|
On April 17 2013 21:15 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Wouldn't it be more simple to have it say:"Whenever a spell or ability would cause your opponent to draw a card, they skip that draw. You may draw that many cards instead." It's good 10 words shorter.
e. And it's a real cool card, I was looking for an ability like that some time ago, I think there was already a card like that.
No because you just bumped that card into the stratosphere as broken. A potentially game ending card for 4 mana Flash. You keep the opponent from drawing any cards and basically put them on dead if whatever they are holding isnt good enough.
|
On April 17 2013 21:30 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2013 21:15 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Wouldn't it be more simple to have it say:"Whenever a spell or ability would cause your opponent to draw a card, they skip that draw. You may draw that many cards instead." It's good 10 words shorter.
e. And it's a real cool card, I was looking for an ability like that some time ago, I think there was already a card like that. No because you just bumped that card into the stratosphere as broken. A potentially game ending card for 4 mana Flash. You keep the opponent from drawing any cards and basically put them on dead if whatever they are holding isnt good enough.
It doesn't change what the card does right? The draw is your draw step isn't caused by a spell or ability, so you still get that on. All the others you don't. Unless I'm missing something here.
|
On April 17 2013 16:12 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2013 15:31 bobbob wrote:
So... if each player has one, and someone casts Think Twice, does the game draw? Seems like the game gets stuck in a loop of replacement effects. There are infinite looping rules required. Especially in this case, any player can break the loop after N times, so whichever player decides on a smaller number has it resolve that many times.
There is no infinite loop on this card from what I understand.
614.5. A replacement effect doesn’t invoke itself repeatedly and gets only one opportunity for each event.
I know there is an answer to who gets to draw the card, but I don't know it, there is this exact conversation going on in the las vegas mtg player facebook group, so i'll let you know when someone puts a definite answer.
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On April 17 2013 21:47 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2013 16:12 iGrok wrote:On April 17 2013 15:31 bobbob wrote:
So... if each player has one, and someone casts Think Twice, does the game draw? Seems like the game gets stuck in a loop of replacement effects. There are infinite looping rules required. Especially in this case, any player can break the loop after N times, so whichever player decides on a smaller number has it resolve that many times. There is no infinite loop on this card from what I understand. 614.5. A replacement effect doesn’t invoke itself repeatedly and gets only one opportunity for each event. I know there is an answer to who gets to draw the card, but I don't know it, there is this exact conversation going on in the las vegas mtg player facebook group, so i'll let you know when someone puts a definite answer.
- Player 1 plays Think Twice. Think Twice resolves.
- All of Player 2's Notion Thief trigger as a result.
- Trigger resolves. Player 2 attempts to draw as replavement effect.
- All of Player 1's Notion Thief trigger.
- Player 1's replacement effect overrides Player 2's.
- Player 1 gets to actually think twice about how silly this mirror match is.
Because all of a Player's Notion Thief trigger at the same time, no issue with multiples and going back and forth. Dame way all Extort triggers occur at the same time.
|
On April 17 2013 21:36 Tarias wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2013 21:30 Judicator wrote:On April 17 2013 21:15 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Wouldn't it be more simple to have it say:"Whenever a spell or ability would cause your opponent to draw a card, they skip that draw. You may draw that many cards instead." It's good 10 words shorter.
e. And it's a real cool card, I was looking for an ability like that some time ago, I think there was already a card like that. No because you just bumped that card into the stratosphere as broken. A potentially game ending card for 4 mana Flash. You keep the opponent from drawing any cards and basically put them on dead if whatever they are holding isnt good enough. It doesn't change what the card does right? The draw is your draw step isn't caused by a spell or ability, so you still get that on. All the others you don't. Unless I'm missing something here.
