Part of why I like Jacob Hauken, Inspector. Your opponent either destroys it before you pay six, or you pay six and it's an enchantment. I like the fact that there's no time where I've paid six mana and my opponent can Doom Blade it.
To be honest, I never would realized the rules for Throwing Knife's trigger and any similar effects worked this way, and would have 100% just treated it the same as Shock. Hell, I've always paid Flameblast Dragon's cost before targeting.
100% The wording on throwing knife is bad. Ink on paper, sacrificing the equipment clearly comes before targeting a creature to shock. That's how it should work. Otherwise, how can you target a creature to deal 2 dmg to before sacrificing the equipment to put the ability on the stack which lets you target a creature to deal 2 dmg to in the first place? 🤷
You can still interact, it just matters WHO gets the advantage. If you do makes it better for the active player, while the extra trigger makes it easier for the defensive player to counter the effect. It ultimately means the active players cards with the when trigger are worse cards, especially as we get so many instant speed interaction now. Especially for removal abilities its so much more value if they have to sacrifice it and you dont need to do it, so they would need to let it happen and not get a sacrifice effect, which is just extra value for the active player, making the card better.
The thing I like about "When you do" (and if you do) is that it's easy enough to understand the full effect only goes off if the condition is fulfilled, in contrast to older cards that did similar but attempting to respond doesn't actually work because the whole thing is on the stack. I honestly didn't realize the "If you do" targets right away.
Changing from IF to WHEN also helps you do the first part of the ability without the whole ability being countered due to having no legal targets. (Dream Eater from Guilds of Ravnica)
I always thought the "if you do" on certain triggers would care about whether you actually managed to satisfy the condition beyond the initial trigger. Like for Promise of Bunrei, your opponent could destroy it in response after your creature died but before you sacrificed it, preventing you from sacrificing it and getting the bonus. I don't think that's how it actually works, but that's the gut read I had on it.
That is how it works. If you can't satisfy the condition as the effect resolves, the "if you do" portion won't take effect. So destroying Promise in response to its trigger, or even at the same time as another creature, will cause the trigger to do nothing when it resolves. Using Promise of Bunrei again, if you have three creatures die at once, Promise will trigger three times. When the first goes to resolve, you sacrifice Promise and then since you sacrificed it you make four 1/1 spirits. When the other two triggers resolve, you will attempt to sacrifice Promise again, but since it is gone already you can't, and you won't get more spirit creatures.
Exactly. If it triggers and goes on the stack and the opponent removes it, then as the trigger resolves you can’t sacrifice it as it’s dead already. It works as you thought. It lets there be a way to interact before it resolves.
I never knew about this difference. I’m so glad to see changes like this making the game more intuitive (since is is already so unintuitive in so many ways)
I noticed this difference (and understood the rules meaning right away, mostly because I'm the kind who loves the rules) when looking at some new cards, and always thought it had been brought along to make sure the first half of the trigger resolved first (e.g., for the mill example). I never thought it was created specifically to allow the opponent to respond, although I could tell it was used for that purpose in some cases. Interesting story!
5:31 I always thought the "if you do" was there if you became unable to perform the action, like if suddenly you became unable to sacrifice permanents, it actually makes a lot of sense because even if mandatory sometimes you're unable to pay the cost.
💯. Like if it triggers and goes on the stack, the creature is removed, then when resolving the trigger their is no creature to sacrifice so you can’t and you don’t get the rest of the effect. It provides a window for players to interact, by removing the creature (much more common effect than preventing sacrifice)
I knew there were these different wordings but I never knew it was this much of a difference. I just assumed you could respond on each separate part of the effect since there was this 'pause' moment. Happy to learn this, especially as someone who loves to make custom cards.
On a similar note, I’ve noticed you’ve gone from “you may destroy target X” to “destroy up to one target X” on triggers. A friend of mine was very upset to learn that deflecting swat can save his stuff from aura shards, but can’t also destroy mine. The wording on newer cards on the other hand would have allowed it.
@@TheZahirNT2 Took me a bit as well. When Aura Shards goes onto the stack, the aura shards player selects your enchantment. You then cast Deflecting Swat in order to change the target to one of their enchantments. Unfortunately, because of the wording on Aura Shards, when the trigger resolves with the new target, the controller (i.e. your opponent) can simply decide not to destroy their enchantment, as it is a "may"-ability. If it was worded with the "up to" instead of the "may", then the controller of Aura Shards wouldn't have the option to simply not destroy the target (and they still wouldn't be able to reselect targets either), therefore whatever you chose would indeed be destroyed.
I remember looking at Grave Peril in my C15 Daxos precon as a new player and being super confused. “Whenever a nonblack creature comes into play, sacrifice GP. If you do, destroy that creature.” I was like, “If I do?? When would I ever not sacrifice it??” I understand the rules necessity behind that wording now, but when you do makes so much more sense! Great change.
Why does Keen Duelist have the bad wording: you and target *opponent* each reveal the top card of **your** library. It’s worded as if your opponent is revealing the top card of your library, which would be hidden information to them. But it actually means they reveal the top card of *their* library. Why doesn’t it say something like: you and target opponent each reveal the top card of your *libraries* Or: you and target opponent each reveal the top card of your *respective* library. Great video on explaining the rules of how targets need to be selected immediately when effect is on the stack and bow reflective triggers work.
There is no proof it's the only ring in existence, neither there is proff it's actually real. They should take a picture of the card's back so the print pattern is seen. But they won't. So it's fake.
@@malakimphoros2164 it's from PSA. It is obviously real. PSA confirming it gives far more confidence than an easily faked screenshot of some print pattern. There is also no need to prove it's the only ring in existence. As long as nobody else has any to offer or show on the same or higher confidence level as this one, the situation is effectively identical as if it was the only ring in existence, even if someone kept another in secret without anyone knowing.
@@Luxalpa There was no scandal surrounding graded cards yet. But the same cannot be said for other grading companies people have trusted. >screenshot of a print pattern grammer, also it can be put on video y'know. >no need to prove Until another one is found in a bundle.
Thank you for this video. I was not aware of this distinction. I'm a little surprised that you decided not to errata previous cards, but I support the newer "when you do" wording for most cards going forward, as I agree it seems more intuitive.
This is cool! I did realise there was a difference, but I didn't realise just how recent of a change it was - it feels like it's always been a thing. Guess that goes to show how good a design choice it was.
Great video! I like when you explain these types of design minutiae that are easy to miss. On that note, could you comment on design philosophy when it comes to deciding between basic ETB effects, "if cast" clauses and on cast triggers? I'd love to better understand when you use what version.
The wording and order of operations is why this makes no intuitive sense. If you want the effect to resolve in the way you described, it would make more sense to read as "Whenever __ creature attacks, chose any target. You may pay X cost; if you do, Y effect" Where the former reads as "Whenever X creatures attacks, you may pay Y." and because that is a full stop, you have have to decide during the attack declaration whether you pay the cost. That is a complete statement. which then carries into "If you did; Z effect occurs" It reads very much like, Only if the former condition is met do you get the second condition. This is the one time I will harp on WotC's use of the English language, I am sure there is a technical reason for the wording, but the order of operations for the effect are not stated in the order in which they occur.
Some of the if you do ones make sense because they would be on the stack and someone could kill your creature meaning when the ability resolves you have nothing to sacrifice hence you did not sacrifice yata yata. Honestly one of the best parts of magic is debating the wording of cards with your friends in the middle of a game especially if it's the first time a weird scenario with the card has come up.
Man, talking about how Exerted changed the "If" to "When" on a lot of cards makes me wonder if making an Amonkhet could have a psuedo-Fog effect that Exerts all your opponent's creatures to give you a turn off from their assault only after the first time they do so.
I understand the general distinction between when and if here, and agree that when is in better keeping with how discrete triggers are handled in Magic, but I also think most people have been playing "if you do" like "when you do" as you describe. "If you do" feels like it is and should be a discrete trigger in a linear progression, and not a connected clause of the full ability. Even after watching you explain the intro example twice, it just felt awkward and unintuitive that you could choose to go through with the sac or not after declaring the target, a choice which is both in another sentence at the other end of the paragraph and after the "if you do" gate.
i dont mind "if you do" abilities, makes the situation a game of bluff/ forcing your oppoents to make a choice and being able to get ahead in the game, variation of card design in this space is a good thing and increases possible ways a game can turn out
Coming from Yugioh, it's interesting to hear he designers talk about things like this. Konami basically never says anything. There's a thing in Yugioh where you send cards on resolution, so you don't know what your opponent will choose until it's too late to respond. Seeing Magic move away from this is interesting to see.
4:00 Why not just change "if" to a reflexive trigger? "When," doesn't read intuitively either; if I don't choose to do X, then the "when" never triggers. But linguistically, "when" assumes I'm going to do something, "if" is a conditional.
The first time I saw a reflexive trigger work in mtga I immediately understood how all of them worked and why they existed and thought they were brilliant. No news here for me. But congratulations
Maaan Gavin, my mind was totally somewhere else, going: "Depends. Am I using this bear to kill them next turn?, or is it still mid-game?" Wasn't thinking about the May of the throw in the first place.
Magic is having its “When you do” moment Personally I would’ve preferred a change to the “if” version ruling rather than separating similar effects into confusing, minutely different effects
6:05 , Can I remove the target creature from the graveyard in response to the ability ? (the second "when" makes me think it's a second triggered ability, but as it's not on a new line, I'm not sure.)
You can. That's exactly what this video is about. Any instance of 'when', 'whenever' or 'at' on a Magic card, at the start of a sentence, indicates the start of a triggered ability.
I guess I just always thought If and When both create the trigger necessary to place the ability on the stack. If you don't sacrifice the knife, why would you choose a target?
I think I also noticed, on Arena and MTGO, those "when you do" reflexive triggers usually places 2 things on the stack? Can you insert stuff between them? I think you can't manually do so since there usually isn't a priority chance between two lines of card text, but when you have multiple triggers, it might be possible? Edit: For example, a creature with "When etb, sac a creature. When you do, XXX". If I have another triggered ability like "When you sac a creature, do YYY", I think I can reorder them freely and decide whether X or Y happens first?
The use of reflexive triggers is an improvement, but it does show a weakness in Magic's templating arsenal: There isn't a (common, accepted) way to write costs that are paid when you stack a triggered ability. Reflexive triggers almost do this, but at the cost of having two different triggers (which is worse for digital). Other games like Yu-Gi-Oh! do have the templating conventions to put costs on their (equivalent of) triggered abilities. Magic doesn't. I don't know what a good convention would be, to denote costs paid at the time a triggered ability goes onto the stack.
Reflexive triggers, while intuitive, also more often than not make cards a lot worse. Take the manticore for example. An instant speed removal spell absolutely wrecks your board
Nope, this isn't an "intervening if". "Intervening if" is for triggers that only triggers if a condition is true, and will check to make sure that the condition is still true when it goes to resolve. For example, Felidar Sovereign has the ability "At the beginning of your upkeep, if you have 40 or more life, you win the game." The "if you have 40 or more life" is an intervening if. If you start your upkeep, but you only have 39 life, the Sovereign's ability won't trigger, even if you can gain life during your upkeep. Likewise, if you start your upkeep with 40 life (so the ability triggers) and then your opponent Lightning Bolts you down to 37, when the trigger goes to resolve, the condition is no longer true and the trigger does nothing (and you won't win the game).
Intervening if clauses are something else. They are on triggered abilities templated as “when X happens, if Y, [effect]” where the Y is checked both so see if it triggers at all and right before it would resolve, preventing resolution if Y is no longer true. The “if you do” in the video is not that kind of if clause.
