2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on New Mechanic ; Embalm.
    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.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Medomai + double strike + strionic resonator
    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.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Mindslaver/Emrakul question
    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.

    Sorry if I made a mountain out of a molehill.


    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Mindslaver/Emrakul question
    Quote from Rezzahan »
    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.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Wormfang Manta plus Conjurer's Closet
    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.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Planeswalker abilities
    Just to make sure no one gets confused by the previous answer:

    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.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Templating question for Create
    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.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Thelon of Havenwood and Death Triggers
    A simpler answer that needs to be pointed out is that the ability says "Fungus card".
    A card can never be a token and a token never a card.


    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Snapcaster Mage and Traps
    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.

    Again, not arguing that Natedog is wrong.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Snapcaster Mage and Traps
    Quote from Deurge »
    Since flashback is an ability with its own cost (in this case the converted mana cost of the targeted spell), it can't be replaced by an alternate cost that requires you to cast a spell.


    That's my point, the trap's (and Bringers) ability DOESN'T use the word cast or play. It says that you can pay this rather than pay that, whenever that payment may come up.
    Also the flashback cost is NOT determined statically when the mage's ability resolves. Rather it is determined dynamically when you cast the spell. Hence no split spell shenanigans.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Snapcaster Mage and Traps
    Natedog,

    Is this a recent change?

    I seem to recall a ruling on the Mirrodin block Bringers that that static ability was a rule changing effect (that was active everywhere) that modified the rule for what constitutes full payment of that card's mana cost. It was not an alternative cost. As a result, one could pay RGBUW to something like Flash to keep a Bringer alive.

    In support of that argument, compare this ability (which talks in terms of "paying" without restriction) to Fist of Suns or Omniscience abilities (which speak in terms of "paying" only with respect to "playing" or "casting").
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Meld creature's transforming without their counterpart?
    Peteroupc:

    I responded in the another thread about this same issue.
    Your understanding of the use of LKI is in grave error.
    LKI is never used to determine the game state. (In this case whether you own and control a particular creature) It is used solely to determine the characteristics of a source PERFORMING AN ACTION when that source no longer exists.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Warp World and Commanders
    Peteroupc:

    Persist, undying and modular are "leave the battlefield" triggers. LTB are explicitly allowed to look back in time. Other triggers are not so allowed.

    LKI is used to determine the characteristics of a source that is performing an action when that source is no longer present. LKI is not used to determine the current gamestate. The trigger in your example is asking a question about the current game state and thus LKI is irrelevant.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Startled Awake vs Grafdigger's Cage
    Yes I'll explain more.

    Cage sees a Sculpting Steel about to enter the battlefield, that proposed action is acceptable to the Cage. The fact that the action will ultimately result in a creature entering is of no concern after the Cage gives it's consent (really refusal to prohibit).

    Rule 307.4 sees a Startled Awake about to enter the battlefield, the proposed action is WTF, THAT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

    So either Startled Awake first transforms then enters the battlefield, in which case 307.4 is happy but Cage is unhappy, OR, rule 307.4 looks into the future and can see the (nonexistent as far as the game is concerned) back side as it will look on the battlefield in the future and is happy and Cage doesn't care about sorceries.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Startled Awake vs Grafdigger's Cage
    The rule 109.2 that tells us to interpret [characteristic] without the words card or spell after it to mean [characteristic] permanent on/entering the battlefield cannot possibly be used to interpret 307.4.

    Why? Because 307.4 refers to a card type that can never, ever be a permanent. Applying the above rule means 307.4 says "sorcery permanents cannot enter the battlefield", a nonsensical result.

    Listen, I'm not saying that 307.4 doesn't look into the future. I'm saying both interpretations are possible based on the wording. And I haven't seen any convincing proof that one is certainly correct and the other certainly wrong.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.