Good morning (North America)!

Or good night if you are in China

Nvm going to ask on main

Seems like all of my questions these days are brought about by other questions

@murgatroid99 I want to migrate our comments on your answer to chat, but the option won't appear yet

I'm almost tempted to leave more comments just to make it show

On that note, I have a feature request for meta

If I find my comments to be off topic and I want to migrate them, and every other user participating in the discussion also feels that way, then maybe we should somehow have the option to do that without moderator intervention

I think the prompt usually only shows up if a pair of people are going back and forth.

@Rainbolt It seems to me that this argument with ikegami comes out of different interpretations of your question. I interpreted it as asking whether it matters what the result of the choice is (exile vs graveyard). ikegami seems to be interpreting it as asking whether it matters that you made a choice (or something, I'm not entirely clear).

I think it would be helpful if you either comment or edit your question clarifying what you meant

@murgatroid99 I was actually thinking the same thing. Maybe have the two interpretations be something like "actually put the card in exile" and "choose to put the card in exile regardless of if it actually goes there there"

@diego Assuming that my reading (and I guess yours) of the question is correct, that seems reasonable

@murgatroid99 I asked which interpretation is correct. His answer is that it doesn't matter. What part exactly are you unclear on?

If I ask a question and the answer is "It doesn't matter." then that doesn't mean I should go back and edit the question to ask one that does matter.

I think he interpreted the bullet points at the end differently than I did

Ok, let's go over them

I'm just saying that I think it would help to clarify what exactly you meant, like what diego suggested

First we have "If you [exiled that card], ..."

You either did exile the card, or you didn't.

Good so far?

yes

Is ikegami good so far you think?

I don't think so

Ok, then it sounds like a comment is needed and not an edit to the question. Which comment am I responding to?

Read his answer and comments. He's primarily distinguishing between optional and mandatory costs, where you seem to be distinguishing between whether an action actually happened and whether it was replaced

I think he's putting too much stock in the word "choose"

I think we should have moved on to option number two

"If you [chose to exile that card], ..."

You either chose to exile the card, or you didn't. We can all agree on that also.

Now, let's say the first interpretation is correct.

What I'm trying to say is that I think you're distinguishing between actually exiling and choosing to exile, and that he's distinguishing between choosing to exile and being required to exile.

I think Llanowar Elves would still end up in the graveyard after reading his answer

@murgatroid99 You got my half correct. He isn't here to verify his half.

@murgatroid99 I think I see why he decided to make a totally different distinction.

OK. The other thing I was trying to say is that I think it might help if you edit your question to make it clearer what distinction you're trying to make

Well, I am under the impression that he totally got the distinction I was trying to make and that you are misunderstanding him

Let me explain why he made the distinction he made

If we use my example, "Whenever a nontoken creature dies, you may exile that card." then that begs the question, which interpretation is correct. Right?

But what if we use "Whenever a nontoken creature dies, exile that card." as our example? Whatever ruling we make should hold true for that card as well.

And we happen to have such a card available (Clockwork Hydra)

So we think that the second interpretation is correct for my example, and the first interpretation is probably correct for Clockwork Hydra, but wow, they both have the same result!

OK. If you think your question is clear and that ikegami interpreted it correctly, then that's fine

If they both have the same result, then it must not matter which interpretation is correct. Why is that? Oh, because of rule 117.12.

Again, he isn't here to explain himself (@ikegami ?) but that was my thought process as I read his answer five times.

So do you think my answer didn't correctly answer your question?

You answered the question I asked. He answered the question I should have asked.

fair enough

Gendolkari even pointed out that we all seem to be saying the same thing and are not contradicting one another

I think he's right, and that's why the conversation is so confusing

@murgatroid99 I tried to add clarity with this revision: boardgames.stackexchange.com/posts/24350/revisions

Honestly, it looks kind of stupid to me.

@Rainbolt What if you replaced the first sub-bullets with "the card actually went to the exile zone" and "the card did not actually go to the exile zone"

anyway, I have to go

One thing that matters is as GendoIkari said in a comment in the first case by "exiled" do you mean the Magic definition or that the card is actually in exile? Since it is possible to have something get exiled without actually ending up in the exile zone (as this question shows)

@murgatroid99 Ok, it just hit me what you are going on about

But I can't take the "you" out of the bullet. It's part of the text I am quoting. I just want to replace "it" with its antecedent, and so I only have that much room to work with.

The question is, what is the antecedent?

I rolled back my edit because I know that it didn't address what you wanted it to

It seems to me that the card says "If you do [exile the card]..." and you are asking what exactly [exile the card] means. Does it mean "actually put the card in exile" or "choose to put the card in exile even if it doesn't end up there". But I could be misinterpreting it.

I asked which of TWO interpretations is correct. You chose one. And then you decided I was asking something else entirely?

I was asking which of two very clear bullet points is the right one.

What do you mean by exile in the last question?

That's not my question.

I didn't ask for a definition of exile as used in Magic or as used in real life.

But knowing what you mean is necessary for answering it. Since I (and murgatroid99 I think) are interpreting as meaning one thing and ikegami is interpreting it as meaning something else.

Using one definition murgatroid is correct using the other ikegami is.

How has it come down to this? Why do I have to define "exile" in my question just to make people happy? It's a common Magic term. It's not up to interpretation.

sigh Here you go: 406.2. To exile an object is to put it into the exile zone from whatever zone it’s currently in. An exiled card is a card that’s been put into the exile zone.

Do I need to include definitions for zone and card?

@Rainbolt I think the difference is whether you're counting "exile replaced with a different zone change" as exile or not

Counting for what?

Because using the Magic definition of exile the two interpretations of the card are exactly the same and ikegami is right. Because you did exile the card even though the result wan't it ending up in exile.

No, you didn't exile the card.

@Rainbolt But you did pay the cost of "exile the card"

An event that gets replaced never happened.

This, I think, is both the whole problem and the origin of your question: the difference between paying a cost of "exile the card" and actually putting the card in exile

I think you started to pay. "or started to pay a mandatory cost, regardless of what events actually occurred"

@Rainbolt It's an optional cost

The other clause applies

"clause checks whether the player chose to pay"

Yea, you're right

That is why your answer is correct

Now why is his answer incorrect?

I think his answer is saying things that are correct, but I think it's approaching them from a slightly different direction than your question seemed to intend

Well, I assumed that the two interpretations would lead to a different result. I happen to be wrong, as shown by example with Clockwork Hydra.

Rather, I think that his understanding of your "interpretations" is incorrect, but that he gave the correct answer anyway

But, as I said before, as long as you're satisfied with his answer, I don't really care

And I said before, I think he completely understands both interpretations.

It seems like you are really pushing to get me to edit because of "the difference between paying a cost of "exile the card" and actually putting the card in exile"

But I just quoted the definition of exile, and it answers that confusion in the most direct way possible.

If there is some confusion that isn't satisfied by looking up basic definitions, I'll be happy to address that too.

I'm OK with how it currently is. You said that you think my answer answered the question, and the votes seem to indicate that other people agree. So, I'm satisfied

Anyway, if "Can I exile a card without exiling it?" is actually a confusing topic for anyone present, I highly recommend they post it. If you stare at that question long enough, a wormhole will open and you can actually travel through time.

@Rainbolt If you read the comments on ikegami's questions, it looks like he might ask something like that.

Do you at least see the difference between "exile" and "choose to exile"?

Is that somehow unclear?

@Rainbolt Yes

Because that's what I asked, and in bullet form too

I don't want to waste space writing out what I am not asking just because someone thinks that someone else doesn't get it

Because I don't see the confusion. You think ikegami is confused but all I keep getting is "go read his comments and his answer"

If you want to quote him then feel free.

All I can do is kind of wave my hands at his entire collection of comments and answer

At least for me the reason I seem to have misinterpreted what you said is I assumed that the interpretations were actually different. Since people do occasionally use language that isn't 100% rules accurate but can be understood a certain way. And in this case I assumed that by 'exile' you were shortening 'actually put in exile'. But it seems that I was mistaken.

@Rainbolt OK, I don't know how to make this any clearer. I concede that point. I'm satisfied with the situation as it stands. I don't care any more about my interpretation of ikegami's interpretation of your possible interpretation of the rules.

@diego They are different. There's actually a rule in place that makes the result the same.

In other words, you can choose to exile it without actually exiling it. But rule 117.12 doesn't care.

If rule 117.12 hadn't existed, then the result would be different

I think one thing everyone involved in this argument can agree on is that rule 117.12 contains the answer to your question

And I didn't shorten "exile".

Exile is not my shorthand notation for "actually put into exile".

Exile is a 100% rules accurate word all on it's own without your added fluff.

Case in point: the Oracle text on Path to Exile says "Exile target creature. [...]"

If you want to argue that Path to Exile doesn't use terminology that is 100% rules accurate, be my guest.

But please, leave my question out of that discussion.

I am aware, I said I was wrong in my interpretation of what you said.

Oh, sorry, I misread. Or rather, I stopped reading before the end.

Really sorry about that

Not a problem, it happens

Time for lunch bbl

I expect I'm missing something obvious, but I don't understand how this is relevant

I didn't respond to the comment because I know I can just wait for his new answer (if he posts one)

If you have a Platinum Angel out and an empty library when the trigger resolves you could choose to draw a card, not be able to draw due to an empty library and still discard a card. I think, I'm not 100% sure about this, but it is what came to mind without thinking about it too much.

@murgatroid99 If he deletes his answer and then posts that the first interpretation is correct, then we will have a direct conflict, and I will do what I can to dissolve it. Even if that means editing in information that I feel is totally obvious.

But I want to wait with you while he writes his new answer.

@diego Actually, I think that even if you didn't have Platinum Angel, you could do the same thing. You would just immediately lose when you're done.

Since you would only gain priority after the ability finishes resolving

That is true, which in tournaments isn't generally relevant. But in multiplayer if someone has things that trigger of discarding it could be.

@diego It's a way of conceding with style

I'm pretty sure that if you may [do something], and [do something] is impossible, then you can't choose to do it.

So I don't think Platinum Angel works like that

Or conceding with style

@Rainbolt But the point that comment is making is that "drawing a card" is an exception to that rule

Oh wait

You can choose to draw a card from an empty library

Can you give an actual example?

Or at least, a card text that is made up

"You may draw a card. If you do [...]" ?

> The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible, with the exception that having a library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action.

@murgatroid99 I suppose. Now I kinda want to build a deck that can do this just because....

Is "You may draw a card. If you do [...]" a good example?

it also triggers Laboratory Maniac, for a more useful example

@murgatroid99 But why win when you can lose with style?

Wow I need to read today

The exception is spelled out for me and I just gloss over it lol

I actually play with Laboratory Maniac in modern

So this is good to know

I don't have any effects that let me choose, but my opponents might

OK, it looks like ikegami's new answer now agrees with mine

@murgatroid99 Agreed. The first sentence of his answer is bullet point number two.

Haha this poor guy that signed up on the site just to jump in on this action with the answer I thought was correct at first.

I kind of wonder what his thought process was

There were two answers, in agreement, with rule quotes to demonstrate their correctness. So he went in, and posted his own answer that disagreed with them, with nothing at all to back it up

When you put it like that, I can't restrain my downvote.

I was going to be nicer

Well, he edited. I think he got the order of operations wrong:

> Since Ezuri is in the Command Zone you can't exile him therefore the ability does nothing.

Oh, I think I know what he was thinking

maybe

I get it too. He thinks exactly what I thought this morning

If you replace exile, then the event of exiling is replaced.

In fact, I am not totally convinced that he's wrong.

I'm honestly very confused by this whole thing

I was actually wrong. I thought he was talking about moving Ezuri to the Command zone instead of the graveyard. But that's not it

What's the deal with "No, he replaced the "put into exile" action, not the "exile" action."?

That's an ikegami quote

I don't understand why that is the case.

@Rainbolt I think it's an existing part of the continuing confusion surrounding this question

but, I guess I can't really be sure

Exile literally means to move into the exile zone from anywhere else.

"move into" sounds like "put into"

So how is "put into exile" not exactly the same as "exile"?

Remember, the whole question originated from the slightly confusing fact that you can choose to exile a card without it actually ending up in the exile zone

Right but now there seems to be four options

I think people are just struggling to come up with good wording for that distinction in the space of a comment

I don't even recognize the distinction there

The reason it won't fit into a comment is because it is a false distinction

And this is probably also the reason I don't understand what you wanted me to clarify earlier

as I said, I think it's just poor wording

I think he's trying to express the distinction between choosing to exile and having the card end up in exile

Well that's what I asked about

yes

If you omit the word "choose" then that's not what I asked about

And honestly I think it's impossible to exile a card without it being put into exile.

