Replicate

[honestabe]

if a spell has replicate, is it effected by sphere of resistance and trinishpere?

[Godder]

Stealing an example using Shattering Spree:

According to the Guildpact FAQ, Replicate means:

"As an additional cost to play this spell, you may pay [cost] any number of times" and "When you play this spell, if a replicate cost was paid for it, copy it for each time its replicate cost was paid.

So, here's how it goes.  You play your spell, and you decide whether or not to replicate it.  If you do decide to replicate it, then you figure out what you should be paying.  Thus, if you decide to replicate once, you need to pay RR.  NOW you apply Trinisphere and see what you would be paying.  In this case, you're wanting to pay RR, but Trinisphere sees that this is less than 3, so it bumps it up to 1RR.

Here's a table of what it costs to do stuff with Shattering Spree with 3Sphere out there:
Destroy 1 artifact = 2R
Destroy 2 artifacts = 1RR
Destroy 3 artifacts = RRR
Destroy 4 artifacts = RRRR

Trinisphere doesn't look at mana cost. It looks at what you're paying for a spell, after any cost increasers are applied.  This is why it only costs 3 to play Mox Sapphire while Trinisphere and two Sphere of Resistance are out there.

For Sphere of Resistance, it makes all spells cost more to play, so you just add 1 to the total cost after all Replicate copies have been added in i.e. you don't have to pay 1 extra for each copy, just the whole thing.

[Smmenen]

Is this ruling still accurate?

That is, the interaction of Shattering Spree and Trinisphere/Sphere is as follows:

Trinisphere:
R2: Destroy 1 artifact.
RR1: Destroy 2.
RRR: Destroy 3.

Sphere of Resistance:
R1: Destroy 1 artifact.
RR1: Destroy 2.
RRR1: Destroy 3.

Correct?

[Vnayin]

I believe that is still correct, though it may be bugged on modo. Had a run in with this last weekend in one of the dailies when I had a sphere and trinisphere in play and I believe my opponent was trying to replicate spree once to get a 2nd copy. I would expect to cost RR1 given that sphere and trinisphere don't play nice together.  He was saying modo was trying to get him to pay 4.  I'm not sure if I got that story correct though as I wasn't the one casting spree.

[Smmenen]

Confirmed. That happened to me tonight.
https://twitter.com/smenendian/status/596897739155214337

Can a judge confirm thr ruling?

[Clariax]

Trinisphere will never make it cost 4.  Trinisphere looks at the entire cost, which includes things like replicate and kicker.  Sounds like a MTGO bug.

[Smmenen]

This came up in Rnd 3 of the Vintage Champs feature match.  According to the video, it looks like they gave the wrong ruling.  Vito tapped 4 to cast Shattering Spree with replicate under Trinisphere.  It's roughly 3:26ish mark here: http://www.twitch.tv/cardtitan/v/12371480

[rikter]

Paying replicate counts as an additional cost to cast the spell. When determining the Trinisphere tax you first consider any increase effects, then decrease, then if its less than 3, pay mana until it becomes 3.

[Katzby]

This came up in Rnd 3 of the Vintage Champs feature match.  According to the video, it looks like they gave the wrong ruling.  Vito tapped 4 to cast Shattering Spree with replicate under Trinisphere.  It's roughly 3:26ish mark here: http://www.twitch.tv/cardtitan/v/12371480

I can confirm that this was ruled incorrectly.  I heard about this ruling several rounds after-the-fact, and I talked this over with the event head judge who had by that time already been made aware of the issue and agreed that it had been ruled incorrectly.

Thanks.


Abe

[Smmenen]

That's too bad you weren't able to catch it earlier.

[V is for Vintage]

During the match, I did ask the judge, since I was pretty sure I knew the correct ruling. The judge did rule against me, and I also lost my appeal with the head judge. Fortunately, the ruling had zero impact on the match (since i was still under trinisphere and only had 2 red to use spree with at 4 mana).

A while after the match, I was speaking with Jeremy Beaver and a few of my other team mates who were also under the same rule understanding as I was. When I saw Abe (who consistently judged Blue Bell vintage events back in the day, and we knew would know this Vintage ruling), we went up to him and he confirmed that our understanding was correct. Abe was nothing but professional. He made sure all the judges that made the adverse ruling were educated, and apologized profusely.

Accidents happen, and I'm glad that I wasn't in a position where it cost me the match. I consider my match with Rich a great experience.

[Smmenen]

During the match, I did ask the judge, since I was pretty sure I knew the correct ruling. The judge did rule against me, and I also lost my appeal with the head judge. Fortunately, the ruling had zero impact on the match (since i was still under trinisphere and only had 2 red to use spree with at 4 mana).

A while after the match, I was speaking with Jeremy Beaver and a few of my other team mates who were also under the same rule understanding as I was. When I saw Abe (who consistently judged Blue Bell vintage events back in the day, and we knew would know this Vintage ruling), we went up to him and he confirmed that our understanding was correct. Abe was nothing but professional. He made sure all the judges that made the adverse ruling were educated, and apologized profusely.

Accidents happen, and I'm glad that I wasn't in a position where it cost me the match. I consider my match with Rich a great experience.

You should have showed the judge this thread   Seriously tho, when playing a deck very similar to the one you played in Champs at the NYSE, I was prepared to show this thread to any judge that disputed that ruling.

It's hard to know for sure, because I can't exactly tell your hand, but I think that ruling may have actually cost you the match.

In my opinion, I think you made a mistake - and Randy indicated that he would have made the same play as you - in not destroying Trinisphere.  

You had two alternative options: 1) You could have blown up the Trike & the Trinisphere with Shattering spree and had 1 white mana up (the Tundra), allowing you to Swords the Factory as soon as he tries to equip it.  Of course, Rich drew Chalice, which he played and set at 1, so it didn't make a difference.  But it every well could have.  

OR alternatively, 2) you could have Shattering Spreed the Trinisphere & the Sword, and Plowed the Trike at your leisure, then taken two from Factory.  And, as long as you had Mentor and Preordain in hand the next turn, you could have cast Mentor, and with priority, cast Preordain (into the Chalice) or Dig (which I think you had in hand) to generate a token to block the Factory.  Even tho he can dismember your Mentor, you can still survive until the next turn to play the other ridiculous cards in your hand, like Dack (and what looks like Dig).  

[V is for Vintage]

Funny you say that Steve, because i did Jeremy's phone with this thread on it to the judge after the game and it did not influence the decision. it wasnt for many rounds later that i got with abe though


It was a tough call being at 6. i wouldve been in a much better position that game had i drawn a fetch, which would have let me use dig under wire (revoking my jet with 4 mana on board was rough for me). i dont remember having another plow though, i thought it was a mentor, i'll have to go re watch, but chalice was another nail in the coffin. if there was a wrong play in that game, i think it was gushing under wire. i already had 2 moxen, so hitting more fast mana was greedy and unlikely, so i just set myself back. didnt have another land drop though. tough game with a lot of complex decisions

[JoeH]

Yeah.  I was the head judge on Sunday.  I apologize for flubbing that one.

Funny you say that Steve, because i did Jeremy's phone with this thread on it to the judge after the game and it did not influence the decision. it wasnt for many rounds later that i got with abe though

I'm a little confused about this statement.  A small group came up to me on the stage after the match to discuss the ruling.  After looking more into it, I had agreed that I was incorrect.  This thread was never shown to me, though.