2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Mind's Desire Question about Scourge Version
    If the Oracle text doesn't have it, then no version has it. Every version of a card works the same, regardless of what is printed on the card.

    Also, in this scenario "as though it was in your hand" was removed because of issues like this. The functionality is exactly the same as it was before; just now, people don't think things like Yidris would trigger. Since Yidris requires the spell to be cast from hand, and being cast from Exile is not being cast from the hand, Yidris won't trigger on spell's cast from Mind's Desire.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Gyruda and Bruvac question
    I think we should wait for the new CR updates and card errata to bother trying to continue this conversation. This situation doesn't technically even exist yet since the cards aren't released. Things like Sphinx's Tutelage and Grindstone apparently will receive errata so it is possible Gyruda will too.

    https://twitter.com/EliShffrn/status/1274201913777479680
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on “You may”
    The wording on the card is pretty clear. "You may" offers a choice. The choice is whether or not to search. If they decline the search, they simply choose not to do it so they don't search and they don't shuffle. As mentioned above, even if they do search, they aren't required to find anything anyway, though they would shuffle in that case.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Nightmare Shepherd VS Scapeshift
    There is a lot to pick apart here but, first, card tags are [c]Nightmare Shepherd[/c] to get you Nightmare Shepherd. And Scapeshift

    when {mtg Scapeshift} resolves, you search seven different lands and put them on the battlefield, one of them is Field of the Dead, and then static ability of {mtg Field of the dead} take effect, then after that all seven searched lands changes their zone from library to the battlefield, then triggers the field itself.when {mtg Scapeshift} resolves, you search seven different lands and put them on the battlefield, one of them is Field of the Dead, and then static ability of {mtg Field of the dead} take effect, then after that all seven searched lands changes their zone from library to the battlefield, then triggers the field itself.
    Field of the Dead has a triggered ability; not a static one. Otherwise it seems you are correct.

    This year we have to make it correct for the mechanics of {mtg Nightmare Shepherd}
    when two creatures a nightmare shepherd and a {flying men} are on your battlefield, an opponent cast {mtg Wrath of God}, what happens?
    both of them change their zones first, arriving the graveyard, that is, dies.
    Using your word they already left the battlefield, at the same time any modified rules about your beautiful graveyard takes effect, for example:
    a {mtg Maro} with indestructible now gets two more power and toughness.
    At the same time, the effect of your nightmare disappear (here is the point in the rule where the MTGA is running incorrectly)
    No token of flying men would be created.
    This is obviously incorrect (and seems to the basis of your "complaint"). Shepherd and Flying Men die at the same time. The game looks back in time to see if there was anything on the battlefield prior to them dying which allows either one to trigger. Shepherd was so it triggers.

    This is necessary for basically any card that says "when <this> dies, <do something>". If the rules worked the way you want them too, Blood Artist would never trigger for itself dying. Nor would Academy Rector which, of course, makes the entire ability useless.

    In the end, we can only tell you what the rules *are*. If you want Wizards to change things, tell them, not faceless people on an internet forum.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on New EDH rules with necromantic selection
    The rule change isn't something like a delayed trigger. It is a State Based Action and works like all the other SBAs in terms on when it happens. And SBAs aren't checked in the middle of a spell or ability resolving.

    So, Selection resolves and puts the commander in the graveyard. While it is still resolving, you can take that commander because SBAs haven't been checked yet so it has not moved. You take the commander, Selection finishes resolving, SBAs are checked but it isn't in the graveyard anymore so nothing happens.

    So, yes, you can do what you want Smile
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Rules Changes to Commander - Dies and Exile effects will trigger when going to Command Zone.
    Quote from Macabre »

    The one thing I am looking forward to is using Lim-Dûl the Necromancer to steal people's commanders tho.
    It was already confirmed that thy actively avoided, as much as possible, putting "dies" triggers on Legendary creatures. It is why your list is so small and has a fair number of older cards.

    I doubt Kokusho makes that much more of a splash. It honestly seems best to just leave him in the graveyard and reanimate him a bunch of times since you are already in black. Why pay 8 mana when you can pay one.

