Board and Card Games

Rainbolt

2:37 PM

Have you folks seen As Foretold? It let's you cast Ancestral Visions and Lotus Bloom for free the turn it comes down!

I'm absolutely going to test this card out in Modern Taking Turns

JonTheMon

I did see it. I first thought that it would be a backup for Living End type decks where the suspend card is in hand.

diego

@Rainbolt I like that card, especially the fact it is once per turn, and just once on your turn.

TheThirdMan

2:54 PM

@Rainbolt: I'm not sure how to tackle that replacement effect thingie in the Platinum Angel question

today's Platinum Angel question, I should say ;)

as in, i feel like I agree with you in that in general, rules are rules, not replacement effects, regardless how they're worded.

Rainbolt

Oh hey. I had a slightly different issue with your answer. Not totally sure about it but I think the rule I quoted is pretty solid.

JonTheMon

So, is 104.3h applied as a rule, and is Platinum Angel a modification of the rules as well?

TheThirdMan

that said, the multiplayer rules (in general) read as an additional layer of ingame effects... it really really sounds like it SHOULD be a replacement effect :D

Rainbolt

I don't really want to argue the "rules are replacement effects" bit outside of my answer because honestly it seems like a philosophical question

TheThirdMan

maybe, but one that's pretty relevant

what is you problem with my answer then, if you want to go into it?

Rainbolt

2:58 PM

I commented

TheThirdMan

oh, just saw the comment, nevermind

and i shall reply in a comment :)

and there it is

actually, writing this, it's not even important whether it's a replacement effect at all, is it? since the player never wins, 104.3 is never applied, period.

Rainbolt

I'm trying to find rulings on Platinum Angel and Darksteel Reactor from a L2+ judge

JonTheMon

@TheThirdMan but what if 104.3 is applied as a game rule instead of a replacement effect?

Rainbolt

I'm personally of the mind that the "Opponents can't win the game" part of Platinum Angel's effect is totally useless in a multiplayer game, because player's don't win in multiplayer games. They simply cause everyone else to lose.

TheThirdMan

@JonTheMon i feel like it doesn't matter. laboratory maniac's "you win the game" part can't happen, so the game rule never applies, whether it's a replacement effect or not doesn't matter

i'm editing my answer accordingly

doppelgreener

3:07 PM

@Rainbolt It's amazing and I want to use it.

Rainbolt

Ahah! I (think I) have proof that it isn't a replacement effect. Will edit my answer.

doppelgreener

Because you can cast a spell via it for free on every single turn; but you up it during your own turn.

Rainbolt

Well actually let me vet this by you folks first

doppelgreener

I saw a discussion on As Foretold which had a comment where someone was just "I'm gonna snee -- aaa -- AAaaAAAA -- AAACHOOTRAXA." In an Atraxa deck, it accelerates by 2CMC per each of your turns, and during every turn (including your own) you get to cast a free spell (with appropriate timing).

Rainbolt

Replacement effects are applied in APNAP order. If the rule is a replacement effect, who controls it?

TheThirdMan

3:09 PM

they aren't applied in APNAP order unless multiple effects apply to the same event, AND they don't just affect a single player

i think i only looked this up yesterday

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt Replacement effects are applied by the player who is being affected, not by their controller

Rainbolt

Okay, that's why I can't find the rule I am looking for

So it wouldn't matter who controls the replacement effects, only who controls the object

murgatroid99

Also, the rule says "instead", which pretty clearly indicates that it is a replacement effect

Rainbolt

If rules are effects, then I agree it would be a replacement effect

I don't think we've established clearly that it is an effect at all

murgatroid99

As another example, the Commander zone change rule, 903.9, is very clearly treated as a replacement effect

I mean, it literally says "this replacement effect"

Rainbolt

3:13 PM

Yup. Someone mentioned that in a comment, and I agree that 903.9 is a replacement effect because it says it is

TheThirdMan

@Rainbolt I further edited my answer to clarify it, along with some reasoing why the nature of the effect (replacement or "just a rule") doesn't matter

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt No, it's a replacement effect because it says "instead". It mentions the fact that it is one because it also modifies the replacement effect rules for that one effect.

TheThirdMan

@murgatroid99 Samthere just commented

However, one thing I'd mention about 903.9 is that it refers to it as "this replacement effect", but doesn't need to mention "this is a replacement effect"

doppelgreener

@murgatroid99 That is pretty definitive!

I mean, even if it wouldn't be considered a replacement effect otherwise, it is now, because it said so.

Rainbolt

3:32 PM

@TheThirdMan You edited, so I got to remove my downvote lol

I'm glad, because I hate asking for dummy edits just so I can change my vote

TheThirdMan

thanks ;)

Samthere

hey guys

I'm very confused :D

Rainbolt

Pretty much the entire set of people contributing to that question is in here now lol

Missing ikegami

@murgatroid99 Can you ask your Tumblr judge for a ruling? I am too lazy to do it myself, and you've done it a couple of times already.

