"Q: I control a Chalice of the Void set at 0 and a Sphere of Resistance in play. Can I play a Chrome Mox?"
Is "Yes" an acceptable answer to this question, as a judge?
Is "What do you mean?" an acceptable request for clarification, as a judge? (I'd figure yes, if the answer in this article is permissible.)
Is "I'm not sure what you mean." an acceptable reply to this question, as a judge?
Quote from epeeguy »
There's nothing inherently wrong with any of the above. The first is obviously the most technically correct answer and addresses the question as it was literally asked, even though it may miss the "intent" of the player asking the question. Then again, the player may just want to know if he can play the card, thinking that Chalice of the Void prevents Chrome Mox from being played at all (like Meddling Mage would), because he wants to Stifle the triggered ability instead. Hence why it's usually a bad idea for judges to answer based on what they perceive to be the "intent" of the player, and answer the question that was asked.
If the judge answers only "yes" to the question, he should probably stay around to make sure that Chalice of the Void will trigger and try to counter the Chrome Mox, because if he goes away, that "yes" has a very high chance of making the OP and his opponent believe his Chrome Mox will resolve freely because of Sphere of Resistance. Either the game state will become illegal, or his opponent will tell him his Chrome Mox is countered, and the OP will say "but the judge said..." and the judge will most likely be called again. Whether the judge stays to watch the legality of the play or is called again (or even if the OP gives up right away to his opponent's explanation and lets his Chrome Mox gets countered), the OP will probably feel cheated by the judge and see him as a jerk who consciously led him to misplay.
"Yes" is technically a correct and complete answer to the question as it was asked. Whether or not it is ethical is debatable. However, you'll have to agree with me that 1) that answer is ambiguous as to how the players will understand it, and is thus very likely to lead to an illegal game state and 2) you might be indirectly helping the OP's opponent by making the OP misplay. All of that because the OP didn't formulate his question the exact right way using the verb "counter".
I think there is a way to answer this question directly without presuming OP's intent AND without creating those problems, simply by giving more explanation : "Yes, you can play Chrome Mox. Chalice of the Void doesn't prevent any spell from being played. It counters them after they are played". Which may lead to "Ah, ok. But then, will my Chrome Mox will be countered ?", answered by "Yes, because Chalice of the Void looks at the converted mana cost of the spell, which is always zero for Chrome Mox, not what you actually paid to play it".
However, if your deck is weak against the opponent's deck it's better to pick the option that weakens his deck, even if it weakens yours. An example in Constructed is the aggro vs. combo match- no matter how fast aggro is, the combo deck will steamroll it, so aggro plays second to slow down combo's draws.
Interesting strategy, but it looks quite unconventional to me. I tend to think like TisforTOOL simply because I've almost never seen anyone choose to draw first in constructed, nor done it myself except with decks that benefit from that extra card in a special way, like a reanimator deck that might wanna discard a fatty first turn. I also read a lot of Magic strategy content and I've never heard about such an idea. If I get it well, you are also implying that combo decks should choose to draw versus aggro, but I don't remember ever meeting or hearing of a combo player who wants to go second. That most people don't do what you suggest doesn't mean it's a bad idea, however. Thinking about it, I believe that auto-going first in Constructed is most likely not always right.
Your idea does somewhat make sense as long as the potential answers to the combo that the aggro deck has are cheap enough in mana for them to be online early enough even if it goes second. The extra card is an extra chance of drawing into those answers. However, if the deck is not playing answers and the only chance it has is to race, I think the extra turn helps more than the card advantage. The extra card the combo player might need to go off is a consideration I'll try to remember, tough. Thanks for opening my mind.
First, in regards to the Figure of Destiny/Snakeform question, I want to make sure I have a couple things right. If his or her opponent activates the 2/2 kithkin, and he/she plays snakeform in response, when the FoD's ability resolves it will find it a very snaky non-kithkin and fizzle, correct? Then, after the turn is over it returns to a 2/2, right? But if he/she plays the snakeform and the player responds with the activation, then it will return to a 4/4 at eot, correct? In other words, the only way to make sure that it doesn't become a 4/4 at eot is to snakeform it in response to the activation, while the activation is on the stack?
Secondly, regarding the Cairn Wanderer/Troll Ascetic question - after the ascetic is removed from combat the Wanderer doesn't deal damage to the player since it was blocked, correct?
First thing : Correct on all counts, [nitpick]except that the ability doesn't "fizzle" by the usual meaning of the term. Fizzle means being countered on resolution for lack of legal targets. Figure's abilities don't target; they have an "if" clause that will prevent them from doing anything if Figure is not the appropriate creature type when they resolve. They are not countered[/nitpick].
Second thing : Again correct. A creature that's been blocked remains blocked through all of the combat phase, and a blocked creature cannot assign combat damage to the defending player unless an ability like Trample allows it, even if all its blockers are not in combat anymore as the combat damage step begins.
Congratulations ! I thought your two previous Merfolk articles were great, and this one was like the grand finale. An exciting read to say the least ! All the way through, I was looking at my scrolling sidebar, trying to evaluate how many matches were left, and when I realized you made the finals, I was like "woot !". All people who were thinking your Merfolk deck was only good enough to win FNMs can get lost.
He opened with Swamp, Swamp, and Distress, hitting my Cryptic Command. Why doesn't anyone let me keep those?
I don't know, maybe because it is the consensus best card in Standard and the player using it always finds a way to screw his opponent with it big time... but of course, you know that.
I never really considered casual sideboarding, because when I play casual, it's multiplayer, where sideboards usually don't belong, and when I play in tournaments, sideboards are a given. However, after reading your article and thinking about it, I realize that sideboards can be a cool thing to add to casual dueling, as long as both players agree to use them beforehand, otherwise it's not very fair... It sure adds an interesting dimension to the game. How you make such casual sideboards will obviously greatly depend on who your regular opponent(s) are, what kind of decks they play, how many of them they have and how different from each other they are, demanding narrower or broader sideboards. I believe it can create a fun dynamic.
Little nitpick :
Ghitu Encampment will play great against Mono-Blue Control: they can't play a counterspell against your land, Repeal can't bounce it, and even with the buyback on Capsize, :4mana::symu::symu: is a lot to keep pumping every other turn; against Green Stompy, though, your manland just ends up dying by being blocked by something much larger than it.
Part of what makes Ghitu Encampment so good in a red burn deck is precisely that it very often doesn't end up dying against larger creatures. That's because of the nice interaction between First Strike and instant speed burn, which allows you to kill a fatty blocking or blocked by the Encampment before normal combat damage goes on the stack. If your opponent doesn't know/expect this interaction, he or she may be in for a nasty surprise, and once they do, you can usually attack freely with your Encampment even you're only bluffing and don't actually have the burn spell in hand. I advocate playing the Encampment in every casual red burn deck that can afford a land that comes into play tapped.
If I Clone a Kitchen Finks, and the Clone dies without a counter, does it get the persist trigger? And if so, when it comes back into play, can I choose a new Clone target?
Yes and yes (altough Clone doesn't target). Whatever you choose to copy, it will have a -1/-1 counter on it.
Persist is a leaves-play trigger. All it needs to work is being on the creature just before it leaves play, and being able to find the corresponding creature card in the graveyard. It doesn't need the said card to have the same name as when it was in play to do so, it just "knows what card it actually was". The -1/-1 effect is a replacement effect that modifies how the creature comes into play, and it doesn't interfere in any way with Clone's own replacement effect, the copying.
Oona, Queen of the Fae - The controller is the only one who can play her ability. Therefore, only you will ever get to mill/remove and make Fae. (There are cards out there that allow all players to use their abilities, et al.)
I think the question was whether or not you can activate Oona's ability when she is summoning sick. The answer is yes, because summoning sickness only prevents abilities with the tap or untap symbol in the cost from being played.
Painter's Servant's second ability is a static ability. Such an ability is in effect only as long as the permanent with it stays in play. If Painter's Servant leaves play, then the cards are not of the chosen color anymore. It's the same as with Glorious Anthem : if it leaves play, the creatures lose the bonus immediatly.
I think what confuses you is the first ability, the one that makes you choose a color. All it does is set a choice for Painter's Servant, and it is linked to its static ability. It ceases to have any meaning if the Servant leaves play.
EDIT : It is very different from a triggered ability that sets an effect like Oblivion Ring's, with which the removed card would stay removed if it wasn't for the second ability.
You can play Mossworth Bridge's ability in response to Wrath of God. If you do, the ability is gonna resolve first. When it does, you have the possibility of playing the "hidden" spell right now or not at all. The said spell will go on the stack above *** and will resolve before it. This means that if said spell is a creature spell, the creature will be in play when *** resolves, and is likely to be destroyed. There is no way for you to wait until *** resolves before playing the hidden spell. You can always activate the Bridge's ability, but it won't do anything if the condition is not met when it resolves.
it's an activated ability. you choose when to activate it. i believe you can only play spells/abilities only if the conditions are fully met, i might be wrong about hideaways.
you can activate the ability anytime during the turn that the conditions are fully required, but you must play the hidden spell immediately after resolution of the ability, or not at all. you would have to wait another time for the conditions to be met.
Darkasekas is right. You can play the ability anytime you have priority, you just be won't allowed to play the RFG card if the condition is not met. The condition is only checked on resolution. If you could only play the ability when the condition is met, the wording would include the phrase "play this ability only...". See Ashen Ghoul for an example.
Okay, so would it work like this?:
Giant Growth my Guy
Swerve your Giant Growth
Swerve your Swerve
My Swerve resolves, I change the target of his Swerve to the only valid target, itself
His Swerve now says "Change the target of this Serve to something else"... but by then it has resolved... ????
No.
Ok, let's try it this way : The first Swerve played, your opponent's, is Swerve A. The second one played, yours, is Swerve B.
1) You Giant Growth your guy.
2) He targets your Giant Growth with Swerve A.
3) You target Swerve A with Swerve B.
4) Swerve B resolves. You change the target of Swerve A from Giant Growth to Swerve B. This is legal, because Swerve B is still on the stack as it resolves.
5) Swerve A resolves, but its target, Swerve B, isn't there anymore, so it is countered by lack of target (it "fizzles").
6) Giant Growth resolves on your guy.
Targets are declared when you play the spell.
You cannot change it to target the same spell it targetted. that is not changing it.
No spell can target itself.
The only legal change is to Swerve his Swerve to target your Swerve...
... effectively countering the first Swerve (his), because the second Swerve (yours) will have resolved and thus won't be on the stack anymore and will be an illegal target. With Swerve, you can change the target to Swerve itself, because it is still on the stack while it is resolving. Just to clarify.
He plays Serve and declares his target as my Giant Growth. But does he declare what he is DOING to Giant Growth? Does he say "I'll Swerve Giant Growth" or "I'll Swerve Giant Growth, changing the target to X."?
The choice as to what the new target of Giant Growth will be isn't made until Swerve's resolution. The only choice you have to make while playing Swerve is its target.
If the judge answers only "yes" to the question, he should probably stay around to make sure that Chalice of the Void will trigger and try to counter the Chrome Mox, because if he goes away, that "yes" has a very high chance of making the OP and his opponent believe his Chrome Mox will resolve freely because of Sphere of Resistance. Either the game state will become illegal, or his opponent will tell him his Chrome Mox is countered, and the OP will say "but the judge said..." and the judge will most likely be called again. Whether the judge stays to watch the legality of the play or is called again (or even if the OP gives up right away to his opponent's explanation and lets his Chrome Mox gets countered), the OP will probably feel cheated by the judge and see him as a jerk who consciously led him to misplay.
"Yes" is technically a correct and complete answer to the question as it was asked. Whether or not it is ethical is debatable. However, you'll have to agree with me that 1) that answer is ambiguous as to how the players will understand it, and is thus very likely to lead to an illegal game state and 2) you might be indirectly helping the OP's opponent by making the OP misplay. All of that because the OP didn't formulate his question the exact right way using the verb "counter".
I think there is a way to answer this question directly without presuming OP's intent AND without creating those problems, simply by giving more explanation : "Yes, you can play Chrome Mox. Chalice of the Void doesn't prevent any spell from being played. It counters them after they are played". Which may lead to "Ah, ok. But then, will my Chrome Mox will be countered ?", answered by "Yes, because Chalice of the Void looks at the converted mana cost of the spell, which is always zero for Chrome Mox, not what you actually paid to play it".
Interesting strategy, but it looks quite unconventional to me. I tend to think like TisforTOOL simply because I've almost never seen anyone choose to draw first in constructed, nor done it myself except with decks that benefit from that extra card in a special way, like a reanimator deck that might wanna discard a fatty first turn. I also read a lot of Magic strategy content and I've never heard about such an idea. If I get it well, you are also implying that combo decks should choose to draw versus aggro, but I don't remember ever meeting or hearing of a combo player who wants to go second. That most people don't do what you suggest doesn't mean it's a bad idea, however. Thinking about it, I believe that auto-going first in Constructed is most likely not always right.
Your idea does somewhat make sense as long as the potential answers to the combo that the aggro deck has are cheap enough in mana for them to be online early enough even if it goes second. The extra card is an extra chance of drawing into those answers. However, if the deck is not playing answers and the only chance it has is to race, I think the extra turn helps more than the card advantage. The extra card the combo player might need to go off is a consideration I'll try to remember, tough. Thanks for opening my mind.
First thing : Correct on all counts, [nitpick]except that the ability doesn't "fizzle" by the usual meaning of the term. Fizzle means being countered on resolution for lack of legal targets. Figure's abilities don't target; they have an "if" clause that will prevent them from doing anything if Figure is not the appropriate creature type when they resolve. They are not countered[/nitpick].
Second thing : Again correct. A creature that's been blocked remains blocked through all of the combat phase, and a blocked creature cannot assign combat damage to the defending player unless an ability like Trample allows it, even if all its blockers are not in combat anymore as the combat damage step begins.
It took me a little while to notice the pun in the title, but I must say it's a good one, unlike many from the titles of recent mtg.com columns...
Oh and...
there's one to enslave all rings
to find them all in time
and drive them into darkness
forever, they'll be bound...
I don't know, maybe because it is the consensus best card in Standard and the player using it always finds a way to screw his opponent with it big time... but of course, you know that.
Little nitpick :
Part of what makes Ghitu Encampment so good in a red burn deck is precisely that it very often doesn't end up dying against larger creatures. That's because of the nice interaction between First Strike and instant speed burn, which allows you to kill a fatty blocking or blocked by the Encampment before normal combat damage goes on the stack. If your opponent doesn't know/expect this interaction, he or she may be in for a nasty surprise, and once they do, you can usually attack freely with your Encampment even you're only bluffing and don't actually have the burn spell in hand. I advocate playing the Encampment in every casual red burn deck that can afford a land that comes into play tapped.
Yes and yes (altough Clone doesn't target). Whatever you choose to copy, it will have a -1/-1 counter on it.
Persist is a leaves-play trigger. All it needs to work is being on the creature just before it leaves play, and being able to find the corresponding creature card in the graveyard. It doesn't need the said card to have the same name as when it was in play to do so, it just "knows what card it actually was". The -1/-1 effect is a replacement effect that modifies how the creature comes into play, and it doesn't interfere in any way with Clone's own replacement effect, the copying.
It can be even more than that, but it needs to be a finite number.
I think the question was whether or not you can activate Oona's ability when she is summoning sick. The answer is yes, because summoning sickness only prevents abilities with the tap or untap symbol in the cost from being played.
I think what confuses you is the first ability, the one that makes you choose a color. All it does is set a choice for Painter's Servant, and it is linked to its static ability. It ceases to have any meaning if the Servant leaves play.
EDIT : It is very different from a triggered ability that sets an effect like Oblivion Ring's, with which the removed card would stay removed if it wasn't for the second ability.
Darkasekas is right. You can play the ability anytime you have priority, you just be won't allowed to play the RFG card if the condition is not met. The condition is only checked on resolution. If you could only play the ability when the condition is met, the wording would include the phrase "play this ability only...". See Ashen Ghoul for an example.
No.
Ok, let's try it this way : The first Swerve played, your opponent's, is Swerve A. The second one played, yours, is Swerve B.
1) You Giant Growth your guy.
2) He targets your Giant Growth with Swerve A.
3) You target Swerve A with Swerve B.
4) Swerve B resolves. You change the target of Swerve A from Giant Growth to Swerve B. This is legal, because Swerve B is still on the stack as it resolves.
5) Swerve A resolves, but its target, Swerve B, isn't there anymore, so it is countered by lack of target (it "fizzles").
6) Giant Growth resolves on your guy.
Got it ?
EDIT : Sarnath'd ! Glad you got it
... effectively countering the first Swerve (his), because the second Swerve (yours) will have resolved and thus won't be on the stack anymore and will be an illegal target. With Swerve, you can change the target to Swerve itself, because it is still on the stack while it is resolving. Just to clarify.
The choice as to what the new target of Giant Growth will be isn't made until Swerve's resolution. The only choice you have to make while playing Swerve is its target.