A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
Exclusive: Sword of Truth and Justice
  • posted a message on Splice and storm
    That is not the problem. Nobody doubts the copies "know" a spell is spliced on it, but why exactly the text is changed is unclear, since the splice ability only mentions the spell it is spliced onto.

    By the way, I disagree with peteroupc about Boseiju. I believe how the cost was paid isn't copied. For example, Reverberate-ing Painful Truths does nothing.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Damage any target
    "Damage to any target" is a wording introduced when damage redirection to planeswalkers was abolished. Note that oracle texts are the only "valid" texts, so Acorn Catapult can target planeswalkers.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Yawgmoths Will vs. No rest for wicked
    The second sentence of Yawgmoth's Will creates a replacement effect. The Shadowborn Apostles aren't exiled from the graveyard; They are never put there in the first place. No matter when you activate (not trigger) No Rest for the Wicked's ability, it can't bring them back.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Haakon and Ashes of the Fallen
    Quote from WizardMN »

    You actually can't cast Zoetic Cavern from the top of your library with Garruk's Horde either for the same reason - while it's in your library, it's a land card, not a creature card, so you won't be able to cast it from there with that ability since the ability specifies that you can only cast the top card of your library if it's a creature card.
    A Judge Blog and a Cranial Insertion Article (both fairly old but should still be accurate) disagree with you:



    You check the legality of casting it after it has gone onto the stack (the fifth step specifically) and Horde allows you to cast a creature from the top of your library. And since the card is now face down on the stack, and it is a card, it is a creature card since that it what it is on the stack when the game checks to see if you are permitted to cast it.

    The rule for casting legality has changed since then.

    Now the game checks if a spell can be cast both before (601.3) and after (601.2e) it moves to the stack, and effects that allow you to cast spells with certain characteristics from zones other than hand aren't covered in 601.3 a-d.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Number of blocking requirements
    Quote from Reaper9889 »

    As another example Nacatl War-Pride has a requirement that cannot be interpreted locally (there are quite a few restrictions that cannot be interpretted locally, like e.g. anything with meanace, but this is the only example I could find for requirements), i.e. to see if a creature satisfies the requirement you must check that globally it is the only one blocking this war-
    After pondering about this, I stand corrected. Nacatl War-Pride's ability must be handled as one requirement that involves all potential blockers. I now think the key is the subject: Shinen's ability is a statement about all creatures (that are able to block it), and Nacatl War-Pride's is a statement about itself. Treating the former as one inseparable effect is like saying, "Wrath of God says destroy all creatures. Hazoret the Fervent has indestructible, so destroying all creature is impossible. Therefore none is." to me.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Number of blocking requirements
    In CR 509.1c, requirement is defined as "effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block if some condition is met" (emphasis mine). A means one, so the natural interpretation is that Shinen creates one requirement for each creature.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Copying Imprint Trigger on Thought Prison
    CR607.3 is the following:
    607.3. If, within a pair of linked abilities, one ability refers to a single object as "the exiled card," "a card exiled with [this card]," or a similar phrase, and the other ability has exiled multiple cards (usually because it was copied), the ability refers to each of the exiled cards. If that ability asks for any information about the exiled card, such as a characteristic or converted mana cost, it gets multiple answers. If these answers are used to determine the value of a variable, the sum of the answers is used. If that ability performs any actions on the exiled card, it performs that action on each exiled card.

    I think the natural interpretation is that "it refers to each of the exiled cards" and "it gets multiple answers" in this situation (i.e. spells that share the CMC with either of the exiled cards trigger the damage). The next sentence is for things that can't have multiple values (For example, if it were to deal X damage, where X is the CMC of "the exiled card").
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Can a counterspell counter itself?
    Quote from chaikov »
    Quote from void_nothing »
    Generally speaking no. Rule 114.5 is "A spell or ability on the stack is an illegal target for itself."
    Since you say 'generally', I would assume there are exceptions… Any example?
    (this would profoundly affect my understanding of some rules)

    Dash Hopes counters itself, in a sense.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Baleful Strix and Worldgorger Dragon comb
    Of course, if you have something like Stroke of Genius in your deck, you can keep drawing until you find one, then keep looping without drawing until you have enough mana, and then play it for lethal. Is that what you meant?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on A veritable double whammy
    "Prevent", in magic, is a technical term and can only be applied to damage.
    615.1. Some continuous effects are prevention effects. Like replacement effects (see rule 614), prevention effects apply continuously as events happen--they aren't locked in ahead of time. Such effects watch for a damage event that would happen and completely or partially prevent the damage that would be dealt. They act like "shields" around whatever they're affecting.

