- Oreth The Centaur
- Registered User
Member for 13 years
Last active Mon, Oct, 22 2018 09:43:04
- 0 Followers
- 404 Total Posts
- 8 Thanks
Oct 2, 2018The rulings for Epic Experiment seem to disagree with WizardMn's opinion.Posted in: Magic Rulings
10/1/2012 You cast the cards one at a time, choosing modes, targets, and so on. The last card you cast will be the first one to resolve
I can't see any reason why you couldn't copy the shock.
Apr 14, 2018Hey guys, can you help me out.Posted in: Artwork
Higher quality here. https://imgur.com/VMAekmk
Work in progress. I've added the legendary crown (I'll finish it when we have hi-res scans) I've also added the colorless symbol to the font file. I'd like to make both available for download but I'm not sure if I'm allowed since I'm altering other people work. Any ideas on how I should proceed? I don't remember who's PSD file I originally used either
Apr 10, 2018Hey guys!! I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to write such comprehensive answers. I know this went into much further detail than most answers here and I'm sure it must have been frustrating to you guys but I think I realise now EXACTLY where I was going wrong. If I had to sum it up in one sentence it would be "While you can ignore impossible effects, you can't make impossible choices."Posted in: Magic Rulings
I hope you enjoyed delving a little deeper into a subject than you usually do.
I have one last question if you will and a quick comment on Wild Swing.
Wild Swing targets, which means rule 608.2d doesn't apply to it. Upon resolution, the player is not given a choice to destroy anything. The destroy event happens without the player needing to make any choice on which creature to destroy.
I mentioned this earlier, but I interpret Wild Swing as indeed offering a choice on resolution. I believe when Wild resolves, it's controller randomly chooses which of the permanents are destroyed.
"You target three permanents as you cast Wild Swing. You don’t randomly choose which one will be destroyed until Wild Swing resolves. If one of those permanents has become an illegal target by then, you randomly choose between the other two. If two of those permanents have become illegal targets by then, there is no random choice — the remaining permanent is destroyed."
It's a bit academic, but I'd argue that the player is making a choice between three permanents, (but that choice is determined by chance) and some of those permanents may be impossible choices. If Magic was an entirely digital game, (with no paper version) there would be an inbuilt randomiser and this ruling wouldn't be necessary, but I still wonder if randomly choosing still counts as a "choice." If so, then surely those "choices" should be restricted by the same rules against impossible choices.
So suppose I choose two of your creatures and my darksteel citadel as the targets. You respond by casting a spell to give one of your creatures hexproof.
Creature A: Now has hexproof, so it's an illegal target,
Creature B: Valid target and possible choice
Darksteel Citadel: Impossible choice because indestructible??
Would it be an accurate assumption to say that only creature B can be chosen "randomly"?
Finally, would you mind giving your interpretation of the following scenario, bearing rule 117.12a in mind
I control two Serra Angels with one of them equipped by Assault Suit. I play Tariff. Can I choose my equipped angel as the creature I'll sacrifice unless I pay 3WW? What happens if I choose not to pay 3WW?
117.12a. Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, "[Do something] unless [a player does something else]." This means the same thing as "[A player may do something else]. If [that player doesn't], [do something]."
If I undesrstand 117.12a correctly, Tariff's text reads "You may pay the mana cost of the creature you control with the highest mana cost, if you don't, sacrifice it. If two or more creatures a player controls are tied for highest cost, that player chooses one."
In which case, I could choose my equipped angel? Would you agree with this ruling??
Thanks a million guys!! You're awesome!!
Apr 8, 2018Thanks for the support chaikov,Posted in: Magic Rulings
Unfortunately as we learned from Burning of Xinye, there's a huge difference between
Destroy four target lands,
Choose four lands and destroy them
You destroy four lands
To me the answer is very simple. The comp rules just needs to add a line to the rules defining the term destroy (701.7) and indestructibility (702.12) explicitly stating that in the case of the last option, it is an illegal action to destroy an indestructible permanent.
Maybe even change the reminder text of indestructible "(Damage and effects that say "destroy" CAN'T destroy it. If its toughness is 0 or less, it's still put into its owner's graveyard.)" instead of "DON'T destroy it" and add reminder text to the very small set of cards that have received this weird templating (Drop of Honey, Prophyry Nodes and Burning Xinye) explicitly stating that choosing indestructible permanents isn't allowed because it is highly unintuitive.
Apr 8, 2018Posted in: Magic RulingsQuote from user_938036 »
Nodes and Honey are specifically instructing you to destroy a creature, so you can not choose a creature that can't be destroyed.
It's slightly more complicated than this though, because
a) you CAN choose a creature that can't be destroyed and if you do, nothing happens.
and b) It arbitrarily only counts indestructible and not other effects that would prevent a creature being destroyed such as Totem armor.
7/1/2013 If the creature with the least power has indestructible, the ability does nothing.
