MtG and AK questions
Chris Martell
We were having a four player game of Magic last night, using both the
standard cards and the Arabian Knights expansion. During the play of the game,
several questions came up regarding proper play. Following is a list of them,
and, where applicable, what we did in each situation. Some of these were
just theoretical questions, the situations didn't actually come up.
This message is being posted both in NewsNet, and being sent directly to
WOTC. All answers or thoughts on these questions would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.
1. Does the {Khabal Ghoul}, which gains +1/+1 for every unregenerated
creature, get these permently or temporarily. That is, if injured, will the
Ghoul return to its previous maximum at the begining of the player's next turn?
We decided that it would.
2. Does {Volcanic Island} or {Underground Sea} count as an island when
{Tsunami} is palyed? Likewise, does {Karma} affect {Underground Sea} or
{Badlands}?
3. Would {Oasis} protect against damage caused by {Weakness}?
4. Would {Volcanic Island} or {Underground Sea} count as islands for the
{Sea Serpent} or the {Island Fish Jaconis}?
5. Can you use {Maruf's Ring} on a card which has been disintegrated
during this game?
6. If {Shaharazad} (the AK card taht causes a subgame to be played) were
used, could {Maruf's Ring} be used to take a card from the parent game?
7. Does an entire band gain the first strike advantage if one card has it?
How about if one card in the band has first strike via {Lance}, rather than as
an ability?
8. If a card is protected by a {Green Ward} is it affected by {Growth}?
We said no. Likewise, would it be affected by {Fog}? We said it would, since
{Fog} is indirect.
9. This is a question regarding the convention of declaring all attacks
against one opponent, then allowing them to declare defense, instead of doing
it one by one. A player declared all attacks, defenses were declared, and
damage was dealt. The player then cast {Instill Energy} on one of the tapped
cards, and untapped it. Could he then use this card in an attack AGAIN,
against the same opponent, or would that be considered unconventional, since
the attacks should all be declared at once?
10. Does every use of a blue enchantment count as a blue spell (for the
purposes of the {Crystal Rod}?
11. Do Howling Mines compound their effects? We assumed that they did.
12. The AK card {Island of Wak-Wak} does not specify that its effects last
only until the end of the turn. Is this a permanent effect?
13. The AK card {Aladdin} does not specify that the ability can only be used
once at a time, or that {Aladdin} can only hold one artifact. Could {Aladdin}
continue to grab aritifacts continually, as long as the mana were paid each
time?
14. Can you {Raise Dead} a {Rukh Egg}? Would it come back as an egg or
as a Rukh. What about using the AK card {Animate Dead}?
15. Could you {Raise Dead} a {Khabal Ghoul}? Would it come back as 1/1,
or at its previous maximum?
16. Could you use a card that changes a card's colour on an artifact?
17. Could you {Clone} an artifact creature?
Thank you again for thinking about these questions.
--
--------------------------------^--------------------------------
Chris Martell, netmail: | "Call thou no man fortunate
ud...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca | until he be dead." - anon.
--------------------------------*--------------------------------
Badger
Chris Martell <ud...@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA> wrote:
>
> We were having a four player game of Magic last night, using both the
>standard cards and the Arabian Knights expansion. During the play of the game,
>several questions came up regarding proper play. Following is a list of them,
>and, where applicable, what we did in each situation. Some of these were
>just theoretical questions, the situations didn't actually come up.
> This message is being posted both in NewsNet, and being sent directly to
>WOTC. All answers or thoughts on these questions would be greatly appreciate
>
>1. Does the {Khabal Ghoul}, which gains +1/+1 for every unregenerated
>creature, get these permently or temporarily. That is, if injured, will the
>We decided that it would.
These tokens are permanent untill the Ghoul is sent to the graveyard
himself(without being regenerated)
>
>2. Does {Volcanic Island} or {Underground Sea} count as an island when
>{Tsunami} is palyed? Likewise, does {Karma} affect {Underground Sea} or
>{Badlands}?
>
I'm assuming these are multi-lands. In that case, a multi land
counts for BOTH land types in all cases of something happening
to you if you have land of type X or to the land if it is type X.
>3. Would {Oasis} protect against damage caused by {Weakness}?
No. Weakness is not doing "damage" to the creature, it is
lowering the creatures toughness permanently(or at least, as long
as the weakness is on the creature)
>
>4. Would {Volcanic Island} or {Underground Sea} count as islands for the
>{Sea Serpent} or the {Island Fish Jaconis}?
>
Again, if it is multi-land which provides mana of 2 colors(X, and Y)
anything which affects lands that produce mana of type X affect the multi-land
as well.
>5. Can you use {Maruf's Ring} on a card which has been disintegrated
>during this game?
>
No idea, what is Maruf's Ring?
>6. If {Shaharazad} (the AK card taht causes a subgame to be played) were
>used, could {Maruf's Ring} be used to take a card from the parent game?
>
The subgame cannot draw upon anything from the parent game.
It is self-contained.
>7. Does an entire band gain the first strike advantage if one card has it?
>How about if one card in the band has first strike via {Lance}, rather than as
>an ability?
>
no. First Strikers all deal damage simultaneously and than normal
strikers deal damage.
>8. If a card is protected by a {Green Ward} is it affected by {Growth}?
>We said no. Likewise, would it be affected by {Fog}? We said it would, since
>{Fog} is indirect.
>
This is iffy. The protection from _____ abilities are kinda broke
and you have to wing it. I agree with your decisions, but its
really entirely up to you.
>9. This is a question regarding the convention of declaring all attacks
>against one opponent, then allowing them to declare defense, instead of doing
>it one by one. A player declared all attacks, defenses were declared, and
>damage was dealt. The player then cast {Instill Energy} on one of the tapped
>cards, and untapped it. Could he then use this card in an attack AGAIN,
>against the same opponent, or would that be considered unconventional, since
>the attacks should all be declared at once?
>
You only get one attack phase. You may not attack with half your
creatures and than attack with the other half. Similiarly, you cannot
attack with a creature and than untap it(by whatever means) and attack
again.
>10. Does every use of a blue enchantment count as a blue spell (for the
>purposes of the {Crystal Rod}?
>
No. The Rod only works when a spell is cast. A spell is cast when it is
placed on the table and the mana spent to cast it.
>11. Do Howling Mines compound their effects? We assumed that they did.
>
Never saw the card, don't know.
>12. The AK card {Island of Wak-Wak} does not specify that its effects last
>only until the end of the turn. Is this a permanent effect?
>
Sorry, haven't seen this one either.
>13. The AK card {Aladdin} doesn't specify that the ability can only be used
>once at a time, or that {Aladdin} can only hold one artifact. Could {Aladdin}
>continue to grab aritifacts continually, as long as the mana were paid each
>time?
>
Yes, but he can only grab one artifact at a time before becoming tapped.
(I think, I'm not too sure and don't have this one in front of me
at the moment)
>14. Can you {Raise Dead} a {Rukh Egg}? Would it come back as an egg or
>as a Rukh. What about using the AK card {Animate Dead}?
>
You may Raise Dead the Egg and summon another egg. You may do this
as many times as you can get away with. Each timethe eggis destroyed
a new Rukh is formed.
>15. Could you {Raise Dead} a {Khabal Ghoul}? Would it come back as 1/1,
>or at its previous maximum?
>
When a creature dies and goes to the graveyard it is cleared
of all enchantments and other spells/abilities used on it.
It would come back as a 1/1 creature.
>16. Could you use a card that changes a card's colour on an artifact?
>
Yes. In fact this is a very good way of utilizing circles of
protection on otherwise colorless artifacts.
>17. Could you {Clone} an artifact creature?
>
Yes, the artifact creature is still an creature and obeys all the
rules of being a creature so it can be cloned or doppled.
> Thank you again for thinking about these questions.
>
your welcome!
(god I hate this com package. It makes it virtually impossible to go back
and edit my msgs!!!).
>--
>--------------------------------^--------------------------------
>Chris Martell, netmail: | "Call thou no man fortunate
>ud...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca | until he be dead." - anon.
>--------------------------------*--------------------------------
--
-Badger
g...@panix.com
Chris Martell
To clarify (since answers on questions 5 and 6 are dependent on knowledge of
Maruf's Ring), here is a description:
Ring of Maruf 5 colourless
Mono Artifact (Arabian Knights)
Description:
(5colourless): Instead of drawing a card from the top of your library,
select one of your cards from OUTSIDE THE GAME. This card can be any
card you have that you're not using in your deck or that for some reason
has left the game. Ring of Ma'ruf is removed from the game entirely
after use.
Thank you for your ideas,
Richard Pieri
>> 5. Can you use {Maruf's Ring} on a card which has been disintegrated
>> during this game?
gam> No idea, what is Maruf's Ring?
A neat/nasty artifact. When tapped it lets you take any card that you own
that is outside the game and put it into play (the Ring is then discarded).
The answer to the question is "yes" because a dinintegrated card is no
longer in the game.
>> 6. If {Shaharazad} (the AK card taht causes a subgame to be played)
>> were used, could {Maruf's Ring} be used to take a card from the parent
>> game?
gam> The subgame cannot draw upon anything from the parent game. It is
gam> self-contained.
Ring of Ma'ruf would allow this; here's the full text:
(5): Instead of drawing a card from your library, select one of your cards
from /outside the game/. This card can be any card you have that your're
not using in your deck or that for some reason has left the game. Ring of
Ma'Ruf is removed from the game entirely after use.
>> 11. Do Howling Mines compound their effects? We assumed that they did.
gam> Never saw the card, don't know.
Yes, they do. Just remember that you must discard down to 7 cards at the
end of your turn.
>> 12. The AK card {Island of Wak-Wak} does not specify that its effects
>> last only until the end of the turn. Is this a permanent effect?
gam> Sorry, haven't seen this one either.
It's a special power, thus an Instant, thus only lasts until the end of the
turn.
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> PGP 2.x Public Key Block available upon request
GAT d@ -p+ c++ !l u+ e+(*) m-(+) s n---(+) h-- f !g(+) w+ t- r+ y+
||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
...kcab nrut ,kcab nrut ,kcab nruT .ton si emit tub elbisrever si cisum ehT
`hgiH nO eriF' ,OLE--
Roberto Ullfig
|> >>>>> In article <2fr330$r...@panix.com>, g...@panix.com (Badger) writes:
|>
|> >> 5. Can you use {Maruf's Ring} on a card which has been disintegrated
|> >> during this game?
|> gam> No idea, what is Maruf's Ring?
|>
|> A neat/nasty artifact. When tapped it lets you take any card that you own
|> that is outside the game and put it into play (the Ring is then discarded).
|> The answer to the question is "yes" because a dinintegrated card is no
|> longer in the game.
Agreed.
|>
|> >> 6. If {Shaharazad} (the AK card taht causes a subgame to be played)
|> >> were used, could {Maruf's Ring} be used to take a card from the parent
|> >> game?
|> gam> The subgame cannot draw upon anything from the parent game. It is
|> gam> self-contained.
|>
|> Ring of Ma'ruf would allow this; here's the full text:
|>
|> (5): Instead of drawing a card from your library, select one of your cards
|> from /outside the game/. This card can be any card you have that your're
|> not using in your deck or that for some reason has left the game. Ring of
|> Ma'Ruf is removed from the game entirely after use.
Agreed.
|>
|> >> 11. Do Howling Mines compound their effects? We assumed that they did.
|> gam> Never saw the card, don't know.
|>
|> Yes, they do. Just remember that you must discard down to 7 cards at the
|> end of your turn.
Agreed.
|>
|> >> 12. The AK card {Island of Wak-Wak} does not specify that its effects
|> >> last only until the end of the turn. Is this a permanent effect?
|> gam> Sorry, haven't seen this one either.
|>
|> It's a special power, thus an Instant, thus only lasts until the end of the
|> turn.
I don't agree fully. I don't remember anything in the rules saying that instants
last until the end of turn. However, I believe that this effect -was- meant to
last until the end of turn even though the card does not say that. I am awaiting
an official response from WotC on this.
|>
|> --
|> Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> PGP 2.x Public Key Block available upon request
|> GAT d@ -p+ c++ !l u+ e+(*) m-(+) s n---(+) h-- f !g(+) w+ t- r+ y+
|> ||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
|> ...kcab nrut ,kcab nrut ,kcab nruT .ton si emit tub elbisrever si cisum ehT
|> `hgiH nO eriF' ,OLE--
Roberto
ull...@fnrobo.fnal.gov
Lisa Richardson
>In article <CIrzr...@suncad.camosun.bc.ca>,
>Chris Martell <ud...@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA> wrote:
>>5. Can you use {Maruf's Ring} on a card which has been disintegrated
>>during this game?
>No idea, what is Maruf's Ring?
The card states that you can get any card outside of the game that is not in
your deck or has been removed from play, such as Swords to Plowshares or
Disintegrate. Therefore yes.
>>6. If {Shaharazad} (the AK card taht causes a subgame to be played) were
>>used, could {Maruf's Ring} be used to take a card from the parent game?
>>
>The subgame cannot draw upon anything from the parent game.
>It is self-contained.
Also, it contradicts the words in the card. It has to be outside of the game
and it can be a card in your deck only if it has been removed from play. A
subgame does not COUNT parent game as 'removed from play'.
>>8. If a card is protected by a {Green Ward} is it affected by {Growth}?
>>We said no. Likewise, would it be affected by {Fog}? We said it would, since
>>{Fog} is indirect.
>>
>This is iffy. The protection from _____ abilities are kinda broke
>and you have to wing it. I agree with your decisions, but its
>really entirely up to you.
Actually, Green Ward will NOT protect creature for Fog. Green Wards protect
the creature from green direct spells, green enchantments and Green creatures.
>>9. This is a question regarding the convention of declaring all attacks
>>against one opponent, then allowing them to declare defense, instead of doing
>>it one by one. A player declared all attacks, defenses were declared, and
>>damage was dealt. The player then cast {Instill Energy} on one of the tapped
>>cards, and untapped it. Could he then use this card in an attack AGAIN,
>>against the same opponent, or would that be considered unconventional, since
>>the attacks should all be declared at once?
>>
>You only get one attack phase. You may not attack with half your
>creatures and than attack with the other half. Similiarly, you cannot
>attack with a creature and than untap it(by whatever means) and attack
>again.
Yes. One attack phase only. You cannot attack again, even with instill
energy... Read the card VERY CAREFULLY. IT says that: You may untap target
creature both during untap phase and one additional time during your turn.
Target creature may also attack the turn it comes into play. If this had been
casted earlier, he MIGHT, but doubtfully, be able to attack again. HOWEVER,
Instill Energy was meant for 1 attack, then untap the creature for a defensive
posture.
>>11. Do Howling Mines compound their effects? We assumed that they did.
>>
>Never saw the card, don't know.
Compound, no. Add on, yes. It says in the card: Each player draws one extra
card each turn during his or her draw phase. Please note that it does NOT say
draws one extra card per card drawn. Therefore, 2 Howling mines makes the
player draw 1 card for normal and 2 more, one for each howling mine.
>>12. The AK card {Island of Wak-Wak} does not specify that its effects last
>>only until the end of the turn. Is this a permanent effect?
>>
>Sorry, haven't seen this one either.
I believe it is only temporary. Otherwise Desert would do 1 point of Permament
damage to attacking creatures, Oasis gives 1 point of life to creatures...
Which is not true.
--
Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
pr...@glia.biostr.washington.edu and/or pr...@anime.tcp.com
"Live fast, Die young, and make hearts melt as you go away" - Lisa Richardson
Priss the MUF Wizard of _AnimeMUCK_ at anime.tcp.com (128.95.10.106) 2035
Andrew Brecher
>>>12. The AK card {Island of Wak-Wak} does not specify that its effects
last
>>>only until the end of the turn. Is this a permanent effect?
>
Permament
>damage to attacking creatures, Oasis gives 1 point of life to creatures...
>Which is not true.
That analogy doesn't work...there's no such thing as Permananent damage (damage
being done is a discrete event you need amount >= creature's toughness in a
single turn), and oasis prevents damage, not adds life.
-Andrew Brecher (andrew_...@brown.edu) (insert disclaimer here)
Christopher Barkley
|>
|> 6. If {Shaharazad} (the AK card taht causes a subgame to be played) were
|> used, could {Maruf's Ring} be used to take a card from the parent game?
|>
I haven't seen an official ruling on this one yet, but I disagree with the consensus opinion
I've seen on the Net. I'd say you CAN'T pull cards from the parent game(s) (play Shahrazad
recursively - get the Magic game that never ends!) since they are in play. If I loaned you
one of my decks, would you let me use the Ring to steal cards out of the deck I loaned you?
After all, I'm not playing with it right now.... Not to mention, if you COULD use the Ring
to raid the parent game, where would the stolen card(s) be when you went back?
BTW, it HAS been officialy ruled who goes first. I would have said the person who played
Shahrazad got to go first, but Richard said that the player who went first in the parent
game goes first in the sub-game.
A problem we've already come up with is what happens with cards like Contract from Below and
the other ante-affecting cards since there is no ante to affect?
Lisa Richardson
First off, that analogy works. Why? Because Rock Hydras DO lose 1/1 per point
of damage. Unstable Mutation puts in -1/-1 counters, which I consider
permament damage, because the card states that even after the mutation is
disenchanted, it STAYS on the creature. And I am aware of what oasis does,
that may be wrong.
Lisa Richardson
>In article <CIrzr...@suncad.camosun.bc.ca>, ud...@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Chris Martell) writes:
>|>
>|> 6. If {Shaharazad} (the AK card taht causes a subgame to be played) were
>|> used, could {Maruf's Ring} be used to take a card from the parent game?
>|>
>I haven't seen an official ruling on this one yet, but I disagree with the consensus opinion
>I've seen on the Net. I'd say you CAN'T pull cards from the parent game(s) (play Shahrazad
>recursively - get the Magic game that never ends!) since they are in play. If I loaned you
>one of my decks, would you let me use the Ring to steal cards out of the deck I loaned you?
>After all, I'm not playing with it right now.... Not to mention, if you COULD use the Ring
>to raid the parent game, where would the stolen card(s) be when you went back?
Incorrect. Those cards are IN PLAY. Regardless of the subgame, you cannot
pull a card that is currently inplay by the card statement. Only from a card
that has been removed from the game during play or outside of the game. Also,
you can NOT take cards from the opponent's deck, regardless if you loaned him
that deck. The card does not say 'shuffle deck after your find your card' so
you would have an unfair advantage against your opponent, because you have and
Idea of what he is getting next while getting your card.
>A problem we've already come up with is what happens with cards like Contract from Below and
>the other ante-affecting cards since there is no ante to affect?
I posed this question before. At the beginning of the game, you should decide
on what ante type cards should do in place of Ante games... Otherwise, just
remove them from play.
Richard Pieri
>>>>> Barkley) writes:
barkley> A problem we've already come up with is what happens with cards
barkley> like Contract from Below and the other ante-affecting cards since
barkley> there is no ante to affect?
The precident has already been set with cards like Jeweled Bird: the cards
that would affect ante are removed from the game.
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> PGP 2.x Public Key Block available upon request
GAT d@ -p+ c++ !l u+ e+(*) m-(+) s n---(+) h-- f !g(+) w+ t- r+ y+
||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
An it harm none, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Andrew Brecher
>In <2ft0j9$i...@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> ST00...@brownvm.brown.edu (Andrew Brecher)
>writes:
>>In article <priss.7...@tcp.com>, pr...@tcp.com (Lisa Richardson) said:
>>>>>12. The AK card {Island of Wak-Wak} does not specify that its effects
>>last
>>>>>only until the end of the turn. Is this a permanent effect?
>>>
>>>I believe it is only temporary. Otherwise Desert would do 1 point of
>>Permament
>>>damage to attacking creatures, Oasis gives 1 point of life to creatures...
>>>Which is not true.
>
>>That analogy doesn't work...there's no such thing as Permananent damage
(damage
>>being done is a discrete event you need amount >= creature's toughness in a
>>single turn), and oasis prevents damage, not adds life.
>
>First off, that analogy works. Why? Because Rock Hydras DO lose 1/1 per
point
>of damage. Unstable Mutation puts in -1/-1 counters, which I consider
>permament damage, because the card states that even after the mutation is
>disenchanted, it STAYS on the creature. And I am aware of what oasis does,
>that may be wrong.
That's not damage, that's changing the stats. If the desert said "tap to
make creature -1/-1", that's something different. According to the rulebook,
damage is compared to a createure's current toughness to determine whether
it survives. Rock hydra's head cutting doesn't leave it a creature with
toughness 5 that permanently has 3 damage, it leaves it a creature with
toughness 2. Similarly, Unstable Mutation doesn't do damage, it reduces stats.
Similarly, Weakness...etc. You may consider this a trivial difference, but
it seems like it is >the< difference between permanent and temporary. Whether
the Island of Wak-Wak is intended to be temporary (like an instant would be)
or permanent (like enchantments) is unclear.
BTW, in my hypothetical desert example, we'd have the same problem we do with
Isle of WW. It should say "permanently" or "until end of turn".
Richard Pieri
>>>>> (Andrew Brecher) writes:
ST000039> BTW, in my hypothetical desert example, we'd have the same
ST000039> problem we do with Isle of WW. It should say "permanently" or
ST000039> "until end of turn".
As I've already opined, I'd say that it works like other creatures powers
that you tap to use. In other words, until the end of the turn.
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> PGP 2.x Public Key Block available upon request
GAT d@ -p+ c++ !l u+ e+(*) m-(+) s n---(+) h-- f !g(+) w+ t- r+ y+
||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
Listen and understand. That Terminator is out there. It can't be bargained
with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear.
And it absolutely will not stop, ever... until you are dead.
--Kyle Reese, from the movie `Terminator'
Richard Pieri
priss> Incorrect. Those cards are IN PLAY. Regardless of the subgame, you
priss> cannot pull a card that is currently inplay by the card statement.
Technically the subgame is isolated from the main game; you can't cast
enchantments or sorceries or whatever from the subgame to affect the main
game. If the two games are, indeed, separate, then cards in the main game
are valid targets for that ring; otherwise they're valid targets for
everything else which is certainly not the case.
priss> Only from a card that has been removed from the game during play or
priss> outside of the game. Also, you can NOT take cards from the
priss> opponent's deck, regardless if you loaned him that deck.
The ring's text is very specific: any card that you own that is not
currently in the game. Even if you loaned your opponent a deck, if he's
using it you can't take any cards from it because it's in the game.
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> PGP 2.x Public Key Block available upon request
GAT d@ -p+ c++ !l u+ e+(*) m-(+) s n---(+) h-- f !g(+) w+ t- r+ y+
||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
Players who insist on giving their characters `cutesie' names should be
ritually killed as a warning to the others.
--ALBEDO: The Roleplaying Game (Second Edition)
Lisa Richardson
<lots of quoted junk deleted>
>That's not damage, that's changing the stats. If the desert said "tap to
>make creature -1/-1", that's something different. According to the rulebook,
>damage is compared to a createure's current toughness to determine whether
>it survives. Rock hydra's head cutting doesn't leave it a creature with
>toughness 5 that permanently has 3 damage, it leaves it a creature with
>toughness 2. Similarly, Unstable Mutation doesn't do damage, it reduces stats.
>Similarly, Weakness...etc. You may consider this a trivial difference, but
>it seems like it is >the< difference between permanent and temporary. Whether
>the Island of Wak-Wak is intended to be temporary (like an instant would be)
>or permanent (like enchantments) is unclear.
We are now detracting from the reason we are doing this... I am stating that
if Island of Wak Wak makes attacking Flying creature a 0 power creature, it
should be TEMPORARY. As I stated that would mean desert could do 1 point of
Permament Damage. WHY? If we assume that Island of Wak-Wak can zap a flying
creatures power to 0 permamently, then using desert to do 1 point of damage to
an attacking creature should be permament. WHY again, do you say? Well, look.
If you are going to use 'Island of Wak-Wak doesn't state the creature doesn't
stay 0 until end of turn...' Then that is a way too powerful land. Might as
well make Desert do 1 point of permament damage to a creature because it does
not say it is until end of turn as well. Reasoning? If you can whip out an
excuse for one land, someone else can counter with another... Land effects are
temporary, since they are considered instants.
Richard Pieri
priss> We are now detracting from the reason we are doing this... I am
priss> stating that if Island of Wak Wak makes attacking Flying creature a
priss> 0 power creature, it should be TEMPORARY. As I stated that would
priss> mean desert could do 1 point of Permament Damage. WHY? If we
priss> assume that Island of Wak-Wak can zap a flying creatures power to 0
priss> permamently, then using desert to do 1 point of damage to an
priss> attacking creature should be permament.
You're making a rather incorrect assumption that all cards are equally
powerful; they're not.
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> PGP 2.x Public Key Block available upon request
GAT d@ -p+ c++ !l u+ e+(*) m-(+) s n---(+) h-- f !g(+) w+ t- r+ y+
||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
History shows again and again/How nature points up the folly of men
--Blue Oyster Cult, `Godzilla'
Chris J. Goebel
Christopher Barkley <bar...@cse.ogi.edu> wrote:
>In article <CIrzr...@suncad.camosun.bc.ca>, ud...@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Chris Martell) writes:
While discussing {shaharazad} it was stated:
>
>A problem we've already come up with is what happens with cards like Contract from Below and
>the other ante-affecting cards since there is no ante to affect?
>
>
I guess technically everyone has 1/2 of their life up as ante!!!
Swap it for a card.....double or nothing....hmmm many interesting possibilities!
-Chris
--
======================================================================
Chris Goebel - Motorola Inc. Any opinions expressed here are my
Cellular Infrastructure Group own and should not in any way be
Arlington Hts, Il considered those of my wife :-)
Lisa Richardson
>priss> We are now detracting from the reason we are doing this... I am
>priss> stating that if Island of Wak Wak makes attacking Flying creature a
>priss> 0 power creature, it should be TEMPORARY. As I stated that would
>priss> mean desert could do 1 point of Permament Damage. WHY? If we
>priss> assume that Island of Wak-Wak can zap a flying creatures power to 0
>priss> permamently, then using desert to do 1 point of damage to an
>priss> attacking creature should be permament.
>You're making a rather incorrect assumption that all cards are equally
>powerful; they're not.
No, I didn't assume that all cards are equally powerful. I am using it as an
arguement why you cannot assume Island of Wak-Wak's effects are permament. It
is because if you do that, you can assume that deserts can do 1 point of
permament damage to attacking creatures, which it doesn't.
Andrew Brecher
>Posted on 30 Dec 1993 at 12:42:36 by Lisa Richardson
>
>>priss> We are now detracting from the reason we are doing this... I am
>>priss> stating that if Island of Wak Wak makes attacking Flying creature a
>>priss> 0 power creature, it should be TEMPORARY. As I stated that would
>>priss> mean desert could do 1 point of Permament Damage. WHY? If we
>>priss> assume that Island of Wak-Wak can zap a flying creatures power to 0
>>priss> permamently, then using desert to do 1 point of damage to an
>>priss> attacking creature should be permament.
>
>>You're making a rather incorrect assumption that all cards are equally
>>powerful; they're not.
>
>arguement why you cannot assume Island of Wak-Wak's effects are permament. It
>is because if you do that, you can assume that deserts can do 1 point of
>permament damage to attacking creatures, which it doesn't.
But there's no such thing as permanent damage...I discussed why (though I got
some details convoluted), and you never disagreed with it (unless I missed a
message) except by saying it wasn't relevant.
FWIW, I don't think it's clear what interpretation should be used. I'd
probably play with it being temporary if it were my choice, but I could go
either way. It would still be a house rule, and the debate would then become,
which house rule is better?
Ditto with our Jump problems, which I still haven't heard resolved...
Lisa Richardson
>FWIW, I don't think it's clear what interpretation should be used. I'd
>probably play with it being temporary if it were my choice, but I could go
>either way. It would still be a house rule, and the debate would then become,
>which house rule is better?
