This is great! On the other videos I kept looking at the creature "card" templating on cage thinking it should/would make a difference to interpretation. Love your work
Thanks for editing your video! This is why I like judging FTW. He does a great job of listening to his supporters and offers fantastic information about MTG on his channel.
I left a comment on the 1st version of this video saying I thought the distinction between "creature" and "creature card" made a difference here. It's satisfying to find out I was right.
Interesting. I tried to predict the answer regarding why one works and the other doesn't. I assumed I'd had to do with the cage preventing the action, and priest merely replacing the zone the creature would go to. Did not expect the distinction between creature, and creature card to be important.
Can someone point me to the other video mentioned around 2:30 ? While it does make sense, I would be curious about further implications (like whether or not a Nylea entering with 4 previous devotion would trigger a Purphoros ETB)
Is there a difference between Sulfuric Vortex's "If a player would gain life, that player gains no life instead." and Everlasting Torment's "Players can’t gain life."? For example is there a way how Tainted Remedy's replacement effect "If an opponent would gain life, that player loses that much life instead." can still work with Sulfuric Vortex on the board and does it matter who controls the permanents?
If a permanent returned to the battlefield with unearth would leave the battlefield for any reason, it’s exiled instead-unless the spell or ability that’s causing the permanent to leave the battlefield is actually trying to exile it! In that case, it succeeds at exiling it. If that spell or ability later returns the card to the battlefield (as Static Net might, for example), the permanent card will return to the battlefield as a new object with no relation to its previous existence. The unearth effects will no longer apply to it. Meticulous will successfully bounce the artifact to exile with its own ability, then after it hits exile it will return to its owners hand.
Does Grafdigger's Cage stop Mutate spells from being cast from the library, say via a Vivian, Monster's Advocate? There wouldn't be a creature entering the battlefield (unless the mutate target is removed), hence the confusion.
Grafdiggers prevents "any" spells from being cast from libraries or graveyards. If a card is cast with its mutated cost and resolves with its target still being legal it does not ETB, it merges with the existing card.
It's not clear to me how the change in templating means that 614.17d doesn't apply. When it says "Some 'can't' effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield or whether it can enter the battlefield" the second part of that sentence about whether it can enter can only ever refer to "permanent cards" and not "permanents" since a permanent card isn't actually a permanent until it enters the battlefield. See rules 110.1 and 110.4a. If 614.17d was worded "Some 'can't" effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield or whether a permanent card can enter the battlefield", would that change your ruling?
Since Cage uses the word "card", 614.7d wont apply as it doesn't care that it would become a permanent at all. Only that a "card" can't be moved to the battlefield and from the grave or library. Cage would have to say "creatures can't enter the battlefield from libraries or graveyards." for 614.17d to apply to it.
@@ozrithclay6921 Do you have a citation of the CR or prior ruling that would explain this? 614.7d absolutely cares that Grist would become a permanent because by definition only a permanent can enter the battlefield. See 403.3.
@@zealousdemon I think the distinction is that, while permanent cards normally become permanents when trying to move from another zone to the battlefield, there is nothing saying they have to, nor that they have to do so as any specific type of permanent - this is because the abilities of the card itself might modify what it is once it's on the battlefield versus what it is when it is not. Further, consider the difference in 'replacement effects on permanents entering the battlefield' rules, compared to 'replacement effects on cards changing zones' rules. If the printed ability on a card cares about whether a *card* changes zones (even if one of those zones is the battlefield), then it is governed by the latter. If the printed ability on a card cares about whether a permanent (or a particular type of permanent) entered the battlefield, specifically, then it is governed by the former.
I read some comments on another forum that strongly implied that some people who saw that video did not recognize that as a joke. I try to be very careful with humor because that can easily lead to confusion with an audience that spans such a diverse range of cultures, many of whom speak English as a second language.
@@SmashmanVideoshe talks about the difference between Grafdigger’s Cage mentioning creature _cards,_ where Containment Priest mentions creatures. Because a creature card isn’t a permanent, it doesn’t check to see what the card will look like on the battlefield.
I have trouble understanding how these three things can co-exist: - You didn't get this ruling right on the first try. That's okay, we all get things wrong, that's how we learn :> - In your previous video, you defined "hubris", and explained how people who thought this question was easy showed hubris - In this video, you say about this situation "this is a relatively straight forward one" How can this ruling be a straight forward one, if people (including you) got it wrong on multiple occasions? Isn't calling it "straight forward" showing a tiny bit of hubris? Let's celebrate the fact that we learned, and getting things wrong is one way of learning. This is a tricky situation that extremely knowledgeable people got wrong. And that's okay! Let's celebrate the fact that we learned, and let's not dumb down the tricky aspect of the question.
Is this Dave's third shot at this ruling? Impressed by his dedication to accurately and concisely delivering information.
Magic is a complicated game
Okay so I’m not going crazy. Thank you.
I love how grafdigger's cage has flavor text that says "We don't want any gruesome encores", but the cage doesn't prevent encore effects.
It does stop Gruesome Encore, though!
I honestly love that you upload updated versions of your rulings after you've found out something new. Thanks a lot for sharing.
This has been a brutal one! But we’re all more knowledgeable for it.
This is great! On the other videos I kept looking at the creature "card" templating on cage thinking it should/would make a difference to interpretation. Love your work
Big fan of re-uploads to correct mistaken rulings!! Thank you Dave 💕
Thanks for editing your video! This is why I like judging FTW. He does a great job of listening to his supporters and offers fantastic information about MTG on his channel.
I left a comment on the 1st version of this video saying I thought the distinction between "creature" and "creature card" made a difference here. It's satisfying to find out I was right.
Looking forward to the next video on this topic two weeks from now 😂 Jokes aside, respect to your continued devotion to this explanation
Good work!
I totally agree with the content of the third version of DDR#557.
Keep putting out videos!
Interesting. I tried to predict the answer regarding why one works and the other doesn't. I assumed I'd had to do with the cage preventing the action, and priest merely replacing the zone the creature would go to. Did not expect the distinction between creature, and creature card to be important.
thanks dave got this one. might come up in canlander some day
Can someone point me to the other video mentioned around 2:30 ?
While it does make sense, I would be curious about further implications (like whether or not a Nylea entering with 4 previous devotion would trigger a Purphoros ETB)
Click on the card in the top right or search for my Enters the Battlefield Replacement Effects video.
Is there a difference between Sulfuric Vortex's "If a player would gain life, that player gains no life instead." and Everlasting Torment's "Players can’t gain life."? For example is there a way how Tainted Remedy's replacement effect "If an opponent would gain life, that player loses that much life instead." can still work with Sulfuric Vortex on the board and does it matter who controls the permanents?
By this point i'd have given this one a 5 star rating
And man, i knew there was something going on because of the "cards" part.
Oof, I know any the distinction between “card” and “permanent” in the abstract, but didn’t really make the connection here.
Does Meticulous Excavation's bounce ability work with an artifact unearthed if it's unearth ability was granted by Mishra, Tamer of Mak Fawa?
If a permanent returned to the battlefield with unearth would leave the battlefield for any reason, it’s exiled instead-unless the spell or ability that’s causing the permanent to leave the battlefield is actually trying to exile it! In that case, it succeeds at exiling it. If that spell or ability later returns the card to the battlefield (as Static Net might, for example), the permanent card will return to the battlefield as a new object with no relation to its previous existence. The unearth effects will no longer apply to it.
Meticulous will successfully bounce the artifact to exile with its own ability, then after it hits exile it will return to its owners hand.
Does Grafdigger's Cage stop Mutate spells from being cast from the library, say via a Vivian, Monster's Advocate? There wouldn't be a creature entering the battlefield (unless the mutate target is removed), hence the confusion.
Grafdiggers prevents "any" spells from being cast from libraries or graveyards.
If a card is cast with its mutated cost and resolves with its target still being legal it does not ETB, it merges with the existing card.
It's not clear to me how the change in templating means that 614.17d doesn't apply. When it says "Some 'can't' effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield or whether it can enter the battlefield" the second part of that sentence about whether it can enter can only ever refer to "permanent cards" and not "permanents" since a permanent card isn't actually a permanent until it enters the battlefield. See rules 110.1 and 110.4a. If 614.17d was worded "Some 'can't" effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield or whether a permanent card can enter the battlefield", would that change your ruling?
Since Cage uses the word "card", 614.7d wont apply as it doesn't care that it would become a permanent at all.
Only that a "card" can't be moved to the battlefield and from the grave or library.
Cage would have to say "creatures can't enter the battlefield from libraries or graveyards." for 614.17d to apply to it.
@@ozrithclay6921 Do you have a citation of the CR or prior ruling that would explain this? 614.7d absolutely cares that Grist would become a permanent because by definition only a permanent can enter the battlefield. See 403.3.
@@zealousdemon I think the distinction is that, while permanent cards normally become permanents when trying to move from another zone to the battlefield, there is nothing saying they have to, nor that they have to do so as any specific type of permanent - this is because the abilities of the card itself might modify what it is once it's on the battlefield versus what it is when it is not.
Further, consider the difference in 'replacement effects on permanents entering the battlefield' rules, compared to 'replacement effects on cards changing zones' rules.
If the printed ability on a card cares about whether a *card* changes zones (even if one of those zones is the battlefield), then it is governed by the latter.
If the printed ability on a card cares about whether a permanent (or a particular type of permanent) entered the battlefield, specifically, then it is governed by the former.
I wish you had kept that hubris joke in the video. 😌
I read some comments on another forum that strongly implied that some people who saw that video did not recognize that as a joke. I try to be very careful with humor because that can easily lead to confusion with an audience that spans such a diverse range of cultures, many of whom speak English as a second language.
Is this a reupload?
The answer keeps changing
What's the difference from the last time?
@@SmashmanVideoshe talks about the difference between Grafdigger’s Cage mentioning creature _cards,_ where Containment Priest mentions creatures. Because a creature card isn’t a permanent, it doesn’t check to see what the card will look like on the battlefield.
I have trouble understanding how these three things can co-exist:
- You didn't get this ruling right on the first try. That's okay, we all get things wrong, that's how we learn :>
- In your previous video, you defined "hubris", and explained how people who thought this question was easy showed hubris
- In this video, you say about this situation "this is a relatively straight forward one"
How can this ruling be a straight forward one, if people (including you) got it wrong on multiple occasions? Isn't calling it "straight forward" showing a tiny bit of hubris?
Let's celebrate the fact that we learned, and getting things wrong is one way of learning. This is a tricky situation that extremely knowledgeable people got wrong.
And that's okay! Let's celebrate the fact that we learned, and let's not dumb down the tricky aspect of the question.
Pretty sure the relatively straightforward comment was a joke.
@@Sunshiner129 A straightforward joke made with such a straight face 🥸
Maybe it's a joke indeed, I don't know :o
@@pierremourlanne4022 Dave has a killer poker face
I mean, the question is rated 4 stars.
@@frostyshen689 Unless you're talking about the layers system.