Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

A place to talk about standard, casual, limited and everything in between.
Asthanius
Posts: 196
Joined: 13 Nov 2011, 08:23
First Video: The Job

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby Asthanius » 07 Jun 2015, 18:19

If I understand correctly, since the Image will enter the battlefield as a Land and not a creature, Humility won't do anything to it until it becomes animated.
User avatar
phlip
Posts: 1789
Joined: 24 Apr 2010, 17:48
First Video: Eternal Sonata (Unskippable)
Location: Australia

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby phlip » 07 Jun 2015, 19:52

Ok, here's what I think happens with Image/Mutavault/Humility...

Image still enters as a copy of Mutavault, Humility doesn't get to remove the "enters the battlefield as" ability:
614.12: [...] To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent's characteristics on the stack (see rule 400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent's own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it.
that last clause stops Humility from removing the Clone ability.

Once it's resolved, it's a land, not a creature, so Humility doesn't apply... So you still have a land with Mutavault mana and animation abilities and Image's target-sacrifice ability.

If you animate Mutavault, Humility will start applying. Mutavault will lose all three abilities, as they are added in the Copy layer and removed in the Abilities layer. So you can target it safely, and won't be able to tap it for mana (or double-animate it). On the other hand, the animation ability has a later timestamp than Humility, so it'll still be a 2/2. And it'll still be a Land Creature with all creature types... though I wish it was a double-llusion, that's unfortunately not how it works.
While no one overhear you quickly tell me not cow cow.
but how about watch phone?

[he/him/his]
User avatar
AdmiralMemo
Posts: 7337
Joined: 27 Nov 2011, 18:29
First Video: Unskippable: Eternal Sonata
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby AdmiralMemo » 09 Jun 2015, 12:59

If you use new Legendary Lilly as your Commander, it raises a couple of questions. First, she's still your Commander when transformed, correct, even though she gets exiled to transform? Second, if for some reason you wanted to (unlikely, but corner cases always arise), when Lilly's triggered ability goes off, since it exiles her, you could choose to put her back in the Command Zone instead of transforming her, correct?
Graham wrote:The point is: Nyeh nyeh nyeh. I'm an old man.
LRRcast wrote:Paul: That does not answer that question at all.
James: Who cares about that question? That's a good answer.

Image
Atifexe
Posts: 585
Joined: 04 Mar 2014, 21:57
First Video: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/v
Location: Victoria, BC

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby Atifexe » 09 Jun 2015, 15:54

She's still the same card, so yes, she its still a commander, for all that entails.
The answer to your second question is also yes, if I'm not mistaken.
User avatar
phlip
Posts: 1789
Joined: 24 Apr 2010, 17:48
First Video: Eternal Sonata (Unskippable)
Location: Australia

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby phlip » 09 Jun 2015, 18:25

AdmiralMemo wrote:First, she's still your Commander when transformed, correct, even though she gets exiled to transform?

Yes. Being a commander is a property of the physical card, and applies to whatever object that card represents. Exile it, bring it back as a non-creature, it's a new object, but it's still your commander. And if she deals combat damage somehow (say, Liquimetal Coating + Animate Artifact) that still counts as commander damage.
AdmiralMemo wrote:Second, if for some reason you wanted to (unlikely, but corner cases always arise), when Lilly's triggered ability goes off, since it exiles her, you could choose to put her back in the Command Zone instead of transforming her, correct?

You could choose to put her in the command zone instead of exiling her, however, the second half of that ability (return her to the battlefield transformed) will still happen.

Effects that move a card to another zone, then try to track that card in the new zone, will still be able to track that card even if a replacement effect means the card moves to a different zone (as long as it's a public zone). Just so long as that's still the zone it initially moved to as a result of that effect. If it changes zones due to some other effect, it won't be able to track it.

