2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on How to Factor Haktos' Random Protection Values in Your Favor
    So, if I am understanding you correctly, you are using the age-old argument of "the rules don't say I *can't* do this, so it must be legal". Is that the gist of your last post?

    And you haven't addressed this bit:

    701.1. Most actions described in a card's rules text use the standard English definitions of the verbs within, but some specialized verbs are used whose meanings may not be clear. These "keywords" are game terms; sometimes reminder text summarizes their meanings.

    Or, this:

    608.2c. The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these actions. In some cases, later text on the card may modify the meaning of earlier text (for example, "Destroy target creature. It can't be regenerated" or "Counter target spell. If that spell is countered this way, put it on top of its owner's library instead of into its owner's graveyard.") Don't just apply effects step by step without thinking in these cases--read the whole text and apply the rules of English to the text.

    These two rules cover the idea of "if the word is not defined in the CR, use the English definition". Since "Random" is not defined, we use the definition. Which I quoted above. How does your proposed method *not* run afoul of that definition?
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on A mana question
    Once mana is paid for a spell it can't be undone. The cost has been paid and the spell has resolved. There is no point that allowed a backup to tap mana differently.

    Two points to this: in a casual, non-tournament game, other players may allow the mana to be tapped differently if they want to allow it. And in some cases, as long as the spell has not resolved, the player is fine to retap their mana differently.

    In both of those instances, since they drew a card in this situation, they would be stuck with that choice. Allowing the player to use new information to influence a previous action is not going to fly in a tournament and I wouldn't think most playgroups would allow it either.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on How to Factor Haktos' Random Protection Values in Your Favor
    705.3. A coin used in a flip must be a two-sided object with easily distinguished sides and equal likelihood that either side lands face up. If the coin that’s being flipped doesn’t have an obvious “heads”or “tails,”designate one side to be “heads,”and the other side to be “tails.”Other methods of randomization may be substituted for flipping a coin as long as there are two possible outcomes of equal likelihood and all players agree to the substitution. For example, the player may roll an even-sided die and call “odds”or “evens,”or roll an even-sided die and designate that “odds”means “heads”and “evens”means “tails.”


    The entire point of something "random" is to make it not favored.

    If you could just willy-nilly make something random heavy in favor of one or the other would make it not random at all (as you can simply choose make it astronomically unlikely, which is basically 0).



    Nope, that wouldn't suffice. It's simply saying that a coin has to be two-sided. So long as coin is two-sided, using it in this manner would still be acceptable.

    The important bit is:

    Other methods of randomization may be substituted for flipping a coin as long as there are two possible outcomes of equal likelihood and all players agree to the substitution

    And one of the definitions in the dictionary for random is:

    being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence

    Since this is a game produced primarily in English, the English definition of words is what is used in a lot of cases when the CR doesn't define them as something different. Since the CR doesn't define "random" we use the English definition.

    There are some serious mental gymnastics needed to propose a "solution" to being tasked with coming up with a random number, where that solution is the exact opposite of being random, and then suggesting it is not cheating. The point of randomness is for each outcome to be equal. It can't be "random" if you weigh the odds in a particular direction.

    The rule above in the CR covers flipping a coin because that is generally what Magic cards care about. Haktos allows for any random method to be used as long as it is random and the rule above clarifying what random means for a coin flip extends to any random selection method.

    In general though, there isn't a need to codify what random means in the CR when things just say "random", or any further clarification, because most people understand the English definition and realize that all outcomes must be equal.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Karador and Bestow
    The answer to "Kardor and Bestow" is now the same as "Kess and Adventure". Both Bestow and Adventure are worded the same in the CR. You look at an Adventure card as the side you cast *before* you actually put it onto the stack to determine if you are allowed to. You do the same with Bestow now. Since choosing to cast it as a Bestowed spell means it is not a creature, you cannot cast it via Karador.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Destroying a “cannot gain life” enchantment with a lifegain spell.
    Everlasting Torment
    Invoke the Divine

    You are correct. Since the steps are performed in order, and the enchantment is removed from the first instruction, it is no longer around to stop the second instruction.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Current issues with the comprehensive rules of Magic
    Quote from WizardMN »
    To be clear, I am not asking about cards that do the "putting". I am asking if cards exist that care about the "putting" happening. Such as Hardened Scales but for the things you are talking about.

    The rule you quoted is[...]

    [...]

    You're drawing a distinction, then, between (1) spells & abilities referring to counters being put on an object, and (2) [those] referring to putting counters on an object. In distinguishing that, you can then say while there's plenty of the second, the first has need only of spotting the case where the "an object" equals a permanent -- because the extent of cards in print, approaching that general situation, are yet not so general.

    Trouble is, how can you say that the text of what Rezz writes as 122.6, is only talking about the event and not the incident? Is it consistently the case that the CR says "a spell/ability says" for the second purpose, and "a spell/ability refers to" for the first-? --i.e., the difference between the (executing) instruction, and a meta-linguistic instrument to clarify the applicability of a rule?
    I have a hard time parsing what you are actually saying due to the overwhelming verbosity of your statements, so apologies upfront if this response doesn't make sense regarding your comment.

