Welcome back to the ask a judge thread! Apologies for not having one for a while, I've been busy lately. Last week I drove 3,000 km, and before that, lets just say I didn't have regular access to the internet. In other news, I've applied to work my first GP.
This thread is for anyone and everyone to ask questions about rulings, interactions, policy, tournament structure, etc to a level one judge. Ask away!
shameless self bump
How exactly would the stack work in the case of a storm player going off?
Could you let them keep going off and going off and then wait until they blew their whole load to Remand a Manamorphous or something along those lines?
Also, what is a better way to remember what abilities you can do things in response to?
I'm thinking a lot of the issues I'm having would be solved if I'd play MTGO and see it laid out how it is.
Do you spend a lot of time judging? Do you work in GPs?
Is the compensation worth it for all the work and time you've put into the judging program?
What's your opinion of the exemplar program?
I'm not totally sure what you're asking with these questions, but I'll describe how it all works best I can. Tell me if I missed something.
Usually storm decks cast one spell at a time, let it resolve, then cast another. Generally the only time they will have more than one thing on the stack is when they cast a spell with storm, which, after the storm trigger resolves, will put a bunch of copies onto the stack. So if they cast Grapeshot as their seventh spell then remand it, the stack will look like this:
Remand (targeting OG Grapeshot)
six grapeshot copies
Grapeshot (OG)
Objects on the stack resolve backwards so the Remand bounces the original Grapeshot, the six copies resolve and deal one damage each. The original is no longer on the stack so can't resolve. If they cast Grapeshot again, it's now the ninth spell and assuming nobody has any responses, you'll get domed for nine.
There are often points in the storm players turn where you can interrupt them with a counterspell. Usually you want to try to counter a ritual when they have no floating mana, or an important card like Past in Flames.
>Also, what is a better way to remember what abilities you can do things in response to?
You can respond to anything that uses the stack, or when your opponent wants to end a phase or step. Thing that use the stack are spells, activated and triggered abilities. Activated abilities can be spotted by the formating "Cost: Effect", like, say, Steel Overseer's ability. They pay the cost, then the ability is on the stack and you can respond to it. Planeswalker abilities are also activated abilities. Triggered abilities can be spotted because they always start with the the words "when", "whenever", or "at". (eg: Coastal Piracy, Flametongue Kavu, Howling Mine). The only exception is abilities that produce mana.
MTGO certainly helped me to get grips on stack interactions.
Awesome and thank you very much for your help!
Not really, I've only been a judge for all of six months and only recently moved into a town with an LGS. There was one in the town I lived in when I started studying for it, but it closed down before I got certified. As I said in my original post, I've just applied for my first GP, in Sydney. The compensation isn't great but I'm more in for the experience than anything else.
As for compensation at the FNM's I do, not really, but that's not why I'm a judge. If money or power are incentives for you becoming a judge, you're in it for the wrong reasons. I decided to become a judge because there aren't enough in rural and regional Australia, outside of 100k+ pop cities there's a small handful in most states and they are massively outweighed by the amount of stores. It was needed and was something I thought I would enjoy.
Honestly I don't know a huge amount about the exemplar program. I don't know if there's room for two people to game the system and pass reviews back and forth, but if there's not, it seems like a fine way of rewarding those judges who go above and beyond.
I think I got my answer, but I wanted to get a second opinion.
I control a Psychosis Crawler and a Prime-Speaker Zegana. I cast Rite of Replication kicked on Zegana. I have Approx. 75 cards in my library, and none of my opponents have more than 50 life.
What happens?
oh yeah I have 9 cards in hand
>he volunteers for a for profit big corporation, for free
shitposting aside, I hope you find it fulfilling and got something worthwhile out of it. I myself am a judge too, and I felt pretty disgusted by the whole program the more I learn about it.
The exemplar program just encourages cronyism, since you can recommend another person for doing good work, and said good work is super subjective.
You like A and you think he deserves a special judge foil in the mail? Ok, go ahead and praise him for picking up the trash/arranging the chairs/throwing away the booster packs on the table during a tournament he judged in. Bam A will now enjoy a special Rishadan Port judge foil in the mail in the exemplar wave.
Oh, B? He likes Trump and you don't agree with his politics, so fuck that guy, he isn't gonna receive any recommendation on the exemplar program even though he's the friendliest and most hardworking judge that you know.
3 player game: opponent has a Chancellor of the Spires in play, and a Tempt with Reflections in the graveyard. I clone his Chancellor of the Spires, and choose to copy Tempt with Reflections.
Can I generate an arbitrarily large number of Chancellor of the Spires with this? Can my opponent and the third player also do the same (by choosing yes to the Tempt with Reflections)? Will I always have more Chancellors than them?
What is the proper procedure at a tournament to complain about noise (or flatulence) coming from other tables?
They all enter as 10/10's as that's a replacement effect and applies before you've drawn any cards from them. Their abilities trigger, you choose one of your six zeganas and put the rest into the bin as a state based action. Then their abilities go onto the stack where they use the last know power of their separate zeganas to draw ten cards each, killing your opponents. Bob's your uncle.
I've heard this before, you're not the only judge who doesn't like how the system is run. It's certainly something I'm going to research more.
That said, the way I see it, I don't volunteer for WOTC, I volunteer for my local store and the people and players who go there. Whether I'm there or not events will fire, it's not like I'm providing a vital service. That will change when and if I start judging comp events.
Right this one is a bit complicated, coming in next post.
How do you feel about the treatment of convicted pedophiles being judges by wizards? Specifically that they seem to have no problems about it. Is there talk about it among judges or is it taboo?
>Can I generate an arbitrarily large number of Chancellor of the Spires
Yes, you can make as many as you like*
>Can my opponent and the third player also do the same
In a two player game this is simple. If they pick yes, you will always have double the amount they do. In three players, if they always pick yes, the player with the Tempt in his yard will have 1/3rd of the Chancellors you have. The other player will have one less than the Tempt guy because Temptdude starts with one on the field*
*ASSUMING that player 3 doesn't choose to cast Tempt from Temptdude's yard. If both opponents want lots of Chancellors and player 3 targets Tempt with his Chancellors:
After the first Tempt resolves, you have three Chancellor triggers targeting Tempt, Temptdude has one targeting something irrelevant, player 3 has one targeting Tempt. Due to APNAP order, player 3's resolves first, meaning he gets to cast Tempt as many times as he wants and make an arbitrary number of Chancellors and you and Temptdude get less. At some point, he has to stop and target something else, or choose to not cast Tempt. Then your latest Chancellor trigger will resolve and you can cast Tempt for the first time in a couple billion iterations. Unfortunately, this starts the process again. Eventually everyone will have to stop making Chancellors, and Temptdude will likely dismantle his deck and buy into Cardfight! Vanguard.
tl;dr:
Player 3 can make a lot more chancellors than you.
Tell the judge/TO/owner that they're being loud and let them deal with it. At the end of the day, tournaments are noisy places and noisy people are still customers, so they may be hesitant to do anything about it. That's life, move to another table or try to ignore it until the end of the night. If it really is excessive and happens multiple times, continue to ask the TO/judge about it, and if multiple other people also mention it to them that might get the point across.
That's not accurate. WOTC recently announced that they very much do not condone pedophiles, and there has been a judge conduct committee for years, whose purpose (among others) is to maintain the integrity of the role.
This article is a good read if you're after more info.
blogs.magicjudges.org
I don't live near any other judges so I haven't spoken to any about it.
Hey there, I've been a judge for more than three yearrs now. I'm level 1, mostly due to laziness and lack of wanting to commit.
That being said, I've worked a decent amount of GPs (in fact, they're all I do now). I worked at one last month.
Compensation in general has gotten a lot better over the years, mostly due to necessity. Judging requires a lot more of a time commitment and a lot more staff, so incentives have to be better to entice people to get on board. As for whether or not it's worth it... let's just say the GP wages are usually typical of an LGS employee + free product. You're not making bank, but it's not insignificant. The downside is that you obviously can't do it for a living, so most people who attempt to be career judges try to get hired by a store. Even then, the hours aren't great so your overall earnings are fairly low.
As for the exemplar program, it's a bit of a mess. The original program wasn't perfect, but it was servicable and the rewards were nice - your recommendations roughly correlated (logarithmic-ally) to the number of promo packs you got. It was a skinner box, but it incentivized people doing good for fun rewards. Apparently that was an issue - you're supposed to do good work as a judge because you want to be a good judge, not for rewards. So they changed the rewards to a lootbox-esque system - instead of being rewarded for good work, now you have a chance of being rewarded for good work. Not sure what they were going with this one, I have no clue if that's the final system they'll be using. The other issue was that high level judges got a number of nominations per season, and the system incentivized you to use all of your nominations so as many of your fellow judges got promos as possible. So, high level judges often used their nominations to proxy-nominate judges that they weren't witness to, but other judges were. This was also apparently not okay.
In other words, I'm not too happy with the program as of now.
Okay glad to know it's as complicated as I thought. We definitely messed it up on the fly, but thanks for clearing it up!
Lantern is up a game in the match vs Platinum Angel/Gideon emblem controlled by a decked out opponent with no hand, Lantern player can't remove said obstance but has Academy Ruins+about 10 different artifacts in the yard he can recur repeatedly to not deck but no win conditions. Is he allowed to to keep the show going until 1-0-1 if he changes the board state between turns (different artifacts, recur Shredder that recurs Abrupt Decay on his own needles whatever else) or will a loop be interprered liberally enough (finite number of permutations and no win conditions or changes to life totals) to accuse him of stalling to force him to concede and move to g3 which he might lose or draw?
Testing if this tripcode works. Sorry to cramp on your style, Not gA.
I am (was) a bit more involved with the judge community, especially on the west coast, so I'm fairly privy to what judges say behind closed doors. You have to understand that much like Wizards themselves, the Judges in the judge program are, for the most part, fairly progressive and hold a lot of progressive values dear to their heart. So when it comes to matters that are mostly talked about by people like MTGHQ, they tend to be fairly biased or dismissive about the legitimacy of such claims, and operate on the opinion that this sort of thing doesn't happen.
From what I hear for most recent U.S. GPs, most judges were "background-checked" AKA ran through the sex offender registry. No one who was on the list was hired or even planned to be hired. The judges who were on the sex offender registry or had prior convictions were fairly inactive (bar one IIRC), and they hadn't judged in a fairly long time. Wizards and the judge program disowned them fairly quickly as soon as it came to light. There really isn't any formal employment process for judges, so this sort of thing was hard to verify for a lot of individuals. In order to be a judge, all you really have to do is express interest, shadow a judge for a couple of events, and pass a test. Many players just become judges in a couple of days and do nothing with it, because it's just that easy.
Wizards, obviously, wants to save money, so they're not too concerned about it unless something happens that affects them negatively. The judge program is fairly similar - as soon as they hear about you abusing your power, they'll come down on you hard and swift. Otherwise, as long as nobody makes a big deal with it, you're free to judge events as you please. Only recently with the policy that linked have they been forced to deal with it.
Thanks for the input. It's good that someone who has more experience than I could answer that question.
You got this from AprilKing's twitter/MTGreddit didn't you? Cheeky brat.
There was a fairly long discussion about this. Of course, every head judge is different and will rule differently, but the general accepted consensus (per Toby Elliot) is that the lantern player can offer a draw, but if the game plays out, Lantern loses.
The board is demonstrably able to be looped, and the loop requires action on one side to be maintained and doesn't affect the board state, the player creating the loop must at one point not take an action to continue the loop or get a stalling infraction. In the original scenario, the player with the Gideon can remove Gideon if he so desires, but since he's not creating the loop, he doesn't have to do so. He just sits there and makes sure Gideon is still on the battlefield every so often while the other player is the one causing the stalling.
No worries!
Again, good to hear from more a experienced judge. Thanks for the answer.
As for cramping my style, I'm cramping gA's style, but I'm not sure if that means you are double cramping or if this is one of those double negative times where you end up being more stylish than me. Maybe if we can get an L2 in here they can clear that up.
Sounds good to me. I just want to add that the definition of stalling in the IPG is "A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit"
What you described is that definition to a tee.
If a player joke about letting me win the duel in exchange for money and I fail to report it, do I get disqualified?
If that happens, you just raise your hand and ask for a judge and claim your free win.
That's just how it is. Wotc takes collusion seriously.
The same reason you don't ever talk or joke about bombs when you're in the airport, unless you're asking for trouble.
But I'm not colluding with him, I'm bushing off his bride attempt as a joke.
Bombs kill people, brides in a friendly card game don't.
wotc just doesn't want anyone to link the game with collusion and match fixing
If the alternative is nobody ever getting busted again for bribery attempts because "whoops I'm just kidding winkyface" serves as an ultimate loophole, then I'd rather stay with the current situation.
somebody lost 8th place, because he didn't know about that rule or how strict it was.
The guy who joke about it might knew about the rules and did it on purpose to get the winner DQ
Like said, it's impossible to tell whether a player is joking or not when they offer a bribe so we always have to act on the assumption that it's a serious attempt at bribery. If the person who was offered the bribe doesn't report it immediately they will also be disqualified. Unfortunately there are some people who get sucked into DQ's because they don't know about this and some people take advantage of that, as you said, to make someone lose a top 8 spot. And that sucks. The alternative isn't good either though. Imagine this situation:
Player A offers player B $20 for a concession. Player B says "I'll do $30". Player A refuses, so player B calls a judge and says player A offered a bribe.
If we don't DQ both players these situations are possible. At least when the unsuspecting person gets a DQ for a policy they didn't know about it, it'll only happen once, and they'll tell their friends, and they won't get DQ'd. The purpose of the rule is to simply reduce the amount of bribery happening. If it's the other way around player B eventually finds someone who says "yes" to $30 and we've got more bribery.
i miss GA. bring him back
Not an excuse.
If you're playing comp REL you're expected to know what is ok and what is not.
The same way judges won't entertain anyone who tries to argue they're ignorant of the "no determining the winner through dice roll/coin flip" rule in the same situation too.
>did it on purpose
How? He'll get DQed if his opponent reported it, and both will be DQed if his opponent accepted.
Okay, but then what about
>player A offers bribe
>player B does the right thing and immediately calls judge
>player A, salty about being called out, tells the judge that player B provided a counter-offer (when he didn't) and only called the judge when player A refused the counter-offer
Now it's a situation where both players will be kicked, when only one was acting shady.
>implying any judge worth their salt won't just investigate by asking the players sitting beside them for their account of what happened, or check both player's history to see which one is the slimy cheater who had previous records of him cheating/attempting to cheat
Pls stop, user. You're embarrassing yourself
>Player A: "I'm losing so bad that I may well pay you to win"
>Player B take this as a joke
>Judge overheard the joke, but didn't get all of them
>Judge DQ both players over a joke
Nice to know that telling a joke can get you DQ from Magic. No matter why it's dying.
Stop being autistic. See
Pls no bully, user. It was a question concerning the previous statement about it being better to err on the side of DQing players.
If you honestly believe it hasn't been done successfully somewhere, you are naive.
This actually happened at an LGS near toledo ohio. The judge on duty was a prick and dq'd someone for talking about splitting.
gA was a great inspiration to me and one of the reasons I'm a judge now. Unfortunately he hasn't made a thread in months, so, while I'm less experienced and worse at naming my commander decks, nobody else was making these threads and I figure I'm better than nobody.
I'm sure we'll see him here again.
You guys can continue to discuss the merits of the current philosophy on bribery but I don't have much more to add to the conversation. I have zero experience with it and zero experience with judging competitive level play in general so I really can't say any more than what the IPG and MTR do. That said, here's some links to the current documentation if anyone's interested.
blogs.magicjudges.org
blogs.magicjudges.org
More of a question for high-level players, but thoughts on Pauper? Is it worth MtG fully supporting or is it just a flavor of the month that should leave already? I like the idea of a cheaper format with Legacy-like interactions, but wanted other opinions seeing Pauper is popping up in tournaments now.
If Twilight Shepherd's Persist ability activates, returns to the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on it, and then gains a +1/+1 counter, can it persist again?
Does the +1/+1 cancel out the -1/-1?
Yes.
>121.3. If a permanent has both a +1/+1 counter and a -1/-1 counter on it, N +1/+1 and N -1/-1 counters are removed from it as a state-based action, where N is the smaller of the number of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters on it. See rule 704.
Thank you for the fast reply!
wotc will never support that format in any meaningful way.
It won't make them money if the format really takes off and becomes popular, and it's taking attention/money away from people who might be playing Standard/Modern instead.
Like with most cases of he-said, she-said, this sort of thing is up to the judge to determine whether or not someone is lying. Generally, these sorts of proceedings will begin with the judges pulling each player aside to ask them exactly what happened in their story, as well as asking any bystanders if they heard what happened. Judges who know their regulars and have worked in the area will generally have a better idea of who's a salty bitch and who isn't in competitive - the same area will only have the main regulars and a couple of randoms outside of the area every competitive REL event.
Most competitive REL players understand that bribery is not something taken lightly. It's always covered (or should be always covered) in the opening announcements, at the announcement of the pre-Top 8 round, and at the beginning of Top 8. Many players who do not intend to bribe their opponent but want to split will always ask a judge to determine if what they're about to ask is okay or not (away from their opponent). So this scenario is fairly unlikely in most friendly communities.
Of course, in unfriendly communities, the judges have to act as detectives to determine whether or not the player reporting did offer a counteroffer. I'd like to assume that most judges will get it right and not only DQ the player for Bribery and Collusion, but also recommend a ban for USC-Cheating for lying to a tournament official.
Posted before I was done writing.
Most judges, because they're usually cramped on time, would usually DQ both players just to cover their ass to be safe - it's unfortunate that it happened for the player that wasn't acting shady, but short of an impromptu tribunal any further investigation would take way too much time and resources, especially if the judge is the only judge judging the event. You're probably hoping there's a method or procedure that 100% guarantees the innocent party walks free, but long story short, when you're judging in an event, DQ's are 90% actual infractions and 10% possibilities of infractions that you get DQ'd for just to be safe. Accusations of cheating or the scenario you described usually fall into that 10%, where the judge can't 100% determine that you cheated knowingly, but feels that to protect the integrity of the tournament, you should be disqualified.
It seems they resolve goblin lore's random discard by throwing dice at the pro tour. Any reason they don't just make a pile of cards in hand, shuffle it and then deal the top three cards of the pile to determine which ones get discarded instead?
Why do you devote so much of your time to a card game owned by a large conglomerate that doesn't care about and wants to sell what you love to retards?
t. someone who recently quit after selling his connections
Mostly for a higher degree of probability. Slight of hand tricks make it necessary for any random pile that is shuffled by a player to be also shuffled by an opponent - obviously you can see the margin for human error here. Throwing dice makes it more random, decreases the probability that someone's hand slips and three cards that they don't want are discarded/the opponent sees what's in the player's hand, and decreases the time it takes to resolve fairly.
This is obviously bait, but I'll bite. Any judge who says that they judge for Wizards, or only for their love of magic, is either lying, a bad judge, or stupid. 99% of judges do so because they have a good relationship with their LGS/community, and it spirals upwards from there. Higher level judges are either directly employed by Wizards or large organizers that host MTG events (SCG, CFB, etc.), or are higher level because they want to contribute to growing the judge program. Nobody in the Judge program I've met has said to me anything remotely along the lines of "Man, Wizards is a good company." It's always "Wizards sucks and doesn't give a shit about us or the players as far as their wallet goes, but I give a shit about players, so I like to judge."
1. When tokens goes to the graveyard they stop existing, but does it still count as though they died (for triggers that look for that)?
2. Does sacrificing a creature make it die or is that two different ways of going from battlefield to graveyard?
The scenario that got me wondering is if I copy a Voice of Resurgence with Kiki Jiki, does the Voice token give me an elemental token when it's sacrificed at end of turn?
Wouldn't the Zegana's draw more cards each trigger since Psychosis Crawler keeps growing?
Whoops, forgot what Zegana does, nevermind.
tokens disappear as soon as they hit the graveyard, but yes, they do "die". Sacrificing creatures also makes them die. And yes, that Voice play would work.
Thanks for keeping the thread alive, everyone!
Mirage Mirror becomes a temporary copy of Thespian's Stage and then becomes a permanent(?) copy of a Mountain.
After the end of the turn, what is the Mirage Mirror card? What abilities does it have?
This is a bit out of my range. I'm not completely sure of my answer, but I'll ask around and let you know what the consensus is.
Heres how I believe it works:
Mirage Mirror turns into a Stage till end of turn.
The fresh new Stage turns into a Mountain, with no duration, and gains the ability of Stage.
At the end of the turn, Mirror's ability will end, but we still have an active copy effect from Stage with no duration. So I believe it will stay as a Mountain with Stage's effect forever.
Let me check that.
I can confirm that it will be a Mountain for the remainder of it's lonely life, never to transform again.
Hello, I played Magic exactly once, but I'm a Veeky Forums regular. I was wondering why this card is used for the OP of Magic threads so often. Is it some bit of Veeky Forums lore I'm missing?
Way, way back these threads were started with a different magic card with "Magic" in the title, usually one in a different language, every time they were posted. Then the guy who started them got sick of looking for new pictures and just kept using the last one he had used. Which just so happened to be "Scherzo Magico"
Thanks for clearing that up
And now that I've unofficially taken over, I decided to just flip the image around so it's still recognizable, but notably different.
instead of using not and notnot, why don't you two judgefags use your own handles?
Will it be a Mountain with Thespian's Stage's second ability, or will it ONLY be a Mountain?
How many triggers would I get from Shapers' Sanctuary if I use Spellskite on a spell with multiple instances of the word "target," for example Common Bond?
There are a couple of scenarios with this. I'm going to start with Common Bond. Let's say Opponent casts Common Bond targetting Creature A and B. You activate Spellskite, causing it to become the target of the spell, putting two +1/+1 counters on it and drawing a card from Shapers' Sanctuary. Pretty easy, right? Shapers' Sanctuary doesn't count how many different instances of targets there are per spell, only how many targets are being targetted by the spell.
Let's look at Electrolyze. If your opponent casts it on only one other creature, you change the target to Spellskite, drawing one card for Spellskite and one for the other creature that was targetted. If your opponent casts it targetting two of your creatures that aren't Spellskite, you can only change one of those targets to Spellskite (because the spell says two targets, and Electrolyze is already targetting Spellskite after the first activation. So you'd draw two from the initial two creatures being targetted, and one more from Spellskite getting targetted.
In all scenarios, you can only draw one additional card from Shaper's Sanctuary when an opponent casts a multi-target spell not targetting Spellskite. Note that if you have two Spellskites, you can pass around the targetting and Shapers' Sanctuary triggers every time, essentially giving you Pay 2 life: Draw a card.
Ahh, quick addendum that I neglected to mention - in the case of Common Bond, you'd need to activate the ability twice for it to get both counters. You only change one of the targets each time. But since your creature is already a target of Common Bond, you still only draw one card, because it's already a target of Common Bond after the first activation.
So what happens if I have Lich's Mirror out and I get 10 poison counters on me?
If I play a Disciple of Bolas with Inalla as my commander and make a token can I make them sacrifice eachother? When I look online people say yes but my group all said no including the judge.
Unfortunately for you, you still lose the game. Lich's mirror only prevents the first loss, but as soon as the game state is checked again after Lich's mirror resolves, the game sees that you have 10 poison counters and you lose the game. All loss conditions in Magic, aside from those found on cards like Door to Nothingness, are constantly checked.
What's the reasoning behind saying no? Here's how the sequence plays out:
>Disciple of Bolas enters the battlefield. Inalla's ability triggers. Its ETB ability triggers. Both go on the stack in any order you choose. Because you're not dumb, you put its ETB ability on the stack, then the copy ability.
>Copy ability resolves. You choose to pay. Token is created. Token Disciple of Bolas's ETB ability triggers and goes on the stack above Nontoken Disciple of Bolas's ETB ability.
>Token Disciple of Bolas's ETB ability resolves. You choose to sacrifice Nontoken Disciple of Bolas, losing 2 life and drawing two cards.
>Nontoken Disciple of Bolas's ETB ability resolves. You choose to sacrifice Token Disciple of Bolas, losing 2 life and drawing two cards.
Common misconceptions that might be related:
-Removing a trigger after its ETB ability goes on the stack doesn't cause its ETB ability to fizzle unless it targetted itself. Abilities exist independent of their source.
-"Another" in MTG syntax doesn't mean "Nothing with the same name as this", it just means "not this object". Two Disciples of Bolas can sacrifice each other.
Because I'm not creative and want to bandwagon of gA's success.
Actually that's a good question. I've honestly never considered it.
A mountain with Stage's ability. Stage's copy effect does two things, permanently changes it into a mountain, and gives it's Stage's ability. That's not a leftover from Mirror.
You shuffle up, draw a fresh seven, go back to twenty life... and immediately die because you still have 10 poison counters.
Absolutely! Disciple enters, both Inalla and Disciple's ability triggers, since you control them both you can put them on the stack in any order (you want to put Disciple on first, then Inalla), Inalla resolves, making another Disciple, that Disciple triggers, that Disciple resolves and can sac the first one, then the first one's ability resolves (even though it's been sacraficed), and can sac the other Disciple. End result is +4 life and +4 cards.
Kytheon, Hero of Akros/Gideon Battle-Forged
Planewalker side +0 says: Becomes a 4/4 soldier with Indestructible. THEN in addition he says: 'prevent all damage that would be dealt to him.'
But Indestructible already grants immunity to damage. I suppose the reiteration has something to do with how loyalty counters? Either way that not part of my question.
Assume I cast “Hour of Devastation”. All creatures loose Indestructible, but Gideon will still prevent all of that damage done to him due to the repetitive damage prevention? Yes No?
When is MtG going to die and make way for mo betta games?
Thanks, now I just need to try and convince them now that I'm sure and won't just give in
The answer to your question is yes, Gids will prevent all the damage he would receive from Hour of Devastation.
I just want to point out that indestructible does not prevent damage, something that's indestructible just can't be destroyed from lethal damage. If he didn't have the "prevent all damage part" he would lose loyalty counters when he takes damage, the indestructible part is mainly there to stop doom blade effects, I assume.