MTG Magic The Gathering Ask A Judge - 「 W E D N E S D A Y W E E K 」

Correct, because Active Player's triggers go on the stack first. So in that scenario, your OPPONENT'S triggers would be on the tippity-top of the stack, and would resolve before yours, killing you.

>tippity-top
GA, I love ya, mang. But stop being a fag

Can't stop won't stop

Something from a different angle.

Why Wizards doesn't allow players to use custom BASIC LAND cards.
I saw some dude made full art Khan of Tarkir Islands with borders like Zendikar lands which were fucking beautiful.

I'd buy or order a couple in a heart beat if they wouldn't disqualify me from a tourney.

Well, that really depends on how you got to that endpoint. If it's just an alteration of an existing basic land, go for it; if it's something that was 'made' (like applying a decal over an existing card's face, or blanking a card with acetone and "printing" that art onto it), the reason is simply IP and copyright. If WOTC allows people to bring what are effectively counterfeit cards to their tournaments... problems.

Those are those lands I've talked about.

Full art remake: i.imgur.com/bvtthtn.jpg
Basic card: gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=386567&type=card

This one is dodgy, because it's pretty clearly a decal placed on top of the card (right where the typeline should be and the art-box should end, the borders are off). The problem there isn't that the cards have been altered, the problem is that it's very likely that this card could be distinguished from the others without looking at the face because of that decal. If it passes that test without a problem, I would allow these without a second thought because they pass the requirements for an alter; the name and mana cost (no mana cost here, but still) are unobscured, and the art is 'recognizable' (I'm a lot more lenient with that on basics; so long as you're not trying to make it seem like something it isn't, I'm okay with it).

So in short if I'd come to a tournament you judged with those cards and the rest of my deck would be "tippity-top" 100% non altered legal cards you'd allow it.
But other judges possibly wouldn't.

I'd PROBABLY allow it. It'd depend on what I thought about them seeing them in person, whether or not I thought they were a problem, etc. Other judges might, or might not.

Well it depends. Is the card any thicker than a normal card? And can I tell if it is that specific card while it is.shuffked in your library? That's the kind da of stuff I'd call my opponent out on

If I use a card or ability that requires me to sacrifice a creature, then in response the opponent uses an instant to destroy that creature, does the first ability still resolve since that creature is now dead?

>and then in response
They can't respond to you paying costs. If it's an "additional cost" thing like Fling, by the time your opponent has priority to respond with a spell, Fling is already fully paid for, fully cast, and waiting on the stack to resolve. There's no creature for them to Doom Blade because you already fed it to Fling. Ditto for activating an ability that requires a sacrifice as a cost, like Goblin Bombardment; you announce that you're activating it, put the ability on the stack, pick your target, then pay the costs. THEN your opponent gets priority to respond.

They can't just windmill slam their spell in the middle of you casting Fling, because Magic isn't a game of reflexes.

Now, if the spell has you sacrifice something as it RESOLVES (like your opponent nuking your creature in response to Victimize), that depends. You don't pick what you're going to sacrifice for those until they actually resolve, so as long as you still have a creature you can sac that one- you don't 'lock in' what you'll sacrifice. If you only had one creature and they kill it? Well, the 'if you do' part doesn't happen. Womp womp.

If that card cost was to sacrafice a creature, no he can't since the casting of that card requires you to sacrafice a creature as a cost.

Example Altars Reap.

There are cards that can counter activated abilities tho.

Got it, thanks. If the sacrifice is part of the cost of an ability or casting, then that creature is sacced BEFORE the opponent is allowed to play their response.

Right, because by the time they have priority to respond, the payments are all made.

Also if you have sacrafice outlets on the table like Nantuko Husk or in hand like afromentioned Altars Reap you can dodge some nasty spells out there.

Since sacraficing can be done instantly unless stated otherwise.

It's more that "you can activate an ability any time you have priority, unless that ability or the rules text for that keyword say otherwise". It's not something special about sacrificing.

But sac decks in my experience make most players rage hard usually, dunno why.

Also, another question.

How hard is it to become MTG judge in general?

Don't mean to jump straight to the highest tier but overally.

I've seen those files at wizards site and frankly, they scared me about the knowledge required.

I play magic for 13 years if not more, so I got fair chunk of knowledge and interactions from just playing the game.
But sometimes I'm myself confused by some weird card interactions.

>How hard is it to become MTG judge in general?
Not very, honestly. It requires a thorough knowledge of some basic rules and policy stuff, tournament structures, and not being a complete dumpster fire of a human being.

If you're interested in becoming a Judge, I'd suggest you contact your Regional Coordinator and express that interest; they'll help put you in touch with a local L2 who can start you on that path.

blogs.magicjudges.org/contact/contact-a-regional-coordinator/

I'm playing EDH with 4 opponents. I have an Omnath Locus of Rage on the battlefield with Blade of Selves equipped to it. I attack an opponent with Omnath, creating 3 other Omnath tokens, which die as soon as state based actions are checked to the legendary rule assuming I choose to keep the original one. How many times is Omnath'a ability triggered? It's twice for each token, right? The original Omnath sees each token die, for 3 triggers, and each Omnath sees itself die for another 3 triggers, one each. So after all is said and done, it's 18 damage total, right?

Each token dying gives you a total of 4 triggers; one from itself, one from the other two tokens, and one from OG Omnath. Total of 12 triggers doing 3 damage each, that's 36 damage.

And a Doubling Season or Parallel Lives under my control would cause it to spin out of control even more, right? It would create 6 tokens, each sees itself and the others die for 6 triggers each, plus the original Angry Omnath would see them for another 6 triggers for a total of 42 triggers or 126 damage. Or basically if my math is right I could straight up kill 3 of my opponents outright assuming they are at 40 life.

That's fucking nuts.

Right. A Season would make 2 tokens per opponent, for 6 total. All 6 of those would die, giving you a total of 7 triggers per token; each token would trigger itself, OG, and its 5 brothers upon death, so that's 6 'groupings' of 7 triggers each, for 42 triggers, each doing 3 damage.

Why is Humility+Opalescence not a dependency?

Because it doesn't fit the criteria. An effect is only dependent on another if they exist in the same layer or sublayer, both (or neither, no mix-and-match) are from CDAs, and applying one before the other changes the set of objects the other would affect, the text or existence of the other's effect, or what it does to any of the things it applies to.

Opalescence makes non-Aura enchantments into creatures in layer 4; Humility does nothing in layer 4. Humility takes away abilities in Layer 6; Opalescence has no effect in layer 6. In layer 7b each effect wants to set power and toughness, but applying one before the other doesn't change the set of objects or what's done to those objects, so it's simple timestamps. End result either way is that all the non-Aura enchantments (other than the Opalescence, assuming that's the only one) are blanked creatures no matter what you do, and their P/T comes down to timestamps.

> but applying one before the other doesn't change the set of objects or what's done to those objects
Is this criteria considered only within the shared layer? So layers 4 and 6 are ignored, and only 7b is considered when determining dependency in this situation?

Jesus fuck that's crazy.

Yes. For an effect to be dependent on another, they have to apply in the same layer, because that's the only time timestamps MATTER; no matter the order you play Glorious Anthem and Living Plane, all your lands get the +1/+1 because they get animated in Layer 4 and boosted in 7c. Timestamps don't matter because the effects aren't happening in the same layer.

For an effect to be dependent on another, they have to apply in the exact same layer, and applying one before the other in that layer changes the set of objects the other affects (or what it does). For example, Urborg and Blood Moon both apply in layer 4. Applying Blood Moon before Urborg changes the set of objects Urborg applies to (from 'all of the lands' to 'nothing', because turning it into a Mountain blanks all its inherent abilities), so we always apply Blood Moon first.

For Opal/Humility, one of them applies in 4, but not in 6. The other applies in 6, but not in 4. Since they don't happen in the same layer, there's no question of "What order do we apply these?". In 7b, there is that question, but since the other criteria for a dependency aren't there in 7b, we just use timestamps.

Also, I have to run for a bit- I'll be back within an hour!

Another question out of the basket.

What creature card YOU like the most galvanicAutogenitor?

Creature card, specifically? Probably Mistmeadow Witch. I got so much mileage out of that card early in my EDH days. Lots of fun, too.