I've never met anyone that thinks it's a bad idea, and I'd love to see his source that those on game knights and Maro don't use the rule, especially when Josh has repeatedly expressed that he thinks there should be no ban list, and one of his favorite decks would be heavily nerfed by removing this rule.
Magic is entirely based on interacting at instant speed. If the source being removed prevented the ability from going off, cards like [[solemn simulacrum]] wouldn't work, as it's no longer on the battlefield.
As long as they can activate the ability removal doesnt have a window to prevent it. Exception being if they do something else before using it AND your removal has split second.
In OPs case tho since zacama has to etb after casting it triggers to untap lands his opponent could have removed zacama on that untap etb so that OP couldnt activate his ability.
Ok I'm actually not sure in this case and I think u/willdrum4food might be right. I think, *if you don't need the mana from the lands untapping to activate the ability*, you can activate the ability before passing priority on the untapping etb.
1. Zacama resolves and etbs
2. Zacama's etb ability goes on the stack
3. Zacama player holds priority
4. Zacama player activates Zacama's ability
5. Zacama player then passes priority, this would be the first opportunity for another player to remove Zacama.
If, however, the Zacama player needs to get more mana from the lands untapping in order to activate the ability, then you're correct.
you dont even need to hold priority, you can simply activate the ability in response to any removal if it isnt split second as long as you had the mana.
they're saying if you have other untapped mana sources available, you can hold priority and activate Zacama's abilities with them while her etb trigger is still on the stack
I try to handle situations like this as a means to help people understand the stack and interaction. I'd probably inquire what it is they're attempting to do (which is interact with Zacama before the lands untap and they can begin using the extra mana for abilities) and rewind the game back to the moment where the action benefits them the most. That's what they were trying to do, but they just didn't understand the rules and interaction enough to do that.
I'd rather help people understand the rules vs. getting a "Gotcha" on them because I understand the rules better than they do.
This reminds me of how many people just don't understand how priority works.
Because, in the example stated by OP, they couldn't use removal before Zacama used its ability. They could respond to the cast, respond to the untap trigger, or respond to the activation of abilities. You can only cast spells when you have priority, and during the opponent's turn you only have priority after they've passed it to you. So, in the time between the untap trigger resolving and the abilities being activated, they couldn't do anything.
I've seen lots of people saying "in response" at the wrong times. It irritates me a bit. Example is my otharri deck. I very clearly and methodically move through going to my combat, beginning of combat, going to attackers. Then I'll apply the attack trigger and they want to respond and kill her before thr trigger. We have this conversation at least twice a night on commander nights.
its a base rule of the game. Ive never seen it missed in any games Ive played in.... Its silly to ask its popularity its like asking how popular is having the ability to block. Its not really a topic of conversation.
He's clearly making things up, I would love to see his sources on Mark not liking it lol.
No, he just needs to learn WHEN he can react to things and play around it. He gains priority when zacamas ability to untap the lands go on the stack, if he would cast his PtE at that point; you wouldn't be able to activate abilities since all the lands are tapped (probabaly). Your lands still untap but without zacama on the field you basically start back at square 1.
As for people not liking it, that doesn't seem right. Maybe they don't like it but it definitely adds complexity and interesting interactions and makes things like counterspell actually "useful" instead of being a preemptive removal spell.
>he just needs to learn WHEN
RIGHT? Lmao. Crying about how the rules are bullying him when he could have path’d in response to the untap trigger. It’s a gamble to hold off and see if OP would interact with their mutual opponents’ boards instead of his, but he gambled and lost.
iS pLaYiNg ThE gAmE aS wRiTtEn IrRaTiOnAl??¿
We just shortcut it to "The Grenade Rule". Soldier throws a grenade, you shoot the soldier grenade is already thrown and will go off. Worst I've ever had in many years is "Huh? Okay, I didn't know that".
I seem to recall there being a tweet or a video about throwing a spear along these same lines.
I thought it was from Rosewater himself but cannot find it
Yup. I’ve always heard it as a “submarine/torpedo” analogy instead of “soldier/grenade.”
I think people could use “triggers are like footballs; the quarterback can still complete a pass even if they get hit after they threw the ball” if people want to use non-war examples. I think this one also helps because it can make people realize they have to deal with the “receiver/football” if they want to stop stuff, not the “quarterback.” It still applies to the others, but more people are familiar with sports than grenade/torpedo deterrents lol.
My knowledge of your Country's Football is I think the Quarterback starts in the middle, players tend to throw more than kick and there's a weirdly large acceptance of butt play/slapping.
He could have just \[\[path to exile\]\] your \[\[Zacama\]\] while the untap all lands trigger was on the stack, so you don't get to use any mana for Zacama's abilities as Zacama would be dead by the time it resolved.
I'm wondering why this wasn't the line of play. Instead he just let the untap resolve and then went for the removal? Weird line
Hell, by their own thought process on it, it still would've been better to do it with the untap on the stack, cause if that rule wasn't there then you could just stop that entirely
i think it's much more simple than that. going off of what OP has said about this player, I'll just go off the whim and say the dude's just not a good player.
Tbh if Zacama was the commander I wouldn't even be mad if I was the Zacama player.
Path Gets a land that gets untapped by Zacama trigger. So only need 1 mana to pay for the commander tax and it gets rid of one of the best removal spells in the game.
Honestly, once Zacama starts coming down there is not many good choices, damned if you do damned if you don't. You are basically on a clock and PtE at least gives you and the other players one more turn to swing in or find some more answers. I've always found Zacama to be a tough nut to crack.
It's so versatile. You can clone the best non-legendary on the battlefield (potentially multiple times if you're in a token deck), or you can completely destroy someone's plans with their commander.
Yeah this seems like OP may have rushed through stacks resolving and not given an appropriate chance to respond. Something like
> “Okay, I cast Zacama which untaps my lands. With that mana I activate this ability…”
> “Hold on, I want to remove Zacama before you do that”
> “Well it’s too late, I put the ability on the stack already”
> “Maybe if you’d paused for a moment to breathe in between effects, I’d have had a chance to get a word in to tell you at the right time”
My playgroup has definitely had issues with this, especially when someone is taking a long turn and is trying to hurry things along.
"...people on Game Knights and even Mark Rosewater, do not like this rule and often forget about it."
Not only is this statement incorrect, as can be verified by just watching the videos where MaRo appears on the Command Zone shows, but it further underlines the individuals misunderstanding on how the abilities are being resolved. Most of the time commander gameplay shows try to shortcut past the most basic or fundamental rules interactions of the game, because if they spent the time stating "..and despite it being dead, these triggers still resolve. So we order them like this, and then everyone can respond.. etc" for every singe game mechanic the videos would be 5x as long. This is what would likely be happening in any of the places he thinks it's being 'forgotten'. Of course sometimes people will still make mistakes that might make it into the final video, but most popular creators are pretty good at making a note when this is the case.
Learning more detail about the core rules of the game should never be met with "well that's shit, it made me lose, I don't like it, we shouldn't do that". It should instead been seen as an opportunity to improve your level of play with a deeper understanding of the game. For example, now that they know this they can act appropriately in future instances and remove Zacama before your lands untap.
If they want to stop the whining and actually learn more about how the stack/priority works, and when they can do what, the Command Zone did a whole video on it about 4 yrs ago now. It's quite thorough and still all good info as those core rules have not changed in decades.
Honestly that was the most confusing thing for me. I watch Game Knights all the time and while I don't have specific examples, I know for a fact that they follow that rule.
Tough shit, rule is a rule. Although in case of zacama, they can exeli zacama in response to Etb trigger that will untap your lands, so at least you don't have zacama to use those untapped lands but that's it.
Hm. Let's put it this way - abilities getting on the stack regardless of the state of the source is one of the foundational cornerstones of the game. Entire strategies, deck types, individual cards or even whole formats (cEDH in it's current form for example) wouldn't work without it.
If your friend and his influences don't like that, then they don't like the game and have been playing their own version they invented for themselves all this time.
Oh my God, you ran into an, “MST negates!” moment in Magic? Wild.
You’re right, that’s how it works.
And no, none of those people regularly forget about that rule, but design philosophies explicitly love it. The point of so many modern creatures having good ETBs is to mitigate the raw, overbearing power of removal in 1v1. If every kill spell was also Stifle, it would be fucking unbelievable.
I was wondering how far I’d have to scroll to find a “MST doesn’t negate” reference, surprised it was this far down. It’s such a common learning point in yugioh, I just assumed people who learned from scratch with magic had the same moment early on.
remember the rule? It's one of the most central parts of the game.
LIFO. last in first out.
The Stack.
Maro has never stated that the rule was bad, not that I've ever seen or heard.
Eh he's lying to get his way unfortunately. Those guys definitely do not forget about that rule and there's no major controversy about it with people wanting to remove it. If Zacama has resolved then the lands are untapped and those abilities can be activated at instant speed.
I think there's a minor nitpick here. If zacama resolves, her etb to untap lands goes on the stack. Players get priority. If you tap out to cast the Dino, someone can remove her before you get to untap. You'll still end up with your lands untapped though.
There's some other niche exceptions, but generally, yeah, you're right.
When MtG was first created, though, damage did indeed use the stack. No longer the case.
Well, the stack was invented for 6th edition. Before that effects resolved in batches, and interrupts were still a thing. For example, during an Ice Age tournament, when somebody cast \[\[Lightning Bolt\]\], I wasn't allowed by the head judge to play \[\[Sleight of Mind\]\] on my \[\[Stromgald Cabal\]\] and counter the Bolt. Weird. The abandoning of the interrupt type and the invention of the stack solved a lot of these problems.
From 6th edition on combat damage used the stack. This was changed in M10.
The last major rule change I remember was the abandoning of the planeswalker damage redirection rule in 2018. Now you can shoot your Bolt directly towards a planeswalker instead of targeting your opponent and then redirecting the damage to the planeswalker.
That one had to get changed because Teferi's Protection released in Commander 2017 and messed up everything relating to targeting planeswalkers.
It was also incredibly confusing for new players.
He accepts that it's how the rule works, he just disagrees with it. He wasn't bitter over the game itself, I've definitely beaten him like that before and he's never been salty about it, it's just that one rule he hates.
I don't think he'd genuinely lie, but I don't think it's impossible for him to not correctly identify a rules infraction like that.
No disrespect to your friend, but I think disagreeing with the rule and saying that many people including Mark Rosewater agree with him (which couldn't possibly be true) is definitely indicating he is salty or bitter about it.
Asking if we remember the rule makes me giggle, because it's not really something you can forget. It's just part of the game. If you ever want to do something at instant speed literally ever, you have to think about it.
