2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Changing a spell's target to a card with an increased cost
    The spell was already cast, so an effect about casting the spell doesn't come into relevance. There is no concern about what it takes "to cast" the spell.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on How can Redirect redirect a spell to itself?
    Quote from kandjy »
    Oh, the new target is only chosen when the spell resolve. Interesting.
    What part determine the fact that the new target will be chosen upon resolution as opposed to during the cast.

    I assume that if the wording was: "change target spell's targets to one or more different target spells", both targets would have to be decided upon casting.
    Is it because of the "may" clause that you only have to choose the new target when the spell resolve?

    Uses of the word 'target', in a particularly-structured way in the midst of the instructive part of a spell, decide that this spell satisfies the special burden "it has targets". This structured way is when the word target appears in either:
    1) "Any target" as the object of some imperative (instruction), or
    2) "[number] target [noun-like descriptor]" or "target [noun-like descriptor]" as the object of some imperative (instruction).

    This sense of fitting into a certain syntactical category is reliant on English grammar to be understood by the players. I can't emphasize this enough.

    It's also necessary to leave the other ways of target's appearance in text to be known as just that - some way not covered by the above. I'd be jammed up if I tried to define what sort of usage of the word appears in Redirect, to manufacture a rule of exclusion. All the same, "Change the target"/"Choose new targets" is not that usage which bestows targets to a spell by being found there.
    The importance of the English syntax here is to be noted in that the reason "The target" doesn't count as the target specifier of type 2 above, is because the syntactic object is the "The target of [some spell]", and that category cannot be located in the subsidiary part, beginning "The target...".
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Question regarding Locket of Yesterday + Morphs
    The face-down object you cast as you make use of morph has no name. It can't share a name with anything.

    Unless there's some card that statically gives names to spells as an effect, this is insurmountable.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Captive Audience and Protection
    Quote from willdice »

    I'm inclined to believe the mode can be chosen (as the game won't assume the effect is still impossible by the time the ability resolves), but I'd like something concrete confirming this.


    So, I was all about ready to write a comforting post putting aside such preoccupations as just a sticky feeling from the word 'choose'. But, it seems that in Rules-As-Written, we actually can't pick the life-total option:

    700.2. A spell or ability is modal if it has two or more options in a bulleted list preceded by instructions for a player to choose a number of those options, such as “Choose one —.” Each of those options is a mode. Modal cards printed prior to the Khans of Tarkir® set didn’t use bulleted lists for the modes; these cards have received errata in the Oracle card reference so the modes do appear in a bulleted list.
    700.2b The controller of a modal triggered ability chooses the mode(s) as part of putting that ability on the stack. If one of the modes would be illegal (due to an inability to choose legal targets, for example), that mode can’t be chosen. If no mode is chosen, the ability is removed from the stack. (See rule 603.3c.)
    603.3c [in evidence, post #6]

    If "a mode would be illegal", then it can't be chosen. Not 'is', "would be". What makes a mode illegal? What IS a mode? A mode is an "option (among others) in a bulleted list preceded by instructions for a player to choose a number of those options". How can an option be illegal? Well, maybe because it, insofar as it is instructions, is impossible. There's certainly not enough basis for this nature to be wrapped up as "an inability to choose legal targets, for example". What were the other factors supposed to be? What else in 601.2 even makes a triggered ability ever subject to illegality, if that's what the gesture of the example is meant to say?
    The word 'would' there is damning doubly so. Factors in Magic just -are- or aren't illegal. But the way text "would" work out, really, can only be thought to be the generation of effects, to a player who figures the words in the CR are chosen for reasons.

    I wish I could have given my foolishly simple reply:

    I think this is just a result of the "sticky feeling" that the word "choose" has in our gullet. Remembering that modal choices are the same thing as target choices, inasmuch as they are "choices made when casting" (or whatever the analogue is for stacking triggered abilities), we both recall that Magic doesn't care to interpret whether the instructive part of an ability is going to be possible at the far-off time of that ability's resolution. (I think of it as the text of the ability/spell being in a package that you don't unwrap until the appropriate time.)

    You might only pause because of knowing that when the game does ask you to choose, and it is not referring to mode choice, we do have to respect im/possibility rules. But those are not present for Captive Audience.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Panglacial Wurm and Chromatic Sphere
    Illegal actions are still disallowed under tournament procedure in events governed by such policies. Knowingly taking illegal actions is cheating.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Populating a Key Rune
    The token copy of the keyrune is not created as a creature, but as an inanimate mana rock with the animation ability. Unless you make it into a creature, it cannot be your selection for your populate action. (Also, the token Keyrune is created tapped but not attacking, since noncreatures can't be attacking. CR506.3a)

    Review "706. Copying Objects", especially 706.2 -
    706.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object’s characteristics and, for an object on the stack, choices made when casting or activating it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether it was kicked, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). The “copiable values” are the values derived from the text printed on the object (that text being name, mana cost, color indicator, card type, subtype, supertype, rules text, power, toughness, and/or loyalty), as modified by other copy effects, by its face-down status, and by “as . . . enters the battlefield” and “as . . . is turned face up” abilities that set power and toughness (and may also set additional characteristics). Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on When exactly is a creature removed from the battlefield?
    In instances like first strike dealing lethal damage, the creature leaves the battlefield in the additional (first) combat damage step. The damage is dealt as that step begins, the creature is destroyed, then players receive priority.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on A question about wording
    Blocking is different from attacking. Blocking subsumes the complementary "blocks/blocked-by" relations, whereas attacking is truly just an action that occurs as part of the turn structure or a directed transformation as on Tahngarth, changing a single permanent (creature). It may remain the intent of WotC to have the requirements and/or restrictions that applying to blocking remain in force even for future General Jarkeld imitators.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Cavalier of Gales token and its die trigger
    The condition of "[this creature] dies", happens truly when the token dies. That triggers the ability. The token dies as it is destroyed.

    Even though you won't be able to shuffle the token into your library (because the token has ceased to exist per CR 111.7), you will do the other parts of that ability as possible.

    edit: I can add that, per CR 701.19c, you will even shuffle that library despite the fact that the Cavalier token does not exist.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Shuffling question
    To shuffle a deck, it doesn't matter what it looks like when you started.

    Put the card into the fastest space you can, (still aligning the card's face etc.) then shuffle. If this wouldn't give you a random pile, then your "shuffle" is not a shuffle.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Howlpack Alpha Triggered Ability Question
    Howlpack Alpha's existence as an object on the battlefield puts into action the rule that makes its ability "apply". That ability says something happens on the trigger of "At the beginning of your end step". You might think of that trigger as missing an "s" on "step", since it refers to all of them, but the reason that's not true is technical.

    What I want to impress on you is that putting Howlpack Alpha onto the battlefield, or casting it, is not what "invokes" all its text as if to produce a one-time instruction. Howlpack Alpha is on the battlefield, therefore, its static abilities apply, and its triggered abilities are "waiting" (perhaps, more like watching) to trigger. In Magic, to get a triggered ability to happen 'just once' from a battlefield permanent, you'd have to write a triggered ability, that created a delayed triggered ability. ... or make up something like "This ability triggers only once."

    With that out of the way, I can try to alleviate your distress about that technicality. The terminology could be "At the beginning of an End step of your(s/ turn)", and it would look appropriately generic, or there could say "each" instead of "an"; so I suppose the fault is in cutting that corner with the genitive term ("your") replacing the article. Articles are hardly doing the real job more than the pragmatics, though, as I am told some languages don't have them.

    So if you're in distress in future, remember uncle Horseshoe's rule: Triggered abilities are just as statically vigilant as static abilities themselves! Until they're embedded in something otherwise identifiable as an instruction, of a spell or perhaps an ability and perhaps a triggered kind of ability to boot, at which time you've got a delayed triggered ability, which may or may not be restricted to trigger just once, for which you must check if certain words are not there.

    Easy peasy.
    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?
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Current issues with the comprehensive rules of Magic
    I recognize this kind of tidy quibble doesn't rise to the level of _structural critique of language generating undecideability on interaction questions_, the purpose of this thread; nevertheless I'd like to share in company with petero and the others here, the following:

    ""
    I wish there was a treatment for split cards in the casting process at the site of 601.2 (to describe split and fuse castings), OR, a reference at 702.101a that it is modifying the casting procedure specifically of 601.2a."
    indeed as something I cut from my recent post.

    Overall, the CR in other places, and rules documents in games in general, have the effective practice of stating a rule dynamically changing a rule by naming the other rule -specifically-, not just glossing over a process. At least meet in the middle and say "casting... as defined in 601.2". Forget subrule, sure, but the one should be communicated in terms of the definitions.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Does a fused Wear // Tear count as one or two spells for Fires of Invention?
    Quote from user_938036 »

    Your second point is a simple misunderstanding of what it means to propose to cast a spell.

    601.2a To propose the casting of a spell, a player first moves that card (or that copy of a card) from
    where it is to the stack.

    Fuse gives you the option of proposing to cast the spell Turn, Bur, or TurnBurn. While a split card allows you to cast either Fire or Ice not FireIce.

    So the decision you make to cast a split card 'fused' is simply the decision to propose the spell TurnBurn rather than either the spell Turn or Burn.

    You don't move a split card to the stack and then decide which half is being cast, you propose which half is being cast and then move it to the stack. In the same way that the new adventures work. You don't move it to the stack and then decide if its a creature or the adventure, you propose to cast either Murderous Rider or Swift End.


    That is sensible entirely. I'm overlooking the labors of subrule (a) of Fuse for not a good reason. It does clearly say "[...] the player may choose to cast both halves of that split card rather than choose one half. This choice is made before putting the split card with fuse onto the stack."

    Your deduction is built on concrete notwithstanding the above, even.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Does a fused Wear // Tear count as one or two spells for Fires of Invention?
    Fuse has you cast one spell with attributes from both halves. It's not in any deeper way like doing two things. See CR702.101a.

    I now have a question for another guru. Are you allowed to cast fuse spells for free? Fusing isn't a choice of alternate cost, it's an election to let the mana cost "include the mana costs of both halves". But there are inconsistencies in the document version 2019-October-4; e.g., 702.101 Fuse says you choose fuse before the card goes on the Stack, but 601.2* says you move any spell to the Stack first. And explicit treatment of how fusing features in casting seems left up to a special case in 708. Split Cards.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.