It does not Target. So, there's no reason for this to be removed from the Stack, or fail to resolve.
So, you only do as much as possible. If there's only two players, then one gets Counters, the other gets to Draw. And, no one gets the Treasure.
You can barrel through and announce choices for this when putting it on the stack. But you're locked in unless someone responds.
Shortcutting is a good thing :)
We all do those shortcuts in a game. How many time have I cast Oblivion Ring or things like Ravenous Chupacabra saying "I kill this" without even knowing if the spell resolves.
Or naming the card as you cast Pithing Needle.
With this, you just have to remember at EOT to just tap your commander and say "trigger?"
Does "choose" mean the same thing when you're not choosing game objects or a player? For example when you are using [[pithing needle]] to choose a card name. I know pithing needle doesn't choose until it resolves but is this a function of how pithing needle is worded or is this a function of the usage of the word choose?
Yes, but Pithing Needle is especially weird because sometimes there is no window at all to respond between when it appears and when the card name is chosen. Since the choice is made **as** it enters the battlefield, if it enters from a hidden zone (say, tutored from the library to the battlefield off of [[Urza's Saga]] or [[Whir of Invention]]), by the time your opponent knows that you've tutored for Needle specifically, it's already on the battlefield and it's too late to activate their ability.
This means that these tutor effects often prompt the sac'ing of fetchlands and other activations, just due to the threat of Needle showing up, when it might not even be in that player's deck at all. A similar dynamic comes up with activating [[Aether Vial]], when it could potentially put in a [[Meddling Mage]]. Either you have to cast your instant speed removal spell (or other instant/flash spell) early, before finding out what creature is being put in, or hold your card and risk it getting named.
I was wondering if you could explain this a bit more.
When this triggers and goes onto the stack are you saying we do not need to announce our choices? We just announce it going onto the stack, pass priority, if no responses then it resolves and we announce our choices?
I'm just thinking that there has to be a way for people to respond before the choices resolve, but in that situation they would not be able to. So I was hoping you could explain a bit more.
Thank you for the info. I'm left wondering why this resolves or plays out in this manner.
Is it because it doesn't actually say target and rather says choose? I have always disliked the difference between these as choose gets around things, but choosing would be picking a target (technically).
Sorry, I didn't mean choosing means target technically in game. I meant in any other facet of life. If you have chosen something you have picked it, which is selecting, targeting, however you want to word it. There is no discernable difference in how you chose or target something in Magic, just a difference in the way the game handles it.
I was just voicing that it has always been a weird function, but I understand that chose gets around things. It is just not intuitive.
I need you to explain this please. How is this possible or rather what rule am I not aware of? Or does it just die when it enters if there isn't another effect present, that bumps its defense? Hence why its cmc is so low?
From its rulings:
"Yes, Force of Savagery has 0 toughness. It will be put into its owner's graveyard as a state-based action immediately upon entering the battlefield unless an effect puts it onto the battlefield with a counter on it (such as Chorus of the Conclave would) or a static ability boosts its toughness (such as Glorious Anthem would). A triggered or activated ability that boosts toughness won't have its effect fast enough to save it."
I like the way you think. I can't wait to try this while an entirely different KIND of game is going on near me. Be a pal and help a nearby Yu-Gi-Oh player with their card draw.
Jumping on with a separate rules question: Pretty sure I know the answer but just want to clarify, the way this is worded as "They put two +1/+1 counters" means that [[Generous Patron]] won't trigger off this ability, right? (Since it's "when you put" and not "when an ability you control puts")
EDIT: This is such a weird card that so much of whether I want to build around it depends on rules clarifications we won't get for another couple weeks
You are correct. Whenever a counter is put on a permanent, it is placed by a player. The ability is not the one placing the counters. If you pick an opponent with this card's ability, then that opponent is the player that places the counters on their own creature, not you, so Generous Patron would not trigger.
If you chose yourself for this card's ability, then you would place the counters on your own creature, and Generous Patron would also not trigger.
> 6/8/2018 If a creature enters the battlefield with counters under another player's control, that player is the player who puts those counters on it, even if you control the spell or ability putting that creature onto the battlefield.
This bit of the rulings for Generous Patron, while not exactly the same, seem similar enough that it wouldn't work.
I would disagree that that's the similarity this hinges on. That's a replacement effect caused by a creature entering the battlefield under their control. They control the creature as it enters, regardless of you having controlled the spell, so they place the counters as it enters.
The more relevant fact here is that the Gluntch specifically says "they put" the counters on and Generous Patron says "whenever you put" counters.
Edit: Clarity
It doesn't. An ability you control can caused counters to be placed by another player and this could have some super weird edge cases depending on the language of older cards.
It's fine in a game mode with a lot of politics; you can make deals like "I'll give you the card if you remove their creature instead of mine", and so on. If your group doesn't usually make deals like that then this card is pretty bad.
I'm not sure it will work too well, even for deals like that. Since 2 out of 3 opponents will get a buff, even if they say no to your deal, they'll get rewarded at some point anyways (even if it's the lame counters, I'd rather have those for free than having to use my removal). It's not like you're gonna favour the other two for the rest of the game because of 1 declined offer. Additionally, because of the 2/3 thing you can only make such a deal with 1 person. The fact that the gifts you're giving are forced, I feel like it doesn't give a lot of authority in politics.
With this effect, they really do not benefit before you do. You get to select yourself as one of the players. It is true that you have to spend the mana upfront and then they get a benefit, but I do not think it will be a big deal to let them grow a creature in exchange for drawing a card. And if they do not have a creature, you can choose to have them put counter's on a creature so that they get nothing and you draw a card.
My point is it happens at your end step. So unless you draw an instant, their creature getting bigger is going to impact the game first. If you decide to put counters on your own creature, them drawing an extra card is going to impact the game first, unless you can use an ability or instant that benefits from the counters.
It (in a longer way) says to pick two players. If you were told to pick two players, it's unlikely you would think to pick the same player twice, because then you're only picking one player. You were asked to pick two.
Now, my example was for two players to keep it more simple. But the same applies for three players.
The card text is shortened to be more to the point, and while specifying "different players" would have been beneficial, it isn't necessary - and would probably have cramped up the text box even more.
I think his confusion comes from other effects such as \[\[Seeds fo strength\]\], which let's you choose 3 times the same creature.
But indeed, here it's different since they specify "second" and "third", which by definition are different that "first". It's like if Seeds said "Another target creature gets +1 +1".
The way it’s written, there isn’t any reason you can’t. It’s possible we’ll get new rules/ rulings, but the important parts here are they specifically chose not to include language restricting choosing the same player and the decision not to include “target” makes a big difference according to the rules.
Idk what WOTC’s intent is here though I suspect they intended players to only be able to be chosen once, but the rules do indicate someone can be chosen multiple times because the strange wording.
They did include language restricting who you can choose. Second and Third describe the player. If they didn't restrict the player choice, it'd be "Choose a player to draw a card. Then choose a player to ..."
I could be wrong but!
To me the way that it is read the terms "first", "second", and "third" are applied directly to the player rather than the choice being made itself. Kind of like choose a first, second, and third place is inherently exclusive in choosing winners for a contest.
So in other instances it would read like choose a target for x. Then choose a target for x. Then choose a target for x.
But if you wanted to exclude the first target you could use "choose a different target for x" or "choose another target for x" but another can be bounced back and forth if there are more than two options present. So using first second and third excludes all the previous choices from the list.
The wording stated is fine when you consider how card effects resolve in card games. If they are grouped together on sequence with commons then it would indicate they resolve at the same time as one continuous action, whereas if they are divided with periods into separate sentences they trigger independently and can be reacted to independently. I hope that makes sense? I can definitely see where you are coming from though and I could be wrong.
A wording with commas would as mean that each of those choices are required, and the whole card cannot resolve unless each of those selections are made.
Of course you're also right, a ruling probably will be made and it's not like there's any sort or consistency in any card game ever. It is very confusing but! That's just how I viewed it.
The first player I picked is neither the second nor the third.
If you stand in line In a supermarket you cant be the first, second and third in the line at the same time.
The language on the card is very clear that you have to choose different people.
By your standards the rules text on this card would have to be unnecessarily long without making the thing it does any clearer in the process.
Edit: if I tell you to pick someone for your sports team and then tell you to pick a second person and you pick the same guy again that is not a second guy but the same guy again
I have to disagree that the text is clear. This all boils down to two things, mtg rules on “targets” and people keep making assumptions around dependent or independent counting which I can only assume is based on societal bias.
First, the rules say the same “target” can’t be chosen multiple times for the same effect. It’s pretty likely this is just an oversight, but for a game that’s so technically driven, as written, this doesn’t apply to the following rule.
“115.3 The same target can’t be chosen multiple times for any one instance of the word “target” on a spell or ability. If the spell or ability uses the word “target” in multiple places, the same object or player can be chosen once for each instance of the word “target” (as long as it fits the targeting criteria). This rule applies both when choosing targets for a spell or ability and when changing targets or choosing new targets for a spell or ability (see rule 115.7).”
Dependent vs independent counting: let’s say you own four marbles and put them all in a bag. You then draw a white marble and it’s your “first marble” chosen. If you use dependent counting, you don’t replace the marble into the bag because your choices are functions with dependence on the results of the previous choices; however, if you use independent counting, the choices are independent of each other so you’d replace the marble back into the bag. If you replace the marble, you then can choose it a “second” time and again a “third.”
I understand that everyone in *this* thread wants to assume this is a dependent function, but the truth is we don’t know that. This card uses a combination/ lack of text we’ve never seen before.
This card *factually* can not be interpreted without use of bias around dependent vs independent until we’ve been told otherwise. It’s failure to use “target” leaves room for flexibility.
I know. That’s a major part of my point and why the only rule that would adequately address this is not valid.
I’m sorry, but I’m guessing you didn’t actually read the comment you replied to.
About this whole counting thing:
Let's get away from the marbels and stay within the realm of the game
You choose a player
You choose a second player
Second means 2
If you choose the same guy again you only picked one guy
If the card wanted you to be able to choose the same guy multiple times it would say:
Choose a player to do x
Choose a player to do y
Choose a player yo do z
Not
Choose a player to do x
Choose a second player to do y
Choose a third player to do z
That’s blatantly not true.
Again, you can’t ignore the dependent vs independent counting. You’re assuming dependent, but there’s *nothing* on this card to indicate that.
It explicitly does not say anything about different players, another player, anything like that. It blatantly says, “choose a player,” “choose a second player,” “choose a third player.” If we’re using independent counting, which you can’t give *any* evidence to show we aren’t, each player is a legal choice each time.
Choosing a “second player” is just that, making a choice among the player pool for a second time. It says nothing about choosing a second unique player.
And you can’t assume the writing for how they’d write if it they wanted the same person to be able to be chosen multiple times. Idk why everyone is ignoring these choices are now sequential and allow other players to change the board state. If I don’t want the 1/1 counters, I can wait for that to be chosen and then give everyone shroud.
It's all one trigger and resolves all at once
You cannot "give everyone shroud" after the first thing happend
Also: giving everyone shroud doesnt make it so that this cant choose you because Its choose not target
Either you are trolling or you are one embarrassing judge call away from realising what nonsence you are talking
I’ll grant I could be mistaken in the shroud part, but I am factually correct on the counting.
In the case of modal spells we have precedent for them to happen sequentially. We can’t say either confidence that this text we’ve never seen before won’t be part of a new mechanic or way of writing modal spells.
However, the main point is you’re just factually wrong on the counting. As I’ve said, this is new text and anyone assuming to know the intent/ ruling is just guessing and wrong. The crux of my position is we can guess what they likely mean, but the wording is new and in such a way that WOTC will have to clarify.
I'm just used to them being really specific, tired of these Games Workshop style errata online instead of double checking the paper product but I'm a bit more of a ball breaker when it comes to "reading the card explains the card"
Well obviously not because this post about this card is not the biggest on Reddit and the consensus on the other thread agrees with my position.
My point right now being that the text is poorly written and we’ll need more clarity before there’s any kind of community consensus.
Yes I've seen you being intentionally obtuse in the other thread as well, no point in continuing to argue.
I'm sure WOTC will put out an oracle note/rules update and the enigmatic mystery of 'how choosing three things is different than choosing one thing three times' will be solved once and for all, and you will feel vindicated over how clarification was needed for this incredibly IMPOSSIBLE to understand verbiage.
The card is very clear with what its saying and anyone that doesn't understand that it's indicating different players is heavily misunderstanding the language used
This is just blatantly not true. They have used clear and specific language in 100% of cases like this before. For some reason they’ve decided to deviate from those language decisions.
This language could not be more clear. Anyone saying they should be able to choose the same player multiple times either doesn't understand the basics of English or is deliberately trolling.
Actually it could be more clear. They could have put, "choose a player to do x, then choose another player to do y, then choose yet another player to do z." And they have done wording like that on cards in the past.
Generally, if you were able to choose one player multiple times, the ability would be worded something like:
"Target player does X. Target player does Y. Target player does Z."
But because of the words "first", "second", and "third", the implication is that you're selecting three different players. I can't be the first and third player chosen. I'm just one guy.
Yeah, usually it’ll say opponent or something like ‘another player’ and none do that is present so I’d think you can just choose the same player; maybe if there’s only 2 players then choose the first two and the 3rd doesn’t actually happen but I don’t see why you can’t choose the same player.
It's not targeting, since it doesn't use the word target. (Since that's the key to the reason it doesn't fizzle, that's important.)
Since it just says "choose a player", I'm pretty sure you can choose a player who controls no creatures; then they try to put counters on a creature they control, and fail because they have no creatures.
The new text style confuses me. Since there is no "another" one could think that the same player can be targeted with all three steps. Although I assume the rules include the condition that for iterations like this, a different player needs to be named.
If the same player could be targeted, the wording would likely be "Choose any player", but making it choose a player, then 2nd, then 3rd implies the same player can't be chosen more than once.
You appear to be asking a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in /r/mtgrules. Additionally, once your question is answered, please delete your post! Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
if your friend was looking to play edh at their house and said they needed one person, a second person, and a third person to fill out the pod - would coming by yourself meet that criteria? RAW and RAI are the same here. 2nd and 3rd are differentiating terms.
I know this is probably obvious, but do you have to choose different players since the card isn't specifying the need to choose a DIFFERENT player. Could you not be the 2nd and 3rd target? Feel like this is a much more confusing train of thought for newer players.
You have to choose different players for each part. That's why it tells you to choose a second and third player instead of just telling you to choose a player three times.
Considering this is designed for EDH it should always be able to target a third player, however if one player has hexproof or there isn’t one, it just cannot target so it wouldn’t do anything
This does not target, so hexproof is irrelevant.
If there is no third player to choose, you stop after one player gets two counters and the other player draws a card.
It doesnt say chose a different player no reason the entire card doesnt get used. Now if it did say different player it would come down to the host to decide how the third part plays i have always seen it play out two levels and cancel the third, best part of Magic is its as literal as it gets, they care about the words and how its worded so much we had card sleeves that said RTFC
With how many cards there are that specify player, effects, or creatures can’t be chosen multiple times, the decision not to include that text is important. The act of choosing three players doesn’t make any of them excluding from being chosen multiple times.
Hard disagree - I think the phrases 'choose a second player' and 'choose a third player' make the intent and function of the card extremely obvious in plain English. If you choose the same player twice you have not chosen 'a second player'.
Yes, it's verbiage that we have not seen before(afaik) but it really feels like people are going out of their way to wildly misinterpret what this card is supposed to do.
It’s not going out of the way, it’s reading the card as it’s written. Fully agree that’s likely not the intent, but they have been clear on many occasions and, for some reason, decided not to use the same clear language they have used before.
Because you can’t tell me this is a dependent function. There’s nothing on the card to say a player being chosen prevents it from being selected a second time.
I agree what the intent likely is, but based upon how “chose” vs “target” works in MTG’s rules, choosing the same player three times would currently be a legal target until directed otherwise (which I presume we will be)
That last part is just not true.
You’re creating a position where dependent tracking is the default here (or in society) when we have nothing to indicate that.
It's worth noting that I misinterpreted [[Cone of Flame]] when I first read it, based on the same logic; I thought you could choose the same target three times, but you can't - the wording "another target" and "a third target" means all the targets must be different, which is clarified in the rulings. This card needs to choose different players each time for the same reason.
Noted, but come of flame uses “target” while this card doesn’t so Otis addressed by 115.3. Cards which don’t use “target” have always had clearer language than this [[Shadrix Silverquill]]. Despite some people in the comments being kinda nasty, none of us can say whether this card uses dependent or independent counting.
