Good morning boys and girls, welcome back to AAJ! Sorry for no thread over the weekend- I was unfortunately away from my computer all weekend, but now we're back!
Player A activates ability one of Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, putting him at 5 devotion, then moves to combat, and attacks with Gideon. Player B blocks with a 2/1 and a 3/2.
Before damage is dealt, Player B casts Skullcrack.
What is the final board state post combat?
>>47871738
Well, damage can't be prevented this turn, so Gideon takes 5 damage. This will mark 5 damage on him since he's a Creature, and remove 5 loyalty from him since he's a Planeswalker. He won't be destroyed from lethal damage, because Indestructible, but he will be put into the graveyard as a state-based action for having 0 loyalty.
So, end board state is that Gideon, the 2/1, and the 3/2 are all dead.
So, are there any other tabletop games out here that literally require judges to explain the many many many rulings?
>>47872140
I mean, technically Magic doesn't "require" judges for the rulings. A solid 80% of what we do at high level events like GPs is more logistics than it is rendering rulings, and I'd say most of the judge calls I get are just clarifying something they were PRETTY sure of (make use of the resources you have, right?) or un-fucking something tournament wise rather than rules wise.
But mostly what I do is pick up trash and push in chairs.
>>47871803
Thanks.
>>47871430
So, let's say, hypothetically, I control my opponent's next turn. And then because of stuff that happens, they get an extra turn after the one I'm controlling. Don't know how it happened, certainly not from some card that hasn't been explained yet!
Do I get to control his extra turn?
>>47873128
Newmrakul has you control their next turn, and then after the turn you control they take an extra turn.
You only control the NEXT turn they take, not the extra turn after it.
Why is new Emmy so bad?
>>47873279
It's not awful.
At absolute worst, you can make the mindslaver turn "draw a card, end my turn", and then they take a normal turn exactly like they'd do if you hadn't Mindslavered them. If you look at it that way, it has an effect that ranges from "Target opponent draws a card" to "completely fuck target opponent's day up". Most likely you can burn a few of their spells (maybe cast removal on one of their own creatures, or cast a creature and counter it), but even if there's nothing you can do to muck up their hand/board, you can make them miss a land drop and render it just +1 card in exchange for a 13/13 that cost you like, 7.
>>47873154
Since it has protection from instants, does that mean my opponent can't counterspell it since it's an instant? Does he lose if he tries?
>>47873371
Protection only works on the battlefield.
>>47873391
So it's not illegal? damn, thought I could get free wins off that...
>>47873447
Why would someone lose from making an illegal play? You just undo it.
>>47873447
Yeah, that's not how that works even if it is 'illegal'. If I goof up and try to Doom Blade your pro-black guy, I don't auto-lose the game.
At an FNM level, it's going to be resolved by "Whoops, can't do that" almost immediately, and then a 'takeback' since you can't do that. Even if I'm called, I'll just back the game up and wag a finger unless it's happening a LOT, or I suspect the player is intentionally trying it, hoping their opponent lets it through. That gets more serious.
In a Competitive REL game (PPTQs, GPs, etc) we'd just back it up to immediately before you attempted an illegal action, and you'd get a Warning. Do it enough in one day and they turn into Game Losses, but no, I'm not going to GL a person for making a simple GRV that takes 2 seconds to fix.
>>47873391
Hold up galvanicAutogenitor, when Newmrakul hits the battlefield, you get the cast based trigger the same way you would with newlamog, but it can still be countered and removed from the battlefield before your mindslaver effect procs?
If you cast Newmrakul, and in response sundial of the infinite, does it skip the trigger for the counterspell due to instant speed resolution, or would you still be able to put things on the stack, assuming no one has split second.
>>47873579
You cast Newmrakul (it doesn't fit as well as Newlamog, we need to find something else), and she triggers. Your opponent can respond to this trigger by countering Newmrakul. If they do, you still get your trigger, because triggers on the stack exist independent of their source.
If you cast Newmrakul and then Sundial, your Newmrakul and her trigger are exiled and do nothing. If you do it in response to a counter, again, it'll exile everything on the stack.
Also, there is no such thing as 'instant speed resolution'. There's no such thing as 'speed' in Magic.
>>47873552
>Yeah, that's not how that works even if it is 'illegal'. If I goof up and try to Doom Blade your pro-black guy, I don't auto-lose the game.
Why not? you tried doing something illegal and I caught you. That's cheating. If I didn't catch you then it's good, and if I realize it later I have to shut up or else I lose.
>>47873615
Thanks for clearing that up, I'm pretty excited about this card in general!
So, if I understand correctly, by paying Ememerakul'sErm-rakul? Emmy? You're right, we need a name for this bastard asapcasting cost, you get an uncounterable mindslaver, then whatever happens to it as a creature resolves? Would your opponent be able to counter the casting activation of the mindslaver effect instead of the creature, or assuming you have two counters, do both?
>>47873704
meme-rakul ;^)
>>47871430
I have Hypersonic Dragon. My opponent pays pic related. Can I remove pic related with a sorcery played at instant speed, or is he immune?
>>47873717
To be honest, I can't think of anything more clever, so that works.
>>47873685
Cheating requires three things.
It requires that you
1) Break a rule
2) Intentionally
3) To gain an advantage
All three points must be present. If you break a rule UNINTENTIONALLY, then you aren't Cheating. I understand your position on the point, but that's not how current policy works, and policy is what we enforce.
Also, cheating is not a Game Loss. Unsporting Conduct - Cheating is punished with Disqualification.
>>47873704
I mean, it's not uncounterable. Stifle is a thing. But outside the small handful of things that hit triggered abilities, you aren't gonna be countering the trigger. A regular counterspell won't work because triggers aren't spells. You need to use something that hits triggers, or give yourself Hexproof to make the game rules counter it for you.
>>47873749
There is no such thing as 'speed' in Magic.
Emrakul 2.0 has protection from cards with the Instant type. A Sorcery cast during someone else's turn is not an Instant, and is thus not stopped by said protection.
>>47873749
Socratic answer: Is a sorcery an instant?
Non-socratic answer: Yes, protection from instants does not mean "protection from sorceries played at weird times".
>>47873774
Hey, that's my schtick!
![226[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/epRmU6n.jpg "226[1].jpg")
>>47873798
>>47873773
>stifle
Oh tits on toast, I'm going to stock up on those before they hit a huge price spike in response to modern getting up in a tizzy about another grixis control thing. Trickbind looks pretty neat too.
>>47873773
How can playing an instant against something with protection from instants be anything other than trying to break a rule to gain advantage?
>>47873864
>stifle
>in modern
u wot m8
>>47873893
There's these cool new things called "mistakes".
How does Kurkesh work? What are some things it'll actually work with? I get the general principle but I'm at a loss for how it could be useful, outside of very specific circumstances.
>>47871430
Somebody does pic related. How do you react?
>>47873941
If you allow that then what's stopping people from doing that and then lying "oh sorry, it was a mistake"?
There's a reason the rules are zero-tolerance, because if they aren't people can and will exploit them.
>>47873976
Anon, only sith deal in absolutes. Cut that shit out, the world is just various shades of grey. Sure, some are clearly darker than others, but in almost any situation you can logic your way into relativism.
>>47873947
Read the card
I cast multiple Emrakul 2: Electric Boogaloos in the same turn. How many turns does my opponent get? How many do I control?
>>47873947
Voltaic key can untap two artifacts for 1R, T. Jayemdae tome can draw 2 cards for 4R, T. Hangarback walker can add two +1/+1 counters for 1R,T.
Iron Myr cannot tap for RR for R,T because it's a mana ability.
>>47873975
As judge I operate outside the rules. It's like how platinum angel can't save you from game loss penalties. He's getting a deck check and a dilly bar.
...do they actually make dilly bars anymore?
>>47874073
>dilly-bar
the act of falling off of a height and landing, anus first, onto a fence post, steel rebar, or the like. the name refers to a popular dairy queen frozen treat in which a stick is stuck straight into a dallop of ice cream.
"did you hear the story of the guy who jumped into a ditch full of water and dilly-barred himself on a fence post? dude now shits out of a hole in his neck."
Thank you, urban dictionary. Also yes.
>>47874073
Oh, that makes perfect sense, thanks! I just needed some clarification because it's only activated abilities instead of triggered abilities and I couldn't think of anything it would work with.
>>47873947
An activated ability is any ability worded as [COST] : [EFFECT]. An activated ability is a MANA ability if it isn't a loyalty ability, doesn't target, and could feasibly add mana to a mana pool as it resolves. So Kurkesh will work with, say, Hangarback Walker's ability to make more counters, but not Sol Ring.
>>47873975
I make liberal use of my L2 At-Will power: Baleful Stare.
>>47874071
You will control their next turn several times over, because Mindslaver effects stack poorly. Then they will take multiple turns in a row without your interference and you will be sad.
>>47873976
What's stopping them from lying is that half my job is to investigate bullshit liars and throw them out of my event.
>>47874073
They sure do.
>>47873976
Also, the rules aren't zero tolerance. I quoted to you the exact criteria for USC - Cheating. It requires a rule to be broken, ON PURPOSE, for an advantage. That second point is big.
It has to be intentional. By the 'zero tolerance' rules, there needs to be intent and knowledge.
>>47874123
Yeah, activated abilities are easy to spot, they have a colon ( : ) separating the cost and the effect. If you pay R you get double that effect as long as it's not a mana ability. (If it includes the phrase "to your mana pool" it's a mana ability like 95% of the time)
>>47874171
The other 5% of the time is Deathrite Shaman and Koth.
>>47874222
Are those the only two, or just the most common two?
>>47874271
DRS is the most common one, actually. The only time 'is not a loyalty ability' comes up so far is with Koth, Sarkhan Unbroken, and Xenagos.
As for 'abilities that make mana, but also target', I actually don't know of any besides DRS off-hand.
>>47872140
Well, many tabletop games aren't played in large-scale tournaments. You do want some kind of impartial authority to resolve rules disputes in tournaments, since there's incentive to cheat or at least argue in circles about a rule.
And, as gA said, judges handle a lot of the tournament logistics as well. You also want someone to keep score in whatever system you use, give out pairing for each match, etc.
Can the new Emrakul be countered? I am a little fuzzy on my protection rules, so I'm not sure if "protection from instants" applies while it is being cast.
>>47874434
Abilities only function on the battlefield unless they say otherwise or would make no sense otherwise. So no, protection does not generally work on the stack. For it to stop counterspells, it would need to say something like "As long as ~ is on the stack, it has protection from instants" or somesuch.
Nahiri is crashing this plane with no survivors.
>>47874430
And the chairs, don't forget the chairs.
Also, the Scorekeepers aren't always judges. There's a non-zero amount of L1 and L2 Scorekeepers, but a lot of them are Candidates or L0s, and while they aren't acting as Judges they are magical fucking people who should be showered with praise and candy.
Blessed be the Scorekeepers.
>>47874434
Yes. Protection only works on the battlefield.
How is decided what counts as "outside assistance" on a card alter? I guess it's just up to the head judge's judgment but it just seems very arbitrary to me
>>47874484
I feel you. I work in a game shop and judge/scorekeep/whatever our weekly events (got L1 last month so I can do bigger ones too) and I push in a lot of chairs.
>>47874484
Oh, and the trash. That reminds me of a Judge joke I heard once:
How many players does it take to change a lightbulb?"Let's put trash in it"
>>47874504
HJ's discretion, basically. The usual metric is that a TINY thing like a Trinket Mage holding a Top is fine, but something that we'd consider notes (like "Board me out against X Y Z") is bad. It is a bit 'arbitrary', but that's because it'd be nigh impossible to nail down the exact specifics of what is and isn't okay. And also, like with Slow Play, we'd have people skirting the exact edge of that line in a way that might be worse than if we leave it to discretion.
>>47874506
Grats on the L1!
Also, I'm popping into town to nab lunch. I'll be back in a tick.
>>47874472
For you.
In competitive REL, is it true that if you try to cast a spell with an invalid target, you still have to cast it but with a valid target? Like say trying to bolt a hexproof creature so now I have to make it go to my opponent's face and can't "take back" the spell? What about if there is no legal target at all?
>>47874504
I'd rule that it's outside assistance if it's giving substantial advice. Like, if you painted sideboarding notes or the expected 75 of a meta deck into your card's art. Or some kind of decision tree to help you blind name on Therapy or Pithing Needle or whatever.
Basically, I'd avoid having your alters convey any information related to the game either visually or textually.
For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever seen any alters that I would consider in violation of this policy.
>>47874557
>Grats on the L1!
Thanks! These threads helped me start down that road quite some time ago!
>Oh, and the trash
Don't I fucking know it. The kids especially, jesus christ.
>>47874581
No. If you did it on purpose to gain advantage, that's cheating and a one-way trip to Dairy Queen. If you did it by mistake, then you get a warning, put the Bolt or whatever back in your hand, and rewind any mana abilities that you used to pay for it that can be rewound.
>>47873976
>no one makes mistakes ever
>>47874619
>one-way trip to Dairy Queen
Because of >>47874120 this now means something completely different.
>>47874619
>>47874557
the outside assistance rule is relatively new right? I remember watching a legacy match from a few years back where a player had written "NONLAND" as big as possible on his phyrexian revokers
>>47874581
Illegal move you can take back, misplays you can't. ex. bolting goyf and realized that won't kill it.
>>47874685
Dunno. I wouldn't rule that that counts as outside assistance, though. It's just repeating a word on the card. It's not like it helps you make any decisions - you can't legally name nonlands with Revoker anyways.
>>47873615
>There's no such thing as 'speed' in Magic
chromatic sphere takes issue with that statement.
>>47874581
If you cast a spell at an illegal target, you aren't forced to continue casting it at a legal one. You just get a Warning for Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation and we rewind to immediately before you made the error. We're not going to force you to pick a legal target from what's available because that's not how the rules work.
>>47874659
It's actually a bit circular- Dairy Queen and Dilly Bar are common (Dilly bar less so) slang phrases Judges use for "Disqualification"- because DQ. "take a trip to Dairy Queen" = getting DQed = getting disqualified.
>>47874685
Nah, it's been in effect for at least as long as I've judged, so going on 6 years now. I also wouldn't bat an eye at "NONLAND" on a Revoker, because naming a land isn't legal in the first place, so all he's doing is reminding himself how his card works.
>>47874827
There isn't. It's not 'faster' than other things, it's just that you can't respond to mana abilities. This isn't Yugioh.
>>47871430
What does Progenitus NOT have protection from?
Surely there must be some exception.
>>47874900
Progenitus has protection from everything. Protection means that it can't be damaged, enchanted/equipped/fortified, blocked, or targeted by whatever the object has protection from. So Progenitus can't be damaged, enchanted/equipped/fortified, blocked, or targeted by anything. It can still be affected by effects that don't do any of those things (like Wrath of God). It can also be countered if it's cast, since protection abilities don't (typically) work on the stack.
>>47874900
It has protection from everything. All types, all supertypes, all subtypes, all players, all colors, multicolor, monocolor, colorless, everything.
What that effectively means is that Proggy cannot be Damaged, Enchanted/Equipped/Fortified, Blocked, or Targeted by anything.
Anything trying to do one of those things will fail. Anything trying to do something else will not.
>>47874900
Progenitus has protection from exceptions.
>>47874900
Progenitus can be damaged by Malignus
>>47875162
Progenitus has protection from unpreventability.
>>47875197
It's not unpreventability that's trying to damage him
It's Malignus
Progenitus tries to prevent it with his prot everything and Malignus says nah
>>47875244
It's a joke. /tg/ has a running joke that Progenitus has protection from even abstract concepts. Or "protection from being sacrificed".
>>47875282
Ha ha!
>>47875244
>malignus
Damn that's a nice card. He's going in my Heartless Hidestugu deck for hilarious double-strike shenanigans.
>>47875320
He pairs really really well with Xenagod
>>47875320
It's less fun with double strike than you might think. It still does a ludicrous amount of damage, but it won't outright kill them (unless it's multiplayer and you're attacking the guy who does NOT have the highest life total)
>>47875339
Holy shit, you're right. Maybe I need to rebuild my xenagos beat down deck. I remember it was pretty stronk, and now that I have some new rocks, it could be game breaking. Personally, I wanted to dictate of the twin gods otk people with hidestugu, but I can still do that in xenagos, while also having access to the best ramp cards printed in magic. Thanks anon, you're a real charmer.
>>47875380
Oh, wait, so the damage is reduced once the first strike hits, and recalibrated based on the player's current life total for the regular strike part of double strike? That's neat. Can I cast things inbetween a creature attacking with double strike?
>>47875408
Yep. Malignus has a Characteristic-Defining Ability that constantly updates itself. If you throw a 10/10 double-striking Malignus at your only opponent who has 20 life, the SECOND Malignus deals 10 damage and reduces them to 10 life, Malignus shrinks to a 5/5.
You absolutely can cast spells or activate abilities between First Strike and regular damage.
>>47875244
Progenitus has protection from nah.
>>47875282
and judges explanations
>>47875309
and sarcastic laughter
How does the Eldrazi displacer and thought-knot seer combo work out? If I blink thought-knot does he make the opponent draw first or does he look at the hand first?
>>47875502
So, it's been out a while and you blink it with Blinky the Eldrazi. As soon as it leaves the board you have the LTB trigger fire, but it can't go on the stack while an object on the stack is resolving, so it waits. Then you bring the Seer back, and it triggers again, but that trigger waits. Ability has fully resolved, SBAs are checked. Now, all triggers waiting to go on the stack may do so.
You control both triggers, and they're going onto the stack simultaneously, so you choose the order in which they go onto the stack. You can have them draw and then you strip away a card, or the other way around. Protip: Pick the first one.
>>47875529
Sick. Thanks friend.
>>47875443
I didn't know that, nifty. I can't see how it would be useful. How would the timing work on double strike? Is it declare attacker, declare blocker, first strike damage calculation, regular strike damage calculation? In my head I'm trying to think of an elaborate example where I can tap a creature to remove it from combat so the second half of double strike fizzles, but the more I think about it, the less I think it works that way.
>>47875572
It's not always useful, but it's there if you need it. How the timing works is this
COMBAT PHASE
Beginning of Combat Step
Declare Attackers step
Declare Blockers Step
First Strike Damage Step
Combat Damage Step
End of Combat Step
That 'first strike' step only really 'exists' if First/Double strikers are involved in the combat. Otherwise there's just the one.
Also, tapping a creature hasn't removed it from combat for well over a decade.
If I give a creature first strike after first strike damage, before regular combat damage, it will not do any damage this combat right?
>>47875645
Incorrect.
702.7c. Giving first strike to a creature without it after combat damage has already been dealt in the first combat damage step won't prevent that creature from assigning combat damage in the second combat damage step. Removing first strike from a creature after it has already dealt combat damage in the first combat damage step won't allow it to also assign combat damage in the second combat damage step (unless the creature has double strike).
>>47875666
Wow, they actually thought of that when writing the rules and made a built-in exception? Neat.
>>47875666
Does anything special happen with giving/losing Doublestrike?
>>47875636
Okay, let me give you a concrete example of what I'm talking about:
>opponent is using fencing ace, for arguments sake, he's a 2/2
>block with my silumgar the drifting death
>in response to declaring blockers, opponent casts an instant giving fencing ace +2/+2
Now, where I'm getting confused, is that in this situation, if I could cast an instant between the damage steps to return siliumgar to my hand, it would go back to my hand, the second half of the first strike would fizzle on siliumgar's "shadow" and combat would resolve without me taking damage, yet still having my creature in my hand? Or would would my fancy dragon still wind up in the yard?
>>47875696
It's more a clarification than anything, because the rules say that the only creatures who assign damage in the First Strike step are the ones who had First/Double strike as that step began, and the only ones that assign damage in the 'normal' step are the remaining attackers/blockers that had neither First nor Double Strike as the previous step began, and also the ones that currently have Double Strike.
>>47875718
Nah, same thing. I quoted 702.7c, and 702.7 is First Strike. Double Strike is 702.4.
But the situation is also covered by 702.4b, 702.7b, and 510.5
>>47875736
Well, you're using some terms loosely here, like "in response" to a turn-based action, "fizzle" for something that isn't a spell, and "resolve" for something that doesn't use the stack.
But yes. You could bounce your Slugmar at any point before the normal Combat Damage Step to 'save' it. You could bounce it in response to the pump spell, you could bounce it post-pump but pre-first-strike, or post-first-strike.
>>47875808
Different anon here, but in the case of the Slugmar situation, if anon bounces Slugmar after opponent has pumped his Ace, the Ace deals no damage to either Slugmar or anon, right?
>>47875808
Sorry for using the terms loosely, I'm working on getting the correct vernacular and it's a little... oppressive. Now the biggest part of my question was how much damage would you take as a player? I'd wager zero, assuming the creature was removed post-first strike.
>>47875864
Correct. A blocked creature remains blocked for the whole of combat, even if everything blocking it no longer exists.
Unless it has trample, it will deal no damage to anything.
>>47875868
Yeah, the jargon can be a little arcane at times. The problem is that in Magic, words mean VERY specific things, so you can't use some interchangeably like you normally would.
For fuck's sake, I stop myself and rewrite sentences so they don't contain "when", because I'm afraid it'll imply that whatever I'm talking about is a trigger when it isn't. That's how ingrained this is in me.
Anyway- zero. Like I said in the post just after yours, a blocked creature stays blocked for all of combat. Since it doesn't have trample, it can't hit you, and since there's no blockers in front of it anymore, it can't hit ANYTHING. This is important if it were, say, a Felidar Sovereign that he gave Double Strike to and you bounced in response. Since it's not damaging anything, he gains no life.
>>47875879
Thanks!
>Trample
So, another question with a rather obvious answer I'm guessing, but assuming in the previous example the Ace had Trample as well, it could assign all 4 damage to defending anon right?
>>47875932
Yep. There's now 0 toughness between the Ace and your Face, so it can assign full damage to aforementioned face.
>>47875974
Thanks again!
>>47875911
>>47875974
I've got to give props where props are due. You always explain things so succinctly and clearly, thanks so much. Do you judge for a living?
>>47875974
Other anon here, what if the defending creature gets bounced after the first strike? The defending creature gets assigned the damage for the first strike combat step, then all the damage goes to face in the normal step right?
>>47876001
>judge for a living
Pic related, I like eating too much for that.
I love Judging, but unless you shack up with an outfit like Starcity it's really hard to judge for a living. I have a day job, and I judge events on the side for a combination of 'extra scratch', 'somehow my hobby involves performing skilled labor on the weekends', and 'I enjoy helping the community'.
>>47876001
Also, one of the reasons I like my threads is because I can go into detail about these things for people who CARE about the details. During an event my judge calls have to be short, because the players don't give a flying fuck why X happens, they just want to know what happens in their situation and then get back to it. So it's nice to be able to explain it at length from time to time.
And thank you for aforementioned props.
>>47876002
Correct. There was a blocker for the first strike step, and not enough damage to kill it, so no trample. After it's bounced, we now have a blocked Trampler with 0 toughness between it and the opponent, so in THAT damage step, it fully domes the opponent.
>>47876072
>>47876040
Fair enough, I guess I'm a little envious.I tutor for a living and I went to school for business continuity/emergency management, so I have to explain extremely technical jargon to simple people all the time. I just wanted to recognize that it's a skill not easily mastered, and you're quite good at it.
It's a shame people at tournaments are so rushed, but I never play outside of my flgs, so I don't have much experience with deadlines and conflicting interests. My experiences with magic are sort of limited to paid drunken card flapping and the occasional prize, so I can understand working/playing in context probably makes you a little jaded.
Do you have a commander deck? I'd be interested to hear what you run, if it's not a trade secret of course.
Can players do "instant speed" actions during the draw step?
If so, would this be before or after the draw for turn, or both?
>>47876217
To be fair, I've been explaining the Magic Comp Rules to 4chan for like 5 years now.
And I'm not jaded about it- I love Judging. It's just not something I could realistically "live" off of, financially speaking.
>do you have a commander deck
I refer you to the above-posted Bender gif. I have like, 7.
>>47876256
There is no such thing as 'speed' in Magic. And yes. You can cast instants or activate abilities (that don't have timing restrictions, mind) during the Draw Step. This is after t he turn-based action of drawing a card. In any step that has a TBA (draw step, Declare Attack, Declare Block, Combat Damage) the TBA happens before anyone has priority.
>>47876333
Wow I gave you scare quotes and you still repeated your faggy "there's no such thing as speed in magic" line
Why do you do that? Is it to emphasize that things without timing restrictions can be done any time?
>>47876470
It's because there's no such thing as speed in Magic. I've seen misunderstandings of the rules sprout from thinking that there's 'speed' in Magic, and I like to nip those problems in the bud rather than let them develop into misunderstandings that cause problems later on.
>>47876490
You can't stop what is already a well established colloquialism tho
It's well known what instant speed means and you just seem condescending when you speak that way
There obviously IS such a thing as speed in magic, just because the official way of establishing this works in reverse (everything is instant speed, unless explicitly restricted by the rules) doesn't mean speed doesn't exist in magic
To clarify what I mean, how exactly are you "nipping misunderstandings in the bud" by refusing to engage with the terminology that most players understand?
Basically you're just an enormous faggot but that's okay, most Judges are
>>47876563
I can't stop it worldwide, but I can try to help people understand that it's an incorrect way of looking at the game. There's not such a thing as speed. I can't do something 'faster' than you, my spells don't resolve first because they're 'faster'. It's a game of priority, not reflexes.
I've seen players think it works like Yugioh, where you can use a Sorcery to respond to a Sorcery, but only an Instant can respond to an Instant, because of that terminology. I've seen players think that they can just "play faster" and tell their opponent that it's too late to respond. I've seen players say "my spell is faster than yours so it resolves first" when they use an instant in response to a Sorcery. All of these examples were rooted in them hearing the terms "instant speed" and "sorcery speed". I understand what the colloquialism is intended to convey, but that doesn't make it correct, and Magic is a game where specific terminology is important.
>>47876634
Only a judge would think that telling a person they are wrong because of the way they said something instead of the idea they were trying to convey is being helpful
>>47876670
I mean, I am paid to be pedantic.
>>47871430
Fuck me this card is so much worse than Complicate. Why would they not just reprint that?
>>47876682
Didn't know they paid you
I'm pretty good at obfuscating things and then condescendingly acting like I'm clarifying things as well I could prolly be a good judge
Never played yugioh tho
How does Altered Ego X = 1 interact when the only creature on the battlefield is an awakened 4/4 West Vale Abbey?
>>47876935
It'll enter as a Westvale Abbey that isn't a creature but has a +1/+1 counter on it.
I control Parallax Wave and Opalescence, making the Wave a creature capable of targeting itself.
I cast Cloudform. In response to its ETB trigger, I exile it with Parallax Wave.
Then I Exile Parallax Wave with itself, returning Cloudform and Wave with five counters back to the battlefield. I repeat this fifty times, manifesting the top fifty cards of my library. Then I target/exile/return each permanent with the Wave (except instants and sorceries), so it returns face-up, effectively flipping my entire library onto the table.
...This is not exactly a rules question, I'm just posting it here in case I missed something and got the interaction wrong.
>>47876634
>>47876490
I know you've been dealing with it for 5 years now, but I wanted to commend your skill in not rising to the anon's rude words, and instead kept calm, cool, and focused. It takes a bigger man to do that, and I was vastly impressed, and fiercely disappointing in my anon brother.
To the anon: Dude, fuck off - he's giving advice and trying to make sure you don't get things wrong - at least come to him like an adult instead of throwing insults to someone who's literally doing nothing but good for you over his use of completely correct correct terminology.
>>47875572
It's useful if you have Maze of With or Reconnaissance out, deal first strike damage, then untap your creature and remove it from combat so it takes no damage, has pseudo-vigilance, and still deals damage.
>>47877019
Nah, seems right. The usual "trick" was to activate Wave like five times and then kill it in response to the activations to perma-exile, but doing it backwards like this works too.
I'll triple-check when I get back from this errand, though.
>>47877388
>it takes a bigger man
To be fair, half of my thread titles are food related.
>>47876333
What's the correct term for "speed" then? Timing? Is it instant timing, or is there a better way to put it?
>>47877584
Sorcery = able to be cast/activated only at any time you have priority during a main phase on your turn, when the stack is empty = This is what people call "sorcery speed", and the templating calls "only any time he or she could cast a sorcery".
Instant = able to be cast/activated at any time you have priority = This is what people call "instant speed", and the card templating calls "as though it had flash", or "any time you could cast an instant". Really no better phrase for it, unless I forgot something.
Been playing for decades but never went into a lgs for fnm for sealed, standard, or tourney play.
What's the most common mistakes people make when trying to shift from kitchen table play to fnm sealed etc play?
Also any other tips you might have would be highly appreciated.
>>47877909
I know all that, but if I want to say "instant speed" but be correct, what is the phrase I should use?
>>47877993
You need lots of creatures in limited. Lots. Also, it should be 17 lands and 23 nonland cards, generally.
>>47876754
>>47876670
>>47876563
>>47876470
>>47876256
Show us on the 'ghoyf where the judge touched you anon.
>>47877993
Removal is your friend.
Priorities:
>creatures
>removal
>battle tricks
>fancy lands
Any super expensive cards are at your discretion.
>>47872140
YGO requires constant rulings from judges just to get the game to work. At least it was that way some time ago.
>>47871430
Just to be sure, new emrakuls extra turn given to opponent can be controlled by casting him again or mindslavering? Also is he really that bad or I am missing something?
>>47877993
- have a poker face during games, don't small-talk with your opponent, don't react to your card draws. You are leaking information to your opponent with anything you say or do.
- on the other hand, always communicate very clearly everything that needs to be communicated, like visible triggers, targets, attackers and blockers, or phase changes.
- always call a judge, if anything happens. They are there to help you. Never believe your opponent about how cards work. Never ask non-judge spectators game-related questions.
>>47877584
>>47877584
What people call "instant speed" is just "stuff you can do whenever you have priority". It doesn't have a restriction on it.
What people call "sorcery speed" is just "during your main phase while you have priority and the stack is empty".
I prefer the way they word the timing restrictions on Equip and Fortify and the discard effects: "Any time you could cast a Sorcery", or just "When you have Priority".
>>47877993
For sealed specifically? Going over 40 cards, undervaluing removal, poor card evaluation skills. All fixable shit.
>>47878197
You'd need to cast another one (or pop your Mindslaver) AFTER you begin controlling their next turn. If you drop multiple Twomrakuls in one turn, their effects don't stack well, they'll just try to apply to the next turn all at once.
>>47878296
I disagree with the "don't small talk". It's possible to be friendly and not-too-curt without giving away info.
One thing to note about removal in recent sets is that you shouldn't be valuing all removal too highly. Yes, you simply need a few pieces of removal, but these days the common removal is clunky, expensive or conditional. Don't overburden your deck.
You should still draft all efficient removal very highly, though. But SOI is a combat-trick heavy format.
If I twincast/fork/copy a modal spell, does it copy the mode that it was declared? Or can you pick an alternate mode for the copy?
>cast invoke the fire mind
>pick does x dmg
>cast twin cast
>???
>>47878841
Thank You
>>47879427
It copies it exactly as it exists on the stack, with the exception that you're allowed to change targets if you like. Modes are locked in, values of X are locked in, whether or not additional costs were paid is locked in.
>>47878841
Yes, but what's a good and correct way of pointing out that you can do something at any time?
>>47879562
"I can do this whenever I have priority"?
There's not some one or two word phrase I can give you that's not either slang or wholly incorrect.
>>47879594
Well, my friends are experienced players, so I guess instant speed is a fine way to put it. Thanks anyway.
Nothing wrong with using "instant speed"
Judges = fags who don't know the rules any better than a normal player
>>47880060
You know, I was on the fence before of what to call the times I could cast an instant, but knowing that judges are fags really helps me with this decision.
So play newmac and follow with a cast of part the waterveil or any other you take an extra turn after this one effects, what order do the turns play out?
Little thought experiment: what's the literally most unremovable creature you could possibly make? Bonus points for using existing mechanics. Best I've got is a delayed self-flicker effect that makes mana to dodge split second, but that gets screwed over by processing.
I vote for newmak or MCMakattack
>>47880060
>Judges = fags who don't know the rules any better than a normal player
While it's true that it's entirely possible for a player to have greater rules knowledge than a judge. The main difference is that the baseline of rules knowledge required to be a judge is higher than the baseline required to play the game. There's also the fact that judges have the final say in interpreting these rules in a tournament (barring them changing their mind or being overruled by a higher ranking judge). Now quit being salty and throwing a shit fit over fucking slang.
>>47880316
Probably something involving emblems since there's currently no way to remove them once they're on the field. So something like
Hexproof
Indestructible
This cards toughness cannot be reduced below 1
0: Exile ~, you get an emblem with "You may pay 0 mana to put ~ on the battlefield from exile, if you do destroy this emblem"
I'm pretty sure that wording is wrong but I think this could stop everything except weird shit that resets the game like Shahrazad or Karn's ult.
>>47873615
I'm calling it Memerakul for now just fyi
>>47880194
The most recent extra turn effect happens first.
>>47880060
>>47880146
Yesterday I went to SeaWorld and asked one of the guides there what kind of fish a Dolphin is. Can you believe he told me that dolphins aren't fish at all? I'm going to call Dolphins fish because SeaWorld is full of fags.
>>47881560
At least one of the posts you quoted was sarcasm.
OP, the most important question, of course, is:
What EDH decks do you currently play?And should I build Ayli Cleric tribal?
>>47871430
Opponent plays something with protection from instants on it, and I play quicken into a sorcery targeting it. Is that legal?
>>47876754
>never played yugioh though
Please don't. Not only is it a power-creep ridden game, the organized play scene focuses a ton on exacting interpretation of rules that vary from shop to shop, even judge to judge. Willing to bet >>47873685 played it a lot, because it's distressingly easy to get into what's called an "irreperable" game state, and GL penalties are handed out like candy (including USC, which can include "calling a judge for a ruling for opponent's cards and being ruled against")
Hey, gA, aspiring L1 here.
I was wondering if you had any advice on how to become a judge/take the test/be good at this stuff.
>>47882037
According to a post upthread, yes. Protection from Instants means protection from Card Type - Instant. A Sorcery is not an Instant, regardless of how you finangle it into the priority rules.
What happens?
Sapphire Charm targeting the germ of a living weapon with the third mode.
Drought vs Omniscience
The difference between Bearer of the Heaves' death trigger and Geist of Saint Traft's Angel's exit trigger when acting with Sundial of the Infinite.
If (P1)Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger and it's trigger targeting a (P2)Phantasmal Image that is copying a Reality Smasher and a (P2)Hallowed Fountain, Image's trigger, (P2)Mana Leak targeting Ulamog, (P1)Remand targeting Ulamog, (P2)Time Stop, and finally (P1)Thought Scour targeting P2. If the stack looks like that, from first cast to last, what goes to the grave and what gets exiled?Don't ruin these too quickly, let some people guess first.
>>47882461
Find an L2+ mentor, hang out with him a lot.
So, the order in which permanents enter the battlefield during a spell resolving actually matters?
Primal Surge and auras, for example, you can stick an aura reveal on any of the stuff you hit thus far, but nothing afterwards?
>>47871430
Thats not Scherzo Magico
Also, welcome back.
So back on topic, I have heard that Magus of the moon's ability is unaffected by Humility. Is this true, and if so, why?
>>47876490
>>47871430
3 scarecrows and a Reaper King are on the board, and I use Ghostway to flicker them all. Do I get to destroy any permanents, or not? If so, how many?
This question has been bugging me lately:
If I Entomb+Goryo's Vengeance back Progenitus (using the trigger-stacking trick from Tin Fins) while my opponent has a Containment Priest or Grafdigger's Cage in play, does Protection from Everything cover their effects.
>>47884114
no it won't. Containment Priest doesn't target and a permanent's ability only works on the battlefield.
>>47884099
3 permanents
>>47884114
Progenitus will never go to the graveyard. It has a replacement effect, not a triggered ability.
>>47883720
>Magus of the moon's ability is unaffected by Humility
It's not affected because its ability applies in layer 4, and Humility's applies in layer 6.
