Ultimate Masters: MMI Review
 
Magic Market Index for Dec 7th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Nov 30th, 2018
  • posted a message on Confirming something for myself about Conspire and As an Additional Cost
    Quote from MadMageQc »
    You can actually both sacrifice Wort to the Evolution's additional cost and conspire. Both the sacrifice and the tapping are additional costs, and different costs can be paid in any order, so during the casting process, you can first tap Wort and conspire, then sacrifice her. The conspire triggered ability will be put on the stack and give you a copy with 6 as the information for the sacrificed creature's CMC.

    Am I missing something here?

    From Wort's gatherer page:
    3/14/2017
    Some spells instruct you to sacrifice a creature as an additional cost to cast that spell. If you sacrifice Wort to pay that cost, that spell won’t have conspire at the moment it becomes cast, so conspire won’t trigger, even if you tapped two creatures.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Unsure about rule 120.8 (Card drawn while casting)
    Quote from Lithl »
    Quote from davidb32 »
    Modern, improved shufflers (like the Eldrazi titans) use a triggered ability that triggers from the graveyard and thus avoid this issue (most likely to occur due to manifest).
    Err... you realize that the original three Eldrazi titans (the ones that have the shuffle trigger, since the return to Zendikar and return to Innistrad versions of them didn't have that ability) were printed before Blightsteel Colossus? Same is true for Nexus of Fate, as well. This isn't a case of the triggered shuffle being the new standard, like with Banishing Light vs. Oblivion Ring.


    You are correct. I apologize. I've edited my post to remove the words "modern" and "improved".
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Unsure about rule 120.8 (Card drawn while casting)
    You can't avoid shuffling Blightsteel Colossus into your library if it would be put into a graveyard from anywhere. It doesn't matter if it's face down before the movement.


    Unless Wizards changed something and I don't know about it, your statement is wrong.
    Replacement effects need to exist prior to an event to apply. Prior to discarding the Progenitus or Colossus, it is face-down and thus has no characteristics including no rule text. Thus the replacement ability simply doesn't exist and thus cannot modify the discard event.

    Other shufflers (like the Eldrazi titans) use a triggered ability that triggers from the graveyard and thus avoid this issue (most likely to occur due to manifest).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Unsure about rule 120.8 (Card drawn while casting)
    Quote from chaikov »
    Thank you!
    It is my opinion that this rule is not explicit enough in expressing these facts. Perhaps Wizards should consider re-writing it?


    Given that Selvala reveals the very cards that are going to drawn face-down and there hasn't been any problems with her, perhaps Wizards should consider doing away with this rule completely.


    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Kaya (planeswalker) ruling
    1. Yes, the commander replacement may be applied in this case and the commander's owner can choose to put in the command zone instead of exile.

    2. The commander tax is incremented each time the commander is cast from the command zone. And the additional cost due to the commander tax is applied when a player casts his commander from the command zone. So, yes, the commander tax would apply in your example. However, moving in and out of the command zone without casting has no commander tax implications. See Derevi, Empyrial Tactician for example.
    2a. Please note that Kaya's first ability has a delayed triggered ability that returns the exiled card. That triggered ability will track the card into the first zone it actually moves into due to the ability resolving (that zone need not be the exile zone). So even if the player puts his commander into the command zone, if he waits for your next upkeep, the commander will be returned to the battlefield free of charge.

    3. Neither, the life lost occurs as the last step of resolving the ability. The first step is to exile Kaya or up to one creature, second step is to setup a delayed triggered ability returning that card, third step is lose two life.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Ochran Assassin ruling
    Quote from kysg »
    Quote from MadMageQc »

    Normally, unless you somehow raise the Assassin's power, it will only be able to kill one blocker since you only have 1 power to assign among the blockers. But each addtional point of power you grant to the Assassin with effects allows you to assign one additional point of deathtouch-bearing damage to another blocker.


    I don't really get this, it seems that raising the power wouldn't do much...further clarification is needed. Also giving the creature First Strike allow it to kill all respective blockers?


    You may misunderstand how deathtouch works. Deathtouch means that any positive amount of damage dealt by the source with deathtouch is considered lethal damage. But the source still needs to deal at least 1 point of damage to each creature that you want to die, (a creature in combat with a deathtouch source, but being assigned no damage points will not die). Since the Assassin's base power is 1, it has only 1 point of damage to deal in each combat damage step. Which means only one of the blocking creatures will die.
    Increasing its power means more points of damage it can assign, which means more creatures can die.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Chance For Glory Twice??
    Quote from Trancebam »
    The only feasible way to counter that game loss is with an effect like that of Time Stop.

    Voidslime or Stifle would work as well. The lose the game effect is part of a delayed triggered ability and thus can be targeted and countered.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Chainer and Conspiracy
    Yes it uses timestamp order since there is no dependency.
    There are two possibilities:

    1. If Conspiracy enters after Chainer's ability resolves, the creature will be the Conspiracy chosen type and not any other types.

    2. If Chainer's ability resolves after Conspiracy enters, the creature will be both the Conspiracy chosen type and Nightmare type.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Lazav and Layers
    I understand Joshua's confusion. Cryptoplasm's rule text is more similar to Helm of the Host than Lazav or Sakashima. The ability granting is written as though it was a separate Layer 6 event like Helm's haste granting, rather than part of the Layer 1 copy event as in Sakashima the Impostor. However cryptoplasm's oracle ruling clearly states:
    6/1/2011 If another creature becomes a copy of Cryptoplasm, it will become a copy of whatever Cryptoplasm is currently copying (if anything), plus it will have Cryptoplasm’s triggered ability.

    Which necessarily means the gained ability is a part of the copiable characteristics (Layer 1 copying) not an ordinary Layer 6 gained ability.

    Conclusion: Cryptoplasm has a typo.


    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Do -1/-1 counters get removed by +1/+1 counters?
    void_nothing's answer is correct, however your use of Atraxa in the question makes me think you might misunderstand proliferate.
    Proliferate can only add another counter of a type already existing on the permanent or player. For example, a Myojin with an divinity counter can have a second one added, but if you already used its initial counter, proliferate cannot create a new one. Similarly a player without any poison counters cannot be given an initial one with proliferate.

    By rule, a permanent (after SBA are performed) could have either some -1/-1 or +1/+1 counters, but never both at anytime proliferate would apply. Thus a permanent with at least one -1/-1 could never have a +1/+1 counter added by proliferate.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Turn aside.. on Ulamog?
    The only permanent spells which target are Aura spells. All other permanent spells (including creatures such as Ulamog) do not target, and therefore, are not a valid target for Turn Aside.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Lich's Mirror timing and a possible follow-up
    I don't think 704.3 is unintuitive. It is there to ensure that SBAs begin and end together as atomic actions. That is, with respect to each other there are only two gamestates that exist for SBAs, the state before all SBAs are performed and the state after all SBA's are performed.

    Imagine a hypothetical creature with the ability "As long as this creature is in a graveyard, players can't draw cards." If both this creature would be destroyed and Lich's Mirror's controller would lose simultaneously as SBAs, without 704.3, there would be no principled way to determine if the Mirror player draws cards or not. With 704.3, it is clear there can exist no gamestate wherein the creature is in the graveyard yet the Mirror player hasn't completed the entire multi-step SBA. Thus the player does draw.


    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Worms of the Earth and Life and Limb
    Quote from Nylon »
    Except that, as I already told you, the rule 108.2a that you are referring to no longer exists (including the exception for Hedron Alignment, which is no longer needed); rule 614.16d has just been created specifically to clarify Grafdigger's Cage; and the new Gatherer rulings for Grafdigger's Cage confirm what I am saying.


    I've read the new rulings for Grafdigger. Clearly they imply that Grafdigger's first ability is "Creatures can't enter ..." not "Creature cards can't enter ...". Wizards needs to change the text of Grafdigger post haste.

    Also nylon, while you a correct that the templating (and to a lesser extent rulings) has always used casting/playing cards vs casting/playing spells to mean the same thing, no such confusion exists between cards and permanents. Cards and permanents are very distinct objects rules-wise and Grafdigger's current text cannot be matched up with it's current rulings. One or the other must give.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Worms of the Earth and Life and Limb
    How does the new 614.16d apply to Grafdigger?
    Grafdigger refers to cards not permanents.
    Is Grafdigger getting an Oracle change to its rule text?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Worms of the Earth and Life and Limb
    How is this situation different than Startled Awake and Grafdigger's Cage?

    No land card/spell is entering with regard to Worms. Even though for ETBs a land has entered.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.