استریم

برچسب: magic

  • magic the gathering – How Threefold Thunderhulk interact with Ability Boosting effects?

    magic the gathering – How Threefold Thunderhulk interact with Ability Boosting effects?


    Absolutely it would.

    611.3c Continuous effects that modify characteristics of permanents do so simultaneously with the permanent entering the battlefield. They don’t wait until the permanent is on the battlefield and then change it. Because such effects apply as the permanent enters the battlefield, they are applied before determining whether the permanent will cause an ability to trigger when it enters the battlefield.

    Example: A permanent with the static ability “All white creatures get +1/+1” is on the battlefield. A creature spell that would normally create a 1/1 white creature instead creates a 2/2 white creature. The creature doesn’t enter the battlefield as 1/1 and then change to 2/2.

    Threefold Thunderhulk will enter with three +1/+1 counters on it, and also get the +1/+1 from Anthem of Champions, meaning that it enters as a 4/4 creature, and so when its enters trigger resolves you will get 4 token creatures.

    Even if this weren’t the case (e.g. if the anthem effect were applied as some kind of state-based action) then it would be fine – Thunderhulk is already on the battlefield once the trigger resolves, so it will definitely have 4 power at that point. However, it does mean that Thunderhulk will trigger, for example, Garruk’s Uprising, which says

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

    because its power is equal to 4 as it enters which wouldn’t be the case if rule 611.3c worked differently.



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – How does a card’s “Impending” ability work while there are still time counters on it?

    magic the gathering – How does a card’s “Impending” ability work while there are still time counters on it?


    A creature cast with the impending cost with time counters on it is just a regular enchantment permanent.

    A spell cannot be on the stack for multiple turns

    In Magic: the Gathering, each turn is divided into a sequence of steps, and each step can only end if the stack is empty. This means that any spell must leave the stack, either by resolving or by being countered, in the same step in which it is cast. So, no spell can ever be on the stack in a turn after the one in which it was cast, and you cannot ever counter a spell that was cast in a previous turn.

    “Not a creature” does not mean “not a permanent”

    The impending ability says that if you pay the impending cost, the object is “not a creature” as long as it has a time counter on it. “Creature” is just a card type, like “artifact” or “enchantment”. If an effect says that something is “not a creature”, that just means that it doesn’t have the creature type, or any associated subtypes, or power and toughness. Nothing else about it changes; if it would otherwise be a permanent, it’s still a permanent, just one that isn’t a creature.

    Impending

    The ability is defined in rule 702.126a:

    702.176a. Impending is a keyword that represents four abilities. The first and second are static abilities that function while the spell with impending is on the stack. The third is a static ability that functions on the battlefield. The fourth is a triggered ability that functions on the battlefield. “Impending N–[cost]” means “You may choose to pay [cost] rather than pay this spell’s mana cost,” “If you chose to pay this spell’s impending cost, it enters with N time counters on it,” “As long as this permanent’s impending cost was paid and it has a time counter on it, it’s not a creature,” and “At the beginning of your end step, if this permanent’s impending cost was paid and it has a time counter on it, remove a time counter from it.” Casting a spell for its impending cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f-h.

    All of the existing cards with the Impending ability are Enchantment Creature cards, so if one of them is cast by paying its impending cost, it resolves just like any other permanent spell, except that as long as it has a time counter on it, it is just an Enchantment. It can be interacted with just like any other Enchantment. A counterspell targets spells on the stack, and this is a permanent on the battlefield, so they do not interact. Terror targets creatures, and this is not a creature, so they do not interact. Naturalize, for example, targets enchantments, so it could interact with one of these permanents.



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – Legolas Master Archer removed with 2nd triggered ability on stack

    magic the gathering – Legolas Master Archer removed with 2nd triggered ability on stack


    113.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “This creature deals 1 damage to any target”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source for use while announcing an activated ability or putting a triggered ability on the stack checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.

    Last known information about Legolas is that it’s a 3/6 with deathtouch, so it will deal 3 damage and because of deathtouch, it’s lethal.



    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

  • Could using randomness to improve play count as a behaviour violation in 2012 magic?


    In the question Magic: The Gathering – Are there behavioral rules for sanctioned MTG games? one of the ‘serious violations’ listed is "influencing match outcomes", and a suggested method is ‘using randomness to decide the outcome of the match’. Interestingly, (and probably because of the problem I’m about to point out) this has since been removed from this document’s latest version.

    I understand the reason it’s there: if players were allowed to flip a coin to decide who wins and fix the match beforehand, that would be problematic: it could run into gambling laws.

    But in the interest of completeness, I’d still like to ask a historical question: Given the rules of the day, could it be possible that this ‘behavior violation’ could come up during the normal course of play if a player decided that using randomness was the best course of action, and did so?

    For example, consider a situation in which a player could ‘bluff’ having a counter-card in a combat. Gregory, playing green, attacks with a 2/2 bear into Bob’s 3/3 zombie. Normally, this would be a mistake, but Gregory has several unidentified cards in his hand.