If I have 4 mountains and two valakuts and resolve Primeval Titan do I get 0, 2, or 4 triggers?
>>47871430
No Scherzzo Magico this time?
I probably butchered that but posting from mobile and don't want to tab away to Google it.
>>47885431
Not a judge, but things entering simultaneously "see" each other, as does everything else on the board. Valukut sees a mountain enter, checks how many there are, counts 6 and shocks.
So since you have two valukuts and two mountains entering, each valukut gives two triggers, ending in 4 total.
>>47885792
That's what I thought but I wanted to double check before I go to a tournament this weekend. I want to be able to explain how that interaction works since apparently no one on cockatrice understands it.
>>47885431
>>47885867
If you searched for 2 mountains, then 4 triggers.
Do "cost [amount] less to cast" or "cost [amount] more to cast" affect alternate casting costs?
Ex. If my opponent has a Thalia on the field, do my non-creature madness effects cost more?
>>47885867
Don't be afraid to call a judge if you need to
>>47886875
You're still casting it so yes, Thalia will make your non creature madness cost 1 more.
Can't i just counter the new emrakul with a counterspell? I mean the protection against instants only resolves when he is on the battlefield
>>47887331
You can. The cast trigger is still in effect though, so you still get your next turn controlled by your opponent (and gets an extra turn for yourself after that). But hey, at least you don't have a 13/13 flying trampler to worry about after that.
>>47882726
The token phases out, the equipment phases out. The token is destroyed as a SBA and the equipment never phases back in.
Omniscience only lets you skip mana costs. You still have to sac swamps.
Saint Traft only tries to happen once, at the end of the end of combat step, because that's where it's delayed trigger put it. Bearer is happy with any end step, so it happens the next time one comes up, whether that's this turn or twenty turns from now.
Thought Scour and whatever gets milled by it go to grave. Time stop, remand, mana leak, and newlamog go to exile. Everything else is fine.
>>47880706
wouldn't that get fucked by Hallowed Moonlight and similar effects?
Oh shit, galvanic you still fucking do this? It's been years man
>>47889371
Yeah, when I can. I had to bail last night after work because I was housesitting and had no computer,
Sorry I disappeared, gang! I was housesitting last night and had no access to a computer, and trying to do AAJ on my phone is hell. I'll try to hit the questions I missed last night!
>>47880194
Extra turns are taken "newest first". That said, Twomrakul doesn't give your opponent an extra turn until after their Mindslavered turn, so no matter the order of Twomrakul/Waterveil, you'll take your extra turn right after this one, then your opponent takes their normal Mindslavered turn, then their un-slavered extra, then we're back to normal.
>>47880316
I tend to only deal with cards that exist. I used to help out with theoreticals and custom cards, but it got too frustrating.
>>47880333
Twomrakul/2mrakul is growing on me.
>>47881998
Right now I have
-Trostani Lifegain/Counters/Tokens
-Treva Enchantress Pillowfort
-Gitrog Land Munchin' and Value
-Reaper King Clone Tribal
-Unmodified Daretti
-Zegana, for when I hate the people I'm playing
-Skullbriar All In Aggro
-Mizzix I Can't Believe It's Not Storm
I'm kinda trimming down Skullbriar and Zegana at the moment, might build a new deck soon.
And yes you should.
>>47882067
Yeah, I tried to look into the policies and shit for Yugioh and I could barely find SHIT. All I could find resembling official documents were years-old pages on the Yugioh wiki.
>>47882461
If you feel confident, generate an L1 practice exam and go at it hard. Make a note of every question you guess on/are unsure of. Then, submit it. Double check the ones you guessed, and all the ones you got wrong, and find out WHY you didn't know that. Figure out where your knowledge has gaps, and work on that.
Also, get a mentor.
>>47882037
Things with flash =/= instants. You're good.
>>47882726
>Charm
The creature phases out, and takes the equipment with it. The token stops existing as soon as it phases out, and the equipment will never phase back in because phasing is weird.
>Drought
All-Science only covers the base cost. It won't pay for any additional.
>>47882726
Sorry, ran out of post room.
>Bearer/Geist/Sundial
There isn't one. Both of those things set up a delayed trigger for later. If you pop Sundial PRIOR to that delayed trigger triggering, it'll just wait until the next time one of those steps happens- probably on your opponent's turn. If you use it in RESPONSE to the trigger, the trigger won't fire again later- it already triggered. But it won't resolve, because the Sundial exiled it, so you're good.
>Ulamog
So, cast Ulamog, triggering Image twice over. Above that is the counter war.
Thought Scour resolves, milling 2 cards for P2, and drawing a card for P1.
Time Stop resolves, and ends the turn. Ulamog is exiled, Remand is exiled, Mana Leak is exiled, and the triggers from Phantasmal Image are exiled. end result is that Ulamog, Remand, and Mana Leak are in exile, and the only cards in the graveyard that weren't there earlier are P1's Thought Scour, and the 2 cards that P2 milled from it.
>>47883191
Primal Surge is weird because it puts them out one at a time- for that, the order does matter, for things like Auras exactly as you said.
Most similar effects just throw shit out all at once, or throw out all the non-enchantments first and then the enchantments (like Warp World).
>>47883720
Hah, whoops.
Magus is affected by Humility, but not in a useful way. The Magus' ability works in layer 4, which is 2 layers before it gets removed by Humility. So the ability IS removed, but that doesn't stop it because layers are weird.
>>47884099
Three permanents. Pumpkin Jack will 'see' the three Scarecrows come back with him at the end of the turn, and trigger appropriately.
>>47884114
Nope. Protection only works on the board, and even there it only stops Damage Enchant/Equip Block Target. Priest and Cage try to do none of these, so protection doesn't work.
Also, unsure how you got Progenitus into your graveyard with Entomb, considering there's no trigger to stack.
In short, That Ain't Falco.
>>47885431
Assuming you get two Mountains? Each one will trigger both your Valakuts, so that's 4 triggers.
>>47885553
I accidentally uploaded the wrong one from my work computer.
>>47886875
Yes. You take the cost in the upper right (or the alternate cost, if you're paying one), then you apply taxes like Thalia, then you apply discounts like the Bannerets and Medallions, then Trinisphere.
>>47885867
Never be afraid to call a Judge at an event. You can even ask questions away from the table- just make sure to keep it confined to rules questions. We can't give advice or strategy.
>>47887331
Yes. They still get to eat your next turn though.
>>47887851
Close on the token- it isn't destroyed, it just stops existing.
And Geist's trigger doesn't say the end of THIS combat, it says 'end of combat', which means "At the beginning of the next End of Combat Step", which may not be during this turn.
>>47890439
So, Genesis Waved auras need to attach to stuff that wasn't on the battlefield already, huh?
Fuck, I was so adamant about this too. I really thought that didn't matter as it was all part of a spell resolving.
>>47890473
Yep, because they're coming down alongside all the other shit. Genesis Wave'd Clones can't copy any of the stuff you hit with Wave either, they can only copy what existed before you started Waving.
>>47890488
Hey, if you cast a Cascade card as part of spell or ability resolution, do you resolve the cascade before the rest of the spell? Or since cascade is a triggered ability, you wait for everything to be done first?
>>47890556
You cast your spell, and it goes on the stack because that's like the second step of casting a spell (or part of the first, depending on how you look at it).
Once it is fully cast, Cascade triggers, and that trigger goes on the stack ABOVE your spell.
Cascade resolves, finds a card, and casts it. Now that Cascade is done resolving, you can resolve the spell that it found. THEN you resolve the original Cascade-having spell.
>>47875636
Oh, so that means Hixus is a check to double strike, since his trigger comes out before the second damage of the attacking creature comes out. Interesting.
>>47890572
Sure. You could flash in Hixus before damage, get smacked once, and then Hixus sends them to space jail before they can slap you a second time.
I'm pretty sure I know the answer here, but I just want to make sure on this because the wording on one of the cards is a bit odd. I have Experiment Kraj and Seasinger out, and Seasinger has a +1/+1 counter on it granting Kraj Seasinger's abilities. If I tap Kraj to steal a creature, will it remain under my control for as long as Kraj remains tapped, or as long as Seasinger remains tapped? It should be Kraj since the ability will then be his name, but again awkward wording, just want to be sure.
>>47890562
Right. I knew that much, I just wanted to check if that is true even if you are say, in the middle of resolving a Mizzix Mastery overload?
Just seems weird for a triggered ability to resolve in the middle of spell resolution.
>>47890609
Kraj. When a card refers to itself by name, it just means "THIS EXACT OBJECT". When Kraj steals abilities, just slam "Experiment Kraj" in where the cards refer to themselves.
If a card actually cares about names, it'll be very explicit, like Crown of Empires.
>>47890611
>Just seems weird for a triggered ability to resolve in the middle of spell resolution.
It seems weird because that's impossible, and also not what happens.
Cascade isn't part of the spell's effect. Cascade is a trigger that triggers when the spell is CAST.
>>47890643
Sure, but Mizzix Mastery is a spell that casts copies.
So, sorry, I am not getting it and being dumb, so I am gonna have to go into more detail.