For instance... look at the Gatherer rulings on Rescue from the Underworld... you sacrifice a creature, and then later, you bring it back. If something exiles it from your graveyard in between (say, if Tormod's Crypt is used) then it's not coming back. But if the creature you sacrificed is exiled instead of going to the graveyard, because of a replacement effect (say, your opponent has Anafenza) then it will come back just fine. (But, if it goes to exile instead of the graveyard because of a replacement effect, and then leaves exile before the Rescue from the Underworld would bring it back... say because the creature is a Torrent Elemental and you activated its ability... then now it won't be able to find it any more.)

There are already some rulings you can reference about hitting commanders with flickering abilities, and I imagine the result will be the same with these new cards.
While no one overhear you quickly tell me not cow cow.
but how about watch phone?

[he/him/his]
User avatar
JackSlack
Posts: 4572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 19:46
First Video: ENN, but I forget which.
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby JackSlack » 19 Jun 2015, 20:52

Was rule 704.3 designed specifically to appease the wig market, with all the hair tearing it produces? :D
User avatar
the amativeness
Posts: 3735
Joined: 31 Jul 2008, 19:53
Location: America, where everyone sues everyone, always, for everything.

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby the amativeness » 20 Jun 2015, 10:16

JackSlack wrote:Was rule 704.3 designed specifically to appease the wig market, with all the hair tearing it produces? :D


I thought the Hat Market was defunct...
zA: How do I relax?
Evil Jim: Jerk off.
Frozengale: You know you're on the internet when Masturbation is the first suggestion.
RadioshackRaider
Posts: 236
Joined: 01 Aug 2014, 18:37
First Video: Friday Nights: Untap
Location: Scotland

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby RadioshackRaider » 20 Jun 2015, 10:20

This feels like a dumb question, but how does double strike work? If my first strike damage from it is enough to kill a creature, does the rest go to the opp or what?
User avatar
LokiTheLiar
Posts: 178
Joined: 22 Mar 2014, 12:16
First Video: Friday Nights: Politics
Location: Poland

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby LokiTheLiar » 20 Jun 2015, 10:38

Creatures with double-strike deal both first strike damage and normal damage. If they don't have trample and they kill the blocking creature with first strike damage, the normal damage won't be assigned to the defending player. But if they have trample the excess damage will go to the defending player during both the first strike damage and normal damage.
Last edited by LokiTheLiar on 20 Jun 2015, 10:39, edited 1 time in total.
"There is no shame in defeating an ignorant opponent." Kathleen De Vere

Current decks:
Standard - UB Thopter Control
Modern - Death and Taxes
User avatar
AdmiralMemo
Posts: 7337
Joined: 27 Nov 2011, 18:29
First Video: Unskippable: Eternal Sonata
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby AdmiralMemo » 20 Jun 2015, 10:39

No it doesn't, unless the creature also has trample. The creature with double-strike is still considered "blocked" by the game. This is similar to the situation your opponent blocked a regular creature and sacrificed it to some ability. The creature is still "blocked" so no damage goes through to the opponent, even though there's no more creature there to take the damage.
Graham wrote:The point is: Nyeh nyeh nyeh. I'm an old man.
LRRcast wrote:Paul: That does not answer that question at all.
James: Who cares about that question? That's a good answer.

Image
User avatar
Gildan_Bladeborn
Posts: 57
Joined: 05 Oct 2014, 23:40
First Video: The Job
Location: The Internet

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby Gildan_Bladeborn » 20 Jun 2015, 19:56

Important thing to note about creatures that have Double Strike and Trample - ordinarily if you have more damage to assign during the first strike step than blocking creatures have in toughness, you assign lethal damage to the blockers and trample the rest over, and then assign all of your creature's damage to the player during the normal combat step now that the blockers are dead (assuming the blocking creatures did not also have first strike and enough power to kill your attacking creature).

However, if your opponent blocks with a creature that your double-strike trampler can trample over, but not actually kill (either because it has protection from your creature or some other ability/equipment/etc that prevents all damage/specifically your damage/etc), you would still assign "lethal damage" to the creature and trample over the remainder during the first strike damage step (even though your creature can't actually damage theirs), but because that blocker is still there alive and well during the regular damage step, you have to assign lethal damage to it a second time before you get to trample the remainder of your damage over, you can't just assign it once.

