MTG Salvation

Quote from Argus Panoptes »

Quote from Perodequeso »

Is there even a way for an Aura ball to indirectly phase out en toto?
It seems to me that the only way to phase out an Aura ball would to phase out either one or both directly, with something akin to Teferi’s Protection.

Teferi's Protection is exactly how it could get phased out.

Using my example, ER1 phases out, therefore ER2 phases out indirectly at the same time. ER2 phases out, therefore ER1 phases out indirectly at the same time.

702.25g When a permanent phases out, any Auras, Equipment, or Fortifications attached to that
permanent phase out at the same time. This alternate way of phasing out is known as phasing
out “indirectly.” An Aura, Equipment, or Fortification that phased out indirectly won’t phase in
by itself, but instead phases in along with the permanent it’s attached to.
702.25h If an object would simultaneously phase out directly and indirectly, it just phases out
indirectly.

So, they both phase out indirectly and are unlikely to ever phase back in.

Ah, that was the caveat I was missing, thanks.

Is there even a way for an Aura ball to indirectly phase out en toto?
It seems to me that the only way to phase out an Aura ball would to phase out either one or both directly, with something akin to Teferi’s Protection.
The effects that cause permanents to phase out go after creatures, artifacts, lands, or non-Aura enchantments. So short of turning the Auras into creatures(in which case they would become unattached) or artifacts, how could they become phased out indirectly exactly? As an Aura ball, they wouldn’t be attached to any other permanents to indirectly phase out. If they become artifacts any effect that would phase them out would do so directly.

In short, I cannot think of a way that an Aura ball could phase out indirectly, and if this is the case, a phased out Aura ball would only be phased out directly. Am I missing something?

Quote from peteroupc »

Quote from kp256 »

Quote from peteroupc »

The comprehensive rules, however, unfortunately don't clarify the case of what happens when a permanent that phased out indirectly, phases in when the permanent was attached only to permanents that likewise phased out indirectly along with the permanent.

So with no rule to tell them to phase in, it would seem like they stay phased out.

No, they phase in as the appropriate untap step begins, just like any other phased-out permanent (C.R. 502.1). What is unclear is whether they remain attached or not once they phase in.

Wouldn't this be covered by the last sentence in 702.25g? "An Aura, Equipment, or Fortification that phased out indirectly won't phase in by itself, but instead phases in along with the permanents it's attached to(emphasis mine).
I was under the impression that attached permanents stayed attached when phasing in and out as long as all targets are legal. Is this not correct?

Chroma is definitely a “better” mechanic than Devotion because it’s three different mechanics rolled up into one key word.
Of the nine cards with Chroma, four are just straight up Devotion.
Three are Devotion “in another zone".
Fiery Bombardment and Light from Within feel like a wholly separate ability, that frankly shouldn’t have been key-worded Chroma.

Chroma feels messy and all over rhe place. Like they had an idea but weren’t quite sure about how to execute it. Devotion on the other hand is cleaner, it always does the same thing. It’s easier to mentally absorb, and with the complexity in the game that’s really important.

Quote from FreezingPoint »

Shred, Tear, Grind or synonyms. There are cards with the Shred or Grind in their names, but none had the impact of Millstone.

Personally I prefer the verbs Shred or Grind.

It's just that "mill" can be a verb, like what you do to gain to turn it into flour.

Does activating Sundial of the Infinite get around Psychic Vortex's EOT trigger?
I believe yes but would just like confirmation.


Edit:
Never mind, just read the Sundial's ruling's more carefully and got my answer.

Quote from Caranthir »

Immediately thought about Oogway as well.

Loving Ramirez's description, and also "Tor Wauki the Elder"...a nice way of acknowledging that the character is mentioned in both Legends I and Legends II cycles (playing a major role in II).

This is totally Oogway!

The best way for WOTC to help "save" the LGS would consist of multiple things:
1) Increase prize support for tournaments with desirable, needed cards.
2) Create products specifically for WPN locations.
3) Sell product directly to stores, bypassing distributors.
4) Support more formats at events.

All things that WOTC had done in the past.
These are only a few things, I'm sure there are others.

Cool, thanks!

My opponent, on my turn, casts Siren's Call. So now all my non-sick creatures must attack. Say I control a small utility creature that I'd rather not die in combat so I cast Disharmony on it to remove it from combat, after declaring it as an attacker.
My question is, will that creature be destroyed by Siren's Call's trigger because Disharmony removed it from combat, or since it was declared as an attacker will it survive?
I'm leaning towards the former but not totally sure.

I think that would result in your creature having Triple Strike.

I found an article on Cardmarket about Commander variants and one in particular stood out to me, Kingdoms. So I thought I could adapt it for 60 card multiplayer games.

One thing I wanted to do was expand the roles for even larger than six players, the other was to use a more resonant way to denote each player's role. Instead of using basic lands I went with cards and tokens to determine the players roles.
Each player is randomly dealt a face-down role card. Only the King reveals their role unless a rule states otherwise.
The first six roles basically function the same but some of the titles are different.
B Because this isn't a Commander version, the King starts with 35 life. The King goes first, and wins if they, or they and the Knight are the last remaining players.
B The Knight's(I use a Knight token) job is to protect the King, no matter which player ends up becoming King . The Knight wins if they are the last one standing or If the King wins.
B There are two Assassins(once again, tokens to represent), the Assassins' goal is to kill the King. If the King dies, the Assassins win, regardless of what other players are still in the game.
B The Dragon(token here too) can only win when all other players are eliminated.
B For a six player game you add The Usurper. The Usurper's goal is to become the King. When the Usurper deals lethal damage to the King the Usurper reveals their role and trades roles with the King. The Usurper's life total is set to 35 and they take the King card, they in affect become the new King. The defeated King's life is set to 1, and they are now the Usurper. The Usurper must become King and win as King.
B For a seven player game add in the Prince. The Prince's goal is to become the King. After the Prince becomes king, all they then need to do is defeat the Usurper to win.
B With eight players add in a second Knight.
During the game players are not to reveal their roles, unless otherwise instructed to do so, but may bluff at what their role is.

The cards I've tagged are some ideas for great flavor representation. With options such as these and the tokens, players have a firmer, more flavorful grasp on their role

I have a couple groups, usually between 3-5 players but occasionally more. Rarely play 2HG, will play Emperor if we have six.
We do dabble with Archenemy, Planechase, and other casual variants, but mostly stick to FFA.

Quote from user_938036 »

Quote from R_Lancer »

Nobody was flashing Stone Throwing Devils or Invoke Prejudice at players to belittle them.

You say this yet others on this very forum say they have personally seen this happen. So people are flashing these cards at others to belittle them.

Knowing that people are using them to belittle others does this change your opinion?

Except I don’t “know” that anyone is actually dOing that. Anecdotal stories online are not proof of anything. And we all know people are willing to say anything to sell their point.

How many people actually knew “Stone-Throwing Devils” is a pejorative for Palestinians prior to this incident. I’m a fairly well read individual and I did not, and by extrapolation I’ll presume that vast majority, if not all, the people I’ve played those around didn’t know either.

If some jerk-wad is flashing those cards in that manner, that's behavioral issue, not truly the card’s fault.
Invoke Prejudice is problematic on so many levels that’s fine, been expecting that for years honestly. But the others feel like a bit of a stretch.

Since most of these cards rarely see play outside of niche formats, the game will survive without them in sanctioned events.

Edit: broke link
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&subtype= @(+%5BCat%5D)