|
Failboattootoot posted:Wait, since when has killing something not removed it's activated abilities from the stack? If that were the case, this would read "T, Sacrifice Evolving Wilds."
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:Wait, since when has killing something not removed it's activated abilities from the stack? How do you think Mogg Fanatic or the Mirrodin spell bombs work? suicidesteve posted:I seem to remember that it did stop the ability. At the very least that's how we all played. Back in the old days, there were cases where it worked that way, but it was mostly to do with Interrupts and their dumbness. http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/299
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Entropic posted:The measure of a good judge is what they do when they're shown that they made a bad ruling. tbf, this is also the measure of a good human being imho
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
So let's say there is a mother of runes in play. If I terror the mother, she taps to give herself pro black, and I terror her again then she would die correct? But let's say there's a... shivan dragon too. I terror the dragon, they give the dragon pro black and i terror the mother, than the dragon would live? Edit: Thanks for clearing things up! Failboattootoot fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Yes and yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:So let's say there is a mother of runes in play. If I terror the mother, she taps to give herself pro black, and I terror her again then she would die correct? Presuming everything you said is in response to each other, then you're correct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:So let's say there is a mother of runes in play. If I terror the mother, she taps to give herself pro black, and I terror her again then she would die correct? 1) Yes, assuming you cast Terror in response to the ability and didn't wait for it to resolve. 2) Yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:So let's say there is a mother of runes in play. If I terror the mother, she taps to give herself pro black, and I terror her again then she would die correct? Yes and Yes. In the first case the second terror resolves before Mom's ability does (assuming you used terror in response to the ability rather than waiting for it to resolve). In the second case you kill Mom, but her ability is already on the stack and will resolve before the first Terror, meaning the Dragon has Protection from Black when the first Terror tries to resolve, causing it to fizzle*. *Fizzle is not a real rules term, but it should be damnit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
I think the way they word it now is that a spell gets countered if all of its targets become illegal or nonexistent. Which is why uncounterable spells now have the wording "Can't be countered by spells or abilities." They can still be countered by the rules of the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
I got into a stupid argument yesterday which I know I'm right about but need to be absolutely sure about. Goblin Piledriver and Alesha, Who Smiles at Death are attacking. Alesha's triggered ability is paid for and brings back a Goblin. Does Goblin Piledriver's triggered ability give him +2/+0 from having another attacking Goblin? I'm 99% certain that this is a 'no' because it's a triggered ability that fires when you declare attackers, much like Brimaz's, and if you cheat Brimaz in with Preeminent Captain or the like he won't trigger. Naturally, since I'm not a judge I can't possibly be right about anything (in this person's mind), so I dropped the matter, but I wanted to know if I was the one with the cat-piss here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:I got into a stupid argument yesterday which I know I'm right about but need to be absolutely sure about. If you stack it so Alesha's aability resolves first, then it does get the +2/+0. Piledriver's ability just cares how many other goblins are attacking as it resolves, it doesn't care how many goblins declared attacks. e: In a similar situation, if you bring piledriver itself back, its ability will never trigger in the first place, for the same reason as the Brimaz interaction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:I got into a stupid argument yesterday which I know I'm right about but need to be absolutely sure about. I think this is a case where if you stack the triggers properly, you can get the additional +2/+0 from the Goblin that Alesha brings back. Piledriver checks how many goblins are attacking upon resolution of the trigger, not when it goes on the stack. So put it on the stack first, then Alesha's, then goblin comes back, then Piledriver trigger resolves, and it gets the bonus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I think the way they word it now is that a spell gets countered if all of its targets become illegal or nonexistent. Which is why uncounterable spells now have the wording "Can't be countered by spells or abilities." They can still be countered by the rules of the game. Except Gilded Drake!  ungulateman posted:I got into a stupid argument yesterday which I know I'm right about but need to be absolutely sure about. Goblin Piledriver's is a triggered ability, just like Alesha's. Since you control both, you choose the order in which to put them on the stack. Presumably you put Alesha's on top, so it resolves, gets the Gobbo, then Piledriver resolves (presuming no other effects of course), and it checks the number of attacking Goblins, which does include the graveyard-Goblin, since it is put onto the battlefield tapped and attacking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:Except Gilded Drake! Creatures and spells that don't target (Supreme Verdict, Savage Summoning, Obliterate) still use the old clause because they don't need the new one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:I got into a stupid argument yesterday which I know I'm right about but need to be absolutely sure about. The Piledriver will get his +2/+0 if you stack it so that his ability resolves second. Unlike the Brimaz and Preeminent Captain examples, the Piledriver isn't getting cheated into play already attacking, he starts in play and attacks normally. If you do it the other way around (random Goblin in play, Piledriver in graveyard), or if the Piledriver was worded "Whenever another Goblin you control attacks...", it would stay a 1/2, but as others have said, it counts attacking goblins when the trigger resolves, so it doesn't really care how the goblins got to be attacking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Is it possible for a savagely summoned creature to be countered or can I count on it to enter the battlefield with an extra counter? Also uncounterable spells can have their resolution stopped by venser's etb ability
Zoness fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Feb 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Judgechat - I used to be a level 1 judge, and let my status lapse while I was at university - if you don't engage with the program at all for a certain amount of time it expires (or did at the time). Judge errors is a tricky one - a major function of judges in my experience is simply to help out with tournament logistics, and there is a certain minimum below which mid-size tournaments just won't function, so you do need to maximise the number of keen people who stay engaged with the program. However, stories like the Humble Defector one create a lot of bad feeling, and overall I come down on the side of needing to do more to keep judges from making that kind of simple effect. One of the local judges where I was working earned notoriety at a PTQ by insisting that non-creature artifacts had summoning sickness until eventually overruled by the head judge on appeal. That's not cool. I'd suggest two things: * an incrementing cool-off period between consecutive test failures. * a section in the L1 test of maybe 10 really basic questions (abilities if source dies, is ardakar wastes a plains, do artifacts have summoning sickness etc.) that instantly fail you if you get any wrong. It sounds harsh, but it has the dual benefits of reducing the number of serious howlers judges will make, and also educating people who fail on them who still want to be in the program - after I passed my L1 test I sat down with an L3 and went through all the questions that I got wrong, and I hope that most people get the same thing, and failing an exam on not knowing how humble defector works is probably going to make the correct ruling stick in your mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Cernunnos posted:Creatures and spells that don't target (Supreme Verdict, Savage Summoning, Obliterate) still use the old clause because they don't need the new one. I was referring to how Gilded Drake's ability can ONLY be countered by spells or abilities. One_Wing posted:after I passed my L1 test I sat down with an L3 and went through all the questions that I got wrong, and I hope that most people get the same thing, and failing an exam on not knowing how humble defector works is probably going to make the correct ruling stick in your mind. I didn't. Because I got 100% on it 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:I didn't. ... With 100%. Let's just say Event Report and MODO aren't the only pieces of lousy software Wizards has pushed out in recent times. Apparently the instant failure was actually a work-around at the time that prevented their online testing from failing to record entirely because reasons. (I did actually pass, but since I was buddies with the L2 who supervised me and a few other L1s at my LGS, I did still get berated for failing!  )
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
 Well now I feel even stupider. I suppose I was under the impression that Piledriver just wouldn't trigger without any other Goblins on the battlefield when it attacked. I owe somebody an apology. Clearly this is Magic Online's fault somehow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:Except Gilded Drake! I'm going to innocently ask why it is worded that way and really hope that it isn't something to do with layers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:I'm going to innocently ask why it is worded that way and really hope that it isn't something to do with layers. If you have to ask if it has something to do with layers, it probably does. If you hope it doesn't, it also probably has something to do with layers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Zoness posted:Is it possible for a savagely summoned creature to be countered or can I count on it to enter the battlefield with an extra counter? If your battlefield no longer exists (say in response to summoning your creature savagely, someone bolts you to death in a multiplayer game, so your dying doesn't just end the game altogether), would the game say your creature spell was countered?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:I'm going to innocently ask why it is worded that way and really hope that it isn't something to do with layers. It's because flipping the table over in anger won't counter the ability from resolving.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:I'm going to innocently ask why it is worded that way and really hope that it isn't something to do with layers. They didn't want you to be able to kill your opponent's creature in response to the ability and get your undercosted beater for free.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Can't you still exile a gilded drake's trigger with time stop and sundial? Oh yeah I forgot mindbreak trap also exiled spells.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:Except Gilded Drake! My favorite  wording is Sea Drake. Don't have 2 lands to bounce? You get a 3 mana 4/3flyer!MiddleEastBeast posted:If your battlefield no longer exists (say in response to summoning your creature savagely, someone bolts you to death in a multiplayer game, so your dying doesn't just end the game altogether), would the game say your creature spell was countered? They're removed from the game, Mindbreak Trap style.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:My favorite Wording isn't particularly weird but it still works as intended, sorta. Yeah you get your flier, but you have no lands so... I mean there are easy ways to do it, but there's easier stuff you can do for more (Stifle on Leveler's trigger for example).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
So if I cast Gilded Drake, and my opponent responds to the ETB trigger by giving the target hexproof, the exchange still happens?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Starving Autist posted:So if I cast Gilded Drake, and my opponent responds to the ETB trigger by giving the target hexproof, the exchange still happens? No, the exchange won't take place and Gilded Drake will be sacrificed. It's specifically in the Gatherer text. quote:This ability is targeted, so Protection can prevent targeting if it exists when the ability would be put on the stack. Once the ability is on the stack, adding Protection will not counter the ability but the exchange will not take place since the target is illegal and you sacrifice this card on resolution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:I'm going to innocently ask why it is worded that way and really hope that it isn't something to do with layers. It's so "If you don't make an exchange, sacrifice Gilded Drake" works properly if the target of Gilded Drake's exchange becomes invalid. Give the exchange target pro-blue or hexproof in response, the entire ability would be countered, including the sacrifice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Starving Autist posted:So if I cast Gilded Drake, and my opponent responds to the ETB trigger by giving the target hexproof, the exchange still happens? No, it's a targeted effect (and Hexproof is an ability). The exchange doesn't take place because the target is illegal, and you sacrifice the Drake on resolution of the ability (because no exchange happened).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:Wording isn't particularly weird but it still works as intended, sorta. Yeah you get your flier, but you have no lands so... I mean there are easy ways to do it, but there's easier stuff you can do for more (Stifle on Leveler's trigger for example). Nope. If you don't have 2 lands to target with its ETB, it can't go on the stack and you get a 4/3 flyer for 3 with no downside. The wording on the paper card isn't so bad, the errata'd wording is: gatherer posted:When Sea Drake enters the battlefield, return two target lands you control to their owner's hand. This is most commonly done with Chrome Mox and Ancient Tomb, resulting in a sweet (really bad) deck known as Sea Stompy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Nope. If you don't have 2 lands to target with its ETB, it can't go on the stack and you get a 4/3 flyer for 3 with no downside. The wording on the paper card isn't so bad, the errata'd wording is: Oh dang, I didn't read that well, I thought it meant that you needed NO lands. Yeah that can work. Like you said it's not good, but not as bad as needing just non-land mana.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
So apparently there are statistics for number of males vs number of females in Magic and they're a lot closer than I expected http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/110840728088/do-you-guys-have-any-data-on-the-breakdown-of-the MaRo's blog posted:mezentine asked: Do you guys have any data on the breakdown of the gender ratio of players, and its shift that you're able to share? I'd certainly like to hope that its increasing in the last decade or so Sure doesn't feel that way in tournaments around here at least, so I'm guessing the women are more likely to be kitchen table players for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
With numbers like that, I wouldn't be surprised if the kitchen table is almost equal, and the difference is almost entirely in tournament players.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Literally the alpha rulebook says that activated abilities continue. Yea. I've had this argument too many times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Elyv posted:So apparently there are statistics for number of males vs number of females in Magic and they're a lot closer than I expected At my school a lot of guys have girlfriends who don't necessarily have decks but can still play a game if they borrow one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
One of my first rude awakenings in MTG was trying to disenchant a Nevinyrral's Disk after it was activated. WHAT DO YOU MEAN EVERYTHING STILL DIES AUGH
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Elyv posted:So apparently there are statistics for number of males vs number of females in Magic and they're a lot closer than I expected Well, to be honest, it's probably just indicative of a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with Magic itself and more to do with cultural stuff but it's late and I don't think going all D&D in this thread is the best thing for me to be doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 03:09
|
|