    The rule is clearly focusing on the clarification of things that "refer to counters being “put” on an object" I mean, it is in the rule, in the first sentence, that the rule is specifically about things that *refer* to counters being put onto an object; not things that put counters onto something. The rule cares about things that look for the action. What else would the phrase "refers to counters being put on an object" mean?

    Rezzahan's objection to this seems to be that counters can be put on players and exiled cards. And he would be right. But the rule doesn't care about those because Clockspinning doesn't "refer" to counters being put; Jhoira's Timebug doesn't refer counters being put. They certainly refer to the counters that are already there to see what the spell can do, but neither one says anything about the new counters being put onto the card. As such, I am not entirely sure where your disagreement lies.

    It almost seems like part of the issue is that people think this rule is meant to define what "put" means as a whole. It doesn't. We don't have a rule for defining "put" any more then we have a rule for defining "produce" or "return" because we don't need one. We use the normal English definition for these words to explain the meaning of what cards are doing. The rule above is an extension of certain scenarios where "put" is used and to offer clarification as to how "put" works in those cases. It is not meant to be anything more than an explanation of a specific scenario and one that Players and Exiled Cards can't be part of. At least, not with current cards.

    If a card is ever printed that refers to counters being put on a player, and is actually worded as "counters put onto a player" (so, not the wording of Constrictor) then there may be a case for that rule needing to be adjusted. But there is no reason to update a rule to cover a scenario that currently can't exist.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Murder Vs. Return to hand
    Well, the obvious answer is: The Stack

    The game of Magic operates with the Stack. That is, "Last in, First out". In your current example, it matters whose spell was put onto the stack second. This interaction would function the same no matter whose turn it is. Magic is a game of action, and reaction, and the Stack allows this to work. Your gripe is about a very specific interaction, but without this, Counterspell wouldn't work, Reverberate wouldn't work, Heroic Intervention wouldn't work right. There are so many cards that only work because of the fact the stack exists, that complaining about one situation because your Murder fails to kill something is very short sighted.
    Posted in: Rumored Card Rulings
  • posted a message on Hushbringer and God Eternals
    You are correct on both counts. The God-Eternals have "dies" triggers as well as "exiles" triggers. Hushbringer will stop the Dies trigger from triggering but won't do anything to the Exiles trigger.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Scythe of the Wretched and Kaldra Sword
    Please use card tags:

    Sword of Kaldra
    Scythe of the Wretched

    Since you control both triggers, you get to choose the order they go onto the stack. However, more importantly, these triggers will never interact in any meaningful way. In order for Sword of Kaldra to do anything, the creature needs to survive combat. In order for Scythe to do anything, the creature needs to die. There is no conflict with these two triggers.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Current issues with the comprehensive rules of Magic
    To be clear, I am not asking about cards that do the "putting". I am asking if cards exist that care about the "putting" happening. Such as Hardened Scales but for the things you are talking about.

    The rule you quoted is to clarify how Hardened Scales works with things that enter the battlefield with counters because it cares about counters being put on something. Or, Growth-Chamber Guardian's own ability that cares about counters being put onto itself.

    My point is that the rule you are talking about is a rule for these situations. It is a rule for when something looks for a counter being put on something. Since nothing that I am aware of looks for counters being put on anything that isn't a permanent, it doesn't matter that the rule doesn't call them out. The omission literally never matters as nothing cares about counters being put onto a suspended card or player.

    For a card that does care about a player getting a counter: Winding Constrictor. And you will notice that they intentionally didn't use "if a counter is put onto you" which means that the rule still doesn't apply to that case.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Current issues with the comprehensive rules of Magic
    I don't see the problem with that. Is there a card that references counters being put on a card in exile or a player? Or some situation where this omission actually matters?

    If not, then there really isn't a reason for that rule to call it out. The rule is only there to clarify what it means when a counter is put on something and that it applies as it enters the field. Which can only happen to a permanent.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on [THB] Tokens — Mothership Article
    Quote from Crispen_Smith »
    Well, huh, is this the first time we have had a token and a card that are functionally different from each other with the same name? Nightmare
    No. Splinter and Illusion (granted, on a split card of Illusion // Reality) also have tokens with those names.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on The command zone preview - Nyxbloom Ancient (the final mythic rare)
    Quote from Skios »
    Question. If you have a card like Nikya of the Old Ways and this one out, a single forest taps for six mana, right?
    No, you get 4 mana. Nikya (and Nissa, or any other cards that trigger to grant a mana) will not be affected by this card. Nikya is the one granting the extra mana and she will still only produce 1 mana when a land is tapped.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Converting colorless mana to colred
    The following will get you any color (I didn't bother searching for anything that just turned colorless into one or two colors):

    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Possible unresolvable scenario under the current CR
    To be honest, you likely aren't going to get an answer from Eli on this. It is the epitome of corner case using a card that probably should have been silver bordered. Eli (and, frankly, enough judges) don't really care about this type of scenario.

    If this actually came up in a game I was in, I would tell them to throw it on the bottom of the library, finish the shuffle, tell them to stop playing bad cards (a bit of a stretch here I suppose), and move on with the game. Convoluted scenarios can come up in Magic and this certainly isn't the only thing that may not be exactly covered in the rules, but it doesn't come up often enough to care about it. I am sure Eli is content to just forget Wurm was ever a card.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.