Magic Market Index for March 15th, 2019
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 8th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 1st, 2019
  • posted a message on Totem Armor and Regeneration
    Effects that destroy a permanent in normal cases and provide that that permanent "can't be regenerated", such as found in Damnation or Wrath of God, don't stop totem armor effects, even though they change what happens if the appropriate permanent would be destroyed, just like regeneration (C.R. 701.14a, 702.88a).

    If a creature to which an Aura with totem armor is attached is under a regeneration effect (e.g., if that creature is Thrun, the Last Troll and its last ability resolves) (C.R. 701.14a, 701.14c), there will generally be two replacement effects that would replace that creature being destroyed with something else: regeneration and totem armor (C.R. 701.14a, 702.88a, 303.4k). For neither effect does that something else involve the creature being destroyed, however (C.R. 701.14a, 702.88a, 303.4k), so that choosing one will make the other inapplicable (C.R. 616.1, 614.6, 614.7; see also C.R. 616.2). However, if the effect that would destroy that creature provides that it "can't be regenerated" (e.g., Damnation or Wrath of God), any regeneration effects won't apply (C.R. 701.14c; see also C.R. 608.2c, 101.2), so that the totem armor effect remains.

    See also this thread and this thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Auras, Sacrificing, and Damage
    Replacing Pygmy Giant with Mogg Fanatic here:

    When Mogg Fanatic's ability resolves, Mogg Fanatic will deal damage taking into account what abilities Mogg Fanatic had at the last moment it was on the battlefield, including abilities granted to it by Auras such as Phyresis (C.R. 112.7a, 613.1, 613.1f). Thus, for example, that damage will be handled accordingly by lifelink, wither, infect, and deathtouch if Mogg Fanatic had any of those abilities at the last moment it was on the battlefield (C.R. 119.3, 704.5h). See also this thread and this thread.

    Note that there is no such thing as "lifelink damage", "wither damage", "infect damage", or "deathtouch damage", but rather damage dealt by a source with the corresponding ability.

    Note also that this is different from continuous effects from static abilities, even if they might do the same thing as lifelink, wither, infect, or deathtouch (compare Phyresis with Heart of Light; see also this thread and this thread); in general, such an effect works only while the object generating that effect is in the appropriate zone (C.R. 611.3b, 112.6). Here, however, it's the existence of an ability (here, either lifelink, wither, infect, or deathtouch), not of a continuous effect, that affects the nature of the damage (C.R. 119.3, 704.5h).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Fungal Plots
    Fungal Plots's last ability isn't a triggered ability, but an activated ability (it contains a colon in its text) (C.R. 602.1, 603.1). To activate an activated ability, you have to announce that ability in case of ambiguity, as well as pay its costs (C.R. 602.2a-b, 601.2h). However, paying the cost for one activated ability doesn't pay the cost for any other, even if both abilities have the same text or the same cost (C.R. 117.10; see also this thread and this thread). For example, in general, if you control two Fungal Plots, you can't sacrifice just two Saprolings for Fungal Plots's last ability in order to gain 4 life and draw two cards (Fungal Plots's last ability doesn't say, "For each permanent named Fungal Plots you control, you gain 2 life and draw a card"; compare Fungal Plots with Rhys the Redeemed).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Demonic Tutor F/L position in a 1 v 1 Commander Format
    Quote from catmaster0 »
    No, this guy had no need to casually ban the card, they were the only one that had it. Think they were basing it off of an official list somewhere. It is possible that the card had been banned sometime last year perhaps, and then later unbanned. does anyone know anything about that? I have not used the commander section yet, but I suppose I could try digging there if no one here knows.
    Questions about whether a particular card was "banned" in the past in a Magic format, whether an official or an unofficial one, are not a good fit for the Magic Rulings forum. Again, your question may be a better fit in the Commander forum or one of its subforums.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Demonic Tutor F/L position in a 1 v 1 Commander Format
    Neither the comprehensive rules nor the Magic: The Gathering Tournament Rules specify whether a particular card can appear in a Commander deck as opposed to other kinds of decks (besides C.R. 903, especially C.R. 903.5). This is especially true for Commander-like variants with rules that differ from those given in C.R. 903. Rather, in casual situations, it's the agreement of the people playing the game that largely decides whether additional deck construction restrictions apply (beyond those given in the comprehensive rules and the Magic: The Gathering Tournament Rules), including whether particular cards are "banned" from decks in such a game.

    This question may be a better fit for the Commander forum or one of its subforums, rather than the Magic Rulings forum.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Sneak Attack: Can opponent destroy it BEFORE I can use its ability?
    The difference between Rod of Ruin's and Sneak Attack's abilities is that—
    • Rod of Ruin's ability requires a target to be chosen as the ability is activated (C.R. 114.1c, 601.2c, 602.2b), so that that target will be known to all players after that ability is activated and before it resolves (see also this thread), whereas
    • for Sneak Attack's ability, the choice of whether its controller will put a creature card from hand onto the battlefield, and if so, which, is not made until that ability resolves (C.R. 608.2d, 109.5), so without any other player knowing what that choice will be before it resolves.

    In both cases, players can cast instant spells (including instant spells that would remove Sneak Attack or Rod of Ruin from the battlefield) in response to Sneak Attack's or Rod of Ruin's ability (that is, while it's on the stack) as they can to any other activated ability that goes on the stack (C.R. 116.7, 116.1a). And in both cases, the ability will get to resolve even if Sneak Attack or Rod of Ruin, respectively, is no longer on the battlefield (C.R. 112.7a). But no player has priority to cast such spells while that ability resolves (e.g., for Sneak Attack's ability, between the time "you choose" whether to put a creature card from hand onto the battlefield, and if so, which, and the time it enters the battlefield) (C.R. 116.2e, 116.1a) (see also this thread and this thread).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Abyssal Persecutor static ability
    The only abilities that can have targets are activated and triggered abilities (C.R. 114.1, especially C.R. 114.1c-d). Not only does Abyssal Persecutor lack the word "target" in its text, but it also has no activated or triggered abilities (review C.R. 602.1, 603.1). Also, neither "each [something]" nor "all [of something]" nor "your opponents" specify targets, even though they may describe things an ability may affect (C.R. 114.10a).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Tethmos High Priest + Deputy of Acquittals
    Thanks!

    Then casting Deputy from hand would also not trigger Tethmos correct?
    Tethmos's ability won't trigger this way. Deputy of Acquittals itself doesn't target anything; no permanent spell can do so except for Aura spells (C.R. 114.1b).

    In general, an ability that says "Whenever you cast a spell that targets [this permanent]" will not trigger—
    • if an enters-the battlefield ability (or any other ability) targets that permanent (C.R. 112.9; compare C.R. 111.1 with C.R. 112.1c; see also C.R. 603.3),
    • if a player other than "you" casts a spell that targets that permanent, or
    • if the spell cast by "you" targets only a player or only a permanent other than the one where that ability appears (C.R. 603.2, 114.1a).

    See also this thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Sigarda's aid+ creture+ instant
    Yes, this is allowed. Sigarda's Aid lets you cast Lightning Greaves in response to Arrester's Admonition, which means it will get to resolve before Arrester's Admonition (C.R. 116.7, 304.5, 116.1a, 702.8a). And once Lightning Greaves enters the battlefield under your control this way, Sigarda's Aid's second ability will trigger, will go on the stack above Arrester's Admonition (at which point you can target Mirri or another "creature you control"), and get to resolve before that spell (and to let you attach Lightning Greaves to the targeted creature to give it shroud, making that creature an illegal target of Arrester's Admonition) (C.R. 608.3, 116.3b, 116.5, 603.3d, 601.2c, 114.1a, 405.2, 116.4, 702.18a).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Torrential gear hulk
    Where Torrential Gearhulk says "If that card would be put into your graveyard this turn", it doesn't mean "If that card was put into your graveyard this turn". When Torrential Gearhulk's triggered ability triggers while you control it, you can target any instant or sorcery card in your graveyard with that ability, no matter when it went to your graveyard (C.R. 114.1a, 112.8, 109.5, 603.3, 603.3d, 601.2c), and when it resolves, you may cast that card (which you can't do in the case of Counterspell unless another spell is on the stack [C.R. 601.2c, 114.1a, 114.5]) (C.R. 608.2f). If you cast that card this way and it would go to your graveyard at any time "this turn", you exile that card instead of putting it into that graveyard.

    EDIT (Mar. 25): Edited.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Tajic, Blade of the legion + Elemental Mastery
    If Elemental Mastery is attached to Tajic, the ability granted to Tajic checks what is Tajic's power, and creates that many Elemental tokens, when that ability resolves (C.R. 608.2c, 608.2g). For example, if Tajic's power is 7, then seven Elemental tokens will be created this way.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on 2nd combat phase
    Stonehorn Dignitary's ability affects only the next combat phase you will take after the ability resolves. It doesn't say that creatures can't attack during a particular turn or that a player skips all combat phases during their next turn (compare that ability with Orim's Chant and Empty City Ruse). Assuming Stonehorn Dignitary entered before your turn, if you would otherwise take more than one combat phase during a turn, you will skip only one of them, namely "your next combat phase" after the Stonehorn Dignitary ability resolves (C.R. 614.10, 614.10a).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Countering Lich Mastery triggered ability...
    If a triggered ability (such as any of Lich's Mastery's last three abilities, which begin with "Whenever" or "When" [C.R. 603.1]) is countered, it doesn't resolve and its effects don't happen (C.R. 701.5a). Thus, if Lich's Mastery's last ability is countered, the ability won't make any player lose the game. That doesn't mean, however, that that player can't lose the game later. For example, even if Lich's Mastery's last ability is countered by its controller, that player can still lose the game for having 0 or less life (C.R. 704.5a), for attempting to draw a card from an empty library (C.R. 704.5b), or for any other reason — Lich's Mastery's second ability ("You can't lose the game") lasts only while Lich's Mastery is on the battlefield (C.R. 611.3b, 112.6); if that ability's effect could extend beyond that time, it would say so (an example is Titania's Song) (C.R. 101.1).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Yet another banding question
    If a creature has banding, its controller chooses how combat damage it would receive from attacking or blocking creatures is assigned, rather than any other player (C.R. 702.21j-k). This is true even if it didn't have banding as attackers or blockers were declared, and even if it's attacking but not in a band.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Palladia-Mors and Scion of the Ur-Dragon damage question
    Quote from Rezzahan »

    Addditional question
    What happenes if Palladia-Mors, the Ruiner deals damage to something, but that damage is prevented?
    (I'm assuming it sill keep hexproof as technically it didn't deal damage)

    Damage that has been prevented wasn't dealt. Therefore if all the damage has been prevented, Palladia-Mors did not deal any damage yet this turn. So the phrase "deals damage to something, but that damage is prevented" is non-sensical as it is a contradiction in itself. The damage was either dealt or prevented, not both.
    Under C.R. 615.6, if "damage that would be dealt is prevented, it never happens".

    For the first question in comment 1, see also this thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.