MTG Salvation

USPS delivery confirmation is not full tracking like UPS/FedEx. I lost 4 Force of Will cards via USPS when I tried to send them to a buyer from eBay. Like you, the tracking stopped at USPS processing hub and was never updated. Fortunately, I insured the package. After 3 weeks of waiting, I refunded the money to the buyer, and filed an insurance claim, which the USPS paid.

Also, you need to have evidence of the value of the cards in order to file an insurance claim with the USPS (if you bought insurance). This is easiest if you have a store receipt (even for singles) or an eBay transaction. If you have no way to establish the value of the cards, the claim is likely to be denied, so the insurance would be worthless.

Quote from Kyoku

Yes. It is perfectly fine to add to the stack after a spell/ability resolves.

Thank you for the reply and finding that rule.

I am the active player. Let's say I cast Lightning Bolt and I pass priority. My opponent casts Giant Growth in response and passes priority. I pass priority. Now that both players have passed priority, the spells will resolve in last-in, first out order.

Giant Growth resolves first. Now, before Lightning Bolt resolves, can either one of us respond with another instant spell or instant-speed ability (starting with me since I am the active player)?

The above was a simple example, but I wanted to know if players can cast spells or play abilities after each spell or ability resolves in the stack. Thanks.

Somebody had a point that if you are running a creature-light or creatureless deck, you don't have as many options to stop Planeswalker cards (dependent on play format) unless you have burn cards.

With the printing of more powerful creatures and their distaste for combo decks, it seems that Wizards want more decks with creatures, so to them, creatures would be a valid answer to Planeswalker cards. If you wanted to play a creatureless or creature-light deck in Standard, card choices are slim (except burn). This could cause players to gravitate towards a creature or burn deck, leaving creatureless or creature-light decks out in the cold as viable decks for now. I think that cuts off some variety in the ecosystem.

Quote from Hoodoo

Actually, I think it's the most elegant solution possible. Instead of having a rule like "As long as they have a Planeswalker any damage they take goes to the Planeswalker", or retroactively changing every burn spell that hits players to "Deal 3 damage to target Creature, Player, or Planeswalker", the redirection rule is a lot more easily understood. As long as it's noncombat damage that you control, you have your choice of hitting them, or their Planeswalkers. That's not a 'hack' to the game rules, or even an exploit. It's just a new rules. A 'hack' of the rules is causing a draw by creating an infinite loop, or the old 'damage on the stack' exploits.

I think the redirection rule is the best possible way R&D could deal with this without retroactively changing every direct damage card.

However, I consider it a hack, because I feel that direct damage should target planewalkers directly (from a flavor perspective), just as direct damage cards could hit the player or target creature. If a player can send attacking creatures against a Planeswalker as if it were a player, while can't direct damage to the same thing? The original rules didn't even have a Planeswalker card type until R&D created it.

You and I have different meanings for hack. I'm calling hack similar to a "kludge" or "retrofit". The Planeswalker card type mechanically didn't fit into the original game design, so they had to create a new rule to make them fit (rather than re-writing the rules entirely, but we know they can't do that). Planeswalker as a card design is interesting and powerful, but the card mechanics are clumsy to me.

In any case, I don't have any strong objection to Planewalker cards, other than some cards are really good, which drives their demand (and cost) up.

Planeswalker cards feel like hacks to the game rules. For example, you can attack a Planeswalker card directly with creatures. However, if you want to use direct damage, you have to hit your opponent successfully first with it, and then you can redirect the damage to the planeswalker. I think the only reason R&D had this redirection effect is because all past direct damage affects creatures or players, and Planeswalker cards were neither. It wouldn't make sense to retroactively change all text of direct damage cards, so they made up this redirection rule, which feels clunky to me.

Also, there is one other way to get rid of Planeswalkers, although it is not particularly efficient. Successfully cast your own Planeswalker card with the same subtype and the Planeswalker rule will eliminate both. Jace 2.0 can be undermined by Jace 1.0.

Ageless Entity gets +1/+1 counters for each life you gain.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Naldor: Interesting...so the "when X is put into the graveyard from Y" triggered effects trigger from the graveyard, not the battlefield. Ok.

Thanks for clearing that up.

EDIT: I just saw Lord Il Palazzo's response. His response conflicts with Naldor's response regarding Academy Rector...which is right?

Scenario:
Humility, Academy Rector, Darksteel Colossus, and Emrakul, the Aeons Torn are on the battlefield.

Question 1:
Academy Rector is put into the graveyard. Based on last known information about the state of this card on the battlefield, it has no abilities, so it would not allow its owner to search for an enchantment, correct?

