If I control a Tibalt, Cosmic Impostor with 8 loyalty counters, then activate its -8 ability, its number of loyalty counters would go down to 0 and thus it would go to my graveyard as a state-based action prior to the resolution of the ability, correct? If so and nothing interferes, the resolution of its ability would then exile its own card (since it's in the graveyard as the ability resolves), and then the emblem it gave me would allow me to cast it once again... am I understanding that correctly?
I control a Toralf, God of Fury that's equipped with a Basilisk Collar, so Toralf now has deathtouch. An opponent controls a Stuffy Doll I gave them via a Harmless Offering and an indestructible creature with toughness greater than 1 (perhaps a Phenax, God of Deception). I cast a large, single-target damage spell (eg: Banefire with X=8) and target the Stuffy Doll. Toralf's triggered ability then targets Phenax and "passes" the excess damage (7 in the example) to the Phenax, but because Toralf has deathtouch only 1 point of damage is needed to be considered lethal damage, so everything else (now 6 in the example) can be "passed" by Toralf's triggered ability back to the Stuffy Doll. Now, the Stuffy Doll has damage marked on it equal to its toughness (assuming nothing is boosting its toughness) but doesn't die since it has indestructible, so all the damage (still 6 in the example) is considered excess and can now "pass" back to the Phenax. But what happens here? Since Phenax doesn't have damage marked on it equal to its toughness, is 5 or 6 damage considered to be excess that can be passed again? Basically, does each iteration of Toralf's triggered ability remember that it/Toralf has already dealt lethal damage to Phenax? I chose X=8 for the example as that's the sum of the Doll's and Phenax's toughness, so depending on the answer I would or would not be able to pass the damage back and forth infinitely... I want to say that the Phenax would need to be dealt damage (1 at a time) until its marked damage matched its toughness, but I'm not sure what rules dictate this (or perhaps I'm just misreading something obvious). Thanks!
Edit: So, I found the Twitter statement from the Rules Manager, so I'm clear that this is in fact how Rest in Peace works, but...
Edit 2: Oops...typo fix on 119.3f
I'm still trying to understand how replacement effects work in general. I think my confusion boils down to how I'm supposed to understand the word "replace" in [CR 614.1] "Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event."? Specifically, does this mean the replacement effect is akin to a text change where the original effect is still active only with its concluding event having been swapped out (bad analogy time: like putting a new engine in an old car), or does it mean that a new effect/event is introduced that is itself a driving force (like trading in one car for another...oh god the puns...)? Similarly, in [CR 614.6] "If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead[...]", and calling it a modified event makes it sound like the original effect/event is still running, just with a different end result...
Additionally, what are the rules that indicate this? A lot of people seem to think the former (I stumbled across a thread on [REDACTED] asking my same original question, but which led to VERY different conclusions by the respondents), but from what has been discussed in this thread so far it would seem to be the latter.
I did stumble across this thread re:Rain of Gore that asserts that the card whose ability generates a replacement effect is the "cause" of the events that come of that effect, but I'm still unclear on where the actual justification for that assertion is found from the CR...
Side note, I've not been able to find [CR 119.3f] ANYWHERE. What is this? Is it from an old numbering or version of the rules?
Got it. So Rest in Peace prompts it's controller to exile the cards/permanents. It never explicitly uses the word "you", but it implies it in the phrasing. I wasn't sure if that was the case or if it basically just changed the behavior of whatever was sending the card/permanent to the graveyard, but sounds like everything else behaves as I expected. Thanks!
Also, if an opponent were to copy my Rest in Peace with say a Mirrormade or play their own Rest in Peace, they would function in timestamp order, so I would still be exiling everything because by the time the newer Rest in Peace tried to exile anything those things would already be heading to exile from my RIP. Correct?
I'm trying to understand when Ranar the Ever-Watchful's last ability will and won't trigger.
1) Ranar's last ability triggers off of Foretelling cards like Doomskar or Suspending cards like Mox Tantalite, as those abilities have you exile the card from your hand. But unless I'm mistaken (which I'd love to be) cards like Ephemerate with Rebound would not trigger Ranar's last ability because the card is exiled as the spell resolves, ie exiled from the stack, not from hand. Is this correct? In a similar vein, spells with Madness that are discarded are discarded into exile, so they do go to exile from the hand...but is this considered a discard from hand that happens to end up in exile, or would it be treated as an exile from hand?
