A: Yes, the clue is created! “When Declaration in Stone says “exiled this way“ it does not mean ”that were put into the exile zone this way“. It means ”That Declaration in Stone successfully performed the action ‘exile’ upon.” Declaration in Stone did perform the action known as ‘exiling’ upon the commander. That Commander may not have ended up in the zone that that action normally results in the card moving to, but that doesn’t change the fact that the action was indeed performed upon it.

This distinction can be seen more clearly with a different keyword action that’s used in a similar manner: “destroy”. Compare Declaration in Stone to Fumigate. If you use Fumigate to destroy a commander, and its controller chooses to put that card in the command zone instead of letting it go to the graveyard, you still gain a life for it, because Fumigate destroyed it. It didn’t go to the graveyard as a result of that destruction, but it was still destroyed. The same goes for Declaration in Stone, only with different, slightly more confusing terminology.”

Approved by Callum Mine

Cards: Declaration in Stone; Fumigate

A: It is not! According to the IPG, “the point by which the player needs to demonstrate this awareness depends on the impact that the trigger would have on the game”. In this case, “A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution: The controller must take the appropriate physical action or acknowledge the specific trigger before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly taking an action in the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved. Note that passing priority, casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten, as it could still be on the stack.”

So, in this case, it all depends on what happens next. If AP tries to perform a sorcery-speed action, NAP should inform AP that the trigger is still on the stack.

Approved by Scott Marshall

Cards: Nezahal, Primal Tide; Fumigate; Negate

A: “A TO offering language choice for a sealed deck is fine. This happens at many international GPs now. MTR only says that all player must receive the same boosters (as in the same booster from the same sets). Language is not addressed.”

Approved by Scott Marshall and Wizards of the Coast

A: It is not! “Per the OED, “wager” is another term for “bet”, and the first definition for “bet” is: risk something, usually a sum of money, against someone else’s on the basis of the outcome of a future event, such as the result of a race or game. While the material part of the bet doesn’t have to be equal, the key concept is two (or more) people risking something they value based on that future outcome. In the original scenario, only one player is risking anything, and thus fails the basic definition of “wager” (or “bet”).”

Approved by Scott Marshall
Editor’s note: Do remember judges, that most cases involving potential bribery, wagering, and collusion are often different and individual case-by-case.  Please take time to consider any situation you encounter, and feel free to confirm with other judges on rulings of this nature.

A: “When CR 500.7 talks about a player being given multiple extra turns, it’s only talking about cases where a player is given those turns all at the same time, as with Time Stretch and cards like it – it wouldn’t make sense for a player to somehow take more than one turn simultaneously, so the rules specify that the turns are added (and therefore are taken) one at a time.

This case doesn’t apply to your Time Warp scenario, because the multiple different copies of Time Warp are all resolving (and therefore giving their targets extra turns) at different times, not simultaneously. So this is the final order for taking the extra turns: T3, T1, T2, which is the reverse of the order those turns were created in.”

Approved by Callum Mine

Cards: Time Warp; Fork; Time Stretch