How would a creature enchanted with an aura with totem armor work out against Planar Cleansing
Read Hyena Umbra's rulings.
6/15/2010: If a spell or ability (such as Planar Cleansing) would destroy both an Aura with totem armor and the permanent it's enchanting at the same time, totem armor's effect will save the enchanted permanent from being destroyed. Instead, the spell or ability will destroy the Aura in two different ways at the same time, but the result is the same as destroying it once.
Planar Cleansing tries to destroy, simultaneously, both the creature and the aura.
The Totem Armor ability substitutes the "destroy that creature" event with "destroy this aura".
Then, the aura is destroyed (twice) and the creature survives.
How would a creature enchanted with an aura with totem armor work out against Planar Cleansing
Totem armor replaces the destruction of the creature with destruction of the aura, so all nonland permanents other than the creature will be destroyed, with the aura will be destroyed twice simultaneously (which is pretty much indistinguishable from being destroyed once)
Only once. A single regeneration shield is enough to replace any number of simultaneous destructions. A more common example of this would be lethal damage + deathtouch.
Since we're on the subject of regenerating twice:I know a Masticore only has to regenerate once from Akroma's Vengeance. What about Decimate? There's still only one verb, but if you target the masticore as the creature and the artifact, does it have to regenerate twice?
108516289 wrote:Think of how Neo couldn't beat the robots, but they kept him around anyways to defeat Agent Smith. Sure, the robots might not like having a Neo running rampant because instead of playing their favorite 4 drop fatty robot, they have to play a bunch of one mana Matrixs to contain him, but at least Neo keeps Agent Smith from reanimating an Iona on turn two.
139359831 wrote:Are you saying I'm trying to blame my loss on something? I don't care that I lost, I care that he's a sore loser, and a cheater, and a liar.
144902215 wrote:CKY, are you bad at anything?
144902215 wrote:I really enjoy imagining this from Kevin's perspective. Because in Kevin's world, Rosewater actually reads everything he types. Mark is sitting there right now, reading this, and thinking "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled. . ." Or some such. He chuckles low, then clicks on "The Best Of KEVINSET" and says "Yes, this'll do just fine. A busty lady with banding who deals direct damage to Zones!? Why this will be the star of my next set, and no one will ever believe you Kevin." Then he closes his Macbook, so his servant may move it out of the way, while another servant puts a Fetal Richard Garfield Clone lathered in Steak Sauce in front of him. Then Mark Feasts.
I mean, In KevinWorld, Mark is reading the very words I'm typing as well. Heck, in KevinWorld maybe I am Mark.
99964981 wrote:I'm beginning to think CKY may be anime in real life...
57150868 wrote:Don't go anywhere CKY, I need to crash dramatically through your window and propose marriage and I don't want you throwing off my paradrop.
63588923 wrote:[In response to a thread about how hard grading is]
Upon reading this, I've found myself completely unable to operate in the world. I tried to decide what to eat for breakfast, and pondered the vast consequences of my choice. How do I balance my dietary needs against my desire to eat good-tasting food? Should I factor in how long it takes to prepare? Cereal is ready in moments, but bacon takes longer to cook.
Then there is the impact on other industries. Do people in the cereal industry deserve to be employed more than people in the bacon industry? Which industry should I support? I don't even have the data regarding HOW MUCH the cereal industry benefits from me eating a bowl of cereal, or how much the bacon industry benefits from me eating a side of bacon. How can I compare two qualities I can't even quantify?
And let's not forget the milk on the cereal. In addition to determining whether or not milk is healthy for me, how much that benefits the milk industry, and how much the people in the milk industry deserve my support, we have to factor in the fact that cows are put under brutal conditions in order to collect thier milk. Of course, the same goes for the pigs, and then they get killed. Of course, I really like bacon. So I need to come up with a scale that compares the value of cow happiness to pig happiness to my happiness. What trade-offs am I willing to make here? Does the fact that the pig gets put out of its misery count as a plus or a minus? Isn't bacon bad for me anyway?
Deciding what to eat for breakfast (or any meal) is impossible. Help me!
104339228 wrote:I must admit chinkeeyong, you have the most interesting character ideas; and you play them well.
144902215 wrote:Anyway, you'd be surprised about Time Stop. When I first saw that card as a relatively new player I didn't see its full potential until I read the reminder text. Is it that unintuitive, though? Mine I mean. What is possibility? Is it possible for me to type these words with my tusks? No, because I don't have tusks. Although I am now tempted to go buy some - obviously not from poachers or whatever - and use them as typing apparatus. I could be the best secretary ever. "What's your words per minute sir?" "Well, only six, but I use these tusks to type them." "You're hired!" That was the interview. And is anyone else disappointed that "apparati" is not the plural form of apparatus? I just could strangle a dictionary, because "apparatuses" is a real word. I guess it sounds pretty cool. I'll call them my Apparatusks.
DCI Level 2 Judge
"That's what's so stupid about the whole magic thing, you know," Rincewind said. "You spend twenty years learning the spell that makes nude virgins appear in your bedroom, and then you're so poisoned by quicksilver fumes and half-blind from reading old grimoires that you can't remember what happens next."
- Terry Pratchett, The Colour Of Magic
If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one thousand, people might notice;
If I steal a hundred dollar from a loot of one million, I might get away with it;
If I wish to steal even more and still go unnoticed, I need to make the loot bigger.
Now you know why taxes always go up.
Looting: «the plundering of public assets by corrupt or greedy authorities» (Wikipedia)
So pluri-targetting an object with Decimate still tries to destroy it only once......while if I Decimate both a creature and its Totem Armor, the Armor needs two Regeneration shileds, right?(although both situations sum up to «Decimate trying to destroy the same object twice.»)
Could someone provide rules references please for why the Akroma/Decimate thing leads to different numbers of regenerates needed?
Akroma+totem armour interaction vs Decimate on the same target twice. Any rules reference to distinguish them?
701.11. Regenerate701.11a If the effect of a resolving spell or ability regenerates a permanent, it creates a replacement effect that protects the permanent the next time it would be destroyed this turn. In this case, "Regenerate [permanent]" means "The next time [permanent] would be destroyed this turn, instead remove all damage marked on it and tap it. If it's an attacking or blocking creature, remove it from combat."
I fail to see how you understand the logic behind the SBAs but think a different logic would apply here when the rules in no way suggest that.
Does anyone have any evidence/ruling about Decimate, whether it actually destroys a permanent twice if it's chosen as two of the targets?
Decimate has four targets. Each has its own use of the word "target". If there is one permanent on the battlefield that's an artifact, a creature, an enchantment and a land all at once, then Decimate could target that one permanent four times. It would only be destroyed once, though.
But i have no idea the credentials of the person making this ruling, nor do they describe the reason behind it.
Hmm, thanks. I guess that's not an official ruling then.
The general rule is that you count the number of verbs. Each verb is a separate action.Decimate's text is "Destroy target artifact, target creature, target enchantment, and target land." That is one verb, and therefore all four things are destroyed as part of one action.The same appled to Akroma's Vengeance; one verb, one action.The SBAs would appear to have two verbs; one in 704.5g and one in 704.5h. Therefore, we would expect that there are two separate destroy actions for a creature dealt lethal damage, some or all of which is from a source with Deathtouch. That would imply that you need to regenerate twice.You regenerate only once because rule 704.3 overrides the normal convention of "one verb one action" in the case of SBAs. There's no such rule for resolving spells and abilities, because you just apply the regular convention.Similarly there is only one verb in Akroma's Vengeance. I conclude there is only one Destroy action, even if a particular object becomes subject to that action in multiple ways. Therefore you would only need to regenerate a Totem Armour once.
In that case it would only get one +1/+1 counter. That's why Seeds of Strength is worded the way it is. (Rather than "Target creature, target creature, and target creature get +1/+1 until end of turn" , though of course that wording would have been super awkward).