Somehow, the Simic guild opposes the Rakdos cult. And it doesn't do so on the grounds of :w: ness.
So how would Wizards (read: Mark Rosewater) go through this process to determine what UG is?
U/G doesn't like rampant chaotic destruction. U/G finds purpose to everything. Everything existed and exists and will exist for a purpose.
The intersection of the ideas of knowledge in Nature is this odd theory which states that Nature itself, as a collective yet single entity, is constantly learning. It sees, hears, flies, strikes, eats, is eaten, all at once by many trillion life forms. That's a lot of information. Evolution y'all. Nature cannot help but approach this state of... "becoming more".
Blue is about becoming more. Blue wants to figure out where it should go and then go there. What to do and then do it. What to be and then be it.
The difference is that Blue has no patience for waiting around for Green to get there. Normally.
The Simic are going to be about embracing Soft Determinism, the concept that mostly everything is fated, but the actions of people makes a small difference. The Simic don't have the will to wait around, not acting.
The U side wants to do its normal U stuff of learning, but in this case, we have many U mages who believe that biomancy is the only worthwhile pursuit.
The G side is desperate to protect nature. G mages embrace the idea that perhaps artifice can accomplish the natural way quicker.
I think this is the idea that MaRo will find for Simic.
Yes. They should stop reprinting Hard counters of all sorts until they seriously examine what countering a spell means.
Because I think that with the reexamination of the colour pie that came about for the article "True Blue" and "Seeing Red", one had realized that "tricky mastery of spells" is not Blue.
In fact, it should never come down to it's "mastery of knowledge".
What is a counterspell? Why does countering a spell further Blue's ideals? Where does it fit in to the quest for knowledge?
Wizards must answer these questions before they can print a counterspell, let alone one that breaks the game.
Why does everyone keep saying GLeemax changes targets?
THE TARGET NEVER CHANGES.
Instead of the player playing the ability choosing the target, you choose the target.
This modifies the way people carry out rule 409.1c, choosing targets. Instead of the player, you will choose those targets. You also choose how many targets there are.
Later on though, in steps 409.1d and 409.1e, when the player would choose which target corresponds to which instance of the word "target", and how to divide effects in abilities of the type "Do [foo] divided as you choose among [number] target [something]s", THAT PLAYER does them.
This means that if I play Arc Lightning and you have Gleemax, you tell me how many targets there are (you must choose 1, 2, or 3), then you point them out.
But then I get to choose where I put the damage. I must divide at least 1 damage to each target.
Similarly, if I play Schismotivate, you point out which creatures I target (which must be different and legal).
But then I choose which one will get +4/+0 and which one will get -4/-0.
You could decide beforehand what constitutes the half of the card:
The top half (artwork, name and cost)
The bottom half (rules text, typeline, collector's info, legal text, power/toughness)
The left half (First few characters of name, supertype if any and the first type printed, first word on every line of rules text)
The right half (Mana cost, last few characters of name, subtypes if any, last type printed, power/toughness etc.)
And you would of course not be allowed to play it since you cannot indicate to all players its mana cost and name.
EDIT: Unless you drew the top half, in which case...... I guess you could. It's not less fair than the Promotional Spells.
However, if it has Morph, and you drew the left half or the bottom half, then you could play it face down, and later, flip it up revealing that same half, indicating its morph cost.
OR, instead of drawing a physical half, you could say that half a card is not a card at all, so you remember you drew half a card, and the next time you would draw half a card, you draw a card and forget about the half card you drew. You continue to draw whole cards normally.
I do not think "looking at a card" constitutes half of drawing it. How is it exactly half? It needs to be exactly half.
1/2 has the property that 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, and all halves are equal.
You would have to say "looking at a card" and "being able to use a card without looking at it" are equal. They're not.
Furthermore, if they were equal, then you would say "looking at a card" + "looking at a card" = "being able to use a card without looking at it" + "being able to use a card without looking at it" = drawing 1 card.
This is not true.
If this were the case, then upkeep triggers would never work in 2HG. Both players share the turn, yes, but the turn still goes thru its normal progression of phases and steps. Each team gets an upkeep step, and since it's shared between both players, each player technically gets an upkeep step. (This has been important for 2HG rulings regarding things like Woebringer Demon.)
Nothing is different about the turn except that it is shared.
Sometimes it matters *exactly* when you do it, so first I will begin with laymen's terms:
For some actions, the rules allow a time to play mana abilities. This includes when a resolving effect wants someone to pay mana (MAna Leak, for instance).
Ghostly Prison is not a resolving effect, but the declare attacker's step sets aside a time for just such an effect.