    Regardless, I wanted to call out this quote because this doesn't work. The thing putting commanders in the command zone is a State Based Action, not a trigger. And that SBA is handled before Lim-Dul's trigger even makes it to the stack. You can still pay the mana but you won't get anything since the card already changed zones.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Mutate and Gift of Doom
    No. You are reading slightly too much into that rule. That rule just explains that if you have a face down permanent (Gift of Doom) and put something on top of it, the permanent as a whole (that is, the merged permanent) is now face up. However, each component remains the same as what it was. The face down Gift of Doom remains face down in the pile and thus contributes nothing to the pile as it is since as a face down component, it has no abilities.

    In fact, that rule clarifies that the pile can still contain face up and face down components. It is just stating that the permanent didn't become face up so things like Trail of Mystery won't trigger.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on M21 leaks
    Quote from m_pathogen »
    Quote from leslak »
    Quote from Unrestrock »

    Sadly for us...but it was too broken to be true anyway...

    Nah leaked teferi (that is most likely true) is way cooler and way more pushed and broken than this one, i mean, he starts with more LW, can up 2 times a round, can respond to creatures attacking, and his ult is 2 turns instead of 1. LoL standard will be obnoxious to play XD


    I kinda have the feeling that'll be the boxtopper. It seems far better for EDH being able to uptick each turn, and we already saw with WAR that they're willing to go for one named non-evergreen mechanic for a card. From Maro's teaser, it seems like there will be just one card with phasing, and that Teferi is it.


    Pretty sure he can’t uptick every turn.
    He can go at Instant speed,
    but he’s missing the text he needs to go off every turn (see Teferi, Temporal Archmage).
    As a disclaimer: this assumes the card is real *and* the wording is accurate (it could have the same wording as Commander Teferi and it is just being omitted in what we have).

    That additional wording probably isn't really needed because it is pretty much covered under "you may activate it any time you could cast an instant". This is because nothing in the rules explicitly forbids a loyalty ability from being activated on a turn other than your own; it is just that the permissions given by default don't allow it.

    If Teferi's ability says you could activate it any time then it gives the permission to activate it when you could cast an Instant: that is, on other turns (and your own turn outside a main phase and/or when the stack isn't empty). As a somewhat analogous situation, Dryad Arbor can be played at Instant timing in certain cases (I forget the card that allows for it) but only on your own turn because 305.3 exists. No such rule exists for Loyalty Abilities.

    And, of course, the release notes could support your interpretation but I think this is unlikely due to it being confusing that way and being having less of an impact to *just* offer the ability to activate it during combat or the end step.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on M21 leaks
    Quote from Ryperior74 »
    Yep the leak is 99% correct

    The only thing wrong is teferi


    There could be another Teferi. The Teferi with phasing could be a boxtopper, as it seems far more suited to EDH than Standard.

    By the way that Teferi looks fake. Font looks all wrong.
    This is a good point. If the one above is real, and the one that was leaked is real, it is still possible the original leak is the Rare Teferi and this is the Mythic. Chandra got 3 planeswalkers so it stands to reason that Teferi might as well.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Banned and restricted announcement June 1st and change to companion
    Quote from Zhalfir »
    Can't even permanently phase out something like you could with the O-Ring trick as it automatically will phase in during the controller's next untap anyway.
    That seems to be enough of a difference though. I mean, you can exile them permanently now; Phasing stops that.

    Granted, the card is mostly used in Pauper and I don't know if that "trick" is used too often, but it is still a change.
    Quote from FlossedBeaver »
    I feel like the changes in functionality are actually more positive, if anything. What would you consider to be unacceptable?
    To be clear, I don't think anything with the changes is unacceptable. My comment was about what Wizards might find unacceptable. So, I have no idea if they would or not. So, perhaps overall they are more positive.

    I suppose the aforementioned loss of the "exile" trick might be one. The fact that it doesn't get rid of tokens anymore or that it doesn't work with equipment the same way (this might be more of an issue since I know there are certain equipment used in Pauper). I would probably lean on that one as a bigger issue but who is to say really.

    If I have to choose just one change that I think is enough of a difference it is the loss of ETB triggers. I don't know if it is a big enough difference but it seems like it would be the most common thing most people would see as being different.

    Also, as a final thought: I am not against this change. I am simply expanding on the thought of it being a significant change which Wizards generally doesn't like doing. For 1 card, and the reason being to make it so it can be printed, they might be willing to do so. I don't know.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Banned and restricted announcement June 1st and change to companion
    Quote from Zhalfir »
    Quote from SavannahLion »
    Thst would functionally change Oubliette. Phasing is quite a bit different than what happens when Oubliette exiles a creature.
    They already functionally changed Oubliette before back in early 2005, same with Tawnos's Coffin.

    https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/phasing-rescue-2005-02-21

    And it feels like that quote from Thanos: "You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me."