(side note: what would be the correct forum in which to ask what other mechanics exist where you exile cards from hand, as I'm not familiar with some of the older mechanics?)
2) I've heard that mixing Renar with Rest in Peace and Blasting Station creates an infinite damage combo, where the player who controls all three sacrifices a Spirit token (or something else to start this off, either of which is exiled thanks to Rest in Peace's replacement effect) to pay for the Station's activated ability, since a permanent was exiled from the field Renar creates a token, the Station untaps since a creature ETB, the Station deals 1 damage, repeat). This, along with cards such as Swords to Plowshares, Play of the Game, or Ephemerate intuitively make sense to me, as Ranar's controller controls the spell/ability causing the exile. But I'm unclear of if it's specifically the Blasting Station or the Rest in Peace that's exiling the token. In this combo it doesn't really matter, as every permanent and ability involved is controlled by Renar's controller... but what what if they're not? Which of the following situations would trigger Ranar's last ability, and in general what is the origin of the exile?:
a) Player A controls Renar the Ever-Watchful and Rest in Peace, then a source Player A controls destroys/deals lethal damage to/forces a sacrifice of Player B's creature or permanent (that doesn't have indestructible). (If the exile is done by Player B (as an SBA?), Ranar's ability doesn't trigger)
b) Player A controls Renar the Ever-Watchful and Rest in Peace, then a source controlled by Player B destroys/deals lethal damage to/sacrifices Player B's creature or permanent (that doesn't have indestructible). (If the exile is done by the source controlled by Player B or by Player B, Renar's ability doesn't trigger)
c) Player A controls Renar the Ever-Watchful and Rest in Peace, then a source controlled by Player B destroys/deals lethal damage to/forces a sacrifice of Player A's creature or permanent (that doesn't have indestructible). (If the exile is done by the source controlled by Player B, Renar's ability doesn't trigger)
d) Player A controls Renar the Ever-Watchful, while Player B controls Rest in Peace. A source controlled by Player A destroys/deals lethal damage to Player B's creature or permanent (that doesn't have indestructible). (If the exile is done by Rest in Peace (which is controlled by Player B) Ranar's ability doesn't trigger)
So, when it comes to replacement effects, what is the source of the exile?
I've been a little unsure over the interaction between Toralf, God of Fury and the big red board wipes, such as Blasphemous Act, (assuming an opponent controls at least one creature to which excess damage would be dealt and Toralf won't survive the board wipe). Specifically, since Toralf is the source of the damage from the triggered ability, but it's going to die from the wipe, would damage still be dealt?
My current understanding is "yes," Toralf's ability triggers on the dealing of excess damage, then creates the appropriate ability object on the stack. Before that ability can resolve, Toralf is sent to the yard as a SBA for having damage marked on it >= its toughness. However, the object on the stack simply specifies that Toralf* is the source of the damage, but doesn't require that it still be on the field, so damage would still be dealt. (This is how something like Ryusei, the Falling Star's ability makes any sense, otherwise if it had to be on the field it would never be able to deal the damage its ability dictates, right?) Having left the field, it's ability couldn't trigger again if the damage dealt would once again be "overkill" on a permanent, but the that first trigger still works. Is this correct, or am I off? I'm worried I'm forgetting something and Toralf's departure from the field would prevent it from being able to deal damage.
*The object on the stack remembers Toralf as it last existed on the field, correct? This would be relevant in a situation like if somehow the Toralf were to be turned into a blue creature, then the the ability couldn't target something with protection from blue, even though Toralf is now in the yard as just a red card.
A few friends have been arguing about how a Kodama of the East Tree and Sakashima of a Thousand Faces interaction works. I agree with one of them, but they're both pretty firm on their interpretation, so I need a rules citation(s) to clarify, and I'm having a hell of a time finding it myself (and being the curious type NOW I MUST KNOW lol).
Player A has a Kodama of the East Tree (I'll call it K1) on the field. Player A then casts Sakashima as a copy of the Kodama (I'll call this K2). K1 sees a 6 cmc permanent etb, so it's 1st ability lets you put another CMC <= 6 card on the field from hand. The confusion is coming from the wording "if it wasn't put onto the battlefield with this ability, you may".
Player A believes (as I do) that "this ability" refers to the ability on that particular permanent, so K2 sees this new card from hand as not having been activated by its own ability, so its 1st ability lets you put yet another card on the field from hand (with CMC <= the prior card's). As long as it's sequenced correctly this would allow a full hand dump (of permanents), and with draw effects and some luck possibly a good portion of the deck as well.
Player B believes that "this ability" means ANY use of the ability from any source/permanent/card. K2 would see this new card from hand has having entered with the ability that it also has, and so no additional permanents would be put on the field from the hand.
This is not the first card with this phrasing. Others I could quickly come up with were Carpet of Flowers (if you had 2 on the field could you produce mana each main?), Ashling the Pilgrim (if you had 2 Ashling could you use one's ability 3 times and the other's at least 3 to have the second not have its counters removed and thus survive the damage (sequencing permitting, of course)?), and so on.
Got it. I had completely misread those release notes and had a confusion on how intervening if-clause abilities trigger. Thanks!
What about Selvala, Heart of the Wilds as opposed to Garruk's Uprising (and Zaxara, the Exemplary is still on the field)? I've heard that because her 1st ability has the "if" at the end of the ability it doesn't count as an intervening if-clause, so it would trigger for any creatures entering (eg I cast a non-creature x-spell, like Torment of Hailfire, so only a Hydra token would enter the field via Zaxara). Then, so long as by the time the ability resolves the Hydra has large enough power to satisfy the ability, I would draw a card, correct?
Making things a little more complex if the above is true, in the case of a Stonecoil Serpent cast for x larger than any current creature's power, the Stonecoil would enter the battlefield with the same power as the hydra token(s), but after the token(s), so I would not draw a second card since the power has to be greater than each other creature's...but what if The Great Henge was also on the field? Since the Stonecoil entering triggers both Selvala's and the Henge's, abilities at the same time I could choose to sequence them such that Selvala's ability is lower on the stack, the Henge puts the extra +1/+1 token on the Stonecoil, then Selvala's ability would now see a creature with 1 power higher, and I would in fact draw a second card, yes? Lastly, if multiple tokens enter at the same time with the largest power, each would trigger Selvala's ability, but I would not draw a card as each ability would see another creature with equal power?
I think I had this wrong at first, so I'd appreciate if you could verify these interactions play out the way I now think they do, or else let me know where I'm getting mixed up if they don't.
1) Zaxara, the Exemplary and Renegade Krasis are both on the field under my control. The Krasis currently has its base stats (it's a 3/2 with no counters). I cast Stonecoil Serpent with x=3. On cast, Zaxara creates a Hydra token, which resolves first and enters the field. As the Hydra enters, it triggers the Krasis's evolve ability. The Krasis's ability sees the Hydra as a 3/3, and so evolves the Krasis since its toughness is lower. This is turn triggers the Krasis's 2nd ability and puts another +1/+1 counter on the Hydra. The Stonecoil (finally) resolves and enters the field, which triggers the Krasis's evolve ability, but because the now 4/3 Krasis's ability sees a 3/3 Stonecoil it doesn't evolve the Krasis because neither stat on the Krasis is lower.
2) The same scenario as above, but there is also a Garruk's Uprising on the field under my control. Because the Krasis's second ability would make the Hydra a 4/4 after the token has already hit the field, it's far too late to trigger the Uprising's 3rd ability and I will not draw a card. However, did the Hydra ever have a chance?...Zaxara's ability says it creates a 0/0 hydra, then puts X +1/+1 counters on it, so if instead I cast the Stonecoil for x=4, would the Uprising see a 0/0 hydra enter, or a 4/4 hydra enter?
3) Zaxara, the Exemplary, Renegade Krasis, and Parallel Lives are all on the field under my control. The Krasis currently has its base stats (it's a 3/2 with no counters). I cast Stonecoil Serpent with x=3. On cast, Zaxara creates a Hydra token, which Parallel Lives's replacement effect instead makes 2 tokens which will enter at the same time, triggering the Krasis's evolve ability twice. As it resolves, the first copy of the evolve ability on the stack sees a 3/3 hydra, and evolves the Krasis since it's toughness is lower, which in turn triggers the Krasis's second ability and puts a +1/+1 counter on each of the Hydra tokens. The second copy of the evolve ability sees a 4/4 hydra and compares that to the Karsis's now 4/3 stats, and once again evolves the Krasis since it's toughness is lower, which once again triggers the Krasis's second ability and puts a +1/+1 counter on each of the Hydra tokens. Once again, the Stonecoil finally resolves and enters, but doesn't have enough power or toughness to evolve the Krasis.
I wanted to make sure this works as I understand it. Please do correct any issues with how I describe this, too.
A player has a Zaxara, the Exemplary on the field and some number of other creatures, then casts an x-cost spell that can target their own creatures, such as The Crowd Goes Wild, Open into Wonder, etc. Assuming x>0, the token Zaxara makes could not be chosen as a target of the spell, since the choice of targets has to be made as part of the process of casting the card (601.2c), and so only after the choosing of targets would Zaxara's third ability trigger (601.2i) and create the token, corret?
DOH! I apparently can't count, as I was trying to ask if you could use the Cavern's 3rd ability (I guess I was thinking 2nd activated ability?) to make the Mimic come in uncounterable. Thanks for seeing through my gaff.
But so yea, it works as I figured. And thanks for the rules citations!
I play Cavern of Souls and choose type "Hydra". I want to play Metallic Mimic using the Cavern, and intend to choose type "Hydra" for the Mimic. Would I be able to use the Cavern's second ability to make the Mimic uncounterable? I would assume not, as I don't believe the Mimic's first + second abilities would make it a Hydra until after it's hit the field, which is long after any casting considerations, but I figure I should check.
Per the Gatherer for The Ozolith:
The Ozolith’s first ability doesn’t move counters off the creature that’s left the battlefield. Instead, it causes you to put a number of counters of each kind of counter that was on that creature onto The Ozolith. [...] Similarly, if the creature has an ability that triggers when it leaves the battlefield that refers to the number of counters it had, that ability will use the number of counters that were on the permanent, even if The Ozolith’s first ability resolves first.
This would mean that if a Vastwood Hydra dies, both The Ozolith's and Vastwood Hydra's abilities would produce counters, correct? I feel like this is similar to how this thread scenario works with Skullbriar, the Walking Grave, but wanted to make sure.
The weirder issue I've come across has to do with this interaction mixed with Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons and/or if The Ozolith has become a creature somehow. From the Gatehrer for Vastwood Hydra:
In some unusual cases, Vastwood Hydra will have enough -1/-1 counters put on it to make its toughness 0 or less. If this happens, the ability will still distribute a number of +1/+1 counters equal to the number of +1/+1 counters on Vastwood Hydra before the -1/-1 counters were put on it.
Since the state-based actions of the creature having 0 (or less) toughness and the +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters annihilating each other occur at the same time, the Vastwood Hydra sees that it had +1/+1 counters on it when it died and so it's ability puts those counters on other creatures. Is this the same thing that The Ozolith sees, and if so would it have the +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters put on it? If yes and it's somehow a creature at the time, Hapatra would get another snake trigger, and if more -1/-1 counters were put on it than +1/+1 counters it already had to the point that it's toughness was zero, The Ozolith would then also die, correct?
Side note: I've seen people have confusion about the phrasing on The Ozolith, and I would think changing the phrasing from "put those counters" to "put the same counters" would fix a lot of the understanding issues. Is there a rules-based reason they didn't phrase it this way? But I digress...
1) Will both the Ogre Slumlord and Nightmare Shepherd death-triggered abilities resolve successfully? Additionally, will the Desecrated Tomb's triggered ability resolve successfully?
From the Gatherer Rulings for Nightmare Shepherd: "The token copies the creature as it last existed on the battlefield before it died, not as it existed in the graveyard before it was exiled." This indicates the creature in question would die and actually make it to the graveyard, THEN be exiled, allowing any "when a creature dies" effects to trigger prior to the exile and subsequent copy generation, and "when a card leaves your graveyard" effects to trigger off the exile itself, correct?
2) When does the decision to exile or not (the Shepherd's triggered ability is a MAY on the exile) occur?
In particular, if a player wants to respond to the Shepherd's triggered ability going on the stack, has the decision to exile already been made, or do you decide after the response (and maybe change your mind)? Alternatively/additionally, would another player known your decision before or after they would need to respond to the ability, and could a response prevent the exile from occurring (perhaps by exiling the yard before the Shepherd could exile it)?
3) When does the Marrow-Gnawer's ability go on the stack as compared to the Orge's/Shepherd's?
As the creature death (sacrifice) is part of the cost of the Marrow-Gnawer's ability, does that ability go on top of the other two, below the other two, or do the three get put on the stack at the same time (and thus can be ordered however the controller wishes)?
4) How may rats does the Marrow-Gnaer's ability see when determining the number of tokens to create?
This partially depends on the answer to #3. In a best-case scenario, the Orge has already created a rat token and the Shepherd has already created a 1/1 Nightmare Marrow-Gnawer, so the ability sees and creates 2 rats - does it?
5) In an EDH game with Marrow-Gnawer as the commander, could the Marrow-Gnawer go the yard, then return to the command zone via the Shepherd's exile? If yes, would the Shepherd's ability resolve successfully (does it care if the Marrow-Gnawer actually went to the exile zone?)?
I have a few procedural questions about how multiple triggered abilities off ETB effects and stack sequencing would play out. Please correct me if I'm wrong with any of my steps in the scenario below.
1) Since both the Hydra's and Llanowar Reborn's triggered abilities trigger and go on the stack when the Hydra hits the field, the player may choose which goes on the stack first, and as such the player could choose to put the graft ability on the stack first, then the land fetch ability from the Hydra on top of that.
2) When the ETB land fetch ability resolves, a land ETBs and triggers the Sage's triggered ability, thus placing a proliferate ability on top of the stack (and thus on top of the graft ability already on the stack). Then as the proliferate ability resolves it could then choose the Llanowar Reborn and give it an extra +1/+1 counter. At this point the graft ability is still on the stack and hasn't done anything yet.
3) As the graft ability on the stack resolves, a +1/+1 counter is removed from the Llanowar reborn and placed on the Hydra, leaving a +1/+1 on the Llanowar Reborn as it had two on it prior to the graft ability resolving. If the triggers had been sequenced in the opposite order, the Llanowar Reborn would be left with zero counters, correct?
Bonus) If at the start of this scenario the Llanowar Reborn had no +1/+1 counters on it, but there was also a Nissa, Who Shakes the World on the field as well, the Nissa could use it's (+1) to turn the Llanowar into a creature (so long as it wasn't already), it would gain three +1/+1 counters, and those three counters could then be grafted away, correct?
Edit 2: Oops...typo fix on 119.3f
I'm still trying to understand how replacement effects work in general. I think my confusion boils down to how I'm supposed to understand the word "replace" in [CR 614.1] "Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event."? Specifically, does this mean the replacement effect is akin to a text change where the original effect is still active only with its concluding event having been swapped out (bad analogy time: like putting a new engine in an old car), or does it mean that a new effect/event is introduced that is itself a driving force (like trading in one car for another...oh god the puns...)? Similarly, in [CR 614.6] "If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead[...]", and calling it a modified event makes it sound like the original effect/event is still running, just with a different end result...
Additionally, what are the rules that indicate this?
A lot of people seem to think the former (I stumbled across a thread on [REDACTED] asking my same original question, but which led to VERY different conclusions by the respondents), but from what has been discussed in this thread so far it would seem to be the latter.
I did stumble across this thread re:Rain of Gore that asserts that the card whose ability generates a replacement effect is the "cause" of the events that come of that effect, but I'm still unclear on where the actual justification for that assertion is found from the CR...
Side note, I've not been able to find [CR 119.3f] ANYWHERE. What is this? Is it from an old numbering or version of the rules?
Also, if an opponent were to copy my Rest in Peace with say a Mirrormade or play their own Rest in Peace, they would function in timestamp order, so I would still be exiling everything because by the time the newer Rest in Peace tried to exile anything those things would already be heading to exile from my RIP. Correct?
1) Ranar's last ability triggers off of Foretelling cards like Doomskar or Suspending cards like Mox Tantalite, as those abilities have you exile the card from your hand. But unless I'm mistaken (which I'd love to be) cards like Ephemerate with Rebound would not trigger Ranar's last ability because the card is exiled as the spell resolves, ie exiled from the stack, not from hand. Is this correct? In a similar vein, spells with Madness that are discarded are discarded into exile, so they do go to exile from the hand...but is this considered a discard from hand that happens to end up in exile, or would it be treated as an exile from hand?
(side note: what would be the correct forum in which to ask what other mechanics exist where you exile cards from hand, as I'm not familiar with some of the older mechanics?)
2) I've heard that mixing Renar with Rest in Peace and Blasting Station creates an infinite damage combo, where the player who controls all three sacrifices a Spirit token (or something else to start this off, either of which is exiled thanks to Rest in Peace's replacement effect) to pay for the Station's activated ability, since a permanent was exiled from the field Renar creates a token, the Station untaps since a creature ETB, the Station deals 1 damage, repeat). This, along with cards such as Swords to Plowshares, Play of the Game, or Ephemerate intuitively make sense to me, as Ranar's controller controls the spell/ability causing the exile. But I'm unclear of if it's specifically the Blasting Station or the Rest in Peace that's exiling the token. In this combo it doesn't really matter, as every permanent and ability involved is controlled by Renar's controller... but what what if they're not? Which of the following situations would trigger Ranar's last ability, and in general what is the origin of the exile?:
a) Player A controls Renar the Ever-Watchful and Rest in Peace, then a source Player A controls destroys/deals lethal damage to/forces a sacrifice of Player B's creature or permanent (that doesn't have indestructible). (If the exile is done by Player B (as an SBA?), Ranar's ability doesn't trigger)
b) Player A controls Renar the Ever-Watchful and Rest in Peace, then a source controlled by Player B destroys/deals lethal damage to/sacrifices Player B's creature or permanent (that doesn't have indestructible). (If the exile is done by the source controlled by Player B or by Player B, Renar's ability doesn't trigger)
c) Player A controls Renar the Ever-Watchful and Rest in Peace, then a source controlled by Player B destroys/deals lethal damage to/forces a sacrifice of Player A's creature or permanent (that doesn't have indestructible). (If the exile is done by the source controlled by Player B, Renar's ability doesn't trigger)
d) Player A controls Renar the Ever-Watchful, while Player B controls Rest in Peace. A source controlled by Player A destroys/deals lethal damage to Player B's creature or permanent (that doesn't have indestructible). (If the exile is done by Rest in Peace (which is controlled by Player B) Ranar's ability doesn't trigger)
So, when it comes to replacement effects, what is the source of the exile?
My current understanding is "yes," Toralf's ability triggers on the dealing of excess damage, then creates the appropriate ability object on the stack. Before that ability can resolve, Toralf is sent to the yard as a SBA for having damage marked on it >= its toughness. However, the object on the stack simply specifies that Toralf* is the source of the damage, but doesn't require that it still be on the field, so damage would still be dealt. (This is how something like Ryusei, the Falling Star's ability makes any sense, otherwise if it had to be on the field it would never be able to deal the damage its ability dictates, right?) Having left the field, it's ability couldn't trigger again if the damage dealt would once again be "overkill" on a permanent, but the that first trigger still works. Is this correct, or am I off? I'm worried I'm forgetting something and Toralf's departure from the field would prevent it from being able to deal damage.
*The object on the stack remembers Toralf as it last existed on the field, correct? This would be relevant in a situation like if somehow the Toralf were to be turned into a blue creature, then the the ability couldn't target something with protection from blue, even though Toralf is now in the yard as just a red card.
Thanks!
Player A has a Kodama of the East Tree (I'll call it K1) on the field. Player A then casts Sakashima as a copy of the Kodama (I'll call this K2). K1 sees a 6 cmc permanent etb, so it's 1st ability lets you put another CMC <= 6 card on the field from hand. The confusion is coming from the wording "if it wasn't put onto the battlefield with this ability, you may".
Player A believes (as I do) that "this ability" refers to the ability on that particular permanent, so K2 sees this new card from hand as not having been activated by its own ability, so its 1st ability lets you put yet another card on the field from hand (with CMC <= the prior card's). As long as it's sequenced correctly this would allow a full hand dump (of permanents), and with draw effects and some luck possibly a good portion of the deck as well.
Player B believes that "this ability" means ANY use of the ability from any source/permanent/card. K2 would see this new card from hand has having entered with the ability that it also has, and so no additional permanents would be put on the field from the hand.
This is not the first card with this phrasing. Others I could quickly come up with were Carpet of Flowers (if you had 2 on the field could you produce mana each main?), Ashling the Pilgrim (if you had 2 Ashling could you use one's ability 3 times and the other's at least 3 to have the second not have its counters removed and thus survive the damage (sequencing permitting, of course)?), and so on.
Thanks.
What about Selvala, Heart of the Wilds as opposed to Garruk's Uprising (and Zaxara, the Exemplary is still on the field)? I've heard that because her 1st ability has the "if" at the end of the ability it doesn't count as an intervening if-clause, so it would trigger for any creatures entering (eg I cast a non-creature x-spell, like Torment of Hailfire, so only a Hydra token would enter the field via Zaxara). Then, so long as by the time the ability resolves the Hydra has large enough power to satisfy the ability, I would draw a card, correct?
