What about the interaction between varloz, the scar-striped and akawali, the seething tower? When Trying to use varolz’s scavenge ability targeting akawali in the graveyard I’m not sure if the scavenge ability would check the descend text on akawali before resolving

An exercise for the comments section: All combinations with Giant Growth in the mix First I'll note that, at least based on what is said in the video, I'm pretty sure Orfeo's ability sets its buff when it triggers, so casting things in response to it won't change its final effect. Giant Growth resolving abbreviated as G, Humble resolving abbreviated as H, Orfeo's ability triggering abbreviated as O. O* represents when Orfeo's ability would trigger but doesn't because Humble has removed the ability (and therefore nothing actually happens) Resultant P/T from every combination of these events: O, G, H: 5/4 O, H, G: 5/4 G, O, H: 8/4 G, H, O*: 3/4 H, O*, G: 3/4 H, G, O*: 3/4 Basically, Giant Growth + Humble will always result in 3/4, and if Orfeo's ability is allowed to trigger (i.e. occurs before Humble resolves), it will add either +2/+0 if Orfeo was not buffed by Giant Growth when it triggers, or +5/+0 if Orfeo was buffed by Giant Growth. If I've made an error among this, someone please correct me.

Ugh layers. Their like ogres

Basically all references to multiplying anything that already exists in Magic are just rules shortcuts that mean to add something based on the current amount, you never actually multiply. Doubling Cube says to double the amount of each type of mana in your mana pool, but that means add an amount of each type equal to the amount you currently have. If you have Nyxbloom Ancient (When you tap a permanent for mana, add triple that amount of mana instead), Nyxbloom sees the amount you're trying to add and triples that. So if you have 5 green, doubling that would normally add 5 more green, so it adds 15 green (and becomes a quadrupling cube. Just x4, not x6). "Double your life total" works the same way, it's "gain life equal to your current life total", etc. Only things that don't exist yet (like the mana you "would add" in Nyxbloom's replacement effect) ever get multiplied by anything.

This all applies to "becomes" effects like snakeform also, right? No "transformation" effects remove previously applied abilities unless otherwise stated?

I find it interesting that there is separate layer 7d for switching power and toughness, but effects that are multiplying (doubling) power or toughness are not handled in the same way

So a (usually) better play for nick would be to cast the humble with orpheos ability on the stach, such that it would get +0/0 instead of +2/0, if I am understanding this right

This ruling was very humble of you

All they had to do to not confuse people was not use the word "double"

I have a question, my opponent uses the effect of Emrakul, the World Anew to control all my creatures, they, in my turn, I play Ezuri's Predation, the doubt is, supposing that in the opponent's field there are 10 creatures How do you resolve the combats of the beasts that I create, can I choose who they fight against and if so, how would be the order to resolve? because I would like to destroy Emrakul by battle so that by its effect, my opponent is forced to sacrifice all the creatures he has and keep as many beasts as I can. Thanks You very much for your help bro. 😊

Got a curious one for you! Let's say a player controls a Laboratory Maniac and casts Dance With Calamity. Is there a rule saying they have to stop after the mana values total over 13 or is it possible to just choose to exile the entire deck? The card wording implies it can be done but no official rulings have been made on it.

The reasoning for not allowing a backup here is pretty terrible. There is no random or unknown elements. Player N is hellbent at the time of the hopeless nightmare. This is a terrible ruling. A simple backup forcing player A to tap mana for their spell has ZERO influence on the decisions made going forward. In addition, there is zero mention of the lack of investigation that occurred. Is that intentional? Fail grade here.

I would have gotten this wrong initially. The only reason i knew this is because i played the mouse deck on mtgo.

Nice idea bringing up shortcuts. I forgot to interpret that way in the scenario where Amy made her choice "prematurely", which I was thinking could be interpreted as just an irrelevant action if there was some response before the choice, or even a bluff/lie that could be seen as bad sportsmanship in a casual setting. Really good that it is pretty clearly a shortcut proposal which she IS bound to stick to, but is also allowed to change if the shortcut is interrupted. I always felt like the shortcut rules were very elegant at corresponding to how you expect the game to proceed!

I know that its ultimately subjective, but quantifying disruption seems so weird.

I will add this to help me to study. Great video! 2:00 Definition. 4:50 A triggered ability that requires its controller to choose targets (other than ‘target opponent’), modes, or other choices made when the ability is put onto the stack. 6:50 A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution. 12:50 A triggered ability that changes the rules of the game. 15:50 A triggered ability that affects the game state in non-visible ways. 40:00 Philosophy 49:40 Additional Remedy 59:09 Upgrade

I got a 💯 has been a while

I got this one wrong. I thought it would be like modal spells where you have to pick one before it goes on the stack. What's the distinction in wording?

So in that second scenario, patience is a virtue.

I find it incredible that the fix of tapping the mana is so unacceptable. I mean, ok in other circumstances as you mentioned this fix may not be possible, but if it was possible I don't see why not.

A clear, measured, unbiased explanation of the event and the reasonings why the "obvious" fix isn't a rule is nice to see.

She cheated.

I mean, it's Nicole though and she has a pretty long track record of questionable ethics. I think you're right in reading that it was premeditated. While this ruling was by the books, I think the known history of the player should've played a hand in reading intent.

Regardless of the current by-the-book procedure, this is terrible precident stating if you don't want to pay for a spell, you can just hope your opponent doesn't notice until their draw step and then you claim it was a mistake and get off scott free.

This is why I like Arena. Don’t have to argue rules with people who don’t know how the game works and it won’t let people underpay for spells etc

This feels not fair and I don't think it is the intention of the partial fix rule. Without being rude, tgis feels like a sleazy lawyers interpretation of a law that was made to avoid corner cases, but this is no corner case

Thank you so much for the explanation!

Wasn’t there something at the end that said “when no other option exists”. While this might have not been a rare situation, it is one without a fix. We should have some room for a judge to use critical thinking and administer reasonable fixes to situations like this. It clearly has caused a stir and needs to be addressed.

Noted, as long as I make sure my opponent doesn't notice in time, I'm allowed to cast spells without tapping mana. Can't wait to implement this new judge endorsed strategy at FNM from now on

I’m going to put a couple notes here. 1. Great video. As always the rules are clearly explained and I think avoiding too much speculation on intent is a good call when we simply don’t have information. 2. The judges applied the correct ruling. I’m going to nip this one in the bud here. 3. The player, ‘Amy’, did not, per say, do a cheat by the rules of the game. Yes I agree that it was unsporting and personally I would feel uncomfortable winning a game like this but they did do everything by the book. And finally 4. The book should be changed. I understand the desire is to have partial fixes be uniform and clean. But to put it simply it is unacceptable for a mistake to give one player a clear advantage over the other if the argument for giving both players a grv is that they are both at fault. Magic is far too complicated a game at this point for a single fix to always be the correct one and I think it is naive to continue that philosophy. When just tapping a land is such an obvious and clear way to mend the board state it seems ludicrous to me to not include that as a potential fix. Obviously it is not a fix that will work for every scenario but I think it should be clear that the current fix is also not working for most scenarios and is resulting in players getting an unfair advantage.

What a thoughtful and excellent interpretation of the situation.

What if Amy had scrollshifted a Beza for life and Nick responded with a bolt for lethal? Would the choice still be to back up to the casting of scrollshift now with the knowledge of Nicks bolt?

What's the judge policy on strongly suggesting a non-required fix? Could the head judge have said to Amy "You should have tapped an additional land to pay for one of your spells, I strongly suggest you tap a land that can produce a black mana, and then not use that mana before the phase ends"

I am sure - no, certain - that the fact that the vast majority of game rule violations committed at tournements are in the infracting player's favour, is a complete coincidence.

Why do partial fixes need to be uniform? Why not tap the land as a partial fix because it works in this situation. If it doesn't work in other situations, then you don't use it. You use some other fix. The "Correct" fix in this situation was easy, but it wasn't done because of some bullcrap idea that partial fixes have to be uniform.

This case feel like another example of REL level forcing illegal game states. In Casual/FNM level, the fix would be to explain the mistake, fix the mana, then continue the game. Can you use Fellwar Stone to pay for it's own rhystic study tax (If your opponent misses the trigger?) These 'fixes' are extremely unsatisfying to viewers and casual players, who want the highest level of play to be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.

While what the head judge did was by the book, I think it points to more of a gap in the book that needs to be looked at. Maybe there is no clean option and we're stuck with it, maybe there is a way to make a consistent ruling that works in the vast majority of cases.

This ruling isn't an invite to exploit this kind of "errors"? If your opponent doesn't notice it, you have an advantage. But also if your opponent notice it half turn later, is an advantage. If you aren't so blatantly in your "error", that may lead to a disqualify, it just have a positive outcome. IMHO Wizards should address this kind of ruling, even with a partial remedy that isn't always applicable (es. tap the land).

So for anyone who wants to save their time like I wish I could have, too shit, judges are bad, person cheated and rules allowed it. Cheater literally casted a spell without paying the mana and the judges says okay

As a judge, I'd love to see more MTR/IPG videos! Thanks for sharing this one!

PleasantKenobi actually released a video covering this story yesterday. It's a good watch.

But what do I do if a booster contains a card from different set?

So quick question. In the original story, it was said by both players that the pixie player did not pay for hopeless nightmare the previous turn. How was that proven? What if it was stated that the pixie playing payed only 2 for scrollshift? That means it is still in the same turn and not many actions has been taken. Would that have changed the ruling?

Couldnt the rule just be that in cases like this, if it is possible to pay for the spell at the point of the judge call that the player is forced to do so at that point? That way they ar least dont gave excess mana they shouldnt have had

my favorite DDR episodes are still "what is the proper infraction, penalty, and fix?"

You are going to need a new shelf reaaaaallllllll soon.

I'm not going to fault the judges for going by the book. They did everything as they should. I will fault a player for using resources they know that shouldn't be at their disposal outside of the windfall of a judge ruling to win the game afterward.

Please do a video on exceptional circumstances! Like what does happen if a table collapses?

After watching a lot of JFtW videos I've come to realize that more times than not, this Amy gal is the one giving trouble to judges, smh

In which round did this happen?