Mana is not the same as lands (compare C.R. 106.1 with C.R. 110.4 and 110.1), so an ability that triggers whenever a land enters the battlefield under a player's control doesn't trigger if that player adds mana (C.R. 603.6a).
Note that Vernal Bloom now says "...its controller adds an additional " (C.R. 108.1); cards no longer speak of a "mana pool".
- Registered User
Member for 2 years, 1 month, and 12 days
Last active Thu, Jul, 19 2018 11:35:33
- 1 Follower
- 2,031 Total Posts
- 299 Thanks
Jul 19, 2018peteroupc posted a message on Are lands added to the pool considered lands in the battlefield?Posted in: Magic Rulings
Jul 19, 2018peteroupc posted a message on Would Protection From Creatures prevent Vengeful Pharaoh's triggered ability?Protection from creatures means, among other things, that the permanent or player with that ability can't be the target of abilities from creature sources wherever those sources are (C.R. 702.16b). Unlike most other uses of the word "creature" on cards, protection from creatures is not limited to creatures on the battlefield (C.R. 702.16a).Posted in: Magic Rulings
Jul 18, 2018If you end the turn with Sundial of the Infinite while the delayed triggered ability from Valduk is on the stack (during the end step it refers to), that ability will be exiled and will not trigger again (C.R. 603.7b, 716.1b). See also this thread.Posted in: Magic Rulings
Jul 18, 2018You can activate Fanatical Firebrand's second ability in response to Hungry Flames (C.R. 116.7); nothing in this scenario would have kept you from doing so (for example, if that ability had said "Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery" [C.R. 602.1b, 307.5; compare with C.R. 116.1b] or if Hungry Flames had split second [C.R. 702.60a]) or, in general, from activating abilities while Hungry Flames is on the stack.Posted in: Magic Rulings
Jul 17, 2018peteroupc posted a message on "Formal logic" and the comprehensive rules: the recent changes to loopsPosted in: Magic General
I mean as opposed to the Magic Tournament Rules, which say: "[P]layers may choose to reveal their hands or any other hidden information available to them, unless specifically prohibited by the rules. Players must not actively attempt to gain information hidden from them" (M.T.R. 3.12). Note that I use the word "reveal" within the meaning of C.R. 701.15, where it means to "show [a] card to all players" in the game, not necessarily outside that game, "for a brief time".Quote from SecretInfiltrator »Quote from peteroupc »nothing in the comprehensive rules explicitly allows players to reveal cards they're allowed to see, and
You mean e. g. a player is allowed to look at another player's hand and you argue they should be allowed to just reveal that card to a third player? Seems sketchy.
Jul 17, 2018Posted in: Magic RulingsQuote from Breathe1234 »Let me be a bit specific about 3. I heard about this case where the opponent played Sylvan library (old version with the 0) but the new sylvan library was errated to be a replacement effect. The opponent didn't know about the errated text and tried to pithing needle the library. Then the opponent told him that the new library is a replacement and pithing wouldn't work and from what I recall, he wasn't allowed to take it back.
Is there really no rule saying the player who played the old sylvan library needs to tell the opponent about the change when he tried to needle it?
how would the opponent get the "free" information about the library?
In a sanctioned tournament:
- "Judges ... can ... provide the Oracle(TM) wordings of relevant cards", including Sylvan Library in this scenario (M.T.R. 1.8).
- M.T.R. 4.1, third paragraph, says in relevant part: "Players are under no obligation to assist their opponents in playing the game[, but] are expected to treat opponents politely and with respect." Moreover, the second paragraph says, in relevant part: "A player should have an advantage due to ... greater awareness of interactions in the current game state".
- Depending on whether the sanctioned tournament uses Regular rules enforcement level or not, a player is entitled to Oracle content either "without contamination or omissions made by their opponents" (Regular) or without opponents being "obliged to assist in determining" such information (other levels) (M.T.R. 4.1). However, if a judge asks a player about Oracle content (or any other information about the game state), that player "must answer ... completely and honestly" (M.T.R. 4.1).
In the situation you give, a player can choose a card name with Pithing Needle even if the card with that name has no activated abilities (in its Oracle text [C.R. 108.1]), thus the action of choosing Sylvan Library this way wasn't an illegal action as far as the game is concerned (in general, only illegal actions can be reversed under certain circumstances [C.R. 721.1]). See also this thread.
Therefore, in this scenario, the player controlling Sylvan Library need not point out to the opponent whether Pithing Needle would work as the opponent would expect.
Jul 17, 2018After Scion of the Ur-Dragon becomes a copy of Palladia-Mors, the Ruiner, Scion of the Ur-Dragon will have hexproof provided Scion of the Ur-Dragon hasn't dealt damage yet. Thus, if Scion of the Ur-Dragon has dealt damage (whether before or after it became a copy of Palladia-Mors), it generally won't have hexproof (C.R. 611.3a). (Note that "Palladia-Mors, the Ruiner" on Palladia-Mors's last ability means the object that has that ability, not any other with the same name [C.R. 201.4, especially C.R. 201.4a].)Posted in: Magic Rulings
Jul 17, 2018Posted in: Magic Rulings
Nothing in the rules for Sagas limits the number of Saga spells you can cast each turn or the number of Sagas you can control at once (review C.R. 714, 116.1a).Quote from Gincola »can you play 2 sagas on the same turn?
Jul 16, 2018Posted in: Magic Rulings
In this scenario, both the attacker and the blocker have double strike, so they both assign and deal damage at the same time — namely in the first combat damage step (C.R. 510.1, 501.2, 702.4b). Only if it survives that combat damage will either creature get to assign combat damage in the second combat damage step (assuming it still has double strike by then) (C.R. 702.4b). (Note that double strike doesn't mean a creature assigns twice its power in combat damage, but rather it assigns combat damage, in general, in two separate combat damage steps each combat [C.R. 702.4b].)Quote from Ladylucksmygirl »I have a scenario that I need help with, I have a 5/9 double strike lifelink and attack, my opponent blocks with a 9/6 double strike, I say they both died, he said his didn't, he said I hit him for 5 then he hit me for 9 this killing my creature, therefore my double strike doesn't hit a second time and I only gain 5 life instead of the 10 I usually would do to double strike. We are both kinds new to this so not sure exactly what the rules with double strike scenario like this. Thanks
Jul 16, 2018Posted in: Magic Rulings
Unless and until Hostage Taker's ability resolves, no card will be exiled with Hostage Taker. And when Hostage Taker leaves the battlefield (whether by damage due to Urza's Rage or otherwise) before that ability resolves, nothing will be exiled due to that ability (C.R. 610.3a).Quote from Ladylucksmygirl »Ok what if I cast clone and clone opponents hostage taker, my opponent allows me to take his hostage taker, but then as an instant cast urzas rage to deal 3 damage to MY hostage taker, I as a response to that instant, I pay the four mana to cast opponents hostage taker from exile. That's legal correct because that's a static ability of hostage taker, therefore my original clone/hostage taker would die but since I cast the exiled hostage taker he would not return to opponents because he was under my control. If opponent would have WAITED until I attempted to cast the exiled hostage taker, then put urzas rage on the stack he would have got it back right?
But when the original Hostage-Taker is exiled due to Clone-turned-Hostage Taker, the card exiled with the original Hostage Taker, if any, will return to the battlefield (under its owner's control) before any player gets priority to cast spells (including Urza's Rage). If you then cast the original Hostage Taker this way, it will generally enter the battlefield under your control upon resolving. (Note that the effect allowing you to cast the card exiled this way is a continuous effect, not a one-shot effect — it lasts "for as long as [that card] remains exiled" — and in general, you can cast that card only any time you could normally cast a card of its type.)
Jul 16, 2018Compare Mark of the Vampire with Cartouche of Ambition. The latter has "enchant creature you control", so that it can be attached only to a creature "you control", that is, to a creature controlled by Cartouche of Ambition's controller (C.R. 109.5, 702.5a). That Aura will go to the graveyard as a state-based action if it's attached to anything other than a "creature you control" (C.R. 704.5m).Posted in: Magic Rulings
Note also that Mark of the Vampire grants an ability (lifelink) to the enchanted creature, not to itself, so that, for example, if that creature deals damage, the controller of that creature, not necessarily of Mark of the Vampire, gains that much life (C.R. 119.3f). See also this thread.
Jul 15, 2018peteroupc posted a message on Beginning Of Combat Question? Helm Of The Host and Arahbo question!In general, an ability of the form "At the beginning of [step or phase], if [condition], ..." triggers only at the beginning of the given step or phase and only if the given condition is true at that moment (C.R. 603.4, 603.2), and that ability will get to resolve only if that condition still holds upon resolving (C.R. 603.4, 608.2a). Nothing you do during that step or phase will change whether that ability will trigger. Besides Arahbo, other examples include—Posted in: Magic Rulings
Jul 14, 2018Posted in: Magic Rulings
You can "choose a card name" for a card provided that card exists in the format you're playing (C.R. 201.3). If the card whose name you have chosen (or in a sanctioned tournament, the card you described [M.T.R. 3.6]) doesn't exist in that format, then you haven't chosen a card name.Quote from Breathe1234 »2) so in this case, would I say "could I get the oracle text for the red- blue cycle land where it is a island and mountain and can pay 2 to cycle" and the judge would say the card you are describing doesn't exist In modern?
Jul 14, 2018In sanctioned tournaments:Posted in: Magic Rulings
1, 2: Under M.T.R. 3.6, choosing a card name means "provid[ing] a description ... that could only apply to one card".
3. Under M.T.R. 4.1, "Oracle content" is derived information, or is free information in tournaments at Regular rules enforcement level. All players have access to free information "without contamination or omissions made by their opponents". Players are also "entitled [to] access" derived information, but "opponents are not obliged to assist in determining" such information.
Jul 14, 2018Posted in: Magic Rulings
There is an exception to M.T.R. 3.15 for certain Limited format tournaments provided the tournament does not use decklists (among other requirements) (M.T.R. 7.3). Notably, however, the Magic Tournament Rules make no exception to this rule for Constructed sanctioned tournaments.Quote from Natedogg »From the Magic Tournament Rules, section on Sideboarding:
The deck and sideboard must each be returned to their original compositions before the first game of each match.
You have to return your deck to the original composition after each match. If you're changing your deck, then you're not returning it to its original composition.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.