Good morning and welcome back to Ask A Judge! Sorry for the lack of a thread over the weekend- hope everyone had a good prerelease!
Do "fight" cards, like Prey Upon trigger Lifelink, Deathtouch, etc?
Can Sin Prodders ability damage be redirected to Planeswalkers?
If a creature is targeted with a removal spell and is blinked, like by Eldrazi Displacer, will it still die?
If a play has an Ob Nixilis Reignited emblem and I use Chandra, Flamecaller's 0 ability to discard 7 draw 8, will the emblem trigger once or 8 times?
>>48338656
>Fight
First, none of those are triggers. Second, it depends on the ability! Lifelink and Deathtouch work just fine with Fight, because they work on any damage. Combat-centric abilities (Flying, First Strike, Trample, etc) won't work with Fight.
>Sin Prodder
It can. Any time a source you control would deal non-combat damage to an opponent, you can redirect 100% of that damage to a planeswalker they control on resolution. Sin Prodder's ability does non-combat damage, and you control the source, so it meets the requirements for Planeswalker redirection.
>Blinky
Targeted removal, no. Any time an object changes zones, even if only for a moment, it becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous selves. You may be using the same physical card to represent it, but technically the game treats it as a whole other object, so the spell won't hit it.
>Ob Nixilis
Eight times. "Draw 8 cards" is actually "Draw a card" repeated 8 times. If Ob Nixilis' emblem was only intended to trigger once at a time, it'd say "Whenever a player draws one or more cards".
Platinum Angel
Abyssal Persecutor
I have both in play.
What happens?
>>48338731
You can't win, and your opponents can't lose.
You can't lose, and your opponents can't win.
So no players can win, and no players can lose. So long as those creatures both exist under your control, the game cannot end in any way except a draw (or a concession).
>>48338818
Conceding is still legal under those circumstances?
I hadn't considered drawing, that's neat.
>>48338872
The Golden Rule of Magic is that where a card's text contradicts the rules, the card wins. The only exception to that is that a player may always, at any time, concede the game, which has them leave the game and immediately lose it.
Hey, what do you think of the most recent rules changes? In particular, players cant look at their opponent's sideboard now if they mindslaver them or something.
>>48338877
>>48338818
This is a hypothetical, so let's just entertain the concept without "Well, that wouldn't happen in real life."
What if the card that's in play somehow gets destroyed? Assuming the game continued, does the players still count as having that card?
>>48338926
Pretty neutral on it, to be honest. Most players didn't even know they had that option, and it wasn't a HUGE deal for the players that did know. I do think it's kinda wonky that a blind "find anything" wish like Death Wish completely whiffs, but I understand the reason behind it.
>>48338940
By destroyed, do you mean like, physically damaged beyond repair?
>>48338953
>By destroyed, do you mean like, physically damaged beyond repair?
Yeah, like physically ceased to be a card. Maybe it was torn up, maybe it was lit on fire in a fit of rage, whatever.
Can a player concede if they don't have priority?
>>48338973
Well, that's going to depend heavily on what happened. If you tore up your own card in a fit of rage, I MIGHT issue USC - Minor for them being disruptive, and then it'd be a case of giving you a brief but reasonable period of time to find a replacement for the card. If you can't, that'd be a Game Loss for having a deck that doesn't match your list, and we'd sub in a basic land of your choice to replace it (if your deck was now under 60 cards) and change your list to reflect that.
If the OPPONENT destroyed your card, that's USC - Aggressive Behavior and a snap DQ, and you'd be issued a "for this event only" proxy for your destroyed card, at the HJ's discretion.
If it was a total accident (like someone knocked over their soda and it drenched your card to the point it's unplayable), no penalties, but you could get a proxy at HJ discretion.
>>48339019
A player doesn't need priority to concede. Technically you can concede in the middle of a spell resolving.
>>48338485
Permeating mass.
If i give it other abilities with say, an aura, does it copy those?
I know if i phantasmal image one, all the copies have the illusion clause.
So what's the actual rule regarding infinite?
You have to actually choose a number, right?
>>48339350
it copies the base creature
What's the timing of redirecting a burn spell to a planeswalker? When you cast it or when it resolves?
Basically, can you target a player with lightning bolt, and then depending on how they responded to it decide to redirect it to a planeswalker?
>>48339350
Nope. The reason the illusion clause gets picked up is because copy effects can get snagged by other copy effects, but that's where that list ends.
If I have a Bear Cub with +6/+6, three +1/+1 counters, protection from red, Trample, First Strike, Haste, and Vigilance, and you copy it with a Clone, you get...
A Bear Cub. The reason for that is that all those effects on my Bear Cub happen AFTER layer 1, the copy layer. And layer 1 is where your Clone is looking at the Bear Cub to find out how to copy it.
If you use Phantasmal Image instead, it'll copy the bear, except it also has that clause and the Illusion subtype. If I Clone your Image!Bear, it looks at Image!Bear in layer 1, where it's a Bear Cub that has the illusion clause and the subtype, so those get picked up by my Clone!Imagebear.
>>48339363
For things where you can repeat a loop as many times as you like, you can't say 'infinite'. You demonstrate that the loop is repeatable, state how many times you are going to repeat this loop, and the end state when you finish. For example, the Kiki-Mite, you demonstrate the loop, then say "Make 50 copies".
What happens if i animate (using for example Ensoul Artifact or a Tezzeret ability) an equipment that's attached to a creature? I assume i can't make an equipment equipped to itself.
>>48339705
Creatures can't be attached to things, so if you turn an Equipment into a creature it just falls off.
>>48339399
plz respond
>>48339399
When it resolves
>>48339399
Whoops, sorry!
As it resolves. You don't decide whether to redirect or not until resolution. Saying "Bolt your Jace" is you proposing a shortcut where you cast Bolt at them, and then redirect to Jace as it resolves.
Fun fact: if you throw a burn spell at your opponent and they ask "At me or at my planeswalker?", they have just given up their chance to respond!
>>48339785
>Fun fact: if you throw a burn spell at your opponent and they ask "At me or at my planeswalker?", they have just given up their chance to respond!
Yeah I was wondering exactly that as it came up at FNM:
>bolt you
>...hm ok
>ok then redirect to your Nahiri
>wait then I want to counter it
I let him do it but at comp REL I could use that to """trick""" players. But you're even saying that if they ask for the redirection they can no longer counter? That seems very harsh
>>48339875
By asking about how it resolves, that means they're letting it resolve, right?
Otherwise they're trying to gain info out of you.
If you're worried about being mean, when they ask you, respond "I'll tell you when it resolves. Does it resolve?"
>>48339972
I feel that
>bolt you
>me or my planeswalker
>ok now you said that you can't respond anymore kill your walker
wouldn't fly by any judge even at comp REL
>>48340041
It won't, but for a slightly different reason. Since he said "bolt you" then if you have no reactions, he's FORCED to bolt you and not your walker.
It's like cabal therapy and naming a card before they can respond - if they do nothing you're locked into the name you called at the beginning, but if they do anything to affect the game you can change it.
>>48340269
But that's what you do when you cast bolt at a planeswalker right, you first bolt the player and then redirect to the walker. I think
>bolt you
>ok
>then redirect to walker
would fly, but without an explicit "ok" the player wouldn't give up priority
>>48340329
Saying "bolt you" waiting for something, and THEN redirecting is pretty overtly angle-shooting, and a judge will in all likelyhood see it as such.
If you do it all in the same motion , like "bolt you, redirect to walker" with little to no pause between them, or just "bolt your walker" (An already standardized tournament shortcut!) then you're fine.
>>48339875
By asking "at me or at Nahiri?" they're effectively asking you about a choice not made until resolution. That's defined in the MTR as an established shortcut for "I have no response". You can use that against them, or you can be a nice guy and teach them with "I don't have to answer that until it resolves. Does it resolve?"
Basically it's in there to prevent your opponent from being able to 'fish' for your intent before deciding to act or not.
>>48340041
Actually, it would, because it's in the tournament documents.
>>48340269
"Bolt you" is not a shortcut. "Therapy naming X" is.
>>48340041
From the MTR, Section 4.2, "Tournament Shortcuts":
If a player casts a spell or activates an ability and announces choices for it that are not normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to that spell or ability. If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be passing priority and allowing that spell or ability to resolve.
