If I cast a Suncleanser targeting an opponent who has poison counters, do they permanently lose the poison counters? It sounds like that's the case, but I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something.
It sounds like I can also functionally turn off cumulative upkeep on an opponent's creature that has cumulative upkeep, like Mystic Remora, until Suncleanser leaves the battlefield. Is that correct?
I'm sure that the card is rarely used in these ways, except maybe in Commmander. Could be useful for politicking.
If there are multiple spells on the stack and the most recent spell resolves, does priority pass before the next spell on the stack resolves? Or does priority pass only if one of the players takes some sort of action?
Yes, you get a negative value. The rule makes it clear, that life totals are excempt from the "treat as 0", so you don't treat the doubled negative life total as 0, you use the actual result for the new life total. So -10 life becomes -20 life.
What if my life total is -10 and I cast a card, like Peer into the Abyss that makes me lose half my life? Half of -10 is -5, so should I "lose" -5 life. If I had started with a positive life total, such as +5, then "losing" +5 life would bring my life total to zero (+5 - (+5) = 0). The way that math normally works, if I start with -10 life, and then "lose" -5 life, my life total would be -5. (-10 - (-5) = -5.) In this situation, is the life loss treated as 0? What would my resulting life total be in this situation?
107.1b Most of the time, the Magic game uses only positive numbers and zero. You can’t choose a negative number, deal negative damage, gain negative life, and so on. However, it’s possible for a game value, such as a creature’s power, to be less than zero. If a calculation or comparison needs to use a negative value, it does so. If a calculation that would determine the result of an effect yields a negative number, zero is used instead, unless that effect doubles or sets to a specific value a player’s life total or the power and/or toughness of a creature or creature card.
Thank you. This answers my question perfectly, but it broaches another one regarding negative life totals. Taking additional damage when your life total goes below zero pushes it farther below zero, but what about cards that halve or double your life total? If your life total is negative, and then you lose half of your life total, do you lose zero additional life? (Assuming that something is preventing you from dying.)
Beacon of Immortality's Gatherer rulings state, "If you double a negative life total, you do the real math. A life total of -10 becomes -20." Rule 107.1b would seem to suggest that it doesn't actually work this way because this calculation yields a negative number. I'm confused by the last part of the last line in rule 107.1b, though: "unless that effect doubles or sets to a specific value a player’s life total..." I don't know what that's supposed to mean-- because doubling a negative life total should yield a negative result, and that result is a specific value.
Char-Rumbler has a base power of -1. What does it mean for a creature to have a negative power? More pragmatically, the informal consensus is that creatures which have negative power neither reduce nor increase an opponent’s life total in combat. However, I couldn’t find anything in the rules which directly addresses creatures having negative power. Is there anything in the rules which specifically addresses this?
208.1 A creature card has two numbers separated by a slash printed in its lower right corner. The first number is its power (the amount of damage it deals in combat); the second is its toughness (the amount of damage needed to destroy it). For example, 2/3 means the object has power 2 and toughness 3. Power and toughness can be modified or set to particular values by effects.
208.4 Effects that set a creature’s power and/or toughness to specific values may refer to that creature’s “base power,” “base toughness,” or “base power and toughness.” Other continuous effects may further modify the creature’s power and toughness. See rule 613, “Interaction of Continuous Effects.”
208.5 If a creature somehow has no value for its power, its power is 0. The same is true for toughness.
Rule 208.1 states that a creature’s power is “the amount of damage it deals in combat.” Negative numbers are negative damage so, if regular damage makes an opponent’s life total go down, negative damage should make their life total go up. That’s how negative numbers work. Note that we aren’t talking about physical objects like apples or cows; we’re talking about numerical totals. So, based on rule 208.1 alone, it would seem that combat with creatures that have negative power should raise an opponent’s life total.
Rule 208.5 states, “If a creature somehow has no value for its power, its power is 0.” -1 isn’t no value; it’s a negative value. Again, we aren’t talking about apples or cows. One might argue that if one has -1 cows, one has no cows. However, -1 is a negative number with a clear and unequivocal mathematical value that should affect a numerical life total. Char-Rumbler's power doesn’t have no value, so rule 208.5 doesn’t appear to be relevant.
My question is whether there is anything in the rules which explicitly states that negative power doesn’t raise an opponent’s life total during combat. This is a concrete rules question, but this question does imply a broader, more philosophical question: Is Wizards of the Coast free to decide how math works? After all, we aren’t only talking about occasional complicated circumstances in which a creature’s base power is unexpectedly altered. Wizards printed a creature with base power and toughness -1/3.
With Asmodeus and Abundance, if you would draw a card, two replacement effects want to replace that draw. For each one card you would draw, you apply either effect to arrive at a different event - either exiling the card to Asmodeus, or doing Abundance's sorta filter thing. If you activate Asmodeus' ability to draw seven cards, then you make that choice one time, take the replaced event, and then make another choice and take that replaced event and so on five more times.
So if I understand correctly, I can pay 3 black mana for Asmodeus' ability and do Abundance's thing seven times, bypassing the need to pay an additional black mana and seven life in order to get the cards? Seven cards for three mana; sounds good.
Does the order in which Asmodeus the Archfiend and Abundance come into play matter? Whether Asmodeus is cast first or whether Abundance is cast first?
Asmodeus the Archfiend is in play under my control, and I cast Abundance. What happens if I then pay 3 black mana to activate Asmodeus' second ability?
When the Encore ability is activated on Amphin Mutineer, and one attacking copy of the creature is created for each opponent, does the ETB trigger for each copy? I'm inclined to think that it does, but I've seen no reference to that in the descriptions of the card on Scryfall and Gatherer.
What happens if Dress Down is turned into a creature. I know that animating the card removes its own triggered ability requiring it to be sacrificed at end of turn. Won't animating the enchantment also remove the static ability that says, "Creatures lose all abilities"? That is a static ability, isn't it?
If I copy Hisoka, Minamo Sensei's activated ability with a card like Rings of Brighthearth or Illusionist's Bracers, can I only use the copy on spells that have the same mana value as the card which was discarded to pay for the original activation? In other words, I can choose new targets, but the only valid targets will be those whose mana value matches the mana value of the original countered spell, and the discarded card.
This rule complements 113.7a in that it covers where an effect requires information from the game instead of where an effect would have a missing object perform an action. The effect of Gomazoa's ability requires information from the source of the ability, about what it is blocking. It's no longer in the expected zone, so last known information - a Gomazoa that is on the battlefield, still in combat, and still blocking creatures - is used.
I just want to confirm that I'm understanding correctly. You're saying that returning Gomazoa to its controller's hand won't prevent the blocked creature from being shuffled back into its owner's library because last known information will be used, and that shows Gomazoa still blocking the creature.
You're also saying, I think, that to claim that a permanent that has been removed from the battlefield is 'removed from combat' is rather like saying that a permanent that has been removed from the battlefield 'is not tapped.' In both cases, there's no practical relevance because it doesn't change how you deduce anything. What matters is what last known information shows, because that's what's checked. Am I understanding correctly?
I activate Gomazoa ability during combat, then cast an instant that sends Gomazoa back to my hand so that it isn't shuffled into my library. Does the creature that Gomazoa was blocking get shuffled into its owner's library or not?
These 2009 threads claim that the stategy works: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The blocked creature gets shuffled into its owner's library.
The arguments for the strategy working seem to revolve around 1) the independence of an ability and its source, and 2) the fact that the game will do the best that it can using last known information (LKI).
C.R. 113.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source.
Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some
abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to
any target”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or
triggered ability that references information about the source for use while announcing an
activated ability or putting a triggered ability on the stack checks that information when the
ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both
instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known
information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.
The argument against the strategy working is that a creature that has been returned to a player's hand is no longer in combat, and references the following rule:
C.R. 506.4. A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, if its controller changes, if it
phases out, if an effect specifically removes it from combat, if it’s a planeswalker that’s being
attacked and stops being a planeswalker, if it’s a battle that’s being attacked and stops being a
battle, or if it’s an attacking or blocking creature that regenerates (see rule 701.15), stops being a
creature, or becomes a battle. A creature that’s removed from combat stops being an attacking,
blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. A planeswalker or battle that’s removed from combat
stops being attacked.
I lack sufficient understanding of the rules to know which answer is correct. I have no idea. Both arguments make sense, but only one can be correct.
Does the creature that Gomazoa was blocking get shuffled into its owner's library, or not?
It sounds like I can also functionally turn off cumulative upkeep on an opponent's creature that has cumulative upkeep, like Mystic Remora, until Suncleanser leaves the battlefield. Is that correct?
I'm sure that the card is rarely used in these ways, except maybe in Commmander. Could be useful for politicking.
Beacon of Immortality's Gatherer rulings state, "If you double a negative life total, you do the real math. A life total of -10 becomes -20." Rule 107.1b would seem to suggest that it doesn't actually work this way because this calculation yields a negative number. I'm confused by the last part of the last line in rule 107.1b, though: "unless that effect doubles or sets to a specific value a player’s life total..." I don't know what that's supposed to mean-- because doubling a negative life total should yield a negative result, and that result is a specific value.
Rule 208.1 states that a creature’s power is “the amount of damage it deals in combat.” Negative numbers are negative damage so, if regular damage makes an opponent’s life total go down, negative damage should make their life total go up. That’s how negative numbers work. Note that we aren’t talking about physical objects like apples or cows; we’re talking about numerical totals. So, based on rule 208.1 alone, it would seem that combat with creatures that have negative power should raise an opponent’s life total.
Rule 208.5 states, “If a creature somehow has no value for its power, its power is 0.” -1 isn’t no value; it’s a negative value. Again, we aren’t talking about apples or cows. One might argue that if one has -1 cows, one has no cows. However, -1 is a negative number with a clear and unequivocal mathematical value that should affect a numerical life total. Char-Rumbler's power doesn’t have no value, so rule 208.5 doesn’t appear to be relevant.
My question is whether there is anything in the rules which explicitly states that negative power doesn’t raise an opponent’s life total during combat. This is a concrete rules question, but this question does imply a broader, more philosophical question: Is Wizards of the Coast free to decide how math works? After all, we aren’t only talking about occasional complicated circumstances in which a creature’s base power is unexpectedly altered. Wizards printed a creature with base power and toughness -1/3.
Does the order in which Asmodeus the Archfiend and Abundance come into play matter? Whether Asmodeus is cast first or whether Abundance is cast first?
You're also saying, I think, that to claim that a permanent that has been removed from the battlefield is 'removed from combat' is rather like saying that a permanent that has been removed from the battlefield 'is not tapped.' In both cases, there's no practical relevance because it doesn't change how you deduce anything. What matters is what last known information shows, because that's what's checked. Am I understanding correctly?
These 2009 threads claim that the stategy works: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The blocked creature gets shuffled into its owner's library.
This 2020 thread claims that it doesn't work.
The arguments for the strategy working seem to revolve around 1) the independence of an ability and its source, and 2) the fact that the game will do the best that it can using last known information (LKI).
C.R. 113.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source.
Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some
abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to
any target”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or
triggered ability that references information about the source for use while announcing an
activated ability or putting a triggered ability on the stack checks that information when the
ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both
instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known
information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.
The argument against the strategy working is that a creature that has been returned to a player's hand is no longer in combat, and references the following rule:
C.R. 506.4. A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, if its controller changes, if it
phases out, if an effect specifically removes it from combat, if it’s a planeswalker that’s being
attacked and stops being a planeswalker, if it’s a battle that’s being attacked and stops being a
battle, or if it’s an attacking or blocking creature that regenerates (see rule 701.15), stops being a
creature, or becomes a battle. A creature that’s removed from combat stops being an attacking,
blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. A planeswalker or battle that’s removed from combat
stops being attacked.
I lack sufficient understanding of the rules to know which answer is correct. I have no idea. Both arguments make sense, but only one can be correct.
Does the creature that Gomazoa was blocking get shuffled into its owner's library, or not?