In line with CR 616.1…
If two or extra substitute and/or prevention results try to
modify the way in which an occasion impacts an object or participant, the affected
object’s controller (or its proprietor if it has no controller) or the
affected participant chooses one to use, following the steps listed
under. If two or extra gamers should make these selections on the similar
time, selections are made in APNAP order (see rule 101.4).
Nevertheless, the time period “occasion” is outlined ambiguously…
700.1. Something that occurs in a sport is an occasion. A number of occasions might happen throughout the decision of a spell or means. The textual content
of triggered skills and substitute results defines the occasion
they’re searching for. One “occurring” could also be handled as a single occasion
by one means and as a number of occasions by one other.
This strikes me as problematic, not for particular person substitute and/or prevention results, however for 2 or extra substitute and/or prevention results, as a result of the 616.1 and 616.2 algorithm (lets name it Replace_Prevent() and examine it as a operate from a number of, relying on the reply to this query, unmodified occasions to a number of modified occasions, permitting it to entry the set of energetic substitute results and prevention results implicitly) claims to function on occasions, but the substitute results it references might disagree about what occasions are.
Suppose we’re resolving Rankle, Mast of Pranks with all modes chosen whereas all substitute results in Magic the Gathering are in play (besides these of playing cards which might have an effect on the reply to the query not directly resembling by eradicating substitute results or ending the sport). Would the proper decision be…
Modified_Event_1 = Replace_Prevent(AP discards 1 card)
Carry out Modified_Event_1
Modified_Event_2 = Replace_Prevent(NAP discards 1 card)
Carry out Modified_Event_2
Modified_Event_3 = Replace_Prevent(AP loses 1 life)
Carry out Modified_Event_3
Modified_Event_4 = Replace_Prevent(NAP loses 1 life)
Carry out Modified_Event_4
Modified_Event_5 = Replace_Prevent(AP attracts 1 card)
Carry out Modified_Event_5
Modified_Event_6 = Replace_Prevent(NAP attracts 1 card)
Carry out Modified_Event_6
Modified_Event_7 = Replace_Prevent(AP sacrifices 1 creature)
Carry out Modified_Event_7
Modified_Event_8 = Replace_Prevent(NAP sacrifices 1 creature)
Carry out Modified_Event_8
…or would Prevent_Replace() be utilized to all occasions globally, as…
Modified_Events = Replace_Prevent(AP discards 1 card, NAP discards 1 card, AP loses 1 life, NAP loses 1 life, AP attracts 1 card, NAP attracts 1 card, AP sacrifices 1 creature, NAP sacrifices 1 creature)
Carry out Modified_Events
…or wouldn’t it be one thing in between or apart from these extremes? Equally for Rankle’s Prank, how would Replace_Prevent() be known as on the “discard 2 playing cards” and “sacrifice 2 creatures” bits? Solutions might assume that the reader already is aware of the fundamentals of easy methods to apply substitute results and prevention results, and don’t must step via the inner logic of Replace_Prevent().
