Q: Amy controls a Narset, Enlightened Master and casts a Narset Transcendent. What happens?
A: Nothing interesting. Even though these cards both represent the same storyline character, the rules don’t have a problem with both of them being on the battlefield at the same time. The legend rule doesn’t take effect because Narset Transcendent isn’t legendary [CR 704.5k]. Similarly, the planeswalker uniqueness rule doesn’t do anything because Narset, Enlightened Master isn’t a planeswalker [CR 704.5j].
Note: Because the legend rule checks the permanent’s name, it’s possible to have two legendary permanents with different names in play, even if they both represent the same storyline character, such as Silumgar, the Drifting Death and Dragonlord Silumgar.
Note: Because the planeswalker uniqueness rule checks the planeswalker type rather than the name, the same thing is generally not possible with planeswalkers; if you control Sarkhan, the Dragonspeaker and Sarkhan Unbroken, you’ll have to bin one of them because they’re both planeswalker – Sarkhan.
Q: Amy’s Siege Rhino is exiled by Nicole’s Banishing Light, which is Nicole’s only enchantment. Can Amy use Dromoka’s Command to make Nicole sacrifice Banishing Light and have Siege Rhino fight a creature?
A: No. The creatures in the fight are targeted, and targets are selected during the process of casting the spell [CR 601.2c]. Since Siege Rhino isn’t on the battlefield when the spell is being cast, it can’t be a target.
Note: Suppose that the last mode were worded “Choose a creature you control. It fights target creature you don’t control.” In this case, that would be a legal play. That’s because this choice isn’t a target and wouldn’t be made until Dromoka’s Command resolved [CR 608.2d].
Q: Nicole controls an Angel of Jubilation. Can Amy cast Sidisi, Undead Vizier and exploit a creature?
A: Yes. The angel only prevents sacrifices to cast spells or activate abilities. Sidisi’s “sacrifice a creature” is an effect of its triggered ability, which the angel has no problem with.
Q: Amy casts Sidisi, Undead Vizier. Nicole controls an Illusory Gains that’s currently attached to Amy’s Grizzly Bears. What happens?
A: Sidisi enters the battlefield, causing both its “sacrifice a creature” ability and Illusory Gains’ “attach to that creature” ability to trigger. These triggers are put onto the stack in APNAP order, so Illusory Gains will resolve first [CR 603.3b]. After that trigger resolves, Nicole will control Sidisi because the control changes are intantaneous [CR 613.4].
The “you” in Sidisi’s “you may sacrifice a creature” ability refers to Amy, the player who controled its source when the ability was put onto the stack [CR 112.8]. Amy is the one with the option to sacrifice a creature. She may sacrifice any creature she controls, even Grizzly Bears, since the control-changing effect on it ended when Illusory Gains moved.
A creature with exploit “exploits a creature” when the controller of the exploit ability sacrifices a creature as that ability resolves [CR 702.109b]. This means that if Amy chooses to sacrifice one of her creatures, this event will match the trigger condition of Sidisi’s second triggered ability. Because Nicole now controls Sidisi, she, not Amy, will control that trigger, so Nicole would get to search her library for a card.
Note: Suppose Sidisi is removed in response to its sacrifice a creature ability. Because the ability exists independent of its source, it’s still on the stack, and you’re still able to sacrifice a creature [CR 112.7a]. However, because Sidisi is no longer on the battlefield, its “you may search for a card” ability won’t trigger in this case, so that’s probably not what you want to do.
Note: Suppose this happened while Amy controlled a Tajuru Preserver. Because Amy controls the trigger that allows her to sacrifice a creature, Tajuru Preserver doesn’t care about this event. Amy could still sacrifice a creature.
Q: Nicole controls a Dragonlord Kolaghan. Amy casts Tasigur delving away another Tasigur from her graveyard. Does Kolaghan trigger?
A: No. A spell is not considered cast until after all the costs to cast it are paid; abilities that trigger when a spell is cast trigger at that point [CR 601.2h]. Since the game state does not match the trigger condition when Amy finishes the casting process, Kolaghan does not trigger.
