"These are the interactions you get with PAPER" lmao.. so so true. And my brother is mystified as to why there are so many counter and removal spells flying around on arena...
42:29 I'm not sure about the Ruling of Sanctuary Warden. It is an effect with an interfering if-clause, without mentioning a second 'when'. (The Judge said 'when you do', but the text says 'if'.) And because of the 'if', it creates only one trigger by entering or attacking.
I'm pretty sure the ruling is wrong. It is not an intervining if clause, but it also isn't a reflexive trigger like the judge said. Basically the ability goes on the stack and as it resolves you choose if you want to remove a counter or not, similar to for example Alesha where you pay mana upon resolution. An interviening if clause would have to be directly after the timing of the trigger and not satisfying the condition would stop the ability from triggering completely, which is not the case here.
The ruling was indeed incorrect. As was pointed out, the Judge making the ruling acted on the apparent assumption that Sanctuary Warden’s triggered ability contained a reflexive trigger; it does not. There is no window to respond between removing the counter and resolving the rest of the triggered ability. (To note: I’m also a Judge, myself.)
@@joshuastephenkartes4171 The "If" have been refered to a triggered ability before but not now right then? Or does the judge have write due to the last sentence here?: 603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger condition or event], [effect]. [Instructions (if any).]”
@@mikaelmagnusson3225 The word "if" will never indicate a triggered ability or a reflexive trigger. Only the three words listed in CR 603.1 ("when," "whenever," or "at") will do so. For the purposes of Sanctuary Warden's ability, the whole text of the ability is resolved from start to finish without any priority windows being generated. The player either draws a card and creates the token, or they don't, depending on their choice of removing a counter during resolution. Everything in this instance is part of the resolution of the same, singular ability. Reflexive triggers, which were introduced in the Amonkhet expansion, explicitly replace the "if" with "when."
You're only making that observation after watching a game where Shota had the answer to sheoldred, if he doesn't (which is more likely than does by a lot because he only has 2 Go for the throats) Raffine becomes significantly less powerful and Jim runs away with the game regardless of whether Raffine sticks around or not.
In G3, I don’t understand why the better play wouldn’t have been to minus The Wandering Emperor to kill Sheoldred, instead of plussing it and making the token bigger to just chump. It makes no sense and leaves Sheoldred in play to easily finish off your planeswalker.
idk what game ur talking about if its pedro vs riccardo then, plaza of heroes can give sheoldred hexproof in response leaving you with a 1 loyalty planeswalker and no out to sheoldred , also the bankbuster wouldnt be chumping cause wandering emperor gives first strike and +1/+1, also as they explained, if there was an answer aside from plaza of heroes to deal with the bankbuster, he can always minus emperor the next turn if its the last match nico vs javier, emperor didnt ever +1 and sheoldred wasnt ever tapped
3:47 People keep calling this out as a mistake, but I agree with Jim's play here. He's playing to the board, immediately dealing 4 damage, and setting himself up better for the long game. Shota has to spend mana his turn to keep from losing another 4 life. Raffine is a boogeyman of the format, but Sheoldred is who you send to kill the boogeyman.
It's hard to argue with results but giving Shota the opportunity to filter with through his deck could have been catastrophic. I think I would have taken the conservative line, but you win more games where you're the aggressor.
@@MrStrangechange While it's true that Shota could start looting extra cards, I don't think people value tempo highly enough. Jim's play established him as the beatdown player, and it forced Shota to lose tempo the aggressor. Also, killing Raffine rather than playing a threat when Shota was tapped out might have locked Jim out of future plays (if Shota untaps with permission up). I think this strategy is also very play/draw dependent.
@@newscoulomb3705 You can see Jims hand after Shoota played Rafine when he choosed to used Bankbuster instead of using Cut Down between 2:04-2:10. And you can see there that Jim have two lands and Sheoldred on his hand already. So he could still use Cut Down end of turn and play Sheoldred next turn as he did and still be the aggressor. He didn't need to use the bankbuster instead there to curve out correctly or to find something.
@@mikaelmagnusson3225 Sure, on the choice whether to draw or kill Raffine, but Jim's already having a Sheoldred in hand justifies his line even more because he's playing a threat that guarantees 4 damage next turn and that Shota must answer before he can start drawing cards off of Raffine. Was a card and a counter off Buster worth letting Raffine live? Maybe not, but I can get behind Jim's line here.
Shota trying his hardest to lose Game 1. Just not playing Ao around 7:45, but instead settling for Skrelv + Transmogrant + Make disappear wins the game 99%.
"These are the interactions you get with PAPER" lmao.. so so true. And my brother is mystified as to why there are so many counter and removal spells flying around on arena...
42:29 I'm not sure about the Ruling of Sanctuary Warden.
It is an effect with an interfering if-clause, without mentioning a second 'when'. (The Judge said 'when you do', but the text says 'if'.)
And because of the 'if', it creates only one trigger by entering or attacking.
I'm pretty sure the ruling is wrong. It is not an intervining if clause, but it also isn't a reflexive trigger like the judge said. Basically the ability goes on the stack and as it resolves you choose if you want to remove a counter or not, similar to for example Alesha where you pay mana upon resolution.
An interviening if clause would have to be directly after the timing of the trigger and not satisfying the condition would stop the ability from triggering completely, which is not the case here.
The ruling was indeed incorrect. As was pointed out, the Judge making the ruling acted on the apparent assumption that Sanctuary Warden’s triggered ability contained a reflexive trigger; it does not. There is no window to respond between removing the counter and resolving the rest of the triggered ability. (To note: I’m also a Judge, myself.)
@@joshuastephenkartes4171 The "If" have been refered to a triggered ability before but not now right then? Or does the judge have write due to the last sentence here?:
603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger condition or event], [effect]. [Instructions (if any).]”
@@mikaelmagnusson3225 The word "if" will never indicate a triggered ability or a reflexive trigger. Only the three words listed in CR 603.1 ("when," "whenever," or "at") will do so. For the purposes of Sanctuary Warden's ability, the whole text of the ability is resolved from start to finish without any priority windows being generated. The player either draws a card and creates the token, or they don't, depending on their choice of removing a counter during resolution. Everything in this instance is part of the resolution of the same, singular ability. Reflexive triggers, which were introduced in the Amonkhet expansion, explicitly replace the "if" with "when."
@@joshuastephenkartes4171 Alright, then the ruling where wrong at the Pro Tour..wow
Activating bankbuster instead of Cut Down on Raffine at 2:08 is :0
Yeah that was crazy but the damn topdecks from Jim were nuts
Good games here
Not playing Cut Down on Raffine at the beginning was a Hugh mistake
He won didn't he?
@@comedyman4896 Because he topdecked twice yes. However, he is a great player much better than me, i didn't mean it like that
You're only making that observation after watching a game where Shota had the answer to sheoldred, if he doesn't (which is more likely than does by a lot because he only has 2 Go for the throats) Raffine becomes significantly less powerful and Jim runs away with the game regardless of whether Raffine sticks around or not.
Well from the outcome i wouldn’t say it was Hugh Mungus
In G3, I don’t understand why the better play wouldn’t have been to minus The Wandering Emperor to kill Sheoldred, instead of plussing it and making the token bigger to just chump. It makes no sense and leaves Sheoldred in play to easily finish off your planeswalker.
idk what game ur talking about
if its pedro vs riccardo then,
plaza of heroes can give sheoldred hexproof in response leaving you with a 1 loyalty planeswalker and no out to sheoldred , also the bankbuster wouldnt be chumping cause wandering emperor gives first strike and +1/+1, also as they explained, if there was an answer aside from plaza of heroes to deal with the bankbuster, he can always minus emperor the next turn
if its the last match nico vs javier, emperor didnt ever +1 and sheoldred wasnt ever tapped
3:47 People keep calling this out as a mistake, but I agree with Jim's play here. He's playing to the board, immediately dealing 4 damage, and setting himself up better for the long game. Shota has to spend mana his turn to keep from losing another 4 life. Raffine is a boogeyman of the format, but Sheoldred is who you send to kill the boogeyman.
It's hard to argue with results but giving Shota the opportunity to filter with through his deck could have been catastrophic. I think I would have taken the conservative line, but you win more games where you're the aggressor.
@@MrStrangechange While it's true that Shota could start looting extra cards, I don't think people value tempo highly enough. Jim's play established him as the beatdown player, and it forced Shota to lose tempo the aggressor. Also, killing Raffine rather than playing a threat when Shota was tapped out might have locked Jim out of future plays (if Shota untaps with permission up).
I think this strategy is also very play/draw dependent.
@@newscoulomb3705 You can see Jims hand after Shoota played Rafine when he choosed to used Bankbuster instead of using Cut Down between 2:04-2:10. And you can see there that Jim have two lands and Sheoldred on his hand already. So he could still use Cut Down end of turn and play Sheoldred next turn as he did and still be the aggressor. He didn't need to use the bankbuster instead there to curve out correctly or to find something.
@@mikaelmagnusson3225 Sure, on the choice whether to draw or kill Raffine, but Jim's already having a Sheoldred in hand justifies his line even more because he's playing a threat that guarantees 4 damage next turn and that Shota must answer before he can start drawing cards off of Raffine. Was a card and a counter off Buster worth letting Raffine live? Maybe not, but I can get behind Jim's line here.
Marshall "The Watch" Sutcliffe. You're welcome.
You guys don't need to keep the breaks in the TH-cam uploads
Cheontorage!
Dammit put that Dennick in the sleep all the way.
It’s always the cheonterage
CASUALLY USING GURU LANDS
Shota trying his hardest to lose Game 1. Just not playing Ao around 7:45, but instead settling for Skrelv + Transmogrant + Make disappear wins the game 99%.
Jim didn't have enough non-basics in play for Shota to activate Transmogrant.