วีดีโอ

Card draw option I have in mine are Deepwood Denizen, Stock the Pantry, and Hunter's insight! Love to see another Hamza deck. I probably have a few pips more than I should but I really wanted to include the hydras I had.

But!

That's obvious??? You attack with one, and that one is safe... The other's however cause it's not on their cars text are blown... >.>

I really like regenerate, and I think they should bring it back.

I personally read it as. Season of the witch triggers at the end of the turn. So when it checks. Silent Arbiter has created a special rule for the creatures you chose to not attack with, that they can't attack. So SotW doesn't destroy the creatures because they couldn't attack because of SA's special rule. Just my two cents

Any of the Ib Halfheart, Goblin Tactiacian flavor text. "Step lightly and maybe we can use it as a bridge." Flavor text of Panglacial Wurm.

I saw the features you described as "old woman" but I thought that was the young woman 😮

I’m trying so hard and I cant see the old lady

Point more.

Team Old Lady

I think it's time to amend rule 604.1. The next thing is, layers makes 604.1 break itself here. Dress Down is also a static ability that applies in the creamy center of Kudo's layer sandwich. If Kudo's static ability is "simply true", then Dress Down's cannot be "simply true." It's mostly true instead, because Kudo ignores it. So 604.1 struggles to remain consistent and should apply under normal conditions. However, a separate rule could be made regarding how a static ability may be broken down into multiple static abilities in the event that they apply on different layers and something is interfering with all or part of the ability. Something along these lines could fix a major issue with the layers.

I mean the way I would interpret it as. Did you attack? Yes, then it was with one creature and therefore all but that one creature are now unable to and therefore can't. All creatures are safe. If no creatures attacked, any and all creatures could have so all creatures that did not attack are blown up despite only one actually being able to. Because none attacked, all were able. One just had to be the risky sacrifice. The can't clause only comes in when the attack is actually going to happen

Even judge for the win made a video about that some time ago, stating that the rules are not clear about that interaction, but if I remember correctly had he been judging, he would apply the same interpretation

do you still get the +1/+1 counter if you target the Aetherspark with it's +1 while luxior even if it cant equip?

You're correct here. The cost is a part of the effect. Just being any part of an effect is what matters.

I think it would work like norritt does but I have no clue

Got to see this happen a lot when Amalia was still legal in pioneer. I do not miss it.

Ovika is one of my favorite casual decks hands down.

Can someone explain how this would work with ashnods alter and a convoke spell with hoarding broodlord?

As soon as you attack with one, the other creatures you control can not attack.

I don't have the extra income right now but I've been brewing a Hamza deck around Modular. Every colorless creature get cheaper for each on you cast which lets you build a board quick with greens counters effects

I guess this makes sense bc otherwise magus would also copy the copy, then copy that copy, then that one, then ...

I think that every other creature that could legally be chosen as an individual attacker would be destroyed as result of this interaction. To me it seems that Silent Arbiter, in the case of specific overruling general, overrides rule 508.1a (The active player chooses which creatures that they control, if any, will attack. The chosen creatures must be untapped, they can’t also be battles, and each one must either have haste or have been controlled by the active player continuously since the turn began). It does this by changing the number of creatures you’re allowed to declare as an attacker. It doesn’t change whether or not any given creature is allowed to attack, only that you can declare one single creature to attack. Creatures also aren’t declared attackers sequentially but simultaneously, which means that it wouldn’t somehow “kick in” after declaring one attackers. In short, Silent Arbiter changes what actions the Player are entitled to, not what the creatures are allowed to do. This means that all creatures remain legal attackers which would cause them to be destroyed.

Cathedral Acolyte from the fallout set, its .40¢ and adds a little bit of protection to creatures with any kind of counter on them (not just +1+1) and after it loses summoning sickness it can even add a +1+1 to a creature you play each turn as soon as the creature etbs.

Some cards just don't need revisions.

I saw this deck last Sunday, it was very fast, robust, and lethal.

god i just remembered my non-tournament legal card with cut corners... it would have been insanely expensive if it was the regular card, still like $1000 for the international edition, but with cut corners, it's "altered" and technically worthless.

