So if we had Wheel of Sun and Moon on the field instead of Leyline would Barrowgoyf's ability stop resolving after the first sentence, since the library is not a public zone?
Correct. However if you had BOTH a Leyline and Wheel in play affecting you, you would choose which replacement effect to apply to the cards you milled. You'd be able to return a card if you choose the Leyline's effect.
@@michaelsparks1571 However, you'd have to choose before seeing the card I believe. No putting the bears into exile and then your hand, while putting all the non-creatures back into your library :)
@@jerodast I believe you are correct, as the card doesn't become "public/revealed" (to know which you'd rather apply) until it has already changed zones (too late to decide now). You'd have to guess if you have preferred outcomes for different card-types.
I think the Blood Splatter Analysis example doesn't quite work here because it triggers when a creature dies but with Leyline of the Void out, creatures don't actually "die" so Blood Splatter wouldn't trigger.
Got OG question correct, Barrowgoyf + Leyline wrong, and the next two correct. Didn't realize there was a CR that allows milled cards to be found no matter what zone they go to (given that it's a public zone.)
Adding on to the above, you can activate a mana ability pretty much any time that you are asked to pay a cost which requires mana. That's why you can activate them during the turn based action of declaring attackers in order to pay for Ghostly Prison even though no one has priority at that point.
Casting that one Wurm from a library while you're searching it, too. (Fun weird interaction: even though you control a player while they search their library using Opposition Agent, and can look in their hand and at their face-down cards while you do so, you can't normally tap all their lands because that's not something they can do while they're searching their library, which is the extent of your control... unless they've got that one Wurm. When you cast it for them, you can tap every mana source they've got, leaving them to spend the mana during that step or else lose it all. Either way, they're tapped out until their next untap step, and they're likely to remove that fun card from their deck soon...)
I love the videos that use the freshly released cards, since sometimes, new designs make for very interesting discussions with how they interact with some older cards. Here’s a simple one with MH3 as well that’s been on my mind: Amy controls a Spirit bestowed with Indebted Spirit and a Lifespinner. Can she tutor for a legendary spirit using Lifespinner’s ability, ie. will the Indebted Spirit become a creature in time for her to be able to pay the cost.
What happens when " You can't gain life is on the table " -> and you have enchantment which says "you can't lose game ; once your life goes below 0 set your life to 20 and sacrifice this permanent"+if you re opponent causes you to sacrifice permanent instead return it to the battle field. What happens in such theoretical scenario -> do i lose game ? -> or game sets into stole ?
"if you re opponent causes you to sacrifice permanent instead return it to the battlefield" This mostly depends on this aforementioned effect. It's worded like a replacement effect, but the end result of having such an effect is that a permanent which is already on the battlefield is... returned to the battlefield (as the sacrifice effect never happened, as it was replaced by the 'return to the battlefield' effect). If such an anti-sacrifice effect were to be printed, it really wouldn't be templated like this, as it would be unnecessarily confusing. It would be along one of two lines, in my eyes: The first - 'Permanents you control can't be sacrificed'. Or - 'Whenever a permanent you control is sacrificed, return it to the battlefield.' If we're talking about the first effect, it's very interesting. I honestly don't know exactly how that would be resolved, as multiple conflicting effects are happening (you losing the game, the permanent stopping from losing the game and trying to gain you life and sacrifice itself, and other effects preventing the permanent from being sacrificed or you from gaining life). Due to this lock not using the stack, I think it might be a hard lock and the permanent would continue checking that you are going to lose, trying to sacrifice itself and you life, but not being able to, with nothing else able to happen for the rest of the game. Of course, this case is without precedent, and there is no actual ruling to support this, in any direction. If the anti-sacrifice effect used the 'Whenever...' effect, however, it's much more simple, as the permanent would sacrifice itself, you would still be at 0 life, then the 'return to the battlefield' trigger would go onto the stack, then the game would see that you are at 0 or less life, and then you lose the game with the 'return to the battlefield' trigger still on the stack.
I don't know what enchantment you're thinking of, but "setting your life to 20" does in fact count as gaining life. I assume any such card would be phrased as "if your life total is 0, instead of losing the game, your life total becomes 20 and sacrifice this". Since your life total doesn't change, it remains 0. Secondly, it wouldn't be your opponent causing you to sacrifice the permanent. While I don't know of any effects that would replace "sacrificing a permanent", even if one did that replaced this for effects your opponents control, it's your *own card* saying to sacrifice it. Therefore, you just die. If, on the other hand, the permanent merely had "you can't lose the game. whenever your life total becomes 0, set your life total to 20" then your inability to gain life would in fact mean an infinite loop which, if neither player could break it, would make the game a draw!
@@psymar I think that they are referring to a hypothetical situation where you have a card with text along the lines of 'permanents you control can't be sacrificed'. (If you look at the very end of their comment, they mention that this is a theoretical situation). If they are confused about what causes the permanent to be sacrificed then your answer would be right and applicable, of course.
@@genzo454 Yes, that would also be an infinite loop as your losing becomes gaining life and sacrificing but neither of those happen so you still have 0 life so you lose again. In fact I'm not sure this loop could be broken as I don't think anyone gets priority
I'd like to see the specific cards you are using for this example but it seems that if you can't gain life and your life goes to zero the trigger would try to set your life to 20, see that your life is still 0, and keep trying, causing an infinite loop that would draw the game if no one can stop it.
Got it right, and even thought of the follow-ups before they were shown.
Thanks for this channel. I love the quizzes
So if we had Wheel of Sun and Moon on the field instead of Leyline would Barrowgoyf's ability stop resolving after the first sentence, since the library is not a public zone?
this is correct
Correct.
However if you had BOTH a Leyline and Wheel in play affecting you, you would choose which replacement effect to apply to the cards you milled. You'd be able to return a card if you choose the Leyline's effect.
@@michaelsparks1571 However, you'd have to choose before seeing the card I believe. No putting the bears into exile and then your hand, while putting all the non-creatures back into your library :)
@@jerodast I believe you are correct, as the card doesn't become "public/revealed" (to know which you'd rather apply) until it has already changed zones (too late to decide now). You'd have to guess if you have preferred outcomes for different card-types.
I think the Blood Splatter Analysis example doesn't quite work here because it triggers when a creature dies but with Leyline of the Void out, creatures don't actually "die" so Blood Splatter wouldn't trigger.
It triggers on any creature dying, so if the controller of leyline has a creature die, bloodsplatter will still trigger because leyline is one sided.
It also would trigger on tokens dying because leyline only exiles cards.
Got OG question correct, Barrowgoyf + Leyline wrong, and the next two correct. Didn't realize there was a CR that allows milled cards to be found no matter what zone they go to (given that it's a public zone.)
0:24 - "most" abilities require priority to activate? Which ones don't? Genuinely curious, haven't heard of that before.
Mana abilities have their own rules around when you can activate them, some of which don't require priority.
Adding on to the above, you can activate a mana ability pretty much any time that you are asked to pay a cost which requires mana.
That's why you can activate them during the turn based action of declaring attackers in order to pay for Ghostly Prison even though no one has priority at that point.
Casting that one Wurm from a library while you're searching it, too. (Fun weird interaction: even though you control a player while they search their library using Opposition Agent, and can look in their hand and at their face-down cards while you do so, you can't normally tap all their lands because that's not something they can do while they're searching their library, which is the extent of your control... unless they've got that one Wurm. When you cast it for them, you can tap every mana source they've got, leaving them to spend the mana during that step or else lose it all. Either way, they're tapped out until their next untap step, and they're likely to remove that fun card from their deck soon...)
I love the videos that use the freshly released cards, since sometimes, new designs make for very interesting discussions with how they interact with some older cards.
Here’s a simple one with MH3 as well that’s been on my mind:
Amy controls a Spirit bestowed with Indebted Spirit and a Lifespinner. Can she tutor for a legendary spirit using Lifespinner’s ability, ie. will the Indebted Spirit become a creature in time for her to be able to pay the cost.
What happens when " You can't gain life is on the table " -> and you have enchantment which says "you can't lose game ; once your life goes below 0 set your life to 20 and sacrifice this permanent"+if you re opponent causes you to sacrifice permanent instead return it to the battle field. What happens in such theoretical scenario -> do i lose game ? -> or game sets into stole ?
"if you re opponent causes you to sacrifice permanent instead return it to the battlefield"
This mostly depends on this aforementioned effect. It's worded like a replacement effect, but the end result of having such an effect is that a permanent which is already on the battlefield is... returned to the battlefield (as the sacrifice effect never happened, as it was replaced by the 'return to the battlefield' effect). If such an anti-sacrifice effect were to be printed, it really wouldn't be templated like this, as it would be unnecessarily confusing. It would be along one of two lines, in my eyes: The first - 'Permanents you control can't be sacrificed'. Or - 'Whenever a permanent you control is sacrificed, return it to the battlefield.' If we're talking about the first effect, it's very interesting. I honestly don't know exactly how that would be resolved, as multiple conflicting effects are happening (you losing the game, the permanent stopping from losing the game and trying to gain you life and sacrifice itself, and other effects preventing the permanent from being sacrificed or you from gaining life). Due to this lock not using the stack, I think it might be a hard lock and the permanent would continue checking that you are going to lose, trying to sacrifice itself and you life, but not being able to, with nothing else able to happen for the rest of the game. Of course, this case is without precedent, and there is no actual ruling to support this, in any direction.
If the anti-sacrifice effect used the 'Whenever...' effect, however, it's much more simple, as the permanent would sacrifice itself, you would still be at 0 life, then the 'return to the battlefield' trigger would go onto the stack, then the game would see that you are at 0 or less life, and then you lose the game with the 'return to the battlefield' trigger still on the stack.
I don't know what enchantment you're thinking of, but "setting your life to 20" does in fact count as gaining life. I assume any such card would be phrased as "if your life total is 0, instead of losing the game, your life total becomes 20 and sacrifice this". Since your life total doesn't change, it remains 0. Secondly, it wouldn't be your opponent causing you to sacrifice the permanent. While I don't know of any effects that would replace "sacrificing a permanent", even if one did that replaced this for effects your opponents control, it's your *own card* saying to sacrifice it. Therefore, you just die.
If, on the other hand, the permanent merely had "you can't lose the game. whenever your life total becomes 0, set your life total to 20" then your inability to gain life would in fact mean an infinite loop which, if neither player could break it, would make the game a draw!
@@psymar I think that they are referring to a hypothetical situation where you have a card with text along the lines of 'permanents you control can't be sacrificed'. (If you look at the very end of their comment, they mention that this is a theoretical situation). If they are confused about what causes the permanent to be sacrificed then your answer would be right and applicable, of course.
@@psymar Sounds like Lich's Mirror.
@@genzo454 Yes, that would also be an infinite loop as your losing becomes gaining life and sacrificing but neither of those happen so you still have 0 life so you lose again. In fact I'm not sure this loop could be broken as I don't think anyone gets priority
I'd like to see the specific cards you are using for this example but it seems that if you can't gain life and your life goes to zero the trigger would try to set your life to 20, see that your life is still 0, and keep trying, causing an infinite loop that would draw the game if no one can stop it.