Fábio Batista
fbtst.bsky.social
Fábio Batista
@fbtst.bsky.social
the typical is 2 pods of 3, but what about a 3 x two-headed-giant teams in a FFA?
March 29, 2025 at 11:39 PM
They both apply, but only when attacking creatures have shadow! (609.4 & 609.4a). So dryad with web should be able to block an attacker that doesn't have shadow.
March 27, 2025 at 10:37 AM
I don't think this works like that because rule 609.4 says that when pretending (as though) something is true in order to do something, that we only apply to the stated effect, so the creature doesn't actually lose abilities
March 26, 2025 at 2:47 PM
But the "pretends" part of Heartwood Dryad only applies to attacking creatures with shadow, so Heartwood Dryad with Aether Web attached, can block a creature without shadow, right?
March 26, 2025 at 2:18 PM
Or to put it in other perspective: How can we recognize that set of Actions (or keyword actions) can be processed simultaneously? The CR doesn't provide in this regard... Help! :)
February 27, 2025 at 10:41 AM
Also, if an opponent controls an Alms Collector, that means it will be able to see more than 1 card attempting to be drawn and replace it! Neat!
February 20, 2025 at 5:18 PM
Great! One final question: When resolving tempt with vengeance, is the game capable of simultaneous creating 3 times X tokens? The same way its capable of simultaneously creating 3 times "a token" ?

What if the effect created multiple kinds of token, would it also work ? (except investigate ofc)
February 20, 2025 at 5:16 PM
what about the other tempt with... spells? how can we as judges have a general rule of thumb to recognize if an effect can be "clumped" and resolve the "for each" all at once vs not?
February 20, 2025 at 11:53 AM
thanks for the reply!! Because of the draw i thought you had to (draw a card, create rabbit) for each opponent sequentially since you draw one card at a time.

This is wild since the gatherer ruling (for all tempt with...) is a bit misleading when we compare to the the ruling on Tempting Offer.
February 20, 2025 at 11:51 AM
another issue that i see with lower brackets, is that saying "no mass land destruction" and allowing board-wipes for artifact mana or creature mana, makes land-ramp based decks unfairly unpunishable. I'm not sure how to fix that, though :/
February 12, 2025 at 1:19 AM
re.: lower brackets:

- i'd love to see an integration with commanderspellbook to help with the "combo detection" ;)

re.: upper brackets:

- the difference between 4 and 5 seems to be purely a mindset one. Player-based, not deck-based, yeah? However, players can also compete in lower brackets!
February 12, 2025 at 1:16 AM