quote:

---

Originally posted by Tiff:
Would mulch, forbidden alchemy, armored skaab etc trigger undead alchemist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:
assuming they put a creature in the graveyard, yes. Its pretty good tech vs the block mill deck.

---

Thx, that's why i was asking. I figured it would give you an edge in the mirror.

Shriekmaw Enters the Battlefield
Sacrifice triggers
Destroy Effect triggers
Pass/Pass
Destroy effect resolves
Sacrifice resolves
Active player gets priority

So in that mid-phase where you both pass priority, you'd have time to Kiki-Jiki the creature, or stifle the sacrifice trigger, etc etc.

My question:

How does Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur works?

I thought hand size at 0 made the player discard his hands but it's not the case according to mtginfos.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heresy19:
I'm building Reanimator to bring at the LGS.

My question:

How does Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur works?

I thought hand size at 0 made the player discard his hands but it's not the case according to mtginfos.

Thanks!

---

They can have a maximum of Zero card in hand at the end of their turn. If they have more than that, they discard down to zero in their cleanup step.

__________________
"He fights you not because you have wronged him, but because you are there."

[16:17] <@BrassMan> what do you need new tech for?
[16:18] <@BrassMan> gush is unrestricted

quote:

---

Originally posted by tragicmagic:
Regarding Essence of the Wild again... if Nature's Revolt is in play, when I play lands, do they become 6/6 avatars that can still tap for mana? Or are they just 2/2's that can tap for mana?

---

They arent creatures until they enter the battlefield, so they cant enter the battlefield as a copy of essence of the wild (because that would mean they were creatures before they actually entered the battlefield, which they arent).

__________________
"He fights you not because you have wronged him, but because you are there."

[16:17] <@BrassMan> what do you need new tech for?
[16:18] <@BrassMan> gush is unrestricted

They still enter the battlefield as a land, then SBAs are checked, and turn them into creatures, not essences of the wild.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Devonin:

They still enter the battlefield as a land, then SBAs are checked, and turn them into creatures, not essences of the wild.

---

completely wrong explanation, but correct answer. Sometimes you get lucky.

quote:

---

611.3c. Continuous effects that modify characteristics of permanents do so simultaneously with the permanent entering the battlefield. They don’t wait until the permanent is on the battlefield and then change it. Because such effects apply as the permanent enters the battlefield, they are applied before determining whether the permanent will cause an ability to trigger when it enters the battlefield.

---

As I am not certain, I am going to ask the listserv. Either way, this rule implies to me that thror's explanation is incorrect, though I cannot say that with certainty at this time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by keywacat:
If you Duplicant a legend they will both die when the duplicant comes into play, correct?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:
I recommend reading duplicant, it will answer your question.

---

Hmm, yeah, reading is key, eh? You are spot on, and I found this interesting thread on it as well:
[url=http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/ionvg/duplicant_in_edh/][/url]

1. Do I target the planeswalker or do I target my opponent?

If I do target the opponent...
2a. So cards like Hindering Light can protect walkers?
2b. Do I have to target my opponent with the expressed intention of destroying the planeswalker?
2c. Or can I wait until the spell resolves before I redirect the damage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by choco man:
I want to destroy my opponent's planeswalker with a burn spell.

1. Do I target the planeswalker or do I target my opponent?

If I do target the opponent...
2a. So cards like Hindering Light can protect walkers?
2b. Do I have to target my opponent with the expressed intention of destroying the planeswalker?
2c. Or can I wait until the spell resolves before I redirect the damage?

2b would provide hidden information in tight games.

---

1. you target the player, and then assuming damage is going to actually resolve, choose to redirect it to a planeswalker they control. You only have to pre-name that you're targetting a planeswalker when attacking with creatures.

2a Hindering Light could protect them whether you target the player or the planeswalker, since it counters a spell targetting them or a permanant they control, which is both them and their planeswalker.

2b You don't have to say you're redirecting the damage to their planeswalker until the spell resolves. Things like "I Bolt Jace" are just shorthand because you assume they lack a way to counter/redirect the spell, or just don't care given the game state. Competitively, you should always say that you target them, wait for a response or a pass of priority, and then redirect the damage as its resolving to their planeswalker.

In the same way that you don't actually have to name a card for Meddling Mage or Pithing Needle until it is on the battlefield.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skwirlnutz:
If I play minds eye, pass the turn. My opponent draws for the turn can I activate minds eye as many times I can pay the cost? If he draws can I pay as much as I want and draw that many?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
This nugget leads me to wonder whether those lands really do come in as Essence of the Wilds:

As I am not certain, I am going to ask the listserv. Either way, this rule implies to me that thror's explanation is incorrect, though I cannot say that with certainty at this time.

---

Asked the listserv, got a big answer:

> Hello,
> I am writing to ask about the interaction between Essence of the Wild and=
Nature's Revolt. Assuming Player A controls both, and then plays a forest,=
is it a copy of Essence of the Wild? Also, if it is, does it retain its fo=
rest subtype, making it able to tap for green mana?

"It's not a copy of Essence of the Wild.

While it's true that there is no moment where a permanent is on the
battlefield but unaffected by continuous abilities that involve that
permanent, Essence of the Wild creates a replacement effect that
modifies how permanents enter the battlefield, and these have to be
processed before it actually enters the battlefield. At that moment,
the land is not a creature, so it won't be affected by Essence of the
Wild's replacement effect.

In general, when determining which replacement effects affect how a
permanent enter the battlefield and how they affect it, you look at
the permanent how it would be on the battlefield, but taking into
account only:
- other replacement effects that have already modified this event,
- continuous effects from the permanent's own static abilities and
only if these mention the permanent itself,
- changes of characteristics to the permanent when it was on the stack
(doesn't apply to the situation above as the land is never on the
stack),
You don't take into account continuous effects from other sources."

The rule I should have been looking at, for reference, is this one:

quote:

---

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, 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.

---

I owe an apology to thror, and am offering one now. I must admit, I thought it was odd that I found something which might contradict him. I never actually said you were wrong, but I implied you could have been when you weren't.

I will also say, however, that I find myself to be dissatisfied with how this question was answered by everyone who answered it. In a lot of cases, the questions asked on this thread are things that don't necessarily require source information. We get a lot of "RTC" and "you could have checked Gatherer first" questions, but this was not one of them. It's just as important to know why something is the way it is, otherwise, we keep answering the same questions over and over. That means backing up your statements with the rules, especially in cases where the answer isn't crystal clear.

__________________
"He fights you not because you have wronged him, but because you are there."

[16:17] <@BrassMan> what do you need new tech for?
[16:18] <@BrassMan> gush is unrestricted

That said, requiring that the relevent portions of the Comprehensive Rules be posted alongside any response would help limit the number of one-word answers, and hopefully the number of incorrect answers as well.