The answer to #1 is "do not introduce too many rules for corner cases". The rule is "a spell fizzles if it has lost all its targets by resolution". Changing this is also a functional change of a subset of cards, sometihng WOTC is not willing to do.
I think the rule "a spell fizzles if it has lost all its targets by resolution" is more corner than the rule “a spell fizzles if you wouldn’t be able to cast it with the existing targets”.
On top of that, the latter makes more sense and is a much more intuitive rule, which means, is much less likely to be forgotten.
Sure, it’s a functional change of a subset of cards, but that didn’t stop them when, for example, they turned all interrupts into instants.
But that is actually the case with bestow - it is either an enchantment-aura (if bestowed) or an enchantment creature (if not) on the stack.
Yes, but it only gets both types after becoming a permanent. Until that time, if casted with bestow it is an aura and therefore aura rules should apply, meaning, if you remove the target, the aura fizzles, and it doesn’t even enter the battlefield.
The alternative is to have these spells be both types all the time, but if this was the case you would be able to counter them with both Negate and Remove Soul, regardless of how they were cast.
Having the best of both worlds is just too much, and it doesn’t make any sense. I think they crossed a line here that shouldn’t have been crossed and that needs to be corrected.
Obviously this would impact the game. That is the whole point of changing things. If you don’t want to impact the game, you don’t ever change anything.
There is the distinction of combat and non-combat damage
I get that, but the rules have to make sense. First strike has to be regarded as a continuous ability, like Deathtouch. This is an ability that affects combat both in and outside the combat phase. It doesn’t make any sense to have first strike be treated differently.
Right now, I'd say only lawyers can stand behind the existing rule, and that's because that's what they do by trade.
Anyone else with a shred of common sense know the existing rule has none of it.
Spells with not all targets being illegal:
I can see where you are coming from, but this represents a large change to the game and more so for multi-target spells (that target more than 1 object). Why should my Comet Storm be countered just because my opponent had a Viscera Seer (or other sac outlet)? The spells need to be able to continue resolving for the sake of the game. With your proposed change, any spell that has multiple targets now have built in vulnerabilities. You spent 20 mana on Fireball? Well, I path one of my creatures. You spent 13 mana for Ajani's Presence? Too bad Lightning Bolt shuts that down.
To the Bestow scenario: it will always be an enchantment (including on the stack) no matter how it was cast. It will then be either an Aura or a Creature on the battlefield. Never both. In regards to the proposed change, I disagree. The rules are actually fairly intuitive the way they are, even with the exception of still being able to enter the battlefield. Had they decided to go with your suggested rule, the majority of what makes Bestow valuable is lost. You would almost always want to cast them as creatures to be sure you don't get 2 for 1'd. At that point, Bestow might as well not even exist.
I also don't agree with trying to get First Strike to work outside of combat. The only reason it works within combat is because the game inserts an extra combat step to account for First Strike (and Double Strike). In fact, even if we take your suggestion and make First Strike work outside combat, it wouldn't actually do anything. For example, let's say you cast Prey Upon and your creature has First Strike and the other does not. Your creature does its damage first. Then, the other creature deals its damage to your creature. Outside of things like Wither (which Polukranos, World Eater allows you to exploit) the end result is the same. They will both have a certain amount of damage marked on them when the spell resolves. Since SBA's are not checked in the middle of a spell resolving, having First Strike matter won't actually do anything. Unless you are trying to suggest that the First Strike creature should deal its damage, then SBA's are checked, then the other creature deals its damage. Not only is this a huge change, but is also basically impossible.
This also introduces the problem of Double-Strike. Are you suggesting that creatures that fight a Double Strike creature should get hit for double damage? And the Double Striker no longer has the added benefit of being able to kill the creature before getting dealt damage (because of SBA's not being checked until the fight is done). This actually seems to add even more rules issues that you are proposing should be solved because now Double Strike works differently (instead of not at all) when creatures fight and, with the exception of corner case with Wither, First Strike functions the same.
I see...I think. So If I play a Tormenting Voice and discard to achieve hellbent, then I draw 3 cards and lose 1 life? Same for Howling Mine?
That is correct.
Additionally, more than 1 Blood Scriveners "stack" in the same way. With no cards in hand, and 1 Blood Scrivener, you would draw 2, lose 1 life. With 2 on the battlefield, you draw 3, lose 2 life. With 3, you draw 4, lose 3 life and so on.
I been playing magic at different places and every place rule is different. I have played hangarback walker on turn 3 with 3 available mana. i use 2 of the mana to cast it. then pass my turn. then at the end of my opponents turn. the 1 mana i have available am i allowed to use it to put a counter on hangarback walker or does it still have summoning sickness.
You can't because the reason you have mentioned , it still has 'summoning sickness'.
Hangarback is a creature , the fact that it is also an artifact doesn't change the natural of creature.
Note , I think you said about Land. Land is one of card type. Most land can produce Mana , the main fuel in Magic. So Land vs Mana is not the same thing.
my next question is if i attack with hangarback walker and at the end of my opponent turn, can i still pay 1 mana to put a counter on him or once i attack i can't put a counter on him? sorry so many questions. i just don't want to be cheated out.
No you can't.
Once you declare Hangarback as an attacker = it will becomes tapped automatically. (Unless if you make your Hangarback gain 'Haste' , because creature with Haste doesn't becomes tapped when it attacked.) The tapped creature can't becomes tapped again. So the ability that have 'tap' in its cost can't be activated.
Bolded for emphasis.
This statement is wrong. The rest of the ruling is correct in the scenario the OP is asking about, but Haste has nothing to do with whether a creature taps when it attacks. Only Vigilance changes whether it taps it attacks. Haste just lets it attack and use its abilities that require tapping sooner.
me and my buddy have been playing magic, and he has put icefall regent into his deck. he uses his effect on my creature. can i use dromoka's command to make target creature fight target creature. with out having to pay the two extra mana to play it since icefall regent say when he is target you have to pay 2 extra mana. or can i only pay the 2 since i get to chose 2 for dromoka's command spell effect. can someone please help me??
Are you using Dromoka's Command's last mode to have one of your creatures fight Icefall Regent? If so, Icefall Regent is one of the targets of Dromoka's Command, so you will need to pay 2 more mana to cast Dromoka's Command. It doesn't matter that the spell has other targets or other modes. As long as Icefall Regent is targeted by that spell for some reason, it will cost 2 mana more to cast.
Another interesting concede situation. Someone had managed to voltron up a Lord of Extinction, hoping to Jarad it for the win. Someone kills his Jarad, so he threatens to swing at that player with the kill-on-a-stick LOE (before actually declaring attacks). That player, seeing his doom, concedes. He then sizes up my board (some small mob of rhys token that the Lord could cut through and trample over) and I concede before the attack. He then spends his removal to obliterate the third players' blocks and kills him. Were our two concessions correct? If one of us hadn't conceded, player four would have lived another turn. Does the fact that he later told us, after looking at his top card, that he couldn't deal with the LOE and would have died anyway change things?
Yes, you did wrong conceding there. No one should concede if he COULD be killed. That's the nature of multiplayer that someone might opt not to kill you and you should give them that opt.
Imo conceding should not be allowed at all unless for an out-of-game reasons or if all but one player decide to concede at the same time. Reasons for this have been brought up in this thread quite comprehensible. Just make a house-rule of it.
I agree that the player shouldn't have conceded in that situation, but I don't agree that people can't concede at all (aside from the exceptions you gave).
I have played games that have gone on for a while with 4 players and my 3 opponents have advanced board states and I was sitting on 4 lands. This was due to a number of spells being cast that prevented me from tutoring for lands and trying to protect my Maze of Ith. Once I was down to 4 lands with nothing else in play and nothing to cast and everyone else was at 8+ lands with other things on the battlefield. I decided I just didn't want to sit there doing nothing so I scooped so the other 3 players could have a game of it and I could do something else. It wasn't strategic. I didn't deny someone their triggers or even wait for someone to attack me so they "wasted" their attack step. I just felt that I was in an unwinnable situation and figured I would let the rest of the table fight it out.
I think there are some times that are fine to concede a game in. The ones that I dislike, disagree with, and generally ignore, are ones where someone concedes as a method of denying another person a win or denying a person certain triggers that would keep them in the game and/or win a few turns later.
Technically not illegal but I wouldn't want to play with you any more if you did stuff like that. The player had a winning move. You stopped it not to save yourself but simply out of spite saying "I don't care if I lose as long as YOU don't win". There were NO GAIN for you in you conceding and all you managed with it was to prolong an already won game and piss off a player.
I concur with this. There is really no reason to concede in this case. The game seemed to be in the bag for you and because another player stole your thunder by taking all your creatures and trying to win, you decided to be petty and prevent an opponent from doing basically what you were trying to do (attack with 10,000 tokens).
The play your opponent made was a good one. Had I been one of the other players in that game, I would have just given it to the player who cast Insurrection.
For example, let's say you have 1 card in hand, a Mind Stone on the battlefield and 3 mountains. The card in your hand is a Thunderbreak Regent.
Thunderbreak Regent costs 2 generic mana and 2 R mana. You tap 2 mountains to pay for the 2 R. That leaves you with the 2 generic mana left to pay. So, you tap Mind Stone to generate 1 colorless mana and a mountain to produce 1 R which together you can use to pay for the 2 generic mana in Thunderbreak's cost.
The same principle applies to Eldrazi Spawn/Scion tokens. Say you again have Thunderbreak Regent alone in your hand with 2 mountains and 2 Scion tokens on the battlefield. You tap the 2 mountains to produce 2 R and then sacrifice (not tap) the 2 scions to produce 2 colorless mana. This gives you 4 mana total, 2 of which are R, which can all be used to cast Thunderbreak Regent.
Hopefully this clears up some confusion for you and your friend.
Oh, thanks for the useful info. And sorry for late reply.
Just to clarify. Does that also apply to Oblivion Ring which is a global enchantment? If I return the O.Ring with Sun Titan, can it be attached to something that has hexproof?
You don't "attach" Oblivion Ring to anything no matter how it enters the battlefield. As mentioned above, it is a global enchantment and not an aura. When it enters the battlefield, a trigger will be placed on the stack. This trigger will cause you to target something. This happens the same way no matter if it was cast or put onto the battlefield with Sun Titan.
So, no. You can't target something with Oblivion Ring if it has Hexproof or Shroud.
I was sure about the redirect thing, but the card says "opponent", not player.
I'm pretty sure from other discussions that the creature dealing the damage will hit either/or, but I'd like some solid confirmation. It's fairly vague to me thus far.
Opponents are players. Planeswalkers are not opponents any more than your opponents' creatures are opponents.
Here are quotes from the Comp Rules defining "Opponent":
102.2. In a two-player game, a player’s opponent is the other player.
102.3. In a multiplayer game between teams, a player’s teammates are the other players on his or
her team, and the player’s opponents are all players not on his or her team.
Chandra's Ignition. Does it hit Planeswalkers as well? Or do you redirect the damage to a PW. I thought that because it says each opponent that it hits both the player and his PWs. Could someone please clarify?
Planeswalkers are not players. Chandra's Ignition only hits players. However, the controller of the spell can redirect the damage being done to an opponent to one of his or her planeswalkers instead.
Flickermare 1WW
When ~ enters the battlefield, exile another target creature until ~ leaves the battlefield.
Evoke W
2/2
I believe this as worded permanently exiles a creature for W if you choose to resolve the sacrifice ability of evoke before the ETB ability.
Can anyone think of a clever workaround so this creature works as intended when evoked? i.e. the creature comes back
Thanks in advance
If you choose to sacrifice the creature before it exiles something, the creature it is targeting doesn't go anywhere (with the current wording). However, if you exile the creature, then sacrifice Flickermare, the targeted creature will come back as expected. It is still possible to stack the triggers incorrectly (looking at MTGO) but for the most part, your current wording works as intended without allowing for a permanent exile.
See the wording on Oblivion Ring to see how it would have to be worded to permanently exile something with Evoke.
If I use something like Cauldron of souls or undying evil to give a creature persist until end of turn, if the creature leaves play and comes back in with a -1/-1 would it still have persist since it left the battle field? Essentially, if I give one of my creatures persist, while I control a Melira, sylvok outcast and a sac outlet can I get infinite persist triggers, or do I only get the first?
You only get the first. Once the creature comes back, it is a new object and will not have any abilities granted to the object as it existed previously on the Battlefield. You would have to find a way to give it Persist again.
There's a place in South Saint Paul that's pretty good. It's called Level up games, which i know sounds like a board game shop, but it does pretty much everything you could be looking for as far as MTG. Here's a link: http://www.levelupgamesmn.com plus they sell everything fairly cheap, as far as boosters and fat packs n all.
I second this. I play Modern and EDH at Level Up. I also play EDH at Dreamers Vault games in Minneapolis. I am pretty sure they have Modern tournaments as well. Your Mom's Basement in White Bear Lake also has Modern Tournaments on Saturdays.
Just one other thing: for Flashback, Mizzix again sees the regular cmc, correct? So if you have two counters, converted mana cost is three, but the flashback cost you're paying is two, you still get the experience counter, correct?
Yes. Something like Ancient Grudge, when flashed back, has a CMC of 2 even though only 1 mana is spent on it.
So just for the clarity about x-spells, because most of the people in my store were confused and I'm still confused about answer above.
Case 1.
Mizzix is on board. I have 3 experience counters. I cast Blue Sun's Zenith paying UUU and X is 3 because of experience counters - I want to draw 3 cards. So it would seem that converted mana cost is 6, but it is actually 3 because cost reductions did not change converted mana cost? So I do not get fourth experience counter?
Case 2.
Same situation, expect I pay 1UUU + 3 experience counters, so I want to draw 4 cards. This time I get fourth experience counter?
You are still mistaken on how X spells work. You cast Blue Sun's and declare the value of X as you cast it. Then, you apply cost additions followed be cost reductions followed by Trinsphere's effect. Then, you pay the costs.
So, you would cast Blue' Suns and say X = 3. This means that the CMC is now 6. It doesn't matter that you only pay UUU because of Mizzix's cost reduction. You will get another experience counter if you have less than 6 when you cast it.
Spells with not all targets being illegal:
I can see where you are coming from, but this represents a large change to the game and more so for multi-target spells (that target more than 1 object). Why should my Comet Storm be countered just because my opponent had a Viscera Seer (or other sac outlet)? The spells need to be able to continue resolving for the sake of the game. With your proposed change, any spell that has multiple targets now have built in vulnerabilities. You spent 20 mana on Fireball? Well, I path one of my creatures. You spent 13 mana for Ajani's Presence? Too bad Lightning Bolt shuts that down.
To the Bestow scenario: it will always be an enchantment (including on the stack) no matter how it was cast. It will then be either an Aura or a Creature on the battlefield. Never both. In regards to the proposed change, I disagree. The rules are actually fairly intuitive the way they are, even with the exception of still being able to enter the battlefield. Had they decided to go with your suggested rule, the majority of what makes Bestow valuable is lost. You would almost always want to cast them as creatures to be sure you don't get 2 for 1'd. At that point, Bestow might as well not even exist.
I also don't agree with trying to get First Strike to work outside of combat. The only reason it works within combat is because the game inserts an extra combat step to account for First Strike (and Double Strike). In fact, even if we take your suggestion and make First Strike work outside combat, it wouldn't actually do anything. For example, let's say you cast Prey Upon and your creature has First Strike and the other does not. Your creature does its damage first. Then, the other creature deals its damage to your creature. Outside of things like Wither (which Polukranos, World Eater allows you to exploit) the end result is the same. They will both have a certain amount of damage marked on them when the spell resolves. Since SBA's are not checked in the middle of a spell resolving, having First Strike matter won't actually do anything. Unless you are trying to suggest that the First Strike creature should deal its damage, then SBA's are checked, then the other creature deals its damage. Not only is this a huge change, but is also basically impossible.
This also introduces the problem of Double-Strike. Are you suggesting that creatures that fight a Double Strike creature should get hit for double damage? And the Double Striker no longer has the added benefit of being able to kill the creature before getting dealt damage (because of SBA's not being checked until the fight is done). This actually seems to add even more rules issues that you are proposing should be solved because now Double Strike works differently (instead of not at all) when creatures fight and, with the exception of corner case with Wither, First Strike functions the same.
Additionally, more than 1 Blood Scriveners "stack" in the same way. With no cards in hand, and 1 Blood Scrivener, you would draw 2, lose 1 life. With 2 on the battlefield, you draw 3, lose 2 life. With 3, you draw 4, lose 3 life and so on.
This statement is wrong. The rest of the ruling is correct in the scenario the OP is asking about, but Haste has nothing to do with whether a creature taps when it attacks. Only Vigilance changes whether it taps it attacks. Haste just lets it attack and use its abilities that require tapping sooner.
I agree that the player shouldn't have conceded in that situation, but I don't agree that people can't concede at all (aside from the exceptions you gave).
I have played games that have gone on for a while with 4 players and my 3 opponents have advanced board states and I was sitting on 4 lands. This was due to a number of spells being cast that prevented me from tutoring for lands and trying to protect my Maze of Ith. Once I was down to 4 lands with nothing else in play and nothing to cast and everyone else was at 8+ lands with other things on the battlefield. I decided I just didn't want to sit there doing nothing so I scooped so the other 3 players could have a game of it and I could do something else. It wasn't strategic. I didn't deny someone their triggers or even wait for someone to attack me so they "wasted" their attack step. I just felt that I was in an unwinnable situation and figured I would let the rest of the table fight it out.
I think there are some times that are fine to concede a game in. The ones that I dislike, disagree with, and generally ignore, are ones where someone concedes as a method of denying another person a win or denying a person certain triggers that would keep them in the game and/or win a few turns later.
The play your opponent made was a good one. Had I been one of the other players in that game, I would have just given it to the player who cast Insurrection.
Thunderbreak Regent costs 2 generic mana and 2 R mana. You tap 2 mountains to pay for the 2 R. That leaves you with the 2 generic mana left to pay. So, you tap Mind Stone to generate 1 colorless mana and a mountain to produce 1 R which together you can use to pay for the 2 generic mana in Thunderbreak's cost.
The same principle applies to Eldrazi Spawn/Scion tokens. Say you again have Thunderbreak Regent alone in your hand with 2 mountains and 2 Scion tokens on the battlefield. You tap the 2 mountains to produce 2 R and then sacrifice (not tap) the 2 scions to produce 2 colorless mana. This gives you 4 mana total, 2 of which are R, which can all be used to cast Thunderbreak Regent.
Hopefully this clears up some confusion for you and your friend.
You don't "attach" Oblivion Ring to anything no matter how it enters the battlefield. As mentioned above, it is a global enchantment and not an aura. When it enters the battlefield, a trigger will be placed on the stack. This trigger will cause you to target something. This happens the same way no matter if it was cast or put onto the battlefield with Sun Titan.
So, no. You can't target something with Oblivion Ring if it has Hexproof or Shroud.
Opponents are players. Planeswalkers are not opponents any more than your opponents' creatures are opponents.
Here are quotes from the Comp Rules defining "Opponent":
Planeswalkers are not players. Chandra's Ignition only hits players. However, the controller of the spell can redirect the damage being done to an opponent to one of his or her planeswalkers instead.
If you choose to sacrifice the creature before it exiles something, the creature it is targeting doesn't go anywhere (with the current wording). However, if you exile the creature, then sacrifice Flickermare, the targeted creature will come back as expected. It is still possible to stack the triggers incorrectly (looking at MTGO) but for the most part, your current wording works as intended without allowing for a permanent exile.
See the wording on Oblivion Ring to see how it would have to be worded to permanently exile something with Evoke.
You only get the first. Once the creature comes back, it is a new object and will not have any abilities granted to the object as it existed previously on the Battlefield. You would have to find a way to give it Persist again.
I second this. I play Modern and EDH at Level Up. I also play EDH at Dreamers Vault games in Minneapolis. I am pretty sure they have Modern tournaments as well. Your Mom's Basement in White Bear Lake also has Modern Tournaments on Saturdays.
Yes. Something like Ancient Grudge, when flashed back, has a CMC of 2 even though only 1 mana is spent on it.
You are still mistaken on how X spells work. You cast Blue Sun's and declare the value of X as you cast it. Then, you apply cost additions followed be cost reductions followed by Trinsphere's effect. Then, you pay the costs.
So, you would cast Blue' Suns and say X = 3. This means that the CMC is now 6. It doesn't matter that you only pay UUU because of Mizzix's cost reduction. You will get another experience counter if you have less than 6 when you cast it.