2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Startled Awake vs Grafdigger's Cage
    Indeed, I thought about replacement effects after I made my post.
    But by 614.12's own words, it only applies to replacement effects not other unrelated rules. Furthermore, 614.12 is explicit that it looks into the future.

    Requiring the game to look into the future is an added complexity that I don't think should be implicitly read into a rule.

    307.4 could be read as "Is a sorcery card changing zones to the battlefield? If yes, that zone change is forbidden."
    Or, it could be read as "Is a card changing zones to the battlefield and will that card be a sorcery when it is on the battlefield? If yes, that zone change is forbidden."

    I would suggest the first reading is simpler and therefore preferred absent an explicit command to use the more complex reading.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Startled Awake vs Grafdigger's Cage
    Thought Criminal,
    How does that comply with 307.4?
    As you describe the event, the game would have to look into the future to ensure a sorcery is not entering the battlefield. Where in the CR is the game permitted to look ahead in time to determine action legality?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Startled Awake vs Grafdigger's Cage
    I somewhat disagree.

    Going from the manifest action:
    Since a double-faced permanent cannot be turned face down while on the battlefield, it follows the status change occurs first while the card is still in the library and only then is put on the battlefield.

    Logically then, all "enter the battlefield as other then default status" actions should first perform the status change then put the permanent on the battlefield.
    If so, it follows that the card is transformed into Persistent Nightmare first and only then put onto the battlefield except that Cage won't allow that.

    I admit this is somewhat technical rather than common sense thus I wouldn't feel bad if Wizard's officially disagrees.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Gelid Shackles
    Also, you cannot activate the ability (in the usual case of an opponent placing the aura on your creature). The controller of the aura NOT the controller of the enchanted creature is the only player who may activate its ability.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Caged Sun + Caged Sun
    Yes, both abilities are additive.
    With two out tapping an Island will produce 1 blue mana from the Island's ability + 1 additional blue mana from the first Caged Sun + 1 additional blue mana from the second Caged Sun for a total of 3 blue mana.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Color question?
    I don't know who you talked to, but she is very wrong:

    113.5. An emblem is neither a card nor a permanent. Emblem isn’t a card type.


    Whim cannot even target an emblem, let alone effect one.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on "Can not be regenerated" vs a creature which has "regenerate" on it
    Here's a much simplified version:
    When effects are in play that say you "can" or "must" do X, and it's met with a card that says "you can't do X", can't always wins.


    The problem with that is it is only mostly true. The most common but not only exception is defender (which rules text is "this creature cannot attack") vs "this creature may attack as though it didn't have defender".
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Starfield of Nyx Questions
    This is wrong. Myth Realized gives itself a CDA, which is applied in layer 7a not 7b. Timestamps are irrelevant to this question. Starfield will always "win" in this situation.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.