(4*) Does Altar of the Pantheon still work after being turned into an Elk? Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2... A: Yes
This is why you're the GOAT. Explaining the reasoning behind this and not falling back on "Aren't layers weird?" was really educational. You're a great ambassador for the rules and judges as a whole!
Howing how many things would break by trying to "make it make sense" makes this video great. People complain so much, and i understand it, about the weird corner cases, without thinking how much sense everything else makes with the rules as-is
Love the extra effort to explain the reasoning. My crack at fixing this problem is to implement a dependency system. Removing abilities should...remove abilities, so just simply say that the functioning of an ability is dependent on whether or not it's being removed, and put said removal first in those cases.
I'm curious, what would change if removing abilities always applied first ? wouldn't that just remove all problems relating to magus of the moon and the likes ? or does it have some unintended consequences ?
That would make it impossible to add abilities afterwards, which is currently possible with timestamps. Unless of course you also applied effects *adding* abilities first, but that should probably happen after copying and control effects. Also this way you could never remove abilities from a copy if the copying effect doesn't come from the permanent itself.
I think I understand the reasoning behind the choices to make layers, but I’ll be honest, it’s still hard for me to tell when things “magnus of the moons effect would still trigger or not” will happen.
Great explanation! A similar ruling I always felt was "off" was that you can play delve cards for less than 3 mana with trinisphere in play. I always assumed that this ruling was made to prevent a mess somewhere else, but I never figured out why exactly
702.66a Delve is a static ability that functions while the spell with delve is on the stack. “Delve” means “For each generic mana in this spell’s total cost, you may exile a card from your graveyard rather than pay that mana.” The ruling you are talking about is the way it is because Delve is not modifying the cost in any way. It just provides an alternative method to pay for that mana cost. You still are casting the spell for at least 3 mana. You are just paying some of that cost by exiling cards. For example let's suppose you want to cast Gurmag Angler with a trinisphere and a lot of cost reduction on the table. Grumags cost is {6}{B}. Let's say you have an effect that reduces its cost by at least {6}. That reduction is applied and now the cost is {B}. Then trinispheres effect applies. The cost is now {2}{B}. You can cast Grumag by paying {B} and exiling two cards. The total mana you pay and number of cards you exile to cast a spell with delve while Trinisphere is on the table will always be at least 3
What the other person explained is also true for Convoke as well. The difference is basically whether you have an alternate way to pay vs an alternate (or modified) cost.
Leaving that other comment made me think, what if you combo with Opalescence to Exchange of Words its own text away? I guess the fact that it depends on itself means there's no real dependency to resolve, and once the effect starts to be applied, it must fully apply, therefore the exchange really does happen? What about the "as long as it's on the battlefield" clause after the swap, does that look at the Exchange of Words (which no longer has the ability) because that's where the effect started to apply, or at the other creature because that's the one that currently has the ability?
This one makes me double down on my take that dependency rules should apply ACROSS layers not just within them. Most people's intuition says that since loses abilities would cause the ability not to happen, then it shouldn't happen - in other words, the dependency cause & effect concept directly follows the intuition! And just how they already work with tiebreakers for circular dependencies or no dependency, you can still go through layers if you need to. So: (0:12) Loses abilities (Oko) is not affected by devotion increasing ability; devotion increasing ability IS affected by losing abilities. Based on dependency, Oko happens first, devotion increase doesn't happen, devotion can then be calculated normally for other effects. (0:53) Oko not affected by land type change + land type change affected by Oko => Oko happens first, lands don't change. (2:12) Nylea depends on devotion which depends on Altar effect + Altar effect doesn't depend on Nylea being a creature => Altar happens first, devotion is determined one higher than normal, Nylea is a creature. (2:57) Devotion depends on Clone's copiable attributes / whether you control a creature + Clone's attributes / control of creature doesn't depend on devotion => Clone copy happens first, then devotion is determined based on copied attributes, then devotion effects use that value. [I also note that a copy effect may be created by a condition, but rarely if ever remains conditional continuously thereafter, so copies will basically always be at the top of the dependency chain, in agreement with their layer position.] (4:06) Any ability is dependent on which text box it's in + Exchange of Words does not depend on devotion = works fine Obviously I'm including "determination of a value" as part of interaction of continuous effects, since at least this value both can be affected by and can affect continuous effects.
I would assume it is because it is the only effect I can think of that directly changes devotion. It seems weird to introduce an entirely new layer for a one-off effect.
@@seandun7083 I guess. But if they named it the new layer 4, that would confuse so many rule discussions, as layer 4 is now layer 5 and so on. If it were me, I would add a step to the type layer for devotion.
The reason is kind of technical. Layers are for continuous effects that change the characteristics of permanents. This effect isn't doing that; it's helping calculate a game value. The fact that this game value is derived from the characteristics of permanents is similar, but not exactly the same.
I don't think it really does anything interesting. Animate dead's etb doesn't target so if you copy it it will just attempt to return the same thing twice, but the second time it will fail since it's no longer in the graveyard. Losing "enchant card in graveyard" twice and gaining "enchant card put onto the battlefield with AD" twice shouldn't do anything either.
@@seandun7083 you’re copying the activated ability of animate dead so you actually steal their creature and it comes in without the animate dead attached
@@iP3RFEKTIONoO The etb triggered ability (activated are the ones with : ) doesn't say "return target creature card to the battlefield", it says "return enchanted creature card to the battlefield" which refers to the card AD is enchanting with it's "enchant a creature card in a graveyard ability". After the first trigger resolves, it will no longer be enchanting a creature card in a graveyard, so the second trigger won't do anything. Now if you use it on Necromancy's triggered ability instead, then you should be able to reanimate two creatures since that ability gets back target creature.
@@seandun7083 I have seen this brought up on Twitter that’s why I’m asking for it to be clarified in a video many people are saying the “ NAP gets the creature, AP’s animate dead fails to enchant the creature card cause it’s no longer in the graveyard and as a result, falls off the creature under NAPs control and goes to the graveyard. Since Animate Dead leaves the battlefield, NAP sacrifices the creature.” “Close! It doesn’t fall off. There’s nothing on Animate Dead stipulating that its controller has to be the one controlling the creature. NAP just gets the creature.”
@@iP3RFEKTIONoO Oh, I missed that you were copying an opponent's trigger rather than copying your own. Yeah the person who copied the trigger would get the creature and then animate dead would get attached to it and the original trigger would do nothing. Interesting interaction.
This video really made me aware that Layers are surprisingly well thought out. On that note though, since I've had a hard time puzzling this one out: Amy controls Eriette the Beguiler, an Agatha's Soul Cauldron, and Nick's Alpine Grizzly with a +1/+1 counter on it that she has enchanted with Indestructibility, while Nick controls a Grizzly Bear. Amy has exiled a Corrupting Licid with the Cauldron. What happens when Amy activates the Alpine Grizzly's effect to become an Aura, targeting Nick's Grizzly Bear? And if the Alpine Grizzly was enchanted with Enchant Creature instead of Enchant Permanent?
In your example, I assume you Played Eriette, then enchanted the Alpine Grizzly with Indestructible, triggering Eriette, and gaining control. Then the hijinks with the Soul Cauldron, exiling the Corrupting Licid, putting the Counter onto the Alpine Grizzly, then are attempting to Activate the Licid ability of the Alpine, targeting the Grizzly Bears. My understanding is that the Indestructable Bear-Licid will function exactly as intended, becoming an Enchantment - Aura attached to the Grizzly Bears. At this point Eriette will trigger and give you control of the Grizzly Bears (With Fear). In your hypothetical (Say Enchantment had "Enchant Creature" instead) the Aura would fall off while attempting to transform itself with the Licid's Ability. You have activated and paid the costs. The ability is on the stack, even though as you activate it you lose control, the ability will still resolve, transforming your opponent's Alpine Grizzly into an enchantment that they will control on their Grizzly Bears. As such Eriette will not trigger to gain control of the Grizzly Bears. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.
@@thenamedoesnotmatter got it, so make sure to only use auras that can stick to Enchantments and Creatures for the Licid double-steal. Perhaps use one of Blue's more standard steal auras to take something expensive (Confiscate iirc), then Licid-ify that expensive creature to steal other things. Probably the only practical use for this interaction. Thank you for the help!
@@thenamedoesnotmatter oh actually: In the hypothetical where they control the Alpine Grizzly Aura: Who can pay B to return it to being a creature? I'm aware it's a special action like Morph to do so, I just don't know which player can activate it (since I controlled the ability, I think it's me? But opponent controls the Aura, so I'm not sure)
@@researchinbreeder whoever activated that permanent's ability, regardless of however it got to that point would be the "you" referred to in the ability's text. Even if you no longer control that permenant by the time the ability finishes resolving.
The game could just cash the previous devotion calculation if we calculated it after all effects apply at SBA speed. The game would arrive at a stable state after 1 SBA.
Let's say that would be the case and you are playing a commander game. You control Daxos, Blessed by the Sun and your devotion to white is 2 at the moment. Opponent1 controls Grasp of Fate with Altar of the Pantheon that you own exiled under it. Opponent2 casts Unite the Coalition and chooses (among other) to deal 2 damage to your Daxos and to destroy Grasp of Fate. The spell resolves and because Grasp left the field your Altar returns. Then SBA are checked. Daxos has 2 toughness and 2 damage marked on it. Altars effect just started applying. So simultaneously Daxos is destroyed and your devotion to white is updated to 3. As you can see Opponent2 just saved himself a mode of Unite the Coalition because he's a huge nerd. You also know that they only did that because they wanted to flex their rules knowledge. Your Daxos was no threat to them
Damn, I was hoping to just give my 3 year old the rules and let them learn in an afternoon. How long could the comprehensive rules for a children's card game be anyway?
I don't understand layers at 30 years old so teaching them to a 3 year old is unnecessary, especially for them to hit you with a 2/2 bear and play a forest 🤣
please explain why he game feels it is necessary to censor and remove/change wording and abelites. Love your videos. I'm speaking about specifically tribal for kindred, naga to snake and viashino to lizard. There are more but i'll leave it at 3 examples. (Stone-throwing devils being banned)
@@gauwal no I mean what does it mean for the rules, what if my opponent is playing a stone-throwing devils or makes a card that produces a stone-throwing devils (glittering wish or Richard Garfield ph.d or a booster tutor or discord, lord of chaos) or an effect of naming a card type that doesn’t exist anymore with a tribal viashino or other extinct card type. Why remove naga and viashino? What about cards that interact with a lizard and viashino differently? What about side board cards that are tribal cards but your opponent plays “look at me, i’m the DCI” and names Eldrazi conscription, only to pull out an R&D’s secret lair, but you use magical hack to rename mountain to plains and artificial evolution to name eldrazi on eldrazi conscription into phyrexian, only for the kindred discovery naming fiends triggers from exchange of words replacing the text of realmwalker and magus of the moon, arcane adaptation naming fiends and conspiracy naming eldrazi and psychic paper naming eldrazi conscription because reflections of littjara are creature type phyrexian
"The game" being Wizards of the Coasts, are a company that has been focused on inclusion for a long time. They have stopped working with artists that are against that notion many times in the past, as well as making problematic cards not legal as you said. They feel it necessary because they care about when their players have bad feelings because the person sitting across from them is using their cards to invoke some kind of bigoted vibe. They care about how people feel when they play their game, that's mostly the reason.
I believe the official word on why Tribal was renamed to Kindred was because of unfortunate associates of the word Tribal outside the game, and Hasbro/WotC deciding that it would be easier just to not have that be a potential problem the next time they ended up wanting to use the mechanic (hence taking the opportunity to rename the mechanic in the upcoming set). Viashino to Lizard isn't really a censorship issue, that's more of the "Great Creature Type Consolidation" event, where WotC was like "We have too many creature types, and some of them are incredibly underused for no real benefit." So lumping some of them into broader types was their way of 'cleaning things up' a bit. If something 'looks like a lizard', it should probably be a lizard, essentially. Naga being folded into Snake didn't happen during the Great Consolidation, though. It happened later, as a result of the popularity of Streamers using MTGO/Arena. If you aren't speaking particularly clearly, or have any sort of accent (or even if the algorithmic auto-detection is just a little too sensitive today), you might find yourself demonetized or TOS-strike'd if you choose "Naga" as a creature type for some effect. That, combined with the counter-intuitiveness of Nagas somehow not being Snakes despite, y'know, *being snakes*, made it feel like a reasonable update. That all said, Stone-Throwing Devils, and the other handful of cards that *were* banned on censorship grounds, due to racist/offensiveness, either in their art (Invoke Prejudice), or references associated with their name (JIhad). Stone-Throwing Devils falls into the latter category - the phrase has unfortunate connotations to Palestinian protestors during the first Intidada throwing stones at Israeli soldiers in protest (and in particular invites this comparison both from the rhetoric of the time; also given the fact that this is an Arabian Nights card, inviting the connection that these are *Arabian* Stone-throwing Devils). On the other hand, the flavor-text is making reference to a Christian biblical passage (specifically one of Jesus's teaching moments talking about stoning), and turning that reference on its head. Even if we accept that the card itself is not intending to make any specific statement about stone-throwing, the fact that it evokes all that baggage, even unintentionally, would make any large corporation hesitant to want to go there. The other cards in the 'censorship group' each have their own 'baggage the company doesn't want to deal with' in one way or another; if they find they dearly want the card effect to continue to exist in the game, they can always make a functional reprint with a less problematic name/art. In short the 'why they feel it is necessary' (on the censorship side) is usually out of a abundance of caution or desire not to be associated with certain forms of political or religious controversy or certain real-world events. At the end of the day, they're a corporation, and that's how corporations roll.
