MTG Magic The Gathering Ask A Judge - Monday Funday Edition

If I wish to cast an emerge creature by sacking Herald of Kozilek, can I still get the cost reduction?

Say a creature is a 3/2 indestructible. If I cast Incendiary Flow on it, will it get exiled?

The "legality check" is done a couple steps in, actually, after X is determined. By that point you've said what X is, and subbed it in, so you're trying to cast a spell with CMC of 4.

You actually can, because you "lock in" the costs before you start paying them.

It'll get exiled if it would die this turn for some other reason, but it's not going to get exiled with just what you proposed. It wouldn't die, because it's an indestructible 3/2 with 3 damage marked on it. Nothing is telling it to go to the graveyard, so the replacement effect from Flow won't apply.

Been messing around with a budget emerge deck and confused on when things trigger

Cards like emrakuls influence, foul emissary, matter reshaper, exultant cultist, etc.

Lets say I have matter reshaper and emrakuls influence on board. I cast wretched gryff by sacking reshaper. The top card of my deck is foul emissary

Whats happening when? Is there a general rule of thumb when it comes to these things? Is there any world where my reshaper hits my emissary and brings him to the field?

How hard is the Level 1 test? Any advice?

Since multiple triggers are trying to go onto the stack at the same time and you control them both, you get to choose the order they're stacked in. Whichever one went on the stack last will resolve first, so if you stack it Influence, Reshaper then your Reshaper trigger will put Emissary onto the battlefield before you draw two cards.

Do the practice tests (easy rules, policy, L1 practice) until you can pass them with room to spare. Like any test ever, the L1 isn't hard if you have a good working knowledge of the things it's testing you for.

Actually, the legality check thing is being debated now, so I'll get back to you on it.

So, casting the spell triggered Influence, and saccing the Reshaper triggered it. Those triggers are both yours, so you can either draw 2 cards and THEN flip the top card, or flip the top card and THEN draw 2. If you know for a fact that the top card of your library is Emissary, you can just stack the triggers to flip that first.

I don't know what kind of metric to give you on 'hard'. It's over almost entirely Standard-legal stuff, the MTR, and the JAR. I'd advise you to try taking an L1 practice exam and seeing where your weak areas are.

Thanks, I'll do that.

What happens if some effect means you can't lose the game - like Abyssal Persecutor for example - and you then take lethal damage. What happens to your life?

Is it prevented? Is it set to 0 so you lose the game once the Abyssal Persecutor (or whatever causes the effect) leaves play? Can your health go below 0?

Negative life.

So, we're in agreement: there's two legality checks. The first is seeing if anything is allowing you to START casting the spell; for example, this is to prevent you from trying to cast a creature without flash in response to something. It checks to see if you have permission to start, basically. The game rules give you permission to cast a creature spell at this time, so you're golden.

Next is the check partway through the actual casting process, which is checking to see if it's still allowed, AND if anything is specifically forbidding it. By this time, the CMC is high enough to get past the forbiddance, and it's still allowed by the game rules, so you're fine!

You can go below 0 life if something's keeping you alive; it doesn't stop at 0. If you're at 1, and I do 10 damage to you, you're at -9, not at 0, so casting a Healing Salve later on in response to me killing my own Abyssal Persecutor won't put you at 3, but at -6.

The only wonk thing with going to 0 or below is that you can't pay life if you don't HAVE life. I can damage you well into the negatives, but you can't pay 2 life unless you HAVE 2 life or more.

What even is imprint. Does imprint even have any rulings that go with it. It seems so nonsensical

Does protection from a color makes a creature invulnerable to sacrifice cards?

For example, there's a Guardian of the Guildpact in play, if I use a Chainer's Edict, does he dies since the spell targets the player?

Well, 'rulings' aren't really a thing. This isn't Yugioh; even the stuff on Gatherer is less "this is how this works because we say so", and more "Hey, here's some common questions about this kind of card, and a simple explanation of what the rules say regarding it.

Imprint is basically two linked abilities; one of them exiles a thing, and the other refers back to the exiled thing. Different Imprint cards work differently. Duplicant constantly updates its own P/T and creature type based on whatever it last ate, while Isochron Scepter casts copies of the spell it ate, for example. If you have more specific questions I'd be happy to help.

