Can I kill an opponent in response to lethal activated abilities, and not take the damage?
Here's the situation.
Life totals: Not relevant
Player 1: Activates Borborygmos Enraged (Discard a land card: Deal 3 damage to any target) enough times for lethal, aims damage at Player 2. Passes priority.
Player 2: In response, uses Mirage Mirror's activated ability to copy Borborygmos Enraged, no responses. Activates the ability for lethal themselves, aims all damage at Player 1, no responses.
Player 1 dies.
Does Player 2 still live, or do the triggers persist after Player 1 loses the game?
magic-the-gathering
edited Mar 13 at 14:02
Mindwin
1032
asked Mar 12 at 22:23
EthanKEthanK
685
add a comment |
Here's the situation.
Life totals: Not relevant
Player 1: Activates Borborygmos Enraged (Discard a land card: Deal 3 damage to any target) enough times for lethal, aims damage at Player 2. Passes priority.
Player 2: In response, uses Mirage Mirror's activated ability to copy Borborygmos Enraged, no responses. Activates the ability for lethal themselves, aims all damage at Player 1, no responses.
Player 1 dies.
Does Player 2 still live, or do the triggers persist after Player 1 loses the game?
magic-the-gathering
edited Mar 13 at 14:02
Mindwin
1032
asked Mar 12 at 22:23
EthanKEthanK
685
2
Hey EthanK, welcome to the stackexchange. We know what game you are talking about by the tagging of the question, adding MTG: at the title is not necessary. I'll remove it for you. If you check the browser tab's title you will see that the tag is appended to the question title.
– Mindwin
Mar 13 at 12:25
add a comment |
Here's the situation.
Life totals: Not relevant
Player 1: Activates Borborygmos Enraged (Discard a land card: Deal 3 damage to any target) enough times for lethal, aims damage at Player 2. Passes priority.
Player 2: In response, uses Mirage Mirror's activated ability to copy Borborygmos Enraged, no responses. Activates the ability for lethal themselves, aims all damage at Player 1, no responses.
Player 1 dies.
Does Player 2 still live, or do the triggers persist after Player 1 loses the game?
magic-the-gathering
edited Mar 13 at 14:02
Mindwin
1032
asked Mar 12 at 22:23
EthanKEthanK
685
Here's the situation.
Life totals: Not relevant
Player 1: Activates Borborygmos Enraged (Discard a land card: Deal 3 damage to any target) enough times for lethal, aims damage at Player 2. Passes priority.
Player 2: In response, uses Mirage Mirror's activated ability to copy Borborygmos Enraged, no responses. Activates the ability for lethal themselves, aims all damage at Player 1, no responses.
Player 1 dies.
Does Player 2 still live, or do the triggers persist after Player 1 loses the game?
magic-the-gathering
magic-the-gathering
edited Mar 13 at 14:02
Mindwin
1032
asked Mar 12 at 22:23
EthanKEthanK
685
edited Mar 13 at 14:02
Mindwin
1032
asked Mar 12 at 22:23
EthanKEthanK
685
edited Mar 13 at 14:02
Mindwin
1032
edited Mar 13 at 14:02
Mindwin
1032
edited Mar 13 at 14:02
Mindwin
1032
1032
asked Mar 12 at 22:23
EthanKEthanK
685
asked Mar 12 at 22:23
EthanKEthanK
685
asked Mar 12 at 22:23
EthanKEthanK
685
685
2
Hey EthanK, welcome to the stackexchange. We know what game you are talking about by the tagging of the question, adding MTG: at the title is not necessary. I'll remove it for you. If you check the browser tab's title you will see that the tag is appended to the question title.
– Mindwin
Mar 13 at 12:25
add a comment |
2
Hey EthanK, welcome to the stackexchange. We know what game you are talking about by the tagging of the question, adding MTG: at the title is not necessary. I'll remove it for you. If you check the browser tab's title you will see that the tag is appended to the question title.
– Mindwin
Mar 13 at 12:25
2
2
Hey EthanK, welcome to the stackexchange. We know what game you are talking about by the tagging of the question, adding MTG: at the title is not necessary. I'll remove it for you. If you check the browser tab's title you will see that the tag is appended to the question title.
– Mindwin
Mar 13 at 12:25
Hey EthanK, welcome to the stackexchange. We know what game you are talking about by the tagging of the question, adding MTG: at the title is not necessary. I'll remove it for you. If you check the browser tab's title you will see that the tag is appended to the question title.
– Mindwin
Mar 13 at 12:25
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
You will win; in a 2-player game, a player leaving the game for any reason means the remaining player wins immediately and the game is over, no matter the game state. In multiplayer, once a player has left the game, all cards they own and all non-card objects they control on the stack leave the game with him.
104.2a A player still in the game wins the game if that player's opponents have all left the game. This happens immediately and overrides all effects that would preclude that player from winning the game.
104.5. If a player loses the game, that player leaves the game. [..]
Additional rules for multiplayer, when one player leaves the game but the game still continues:
800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time they left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who's still in the game.
answered Mar 12 at 22:42
HackworthHackworth
28.2k275128
So, in this case, the fact that Borborygmos Enraged is the source of the damage is irrelevant, right? If the example involved lightning bolts the outcome would be the same?
– Pedro A
Mar 13 at 9:53
Yes, it's irrelevant. The game state can only ever matter in multiplayer anyway, because in a 2 player game, the game ends immediately once a player loses.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 10:50
@hackworth only if there were a player 3 at the table would the outcome change to give victory to p3? Or it would the game continue with p2 (without taking damage from p1's BE) and p3
– Mindwin
Mar 13 at 12:24
@Mindwin: see the quote for rule 800.4a: "if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. " - so all those Borbor damaging effects on the stack cease existing, and thus will never happen, after Player 1 leaves the game. So the game will continue between player 2 and 3 without those effects dealing any damage.
– Syndic
Mar 13 at 12:28
@Mindwin I was speaking generally. For this particular question, P3+ would not matter, P2 would still not lose to P1's spells or abilities because they leave the game with P1. But the departure of P1's cards and objects could have other, indirect consequences, such as P2 or P3 auras falling off P1 creatures.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 13:42
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "147"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f45492%2fcan-i-kill-an-opponent-in-response-to-lethal-activated-abilities-and-not-take-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You will win; in a 2-player game, a player leaving the game for any reason means the remaining player wins immediately and the game is over, no matter the game state. In multiplayer, once a player has left the game, all cards they own and all non-card objects they control on the stack leave the game with him.
104.2a A player still in the game wins the game if that player's opponents have all left the game. This happens immediately and overrides all effects that would preclude that player from winning the game.
104.5. If a player loses the game, that player leaves the game. [..]
Additional rules for multiplayer, when one player leaves the game but the game still continues:
800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time they left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who's still in the game.
answered Mar 12 at 22:42
HackworthHackworth
28.2k275128
So, in this case, the fact that Borborygmos Enraged is the source of the damage is irrelevant, right? If the example involved lightning bolts the outcome would be the same?
– Pedro A
Mar 13 at 9:53
Yes, it's irrelevant. The game state can only ever matter in multiplayer anyway, because in a 2 player game, the game ends immediately once a player loses.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 10:50
@hackworth only if there were a player 3 at the table would the outcome change to give victory to p3? Or it would the game continue with p2 (without taking damage from p1's BE) and p3
– Mindwin
Mar 13 at 12:24
@Mindwin: see the quote for rule 800.4a: "if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. " - so all those Borbor damaging effects on the stack cease existing, and thus will never happen, after Player 1 leaves the game. So the game will continue between player 2 and 3 without those effects dealing any damage.
– Syndic
Mar 13 at 12:28
@Mindwin I was speaking generally. For this particular question, P3+ would not matter, P2 would still not lose to P1's spells or abilities because they leave the game with P1. But the departure of P1's cards and objects could have other, indirect consequences, such as P2 or P3 auras falling off P1 creatures.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 13:42
add a comment |
You will win; in a 2-player game, a player leaving the game for any reason means the remaining player wins immediately and the game is over, no matter the game state. In multiplayer, once a player has left the game, all cards they own and all non-card objects they control on the stack leave the game with him.
