@dr-j "Playing" is a more generic term that is used when the card you're referring to could be a land. By using "play" here, the Temporal Aperture allows you to cast the spell on top or play the land on top.

601.1a. Some effects still refer to "playing" a card. "Playing a card" means playing that card as a land or casting that card as a spell, whichever is appropriate.

@chronatog I put the card in the row right in front of my mana producers. My next upkeep I move them closer to the red zone.

@fsecco, yes you can describe the card such that it is no longer ambiguous if you don't know or can't remember the name.

MTR 3.6
A card is considered named in game when a player has provided a description (which may include the name or partial name) that could only apply to one card. Any player or judge realizing a description is still ambiguous must seek further clarification.

@aaron-patten np. About 7/10 it's my mistake anyway. I was honestly asking, because for the life of me I couldn't figure out what I was missing there. Thanks for answering the original question though. I've been wondering the same thing, especially in relation to Damping and Energy Flux getting run against Shops at the same time.

L1 Judge here. If I were called to the situation you described in your first post, I’d rule that player B’s explanation is correct: Player A putting their Gisela in the graveyard indicates that they chose to apply the damage doubling effect first, which is a legal choice for them to make. Player B’s choice of applying the damage reduction effect first is also legal, so there’s nothing to do here: Player A’s Gisela is dead, Player B’s Gisela is alive, and they can continue with the game.

Note that it doesn’t matter whether Player A knew that they could choose in which order they apply the replacement effects. Player B gets an advantage for having a superior knowledge of the rules, but that’s how competitive Magic works.

@chubbyrain Gotcha. That was primarily my question. I knew tezzerator was under "big blue" but wasn't sure exactly what blue control was. Is it just more like blue tempo decks like landstill? What is delver? Blue aggro? These are all different styles, much like I wouldn't lump ravager/smokestack as both "shop" decks. The names just aren't very descriptive. Mud/prison shops and aggro shops basically describe what the deck does in the name. Big blue I assume is a blue draw/counter shell that wins with one "big" play, so that makes sense. Blue control was nondescript. I assume that is any blue deck that tries to gain counterspell advantage and win with small threats over many turns? Would delver be in that boat?

Thats what I thought.

@benjamin_berry if it was to cover whitening that usually cannot be removed in full, because the white areas are exposed and the sharpie likely bleed into them. You can remove excess Sharpie, but its stil going to be on there.

Also, on some cards in the past you can remove sharpie with more sharpie or a dry erase marker, you just go back over the affected areas and wipe as you go, but it does not work on every card depending on the printing and sometimes game. We used to do this on the warlord CCG, where the judges would mark your entry card to show it was used with sharpie.

@dstinct I was fascinated by this question so I asked a judge friend of mine, and it looks like you're right. All cards have a flipped/unflipped state regardless of whether or not they have a "flipside". If you Mirror a flippable, and then flip the card, the Mirror stays flipped until some other effect says it isn't (and I don't know that there are any such effects in the game). The next time you copy a flipped card, you'll use the "flipside characteristics"

@fsecco Yes, you're right. I made a typo (meant to say reduced by six, but somehow I typed six cards). Whoops. Edited for clarity. Thank you for pointing that out!

@DeaTh-ShiNoBi haha yeah, there are a lot of examples of cards with very different text, but this has to be one of the worst

Thanks for the quick response! I had a feeling that would be the case...

@Thewhitedragon69 Yes

@Khahan said:

@MaximumCDawg said:

Is there a general ruling or part of the Comp Rules somewhere that explains that replacement effects are replied before "can't" effects -- or vice verca?

Not that I'm aware of and that is why I'm wondering. The way the ruling is worded, a judge could reasonably state that since leovold disallows the last 2 draws of ancestral recall, the replacement effect from notion thief doesn't apply and I would get to draw 2 cards in my scenario. In plain English that is exactly what the ruling states. Like I said, I have a feeling that is not the intent and not what they had in mind with that ruling. But barring some other rule we haven't considered if a judge encountered this situation and stated that my opponent draws 1 and I draw 2 he could point to this as his justification and have the backing he needs.

Under the heading: 101. The Magic Golden Rules

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t
happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
Example: If one effect reads “You may play an additional land this turn” and another reads
“You can’t play land cards this turn,” the effect that precludes you from playing lands wins.

Edit: Didn't see the above post until after I had written. @ChubbyRain's answer is the one.

@Water0 said:

I think the interaction here is that the fused card is one card and, therefore, one cost. Do I pay 3 for wear//tear fused or 6?

You are casting a Red White spell with converted mana cost of 3. Trinisphere doesn't care. Chalice of the Void on 1 or 2 doesn't care. And neither does Mental Misstep.

yea those wierd redirect rules. this works with any spell that says the word "damage" and owner/controler

Kalitas is a replacement effect, noted by the use of the word, "If". This means that the narcomeba going to the graveyard is replaced with the narcomeba going to the exiled zone. Narcomeba never goes to the graveyard and never triggers bridge from below.

If the wording on kalitas was 'when a creature dies and goes to the graveyard...' the when indicates a triggered ability meaning the narco would hit the graveyard, kalitas trigger to remove would go on the stack and bridge from below trigger would go on the stack and both would happen. But since he's worded with 'if' its replaced. Yes, kalitas can help shut down bridge from below.

@ChubbyRain it looks like you're right, but I think MTGO handles it differently

@cutlex Yes, it works.