It does not. Protection from FOO means that the thing in question cannot be:

Damaged by FOO spells, FOO permanents, or abilities from FOO sources

Enchanted/Equipped/Fortified by FOO Auras, Equipment, or Fortifications

Blocked by FOO creatures

Targeted by FOO spells or abilities from FOO sources

D E B T. That's all Protection stops.

So if I face the Guardian while playing pauper with a mono B control deck, my only way to deal with this guy is to sideboard Unmake?

How many cards are needed for delirium if it needs 4 types?

Could I activate it if I had an Enchantment, Sorcery, and Artifact Creature like hangarback, or do I need to get another card in there?

Edict effects will still get rid of it (assuming they only have the one creature). Edicts that don't target a creature (and they rarely do) don't do any of the things that protection protects from.

It cares about number of types, not the number of cards those are distributed across. If you somehow had an Artifact Encantment Land Creature in your graveyard, it would turn on Delirium all by itself.

Edict effects will still hit it, because they don't target it. So would a global -3/-3 effect, or a global wrath spell.

As long as whatever you're using doesn't attempt do Damage, Enchant/Equip, Block, or Target the Guardian, protection won't matter.

It just counts types. Hangarback has two types, so it counts for both of those. Likewise, a Dryad Arbor would count for two, being a Land and a Creature. You could theoretically get Delirium online with only 2 cards.

Ok, thanks. Perfectly clear.

Happy to help!

I have to run a few errands, but I'll be back in a bit.

New Bruna as a commander is straightforward enough. But for this creature and Lieutenant as a mechanic, does Brisela count too?

I know Commanderness is tied to the card, but you know, there's two of them.

"Commander-ness" is inherent to the physical card. If Brisela can deal Commander damage because one half of her is your Commander, I don't see why she wouldn't 'turn on' Bastion Protector.

Thanks.

Afternoon bump.

Hey, so why does Rest in Peace + any of the Processors work?

Are all replacement effects like that?

Not sure what you mean. Could you clarify?

Oooh, wait, I know what you mean now, took me a sec.

So, I'm guessing you mean "activate a Processor by putting a card from their exile into their graveyard, but RIP replaces that with keeping it in exile", and wondering why that doesn't 'turn off' th effect, since you didn't actually put a card in their graveyard.

Basically, replacement effects just take one event and replace it, wholesale, with another event. So, with RIP, Void Attendant basically says "1G, put a card an opponent owns from exile into exile". You TRY to put it in the graveyard, and that's all the game cares, is that you tried. The fact that it got replaced with some other event doesn't matter.

Gotcha. So therefore, if a player had Psychic Vortex and Possessed Portal out, they could still play the Cumulative Upkeep? But not if say, they had Psychic Vortex and Omen Machine?

They'd put an Age counter on Vortex, and then go to draw cards equal to the number of age counters. Portal would replace that draw with 'skip it'. You still tried to pay that cost, it just got replaced with something else.

Omen Machine isn't replacing it, it's saying "You can't do that", so you can't even try. It like how you can't cast Invigorate for the alternate cost if your opponent CAN'T gain life for whatever reason. You CAN'T pay that cost.

Gotcha.

If I want my opponent to know that I have a trick in hand in order to nudge him to play around it, am I allowed to voluntarily reveal cards in my hand and/or state what I'm holding without having been directed to do so by any effect?

that's hella cheating

afaik you can.

I know it's a silver bordered card, but would having Gleemax out let me choose the targets of spells and abilities with random targets?

You absolutely are allowed to reveal information that you have access to.

That's hella incorrect.

>Silver bordered question
Deploying One Size Fits All Silver Bordered Answer. "Sure, why not?".

>Let me investigate to see if it was a brain fart (which may kill him anyway if his opponent notices that he missed them, since the opponent can make him UN-miss them)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't holding back calling an opponent on missed triggers until you need them a DQable offense in and of itself?

How would it be? It's never, ever, ever against the rules to not point out an opponent's trigger. Ever. It's also not against the rules to hold off on it until later. It's SHITTY, and people will look down on you for that, but it is legal.

Even non may ones? I thought a non may one was as bad as letting your opponent think his guy died in combat when he didn't.

Nope. You are never, under any circumstances, EVER obliged to remind your opponent of their triggers, mandatory or otherwise.

Optional triggers aren't even a penalty for anyone, they're just assumed to have declined to use it. Mandatory triggers, you CAN remind your opponent, but you're under no obligation. You used to be, and people fucking hated it, because more skilled players would literally have to hand wins to their less-skilled opponents by pointing out triggers THEY knew should have fired, but the OPPONENT missed. It somewhat punished you for actually being a good player.

