drown

[exid]

the card says "upkeep +x" does it mean that the creature gains the trait upkeep +x?

and does it work with sistarran robes? ("when an oponent pays mana because of an effect you contrôle")

[Halewijn]

No, it means that the drown itself has upkeep +X just like force hold has upkeep +3. 

It has no interaction with sistarran robes since the caster of drown will have to pay the upkeep.

[exid]

ok!!!
and suffocate is a condition! (I now found it in the rules)

thanks!

[Beldin]

ok!!!
and suffocate is a condition! (I now found it in the rules)

thanks!

Also remember that the suffocation conditions go on the drown card and are removed when it is destroyed.

[Santar]

Drow is an affect on creature. And timing WHEN this effect work chose creature's controller.

But I chose, in which order I pay upkeep and add 1 marker.
For example: I reveal Drow and then pay 0 mana for 1st upkeep, then it get 1st token (-2 HP for creature).
2nd upkeep: I pay 1 mana and add 2nd token (-4 HP)
3d upkeep: I pay 2 mana and then add 3d token (-6 HP)
4th upkeep: If Drown's creature was KotRH (3 armor 8 HP) I choose first add 4th token (-8 HP) and creature destroy. So I didn't pay 4th upkeep. And kill this creature for 2+1+0+1+2=6 mana, yes?

[exid]

during each upkeep drown affects itself (under your controle) for the marker and the upkeep, so you can choose the order (pay befor put a new marker).
each marker affects the creature, it  will take 1 damage for each (doesn't matter if it arrives during the upkeep).

so I think you're correct.

[DaveW]

Drow is an affect on creature. And timing WHEN this effect work chose creature's controller.

But I chose, in which order I pay upkeep and add 1 marker.
For example: I reveal Drow and then pay 0 mana for 1st upkeep, then it get 1st token (-2 HP for creature).
2nd upkeep: I pay 1 mana and add 2nd token (-4 HP)
3d upkeep: I pay 2 mana and then add 3d token (-6 HP)
4th upkeep: If Drown's creature was KotRH (3 armor 8 HP) I choose first add 4th token (-8 HP) and creature destroy. So I didn't pay 4th upkeep. And kill this creature for 2+1+0+1+2=6 mana, yes?

This sounds contrary in spirit to the rules on another enchantment that was discussed a long while ago (forget which one right off). The ruling that we got was that for the creature to be affected by the spell, the upkeep had to be paid in the same turn. Might have been force crush or something.... Does this ring a bell? If so, is Drown supposed to be handled differently?

[exid]

This sounds contrary in spirit to the rules on another enchantment that was discussed a long while ago (forget which one right off). The ruling that we got was that for the creature to be affected by the spell, the upkeep had to be paid in the same turn. Might have been force crush or something.... Does this ring a bell? If so, is Drown supposed to be handled differently?

Was it Whirlpool?
Whirlpool damages the creatures directly, what brings a timing issue (player with initiative must choose). Drown doesn't (the markers damages the creature), I see no timing issue here.

[Zuberi]

The important thing is that you're adding the Suffocate Markers to the Drown enchantment rather than to the creature. Thus, it is the enchantment that is being affected, and the controller of the enchantment that gets to decide when the markers are added. So they could indeed choose to add the Suffocate marker before paying the upkeep cost. Whenever the Suffocate marker is added, the creature loses 2 Life.

This is probably most similar to Death Link where a single effect seems to be affecting objects controlled by both players. Just like with Death Link, it's important to recognize that these are not two separate effects though. Adding the Suffocate marker and the creature losing 2 Life are a single effect that can not be separated from each other. They have to happen simultaneously. You can't add the marker, pay the upkeep, and THEN have the creature lose life. So, if the controller of the enchantment adds the Suffocate before paying upkeep, there is no recourse for the creature's controller to prevent destruction (barring other effects like healing or life gain).

[DaveW]

The important thing is that you're adding the Suffocate Markers to the Drown enchantment rather than to the creature. Thus, it is the enchantment that is being affected, and the controller of the enchantment that gets to decide when the markers are added. So they could indeed choose to add the Suffocate marker before removing the Dissipate marker. Whenever the Suffocate marker is added, the creature loses 2 Life.

This is probably most similar to Death Link where a single effect seems to be affecting objects controlled by both players. Just like with Death Link, it's important to recognize that these are not two separate effects though. Adding the Suffocate marker and the creature losing 2 Life are a single effect that can not be separated from each other. They have to happen simultaneously. You can't add the marker, remove the dissipate, and THEN have the creature lose life. So, if the controller of the enchantment adds the Suffocate before removing the Dissipate, there is no recourse for the creature's controller to prevent destruction (barring other effects like healing or life gain).

That is exactly the difference... it is the enchantment control, rather than creature control. Thanks... it makes sense now.

[exid]

yet not clear for me...

I understand that the loss of life on the creature is simultaneous to the new marker on the enchantment (I thought suffocate would damage the creautre... bad reading...).
So it's important to know if the upkeep is paied befor or after the loss of life: to diferent controler! shouldn't the player with initiative decide?

[iNano78]

yet not clear for me...

I understand that the loss of life on the creature is simultaneous to the new marker on the enchantment (I thought suffocate would damage the creautre... bad reading...).
So it's important to know if the upkeep is paied befor or after the loss of life: to diferent controler! shouldn't the player with initiative decide?

No one gets to decide when the creature loses life. The controller of Drown chooses the order of paying the upkeep and when a Suffocate marker gets added. The creature always has -2 Life (trait) for each Suffocate marker on Drown at all times.

[Beldin]

You always choose the order in which events that affect your creatures and objects occur during this phase. In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order.

Example: You control a Highland Unicorn with the Regenerate 2 trait that has a Burn marker on it. Since the creature has a lot of damage on it, the Burn effect could destroy it. You can choose to resolve the Regenerate trait first or the Burn condition first.

I would say that you can replace the burn effect here with the drown card as both are a timing issue that is resolved by initiative.

So as long as you have initiative and a trait to resolve as well, like Regenerate X, you can choose which resolves first.

Otherwise this passes to the other player and they choose in what order they resolve the effects of the drown. They can choose to place the life -2 counter before paying upkeep, if you creature is destroyed after this counter is placed then both cards are placed in their players own discard, and the upkeep no longer has to be paid as the Drown is no longer in play; otherwise they choose whether to pay the upkeep or not after that.

[jacksmack]

I would say that you can replace the burn effect here with the drown card as both are a timing issue that is resolved by initiative.

This is wrong.

Suffocate is added to drown and not the creature. (which is very very weird considered enchantment transfusion or Shift enchantment).

[Borg]

You always choose the order in which events that affect your creatures and objects occur during this phase. In the rare case that a timing issue occurs, the player with the initiative decides the order.

Example: You control a Highland Unicorn with the Regenerate 2 trait that has a Burn marker on it. Since the creature has a lot of damage on it, the Burn effect could destroy it. You can choose to resolve the Regenerate trait first or the Burn condition first.

I would say that you can replace the burn effect here with the drown card as both are a timing issue that is resolved by initiative.

That is not correct.

The Burn and regenerate are effects that are controlled by the controller of the Unicorn, thus he can resolve them in the order that he wants.

The Drown effect however is controlled by the other player, not by the player controlling the creature.

Thus, suppose the Unicorn player has initiative :
Unicorn controller resolves any effects he controls like Burn or regenerate first.
Then, opposing player decides the order and how to resolve the Drown effects ( pay first or put a marker first )

Seems I've been ninja'd already by jacksmack while still typing this