Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

[Phosphatide]

I'm throwing the question into the Judge Apps forum for full confirmation on the ruling because this question is super interesting, but a quick call to my LGS produced the same conclusion that it would work.

You would control Tarfire as a spell on the stack, and since Ogre Slumlord doesn't limit itself to only giving deathtouch to creatures (like Death Baron) or really specifying it only works on permanents on the battlefield the Tarfire would have deathtouch.

[korvys]

That's what I was thinking too, but sometimes there's some unwritten rules on some things (for example, abilities don't work in zones other than the battlefield, unless they say they do, but you don't explicitly say that on every ability. I feel like I might be missing something similar).

[Phosphatide]

Got a reply via email from someone, and turns out there's actually a rule about this. Whoops.

109.2 If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn't include the word "card," "spell," "source," or "scheme," it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.

Unfortunately this means Tarfire will not have deathtouch. Nathan Long has yet to make his usual official reply, but I have a feeling it won't be any different. Otherwise I'll update you all on this.

[korvys]

Ah, I was right to be hesitant. I thought there was some rule like that, but I was doubting myself. Glad to get clarification.

The other two parts are still correct. If you can, somehow, get a burn spell to have deathtouch, you can kill anything you want.

[phlip]

109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.

So an Ogre Slumlord that has been so modified would give all Goblin permanents deathtouch. To give your Tarfire deathtouch it would have to explicitly say "Goblin spells".

So it would still give your Boggart Shenanigans deathtouch, but unfortunately that can only ping players.

[edit] Oh, hello another page. Nice to see you here.

[AdmiralMemo]

So... Moving forward with this idea... Opponent has Ogre Slumlord out that has been Artificial Evolution'd to affect Goblin permanents, as well as a Boggart Shenanigans.

You have any of the following out: a Palisade Giant, an
Empyrial Archangel, a creature enchanted with Pariah, or a creature equipped with Pariah's Shield, (various other cards that redirect damage from a player to a creature)

If one of their Goblins dies, and triggers the Shenanigans, when the damage redirects, does it still have Deathtouch, and thus, does the creature die?

----

Separate group of questions going along the lines of damage redirection and weird card interactions...

If you have out a Stuffy Doll and have named your opponent, and then he enchants it with a Treacherous Link, where does the damage go? Do you have a choice?
If your opponent has out a Stuffy Doll naming you, and you enchant it with Pariah, where does the damage go?
If you have a Palisade Giant or an Empyrial Archangel out and your opponent enchants it with a Treacherous Link, where does the damage go?
If you have a creature out, your opponent enchants it with a Treacherous Link, and then you either enchant it with Pariah or equip a Pariah's Shield onto it, where does the damage go?
If you have a creature out and you either enchant it with Pariah or equip a Pariah's Shield onto it, and then your opponent enchants it with Treacherous Link, where does the damage go? (Wasn't sure if timestamps made a difference between the last 2 cases.)

[Firbozz]

Let's see if I can get these ones....

For the Slumlord/Artificial/Shenanigans/Palisade Giant/Archangel deal, since the damage is redirected, I believe it has the same source. This means that the deathtouch rider remains on the damage, since the damage is still coming from a source with deathtouch.

For Stuffy Doll and Treacherous Link, the damage would be dealt to you. This is because Treacherous Link is a replacement effect, saying the damage would be dealt to you instead of to the doll. Since Stuffy Doll never takes any damage, it's own effect doesn't deal any damage to you opponent.

With Palisade Giant enchanted with Treacherous Link, I believe the redirection effects are applied in order of active player, non-active player (not certain on this one). The last two cases are similar to this one, I believe. If I'm not right about the Palisade Giant/Treacherous Link interaction, then it's gonna be timestamps, but not quite sure how they would interact. I suspect it's not timestamps, because there's technically nothing preventing both abilities from coexisting (it's not like they're trying to set some characteristic to two separate values)

[SilPho]

Quick disclaimer: I've thought about these cases for a while but as I am a little sleepy I might have missed something. If you doubt anything I've said please say something and I'll double check, and either way find some exact rules to back the answer up.

If one of their Goblins dies, and triggers the Shenanigans, when the damage redirects, does it still have Deathtouch, and thus, does the creature die?

It still has Deathtouch. The replacement effect makes it as if the Boggart Shenanigans are dealing damage to the new target directly rather than as a redirect.

