When mana abilities make a difference

You control a Deathrite Shaman and another creature, all your lands are tapped, but there's a land in a graveyard. Your opponent controls a Sphere of Safety (and no other enchantments.) Question: Can you attack?

If your answer was "of course, just pay the required mana cost with the Shaman", then you haven't been reading this blog enough. Naturally the correct answer is "no", but the interesting part is the reason why not.

Deathrite Shaman's first ability is not a so-called mana ability because it targets. This is defined in the rules of the game as follows:

605.1a An activated ability is a mana ability if it meets three criteria: it doesn't have a target, it could put mana into a player's mana pool when it resolves, and it's not a loyalty ability.

Since it's not a mana ability, this means that it can only be activated any time you could cast an instant, in other words, any time you have priority. The difference with a mana ability is that the latter can be used any time you have priority and whenever something requires a mana cost to be paid. (Also, mana abilities do not use the stack, while normal activated abilities do.) In the vast majority of cases this is inconsequential, but in this particular case it makes a big difference.

The cost imposed by Sphere of Safety has to be paid when declaring attackers. This is done at the beginning of the declare attackers step. No players get priority at the beginning of that step until all attackers have been declared. (Paying possible costs is part of the process of declaring attackers, as specified by the rules.) This means that only mana abilities can be used to pay the cost. Instant-speed abilities cannot.

Activating Shaman's ability in the previous step (ie. the beginning of combat step) does not help because mana pools empty between steps.

Another question: Suppose you control a creature and one untapped land that's enchanted with a Verdant Haven. Your opponent controls a Sphere of Safety and another enchantment (thus requiring you to pay 2 mana to attack with the creature.) Can you attack?

This is another interesting question because this is not an activated ability but a triggered one. Does the same principle apply to triggered abilities that does to activated abilities?

The answer is yes: A triggered ability that adds mana to your mana pool and doesn't target is also a mana ability and thus does not use the stack and will immediately add the mana whenever it triggers. Thus you can attack.

To attack, or not to attack, part 2

In a previous blog post I asked a question about what happens when a Jackal Familiar is enchanted with Furor of the Bitten. This is a similar question, but with a slightly different twist:

Assume that a Master of Cruelties is enchanted by Furor of the Bitten. What happens?

This is closely related to the other situation, but the difference is now that rather than the creature being unable to attack alone, this one can only attack alone. Thus the question becomes: Can you attack with another creature, or are you forced to attack with Master of Cruelties each turn (if it's otherwise able), precluding any other creature from attacking?

This is once again a situation where many players, even very experienced ones, get it wrong (and may cause a considerable amount of disagreement.) The correct answer is that yes, Master of Cruelties must attack each turn (if there's nothing else stopping it, eg. summoning sickness) and thus nothing else can attack.

Rule 508.1d of the Comprehensive Rules (which I quoted in the other blog post) deals with this situation. It basically amounts to:

When declaring attackers:

1. Restrictions must not be disobeyed.
2. The amount of requirements being obeyed must be maximized (without disobeying any restriction.)
3. Any other declaration of attackers is illegal.

In this particular case a declaration of attackers where Master of Cruelties is attacking obeys more requirements (without disobeying any restrictions) than a declaration where it's not attacking. Therefore it's the only legal declaration.

(Sometimes it may happen that there are several possible declarations that obey the same number of requirements. In this case the player can freely choose between one of them. However, as stated, those are the only legal ones, and one of them must be chosen.)

But wait, there is more. Here's an even more complicated twist to the problem:

Suppose you control Master of Cruelties (not enchanted by anything) and some other creatures, and your opponent casts Aggravate. What happens?

The key to resolve this situation is to realize that an effect that says "each creature attacks if able" is placing a requirement on each such creature individually, and the amount of requirements being obeyed must be maximized.

This means that if you control two creatures (one of them being Master of Cruelties), then you can choose which one attacks. (This is an example where two different declarations of attackers obeys the same amount of requirements, and thus you can choose one of them.)

However, if you control more than two creatures, then the only legal declaration is one where all the other creatures except Master of Cruelties attack (because this declaration obeys the most requirements.)

(Bonus question: What happens in the above situation if Master of Cruelties is enchanted with Furor of the Bitten?)

Persistent Melira

Consider these questions, all if which are related in some manner:

1. Assume you control Melira, Sylvok Outcast, you give her persist (for example with Cauldron Haze), and she dies. When she comes back, will she have a -1/-1 counter?
2. Assume you control Melira's Keepers, you give it persist, and it dies. When it comes back, will it have a -1/-1 counter?
3. You control a Clone (it doesn't really matter what it's copying) and Melira's Keepers, you give the Clone persist, and it dies. When it comes back, you make it be a copy of Melira's Keepers. Will it have a -1/-1 counter?
4. You control a Volrath's Shapeshifter, the top card of your library is Melira's Keepers, you give the Shapeshifter persist, and it dies. When it comes back, will it have a -1/-1 counter?

These questions deal with some of the most obscure parts of the rules of the game. Let's examine the first two.

Melira, Sylvok Outcast has a static ability which states that creatures you control can't have -1/-1 counters placed on them. Melira's Keepers is somewhat similar, except that it affects only itself (and stops any kind of counters from being placed on it, although in this case that's inconsequential).

So there are two interesting questions here: When they gain persist and die, do they come back with a -1/-1 counter or without one, and do they behave differently in this regard?

Quite curiously their type of static ability does make a difference in this case. In particular, Melira, Sylvok Outcast will return with a -1/-1 counter, while Melira's Keepers will return without one. The reason for this may not be apparent, and it is, as said, one of the more obscure parts of the rules.

A static ability that affects all creatures behaves differently from a static ability that only affects the specific creature itself. The effect (in this case persist) that makes the creature enter the battlefield with an additional characteristic (in this case a -1/-1 counter) will be affected by a static ability that says something about the creature itself, but will not be affected by any generic effect that applies to all creatures (even if that effect is in the card being evaluated.) In a sense, one could think of it as the generic effect not affecting the creature until it's on the battlefield (and thus doesn't affect how creatures enter it.)

