Exciting news! We now have an [O]fficial ruling that the twice-per-turn counter does not reset after Dress Down leaves play. Stay tuned for an updated video! Source: twitter.com/WotC_Matt/status/1834385922550641060
Looking at that twitter thread, I'm not sure this is actually a coherent, systemic ruling. He literally says in a reply that he just had someone else check what happens on Arena. It also doesn't seem to address any of the copy effect stuff.
"Okay so, if you're just here for the answer, I have some bad news for you, which is that... I don't know what the correct answer to this question is, because it doesn't exist yet." Wizards strikes again. No official answer, making judges do all the legwork themselves.
My opinion is sort of like a black box approach. From another creature's perspective (or even Nadu's if Nadu has extremely short term memory) all it knows it that it gained an ability, then it lost that ability, then it gained an ability. It has no affect on the creature whether or not that ability came from the same object or two different objects. The way I see it, the creature loses the ability not because there's a dress down, but because Nadu lost the ability that was granting the ability. When the ability-granting-ability came back, it re-granted the ability, making it a new ability. It would be the same as if Nadu alone lost all abilities (eg with a Kenrith's Transformation) and then regained them (eg using a disenchant on Kenrith's Transformation).
I would think to come to a similar conclusion here. It does leave a bit of a potential oversight with using a self-imposed Dress Down alongside some kind of chicanery to produce 4 Nadu triggers per creature for that turn, but it is during the end step, so you generally can't abuse Equip or similar free abilities easily.
Does that imply that if you exchange control of two Nadus controlled by different players, creatures don't regain two triggers because they have exactly one instance of the triggered ability at all times (even though the source would be different)?
@@stellatedhexahedron6985 The difference is that Homicide Investigator's once per turn ability is innate, Nadu's twice per turn ability isn't actually innate at all, its granted by Nadu but neither its allies nor itself actually HAS that ability normally, so it does not persist in a "turned off" state when under Dress Down or another ability negation effect
At first, when I watched this I thought the answer was clear, but as you delved more into it I can see how it becomes problematic. This is such an interesting question great video once again Mr. Dave!
Change Nadu's text box to say "Whenever a creature you control becomes the target..." Boom, problem solved. Not only does it make Nadu's ability clearly work under the rules (by making it essentially the same as the Hostile Investigator example you used), but it also destroys the Nadu combo deck....everyone wins! 😂😂😂
They don't generally do functional errata of individual cards for power level reasons. Also, they will probably print another card that's templated similarly to this at some point so it would be good to have an answer on hand anyways.
The closest ruling I could find which supports being able to trigger nadu 4 times in a turn in this problem statement is 113.3d which states: "113.3d Static abilities are written as statements. They’re simply true. Static abilities create continuous effects **which are active while the permanent with the ability is on the battlefield and has the ability,** or while the object with the ability is in the appropriate zone. See rule 604, “Handling Static Abilities.”" Maybe I'm being loose with the interpretation here, but the Nadu effect is active while it has the ability, and losing then regaining the ability could mean its a separate instance of the ability.
I agree with this. It also solves the Well Rested issue from the end of the video (yes, it triggers again) without breaking Bound by Moonsilver (BbM does not gain a new ability so it does not get to activate again). Are there corner cases this misses? I like this because it is also consistent with the “creature being flickered becomes a new object” where the ability “being flickered” returns as a new “ability object” which is a nice bit of rules symmetry that I feel makes the ruling seem less arbitrary.
I'm not a judge, but my immediate-kneejerk ruling is.. a card has to leave play(flicker) to reset. So Nadu gets 1 set of triggers, not 2. But I'll trust your judgment when you find the correct call 😅
Nadu gives the creatures the ability, right? So when the Dress Down effect ends all of the creatures get a fresh instance of the Nadu ability. In other words the counter resets.
I think if we defined "losing an ability" as more analogous to phasing, where we know the ability is there but we treat it as if it isn't, we could have a more distinct line between objects losing abilities and an when object stops having an ability entirely. In this world, nothing is different for cases like Homicide Detective, where the ability is printed on the card, we retain information about whether or not the ability has triggered this turn even if it "loses" and "regains" the ability. But, for cards like Well Rested there would be a distinct difference between the cases where the enchanted creature loses and regains the ability versus attaching Well Rested to another object and then reattaching it to the same first object again. The creature didn't just "lose" the ability, but stopped having it entirely, so it would "reset" the once each turn clause. So now in Nadu's case, we can see a clear line between when the creatures stop having the "whenever this creature is targeted" ability and when they get that ability again, which is defined as being different than just losing and regaining the ability, which would mean that the ability resets its count because it's a new instance.
Came here to say this. If we change dress down's ability to "all creature abilities on the battlefield phase out and creatures entering the battlefield have no abilities" a lot of the comprehensive rulings for dress down would be avoided.
Something like Homicide Investigator has an ability that is, in the application of layers, continually possessed *and* continually removed. (Think of all of the questions where the answer relies on an ability acting in one layer before being stripped in another.) By this logic, I think that Nadu's ability-granting ability is in continuous existence even though it also doesn't exist after layers are applied; thus, the ability-granting ability is always the same ability. But that's not the question. The question, to me, is this: "Is the ability that Nadu grants granted before it is stripped by Dress Down?" Because of the dependency rule, Dress Down applies first and the ability stops being granted-it isn't granted and then stripped, but rather it's never granted at any point-so I would say that it being granted again later creates a new instance with a new count towards uses per turn.
I think you do gain a new set of nadu triggers, since nadu itself only has 2 lines of printed text, its 2nd line gives it a 3rd line of text, which is the actual trigger effect. So when the 2nd line is removed and later reapplied on nadu it doesn't matter if it is the same ability or not, since it applies the 3rd line again which completely disappeared for a while and so the newly applied 3rd line is a new ability with a new set of twice per turn. I'm not a mtg judge or anything though, just a very casual mtg enjoyer.
Super interesting discussion! My intuition is that you would get a new instance of the ability and that it would reset the count because the source is turned off & back on again but I really loved your examples
Wow. Very interesting episode. Initially I would’ve thought that it wouldn’tve worked. I remember the Agatha’s video from a little while ago, and I got it wrong. So I was partially using that as a basis for my reasoning here. I didn’t realize 2 Nadu’s would interact in that way, because each of them is giving a separate ability. Curious as to what the decision is
This was a very good breakdown of the issue, although i do sit on the opposite side for the resolution. Nadu 's ability to create the ability is the same, but the ability that was created is a new instance of it.
i didn't realize that nadu's effect isn't a text-changing effect... i thought that because there are quotation marks around the text, it would be a text changing effect, and therefore apply before the ability changing layer (i wanna say layer 4? not sure off the top of my head). is there a good way to recognise the difference from a templating pov?
if it *were* a text-changing effect, that would make the question even worse, because at no point do creatures lose the text which describes the ability!
Text-changing effects are normally pretty easy to identify. Most of them explicitly state that they affect the text of the object. This is normally done with the phrase "Change the text...", but this isn't a hard rule. For example, Volrath's Shapeshifter says it "has the full text" of a card. The only examples that aren't immediately obvious without rules knowledge are Splice and any effect that affects an objects name. If we compare that to Nadu, Nadu instead grants an ability, with that ability placed inside quotation marks to show that it is an ability that is being added to objects. TL;DR: If you aren't 100% sure it changes text, it probably doesn't.
Hi Dave, I asked in another video but it got even more complicated, I believe Gift is another game breaking mechanic at the moment when it comes to copies. (Unless we're missing something). I believe this is the first instance in which an opponent is chosen as an additional cost, so how does it work when you copy an opponent's gift card when you are the receiver? You copy all the decisions, but one of the choices was to pick you as an opponent for a gift, but you aren't your own opponent right? In the release notes it says when copying a gift spell, the same opponent is chosen for the gift, so you aren't allowed to change the decision but how can you be that opponent? If you can't then does it mean you can change the chosen opponent for the copy, thus changing decisions for a copy that doesn't target? or that part is ignored but then does the copy is still considered as "gift was promised"? In multiplayer there is also the loop of Starfall Invocation and Dualcaster Mage, after you force an opponent to draw their deck and they lose, can you continue the loop with a non-existent opponent? it is similar as in both cases the gift receiver is an opponent that doesn't exist. Considering Copy effects are common and they did addressed one case in the release notes, I'm surprised at the oversight of how to handle copying an impossible additional cost. I've sent Maro a question in his blog, hopefully he'll answer soon.
Gift is not an additional cost, it’s a choice you make as casting the spell that changes its effects. E: I'm wrong, Gift is an additional cost, as noted in the Bloomburrow release notes. This will be specified in the CR when the update is out.
Pretty much all copy cards let's you change the target of the copied spell. In this case, I SUPPOSE you are kinda forced to change the target of the gift.
@@cool_scatter i know, but when you copy a spell on the stack you don't cast it again, so you can't change the additional cost, but you can't change the player chosen for that choice which is you, but you are not your opponent.
TIL that Wheel of Potential _did_ actially get fixed -- I looked it up recently and saw no new rulings on Gatherer, so I assumed it was left broken. I literally thought you were joking about the Twitter thing at first, I'd be hard pressed to come up with a worse way of handling this if I tried.
Here's a worse way: Have rulings from head judges at individual tournament locations be official. Make no attempt to communicate said ruling outside the tournament where it was made.
I think that since the creature loses their ability, then regains it, it should be a new instance. If Dress Down said it deactivated abilities, or those abilities don't trigger, that would be a different case.
I THINK the answer is that Yes, Nadu's ability triggers again, because the Per Turn count is associated with the granted ability, not the card's own ability, because Nadu doesn't have "when targeted, draw, max 2x per turn", Nadu just grants itself that effect as it does everyone, and Nadu lost and regained it, so I'd presume it resets in a manner similar to how flickering a Nadu will reset the count on all your creatures, not just Nadu, the ability was lost and reapplied as a new assertation of that ability But its reasonable to assert that flickering it makes a new copy of the ability granting effect, where suppressing and then unsuppressing it, does not, and I ain't WotC or even a judge, I'm just someone working through the logic of once per turns and how they are reset
I would say that if a permanent has an ability which was added to it by another source, and that ability has been triggered its maximum allowed number of times in a turn, the ability will not trigger any more during the turn, even if the ability is removed and reapplied to the same permanent by the same source.
I dont actually have any backing for this, but when I played with thespians stage and copied a urza's saga and then copied it back to something else, then an opponent played a blood moon and I removed it (phew, thats a lot of words) the judge said that the thespians stage land keeps the abilities granted from urza's saga, suggesting that a permanent lost an ability but retained the very same ability after having it removed by the board state. Idk if this is an answer to the question, but I would personally go with the route that nadu's ability does not reset based on this instance. That being said, I have no actual CR paragraphs to show that the intereaction between thespians stage and blood moon even works that way to begin with.
I think the reason the ruling hasn’t come up yet is that “dress down” would be an answer to Nadu that is best to play in response to Nadu being cast, so it’s in play before Nadu and there’s no chance for ability to exist until after dress down gets sacrificed. If the Nadu was already in play and the Nadu player had the type of instant speed interaction to try and re-trigger Nadu’s ability after the sacrifice- it’s very likely that it wouldn’t matter because the Nadu player can just “go off” before the dress down resolves anyway and there’s no need for extra triggers in the end step.
Earlier today I was literally having a discussion about how baffling the decision to disseminate rules info via Twitter is. Shades of Jeremy Crawford (derogatory)
We had a similar debate with this situation, around using tishana's tidebinder to stifle the Nadu trigger on itself, after some other creaturs were triggered, making Nadu lose it's ability, and trying to figure out if the ability reset on all of the Nadu player's creatures. It was a several days long debate that we never found a clean answer for.
I viewed it as a continous effect that is simply being removed from dress down, this would cause it to not reset the ability. The only question about timestamps is if they sit in the same layer I thought?
I'd go with rules as intended. Nadu is the source of the ability so that card should be in charge of tracking who's been targeted and how many times. Even if it would lose the ability. The spirit of the rules in this case feel like it shouldn't be a new instance of the ability since it's the same source of the ability.
I think in that it will not reset the twice-per-turn limit on Nadu's triggers So like you control a grizzly bears and Nadu target the grizzly bears twice (with whatever), the ability that Nadu has sees that the grizzly bears has been triggered 2 times and that of Nadu itself 0 times. if you then remove the ability with dress down nothing really changes, other that none of nadu and the bears have any ability then when dress down leaves the battlefield, the ability will come back, its still the same ability (See the Homicide Detective), so it will know that the grizzly bears has already triggered its instance of it has already triggered twice, so targeting the grizzly bears at that point will not cause it to trigger again.
Thinking about "where abilities come from", how about intrinsic abilities? If a permanent has "Each activated ability can only be activated once per turn", then you play Blood Moon, can you use Nissa on your Valakut that had already tapped for R, then tap for R again? What if you already had the Blood Moon down, and flickered it?
Great stuff, as always. It is a bit surprising this hasn't been caught and dealt with already, but maybe they are ironing out a similar addition to the CR and it's taking some time.
I feel like the way you approached it is correct, but I want to add on the "losing/gaining control." It may be the same object on its own, but the abilities would likely reset on other creatures, not itself, as that's a new instance of the abilities. As an example, you steal an opposing Nadu, your creatures get the abilities, and you use them. End of turn, the Nadu returns to its owner's control, and, even though Nadu is the same object, it reapplies its abilities to the creatures because those creatures lost them and then regained them.
@@cool_scatter yes, but if you steal Nadu and another creature, this becomes a nightmare. Is the Nadu the same Nadu, is the creature the same creature, is the ability the same ability, does it refresh the pool of targets, does it includes the Nadu in this new pool, does it exclude the old targets from a new pool, etc And the final question, how many copies of hive mind, replication tecnique, corporeal projection do I need in my "Jugdes hate this simple trick" Izzet Nadu/Dress down deck and should I also splash in the white for fractured identilty?
Intuitively i feel like the ability should not count as new. I see the triggered ability as a method of the class nadu and this nadu object has the same unique identifier, therefore, "this ability" would reference itself again
Not really. Exerting a creature isn't really different than casting Grip of the Roil on it. Taking away it's abilities will be able to stop it from exerting itself again, but it won't effect previous exertions.
Suppose that instead of dress down, we have some effect phase Nadu out and back in in the same turn. Would your analysis be the same in that situation?
FIVE STARS!!!!! that's the third 5 star video according to my memory. or the fourth? I remember what if a judge makes a mistake and grand arbiter vs season of the witch.
"All creature abilities phase out." There, problem sol... well, replaced by a whole bunch of different problems. This might partially be a naming problem that it's probably too late to fix: if we talked about "suppressing" abilities, it would be intuitive that it's still the same ability, and it would also be intuitive that abilities resume doing something once the suppressor goes away. And I think we can count ourselves lucky that the effect is untargeted. (FWIW, I would consider the number times the effect has triggered to be just like "is monstrous" in terms of interactability.)
Even if talk about "suppressing" instead of removing ability, core of problem stay same. It's not whether the original, printed on Nadu ability is same, (it is). It's about ability created and granted by this printed on card.
My biggest thanks to you, Dave, and the quality of this video and your presentation. It helps me get better and better at not only knowing the rules but also how to explain them in a very appealing way . Your work is wonderful.
Would this also be the same if you use Nadu's Effect twice and then use Kenrith's Transformation on the Nadu removing all it's abilities, then removing the Kenrith's Transformation to give the Nadu it's abilities back during the same turn?
