rule question

[joemuz]

attention rules experts! i need your help understanding how a card works. the card is cleansing. it's oracle text is:

For each land, destroy that land unless any player pays 1 life.

how is this handled? do you go land by land and ask each player if they want to save that particular land? if so, who goes first? or is it something like players alternate saving lands or "passing" until there are 2 consecutive passes. if THAT'S the case, who goes first? or is it done in a completely different way? thanks.

[Marek14]

It's the first one. For each land, all players are asked. It's always the active player who is asked first.

[jatill]

It's the first one. For each land, all players are asked. It's always the active player who is asked first.

To further clarify, the active player is asked about every one of their lands before the other player is asked at all.

[Marek14]

It's the first one. For each land, all players are asked. It's always the active player who is asked first.

To further clarify, the active player is asked about every one of their lands before the other player is asked at all.

Every one of THEIR lands? Everyone should be asked about all lands...

[jatill]

It's the first one. For each land, all players are asked. It's always the active player who is asked first.

To further clarify, the active player is asked about every one of their lands before the other player is asked at all.

Every one of THEIR lands? Everyone should be asked about all lands...

You're right. If I ever get around to adding the "don't be stupid flag" for config, I'd only ask about your own lands

[Marek14]

You're right. If I ever get around to adding the "don't be stupid flag" for config, I'd only ask about your own lands

Not necessarily. Imagine, for example, that an opponent's land has Cursed Land on it. Wouldn't you be willing to pay 1 life to keep it hurting?

[jatill]

You're right. If I ever get around to adding the "don't be stupid flag" for config, I'd only ask about your own lands

Not necessarily. Imagine, for example, that an opponent's land has Cursed Land on it. Wouldn't you be willing to pay 1 life to keep it hurting?

The "Don't be stupid" flag would assume that you're not in the < 1% of cases where stuff like that comes up.

[joemuz]

You're right. If I ever get around to adding the "don't be stupid flag" for config, I'd only ask about your own lands

Not necessarily. Imagine, for example, that an opponent's land has Cursed Land on it. Wouldn't you be willing to pay 1 life to keep it hurting?

or how about 4 Cursed Lands on it

that reminds me of this utterly stupid stupid deck i once made with 4x cursed land, wanderlust, feedback, warp artifact, psychic venom, etc. really really dumb but i was bored (don't laugh, i know you've all made it before too! )

anyway, marek14, to be sure, it's this, right?

player A asked about Land #1
player A asked about Land #2
player A asked about Land #3
...
player A asked about Land #last
player B asked about Land #1
player B asked about Land #2
...
player B asked about Land #last


and NOT this way:

player A asked about Land #1
player B asked about Land #1
player A asked about Land #2
player B asked about Land #2
...
player A asked about Land #last
player B asked about Land #last

[Marek14]

Frankly, I'm not 100% sure here, but the rule 608.2e seems to say so.

608.2e Some spells and abilities have multiple steps or actions, denoted by separate sentences or clauses, that involve multiple players. In these cases, the choices for the first action are made in APNAP order, and then the first action is processed simultaneously. Then the choices for the second action are made in APNAP order, and then that action is processed simultaneously, and so on. See rule 101.4.

[jatill]

joemuz-
Your above post is exactly right.

[Incantus]

player A asked about Land #1
player B asked about Land #1
player A asked about Land #2
player B asked about Land #2
...
player A asked about Land #last
player B asked about Land #last

Based on my reading of the card text, this is the correct way. You go through each land, ask all the players (in APNAP order) if they want to pay 1 life to save it, otherwise it will be destroyed (all lands to be destroyed will be destroyed at the same time - ie their owners will be able to order them in as they enter their respective graveyards).

[joemuz]

disagreement hmmm.... the second way i listed does seem more fair (in the sense that player A's actions and player B's actions are alternated as opposed to one player's actions all done before the other. the actual advantage is probably not much but it still seems more "fair" to have them alternate.) but for logistical purposes, is anything compromised if it's done this way?

player A goes first chooses to save any land or passes.
player B then chooses to save any land or passes.
player A then chooses to save any land or passes.
etc.

when there are 2 consecutive passes, the remaining lands are destroyed.

in other words, does this method lose any consistency as compared to going through every single land for both players? i wonder if wizards has ever addressed this card specifically.