What about the Clone?

When the Clone is entering the battlefield, you choose what it copies. In this case we are choosing Melira's Keepers. So the question becomes: What happens first, the persist effect giving it a -1/-1 counter, or Clone acquiring the Keepers' ability that stops counters from being put onto it?

The correct answer is that Clone becomes a copy of Keepers before the persist effect tries to put a -1/-1 counter on it, and therefore it gets no counter. (This is, if anything, an even more obscure and hard to find consequence of the rules of the game.)

And finally, Volrath's Shapeshifter (and Melira's Keepers being the top card of your graveyard):

Now this is a really tricky one, and can confuse even judges. (It doesn't help that the official rulings for this card and how it interacts with enters-the-battlefield replacement effects have changed over time.)

At first it might look like this is just the same thing as with the Clone, but their abilities are a bit different. While Clone specifically says that it "enters the battlefield as a copy" of something, this card does not say anything about entering the battlefield with the characteristics of the top card of the graveyard.

This is such an obscure case that there may be some disagreement even among experts, but the majority consensus seems to be that Shapeshifter is considered to have the characteristics of the top graveyard card as it enters, and will therefore not have a -1/-1 counter put on it by persist. (However, this interpretation shouldn't be taken as set-in-stone until an official ruling from Wizards of the Coast can be cited.)

To block, or not to block?

Assume that you control a Hunter Sliver and a Two-Headed Sliver, and your opponent controls two Grizzly Bears.

The Hunter Sliver gives provoke to all slivers, the Two-Headed Sliver says that slivers can't be blocked except by two or more creatures.

Question: If you attack with one sliver and target one of the defending bears with the provoke ability, is your opponent forced to block with both bears (if they are otherwise able to do so)?

This problem is similar to one I posed in an earlier post, although in that case the question was about attackers rather than blockers.

Many a player would hastily answer to this question that "no; since the bears can't block alone, they aren't forced to do so." However, this answer would once again be incorrect.

The rule text that handles this situation is the following:

509.1c The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of blockers is illegal. If a creature can't block unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if blocking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.

This is very similar to the rule about declaring attackers. In short, what this is saying is that a declaration of blockers that obeys less requirements than another possible declaration of blockers (which doesn't disobey any restrictions) is an illegal declaration. Only a declaration that maximizes the number of requirements (without disobeying restrictions) is a legal declaration.

In this particular example there are two possible declaration of blockers: Not declaring any blockers, and declaring both bears to block the sliver. Since the latter obeys more requirements than the former, the former is an illegal declaration of blockers. In other words, the defending player has to block the sliver with both bears.

(Note that if the defending player had only one bear, he could not block the sliver regardless of the provoke because the Two-Headed Sliver is imposing a restriction on blocking, and a restriction always trumps a requirement.)

In cases where there are several possible declarations that would obey the same amount of requirements, the defending player can choose between them. This would be the case, for example, if you attacked with two slivers and used the provoke ability of both of them. In this case the provoke abilities are forcing the defending player to block either one of two slivers, so the defending player can choose which sliver to block with the two bears.

(Incidentally, it makes no difference in this particular case whether the two provoke abilities target the same bear or different ones. While the situation is technically speaking different, the end result is the same.)

As a thinking exercise, consider what happens if the defending player had three bears, or four bears, and you attacked with two slivers and targeted two of them with their provoke abilities.

Grave Betrayal

Assume that you control a Grave Betrayal, and an opponent controls an animated Treetop Village that dies.

1. When Treetop Village comes back under your control, will it be a Zombie?
2. If you animate it using its ability, will it then be a Zombie?

The question is relevant because there are many cards that specifically refer to Zombies (for example Diregraf Captain and Victim of Night.)

And to clarify a possible confusion: Yes, Treetop Village will return under your control with a +1/+1 counter on it if it died as a creature (under your opponent's control) even though it will not be a creature when it does so (it will be simply an unanimated Treetop Village.) Grave Betrayal's triggered ability only cares what it was when on the battlefield, not what it becomes once it hits the graveyard.

The answer to the first question is simple: As long as Treetop Village is not a creature, it simply cannot have a creature subtype (this is specifically stated in the rules of the game) and therefore it won't be a Zombie.

The second question is a bit more complicated.

Another clarification is needed at this point to avoid confusion: Yes, the effect of Grave Betrayal will be constantly applying to Treetop Village for as long as the latter is on the battlefield, regardless of whether it actually causes a change or not. It not being a creature does not cause the effect to cease to exist. (It just means that the effect isn't actually making it a Zombie if it's not a creature.)

Also note that "it's still a land" really means "in addition to its other types", which in turn means that its effect making it an Ape creature does not overwrite any other types or subtypes it may have.

So, if Treetop Village becomes a creature (eg. by using its own ability), does it become a Zombie? If you answer yes, then you haven't been reading this blog enough, because it's not that simple...

This is a rather peculiar case where the timestamps of effects have a non-trivial consequence.

There are now two effects affecting Treetop Village (on the same layer): The effect that says it's a Zombie, and the effect that says it's an Ape creature. The former has an older timestamp and is therefore applied first.

And that's the crucial point: Such effects on the same layer are evaluated one by one, in timestamp order (unless they are dependent effects, and these two are not.) This means that "is a Zombie" is evaluated first, but at this stage Treetop Village is not a creature, so that effect does nothing. Then we evaluate the "is an Ape creature" which makes it a creature (of subtype Ape.)

This means that it will be an Ape creature, but not a Zombie.

Last known information

The concept of "last known information" is not something that comes up frequently in Magic the Gathering. Thus it's not surprising that it might sometimes be unclear what exactly happens in certain situations.

For example, assume that there's a germ token equipped with Mortarpod, soulbonded with a Tandem Lookout.

Because of the soulbond ability, whenever the Germ deals damage to an opponent, its controller draws a card. However, if the Germ's controller now uses its "Sacrifice this creature: This creature deals 1 damage to target creature or player" ability, will he or she draw a card?

