2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Dimir House Guard
    Quote from Kamonohashi »
    Dimir House Guard says, "Sacrifice a creature. Regenerate Dimir House Guard."

    Can the creature that you sacrifice be Dimir House Guard? Of does the fact that the sacrifice is the cost of the ability mean that, when the ability takes effect, Dimir House Guard is no longer in play, so there isn't a valid target for the ability?
    Your question appears to imply some common misconceptions about Regeneration.

    Let it be clear:
    1-Regeneration cannot bring a creature back from the Graveyard; Regeneration is intended to help a creature BEFORE it ever leaves the Battlefield.
    2-Regeneration does not provide any help against Sacrifice; Regeneartion helps against Destruction, which Sacrifice is not.
    3-Regeneration does not help against -x/-x effects; Regeneration works against Damage and/or effects that say 'Destroy', and nothing else.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Radha & MDFC
    The Zendikar Rising Release Notes clearly confirm that a MDFC land can be played thru Radha, even when its front face is not a land:

    To determine whether it is legal to play a modal double-faced card, consider only the characteristics of the face you're playing and ignore the other face's characteristics.


    If an effect allows you to play a land or cast a spell from among a group of cards, you may play or cast a modal double-faced card with any face that fits the criteria of that effect. For example, if Sejiri Shelter / Sejiri Glacier is in your graveyard and an effect allows you to play lands from your graveyard, you could play Sejiri Glacier.

    Release Notes are not an official part of the rules, but this clearly describes how MDFC are supposed to work.
    The Comprehensive Rules obviously need reworking in order to actually reflect this.


    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Elderwood Scion and additional targets spells
    Notice the plural in rule 115.9b; having multiple targets does not invalidate the cost reduction:
    115.9b An object that looks for a “[spell or ability] that targets [something]” checks the current state of that spell or ability’s targets. (...)

    And costs increments are calculated before costs reductions:
    601.2f The player determines the total cost of the spell.(...) The total cost is the mana cost (...), plus all additional costs and cost increases, and minus all cost reductions.(...)

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Pariah I control on a Stuffy Doll with me named. What happens with damage here?
    Quote from Rezzahan »
    No player is forced to break the loop, even if they have the means to do so, since those means are not part of the loop.
    This rule has been a puzzle for me for a long time.
    Rule 722.5 clearly states that no player is required to break the loop, even if they have the means to do so, as long as such means are outside the loop.
    And rule 722.3 clearly states that a player is required to end the loop if they can do so from inside the loop.

    What boggles my mind is rule 722.6, which states a somewhat arbitrary exception to rule 722.3.
    I'd be very appreciative if anyone could provide some examples illustrating how it actually differs from what is said by rule 722.3.

    Specifically, how do the words
    'if no player chooses to perform [B]' (722.6)
    actually allow a player to escape
    'must then make a different game choice' (722.3)?
    Does it solely rely on the fact that the effect actually contains the word 'unless'?
    Any volunteer?

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Destiny to Lose?
    Quote from Oloro4Life »
    Ah, so if something triggered because it attacked something/someone, then it has to be on the field during declare attackers phase.
    Although this might be true, it's an unusual way of saying things. Magic has so many cards and combos, someone might be able to contrive a scenario within which that statement becomes false.

    A safer approach is to stick with the actual rules:
    508.2a Abilities that trigger on a creature attacking trigger only at the point the creature is declared as an attacker. (...)
    508.4. If a creature is put onto the battlefield attacking, (...) such creature [is] “attacking” but, for the purposes of trigger events and effects, [it] never “attacked.”

    FYI: The declaration of attackers is a step, one of the five steps of the combat phase. (rule 506.1)
    Magic has a glossary defining more than 550 words; incorrect nomenclature often leads to incorrect rules comprehension.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Graft and The Ozolith Interaction Rulings
    Rule 122.5.: If an effect says to “move” a counter, it means to remove that counter from the object it’s currently on and put it onto a second object. If either of these actions isn’t possible, [then] no counter is removed from or put onto anything. (...)

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Supreme Verdict vs Hallow
    Destroy is not damage. Damage is not destroy.
    ...even though too much damage will generally result in destruction!

    704.5g If a creature (...) has damage marked on it (...) greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature (...) is destroyed.(...)
    701.7a To destroy a permanent, move it from the battlefield to its owner’s graveyard.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on One with nothing + Dream Salvage / does that work?
    Ie can you discard your hand, in response draw some cards. So in effect discard to 0, then draw back up? one with nothing + shadow of the grave
    Dream Salvage doesn't work because it has to target an opponent.

    Shadow of the Grave can do the trick; you'll discard some cards, then return them from grave to hand.
    Basically, you spent two cards (Shadow of the Grave and One with Nothing) and three mana, for nothing. Let's hope it was worth it!

