2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Strange Interaction Question (Sudden Spoiling + Song of the Dryads)
    Quote from chaikov »

    @Peteroupc: you might be using an old version of the CR, with outdated rules numbers. Rule 205.1b (not 205.1a) is the one about using the words "in addition".
    As for 603.5, I'm at a loss: triggered abilities?
    I have edited some of the rule citations. I referred to C.R. 205.1a because Song of the Dryads (as well as Imprisoned in the Moon) makes the permanent a "land" and no other card types, so that the permanent has no other card types.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Strange Interaction Question (Sudden Spoiling + Song of the Dryads)
    When Sudden Spoiling's effect ends, Progenitus will remain a colorless Forest land (and no other card types) with none of its usual abilities including protection from everything (because generally, effects that make a permanent a basic land type without using the words "in addition", such as found in Song of the Dryads, take away that permanent's usual abilities) (C.R. 305.6, 305.7, 205.1a-b). If Progenitus gained any abilities by some other effect (such as by an effect of the form "Creatures you control have flying"), Progenitus will generally regain those abilities (C.R. 613.1, 613.1d, 613.1f).

    EDIT: Edited rule citations after comment 4 was posted.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Mtg ruling
    To be clear, nothing in the rules for the Commander variant (under C.R. 903) restricts the colors of spells you can cast or permanents you can control. For example, during a Commander game, if an effect somehow lets you—
    • cast a spell named Stormscape Familiar (e.g., from someone else's hand), or
    • gain control of a permanent named Stormscape Familiar,
    you can still do so regardless of your commander's color identity, provided you could otherwise do so if it weren't a Commander game (see also this thread).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Underworld Sentinel
    Where Underworld Sentinel's second ability says "all cards exiled with [Underworld Sentinel]", it means all cards in exile that were put there due to Underworld Sentinel's first ability (C.R. 607.2a).

    That second ability doesn't mean "When Underworld Sentinel dies, put all cards exiled with Underworld Sentinel, as well as Underworld Sentinel itself, onto the battlefield", or even "When Underworld Sentinel dies, put all cards in exile, together with Underworld Sentinel, onto the battlefield."
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Hapatra ruling
    The counters are put on Phyrexian Hydra at the same time. In general, actions of the form "[Do something] for each [something]" are done "in one go", in your words. Thus, it wouldn't work differently in this respect than if Phyrexian Hydra said "Put X -1/-1 counters on Phyrexian Hydra, where X is the amount of damage prevented this way." See also this thread. In this case, however, Hapatra's last ability will trigger at most once even if "you put" multiple -1/-1 counters on Phyrexian Hydra at the same time (C.R. 603.2, especially C.R. 603.2c; C.R. 700.1; compare Hapatra with Flourishing Defenses; see also this thread).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Standard Bearer + Protection
    To be clear: As long as—
    • Standard Bearer is on the battlefield, and
    • an opponent (of Standard Bearer's controller) is casting a spell they control or activating an ability they control, and
    • that opponent chooses any of the targets of that spell or ability, and
    • a Flagbearer (not just Standard Bearer) is among the targets the opponent can choose from,
    that opponent has to choose at least one Flagbearer as a target. If Standard Bearer can't be a target of that spell or ability (whether by protection, shroud, or otherwise), the opponent still has to choose another Flagbearer as a target if able. Only if there is no Flagbearer from which the opponent can choose this way is that opponent free to choose targets without regard to Standard Bearer.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on What allows me to play Zendikar Rising double-faced cards as lands the back face up?
    Unfortunately, nothing in the comprehensive rules, at the time of this writing, clearly addresses the case of playing a modal double-faced card as a land from a player's hand (or other zones than the stack or battlefield), even though the intent arguably doesn't match what those rules currently say. Indeed, the intent is arguably that if a modal double-faced card is in a player's hand (regardless of what types its front face has), that card's back face can nevertheless be played as a land if that face is a land. See also this thread.

    It is hoped that the comprehensive rules will change to better reflect this intent. And in the meantime, in casual unsanctioned games, the players in the game can agree on modifications to the comprehensive rules ("house rules") to better reflect the intent of those rules.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Dimir House Guard
    You can sacrifice any creature to pay for Dimir House Guard's second ability, including Dimir House Guard itself. (The ability will get to resolve even if Dimir House Guard isn't on the battlefield [see also C.R. 113.7]; however, the ability won't do anything when it resolves if Dimir House Guard is no longer on the battlefield [C.R. 101.3].)

    Note that that ability doesn't target anything (it lacks the word "target", for example) (C.R. 115.1c, 115.10, 115.10a), and note also that the ability contains a colon that separates the cost (here "Sacrifice a creature") from the effect ("Regenerate Dimir House Guard") (C.R. 602.1, 602.1a).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Lithoform Engine Copying Mana Abilities
    Mana abilities can't be targeted by Lithoform Engine's first ability (C.R. 605.3b, 605.4a). More generally, no spell or ability can target a mana ability, as mana abilities don't go on the stack (C.R. 605.3b, 605.4a); this is true regardless of whether that spell or ability has reminder text stating that mana abilities can't be copied or targeted or countered (such as Stifle as printed in Scourge).

