Magic, the ADA, and More
Bah. Shame on me to turn my brain off. I made two errors in my last column. I'll follow that with my unfinished business (Magic and the ADA by Rob Lawing), and then the questions for today.
Since you guys had your brains more engaged reading my column than I did writing it, I'll let you correct me.
<<< Q: I have a question about a game my brother and I played. I had played a Goblin Legionnaire. A few turns later my brother had played a False Demise on it. My turn after that I played a Squee's Embrace on it. He played Reins of power and took control of it and then skull catapulted it at me. We couldn't figure out where it would go next, (my hand or his control), so we just ended up flipping a coin. Where would it have gone?
A: Depends on whose turn it was. If it was your turn, you, if it was his turn, him. >>>
Martin Toggweiler: The opposite is true. If the creature hits the graveyard on Embrace player's turn, the Embrace trigger hits the stack first, then the Demise trigger, so the Demise resolves first rendering the Embrace feckless, since the creature is no longer in the graveyard. The converse holds if the creature hits the g-yard on the Demise player's turn.
Chris Richter (aka kriz_riktr - Moderator MTGNews.com): I think you have this backwards. When multiple abilities trigger at the same times they are put on the stack in APNAP (Active Player, non-Active Player) order. In other words those controlled by the active player are put on the stack in whatever order he wants followed by those controlled by the non-active player in whatever order he wants. Because of this the triggered ability controlled by the non-active player will go on the stack last and it will resolve first. When it does the Goblin Legionnaire will be removed from the graveyard and either return to play or go to its owner's hand. When the triggered ability of the active player resolves it will be unable to find the Legionnaire as it has changed zones and the ability will fail to do anything.
(Oracle and comprehensive rulebook [410.3, 410.10] quotes snipped…)
Me: This is what I get for making the answers terse. I just got tired of fully explaining it, and decided to answer it in as few words as possible. Well, I did that, but in doing so I got it wrong. Moving on …
<<< Q: I had a Spiritual Asylum out so my lands cant be the target of spells or abilities. My opponent played Armageddon. Does that affect my land?
A: No. See above. >>>
Martin Toggweiler: Armageddon does not "target" any land(s), all lands get destroyed; it does indeed affect his land.
Now you may interpret "that" in the final sentence of the question as referring to "Spiritual Asylum" instead of "Armageddon". Armageddon is the most recent, thus the presumed antecedent for the pronoun. At the least, there is ambiguity here that needs clarifying.
Me: And that's exactly what my brain saw … the "that" referring to the Asylum. Another case of me being terse.
The Armageddon will destroy all of the lands. Since Armageddon doesn't use the word "target," Spiritual Asylum will not affect Armageddon.
Rob Lawing: One small point but one that should be of concern to us arises in Bill's Judge's Corner column today [May 13]. In the 8th or so question today a player with 2 broken hands writes about being not allowed to play with another person holding his cards in a Sanctioned tournament. Bill is sympathetic to the writer but says that he probably would not have allowed him to play either.
Me: I think you may have misread me here. Let me quote part of my answer again…
<<<However, if you just arrived at the tournament with your friend and a deck, or if you found any other method of holding your cards unusable, I would have let you play, but kept a watchful eye on you. I believe there is a fine balance between letting people play and the possibility of tainting the tournament (with cheating). However, I would always prefer to err on the side of letting people play.>>>
As I said there, I would let him play. However, I would be over there quite frequently, making sure no coaching was occurring.
Rob: Assuming the stated facts are all true then this
young man has a classic lawsuit under the American's
with Disabilities Act for being denied a reasonable
accommodation to allow him to participate in an event
that he was otherwise qualified to participate in. The
landmark case is the one where Casey Martin, a pro
golfer, was denied the use of a golf cart to play in PGA
This does not mean that the TO had to allow another
person to hold cards but it does mean that he had to
make reasonable accommodation for this person to play.
This could have been by allowing a non-participant to
hold his cards or by a mechanical device like Bill
mentions or another method that would be seen as
reasonable by an average person.
I realize that this is a rather small issue but I
think it is of importance to any readers who have
Me: Following a bit of research into the archives of the judge's list, I found the following similar situation.
The questioner wrote about a handicapped person who could not do the following things:
-It is sealed deck, and he is physically unable to
record his deck on a checklist.
I'm not sure if Dan Gray was the netrep for the judge's list at the time. He did not sign it as such; however, he made a very similar response on another issue about a year and a half later that he did sign as the netrep. Also, he is a level 4 judge, and runs the premiere tournaments for the Los Angeles area. So even as an example of how he would handle it, I would think it would carry a lot of weight. His response was as follows:
Dan Gray (28 October 1997): Allowing this player to have an "assistant" who sits at his table and basically performs the physical acts of playing for this player is perfectly acceptable. It not only makes logical sense (assuming, of course, the assistant does not give advice or participate in the outcome of the game in anyway), but there's a long standing precedent for this sort of thing-- one of the Japanese players used to always have a translator with him at PT's, since, at the time, he spoke virtually no English.
Keep in mind that, as far as I'm concerned, if the
player cannot provide an assistant, and you've the spare
staff, feel free to provide him with one as necessary.
Me: Also, as the person running the tournament, having one more entry fee and having one more person playing is nearly always, in my opinion, a very good thing.
Now, on to the new questions…
Q: If I were to bring out a Flametongue Kavu without any creatures in play what would happen?
A: It would have to target itself for the 4 damage, since it is a creature when the triggered ability is played. Barring the damage getting prevented, you have one dead Flametongue.
Q: What would happen if I sent out a Mystic Snake without anything to counter?
A: When the Snake's triggered ability would be played, if there are no legal targets for it (no spells on the stack), then the triggered ability does nothing. You just have a 2/2 snake.
Note the differences here. In the Flametongue example, there is a legal target … the Flametongue itself.
Q: I am playing my opponent when he uses Corrupt and targets me. I have Misdirection in my hand, and remove a blue card in my hand from the game to use it. He says that Corrupt affects two targets, myself being done the damage, and him gaining the life. I say that I am misdirecting the damage back at him, and that he suffers no loss of life and gains no life because so. Who is correct?
A: You are. The only time a card targets someone/something is when it uses the word "target." Since the only time Corrupt uses the word "target" is in reference to the player losing the life, it can be Misdirected.
Q: Just out of curiosity, is it possible to use Hunting Grounds (when you have threshold) to play a Mystic Snake and still counter the spell your opponent played?
A: Hunting Grounds
Sure can. Hunting Grounds triggers off the spell being played. Once the Hunting Grounds trigger resolves, if you drop a Snake, then the original spell is still sitting on the stack, just waiting to be countered.
A: Assuming the Cobra isn't pumped somehow, 4. The Cobra deals 1 damage to 2 of the squirrels, destroying them (twice … once by lethal damage, and once by its trigger … in case they can regenerate somehow). The other 2 squirrels will each do 1 damage to the Cobra, killing it.
Q: My question is about Divert...let's say I want to play my Shadowmage Infiltrator or something equally bad for my opponent and he decides to Counterspell it, Can I play Divert and have the Counterspell target itself...or is this not metaphysically possible?
A: You can't do that, because spells can't target themselves.
However, you can produce the desired effect by having the Counterspell target the Divert.
Q: Once I had gotten hold of some Judgment cards, I realized that some had a tombstone symbol in the corner, but didn't have a flashback cost. (The incarnations for example.) Then I saw Quiet Speculation. So, my question is, can I use quiet speculation and search for an incarnation, or similar card with a tombstone in the corner, even though it does not have a flashback cost? Thanks.
A: No. Wizards put the tombstone on the cards to help you determine those cards that are active in the graveyard. You can only search for spells that have flashback with Quiet Speculation.
Q: I would like to know, what would happen if you put
a Lure on a 1/1 squirrel (as an example) and another
A: In either case, you opponent could choose which of the Lured creatures he wanted to block with each of his creatures. If one of his creatures can block more than one creature, though, he has to block both Lured creatures.
Q: I have one creature in play, a Nantuko Shade. My Friend has one Merfolk of the Pearl Trident. It is his turn and he says that he is putting Gaseous Form on his own creature.
A: Gaseous Form
Q: On my turn, I attack him, and pump up by 7 making my Shade a 9/8. He claims he can chump block without the Merfolk dying because of gaseous form. Now, I argue that it cannot even enter combat because it cannot deal or receive. Who is correct?
A: Your friend is. Nothing is preventing the Merfolk from entering combat.
Copyright 2001 Pojo.com
Gathering is a Registered Trademark of Wizards of the Coast.
This site is not affiliated with Wizards of the Coast and is not an Official Site.