This is a great example of times when some cards just straight up break the rules. I think intuitiveness should play a huge part in how some rules are made. Personally, Given that Nadu gives the ability to not only itself but all creatures you have, if something where to remove all of its abilities and then that thing is taken away, that "twice per turn" should not be reset unless any physical characteristics of the card are changed, such as in Sleeping with the Fishes or Darksteel Mutation
the problem with using intuitiveness for this is that, to me, it feels obvious that the "correct" solution should be that "twice per turn" is reset. so whatever they decide is going to be unintuitive to one of us
"Once per turn" with no physical marker is unintuitive for magic cards. Card and ability identity/uniqueness over time is not normally something that matters, so it's not taught, tracked, or noticed.
it says "this ability triggers ONLY twice each turn" even if they are from different versions of nadu, the ability can only occur twice per creature per turn, regardless of shenanigans
It does say "THIS ability triggers only twice each turn". If you have multiple Nadus or blink one, the new abilities will be different ones that haven't triggered at all yet. Here's the relevant rulings: "If you somehow control more than one Nadu, each permanent you control will have that many instances of the granted ability. These abilities are not redundant. For example, if you control two Nadus and one becomes the target of a spell or ability, each of its granted abilities will trigger. If that same Nadu becomes the target of a spell or ability again later in the turn, each of its granted abilities will trigger again, as each of them have triggered only once so far this turn." "If Nadu leaves the battlefield and returns to the battlefield in the same turn, or if Nadu leaves and another Nadu appears, the triggered ability granted by the new one is different than the triggered ability granted by the old one. The one granted by the new Nadu may trigger twice for each creature you control, even if the ability granted by the old Nadu already triggered twice for those creatures that turn. (Note that creatures you control won't have the ability granted by the old one anymore, and if you control multiple Nadus, you won't have the opportunity to take actions before the "legend rule" gets you down to one Nadu.)"
My interpretation here is its the same Nadu with the same ability, but its a different time its applying therefore the creatures you control gain a new version of that ability and reset the count. Same thing that'd happen if you swapped control of the creature away from the Nadu player then swapped it back - its the same Nadu and the same ability applying to the creature, but the ability on the swapped creature is a new instance. Sadly the video can't
I think losing an ability (Dress Down) is distinct from no longer having it (Well Rested being unattached from a creature), and the reason that isn't intuitive to some people is that... they seem to think Nadu gives an ability for some reason? Nadu doesn't give any abilities. It declares that certain objects have an ability. Maybe an important thing to consider is how Dress Down interacts with something like Retraction Helix. My intuition says it's different from how it interacts with Nadu.
Nadu does give an ability. If it didn't, it wouldn't apply in layer 6. 613.1f: Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, keyword counters, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can't have an ability are applied.
@@seandun7083 Huh. Weird. My intuition must be way off, then. Either that, or my intuition is noticing a real distinction that isn't actually addressed in the comprehensive rules for some reason.
Nadu does give an ability to your creatures as can be seen from CR 113.1a: ...Abilities can also be granted to objects by rules or effects. (Effects that grant abilities usually use the words “has,” “have,” “gains,” or “gain.”)
@@JudgingFtW I see. I have been interpreting "has/have" and "gains/gain" as completely separate things, but apparently they're mechanically the same thing?
How would Bound by Moonsilver be affected by timestamps? As the ability to move it is part of the enchantment and not the creature it's attached to, would it's timestamp even change if it was moved?
Can I ask how you would go about ruling this in a game now? Do you think it's even possible to give a good mid-game ruling in a situation like this? What's the process for this in, for example, a PT setting where there's a live broadcast waiting to move forward?
The answer to that is that the head judge makes a ruling, whatever (in that judge's opinion) makes the most sense. I talked about what my opinion for this scenario is at 8:43. Further info on this sort of scenario can be found in DDR#571: ua-cam.com/video/uN-jBAvhCGo/v-deo.html
I'm not exactly sure but I know if an object lost it's ability ( overwritten) the ability that it lost would be re-applied (new object ability) once the ability that's removing it is removed. It shouldn't be the same instants due to Nadu giving that ability to itself. Now if it was just the ability on that creature then that ability would be re-applied as the same ability as printed. What I mean is Nadu is giving that ability through another ability that was removed. So the ability would be a new instants and the ability that nadu has would be the same instant. ( Remove ability) 1 flying 2 creatures you control have {Gained ability} 3 whenever this creature is a target ( Ability gone) ( Re-apply) 1 flying 2 creatures you control gain {New instant of the same ability being applied} 3 whenever this creature is a target The logic stands for this ability to reset as soon as it comes back.
Hey, rules question. If something is enchanted by a darksteel mutation and is then cloned (say by Clone), the clone does not become an 0/1 indestructible. Does this work the same for a card like metamorphic alteration? If I cloned something that was changed by metamorphic alteration, would it be the original or whatever the enchantment made it into? Thanks!
Clone effects will copy other clone effects. They will also copy any modifications other clone effects make to the original. If you play a Spark Double which enters as a copy of another Spark Double which cloned a Grizzly Bears, the first would be a 3/3 but the second would be a 4/4 since it copies the first one's "except it enters with an additional +1/+1 counter". 707.2c: If a static ability generates a continuous effect that's a copy effect, the copiable values that effect grants are determined only at the time that effect first starts to apply. 707.3: The copy's copiable values become the copied information, as modified by the copy's status (see rule 110.5). Objects that copy the object will use the new copiable values.
@@seandun7083 Pretty sure the second Spark double would still only be a 3/3, because the first is only a 3/3 with the counter. the copy doesn't see the other things on the card like counters, it just sees the card, and the first Spark double would be a 2/2 Grizzly, so it would enter as that with a +1/+1 counter making it a 3/3
@@thomassorensen4789 it doesn't see the +1/+1 counter, but it does see the "except it enters with an additional +1/+1 counter" as that is part of the copy effect. Copiable values are the characteristics after layer 1 has been applied. 613.2c: After all rules and effects in layer 1 have been applied, the object's characteristics are its copiable values. (See rule 707.2.)
@@seandun7083 but is that an ability that spark double gives to the copy? I don’t think it is, I believe it is part of the same etb trigger as the clone ability, which means that it goes away because the etb trigger is not given to the copy unlike other things like for example pheyrexian metamorph giving it artifact type. Played a couple of games on arena and it worked the way I was saying, with it not getting extra +1/+1 counters. Not saying arena is perfect, but given it treats layers pretty darn well I am inclined to believe it.
@@thomassorensen4789 really? Huh. That feels weird to me since that effect uses the exact same phrasing with regards to the "except" as the metamorph. I am also sure that the "except it isn't legendary" will be copied since that was an important part of the old Gyruda combo decks. I don't see why this rule wouldn't apply since the ability says "enters the battlefield with". It's a replacement effect rather than a trigger btw. 707.5: An object that enters the battlefield "as a copy" or "that's a copy" of another object becomes a copy as it enters the battlefield. It doesn't enter the battlefield, and then become a copy of that permanent. If the text that's being copied includes any abilities that replace the enters-the-battlefield event (such as "enters the battlefield with" or "as [this] enters the battlefield" abilities), those abilities will take effect. Also, any enters-the-battlefield triggered abilities of the copy will have a chance to trigger.
Did you know you can put a count onto the card Solemnity? If your play Season of the Burrows and return it from the graveyard with its 3rd ability it will enter with an indestructible counter on it even though the card states it can't lol. funny loophole
Can you do a video on Volo Guide to monsters and copying him? Example I have Volo and 2 spark double copies of Volo. Then I cast risen reef. I have been under the impression that I get four total risen reefs (including the original) but someone recently tried to say I only get 1 copy. Who’s right?
I mostly bring this up because I’m pretty sure Volo checked only on cast and so do the copies since there’s no intervening “If” clause. But I want to make sure I’ve been playing this card correctly. Especially since I JUST learned I’ve been playing Breena wrong this whole time and that it’s even better than I thought.
