Multiple Cavalry Masters

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Does having more than one in play add additional instances of flanking beyond the second, i.e. do they "stack"?
Does having more than one in play add additional instances of flanking beyond the second, i.e. do they "stack"?

"Stack" has one (1) meaning in Magic: The Gathering.

Stack
A spell or ability goes on top of the stack when it’s played or put onto the stack. Combat-damage assignments also go on top of the stack as though they were a single object. Whenever all players pass in succession, the spell, ability, or combat damage on top of the stack resolves and the active player receives priority again. See rule 217.6, "Stack," and rule 408.1, "Timing, Priority, and the Stack."

[noparse]Cavalry Master[/noparse] = Cavalry Master

402.7. An object may have multiple abilities. Aside from certain defined abilities that may be strung together on a single line (see rule 502, "Keyword Abilities"), each paragraph break in a card’s text marks a separate ability. An object may also have multiple instances of the same ability. Each instance functions independently. This may or may not produce more effects than a single instance; refer to the specific ability for more information.

Here is a complete list of cards that "turn off" if another card with the same name is involved:

No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
"Stack" has one (1) meaning in Magic: The Gathering.

Stack
A spell or ability goes on top of the stack when it’s played or put onto the stack. Combat-damage assignments also go on top of the stack as though they were a single object. Whenever all players pass in succession, the spell, ability, or combat damage on top of the stack resolves and the active player receives priority again. See rule 217.6, "Stack," and rule 408.1, "Timing, Priority, and the Stack."

[noparse]Cavalry Master[/noparse] = Cavalry Master

402.7. An object may have multiple abilities. Aside from certain defined abilities that may be strung together on a single line (see rule 502, "Keyword Abilities"), each paragraph break in a card’s text marks a separate ability. An object may also have multiple instances of the same ability. Each instance functions independently. This may or may not produce more effects than a single instance; refer to the specific ability for more information.

Here is a complete list of cards that "turn off" if another card with the same name is involved:


Thanks for the thorough reply. I wasn't referring to the M:tG stack, and I tried to avoid this with the quotes. For the record, I'm fully aware of what the stack is and how it functions.
like argus said " Each instance functions independently"
some abilities like flying trample shadow etc are redundant if a creature has multiple times that abilities.
but abilities like flanking and poison etc
each instance resolves separatly so if a creature has 3, 4 or more times that ability in this case "flanking" (e.j. a 5/4 bloking a creature 3/3 with 3 flanking the defending creature if doesnt have flanking ll lose power and thoughness so ll be a 2/1 against a 3/3) so using multiples sidewinder sliver and Cavalry Master to extra use the flanking ability is totally posibily and legal :3
I'm fairly certain that cavalry master's reminder text (i.e. its printed on the card) tells you that "each instance triggers separately."
"Stack" has one (1) meaning in Magic: The Gathering.

Asking if something stacks in MTG is a perfectly reasonable way to convey a question. Do these abilities stack, do these counters stack, does this stack with this... No one is going to get confuse over this terminology, so issuing a repremand would lead to further confusion and unecessary hoop jumping. Telling people not to use 'stack' because it may refer to the stack is unreasonable and counter-intuitive. That's my view on the thing anyways, and anyone can easily determine what it means through the use of context.

As for the actual question. Each Cavalry Master would give every other creature an additional instance of Flanking. So if you have two out on the field, a normal flanker would end up giving a creature that blocked it -3/-3.
Asking if something stacks in MTG is a perfectly reasonable way to convey a question. Do these abilities stack, do these counters stack, does this stack with this...

It's a fairly pointless question in MTG. It's like asking whether a particular card is approximately 2.5 inches by 3.5 inches.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
I'm fairly certain that cavalry master's reminder text (i.e. its printed on the card) tells you that "each instance triggers separately."

I appreciate your sarcastic remark, but you failed to understand the simple question that asked, which was basically whether or not having multiple Cavalry Masters in play does anything, not whether or not multiple instances of flanking trigger separately.
I appreciate your sarcastic remark, but you failed to understand the simple question that asked, which was basically whether or not having multiple Cavalry Masters in play does anything, not whether or not multiple instances of flanking trigger separately.

Your assertion that shoe's comment is sarcastic fails to convince due to lack of evidence. But that is besides the point:

Given that multiple instances of Flanking trigger separately and have a cumulative effect, why wouldn't more multiple instances have a similar effect?
Nothing about Cavalry Master's ability would indicate that it doesn't work in the presence of another cavalry master, or that it only affects creatures with one instance of Flanking etc.
ΦΦΦΦΦ
It's a fairly pointless question in MTG. It's like asking whether a particular card is approximately 2.5 inches by 3.5 inches.

How is asking whether something has a cumulative effect a pointless question? It seems like a perfectly reasonable question, if a fairly easily answered one in most instances, and one that far too many of the people who answer questions in this forum have a wholly unreasonable bug up their butt about, terminology-wise.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
How is asking whether something has a cumulative effect a pointless question? It seems like a perfectly reasonable question, if a fairly easily answered one in most instances, and one that far too many of the people who answer questions in this forum have a wholly unreasonable bug up their butt about, terminology-wise.

I agree entirely. There are enough posts with terminology errors where that actually makes a difference ("play" vs. "put into play", misuse of the words "destroy", the ambiguity of the verb "morph", etc.). In this case, there really was no ambiguity or confusion. The verb "stack" doesn't have any Magic meaning, so using it for its common meaning ("be cumulative") doesn't really pose any problems. Even if it could possibly mean "put on the stack", that meaning is much less common, and it's generally easy to tell which meaning is being used. In this case in particular, the word was only used as a clarification, and it even had the scare quotes.

Consider, for example, the verb "suspend." That word is never used as a verb in the CompRules or in the Oracle text of any card. And yet, if someone says "I suspend my Rift Bolt," there really isn't any confusion about what could be meant. So if you nitpicked that by saying something like "Suspend is a keyword ability, not a verb. What you're doing is removing the Rift Bolt from the game with a time counter." would just be incredibly pedantic and wouldn't actually help anyone, and I think the same goes for the comment about the verb "stack."

As for the question itself, it is rather obvious when you understand the related rules, but we've had many far more obvious questions in this forum, as well as questions that indicate a much greater misunderstanding of the rules (land vs. mana, anyone?).
Your assertion that shoe's comment is sarcastic fails to convince due to lack of evidence. But that is besides the point:

Given that multiple instances of Flanking trigger separately and have a cumulative effect, why wouldn't more multiple instances have a similar effect?
Nothing about Cavalry Master's ability would indicate that it doesn't work in the presence of another cavalry master, or that it only affects creatures with one instance of Flanking etc.

He stated that he was "fairly certain" when it's (the answer that he thought I was looking for) is printed right on the card - a card that both he and I had obviously seen before.

In bold:

1. I didn't know that, which is why I inquired about it.

2. Nothing about its text indicates that it does, either, and given that there are abilities that don't have a "cumulative effect" when multiple instances of those abilities are present, I simply wanted to make sure. I realize that one can differentiate between abilities that *sigh* have a "cumulative effect", but I hadn't dealt with multiple instances of flanking before, and in this case I was kind of on the fence about it, and thus wanted some clarification.

As a side note I'd like to thank a number of you... one of the cool things about this particular forum is that it's pretty easy to run into users who are (presumably) a bit higher in the demographics, and it's quite a relief.