Messages

So, can someone run Rat Colony in a deck that doesn't have a black color identity?

Since a ruling says you CAN run more than one because of its rules text, does that also apply to running it in a different color deck?

You cannot. EDH has specific restrictions regarding how to build the deck, and those restrictions cannot be overcome. However, any EDH deck with a black color identity may run as many of them as you wish.

Yes, multiple creatures can block an attacking creature without trample.

Check out Rules 509.1(a-h I believe) for more info about the declare attacker/blockers process.

Yes. Counters placed on permanents will remain on that permanent, even if it's no longer a creature.

Middleman service

Yes this dose help for high value traders and the like but what about the guys makeing smaller traders that are not covered by a middle man service there's no garentie that they won't get ripped off and for some of these people it's all they have or can get ahold of

My advice is simple: ask a mod anyway.

Although the middleman service post says to not ask for trades under $25, if you are truly worried about your cards, then it's better to ask. The price limit was to try and prevent a ton of Pm's and confusion. The point of the service is to protect you guys, so if your cheaper cards are all you have, then by all means request the service.

I'll go out and personally say I don't care how small the trade is, I'll middleman for anyone. If your cards are important to you, I don't care if its a 5 dollar trade.

It will stop his ETB trigger from going off, letting you (or your opponent!) summon him with no drawbacks.

So I wanted to posit that the "ultimate law" is useless, ineffective, and borderline uninteligible.

Well, you have my attention! Keep in mind that I'm not here to argue or side with anyone. I find this post interesting, and would like to comment on a few of the points.
As someone who has sworn to use this law for the good of the forum, I'd like to share my views/interpretations of the law.

First that "Logic is the ultimate law" has two main problems

A-logic is a tool, not a law, any more than math is a law.  Depending on how specific you want to get on the formal definition of logic, logic is basically cause and effect. Logic doesn't say that pain is bad, logic says "if you want to avoid pain and thing X causes pain, then you should avoid thing X".

A couple things on this one. In this forum, logic IS part of the law, not just a tool. If also like to point out that pain is not a bad thing. It's simply your body (physical pain) telling you that something is wrong, so that you may take the appriopriate steps to remedy the situation. Sure, nobody likes pain, but it itself is not bad. And logically, yes, you should avoid things thy cause you pain.

Also, plenty of terrible actions are logical from the point of view of the actor's self interest. There are plenty of times when a person murders another because the murderer would be better off (given their set goals in life) for killing the other person. Logic alone is not a tool for a legal system.

This is a decent point. I believe the logic we are to use here is logic from a "healthy mind." I hope that we can all agree that murdering someone on this forum is not a logical response, and breaks more laws than just our iMtG law.

B-if you changed the definitions enough to make logic a law, then you would make any illogical action unlawful.

B1-every single human acts illogically on a regular basis, so this would make everyone a law breaker.

This point interests me. Examples and/or elaboration, please?

B2-it is no one's business whether I am logical or not in my private affairs. If I purposefully watch a movie I don't like instead of a movie I like, its illogical but any law that punishes it is stupid (I would have to have some reason for picking the bad movie, like feeling amused by the illogical choice even though I know that the amusement of the decision is less than the cost of the movie).

I think watching a bad movie isn't necessarily illogical. If you know the movie is bad, and you believe you'll get a laugh from it, then it makes sense to watch it for the amusement. Maybe not the best out-of-wallet investment, but I don't believe it's illogical.

Point 2 - Don't do to others what they would not want to be done to them, or you will be punished regardless of your will.

This is first unclear to me whether "regardless of your will" means that your intent in your action is irrelevant or whether the law doesn't care that you don't want to be punished. Each of these cause problems, but since they diverge greatly in their analysis, I will leave those alone for now.

It is the second one. If you break the law, you will be punished, regardless of whether or not you want to be punished. I believe this was to eliminate problems caused by the "do not do to others what they do not want to be done to them" part of the law. Otherwise, we could never punish anyone for anything, unless they wanted us to.

What if I want unreasonable things? What if I don't want anyone to use the word "frog" in my presence? Again, this is not illogical...if I have found that the word frog makes me unhappy (say I have a phobia or bad childhood experience) then it is perfectly logical to not want anyone to say to hat word to me.

I think in such a case, we would try and prevent people from abusing the word "frog" around said person. As it is a creature type, it would be difficult, but if the person has a legitimate phobia of the word, I'd do my best to protect them from rampant frog comments.

What a sentence that was.

Also, I will point out that this rule isn't so much a inherit I've to not do that as it is a cause an effect relationship between an action and a punishment.

Fair enough, but as I said, the second part is there so that our law doesn't attack itself.

3-the purpose d punishment is to erase guilt, via retribution and restitution.

I feel like this last part was being a bit pedantic about the word choice, but it was not without its points. Perhaps some rewording of the law would make sense here.

And just to touch on te retribution stand point. You had mentioned that it's only purpose was to make the aggrieved feel better. A lot of times, that's all we can do here. As this is an Internet forum, we can't go around arresting people or using the real world set of laws so easily. That is why our law exists, and we use it here for the purposes of dealing with this forum.
I'll leave it as is for now. I just got off work and need me some sleep, but I'd like to see where this goes. As I said, this interested me as someone who is here to follow the law, and help make sure it is being followed.

It will not let you draw a card. With Maralen on the field, players cannot draw cards for any reason. From her Gatherer rulings:

4/1/2008   Maralen prevents players from drawing cards for any reason, including as a cost, as an effect, and as a result of the "draw a card" turn-based action during the draw step.

[spells]

Then how come you can O-ring Emarkul?

Because Emmy has protection from colored spells, and O-ring doesn't target until it enters the battlefield. By that time, it is no longer a spell, it is a permanent.

The player attacking with the hydra gets to choose the damage assigned to the blockers. Assuming they're playing "smart", they'll assign 2 damage to the one, and 1 damage to the other, resulting in all creatures dying.

From what I see, it just really seems like he is refusing to compensate the victim in any way. I'm not sure why he doesn't just make another account and come here to defend himself?

I agree.

From what Spencer just sent me, it seems like he doesn't intend to compensate, and just wants the charges dropped because they would have a negative impact on him.

I believe asking someone to drop charges just because you don't want to deal with the consequences is ridiculous. He should get on here and defend himself, because from what I've seen, there's no real reason to drop these charges.

From what he's saying on the Facebook post he made, he has no intention of compensating you and thinks you should drop it because it's just cardboard.

What was this post?

Haha! I don't post too often anymore, so when I do I gotta get all the gibberish out of my system ;)

Yes, you would. The trigger will go off, even though your God is being killed by the legendary rule.

Although state based actions are going on, triggers don't have to wait for anything to resolve in order to trigger. They can occur at any time. Your trigger conditions were met, and as such it will, well, trigger.

And here's your ruling:

116.2a: Triggered abilities can trigger at any time, including while a spell is being cast, an ability is being activated, or a spell or ability is resolving. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.") However, nothing actually happens at the time an ability triggers. Each time a player would receive priority, each ability that has triggered but hasn't yet been put on the stack is put on the stack. See rule 116.5.

As soon as the conditions are met, it triggers, and as soon as you have priority, the trigger will go on the stack.

This topic has been moved to Discussion.

http://imtgapp.com/forum/index.php?topic=35963.0

This seems incredibly strange to me...   Is there a part of this app/forum that I'm missing?
Recurring payments?
Karma?
Fat asses?

Excuse my ignorance, but I've only just begun using this app regularly...   And all of this just seems odd...

There's an option to become a Patron that costs 1 USD a month; that's the only recurring payment. Karma is the number under your username.

As for the fat ass part, some people on here had some disagreements and name calling sprung up.