104.3f no longer a reminder rule?

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Let's say you control the new Laboratory Maniac, along with Nefarious Lich and no cards in your library or your graveyard. Point a Lightning Helix (or Taste of Blood, or any other cards of that ilk) at yourself.  Get Thrashing Wumpus or some other creature with a mass-damage effect, enchant it with Lifelink, and activate the Wumpus.

All the damage happens simultaneously, and all of it ends up invoking Nefarious Lich:
-the damage to you gets replaced by exiling cards from the graveyard, which you don't have so that's further replaced to "you lose the game"
-the damage to everything else is dealt as lifelink damage, so you would gain life concurrently with all the damage, except lifegain is replaced by drawing cards, and since you don't have any of those either, Laboratory Maniac further replaces it with "you win the game"

Which means rule 104.3f, holding its hand up eagerly and waiting for a chance to be called on ever since the timed single-elimination tournament rules were rewritten to make a player lose instead of making their opponent win, finally gets to chime in and say:
 104.3f. If a player would both win and lose the game simultaneously, he or she loses the game.


Right?
Both of the spell's effects happen simultaneously

This is false. Lightning Helix's instructions are followed sequentially, not simultaneously. 3 damage is dealt, which is replaced by losing the game. We never get to the instruction for gaining 3 life.
Why do they even use the "do A and do B" template over "Do A. Do B." for effects like that then?

In any case...the Helix can be replaced by Thrashing Wumpus enchanted with Lifelink. The damage to you gets replaced by exiling cards (and losing), and the damage to everything else sees lifelink concurrent with the damage, with the lifegain replaced by drawing cards (and winning, which loses out to losing). 
Why do they even use the "do A and do B" template over "Do A. Do B." for effects like that then?

Both wordings are at their disposal, and they can decide on a case by case bases which one reads better. Apparently in the case of Lightning Helix and Essence Drain they decided it would be better as a single sentence. That having been said, they decided the opposite for the nearly-identical Morbid Hunger and Spinning Darkness

If you want to tell whether something is sequential or simultaneous, your best bet is to count the number of verbs. 2 verbs = 2 sequential instructions. 1 verb = 1 simultaneous instruction.
Both of the spell's effects happen simultaneously

This is false. Lightning Helix's instructions are followed sequentially, not simultaneously. 3 damage is dealt, which is replaced by losing the game. We never get to the instruction for gaining 3 life.


Alright, then. Of course, I won't be able to think of one of the top of my head, but if anyone would be so kind as to give an example of where the win/lose rule does apply, it would be greatly appreciated.

And why was it chosen that if a player would both win and lose, that he would lose?

Orzhova Witness

Restarting Quotes Block
58086748 wrote:
58335208 wrote:
Disregard women acquire chase rares.
There are a lot of dudes for whom this is not optional.
97820278 wrote:
144532521 wrote:
How;s a 2 drop 1/2, Flying broken? What am I missing?
You're missing it because *turns Storm Crows sideways* all your base are belong to Chuck Norris and every other overused meme ever.
if anyone would be so kind as to give an example of where the win/lose rule does apply, it would be greatly appreciated.

It is extremely rare. It's possible that Laboratory Maniac opens the possibility of it actually occuring, but as of the release of Magic 2012, there were no known ways to do it.

A while ago, under rules which no longer exist, it was possible. The situation was as follows:

We are in a single-elimination tournament, and time has expired for the round. All extra turns have been played, but neither player has won. As a result, we are in the "sudden death" turns. For the rest of the game, there is an additional state-based action which says "if a player has more life than all others, that player wins the game". A player has an empty library. That player casts Zap targetting the opponent. The opponent drops 1, and the player fails to draw a card. When state-based actions are checked, the player simultaneously wins the game (for having more life) and loses the game (for failing to draw).

This interaction was only possible because of the existence of a state-based action which could cause a player to win the game. All others cause a player to lose the game. This particular situation can no longer occur because the tournament rules were changed so that the extra state-based action is a lose-the-game instruction.
And why was it chosen that if a player would both win and lose, that he would lose?

When the added the rule, there were no known ways for it to happen. It was mostly a just-in-case rule. If the situation ever arose, the rulebook needed to have an answer. What that answer was frankly wasn't that critical, and losing seemed good enough.
I already did mention an answer in post 3. I should probably update the first post with the new scenario.
Just a terminological thing really, but it was never a reminder rule. A reminder rule would be one that never actually mattered because it already followed from other rules. For example, removing the rule that says multiple instances of Flying are redundant would make no difference to any conceviable situation, because it's already a reasonably obvious consequence of how Flying is defined.

This rule is there precisely because the situation it talks about isn't handled (at least not well) by other existing rules. It had no known pre-Innistrad application, but for a very different reason; there were no existing cards that could make it matter, though there certainly were imaginable ones.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Sign In to post comments