>Ditto with our Jump problems, which I still haven't heard resolved...
Land affects are either instants or interrupts... Not enchantments. Jump is
the same thing. It is an instant and even though it says 'Until end of turn',
people should not mistake that instant as a permament enchantment UNLESS it
states it as such.
tom allison
>>>>>> In article <63...@ogicse.ogi.edu>, bar...@cse.ogi.edu (Christopher
>>>>>> Barkley) writes:
>
>barkley> A problem we've already come up with is what happens with cards
>barkley> like Contract from Below and the other ante-affecting cards since
>barkley> there is no ante to affect?
>
>The precident has already been set with cards like Jeweled Bird: the cards
>that would affect ante are removed from the game.
>
as is from the parent game, you can't go searching through it to pull cards
then reshuffle. I would think either they have no effect, or that the ante
from the parent game would not be considered untouchable by shahrazad.
Obviously the ante must be part of the game though, or else a person could
use Ring of Ma'ruf to grab their ante. This is an interesting question, I
don't think the netters can answer this, I think it needs an official ruling.
My 2 cents...
Tom Allison all...@cs.colostate.edu
tom allison
>In <2ftful$q...@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> ST00...@brownvm.brown.edu (Andrew Brecher) writes:
>We are now detracting from the reason we are doing this... I am stating that
>if Island of Wak Wak makes attacking Flying creature a 0 power creature, it
>should be TEMPORARY. As I stated that would mean desert could do 1 point of
>Permament Damage. WHY? If we assume that Island of Wak-Wak can zap a flying
>creatures power to 0 permamently, then using desert to do 1 point of damage to
>an attacking creature should be permament. WHY again, do you say? Well, look.
>If you are going to use 'Island of Wak-Wak doesn't state the creature doesn't
>stay 0 until end of turn...' Then that is a way too powerful land. Might as
>well make Desert do 1 point of permament damage to a creature because it does
>not say it is until end of turn as well. Reasoning? If you can whip out an
>excuse for one land, someone else can counter with another... Land effects are
>temporary, since they are considered instants.
The Desert Card does not need to say whether the damage is permanent or not,
because it is stated in the rule book that it is not:
p21, 2nd Paragraph: "Damage done to creatures accumulates
throughout a turn, and is healed at the end of the turn."
Tom Allison all...@cs.colostate.edu
Lisa Richardson
>The Desert Card does not need to say whether the damage is permanent or not,
>because it is stated in the rule book that it is not:
> p21, 2nd Paragraph: "Damage done to creatures accumulates
> throughout a turn, and is healed at the end of the turn."
Fine, then you cannot assume a land effect is permament to a creature unless
stated so.
Badger
>No, I didn't assume that all cards are equally powerful. I am using it as an
>arguement why you cannot assume Island of Wak-Wak's effects are permament. It
>is because if you do that, you can assume that deserts can do 1 point of
>permament damage to attacking creatures, which it doesn't.
>
Its a bad idea to argue
"If X is true than Y is true."
You are not addressing the question "Is X true".
When you wish to address a point in this game I find it helpfull to
always use the text on the card and the rulebook(sometimes the FAQ).
That is the only real way to determine the 'proper' interpretation.
Also, never assume that a decision for one card carries over to other cards.
Each card must be discussed on its own merits.
Desert damage cannot be assumed to be permanent because the desert card has
the magic word "damage" on it. ALL damage is 'healed' at the end of
each turn. Therefore you can assume the damage is permanent but I can
prove that its not because the rules say damage is healed.
Now, does the Wak-wak card say damage? If not, you can't compare it
to a desert which explicitly says damage.
(BTW - take pity on a poor rodent, what does the Island of Wak Wak
say? I haven't seen one yet!!)
>--
>Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
>pr...@glia.biostr.washington.edu and/or pr...@anime.tcp.com
>"Live fast, Die young, and make hearts melt as you go away" - Lisa Richardson
>Priss the MUF Wizard of _AnimeMUCK_ at anime.tcp.com (128.95.10.106) 2035
--
-Badger
g...@panix.com
Badger
Andrew Brecher <ST00...@brownvm.brown.edu> wrote:
>Ditto with our Jump problems, which I still haven't heard resolved...
>
Well, to resolve that question. I was wondering myself about
how the card was supposed to work. Since it has already
been established that Flase Orders is "supposed" to remove
blockers but by the rules it doesn't I was thinking that
jump may have the same problem. So I sent a letter to
ques...@wizards.com and what follows is their official
response:
From stma...@wizards.com Thu Dec 30 05:54:03 1993
Received: from cutter.cpac.washington.edu by panix.com with SMTP id AA17196
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <g...@panix.com>); Thu, 30 Dec 1993 16:54:30 -0500
Received: from fungusaur.wizards.com by cutter.cpac.washington.edu
(5.65/UW-NDC Revision: 2.29 ) id AA12542; Thu, 30 Dec 93 13:57:33 -0800
Received: by wizards.com (NX5.67d/NX3.0M)
id AA27707; Thu, 30 Dec 93 13:54:04 -0800
From: Steve Martin <stma...@wizards.com>
Message-Id: <931230215...@wizards.com>
Subject: Re: Official verification please?
To: g...@panix.com (Badger)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 13:54:03 PST
In-Reply-To: <1993122800...@panix.com>; from "Badger" at Dec 27, 93 7:54 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Status: RO
> q: False Orders allows you to change the blocking order of any
> one defending creature. It does not say explicitly that if
> used to order a blocking creature to block a different attacking
> creature, the attacking creature it originally blocked can get
> through. Therefore, was the INTENT of the card to let an attacking
> creature get past a blocker? (I ask for intent since I assume you
> will modify the second edition accordingly so that at that time it
> will be official with the addition of the PPG).
Not only was that the intent, that is what the card is for. :)
> q2: Was part of the intent of the Jump spell to let an attacking
> creature bypass any landbound blockers assigned to it and deal
> its damage directly to the defender(assuming no flying creatures
> were assigned as blockers)??
Yep. Here is an example: I attack you with my War mammoth, you
block with a Mons Goblin Raider. I then cast a Jump on the War
Mammoth, and if you have not way to counter, my Mammoth goes
right by your Goblins.
> q3: I KNOW the answer to this one but my brother would like official
> clarification. Can I attack with a creature that has a 0 power?
> Specifically, the Merchant Ship(ie can I get 2 life if it isn't
> blocked and my opponent has no islands, even if my opponent takes
> no damage).
As long as a creature is not specifically called a wall, you can
attack!
> -Andrew Brecher (andrew_...@brown.edu) (insert disclaimer here)
Therefore, as much as I hate to admit it, I was wrong.
Jump is supposed to let you bypass blockers and that is the way
I shall play from now on.
-later
--
-Badger
g...@panix.com
Lisa Richardson
>Its a bad idea to argue
>"If X is true than Y is true."
>You are not addressing the question "Is X true".
Not if you think it is fair to make something that is a land effect permament.
>Now, does the Wak-wak card say damage? If not, you can't compare it
>to a desert which explicitly says damage.
