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.
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.
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.
The previous replies have completely addressed your question in technical terms. I would like to add for your own education, that you appear to be confusing timing restrictions with summoning sickness restrictions.
Unless otherwise stated explicitly by the ability itself (for a keyword ability such language may be in the rules rather than printed on the card, e.g. equip), all activated abilities have what is called "instant timing". You may activate them anytime you could cast an instant.
Summoning sickness restrictions are not timing restrictions, they are action restrictions.
A summoning sick creature cannot be declared an attacker nor can you pay for any tap/untap symbol costs associated with that creature's own abilities.
And of course the embalm cost is unpayable for a token in the graveyard. A token can make only one zone transition -- from the battlefield to another zone; any additional zone changes are prohibited.
Ah, I see. I had thought that "copy triggered ability" meant that Medomai would essentially have two abilities saying "deal dmg to player = extra turn". I didn't realize "copy triggered ability" was more like "copy triggered effect".
Thanks for the quick answer!
Triggered abilities are objects that exist on the stack, just as spells and activated abilities do. They exist independently from both their source object and the triggering event.
Strionic Resonator targets NOT an object with a triggered ability (the source object), but the triggered ability itself while it is on the stack.
Okay, it seems we are arguing English language interpretation rather than MTG rules.
Rezzhan's statement seemed to me to imply that the extra turn was slotted during the resolution of Emrakul's ability (that is the turn order was changed right then and there).
I wanted to clarify that that wasn't so.
That turn was created when Emrarul's ability resolved and the death of the player does not take it away.
Sorry to bring back a five day old thread, but I must point out that this isn't correct. The ability does not create an extra turn when it resolves. Rather, Emrakul's ability creates a rule changing effect that causes the controlled player to take another turn immediately after the turn in which they were controlled. Otherwise the following Oracle ruling wouldn't be possible:
7/13/2016 If the targeted player skips his or her next turn, you’ll control the next turn the affected player actually takes, and the extra turn the player takes will be after that turn.
Because the timing of the controlled player's next turn is not known when the ability resolves, the extra turn cannot be created then.
Furthermore, if the controlling player leaves the game before the start of the would-be controlled player's next turn, the controlled player will not get an extra turn.
It doesn't work.
The net effect of gaining an extra turn and skipping your next turn is nothing regardless of the order of those effects.
This is because while gaining an extra turn inserts a turn into the turn order, skipping a turn does not delete a turn from the turn order. Rather, skipping an event (such as a turn, phase, or step) is a replacement action that replaces the start of the next instance of that event with not starting that event instead.
It is interesting to note that the SBA that causes copies of spells and cards to cease to exist applies everywhere but the stack and also the battlefield.
While Wizards has never written an effect that creates a copy of a permanent spell or card, the rules currently allow for it.
When such a copy resolves, it would be a nontoken permanent not represented by a card. A strange beast indeed.
That's fine. I'm not arguing that Natedog is wrong. I asked if that's a recent change.
Cause I could have sworn 117.9 was different when Mirrodin was out (admittedly quite a while ago). And at that time, a "you may pay this rather than pay its mana cost" ability was not an alternative cost but rather a rule changing effect.
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.
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.
Grafdigger refers to cards not permanents.
Is Grafdigger getting an Oracle change to its rule text?
No land card/spell is entering with regard to Worms. Even though for ETBs a land has entered.
Unless otherwise stated explicitly by the ability itself (for a keyword ability such language may be in the rules rather than printed on the card, e.g. equip), all activated abilities have what is called "instant timing". You may activate them anytime you could cast an instant.
Summoning sickness restrictions are not timing restrictions, they are action restrictions.
A summoning sick creature cannot be declared an attacker nor can you pay for any tap/untap symbol costs associated with that creature's own abilities.
Triggered abilities are objects that exist on the stack, just as spells and activated abilities do. They exist independently from both their source object and the triggering event.
Strionic Resonator targets NOT an object with a triggered ability (the source object), but the triggered ability itself while it is on the stack.
Rezzhan's statement seemed to me to imply that the extra turn was slotted during the resolution of Emrakul's ability (that is the turn order was changed right then and there).
I wanted to clarify that that wasn't so.
Sorry if I made a mountain out of a molehill.
Sorry to bring back a five day old thread, but I must point out that this isn't correct. The ability does not create an extra turn when it resolves. Rather, Emrakul's ability creates a rule changing effect that causes the controlled player to take another turn immediately after the turn in which they were controlled. Otherwise the following Oracle ruling wouldn't be possible:
- 7/13/2016 If the targeted player skips his or her next turn, you’ll control the next turn the affected player actually takes, and the extra turn the player takes will be after that turn.
Because the timing of the controlled player's next turn is not known when the ability resolves, the extra turn cannot be created then.Furthermore, if the controlling player leaves the game before the start of the would-be controlled player's next turn, the controlled player will not get an extra turn.
The net effect of gaining an extra turn and skipping your next turn is nothing regardless of the order of those effects.
This is because while gaining an extra turn inserts a turn into the turn order, skipping a turn does not delete a turn from the turn order. Rather, skipping an event (such as a turn, phase, or step) is a replacement action that replaces the start of the next instance of that event with not starting that event instead.
Loyalty abilities (the technical term for them) can never be mana abilities even if they would add mana to a player's pool. They always use the stack.
While Wizards has never written an effect that creates a copy of a permanent spell or card, the rules currently allow for it.
When such a copy resolves, it would be a nontoken permanent not represented by a card. A strange beast indeed.
A card can never be a token and a token never a card.
Cause I could have sworn 117.9 was different when Mirrodin was out (admittedly quite a while ago). And at that time, a "you may pay this rather than pay its mana cost" ability was not an alternative cost but rather a rule changing effect.
Again, not arguing that Natedog is wrong.