(Edited for accuracy)
Last edited by Gildan_Bladeborn on 23 Jun 2015, 16:00, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DelphiSantano
Posts: 73
Joined: 04 Apr 2013, 05:25
First Video: Unskippable - Dead Rising
Location: UK

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby DelphiSantano » 21 Jun 2015, 23:41

Gildan_Bladeborn wrote:because that blocker is still there alive and well during the regular damage step, you have to assign lethal damage to it a second time before you get to trample the remainder of your damage over, you can't just assign it once.


Close, but damage will only need to be assigned to the creature during the second strike if, at that point, the defending creature does not yet have lethal damage marked on it.
An indestructible creature will still have damage marked on it, and if that damage is considered lethal then the second strike is able to trample over fully (provided attacker has trample, of course).
In the case of a creature with protection however, the damage from the first strike is prevented. That's why you would have to assign a lethal amount of damage again.
"Do hydras lay eggs or bear live young?"

DCI Judge Level 2
User avatar
TaiyouShinobi
Posts: 40
Joined: 10 Jun 2015, 22:15
First Video: Untap

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby TaiyouShinobi » 24 Jun 2015, 02:52

So, I feel really dumb for asking this, but a friend of mine asked me and I could explain it well so I hope someone can help me here. If a 4/4 creature has indestructible and I mark 2 damage on it and then cast an instant that gives it -2/-2, why doesn't it die? I feel like it has something to do with the fact that the marked damage and the -2/-2 are on different "planes," so to speak, of damage/effects but I don't know how I should explain this. And of course, I could be wrong entirely and it does get sent to the grave, but I don't know. Any help?

Also, sorry if this has already been answered here before. This is just a really long forum to read through.
User avatar
phlip
Posts: 1789
Joined: 24 Apr 2010, 17:48
First Video: Eternal Sonata (Unskippable)
Location: Australia

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby phlip » 24 Jun 2015, 03:03

When everything's said and done, you have a 2/2 with indestructible, with 2 damage marked on it. It doesn't matter what order your 2 damage and your -2/-2 happen, that's what you end up with.

Now, if it wasn't for that pesky "indestructible", that would be lethal damage and the creature would die, but with it, it's not going to be dying from damage.

If you want to use -X/-X effects to kill an indestructible creature, you need to get its toughness all the way to zero... if you manage that, indestructibility isn't going to save it, that thing is dead. But indestructibility stops you from shrinking it down partway and using damage to get the rest of the way.
While no one overhear you quickly tell me not cow cow.
but how about watch phone?

[he/him/his]
User avatar
korvys
Posts: 2112
Joined: 29 Apr 2013, 14:48
First Video: Zero Punctuation: X-Blades/Halo Wars
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby korvys » 24 Jun 2015, 14:30

It's pretty common for people to visualise damage as reducing the toughness of a creature. That's how it works in things like Hearthstone, and worse, I think that's how it's displayed in Duels of the Planeswalkers, as well. It's a fairly intuitive way to think, most of the time, but it's not accurate.

A 4 toughness creature with 2 damage on it is similar to a 2 toughness creature, in that it only takes 2 more damage to kill it (normally), and you only have to assign 2 damage to it in combat, and giving it -2/-2 will normally kill it, but it's not exactly the same.

Giving a 2 toughness creature -2/-2 kills it because there a specific rule that says a creature with 0 toughness dies.

Giving a 4 toughness creature with 2 damage on it -2/-2 kills it because of a different rule that says a creature with damage on it equal to it's toughness dies.

Indestructible says the second rule doesn't apply, but the first still works.
"Why does Sonic chill like dawgs?" - Graham
"Causation. Still a leading cause of correlation"" - Oglaf

Google+ / Twitter / Mastodon
keybase.io
User avatar
JackSlack
Posts: 4572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 19:46
First Video: ENN, but I forget which.
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby JackSlack » 24 Jun 2015, 21:33

So, last night Korvys, Phlip and I got into rule 607.1a. That rule reads:

607.1a. An ability printed on an object within another ability that grants that ability to that object is still considered to be “printed on” that object for these purposes.


Which to my mind if perfectly phrased gibberish. After a lot of discussion, Phlip suggested Takklemaggot as a good example. As a way to try and further my understanding, I'm going to try and break this down.

"At the beginning of the upkeep of enchanted creature's controller, put a -0/-1 counter on that creature."

Classic triggered ability; triggers on start of upkeep step. -0/-1 counters are unusual but fine, that's easy to understand.

"When enchanted creature dies, that creature's controller chooses a creature that Takklemaggot could enchant."

Now, this is a second triggered ability; triggers on enchanted creature's death. I note the lack of the word target, meaning that this can get around hexproof or shroud but not protection from black (as it's an enchantment). This is not, as I understand it, a linked ability to the first ability as the two abilities do not rely upon each other — A -0/-1 counter may kill the creature but this ability triggers on ANY death of the enchanted creature.

"If he or she does, return Takklemaggot to the battlefield under your control attached to that creature. If he or she doesn't, return Takklemaggot to the battlefield under your control as a non-Aura enchantment."

This bit is a weird part to me. It's not a 603.4 intervening if clause, but I believe this is still part of the previous triggered ability?

I do note the "Your" will apply to the owner of the card here, barring any weirdness like Control Magic, as the spell does not ever actually change controller due to the abilities on the card itself. (A weakness of the card design to my mind.)

"It loses "enchant creature" and gains "At the beginning of that player's upkeep, Takklemaggot deals 1 damage to him or her."

OK, so this would still be part of the previous triggered ability: This card has two abilities that I can see. It redefines part of the card's characteristics (losing its Aura status and becoming a global enchantment) and then gains the damage ability.

So... OK. I see no linked abilities on the card. But I'm guessing (from discussion) that there's an inferred linked ability that is considered to be printed on the card even though it isn't exactly.

Help?
User avatar
phlip
Posts: 1789
Joined: 24 Apr 2010, 17:48
First Video: Eternal Sonata (Unskippable)
Location: Australia

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby phlip » 24 Jun 2015, 23:02

This whole part of Takklemaggot:
When enchanted creature dies, that creature's controller chooses a creature that Takklemaggot could enchant. If he or she does, return Takklemaggot to the battlefield under your control attached to that creature. If he or she doesn't, return Takklemaggot to the battlefield under your control as a non-Aura enchantment. It loses "enchant creature" and gains "At the beginning of that player's upkeep, Takklemaggot deals 1 damage to him or her."
is one single triggered ability. When the enchanted creature dies, a lot of stuff happens.

Now, say the enchanted creature dies, and is then returned as a non-aura. it now has an additional ability:
At the beginning of that player's upkeep, Takklemaggot deals 1 damage to him or her.
This is not an ability the maggot naturally has, it's not an ability that's printed on the card, but rather one granted by the effect that returned it to the battlefield.

However, it is intended to be linked to the ability that returned it, in the sense of CR 607.1
An object may have two abilities printed on it such that one of them causes actions to be taken or objects or players to be affected and the other one directly refers to those actions, objects, or players. If so, these two abilities are linked: the second refers only to actions that were taken or objects or players that were affected by the first, and not by any other ability.
That is to say, the "that player" in the granted triggered ability is referring to the enchanted creature's controller which died and triggered the ability that brought the Takklemaggot back.

This is all pretty intuitive, and it's what you'd expect to happen from reading the card. It dies, there's this ability that brings it back, and then there's this other ability that deals damage to the player that the first ability was talking about. That's exactly the situation that linked abilities are for.