And I can tell you right now, you cannot assume that Island of Wak Wak can zap
a Flying Creature's Power to zero as a permament effect. There are only 2
other cards that do that which are not permament. The Sorcerous Queen that
states that only the text at the lower right hand corner is zap to 0/2, and the
Singing Trees that zaps 1 attacking creature to 0/2. If you assume that it is
a permament effect, then you can assume Frozen Shades fly because of the
picture, and the Gray Orge can't punk vegetarians. Both of which are untrue.
Richard Pieri
gam> (BTW - take pity on a poor rodent, what does the Island of Wak Wak
gam> say? I haven't seen one yet!!)
From one rodent to another:
ISLAND OF WAK-WAK
Tap to reduce target flying creature's power to 0.
The Isle of Wak-Wak, home to a tribe of winged folk, is named for a
peculiar fruit that grows there. The fruit looks like a woman's head,
and when ripe speaks the word "Wak."
The problem is, what happens when you untap it?
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> PGP 2.x Public Key Block available upon request
GAT d@ -p+ c++ !l u+ e+(*) m-(+) s n---(+) h-- f !g(+) w+ t- r+ y+
||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
Our hero regains conciousness at the feet of a sarcastic alien.
--Spaceman Spiff
Badger
>
>>Its a bad idea to argue
>>"If X is true than Y is true."
>>You are not addressing the question "Is X true".
>
>Not if you think it is fair to make something that is a land effect permament.
>
Did I say it was fair? Did I say it wasn't? PLEASE Lisa, READ MY WORDS.
All I said is your argument is not good because YOU DO NOT ADDRESS
THE ISSUE.
>>Now, does the Wak-wak card say damage? If not, you can't compare it
>>to a desert which explicitly says damage.
>
>And I can tell you right now, you cannot assume that Island of Wak Wak can zap
>a Flying Creature's Power to zero as a permament effect. There are only 2
>other cards that do that which are not permament. The Sorcerous Queen that
>states that only the text at the lower right hand corner is zap to 0/2, and the
>Singing Trees that zaps 1 attacking creature to 0/2. If you assume that it is
>a permament effect, then you can assume Frozen Shades fly because of the
>picture, and the Gray Orge can't punk vegetarians. Both of which are untrue.
>
You are slinging away at air. I can assume the Frozen Shades fly, but
you can prove it is wrong because they do not have the word
"flying" in their description.
WRITE OUT THE TEXT OF THE ISLAND and than explain how the effect is
NOT permanent, stop making comparisons which are meaningless.
You must argue each one case by case.
>--
>Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
>pr...@glia.biostr.washington.edu and/or pr...@anime.tcp.com
>"Live fast, Die young, and make hearts melt as you go away" - Lisa Richardson
>Priss the MUF Wizard of _AnimeMUCK_ at anime.tcp.com (128.95.10.106) 2035
--
-Badger
g...@panix.com
Lisa Richardson
>Did I say it was fair? Did I say it wasn't? PLEASE Lisa, READ MY WORDS.
>All I said is your argument is not good because YOU DO NOT ADDRESS
>THE ISSUE.
Yes I did, and you are telling me don't make comparisons of Cards... READ MY
WORDS.
>>>Now, does the Wak-wak card say damage? If not, you can't compare it
>>>to a desert which explicitly says damage.
>>
>>And I can tell you right now, you cannot assume that Island of Wak Wak can zap
>>a Flying Creature's Power to zero as a permament effect. There are only 2
>>other cards that do that which are not permament. The Sorcerous Queen that
>>states that only the text at the lower right hand corner is zap to 0/2, and the
>>Singing Trees that zaps 1 attacking creature to 0/2. If you assume that it is
>>a permament effect, then you can assume Frozen Shades fly because of the
>>picture, and the Gray Orge can't punk vegetarians. Both of which are untrue.
>>
>You are slinging away at air. I can assume the Frozen Shades fly, but
>you can prove it is wrong because they do not have the word
>"flying" in their description.
Wrong, I am not sling away at air, I am hitting the point EXACTLY. JUST
BECAUSE THE CARD SAYS IT ZAPS ANOTHER CARD to 0 POWER, YOU CAN NOT ASSUME IT IS
PERMAMENT!
>WRITE OUT THE TEXT OF THE ISLAND and than explain how the effect is
>NOT permanent, stop making comparisons which are meaningless.
>You must argue each one case by case.
Fine Here is the card again after it being quoted so many god damn times:
Tap to reduce Target flying creature's power to 0.
No where in the card does it say it is permament. No where in that card does
it say anything of the Sort. Singing Trees reduces one attacking creature's
power to 0. That too does not state that it is permament.
Now, here is where your bullshit comes in: "But the Sorcerous Queen zaps
creature to 0/2 until end of turn" But read more... It states that it does
NOT affect Enchantments or power boosts made to the creature, only the stats at
the lower right hand card. The problem with land effects, is that THEY ARE NOT
PERMAMENT. If you insist on that, then I can use deserts to cause Permament
damage (Regardless of what you say). This is the quid pro quo of things. If
you insist on this, I will insist on that.
Badger
While I agree that the Islands should not be permanent, I can see the argument
that they are. And you are WRONG to say if someone insists the Island
is permanent than the Desert is permanent. The Desert does "damage".
Do you agree that the Desert does damage?
If you agree that it does "damage" than check the rulebook about damage.
The rulebook specifically says that damage accumulates during the
turn and is healed at the end of the turn. Therefore, there is no
way you can argue that the Desert would do permanent damage if the
Islands of Wak Wak have a permanent effect. By using the word damage
the rules specifically prohibit you from saying it is permanent.
(I'd quote the rulebook except that I left all 6 copies at my
parents by accident. ARGH. I hate not having a rulebook)
Again, argue the point. A good argument would be that the Islands of
Wak Wak don't say permanent AND they are a fast effect, therefore
the effect is cleared at the end of the turn they are used.
(During the heal creatures and clear fast effects phase).
>--
>Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
>pr...@glia.biostr.washington.edu and/or pr...@anime.tcp.com
>"Live fast, Die young, and make hearts melt as you go away" - Lisa Richardson
>Priss the MUF Wizard of _AnimeMUCK_ at anime.tcp.com (128.95.10.106) 2035
--
-Badger
g...@panix.com
Lisa Richardson
>While I agree that the Islands should not be permanent, I can see the argument
>that they are. And you are WRONG to say if someone insists the Island
>is permanent than the Desert is permanent. The Desert does "damage".
>Do you agree that the Desert does damage?
No. I am not wrong if someone insists that the Island is permament that Desert
effects are permament. If you must insist on land effects be permament,
Damage, regardless of the rules, from deserts are now permament. Because you
insist that land effects are permament on target creature. Damage to 1
attacking creature is a LAND EFFECT. Regardless of the 'damage' part, you are
now hurting creatures with PERMAMENT LAND EFFECTs. Quid Pro Quo.
>If you agree that it does "damage" than check the rulebook about damage.
>The rulebook specifically says that damage accumulates during the
>turn and is healed at the end of the turn. Therefore, there is no
>way you can argue that the Desert would do permanent damage if the
>Islands of Wak Wak have a permanent effect. By using the word damage
>the rules specifically prohibit you from saying it is permanent.
>(I'd quote the rulebook except that I left all 6 copies at my
>parents by accident. ARGH. I hate not having a rulebook)
>Again, argue the point. A good argument would be that the Islands of
>Wak Wak don't say permanent AND they are a fast effect, therefore
>the effect is cleared at the end of the turn they are used.
>(During the heal creatures and clear fast effects phase).
Bzzt sorry, but then I would get the stupid 'Lace' example that says 'Change
any card in play to such and such.' The problem there, is that the card is an
Interrupt, it is permament and even that one does not say it. So we are back to
square one on that. Also, please note the same arguement is going to pop up,
"If the rules contradict, the text on the Card will always superceed the rules"
That is the fun thing I have been getting from OTHER PEOPLE on the Living Wall
bit. This now makes another stalemate because the Rules Quoters does not esee
the aspect of the card, but only the rules.
Badger
>
>>While I agree that the Islands should not be permanent, I can see the argument
>>that they are. And you are WRONG to say if someone insists the Island
>>is permanent than the Desert is permanent. The Desert does "damage".
>>Do you agree that the Desert does damage?
>
>No. I am not wrong if someone insists that the Island is permament that Desert
>effects are permament. If you must insist on land effects be permament,
>Damage, regardless of the rules, from deserts are now permament. Because you
>insist that land effects are permament on target creature. Damage to 1
>attacking creature is a LAND EFFECT. Regardless of the 'damage' part, you are
>now hurting creatures with PERMAMENT LAND EFFECTs. Quid Pro Quo.
>
No no no no. The argument is not its permanent because its a land effect,
the argument is that it is permanent because it doesn't say not
permanent. Damage is clearly defined, so even if there are SOME permanent
land effects, damage is not one of them.
Now, the question is(for those interested in discussing the issue and
not the silly analogy), "Is the effects of the Island of Wak Wak
permanent." There are two arguments to this.
One, creatures such as the Frozen Shade gain abilities during a turn
which are removed at the end of the turn. The rules specify that they
are cleared at the end of the turn.
Two, spells such as XXXlace create permanent effects(ie. changing the color
of a card for the rest of the game, or at least untill it is placed
in the graveyard).
So, is the effect of the Island of Wak Wak more like the effects of the
Frozen Shades or the XXXlace spells? It seems to me that they are more
like the Frozen Shades and should follow the rules for clearing fast
effects at the end of the turn.
Remember, there is NOTHING in the rules to support either opinion since
the card came out after the rules, we must extend the rules to cover
this scenario.
>>If you agree that it does "damage" than check the rulebook about damage.
>>The rulebook specifically says that damage accumulates during the
>>turn and is healed at the end of the turn. Therefore, there is no
>>way you can argue that the Desert would do permanent damage if the
>>Islands of Wak Wak have a permanent effect. By using the word damage
>>the rules specifically prohibit you from saying it is permanent.
>>(I'd quote the rulebook except that I left all 6 copies at my
>>parents by accident. ARGH. I hate not having a rulebook)
>
>>Again, argue the point. A good argument would be that the Islands of
>>Wak Wak don't say permanent AND they are a fast effect, therefore
>>the effect is cleared at the end of the turn they are used.
>>(During the heal creatures and clear fast effects phase).
>
>Bzzt sorry, but then I would get the stupid 'Lace' example that says 'Change
>any card in play to such and such.' The problem there, is that the card is an
>Interrupt, it is permament and even that one does not say it. So we are back to
>square one on that. Also, please note the same arguement is going to pop up,
>"If the rules contradict, the text on the Card will always superceed the rules"
>That is the fun thing I have been getting from OTHER PEOPLE on the Living Wall
>bit. This now makes another stalemate because the Rules Quoters does not esee
>the aspect of the card, but only the rules.
>
Ahhh, but there is a situation where the rulebook says something like
some spells may have a permanent effect on play. Therefore, you can
argue that the lace spell has a permanent effect. There is nothing
saying that a land special ability can have a permanent effect
so you can argue that land abilities are cleared at the end of the
turn. (on the other hand, you can also argue that nothing in the rules
says they are cleared so they can be permanent. I think that the land
is more like creature fast effects than spells and so follows the rules
for creature fast effects.)
Again, none of this has anything to do with desert damage. EVEN if the
Island does have a permanent effect on play you cannot argue that the
desert does because damage is defined as being "healed" at the end
of a turn. The problem here is that you are arguing the "desert" issue
which all the rules quoters will tell you is specifically outlawed
in the rules. ARGUE the Island of Wak Wak, not the desert if you
want to convince someone that you are correct.
>>>--
>>>Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
>>>pr...@glia.biostr.washington.edu and/or pr...@anime.tcp.com
>>>"Live fast, Die young, and make hearts melt as you go away" - Lisa Richardson
>>>Priss the MUF Wizard of _AnimeMUCK_ at anime.tcp.com (128.95.10.106) 2035
>
>
>>--
>>-Badger
>>g...@panix.com
>--
>Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
>pr...@glia.biostr.washington.edu and/or pr...@anime.tcp.com
>"Live fast, Die young, and make hearts melt as you go away" - Lisa Richardson
>Priss the MUF Wizard of _AnimeMUCK_ at anime.tcp.com (128.95.10.106) 2035
--
-Badger
g...@panix.com
Lisa Richardson
>Ahhh, but there is a situation where the rulebook says something like
>some spells may have a permanent effect on play. Therefore, you can
>argue that the lace spell has a permanent effect. There is nothing
>saying that a land special ability can have a permanent effect
>so you can argue that land abilities are cleared at the end of the
>turn. (on the other hand, you can also argue that nothing in the rules
>says they are cleared so they can be permanent. I think that the land
>is more like creature fast effects than spells and so follows the rules
>for creature fast effects.)
That is the problem with some of the Arabian Night cards... There needs to be
rules expansion on it right now. We have problems with the new lands being put
at, and definition of creature's abilities being permament or not like the
singing trees. Do special abilites of lands or creatures work permamently. I
say no. Otherwise, it would be saying that I can now make anything 0/*
whenever I damn well please, and that is NOT true. IF it can't be interrupted
or countered, it just doesn't happen. Even the Cyclopean Tomb does not make
certain lands swamps permamently...
David R. Paoletti {superuser regular}
: A problem we've already come up with is what happens with cards like Contract from Below and
: the other ante-affecting cards since there is no ante to affect?
We don't play with ante but every once in a while an ante card
sneaks into a play deck. This just happened to me with the
Jeweled Biard, and we agreed that as soon as you draw an ante
card, just discard it and draw another card. Seems fine to
me for a spu-rof-the-moment house rule.
Dave :)
Lisa Richardson
Nah, you should make something interesting for the card... I mean look, what
if they game goes on forever, he is just 1 card short of beating you or lasting
you if you are playing a deck of 60 cards.
Chris Page
> > q2: Was part of the intent of the Jump spell to let an attacking
> > creature bypass any landbound blockers assigned to it and deal
> > its damage directly to the defender(assuming no flying creatures
> > were assigned as blockers)??
