quick question, can I attempt to use Bone Dragon 's ability when it is on the battlefield? I know that the ability won't do anything, but can I pay the cost (BB3, Exile 7 cards from Graveyard) and then have it fizzle?

I can't remember if the ability only exists in the graveyard, or if it is useable (but fruitless) from the battlefield.

The ability exists everywhere, but it can only be activated in the graveyard

The key rule is 112.6k: "An ability whose cost or effect specifies that it moves the object it's on out of a particular zone functions only in that zone..."

thanks, that was what I was trying to find

so I won't be able to pay the cost if it is on the field.... trying to find a cheap way to exile a bunch of cards, as a creature, that isn't a sac or etb effect

Why do you want to exile a bunch of creature cards from your own graveyard?

Or, I guess it's any card, but same question

If that's the goal, you might want to look at using Delve cards

Super-Jank combo that I figure might be fun, trying to find a way to break Lazav, the Multifarious in standard

How would exiling card from your own graveyard help you with that?

if I can exile a bunch of cards for cheap with Lazav, I think I could swap him with the new cow dude for 5 mana

Lumbering Battlement

I won't get the leaves the battlefield trigger, but I would get the buff

also possibly Rona, Disciple of Gix for recursion

but I haven't been able to figure out anything good enough to warrant building an entire deck around it

closest I have come is Laz and traxos to turn him to a 7/7 for {4} at instant speed if he is unblocked

@Malco I don't really follow

@Malco I think you may have a misunderstanding about how "exiled with" works

Those are linked abilities. Each "exiled with" clause only looks at cards exiled by that same card's abilities

Rule 607.5 is the key here:

> If an object acquires a pair of linked abilities as part of the same effect, the abilities will be similarly linked to one another on that object even though they weren't printed on that object. They can't be linked to any other ability, regardless of what other abilities the object may currently have or may have had in the past.

ahh I misunderstood it as being linked to the object not the ability

and since Laz is the same object I figured it carried over

@murgatroid99 may I ask you what you think about David Z's remark at boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/44853/… ?

I'm curious

By my reading, what he's saying contradicts the shortcut definition in question.

But couldn't "acting" in "is assumed to be acting in beginning of combat" also mean "actually do something with your priority other than passing it"? And, if you assume this, wouldn't this mean that if NAP does not "act", he is not BoC at the time he passes priority, but still in his main phase?

It seems to me that you are saying that what phase the NAP has priority in retroactively depends on what they do with that priority. Which sounds wrong to me

Honestly, I don't know the answer for sure here. But based on the shortcut definition text and the linked article, my interpretation agrees with your initial interpretation

I'm not sure about "retroactively" - in my opinion it would behave the same way regarding the aspect of the shortcut we all agree on: If NAP uses his priority to cast an instant which affects a beginning of combat ability trigger, he acts in the main phase, he uses his priority to cast not such an instant, he acts in beginning of combat. I read the article again, but IMHO everything in this article still works if you apply David Z's interpretation.

This interpreation feels wrong to me too - it would be more inconsistent if who receives priority BoC first depended on and is differet depending on what NAP did (which is what feels weird to me) - but I think the shortcut does not definitively exclude such a interpretation

(with " not such an instant" I meant "an instant which does not affect BoC triggers)

@efie The issue is that then you can't consistently answer the question "what step is it?" after AP says "combat" and the NAP is about to act

But isn't this the same in our interpretation? After "Combat" AP does not know if NAP will act in main or in BoC, depending on what he casts

OK, sure, that's a good point

Still, since the shortcut includes the event of the NAP not acting, it just doesn't make sense to me to say that if the NAP doesn't act, then they rejected the shortcut

In the end, though, I think it doesn't really matter. If you want to handle the kind of scenario in question, the AP doesn't just have to act first at BOC, they have to act first in BOC without giving NAP the opportunity to act first... first.

As I understand David Z's interpretation, NP passing priority does not mean that he rejected the shortcut. Instead, this interpretation interprets "acting" in "is assumed to be acting in beginning of combat" in the shortcut as "doing something with the priority (other than passing it)". If you follow this interpretation, the shortcut does not state what happens if NAP just passes priority. Since the shortcut does not state what happens inthiscase, things would default to the comprehensive rules

which means that NAP passed piority in his main phase. The "no actions took place" then would remind us to what happens after this default. However, I agree that this "reminder" is not necessary then in this shorcut, which probably indicates that this interpretaion is less likely

But they you're saying that the NAP has accepted a shortcut that shortcuts literally nothing

There's no real meaning to having a shortcut that starts with one player passing priority and ends with the next player having priority in the same step

with nothing else in between

And I still think it doesn't make a difference to the question. No matter what interpretation you're looking at, the fundamental issue is that if AP makes the shortcut and then NAP accepts it and acts, AP has missed their chance to act first in that step

I agree that it does not make a difference regarding the question

More generally, I think it doesn't make any observable game state difference at all

Something just came to my mind: In our interpretation, if NAP passed priority (which means he did BoC), and AP then passes, too - doesn't this advance the game to the declare attacker step?

The way I've understood it is more that NAP gets an extra priority before AP normally would

I see, that would make sense, because otherwise the example mentioned in the blog ("If the non-active plays the Cryptic, you activate the Mutavault and get in for 2. If they don’t, unless they’re a very precise player, it’s a strong sign that they may not have it and you should activate the Mutavault and go for it. ") would not work

"unless they are precise player" imples to me that NAP gets priority afterwards where he still can cast Cryptic

theres so much room for interpretation! :( I thought that the order was reserved... e.g., since NAP acts first BoC, it suffices that AP then does nothing for an empty stack to advance the boardstate...

or well, maybe not "room for interpretation" but "room for confusion"

The difference in wording between "assumed to be acting..." and "receives priority" implies to me that there's a full round of priority starting with AP after whatever exactly it is that NAP gets to do there

ok

I will stick to this interpretation for now :) and maybe annoy a judge at the next FNM with this :P

thank you for discussing this with me!

The correct move is to play decks where you only turn dudes sideways. Then, this'll never come up :^)