Essentially you read until the next "when" to decide where the ability ends. If the word "target" is anywhere in there, targets are chosen as the ability goes on the stack. Everything else happens at resolution, up to but not including the next "when" in the paragraph. "Reading the card explains the card" my ass
I'm surprised that "If you do" was the first way to come up. "when you do" is the intuitive way to make this work, so what make designers choose the other working at the start? Not talking about legends, but relatively "modern" sets
I hate the Kunai/Throwing Knife equipments. It leads to this confusing interactions for so little payoff. I'd rather create token knifes to deal 1 damage.
Is this the case with Ziatora the incinerator? I had an issue in a game where I had the dictate of erebos, ziatora and another creature on my board. My opponent had two creatures. I wanted fling my creature at his creature #1 using ziatora and I wanted his creature #2 to die because of the dictate of erebos trigger. He was saying that only one of his creature had to die. IT was a very weird interaction.
You can target both Emrakuls with Calibrated Blast, despite it being both red and an Instant. That's "unintuituve". There's always a cost you pay for changing things like this.
@@ArchaicEX Pretty sure it does, because Hypothesizzle is the source of the triggered ability, and therefore the source of the damage. But yes, that's definitely confusing for people who don't know that specific rule, which is probably the majority of players. This same logic also means that, yes, you can target both Emrakuls with Calibrated Blast, because you're targeting them with a triggered ability. But it won't deal damage to either.
Okay, I need to correct both you and myself. Calibrated Blast CANNOT target either Emrakul. The rules for protection specifically state that 'A permanent or player with protection can't be targeted by spells with the stated quality and can't be targeted by abilities from a source with the stated quality.' Which just goes to show how confusing this stuff can be.
I still dont understand, so when you attack with the throwing knife you declare a target, then your opponent can respond to the target? And then you choose to sac or not?
Are reflexive triggers technically linked abilities? Or do they not need the rules baggage that goes along with linked abilities and just work because of the nature of reflexive triggers?
Pretty sure they just work according to rule 603.12: '... These reflexive triggered abilities follow the rules for delayed triggered abilities (see rule 603.7), except that they’re checked immediately after being created and trigger based on whether the trigger event or events occurred earlier during the resolution of the spell or ability that created them.'
This just reminds me of how Yu-Gi-Oh has this thing about "missing the timing" with triggers SPECIFICALLY because of the when/if conundrum. Makes me wonder why they haven't tried something like this...
@@seandun7083 "If" effects will always trigger, whereas "when" effects can have their effects fizzle if they're interrupted, such as by another effect. It's weird and stupid.
@@seandun7083 Yu-Gi-Oh uses a different response system than current Magic (though it is similar to old Magic's batches). They build up their chains and can't necessarily respond when they would like to, and the chain of effects can't be interrupted or added to once they start resolving. For a "simple" example, Ash Blossom and Joyous Spring can negate (counter) an effect that adds a card to someone's hand when that card or effect is activated. But if the opponent gets multiple abilities to go off at once, including one that adds a card, and puts an ability that doesn't add a card as the latest chain link, then Ash Blossom can't do anything to the effect that would add a card, since it wasn't the latest thing to happen. This is often called Chain Blocking, and is used to help get certain otherwise fragile effects through negates. Another "simple" example, but going from the other end, there is a classic trap card called Torrential Tribute that can destroy all creatures when a creature is summoned. If I use an effect to draw a card, and my opponent responds by using an effect to summon a monster, then his summon will happen and then I draw my card. Since the summon wasn't the most recent thing that happened, I can't activate Torrential Tribute to destroy all monsters.
Most recent experience with triggers, I was at 2 life, and tried to eat a food. My opponent ate two food and killed me with bats in response. Not my finest moment.
Honestly, I'm still confused as to why "if" works the way it does. It seems like it should work the way when does tbh. Glad there is more when and less if though.
So I get the functional difference between if and when after watching this video but I don't get why if functions so differently. To me they both read exactly the same so I don't understand why if is so unintuitive
It's because of the rules of Magic stating that triggered abilities begin with "when", "whenever", or "at". Triggered abilities don't ever start with "if". That's the entire reason on a technical level. The reason behind the rule is mainly so that it's clear to people who understand the rules when something is a triggered ability and when it isn't. Unfortunately, there are tons of players who do not understand the specific meanings of words in Magic-speak and have not done an in-depth study of the rules, and so don't understand the difference when from a non-technical perspective it sounds like exactly the same thing. The change was made in my mind because people tended to play it as though it was "when", but then when they played at a big tournament they had a bad experience when someone effectively "rules lawyered" them.
This is great information to have and share! Also, I feel like for the opening scenario, I would giant growth because then I get to kill the lion that attacked me at least.
@MrEliakimRAS my bad, I was half listening because I was working. Eh, no other info I would still save the bear to smack back for a little bit of damage.
Why is it important that Promise of Bunrei says "If you do?" You can only sacrifice a card once. How could you ever expect to get 12 spirits from this?
Old wording was simply stronger, now the cards are worse. Overall worse experience, as the cards with the wording tend to be bad , not just because of the wording, but it would make quite a difference.
The "rules" interpretation of Throwing Knife is unintuitive. It READS like a reflexive trigger. If you wanted it to work like you (and the rules) say it does, you'd write it as follows: *Whenever equipped creature attacks, you may choose a target and sacrifice Throwing Knife. If you do, it does 2 damage to that target.* Obviously targets for activated abilities must be chose before you activate. Targets for triggered abilities are chosen when they're triggered. But, intuitively, Throwing Knife's trigger doesn't have targets. It's a trigger to sacrifice it, which you're using *like* a cost to pay for a separate ability. A separate ability that should, intuitively, trigger off of sacrifice. In short, *it's a trigger for a trigger* Maybe there's a rules reason why "if" works the way you say it does. But I'm inclined to think it should work the intuitive way, especially since that's how your new (grammatically confusing) "when" wording works.
It is more that his explanation is poor, explaining it while visualizing the stack clears this up. When the equipped creature attacks, throwing knife goes on the stack with a declared target. If the defending player does not put anything on the stack in response, the spell resolves with the conditional clause of sacrificing the artifact to deal 2 damage. The rest of the video is about saying "when" is better as it will always make it so the defending player has the final say over the attacking player.
