From a Vorthos point of view, imagine this happening to a spellcaster in the middle of a duel: your spell shorts out, time reverses, a ghost-elf appears out of nowhere and explodes, then some bears show up. The duelists make eye contact. "Let's... let's just not even think about this, okay?" "Yeah fine."
Wow, this is a weird interaction. So basically in this case, Amy was able to use the rules draw the card underneath the top card of her library through this interaction.
This was the most exciting daily ruling in a while. I’d love to see more very hard / advanced / counterintuitive rules interactions like this one covered.
Now do a part two with Panglacial Wurm! Actually, very specifically as a question, I am curious about what you think of the traditional Panglacial Wurm debate, since there's a lot of questions to ask about player intent. In this scenario, we have a player who obviously wants to cast a grizzly bears, and a scenario where that plays out. What about a scenario like this where someone's only intent was to draw the top card of their library, which they only knew while searching it? Especially if the Wurm's cast fails in a given scenario. What about the given odds that a Wurm's cast might fail with 2, 3, or 4 players in a game? Is there any reason that I shouldn't be using Panglacial Wurm to sometimes draw the top card of my library while searching it? Thanks in advance! Been a fan since DDR#1 :D
I really do like the more complicated rulings. They are always the most interesting ones. I hadn't noticed the trend of starting the month with a difficult ruling, but I like it. It's a cool little tradition. As for the ruling, I had definitely never heard of the rule about drawing a card face down. It's very niche. I really don't think Selvala's ability should be a mana ability. It's like Lion's Eye Diamond. Rather than getting an errata for power level and consistency with how the rules previously worked, I think it's should receive an errata to no longer be a mana ability to avoid unintuitive situations like this. Although, as I'm thinking further on the implications of that, perhaps it's not such a good idea. Not being a mana ability would require it to use the stack and then it could be responded to with removal to a permanent with an activated ability that Selvala's controller could have wanted to use Selvala's mana for or with some form of top deck manipulation like Brainstorm or Sensei's Divining Top. Maybe it would work if it had split second in addition to no longer being a mana source, but it starts to seem pretty heavy handed at that point. Would a clause like "cannot be activated while casting a spell" be a more elegant solution? Or would that cause more confusion than unintuitiveness I'm looking to minimize? It's hard to say.
A good solution IMO is to give it the same wording as LED: "Activate this ability only any time you could cast an instant". That way it IS still a mana ability, but couldn't cause all these rules headaches. (LED is a mana ability btw)
Oh, that's perfect. Don't know where I got mixed up on LED, but I see that it is a mana ability. Looking at the Oracle text, it seems they changed the wording, though. "Activate only as an instant" seems more confusing. I remember being confused about LED's previous wording's purpose when I first saw it, but at least it was pretty straightforward.
Not sure if this is the correct place to suggest question, but I have an interesting one about the competitive rules: In a matchup, opponent shows their Lurrus pre-game, during the game, opponent cycles Street Wraith. So what would be the penalty? I personally saw this in a LGS and since that is not a high-rel event the player just put the Lurrus aside. But I was wondering is it legal (not sportsful though) to claim that he is just showing his sideboard card, and not claiming it as their companion?
The fact that amy doesn't get to see the card below the spirit guide during the first casting is very strange, since I thought that "play with the top revealed at all times" meant exactly that ...
Wonderful! I think that this card should have be worded differently, like "Target player adds {G}...", this way the ability wouldn't be a mana ability (avoiding this complicated situations) and it could have opened interesting "diplomatic" strategies in conspirac drafts
Or, add the "activate only as an instant" that lion's eye diamond has. That stops you from using it during an action, but still lets it be a mana ability.
I thought Amy can’t even move the Bear card to the stack to become a Bear spell until she actually pays the cost(s) for it. I thought she wouldn’t be able to do this because the problem statement says she moved the Bears to the stack and THEN attempted to pay for it. From my point of view, Bears remains revealed as the top card of her library until she pays the costs for it.
So this is related to a fun little part of tjr game design that you only see occasionally, and that's the fact that you can declare you're casting a spell before you tap the mana for it. In Legacy you'll often see this used to cast a turn 1 Emry with only an Island and a Lotus Petal. By playing your island and petal, you can declare that you're casting Emry, and since you currently control an artifact, her Affinity makes her only cost 1U, which you can now pay for using the island and sacrificing the petal. If you tapped the island and petal before declaring her as a spell, you couldn't actually cast her anymore.
I have a question, this happend in game. My opponent is morphing a creature face up and I have a drannith magistrate and and Cursed totem on board. Does morph cast ? Can he activate a morph creature?
A bit late, but turning the morph face up is perfectly legal. Casting a spell is when you pay it's cost to put the card (or occasionally a copy of a card like from eye of the storm) on the stack. So you do cast it when playing it face down from your hand as a 2/2, or when playing it from your hand face up, but while turning it face up, you are not casting it. In addition, morph isn't an activated ability. Activated abilities are always formatted : . If you read the reminder text for morph, you will see there is no colon, so it is not an activated ability. To go into more detail, morph is a special action. This means it doesn't use the stack and therefore can't be responded to. You can still only do it when you have priority, but your opponent can't respond to turning it face up by casting shock.
From a Vorthos point of view, imagine this happening to a spellcaster in the middle of a duel: your spell shorts out, time reverses, a ghost-elf appears out of nowhere and explodes, then some bears show up. The duelists make eye contact. "Let's... let's just not even think about this, okay?" "Yeah fine."
Wow, this is a weird interaction. So basically in this case, Amy was able to use the rules draw the card underneath the top card of her library through this interaction.
