 11/5/63 - 11/25/09 Goodbye mom, i'll always love you...
Tibalt & His Devils vs. Avacyn's Inquisitors
My EDH decklists
State-based effects are checked immediately before any player would gain priority. Since players don't gain priority during the resolution of a spell or ability, SBEs aren't checked until Skyscribing has completely finished resolving and is in its owner's graveyard.
"APNAP" applies when multiple triggered abilities need to go on the stack simultaneously, or when something requires both players to make a choice. "APNAP" is never used when applying state-based effects; if multiple state-based effects need to be processed, they are always done simultaneously.
Well...., not quite. There is a differences, although often they won't matter, and sometimes the wrong word gets used. "All" means "every one, considered as a group" and "each" means "every one, considered individually."
The difference really doesn't matter to something like "destroy all creatures," although technically that means it is one effect applied to N creatures, and is probably incorrect. "All creatures able to block Taunting Elf do so" really should be "each," since you actually need to count the "must block" effects in some circumstances. This type of thing covers most of the times they get it wrong. You won't, for example, see "[something] does 2 damage to all creatures" since that would mean a total of 2 damage split between all creatures. And that pretty well illustrates the difference.
Thanks
Also, thanks to you and everybody else that voted for me. I'm a little disappointed that I didn't win, but am proud of how close I came. The silver lining is that I have more spare time to spend answering questions in the Rulings forum. That is, until Moko decides to have me for dinner...
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.
I omit the flavour sentence...
Outside of the context of the question before it, this provides an incorrect answer and only helps feed the misconceptions about Oblivion Ring.
The next sentence definitely needed to outline how you still have the priority to do that.
I'm sure the way that would happen in game is
A "O ring your dude."
B "Call to heel him."
A "Oh, then I cancel it"
B "Huh...?"
So has O-ring resolved and B is responding to the trigger, or is O-ring on the stack and A has simply announced his intent?
Actually, what should happen is this:
A "O ring your dude."
B "Call to heel him."
A "Oh, then I cancel it"
B "Judge!"
And then it's a matter of the judge figuring out at what point B intended to play Call to Heel: in response to the Ring, or in response to the CIP ability. It's likely that he meant the latter, but the judge will have to investigate to determine whether that's actually case. (And if it is, then the Ring has resolved a long time ago and clearly it can't be cancelled.)
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.
Presuming that the opponent responded to the spell and that the "intended target" was an announcement made well before the comes-into-play ability triggered, then Oblivion Ring is still on the stack. That's at least what I read the scenario to be in the article. Of course, it is possible that the player did "respond" when the comes-into-play ability was put onto the stack, but the action described in the article described that the opponent's action was taken at his or her earliest opportunity, which is just after Oblivion Ring was actually played. I'd agree with Carsten that a follow-up question or two would be well advised, just to ensure the description of the actions taken is accurate in order to nail down that timing.
Many congratulations to Aaron for being selected as the new writer! I think Carsten did a great job as well, and I think easily proves that both would be equally good additions to the CI team.
Many thanks to to all those who voted, as well as everyone who offered constructive feedback in the forums. As a writer, I need criticism, no matter how much I dislike it.
In my defense, however, I submit that it's easy to make an incorrect determination of gender when given an image less than two inches across that lacks the more obvious anatomical characteristics. But, yes, Ethersworn Canonist is a woman.
- Aaron "Rutabaga" Stevenson
wouldnt state based effects counter magma spray because it has no legal targts after the shock resolves?
No. State-based effects are not responsible for countering spells that have lost all of their targets. Fizzling, aka countering on resolution, happens when the spell tries to resolve. After Shock resolves, both players receive priority again before Magma Spray resolves. That gives the player the opportunity to Swerve Magma Spray onto the persisted Redcap.
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffOf course it is supposed to ! That's called a running gag, and I liked it a lot.:)
Ok, so the mulligan rules really didn't change this year ? Man, the rumor of a change must have gone a long way for the Head Judge at Canadian Nationals to enforce a change ! What he told us is this : from now on, both players should announce first whether they're gonna take a mulligan (the decision being taken in the same order as before, though) and then if both choose to do so, the mulligans are done simultaneously. Rince, repeat until everyone is happy with his/her hand. It made sense to me, and after that I've been teaching that new rule to all players in my area :xd:. I mean, it was the Head Judge at Canadian Nationals ! How could I not believe him ? The worst part is I read the Floor Rules a few weeks later, didn't see the change written, and thought : "ah, it's not updated yet !". Dumb me !
Congratulations to you for getting the job and to Carsten for getting so close. As I said last week, even if I voted for him, it was too close for me to mind much about who would win anyway, and that you took the time to answer my concern about Ethersworn Cannonist's gender further convinces me that you'll do great and watch for those small mistakes.
If I remember correctly (and that's a big if considering that I'm having difficulty remembering what I had for dinner yesterday), there was some event in the not-so-distant past during which a suggested change to the mulligan rule was tested. The actual rule has not changed.
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.