This thread is for the discussion of my latest article, Magic 101: How Creatures Die. We would be grateful if you would let us know what you think, but please keep your comments on topic.
Random fun fact: The last time a Magic card was printed with the word "dies" or "dying" was in Revised Edition.
I'm confused as to why you chose a lot of obscure, old cards to use as examples when you could have used recent Core Set ones, such as Tor Giant/Hill Giant, Goblin Hero/Gray Ogre, Merfolk Assassin/any random 1/1, and Eater of Days (has a bunch of irrelevant text). Time spent looking up the cards is time not spent reading the article. This isn't about dumbing down the examples to make them more palatable to beginners (though it helps); this is about stripping away everything that doesn't contribute directly to the point you're trying to make.
The alternative would be indicating the p/t of every creature in an example where damage/toughness is relevant, and writing out every relevant ability in the body of the article itself.
I would personally excise all mention of regeneration from the first half of the article, save the section explaining "bury"; you'll get to it in due time, though it's not a big deal either way. However, there were a few other diversions that made me wonder "why is this here?" Do you really think a reader who needs to be reminded what power and toughness is would care about such a thing as "Vintage"?
All versions of STP say "Remove [...] game," so I'm not sure which "old versions" you mean.
I didn't like Example 9. It's one thing to say "Hypothetically, let's put some things on the stack and see what happens," but it's another to present it as a game scenario. Bizarre and implausible setups are fine for Rules Advisor tests, but for a simplified beginner's example, it's confusing because who would ever do that? especially since you don't explicitly mention it as a dumb play mistake until the end. (And you went to lengths to make Example #7 realistic-sounding, too.)
Better would be to bump Example #10 up a number and present the same scenario. This time, Barry passes priority to Adam because he doesn't care about his Bears dying. Adam, knowing that if he also passes priority the game will move straight into the combat damage step (teaching moment!), uses Boa's regeneration ability to save it from combat damage. Since priority passes back to Adam at this point (even though he already passed at the beginning of the D.B. step) he can now use Shock to kill the Boa before the regeneration shield is created. Boa dies, Bears live, no combat damage, etc.
(No, I'm not still bitter over that PCV in that ZZZ draft. Why do you ask?)
Shock resolves first and destroys River Boa while the regeneration ability is still on the stack. River Boa is placed in the graveyard. River Boa's regeneration ability resolves, but it's too late; River Boa is already in the graveyard and there is no destruction to replace because the destruction has already happened. Adam's paranoia caused him to make a mistake here.
Regeneration ability states: The next time this creature would be destroyed this turn, it isn't. Instead tap it, remove all damage from it, and remove it from combat.
So no matter when you do it wouldn't it still work? As long as its the same turn that you tapped to regenrate it should survive regardless what phase of the turn its "destoyed" or "dealt lethal damage".
[Wait I got it, your saying I tap to regenerate and in response you shock it right?]
Regeneration ability states: The next time this creature would be destroyed this turn, it isn't. Instead tap it, remove all damage from it, and remove it from combat.
So no matter when you do it wouldn't it still work? As long as its the same turn that you tapped to regenrate it should survive regardless what phase of the turn its "destoyed" or "dealt lethal damage".
[Wait I got it, your saying I tap to regenerate and in response you shock it right?]
Your bit in brackets is correct in that example the controller of River boa has not waited until the shock player has cast the spell and activating the regenerate ability uses the stack you have the oppertunity to respond before the shield is active. If the river boa player had more mana he could pay the cost for the ability again and if it resolved his snake would survive the shock.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
I enjoy Magic 101. It really teaches me how to teach the game well. However, I have a few little problems with this one:
Problem #1 is either phrased poorly or explained poorly. The way it's worded, the Centaur is blocked by the Assassin. Barry casts the Electrostatic Bolt (why wasn't it shock? Shock's the go-to 2 damage spell). The way the solution is worded gives the impression that the Assassin is destroyed in the combat damage step, then the two damage from the Bolt kicks in, destroying the Centaur. In reality, the Bolt will deal 2 to the Centaur. In the combat damage step both are destroyed at the same time. I feel that the answer is slightly misguiding.
Anyway, my suggestions:
#1. Use the same cards. People learn best when they can relate the new knowledge to something they've already seen.
