If something asks for the card's characteristics, it gets 2 sets of values. If it needs the CMC for an answer (Bob, Arcanist), it uses both values [A, B] and totals them. You can only play half the card, as that is the rules of split cards.
In the case of say, bloodbraid elf, it asks "Is the card's CMC < 4?," which can be "true, false." The rules interprate that as "true" (it only returns one result), and when you do cast it, you can pick the other half. See rule 708.6a
708.6a. Anything that performs a positive comparison (such as asking if a card is red) or a relative comparison (such as asking if a card's converted mana cost is 3 or less) involving one or more split cards in any zone other than the stack or involving one or more fused split spells gets only one answer. This answer is "yes" if either side of each split card in the comparison would return a "yes" answer if compared individually.
It's a difference in asking what the CMC <is> and <comparing it against another value>.
They announced on their blog that they will start signups two hours before the event, and will randomly select from those people the players that get to play in said event.
Does this rule not apply if Death Baron is on the field first?
613.5. If an effect should be applied in different layers and/or sublayers, the parts of the effect each apply in their appropriate ones. If an effect starts to apply in one layer and/or sublayer, it will continue to be applied to the same set of objects in each other applicable layer and/or sublayer, even if the ability generating the effect is removed during this process.
It would seem that Death Baron first applies in layer 6, along with humility, in timestamp order.
"Kill the first" doesn't indicate a damage assignment at all. To me it just indicates that the player is ready for damage to be dealt. Deciding it means "Deal 5 to the first" is just as arbitrary as deciding it means "Deal 3 to the first and 2 to the second" seeing as how there's also no shortcut in the TR that indicates that all a creature's damage is assigned to the first creature in blocking order.
And this is the underlying problem.
I interpret "Kill the first" as <at least> stating that he wishes to assign lethal damage to the first one; this does not indicate what he wishes to do with the remaining 2 damage.
These things are at play here:
1) There was no indication of what happened to the remaining 2 damage.
2) There is no shortcut for this in the MTR.
3) As judges, we are not here to help the players play either well or poorly.
Judges are here to uphold the rules; the trouble with this situation is that there are no guidelines set for this.
During a competitive limited tournament, the following situation occurred and caused a debate after the ruling between all the judges working the event.
Player A attacks with a 5/3 trample creature.
Player B blocks with 3 identical 3/3 creatures.
Player A states "Kill the first" and makes no additional comments.
After combat, Player A overloads Electrickery, and wants a second 3/3 creature to die.
The judge is called over.
After a discussion, the HJ ruled that the second 3/3 lived as Player A made no communication to splitting combat damage from his 5/3 to the second creature blocking.
The discussion was then turned to all of us judges on how to handle a default combat damage assignment assuming no communication (as it is not in the MTR.)
I was the one running the Gifts Rock deck at the Niles PTQ that placed T8. I lost to the eventual winner and his Esper Blade deck.
It was more than likely due to the matchups I had (only played against one non-creature based deck all day [GR Tron]), but the Loam-Raven's Crime Gifts package was useless just about all day. Unburial Rites combo ruled most of my matches (getting Elesh 75% of the time; against Jund and Melira I got Iona).
I had a question which is based on the MTR, specifically on 4.1 "Player Communication"
In a competitive event, player A resolves a foreign Full Moon's Rise. Player B asks what that does (instead of calling a judge for the oracle, like he should have done.) Player A simply states "It gives my werewolf creatures +1/+0 and trample."
Is this legal per the line "Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly"? He never lied about what the card did, he just didn't state what the full oracle text was (as Oracle wording is Derived info).
My prediction on what card(s) will be banned on Tuesday:
1) Rite of Flame
This card accelerates storm decks out the gate and leads to too many early wins.
2) Cloudpost
Something needs to be done with the deck to give control a little more breathing room. They could ban Emrakul, but I don't feel that he is the problem. Without bid daddy, 12 post just shifts into a more mono-blue list with counters, draw, and an endgame of Mindslaver lockout. Control just can't counter anything since 12 post has a massive mana advantage, and control puts up no pressure, letting 12 post assemble.
3) Ponder
This might surprise a few people. The issue is we have Ponder, Preordain, and other library manipulation spells all legal. Ponder lets combo dig 1 more card down, and has synergy with the fetchlands. One of them has to go, and I feel that it is Ponder.
4) Splinter Twin
This deck has way too much redundancy. Yes Twin can lead to 2 for 1's, but the smart player will not let that happen without a fight. I don't see them banning a creature, so this is the piece that has to go.
There may be others (storm cards, Pyromancer's Ascension), but I feel without Ponder and Rite of Flame those decks will be more inconsistent.
That is actually not a bad idea. At least worth testing. It will help where all you people complain about not being able to kill off Viridian Emissary as well.
This is what I was thinking when I built it. I have plenty of things to sacrifice to it to recover from the card disadvantage. While I was goldfishing, It seemed like I can use it combined with Acidic Slime, Beast Within, and Tectonic Edge to keep my opponents resources in check. Coupled with the three creature recovery spells (Imp, Shelodred, and Entomber), and the mana ramp (Solemn and Emissary), I can abuse it.
