My friend and I have actually been working on a deck doing a ton of different things like this! There have been many equipment released lately that say “when equipped creature dies” so its a boros equipment aristocrats deck :)
I had a beat-up foil Heartseeker growing up that I used as a bookmark, never knowing I'd end up playing Magic myself one day. Seeing that combo makes me _very_ happy :)
One thing I would’ve added is how modal spells work. Some players might see the video and think choosing modes is another choice that happens on resolution, but modes must be chosen during casting so they are known to opponents when put on the stack.
If you enjoy these rules videos, I have a series called Tough Rules & Cool Interactions, it's dedicated to explaining common rules situations and weird card interactions that come up often in games of Commander. If you do check it out, I'd appreciate some feedback but also hit me with some tough questions that you have.
6:26 another thing to note here is that storm itself is a trigger. Anyone can respond to the storm trigger before the copies are put onto the stack. This is especially important in interactions like Venerated Rotpriest + Grapeshot. Many people thought there's no window to remove Rotpriest once Grapeshot is cast (i.e with a storm count of 10), but in actual fact, you can remove Rotpriest before the storm trigger resolves, and opponent would have to choose a different target for the copies.
By your explanation on the first point, some might be confused as to the "choose" term in modal spells like Charms and Commands. In contrast to all your examples, choosing modes in those spells is made as part of casting the spell. All your examples were great but those cards might be a blind spot.
Especially when copying modal spells and effects. Things that make copies always add in that line of "You may choose new targets" but any modes picked cannot be changed, so they will get to know those modes before making a copy of a modal spell and be locked into those modes.
@@shadowfate05 The key there is that it says the word Targets. Choose 2 creatures and choose up to 2 targets are not the same thing. If it says TARGET at all in the text of the ability you declare that target as part of casting the spell. Casting a spell follows Put on stack > Declare Mode(s) > Declare Target(s) > Check if Legal > Calculate Cost(s) (Initial + Additional - Reductions = Total Cost) > Pay Total Cost (Non Random non Library First) > Spell is considered Cast modifications and triggers happen now. Modes and Targets are made distinctly clear it. It is not the word Choose that is special here its the word Target. Choose is a directive. Modal spells can tell you to choose or not MDFCs don't but are still modal spells. With Arc Lightning the damage is divided as you choose 601.2d states you make these kinds of choices AFTER you declare targets. It can not be said enough it targets if it says target period. That is the word to look for. Target anywhere in the spell or ability makes it target. If it does NOT say target it does NOT target.
5:40 - This is correct, but for spells with modal choices like charms or "choose one" effects, *you have to choose the mode as you cast the spell and that info is announced.* EDIT: Seems other commentors have mentioned this as well, but it's so important I'll leave this here.
Model spells are clearly distinct and the - and bullet point modes are more of the indicator then the word choose. Choose is a directive used in many different situations it is not really an indicator of a type of spell or ability. Its more that clone like effects are lacking the word TARGET then them having the word Choose.
I think the best way i can explain what “resolve” means this would be it: when a spell or ability “resolves,” the effect begins to happen. No player may gain priority during the resolution of a spell or ability. Then (a part demo left out that doesnt come up SUPER often but does occasionally) spells are put into the graveyard after all actions the card dictates have been taken.
Loved the video!! Don’t know if you’ve done it already but this convo made me think of gyruda’s interaction with kozilek butcher of truth as well as cards moved into exile during his ability. Also just the fast that once gyrudas ability starts resolving no one can interact with it until it resolves. I play the deck and there’s been load of confusion!
I love this video. I've been turning islands sideways across 3 decades now, but in my industry I meet burgeoning new players regularly, and having a resource of the more complex interactions and mechanics to reference is invaluable. Thanks!
Thank you for this video! I had this situation come up a few times in commander games and had subsequent debates over the matter. I will refer them here instead :)
I had a heck of a time trying to figure out why Eye of the Storm didn't counter every spell that was being copied until I noticed the very unassuming word "card". Turns out that particular word was VERY important.
Another great video - always surprising to dig deep into some of these rules - really like the way you focus on the key words so we can extend into our own decks Suggestion for another 'Rules' video: copying instant/sorcery with an X in the mana cost - would like to have your take on how these resolve, does the mana cost for X need to be paid on each copy or does it carry over from your initial casting to each copy? Example is Comet Storm in a Kalamax deck - tap Kalamax then cast Comet Storm as first Instant of turn, pay {R}{R} and 5 colorless intending to do 5 damage to target player -> Kalamax ability triggers to copy Comet Storm -> does 5 colorless need to be paid again or else X = 0?
For the most part I understood resolution before until a judge at my LGS and later me asking judges (I believe some were level 3s) in a Facebook group. I can’t remember the names of the cards but it involves oil counters on a card that needs to exile a card to get them, a burn spell with proliferate and a spell bomb that boosts my creature that the LGS said I still drew a card because he and the opponent said my bomb resolved to be removed from my graveyard otherwise o cards were in my graveyard. But my creature died from the burn and as you said in the video if there is text in the same paragraph it can’t be responded to. Well the judges (online and LGS) claimed it was split the stack which I thought was wrong but I’m not a judge. I felt it would only work if the LGS judge and player said how it was stacked different. Not my creature is burned, my artifact and creature are in the graveyard. The artifact is removed with his creature he was blocking with. Gets a oil counter then the second part of the burn spell goes thru giving another counter then I draw a card. I only knew the order intended because I volunteered saying “I guess I have no longer a legal target so I don’t draw a card”. But no. All said I did draw and all these years of trying to understand the stack I’m wrong. That sentences can be stacked between different cards. I trust you more than those judges because I sited the numbered rules when asking more questions online and it seemed to be a contradiction. I kinda felt they agreed with the judge at the LGS because he was a judge and I wasn’t.
I might be wrong about this, and I think it's a tournament rule (so not necessarily applicable to to a kitchen table game) - but, from memory, I think if a spell or ability requires a choice only upon resolution (like World Queller), but the played putting it on the stack announces it when they put it on the stack, then if no-one responds to the spell or ability (and allows it to resolve) the player is locked into that choice. I *think*. I'm remembering this from years ago, and it's really specific so can't find it via Google, nor a quick skim of the tournament rules. I just really remember it being the case. If someone responds though they can change their mind - that's what I remember the rule being.
Lol but it would just be easier to play it out as he's described. Put the ability on the stack, without saying what you've chosen, and if the ability resolves, make your choice then. If you change your mind, it appears as cheating(which it is not) and definitely someone will call over a judge saying what you chose when casting(despite not having to)
@@alstermaniac Well of course, the optimal way to play it as the person with the ability is to say nothing until it resolves. My comment was to highlight that, if I'm correct in my memory, that if someone prematurely makes their choice you can lock them into it by not responding to the ability and letting it resolve.
@@jaxsonbateman lol but would it be premature because obviously they are making said choice thinking you're not going to respond anyways, it's not like you'd fake out a choice to bait out a response.
@@alstermaniac What? It's definitely premature. The person controlling the ability doesn't have to make the choice until the ability resolves, so by definition if they choose before then it's almost certainly premature. People will still do it prematurely for various reasons (such as not knowing they don't do it until resolution, or getting excited, or whatever), but the fact is that if I'm correct about my memory about how that rule works, if they prematurely make the choice and no-one responds, they're locked into it.
"any spell or ability that is targetting something is going to have "target" on it". Um, Actually (love that show) you also overlooked auras, which also target but don't say target.
Auras are a bit iffy, though, but you are correct that casting an Aura targets. However, if you manage to circumvent the stack (like flickering with Brago or putting it onto the battlefield with Zur) you *choose* what the aura enchants as it enters the battlefield and therefore get around Hexproof and/or Shroud. Still, this quirk does feel very on theme for the video so it could have been included.
One rule I saw messed up incredibly badly was the concept of the "counter upon resolution", which is a concept in which a spell will be automatically countered if, for whatever reason, the spell cannot legally resolve due to a change in the game's state. I was in a game of commander and we had a wild stack full of counterspells going, and someone countered the root spell of the stack. He then says upon resolution, all the spells on the stack were effectively countered due to the "root" of the stack being removed, meaning that the stack itself is invalid - which is not how counter upon resolution works, since other counterspells were all targeting each other going down the stack. The stack would still finish resolving, even though the "root" was gone, but he was making such a big stink about it that I just let it go after a while because I wanted to get on with my day. Just another quirk about how resolution works.
Interesting argument by that guy about an "invalid stack". :D That's a new term for me. ^^ Since we're talking about technicalities already: There is no such thing as "counter upon resolution". A spell (or ability) that has lost all it's legal targets just fails to resolve, is removed from the stack and is put into its owner's graveyard. The result is most often the same as if it were countered, but any effects that look out for countered spells - like Multani's Presence - won't trigger of of this.
Another important interaction with clones is that it chooses a permanent, it doesn't target a permanent. This is very important for things like Shroud, Hexproof, Protection, or illusions like Phantasmal Image. Choosing gets around all of these things while targeting gets around none of them. For example, if I cast a Phantasmal Image, upon resolution I may have enter the battlefield as a copy of my opponents Narset, Enlightened Master or Sigarda, Host of Herons or a creature equiped with Lightening Greeves. If my opponent then casts a Clone and chooses my Phantasmal Image I don't sacrifice it because it hasn't been copied. Other effects like this exist but they are rare, like auras returning to the battlefield from exile or the graveyard, or spells like Deflecting Palm. Hexproof, Shroud, Protection From doesn't stop these. So If your opponent has a Teysa, Envoy of Ghosts, Teysa's Protection from Creatures ability doesn't stop you from cloning it.
I was a dci judge way back when and have ruled correctly on soooo many obscure interactions and still until your video did not know "choose" worked this way lol. I guess it's never come up since most peoples choices don't change in most circumstances but that actually makes some cards I thought weren't good, a bit better
This clears up a situation i had about a month ago. Played “Out of Time” it untaps all creatures then one of my opponents uses a creatures tap ability after it was untaped but before it phased out. It felt off to me so is nice to know for sure that it was an illegal move
I’d love a video covering something called layers. There is an interaction I don’t understand where is someone has urborg/yavimaya out and someone plays a blood sun, even though the ability granting the land type should be negated, lands get the type and just seem to retain it for no reason. I play in a group where we’ve pretty much all played for at least a decade and none of us thought this was right even though we found rulings that it is.
Yes. The "target" (in quotations because you aren't actually targeting) is upon resolution, not casting. The other thing is that you can say what you'd like it to be, but even if that's not longer a valid choice (let's say it's not on the board anymore) you can just pick something else because the actual choice is made on resolution.
One interaction regarding resolution that I was made aware of was fling type effects in combination with sacrifice triggers. For example I have a rakdos sacrifice deck and this is what I understood to work: Play vexing devil - player chooses to take the 4 life so I have to sacrifice devil, in response I fling it but i was made aware you cannot respond with fling if they pay the cost to make you sacrifice. However with kroxa because there is a line of text that makes the opponent discard a card where you are given the opportunity to play cards like fling or abnormal endurance.
This is not specifically about sacrificing. It’s about paying costs. Once something is on the stack, it’s costs are already payed. So if sacrificing is part of the cost, that will happen before anyone can respond.
