2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Dominus of Fealty and Defense of the Heart
    Quote from 1000mAh »
    What he says: Dominus of Fealtytargets the Defense of the Heart and he immediately gains control of it (before the stack resolves) and thus it would still be his at the beginning of upkeep and he can sacrifice it.

    what is the ruling in this case?

    The "beginning of your upkeep" is just what it says it is. The beginning of the upkeep. Once you are in your upkeep, you have passed the beginning. All things that trigger at the beginning of your upkeep trigger simultaneously. If you control all the triggers, you order how they go on the stack. They resolve in the order you have chosen, with the top item resolving first. If your opponent has any triggers which will trigger at your upkeep (e.g. a card that triggers each upkeep, like Tendershoot Dryad which triggers on each upkeep), then your opponent will put their triggers on top of your triggers, and your opponents will resolve before yours (in the order they have chosen for their triggers, top item resolving first).

    Since Dominus of Fealty triggers at the beginning of your upkeep, the resolution of its trigger necessarily occurs after the beginning of your upkeep has passed. Therefore, any permanent you gain control over will not trigger once you gain possession of it if its trigger is at the beginning of your upkeep... because as stated, that has passed. So no, you cannot gain control of Defense of the Heart and then sac it to its trigger, because its trigger did not happen.

    To counter what your friend said, it is impossible for him to gain control of Defense of the Heart immediately, without anything from the stack resolving. The very fact of gaining control of a permanent via Dominus of Fealty is the resolution of its trigger on the stack.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on [ELD] the professors preview (tolarian community college) - Realm-Cloaked Giant
    I think the creature side is a little underwhelming for Mythic, but it is most likely Standard viable. The wrath downside is going to affect its playability.
    If the format's best decks have giants in them, the wrath won't be great. As for the creature... the most important piece is that you can play it later and its not in your hand. There is no way your opponent can interact with it (no Processors in Standard right now), so it can be the finisher once the opponent is ground down and the control deck feels in control. And if your opponent drops blockers, you can cast another one without killing your finisher. In this case, the downside is actually an upside. Even more so, if the giant is not the finisher, it's still a (mostly unconditional) board wipe for 5 mana in mono white. Will see play since Cleansing Nova is leaving. Only other options post-rotation are Kaya's Wrath and Time Wipe, which are both good, but don't have a finisher built into them.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Eldraine Fairy Tales
    I would really like to see DFCs in this set. Being deciduous, and with Ixalan rotating out, it would be possible to see them show up. I think it's unlikely, given the special card frame previewed for Goldilocks, but they could have some sweet fairytale DFCs. The evil queen could flip into the hag with the apple. The wolves (like the Big Bad Wolf and Little Red Riding Hood wolf) could actually be werewolves with a human side that plays into a different fairytale with a flip condition. You could do flip cards like the poisoned apple on one side being an artifact that indefinitely taps down a creature (as long as this remains tapped, etc. etc.) with a flip condition of when a Prince ETB, exile it and return it flipped into an animate dead type enchantment.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on Mardu Pyromancer
    Hey everyone, I'm currently building the deck, any thoughts on Ashiok, Dream Render and Saheeli, Sublime Artificer? Ashiok can help fuel our GY, can act multiple times as opponent GY hate, and shuts down opponent's fetches and other incidental search effects like Field of Ruin. Double black is a downside though. Saheeli is like Pyromancer 5-8 (although probably don't want more than 2 in the 75). Was thinking Liliana, the Last Hope would be a good inclusion too, which makes me wonder if Liliana's Triumph becomes a good card for the deck. Also wondering about Angrath's Rampage and Sorin, Vengeful Bloodlord. Rampage is like a pseudo-Dreadbore with additional artifact hate stapled on. Sorin can help recover some life and can also recur Pyromancer.
    Posted in: Midrange
  • posted a message on "My Threads" link from user dropdown now gives "Not Found"
    Any more word on this? I would like to get "My Threads" back. I used the link posted above, and it brought me to the correct page, and I was surprised to see how many threads I was active on that I had forgotten about!
    Posted in: Forum Software Feedback and Bug Reports
  • posted a message on Times where I can interact
    Quote from schweinefett »
    Reference: reset.

    The text says I can only cast it on an opponents turn, after upkeep. So can I cast this in response to an opponents draw? So the beginning of the draw step? When is the first time in an opponents turn where I can actually cast reset?

    Not at the beginning of the draw step, as that is a term used to signify right when the game has moved from the upkeep step to the draw step and triggers abilities that trigger at the beginning of the draw step (e.g. Howling Mine). The active player will draw a card as a turn-based action (while in the draw step, cannot respond to this happening), the triggered abilities go on the stack (triggered abilities that trigger at the beginning of the draw step technically don't go onto the stack until AFTER the card is drawn), then the active player gets priority. If we assume your opponent does nothing, then you get priority. This is the first time you may cast Reset.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Midnight Reaper question
    Quote from peteroupc »
    Quote from MMLgamer »
    I'm not sure that's the same situation, though, because Destructive Revelry has its two effects split into two sentences, whereas Midnight Reaper's damage and draw have an "and" in between them. Does that make no difference?
    In general, as far as the game is concerned, it's not the word "then" or "and" or the use of separate sentences or clauses that indicates sequential actions, but the use of two action verbs. In this sense, Destructive Revelry ("[d]estroy" and "deals") is no different from Midnight Reaper's ability ("deals" and "draw"). See also this thread (hideaway's "[e]xile" and "put" [C.R. 702.74a]). One exception to the first sentence is if the spell or ability uses the word "simultaneously" (e.g., in Goblin Welder's ability despite the use of two action verbs, "sacrifices" and "returns", in the relevant part of that ability).

    Compare with—
    • Dig Through Time (one action verb "put" means the action of putting some cards into the hand and others on the bottom of the library is a simultaneous action), and
    • Char (the single action verb "deals" means the damage is dealt to "you" and to the target simultaneously).

    I'm not sure that applying 608.2c makes sense to distinguish between whether an action is considered simultaneous or not. The examples you provided, both Dig Through Time and Char are only templated different from cards like Midnight Reaper and Goblin Welder because it requires two English verbs for the latter two and only one English verb for the former two to accomplish the desired actions. Dig Through Time, from an English perspective, has assumed words and should be read as such:
    {You} Look at the top seven cards of your library. {You} Put two of them into your hand and {you put} the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.

    The implied subject (you) is implicit to English without being stated, since it's a command, and the same is true for the implied verb since the verb from the first half of the sentence applies to the second half and doesn't need repeating. They could have just as easily added the second "put," and the card would be no different in application or function. It would just have one more word. The same logic cannot applied to Midnight Reaper, however, because two verbs are necessary to instruct the two actions. They added the word "simultaneous" to Goblin Welder to make it clear that there is no gap in which a player can respond or target to the changing zones of both objects, as might pertain to triggered abilities that trigger when the artifact leaves the battlefield.

    From a rules context and application, why would it matter if the card draw and damage of Midnight Reaper were simultaneous vs. not simultaneous?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Casting timing & the stack
    Quote from Pedro Rocha »
    Sorry, guys, but I’m still confused here. I searched and searched but found no rules that say it’s possible to retain priority.

    if I assume it’s possible to cast many spells while holding priority... they all resolve at once or they will resolve one after another?

    Sorry, but the legality of this isn’t clear for me at all :\

    To help clarify, here is a detailed explanation below. The tl;dr version is that yes, your opponent is doing something legal, and yes, you can respond and disrupt the shortcut being used here, at which point the game would rewind to the point at which you want to interrupt.
    • Opponent casts Mutagenic Growth, Giant Growth, and Unnatural Predation in rapid succession.
    • There is a shortcut that is being employed here, specifically, that if a player casts multiple spells in a row, it is assumed that the player casts a spell and it fully resolves with no responses from any other player before the next spell is cast. This shortcut is perfectly legal, but can be disrupted if other players do in fact have some response.
    • Therefore, in this specific example, as per Comp Rule 116.3c ["If a player has priority when they cast a spell, activate an ability, or take a special action, that player receives priority afterward."], when your opponent casts Mutagenic Growth, once the spell goes on the stack, s/he received priority again. The shortcut described above presumes that your opponent is passing priority, that you are passing priority, and that the spell resolves, after which your opponent casts Giant Growth... the same happens again, and your opponent casts Unnatural Predation.
    • To NOT use this shortcut, your opponent would specifically have to say "I am holding priority between each spell." What this effectively means is that when Mutagenic Growth goes on the stack, when your opponent receives priority, instead of passing priority to you, s/he is casting another spell, that is, Giant Growth. And then again, once Giant Growth goes on the stack and s/he receives priority, instead of passing priority to you, s/he is casting another spell, that is, Unnatural Predation. This leads to the stack looking like this: [TOP OF STACK] Unnatural Predation, Giant Growth, Mutagenic Growth [BOTTOM OF STACK]. This leads to all three spells being on the stack, as opposed to each spell going on the stack and resolving individually.
    • It is fairly uncommon for players to take this approach, as if you had a removal spell (e.g. Lightning Bolt), you could respond to all three spells, kill the creature, and your opponent loses all three spells PLUS their creature. This is why the shortcut exists and is presumed to be the normal state of gameplay unless your opponent specifically says otherwise.
    • A good example of an opponent who might not use this shortcut is a Storm player. Sometimes, Storm players will Remand their own spell to increase their Storm count. To do this, they have to specify that they are retaining priority, as otherwise, their spell will resolve as part of the shortcut and they don't get to Remand it!
    • Going back to the shortcut scenario, if your opponent casts all three spells in rapid succession without specifying that they are retaining priority, you can absolutely interrupt the shortcut. That would look like this:
    I hope this explanation makes sense and helps clarify.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on A rather convoluted concept
    Same question, but use Transmogrifying Licid instead of Silverskin Armor.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Helm of the Host Question
    One of the gatherer notes for Helm of the Host seems to contradict itself:
    If the equipped creature leaves the battlefield before the triggered ability of Helm of the Host resolves, or if there is no equipped creature, no token is created. However, if Helm of the Host leaves the battlefield while its triggered ability is on the stack, a token will be created of the creature it last equipped. If that creature has also left the battlefield, its last known information is used to determine what the token looks like.

    So first it says if the equipped creature leaves the battlefield before the trigger resolves, no token. But aha, if the Helm leaves the battlefield with the trigger on the stack, as well as the creature, you DO get a token. Why does this make sense?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on -1/-1 and +1/+1 counters
    Quote from jamis »
    +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters negate each other when State based Actions are checked. So for example if you have a Geralf's Messenger with a +1/+1 counter on it, and then put three -1/-1 counters on it with Skinrender, the Messenger will go to the graveyard with one +1/+1 counter and three -1/-1 counters, since creatures with 0 or less toughness are also put into the Graveyard during State Based Actions. However, if you had a Geralf's Messenger with a +1/+1 counter and Bad Moon in play, and then put three -1/-1 counters on it, when State Based Actions are checked, you'll have a Geralf's Messenger with just two -1/-1 counters.

    Minor clarification. The counters are still removed in your first scenario as part of state-based actions (the state-based action to move it to the GY for having toughness of 0 or less and the state-based action to remove N +1/+1 and N -1/-1 counters both happen as a single event). However, when the game uses last known game state information, the creature is considered as still having all counters.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Activated abilities/enter the battlefield
    Quote from Mastergundyr »
    Thank you,just be clear( because my friends dont believe me), he had an butcher of malakir and said: "i sacrifice a creature onto the creature entering". And he said i am not able to use him because its sorcery speed and his sacrifice (an altar) is instant speed.

    Your friend is wrong, as he needs to learn the system of priority and timing that is inherent to Magic. The sacrifice ability on the altar is an activated ability, and hence is governed by rules of timing and priority. Below are relevant quotes from the Comp Rules. Tl;dr version: assuming it is your turn, you are the active player, and after your Karador resolves (that is, enters the battlefield after you cast it), you get priority, which means you are the one able to cast spells, even sorcery speed spells, and no one else. Your friend must wait for you to either do something (like cast a creature spell from the GY) or pass priority (that is, do nothing). If it is not your turn, then it's a different story.

    "116.1. Unless a spell or ability is instructing a player to take an action, which player can take actions at any given time is determined by a system of priority. The player with priority may cast spells, activate abilities, and take special actions." [emphasis added]

    "116.1b A player may activate an activated ability any time they have priority."

    "116.3. Which player has priority is determined by the following rules:...116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves."

    "102.1. A player is one of the people in the game. The active player is the player whose turn it is. The other players are nonactive players."
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Liliana, defiant necromancer and Tishana, voice of thunder
    Taking the worst case scenario, your hand is empty and you have no creatures in play, Tishana, Voice of Thunder would enter the battlefield under your control at the beginning of the end step (let's assume your turn end step). Upon entering, her ability would trigger (but not yet go on the stack). She would die because your hand is empty as a state-based action (having a toughness of 0), which would generate another trigger, this time from the emblem. Since both triggers are going onto the stack simultaneously, you could choose which order you want them to resolve in (if that makes a difference). Let's assume the death trigger resolves first, which would setup a delayed effect to bring Tishana back at the next end step. When the Tishana draw trigger resolves, you still have no creatures in play, so you would draw no cards.

    At the beginning of the next end step (your opponent's end step), Tishana would come back and the same sequence would repeat, assuming you have drawn no cards from other sources (e.g. Rhystic Study) and still have no creatures (e.g. Dawn of Hope). This will continue to happen each end step until you have cards in hand when she hits the battlefield (and therefore doesn't die) or you have other creatures out (you will still draw cards when Tishana's trigger resolves even if she has left the battlefield, assuming you still have other creatures at the time the trigger resolves).

    Hope this helps.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Vialing Shalia vs. Storm
    This does assume that Shalai sticks around. If, after Shalai hits the battlefield, the opponent can remove her before Grapeshot and its triggers attempt to resolve, they will still resolve as usual. They don't immediately fizzle as a state-based action. They only fizzle upon attempt to resolve due to having an illegal target, and thus get removed from the stack one at a time.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Paradox Engine rules HELP
    Quote from Oscurra »
    Hey everyone.

    SO if I have a paradox Engine on the battlefield and I cast a spell to activate the trigger effect of Paradox engine, but then an opponent casts a spell before mine resolves such as a "destroy artifact spell", when will I active the trigger ability of Paradox engine? Would it be after my opponents spell resolves?

    I'm asking this because for example if I tap all my mana e.g. 6 mana to cast "spell 1" but have a counter spell in my hand that cost 2 could I untap my mana before my opponent gets to gain priority meaning I could counter his spell that destroys my Paradox engine.

    This all sounds so confusing to me and i have tried to make sense of it all in the thread. Sorry if its badly written haha


    Welcome to the forum.

    What you're asking is about is the stack and how it resolves. The stack resolves in last --> first in terms of entering the stack. So you cast a spell, it goes on the stack. Your Paradox Engine triggers when you cast the spell and it goes on the stack on TOP of your spell, meaning it will resolve before your spell does. Your opponent, seeing a prime opportunity to take out the Paradox Engine, casts a spell to destroy it (let's say Naturalize). This goes on TOP of your Paradox Engine trigger, and will resolve before the trigger does.

    Regarding your situation of 6 mana tapped and 2 mana counterspell in hand, assuming your opponent is playing the stack correctly, the answer is no. When the Paradox Engine trigger on the stack, your opponent gets priority to allow the trigger to resolve or cast a spell in response. If they choose to allow the trigger to resolve, then any NON-land permanents will untap (this is important, as it won't untap your lands), and you would be able to cast spells with any mana that came available (e.g. from mana rocks like Sol Ring or Commander's Sphere). However, if your opponent does not allow it to resolve, but instead wishes to cast their destroy spell (e.g. Naturalize), they can do this, which would destroy Paradox Engine before the trigger resolves, leaving you manaless and therefore powerless to do anything about it.

    Hope that helps clarify.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.