I wasn't aware of ruling 603.10 and 603.10a, and those are very useful for me in order to clear previous misconceptions that I might had, especially the point where the game "looks back in time" to check if those abilites trigger. I guess also that is why it felt unintuitive to me, but now I know
See also for example Cryptoplasm where a completely similar situation is actually described in the additional rulings in gatherer:
"If the creature is an illegal target when the ability tries to resolve, it won’t resolve. Cryptoplasm won’t become a copy of that creature; it remains whatever it was before."
As usual, the gatherer is rather incomplete when it comes to what cards are covered with additional rulings, and what cards are not, unfortunately.
Hi all, I got a question regarding triggered abilities, but where the source of the ability on itself no longer being on the battlefield, and specifically when it triggers of itself being put into a graveyard.
Example: My opponent destroys my Tablet of Epityr with a Shatter. As far as I can understand, I can still activate the ability to gain 1 life. Another similar example could be with Urza's Miter being destroyed. (note that this is now worded as a triggered ability and not an activated ability as printed on the card)
The oracle text has no additional rulings clarifications for these two cards, but from the additional rulings for Soul Net (and in the rare case where it gets animated and then dies) it seems that there rules work like I anticipate. Also the rulings for Aetherworks Marvel suggests that it also triggers when itself is put into a graveyard. I actually also just can't understand why there are rulings for this for Soul Net, but not for Tablet of Epityr, when the first requires a very specific and much rarer case. This seems very incomplete to me.
But my real question is: Where can I find the specific rulings that applies for these cases? For me, it seems counterintuitive that an effect of a card that is put into the graveyard still will trigger of itself. I thought maybe CR 113.7a and 608.2h could cover the rulings for these cases, but I am not sure really.
I hope some of you have the explanation or reference to the specific rules!
Oh, thanks again, the rule 700.7 was really what I was looking for! Awesome
(regarding the stack, priority, etc, I have rather good control here, but I took a rather bad shortcut in my explanation of the problem since this wasn't very relavant for exactly this situation, but thanks for the thread links)
But I didn't understand the reference to rule 700.4 which only clarifies the term "dies" (The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.”). I just downloaded the latest CR to check.
...and therefore the reference to the actual rules are still not totally clear to me, although I trust the explanation is correct.
Hi! We need some help for our latest commander game, with the interaction between Ezuri's Predation and Mystic Reflection, and whether the fighting will happen or not...
So, the following situation occured: my opponent had a Verdant Force in play and casts Ezuri's Predation. They keep priority and then responds with Mystic Reflection, targeting the Verdant Force. No one has any counterspell or other responses, so the stack resolves, first with Mystic Reflection, making every creature entering from Ezuri's Predation as copies of Verdant Force.
So the real question comes during the resolution of Ezuri's Predation, and IF the creatures will still fight, since the creatures entering are no longer Beasts, but Elementals (or any other type for that sake). The oracle text for Ezuri's Predation specifically states that "Each of those BEASTS fights"
So we were divided in two when trying to figure out the rules here. Two of us (including me) thought that upon resolution, the spell checks to see if every requirement is still true, i.e. if the creatures are actual Beasts before fighting. Whereas the other two thought that this was just a convinient way of referring to the creatures actually entering the battlefield, regardless of being Beasts or not, and that they will still fight.
Anyone here that can help / clarify ?
And if so, also references to rules would be higly appreciated
Hi everyone, the following situation came up in a commander game today, where I played my Phelddagrif group hug deck:
I controlled both Orbs of Warding and Oath of Druids. And I also controlled more creatures than my opponent at the beginning of their upkeep.
The question is, if my opponent can "choose me as a target" for the Oath of Druid ability in order to go find the top creature of their library.
The Orbs of Warding grants me hexproof. Thus I "can’t be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control" according to rule 702.11c.
But the reason I wonder, is that I am the controller of Oath of Druids, and therefore also the ability that targets me, since rule 603.3a says "A triggered ability is controlled by the player who controlled its source at the time it triggered". In this case, I believe that the hexproof might not work since this is not an ability my opponent control. Am I correct in my evaluation?
I hope the questions was clear, and that someone can answer this?
(The deck also contain Oath of Lieges, so the same situation could arise there, only with lands instead of creatures.)
Thank you Rezzahan, so now I understand! I did not notice that for the second ruling, the Jitte is still on the battlefield, whereas for the first, it is not anymore on the battlefield. Thank you so much for the clarification
Hi everyone, I hope you can help me with the following:
I had a Umezawa's Jitte with one counter attached to my creature. I removed the counter in order to give my creature +2/+2, and my opponent responded with a Disenchant targeting my Jitte. So the Disenchant resolves first, destroying my Jitte. The question then becomes what will happen now, and we checked the Gathererer rulings, only to become even more confused:
One ruling says: If the Jitte leaves the battlefield after the “+2/+2” mode is announced but before it resolves, the bonus is given to the creature that was most recently equipped once the ability resolves.
