Do notice that the two examples are a bit different. In the case with the planeswalker, we could say it the effect only sees the part dealing damage to the player. But in the case with Gisela, we could say the effects wants to treat those two parts as one event of dealing damage, like it usually does.
I don't get it. How are the two examples different?
It only matters under the opinion that replacement effects apply to parts of the "happening", and can later apply to another similar part in the same "happening". Under that assumption, in the case with the planeswalker you end up with:
"Char deals 4 damage to the planeswalker and 2 damage to the opponent." -The 4 damage part would no longer damage to the opponent, and the planeswalker-redirection-rule, looking for damage being dealt to the opponent, will see only the 2 damage part. So there is no dillema this part would be redirected.
In the case with Gisela, you end up with: "Char deals 8 damage to the opponent and 2 damage to the opponent." -Now Gisela looks for damage being dealt to the opponent, and in other cases like this you usually apply to both parts as one, as if it were: "Char deals 10 damage to the opponent" which is constructed of the 8 damage part which Gisela affected, and the 2 damage part which Gisela didn't. Thus the dillema.
But there is no dillema under the opinion that replacement effects apply to the "happening" itself, changing the parts that fit their event description, so they can't apply again if unnaffected parts change to fit their event description.
I am using the same reasoning as Eli Shiffrin is his Char answer, but I do not think there is good support in the rules.
Natedogg supports the other interpretation. Replacement and prevention effects do not track individual points of damage.
I'm yet to understand, under your opinion, what replacements consider an event is, and how it is decided that they already applied to it.
To show the troubles with defining this, we can use Thought Reflection . Say I have two Thought Reflections and I'm about to draw a card. We know for sure that this would result in four card draws. We also know for sure that a single Thought Reflection can't apply to its second draws indefinitely. This means two things:
You can't say that if a replacement effect applies to a part in the "happening", then it can't apply to a another part.
This is because then you'd only draw three cards: I apply the first reflection (turning the event into "draw. then,draw"), then after I apply the second reflection part to the first draw I get three draws (draw; then draw; then draw). After drawing two cards, I won't be able to apply to the third draw because Thought Reflection already applied once in this "happening". But you might argue that...
We might say the second Thought reflection can apply to the third draw, because that draw happens after the previous two and not in at same time. - But we can't actually say that.
Becaue then, this would also be true of the second draw in the example, it too didn't happen at the same time as the first draw. In fact, this would be true to any second draw resulted from applying Thought Reflection, causing it to replace them indefinitely.
But if we say replacement effects apply to parts individually, it all makes sense. With the example, the second reflection can apply to the third draw because it's a part it didn't apply to. And yet, Thought Reflection won't apply to its own second draw indefinitely, because this draw is grouped under the part it already applied to, even if it is sequential.
You can simplify the 2x Though Reflection + "draw a card" to 1x Thought Reflection + "draw two cards". That's should be the same right? (Regardless of how else we think it works).
"Draw two cards" is not the next happening. It's an instruction to be processed. The next happening is that the player would draw a card. There's another card draw down the line, but Thought Reflection is unaware of that for now.
(120.2. Cards may only be drawn one at a time. If a player is instructed to draw multiple cards, that player performs that many individual card draws.)
Though Reflection sees this card draw and applies. There's no reason it shouldn't get to apply to the second of the original two card draws.
Following that reasoning, how would you explain why Thought Reflection doesn't reapply to the second draw it generated?
Edit: Hmm, ok, maybe it could make sense. TR can know the second generated draw came from applying itself previously. And with two draws, even in the two TRs case, the second TR won't care how other effects look at the two draws. For the second TR they're unrelated, so it has no problems applying to both.
All of the confusion in the last three of so pages seems to stem not from the replacement effect rules per se, but rather from the fact that the comp rules are very vague on the subject of atomicity and simultaneity of events. I'd like to recommend an extensive overhaul of the rules support for "events" to Matt or anyone else official reading this thread.
Ok, further expanding how the idea of "sides" could work:
Replacement and prevention effects "belong" to a player if they resulted from his or her objects. Players can only apply effects that belong to them.
With multiple effects that could apply at the same time, first determine to what players they each belong to, then we choose one of those players using the following precedence:
The "affecting" player - the player who would perfrom an action in this event, or whose objects would.
The "middle" player - The player whose neither "affecting" nor "affected".
The "affected" player - the player on whom an action would be perfromed, or on one of his objects.
The chosen player applies one of his or her applicable effects. Then, if there are still any effects that could apply, the process is repeated, choosing again one of the players that have one of them.
You control Pyromancer's Swath and Fire Servant , and cast Lightning Bolt on your opponent. How much damage does your opponent take, and why? - The caster of Lightning Bolt chooses 10 or 8. Unlike how it currently works, since lightning bolt would deal damage, and the player casting controls both permanents producing the effects, that player will be chosen to apply one of them and then chosen again to apply the other. (3+2)*2=10 or 3*2+2=8
All right, now take the same situation, but this time your opponent casts Bandage (targeting themselves) in response to your Bolt. Now how much damage do they take, and why? - Like previous event but minus one damage. Since Bandage was controlled by the player receiving the damage, its effect would apply last. (3+2)*2-1=9 or 3*2+2-1=7
Next, take the same situation, only instead of casting Bandage , your opponent casts Hallow on your Bolt. How much life do they gain, and why? - The caster of Lightning bolt chooses 8 or 10. See above rules for explanation.
(The example with Hostility is #3 in the second spoiler block)
And finally, let's say your opponent cast both Bandage and Hallow (for some reason). Now how much life do they gain, and why? - 7,8,9 or 10 depending on both players choices. The player receiving damage controlled both Bandage and Hollow , the he can apply these effects in whatever order he chooses. First the player casting Lightning Bolt chooses 3*2+2 or (3+2)*2. Then the affected player chooses X-1 -> gain-life or, x -> gain life (and bandage won't apply then)
1) I haven't got rid of "the affected player". Even worse I've added an "affecting player". (Though they are described as "the one perfroming the action", or as "the one on whom the the action perfromed on").
2) The current rules divide effects into "layers", so this process should go over each layer individually. This could make it more complicated to describe the rule.
3) Hostility makes noncombat damage immune to the opponent's prevention effects. This non-interaction may not be approvable, and there could be other cards with similar problems.
Using Zammm's example:
I control Fire Servant and Hostility , and cast a Fireball for 7 on my opponent, who responds with Mending Hands to prevent damage to himself. How many tokens should I get, and why? - Your choice of 7 (hostility applied first) or 14 tokens (servant applies first). Either way, Mending Hands won't get to apply to that damage because Hostility would always apply first.
Perhaps the order of precedence should be reversed so that the "affected player" would be first and the "affecting player" last , or maybe in any other order. But then we also need to reconsider how we handle the planeswalkers redirection rule.
4) Planeswalker redirection effects are considered to belong to the player controlling the planeswalker, even though he's not the one choosing whether it applies or not.
Using the example from Cranial Inserton:
I control a planeswalker and my opponent cast Char and Harm's way targeting me. - No matter whose turn it is, Harm would apply first then the planeswalker's redirection effect. Char is the one dealing damage so it's controller is the "dealing side". Harm's Way was controlled by that player so its on "his" side. I'm the one who would be dealt damage so I'm the "receiving side". The planeswalker is under my control so its redirection effect applies on my "side".
5) If a spell causes other objects to deal damage, they're the ones affecting, not the spell. Example: I control Furnace of Rath and cast Kiku's Shadow on my opponent's Gisela, Blade of Goldnight . - Kaku's Shadow doesn't deal the damage so Gisela's controller would be the "dealing side". Gisela would apply first and then the furnace resulting in 4 damage to Gisela.
6) if an "affecting player" is chosen. That player can only apply an effect that would apply to what that player would do, and/or to what his objects wold do.
Example: I control Furnace of Rath and a 5/5 creature. my opponent controls Ghosts of the Innocent with a +1/+0 bonus. I casts Wave of Reckoning . - Both me and my opponent are the on "affecting side" since we both have a creature trying to deal damage. I'm first in APNAP so I'm chosen to apply one of my effects. I won't be able to choose to apply Furnace of Rath on my opponent's For my 5/5 creature dealing damage to itself the furnace is applied first then the ghost, so it would be dealt 5 damage. For the ghosts, the ghost's own effect get to apply first, then the furnace. --This touches something I haven't covered. If effects are trying to apply to different events, how do we choose which ones to apply first? I guess maybe this can also be decided by affecting-affected and by APNAP.
"destroy" effects 7) "destroy" effects are never considered to be performed by any player."destroy" effects resulted by "lethal damage" do not belong to any "affecting" side.
Example: Before my creature is dealt lethal damage, my opponent casts Debt of Loyalty . I cast Reknit . My opponent is the "middle side" and I'm the "affected side". If there were any other players casting debt of loyalty, the first one in APNAP order would have his effect apply first.
8) "destroy" effects that result from resolving spells and abilities will be considered to be perfromed them, not by players.
Example: I activate my Reckless Embermage once, my opponents activates Kill-Suit Cultist , and casts Debt of Loyalty to gain control of that creature. I cast Reknit . - The cultist replaces what happens during the resolution of the ability of Reckless Embermage , so that ability is the one destroying. So I get to apply my regeneration effect first, and prevent Debt of Loyalty from regenerating and taking my creature.
9) Other "destroy" effects that aren't resulted from resolving, can occur by applying a replacement effect. for the purposes of deciding "sides", the player who applied that effect is "affecting side".
Example:During my upkeep my opponent casts Plagiarize , activates Words of War and Kill-Suit Cultist both targeting my creature, and casts Debt of Loyalty targeting my creature. I cast Reknit . - Plagiarize , Words of War , and Kill-Suit Cultist apply. Then, since the destruction isn't caused by resolving something. So my opponent who applied the cultist's ability is considered the "affecting" player for that destriction. My opponent's regeneration would apply first giving him control over my creature.
Ok, further expanding how the idea of "sides" could work:
Replacement and prevention effects "belong" to a player if they resulted from his or her objects. Players can only apply effects that belong to them.
With multiple effects that could apply at the same time, first determine to what players they each belong to, then we choose one of those players using the following precedence:
The "affecting" player - the player who would perfrom an action in this event, or whose objects would.
The "middle" player - The player whose neither "affecting" nor "affected".
The "affected" player - the player on whom an action would be perfromed, or on one of his objects.
The chosen player applies one of his or her applicable effects. Then, if there are still any effects that could apply, the process is repeated, choosing again one of the players that have one of them.
You control Pyromancer's Swath and Fire Servant , and cast Lightning Bolt on your opponent. How much damage does your opponent take, and why? - The caster of Lightning Bolt chooses 10 or 8. Unlike how it currently works, since lightning bolt would deal damage, and the player casting controls both permanents producing the effects, that player will be chosen to apply one of them and then chosen again to apply the other. (3+2)*2=10 or 3*2+2=8
All right, now take the same situation, but this time your opponent casts Bandage (targeting themselves) in response to your Bolt. Now how much damage do they take, and why? - Like previous event but minus one damage. Since Bandage was controlled by the player receiving the damage, its effect would apply last. (3+2)*2-1=9 or 3*2+2-1=7
Next, take the same situation, only instead of casting Bandage , your opponent casts Hallow on your Bolt. How much life do they gain, and why? - The caster of Lightning bolt chooses 8 or 10. See above rules for explanation.
(The example with Hostility is #3 in the second spoiler block)
And finally, let's say your opponent cast both Bandage and Hallow (for some reason). Now how much life do they gain, and why? - 7,8,9 or 10 depending on both players choices. The player receiving damage controlled both Bandage and Hollow , the he can apply these effects in whatever order he chooses. First the player casting Lightning Bolt chooses 3*2+2 or (3+2)*2. Then the affected player chooses X-1 -> gain-life or, x -> gain life (and bandage won't apply then)
1) I haven't got rid of "the affected player". Even worse I've added an "affecting player". (Though they are described as "the one perfroming the action", or as "the one on whom the the action perfromed on").
2) The current rules divide effects into "layers", so this process should go over each layer individually. This could make it more complicated to describe the rule.
3) Hostility makes noncombat damage immune to the opponent's prevention effects. This non-interaction may not be approvable, and there could be other cards with similar problems.
Using Zammm's example:
I control Fire Servant and Hostility , and cast a Fireball for 7 on my opponent, who responds with Mending Hands to prevent damage to himself. How many tokens should I get, and why? - Your choice of 7 (hostility applied first) or 14 tokens (servant applies first). Either way, Mending Hands won't get to apply to that damage because Hostility would always apply first.
Perhaps the order of precedence should be reversed so that the "affected player" would be first and the "affecting player" last , or maybe in any other order. But then we also need to reconsider how we handle the planeswalkers redirection rule.
4) Planeswalker redirection effects are considered to belong to the player controlling the planeswalker, even though he's not the one choosing whether it applies or not.
Using the example from Cranial Inserton:
I control a planeswalker and my opponent cast Char and Harm's way targeting me. - No matter whose turn it is, Harm would apply first then the planeswalker's redirection effect. Char is the one dealing damage so it's controller is the "dealing side". Harm's Way was controlled by that player so its on "his" side. I'm the one who would be dealt damage so I'm the "receiving side". The planeswalker is under my control so its redirection effect applies on my "side".
5) If a spell causes other objects to deal damage, they're the ones affecting, not the spell. Example: I control Furnace of Rath and cast Kiku's Shadow on my opponent's Gisela, Blade of Goldnight . - Kaku's Shadow doesn't deal the damage so Gisela's controller would be the "dealing side". Gisela would apply first and then the furnace resulting in 4 damage to Gisela.
6) if an "affecting player" is chosen. That player can only apply an effect that would apply to what that player would do, and/or to what his objects wold do.
Example: I control Furnace of Rath and a 5/5 creature. my opponent controls Ghosts of the Innocent with a +1/+0 bonus. I casts Wave of Reckoning . - Both me and my opponent are the on "affecting side" since we both have a creature trying to deal damage. I'm first in APNAP so I'm chosen to apply one of my effects. I won't be able to choose to apply Furnace of Rath on my opponent's For my 5/5 creature dealing damage to itself the furnace is applied first then the ghost, so it would be dealt 5 damage. For the ghosts, the ghost's own effect get to apply first, then the furnace. --This touches something I haven't covered. If effects are trying to apply to different events, how do we choose which ones to apply first? I guess maybe this can also be decided by affecting-affected and by APNAP.
"destroy" effects 7) "destroy" effects are never considered to be performed by any player."destroy" effects resulted by "lethal damage" do not belong to any "affecting" side.
Example: Before my creature is dealt lethal damage, my opponent casts Debt of Loyalty . I cast Reknit . My opponent is the "middle side" and I'm the "affected side". If there were any other players casting debt of loyalty, the first one in APNAP order would have his effect apply first.
8) "destroy" effects that result from resolving spells and abilities will be considered to be perfromed them, not by players.
Example: I activate my Reckless Embermage once, my opponents activates Kill-Suit Cultist , and casts Debt of Loyalty to gain control of that creature. I cast Reknit . - The cultist replaces what happens during the resolution of the ability of Reckless Embermage , so that ability is the one destroying. So I get to apply my regeneration effect first, and prevent Debt of Loyalty from regenerating and taking my creature.
9) Other "destroy" effects that aren't resulted from resolving, can occur by applying a replacement effect. for the purposes of deciding "sides", the player who applied that effect is "affecting side".
Example:During my upkeep my opponent casts Plagiarize , activates Words of War and Kill-Suit Cultist both targeting my creature, and casts Debt of Loyalty targeting my creature. I cast Reknit . - Plagiarize , Words of War , and Kill-Suit Cultist apply. Then, since the destruction isn't caused by resolving something. So my opponent who applied the cultist's ability is considered the "affecting" player for that destriction. My opponent's regeneration would apply first giving him control over my creature.
Well, what do you think?
In the case of effects that are replacing a card draw, it seems that it would be more intuitive to have the player that was going to draw a card be considered the affecting player.
Yes, that's how I currently want it to work. All action players are instructed to do except for "destroy" are perfromed by them, so it fits under the "affecting" category. Players won't be able to Plagiarize your draws before you can apply your effects to them. I had an earlier idea of having what's causing the players to perform their action to be what counts when deciding if someone is affecting. But I changed my mind and went with the one perfroming the action. But there's a room to reconsider.
I'm having some doubts about this idea. I'm not so sure how easy it would be for players. It seems trivial in common player on player cases, but I'm concerened about less common cases. Also, I'm not sure if it would be handled well in a multiplayer scenario.
Also, as for the current rules. Maybe a reminder rule can be added to clarify that dealing damage doesn't count as being affected by the event, only being dealt damage counts. If I understand Zammm correctly, there aren't any other misconceptions of who's affected by the event. Right?