104.2a A player still in the game wins the game if that player's opponents have all left the game. This happens immediately and overrides all effects that would preclude that player from winning the game.
104.5. If a player loses the game, that player leaves the game. [..]
Additional rules for multiplayer, when one player leaves the game but the game still continues:
800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time they left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who's still in the game.
answered Mar 12 at 22:42
HackworthHackworth
28.2k275128
So, in this case, the fact that Borborygmos Enraged is the source of the damage is irrelevant, right? If the example involved lightning bolts the outcome would be the same?
– Pedro A
Mar 13 at 9:53
Yes, it's irrelevant. The game state can only ever matter in multiplayer anyway, because in a 2 player game, the game ends immediately once a player loses.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 10:50
@hackworth only if there were a player 3 at the table would the outcome change to give victory to p3? Or it would the game continue with p2 (without taking damage from p1's BE) and p3
– Mindwin
Mar 13 at 12:24
@Mindwin: see the quote for rule 800.4a: "if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. " - so all those Borbor damaging effects on the stack cease existing, and thus will never happen, after Player 1 leaves the game. So the game will continue between player 2 and 3 without those effects dealing any damage.
– Syndic
Mar 13 at 12:28
@Mindwin I was speaking generally. For this particular question, P3+ would not matter, P2 would still not lose to P1's spells or abilities because they leave the game with P1. But the departure of P1's cards and objects could have other, indirect consequences, such as P2 or P3 auras falling off P1 creatures.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 13:42
add a comment |
You will win; in a 2-player game, a player leaving the game for any reason means the remaining player wins immediately and the game is over, no matter the game state. In multiplayer, once a player has left the game, all cards they own and all non-card objects they control on the stack leave the game with him.
104.2a A player still in the game wins the game if that player's opponents have all left the game. This happens immediately and overrides all effects that would preclude that player from winning the game.
104.5. If a player loses the game, that player leaves the game. [..]
Additional rules for multiplayer, when one player leaves the game but the game still continues:
800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time they left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who's still in the game.
answered Mar 12 at 22:42
HackworthHackworth
28.2k275128
You will win; in a 2-player game, a player leaving the game for any reason means the remaining player wins immediately and the game is over, no matter the game state. In multiplayer, once a player has left the game, all cards they own and all non-card objects they control on the stack leave the game with him.
104.2a A player still in the game wins the game if that player's opponents have all left the game. This happens immediately and overrides all effects that would preclude that player from winning the game.
104.5. If a player loses the game, that player leaves the game. [..]
Additional rules for multiplayer, when one player leaves the game but the game still continues:
800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time they left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who's still in the game.
answered Mar 12 at 22:42
HackworthHackworth
28.2k275128
answered Mar 12 at 22:42
HackworthHackworth
28.2k275128
answered Mar 12 at 22:42
HackworthHackworth
28.2k275128
answered Mar 12 at 22:42
HackworthHackworth
28.2k275128
28.2k275128
So, in this case, the fact that Borborygmos Enraged is the source of the damage is irrelevant, right? If the example involved lightning bolts the outcome would be the same?
– Pedro A
Mar 13 at 9:53
Yes, it's irrelevant. The game state can only ever matter in multiplayer anyway, because in a 2 player game, the game ends immediately once a player loses.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 10:50
@hackworth only if there were a player 3 at the table would the outcome change to give victory to p3? Or it would the game continue with p2 (without taking damage from p1's BE) and p3
– Mindwin
Mar 13 at 12:24
@Mindwin: see the quote for rule 800.4a: "if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. " - so all those Borbor damaging effects on the stack cease existing, and thus will never happen, after Player 1 leaves the game. So the game will continue between player 2 and 3 without those effects dealing any damage.