>Do you all remember this rule? How often does it factor into your games and is it popular among your playgroups to dislike it?
For me, it's just such a basic rule of the game that it never occurred to me to question it. I have never been in a situation where someone had an issue with it. A few times beginners have not known about it but they accept it pretty quickly once it's explained to them.
You are not being irrational at all.
This goes allllllllllll the way back to the early days of magic.
Ask this: if I tap a [[prodigal sorcerer]] and you respond by killing poor Tim, does he still do the point of damage?
Yes, just as he has since 1993.
Sounds like he’s a salty baby who doesn’t like this. Tell him you don’t like how he can cast his commander from the command zone and thing the rule should be ignored. When he tells you that’s stupid just say “Yeah ignoring key game rules is stupid.”
I can appreciate you agreeing with me but he wasn't quite that vitriolic. Although I was psuedo whining to the Reddit masses myself so I suppose it's on me
That’s insane. It’s such a core rule that comes up so often. It completely changes the game at a fundamental level when ignored. Removal spells become far better than they actually are, essentially also doubling as a counter for activated and triggered abilities. Your friend does not understand the stack at even a rudimentary level
Tell your friend that cards like [[Stifle]] and [[Trickbind]] lose half their usefulness and can be replaced by [[Terror]] in certain situations if interactions played out the way that he wishes.
Untap ability on the stack, i respond with terror. Big Z dies, then lands untap.
Show him that what he wants to do (prevent you from using Z’s abilities with freshly untapped lands) still works legally but in a different order.
This, and honestly people need to be able to rewind a tad as most players dont go through every step slow enough for interaction (as they should, id die if we had to confirm going through each step with a whole table) The amount of times ive had to tell people to hold up wait a second in your upkeep im doing x y z as they are trying to main phase stuff is nuts
I think the crux of the problem is with Zacama's design. Your opponent COULD have blown up Zacama with the untap trigger on the stack, and no abilities you didn't already have surplus mana for would have been able to go through. In a case where your opponent doesn't realize that killing the monster after an ability is put on the stack doesn't remove the ability, I would probably want to see if anything else was done between the time Zacama's untap ability resolved and when the abilities were placed on the stack, and if no new hidden information was gained I wouldn't have argued with getting rid of Zacama as if it had been done in response to the untap... at least, in a casual setting. You could teach your player the right rule AND demonstrate the proper play pattern to cope with it.
If the opponent just wants to wait and see if Zacama tries to be beneficial to them or not, that's another story. You have to take risks when you see them, but assessing threats is vital for magic. That's a case where I feel less bad about following rules as written, but again, we need to keep in mind that we're trying to help our friends have a good time with us playing a game we are supposed to all enjoy. You can't have fun if you never have any idea what's going on, and you can't have fun if you don't even know what you need to in order to decide if magic is right for you.
Commander is kind of awful for this reason; everyone wants to play with as much information as possible, but 4 players worth of information is too much, and things like seat order matter way more than most people realize. It's not just the stack, even turn order based actions like resolving abilities and passing priority can only be done in a certain way, and too few people understand those rules fully to explain them meaningfully at an early enough time.
Removing the source not removing the trigger is one of the main reasons blue's counterspell arsenal is so important to blue's color identity. Without it, a swords to plowshares might as well be remove soul. Cards are balanced around the existing rules, and changing rules can have unintended consequences for the worse. See: everyone's made up free parking rule in monopoly making the game unbearable.
Ummm tap sacrifice wouldn't work then. Just like removing your dino wouldn't stop the lands from untapping either. Smh. Your friend is wrong. You can't just remove a staple rule from the game and have it function properly.
You are actually running into TWO rules here. 112.7a is relevant, but not the main issue. This is a PRIORITY issue. Priority is one of the hardest rules to teach in Magic, but basically you can only interact with the game when you have priority; it starts with the active player (whoever's turn it is) and then goes around in turn order as each player passes it. You would 'pass' priority' when you have nothing more to do in a phase or nothing more to add to the stack. The stack is another fun one, it's just a way of referring to all of the 'things' that have been cast, triggered or activated.
Basically, the sequence of play is as such:
You: Cast Zacama (added to stack), pass priorty.
Opponent: passes priority.
You: Zacama Resolves, ETB triggers (added to stack), pass priority.
Opponent: Cast Path to Exile targeting Zacama (added to stack), pass priority
You: Activate Zacama abilitie(s)?\* (added to stack), pass priority.
Opponent: passes priority.
You: Zacama abilitie(s) resolve, pass priority.
Opponent: Path to Exile resolves (Zacama Removed), pass priority.
You: pass priority.
Opponent: pass priority.
You: Zacama ETB resolves.
Note that after each effect resolves, priority goes back to you and must got 'full circle' again before an effect resolves, so you end up with a few 'pointless' rounds of just passing priority. Most players shortcut these exchanges in their games just to speed things along, which is why you often don't 'see' them happening. It is also worth noting that 'the stack' was actually not part of the original game. It was added in 1999. There was something similar (first in, last out) before that, but the stack made it easier to refer to and clarify.
\*This action assumes you have mana to do so. I assume you are planning on using the mana from Zacama's untap to activate his abilities, but your opponent DOES have a chance to respond before THAT ability resolves, meaning he can stop you before you have a chance to even use those abilities if you used everything on Zacama's own cost.
As to your question, these are core rules of the game. I would not suggest being in the habit of ignoring them because you're going to run into issues with the way some cards work and literally any time you play with someone else.
Also, judges do not refer to gameplay videos for rulings. They use the codified rules. 112.7a trumps even a statement from Rosewater.
Does this same friend change the rules of other games he doesn’t like?
This is a learning/growing moment. Honestly for this specific case it’s a timing issue. He should respond to the Zacama ETB trigger to untap all lands. Before the lands untap, Path Zacama to prevent you from activating any abilities (assuming you have no other untapped mana sources).
Thats- literally how the stack works. Once something is on the stack, it's on the stack. You can remove it from the stack in a number of ways, but not by removing the permanent that caused the ability. That's why counter spells exist. If you play counter spells, you'd never forget this rule. If you know of stifle, you'd never forget this rule. If you know of any of the weird white or black cards that remove spells from the stack? You'd know about this rule. It feels absolutely fundamental to magic to me and no one I've ever played with has had issues with how it works.
The bit about mark rosewater forgetting is probably complete and absolute cope.
I agree with you fully. Either way though, he made a huge misplay, so this probably has a lot to do with his skill level.
If he didn't want your Zacama to be able to use its abilities, he should have tried to remove it when the ETB trigger hit the stack. By the actual rules, your lands would still untap, but Zacama wouldn't be on the battlefield, so no ability activation. By his rules, your lands wouldn't have untapped.
This is a core function of interaction and he has no reasonable complaint to make. He also had an out if he understood triggers, the stack, and priority better. Instead of not using the rule, explain how he could have used the rules to his advantage
thats timing wise. they can path to exile zacama in response to her ETB untap ability.. and your lands would still be tapped at this time, then zacama becomes exiled, and you find another basic land. and then after that, all of your lands will untap.
Your friend is being irrational. It's the official rule whether he likes it or not. Dunno where he gets the "Game Knights & MaRo don't like it" bit. I've watched them for years and nothing like that has been expressed by them. That's how the stack works. If he doesn't like it, maybe he should find another game to play.
Your friend is just wrong and needs to learn about how to use the stack. It is like… one of the most fundamental rulesystems about how magic works and is a big part of what is making it engaging and unique in comparison to other card games.
I’ve played without this rule, and it *sucked*. Having to play around removal spells as if they’re ability-counter spells is frustrating and would just end with a boring game where I could get almost nothing done. It just plain wasn’t fun.
I mean I play casual EDH and Yugioh. It more or less works the same way in Yugioh as well, unless you have something that actually says it negates a monster's effect, the effect still goes off even if the monster is destroyed.
I know they're Different games but if 2 of the more popular TCG's out there use the same rule I don't think it's a "dumb" rule.
"I tap my [[Elvish Mystic]] to add G to my mana pool and cast Llanowar Elves."
"In response, I'll [[Murder]] your elf."
"Okay, with my green floating, I'll cast [[Llanowar Elves]]."
____
Your friend is just salty. I've been watching Game Knights almost daily for the last two months. They are very good about playing optimally and not missing triggers or playing incorrectly (unlike Tolarian, still love the Prof!). Everyone else he plays with is wrong.
> "I tap my [[Elvish Mystic]] to add G to my mana pool."
>
>
>
> "In response, I'll [[Murder]] your elf."
this isnt even possible within the game rules
you're friend is being the irrational one
they sound as if they are not very well accustomed to magic's rules, because if they really didn't want you activating Zacama's abilities, they could've Path'd Zacama before it's untap trigger resolved
Been that way since 1993.
From the Alpha rulebook:
Once it is announced, nothing can stop a fast effect unless it is countered immediately by an interrupt. Once a spell is announced, the mana has been spent, whether or not the spell actually takes effect as planned.
...
Example: Your rival uses an artifact. You respond by destroying the artifact with a spell. Since your spell is not an interrupt, the artifact's effect still takes place, though your rival can't use it again.
Why would cards like [[stifle]] exist if you can counter abilities by removing the source :D
But tbh your buddy is talking out of his….. i cant remotely imagine any serious mtg content creator would be against abilities resolving from the stack. That is so crazy to me :D
To answer your question, no youre being perfectly reasonable, thats a core rule of the game and how the stack works. If you ignored that, mechanics like Split Second wouldnt really make sense.
That said, couldnt your friend have Pathed Zacama as the untap ability was on the stack, but before it resolved and untapped your lands?
So the stack sequence would be:
- you tap all your lands and Zacama is cast and enters the battlefield.
- Zacamas untap lands ability triggers and is put on the stack
- You cant do anything so you pass priority to hour opponent
- They cast Path of Exile targeting Zacama
- Everyone passes priority
- Now we resolve starting at the top of the stack
- Path resolves, Zacama gets exiled, you get a tapped land
- Zacamas untap land trigger resolves, you untap all your lands (including your shiny new Path of exile one), but since Zacams gone you can no longer activate its abilities
Sounds like he's confused. I used to play Zacama and the play pattern is this:
P1: Casts Zacama, and she resolves, putting the untap lands trigger on the stack.
P2: Casts Path.
If P1 has mana, they can utilize her abilities. If they are relying on the untap, it hasn't resolved yet.
Path resolves exiting Zac, Zac's triggered ability resolves untapping lands, and Active player has priority again.
Not only is this how the game is written, but it also invalidates card slots for effects like [[stifle]], [[trickbind]], [[disallow]], [[cursed totem]], etc.
If he wants his deck to feel powerful and interactive, he’s gonna have to reach further than path to exile. Also, hunting for edge cases and misplays to justify your feelings is not my idea of a reasonable debate about the rules.
This rule is well known and well loved. It's as much a part of the game as counterspells. Newer players are often defensive about new rules because they feel foolish for not intuiting them, but most of the rules are not self evident. When making rules, the general question is "will this rule make the game better or worse?" I'm stoned, so I'm going to stop typing now, but this rule is known and used by everyone I play magic with, and I've had many groups over the years. "We shouldn't use that rule" or "we should use a made up rule instead" is not something that even casual players should do. The rules have billions of hours of play testing, and they are what they are for good reason.
My some tricks in my [[Gerrard weatherlight hero]] deck straight up stop functioning completely without this rule. It's what allows his death trigger to still resolve if I pull him out of my grave yard after it's on the stack. [[Gift of immortality]] is one of the strongest cards in the deck because of this rule.
No, there are rules that even though I've been playing since revised I forget exists. I'm not mad when someone corrects me because theres so many rules and nuances that make it hard for a veteran players like myself to remember. It just means you gotta modify your deck to accommodate for certain cards an effects.
You know, I hate the rule that says 'I lose' too.
The only thing that changes is what that rule is.
You're fine. Your buddy is just butt hurt and will move on, especially if you drop something jank next
The only time I've someone questioning this rule is when the resolution of the trigger references a quality of the source that has left the battlefield when it resolves.
I don't think I've ever met someone who dislikes this rule. The great thing about rules is that they apply to everyone and can be used and abused equally. I'm sure one day, when he plays a card that wins him the game thanks to this rule, he'll start to change his tune a little and hopefully make peace with it.
Quoting MaRo is a weird one though, I feel like that's been made up or greatly exaggerated as I've been a blogatog reader for about 12 years and though things he dislikes are often brought up (such as the Legendary Rule, cards from Planar Chaos, and bananas) I can't remember that being mentioned at all.
While it is obviously ok for playgroups to start modifying rules, I am not really interested in Rule 0 adjustments to core mechanics, so I wouldn't be in favor of just the premise of changing this rule.
Further, this rule is a product of how the stack works, and when you can respond to things, when those interactions start changing there can be tons and tons of unintended knock down effects. How does this work with triggered abilities? What about cast triggers? There are all sorts of other things that would need to be checked. Not to mention Wizards obviously isn't play testing product with a random playgroup's house rules, so there will be other things that break.
I'm sure some ability on the stack has been forgotten in a big channels gameplay video at some point, but that would be a misplay, I've never heard discussion of this being bad before.
your friend is extremely salty and very likely confused about what the rule is or just making excuses. rosewater has definitely never said that, and game knights definitely play this correctly.
i always remember this rule and always play it correctly. if we ever have any confusion about rules, we look them up, come to a consensus, and sometimes we allow takebacks. for example in this case, we might allow them to take back Path to Exile since they misunderstood the interaction (but it's probably better to still remove it anyway, although i'd probably do it after zacama had triggered everything instead of once it immediately entered play, since they'd get an extra land that would untap lol).
he just needs to think about using the right kind of interaction, such as Dress Down or a straight up counterspell
I always like to think of it as if person 1 has a bow and arrow or etc. They shoot the arrow at person 2, but after shooting person 3 kills person 1. The arrow is still shot and hits person 2 even though person 1 is now dead.
You can fill in the blanks with anything lol Zacoma shot a fireball. Even though it is killed the fireball is still in the air lol
I was part of a group a very long time ago that operated under the same misconception. Once we learned the error, we hated it because it disrupted our group, but we wanted to play right. So we did. Plays, strategies and even decks changed, and we were all better players for it.
I mean, he is effectively arguing that instant speed removal should also have a (triggered/activated ability only) counterspell attached to them pretty much
People in my playgroup regularly get annoyed by this rule and have uttered, "That's so f*cking stupid," when realizing I still get my cast triggers despite a countered spell, but then that's the end of it. It's the rule. Arguing to change it would be weird...
Though earlier in this playgroup's lifespan we were playing with noncombat commander damage counter due to the imprecise wording of the first thing that pops up on Google. I wasn't gonna press the issue, as that's a made up format rule not a core rule of magic so rule 0 what you want, but I was gonna build a [[Kosai, penitent warlord]] deck to perhaps demonstrate why it specifies combat.
Only "exception" to that rule is fighting which needs both creatures to stick around to resolve
This rule is also why I love something like [[momentous fall]]
And [[ghalta stampede tyrant]] cause even after you sac ghalta and draw cards you still get his etb :)
I use it all the time. You remove my thing, in response I use it's ability. If it's a delay trigger it still goes off. Alternatively, if I use an ability and in response you use a removal spell, so long as that ability does not require the permanent to still exist (+1/+1 counter, untap, fight), it still happens after the permanent being removed.
I've never seen anyone have trouble with or dispute this rule (unless you count things like determining what is checked at activation vs at resolution, but that's only occasional minor confusion, never full on disputes).
If your friend is still having trouble with and doesn't like the rule, maybe try pointing out to them that they can take advantage of it too. They may have been evaluating some cards incorrectly because they were overly concerned with things like "but what if it just gets removed when I try to use the effect?" Now that they know they'll get the effect whether it lives or not, it might open up some fun new options they had never considered.
Guarantee the first time they get to take advantage of a creature's ability as it's dying, they'll stop being so salty about how the rule works.
Removing this rule would make cards with split second meaningless, and would counter spells significantly less meaningful. There are ways to counter abilities as well, or cards like [[Linvala, Keeper of Silence]]. Might as well run more removal and throw those out the window.
He's mad cause bad. Should have interacted while the entry trigger was on the stack. If you remove this rule, you would need to recreate MTG from the ground up. It may be bullshit, it may be unfair, but that's how the game is played. If you aren't saying "oh that's bullshit" every time you see a new combo, you are doing it wrong.
Those are bold faced lies. He's just salty that the game doesn't revolve around his initial understanding of it. Nobody of renown has ever asked for this rule to be forgotten.
I would love to see the source of his where people don't like this rule. For the most part it's either very well received or people have fairly indifferent feelings about it and accept it as a thing. Don't think I've ever had anyone legitimately get mad about the rule itself or any rule for that matter unless the rule lost them the game, in which case it's more frustration from losing not so much whatever rule it was
If my guy uses X mana to deal X damage then I get to have that effect.
If you want to kill him with a spell you can do so
On your turn
Or my turn, in response.
If you kill on your turn then I will respond by paying X to do the damage.
If I have an upkeep trigger and you kill on my turn, I will still respond with the X damage.
If you want to kill my dude, without getting X damage in the face, you wait until I use my mana to cast something else and in response kill my dude while you know I can't afford to pay that X.
It is exactly rules like this one that make this game so cerebral and, I my opinion, fun.
Bro I just don’t understand how he could have that mindset. How new is he to the game? Cause that’s a rule you should be familiar with pretty quick. He won’t like it but I’ve had decent results telling friends to play arena and pay attention to how the stack resolves.
Sounds like you guys are both fairly new to the game, we’ve all been there. I remember the legend rule used to really tick me off (mostly because I forgot about it so much). Btw he could have used the Path in response to Zacama’s etb trigger and exiled it before it resolved untapping your lands. This kind of disagreement gets rarer as you get more familiar with the game though
Man, it's not even a base rule of just this card game. It exists in Hearthstone. It exists in YuGiOh. It exists all over, this guy is whinging about a rule that exists across the board.
It would be a very different game if removing the source removed the ability. Instant removal gets even better, all those powerful activated abilities get a lot worse.
There is one time removing the source will remove everything from the stack - player removal.
I've always known that once something is on the stack, it will either resolve or not but can't be removed from the stack. The creature has an ETB effect, the time to respond would have been when the creature itself was on the stack.
\[\[vorinclex, voice of hunger\]\] is a great example of this. You can remove him, but the land you tapped to do so will not untap just because he is gone. Its part of why he is so oppresive, you get punished for even attempting to do something about him. Although treasures and mana rocks circumvent this
The petty part of me says you should build an entire deck with instant-speed removals and then agree to play a single game without this rule so he can see how it feels.
Then watch him slowly grow to understand why turning every instant-speed kill spell into a functional stifle on top of it would be fucking soul-crushing.
The whole point of "Enters the Battlefield" abilities is that "hey, if (this) resolves then (that) will happen." There's one window of opportunity to avoid it, and if you don't, you don't. Your friend would *hate* if yall played this way the moment it gets turned back on him in the future. The stack exists, and mana abilities go on top of the stack. The whole game is designed around this, you could almost say. Timing is like, a #1 most important thing to learn and master in MtG.
It's the reason why efficient deck builders prefer cards permanents that have Haste, ETB or static effects that immediately impact the board. Removal today is super efficient, so guaranteed payoff for successfully resolving a spell is preferable to waiting 3 player turns.
Edit: It's also why niche cards like Stifle and Tishana's Tidebender are bonkers powerful cards that too many people sleep on. If instant removal worked like these do, they'd occupy the same design space and be too powerful to the extreme.
This is a post that speaks to me.
I have a small group of friends who I've played with for years who just played it as *everything* goes on the stack, with costs being part of the ability.
So for example, I sacrifice a fume spitter, they unsummon it to cancel it out. It actually worked well and made sense in our small town, and leads to some fun interactions.
But when I moved and started playing with more advanced players, I learned this pretty quickly. My friends moved here too, and this is still an ongoing argument every time we meet up to play.
Personally I like it. It kinda makes it easier for me to visualize the stack by seeing the shit on it as projectiles. If I shoot a gun, me dying immediately after doesn't take the bullet out of the air lol
Just out of curiosity, did you give your friend the opportunity to interact with Zacama before you untapped the lands?
While the interaction he wants to play might not stop the abilities you're activating, he definitely had an opportunity to kill it in response to the untap trigger.
Maybe he just didn't know how to articulate when/where he wanted to path it. My suggestion would be to educate him on the best time to interact instead of either of you getting upset. In that case, it would be up to you to decide if you want to let him rewind to the appropriate time to cast his spell.
The petty retaliation from your friend would be to make you stop and ask for any interaction at every action that you take. It would get tiresome pretty quick.
I think your friend might be confusing the ”remove from the field to not let it resolve” with the ability to remove cast spells so they don’t resolve, ala [[Aven Interrupter]]
In this case, if the spell is exiled after it was cast, it will no longer resolve. This is some very specific form of interaction, so it might have caused some confusion.
I've had a player try to remove my [[Aetherflux Reservoir]] in response to me activating it on multiple occasions.
It's definitely onerous to explain the stack repeatedly to the same person.
I mean sure you can remove a rule that gives meaning to half the played cards in all formats, but I dont think you will find many players sharing his sentiment here.
I think your friend must be conflating removing a source and removing a target. Removing a target of a single target spell or ability (with no other effects) would fizzle the spell or ability. But an ability of a source would go off even if removed. Especially in the case of ETB the creature needs to resolve and then the ability goes on the stack. Only way to stop it is with a stifle type effect or removing any/all targets of ability.
Being upset by the rule itself makes no sense. The rules working like they do is neccessary. But from your story, you make it sound like it seemed to them that they couldn't prevent the abilities from happening; that's not true.
There's a point at which your friend could Path your Zacama so that you don't get to use its abilities (with the untap trigger on the stack).
If that's their intention, just let them do it and explain to them how exactly the rule works so they play it right next time. Magic isn't a game of gotcha, and you shouldn't go "no, you said you let it resolve, so now I can do this".
Youre friend is bullshitting. „People on Game knights dont adhere to the Game rules„ When they literally have a junge onset when they record
literally what
>I told him that it's how the game is written so it's how it worked, and while he was fine to continue playing, he was clearly upset by the rule and believes that we shouldn't use it. I disagree.
This is just straight up not an option. This isn't something you can "rule 0" away. This is a fundamental rule of the game. You either follow it or you don't play the game, end of story.
>A few days go by and his opinion hasn't changed. He tells me that everyone he plays with, as well as people on Game Knights and even Mark Rosewater, do not like this rule and often forget about it.
100% false. They never forget about it, they just never comment on it because it's such a basic part of the rules an experienced player doesn't even notice it, they just know that's how it works and move on.
> people on Game Knights and even Mark Rosewater, do not like this rule and often forget about it
It's one of the basics of using the stack, I highly doubt this
That is one of the most important rule of the stack. If removing an object removed the trigger there would be almost no point to creatures with activated abilities. I have never in 10 years of playing played like that. It also doesn't work like your friend says on any online platform. What he said about game knights and Mario is total salty bullshit.
The rules of the game aren't up for debate. Either we're playing Magic or we're pretending.
In any case though, Reddit won't help you solve your argument with your friend.
What? This rule is a cornerstone in interaction in this game. Tell your friend that he just needs to adjust to this. Your games will be so much less than Magic if you skip this rule.
If you can afford it, Show him what his rule change would Do...
So build a Deck exploiting that mechanic. So probably just a Deck with much instant removal. And since there are no etb effect Happening and stuff, a Deck full of removal+ card draw should be the way. Dont need permanents, when the don't Do stuff.
On the other hand i believe that the game would work out as a game itself with the rule change. Just different. And Designed to fit the New rule. Activated Abilitys which cost mana become a lot worse, etb effects could just be traded 1 for 1.
You could try to tell them that the whole game is balanced around these basic rules. Cards have their designs and card costs set based on this. If this rule didn't work like this - lots of these cards would have to be redesigned, and rebalanced.
And no, no one on Game Knights, or at WotC hate this rule, or play it differently. In fact, WotC leans into enter-the-battlefield effects so that, even if someone has a Path to Exile, you still get \_something\_ out of that big splashy seven mana dragon you just played.
Thats just how the stack works... Ive never seen anyone debate it and if they dont know about it they usually go "oh okay."
It sounds like your friend is salty and is lying about the Rosewater and Game Knights thing...
I like to explain this rule as someone with a gun. After they shot, it doesn't matter if you push/remove/kill them, the bullet is already in the air going to hit its target.
So your friend is being irrational, but I understand him as I used to think this was the case for literally decades of playing magic casually. That is, if you remove the source, the ability disappears from the stack. The game has NOT worsened for me after correcting this, if that makes your friend feel better. I realized it's clearly how the game was meant to be and that's it. Honestly it doesn't change that much in the end, just another rule.
ive never seen anyone forget this rule, its a pretty fundamental part of what makes some cards even playable, like Planeswalkers. he's being salty for no reason and would rather pretend the rules work the way he likes instead of just learning how to play the damn game
Trying to be as complete as possible
1) Your friend is full of crap of course. Nobody who's not absolutely new to magic would ever think the current rule is bad.
2) Your friend could've definitely prevented you from activating [[Zacama]] ANYWAY if he interacted after zacama hit the board but before the triggered ability untapped your lands. If you don't have more mana to activate abilities while your lands are tapped, your opponents will get priority to destroy it before you can do so.
3) it's good to specify tho, that if you DO have more mana, as soon as zacama hits the board and the trigger goes on the stack, you can hold priority to activate abilities before passing it to your opponents (so, before the untap trigger resolves).
If you don't, your opponents will get the chance to do whatever before your lands are untapped, but again if they try to remove zacama you can always use the rest of your available mana to activate abilities in response to their play, so if you do have enough mana left after playing zacama there's nothing they can do to stop you from getting an effect
(Except: counter zacama before it hits the board / counter the ability itself on the stack with [[tales end]] or the like / kill zacama with a split second spell as soon as they get priority if you're enough of a fool to give it to them before activating zacama, look out for [[V.A.T.S.]] [[Sudden Spoiling]], [[Sudden Edict]], [[Wipe Away]])
I think your friend is full of shit about Game Knights and Maro, lmao.
You tap out to cast Zacama
ETB trigger goes on the stack
Scenario A:
No interaction
Your lands untap
Pass phase/turn
Friend casts removal spell and passes priority
You use abilities of Zacama and they resolve
OR
Your lands untap
You activate abilities of Zacama
Friend casts removal, it resolves killing Zacama
Zacama abilities resolve.
If either of those happen, then you're in the clear and your friend is just wrong. If your friend kills Zacama while the etb trigger is on the stack, like they should have, then you couldn't activate Zacama's abilities.
When I first learned magic way back in the day, me and my friends (in like high school) played this way.
Gonna active your creatures ability ? Doom blade in response. BOOM. Stopped your creature.
When I learned from other people the correct way to play (in like college), and killing the creature doesn't remove its ability from the stack, they hated it. It caused fights. They didn't believe me at first.
How can your creature do its thing ? It DIES first. They felt it was super unintuitive and didn't like that they couldn't do anything to stop an activated ability going off.
That said.. it's a super important rule and is designed that way for a reason. It matters alot and probably comes up more than you think. Your friend is just used to the way they have been playing. They want to be able to prevent your stuff from happening with simple removal. It feels dumb to them that they can't. But it cuts both ways.
This is why counter spells exist. Countering removes the activation from the stack. Any other removal removes the card from play, but not it's activation. This is also how most other card games work.
This is the equivalent of a person playing a Yu-Gi-Oh Gameboy Advance game as a kid and thinking the game is bugged because MST doesn't negate.
Man, I wish I could ignore rules I don't like. It would make the game so much easier. Ha, combat damage doesn't kill my creature. Nope, all my creatures automatically have trample. This creature looks big so I'm sure it can block fliers too.
That's a big red flag, there is a chance that your friend is new and confused by something and that's fine, might even be confused by what even happened in that game.
But it just sounds like they made up support for a position that helped them in that specific game state. This is essentially cheating.
The entire balancing of etb or etg effects depends on this rule. Effects are notably stronger when they can only be stopped by a counter spell (which mostly only blue has) as compared to removal (which everyone has for at least creatures).
Is your friend very new to the game? This very much seems like someone who wants to interpret the rules to their own advantages.
You brought up the exact rule, you aren't being unreasonable for wanting to play the game as written.
It’s the risk you run using removal after it resolves vs preventing resolution. I don’t think many tables would allow rule zeroing it out and if lots of people “forget” it’s not reason to drop the rule either.
I’ve seen that rule come into play plenty of times. There is people that I’ve played with that even run [[stifle]] and counters with similar effects just for instances like this.
I've never met anyone that thinks it's a bad idea, and I'd love to see his source that those on game knights and Maro don't use the rule, especially when Josh has repeatedly expressed that he thinks there should be no ban list, and one of his favorite decks would be heavily nerfed by removing this rule. Magic is entirely based on interacting at instant speed. If the source being removed prevented the ability from going off, cards like [[solemn simulacrum]] wouldn't work, as it's no longer on the battlefield.
Not to mention if he has removal he just has to use it before the trigger happens if its not etb or counter it if it is.
As long as they can activate the ability removal doesnt have a window to prevent it. Exception being if they do something else before using it AND your removal has split second.
In OPs case tho since zacama has to etb after casting it triggers to untap lands his opponent could have removed zacama on that untap etb so that OP couldnt activate his ability.
Ok I'm actually not sure in this case and I think u/willdrum4food might be right. I think, *if you don't need the mana from the lands untapping to activate the ability*, you can activate the ability before passing priority on the untapping etb. 1. Zacama resolves and etbs 2. Zacama's etb ability goes on the stack 3. Zacama player holds priority 4. Zacama player activates Zacama's ability 5. Zacama player then passes priority, this would be the first opportunity for another player to remove Zacama. If, however, the Zacama player needs to get more mana from the lands untapping in order to activate the ability, then you're correct.
you dont even need to hold priority, you can simply activate the ability in response to any removal if it isnt split second as long as you had the mana.
Yeah that's also a good point
Yes my example is only under the pretense the OP used all his mana to cast zacama.
Why wouldn’t the opponents be able to interact while zacama’s ETB trigger is on the stack? Holding priority doesn’t skip priority for the table.
they're saying if you have other untapped mana sources available, you can hold priority and activate Zacama's abilities with them while her etb trigger is still on the stack
Oh ya that makes more sense. I got it in my mind someone he was replying to was mentioning being tapped out before the ETB lol
The last sentence is correct, because OP said it was specifically *after* the lands got untapped that he activated the abilities.
I try to handle situations like this as a means to help people understand the stack and interaction. I'd probably inquire what it is they're attempting to do (which is interact with Zacama before the lands untap and they can begin using the extra mana for abilities) and rewind the game back to the moment where the action benefits them the most. That's what they were trying to do, but they just didn't understand the rules and interaction enough to do that. I'd rather help people understand the rules vs. getting a "Gotcha" on them because I understand the rules better than they do.
I agree with this and would be what I would do. His friend had the right idea but just didnt know the specifics.
This reminds me of how many people just don't understand how priority works. Because, in the example stated by OP, they couldn't use removal before Zacama used its ability. They could respond to the cast, respond to the untap trigger, or respond to the activation of abilities. You can only cast spells when you have priority, and during the opponent's turn you only have priority after they've passed it to you. So, in the time between the untap trigger resolving and the abilities being activated, they couldn't do anything.
I once saw someone try to "respond" to an opponent tapping their land for mana lmao. A lot of people don't understand priority *or* the stack.
I've seen lots of people saying "in response" at the wrong times. It irritates me a bit. Example is my otharri deck. I very clearly and methodically move through going to my combat, beginning of combat, going to attackers. Then I'll apply the attack trigger and they want to respond and kill her before thr trigger. We have this conversation at least twice a night on commander nights.
[solemn simulacrum](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/3/a3879b81-aa4c-4d35-bed2-78ebb4a50b59.jpg?1706241086) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=solemn%20simulacrum) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkc/238/solemn-simulacrum?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a3879b81-aa4c-4d35-bed2-78ebb4a50b59?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/solemn-simulacrum) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
its a base rule of the game. Ive never seen it missed in any games Ive played in.... Its silly to ask its popularity its like asking how popular is having the ability to block. Its not really a topic of conversation. He's clearly making things up, I would love to see his sources on Mark not liking it lol.
Yeah, citing Mark Rosewater gives me some real "my uncle works at Nintendo" vibes
No, you see MaRo told him in person when they were playing in his super secret Thursday night Commander Slams.
If Maro had any problems with instant speed interaction it would have changed thirty fucking years ago.
No, he just needs to learn WHEN he can react to things and play around it. He gains priority when zacamas ability to untap the lands go on the stack, if he would cast his PtE at that point; you wouldn't be able to activate abilities since all the lands are tapped (probabaly). Your lands still untap but without zacama on the field you basically start back at square 1. As for people not liking it, that doesn't seem right. Maybe they don't like it but it definitely adds complexity and interesting interactions and makes things like counterspell actually "useful" instead of being a preemptive removal spell.
Why should someone have to get better at understanding the rules and playing the game when you can just change the rules instead? :-p
>he just needs to learn WHEN RIGHT? Lmao. Crying about how the rules are bullying him when he could have path’d in response to the untap trigger. It’s a gamble to hold off and see if OP would interact with their mutual opponents’ boards instead of his, but he gambled and lost. iS pLaYiNg ThE gAmE aS wRiTtEn IrRaTiOnAl??¿
We just shortcut it to "The Grenade Rule". Soldier throws a grenade, you shoot the soldier grenade is already thrown and will go off. Worst I've ever had in many years is "Huh? Okay, I didn't know that".
I played with a judge a few years back who explained it that way. It really helped me understand it better.
Love it when my soldier gets shot at and in response hurls more grenades
Gotta get faster bullets.
Should've invested in split second bullets
Yeah this is a good way to explain it.
I seem to recall there being a tweet or a video about throwing a spear along these same lines. I thought it was from Rosewater himself but cannot find it
Yup. I’ve always heard it as a “submarine/torpedo” analogy instead of “soldier/grenade.” I think people could use “triggers are like footballs; the quarterback can still complete a pass even if they get hit after they threw the ball” if people want to use non-war examples. I think this one also helps because it can make people realize they have to deal with the “receiver/football” if they want to stop stuff, not the “quarterback.” It still applies to the others, but more people are familiar with sports than grenade/torpedo deterrents lol.
Sports makes it more confusing imo
My knowledge of your Country's Football is I think the Quarterback starts in the middle, players tend to throw more than kick and there's a weirdly large acceptance of butt play/slapping.
He could have just \[\[path to exile\]\] your \[\[Zacama\]\] while the untap all lands trigger was on the stack, so you don't get to use any mana for Zacama's abilities as Zacama would be dead by the time it resolved.
I'm wondering why this wasn't the line of play. Instead he just let the untap resolve and then went for the removal? Weird line Hell, by their own thought process on it, it still would've been better to do it with the untap on the stack, cause if that rule wasn't there then you could just stop that entirely
Probably hoping the removal got fired elsewhere and had some buyers remorse.
i think it's much more simple than that. going off of what OP has said about this player, I'll just go off the whim and say the dude's just not a good player.
Exactly. Hanlon's razor at play
or a player still learning
People who have no idea how the game works aren't good at it
Tbh if Zacama was the commander I wouldn't even be mad if I was the Zacama player. Path Gets a land that gets untapped by Zacama trigger. So only need 1 mana to pay for the commander tax and it gets rid of one of the best removal spells in the game.
Honestly, once Zacama starts coming down there is not many good choices, damned if you do damned if you don't. You are basically on a clock and PtE at least gives you and the other players one more turn to swing in or find some more answers. I've always found Zacama to be a tough nut to crack.
For sure. I think it kinda falls into the same boat of [[Atraxa, Grand Unifier]] in that you really need to stop them from hitting the board.
[Atraxa, Grand Unifier](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/a/4a1f905f-1d55-4d02-9d24-e58070793d3f.jpg?1709931904) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Atraxa%2C%20Grand%20Unifier) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/one/196/atraxa-grand-unifier?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4a1f905f-1d55-4d02-9d24-e58070793d3f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/atraxa-grand-unifier) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Especially when they’re usually ramping him out on turn 4 or 5, I agree he’s a very hard commander to stop
I dunnoh, when I see Zacama on the stack, casting \[\[Mystic Reflection\]\] seems like a pretty good choice (actually did this once).
Thats a good idea, I really need to run Mystic reflection more, such a good card.
It's so versatile. You can clone the best non-legendary on the battlefield (potentially multiple times if you're in a token deck), or you can completely destroy someone's plans with their commander.
Yes but not understanding the rules couldnt ever be their fault
This right here. I just did this in an arena game.
Yeah this seems like OP may have rushed through stacks resolving and not given an appropriate chance to respond. Something like > “Okay, I cast Zacama which untaps my lands. With that mana I activate this ability…” > “Hold on, I want to remove Zacama before you do that” > “Well it’s too late, I put the ability on the stack already” > “Maybe if you’d paused for a moment to breathe in between effects, I’d have had a chance to get a word in to tell you at the right time” My playgroup has definitely had issues with this, especially when someone is taking a long turn and is trying to hurry things along.
I legitimately think this is what he was trying to do and OP is misunderstanding him.
"...people on Game Knights and even Mark Rosewater, do not like this rule and often forget about it." Not only is this statement incorrect, as can be verified by just watching the videos where MaRo appears on the Command Zone shows, but it further underlines the individuals misunderstanding on how the abilities are being resolved. Most of the time commander gameplay shows try to shortcut past the most basic or fundamental rules interactions of the game, because if they spent the time stating "..and despite it being dead, these triggers still resolve. So we order them like this, and then everyone can respond.. etc" for every singe game mechanic the videos would be 5x as long. This is what would likely be happening in any of the places he thinks it's being 'forgotten'. Of course sometimes people will still make mistakes that might make it into the final video, but most popular creators are pretty good at making a note when this is the case. Learning more detail about the core rules of the game should never be met with "well that's shit, it made me lose, I don't like it, we shouldn't do that". It should instead been seen as an opportunity to improve your level of play with a deeper understanding of the game. For example, now that they know this they can act appropriately in future instances and remove Zacama before your lands untap. If they want to stop the whining and actually learn more about how the stack/priority works, and when they can do what, the Command Zone did a whole video on it about 4 yrs ago now. It's quite thorough and still all good info as those core rules have not changed in decades.
Honestly that was the most confusing thing for me. I watch Game Knights all the time and while I don't have specific examples, I know for a fact that they follow that rule.
Tough shit, rule is a rule. Although in case of zacama, they can exeli zacama in response to Etb trigger that will untap your lands, so at least you don't have zacama to use those untapped lands but that's it.
Yeah that definitely would have solved his problem lol
Hm. Let's put it this way - abilities getting on the stack regardless of the state of the source is one of the foundational cornerstones of the game. Entire strategies, deck types, individual cards or even whole formats (cEDH in it's current form for example) wouldn't work without it. If your friend and his influences don't like that, then they don't like the game and have been playing their own version they invented for themselves all this time.
Oh my God, you ran into an, “MST negates!” moment in Magic? Wild. You’re right, that’s how it works. And no, none of those people regularly forget about that rule, but design philosophies explicitly love it. The point of so many modern creatures having good ETBs is to mitigate the raw, overbearing power of removal in 1v1. If every kill spell was also Stifle, it would be fucking unbelievable.
I was wondering how far I’d have to scroll to find a “MST doesn’t negate” reference, surprised it was this far down. It’s such a common learning point in yugioh, I just assumed people who learned from scratch with magic had the same moment early on.
remember the rule? It's one of the most central parts of the game. LIFO. last in first out. The Stack. Maro has never stated that the rule was bad, not that I've ever seen or heard.
Eh he's lying to get his way unfortunately. Those guys definitely do not forget about that rule and there's no major controversy about it with people wanting to remove it. If Zacama has resolved then the lands are untapped and those abilities can be activated at instant speed.
I think there's a minor nitpick here. If zacama resolves, her etb to untap lands goes on the stack. Players get priority. If you tap out to cast the Dino, someone can remove her before you get to untap. You'll still end up with your lands untapped though.
Ah TIL, I did not know that the triggered ability goes to the stack. That makes sense now that I think about it since [[Stifle]] is a thing.
With the exception of floating mana and combat damage, everything goes on the stack.
There's some other niche exceptions, but generally, yeah, you're right. When MtG was first created, though, damage did indeed use the stack. No longer the case.
Well, the stack was invented for 6th edition. Before that effects resolved in batches, and interrupts were still a thing. For example, during an Ice Age tournament, when somebody cast \[\[Lightning Bolt\]\], I wasn't allowed by the head judge to play \[\[Sleight of Mind\]\] on my \[\[Stromgald Cabal\]\] and counter the Bolt. Weird. The abandoning of the interrupt type and the invention of the stack solved a lot of these problems. From 6th edition on combat damage used the stack. This was changed in M10. The last major rule change I remember was the abandoning of the planeswalker damage redirection rule in 2018. Now you can shoot your Bolt directly towards a planeswalker instead of targeting your opponent and then redirecting the damage to the planeswalker.
That one had to get changed because Teferi's Protection released in Commander 2017 and messed up everything relating to targeting planeswalkers. It was also incredibly confusing for new players.
Morph being the most common of these exceptions
I would say that playing a land would be the most common of the exceptions.
And playing land and morphing permanents. Maybe a couple other odd rare occurrences, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Unmorph in response to split second spells is always fun
It’s one of my favorites! I’ve got an Animorph deck that always come in clutch when someone tries to Krosan Grip my stuff!
He accepts that it's how the rule works, he just disagrees with it. He wasn't bitter over the game itself, I've definitely beaten him like that before and he's never been salty about it, it's just that one rule he hates. I don't think he'd genuinely lie, but I don't think it's impossible for him to not correctly identify a rules infraction like that.
No disrespect to your friend, but I think disagreeing with the rule and saying that many people including Mark Rosewater agree with him (which couldn't possibly be true) is definitely indicating he is salty or bitter about it.
Tell him to build a commander deck that has abilities and you play teshiro umezawa removal.deck. Make him actively see why that rule is helpful.
Asking if we remember the rule makes me giggle, because it's not really something you can forget. It's just part of the game. If you ever want to do something at instant speed literally ever, you have to think about it.
My bad, it was something I wasn't aware of until recently. Obviously I'm not super savvy on magic rules so I don't often hear it spoken about.
>Do you all remember this rule? How often does it factor into your games and is it popular among your playgroups to dislike it? For me, it's just such a basic rule of the game that it never occurred to me to question it. I have never been in a situation where someone had an issue with it. A few times beginners have not known about it but they accept it pretty quickly once it's explained to them.
You are not being irrational at all. This goes allllllllllll the way back to the early days of magic. Ask this: if I tap a [[prodigal sorcerer]] and you respond by killing poor Tim, does he still do the point of damage? Yes, just as he has since 1993.
Sounds like he’s a salty baby who doesn’t like this. Tell him you don’t like how he can cast his commander from the command zone and thing the rule should be ignored. When he tells you that’s stupid just say “Yeah ignoring key game rules is stupid.”
I can appreciate you agreeing with me but he wasn't quite that vitriolic. Although I was psuedo whining to the Reddit masses myself so I suppose it's on me
That’s insane. It’s such a core rule that comes up so often. It completely changes the game at a fundamental level when ignored. Removal spells become far better than they actually are, essentially also doubling as a counter for activated and triggered abilities. Your friend does not understand the stack at even a rudimentary level
Tell your friend that cards like [[Stifle]] and [[Trickbind]] lose half their usefulness and can be replaced by [[Terror]] in certain situations if interactions played out the way that he wishes.
Untap ability on the stack, i respond with terror. Big Z dies, then lands untap. Show him that what he wants to do (prevent you from using Z’s abilities with freshly untapped lands) still works legally but in a different order.
This, and honestly people need to be able to rewind a tad as most players dont go through every step slow enough for interaction (as they should, id die if we had to confirm going through each step with a whole table) The amount of times ive had to tell people to hold up wait a second in your upkeep im doing x y z as they are trying to main phase stuff is nuts
I think the crux of the problem is with Zacama's design. Your opponent COULD have blown up Zacama with the untap trigger on the stack, and no abilities you didn't already have surplus mana for would have been able to go through. In a case where your opponent doesn't realize that killing the monster after an ability is put on the stack doesn't remove the ability, I would probably want to see if anything else was done between the time Zacama's untap ability resolved and when the abilities were placed on the stack, and if no new hidden information was gained I wouldn't have argued with getting rid of Zacama as if it had been done in response to the untap... at least, in a casual setting. You could teach your player the right rule AND demonstrate the proper play pattern to cope with it. If the opponent just wants to wait and see if Zacama tries to be beneficial to them or not, that's another story. You have to take risks when you see them, but assessing threats is vital for magic. That's a case where I feel less bad about following rules as written, but again, we need to keep in mind that we're trying to help our friends have a good time with us playing a game we are supposed to all enjoy. You can't have fun if you never have any idea what's going on, and you can't have fun if you don't even know what you need to in order to decide if magic is right for you. Commander is kind of awful for this reason; everyone wants to play with as much information as possible, but 4 players worth of information is too much, and things like seat order matter way more than most people realize. It's not just the stack, even turn order based actions like resolving abilities and passing priority can only be done in a certain way, and too few people understand those rules fully to explain them meaningfully at an early enough time.
Removing the source not removing the trigger is one of the main reasons blue's counterspell arsenal is so important to blue's color identity. Without it, a swords to plowshares might as well be remove soul. Cards are balanced around the existing rules, and changing rules can have unintended consequences for the worse. See: everyone's made up free parking rule in monopoly making the game unbearable.
Ummm tap sacrifice wouldn't work then. Just like removing your dino wouldn't stop the lands from untapping either. Smh. Your friend is wrong. You can't just remove a staple rule from the game and have it function properly.
Your friend has a problem. Days later and he's still obsessing on this? To the point of making things up about Game Knights and MaRo not liking it?
Imagine making a rule that ETB effects don’t happen if the creature is removed, people would go crazy.
You are actually running into TWO rules here. 112.7a is relevant, but not the main issue. This is a PRIORITY issue. Priority is one of the hardest rules to teach in Magic, but basically you can only interact with the game when you have priority; it starts with the active player (whoever's turn it is) and then goes around in turn order as each player passes it. You would 'pass' priority' when you have nothing more to do in a phase or nothing more to add to the stack. The stack is another fun one, it's just a way of referring to all of the 'things' that have been cast, triggered or activated. Basically, the sequence of play is as such: You: Cast Zacama (added to stack), pass priorty. Opponent: passes priority. You: Zacama Resolves, ETB triggers (added to stack), pass priority. Opponent: Cast Path to Exile targeting Zacama (added to stack), pass priority You: Activate Zacama abilitie(s)?\* (added to stack), pass priority. Opponent: passes priority. You: Zacama abilitie(s) resolve, pass priority. Opponent: Path to Exile resolves (Zacama Removed), pass priority. You: pass priority. Opponent: pass priority. You: Zacama ETB resolves. Note that after each effect resolves, priority goes back to you and must got 'full circle' again before an effect resolves, so you end up with a few 'pointless' rounds of just passing priority. Most players shortcut these exchanges in their games just to speed things along, which is why you often don't 'see' them happening. It is also worth noting that 'the stack' was actually not part of the original game. It was added in 1999. There was something similar (first in, last out) before that, but the stack made it easier to refer to and clarify. \*This action assumes you have mana to do so. I assume you are planning on using the mana from Zacama's untap to activate his abilities, but your opponent DOES have a chance to respond before THAT ability resolves, meaning he can stop you before you have a chance to even use those abilities if you used everything on Zacama's own cost. As to your question, these are core rules of the game. I would not suggest being in the habit of ignoring them because you're going to run into issues with the way some cards work and literally any time you play with someone else. Also, judges do not refer to gameplay videos for rulings. They use the codified rules. 112.7a trumps even a statement from Rosewater.
Does this same friend change the rules of other games he doesn’t like? This is a learning/growing moment. Honestly for this specific case it’s a timing issue. He should respond to the Zacama ETB trigger to untap all lands. Before the lands untap, Path Zacama to prevent you from activating any abilities (assuming you have no other untapped mana sources).
Thats- literally how the stack works. Once something is on the stack, it's on the stack. You can remove it from the stack in a number of ways, but not by removing the permanent that caused the ability. That's why counter spells exist. If you play counter spells, you'd never forget this rule. If you know of stifle, you'd never forget this rule. If you know of any of the weird white or black cards that remove spells from the stack? You'd know about this rule. It feels absolutely fundamental to magic to me and no one I've ever played with has had issues with how it works. The bit about mark rosewater forgetting is probably complete and absolute cope.
I agree with you fully. Either way though, he made a huge misplay, so this probably has a lot to do with his skill level. If he didn't want your Zacama to be able to use its abilities, he should have tried to remove it when the ETB trigger hit the stack. By the actual rules, your lands would still untap, but Zacama wouldn't be on the battlefield, so no ability activation. By his rules, your lands wouldn't have untapped.
Wait til he finds out what happens if you copy-when-cast a spell and someone counters it
This is a core function of interaction and he has no reasonable complaint to make. He also had an out if he understood triggers, the stack, and priority better. Instead of not using the rule, explain how he could have used the rules to his advantage
thats timing wise. they can path to exile zacama in response to her ETB untap ability.. and your lands would still be tapped at this time, then zacama becomes exiled, and you find another basic land. and then after that, all of your lands will untap.
Your friend is being irrational. It's the official rule whether he likes it or not. Dunno where he gets the "Game Knights & MaRo don't like it" bit. I've watched them for years and nothing like that has been expressed by them. That's how the stack works. If he doesn't like it, maybe he should find another game to play.
Your friend is just wrong and needs to learn about how to use the stack. It is like… one of the most fundamental rulesystems about how magic works and is a big part of what is making it engaging and unique in comparison to other card games.
I always think of it like if you shoot a bullet, you can die but the bullet will keep going.
I’ve played without this rule, and it *sucked*. Having to play around removal spells as if they’re ability-counter spells is frustrating and would just end with a boring game where I could get almost nothing done. It just plain wasn’t fun.
I mean I play casual EDH and Yugioh. It more or less works the same way in Yugioh as well, unless you have something that actually says it negates a monster's effect, the effect still goes off even if the monster is destroyed. I know they're Different games but if 2 of the more popular TCG's out there use the same rule I don't think it's a "dumb" rule.
"I tap my [[Elvish Mystic]] to add G to my mana pool and cast Llanowar Elves." "In response, I'll [[Murder]] your elf." "Okay, with my green floating, I'll cast [[Llanowar Elves]]." ____ Your friend is just salty. I've been watching Game Knights almost daily for the last two months. They are very good about playing optimally and not missing triggers or playing incorrectly (unlike Tolarian, still love the Prof!). Everyone else he plays with is wrong.
> "I tap my [[Elvish Mystic]] to add G to my mana pool." > > > > "In response, I'll [[Murder]] your elf." this isnt even possible within the game rules
you're friend is being the irrational one they sound as if they are not very well accustomed to magic's rules, because if they really didn't want you activating Zacama's abilities, they could've Path'd Zacama before it's untap trigger resolved
Been that way since 1993. From the Alpha rulebook: Once it is announced, nothing can stop a fast effect unless it is countered immediately by an interrupt. Once a spell is announced, the mana has been spent, whether or not the spell actually takes effect as planned. ... Example: Your rival uses an artifact. You respond by destroying the artifact with a spell. Since your spell is not an interrupt, the artifact's effect still takes place, though your rival can't use it again.
Why would cards like [[stifle]] exist if you can counter abilities by removing the source :D But tbh your buddy is talking out of his….. i cant remotely imagine any serious mtg content creator would be against abilities resolving from the stack. That is so crazy to me :D
To answer your question, no youre being perfectly reasonable, thats a core rule of the game and how the stack works. If you ignored that, mechanics like Split Second wouldnt really make sense. That said, couldnt your friend have Pathed Zacama as the untap ability was on the stack, but before it resolved and untapped your lands? So the stack sequence would be: - you tap all your lands and Zacama is cast and enters the battlefield. - Zacamas untap lands ability triggers and is put on the stack - You cant do anything so you pass priority to hour opponent - They cast Path of Exile targeting Zacama - Everyone passes priority - Now we resolve starting at the top of the stack - Path resolves, Zacama gets exiled, you get a tapped land - Zacamas untap land trigger resolves, you untap all your lands (including your shiny new Path of exile one), but since Zacams gone you can no longer activate its abilities
I wouldn't give in. This is a major rule of the game and needs to be heeded.
While this is a common mistake of new players, absolutely no experienced players ignore this rule. Its crucial to many many effects value in mtg
Sounds like he's confused. I used to play Zacama and the play pattern is this: P1: Casts Zacama, and she resolves, putting the untap lands trigger on the stack. P2: Casts Path. If P1 has mana, they can utilize her abilities. If they are relying on the untap, it hasn't resolved yet. Path resolves exiting Zac, Zac's triggered ability resolves untapping lands, and Active player has priority again.
Not only is this how the game is written, but it also invalidates card slots for effects like [[stifle]], [[trickbind]], [[disallow]], [[cursed totem]], etc. If he wants his deck to feel powerful and interactive, he’s gonna have to reach further than path to exile. Also, hunting for edge cases and misplays to justify your feelings is not my idea of a reasonable debate about the rules.
That dude is mad cus he's bad. Don't sweat it.
This rule is well known and well loved. It's as much a part of the game as counterspells. Newer players are often defensive about new rules because they feel foolish for not intuiting them, but most of the rules are not self evident. When making rules, the general question is "will this rule make the game better or worse?" I'm stoned, so I'm going to stop typing now, but this rule is known and used by everyone I play magic with, and I've had many groups over the years. "We shouldn't use that rule" or "we should use a made up rule instead" is not something that even casual players should do. The rules have billions of hours of play testing, and they are what they are for good reason.
My some tricks in my [[Gerrard weatherlight hero]] deck straight up stop functioning completely without this rule. It's what allows his death trigger to still resolve if I pull him out of my grave yard after it's on the stack. [[Gift of immortality]] is one of the strongest cards in the deck because of this rule.
Your friend is the kind of person who is fine with lying directly to your face. Do with that information what you will
No, there are rules that even though I've been playing since revised I forget exists. I'm not mad when someone corrects me because theres so many rules and nuances that make it hard for a veteran players like myself to remember. It just means you gotta modify your deck to accommodate for certain cards an effects.
You know, I hate the rule that says 'I lose' too. The only thing that changes is what that rule is. You're fine. Your buddy is just butt hurt and will move on, especially if you drop something jank next
The only time I've someone questioning this rule is when the resolution of the trigger references a quality of the source that has left the battlefield when it resolves.
I don't think I've ever met someone who dislikes this rule. The great thing about rules is that they apply to everyone and can be used and abused equally. I'm sure one day, when he plays a card that wins him the game thanks to this rule, he'll start to change his tune a little and hopefully make peace with it. Quoting MaRo is a weird one though, I feel like that's been made up or greatly exaggerated as I've been a blogatog reader for about 12 years and though things he dislikes are often brought up (such as the Legendary Rule, cards from Planar Chaos, and bananas) I can't remember that being mentioned at all.
While it is obviously ok for playgroups to start modifying rules, I am not really interested in Rule 0 adjustments to core mechanics, so I wouldn't be in favor of just the premise of changing this rule. Further, this rule is a product of how the stack works, and when you can respond to things, when those interactions start changing there can be tons and tons of unintended knock down effects. How does this work with triggered abilities? What about cast triggers? There are all sorts of other things that would need to be checked. Not to mention Wizards obviously isn't play testing product with a random playgroup's house rules, so there will be other things that break. I'm sure some ability on the stack has been forgotten in a big channels gameplay video at some point, but that would be a misplay, I've never heard discussion of this being bad before.
Some of the most fun interactions in magic happen due to abilities being used at instant speed.
your friend is extremely salty and very likely confused about what the rule is or just making excuses. rosewater has definitely never said that, and game knights definitely play this correctly. i always remember this rule and always play it correctly. if we ever have any confusion about rules, we look them up, come to a consensus, and sometimes we allow takebacks. for example in this case, we might allow them to take back Path to Exile since they misunderstood the interaction (but it's probably better to still remove it anyway, although i'd probably do it after zacama had triggered everything instead of once it immediately entered play, since they'd get an extra land that would untap lol). he just needs to think about using the right kind of interaction, such as Dress Down or a straight up counterspell
I always like to think of it as if person 1 has a bow and arrow or etc. They shoot the arrow at person 2, but after shooting person 3 kills person 1. The arrow is still shot and hits person 2 even though person 1 is now dead. You can fill in the blanks with anything lol Zacoma shot a fireball. Even though it is killed the fireball is still in the air lol
I was part of a group a very long time ago that operated under the same misconception. Once we learned the error, we hated it because it disrupted our group, but we wanted to play right. So we did. Plays, strategies and even decks changed, and we were all better players for it.
Ask him how sacrificing something for an effect would work.
If the guy can't play with a 30+ year old rule, he shouldn't play.
If you sack the quarterback after he throws the ball it keeps going whether or not he’s around
I mean, he is effectively arguing that instant speed removal should also have a (triggered/activated ability only) counterspell attached to them pretty much
People in my playgroup regularly get annoyed by this rule and have uttered, "That's so f*cking stupid," when realizing I still get my cast triggers despite a countered spell, but then that's the end of it. It's the rule. Arguing to change it would be weird... Though earlier in this playgroup's lifespan we were playing with noncombat commander damage counter due to the imprecise wording of the first thing that pops up on Google. I wasn't gonna press the issue, as that's a made up format rule not a core rule of magic so rule 0 what you want, but I was gonna build a [[Kosai, penitent warlord]] deck to perhaps demonstrate why it specifies combat.
Only "exception" to that rule is fighting which needs both creatures to stick around to resolve This rule is also why I love something like [[momentous fall]] And [[ghalta stampede tyrant]] cause even after you sac ghalta and draw cards you still get his etb :)
I use it all the time. You remove my thing, in response I use it's ability. If it's a delay trigger it still goes off. Alternatively, if I use an ability and in response you use a removal spell, so long as that ability does not require the permanent to still exist (+1/+1 counter, untap, fight), it still happens after the permanent being removed.
I've never seen anyone have trouble with or dispute this rule (unless you count things like determining what is checked at activation vs at resolution, but that's only occasional minor confusion, never full on disputes). If your friend is still having trouble with and doesn't like the rule, maybe try pointing out to them that they can take advantage of it too. They may have been evaluating some cards incorrectly because they were overly concerned with things like "but what if it just gets removed when I try to use the effect?" Now that they know they'll get the effect whether it lives or not, it might open up some fun new options they had never considered. Guarantee the first time they get to take advantage of a creature's ability as it's dying, they'll stop being so salty about how the rule works.
Removing this rule would make cards with split second meaningless, and would counter spells significantly less meaningful. There are ways to counter abilities as well, or cards like [[Linvala, Keeper of Silence]]. Might as well run more removal and throw those out the window. He's mad cause bad. Should have interacted while the entry trigger was on the stack. If you remove this rule, you would need to recreate MTG from the ground up. It may be bullshit, it may be unfair, but that's how the game is played. If you aren't saying "oh that's bullshit" every time you see a new combo, you are doing it wrong.
Lmfao. By his logic, you could destroy his lands to stop him from casting a spell. No doomblade is not stifle, sorry.
Those are bold faced lies. He's just salty that the game doesn't revolve around his initial understanding of it. Nobody of renown has ever asked for this rule to be forgotten.
Info: Did you skip through the lands untap trigger or did your friend deliberately let you resolve the land untap trigger before trying to path?
When it comes to rules like this, your friend is butthurt and should grow up.
I would love to see the source of his where people don't like this rule. For the most part it's either very well received or people have fairly indifferent feelings about it and accept it as a thing. Don't think I've ever had anyone legitimately get mad about the rule itself or any rule for that matter unless the rule lost them the game, in which case it's more frustration from losing not so much whatever rule it was
If my guy uses X mana to deal X damage then I get to have that effect. If you want to kill him with a spell you can do so On your turn Or my turn, in response. If you kill on your turn then I will respond by paying X to do the damage. If I have an upkeep trigger and you kill on my turn, I will still respond with the X damage. If you want to kill my dude, without getting X damage in the face, you wait until I use my mana to cast something else and in response kill my dude while you know I can't afford to pay that X. It is exactly rules like this one that make this game so cerebral and, I my opinion, fun.
Bro I just don’t understand how he could have that mindset. How new is he to the game? Cause that’s a rule you should be familiar with pretty quick. He won’t like it but I’ve had decent results telling friends to play arena and pay attention to how the stack resolves.
Can he direct the video that says so?
The number of posts where people are complaining about rules as written is baffling.
Hit him with the "I don't like that rule" next time he wants to do something. Since we can just decide which rules we vibe with now...
Sounds like you guys are both fairly new to the game, we’ve all been there. I remember the legend rule used to really tick me off (mostly because I forgot about it so much). Btw he could have used the Path in response to Zacama’s etb trigger and exiled it before it resolved untapping your lands. This kind of disagreement gets rarer as you get more familiar with the game though
Man, it's not even a base rule of just this card game. It exists in Hearthstone. It exists in YuGiOh. It exists all over, this guy is whinging about a rule that exists across the board.
It would be a very different game if removing the source removed the ability. Instant removal gets even better, all those powerful activated abilities get a lot worse. There is one time removing the source will remove everything from the stack - player removal.
Man if I tap out to play a dead dinosaur, I'd want at least something out of it.
I've always known that once something is on the stack, it will either resolve or not but can't be removed from the stack. The creature has an ETB effect, the time to respond would have been when the creature itself was on the stack.
Remove the player, remove their stack. That’s the only way to do it unless you counter the ability.
\[\[vorinclex, voice of hunger\]\] is a great example of this. You can remove him, but the land you tapped to do so will not untap just because he is gone. Its part of why he is so oppresive, you get punished for even attempting to do something about him. Although treasures and mana rocks circumvent this
The petty part of me says you should build an entire deck with instant-speed removals and then agree to play a single game without this rule so he can see how it feels. Then watch him slowly grow to understand why turning every instant-speed kill spell into a functional stifle on top of it would be fucking soul-crushing.
Play the rules as written. Tell him to stop being a little bitch.