@@daddieo11The problem is that intuitively the rules shouldn't work as he says they do. The wording you'd want to use (if you want this unintuitive gameplay, which you don't) Is: *Whenever equipped creature attacks, you may choose a target and sacrifice Throwing Knife. If you do, it does 2 damage to that target.* But that's not what you want to have happen. You want there to be two triggered abilities: 1) Whenever equipped creature attacks, you may X. 2) If you X, Y. This is how the card reads, intuitively. However, Gavin says the rules require a target be chosen at attack. I don't think this is the case; if you attack with the equipped creature and there are no legal targets, then you should still be able to sacrifice the knife. Sacrificing the knife acts like a cost for an additional effect, but it's really just a trigger that causes another trigger. In short, it is my contention that the card is worded correctly and the rules interpretation of the wording is both unintuitive and incorrect (it's incorrect because it's unintuitive and because there's a way to word it so it would work like the rules seem to treat it as though it works).
I think you're a little confused about the full ramifications of "if you do", so I'm going to write a different version of the throwing knife text. When equipped creature attacks choose a target. Then You may sacrifice throwing knife and if throwing knife is sacrificed this way, deal 2 damage to that target. The if you do wording only creates one trigger, one that kills the knife and deals damage at the same time. The video is talking about how the attacker with the if wording always can choose to do the best option, where the new wording creates a chance to react to the choice of the attacker to sacrifice the knife or not
@@briant1784 I'm inclined to think, flavorfully, throwing knife should have two triggers - the "if you attack, you may throw" and "if you throw, you hit (if still a legal target)." Attempts to do this in "one trigger" are both flavorfully and functionally problematic for the mentions discussed above and in the video. The problem is that the card READS like it has two triggers, and if it has two triggers and works as read, it works as intended. In short, I think the rules interpretation is a mistake. Changing "if" to "when" doesn't help matters. At the end of the day it's semantics. But semantically it works as written, and somewhere along the line someone trying to clarify the rules made a semantic mistake that caused unintended consequences. Unless, of course, anyone can point to an "if" clause that works better as Gavin says the rules work. Anyone? Bueller?
I never knew "if you do" worked that way. I almost would like to see old cards reprinted with different wording to make it more clear because thats so unintuitive.
Yugioh is not a perfect game but this reads really stupid compared to there where you always separate costs from effects, by using a “;”, and whether they are triggers or activated abilites, you get to write the costs separately. There’s still some modal effects where you decide in resolution if you sacrifice to destroy, etc. and you are left with the same guessing game, but it’s never ambiguous if that decision is going to happen on activation or resolution. Having “mandatory optional triggers” in magic is fucking stupid, either you sacrifice to put the trigger on the stack or the trigger does not go, in general being forced to put a trigger on the stack that can do nothing at all is weird. I get where some part of the effect is optional, but having an effect on the stack that can do nothing at all?
i didn't really understand the difference. maybe its because iam a german native speaker or maybe iam not that deep into the magic rules iceberg to understand the difference. To me both sound the same.
I'm one hundred percent agree about if you do on mandatory triggers. I understand if you do has its purposes but having two terms is confusing and I wish it was named something else.
![เปิดคำทำนาย นอสตราดามุส - บาบา วานก้า ปี 2025 คนทั่วโลกต้องเจออะไรบ้าง? | แฉ 11 ธ.ค. 67 [2/3] |GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xmTIKWJUMPM/mqdefault.jpg)
Part of why I like Jacob Hauken, Inspector. Your opponent either destroys it before you pay six, or you pay six and it's an enchantment. I like the fact that there's no time where I've paid six mana and my opponent can Doom Blade it.
Never noticed that. Good catch
Right, having everything be respondable makes pay-to-transform very vunerable.
Same idea for Akoum Firebird. It would absolutely suck to pay the six and then have it exiled from graveyard in response.
To be honest, I never would realized the rules for Throwing Knife's trigger and any similar effects worked this way, and would have 100% just treated it the same as Shock. Hell, I've always paid Flameblast Dragon's cost before targeting.
100% The wording on throwing knife is bad. Ink on paper, sacrificing the equipment clearly comes before targeting a creature to shock. That's how it should work. Otherwise, how can you target a creature to deal 2 dmg to before sacrificing the equipment to put the ability on the stack which lets you target a creature to deal 2 dmg to in the first place? 🤷
Reflexive triggers are definitely more intuitive than “if”. Magic feels the most fun when you can interact more.
You can still interact, it just matters WHO gets the advantage.
If you do makes it better for the active player, while the extra trigger makes it easier for the defensive player to counter the effect.
It ultimately means the active players cards with the when trigger are worse cards, especially as we get so many instant speed interaction now.
Especially for removal abilities its so much more value if they have to sacrifice it and you dont need to do it, so they would need to let it happen and not get a sacrifice effect, which is just extra value for the active player, making the card better.
_"If"_ is still easy to understand, and interacted
@@errrzarrr “if” means you have to select the target before you make a decision. This is not obvious to most players
The thing I like about "When you do" (and if you do) is that it's easy enough to understand the full effect only goes off if the condition is fulfilled, in contrast to older cards that did similar but attempting to respond doesn't actually work because the whole thing is on the stack. I honestly didn't realize the "If you do" targets right away.
Me neither. I don't think I'd ever have made that assumption. The word change to "when" doesn't change anything about how I play these cards! Lol
Changing from IF to WHEN also helps you do the first part of the ability without the whole ability being countered due to having no legal targets. (Dream Eater from Guilds of Ravnica)
I have played this game for two decades and this is the first I've heard of this. Always something new to learn!
I always thought the "if you do" on certain triggers would care about whether you actually managed to satisfy the condition beyond the initial trigger. Like for Promise of Bunrei, your opponent could destroy it in response after your creature died but before you sacrificed it, preventing you from sacrificing it and getting the bonus. I don't think that's how it actually works, but that's the gut read I had on it.
That is how it works. If you can't satisfy the condition as the effect resolves, the "if you do" portion won't take effect. So destroying Promise in response to its trigger, or even at the same time as another creature, will cause the trigger to do nothing when it resolves.
Using Promise of Bunrei again, if you have three creatures die at once, Promise will trigger three times. When the first goes to resolve, you sacrifice Promise and then since you sacrificed it you make four 1/1 spirits. When the other two triggers resolve, you will attempt to sacrifice Promise again, but since it is gone already you can't, and you won't get more spirit creatures.
Exactly. If it triggers and goes on the stack and the opponent removes it, then as the trigger resolves you can’t sacrifice it as it’s dead already. It works as you thought. It lets there be a way to interact before it resolves.
I opened so much Origins and never saw Throwing Knife one time! Also, I never noticed how cool the eyes on Bontu's Monument are!
I never knew about this difference. I’m so glad to see changes like this making the game more intuitive (since is is already so unintuitive in so many ways)
I noticed this difference (and understood the rules meaning right away, mostly because I'm the kind who loves the rules) when looking at some new cards, and always thought it had been brought along to make sure the first half of the trigger resolved first (e.g., for the mill example). I never thought it was created specifically to allow the opponent to respond, although I could tell it was used for that purpose in some cases. Interesting story!
THIS... I've been getting my head around the wording and the difference between "if you do" and "when you do" for a while now!!
5:31 I always thought the "if you do" was there if you became unable to perform the action, like if suddenly you became unable to sacrifice permanents, it actually makes a lot of sense because even if mandatory sometimes you're unable to pay the cost.
Yeah, the wording is "weird", English grammar wise, but the meaning is "If you were able to succeed".
💯. Like if it triggers and goes on the stack, the creature is removed, then when resolving the trigger their is no creature to sacrifice so you can’t and you don’t get the rest of the effect. It provides a window for players to interact, by removing the creature (much more common effect than preventing sacrifice)
I knew there were these different wordings but I never knew it was this much of a difference. I just assumed you could respond on each separate part of the effect since there was this 'pause' moment. Happy to learn this, especially as someone who loves to make custom cards.
Oh hey, I did an entire episode recently on Reflexive Triggers. Very cool to see you covering it in this video.
On a similar note, I’ve noticed you’ve gone from “you may destroy target X” to “destroy up to one target X” on triggers.
A friend of mine was very upset to learn that deflecting swat can save his stuff from aura shards, but can’t also destroy mine. The wording on newer cards on the other hand would have allowed it.
Could you explain more, please?
@@TheZahirNT2 Took me a bit as well. When Aura Shards goes onto the stack, the aura shards player selects your enchantment. You then cast Deflecting Swat in order to change the target to one of their enchantments. Unfortunately, because of the wording on Aura Shards, when the trigger resolves with the new target, the controller (i.e. your opponent) can simply decide not to destroy their enchantment, as it is a "may"-ability.
If it was worded with the "up to" instead of the "may", then the controller of Aura Shards wouldn't have the option to simply not destroy the target (and they still wouldn't be able to reselect targets either), therefore whatever you chose would indeed be destroyed.
This video is so important. I keep coming back to learn again… cause this rule seems to leave my brain every week or so.
I remember looking at Grave Peril in my C15 Daxos precon as a new player and being super confused. “Whenever a nonblack creature comes into play, sacrifice GP. If you do, destroy that creature.”
I was like, “If I do?? When would I ever not sacrifice it??” I understand the rules necessity behind that wording now, but when you do makes so much more sense! Great change.
If someone removes Grave Peril before its ability resolves, it does nothing. Same if an effect says you can't sacrifice permanents.
Gavin: "We replaced "If" with "When", a small one word change that makes the game work better
Every Yugioh player: **Shudders**
Came here to comment basically this. Kinda funny that this scenario is basically the exact opposite as ygo's Missing the Timing
Why does Keen Duelist have the bad wording: you and target *opponent* each reveal the top card of **your** library.
It’s worded as if your opponent is revealing the top card of your library, which would be hidden information to them.
But it actually means they reveal the top card of *their* library.
Why doesn’t it say something like: you and target opponent each reveal the top card of your *libraries*
Or: you and target opponent each reveal the top card of your *respective* library.
Great video on explaining the rules of how targets need to be selected immediately when effect is on the stack and bow reflective triggers work.
These videos are great. Really interesting for understanding card design but also learning to play better.
Man this video is unassuming. I didn't thought I would be learning something new today.
I've noticed the if/when distinction before, but now I have a better understanding of why it exists. Something something lenticular design.
Seeing The One of One Ring in a PSA slab creates a reflexive trigger: "You may cancel your remaining backlogged preorders. When you do... "
There is no proof it's the only ring in existence, neither there is proff it's actually real.
They should take a picture of the card's back so the print pattern is seen.
But they won't.
So it's fake.
@@malakimphoros2164 it's from PSA. It is obviously real. PSA confirming it gives far more confidence than an easily faked screenshot of some print pattern.
There is also no need to prove it's the only ring in existence. As long as nobody else has any to offer or show on the same or higher confidence level as this one, the situation is effectively identical as if it was the only ring in existence, even if someone kept another in secret without anyone knowing.
@@Luxalpa There was no scandal surrounding graded cards yet.
But the same cannot be said for other grading companies people have trusted.
>screenshot of a print pattern
grammer, also it can be put on video y'know.
>no need to prove
Until another one is found in a bundle.
Thank you for this video. I was not aware of this distinction. I'm a little surprised that you decided not to errata previous cards, but I support the newer "when you do" wording for most cards going forward, as I agree it seems more intuitive.
This is cool! I did realise there was a difference, but I didn't realise just how recent of a change it was - it feels like it's always been a thing. Guess that goes to show how good a design choice it was.
Great video! I like when you explain these types of design minutiae that are easy to miss. On that note, could you comment on design philosophy when it comes to deciding between basic ETB effects, "if cast" clauses and on cast triggers? I'd love to better understand when you use what version.