When you flicker nadu is there actually any time where your creatures don’t have the nadu ability. Kinda but also effectively no there isn’t. Are layers even checked in the middle of resolving a spell?
There is a "moment" where they don't, but it isn't really an active game moment. During the resolution of a spell or ability, there are no checks for state-based actions, and no player has the ability to act, so I think it is more of a theoretical moment. Practically speaking, the creatures always have the ability, but we pretend there is a moment where they don't for our immersion in the fantasy world.
There’s no point of interaction during the resolution of a card like flicker, but the stack could affect some state based actions, so there is a test: If I flicker my Archetype of Imagination while I control a Smog Elemental, would a 1/1 flier my opponent controls die? Archetype of Imagination {4}{U}{U} Enchantment Creature - Human Wizard Creatures you control have flying. Creatures your opponents control lose flying and can’t have or gain flying. 3/2 Smog Elemental {4}{B}{B} Creature - Elemental Flying Creatures with flying your opponents control get -1/-1. 3/3
@@GeoQuag It would not, because the state based actions are not checked until the spell has finished resolving. It would be like a spell that says "target creature gets -1/-1, then gets +1/+1". If you targeted a 1/1 creature, it wouldn't die.
@@ethanglaeser9239Layers are different than State Based Actions. They are constantly being updated. If they need to wait until State Based Actions were checked, then Final Showdown wouldn't function as intended. 613.5: The application of continuous effects as described by the layer system is continually and automatically performed by the game. All resulting changes to an object's characteristics are instantaneous.
@@seandun7083 Dying to having 0 Toughness however is a State Based Action, thus it does not matter how instant the stat modifications are, the end result has the creatures live
Hello I have a auestion about rules and hope someone here can help me. I play jodah the uniter as cammander, if I have him on the field together with gandal the white and annie joins up, how many time dose the cascade ability trigger? Thank you for youre help.
Gandalf only copies triggers caused by legends and artifacts entering or leaving the battlefield. Because Jodah's ability is a cast trigger, Gandalf won't apply to it. Therefore you only get 2 triggers.
I'm inclined to treat this more like phasing. Nadu grants an ability, and Dress Down says, "Ok, now pretend all creatures have no abilities." The ability still exists, and it will be the same ability when it "phases in". In short, I think what matters is if the ability comes from the same game object.
The problem is that Nadu doesn't actually HAVE the ability, Dress Down suppresses the ability that grants Nadu and all others the 2x turn ability, so for a time, it doesn't have the ability at all, rather than it being suppressed but on the text(eg what Homicide Investigator or the like would experience)
I understand why Nadu depends on dress down, but doesn't dress down also depend on Nadu because Nadu changes what dress down does to the things it applies to? Or am I interpreting the dependency rule wrong?
No, Dress Down always wants to do the same thing (remove all abilities) to the permanents it affects. Applying Nadu first might change how much work that entails, but not what the job is. Therefore, Dress Down does not depend on Nadu.
When MH3 first released, I thought it was dumb that people begged for this card to be banned, but the more I learn about it, the more I realize it's not just that people want it banned because it's too strong. It's just too difficult to even comprehend what's going on, let alone represent and track it all. What a nightmare.
This is just reinforcing my belief that in a sane world Nadu's ability would be worded so it was its ability alone and it triggered and had a twice a turn trigger limit because that is less game breaking and nonsensically and unnecessarily complex that Nadu having an ability that gives all your creatures its own individual ability with individual twice a turn triggering limits.....but daddy Hasbro told WotC they needed to push the limits to sell packs, game balance or rules coherence be damned. It's so abundantly clear the ability as printed is so absurd and broken it should be unprintable. It's a Jitte level 'mistake' that seems too obvious to be a mistake. This isn't like Hogak where you could forgive them for not seeing it coming. They knew exactly what they were doing with Nadu, and that they shouldn't, and they did it anyway.
what about if Nadu is phased out, would that not be more accurate to the original problem. I agree with your ruling of the object being the same therefore the ability is not reset.
Here’s my reasoning for why it should not reset the Nadu equip count. Since Dress Down does not clear the state of other abilities (ex:once per turn things), it can be seen as if the dress down ability “hides” abilities rather than “deleting” those abilities. Since you have already established that Nadu’s ability applies first because dress down depends on it, that would mean: * Nadu ability applies * each creature gets Nadu ability * dress down ability applies * each creature has Nadu ability hidden at the same time. All abilities are still there, just masked. All state associated with those abilities is still there. The memory is allocated and not destroyed. Just obscured. That’s what would make sense to me. Abilities with state cannot be fungible like counters, as essentially counters are state. Abilities with state cannot be fungible in the same way. It would be like buying a latte by physically giving the cashier your credit card instead of debiting your account.
You misheard the example given, Dress Down applies first, not Nadu, as Nadu's ability-granting ability's effect on the board depends on which applies first, a dependency, so Dress Down applies first, Nadu under Dress Down is not granting abilities at all, rather than granting abilities that then get suppressed
Exciting news! We now have an [O]fficial ruling that the twice-per-turn counter does not reset after Dress Down leaves play. Stay tuned for an updated video!
Source: twitter.com/WotC_Matt/status/1834385922550641060
Looking at that twitter thread, I'm not sure this is actually a coherent, systemic ruling. He literally says in a reply that he just had someone else check what happens on Arena. It also doesn't seem to address any of the copy effect stuff.
I didn’t realize Nadu was so broken that it also broke the comprehensive rules!
its not the only card in this grey area, but this card is beyond broken yup
@@charlesmwolf its a bad card
My solution to this is to avoid it entirely with the upcoming B&R announcement.
That doesn’t help with actually having a ruling for other formats.
Not if you ban it hard enough!
8/26 cant come fast enough.
And in the future don't design cards that go certain places. Just don't go there.
Too much to ask for@@BeachfrontSerenade
Dress down never disappoints to cause judge calls 😄
Saying, "I'm not sure" for a very important issue. Well played!
More proof that Dress Down is just Humility with glasses on.
"Okay so, if you're just here for the answer, I have some bad news for you, which is that... I don't know what the correct answer to this question is, because it doesn't exist yet." Wizards strikes again. No official answer, making judges do all the legwork themselves.
The real question is what happens if nadu phases out.
wow, a 5 star video, crazy. dont think ive ever heard dave say he doesn't know what the answer to a rules question is.
My opinion is sort of like a black box approach. From another creature's perspective (or even Nadu's if Nadu has extremely short term memory) all it knows it that it gained an ability, then it lost that ability, then it gained an ability. It has no affect on the creature whether or not that ability came from the same object or two different objects. The way I see it, the creature loses the ability not because there's a dress down, but because Nadu lost the ability that was granting the ability. When the ability-granting-ability came back, it re-granted the ability, making it a new ability. It would be the same as if Nadu alone lost all abilities (eg with a Kenrith's Transformation) and then regained them (eg using a disenchant on Kenrith's Transformation).
This was my intuition for the situation
I would think to come to a similar conclusion here. It does leave a bit of a potential oversight with using a self-imposed Dress Down alongside some kind of chicanery to produce 4 Nadu triggers per creature for that turn, but it is during the end step, so you generally can't abuse Equip or similar free abilities easily.
Does that imply that if you exchange control of two Nadus controlled by different players, creatures don't regain two triggers because they have exactly one instance of the triggered ability at all times (even though the source would be different)?
i don't think this works, since applying same philosophy to an ordinary homocide investigator-style once-per turn trigger gives an incorrect answer
@@stellatedhexahedron6985 The difference is that Homicide Investigator's once per turn ability is innate, Nadu's twice per turn ability isn't actually innate at all, its granted by Nadu but neither its allies nor itself actually HAS that ability normally, so it does not persist in a "turned off" state when under Dress Down or another ability negation effect
Tabak just posted the final ruling on Twitter
At first, when I watched this I thought the answer was clear, but as you delved more into it I can see how it becomes problematic. This is such an interesting question great video once again Mr. Dave!
Ooooooooh 5 stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ I love when you cover these evolving rules developments it is so informative and fascinating.
Nadu introduces the Ship of Theseus to the game
Change Nadu's text box to say "Whenever a creature you control becomes the target..." Boom, problem solved. Not only does it make Nadu's ability clearly work under the rules (by making it essentially the same as the Hostile Investigator example you used), but it also destroys the Nadu combo deck....everyone wins! 😂😂😂
They don't generally do functional errata of individual cards for power level reasons. Also, they will probably print another card that's templated similarly to this at some point so it would be good to have an answer on hand anyways.
The closest ruling I could find which supports being able to trigger nadu 4 times in a turn in this problem statement is 113.3d which states:
"113.3d Static abilities are written as statements. They’re simply true. Static abilities create continuous effects **which are active while the permanent with the ability is on the battlefield and has the ability,** or while the object with the ability is in the appropriate zone. See rule 604, “Handling Static Abilities.”"
Maybe I'm being loose with the interpretation here, but the Nadu effect is active while it has the ability, and losing then regaining the ability could mean its a separate instance of the ability.
I agree with this. It also solves the Well Rested issue from the end of the video (yes, it triggers again) without breaking Bound by Moonsilver (BbM does not gain a new ability so it does not get to activate again). Are there corner cases this misses?
I like this because it is also consistent with the “creature being flickered becomes a new object” where the ability “being flickered” returns as a new “ability object” which is a nice bit of rules symmetry that I feel makes the ruling seem less arbitrary.
This makes the most sense to me too
A 5 stars video ?! I stop everything i do to see this !
How do Nadu and control changing effects interact?
I'm not a judge, but my immediate-kneejerk ruling is.. a card has to leave play(flicker) to reset. So Nadu gets 1 set of triggers, not 2.
But I'll trust your judgment when you find the correct call 😅
Nadu gives the creatures the ability, right? So when the Dress Down effect ends all of the creatures get a fresh instance of the Nadu ability. In other words the counter resets.
This is hugely impactful for cedh. Inevitably this will come up in that format.
Modern too!
Legacy as well, null drifter kept stiflenaught meta and Cepheid breakfast shells are leaning more and more into Nadu
I really like how you introduce the problem, really helps learn the issue and the rules 👍
Okay. Nadu and Tyvar are both going into my Volrath deck
One would think that this would get addressed, since both cards see Modern play, and Dress Down can be useful against Nadu
I need more convincing with the Homicide Investigator example. Absence of evidence doesn't mean there's evidence of absence.
My ruling would be "this card is banned in all formats at my events"
5 star ruling? Oh boy here we go
My solution is vanilla creatures.
I think if we defined "losing an ability" as more analogous to phasing, where we know the ability is there but we treat it as if it isn't, we could have a more distinct line between objects losing abilities and an when object stops having an ability entirely.
In this world, nothing is different for cases like Homicide Detective, where the ability is printed on the card, we retain information about whether or not the ability has triggered this turn even if it "loses" and "regains" the ability.
But, for cards like Well Rested there would be a distinct difference between the cases where the enchanted creature loses and regains the ability versus attaching Well Rested to another object and then reattaching it to the same first object again. The creature didn't just "lose" the ability, but stopped having it entirely, so it would "reset" the once each turn clause.
So now in Nadu's case, we can see a clear line between when the creatures stop having the "whenever this creature is targeted" ability and when they get that ability again, which is defined as being different than just losing and regaining the ability, which would mean that the ability resets its count because it's a new instance.
Came here to say this. If we change dress down's ability to "all creature abilities on the battlefield phase out and creatures entering the battlefield have no abilities" a lot of the comprehensive rulings for dress down would be avoided.
I kind of assumed that the ability sort of “phased” out.
Something like Homicide Investigator has an ability that is, in the application of layers, continually possessed *and* continually removed. (Think of all of the questions where the answer relies on an ability acting in one layer before being stripped in another.) By this logic, I think that Nadu's ability-granting ability is in continuous existence even though it also doesn't exist after layers are applied; thus, the ability-granting ability is always the same ability. But that's not the question.
The question, to me, is this: "Is the ability that Nadu grants granted before it is stripped by Dress Down?" Because of the dependency rule, Dress Down applies first and the ability stops being granted-it isn't granted and then stripped, but rather it's never granted at any point-so I would say that it being granted again later creates a new instance with a new count towards uses per turn.
I think you do gain a new set of nadu triggers, since nadu itself only has 2 lines of printed text, its 2nd line gives it a 3rd line of text, which is the actual trigger effect. So when the 2nd line is removed and later reapplied on nadu it doesn't matter if it is the same ability or not, since it applies the 3rd line again which completely disappeared for a while and so the newly applied 3rd line is a new ability with a new set of twice per turn.
I'm not a mtg judge or anything though, just a very casual mtg enjoyer.
I agree. This seems to be themost intuitive to me as a casual player as well.
Super interesting discussion! My intuition is that you would get a new instance of the ability and that it would reset the count because the source is turned off & back on again but I really loved your examples
wow i never knew how interested i would be about this stuff but thanks for the great content!
Wow. Very interesting episode. Initially I would’ve thought that it wouldn’tve worked. I remember the Agatha’s video from a little while ago, and I got it wrong. So I was partially using that as a basis for my reasoning here. I didn’t realize 2 Nadu’s would interact in that way, because each of them is giving a separate ability. Curious as to what the decision is
This was a very good breakdown of the issue, although i do sit on the opposite side for the resolution. Nadu 's ability to create the ability is the same, but the ability that was created is a new instance of it.
checks last known is a simple answer here
i didn't realize that nadu's effect isn't a text-changing effect... i thought that because there are quotation marks around the text, it would be a text changing effect, and therefore apply before the ability changing layer (i wanna say layer 4? not sure off the top of my head). is there a good way to recognise the difference from a templating pov?
if it *were* a text-changing effect, that would make the question even worse, because at no point do creatures lose the text which describes the ability!
Text-changing effects are normally pretty easy to identify. Most of them explicitly state that they affect the text of the object. This is normally done with the phrase "Change the text...", but this isn't a hard rule. For example, Volrath's Shapeshifter says it "has the full text" of a card. The only examples that aren't immediately obvious without rules knowledge are Splice and any effect that affects an objects name.
If we compare that to Nadu, Nadu instead grants an ability, with that ability placed inside quotation marks to show that it is an ability that is being added to objects.
TL;DR: If you aren't 100% sure it changes text, it probably doesn't.
Hi Dave, I asked in another video but it got even more complicated, I believe Gift is another game breaking mechanic at the moment when it comes to copies. (Unless we're missing something).
I believe this is the first instance in which an opponent is chosen as an additional cost, so how does it work when you copy an opponent's gift card when you are the receiver? You copy all the decisions, but one of the choices was to pick you as an opponent for a gift, but you aren't your own opponent right? In the release notes it says when copying a gift spell, the same opponent is chosen for the gift, so you aren't allowed to change the decision but how can you be that opponent? If you can't then does it mean you can change the chosen opponent for the copy, thus changing decisions for a copy that doesn't target? or that part is ignored but then does the copy is still considered as "gift was promised"?
In multiplayer there is also the loop of Starfall Invocation and Dualcaster Mage, after you force an opponent to draw their deck and they lose, can you continue the loop with a non-existent opponent? it is similar as in both cases the gift receiver is an opponent that doesn't exist.
Considering Copy effects are common and they did addressed one case in the release notes, I'm surprised at the oversight of how to handle copying an impossible additional cost. I've sent Maro a question in his blog, hopefully he'll answer soon.
Gift is not an additional cost, it’s a choice you make as casting the spell that changes its effects.
E: I'm wrong, Gift is an additional cost, as noted in the Bloomburrow release notes. This will be specified in the CR when the update is out.
