dvxmmn

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@MoxlessGuy @e_talpa @BielRoig Si si certo, io ho chiesto qualche parere per farmi un idea sulla questione. Spero ci possa essere un'evoluzione positiva. Resta comunque un grande lavoro quello fatto finora, complimenti

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes Every change to the game state means the game state gets rebuilt from scratch and continuous effect are re-applied so it doesn't make any sense that instantiation would change just when the effect turns on or off or other specific changes to the game state occur.

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes Ho chiesto poi sul gruppo "mtg rules & judge question" su facebook e ho ricevuto analoghe risposte da due membri, uno che é l'amministratore Mark McGovern, e un membro esperto Todd bussey.

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes Volrath's no longer has that ability.

The instant gets cast via Flashback putting Wall of Roots back on top.The time stamp is still the same.
The object being pulled from is still the same.The ability instance is therefore the same and can't be activated unless it's a new turn.

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes Volrath's activates that ability.
In the very next game state, can it activate the ability again?
No, because it is the same ability instance, it is derived from the same text pulled from the same object with the same effect time stamp.

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes Yes, despite having the same time stamp as the ability Ooze no longer has, the fact that the other instance is pulled from a different object means it is a distinct instance.

Now let's go back to Volrath's.
Wall of Roots is on top of the library.

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes How do we distinguish the two instances from each other if they have the same time stamp?
We differentiate them by noting which object the ability is pulled from.

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes It has a continuous effect from a static ability that gives it abilities.
If there are two Wall of Roots in the yard, both abilities have the same time stamp because they get it from the time stamp of the effect that adds them.

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes This rule is specific to continuous effects of static abilities, but it seems reasonable to use this principle for ability instantiation as well.
Now, if we use time stamp for ability instantiation does that fully solve the system?No. Let's look back at our friend Necrotic Ooz.

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes This means that a copy effect applying over top of an object gives it new text and the instantiation of those abilities from that text use the time stamp of that copy effect rather than the object's time stamp.

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes The rule for time stamps also specify the time stamp of continuous effects for static abilities that they are either the same as the time stamp of the object they are on or the time stamp of the effect giving it that ability.

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes The concept of instantiation relies partially on time stamp.
An object receives a time stamp when it enters a zone so it seems sensible to use that time stamp as the instantiation of the abilities derived from its text.

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes It's more derived from existing rulings and rules.Let's start with Necrotic Ooze and two Wall of Roots in graveyards.Ooze would clearly have two distinct instances of th ability.Why? Because it is pulling the ability from two different objects.Clearly object distinction matters.

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes Questa la risposta estesa di Todd bussey, ho messo anche il link che spero funzioni per vedere la discussione completa basata su quanto indicato nella guida.

Val David
> have you any link to this rule?

There isn't any specific rule that spells it out.

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes https://t.co/1tex42bn2P

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes Al 4s, idem, non erano utilizzabili quelle linee che si basano sul mantenere Wall of roots al cimitero, seppur in cima al cimitero e poi in posizioni diverse, per poi tornare in cima al cimitero

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@e_talpa @MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes Si é corretto, sono due tornei diversi. Dai nazionali, a cui non ho partecipato, parlando con il ragazzo che ha fatto top con hfeb, confermava che l'iterazione con Wall of roots che veniva coperto/scoperto più volte (non rimescolato e scartato nuovamente) non era ammessa.

Al

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes Analogamente ai nazionali italiani del mese scorso, 4season, non é stato possibile usare le linee per lo stesso motivo. Avete alcune considerazioni a riguardo?

Grazie ancora,
E complimenti di nuovo

David, hermit feb lover

[dvxmmn @MaimoDavid]

@MoxlessGuy @BielRoig @fireshoes Che le regole non siano chiarissime ma che l'istanza muro di radici nel cimitero rimane la stessa, seppur in posizioni diverse, e non é possibile usare quelle linee.
Part 2