Disciple of Griselbrand

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
1st question:

Let's say I have a [C] disciple of griselbrand [/C] in play with a [C] stromkirk noble [/C] that has a [C]
Strata Scythe[/C] equipped that gives it an extra say, 5 power.

If I sac the noble using disciples ability, would I get 6 life (1 power from the noble and 5 from the Scythe?)

In other words, are the affects of artifacts counted

2nd question:

If I did the above, and someone responded to the [C] disciple of griselbrand [/C] with a [C] Shock [/C]. Could I just pay one more mana and activate the ability in response again? If so could I select the same creature of would it have to be a different creature?
1st question:

Let's say I have a [C] disciple of griselbrand [/C] in play with a [C] stromkirk noble [/C] that has a [C]
Strata Scythe[/C] equipped that gives it an extra say, 5 power.

If I sac the noble using disciples ability, would I get 6 life (1 power from the noble and 5 from the Scythe?)

In other words, are the affects of artifacts counted


If the Noble's toughness is 6, then that's how much life you gain.  You include bonuses from counters or the scythe or Giant Growth, etc.


2nd question:

If I did the above, and someone responded to the [C] disciple of griselbrand [/C] with a [C] Shock [/C]. Could I just pay one more mana and activate the ability in response again? If so could I select the same creature of would it have to be a different creature?


Yes, you could activate it again.  You would have to choose a different creature, since the first one is already gone from the sacrifice.
 
Note that destroying the disciple in response to its activated ability won't prevent its ability from resolving.
All Generalizations are Bad

Yes, you could activate it again.  You would have to choose a different creature, since the first one is already gone from the sacrifice.
 



So would I still get the life from the first creature or would the shock resolve first?


Yes, you could activate it again.  You would have to choose a different creature, since the first one is already gone from the sacrifice.
 



So would I still get the life from the first creature or would the shock resolve first?



Both.  The shock resolves first, then the activated ability resolves and you gain the life.
 
Are you sure? Here's my understanding of the way things happen:

1) Disciple uses ability, but it doesn't get a chance to resolve until
2) Player 2 uses shock, which doesn't get a chance to resolve until
3) Disciple of Griselbrand pays 1 mana to sacrifice a creature.

They would resolve in order 3>2>1. So if a player declares that they're sacrificing the stromkirk noble to gain 6 life, then their opponent uses Shock on the disciple of griselbrand to kill it. In response, the controller of the disciple could pay 1 mana and select the Stromkirk noble as the target creature once more. 

Then if both players agreed to stop activating abilities/playing instants, the stromkirk dies, jesse73553 gains 6 life, and then the disciple of griselbrand dies from Shock; preventing the first activated ability in the stack from resolving (even though it wouldn't resolve anyway, since the targeted creature is now missing from play.) 
Note that destroying the disciple in response to its activated ability won't prevent its ability from resolving.



yeah, i am just not getting this... Why would the activated ability still resolve if the shock was on top of the stack? Sorry....

Are you sure? Here's my understanding of the way things happen:

1) Disciple uses ability, but it doesn't get a chance to resolve until
2) Player 2 uses shock, which doesn't get a chance to resolve until
3) Disciple of Griselbrand pays 1 mana to sacrifice a creature.


Stop here.
In step 1 you pay the mana and sacrifice the creature.  You pay costs when you activate the abiliy, not when the ability resolves.


They would resolve in order 3>2>1. So if a player declares that they're sacrificing the stromkirk noble to gain 6 life, then their opponent uses Shock on the disciple of griselbrand to kill it. In response, the controller of the disciple could pay 1 mana and select the Stromkirk noble as the target creature once more. 

Then if both players agreed to stop activating abilities/playing instants, the stromkirk dies, jesse73553 gains 6 life, and then the disciple of griselbrand dies from Shock; preventing the first activated ability in the stack from resolving (even though it wouldn't resolve anyway, since the targeted creature is now missing from play.) 


Destroying the source of an ability doesn't stop the ability from resolving.  (The usual example is Mogg Fanatic being useless otherwise).

 
yeah, i am just not getting this... Why would the activated ability still resolve if the shock was on top of the stack? Sorry....

Because an ability on the stack isn't dependent on its source still being on the battlefield to resolve.

Are you sure? Here's my understanding of the way things happen:

1) Disciple uses ability, but it doesn't get a chance to resolve until
2) Player 2 uses shock, which doesn't get a chance to resolve until
3) Disciple of Griselbrand pays 1 mana to sacrifice a creature.

They would resolve in order 3>2>1. So if a player declares that they're sacrificing the stromkirk noble to gain 6 life, then their opponent uses Shock on the disciple of griselbrand to kill it. In response, the controller of the disciple could pay 1 mana and select the Stromkirk noble as the target creature once more. 

Then if both players agreed to stop activating abilities/playing instants, the stromkirk dies, jesse73553 gains 6 life, and then the disciple of griselbrand dies from Shock; preventing the first activated ability in the stack from resolving (even though it wouldn't resolve anyway, since the targeted creature is now missing from play.)

The creature is sacrificed to disciple of grisselbrand as part of the cost of activating the ability. The noble is gone before player 2 can cast shock. If the disciple's controller decides to sacrifice a second creature to the disciple in response to the shock, both creatures will be gone. Then the stack will start to resolve.

First the second disciple activation will resolve, then the shock will resolve destroying the disciple, then the original disciple activation will resolve. 
All Generalizations are Bad



Because an ability on the stack isn't dependent on its source still being on the battlefield to resolve.






This is what I am not understanding. Do you have the rule # for this so I can look it up. I am trying to find it but not having much luck. Also, is this only activated abilities that can resolve even if their source died ahead of them on the stack or all abilities?

The creature is sacrificed to disciple of grisselbrand as part of the cost of activating the ability.



Ah. I missed that distinction. Thanks.
 This is what I am not understanding. Do you have the rule # for this so I can look it up. I am trying to find it but not having much luck. Also, is this only activated abilities that can resolve even if their source died ahead of them on the stack or all abilities?

Both activated and triggered abilities. Static abilities stop working immediately when the object they're on leaves the battlefield.


112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.

All Generalizations are Bad



Because an ability on the stack isn't dependent on its source still being on the battlefield to resolve.






This is what I am not understanding. Do you have the rule # for this so I can look it up. I am trying to find it but not having much luck. Also, is this only activated abilities that can resolve even if their source died ahead of them on the stack or all abilities?



You could think about it like this: It isn't the Disciple of Griselbrand who is going onto the stack. Rather, it's the ability "You gain life equal to the sacrificed creature's toughness" that goes on the stack. The Disciple just let you put it there while he was on the battlefield.
is this only activated abilities that can resolve even if their source died ahead of them on the stack or all abilities?



Triggered abilities can too.

Static abilities of Permanents don't use the Stack.
Triggered and static abilities of Spells will have their effects while no player has Priority,
so you have no opportunity to stop them.


  
      


          

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)

is this only activated abilities that can resolve even if their source died ahead of them on the stack or all abilities?



Triggered abilities can too.

Static abilities of Permanents don't use the Stack.
Triggered and static abilities of Spells will have their effects while no player has Priority,
so you have no opportunity to stop them.


I don't know what you're trying to say, but it didn't come out right.    Triggered abilities from spells are just like any other triggered ability, they use the stack and can be responded to.
 

Corrected. Thanks!


 

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)