(4*) If you Incinerate Gideon in response to its +0, can it regenerate? Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2... A: No.
Can you cover word of command making an opponent play a tutor and attempting to make them also cast panglacial wurm while you control them during the resolution of the tutor? No I am not joking, I realized this can happen and want to further understand word of command interactions. Also when casting word of command and putting a spell from their hand on the stack using it's effect who receives priority first?, since you are controlling them to make them play the card does that mean they end up passing it back to you? I am sorry for asking about such a rules nightmare of a card in combination with another.
Is 608.2 not relevant here? It's a fairly new rule and they only really give one example for it in the rules. I could potentially see the "creature dealt damage this way" as applying to a past action of dealing damage to a creature at the time the damage was dealt.
Yeah I get the "rules change is checked at the time it would affect another event, not on resolution" principle, but you could totally have a rules change that cares about what an object was at the time of an earlier event - like when it took damage. The question isn't "does Incinerate's clause determine its objects on resolution?", it's "are effects, in general, that use the clause 'creatures damaged [condition]' referring to their type at the time of damage or the time now?" I'm not convinced there's a clear answer in the rules although I agree with Judge Dave's conclusion.
I’ve got a duskmourn rulings question that we weren’t quite sure how to answer, here’s the situation: I have a silent hall creeper that has not dealt combat damage yet, another creature (in the real scenario it was a daggermaw megalodon, but could be anything) and a tunnel of hate as an unlocked room. If I give hallcreeper double strike with the beginning of combat room trigger and then copy the megalodon from the first damage instance will the hallcreeper retain double strike? If so or if not what happens next? As a bonus question for this one if hallcreeper does or had lost double strike would it then still proceed to deal combat damage in the normal damage step?
It's the same creature object, so yes it should still have double strike after becoming a copy of the second creature. The ability granting double strike is not one printed on silent hallcreeper, so it becoming a copy of something else shouldn't interfere with that ability. For a slightly more technical explanation, we turn to layers. For that, we see there are two continuous effects applying to the Silent Hallcreeper after first strike damage happens. One is the copy effect, and the other an ability granting effect of double strike. The copy effect would apply first, followed by the double strike abilty-granting effect. So it would be a copy with double strike!
@@deoplo5988 Yes, like Deoplo said, your creature formerly known as Silent Hill Creeper would still have Double Strike and therefore deal combat damage in the regular damage step. For the why you can skip a layers conversation and simply refer to the CR (rule 707.4): 707.4. Some effects cause a permanent that’s copying a permanent to copy a different object while remaining on the battlefield. The change doesn’t trigger enters-the-battlefield or leaves-the-battlefield abilities. This also doesn’t change any noncopy effects presently affecting the permanent. Example: Unstable Shapeshifter reads, “Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, Unstable Shapeshifter becomes a copy of that creature and gains this ability.” It’s affected by Giant Growth, which reads “Target creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn.” If a creature enters the battlefield later this turn, Unstable Shapeshifter will become a copy of that creature, but it will still get +3/+3 from the Giant Growth. I quoted from the Feb 2024 edition.
For the bonus question, if a creature had double strike, then lost it after dealing first strike damage somehow (such as the all-time favorite on this channel, Dress Down), it would not deal damage during the second combat damage step excerpt from 702.4b ...The only creatures that assign combat damage in that step [the second combat damage step] are the remaining attackers and blockers that had neither first strike nor double strike as the first combat damage step began, as well as the remaining attackers and blockers that currently have double strike... Since the creature had double strike during the first damage step, and does not have double strike during the second damage step it is disqualified from dealing damage in the second combat damage step. I believe this rule is intended to stop you from dealing damage twice with a first strike creature by having it lose first strike during the second combat damage step, and to stop you from dealing damage twice in this exact case where you lose double strike.
@@benjaminfriedman8053 It's also worded carefully so that you can't prevent a creature from dealing combat damage by _giving_ it first strike after the first-strike step.
(0:36) I like what you did with the flavor text there. "Any target" is indeed appropriate, and nice reference to the Unhinged card, Frazzled Editor.
Wow, they changed the flavor text to that? That's such a weird coincidence!
You got Jaya to edit the card? Nice!
This channel really has the craziest production value across the multiverse.
I didnt know incinerate had been updated
It was errata’s as part of the Dominaria rule change that meant “target creature or player” was changed to “any target” a la Lightning Bolt or Shock
@donaldtaylor724 ah I forgot
Wow, I got this one right, though I couldn't have explained it fully
Can you cover word of command making an opponent play a tutor and attempting to make them also cast panglacial wurm while you control them during the resolution of the tutor?
No I am not joking, I realized this can happen and want to further understand word of command interactions.
Also when casting word of command and putting a spell from their hand on the stack using it's effect who receives priority first?, since you are controlling them to make them play the card does that mean they end up passing it back to you?
I am sorry for asking about such a rules nightmare of a card in combination with another.
Is 608.2 not relevant here? It's a fairly new rule and they only really give one example for it in the rules. I could potentially see the "creature dealt damage this way" as applying to a past action of dealing damage to a creature at the time the damage was dealt.
Yeah I get the "rules change is checked at the time it would affect another event, not on resolution" principle, but you could totally have a rules change that cares about what an object was at the time of an earlier event - like when it took damage. The question isn't "does Incinerate's clause determine its objects on resolution?", it's "are effects, in general, that use the clause 'creatures damaged [condition]' referring to their type at the time of damage or the time now?" I'm not convinced there's a clear answer in the rules although I agree with Judge Dave's conclusion.
This makes sense, I seemingly have trouble recognising rule changing effects
Sometimes it feels a little arbitrary, especially when the "rule change" only applies to one creature or a few targeted creatures...
I’ve got a duskmourn rulings question that we weren’t quite sure how to answer, here’s the situation:
I have a silent hall creeper that has not dealt combat damage yet, another creature (in the real scenario it was a daggermaw megalodon, but could be anything) and a tunnel of hate as an unlocked room. If I give hallcreeper double strike with the beginning of combat room trigger and then copy the megalodon from the first damage instance will the hallcreeper retain double strike? If so or if not what happens next?
As a bonus question for this one if hallcreeper does or had lost double strike would it then still proceed to deal combat damage in the normal damage step?
It's the same creature object, so yes it should still have double strike after becoming a copy of the second creature. The ability granting double strike is not one printed on silent hallcreeper, so it becoming a copy of something else shouldn't interfere with that ability.
For a slightly more technical explanation, we turn to layers. For that, we see there are two continuous effects applying to the Silent Hallcreeper after first strike damage happens. One is the copy effect, and the other an ability granting effect of double strike. The copy effect would apply first, followed by the double strike abilty-granting effect. So it would be a copy with double strike!
@@deoplo5988 Yes, like Deoplo said, your creature formerly known as Silent Hill Creeper would still have Double Strike and therefore deal combat damage in the regular damage step.
For the why you can skip a layers conversation and simply refer to the CR (rule 707.4):
707.4. Some effects cause a permanent that’s copying a permanent to copy a different object while
remaining on the battlefield. The change doesn’t trigger enters-the-battlefield or leaves-the-battlefield abilities. This also doesn’t change any noncopy effects presently affecting the permanent.
Example: Unstable Shapeshifter reads, “Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, Unstable Shapeshifter becomes a copy of that creature and gains this ability.” It’s affected by Giant Growth, which reads “Target creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn.” If a creature enters the battlefield later this turn, Unstable Shapeshifter will become a copy of that creature, but it will still get +3/+3 from the Giant Growth.
I quoted from the Feb 2024 edition.
For the bonus question, if a creature had double strike, then lost it after dealing first strike damage somehow (such as the all-time favorite on this channel, Dress Down), it would not deal damage during the second combat damage step
excerpt from 702.4b
...The only creatures that assign combat damage in that step [the second combat damage step] are the remaining attackers and blockers that had neither first strike nor double strike as the first combat damage step began, as well as the remaining attackers and blockers that currently have double strike...
Since the creature had double strike during the first damage step, and does not have double strike during the second damage step it is disqualified from dealing damage in the second combat damage step.
I believe this rule is intended to stop you from dealing damage twice with a first strike creature by having it lose first strike during the second combat damage step, and to stop you from dealing damage twice in this exact case where you lose double strike.
@@benjaminfriedman8053 It's also worded carefully so that you can't prevent a creature from dealing combat damage by _giving_ it first strike after the first-strike step.
i got it wrong