Ok but how does Season of the witch work with Frenzied saddle brute

so its not possible to somehow get a luck counter on a gemstone cavern after the game has started? there has got to be a way for this to happen right?

I didn’t see the old lady until he pointed some of the characteristics lol

From my interpretation, is it not the case that season of the witch is a trigger which goes off at the end of the turn? If so, then wouldn't it check the game state as it is when the trigger actually attempts to resolve? In the case of silent arbiter, if you attack with one creature you are thereby unable to declare any more attackers for the rest of the turn. So when the trigger goes to check for those creatures that couldn't attack, it would find that only one creature could attack and did. But if you don't attack with any creatures, season of the witch's trigger would see all your creatures as having been equally capable of attacking and would destroy them all. That's just me though, im not a judge.

Im wondering if the difficulty comes from the oracle text saying "couldn't" instead of the original text's "could have". I feel like the original text has provides a more obvious answer. But Magic is weird where Oracle text doesn't always keep the original design intention in mind.

Ugin!

That stupid hydra should be a 0/0 not a 4/4, these designers just make the game worse

I'd say creatures are safe only if the one creature attacks. However, if none of the creatures attack its a board wipe. Because they could. 😅

I feel like there is a difference in the wording of the cards vs what reasoning we would come to naturally. My theory is that since silent arbiter uses “no more than one creature CAN attack” , vs that other card that says couldn’t or could not attack. Can and could are interchangeable in some cases, therefore people want to read silent in this scenario as, “only one creature can attack therefore the rest cannot”. Which is logically the case but it’s possible the game doesn’t care about that or it’s overridden by some other rule or interaction between rules. I also understand that it’s more nuanced since like you pointed out there is no definition of “couldn’t attack” so it leads to this weird land of ambiguity and people going back and forth on what would happen. I like the argument that silent would blow up the board with that enchantment cuz it would be a funny secret tech for arbiter. Outside of that it’s really hard to say which way it should be, hopefully someone else can figure it out one day.

Having a "cannot lose" effect when an opponent puts 20 counters on a [[Darksteel Reactor]] does the same thing.

My Judge's tower is getting some new cards

Speaking of odd rules interactions, I have a rules question about an old-school artifact. Specifically Gauntlets of Chaos, which switches control of an artifact, creature, or land you control with a permanent an opponent controls that shares a type with your card, the destroys all Auras attached to those cards. See, one of the 2009 rulings for the card says the exchange doesn't go through if both targets are not legal targets because one changes types. So, say my opponent has an Ulamog's Crusher under the effects of Imprisoned in the Moon. I activate Gauntlets of Chaos, targeting the Crusher and my basic Plains. The exchange happens, but then Imprisoned in the Moon is destroyed. Basically, at what point during the resolution of Gauntlets of Chaos' effect does it no longer check to make sure all targets are legal?

I have a question how would this play out if the “master breeder” was a token and you control a “the master multiplied” witch has a similar effect but with different wording “triaged abilities you control can’t course you to exile or sacrifice creature tokens you control” would the same loop happen?

I saw a walrus

I see a weird wolf ladybug thing🤨

Let’s build a deck with all these silly unsolvable interactions. What could possibly go wrong ?

So you built a regular commander deck then? Like a normal one that doesn’t pop off in 2-3 turns flabbergasting the whole table? Heretic!!!! Burn him!!!!

Dang this is great info for a Black Panther deck. Not exactly budget but still

Silent Arbiter is a restriction on attacking. One creature attacking means the others can't attack. Simple as.

Sincere question: could it be as simple as once you choose an attacking creature, the others then become unable to attack and so would be classified as couldn't? (FYI, I am one of those who always sees both in the picture at the same time. Lol)

well the rules specify equip and it says attach lol

Hearing the second half of this short made me a fan. Respect tf out of you and I’m subscribed now

Blood moon also only removes land types and leaves everything else which is why urzas saga instantly dies to blood moon for example