    Greg should (to play optimally) bluff some percentage of the time in this situation (the exact amount is some complex game theory I won’t get into in this post). So he could covertly roll a d20 to decide, and do the same thing if he actually does have the buff in hand, but not use the result. (Or use any other method or source of randomness.) He could use the primary colour of the shirt of the player sitting across and to the side of him. Or any other thing that would be really hard to prove. If it is not allowed, then how would one even catch a player using such a covert random method?1

    Let’s say that the outcome of this play happens to decide the outcome of the match. If Greg loses his creature, he falls behind and can’t overcome Bob. But the same holds for Bob. If Greg gets in the two damage, that just so happens to be the two points he needs later on in the game. (If Bob was already at two life or below, he would obviously have to block).

    1: The reason to do so would be because people are bad at generating true randomness. Using a proxy prevents your opponents from reading a pattern and catching the bluff more often than by pure guess. A pair of sunglasses is also highly recommended.



    Source link

  • magic the gathering – Does cycling a card use the stack? And what about his triggered ability?

    magic the gathering – Does cycling a card use the stack? And what about his triggered ability?


    Cycling does go on the stack.

    702.29a Cycling is an activated ability that functions only while the card with cycling is in a player’s hand. “Cycling [cost]” means “[Cost], Discard this card: Draw a card.”

    602.2. To activate an ability is to put it onto the stack and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Only an object’s controller (or its owner, if it doesn’t have a controller) can activate its activated ability unless the object specifically says otherwise. Activating an ability follows the steps listed below, in order. If, at any point during the activation of an ability, a player is unable to comply with any of those steps, the activation is illegal; the game returns to the moment before that ability started to be activated (see rule 730, “Handling Illegal Actions”). Announcements and payments can’t be altered after they’ve been made.

    Triggered abilities that trigger from cycling also go on the stack, on top of the cycling ability (because the process of activating cycling will have finished before the triggered ability is put on the stack).

    603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority. See rule 117, “Timing and Priority.” The ability becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has the text of the ability that created it, and no other characteristics. It remains on the stack until it’s countered, it resolves, a rule causes it to be removed from the stack, or an effect moves it elsewhere.

    117.3c If a player has priority when they cast a spell, activate an ability, or take a special action, that player receives priority afterward.



    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 – Interaction between Keiga, the Tide Star and Aggressive Biomancy

    magic the gathering – Interaction between Keiga, the Tide Star and Aggressive Biomancy


    You will gain control of a creature for each of the X Keigas you created and at most one fight will happen. You decide the order.

    When the Keigas enter the battlefield, each of them triggers the fight ability, then the legend rule happens. You have to choose any one Keiga you control (original or one of the tokens) and the rest die. This is a state-based action.

    704.5j If two or more legendary permanents with the same name are controlled by the same player, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners’ graveyards. This is called the “legend rule.”

    This happens after the fight abilities trigger, but before they enter the stack:

    704.3. Whenever a player would get priority (see rule 117, “Timing and Priority”), the game checks for any of the listed conditions for state-based actions, then performs all applicable state-based actions simultaneously as a single event. If any state-based actions are performed as a result of a check, the check is repeated; otherwise all triggered abilities that are waiting to be put on the stack are put on the stack, then the check is repeated. [..]

    You are left with one Keiga; the other X Keigas die and trigger their death ability. Both the fight abilities and these death abilities are waiting to enter the stack.

    State-based actions area checked again and, if none apply, all the triggered abilities enter the stack in the order of your choice. You pick the relevant targets as you put each ability on the stack.

    603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, the abilities are placed on the stack in a two-part process. First, each player, in APNAP order, puts each triggered ability they control with a trigger condition that isn’t another ability triggering on the stack in any order they choose. (See rule 101.4.) Second, each player, in APNAP order, puts all remaining triggered abilities they control on the stack in any order they choose. Then the game once again checks for and performs state-based actions until none are performed, then abilities that triggered during this process go on the stack. This process repeats until no new state-based actions are performed and no abilities trigger. Then the appropriate player gets priority.

    Then the stack starts resolving. If you chose to keep a token Keiga for the legend rule and the other creature is still being controlled by your opponent, that fight can happen. No other fight can happen because the Keiga it originated from will be dead to the legend rule.

    701.12b If one or both creatures instructed to fight are no longer on the battlefield or are no longer creatures, neither of them fights or deals damage. If one or both creatures are illegal targets for a resolving spell or ability that instructs them to fight, neither of them fights or deals damage.

    So in total: If you created X Keigas with Aggressive Biomancy, you take control of up to X creatures because X Keigas will die to the legend rule. If you kept a token Keiga for the legend rule, it will fight the other targeted creature if it’s still controlled by your opponent. You choose the order of control changes and the fight.



    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

  • magic the gathering – Raid triggers and extra combat steps

    magic the gathering – Raid triggers and extra combat steps


    The ability can only trigger once on each of your turns.

    The actual text of the ability on Alesha is

    At the beginning of your end step, if you attacked this turn, return target creature card with mana value less than or equal to Alesha’s power from your graveyard to the battlefield.

    In order to understand this ability, you can divide it into three parts: the trigger event, the condition, and the effect. The trigger event is “At the beginning of your end step”. The condition is “if you attacked this turn”. And the effect is “return target creature card with mana value less than or equal to Alesha’s power from your graveyard to the battlefield”. The beginning of your end step happens once during each of your turns, so the ability triggers once in each of your turns. The condition means that if you didn’t attack, the ability doesn’t trigger at all. If you did attack, and you have a valid target, the ability triggers and resolves that one time, and the effect happens.



    Source link