Aside from the "may" in your version I don't see too much of a difference either, but for example if there is something that skips the opponent's normal draw and replaces it with something else involving a draw then you should get different results. The "may" is quite a big deal though.
|
On April 17 2013 22:12 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2013 21:36 Tarias wrote:On April 17 2013 21:30 Judicator wrote:On April 17 2013 21:15 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Wouldn't it be more simple to have it say:"Whenever a spell or ability would cause your opponent to draw a card, they skip that draw. You may draw that many cards instead." It's good 10 words shorter.
e. And it's a real cool card, I was looking for an ability like that some time ago, I think there was already a card like that. No because you just bumped that card into the stratosphere as broken. A potentially game ending card for 4 mana Flash. You keep the opponent from drawing any cards and basically put them on dead if whatever they are holding isnt good enough. It doesn't change what the card does right? The draw is your draw step isn't caused by a spell or ability, so you still get that on. All the others you don't. Unless I'm missing something here. Aside from the "may" in your version I don't see too much of a difference either, but for example if there is something that skips the opponent's normal draw and replaces it with something else involving a draw then you should get different results. The "may" is quite a big deal though.
Yes, the may isn't supposed to be there.
|
I can't read apparently, but yes, you can write it like that except in situations where the draw step is involved. If a card said to draw 2 cards during the draw step instead of the normal one (not Arena), then it would be interesting.
Not sure, Moon Bear seems more keen on the rulings than I am, so maybe he can clarify why the wording is what it is. Wizards has gotten pretty good about moving away from confusing text for a good while now, maybe there just hasn't been enough of this effect recently for them to figure it out. Maybe they're just that angry at Sphinx's Revelation dictating the range of decks in Standard and added this card in?
|
On April 17 2013 23:24 HwangjaeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2013 22:12 spinesheath wrote:On April 17 2013 21:36 Tarias wrote:On April 17 2013 21:30 Judicator wrote:On April 17 2013 21:15 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
Wouldn't it be more simple to have it say:"Whenever a spell or ability would cause your opponent to draw a card, they skip that draw. You may draw that many cards instead." It's good 10 words shorter.
e. And it's a real cool card, I was looking for an ability like that some time ago, I think there was already a card like that. No because you just bumped that card into the stratosphere as broken. A potentially game ending card for 4 mana Flash. You keep the opponent from drawing any cards and basically put them on dead if whatever they are holding isnt good enough. It doesn't change what the card does right? The draw is your draw step isn't caused by a spell or ability, so you still get that on. All the others you don't. Unless I'm missing something here. Aside from the "may" in your version I don't see too much of a difference either, but for example if there is something that skips the opponent's normal draw and replaces it with something else involving a draw then you should get different results. The "may" is quite a big deal though. Yes, the may isn't supposed to be there.
I noticed that too. I think Wizards left it out intentionally so that if you have the guy on the field, your opponent can turn his or her card-draw into milling you, lol.
|
|
|
I would love to hear how an online TCG is a new, patent worthy invention over a paper TCG or even just any card game. Can I just slap "online" on anything and call it an invention?
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On April 17 2013 23:44 Judicator wrote:
I can't read apparently, but yes, you can write it like that except in situations where the draw step is involved. If a card said to draw 2 cards during the draw step instead of the normal one (not Arena), then it would be interesting.
Not sure, Moon Bear seems more keen on the rulings than I am, so maybe he can clarify why the wording is what it is. Wizards has gotten pretty good about moving away from confusing text for a good while now, maybe there just hasn't been enough of this effect recently for them to figure it out. Maybe they're just that angry at Sphinx's Revelation dictating the range of decks in Standard and added this card in?
You gave me a headache trying to figure this one out orz...
Let's call the proposed wording "Whenever a spell or ability would cause your opponent to draw a card, they skip that draw. Draw that many cards instead." Scenario 1, and let's call the current wording Scenario 2.
Let's say Anna has Thought Reflection in play and Tabitha has a Notion Thief in play. Though Reflection is a replacement ability and is not conditional. Therefore all card draws, including the mandatory card draw during the draw step that does not use the stack, are replaced and therefore due to an ability. This means that under Scenario 1, Anna will not be able to draw any cards at all because Notion Thief cancels them all. However, under Scenario 2 Anna will still get her very first draw, but lose the second.
In other words, under the current wording, Anna's very first draw is always protected no matter what and can never be locked out of her draw step except by having her skip her draw step.
This example of course is also incredibly boring. So let's try something far more brain bending instead and see what happens...
+ Show Spoiler +We have a board state where we have a Howling Mine effect in play. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to go with Rites of Flourishing because it doesn't have a tapped clause which is important because this thought experiment is going to get very messy very fast. We're also going to say Anna has something which causes a replacement effect when she draws cards. However that replacement effect does not draw additional cards. This makes things a lot easier, and we already know that replacing the very first rule-based draw with an ability giving a draw can cause Anna to be locked out of her draw. Oh, and Tabitha has a Notion Thief in play under her control of course. It is Anna's Draw Step. The first thing that happens is Anna drawing a card by rules. This does not use the stack. After this compulsory draw occurs, triggered abilities may then happen and the bonus draws then occur.
Thought Experiment 1: Compulsory Replacement EffectsLet's say Anna has a compulsory replacement effect in play that doesn't draw her more cards. So, something like Tomorrow, Azami's Familiar (TAF). During the first draw, the replacement effect triggers. Notion Thief does not trigger in either Scenario 1 or 2 because this first draw is due to game rules and it is the first draw of the draw step. TAF resolves. We move onto the second draw. At this point in both Scenario 1 and 2 the Notion Thief triggers at the same time as TAF. However according to 616.1, because both replacement effects are compulsory (aka the players don't make any choices), Anna as the affected player may choose which replacement effect to use. Therefore, she gets to use TAF's ability again if she wants regardless of how Notion Thief is worded. That was boring.
Thought Experiment 2: Optional Replacement EffectsLet's try this again, except this time the replacement effect is conditional and Anna can choose to use it or not. So, let's say she has a million dredge cards in here Graveyard. On the first draw, she can choose whether to dredge or not to. If she chooses to dredge, then it is guaranteed to occur under Scenario 1 or 2. On the second draw, Tabitha's Notion Thief triggers in Scenario 1. However, Dredge also triggers. Anna may then choose to apply either the Dredge trigger or the Notion Thief trigger. If she chooses to apply the Dredge trigger, she can then choose whether to actually Dredge or draw. If she draws, Notion Thief triggers again. In other words, she still gets control over using replacement abilities. So she still gets to double Dredge if she wants to in Scenario 1. Under Scenario 2, she can choose to Dredge then draw, or double Dredge. She can also choose to draw the first time. In this instance, under Scenario 1, we just end up with the same result as above where Tabitha's Notion Thief attempts to trigger and Anna then gets to choose between the Notion Thief trigger or Dredging. Under Scenario 2, the Notion Thief also triggers and the same thing happens. In other words, under Scenario 1 she can Draw+Dredge or Dredge+Dredge. In Scenario 2 she can Draw+Dredge, Dredge+Draw or Dredge+Dredge. So in Scenario 2 (the current wording) she has one more option to choose from. Well, that was a bit more exciting.
Thought Experiment 3: Notion Thief is optionalLet's say we went with HwangjaeTerran's original post where Notion Thief's ability was optional. What happens now? We know what for the very first draw, the effect is always the same and Anna always has total control. So we'll only focus on the second draw. If Anna's replacement effect is compulsory, then she will still get to choose which she wants to apply under rule 616.1. So it doesn't matter if Notion Thief is optional because even if Tabitha chooses to use Notion Thief's ability, Anna still gets to choose between the two. However, if the replacement effect is not option (such as Abundance) then we have a problem because two players are attempting to make a choice at the same time! However, rule 616.1 also tells us that If two or more players have to make these choices at the same time, choices are made in Active Player/Non-Active Player (APNAP) order. Therefore Anna's Triggered ability is placed on the stack first, then Tabitha's triggered ability on top of that. Resolving all triggers from the top of the stack, Tabitha therefore makes her choice first, then Anna makes her choice. Because Anna made her choice last, it overrides Tabitha's earlier choice. That means if Tabitha chooses to apply Notion Thief's trigger, then Anna can choose whether she wants to override it or let it occur. However, if Tabitha chooses not to apply Notion Thief's trigger then Anna can choose between drawing or her replacement effect.
Thought Experiment 4: We have Thought Reflection and other replacement effects in playWe know that Anna can choose between replacement effects as they occur. So if she chooses to ignore Thought Reflection then it simplifies to the various scenarios above. So what happens if she chooses to use Thought Reflection? Well, because Anna has additional replacement effects in play, they will trigger as well at the same time as Notion Thief. Therefore she will once again choose between the replacement effects and Notion Thief! However, note that only in Scenario 2 will she ever get to actually draw a card. Under Scenario 1, in order to nullify the Notion Thief triggers she has to always use a replacement effect to take advantage of the extra draws. But what if all her replacement effects are just more Thought Reflections? Then we go back to the very beginning where in Scenario 1 she is permanently locked out of her draws and in Scenario 2 her very first draw is always protected.
Thought Experiment 5: Can Tabitha Flash Notion Thief into play to interrupt the replacement effect?Replacement effects don't use the stack. So, no.
|
Hmmm, I wonder what the chances are that the MODO rules engine gets this wrong on release... 
|
MoonBear the sanctioned judge of MTGO thread.
Thought Experiment 1: Compulsory Replacement Effects
Let's say Anna has a compulsory replacement effect in play that doesn't draw her more cards. So, something like Tomorrow, Azami's Familiar (TAF). During the first draw, the replacement effect triggers. Notion Thief does not trigger in either Scenario 1 or 2 because this first draw is due to game rules and it is the first draw of the draw step. TAF resolves. We move onto the second draw. At this point in both Scenario 1 and 2 the Notion Thief triggers at the same time as TAF. However according to 616.1, because both replacement effects are compulsory (aka the players don't make any choices), Anna as the affected player may choose which replacement effect to use. Therefore, she gets to use TAF's ability again if she wants regardless of how Notion Thief is worded.
That was boring.
Huh. I'd've thought both would occur but Anna would get to choose which order they happened in. (not questioning what you're saying; that was just what I would have assumed initially)
The card's rule text just seems very oddly worded, even for English-speakers. Takes a couple hard reads to fully understand. 
|
On April 18 2013 05:27 cLAN.Anax wrote:MoonBear the sanctioned judge of MTGO thread. Show nested quote +Thought Experiment 1: Compulsory Replacement Effects
Let's say Anna has a compulsory replacement effect in play that doesn't draw her more cards. So, something like Tomorrow, Azami's Familiar (TAF). During the first draw, the replacement effect triggers. Notion Thief does not trigger in either Scenario 1 or 2 because this first draw is due to game rules and it is the first draw of the draw step. TAF resolves. We move onto the second draw. At this point in both Scenario 1 and 2 the Notion Thief triggers at the same time as TAF. However according to 616.1, because both replacement effects are compulsory (aka the players don't make any choices), Anna as the affected player may choose which replacement effect to use. Therefore, she gets to use TAF's ability again if she wants regardless of how Notion Thief is worded.
That was boring. Huh. I'd've thought both would occur but Anna would get to choose which order they happened in. (not questioning what you're saying; that was just what I would have assumed initially) The card's rule text just seems very oddly worded, even for English-speakers. Takes a couple hard reads to fully understand.
Well, you can only replace something once, because it's gone after you replaced it the first time. So intuitively you wouldn't get both replacement effects. I suppose one could think of a replacement effect like a targeted ability where the target is the effect that is being replaced. Thus the second replacement effect to resolve will fizzle because the target is gone, it has been replaced.
Just to make it clear: I have no idea if this actually is in line with the rules.
|
On April 18 2013 05:45 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 05:27 cLAN.Anax wrote:MoonBear the sanctioned judge of MTGO thread. Thought Experiment 1: Compulsory Replacement Effects
Let's say Anna has a compulsory replacement effect in play that doesn't draw her more cards. So, something like Tomorrow, Azami's Familiar (TAF). During the first draw, the replacement effect triggers. Notion Thief does not trigger in either Scenario 1 or 2 because this first draw is due to game rules and it is the first draw of the draw step. TAF resolves. We move onto the second draw. At this point in both Scenario 1 and 2 the Notion Thief triggers at the same time as TAF. However according to 616.1, because both replacement effects are compulsory (aka the players don't make any choices), Anna as the affected player may choose which replacement effect to use. Therefore, she gets to use TAF's ability again if she wants regardless of how Notion Thief is worded.
That was boring. Huh. I'd've thought both would occur but Anna would get to choose which order they happened in. (not questioning what you're saying; that was just what I would have assumed initially) The card's rule text just seems very oddly worded, even for English-speakers. Takes a couple hard reads to fully understand. Well, you can only replace something once, because it's gone after you replaced it the first time. So intuitively you wouldn't get both replacement effects. I suppose one could think of a replacement effect like a targeted ability where the target is the effect that is being replaced. Thus the second replacement effect to resolve will fizzle because the target is gone, it has been replaced. Just to make it clear: I have no idea if this actually is in line with the rules.
That makes a lot more sense. I was trying to compare it in my mind with multiple "at your upkeep" effects, lol. Although maybe it works the same way there too?...
|
"at the beginning of your upkeep" are triggered abilities (that get triggered by you beginning your upkeep). Triggered abilities happen when their triggers are met, and so don't "replace" anything. The same event can trigger any # of triggered abilities without issue.
Contrast with replacement effects.
Replacement effects are not triggered but rather a "substitution". They are characterized by words like "would" to indicate that what "would" happen doesn't actually happen. You obviously can't replace something twice, because after the first replacement it is gone. Also note that replacement effects don't see themselves. This sounds weird but it makes sense when you think of a card like: "If a player would lose life this turn, that player loses twice that much life instead".
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On April 18 2013 05:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 05:45 spinesheath wrote:On April 18 2013 05:27 cLAN.Anax wrote:MoonBear the sanctioned judge of MTGO thread. Thought Experiment 1: Compulsory Replacement Effects
Let's say Anna has a compulsory replacement effect in play that doesn't draw her more cards. So, something like Tomorrow, Azami's Familiar (TAF). During the first draw, the replacement effect triggers. Notion Thief does not trigger in either Scenario 1 or 2 because this first draw is due to game rules and it is the first draw of the draw step. TAF resolves. We move onto the second draw. At this point in both Scenario 1 and 2 the Notion Thief triggers at the same time as TAF. However according to 616.1, because both replacement effects are compulsory (aka the players don't make any choices), Anna as the affected player may choose which replacement effect to use. Therefore, she gets to use TAF's ability again if she wants regardless of how Notion Thief is worded.
That was boring. Huh. I'd've thought both would occur but Anna would get to choose which order they happened in. (not questioning what you're saying; that was just what I would have assumed initially) The card's rule text just seems very oddly worded, even for English-speakers. Takes a couple hard reads to fully understand. Well, you can only replace something once, because it's gone after you replaced it the first time. So intuitively you wouldn't get both replacement effects. I suppose one could think of a replacement effect like a targeted ability where the target is the effect that is being replaced. Thus the second replacement effect to resolve will fizzle because the target is gone, it has been replaced. Just to make it clear: I have no idea if this actually is in line with the rules. That makes a lot more sense. I was trying to compare it in my mind with multiple "at your upkeep" effects, lol. Although maybe it works the same way there too?...
For multiple triggers that occur at the same time such as Echo or Upkeep, you place them in APNAP order, and each player can choose what order to place them onto the stack. Then just resolve from the top of the stack as normal.
Also, I'm not actually a judge haha. Although do plan on applying to be a L1 at some point in time. Need to get more familiar with IPG and a few technical rules before then. Thankfully Layers are in the L3 exam...
|
On April 18 2013 06:00 MoonBear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 05:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 18 2013 05:45 spinesheath wrote:On April 18 2013 05:27 cLAN.Anax wrote:MoonBear the sanctioned judge of MTGO thread. Thought Experiment 1: Compulsory Replacement Effects
Let's say Anna has a compulsory replacement effect in play that doesn't draw her more cards. So, something like Tomorrow, Azami's Familiar (TAF). During the first draw, the replacement effect triggers. Notion Thief does not trigger in either Scenario 1 or 2 because this first draw is due to game rules and it is the first draw of the draw step. TAF resolves. We move onto the second draw. At this point in both Scenario 1 and 2 the Notion Thief triggers at the same time as TAF. However according to 616.1, because both replacement effects are compulsory (aka the players don't make any choices), Anna as the affected player may choose which replacement effect to use. Therefore, she gets to use TAF's ability again if she wants regardless of how Notion Thief is worded.
That was boring. Huh. I'd've thought both would occur but Anna would get to choose which order they happened in. (not questioning what you're saying; that was just what I would have assumed initially) The card's rule text just seems very oddly worded, even for English-speakers. Takes a couple hard reads to fully understand. Well, you can only replace something once, because it's gone after you replaced it the first time. So intuitively you wouldn't get both replacement effects. I suppose one could think of a replacement effect like a targeted ability where the target is the effect that is being replaced. Thus the second replacement effect to resolve will fizzle because the target is gone, it has been replaced. Just to make it clear: I have no idea if this actually is in line with the rules. That makes a lot more sense. I was trying to compare it in my mind with multiple "at your upkeep" effects, lol. Although maybe it works the same way there too?... For multiple triggers that occur at the same time such as Echo or Upkeep, you place them in APNAP order, and each player can choose what order to place them onto the stack. Then just resolve from the top of the stack as normal. Also, I'm not actually a judge haha. Although do plan on applying to be a L1 at some point in time. Need to get more familiar with IPG and a few technical rules before then. Thankfully Layers are in the L3 exam...
DotV triggers are the most memorable case of this. 2003/2004 had a ton of games decided by people not knowing AP/NAP
|
On April 18 2013 06:00 Sn0_Man wrote:
"at the beginning of your upkeep" are triggered abilities (that get triggered by you beginning your upkeep). Triggered abilities happen when their triggers are met, and so don't "replace" anything. The same event can trigger any # of triggered abilities without issue.
Contrast with replacement effects.
Replacement effects are not triggered but rather a "substitution". They are characterized by words like "would" to indicate that what "would" happen doesn't actually happen. You obviously can't replace something twice, because after the first replacement it is gone. Also note that replacement effects don't see themselves. This sounds weird but it makes sense when you think of a card like: "If a player would lose life this turn, that player loses twice that much life instead".
Yeah, that's pretty tricky. @_@ But I think I understand the difference between the two now.
On April 18 2013 06:00 MoonBear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 05:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 18 2013 05:45 spinesheath wrote:On April 18 2013 05:27 cLAN.Anax wrote:MoonBear the sanctioned judge of MTGO thread. Thought Experiment 1: Compulsory Replacement Effects
Let's say Anna has a compulsory replacement effect in play that doesn't draw her more cards. So, something like Tomorrow, Azami's Familiar (TAF). During the first draw, the replacement effect triggers. Notion Thief does not trigger in either Scenario 1 or 2 because this first draw is due to game rules and it is the first draw of the draw step. TAF resolves. We move onto the second draw. At this point in both Scenario 1 and 2 the Notion Thief triggers at the same time as TAF. However according to 616.1, because both replacement effects are compulsory (aka the players don't make any choices), Anna as the affected player may choose which replacement effect to use. Therefore, she gets to use TAF's ability again if she wants regardless of how Notion Thief is worded.
That was boring. Huh. I'd've thought both would occur but Anna would get to choose which order they happened in. (not questioning what you're saying; that was just what I would have assumed initially) The card's rule text just seems very oddly worded, even for English-speakers. Takes a couple hard reads to fully understand. Well, you can only replace something once, because it's gone after you replaced it the first time. So intuitively you wouldn't get both replacement effects. I suppose one could think of a replacement effect like a targeted ability where the target is the effect that is being replaced. Thus the second replacement effect to resolve will fizzle because the target is gone, it has been replaced. Just to make it clear: I have no idea if this actually is in line with the rules. That makes a lot more sense. I was trying to compare it in my mind with multiple "at your upkeep" effects, lol. Although maybe it works the same way there too?... For multiple triggers that occur at the same time such as Echo or Upkeep, you place them in APNAP order, and each player can choose what order to place them onto the stack. Then just resolve from the top of the stack as normal. Also, I'm not actually a judge haha. Although do plan on applying to be a L1 at some point in time. Need to get more familiar with IPG and a few technical rules before then. Thankfully Layers are in the L3 exam...
You're judge enough for this thread. Judi basically gave you his seal of approval. It's official now, lol. 
I'm sorry, what's "APNAP" mean?
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On April 18 2013 06:16 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 06:00 MoonBear wrote:On April 18 2013 05:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 18 2013 05:45 spinesheath wrote:On April 18 2013 05:27 cLAN.Anax wrote:MoonBear the sanctioned judge of MTGO thread. Thought Experiment 1: Compulsory Replacement Effects
Let's say Anna has a compulsory replacement effect in play that doesn't draw her more cards. So, something like Tomorrow, Azami's Familiar (TAF). During the first draw, the replacement effect triggers. Notion Thief does not trigger in either Scenario 1 or 2 because this first draw is due to game rules and it is the first draw of the draw step. TAF resolves. We move onto the second draw. At this point in both Scenario 1 and 2 the Notion Thief triggers at the same time as TAF. However according to 616.1, because both replacement effects are compulsory (aka the players don't make any choices), Anna as the affected player may choose which replacement effect to use. Therefore, she gets to use TAF's ability again if she wants regardless of how Notion Thief is worded.
That was boring. Huh. I'd've thought both would occur but Anna would get to choose which order they happened in. (not questioning what you're saying; that was just what I would have assumed initially) The card's rule text just seems very oddly worded, even for English-speakers. Takes a couple hard reads to fully understand. Well, you can only replace something once, because it's gone after you replaced it the first time. So intuitively you wouldn't get both replacement effects. I suppose one could think of a replacement effect like a targeted ability where the target is the effect that is being replaced. Thus the second replacement effect to resolve will fizzle because the target is gone, it has been replaced. Just to make it clear: I have no idea if this actually is in line with the rules. That makes a lot more sense. I was trying to compare it in my mind with multiple "at your upkeep" effects, lol. Although maybe it works the same way there too?... For multiple triggers that occur at the same time such as Echo or Upkeep, you place them in APNAP order, and each player can choose what order to place them onto the stack. Then just resolve from the top of the stack as normal. Also, I'm not actually a judge haha. Although do plan on applying to be a L1 at some point in time. Need to get more familiar with IPG and a few technical rules before then. Thankfully Layers are in the L3 exam... You're judge enough for this thread. Judi basically gave you his seal of approval. It's official now, lol. I'm sorry, what's "APNAP" mean?
Active Player/Non-Active Player. Basically, when something affects more than one player at a time (such as triggers, multiple player discard spells, etc.) the Active Player (AP) must announce and make all decisions first, then the Non-Active Player (NAP) does so.
For example, if Delirium Skeins is cast, the AP first chooses three cards and places them face down. The NAP then chooses three cards and puts them face down. Then both players reveal and place them into the Graveyard at the same time.
Generally, players just throw cards out of their hands at their own leisure but technically you're under no obligation to reveal any information until all decisions are made, and the AP has to choose first.
The same occurs for triggers during upkeep. For example, if both players control a Masticore, the AP places the trigger on the stack first, then the NAP. That means the NAP has to discard first as the stack resolves from the top.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