The wording and order of operations is why this makes no intuitive sense. If you want the effect to resolve in the way you described, it would make more sense to read as "Whenever __ creature attacks, chose any target. You may pay X cost; if you do, Y effect"
Where the former reads as "Whenever X creatures attacks, you may pay Y." and because that is a full stop, you have have to decide during the attack declaration whether you pay the cost. That is a complete statement. which then carries into "If you did; Z effect occurs" It reads very much like, Only if the former condition is met do you get the second condition.
This is the one time I will harp on WotC's use of the English language, I am sure there is a technical reason for the wording, but the order of operations for the effect are not stated in the order in which they occur.
I love all your videos. Thank you for taking the time to enrich the game.
Wow, been playing since 2015 and did not know If you do and When you do were so different. Good example of the designers ability to improve the game.
Some of the if you do ones make sense because they would be on the stack and someone could kill your creature meaning when the ability resolves you have nothing to sacrifice hence you did not sacrifice yata yata. Honestly one of the best parts of magic is debating the wording of cards with your friends in the middle of a game especially if it's the first time a weird scenario with the card has come up.
Man, talking about how Exerted changed the "If" to "When" on a lot of cards makes me wonder if making an Amonkhet could have a psuedo-Fog effect that Exerts all your opponent's creatures to give you a turn off from their assault only after the first time they do so.
this is exactly why i love world queller so much in commander.
Minsc and Boo + Radiant Performer, is why I love 'When you do'. Kill everything and draw all the cards? yes please.
Thank you for the reflective triggers... that initial example with throwing knife stacked my brain so bad it gave me vertigo
I understand the general distinction between when and if here, and agree that when is in better keeping with how discrete triggers are handled in Magic, but I also think most people have been playing "if you do" like "when you do" as you describe.
"If you do" feels like it is and should be a discrete trigger in a linear progression, and not a connected clause of the full ability. Even after watching you explain the intro example twice, it just felt awkward and unintuitive that you could choose to go through with the sac or not after declaring the target, a choice which is both in another sentence at the other end of the paragraph and after the "if you do" gate.
i dont mind "if you do" abilities, makes the situation a game of bluff/ forcing your oppoents to make a choice and being able to get ahead in the game, variation of card design in this space is a good thing and increases possible ways a game can turn out
I still find it confusing. I don't understand how to properly play out a "when" templated card
Coming from Yugioh, it's interesting to hear he designers talk about things like this. Konami basically never says anything.
There's a thing in Yugioh where you send cards on resolution, so you don't know what your opponent will choose until it's too late to respond. Seeing Magic move away from this is interesting to see.
I love that I can learn more about the English language from MTG than public education.
Throwing Knife has some especially problematic stack edge cases since it interacts with Willbreaker in limited and lead to some feel bad judge calls
4:00 Why not just change "if" to a reflexive trigger? "When," doesn't read intuitively either; if I don't choose to do X, then the "when" never triggers. But linguistically, "when" assumes I'm going to do something, "if" is a conditional.
The first time I saw a reflexive trigger work in mtga I immediately understood how all of them worked and why they existed and thought they were brilliant. No news here for me. But congratulations
I don’t understand most of this. But I’ve only been playing since 1993.
Exactly! Same here!
Maaan Gavin, my mind was totally somewhere else, going: "Depends. Am I using this bear to kill them next turn?, or is it still mid-game?" Wasn't thinking about the May of the throw in the first place.
Now I have to go through all of my set files to look for each "if" and "when' and figure out which should be there.
Magic is having its “When you do” moment
Personally I would’ve preferred a change to the “if” version ruling rather than separating similar effects into confusing, minutely different effects
Super interesting stuff! I had never noticed.
6:05 , Can I remove the target creature from the graveyard in response to the ability ?
(the second "when" makes me think it's a second triggered ability, but as it's not on a new line, I'm not sure.)
You can. That's exactly what this video is about. Any instance of 'when', 'whenever' or 'at' on a Magic card, at the start of a sentence, indicates the start of a triggered ability.
I feel like I have learnt and forgotten this 2-3 times already 😂
Gavin, can we get a Spuzzem commander precon, please?
I guess I just always thought If and When both create the trigger necessary to place the ability on the stack. If you don't sacrifice the knife, why would you choose a target?
Good to know
I think I also noticed, on Arena and MTGO, those "when you do" reflexive triggers usually places 2 things on the stack?
Can you insert stuff between them? I think you can't manually do so since there usually isn't a priority chance between two lines of card text, but when you have multiple triggers, it might be possible?
Edit: For example, a creature with "When etb, sac a creature. When you do, XXX". If I have another triggered ability like "When you sac a creature, do YYY", I think I can reorder them freely and decide whether X or Y happens first?
The use of reflexive triggers is an improvement, but it does show a weakness in Magic's templating arsenal: There isn't a (common, accepted) way to write costs that are paid when you stack a triggered ability. Reflexive triggers almost do this, but at the cost of having two different triggers (which is worse for digital). Other games like Yu-Gi-Oh! do have the templating conventions to put costs on their (equivalent of) triggered abilities. Magic doesn't. I don't know what a good convention would be, to denote costs paid at the time a triggered ability goes onto the stack.
Is it time to bring the semicolon to magic cards?
I hope we don't need the semicolon, but if that's the only good way to write it...!
Reflexive triggers, while intuitive, also more often than not make cards a lot worse. Take the manticore for example. An instant speed removal spell absolutely wrecks your board
Is this the mythical "intervening if clause" I have heard about? I'm glad we have reflexive triggers now instead of ifs either way!
Nope, this isn't an "intervening if". "Intervening if" is for triggers that only triggers if a condition is true, and will check to make sure that the condition is still true when it goes to resolve.
For example, Felidar Sovereign has the ability "At the beginning of your upkeep, if you have 40 or more life, you win the game." The "if you have 40 or more life" is an intervening if. If you start your upkeep, but you only have 39 life, the Sovereign's ability won't trigger, even if you can gain life during your upkeep. Likewise, if you start your upkeep with 40 life (so the ability triggers) and then your opponent Lightning Bolts you down to 37, when the trigger goes to resolve, the condition is no longer true and the trigger does nothing (and you won't win the game).
Intervening if clauses are something else. They are on triggered abilities templated as “when X happens, if Y, [effect]” where the Y is checked both so see if it triggers at all and right before it would resolve, preventing resolution if Y is no longer true.
The “if you do” in the video is not that kind of if clause.
I like having both as an option and only using if rarely.
Man I never thought about how weird the word "when" sounded until this video.
Too true
Yeah, the 'if' stuff feels like 'feelsbad' territory, where nobody wants to be stuck.
This was super useful!😮
I do know exactly what I am looking for.
OH GOT ITS YUGIOHS MISSING THE TIMING ALL OVER AGAIN *PTSD triggers*
Essentially you read until the next "when" to decide where the ability ends. If the word "target" is anywhere in there, targets are chosen as the ability goes on the stack. Everything else happens at resolution, up to but not including the next "when" in the paragraph.
"Reading the card explains the card" my ass
I'm surprised that "If you do" was the first way to come up. "when you do" is the intuitive way to make this work, so what make designers choose the other working at the start? Not talking about legends, but relatively "modern" sets
That's exactly what I kept thinking!
I hate the Kunai/Throwing Knife equipments.
It leads to this confusing interactions for so little payoff.
I'd rather create token knifes to deal 1 damage.
I, for one, am a fan of reflexive triggers.
Is this the case with Ziatora the incinerator? I had an issue in a game where I had the dictate of erebos, ziatora and another creature on my board. My opponent had two creatures. I wanted fling my creature at his creature #1 using ziatora and I wanted his creature #2 to die because of the dictate of erebos trigger. He was saying that only one of his creature had to die. IT was a very weird interaction.
Ops, forgot this headache.
Let me search real quick for all if you do cards LMAO
My opponents will learn the rules the hard way.
You can target both Emrakuls with Calibrated Blast, despite it being both red and an Instant. That's "unintuituve". There's always a cost you pay for changing things like this.
Does Hypothesizzle trigger Chandra's Phoenix? These are whole new questions confusing the casual players of today.
@@ArchaicEX Pretty sure it does, because Hypothesizzle is the source of the triggered ability, and therefore the source of the damage. But yes, that's definitely confusing for people who don't know that specific rule, which is probably the majority of players.
This same logic also means that, yes, you can target both Emrakuls with Calibrated Blast, because you're targeting them with a triggered ability. But it won't deal damage to either.
Okay, I need to correct both you and myself. Calibrated Blast CANNOT target either Emrakul.
The rules for protection specifically state that 'A permanent or player with protection can't be targeted by spells with the stated quality and can't be targeted by abilities from a source with the stated quality.'
Which just goes to show how confusing this stuff can be.
Thanks gavin, now throwing knife will see price hike. :3
What is the intervening if clause I was once told about then? Is that even a thing?
So if an opponent activates grist second ability is there a time to respond after they sacrifice a creature?
I still dont understand, so when you attack with the throwing knife you declare a target, then your opponent can respond to the target? And then you choose to sac or not?
Are reflexive triggers technically linked abilities? Or do they not need the rules baggage that goes along with linked abilities and just work because of the nature of reflexive triggers?
Pretty sure they just work according to rule 603.12: '... These reflexive triggered abilities follow the rules for delayed triggered abilities (see rule 603.7), except that they’re checked immediately after being created and trigger based on whether the trigger event or events occurred earlier during the resolution of the spell or ability that created them.'
This just reminds me of how Yu-Gi-Oh has this thing about "missing the timing" with triggers SPECIFICALLY because of the when/if conundrum. Makes me wonder why they haven't tried something like this...
How does it work in Yu-Gi-Oh?
@@seandun7083 "If" effects will always trigger, whereas "when" effects can have their effects fizzle if they're interrupted, such as by another effect. It's weird and stupid.
@@ProfDragonite ah, so if someone casts doomblade in response to heartpiercer manticore's initial trigger?
@@seandun7083 Maybe? All I know is that it leads to many headaches and obnoxious rules lawyering. One of the many reasons I actively dislike Yu-Gi-Oh.
@@seandun7083 Yu-Gi-Oh uses a different response system than current Magic (though it is similar to old Magic's batches). They build up their chains and can't necessarily respond when they would like to, and the chain of effects can't be interrupted or added to once they start resolving.
For a "simple" example, Ash Blossom and Joyous Spring can negate (counter) an effect that adds a card to someone's hand when that card or effect is activated. But if the opponent gets multiple abilities to go off at once, including one that adds a card, and puts an ability that doesn't add a card as the latest chain link, then Ash Blossom can't do anything to the effect that would add a card, since it wasn't the latest thing to happen. This is often called Chain Blocking, and is used to help get certain otherwise fragile effects through negates.
Another "simple" example, but going from the other end, there is a classic trap card called Torrential Tribute that can destroy all creatures when a creature is summoned. If I use an effect to draw a card, and my opponent responds by using an effect to summon a monster, then his summon will happen and then I draw my card. Since the summon wasn't the most recent thing that happened, I can't activate Torrential Tribute to destroy all monsters.
if you do, was new to me. very good video
Can we change "if you do" to "when you do" on all old cards plz? Thanks
This is the one rule in magic that I found I don't like because it just throws out everything you know about the stack
Un card idea
Replace all instances of "When you do" to "If you do".
Most recent experience with triggers, I was at 2 life, and tried to eat a food. My opponent ate two food and killed me with bats in response. Not my finest moment.
1:18. That's not how the ability reads. It reads like the you choose a target after sacrificing it.
Maybe don't do unintuitive things like this?
Ahh Gavin out here startin shit for no reason
I think this is hillarious because MTG players love to complain about YGO's technical wordings. but we have When/If differences here as well xD
To be fair the new daggers suck because they can be blown out after the massive investment so the origins dagger is actually better template
Honestly, I'm still confused as to why "if" works the way it does. It seems like it should work the way when does tbh. Glad there is more when and less if though.
So I get the functional difference between if and when after watching this video but I don't get why if functions so differently. To me they both read exactly the same so I don't understand why if is so unintuitive
It's because of the rules of Magic stating that triggered abilities begin with "when", "whenever", or "at". Triggered abilities don't ever start with "if". That's the entire reason on a technical level. The reason behind the rule is mainly so that it's clear to people who understand the rules when something is a triggered ability and when it isn't. Unfortunately, there are tons of players who do not understand the specific meanings of words in Magic-speak and have not done an in-depth study of the rules, and so don't understand the difference when from a non-technical perspective it sounds like exactly the same thing. The change was made in my mind because people tended to play it as though it was "when", but then when they played at a big tournament they had a bad experience when someone effectively "rules lawyered" them.
@@stevenglowacki8576 this was the explanation I was looking for. Thank you!
hoping all Ifs get errata'd to when
This is great information to have and share! Also, I feel like for the opening scenario, I would giant growth because then I get to kill the lion that attacked me at least.
Your tapped Grizzly Bears can't block, even if it's a 5/5 due to Giant Growth.
@MrEliakimRAS my bad, I was half listening because I was working. Eh, no other info I would still save the bear to smack back for a little bit of damage.
Owww my brain.
Why is it important that Promise of Bunrei says "If you do?" You can only sacrifice a card once. How could you ever expect to get 12 spirits from this?
WE NEED MORE 4 COLOR LEGENDARY CREATURES!!!!!! PLEASE
I just watched 8 minutes and still don't know why I can't respond and how to tell if it's reflective or not.
Old wording was simply stronger, now the cards are worse.
Overall worse experience, as the cards with the wording tend to be bad , not just because of the wording, but it would make quite a difference.
The "rules" interpretation of Throwing Knife is unintuitive. It READS like a reflexive trigger. If you wanted it to work like you (and the rules) say it does, you'd write it as follows:
*Whenever equipped creature attacks, you may choose a target and sacrifice Throwing Knife. If you do, it does 2 damage to that target.*
Obviously targets for activated abilities must be chose before you activate. Targets for triggered abilities are chosen when they're triggered. But, intuitively, Throwing Knife's trigger doesn't have targets. It's a trigger to sacrifice it, which you're using *like* a cost to pay for a separate ability. A separate ability that should, intuitively, trigger off of sacrifice. In short, *it's a trigger for a trigger*
Maybe there's a rules reason why "if" works the way you say it does. But I'm inclined to think it should work the intuitive way, especially since that's how your new (grammatically confusing) "when" wording works.
It is more that his explanation is poor, explaining it while visualizing the stack clears this up. When the equipped creature attacks, throwing knife goes on the stack with a declared target. If the defending player does not put anything on the stack in response, the spell resolves with the conditional clause of sacrificing the artifact to deal 2 damage. The rest of the video is about saying "when" is better as it will always make it so the defending player has the final say over the attacking player.
@@daddieo11The problem is that intuitively the rules shouldn't work as he says they do. The wording you'd want to use (if you want this unintuitive gameplay, which you don't) Is:
*Whenever equipped creature attacks, you may choose a target and sacrifice Throwing Knife. If you do, it does 2 damage to that target.*
But that's not what you want to have happen. You want there to be two triggered abilities:
1) Whenever equipped creature attacks, you may X.
2) If you X, Y.
This is how the card reads, intuitively. However, Gavin says the rules require a target be chosen at attack. I don't think this is the case; if you attack with the equipped creature and there are no legal targets, then you should still be able to sacrifice the knife. Sacrificing the knife acts like a cost for an additional effect, but it's really just a trigger that causes another trigger.
In short, it is my contention that the card is worded correctly and the rules interpretation of the wording is both unintuitive and incorrect (it's incorrect because it's unintuitive and because there's a way to word it so it would work like the rules seem to treat it as though it works).
I think you're a little confused about the full ramifications of "if you do", so I'm going to write a different version of the throwing knife text.
When equipped creature attacks choose a target.
Then You may sacrifice throwing knife and if throwing knife is sacrificed this way, deal 2 damage to that target.
The if you do wording only creates one trigger, one that kills the knife and deals damage at the same time.
The video is talking about how the attacker with the if wording always can choose to do the best option, where the new wording creates a chance to react to the choice of the attacker to sacrifice the knife or not
@@briant1784 I'm inclined to think, flavorfully, throwing knife should have two triggers - the "if you attack, you may throw" and "if you throw, you hit (if still a legal target)."
Attempts to do this in "one trigger" are both flavorfully and functionally problematic for the mentions discussed above and in the video.
The problem is that the card READS like it has two triggers, and if it has two triggers and works as read, it works as intended.
In short, I think the rules interpretation is a mistake. Changing "if" to "when" doesn't help matters.
At the end of the day it's semantics. But semantically it works as written, and somewhere along the line someone trying to clarify the rules made a semantic mistake that caused unintended consequences.
Unless, of course, anyone can point to an "if" clause that works better as Gavin says the rules work. Anyone? Bueller?
I actually would like if more controller-chooses-last cards would be made, since that makes for interesting gameplay
I never knew "if you do" worked that way.
I almost would like to see old cards reprinted with different wording to make it more clear because thats so unintuitive.
Não entendi foi nada...
Yugioh is not a perfect game but this reads really stupid compared to there where you always separate costs from effects, by using a “;”, and whether they are triggers or activated abilites, you get to write the costs separately. There’s still some modal effects where you decide in resolution if you sacrifice to destroy, etc. and you are left with the same guessing game, but it’s never ambiguous if that decision is going to happen on activation or resolution. Having “mandatory optional triggers” in magic is fucking stupid, either you sacrifice to put the trigger on the stack or the trigger does not go, in general being forced to put a trigger on the stack that can do nothing at all is weird. I get where some part of the effect is optional, but having an effect on the stack that can do nothing at all?
i didn't really understand the difference. maybe its because iam a german native speaker or maybe iam not that deep into the magic rules iceberg to understand the difference. To me both sound the same.
I'm one hundred percent agree about if you do on mandatory triggers. I understand if you do has its purposes but having two terms is confusing and I wish it was named something else.