This was the most exciting daily ruling in a while. I’d love to see more very hard / advanced / counterintuitive rules interactions like this one covered.
This was one of my favorite rulings with Selvala. Great video, you deserve the greatest of days!
I loved that one. Selvala and her interactions are some of my favorite in the game. Keep up the great content
Now do a part two with Panglacial Wurm! Actually, very specifically as a question, I am curious about what you think of the traditional Panglacial Wurm debate, since there's a lot of questions to ask about player intent. In this scenario, we have a player who obviously wants to cast a grizzly bears, and a scenario where that plays out. What about a scenario like this where someone's only intent was to draw the top card of their library, which they only knew while searching it? Especially if the Wurm's cast fails in a given scenario. What about the given odds that a Wurm's cast might fail with 2, 3, or 4 players in a game? Is there any reason that I shouldn't be using Panglacial Wurm to sometimes draw the top card of my library while searching it?
Thanks in advance! Been a fan since DDR#1 :D
This was fantastic. I've only gotten right the first part of the ruling, but that made it even more enjoyable. :)
I've noticed how much Amy really likes Grizzly Bears. So puzzling lol. This is a great question though.
I really do like the more complicated rulings. They are always the most interesting ones. I hadn't noticed the trend of starting the month with a difficult ruling, but I like it. It's a cool little tradition.
As for the ruling, I had definitely never heard of the rule about drawing a card face down. It's very niche. I really don't think Selvala's ability should be a mana ability. It's like Lion's Eye Diamond. Rather than getting an errata for power level and consistency with how the rules previously worked, I think it's should receive an errata to no longer be a mana ability to avoid unintuitive situations like this.
Although, as I'm thinking further on the implications of that, perhaps it's not such a good idea. Not being a mana ability would require it to use the stack and then it could be responded to with removal to a permanent with an activated ability that Selvala's controller could have wanted to use Selvala's mana for or with some form of top deck manipulation like Brainstorm or Sensei's Divining Top. Maybe it would work if it had split second in addition to no longer being a mana source, but it starts to seem pretty heavy handed at that point. Would a clause like "cannot be activated while casting a spell" be a more elegant solution? Or would that cause more confusion than unintuitiveness I'm looking to minimize? It's hard to say.
A good solution IMO is to give it the same wording as LED: "Activate this ability only any time you could cast an instant". That way it IS still a mana ability, but couldn't cause all these rules headaches. (LED is a mana ability btw)
Oh, that's perfect. Don't know where I got mixed up on LED, but I see that it is a mana ability. Looking at the Oracle text, it seems they changed the wording, though. "Activate only as an instant" seems more confusing. I remember being confused about LED's previous wording's purpose when I first saw it, but at least it was pretty straightforward.
Not sure if this is the correct place to suggest question, but I have an interesting one about the competitive rules:
In a matchup, opponent shows their Lurrus pre-game, during the game, opponent cycles Street Wraith. So what would be the penalty?
I personally saw this in a LGS and since that is not a high-rel event the player just put the Lurrus aside. But I was wondering is it legal (not sportsful though) to claim that he is just showing his sideboard card, and not claiming it as their companion?
The fact that amy doesn't get to see the card below the spirit guide during the first casting is very strange, since I thought that "play with the top revealed at all times" meant exactly that ...
Wonderful!
I think that this card should have be worded differently, like "Target player adds {G}...", this way the ability wouldn't be a mana ability (avoiding this complicated situations) and it could have opened interesting "diplomatic" strategies in conspirac drafts
Or, add the "activate only as an instant" that lion's eye diamond has. That stops you from using it during an action, but still lets it be a mana ability.
Wow this is a complex one!
Outstanding
total chad
Great one today
This sounds like amy gained an advantage by performing an illegal action (drawing the card below the grizzly bears) how is this legal. 🤔
she had to tap her creature though
@@allopeth but it was still an illegal action.
Selvala should have never been printed in this templating.
I thought Amy can’t even move the Bear card to the stack to become a Bear spell until she actually pays the cost(s) for it. I thought she wouldn’t be able to do this because the problem statement says she moved the Bears to the stack and THEN attempted to pay for it. From my point of view, Bears remains revealed as the top card of her library until she pays the costs for it.
So this is related to a fun little part of tjr game design that you only see occasionally, and that's the fact that you can declare you're casting a spell before you tap the mana for it. In Legacy you'll often see this used to cast a turn 1 Emry with only an Island and a Lotus Petal.
By playing your island and petal, you can declare that you're casting Emry, and since you currently control an artifact, her Affinity makes her only cost 1U, which you can now pay for using the island and sacrificing the petal. If you tapped the island and petal before declaring her as a spell, you couldn't actually cast her anymore.
That was juicy!
Damn Magic, you scary!
I have a question, this happend in game.
My opponent is morphing a creature face up and I have a drannith magistrate and and Cursed totem on board.
Does morph cast ?
Can he activate a morph creature?
A bit late, but turning the morph face up is perfectly legal.
Casting a spell is when you pay it's cost to put the card (or occasionally a copy of a card like from eye of the storm) on the stack. So you do cast it when playing it face down from your hand as a 2/2, or when playing it from your hand face up, but while turning it face up, you are not casting it.
In addition, morph isn't an activated ability. Activated abilities are always formatted : . If you read the reminder text for morph, you will see there is no colon, so it is not an activated ability.
To go into more detail, morph is a special action. This means it doesn't use the stack and therefore can't be responded to. You can still only do it when you have priority, but your opponent can't respond to turning it face up by casting shock.
Uh, nice and though one. I would have ruled it right, but not sure why. So, Halfright. so 10.5 our of 13.