If you have out a Stuffy Doll and have named your opponent, and then he enchants it with a Treacherous Link, where does the damage go? Do you have a choice?

No choice, I'm afraid. The Treacherous Link prevents damage being dealt to the creepy, I mean, Stuffy Doll in the first place, so his triggered ability never triggers.

If your opponent has out a Stuffy Doll naming you, and you enchant it with Pariah, where does the damage go?

I'm looking at this situation and it looks like you're going to end the game in a draw thanks to an infinite loop. The doll's ability is effectively getting changed to "Whenever Stuffy Doll is dealt damage, it deals that much damage to itself", which causes a repeating trigger.

If you have a Palisade Giant or an Empyrial Archangel out and your opponent enchants it with a Treacherous Link, where does the damage go?

In this case it depends what the damage was originally aimed at. Each replacement effect will redirect the damage only once (it doesn't happen repeatedly) so after a pretend back and forth the damage ends up where it was heading originally.

If you have a creature out, your opponent enchants it with a Treacherous Link, and then you either enchant it with Pariah or equip a Pariah's Shield onto it, where does the damage go?

Same as before, the two replacement effects apply once, and only once, and effectively cancel each other out.

If you have a creature out and you either enchant it with Pariah or equip a Pariah's Shield onto it, and then your opponent enchants it with Treacherous Link, where does the damage go? (Wasn't sure if timestamps made a difference between the last 2 cases.)

Ditto. Timestamp doesn't apply.

[AdmiralMemo]

If your opponent has out a Stuffy Doll naming you, and you enchant it with Pariah, where does the damage go?

I'm looking at this situation and it looks like you're going to end the game in a draw thanks to an infinite loop. The doll's ability is effectively getting changed to "Whenever Stuffy Doll is dealt damage, it deals that much damage to itself", which causes a repeating trigger.

If this is the case, then I'm guessing the only way out is to somehow, at instant speed, remove Indestructible from Stuffy Doll or to exile it.

[Kapol]

Or instant-speed enchantment removal.

[phlip]

If this is the case, then I'm guessing the only way out is to somehow, at instant speed, remove Indestructible from Stuffy Doll or to exile it.

However note that if a player has the ability to do that, they're not forced to... they can do it and break the loop, or just let the game end in a draw (which might be preferable if they think that if they do break the loop, they'll probably end up losing).

[Firbozz]

Since it's being brought up, a quick reminder re: loops.
If there is an infinite loop, and all actions in the loop are manditory, the game ends in a draw if neither player chooses to break the loop. It's worth noting that even if an exit is visible (eg. a Seal of Primordium on the battlefield), the player can elect not to use it (ending the game in a tie, as explained by phlip, above)

However, if the loop contains a "may" in one of the steps, the loop must be exited. If both players are involved, and both players can elect not to use a "may" trigger (ending the loop), the active player is required to break the loop if neither player wishes to break the loop.

[ElFuzzy]

A friend was asking how the triggers fell when attacking with both Krond and Silent Sentinel. I wanna say it's possible to resolve Silent Sentinel's first but I'm not sure.

[Phosphatide]

Krond the Dawn-Clad has what is called an "intervening 'if' clause" which is when a triggered ability has the word "if" following a comma. This means the ability checks for the second condition (the chunk after the intervening "if") twice: the first time is to see if it would trigger at all, and the second time is during resolution.

When you declare both Krond and Silent Sentinel as attackers, assuming Krond is not currently enchanted, only the Silent Sentinel's ability will trigger. If you then return an Aura to the battlefield and have it enchant Krond as it enters, Krond's ability will still not trigger.

[jkefka]

I'm 99% sure on this but it came up in a little draft last night and I want to make sure I was right. We were doing Onslaught block wackiness and one player had Daunting Defender, which reads:

If a source would deal damage to a Cleric creature you control, prevent 1 of that damage.

His opponent had Goblin Sharpshooter

Now, I thought that no matter how many times he's able to ping a particular cleric for one in a given turn or even phase, all of that damage is prevented because each ability activation is counted as a separate damage source. Is that right?

[Firbozz]

A damage source is descirbed in the CR (607.7a) as "...a permanent,; a spell on the stack (including a permanent spell); any object referred to by an object on the stack, by a replacement or prevention effect that's waiting to apply, or by a delayed triggered ability that's waiting to trigger...; or, for certain casual variant games, a face-up card in the command zone.

Since permanent is listed a a damage, the Goblin Sharpshooter is the source, not his activated ability. However, each activation is a seperate instance of "if a source would deal damage....", so I believe any number of damage pings would be prevented.

[jkefka]

So, right answer, wrong logic. Cool.

[VectorZero]

My opponent has Iroas and enough devotion out that he's a creature. I play Tidebinder Mage naming Iroas, then kill creatures such that Iroas is no longer a creature. Does the Iroas enchantment untap in the opponent's next untap step, and if so, is the Iroas creature still affected by Tidebinder Mage's ability if devotion is increased later?

(My understanding is that all permanents, including enchantments, should untap in the untap step. I don't know if the TM text "that creature" can refer to a permanent still on the battlefield that has become not a creature, then again a creature.)

[phlip]

When an effect uses "that creature" or similar wording as a pronoun to refer to something again, the word "creature" in there is just to make the wording flow better - it doesn't cause the effect to only apply if the thing is still a creature. Tidebinder Mage will still keep the Iroas tapped down even though it is no longer a creature, since it's still the same permanent... just not a creature any more. It's not likely to have any immediate impact, since there's not much that cares about whether an enchantment is tapped or not, but should he become a creature again, he'll still be tapped, and still be locked down.

Note that this is only if Iroas's devotion drops after Tidebinder Mage's ETB ability resolves. If it happens in response to that ability, then it will be countered on resolution, for having invalid targets (as Iroas would not be a "red or green creature").

[VectorZero]

Thank you.

If I tap Island/Island/Khaavren of Souls (having named merfolk) and cast True-Name Nemesis (1UU) without explicitly stating which Cavern mana ability I was using, can TNN be countered?

[Firbozz]

I suspect the assumption would be that the second ability was used. However, I don't think there's rules regarding "default" lines of play (ie. ideal play choices) regarding these matters. I suspect if a judge was called, he'd ask you which ability you meant to you, and would probably caution you to be more clear with your play.

It may also be possible that you'd be penalized/warned for communication (using an unestablished shortcut) at higher enforcement levels

[korvys]

Firbozz pretty much has it. Unless you were trying to get some odd advantage by bluffing using it or not (and I can't think how you would), you should be fine.

The fact that you didn't declare what ability you were using doesn't mean you use the other ability by default, and if your opponent needs to know (in case they want to counter it) they'll have to ask (and you'll probably say you made it uncounterable, anyway).

Certainly, I (others may disagree) am not going to rule that because you didn't say so, you made colourless instead, and the spell can be countered.

Interesting extension to this, you don't need to point out it's uncounterable until your opponent's counterspell resolves (and does nothing). TNN is still a legal target for a counterspell, even if it won't do anything when it resolves.

EDIT: Of course, just to be clear, you can't lie about what ability you used either, just your don't have to declare it.

I encourage people to use this (the fact thet people can't lie about the state of the game) to clear up anything they're unsure about. Is that creature tapped for it's ability, or attacking? Is that trigger still on the stack? Is it before or after attackers? First or second main phase?

If you want to do something tricky, get in the habit of asking a lot of questions, and making it clear what the state of the game is.

[phlip]

There was some fun ruling diagreements about this one... when Cavern was initially released, it was officially ruled that you needed to explicitly activate the Cavern's second ability if you wanted to make your spell uncounterable, otherwise it would be assumed you were activating the first one if that was possible (eg if you tapped Island, Island, Cavern for TNN, it'd be counterable, but if you tapped Island, Swamp, Cavern then it'd be uncounterable because there's no way you could have been activating the first ability).

This was reversed a couple weeks later, and now it's assumed you're using the second ability if possible - ie if you're casting a creature spell of the named type, it's going to be uncounterable unless you say otherwise.

IIRC, the first ruling was just the floor judge on the day at some random GP right after release, that became precedent... and the second ruling had the unfortunate timing of happening in the middle of some other GP, so day 1 was done with the old rules and day 2 done with the new rules, or something like that. I remember it being weird.

[AdmiralMemo]

If you have a multi-color creature with Intimidate, it can be blocked by creatures of either color (or artifact creatures), right? It doesn't have to be both, right?

So, if you put a Grisly Transformation on a Nyx Weaver, it could be blocked by an Oakheart Dryads, even though the Dryads aren't black?

[Phosphatide]

Correct. The specific rule for this regarding intimidate is:

702.13b A creature with intimidate can’t be blocked except by artifact creatures and/or creatures that share a color with it.

So there you go.