There's a lot more depth to this than I'd expect, given that DRC's trigger: A. Is strictly beneficial, and B. Can resolve without affecting the game state. I figured we just tell Amy "nuts to you!" and decide retroactively that she used the shortcut.
I still believe that is the correct course of action. I'm not a judge and never have been (I've show mild interest over the years but nothing serious), so do with my opinion what you will. But I believe that Amy was instructed to Surviel by the Triggered ability, and she didn't do it. I understand the point made in the video, I just think it's an overly semantic argument.
I thought this was going to be a very easy question, but I was wrong. As soon as you entered territory about the two rulings' governances over differing levels of play, and contextual evidence regarding why this rule may exist, I was very impressed. A holistic understanding of the CR and history is so important for teaching one's self how to read and interpret the rules when a video may not be available
Thank you for that editors note! I totally remembered there was a special case for scry. I incorrectly remembered it being in the missed trigger section, and I assumed there would be no infraction. I learned a lot more than I thought I would today. Thanks!
Interesting! I'm so used to hearing about the competitive rulings (so I was very confused by the star rating) and never really thought about how regular REL would handle things. Thanks for the video!
So for anyone that reads this, I have a ruling question that came up at my FNM recently. Player 1 has a void winnower in play. Player 2 wants to cast a walking ballista. P2 argued that he could tap 3 mana and have x=2 and x=1 so he could get around casting even spells. I'm pretty sure that's not right, but I was unsure. Any help would be appreciated!
From Comprehensive Rules 107.3a: "While a spell is on the stack, any X in its mana cost or in any alternative cost or additional cost it has equals the announced value. While an activated ability is on the stack, any X in its activation cost equals the announced value."
@@Dalenthas Thank you so much. I looked at the comprehensive rules, but was completely unsure. I didn't think it would work where x was equal to 2 different values.
I'd be extremely disinclined to rule for a scry after the resolution of expressive iteration. I feel like there's too much potential for a player to gain advantage by resolving those deck manipulation effects out of order, especially given the kinds of decks where you would typically find those two cards. So: in the absence of other context I am already tending towards players on the competitive end of regular REL. Just based on the cards involved. I feel like this hinges a lot on what the players may already know. Hopefully the top card of Amy's deck Is known to nick; which enables the incredibly dirty fix of putting that specific card back on top, resolving the surveil, then continuing with expressive iteration. More likely is that nick doesn't know the top card, but Amy might have had that information. If she did, then she is not surveilling, however if the top card was unknown to both players then I'd rule as per comp rel (nick gets to choose if Amy can surveil or not). Now, I'm not saying that would be my 100% of the time fix (regular offers enough latitude to handle problems on a case by case basis & it would be foolish not to use that to make better rulings), but that's the starting point I'd work from.
I agree that it depends a lot on the specific game state. However, as someone who plays lots of izzet murktide, if I don't know the top card of my library, I *always* want surveil to resolve first, because I want my expressive iteration to be ideal.
Is there any consideration given to the fact that there MAY be some advantage to surveiling after the expressive iteration? If all game actions were performed correctly, the surveil would always resolve before the expressive iteration. The fixes provided in this video leave SOME opportunity for exploitation; if the player wants to get as much information as possible before their surveil decision.
As Dave said at 8:16, there are cases where it might be appropriate for Amy to not get the trigger, such as if she already knew the top card of her library. If she had, then perhaps she wanted to keep it for the Expressive Iteration and surveil afterwards, so she probably shouldn't get to surveil in this case. If she didn't know the top card of her deck, it's usually to Amy's benefit to surveil before Iteration resolves; if she likes the top card of her deck, she can draw/exile it, and if she doesn't, she can discard it to hopefully get better choices for Iteration. In that case, Amy is almost always worse off having surveilled after Iteration has finished resolving, rather than before, which is why it's usually ok to let the trigger happen.
How would you handle a missed trigger that isn’t a may, but isn’t detrimental? Something like Mishra’s Bauble, or Ledger Shredder conniving. I like to play the murktide mirror with a friend sometimes, and we try to keep it serious and competitive. There was one game where we each controlled a ledger shredder, and then each cast two spells on a turn, but we both missed the second connive trigger. We only connived once. I pointed it out on the next turn when I realized, but we just decided to consider it missed for both of us. Would it have been better to put both on the stack, even though I’d drawn for turn by that point? That would have given me an extra card to choose from, and I may have benefited from that (by either discarding a land that I didn’t have before to save spells, or by discarding a nonland that I didn’t have to gain a +1/+1 counter). Love your videos, thank you!
I'm curious, would something that draws/discards when you cast an instant/sorcery be considered differently? Looting is generally a beneficial thing, but there are certainly plenty of times that you wouldn't want to do it. I don't think it could qualify as a detrimental trigger, but I don't know if it would be considered the same as a surveil trigger.
One of the issues you didn't raise is dragon rage channeler delirium. If Amy has known information about what card was on top through expressive iteration, she would know whether the surveil before would be beneficial. Amy could then replace the card on top since nobody knows what was looked at except Amy. Amy could be happy with a post expressive iteration surveil she knows the cards from Expressive and none of them could add to delirium. My personal decision would be to skip the trigger entirely since it's her trigger and she should be responsible for remembering.
Hi There, I believe the option 1 is inappropriate, surveiling before resolving Expressive iteration is less beneficial for the player that surveiling after. A mistake should not give any player an advantage.
@@TemujinReads If you first resolve iteration then surveil, you always dig 4 cards deep. However if you first surveil, and leave the card on the top then you only dig 3 deep because the surveil card becomes one of the 3 from the iteration. Such situations are best described by making decisions trees for both situations and comparing the outcomes.
@@jadrakteofurupa7729 Sure, but if you surveil first and leave the card on top, that means that was a card you wanted to keep, which will improve the outcome of Iteration. On the other hand, if you surveil first and put that card in the graveyard, that was a card you didn't want to draw or cast this turn, and you're more likely to get one or two useful cards with Iteration.
@@TemujinReads you are citing specific pats in the decision tree. In general allowing for surveil after the iteration allows always to see 4 cards regardless of what those are. This is better than only having potential to see 4 cards, but sometimes seeing only 3 deep.
I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with which interpretation you should go with. OF COURSE she missed her trigger. But the Triggered ability INSTRUCTED HER TO SURVIEL. I'm not playing that Semantic game. She was instructed to Surviel, she didn't. Sorry, you missed your trigger, better luck next time. No infraction, no harm, no foul. That was the fix I thought of at the beginning of the video not having known about either wording specifically. I just thought that would be the most logical course of action at competitive REL.
I assume you've watched the video the whole way through? Dave covered several different scenarios and didn't just settle on one interpretation. If this were a game at competitive REL, since it's a missed trigger, the opponent has the choice of whether it would go on the stack. If this were at regular, then the suggested fix is to put the trigger on the stack now, but that can be adjusted based on the circumstances.
Difficulty of the question. A simple "how does this ability work" video is less complicated than something involving layers, something involving layers is less complicated than "What do you do when a judge makes an incorrect call".
For those not in the know, this is a reference to another video on this channel where a similar situation was presented: ua-cam.com/video/cI9xP6HXrSM/v-deo.html
I feel like scry and surveil ARE meaningfully different for the non-game-rule-violating player. If my opponent plays turn 1 DRC into Mishra's Bauble and, for whatever reason, forgets to surveil, then all sorts of game information about the potential LACK of Murktide Regent in their hand becomes signalled. Further, if an opponent WOULD BE surveilling a land card into their graveyard, that is info not telegraphed by Scry. Further, if I am playing Surgical Extraction of Graveyard Trespasser, then I would LOSE information about future plays my opponent is investing in. I seriously doubt that intentionally missing your surveil trigger could lead to a cheating-adjacent strategy, but I do feel the amount of info telegraphed from Surveil is very different from Scry.
There's a lot more depth to this than I'd expect, given that DRC's trigger:
A. Is strictly beneficial, and
B. Can resolve without affecting the game state.
I figured we just tell Amy "nuts to you!" and decide retroactively that she used the shortcut.
I still believe that is the correct course of action. I'm not a judge and never have been (I've show mild interest over the years but nothing serious), so do with my opinion what you will.
But I believe that Amy was instructed to Surviel by the Triggered ability, and she didn't do it. I understand the point made in the video, I just think it's an overly semantic argument.
I love hearing about the history and reasoning behind game rules. Please do that more often!
I thought this was going to be a very easy question, but I was wrong. As soon as you entered territory about the two rulings' governances over differing levels of play, and contextual evidence regarding why this rule may exist, I was very impressed. A holistic understanding of the CR and history is so important for teaching one's self how to read and interpret the rules when a video may not be available
it the end it doesnt really matter. the tldr is "opp chooses" and obv opp will choose you miss it
Thank you for that editors note! I totally remembered there was a special case for scry. I incorrectly remembered it being in the missed trigger section, and I assumed there would be no infraction.
I learned a lot more than I thought I would today. Thanks!
Interesting! I'm so used to hearing about the competitive rulings (so I was very confused by the star rating) and never really thought about how regular REL would handle things. Thanks for the video!
So for anyone that reads this, I have a ruling question that came up at my FNM recently. Player 1 has a void winnower in play. Player 2 wants to cast a walking ballista. P2 argued that he could tap 3 mana and have x=2 and x=1 so he could get around casting even spells. I'm pretty sure that's not right, but I was unsure. Any help would be appreciated!
X has to be the same for both X's in Walking Ballista's cost, and thus it's mana value will always be even.
From Comprehensive Rules 107.3a: "While a spell is on the stack, any X in its mana cost or in any alternative cost or additional cost it has equals the announced value. While an activated ability is on the stack, any X in its activation cost equals the announced value."
@@Dalenthas Thank you so much. I looked at the comprehensive rules, but was completely unsure. I didn't think it would work where x was equal to 2 different values.
I'd be extremely disinclined to rule for a scry after the resolution of expressive iteration. I feel like there's too much potential for a player to gain advantage by resolving those deck manipulation effects out of order, especially given the kinds of decks where you would typically find those two cards.
So: in the absence of other context I am already tending towards players on the competitive end of regular REL. Just based on the cards involved.
I feel like this hinges a lot on what the players may already know. Hopefully the top card of Amy's deck Is known to nick; which enables the incredibly dirty fix of putting that specific card back on top, resolving the surveil, then continuing with expressive iteration.
More likely is that nick doesn't know the top card, but Amy might have had that information.
If she did, then she is not surveilling, however if the top card was unknown to both players then I'd rule as per comp rel (nick gets to choose if Amy can surveil or not).
Now, I'm not saying that would be my 100% of the time fix (regular offers enough latitude to handle problems on a case by case basis & it would be foolish not to use that to make better rulings), but that's the starting point I'd work from.
I agree that it depends a lot on the specific game state.
However, as someone who plays lots of izzet murktide, if I don't know the top card of my library, I *always* want surveil to resolve first, because I want my expressive iteration to be ideal.
Is there any consideration given to the fact that there MAY be some advantage to surveiling after the expressive iteration? If all game actions were performed correctly, the surveil would always resolve before the expressive iteration.
The fixes provided in this video leave SOME opportunity for exploitation; if the player wants to get as much information as possible before their surveil decision.
As Dave said at 8:16, there are cases where it might be appropriate for Amy to not get the trigger, such as if she already knew the top card of her library. If she had, then perhaps she wanted to keep it for the Expressive Iteration and surveil afterwards, so she probably shouldn't get to surveil in this case.
If she didn't know the top card of her deck, it's usually to Amy's benefit to surveil before Iteration resolves; if she likes the top card of her deck, she can draw/exile it, and if she doesn't, she can discard it to hopefully get better choices for Iteration. In that case, Amy is almost always worse off having surveilled after Iteration has finished resolving, rather than before, which is why it's usually ok to let the trigger happen.
Another way to rule this is to take the three cards Amy saw.
You now have three more cards,, well done.
How would you handle a missed trigger that isn’t a may, but isn’t detrimental? Something like Mishra’s Bauble, or Ledger Shredder conniving. I like to play the murktide mirror with a friend sometimes, and we try to keep it serious and competitive. There was one game where we each controlled a ledger shredder, and then each cast two spells on a turn, but we both missed the second connive trigger. We only connived once. I pointed it out on the next turn when I realized, but we just decided to consider it missed for both of us. Would it have been better to put both on the stack, even though I’d drawn for turn by that point? That would have given me an extra card to choose from, and I may have benefited from that (by either discarding a land that I didn’t have before to save spells, or by discarding a nonland that I didn’t have to gain a +1/+1 counter).
Love your videos, thank you!
I'm curious, would something that draws/discards when you cast an instant/sorcery be considered differently? Looting is generally a beneficial thing, but there are certainly plenty of times that you wouldn't want to do it. I don't think it could qualify as a detrimental trigger, but I don't know if it would be considered the same as a surveil trigger.
One of the issues you didn't raise is dragon rage channeler delirium. If Amy has known information about what card was on top through expressive iteration, she would know whether the surveil before would be beneficial. Amy could then replace the card on top since nobody knows what was looked at except Amy. Amy could be happy with a post expressive iteration surveil she knows the cards from Expressive and none of them could add to delirium. My personal decision would be to skip the trigger entirely since it's her trigger and she should be responsible for remembering.
What about missing a Fateseal trigger? Surely it doesn't make sense for that to be a Game Rule Violation either
This a good one
Hi There,
I believe the option 1 is inappropriate, surveiling before resolving Expressive iteration is less beneficial for the player that surveiling after. A mistake should not give any player an advantage.
How is it better to surveil after Iteration resolves, rather than to surveil before? (Assuming no known cards beforehand)
@@TemujinReads If you first resolve iteration then surveil, you always dig 4 cards deep. However if you first surveil, and leave the card on the top then you only dig 3 deep because the surveil card becomes one of the 3 from the iteration. Such situations are best described by making decisions trees for both situations and comparing the outcomes.
@@jadrakteofurupa7729 Sure, but if you surveil first and leave the card on top, that means that was a card you wanted to keep, which will improve the outcome of Iteration. On the other hand, if you surveil first and put that card in the graveyard, that was a card you didn't want to draw or cast this turn, and you're more likely to get one or two useful cards with Iteration.
@@TemujinReads you are citing specific pats in the decision tree. In general allowing for surveil after the iteration allows always to see 4 cards regardless of what those are. This is better than only having potential to see 4 cards, but sometimes seeing only 3 deep.
I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with which interpretation you should go with.
OF COURSE she missed her trigger.
But the Triggered ability INSTRUCTED HER TO SURVIEL. I'm not playing that Semantic game.
She was instructed to Surviel, she didn't.
Sorry, you missed your trigger, better luck next time. No infraction, no harm, no foul.
That was the fix I thought of at the beginning of the video not having known about either wording specifically. I just thought that would be the most logical course of action at competitive REL.
I assume you've watched the video the whole way through? Dave covered several different scenarios and didn't just settle on one interpretation. If this were a game at competitive REL, since it's a missed trigger, the opponent has the choice of whether it would go on the stack. If this were at regular, then the suggested fix is to put the trigger on the stack now, but that can be adjusted based on the circumstances.
🕉🙏☮
sorry mate i think that you chose to leave the surveiled card on top
Wait so the TLDR is just ignore it?
Maybe you already explained this in the past but I lost it. What's the meaning of the stars in the top right corner? (Of the preview of the video)
I think, its the difficulty level of the question :)
Difficulty of the question. A simple "how does this ability work" video is less complicated than something involving layers, something involving layers is less complicated than "What do you do when a judge makes an incorrect call".
It's to indicate the difficulty of the question being asked
That's just sloppy play. And I don't like sloppy play 😠
Lol
For those not in the know, this is a reference to another video on this channel where a similar situation was presented: ua-cam.com/video/cI9xP6HXrSM/v-deo.html
I feel like scry and surveil ARE meaningfully different for the non-game-rule-violating player.
If my opponent plays turn 1 DRC into Mishra's Bauble and, for whatever reason, forgets to surveil, then all sorts of game information about the potential LACK of Murktide Regent in their hand becomes signalled.
Further, if an opponent WOULD BE surveilling a land card into their graveyard, that is info not telegraphed by Scry. Further, if I am playing Surgical Extraction of Graveyard Trespasser, then I would LOSE information about future plays my opponent is investing in.
I seriously doubt that intentionally missing your surveil trigger could lead to a cheating-adjacent strategy, but I do feel the amount of info telegraphed from Surveil is very different from Scry.