2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • 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
  • posted a message on Flagstones of Trokair
    The scenario you give near the start of your question is legal, assuming the Plains in question is just named Plains (but note that you don't "sacrifice" a permanent named Flagstones of Trokair due to the legend rule for controlling more than one legendary permanent with that name [C.R. 704.5j]). And indeed, the triggered ability of Flagstones of Trokair will trigger when it goes to the graveyard from the battlefield for any reason, whether due to the legend rule (C.R. 704.5j), by being destroyed (C.R. 701.7a), or otherwise.

    Much of your comment, however, seeks strategy advice, which is outside the scope of this forum. Try posting in the Magic General forum if you seek strategy advice.

    EDIT: Struck out certain text to reflect move of this thread.
    Posted in: Legacy (Type 1.5)
  • posted a message on Multiple Phylaths and big Plants
    With Auspicious Starrix, you put the permanent cards onto the battlefield at the same time (C.R. 608.2c). After you do so, "all permanents on the battlefield (including the newcomers) are checked for any enters-the-battlefield triggers that match the event" (C.R. 603.6a). Thus, each Phylath's last ability will trigger if "a land enters the battlefield under your control", even if that land enters at the same time as that Phylath, and its first ability will trigger if that Phylath enters the battlefield itself, even if it's legendary and has the same name as an existing or incoming legendary permanent (C.R. 603.2, 603.6a). It's only after Auspicious Starrix's ability finishes resolving that the legend rule kicks in (and if you control two or more legendary permanents with the same name, all but one of them of your choice will go to the graveyard) (C.R. 117.3b, 117.5, 704.5j, 704.4, 117.2e; see also this thread and this thread).

    1. You check the number of basic lands you control when each Phylath's first ability resolves (even if Phylath isn't on the battlefield anymore) (C.R. 113.7a, 608.2g). Thus, if you control six basic lands at the time, you create six Plant tokens. In this scenario, the total will be twelve Plant tokens assuming all the relevant abilities resolve.
    2. In this scenario, each Phylath's last ability will trigger twice (for a total of four times), since two lands have entered the battlefield under your control. After Auspicious Starrix's last ability resolves, you put all abilities you control that just triggered onto the stack in any order (C.R. 117.3b, 603.2b). In this scenario, it's best if you put the "landfall" abilities first on the stack, then those from each Phylath's first ability. Thus, as a result, the twelve Plant tokens will enter the battlefield before they're given four +1/+1 counters each by each "landfall" ability (for a total of sixteen +1/+1 counters per token in this scenario, or one hundred ninety-two in total) assuming all the relevant abilities resolve.

    EDIT: Edited after comment 3 was posted. I mis-read "target Plant" on Phylath's last ability as "each Plant".
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Destiny to Lose?
    No; if Angel of Destiny enters the battlefield attacking (by whatever means), then "[f]or the purposes of ... effects", such as that of its last ability, "[it] never 'attacked'" this way (C.R. 508.4). This is true even though a player or planeswalker (as appropriate) is chosen as Angel of Destiny enters this way (C.R. 508.4). In this case, "attacked this turn" means that Angel of Destiny was declared as an attacker at any point of the turn before its last ability resolves. See also this thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Mystic Subdual
    After Mystic Subdual is attached to a creature, that creature can still gain abilities by new effects, including by new keyword counters (not: keyword tokens [C.R. 122.1]) given to the creature, due to the "timestamp order" rules (C.R. 613.7). If the creature is given a new flying counter (or a spell, activated ability, or triggered ability gives it flying) after Mystic Subdual is attached to that creature, it will regain flying; in the case of flying counters, this is because all flying counters on an object receive a new timestamp once a new flying counter is put on that object (C.R. 613.1f, 613.7, 613.7a, 613.7c, 613.7e, 122.1b).

    Although this may be in conflict with what Mystic Subdual's reminder text says, remember that reminder text "has no game function" and is not necessarily as rigorous as the comprehensive rules (C.R. 207.2, 207.2a). Mystic Subdual says the "[e]nchanted creature ... loses all abilities", so it behaves no differently from most other effects that say certain permanents "los[e]" certain abilities, such as found in Blood Sun or Humility (but compare Mystic Subdual with Archetype of Imagination, whose rules text includes "can't have ... flying" which is not reminder text and has a special meaning in the rules [C.R. 113.11, 207.1, 207.2, 207.2a]).

    Note that effects that take away abilities from a permanent don't remove any counters on that permanent, whether they're keyword counters or not.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Lifeline and Athreos, God of Passage
    Indeed, if Lifeline's ability triggers, but then the card it refers to leaves the graveyard (whether by Athreos's last ability or otherwise), Lifeline won't return that card to the battlefield "at the beginning of the next end step"; in general, this will be the case even if that card returns to the graveyard before it would do so (C.R. 400.7, 108.1). See also this thread and this thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Urza's filter question
    Where Urza's Filter says "up to 2 less", it means the player casting a multicolor spell chooses how much Urza's Filter reduces the cost to cast that spell. It doesn't change how other cost reduction effects work. In this case, read "up to 2 less", as "0, 1, or 2 less" (C.R. 107.1b; see also C.R. 107.1c). (See also Training Grounds, which has a sentence that changes how its own effect works, not how other cost reduction effects work.)

    For example, in the scenario given, if you cast Abzan Guide normally, it would normally cost 3WBG, but—
    • Rhonas's Monument reduces that cost by 1 to 2WBG because Abzan Guide is a green creature spell, and
    • Urza's Filter lets you reduce that cost further by 0, 1, or 2, your choice, resulting in a total cost of 2WBG, 1WBG, or WBG, respectively, because Abzan Guide is multicolored
    (C.R. 601.2f). (However, if you cast Abzan Guide face down via morph, it will cost 3 and this cost can't be reduced by Urza's Filter or Rhonas's Monument, since the resulting spell would have no colors [C.R. 702.36a, 202.3, 601.2f]. Neither do Urza's Filter and Rhonas's Monument change how much you pay to turn a face-down permanent face up due to morph, since doing so is not the same as casting a spell [review C.R. 701.4].)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.