Is there any difference if instead of being soulbonded to Tandem Lookout, the Germ had been soulbonded with a Nearheath Pilgrim?

Since the Germ token is not on the battlefield by the time the ability that Mortarpod grants resolves, this is a situation where the last known information is used to determine what happens. As the Oracle ruling clarification for Mortarpod says, "if you sacrifice the equipped creature to deal 1 damage to a target creature or player, the damage is dealt by the creature as it last existed on the battlefield."

The important thing to understand is that the last known information is used to determine, and only affects, the effect that requires that information. In other words, when the ability granted by Mortarpod resolves, it looks to the object as it last existed on the relevant zone (in this case the battlefield) to determine if it had anything that affects the damage. For example, if it had infect, then the damage will be done in the form of -1/-1 counters or poison counters. If it had deathtouch, the target creature will be destroyed. If it had lifelink, then its controller gains that much life, and so on.

That answers the second question: Since the Germ had lifelink (due to being soulbonded to Nearheath Pilgrim), its controller will gain 1 life at the same time as 1 damage is dealt.

What about the first case, then? Will the Germ's controller draw a card?

Note that the card-drawing ability does not affect in any way how the damage is dealt. Therefore it's not something that the damage ability is looking for to determine how the damage is dealt.

The card-drawing ability does not exist anymore by the time the damage is dealt (because the Germ token is long gone.) Therefore there's nothing to trigger. Thus the answer to the first question is that the player does not draw a card.

Abilities and layers

Let's assume that there's a Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth on the battlefield, and it's enchanted with a Guardian Zendikon.

Effectively, Urborg will now be like this:

Its full type line will be: "Legendary Land Creature - Swamp Wall". (It's a swamp because of its own ability, and this gives it the ability to tap for one black mana.)

Now let's assume that someone enchants it with Lignify.

Thus it ends up effectively looking like this:

Question: Are all lands swamps in addition to their other types?

One could hastily think that they are not, because Urborg does not have that ability anymore. However, as is usual in this blog, it's not that simple.

Urborg's ability is a type-setting ability, while Lignify's ability is an ability-setting (or in this case an ability-removing) ability. These are evaluated on different layers.

The status of all permanents on the battlefield is evaluated one layer at a time, starting from the first one.

In this situation layers 1 to 3 have nothing special to them. However, when we get to layer 4 (the layer where type setting abilities are evaluated), we see that Urborg has an ability that sets the type of each land to Swamp.

It's important to understand that at this point Lignify's ability has still not been evaluated (because its effect happens on layer 6.) Therefore at this layer Urborg still has the ability "Each land is a Swamp in addition to its other types." This is evaluated now, and therefore it sets the type of all lands to Swamp (including Urborg itself.)

Then, when we evaluate layer 6 we see that Lignify is removing all of Urborg's abilities. Thus it affects Urborg only. (Remember that so-called dependent abilities are evaluated only when they happen on the same layer. Therefore Lignify's ability has no effect on layer 4.)

Also note that even though Urborg is a Swamp due to its own ability, it does not have the ability to tap for one black mana, because Lignify is removing it.

Likewise Lignify is removing the "Defender" ability set by Guardian Zendikon, due to Lignify having a newer timestamp. (Urborg could now freely attack.)

Raging Rivers

Here's a Raging River:

The Oracle text for the card is the following:

Whenever one or more creatures you control attack, each defending player divides all creatures without flying he or she controls into a "left" pile and a "right" pile. Then, for each attacking creature you control, choose "left" or "right." That creature can't be blocked this combat except by creatures with flying and creatures in a pile with the chosen label.

This makes gameplay interesting. Basically the battlefield is divided into two, and ground creatures (without flying) can only attack and defend on one half of it.

Question: What happens if there are two Raging Rivers on the battlefield at the same time?

This situation is a bit complicated. While it's not explicitly stated in the game's rules how exactly the situation should be handled, it can nevertheless be deduced unambiguously from how effects work.

To analyze this situation, let's assume that there are six Grizzly Bears attacking and six Civic Wayfinders defending. (It's not all that important what the creatures are for the sake of this example.)

When the bears attack, both Rivers will trigger, but they will resolve one at a time. When the first River effect resolves, the attacking and defending creatures may have been divided into "left" and "right" groups for example like this (you can click on the image to get a larger version):

I have color-coded the effect of the first River with yellow markers for clarity. What the effect in question is doing is creating a continuous effect (during this combat phase) that imposes a restriction on which creature can block which other creature: Those creatures marked with a yellow L can only block those attacking creatures with a yellow L, and likewise for the yellow R markers.

Now the effect of the second River resolves. All creatures are now independently divided into "left" and "right" groups due to this effect. I have color-coded this second effect with purple markers. They could be divided, for example, like this:

The second effect likewise now states that only creatures with a purple L can block attacking creatures with a purple L, and likewise for the purple R.

The division into two groups for the second (purple) effect is completely independent of the first (yellow) effect. However, both effects are still imposing a restriction on which creature can block what. Both effects have to be taken into account when declaring blockers. For example, even though the second effect would allow a creature with a purple L to block an attacking creature with a purple L, the first effect will be restricting that possibility if they have a different yellow marker.

Therefore the only possible way to declare blockers is like this:

So, quite flavorfulwise, two Raging Rivers will divide the battlefield into four parts, and all non-flying attackers and blockers will be restricted to one of those parts. It's like a river that splits into two, and there's a mountain range between them.

The complexity of basic lands

One could find a bit of irony in the fact that basic lands are both the most ubiquitous and simplest types in Magic the Gathering, yet at the same time there's a great deal of hidden complexity behind them. (The complexity does not come from basic land cards themselves, but from the concept of "basic land type," which has a good amount of implicit rules behind it.)

Assume that Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth and Blood Moon are on the battlefield at the same time. What happens?

If you remember from my previous posts, or as you may already know, if an effect sets, for example, the creature subtype of a creature permanent to something, it will only replace the existing creature subtypes of said permanent and nothing else. (It will not affect any other types or supertypes the permanent might have, eg. if it's an Artifact or it's Legendary, nor will it affect the subtypes of other types, such as it having a land subtype. More importantly, though, it will not have any effect on any existing abilities or other characteristics of the permanent.)

