![]() ![]() Otherwise, the effect is considered to be independent of the other effect. avacyn has no abilities, so nothing gets indestructible."Ħ13.8a An effect is said to "depend on" another if (a) it's applied in the same layer (and, if applicable, sublayer) as the other effect (b) applying the other would change the text or the existence of the first effect, what it applies to, or what it does to any of the things it applies to and (c) neither effect is from a characteristic-defining ability or both effects are from characteristic-defining abilities. ![]() Quote: "avacyn's ability is dependent on oko's effect, so oko's effect has to apply first. Now I'm getting another judge say the same thing as I did before. Thus they're applied Oko first and nothing after that since all the abilities got removed. The key here is that since BOTH effects are NOT Character-Defining Abilities and they modify the same thing they are dependent on each other. ![]() Avacyn's ability would be applied right after that but Oko removed them all so there is nothing to apply and nothing gets granted indestructibility. Ignore the above, I've now got two judges and r/mtgrules say the same thing: Avacyn's ability is dependent on Oko's ability which means Oko's ability is applied first. I find this hard to understand but sometimes things are complicated. I'm probably in the wrong here since Avacyn apparently uses layer 6 too, in which case her timestamp is applied first because she existed before Oko's ability. Layer 6 removes all abilities from Avacyn, including the one that says other permanents are indestructible. " 613.1f Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, keyword counters, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can’t have an ability are applied." You start with the printed text and then modify it. I looked at the layers and asked about this in a judges chat the layers are pretty clear on this. Most interesting, perhaps, was the Mycosynth Lattice ban, which addressed a card because of its " unfun" play pattern and not because it was oppressive to the Modern format as a whole.That can't be right, it must be a programming mistake. Mox Opal was banned to help further reduce the effectiveness of the Urza decks, which had been using both Oko and Opal to great effect for months now. Oko's ban was well-deserved: the card was clocking in at around 40% of deck configurations, an absurd number for a single card in a format that's supposed to be as diverse as Modern. However, Magic: The Gathering Modern bans have extended beyond Oko this time around, as Wizards of the Coast announced that the format would be losing Mox Opal and Mycosynth Lattice as well. Related: Magic: Legends Will Have Card-Based Gameplay & Decks The card was simply too powerful in virtually every format it could be played in and, following a Standard and Pioneer ban for the planeswalker, many knew its time was coming in Modern as well. For many players, 2019 is best summarized by the release of Oko, Thief of Crowns, a card that Screen Rant previewed during the Throne of Eldraine spoiler season. War of the Spark released a handful of new planeswalkers into Modern that have also created additional pressure on the format, and one of them, Karn the Great Creator, was fundamentally responsible for Mycosynth Lattice even seeing play at all. Izzet Phoenix, a deck that contained Aria of Flame from Modern Horizons, also saw Faithless Looting out of the Magic: The Gathering Modern format. Hogaak was the first strategy to emerge from the Modern Horizons release to become too powerful for competitive play, and the deck required two sets of bannings to address it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |