2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Volition Reins
    Quote from Schnell
    Just to clarify, even if the creature has been under the other players control for more the turn it was summoned on, it will still have summoning sickness when you take control of it with volition reins?


    Yes, Exsam already posted the rule.

    302.6. A creature's activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can't be activated unless the creature has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. A creature can't attack unless it has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the "summoning sickness" rule


    Other player's control is not the same as it's controller's control.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Pro-Red Problems
    Quote from WhiteWerewolf
    Also, what's the difference in protection from red and spells that read...'can't be prevented.' Ie, Combust. Thanks for the help.


    Not sure if you're asking this or not, but Unstable Footing would work on Kor Firewalker as pointed out above. Combust would not because it is trying to target the firewalker, which protection prevents.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Mimic Vat token
    Put a token onto the battlefield that's a copy of the exiled card. It gains haste. Exile it at the beginning of the next end step.


    No. It gets exiled and not sacrificed, therefore, it doesn't go to the graveyard.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Question about casting instants/abilities in combat phase
    Quote from penatbater
    but if creatures has only been declared as blockers, and have not yet been assigned, is it possible to do this still? sorry if i keep on asking, just trying to make sure :p


    Here you go:

    509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on mimic vat
    Quote from Frazz
    What happens if both players control a mimic vat, and both players want to exile a creature that just hit the graveyard, who gets priority if anyone?


    Both mimic vat abilities trigger at the same time. The two mimic vat abilities are put onto the stack in active player, then nonactive player order. So the nonactive player's ability will resolve first.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Negate Rebound
    Yes you can negate a rebounded spell.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Ghostly Prison and Planeswalkers
    Quote from vcvanillacoke
    Why does noncombat damage have to be "redirected" to a plainswalker?

    What I'm really trying to ask is what is the reason for not being able to target a plainswalker directly with something like a lightning bolt?


    You can't target a planeswalker directly because it is neither a creature or a player. Lightning Bolt says target creature or player.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on First ability of Venser, the Sojourner
    Actually there is no "End of Turn Step". It is just called the "End Step". So hope that clears it up for you.
    Posted in: Rumored Card Rulings
  • posted a message on Mimic Vat + Creature with Kicker
    No. You are putting a token onto the battlefield, you are not casting it.

    Kicker ~ (You may pay an additional ~ as you cast this spell.)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on mimic vat + emrakul
    They both trigger at the same time. The two abilities will be put on the stack in APNAP order (active player, then non-active player).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Engulfing Slagwurm Clarification
    You read it correctly. It's ability will resolve before combat damage.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on ORing/Journey and Protection
    Just to add to what SaschaW said. You probably heard this info in reference to Emrakul.

    It gets by Emrakul, the Aeons Torn because Emrakul has protection from colored spells (the key word is spells). Oblivion Ring gets by this because it does not target when it is a spell, it's triggered ability targets when it becomes a permanent.

    It would be different if it just had protection from all colors or just protection from white. Oblivion Ring would not be able to get by either of these two.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on question about the clone creature
    I assume you mean planeswalkers.

    Clone can only copy creatures. Planeswalkers are not creatures, barring any abilities/spells that makes them one.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on Induestructibles
    Quote from Backupzero
    I don't think your getting it. When I do 3 damage to it, it's considered "lethal" damage, but it's not that the damage isn't dealt to it. Because damage IS STILL DEALT TO IT AND NOT PREVENTED ACCORDING TO ITS DEFINITION. The lethal damage isn't the 3 points of damage, it's the last point that would take for its toughness to go from 1 to 0. Since lethal damage is what doesn't effect it, not damage in general, the only logical scenario that seems to be derived from that definition is that its toughness can never go below 1 unless you give it -1/-1 (or -2/-2 whatever). Once again, the definition never states the damage dealt to it is prevented, just that if it's toughness WERE to go to 0, it doesn't. So does it's toughness just stay at 1 allowing me to play stabbing pain? Or is there some secret hidden definition that says damage dealt to indestructible creatures is prevented saying multiple judges are wrong and that Whither can't kill indestructible creatures?


    I don't think you understand how damage is dealt/marked. Damage DOES NOT reduce toughness.

    When you deal 3 damage to a 3/3. It is a 3/3 with 3 marked damage on it. It is NOT a 3/0. It is destroyed because it has lethal damage. (Lethal Damage is damage equal to or greater than the creature's toughness or any amount of Deathtouch damage)

    When you deal 3 damage to a 3/3 indestructible. It is a 3/3 with 3 damage marked on it. It doesn't become a "3/1". It has lethal damage but it can't be destroyed, so it isn't.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • posted a message on [Answered] Spells on the Stack question
    Yes. It is perfectly fine to add to the stack after a spell/ability resolves.

    116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings Archives
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.