All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Treasure Cruisin' Shalai Brawl
Ravnica: The Broken Guildpact
Magic Market Index for May 18th, 2018
  • posted a message on Full spoiler is up
    In terms of reprints that I don't think we had seen yet, I like seeing Spell Snare, Nirkana Revenant, Magmatic Force (as mentioned, first time in foil), Fertilid (it is nice having another foil option), and Skyshroud Claim (only the second printing ever and will let me acquire a foil for less than $30). Overall, this set looks fantastic both in monetary value of the reprints as well as the new cards being printed.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Do Sorcery and Creature Sacrifice cost stack.
    Please use card tags. Images are rarely useful when discussing older cards:

    Blood Pet
    Soul Exchange

    You do not target with Soul Exchange. You make the choice during resolution. And you cannot sacrifice the Pet for its own ability and exile with Soul Exchange; it is one or the other. Also, Soul Exchange is not a sacrifice anyway.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Settle the Wreckage Timing
    They can do it that way if they want. They can also wait for Kari Zev's trigger to resolve and exile the token too.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Merieke Ri Berit again Marath
    That wording is effectively the same as the current wording. There are no creatures controlled yet since the ability has not resolved so even though the trigger does go off in your hypothetical wording, nothing is affected.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Merieke Ri Berit again Marath
    No, it will not. The effect that sets up the trigger to destroy the stolen creature only happens when the activated ability resolves. Since it has not resolved yet, Marath will not be destroyed. However, the creature also will not be stolen since the duration of the effect ("for as long as you control Merieke") is already over. Marath will not be destroyed and will also not be stolen.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Golden Guardian Stack Question
    They don't fight in your scenario and Trafficker should not have any damage marked on it. You put the ability from Golden Guardian on the stack. Before that resolves, you sacrifice it to Trafficker. Then the ability resolves and does nothing since the Guardian is no longer around to Fight.

    The Guardian will only transform if it dies *after* its ability resolves. Since it died before the ability resolved, nothing happened. You will be unable to do what you want with just these two cards. You need to let the Fight happen which means both the Guardian and the target need to be on the battlefield when the ability resolves.

    EDIT: I may have misread. It actually sounds like you are letting the ability of the Guardian resolve. As mentioned above, you can't do what you want as the Fight is part of the ability. It uses the stack in that the entire ability is on the stack for you to respond to but the Fight doesn't happen until the ability resolves (which is how basically everything works).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Terminus + Burning Inquiry
    First, it is unlikely to occur where you both cast Burning Inquiry and are able to Miracle Terminus since you will have most likely already have drawn a card for the turn (since Burning Inquiry is a Sorcery).

    If you do manage to cast Burning Inquiry and have Terminus be the firs card drawn off of it and have it be the first card drawn for the turn, you will reveal it as you draw it, keep it revealed while Burning Inquiry resolves, and then, if it was not discarded, you can cast it for its Miracle Cost. You need to wait for Burning Inquiry to fully resolve before the Miracle trigger even goes on the stack and, if Terminus is no longer in your hand when the trigger resolves, you won't be able to cast it.

    Also, it is generally recommended to open a new thread to ask new questions rather than necroing an old thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Dauntless Bodyguard vs Merfolk Trickster
    That could be what MTGO is doing for some reason, but that is not how the rules work. It gives Shalai an ability and Trickster takes it away (or, is supposed to).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Rescuing a hijacked creature
    Rescue explicitly says "..its owner's hand". You are the controller since you took control of it, but the owner of a card never changes; your opponent is still the owner and Rescue will put the card in their hand.

    You can *never* have cards in your hand, library, or graveyard that you do not own (that is, that did not start the game in your library).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest - Spellslinger
    After playing a bit more, I have realized Taigam is not as good as I thought he was. His ability to make my spells uncounterable is great, but the Rebound part is too hard to reliably pull off. And there are a number of spells I don't want to Rebound anyway. I have decided to cut him in favor of another "answer" spell: Dismantling Blow. This allows me to blow up artifacts and enchantments, lets me draw cards, and I can fetch it off Sunforger (and still draw cards that way). It seems like a better card for the slot, so I will see how it plays out.
    Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
  • posted a message on Grimgrin, Corpse-Born - Zombie Tribal
    I found that Whip of Erebos was not doing as much as I liked, so I decided to cut it and add back in Gempalm Polluter. The card draw and ability to close out a game if needed (at Instant Timing) make this a better card for the slot.
    Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
  • posted a message on Dauntless Bodyguard vs Merfolk Trickster
    Did Shalai still say she had Indestructible? In this situation, since you let the activated ability resolve before casting Merfolk Trickster, she should have lost indestructible and died. The only other thing I can think of is that she had toughness greater than 5 (since she is no longer on the battlefield in your screenshot, it is hard to determine).

    If she had toughness less than 6 and did not die, this sounds like a bug with the way you have described it.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on need a explamation on how titania's song works
    What part is confusing? That statement is basically just repeating the rule for "Summoning Sickness". It is there to say that even though an artifact was turned into a creature this turn, it can still attack if it was already on the battlefield at the beginning of the controller's most recent turn. It is a general statement and does not imply that artifacts keep their abilities.

    On any artifacts that enter after Song enters, they are just Vanilla creatures and are affected by Summoning Sickness. They still lose their abilities because Song says they do.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    It's a complicated question. I legitimately don't know what they should do, which is why I'm asking. I don't think you can just ignore the fact that the cards on the RL are only going to go up. Period. And a lot of those cards are, if not staples in EDH, at least highly played and they fit into a lot of decks.
    I disagree about ignoring that card prices are going to go up. Not only *can* the RC ignore it, but on some level they *must* ignore it. They can't be an arbiter in what is acceptable to play based on cost alone. And, again, where is this imaginary line? Does it get set at $1000? Surely that is too much for a "new" player? Do we set it at $500? Maybe more acceptable, but still high. $200?

    And then, what happens when the cutoff is $1000 and I pay $900 for a card just for it to go up the next month into banned territory? If it is $500, what happens when I buy a $400 card to have the same thing happen? Duals are wildly different prices depending on the color they produce. Someone who played 20 years ago finds out about EDH, goes back through their collection, finds they have an Underground Sea, Volcanic Island, and Badlands. They decide to make a cool Grixis deck around Nicol Bolas. The first time they play, they are told "hey man, Sea and Island are banned; but Badlands is cool". Their first response is not going to be "oh, well that makes sense. I will cut them right away". No, their first response is going to be "That is idiotic. Why is one dual legal and another banned?". And then they may very well decide this format is not for them and not play it again because that ban criterion is inconsistent.

    I get the fear of people feeling like they are priced out of a format. It is an issue and Wizards has the same issue with Legacy. They created Modern as a result. That is the only really avenue for EDH: either it continues as it is and growth slows but remains high enough to get players or a brand new format comes around to replace it. I don't believe there is any way for the current EDH format to implement a drastic change as the one you are proposing (or any change related directly to a card's price) without massive backlash. I don't feel that it will kill the format, but I am pretty sure there will be enough players leaving to be a concern.

    On a personal note, I can say that I would probably be one of the people who leaves. Not just EDH but Magic in general. I just want a place to play my cards and I don't like Vintage or Legacy. EDH is the format to use all my cards and if that goes away, I will only have Modern. And I honestly don't think Modern alone is enough for me to keep playing Magic.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on blood funnel and artifacts
    Creature Spells are spells just like any other so Counterspell can counter then just fine. In fact, some counterspells *only* work on creature spells: Essence Scatter.

    And, again, if it is not a creature (such as a noncreature artifact), it is a noncreature spell.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.