I agree with Gendolkari at this point: I think that we're all trying to say the same thing, but it's just coming out confusing

It is similar to the example ikegami gives of sacrificing a Blightsteel with Dragon Appeasement out. Even though the keyword action tells you to put something somewhere the game doesn't care if the thing actually ends up there when checking if the keyword action occurred. I think a lot of the confusion is coming from the fact that exile is both a keyword action and zone name.

Ok, let's say I agree.

Well, I mean I do agree

Exile is a zone and an action

Which do you think is meant by "exile that card"

@Rainbolt you don't understand. we agree with you. We're just trying to explain the possible source of any remaining confusion

and with that, I have to go

Ok, I'll stop pushing it then

@Rainbolt Preform the 'exile' keyword action on that card. The 'exile' keyword action moves the card to the 'exile' zone, this movement then gets replaced by moving the card to the command zone. So you exiled that card even though it never even touched the exile zone.

I don't get it still. You said the movement got replaced, but the exile did not?

The keyword action exile did not get replaced, only where the card moved to.

For another example, take Blightsteel Colossus, if you sacrificed it to say Ashnod's Altar is it still considered sacrificed even though the card never goes to the graveyard?

Ok, so "exile" means "Put into the exile zone from anywhere" but the reverse is not necessarily true

I don't understand what you mean by the reverse?

Let's assume "Put into the exile zone from anywhere" means "exile"

If you replace "Put into the exile zone from anywhere" then you have replaced exile

You are saying that is not the case

So "Put into the exile zone from anywhere" does not mean "exile"

But "exile" means "Put into the exile zone from anywhere"

It's a one way relationship

Yes, that is what I'm saying

Let's apply this to another example

"Draw a card" means "Move from the top of your library to your hand"

If you replace that event, would Chasm Skulker still trigger?

For reference: 120.1. A player draws a card by putting the top card of his or her library into his or her hand.

For example, if you decided to replace the event with Dredge, would you still put a counter on Chasm Skulker?

By your logic, you still "drew a card" even if the actual movement from library to hand got replaced.

No, because you are replacing the "Draw a card" action with something else. With exile you still preform the exile keyword action, it just does something different

I don't understand how the two situations are different. You either performed the action or it got replaced

Oh, I think I see now

With Dredge you replace the action of drawing a card with its effect, with 903.12 it replaces the actual movement into exile, not the exile keyword action

Well you could also say "With Dredge you replace the action of putting the top card of your library in your hand." That doesn't progress the discussion at all.

I didn't realize that rule 903.12 was worded the way it is

And now I understand what you are saying

I'm satisfied that I understand the correct answer and the correct way of arriving at the correct answer. Now if I can remember all this tomorrow when I select an answer...

@diego note: "exile" is not a keyword action. It's just a word defined in the exile zone rules

701.9 isn't a keyword action?

I take that back

@murgatroid99 I just deleted my Anger of the Gods answer because in my last effort attempt to distinguish my answer from yours, I ended up making a mistake

It's interesting that manifest makes it a "2/2 creature card", and not a "2/2 creature".

@Rainbolt yeah, that surprised me

@Rainbolt you did quote a different rule than I did. You could just edit out the end stuff

Ok

I did that

Ok, so is it a creature?

I mean, I'm not even sure the first part of my answer event works now

I need to establish that a creature card is a creature

108.2a In the text of spells or abilities, the term “card” is used only to refer to a card that’s not on the battlefield or on the stack, such as a creature card in a player’s hand.

It's a creature unless something makes it not a creature, like any other creature card on the battlefield

I guess that's just obvious from the type?

I.e. a creature card is a creature on the battlefield because that's just obvious

(I mean, I do think it's obvious. Just trying to make sure everyone else agrees because if not then I need to edit my answer.)

Aha, I found it: 110.3. A nontoken permanent’s characteristics are the same as those printed on its card

It says creature on the card, so by 110.3, it's a creature.

I feel better about having found this even if nobody cares :)

So, on another topic, I added more information to my Commander exile answer based on comments on the downvoted answer.

I just realized. This Luis Lopez user was the one who asked the Anger of the Gods question, but also claimed to be an L2 judge in the comments on their Mimic Vat answer

Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure the Anger of the Gods answer is deeper than what we have. I'm pretty sure that if a permanent took damage from it, then stopped being a creature, then went to the graveyard for any reason, it would still be exiled.

but I have to go again

I think it would be too.

But did he even ask that?

I mean, if he had asked the deeper question, we'd certainly have provided the deeper answer.

@murgatroid99 Oh wow. Rule 117.11 I think puts a nail in that other discussion. Nice find!

@Rainbolt What I mean is, I'm not sure that the answers we gave have the most correct reasoning they could have. I'll take a look in a little while and see if I can find the rule I think I'm talking about

@Rainbolt Yeah. I'm actually glad that other answer is there, or I never would have looked back to find it

@murgatroid99 Well, here's a deeper understanding

Anger exiles creatures. We know that because it is printed on the card.

So we need to prove that a manifested permanent is a creature

The rule I quoted proves that it is a creature card.

So we need to prove that a creature card on the battlefield is a creature

110.3 says "A nontoken permanent’s characteristics are the same as those printed on its card"

To me, that seals the deal

Wait a second

I missed a step

What exactly is printed on a manifested card?

What I'm trying to say is: maybe it doesn't matter whether it's a creature. Maybe it only matters if it was a creature when it took the damage.

Well yea. That's a totally different question

I guess I was thinking that that might make a simpler, more general answer, but maybe not

But I avoided the nobody cares route this time. It wasn't accepted well in the past

What if I do a handstand and then eat strawberry pie and then it dies? Answer: Nobody cares.

I actually wrote that out

And then I remembered what you said and made a point instead of an anti-point

@Rainbolt OK, you really have to stop doing that thing where you throw in clearly irrelevant examples just to make an argument sound ridiculous

Whoah, hang on a second. Did you even read the part where I just said I avoided this in my answer?

Well, you didn't avoid it just now

Excuse me for trying to really drive home the point in chat, where discussion is a little looser.

It sounds like you aren't happy with the detail of the existing answers.

But it doesn't drive anything home. It just sounds really dismissive

Ok, so providing an absurd version of the question doesn't get the point across that asking "What if" isn't going to get you a better answer. So how would you generalize the question?

Or it does get the point across in an unpleasant way. Whatever

The way it comes across, to me, is that the whole line of arguing is worthless, because you're comparing it to this clearly nonsensical situation

Ok fine. Comparing situations to clearly nonsensical (I assume you are unable to understand what a handstand is or what eating pie means) situations is worthless.

@Rainbolt "nonsensical" in terms of the game. Handstands and pie are clearly irrelevant, and putting it that way makes it sound like the type of the permanent is just as clearly irrelevant

Whoah, you just crossed the fine line. They are both irrelevant. But one is more clearly irrelevant than the other.

Hmm, using an analogy to increase clarity. Why didn't I think of that?

And clearly it worked. You found my analogy to be clearly absurd.

@Rainbolt Are you seriously saying that handstands and pie are just as relevant to the Magic rules as permanent types?

Is the question "the magic rules"?

Or was the question "Does being a creature at time of death matter?"

Before we continue this ridiculous discussion, can you clarify one point for me? Are we arguing about the validity of my earlier point or the pleasantness of my earlier point?

OK, whatever. Even in the second case, the type of the permanent is clearly relevant

... when it takes damage

You know, I'm not even sure about that any more

Actually, not even

The type is clearly not relevant

Wait no, Anger says "When a creature dealt damage by [...]". So yes, it is relevant

Ignore my handstand example if you want. Be glad that it didn't make it's way into the answer. Or don't care. Just don't tell me that it's worthless, because you admitted that it improved clarity.

You telling me that my point is worthless is hypocritical given some earlier speeches by you

It was just an alternative to my already posted answer.

Anyway, you said something about a generalized question earlier. I asked for an example.

(If you're searching Wikipedia, search for Straw Man. After you read about it, and if you decide to push it, I'll be happy to explain how my analogy is not a Straw Man.)

@Rainbolt You're right, that is what I would call it. But that's also not an argument I want to have

When I started this conversation, all I wanted to do was share some thoughts on the question, and figure out if I could provide a more general answer to that question with a different rule

Well, I asked like 15 minutes ago for the general question.

And you kept on about my alternative approach

If you want a general answer then you need a general question. Currently it sounds like you just want to include random trivia about Anger of the Gods. Assuming that this trivia doesn't bloat your answer, I think it would be a great idea for you to add in all of this extra information.

I'm off to play Minecraft

I wasn't talking about trivia. I'm pretty sure that there's a rule that says something like "If an ability refers to 'that [type]', it continues to apply even if it stops having that type". I was wondering if there was a generalization that would simplify the handling of Anger of the Gods

Oh, 608.2i is what I was thinking of