But there's a hiccup: as a safety net from really weird affects happening, only abilities that are printed on the same card are allowed to be linked. This is a catch-all to prevent some weird situation where you take an ability from one card and stitch it on to another card (especially with cards like Havengul Lich or Quicksilver Elemental which indiscriminately copy abilities from other cards) and end up with two abilities becoming technically linked together and the results being weird. Like, if you had your Havengul Lich copy the abilities of a Scavenging Ooze and a Sisters of Stone Death, you don't want the Ooze's "exile a card from a graveyard" and the Sisters' "return an exiled card to the battlefield" to be linked. The "printed on the same card" clause in the linked abilities rules mean that the "return an exiled card" ability is only linked to the "exile a creature blocking or blocked by me" ability, since they were both printed on the Sisters (skimming over CR 607.5, which is relevant to this example, but not really relevant to the wider discussion).

But that safety net causes a problem with Takklemaggot, since the granted damage-dealing ability is not, per se, printed on the card, it's granted by the other ability. CR 607.1a plugs that gap, and says "that's close enough", and lets them be linked anyway.

The short version: the rule fixes a problem in a corner case of another rule, which itself was fixing a problem in a corner case of another set of rules, which exists solely to let multiple abilities refer to the same objects in the way which, reading the cards, you intuitively expect them to.

The shorter version, as korvys put it: Animate Dead just works, everything is fine, don't even worry about it. Image

JackSlack wrote:I do note the "Your" will apply to the owner of the card here, barring any weirdness like Control Magic, as the spell does not ever actually change controller due to the abilities on the card itself. (A weakness of the card design to my mind.)

Yeah, it would definitely be cleaner to write if it changed controllers... something like:
When enchanted creature dies, its controller returns Takklemaggot to the battlefield under his or her control (he or she chooses what it enchants). If he or she can't, he or she returns it under his or her control as a non-Aura enchantment. It loses "Enchant creature" and gains "At the beginning of your upkeep, Takklemaggot deals 1 damage to you".
However, the printed text on the card (as vaguely-worded as it is) makes no mention of the enchantment changing controllers, and they do their best to make it so the Oracle text of the card has the same behavior as the printed text implies. There was a time when they made functional errata to cards, but it's not something they like to do any more... nowadays they make a point of only having errata to fix templating/rules and make these old vaguely-worded cards more precise.
While no one overhear you quickly tell me not cow cow.
but how about watch phone?

[he/him/his]
User avatar
JackSlack
Posts: 4572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 19:46
First Video: ENN, but I forget which.
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby JackSlack » 25 Jun 2015, 02:32

phlip wrote:Yeah, it would definitely be cleaner to write if it changed controllers.


Also more flavourful. It looks for food and if it can't find any... it goes for you.

Thanks, Phlip. I'm not 100% sure I understand that yet but it's helping.
User avatar
jkefka
Posts: 244
Joined: 28 Oct 2013, 07:08
First Video: Does Desert Bus count? Feed dump if not

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby jkefka » 25 Jun 2015, 14:47

Demonic Pact + Strionic Resonator.

When do things get chosen?
When the upkeep takes longer than the main phase, I know I've done my job well.
steric hindrance
Posts: 136
Joined: 17 Nov 2013, 19:32
First Video: Installation Anxiety 2010
Location: Hanover, NH

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby steric hindrance » 25 Jun 2015, 15:15

I would assume that if you copy a Demonic Pact trigger with Strionic Resonator, the Resonator will copy the trigger with the mode that you chose. It'd be like copying a modal spell: you announce the spell, choose modes, then targets, and make payments; if you then copy the spell, you won't be able to change the modes, but most copy effects tend to allow you to change the targets, like the Resonator.
User avatar
korvys
Posts: 2112
Joined: 29 Apr 2013, 14:48
First Video: Zero Punctuation: X-Blades/Halo Wars
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby korvys » 25 Jun 2015, 15:27

Pretty sure you copy it after you choose modes.

If we look at something like Ainok Guide, it has a triggered ability with a choice. That it triggers on entering the battlefield is not functionally different from triggering at a particular point in the turn. When the ability triggers, you choose the mode before you put it on the stack.

For Demonic Pact, it would be the same. Once it's on the stack, you can copy it with Strionic Resonator, and change the targets (if any).
"Why does Sonic chill like dawgs?" - Graham
"Causation. Still a leading cause of correlation"" - Oglaf

Google+ / Twitter / Mastodon
keybase.io
User avatar
JackSlack
Posts: 4572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 19:46
First Video: ENN, but I forget which.
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby JackSlack » 01 Jul 2015, 19:57

Can someone help me with the example in the CR for 611.2c? Namely, this one.

Example: An effect that reads "All white creatures get +1/+1 until end of turn" gives the bonus to all permanents that are white creatures when the spell or ability resolves——even if they change color later——and doesn’t affect those that enter the battlefield or turn white afterward.


WHY THE CRAPPITY CRAP DOES THIS WORK THIS WAY?!? Honor of the Pure has almost the exact same wording, minus the 'until end of turn' and yet there if a creature becomes white, it'd gain the +1/+1 and if it stopped being white, it'd lose the +1/+1. Surely the EOT element doesn't change this fundamental interaction?

Dammit Magic, stop being weird.

(Edit: And the 'you control', but y'know.)
User avatar
korvys
Posts: 2112
Joined: 29 Apr 2013, 14:48
First Video: Zero Punctuation: X-Blades/Halo Wars
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby korvys » 01 Jul 2015, 20:32

JackSlack wrote:WHY THE CRAPPITY CRAP DOES THIS WORK THIS WAY?!?


The examples and the rules need to be read together. It works that way due to the first sentence in 611.2c:
611.2c If a continuous effect generated by the resolution of a spell or ability modifies the characteristics or changes the controller of any objects, the set of objects it affects is determined when that continuous effect begins. After that point, the set won't change. (Note that this works differently than a continuous effect from a static ability.)
"Why does Sonic chill like dawgs?" - Graham
"Causation. Still a leading cause of correlation"" - Oglaf

Google+ / Twitter / Mastodon
keybase.io
User avatar
JackSlack
Posts: 4572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 19:46
First Video: ENN, but I forget which.
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby JackSlack » 01 Jul 2015, 20:42

Thanks, Korvys. I'm still mopping up brain here trying to keep sense of it all, but that does answer the question neatly.
User avatar
phlip
Posts: 1789
Joined: 24 Apr 2010, 17:48
First Video: Eternal Sonata (Unskippable)
Location: Australia

Re: Magic the Gathering: Ask a Judge

Postby phlip » 01 Jul 2015, 21:51

Obviously, I'm not the rules manager, so I can't speak to the actual motivation behind the rules, but I imagine it's something like this...

For convenience, let's talk about Glorious Anthem and Glorious Charge, since the effect is the same on both (so we don't get sidetracked by the CR's example card not saying "you control", or actually existing).

Now: when you cast Glorious Charge, the effect isn't going to be sticking around for long... just the turn. The creatures you have in play aren't likely to change too dramatically... maybe you cast it during combat, then play another creature postcombat, and then that's it. So the result of having it not apply to the new creatures is not too severe. And there's a memory problem if it does affect the new creatures... it's easy enough to remember "ok, these creatures that attacked are all bigger" for as long as it's likely to remain relevant, but remembering that still applies to a postcombat creature is more likely to be forgotten.

On the other hand, you play Glorious Anthem, and it's going to be sticking around for a while, if everything goes according to plan. Lots of new creatures are going to be coming in while it's around, and you're going to want them to get the benefits... you're going to expect them to get the benefits. And the memory issue is less relevant because the Glorious Anthem card is still there, in play, so when you look at the board you can see it and remember that the effect exists... unlike a spell, where the effect exists, but the actual Glorious Charge card is now buried in someone's graveyard by now. Or worse, an activated or triggered ability, which was never represented by a physical object to begin with.
While no one overhear you quickly tell me not cow cow.
but how about watch phone?

[he/him/his]

Return to “Magic: The Gathering”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests