DDR

[@jonas.groschwitz]

This really is a satisfying ruling. The rule about how a reflexive/delayed triggered ability is owned by the owner of the activated ability is just exactly the right concept to make this work as expected. Props to the rule writers for this one.

[@admiralcasperr]

According to the shown 109.5, the "you" for an activated ability is the player who activated that ability. So even when the Yes Man's text would say "Then draw two cards" the outcome should be the same, as the player who activated it is still Amy, regardless of who controls the source. Just like with Xantcha, Sleeper Agent's activated ability.

[@mememe628]

My guess is that it was worded that way at some point in the design process, but they decided to change it to a reflexive trigger. One result of the change is that Amy (using the Amy vs. Nick situation in the video) can't sacrifice or destroy Yes Man in response to its ability and get the benefits of both the card draw and the death trigger. If she does, the "when" condition never occurs, so the draw two reflexive trigger never enters the stack. That said, an intervening if would do the same thing. I don't work for wotc and can't say why they chose what they did for sure. That said, there are differences. A major one is that, as two separate triggers, the reflexive trigger can be responded to separately (e.g. copied, stifled, etc.). Additionally, having it be a reflexive trigger means that state-based actions are checked between, which could matter if there are state-based actions that would, for example, cause yes man to die for having zero toughness due to some continuous effect applying to Nick's creatures. Finally, it might just be bad future-proofing to have the same ability resolution change control of a permanent and then put a counter on it in that order.

[@mememe628]

(Whoops. Leaves the battlefield trigger, not death trigger)

[@DUxMORTEM]

The reason it is worded this way is to avoid another Humble Defector abuse. Humble Defector allows the player to activate it and then sac it to something for a free draw two. Yes Man is made this way to ensure an opponent actually gets control of it.

[@feliksporeba5851]

@@DUxMORTEM In that case, if the card was worded "If you do..." It would have the same effect

[@Tzizenorec]

I think for the "troll" version of Yes-man to (un-)work as Dave intended, the most deceptive wording would be: "Tap: Target opponent gains control of Yes-Man." "When Yes-Man changes controllers, you draw two cards and put a quest counter on Yes-Man." That way, the ability to draw two cards actually comes from Yes-Man _after_ it has changed controllers.

[@HeavyMetalMouse]

If the ability didn't use a reflexive trigger, as in the mockup alter, wouldn't Amy still be the player who controls the activated ability? Giving control of the Yes Man to the opponent does not change who controls the activation, so the 'you' in the ability resolving would still be Amy when that ability it instructs its controller to draw two cards and put a quest counter on Yes Man.

[@drillerkiller9]

No, since in that case it would be a simple triggered ability not a reflexive triggered ability. As this event triggering, is not conditional on the gain control part actually happening. And this triggered ability would be created by Yes Man, which at this point would be under Nicks control.

[@Thatwasademo]

@@drillerkiller9With the wording shown ("... Then you draw" instead of anything with "when" or "whenever") it wouldn't be a triggered ability at all, but simply a second instruction in the activated ability. And we already know the activated ability's controller doesn't change while it's resolving just because it gave control of its source away.

[@Eagle0600]

@@drillerkiller9 They're not talking about it being a triggered ability at all. They're saying if it said something like "Target player gains control of Yes Man and you draw 2 cards." In that case, they're correct. And in general, it's true if the part that instructs you to draw two cards is in the same paragraph of text as the activated ability.

[@julianogodoy964]

The ability refers to the opponent as "They" in "When they do", so it seems pretty clear to me that "you" is the controller of the card

[@rav5373]

Does Yes Man work? Yes Man

[@Luxalpa]

I don't think the change on the wording in 3:37 would be changing the outcome. Amy is still controlling the activated ability even if the creature has changed its controller during its resolution, so it would still be Amy drawing those cards, right?

[@cool_scatter]

Looks like you're right. CR 109.5 "The words “you” and “your” on an object refer to the object’s controller... For an activated ability, this is the player who activated the ability."

[@fieldrequired283]

For it to be broken the way Nick seems to be arguing in the problem statement, it would actually have to be two completely different abilities. Something like: "[T]: Target opponent gains control of Yes Man. When Yes Man changes controllers, you draw 2 cards." I think that would be the simplest way to confuse this type of ability in a way that cuts in the other direction.

