All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
 
A Reckoning on Kamigawa
 
The Magic Market Index for Oct 20, 2017
 
The Magic Market Index for Oct 13, 2017
  • posted a message on Reverberate copied spell resolution speed vs original spell and damage
    When you copy a spell, it will go on the stack above the original (C.R. 405.2, 706.10) and get to resolve before the original (C.R. 116.4). In the case of Mogg Infestation, all creatures controlled by the player targeted by the copy will be destroyed when the copy resolves (C.R. 608.2c), and this will happen before the original Mogg Infestation gets to resolve. If an ability (such as Aether Flash's ability) triggers when a spell resolves (such as a copy of Mogg Infestation), that spell goes to the graveyard (C.R. 608.2k) before that ability goes to the stack (C.R. 116.3b, 116.5) (and to continue the example, the abilities that trigger this way will go on the stack above the original Mogg Infestation and get to resolve before that spell).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on 702.121a You can choose to tap zero creatures to crew a Vehicle
    Quote from proudawesome »
    …rather, you choose "any number" of creatures you control, as long as those creatures have total power N or greater, then tap those creatures.
    That sounds good, but that’s not what the rules say.
    The crew ability's cost should be read "Tap a subset of untapped creatures you control, where the creatures in that subset have total power N or greater", not—
    • "Tap any number of creatures among untapped creatures you control with total power N or greater", or
    • "Tap any number of creatures among a subset of untapped creatures you control, where the creatures in that subset have total power N or greater".
    If you believe C.R. 702.121a is ambiguous, then how that rule should be worded to resolve that ambiguity is not a question that can be answered in this forum.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on 702.121a You can choose to tap zero creatures to crew a Vehicle
    When paying for the crew ability, you don't determine a subset of untapped creatures you control with total power N or greater, then choose to tap "any number" of creatures in that subset (e.g., tap some of those creatures but not others); rather you choose "any number" of untapped creatures you control, as long as the creatures chosen this way have total power N or greater, then tap the creatures chosen this way.

    Similarly, with Aetherborn Marauder, you choose "any number" of +1/+1 counters among other permanents you control, then move those counters onto Aetherborn Marauder.

    Similarly, you target the number of creature cards for Bone Harvest (C.R. 601.2c); only when Bone Harvest resolves are those cards put into the library.

    EDIT: Clarification after comment 10 was posted, and again after comment 12 was posted.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on 702.121a You can choose to tap zero creatures to crew a Vehicle
    The "any number" on the crew ability (C.R. 702.121a) means only that the number of creatures tapped to pay for that ability doesn't matter, as long as their total power is equal to or greater than the crew number. That ability's activation cost doesn't say—
    • "Tap any number of untapped creatures you control" (including zero under C.R. 107.1c) without more, or
    • "Tap any number of untapped creatures you control each with power N or greater" (that is, each creature tapped this way must have power N or greater),
    but "Tap any number of untapped creatures you control with total power N or greater" (C.R. 702.121a).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Commander in library
    Quote from user_938036 »
    Rule 903.9. should cover exiling it face down because being your commander isn't a property that can be hidden, which is why even while morphed commanders still deal commander damage.


    You are correct on that point. Under C.R. 406.3, "[a] card exiled face down has no characteristics", but a card's commander quality is not a characteristic (C.R. 903.3; see also C.R. 109.3), so that quality is unaffected even if that card is face down. (Note that C.R. 707.9 applies only to face-down permanents and spells, not also to face-down cards in exile.)
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Question about Slow Play
    In a sanctioned tournament, M.T.R. 2.3 requires only that pregame procedures, such as modifying the sideboard and shuffling, "must be performed in a timely manner", without imposing a specific time limit. That doesn't necessarily mean, though, that players may "take excessive time sideboarding or shuffling".
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Platinum Emperion + Death wish
    You can still cast Death Wish despite Platinum Emperion's ability (compare Death Wish with Necrologia, which requires you to pay life as part of its cost -- and you can't pay 1 or more life if you control Platinum Emperion [C.R. 101.2, 118.4; see also C.R. 118.8, 117.3]). And when Death Wish resolves, you still do as much as possible even though you won't lose any life due to that spell (assuming you still control Platinum Emperion by then) (C.R. 101.3).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Fading without adding counters
    Cloudskate will have fade (not: fading) counters on it as it enters the battlefield (C.R. 702.31a, 614.1c, 614.12), so it will have those counters before the state-based action sends it to the graveyard for having toughness 0 or less (C.R. 116.5, 704.5f, C.R. 704.4). In general, however, this will matter only if another effect cares if a creature enters or leaves the battlefield with those counters, and no such effects are present in this scenario.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Artifact destruction
    Splinter can target any artifact, even if it normally isn't one (for example, if it's an artifact only due to Liquimetal Coating's effect) (see also C.R. 205.2b). Splinter, however, doesn't destroy that artifact, but rather exiles it (see the updated Oracle text [C.R. 108.1]).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Current issues with the comprehensive rules of Magic
    The issues "Grafdigger's Cage after the Amonkhet rules update", "Triggered abilities during the cleanup step", and "Illegal targets and their active involvement" are now moot, except for the issue that "Illegal targets, if any, won't be affected by parts of a resolving spell's effect for which they're illegal." should probably say "... resolving spell's or resolving ability's effect ...".
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on God-pharaoh's gift....
    There is one more important thing I should mention. If you create a token that's a copy of your commander this way, that token won't count as "your commander" (C.R. 903.3); thus, for example, any combat damage dealt by that token won't count as combat damage dealt by a commander for the purposes of C.R. 903.10a.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Colored lands in a colorless edh deck
    If your commander's color identity is colorless, neither a card with a basic land type nor a card with a color identity other than colorless can be included in your Commander deck.

    Under C.R. 903.5d, "[a] card with a basic land type may be included in a Commander deck only if each color of mana it could produce is included in the commander's color identity." In addition, a card, including a land card, "can be included in a Commander deck only if every color in its color identity is also found in the color identity of the deck's commander" (C.R. 903.5c).

    However, none of the deck-building restrictions imposed in the Commander variant, and none of the other rules of that variant at the time of this writing, change what colors of mana can be added to a player's mana pool.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Elesh Norn vs jade guardian
    Quote from Dunharrow »
    The ETB is put on the stack, then the game checks state based effects, the jade guardian dies, then the ETB trigger attempts to resolve. There is no "before the ability goes on the stack". Once the ability goes on the stack, before players receive priority, STBs are checked.
    That is not true. Under C.R. 116.5, "[e]ach time a player would get priority, the game first performs ... state-based actions [for as long as applicable]. Then triggered abilities", such as Jade Guardian's enters-the-battlefield ability here, "are put on the stack" (emphasis added).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on General questions concerning Solemnity.
    With the release of Ixalan, the answer to question 3 has changed. Note that under C.R. 614.17d, the game "check[s] the characteristics of the permanent [entering the battlefield] as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account" certain effects, when "determin[ing] which 'can't' effects apply". Now, the game "tak[es] into account ... continuous effects that already exist and would apply to the permanent", such as that of Mycosynth Lattice here, in this process. Therefore, since a planeswalker that would enter the battlefield would be an artifact (due to Mycosynth Lattice) upon entering the battlefield (C.R. 613.4, 613.1d), no loyalty counters (under C.R. 306.5b) would be put on that planeswalker due to Solemnity's effect.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Elesh Norn vs jade guardian
    Yes, its enters-the-battlefield ability (not: effect) will still trigger upon entering the battlefield, and it will still get to resolve even if Jade Guardian leaves the battlefield in the meantime (C.R. 112.7a).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.