HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 авг 2024
- (2*) Can you have a creature with just Lion Umbra on it?
Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw
Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2...
A: Yes
Bonus: What if that creature gets Threatened?
A: The umbra falls off unless there's some other reason the creature was modified
Auras requiring the controller to be the same as the creature to count as modify is super weird since that’s not the case for equipment. It’d be way simpler if it was just “equipped or enchanted.” The Pacifism edge case should totally count as modified. I bet a ton of players think it does already.
I totally thought it did. I literally included Guardians of Oboro and Sky Tether in my cube because I thought it was cute. Very sad.
Attaching an equipment you control to an opponent's creature is really frowned upon in Magic, so much so that if you activate the second ability of a Bloodthirsty Blade, you're actually committing a crime.
You and your videos are an absolute treasure to the community.
Thanks for all your daily rulings, Dave.
I've seen a lot of questions online about how Ulalek works (especially when combined with Echoes of Eternity).
It'd be super useful to have a video I could send people to watch that explains exactly how Ulalek interacts with things like trigger doublers, Flashing in a second Eldrazi in response to the Ulalek trigger, or just whether you can stack the copies of spells above the copies of triggers.
Follow up on the follow up
Since you threatened a grizzly bears with bonesplitter and lion umbra, you (the caster of the Threaten) cannot unequip the bonesplitter since moving equipment is something only its controller can do (and equipping can only be done at sorcery speed). So if instead of bonesplitter it was cranial plating making the creature modified, if the controller had the mana, they could move the equipment from the grizzly bears to another creature the grizzly bears' owner controls using its BB: attach ability and then the lion umbra would fall off again due to the grizzly bear no longer being modified.
At least that's how I'm interpreting it.
Specifically excluding modifications from your opponents' effects is such a weird thing to insist on. How dare my card game have depth.
Two different pronunciations of Kaya within 30 seconds is crazy
The rules baggage about who controls the aura is not worth the flavor in this case.
It makes sense that modify only takes into account your own auras, but if they wanted to do that, they should also only count your own equipment to be consistent. Of course counters don't have controllers so those wouldn't change.
The situation they feared about, which is pacifism accidentally turning on opposing modification requirements, also doesn't really matter. It's not even that powerful to begin with so nobody cares and wouldn't have been consequential in a draft in kamigaw
@@thanhavictus are you sure about that? Let's count the commons and uncommons for which it's relevant:
Upriser Renegade
Towashi Guidebot
Lethal Exploit
Walking Skyscraper
Ambitious Assault
Flame Discharge
Kami's Flare
Unforgiving One
Heir of the Ancient Fang
And let's count the auras that could create that situation:
Awakened Awareness
Clawing Torment
Short Circuit
Tamiyo's Completion
Intercessor's Arrest
It would come up quite a bit and they decided that all else being equal, they would make the decision to avoid feel bads.
Question: what happens if Release Notes contradict the CR? For example, the OTJ release notes allow you to activate Saddle 3 by tapping a 2/2 and a 1/1, but the CR does not allow this.
That's so weird that the CR just doesn't include the word "total"
Pretty clearly a CR typo that should be fixed. Saddle works just like Crew here.
Dave mentions that when you are /playing/ an aura spell you need to /target/ something with it that satisfies the conditions. In this card's case, A Modified Creature. If someone plays something like Replenish, can this aura attach to an unmodified creature, then stay on due to itself now modifying it? I know auras coming out of the grave into play has some wonky effects.
No, it needs to be valid before the Aura is attached.
Rule 303.4f "If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player's control by any means other than resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it on to the battlefield doesn't specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield.
The player must *choose a legal object according to the Aura's enchant ability* and any other applicable effects."
They must attach to a valid object if able or are immediately moved to the GY, so I believe this doesn't work. I don't believe returning multiple Auras work either, since they all have to attach at once (not using the stack). I also don't think this works with, say, a creature that gets +1/+1 counters on aura/enchantment/etc ETB as this seems to happen before any triggers are put on the stack.
Now, if there is a spell that says, "put [target] aura from X onto the battlefield attached to Y", I believe that might work as the resolution of the spell specifically states the attachment, and whether the attachment is legal or not is only checked afterwards.
@@bluerendar2194 something returning an aura to the battlefield attached to a specific object has the same requirements as returning it attached to anything.
303.4i: If an effect attempts to put an Aura onto the battlefield attached to either an object or player it can't legally enchant or an object or player that is undefined, the Aura remains in its current zone, unless that zone is the stack. In that case, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard instead of entering the battlefield. If the Aura is a token, it isn't created.
@@seandun7083 Neat!
Nice. It's the same reason why you can't attach an aura to a permanent that has protection from one of its characteristics, I reckon
They should just redefine modified as any aura, it's way too complicated. The game shouldn't have this many micro exceptions to remember
But why though? It says "you control" in the reminder text and it's really on the low end in terms of mechanical complexity compared to stuff like mutate, disguise or even ninjutsu.
Dave, please keep ruling text boxes on screen longer.
