DDR

History of the rules required to make Henzie "Toolbox" Torre and Serra Paragon function as expected.
Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw
Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2qrQqTL18rRsJ9

[@HazardQt]

Hearing Judge Dave say "...ok, so..." triggers a pavlovian response in me for the release of high quality long lasting dopamines.

[@allopeth]

Dave: Be aware, pretty high level rules stuff ahead, and some very technical explanation Me: *rubs hands*

[@lugh.i]

14:55 Then, I'd like to thank you, Dave, for your hard work in explaining the most complex game in the world to us. In my particular case, your channel has given me the tools to deal with cheaters and those classic "I've played for 20 years, trust me" players in Commander. Keep up the great job!

[@tnturbo7]

One of the cases when "reading a card explains the card" does not work until the rules are updated

[@SpinAroundU]

That was a pretty exhaustive analysis of the situation, and from times to times it's good to get to the bottom of things like you did.

[@darrichaney6048]

I want to thank Dave and the people at wizards of the coast for all the time and effort they put into the rules and regulations to let us have a great game with a good comprehensive grasp of how things work

[@williamdrum9899]

Yugioh suffers greatly from not having as well defined rules.

[@gndtchoopz7246]

Appreciate all the time and effort put into this. Friends and I were discussing these cards over a variety of games throughout our times together, and only two of them are 'rulesheads', if you will, like myself. It's hard to get three brains to comprehend a solution to things like these, but I'm super thankful that I had access to an understanding we can all share. :)

[@SmallerRidley]

Seems strange that casting something "with Blitz" doesn't give the card on the field the side effects of Blitz rather than the side effects being granted by the thing that allowed it to be cast with Blitz. I feel like rather than exceptions to static abilities, it should be a change to how alternate casting cost effects and such apply their effects.

[@RomaTomassi]

The FAA publishes rules changes for pilots called NOTAMs (notices to airmen) that pilots are required to check prior to every flight. These rules are essentially tweaks that supercede comprehensive flight rules. Magic might benefit from its own standing "NOTAM" list that judges can reference prior to (and during) tournaments that would deconflict expected vs technically correct interactions. Once the official rules are amended the relevant NOTAM would be removed. Just a thought.

[@JudgingFtW]

What would be the difference between doing this and just updating the CR?

[@RomaTomassi]

@@JudgingFtW The FAA publishes NOTAMs because changing the various flight publications pilots are required to fly with (and navigate by) take time to approve and push out. I presume the same holds true of the CR, particularly since the CR is meant to be an elegant universal ruleset -- hence the delay in clarifying Serra Paragon had to wait for the CR update. A NOTAM-style bulletin simply provides a quick and easy way to push out guidelines for such exceptional cases until the whole CR is updated in a more elegant way. This solves the dilemma of judges not knowing whether to rule in favor of the creative player or in the spirit of how the card was probably intended to work.

[@segfaultec4064]

Fantastic video! Come for the interesting rules questions, stay for the interesting discussions on judging philosophy :)

[@bryanholdren9043]

Great video! thanks for your work! Now off to rewatch your banding video lol

[@andyony2]

Thanks, Dave , for those deep Dive!! :) And also I really like, how you give reasons for being careful with judging "its obvious, that this card should Work Like this... Even If the Rules they otherwise. It Shows me, that you have a very deep understanding of the rules and also proper Argumentation!! Thanks a lot 🥰 And yes, I followed till the end 🙃

[@Qril]

Excellent video, Dave! Sometimes a marathon video is in order :)

[@HeavyMetalMouse]

I... don't understand some of where the problem was. The abilities seem like they work just fine as printed, except that they rely on 'chaining' together some existing rules and being very picky about where the source of those effects is. Henzie - This grants Blitz to creature spells you cast. It can only grant Blitz to those cards as you are choosing how to cast them - making Blitz a valid choice as an alternate cost. Henzie himself is not giving the creatures those spells become the "Sacrifice this at the beginning of the next end step" effects; the fact that it was cast with the Blitz ability is doing that. Blitz says "If you do(cast this spell for its Blitz cost), Sacrifice it at the beginning of the next end step." which is the creation of a Delayed Trigger. That Delayed Trigger is independent of whether the creature the spell becomes has the Blitz keyword ability on it, or indeed whether the thing that gave it the ability to Blitz is still in play. Delayed triggers like most activated and triggered abilities, are independent of their source once they have been created. Paragon - Again, we have an 'You may(foo). If you do(foo), (bar)" kind of setup. In this case, it's "If you do(play or cast such a card), it gains (Ability)". Not it *has* (Ability), it *gains* (Ability). It's the difference between an enchantment saying "Creatures you control *have* haste" vs "Creatures you control *gain* haste" - the former is a static continuous that holds the ability in place; the latter gives the ability then has no further interest in what happens, and if a duration is not stated, that duration is 'permanent, at long as that object exists'. The effect that permitted you to play the land card or cast the permanent spell from your graveyard should, under the old rules, be able to track the object it becomes since it is that ability that makes the movement possible. Even then, the ability being granted is being granted to a card that is either being played as a land, or cast as a spell - neither of those things are permanents, so the phrase 'this permanent' can only refer to "the permanent this card or spell becomes". And in THAT case, it is the ability that Paragon grants to the spell that is now setting up a delayed triggered ability that is watching for "when the permanent I become dies, exile that permanent" - the ability that is setting that up is an ability the Land Card or Permanent Spell had, not an ability that Paragon is responsible for maintaining. In either case, it is not Henzie nor Paragon tracking objects between zones, but abilities that they grant to other objects that are doing the tracking - and since those abilities exist independent of their source and the existing rules had no trouble with an ability tracking movement of an object between zones within itself when it explicitly states it does so... I don't see the problem. To be fair, the new rules clean up the process significantly and make it a LOT clearer that what is happening is allowed to happen, so that's a good thing. Clarification is extremely important. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding something important, which is highly likely. Under the above understanding, Flickerwisp on the Wasteland would cause the Wasteland to 'forget' that it is the permanent that the land card in the graveyard became - it is now a new object, and since it wasn't the ability that put it onto the battlefield moving it, that ability loses track of it; the delayed trigger no longer has an object to apply to. On the other hand, Doom Blade on the Paragon would accomplish nothing, since the delayed trigger has nothing to do with whether Serra Paragon is in play, by a couple degrees of separation at that point.

[@williamdrum9899]

You're thinking backwards. Cards like Flicker and Meathook Massacre are allowed to remember things only because they are granted exceptions to the rule that objects that change zones forget their previous existence. Otherwise they wouldn't work either

[@TheShadowflare789]

I know this comment is 9 months old, but for the sake of anyone reading this later: Henzie - As I understand it, the real problem is with the part of the Blitz ability that grants haste and the card draw triggered ability. If you look in the official rules for Blitz, those abilities are granted statically by the Blitz keyword while the permanent is on the battlefield, if it had been cast for its Blitz cost. So because Henzie says "creature spells you cast HAVE Blitz," the creature would cease to have the Blitz keyword on the battlefield. You are right that the delayed trigger to sacrifice the creature would still happen, because that happens on the stack, but the creature would lose haste and the death trigger when it hit the battlefield. Paragon - I'm less confident about this one, but as far as I can tell, the old rules allowed abilities to keep track of cards that were explicitly moved between zones by that ability. Paragon allows you to play cards from your graveyard, but the ability does not directly move the card from the graveyard onto the stack or battlefield, so it does not benefit from that rule. There was already an additional rule in place allowing abilities like this to track spells that were cast and put onto the stack, but there was no rule allowing the ability to track lands as they were played. Therefore lands played with Paragon's ability wouldn't gain the triggered ability from it because Paragon would lose track of them when you played them. I'm not entirely sure why Paragon needed the extra rule about static abilities that grant other abilities, but maybe if Paragon were worded as a trigger (i.e. "When you do, it gains..." instead of "If you do, it gains..."), that might have made it clearer that the played cards should keep their triggered ability after Paragon leaves (although I do agree that the phrasing "If you do, it gains..." rather than, for example, "Permanents played this way have..." seems like it should imply that regardless).

[@Krydax8]

@@TheShadowflare789 thanks for this. So would another solution be to just change blitz rules so that "if a creature is cast for its blitz cost, that creature has blitz"? Obviously the other solution is more general and a better solution, but would that have had the same impact for Henzie?

[@dr.jambonius7479]

You said: "Clap if you were able to follow..." I didn't clap... Also, congratulations on your excellent and precise video. Probably the only video I watch and then go back 2-3 mins several time during it to better grasp a concept. Thanks!

