Pop Quiz!
- Thread starter Encaen
- Start date
I'll tell you what that quiz taught me. That my ability to do all the calculations on numbers and stacks in my head is entirely based on visually observing the state of play. Having to just read the text and names made it take much longer to resolve compared to just 'seeing' it.
Pretty simple situations though but then I am someone who regularly abuses the stack to achieve some sneaky effects.
Pretty simple situations though but then I am someone who regularly abuses the stack to achieve some sneaky effects.
1) I knew about the mana=0 on tokens, but I didn't really had in mind about that regarding transformed creatures, good to know. And the thing with the animated land was obvious.
2) I figured it out.
3) Pretty easy.
4) I thought that on the regular combat damage step, you didn't need to asign 2 damage to the Fog Bank, since you already asign them on the FS damage step, but I then realise that damage got prevented, so I get it now.
5) My first thought was that they enter to the battlefield in any order you want, so it could have been: 1st Soul enters, then the 2nd (+1 from the first), then the other 2 creatures (+2 from the 1st Soul, +2 from the 2nd). So 5 cards. Good to know how it actualy is.
Cool quiz man, is a nice way to understand some complex effects like these, keep them coming!
2) I figured it out.
3) Pretty easy.
4) I thought that on the regular combat damage step, you didn't need to asign 2 damage to the Fog Bank, since you already asign them on the FS damage step, but I then realise that damage got prevented, so I get it now.
5) My first thought was that they enter to the battlefield in any order you want, so it could have been: 1st Soul enters, then the 2nd (+1 from the first), then the other 2 creatures (+2 from the 1st Soul, +2 from the 2nd). So 5 cards. Good to know how it actualy is.
Cool quiz man, is a nice way to understand some complex effects like these, keep them coming!
Huh I'd not thought about Ratchet Bomb's second ability in that with no counters on it would destroy tokens!
I'll have to keep an eye out for that card when I'm playing at the Expo since my deck is based entirely around building up token cards D:
I'll have to keep an eye out for that card when I'm playing at the Expo since my deck is based entirely around building up token cards D:
Was hoping for at least a [mtg_card=Volrath's shapeshifter] + [mtg_card=Vesuvan Doppleganger] type question or even some [mtg_card=Time Stop] shenanigansEncaen said:
Magic nowadays though is a lot less complicated than it used to be what with damage no longer using the stack, no more mana burn and the "new" legend rule and so on. In general though I think it's worked out pretty well though I wouldn't mind seeing some more powerful permission magic being let back in.
I'd like to make a rather interesting comment. IN regards to Ratchet bomb and the mutavault scenario.
Mutavault, when activated to become a 2/2 becomes a creature land with a converted cost of 0. Regardless of whether it is a land or not, since it has the creature subtype, it is affected by ratchet bomb and is destroyed due to its converted mana cost of 0.
Creature lands tend to have a converted mana cost of zero and have always been subject to kill spells that can target things with converted mana cost of X or less. Examples of this include; smother (Reprinted in Zendikar Block, originally in Onslaught), Pernicious Deeds, etc. Due to this, many of the 'man lands' from blocks such as Zendikar, were able to be destroyed by either kill spells or land destruction spells.
UNDER no circumstance anywhere have I ever heard that a land is immune to the death rule if it is a creature. Unless it is indestructible, or has protection to the reason of its death.
Current Rules state:
300.2. Some objects have more than one card type (for example, an artifact creature). Such objects
combine the aspects of each of those card types, and are subject to spells and abilities that affect
either or all of those card types.
305.7. If an effect sets a land?s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its
old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text and its old land types, and it gains the
appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn?t remove any abilities
that were granted to the land by other effects. Setting a land?s subtype doesn?t add or remove any
card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have.
If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and rules text,
and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.
I'm sorta appalled with the way the stack has been mentioned in these scenarios as well. Its hard to understand (from a new players perspective) and even me, a player who has been playing since invasion block had to stop and re-read a few times to make sense of it.
Mutavault, when activated to become a 2/2 becomes a creature land with a converted cost of 0. Regardless of whether it is a land or not, since it has the creature subtype, it is affected by ratchet bomb and is destroyed due to its converted mana cost of 0.
Creature lands tend to have a converted mana cost of zero and have always been subject to kill spells that can target things with converted mana cost of X or less. Examples of this include; smother (Reprinted in Zendikar Block, originally in Onslaught), Pernicious Deeds, etc. Due to this, many of the 'man lands' from blocks such as Zendikar, were able to be destroyed by either kill spells or land destruction spells.
UNDER no circumstance anywhere have I ever heard that a land is immune to the death rule if it is a creature. Unless it is indestructible, or has protection to the reason of its death.
Current Rules state:
300.2. Some objects have more than one card type (for example, an artifact creature). Such objects
combine the aspects of each of those card types, and are subject to spells and abilities that affect
either or all of those card types.
305.7. If an effect sets a land?s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its
old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text and its old land types, and it gains the
appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn?t remove any abilities
that were granted to the land by other effects. Setting a land?s subtype doesn?t add or remove any
card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have.
If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and rules text,
and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.
I'm sorta appalled with the way the stack has been mentioned in these scenarios as well. Its hard to understand (from a new players perspective) and even me, a player who has been playing since invasion block had to stop and re-read a few times to make sense of it.
Heh sort of. The confusion is because it only affects non-land. If it's an exclusion you check each subtype to check if it should be excluded and because Mutavault states it is still a land even after animation then it's immune to the effect regardless of having any other subtype.D3P1KT said:
Similarly [mtg_card=Dryad Arbor] can't be hit by something that affects non-land or non-creature. But it can be hit by anything that targets land or creature specifically.
I'm just.. so friggin happy that there is mtg on the escapist. after the new eic appointment, i was hesitant to come back to the site. Mtg articles brought me back. good on you guys... just.. mtg fans can be really mean. But hexproof appeals to casual players who aren't competitive!
I only tripped in 3 because I thought the trick of the question was the hexproof, otherwise it was pretty straightforward... and I'm still not entirely sure of what happened there.
I mean, Hexproof explicitly states that the creature can't be a TARGET to spells cast by your opponents, so if you place an hexproof effect on top of the stack, then the opponent's spell will fail for not having a target. Then how can the +3/+3 trigger take place if the card wasn't targeted?
I mean, Hexproof explicitly states that the creature can't be a TARGET to spells cast by your opponents, so if you place an hexproof effect on top of the stack, then the opponent's spell will fail for not having a target. Then how can the +3/+3 trigger take place if the card wasn't targeted?
Well, the +3/+3 trigger occurs the moment that the creature becomes targeted by doom blade, which happens before you respond. You respond by making the creature hexproof, which causes the doom blade to fizzle because its target is no longer a legal target. The targeting has already occurred, but it can't resolve because its target is no longer valid. That's how I understand it anyway (if anyone else can clarify better than me, I'd be much obliged).SandroTheMaster said:
It's similar to M12's Illusion Creatures. I built a casual Lord of the Unreal Illusions deck and recently subbed in some of M13's Ring of Evos Isle (for the counters/chance to grant hexproof if my 4 Lords of the Unreal were being stubborn). I had equipped it to a Phantasmal Dragon but was tapped out and couldn't activate the hexproof. My opponent targeted the bear with Turn to Slag (Deal 5 damage to target creature and destroy all equipments attached to it). Now, just being targeted is enough to cause the dragon to die. Since the dragon was no longer a valid target (i.e., dead) the ring survived because the Turn to Slag never resolved.
Hmm, I thought the +3/+3 effect in the stack should look if it is still valid. That is, that the spell that triggered it still had a target.goldenjester said: