So, essentially, yes; a creature or a spell can be a source of damage, but it is not limited to just those.
Not quite. Whatever the effect says deals the damage, as in "Lightning Bolt deals...", is the source of that damage. Spells can be sources of damage, but not abilities. In combatdamage, the creature delaing the damage is the source, not "combat damage" itself.
Warcast # (If a creature you control would deal # or more combat damage and this card is in your graveyard, you may instead prevent that damage and cast this spell without paying its mana cost, then exile it.)
Can this happen under M10?
If not, why not?
If so, when does it happen in relation to combat damage?
It works if you change the "cast" part to "When damage is prevented this way, you may cast...." Casting a spell is not a single event, and can't be part of the replacement.
You don't use both "instead" and "prevent" in the same effect.
And the exile part needs to be a second ability defined like Flashback's. You can't make that as clear in reminder text, but it would be in the rules. Reminder text ISN'T the official text.
If a creature you control would deal # or more combat damage and this card is in your graveyard, prevent that damage. When damage is prevented this way, you may cast this spell without paying its mana cost. Then exile it after it resolves..
It helps to think of these effects as layers of paint applied one on top of another, and not sequentially applied one after another. The presence or absence of an ability in the end result isn't important to how its effect is applied, only whether it exists at the point in the layers where the ability is applied. "Loops" are not possible.
1) There is no "timestamp issue." Opalesence is always applied in a "lower" layer than Humility.
2) It does not matter if Humlity removes Opalesence's ability, since it only does so in a "higher" layer.
However, since one Opalesencs does not animate itself, Humility does not appliy to it at all. If there are two, they both end up as 1/1 creatures with no abilities, regardless of timestamp.
Rebirth is an ability that enables you to cast certain creature cards from your graveyard.
Anointed KnightWW
Rebirth 2W(You may cast this card from your graveyard for its rebirth cost. If you do, it enters the battlefield with a death counter on it. When this creature leaves the battlefield, if it had a death counter on it, exile it.)
The counter is completely unnecessary, unless you want shenanigans that add and/or remove counters to do something:
[indent Rebirth 2W(You may cast this card from your graveyard for its rebirth cost. If you do, it gains “If this object would leave the battlefield, if exile it instead.”)
The official rules for rebirth are as follows:
702.XX. Rebirth
702.XXa Rebirth is a keyword that represents a static ability that functions while the card is in a player’s graveyard. "Rebirth [cost]" means "You may cast this card from your graveyard by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. If you do, it gains ‘If this object would leave the battlefield, if exile it instead.’” Casting a spell using its rebirth ability follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2e–g. The permanent the spell becomes will also have that ability (see rule 400.7a).
Syphon is a static ability that lets you tap your opponents' lands to help pay for your spells. Only creature, enchantment, and sorcery cards have syphon.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Pyroclastic Surge [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]2RR[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Sorcery[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Syphon (For each opponent, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]you may tap up to two lands that player controls for mana. Spend this mana only to cast this spell.)[/FONT]
There is a reason why Piracy has not been re-printed in "real" Magic. There are complications involving effects like Wild Growth and others that make it undesirable to "tap objects" for mana, rather than playing mana abilities you control. You should base this on the Convoke avility, not Piracy:
Syphon is a static ability that functions while the spell is on the stack. "Syphon" means "As an additional cost to cast this spell, you may tap any number of untapped lands your opponents control. Each land tapped this way reduces the cost to cast this spell by {1} or by one mana of any type that land could produce." Using the syphon ability follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2e-g.
The process only stops if all players decline in succession.
These are the statements that are not entirely correct in this thread. The correct rulings are:
1) The Hypergenesis effect stops when nobody puts a card into play in a single round that starts with you. The only time you check to see if "all players pass in succession" is at the end of a round, just before you (Hypergenesis's controller) would start a new round.
2) All triggers wait until the effect ends, before going on the stack. The order they came into play does not affect their order on the stack. The only requirement for the order is that the active player's triggers go on te stack first, and so resolve last.
Haunt is a triggered ability that allows for a linked ability to work from exile.
Haunt is a triggered ability that causes a card in exile to “haunt” an object. The linking of abilities is not involved. And nothing says another ability can’t do the same thing.
It happens because the wording of the Haunt trigger says it does, not because of the first sentence in 702.52b. That sentence’s purpose is to establish the language usage “creature it haunts,” not to define how it happens. It was worded as it is because WotC never expects to print an ability like this. YMTC is allowed some liberties in such situations: at least, you’ve said so.
Turn to Mist, et al. Once the creature leaves play it is no longer a creature; it is a card.
“THAT object” vs. “THIS object.” “THIS object” can only be the source of the ability. On Turn to Mist, “THAT object” is a card the effect has clearly identified in the exile zone, because it put it there.
is not necessarily even a creature card
Since it was referring to an object in play, it can’t use “card” and can use “creature” even if it isn’t one. See rule 112.5.
… but it also has to actually gain "haunt" before it is exiled or it is not haunting a permanent.
Nope. It only has to say it is haunting an object.
There is a slight problem with the timing of this wording because both the creature and the noncreature permanent are chosen as the spell is being cast.
That is a “feature” the OP seemed to want. It is a problem that could be cured by changing the replacement into a trigger.
The next time target creature would be put into the graveyard from the battlefield this turn, instead exile it haunting target noncreature permanent. That creature gains "When the permanent haunted by this creature is put into the graveyard from the battlefield return it from exile to the battlefield."
Please fix!
The next time target creature would be put into the graveyard from the battlefield this turn, instead exile it haunting target noncreature permanent. The exiled cardgains "When the haunted creature is put into the graveyard from the battlefield, return this card to the battlefield.
If it does not target a creature, then it is not haunt
Completely false. The triggered-ability portion of Haunt targets. The condition of being haunted does not, and does not even require the ability "haunt." The ability given to the card substitutes for the ability a Haunt card would have.
And having it gain an ability that needs to continue through multiple zone changes is awkward at best.
Which is why the "haunting" ability must be given to the card in exile.
Until end of turn, target creature gains "When this creature is put into a graveyard, exile it and choose target noncreature permanent. When that permanent is put into a graveyard, return this card to the field under its owner's control."
The red "This" in your wording can only refer to the object with the ability. That is the creature, and it cannot be referred to as a "card." Then, it wouldn't work, since the creature no longer exists.
"CARDNAME enters the battlefield with a [token]...
The problem is that "with" in that context always means "the object entering the battlefield has..." If you let it mean something else here, it opens up the possibility that ETB counters can be put on other permanents besides the one ETBing.
I think that singularly undoes the idea.
Then the idea simply cannot work. A replacement effect has to look at only events that "affect" a single player.
How would I write an effect that compels the card to attack if the token does? It being a requirement is essential.
So if the token has a "can't attack" effect, you want the card to be able to attack without it? That is the only difference between putting a requirement on it, or a restriction on the card. Base it on Ekundu Cyclops (slightly closer to your idea than War's Toll). The token should have "if <cardname> attacks, this creature also attacks if able." Note that this uses your card's name in the rules text of the token, much like Saproling Burst does.
For now, a new issue has come up. I need to do the following, because of space, and I just don't see another way to get something to work like it:
If a Construct would deal damage and a different source would deal damage to CARDNAME, instead prevent the damage that the Construct would deal and prevent 2 of the damage that would be dealt to CARDNAME.
Sometimes ideas get just a little too finicky to be practical.
Tinker around with 'parameters' of this effect to get it to work (like, replace "2" with "all"); I'm not sure what specifics the design wants. What's essential is that (a) CARDNAME is protected, (b) the Construct deals less damage, and (c) this only happens if two dealings would actually occur.
I don't know what you are trying to emphasize by "would actually occur." Obviously, at least one of them is not going to "actually" occur - that's the whole point. But you switched the concepts of essential points (a) and (b) from the example - the Construct's victim (can it be CARDNAME also?) was protected from the Construct, and less damage was dealt to CARDNAME. But, going from your list of points and not your example, I'd go with something like:
Prevent all damage that would be dealt to CARDNAME simultaneously with a Construct dealing damage to you or a another permanent you control, and 2 damage that any such Construct would deal.
I solved a BIG problem you had here: the APNAP ordering rules require that any replaced event must "affect" a single player only. If it sounds like one applies to two players, it necessarily gets split into two applications.
First, I want to point a mistake that I think you're making. When you flip a coin with Krark's Thumb, you don't do this: "Declare Heads. Flip. Declare Heads. Flip." You do this: "Declare Heads. Flip. Flip."
Why do you say that?
705.1. To flip a coin for an object that cares whether a player wins or loses the flip, the affected player flips the coin and calls "heads" or "tails." If the call matches the result, that player wins the flip. Otherwise, the player loses the flip. Only the player who flips the coin wins or loses the flip; no other players are involved.
Krark's Thumb says to do this twice, not just a part of it twice and part of it once.
I want to make a card that does something like this:
[CARDNAME]
Creature - ...
As CARDNAME enters the battlefield, put a [properties] token named [name] onto the battlefield. For as long as CARDNAME remains in play, that token can't attack unless CARDNAME also attacks.
Is this replacement effect allowed to exist?
The reason many potential replacements are inadvisable (as opposed to "not allowed"), is because some other effects need to keep track of what they do, and what they "did it" to. Since replacement effects don't "do" the actions, they only change what the original effect does, you are interfering with its assumptions about what it did. So, this is allowed, but there would be issues involved with it that make things complicated. You need to make sure you can handle such twists.
For example, if you Sneak Attack your original card into play, since technically it would be Sneak Attack that is putting the token into play as well, both the card and the token get the a "sacrifice at end of turn" delayed trigger. (Compare: Doubling Season and Gemini Engine). That one isn't complicated, but what about Animate Dead (which, by design, Doubling Season can't affect)? You probably need to add a restriction like "If you cast it."
It's important that there is no time that one of the permanents exists but not the other.
From the information given, I don't particularly see why this is important.
Which is why it is a good assumption that HH didn't give us all of the information. The idea here is to help him make his effect, not remake it as something you like that completely ignores what he says is important.
Lastly, I need an activated ability that manipulates the token and only the token. I may manipulate its power/toughness, or I may want to prevent the next some damage it would deal. How can I do that?
Look for examples like Tetravus, or somehow make it a linked ability using a phrase something like "the token FOOED by ~." I'm being vague, because you are. Since I'm sure you can see what I mean, I think this reply will actually be helpful.
The "if you do" clause is absolutely relevant in several cases.
Of course it is. The point is, that Knollspine Dragon doesn't have it.
for instance, Grave Peril doesn't say you may sacrifice it. But if you can't sacrifice it (say if an ability said that permanents can't be sacrificed) then you wouldn't get the second portion.
I'm fairly sure, if a replacement effect changed sacrifice into something else, you would still get to destroy the creature.
That isn't clear, and it is one of the reasons you will never see an effect replace a sacrifice, despite what the YMTC people would like to think.
At any rate, if something says "you may X and Y, if you do, Z" and Y is illegal: You can still choose to do X....
No, you cannot. Did you even read the ruling? The entire action following "you may" and preceding ", if you do" must be legal and possible for you to be able to choose to do it.
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
Knollspine Dragon has a peculiar template and should probably read
"Discard your hand. If you do, draw that many cards." We have
asked the rules manager if it should be errataed to bring it in line
with the normal template (likewise Oath of Scholars).
That said, with Malaren in play it IS legal under the current template
for a player to use the dragon's ability (ie: it is legal to choose to
discard and draw). That's because the entirety of the action isn't
illegal, just some of it.
And here's the correction to the [O] answer:
Quote from Gavin Duggan, L3 Calgary: MTGRULES-L Netrep »
This ruling was incorrect. According to the rules manager, Knollspine Dragon's ability intentionally links the discard with the draw. It's a single compound action, which means if you can't draw you can't discard either.
Again, this is a reversal of my previous ruling (above)... with Malaren in play, you may NOT discard your hand to the Knollspine Dragon trigger because the action "discad and draw" is illegal. This should usually not be used as a precedent though, because MOST abilities are of the form "you may do X. If you do, do Y". That template works very differently than the dragon's "you may do x AND y"
Not quite. Whatever the effect says deals the damage, as in "Lightning Bolt deals...", is the source of that damage. Spells can be sources of damage, but not abilities. In combatdamage, the creature delaing the damage is the source, not "combat damage" itself.
It works if you change the "cast" part to "When damage is prevented this way, you may cast...." Casting a spell is not a single event, and can't be part of the replacement.
You don't use both "instead" and "prevent" in the same effect.
And the exile part needs to be a second ability defined like Flashback's. You can't make that as clear in reminder text, but it would be in the rules. Reminder text ISN'T the official text.
1) There is no "timestamp issue." Opalesence is always applied in a "lower" layer than Humility.
2) It does not matter if Humlity removes Opalesence's ability, since it only does so in a "higher" layer.
However, since one Opalesencs does not animate itself, Humility does not appliy to it at all. If there are two, they both end up as 1/1 creatures with no abilities, regardless of timestamp.
The counter is completely unnecessary, unless you want shenanigans that add and/or remove counters to do something:
[indent Rebirth 2W (You may cast this card from your graveyard for its rebirth cost. If you do, it gains “If this object would leave the battlefield, if exile it instead.”)
The official rules for rebirth are as follows:
702.XX. Rebirth
702.XXa Rebirth is a keyword that represents a static ability that functions while the card is in a player’s graveyard. "Rebirth [cost]" means "You may cast this card from your graveyard by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost. If you do, it gains ‘If this object would leave the battlefield, if exile it instead.’” Casting a spell using its rebirth ability follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2e–g. The permanent the spell becomes will also have that ability (see rule 400.7a).
There is a reason why Piracy has not been re-printed in "real" Magic. There are complications involving effects like Wild Growth and others that make it undesirable to "tap objects" for mana, rather than playing mana abilities you control. You should base this on the Convoke avility, not Piracy:
These are the statements that are not entirely correct in this thread. The correct rulings are:
1) The Hypergenesis effect stops when nobody puts a card into play in a single round that starts with you. The only time you check to see if "all players pass in succession" is at the end of a round, just before you (Hypergenesis's controller) would start a new round.
2) All triggers wait until the effect ends, before going on the stack. The order they came into play does not affect their order on the stack. The only requirement for the order is that the active player's triggers go on te stack first, and so resolve last.
Haunt is a triggered ability that causes a card in exile to “haunt” an object. The linking of abilities is not involved. And nothing says another ability can’t do the same thing.
It happens because the wording of the Haunt trigger says it does, not because of the first sentence in 702.52b. That sentence’s purpose is to establish the language usage “creature it haunts,” not to define how it happens. It was worded as it is because WotC never expects to print an ability like this. YMTC is allowed some liberties in such situations: at least, you’ve said so.
“THAT object” vs. “THIS object.” “THIS object” can only be the source of the ability. On Turn to Mist, “THAT object” is a card the effect has clearly identified in the exile zone, because it put it there.
Since it was referring to an object in play, it can’t use “card” and can use “creature” even if it isn’t one. See rule 112.5.
Nope. It only has to say it is haunting an object.
That is a “feature” the OP seemed to want. It is a problem that could be cured by changing the replacement into a trigger.
Completely false. The triggered-ability portion of Haunt targets. The condition of being haunted does not, and does not even require the ability "haunt." The ability given to the card substitutes for the ability a Haunt card would have.
Which is why the "haunting" ability must be given to the card in exile.
The red "This" in your wording can only refer to the object with the ability. That is the creature, and it cannot be referred to as a "card." Then, it wouldn't work, since the creature no longer exists.
The problem is that "with" in that context always means "the object entering the battlefield has..." If you let it mean something else here, it opens up the possibility that ETB counters can be put on other permanents besides the one ETBing.
Then the idea simply cannot work. A replacement effect has to look at only events that "affect" a single player.
So if the token has a "can't attack" effect, you want the card to be able to attack without it? That is the only difference between putting a requirement on it, or a restriction on the card. Base it on Ekundu Cyclops (slightly closer to your idea than War's Toll). The token should have "if <cardname> attacks, this creature also attacks if able." Note that this uses your card's name in the rules text of the token, much like Saproling Burst does.
Sometimes ideas get just a little too finicky to be practical.
I don't know what you are trying to emphasize by "would actually occur." Obviously, at least one of them is not going to "actually" occur - that's the whole point. But you switched the concepts of essential points (a) and (b) from the example - the Construct's victim (can it be CARDNAME also?) was protected from the Construct, and less damage was dealt to CARDNAME. But, going from your list of points and not your example, I'd go with something like: I solved a BIG problem you had here: the APNAP ordering rules require that any replaced event must "affect" a single player only. If it sounds like one applies to two players, it necessarily gets split into two applications.
Why do you say that?
Krark's Thumb says to do this twice, not just a part of it twice and part of it once.
The reason many potential replacements are inadvisable (as opposed to "not allowed"), is because some other effects need to keep track of what they do, and what they "did it" to. Since replacement effects don't "do" the actions, they only change what the original effect does, you are interfering with its assumptions about what it did. So, this is allowed, but there would be issues involved with it that make things complicated. You need to make sure you can handle such twists.
For example, if you Sneak Attack your original card into play, since technically it would be Sneak Attack that is putting the token into play as well, both the card and the token get the a "sacrifice at end of turn" delayed trigger. (Compare: Doubling Season and Gemini Engine). That one isn't complicated, but what about Animate Dead (which, by design, Doubling Season can't affect)? You probably need to add a restriction like "If you cast it."
Which is why it is a good assumption that HH didn't give us all of the information. The idea here is to help him make his effect, not remake it as something you like that completely ignores what he says is important.
Look for examples like Tetravus, or somehow make it a linked ability using a phrase something like "the token FOOED by ~." I'm being vague, because you are. Since I'm sure you can see what I mean, I think this reply will actually be helpful.
Drawing 0 cards isn't drawing cards. Sure you can do it.
Of course it is. The point is, that Knollspine Dragon doesn't have it.
That isn't clear, and it is one of the reasons you will never see an effect replace a sacrifice, despite what the YMTC people would like to think.
No, you cannot. Did you even read the ruling? The entire action following "you may" and preceding ", if you do" must be legal and possible for you to be able to choose to do it.
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
And here's the correction to the [O] answer: