DDR 

I totally thought it did. I literally included Guardians of Oboro and Sky Tether in my cube because I thought it was cute. Very sad.

That's so weird that the CR just doesn't include the word "total"

Pretty clearly a CR typo that should be fixed. Saddle works just like Crew here.

No, it needs to be valid before the Aura is attached. Rule 303.4f "If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player's control by any means other than resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it on to the battlefield doesn't specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield. The player must *choose a legal object according to the Aura's enchant ability* and any other applicable effects."

They must attach to a valid object if able or are immediately moved to the GY, so I believe this doesn't work. I don't believe returning multiple Auras work either, since they all have to attach at once (not using the stack). I also don't think this works with, say, a creature that gets +1/+1 counters on aura/enchantment/etc ETB as this seems to happen before any triggers are put on the stack. Now, if there is a spell that says, "put [target] aura from X onto the battlefield attached to Y", I believe that might work as the resolution of the spell specifically states the attachment, and whether the attachment is legal or not is only checked afterwards.

​@@bluerendar2194 something returning an aura to the battlefield attached to a specific object has the same requirements as returning it attached to anything. 303.4i: If an effect attempts to put an Aura onto the battlefield attached to either an object or player it can't legally enchant or an object or player that is undefined, the Aura remains in its current zone, unless that zone is the stack. In that case, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard instead of entering the battlefield. If the Aura is a token, it isn't created.

@@seandun7083 Neat!

Nice. It's the same reason why you can't attach an aura to a permanent that has protection from one of its characteristics, I reckon

The situation they feared about, which is pacifism accidentally turning on opposing modification requirements, also doesn't really matter. It's not even that powerful to begin with so nobody cares and wouldn't have been consequential in a draft in kamigaw

@@thanhavictus are you sure about that? Let's count the commons and uncommons for which it's relevant: Upriser Renegade Towashi Guidebot Lethal Exploit Walking Skyscraper Ambitious Assault Flame Discharge Kami's Flare Unforgiving One Heir of the Ancient Fang And let's count the auras that could create that situation: Awakened Awareness Clawing Torment Short Circuit Tamiyo's Completion Intercessor's Arrest It would come up quite a bit and they decided that all else being equal, they would make the decision to avoid feel bads.

But why though? It says "you control" in the reminder text and it's really on the low end in terms of mechanical complexity compared to stuff like mutate, disguise or even ninjutsu.

Shouldn't work as auras only ever self-attach to valid targets. If the reanimate spell/effect specifies to attach (without mentioning valid target), then it should work as the check then only happens afterwards.

I wondered this too, but it doesn't work. Here's the relevant rule: "303.4f. If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player's control by any means other than by resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it onto the battlefield doesn't specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield. The player must choose a legal object or player according to the Aura's enchant ability and any other applicable effects."

The answer is no, because whether it’s from casting the aura spell or another method of attachment, you can still only attach it to a legal target, which a non-modified creature is not.

It only affects ifs that are in that specific place. (Given the if's placement in the example order, I'm pretty sure that by "trigger condition" last sentence meant the event that caused it to trigger rather than the condition the intervening if must fulfill) 603.4: A triggered ability may read "When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect]." When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing. If the ability triggers, it checks the stated condition again as it resolves. If the condition isn't true at that time, the ability is removed from the stack and does nothing. Note that this mirrors the check for legal targets. This rule is referred to as the "intervening 'if' clause" rule. (The word "if" has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an "if" that immediately follows a trigger condition.)

​@@seandun7083 Selvala, Heart of The Wild says "Whenever a creature enters, draw a card IF blah blah blah" so is this different to what you described?

@@williamdrum9899 from the rulings on selvala, it seems like that ability only checks on resolution, not as it triggers. So it will always trigger, but only sometimes draw a card. The new creature’s power is compared to the power of each other creature on the battlefield as the first ability resolves. If another creature has the same or higher power than the new creature’s power, no one may draw a card.

This has to do with timing- that's super funny. Basically, doubling season and divine visitation are replacement effects. 603.2h An ability triggers only if its trigger event actually occurs. An event that’s prevented or replaced won’t trigger anything. Thus, the "when you do" statement checks that you created a 2/1 white cat- if you do, you put the reflexive trigged ability (when you do..) onto the stack. Similarly, for doubling season: 603.12a Normally, if the trigger event or events occur multiple times during the resolution of the spell or ability that created it, the reflexive triggered ability will trigger once for each of those times. However, if a resolving spell or ability includes a choice to pay a cost “any number of times” and creates a triggered ability that triggers “when [a player] pays [that cost] one or more times,” paying that cost one or more times causes the reflexive triggered ability to trigger only once. Thus, creating 2 cats means the reflexive triggered ability activates twice.

