This is so far out of what people intuitively do that this is guaranteed to be ruled wrong and played wrong all the time. So if anything, the rules should absolutely be changed that this is more in line of what people expect to happen. The "you may mill X" part should work just like the "mill X" of the spell.
To be fair, there aren't that many cards that have the "may have player mill" wording. Most notably there are these three: Cloudhoof Kirin, Jace's Erasure and Iceberg Cantrix. Out of those, I would say only Jace's Erasure sees high amounts of play.
It's rare to see these fringe scenarios where the "correct" ruling is "wrong" in terms of how the effect is going to be interpreted and played out by 99.9999% of the playerbase. Looks like WotC's got another update to the MCR to make. Simple fix too. Just add the same/similar exception for drawing cards in 608.2d to milling as well (608.2d already specifies it must be "an effect", so you already wouldn't get to circumvent costs, such as dredge/Millikin).
@@michaelsparks1571 also, dredge's rules text already checks if you have at least enough cards in your library before it even gives you the option to use the replacement effect
Imagine if damage worked like that! "Sorry you can't hit your opponent with clash of realities they only have 3 life" It significantly reduces the viability of Cloudhoof Kirin
Interestingly, this is why ripple is worded the weird way it is with "you may reveal the top N cards of your library, or, if there are fewer than N cards in your library, you may reveal all the cards in your library." meaning cards and rukes thst don'tinclude this vecone illegal. So mirri's guile and the like also become illegal at low cards in library. Still waiting for the day they fix reveille squad(and all of the gustcloak cards) and pygmy hippo, though.
@@GrizonII You can't untap an untapped creature. Since reveille squad needs to be untapped to trigger and resolve its effect, it is impossible to chose to untap all of your creatures as at least one is already untapped. It needs to say "untap all tapped creatures you control"
It's funny you say that because based on my normal scale, this might have been a 2 or even 1 star, since it's a question about resolving a spell that has to do with understanding relatively simple principles (cannot choose to do something impossible, understanding how "may" clauses work, definition of an evergreen keyword action). That said, the key to the answer was very subtle, and even had me second-guessing myself, so I upgraded the rating.
Honestly pretty cool. I knew the answers only due to seeing/playing lots of matches, never red the comprehensive ruling, Nice to know the secrets behind them.
To answer your question at the end, I made a raw guess, but before unpausing I did actually consult the CR. I wasn't trying to look up the answer, but I wasn't completely clear on how losing by mill technically worked. I was thinking "Is it a replacement effect, or is it just that the action of drawing a card from an empty library is defined as losing?" (It turns out the answer is neither, by the way, it's a state-based action) My original guess was no. But I realized quickly that I was wrong because I accidentally stumbled into another rule that also makes that exception: *121.3* If there are no cards in a player’s library and an effect offers that player the choice to draw a card, that player can choose to do so. However, if an effect says that a player can’t draw cards and another effect offers that player the choice to draw a card, that player can’t choose to do so. Funny that the same exception appears to be defined twice, and I stumbled into the one you didn't use!
Waaaait. Does that mean that if I have a Narset Parter of Veils in play and my opponent has already drawn a card this turn, I can't choose to gift them cards using the new Bloomburrow cards?
@@flaetsbnortFortunately, Gifts don’t work that way “Gift” represents an additional cost that is paid while casting the spell. Technically speaking, the additional cost is simply choosing an opponent. After paying all costs, the spell is placed on the stack with the “Gift cost” already paid (and any actual “Gift giving” happening later) It doesn’t matter if the Gift is eventually received, or whether the Gift can be received at all. The actual Gift giving happens during resolution (or after the permanent enters, for permanent spells), which is a “future” point in time that the rule from the video does not consider (see his “Glimpse the Unthinkable” example at 1:14 - It’s the same idea… Ultimately, the opponent will be instructed to draw a card at some point, which is impossible for them, so they won’t instead) It only matters whether you are able to “choose an opponent” while casting the spell (which as far as I know should always be possible, since it doesn’t target them)
This seems pretty odd and probably would be a good candidate for a rule change. I am nor sure if anything else gets messed up if the rule is change to mill as many cards as possible and if you have less cards then you just mill as many as you can.
Fascinating. Does this work the same with cards like Iceberg Cancrix and Extractor Demon, where if my opponent is at 1 I cannot choose to have them mill since the trigger specifies 2? It seems a whole lot more intuitive with cards like Barrowgoyf (which I also assume works the same), because milling feels more like a "cost" than an effect, since you're milling yourself and not your opponent.
What about something like making target opponent discard 2 cards when he only has 1 card in hand, or exiling 2 cards from the graveyard when he only has 1? I assume they're also illegal?
I think those are the same since the rule says the only exception is drawing cards. Remember though that this rule only applies to things that are chosen at the time of spell resolution, so it's kind of an edge case. "Target player discards 2 cards" would make them pitch it, "you may have target player discard 2 cards" wouldn't.
So then if Nick had 10 cards in library in the original scenario, but then taps a Temple Bell to draw a card, would it fizzle the Cloudhoof ability and/or make Amy choose not to mill on resolution, or is the choice made and placed on the stack, and it turns into the "mill as much as possible" scenario from Glimpse?
@@Confruggy Well, if Nick taps the Temple Bell in response to Cloudhoof Kirin's triggered ability, then Amy can't choose to have Nick mill 10. Targets have already been chosen at that point, so no mill would occur.
this is so dumb, the issue isn't even the rule saying you can't choose to do something impossible, it's the fact that milling cards from an empty libeary is considered something impossible to begin with, instead of being considered possible, but a no-op.
Enh. Then we would have three categories of thing: (a) either it's possible and it happens or it's impossible and it doesn't; (b) it's always “possible” but if it can't actually happen then something else happens (this is just drawing a card); (c) it's always “possible” but if it can't actually happen then nothing happens (milling, as you propose). I'm already sad that we need category (b); let's keep everything else in the nice, simple category.
@@bondeulv Handling costs and effects differently is already supported by the rules though, right? You can be hit with a lava spike when you're at 1 life, but you can't pay 7 life to griselbrand. I guess that's a little different because you can be at -2 life, but e.g. you can be the target of hymn to tourach with no cards in hand, but can't activate psychic frog's ability.
@@JudgingFtW Well okay, and let me take this opportunity to tell you that you are a great teacher and I admire what you're doing and love learning about the rules so if I was a little complainy, as a replacement effect, please instead accept my deep appreciation.
Interesting! Could you do a similar video about an opposing Narset, Parter of Veils while you have Palantir of Orthanc? Based on their wording, it seems like your opponent would *have* to make you mill a card when making their choice during the end step, but I'm not sure
What a strange thing in the rules... but thanks for the info! :) So Extractor Demon infinite loops aren't guaranteed to mill everyone out (although they could leave everyone with just one card left, which is pretty close)...
I've never questioned it until now, but doing "as much as possible" seems woefully ambiguous. I would think that is meant for an effect with actions "A and B, A illegal, so only do B," _not_ "a part of A is illegal, so only do the legal part of A."
That interpretation is arguably more ambiguous. What qualifies for something to be 'part A' and 'part B'? Does Demogorgon's Clutches have three parts? Does Hex have six parts or just one? If six, shouldn't that mean Archive Trap has thirteen parts? Should Wrath of God do nothing if there's a creature with indestructible when it resolves?
@@Felixr2 Well, it's hard to argue how many parts there are because they would contradict how the game actually works. But for the sake of humoring you, in my opinion: Demogorgon's Clutches = 3 Hex = 1 Archive Trap = 1 Wrath of God = no, because indestructible doesn't make destroying illegal, just ineffective
@@NotYourAverageNothing Fair enough, I suppose. That'd make Hex no longer do anything if even just one of the targets became illegal... which opens up a whole other can of worms on which corner case effects should or should not work that way. Granted, all of this mostly just means your original point of it being ambiguous still stands. I'd argue 'as much as possible' should be interpreted as literally as possible, which is to say 'if any part of any effect is possible, do it', but I can see where you're coming from.
Here’s a scenario for you: Gonti deals damage to an opponent and exiles a Kaya’s Wrath (or other all colored pip mana cost card). Since Gonti says you can use mana of any type to pay for the card, will the Gonti player be able to benefit from Gonti’s discount of 1 generic mana for that card?
interesting, I didn't know about this restriction! Does that mean if I have an ability worded like "You may have an opponent discard a card. If you do, you gain 3 life." that I couldn't choose this optional modality if their hand was empty? What about if it said "You may have an opponent sacrifice a creature" when they control no creatures?
Yes, I think you have the right understanding. Neither of those are possible actions to take in those cases, so you cannot make that choice. (One exception to this rule is villainous choices)
So, Go-Shintai of Lost Wisdom, if I had say 3,000 shrines... Could I still pay 1 at endstep and target someone with less then 3,000 cards in deck, or not? Just because the pay 1 is a may endstep trigger and im a little confused on if this applys or not.
I have a question thats a bit theoretical, if you errated mill to be mill n is repeat n times, if a player has at least 1 card in their library, that player puts the top card of their library in to their graveyard. Would that change the question or break the game in other ways
The ability on Theros Gods is a type changing ability which only applies while it's on the battlefield. Triggered abilities that care about creatures entering will be checked for immediately after Klothys enters meaning that they will count Klothys's green and red symbols. Replacement effects on the other hand apply immediately before a thing enters the battlefield. Therefore you will only count the devotion you already have to see if Klothys will enter as a creature or not. Therefore, Klothis will get a +1/+1 counter from the first level of Bard Class only if your devotion to red and green is already 7 before playing it. Rulings: The type-changing ability that can make a God not be a creature functions only on the battlefield. It’s always a creature card in other zones, regardless of your devotion to its color. It’s always a creature spell while it’s on the stack. When a God enters the battlefield, your devotion to its color (including the mana symbols in the mana cost of the God itself) will determine if a creature entered the battlefield or not for abilities that trigger whenever a creature enters the battlefield. As a God enters the battlefield, your devotion to its color will determine whether any replacement effects that affect creatures entering the battlefield apply to that God. Because replacement effects are considered before the God is on the battlefield, the mana symbols in its mana cost won’t be counted when determining this.
What happens: Stomp stops damage from being prevented. Stomp attempts to deal 2 damage. Since the damage is being dealt to A, they choose the order of replacement effects applying to them. They apply the first Nine Lives which attempts to prevent the damage and put an incarnation counter on it. The damage can't be prevented, but it still gets a counter. (Ruling: If damage that a source would deal to you can't be prevented, you still put an incarnation counter on Nine Lives.) Since they are still being dealt damage, they apply the second Nine Lives, which also fails to prevent it while still getting a counter. TLDR: both Nine Lives will get a counter and the player will still be dealt 2 damage.
Can you explain why fizzling a spell by removing its target (and negating the rest of the effects of that card) doesnt contradict the rule where you resolve as much of an impossible effect as possible? thank you
There’s a specific rule that says if a spell had any targets chosen and none of those targets are valid on resolution then it fizzles. It’s interesting to think of how things would be without that rule, if you resolved as much of the spell as possible anyway - I think the game would actually still function fine but it would change a lot of card effects.
@@miserepoignee9594 “if it was a creature card” would presumably fail in that case, but I see how some other cards would be problems. Possibly the game would need more “if you do”.
Does that mean you can never mill someone out using extractor demon if their library has an odd number of cards in it? This also make Altar of dementia waaaaaaaaaaay worse.
Altar of Dementia says "Target player mills..." rather than "You may have target player mill...". That makes it work like Glimpse the Unthinkable where since it's not a choice that is decided on resolution, they must mill as much as possible. Extractor Demon does have similar wording to the Kirin though, so that shouldn't be able to mill a player with 1 card left.
if I were designing a card like cloudhoof kirin today I would probably use the newfangled "up to one target player" templating to get around this issue (at least I think that would work). I think it's fine for it to work this way due to mechanics that use self-milling as a pseudo-cost, you just have to be mindful of it
My guess for how they would word it today would be "target opponent mills X". Self mill was probably intended as a potential use for this card, though, because Soulshift was in the same block.
Does this same logic apply to discarding cards? For example... A card with an effect of "You may have target player discard 2 cards" would be considered impossible to choose if my opponent only had 1 card in hand? Yeah, this seems counter intuitive... x.x
Wait, so does this mean when someone casts Choice of Damnations against me, I can choose 10000 as a number and they can't let me lose that much life? Or is life-loss to a negative life total not against the rules? I guess it's different because there is language to distinguish between paying and losing life, where that distinction can't be made for mill...
Going into negatives with life is perfectly legal (to my knowledge) which is why you can pay any amount of life on many, many cards, even if it would bring you to below 0 life. Iirc this is due to effects like Platinum Angel allowing you to survive below 0 life.
Negative life totals are absolutely legal, and it's possible to keep playing with a negative life total if something like Platinum Angel is in play. Notable caveat is that you cannot *pay* more life than you have (except that paying 0 life is always legal, even if you have a negative life total). However, if the targeted player has a Platinum Emperion in play, then you will not be able to choose to have that player lose 5 life, because their life total cannot change. Note that controlling a Platinum Emperion also makes them unable to pay any amount of life other than 0.
@Felixr2 I know lol I just wanted to be goofy with my comment lol. The fact that in order to have someone mill if you may have them do it they need to have the cards is kinda crazy.
@@ToadboyMTG Fair. I assume this rule exists for 'You may _. If/when you do' style effects. Having it hit situations like this feels very much like an unintended side effect that's simply too niche to change the rules over.
I think this is just a poorly written rule because it's inconsistent with the draw rule which I found very intuitive and led me to get it wrong. Id be interested in hearing about potential alterations to this rule and their relevant consequences (if any)
Yes. Number of cards in any game zone is derived information. Nick does not need to supply this information himself, but he cannot obstruct Amy from being able to determine it.
This is genuinely a bad rule. A lot of these rulings turn on odd interactions which produce intuitive results in the typical case, but this one just shouldn’t be the way it is.
I dont like the way this works out. Given that the point of playing mill is to reduce them to 0 cards in deck, any rule that makes what otherwise would do so into an impossible game action seems like a problem. Would there be any major consequences of just adding an exception to that rule, similar to the way drawing has one?
They would probably need to reword Dredge again, but I feel like something along the lines of the old wording which said "may put exactly n cards" would probably work.
I disagree strongly with that rule. Milling more cards than are in a library is the same as milling the whole library. WotC will be forced to agree because that's how it's being played whether they like it or not.
Because Kirin's ability is a choice made on resolution unlike Glimpse. 701.13b: A player can't mill a number of cards greater than the number of cards in their library. If given the choice to do so, they can't choose to take that action. If instructed to do so, they mill as many as possible. Similarly, the player can't pay a cost that includes milling a number of cards greater than the number of cards in their library.
@@seandun7083notably 701.13b is actually very specifically related to a player milling their own library and says nothing about having a choice to mill another player.
@@Almost_Entirely_Unlike_Tea I would assume it's to ensure that you couldn't do effects like Dredge if you don't have enough cards left. There probably is another way they could have worded things to stop overdredging without preventing others effects like the Kirin though.
This is so far out of what people intuitively do that this is guaranteed to be ruled wrong and played wrong all the time.
So if anything, the rules should absolutely be changed that this is more in line of what people expect to happen.
The "you may mill X" part should work just like the "mill X" of the spell.
To be fair, there aren't that many cards that have the "may have player mill" wording. Most notably there are these three: Cloudhoof Kirin, Jace's Erasure and Iceberg Cantrix.
Out of those, I would say only Jace's Erasure sees high amounts of play.
Rather than "May mill" if we're correcting it, should have "Mill up to X cards"
@@bondeulv And for Jace's Erasure specifically, if you can't mill them, they have no cards in their library.
Alternatively, "you may choose target player and they mill X cards"
@@bondeulv and jace's erasure is mill A card, which is not ever impossible when it matters
It's rare to see these fringe scenarios where the "correct" ruling is "wrong" in terms of how the effect is going to be interpreted and played out by 99.9999% of the playerbase. Looks like WotC's got another update to the MCR to make. Simple fix too. Just add the same/similar exception for drawing cards in 608.2d to milling as well (608.2d already specifies it must be "an effect", so you already wouldn't get to circumvent costs, such as dredge/Millikin).
@@michaelsparks1571 also, dredge's rules text already checks if you have at least enough cards in your library before it even gives you the option to use the replacement effect
Imagine if damage worked like that! "Sorry you can't hit your opponent with clash of realities they only have 3 life"
It significantly reduces the viability of Cloudhoof Kirin
*Aether charge
You can have negative life. Right? Thinking of Platinum Angel here.
@@robertpoffel373 Yes. OP is saying it would be stupid if damage *did* work the same way as Cloudhoof Kirin, not that it already does
thanks for the info! I wasn't aware that this could be a scenario.
Got me there, this interaction I haven't anticipated. I only knew that something was fishy because of the 4star rating
The line about "and then she would almost certainly *win* the game, because let's be honest, she would only do this if she had Lab Man out" got me
Interestingly, this is why ripple is worded the weird way it is with "you may reveal the top N cards of your library, or, if there are fewer than N cards in your library, you may reveal all the cards in your library." meaning cards and rukes thst don'tinclude this vecone illegal. So mirri's guile and the like also become illegal at low cards in library.
Still waiting for the day they fix reveille squad(and all of the gustcloak cards) and pygmy hippo, though.
I get Pygmy Hippo, but what issue does Reveille Squad have?
@@GrizonII You can't untap an untapped creature. Since reveille squad needs to be untapped to trigger and resolve its effect, it is impossible to chose to untap all of your creatures as at least one is already untapped. It needs to say "untap all tapped creatures you control"
This is similar to the reason why Twiddle and similar effects were errata'd to say *you may* tap or untap target permanent.
This is an amazing drill. A real 4 star.
It's funny you say that because based on my normal scale, this might have been a 2 or even 1 star, since it's a question about resolving a spell that has to do with understanding relatively simple principles (cannot choose to do something impossible, understanding how "may" clauses work, definition of an evergreen keyword action). That said, the key to the answer was very subtle, and even had me second-guessing myself, so I upgraded the rating.
Oh.. this makes sense when the mechanic is talking about dredging
Honestly pretty cool. I knew the answers only due to seeing/playing lots of matches, never red the comprehensive ruling, Nice to know the secrets behind them.
To answer your question at the end, I made a raw guess, but before unpausing I did actually consult the CR. I wasn't trying to look up the answer, but I wasn't completely clear on how losing by mill technically worked. I was thinking "Is it a replacement effect, or is it just that the action of drawing a card from an empty library is defined as losing?" (It turns out the answer is neither, by the way, it's a state-based action)
My original guess was no. But I realized quickly that I was wrong because I accidentally stumbled into another rule that also makes that exception:
*121.3* If there are no cards in a player’s library and an effect offers that player the choice to draw a card, that player can choose to do so. However, if an effect says that a player can’t draw cards and another effect offers that player the choice to draw a card, that player can’t choose to do so.
Funny that the same exception appears to be defined twice, and I stumbled into the one you didn't use!
Waaaait. Does that mean that if I have a Narset Parter of Veils in play and my opponent has already drawn a card this turn, I can't choose to gift them cards using the new Bloomburrow cards?
@@flaetsbnortFortunately, Gifts don’t work that way
“Gift” represents an additional cost that is paid while casting the spell. Technically speaking, the additional cost is simply choosing an opponent. After paying all costs, the spell is placed on the stack with the “Gift cost” already paid (and any actual “Gift giving” happening later)
It doesn’t matter if the Gift is eventually received, or whether the Gift can be received at all. The actual Gift giving happens during resolution (or after the permanent enters, for permanent spells), which is a “future” point in time that the rule from the video does not consider (see his “Glimpse the Unthinkable” example at 1:14 - It’s the same idea… Ultimately, the opponent will be instructed to draw a card at some point, which is impossible for them, so they won’t instead)
It only matters whether you are able to “choose an opponent” while casting the spell (which as far as I know should always be possible, since it doesn’t target them)
wild ruling. i love stuff like this that, from a systems perspective, makes a lot of sense, but is extraordinarily counter-intuitive. thank you!
This seems pretty odd and probably would be a good candidate for a rule change. I am nor sure if anything else gets messed up if the rule is change to mill as many cards as possible and if you have less cards then you just mill as many as you can.
Oh wow, I never would have guessed
Fascinating. Does this work the same with cards like Iceberg Cancrix and Extractor Demon, where if my opponent is at 1 I cannot choose to have them mill since the trigger specifies 2?
It seems a whole lot more intuitive with cards like Barrowgoyf (which I also assume works the same), because milling feels more like a "cost" than an effect, since you're milling yourself and not your opponent.
What about something like making target opponent discard 2 cards when he only has 1 card in hand, or exiling 2 cards from the graveyard when he only has 1? I assume they're also illegal?
I think those are the same since the rule says the only exception is drawing cards. Remember though that this rule only applies to things that are chosen at the time of spell resolution, so it's kind of an edge case. "Target player discards 2 cards" would make them pitch it, "you may have target player discard 2 cards" wouldn't.
So then if Nick had 10 cards in library in the original scenario, but then taps a Temple Bell to draw a card, would it fizzle the Cloudhoof ability and/or make Amy choose not to mill on resolution, or is the choice made and placed on the stack, and it turns into the "mill as much as possible" scenario from Glimpse?
It's chosen upon resolution. So nothing can happen inbetween.
@@Confruggy Well, if Nick taps the Temple Bell in response to Cloudhoof Kirin's triggered ability, then Amy can't choose to have Nick mill 10. Targets have already been chosen at that point, so no mill would occur.
@@bondeulv You have to declare the target when the ability goes onto the stack, yes. But whether to actually mill or not is chosen upon resolution.
@@Confruggy Right, which is exactly why Nick can save himself by drawing a card in response. bondeulv is correct.
Great question
I’m pretty sure I’ve broken this rule at some point. I never knew that.
this is so dumb, the issue isn't even the rule saying you can't choose to do something impossible, it's the fact that milling cards from an empty libeary is considered something impossible to begin with, instead of being considered possible, but a no-op.
Milling cards is considered a resource. Dredge 3 is illegal if you have less than 3 cards in your library.
It's like how you can't discard a card if you have no cards in hand
Enh. Then we would have three categories of thing: (a) either it's possible and it happens or it's impossible and it doesn't; (b) it's always “possible” but if it can't actually happen then something else happens (this is just drawing a card); (c) it's always “possible” but if it can't actually happen then nothing happens (milling, as you propose). I'm already sad that we need category (b); let's keep everything else in the nice, simple category.
@@bondeulv Handling costs and effects differently is already supported by the rules though, right? You can be hit with a lava spike when you're at 1 life, but you can't pay 7 life to griselbrand. I guess that's a little different because you can be at -2 life, but e.g. you can be the target of hymn to tourach with no cards in hand, but can't activate psychic frog's ability.
For some reason I thought Dredge was the only form of mill that worked this way simply because otherwise it would make you immune to a deck out loss
Damn, this one was spicy. Great stuff.
A little tough to give a challenge question that brings up a new rule not previously discussed.
To be fair, I did admit it was a trick and talk about what the answer would be based on what had been covered thus far.
@@JudgingFtW Well okay, and let me take this opportunity to tell you that you are a great teacher and I admire what you're doing and love learning about the rules so if I was a little complainy, as a replacement effect, please instead accept my deep appreciation.
Wow this one was tricky! Great question and very thorough explanation. The bonus question at the end was well done too.
I hope you have a great day
Interesting! Could you do a similar video about an opposing Narset, Parter of Veils while you have Palantir of Orthanc? Based on their wording, it seems like your opponent would *have* to make you mill a card when making their choice during the end step, but I'm not sure
A similar question was addressed in DDR#639: ruclips.net/video/0fJBsopJgeA/видео.html
What a strange thing in the rules... but thanks for the info! :) So Extractor Demon infinite loops aren't guaranteed to mill everyone out (although they could leave everyone with just one card left, which is pretty close)...
I've never questioned it until now, but doing "as much as possible" seems woefully ambiguous. I would think that is meant for an effect with actions "A and B, A illegal, so only do B," _not_ "a part of A is illegal, so only do the legal part of A."
That interpretation is arguably more ambiguous. What qualifies for something to be 'part A' and 'part B'? Does Demogorgon's Clutches have three parts? Does Hex have six parts or just one? If six, shouldn't that mean Archive Trap has thirteen parts? Should Wrath of God do nothing if there's a creature with indestructible when it resolves?
@@Felixr2 Well, it's hard to argue how many parts there are because they would contradict how the game actually works. But for the sake of humoring you, in my opinion:
Demogorgon's Clutches = 3
Hex = 1
Archive Trap = 1
Wrath of God = no, because indestructible doesn't make destroying illegal, just ineffective
@@NotYourAverageNothing Fair enough, I suppose. That'd make Hex no longer do anything if even just one of the targets became illegal... which opens up a whole other can of worms on which corner case effects should or should not work that way.
Granted, all of this mostly just means your original point of it being ambiguous still stands. I'd argue 'as much as possible' should be interpreted as literally as possible, which is to say 'if any part of any effect is possible, do it', but I can see where you're coming from.
Here’s a scenario for you:
Gonti deals damage to an opponent and exiles a Kaya’s Wrath (or other all colored pip mana cost card). Since Gonti says you can use mana of any type to pay for the card, will the Gonti player be able to benefit from Gonti’s discount of 1 generic mana for that card?
interesting, I didn't know about this restriction! Does that mean if I have an ability worded like
"You may have an opponent discard a card. If you do, you gain 3 life."
that I couldn't choose this optional modality if their hand was empty?
What about if it said "You may have an opponent sacrifice a creature" when they control no creatures?
Yes, I think you have the right understanding. Neither of those are possible actions to take in those cases, so you cannot make that choice.
(One exception to this rule is villainous choices)
Yes. This is why Cruel Grimnarch is worded the way it is. A similar template is often employed when effects ask you to sacrifice a creature.
Funny I got the challenge question only because of the video
So, Go-Shintai of Lost Wisdom, if I had say 3,000 shrines... Could I still pay 1 at endstep and target someone with less then 3,000 cards in deck, or not? Just because the pay 1 is a may endstep trigger and im a little confused on if this applys or not.
I'm going to guess you could "make" someone mill 3,000 cards because the milling part is in a reflexive trigger.
That one should be possible since as you said it's "when you do".
I have a question thats a bit theoretical, if you errated mill to be mill n is repeat n times, if a player has at least 1 card in their library, that player puts the top card of their library in to their graveyard. Would that change the question or break the game in other ways
Can you explain the interaction between Klothys and Bard Class? At first I thought it was an MTGO bug...
The ability on Theros Gods is a type changing ability which only applies while it's on the battlefield.
Triggered abilities that care about creatures entering will be checked for immediately after Klothys enters meaning that they will count Klothys's green and red symbols.
Replacement effects on the other hand apply immediately before a thing enters the battlefield. Therefore you will only count the devotion you already have to see if Klothys will enter as a creature or not.
Therefore, Klothis will get a +1/+1 counter from the first level of Bard Class only if your devotion to red and green is already 7 before playing it.
Rulings:
The type-changing ability that can make a God not be a creature functions only on the battlefield. It’s always a creature card in other zones, regardless of your devotion to its color. It’s always a creature spell while it’s on the stack.
When a God enters the battlefield, your devotion to its color (including the mana symbols in the mana cost of the God itself) will determine if a creature entered the battlefield or not for abilities that trigger whenever a creature enters the battlefield.
As a God enters the battlefield, your devotion to its color will determine whether any replacement effects that affect creatures entering the battlefield apply to that God. Because replacement effects are considered before the God is on the battlefield, the mana symbols in its mana cost won’t be counted when determining this.
@@seandun7083 Thank you!!
It is still unclear to me why replacement effects don't take into account a God's mana cost when checking their devotion
A player controls two nine lives and B player casts stomp target A.
then only one counter put on nine lives? or both nine lives have counters?
What happens:
Stomp stops damage from being prevented.
Stomp attempts to deal 2 damage.
Since the damage is being dealt to A, they choose the order of replacement effects applying to them.
They apply the first Nine Lives which attempts to prevent the damage and put an incarnation counter on it.
The damage can't be prevented, but it still gets a counter. (Ruling: If damage that a source would deal to you can't be prevented, you still put an incarnation counter on Nine Lives.)
Since they are still being dealt damage, they apply the second Nine Lives, which also fails to prevent it while still getting a counter.
TLDR: both Nine Lives will get a counter and the player will still be dealt 2 damage.
@@seandun7083 thank you for answer
Thats wild
Can you explain why fizzling a spell by removing its target (and negating the rest of the effects of that card) doesnt contradict the rule where you resolve as much of an impossible effect as possible? thank you
There’s a specific rule that says if a spell had any targets chosen and none of those targets are valid on resolution then it fizzles. It’s interesting to think of how things would be without that rule, if you resolved as much of the spell as possible anyway - I think the game would actually still function fine but it would change a lot of card effects.
@@Sheer_Falacy I'll respond to my Scavenging Ooze ability by activating it again exiling the same card so I can put another +1/+1 counter on it!
@@miserepoignee9594 “if it was a creature card” would presumably fail in that case, but I see how some other cards would be problems. Possibly the game would need more “if you do”.
glimpse; the impossible
This interaction does have a ruling on the card [[how is this a par three]]
Does that mean you can never mill someone out using extractor demon if their library has an odd number of cards in it? This also make Altar of dementia waaaaaaaaaaay worse.
Altar of Dementia says "Target player mills..." rather than "You may have target player mill...". That makes it work like Glimpse the Unthinkable where since it's not a choice that is decided on resolution, they must mill as much as possible.
Extractor Demon does have similar wording to the Kirin though, so that shouldn't be able to mill a player with 1 card left.
We Yugioh now boys
if I were designing a card like cloudhoof kirin today I would probably use the newfangled "up to one target player" templating to get around this issue (at least I think that would work). I think it's fine for it to work this way due to mechanics that use self-milling as a pseudo-cost, you just have to be mindful of it
My guess for how they would word it today would be "target opponent mills X". Self mill was probably intended as a potential use for this card, though, because Soulshift was in the same block.
Does this same logic apply to discarding cards?
For example... A card with an effect of "You may have target player discard 2 cards" would be considered impossible to choose if my opponent only had 1 card in hand?
Yeah, this seems counter intuitive... x.x
Correct .
This is why cards will usually say "or their entire hand, if less than x"
Wait, so does this mean when someone casts Choice of Damnations against me, I can choose 10000 as a number and they can't let me lose that much life? Or is life-loss to a negative life total not against the rules? I guess it's different because there is language to distinguish between paying and losing life, where that distinction can't be made for mill...
Going into negatives with life is perfectly legal (to my knowledge) which is why you can pay any amount of life on many, many cards, even if it would bring you to below 0 life. Iirc this is due to effects like Platinum Angel allowing you to survive below 0 life.
Negative life totals are allowed.
@@Qav999 You can't pay more life than you have. But I guess you can lose more.
@@frederikharder6452 My bad, I didn't see that.
What about "you may have target player lose 5 life" while they have 4 life?
Negative life totals are absolutely legal, and it's possible to keep playing with a negative life total if something like Platinum Angel is in play. Notable caveat is that you cannot *pay* more life than you have (except that paying 0 life is always legal, even if you have a negative life total).
However, if the targeted player has a Platinum Emperion in play, then you will not be able to choose to have that player lose 5 life, because their life total cannot change. Note that controlling a Platinum Emperion also makes them unable to pay any amount of life other than 0.
@Felixr2 I know lol I just wanted to be goofy with my comment lol.
The fact that in order to have someone mill if you may have them do it they need to have the cards is kinda crazy.
@@ToadboyMTG Fair. I assume this rule exists for 'You may _. If/when you do' style effects. Having it hit situations like this feels very much like an unintended side effect that's simply too niche to change the rules over.
@Felixr2 yeah also kinda a formating error imo. Could have been "you may have them mill up to X cards"
I think this is just a poorly written rule because it's inconsistent with the draw rule which I found very intuitive and led me to get it wrong. Id be interested in hearing about potential alterations to this rule and their relevant consequences (if any)
Is Amy allowed to count Nicks library?
Yes. Number of cards in any game zone is derived information. Nick does not need to supply this information himself, but he cannot obstruct Amy from being able to determine it.
This is genuinely a bad rule. A lot of these rulings turn on odd interactions which produce intuitive results in the typical case, but this one just shouldn’t be the way it is.
If you can draw a card from an empty library (not counting the losing the game effect) uou should be able to mill a card from an empty library
I dont like the way this works out. Given that the point of playing mill is to reduce them to 0 cards in deck, any rule that makes what otherwise would do so into an impossible game action seems like a problem. Would there be any major consequences of just adding an exception to that rule, similar to the way drawing has one?
They would probably need to reword Dredge again, but I feel like something along the lines of the old wording which said "may put exactly n cards" would probably work.
I disagree strongly with that rule. Milling more cards than are in a library is the same as milling the whole library. WotC will be forced to agree because that's how it's being played whether they like it or not.
wow that rule is so unintuitive, milling should definitely have the same exception as drawing imo
I did very poorly
Really stupid rule - it should be possible to mill with 0 cards in a library
It is, that’s not the rule!
Very complicated. At least I learnt X on the stack has a value.
That's so funny, Cloudhoof Kirin is so much worse when you can't overkill with it. Bad templating from those Kamigawa designers, smh.
This is a terrible rule, and is completely unintuitive.
oh i hate this, change the rules please
Ok but y tho
Because Kirin's ability is a choice made on resolution unlike Glimpse.
701.13b: A player can't mill a number of cards greater than the number of cards in their library. If given the choice to do so, they can't choose to take that action. If instructed to do so, they mill as many as possible. Similarly, the player can't pay a cost that includes milling a number of cards greater than the number of cards in their library.
@@seandun7083notably 701.13b is actually very specifically related to a player milling their own library and says nothing about having a choice to mill another player.
@@seandun7083 Yeah that's what the video said, I meant why is that rule that way?
@@Almost_Entirely_Unlike_Tea I would assume it's to ensure that you couldn't do effects like Dredge if you don't have enough cards left. There probably is another way they could have worded things to stop overdredging without preventing others effects like the Kirin though.