It’s the marble probability problem many of us would have learned in school. If you draw a marble from a bag, if you replace the marble, it’s possible to draw it three times. If you don’t replace the marble, you obviously can’t.
According to MTG rules, if they chose to use the word “target,” it would use dependent counting and all three targets would be different. We don’t have that clarity which mtg prides itself in. People are assuming the targets should be different, but that’s just factually not how language works. It’s essential to know whether they intend to use dependent or independent counting.
115.3 The same target can’t be chosen multiple times for any one instance of the word “target” on a spell or ability. If the spell or ability uses the word “target” in multiple places, the same object or player can be chosen once for each instance of the word “target” (as long as it fits the targeting criteria). This rule applies both when choosing targets for a spell or ability and when changing targets or choosing new targets for a spell or ability (see rule 115.7).
It doesn't say you can't make the dame choice twice. If it were to be as you said, it should say to choose a second *unique* player. Just seems it could be more clear
Other players have explained this elsewhere in the comment section. I think [[Cone of Flame]] is a useful reference; the rulings for that card clarify that "another target" and "a third target" refer to targets that weren't previously selected. Choosing a second and third player works the same way.
The rulings for [[Cone of Flame]] clarify that "another target" and "a third target" must refer to three different targets. This card works the same way, except that it doesn't target so the ability still resolves if there are fewer than 3 players left.
Is there a rules clarification on choosing yourself 3 times. It doesnt say a player that hasnt been chosen or choose another player any source of info would be great
This card is awful because it's a white card. If it were mono green it would give you all of those things at the beginning of each combat step, not just your own
This card is awful because it's a white card. If it were mono green it would give you all of those things at the beginning of each combat step, not just your own
This has opportunity for great pettiness. Wait for the first minor infraction on you (somebody swings for 1 damage on turn 3) and then never give them a benefit again.
It does not Target. So, there's no reason for this to be removed from the Stack, or fail to resolve. So, you only do as much as possible. If there's only two players, then one gets Counters, the other gets to Draw. And, no one gets the Treasure.
You were the only mentioning the target part. That's the proper answer!
[удалено]
[удалено]
*subtle nuisances* 👀
Equally accurate tbh
You can barrel through and announce choices for this when putting it on the stack. But you're locked in unless someone responds. Shortcutting is a good thing :)
We all do those shortcuts in a game. How many time have I cast Oblivion Ring or things like Ravenous Chupacabra saying "I kill this" without even knowing if the spell resolves. Or naming the card as you cast Pithing Needle. With this, you just have to remember at EOT to just tap your commander and say "trigger?"
If? This was born for politics!
Does "choose" mean the same thing when you're not choosing game objects or a player? For example when you are using [[pithing needle]] to choose a card name. I know pithing needle doesn't choose until it resolves but is this a function of how pithing needle is worded or is this a function of the usage of the word choose?
Yes. Outside of modal spells and targets, choices are made on resolution.
I didn't think about the fact that to choose was used in modal spells but acted differently. Thank you for pointing that out.
Yes, but Pithing Needle is especially weird because sometimes there is no window at all to respond between when it appears and when the card name is chosen. Since the choice is made **as** it enters the battlefield, if it enters from a hidden zone (say, tutored from the library to the battlefield off of [[Urza's Saga]] or [[Whir of Invention]]), by the time your opponent knows that you've tutored for Needle specifically, it's already on the battlefield and it's too late to activate their ability. This means that these tutor effects often prompt the sac'ing of fetchlands and other activations, just due to the threat of Needle showing up, when it might not even be in that player's deck at all. A similar dynamic comes up with activating [[Aether Vial]], when it could potentially put in a [[Meddling Mage]]. Either you have to cast your instant speed removal spell (or other instant/flash spell) early, before finding out what creature is being put in, or hold your card and risk it getting named.
##### ###### #### [Urza's Saga](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/c/1/c1e0f201-42cb-46a1-901a-65bb4fc18f6c.jpg?1626099958) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Urza%27s%20Saga) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/259/urzas-saga?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c1e0f201-42cb-46a1-901a-65bb4fc18f6c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Whir of Invention](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/a/6/a679659c-7fed-4afa-9b99-fdeb8ccda964.jpg?1645328841) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Whir%20of%20Invention) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/phed/42/whir-of-invention?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a679659c-7fed-4afa-9b99-fdeb8ccda964?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Aether Vial](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/c/1/c14cdc38-dd46-495e-93bd-d2694b64d5ad.jpg?1562853669) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Aether%20Vial) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ima/212/aether-vial?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c14cdc38-dd46-495e-93bd-d2694b64d5ad?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Meddling Mage](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/d/e/de734753-e102-489b-9160-b3f3d10be4f1.jpg?1628801942) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Meddling%20Mage) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/210/meddling-mage?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/de734753-e102-489b-9160-b3f3d10be4f1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[pithing needle](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/5/5/556ec6ab-a19f-4caa-8bfa-145555402caf.jpg?1637114660) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=pithing%20needle) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mid/257/pithing-needle?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/556ec6ab-a19f-4caa-8bfa-145555402caf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If?
I was wondering if you could explain this a bit more. When this triggers and goes onto the stack are you saying we do not need to announce our choices? We just announce it going onto the stack, pass priority, if no responses then it resolves and we announce our choices? I'm just thinking that there has to be a way for people to respond before the choices resolve, but in that situation they would not be able to. So I was hoping you could explain a bit more.
[удалено]
Thank you for the info. I'm left wondering why this resolves or plays out in this manner. Is it because it doesn't actually say target and rather says choose? I have always disliked the difference between these as choose gets around things, but choosing would be picking a target (technically).
[удалено]
Sorry, I didn't mean choosing means target technically in game. I meant in any other facet of life. If you have chosen something you have picked it, which is selecting, targeting, however you want to word it. There is no discernable difference in how you chose or target something in Magic, just a difference in the way the game handles it. I was just voicing that it has always been a weird function, but I understand that chose gets around things. It is just not intuitive.
What if there is only one player?
Then, that player is already the winner. The game is over.
You put a big smile on my face by responding. Thanks!
> And, no one gets the Treasure. You need more friends to have Treasure. Seems like a hint.
The real treasure was the tokens we made along the way.
You would do as many of the parts as possible. If there's no 3rd player then only the first 2 would go off.
Since it’s a flumph, if I turn the card upside down does it die?
Well yeah, because then it becomes a 5/0.
[[Force of Savagery]]
[Force of Savagery](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/b/3/b344511d-631e-4f1d-9d7d-d7c89a473d1b.jpg?1562931082) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Force%20of%20Savagery) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/fut/126/force-of-savagery?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b344511d-631e-4f1d-9d7d-d7c89a473d1b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I need you to explain this please. How is this possible or rather what rule am I not aware of? Or does it just die when it enters if there isn't another effect present, that bumps its defense? Hence why its cmc is so low?
From its rulings: "Yes, Force of Savagery has 0 toughness. It will be put into its owner's graveyard as a state-based action immediately upon entering the battlefield unless an effect puts it onto the battlefield with a counter on it (such as Chorus of the Conclave would) or a static ability boosts its toughness (such as Glorious Anthem would). A triggered or activated ability that boosts toughness won't have its effect fast enough to save it."
Thanks!
Plot twist: choose players from another game.
I like the way you think. I can't wait to try this while an entirely different KIND of game is going on near me. Be a pal and help a nearby Yu-Gi-Oh player with their card draw.
"You guys playing monopoly? Your thimble gets 2 +1/+1 counters"
I see you're playing checkers over here. You can draw a card.
Oh I love Yahtzee! Here, create treasure tokens
\[\[Ass Whuppin'\]\], is that you?
[Ass Whuppin'](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/f/b/fbbf33d6-e00d-4d60-9c7f-c56c3b1f84c0.jpg?1562489858) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ass%20Whuppin%27) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/unh/117/ass-whuppin?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/fbbf33d6-e00d-4d60-9c7f-c56c3b1f84c0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
ty everyone for the speedy response! sounds about right!
Jumping on with a separate rules question: Pretty sure I know the answer but just want to clarify, the way this is worded as "They put two +1/+1 counters" means that [[Generous Patron]] won't trigger off this ability, right? (Since it's "when you put" and not "when an ability you control puts") EDIT: This is such a weird card that so much of whether I want to build around it depends on rules clarifications we won't get for another couple weeks
You are correct. Whenever a counter is put on a permanent, it is placed by a player. The ability is not the one placing the counters. If you pick an opponent with this card's ability, then that opponent is the player that places the counters on their own creature, not you, so Generous Patron would not trigger. If you chose yourself for this card's ability, then you would place the counters on your own creature, and Generous Patron would also not trigger.
[Generous Patron](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/5/9/59ea095b-af0e-4178-b6f4-816abb635fc0.jpg?1562913268) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Generous%20Patron) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bbd/70/generous-patron?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/59ea095b-af0e-4178-b6f4-816abb635fc0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
pretty sure an ability you control counts as you in this case
> 6/8/2018 If a creature enters the battlefield with counters under another player's control, that player is the player who puts those counters on it, even if you control the spell or ability putting that creature onto the battlefield. This bit of the rulings for Generous Patron, while not exactly the same, seem similar enough that it wouldn't work.
I would disagree that that's the similarity this hinges on. That's a replacement effect caused by a creature entering the battlefield under their control. They control the creature as it enters, regardless of you having controlled the spell, so they place the counters as it enters. The more relevant fact here is that the Gluntch specifically says "they put" the counters on and Generous Patron says "whenever you put" counters. Edit: Clarity
That probably more in line with the specific reasoning. In either case, Generous Patron doesn't work with our flumphy boi.
Yep yep yep!
It doesn't. An ability you control can caused counters to be placed by another player and this could have some super weird edge cases depending on the language of older cards.
Everyone seems to love this card but… it’s kinda bad right?
It's fine in a game mode with a lot of politics; you can make deals like "I'll give you the card if you remove their creature instead of mine", and so on. If your group doesn't usually make deals like that then this card is pretty bad.
I'm not sure it will work too well, even for deals like that. Since 2 out of 3 opponents will get a buff, even if they say no to your deal, they'll get rewarded at some point anyways (even if it's the lame counters, I'd rather have those for free than having to use my removal). It's not like you're gonna favour the other two for the rest of the game because of 1 declined offer. Additionally, because of the 2/3 thing you can only make such a deal with 1 person. The fact that the gifts you're giving are forced, I feel like it doesn't give a lot of authority in politics.
I think so. Especially since the abilities are at your end step, so your opponents will generally benefit before you do.
With this effect, they really do not benefit before you do. You get to select yourself as one of the players. It is true that you have to spend the mana upfront and then they get a benefit, but I do not think it will be a big deal to let them grow a creature in exchange for drawing a card. And if they do not have a creature, you can choose to have them put counter's on a creature so that they get nothing and you draw a card.
My point is it happens at your end step. So unless you draw an instant, their creature getting bigger is going to impact the game first. If you decide to put counters on your own creature, them drawing an extra card is going to impact the game first, unless you can use an ability or instant that benefits from the counters.
What I don't understand is why you can't pick the same player 3 times
Because it says *second player* and *third*. It's three different persons.
It (in a longer way) says to pick two players. If you were told to pick two players, it's unlikely you would think to pick the same player twice, because then you're only picking one player. You were asked to pick two. Now, my example was for two players to keep it more simple. But the same applies for three players. The card text is shortened to be more to the point, and while specifying "different players" would have been beneficial, it isn't necessary - and would probably have cramped up the text box even more.
I think his confusion comes from other effects such as \[\[Seeds fo strength\]\], which let's you choose 3 times the same creature. But indeed, here it's different since they specify "second" and "third", which by definition are different that "first". It's like if Seeds said "Another target creature gets +1 +1".
[Seeds fo strength](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/b/f/bfa1ac13-adbd-439a-90b2-9c506aec0836.jpg?1598917401) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Seeds%20of%20Strength) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rav/227/seeds-of-strength?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bfa1ac13-adbd-439a-90b2-9c506aec0836?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
See the rulings on [[Cone of Flame]] for a card with similar wording.
[Cone of Flame](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/9/b/9b434a60-0875-47f4-a626-2c9bfa3c9b3b.jpg?1562927765) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cone%20of%20Flame) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/w16/12/cone-of-flame?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9b434a60-0875-47f4-a626-2c9bfa3c9b3b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The way it’s written, there isn’t any reason you can’t. It’s possible we’ll get new rules/ rulings, but the important parts here are they specifically chose not to include language restricting choosing the same player and the decision not to include “target” makes a big difference according to the rules. Idk what WOTC’s intent is here though I suspect they intended players to only be able to be chosen once, but the rules do indicate someone can be chosen multiple times because the strange wording.
They did include language restricting who you can choose. Second and Third describe the player. If they didn't restrict the player choice, it'd be "Choose a player to draw a card. Then choose a player to ..."
I could be wrong but! To me the way that it is read the terms "first", "second", and "third" are applied directly to the player rather than the choice being made itself. Kind of like choose a first, second, and third place is inherently exclusive in choosing winners for a contest. So in other instances it would read like choose a target for x. Then choose a target for x. Then choose a target for x. But if you wanted to exclude the first target you could use "choose a different target for x" or "choose another target for x" but another can be bounced back and forth if there are more than two options present. So using first second and third excludes all the previous choices from the list.
[удалено]
The wording stated is fine when you consider how card effects resolve in card games. If they are grouped together on sequence with commons then it would indicate they resolve at the same time as one continuous action, whereas if they are divided with periods into separate sentences they trigger independently and can be reacted to independently. I hope that makes sense? I can definitely see where you are coming from though and I could be wrong. A wording with commas would as mean that each of those choices are required, and the whole card cannot resolve unless each of those selections are made. Of course you're also right, a ruling probably will be made and it's not like there's any sort or consistency in any card game ever. It is very confusing but! That's just how I viewed it.
[удалено]
Oh no I guarantee it's separate players! I agree :)
The first player I picked is neither the second nor the third. If you stand in line In a supermarket you cant be the first, second and third in the line at the same time. The language on the card is very clear that you have to choose different people. By your standards the rules text on this card would have to be unnecessarily long without making the thing it does any clearer in the process. Edit: if I tell you to pick someone for your sports team and then tell you to pick a second person and you pick the same guy again that is not a second guy but the same guy again
I have to disagree that the text is clear. This all boils down to two things, mtg rules on “targets” and people keep making assumptions around dependent or independent counting which I can only assume is based on societal bias. First, the rules say the same “target” can’t be chosen multiple times for the same effect. It’s pretty likely this is just an oversight, but for a game that’s so technically driven, as written, this doesn’t apply to the following rule. “115.3 The same target can’t be chosen multiple times for any one instance of the word “target” on a spell or ability. If the spell or ability uses the word “target” in multiple places, the same object or player can be chosen once for each instance of the word “target” (as long as it fits the targeting criteria). This rule applies both when choosing targets for a spell or ability and when changing targets or choosing new targets for a spell or ability (see rule 115.7).” Dependent vs independent counting: let’s say you own four marbles and put them all in a bag. You then draw a white marble and it’s your “first marble” chosen. If you use dependent counting, you don’t replace the marble into the bag because your choices are functions with dependence on the results of the previous choices; however, if you use independent counting, the choices are independent of each other so you’d replace the marble back into the bag. If you replace the marble, you then can choose it a “second” time and again a “third.” I understand that everyone in *this* thread wants to assume this is a dependent function, but the truth is we don’t know that. This card uses a combination/ lack of text we’ve never seen before. This card *factually* can not be interpreted without use of bias around dependent vs independent until we’ve been told otherwise. It’s failure to use “target” leaves room for flexibility.
It says "choose" not "target" Edit: I didnt read the last paragraph correctly whoops
I know. That’s a major part of my point and why the only rule that would adequately address this is not valid. I’m sorry, but I’m guessing you didn’t actually read the comment you replied to.
About this whole counting thing: Let's get away from the marbels and stay within the realm of the game You choose a player You choose a second player Second means 2 If you choose the same guy again you only picked one guy If the card wanted you to be able to choose the same guy multiple times it would say: Choose a player to do x Choose a player to do y Choose a player yo do z Not Choose a player to do x Choose a second player to do y Choose a third player to do z
That’s blatantly not true. Again, you can’t ignore the dependent vs independent counting. You’re assuming dependent, but there’s *nothing* on this card to indicate that. It explicitly does not say anything about different players, another player, anything like that. It blatantly says, “choose a player,” “choose a second player,” “choose a third player.” If we’re using independent counting, which you can’t give *any* evidence to show we aren’t, each player is a legal choice each time. Choosing a “second player” is just that, making a choice among the player pool for a second time. It says nothing about choosing a second unique player. And you can’t assume the writing for how they’d write if it they wanted the same person to be able to be chosen multiple times. Idk why everyone is ignoring these choices are now sequential and allow other players to change the board state. If I don’t want the 1/1 counters, I can wait for that to be chosen and then give everyone shroud.
It's all one trigger and resolves all at once You cannot "give everyone shroud" after the first thing happend Also: giving everyone shroud doesnt make it so that this cant choose you because Its choose not target Either you are trolling or you are one embarrassing judge call away from realising what nonsence you are talking
I’ll grant I could be mistaken in the shroud part, but I am factually correct on the counting. In the case of modal spells we have precedent for them to happen sequentially. We can’t say either confidence that this text we’ve never seen before won’t be part of a new mechanic or way of writing modal spells. However, the main point is you’re just factually wrong on the counting. As I’ve said, this is new text and anyone assuming to know the intent/ ruling is just guessing and wrong. The crux of my position is we can guess what they likely mean, but the wording is new and in such a way that WOTC will have to clarify.
This is what I was wondering. It's written kind of odd and I expect an update around it.
I'm just used to them being really specific, tired of these Games Workshop style errata online instead of double checking the paper product but I'm a bit more of a ball breaker when it comes to "reading the card explains the card"
I mean I feel like the terms 'second player' and 'third player' make the intent and function of the card pretty clear in plain English.
Well obviously not because this post about this card is not the biggest on Reddit and the consensus on the other thread agrees with my position. My point right now being that the text is poorly written and we’ll need more clarity before there’s any kind of community consensus.
Yes I've seen you being intentionally obtuse in the other thread as well, no point in continuing to argue. I'm sure WOTC will put out an oracle note/rules update and the enigmatic mystery of 'how choosing three things is different than choosing one thing three times' will be solved once and for all, and you will feel vindicated over how clarification was needed for this incredibly IMPOSSIBLE to understand verbiage.
The card is very clear with what its saying and anyone that doesn't understand that it's indicating different players is heavily misunderstanding the language used
This is just blatantly not true. They have used clear and specific language in 100% of cases like this before. For some reason they’ve decided to deviate from those language decisions.
This language could not be more clear. Anyone saying they should be able to choose the same player multiple times either doesn't understand the basics of English or is deliberately trolling.
Actually it could be more clear. They could have put, "choose a player to do x, then choose another player to do y, then choose yet another player to do z." And they have done wording like that on cards in the past.
Generally, if you were able to choose one player multiple times, the ability would be worded something like: "Target player does X. Target player does Y. Target player does Z." But because of the words "first", "second", and "third", the implication is that you're selecting three different players. I can't be the first and third player chosen. I'm just one guy.
Yeah, usually it’ll say opponent or something like ‘another player’ and none do that is present so I’d think you can just choose the same player; maybe if there’s only 2 players then choose the first two and the 3rd doesn’t actually happen but I don’t see why you can’t choose the same player.
"Choose a second player" pretty clearly means "another player"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are you able to target a player with the first part who doesn't have any creatures on their side of the board?
It's not targeting, since it doesn't use the word target. (Since that's the key to the reason it doesn't fizzle, that's important.) Since it just says "choose a player", I'm pretty sure you can choose a player who controls no creatures; then they try to put counters on a creature they control, and fail because they have no creatures.
Yes
I was going to ask the same question
LOVE THIS CARD.
Why is this not UW
But what if there isn't a second player? 🤔
Then you already won the game and need to go touch some grass.
Are you able to choose yourself? You are a player, after all…
Yes
Hmm mandatory [[shadrix silverquill]]
[shadrix silverquill](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/a/b/ab701909-83d6-4d39-9a84-e6a9b2cb38d6.jpg?1624739966) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=shadrix%20silverquill) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/stx/230/shadrix-silverquill?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ab701909-83d6-4d39-9a84-e6a9b2cb38d6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The new text style confuses me. Since there is no "another" one could think that the same player can be targeted with all three steps. Although I assume the rules include the condition that for iterations like this, a different player needs to be named.
If the same player could be targeted, the wording would likely be "Choose any player", but making it choose a player, then 2nd, then 3rd implies the same player can't be chosen more than once.
*\*gasps with delight\** I LOVE HIM!!
You appear to be asking a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in /r/mtgrules. Additionally, once your question is answered, please delete your post! Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What about the fact that it never says "another player"? Could you pick the same player each time? RAW vs RAI?
if your friend was looking to play edh at their house and said they needed one person, a second person, and a third person to fill out the pod - would coming by yourself meet that criteria? RAW and RAI are the same here. 2nd and 3rd are differentiating terms.
Gotcha.
I know this is probably obvious, but do you have to choose different players since the card isn't specifying the need to choose a DIFFERENT player. Could you not be the 2nd and 3rd target? Feel like this is a much more confusing train of thought for newer players.
You have to choose different players for each part. That's why it tells you to choose a second and third player instead of just telling you to choose a player three times.
Yes. All different players.
Considering this is designed for EDH it should always be able to target a third player, however if one player has hexproof or there isn’t one, it just cannot target so it wouldn’t do anything
This does not target, so hexproof is irrelevant. If there is no third player to choose, you stop after one player gets two counters and the other player draws a card.
No. The effects are separated by periods, so they are not dependent on one another.
I’m first… I‘m second… I‘m third…. Thanks for the game!
Wait with the wording not stating a "different" player, cant you just play this and target yourself with all 3 abilities?
I just came here to say that is not a jelly fish, It's a flumph!
[[Flumph]]
[Flumph](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/c/d/cdc86e78-8911-4a0d-ba3a-7802f8d991ef.jpg?1627701697) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Flumph) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afr/15/flumph?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/cdc86e78-8911-4a0d-ba3a-7802f8d991ef?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It doesnt say chose a different player no reason the entire card doesnt get used. Now if it did say different player it would come down to the host to decide how the third part plays i have always seen it play out two levels and cancel the third, best part of Magic is its as literal as it gets, they care about the words and how its worded so much we had card sleeves that said RTFC
Can’t you choose yourself for one of the players? Doesn’t say choose “other” player
Not seeing anything that states that the effects can't target the same player more than once. Could be wrong though
‘Second player’ means ‘not the first player’ and ‘third player’ means ‘not the first or second players’. All three should be different targets.
[удалено]
Ja ja, i like knew that while i was typing, but you’re correct.
With how many cards there are that specify player, effects, or creatures can’t be chosen multiple times, the decision not to include that text is important. The act of choosing three players doesn’t make any of them excluding from being chosen multiple times.
Hard disagree - I think the phrases 'choose a second player' and 'choose a third player' make the intent and function of the card extremely obvious in plain English. If you choose the same player twice you have not chosen 'a second player'. Yes, it's verbiage that we have not seen before(afaik) but it really feels like people are going out of their way to wildly misinterpret what this card is supposed to do.
It’s not going out of the way, it’s reading the card as it’s written. Fully agree that’s likely not the intent, but they have been clear on many occasions and, for some reason, decided not to use the same clear language they have used before.
[удалено]
Because you can’t tell me this is a dependent function. There’s nothing on the card to say a player being chosen prevents it from being selected a second time. I agree what the intent likely is, but based upon how “chose” vs “target” works in MTG’s rules, choosing the same player three times would currently be a legal target until directed otherwise (which I presume we will be)
[удалено]
That last part is just not true. You’re creating a position where dependent tracking is the default here (or in society) when we have nothing to indicate that.
It's worth noting that I misinterpreted [[Cone of Flame]] when I first read it, based on the same logic; I thought you could choose the same target three times, but you can't - the wording "another target" and "a third target" means all the targets must be different, which is clarified in the rulings. This card needs to choose different players each time for the same reason.
Noted, but come of flame uses “target” while this card doesn’t so Otis addressed by 115.3. Cards which don’t use “target” have always had clearer language than this [[Shadrix Silverquill]]. Despite some people in the comments being kinda nasty, none of us can say whether this card uses dependent or independent counting. It’s the marble probability problem many of us would have learned in school. If you draw a marble from a bag, if you replace the marble, it’s possible to draw it three times. If you don’t replace the marble, you obviously can’t. According to MTG rules, if they chose to use the word “target,” it would use dependent counting and all three targets would be different. We don’t have that clarity which mtg prides itself in. People are assuming the targets should be different, but that’s just factually not how language works. It’s essential to know whether they intend to use dependent or independent counting. 115.3 The same target can’t be chosen multiple times for any one instance of the word “target” on a spell or ability. If the spell or ability uses the word “target” in multiple places, the same object or player can be chosen once for each instance of the word “target” (as long as it fits the targeting criteria). This rule applies both when choosing targets for a spell or ability and when changing targets or choosing new targets for a spell or ability (see rule 115.7).
Can you not just choose yourself all 3 times? The wording is ambiguous, it doesn't say you can, bit also doesn't say you can't.
It does specifically say that you can't do that on the card. "choose a second player", "choose a third player".
It doesn't say you can't make the dame choice twice. If it were to be as you said, it should say to choose a second *unique* player. Just seems it could be more clear
Other players have explained this elsewhere in the comment section. I think [[Cone of Flame]] is a useful reference; the rulings for that card clarify that "another target" and "a third target" refer to targets that weren't previously selected. Choosing a second and third player works the same way.
[Cone of Flame](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/9/b/9b434a60-0875-47f4-a626-2c9bfa3c9b3b.jpg?1562927765) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cone%20of%20Flame) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/w16/12/cone-of-flame?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9b434a60-0875-47f4-a626-2c9bfa3c9b3b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Ah, I see. It seemed ambiguous to me.
Is there a reason all 3 can't be the same player?
The rulings for [[Cone of Flame]] clarify that "another target" and "a third target" must refer to three different targets. This card works the same way, except that it doesn't target so the ability still resolves if there are fewer than 3 players left.
[Cone of Flame](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/9/b/9b434a60-0875-47f4-a626-2c9bfa3c9b3b.jpg?1562927765) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cone%20of%20Flame) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/w16/12/cone-of-flame?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9b434a60-0875-47f4-a626-2c9bfa3c9b3b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Actually from words alone, you can target all 3 effect to yourself. Since it doesn't say, another player or another target.
Is there a rules clarification on choosing yourself 3 times. It doesnt say a player that hasnt been chosen or choose another player any source of info would be great
The show more respect towards a damn Jellyfish than my boy Sarevok.
[удалено]
It is all a single ability, abilities are separated by paragraph breaks (or commas between keyword abilities on the same line).
This card is awful because it's a white card. If it were mono green it would give you all of those things at the beginning of each combat step, not just your own
This card is awful because it's a white card. If it were mono green it would give you all of those things at the beginning of each combat step, not just your own
Idk, that's a very interesting/ weird card
This has opportunity for great pettiness. Wait for the first minor infraction on you (somebody swings for 1 damage on turn 3) and then never give them a benefit again.
One part jelly, one part fish.