DDR

[@bondeulv]

Playing Calibrated Blast in Modern, using Boseiju, Who Shelters All to make it uncounterable, and then having the reflexive trigger get countered by Tishana's Tidebinder suuuucks.

[@andreslozano3000]

Excellent explanation! This is low key one of my favorite channels on KZbin.

[@saulgoodguy1840]

Thank you so much for this! I thought the answer to this seemed unintuitive in the last video with Zoraline. I would much rather have an outcome be unintuitive than be dictated by a twitter post from a WotC employee though lol.

[@alexzavoluk2271]

8:10 It sounds like the phrase "ability of an X" should be reworded. It's kind of vague but it's clear, in most cases, what it means. However, corner cases like this seem like they highlight that it's not really unambiguous. This definition doesn't have to be on the cards; it can be written out in the CR that "ability of X" actually means "ability with a source that is currently an X" or "ability with a source that was X when the ability triggered or was activated" if you don't want to write that all out every time.

[@deeppurplehaze95]

I like the adding "source" solution. Back in the day with green slime, i advocated just using "permanent ability" instead of "permanent's ability". It avoids putting "source" on cards too much, but it still references the source because of how the rules treat that templating. I believe it was because of Protection. Because something with Protection from artifacts is protected from any "artifact ability" which is any ability from an artifact source.

[@JudgingFtW]

"Permanent ability" is not a great idea imo because it is very easily confused for other game concepts such as static abilities, especially for players coming from other card games which use similar terminology (ygo).

[@deeppurplehaze95]

Green Slime shout-out!! I remember discussing this exact issue back then, so glad to hear it got a resolution of sorts. Even if it's a whole Twitter/Tabak ruling thing again

[@gogt200]

When I made that comment highlighting the Twitter ruling in the previous vid, this is exactly the sort of video I was hoping to get. Thank you so much!

[@gkiyo]

I would definitely expect the liquimetal-coated sneak attack example to work the same as soul cauldron or Zoraline. All 3 would be delayed triggered abilities, right? So you'd expect the game to treat them the same way.

[@jerodast]

Soul Cauldron and Zoraline are not delayed triggers, they're reflexive ones. It's just that most of what you do with reflexive triggers are the same as delayed ones :) With delayed triggers, you could see an argument that because it could trigger many game phases after the original object was interacted with, it should somehow be less connected with that object. But I personally agree with you and Judge Dave, it should work the same.

[@artemiskearney8019]

I had always assumed that delayed and reflexive triggers were essentially an ability having an ability, like how spells can have activated and triggered abilities. (Thus meaning it's not an ability of the permanent at all, just an ability of an ability of the permanent.) Interesting to learn that an ability's source is "inherited" like that.

[@Vulcapyro]

Part of the difficulty intuiting this is that delayed and reflexive triggers *are* abilities of abilities, not abilities "of the permanent", but when asking for the source of a currently-existing ability, the answer is the initial permanent.

[@bryantan4228]

6:28 It should be noted that "artifact, creature, or planeswalker source" is not the correct wording for your suggestion. Unlike the phase "artifact, creature, or planeswalker" which implies permanent, "artifact, creature, or planeswalker source" is any object with the property (109.2c) which allows Brown Ouphe to counter Cityscape Leveller's unearth for example. Tishana's Tidebinder making ninjutsu creatures lose abilities while in hand is bad mojo.

[@GolbezSA]

I agree with your point, but Dave does specify "artifact, creature, or planeswalker *permanent* source" when suggesting this change at the timestamp you linked :)

[@bryantan4228]

@@GolbezSA My bad, didn’t hear it. It’s interesting though because “permanent source” has never appeared in magic history based on a quick scryfall search

[@JudgingFtW]

I was careful to word my proposed fix properly in case anyone from Wizards wanted to use it. I didn't talk about why that wording is needed because this video was already getting long, but I did mention it in my previous video with Tishana's Tidebinder vs the Standard metagame. I'm not sure why "permanent source" has never showed up yet. The first cards (Teferi's Response, Trickbind, etc.) to feature this sort of functionality predated reflexive triggers, but had the same issue with delayed triggers.

[@bryantan4228]

@@JudgingFtW My understanding as to why "permanent source" never came up is that the only reason to use the word "source" is to say "any object permanent or non permanent". In cases where they want to use "creature permanent source" they would say "creatures" like with Ethereal Haze or just "target creature" Honestly, the only real effective difference is that "a creature permanent source" wouldn't target while an effect that designates a specific creature generally targets like comparing say Burrenton Forge Tender vs Maze of Ith. It's only in this specific case where you have reflexive trigger shenanigans that you need "permanent source"

[@bryantan4228]

@ Also another issue with using source and Tishana's Tidebinder is that as far as I'm aware, when someone mentions source, they never affect the source. You can prevent or double the damage the source deals or track the source's properties to determine whether you can interact with its ability, but I've never seen anything change characteristics of a source

[@BluuJacket]

Fantastic explanation!

