Thank you for answeriing my question! Had a good 20 minute discussion at my LGS as I played this, glad you could clear it up We did not reach the correct conclusion btw
So if Amy played an Angel's Grace or had something rlse to prevent her from losing the game that turn, then the first state based ability would resolve then Nick would lose
Normally, Angel's Grace and Transcendence together result in a forced draw, but in THIS case, Amy could use Angel's Grace (or Stifle, as sean says) to win, yeah.
Even if NonActive Amy would have cast Transcendence in Active Nick's turn somehow, the outcome would be the same, as explained in the beginning. Amy would need to exchange the enchantments and stifle the lose-the-game trigger so it can retrigger for Nick. ......oh you were just pointing out the alliteration -_-
This is an interaction that I could foresee being changed in the future. CR 603.8 does not look at who controls the ability. A future expansion might lead to an added distinction where the ability of Transcendence separately checks for "Has this triggered for Player 1?" and "Has this triggered for Player 2?" instead of checking whether it's ability trigger is on the stack without regard for the affected player.
I doubt it. It only matters when an object's controller changes, which doesn't happen very often, and the current version isn't really problematic anyway.
@@isaz2425 I don't expect this rule to change based on cards that exist today. But the unintuitive nature of the result in one interaction can always extend once new cards introduce new interactions, and rules expand to handle new cases all the time.
@@MathisGries-ml5qvalmost every video on this channel is about a confusing rule interaction, so you could probably post a comment with the same sentiment on every video that gets posted :P
Both these cards are pretty old. I feel like if they did end up changing how this worked, it would be because some new card ended up making this sort of thing a big issue somewhere.
Never knew the ruling about state triggers needing to leave the stack before triggering again. I wonder how many times i and others in my games have made mistakes with that xd
I wouldn't expect it to be a whole lot. Only a few cards have state triggers, and only a few of those are played. Then, you would need to add in some other stuff on top of that to make this rule relevant. Not saying it couldn't happen, but it would be pretty special to see.
I know that rule, but I probably forget it when it's relevant, and it DEFINITELY wouldn't occur to me that it would prevent it from re-triggering under the new controller here!
Bloomburrow question: Amy activate's Three Tree City's ability while she has Skirk Prospector and two goblin tokens on the battlefield. She pays the cost by sacrificing the two tokens. How much mana does she get?
I'm fairly certain it's the same deal as Nykthos - you'll get 1 mana because they're no longer on the battlefield when you pay the cost to activate the ability. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, lol.
It's funny how this almost but doesn't quite overlap with the "is it the same ability?" discussion prompted by Nadu in your more recent video (which got my gears going hard). In the end, I guess I would say it IS the same ability on the same card - so not actually relevant to my preferred rules clarification/change about Nadu. But, I do still think it should trigger again for Nick, by means of a rules change to state-triggered abilities as someone proposed below :)
My answer was that it would check again after changing control putting a second trigger on the stack, nick would lose the game then amy would lose the game and the other two players at the table would be confused. This was based on the assumption that state based triggers checked once each time priority is passed. It's interesting that this isn't the case.
@@Billchu13 Well it's not very difficult. After the stiffle, the state trigger will trigger again because the condition is met and the ability isn't on the stack.
I was wondering about the state trigger the whole time and the point about the original trigger being on the stack (and unable to be placed on the stack again) blew my mind
She is definitely using Confusion in the Ranks wrong. The way to use it is with 0 mana artifact creatures for free steals and things like Nuisance Engine and Khar Keep to steal everything in response to them stealing anything... and with the Exchange rule being slightly different than regular targeting effects, it works. Example. I have CitR and Nuisance Engine in play. Opponent plays an artifact to steal my Nuisance Engine. I put a 0/1 artifact creature Pest into play and steal their artifact first... and keep my Nuisance Engine.
At 1:05 you mention Confusion in the Ranks will resolve, then Transcendence will resolve making Amy lose the game. But wouldn't the Transcendence trigger for Nick go on the stack on top of Amy's Transcendence trigger? If Confusion in the Ranks resolves, Then would there not now be two Transcendence triggers, one first for Amy and then one for Nick on top of that?
Why don't cards like Transcendence keep triggering over and over? Answer @1:56 Game sees Transcendence as the same object even though it changed controllers
If transcendence was flickered somehow while staying on the opponents side of the field, would the state based trigger then be able to go on the stack?
You control the etb even if you give Illusions to then with the Confusion in the Ranks trigger, so you will gain 20. They will then have to pay the cumulative upkeep or lose 20. There is a really old deck that used to play Illusions with Donate as a 2 card combo.
Control effects will end and only then does stuff Any still has get exiled. If she had stolen it with Abstruse Appropriation then since it entered under her control, it wouldn't be affected by control effects so would be exiled when she dies.
Transcendence can't trigger again while its trigger is still on the stack, so this doesn't have an effect on the outcome. Amy will always die and take her transcendence with her before Nick sees the trigger go off.
Pinging him won't do anything, but Stifling her Transcendence trigger will make it trigger for Nick immediately. It turns out that Transcendence's trigger isn't an intervening if and therefore only checks for life >= 20 when triggering so pinging herself won't save Amy either.
@@ceulgai2817Transcendence's "you lose the game" ability can't trigger if it is already on the stack. It's "gain 2 life" trigger can still happen, but it won't save Amy or kill Nick here. 603.8: Some triggered abilities trigger when a game state (such as a player controlling no permanents of a particular card type) is true, rather than triggering when an event occurs. These abilities trigger as soon as the game state matches the condition. They'll go onto the stack at the next available opportunity. These are called state triggers. (Note that state triggers aren't the same as state-based actions.) *A state-triggered ability doesn't trigger again until the ability has resolved, has been countered, or has otherwise left the stack*. Then, if the object with the ability is still in the same zone and the game state still matches its trigger condition, the ability will trigger again.
The other two players in the commander table 👁👄👁
“20 - who are we kidding, 40 - life” lmao Dave
Thank you for answeriing my question! Had a good 20 minute discussion at my LGS as I played this, glad you could clear it up
We did not reach the correct conclusion btw
Jacob, whoever you are, I love this question. Excellent problem statement suggestion.
So if Amy played an Angel's Grace or had something rlse to prevent her from losing the game that turn, then the first state based ability would resolve then Nick would lose
Yeah. Stifling the trigger after control has changed should work too.
Normally, Angel's Grace and Transcendence together result in a forced draw, but in THIS case, Amy could use Angel's Grace (or Stifle, as sean says) to win, yeah.
A classic misplay from Active Amy against NonActive Nick
Even if NonActive Amy would have cast Transcendence in Active Nick's turn somehow, the outcome would be the same, as explained in the beginning. Amy would need to exchange the enchantments and stifle the lose-the-game trigger so it can retrigger for Nick.
......oh you were just pointing out the alliteration -_-
Oh my god that's why they're named so??
This is an interaction that I could foresee being changed in the future. CR 603.8 does not look at who controls the ability. A future expansion might lead to an added distinction where the ability of Transcendence separately checks for "Has this triggered for Player 1?" and "Has this triggered for Player 2?" instead of checking whether it's ability trigger is on the stack without regard for the affected player.
I doubt it. It only matters when an object's controller changes, which doesn't happen very often, and the current version isn't really problematic anyway.
@@isaz2425 I don't expect this rule to change based on cards that exist today. But the unintuitive nature of the result in one interaction can always extend once new cards introduce new interactions, and rules expand to handle new cases all the time.
@@MathisGries-ml5qvalmost every video on this channel is about a confusing rule interaction, so you could probably post a comment with the same sentiment on every video that gets posted :P
Both these cards are pretty old. I feel like if they did end up changing how this worked, it would be because some new card ended up making this sort of thing a big issue somewhere.
Very useful rule to know for chaos decks! Thanks!
Never knew the ruling about state triggers needing to leave the stack before triggering again.
I wonder how many times i and others in my games have made mistakes with that xd
I wouldn't expect it to be a whole lot. Only a few cards have state triggers, and only a few of those are played. Then, you would need to add in some other stuff on top of that to make this rule relevant. Not saying it couldn't happen, but it would be pretty special to see.
I know that rule, but I probably forget it when it's relevant, and it DEFINITELY wouldn't occur to me that it would prevent it from re-triggering under the new controller here!
I gotta admit that even though I've Thespian Stage'd a Dark Depths maybe 100 times in my life I had never before heard of a 'state trigger' 🤣
I bet if you ever tried to Stifle one of those triggers, you would hear about it!
Bloomburrow question: Amy activate's Three Tree City's ability while she has Skirk Prospector and two goblin tokens on the battlefield. She pays the cost by sacrificing the two tokens. How much mana does she get?
I'm fairly certain it's the same deal as Nykthos - you'll get 1 mana because they're no longer on the battlefield when you pay the cost to activate the ability.
I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, lol.
It's funny how this almost but doesn't quite overlap with the "is it the same ability?" discussion prompted by Nadu in your more recent video (which got my gears going hard). In the end, I guess I would say it IS the same ability on the same card - so not actually relevant to my preferred rules clarification/change about Nadu. But, I do still think it should trigger again for Nick, by means of a rules change to state-triggered abilities as someone proposed below :)
Bonus points for whoever wins using Adric, Mathematical Genius.
TIL about “state triggers”. Didn’t know that was a thing. Good to know
My answer was that it would check again after changing control putting a second trigger on the stack, nick would lose the game then amy would lose the game and the other two players at the table would be confused. This was based on the assumption that state based triggers checked once each time priority is passed. It's interesting that this isn't the case.
could this work like darkdepths+ stifle? after nick gains transcendence, if you stifle amys trigger, nick would lose, right?
Yeah but do you want to explain how it works?
@@Billchu13 Well it's not very difficult. After the stiffle, the state trigger will trigger again because the condition is met and the ability isn't on the stack.
I was wondering about the state trigger the whole time and the point about the original trigger being on the stack (and unable to be placed on the stack again) blew my mind
She is definitely using Confusion in the Ranks wrong. The way to use it is with 0 mana artifact creatures for free steals and things like Nuisance Engine and Khar Keep to steal everything in response to them stealing anything... and with the Exchange rule being slightly different than regular targeting effects, it works.
Example. I have CitR and Nuisance Engine in play. Opponent plays an artifact to steal my Nuisance Engine. I put a 0/1 artifact creature Pest into play and steal their artifact first... and keep my Nuisance Engine.
At 1:05 you mention Confusion in the Ranks will resolve, then Transcendence will resolve making Amy lose the game. But wouldn't the Transcendence trigger for Nick go on the stack on top of Amy's Transcendence trigger? If Confusion in the Ranks resolves, Then would there not now be two Transcendence triggers, one first for Amy and then one for Nick on top of that?
Why don't cards like Transcendence keep triggering over and over?
Answer @1:56
Game sees Transcendence as the same object even though it changed controllers
Transcendence would trigger again when the ability cleared the stack as long as the conditions are still met/true.
@@danielfrazier5586and it still existed
If transcendence was flickered somehow while staying on the opponents side of the field, would the state based trigger then be able to go on the stack?
Yes, as it’s a new instance of Transcendence which has not placed an ability onto the stack.
If Amy has Solemnity in play and Nick plays Grist, the Hunger Tide, does it come in with loyalty counters?
whacky wild stuff.
How would this work with Illusions of Grandeur instead of transcendence?
You control the etb even if you give Illusions to then with the Confusion in the Ranks trigger, so you will gain 20.
They will then have to pay the cumulative upkeep or lose 20.
There is a really old deck that used to play Illusions with Donate as a 2 card combo.
What's with the lighting
Still combos better with Leyline of Punishment
In the last example, what happens to Nick's Confusion in the Ranks once Amy loses the game? I'd think it gets exiled, but I'm not sure
It would go back to Nick just like he explained with the first example at 1:26
Control effects will end and only then does stuff Any still has get exiled. If she had stolen it with Abstruse Appropriation then since it entered under her control, it wouldn't be affected by control effects so would be exiled when she dies.
Now what if Amy pings Nick after control changes?
Transcendence can't trigger again while its trigger is still on the stack, so this doesn't have an effect on the outcome. Amy will always die and take her transcendence with her before Nick sees the trigger go off.
Pinging him won't do anything, but Stifling her Transcendence trigger will make it trigger for Nick immediately.
It turns out that Transcendence's trigger isn't an intervening if and therefore only checks for life >= 20 when triggering so pinging herself won't save Amy either.
@@fieldrequired283 Even if the ping causes Nick to go below/above 20 life?
@@ceulgai2817Transcendence's "you lose the game" ability can't trigger if it is already on the stack.
It's "gain 2 life" trigger can still happen, but it won't save Amy or kill Nick here.
603.8: Some triggered abilities trigger when a game state (such as a player controlling no permanents of a particular card type) is true, rather than triggering when an event occurs. These abilities trigger as soon as the game state matches the condition. They'll go onto the stack at the next available opportunity. These are called state triggers. (Note that state triggers aren't the same as state-based actions.) *A state-triggered ability doesn't trigger again until the ability has resolved, has been countered, or has otherwise left the stack*. Then, if the object with the ability is still in the same zone and the game state still matches its trigger condition, the ability will trigger again.
@@seandun7083 Oh, because otherwise Darksteel Reactor would trigger infinitely without priority being passed! Thanks, Sean!