If you have two Searing Blazes, can you cast them both targeting the same creature to deal more damage to your opponent? Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw
Nice. I had a fun interaction the other day with Urza’s Saga (the land) removing the third counter off the Saga by using a Hex Parasite. Every round the third trigger happens but the Urza’s saga never leaves play.
That’s really interesting and I’ve clearly been playing this wrong. In the same vein if I cast a spell like casualties of war and have one legal target for each category, and someone sacrifices a creature at instant speed, do all the other permanents still get destroyed or does the spell fizzle? I thought if a spell didn’t have all its legal targets it would just fizzle.
If at least one target is still legal the spell/ability will resolve normally, doing as much as it can. Only if all the targets of the spell/ability have become illegal will it “fizzle”.
This will likely not be made into a video since we're already on #364 but I'll ask anyway. Satoru Umezawa + Humility, would creature cards in my hand have ninjutsu? Here's my answer: I believe they don't because according to 613.8 Satoru Umezawa is dependent on Humility, which means Humility applies first which takes away the ninjutsu text.
Wow, I actually got one wrong 0_o I'm used to u teaching me things I didn't know but now I know there have defs been moments back when my friends still played where we did shit totally wrong :/
Wait, I've seen this interaction multiple times when searing blaze was in standard. When I play searing blaze targeting grizzly bears and my opponent sacrifices grizzly bears in response do I still deal 3 dmg to my opponent or does the blaze fizzle?
Also if you want to cast both searing blazes on the creature, your opponent doesn't get priority to sacrifice the grizzly bears after seeing you cast the first spell to prevent you from casting the second one. That's what "holding priority" is for. First you cast both blazes on the grizzly bears and the opponent, then he gets priority and can choose to sacrifice the grizzly bear. But if you cast the first blaze, pass priority, then he sacrifices the bear, you don't go back to say hey, I actually wanted to target the bear a second time. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
@@tiborgrun6963 Yes, you are 100% correct, after you cast a spell you get the priority and you can hold it to cast the second spell. Your opponent has no room for interaction between the 2 spells if you hold the prio. I was just really surprised about the result of this case, because I played standard FNMs multiple times during shards of alara period, and the local judge said that the spell fizzles if 1 of the targets are illegal during the time the spell resolves. That is how we played for 2 whole years. I know that Dave is right, I was just really surprised that we didn't play right for 2 years. Searing blaze was a really popular card back in the day
So I got the answer right (I have had to answer this question before) but I do have a followup. Was this changed at some point to make it to where it would still try and resolve as long as there was a legal target? I feel like in ye-olden days as long as one of the targets left the whole spell would fizzle. Me and my other friend who played for a long time were confused when I was looking over this ruling like a year ago. We both swear that back during the times we were learning how to play (95-99) it did not work like this. Was this a major rule change at some point? Was it just a misconception cause no one knew how the game worked back then?
Ok, I just spent WAY too much time trying to research this question. My sense was that the principle of "if a spell has multiple targets, and one or more are removed, resolve as much of the spell as you can" is REALLY old. However, I didn't have as good an understanding of complex rules back in the 90s, and it was a long time ago, so I wasn't completely sure. BUT! I finally found this in the 4th Edition Rulebook, in the section about targeting: "If a spell is aimed at a single target and that target is removed from play or becomes invalid before the spell resolves, that spell fizzles and has no effect. If a spell is aimed at multiple targets and one or more of those targets are removed or become invalid before the spell resolves, that spell still affects any of its original targets that are still valid and in play." So it's worked the same way at LEAST as far back as 1995. If you go back much further than that, the rules start getting pretty squirrelly anyways, so there might be really really old rulings, from like the prehistoric days of Magic, that contradict this.
@@christopherlundgren1700 I recently came into possession of some very old ice age cards and an old rulebook as well. That is the exact same paragraph I found. Amazing. I am guessing this is just a misconception because no one used to have great reading comprehension back in the day and we probably stopped after the first sentence. Also back when we literally did not understand how the game worked as a whole and one of the stories I still remember is how people thought you could just not sac ball lightning because that ability sounds optional. "Sac at end of turn? Well I don't want to do that, so I guess I just won't!" and that seemed legit. It was the wild west man we didn't understand how the most of this stuff worked we just pretended that we did.
@@nooneimportanttoyou Haha! My favorite story from when I was getting my friends into Magic was that the font in the Revised rulebook was so tiny, where it says that creatures with trample deal "trample damage" I thought it said they deal "triple damage". My War Mammoths were very mighty that day, indeed.
Q idea: If you summon a token with an effect that would require you to sacrifice them at end of turn (ex: Rite of the Raging Storm) and somehow turn that token into a copy of another creature (ex: Esix, Fractal Bloom), does the resulting token copy still sacrifice at the end of turn?
In the given example it would be a no, because the token being created by the Rite of the Raging storm has the text on it that says to sacrifice it at the appropriate time, which is replaced by it becoming a copy of another creature that doesn't have said ability. If the token is created by an effect with wording like "Create a token, sacrifice it at the beginning of the next end step." then the copy would still be sacrificed. The delayed trigger would go on the stack, and since the token created hasn't changed zones it would be tracked and thus sacrificed.
Nice. I had a fun interaction the other day with Urza’s Saga (the land) removing the third counter off the Saga by using a Hex Parasite. Every round the third trigger happens but the Urza’s saga never leaves play.
WOW
...I'm pretty sure I won a game recently because our table screwed this up.
Oops.
This makes me want to start a grizzly bears collection.
Alpha Grizzly, portal grizzly, 7 ed. Foil grizzly.
That would be so cool!
@@JudgingFtW consider it done. 😈
That’s really interesting and I’ve clearly been playing this wrong. In the same vein if I cast a spell like casualties of war and have one legal target for each category, and someone sacrifices a creature at instant speed, do all the other permanents still get destroyed or does the spell fizzle? I thought if a spell didn’t have all its legal targets it would just fizzle.
If at least one target is still legal the spell/ability will resolve normally, doing as much as it can. Only if all the targets of the spell/ability have become illegal will it “fizzle”.
@@cossin281 Sweet, thanks for the info!
All modern burn players should understand searing blaze!
Pauper Burn as well!
This will likely not be made into a video since we're already on #364 but I'll ask anyway.
Satoru Umezawa + Humility, would creature cards in my hand have ninjutsu?
Here's my answer: I believe they don't because according to 613.8 Satoru Umezawa is dependent on Humility, which means Humility applies first which takes away the ninjutsu text.
With humility in play, satoru would have lost his abilities already and is a vanilla 1/1 creature
That's a nice case
I literally did this today, for lethal.
Wow, I actually got one wrong 0_o I'm used to u teaching me things I didn't know but now I know there have defs been moments back when my friends still played where we did shit totally wrong :/
Wait, I've seen this interaction multiple times when searing blaze was in standard. When I play searing blaze targeting grizzly bears and my opponent sacrifices grizzly bears in response do I still deal 3 dmg to my opponent or does the blaze fizzle?
it's the same situation as the second blaze in the example he gives. So all will resolve
Also if you want to cast both searing blazes on the creature, your opponent doesn't get priority to sacrifice the grizzly bears after seeing you cast the first spell to prevent you from casting the second one. That's what "holding priority" is for. First you cast both blazes on the grizzly bears and the opponent, then he gets priority and can choose to sacrifice the grizzly bear. But if you cast the first blaze, pass priority, then he sacrifices the bear, you don't go back to say hey, I actually wanted to target the bear a second time.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
@@tiborgrun6963 Yes, you are 100% correct, after you cast a spell you get the priority and you can hold it to cast the second spell. Your opponent has no room for interaction between the 2 spells if you hold the prio. I was just really surprised about the result of this case, because I played standard FNMs multiple times during shards of alara period, and the local judge said that the spell fizzles if 1 of the targets are illegal during the time the spell resolves. That is how we played for 2 whole years. I know that Dave is right, I was just really surprised that we didn't play right for 2 years. Searing blaze was a really popular card back in the day
So I got the answer right (I have had to answer this question before) but I do have a followup. Was this changed at some point to make it to where it would still try and resolve as long as there was a legal target? I feel like in ye-olden days as long as one of the targets left the whole spell would fizzle. Me and my other friend who played for a long time were confused when I was looking over this ruling like a year ago. We both swear that back during the times we were learning how to play (95-99) it did not work like this. Was this a major rule change at some point? Was it just a misconception cause no one knew how the game worked back then?
Ok, I just spent WAY too much time trying to research this question. My sense was that the principle of "if a spell has multiple targets, and one or more are removed, resolve as much of the spell as you can" is REALLY old. However, I didn't have as good an understanding of complex rules back in the 90s, and it was a long time ago, so I wasn't completely sure. BUT! I finally found this in the 4th Edition Rulebook, in the section about targeting:
"If a spell is aimed at a single target and that target is removed from play or becomes invalid before the spell resolves, that spell fizzles and has no effect. If a spell is aimed at multiple targets and one or more of those targets are removed or become invalid before the spell resolves, that spell still affects any of its original targets that are still valid and in play."
So it's worked the same way at LEAST as far back as 1995. If you go back much further than that, the rules start getting pretty squirrelly anyways, so there might be really really old rulings, from like the prehistoric days of Magic, that contradict this.
@@christopherlundgren1700 I recently came into possession of some very old ice age cards and an old rulebook as well. That is the exact same paragraph I found. Amazing. I am guessing this is just a misconception because no one used to have great reading comprehension back in the day and we probably stopped after the first sentence. Also back when we literally did not understand how the game worked as a whole and one of the stories I still remember is how people thought you could just not sac ball lightning because that ability sounds optional. "Sac at end of turn? Well I don't want to do that, so I guess I just won't!" and that seemed legit. It was the wild west man we didn't understand how the most of this stuff worked we just pretended that we did.
@@nooneimportanttoyou Haha! My favorite story from when I was getting my friends into Magic was that the font in the Revised rulebook was so tiny, where it says that creatures with trample deal "trample damage" I thought it said they deal "triple damage". My War Mammoths were very mighty that day, indeed.
Q idea: If you summon a token with an effect that would require you to sacrifice them at end of turn (ex: Rite of the Raging Storm) and somehow turn that token into a copy of another creature (ex: Esix, Fractal Bloom), does the resulting token copy still sacrifice at the end of turn?
In the given example it would be a no, because the token being created by the Rite of the Raging storm has the text on it that says to sacrifice it at the appropriate time, which is replaced by it becoming a copy of another creature that doesn't have said ability. If the token is created by an effect with wording like "Create a token, sacrifice it at the beginning of the next end step." then the copy would still be sacrificed. The delayed trigger would go on the stack, and since the token created hasn't changed zones it would be tracked and thus sacrificed.
Would it be the same for 2 Searing Blood?
Searing blood fizzles
It dealt 6 damage.