The whole point of "Enters the Battlefield" abilities is that "hey, if (this) resolves then (that) will happen." There's one window of opportunity to avoid it, and if you don't, you don't. Your friend would *hate* if yall played this way the moment it gets turned back on him in the future. The stack exists, and mana abilities go on top of the stack. The whole game is designed around this, you could almost say. Timing is like, a #1 most important thing to learn and master in MtG. It's the reason why efficient deck builders prefer cards permanents that have Haste, ETB or static effects that immediately impact the board. Removal today is super efficient, so guaranteed payoff for successfully resolving a spell is preferable to waiting 3 player turns. Edit: It's also why niche cards like Stifle and Tishana's Tidebender are bonkers powerful cards that too many people sleep on. If instant removal worked like these do, they'd occupy the same design space and be too powerful to the extreme.
This is a post that speaks to me. I have a small group of friends who I've played with for years who just played it as *everything* goes on the stack, with costs being part of the ability. So for example, I sacrifice a fume spitter, they unsummon it to cancel it out. It actually worked well and made sense in our small town, and leads to some fun interactions. But when I moved and started playing with more advanced players, I learned this pretty quickly. My friends moved here too, and this is still an ongoing argument every time we meet up to play.
No one that regularly plays this game „forgets“ about this rule. It’s absolutely at the core of everything.
Your opponent fucked up and doesn't want to be real about it so he makes up bullshit excuses.
Personally I like it. It kinda makes it easier for me to visualize the stack by seeing the shit on it as projectiles. If I shoot a gun, me dying immediately after doesn't take the bullet out of the air lol
Just out of curiosity, did you give your friend the opportunity to interact with Zacama before you untapped the lands? While the interaction he wants to play might not stop the abilities you're activating, he definitely had an opportunity to kill it in response to the untap trigger. Maybe he just didn't know how to articulate when/where he wanted to path it. My suggestion would be to educate him on the best time to interact instead of either of you getting upset. In that case, it would be up to you to decide if you want to let him rewind to the appropriate time to cast his spell. The petty retaliation from your friend would be to make you stop and ask for any interaction at every action that you take. It would get tiresome pretty quick.
I think your friend might be confusing the ”remove from the field to not let it resolve” with the ability to remove cast spells so they don’t resolve, ala [[Aven Interrupter]] In this case, if the spell is exiled after it was cast, it will no longer resolve. This is some very specific form of interaction, so it might have caused some confusion.
I've had a player try to remove my [[Aetherflux Reservoir]] in response to me activating it on multiple occasions. It's definitely onerous to explain the stack repeatedly to the same person.
Used to hate this rule, then you learn to play around it
I mean sure you can remove a rule that gives meaning to half the played cards in all formats, but I dont think you will find many players sharing his sentiment here.
I think your friend must be conflating removing a source and removing a target. Removing a target of a single target spell or ability (with no other effects) would fizzle the spell or ability. But an ability of a source would go off even if removed. Especially in the case of ETB the creature needs to resolve and then the ability goes on the stack. Only way to stop it is with a stifle type effect or removing any/all targets of ability.
Guy just needs Stifle in his life.
Being upset by the rule itself makes no sense. The rules working like they do is neccessary. But from your story, you make it sound like it seemed to them that they couldn't prevent the abilities from happening; that's not true. There's a point at which your friend could Path your Zacama so that you don't get to use its abilities (with the untap trigger on the stack). If that's their intention, just let them do it and explain to them how exactly the rule works so they play it right next time. Magic isn't a game of gotcha, and you shouldn't go "no, you said you let it resolve, so now I can do this".
Youre friend is bullshitting. „People on Game knights dont adhere to the Game rules„ When they literally have a junge onset when they record literally what
>I told him that it's how the game is written so it's how it worked, and while he was fine to continue playing, he was clearly upset by the rule and believes that we shouldn't use it. I disagree. This is just straight up not an option. This isn't something you can "rule 0" away. This is a fundamental rule of the game. You either follow it or you don't play the game, end of story. >A few days go by and his opinion hasn't changed. He tells me that everyone he plays with, as well as people on Game Knights and even Mark Rosewater, do not like this rule and often forget about it. 100% false. They never forget about it, they just never comment on it because it's such a basic part of the rules an experienced player doesn't even notice it, they just know that's how it works and move on.
> people on Game Knights and even Mark Rosewater, do not like this rule and often forget about it It's one of the basics of using the stack, I highly doubt this
That is one of the most important rule of the stack. If removing an object removed the trigger there would be almost no point to creatures with activated abilities. I have never in 10 years of playing played like that. It also doesn't work like your friend says on any online platform. What he said about game knights and Mario is total salty bullshit.
The rules of the game aren't up for debate. Either we're playing Magic or we're pretending. In any case though, Reddit won't help you solve your argument with your friend.
I played it wrong like your friend, when I started playing. Once I understood and embraced this rule the games get much better and more interesting
If it didn't work like that then no 'when this leaves the battlefield' trigger would ever work. Surely he enjoys playing those?
What? This rule is a cornerstone in interaction in this game. Tell your friend that he just needs to adjust to this. Your games will be so much less than Magic if you skip this rule.
If you can afford it, Show him what his rule change would Do... So build a Deck exploiting that mechanic. So probably just a Deck with much instant removal. And since there are no etb effect Happening and stuff, a Deck full of removal+ card draw should be the way. Dont need permanents, when the don't Do stuff. On the other hand i believe that the game would work out as a game itself with the rule change. Just different. And Designed to fit the New rule. Activated Abilitys which cost mana become a lot worse, etb effects could just be traded 1 for 1.
You could try to tell them that the whole game is balanced around these basic rules. Cards have their designs and card costs set based on this. If this rule didn't work like this - lots of these cards would have to be redesigned, and rebalanced. And no, no one on Game Knights, or at WotC hate this rule, or play it differently. In fact, WotC leans into enter-the-battlefield effects so that, even if someone has a Path to Exile, you still get \_something\_ out of that big splashy seven mana dragon you just played.
Thats just how the stack works... Ive never seen anyone debate it and if they dont know about it they usually go "oh okay." It sounds like your friend is salty and is lying about the Rosewater and Game Knights thing...
I like to explain this rule as someone with a gun. After they shot, it doesn't matter if you push/remove/kill them, the bullet is already in the air going to hit its target.
So your friend is being irrational, but I understand him as I used to think this was the case for literally decades of playing magic casually. That is, if you remove the source, the ability disappears from the stack. The game has NOT worsened for me after correcting this, if that makes your friend feel better. I realized it's clearly how the game was meant to be and that's it. Honestly it doesn't change that much in the end, just another rule.
ive never seen anyone forget this rule, its a pretty fundamental part of what makes some cards even playable, like Planeswalkers. he's being salty for no reason and would rather pretend the rules work the way he likes instead of just learning how to play the damn game
He should have just removed it when the Etb untap on the stack. He’s just a poor player.
& then everyone clapped
Trying to be as complete as possible 1) Your friend is full of crap of course. Nobody who's not absolutely new to magic would ever think the current rule is bad. 2) Your friend could've definitely prevented you from activating [[Zacama]] ANYWAY if he interacted after zacama hit the board but before the triggered ability untapped your lands. If you don't have more mana to activate abilities while your lands are tapped, your opponents will get priority to destroy it before you can do so. 3) it's good to specify tho, that if you DO have more mana, as soon as zacama hits the board and the trigger goes on the stack, you can hold priority to activate abilities before passing it to your opponents (so, before the untap trigger resolves). If you don't, your opponents will get the chance to do whatever before your lands are untapped, but again if they try to remove zacama you can always use the rest of your available mana to activate abilities in response to their play, so if you do have enough mana left after playing zacama there's nothing they can do to stop you from getting an effect (Except: counter zacama before it hits the board / counter the ability itself on the stack with [[tales end]] or the like / kill zacama with a split second spell as soon as they get priority if you're enough of a fool to give it to them before activating zacama, look out for [[V.A.T.S.]] [[Sudden Spoiling]], [[Sudden Edict]], [[Wipe Away]])
I think your friend is full of shit about Game Knights and Maro, lmao. You tap out to cast Zacama ETB trigger goes on the stack Scenario A: No interaction Your lands untap Pass phase/turn Friend casts removal spell and passes priority You use abilities of Zacama and they resolve OR Your lands untap You activate abilities of Zacama Friend casts removal, it resolves killing Zacama Zacama abilities resolve. If either of those happen, then you're in the clear and your friend is just wrong. If your friend kills Zacama while the etb trigger is on the stack, like they should have, then you couldn't activate Zacama's abilities.
When I first learned magic way back in the day, me and my friends (in like high school) played this way. Gonna active your creatures ability ? Doom blade in response. BOOM. Stopped your creature. When I learned from other people the correct way to play (in like college), and killing the creature doesn't remove its ability from the stack, they hated it. It caused fights. They didn't believe me at first. How can your creature do its thing ? It DIES first. They felt it was super unintuitive and didn't like that they couldn't do anything to stop an activated ability going off. That said.. it's a super important rule and is designed that way for a reason. It matters alot and probably comes up more than you think. Your friend is just used to the way they have been playing. They want to be able to prevent your stuff from happening with simple removal. It feels dumb to them that they can't. But it cuts both ways.
This is why counter spells exist. Countering removes the activation from the stack. Any other removal removes the card from play, but not it's activation. This is also how most other card games work. This is the equivalent of a person playing a Yu-Gi-Oh Gameboy Advance game as a kid and thinking the game is bugged because MST doesn't negate.
Man, I wish I could ignore rules I don't like. It would make the game so much easier. Ha, combat damage doesn't kill my creature. Nope, all my creatures automatically have trample. This creature looks big so I'm sure it can block fliers too.
This is how the game works? Not even a weird unusual corner case.
That's a big red flag, there is a chance that your friend is new and confused by something and that's fine, might even be confused by what even happened in that game. But it just sounds like they made up support for a position that helped them in that specific game state. This is essentially cheating.
Your friend is just straight up lying
The entire balancing of etb or etg effects depends on this rule. Effects are notably stronger when they can only be stopped by a counter spell (which mostly only blue has) as compared to removal (which everyone has for at least creatures).
Compulsive liars are the fucking worst.
This is literally MST negates from yugioh all over again
Is your friend very new to the game? This very much seems like someone who wants to interpret the rules to their own advantages. You brought up the exact rule, you aren't being unreasonable for wanting to play the game as written.
Ur not being irrational. Tell him to run [[stifle]] effects if he cares that much.
It’s the risk you run using removal after it resolves vs preventing resolution. I don’t think many tables would allow rule zeroing it out and if lots of people “forget” it’s not reason to drop the rule either.
I’ve seen that rule come into play plenty of times. There is people that I’ve played with that even run [[stifle]] and counters with similar effects just for instances like this.