>If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be passing priority and allowing that spell or ability to resolve
>>48340329
Right. You cast it targeting them, and on resolution you have the option to redirect it to their planeswalker. It is 100% legal to say "Lightning Bolt, targeting you", and once your opponent allows it to resolve, say "Redirecting to Nahiri". They don't get to find out whether or not you're redirecting until it's too late to respond, unless you're kind enough to tell them ahead of time.
>>48340623
>Actually, it would, because it's in the tournament documents.
That surprises me. I believe you of course, but there are some rule loopholes in mtg that always seem odd to me.
Another thing I've always found strange is that you are not required to give derived information, like the size of your creatures when playing Merfolk, but that your opponent is allowed to ask a Judge to tell them that. It makes sense you do not have to tell them as math should be a skill that is part of playing the game, but if that is the reasoning then why is a Judge allowed to tell you anyways?
>>48338485
Can I counterspell Iona after blue is called?
>>48340784
I mean, it's easy enough to duck when you're AGAINST it by just not asking them about choices made on resolution if you plan to respond. And you don't HAVE to be a jerk about it if you're using it- you can just say "I don't have to tell you that until it resolves". I do that with my Copy deck- people ask "What are you copying?" to decide whether they want to respond, and I just remind them that they don't get to know that until after it's too late to respond.
Like I said, it seems a bit fucky, but it's there to prevent your opponent from fishing for information they "shouldn't" have at the time they want to respond.
>then why is a Judge allowed to tell you anyways?
We aren't, that's why.
The only Derived Information we're allowed to give you (if asked) are Oracle Text, Game Rules, and Tournament Policy. If you ask me for the oracle text of your opponent's Russian copy of Vampire Nighthawk, I must give it to you. If you show me the board state and ask "How big is that Silvergill Adept?" my answer will be "I cannot assist you in determining that."
>>48340852
That depends on how it's going down. If your opponent windmill slams an Iona and says "Blue", they're proposing a shortcut where they name Blue after Iona resolves. It's not actually on the field yet, and Blue isn't banned yet, so you can interrupt their proposed shortcut with your counterspell.
If they cast Iona, and you ask them what color they intend to name, you've given up your chance to counter it because the MTR establishes that as a shortcut for you passing priority and allowing it to resolve.
>>48340890
Thanks boss
>>48340890
pictured card.
If i escalate that and target both to Mirrorwing Dragon, does it still count as 'targets only Mirrorwing Dragon'?
>>48340948
Yep! It doesn't have to be a spell that only says 'target' once, it just needs to ONLY target Mirrorwing Dragon. A Borrowed Hostility with both modes chosen and aimed at Mirrorwing Dragon counts as "a player cast[ing] an instant or sorcery spell that targets only Mirrorwing Dragon", so it'd copy for the rest of your board as well, giving them all +3/+0 and first strike.
Hey GA how was your pre-release?
Anyways, I have a question for you:
>cryptolith fragment is flipped
>identity thief is on the battlefield
>declare an attack with both, exiling the fragment
What happens?
>>48340985
>How was your pre-release?
I didn't attend one, unfortunately.
>Question
Thief looks at the card that it HIT, rather than what that card looks like in exile. So, the card it hit was Aurora of Emrakul, and your Thief becomes an Aurora of Emrakul as the trigger resolves. It wasn't an Aurora as it attacked, so right now you've effectively just swapped it from being a 0/3 to being a 1/4 with Flying and Deathtouch, and your original Aurora's attack trigger still bleeds your opponents for 3 life each.
Then, at the beginning of the next end step, your exiled Cryptolith Fragment returns to the battlefield tapped and not-a-creature.
>>48340981
Ah ok thanks. I did this to an opponent with my Mirrorwing at prerelease. On another game with another opponent, they cast Malevolent Whispers on my dragon and ran me over with their weenies.
The dragon's ability is legit fun in limited.
>>48341082
Yeah, I love the random blowout of "cast a buff spell on OPPOSING Mirrorwing, render entire team Swole As Fuck"
>>48340890
>>then why is a Judge allowed to tell you anyways?
>We aren't, that's why.
>The only Derived Information we're allowed to give you (if asked) are Oracle Text, Game Rules, and Tournament Policy. If you ask me for the oracle text of your opponent's Russian copy of Vampire Nighthawk, I must give it to you. If you show me the board state and ask "How big is that Silvergill Adept?" my answer will be "I cannot assist you in determining that."
Sorry to be such a bother but are you sure about this? This has always been a big point in the mtgs merfolk thread, that your opponent is allowed to ask a judge to figure out the power and toughness
https://youtu.be/s_4IYwtkcb0?list=PLQ8LePd6n-IwHfy31rP2RRzMeWt6eGMoC&t=405
6:45 is when it gets brought up in this merfolk tutorial vid
>>48341040
>returns to the battlefield tapped and is not a creature
Sweet spicy Fuck, I misplayed hard at my pre-release. My opponent had 2 life and I thought I was being fancy when I should have just copied their stuff. Cost me first place. Thanks man.
This set is pretty fun in limited. Card draw is rare, removal is expensive and u/r vamps and spirits is pure fun.
>>48340890
Absurd hypothetical, but let's say that I attack with goyf or something. They ask "how big is it". I refuse to tell them, saying I'm not required to. They refuse to advance to blockers or damage. What exactly would be the judge call in that situation? Slowplay?
>>48341102
100% sure. The ONLY Derived Information a Judge can give is Oracle text, game rules, and tournament policy.
The people in that thread are correct that your opponent is ALLOWED to ask the Judge for that, but incorrect in assuming that the judge is obliged (or in truth, PERMITTED) to answer the question.
>>48341131
The judge would probably tell the opposing player "I need you to make a decision", and possibly explain that while you are not required to help them figure out how big your Goyf is, you also can't hinder them from figuring it out themselves, and they ARE required to advance the game.
>>48341162
So can I lie about my board state? Like if they ask "do you have X on the field?" Am I allowed to say no (even if yes) or should I just tell them "I'm not required to answer"
>>48341757
There's three kinds of information in Magic: Free, Derived, and Private.
Free information, everyone is privy to, and you MUST give in full if asked. That's something like "is that tapped" or "What zone is that in"- you can't duck the question at all, you have to answer fully and honestly.
Derived Information, everyone has access to, but it might take some figuring to obtain. You don't have to give derived information if asked, but you can't lie about it. If someone asks how big your Tarmogoyf is, you can't say "2/3" when you know it to be a 3/4, but you can just tell them "I don't have to answer that". With Derived, you can also give incomplete, but accurate, information.
Private information is anything that only one player has access to (like the contents of your deck or hand or other hidden zones) and you can lie through your fucking teeth about that.
Does gaining control of a permanent while that permanent has an ability on the stack, cause the control of that ability to change as well?
Specifically, to expand on the Lunar Force / Sigarda interaction in the recent Cranial Insertion:
>I control Lunar Force
>Opponent A controls Sigarda
>Opponent B casts Emrakul
>Lunar Force trigger
>I cast Donate to give Lunar Force to Opponent A
Will Lunar Force survive for me to Homeward Path it back?
>>48341787
Is the number of cards in a player's library Free Information?
>>48342613
No. Abilities are separate from their sources.
>>48342638
The number of objects in a zone is Derived Information. If your opponent asks how many cards are in your library, your options are "decline to answer" or "answer honestly". Honestly need not be fully- you could say "More than 50" if that's accurate, or "Less than 40" if that's accurate, etc.
You also can't stop them from determining the information themselves.
>>48342613
Nope. The controller of an ability is not "who currently controls the source", it's "Who controlled the source when the ability was added to the stack".
>>48342638
>401.3. Any player may count the number of cards remaining in any player’s library at any time.
>Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist
in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine. Derived information consists of:
>• The number of any kind of objects present in any game zone.
It's derived but you can have at their deck.
How do colorless creatures such as eldrazi interact with Dream halls? Can I cast them got free?
>>48342689
>>48342651
So then based on my reading of 701.14 in addition to that, I would not be able to sacrifice Lunar Force as it would have been Donated before the trigger resolved, and thus I don't control it.
What happens to the trigger, then? Does it fizzle entirely or does the counterspell still go off?
>>48342720
Rather than pay the mana cost for a spell, you may discard a card that shares a color with it.
Good luck finding a card that shares a color with something that has no colors. It'd be like sharing a shoe size with a snake.
