A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
 
Exclusive: Sword of Truth and Justice
  • posted a message on Torbran, thane of red fell with violent eruption
    Quote from Banrel »
    Ok, I was thinking in terms of some planes Walker abilities that let you determine the value "up to" something which can include 0 and similar value determinations like mana cost reductions with spells with x values.
    In general, "up to N" means any positive integer or zero which is N or less (C.R. 107.1b; see also C.R. 107.1c). With the Core Set 2020 rule update, if something has a player divide or distribute something among "any number" of objects and/or players of a particular kind, that player can now choose 0 for the "any number" regardless of whether it's possible to divide or distribute that something among one or more of those objects and/or players (compare C.R. 107.1c and 608.2d in Modern Horizons with those rules in Core Set 2020; see also this thread and this thread).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Torbran, thane of red fell with violent eruption
    As you cast Violent Eruption, you can divide the 4 damage it would deal among up to four targets, but not more than four; each such target must be assigned at least 1 damage this way (C.R. 601.2d, 107.1c). Also, the damage Violent Eruption would deal to each "opponent or ... permanent an opponent controls" is increased by 2 while you control Torbran and Violent Eruption and that spell is red (C.R. 101.4, 109.5, 700.1; see also this thread and this thread).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Fractured Identity and Abyssal Persecutor
    Quote from Kamonohashi »
    The original question concerned the outcome of targeting Abyssal Persecutor with Fractured Identity in a multiplayer game. Since there's one player who wouldn't simultaneously win and lose the game (because their Abyssal Persecutor has been exiled), and everyone else WOULD simultaneously win and lose, it appears that (according to C.R.104.3f) the person who didn't cast Fractured Identity and Abyssal Persecutor wins the game by default, according to the rules. Am I understanding this correctly?
    No, C.R. 104.3f applies only to situations where an event would make a player win the game, and simultaneously, another event would make that player lose the game. (I am not aware of any case in which that rule applies at the time of this writing; see also this thread.) It doesn't apply to this scenario, in which one or more players can neither win nor lose the game, except by conceding the game (C.R. 101.1, 104.3a). Under the rules, a player doesn't win the game merely once the player can win the game and every other player can neither win nor lose the game (review C.R. 104.2).

    EDIT: Edited after comment 17 was posted.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Is Attacking an Activated Ability?
    Attacking is not the same as activating an ability (compare C.R. 508.1 with C.R. 602.2). Notably, it's not the same as activating an ability with T in its cost, even though, in general, a creature becomes tapped as it attacks (C.R. 508.1f).

    Thus, for example, a creature isn't kept from attacking merely because its activated abilities can't be activated.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Spy kit + cards with different names
    Quote from shinike »
    The question is not the legend rule (OP mentions how they need something like Mirror Gallery).
    If you control
    • Eight ordinary gates with different names,
    • A gate named Sakashima, the Impostor,
    • A gate that has a gazillion names, one of which is Sakashima, the Impostor,
    do you control ten gates with different names?
    Under C.R. 201.2c, "[t]wo or more objects have different names if there are no names that both objects have in common." Thus, for example, if two permanents both have the name Sakashima the Impostor, they both don't have different names. Thus if the permanents you give are the only permanents a player controls, that player doesn't control ten Gates "with different names".

    Note, however, that—
    • Gate is not a creature type, but a land type (C.R. 205.3i, 205.3m), and
    • Sakashima the Impostor is not the name of a nonlegendary creature card.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Fractured Identity and Abyssal Persecutor
    Quote from Kamonohashi »

    This means that, at the end of a Magic game, there are multiple meanings for "winning" and multiple meanings for "losing." The takeaway of this discussion for me is that language is quite sloppy, and words have multiple meanings at the same time. A "house," to Europeans and Americans, is usually a rectangular wooden or brick structure, but it can also be an igloo, a tee pee, or a round thatched hut. In "game terms," winning and losing have very rigorously-defined meanings, but those meanings don't replace or eradicate the colloquial real-world meanings which have a parallel existence and exist alongside the technical meanings-- at least for non-tournament players.

    Clearly, my assertion that the terms "winning" and "losing" can't be re-defined by the rules of a card game was mistaken. They obviously can, as you've all pointed out.

    In this sense, see also C.R. 701.1, which acknowledges the use of certain "specialized verbs" on a card "whose meanings may not be clear" in terms of the game. For example, in terms of the game, the word "destroy" is clearly not taken literally (C.R. 701.7). Other terms with special meanings include "draw (a card)" (C.R. 121), as well as "win the game" and "lose the game" (C.R. 104.2, 104.3). See also this thread, especially its comment 4.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Fractured Identity and Abyssal Persecutor
    Note also that a player can concede the game at any time, even if an effect says they can't lose the game (C.R. 101.1, 104.3a). A player who concedes the game loses that game (C.R. 104.3a).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Fractured Identity and Abyssal Persecutor
    Unfortunately, all that C.R. 104.2b says is "An effect may state that a player wins the game", and doesn't say anything about whether other players lose the game as a result. And it may be a gap in the rules that they don't say whether an effect that makes a player win the game makes other players lose the game, if the game doesn't use the limited range of influence option (review C.R. 104.3h). (Although you may find this aspect of the rules controversial, keep in mind that only the rules manager and Magic R&D have the power to change the comprehensive rules for all games.) If you want confirmation on whether such an effect makes other players lose the game in that case, you should ask the rules manager.

    In casual unsanctioned games, the players can agree on modifications to the comprehensive rules ("house rules") to fill this apparent gap. For example, in such games, the players can agree to use a modified version of C.R. 104.2b with the following sentence at the end: "If the player wins the game this way, all other players lose the game unless the game uses the limited range of influence option (see rule 104.3h)."
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Fractured Identity and Abyssal Persecutor
    If an effect (such as found in Laboratory Maniac) makes a player win the game, the "game ends immediately" (with one exception involving the limited range of influence option) (C.R. 104.1, 104.3h). But nothing in the comprehensive rules explicitly states that a player who would win the game makes all other players lose the game, with the exception of multiplayer games using the limited range of influence option. In such games, an effect that would make a player win the game "instead causes all of that player's opponents within the player's range of influence to lose the game" (C.R. 104.3h). See also this thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Glairing Aegis help
    Quote from Rezzahan »
    Effects keeping a permanent tapped during a player's untap step will explicitly say so, e.g. Claustrophobia, Crippling Chill, Dungeon Geists, etc.
    And even so, those effects don't keep that permanent from becoming untapped at any other time than they state, including during other untap steps. For example, such a permanent can become untapped due to Twiddle, even while such an effect is active on it. See also this thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on "Remove it from combat"
    Quote from soleil19 »
    Great, thank you. One follow-up question then:

    Can the blocking creature then be re-assigned to block another attacking creature? I would assume no, or else I don't see the point of Gustcloak Sentinel's ability.
    Gustcloak Sentinel's ability doesn't make any creatures block any other creatures. (See False Orders and Balduvian Warlord for examples of effects that do.)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on "Remove it from combat"
    By the time Gustcloak Sentinel's ability resolves, it will still be the declare blockers step, so well before creatures assign, let alone deal, combat damage. If Gustcloak Sentinel is removed from combat, it will no longer be an attacking creature, so that—
    • any creatures that blocked Gustcloak Sentinel (such as the blocking creature in your scenario) will remain in combat but won't get to assign combat damage to Gustcloak Sentinel, and
    • Gustcloak Sentinel won't get to assign combat damage to those creatures.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Unholy Indenture + Corpsejack Menace
    For the purposes of Corpsejack Menace and Winding Constrictor, counters are "put" on an object if the effect says "put ... counter(s)", "move ... counter(s)" (C.R. 122.5), or "enter(s)" or "put ... onto" or "return ... to" "the battlefield ... with ... counter(s)" (C.R. 122.6).

    The answer to your question, however, depends on when Corpsejack Menace or Winding Constrictor is given a +1/+1 counter due to Unholy Indenture as far as the game is concerned. If either of them is given a +1/+1 counter this way—
    • before it enters the battlefield, its continuous effect won't apply at that time (see also C.R. 603.6b), so that that creature is not given any +1/+1 counters beyond the one that Unholy Indenture gives it.
    • while or after it enters the battlefield, its continuous effect will work to increase the number of +1/+1 counters given to it this way.

    However, until this question is resolved, based on how Eli Shiffrin answered in a similar case, yes, Corpsejack Menace's and Winding Constrictor's effects will work and give them additional +1/+1 counters based on the one given to them by Unholy Indenture.


    EDIT: But see comment 3.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on fae of wishes and eidolon
    If you cast Fae of Wishes as an Adventure, only the Adventure part (Granted) will appear on the stack (C.R. 705.3b). Granted's converted mana cost is 4 (C.R. 202.3), so Eidolon of the Great Revel's ability won't trigger when that spell is cast.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Improvising with food
    In general, as you cast Whir of Invention, you have the chance to activate mana abilities before you pay its costs (C.R. 601.2g-h). If you activate Gilded Goose's last ability for mana as you cast that spell, the Food you sacrifice this way won't be there to be tapped by the time you pay Whir of Invention's costs (C.R. 601.2g-h, 702.125a, 205.3g, 605.1a, 701.16a). (Note that if X is 0, Whir of Invention's total cost will be UUU and so have no generic mana in it, so no artifacts can be tapped to pay for that spell [C.R. 601.2f, C.R. 601.2h, 702.125a, 107.4b]. Remember that to pay for a spell with improvise, you can tap no more artifacts you control than the amount of "generic mana in [the] spell's total cost" [C.R. 702.125a; under that rule, you tap the artifacts "rather than pay" the corresponding generic mana].)

    Note that improvise isn't a cost reduction effect (unlike affinity for artifacts), but rather it changes the way you pay for the spell with that ability (compare C.R. 702.125a with C.R. 702.40a; see also C.R. 702.125b).

    See also this thread, this thread, and this thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.