MTG Magic The Gathering Ask A Judge - Monday Funday Edition

Good morning and welcome back to Ask A Judge!

Is there any pratical difference betwen "this spell can't be countered" and "this spell can't be countered by spells or abilities" or is it just to make cards that target countered when their targets become illegal?

"This spell can't be countered" means it can't be countered. At all. By anything.

"This spell can't be countered by spells or abilities" just means it can't be countered by spells or abilities, but the rules of the game can still counter it. This is why you see 'by spells or abilities' on spells which target, and the 'can't be countered' on spells which do not. If Rending Volley just said "Can't be countered", then it would still resolve after I gave the target Hexproof or Shroud, because the rules of the game can't counter it. Hell, it would technically resolve if I made the target stop existing!

So, yeah. That's the reason for the wording.

Not sure if this is quite a valid question, but it's been rattling around my head a bit. Do you have any idea if MTG plagiarized from Master of Magic, or is it the reverse? The color scheme is too similar between the two to be honest coincidence.

Does casual play get better or worse with house rules?
in casual play do you ever say "Mulligain to 4? Just draw an extra card man, I want this to be a fun match".

MTG was released 1992
Master of Magic was released 1994
You tell me

Master of Magic was formally released in September of 1994, while Magic: The Gathering was released in August of 1993, after Richard Garfield (Holy Be His Name) had been tinkering with it for at least 2 or 3 years (IIRC, he first showed it to the head of WOTC in 1991 while they were discussing Roborally)

So while it's possible that Garfield the Blessed snatched some ideas from Master of Magic while it was in production, I'd say it's more likely that it was the other way around, or just an example of simultaneous invention.

Casual play gets better with some handwaving if you're playing with friends you can trust not to abuse it.

It gets worse with people who will abuse it.

Masters of Magic definitely stole from MTG. I mean seriously, they literally took the names off the cards for spells and abilities and creatures in that game.

>If Rending Volley just said "Can't be countered", then it would still resolve after I gave the target Hexproof or Shroud, because the rules of the game can't counter it.

Not the one you're replying to, but I'm curious. Does it mean that if I cast supreme verdict and my opponent casts an ajani's presence, his creatures would still die?

Supreme verdict doesn't target. The spell resolves and tries to destroy the creatures, but since they're indestructible it does nothing.

But if the spell would say "Cannot be countered. Destroy target creature.", it would resolve even with an Ajani's Presence? Not sure to understand why it is any different.

Indestructible creatures are still legal targets for removal spells like Murder.

You can Doom Blade a Darksteel Colossus just fine. The spell would go in the stack and resolve, trying to kill the Colossus but failing to do so. Supreme Verdict would do the same.

Giving a creature Hexproof/Shroud/the appropriate Protecton make it an illegal target and counter the spell that target it note that this would still not counter Wrath of God, for example, since that spell does not target. Giving a creature Indestructible or Regeneration just stops it from dying.

Thank you, I get it now.

"Can't be countered" doesn't mean "cannot be stopped". It means that it can't be countered. As in the specific instruction "counter that". You can't throw a Counterspell (well you can, but it won't DO anything) at a Volcanic Fallout, but you could pop a Burrenton Forge-Tender to stop the damage all the same.

When two players want to intentionally draw in the last round of an event and split prizes for their finish, do they have to agree to the draw first or agree to the prize split first?

I know they have to be separate actions, but me and the other local judge got into a debate about order, because I told two players to do it one way and the other judge said he'd have to DQ them unless they did it backwards.

I've been edging towards avoiding 'helping' with this, because even when done right you're still pretty implicitly saying "I'll split with you if you draw with me" or "I'll scoop to you if you give me half your packs". I'm not a fan, so I'll just tell players "What you do with your winnings is up to you, and I cannot and will not enforce any agreements made about that."

Given that one of the players came up to me and said "we want to work out a split but I'm not 100% sure how to do it without breaking any rules, can you help?" I felt like it was better to explain the decoupling of the actions rather than watch one of them fuck up and toss them both.

Still, which order is legal and which one is bribery? Draw then split, or Split then draw?

See previous answer. I don't really like getting into it, because all you're really doing is asking "how can I IMPLY that I will scoop/draw for a certain amount of prizes guaranteed to me?". My answer if I were asked would be "I can't. I would recommend that you reach a decision to draw, concede, or play out the match wholly divorced from any potential splitting of prizes."

Slight correction I oversaw:

During the announced last round of a single-elimination part of an event (so, the finals after the cut to the top 8), the remaining players can agree to divide prizes however they want, and then one of them has to drop from the event. So apparently it's completely legal for them to just say "First gets X, Second gets Y?", agree, and then one of them scoop. I very much disagree with this, but it's supported by policy, so.

Post lunch bump.

Player A has a creature with Menace. Player B assigns one creature to block it. Does this mean if we go to damage step the assigned block order is illegal and therefore the blocker is removed from combat and Player A's creature still hits through for damage to Player B?

This question is mostly in relation to stuff i've seen happen online but usually in paper I(and my opoonents for that matter) are always quick to point out any stuff like Menace or Skulk in relations to blocking assignments.

Player B can't assign just one blocker to a creature with menace. The game doesn't move on to the damage step until all blocks are legal.

The creature cant be blocked in the first place

No, it means we go back to before the illegal action happened and do it right.

If I have doubling season and brimaz. And I block with brimaz does the extra token come in blocking or is it separate of brimaz ability

Comes in blocking. Brimaz is still the source of the tokens, all Doubling Season is doing is changing the number you get. Doubling Season doesn't make tokens.

Technically not a judge question, but I'd like to ask someone who knows a lot of mtg.
What cards would you recommend for EDH Mizzix if the strategy I'm going for is to not seem threatening for awhile, but then slowly start messing people up?
I'm talking things like Ruination, Wake of Destruction, Propaganda, Cyclonic Rift and so on.
Thanks!

I'm bad at Magic. I'd ask the EDH thread.

And now I have to raid for a while! Back later.

What exactly happens between these two cards when Melira is on the battlefield? Can Inkmoth still deal damage or in this case does it lose Infect?

I feel like there is a contradiction in the rulings for Melira, because in the Gatherer website there are two rulings for when creatures lose infect when Melira is out, and when creatures can gain infect when Melira is out. But then it states that creatures that enter the battlefield with infect lose infect. So while Inkmoth turns into a creature with Infect, is it technically gaining Infect or is it turning into a creature that already had Infect?

This has probably been asked a bajillion times already, but if i have a lifelink creature out and someone swings enough creatures unblocked to do exactly lethal and still have something blocked by the lifelinker, do i survive or lose?

Lifelink, specifically, does not use the stack, meaning you simultaneously gain any life from lifelink and lose any life from, well, damage. However iIf it were an ability that said "Whenever this deals damage, you gain that much life" (for example, like that granted by Spirit Loop) then it would use the stack, and you could die between taking the damage and gaining the life

Bump while I read these questions

Depends! An Inkmoth that was already animated when Melira came down will lose infect, so it'll be a 1/1 with flying that just domes for 1 normal damage.

If Inkmoth is activated AFTER Melira comes down, it gains infect (because Melira's effect has the older timestamp; it's like casting Jump on a creature with Magebane Armor), it'll have infect... and since your opponent can't get poison counters it'll do damage, but they won't gain counters or lose life. It still counts for triggering stuff like Swords, and for lifegain.

You survive, for the reasons that said.

Sup gA?

>Nim Deathmantel and Ashnod's Altar
>two creatures on my side of the field
>opponent is attacking with two creatures
Can I block with both, sac them both to Ashnod's, then bring them back with 4 untapped lands? Would I have to let one be dealt damage, while sacrificing the other before damage is calculated to pull it off?

Sorry to bother? But if I cast pic on a no-counter bloodmad vampire while it is unblocked, how much damage does the opponent take, 10 or 11?

Forgot pic

Nah, that's all kosher. Declare blocks, get priority in Declare Blockers Step, sac one of them for CC, triggering Deathmantle. Sac the other for CC, triggering Deathmantle. Use the CCCC you have floating to bring the second-sacced back, then tap your 4 lands to pay for the first trigger. You can do all that in the Declare Blockers step.

They'll take 5 from the first hit, which will trigger the Vampire and put a counter on it. The second hit will dome for 6, because it's a 4/1 with a +1/+1 counter and +1/+1, so a total of a 6/3. So they take 5, then 6, and at the end of it all your Vampire is a 7/4 for the turn. When Uncaged Fury wears off, it'll be a 4/1 with two counters, so a 6/3 total.

And now I'm tired and it's late, so bed.