Epeeguy is mailing the rules list, we should get a final answer on how to rule it in a few days, hopefully one that goes by future rules so we won't have to flipflop on the answer in a month if it changes. 8) (To clarify for those who aren't well-versed in MTGRules: Gavin as the MTGRules NetRep can [O]fficially rule that this does not work if the rules team says so, despite the CR wording. If he does, it will almost certainly be fixed with the M10 rules update so we don't have a ruling that contradicts the rules, but that ruling takes precedence until the rules are updated.)
We'll re-run the question then, since so many people have read our answer and so many have read epeeguy insisting that we're wrong and now there's a big ball of confusion.
And of course there's the issue that even if the final post-M10 answer is that you can Bonds off Cascade, the HJ might not know and insist that it's wrong since it IS a fairly wacky interaction. -_- The deck would have to end up pretty popular to get around that hurdle.
"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.
Let's lay off the Bonds of Agony question until we get a confirmation; at this point, "You're wrong!" "No I'm not." "Yes you are and you're a poopieface!" is the only probable outcome of this discussion until we get that.
On a different note: What's the relevant rule for the Story Circle color-double-checking-at-damage-dealing-time ruling?
It's the following:
419.8b Some effects from spells and abilities prevent or replace damage from sources with certain properties, such as a creature or a source of a particular color. When the source would deal damage, the “shield” rechecks the source’s properties. If the properties no longer match, the damage isn’t prevented or replaced. If for any reason the shield prevents no damage or replaces no damage, the shield isn’t used up.
Here is the glossary entry on X from the Comprehensive rules
X
Many cards use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. All instances of X on an object have the same value.
If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of playing the spell or ability. (See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities.") While the spell or ability is on the stack, the {X} in its mana cost equals the announced value.
If you're playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities."
If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value.
If a cost associated with a special action, such as a suspend cost or a morph cost, has an "{X}" in it, the value of X is chosen by the player taking the special action as he or she pays that cost.
If a card in any zone other than the stack has {X} in its mana cost, the value of {X} is treated as 0, even if the value of X is defined somewhere within its text.
In other cases, X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost or activation cost. If the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value. Note that the value of X may change while that spell or ability is on the stack. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X.
This seems to make it clear that X will be 0. Not a combo, nothing to see here. Move along.
In the interest of full public disclosure, Gavin has emailed me back, and said that this is going to be discussed and an answer should be forthcoming in a couple of weeks. And to make Woapalanne's job easier, I'd also request that discussion on cascade/Bond of Agony/"X" be tabled. If I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to admit it, and really perhaps what I should have said was "I'm confused, because of this other ruling..." that seemed to contradict. I don't recall any announced change of "X" in that respect, hence why my thinking is that it doesn't work.
Should Gavin say otherwise, and it does work, I'll happily eat my words.
In the interest of full public disclosure, Gavin has emailed me back, and said that this is going to be discussed and an answer should be forthcoming in a couple of weeks. And to make Woapalanne's job easier, I'd also request that discussion on cascade/Bond of Agony/"X" be tabled. If I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to admit it, and really perhaps what I should have said was "I'm confused, because of this other ruling..." that seemed to contradict. I don't recall any announced change of "X" in that respect, hence why my thinking is that it doesn't work.
Should Gavin say otherwise, and it does work, I'll happily eat my words.
A couple of weeks ? Well, it seems that question is just that hard to answer, and just that important. This is so exciting ! Perhaps The Great MaGo, Lord of the Rules, will have to intervene and adapt the rules to this interaction. The fate of a cascade combo deck is to be decided !
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.
And BTW, you can't choose a value where you life will become 0 or lower. It's illegal.
You can choose to spend every point of life you have, putting yourself at zero. It's stupid (since you'll lose as soon as you finish playing the spell, barring Angel's Grace or Platinum Angel), but not illegal. Spending more life than you have is illegal.
Can't you say damage on the stack, and react on resolving the damage by sacrifice the kitchen finks to save your husk?
No, because as Volcanic Fallout resolves, it deals damage. After Volcanic Fallout has resolved and gone to the graveyard, state-based effects are checked and all creatures with lethal damage are destroyed. After that happens, then you get the opportunity to play spells and abilities.
Volcanic Fallout doesn't "put damage on the stack". Only combat damage uses the stack, and can be responded to. Damage dealt as a spell or ability resolves is just part of the effect of the spell or ability.
"and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0."
It seems the confusion is coming from what that "any" means.
If it means "an effect lets you play that spell without paying any of the costs of the spell that include X", CI is right as you are not playing the spell without paying any of those costs - you're paying X life.
If it means "an effect lets you play that spell without paying one of the costs of the spell that include X", epeeguy is right as you are not paying the X mana, which is a cost including X (so is part of the category of 'any cost including X').
It's a very interesting question of semantics, and the sentence could be interpreted either way. I think the CI interpretation seems more intuitive, but it's pretty unclear and purely as a grammar nerd I really want to see how this ends up being ruled. Sorry if my post is equally unclear, it is admittedly a very difficult concept to cleanly articulate.
VestDan gave clear instructions to stop talking about this. Infraction for ignoring Moderator Instructions.
BTW, just thinking: if in a GP running right now, and confusing situations such as Cascade/Agony interaction come up, what would happen? What would the judge do if CompRules is vague about the subject, and no rulings is made before?
BTW, just thinking: if in a GP running right now, and confusing situations such as Cascade/Agony interaction come up, what would happen? What would the judge do if CompRules is vague about the subject, and no rulings is made before?
Just curious of what would they react.
Well, there's no way to really answer this because two different judges might come up with two different answers.
The short answer: The head judge will make a decision based on his rules knowledge, and that decision is final for that tournament.
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. :|
BTW, just thinking: if in a GP running right now, and confusing situations such as Cascade/Agony interaction come up, what would happen? What would the judge do if CompRules is vague about the subject, and no rulings is made before?
The head judge of the tournament has the final authority to make a decision, which is applicable for that event. That kind of decision usually gets reported by the head judge as part of the report for the event, so that it can be officially clarified one way or the other.
Hmm... Interesting. So would the ruling make by the head judge during that tournament become the official ruling for that situation, or do DCI would review the ruling again before making it official?
Again, it's just me being passionately curious about how DCI and judges work.
Hmm... Interesting. So would the ruling make by the head judge during that tournament become the official ruling for that situation, or do DCI would review the ruling again before making it official?
The head judge of a tournament is the final authority for that tournament. Whatever decision the head judge of that tournament makes is good for that tournament only.
The DCI reviews such decisions after the fact, and takes whatever action is deemed fit.
Why doesn't someone remove the Bonds question until the answer is clear?
Good idea. Normally it wouldn't, but in this case, it's not doing any good there at all. Removed!
To reiterate what VestDan said for this page now: Drop the discussion on whether or not the combo works until we get official word. There is nothing useful left to discuss here. Sulendil's side discussion, however, is awesome.
"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.
Even if it turns out the "wrong" answer was printed. I'm really happy to see that this issue was brought to the forefront. These cool interactions, are really interesting to read about.
Here is the glossary entry on X from the Comprehensive rules
X
Many cards use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. All instances of X on an object have the same value.
If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of playing the spell or ability. (See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities.") While the spell or ability is on the stack, the {X} in its mana cost equals the announced value.
If you're playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities."
If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value.
If a cost associated with a special action, such as a suspend cost or a morph cost, has an "{X}" in it, the value of X is chosen by the player taking the special action as he or she pays that cost.
If a card in any zone other than the stack has {X} in its mana cost, the value of {X} is treated as 0, even if the value of X is defined somewhere within its text.
In other cases, X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost or activation cost. If the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value. Note that the value of X may change while that spell or ability is on the stack. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X.
This seems to make it clear that X will be 0. Not a combo, nothing to see here. Move along.
Thanks for clearing that up. I have every reason to trust your ruling as opposed to the established judges who post on this forum.
I believe we asked that the discussion be dropped until there's an official answer. Especially if you're going to continue it just to make sarcastic comments.--Binary
Using sarcasm to point out the shortcomings of others is half the fun of forums. You mod's take this way too seriously. Even WoW forum moderators let the posters poke fun at each other as long as it isn't hateful/vulgar. I guess that's a discussion for another thread.
And another infraction for editing a post after a mod edit. If you want to discuss this take it to PM or my help desk thread.--Binary
Q: My opponent plays a Volcanic Fallout while I have a Kitchen Finks with no counters and a Nantuko Husk. Is there any way for me to stack the damage from the spell so that my Nantuko gets pumped up to survive, and the Finks persist back into play?
A: Not really. One of your creatures is going to die and stay dead. Damage from a spell doesn't go on the stack separately from the spell itself; it happens when the spell resolves. If you sacrifice the Finks to pump your Husk, it'll pop back into play in time to get toasted.
Can't you say damage on the stack, and react on resolving the damage by sacrifice the kitchen finks to save your husk?
Oh wow, what an excellent coincidence. I posted in the rules forum on this issue. The problem we encountered was that no one can actually cite a rule or ruling specifically proving this (because it shouldn't have to be proven).
By any chance, would there be any other ruling reference points from WotC which might have covered this issue?
The problem I encountered is that the person I had claiming that spell damage goes "on the stack" is both the store owner and a judge, and claimed this specific issue was on the judge's test and that the correct answer involved spell damage going on the stack. >_<
Oh wow, what an excellent coincidence. I posted in the rules forum on this issue. The problem we encountered was that no one can actually cite a rule or ruling specifically proving this (because it shouldn't have to be proven).
You're right -- it shouldn't have to be proven.
The answer in the article is correct. Combat damage goes onto the stack. Damage from a spell does not. The spell itself is on the stack, and both players can respond to it at that time. Once it resolves, though, it's dealing its damage and it's too late to respond at that point.
There doesn't need to be a rule that explains this. There are rules that cover what happens when instants, sorceries, and abilities resolve.
The problem I encountered is that the person I had claiming that spell damage goes "on the stack" is both the store owner and a judge, and claimed this specific issue was on the judge's test and that the correct answer involved spell damage going on the stack. >_<
Two problems there:
1. It's very easy to claim to be a certified judge.
2. I would expect a certified judge to know that the content of certification exams is not to be disclosed.
Your store owner may well be a judge. Regardless, he's wrong about damage from spells, and he shouldn't be divulging the content of DCI exams.
You're right -- it shouldn't have to be proven.
The answer in the article is correct. Combat damage goes onto the stack. Damage from a spell does not. The spell itself is on the stack, and both players can respond to it at that time. Once it resolves, though, it's dealing its damage and it's too late to respond at that point.
There doesn't need to be a rule that explains this. There are rules that cover what happens when instants, sorceries, and abilities resolve.
Two problems there:
1. It's very easy to claim to be a certified judge.
2. I would expect a certified judge to know that the content of certification exams is not to be disclosed.
Your store owner may well be a judge. Regardless, he's wrong about damage from spells, and he shouldn't be divulging the content of DCI exams.
I assumed that was the case about the DCI exam. There is similar confidentiality expected with respect to plenty of other official exams. I'll make mention of the many things I've heard when asking about this scenario, should the issue come up again.
I actually hypothesized that the logic behind combat damage going "on the stack" as opposed to non-combat damage is that combat damage is not inherantly assigned to recipients (whereas non-combat damage designates its recipients and/or targets when the spell/ability is cast/activated in the first place). In short, it goes "on the stack" only because combat damage needs to be divided among its recipient(s).
Semi-related, what steps would someone like myself take to become a DCI-certified Judge?
I assumed that was the case about the DCI exam. There is similar confidentiality expected with respect to plenty of other official exams.
Exactly. Most organizations that issue exams for some sort of ceritification expect test-takers to keep the material confidential. The DCI is no different. Any judge would know this, and many non-judges would be able to figure it out, as you did, based on taking other exams.
Semi-related, what steps would someone like myself take to become a DCI-certified Judge?
We'll re-run the question then, since so many people have read our answer and so many have read epeeguy insisting that we're wrong and now there's a big ball of confusion.
And of course there's the issue that even if the final post-M10 answer is that you can Bonds off Cascade, the HJ might not know and insist that it's wrong since it IS a fairly wacky interaction. -_- The deck would have to end up pretty popular to get around that hurdle.
"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.
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
Remember, kids: Never fight with Flashback, 'cause Flashback always wins.
It's the following:
419.8b Some effects from spells and abilities prevent or replace damage from sources with certain properties, such as a creature or a source of a particular color. When the source would deal damage, the “shield” rechecks the source’s properties. If the properties no longer match, the damage isn’t prevented or replaced. If for any reason the shield prevents no damage or replaces no damage, the shield isn’t used up.
X
Many cards use the letter X as a placeholder for a number that needs to be determined. All instances of X on an object have the same value.
If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell or ability, the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X as part of playing the spell or ability. (See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities.") While the spell or ability is on the stack, the {X} in its mana cost equals the announced value.
If you're playing a spell that has {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets you play that spell without paying any cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities."
If a spell or activated ability has a cost with an "{X}" in it, and the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value.
If a cost associated with a special action, such as a suspend cost or a morph cost, has an "{X}" in it, the value of X is chosen by the player taking the special action as he or she pays that cost.
If a card in any zone other than the stack has {X} in its mana cost, the value of {X} is treated as 0, even if the value of X is defined somewhere within its text.
In other cases, X appears in the text of a spell or ability but not in a mana cost or activation cost. If the value of X is defined by the text of that spell or ability, then that's the value of X while that spell or ability is on the stack. The controller of that spell or ability doesn't get to choose the value. Note that the value of X may change while that spell or ability is on the stack. If the value of X isn't defined, the controller of the spell or ability chooses the value of X.
This seems to make it clear that X will be 0. Not a combo, nothing to see here. Move along.
Should Gavin say otherwise, and it does work, I'll happily eat my words.
A couple of weeks ? Well, it seems that question is just that hard to answer, and just that important. This is so exciting ! Perhaps The Great MaGo, Lord of the Rules, will have to intervene and adapt the rules to this interaction. The fate of a cascade combo deck is to be decided !
1800+ in Limited
3-0ing after drafting 17 non-basics in Cube
You can choose to spend every point of life you have, putting yourself at zero. It's stupid (since you'll lose as soon as you finish playing the spell, barring Angel's Grace or Platinum Angel), but not illegal. Spending more life than you have is illegal.
No, because as Volcanic Fallout resolves, it deals damage. After Volcanic Fallout has resolved and gone to the graveyard, state-based effects are checked and all creatures with lethal damage are destroyed. After that happens, then you get the opportunity to play spells and abilities.
Volcanic Fallout doesn't "put damage on the stack". Only combat damage uses the stack, and can be responded to. Damage dealt as a spell or ability resolves is just part of the effect of the spell or ability.
It seems the confusion is coming from what that "any" means.
If it means "an effect lets you play that spell without paying any of the costs of the spell that include X", CI is right as you are not playing the spell without paying any of those costs - you're paying X life.
If it means "an effect lets you play that spell without paying one of the costs of the spell that include X", epeeguy is right as you are not paying the X mana, which is a cost including X (so is part of the category of 'any cost including X').
It's a very interesting question of semantics, and the sentence could be interpreted either way. I think the CI interpretation seems more intuitive, but it's pretty unclear and purely as a grammar nerd I really want to see how this ends up being ruled. Sorry if my post is equally unclear, it is admittedly a very difficult concept to cleanly articulate.
VestDan gave clear instructions to stop talking about this. Infraction for ignoring Moderator Instructions.
Just curious of what would they react.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Well, there's no way to really answer this because two different judges might come up with two different answers.
The short answer: The head judge will make a decision based on his rules knowledge, and that decision is final for that tournament.
The head judge of the tournament has the final authority to make a decision, which is applicable for that event. That kind of decision usually gets reported by the head judge as part of the report for the event, so that it can be officially clarified one way or the other.
Again, it's just me being passionately curious about how DCI and judges work.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
The head judge of a tournament is the final authority for that tournament. Whatever decision the head judge of that tournament makes is good for that tournament only.
The DCI reviews such decisions after the fact, and takes whatever action is deemed fit.
Good idea. Normally it wouldn't, but in this case, it's not doing any good there at all. Removed!
To reiterate what VestDan said for this page now: Drop the discussion on whether or not the combo works until we get official word. There is nothing useful left to discuss here. Sulendil's side discussion, however, is awesome.
"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.
Thanks for clearing that up. I have every reason to trust your ruling as opposed to the established judges who post on this forum.
I believe we asked that the discussion be dropped until there's an official answer. Especially if you're going to continue it just to make sarcastic comments.--Binary
Using sarcasm to point out the shortcomings of others is half the fun of forums. You mod's take this way too seriously. Even WoW forum moderators let the posters poke fun at each other as long as it isn't hateful/vulgar. I guess that's a discussion for another thread.
And another infraction for editing a post after a mod edit. If you want to discuss this take it to PM or my help desk thread.--Binary
By any chance, would there be any other ruling reference points from WotC which might have covered this issue?
The problem I encountered is that the person I had claiming that spell damage goes "on the stack" is both the store owner and a judge, and claimed this specific issue was on the judge's test and that the correct answer involved spell damage going on the stack. >_<
You're right -- it shouldn't have to be proven.
The answer in the article is correct. Combat damage goes onto the stack. Damage from a spell does not. The spell itself is on the stack, and both players can respond to it at that time. Once it resolves, though, it's dealing its damage and it's too late to respond at that point.
There doesn't need to be a rule that explains this. There are rules that cover what happens when instants, sorceries, and abilities resolve.
Two problems there:
1. It's very easy to claim to be a certified judge.
2. I would expect a certified judge to know that the content of certification exams is not to be disclosed.
Your store owner may well be a judge. Regardless, he's wrong about damage from spells, and he shouldn't be divulging the content of DCI exams.
My Eternal Cube on CubeTutor| |My Reject Rare Cube on CubeTutor| |My Peasant Cube on CubeTutor
I used to write for MTGS, including Cranial Insertion and cube articles. Good on you if you can find those after the upgrade.
I actually hypothesized that the logic behind combat damage going "on the stack" as opposed to non-combat damage is that combat damage is not inherantly assigned to recipients (whereas non-combat damage designates its recipients and/or targets when the spell/ability is cast/activated in the first place). In short, it goes "on the stack" only because combat damage needs to be divided among its recipient(s).
Semi-related, what steps would someone like myself take to become a DCI-certified Judge?
Exactly. Most organizations that issue exams for some sort of ceritification expect test-takers to keep the material confidential. The DCI is no different. Any judge would know this, and many non-judges would be able to figure it out, as you did, based on taking other exams.
How to become a judge
That should get you started.
My Eternal Cube on CubeTutor| |My Reject Rare Cube on CubeTutor| |My Peasant Cube on CubeTutor
I used to write for MTGS, including Cranial Insertion and cube articles. Good on you if you can find those after the upgrade.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.