|
6 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 12:53PM
#1
|
|
|
This question just came up on MTGS, and it seems like something that could warrant a change. 603.8 currently says this: 603.8. Some triggered abilities trigger when a game state (such as a player controlling no permanents of a particular card type) is true, rather than triggering when an event occurs. These abilities trigger as soon as the game state matches the condition. They'll go onto the stack at the next available opportunity. These are called state triggers. (Note that state triggers aren't the same as state-based actions.) A state-triggered ability doesn't trigger again until the ability has resolved, has been countered, or has otherwise left the stack. Then, if the object with the ability is still in the same zone and the game state still matches its trigger condition, the ability will trigger again.
The question was regarding Zedruu the Greathearted  and Transcendence  :
In a game of EDH where I have only one opponent left and both of our life totals are above 20, can I cast Transcendence, then respond to the lose the game trigger by donating it with Zedruu's ability and make my opponent lose the game first?
The way 603.8 is currently worded, this does not work. While Transcendence has changed control, and the ability is no longer checking the same trigger condition, it is still the same object and its ability is still the same one that generated the triggered ability currently on the stack, so it will not trigger again, and the Zedruu player will lose.
It strikes me that this is a poor (not to mention ridiculously unintuitive) interaction, and also that it would not be too hard to fix with a clause in 603.8 about control changes. Fair?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 1:41PM
#2
|
|
|
The current behaivior makes more sense to me. The current behaivior is also simpler. I do not think we should add an exception unless it is clear that it improves the game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 2:21PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Oct 29, 2007
|
the rule seems fair to me, why do you think the object's state trigger should trigger again?
MtG Rules Advisor &
Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJDJ VortexDCI Certified Rules Advisor from July 14, 2009 to July 14, 2012 DCI #5209514320 Wit found in Rules Q&ARPJesus: "Man, screw the rules, I'll play a game of 2HG Archenemy Planechase Emperor EDH draft yet. Once I figure out the rules for it..." Chaikov: "Of course, casual Magic may be played any way your Pokemon group agrees on..." and "It's not logic. It's Magic!" GainsBanding: "I only play online. The Magic Online shuffler is AWESOME!" Ikegami: "one might think [adult cats] would make excellent tokens. The issue, though, is that they are very hard to exile. They return to the battlefield more often than an undying creature." Astarael7: "Does 121.1 imply that players are supposed to wear their poison counters?" Bimmerbot: "If you move the wrong way and [the poison counters] fall, it's a game rule violation" Helluminatus: "Just remember, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the oracle text says creature - Bunny , then by god, it's a bunny." MadCow21: "Who are you and what have you done with the real Chaikov?" My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 4:57PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2007
|
There is some sense in that. When the card switches controllers its trigger condition kind of becomes a new condition, because the "you" in the condition now refers to a different controller. But if that's the reason, would that mean that Darksteel Reactor  , whose trigger-condition doesn't mention the player, should not trigger again if it changes controllers?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 7:41PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2007
|
the rule seems fair to me, why do you think the object's state trigger should trigger again?
Because the state it's looking for is different.
blah blah metal lyrics
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 11:29PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Dec 29, 2010
|
the rule seems fair to me, why do you think the object's state trigger should trigger again?
Because the state it's looking for is different.
Exactly. The game state has changed, so the trigger could check again, and if the state is still true, it could trigger again. That makes a lot of sense. 603.8 could simply say this.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 11, 2012 - 12:38AM
#7
|
|
|
So what happens when the "new" controller Donate  s it back? (Via Quicken  , obviously.) Should it trigger a third time?
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 11, 2012 - 4:39AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2007
|
... When the card switches controllers its trigger condition kind of becomes a new condition, because the "you" in the condition now refers to a different controller ...
the rule seems fair to me, why do you think the object's state trigger should trigger again?
Because the state it's looking for is different.
There's also an opposite argument that "you" in the condition is just a short way of saying "[CARDNAME]'s controller", So the second ability of Transcendence could be read as: "When Transcendence's controller has 20 or more life, that player loses the game.". In that sense, the condition doesn't change when you switch controllers.
So what happens when the "new" controller Donate s it back? (Via Quicken , obviously.) Should it trigger a third time?
That's a thoughy. I think it could be argued either way. Either we care more that the condition "changed", so it doesn't matter that there's a copy on the stack with that condition. Or, we care more about the copy on the stack being the same.
We should also consider state triggers that care about a player controlling a number of permanents of a certain type, like Sea Serpent  or Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder  . If we change those types ( Mind Bend  / Artificial Evolution  ) after those abilities have triggered, then we would expect these abilities to trigger again because their condition has changed.
This is getting more complex than I initially thought.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 11, 2012 - 9:26AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
|
My "intuition" is that in all the discussed cases so far, I would not expect the ability to trigger again until the first trigger has resolved.
My feeling is that the general precedent for this kind of thing is that what matters is the ability on the stack, not any changes to its source. The original ability, "underlying" any text changes or controller changes, is the same object on the battlefield. It cares more about its underlying identity, like its UUID or something, than about its text.
Now if you were to flicker one of those permanents with a state trigger, then I'd expect the newly flickered new object to put a second state trigger on the stack.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 11, 2012 - 1:29PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2007
|
This is a good one for one of Zammm's threads in General.
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
