2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Dress Down + Theros God
    Quote from pokerbob2 »
    When Dress Down comes into play, Thassa will be "locked in" as either a creature or not depending on your devotion prior to Dress Down coming into play.
    No, that's not how it works. In general, as in this case, continuous effects, such as type-changing and ability-removing effects, are "continually and automatically performed by the game" according to the layer system (C.R. 613.5). Thus, Thassa's second ability, as a static ability, will continue to monitor your devotion to blue and change its types accordingly, even in the presence of Dress Down, since it has an effect that applies "before" ability-removing effects (C.R. 604.1, 613.1, 613.1d, 613.1f, 613.6, 611.3a). Indeed, that ability's continuous effect is not "locked in", any more than Dress Down's ability-removing effect is (C.R. 604.1, 611.3a). See also this thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on A couple questions about Mutating and flickering
    With Cloudshift, if the creature involved is a merged creature, all its components go to exile, then you return those components that are cards "to the battlefield under your control". The components will enter the battlefield as separate permanents rather than being merged. In particular:
    • Huntmaster Liger's "Whenever this creature mutates..." ability won't trigger this way.
    • The components that enter the battlefield will be different from the merged creature that left it as far as the game is concerned (C.R. 400.7h).

    Here, the effect of Cloudshift "can find the new object that a merged permanent becomes as it leaves the battlefield, [so] it finds all" of those components; if "that effect causes actions to be taken upon those [components], the same actions are taken upon each of them", to the extent possible (C.R. 721.3c, 721.3, 400.7h, 400.2, 609.3). (Note in particular that a token component of the permanent will not return to the battlefield this way [C.R. 111.8]).

    See also this thread, this thread, and this thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Fractured Identity, Eye of the Storm, and Approach of the Second Sun
    For purposes of these scenarios, spells cast with Eye of the Storm are cast from exile, not from players' hands (C.R. 707.12).

    For this reason, when a player casts a copy of Approach of the Second Sun with Eye of the Storm, and that spell resolves, all that spell does is go to its owner's library seventh from the top and give its controller 7 life. (Note that Approach of the Second Sun says "If this spell was cast from your hand...", that is, if this particular spell was cast from its controller's hand [C.R. 109.5, 108.1].)

    Thus, in none of the scenarios in questions 1 and 2 can a player win the game when Approach of the Second Sun is cast via Eye of the Storm and that spell resolves.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Hunted Troll and Zedruu?
    In fact there were at least two relevant rule changes involving the ownership of tokens: one in Magic 2010 and another in Core Set 2019.

    • In Magic 2010, the owner of a token changed from "the player who controlled the spell or ability that put it into play" (C.R. 200.4a, as was in effect in Alara Reborn) to "the player under whose control it entered the battlefield" (C.R. 110.5a, as was in effect in Magic 2010). The reason (according to the "Magic 2010 Rule Changes" article) was that the previous rule "[was] poorly understood, mainly because it [didn't] make a ton of sense", and "allow[ed] [players] to do unintuitive tricks with cards like Brand or Warp World. Few people [were] aware of this rule, and assume[d] that the owner of the tokens [was] the player under whose control they entered the battlefield."
    • In Core Set 2019, the owner of a token changed to the player who created that token. However, the rationale given in the update bulletin was scant: "We've been considering changing the rule ever since token creation was retemplated to use the 'create' [keyword action], but there was never really a good place to put it."
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Grant an Advantage
    The comprehensive rules update for Adventures in the Forgotten Realms explains what it means to "roll two or more dice and ignore the lowest roll".

    This means that "the roll that yielded the lowest result is considered to have never happened. No abilities trigger because of the ignored roll, and no effects apply to that roll. If multiple results are tied for the lowest, the player chooses one of those rolls to be ignored" (C.R. 706.5).
    Posted in: Rumored Card Rulings
  • posted a message on Mairsil the Pretender and new D&D cards
    The rule update for Adventures in the Forgotten Realms is now available.

    As clarified by C.R. 706.3b, "[a]n instruction to roll one or more dice, any instructions to modify that roll printed in the same paragraph, any additional instructions based on the result of the roll, and the associated results table are all part of one ability". Thus, for example, The Deck of Many Things has a single ability for purposes of Mairsil.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Do you have to reveal Dungeon cards prior to the game starting?
    The rules update for Adventures in the Forgotten Realms is now available.

    When you venture into the dungeon for the first time in a game, you must choose a dungeon card you own from outside the game and put it into the command zone (C.R. 701.46a). But according to the Magic: The Gathering Tournament Rules (which apply to sanctioned tournaments):
    • In general, the dungeon card doesn't have to be the actual card printed by Wizards of the Coast as long as whatever is used for the card "does not misrepresent the correct progression of the Dungeon card" (M.T.R. 3.3).
    • You effectively have access to all the dungeon cards in the Oracle card reference (M.T.R. 3.3).
    Posted in: Rumored Card Rulings
  • posted a message on bridge + neonate and trigger resolution [SOLVED]
    With the update for Adventures in the Forgotten Realms, the rules changed in a manner that affects this question.

    Now, while paying the costs of a spell or ability, you must first "pay all costs that do not involve random elements or moving objects from hidden zones to public zones in any order", then "all remaining costs in any order" (C.R. 601.2h). And discarding a card involves moving a card from the hand (a hidden zone) to the graveyard (a public zone) (C.R. 400.1, 701.8a). Thus, in general, to pay for Insolent Neonate's activated ability, you must first sacrifice Insolent Neonate, then discard a card (and in this case, neither ability of the Bridge from Below card just discarded will trigger in this scenario). Insolent Neonate's activated ability, though, was unfortunately printed with the costs set forth in the other order, and the Oracle text wasn't changed to avoid potential confusions that may result.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on How can one pay non-mana costs when order matters?
    With the update for Adventures in the Forgotten Realms, the rules changed on how costs of a spell or ability are paid.

    Now, while paying the costs of a spell or ability, you must first "pay all costs that do not involve random elements or moving objects from hidden zones to public zones in any order", then "all remaining costs in any order" (C.R. 601.2h). And discarding a card involves moving a card from the hand (a hidden zone) to the graveyard (a public zone) (C.R. 400.1, 701.8a). Thus, in general, to pay for Ruthless Disposal, you must first sacrifice a creature and pay the mana cost in any order, then you must discard a card. You are no longer allowed to, say, discard a card, then sacrifice a creature, then pay the mana cost.

    EDIT: See comment 6.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on bioshift and branching evo
    For purposes of Branching Evolution, if you "double the number of +1/+1 counters" on an object, you normally put as many +1/+1 counters on it as it has, so that with Branching Evolution, you put twice that many of those counters instead (C.R. 701.9e). For example, if you control Branching Evolution, Kalonian Hydra has three +1/+1 counters on it, and you "double the number of +1/+1 counters" on it, you put six more +1/+1 counters on it (rather than three) for a total of nine +1/+1 counters.

    Note again that Branching Evolution's ability is not a triggered ability, so that ability doesn't "trigger".

    As far as the rules are concerned, putting counters on an object includes—
    • "putting counters on that object while it's on the battlefield", regardless of what verb is used to refer to that action (whether "put", "move" [C.R. 122.5], "double" [C.R. 701.9e], "give", or some other verb), and
    • the case of "an object that's given counters as it enters the battlefield" (e.g., "enters the battlefield with ... counters")
    (C.R. 122.6). See also this thread.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Does Gilded Drake target or am I targeting?
    For purposes of "hexproof from artifacts, creatures, and enchantments", Gilded Drake's triggered ability targets "up to one ... creature an opponent controls" (C.R. 115.1d), and that ability is an "abilit[y] ... from [a creature] sourc[e]" (C.R. 702.11d; see also C.R. 702.11f). Thus, if you control Gilded Drake and your opponent controls Nevinyrral, that ability can't target Nevinyrral (C.R. 702.11d; see also C.R. 702.11f).

    Note, however, that Gilded Drake itself doesn't target anything; with limited exceptions, no permanent spell can have targets (C.R. 115.1b, 115.1e). Thus, you can cast Gilded Drake as normal (review C.R. 601.2, 601.2c).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Approach of the Second Sun and Hive Mind
    The text "Approach of the Second Sun", where it appears in "... put Approach of the Second Sun into ...", means only the object where that text appears, even if that object isn't a card, and it does not mean any other object even if it has the same name (C.R. 201.4). Thus, for example, if that text appears on a copy of Approach of the Second Sun, it means only the copy and not the original or any other copy. However, the text "...another spell named Approach of the Second Sun...", means only another spell with that exact name since that text doesn't refer to the object it's on by name.

    If Approach of the Second Sun is a card (rather than a copy of a spell), if you own that spell, and if it tells you to "put Approach of the Second Sun into its owner's library seventh from the top", you put that particular card there (you don't put any copy of that spell into that library) (C.R. 201.4). When the spell finishes resolving, it will remain in your library at that position, since it's a card. (The fact that Approach of the Second Sun is a sorcery and not a permanent is irrelevant.)

    If Approach of the Second Sun is a copy of a spell, if you own that copy, and if the copy tells you to "put Approach of the Second Sun into its owner's library seventh from the top", you put that particular copy there (you don't put the original or any other copy in that library) (C.R. 201.4). When the copy finishes resolving, the copy will cease to exist since it's in the library but not a card (C.R. 117.3b, 117.5, 704.5e).

    When a player copies a spell, that player both owns and controls the copy (even though they may not necessarily own or control the original spell) (C.R. 706.10).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Approach of the Second Sun and Hive Mind
    When you cast Approach of the Second Sun from your hand while you control Hive Mind, each other player copies that spell. Copying a spell will put that spell onto the stack (above the original spell), so that each copy will get to resolve before the original (C.R. 706.10, 405.2, 117.4). Each copy isn't "cast", though (C.R. 706.10).

    For each copy of Approach of the Second Sun, since the copy wasn't cast (whether from a player's hand or otherwise), all the copy does is go to "its owner's library seventh from the top" (which generally has no practical effect since the copy will cease to exist soon after [C.R. 704.5e]) and give its controller 7 life. (Under C.R. 706.10, the owner of a copy of a spell is usually the same player as its controller.)

    On the other hand, when the original Approach of the Second Sun resolves, you will win the game if you have cast another spell named Approach of the Second Sun this game. Otherwise, you will put the original spell into your library seventh from the top and gain 7 life.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on A monument fit for a goddess
    Hazoret's Monument's first ability reduces the cost of "[r]ed creature spells you cast" after applying alternative costs (such as dash) and additional costs (C.R. 601.2f, 702.109a). In general, the total cost of a spell is mana cost or alternative cost, plus additional costs, minus cost reductions (C.R. 601.2f). See also this thread. (Note that the cost reduction is 1, not one colorless mana [compare C.R. 107.4b with C.R. 107.4c]. See also this thread.)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Die Planechase, Die
    The rules manager clarified to me that the "If you would roll one or more dice..." on Pixie Guide doesn't watch for rolls of the planar die.

    https://twitter.com/Dunkatog/status/1416978181278486531
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.