> Yep. Here is an example: I attack you with my War mammoth, you
> block with a Mons Goblin Raider. I then cast a Jump on the War
> Mammoth, and if you have not way to counter, my Mammoth goes
> right by your Goblins.
I don't know who was in charge of ques...@wizards.com when this question
was posted, but the answer is wrong. Once defense has blocked your
creatures,
they stay blocked, even if turned into a flying creature through jump.
False orders is not well written - it should take affect right at the end
of the choosing defense phase.
To answer other questions in this thread:
If there is no ante (such as in a subgame) the ante-affecting cards have
no affect.
Island of Wak-Wak should say "until end of turn."
-Chris Page
pa...@student.physics.upenn.edu
rec.games.board Network Representative for
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Lisa Richardson
>Island of Wak-Wak should say "until end of turn."
Thank you for confirming something I was most suspecious about... I guess that
is the same with the singing trees.
Badger
>
>>Ahhh, but there is a situation where the rulebook says something like
>>some spells may have a permanent effect on play. Therefore, you can
>>argue that the lace spell has a permanent effect. There is nothing
>>saying that a land special ability can have a permanent effect
>>so you can argue that land abilities are cleared at the end of the
>>turn. (on the other hand, you can also argue that nothing in the rules
>>says they are cleared so they can be permanent. I think that the land
>>is more like creature fast effects than spells and so follows the rules
>>for creature fast effects.)
>
>That is the problem with some of the Arabian Night cards... There needs to be
>rules expansion on it right now. We have problems with the new lands being put
>at, and definition of creature's abilities being permament or not like the
>singing trees. Do special abilites of lands or creatures work permamently. I
I disagree. I say yes and no. (Of course, I agree we need a rules expansion).
Creature Abilities: creature abilites such as the Singing Trees are
clearly defined in the current rulebook as being a "fast effect".
Now, the second edition draft rulebook adds a step which I thought
was in the FAQ but is not. Basically, after you discard and declare
your turn over there is 1 more phase before your opponents. This phase
is the "Heal Creature and clear fast effect phase" and states that
all fast effects are removed at the same time as damage is healed.
If this rule is added into the FAQ it would clear up the Singing Trees
tremendously. Its the way I play but its not "official" yet.
Now, as far as land effects. I have to disagree with you here.
You just can't say they are all temporary. If so, what do
you do with the Diamond Valley? Does it give you life points
for one turn only and than the life points disappear?
I'd say that land effects should follow the rules for cards which
are similiar to them and already exist.
That way:
Deserts follow the rules for Tim on when the damage is healed and
if you can do damge to your own creatures.
Diamond Valley follows the rules for Sword of the Plowshares on how
long the lifepoints last. (Though since Plowshares specifically says
removed from game entirely and Diamond Valley does not, you simply
place the creature in your discard pile). Also, it should follow
the rules of Sword of the Plowshares for how to count the removal
of the creature. It is a discard and so no Soul Nets can feed off
of it, no Ghouls can gain counters, etc. [Last few times I've played
the group I was with decided to count it as a kill but the more I think
about it the more I say no.]
Island of Wak Wak: follows the rules for creatures with similiar effects -
such as the Singing Trees and the Sorcerous Queen. The effect wears off
at the end of the turn.
>say no. Otherwise, it would be saying that I can now make anything 0/*
>whenever I damn well please, and that is NOT true. IF it can't be interrupted
>or countered, it just doesn't happen. Even the Cyclopean Tomb does not make
>certain lands swamps permamently...
>
>--
>Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
>pr...@glia.biostr.washington.edu and/or pr...@anime.tcp.com
>"Live fast, Die young, and make hearts melt as you go away" - Lisa Richardson
>Priss the MUF Wizard of _AnimeMUCK_ at anime.tcp.com (128.95.10.106) 2035
--
-Badger
g...@panix.com
Lisa Richardson
>Now, as far as land effects. I have to disagree with you here.
>You just can't say they are all temporary. If so, what do
>you do with the Diamond Valley? Does it give you life points
>for one turn only and than the life points disappear?
>I'd say that land effects should follow the rules for cards which
>are similiar to them and already exist.
As you are so quaint in pointing out damage being the key word for not allowing
permament damage to creatures, I can point out that Life Points is something
you can not make temporary. Stat changes made by something other than a spelll
that can't be disenchanted, interrupted or remove in some way does not seem
like something a fair game creator would put in for players to go ape over.
That was the same for Black Magic when Magic first came out... Not too many
people had very much to counter black magic except for a very few spells, and
no CoP. Right now, how can one counter a land that zaps all flying creatures
into 0 power creatures? Cyclopean Tomb at LEAST allowed you to have your lands
revert back if you destroyed it. Kormus Bell zaps your Swamps back into land
creature when you destroy that. What is to prevent the Island of Wak Wak's
"Permament" 0 Power from staying? You can't say that you can destroy the lnd
and everything reverts back. It doesn't say so on the card. You can't counter
it because it isn't a spell. You can't get rid of it because it isn't an
enchantment. That makes that card an instant F*** you over card. I mean, at
least the Hurr Jackals state when tapped, prevent 1 creature from
regenerating... Your argument for Island of Wak Wak just makes people go,
"Well, damn. I don't want to play anymore." and make them pick up their cards
and leave. I don't think that is the intention of the card and I don't think
all the players, except those who want to win, think that is fair either.
>Island of Wak Wak: follows the rules for creatures with similiar effects -
>such as the Singing Trees and the Sorcerous Queen. The effect wears off
>at the end of the turn.
That is what it should be.
Charles J Poirier
>Christopher Barkley <bar...@cse.ogi.edu> wrote:
>>ud...@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Chris Martell) writes:
>While discussing {shaharazad} it was stated:
>>A problem ... what happens with cards like Contract from Below and
>>the other ante-affecting cards since there is no ante to affect?
>I guess technically everyone has 1/2 of their life up as ante!!!
>Swap it for a card.....double or nothing....
>hmmm many interesting possibilities!
Oh yeah! I quite like this interpretation...
For your amusement (untested, with guaranteed rough edges)--
Shahrazad's Subgame Life Point Anteing Rules:
Demonic Attorney: instead of making every player ante or fold, makes
each player either double their life points at stake in the parent game,
or resign from the subgame, losing the stake in life points immediately.
Contract From Below: instead of allowing a new hand for an ante, lets
you draw a new 7 card hand, doubling your life points at stake.
Darkpact: instead of taking an ante back for a card, averages your life
points at stake in the parent game, with those of one opponent.
(This one doesn't *quite* map, but it's close in flavor if not mechanics.)
Jeweled Bird: instead of becoming your ante (returning ante to graveyard),
halves your life points at stake in the parent game (round up). Draw one
card and add Jeweled Bird to the ante of this subgame, even if subgame is
not being played for ante; winner of subgame may shuffle bird or shelve it.
(This was the first draft:)
*Jeweled Bird: instead of becoming your ante (returning ante to graveyard),
*hmm, that's a toughie. Your life at stake goes to your graveyard and you
*get the bird??? Unsatisfactory. :-)
Cheers,
Charles Poirier c...@shell.portal.com