Player A has a Mosswort Bridge with a card exiled under it from it's hideaway ability. Player B has a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir in play. Can player A play the spell under the bridge when he activates the ability on his main phase, while the stack is empty?
In the case of say, bloodbraid elf, it asks "Is the card's CMC < 4?," which can be "true, false." The rules interprate that as "true" (it only returns one result), and when you do cast it, you can pick the other half. See rule 708.6a
708.6a. Anything that performs a positive comparison (such as asking if a card is red) or a relative comparison (such as asking if a card's converted mana cost is 3 or less) involving one or more split cards in any zone other than the stack or involving one or more fused split spells gets only one answer. This answer is "yes" if either side of each split card in the comparison would return a "yes" answer if compared individually.
It's a difference in asking what the CMC <is> and <comparing it against another value>.
613.5. If an effect should be applied in different layers and/or sublayers, the parts of the effect each apply in their appropriate ones. If an effect starts to apply in one layer and/or sublayer, it will continue to be applied to the same set of objects in each other applicable layer and/or sublayer, even if the ability generating the effect is removed during this process.
It would seem that Death Baron first applies in layer 6, along with humility, in timestamp order.
I control a 2/2 Zombie token and Death Baron.
Humility enters the battlefield.
The Zombie token is now a 2/2 with no abilities.
Reverse the order of Death Baron and Humility.
The Zombie token is now a 2/2 with deathtouch.
Correct?
Edit: reversed outcomes...
And this is the underlying problem.
I interpret "Kill the first" as <at least> stating that he wishes to assign lethal damage to the first one; this does not indicate what he wishes to do with the remaining 2 damage.
These things are at play here:
1) There was no indication of what happened to the remaining 2 damage.
2) There is no shortcut for this in the MTR.
3) As judges, we are not here to help the players play either well or poorly.
Judges are here to uphold the rules; the trouble with this situation is that there are no guidelines set for this.
During a competitive limited tournament, the following situation occurred and caused a debate after the ruling between all the judges working the event.
Player A attacks with a 5/3 trample creature.
Player B blocks with 3 identical 3/3 creatures.
Player A states "Kill the first" and makes no additional comments.
After combat, Player A overloads Electrickery, and wants a second 3/3 creature to die.
The judge is called over.
After a discussion, the HJ ruled that the second 3/3 lived as Player A made no communication to splitting combat damage from his 5/3 to the second creature blocking.
The discussion was then turned to all of us judges on how to handle a default combat damage assignment assuming no communication (as it is not in the MTR.)
Any thoughts?
It was more than likely due to the matchups I had (only played against one non-creature based deck all day [GR Tron]), but the Loam-Raven's Crime Gifts package was useless just about all day. Unburial Rites combo ruled most of my matches (getting Elesh 75% of the time; against Jund and Melira I got Iona).
In a competitive event, player A resolves a foreign Full Moon's Rise. Player B asks what that does (instead of calling a judge for the oracle, like he should have done.) Player A simply states "It gives my werewolf creatures +1/+0 and trample."
Is this legal per the line "Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly"? He never lied about what the card did, he just didn't state what the full oracle text was (as Oracle wording is Derived info).
1) Rite of Flame
This card accelerates storm decks out the gate and leads to too many early wins.
2) Cloudpost
Something needs to be done with the deck to give control a little more breathing room. They could ban Emrakul, but I don't feel that he is the problem. Without bid daddy, 12 post just shifts into a more mono-blue list with counters, draw, and an endgame of Mindslaver lockout. Control just can't counter anything since 12 post has a massive mana advantage, and control puts up no pressure, letting 12 post assemble.
3) Ponder
This might surprise a few people. The issue is we have Ponder, Preordain, and other library manipulation spells all legal. Ponder lets combo dig 1 more card down, and has synergy with the fetchlands. One of them has to go, and I feel that it is Ponder.
4) Splinter Twin
This deck has way too much redundancy. Yes Twin can lead to 2 for 1's, but the smart player will not let that happen without a fight. I don't see them banning a creature, so this is the piece that has to go.
There may be others (storm cards, Pyromancer's Ascension), but I feel without Ponder and Rite of Flame those decks will be more inconsistent.
This is what I was thinking when I built it. I have plenty of things to sacrifice to it to recover from the card disadvantage. While I was goldfishing, It seemed like I can use it combined with Acidic Slime, Beast Within, and Tectonic Edge to keep my opponents resources in check. Coupled with the three creature recovery spells (Imp, Shelodred, and Entomber), and the mana ramp (Solemn and Emissary), I can abuse it.
That said, it still needs testing.
3 Viridian Emissary
1 Perilous Myr
1 Cadaver Imp
1 Pilgrim's Eye
1 Glissa, the Traitor
1 Sylvok Replica
1 Skinrender
1 Entomber Exarch
1 Obstinate Baloth
3 Solemn Simulacrum
3 Acidic Slime
1 Wurmcoil Engine
1 Massacre Wurm
3 Beast Within
4 Birthing Pod
4 Smallpox
4 Verdant Catacombs
4 Tectotic Edge
9 Forest
7 Swamp
I tried to maximize the synergy with card advantage. I also tried to make it versatile enough to run even without Birthing Pod. Thoughts?