Lo,
The payment is done AFTER you have decided whether the attacking assignment is legal and AFTER you tap those cards, but BEFORE those cards are considered attacking.
Trust me, I checked the rules, it's a huge section to cite, it's very clear, I didn't screw up.
It is worthwhile to note that, although there is no event that you are replacing the original event with, it is still a "replacement effect", since rule 419.1a says that the word "instead" makes it so.
This means that the damage wasn't prevented. It was replaced. This means that Excruciator doesn't work on it.
EDIT: By which I mean Excruciator's damage will be replaced with the milling of 7 cards (it's got 7 power, right?)
WOW! I posted a tangential datum that was relevant! Yay me. . .
EDIT: Let me just grab the rules that define prevention and replacement...
Quote from 419.1a »
Effects that use the word “instead” are replacement effects. Most replacement effects use the word “instead” to indicate what events will be replaced with other events and use the word “skip” to indicate what events, steps, phases, or turns will be replaced with nothing.
And [quote=419.1d Effects that use the word “prevent” are prevention effects. Prevention effects use “prevent” to indicate what events will not occur.[/quote]
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I can play a Tin-Street hooligan without having a target in play because it's already in play when the destroy effect triggers, meaning it can't be countered upon resoultion.
CARD-TAGS! It's not that difficult...
- Craven
It seems you wanted an explanation, so I'll fetch up the rules of triggered abilities with targets:
Quote from 410.4 »
When a triggered ability goes on the stack, the controller of the ability makes any choices that would be required while playing an activated ability, following the same procedure (see rule 409, “Playing Spells and Activated Abilities”). If no legal choice can be made (or if a rule or a continuous effect otherwise makes the ability illegal), the ability is simply removed from the stack.
This rule seems to indicate that the ability goes to the stack, and then if it is found that it ... 'doesn't work', it is removed from the stack.
One of the steps listed in rule 409 is choosing targets.
For Tin Street Hooligan, if there is no artifact, then that triggered ability will be removed from the stack at the time you would choose targets.
None of this affects Tin Street Hooligan the card. The triggered ability happens when the Hooligan comes into play ("When Tin Street Hooligan comes into play. . ."). Once it is in play, it won't be removed from play unless something says you do. Countering never happens to something in play.
Denied! is an interrupt, which is why it is played only immediately in response to something.
It allows you on resolution to name a card. So unless you have no cards in hand at the time it resolves, a Telepathy revealing your hand makes it PRETTY easy to make Denied! work.
Im pretty sure maro talked about this. And im just as sure he said that they were already in play when the game started.
Just to be extra cool about it, to separate the "1st turn" from the "0th turn", why not have it begin the game in play AS YOU BEGIN MULLIGANING????
In the rules, the game has begun when both players have decided who will go first and start with their initial hands of seven. This is why a player can use Serum Powder at this time.
Although in general I don't mind some necroing, it is not acceptable to re-animate a 11-month-old thread! Warning for Necroing according to the Forum Rules.
- Craven
I just found something very wrong with the comp rules.
Quote from 606.4b »
Each team takes turns rather than each player
This means that technically, your Stabwhisker the Odious does nothing, since no player has an upkeep. Only a team has an upkeep.
This seems to be an omission, which means it would be unsporting to consider it the correct ruling. But I cannot find anything else. The entire section contains nothing on explanations of parts of the turn. It explains the combat phase and has a whole section on life totals, but nothing on turn structure.
What I can tell you is that Nezumi Shortfang's ability looks at the hand size of the player you targeted. It will flip if *that* player has no hand after he discards a card.
This isn't a tournament question, so I hope I'm not wasting your time, but still...
I have out Ashnod's Coupon and R+D's Secret Lair. I Sac the coupon and force an opponent to go next door to get me a drink. He agrees, even agreeing to the errata that no longer exists on the Coupon. Yes, he's paying for it.
I found this in the Crystalkeep:
The effect does not resolve until the drink is returned.
So, after he pays for it, before he returns, can I change my mind, not want the beverage, and Stifle the effect? If so, does being that cruel bear some sort of penalty?
Thanks
The note in CrystalKeep was to clarify the time during which it is on the stack.
It means the game doesn't proceed until the drink is returned, since the game can't move on until the stack is empty, allowing the step in the turn to end.
The Coupon, without errata, requires target player to get target drink. It implies "by any means necessary." To not get the drink is to not comply with the instructions of a card. Since it is possible for your friend to get any drink you could point out to him (though it may be dangerous or possibly frowned upon), he will lose the game if he doesn't get the drink.