Another ruling says: Choosing the “Equipped creature gets +2/+2 until end of turn” mode does nothing if the Jitte isn’t equipped to a creature when the ability resolves.
But are not these two just direct contradictions? Will the ability "do nothing" as in the second ruling, or will it "give the bonus to the creature that it was most recently equipped to" as in the first ruling ???
I am kind of happy to see that I was right, and that this does not work. But it's sad that 100k people are watching this show, and they see this combo and might believe that it works this way, when it actually is totally wrong.
I need some help to clarify how the new card Narset's Reversal work together with copying effects (like Fork) on the stack.
I was very confused after wathcing a video from the youtube-channel "The Command Zone" (War of the Spark Set Review, timestamp 1:06:43) where they explain how you can get all three cards back when using a spell, lets say Shock, and then combine it with Narset's Reversal and a copy effect like Fork.
I tried to make it work like they explain it but I seem to get something wrong. I also tried to build the stack, but I just could not make it work. Assuming that they are correct in the video, I would really like to konw what I am I missing. This is how I would create the scenario:
1: I cast Shock, targeting my opponent
2: I cast Narset's Reversal targeting Shock (let's write NR-1 to represent this original Narset's Reversal).
3: I then cast Fork, targeting my Narset's Reversal (NR-1)
4: Players pass priority, Fork resolves, and creates a copy of Narset's Reversal (NR-2) on top of the stack, but where I decide that NR-2 should target NR-1 instead of Shock.
5: Then NR-2 resolves, creating a NR-3 (which is a copy of NR-1). Also, as NR-2 resolves, the NR-1 would be returned to my hand and removed from the stack (and therefore no spell on the stack would now copy Shock and return it to owners hand, unless NR-3 targets Shock.
The last point (#5) is is where I can't keep track with the explanation from the Command Zone. How could anything target Fork back, and return all three cards back and still get the effect of the original spell? It seems to me that you would always "lose" at least one card if you want the effect of the original spell to happen one time.
If someone could help me to explain where I might be wrong, I would be really happy.
Hey guys, today I received a revised Nettling Imp in the mail, and I noticed at once that the corners were odd. So after a google search I found this thread. The corners looked exactly like the corners as shown in the picture, i.e. almost square. This is an uncommon card, so obviously this exist for uncommon cards as well!
Thanks BlazingRagnarok! Very informative explanation. And as Captive Audience is not an Aura, this will actually work differently than for example Cruel Reality if I understood it correctly.
I wasn't aware of ruling 603.10 and 603.10a, and those are very useful for me in order to clear previous misconceptions that I might had, especially the point where the game "looks back in time" to check if those abilites trigger. I guess also that is why it felt unintuitive to me, but now I know
"If the creature is an illegal target when the ability tries to resolve, it won’t resolve. Cryptoplasm won’t become a copy of that creature; it remains whatever it was before."
As usual, the gatherer is rather incomplete when it comes to what cards are covered with additional rulings, and what cards are not, unfortunately.
Cheers!
Zappa from Cairo
Example: My opponent destroys my Tablet of Epityr with a Shatter. As far as I can understand, I can still activate the ability to gain 1 life. Another similar example could be with Urza's Miter being destroyed. (note that this is now worded as a triggered ability and not an activated ability as printed on the card)
The oracle text has no additional rulings clarifications for these two cards, but from the additional rulings for Soul Net (and in the rare case where it gets animated and then dies) it seems that there rules work like I anticipate. Also the rulings for Aetherworks Marvel suggests that it also triggers when itself is put into a graveyard. I actually also just can't understand why there are rulings for this for Soul Net, but not for Tablet of Epityr, when the first requires a very specific and much rarer case. This seems very incomplete to me.
But my real question is: Where can I find the specific rulings that applies for these cases? For me, it seems counterintuitive that an effect of a card that is put into the graveyard still will trigger of itself. I thought maybe CR 113.7a and 608.2h could cover the rulings for these cases, but I am not sure really.
I hope some of you have the explanation or reference to the specific rules!
- Zappa from Cairo
(regarding the stack, priority, etc, I have rather good control here, but I took a rather bad shortcut in my explanation of the problem since this wasn't very relavant for exactly this situation, but thanks for the thread links)
But I didn't understand the reference to rule 700.4 which only clarifies the term "dies" (The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.”). I just downloaded the latest CR to check.
...and therefore the reference to the actual rules are still not totally clear to me, although I trust the explanation is correct.
So, the following situation occured: my opponent had a Verdant Force in play and casts Ezuri's Predation. They keep priority and then responds with Mystic Reflection, targeting the Verdant Force. No one has any counterspell or other responses, so the stack resolves, first with Mystic Reflection, making every creature entering from Ezuri's Predation as copies of Verdant Force.
So the real question comes during the resolution of Ezuri's Predation, and IF the creatures will still fight, since the creatures entering are no longer Beasts, but Elementals (or any other type for that sake). The oracle text for Ezuri's Predation specifically states that "Each of those BEASTS fights"
So we were divided in two when trying to figure out the rules here. Two of us (including me) thought that upon resolution, the spell checks to see if every requirement is still true, i.e. if the creatures are actual Beasts before fighting. Whereas the other two thought that this was just a convinient way of referring to the creatures actually entering the battlefield, regardless of being Beasts or not, and that they will still fight.
Anyone here that can help / clarify ?
And if so, also references to rules would be higly appreciated
Thanks,
Zappa from Cairo
I controlled both Orbs of Warding and Oath of Druids. And I also controlled more creatures than my opponent at the beginning of their upkeep.
The question is, if my opponent can "choose me as a target" for the Oath of Druid ability in order to go find the top creature of their library.
The Orbs of Warding grants me hexproof. Thus I "can’t be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control" according to rule 702.11c.
But the reason I wonder, is that I am the controller of Oath of Druids, and therefore also the ability that targets me, since rule 603.3a says "A triggered ability is controlled by the player who controlled its source at the time it triggered". In this case, I believe that the hexproof might not work since this is not an ability my opponent control. Am I correct in my evaluation?
I hope the questions was clear, and that someone can answer this?
(The deck also contain Oath of Lieges, so the same situation could arise there, only with lands instead of creatures.)
Regards,
Zappa from Cairo
I had a Umezawa's Jitte with one counter attached to my creature. I removed the counter in order to give my creature +2/+2, and my opponent responded with a Disenchant targeting my Jitte. So the Disenchant resolves first, destroying my Jitte. The question then becomes what will happen now, and we checked the Gathererer rulings, only to become even more confused:
One ruling says: If the Jitte leaves the battlefield after the “+2/+2” mode is announced but before it resolves, the bonus is given to the creature that was most recently equipped once the ability resolves.
Another ruling says: Choosing the “Equipped creature gets +2/+2 until end of turn” mode does nothing if the Jitte isn’t equipped to a creature when the ability resolves.
But are not these two just direct contradictions? Will the ability "do nothing" as in the second ruling, or will it "give the bonus to the creature that it was most recently equipped to" as in the first ruling ???
Help is highly appreciated!
/ Zappa from Cairo
I am kind of happy to see that I was right, and that this does not work. But it's sad that 100k people are watching this show, and they see this combo and might believe that it works this way, when it actually is totally wrong.
I need some help to clarify how the new card Narset's Reversal work together with copying effects (like Fork) on the stack.
I was very confused after wathcing a video from the youtube-channel "The Command Zone" (War of the Spark Set Review, timestamp 1:06:43) where they explain how you can get all three cards back when using a spell, lets say Shock, and then combine it with Narset's Reversal and a copy effect like Fork.
I tried to make it work like they explain it but I seem to get something wrong. I also tried to build the stack, but I just could not make it work. Assuming that they are correct in the video, I would really like to konw what I am I missing. This is how I would create the scenario:
1: I cast Shock, targeting my opponent
2: I cast Narset's Reversal targeting Shock (let's write NR-1 to represent this original Narset's Reversal).
3: I then cast Fork, targeting my Narset's Reversal (NR-1)
4: Players pass priority, Fork resolves, and creates a copy of Narset's Reversal (NR-2) on top of the stack, but where I decide that NR-2 should target NR-1 instead of Shock.
5: Then NR-2 resolves, creating a NR-3 (which is a copy of NR-1). Also, as NR-2 resolves, the NR-1 would be returned to my hand and removed from the stack (and therefore no spell on the stack would now copy Shock and return it to owners hand, unless NR-3 targets Shock.
The last point (#5) is is where I can't keep track with the explanation from the Command Zone. How could anything target Fork back, and return all three cards back and still get the effect of the original spell? It seems to me that you would always "lose" at least one card if you want the effect of the original spell to happen one time.
If someone could help me to explain where I might be wrong, I would be really happy.
/ Zappa from Cairo