Haven't seen one of these in a while, so let's get

Bump for questions

>>44900606
I was wondering, do activated abilities have converted mana costs?

>>44903258
No, only spells have cmc.

>>44903759
Actually, activated abilities on the stack have a converted mana cost.

>>44903258
>>44903759
>>44904209
Every Object has a cmc equal to its mana cost (Comprehensive Rules 203.3).
Abilities are Objects while on the stack (200.8).
Activated Abilities lack a mana cost; instead they have an activation cost (403.1)
Objects without a mana cost have a cmc of 0 (203.3a)

>>44900606
Here's one for you. Let's say I enchant a creature I control with something, and my opponent tries to counter it with an instant. Can I then add another enchantment to the stack, in this case let's say Spectra Ward, which would give it protection from all colors?

I was just looking at a combo earlier today that would be really nice to enchant a creature with allowing it to stack effects and basically make the creature unblockable, then when it deals damage it would double my life total and add that many +1/+1 counters to the creature, making it very quickly capable of killing my opponent whilst increasing my life total exponentially every turn until they die. The problem is, I can see someone very easily shitting all over it by countering one of the enchantments as they stack, and it would be nice to be able to slap down Spectra Ward once I have the other two on it to basically nullify any counter spells on the stack. I'm just not sure if doing so is legal, or if you can only add sorceries/instants to the stack to attempt to counter your opponent.

>>44905077
Same goes for Tokens. They have a cmc of zero, so if something goes down that would force you to sacrifice creatures with cmc 2 or less, all your tokens would have to go, because they have a cmc of 0, and thus are subject to the spell.

>>44905254
I don't exactly understand what you are trying to do, but I will clarify a few things.

You can cast an enchantment during your main phase while the stack is empty. If the enchantment has flash, then you can cast it whenever you have priority. A spell that has already resolved cannot be countered. Spectra Ward does not stop counter spells.

>>44905514
Unless the token is copying a permanent with a nonzero cmc.

>>44905254
Only instants can be cast when something is on the stack.

>>44905718
Yeah, that's what I was trying to clarify. If I play an enchantment, then a counter to it goes on the stack, I can't add another enchantment to the stack unless it has flash?

Basically what I was saying is, in the above situation, would I be able to add Spectra Ward to the stack, because it would resolve first, giving my creature protection from all colors, nullifying the counter spell when it resolves, and then resolving my other enchantment?

>>44906058
1. No you can't.
2. Spectra Ward does not stop counterspells.

>>44906058
Even if you WERE able to cast Spectra Ward as an instant (perhaps through some means of flash-granting), it would not stop the counterspell. The counterspell is targetting the enchantment on the stack, not the creature, so giving the creature protection does nothing to the counterspell.
Again, though, you cannot cast Spectra Ward in response to something without giving it flash somehow regardless - in general, only instants, abilities, and things with flash can be used in response to other things.

Question for the judge if he's still around.

At the OGW pre-release, I faced a player and beat his 5-color monstrosity because he kept getting mana screwed. Out of wanting to help new players get better, I asked to look at his deck to see if he was playing enough land. He wasn't (14 in a 42 card deck), and when I pointed it out he said "no, if I get any more the math's wrong and I clump" and then he starts mana weaving.

Now, I know that weaving is only illegal if you don't properly shuffle afterwards, but I also know he wasn't. I tell him that weaving does nothing to help and his response was "why don't you stop being a bitch or I'll tell the judge you threatened to rob me"

What should I have done?

>>44907203
Nothing? Doesn't look like he asked/need your help?

>>44907934
He complained about getting mana screwed. I offered to help, he accepted. After pointing out he was running too few lands, he became super defensive and bitched at me.

And a gA bump. Captcha wouldn't show up at the office so I had to wait until I got home to post.

>>44907203
Depends. You could have called the Judge over to report your opponent presenting an improperly randomized deck. You could've just shuffled the hell out of his deck and moved on. You could've called the Judge about his aggressive behavior.

Personally? I'd suggest that you shuffle his deck, finish that game, and tell a Judge on the down-low that the player might be weaving and not shuffling enough so he watches later. It's not a big enough thing to risk antagonizing the guy worse.

If I block with a creature that has lifegain and my opponent does enough damage to kill me without the lifegain, how does damage resolve? Do I lose or does the game continue?

If I also have something that inflicts damage when I gain life, and it'd be enough to kill my opponent in the above situation, do I lose, does my opponent lose, or is it a draw?

>>44909606
You'll continue. Lifegain happens instantly as part of the damage being dealt. So say you're at 3, and he swings with a pair of 3/3 creatures. You block one with a 3/3 lifelinker. End result is your guy and his guy dead, and you at 3, because you SIMULTANEOUSLY took 3 and gained 3.