Making things a little more complex if the above is true, in the case of a Stonecoil Serpent cast for x larger than any current creature's power, the Stonecoil would enter the battlefield with the same power as the hydra token(s), but after the token(s), so I would not draw a second card since the power has to be greater than each other creature's...but what if The Great Henge was also on the field? Since the Stonecoil entering triggers both Selvala's and the Henge's, abilities at the same time I could choose to sequence them such that Selvala's ability is lower on the stack, the Henge puts the extra +1/+1 token on the Stonecoil, then Selvala's ability would now see a creature with 1 power higher, and I would in fact draw a second card, yes? Lastly, if multiple tokens enter at the same time with the largest power, each would trigger Selvala's ability, but I would not draw a card as each ability would see another creature with equal power?
1) Zaxara, the Exemplary and Renegade Krasis are both on the field under my control. The Krasis currently has its base stats (it's a 3/2 with no counters). I cast Stonecoil Serpent with x=3. On cast, Zaxara creates a Hydra token, which resolves first and enters the field. As the Hydra enters, it triggers the Krasis's evolve ability. The Krasis's ability sees the Hydra as a 3/3, and so evolves the Krasis since its toughness is lower. This is turn triggers the Krasis's 2nd ability and puts another +1/+1 counter on the Hydra. The Stonecoil (finally) resolves and enters the field, which triggers the Krasis's evolve ability, but because the now 4/3 Krasis's ability sees a 3/3 Stonecoil it doesn't evolve the Krasis because neither stat on the Krasis is lower.
2) The same scenario as above, but there is also a Garruk's Uprising on the field under my control. Because the Krasis's second ability would make the Hydra a 4/4 after the token has already hit the field, it's far too late to trigger the Uprising's 3rd ability and I will not draw a card. However, did the Hydra ever have a chance?...Zaxara's ability says it creates a 0/0 hydra, then puts X +1/+1 counters on it, so if instead I cast the Stonecoil for x=4, would the Uprising see a 0/0 hydra enter, or a 4/4 hydra enter?
3) Zaxara, the Exemplary, Renegade Krasis, and Parallel Lives are all on the field under my control. The Krasis currently has its base stats (it's a 3/2 with no counters). I cast Stonecoil Serpent with x=3. On cast, Zaxara creates a Hydra token, which Parallel Lives's replacement effect instead makes 2 tokens which will enter at the same time, triggering the Krasis's evolve ability twice. As it resolves, the first copy of the evolve ability on the stack sees a 3/3 hydra, and evolves the Krasis since it's toughness is lower, which in turn triggers the Krasis's second ability and puts a +1/+1 counter on each of the Hydra tokens. The second copy of the evolve ability sees a 4/4 hydra and compares that to the Karsis's now 4/3 stats, and once again evolves the Krasis since it's toughness is lower, which once again triggers the Krasis's second ability and puts a +1/+1 counter on each of the Hydra tokens. Once again, the Stonecoil finally resolves and enters, but doesn't have enough power or toughness to evolve the Krasis.
A player has a Zaxara, the Exemplary on the field and some number of other creatures, then casts an x-cost spell that can target their own creatures, such as The Crowd Goes Wild, Open into Wonder, etc. Assuming x>0, the token Zaxara makes could not be chosen as a target of the spell, since the choice of targets has to be made as part of the process of casting the card (601.2c), and so only after the choosing of targets would Zaxara's third ability trigger (601.2i) and create the token, corret?
But so yea, it works as I figured. And thanks for the rules citations!
The Ozolith’s first ability doesn’t move counters off the creature that’s left the battlefield. Instead, it causes you to put a number of counters of each kind of counter that was on that creature onto The Ozolith. [...] Similarly, if the creature has an ability that triggers when it leaves the battlefield that refers to the number of counters it had, that ability will use the number of counters that were on the permanent, even if The Ozolith’s first ability resolves first.
This would mean that if a Vastwood Hydra dies, both The Ozolith's and Vastwood Hydra's abilities would produce counters, correct? I feel like this is similar to how this thread scenario works with Skullbriar, the Walking Grave, but wanted to make sure.