    To prove what I mean, I have attached two images to shows how much cleaner and simpler reverting back to the phasing rules for oubliette would be. Left is Phasing (34pt font, 30 words). Right is what it currently reads as (26pt font, 74 words).

    Decided to also include the word count to demonstrate the stark difference.
    That seems like an argument for *not* using Phasing though. If they did it once, and then reverted it because it changed it too much, then why would they do it again? This is a situation where they already tried the proposed solution and didn't like it.

    Also, as pointed out, that still creates a number of functional differences which might change the card too much to be acceptable.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Banned and restricted announcement June 1st and change to companion
    Quote from SavannahLion »
    Quote from FlossedBeaver »
    If phasing plays any sort of larger roll in M21 than just Teferi, it’s remotely possible (*remotely*) that they just errata Oubliette to “phase out target creature until [this] leaves play.”


    Thst would functionally change Oubliette. Phasing is quite a bit different than what happens when Oubliette exiles a creature.
    Which is true. Currently Oubliette won't interact with Equipment the way Phasing would and it interacts better with things like Doubling Season. If changed to Phasing, you can't remove things forever the way you can now and it doesn't interact with tokens the same way. There are a number of other differences.

    However, Wizards (MaRo) has said that the current text simply doesn't fit on a card. Now, they could have found a way to shorten the current text without major changes but that also seems unlikely if they wished not to change functionality. The only real place I can see an omission of current text not changing functionality is the "under its owner's control" text and even that might require a rule change.

    So, it is possible that they have simply decided that not being able to reprint the card is worse than changing its functionality is certain cases.

    Or, they have either introduced keywords for "leaves the battlefield" and "enters the battlefield" to help shorten the text more. I mean, I don't think it is too much longer than Animate Dead's text and they had said the same thing about that in terms of not being able to be reprinted so a few word changes here or there might make it possible.

    I think a bigger reason against Oubliette here is that it is not really in Black's slice of the color pie so it still seems more likely to be in Commander Legends (or whatever it is called).
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on New Judge Promo’s: Eye of Ugin, Infernal Tutor, Birthing Pod, and Sterling Grove
    Quote from Ryperior74 »
    Quote from OblivionedOne »
    Well honestly all of them are random
    Eye of ugin is banned in everything
    Internal tutor sees legacy play
    Birthing pod barely sees play in edh
    Sterling grove only sees play there
    None of these were needed reprints except infernal
    But I’d say eye and sterling grove are pretty random


    Ok you don’t play edh all do you?

    I spot it all the time

    I used to play Pod in Karador and ended up cutting it for Fiend Artisan. Pod is very good in EDH even when I didn't bother trying to build around it, so you are right there.

    Also, to OblivionedOne, Eye of Ugin is banned in Modern. That's it. It still sees a little play in EDH and it is still legal in Legacy. I am pretty sure there is a Legacy Eldrazi deck somewhere.

    I am not a huge fan of the cards either (except Sterling Grove; I happen to like the card). But I still like they will have their uses and people will play with them. It isn't like they are dead cards entirely.

    Also, and importantly, this year is still the first year for Judge Academy to get things rolling. I think a misstep or two (and I do believe this is a misstep) is expected. They are leaning heavily on Infernal Tutor in this wave since the only foil is $80. And I think that has gone down already.

    I doubt the judge foil printing gets anywhere close to that though.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Revival // Revenge when at 1 life.
    You actually have the math right in your question: you lose .5 life. The card says "but round that up" so you do. You round that to 1. So, you lose 1 life.

    You seem to be misreading it as "your life total is halved rounded up" which is not the same thing. The rounding is done on what you are losing, not what your life total ends up at.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Killing Kalamax in response to their first instant?
    This seems to fall under Last Known Information. The trigger needs to know information about the source of the ability to determine a certain piece of information (whether it is tapped). That source is now gone. As we do in analogous situations, we look at the source's Last Known Information:

    608.2g. If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself, the effect uses the current information of that object if it's in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it's no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object's last known information. See rule 113.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it's the object as it exists--or as it most recently existed--that does it, not the ability.

    So, since the trigger requires information about the source, and the source is gone, it looks at it as it last existed on the battlefield to determined if it was tapped. If so, the trigger resolves as normal.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.