(2*) Can you discard or sacrifice Forsaken Miner and then pay to get it back? Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2... A: Yes
Me, watching this video before coffee: "isn't the challenge question the exact same as the original question?" Me, moments later still without coffee: "OHHHH! You can also discard a card for the additional cost!" Lolsigh
I admit I was thinking incorrectly about when the crime would be committed, and thought it would be when the target of Bone Shards was announced. It definitely makes more sense that all costs would have to be paid before the game can check if a crime had been committed.
I still think it's so cruel that the parents have forsaken that minor. It's just a terribly sad story and I hope those parents received justice... Sorry, excuse the pun. Wizards has gotten into my head with all these puns lately.
This is one of my favourite interactions in a pioneer Insidious Roots deck I run sometimes. Saccing a miner with Priest of Forgotten Gods and getting it back immediately to sac again
I think it would be nice in a case like this to include a challenge question (or just a comparison in the first section) about a "becomes the target" trigger. The fact that these are worded so similarly but function differently seems like the most likely source of misunderstandings here.
This seems similar to sacrificing a Plague Walker to cast Cabal Therapy. Plague Walker is in the graveyard when Cabal Therapy is cast from the graveyard, so comes back into play
Come to think of it I wonder how long it will be until we see a card that says "abilities of creature cards in your graveyard trigger as though those creatures were on the battlefield".
Which part is relevant for KCI other than the steps to cast a spell (which are not actually relevant here as the crime committing happens after casting is completed)? Did I miss anything?
So basically committing a crime is less "when you target a thing" and more "when you cast a spell/put an ability on the stack and it targets a thing?" Bizarre. As written that really implies it should trigger on the act of targeting--that is, as part of casting the spell but before costs are paid.
Well, it does trigger at the time of targeting (601.2c), but the ability triggered is only put on the stack at the next point things _can_ get put on the stack, which is after the spell completes casting. This is how all when-target triggers work.
@ that’s what I thought but that can’t be it. Paying costs comes after targeting. The skeleton would still be in your hand/battlefield, not in your graveyard, so its ability couldn’t trigger.
To me this quibble is the fault of the game's rules defining casting process to happen in a certain order when the concept is that it's all happening in a single moment. As a game action, casting a spell is a single action. The decisions and declarations ABOUT casting a spell are broken down, but really, it's all just to make sure the action can be completed correctly. There is one moment in the game where the spell has not been cast, the card is in your hand, targets have not been chosen, the creature is in play. In the next moment in the game, the spell has been cast, is on the stack, and has targets, and the creature is in the yard. There is no in-between moment in the game. But because a few rulings about the legality of certain cost payments DO rely on the order of breaking down the casting process, those feels incongruous with the overall logic and rulings framework that casting a spell is a single complete thing that happens, so triggers based on targeting, casting, sacrificing (to pay costs), etc, all happen right after that single thing has happened.
I have always thought it'd be better for casting to not dictate process but instead to dictate the end result. Targets must have been chosen. Costs must have been paid. On-casting choices must have been made. The card must be on the stack. There cannot be a set order because these are not separate events, these are all part of the same event, they simply must all be done for the event to have happened. [this would change how certain other rules must be interpreted, especially costs that depend on contents of zones, but I think that'd be for the better overall]
@@emilymalkieri I also struggle a bit with this considering 113.6, but it's important to remember that the casting process isn't a bunch of separate game times where things happen in order, everything "happens" simultaneously and the sequencing of proposal and payment is for the sake of casting working out. The quirk is that triggered abilities trigger whenever the trigger condition is met, but that kind of just means the game keeps track of what has yet to go on the stack. This isn't a thing with activated abilities or spells because those can already only be initiated on priority.
I must say I am usually quite pleased with your videos, but I feel this time a part was cut short: "this might be unintuitive for some rules experts but is consistent with the ruling 'committing a crime triggers at the same time as 'when you cast'.' If you ask me, this ruling just clarifies, that these triggers will resolve first. You understand the word 'triggers' as 'trigger condition is checked' but one might as well interpret it as 'put triggers on the stack as a state-based action that had in the meantime.' Now after some research it seems that in the rules, the word is used exactly like you interpret it, but are rulings reliably as precise in their wording as the rules? I know reminder text isn't 😅
The timing of the crime trigger condition is precisely the interesting part of this example since announcing targets happens before paying the costs. The rules already say that crimes trigger "as that player casts[...] and that spell[...] targets [...]" not "when that player targets". Subtle difference, but no additional info needed. Could have been pointed out a bit more in the Video, but all in all still pretty good. I wasn't aware of that nuance of crime committing.
Can you please explain the interaction between Vihaan, Goldwaker and Renewed Solidarity If i would create a treasure during my main phase and then turn it into assassin at the beginning of combat via Vihaan, would solidarity trigger at end step if I chose Assassin as type? (To me it seems like solidarity checks if the creature is the type and if it entered this turn. Both answers are "yes" in this situation so it should trigger?)
It should. At end step, RS checks for 2 things: Tokens that enter this turn and tokens with the creature type. As you just said, both answers are yes. It doesnt care if they gain the type later on the turn. If you put an Assassin token and I remove the creature type of it somehow (p.e Ego Erasure), RSolidarity ability will not trigger at end step.
Would the Raven example trigger if you had a Volrath's Shapeshifter in play when you cast the Bone Shards? Related to that question (but not the original question, maybe this is a step too removed), if something like an Archfiend of Ifnir was discarded instead of the raven, would the shapeshifter/archfiend see the discard trigger in time to put -1/-1 counters on things?
The answer to the first question within this ruling is yes. The second question I am not sure I understand. Because if Archfiend of Ifnir is discarded, it will not trigger, to make sure of that it specifically says "another card". Archfiend of Ifnir's ability only works while the card is on the battlefield. And what does this have to do with the Raven? If you discard either one while the other is in play, this other card will trigger off of bone shards, because it is (and stays) in play.
Second question doesn't have anything to do with the raven, it's just a question about a (somewhat) similar situation. If shapeshifter becomes an archfiend because archfiend is discarded, does the shapeshifter see the discard event as an archfiend, and therefore trigger to put counters on things? Conversely, if the shapeshifter was already an archfiend, and a different card is discarded which turns Shapeshifter into something not an archfiend, does it then put counters on things?
End step starts, ziatora goes on stack (only the first line, no crime yet), resolves with Miner getting sacrificed. Ziatora part 2 goes on stack, crime now committed, Miner triggers. Ziatora hasn’t resolved yet so no Treasure exists to pay the {B}
@@Vulcapyro except that ziatoras ‘any target is part of a delayed triggered ability, and so is only selected when it triggers. Since this happens and then the miners asks for a payment (before the thing that caused the crime resolves), there’s no treasure that exists to pay the black as was asked about
@@fhortedakwhil Uh, this was a total brainfart and I don't actually know what I even meant originally or how I got there? You're obviously correct here lol
This makes Forsaken Miner pretty nutty with Attrition. I love it.
Me, watching this video before coffee: "isn't the challenge question the exact same as the original question?"
Me, moments later still without coffee: "OHHHH! You can also discard a card for the additional cost!"
Lolsigh
You sold me on Forsaken Miner as my next Pauper EDH deck. So many sick interactions are available! Plagued Rusalka, for one!
I admit I was thinking incorrectly about when the crime would be committed, and thought it would be when the target of Bone Shards was announced.
It definitely makes more sense that all costs would have to be paid before the game can check if a crime had been committed.
Does it? I see no reason for it.
I still think it's so cruel that the parents have forsaken that minor. It's just a terribly sad story and I hope those parents received justice... Sorry, excuse the pun. Wizards has gotten into my head with all these puns lately.
This is one of my favourite interactions in a pioneer Insidious Roots deck I run sometimes. Saccing a miner with Priest of Forgotten Gods and getting it back immediately to sac again
I think it would be nice in a case like this to include a challenge question (or just a comparison in the first section) about a "becomes the target" trigger. The fact that these are worded so similarly but function differently seems like the most likely source of misunderstandings here.
This seems similar to sacrificing a Plague Walker to cast Cabal Therapy. Plague Walker is in the graveyard when Cabal Therapy is cast from the graveyard, so comes back into play
Come to think of it I wonder how long it will be until we see a card that says "abilities of creature cards in your graveyard trigger as though those creatures were on the battlefield".
Oh hey, I had this exact question in Arena and played it there to find out (and because with the board state I was fine if the answer was no).
Forsaken minor is me when my dad went out for cigarettes
Awesome! Thanks!
this rules interaction was core to modern KCI. Super neat
Which part is relevant for KCI other than the steps to cast a spell (which are not actually relevant here as the crime committing happens after casting is completed)?
Did I miss anything?
So basically committing a crime is less "when you target a thing" and more "when you cast a spell/put an ability on the stack and it targets a thing?" Bizarre. As written that really implies it should trigger on the act of targeting--that is, as part of casting the spell but before costs are paid.
Well, it does trigger at the time of targeting (601.2c), but the ability triggered is only put on the stack at the next point things _can_ get put on the stack, which is after the spell completes casting. This is how all when-target triggers work.
@ that’s what I thought but that can’t be it. Paying costs comes after targeting. The skeleton would still be in your hand/battlefield, not in your graveyard, so its ability couldn’t trigger.
To me this quibble is the fault of the game's rules defining casting process to happen in a certain order when the concept is that it's all happening in a single moment. As a game action, casting a spell is a single action. The decisions and declarations ABOUT casting a spell are broken down, but really, it's all just to make sure the action can be completed correctly. There is one moment in the game where the spell has not been cast, the card is in your hand, targets have not been chosen, the creature is in play. In the next moment in the game, the spell has been cast, is on the stack, and has targets, and the creature is in the yard. There is no in-between moment in the game. But because a few rulings about the legality of certain cost payments DO rely on the order of breaking down the casting process, those feels incongruous with the overall logic and rulings framework that casting a spell is a single complete thing that happens, so triggers based on targeting, casting, sacrificing (to pay costs), etc, all happen right after that single thing has happened.
I have always thought it'd be better for casting to not dictate process but instead to dictate the end result. Targets must have been chosen. Costs must have been paid. On-casting choices must have been made. The card must be on the stack. There cannot be a set order because these are not separate events, these are all part of the same event, they simply must all be done for the event to have happened. [this would change how certain other rules must be interpreted, especially costs that depend on contents of zones, but I think that'd be for the better overall]
@@emilymalkieri I also struggle a bit with this considering 113.6, but it's important to remember that the casting process isn't a bunch of separate game times where things happen in order, everything "happens" simultaneously and the sequencing of proposal and payment is for the sake of casting working out. The quirk is that triggered abilities trigger whenever the trigger condition is met, but that kind of just means the game keeps track of what has yet to go on the stack. This isn't a thing with activated abilities or spells because those can already only be initiated on priority.
I must say I am usually quite pleased with your videos, but I feel this time a part was cut short: "this might be unintuitive for some rules experts but is consistent with the ruling 'committing a crime triggers at the same time as 'when you cast'.' If you ask me, this ruling just clarifies, that these triggers will resolve first. You understand the word 'triggers' as 'trigger condition is checked' but one might as well interpret it as 'put triggers on the stack as a state-based action that had in the meantime.' Now after some research it seems that in the rules, the word is used exactly like you interpret it, but are rulings reliably as precise in their wording as the rules? I know reminder text isn't 😅
The timing of the crime trigger condition is precisely the interesting part of this example since announcing targets happens before paying the costs.
The rules already say that crimes trigger "as that player casts[...] and that spell[...] targets [...]" not "when that player targets". Subtle difference, but no additional info needed. Could have been pointed out a bit more in the Video, but all in all still pretty good. I wasn't aware of that nuance of crime committing.
Can you please explain the interaction between Vihaan, Goldwaker and Renewed Solidarity
If i would create a treasure during my main phase and then turn it into assassin at the beginning of combat via Vihaan, would solidarity trigger at end step if I chose Assassin as type? (To me it seems like solidarity checks if the creature is the type and if it entered this turn. Both answers are "yes" in this situation so it should trigger?)
It should. At end step, RS checks for 2 things: Tokens that enter this turn and tokens with the creature type. As you just said, both answers are yes. It doesnt care if they gain the type later on the turn.
If you put an Assassin token and I remove the creature type of it somehow (p.e Ego Erasure), RSolidarity ability will not trigger at end step.
Would the Raven example trigger if you had a Volrath's Shapeshifter in play when you cast the Bone Shards?
Related to that question (but not the original question, maybe this is a step too removed), if something like an Archfiend of Ifnir was discarded instead of the raven, would the shapeshifter/archfiend see the discard trigger in time to put -1/-1 counters on things?
The answer to the first question within this ruling is yes. The second question I am not sure I understand. Because if Archfiend of Ifnir is discarded, it will not trigger, to make sure of that it specifically says "another card". Archfiend of Ifnir's ability only works while the card is on the battlefield. And what does this have to do with the Raven? If you discard either one while the other is in play, this other card will trigger off of bone shards, because it is (and stays) in play.
Second question doesn't have anything to do with the raven, it's just a question about a (somewhat) similar situation. If shapeshifter becomes an archfiend because archfiend is discarded, does the shapeshifter see the discard event as an archfiend, and therefore trigger to put counters on things? Conversely, if the shapeshifter was already an archfiend, and a different card is discarded which turns Shapeshifter into something not an archfiend, does it then put counters on things?
If you sacrifice Forsaken miner to Ziatora, the incinerator, could you use one of the treasure tokens to pay the 1 black pip?
End step starts, ziatora goes on stack (only the first line, no crime yet), resolves with Miner getting sacrificed. Ziatora part 2 goes on stack, crime now committed, Miner triggers. Ziatora hasn’t resolved yet so no Treasure exists to pay the {B}
@@Vulcapyro except that ziatoras ‘any target is part of a delayed triggered ability, and so is only selected when it triggers. Since this happens and then the miners asks for a payment (before the thing that caused the crime resolves), there’s no treasure that exists to pay the black as was asked about
@@fhortedakwhil Uh, this was a total brainfart and I don't actually know what I even meant originally or how I got there? You're obviously correct here lol
Still find it amusing that it's a crime to touch an opponent or their stuff. 😛
It's what the average casual Commander player thinks.😛
100% for flavor!