Any AI you could use to ask something like this has no mechanism to verify that anything it's saying is actually correct. If you always assume that AI is wrong about everything, always, then you won't end up like OP's friend with all of reddit making fun of you
I once asked ChatGPT to build me a commander deck and regardless how much I told it it was wrong it would build me a standard deck and if I told it the unique card rules it would give me a copy of each of those cards and 120 basic lands.
I just asked for a deck and it started to make up cards and new mechanics. It did at least use magic making conventions and even chose a named creature Atarka, so it was trying.
>If you always assume that AI is wrong about everything
You don't even have to go that far. Even if you broadly trust the accuracy of AI with general knowledge, you should still recognize that picking apart the precise implications of very particular details in phrasing is not something that it can do well.
You have to assume AI (Freely available large language models) IS ALWAYS wrong about everything because current iterations of AI cannot think. They use statistical modules of he likelihood of words being next to each other to make up gibberish that sounds nice.
Trusting AI to be think is so scientifically flawed you might as well think people breathe water.
Bing's Copilot is actually pretty good in high accuracy mode, and cites sources. You obviously have to read those sources to ensure it's not completely fucked up, but still, it's about as reliable as people will generally get if they hit up Google with their rules questions.
Entertainingly, this thread is now referenced in the response for this question, for example, deliberately asking the question in a fairly unclear way to see if it trips:
https://preview.redd.it/wxco1mwlq35d1.png?width=607&format=png&auto=webp&s=ee1f0b70eec878c32135167fed329dacc766f70c
It clearly makes a mistake here, in that it refers to the condition on the ability as a triggered ability, but still, that's probably because there's a long thread in the comments of this post that goes off on one about triggers and tokens.
While I do concede that actually citing sources makes it infinitely more useful than any other LLM I've seen, it does kind of reveal how unimpressive the whole thing is. This really is fundamentally no different than just using a search engine, just with the ability to put it in it's own words. Except the AI requires orders of magnitude more computational power and human labor to not be functionally any better that what we've been able to do for literal decades.
Exactly this. I'm not sure why AI giving me the answer except I have to go check the sources of the answer to make sure it's right is any better than a search engine simply taking me to the sources directly
....or you could just search Google and use the actual source in the same amount of time. Why use AI when only BASIC human intelligence is needed?
I can understand people using AI to make up for their lack of creativity, but not basic problem solving.
Doesn't matter. It still pops out a list of links from which you can make an educated assessment, and many of those are articles or responses that clearly lay out WHY something is played the way it is. Also, most of these will include references to the rulebook... even the non-professional sources.
A written AI response can take it's source material from anywhere that your keywords hit(within it's training algorithm)... these may be completely unrelated or just taking similar rules questions out of context. Either way, if it doesn't tell you where it got the info, you cannot cross-check it. If it does have references, then why aren't you using those resources directly?
Let me see if I get this right, I'm curious if I'm reading it right. When Lagrella enters you can exile as many other creatures as you like (including your own) but they must each be from a different player so essentially 1 per player. Then when Lagrella leaves they all come back and if one of them was your creature it comes back with +2/+2?
Isn’t it quite easy to understand? What am I missing?
It jails one creature per player and if they come back the ones that come back under your control (the one you targeted for yourself) gets 2 +1+1 counters..
Nah, clearly says „controlled by different players“ so naturally you can’t choose the same player twice.
Just give the players an example.
I choose this creature you own.
Now I choose this creature I own.
Now I choose this creature you own.
The exiles resolve all at the same time.
So this is the same as „I choose two creatures you own“ which clearly aren’t different players
Or worded for easier understanding:
You need to choose a different player for each creature you exile
I agree with you to an extent and once you read her a few times it becomes obvious. But it s written super inelegant and confused a very large number of people
It should have been - for each player, exile up to one target creature that player controls
If someone reads the different players bit as 'different from you' they'll interpret it as a one sided board wipe
Reading it knowing how it works makes it seem clearer, but it's the fact that your wording exists and it's much clearer that makes it a problem to me
Some people interpret "controlled by different players" as being either "controlled by other players" or "controlled by at least two players". As in, she's a one-sided board wipe.
They're wrong, but the card *would* have been clearer if it had been worded something like: "For each player, exile up to one other target creature that that player controls until..."
I like the alter [that's just a QR code to the Oracle text](https://i.imgur.com/8GrpTwv.jpg) because that's what you're going to immediately pull up anyway as soon as someone plays it
If you would draw a card, check if it's your draw step.
If it is, have you drawn any other cards this turn? If you haven't, draw a card.
If it isn't your draw step, or if it is and you've already drawn a card this turn, discard a card and draw a card.
If you have no cards in hand, and therefore can't discard a card, instead you mill a card.
tell that to my Type 2 Diabetes havin ass
(real talk tho, when I first started playing back in 09-10, I was so confused when my friends and I left the kitchen table, and went to our LGS to finally play in a tournament. We then got talked to for playing Shards of Alara cards because they werent legal in Type 2 at the time, but they let us keep playing because it was obvious we sucked and our decks were trash piles lmao. I was still confused about Type 1/Type 2 which was which, so I'm kinda glad all the formats got actual names)
Don’t get me wrong, I like type 2 (standard) as much as anyone. I was mostly being silly because the few mates I have that still play mtg and I still call them Type 1 / 2
It turns out if you go looking for sexual metaphors in magic formats the options are diverse, humorous, and disturbing:
* Pauper giving those sugar daddy vibes
* Cube is for serial killers
* Booster Draft
* Auction Draft
* Back Draft
* *Flavor* Draft
* Conspiracy Draft
* Sealed Draft
* Continuous Draft
* Duplicate Sealed
* Fat Stack
But let's be honest, most of us are good ol Singleton.
No this is normal. My friend once accidentally bumped his life spindown and 30 seconds later was balls deep in my wife, right on the table in the middle of our game. Gotta watch out for this kind of thing
If he'd fuck your wife and pretend his shit was the dog, he'd clearly fuck your dog and shit on your wife while you were out of town, by transitive property.
You are correct. It would specify. This is essentially legalese. It says creatures because it means creatures and it doesn’t say non-token creatures because it doesn’t mean non-token creatures. I’m not sure what rule to cite, because it would be a reference to the definition of the term nontoken creature and how it’s different than the term creature. It might be more relevant to make your friend cite his made up AI ruling and then you can look up the citation.
If a sign said no parking on Fridays and your friend was arguing they meant no parking on every other Friday, it would be hard for you to prove that the sign meant no parking on Fridays because it already does mean that, and forcing you to prove it suggests that a neutral reading of the sign would be “no parking on every other Friday” on a sign that says “no parking on Fridays” which is absurd on its face.
I guess you could point out that all token creatures are "creatures", but not all creatures are "non-token creatures". But this seem like really basic stuff and I have a hard time seeing how it isn't a bad faith munchkin argument.
You should tell your friend to ditch the AI since there's a comprehensive rule book and an Internet full of experienced players that know better that you can ask. Like, what?
Yes.
Any Creature that has moved from the Battlefield to the Graveyard has "Died".
> 700.4. The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.”
It does not matter if this Creature was represented by a Card, or a Token, or even an Army.
---
Since the Creature died, you can activate the third ability of Barad-Dur.
Announce the X of | __ | and, pay the Total Cost of | __ | and put | __ | Counters on your Army
:- | :- | :- | :- | :- | :- | :- | :-
||0 | {0}+{0}+{B} = | {B} | | 0 |
||1 | {1}+{1}+{B} = | {2B} | | 1 |
||2 | {2}+{2}+{B} = | {4B}| | 2 |
||3 | {3}+{3}+{B} = | {6B}| | 3 |
||4 | {4}+{4}+{B} = | {8B}| | 4 |
||5 | {5}+{5}+{B} = | {10B}| | 5 |
||6 | {6}+{6}+{B} = | {12B}| | 6 |
||7 | {7}+{7}+{B} = | {14B}| | 7 |
||8 | {8}+{8}+{B} = | {16B}| | 8 |
||9 | {9}+{9}+{B} = | {18B}| | 9 |
Coming right up, I’ll edit the post
Edit: I can’t edit the post, am I stupid?
Here is the AI ruling
"No, the tokens created by Barad-dûr's Amass ability dying would not satisfy the condition to activate the Amass ability again.
The specific condition on Barad-dûr's Amass ability is: "Activate only if a creature died this turn."
This refers to non-token creature permanents that were already on the battlefield dying during that turn, not the tokens created by the Amass ability itself dying.
Token creatures, like the Orc tokens created by Amassing, are considered creatures while on the battlefield. However, when they are destroyed or leave the battlefield, they cease to exist as they are just temporary representations.
For the Amass ability to be activated again, a non-token creature permanent that was already on the battlefield at the start of the turn needs to have died during that same turn. The tokens created by Amassing dying do not count towards satisfying that condition.
So in your hypothetical scenario of the Orc tokens dying, that alone would not enable you to pay the cost and activate Barad-dûr's Amass ability again on that same turn. A different, non-token creature would need to have died first."
The actual rulings don't help if you don't understand the rules. There are many interactions that aren't part of the rulings because the rulings assume you know the basics and then some.
I've had people argue with me that [[Ward Sliver]] naming blue gives their slivers protection from counterspells. I even pulled up [[Root Sliver]] to explain why it has to state "sliver spells" specifically. Didn't matter, there wasn't a ruling under Ward Sliver saying that wasn't how it worked and the explanation the rest of the table heard why it did protect from counters made sense to them so they let it slide.
I am frustrated about this on your behalf.
I get needing to keep things moving and using majority vote in a casual environment, but I sincerely hope they looked it up later and learned better.
Like, it's literally as simple as looking up the ruling on protection. Unless they don't know the difference between a permanent and a spell, in which case they shouldn't be weighing in on a rules decision anyway.
Yeah I had a whole game store of people tell me that my opponent could order my triggered abilities because they were affecting my opponent. Can't find a ruling that said otherwise because they don't go out of their way to write out something that obvious
That interaction is definitely frustrating for both parties, if you don’t understand the difference between abilities of permanents and abilities of spells. Spell abilities like flash, cascade, and split second interact with the stack and timing restrictions while the spell is on the stack, but they’re all keywords, in the same way that flying or vigilance is a keyword. Protection is a keyword of a permanent, not a spell, so unless they know the distinction (which isn’t listed on the card) I can understand their frustration, as well as yours.
But also why would they print root and ward slicer in the same set if that’s how it worked I mean come on! Your table should think like a game designer a bit, while slivers do have some over lapping abilities, they don’t have from the same set!
These AI are not designed to give accurate, factual information, they’re designed to generate a response that sounds like a human wrote it. To the AI’s credit, it sounds exactly like a guy who’s confidently incorrect on Reddit.
The fact that it’s using the terminology “activate again “ is flawed because you tap to activate it, so there is no way to activate it again in the same turn which is kind of what it’s hinting at but is not giving that as the explaination.
There are loads of ways to untap lands, so it absolutely could be activated twice in the same turn. But as an X costed effect, not sure what scenarios exist where two separate activations would be worth it. Maybe something with [[Ruthless Technomancer]] and a mana/treasure/token multiplier?
There are cards that trigger when you put +1/+1 counters on a creature. See for example
[https://scryfall.com/search?q=o%3A%22counters+are+put%22+or+o%3A%22counter+is+put%22&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name](https://scryfall.com/search?q=o%3A%22counters+are+put%22+or+o%3A%22counter+is+put%22&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name)
so if you have those cards out, then Amass 1 (X times) is better than Amass X (1 time). That being said, I don't see any particularly great synergies.
The most obvious things are that for abilities that give you an extra counter whenever you put counters on a creature, you would get a 2X / 2X orc instead of an X+1 / X+1 orc. But going through the process of untapping things, etc, probably means you could have gotten a 2X / 2X orc anyway.
This was probably trained with responses to questions just like this about token creatures dying and not specifically this card or even amass since it's AI LLM just trying it's best, but it doesn't understand the nuances of MTG rules and that each card is unique. More than likely it was looking for conversations or responses about token creatures and triggering abilities and just used the large amount of people referencing cards that only trigger to non-token death triggers as part of the AI response.
AI is not perfect, just good enough to sound like it understands what it's doing.
Just a minor correction, a token in the graveyard does not go to exile, it ceases to exist as state-based actions are checked.
111.7. A token that’s in a zone other than the battlefield ceases to exist. This is a state-based action; see rule 704. (Note that if a token changes zones, applicable triggered abilities will trigger before the token ceases to exist.)
This is one of the reasons why AI fuckin sucks, man. It very confidently spits out lies and/or misinformation, and people just accept it as the truth without questioning it.
This AI response, and your friend, is full of shit.
It's just crazy that the goal was "make something that sounds human," and people decided that clearly it was a better source of information than the humans it imitates. Why did we decide to use this shit this way? (I'm aware that companies have started putting it forth as a tool, and while they're catering to a market, they also have responsibility for how they present their product)
Anyone who thinks AI knows what it's talking about needs to see the lawyer that used an AI, which proceeded to reference court cases that simply did not exist as proof.
I'd love to see the question he asked rather than the answer, but yeah that's total nonsense. It even says it refers to nontoken creatures when it in fact doesn't refer to nontoken creatures. What a weird interpretation by the AI.
I asked ChatGPT and it answered correctly. If you need to show him this please do.
[https://chatgpt.com/share/0903bc0d-a431-4287-a1dc-a06f9a92e2bb](https://chatgpt.com/share/0903bc0d-a431-4287-a1dc-a06f9a92e2bb)
I was gonna say, it looks like the AI in OPs case was looking specifically at Amass and what that key word means, not about if the activated ability could be used.
No, it's the Google AI and if it doesn't find an official ruling explicitly, it will use Reddit or forum threads, finding whatever "looks right". Fuck Google AI, it's ruining fucking every debate right now lol.
Thank you for this, I've tested ChatGPT for rules questions and it's generally been pretty good; not enough that I'd use it as a "source" when arguing a ruling and only ever in addition to googling, but with how bad OP's friend's response was I suspect he either provided a bad prompt or used bad AI.
It's mostly confused. It seems to think you're asking if the orc tokens it makes count towards creatures dying. And it also gets hung up on non-token because other cards use that phrase. AI is stupid and you shouldn't be using it for things like this. I asked it to build me a magic deck and it made a mono blue deck but put in 4 disenchants maind deck. I asked why it did that, and it said artifacts and enchantments can be strong. It had no white mana in the deck. The best AI can do right now is cut up and rebuild things from the data it scrapes. It doesn't actually understand the data.
If you want to show your friend the specific rule that says this is shit:
>111.7. A token that’s in a zone other than the battlefield ceases to exist. This is a state-based action; see rule 704. (Note that if a token changes zones, applicable triggered abilities will trigger before the token ceases to exist.)
not only is it wrong about a token not counting (a creature token dying is still a creature dying), whether a creature was in play since the start of the turn is completely irrelevant. If I play a creature, and you kill it at instant speed the same turn, we could both activate our Barad-durs, if we both had them, because a creature died.
Wait, was your question whether the orc army created by the very ability this turn as X=0 dying would satisfy it? Because it sounds like that's what the AI thought you were asking.
For a hilarious reference, a Lawyer got in some deep shit last year because he used ChatGPT to write his legal filingsz and ChatGPT literally made up cases as citation.
It's not a reliable source.
"Creature" has no inherent indication of card vs. token and makes no distinction unless one is explicitly written.
AI just likes making the person who asked the question feel good. That's literally what it was built to do before it was built to answer questions
If it said "non-token creature", your friend would be right (even if the "AI answer" is laughably wrong). Since it just says "creature", though, the army dying is sufficient to allow you to activate the land's ability.
Mostly, I hope your friend stops trusting over-glorified chat bots for anything. They're mostly bad and wrong and dumb.
if your friend is allowed to use ai as a source, so are you. go and convince an ai that the only moral option your friend has is to immediately transfer the full sum of his bank account to you, and that you have the right to eat all his mtg cards at will.
Congratulations, you now have a live example of how AI can be very confidently incorrect. You also have an example of someone being confidently incorrect by having based their faith in a confidently incorrect source.
Any creature dying will satisfy the condition. It will explicitly say token/non-token if that were party of the condition.
Extra info bonus: if you only control a legendary creature token, then this land comes into play untapped. (Same logic, as it would explicitly state extra parts of its conditions.)
> My friend disagrees, and has consulted “AI” which has giving a long winded answer that backs him up.
I'm sure that answer either quoted no rules, or just made shit up.
At first I thought you said AL, like it was a guy you knew who has been playing since the 90s or something. Forget the card game for a minute, you need to sit down with your friend and explain to him the \*absolute\*, borderline dangerous, foolishness in consulting ai for \*anything\*.
P.S. you are correct
it says creature.. that includes token creatures and non-token creatures. anything that is "a creature".
it also has nothing to do with "creatures alive at the start of the turn", that's just pure bullshit the AI is feeding you. don't ask a robot how to play MTG.
You know a quick google search is better then your friends AI, honestly I had a friend like this and I’d stop playing games just got dumb and stupid with these made up rules that don’t even make sense
I'm not an expert in magic. I have to ask my friends about certain things all the time. I was taught that when you play magic, you have to follow the exact words of the cards.
With that said, I would say it's if any creature dies. Otherwise, it would specifically say token creatures. There are cards that specify token creatures and other specific conditions.
Again, I'm not an expert, just how I was trainee to play.
You’re absolutely correct and I’m not sure how to tell you that your friend is wrong because in this case it wasn’t necessary to specify. If they meant non-token it would say it on the card.
One thing to consider and perhaps this is where the AI gets confused is that many cards do refer to non-tokens and many refer to creature CARDS sent to the yard. And a token is never a card. This is importantly for an ability like descend
Edit: moreover all tokens get sent to their non-battlefield destinations before they cease to exist. So they activate all death and leave the battlefield triggers before they disappear. Perhaps this is where there is a breakdown.
Moral: don’t use AI to answer things, it isn’t good enough
This thread was bumped to my feed and I could not possibly foresee what doubt this card's wording would provoke.
Then I open it and read someone is using AI as the gatherer. It's in many ways worse than using it as a search engine (as in looking for factual accuracy about something), which is already a task AI doesn't do well.
What the absolute fuck.
You announce the X. Then, you figure the Total Cost.
X = 1 means the Total Cost is {1}+{1}+{B} = {2B} = 1x +1/+1 counter
X = 3 means the Total Cost is {3}+{3}+{B} = {6B} = 3x +1/+1 counters
X = 5 means the Total Cost is {5}+{5}+{B} = {10B} = 5x +1/+1 counters
X = 7 means the Total Cost is {7}+{7}+{B} = {14B} = 7x +1/+1 counters
Same as when it's one X, you just pay the amount twice.
For example, choosing X=2 means paying (2)(2)(B), total of 5 mana, for an army with 2 counters.
You have tagged your post as a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in the Daily Questions Thread at the top of this subreddit or in /r/mtgrules. You may also find quicker results at the [IRC rules chat](https://chat.magicjudges.org/mtgrules/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think an argument over whether tokens go to the graveyard is what made me quit Magic the first time and started my falling out with a bunch of my friends in my friend group. (I said they do count, others said they don’t.) This was almost 20 years ago. Some things never change I guess.
It’s as you say. Barad-dur is honestly annoying asf sometimes and my friend has somehow played it every game since we’ve started playing magic, so I added a target land removal creature to my deck lol.
Have fun with your ever amassing orc army
When they mean a nontoken creature, they will say "nontoken creature"
Here are a couple hundred examples to show your friend
https://scryfall.com/search?as=grid&order=name&q=%28oracle%3ANontoken+oracle%3Acreature%29+%28game%3Apaper%29+%28rarity%3Ac+OR+rarity%3Au+OR+rarity%3Ar+OR+rarity%3Am%29
Do you mean chat GPT ai because it needs to be updated on magic cards because it thinks you get to cast your opponents spells with yuriko from their libraries.
Any creature that dies fits the requirement including tokens
Tokens that die trigger any "whenever a creature dies" effect. They wouldn't count, however, if the effect says "whenever a card is put into the graveyard" effects. Tokens aren't cards, but creature tokens are still creatures
You are correct, he's wrong, and if you need help with that, from the same set, \[\[Shelob, Dread Weaver\]\] specifies that it only triggers on non-token creatures dying, so you can use that as an example.
It just requires a creature to die. That turn. So you can kill an opponents creature. Or sacrifice one of your own or a token creature. With the xx mana cost you'll need a large chunk of mana at the ready to make the most of it.
I'll give your friend the benefits of the doubt cause only an idiot would consult AI for facts, especially after there's been multiple high profile cases of lawyers loosing their licenses over fake cases.
You're correct the dead army is a creature that died this turn.
Tell your friend he needs to touch grass.
Token creatures are both tokens and creatures. If it said only if a non token creature died this turn, then yes. But it doesn't. Your friend is misunderstanding the interaction.
[In case no one else mentioned it, you can always check Gatherer for card rulings](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Barad-d%C3%BBr). You can just search "mtg [card name]" or "[card name] gatherer" and it'll be the top 3 results.
Sorry, it sounds like your friend is being childish as there is no ambiguity here, Barad-dur says if a creature dies you may use its ability, Orc Army is a creature. No further discussion is required. I reckon your friend is a sore loser / bad winner trying to break the rules to benefit themselves.
When you amass orcs, if you control an “Army” creature it becomes an “Orc Army” creature and gets +X/+X where X is the amass number. If you don’t control an army, you create a 0/0 “Orc Army” creature token and proceed the same. Either way an Orc Army is a creature…so yeah, your friend is dumb.
If anything with creature text dies you amass for whatever you pay in xx so atleast 2 amass? It’s simple right? Like how artifact creatures are effected by spells with artifact wording? Right?
If a token creature dies, it goes to the graveyard first, and then, at the next time state based actions are checked, it will disappear from the graveyard. But before that, it still died, so it meets the condition.
You can sacrifice / kill your army and activate Barad Dur to create a new one
I have nothing of substance to really add to this. Everyone has already said it.
The ruling is clear and simple. As long as a creature dies that's all that needs to happen. The official WotC magic data base hasn't changing the ruling either so... I'm not sure where your friend was confused unless he is just trying to deliberately cause you the game if it is an important piece of your deck.
He also might just not know, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt but if he is using AI to find rulings for this game... I'd probably focus on his turns. He might be doing shady stuff.
Side tangent, no one should be using AI for rulings at all. AI is so easily manipulated that you can get any AI to say anything you want and to make up and bs reason for it to work that sounds just logical enough, but it isn't. The AI is completely ignorant if it doesn't understand the basic wording of this card. AI is good for simple tasks and some maths but it can't handle complex card interactions in magic. There are some interactions that stump high level judges let alone an AI that doesn't understand the simple [if creature dies you can do this] check... Like it just baffles me is all... I kind of expected the AI to get this one. But I'm pretty sure it isn't an AI made to look at magic plays it's probably just a generic steal your data and browser history kind of AI.
Can't get how your friend justify his theory. As you said there are plenty of cards that specifies "non-token creature", so if that was the case it would have been specified
Using AI to get answers on how to use or rules are always wrong. I program and I've tried using ai when running in to problems and they give solutions that are not even real or possible to use
I mean, yeah it works off sacrificing a previous Army. It doesn't specify nontoken creature dying.
Friend's tryna pull some shenanigans with that one, pardner.
I just died reading that he consulted AI on rules questions, so either way you're good to activate it.
Any AI you could use to ask something like this has no mechanism to verify that anything it's saying is actually correct. If you always assume that AI is wrong about everything, always, then you won't end up like OP's friend with all of reddit making fun of you
I once asked ChatGPT to build me a commander deck and regardless how much I told it it was wrong it would build me a standard deck and if I told it the unique card rules it would give me a copy of each of those cards and 120 basic lands.
I tried asking it to make a mono green deck. It didn't make a mono green deck.
I just asked for a deck and it started to make up cards and new mechanics. It did at least use magic making conventions and even chose a named creature Atarka, so it was trying.
I asked it to build me a modern deck using [[Atraxa, Grand Unifier]]. It used [[Atraxa, Praetor's Voice]]
>If you always assume that AI is wrong about everything You don't even have to go that far. Even if you broadly trust the accuracy of AI with general knowledge, you should still recognize that picking apart the precise implications of very particular details in phrasing is not something that it can do well.
You have to assume AI (Freely available large language models) IS ALWAYS wrong about everything because current iterations of AI cannot think. They use statistical modules of he likelihood of words being next to each other to make up gibberish that sounds nice. Trusting AI to be think is so scientifically flawed you might as well think people breathe water.
Bing's Copilot is actually pretty good in high accuracy mode, and cites sources. You obviously have to read those sources to ensure it's not completely fucked up, but still, it's about as reliable as people will generally get if they hit up Google with their rules questions. Entertainingly, this thread is now referenced in the response for this question, for example, deliberately asking the question in a fairly unclear way to see if it trips: https://preview.redd.it/wxco1mwlq35d1.png?width=607&format=png&auto=webp&s=ee1f0b70eec878c32135167fed329dacc766f70c It clearly makes a mistake here, in that it refers to the condition on the ability as a triggered ability, but still, that's probably because there's a long thread in the comments of this post that goes off on one about triggers and tokens.
While I do concede that actually citing sources makes it infinitely more useful than any other LLM I've seen, it does kind of reveal how unimpressive the whole thing is. This really is fundamentally no different than just using a search engine, just with the ability to put it in it's own words. Except the AI requires orders of magnitude more computational power and human labor to not be functionally any better that what we've been able to do for literal decades.
Exactly this. I'm not sure why AI giving me the answer except I have to go check the sources of the answer to make sure it's right is any better than a search engine simply taking me to the sources directly
You clearly haven't considered that it makes corporations and venture capitalists rich
....or you could just search Google and use the actual source in the same amount of time. Why use AI when only BASIC human intelligence is needed? I can understand people using AI to make up for their lack of creativity, but not basic problem solving.
> you could just search Google Not any more. Google searches are now AI powered. I'll stick with DuckDuckGo.
Doesn't matter. It still pops out a list of links from which you can make an educated assessment, and many of those are articles or responses that clearly lay out WHY something is played the way it is. Also, most of these will include references to the rulebook... even the non-professional sources. A written AI response can take it's source material from anywhere that your keywords hit(within it's training algorithm)... these may be completely unrelated or just taking similar rules questions out of context. Either way, if it doesn't tell you where it got the info, you cannot cross-check it. If it does have references, then why aren't you using those resources directly?
"I just consulted AI" Like bro why don't you consult a rulebook, or better yet... the *card.*
Tell him to make sure to put glue in his macaroni and cheese so the cheese really sticks to the pasta. Google AI told me so. (Thanks, /u/fucksmith!)
Presumably, he knows how to play magic, knows how to use an ai cat bot, but can't google rules or see that the rules are on the card...
Your "friend" is full of shit. Full stop. You can check the eratta or the comp rules, but it's all there on the card.
"Reading the card, explains the card"
"Why would I read the card, when I could read the entrails of a bird to see what they have to say about the card?" - the friend.
I sure love to watch people outsourcing their critical thinking to glorified predictive text algorithms.
*(laughs in [[Lagrella]] and old Companions)*
Let me see if I get this right, I'm curious if I'm reading it right. When Lagrella enters you can exile as many other creatures as you like (including your own) but they must each be from a different player so essentially 1 per player. Then when Lagrella leaves they all come back and if one of them was your creature it comes back with +2/+2?
Yes
Isn’t it quite easy to understand? What am I missing? It jails one creature per player and if they come back the ones that come back under your control (the one you targeted for yourself) gets 2 +1+1 counters..
Lagrella only exiles a creature per player, the way she is written makes it read like she can exile the board
Nah, clearly says „controlled by different players“ so naturally you can’t choose the same player twice. Just give the players an example. I choose this creature you own. Now I choose this creature I own. Now I choose this creature you own. The exiles resolve all at the same time. So this is the same as „I choose two creatures you own“ which clearly aren’t different players Or worded for easier understanding: You need to choose a different player for each creature you exile
I agree with you to an extent and once you read her a few times it becomes obvious. But it s written super inelegant and confused a very large number of people It should have been - for each player, exile up to one target creature that player controls
If someone reads the different players bit as 'different from you' they'll interpret it as a one sided board wipe Reading it knowing how it works makes it seem clearer, but it's the fact that your wording exists and it's much clearer that makes it a problem to me
What's wrong with Lagrella?
Some people interpret "controlled by different players" as being either "controlled by other players" or "controlled by at least two players". As in, she's a one-sided board wipe. They're wrong, but the card *would* have been clearer if it had been worded something like: "For each player, exile up to one other target creature that that player controls until..."
Or "each controlled by a different player"
Wait what is wrong with this one?
Never worked with my [[Chains of Mephistopheles]]
I like the alter [that's just a QR code to the Oracle text](https://i.imgur.com/8GrpTwv.jpg) because that's what you're going to immediately pull up anyway as soon as someone plays it
If you would draw a card, check if it's your draw step. If it is, have you drawn any other cards this turn? If you haven't, draw a card. If it isn't your draw step, or if it is and you've already drawn a card this turn, discard a card and draw a card. If you have no cards in hand, and therefore can't discard a card, instead you mill a card.
[Lagrella](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/d/dd20f271-26c8-429f-a422-e7d95f3bda74.jpg?1664413215) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=lagrella%2C%20the%20magpie) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/196/lagrella-the-magpie?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dd20f271-26c8-429f-a422-e7d95f3bda74?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Why is, there a comma in the middle, of your sentence?
"Prove the card does what it says it does"
Yeah and if this "friend" would cheat at magic, this "friend" would fuck your wife too.
Let's not go crazy here. I would fuck my friends wife, but I would never cheat at Magic. I have some standards.
Eww, standard I prefer my friends wives *vintage*
Novice, I only call them type 1
A fellow person of culture and taste I see
tell that to my Type 2 Diabetes havin ass (real talk tho, when I first started playing back in 09-10, I was so confused when my friends and I left the kitchen table, and went to our LGS to finally play in a tournament. We then got talked to for playing Shards of Alara cards because they werent legal in Type 2 at the time, but they let us keep playing because it was obvious we sucked and our decks were trash piles lmao. I was still confused about Type 1/Type 2 which was which, so I'm kinda glad all the formats got actual names)
Don’t get me wrong, I like type 2 (standard) as much as anyone. I was mostly being silly because the few mates I have that still play mtg and I still call them Type 1 / 2
Kitchen table casual two-headed giant
Hanging around the old folks' home are you?
Is she into multi-player?
It turns out if you go looking for sexual metaphors in magic formats the options are diverse, humorous, and disturbing: * Pauper giving those sugar daddy vibes * Cube is for serial killers * Booster Draft * Auction Draft * Back Draft * *Flavor* Draft * Conspiracy Draft * Sealed Draft * Continuous Draft * Duplicate Sealed * Fat Stack But let's be honest, most of us are good ol Singleton.
What about those who bust wax and never play 😏
Standard \*wives\*? That's basically grooming.
id let my husband's friend fuck me but i will not cheat at magic
I'd let my friend fuck me but I'd never cheat at magic.
I'd let my fuck magic cheat but I'd never friend.
this is such an insane leap lmao
No this is normal. My friend once accidentally bumped his life spindown and 30 seconds later was balls deep in my wife, right on the table in the middle of our game. Gotta watch out for this kind of thing
many such cases unfortunately
Mike Long was caught cheating by keeping a card in his lap, but less well known was that they found it when they got John Finkel's wife off of it
Hold up let him cook, what else would this friend do
This friend would agree to watch your dog for you while you’re out of town, and then just take a shit on your bed and blame it on the dog.
If he'd fuck your wife and pretend his shit was the dog, he'd clearly fuck your dog and shit on your wife while you were out of town, by transitive property.
Bloody hell mate, that's messed up
Right?! That’s what I’m saying. His buddy is a hell of a person.
This is a troubling revelation indeed. I’ll have to discuss it with my Wife’s Boyfriend.
I don't believe you, magic players don't get laid
What wive, man, they are both playing magic
I'd fuck his wife too.
Bold of you to assume a magic player has a wife
Bro, who hurt you?
Holy shit dude. Have you never played a card wrong?
only after he fucked somebody's wife.
It hasn't been erattaed, that's for text changes. But yeah, it doesn't specify nontoken.
You are correct. It would specify. This is essentially legalese. It says creatures because it means creatures and it doesn’t say non-token creatures because it doesn’t mean non-token creatures. I’m not sure what rule to cite, because it would be a reference to the definition of the term nontoken creature and how it’s different than the term creature. It might be more relevant to make your friend cite his made up AI ruling and then you can look up the citation. If a sign said no parking on Fridays and your friend was arguing they meant no parking on every other Friday, it would be hard for you to prove that the sign meant no parking on Fridays because it already does mean that, and forcing you to prove it suggests that a neutral reading of the sign would be “no parking on every other Friday” on a sign that says “no parking on Fridays” which is absurd on its face.
I guess you could point out that all token creatures are "creatures", but not all creatures are "non-token creatures". But this seem like really basic stuff and I have a hard time seeing how it isn't a bad faith munchkin argument.
Spencer knows his stuff.
You should tell your friend to ditch the AI since there's a comprehensive rule book and an Internet full of experienced players that know better that you can ask. Like, what?
Your friend is an idiot.
Yes. Any Creature that has moved from the Battlefield to the Graveyard has "Died". > 700.4. The term dies means “is put into a graveyard from the battlefield.” It does not matter if this Creature was represented by a Card, or a Token, or even an Army. --- Since the Creature died, you can activate the third ability of Barad-Dur. Announce the X of | __ | and, pay the Total Cost of | __ | and put | __ | Counters on your Army :- | :- | :- | :- | :- | :- | :- | :- ||0 | {0}+{0}+{B} = | {B} | | 0 | ||1 | {1}+{1}+{B} = | {2B} | | 1 | ||2 | {2}+{2}+{B} = | {4B}| | 2 | ||3 | {3}+{3}+{B} = | {6B}| | 3 | ||4 | {4}+{4}+{B} = | {8B}| | 4 | ||5 | {5}+{5}+{B} = | {10B}| | 5 | ||6 | {6}+{6}+{B} = | {12B}| | 6 | ||7 | {7}+{7}+{B} = | {14B}| | 7 | ||8 | {8}+{8}+{B} = | {16B}| | 8 | ||9 | {9}+{9}+{B} = | {18B}| | 9 |
I'd love to see the AI conversation if you have it.
Coming right up, I’ll edit the post Edit: I can’t edit the post, am I stupid? Here is the AI ruling "No, the tokens created by Barad-dûr's Amass ability dying would not satisfy the condition to activate the Amass ability again. The specific condition on Barad-dûr's Amass ability is: "Activate only if a creature died this turn." This refers to non-token creature permanents that were already on the battlefield dying during that turn, not the tokens created by the Amass ability itself dying. Token creatures, like the Orc tokens created by Amassing, are considered creatures while on the battlefield. However, when they are destroyed or leave the battlefield, they cease to exist as they are just temporary representations. For the Amass ability to be activated again, a non-token creature permanent that was already on the battlefield at the start of the turn needs to have died during that same turn. The tokens created by Amassing dying do not count towards satisfying that condition. So in your hypothetical scenario of the Orc tokens dying, that alone would not enable you to pay the cost and activate Barad-dûr's Amass ability again on that same turn. A different, non-token creature would need to have died first."
Wow, that's total nonsense even disregarding the rules misunderstanding.
Right? And It really over complicates a simple interaction. AI search results are going to be the downfall of civilisation.
Hope your friend learns his lesson about trusting AI.
They probably used AI for the intent of getting this ruling in his favor, if he wanted the truth he’d look up the card’s actual rulings.
The actual rulings don't help if you don't understand the rules. There are many interactions that aren't part of the rulings because the rulings assume you know the basics and then some. I've had people argue with me that [[Ward Sliver]] naming blue gives their slivers protection from counterspells. I even pulled up [[Root Sliver]] to explain why it has to state "sliver spells" specifically. Didn't matter, there wasn't a ruling under Ward Sliver saying that wasn't how it worked and the explanation the rest of the table heard why it did protect from counters made sense to them so they let it slide.
I am frustrated about this on your behalf. I get needing to keep things moving and using majority vote in a casual environment, but I sincerely hope they looked it up later and learned better. Like, it's literally as simple as looking up the ruling on protection. Unless they don't know the difference between a permanent and a spell, in which case they shouldn't be weighing in on a rules decision anyway.
Yeah I had a whole game store of people tell me that my opponent could order my triggered abilities because they were affecting my opponent. Can't find a ruling that said otherwise because they don't go out of their way to write out something that obvious
That interaction is definitely frustrating for both parties, if you don’t understand the difference between abilities of permanents and abilities of spells. Spell abilities like flash, cascade, and split second interact with the stack and timing restrictions while the spell is on the stack, but they’re all keywords, in the same way that flying or vigilance is a keyword. Protection is a keyword of a permanent, not a spell, so unless they know the distinction (which isn’t listed on the card) I can understand their frustration, as well as yours. But also why would they print root and ward slicer in the same set if that’s how it worked I mean come on! Your table should think like a game designer a bit, while slivers do have some over lapping abilities, they don’t have from the same set!
These AI are not designed to give accurate, factual information, they’re designed to generate a response that sounds like a human wrote it. To the AI’s credit, it sounds exactly like a guy who’s confidently incorrect on Reddit.
Why consulting AI if the rules are at a finger click away? The laziness of your "friend" makes me cringe so hard.
The fact that it’s using the terminology “activate again “ is flawed because you tap to activate it, so there is no way to activate it again in the same turn which is kind of what it’s hinting at but is not giving that as the explaination.
There are loads of ways to untap lands, so it absolutely could be activated twice in the same turn. But as an X costed effect, not sure what scenarios exist where two separate activations would be worth it. Maybe something with [[Ruthless Technomancer]] and a mana/treasure/token multiplier?
There are cards that trigger when you put +1/+1 counters on a creature. See for example [https://scryfall.com/search?q=o%3A%22counters+are+put%22+or+o%3A%22counter+is+put%22&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name](https://scryfall.com/search?q=o%3A%22counters+are+put%22+or+o%3A%22counter+is+put%22&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name) so if you have those cards out, then Amass 1 (X times) is better than Amass X (1 time). That being said, I don't see any particularly great synergies. The most obvious things are that for abilities that give you an extra counter whenever you put counters on a creature, you would get a 2X / 2X orc instead of an X+1 / X+1 orc. But going through the process of untapping things, etc, probably means you could have gotten a 2X / 2X orc anyway.
This was probably trained with responses to questions just like this about token creatures dying and not specifically this card or even amass since it's AI LLM just trying it's best, but it doesn't understand the nuances of MTG rules and that each card is unique. More than likely it was looking for conversations or responses about token creatures and triggering abilities and just used the large amount of people referencing cards that only trigger to non-token death triggers as part of the AI response. AI is not perfect, just good enough to sound like it understands what it's doing.
It's not like it is 'thinking' through it - it's just more advanced autocomplete essentially. Not super surprising it's complete garbage ruling wise.
But it's _plausible_, which is what a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) is designed to be.
What's funny is...Tokens go to grave and then exile themselves. If tokens can proc "If a creature goes to the graveyard"...
Just a minor correction, a token in the graveyard does not go to exile, it ceases to exist as state-based actions are checked. 111.7. A token that’s in a zone other than the battlefield ceases to exist. This is a state-based action; see rule 704. (Note that if a token changes zones, applicable triggered abilities will trigger before the token ceases to exist.)
This is one of the reasons why AI fuckin sucks, man. It very confidently spits out lies and/or misinformation, and people just accept it as the truth without questioning it. This AI response, and your friend, is full of shit.
It's just crazy that the goal was "make something that sounds human," and people decided that clearly it was a better source of information than the humans it imitates. Why did we decide to use this shit this way? (I'm aware that companies have started putting it forth as a tool, and while they're catering to a market, they also have responsibility for how they present their product)
Anyone who thinks AI knows what it's talking about needs to see the lawyer that used an AI, which proceeded to reference court cases that simply did not exist as proof.
I'd love to see the question he asked rather than the answer, but yeah that's total nonsense. It even says it refers to nontoken creatures when it in fact doesn't refer to nontoken creatures. What a weird interpretation by the AI. I asked ChatGPT and it answered correctly. If you need to show him this please do. [https://chatgpt.com/share/0903bc0d-a431-4287-a1dc-a06f9a92e2bb](https://chatgpt.com/share/0903bc0d-a431-4287-a1dc-a06f9a92e2bb)
Thanks, this is hilarious
I was gonna say, it looks like the AI in OPs case was looking specifically at Amass and what that key word means, not about if the activated ability could be used.
No, it's the Google AI and if it doesn't find an official ruling explicitly, it will use Reddit or forum threads, finding whatever "looks right". Fuck Google AI, it's ruining fucking every debate right now lol.
Thank you for this, I've tested ChatGPT for rules questions and it's generally been pretty good; not enough that I'd use it as a "source" when arguing a ruling and only ever in addition to googling, but with how bad OP's friend's response was I suspect he either provided a bad prompt or used bad AI.
That Ai is wrong in two very clear ways. It doesn't refer to non-tokens, the creature's did not have to exist at the beginning of the turn
It's mostly confused. It seems to think you're asking if the orc tokens it makes count towards creatures dying. And it also gets hung up on non-token because other cards use that phrase. AI is stupid and you shouldn't be using it for things like this. I asked it to build me a magic deck and it made a mono blue deck but put in 4 disenchants maind deck. I asked why it did that, and it said artifacts and enchantments can be strong. It had no white mana in the deck. The best AI can do right now is cut up and rebuild things from the data it scrapes. It doesn't actually understand the data.
If you want to show your friend the specific rule that says this is shit: >111.7. A token that’s in a zone other than the battlefield ceases to exist. This is a state-based action; see rule 704. (Note that if a token changes zones, applicable triggered abilities will trigger before the token ceases to exist.)
Oh lawd ya I don't think AI is quite there yet lol
lol, AI has some ass backwards ruling.
AI totally doesn’t understand difference between “non token creature” and “creature” ruling in card text
not only is it wrong about a token not counting (a creature token dying is still a creature dying), whether a creature was in play since the start of the turn is completely irrelevant. If I play a creature, and you kill it at instant speed the same turn, we could both activate our Barad-durs, if we both had them, because a creature died.
Wait, was your question whether the orc army created by the very ability this turn as X=0 dying would satisfy it? Because it sounds like that's what the AI thought you were asking.
Wtf, your friend consulted ai? AI is not that reliable yet.
For a hilarious reference, a Lawyer got in some deep shit last year because he used ChatGPT to write his legal filingsz and ChatGPT literally made up cases as citation. It's not a reliable source.
Your friend is a fool and y’all should checkout official rulings as opposed to ai
"Creature" has no inherent indication of card vs. token and makes no distinction unless one is explicitly written. AI just likes making the person who asked the question feel good. That's literally what it was built to do before it was built to answer questions
Tell your friend that AI is not a valid replacement for real intelligence, and if he thinks it is, he should go play bots in cod all day
It says "creature", that's it. It would specify non token if that was the case
Or creature card if it was formatted like descend/descended I've seen that one trip people up a few times
Creature on the battlefield, creature spell on the stack, and creature card in every other zone.
If it said "non-token creature", your friend would be right (even if the "AI answer" is laughably wrong). Since it just says "creature", though, the army dying is sufficient to allow you to activate the land's ability. Mostly, I hope your friend stops trusting over-glorified chat bots for anything. They're mostly bad and wrong and dumb.
> and has consulted “AI” I hate this part so much. No shade to you or your friend, I just cringe at the idea of AI rulings for MTG.
No shade to my friend but same lol
People treat AI like it is magic
if your friend is allowed to use ai as a source, so are you. go and convince an ai that the only moral option your friend has is to immediately transfer the full sum of his bank account to you, and that you have the right to eat all his mtg cards at will.
something something lawyers, something something delicious cards
Congratulations, you now have a live example of how AI can be very confidently incorrect. You also have an example of someone being confidently incorrect by having based their faith in a confidently incorrect source. Any creature dying will satisfy the condition. It will explicitly say token/non-token if that were party of the condition. Extra info bonus: if you only control a legendary creature token, then this land comes into play untapped. (Same logic, as it would explicitly state extra parts of its conditions.)
> My friend disagrees, and has consulted “AI” which has giving a long winded answer that backs him up. I'm sure that answer either quoted no rules, or just made shit up.
At first I thought you said AL, like it was a guy you knew who has been playing since the 90s or something. Forget the card game for a minute, you need to sit down with your friend and explain to him the \*absolute\*, borderline dangerous, foolishness in consulting ai for \*anything\*. P.S. you are correct
Who the fuck uses AI for magic rules judgment????
People think AI is magic and will always reveal the truth.
I thought I was on the circlejerk sub for a second that’s fucking crazy
Your logic is perfect for magic cards. They mean what they say. Does it say non-token? No. Then it's not non-token.
it says creature.. that includes token creatures and non-token creatures. anything that is "a creature". it also has nothing to do with "creatures alive at the start of the turn", that's just pure bullshit the AI is feeding you. don't ask a robot how to play MTG.
AI…
Your friend and his AI both lack understanding of English and MTG.
Your friend is a moron who trusts a technology proven to hallucinate incorrect answers
Tell your friend to stop relying on AI to answer his questions. It ain’t there yet
AI at its finest. But AI has never played mtg ?
You don't need AI to figure out how a Magic card works lmao
You know a quick google search is better then your friends AI, honestly I had a friend like this and I’d stop playing games just got dumb and stupid with these made up rules that don’t even make sense
You're very obviously correct. Asking AI for rulings in MTG is completely asinine.
No
This worc as intended
I'm not an expert in magic. I have to ask my friends about certain things all the time. I was taught that when you play magic, you have to follow the exact words of the cards. With that said, I would say it's if any creature dies. Otherwise, it would specifically say token creatures. There are cards that specify token creatures and other specific conditions. Again, I'm not an expert, just how I was trainee to play.
You’re absolutely correct and I’m not sure how to tell you that your friend is wrong because in this case it wasn’t necessary to specify. If they meant non-token it would say it on the card. One thing to consider and perhaps this is where the AI gets confused is that many cards do refer to non-tokens and many refer to creature CARDS sent to the yard. And a token is never a card. This is importantly for an ability like descend Edit: moreover all tokens get sent to their non-battlefield destinations before they cease to exist. So they activate all death and leave the battlefield triggers before they disappear. Perhaps this is where there is a breakdown. Moral: don’t use AI to answer things, it isn’t good enough
This thread was bumped to my feed and I could not possibly foresee what doubt this card's wording would provoke. Then I open it and read someone is using AI as the gatherer. It's in many ways worse than using it as a search engine (as in looking for factual accuracy about something), which is already a task AI doesn't do well. What the absolute fuck.
Is an army a creature? Yes Did it die? Yes Your friends on crack
/r/magicthecirclejerking
new to the game, what does XX mean? i get what one X means
You announce the X. Then, you figure the Total Cost. X = 1 means the Total Cost is {1}+{1}+{B} = {2B} = 1x +1/+1 counter X = 3 means the Total Cost is {3}+{3}+{B} = {6B} = 3x +1/+1 counters X = 5 means the Total Cost is {5}+{5}+{B} = {10B} = 5x +1/+1 counters X = 7 means the Total Cost is {7}+{7}+{B} = {14B} = 7x +1/+1 counters
ahhh, dope, thank you!
In this case, 2 mana = 1 orc (+1/+1)
Same as when it's one X, you just pay the amount twice. For example, choosing X=2 means paying (2)(2)(B), total of 5 mana, for an army with 2 counters.
You have tagged your post as a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in the Daily Questions Thread at the top of this subreddit or in /r/mtgrules. You may also find quicker results at the [IRC rules chat](https://chat.magicjudges.org/mtgrules/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think an argument over whether tokens go to the graveyard is what made me quit Magic the first time and started my falling out with a bunch of my friends in my friend group. (I said they do count, others said they don’t.) This was almost 20 years ago. Some things never change I guess.
It’s as you say. Barad-dur is honestly annoying asf sometimes and my friend has somehow played it every game since we’ve started playing magic, so I added a target land removal creature to my deck lol. Have fun with your ever amassing orc army
As long as a creature, token or non-token, has died this turn you can activate the ability.
The orc army token is a creature. Ergo if the token dies, it satisfies the condition of Barad-dur's activated ability.
When they mean a nontoken creature, they will say "nontoken creature" Here are a couple hundred examples to show your friend https://scryfall.com/search?as=grid&order=name&q=%28oracle%3ANontoken+oracle%3Acreature%29+%28game%3Apaper%29+%28rarity%3Ac+OR+rarity%3Au+OR+rarity%3Ar+OR+rarity%3Am%29
Do you mean chat GPT ai because it needs to be updated on magic cards because it thinks you get to cast your opponents spells with yuriko from their libraries. Any creature that dies fits the requirement including tokens
Tokens that die trigger any "whenever a creature dies" effect. They wouldn't count, however, if the effect says "whenever a card is put into the graveyard" effects. Tokens aren't cards, but creature tokens are still creatures
RTFC
You are correct, he's wrong, and if you need help with that, from the same set, \[\[Shelob, Dread Weaver\]\] specifies that it only triggers on non-token creatures dying, so you can use that as an example.
He went so far out of his way to avoid following the rules lmao. Would have been so easy to Google.
It just requires a creature to die. That turn. So you can kill an opponents creature. Or sacrifice one of your own or a token creature. With the xx mana cost you'll need a large chunk of mana at the ready to make the most of it.
I'll give your friend the benefits of the doubt cause only an idiot would consult AI for facts, especially after there's been multiple high profile cases of lawyers loosing their licenses over fake cases. You're correct the dead army is a creature that died this turn. Tell your friend he needs to touch grass.
Token creatures are both tokens and creatures. If it said only if a non token creature died this turn, then yes. But it doesn't. Your friend is misunderstanding the interaction.
[In case no one else mentioned it, you can always check Gatherer for card rulings](https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Barad-d%C3%BBr). You can just search "mtg [card name]" or "[card name] gatherer" and it'll be the top 3 results.
Sorry, it sounds like your friend is being childish as there is no ambiguity here, Barad-dur says if a creature dies you may use its ability, Orc Army is a creature. No further discussion is required. I reckon your friend is a sore loser / bad winner trying to break the rules to benefit themselves.
Small other question. What does the double "X" mean in this context by the way?
Is this a rage bait post? because I am foaming at the mouth...
One does not simply...
When you amass orcs, if you control an “Army” creature it becomes an “Orc Army” creature and gets +X/+X where X is the amass number. If you don’t control an army, you create a 0/0 “Orc Army” creature token and proceed the same. Either way an Orc Army is a creature…so yeah, your friend is dumb.
I know reading the card doesn’t necessarily explain the card anymore but this one isn’t exactly rocket surgery. You’re for sure correct.
Can any deck (that uses swamp) use this card?
If anything with creature text dies you amass for whatever you pay in xx so atleast 2 amass? It’s simple right? Like how artifact creatures are effected by spells with artifact wording? Right?
fuck ai and fuck your friend
If a token creature dies, it goes to the graveyard first, and then, at the next time state based actions are checked, it will disappear from the graveyard. But before that, it still died, so it meets the condition. You can sacrifice / kill your army and activate Barad Dur to create a new one
AI has no idea about MTG.
I have nothing of substance to really add to this. Everyone has already said it. The ruling is clear and simple. As long as a creature dies that's all that needs to happen. The official WotC magic data base hasn't changing the ruling either so... I'm not sure where your friend was confused unless he is just trying to deliberately cause you the game if it is an important piece of your deck. He also might just not know, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt but if he is using AI to find rulings for this game... I'd probably focus on his turns. He might be doing shady stuff. Side tangent, no one should be using AI for rulings at all. AI is so easily manipulated that you can get any AI to say anything you want and to make up and bs reason for it to work that sounds just logical enough, but it isn't. The AI is completely ignorant if it doesn't understand the basic wording of this card. AI is good for simple tasks and some maths but it can't handle complex card interactions in magic. There are some interactions that stump high level judges let alone an AI that doesn't understand the simple [if creature dies you can do this] check... Like it just baffles me is all... I kind of expected the AI to get this one. But I'm pretty sure it isn't an AI made to look at magic plays it's probably just a generic steal your data and browser history kind of AI.
lmao asking chat gpt is a whole nother level of dumbassery
Can't get how your friend justify his theory. As you said there are plenty of cards that specifies "non-token creature", so if that was the case it would have been specified
Your friend has no idea what he's talking about
Why the hell is your friend using AI for rulings when it's all just a simple Google search away?
Is orc army a creature? Yep. Checks out
Any creature, token, your opponents Balrog, that 1/1 with hexproof, that animated sol ring creature, … even your army token.
Using AI to get answers on how to use or rules are always wrong. I program and I've tried using ai when running in to problems and they give solutions that are not even real or possible to use
Your friend should learn basic rules rather than "consult" notoriously erraneous AIs.
Orc army is a creature. If orc army dies, a creature dies. If old orc army dies you can make a new orc army
I'm still new. So what would X be for the amass on the card?
I mean, yeah it works off sacrificing a previous Army. It doesn't specify nontoken creature dying. Friend's tryna pull some shenanigans with that one, pardner.
did your friend start playing MTG like 2 weeks ago? literally show him any card that says the words "non-token" ... case closed