|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:11 am
When more than one non-black creature is put into play simultaneously the controller of grave peril basically gets to pick which creature he gets to kill since grave peril will trigger multiple times but only the last one gets to resolve. When multiple abilities trigger in such a fashion the controller of grave pact gets to stack them as he/she wishes.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:01 pm
If someone has Djinn Illuminatus in play, and lets say they play... Urzas Rage, paying the kicker cost. Can they keep paying 2R to copy it (with the kicker effect included), or do they have to re-pay the kicker cost for each one?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:26 am
Mistform Ally If someone has Djinn Illuminatus in play, and lets say they play... Urzas Rage, paying the kicker cost. Can they keep paying 2R to copy it (with the kicker effect included), or do they have to re-pay the kicker cost for each one? Hm, slightly tricky. The first issue of whether or not you can play the kicker cost on the copies is actually a rather easy question. The chance to play the kicker cost is only given when the spell is played. As replicate, as storm, simply places those copies on the stack, you do not get the chance. THe tricky part is whether or not the spell's copies inherit the kicker's effect of the original spell. After a few minutes I came to this conclusion: No, they do not. This is my reasoning: Each spell is a copy of basic urza's rage. The replicate pumps out copies of the original spell's effect, as you must play the replicate as you play the spell, before you would get the chance to pay the kicker. when it goes to resolve and carry out its effect, check to see in the kicker cost has been payed, since the only one you could have kicker was the original, that is the only one that will possibly be 10 damage. I may need personal confirmation here, so some backup from my fellows would be appreciated. Also, Mistform, as a personal hint, it would be more mana efficient and harder to stop or throw back in your face if just replicate without the kicker. Think about it, pay 12 mana to do 12 damage, in 4 separate blocks, all you lose is the unpreventable, and the biggest thing was the un-counterable anyway, and harder for them to just mis-D it back at you. This way basically takes a timestop to stop.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:14 am
String Theory is right, you do not get the chance to pay the kicker costs on replicated spells because of the way replicate works. It does not work like Isochron Scepter and doesn't "play" the copies.
As for the part String is unsure about, I did some digging on Star City's Ask the Judge and found this "If you copy a spell for which Kicker has been paid, the Kicker has been paid for the copy as well." This means you'd only have to pay the kicker on the original copy since replicate copies spells like Fork and Twincast meaning each replicated copy would have the kicker already paid. Also note that kicker does NOT change the converted mana cost of the spell meaning each Urza's Rage would still only cost 2R to replicate even if you paid the kicker on the first one.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:30 pm
Lord Yawgmoth String Theory is right, you do not get the chance to pay the kicker costs on replicated spells because of the way replicate works. It does not work like Isochron Scepter and doesn't "play" the copies. As for the part String is unsure about, I did some digging on Star City's Ask the Judge and found this "If you copy a spell for which Kicker has been paid, the Kicker has been paid for the copy as well." This means you'd only have to pay the kicker on the original copy since replicate copies spells like Fork and Twincast meaning each replicated copy would have the kicker already paid. Also note that kicker does NOT change the converted mana cost of the spell meaning each Urza's Rage would still only cost 2R to replicate even if you paid the kicker on the first one. So, what I'm understand is that the Djinn copies of the spell will work like you payed the kicker for each one, although you're not actually doing so? Right?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:32 pm
Mistform Ally Lord Yawgmoth String Theory is right, you do not get the chance to pay the kicker costs on replicated spells because of the way replicate works. It does not work like Isochron Scepter and doesn't "play" the copies. As for the part String is unsure about, I did some digging on Star City's Ask the Judge and found this "If you copy a spell for which Kicker has been paid, the Kicker has been paid for the copy as well." This means you'd only have to pay the kicker on the original copy since replicate copies spells like Fork and Twincast meaning each replicated copy would have the kicker already paid. Also note that kicker does NOT change the converted mana cost of the spell meaning each Urza's Rage would still only cost 2R to replicate even if you paid the kicker on the first one. So, what I'm understand is that the Djinn copies of the spell will work like you payed the kicker for each one, although you're not actually doing so? Right? Well wait, which rulings did you look at Yawg? Because replicate copies the spell at a different (and earlier) point that spells like twincast/ fork/ reiterate. When a player plays the spell that copies the rage, rage has already been played and had the kicker trigger go and be payed. The whole reason I said no was the timing of replicate. You have the choose and pay the replicate cost a** you play the spell, at the same time you would play buyback or convoke, which are payed as you go to play the spell, where as kicker is trigger to be payed when you actually place the spell on the stack. It's like the timing with mis-D'ing a counter spell to itself. Spells, and what they can target and what they do can change between being played and resolving. My issue was being unsure as to replicate being payed before kicker, or after, or at the same time as you play the spell and it resolves.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:09 pm
Comp Rules 502.52a Replicate is a keyword that represents two abilities. The first is a static ability that functions while the spell is on the stack. The second is a triggered ability that functions while the spell is on the stack. "Replicate [cost]" means "As an additional cost to play this spell, you may pay [cost] any number of times" and "When you play this spell, if a replicate cost was paid for it, copy it for each time its replicate cost was paid. If the spell has any targets, you may choose new targets for any number of the copies." Paying a spell's replicate cost follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 409.1b and 409.1f-h. I just searched the judge rulings on Kicker and found that. In addition after looking at your last post I decided to check. Replicate AND Kicker are BOTH under rule 409.1b which means they actually happen at the same time (or at least in the order designated by the player playing the spell) this makes it entirely possible to pay the kicker for, and replicate a kickered spell to achieve the desired effects. Taking this into mind with the rules that say copying a card that's had it's kicker cost paid will copy the kicker effect this means that if you pay the kicker cost, then replicate it X number of times, the copies will see the kicker cost paid and the copies will have the kickered effect. EDIT: Ah found it Star City Games Ask the Virtual Judge Q: Let's say I Fork a kicked Urza's Rage. Will the Fork copy deal ten or three points of damage? A: A useful tool I always use when the StarCity Virtual Ask The Judge program doesn't have the answer (because even I don't know everything from memory) is Crystalkeep. You type the card name and get all official rulings on the card, as well as the current Oracle text. If you look for Fork, one of the things it lists is the following: If you copy a spell for which Kicker has been paid, the Kicker has been paid for the copy as well. [DeLaney 2000/10/18]
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:29 am
I have some questions:
a.) About the previous discussion... Does it affect "Splice to Arcane" also?
b.) Say I have a "Spikeshot Goblin" in play and I use it's ability to ping an opposing player... He responds by playing Boomerang to that creature. From what I understand, the ability is already in the stack and in doing so the pinging will not be stopped by having the creature return to it's owner's hand. But his counter-point was since the Goblin is no longer in play by the time the spell (Boomerang) has resolved that it could no longer be tapped and thus deal damage. I'd like some actual confirmation if this is the case.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:07 am
A) Splice Onto Arcane actually writes text of the spliced card onto the spell. So if you copy a spell that you've spliced something onto you copy the original spell and the spliced text.
B) Tapping the goblin is part of the cost. He can't respond to you paying costs if you have priority. To even get the ability on the stack you must first pay one red and tap the goblin. THEN the ability goes onto the stack and you pass priority to him to boomerang it. So you're right in thinking that the ability will still resolve and there's little he can do about it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:34 pm
Lord Yawgmoth Tapping the goblin is part of the cost. He can't respond to you paying costs if you have priority. To even get the ability on the stack you must first pay one red and tap the goblin. THEN the ability goes onto the stack and you pass priority to him to boomerang it. So you're right in thinking that the ability will still resolve and there's little he can do about it. Thanks for clarifying things. smile But one more additional question, if you don't mind... What if I don't have priority. Say, my opponent ends his main phase and I say "Before your end your phase, tap mana, tap goblin, [PING] you with Spikeshot Goblin." He then responded with the Boomerang, is it still the same thing? Additional: While browsing this page, my opponent for that game saw this and made another counter-point, since the damage would depend on the power of the creature.... by having the creature disappear before the effects get resolved does it mean that there will be no damage? Also since the damage is dependent on the power of the creature, do spells on the stack remember the actual number of damage that it should deal, or would spells/effects that resolved before it affect the number of damage it should deal?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:00 am
1) It's the same thing. He can't stop you from paying the costs of the abilities if you have priority. When he declares the "end" of his Main Phase he really passes priority to you, if you don't have anything to do then the game proceeds into the next phase. In this case you DO have something to do so you get priority to play spells and abilities.
2) The game uses a rule called "Last Known Information" to determine the amount of damage the spikeshot goblin deals if it's not in play. It's how Bloodshot Cyclops is able to work since sacrificing a creature is post of the cost yet it deals damage equal to the sac'd creature's power. When the ability is put onto the stack the game sees spikeshot goblins power, it checks again on resolution for the number, if the goblin isn't there it uses the last known information about the goblins power to determine the amount of damage it deals. In your example the last known information is still 1. So despite the goblin not being in play the ability will still deal 1 damage since that's the last known information about it's power the game had.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:20 am
Lord Yawgmoth 1) It's the same thing. He can't stop you from paying the costs of the abilities if you have priority. When he declares the "end" of his Main Phase he really passes priority to you, if you don't have anything to do then the game proceeds into the next phase. In this case you DO have something to do so you get priority to play spells and abilities. 2) The game uses a rule called "Last Known Information" to determine the amount of damage the spikeshot goblin deals if it's not in play. It's how Bloodshot Cyclops is able to work since sacrificing a creature is post of the cost yet it deals damage equal to the sac'd creature's power. When the ability is put onto the stack the game sees spikeshot goblins power, it checks again on resolution for the number, if the goblin isn't there it uses the last known information about the goblins power to determine the amount of damage it deals. In your example the last known information is still 1. So despite the goblin not being in play the ability will still deal 1 damage since that's the last known information about it's power the game had. Wow! Thanks for that information man. biggrin I think I just levelled up.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:25 am
Hey, Yawgmoth, got a good one for you.
This li'l rules snafu came up during a casual game, and we were wondering if you could lend us your wisdom on it.
Allright ... my cousin in law played a Furnace of Rath, which doubles all damage. Then, our friend plays this one white enchantment. Unfortunately, I don't know the name of it offhand, but the wording goes like this: Any damage greater than 4 is reduced to 3.
So, the question is: does the white enchantment pretty much rule out the double damage caused by the furnace, making all damage of 4 or greater 3 no matter what? Or would that 3 be upped to 6 with Furnace?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:40 pm
Both cards are replacement effects. Furnace of Rath's replacement however would include the card you're talking about. (Which I found out is called Divine Presence). The cards read as follows
Furnace of Rath: If a source would deal damage to a creature or player it deals double that damage instead.
Divine Presence: If a source would deal 4 or more damage to a creature or player that source deals 3 damage instead.
Rule 419.6A states that replacement effects don't trip on a continuous basis and only get one chance to replace the event in question. I'm going to assume that Furnace of Rath would attempt to replace the event by doubling the damage. Divine Presence would then trip on the damage being 4 or more and reduce it to 3. Furnace of Rath will not get a second chance to double the damage since Divine Presence does not change the source of the damage.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:03 pm
Lord Yawgmoth Both cards are replacement effects. Furnace of Rath's replacement however would include the card you're talking about. (Which I found out is called Divine Presence). The cards read as follows Furnace of Rath: If a source would deal damage to a creature or player it deals double that damage instead. Divine Presence: If a source would deal 4 or more damage to a creature or player that source deals 3 damage instead. Rule 419.6A states that replacement effects don't trip on a continuous basis and only get one chance to replace the event in question. I'm going to assume that Furnace of Rath would attempt to replace the event by doubling the damage. Divine Presence would then trip on the damage being 4 or more and reduce it to 3. Furnace of Rath will not get a second chance to double the damage since Divine Presence does not change the source of the damage. Actually, there is a interesting twist on things like this. THis is similar to the time we had a very annoying game were some player played both zur's weirding and shared fate and someone ended up gaining control of shared fate. Depending on who's turn it was, one resolved before the other due to the order of passing priority. Some people shared fate and others had to go through Zur's Weirding. This is the same issue here. Depending on who's turn it was, different things would occur. This is because of the enchantment's effects having to follow the order in which player's turns went. Let me put it like this: Say player 1 controls the furnace and player 3 controls the Divine Presence. So the order of priority goes: 1. Furance of Rath 2. nothing 3. Divine Presence 4. Nothing If players 2, 3 or 4 do damage both divine presence and furnace of rath go to affect to damage. How ever, it goes in APNAP order and so Furnace of rath's effect goes on the stack last and resolves first, causing the damage to first double, and then be reduced to 3. However, it player 1 deals damage, Divine intervention will resolve its effect first and reduce the damage to 3, and then furnace's effect will resolve and double the damage. If one player controls both enchantments, they decide which order the effects stack and there for decides what happens. Just thought I'd elaborate on the technicals.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|