Say I have the following instant or sorceries in my graveyard, Bituminous Blast, Prophetic Bolt, Ponder.
I cast Mizzix Mastery Overload. I cast the copies in the following order, Ponder, Bitblast, Prophetic Bolt.
Does Cascade's trigger resolve BEFORE Prophetic Bolt? Or should I finish all the spells from Mizzix then resolve the trigger?
I know Cascade normally happens before the spell with cascade is done resolving due to the stack, but when it is happening as part of another spell or ability resolution, that's when I am confused.
>>47890643
So if I cast confront the unknown on Erdwall Illuminator, it only gets +1/+1, cause the trigger of Erdwall Illuminator only comes after confront the unknown is resolved completely. Correct?
>>47890678
So, you cast those spells as part of the Mastery resolving. Normally you can't cast spells while an object on the stack is resolving (because you don't have priority), but Mastery LETS you- and again, casting and resolving are different things.
So, those spells are cast, and anything that triggers from it (Counterbalance, Kraken's Eye, or the Cascade on BitBlast) all trigger, and go on the stack AFTER your Mastery fully resolves. Those triggers will resolve, and THEN your spells will resolve.
Cascade isn't 'resolving' while a spell resolves. Cascade TRIGGERS when you cast a spell, and then that trigger RESOLVES before the Cascade-having-spell does.
Savvy?
>>47890692
Right. You'll investigate during the resolution of the spell, which triggers Illuminator, but that trigger can't actually go onto the stack until the spell is done resolving. So you'll investigate, give your ghost +1/+1, and then you investigate again.
Can you equip artifacts as "instant" when youre attacking? Cause my friends keep fucking me over
>>47871430
How do the game rules manage a player conceding in a multiplayer game at weird times? Say
Alice, Bob and Claire are playing and Alice controls a Llanowar Elves. Bob casts Void, choosing 1 and targeting Claire. If Claire were to concede with Void on the stack, the Void would be countered by having no legal target and the Elf would live, correct?
There were also some more weird concession cases we had come up, but I'll post those when I remember them.
>>47890728
Most activated abilities can be activated any time you have priority- the same time you could cast instants. During someone else's turn, in response to stuff, during combat, etc.
Equip specifically has a rider that it can only be activated "any time you could cast a sorcery". Meaning the only time you can Equip is during your own main phase while the stack is empty. Unless they have a Leonin Shikari, they can't switch their equipment around during combat.
Now, there's a handful of Equipment that have a second activated ability that isn't actually "EQUIP", like Cranial Plating. That ability they CAN activate during combat. But just regular Equip? Nah.
>>47890737
Technically speaking, the Void would be countered for that exact reason. That said, the only sanctioned multiplayer games are 2HG (and even then, almost exclusively Regular REL at prereleases, thank god) so it doesn't really come up much in tournaments.
In non-tournament settings, it is technically legal to scoop to fuck up someone's day, but it is generally considered "a dick move".
>>47890716
>>47890716
Oh? Spells don't resolve in the middle of other spells, even in the case of shit like Mizzix Mastery? Fuck, that makes sense.
So, another thing that means is I can't decide to keep or shuffle with the ponder before I have determined an order for the Bitblast and Prophetic Bolt, huh?
>>47890791
Right.
You can -cast- a spell during the resolution of something (if that something tells you to, such as Mizzix's Mastery, or hell, Cascade), but you can't RESOLVE a spell during the resolution of something else, because the rules say for an object on the stack to resolve it has to be the topmost object on the stack, and then all players have to pass priority consecutively without adding to the stack.
You'll cast all the spells for Mastery all at once, in the order of your choosing. You'll decide whether to pay additional costs (like Kicker) at this time, you'll choose modes for modal spells, and you'll select targets for everything. Then, anything that triggered from all your spellslinging goes onto the stack. Once those triggers resolve, your spells start to resolve in the order you already locked in.
Even if you put Ponder on the stack last so it resolves first, you'll have long since locked in the 'order' of BitBlast and Prophetic Bolt by the time Ponder is resolving.
>>47890817
Makes sense, but shows that I've clearly been cheating for a while. Fuck. I might be too dumb for my Jori En deck (and no Bitblast in Jori En, but the Minotaur would've made me have to find a much more complicated example).
I'll keep that in mind. Why the fuck am I playing a deck with Eye of the Storm and Mind's Desire?
>>47890869
Cheating requires intent. What you've been doing is "being human". You made a mistake based on how you thought it worked, and then you specifically sought out someone to help you understand if you were doing it right. That ain't cheating, friendo.
>>47890778
Cool. Next question. Alice activates Selvala's mana ability. Can Bob concede fast enough to not reveal a card for Selvala, or is the mana ability not using the stack so instantaneous that Bob's library has to be taken into account?
>>47890875
True. I just keep getting frustrated because I feel I know the rules the best in my playgroup, but I still somehow fuck up basic concepts. Which means at any given time a rules questions comes up, I end up being completely stubborn when there is still a pretty good chance of me being completely wrong.
Then I seem like the idiot. Especially when I like, let it slide and then try to bring it up after the game. It usually is fine, but those times when I do fuck up and teach someone the wrong thing, it serves to annihilate any credibility I have.
I need to just do the fucking rules advisor test and get it over with. I won't ever be a judge but at least I won't keep making these easy mistakes.
>>47890909
Technically speaking you can concede at any time. If Bob wants to concede before revealing the card, that's fine, but if Bob picks up the card to see what it is before he decides to concede, I'm gonna be less friendly about it.
>>47890910
RA test doesn't exist anymore, I'm afraid. We phased it out because it wasn't necessary.
Your real problem is the stubbornness you mentioned. It's okay to be wrong. Hell, I'm wrong a nonzero amount of the time. Just accept it, learn from it, and move on. You only feel stupid when you fight tooth and nail and end up wrong.
Something that would be good to have clarification on because searching online gets you a lot of different answers:
Food Chain in commander -
1. If you exile your commander using Food Chain's ability and put your commander into the command zone, do you get the mana?
2. Mana from FC can only be used to cast creature spells - does casting your commander from the command zone count as 'casting' a creature spell I'm this sense and can the mana from FC be used?
If this works the way I think it does then you can infinitely abuse any commander with an etb ability.
>>47890937
Damn. But the thing is a lot of the time, I am right. I guess it never is important enough to keep going. Especially without checking first.
I was right about the clone of Kozilek dying situation though. Even though everyone was like, but it is Kozilek when it dies, blah blah blah.
But yeah, fair enough. No RA test? What are my options now?
>>47890937
Good point. In my mind Bob scooped before even looking at his library. Here's another one (also thank you so much for making these threads!)
Alice controls an Aven Riftwatcher that belongs to Bob. She's at 1 life. Claire casts a Gut Shot targeting Alice. If Bob were to concede with the gut shot on the stack, the Aven would get exiled, right? Would Alice get a leaves the battlefield trigger off Bob's Aven ceasing to exist?
Also something unrelated: Can I insist on my opponent cutting my deck after shuffling at an FNM? I ask because I always want my opponents to cut so I can't put the entire blame on me if I draw badly. It's a psychological thing. But sometimes opponents decline to cut even if I ask them to. Could a judge make them?
>>47891051
Unless the head judge of the tournament specifically requires it, randomizing your opponent's deck is not required at Regular REL.
You could try to talk them into it, but if a player came to me and requested that I'd probably just say no.
>>47891048
Make an account and log in to the judge center. Take the easy rules practice test until you can consistently get 90+% on it. Also, read the comp rules though once. You don't have to memorize anything, but it helps (IMO) to have seen everything.
>>47890980
First thing - Yes. Food Chain's mana isn't dependent on the creature actually ending up in exile- you can shunt it to the Command Zone and still get your mana just fine. Otherwise, Prossh would be slightly less irritating.
Second thing, yes. It's a creature spell. The fact that it 'started' in Command Zone instead of your hand is irrelevant.
Also, you're not gonna 'go infinite' with most commanders, since Food Chain gives you their CMC+1, not "what you paid +1". If you exile a 5 drop Commander, you get 6 mana, and it now costs 7 to cast them. If you have a spare mana kicking around and exile them again... you get 6 mana, and now costs 9 to cast them.
>>47891048
You can generate a practice L1 test, but there's no 'intermediary' step between Judge Candidate and L1 now.
>>47891051
If Bob leaves the game, everything he owns goes with him, like the Riftwatcher. The Riftwatcher would trigger, so we're good.
>Cutting
You can 'insist' on it the same way I can 'insist' that everyone call me Lord Fancypants The Mighty. IE, that will not happen. Any time you randomize your deck, you need to present it to your opponent so they have a chance to shuffle it. If you cut it after they shuffle, they just shuffle it again- the only way you can be the last person to randomize your deck is if you present it to your opponent and they decline to shuffle.
tl;dr don't fuck with your deck after your opponent shuffles it.
>>47891148
If I saw a player trying to talk their opponent into allowing a cut post-opponent-shuffle I would be suspecting some Cheating in a hurry. Don't do it.
>>47891171
>trying to talk their opponent into allowing a cut post-opponent-shuffle
I meant talk the HJ into requiring it, not talk the opponent into doing it. Because yeah, that looks sketchy.
>>47891192
Trying to talk ME into allowing it might be worse.
>>47891051
You realise that makes you look like a cheater, right? You can stack your deck so it's roughly how you want it after it's cutt, so not cutting fucks that strategy over.
>>47891171
I'm not sure if we're on the same page with the cutting question. I specifically want by opponent to be the last person to touch my deck. I want them to cut or shuffle after I shuffle. But sometimes they don't want to be the last person to touch my deck and decline the offer to cut it. The other poster seems to understand what I mean.
>>47891214
Okay, I had it completely backwards.
Yeah, just leave it alone. Offer the cut/shuffle, and if they decline, just move on. It's not a big deal.
>>47891227
Okay cool thanks.
I just did some rather ridiculous thinking re: talk them into it. If i say to my opponent in this situation "Look, I'll buy you a Snickers if you shuffle my deck", could that be considered bribing or cheating?
>>47891251
Alright, I'm going to try to be a little more clear on this.
Stop. Worrying. About. It. Offer the deck for a cut, and if they don't cut, just take your deck back. Worrying about it and trying to bully or coerce or force them into cutting your deck makes you look suspicious as shit. Let it go.
>>47890439
can you explain why humility doesnt stop magus of the moon more?
i thought magus of the moon's ability would be dependent on humility, because humility is unaffected by magus but magus would be affected by humility
>>47892552
Dependencies only happen if two abilities interact in the same layer, like Magus of the Moon and Urborg.
This is untrue here- Magus of the Moon works in layer 4, the type-changing layer. Humility works in layer 6 (ability adding/removing) and Sublayer 7b (setting P/T to a specific number). There's no dependency because the effects aren't interacting in the same layer.
I don't actually own any MTG cards.
would my opponent be within his rights to disqualify me if I attempt to use normal playing cards with drawn monsters on them?
>>47892593
Not at all.
But only because the HJ is the one who disqualifies you.
>>47892571
do you know why the order of the layers exists as it does?
seems like every weird, counterintuitive corner case has to do with layers
was it intended that humility not work against some abilities?
also i still dont understand why, even if magus's ability "works first", it wouldnt immediately end when humility's effect happens
dont continuous static abilities have to "be out" to work, so to speak, if you kill magus of the moon, the ability is gone and the lands go back to normal, so why doesnt removing the ability do the same?
>>47892620
Because Humility and Opalescence. Prior to that most every interaction between continuous effects was easy enough to suss out, but with that it was "Wow fuck how does this work", so they wrote the rules specifically to dictate how those continuous effects work together.
I'm not sure the specific REASON they put 'mucking with abilities' in layer 6, which is where the confusion usually comes from- creatures that have abilities messing with other stuff can do it even with their abilities gone because of that. You'd have to ask the people who write the rules, I just enforce them.
How the layers work is you go through them one at a time, applying anything that needs to apply. So, in layer 1 (Copy), nothing- Magus isn't a copy of anything. This is also the layer where something would copy Magus, without any other effects mucking with it (which is why Cloning something with counters doesn't copy counters already on it)
Then in Layer 2, control, same deal. Nothing's messing with control. Ditto in 3, Text. In layer 4 though, Magus' ability kicks in and overrides all the nonbasics with MOUNTAIN. Then in layer 5, color, nothing. In layer 6, the ability is removed, but that doesn't matter.
I think it's a matter of perspective. You're looking at it as "We go through the layers, get to an end result, and then apply that to everything", but that's not how it works. The game has all of those effects going off constantly- they're continuous. That ability 'still exists' in layer 4, so it still works. If you kill the Magus, that ability is no longer existent, because the Magus is dead.
It is a little weird, but it doesn't come up much. I don't know why they wrote it this way, but I'm sure they had their reasons, and my job is just to enforce the rules.
>>47892678
cool yeah i think im beginning to understand
there's something about "removing abilities" that could lead to unresolvable paradoxes if it wasnt done this way
im imagining stuff like myco lattice march of the machines humility
if we had humility's effect take ultimate precedence like it did in my imagination, there would be no way to resolve that board state because humility only removes the abilities of creatures and myco lattice and march of the machines are only creatures in virtue of their abilities
this is basically the same as the opalescence humility case
okay im satisfied
i assume when they designed humility, they expected it to remove abilities like magus of the moon's, but over time it became clear that the current layer method is necessary (or one of multiple potential necessary methods, at least) and the awkwardness with magus of the moon is just a side effect
>>47892849
I'd imagine that layers work the way that they do because it breaks the fewest possible things. There are still some awkward interactions, but probably fewer than there would be otherwise.
>>47892849
Yeah. It is a little non-intuitive, but I honestly don't know that there's a better method that doesn't create more problems, and the vast majority of players will never really CARE about the underlying system, they just memorize "This works like X".
>>47892890
>>47892884
>>47892849
>>47892678
>>47892620
moral of the story is humility is bullshit and only fags play it
>>47890370
>Yeah, I tried to look into the policies and shit for Yugioh and I could barely find SHIT. All I could find resembling official documents were years-old pages on the Yugioh wiki.
That's because there are no such documents or formalized rulings. Rules are propogated by precedent, and if there isn't one yet then whoever rules on the interaction first sets precedent.
Fun question: Which of the following actions is NOT penalized by a game loss in YGO?
>Looking at your sideboard during a match.
>Spinning an opponent's card around so you can read it
>Calling a judge over your opponent's rules interaction, turns out they were correct
>Reanimating a creature and putting the card on the field, but your opponent counters the reanimation spell.
>Refusing to answer an opponent's request for derived information.
There is one correct answer here.
>>47892908
Humility is ass, but at least it's not Grip of Goddamned Motherfucking Chaos. Or hive mind.
I got called to a commander game where there was a Hive Mind, a Copy Enchantment copying Hive Mind, and a Chain of Plasma on the stack. Flowcharts and puppets were involves sorting it out.
>>47892933
Knowing how bat-shit Yugioh is, I'm gonna guess the last one.
Looking at your sideboard would probably be construed as you consulting notes from outside the game, or slow play.
Spinning an opponent's card is probably "NO TOUCHING OTHER PLAYER'S CARDS, GAME LOSS"
Calling a Judge to ask a question and being wrong is probably them "punishing" rules lawyering/trying to weaponize the Judges
The reanimation thing is probably "you broke the rules by putting your monster on board when the effect was countered"
And because Yugioh is insane, the last one is "You don't have to answer that".
I figured they at least had an equivalent to an IPG- I know that their 'comprehensive' rules are anything but, and that as far as rulings on cards it's almost entirely precedent-based and not formalized (similar to how Magic was pre-6th Edition), but I didn't realize that applied to TOURNAMENT rules as well. So there's really no way for a player to look up what stuff could get them penalized in a tournament? They just have to hope for the best?
>>47892949
I have scooped to Grip of Chaos before because I just don't feel like dealing with that bullshit.
I'm also glad that the only time I've ever been 'called' for a question like that it wasn't a formal tournament, and I knew they did it on purpose just to frustrate me, so I just said "haha no" and went to Burger King.
>>47892949
The best part is when they're halfway though resolving whatever convoluted interaction they've cooked up and have gotten parts of it wrong. Trying to unravel that is a mess.
>oh, we're resolving Warp World? Better resolve all of those LTB/ETB triggers midway through, and attempt to counter objects that WW is putting onto the battlefield.
That particular one was solved by four out of six involved parties packing up and starting a new game.
Also had a judge call last night where a player asked if they could move their opponent's Cranial Plating to their Spellskite, learned that that didn't work, and then called me over to the table to let me know that they'd gotten it wrong the previous game. It's like... great, thanks for telling me, is the gamestate currently correct? It is? Alright, play on.
>>47892978
Nope, it's the 2nd one. You were right that "no touchy opponent's cards", However that is actually a DQ and not a game loss.
Sideboard is Outside Notes
You're right on the "weaponizing judges" which was actually a tactic for a time
Reanimation thing is actually "your graveyard order has changed, the game state is irreperable"
There is no such thing as derived information. If the card has been face up in a public zone at any point during the MATCH, everything regarding it is free information.
>So there's really no way for a player to look up what stuff could get them penalized in a tournament? They just have to hope for the best?
Those documents are only available to judges. If a judge were to leak them, it would violate NDA and they'd be banned from the game for life.
If you have Vildin-Pack Alpha out your werewolves hit the battle field on their front side as human, then you can transform them, correct? So say you cast Huntmaster of the Fells, his ETB triggers and you get a 2/2 RG wolf, then you transform him and then Ravager of the Fells transform trigger happens, dealing two damage to a creature and the opponent that controls that creature, correct?
>>47893438
Yeah. Huntmaster will trigger its own ETB, and since a werewolf entered play VPA will trigger its ability. You'll stack those in whichever order you choose. After VPA resolves and flips huntmaster, his "on transform" trigger will activate and go on the stack (it's possible that Huntmaster's ETB trigger is still on the stack. This is fine.) and eventually resolve.
Sorry, back now!
>>47893060
Jesus. Who signed off on this? Who thought this was a good idea?
And I searched a bit about it on the Yugioh subreddit (which was the least confusing Yugioh discussion place I could find) and there was a discussion about a HJ getting a ruling 'wrong', and people were panicking because until a higher level judge corrected him that was the law of the land?
What fucking year is it?
>>47893438
Yes. They come down Sunny-Side Up (and trigger, for things like Huntmaster), THEN flip over. They don't enter transformed, they enter and THEN transform.
>>47894204
>there was a discussion about a HJ getting a ruling 'wrong', and people were panicking because until a higher level judge corrected him that was the law of the land?
Pretty much! And that works on many levels. Don't forget that if the higher level judge issues the corrected ruling, that first judge can go "no, that's dumb, it's this way" and continue to rule on it - and if he's HJ, then his rules go.
That's about the only thing that's the same between the two games - once the head judge rules, that ruling is Final, period, no questions asks.
>>47894490
To be fair, "The HJ's word is law" applies in Magic too, but we generally trust our judges not to just arbitrarily ignore written policy and do whatever they want.
I just think it's insane that a HJ's ruling can apply to FUTURE events unless they get overturned.
I also saw some wording that seemed to imply there's one person who's basically the Grand High Judge of All Creation and overrules everyone forever. I've also HEARD horror stories about Judges having to make up a ruling on the spot for new cards (I think it was XYZs?) because even though the cards had been out for a week or two, the official rules for them hadn't been written yet (despite those cards having existed in Japan for like 3 months already)
Also, how do you know so much about this crazy nonsense? Former judge, former player?
>>47894548
Former player. Very emphasis on FORMER.
Oh right, there's one other thing! Any rulings made in Japan or it's sphere of influence (SK, Hong Kong, Phillipines, Singapore, Thailand and a few others - collectively called the "OCG") has no bearing the rules OUTSIDE of that sphere of influence (Referred colloqially as "TCG")
OCG rulings often come first because the cards are played there first, but TCG has no requirement or duty to adhere to those rulings - and they will often differ.
In OCG events, all cards must be in your registered nation's native language, or Japanese. In TCG Events, all cards must be in your registered nation's native language, or English. Failure to adhere to this policy is grounds for a DQ for marked cards.
> I've also HEARD horror stories about Judges having to make up a ruling on the spot for new cards (I think it was XYZs?) because even though the cards had been out for a week or two, the official rules for them hadn't been written yet.
The """Offician Rules""" in the sense of like a set's release notes is a completely foreign concept to them. They don't exist.
>>47894677
So when they introduce entirely new mechanics like Synchros, XYZs, Pendulum- the onus is 100% on the judges to decide how the cards 'actually' work?
HOW DOES THIS GAME STILL EXIST
>>47894548
Also, if I were a former judge I wouldn't be able to say half of what I am because of NDA.
>>47894722
So, let me get this straight. All of this stuff is hidden behind an "NDA" for Judges, to the point that they can't even explain the documents that back up their penalties, but players just piece it together by talking to each other anyway.
God, I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of their version of the IPG being some arcane clandestine document. What good does that do, except empower them to just make up and delete penalties as they see fit?
>>47894698
The game tells you "do these actions to arrive at this result." That is made clear to everyone.
What abilities might activate, trigger, used in response to, or counter/prevent those actions or results is 100% a judgement call, based mostly on the best analogs they can construct from previous cases.
>>47894756
I remember asking a judge if he could explain why he ruled something one way, when an extremely similar interaction was very well known and accepted to go the other way. He said "because it's different." I asked if he could show why it was different. Said that there was nothing to show, and that "it just is different."
I then asked how he knew it was different if there's no documentation to explain what made it different. He said, and I quote, "I'm legally not allowed to say anything on that matter. By the way, you're DQd for unsporting conduct for threatening a judge. Get out."
It was on that day that I swore to never play that game ever again.
If I have an Angelic Destiny in play and I cast Copy Enchantment on it, does Copy Enchantment return to my hand if the creature it's enchanting dies?
>>47894826
I repeat my previous question of "how does this game still exist"
Several of the people in my group are ex YGO grinders, and all I've heard is how expensive the game can be, how volatile the secondary market is (you might drop 200, 300 dollars for a deck and then two weeks later your cards are literally worthless), how rampant cheating and theft are at the large events, and how oppressive the metagame tends to be.
Now on top of that, I hear all of this asinine bullshit about judging (is it true there's only one "level" of Judge, and that you only need to pass an online test with no prerequirements to become one?), I honestly don't understand how this game hasn't imploded on the competitive level yet.
>>47894871
Yep! It'll come down as an Angelic Destiny, attached to whatever creature you want. When that creature dies, SBAs will put your Copy!Destiny into the graveyard, and then the trigger from "enchanted creature dies" goes on the stack. It looks for the Copy!Destiny in your graveyard, finds it, and puts it into your hand.
>>47894871
I believe so, yes. When the enchanted creature dies, that triggers Destiny (or the copy). SBAs sweep it to the graveyard because it's an aura attached to nothing, but there's still that trigger that says "bring me back to hand" and the game can keep track of it for the purposes of resolving that trigger.
>>47894909
>>47894917
Neat, thanks!
>>47894909
> I've heard how expensive the game can be
Rarity = power. Not only that, but konami has 3 months of OCG play before printing the TCG cards - and they can adjust rarities to make sure product sells.
Each pack has 8 commons and 1 Rare. (among 5 different rarities of Rare, ranging from 1:1 pack to 1:23 packs) Each tier of rarity has one card that is "short-printed", doubling its rarity - so a short print ScR (secret rare, highest rarity for normal sets) is 1:46 packs. Twice there have been commons in the OCG that are short-print secret rare in TCG, inflating their price fifty-fold or more.
>how volatile the secondary market is
The volatility has gone up since Konami went to a "we're no longer making banned/limited list adjustments at set dates. We'll do it when we do it, and they go into effect 2 weeks after we announce them."
Having cards (or decks) being potentially banned or unbanned is the main source of volatility in the market anymore.
> how rampant cheating and theft are at the large events
If your opponent doesn't catch it, you're home free. Spectators and judges aren't allowed to point it out. To say nothing of theft. (which is why touching opponent's cards without their explicit permission is a snap-DQ)
>and how oppressive the metagame tends to be.
Most formats range from Shards-Zen Standard (With Jund being the clear deck to beat but other decks do exist) to Caw-Blade Standard. (maybe 2 viable decks in the format). It's rare that the game has a pure type 0 deck a la Affinity or Modern Eldrazi, but it has happened a few times.
>>47895100
>Spectators and judges aren't allowed to point out cheating
>>47895148
Judges are arbiters of dispute. If there's no dispute they have to keep quiet.
Contrast to MTG where I remember watching an FNM on twitch, someone cracked a scalding tarn for a swamp, and after chat collectively pointed it out a judge came in and fixed it (he was still shuffling his deck so it wasn't hard to do)
>>47895184
I guess it might just be a difference of philosophy. In Magic, we're not 'arbiters of dispute', we're there to make sure shit doesn't go fucky. We're told not to step in for CERTAIN things (missed triggers, mostly), but if we notice someone taking an illegal action (intentionally or no) we have to step in and stop it before it gets worse.
I don't know where I heard this and it seems laughably dumb, but I figured I'd check. Someone told me once that if a transformed card goes into exile or the graveyard or what not, you don't flip it back to the sunny side until it would go into a hidden zone like hand or library.
That can't be true, right?
>>47896257
Technically the Night Side doesn't even exist in zones that aren't the battlefield. So, they're not quite right.
What they might mean is that it's common for people to play DFCs in opaque sleeves and not transform them back to Sunny Side Up until they hit a hidden zone, just to save time.
Say I attack with Alesha who smiles at Death and I target a Thraben Inspector as her ability is put on the stack. Do I have to pay the two mana as I announce the target? Or when it resolves? If Thraben Inspector would be exiled before resolving, say by way of a Tormod's Crypt sacrifice, could I opt out of paying the mana?
Does the ability even go on the stack if I don't pay? I'm a bit confused by the exact steps and their order.
>>47896397
You pay as it resolves. If your opponent fucks with your graveyard after you pick your target, but before your ability begins resolving, you can just elect to not pay the mana as the trigger resolves.
>>47896326
That makes more sense. It doesn't really matter one way or another, but it is always sunny outside of battlefields. I figured, but what they said confused me.
>>47896454
Oh sweet, thank you. We always had long confusing and confused discussions on commander nights over this.
>>47896397
Alesha has what's called an "interveneing if" clause. Means if you decide to use the ability and pick a target, you do so - if you can't, the game ignores the ability outright. You put the trigger on the stack, pay costs, etc. etc. That's all part of using (not activating!) the ability
The game then checks again when it's about to resolve to make sure everything is correct (the creature's power is 2 or less and in the graveyard) before bringing it back. If not, it fizzles.
If they respond with a way to exile the target, or make it illegal somehow, then the game counters the ability and you don't get the mana back.
If you don't pay, the ability just vanishes.
>>47896530
It actually does not have an intervening if clause. An intervening if clause is always going to be worded as "Whenever [TRIGGER], if [CONDITION], [EFFECT]". Examples would include Angel of Deliverance, or Dominator Drone.
The "if you do" part on Alesha isn't intervening, it just means "only do THIS part if you did the immediately preceding action of paying W/B W/B". If you do, you keep going down that ability's text. If you didn't, you just stop- the ability is now done resolving.