Hm. But only trigger work like that right? Everything else like, misconstrued P/T or abilities is fair game?

If my opponent swings with a Charging Paladin and doesn't say anything, if I block with a Grizzly Bear and he puts it in the yard, am I cheating? Is he cheating?

What if it something like a Ann-Hava Constable and he just miscounts his forests? No trigger involved.

ONLY triggers. Any other 'rules' stuff is also your responsibility. It's ONLY triggers that let you keep your mouth shut, because policy allows your opponent to miss their triggers if they're dumb.

Why do people sac their selfless spirit before planar outburst?

Can you not respond to it? or is it safer strat wise to do it maybe at the beginning of your turn and then outburst at the end?

I'm guessing so people will have to burn spot removal on the things currently on the board, rather than being able to pick off their choice of what's there when you Wrath. It's just a strategy thing as far as I can tell.

Probably comes from a few thing. Could be conditioning form mtgo (Not these cards specifically but in general) where its a hassal to respond to your own spells.
That and its strategically the same really to do it in either order seeing as you have to sac the spirit before you give them a change to counter outburst either way.

Do read your card though. Forests are typically neither green nor creatures.

I got confused with People of the Woods.

Seems like a weird exception.

It's mostly because missed triggers are a thing that come up commonly, and is pretty much the only time where you'd have to hamstring yourself by telling your opponent they made a mistake.

>If my opponent swings with a Charging Paladin and doesn't say anything, if I block with a Grizzly Bear and he puts it in the yard, am I cheating? Is he cheating?

Cheating requires intent. If either player INTENDED to violate the game rules in that way, while knowing that it was a GRV in an attempt to gain an advantage, that's cheating. Otherwise it's not.

Abump.

On the topic of outside interference, one time I was playing Modern Burn versus Affinity, and I was in an advantageous position, but my opponent had a way out, but I don't remember the details.

He mentioned he was dead, and one of the guys who worked at the shop was watching and said "how are you dead?", which made my opponent look at his board again and realize his out.

If he hadn't said anything, I'd have won due to my opponent missing the line of play.

where can i use holiday promo cards it says they aren't tournament legal does that include fnm

source in pic
on the topic on what a judge should/shouldn't do

>"Well, that’s not really the judge’s role. Judges are there to handle rules questions, player disputes, and in-game errors."

so even if a judge sees something happen like drawing with the sylvan library and putting back the wrong cards, and knows this for a fact, they can't say "this is how it is" they can only do the HCE fix? seems kinda naff

>SOI draft, round 3 at 1-1, down to rounds as we've gone to time. judge and others are watching as we're the last playing.
>have Voldaren Duelist in hand, knowing 'yes, this haste and ability will win me the game' as with it I have lethal
>draw, then land the Duelist and swing in
>they block with their creature
>i forgot to declare a target for the Duelist
>it's a draw
fffff
judge says to me afterwards he couldn't say anything about it
RTFC everybody i felt like a real fucking dunce for that one

Around here we have a rule of 'when you're spectating, shut up.'.

that's a rule i'm currently struggling with when i'm spectating i feel i ought to point out things
but i ought to shut up, even when it leads to feelbads like the situation at

Just remember this when you're spectating, it's not your business.

If I was the opponent I wouldn't have even thought to block. I would have just started picking up my cards the moment you through it down.

I should rethink this.

>opponent has lethal
>"you're dead, right?"
>actually holding 4 lands but don't say shit
they have like a 5% chance of actually taking the bait, but it's better than 0% of just giving up
worst case is they take an extra 20 seconds to declare their attack to kill you, nothing lost.

That could very much be considered Outside Assistance. Unfortunately there's not a lot we can do to unfuck your match once someone has interfered, but we're pretty harsh on the interfering party.

They're not legal in any sanctioned event. Casual play only.

If we see something happen that we KNOW to be wrong, we're supposed to intervene. What that means is that you can't call a Judge over to "watch" what you're drawing to verify that you're doing it right, because as Josh said, that's not our job. Our job is to unfuck things once they get fucked, to settle disputes, and to answer questions (also to push in chairs). If you do something wrong, that's something we're empowered to fix. If you're wanting to use us as "verification" for Library, that's a no-go (largely because if stuff like that were okay, it's now OUR problem to make sure you're doing it right, rather than yours, and we'd lose a lot of time for our main duties for "Hey Judge, come watch me do this so my opponent can't complain")

Also Sylvan Library isn't a real card

I sometimes have to spectate games from a distance because I'm worried body language will give things away.

