Stuffy Doll question

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
So my opponent has 3 life and I have 2 life. I have Stuffy Doll on my field and my opponent has 3, 3/3 tokens. 

If he attacked with all 3 tokens and I block with stuffy doll...

1) would i take combat damage first and lose

2) stuffy doll takes combat damage first and sends 3 damage to my opponent causing him to lose

3) a tie? 
Try

4) You and stuffy doll both take damage at the same time, then you lose.

Had you still been in the game, Stuffy Doll's ability would go on the stack (it's a triggered ability), then it would have to resolve for your opponent to lose.

Rules Advisor

Please autocard: [c]Shard Phoenix[/c] = Shard Phoenix.

alright cool thanks for your help
My own scenario real quick, if the beast you blocked had first strike, you would have won ironically.
Decks I run
Show
I currently run a deck for Standard, Modern, Commander and Legacy. For standard, I have a typical, horribly budget Rakdos Deck Wins. For Modern, I have a B/G/U/W Draw-go Reanimator featuring my favorite creature, Wurmcoil Engine. For Legacy, I'm trying too hard to break Pyromancer Ascension. I also run a Naya Zoo with all the oldies. For Commander/EDH, I'm running The Mimeoplasm. A little morals thing about me, I like winning through combos, but not infinitely. However quiet, I am a Christian, so feel free to tell me you are too, it's always a relief.
How to be saved?
Show
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved and your house. Book of Acts 16:31
Cheers!
My own scenario real quick, if the beast you blocked had first strike, you would have won ironically.


How is that ironic?

Rules Advisor

Well it would be ironic that having had a more able creature would have made you lose if you were the attacker.
Flashing in a Stuffy Doll to block an attacking creature which in turn would cause Stuffy Doll to deal lethal damage to the active player is ironic; attacking into a Stuffy Doll that's already on the battlefield and knowing full well that if it blocks it will deal you lethal damage is not.

Rules Advisor

The irony would come if the first/doublestrike was unexpected.  Like a result of a Double Cleave or Lightning Blow.

Ha HA!  I gave your creature a generally-beneficial improvement after it attacked!  And because your creature is newly improved, that will be the cause of your demise!
 
The irony would come if the first/doublestrike was unexpected.  Like a result of a Double Cleave or Lightning Blow.

Ha HA!  I gave your creature a generally-beneficial improvement after it attacked!  And because your creature is newly improved, that will be the cause of your demise!
 


Also ironic.  And a lot funnier.

Rules Advisor

No, he is right. That is ironic.  You expect an improvement to make things better.... if an improvement makes things worse, that is ironic.


Flashing in SD isn't really irony, since there wasn't really an expectation to be reversed.
No, he is right. That is ironic.  You expect an improvement to make things better.... if an improvement makes things worse, that is ironic.


Flashing in SD isn't really irony, since there wasn't really an expectation to be reversed.


If I have a creature with first strike and my opponent blocks with a Stuffy Doll, the situation did not become ironic.  First strike did not make the situation worse.  The bad part is attacking into that Stuffy Doll with no combat tricks.  That's foolishness.

If my opponent swings for lethal and I flash in the Stuffy Doll to block, which in turn hits them for lethal, then it's ironic.

Rules Advisor

Thats not what all the grammar books say, but if you want to keep arguing it, go right ahead.


I think it would be ironic if we were all made of iron.
Thats not what all the grammar books say, but if you want to keep arguing it, go right ahead.


You might need to read new grammar books.

Rules Advisor

It's like RaAAAAAAaaaaaaaiiiiin....


I'll throw in my 2c here given that the first thought I had when I saw the "it would be ironic that they'd lose the game if it had first strike" post was "how would that be ironic?". If it has first strike due to something like, say, Hyena Umbra (ie. it was present when it was declared as an attacker), it's not ironic, it's just foolish.

Dictionary.com (yes, it's not Websters) has this definition of irony: an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

In the case of attacking while already having first strike and leading to a loss is quite expected. Casting Double Cleave after the creature has been declared as an attacker makes the situation about as ironic as you can get in MTG (you'd expect Double Strike to generally be beneficial, but after knowing its effect is going to be applied the loss becomes expected). The same can be said for flashing in the SD while the creature already had first/double strike - the beneficial effect becoming the cause for a game loss  is not expected, until the existence of the SD becomes known.

If you want a good example of irony in Magic, it'd be something like a monored deck having to use Chaos Warp on an opponent's Avacyn, Angel of Hope in order to save themselves, and having their opponent flip over an Iona, Shield of Emeria (because you wouldn't C-Warp a Avacyn and expect the situation to get worse).
I'm all about super-control in MTG. If you're able to stop my shenanigans, then there aren't enough shenanigans. Lv 1 Judge Current Decklists Sweeping Beauty (Casual) A Vision of Clones (Casual) Coming soon... more decks! :-O
I'll throw in my 2c here given that the first thought I had when I saw the "it would be ironic that they'd lose the game if it had first strike" post was "how would that be ironic?". If it has first strike due to something like, say, Hyena Umbra (ie. it was present when it was declared as an attacker), it's not ironic, it's just foolish.

Dictionary.com (yes, it's not Websters) has this definition of irony: an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

In the case of attacking while already having first strike and leading to a loss is quite expected. Casting Double Cleave after the creature has been declared as an attacker makes the situation about as ironic as you can get in MTG (you'd expect Double Strike to generally be beneficial, but after knowing its effect is going to be applied the loss becomes expected). The same can be said for flashing in the SD while the creature already had first/double strike - the beneficial effect becoming the cause for a game loss  is not expected, until the existence of the SD becomes known.

If you want a good example of irony in Magic, it'd be something like a monored deck having to use Chaos Warp on an opponent's Avacyn, Angel of Hope in order to save themselves, and having their opponent flip over an Iona, Shield of Emeria (because you wouldn't C-Warp a Avacyn and expect the situation to get worse).


This.

Rules Advisor

Well I certainly see the irony in a beneficial ability causing you to lose the game.

~ Tim 
I am Blue/White Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D
Sig
56287226 wrote:
190106923 wrote:
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
56957928 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
That makes no sense to me. If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed? ~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch. YAY COLOR IDENTITY
56287226 wrote:
56888618 wrote:
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
56883218 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
56287226 wrote:
56735468 wrote:
And no judge will ever give you a game loss for playing snow covered lands.
I now have a new goal in life. ;)
The issue isn't whether or not a benificial ability that you have ends up causing you to lose the game is ironic (which it is); the issue is whether or not attacking into a Stuffy Doll that is already on the battlefield, and by doing so the attacker loses the game because the Stuffy Doll blocked is ironic (which it's not).

Rules Advisor

People, please read theoatmeal.com/comics/irony, or at least its conclusion:


No.  No, I disagree completely.  This right here is the perfect example of what is wrong with America's youth.  No one should be allowed to say whatever they want while using the wrong words just as long whoever they're speaking to understands what they meant.  This is promoting ignorance and laziness.  It's because of attitudes like this that the English language is decomposing inside our very dictionaries.  Do not let people get away with misusing words.  It's not an issue of who's smarter than who, it's an issue of educating the ignorant.

Rules Advisor

I’ve removed off topic content from this thread.

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
heh, the only post that I can see that Orc_Barrons removed is the one that promoted the exact same message as he posted. ("Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.") He actually left the OT posts despite stating their removal the goal ("I’ve removed off topic content from this thread.").

Is that ironic?
heh, the only post that I can see that Orc_Barrons removed is the one that promoted the exact same message as he posted. ("Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.") He actually left the OT posts in place contrary to what he said.

Is that ironic?


I think all he did was remove the comic you put up, probably because it had a naughty word on it.

Rules Advisor

People, please read theoatmeal.com/comics/irony, or at least its conclusion:


No.  No, I disagree completely.  This right here is the perfect example of what is wrong with America's youth.  No one should be allowed to say whatever they want while using the wrong words just as long whoever they're speaking to understands what they meant.  This is promoting ignorance and laziness.  It's because of attitudes like this that the English language is decomposing inside our very dictionaries.  Do not let people get away with misusing words.  It's not an issue of who's smarter than who, it's an issue of educating the ignorant.



Personally I think this is a very narrow view of the English language, and actually disregards the evolutionary versatility of the language which has made it the language of choice for international academic conferences and the like.
There are several definitions for almost every word in the dictionary, all of which are valid definitions, as well as an unknown number of connotative definitions. Connotative definitions may not appear in any dictionary but are no less valid because of it. 
The same thing that makes the language unclear is the thing that makes it great. It gives us many many different ways to say the same thing, one of which the other person will recognize (hopefully anyway), as opposed to rigidly locking us into only one use for each word or phrase thereby making it harder to convey an "entirely new concept".

While I applaud anyone who goes out of their way to avoid being unclear, I look down my nose at those who berate others for being unclear. It is not that hard to do when you actually take all the possibilities into account instead of just going with the most likely.

As for the whole first strike irony situation.
The fact that having first strike would make it so you can't win is ironic in and of itself.
The act of knowingly attacking with it and losing wouldn't be ironic, but the situation is ironic by its very nature prior to that.


As for the whole first strike irony situation.
The fact that having first strike would make it so you can't win is ironic in and of itself.
The act of knowingly attacking with it and losing wouldn't be ironic, but the situation is ironic by its very nature prior to that.



I would agree with this.  If you go with the definition of irony as "an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.", then being in a situation where your creature having first strike prevents you from being able to attack for the win is ironic, as the expection when you chose to play with that creature was that having first strike would make it better.

Actually attacking at that point isn't ironic, that's just being dumb.
Which was exactly my point.

The original poster said it would be ironic that having an improvement was a bad thing. And that *is* irony, it is the reverse of an expected outcome.

Granted, if he saw the table and attacked, it should not be a surprise; but something does not have to be a surprise to be ironic.

5) You're running Stuffy Doll, so you're almost certainly playing red. When your opponent declares attackers, you Searing Spear your doll and cackle maniacally.
To whom it may concern: it's getting really old, being unable to see the top half of anything autocarded in the first post of each thread. Fixplz,kthx.
5) You're running Stuffy Doll, so you're almost certainly playing red. When your opponent declares attackers, you Searing Spear your doll and cackle maniacally.

That is a baseless assumption. While playing red is a useful or convenient way to (ab)use the doll, it is by no means almost certainly true.

"Proc" stands for "Programmed Random OCcurance". It does not even vaguely apply to anything Magic cards do. Don't use it.

Level 1 Judge as of 09/26/2013

Zammm = Batman

"Ability words are flavor text for Melvins." -- Fallingman

Took me just a tad bit too literally there. If the answer were so simple in the first place, would the question even have been posed here? I was being facetious. Go look that one up.
To whom it may concern: it's getting really old, being unable to see the top half of anything autocarded in the first post of each thread. Fixplz,kthx.
People, please read theoatmeal.com/comics/irony, or at least its conclusion:


No.  No, I disagree completely.  This right here is the perfect example of what is wrong with America's youth.  No one should be allowed to say whatever they want while using the wrong words just as long whoever they're speaking to understands what they meant.  This is promoting ignorance and laziness.  It's because of attitudes like this that the English language is decomposing inside our very dictionaries.  Do not let people get away with misusing words.  It's not an issue of who's smarter than who, it's an issue of educating the ignorant.



Personally I think this is a very narrow view of the English language, and actually disregards the evolutionary versatility of the language which has made it the language of choice for international academic conferences and the like.
There are several definitions for almost every word in the dictionary, all of which are valid definitions, as well as an unknown number of connotative definitions. Connotative definitions may not appear in any dictionary but are no less valid because of it. 
The same thing that makes the language unclear is the thing that makes it great. It gives us many many different ways to say the same thing, one of which the other person will recognize (hopefully anyway), as opposed to rigidly locking us into only one use for each word or phrase thereby making it harder to convey an "entirely new concept".

While I applaud anyone who goes out of their way to avoid being unclear, I look down my nose at those who berate others for being unclear. It is not that hard to do when you actually take all the possibilities into account instead of just going with the most likely.


I can get behind this.  I understand that language evolves over time.  A great example being the word awesome, which originally meant awe-inspiring, but today is used synonymously with cool, and because of that one might get looked down upon for describing some sort of national tragedy as "awesome," even though it might be a very accurate description.  The evolution of language does not apply to the earlier usage of "ironic," however, because in no definiton of that word anywhere does ironic mean funny, silly, or amusing.

Rules Advisor

Sign In to post comments