[@eos1109]

The most important difference in my mind from a game play perspective between reflexive triggers and delayed triggers is in how you have the ability to respond to it. For a reflexive trigger the only opportunity is when it is created, a delayed trigger allows a response both when the trigger is created and when its delayed portion is triggered. This makes them distinctly different in how they behave. For me my first real tournament experience with the ins and outs of reflexive triggers came with lightning rift. Similar to frenzied goblin this has an "if you do" clause in it. In mirror matches or especially against decks like ravager affinity at the time the fact that you paid the mana on resolution of the ability was very relevant. If they sacrificed the artifact in response you simply didn't have to pay the mana, or if they chose to modular onto it in response likewise you could chose to or not to spend the mana depending on the situation. I personally don't care too much in how they make abilities work as long as they are consistent. To me, the behavior of lightning rift or frenzied goblin was intuitive and the change to a template similar to labyrinth adversary is similar to how they have gone away from the oblivion ring template toward the banishing light template. The oblivion ring interaction with flicker or bounce effects in response to its first trigger always made sense to me anyway. They wanted to change the interaction to make it "intuitive" in the common scenario but also made it somewhat counterintuitive in some fringe case scenarios. No rules change or note should solely come from social media and be official. If you want an exception to a rule either make it in the rulebook (e.g. bestow or mutate's interaction with no legal targets) or write an errata to the card in the official database to make it behave in the way you desire. Sometimes in the quest for "more elegant design" (less wordy) they omit very important words that come back to bite them. The tidebinder should absolutely say source as he described in the video as an errata. I generally have felt that the last 10 years of magic has been way more lax with their wording, I prefer precise language to "elegance" all day every day.

[@speedcheetah1630]

Thank you 😊

[@irreleverent]

Personally I think they should just rip off the throne-shaped bandage and let abilities quadruple trigger. The lengths they've gone to make these abilities not work the way they logically would is absurd.

[@jerodast]

There's a difference between intuition/concept and logic here though. Intuitively, some cards let you do a thing when something else happens. The concept of Panharmonicon is to double stuff. Intuitively, you'd do that thing twice, right? It's not intuitive that it's actually 4 times because the mechanical implementation of the concept used 2 triggers in a row in some cases. Logically, sure, you can see that is how it works, but it doesn't match the concept of "this card is supposed to double the effect of the other card". Anyway I'm not totally opposed to your solution, I guess I'm sympathetic to both goals.

[@mervius]

One issue is that the rules say reflexive triggered abilities follow the same rules as delayed triggered abilities, so whatever applies to one should apply to both(except reflexive triggered abilities can trigger multiple times... apparently... even though there are rulings on several cards saying they don't...) I suppose since they have already added additional exceptions to reflexive triggers, they could add others...

[@JasonOshinko]

Which cards have those rulings?

[@Vulcapyro]

Not sure what exactly you're referring to but delayed and reflexive triggers can trigger multiple times if they're templated with a duration like "until end of turn", but otherwise even if there are multiple triggers at the same time only one is chosen. (603.7b)

[@pigogriff]

thankyou thankyou!

[@Charmyte]

Mulling this over more made me ponder the nuclear question sitting unanswered: if your opponent controls a Zoraline and a Roaming (Bat) Throne, then you Tishana the first instance of Zoraline's reflexive triggered ability, what happens if your opponent pays the cost for the SECOND reflexive trigger? Or I suppose more bluntly, if a permanent loses all abilities after its triggered ability is on the stack but BEFORE the reflexive trigger is, does the reflexive trigger have a chance to exist? There doesn't appear to be an explicit mention in that section of the CR, but the permanent still being the "source" of that reflexive trigger makes me believe it shouldn't be able to trigger anymore.

[@AnonymousAnonymous-ht4cm]

I would think that it would trigger, since the reflexive ability is an ability of the "primary" ability, which is already on the stack.

[@Ent229]

I want to see a legendary creature that doubles all and only reflexive triggers (including those of the other players). I think that would be some fun in commander.

[@Munoy]

According to 603.2e, the source of a delayed triggered ability created by a triggered ability is the source of the original triggered ability, so it seems natural that Tishana's Tidebinder would cause Cauldron or Sneak Attack to lose their abilities. However, this doesn't seem to conflict with the inability to use four reflexive triggered abilities with Roaming Throne. Roaming Throne makes abilities triggered by creatures to trigger an additional time. However, a reflexive triggered ability is triggered by an ability. Even though the source is a creature of the named type, the triggering of the reflexive triggered ability is not considered "triggered by a creature" but rather "triggered by an ability," so it does not trigger again.

