But you might want to add "If ~ is in your graveyard" to the ability. It's not necessary depending on how you write the rules for Epitaph, but it would make the cards a lot clearer.
Here's another option:
Oathsworn Defender
Creature — Human Knight (C)
Epitaph 1W (When this is put into your graveyard from anywhere, pay 1W or exile it.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, if Oathsworn Defender is in your graveyard, you may gain 1 life.
“If I can’t fulfill my oath in this life, I will do so in death.”
2/2
Temple Stomper 2GG
Creature — Elephant (R)
Flash
Epitaph 1G (When this is put into your graveyard from anywhere, pay 1G or exile it.)
If Temple Stomper is in your graveyard and you paid its epitaph cost, you may cast creature cards as though they had flash.
4/4
Note that you don't need to put "and you paid its epitaph cost" unless you have to. And yes, this is a slight functional change with Stifle (or a Missed Trigger), but it's probably fine.
You cannot use the ability if there are no Mountains on the battlefield, since it must target a Mountain.
If you just played a Mountain, when it becomes a creature due to Koth's ability, it has summoning sickness. Unless you give it haste, you can't tap it for mana or attack with it.
The difference being that a creature with the ability "attacks each turn if able" or given the ability "attacks this turn if able" has that requirement even before ANY attackers are declared. Thus, that creature(s) must be declared as attackers before any creature(s) without that ability.
In the above situation, the "attacks if able" requirement of War's Toll doesn't take effect until the attacking player decides to have a creature attack. At that point, the restriction from Crawlspace prevents more than 2 creatures from attacking the defending player.
It's precisely because of War's Toll's "if able" clause that no requirements are being violated if 2 creatures attack the defending player in the situation above.
This interpretation does not agree with the Comprehensive Rules.
The whole point of the rules on requirements is that you have to consider all possible attacks (that don't violate restrictions). If your attack doesn't satisfy the maximum number of requirements, it isn't legal.
In this case, the attack with multiple creatures doesn't satisfy the maximum number of requirements, so it simply isn't legal. It doesn't really matter that the requirements behave differently depending on whether 0 or 1+ creatures attack -- the Comprehensive Rules don't provide any justification for dividing your possible attacks into those two cases, and only considering the latter once you've decided to attack with a creature.
Quote from Shirotabi »
War's Toll's "If a creature an opponent controls attacks, all creatures that opponent controls attack if able" ability is a single requirement. The individual creatures do not have the requirement "attacks if able".
I'm pretty sure this is wrong. If an effect says "Creatures you control attack if able", that's one requirement for each creature.
Here's an analogous scenario: I attack with two copies of Prized Unicorn. You control 5 creatures. If your way of counting requirements was correct, you would have to block one or the other with all 5 creatures (thereby satisfying one requirement). But as you know, this is wrong.
Exactly zero creatures can attack (assuming there are two players and no planeswalkers). The rules are very clear on this.
Assume you have 3 creatures.
If you attack with 0 creatures, you are obeying all restrictions and disobeying 0 requirements.
If you attack with 1 creature, you are obeying all restrictions and disobeying 2 requirements.
If you attack with 2 creatures, you are obeying all restrictions and disobeying 1 requirement.
If you attack with 3 creatures, you are disobeying a restriction.
Only the first option is allowed.
508.1d.
...
Example: A player controls two creatures: one that "attacks if able" and one with no abilities. An effect states "No more than one creature can attack each turn." The only legal attack is for just the creature that "attacks if able" to attack. It's illegal to attack with the other creature, attack with both, or attack with neither.
Note that the Comprehensive Rules don't allow you to attack with just the vanilla creature. That's because you're disobeying the "attacks if able" restriction. You don't get to claim that, because you're attacking with the other creature, your "attacks if able" creature isn't able to attack, and so claim that you aren't violating the requirement.
After a long delay, uncommons are now added to the original post.
I decided I couldn't get rid of reincarnation counters. There are two solutions to this. One is that I can get rid of all (or almost all) +1/+1 counters from the set. I haven't done this but I might end up trying. The other is to put "reincarnation counters" in the packs like WotC did with poison counters, except in this case it would work better because you could put them under the card like an aura, rather than having to staple them to your opponent's face.
Of the other suggestions, I took some, didn't take some, and am still thinking about others.
If you're actually planning to run the tournament at Competitive REL, then you can't mix draft pods:
Quote from "Tournament Rules" »
Players within a pod may play only against other players within that pod. In Regular REL tournaments, the Tournament Organizer may elect to lift this restriction. This must be announced before the tournament starts.
In particular, this means you won't get an answer for how this is done at a GP, because a GP is run at Competitive/Professional REL and therefore does not pair players between pods.
Green Sun's Zenith can't be exiled this way. In fact, if Green Sun's Zenith resolves, it doesn't ever reach the graveyard at all. It's shuffled into your library directly from the stack.
The Eldrazi work differently. Emrakul, the Aeons Torn has a triggered ability that triggers when it is put into the graveyard. While that ability is on the stack, you can exile the Emrakul with Deathrite Shaman. However, when the ability resolves, the remaining cards in your graveyard will be shuffled into your library, even if you exiled the Emrakul from it, so you can't stop that part of the effect with Deathrite Shaman.
So far, we have 2 sources that I know of that are weighty, and Both of those sources seem almost intentionally non-specific regarding which cards the player is allowed to take home.
What are you talking about? Toby Elliott specifically said what you would be allowed to remove.
1) At any time, you can pick up the pack you're holding, what you've drafted and your remaining packs and walk out.
That's what the theft part of the comment is addressing. If they just dropped their card, got up and left it would be a non-issue.
Some people are of the opinion that if they take their cards with them, they are stealing, which has been addressed now as untrue.
Actually, no.
What has been stated is that they are not engaged in Theft of Tournament Materials, the DCI infraction. Whether they are guilty of theft (stealing) is not up to the DCI to determine.
Now, if the DCI wants, they could refuse to sanction any event in which it would be considered theft to remove the cards, but that does not seem to be their position, because Toby Elliott says that it's fine to run a draft where you're required to give the cards back at the end. So it could still be small-t theft, even if it isn't big-T Theft of Tournament Materials.
Would the law enforce a rare-redraft? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But it might, depending on how clear you made the rules at the beginning, I think.
The rule deals with players that left their product... It is not intended to make players get less cards per pack that would ridiculous and not within the spirit of the rule. The spirit of the rule is to allow a player to stop drafting but still play after the draft is finished. (or come back and finish drafting the next pack(s))
The rule was definitely not written for "what happens if someone runs out of the building with their cards?"... in which case the correct answer is continue drafting as if that person was never their in the first place.
Yes, but the rule does not say that. It says "if the person is unable or unwilling to continue drafting." It doesn't add the phrase "but doesn't take away the product." It's totally reasonable to think that rule applies. It just happens not to be the correct interpretation, according to Toby Elliott.
EDIT:
I can't tell where the bolded part of the question is even addressed in that answer.
According to Toby Elliott, the DCI-sanctioned version of this is to take exactly 45 cards (all your drafted cards, the pack you are holding, and the unopened packs that you will open in the future).
The rule that says "Use some common sense in interpreting the rules."
If something bizarre happens, like a player removing some cards from the draft, you have to improvise, and use common sense while doing so, because the rules don't necessarily describe exactly what to do.
EDIT: Toby Elliott has also stated that "The seven remaining players continue," so there's also the rule "Do what Toby Elliott says."
Pack 1 is drafted normally, giving each players 14 cards and a basic land (plus token/tip card).
Pack 2 is opened and a thief steals all the cards from the pack they opened. They run out the door with their 15 picks, the open pack and an unopened pack, and are never seen again. The Judge sits in their spot and takes random picks as per the following rule:
This means 8 people (the 7 remaining players and the judge) had to share 7 packs.
That's 98 cards (after basic lands are removed)
That's only 12 cards each (with some remainder - who gets the extra cards?)
Also, what happens to the cards the TO picked randomly? Does he keep them, even though he never paid to enter the draft? Do they go to the thief, even though he already stole as many cards as he paid for?
No, this is not how it's done. The judge is not required to, and should not, make picks in this case, because that just makes the whole situation worse. That's equally true whether the player's leaving is done with the blessing of the store and the DCI or not.
Actually I think that's a good question, I do believe the player would be able to construct the deck with the cards picked by the TO, he just wouldn't have any say on what the TO picked and I do believe he would not be able to provide information to the TO or Judge or the cards would be picked 'randomly'.
That's not what the tournament rules say:
If a player is unable or unwilling to continue drafting, he or she is suspended from drafting and must construct a deck from whatever cards he or she has drafted thus far. For the remainder of the current booster pack, a tournament official randomly makes picks instead of the suspended player.
If Matt is saying that then his account has been hacked. Or someone is holding a gun to his head. Or he is trolling. Or he had his drink spiked and is hallucinating. Or he has suffered a blow to the head. Or he isn't feeling well. There are plenty of logical explanations.
The chance of any of those things happening is far higher than the chance of Wizards officially endorsing theft or undermining their own rules.
You never bought any packs.
~ Tim
Oh, come on, this is ridiculous.
It wouldn't be the first time Wizards of the Coast made an incredibly bad decision regarding the rules. And this is not even as bad as some of them. Yes, it allows players to disrupt drafts in an undesirable way without being disqualified and/or suspended. But if the DCI doesn't want to disqualify and/or suspend people for that, that's up to them.
Toby Elliott specifically recommends that you ban the player from your store for this, indicating that it's not considered good behavior. They obviously just don't want to deal with DQ investigations on this point, or have players complaining that they were disqualified for taking cards that they believed belonged to them.
But you might want to add "If ~ is in your graveyard" to the ability. It's not necessary depending on how you write the rules for Epitaph, but it would make the cards a lot clearer.
Here's another option:
Note that you don't need to put "and you paid its epitaph cost" unless you have to. And yes, this is a slight functional change with Stifle (or a Missed Trigger), but it's probably fine.
If you just played a Mountain, when it becomes a creature due to Koth's ability, it has summoning sickness. Unless you give it haste, you can't tap it for mana or attack with it.
The whole point of the rules on requirements is that you have to consider all possible attacks (that don't violate restrictions). If your attack doesn't satisfy the maximum number of requirements, it isn't legal.
In this case, the attack with multiple creatures doesn't satisfy the maximum number of requirements, so it simply isn't legal. It doesn't really matter that the requirements behave differently depending on whether 0 or 1+ creatures attack -- the Comprehensive Rules don't provide any justification for dividing your possible attacks into those two cases, and only considering the latter once you've decided to attack with a creature.I'm pretty sure this is wrong. If an effect says "Creatures you control attack if able", that's one requirement for each creature.
Here's an analogous scenario: I attack with two copies of Prized Unicorn. You control 5 creatures. If your way of counting requirements was correct, you would have to block one or the other with all 5 creatures (thereby satisfying one requirement). But as you know, this is wrong.
No, because it isn't adequately explained (and in the alternative isn't an official proclamation).
EDIT: I might as well cite this: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=141263. Of course it also doesn't count for anything.
Assume you have 3 creatures.
If you attack with 0 creatures, you are obeying all restrictions and disobeying 0 requirements.
If you attack with 1 creature, you are obeying all restrictions and disobeying 2 requirements.
If you attack with 2 creatures, you are obeying all restrictions and disobeying 1 requirement.
If you attack with 3 creatures, you are disobeying a restriction.
Only the first option is allowed.
Note that the Comprehensive Rules don't allow you to attack with just the vanilla creature. That's because you're disobeying the "attacks if able" restriction. You don't get to claim that, because you're attacking with the other creature, your "attacks if able" creature isn't able to attack, and so claim that you aren't violating the requirement.
I decided I couldn't get rid of reincarnation counters. There are two solutions to this. One is that I can get rid of all (or almost all) +1/+1 counters from the set. I haven't done this but I might end up trying. The other is to put "reincarnation counters" in the packs like WotC did with poison counters, except in this case it would work better because you could put them under the card like an aura, rather than having to staple them to your opponent's face.
Of the other suggestions, I took some, didn't take some, and am still thinking about others.
The Eldrazi work differently. Emrakul, the Aeons Torn has a triggered ability that triggers when it is put into the graveyard. While that ability is on the stack, you can exile the Emrakul with Deathrite Shaman. However, when the ability resolves, the remaining cards in your graveyard will be shuffled into your library, even if you exiled the Emrakul from it, so you can't stop that part of the effect with Deathrite Shaman.
What has been stated is that they are not engaged in Theft of Tournament Materials, the DCI infraction. Whether they are guilty of theft (stealing) is not up to the DCI to determine.
Now, if the DCI wants, they could refuse to sanction any event in which it would be considered theft to remove the cards, but that does not seem to be their position, because Toby Elliott says that it's fine to run a draft where you're required to give the cards back at the end. So it could still be small-t theft, even if it isn't big-T Theft of Tournament Materials.
Would the law enforce a rare-redraft? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But it might, depending on how clear you made the rules at the beginning, I think.
EDIT: According to Toby Elliott, the DCI-sanctioned version of this is to take exactly 45 cards (all your drafted cards, the pack you are holding, and the unopened packs that you will open in the future).
If something bizarre happens, like a player removing some cards from the draft, you have to improvise, and use common sense while doing so, because the rules don't necessarily describe exactly what to do.
EDIT: Toby Elliott has also stated that "The seven remaining players continue," so there's also the rule "Do what Toby Elliott says."
It wouldn't be the first time Wizards of the Coast made an incredibly bad decision regarding the rules. And this is not even as bad as some of them. Yes, it allows players to disrupt drafts in an undesirable way without being disqualified and/or suspended. But if the DCI doesn't want to disqualify and/or suspend people for that, that's up to them.
Toby Elliott specifically recommends that you ban the player from your store for this, indicating that it's not considered good behavior. They obviously just don't want to deal with DQ investigations on this point, or have players complaining that they were disqualified for taking cards that they believed belonged to them.