If it's a pal of yours, just keep mental notes to go over with them later. It's not fair to the opponent if you step in to help a player who made mistakes, so just don't.

Can we help between matches? Even through it technically will affect their play in later games?

Oh and what is the stance on people watching a match in order to gain an advantage when playing against them in later rounds? How do you enforce that?

You're only forbidden from interfering while a match is in progress. You're absolutely allowed to talk and help and go over notes and all that jazz between matches, partially because there is no way in almighty thunderfuck we could even remotely hope to police that and partially because it's not anywhere near as disruptive as a spectator directly interfering with a game.

Scouting, same thing. As long as you aren't actually interfering with the game, there's nothing you're doing wrong. Some people see it as sleazy metagaming to go scout other players so you aren't going in blind, but it's not against the rules.

>body language
Oh yeah i have a bad experience with this too, but i can't exactly call the spectator a cheat.

From EMN the one thing i saw was player A playing Thalia and player B started playing all his lands tapped, even basics.

As a Judge, or as a player? If you were just a spectator, you can just butt in with "Hey, hang on- stop playing, something's wrong and I need to get a Judge" and call one over. Don't say what's wrong to the players, but you can stop them so they don't move on and do more damage

As a judge, if you see someone doing something ILLEGAL, you should step in.

Hello all, long time fan, first time poster, new-ish player.

Just checking, but if for instance I control a demonic pact with the first 3 modes already chosen, I can't use a naturalize effect on my upkeep to remove it and not lose the game right? That is to say, the demonic pact needs to be removed before the beginning of its controller's upkeep otherwise the lose the game trigger will resolve regardless of whether or not the pact is still on the board when the trigger resolves? Happened in a recent game with a friend where I played harmless offering on the pact with 3 modes used up while he was tapped out and then tried to cast dromoka's command on his upkeep to not lose.

Thank you in advance for the answer and all the hard work you (and other helpful anons in the thread) always do.

>also to push in chairs
Doing God's work, gA. Also, I guess because it's early in the morning and I have no rule questions, what's one of the more obtuse interactions you can think of off-hand?

Pretty sure you can discuss all revealed information and routes but saying what the other guy had in hand is a bit of a no-no.

(Here's that image ran through Optipng so it's slightly less fuckhueg)

Correct. Abilities on the stack exist independent of their source. You'd need to trash the Pact before you get to your upkeep to stay alive.

And thank you for the appreciation! It is, itself, very appreciated.

>obtuse interactions
Blood Moon removes abilities in a layer other than layer 6.

Also, if the game is over, you can absolutely say what the guy had in hand. Again, scouting is frowned upon by some players, but not by the rules (again again, partially because there's no way we could possibly police it)

Alright, heading to the office, so gimme a bit on responses, I'll be in a car!

I'm not a judge haha.
I still remember it even though it was a long time ago. Gatecrash, opponent have Frontline Medic in play, i have Aurelia's Fury in hand. Suddenly one spectator behind me picked up the Medic, looked at it's ability, goes ooohhh, and returned it back. It ruined my intention of forcing a seemingly advantageous trade for his Medic.

Hey there, quick Commander related question here: If I'm playing a Brimaz with a Blade of Selves attached and then attack, do the tokens made by the myriad Brimaz copies stay once the Brimaz copies disappear?
Also, do cards with "return Creature to hand" return the commander to the command zone, or back to the hand to be played for their cmc?

The Brimaz copies do not make tokens.

Really?
Brimaz: "whenever this card attacks put a 1/1 cat token with vigilance also attacking"
Blade: "whenever equipped creature attacks for each player put a copy of that creature on the field attacking"
The copies are attacking, would that not trigger them to make tokens?

Yeah, that's really shitty. Unfortunately all we can do there, at most, is give a Match Loss to the fuckhat who interfered, but that doesn't un-wreck your game.

The myriad Brimaz don't make tokens.

They were put into play attacking. They never ATTACKED, which is the trigger condition.

The copies are put onto the battlefield already attacking. They never actually attacked, so they don't trigger "when this attacks" abilities.

