Just checking that I understand rule 500.8 correctly:

500.8. Some effects can add phases to a turn. They do this by adding the phases directly after the specified phase. If multiple extra phases are created after the same phase, the most recently created phase will occur first.

If multiple effects add extra phases before the current ones is over, these phases will run one after the other, right? If Medomai the Ageless attacks alone while Finest Hour is on the battlefield and then deals damage, I'll get two extra combat phases?


Obviously I had a big brainfart, but I guess the question was answered anyway. For a more practical example with extra turns, it's safe to assume that if I connect with both Medomai and Wanderwine Prophets (and sacrifice a merfolk), I'll get two extra turns?

  • 3
    Did you maybe mean something like Aurelia? Medomai gives an extra turn, not a combat phase.
    – Cascabel
    Feb 20, 2014 at 6:05

1 Answer 1


Medomai adds turns, not phases, so the rule you quoted isn't really necessary. Assuming no blockers, here's what happens:

  • Medomai attacks on your turn. Finest Hour's abilities trigger.
  • You can stack Finest Hour's abilities in either order. Assuming no other actions, Medomai is now 5/5 and there is now a combat phase after the current combat phase.
  • Medomai deals damage. Medomai's ability triggers, so you take an extra turn after this one.
  • You get another combat phase. Medomai attacks again, gaining another Exalted trigger.
  • Medomai deals damage. Medomai triggers and you get another turn after this one (and before the other extra turn, not that it matters)
  • You take two consecutive turns in which Medomai can't attack. Each of those turns can get a bonus combat phase from Finest Hour if you have non-Medomai creatures to attack with.
  • The reason that the placement of the second extra turn matters is that an opponent could steal control of or more commonly copy Medomai's triggered ability. I can't think of a card that does this off of the top of my head, though.
    – Rainbolt
    Feb 20, 2014 at 14:18
  • @John well yeah, basically anything could matter if you stipulate the presence of a card that will make it matter. A more pertinent example might be if someone activates Mindslaver between the two combat steps. Feb 20, 2014 at 14:46
  • On the contrary, anything could not matter if you stipulate the absence of relevant cards from your opponent. Rather than add another assumption to the beginning of a false statement to make it true, why not remove the false statement?
    – Rainbolt
    Feb 20, 2014 at 15:49
  • @John: It's a reasonable default assumption that cards not explicitly mentioned are absent. Last I checked the test to become a judge operates under this assumption. Feb 20, 2014 at 16:38
  • 1
    @John: As I recall, however, there were plenty of questions along the lines of "You have X Grizzly Bears in play and your opponent casts Pyroclasm. How big is your Lhurgoyf?" And no one feels the need to preface every "You would win the game" with "unless you have Abyssal Persecutor" in play. The specific cards mentioned to not care in what order OP takes the extra turns. And I even specifically mentioned what order the turns are in despite it not generally mattering, so the reader can easily extrapolate for a different game state when it does matter. Feb 20, 2014 at 17:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .