Good afternoon, boys and girls of /tg/! I've got a lazy sunday full of Futurama, Overwatch, and tacos ahead of me, and I thought it'd be nice to have an AAJ thread going in the middle of all the OTHER things I enjoy. I'm gonna pop out to go pick up said tacos, but feel free to leave me some questions to answer for when I get back in just a bit!
>>47626633
I'm back with tacos!
if i cast a spoils of the vault, do i have the right to concede the game in between revealing cards from my library?
f e: i cast spoils naming ad nauseam, while i reveal cards from top i get to reveal my lightnin storm/lab maniac, can i concede even if the spoils is still searching for angel's grace to prevent my opponent from seing my whole deck?
>>47627449
*searchin for AN
hope you got my point even if writing was a bit messy
>>47627449
This question is a little dodgy, because it usually comes up with mill, where someone is milling cards 1 at a time instead of all at once (like they're supposed to) and they concede when they see a card they don't want their opponent to see.
For this, you're revealing the cards one at a time, so I don't see a problem with you conceding after you flip your win-con knowing that you won't be able to win now.
>>47627478
What sort of stuff should I put in my cover letter for judging? I haven't done any comp REL events yet.
>>47627478
What mechanic has generated the most rules questions for you in an eternal format?
>>47628490
Your cover letter should mainly hit 3 points: your experience, your goals, and your needs. If you haven't run any Comp REL events, give your experience working large Regular REL events, or with teams. Lacking that, just list what experience you DO have, to share with the judge manager.
For your goals, list... well, your goals. What you want out of the event. Asking to be on a specific team, or saying you want to get your Deck Check time below 6 minutes, etc.
Needs are simple, just anything you need the judge manager to know: travel limitations, food allergies, medical needs, etc.
>>47628827
I don't judge much Eternal, but probably Miracle?
>>47629102
Did not expect to hear Miracle. Is it just the issue of the card getting mixed in with the hand because people draw without checking, or is there some other complexity to Miracle I've never noticed?
>>47629259
It's mostly the confusion about mixing it with the hand, yeah. Like I said, I don't judge a whole lot of Eternal, so I really don't have a large sample size to work with.
Thalia + X-spells, like GSZ. Is the CMC on the stack affected by the additional tax from Thalia, or is that considered something "additional"?
>>47629738
CMC is not "what you paid". CMC is the number in the top right corner. The only time CMC ever changes is with X spells, and that's in the sense that X is 0 everywhere but the stack, and on the stack X is what you say it is.
A Green Sun's Zenith for X=3 always always always has CMC of 4 on the stack, whether you're ACTUALLY paying 3G, 4G, 2G, G, or WWWUUUBBBRRRGGG and a ham sandwich.
Thalia makes you pay 1 more, but it doesn't change the CMC. Neither does any other additional cost.
>>47629869
Same with cards like trinisphere. It doesn't change the CMC, only what you actually pay
>>47626633
Suppose I cast Disenchant on an opponent's Leyline of the Void/Rest in Peace. Where will my instant go after it has resolved, exile or graveyard?
>>47629982
Graveyard. You perform all the actions on the spell in the order written, and once all the instructions on the spell have been carried out, you put it into the graveyard from the stack as the absolute last step of resolving it. By that time you've already destroyed the enchantment in question, so there's no replacement effect telling you to exile your Disenchant. Note that a Rest in Peace will exile itself in this scenario!
This is also why a Doom Blade doesn't get exiled by the Dryad Militant it kills, but Lightning Bolt will be.
>>47630001
>off by 1
Also, can you explain why helm of obedience works with RiP/Leyline? Shouldn't the game mill X and shunt them to exile because of the replacement effect?
>>47630078
IIRC nothing every enters the graveyard so it repeats ad infinitum
>>47630078
A replacement effect isn't "It goes to the graveyard, and then to exile". It replaces "goes to the graveyard" with "goes to exile" so it never hits the graveyard in the first place.
>>47630117
>>47630130
Why should the game care that nothing hit the graveyard? Other mill spells don't.
>>47630149
Because other mill spells tell you "Put the top 10 cards of your library into your graveyard", and RIP replaces "into your graveyard" with "into exile". So the spell basically now reads "Put the top 10 cards of your library into exile", and does that.
With Rest in Peace, Helm basically says this:
"Target opponent puts cards from the top of his or her library into exile until a creature card or X cards are put into their graveyard this way".
So that little "until" will not ever happen. If mill spells read 'Target opponent puts cards from the top of their library into their graveyard until 10 cards are put into their graveyard this way", RIP would work exactly the same- it'd just mill the whole deck because it never hits the stopping point. But most mill spells don't have a 'stopping point' like that.
>>47630210
So it's a technicality based on how they made rules back then and I can get game wins if people try. Got it.
>>47630269
It's not a 'technicality based on how they made rules back then', because the rules from 1995 mean fuck-all now. It's a 'technicality' of how replacement effects work with the way that specific card is worded.
That's like saying that trample getting past indestructible is a "technicality", or that being able to sneak copies underneath a Counterbalance because they aren't cast is a 'technicality'. It's not you weaponizing some arcane, 50 year old loophole, it's just the game working exactly the way the rules tell it to.
>>47630309
>It's not you weaponizing some arcane 50-year old loophole.
Except that's exactly what it is. The rules and common sense dictate something, and people make liberal interpretations of the obvious to try and do something asanine. And attempting to use loopholes to the rules to circumvent them is the textbook definition of unsporting conduct, if not outright fraud.
>>47630382
So your opinion is that performing actions exactly the way the Comprehensive Rules of the game tell you to perform them is "attempting to use loopholes to circumvent the rules" and should be considered cheating.
Cool.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Discussion.aspx?multiverseid=369061
I somewhat understand how this combo works with Nivix Cyclops, but explaining it is quite difficult. How can I explain this in regular play without having to say "yuh huh, I read it on the forums it totally works"
And is there any way I can cast other spells to proc Nivix's effect and THEN dragonshift it? So to get a stronger dragon in the end.
>>47630428
The combo being that you end up with a 7/4 Dragon? Easy.
So, you cast Dragonshift targeting Cyclops (or overloaded, doesn't matter). This triggers Cyclops, so he gets +3/+0 and can attack as though he doesn't have defender. Then, the Dragonshift resolves and makes it a 4/4 Dragon with flying. That effect works in layers 4 (type-setting), 5 (color changing), 6 (removing abilities, then giving flying), and 7b (setting P/T to a specific number). The Cyclops' boost works in layer 7c, which is one layer AFTER 7b. So, since you go through the layers in order, you set it to being a Dragon, then change colors to Red and Blue, then remove all abilities and give it Flying, then set it to a 4/4, then give it +3/+0, ending up with a 7/4 blue and red Dragon with flying that can attack as though it didn't have Defender.
>>47630428
From gatherer comments:
>[Cyclops] triggers on casting, their ability goes on the stack, the ability resolves, and then this resolves.
Add in the info that changing base power/toughness doesn't remove temporary buffs if necessary.
>And is there any way I can cast other spells to proc Nivix's effect and THEN dragonshift it?
Just... cast other spells and then dragonshift it? Dragonshift doesn't remove any effects on Cyclops that say "+3/+0 until end of turn"
>>47630413
When those actions are an exceptionally liberal interpretation of those rules and anyone with half a brain can see it doesn't work? Absolutely that's cheating. You try that shit, you're getting a loss. Try it again you're getting thrown out on your ass.
>>47630587
Okay, I'll bite.
Please tell me how I am wrong. Please tell me how my 'exceptionally liberal interpretation' of the CR is leading me to think that Helm + RIP 'doesn't work', and that attempting to do so is cheating.
Then, show me where in the IPG it says that the first time you cheat you just get a Game Loss, and you have to cheat twice to get DQed.
>>47630587
>rules lay out how things work
>it's unintuitive, but clearly defined
>following these rules is cheating
???
>>47630587
It's just a combo that relies entirely on getting two of three cards in their deck. Worst case scenario they get it off game one and then you sideboard in answers.
>>47630624
>RiP/Leyline say "if anything goes to graveyard, goes to exile instead
>Helm says "mill until X cards or a creature hits the graveyard"
The only two possibilities that make even the barest amount of sense are
A) Helm tries to do as much as it can and exiles either X cards or a creature, whichever comes first, or
B) Since Helm can't put cards into the graveyard, it's illegal to try and activate.
>>47630761
Cool. So, instead of showing me where in the Comprehensive Rules of the game I'm wrong, you tell me that I'm wrong because it doesn't make sense to you. Fortunately, that's not how the game works.
>>47630761
Dude, you're 100% wrong. There aren't even two ways about it.
Helm specifically says "graveyard" in its 'until' conditional. Exile is not graveyard. The combo works. End of story.
>>47630761
Let me guess. You were playing a match against someone who used Helm+RIP. You thought the interaction was nonsense and called a judge. The judge stated that the combo worked, and now you're angry. You want some pepper with that salt?
>>47630761
Why don't you try reading the rules instead of using playground logic?
If I have Silent Arbiter in a multiplayer game and somehow cheat more than one attacker (with Alesha for example) and attack multiple players at the same time, who gets to block?
>>47631967
Answer to that is going to be in the nitty gritty of how blocking is declared.
I'd bet money that blocking goes in APNAP order and so the next guy up gets a chance to block (with one creature) and if they take it everybody else is boned. Lemme check the CR.
>>47631967
802.4. If more than one player is being attacked or controls a planeswalker that's being attacked, each defending player in APNAP order declares blockers as the declare blockers step begins. (See rule 101.4 and rule 509, declare Blockers Step.�) The first defending player declares all his or her blocks, then the second defending player, and so on.
BUT
802.4b When determining whether a defending player's blocks are legal, ignore any creatures attacking other players and any blocking creatures controlled by other players.
Therefore, each of your opponents would be able to block with one creature.
If a player is found to have a fake card, but then produces a real copy of the card that has become too damaged to play (say, a foil that warped due to humidity) what would you say as a judge?
>>47630761
Why is there always one shitter in these threads who refuses to acknowledge that they're wrong when literally everyone else in the thread is saying so.
>>47632432
DQ him immediately and rip his cards in half. That's what he gets for playing with FtV cards
>>47632432
For the fake there's an investigation. If it's discovered that he knew it was fake and played it anyway, he gets DQd for that.
If he replaces the fake with a real version that becomes damaged during play, replace it with a proxy for that event. If his "real copy" is too damaged to play before slotting it in, he either needs a new copy or a basic land.
>>47632432
Tough, effectively. The only time a proxy is acceptable for use is when the HJ of an event issues one, for that event only, to replace a card that's become too damaged to use during that event.
"I own a copy" is not a valid excuse for using a counterfeit card. At absolute best, we're going to give him the option of finding a new one, replacing it with a basic land, or dropping. Most likely we're going to DQ him for knowingly using fake cards.
>>47633379
For things like cheating, counterfeits, etc, what's the standard of proof?
>>47633598
For counterfeits, it's basically up to the HJ to determine whether or not the card is a fake, or whether they have enough suspicion that it's a fake to act upon.
For cheating, it's 100% a judgement call on the part of the HJ.
How does Sapphire Medallion interact with Overload and kicker costs? Does it at all?
>>47634218
You take the base cost of the spell (or the alternate cost, for things like Overload or Flashback). Then, you add in any cost increases, like Kicker or Thalia. Then you apply reductions, like Sapphire Medallion.
So if you cast a blue spell with kicker, Medallion's only gonna make it a total of 1 mana cheaper, whether or not you kick it.
if RIP is on the board, and my child of alara dies in combat, does it wipe the board? and can i replace effect the child of alara to the command zone when it dies and still get the board wipe?
>>47635807
It does not wipe the board: "Dies" is shorthand for "sent to the graveyard from the battlefield". RIP means it never touches the graveyard.
Similarly, any replacement effect that prevents the murderbaby from ever entering the graveyard means it won't wipe the field.
>>47635807
It never died in the first place with RIP on board, or if you Command Zone it. For the trigger, it has to actually hit the graveyard from the battlefield.
>>47630269
What in the world makes you think YOU can get game wins out of your opponent doing exactly what the cards say they do?
can Stonybrook Banneret reduce the extra cost of Harbinger of the Tides when its cast with Flash?
Say i cast any other spell, and i have a Melek on the field. If I cast Fall of the Titans off the top of my deck for 6 using its surge cost (XR), does the copy also have that value, or does it run of the original XXR cmc?
>>47630587
I really, really hope you don't run a store.
>>47639693
Same value.
I know this works, but just to triple-check: Avacyn+Tabernacle (not Magus) works, right? Because Tabernacle's oracle text reads destroy, not sacrifice.
>>47639795
Good to know I'mretarded and have played this wrong for ages
Arcbound Ravager + Inkmoth Nexus + Wrath of god or wrath like effects.
If I let the wrath effect resolve, can I respond to modulate and make inkmoth nexus into a land, and then modulate onto the land without the land blowing up?
>>47640120
No, because triggered abilities can't trigger without a target.
>>47640141
So is there no point in that resolution that I could activate the land and have a target for modulate without the land dying?
>>47640215
You can't activate abilities during resolution, no.
>>47640215
There is not. The only way to modulate Nexus is for it to be a creature, in which case it would be hit by the board wipe.