@@cool_scattergift is an additional cost.
Pretty much all copy cards let's you change the target of the copied spell. In this case, I SUPPOSE you are kinda forced to change the target of the gift.
@@gbasso666 Unfortunately, gifts aren't meant to target an opponent, so you can't change the player who receives the gift.
@@cool_scatter i know, but when you copy a spell on the stack you don't cast it again, so you can't change the additional cost, but you can't change the player chosen for that choice which is you, but you are not your opponent.
TIL that Wheel of Potential _did_ actially get fixed -- I looked it up recently and saw no new rulings on Gatherer, so I assumed it was left broken. I literally thought you were joking about the Twitter thing at first, I'd be hard pressed to come up with a worse way of handling this if I tried.
Here's a worse way: Have rulings from head judges at individual tournament locations be official. Make no attempt to communicate said ruling outside the tournament where it was made.
couldn't this be clarified with a something like "x per turn triggers are tracked by the object the ability originates from"
I think that since the creature loses their ability, then regains it, it should be a new instance. If Dress Down said it deactivated abilities, or those abilities don't trigger, that would be a different case.
I THINK the answer is that Yes, Nadu's ability triggers again, because the Per Turn count is associated with the granted ability, not the card's own ability, because Nadu doesn't have "when targeted, draw, max 2x per turn", Nadu just grants itself that effect as it does everyone, and Nadu lost and regained it, so I'd presume it resets in a manner similar to how flickering a Nadu will reset the count on all your creatures, not just Nadu, the ability was lost and reapplied as a new assertation of that ability
But its reasonable to assert that flickering it makes a new copy of the ability granting effect, where suppressing and then unsuppressing it, does not, and I ain't WotC or even a judge, I'm just someone working through the logic of once per turns and how they are reset
I would say that if a permanent has an ability which was added to it by another source, and that ability has been triggered its maximum allowed number of times in a turn, the ability will not trigger any more during the turn, even if the ability is removed and reapplied to the same permanent by the same source.
TIL +1/+1 counters are like electrons.
but it's only +1/+1 counters. +2/+2 counters, or any other type of strength/toughness counters, do not remove each other.
I dont actually have any backing for this, but when I played with thespians stage and copied a urza's saga and then copied it back to something else, then an opponent played a blood moon and I removed it (phew, thats a lot of words) the judge said that the thespians stage land keeps the abilities granted from urza's saga, suggesting that a permanent lost an ability but retained the very same ability after having it removed by the board state.
Idk if this is an answer to the question, but I would personally go with the route that nadu's ability does not reset based on this instance. That being said, I have no actual CR paragraphs to show that the intereaction between thespians stage and blood moon even works that way to begin with.
I think I have a clever solution for the first version of the interaction: Ban Nadu?
I think the reason the ruling hasn’t come up yet is that “dress down” would be an answer to Nadu that is best to play in response to Nadu being cast, so it’s in play before Nadu and there’s no chance for ability to exist until after dress down gets sacrificed.
If the Nadu was already in play and the Nadu player had the type of instant speed interaction to try and re-trigger Nadu’s ability after the sacrifice- it’s very likely that it wouldn’t matter because the Nadu player can just “go off” before the dress down resolves anyway and there’s no need for extra triggers in the end step.
Earlier today I was literally having a discussion about how baffling the decision to disseminate rules info via Twitter is. Shades of Jeremy Crawford (derogatory)
Thanks for covering this. I'm sure your reach will help get this addressed.
We had a similar debate with this situation, around using tishana's tidebinder to stifle the Nadu trigger on itself, after some other creaturs were triggered, making Nadu lose it's ability, and trying to figure out if the ability reset on all of the Nadu player's creatures. It was a several days long debate that we never found a clean answer for.
Your situation is more case of magus of the moon + imprisoned in a moon
@@adamkarolak3544 wait isnt tishanas the same as this one? im assuming the tishanas was removed from context
@@michaelcasson4824
Ah true, i had to be tired when writing. Its basically same as Dress down.
I viewed it as a continous effect that is simply being removed from dress down, this would cause it to not reset the ability.
The only question about timestamps is if they sit in the same layer I thought?
I'd go with rules as intended. Nadu is the source of the ability so that card should be in charge of tracking who's been targeted and how many times. Even if it would lose the ability. The spirit of the rules in this case feel like it shouldn't be a new instance of the ability since it's the same source of the ability.
Not completely, as actual source of ability is not Nadu himself but rather his ability which temporary disappear.
Your solution sounds like the best one. Honestly, with cards getting wilder and gnarlier the rules might need juuuust a little polishing.
I think in that it will not reset the twice-per-turn limit on Nadu's triggers
So like you control a grizzly bears and Nadu
target the grizzly bears twice (with whatever), the ability that Nadu has sees that the grizzly bears has been triggered 2 times and that of Nadu itself 0 times.
if you then remove the ability with dress down nothing really changes, other that none of nadu and the bears have any ability
then when dress down leaves the battlefield, the ability will come back, its still the same ability (See the Homicide Detective), so it will know that the grizzly bears has already triggered its instance of it has already triggered twice, so targeting the grizzly bears at that point will not cause it to trigger again.
But it's not ability on Nadu they see how many time bear was targeted. It's ability on bear creater by ability on Nadu. That's why it's hard problem.
Thinking about "where abilities come from", how about intrinsic abilities? If a permanent has "Each activated ability can only be activated once per turn", then you play Blood Moon, can you use Nissa on your Valakut that had already tapped for R, then tap for R again? What if you already had the Blood Moon down, and flickered it?
Great stuff, as always. It is a bit surprising this hasn't been caught and dealt with already, but maybe they are ironing out a similar addition to the CR and it's taking some time.
I feel like the way you approached it is correct, but I want to add on the "losing/gaining control." It may be the same object on its own, but the abilities would likely reset on other creatures, not itself, as that's a new instance of the abilities. As an example, you steal an opposing Nadu, your creatures get the abilities, and you use them. End of turn, the Nadu returns to its owner's control, and, even though Nadu is the same object, it reapplies its abilities to the creatures because those creatures lost them and then regained them.
Same with the original Dress Down case though.
@@cool_scatter yes, but if you steal Nadu and another creature, this becomes a nightmare.
Is the Nadu the same Nadu, is the creature the same creature, is the ability the same ability, does it refresh the pool of targets, does it includes the Nadu in this new pool, does it exclude the old targets from a new pool, etc
And the final question, how many copies of hive mind, replication tecnique, corporeal projection do I need in my "Jugdes hate this simple trick" Izzet Nadu/Dress down deck and should I also splash in the white for fractured identilty?
Intuitively i feel like the ability should not count as new. I see the triggered ability as a method of the class nadu and this nadu object has the same unique identifier, therefore, "this ability" would reference itself again
Dave should become an actual factual lawyer.
Babe, wake up.
New 5 stars video dropped
Rules violation! You’re not allowed to Normal-Post a 5-Star video without sacrificing one of your other videos already in play
I SUMMON POT OF GREED TO DRAW THREE ADDITIONAL CARDS FROM MY DECK
Wonder if a valid comparison would be what happens to a creature that has been exerted when a dress down is played??
Not really. Exerting a creature isn't really different than casting Grip of the Roil on it. Taking away it's abilities will be able to stop it from exerting itself again, but it won't effect previous exertions.
Suppose that instead of dress down, we have some effect phase Nadu out and back in in the same turn. Would your analysis be the same in that situation?
FIVE STARS!!!!!
that's the third 5 star video according to my memory. or the fourth? I remember what if a judge makes a mistake and grand arbiter vs season of the witch.
"All creature abilities phase out." There, problem sol... well, replaced by a whole bunch of different problems. This might partially be a naming problem that it's probably too late to fix: if we talked about "suppressing" abilities, it would be intuitive that it's still the same ability, and it would also be intuitive that abilities resume doing something once the suppressor goes away.