These two cards do not set the type of lands to anything. They only set their land subtype (to Swamp and Mountain respectively.) However, these are basic land subtypes, and this is governed by special rules: If an effect sets the subtype of a land to one of the basic land subtypes (ie. Forest, Plains, Mountain, Swamp or Island), that land will lose all of its existing land subtypes and all of its existing abilities (unless the effect says "in addition to its other types") and gains the ability of tapping for one mana of the respective color. The loss of existing abilities has quite radical implications when anything sets the land subtype to that of a basic land.

To take a simpler example, consider a Sulfurous Springs enchanted with Lush Growth.

What happens here? Lush Growth is setting the land subtypes of Sulfurous Springs to Mountain, Forest and Plains. This means that it loses its existing abilities (which means you cannot tap it for colorless mana nor for black or red mana and taking 1 damage) and gains three different abilities: The first ability to tap for one red mana, the second to tap for one green mana and the third to tap for one white mana.

(Note that while Sulfurous Springs now has basic land subtypes, it's not itself a basic land. "Basic" is a supertype, and Lush Growth does not grant it.)

Before we go to the question at the beginning, consider the situation where these latter two cards are on the battlefield, and in addition there is also a Blood Moon (which says that "nonbasic lands are Mountains.") What happens?

This is a situation where we have two type-setting effects on the same layer (layer 4) affecting the same permanent. Therefore it's a question of timestamps. In other words, the answer depends on which happened first, Blood Moon entering the battlefield or Lush Growth enchanting Sulfurous Springs. The one that has the newer timestamp trumps the other.

So now to the original question: What happens when both Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth and Blood Moon are at the same time on the battlefield? Are nonbasic lands Swamps (in addition to their existing types) or Mountains (with no other types and abilities)? Are they both? Are basic lands Swamps in addition to their own types?

It may sound at first like this is also a question of timestamps, ie. that it depends on which one entered the battlefield first. However, there's a crucial difference here: Urborg is itself a land, so Blood Moon is also affecting it. (If Blood Moon sets Urborg's subtype to Mountain, it loses all of its abilities, which means it will not make anything a Swamp.)

This is a rarer situation where there are dependent effects on the same layer. This is a special exception to the timestamp rule which states that if the text or existence of one effect on a layer would depend on another effect on the same layer, the affecting effect is evaluated before the affected one (regardless of timestamps.)

In this particular case Blood Moon's effect is evaluated first regardless of timestamps because it modifies Urborg's effect. Therefore Urborg becomes a Mountain and loses its abilities and doesn't make anything a Swamp. (In other words, all nonbasic lands will be Mountains and all basic lands will be unmodified.)

The long history of Dragon Whelp

Some cards have withstood the test of time. Some cards that were printed in the very beginning, in the Alpha set, are still being reprinted in very recent sets. They got the card balanced enough to warrant such reprints.

It's interesting to examine how such cards have changed over time, as they often reflect the history of Magic, and how its rules and terminology have changed. One card that I find particularly interesting is Dragon Whelp. Let's examine its different incarnations (the ones that have changes from previous ones.)

This is the version printed in Alpha. The "+1/+0" boost is expressed a bit differently than it is today. Also, referring to how much mana has been spent on an ability is not something you see much in modern cards. However, the most prominent difference to modern cards is that the concept of sacrificing permanents was not yet established, and instead they were just "destroyed."

This was, in fact, the exact same destruction effect that eg. lethal damage would cause, or any spell that says "destroy." This meant that if the condition triggers and destroys Dragon Whelp, it could be saved via regeneration (a game mechanic that has existed since the very beginning.) I don't know if this was the original intent of the card's designers.

Note how the condition on mana amount has no time limit on it (ie. that the limit is only for mana spent on one turn.) This was most probably an oversight, and the original intent was for it to be only during one turn.

This is the version printed in Revised:

The maximum mana condition has now been fixed to apply to one turn only. Curiously, the "+1/+0" effect now specifies no time limit. (I'm assuming that at this point it was kind of implied that all such effects apply only until end of turn unless otherwise specified.)

Even more curiously, the creature is now "killed" rather than "destroyed" at the end of turn. This seems to be a rather non-standard term, which was quickly changed back in the next reprint.

This was printed in Fourth Edition. This seems to be the most "complete" and unambiguous wording for the pre-6th-edition terminology. The "+1/+0" is again until end of turn, and it's again "destroy."

Curiously, the third-person style of the rules text of the previous versions has been changed to a second-person style.

This is the version printed in Time Spiral. There's a quite significant change in the text, which is now much closer to modern terminology. It's now "gets +1/+0", instead of referring to spent mana it refers to how many times the ability has been activated, and it's now "sacrifice" instead of "destroy."

These are, technically speaking, functional changes. If the last part activates, it's not possible to save it anymore via regeneration (because regeneration only affects destruction effects, and sacrificing isn't one.) And hypothetically if you could activate the ability without paying its mana cost, or if you could pay it with something else than red mana, it wouldn't now make any difference (unlike in earlier versions which talked about spent mana.)

This is the most modern printed version. "At the end of turn" has been changed to the more unambiguous "at the beginning of the end step" (which makes a difference in some cases) and "this ability has been played" has been changed to the more modern "activated."

This is not, however, the most up-to-date version of the card. The rules text has been updated in Oracle, which says:

R: Dragon Whelp gets +1/+0 until end of turn. If this ability has been activated four or more times this turn, sacrifice Dragon Whelp at the beginning of the next end step.

There's a subtle difference, and not only in the order of the wording. Notice how it now says "at the beginning of the next end step." The word "next" makes a functional difference. (In practice it means that if the fourth activation happens after the beginning of the end step, it will have to be sacrificed at the beginning of the end step of the next turn. The printed version did not have this consequence.)

Transformations

Double-faced cards that transform are a rather interesting kind of card that was introduced in the Innistrad set. Due to this unique peculiarity, they can also cause a bit of confusion sometimes due to how they work.