The weirder issue I've come across has to do with this interaction mixed with Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons and/or if The Ozolith has become a creature somehow. From the Gatehrer for Vastwood Hydra:
In some unusual cases, Vastwood Hydra will have enough -1/-1 counters put on it to make its toughness 0 or less. If this happens, the ability will still distribute a number of +1/+1 counters equal to the number of +1/+1 counters on Vastwood Hydra before the -1/-1 counters were put on it.
Since the state-based actions of the creature having 0 (or less) toughness and the +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters annihilating each other occur at the same time, the Vastwood Hydra sees that it had +1/+1 counters on it when it died and so it's ability puts those counters on other creatures. Is this the same thing that The Ozolith sees, and if so would it have the +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters put on it? If yes and it's somehow a creature at the time, Hapatra would get another snake trigger, and if more -1/-1 counters were put on it than +1/+1 counters it already had to the point that it's toughness was zero, The Ozolith would then also die, correct?
Side note: I've seen people have confusion about the phrasing on The Ozolith, and I would think changing the phrasing from "put those counters" to "put the same counters" would fix a lot of the understanding issues. Is there a rules-based reason they didn't phrase it this way? But I digress...
1) Will both the Ogre Slumlord and Nightmare Shepherd death-triggered abilities resolve successfully? Additionally, will the Desecrated Tomb's triggered ability resolve successfully?
From the Gatherer Rulings for Nightmare Shepherd: "The token copies the creature as it last existed on the battlefield before it died, not as it existed in the graveyard before it was exiled." This indicates the creature in question would die and actually make it to the graveyard, THEN be exiled, allowing any "when a creature dies" effects to trigger prior to the exile and subsequent copy generation, and "when a card leaves your graveyard" effects to trigger off the exile itself, correct?
2) When does the decision to exile or not (the Shepherd's triggered ability is a MAY on the exile) occur?
In particular, if a player wants to respond to the Shepherd's triggered ability going on the stack, has the decision to exile already been made, or do you decide after the response (and maybe change your mind)? Alternatively/additionally, would another player known your decision before or after they would need to respond to the ability, and could a response prevent the exile from occurring (perhaps by exiling the yard before the Shepherd could exile it)?
3) When does the Marrow-Gnawer's ability go on the stack as compared to the Orge's/Shepherd's?
As the creature death (sacrifice) is part of the cost of the Marrow-Gnawer's ability, does that ability go on top of the other two, below the other two, or do the three get put on the stack at the same time (and thus can be ordered however the controller wishes)?
4) How may rats does the Marrow-Gnaer's ability see when determining the number of tokens to create?
This partially depends on the answer to #3. In a best-case scenario, the Orge has already created a rat token and the Shepherd has already created a 1/1 Nightmare Marrow-Gnawer, so the ability sees and creates 2 rats - does it?
5) In an EDH game with Marrow-Gnawer as the commander, could the Marrow-Gnawer go the yard, then return to the command zone via the Shepherd's exile? If yes, would the Shepherd's ability resolve successfully (does it care if the Marrow-Gnawer actually went to the exile zone?)?
Thanks in advance!
An Evolution Sage and Llanowar Reborn with a +1/+1 counter are on the field. A creature that fetches a land on ETB (such as Ulvenwald Hydra) is played.
1) Since both the Hydra's and Llanowar Reborn's triggered abilities trigger and go on the stack when the Hydra hits the field, the player may choose which goes on the stack first, and as such the player could choose to put the graft ability on the stack first, then the land fetch ability from the Hydra on top of that.
2) When the ETB land fetch ability resolves, a land ETBs and triggers the Sage's triggered ability, thus placing a proliferate ability on top of the stack (and thus on top of the graft ability already on the stack). Then as the proliferate ability resolves it could then choose the Llanowar Reborn and give it an extra +1/+1 counter. At this point the graft ability is still on the stack and hasn't done anything yet.
3) As the graft ability on the stack resolves, a +1/+1 counter is removed from the Llanowar reborn and placed on the Hydra, leaving a +1/+1 on the Llanowar Reborn as it had two on it prior to the graft ability resolving. If the triggers had been sequenced in the opposite order, the Llanowar Reborn would be left with zero counters, correct?
Bonus) If at the start of this scenario the Llanowar Reborn had no +1/+1 counters on it, but there was also a Nissa, Who Shakes the World on the field as well, the Nissa could use it's (+1) to turn the Llanowar into a creature (so long as it wasn't already), it would gain three +1/+1 counters, and those three counters could then be grafted away, correct?