Here's something related tha5 people get wrong; Toothy, Imaginary Friend(with counters) and Thassa(TBD) Thassa end step trigger Blink Toothy, draw card trigger goes on stack Thassa finishes resolving returning Toothy to play Draw cards equal to Toothys counters Toothy gets those counters If things go on the stack befor spells and abilities finish resolving, they will resolve like anything else; top to bottom
If it does not say target(s) in the text of the spell or ability it does not target. Declaring Targets and divvying up between targets happens in the Casting part of a spell. If its not Modal or Targeting it happens as you resolve the spell. Don't focus on the word choose that is just a directive ask "Is it Modal? " Yes or No. "Does it say Target?" Yes or No. if no to both it happens at resolution. If it says When or Whenever its a Triggered Ability anything else IS NOT a trigger.
I usually find rules esoterica to be both interesting and worth knowing, but this feels like the kind of knowledge that only becomes relevant in situations that are not fun. "Fun" isn't the be all end all, though, and it is still interesting!
New question for you: players loosing the game and triggers on the stack. Let’s say player 1 is attacking player 2 for lethal. Player 2 (who will lose the game after damage resolves) has a blood artist that is blocking and will die as damage resolves. Player 3 also has a blood artist. I’ve been told that since the creature that is dying is owned by a player that is losing the game at the same time, the state based check of players losing the game cancels out the creature they owned dying and neither blood artist will trigger. I have argued against this in my play group as I thought that triggers go on the stack as state based is check and only the trigger owned by the losing player fizzles in response to the player losing. Would both blood artists trigger? Only player 3 blood artist? Or none of them? How does this work? Thanks in advance!
An additional note of clarity here is that different paragraphs on the same card are different abilities on the stack and may offer an opportunity to react prior to resolution
Depends. Sorceries and instants: I can't think of any off the top of my head because that sounds like a really weird way to format them, but if they exist then no, it is still one spell resolving and there would be no time for a player to gain priority. Permanents: Each paragraph would actually be different abilities as you said so yes, these would give players time in between them if they do happen to trigger or go on the stack all at the same time.
Instant speed equip effects get very weird. Helm of the Host's at the beginning of combat trigger is another weird one as, because of how it's worded, it goes on the stack regardless of if it's equipped, so if you equip it at instant speed in response to the trigger, you will still get the token copy Helm creates.
The interaction which usually confuses me is when an Instant or Sorcery goes to the graveyard when resolving. If, for example, an Instant or Sorcery does something based on the amount of Instants and Sorceries in your graveyard, will the spell count itself? Does it go to the graveyard and then resolve its effect, or does it resolve its effect and then go to the graveyard?
Hi… about rules… I have one question… hope you can add resolution an upcoming episode…does Osgir ability works with spells costing 0 in the cemetery? How does Osgir interacts with suspend ex. Lotus bloom
I started playing magic during revised and played on and off up until around the original ravnica set. I didn't start playing again until recently when DU just came out. One thing I have to say is that MTG rulings were so much more complicated in the earlier years. They didn't really have wording fine tuned like it is today. If you just read the cards and understand the language you are reading then I find it really hard to get things wrong in today's game. Unless of course you are playing with old cards that still have confusing wording on them.
So in regards to your choose ability, does that mean once my Vaevictus Asmadi the Dire's ability moves to selecting targets, that my opponents can no longer sack?
4:50 You say you don't have to tell them unless you want to be a really nice guy. Are you bound by a choice you declare BEFORE resolution? Is there a part of the rules that says making a choice is a shortcut to asking for resolution? Can you "be a nice guy" in a way that does NOT bind you to the choice (eg "I'm thinking about choosing creature. Does it resolve? Yes? Ok I choose Artifact.") Of course these are shady as hell, but I'm more interested in actual rules than edginess.
I dont understand, the sentences separate different actions of the card, how does that not allow for sba check since its a state change during the cards resolution
I have a question Demo, if I have Baba Lysaga in play and Kaya’s ghost form at attached to a creature. I sac both of them and whatever the third one is. Will I still get the creature back onto the battlefield even though I sacced the ghost form?
I have one that came up recently in a game. I had Mondrak, Glory Dominus on the battlefield and he was equipped with Helm of the Host. After the first turn, when he has multiple copies of himself on the battlefield and he makes more copies, does he go off sequentially or all at once? As in would it be the first one doubles a token to 2, the second to 4, and the third to 8 or do they all go off at the same time when seeing the token enter the battlefield meaning you’d get 4 tokens if you had 3 copies of Mondrak? 1 for each copy plus the original token.
The world queller has a reflexive trigger. You choose type on resolution, then the "if clause" triggers and goes on the stack, giving your opponents a chance to react.
You are thinking of an "intervening if clause". This is worded similarly but does not affect the resolution. Once the type is chosen there is no round of priority.
I'd love to see a video on the interaction between these cards. Urabrask (the have to vast or it gets exiled version), Nullstone Gargoyle and Possability storm. I have a creature heavy gruul deck that uses them.
That's a very non-intuitive interaction, because it's two separate ones. The biggest thing to note here is that Possibility Storm only cares about spells cast from the hand. So spells played from Urabrak's ability won't cause Possibility Storm to trigger. The Nullstone Gargoyle is a bit more interesting though. Assuming you control both, you can choose how the triggers stack with your opponent casting a noncreature spell. However, the important thing to know is that both triggers will go on the stack once the spell is cast, and notably Possibility Storm doesn't need the spell to be on the stack to resolve. If Storm resolves first, then Storm will exile the first spell as part of the effect's resolution, and Nullstone Gargoyle's effect will fizzle. It only targets the first noncreature spell cast, and, because of how Possibility Storm is worded, you still cast the first spell, so the Gargoyle will not trigger on the second cast when Possibility Storm resolves. If Nullstone resolves first, the first spell is countered and goes to the graveyard, but Storm's trigger will still resolve and they will get their second cast. So basically you choose whether the spell they first cast goes to the bottom of their library or the graveyard, but they still get the effect of Possibility Storm regardless.
Does a spell still target if it does not resolve? (Aka rot priest) Opponent casts spell I counter Do they still get the target resolution from Rotpriest? Thanks
yes, targeting is a condition of casting. so, for example, op casts cut down on your rot priest, you get the poison counter trigger, then you cast tyvar's stand on your rot priest another copy of the poison counter trigger, then op counters the stand. effects resolve in reverse, but they are all still on the stack, so stand is countered, but the second poison counter effect is a separate trigger so that will resolve. then the destroy effect will resolve, but after that the first poison counter trigger will also resolve. this works for all on target triggers such as feather the redeemed, etc.
Id love to see a ruling on how myrkul lord of bones works with gisa glorious resurrector. Like ive been looking for a ruling on what happens if you boardwipe with her and myrkul out. Do you get to steal everyone's board when you turn her into an enchantment with myrkul?
Instances are separate: the effect will check to see if giza(the enchantment) put any creatures into exile, cards that have been exiled by another instance of giza(creature) will not meet the requirement to return them, the same would be true if you flickered/recast gisa after exiling cards through her ability
This is why so many people hate Expropriate. Once it starts resolving they can't respond and sac whatever you choose to take if they voted for money. It's such a nasty cards
There are a small number of cards that finish resolving part way through and add an additional ability to the stack. Usually they include "[do something] when you do [do something else]". Hypothesizzle is one such card. It only does the additional thing if you discard a card and you can respond to that after the target is chosen. This is a pretty deep tanget to what you were talking about I just think it is an odd one that is pretty interesting. Also, this is magic, there are exceptions to nearly everything by now.
No, this is false. When a spell or ability is resolving there are no times that any player gets opportunity. Hypothesizzle's entire two effects go off all at once without any one being able to interrupt it.
Actually, it seems you're right. I was looking up reflexive triggers since I had actually never heard of them before. Ignore what I said about Hypothesizzle.
You’re both half right. You cannot under any circumstances get priority while something is resolving. However, the word “when” in ability text represents what’s called a reflexive trigger, and everything after that is actually a separate triggered ability. So any card that says for example“do something… when you do…” will actually have a separate trigger go on the stack that can be responded to as normal.
All of this is important in IRL games where players often give this kind of info before they even cast/activate effects. There will definitely be groans when you go "actually I don't have to tell you yet" though
When you said 'if there are 20 copies of Grapeshot on the stack, u can let the first one resolve and then respond to other ones. I thought once the last priority was passed on a stack, it resolved all the way to the end(start?) with no chance of interaction.
for by invitation only, you choose the number then people can respond before it resolves I believe. ie i can steal creatures or make tokens to sacrifice I believe. is this correct?
@@shadowfate05 Its even better, if say they sac say all their creatures to a sac outlet that lets them profit, but didn't need to if you didn't copy the Elesh Norn, you may still change what you are choosing.
That Heartseeker combo is a masterpiece.
Paradise Mantle is mana positive with that trick if you have 4 or more creatures, right?
Cool profile pic
My friend and I have actually been working on a deck doing a ton of different things like this! There have been many equipment released lately that say “when equipped creature dies” so its a boros equipment aristocrats deck :)
Heartseaker is great with Syr Gwyn!
I had a beat-up foil Heartseeker growing up that I used as a bookmark, never knowing I'd end up playing Magic myself one day.
Seeing that combo makes me _very_ happy :)
One thing I would’ve added is how modal spells work. Some players might see the video and think choosing modes is another choice that happens on resolution, but modes must be chosen during casting so they are known to opponents when put on the stack.
These rules videos are amazing. Every time I learn something new, and yea that heartseeker combo is a revelation, a triumph.
If you enjoy these rules videos, I have a series called Tough Rules & Cool Interactions, it's dedicated to explaining common rules situations and weird card interactions that come up often in games of Commander. If you do check it out, I'd appreciate some feedback but also hit me with some tough questions that you have.
6:26 another thing to note here is that storm itself is a trigger. Anyone can respond to the storm trigger before the copies are put onto the stack. This is especially important in interactions like Venerated Rotpriest + Grapeshot. Many people thought there's no window to remove Rotpriest once Grapeshot is cast (i.e with a storm count of 10), but in actual fact, you can remove Rotpriest before the storm trigger resolves, and opponent would have to choose a different target for the copies.
By your explanation on the first point, some might be confused as to the "choose" term in modal spells like Charms and Commands. In contrast to all your examples, choosing modes in those spells is made as part of casting the spell. All your examples were great but those cards might be a blind spot.
Especially when copying modal spells and effects. Things that make copies always add in that line of "You may choose new targets" but any modes picked cannot be changed, so they will get to know those modes before making a copy of a modal spell and be locked into those modes.
Lots of really good examples. Nice catch! Doesn't invalidate his explanation but just an addendum.
@@shadowfate05 The key there is that it says the word Targets. Choose 2 creatures and choose up to 2 targets are not the same thing. If it says TARGET at all in the text of the ability you declare that target as part of casting the spell. Casting a spell follows Put on stack > Declare Mode(s) > Declare Target(s) > Check if Legal > Calculate Cost(s) (Initial + Additional - Reductions = Total Cost) > Pay Total Cost (Non Random non Library First) > Spell is considered Cast modifications and triggers happen now. Modes and Targets are made distinctly clear it. It is not the word Choose that is special here its the word Target. Choose is a directive. Modal spells can tell you to choose or not MDFCs don't but are still modal spells. With Arc Lightning the damage is divided as you choose 601.2d states you make these kinds of choices AFTER you declare targets. It can not be said enough it targets if it says target period. That is the word to look for. Target anywhere in the spell or ability makes it target. If it does NOT say target it does NOT target.
The trigger "as enters the battlefield" is interesting. It happens right before "enters the battlefield".
@@shadowfate05 Correct, triggered abilities exclusively start with When or Whenever.
5:40 - This is correct, but for spells with modal choices like charms or "choose one" effects, *you have to choose the mode as you cast the spell and that info is announced.*
EDIT: Seems other commentors have mentioned this as well, but it's so important I'll leave this here.
Model spells are clearly distinct and the - and bullet point modes are more of the indicator then the word choose. Choose is a directive used in many different situations it is not really an indicator of a type of spell or ability. Its more that clone like effects are lacking the word TARGET then them having the word Choose.
I think the best way i can explain what “resolve” means this would be it: when a spell or ability “resolves,” the effect begins to happen. No player may gain priority during the resolution of a spell or ability. Then (a part demo left out that doesnt come up SUPER often but does occasionally) spells are put into the graveyard after all actions the card dictates have been taken.
Loved the video!! Don’t know if you’ve done it already but this convo made me think of gyruda’s interaction with kozilek butcher of truth as well as cards moved into exile during his ability. Also just the fast that once gyrudas ability starts resolving no one can interact with it until it resolves. I play the deck and there’s been load of confusion!
I love this video. I've been turning islands sideways across 3 decades now, but in my industry I meet burgeoning new players regularly, and having a resource of the more complex interactions and mechanics to reference is invaluable. Thanks!
What is bro industry’s 😂😂
@@zaddydaddy162 tbh cannabis lol
Thank you for this video! I had this situation come up a few times in commander games and had subsequent debates over the matter. I will refer them here instead :)
I had a heck of a time trying to figure out why Eye of the Storm didn't counter every spell that was being copied until I noticed the very unassuming word "card". Turns out that particular word was VERY important.
As someone not super familiar with the game, what distinction does that make?
@@aqwkingchampion13 Copied spells become tokens, and tokens are not "cards".
@@KaneYork Ah! Ok, I didn’t think of the difference between token and card. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
Another great video - always surprising to dig deep into some of these rules - really like the way you focus on the key words so we can extend into our own decks
Suggestion for another 'Rules' video: copying instant/sorcery with an X in the mana cost - would like to have your take on how these resolve, does the mana cost for X need to be paid on each copy or does it carry over from your initial casting to each copy? Example is Comet Storm in a Kalamax deck - tap Kalamax then cast Comet Storm as first Instant of turn, pay {R}{R} and 5 colorless intending to do 5 damage to target player -> Kalamax ability triggers to copy Comet Storm -> does 5 colorless need to be paid again or else X = 0?
For the most part I understood resolution before until a judge at my LGS and later me asking judges (I believe some were level 3s) in a Facebook group. I can’t remember the names of the cards but it involves oil counters on a card that needs to exile a card to get them, a burn spell with proliferate and a spell bomb that boosts my creature that the LGS said I still drew a card because he and the opponent said my bomb resolved to be removed from my graveyard otherwise o cards were in my graveyard. But my creature died from the burn and as you said in the video if there is text in the same paragraph it can’t be responded to. Well the judges (online and LGS) claimed it was split the stack which I thought was wrong but I’m not a judge. I felt it would only work if the LGS judge and player said how it was stacked different. Not my creature is burned, my artifact and creature are in the graveyard. The artifact is removed with his creature he was blocking with. Gets a oil counter then the second part of the burn spell goes thru giving another counter then I draw a card. I only knew the order intended because I volunteered saying “I guess I have no longer a legal target so I don’t draw a card”. But no. All said I did draw and all these years of trying to understand the stack I’m wrong. That sentences can be stacked between different cards. I trust you more than those judges because I sited the numbered rules when asking more questions online and it seemed to be a contradiction. I kinda felt they agreed with the judge at the LGS because he was a judge and I wasn’t.
I might be wrong about this, and I think it's a tournament rule (so not necessarily applicable to to a kitchen table game) - but, from memory, I think if a spell or ability requires a choice only upon resolution (like World Queller), but the played putting it on the stack announces it when they put it on the stack, then if no-one responds to the spell or ability (and allows it to resolve) the player is locked into that choice. I *think*. I'm remembering this from years ago, and it's really specific so can't find it via Google, nor a quick skim of the tournament rules. I just really remember it being the case.
If someone responds though they can change their mind - that's what I remember the rule being.
Lol but it would just be easier to play it out as he's described. Put the ability on the stack, without saying what you've chosen, and if the ability resolves, make your choice then. If you change your mind, it appears as cheating(which it is not) and definitely someone will call over a judge saying what you chose when casting(despite not having to)
@@alstermaniac Well of course, the optimal way to play it as the person with the ability is to say nothing until it resolves.
My comment was to highlight that, if I'm correct in my memory, that if someone prematurely makes their choice you can lock them into it by not responding to the ability and letting it resolve.
@@jaxsonbateman lol but would it be premature because obviously they are making said choice thinking you're not going to respond anyways, it's not like you'd fake out a choice to bait out a response.
@@alstermaniac What? It's definitely premature. The person controlling the ability doesn't have to make the choice until the ability resolves, so by definition if they choose before then it's almost certainly premature.
People will still do it prematurely for various reasons (such as not knowing they don't do it until resolution, or getting excited, or whatever), but the fact is that if I'm correct about my memory about how that rule works, if they prematurely make the choice and no-one responds, they're locked into it.