Similarly, the card "The Royal Scions" has an ultimate that begins "draw 4 cards. When you do..." If you replace one of those draws with a dredge, the reflexive "when you do..." part of the ultimate doesn't matter, meaning your missing a good amount of value 😢

No. It only applies if you control multiple that are legendary. You only have one. It's the same reason Spark Double and Jace, Cunning Castaway both work. 704.5j: If two or more legendary permanents with the same name are controlled by the same player, that player chooses one of them, and the rest are put into their owners' graveyards. This is called the "legend rule."

@@seandun7083 Thanks very much appreciate it 👍

No. Shroud stops it from being targeted, but not from being enchanted. 303.4i: If an effect attempts to put an Aura onto the battlefield attached to either an object or player it can't legally enchant or an object or player that is undefined, the Aura remains in its current zone, unless that zone is the stack. In that case, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard instead of entering the battlefield. If the Aura is a token, it isn't created.

@@seandun7083 I'm confused. Shroud prevents something from being enchanted? If an enchanted card gains shroud, Auras don't fall off.

@@alexzavoluk2271 Aura spells target. Since shroud says "can't be the target of spells or abilities", you can't cast an aura spell targeting something with shroud (or an opposing thing with hexproof). 303.4a: An Aura spell requires a target, which is defined by its enchant ability. Since all that hexproof and shroud do is stop things from being targeted, they won't make auras currently on something fall off. Protection will however since it says the thing "can't be enchanted". The "enchant " ability will also cause it to fall off if the object it is attached to isn't the right type of object. 303.4c: If an Aura is enchanting an illegal object or player as defined by its enchant ability and other applicable effects, the object it was attached to no longer exists, or the player it was attached to has left the game, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.) If an aura would enter the battlefield without being cast, you choose what it should be attached to as it enters (unless the thing tells you what to attach it to). This is something you *choose* as it enters; it doesn't use the stack and therefore doesn't need to target. Since it doesn't target, it ignores hexproof and shroud. It does however still need to be attached to something it could *already* legally enchant. This means something without protection and in Lion Umbra's case, something that is *already* modified. 303.4f: If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player's control by any means other than by resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it onto the battlefield doesn't specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield. The player must choose a legal object or player according to the Aura's enchant ability and any other applicable effects. Hope that helps.

​@@alexzavoluk2271If the creature with shroud is already modified, you can blink the Lion Umbra and then attach it to that creature. If it's not already modified, you cannot attach it because the conditions to enchant that creature have not been met.

The last extra turn effect to resolve will be the first one taken. 500.7: Some effects can give a player extra turns. They do this by adding the turns directly after the specified turn. If a player is given multiple extra turns, the extra turns are added one at a time. If multiple players are given extra turns, the extra turns are added one at a time, in APNAP order (see rule 101.4). The most recently created turn will be taken first.

A similar question was considered in DDR#256: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-E5MT5xxmtMk.html

Just pause

​@@jonathandrummel6075 But mostly when you wanna pause it's already gone, than you have to rewind, but than you rewind too far and now you have to search. That's annoying.

No, it needs to be valid before the Aura is attached. Rule 303.4f "If an Aura is entering the battlefield under a player's control by any means other than resolving as an Aura spell, and the effect putting it on to the battlefield doesn't specify the object or player the Aura will enchant, that player chooses what it will enchant as the Aura enters the battlefield. The player must *choose a legal object according to the Aura's enchant ability* and any other applicable effects."

Yeah, around 3 months or so ago, I think.

ANY counter causes a creature to count as modified, it does not matter who controls the source of the counter. The only case that cares about controller is auras, specifically because of auras like pacifism and WotC not wanting that to count as modified.

@@ethanlarge3572 bet so its just aura specific, thanks!

I mean, the reminder text does say Equipment, Auras *you control*, and counters are modifications. Also, pacifism type effects are pretty good in limited. In Neo alone we had Awakened Awareness, Clawing Torment, Short Circuit, Tamiyo's Compleation and Intercessor's Arrest all at common or uncommon.

The equipment side of that is because you can't regularly equip an opponent's creature; I think (although I'm not entirely sure) that counters don't have a controller due to them having no characteristics (Rule 122.1) so the game couldn't check who owns a counter. Whereas some auras are designed to be equipped to your opponent's permanents, and thus, it would create weird rulings and flavour issues if they were to count.

Yeah, I usually think the WotC rules team does a good job choosing between difficult options but this seems needlessly weird. The fact that an opponent's Pacifism might backfire is a surprising interaction but it makes sense. A creature no longer being modified because it was stolen is _bizarre._

I think it would be much better if they had made the rule without the condition about the controller. The pacifism case wouldn't be that bad, and the rules would be much simpler.