#2. On a similar note, use simple cards. Electrostatic Bolt = Firebolt = Shock in every example. The flashback doesn't relate to what's being taught, the "instead deal 4" doesn't relate to the problem either.
#3. The article's a bit long. How about a two-parter for something like this? I feel overwhelmed by the amount of knowledge being pushed at me, and I'm sure a newer player would too.
On the flip side, problems #3-8 are excellent, and overall the article is chock-full of things that every Magic player needs to know.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Back in my day, Wrath of God didn't kill Black Knight and that's the way we liked it. We also had to pay mana for our 1/1s. Kids and your Memnites. Get off my lawn!
I'm confused as to why you chose a lot of obscure, old cards to use as examples when you could have used recent Core Set ones, such as Tor Giant/Hill Giant, Goblin Hero/Gray Ogre, Merfolk Assassin/any random 1/1, and Eater of Days (has a bunch of irrelevant text). Time spent looking up the cards is time not spent reading the article. This isn't about dumbing down the examples to make them more palatable to beginners (though it helps); this is about stripping away everything that doesn't contribute directly to the point you're trying to make.
The alternative would be indicating the p/t of every creature in an example where damage/toughness is relevant, and writing out every relevant ability in the body of the article itself.
Fair to a point. On the one hand, not having reread cards does make it more efficient. On the other, I like to vary the cards used because it makes people actually read the cards, which is something people sometimes don't do. It also requires people to sometimes realize which things are irrelevant in an example (though not always). I chose Eater of Days in particular because he has such a terrible drawback from coming into play, I thought that maybe the reader might go "hmm, if I regenerate, does that mean he comes into play again and I have to lose 2 more turns?" So really, his extra ability wasn't irrelevant in that sense because it creates another path that players need to realize that they should not go down. Additionally, the article is meant to be more timeless rather than current, so cards that are current today won't necessarily be current in a few months. Being primarily a Vintage player, I like using older cards out of a sense of nostalgia. But, yeah, Merfolk Assassin probably wasn't necessary.
After answer questions in the ruling forums for about a year or so, the biggest problem was with players knowing what the ruling is rather than why the ruling is what it is. Simply applying by rote when using the same cards over and over doesn't ensure players understand the why. They need to be able to recognize that Shock and Electrostatic Bolt will interact in the same way. Is there like a major difference for those cards? No. But, they need to know "normal damage allows for regeneration" not "Shock allows for regeneration."
I would personally excise all mention of regeneration from the first half of the article, save the section explaining "bury"; you'll get to it in due time, though it's not a big deal either way. However, there were a few other diversions that made me wonder "why is this here?" Do you really think a reader who needs to be reminded what power and toughness is would care about such a thing as "Vintage"?
I actually care a lot about Vintage. The point is more that seemingly trivial rules can actually have significant outcomes in some situations. Knowing these semi-corner cases can be the difference. But, yeah, the regeneration thing was excessive early on. If I had more time to just make the article absolutely perfect, I would have changed/edited/removed that, but I didn't so, it just stayed how it was.
All versions of STP say "Remove [...] game," so I'm not sure which "old versions" you mean.
The comparison was more Swords to Plowshares to Iona's Judgment rather than new and old Swords to Plowshares.
I didn't like Example 9. It's one thing to say "Hypothetically, let's put some things on the stack and see what happens," but it's another to present it as a game scenario. Bizarre and implausible setups are fine for Rules Advisor tests, but for a simplified beginner's example, it's confusing because who would ever do that? especially since you don't explicitly mention it as a dumb play mistake until the end. (And you went to lengths to make Example #7 realistic-sounding, too.)
I think Example 9 was fairly important because it reinforces the idea that regeneration has to resolve first before it can allow the creature to do any regenerating. Also, I don't find it all that implausible for a novice player (namely, those who might be interested in this article) to try such a thing.
I enjoy Magic 101. It really teaches me how to teach the game well. However, I have a few little problems with this one:
Problem #1 is either phrased poorly or explained poorly. The way it's worded, the Centaur is blocked by the Assassin. Barry casts the Electrostatic Bolt (why wasn't it shock? Shock's the go-to 2 damage spell). The way the solution is worded gives the impression that the Assassin is destroyed in the combat damage step, then the two damage from the Bolt kicks in, destroying the Centaur. In reality, the Bolt will deal 2 to the Centaur. In the combat damage step both are destroyed at the same time. I feel that the answer is slightly misguiding.