    Remember that reminder text "has no game function" (C.R. 207.2, 207.2a); a card's functionality wouldn't change if all its reminder text were left out.

    In the case at hand, "if it isn't a mana ability", an "intervening 'if' clause", occurs on Rings of Brighthearth and Illusionists' Bracers because their triggered abilities don't trigger when a mana ability is activated (C.R. 603.2, 603.4).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Radha & MDFC
    Quote from WizardMN »
    The way you seem to read the rules is that a Modal Double Faced Card doesn't have a back face at all. At least, not in a way that is relevant. Based on the rules of course.

    That is obviously nonsense and I am pretty sure that you are not suggesting it can't be played as a land at all. But it would probably be best for people like OP that are asking the question if you clarified it to be "the rules don't technically support it, but...".
    Modal double-faced cards have a back face just like other double-faced cards (C.R. 711.1d). However, at the time of this writing, under the comprehensive rules, a modal double-faced card can be played as a land only if its front face is a land, and then only its front face can be played this way even if the back face is also a land, but that is arguably not the intent. Rather, the intent is arguably that if a modal double-faced card is on the top of the appropriate player's library (regardless of what types its front face has), that card's back face can nevertheless be played as a land with Radha if that face is a land. It is hoped that the comprehensive rules will change to better reflect this intent. And in the meantime, in casual unsanctioned games, the players in the game can agree on modifications to the comprehensive rules ("house rules") to better reflect the intent of those rules.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Radha & MDFC
    The intent is that a modal double-faced card can be played as a land from the library with Radha if either of its faces is a land. But unfortunately unfortunately, as far as I can tell, nothing in the comprehensive rules clearly addresses the case of playing a modal double-faced card as a land from a player's library (or other zones than the stack or battlefield), as opposed to the case of casting a modal double-faced spell from such zones (e.g., C.R. 711.7). This is so even though the intent is arguably that a player can choose which face of that card to play this way just like the case when a player casts a modal double-faced spell (see, for example, the rulings for Clearwater Pathway).

    In this respect, all the rules say on this matter at the time of this writing is that a double-faced card (modal or otherwise) found outside the stack or the battlefield "has only the characteristics of its front face" (C.R. 711.4a), and that if a modal double-faced card whose "front face isn't a permanent card" would enter the battlefield because a player is instructed to put it there, the card stays in its current zone (C.R. 711.9b). (Note also that C.R. 601.3 applies only to casting spells, not playing lands.)

    EDIT: Edited after comment 6 was posted.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Rise of the tides: how many ?
    When Rise from the Tides resolves, you count the number of "instant [and/or] sorcery card(s)" in your graveyard, then create that many Zombie tokens. Thus, if three of the cards in your graveyard are "instant [and/or] sorcery card(s)", you create three Zombie tokens (not more and not less).

    Unfortunately, "instant and sorcery card" is not an ideal wording (and the Oracle card reference didn't change this part of the spell's text from the original as printed in Shadows over Innistrad): a wording such as "instant and/or sorcery card" would clearly count a card that's both an instant and sorcery, such as Spring to Mind, only once, whereas a wording that involved the text "the number of instant cards plus the number of sorcery cards" would count the same card twice. (Compare Rise from the Tides with Spoils of War [C.R. 108.1], Ravaging Blaze, and War Report. See also Enigma Drake.) A similar issue exists for Withering Gaze ("each Forest and green card") and Baleful Stare ("each Mountain and red card").

    See also this thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Clearwater Pathway
    The card Clearwater Pathway/Murkwater Pathway has a blue and black color identity, since among other things, it has blue and black mana symbols among its two faces' rules text (note that the color identity rules consider both faces of a double-faced card, not just the front face, when determining that card's color identity) (C.R. 903.4, 903.4c). Thus, you can't include this card in a Commander deck if your commander's color identity is red, white, and black, for example (C.R. 903.5c).

    (Note that neither face of this card has a basic land type, including Swamp [C.R. 305.6]. Just because a card could produce mana of a particular color doesn't necessarily mean it has the corresponding basic land type.)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Pariah I control on a Stuffy Doll with me named. What happens with damage here?
    What is now C.R. 722.6 was added to the comprehensive rules with Shards of Alara, and according to the September 2008 update bulletin, it was added precisely "to cover a corner case involving the Shards of Alara card Prince of Thralls (and probably some other cases)".
    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 chaikov »

    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?

    C.R. 722.6 applies only to effects of the form "[A] unless [B]" (an example is Prince of Thralls), and none of the cards given in the scenario of comment 1 contain that form, so that rule doesn't apply to this scenario. See also this thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.