Board and Card Games

10:26 AM

Hey, do you play microgames here?

I've recently tried Eminent Domain: Microcosm, very impressive. Feels like Race for the Galaxy crammed into only 34 cards.

Strangely enough, original Eminent Domain doesn't look appealing at all, though I haven't played it. Anyone had experience with it?

Unihedron

11:02 AM

@Rainbolt with the help of a connection from one of the game stores I visited from the map you showed me back then, I'm now lurking in a high school board games club where there are riichi mahjong players.

I don't even go to that school, but the club members didn't mind.

Rainbolt

1:02 PM

@Unihedron I'm glad you found someone to play with!

My partner just got thrusted into the high school chess club sponsor position. They have a competition this weekend.

JonTheMon

1:22 PM

@Rainbolt Tell your partner to watch out. Chess players have a mean bishop shank if they get ruled against ;-)

Rainbolt

@JonTheMon I can't imagine the tournament rules for chess being all that complicated, but I suppose competitive players could make it unnecessarily complicated, just like MTG.

Rainbolt

2:49 PM

To celebrate my three day weekend (Labor Day holiday), I started doing P90X again. I only made it through 20-40 minutes of the 50-60 minute workouts. Today is day four, and I can barely move.

Rainbolt

3:00 PM

Also, I just found out that day one of the Grand Prix is Competitive REL. I'm excited about that. GPTs are run at Regular REL now, and so I don't get to play at Competitive REL very often.

murgatroid99

5:56 PM

That's a very interesting looking card

Rainbolt

@murgatroid99 Am I correct that this would also cause creatures or artifacts with ETB triggers to trigger twice, since it doesn't say "another"?

murgatroid99

Yes, that's what it looks like to me too

I'm looking forward to playing that + Mirrorworks + Myr Battlesphere

Rainbolt

Oh my. I'm looking forward to that + Thought-Knot Seer

This is probably worth ramping into with Hedron Crawler, so that you can play Thought-Knot Seer "on curve" (i.e., before Avacyn, which is incredibly important in standard)

JonTheMon

7:58 PM

Hmm, trying to figure out a way to go infinite with the new modules (in standard), but missing a piece or two. Either need Cryptolith Rites and a global haste source, or a "gets +1/+1 counters when a creature dies" and a free sac outlet (Nantuko Husk is rotating). Could possibly get the second with Unruly Mob and Reaper of Flight Moonsilver, but that also requires delirium

Rainbolt

8:08 PM

If Panharmonomicon itself causes an ability to trigger, am I correct that it will trigger twice?

For example, if I control Leonin Elder and then play Panharmonomicon, I think that I will gain 1 life twice, for a total of 2 life.

Yea, that seems to match with what this answer says:

1

A: Multiple permanents entering the battlefield simultaneously and “Enter the Battlefield” effects

The replacement effects (As [this permanent] enters the battlefield, You may have [this permanent] enter the battlefield as..., and [This permanent] enters the battlefield with) will look at the state of the battlefield before the group of permanents enters. The triggered abilities (When [a perm...

murgatroid99

I'm not sure. This is the first instance I know of of a replacement effect (which this seems to be) replacing the trigger event itself.

JonTheMon

Well, the act of Panharmonicon entering the battlefield happens before any ETB triggers are put on the stack, right, so when you go to put the abilities on the stack, the replacement ability is in effect, right?

Rainbolt

@JonTheMon The replacement effect happens when the ability triggers, not when it goes on the stack

JonTheMon

Which does happen after it's on the battlefield. But thanks for the clarification

Rainbolt

It's a little weird to say "the replacement ability is in effect". I would think about it like "the replacement ability has been applied" or "the replacement ability has not been applied yet". So depending on what you meant, you might have been right. I didn't understand.

JonTheMon

8:16 PM

Hmm, how would a situation resolve if a card said "put an artifact on to the battlefield then sacrifice an artifact" and Panharmonicon was the only one?

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt Or maybe "The static ability exists at that time" vs "The static ability does not yet exist"

Rainbolt

You would follow the instructions in the order that they are written, so panharm would apply itself just before it got sacrificed

JonTheMon

@murgatroid99 Yeah, saying "static ability" is better

murgatroid99

@JonTheMon In that case, are there even any triggers to worry about?

Rainbolt

Well I think we're assuming something else he didn't mention is going to trigger, like Leonin Elder

JonTheMon

8:18 PM

Well, Leonin Elder would still trigger (at least once), right?

murgatroid99

yes

JonTheMon

Ok, so the question is does it trigger twice or not.

murgatroid99

That's the same question we were already discussing, right?

Rainbolt

So
1) Put an artifact onto the battlefield. Leonin triggers twice but the triggers don't go on the stack just yet because were are not done resolving the spell.
2) Sacrifice Panharmathingy.
3) Someone gets priority, but just before that you stack the two triggers.

JonTheMon

@murgatroid99 Yes, but getting back on track

murgatroid99

8:20 PM

@Rainbolt I'm still not sure it triggers twice. We have no precedent on "Replacing the event of an ability triggering".

Rainbolt

@murgatroid99 Let me make sure we are both talking about the same thing. For JonTheMon's question, I assumed Panharmathingy was already on the battlefield

murgatroid99

Actually, I'm not even sure it's a replacement effect, because it doesn't use any of the existing replacement effect templates

Rainbolt

For my question, I assumed Panharm was the thing that was entering

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt Oh, I thought the Panharmonicon was the artifact that was entering and then getting sacrificed

Rainbolt

Okay, I understand now

JonTheMon

8:23 PM

@murgatroid99 That's the scenario I was thinking about

murgatroid99

@JonTheMon OK. We can just reduce that to the previous discussion of "The Panharmonicon enters the battlefield and triggers something", because all of that happens before the sacrifice anyway

JonTheMon

So, static abilities can start applying even in the middle of spell resolution, and triggers are created even in the middle of spell resolution as well?

murgatroid99

Static abilities always apply. Abilities trigger as soon as the event happens

There is precedent with cards like Hypergenesis for effects from entering permanents applying to subsequent entering permanents.

Rainbolt

614.12. Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. (See rules 614.1c–d.)
Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a
general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come from other sources. To
determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the
permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have
already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects generated by the

murgatroid99

Can you be more specific about which part of that rule you're trying to highlight?

Rainbolt

8:41 PM

I was actually just throwing it out there so that you guys could help me determine if it is even relevant

After taking a closer look, the part in parentheses here seems relevant: "Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a
general subset of permanents that includes it)."

Panharm affects a general subset of permanents that includes itself, and so it would not apply to itself according to my interpretation of that sentence.

I'm interpreting "X as opposed to Y" to mean "X, but not Y", which I admit is illogical, but I think that is what the rule is trying to say.

murgatroid99

Well, Panharmonica isn't a replacement effect that modifies how a permanent enters the battlefield

@Rainbolt Isn't that generally what that phrase means?

Michael Snook

I think that rule is differentiating between something like "~ enters the battlefield tapped" on taplands and all that, as opposed to "Permanents enter the battlefield tapped" on Orb of Dreams and similar

murgatroid99

@MichaelSnook Yes, an example on that rule explicitly says that that's what the difference is

Michael Snook

And believe me, I was surprised an example existed that didn't specify opponents' objects

murgatroid99

The examples don't specify who controls any of the objects

Rainbolt

8:47 PM

@murgatroid99 No. In the statement "It applies to the permanent if X (as opposed to Y).", you cannot infer "It does not apply to the permanent if Y."

It's not clear what "as opposed to" is supposed to modify there

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt OK, I'm not sure exactly where you're going here, but in this particular case it doesn't really matter. The "as opposed to" clause is in parentheses in this case because these instances of X and Y are disjoint

It's just a reminder/clarification

Rainbolt

I understand that they are disjoint. That doesn't change my original point at all.

I'm assuming that Panharm does not affect itself when entering, even though that it not stated anywhere.

murgatroid99

As I said, all of rule 614.12 doesn't apply to Panharmonica, so I don't see how we can draw any useful conclusions from it here.