Q: Amy controls a Dream Halls. She wants to cast a Dragonlord’s Prerogative by discarding Icefall Regent. Can she also reveal this card so that Dragonlord’s Prerogative will be uncounterable?
A: Yes. Amy declares her intention to pay alternate and additional costs as part of casting the spell [CR 601.2b]. After this, the cost to cast Dragonlord’s Prerogative is set at [Amy discards a blue card; Amy reveals a Dragon card from her hand]. Amy may pay this cost in either order [CR 601.2g]. A player can’t, for example, discard the same card to pay two different costs, but there’s no problem with revealing a card to pay one cost, then discarding it to pay another [CR 117.10].
Q: Amy controls a Stampeding Elk Herd and three Grizzly Bears, and she attacks with all of them. Nicole responds to the herd’s trigger with Hydrosurge on one of the bears. What happens?
A: Stampeding Elk Herd has an intervening if clause in its triggered ability, so it checks the total power of her creatures both when it’s put on the stack and when it resolves [CR 603.4]. When the game needs to use a number in a calculation or comparison, it uses the actual number, even if it’s negative [CR 107.1b]. Therefore, when the ability resolves, Amy’s creatures will have a total power of 5+2+2+(-3) = 6, which will fail the formidible check. None of her creatures gain trample.
Q: Nicole casts an Ojutai’s Command choosing to counter Amy’s Pestermite and draw a card. Amy responds by Mana Leaking her own Pestermite and not paying the 2 mana. What happens?
A: When Pestermite is countered, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard [CR 701.5a]. Because it isn’t in the zone it was in when Ojutai’s Command targeted it, Pestermite becomes an illegal target; because all of the targets of Ojutai’s Command are illegal, it will be countered by game rules when it tries to resolve [CR 608.2b]. None of its effects will happen. Nicole doesn’t get to draw a card.
Note: Suppose that Nicole had chosen to return a creature and counter Pestermite. Assuming that the creature card in her graveyard was still a legal target, Ojutai’s Command would not be countered. Pestermite would be an illegal target, so nothing would happen to it, but the creature in her graveyard would be returned because the spell would try to do as much as it could [CR 608.2b].
Q: Say I cast Ojutai’s Command to return a Snapcaster Mage and draw a card. When Snapcaster Mage enters the battlefield, can I have it give Ojutai’s Command flashback and cast it again?
A: This works. Even though Ojutai’s Command isn’t in the graveyard when Snapcaster Mage enters the battlefield (it isn’t put there until after all its instructions are completed [CR 608.2k]), that doesn’t matter. Snapcaster Mage’s ability triggers during the resolution of Ojutai’s Command, but it doesn’t go on the stack until after the command is done resolving [CR 603.3]. Targets for the Snapcaster Mage’s ability aren’t chosen until the ability is being put onto the stack, and by then, Ojutai’s Command is in the graveyard, so this trick works [CR 603.3d].
Q: Can I Backslide a face up Marsh Hulk?
A: I thought of this question mere seconds after megamorph was spoiled. It’s relatively common for new mechanics to spawn questions that the current rules can’t answer, so I waited patiently. The CR update was surprisingly unhelpful; it said that a megamorph cost was a morph cost, but made no mention of whether they might be equivalent for this purpose. The Oracle update, though, had a very interesting change to Backslide’s Oracle text. It now reads, “Turn target creature with a morph ability face down.”
So yes, you can.
Note: Similar errata was given to other cards that interact with morph like Dermoplasm, Master of the Veil, and Weaver of Lies.
Q: Amy casts the last card in her hand, a Careful Study. She draws two cards, then is distracted by her friend Alice bringing her food. After Alice leaves, Amy plays a land and passes the turn. Her opponent then asks what Amy discarded for Careful Study. Amy realizes her mistake and calls a judge. What do you do?
A: These sorts of scenarios were made possible by a prior revision of the IPG that mandated performing partial fixes before attempting to rewind. In this case, Amy’s GRV falls under the partial fix of “a player forgot to draw cards, discard cards, or return cards from their hand to another zone” [IPG 2.5 A]. The old IPG would have Amy discard her one card now, but she would keep the land she played. Under the new IPG, we still perform partial fixes first, unless backing up would be “very simple.” Expect lots of debate coming up about what the exact interpretation of this phrase should be. Toby Elliot proposes here that it should be limited to situations that would lead to unnatural results where there is at most one action directly involving the affected permanent and the error didn’t affect anything the opponent would know about. In any case, this example is about as clear cut as you can expect to see. Perform the very simple backup of undoing Amy’s land play and have her discard.
Q: Amy casts Glimpse of Nature, which resolves. She then casts Heritage Druid and says “Trigger.” With that on the stack, Nicole casts Swords to Plowshares on Amy’s Elvish Visionary. Amy responds by using Wirewood Symbiote to bounce the visionary and untap something. After all of this, Amy plays a land. She then realizes that she forgot to actually draw a card for her glimpse trigger and calls a judge. What do you do?
A: Though she acknowledged the trigger, Amy did not take the appropriate physical action, in this case drawing a card, when that trigger would have resolved. Per the changes in the Missed Trigger policy, this trigger is considered missed [IPG 2.1 D]. There is no penalty for Amy because drawing a card is not generally considered detrimental, and Nicole may allow Amy to ignore the draw. Because it was caught within a turn, Nicole chooses whether to add this trigger to the stack now or skip it.
Note: Suppose that Amy had said “I get to draw a card” rather than the more vague “Trigger.” For a triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state to be considered remembered, its controller must “take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.” The more specific “I get to draw a card” makes it clear what the action should be, so the appropriate infraction is a Game Rule Violation in this case [IPG 2.1 D]. A partial fix is available in this situation, so have Amy draw now [IPG 2.5 A].
Q: Amy attacks with Hill Giant, which Nicole double blocks with Grizzly Bears and Forest Bear. Amy then asks “Damage?” At this, Nicole casts Dragonlord’s Prerogative, drawing into a Shape the Sands, which she then casts on her Grizzly Bears. The players then disagree about what should happen next. Amy thinks she can kill the Forest Bear, but Nicole thinks both her creatures should survive. What do you do?
A: The root problem here is that a damage assignment order has not been specified. Depending on which way they are ordered, either outcome is possible. This is a Game Rule Violation for Amy and a Failure to Maintain Game State for Nicole. Backing up through four card draws is certainly not “very simple,” so we next look at partial fixes. Here, we encounter the change in the IPG. Failure to declare a damage assignment order is now a situation that has a partial fix, namely the relevant player declaring a damage assignment order now [IPG 2.5 A]. Amy will probably choose to have her Hill Giant deal damage to Forest Bear first.
Note: Suppose that Nicole had not cast Dragonlord’s Prerogative, but had rather simply cast Shape the Sands. In this case, you might well consider backing up (which would be accomplished by undoing the casting of Shape the Sands and returning to the point where the damage assignment order should be declared) to be very simple. In that case, Nicole would have the opportunity to recast Shape the Sands targeting whichever bear was ordered first.
Note: In the original case, Nicole might feel bad about this ruling. Indeed, you basically just ruled that she cast Shape the Sands for no reason. She may (semi-legitimately) feel that she is being punished for her opponent’s mistake. If this happens, pointing out that Nicole also made a mistake in allowing the game to continue without noticing, while accurate, is unlikely to effectively de-escalate the situation. Instead, I would stress the broad variety of Game Rule Violations that are possible, the challenges of having a single policy that needs to address them all, and the necessity of standing by that policy even for the sub-optimal times in order to ensure fairness. After the match (i.e., after the player has had a chance to cool down and at a time that the tournament won’t be delayed by a lengthy discussion), I would try to find Nicole and offer to talk about the ruling and policy in more detail.