>>48342742
Correct. You'd Donate the spell to them, the trigger resolves and tells you to sacrifice it, but you cannot because you can't sacrifice things you don't control. The spell is still countered, because the countering is not dependent on the saccing. If it was, it would be worded as "When an opponent casts a spell, sacrifice Lunar Force. If you do, counter that spell."
i never visit /tg/, but i just remembered a MTG OTK combo and for the life of me i cant find the cards. didnt wanna open an extra thread for this, maybe someone can help me.
the combo was possible some years ago in the standard format, during the time when primeval titan was around. it involved the graveyard and some red card that interacted with it, resurrecting some other minion. this caused a loop of some kind which resulted in dealing 20 damage to the opponent's face
i know this is a long shot but maybe someone can remember the combo or one of the cards sound familiar
please help
>>48342811
Can't think of any involving a red card from that timeframe. Primeval Titan was in M11 and M12, which means we have a range from Zendikar block up to original Innistrad, and the only "bring back dead guy loops" I can think of are the various versions of Project X, all of which involve cards older than that.
>>48342886
hmmm maybe i'm confusing things. i just searched through all the m11 and m12 red cards and it wasnt among them so you have to be right. i'll keep searching, thank you for the help anyway
>>48343173
Well, the first thing that comes to mind is Melira Combo or the original Project X.
The original combo was to use Crypt Champion to get back Saffi Eriksdotter, which you'd sac targeting Champion, which would come back and find Saffi, etc. It got you as many ETB/LTB as you wanted, so you could gain a huge amount of life with Soul Warden, or kill with an arbitrarily large Juniper Order Ranger, or via Pandemonium.
The next iteration used Juniper Order Ranger and Murderous Redcap, along with a free sac outlet, for a kill: sac Redcap, it comes back with a -1/-1 counter, Ranger triggers and puts a +1/+1 counter on it, it does 2 damage, sac to repeat.
That evolved into a current Modern deck, usually called Melira Pod or Melira Combo. It's the same thing, they either gain disgusting amounts of life with Kitchen Finks or do as much damage as they want with Murderous Redcap, using either Anafenza the Foremost or Melira, Sylvok Outcast to 'cancel out' the -1/-1 counters, and usually Viscera Seer as the sac outlet.
But yeah, that's all I can think of as far as repeatedly bringing back a red creature.
>>48343274
mhh neither of that was it. i think the combo was even possible in a mono red deck. one of the card had quite high mana cost, like 4-6 mana (my memory is really cloudy)
it was a somewhat complicated loop, too. many people just couldnt figure it out and wouldnt accept losses, took me some time to understand too
goddamnit man this is really bothering me. it couldnt have been in the legacy or vintage format, i didn't play those.
i'll keep searching, thank you for all the effort
>>48343348
A while back was the Lifeline, Ball Lightning, and Pandemonium loop.
just more random vague memories: i think the card which came back from the graveyard killed the card on the battlefield because you could choose where the damage goes, and then some sort of loop happened and you were able to direct 20 damage to the opponent
again, i know this is all very vague, but i'm certain it was a red card
i got the card! it's Flayer of the Hatebound! (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=337072&part=Flayer+of+the+Hatebound)
i still dont know what exactly the combo was though. i think it involved one flayer in the graveyard and one flyer on the battlefield, and them somehow targeting each other so in the end you somehow deal 20 damage to the opponent
>>48343812
found a forum post that explains the combo
Initial Stack, assuming you stack as Flayer of the Hatebound A (hereafter Flayer-A) then Flayer of the Hatebound B (hereafter Flayer-B)
--------TOP OF STACK---------
Flayer-B targeting Flayer-A
Flayer-A targeting Flayer-B
Flayer-B resolves, dealing 4 damage to Flayer-A.
SBA send Flayer A to the Graveyard.
Undying goes on the stack
--------TOP OF STACK---------
Flayer-A Undying
Flayer-A targeting Flayer-B
Undying resolves, Flayer-A enters as a 5/3
Flayer-A and Flayer-B trigger their abilities, you choose your opponent as the target for both (you stack as A then B)
--------TOP OF STACK---------
Flayer-B targeting Opponent
Flayer-A targeting Opponent
Flayer-A targeting Flayer-B (still here!)
Flayer-B resolves, dealing 5 damage to Opponent (not 4! it's the power of Flayer-A, not B)
Flayer-A resolves, dealing 5 damage to Opponent
We are up to 10 damage to the opponent!
--------TOP OF STACK---------
Flayer-A targeting Flayer-B
This finally resolves, Flayer-A deals 4 damage to Flayer-B (this is because of Last-Known Information, the Flayer-A with 5 power is not the same object as the one that targeted Flayer-A earlier)
SBA puts Flayer-B in the GY, and undying triggers
--------TOP OF STACK---------
Flayer-B Undying
Undying resolves putting Flayer-B on the Battlefield
Flayer-A and Flayer-B trigger, you target the opponent with both (you stack as A then B)
--------TOP OF STACK---------
Flayer-B targeting Opponent
Flayer-A targeting Opponent
Flayer-B resolves, shooting Opponent for 5
Flayer-A resolves, shooting Opponent for 5
20 damage, and the stack is finally empty!
>>48343863
haha, thats a shorter and clearer version thank you!
Can you activate spellskite ability if the spell has no target. For example a creature spell
>>48343893
I was half right- the Undying doesn't resolve together (I was thinking of a Victimize type scenario), but it does still work the way you put it.
Bring back dead Flayer, have the Flayers target each other. One Flayer dies, Undying triggers. Bring it back as a 5/3, triggers itself and the brother. Each dome the opponent for 5. Original trigger resolves, kills the first Flayer, it comes back as a 5/3, both Flayers trigger for 5. Total of 20.
>>48343917
You can activate Spellskite targeting literally any spell or ability on the stack, because the only targeting requirement is "Target spell or ability". Whether or not Spellskite's ability DOES anything is another question.
>>48343959
That seems wonky because spellskite says change the target of target spell or ability. Crazy that you can activate it with no target? Can you explain further
>>48344160
The target requirement is not "Target spell or ability that targets".
The target requirement is "Target spell or ability". It's like casting Doom Blade on a Darksteel Myr. It's not "Destroy target nonblack creature which can be destroyed", but "Target nonblack creature". It's 100% legal to cast Doom Blade on an indestructible creature, it just doesn't DO anything. You attempt to perform the action "destroy target nonblack careture", and fail because the creature can't be destroyed.
Ditto for Spellskite. You activate it targeting 'target spell or ability'. Legal. The activation goes to resolve and checks again: target's still legal. So it begins resolving and says "Alright, let's change the target of this spell or ability!", but it has no targets. So the ability can't do anything; it shrugs, moves on, and goes home.
>>48338485
So I just started playing kci eggs, and I need some reassurance that I'm using it properly. Just tell me if I get any wrong
>when I return terrarion to the battlefield, it comes in tapped.
>I can reshape on 0 for lotus bloom, and it's a legal target because it has no mana cost
>if I ghost quarter my own darksteel citadel, I can search up a basic even though citadel isn't destroyed.
Thanks, and keep doing what you do
>>48344228
Terrarion enters the battlefield tapped regardless of why it's entering. If you cast it, if you returned it from the graveyard, if you cheat one out with Tinker, no matter what that replacement effect modifies how it enters the battlefield.
Reshape doesn't target anything. Reshape can find Lotus Bloom because it has CMC of 0. You can't normally CAST Lotus Bloom because of the null mana cost, but putting it directly onto the battlefield is fair game.
Ghost Quarter's land search is not in any way tied to the destruction of the target. You attempt to perform the destroy action and nothing happens because that's impossible, so the ability just shrugs and keeps going. Next, you're told to search for a basic land and put it onto the battlefield then shuffle, so you do. If the search were dependent on the destruction, that clause would begin with "If you do".
>>48344208
Ahh perfect explanation. Thank you. Quite a confusing card!
Hey gA, whatcha think of this judgement?
https://youtu.be/lGyD1qyIkIQ?t=10880
So allison attacks with a 3/2, and the professor doubleblocks with two 1/2 which generate 3/2 tokens on dying.
Both players go "so these both die", and the prof puts two 3/2's into play.
Prof takes turn, draws, plays a creature, and attacks with his two new 3/2's before the judge catches him, before declare blockers, and says;"you should only have one eldrazi horror", and rewinds to attackers on allison's turn.
Would you have rewinded here? A lot has already happened, it seems like.
>>48344433
Really all that we're rewinding through is a single card draw and him playing the creature. I'd have to gauge whether I thought he'd take a different line of play knowing that he only gets a single 3/2 (he might not play that creature, for example), but it's likely I'd rewind.