Many such cards have a triggered ability that transforms the card (when it's on the battlefield.) One of the most typical such ability is "at the beginning of each upkeep, if no spells were cast last turn, transform (this card)." Many players actually don't realize that this is a normal triggered ability that uses the stack, and therefore can be responded to. (This is because the ability starts with the word "at".) While it's not very usual for this to have any effect on anything, there are some cases where it does. A good example is Ulvenwald Mystics/Primordials.

If this card is on the "Primordials" side and its transform ability triggers, that ability can be responded to: The card's controller can activate its regereneration ability before the transform ability resolves. Therefore the permanent becomes Ulvenwald Mystics that has a regeneration shield.

Anyway, that was not really the reason why I wanted to write this article. Rather, I want to pose a problem: Suppose that there's an Afflicted Deserter on the battlefield, and it's going to transform (because no spells were cast last turn.)

 

If it transforms, its controller can destroy an artifact. As a response to the triggered ability, someone casts Snakeform targeting Afflicted Deserter. What happens?

(As a side note, it's useful to know that this is actually the earliest possible time in a turn that any player can do anything. The beginning phase consists of the untap, the upkeep, and the draw steps. No players get priority during the untap step, and any ability that triggers "at the beginning of upkeep" will trigger before any player gets priority. Therefore it's not possible to do anything to Afflicted Deserter during that turn before its ability triggers.)

To many players it can be unclear what exactly happens in this situation. Does Snakeform stop the transformation? Does it not stop it, but only affect the Afflicted Deserter side and not the Werewolf Ransacker side? Does it affect both sides? Is it perhaps a question of timestamps?

To understand exactly what's going on, we have to understand double-faced cards and what it means when they transform. The key point to understand is that transforming a double-faced card is, effectively, just changing its printed information. When it transforms it's not a new permanent, but the same one. It's effectively just as if its text and other information had been replaced with some other text.

Note that this is not an effect that uses layers. It's literally information that's printed on the card, and thus defines the card, even if this information changes when it transforms. Other effects, such as the one caused by Snakeform, will affect it on layers regardless of what the card text might be saying at any given moment.

(To be more precise, the "becomes a green Snake" is in effect on layer 4, the "loses all abilities" is in effect on layer 6, and the 1/1 power/toughness setting ability is in effect on layer 7b.)

So Snakeform will make it a 1/1 green Snake with no abilities regardless of whether it transforms or not.

So the remaining question is: Does it transform? The answer is yes: The transformation ability is already on the stack, and therefore is unaffected by whatever else may be affecting the card. When the ability resolves, it will transform the card as usual.

Therefore when all resolves, it will become a 1/1 green Snake named Werewolf Ransacker with no abilities. Thus it will not destroy any artifact (because at this point it has no such ability.)

When do things "target" in Magic the Gathering?

There's a quite unambiguous and overarching de-facto rule in Magic the Gathering that's surprisingly little-known among players, and it's that the only place in the entire game where anything "targets" is on the stack. This can be a bit surprising to many players.

Something targeting something else is a completely non-existent concept anywhere else than on the stack; only things on the stack can target. (Spells and abilities that contain the word "target" will target something when they are entering the stack, and when they resolve. However, they do not target anything anywhere else, nor in any other situation.)

While this isn't an actual explicit rule of the game, it's a de-facto rule (ie. it's just true because no game rule recognizes targeting as happening anywhere else than on the stack.)

This principle very seldom affects the game in practice, but when it does, it is often surprising for those who do not know this, usually causing confusion and protest.

One quintessential example would be aura enchantments: Auras are spells that target, but do so only when they go to the stack and resolve from there. If an aura enters the battlefield by means other than by being cast, it doesn't actually target. This can have surprising consequences.

Example: You attack with Sun Titan, and use its ability to return a Pacifism to the battlefield. You can then attach said aura to, for example, a Primal Huntbeast that your opponent controls, even though it has hexproof.

Most players who are unaware of this situation will protest and say that you can't enchant Primal Huntbeast, it has hexproof. However, when an aura enters the battlefield from anywhere else than the stack, it does not target and thus hexproof doesn't affect it. This can be, admittedly, rather unintuitive.

Moreover, since choosing to enchant Primal Huntbeast does not use the stack, it's something that cannot be responded to. As soon as Pacifism enters the battlefield, its controller chooses what it enchants and there's no time to respond to it. (Your opponent could respond to Sun Titan's triggered ability, but at that point he or she does not know what you will be attaching Pacifism to. You make the choice as Titan's ability resolves and Pacifism enters.)

(Technically speaking, there's a difference between an "Aura" and an "Aura spell." The former is a card, which becomes a permanent when on the battlefield. It does not target anything. The latter is technically speaking a different thing; it's more like a conceptual effect that goes to the stack and then resolves, and causes the Aura card to enter the battlefield attached to whatever the spell targeted. If the target becomes illegal, the spell fails to bring the Aura card to the battlefield, and it instead goes to the graveyard. Technically speaking the Aura card doesn't care what brings it to the battlefield: When it does, it enters attached to something. If the effect that brings it to the battlefield specifies what it enters attached to, it enchants that. If the effect did not specify, then the player chooses what it enchants.)

All permanents are creatures

There's a quite famous combination of two cards in Magic the Gathering which, if they are on the battlefield at the same time, make all permanents artifact creatures: Mycosynth Lattice and March of the Machines.

(As you may know, or if you have read my previous blog posts, an effect making something an artifact creature has an implicit "in addition to its other types" without the effect having to specifically state it. This means that all permanents retain their other types in addition to being artifact creatures.)

This combination not only causes all kinds of shenanigans, the least of which is most certainly not the fact that all lands die because of being creatures with 0/0 power/toughness (unless there's something else increasing their toughness), but it also allows many interesting interactions with non-creature permanents that are not normally possible (because most of the "interesting" interactions usually target creatures and nothing else.)

Just to mention one of the numerous possibilities, take for example the situation where Clone enters the battlefield as a copy of Garruk Relentless.

Under the current rules (as of writing this blog post) both of them would simply die as a state-based action due to the planeswalker uniqueness rule, so nothing special happens. However, with the soon upcoming Magic 2014 rules change the Clone can remain on the battlefield as a copy of Garruk. (If Clone was cast by an opponent, it just stays. If it was cast by Garruk's controller, he or she can choose which one stays and which one goes to the graveyard.)

(Note that as Clone enters the battlefield as a copy of Garruk, it will have 3 loyalty counters, because that's a property of the Garruk card.)

It was possible to have Clone remain on the battlefield even under the old rules, but it required a much more contrived set of circumstances. The new rules make it much simpler.

So Clone is now a copy of Garruk Relentless. What's so special about this? The special thing is that Garruk Relentless is a double-faced card, while Clone isn't. Clone only copies the "Garruk Relentless" side of the card. And one of the copied abilities is "When Garruk Relentless has two or fewer loyalty counters on him, transform him."

So, what happens if Clone, which is a copy of Garruk, has less than three loyalty counters? It still may not seem like much: The ability tries to transform the clone, but since it can't (because it's not a double-faced card), it just does nothing.

Most people would just leave it at that. However, technically speaking, that's not the end of the story. What really happens is that when the clone's first ability triggers and resolves, it immediately triggers again. (A so-called state-trigger, which is what Garruk's first ability is, does not trigger again while its previous instantiation is still on the stack. However, once it resolves, it's free to trigger again.)

This, technically speaking, causes an unstoppable loop that doesn't allow the game to continue. Every time the ability triggers and resolves (and fails to transform the clone), it immediately triggers again, and so on, ad infinitum. The game cannot proceed because of this, unless something kills the clone (such as someone casting a Lightning Bolt on it.)

The proper result of this would be that the game ends in a draw.

To attack, or not to attack?

Question: Assume you control a Jackal Familiar which is enchanted with Furor of the Bitten. You also control a second creature (that has nothing special to it.) Are you forced to attack with both creatures to make the Jackal attack?

Jackal Familiar can't attack or block alone. Furor of the Bitten says that the enchanted creature must attack each turn if able. Because of that last part, many players will intuitively answer that Jackal doesn't have to attack if nothing else is attacking, because it's not able to do so alone. Since it's not able to attack, it doesn't have to.

While this sounds logical and intuitive, it's actually incorrect. In fact, you have to attack with both creatures (if both are otherwise able to) in order to fulfill the requirement imposed by Furor of the Bitten. In a way, the combination of Jackal's and Furor's abilities causes a mandatory two-creature attack on each turn, if both of those creatures are able. (If Jackal is your only creature, or your other creatures can't attack for other reasons, eg. summoning sickness, then Jackal doesn't attack.)

This is one of the more obscure parts of the rules of the game, which often surprises players.

There is a rule that states that when declaring attackers, the player must declare them in such a way that fulfills as many requirements as possible. Since declaring two attackers (in this case) fulfills more requirements than declaring no attackers, the former is mandatory.

Note that this applies only to declaring attackers. If there are costs that have to be paid (eg. mana costs) in order for creatures to attack, those don't have to be paid. For example, assume that your opponent controls a Sphere of Safety.

In this case you are not forced to pay the mana cost required to attack, and thus your creatures are not forced to attack.

The exact rule that states this is the following:

508.1d The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any requirements(effects that say a creature must attack, or that it must attack if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. If a creature can’t attack unless a player pays a cost, that player is not required to pay that cost, even if attacking with that creature would increase the number of requirements being obeyed.

Optional abilities and targeting

Assume that you control a Phantasmal Bear and no other creatures, and then you cast Restoration Angel.

The question is: Do you have to sacrifice the Bear?

A good majority of players, even experienced ones, will say that no, because Angel's ability says "may." However, this is incorrect, and it's one of the most unintuitive aspects of the game (one which probably causes protest and disappointments from beginners.)

What's happening here is that when Restoration Angel enters the battlefield, its triggered ability will trigger regardless of whether you want to eventually use it or not. The optionality brought by the word "may" is only in effect when the ability resolves. (In other words, whenever a spell or ability says that you "may" do something, it means effectively "when this effect resolves, you may" do that thing.)

When an ability triggers, if it's a targeting ability, its controller must give it a legal target, if one exists. This is not optional. If there's only one legal target, that will be chosen for the ability. (The special case is when there are no legal targets. In that case the ability just "fizzles" and doesn't even enter the stack.)

Thus, if Phantasmal Bear is the only creature you control when you cast Restoration Angel, you have no choice but to target the former with the Angel's ability, regardless of what you would choose when said ability would resolve. As said, the choice is made only on resolution, not when the ability triggers.

And since Phantasmal Bear is being targeted by an ability, you have to sacrifice it. (The Bear's ability is also a triggered one, because it starts with "when", but it goes to the stack after the Angel's ability, and therefore resolves first. Thus the Bear is sacrificed before the Angel's ability has the chance to do its thing. And once the latter resolves, the Bear has become an illegal target because it's not on the battlefield anymore, and therefore the ability does nothing.)

Effects with multiple parts

Sometimes effects (usually spells or abilities) do more than one thing. The rule for this situation is that those things are done in the order they are listed in the card (rather than, for example, being done simultaneously.) In the vast majority of cases this is inconsequential, but there are a few rare cases where this causes rather interesting effects.

As an example, assume that there's an Elvish Champion and a Civic Wayfinder on the board.

As you may notice, the Elvish Champion boosts other Elf creatures (thus making the Civic Wayfinder a 3/3.)

Now someone casts Solar Tide and pays its entwine cost.

Because the entwine cost has been paid, both effects in the card will happen, ie. it will destroy all creatures with power 2 or less and all creatures with power 3 or greater. So what happens in this case?

Many players will hastily think that it simply destroys all creatures and that's it. However, as noted, if an effect has more than one part, they have to be evaluated in order. This particular situation requires a bit more analysis.

The first part of the spell, ie. "destroy all creatures with power 2 or less" is done first. The power of Elvish Champion is 2, and therefore it's destroyed. Civic Wayfinder is not destroyed yet because its power is 3.

As you may know, or remember from my previous blog posts, a destruction effect takes place immediately. It immediately puts the destroyed permanent into its owner's graveyard (unless some other effect interferes, such as the permanent being indestructible.) Therefore Elvish Champion leaves the battlefield when the first part of Solar Tide is performed.

Now the second part is performed. What happens? A bit surprisingly, Civic Wayfinder is not destroyed. This is because at this point Elvish Champion has left the battlefield and is not boosting Civic Wayfinder anymore, and thus the latter is now a 2/2.

Thus Civic Wayfinder survives the Solar Tide, even though at first it looks like it destroys all creatures.

Rockslide Elemental vs. Tephraderm

Consider these questions:

1. A Rockslide Elemental with four +1/+1 counters (making it thus 5/5) attacks, and a Tephraderm blocks it. Does the Elemental survive?
2. Would it make any difference if it were the Tephraderm that's attacking and the Elemental that's blocking?

Since the Elemental has first strike, it deals 5 damage to Tephraderm in the first strike combat step, which is lethal damage. Tephraderm does not deal combat damage (because it has no first strike), but its ability triggers, which deals 5 damage back to the Elemental when it resolves. When Tephraderm dies due to the lethal damage, Elemental's ability triggers which, when it resolves, gives it an additional +1/+1 counter.

Thus the question is: Which happens first, Tephraderm's ability dealing 5 damage to Elemental (which would then die), or the latter getting a +1/+1 counter (saving it)?

The answer can be quite tricky to figure out if one doesn't know the finest details of the game's rules.

One could naively think that since the Elemental deals damage first, Tephraderm therefore dies first and Elemental gets its additional counter, saving it. But then when one thinks a bit more, one realizes that at the exact moment that the Elemental deals combat damage to Tephraderm, the latter's ability triggers, and would deal damage back to the Elemental before its +1/+1 ability has the chance of triggering... And the train of thought can continue further from there, creating a chicken-and-egg problem.

A more experienced player can guess, correctly, that both abilities go onto the stack in APNAP order, but may not be able to tell precisely why.

("APNAP" order, or "active player, non-active player" order means that if two effects, controlled by different players, are trying to enter the stack at the same time, the effect of the active player goes to the stack first, and the non-active player then. They then resolve in reverse order, ie. the effect of the non-active player resolves first.)

So the core question here is when exactly does Tephraderm die. As you may know, and as I detailed in my previous blog post, a creature is destroyed from lethal damage only the next time that state-based actions are checked (which is different from eg. effects that say "destroy," which destroy the creature immediately.) Therefore the core question becomes: When exactly are SBA's checked here?

More precisely, the difficult question is: When Elemental deals its combat damage to Tephraderm, triggering the latter's ability, are state-based actions checked before or after said ability enters the stack?

This makes a big difference because if SBA's are checked only after the ability enters the stack, then the order of the two abilities is always the same. However, if they are checked before, then the two abilities are actually trying to enter the stack at the same time, and APNAP order applies.

The correct answer is that yes, state-based actions are checked between an ability triggering and it entering the stack. This means that when Tephraderm is dealt damage and its ability therefore triggers, before said ability enters the stack SBA's are checked and Tephraderm dies (due to lethal damage) triggering Elemental's ability. Therefore the two abilities are trying to enter the stack at the same time.

Therefore the correct answers to the questions at the beginning are:

1. No, Rockslide Elemental does not survive. This is because its ability is controlled by the active player (because the Elemental is attacking, meaning that it's being controlled by the active player) and therefore enters the stack first, and would therefore resolve after the Tephraderm's ability, which kills the Elemental before it gets the additional +1/+1 counter.
2. Yes, it makes a difference. If Elemental is defending, it means that it's being controlled by the non-active player, and therefore its ability enters the stack last, thus resolving first, and giving it an additional +1/+1 counter before Tephraderm's ability deals it 5 damage.

This is a detailed sequence of events:

• Rockslide Elemental assigns 5 damage to Tephraderm in the first-strike combat damage step.
• Tephraderm's ability triggers (but does not yet enter the stack.)
• State-based actions are checked, which cause Tephraderm to be destroyed due to lethal damage. Tephraderm is immediately put into its owner's graveyard.
• Rockslide Elemental's ability triggers due to Tephraderm dying (but does not yet enter the stack.)
• State-based actions are checked, but nothing special happens.
• The two abilities enter the stack in APNAP order. SBA's are checked, nothing happens.
• If Rockslide was attacking, it means Tephraderm's ability resolves first, assigning 5 damage to Rockslide. SBA's are checked and Rockslide is destroyed. Its own ability then resolves and fizzles.
• If Rockslide was blocking, then its ability resolves first, giving it an additional +1/+1 counter. Then Tephraderm's ability resolves assigning it 5 damage. However, since Rockslide is now 6/6, it survives.

Lethal damage vs. destruction

The rules of the games often contain nuances that can sometimes be confusing, if one is not aware of them. An example of such nuance is the difference between lethal damage and a destruction effect.

Consider these two questions:

1. There's a Dryad Militant on the battlefield, and someone casts a Searing Spear targeting (and killing) it. Where does the Searing Spear card go?
2. There's a Dryad militant on the battlefield, and someone casts a Doom Blade targeting (and killing) it. Where does the Doom Blade card go?

The Dryad Militant has an ability that says: "If an instant or sorcery card would be put into a graveyard from anywhere, exile it instead." One could easily think that in both cases the instant cards go to the graveyard because Dryad Militant has been killed and therefore is not affecting them anymore. Or perhaps in both cases they are exiled. However, it's not that simple.

The difference between the two cases is subtle, but crucial. The correct answers are:

1. The Searing Spear card is exiled.
2. The Doom Blade card goes to its owner's graveyard.

The reason for this is the difference between destruction and lethal damage (which in itself also causes the creature to be destroyed, but with a delay, as we will see.)

When an effect says that a permanent is destroyed, the destruction happens immediately when that effect is evaluated. There's no waiting for anything, or checking for state-based actions or anything; it's done immediately at that precise moment. Unless the permanent is indestructible or the destruction is somehow prevented (eg. with regeneration) the permanent is immediately put into its owner's graveyard.

When Doom Blade destroys Dryad Militant, the spell is still resolving, and the card is thus still on the stack. The Doom Blade card is put into its owner's graveyard as the last step of resolving the spell, but by that point Dryad Militant is not on the battlefield anymore and therefore it has no effect on the Doom Blade card.

However, when damage is assigned to a creature permanent, that damage doesn't do anything special at that precise moment. It's simply assigned to it (one could think of it as some "damage counters" being added to the permanent.) It's only the next time state-based actions are checked that said damage will destroy the creature (if it's lethal damage.)

State-based actions are not checked until after a spell has completely resolved. This means that Searing Spear will assign the 3 damage to Dryad Militant, which does nothing special to it at this point (other than marking the damage,) and then the Searing Spear card tries to go to the graveyard, but Dryad Militant's ability makes it go to exile instead. Only after that are state-based actions checked, and Dryad Militant is destroyed because of the lethal damage marked on it.

There are other situations that are even more confusing than this, and can sometimes cause confusion even among experienced players. For example, consider this problem:

There's a Tarmogoyf on the battlefield, a creature and a sorcery card in a graveyard (and no other cards), and someone casts Searing Spear targeting the Tarmogoyf. Does it die?

Tarmogoyf's power/toughness are 2/3 before Searing Spear is cast, and the latter deals 3 damage to the creature. So does it die or not?

Many players would say that yes. However, this situation is actually very similar to the one with Dryad Militant above. Like there, the subtlety in this situation is that state-based actions are not checked until after the Searing Spear spell has completely resolved, and putting the Searing Spear card in the graveyard is part of that resolution. Therefore the card is already in a graveyard when the checking is done whether Tarmogoyf is destroyed due to damage or not. At this point there are now 3 types of card in graveyards, and therefore Tarmogoyf is 3/4 and is not destroyed.

More shenanigans with Gideon and layers

This is a wonderful trio of cards because of how they interact with each other:

Gideon Jura and Mirrorweave are cards you should already know if you have read my previous blog posts. Veiled Crocodile is a slightly unusual card in that it's just an enchantment that by itself does nothing. However, it has a triggered ability that triggers when a player has no cards in hand, and that ability (permanently) makes it a 4/4 Crocodile creature. (Because it has no "in addition to its other types" it stops being an enchantment, or whatever other types it might have had besides a Crocodile creature.)

Question: Let's assume that Gideon Jura, whose third ability has been used, and Veiled Crocodile, whose ability has triggered earlier, are on the battlefield, and then someone casts Mirrorweave targeting Gideon. What happens to Veiled Crocodile?

One could hastily think that it becomes an unanimated copy of Gideon Jura, the planeswalker uniqueness rule kicks in, and both go immediately to their owners' graveyards.

However, that's not accurate. What happens is that Veiled Crocodile effectively becomes this:

In other words, it becomes a white 4/4 Crocodile creature named "Gideon Jura" with all of Gideon's abilities. It's not a planeswalker and the planeswalker uniqueness rule does not apply. Why?

As we saw in previous blog posts, copy effects happen on layer 1. In this case Mirrorweave is making the Veiled Crocodile permanent a perfect copy of the Gideon Jura card. However, Veiled Crocodile's triggered ability is still in effect, affecting the permanent (a copying effect does not affect any additional effects that may be applying to the permanent.) The type setting effect applies on layer 4, and the power/toughness effect applies on layer 7b.

Since the type setting effect has no "in addition to its other types", the copied type "Planeswalker - Gideon" is completely replaced with "Creature - Crocodile".

This is a rather interesting situation because now we have a non-planeswalker creature that has planeswalker abilities. Can they be used?

As far as I know, the answer is yes. There's nothing in the rules of the game that would forbid a non-planeswalker permanent from using planeswalker abilities if it somehow gains them, as is the case here. The same rules for using them apply, though (in other words, only one can be used per turn, and at sorcery speed.)

Obviously since the permanent has no loyalty counters at this point, only the +2 and the 0 abilities can be used. (Since using the former puts loyalty counters on the permanent, on a later turn if this situation is repeated, it could then use the -2 ability as well.)

What happens if the +2 ability is used? This is a rather unusual situation because the ability talks about something that's just not possible. It's not possible for any creature to attack this particular permanent because it's not a planeswalker (especially since the copy effect of Mirrorweave stops at the end of turn; but even if it didn't, it would make no difference: This is not a planeswalker permanent.) So in practice what happens is that activating the ability puts two loyalty counters on the permanent, and the ability just does nothing. (Creatures are not able to attack it, so they don't have to.)

(The above situation is actually one of the so-called "Magic Golden Rules." Namely, the one that says: "Any part of an instruction that's impossible to perform is ignored.")

If the 0 ability is used, the permanent becomes a 6/6 Crocodile Human Soldier creature. If you have read my previous blog posts you'll know why it retains the Crocodile subtype.

Another question: What if Mirrorweave had targeted Veiled Crocodile instead of Gideon Jura?

Again one could hastily think that Gideon Jura just becomes an unanimated copy of the Veiled Crocodile enchantment, and that's it. However, once again that's not exactly what happens. Instead, it becomes this (I took the liberty of modernizing the card a bit):

As in the other situation, Mirrorweave's copy effect applies on layer 1, and the type setting effect of Gideon is still in effect on layers 4 (setting the type to Human Soldier creature) and 7b (setting the power/toughness to 6/6.) It also retains the Enchantment type because the type setting effect says "is still a planeswalker" which, as we saw in previous blog posts, is a synonym for "in addition to its other types."

In other words, Gideon becomes a blue 6/6 Human Soldier enchantment creature named "Veiled Crocodile", and which has Veiled Crocodile's triggered ability.

If said ability triggers, a new type setting effect is applied. Since it applies on the same layers as Gideon's third ability, but has a newer timestamp, it overrides Gideon's ability and his type becomes "Creature - Crocodile" and his power/toughness is set to 4/4.