Yeah, I probably could have worded that better.
Anyway, my suggestions:
#1. Use the same cards. People learn best when they can relate the new knowledge to something they've already seen.
#2. On a similar note, use simple cards. Electrostatic Bolt = Firebolt = Shock in every example. The flashback doesn't relate to what's being taught, the "instead deal 4" doesn't relate to the problem either.
I addressed this above, but since two people have mentioned it, I'll keep in mind for future articles. Again, I have previously shuffled things up some to make sure there is understanding rather than just doing on the part of the readers (this will always be true in the problems at least). I guess, considering that, perhaps the problems at the end should have different cards, but the examples should remain relatively static. I guess we'll see.
#3. The article's a bit long. How about a two-parter for something like this? I feel overwhelmed by the amount of knowledge being pushed at me, and I'm sure a newer player would too.
On the flip side, problems #3-8 are excellent, and overall the article is chock-full of things that every Magic player needs to know.
Yeah, it's a little on the long side. I'm not sure what I would cut out though, as I like to get everything in one space so players don't have to search around for their answer to questions. I guess two parts wouldn't have been terrible though.
Thanks for your comments.
----------------------
If anybody has ideas for future articles, I'd be interested in hearing those.
Hi, nice article, but I didn't see this situation come up:
I attack with Darksteel Colossus and my opponent blocks with Eater of Days. Eater of Days "dies" and there has been 9 damage dealt to the Colossus. Then he casts Last Gasp on the Colossus, what happens?
Hi, nice article, but I didn't see this situation come up:
I attack with Darksteel Colossus and my opponent blocks with Eater of Days. Eater of Days "dies" and there has been 9 damage dealt to the Colossus. Then he casts Last Gasp on the Colossus, what happens?
Well, let's walk through it.
So, Darksteel Colossus is 11/11 and is indestructible. Eater of Days deals 9 damage to Darksteel Colossus, so that damage will stick around until the end of the turn. Next, Last Gasp is played on Darksteel Colossus, making Darksteel Colossus 8/8. At this point we have a Darksteel Colossus that is 8/8, indestructible, and with 9 damage on it. This means we have a creature with "lethal damage" on it, which, after looking at the list I made, means we're dealing with destruction. But, Darksteel Colossus is indestructible, so he isn't destroyed and stays on the battlefield.
The fact that what caused Darksteel Colossus to have lethal damage was an effect that reduced toughness is not relevant by itself. Instead, we have to look at what game rule is trying to put the creature in the graveyard. Here, it's lethal damage, but indestructibility prevents that from causing the creature to "die" so Darksteel Colossus sticks around. If, instead, we had used Induce Despair while revealing a creature with a converted mana cost of 11 or more, then Darksteel Colossus would be put in the graveyard because indestructibility can't save a creature from being put in the graveyard due to having 0 toughness.
I addressed this above, but since two people have mentioned it, I'll keep in mind for future articles. Again, I have previously shuffled things up some to make sure there is understanding rather than just doing on the part of the readers (this will always be true in the problems at least). I guess, considering that, perhaps the problems at the end should have different cards, but the examples should remain relatively static. I guess we'll see.
You know, you defended your reasoning well. I see the problem of knowing the ruling, but not knowing the why a LOT.
I had to read Bear Umbra out loud to someone 10 times, explaining the different rulings each time, and they still didn't believe that when they enchant their partner's creature, their partner's land untaps from the Umbra. Why? Because they've been hearing that the controller of the enchantment doesn't change, along with the Spirit Link issue, rather than understanding that because the Umbra gives the creature the ability, it's the creature that triggers (effectively.)
Anyway, I think I agree with your assessment. Use the same cards when teaching, but mix it up a bit in the problems.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Back in my day, Wrath of God didn't kill Black Knight and that's the way we liked it. We also had to pay mana for our 1/1s. Kids and your Memnites. Get off my lawn!
Adam can't cast Death Ward to save Eater of Days because it is too late; Eater of Days is already in the graveyard (so technically the game will have to back up and Adam won't be allowed to cast Death Ward at all). Adam has to cast Death Ward in response to Vindicate if he wants to save Eater of Days. Death Ward would save Eater of Days because Vindicate doesn't say anything about the target not being able to be regenerated. Also note that if Adam plays it right so that he regenerates Eater of Days, he won't skip his next two turns. Regeneration doesn't cause a creature to leave the battlefield and then return; instead, the creature just stays on the battlefield, all damage is removed, and the creature becomes tapped.
Eater of Days says when it enter's the battlefield skip your next two turns. Adam will skip his next two turns irregardless of regeneration.
Eater of Days says when it enter's the battlefield skip your next two turns. Adam will skip his next two turns irregardless of regeneration.
The wording of the answer is meant to address a common point of confusion regarding creatures that regenerate: The creature doesn't get put into the graveyard, then get returned to the battlefield if it regenerates. It remains on the battlefield and doesn't change zones at all. So, in this case, Eater of Days enters-the-battlefield ability doesn't trigger if it was regenerated. That is all the article meant from that. (Especially as in the situation in the article, the enters-the-battlefield ability has probably already resolved since the other player can't normally cast Vindicate until his turn.)
So, Darksteel Colossus is 11/11 and is indestructible. Eater of Days deals 9 damage to Darksteel Colossus, so that damage will stick around until the end of the turn. Next, Last Gasp is played on Darksteel Colossus, making Darksteel Colossus 8/8. At this point we have a Darksteel Colossus that is 8/8, indestructible, and with 9 damage on it. This means we have a creature with "lethal damage" on it, which, after looking at the list I made, means we're dealing with destruction. But, Darksteel Colossus is indestructible, so he isn't destroyed and stays on the battlefield.
The fact that what caused Darksteel Colossus to have lethal damage was an effect that reduced toughness is not relevant by itself. Instead, we have to look at what game rule is trying to put the creature in the graveyard. Here, it's lethal damage, but indestructibility prevents that from causing the creature to "die" so Darksteel Colossus sticks around. If, instead, we had used Induce Despair while revealing a creature with a converted mana cost of 11 or more, then Darksteel Colossus would be put in the graveyard because indestructibility can't save a creature from being put in the graveyard due to having 0 toughness.
Thanks, that's what I thought. My friends thought otherwise.
Magic Rules Advisor
How Creatures Die
Targets | Triggered Abilities | Priority and the Stack | Older Articles
I'm confused as to why you chose a lot of obscure, old cards to use as examples when you could have used recent Core Set ones, such as Tor Giant/Hill Giant, Goblin Hero/Gray Ogre, Merfolk Assassin/any random 1/1, and Eater of Days (has a bunch of irrelevant text). Time spent looking up the cards is time not spent reading the article. This isn't about dumbing down the examples to make them more palatable to beginners (though it helps); this is about stripping away everything that doesn't contribute directly to the point you're trying to make.
The alternative would be indicating the p/t of every creature in an example where damage/toughness is relevant, and writing out every relevant ability in the body of the article itself.
I would personally excise all mention of regeneration from the first half of the article, save the section explaining "bury"; you'll get to it in due time, though it's not a big deal either way. However, there were a few other diversions that made me wonder "why is this here?" Do you really think a reader who needs to be reminded what power and toughness is would care about such a thing as "Vintage"?
All versions of STP say "Remove [...] game," so I'm not sure which "old versions" you mean.
I didn't like Example 9. It's one thing to say "Hypothetically, let's put some things on the stack and see what happens," but it's another to present it as a game scenario. Bizarre and implausible setups are fine for Rules Advisor tests, but for a simplified beginner's example, it's confusing because who would ever do that? especially since you don't explicitly mention it as a dumb play mistake until the end. (And you went to lengths to make Example #7 realistic-sounding, too.)
Better would be to bump Example #10 up a number and present the same scenario. This time, Barry passes priority to Adam because he doesn't care about his Bears dying. Adam, knowing that if he also passes priority the game will move straight into the combat damage step (teaching moment!), uses Boa's regeneration ability to save it from combat damage. Since priority passes back to Adam at this point (even though he already passed at the beginning of the D.B. step) he can now use Shock to kill the Boa before the regeneration shield is created. Boa dies, Bears live, no combat damage, etc.
(No, I'm not still bitter over that PCV in that ZZZ draft. Why do you ask?)
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Regeneration ability states: The next time this creature would be destroyed this turn, it isn't. Instead tap it, remove all damage from it, and remove it from combat.
So no matter when you do it wouldn't it still work? As long as its the same turn that you tapped to regenrate it should survive regardless what phase of the turn its "destoyed" or "dealt lethal damage".
[Wait I got it, your saying I tap to regenerate and in response you shock it right?]
EDH:
GRWMayael, the AnimaWRG
GUBDamia, Sage of StoneBUG
"A man is defined by his sacrifices rather than his gifts"
Your bit in brackets is correct in that example the controller of River boa has not waited until the shock player has cast the spell and activating the regenerate ability uses the stack you have the oppertunity to respond before the shield is active. If the river boa player had more mana he could pay the cost for the ability again and if it resolved his snake would survive the shock.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Problem #1 is either phrased poorly or explained poorly. The way it's worded, the Centaur is blocked by the Assassin. Barry casts the Electrostatic Bolt (why wasn't it shock? Shock's the go-to 2 damage spell). The way the solution is worded gives the impression that the Assassin is destroyed in the combat damage step, then the two damage from the Bolt kicks in, destroying the Centaur. In reality, the Bolt will deal 2 to the Centaur. In the combat damage step both are destroyed at the same time. I feel that the answer is slightly misguiding.
Anyway, my suggestions:
#1. Use the same cards. People learn best when they can relate the new knowledge to something they've already seen.
#2. On a similar note, use simple cards. Electrostatic Bolt = Firebolt = Shock in every example. The flashback doesn't relate to what's being taught, the "instead deal 4" doesn't relate to the problem either.
#3. The article's a bit long. How about a two-parter for something like this? I feel overwhelmed by the amount of knowledge being pushed at me, and I'm sure a newer player would too.
On the flip side, problems #3-8 are excellent, and overall the article is chock-full of things that every Magic player needs to know.
Fair to a point. On the one hand, not having reread cards does make it more efficient. On the other, I like to vary the cards used because it makes people actually read the cards, which is something people sometimes don't do. It also requires people to sometimes realize which things are irrelevant in an example (though not always). I chose Eater of Days in particular because he has such a terrible drawback from coming into play, I thought that maybe the reader might go "hmm, if I regenerate, does that mean he comes into play again and I have to lose 2 more turns?" So really, his extra ability wasn't irrelevant in that sense because it creates another path that players need to realize that they should not go down. Additionally, the article is meant to be more timeless rather than current, so cards that are current today won't necessarily be current in a few months. Being primarily a Vintage player, I like using older cards out of a sense of nostalgia. But, yeah, Merfolk Assassin probably wasn't necessary.
After answer questions in the ruling forums for about a year or so, the biggest problem was with players knowing what the ruling is rather than why the ruling is what it is. Simply applying by rote when using the same cards over and over doesn't ensure players understand the why. They need to be able to recognize that Shock and Electrostatic Bolt will interact in the same way. Is there like a major difference for those cards? No. But, they need to know "normal damage allows for regeneration" not "Shock allows for regeneration."
I actually care a lot about Vintage. The point is more that seemingly trivial rules can actually have significant outcomes in some situations. Knowing these semi-corner cases can be the difference. But, yeah, the regeneration thing was excessive early on. If I had more time to just make the article absolutely perfect, I would have changed/edited/removed that, but I didn't so, it just stayed how it was.
The comparison was more Swords to Plowshares to Iona's Judgment rather than new and old Swords to Plowshares.
I think Example 9 was fairly important because it reinforces the idea that regeneration has to resolve first before it can allow the creature to do any regenerating. Also, I don't find it all that implausible for a novice player (namely, those who might be interested in this article) to try such a thing.
Thanks for your comments.
Yeah, I probably could have worded that better.
I addressed this above, but since two people have mentioned it, I'll keep in mind for future articles. Again, I have previously shuffled things up some to make sure there is understanding rather than just doing on the part of the readers (this will always be true in the problems at least). I guess, considering that, perhaps the problems at the end should have different cards, but the examples should remain relatively static. I guess we'll see.
Yeah, it's a little on the long side. I'm not sure what I would cut out though, as I like to get everything in one space so players don't have to search around for their answer to questions. I guess two parts wouldn't have been terrible though.
Thanks for your comments.
----------------------
If anybody has ideas for future articles, I'd be interested in hearing those.
Magic Rules Advisor
How Creatures Die
Targets | Triggered Abilities | Priority and the Stack | Older Articles
I attack with Darksteel Colossus and my opponent blocks with Eater of Days. Eater of Days "dies" and there has been 9 damage dealt to the Colossus. Then he casts Last Gasp on the Colossus, what happens?
Evil Chocobo of the Alliance of Rogue Deckers!
A special thanks goes out to the one who loves atogs, thanks for the sig!
Come join Warmachine!!!!!!
Pewter Crack is Evil!
I have Magic ADD.
Well, let's walk through it.
So, Darksteel Colossus is 11/11 and is indestructible. Eater of Days deals 9 damage to Darksteel Colossus, so that damage will stick around until the end of the turn. Next, Last Gasp is played on Darksteel Colossus, making Darksteel Colossus 8/8. At this point we have a Darksteel Colossus that is 8/8, indestructible, and with 9 damage on it. This means we have a creature with "lethal damage" on it, which, after looking at the list I made, means we're dealing with destruction. But, Darksteel Colossus is indestructible, so he isn't destroyed and stays on the battlefield.
The fact that what caused Darksteel Colossus to have lethal damage was an effect that reduced toughness is not relevant by itself. Instead, we have to look at what game rule is trying to put the creature in the graveyard. Here, it's lethal damage, but indestructibility prevents that from causing the creature to "die" so Darksteel Colossus sticks around. If, instead, we had used Induce Despair while revealing a creature with a converted mana cost of 11 or more, then Darksteel Colossus would be put in the graveyard because indestructibility can't save a creature from being put in the graveyard due to having 0 toughness.
Magic Rules Advisor
How Creatures Die
Targets | Triggered Abilities | Priority and the Stack | Older Articles
You know, you defended your reasoning well. I see the problem of knowing the ruling, but not knowing the why a LOT.
I had to read Bear Umbra out loud to someone 10 times, explaining the different rulings each time, and they still didn't believe that when they enchant their partner's creature, their partner's land untaps from the Umbra. Why? Because they've been hearing that the controller of the enchantment doesn't change, along with the Spirit Link issue, rather than understanding that because the Umbra gives the creature the ability, it's the creature that triggers (effectively.)
Anyway, I think I agree with your assessment. Use the same cards when teaching, but mix it up a bit in the problems.
Eater of Days says when it enter's the battlefield skip your next two turns. Adam will skip his next two turns irregardless of regeneration.
The wording of the answer is meant to address a common point of confusion regarding creatures that regenerate: The creature doesn't get put into the graveyard, then get returned to the battlefield if it regenerates. It remains on the battlefield and doesn't change zones at all. So, in this case, Eater of Days enters-the-battlefield ability doesn't trigger if it was regenerated. That is all the article meant from that. (Especially as in the situation in the article, the enters-the-battlefield ability has probably already resolved since the other player can't normally cast Vindicate until his turn.)
Yeah, I meant "plays it in a way that doesn't violate the rules" not "plays it in the most advantageous way." Sorry for the confusion.
Magic Rules Advisor
How Creatures Die
Targets | Triggered Abilities | Priority and the Stack | Older Articles
Thanks, that's what I thought. My friends thought otherwise.
Evil Chocobo of the Alliance of Rogue Deckers!
A special thanks goes out to the one who loves atogs, thanks for the sig!
Come join Warmachine!!!!!!
Pewter Crack is Evil!
I have Magic ADD.
Not absolutely correct: the flavor text still uses to this day
Come and Comment on my Custom Set (Matters of Mind *Updated*)
Also Create a Historical Card
However, I think I've found an error in Problem 5. Adam would not be able to cast Flicker since it is Barry's turn and Flicker is a sorcery.
Hey, thanks.
Flicker is a sorcery, but Adam can play it during Barry's turn because he controls Vedalken Orrery, as specified in the problem.
Magic Rules Advisor
How Creatures Die
Targets | Triggered Abilities | Priority and the Stack | Older Articles