And I think we can count ourselves lucky that the effect is untargeted.
(FWIW, I would consider the number times the effect has triggered to be just like "is monstrous" in terms of interactability.)
Even if talk about "suppressing" instead of removing ability, core of problem stay same.
It's not whether the original, printed on Nadu ability is same, (it is). It's about ability created and granted by this printed on card.
Oh god, imagine 2 instances of Nadu ability at the same time, but with one of them already partially proc'd
2-D conveyor belt time!
My biggest thanks to you, Dave, and the quality of this video and your presentation. It helps me get better and better at not only knowing the rules but also how to explain them in a very appealing way . Your work is wonderful.
Would this also be the same if you use Nadu's Effect twice and then use Kenrith's Transformation on the Nadu removing all it's abilities, then removing the Kenrith's Transformation to give the Nadu it's abilities back during the same turn?
This is a great example of times when some cards just straight up break the rules. I think intuitiveness should play a huge part in how some rules are made. Personally, Given that Nadu gives the ability to not only itself but all creatures you have, if something where to remove all of its abilities and then that thing is taken away, that "twice per turn" should not be reset unless any physical characteristics of the card are changed, such as in Sleeping with the Fishes or Darksteel Mutation
the problem with using intuitiveness for this is that, to me, it feels obvious that the "correct" solution should be that "twice per turn" is reset. so whatever they decide is going to be unintuitive to one of us
"Once per turn" with no physical marker is unintuitive for magic cards. Card and ability identity/uniqueness over time is not normally something that matters, so it's not taught, tracked, or noticed.
I think it makes the most sense to say that the creature gets a “new” ability.
it says "this ability triggers ONLY twice each turn"
even if they are from different versions of nadu, the ability can only occur twice per creature per turn, regardless of shenanigans
It does say "THIS ability triggers only twice each turn". If you have multiple Nadus or blink one, the new abilities will be different ones that haven't triggered at all yet.
Here's the relevant rulings:
"If you somehow control more than one Nadu, each permanent you control will have that many instances of the granted ability. These abilities are not redundant. For example, if you control two Nadus and one becomes the target of a spell or ability, each of its granted abilities will trigger. If that same Nadu becomes the target of a spell or ability again later in the turn, each of its granted abilities will trigger again, as each of them have triggered only once so far this turn."
"If Nadu leaves the battlefield and returns to the battlefield in the same turn, or if Nadu leaves and another Nadu appears, the triggered ability granted by the new one is different than the triggered ability granted by the old one. The one granted by the new Nadu may trigger twice for each creature you control, even if the ability granted by the old Nadu already triggered twice for those creatures that turn. (Note that creatures you control won't have the ability granted by the old one anymore, and if you control multiple Nadus, you won't have the opportunity to take actions before the "legend rule" gets you down to one Nadu.)"
@@seandun7083 if those are the rulings then wow! even more reason to say the card is broken lol
So... if I use Kenrith transformation on Nadu, and later on Kenrith transformation leaves the battlefield but not Nadu. Does it reset Nadu?
My interpretation here is its the same Nadu with the same ability, but its a different time its applying therefore the creatures you control gain a new version of that ability and reset the count. Same thing that'd happen if you swapped control of the creature away from the Nadu player then swapped it back - its the same Nadu and the same ability applying to the creature, but the ability on the swapped creature is a new instance. Sadly the video can't
I think losing an ability (Dress Down) is distinct from no longer having it (Well Rested being unattached from a creature), and the reason that isn't intuitive to some people is that... they seem to think Nadu gives an ability for some reason? Nadu doesn't give any abilities. It declares that certain objects have an ability.
Maybe an important thing to consider is how Dress Down interacts with something like Retraction Helix. My intuition says it's different from how it interacts with Nadu.
Nadu does give an ability. If it didn't, it wouldn't apply in layer 6.
613.1f: Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, keyword counters, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can't have an ability are applied.
@@seandun7083 Huh. Weird. My intuition must be way off, then.
Either that, or my intuition is noticing a real distinction that isn't actually addressed in the comprehensive rules for some reason.
Nadu does give an ability to your creatures as can be seen from CR 113.1a: ...Abilities can also be granted to objects by rules or effects. (Effects that grant abilities usually use the words “has,” “have,” “gains,” or “gain.”)
@@JudgingFtW I see. I have been interpreting "has/have" and "gains/gain" as completely separate things, but apparently they're mechanically the same thing?
Do we have an official answer to the Dress Down x Nadu interaction yet?
My poor brain
Awesome video again Judge Dave! Thanks for making great content!
Can you clarify what happens in the Nadu + flicker case? Does the limit reset? I couldnt follow the "same as the previous case" chain.
It does, Nadu's granted ability resets, as the 2x per turn is tracked per instance of the ability
How would Bound by Moonsilver be affected by timestamps? As the ability to move it is part of the enchantment and not the creature it's attached to, would it's timestamp even change if it was moved?
Permanents always get a new timestamp when attached to a new object.
nadu cannot do this more than twice each turn.. the activated ability null does not reset the counter of how many times per turn
When activated abilities cost 0, ever interaction spell must now have split second.
What activated ability here costs 0? Nadu has a triggered ability.
@@seandun7083 Der Der I'm saun I pretend to be dumb Der Der.
@@seandun7083 sorry *dun dun, I'm Sean, I pretend to be dumb; dun dun.
@@curtisfarley6558 Did that comment have a point to it or did you just trip over your own words for fun?
@@seandun7083 does your life; hypocrite?
Can I ask how you would go about ruling this in a game now? Do you think it's even possible to give a good mid-game ruling in a situation like this? What's the process for this in, for example, a PT setting where there's a live broadcast waiting to move forward?
The answer to that is that the head judge makes a ruling, whatever (in that judge's opinion) makes the most sense. I talked about what my opinion for this scenario is at 8:43. Further info on this sort of scenario can be found in DDR#571: ua-cam.com/video/uN-jBAvhCGo/v-deo.html
Next rules video: why isn’t nadu banned
What currently happens with this interaction on MTGO?
Doesnt tyvar the belicose have a fairly similar ability? I guess something gaining the spotlight is a good thing lol
I'm not exactly sure but I know if an object lost it's ability ( overwritten) the ability that it lost would be re-applied (new object ability) once the ability that's removing it is removed.
It shouldn't be the same instants due to Nadu giving that ability to itself.
Now if it was just the ability on that creature then that ability would be re-applied as the same ability as printed.
What I mean is Nadu is giving that ability through another ability that was removed.
So the ability would be a new instants and the ability that nadu has would be the same instant.
( Remove ability)
1 flying
2 creatures you control have
{Gained ability}
3 whenever this creature is a target
( Ability gone)
( Re-apply)
1 flying
2 creatures you control gain
{New instant of the same ability being applied}
3 whenever this creature is a target
The logic stands for this ability to reset as soon as it comes back.
Imagine Nadu decks playing dress down so they can use it to reset their own Nadu's twice per turn limit 🤣
Hey, rules question. If something is enchanted by a darksteel mutation and is then cloned (say by Clone), the clone does not become an 0/1 indestructible. Does this work the same for a card like metamorphic alteration? If I cloned something that was changed by metamorphic alteration, would it be the original or whatever the enchantment made it into? Thanks!
Clone effects will copy other clone effects. They will also copy any modifications other clone effects make to the original. If you play a Spark Double which enters as a copy of another Spark Double which cloned a Grizzly Bears, the first would be a 3/3 but the second would be a 4/4 since it copies the first one's "except it enters with an additional +1/+1 counter".
707.2c: If a static ability generates a continuous effect that's a copy effect, the copiable values that effect grants are determined only at the time that effect first starts to apply.
707.3: The copy's copiable values become the copied information, as modified by the copy's status (see rule 110.5). Objects that copy the object will use the new copiable values.
@@seandun7083 Pretty sure the second Spark double would still only be a 3/3, because the first is only a 3/3 with the counter. the copy doesn't see the other things on the card like counters, it just sees the card, and the first Spark double would be a 2/2 Grizzly, so it would enter as that with a +1/+1 counter making it a 3/3
@@thomassorensen4789 it doesn't see the +1/+1 counter, but it does see the "except it enters with an additional +1/+1 counter" as that is part of the copy effect.
Copiable values are the characteristics after layer 1 has been applied.
613.2c: After all rules and effects in layer 1 have been applied, the object's characteristics are its copiable values. (See rule 707.2.)
@@seandun7083 but is that an ability that spark double gives to the copy? I don’t think it is, I believe it is part of the same etb trigger as the clone ability, which means that it goes away because the etb trigger is not given to the copy unlike other things like for example pheyrexian metamorph giving it artifact type. Played a couple of games on arena and it worked the way I was saying, with it not getting extra +1/+1 counters. Not saying arena is perfect, but given it treats layers pretty darn well I am inclined to believe it.
@@thomassorensen4789 really? Huh. That feels weird to me since that effect uses the exact same phrasing with regards to the "except" as the metamorph. I am also sure that the "except it isn't legendary" will be copied since that was an important part of the old Gyruda combo decks.
I don't see why this rule wouldn't apply since the ability says "enters the battlefield with". It's a replacement effect rather than a trigger btw.
707.5: An object that enters the battlefield "as a copy" or "that's a copy" of another object becomes a copy as it enters the battlefield. It doesn't enter the battlefield, and then become a copy of that permanent. If the text that's being copied includes any abilities that replace the enters-the-battlefield event (such as "enters the battlefield with" or "as [this] enters the battlefield" abilities), those abilities will take effect. Also, any enters-the-battlefield triggered abilities of the copy will have a chance to trigger.
Did you know you can put a count onto the card Solemnity? If your play Season of the Burrows and return it from the graveyard with its 3rd ability it will enter with an indestructible counter on it even though the card states it can't lol. funny loophole
Can you do a video on Volo Guide to monsters and copying him?
Example
I have Volo and 2 spark double copies of Volo. Then I cast risen reef. I have been under the impression that I get four total risen reefs (including the original) but someone recently tried to say I only get 1 copy. Who’s right?
I mostly bring this up because I’m pretty sure Volo checked only on cast and so do the copies since there’s no intervening “If” clause. But I want to make sure I’ve been playing this card correctly. Especially since I JUST learned I’ve been playing Breena wrong this whole time and that it’s even better than I thought.
I believe Volo only checks on trigger. In order to check at both times, it would need to use an intervening if clause.
@@seandun7083 that’s how I’ve been playing it since forever. I just want to make sure I’m not mucking it up 😅
When you flicker nadu is there actually any time where your creatures don’t have the nadu ability.
Kinda but also effectively no there isn’t. Are layers even checked in the middle of resolving a spell?
There is a "moment" where they don't, but it isn't really an active game moment. During the resolution of a spell or ability, there are no checks for state-based actions, and no player has the ability to act, so I think it is more of a theoretical moment. Practically speaking, the creatures always have the ability, but we pretend there is a moment where they don't for our immersion in the fantasy world.
There’s no point of interaction during the resolution of a card like flicker, but the stack could affect some state based actions, so there is a test:
If I flicker my Archetype of Imagination while I control a Smog Elemental, would a 1/1 flier my opponent controls die?
Archetype of Imagination
{4}{U}{U}
Enchantment Creature - Human Wizard
Creatures you control have flying.
Creatures your opponents control lose flying and can’t have or gain flying.
3/2
Smog Elemental
{4}{B}{B}
Creature - Elemental
Flying
Creatures with flying your opponents control get -1/-1.
3/3
@@GeoQuag It would not, because the state based actions are not checked until the spell has finished resolving. It would be like a spell that says "target creature gets -1/-1, then gets +1/+1". If you targeted a 1/1 creature, it wouldn't die.
@@ethanglaeser9239Layers are different than State Based Actions. They are constantly being updated. If they need to wait until State Based Actions were checked, then Final Showdown wouldn't function as intended.
613.5: The application of continuous effects as described by the layer system is continually and automatically performed by the game. All resulting changes to an object's characteristics are instantaneous.
@@seandun7083 Dying to having 0 Toughness however is a State Based Action, thus it does not matter how instant the stat modifications are, the end result has the creatures live
Hello I have a auestion about rules and hope someone here can help me.
I play jodah the uniter as cammander, if I have him on the field together with gandal the white and annie joins up, how many time dose the cascade ability trigger?
Thank you for youre help.
Gandalf only copies triggers caused by legends and artifacts entering or leaving the battlefield. Because Jodah's ability is a cast trigger, Gandalf won't apply to it. Therefore you only get 2 triggers.
Ah thank you very much.
I'm inclined to treat this more like phasing. Nadu grants an ability, and Dress Down says, "Ok, now pretend all creatures have no abilities." The ability still exists, and it will be the same ability when it "phases in". In short, I think what matters is if the ability comes from the same game object.
The problem is that Nadu doesn't actually HAVE the ability, Dress Down suppresses the ability that grants Nadu and all others the 2x turn ability, so for a time, it doesn't have the ability at all, rather than it being suppressed but on the text(eg what Homicide Investigator or the like would experience)
I understand why Nadu depends on dress down, but doesn't dress down also depend on Nadu because Nadu changes what dress down does to the things it applies to? Or am I interpreting the dependency rule wrong?
No, Dress Down always wants to do the same thing (remove all abilities) to the permanents it affects. Applying Nadu first might change how much work that entails, but not what the job is. Therefore, Dress Down does not depend on Nadu.
@@JudgingFtW thanks for the response. I just found your channel a couple of days ago, and I am enjoying it a lot.
When MH3 first released, I thought it was dumb that people begged for this card to be banned, but the more I learn about it, the more I realize it's not just that people want it banned because it's too strong. It's just too difficult to even comprehend what's going on, let alone represent and track it all. What a nightmare.
This is just reinforcing my belief that in a sane world Nadu's ability would be worded so it was its ability alone and it triggered and had a twice a turn trigger limit because that is less game breaking and nonsensically and unnecessarily complex that Nadu having an ability that gives all your creatures its own individual ability with individual twice a turn triggering limits.....but daddy Hasbro told WotC they needed to push the limits to sell packs, game balance or rules coherence be damned.
It's so abundantly clear the ability as printed is so absurd and broken it should be unprintable. It's a Jitte level 'mistake' that seems too obvious to be a mistake. This isn't like Hogak where you could forgive them for not seeing it coming. They knew exactly what they were doing with Nadu, and that they shouldn't, and they did it anyway.
what about if Nadu is phased out, would that not be more accurate to the original problem. I agree with your ruling of the object being the same therefore the ability is not reset.
How does it work on MTGO?
Here’s my reasoning for why it should not reset the Nadu equip count.
Since Dress Down does not clear the state of other abilities (ex:once per turn things), it can be seen as if the dress down ability “hides” abilities rather than “deleting” those abilities.
Since you have already established that Nadu’s ability applies first because dress down depends on it, that would mean:
* Nadu ability applies
* each creature gets Nadu ability
* dress down ability applies
* each creature has Nadu ability hidden at the same time.
All abilities are still there, just masked. All state associated with those abilities is still there.
The memory is allocated and not destroyed. Just obscured.
That’s what would make sense to me.
Abilities with state cannot be fungible like counters, as essentially counters are state. Abilities with state cannot be fungible in the same way. It would be like buying a latte by physically giving the cashier your credit card instead of debiting your account.
You misheard the example given, Dress Down applies first, not Nadu, as Nadu's ability-granting ability's effect on the board depends on which applies first, a dependency, so Dress Down applies first, Nadu under Dress Down is not granting abilities at all, rather than granting abilities that then get suppressed