The copies aren't declared as attacker (the thing that triggered the create token), they're just entered already attacking.

Anyway, for your original question. Let's say you attached the Blade onto Geist Honored Monk. The answer is yes they stay. Unless specified otherwise, tokens don't go away when the thing that creates them goes.

Merieke Ri Berit has taken control of an opponent's Grizzly Bears. Later on, Grizzly Bears gets hit by Reality Ripple. With the continuous effect on Grizzly Bears no longer being able to see Grizzly Bears, does control of Grizzly Bears revert, making Grizzly Bears return on the previous owner's turn? Also, Grizzly Bears.

Then, same scenario, except this time it's Merieke Ri Berit that gets hit by the Reality Ripple. Should she be treated as if the player has lost control over her, making control of Grizzly Bears revert?

Wait. Can't you not pay that last point of life? For example if I have 6 life I can only pay 5 because otherwise I lose the game if I pay 6 to cast something?

You can pay one life if you're at one, but you can't pay two life since you don't have two life to pay.

The game doesn't care that you will (presumably) die by paying that last point, but it does care if you don't have enough life to pay the cost.

If you have 6 life, you can pay 6 life for stuff, it just normally kills you. It's totally legal to pay life with the last of it (that's why your opponent can kill you with your own Spellskite if they Mindslaver you and you're at an even life total).

But let's say you have a Platinum Angel out. In that case, you can pay that 6 life and live! It's still legal to pay the 6 life without Angel, you just kinda... die.

The continuous effect still exists, weirdly. If the duration doesn't end while it's phased out, it just kicks right back in as normal when it phases back.

A simple way to think about it: get a Big Gulp cup or something similar. Turn it upside down and write "CUP O' PHASING" on it. When something phases out, put the cup over it. It hasn't actually gone anywhere, you just ignore it until you take the cup off of it.

I don't have any rules questions, I just want to point out that the "Cup o' Phasing" is the best thing I've ever seen someone use to describe that ability.

Now if only we could come up with the String O'Banding or something...

Have to say, between "CUP O' PHASING" and in an earlier thread "Grand High Fuckmaster of Combat", you are my favorite magic story teller.

Does this mesh with 702.25e?

>702.25e Continuous effects that affect a phased-out permanent may expire while that permanent is phased out. If so, they will no longer affect that permanent once it’s phased in. In particular, effects with “for as long as” durations that track that permanent (see rule 611.2b) end when that permanent phases out because they can no longer see it.

I'll take your word for it if you say so. This just has me scratching my head.

The Train O'Banding might be a better analogy.

A regular creature is like a locomotive. Normally every locomotive drives itself separately on parallell rails. Blocking one set of tracks does nothing to the others.

A creature with Banding is like a train car. It can be attached at the end of a train (a train is a locomotive and zero or more cars) and join another creature or banding-pile-of-creatures to form an attack group driving on a single set of tracks. The whole pile is blocked as a unit.

Right- it's saying that those effects MAY expire. As in, if you lost control of Merieke while the Grizzly Bears were phased out, then that continuous effect expired while it was phased out. It'd phase back in under your control, and then immediately lose it.

What that "for as long as" thing means is, for example, if you phased out MERIEKE, her continuous effect would end because she phased out. The 'for as long as' is tracking her, not the Bears.

OK, that makes it clearer. Thanks a lot!

When a creature like Ember Beast says it can't attack or block alone, does that mean I need to assign a second creature blocking the thing I want Ember Beast to block, or just a second creature blocking anything?

It just means that it can't be the only creature blocking. You can have Ember Beast block one thing, and another creature block a different thing, you just can't have ONLY your one Ember Beast blocking. As long as you're assigning at least one other blocker (and it doesn't matter where you assign it), you're fine.

So last time i was in this thread new Tamiyo was spoilered and there was a small confusion of her first ability giving either 1 or 2 cards, now i was wondering if that was cleared up or not.

Also how exactly does new Emrakuls ability work in a 2v2 game?

It was cleared up. She triggers per creature, so if both of the targets do combat damage, you draw 2.

In 2HG, if you take control of one player's turn, you take control of the whole team for the turn.

It's legal for two Ember Beasts to block without any other blockers, right?

>In 2HG, if you take control of one player's turn, you take control of the whole team for the turn.

Oh man, that's better than i thought, i thought i'd just get to control one players turn, anyway i assume they both get an extra turn aswell after the turn i control them i mean.