I'm enjoying these more and more the more obscure they get.
excellent work i actually mentioned the clone effects are the same thing during the chord of calling and elesh norn "might be getting wrong" video
Basically always ask your opponents if there's a response to any cast or trigger before making your choice
"any spell or ability that is targetting something is going to have "target" on it". Um, Actually (love that show) you also overlooked auras, which also target but don't say target.
Auras are a bit iffy, though, but you are correct that casting an Aura targets. However, if you manage to circumvent the stack (like flickering with Brago or putting it onto the battlefield with Zur) you *choose* what the aura enchants as it enters the battlefield and therefore get around Hexproof and/or Shroud. Still, this quirk does feel very on theme for the video so it could have been included.
Another fun edge case is Mutate, which allows creature spells to have targets.
One rule I saw messed up incredibly badly was the concept of the "counter upon resolution", which is a concept in which a spell will be automatically countered if, for whatever reason, the spell cannot legally resolve due to a change in the game's state. I was in a game of commander and we had a wild stack full of counterspells going, and someone countered the root spell of the stack. He then says upon resolution, all the spells on the stack were effectively countered due to the "root" of the stack being removed, meaning that the stack itself is invalid - which is not how counter upon resolution works, since other counterspells were all targeting each other going down the stack. The stack would still finish resolving, even though the "root" was gone, but he was making such a big stink about it that I just let it go after a while because I wanted to get on with my day. Just another quirk about how resolution works.
Interesting argument by that guy about an "invalid stack". :D That's a new term for me. ^^
Since we're talking about technicalities already: There is no such thing as "counter upon resolution". A spell (or ability) that has lost all it's legal targets just fails to resolve, is removed from the stack and is put into its owner's graveyard. The result is most often the same as if it were countered, but any effects that look out for countered spells - like Multani's Presence - won't trigger of of this.
Another important interaction with clones is that it chooses a permanent, it doesn't target a permanent. This is very important for things like Shroud, Hexproof, Protection, or illusions like Phantasmal Image. Choosing gets around all of these things while targeting gets around none of them. For example, if I cast a Phantasmal Image, upon resolution I may have enter the battlefield as a copy of my opponents Narset, Enlightened Master or Sigarda, Host of Herons or a creature equiped with Lightening Greeves. If my opponent then casts a Clone and chooses my Phantasmal Image I don't sacrifice it because it hasn't been copied. Other effects like this exist but they are rare, like auras returning to the battlefield from exile or the graveyard, or spells like Deflecting Palm. Hexproof, Shroud, Protection From doesn't stop these. So If your opponent has a Teysa, Envoy of Ghosts, Teysa's Protection from Creatures ability doesn't stop you from cloning it.
I was a dci judge way back when and have ruled correctly on soooo many obscure interactions and still until your video did not know "choose" worked this way lol. I guess it's never come up since most peoples choices don't change in most circumstances but that actually makes some cards I thought weren't good, a bit better
This clears up a situation i had about a month ago. Played “Out of Time” it untaps all creatures then one of my opponents uses a creatures tap ability after it was untaped but before it phased out. It felt off to me so is nice to know for sure that it was an illegal move
I’d love a video covering something called layers. There is an interaction I don’t understand where is someone has urborg/yavimaya out and someone plays a blood sun, even though the ability granting the land type should be negated, lands get the type and just seem to retain it for no reason. I play in a group where we’ve pretty much all played for at least a decade and none of us thought this was right even though we found rulings that it is.
So if I play Cursed Mirror and my opponent asks what I’m copying, I don’t have to disclose that information unless the spell resolves?
Yes. The "target" (in quotations because you aren't actually targeting) is upon resolution, not casting. The other thing is that you can say what you'd like it to be, but even if that's not longer a valid choice (let's say it's not on the board anymore) you can just pick something else because the actual choice is made on resolution.
One interaction regarding resolution that I was made aware of was fling type effects in combination with sacrifice triggers. For example I have a rakdos sacrifice deck and this is what I understood to work:
Play vexing devil - player chooses to take the 4 life so I have to sacrifice devil, in response I fling it but i was made aware you cannot respond with fling if they pay the cost to make you sacrifice. However with kroxa because there is a line of text that makes the opponent discard a card where you are given the opportunity to play cards like fling or abnormal endurance.
This is not specifically about sacrificing. It’s about paying costs. Once something is on the stack, it’s costs are already payed. So if sacrificing is part of the cost, that will happen before anyone can respond.
Making someone else discard or sacrifice, such as with kroxa, is not a cost.
Here's something related tha5 people get wrong;
Toothy, Imaginary Friend(with counters) and Thassa(TBD)
Thassa end step trigger
Blink Toothy, draw card trigger goes on stack
Thassa finishes resolving returning Toothy to play
Draw cards equal to Toothys counters
Toothy gets those counters
If things go on the stack befor spells and abilities finish resolving, they will resolve like anything else; top to bottom
If it does not say target(s) in the text of the spell or ability it does not target. Declaring Targets and divvying up between targets happens in the Casting part of a spell. If its not Modal or Targeting it happens as you resolve the spell. Don't focus on the word choose that is just a directive ask "Is it Modal? " Yes or No. "Does it say Target?" Yes or No. if no to both it happens at resolution. If it says When or Whenever its a Triggered Ability anything else IS NOT a trigger.
The heartseeker combo took me until you got to circling the top text for me to realize what actually did. Now I'm terrified.
Thank you, great video.
Wow, didnt know about Copy Enchantment. Thanks! Probably could have just googled that, lol.