[@theunease5541]

I have another different ruling question about Yes Man. I built a Yes Man "storm" commander deck. Deck is filled with every 1-2 MV untap effect in mono-white. The idea being to activate Yes Man's ability, cast or activate an untap effect with the ability on the stack, then tap again and repeat to draw a ton of cards and put a ton of quest counters on Yes Man all at once. First question, does that work? I'm 99% sure it does. Otherwise I wouldnt have bothered building the deck, but still. If the answer is yes. Second question, the one I am much much less certain about, does Yes Man's "when they do, you draw two" require Yes Man changing control from one player to another in order for me to draw the cards. Aka, can i target the same opponent with all the activations and still draw 2 for each activation like I want. If the answer is yes it needs to change control, you can't target one opponent. Question 3, can I target 2 different opponents, swapping between them, to fix this problem? So 1st activation target opponent A, second activation opponent B, 3rd back to A again. Resolves, Yes Man moves from me to A, then to B, then back to A and I draw 6 put three quest counters. I am quite uncertain about the second and third parts and therefore if the deck works at all. But also the deck is a silly concept and was quick to put together so I wont be distraught if it doesn't work. Thank you if you respond and thanks for the good video anyways if not.

[@Debatra.]

For Question 1, it absolutely works. For Question 2, I'm less certain. I'm inclined to say that you can't "gain" control of something you already have control of. I'm not 100% sure though. Your proposed fix in Question 3 would definitely work though, as long as none of the targeted opponents had a way to destroy or sacrifice it mid-resolution.

[@feliksporeba5851]

"Yes" Man's ability should still make Amy draw the cards. Amy is the player who activated the ability, so she is the "you" the ability is referencing

[@brandyourfan9244]

Better question for you judges... If you untap Yes Man in response to his ability, and use it again, targeting the same player both times, how many cards will you draw? My logic says 2, because upon the second trigger resolving, you have already given the creature, so the "when" part can't apply. Had this come up in one of my playgroups, so any help would be appreciated

[@jerodast]

This is one of those "let me guess why this is a question" challenges...which I failed :) My best guess was "can a 'leaves the battlefield' effect look back in time to see the number of quest counters."

[@VihnNem]

Is there a MTG equivalent to yugiohs "warrior of atlantis" problem? (Warrior says discard to search 'A Legendary Ocean', except 'A Legendary Ocean' says its name is always treated as 'Umi', so technically by game mechanics there is no card called A Legendary Ocean and they had to rule the card works because its obviously supposed work.

[@z_o_i_n_k_s]

I do not think any card simply "works because it works" in Magic. If there is ever a templating problem, the card's text receives errata and the card gets treated as if its text were written that way regardless of its printing (Time Vault had a very problematic template when it was first printed). Some cards do create new rulings to handle unforeseen fringe cases or new mechanics, such as the static abilities of Ashiok, Wicked Manipulator and Space Beleren (see CR 614.13c, 702.158). The closest I can think of to Warrior of Atlantis and Legendary Ocean is that of Diligent Farmhand and Muscle Burst, but the original templating was handled correctly.

[@laslopanaflex5053]

@@z_o_i_n_k_s Blood Moon has specifically written for it, obscure rules just for it to work with the classic "Nonbasiclands are mountains" line. WotC will never errata that card

[@z_o_i_n_k_s]

@@laslopanaflex5053 That rule does not only apply to Blood Moon. It applies to various cards such as Sea's Claim and Conversion. Conversion was actually printed before Blood Moon as well.

[@alexanderdickens2517]

0:45 Do you have some examples of these cards that don’t work within the rules the way it reads on the card?

[@synchron9855]

I love this channel so much

[@LawrenceMiles1972]

I don't know Fallout and I haven't been following Fallout Magic, so I read the title of this video and thought you were having a stroke.

[@PNGuinMan]

With the OTJ spoilers showing the new Spree mechanic, can you explain how it works with Cascade?

[@X20Adam]

Simply eat the card. Eating the card explains the card.

[@selkokieli843]

Rules question: Can you play a land from hideaway? Difference between main phase vs instant? Normally you can play a land if land plays are available, it's your mainphase and the stack is empty. However, is the stack is empty if you're resolving the ability that let's you play the exiled card?

[@Frommerman]

Hideaway lets you ignore timing restrictions on playing a card normally imposed by the rules of the game. The sorcery only restriction is a timing restriction, so you get to ignore it off hideaway. Not being able to play lands on an opponent's turn isn't a timing restriction, so Hideaway can't ignore it.

[@selkokieli843]

@@Frommerman Thank you! I'm familiar with ignoring timing restrictions but didn't think it would extend to non-spells.

[@z_o_i_n_k_s]

For completeness, I will also add that Hideaway is not the ability that allows you to play the card; it only exiles. That is left to the rest of the card's text to determine how it gets used. I mention this only because Smuggler's Buggy for some reason says to "cast the exiled card" from Hideaway, which cannot be done because lands are never cast. (I misread Frommerman's post. He is right on all accounts)

[@jonothanthrace1530]

So... is this card worded the way it is so you can't benefit from the draw/quest counters even if there's an effect in play that prevents permanents from changing controllers? (I don't know any cards which do that, feel free to point them out to me.)

[@wehpudicabok6598]

Oh man, the trollface meme. I haven't seen that face in years...

[@SmashmanVideos]

Surprised that you didn't mention that you can't sacrifice Yes Man with the control change on the stack. If you do, the reflective trigger never triggers, so you won't get the card draw.

[@reverbstarlight3405]

Ah, I was wondering about why this ability wasn’t formatted in the same way as Humble Defector’s, but that must be the reason. Thanks for pointing out that detail!

[@oliviangeorge9974]

How does the new Emrakul work?

[@gilliganallmighty3]

This is a good video for newer players. Yes Man will be the source of many a "JUDGE!" call.

[@Vex-MTG]

I don't think it will. There's three possible knowledge-levels when interacting with yes-man. High knowledge, mid knowledge, and low knowledge (of MTG and rules; this isn't a general intelligence thing). Only that middle level is really at any risk of confusion. At the other two levels, they'll either understand how reflexive triggers work, or won't understand the rules enough to even wonder about how it works.

[@TheTransforcer]

There also is the spirit of the card. Why would you put a 3W T4 card in your deck only for your opponent to be the one to benefit from it and wait or even hope for the other players to cycle it around the table back to you.

[@assault410]

Yes man, it does work

[@LegiondaryBro]

Now how does this work if you in response to the activated ability use something to in response untap Yes Man then retap him for his ability

[@fieldrequired283]

The second player targeted gains control, you draw two cards, then the first player targeted gains control, and you draw 2 more cards. You get 4 cards total and the player initially targeted ends up with Yes Man.

[@LegiondaryBro]

@@fieldrequired283 what if a guy has something that he can donate it with an instant like the 2R play instrument with a kitten on it that says Target opponent gains control Target permanent you control how would resolving that ability affect then?

[@fieldrequired283]

@@LegiondaryBro You'd have to specify when everything is cast and activated and with which targets.

[@LegiondaryBro]

@@fieldrequired283 yes man is activated p2 is the target in response to activation use something to untap Yes Man then tap Yes Man and Target P3 untap yes man Target P4 with activation. P4 activation resolve and the ability targeting P3 goes on The stack and P4 uses a instant spell to donate yes man to p2 or flashes in a gilded Drake targeting the Yes Ma. does it cancel out the previous abilities? And who gets control of him

[@fernandob2275]

“When they do” before “you draw two cards” explains it easier. People just have a lower reading intelligence than they would like to admit.

[@cool_scatter]

It has nothing to do with "reading intelligence". Getting this correct relies on knowing that reflexive triggers are controlled by the controller of the ability that spawned them, not the game object that did. That isn't spelled out on the card anywhere.

[@shaden489]

Unfortunately this still doesn't answer my biggest question with yes man who I've gotten different answers from different judges on. Ok so here is the scenario player A controls yes man and activates yes man targeting player B. With that ability on the stack player A uses a voltaic key to untap yes man and then activated yes man again with the first ability in the stack. Now what I need to know is does player A draw cards if they targeted player B with both abilities or will they only draw off the first one resolving

[@snoozbuster]

my guess would be that after one instance resolves, player B can't gain control of a permanent they already own. so the "when they do" will not go off. it might work if you targeted two different players but I'm a little fuzzy on how exactly a gain control effect would work in that circumstance (specifically I don't recall if a gain control effect can work if the controller of the permanent is not the same as it was when the ability is put on the stack, although it seems like it would).

[@TheYWNightmare]

If you targeted two different players with each ability, you would draw four cards. If you target the same player twice, when the second instance of the ability resolves and tries to have that opponent gain control of Yes Man, it can't since they already control it. Thus, the reflexive trigger doesn't trigger and you don't draw any cards.

[@giorgioleoni3471]

Do delayed trigger abilities count as triggered abilities? Do they go on the stack separately?

[@JasonOshinko]

Yes and yes.

[@cool_scatter]

Yes.

[@isaz2425]

yes, and yes.

[@T4N7]

To me, the answer is obvious since the same sentence says both "they" n "u" so the game isn't going to reffer to the same player (Nick in this example) with 2 different terms. But as u stated, the person who activates an ability or casts a spell ctrls it n the ability or spell's wording containing the word "u" will always refer to the player who ctrls the effect.

[@Cheerwine091]

If you’re going to quote a word on the rules of a mtg card, the least you can do is not shorten it to the same thing as another, more common abbreviation for a blue pip (U). Made this kinda hard to read.

[@giorgioleoni3471]

What if it read "If", instead of "When"?

[@JasonOshinko]

Then it wouldn't be a triggered ability. Gavin Verhey's channel has a really good video explaining in the difference.

[@giorgioleoni3471]

@@JasonOshinkoAnd, in such a case, the opponent would draw the cards, right?

[@fieldrequired283]

​@@giorgioleoni3471 In that case, all of the text taken together is only a single ability, and the "you" refers to the controller of the activated ability, which is still Amy even after the part of the ability where Yes Man changes controllers. Once an activated ability is on the stack, it doesnt change controllers even if the source of the activated ability changes controllers.

[@giorgioleoni3471]

​@@fieldrequired283What about the example shown at 3:37, then?

[@fieldrequired283]

@@giorgioleoni3471 Exact same deal. Its all one ability, as near as I can tell, so "you" means Amy throughout the entire resolution.

[@NatetheNerdy]

They could have copied Humble Defectors' wording and avoided the confusion.

[@crypticDJ]

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Dont know why it was even a question.

[@miserepoignee9594]

This is addressed at the very beginning timestamp 0:29

[@nolife874]

i was very scared watching this i want to make a yes man deck and hearing he might not work as written was shocking

[@THEN00BINATORX3]

there is a yugioh monster named Silent Wobby. it has the effect "during your main phase you can summon (cast) this monster (creature) to the opponent's sode of the field, if you do, draw 1 card, and your opponent gains 2000 life." because it goes to the opponent, they draw the card, and the owner (you) gain 2000 life. i know its a separate game, but Yes Man should work the way Silent Wobby does.

[@cyclone8411]

yugioh judge here, silent wobby works because it is summoned to their side of the board and it's effect triggers "when summoned this way" if there were a card with an activated quick effect that said something like "give control of this to your opponent then draw 1 card, and if you do, your opponent gains 2000 life points" the player who activated it would draw the card because effects resolve where they are activated and belong to the player that activated then. wobby being on summon means the opponent activated the effect so they draw. all this is to say, even if you worded yes man like a yugioh card this ruling would still be correct

[@THEN00BINATORX3]

@@cyclone8411 silent wobby does not work that way. it draws the opponent a card and you gain 2000. otherwise itd have seen competitive play

[@cyclone8411]

@@THEN00BINATORX3 read what I said again. silent wobby is bad and its worded to work that way, but the wording is very similar to magic card templating. when summoned draw a card. you summoned it to their board so it triggers on summon under their control so they draw. we agree on what silent wobby does. i was clarifying that its wording would work the same on a magic card, it triggers when summoned

[@andrewbrock3675]

Seems like they should have spent an extra 5 mins wording in better?

[@schwarzertee7586]

Sorry but to me the card text is 100% obvious. Not just because it is obvious what was intended. Also the language used is obvious. Anyone who thinks "But it says you" is just an idiot.

[@angryhobbitt]

wow that was a waste of 4 whole mins for me

[@JudgingFtW]

If you're short on time, the answer is listed in the description.

[@profwoland8942]

I did not do well, but that has nothing to do with magic 🥲