Just pause
@@jonathandrummel6075
But mostly when you wanna pause it's already gone, than you have to rewind, but than you rewind too far and now you have to search. That's annoying.
Cool! I suppose this applies similarly to auras that "enchant creature you control" e.g. spirit loop.
The question that popped into my head is: can you use an effect that directly puts an Aura onto a creature, like Academy Reserchers or Codsworth, to put Lion Umbra onto a creature that isn't modified. My gut feeling is no, but I know they can potentially bypass some effects that would normally stop you from enchanting things (shroud/hexproof) and I wasn't sure at which point in the process things get checked. At no point can a card that says "Enchant artifact creature" go on a grizzly bear, but once the umbra is on the bear it fulfills its own requirement.
The answer is no, because whether it’s from casting the aura spell or another method of attachment, you can still only attach it to a legal target, which a non-modified creature is not.
@Judging FtW If Lion Umbra were to be reanimated, would you be able to choose a creature and have it stick? Since that doesn't target, I'm not sure if it would attempt to attach and then see itself as modified before state-based actions apply.
Shouldn't work as auras only ever self-attach to valid targets.
If the reanimate spell/effect specifies to attach (without mentioning valid target), then it should work as the check then only happens afterwards.
I wondered this too, but it doesn't work. Here's the relevant rule: "303.4f. If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player's control by any means other than by resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it onto the battlefield doesn't specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield. The player must choose a legal object or player according to the Aura's enchant ability and any other applicable effects."
I have a question about an "intervening if" clause. Think Felidar Sovereign or any trigger of the form
[When/Whenever/At]
CONDITION_1, if
CONDITION_2, EFFECT.
The ability doesn't trigger unless both conditions are true simultaneously.
My question is, is every "if" in a triggered ability's text an "intervening if" or must a comma be directly in front of the word "if"?
It only affects ifs that are in that specific place. (Given the if's placement in the example order, I'm pretty sure that by "trigger condition" last sentence meant the event that caused it to trigger rather than the condition the intervening if must fulfill)
603.4: A triggered ability may read "When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect]." When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing. If the ability triggers, it checks the stated condition again as it resolves. If the condition isn't true at that time, the ability is removed from the stack and does nothing. Note that this mirrors the check for legal targets. This rule is referred to as the "intervening 'if' clause" rule. (The word "if" has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an "if" that immediately follows a trigger condition.)
@@seandun7083 Selvala, Heart of The Wild says "Whenever a creature enters, draw a card IF blah blah blah" so is this different to what you described?
@@williamdrum9899 from the rulings on selvala, it seems like that ability only checks on resolution, not as it triggers. So it will always trigger, but only sometimes draw a card.
The new creature’s power is compared to the power of each other creature on the battlefield as the first ability resolves. If another creature has the same or higher power than the new creature’s power, no one may draw a card.
It does seem rather odd to me that an Aura controlled by a different player does not count as modifying the creature, and I can see how that could confuse some people, even with the reminder text stating "Auras its controller controls". Honestly, I think it would've been perfectly fine if using Pacifism on an opponent's creature counted as modifying it. I mean, you clearly are logically modifying it so that it's unable to attack or block. Makes me wonder if WotC will decide to modify (heh) this rule in the future.
It seems weird that modified would only care about auras controlled by the same player, especially since it is so unintuitive and not something you would know without the reminder text in front of you. Seems like a poor decision on WoTC's part, auras being used *against* other creatures are generally bad and such a niche case (relatively speaking it) that carving out an exception seems unnecessary
I mean, the reminder text does say
Equipment, Auras *you control*, and counters are modifications.
Also, pacifism type effects are pretty good in limited. In Neo alone we had Awakened Awareness, Clawing Torment, Short Circuit, Tamiyo's Compleation and Intercessor's Arrest all at common or uncommon.
If I cast Emrakul the promised end and take control of a players turn, during that turn I ultimate Teferi Master of Time to take 2 extra turns, does the Emrakul extra turn take place before the 2 extra turns and does the order of the players affect this in a multiplayer game?
The last extra turn effect to resolve will be the first one taken.
500.7: Some effects can give a player extra turns. They do this by adding the turns directly after the specified turn. If a player is given multiple extra turns, the extra turns are added one at a time. If multiple players are given extra turns, the extra turns are added one at a time, in APNAP order (see rule 101.4). The most recently created turn will be taken first.
A similar question was considered in DDR#256: ruclips.net/video/E5MT5xxmtMk/видео.html
Blinking auras can normally get around e.g. shroud. So if I blink lion umbra (say with displacer kitten) and bring it back, can I use similar reasoning to put it on an unmodified creature and then have it stick?
No. Shroud stops it from being targeted, but not from being enchanted.
303.4i: If an effect attempts to put an Aura onto the battlefield attached to either an object or player it can't legally enchant or an object or player that is undefined, the Aura remains in its current zone, unless that zone is the stack. In that case, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard instead of entering the battlefield. If the Aura is a token, it isn't created.
@@seandun7083 I'm confused. Shroud prevents something from being enchanted? If an enchanted card gains shroud, Auras don't fall off.
@@alexzavoluk2271 Aura spells target. Since shroud says "can't be the target of spells or abilities", you can't cast an aura spell targeting something with shroud (or an opposing thing with hexproof).
303.4a: An Aura spell requires a target, which is defined by its enchant ability.
Since all that hexproof and shroud do is stop things from being targeted, they won't make auras currently on something fall off. Protection will however since it says the thing "can't be enchanted". The "enchant " ability will also cause it to fall off if the object it is attached to isn't the right type of object.
303.4c: If an Aura is enchanting an illegal object or player as defined by its enchant ability and other applicable effects, the object it was attached to no longer exists, or the player it was attached to has left the game, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
If an aura would enter the battlefield without being cast, you choose what it should be attached to as it enters (unless the thing tells you what to attach it to). This is something you *choose* as it enters; it doesn't use the stack and therefore doesn't need to target. Since it doesn't target, it ignores hexproof and shroud. It does however still need to be attached to something it could *already* legally enchant. This means something without protection and in Lion Umbra's case, something that is *already* modified.
303.4f: If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player's control by any means other than by resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it onto the battlefield doesn't specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield. The player must choose a legal object or player according to the Aura's enchant ability and any other applicable effects.
Hope that helps.
@@alexzavoluk2271If the creature with shroud is already modified, you can blink the Lion Umbra and then attach it to that creature. If it's not already modified, you cannot attach it because the conditions to enchant that creature have not been met.
Hi Dave, I have a question about “The Ring Tempts You”mechanic. Say I have 2 snapcaster mages in play and the ring tempts me. Since I MUST choose one to become my ring bearer, which will cause it to become legendary, does that mean it will die since there are 2 on the field even though only 1 is legendary? Thank you
No. It only applies if you control multiple that are legendary. You only have one. It's the same reason Spark Double and Jace, Cunning Castaway both work.
704.5j: If two or more legendary permanents with the same name are controlled by the same player, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners' graveyards. This is called the "legend rule."
@@seandun7083 Thanks very much appreciate it 👍
Hey Dave! Can you explain why new Ajani’s zero is doubled with doubling season and negated by divine visitation? Are there any other ways to mess with this reflexive trigger?
Love the judge content!
This has to do with timing- that's super funny.
Basically, doubling season and divine visitation are replacement effects.
603.2h An ability triggers only if its trigger event actually occurs. An event that’s prevented or replaced won’t trigger anything.
Thus, the "when you do" statement checks that you created a 2/1 white cat- if you do, you put the reflexive trigged ability (when you do..) onto the stack.
Similarly, for doubling season:
603.12a Normally, if the trigger event or events occur multiple times during the resolution of the spell or ability that created it, the reflexive triggered ability will trigger once for each of those times. However, if a resolving spell or ability includes a choice to pay a cost “any number of times” and creates a triggered ability that triggers “when [a player] pays [that cost] one or more times,” paying that cost one or more times causes the reflexive triggered ability to trigger only once.
Thus, creating 2 cats means the reflexive triggered ability activates twice.
Similarly, the card "The Royal Scions" has an ultimate that begins "draw 4 cards. When you do..."
If you replace one of those draws with a dredge, the reflexive "when you do..." part of the ultimate doesn't matter, meaning your missing a good amount of value 😢
So you could use Lion Umbra on an undying creature that came back under your control, but not wheb they're -1/-1 counters from another players' infect creature?
ANY counter causes a creature to count as modified, it does not matter who controls the source of the counter. The only case that cares about controller is auras, specifically because of auras like pacifism and WotC not wanting that to count as modified.
@@ethanlarge3572 bet so its just aura specific, thanks!
If Zur the Enchanter searched for Lion Umbra would you be able to place it on a creature that isn't modified until the Aura is on it? It isn't a legal target normally but the Aura doesn't target when it enters the battlefield so I'm curious if that makes a difference.
No, it needs to be valid before the Aura is attached.
Rule 303.4f "If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player's control by any means other than resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it on to the battlefield doesn't specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield.
The player must *choose a legal object according to the Aura's enchant ability* and any other applicable effects."
Did totem armor get renamed?
Yeah, around 3 months or so ago, I think.
This is unintuitive and should be fixed long term.
2:45 imo thats just nonsense. If pacifism on my guy should not count as modified according to WOTC, why are equipment controlled by opponents or counters put on my guy from opponents ok to count? Very unintuitive, why is this not streamlined
The equipment side of that is because you can't regularly equip an opponent's creature; I think (although I'm not entirely sure) that counters don't have a controller due to them having no characteristics (Rule 122.1) so the game couldn't check who owns a counter. Whereas some auras are designed to be equipped to your opponent's permanents, and thus, it would create weird rulings and flavour issues if they were to count.
Yeah, I usually think the WotC rules team does a good job choosing between difficult options but this seems needlessly weird. The fact that an opponent's Pacifism might backfire is a surprising interaction but it makes sense. A creature no longer being modified because it was stolen is _bizarre._
I think it would be much better if they had made the rule without the condition about the controller.
The pacifism case wouldn't be that bad, and the rules would be much simpler.