quote:

---

Originally posted by Yukizora:
Only non-mandatory actions should be stopped to avoid an infinite loop.
There is no optional (Or "may do..." )effect there, only a mandatory, binary choice to be made, exile or shuffle.
So, if the player owning progenitus wants, he can make the game end in a draw.

---

Not to hijack the thread, but is that how it would in this situation? Would the player who had the progenitus Helm'd into their graveyard w/ their opponent having Leyline of the void out be able to make the game end in a draw?

Only thing I could add to this is not about stumping the judge but what judge rulings have you seen made that were wrong?

Way back in the day, back to Arena, I had a judge make a ruling against me that cone of flame could be done to one target all three times! Was not cool.

.02,
Jesse

quote:

---

Originally posted by ogre:
Not to hijack the thread, but is that how it would in this situation? Would the player who had the progenitus Helm'd into their graveyard w/ their opponent having Leyline of the void out be able to make the game end in a draw?

Only thing I could add to this is not about stumping the judge but what judge rulings have you seen made that were wrong?

Way back in the day, back to Arena, I had a judge make a ruling against me that cone of flame could be done to one target all three times! Was not cool.

.02,
Jesse

---

Well the card reads:

Card Text: Cone of Flame deals 1 damage to target creature or player, 2 damage to another target creature or player, and 3 damage to a third target creature or player.

Does that not hold true as the card is read?

~MM

__________________
I am MeddlingMage...YOUR Motl Survivor 11 Champion, 2007 Captain N award winner, 2010 Marlboro award winner.

MafiaBass (9:48:50 PM): sorry my keyboard is sticky
MeddlingEric (9:48:56 PM): ewwww
MafiaBass (9:51:43 PM): FTR, I did not show you my e-pee-pee

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeddlingMage:
Well the card reads:

Card Text: Cone of Flame deals 1 damage to target creature or player, 2 damage to another target creature or player, and 3 damage to a third target creature or player.
Does that not hold true as the card is read?
~MM

---

It didn't look that way when in it's first printing in Weatherlight. "Choose three target creatures and/or players. Cone of Flame deals 1 damage to the first, 2 damage to the second, a 3 damage to the third." I could see where someone might be mistaken, those words don't say they must be separate targets, or use the word "another". I used to play lots of cards like that in the old days.

Somoene had once told me when you Genesis wave, you choose which order they stack in and what comes into play after everything else. He didn't understand they would affect each other and originally thought they came into play the order they were in from the library. So he was very excited that he had recently found out otherwise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by yukizora:
Seemed easy, but it wasn't

Only non-mandatory actions should be stopped to avoid an infinite loop.
There is no optional (Or "may do..." )effect there, only a mandatory, binary choice to be made, exile or shuffle.
So, if the player owning progenitus wants, he can make the game end in a draw.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ogre:

Way back in the day, back to Arena, I had a judge make a ruling against me that cone of flame could be done to one target all three times! Was not cool.

---

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 how and whether these replacement effects 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, continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent’s characteristics on the stack (see rule 400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:
Maybe its because I'm tired, but I'm having a bit of a difficult time reading what this rule says. Anyone want to clarify into plain English what this is saying? The example given in the rules doesn't match up w/ what I thought would happen:

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 how and whether these replacement effects 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, continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent’s characteristics on the stack (see rule 400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent’s own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it.

Example: Orb of Dreams is an artifact that says “Permanents enter the battlefield tapped.” It will not affect itself, so Orb of Dreams enters the battlefield untapped.

---

Shivan Oasis has an ability that says "Shivan Oasis enters the battlefield tapped." Because this ability affects Shivan Oasis AND ONLY Shivan Oasis, it will modify how it enters the battlefield.

Orb of Dreams does not affect ONLY itself, so it can not affect itself as it enters the battlefield.

__________________
"If you're right 90% of the time, why quibble about the other 3% ?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by nero-blackheart:
thats crazzy tokens go on top of the copy of right of replecation on the stackif you have 2 precursers out that would be a non optional infinit combo whitch if im corect on that is considered a lock witch means the player who starts the combo loses. i may be wrong on that but wow kinda blows your mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nero-blackheart:
thats crazzy tokens go on top of the copy of right of replecation on the stackif you have 2 precursers out that would be a non optional infinit combo whitch if im corect on that is considered a lock witch means the player who starts the combo loses. i may be wrong on that but wow kinda blows your mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sovarius:
It's not infinite. Copies of Rite don't copy even more just because more golems come into play. Only as you cast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:
lol.... this is a troll post, right?

---