Every time I play Magic I never leave home without my judge robe and gavel. 😈
I usually find rules esoterica to be both interesting and worth knowing, but this feels like the kind of knowledge that only becomes relevant in situations that are not fun. "Fun" isn't the be all end all, though, and it is still interesting!
New question for you: players loosing the game and triggers on the stack. Let’s say player 1 is attacking player 2 for lethal. Player 2 (who will lose the game after damage resolves) has a blood artist that is blocking and will die as damage resolves. Player 3 also has a blood artist. I’ve been told that since the creature that is dying is owned by a player that is losing the game at the same time, the state based check of players losing the game cancels out the creature they owned dying and neither blood artist will trigger. I have argued against this in my play group as I thought that triggers go on the stack as state based is check and only the trigger owned by the losing player fizzles in response to the player losing. Would both blood artists trigger? Only player 3 blood artist? Or none of them? How does this work? Thanks in advance!
2:48 panglacial worm be like “say what now?”
An additional note of clarity here is that different paragraphs on the same card are different abilities on the stack and may offer an opportunity to react prior to resolution
Depends.
Sorceries and instants: I can't think of any off the top of my head because that sounds like a really weird way to format them, but if they exist then no, it is still one spell resolving and there would be no time for a player to gain priority.
Permanents: Each paragraph would actually be different abilities as you said so yes, these would give players time in between them if they do happen to trigger or go on the stack all at the same time.
Yes, you COULD use Argus Kor’s ability to do the Heartseeker combo. OR, you could simply have Puresteel Paladin on the table.
I have a question about 3:38 :
what if it's an abilit saying "Cascade, cascade" can you couner the first sellcast without paying?
Can you elaborate what you mean? What is Spellcast, and why would you counter it without paying.
Even if you tell your opponent what you are choosing for a card effect you can change your mind when it actually resolves. It's mean, but legal.
That equip is so odd because you can only equip as a sorcery and since you can't play sorcery unless stack is empty makes that a weird interaction.
Instant speed equip effects get very weird. Helm of the Host's at the beginning of combat trigger is another weird one as, because of how it's worded, it goes on the stack regardless of if it's equipped, so if you equip it at instant speed in response to the trigger, you will still get the token copy Helm creates.
Super informative as always, thanks Demo!
The interaction which usually confuses me is when an Instant or Sorcery goes to the graveyard when resolving. If, for example, an Instant or Sorcery does something based on the amount of Instants and Sorceries in your graveyard, will the spell count itself? Does it go to the graveyard and then resolve its effect, or does it resolve its effect and then go to the graveyard?
Hi… about rules… I have one question… hope you can add resolution an upcoming episode…does Osgir ability works with spells costing 0 in the cemetery? How does Osgir interacts with suspend ex. Lotus bloom
lotus bloom costs zero. so activating osgir costs zero and makes 2 of them.
I started playing magic during revised and played on and off up until around the original ravnica set. I didn't start playing again until recently when DU just came out. One thing I have to say is that MTG rulings were so much more complicated in the earlier years. They didn't really have wording fine tuned like it is today. If you just read the cards and understand the language you are reading then I find it really hard to get things wrong in today's game. Unless of course you are playing with old cards that still have confusing wording on them.
So in regards to your choose ability, does that mean once my Vaevictus Asmadi the Dire's ability moves to selecting targets, that my opponents can no longer sack?
You should do a video explaining the cloning of clones and tokens of clones.
4:50 You say you don't have to tell them unless you want to be a really nice guy.
Are you bound by a choice you declare BEFORE resolution? Is there a part of the rules that says making a choice is a shortcut to asking for resolution? Can you "be a nice guy" in a way that does NOT bind you to the choice (eg "I'm thinking about choosing creature. Does it resolve? Yes? Ok I choose Artifact.") Of course these are shady as hell, but I'm more interested in actual rules than edginess.
But what about an ability that says "target"? Do you need to target sth when you add the ability to the stack or do you target sth when it resolves?
Ok at first I thought I wouldn’t learn something then he talks about choices being made upon resolution 😅
You say “right” way to often, other than that: very interesting! Thanks for the video !
I dont understand, the sentences separate different actions of the card, how does that not allow for sba check since its a state change during the cards resolution
nobody has priority in the middle of a spell resolving.
I have a question Demo, if I have Baba Lysaga in play and Kaya’s ghost form at attached to a creature. I sac both of them and whatever the third one is. Will I still get the creature back onto the battlefield even though I sacced the ghost form?
Masterpiece! Please do more :)
I have a question. How would devour work with a creature that makes a token when it dies? Like nest invader.
a sacrificed creature is dying, so yes.
I have one that came up recently in a game. I had Mondrak, Glory Dominus on the battlefield and he was equipped with Helm of the Host. After the first turn, when he has multiple copies of himself on the battlefield and he makes more copies, does he go off sequentially or all at once? As in would it be the first one doubles a token to 2, the second to 4, and the third to 8 or do they all go off at the same time when seeing the token enter the battlefield meaning you’d get 4 tokens if you had 3 copies of Mondrak? 1 for each copy plus the original token.
replacement effects happen just like triggered abilities. you choose the order that they resolve.
I recommend timestamps. Great channel, unique content
I don't think I know ONE person who has actually read the rules.
I know it's a huge rulebook, but it's easy to look stuff up.
2:48 Except Pangladial Wurm
The world queller has a reflexive trigger. You choose type on resolution, then the "if clause" triggers and goes on the stack, giving your opponents a chance to react.
Reflexive triggers are "when you do". World Queller is "if you do"
You are thinking of an "intervening if clause". This is worded similarly but does not affect the resolution. Once the type is chosen there is no round of priority.
As others have said, reflexive triggers use “when.” “If” does not do this.
I'd love to see a video on the interaction between these cards.
Urabrask (the have to vast or it gets exiled version), Nullstone Gargoyle and Possability storm.
I have a creature heavy gruul deck that uses them.
That's a very non-intuitive interaction, because it's two separate ones.
The biggest thing to note here is that Possibility Storm only cares about spells cast from the hand. So spells played from Urabrak's ability won't cause Possibility Storm to trigger.
The Nullstone Gargoyle is a bit more interesting though. Assuming you control both, you can choose how the triggers stack with your opponent casting a noncreature spell. However, the important thing to know is that both triggers will go on the stack once the spell is cast, and notably Possibility Storm doesn't need the spell to be on the stack to resolve.
If Storm resolves first, then Storm will exile the first spell as part of the effect's resolution, and Nullstone Gargoyle's effect will fizzle. It only targets the first noncreature spell cast, and, because of how Possibility Storm is worded, you still cast the first spell, so the Gargoyle will not trigger on the second cast when Possibility Storm resolves.
If Nullstone resolves first, the first spell is countered and goes to the graveyard, but Storm's trigger will still resolve and they will get their second cast.
So basically you choose whether the spell they first cast goes to the bottom of their library or the graveyard, but they still get the effect of Possibility Storm regardless.
Does a spell still target if it does not resolve?
(Aka rot priest)
Opponent casts spell I counter
Do they still get the target resolution from Rotpriest?
Thanks
yes, targeting is a condition of casting. so, for example, op casts cut down on your rot priest, you get the poison counter trigger, then you cast tyvar's stand on your rot priest another copy of the poison counter trigger, then op counters the stand. effects resolve in reverse, but they are all still on the stack, so stand is countered, but the second poison counter effect is a separate trigger so that will resolve. then the destroy effect will resolve, but after that the first poison counter trigger will also resolve. this works for all on target triggers such as feather the redeemed, etc.
So if I play a spell and no one counters it I can have it go through and they can't do anything about it?
if they pass priority then yes. they can't react after the spell starts resolving.
@@edhdeckbuilding I'm saying stuff like sac creatures or other actions
Great video!
Id love to see a ruling on how myrkul lord of bones works with gisa glorious resurrector. Like ive been looking for a ruling on what happens if you boardwipe with her and myrkul out. Do you get to steal everyone's board when you turn her into an enchantment with myrkul?
Instances are separate: the effect will check to see if giza(the enchantment) put any creatures into exile, cards that have been exiled by another instance of giza(creature) will not meet the requirement to return them, the same would be true if you flickered/recast gisa after exiling cards through her ability
This is why so many people hate Expropriate. Once it starts resolving they can't respond and sac whatever you choose to take if they voted for money. It's such a nasty cards
Very interesting video
There are a small number of cards that finish resolving part way through and add an additional ability to the stack. Usually they include "[do something] when you do [do something else]". Hypothesizzle is one such card. It only does the additional thing if you discard a card and you can respond to that after the target is chosen. This is a pretty deep tanget to what you were talking about I just think it is an odd one that is pretty interesting. Also, this is magic, there are exceptions to nearly everything by now.
No, this is false. When a spell or ability is resolving there are no times that any player gets opportunity. Hypothesizzle's entire two effects go off all at once without any one being able to interrupt it.
Actually, it seems you're right. I was looking up reflexive triggers since I had actually never heard of them before. Ignore what I said about Hypothesizzle.
You’re both half right. You cannot under any circumstances get priority while something is resolving. However, the word “when” in ability text represents what’s called a reflexive trigger, and everything after that is actually a separate triggered ability. So any card that says for example“do something… when you do…” will actually have a separate trigger go on the stack that can be responded to as normal.
I normally send these to my newer friends, but sometimes they really help my magic boomer ass.
Every card game has those five or ten words in card texts that just end friendships lol
ok im making an agrus kos deck
Wow, the heart seeker combo is a 7-mana board wipe, but worse in some areas. But... You're in white lol. Cool
Before watching: Glen Elendra Archmage DOES NOT WORK INFINITELY WITH CLONES.
Had an ass try this and he kept claiming it worked. It doesn't.
not sure why it would.
Then there's that one wurm that you play while searching
All of this is important in IRL games where players often give this kind of info before they even cast/activate effects. There will definitely be groans when you go "actually I don't have to tell you yet" though
All these people trying to correct demo or point out exceptions but those people are just wrong and doesn’t understand the concept fully.
I've been playing quandrix command wrong
When you said 'if there are 20 copies of Grapeshot on the stack, u can let the first one resolve and then respond to other ones. I thought once the last priority was passed on a stack, it resolved all the way to the end(start?) with no chance of interaction.
@@shadowfate05 can you guess when I started playing and when I went on my hiatus 😂🍻
for by invitation only, you choose the number then people can respond before it resolves I believe. ie i can steal creatures or make tokens to sacrifice I believe. is this correct?
This is wrong and demo is correct
How does it interact with Esix, Fractal Bloom?
4:57 if you tell them what your choosing, and they respond, you may choose something else, because the situation changed.
This aint yugioh
@@shadowfate05 Its even better, if say they sac say all their creatures to a sac outlet that lets them profit, but didn't need to if you didn't copy the Elesh Norn, you may still change what you are choosing.
So, based on this video, you could probably say that resolution is when a spell or effect exits the stack, and therefore becomes active.
No. The very last step of resolving a spell is finally removing it from the stack and putting it into the appropriate zone, typically the graveyard.
This is just a buncha word play and is the reason this games failing besides the 500$ box of cards lotr box prices
Aren't you forgetting about counter spells that counter triggered and activated abilities
No. Nothing he said is contradictory to those.