However, the rules clarify that the game never wants anyone to commit actions that are illegal in the location that you are playing the game. So you can't make him steal a drink. But you can make him pay for it, if he's got the money.
So yeah, as said above by others, you can't Stifle the effect because it's resolving and you can't interrupt that. And turning down the drink is your choice. Your friend brought it to you, and you don't want it. The effect resolves and life goes on.
What happens when you haunt an activated Genju under these circumstances?
1. You haunt the Genju, and it is immediately killed.
2. You haunt the Genju, it becomes a land again, and then the land is killed.
3. You haunt the Genju, it becomes a land again, activate it again, then it's killed.
If by "Genju" you mean "the land animated by the Genju enchantment", then yes, Haunt continues to track that permanent. Until it dies*.
Though it can target only a creature, phrases like "that creature" really mean "that permanent".
*Once the land dies, it will never be considered "that creature", since having left play, the game sees it as a new "that permanent" if it enters play again.
Somehow, the Simic guild opposes the Rakdos cult. And it doesn't do so on the grounds of :w: ness.
So how would Wizards (read: Mark Rosewater) go through this process to determine what UG is?
U/G doesn't like rampant chaotic destruction. U/G finds purpose to everything. Everything existed and exists and will exist for a purpose.
The intersection of the ideas of knowledge in Nature is this odd theory which states that Nature itself, as a collective yet single entity, is constantly learning. It sees, hears, flies, strikes, eats, is eaten, all at once by many trillion life forms. That's a lot of information. Evolution y'all. Nature cannot help but approach this state of... "becoming more".
Blue is about becoming more. Blue wants to figure out where it should go and then go there. What to do and then do it. What to be and then be it.
The difference is that Blue has no patience for waiting around for Green to get there. Normally.
The Simic are going to be about embracing Soft Determinism, the concept that mostly everything is fated, but the actions of people makes a small difference. The Simic don't have the will to wait around, not acting.
The U side wants to do its normal U stuff of learning, but in this case, we have many U mages who believe that biomancy is the only worthwhile pursuit.
The G side is desperate to protect nature. G mages embrace the idea that perhaps artifice can accomplish the natural way quicker.
I think this is the idea that MaRo will find for Simic.
Because I think that with the reexamination of the colour pie that came about for the article "True Blue" and "Seeing Red", one had realized that "tricky mastery of spells" is not Blue.
In fact, it should never come down to it's "mastery of knowledge".
What is a counterspell? Why does countering a spell further Blue's ideals? Where does it fit in to the quest for knowledge?
Wizards must answer these questions before they can print a counterspell, let alone one that breaks the game.
When they look at these questions, they will find that the answer is that to hard counter a spell is White.
And to soft counter a spell is Black.
And to counter with other effect is Blue.
And that things which aren't really counters belong to the colour that ability belongs to
They certainly are not motivated to kill people. It may simply come about that they ignore the lives of others in testing their experiments.
Unleashing a plague to kill or to cackle would probably be evil (except to Rakdos, which would be seen as ...cool)
Unleashing a plague to study its virulence.... well... that's misguided, at worst.
THE TARGET NEVER CHANGES.
Instead of the player playing the ability choosing the target, you choose the target.
This modifies the way people carry out rule 409.1c, choosing targets. Instead of the player, you will choose those targets. You also choose how many targets there are.
Later on though, in steps 409.1d and 409.1e, when the player would choose which target corresponds to which instance of the word "target", and how to divide effects in abilities of the type "Do [foo] divided as you choose among [number] target [something]s", THAT PLAYER does them.
This means that if I play Arc Lightning and you have Gleemax, you tell me how many targets there are (you must choose 1, 2, or 3), then you point them out.
But then I get to choose where I put the damage. I must divide at least 1 damage to each target.
Similarly, if I play Schismotivate, you point out which creatures I target (which must be different and legal).
But then I choose which one will get +4/+0 and which one will get -4/-0.
The top half (artwork, name and cost)
The bottom half (rules text, typeline, collector's info, legal text, power/toughness)
The left half (First few characters of name, supertype if any and the first type printed, first word on every line of rules text)
The right half (Mana cost, last few characters of name, subtypes if any, last type printed, power/toughness etc.)
And you would of course not be allowed to play it since you cannot indicate to all players its mana cost and name.
EDIT: Unless you drew the top half, in which case...... I guess you could. It's not less fair than the Promotional Spells.
However, if it has Morph, and you drew the left half or the bottom half, then you could play it face down, and later, flip it up revealing that same half, indicating its morph cost.
OR, instead of drawing a physical half, you could say that half a card is not a card at all, so you remember you drew half a card, and the next time you would draw half a card, you draw a card and forget about the half card you drew. You continue to draw whole cards normally.
I do not think "looking at a card" constitutes half of drawing it. How is it exactly half? It needs to be exactly half.
1/2 has the property that 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, and all halves are equal.
You would have to say "looking at a card" and "being able to use a card without looking at it" are equal. They're not.
Furthermore, if they were equal, then you would say "looking at a card" + "looking at a card" = "being able to use a card without looking at it" + "being able to use a card without looking at it" = drawing 1 card.
This is not true.
This is what I had hoped is true. Thank you.
Sometimes it matters *exactly* when you do it, so first I will begin with laymen's terms:
For some actions, the rules allow a time to play mana abilities. This includes when a resolving effect wants someone to pay mana (MAna Leak, for instance).
Ghostly Prison is not a resolving effect, but the declare attacker's step sets aside a time for just such an effect.
Lo,
The payment is done AFTER you have decided whether the attacking assignment is legal and AFTER you tap those cards, but BEFORE those cards are considered attacking.
Trust me, I checked the rules, it's a huge section to cite, it's very clear, I didn't screw up.
This means that the damage wasn't prevented. It was replaced. This means that Excruciator doesn't work on it.
EDIT: By which I mean Excruciator's damage will be replaced with the milling of 7 cards (it's got 7 power, right?)
WOW! I posted a tangential datum that was relevant! Yay me. . .
EDIT: Let me just grab the rules that define prevention and replacement...
And [quote=419.1d Effects that use the word “prevent” are prevention effects. Prevention effects use “prevent” to indicate what events will not occur.[/quote]
It seems you wanted an explanation, so I'll fetch up the rules of triggered abilities with targets:
This rule seems to indicate that the ability goes to the stack, and then if it is found that it ... 'doesn't work', it is removed from the stack.
One of the steps listed in rule 409 is choosing targets.
For Tin Street Hooligan, if there is no artifact, then that triggered ability will be removed from the stack at the time you would choose targets.
None of this affects Tin Street Hooligan the card. The triggered ability happens when the Hooligan comes into play ("When Tin Street Hooligan comes into play. . ."). Once it is in play, it won't be removed from play unless something says you do. Countering never happens to something in play.
It allows you on resolution to name a card. So unless you have no cards in hand at the time it resolves, a Telepathy revealing your hand makes it PRETTY easy to make Denied! work.
Just to be extra cool about it, to separate the "1st turn" from the "0th turn", why not have it begin the game in play AS YOU BEGIN MULLIGANING????
In the rules, the game has begun when both players have decided who will go first and start with their initial hands of seven. This is why a player can use Serum Powder at this time.
Although in general I don't mind some necroing, it is not acceptable to re-animate a 11-month-old thread! Warning for Necroing according to the Forum Rules.
- Craven
This means that technically, your Stabwhisker the Odious does nothing, since no player has an upkeep. Only a team has an upkeep.
This seems to be an omission, which means it would be unsporting to consider it the correct ruling. But I cannot find anything else. The entire section contains nothing on explanations of parts of the turn. It explains the combat phase and has a whole section on life totals, but nothing on turn structure.
What I can tell you is that Nezumi Shortfang's ability looks at the hand size of the player you targeted. It will flip if *that* player has no hand after he discards a card.
The note in CrystalKeep was to clarify the time during which it is on the stack.
It means the game doesn't proceed until the drink is returned, since the game can't move on until the stack is empty, allowing the step in the turn to end.
The Coupon, without errata, requires target player to get target drink. It implies "by any means necessary." To not get the drink is to not comply with the instructions of a card. Since it is possible for your friend to get any drink you could point out to him (though it may be dangerous or possibly frowned upon), he will lose the game if he doesn't get the drink.
However, the rules clarify that the game never wants anyone to commit actions that are illegal in the location that you are playing the game. So you can't make him steal a drink. But you can make him pay for it, if he's got the money.
So yeah, as said above by others, you can't Stifle the effect because it's resolving and you can't interrupt that. And turning down the drink is your choice. Your friend brought it to you, and you don't want it. The effect resolves and life goes on.
Correct right up until here.
Brink's trigger isn't countered. It just does nothing on resolution.
If by "Genju" you mean "the land animated by the Genju enchantment", then yes, Haunt continues to track that permanent. Until it dies*.
Though it can target only a creature, phrases like "that creature" really mean "that permanent".
*Once the land dies, it will never be considered "that creature", since having left play, the game sees it as a new "that permanent" if it enters play again.