– Syndic
Mar 13 at 12:28
@Mindwin I was speaking generally. For this particular question, P3+ would not matter, P2 would still not lose to P1's spells or abilities because they leave the game with P1. But the departure of P1's cards and objects could have other, indirect consequences, such as P2 or P3 auras falling off P1 creatures.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 13:42
add a comment |
So, in this case, the fact that Borborygmos Enraged is the source of the damage is irrelevant, right? If the example involved lightning bolts the outcome would be the same?
– Pedro A
Mar 13 at 9:53
Yes, it's irrelevant. The game state can only ever matter in multiplayer anyway, because in a 2 player game, the game ends immediately once a player loses.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 10:50
@hackworth only if there were a player 3 at the table would the outcome change to give victory to p3? Or it would the game continue with p2 (without taking damage from p1's BE) and p3
– Mindwin
Mar 13 at 12:24
@Mindwin: see the quote for rule 800.4a: "if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. " - so all those Borbor damaging effects on the stack cease existing, and thus will never happen, after Player 1 leaves the game. So the game will continue between player 2 and 3 without those effects dealing any damage.
– Syndic
Mar 13 at 12:28
@Mindwin I was speaking generally. For this particular question, P3+ would not matter, P2 would still not lose to P1's spells or abilities because they leave the game with P1. But the departure of P1's cards and objects could have other, indirect consequences, such as P2 or P3 auras falling off P1 creatures.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 13:42
So, in this case, the fact that Borborygmos Enraged is the source of the damage is irrelevant, right? If the example involved lightning bolts the outcome would be the same?
– Pedro A
Mar 13 at 9:53
So, in this case, the fact that Borborygmos Enraged is the source of the damage is irrelevant, right? If the example involved lightning bolts the outcome would be the same?
– Pedro A
Mar 13 at 9:53
Yes, it's irrelevant. The game state can only ever matter in multiplayer anyway, because in a 2 player game, the game ends immediately once a player loses.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 10:50
Yes, it's irrelevant. The game state can only ever matter in multiplayer anyway, because in a 2 player game, the game ends immediately once a player loses.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 10:50
@hackworth only if there were a player 3 at the table would the outcome change to give victory to p3? Or it would the game continue with p2 (without taking damage from p1's BE) and p3
– Mindwin
Mar 13 at 12:24
@hackworth only if there were a player 3 at the table would the outcome change to give victory to p3? Or it would the game continue with p2 (without taking damage from p1's BE) and p3
– Mindwin
Mar 13 at 12:24
@Mindwin: see the quote for rule 800.4a: "if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. " - so all those Borbor damaging effects on the stack cease existing, and thus will never happen, after Player 1 leaves the game. So the game will continue between player 2 and 3 without those effects dealing any damage.
– Syndic
Mar 13 at 12:28
@Mindwin: see the quote for rule 800.4a: "if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. " - so all those Borbor damaging effects on the stack cease existing, and thus will never happen, after Player 1 leaves the game. So the game will continue between player 2 and 3 without those effects dealing any damage.
– Syndic
Mar 13 at 12:28
@Mindwin I was speaking generally. For this particular question, P3+ would not matter, P2 would still not lose to P1's spells or abilities because they leave the game with P1. But the departure of P1's cards and objects could have other, indirect consequences, such as P2 or P3 auras falling off P1 creatures.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 13:42
@Mindwin I was speaking generally. For this particular question, P3+ would not matter, P2 would still not lose to P1's spells or abilities because they leave the game with P1. But the departure of P1's cards and objects could have other, indirect consequences, such as P2 or P3 auras falling off P1 creatures.
– Hackworth
Mar 13 at 13:42
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Board & Card Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f45492%2fcan-i-kill-an-opponent-in-response-to-lethal-activated-abilities-and-not-take-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Hey EthanK, welcome to the stackexchange. We know what game you are talking about by the tagging of the question, adding MTG: at the title is not necessary. I'll remove it for you. If you check the browser tab's title you will see that the tag is appended to the question title.
– Mindwin
Mar 13 at 12:25