    Of course, if you had, say, Wharf Infiltrator on the field...

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Zaxara, the Exemplary and Flashback containing {X}
    Zaxara will use the same X you chose for the Flashback cost, not zero... unless you picked zero yourself!
    (and no, Zaxara won't use double-X, in case someone wondered)

    107.3a If a spell or activated ability has a mana cost, alternative cost, additional cost, and/or activation cost with an {X}, (...) the controller of that spell or ability chooses and announces the value of X (...)
    107.3i Normally, all instances of X on an object have the same value at any given time.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on student of warfare (and other level cards)
    Quote from ox4 »
    for all intents and purposes, the lower 2 text boxes (level 2-6, and level 7+) do not exist at this point.
    The Level Up abilities always exist. They don't suddenly appear as you add Level counters.
    They simply don't do much if the number of counters doesn't match.

    For design purposes, Leveler cards have these unusual three rows, with very little wording. Very trendy.
    However, here's how Student of Warfare actually reads, from a Rules point of view:

    Creature - Human Knight
    W: Put a level counter on this permanent. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.
    As long as SoW has at least 2 level counters on it, but no more than 6, it's a 3/3 and has First Strike.
    As long as SoW has 7 or more level counters on it, it's a 4/4 and has Double Strike.

    (as you can see, it cannot simultaneously give itself First Strike and Double Strike; levels are mutually exclusive)

    See rule 710 for details:

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Awakening of Vitu-Ghazi on Arixmethes, Slumbering Isle
    Quote from Kamonohashi »
    I don't understand how the slumber counters determine whether it is a LAND-creature or just an ordinary creature.

    Does it have Slumber counters?
    If so, the ability says "This is no creature. This is a land."
    If not, the ability is silent. Arix is a simple creature.

    Then Vitu-Ghazi comes in and says "This is also a creature."

    The hard thing to get used to is to look at Arix's ability first, and then look at Vitu-Ghazi, regardless of the time Slumber counters were added/removed.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Awakening of Vitu-Ghazi on Arixmethes, Slumbering Isle
    Correct, my mystake.

    Arixmethes' creature-to-land ability must always be applied first, because it has the oldest timestamp.

    Furthermore, +1/+1 countres ALWAYS COUNT, since the always get applied last. (rule 613.1g)

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Awakening of Vitu-Ghazi on Arixmethes, Slumbering Isle
    All these situations deal with a card changing type: from creature to land, or from land to creature.
    When one wishes to establish the final result of such transformations, rule 613.3 must be looked up:

    613.3. (...) apply effects from characteristic-defining abilities first (...), then all other effects in timestamp order (...)

    As per this rule, the creature-to-land ability of Arixmethes must always come first, since it's a characteristic-defining ability (CDA, rule 604.3).
    It doesn't matter if the Slumber counters get removed prior or after other effects: this ability must be applied first, period.

    Then, any change applied after that will override this one: turning Arixmethes into a creature (Vitu-Ghazi) always overrides its creature-to-land inner ability.

    Nexus' land-to-creature ability is not a CDA, and neither is Vitu-Ghazi's. Those are 'regular' effects (rules 609.1 & 611.1) which must be applied according to Timestamp: the latest effect will override the previous ones.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Board State Accuracy
    I also understand that players straight up lose the game for causing an infinite loop.
    No, infinite loops are not an automatic game loss.

    Rule 722 handles loops for friendly games. (Tournaments rules may differ)
    In a nutshell:
    -If no player is able to break the loop, the loop will run for infinity; the game is a draw. (rule 722.4)
    -Any player who can break the loop may choose a maximum number (perhaps only one), and the loop runs that many times. (rule 722.1b)
    -If no player wishes to break the loop, the game is a draw. (rules 722.5 & 722.6)

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Protection Combat Question :)
    Quote from Isaaru_315 »
    My thought was everything is happening at once since combat began so the protections stay intact but the Voltaic Key still gets destroyed and then after combat the protections disappear.
    You seem to have un unusual perception of combat.

    Combat is nothing more than one of the phases of a player's turn.
    It does not happen all at once: it actually is subdivised into five steps.
    Nothing makes protection 'freeze' for the duration of combat: destroying your Voltaic Key as your Champions attack will indeed 'de-activate' Metalcraft and remove protection, allowing the wolves to block and kill the Champions.

    Metalcraft has no official meaning; it's just a convenient word to help players understand cards. (rule 207.2c)
    The ability of your Champions does exactly as it says: 'AS LONG AS you control 3+ artifacts, Champion has Protection'.
    Therefore, as soon as you fall below 3 artifacts, Protection is gone. (rule 113.3d)

    Consider having a close look at rule 506:

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