استریم

برچسب: creature

  • magic the gathering – Quietus Spike and Scytheclaw equipped to same creature

    magic the gathering – Quietus Spike and Scytheclaw equipped to same creature


    As the Gatherer rulings on Quietus Spikes say:

    (10/1/2008)
    If multiple Quietus Spikes trigger at the same time, that player loses half their life when the first ability resolves, then loses half of the remainder when the next ability resolves, and so on. The player does not lose the same amount each time.

    It’s identical in your situation; both are triggered abilities, they will be separate events on the stack, so they’ll resolve independently. In this case, two halves make three quarters, not a whole.

    Note that because of the ’rounded up’ in the card text, if their life total is 3 or less after combat damage is dealt, that’ll be enough to put their life total to zero anyway (3 → 1 → 0, 2 → 1 → 0, 1 → 0).

    Incidentally, in very special cases, the last sentence of the Oracle text is incorrect, namely when the affected player has life total 0 (or lower), but is still in the game due to something like a Platinum Angel. In that case, they’ll lose an equal amount of life, namely 0, both times.



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – Zimone, All-Questioning and Primo’s interactions with cards that let you draw cards based on the amount of power your creature has

    magic the gathering – Zimone, All-Questioning and Primo’s interactions with cards that let you draw cards based on the amount of power your creature has


    So before we get to the “actual” question let me just make sure everyone is on the same page with the cards in question

    Zimone, All Questioning has an effect that says

    “At the beginning of your end step, if a land entered the battlefield under your control
    this turn and you control a prime number of lands, create Primo, the
    Indivisible, a legendary 0/0 green and blue Fractal creature token,
    then put that many +1/+1 counters on it. (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19,
    23, 29, and 31 are prime numbers.)”

    Cards like Garruk’s Uprising have an effect that says

    Whenever a creature you control with power 4 or greater enters, draw a card.

    Does Garruk’s Uprising (and other cards like it) see Primo when it is first created as a 0/0 or do they only see it after the +1/+1 counters are added to it?



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – On attack trigger timing vs becoming an “attacking creature”

    magic the gathering – On attack trigger timing vs becoming an “attacking creature”


    If I attack with Jor Kadeen, can I play Embercleave for 5 (-1) before the attack trigger resolves, making them a 4/4 and drawing 1? or do I have to pay the full 6 and play it earlier?

    The attacking/blocking phase timings have changed multiple times in my play memory.. so more generally, are creatures considered attacking immediately when they are declared attackers, do their triggers need to resolve first (step change), or something else?

    Jor Kadeen, First Goldwarden has a trigger “Whenever Jor Kadeen attacks ..” and Embercleave counts attacking creatures “This spell costs {1} less to cast for each attacking creature you control.” and can be played instantly due to Flash.

    Jor Kadeen is also clear in their rulings that their desirable calculation is done once during ability resolution (hooray) “The value of X is determined only once, as the triggered ability resolves. If the number of equipped creatures you control changes after that time, it won’t change the bonus granted.”

    Jor Kadeen Embercleave



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – How does “other than enchanted creature” (and ideally some broader category of effect phrases) use last known information?

    magic the gathering – How does “other than enchanted creature” (and ideally some broader category of effect phrases) use last known information?


    Suppose Player A’s Sporogenic Infection enters enchanting Player B’s Nine-Lives Familiar, and its ETB triggered ability is put onto the stack targeting Player B. Player B responds by casting Back to Nature, destroying Sporogenic Infection. When Sporgenic Infection’s ETB triggered ability resolves, can Player B sacrifice Nine-Lives Familiar?

    The best candidate for relevant rule seems to be…

    608.2h If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself, the effect uses the current information of that object if it’s in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it’s no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object’s last known information. See rule 113.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability.

    I am unclear on the how to apply the phrase “requires information from a specific object.” In my own attempt to arrive at an answer, two distinctions arose…

    • About which object(s) does the effect require information? Does it look at the creature and view “being enchanted by Sporogenic Infection” as information about that creature? Does it look at the enchantment and view “enchanting Nine-Lives familiar” as information about that enchantment? Does it look at both the creature and the enchantment?

    • Does the phrase “other than enchanted creature” refer to whichever object(s) the effect ultimately looks at intensionally or extensionally, for example, in the case that the effect will look at just the creature, does the effect say “hey game, give me information about Nine-Lives Familiar” (intensional) or “hey game, give me information about the creature which has the property of being enchanted by Sporogenic Infection”?

    If the creature is the sole object of query, and if “other than enchanted creature” refers intensionally, then Nine-Lives Familiar is in the public zone it is expected to be in, thus its current information should be used, and as it is no longer enchanted by Sporogenic Infection, it should be legal for Player B to sacrifice Nine-Lives Familiar. If the creature is the sole object of query, but if instead “other than enchanted creature” refers extensionally, then the game will not find any creature which has the property of being enchanted by Sporogenic Infection, and will have to use last known information to find the creature which has that property, and thus it should be illegal for Player B to sacrifice Nine-Lives Familiar. By similar logic, if the enchantment is the object of focus, then regardless of the intensional VS extensional distinction, it should be illegal for Player B to sacrifice Nine-Lives Familiar. If both the creature and the enchantment are objects of query, then more explanation may be warranted.