[@theemathas]

I think an interesting case of "They probably intended this card to function some other way" was Kappa Cannoneer. I think that the designers probably intended this card to *not* trigger when it itself enters the battlefield, since other similar cards would say "Whenever Kappa Cannoneer or another artifact...". But this is nowhere as clear as Henzie or Serra Paragon. And in my understanding, everyone plays the card as printed even though the text is very unintuitive.

[@danielschmider5069]

The card knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isnt. By subtracting where it is from where it isnt - or vice versa - it obtains a reference. The MTG Rules Subset for static abilities works as follows: If a reference modifies an object that changes the zone where it is, or was - whichever applies, it cannot modify the object itself. However, the reference must also know where it is (within reason). If a reference were to modify the object in a zone where it shouldn't be, it no longer is.

[@plsnohaterino]

wat

[@Farfetchd.]

@@plsnohaterino kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIvIZn1uiLt2j7M

[@Felixr2]

@@plsnohaterino Look up 'the missile knows where it is...'

[@maidenman987]

2:30 I get what the intent of this section is, but shouldn't you have used an instant spell as an example instead of OG Flicker which is a sorcery? Not gonna dodge many doomblades with that card.

[@JudgingFtW]

I actually thought Flicker was an Instant when I recorded this, and only noticed otherwise afterwards. I figured I wasn't going to re-record such a long video over a mistake like that, although maybe it would have been better to put Cloudshift or something onscreen instead of Flicker. Guess Amy must have had an invisible Vedalkan Orrery in play or something...

[@maidenman987]

@@JudgingFtW That makes sense. Like I said it doesn't really effect the point you're making, I just wanted to take the chance to be pedantic. Either way, I found your channel because of the hub bub over Henzoe Torre and Serra Paragon and I'm glad to see the issues resolved. You've done a great job explaining what the issues were as the cards released and this follow up on how the fixes work was a nice finale to that saga. Keep up the great work! Judges keep our game fun, fair, and alive and are often unappreciated, but moments like this really highlight how important y'alls job is.

[@andesmountain9178]

Yugioh judge here: This is interesting because yugioh has a far more elegant solution. It’s simply that card effects override game rules, and objects remember how they were put into any location whether public or private. Additionally, lingering triggers are potentially at play here with Serra paragon. So in yugioh logic, henzie would override the rules to play a card. You may cast a creature spell as normal or you can use a different method of cast outlined by henzie. This additional option is only present while henzie’s ability is applying, which is while in play and it’s ability is not being removed from it (like from frogify). Then when you use this alternative casting cost, the object being cast notes how it was placed on the stack, with the keyword blitz. Blitz does 3 things. It gives a static keyword ability of haste, and it gives a dies trigger to draw 1 card, and it gives a lingering triggered ability to sacrifice itself. Now that the object has been put onto the game board with blitz added to it, the object remembers how it got it, and the game (which is managed by persons playing said game) manages the 3 abilities it gained from this rule bending granted by henzie. The object leaving play seems to be the sticking point here especially with Serra paragon. If something leaves play it should be a new object, no longer influenced by any abilities put onto it. This is where yugioh has an elegant solution. In terms of gameplay and timing concerns, this action never occurs. However, the GAME checks certain sub-actions that the player must manage since the game is not sentient. When an object is to be placed from one area to another area (lack of the word zone is because exiled or banished in ygo is not a zone. They are not placed in any particular location, as zones are specific locations in game with other rules attached to them), the game needs to determine where does the object go. So in a case where leyline of the void is in play and a creature is destroyed in combat due to a lack of toughness, the card is on the field, but marked to be removed from the field because it’s reached a condition to be moved elsewhere. The game would send the creature to the graveyard but since leyline is overwriting then game rules to exile it instead, the creature is put into exile. In the case of Serra paragon, the object is leaving the area it was in, and it remembers why and how it was put on the area. The argument that it is a new object and would have to forget how it was put there, because it has left the battlefield, is ignoring the sub action taken by the game. The object is still present on the battlefield and has its lingering trigger ability. It remembers it’s meant to be exiled, and goes there because the game recognizes it’s still on the battlefield and is the same object that was given additional effects, but when it ends up in its location, it is considered a new object. The game sort of “back tracks” where an object came from and how, to determine if there is a game rule being circumvented by a card effect, which is the case with Serra paragon. Maybe it’s because I’ve played ygo for 20 years and I’m used to the rules more intimately than magic, but this is a very simple-to-understand rule, as opposed to a very lengthy discussion we saw here. There’s also the issue of the card being placed into a private location and how that affects triggered abilities, but that’s a ygo specific ruling which was amended for maintaining new rules. Anyways there is your ygo judge’s opinion lol. I’m just a nobody anyways hahaha.

[@RaunienTheFirst]

In Magic, cards *do* overrule the base rules. But it's to do with if or when players can take certain game actions, not how the game handles game objects. That needs a change to the actual rules.

[@williamdrum9899]

I think Yugioh does this well, except when it doesn't: *In Magic, text in parentheses is true regardless of whether it's printed there or not. Yugioh has text in parentheses yet it's just the same as rules text. * You can't ignore summoning conditions when special summoning from the graveyard ignoring summoning conditions * Missing the timing * Chain blocking * Damage Step * No "fail to find" rule I'm not trying to bash the game here, it does what you described very well but some of the game's rules just baffle me

[@michaelfradley6950]

I am almost certainly wrong, but I thought the use of the word “gains” implies that that thing is going to have it indefinitely, because it’s been “given”? As opposed to something saying it “has” it, which to me implies it has it as long as the thing that says it has it as around.

[@williamdrum9899]

They are different. Compare Colossus Hammer to Archetype of Imagination. Colossus Hammer - "Equipped creature loses flying" Archetype- "loses flying and can't have or gain flying" With Colossus Hammer you can give the equipped creature flying after equipping the hammer, and it will fly

[@shemjaaws]

Does Zevlor, Elturel Exile copy ability work with the choose both mode of sakashima's will.

[@snoozbuster]

Neat fixes. One small question - did they replace the previous Henzie-specific exception in the rules with the three new ones you brought up? I don’t think you specifically said they did, but I figure they would now that they have a general solution to the problem.

[@Felixr2]

After a quick look through the comprehensive rules, it looks like the original Henzie-specific exception has indeed been removed from the rules.

[@snoozbuster]

@@Felixr2 ahhhh… I love a good patch. Cheers

[@RBGolbat]

Speaking of 4 star rulings, would it be possible to get all the 3/4 star rulings In their own playlists?

[@JudgingFtW]

All the 3 and 4 star rulings are on my L2 prep playlist. I haven't made one of all the 4 star rulings yet, because I somehow didn't think of that idea until well into my first year of production, and I got intimidated at how many videos I would have to go through.

[@maximuscesar]

For me it was pretty obvious that when you play a card from your graveyard with Serra Paragon the cards gets the exile ability "in it's rule box" so the ability is on the played card not in the angel. The moment you play the card from your graveyard THE CARD gets the ability. It is something different from like Rest in Peace which the ability is linked to the card.

[@andersnielsen3217]

Thank you for this!!!

[@corentinhardy4791]

Question ! Is there a way to copy a "suspend" activation. With like Magus Lucea Kane and Aeon chronicler. I Think it doesnt work but i would like to know why and where in the incomprehensive rules.

[@antitheta777]

Suspend is not an activated ability in the hand, it is a static ability [702.62A]. In theory I believe if a suspended spell had an X in it's mana cost, you could activate magus's ability in response to the trigger that would cast it to cause it to be copied, but x would be zero, and probably useless in most cases.

[@haydens6451]

I didn't quite understand, if you flicker a card cast from the graveyard with Serra, does it keep the static ability or it comes in fresh as a new item?

[@theemathas]

It loses the ability. The exception only applies for moving from the graveyard to the stack to the battlefield, and doesn't apply any further than that.

[@richardsmith9615]

Hi, really would appreciate if you could answer a ruling question I have :) If I have a Dryad Militant in Play and my opponent uses the "Stomp" sorcery from Bonecrusher Giant on another creature I control, would the Bonecrusher Giant end up in exile? This is more a question about how static exile effects on creatures apply to adventures cards, than specifically bonecrusher giant. Many thanks, Rich

[@weegeelinguini3704]

Yes, you could still cast the creature from exile. Casting an adventure sets up a replacement effect that exiles the card on resolution, meaning it never hits the graveyard

[@richardsmith9615]

@@weegeelinguini3704 Thank you for the response :) Disappointing, at least it still has some uses, but really hoped it'd prevent that extra card people get from Bonecrusher Giants lol

[@senken12]

So does this mean that if you were to play something from your graveyard through Serra Paragon, and then flicker it, it would retain the exile clause from serra paragon?

[@jeezuhskriste5759]

It shouldn’t. When it returns to the battlefield, it’s not the same permanent you played with Serra Paragon.

[@Jaketg93]

Wheres the comp article that made this change? I can't find it on the wizard's website

[@JudgingFtW]

They just published it today! magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/comprehensive-rules-changes-2022-10-18

[@christmas6666]

love the "deep dive" content!

[@SoulofStorm333]

You know, the point about those card leaving the battlefield but still applying static effect remind me of the mtg arena mechanic of "permanently changing stat" . I just find the idea you have to remenber text that are not on the card and not shown with counter, even when the card doing the effect is gone, is really bad design. So yeah, in the case of Henzie it's not a problem because it's on a time limit, but for serra paragon this is really annoying imo

[@Jerhevon]

Paragon probably has the most effect, but yeah, there's a lot of things that apply a "Exile if it leaves" clause, and a number of those also put a counter on the creature. But they're not necessarily connected either. Like From the Catacombs resurrects something, puts a corpse counter on it, and exiles the creature if it leaves play. But the corpse counter itself is mechanically inert. A counter with zero things referencing it. Do agree that it could be better design, go bake the exile it leaves play into an ability word and have all those effects just give it a Token of that in the future. Kind of like the way we now have Stun counters for the long running freeze effect blue often gets.

[@JudgingFtW]

Legally, you're allowed to put a die or other small marker on the stuff Serra Paragon brings back to remind you that it's supposed to get exiled. I admit it's not an ideal solution, but it's at least something.

[@SoulofStorm333]

@@JudgingFtW Would wording it something like "these creature enter the battlefield with an emblem" work ?

[@Felixr2]

@@SoulofStorm333 It wouldn't. First of all, the phrasing you used doesn't mean anything. You could say something like 'As that permanent enters the battlefield, create an emblem with...' But there's a problem. The emblem won't be able to identify which creature Serra Paragon just put on the battlefield. You'd also end up with a whole stack of emblems that don't do anything after the permanent is gone, if it actually worked in the first place.

[@okaysherbert8081]

I have a question. Does putting a sticker on a card count as “modifying” it for something like Akki Battle Squad?

[@naomicoffman1315]

No. Modified is specifically defined as having a counter, or having an Aura or Equipment attached to it, and stickers aren't any of those. Sorry!

[@thetimebinder]

Did this mean until these new rules, that Laces (Death Lace) didn't make the permanent spell it targeted be that changed color on the battlefield?

[@Flashofblades]

I whole heartedly love this video. I'd want to know how you feel on other unintuitive rules interactions like Oko vs Magus of the moon, or Why blinking an Azusa doesn't give you additional land drops. I know the reasons why they don't work, but if you agree with them within the rules on how they function, as they seem unintuitive.

[@stellatedhexahedron6985]

i don't think blinking azusa is unintuitive. if blinking it gave you extra land drops, the text on azusa would have to say something like "When azusa enters the battlefield, and at the start of each of your upkeep steps, you may play two extra lands this turn." and also it would keep working even if she died during your turn, which is *definitely* unintuitive. i do agree the layers system needs work, though i'm also willing to admit i'm glad to not be the one to have to do it.

[@Flashofblades]

@@stellatedhexahedron6985 My thing, is blinking Azusa in unintuitive as say if I were to infinitely cast an explore over and over, that's ok and giving me infinite land drops as it's a new game object each time you do it. however Id I blink asuza, play two lands, and blink her again, then play 2 more lands, it feels like we should be able to. aka that seems more intuitive

[@colgatelampinen2501]

I disagree on Oko vs Magus of the moon on being unintuitive. Of course you gotta apply type changes before ability changes. Would you rather have bunch of nonindestructible artifacts with mycosynth lattice and darksteel forge? Blinking Azusa used to work that way, it got changed in same update that they introduced new legend rule. With old rule if you had multiple ways to play extra lands you had to specify which effect you used for each land drop to make unambigious plays. Maybe it was more intuitive, but it took more effort to play with as well.

[@Flashofblades]

@@colgatelampinen2501 Every single time at an event I'm judging I have a "Weird judge questions with James" segment and ask people what they would rule in scenarios and 99% of people that aren't judges assume Oko vs magus of the moon and Azusa work in the ways I've described. I know why things are the way they are, and as I'm sure most people on this video do, but that doesn't make them intuitive to the average player. Hell to some L1s I've talked to, they also don't understand it. It is not intuitive.

[@williamdrum9899]

​@@colgatelampinen2501 I think the greater issue is that while making lands into mountains is a type change effect, it's functionally an ability removal effect except it applies on an earlier layer than other such effects. Basically, Blood Moon existed before layers did and we've been paying for it ever since

[@mywife69]

Can you make a video explaining the interaction between double sided cards and Yedora, Grave Gardener? I think I understand what happens with face-down double sided cards but I don’t really understand why.

[@TwoflowerTheTourist]

At the risk of spoiling a future video: Yedora works with DFCs the same as with regular cards, i.e. they enter face down as a Forest land with no other abilities or types. As for the why, I will direct you to rule 712.11 (which you can then contrast that with 712.12 for extra credit)

[@miserepoignee9594]

This was covered in DDR#363 here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mam7Z3x4aNSIg9E

[@mcolby7214]

This ruling makes me wanna mutate onto a morphed creature with a darksteel mutation

[@l33tminion]

Yeesh. Previously, I would have thought it obvious that the cards should work "as expected". Serra Paragon did on Arena (and I assume Magic Online?), where Wizards could have had it otherwise, if they wanted. That's an official ruling of sorts. But the question of what _exactly_ is the fix convinces me of the thorniness of the issue. I'd hate to be in the shoes of either the player with the Paragon/Wasteland deck (or similar) or their opponent.

[@michaelfradley6950]

20:00 the core issue with the “genius” of combo creation vs the “jerk-iness” of well actuallying Serra Paragon is one of positivity vs negativity. People like new ideas, but don’t like when someone negates new ideas. It’s why no one likes control decks lol

[@z-super4782]

So my question is what happens if we flicker the grizzly bear after blitz-ing it.

[@jeezuhskriste5759]

Amy and Nick have decided to have a little unset fun. Amy controls a Brazen Dwarf and a 1/1 white Soldier creature token. Nick casts GO TO JAIL, targeting Amy’s Soldier token. Does Amy still get to roll dice during her upkeep? This question was inspired by a custom card I saw. Basically, does the game know that Amy was the owner of the exiled card, even though that card can’t be found?

[@weegeelinguini3704]

Since tokens cease to exist as a state based action, and tokens are not cards, there is no card exiled with go to jail

[@stellatedhexahedron6985]

​@@weegeelinguini3704 all of those things you just said are true, but "the card exiled with go to jail" really means "the *object* exiled with go to jail". so it's possible, though I don't whether it's actually the case, that the game uses the last known information of the target of the ETB to determine who gets to roll the dice. Incidentally, this isn't an unset-exclusive conundrum; a short gatherer search turned up Bishop of Binding, which on attack buffs a vampire by the power of the exiled card.

[@weegeelinguini3704]

@@stellatedhexahedron6985 Thanks for using a black border card to prove my point, one of Bishop of bindings rulings says that if a token is exiled it ceases to exist, meaning there is no "object" exiled with bishop on attack

[@williamdrum9899]

8:22 Funnily enough this very idea confused me when playing Yugioh. There's a card in that game that is worded like Nightcreep but its effect acts like Darkest Hour. (The card is Miscellaneousaurus for Yugioh players reading this.) That being said, Yugioh rules are even worse than MTG rules with regards to unintuitive jankiness

[@knave5759]

Gonna dip out on this one but here’s my engagement comment 🎉

[@IcedNeonFlames]

I checked online, and I didn't see any changes to the comprehensive rules to make Serra Paragon work the way it's "supposed" to. When/where did you see this change?

[@JudgingFtW]

They just published an article today where they mentioned it: magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/comprehensive-rules-changes-2022-10-18 As regards how I was able to publish this before the article came out, I don't have any advanced insider knowledge as a judge or a content creator. I download the Comprehensive Rules every time I access it to be sure that I get the most up to date copy every time. The updated CR, with the rules mentioned in this video, was available via that route around a week before the article went live. The CR has a "last updated" date at the very top when you first start reading it, so I was able to notice that was different from the one that had been up, and I'm familiar enough with the structure and layout of the document that I was able to find the rules relevant to this scenario and see how they had changed.

[@IcedNeonFlames]

@@JudgingFtW I didn't know they made rules changes a few days publishing the article on rules changes on the MTG home page. I'd thought they made a change just for Serra Paragon and I'd missed the announcement

[@kairu1988]

The angel and the devil on our shoulders.

[@danielfrazier5586]

As far as I remember, these cards work just based off Wizard Rule Magic!

[@laurelkeeper]

That’s literally how they work - the rules Wizards made for Magic

[@damien4197]

I dunno, I'd say the versions given of what one psychologically expects might be conditioned by the game... and those used to other systems would find it unintuitive. Unsummons, as some sort of unmaking, I see easily working as expected... but a dimension shift to dodge a spell? Many could expect duration spells and equipment to stay on. Resurrection? Depends on sort, generally would still be wearing equipment, no positive or negative duration spells would remain, but permanent physical changes from spells or tech may be purged or may not. Magic just didn't have a way to represent such things (and literally "murdered" the game that did, heh)... what matters is it's consistent in working within the restrictions it has.

[@artemisspawnofzeus7732]

The fuck are you on about?

[@fieldrequired283]

The idea is less that every interaction makes sense in-fiction (Progenitus is obviously super tall, so it should have reach!) and more that, with a moderate level of rules knowledge, relatively simple interactions between cards should be intuitive. You shouldn't have to break out the CR to figure out what happens when you cast Giant Growth on a Grizzly Bears. The rules are designed to make it so cards work the way your rules intuition says they should work, not the way your flavor intuition says they should work. The game expects you to see the cards as abstractions when parsing tricky rules interactions, buy they should be abstractions that behave predictably.

[@damien4197]

@@fieldrequired283 Not at all what invoking "psychological expectations" conveys to me. Thus why I posted. Sorry you missed that. Bye.

[@fieldrequired283]

@@damien4197 What a weirdly passive-aggressive post.

[@velocirapturedinosir8164]

It sounds to me like Wizards could use a "Standing Orders" type policy, where they can put out very specific rulings without having to resort to band-aids in the comprehensive rules.

[@williamdrum9899]

I feel like this would be bad for the game long term.

[@amisanthropicman]

I still do not like the way that these cards are templated. For instance, the wording "Each creature spell you cast ... has blitz..." make it sound like you must pay the cost and cast the card before it gains the ability to cast it for the blitz cost.

[@ethanneustadt9555]

This is my comment!

[@forcebane]

Yeah, nah, I'm friggin lost. I consider myself to be knowledgable about the game, but this is too much. Ain't even gonna mention the second part of the video.

[@thenamedoesnotmatter]

400.7 is one of the primary reasons why I hold such disdain for MtG Alchemy cards.

[@Jerhevon]

The funniest thing about the Henzie situation is that WOTC worded the card in a way that was weirdly arcane to begin with. Like if they explicitly called out a specific layer while denoting a card's continuing effect. I'm still unclear why they just didn't say "Expensive cards in your hand have blitz equal to their casting cost." or "You may cast expensive cards in your hand as if they had blitz equal to their casting cost." Though it's possible those hit relatives of the same situation, that in practice we have "these are the technical stpes of casting a spell, but most of the time you just gloss that over and can do them in any order as long as you've hit all these marks before the next step."

[@TwoflowerTheTourist]

The wording on Henzie isn't really that arcane though. It's basically the standard template for giving something an additional or alternative cost. Just look at cards like Dream Devourer, Falkenrath Gorger, Djinn Illuminatus or even Snapcaster Mage. "X has , is equal to Y" is not novel by any means. It's just the specifics of blitz that made Henzie the problem child.

[@Jerhevon]

@@TwoflowerTheTourist There's something just excessively weird feeling when it's "Each spell you cast has blitz." Many of the modifiers are tweaking the spells's casting cost. And a few add additional costs like Replicate or Casualty. It just feels extra arcane to say "each spell you cast has blitz", but I'm already casting the spell, how can I choose to use blitz if it doesn't already have blitz? I guess it must work afterall! Whereas adding modes with Replicate, I suppose does all the same things technically, but just feels more natural to go, ok, I'm casting this spell normally, and just need to tap some extra for the replicate.

[@Karonar]

What would a judge do in this situation? Use common sense, and not the logic of KZbin commentators 🤣

[@Karonar]

PS: I lost my 2 levels 95 times the last months before the fix. Wait a second.