Question 2:
Emrakul, the Aeons Torn is put into the graveyard. Based on last known information about the state of this card on the battlefield, it has no abilities, so it would not allow its owner to shuffle it back into his/her library, correct?

Question 3:
Darksteel Colossus is put into the graveyard. Based on last known information about the state of this card on the battlefield, it has no abilities, so it would not allow its owner to shuffle it back into his/her library, correct? (Note that this card has a replacement effect, not a triggered effect, so I am not sure how the card would work here.)

Thank you for reading.

Quote from KPDaly16

The stack does not resolve. Spells and abilities resolve - one at a time - after being put onto the stack. If you sacrifice 4 creatures to Vampire, you are assumed to be passing priority between each one unless you say otherwise, so your opponent could respond to the first sac with a Bolt, or the second, etc. and rewind the game to that point, allowing you to sacrifice the other creatures in response to the Bolt. If you specifically stated that you retained priority between each sacrifice, then a Bolt at the end would work the way you're saying.

Interesting. I didn't realize priority must be declared and checked at each individual sacrifice.

The stack resolves only when both players have given up priority.

1) You have priority since you are attacking your opponent.
2) Since you have priority, as an instant effect, you sacrifice 4 creatures to make Bloodthrone Vampire bigger.
3) You decide not to play any more spells or effects. Priority goes to the opponent.
4) Your opponent responds by casting Lightning Bolt. Your opponent decides not to cast any more instant spells or effects. Priority returns to you.

5a) If you do not respond, the stack resolves, with the last one starting first. Lightning Bolt resolves and your Bloodthrone Vampire is a 2/2 with 3 damage. State-based effects check after every resolution, so the vampire is destroyed and sent to the graveyard. The rest of your pump effects are countered (fizzles), because the vampire is no longer there. Your sacrificed creatures were a cost to be paid to pump the vampire, so they are permanently gone.

5b) Suppose, you respond to the Lightning Bolt by sacrificing 2 more creatures. Then, you stop playing more instant spells and abilities. If your opponent also doesn't cast or play anything else, the stack resolves. Your recent sacrifices resolve, pumping the vampire up to 5/5. Lightning Bolt resolves. The vampire is now 5/5 with 3 damage. The vampire is still alive. Your original 4 sacrifices will now resolve. The Vampire is now 13/13 with 3 damage and lives.



EDIT: Everybody beat me to it. I type slow.

Quote from gambitking

I would like to know the proper way that the following scenario should resolve:

If I'm playing with a Vampire / Sac deck where the Bloodthrone Vampire is my kill card, and I have several creatures to sacrifice to pump him up.....

During combat, how does the stack and damage/spell resolution work between me and my opponent, who is trying to kill my Vamp......

Before damage is dealt, say I sacrifice 4 creatures to make the Vamp a 9/9. As soon as I'm done sacrificing all the creatures, can my opponent play Lightning Bolt to destroy the Vamp in response?

If so, can I respond by sacrificing more creatures to add toughness to absorb the shock?

Please help me understand the mechanics of these abilities and spell responses during combat.

I agree with ~Aura~. There are tons of Merfolk cards and many of them interact with each other. Using Merrows probably results in a more creature-oriented deck to take advantage of the synergy.

Sphinxes tend to cost more to cast than Merfolk, so you probably would only have a few Sphinxes in a deck and more non-creature spells to back them up.

Thanks for the suggestions. It seems a lot of the blue filtering spells mentioned are sorceries. I guess making them instants would make them too powerful. I'll try out some of the suggested instants and Sensei's Divining Top. I think Ponder and Preordain are my favorite sorceries of the bunch.

I have Fact or Fiction, but I was wavering between keeping it or trying to find something that is cheaper to cast, even if the effect is smaller.

Regarding people's comments that my list of white weakness is "bad," I am looking at white's weakness as if you were playing monocolor. The reason people use decks with two or more colors is to overcome the deficiencies of one color.

Exiling may be the best way of eliminating a permanent, but it's bad if you want to do something to a graveyard (or trigger enters the battlefield effects).

White has a lot of symmetric effects (do something to all players). When I was a new player, I thought symmetry was bad. I think people will want to choose an asymmetrical effect over a symmetrical effect all other factors being equal. White is just not a selfish color like black is.

White tends to have lot more small creature, which supports white weenie. Yes, it makes Timmy players shy away from this color and choose other colors for the larger selection of bigger creatures.

We disagree on what the definition of a weakness is. I define it as "what white cannot do easily or at all that other colors can do."

Quote from Hanslineman

This is bad. so bad...