[@Munoy]

The point is, consider a case where the triggered ability isn't triggered by a creature, but its source is a creature.

[@Munoy]

I 100% support adding 'source' to the oracle text of Tishana's Tidebinder for more clarity. And thanks for always making great videos, Dave.

[@cowsmoogo]

Would it not also be possible to change it so that reflexive triggers count as a portion of the original trigger. Making it so that you could only apply one replacement effect to both halves. This would end up allowing you to double the effect of a reflexive trigger without having to pay twice, which I feel is in the spirit of the effects. Idk if that horribly breaks something else though lol

[@Vulcapyro]

That would be the difference between a replacement effect giving an additional trigger, and copying the triggered ability. Copying an ability already on the stack copies any optional costs paid, so it "bypasses" payment in the way you're looking for. (Although if you copied a reflexive triggered ability the cost paid for the first ability is unrelated ig)

[@jerodast]

Oh interesting, I just proposed something similar - the idea that a single trigger exists, you just resolve two parts of it at slightly different times - but I had the opposite conclusion about how much you'd pay. If something doubles triggers, then it doubles it as SOON as it triggers, before you've paid. You now have two triggers, both of them asking "do you want to pay?", and for each one you have the choice to pay and then choose a target and proceed to the second portion of that trigger, but you'd have to pay twice to get both triggers to proceed to the second portion.

[@tiptopa1]

I saw the other video before you edited it and went "really?" But yeah makes sense. Enjoy your like and comment and ill see myself out

[@joostlambregts6177]

I am also a big proponent of changing the text of cards rather than creating exceptions in the rules. Few people know about the rules exceptions and they are difficult to look up. The Oracle text of a card is easy to look up. Example: there is a rule somewhere that says effects that turn artifacts into artifact creatures implicitly do so in addition to their other types. Almost nobody knows that, because it is buried in the CR somewhere. They should just scrap that rule and errata the affected cards instead.

[@FridgeEating]

That's an interesting example, because I have the opposite reaction to it. I expect that most of the time an artifact is animated, the artifact does not in fact have other types. I can't even think of any examples besides the artifact lands where an artifact would have another type. My intuition is that it would be confusin for Guardian Idol to say it "becomes a 2/2 artifact creature in addition to its other types". The same goes for all vehicles. I find it more important that the usual interactions are clear and concise than that reasonably rare occurances can be reasoned correctly without rules knowledge.

[@joostlambregts6177]

@FridgeEating I agree that cluttering a card with extra text to deal with a situation that almost never comes up is not ideal. But this is what typically happens with cards that turn enchantments into creatures, such as opalescence. So at least it would be consistent. Still, I get the awkwardness and maybe the rule should just be removed without replacing it with an errata. Maybe something would break, but I can't think of anything of the top of my head. My main point is that an exception in the rules is a bad practice because the only people who know about it are going to be rules nerds (like me). It is just going to be ignored in most situations unless a judge happens to be watching.

[@yawg691]

I also HATE "yugioh rulings" where its "it just works like this because"

[@almogdov]

In my opinion it will be clean and intuitive if delayed triggers works the same way. Since they too have an identifiable source, the Tidebinder should take the source into account like you suggested.

[@Zero_Chaos]

The Liquimetal Coating "source" question is a weird one, and I'm not sure which way is best. Would a coated Sneak Attack activated during the End Step and then sacrificed still count as an artifact souce on the next turn because of Last Known Information? Should that change if you activated the ability before or after it got coated? Seems like something they'd have to make a choice on

[@dominichey2475]

Hmm. Would tishana's artifact check be as sneak attack is at time of resolution or what sneak attack was at time of activation? I feel that it would work if the liquid metal coating targeted sneak attack before it activated.

[@Vulcapyro]

It checks during resolution, so the proposed order of events would still disable it since it's an artifact at that time :)

[@edde2429]

I think delayed and reflexive triggers should not be blanked by Tidebinder since it seems logical to think that it's an ability of an ability, and not an ability of an artifact, creature or pw

[@bluerendar2194]

Oh damn, what a mess... hopefully it will be addressed in a larger revisit/revision! I guess there's always edge cases, (cough season of the witch) just that this one happens to occur for a competitively-viable card in many realistic situations. For sneak attack, I forget - was there anything special about *delayed* triggers that might affect the linking?

[@bluerendar2194]

Okay, per your proposed errata, which seems pretty intuitive, "603.7e If an activated or triggered ability creates a delayed triggered ability, the source of that delayed triggered ability is the same as the source of that other ability. The controller of that delayed triggered ability is the player who controlled that other ability as it resolved." This means Tidebinder *should* affect the Sneak Attack as an artifact, right?

[@hagazissa1599]

I'm an avid Yugioh player and I also with burning passion hate the fact that many, many, many rulings on Yugioh-Cards are based on random Twitter-Posts, telling of Judge rulings in some random event, from which all similar cases are based of off. I wish Yugioh had a comprehensive rulings like Magic, OnePiece or Flesh and Blood :(

[@jerodast]

The funny thing (IMO, as a layman not a lawyer) this is how "common law" real life legal systems work. The "tweets" in this case being rulings in actual court cases that had to define what the law really is, because the written statutes aren't crystal clear on every possible point. The advantage is you can adapt previous law to new situations more easily, the disadvantage is sometimes you don't know what the law really is until you're in court, and you're subject to the decisions and biases of an individual judge. Having a CR is a civil law system - and it does probably work better when it's a closed system with relatively little unpredictability, like a game.

[@fluffyfang4213]

One of those times where the full answer gets too niche for me, so take my like.

[@Racnive]

Ah, so Harmonic Prodigy + Sea Gate Stormcaller (without Kicker) makes 2 copies, not 4!

[@20x20]

what's the problem with just making the tidebinder adhere to 603.2e?

[@JudgingFtW]

WotC doesn't want that to be the answer to this question.

[@dwpetrak]

I share your frustration with "official" rulings being made via social media. If the MTG rules were a normal part of an enterprise and it were audited by a customer or accreditation body they would be skewered on that issue. Sadly, they aren't so are allowed to be lazy and sloppy on documentation. Not good for the game. I would love it if the playerbase came together and said, no, we do not accept rulings listed anywhere other than Gatherer, the CR, etc.

[@jerodast]

Perfect proposals, no notes :) It did occur to me...reflexive triggers should not actually be new triggers. It should all be one trigger, just like if-flexive triggers were, but the first time it goes on the stack it has no target, then when it resolves that time you choose a target and put it back on the stack, then it resolves fully with its target. Panharmonicon would not see it as "triggering again" the second time, so it doesn't double, but it still has the same source, because it's the same trigger. But...obviously this is an entirely new conception about how targeting and abilities on the stack work :) I can forgive them for just "patching up" the reflexive trigger concept with a better template. Even with Judge Dave's proposed change, I don't think "ability of X" vs "ability with an X source" are particularly obvious why they should function differently, but at least they ARE different.

[@eridevonta1384]

At 1.20 I cursed a lot. Why is this game so complicated

[@michaelsparks1571]

I think you could also errata ifflexive trigger clauses in some way to only allow any targets to be chosen after/if the cost is paid, but without putting a 2nd ability on the stack. For example something along the lines of "When [thing happens] you may pay [cost]. If you do, you may select a target _blank_. That _blank_ [effect]." The only confusion (albeit possibly a big one) would be explaining that you don't pick a target until the ability is already resolving and the cost is paid.

[@Vulcapyro]

That proposal actually makes things way more complicated than creating another ability, since it would either involve changing how targeting fundamentally works (you declare your intent to pay optional costs -> all targets have to be declared -> legality check -> total cost is determined -> pay costs), or having the ability not target at all. Reflexive triggers are actually a very nice way to adopt this, since creating another ability during resolution where you select targets at that time _is_ the way that fits into the natural flow of the rules, since it's at that point that you know the cost has been successfully paid and it gives you the new opportunity to target.

[@Sheer_Falacy]

In addition to the other issues, this would cause an incredibly unintuitive interaction with Ward and similar abilities - you'd choose a target during resolution, your ability would complete, and then Ward would go on the stack trying to counter your already-resolved ability.

[@jerodast]

@@Sheer_Falacy Yeah for gameplay quality they would HAVE to do this in a way that allows people to respond once the target is chosen - that's half the reason targets even exist. My solution is to allow the original ability to be placed back on the stack with targets. Which, as Vulcapyro says, is a whole new conception of how targeting works, but is IMO not that unintuitive, and not even that crazy when you realize there are already ways to change the targets of an ability on the stack. The brand new idea would be partially resolving it (for choices and payment) before putting it back on the stack, not the targeting part.

[@michaelsparks1571]

@ I think I used a poor example of a possible change for the idea I was floating. I think a better example change would be turning "When [thing happens], you may pay [cost]. If/When you do..." to "AS [thing happens]". This would prevent any abilities from ever being on the stack/targeting until after the cost is already paid, and (hopefully) make it clearer that the "When you do" is a separate ability dependent on the cost payment.

[@FAWNTHEMELON]

first haha nice vid dave