|
2 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2011 - 2:09PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
But replacement effects, even if they don't involve drawing cards, can result in several different events: Land Equilibrium  . It's obvious with Land Equilibrium because it says "then", but there is no reason to think that other replacement effects that don't use "then" are always simultaneous, they should follow the same rules than resolving normal spells and abilities.
I'm not arguin that replacement effect can never introduce sequentuality. I'm arguing that we're starting with an event
[do A and B]
(remember, Scapshift puts all lands onto the battlefield simultaneously); now we replace B with "C then D". There is no reason to assume that the modified event becomes
[do A then do C then D].
If it could become that, it could, with equal justfication, become
[do C then D then do A].
I'm arguing that, if the original actions, or sub-events, were simultaneous, the remaining original sub-event has to be simultaneous with at least one of the two new sub-events. So the new event would have to be
[do A and C, then D], or
[do C, then A and D].
Unless we can "stretch" the remaining original sub-event so that both new events can happen simultaneous with the old event:
[do A and, simultaneously, (C then D)].
Or, simply, all three sub-events happen simultaneously. Although I like that variant the least.
DCI Lvl 2 Judge
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2011 - 2:15PM
#22
|
|
|
I've thought about it, and I also believe the ruling is in error. It contradicts the ruling on Heart of Yavimaya. You have to sacrifice a forest before this card is put into play, and no matter how it is put into play. [D'Angelo 1999/11/01]
Please note the word "before." That clearly implies sequential actions with a gamestate between them.
There's also Chains opf Mephistopheles  , which does the same basic thing, replacing one action with two, (assuming the player has at least one card in hand).. The ruling there states :
9/16/2007: Here's what happens when Chains of Mephistopheles replaces a player's draw: -- If that player has at least one card in his or her hand, he or she discards a card and then draws a card. -- If that player's hand is empty, he or she puts the top card of his or her library into his or her graveyard. The player doesn't draw a card at all.
Bolding mine. The discard and draw are sequential, not simultaneous.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2011 - 2:21PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2011
|
I'm not arguin that replacement effect can never introduce sequentuality. I'm arguing that we're starting with an event
[do A and B]
(remember, Scapshift puts all lands onto the battlefield simultaneously); now we replace B with "C then D". There is no reason to assume that the modified event becomes
[do A then do C then D].
If it could become that, it could, with equal justfication, become
[do C then D then do A].
I'm arguing that, if the original actions, or sub-events, were simultaneous, the remaining original sub-event has to be simultaneous with at least one of the two new sub-events. So the new event would have to be
[do A and C, then D], or
[do C, then A and D].
Unless we can "stretch" the remaining original sub-event so that both new events can happen simultaneous with the old event:
[do A and, simultaneously, (C then D)].
Or, simply, all three sub-events happen simultaneously. Although I like that variant the least.
That could explain situation B, but not A unless we assume that replacement effects always happens simultaneously. But wouldn't that contradict some rulings about Lich's Mirror  ?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2011 - 3:20PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
If I get it right, this means the two actions prescribed by HoY are performed simultaneously:
-sacrifice a Forest
-put HoY on the Field
The gamestate moves from:
a) An Island-Forest on Field
to
b) No Island-Forest on Field / One Heart-of-Yavimaya-Island on Field
This way, there is no gamestate, no point in time, where no Island would be on the Field, and Dandan has no reason to trigger.
Agreed?
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2011 - 9:39PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
Agreed?
No. It doesn't matter if, before the event and after the event, there's an Island on the 'field; it only matters if, at any time (including the course of other events), there are no Islands on the 'field. And, based on other rulings and how things have been ruled in the past in the general scenario, there is a time when there are no Islands on the field, in the scenario we're discussing, so the trigger should go off. The fact that it's been answered otherwise is, in my opinion, wrong; I don't care if the guy's an L3, I'll take a whole history of rulings that would indicate something over one person's answer.
MTG Rules Advisor 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2011 - 11:15PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
there is no time that there is no island on the field
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 10, 2011 - 11:25PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
there is no time that there is no island on the field
I'm aware that's what the guy said in the email answer, as I'm also part of that mailing list. My point is that I disagree, because it is contradictory to every other ruling given for cards that say 'Action A. If you do, Action B.'
EDIT: That is, while the ruling is technically correct for the email-based question, the ruling is incorrect (IMHO) for the question posed in the OP of this thread, but some people think it works due to faulty logic as to why the ruling is correct in regard to the email-based question. In the email based question, there was another Island coming into play at the same time, so it was automatically there the whole time. The question of which we're speaking involves no island coming into play with HoY, and the only Island on the field being sacrificed to HoY (which is going to be an island, itself, due to Prismatic Omen or something of similar nature).