7/1/2013 If there are multiple creatures tied for least power and some but not all of them have indestructible, the ones with indestructible can’t be chosen.
If there are only two 1/1 indestructible creatures on the battlefield, you may legally choose either, and nothing will happen as Nodes resolves, so you absolutely may choose "impossible" choices. In fact, the only restriction in choice occurs if at least one of the creatures tied for the lowest power doesn't have indestructible.
To confound things further, if one of those permanents has Totem Armor instead of Indestructible then you have to choose that permanent instead.
This is where the ambiguity, and questions of common sense and assumption, and the problems with literally readings arise and is what I think OP refers to. There is nothing in the comp rules that states the previous interaction.
Quote from user_938036 »
For Wild Swing, the player isn't making a choice so it isn't covered by this rule.
I respectfully disagree, the player IS CHOOSING, but using a random method to decide the choice. This might seem pedantic but look at the language used in the card rulings. They repeat the phrase "you randomly choose"
You don’t randomly choose which one will be destroyed until Wild Swing resolves. If one of those permanents has become an illegal target by then, you randomly choose between the other two.
I like the approach you've taken regarding Cataclysm and the like, But I'm still not sure I agree. Csn you just clarify how many angels I'd have left in the above example please?
And one last question, I still control two Serra Angels with one of them equipped by Assault Suit. I play Tariff. Can I choose my equipped angel as the creature I'll sacrifice unless I pay 3WW? What happens if I choose not to pay 3WW?
Finally, thank again for your answers, I'm not trying to be argumentative, my only points are that OPs question is valid and the rules could be clearer.
Apr 8, 2018Mods: I know this has ventured a bit so if you need to, can you please move this thread instead of locking it because I find it very interesting. ThanksPosted in: Magic Rulings
First off, I wanna reiterate that I still think OP's question is really relevant and that "impossible" action requires a proper definition.
Quote from Horseshoe_Hermit »
Impossibility is a well-defined English concept, and a logical one - it is whatever is necessarily not the case. But if a companion guide is needed, you may consider 'impossibility' to be defined wherever the word "can't" or "can only" appears.
I feel that you are trying to establish a precedent that hasn't yet been set or worse use "common sense" in a strange way.
To me "choosing impossible actions" means that if someone casts Torment of Venom on my creature, I need to actually control another nonland permanent or have a card in hand to choose either of those choices. I can't save 3 life by agreeing to discard a card when I have none in hand. So I'm still not convinced that attempting to destroy an indestructible permanent counts as an impossible action within the framework of the rules.
Rule 608.2d only applies to cases where the choice is offered upon resolution. I don't know why you've interpreted it to also apply to cases where the choice isn't offered upon resolution.
Agreed, and my only point here was to state that spells and abilities can legally resolve but not generate the effects that they are supposed to.
Any way, let's assume the precedent is set that countering uncounterable spells or destroying an indestructible permanent impossible counts as impossible within the framework of the rules, and bearing 608.2d in mind, I have a couple of follow up questions to help me think it through and see where you're coming from.
Let's suppose I cast Wild Swing choosing my two Darksteel Citadels and my opponents 9/9 creature as targets. My understanding of the rules is there's a 33.3% chance that my opponent's 9/9 will be destroyed, and a 33.3% chance that Wild Swing will fail to destroy Citadel A and 33.3% chance to fail to destroy Citadel B.
But your precedent suggests that since impossible choices can't be made (presumably even if I chose it randomly) that there's a 100% of destroying the 9/9 since I should only consider choices that are possible actions? Is this the correct conclusion? And if not, why is it different from Drop/Nodes.
(Incidentally, the rulings for Wild Swing and Nodes were updated on the 01/07/13 even though they don't agree with with other. Nodes says indestructible things can't be chosen, Wild Swing says they can, but nothing happens )
Next up, let's look at the card Assault Suit, which says "Equipped creature can't be sacrificed." and conveniently has the following ruling
If an effect instructs you to sacrifice a creature, and you control any creatures other than the creature equipped with Assault Suit, you must sacrifice one of them. You can’t try to sacrifice the equipped creature, fail, and therefore ignore the effect.
Let's say that I cotrol two Serra Angels and one of them is equipped with Assault Suit. My opponent casts Diabolic Edict I would clearly have to Sacrifice the unequipped Angel.
But compare that to effects like Balancing Act, Cataclysm and Cataclysmic Gearhulk which make you choose a creature to spare and then you sacrifice the rest.
In my understanding of the rules, I could choose to save the unequipped Angel. As the spell resolves the equipped Angel would simply not be sacrificed, leaving me with but both angels but your precedent suggests that I would be forced to choose to save the equipped angel since sacrificing it would be impossible. Is this the correct interpretation?
Finally, for now, let's look at Do or Die. Wrath effects usually just ignore indestructible creatures but going by your definition that "impossible" choices can't be made, it seems that if either pile has an indestructible creature in it, that pile can't be chosen. What happens to the game state if this occurs? Is the caster forced to rearrange the piles until at least one pile contains no creatures that can't be destroyed?
Imagine I cast Do or Die on my opponent who controls two Darksteel Colossuses, and six 4/4 Beast tokens. My understanding of the rules, is that if I split into two piles each containing a Darksteel Colossus and three 4/4 Beast tokens, then I will destroy the remaining three beasts tokens, leaving my opponent with both Colossi and the three remaining beasts but your ruling suggests that my opponent can't choose either pile??
So again guys, I'm not convinced that your interpretation of impossible actions is as tight as you think. My only point, is that the rules needs more clarification and it's not as simple as you claim.
Apr 7, 2018I hear your points folks, but it still seems like an unintuitive ruling.Posted in: Magic Rulings
This is a really interesting discussion because the rules don't explicitly spell it out. It's perfectly legal to attempt the impossible in Magic. The rules of the game allow you to waste a Counterspell on a Supreme Verdict or to cast Terminate on an indestructible creature but not on a creature with hexproof (which would be an illegal play)
Interestingly, the comp rules both defines and explains how to handle Illegal targets, Illegal Actions and the obsolete term "fizzle" (720) but doesn't define "impossible"
If I hadn't seen the card specific rulings, I would assume that choosing an indestructible creature for Drop or Nodes is functionally the very same as casting a kill spell. The instructions to move the permanent from the battlefield to its owner’s graveyard would simply be ignored.
Drop/Nodes is a weird card, let's not pretend otherwise
Apr 7, 2018To answer your question, there is nothing in the comp rules that supports this ruling and I think the card should have been errated instead of arbitrarily adding this ruling.Posted in: Magic Rulings
The only thing in the comp rules that I can think of being relevant is the following
608.2d If an effect of a spell or ability offers any choices other than choices already made as part of casting the spell, activating the ability, or otherwise putting the spell or ability on the stack, the player announces these while applying the effect. The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible, with the exception that having a library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action.
I suppose the argument for is that choosing an indestrucible creature would be "impossible". (Not that I agree with that)
Apr 3, 2018Oreth The Centaur posted a message on "Mana of any type" and clues toward upcoming sets/planesHmmm, intersting theory but I think this might have more to do with modern design sensibilities.Posted in: Speculation
The current design philosophy is that while sideboard cards definitely still exist, most cards should not be better or worse based on your opponents deck. This is why intimidate, protection and landwalk have been either been removed or reduced to deciduous mechanics since Magic Origins.
I'm presuming this extends to "Cards that allow you too cast your opponents stuff shouldn't be weaken it that stuff requires colorless or snow mana".
Going forward I think "any type" is just more versatile and futureproof that "any color"
Mar 20, 2018Oreth The Centaur posted a message on Commander 2018 planeswalker face cards speculationAll I want is commanders and support that make old mechanics more EDH friendly. A proper morph commander, a cycling one, a splice one. So much gold in magics history that could be insane with a little push in Commander products.Posted in: Speculation
Mar 13, 2018Bad press??Posted in: Baseless Speculation
Pauper is a loved format and now you can combine your love of pauper with your love of drafting. We've put so much care and attention with every card selection to ensuring this draft is truly premium experience.
Feb 24, 2018Oreth The Centaur posted a message on What happens if a judge gets a ruling incorrect that can't be rewound?Hmmmm.... It's a hard one to call. I read this 8 hours ago and decided that I didn't have the knowledge to answer because while I'm ok with the comp rules, I never learned the judging rules. (I can work out crazily layered interactions with multiple Blood Moons and Humilitys and Life and Limbs but couldn't tell you the penalty for deliberate slow play)Posted in: Magic Rulings
At any rate I hope someone familiar with the judge side of things adds their voice because it's an interesting discussion.
For me, the big question here is if this was sealed or constructed?
I'm afraid to say, if this was constructed, where players are expected to know how their cards work, I wouldn't hold the judge accountable. In all honesty, the cynic in me would question your motives.
My biggest concern would be that you knew exactly how miracle worked and that you asked the judge loaded questions to enable a play that you knew was otherwise not allowed, hoping that your opponent wasn't familiar enough with the rules to dispute you.
Now, if it was a prerelease or other sealed event using new mechanics, now I'm looking at the judge........
I'm really interested to hear other opinions and hope a few people add some input!
Warning issued for unsure answer/lack of an answer. -MadMage
Feb 19, 2018Everyone wants Doubling Season, but I'd imagine that we are going to get Parallel Lives instead.Posted in: Magic General
I'm not going to get excited about this set because there's zero doubt in my mind that we are looking at Iconic Masters 2.
1. Kokusho, the Evening Star
2. Jugan, the Rising Star
3. Ryusei, the Falling Star
4. Yosei, the Morning Star
5. Keiga, the Tide Star
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.