    As far as I know, there is no card that enables what you want to do. If you control [[Platinum Emperion]], you can't pay life at all (and damage or other effects can't reduce your life total). If you control [[Phyrexian Unlife]], you don't lose due to losing life (you continue playing with 0 or negative life), but you still can't pay 50 life unless you have at least 50 life.
    118.4. If a cost or effect allows a player to pay an amount of life greater than 0, the player may do so only if their life total is greater than or equal to the amount of the payment. If a player pays life, the payment is subtracted from their life total; in other words, the player loses that much life. (Players can always pay 0 life.)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Necropotence Lich's Mastery
    "Choosing to do nothing" is not the same same thing as "choosing to do something".
    It is still choosing, and "choice" is just a noun form of choose, which is synonymous to "choosing".
    But the unstated premise is that passing priority, (or declining to do something optional in an effect) is not considered a choice for the loop rules.
    I don't see where this assertion comes from.
    Also, I don't know of any time when a player could be forced to do something using a spell from a hidden zone.
    I'm not sure what exactly you mean, but MTR4.4 says
    If the choice involves hidden information, a judge may be needed to determine whether any choice is available that will not continue the loop.
    Therefore you can call a judge to have him confirm Lich's Mastery player can't do make a "choice ... that will not continue the loop" while Necropotence player (obviously) can.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Casting timing & the stack
    Sorry, guys, but I’m still confused here. I searched and searched but found no rules that say it’s possible to retain priority.
    I quoted the rule. (See above.) If you cast a spell or activate an ability, you get the priority immediately afterwards, before anyone else does. "Retain priority" is a common phrase used to mean not passing this priority right away. Usually you're assumed to pass (also see above), because there is seldom a strategic advantage to not pass.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Casting timing & the stack
    It is totally legal to play multiple spells without passing priority.
    116.3c. If a player has priority when they cast a spell, activate an ability, or take a special action, that player receives priority afterward.

    However, your opponent is considered to have passed priority in what you described. MTR4.2 states
    Whenever a player adds an object to the stack, they are assumed to be passing priority unless they explicitly announce that they intend to retain it.

    I'm not sure what "may I play just one card to respond all the spells at once?" means, but if your opponent does cast them without passing priority, and you cast something after that, it is put on the top of the stack, and it resolves before all other spells.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on LGS Missed Lifelink Trigger Resolution Help
    First, lifelink isn't a triggered ability, so missed trigger rules don't apply.

    Creatures' P/T and abilities are derived information (MTR4.1), and, "players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly", which means while don't have to answer questions, you can't give incorrect answers. Also, life total is a status information, which is "information that must be announced upon change".
    If your opponent knew it is illegal and was consciously doing it to gain an advantage, it's Unsporting Conduct — Cheating(IPG4.8) and your opponent is DQed. Otherwise, it is Communication Policy Violation (IPG3.7) and they get a warning.
    While CPV allows a backup, it would be bad, as you stated, so you will probably continue the game from this point. For life totals, IPG says nothing explicitly, but the only option is to use the "correct" life total.
    Oh, and saying "****" might be considered Unsporting Conduct — Minor(IPG4.1), depending on the situation.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on How does the new Teysa Karlov work?
    Adarkar Valkyrie problem seems to stem from the ambiguity of the word "ability":
    112.1. An ability can be one of three things:
    112.1a. An ability can be a characteristic an object has that lets it affect the game. An object's abilities are defined by its rules text or by the effect that created it. Abilities can also be granted to objects by rules or effects. (Effects that grant abilities usually use the words "has," "have," "gains," or "gain.") Abilities generate effects. (See rule 609, "Effects.")
    112.1b. An ability can be something that a player has that changes how the game affects the player. A player normally has no abilities unless granted to that player by effects.
    112.1c. An ability can be an activated or triggered ability on the stack. This kind of ability is an object. (See section 6, "Spells, Abilities, and Effects.")
    The question is : Does "causes a triggered ability of a permanent you control to trigger" mean
    "causes a triggered ability(112.1a) of a permanent you control to create a triggered ability(112.1c)" or "causes a triggered ability(112.1c) whose source is a permanent you control to be created"? Adarkar Valkyrie's case is the latter but not the former. Of course, even if two instances of the triggered ability are created, it doesn't do much for the reason already mentioned.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.