The way I see it, based on how rulings of 'A. If you do, B.' work, is that the trigger will go off, because there will be a split second when you control no Islands.
MTG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2011 - 8:25AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2004
|
EDIT: That is, while the ruling is technically correct for the email-based question, the ruling is incorrect (IMHO) for the question posed in the OP of this thread, but some people think it works due to faulty logic as to why the ruling is correct in regard to the email-based question. In the email based question, there was another Island coming into play at the same time, so it was automatically there the whole time. The question of which we're speaking involves no island coming into play with HoY, and the only Island on the field being sacrificed to HoY (which is going to be an island, itself, due to Prismatic Omen or something of similar nature).
The Swamp  in the OP will also be an island due to Prismatic Omen  . There's no relevant difference between question B in the original post and the first question asked on MTGRULES-L.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2011 - 8:36AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
Seems my first impression was the correct one: I don't know if I agree or not!I'm aware that's what the guy said in the email answer, as I'm also part of that mailing list. My point is that I disagree, because it is contradictory to every other ruling given for cards that say 'Action A. If you do, Action B.'
Help us: please give us references to some of those other rulings.
That is, while the ruling is technically correct for the email-based question, the ruling is incorrect for the question posed in the OP of this thread, but some people think it works due to faulty logic as to why the ruling is correct in regard to the email-based question.
That was my suspicion also, which is why I asked GoblinBasar to confirm, which he did:
Spoiler:
Show
Suppose I again control Dandan, Prismatic Omen, Forest, and nothing else.
I now play Heart of Yavimaya from my hand, and decide to sacrifice Forest for Heart's replacement effect.
Does Dandan's ability trigger?
The wording of the replacement effect suggests that I have to sac a Forest first, before Heart actually enters the battlefield. Your answer suggests, though, that I only make the choice to sac a Forest before Heart enters, then Heart's entering and sacrificing the Forest actually happen simultaneously. Is that correct?
GoblinBasar
It's essentially the same situation: there is no in-between moment in the middle of applying the replacement effect. Dandan only sees the game state juste before the event and just after it, so its ability won't trigger.
Daniel Kitachewsky
Is this the correct interpretation? Or is it an oversight from an overworked Kitachewsky? I feel uncomfortable challenging a L3 Net-Rep's ruling... But he's human, thus prone to mistakes... This demonstration still is the most convincing I've seen yet: When you want to know how many discrete actions are present in an instruction, count the number of separate verbs in the instruction. For Heart of Yavimaya, they are :
- Sacrifice a forest
- Put HoY (onto the battlefield or into its owner's graveyard.)
That means the replacement effect replaces one action with two. So you perform the first, creating a new gamestate, then work out what the second action is and perform that. Consequently there is a gamestate after the Forest is sacrificed and before the HoY enters the battlefield in which there is no Island (or any other land) controlled by Dandan's controller.
Dandan should trigger... I guess we'll need OR!
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2011 - 9:11AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2011
|
603.4. A triggered ability may read "When/Whenever/At [trigger event], if [condition], [effect]." When the trigger event occurs, the ability checks whether the stated condition is true. The ability triggers only if it is; otherwise it does nothing. If the ability triggers, it checks the stated condition again as it resolves. If the condition isn't true at that time, the ability is removed from the stack and does nothing. Note that this mirrors the check for legal targets. This rule is referred to as the "intervening 'if' clause" rule. (The word "if" has only its normal English meaning anywhere else in the text of a card; this rule only applies to an "if" that immediately follows a trigger condition.)
Example: Felidar Sovereign reads, "At the beginning of your upkeep, if you have 40 or more life, you win the game." Its controller's life total is checked as that player's upkeep begins. If that player has 39 or less life, the ability doesn't trigger at all. If that player has 40 or more life, the ability triggers and goes on the stack. As the ability resolves, that player's life total is checked again. If that player has 39 or less life at this time, the ability is removed from the stack and has no effect. If that player has 40 or more life at this time, the ability resolves and that player wins the game.
Just to put in my two cents,
both of these events are triggered abilities, and in the rules, they go on the stack, and since they both happen at the same time, the the active player chooses which one will happen first, and then as they resolve, they test to see if the condition still exists, if it is not true, then it does nothing as it leaves the stack.
|
|
|
