jacklayers.bsky.social
@jacklayers.bsky.social
You’re right, I was focusing only on layer 6. Thanks!
July 29, 2025 at 11:20 AM
I think in this scenario, on Layer 6 there's a dependency and so timestamp doesn't apply.
July 29, 2025 at 9:04 AM
Appreciated Matt, thanks!
July 29, 2025 at 6:14 AM
Thanks for your help!
July 8, 2025 at 4:41 PM
Hello Matt! Quick question: Does rule 903.11 allow the use of Companions in Commander? If not, where in the Comprehensive Rules can I find the regulations for them? Thanks in advance!
June 6, 2025 at 9:09 AM
No worries, Matt—thanks! \:D This creates a weird interaction, then. If I control a Doubling Season and play an Urza’s Saga, it should enter with only one lore counter, not two… I guess?
June 5, 2025 at 4:24 PM
Thanks, Matt. However, I wonder what qualifies it as a replacement effect, since it doesn’t match any of the definitions in the CR (except for the “As this enters” template, which specifically belongs to some static abilities—and this is a rule, not an ability).
June 5, 2025 at 4:04 PM
In any case, I’m afraid that players will find this interaction rather counterintuitive. In my opinion, making 714.3a an intrinsic ability might help the game work the way players expect without “breaking” anything (unless, of course, this design choice is intentional).
June 5, 2025 at 3:36 PM
Because that “replacement” comes from a rule, and not from the card’s text. Nor is it an intrinsic ability of the Saga. So BM can’t remove it at all.
June 5, 2025 at 3:16 PM
Thanks, Matt! Follow-up question: can what puts the first lore counter on a Saga be qualified as a replacement effect? It doesn't really match the definition of "effect" or "replacement effect", considering it comes from a rule and not from a resolving spell, ability, or static effect.
June 5, 2025 at 2:58 PM
Thanks again Matt :)
May 27, 2025 at 2:04 PM
So, the calculation to be performed is –3 – (–7), which simplifies to –3 + 7, yielding 4. Is that correct?
May 27, 2025 at 7:58 AM
Thanks Matt!
May 26, 2025 at 7:24 PM
Thanks Matt!
April 16, 2025 at 5:08 PM
The "problem" is that, according to CR 508.1b/508.1c, affirmative sentences are presented as requirements, while negative sentences are presented as restrictions. This can be somewhat confusing when it comes to evaluating the two. "Can't attack except alone" could be an alternative option?
April 16, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Great, thanks!
April 14, 2025 at 7:53 PM
Thanks Matt! I was thinking about something weird also, like a lighting bolt put down as a 5/5 creature with Tezzeret, Cruel Machinist (it’s not manifested for the CR). Then I turn it face up with Ixidor and then I try to copy it with a Clever Impersonator.
Maybe that rule sets a default for this?
April 14, 2025 at 7:51 PM
Thank you Matt! <3
March 20, 2025 at 4:16 PM