Samthere

also even regarding the word effect

609.1. An effect is something that happens in the game as a result of a spell or ability. When a spell,
activated ability, or triggered ability resolves, it may create one or more one-shot or continuous
effects. Static abilities may create one or more continuous effects. Text itself is never an effect.

but it feels wrong to me that there's never a time when an effect happens as a result of a game rule

Rainbolt

I posted in the chat.magicjudges.org/mtgrules

Samthere

3:39 PM

I do agree that 903 could be written as it is in both an environment where rules can and can't be replacement effects so it's not enough to say either way; it only makes it clear that it is

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt I asked.

Rainbolt

Cool. The feedback from the IRC I got was that the opponent who doesn't control Platinum Angel still loses. Unfortunately the respondent was not anyone I recognize.

Samthere

Yeah, I think it's feasible to interpret it either way out of "the other players lose" or "nobody loses" even with expert knowledge of the rules

Based on whether PA forbids you from trying to take the "win the game" action on the card entirely, or if it only forbids the PA player from losing after the 104.3h rules change is applied

Rainbolt

I hope you don't mind if I copy the discussion so far. I omitted some discussion that was related to another question.

<Jace0> We have a multiplayer game between Player A, Player B, and Player C. Player A controls Laboratory Maniac. Player B controls Platinum Angel. Player A is about to draw a card from an empty library. What happens?
<Anonycat> player C loses, game continues
<Jace0> Thanks. We are discussing the question in depth here and can't seem to come to a solid conclusion: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/34844/6692

I left. The discussion went in about the same direction there as it did here.

Whoops, I already said "Cool" and then pinged you again with "Thanks".

Samthere

4:03 PM

I think as the question develops I realise that 104.3h doesn't change the question based on whether or not it's a replacement effect (which I don't have a definite answer to anyway)

It's where PA's "can't win the game" recognises an attempt to "win the game"

I'll be back on in a bit to check

if anybody has said anything more

Rainbolt

You can count on people to update their answers if anything groundbreaking develops that supports them being right

And occasionally someone who is wrong will also update theirs

Samthere

:D

TheThirdMan

okay, i wrapped my mind around it once again (seeing as the answer Rainbolt quoted isn't what you'd called rule-backed), and i figured it would actually come down to the order in which those effects are applied. let me elaborate...

if a player would win, all other players lose instead, right? so if this is applied in general to multiplayer games and effectively alters Laboratory Maniacs effect to read "if you would draw a card from an empty library, all opponents lose the game", what i said in my answer wouldn't apply

because platinum angel wouldn't prevent player C and onward from losing

whereas if that's not the way it works, and it's applied on a case-by-case basis as those events happen (or if it's a replacement effect), my answer still stands

any idea on which would be correct?

(i might be turning circles here :D )

Rainbolt

I think I understand. Let me try to regurgitate:
"Applied in general" means "it replaces the text on Laboratory Maniac". Platinum Angel doesn't stop it from happening.
"Applied when it happens" means "when the text on Laboratory Maniac happens, instead something else happens". Platinum Angel does stop this from happening.
So your conclusion is that it depends on when and how the rule is applied.

TheThirdMan

4:19 PM

yeah, pretty much... except that i don't think that there actually is much of a concept of "arrangement", and simply the question how those multiplayer rules are meant to be interpreted

Rainbolt

Here is an L2 judge that says that everyone except the player who controls Felidar Sovereign and the player who controls Platinum Angel will lose, which backs my answer. mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/…

Oh wow. They had the exact same discussion that we had. Read the rest of that thread lol

And again it has no conclusion

TheThirdMan

the only reasonably backed answer i could find was the one i had originally linked in my answer, supporting my answer (although for slightly different reasons)

what bothers me is that there's always conclusions, but never exlanations otherwise

Rainbolt

I trust the randoms on TappedOut as much as I trust the randoms on the IRC. If bimmerbot had responded to me in the IRC, I'd take that as law and use it in my answer.

TheThirdMan

i don't mean to call anyone wrong, but i'd like to see an explanation for why they think they're right :p

yeah, as far as rhadamantus goes, despite me probably misspelling his nick right now, he must be the single most consistant guy on tappedout i've seen so far, so i tend to believe him... that said, noone's perfect

Rainbolt

Well apparently this L2 judge asked on the magic judges forum, which I don't have access to (and the link is a 404 anyway). So our problem about whether 104.3h is a replacement effect did actually get addressed by a group of judges somewhere, but we'll never see it.

TheThirdMan

4:23 PM

lol

nice

Rainbolt

Too bad MTGO doesn't support multiplayer

You could try it there and see what happens

Discounting the fact that the result could still be wrong (a bug)

TheThirdMan

MTGO is buggy beyond belief anyway, so i would trust that much less than any given MTG player :p

murgatroid99

@Rainbolt It does, though

TheThirdMan

the "applied in general" theory you and me formulated seems to be the most logical thing, anyhow... the effect would simply work different in a multiplayer game, and "you win the game" is merely a shortcur for "in a two-player game, you win the game; in a multiplayer game, each opponent loses the game"

Rainbolt

@murgatroid99 Oh... I didn't know that

diego

4:27 PM

@Rainbolt I found a 'discussion' on a judge forum but it is only the first post and there were no replies

Rainbolt

I don't have access because I'm not a judge

diego

@Rainbolt You can sign up as a Level 0 judge if you want to (that's what I did)

Rainbolt

This civil discussion is nearly as draining as the uncivil ones I have in here all the time

I'm gonna take a break lol

Transcript for

Board and Card Games