    What is the right way to interpret and apply this rule? An ideal answer would obviously describe the mechanics which address the broadest category of phrases possible, but if such consistency is not to be found, then at least how does it apply to the phrase “other than enchanted creature” as in the above case?



    Source link

  • If a creature planeswalker is dealt damage by a creature with infect, what happens?


    If a planeswalker than has been turned into a creature (not a planeswalker that turns itself into a creature with “prevent all damage” like Gideon) takes Infect damage, what happens?

    I know that Infect damage is applied as -1/-1 counters, and I know that the planeswalker will have both damaged marked on it, as well as have it’s loyalty reduced, but what I’m unsure of is if the -1/-1 counters further reduce the loyalty or if they only impact the power / toughness.

    As a follow-on, do the -1/-1 counters stay on the planeswalker when it is no longer a creature? And if so, could this be used to prevent a Gideon from using it’s “become a creature” ability (or at least kill it if it does)?



    Source link

  • What happens when Grond attacks, and then loses his creature status?


    Grond, the Gatebreaker is a 5/5 artifact vehicle with the following text:

    As long as it’s your turn and you control an Army, Grond is an
    artifact creature.

    We were faced with two different scenarios last night, both I think are related. In both scenarios I have Grond, and control a 2/2 Orc Army and no other creatures. Attackers have been declared, and Grond is attacking.

    Scenario 1: Opponent destroys the Orc Army with an instant before blockers are declared. As Grond is now no longer a vehicle, is he still attacking as a 5/5? Or is he removed from combat?

    Scenario 2: Opponent blocks Grond with a grizzly bears equiped with Barrow-Blade. Grond loses all abilities. Presumably, Grond is now "just" an uncrewed vehicle and is removed from combat?

    My guess is both scenarios are essentially the same and Grond is removed from combat. But, wanting confirmation. No rulings on Grond around this issue.



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – What happens if I lose control of a creature affected by Act of Treason?

    magic the gathering – What happens if I lose control of a creature affected by Act of Treason?


    No, player C will keep controlling it.

    Both spells have continuous effects which modify the creature’s characteristics in Layer 2, and the one with the latest timestamp wins. It doesn’t matter that Act of Treason is only temporary (and one could say Donate doesn’t have a duration at all):

    611.2a A continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability lasts as long as stated by the spell or ability creating it (such as “until end of turn”). If no duration is stated, it lasts until the end of the game.

    Relevant parts of the layer system:

    613.1b Layer 2: Control-changing effects are applied.

    613.3. Within layers 2–6, apply effects from characteristic-defining abilities first (see rule 604.3), then all other effects in timestamp order (see rule 613.7). Note that dependency may alter the order in which effects are applied within a layer. (See rule 613.8.)

    The situation would have been different if Act of Treason had read something like

    Gain control of target creature. At the end of turn, return it to its owner’s control.

    because then that last part would be ‘later’ than, and overriding the effect of, your Donate.

    A related example: you cast Donate on one of your creatures and give it to Player C. Player A casts Act of Treason so it comes under Player A’s control; at the end of turn, it’s returned to Player C, not to you.



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – Does Arc Spitter’s ability resolve if the equipped creature dies?

    magic the gathering – Does Arc Spitter’s ability resolve if the equipped creature dies?


    Arc Spitter‘s ability reads

    Equipped creature has “{1}: This creature deals 1 damage to target creature that’s blocking it.”

    I’m not sure what “target creature that’s blocking it” means when the equipped creature changes zones. Suppose my 1/1 blocks another 1/1 equipped with Arc Splitter. My opponent activates its ability, targeting my blocker, and in response I destroy the attacker. Does the damage ability resolve?

    Of course I’m aware of the basic principle that abilities on the stack are independent of their source (Does an ability resolve if the source of the ability leaves the battlefield?), but in this case the source’s zone change seems like it could affect the legality of the target.

    The key question seems to be, is my blocker still “blocking it (i.e., the attacking creature)”? If so, it’s a legal target and takes damage; if not, it’s an illegal target and the ability fizzles. 509.1g clearly says it’s still a blocking creature, but I’m not sure what rule specifies whether it’s blocking anything specific.

    My best guess is rule 608.2b, which reads in part:

    If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process [of checking whether its targets are legal].

    That clearly applies here, so we should use the LKI of the attacker, and maybe that includes the set of creatures blocking it. On the other hand, the blocker is still on the battlefield, so we should use its current information. It’s a blocking creature, but it isn’t blocking any other creatures.

    What should actually happen here and why?



    Source link