Rainbolt

@murgatroid99 I see that you said that now. Why did you keep asking questions that you don't care about the answer to?

murgatroid99

The fact that this rule doesn't apply to this specific situation doesn't mean that I can't discuss the wording of the rule. And I didn't say I didn't care. I just don't understand what point you're making.

Rainbolt

8:57 PM

I had a point when I thought 614.12 was applicable here, and now I don't.

If you want to continue discussing it anyway, please be my guest.

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt I mean the part about the wording of the rule, not the part about the applicability of that rule to the card.

Unless I totally misunderstood, and the wording of the rule is only in question because of its applicability to the card

Rainbolt

The wording of the rule was only in question because of its applicability to that card

I think that murgatroid is right, and that this doesn't fit any of the existing templates for replacement effects. However, since it looks to obviously be a replacement effect, I think they will expand 614.1 to cover it. Then, 614.12 will probably apply, and suddenly I will have a point again (but by then we'll have official rulings and my point won't matter much).

murgatroid99

But it modifies how abilities trigger, not how permanents enter the battlefield

Rainbolt

I'm not sure why you think that

murgatroid99

Because it looks for certain kinds of abilities triggering, and changes how (many times) those abilities trigger

Rainbolt

9:10 PM

There's no English argument to be had here. If it meets a specific template, then the rule is applicable. For example, "As this permanent enters the battlefield [effect]." It doesn't matter what "effect" is - we know 614.12 applies.

murgatroid99

OK, I see 3 options: either it's not a replacement effect, or it matches a new replacement effect template and it's not an ETB replacement, or it matches a new replacement effect template and it is an ETB replacement

I don't think it's the last option, but you seem to think that it is. And I don't think we can figure out more than that without actual rulings

Rainbolt

I don't know why you think that I think option 3 is how WotC will implement it

murgatroid99

7 mins ago, by Rainbolt

I think that murgatroid is right, and that this doesn't fit any of the existing templates for replacement effects. However, since it looks to obviously be a replacement effect, I think they will expand 614.1 to cover it. Then, 614.12 will probably apply, and suddenly I will have a point again (but by then we'll have official rulings and my point won't matter much).

Rainbolt

There's a clause inside of 614.12 for both option 2 and option 3

It's going to apply no matter which option they choose

murgatroid99

614.12 only covers the case of "Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield"

That's option 3 but not option 2

Rainbolt

9:16 PM

It says "as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it"

Which fits Panharm's text

murgatroid99

I knew that was relevant. It's talking about that specific clause of that specific sentence: "Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it)."

Rainbolt

Oh, I see what you are trying to say.

You think they will add a template for this new type of replacement effect, but leave 614.12 alone, so it will continue to say "(See rules 614.1c–d.) "

And this new template will not be under 614.1c–d.

Sorry, I was just talking past you and not trying to understand

murgatroid99

I think that is a strong possibility, more likely than the possibility that the template does fall under 614.12's jurisdiction.

Rainbolt

Does every replacement effect have to meet a template?

murgatroid99

yes

The templates are the only way to determine that an effect is a replacement effect.

Rainbolt

9:53 PM

I tried to make a query that looks for cards that have "If a" or "If an" that also do not match any of the templates for triggered abilities, prevention effects, or replacement effects. Here is the result.

murgatroid99

10:38 PM

Unfortunately, it looks like none of them actually provide a useful precedent for interpreting Panharmonicon. They all seem to simply be conditions on effects that can be clearly placed within the rules on their own.

Rainbolt

11:09 PM

Agree, but the lack of precedent is not totally unfortunate. It serves as a hint that this card will bring a rules update with it.

murgatroid99

11:21 PM

Here's something interesting: there are currently no cards with the word "triggers" in their text, except in reminder text.

So, that will be the first card with an effect that explicitly triggers an ability

And, the only cards that currently mention "triggered ability" refer to an ability already on the stack.

Metagamer

11:59 PM

0

Q: What syntax construct should be used for rulebook quotes?

When quoting the rules of a game, there are two obvious options: Block quotes and code blocks Each one has problems. Block quotes are much more limited in terms of layout. You can't have custom indentation or arbitrary spacing. The following has no block quote equivalent: mmmmm ...

discussion

Transcript for

Board and Card Games