>Second part
Your opponent loses, most likely. You gain life at the same time you take the hit, so you DON'T die, your thing triggers, and then he takes lethal from it.

>>44909704
Awesome, thank you!

(And I always really appreciate it when you do these threads)

>>44909743
To be fair, I didn't start this one.

>>44909606
>>44909704
The first part is only true of the keyword lifelink. If the ability says "when..." then the life gain will use the stack

>>44909606
Life gain from creatures with lifelink happens simultaneously with damage, so if you have enough power worth of lifelink creatures to keep you alive through damage then you're good. Keep in mind though that creatures like Exalted Angel don't actually have lifelink, even though they totally should, they have a triggered ability that is similar to lifelink.

>>44910226
>even though they totally should
Except then that'd change how they work!
And you couldn't gain double the life off of them by giving them REAL lifelink.

>>44910336
Lifelink when it was first keyworded worked exactly like the exalted angel ability, then they changed the ability but refused to grandfather in any of those creatures which was total bullshit

>>44910405
They kept it with whatever was PRINTED most recently.

Cards that had most recently been printed with the triggered ability (typically, cards that were errata'd to Lifelink once Lifelink GOT a keyword) were reverted back to the trigger, while cards that had most recently been reprinted with Lifelink (like Loxodon Warhammer) kept Lifelink.

>>44910405
Because now they did something that wasn't what was printed on the card, and not for reasons of 'so it actually works'
It works within the rules, so they didn't change them.

>>44910552
I believe Loxodon Warhammer might be the only card that was affected that way, actually. Maaaaybe one more?

Hi gA!!! Thanks for all these (years?) of answering our questions.

>>44910611
Years! I've been doing it since shortly after I got my L1, which was in... god, 2011?

>>44905077
Hmm, interesting. Though, are there any cards that would care about an ability's cmc?

>>44910982
An ability's activation cost.
No. Besides reducing/increasing them.

File: 1453248649032.gif (94KB, 325x244px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 325x244px

I need someone to reread the rulings about trample and answer a couple things.
1: At the cost of not dealing damage ti the defending player, can a creature with trample avoid dealing lethal damage to a blocking creature that hurts its controller on death?
Also would a creature with deathtouch only have to deal one damage to any killable defenders if it still wanted to hurt the defending player?

If a creature with protection blocks a deathtouch trampler, how much damage goes through?

>>44911267
1: No.
Unnumbered: Yes.

>>44911359
All but one.
One deathtouch damage is still lethal, protection just prevents the damage.

>>44911359
As much or as little as you want, up to N-1 power. You only have to ASSIGN 'lethal. That damage doesn't need to actually kill the creature- or in this case, happen.

>>44900606
So my new meta has really started to force me to interact with this wierd void, called "the Stack". Now I've been playing magic for a while and I think I know about the stack, but two things I gotta ask
1. Can you wait for the stack to start resolving a bit, and then play another instant before an ability or instant triggers?

2. If you finish casting a spell can you hold priority before anyone is able to respond to the stack and then play a split second card to close the stack?

I didn't question it because my old meta never rocked out shit like this, but I'm curious if this is completely legit

>>44911540
1: Yes. All players must pass priority for something to resolve, so you get an opportunity between effects resolving to do stuff.

2: Yes.

>>44911594
>>44911540
Sorry, to clarify, you can hold priority if you're the active player. If you aren't the active player gets priority first.
After anything resolves, all players get priority in turn order, starting with the active player.

>>44911456
>>44911416
The same happens with Indestructable or something that's got Regeneration up - the deathtouch trampler deals damage to the Indestructable/Protected/whatever, says 'nothing could survive that' and then goes on its merry way to smack the other person in the face, then is mildly annoyed that the other guy is STILL THERE come next turn THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE SURVIVED

>>44911625
>>44911594
Just for clarification

1. Wait so, say this is the stack

1. Roilmage's Trick
2. Izzet Charm targeting Roilmage Trick
3. Mana Leak targeting Izzet Charm
4. Cancel targeting Manaleak
5. Lightning Bolt Targeting Player 1
6. Misdirection targeting Manaleak

So theoretically, for whatever reason, I can wait for misdirection and lightning bolt to resolve before I can cast another instant with Cancel still being on the stack or after everyone passed priority on misdirection then there's no more interacting with the stack

2.

So if I casted a Sudden Spoiling after Misdirection, everyone'd have to wait for Sudden Spoiling to resolve, and they can go crazy casting more instants or everyone is forced to pass priority on the stack and everything resolves from sudden spoiling

>>44911918
The former. OBJECTS on the stack resolve, one at a time, and everyone gets priority to respond again after each object. You don't "lock in" the stack and let it resolve without any option to respond.

For your second: Correct.

>>44911918
Also note that it's not just instants and sorceries that go on the stack - abilities go there, too
Also, if you end up in a counterwar, it's usually best to just counter the first thing again, rather than what was played to counter the first thing

>>44911876
Ah, so as long as the damage is lethal it continues to smash the player, and lethal is 1 for deathtouch attackers or the toughness of each defending creature, indestructible or not, if the trample doesn't have deathtouch.

Okay one more thing:
If someone has a bubble matrix which reduces all creature damage to zero, tramplers still only have to assign the defender's toughness before overflowing, right? A friend argued with me last time that it should have to deal infinite damage because none ever adds up to lethal levels and zero doesn't count for deathtouch to go through.

>>44912107
>it's usually best to just counter the first thing again, rather than what was played to counter the first thing
It usually goes like that, except for when things get stupid and people are watching. Then I feel like being a Jackie Chan rather than Bruce Lee. I'd sometimes rather be fun to watch rather than be stupid dangerous.

>>44912011
Thanks. I hate not having a response to Norin being casted.

>>44912145
"Lethal damage" is defined as "Damage equal to this creature's toughness, OR any amount of damage from a source with Deathtouch", regardless of Indestructible/Regen/Protection/etc.

>>44912269
Does that include zero damage?

>>44912330
Nah, since no damage is being dealt then.

But to be clearer, let's add "any nonzero amount" in there.

>>44912345
That knowledge may have changed the outcomes of several casual games in the past. Oh well, thanks for the clarification. I've been getting contradicting responses from Google.

>>44912345
sup gA, someone cracked an expedition at the pre-release and the TO gave him an ORI checklist card to use in his deck so it wouldn't get scratched up. Come the final round, expedition guy is playing against the other 4-0 and upon playing the checklist (Kor Haven) his opponent flips his shit, saying that since the original wasn't damaged in the tourney it's an illegal proxy, meaning it's a free win for him.

The store owner eventually threw the asshole out because he could not keep his tard-rage under control, but I have to wonder if the judge overstepped by supplying a proxy for player convenience rather than replacing a damaged card.

>>44912985
The Judge absolutely overstepped. This is a comprehensive list of "reasons I am allowed to give you a proxy":

A card you showed up to the event with became damaged beyond playability during the event.

That is literally it. I can't give you a proxy to keep your cards safe. What I can do (and have done) is buy you a pack of sleeves to keep your Expedition safe, but I CANNOT issue you a proxy for it unless it gets destroyed.

>>44913059
Alright. So was captain autism correct in saying since it was an illegal proxy the expedition guy should have been DQ'd?

>>44913090
DQ'd? No. He didn't knowingly violate rules for an advantage. It's REALLY hard to get DQ'd at a prerelease.

There's an argument for a Game Loss in there, but I'd be loathe to give one even if I was a HJ over that FJ, because I'm not gonna penalize a player for following directions from the judge. So the Judge fucked up and overstepped his authority, but that shouldn't result in a penalty for the player.

>>44913270
Good to know. In this case the guy claiming he should get the free win ended up getting DQ'd, mostly after punching the judge in the face.

since I had cracked $75 worth of cards (Kozilek's return, nissa, foil matter reshaper where the highlights) and I couldn't make prize cut anyhow (was stuck with UB devoid) I left before I could find out if charges were pressed.

>>44913090
And besides that guy could have kept his temper in check and insisted that he play the card in a sleeve if he MUST play it. instead of flipping his shit.

>>44913335
Or just not be a dickass trying to get a free win

Does a Canopy Vista fetched with Windswept Heath still come into play tapped?

Do creatures played by Collected Company have summoning sickness?

How does dash work?

>>44914563
Canopy Vista will come into play tapped unless you control two or more basic lands. The function does not change if it's been fetched.

Yes, any creature which you have not controlled continuously since the start of your most recent turn has summoning sickness.

Dash allows you to pay the dash cost to cast the creature. If you do, it has haste, and is returned to your hand at the end of the turn.

lets say i get caught playing a few counterfeits in a deck at FNM what happens?

>>44916642
You get murdered.
Right there and then.
Judges are provided rayguns for just such än occasion.

>>44905254
Also, nobody really spotted this yet, but you can't add sorceries to the stack in response to something unless you have a way of giving it flash.

>>44916642
Depends on the situation. If you didn't know you had counterfeits, you'll be asked to replace them with real equivalents; if you can't find replacements in a timely manner, you'll be asked to replace them with basic lands.

If you knew they were counterfeits, you're gonna get DQed.

>>44917310
No one spotted it because that post is filled with basic errors on how to play magic.

Bump for more questions