MTG: Living Wall vs. Disenchant (Regenerate? - No!)
Lisa Richardson
again:
Living wall: Counts as a wall. <1>: Regenerates.
Disenchant: Target enchantment or artifact MUST be discarded.
Rule for Regeneration: Regeneration prevents a creature from going to the
graveyard. This ability must be used at the moment the creature would normally
be removed from play. Creatures that have already been DISCARDED into the
graveyard cannot be regenerated. Enchantments on a regenerated creature remain
in play. When a creature is regenerated, it is always tapped. A creature that
is sacrificed may not be regenerated.
Clarification of Discarding: You only need to discard if you have more than
seven cards in your hand, unless a card in play specifically instructs
otherwise. Similarly, you may not discard unless you have more than seven
cards, or are forced to by a card in play.
Please note that in disenchant... It states that target Artifact **MUST** be
discarded. I have talked to my friend about this topic this evening and stated
before I showed him the disenchant card, that the Wall could regenerate from a
disenchant. HOWEVER, after showing him the disenchant card, he did state:
Since it said DISCARD, not Destroyed, it does not follow rules of regeneration
or goes into the graveyard by normal removal. For further example, I shall
cite three cards that does mention 'cannot be regenerated' that **I** know of
with the appropriate word hilited why they placed the word in there.
Terror: ***DESTROYS*** target creature without possibility of regneration.
Does not affect black creatures and artifact creatures.
Tunnel: ***DESTROYS*** 1 wall. Target wall CANNOT be regenerated.
Disintegrate: Disintegrate does X damage to one target. If target ***DIES*
this turn, it is removed from game entirely and cannot be regenerated. Return
target to its owner's deck only when game is over.
Also... Wrath of God: All creatures in play are ***DESTROYED** and cannot
regenerate.
I do not believe that discard is considered 'normally removed from play',
considering that there are 4 cards with the words 'DESTROYS', 'DESTROYED' or
'DIES' that also has the addem of 'Cannot be regenerated' or 'without
possibility of regeneration'.
--
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
Carl da Fuzz and Karen Silver Cravens
>I do not believe that discard is considered 'normally removed from play',
>considering that there are 4 cards with the words 'DESTROYS', 'DESTROYED' or
>'DIES' that also has the addem of 'Cannot be regenerated' or 'without
>possibility of regeneration'.
regenerated. In addition, there are several cards that say "if creature
is destroyed and not regenerated" or words to that effect.
Whether I agree with your general argument is a moot point... your support
for your argument is weak and self-defeating.
Currently a card must say "cannot be regenerated" to keep a creature from
being regenerated when it says "kill" or "destroy."
Unfortunately, the description of regeneration says nothing about WHY the
creature is being removed from play. As the rules are written, regeneration
can save a creature in play from being discarded in any manner, as long as
the effect causing the discarding does not specifically prohibit regeneration.
Thus, _as the rules are written_, a Artifact Creature may regenerate from a
Disenchant. Official rulings may alter this.
da Fuzz
tom allison
>Okay... Let's put down some card info before we do the Forwarding slinging
>again:
>
>Living wall: Counts as a wall. <1>: Regenerates.
>
>Disenchant: Target enchantment or artifact MUST be discarded.
>
>Rule for Regeneration: Regeneration prevents a creature from going to the
>graveyard. This ability must be used at the moment the creature would normally
>be removed from play. Creatures that have already been DISCARDED into the
>graveyard cannot be regenerated. Enchantments on a regenerated creature remain
>in play. When a creature is regenerated, it is always tapped. A creature that
>is sacrificed may not be regenerated.
...
>Since it said DISCARD, not Destroyed, it does not follow rules of regeneration
>or goes into the graveyard by normal removal. For further example, I shall
>cite three cards that does mention 'cannot be regenerated' that **I** know of
>with the appropriate word hilited why they placed the word in there.
>
>I do not believe that discard is considered 'normally removed from play',
>considering that there are 4 cards with the words 'DESTROYS', 'DESTROYED' or
>'DIES' that also has the addem of 'Cannot be regenerated' or 'without
>possibility of regeneration'.
>
Actually, I believe the WotC ruled that destroyed, killed and discarded were
all synonymous terms when applied to a card in play. This means that it is
legal to regenerate a Living Wall when it is disenchanted...
>--
>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
Tom Allison all...@cs.colostate.edu
Lisa Richardson
>Lisa Richardson <pr...@tcp.com> writes:
>
>>I do not believe that discard is considered 'normally removed from play',
>>considering that there are 4 cards with the words 'DESTROYS', 'DESTROYED' or
>>'DIES' that also has the addem of 'Cannot be regenerated' or 'without
>>possibility of regeneration'.
>
>There are 17 cards with "DESTROY" that do NOT say the creature cannot be
>regenerated. In addition, there are several cards that say "if creature
>is destroyed and not regenerated" or words to that effect.
Why are you pointing this out? I just stated that there are 4 cards with those
3 words with 'cannont be regenerated' or 'without possibility of regeneration'
as your excuse for 'not allowing regneration. bringing up cards that do not
say that has no bearing to this discussion at all.
>Currently a card must say "cannot be regenerated" to keep a creature from
>being regenerated when it says "kill" or "destroy."
>
>Unfortunately, the description of regeneration says nothing about WHY the
>creature is being removed from play. As the rules are written, regeneration
>can save a creature in play from being discarded in any manner, as long as
>the effect causing the discarding does not specifically prohibit regeneration.
However, an Artifact Creature or enchantment that MUST be discarded is already
considered discarded before you can use another instant to prevent something
from happening. This is the same with a shatter on a sol ring. You can tap it
for 2 mana, but it is gone. Sure, you can pump mana into a living wall to
regenerate it, but it is gone. You cannot regenerate it because 2 instants
cannot cancel each other out.
Lisa Richardson
>Actually, I believe the WotC ruled that destroyed, killed and discarded were
>all synonymous terms when applied to a card in play. This means that it is
>legal to regenerate a Living Wall when it is disenchanted...
Not if the card is already discarded. Which is what happens. 2 instants
cannot cancel each other out. Therefore, I put up the pose of 'Sol Ring and
Shatter'. You can shatter the Sol ring, but at the same time, I can tap it to
get the 2 colorless mana. I can disenchant your living wall, you can TRY to
regenerate it, but by then, your wall is ALREADY Discarded.
Rules of Regeneration: Regneration prevents a creature from going to the
graveyard (Fine). This ability must be used at the moment the creature would
normally be removed from play (Discard does not sound like a normal removal of
play for a creature). ***CREATURES THAT HAVE ALRADY BEEN DISCARDED INTO THE
GRAVEYARD CANNOT BE REGENERATED*** (Please note that Disenchant is an Instant.
The statement in the card says *You -->MUST<-- discard target artifact or
enchantment*. Living wall is now DISCARDED. By the time you use the
Creature's power, it is an Instant, BUT the Living wall is still DISCARDED.)
Richard Pieri
>>>>> writes:
priss> Not if the card is already discarded. Which is what happens. 2
priss> instants cannot cancel each other out. Therefore, I put up the pose
priss> of 'Sol Ring and Shatter'. You can shatter the Sol ring, but at the
priss> same time, I can tap it to get the 2 colorless mana. I can
priss> disenchant your living wall, you can TRY to regenerate it, but by
priss> then, your wall is ALREADY Discarded.
Uh, guys? She's right. This is the same thing as casting Death Ward on a
0-headed Rock Hydra, or regenerating a creature with enough Weaknesses on
it to kill it, or casting Twiddle on a Tim.
--
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+
||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
There are very few personal problems which cannot be solved with a suitable
application of high explosives.
tom allison
stuff from previous posts deleted
...
>Not if the card is already discarded. Which is what happens. 2 instants
>cannot cancel each other out. Therefore, I put up the pose of 'Sol Ring and
>Shatter'. You can shatter the Sol ring, but at the same time, I can tap it to
>get the 2 colorless mana. I can disenchant your living wall, you can TRY to
>regenerate it, but by then, your wall is ALREADY Discarded.
>
>Rules of Regeneration: Regneration prevents a creature from going to the
>graveyard (Fine). This ability must be used at the moment the creature would
>normally be removed from play (Discard does not sound like a normal removal of
>play for a creature). ***CREATURES THAT HAVE ALRADY BEEN DISCARDED INTO THE
>GRAVEYARD CANNOT BE REGENERATED*** (Please note that Disenchant is an Instant.
>The statement in the card says *You -->MUST<-- discard target artifact or
>enchantment*. Living wall is now DISCARDED. By the time you use the
>Creature's power, it is an Instant, BUT the Living wall is still DISCARDED.)
>
which means any creature destoryed by an instant or an interrupt could not be
regenerated. Thus Blue Elemental Blast will kill an Uthden Troll. This is
definitely not correct, so perhaps regeneration works at a level almost
like interrupts.
A further argument to use against what you have stated is in the timing rules,
since instants that don't cause a paradox occur simultaneously, and
regeneration can only be used when a creature dies, both occur at the same
moment, making this a legal move. If there were a paradox then the person
using regeneration could just say it happens right after the creature dies, but
before it goes to the graveyard. Either way regeneration would work.
>--
>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
Tom Allison all...@cs.colostate.edu
Lisa Richardson
>>Rules of Regeneration: Regneration prevents a creature from going to the
>>graveyard (Fine). This ability must be used at the moment the creature would
>>normally be removed from play (Discard does not sound like a normal removal of
>>play for a creature). ***CREATURES THAT HAVE ALRADY BEEN DISCARDED INTO THE
>>GRAVEYARD CANNOT BE REGENERATED*** (Please note that Disenchant is an Instant.
>>The statement in the card says *You -->MUST<-- discard target artifact or
>>enchantment*. Living wall is now DISCARDED. By the time you use the
>>Creature's power, it is an Instant, BUT the Living wall is still DISCARDED.)
>By this argument you imply regeneration is similar to an instant effect,
>which means any creature destoryed by an instant or an interrupt could not be
>regenerated. Thus Blue Elemental Blast will kill an Uthden Troll. This is
>definitely not correct, so perhaps regeneration works at a level almost
>like interrupts.
*whips out the rulles and points to page 27* Some creatures have special
abilities, and any create with the appropriate creature enchantments may aquire
special abilities... *Flips through the rules to page 37* Special types of
Fast Effects: Using the special abilites of creatures, using artifacts already
in play and using enchantments in play are all fast effects. *Flips back to
page 30...* ...Then, the other player can respond to each one with one or more
fast effects (instatns, artifacts in play, enchantments in play, or creature
special abilities). These reactions can be reacted to and so forth, and
nothing happens until both players have finished taking actions. At this
point, all spells TAKE EFFECT SIMULTANEOUSLY...
Later it speaks about timing on whether it should be done before or AFTER the
spell it is conflicting with comes into affect. Therefore, your Living wall is
Toast. Why? Regenerate before the disenchant, "Whoopie. Your wall lives
before it gets disenchanted and now goes into the graveyard." Regnerate after
disenchant, "Whoopie, you are trying to regenerate a card that has now ALREADY
been discarded."
Glenn Elliott
>In <Dec30.203...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> all...@CS.ColoState.EDU (tom allison) writes:
>>Actually, I believe the WotC ruled that destroyed, killed and discarded were
>>all synonymous terms when applied to a card in play. This means that it is
>>legal to regenerate a Living Wall when it is disenchanted...
The appropriate reference is on page 23. "When a card is destroyed or
discarded, it is placed into the graveyard." I believe it is also in
the FAQ, but don't have a copy handy.
>Not if the card is already discarded. Which is what happens. 2 instants
>cannot cancel each other out.
Where did you get that idea? Lightning Bolt and Healing Salve instantly
come to mind, pun intended.
>Rules of Regeneration: Regneration prevents a creature from going to the
>graveyard (Fine). This ability must be used at the moment the creature would
>normally be removed from play (Discard does not sound like a normal removal of
>play for a creature).
Discarding a card is considered a "normal" removal from play. Most of
the "abnormal" methods of removing a card from play also state that the
card may not be regenerated. (E.g. Swords to Plowshares, Disentigrate,
Terror, et al.)
>***CREATURES THAT HAVE ALRADY BEEN DISCARDED INTO THE
>GRAVEYARD CANNOT BE REGENERATED*** (Please note that Disenchant is an Instant.
By definition. What's your point?
>The statement in the card says *You -->MUST<-- discard target artifact or
>enchantment*. Living wall is now DISCARDED. By the time you use the
>Creature's power, it is an Instant, BUT the Living wall is still DISCARDED.)
Not quite. Living Wall is not discarded until after all fast effects
and/or interrupts that have been played have been resolved.
You are reading too much into the use of the word "must." All it means
is that, provided nothing alters the course of events, you have to put
the target enchantment/artifact into your graveyard. Regeneration,
whether by special ability, Death Ward, or the Regeneration enchantment,
alters that course of events.
By your line of reasoning, any creature which has taken damage equal to
or greater than its toughness cannot be regenerated because it "must" be
put into the graveyard.
To quote the Almighty Rule Book once again, page 23: "_Damage_ ... If
the damage done to the creature in one turn is equal to or greater than
its toughness, the creature is destroyed and must be put into the
graveyard."
Glenn
Lisa Richardson
>>Not if the card is already discarded. Which is what happens. 2 instants
>>cannot cancel each other out.
>Where did you get that idea? Lightning Bolt and Healing Salve instantly
>come to mind, pun intended.
*pokes you* Wrong, 2 instants cannot cancel each other out. You STILL receive
3 points of damage... Healing salve may give or prevent 3 points of damaged
because it was WRITTEN in the card to do such.
>>Rules of Regeneration: Regneration prevents a creature from going to the
>>graveyard (Fine). This ability must be used at the moment the creature would
>>normally be removed from play (Discard does not sound like a normal removal of
>>play for a creature).
>Discarding a card is considered a "normal" removal from play. Most of
>the "abnormal" methods of removing a card from play also state that the
>card may not be regenerated. (E.g. Swords to Plowshares, Disentigrate,
>Terror, et al.)
All your rule you are quoting from page 23 is where the card goes. If we
follow your logic that disenchant is normal removal from play or discarding is
normal removal of play, I should be able to cast Death Ward to prevent any
creature I had in my hand from going to the graveyard and to go directly into
the game.
>>***CREATURES THAT HAVE ALRADY BEEN DISCARDED INTO THE
>>GRAVEYARD CANNOT BE REGENERATED*** (Please note that Disenchant is an Instant.
>By definition. What's your point?
Timing of Disenchant and a special ability. Read some of my other responses to
the timing of instants and special abilities. You can try regenerated before
Disenchant, whoop, you still lose the wall because disenchant discards the
artifact. Do it after, whoop, you lose the wall because the card is now
considered ALREADY DISCARDED.
>>The statement in the card says *You -->MUST<-- discard target artifact or
>>enchantment*. Living wall is now DISCARDED. By the time you use the
>>Creature's power, it is an Instant, BUT the Living wall is still DISCARDED.)
>Not quite. Living Wall is not discarded until after all fast effects
>and/or interrupts that have been played have been resolved.
Right, but special abilities are NOT interrupts. Therefore, it cannot prevent
the discarding of the Living Wall because it does not interrupt the instant
being casted.
>You are reading too much into the use of the word "must." All it means
>is that, provided nothing alters the course of events, you have to put
>the target enchantment/artifact into your graveyard. Regeneration,
>whether by special ability, Death Ward, or the Regeneration enchantment,
>alters that course of events.
I'm not the only one who agrees with this. I have asked a die hard player of
mine about it and he states that it is because of that word 'MUST', you cannot
regenerate.
>By your line of reasoning, any creature which has taken damage equal to
>or greater than its toughness cannot be regenerated because it "must" be
>put into the graveyard.
I did not say that. When I said 'MUST BE DISCARDED' by the time you can
regenerate the wall by ANY means, it is now considered DISCARDED. I consider
Discard and Destroys/Dies as seperate things. Sure, they go to the same
graveyards, but if it does not die by spell damage, creature damage or special
ability damage, it is removed from play by other means, not normal means.
Discarding is NOT removing from normal play, otherwise, as I said before, you
can Death Ward a creature you had to discard from your hand from a Disrupting
Scepter or from a Hypnotic Spectre or even Mind Twist, and THAT you cannot do.
Jonathan Dean
>
>>Unfortunately, the description of regeneration says nothing about WHY the
>>creature is being removed from play. As the rules are written, regeneration
>>can save a creature in play from being discarded in any manner, as long as
>>the effect causing the discarding does not specifically prohibit
>>regeneration.
>
>However, an Artifact Creature or enchantment that MUST be discarded is already
>considered discarded before you can use another instant to prevent something
>from happening. This is the same with a shatter on a sol ring. You can tap
>it for 2 mana, but it is gone. Sure, you can pump mana into a living wall to
>regenerate it, but it is gone. You cannot regenerate it because 2 instants
>cannot cancel each other out.
Umm. No. I can ALWAYS answer a fast effect with another fast effect.
Read the FAQ. Shatter will NOT stop a Sol Ring from generating its
last two mana if the owner wishes. And there is a big step between
nothing and "discarded" that step is called "going to the graveyard".
During that step Regeneration can technically work.
The card is NEVER gone till you allow it to go away (ie. you are
finished with your fast effects).
By your argument NO creature can regenerate from lightning bolts (two
instants can't cancel each other) and that is not true.
--
Jonathan Dean
Jonathan Dean
>>>>>> In article <priss.7...@tcp.com>, pr...@tcp.com (Lisa Richardson)
>>>>>> writes:
>
>priss> Not if the card is already discarded. Which is what happens. 2
>priss> instants cannot cancel each other out. Therefore, I put up the pose
>priss> of 'Sol Ring and Shatter'. You can shatter the Sol ring, but at the
>priss> same time, I can tap it to get the 2 colorless mana. I can
>priss> disenchant your living wall, you can TRY to regenerate it, but by
>priss> then, your wall is ALREADY Discarded.
>
>Uh, guys? She's right. This is the same thing as casting Death Ward on a
>0-headed Rock Hydra, or regenerating a creature with enough Weaknesses on
>it to kill it, or casting Twiddle on a Tim.
>
No. The reason why casting Death Ward on a Rock Hydra is pointless is
that you do regenerate it. But it is 0/0 creature and dies again.
The same goes for creatures reduced to 0 toughness by Weakness, they
keep dying because they have 0 toughness.
Twiddling Tim, on the other hand, is perhaps the classic example of
how simultaneous fast effects work.
But, NONE of these situations are similar to Disenchanting an
Artifact. First of all, Disenchant does not repeat till successful
(like reducing a creature to 0 toughness). And, regeneration
effectively interrupts the process of being destroyed or discarded
because it BLOCKS the attempt to force it to the graveyard.
Saying its dueling fast effects will reduce Regeneration to
worthlessness because you can't do it simultaneously (the creature
hasn't died yet), but if you wait till just after then the creature
has already reached the graveyard and cannot be regenerated.
Remember that process of being destroyed is IDENTICAL to the process
of being discarded (pg 23). So you have to make sure any new
interpretations of regeneration don't defeat the purpose of having
regeneration.
--
Jonathan Dean
>Therefore, your Living wall is Toast. Why? Regenerate before the
>disenchant, "Whoopie. Your wall lives before it gets disenchanted and
>now goes into the graveyard." Regnerate after disenchant, "Whoopie,
>you are trying to regenerate a card that has now ALREADY been
>discarded."
I Fireballed your Troll. Regenerate before the Fireball? Nope, the
creature hasn't died yet. Moments latter it gets fireballed and goes
to the graveyard. Regenerate after the Fireball has taken effect?
Nope, the creature is ALREADY in the graveyard, too late now.
Ideally, there should be a step just after the fireball has taken effect,
but before the creature goes to the graveyard so that it could regenerate.
Now then if you do make that step for "Destroyed" creatures then you should
take a look at the differences between being "Destroyed" and being
"Discarded." <Flip Flip Flip> Page 23: "When a card is destroyed OR
discarded, it is placed into the graveyard." There is no difference
between being discarded and being destroyed according to the rules.
Thus, there would have to be a similar step when a card is Discarded in
order to make Regeneration consistent.
Please concider what your interpretation of Regeneration does to normal
critters before you adopt it as law.
--
Jonathan Dean
tom allison
I think it is used in two different contexts in MtG: One being discarded from
your hand and the other being discarded from play. A card in your hand is not
in play, so it can't be Death Warded when it goes to the graveyard. I had a
friend who when he first started playing the game would use the Library of
Leng to put an enchantment that had been disenchanted on the top of his
library, I told him this was wrong. Based on just reading the cards it sure
sounds legal, and of course "anything printed on the card supercedes the rules
in the rulebook." I think the main problem here is that there are
inconsistencies in the wording on the cards, perhaps for the next revision
of the cards they should put destroyed when they mean removed from play and
discarded when they mean removed from your hand.
As for regeneration, I think it should be treated like this:
Any time a creature with regeneration is destroyed it can be
regenerated immediately, unless the card destroying it specifically
says it cannot be regenerated.
In doing this, regeneration should not be considered an instant or
interrupt or anything else, just a simple ability outside of timing
issues.
I also know regeneration has run into other problems, like
with regenerating a tapped card: it's tapped, so it can't use any
of it's special abilities. But you can still regenerate it.
Regeneration is more than just a special ability, it's more like
a property of the card, like banding or first strike.
Tom Allison all...@cs.colostate.edu
Lisa Richardson
>Umm. No. I can ALWAYS answer a fast effect with another fast effect.
>Read the FAQ. Shatter will NOT stop a Sol Ring from generating its
>last two mana if the owner wishes. And there is a big step between
>nothing and "discarded" that step is called "going to the graveyard".
>During that step Regeneration can technically work.
First off, I did not say shatter would STOP a person from using a Sol Ring.
Second off, Regeneration can't work if the card is ALREADY discarded or
disenchanted AFTER trying to regenerate.
>By your argument NO creature can regenerate from lightning bolts (two
>instants can't cancel each other) and that is not true.
Please do not shove words into my mouth to make what I am saying twisted.
Lightning bolt INFLICTS 3 points of damage. The spell even states 'DOES 3
POINTS OF DAMAGE'. It does not say Destroy, it does not say kill, it does not
even say 'Without possibility of regeneration.' Damaged inflicted on a
creature that kills it removes it from play normally. A spell that says
Discard, is NOT removing something from play normally.
Lisa Richardson
>But, NONE of these situations are similar to Disenchanting an
>Artifact. First of all, Disenchant does not repeat till successful
>(like reducing a creature to 0 toughness). And, regeneration
>effectively interrupts the process of being destroyed or discarded
>because it BLOCKS the attempt to force it to the graveyard.
Bzzt. Wrong. Timing is a factor here. Both statements I made zaps
Regeneration possibility. Disenchant before or after regeneration zaps the
wall from being able to regenerated because it loses it ability to regenerate
if you try to do it before, and if you do it after, it still loses its ability
after. This is still the Sol Ring vs. Shatter. You may lose the sol ring, but
it doesn't mean you can't get the 2 mana. It is the same consequence.
>Remember that process of being destroyed is IDENTICAL to the process
>of being discarded (pg 23). So you have to make sure any new
>interpretations of regeneration don't defeat the purpose of having
>regeneration.
Well, since you like twisting what I say, I think it is perfect to say this
about what you state here: I can now discard a creature I cannot get out of my
hand and Death Ward it or Regenerate it because I did it before it hit the
graveyard. And since Regeneration is an Instant and It was on its way to the
graveyard, I can call up a Serra Angel with only 1 White Mana and 1 of any
other color. So. Beat me over the head... I don't care... I can death ward
anything I'm discarding that is a creature that I can't get out in time.
Sure, Living wall can regenerate from disenchant, I guesst I can death ward my
Golem or Juggernaut as well, since I don't have to believe disenchant doesn't
force me to discard the thing. I'm sorry, but you just can't let people
believe that because Regeneration can pull a card that is DISCARDED. Since it
is an instant, and with you IDEAL, you can call up a Living Wall that you
discarded from your hand at a cost of 1 or 2 mana and put it into play. Since
Instants can be casted at ANYTIME, it makes creatures that are suppost to be
hard to get out very easy to get out now. Same with artifacts that are SUPPOSE
to be taken out of play by disenchant. Now that you say it can regenerated
from a discard, all creatures I am forced to discard can be brought into play
as regenerated creatures just stacking my deck with Death Ward.
Sorry, but that just went out the door.
Lisa Richardson
There you go again, twisting my words. Please note the word OR. It does not
link Destroyed or Discarded as the same as the other. IT states where the card
is to go. You cannot discard a creature (Yes, another damn repeat because he
keeps banging this on me) from your hand and go 'I death ward my Wall of Stone
(Because my player doesn't have 2 Mountains to get it out' just before plop it
down on the graveyard. That is the same with Disenchant. Once a card is
DISCARDED, you CANNOT bring it back without Raise Dead, Regrowth or
Ressurection or even Animate Dead.
This is the reason WHY Discard and Destroy/Kill/dies are seperate. Page 23
states where the card goes, not what Regeneration should do. If there were
suppose to be a good rule for regeneration to end this BS, it should be this:
Rules for Regeneration: Prevents creature from being Destroyed/Killed by
creature Damage, spells or enchantments.
That fits for what is going on. Most of the time, creatures are killed by
spells, Damage from other creatures or by enchantments. Cards that have
Destroys/Kills will state whether or not the creature can regenerate. IT also
prevents your little loophole about discarding. Because now I cannot discard a
creature I cannot get out and Death Ward it before it hits the graveyard.
D
D
D
D
Destroyed/Kill
Lisa Richardson
>>I did not say that. When I said 'MUST BE DISCARDED' by the time you can
>>regenerate the wall by ANY means, it is now considered DISCARDED. I consider
>>Discard and Destroys/Dies as seperate things. Sure, they go to the same
>>graveyards, but if it does not die by spell damage, creature damage or special
>>ability damage, it is removed from play by other means, not normal means.
>>Discarding is NOT removing from normal play, otherwise, as I said before, you
>>can Death Ward a creature you had to discard from your hand from a Disrupting
>>Scepter or from a Hypnotic Spectre or even Mind Twist, and THAT you cannot do.
>>
>I think perhaps what needs to be clarified is the use of the word "discarded."
>I think it is used in two different contexts in MtG: One being discarded from
>your hand and the other being discarded from play. A card in your hand is not
>in play, so it can't be Death Warded when it goes to the graveyard. I had a
>friend who when he first started playing the game would use the Library of
>Leng to put an enchantment that had been disenchanted on the top of his
>library, I told him this was wrong. Based on just reading the cards it sure
>sounds legal, and of course "anything printed on the card supercedes the rules
>in the rulebook." I think the main problem here is that there are
>inconsistencies in the wording on the cards, perhaps for the next revision
>of the cards they should put destroyed when they mean removed from play and
>discarded when they mean removed from your hand.
No... There is NO two different contexts of DISCARDING. You either Discard
without regeneration or Discard with Regeneration. In Play, and by some of the
WotC rules. Disenchant does not allow regeneration.
>As for regeneration, I think it should be treated like this:
> Any time a creature with regeneration is destroyed it can be
> regenerated immediately, unless the card destroying it specifically
> says it cannot be regenerated.
That won't work... Than now makes Swords to Plowshares seem like: "Wow... You
just gave me X Hp and I decide to regenerate it because it doesn't say 'Cannot
be regenerated'
Badger
>All your rule you are quoting from page 23 is where the card goes. If we
>follow your logic that disenchant is normal removal from play or discarding is
>normal removal of play, I should be able to cast Death Ward to prevent any
>creature I had in my hand from going to the graveyard and to go directly into
>the game.
>
I had that same thought, however you can't do it for a simple reason
which has nothing whatsoever to do with the word discard.
The card in your hand is NOT a creature, it is a SPELL.
Regeneration only stops CREATURES from going to the graveyard.
Therefore, if you discard a summon creature spell or when you
are summoning a creature and it is counterspelled, you cannot regenerate
the critter because it never actually was in play so it was never a creature.
I think the problem is you are coming across way to strong.
It seems to me you are saying "my way is the right way"
instead of "I think this is the way it is" and consequently
people have been responding too strongly to your posts.
>Timing of Disenchant and a special ability. Read some of my other responses to
>the timing of instants and special abilities. You can try regenerated before
>Disenchant, whoop, you still lose the wall because disenchant discards the
>artifact. Do it after, whoop, you lose the wall because the card is now
>considered ALREADY DISCARDED.
>
Incorrect.
You must discard the living wall. Ok, its discarded. Now
it is going to be sent to the graveyard since it was
discarded. NOW you regenerate it and it is not sent to
the graveyard.
The way I look at it
destroyed, killed, discarded are actions which LEAD TO being
placed in the graveyard. Being placed in the graveyard is not
synonymous with being discarded.
There is no timing conflict.
>I did not say that. When I said 'MUST BE DISCARDED' by the time you can
>regenerate the wall by ANY means, it is now considered DISCARDED. I consider
>Discard and Destroys/Dies as seperate things. Sure, they go to the same
>graveyards, but if it does not die by spell damage, creature damage or special
>ability damage, it is removed from play by other means, not normal means.
>Discarding is NOT removing from normal play, otherwise, as I said before, you
>can Death Ward a creature you had to discard from your hand from a Disrupting
>Scepter or from a Hypnotic Spectre or even Mind Twist, and THAT you cannot do.
>
You cannot regenerate a creature discarded from your hand because you are
discarding a spell, not a creature.
If you wish to consider discarding an abnormal way of being removed from
the game, fine. Just make sure you inform your opponent BEFORE you
start to play since it seems MANY people disagree with you.
You can use any house rules you want.
>--
>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
>In article <priss.7...@tcp.com>, Lisa Richardson <pr...@tcp.com> wrote:
>>All your rule you are quoting from page 23 is where the card goes. If we
>>follow your logic that disenchant is normal removal from play or discarding is
>>normal removal of play, I should be able to cast Death Ward to prevent any
>>creature I had in my hand from going to the graveyard and to go directly into
>>the game.
>I had that same thought, however you can't do it for a simple reason
>which has nothing whatsoever to do with the word discard.
>The card in your hand is NOT a creature, it is a SPELL.
>Regeneration only stops CREATURES from going to the graveyard.
>Therefore, if you discard a summon creature spell or when you
>are summoning a creature and it is counterspelled, you cannot regenerate
>the critter because it never actually was in play so it was never a creature.
>I think the problem is you are coming across way to strong.
>It seems to me you are saying "my way is the right way"
>instead of "I think this is the way it is" and consequently
>people have been responding too strongly to your posts.
No... I am not saying my way is right. I am putting down what the idea of
Disenchant is suppose to work. Snark said it does, and you people don't
believe him. I try to tell you why it works, you use the rules and innuedos
and loopholes to say it doesn't. I talked to a friend of mine and he believes
the same as I do without me lecturing to him why it would not work. I'm
responding strongly, because people are beating me over the head that you can
regenerate anything, including artifacts from a disenchant. I disagree and
site examples. Examples people shoot down with loop holes and not even seeing
the problem of making certain cards too powerful. Every card has a weakness or
counter. And you can't say the Living Wall is not powerful. IT is POWERFUL.
Why? A wall that can't be destroyed easily. Demolition team can't kill it,
Terror can't kill it, Disintegrate being the only thing for it. However, all
other regenerating things die by other ways. There is at least 2 ways to kill
regenerating things besides making sure the person does not have the mana to
regenerate it.
>>Timing of Disenchant and a special ability. Read some of my other responses to
>>the timing of instants and special abilities. You can try regenerated before
>>Disenchant, whoop, you still lose the wall because disenchant discards the
>>artifact. Do it after, whoop, you lose the wall because the card is now
>>considered ALREADY DISCARDED.
>Incorrect.
>You must discard the living wall. Ok, its discarded. Now
>it is going to be sent to the graveyard since it was
>discarded. NOW you regenerate it and it is not sent to
>the graveyard.
Bzzt sorry, You just disenchanted the artifact. The artifact is no longer
useful (Yes. once again, this is reading into the card, however, that is the
point of Disenchant)
>The way I look at it
>destroyed, killed, discarded are actions which LEAD TO being
>placed in the graveyard. Being placed in the graveyard is not
>synonymous with being discarded.
And Discarding is not synonymous to going to the graveyard either. Sorry, but
discarding is NOT destroyed by normal means.
>>I did not say that. When I said 'MUST BE DISCARDED' by the time you can
>>regenerate the wall by ANY means, it is now considered DISCARDED. I consider
>>Discard and Destroys/Dies as seperate things. Sure, they go to the same
>>graveyards, but if it does not die by spell damage, creature damage or special
>>ability damage, it is removed from play by other means, not normal means.
>>Discarding is NOT removing from normal play, otherwise, as I said before, you
>>can Death Ward a creature you had to discard from your hand from a Disrupting
>>Scepter or from a Hypnotic Spectre or even Mind Twist, and THAT you cannot do.
>You cannot regenerate a creature discarded from your hand because you are
>discarding a spell, not a creature.
I don't care if it is a spell or a creature. If you state a discard is going
to the graveyard. By your reasoning, discard is going to the graveyard and
since it is a creature, spell or not, it will go into the graveyard and you can
Raise Dead, Animate it or Ressurect it from your graveyard. Therefore, you can
definitely Death Ward it.
>If you wish to consider discarding an abnormal way of being removed from
>the game, fine. Just make sure you inform your opponent BEFORE you
>start to play since it seems MANY people disagree with you.
>You can use any house rules you want.
Many people disagreeing with me? Let's see... I only see 3 or 4 people out of
40+ people disagreeing on this. I have 2 people for sure who agree with me who
I haven't lectured the reasoning for it, one of whom is from WotC. I think
that is a false assumption right now.
Glenn Elliott
>In <CIw05...@eskimo.com> g...@eskimo.com (Glenn Elliott) writes:
>>>Not if the card is already discarded. Which is what happens. 2 instants
>>>cannot cancel each other out.
>>Where did you get that idea? Lightning Bolt and Healing Salve instantly
>>come to mind, pun intended.
>*pokes you* Wrong, 2 instants cannot cancel each other out. You STILL receive
>3 points of damage... Healing salve may give or prevent 3 points of damaged
>because it was WRITTEN in the card to do such.
Ah, no. Healing Salve _prevents_ the 3 points of damage, which cancels
the Lightning Bolt.
Your argument about it being written on the card is self defeating,
because regeneration is written so that it occurs before the target card
reaches the graveyard, but _after_ it has been told to go there. That's
the way it is _written_.
Regeneration no more "cancels" Disenchant than Healing Salve "cancels" a
Lightning Bolt.
>>>Rules of Regeneration: Regneration prevents a creature from going to the
>>>graveyard (Fine). This ability must be used at the moment the creature would
>>>normally be removed from play (Discard does not sound like a normal removal of
>>>play for a creature).
>>Discarding a card is considered a "normal" removal from play. Most of
>>the "abnormal" methods of removing a card from play also state that the
>>card may not be regenerated. (E.g. Swords to Plowshares, Disintegrate,
>>Terror, et al.)
>All your rule you are quoting from page 23 is where the card goes. If we
>follow your logic that disenchant is normal removal from play or discarding is
>normal removal of play, I should be able to cast Death Ward to prevent any
>creature I had in my hand from going to the graveyard and to go directly into
>the game.
Wrong. Regeneration states, "This ability must be used at the moment
the creature would normally be removed from play." A card in your hand
is not in play, therefore you cannot regenerate a card that you are
discarding from your hand.
The rule I quoted on page 23 is the only one which defines discarding
and destroying. THERE IS NO OTHER DEFINITION. Anything else that you
attempt to read into the definition of discard is nothing more than your
own house rule. According to the rules, they are identical.
>>>***CREATURES THAT HAVE ALRADY BEEN DISCARDED INTO THE
>>>GRAVEYARD CANNOT BE REGENERATED*** (Please note that Disenchant is an Instant.
>>By definition. What's your point?
>Timing of Disenchant and a special ability. Read some of my other responses to
>the timing of instants and special abilities. You can try regenerated before
>Disenchant, whoop, you still lose the wall because disenchant discards the
>artifact. Do it after, whoop, you lose the wall because the card is now
>considered ALREADY DISCARDED.
Wrong again. The card is not considered already discarded until all
fast effects have been resolved, and they must be resolved
simultaneously. Read the rules on damage again... it's the same
situation when a creature is killed.
"If the damage done to the creature is one turn is equal to or greater
than its toughness, the creature is destroyed and must be put into the
graveyard."
So, by using your own argument, you cannot regenerate the creature
before it takes damage equal to or greater than its toughness because
it is not yet on its way to the graveyard. You cannot regenerate it
after it takes damage equal to or greater than its toughness because by
then it is already considered in the graveyard.
You can't have it both ways, the situations are identical.
>Right, but special abilities are NOT interrupts. Therefore, it cannot prevent
>the discarding of the Living Wall because it does not interrupt the instant
>being casted.
It doesn't have to. Regeneration is also an instant, so the Disenchant
does not happen first, either.
>>By your line of reasoning, any creature which has taken damage equal to
>>or greater than its toughness cannot be regenerated because it "must" be
>>put into the graveyard.
>I did not say that.
It's an analogy. I'm using your own arguments in a different, but
similar, situation.
>When I said 'MUST BE DISCARDED' by the time you can
>regenerate the wall by ANY means, it is now considered DISCARDED.
I understand what you are trying to say. What I'm saying is that the
wording of the rules on damage is identical, but you are trying to tell
me that the end result is different.
>I consider Discard and Destroys/Dies as seperate things.
That's part of your problem. From a game mechanics point of view, they
are _not_ seperate. In fact, they are identical. At least until the
2nd Edition rules come out, anyway. Once those are available, we will
have clear definitions of destroy, discard, and remove from play.
>Sure, they go to the same
>graveyards, but if it does not die by spell damage, creature damage or special
>ability damage, it is removed from play by other means, not normal means.
>Discarding is NOT removing from normal play, otherwise, as I said before, you
>can Death Ward a creature you had to discard from your hand from a Disrupting
>Scepter or from a Hypnotic Spectre or even Mind Twist, and THAT you cannot do.
And I pointed out above, you cannot regenerate a card that has not been
in play, so your conclusion is faulty. I claim that your hypothesis is
also faulty, because "discard" _is_ a "normal" method of removing a card
from play.
Glenn
Badger
>In <2g2ab2$l...@panix.com> g...@panix.com (Badger) writes:
>
>>In article <priss.7...@tcp.com>, Lisa Richardson <pr...@tcp.com> wrote:
>
>>>All your rule you are quoting from page 23 is where the card goes. If we
>>>follow your logic that disenchant is normal removal from play or discarding is
>>>normal removal of play, I should be able to cast Death Ward to prevent any
>>>creature I had in my hand from going to the graveyard and to go directly into
>>>the game.
>
>>I had that same thought, however you can't do it for a simple reason
>>which has nothing whatsoever to do with the word discard.
>>The card in your hand is NOT a creature, it is a SPELL.
>>Regeneration only stops CREATURES from going to the graveyard.
>>Therefore, if you discard a summon creature spell or when you
>>are summoning a creature and it is counterspelled, you cannot regenerate
>>the critter because it never actually was in play so it was never a creature.
>>I think the problem is you are coming across way to strong.
>>It seems to me you are saying "my way is the right way"
>>instead of "I think this is the way it is" and consequently
>>people have been responding too strongly to your posts.
>
>No... I am not saying my way is right. I am putting down what the idea of
>Disenchant is suppose to work. Snark said it does, and you people don't
>believe him. I try to tell you why it works, you use the rules and innuedos
Ahh, there is the magic word. You are telling us "why" it works.
You are telling us "why" by making up a reason that doesn't exist.
Instead, why not just say "Snark said this is the way it works"
instead of creating silly analogies(like disenchant is similiar
to dismantling a computer). There is no real "why", thats just the
way it is supposed to work.
>and loopholes to say it doesn't. I talked to a friend of mine and he believes
>the same as I do without me lecturing to him why it would not work. I'm
>responding strongly, because people are beating me over the head that you can
>regenerate anything, including artifacts from a disenchant. I disagree and
>site examples. Examples people shoot down with loop holes and not even seeing
>the problem of making certain cards too powerful. Every card has a weakness or
No, you create examples that don't work. You say that discarding from
your hand is the same as discarding from in play. That is NOT correct.
TRUST ME, I originally posted a msg to the GG-L list about
"look at this sick rules abuse, you can regenerate from discarding
a creature from your hand"
The official response was:
"No, you can't. You can only regenerate creatures and untill the creature
is summoned its just a spell."
So, why don't you beleive me when I say I had an official response also.
They said nothing about not being able to regenerate because it was
discarded. Now, disenchant may well make it so you can't regenerate,
but not because its discarded. Instead, you should base your
argument on that word "must". Equate "must discard" with
"must die". THAT is a propoer analogy, not discarded from play
vs discarded from your hand.
>counter. And you can't say the Living Wall is not powerful. IT is POWERFUL.
>Why? A wall that can't be destroyed easily. Demolition team can't kill it,
>Terror can't kill it, Disintegrate being the only thing for it. However, all
>other regenerating things die by other ways. There is at least 2 ways to kill
>regenerating things besides making sure the person does not have the mana to
>regenerate it.
>
Sword of the Plowshares kills it and gives the controller 0 life points.
Disintegrate kills it.
Purelace and Terror destroys it.
3 ways right there.
Now, perhaps Disenchant kills it also. I'm not saying it doesn't.
I AM saying that your arguments are weak.
>>>Timing of Disenchant and a special ability. Read some of my other responses to
>>>the timing of instants and special abilities. You can try regenerated before
>>>Disenchant, whoop, you still lose the wall because disenchant discards the
>>>artifact. Do it after, whoop, you lose the wall because the card is now
>>>considered ALREADY DISCARDED.
>
>>Incorrect.
>>You must discard the living wall. Ok, its discarded. Now
>>it is going to be sent to the graveyard since it was
>>discarded. NOW you regenerate it and it is not sent to
>>the graveyard.
>
>Bzzt sorry, You just disenchanted the artifact. The artifact is no longer
>useful (Yes. once again, this is reading into the card, however, that is the
>point of Disenchant)
>
Perhaps it is. Maybe I'll write to ques...@wizards.com and get an
official answer. (Considering that I don't play with many disenchants
and would never waste one on a living wall I probably won't get around
to it though).
>>The way I look at it
>>destroyed, killed, discarded are actions which LEAD TO being
>>placed in the graveyard. Being placed in the graveyard is not
>>synonymous with being discarded.
>
>And Discarding is not synonymous to going to the graveyard either. Sorry, but
>discarding is NOT destroyed by normal means.
>
>>>I did not say that. When I said 'MUST BE DISCARDED' by the time you can
>>>regenerate the wall by ANY means, it is now considered DISCARDED. I consider
>>>Discard and Destroys/Dies as seperate things. Sure, they go to the same
>>>graveyards, but if it does not die by spell damage, creature damage or special
>>>ability damage, it is removed from play by other means, not normal means.
>>>Discarding is NOT removing from normal play, otherwise, as I said before, you
>>>can Death Ward a creature you had to discard from your hand from a Disrupting
>>>Scepter or from a Hypnotic Spectre or even Mind Twist, and THAT you cannot do.
>
>>You cannot regenerate a creature discarded from your hand because you are
>>discarding a spell, not a creature.
>
>I don't care if it is a spell or a creature. If you state a discard is going
>to the graveyard. By your reasoning, discard is going to the graveyard and
>since it is a creature, spell or not, it will go into the graveyard and you can
>Raise Dead, Animate it or Ressurect it from your graveyard. Therefore, you can
>definitely Death Ward it.
>
NO NO NO. It is not a creature. It is a spell. Untill successfully cast
it is not a creature and may not be regenerated. Once in the graveyard
it is a 'dead' creature no matter how it got there, but not untill then.
Once there it is too late to regenerate it.
>>If you wish to consider discarding an abnormal way of being removed from
>>the game, fine. Just make sure you inform your opponent BEFORE you
>>start to play since it seems MANY people disagree with you.
>>You can use any house rules you want.
>
>Many people disagreeing with me? Let's see... I only see 3 or 4 people out of
>40+ people disagreeing on this. I have 2 people for sure who agree with me who
No, 3-4 people vocally disagreeing(and most of them not even disagreeing
with your argument, just your lack of strong presentation).
However, 0 people on the list have spoken up in support.
That's usually a good sign that most of the people don't care and, of the
ones who do care, most of them don't agree with you(else they would
support you).
>I haven't lectured the reasoning for it, one of whom is from WotC. I think
>that is a false assumption right now.
>
If an official from WotC has supported the interpretation, thats fine.
Just say so. Try telling snark your 'reasoning' for why it works
that way and see if he agrees with the reasoning. If he does, I'll
be the first to admit I was wrong. Are you willing to admit
your wrong about your reasoning if he doesn't support you?
>--
>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
tom allison
>
>No... There is NO two different contexts of DISCARDING. You either Discard
>without regeneration or Discard with Regeneration. In Play, and by some of the
>WotC rules. Disenchant does not allow regeneration.
So you are saying that Disenchant played against an enchantment or artifact
of a player with Library of Leng in play does allow them to place the card
on top of their library? I don't think so. I'm saying that discarding does
have two different contexts based upon where you are discarding from, which
is what causes a lot of confusion.
>
Tom Allison all...@cs.colostate.edu
Lisa Richardson
>Ahh, there is the magic word. You are telling us "why" it works.
>You are telling us "why" by making up a reason that doesn't exist.
>Instead, why not just say "Snark said this is the way it works"
>instead of creating silly analogies(like disenchant is similiar
>to dismantling a computer). There is no real "why", thats just the
>way it is supposed to work.
*baps you upside the head* Where have you been for the last 10 days. It was
pointed out a LONG time ago, yet you idiots insist on say, "Snark's an idiot
and we don't take everything he says Seriously." And yes, there are several
people who don't take WotC rulings on this, you being one of them right now
with your rule quoting. The 'silly' analogies as you so quaintly put it, is
putting SIMPLE answers for SIMPLE MINDED PEOPLE, like you to understand WHY it
work. Because, like one other person stated, Legalise makes people 'argue the
other person to conceed'. Which is the same junk you are doing right now by
making 'Disenchant does not prevent the Living wall from Regenerating.' I just
gave you a SIMPLE explanation WHY. The problem in making games, is that people
who write it don't think they have to explain it because it is quite self
explanitory. And now, with all you Magic lawyers trying to find loopholes in
the game, you ruin it for those who play it and actually understand it by
making them argue about the context of the bloody rules and text.
>No, you create examples that don't work. You say that discarding from
>your hand is the same as discarding from in play. That is NOT correct.
>TRUST ME, I originally posted a msg to the GG-L list about
>"look at this sick rules abuse, you can regenerate from discarding
>a creature from your hand"
>The official response was:
>"No, you can't. You can only regenerate creatures and untill the creature
>is summoned its just a spell."
>So, why don't you beleive me when I say I had an official response also.
>They said nothing about not being able to regenerate because it was
>discarded. Now, disenchant may well make it so you can't regenerate,
>but not because its discarded. Instead, you should base your
>argument on that word "must". Equate "must discard" with
>"must die". THAT is a propoer analogy, not discarded from play
>vs discarded from your hand.
Look, dunce... I'm getting tired of this bullshit arguement. And you can tell
I am getting tired of this because I am swearing and resorting to text physical
abuse to work it into your head. I KNOW you CANNOT Regenerate from discarding
from your hand, but if you are going to beat me over the head with 'Discard
goes to the graveyard, regenerate prevents card from going to the graveyard,
therefore I can regenerate from a discard.' That is the logic you are shoving
and force feeding me with that. Then, when I try to equate the proper analogy
about must, I get bullshit about 'Oh, so NOW you tell me I can't regenerated my
troll because my creature DIED from a lightning bolt an MUST go to the
graveyard. I'm sorry, but that can't be.' TRY as I may, I explain this and
then you scream 'That Analogy doesn't work.' or 'it doesn't say I can not
regenerate' or 'You are reading in too much of the card.' Well, god dammit,
Why bother playing magic if you people can not see the meaning of the card.
Now don't whip out this bs about the Fog and the Basilisk bit again, because 1>
You can STILL see if Fog (Logically) Effective Fighting is about nill, but you
can see in fog, therefore the Basilisk Gaze does work because once you run into
the sucker, you see it, it sees you. Bang. Fog just allows the attacker to
bump into the blocker and make a run for it. That Analogy works. It also is
READING into the card.
>Now, perhaps Disenchant kills it also. I'm not saying it doesn't.
>I AM saying that your arguments are weak.
And what I am saying, is their arguements are BS too. The rules are so god
damn vague, they are using vague rules with the loopholes as big as the
stinking spruce goose. The only way I can back this up, is with these 'weak'
arguements and also telling you WHY it works. Since you idiots don't like to
understand WHY it works, you can just give up playing right now. The game is
not all rules, it is the cards abilities and the actual meaning of the card.
Shatter blows up cards... Dwarven Demolition Team destroys walls, Mesa Pegasus
are Flying Creatures... These cards are NAMED for what they do. Yet the
'Legalise' player will contest the very meaning of it by hook or crook by
either arguin the other player to death or using a huge loophole like
Regeneration and the definition of Discarding as their reasons for doing a
cheap trick.
>>Bzzt sorry, You just disenchanted the artifact. The artifact is no longer
>>useful (Yes. once again, this is reading into the card, however, that is the
>>point of Disenchant)
>Perhaps it is. Maybe I'll write to ques...@wizards.com and get an
>official answer. (Considering that I don't play with many disenchants
>and would never waste one on a living wall I probably won't get around
>to it though).
Do that and post the result so I don't have to go through all this shit again
to explain it in 2 syllable words or less to these people who fail to
understand the meaning of disenchant
>>Many people disagreeing with me? Let's see... I only see 3 or 4 people out of
>>40+ people disagreeing on this. I have 2 people for sure who agree with me who
>No, 3-4 people vocally disagreeing(and most of them not even disagreeing
>with your argument, just your lack of strong presentation).
>However, 0 people on the list have spoken up in support.
>That's usually a good sign that most of the people don't care and, of the
>ones who do care, most of them don't agree with you(else they would
>support you).
Wrong, there was one other person who did agree on it.
>If an official from WotC has supported the interpretation, thats fine.
>Just say so. Try telling snark your 'reasoning' for why it works
>that way and see if he agrees with the reasoning. If he does, I'll
>be the first to admit I was wrong. Are you willing to admit
>your wrong about your reasoning if he doesn't support you?
And as I pointed out again, Not everyone agrees with the WotC rulings, because
'But it contradicts the rules and we should always go by the card. Since it
does not say we can not regenerate, we can do it.' These are the people who I
am drilling the reasons on the whys and wherefores on cards. And WHY am I
doing this? Because I happen to have a Living wall, and I know I cannot
regenerate it from something that makes an Artifact to a piece of yuk. An yes,
once again, this is reading into the card itself, but you can't go around
saying, 'Wow, I can have an artifact that is immune to Disenchant.' If you
want to think that, then rocks can roll on their own and grow in size, and pigs
can fly. But if you understand why they don't put info on the card, is because
the name itself explains it all.
****
Please note... I am writing this at 2:00+ am PST time, I'm tired, I am grouchy
and I find dealing with people who like to beat me over the head with loopholes
and other innuendos to cheat or justify cheap ways of keeping cards that are
suppose to be toast or otherwise. Of the cards I have, I have the ones in
question and I like playing them. But the one thing I will NOT tolerate, is
the false assumptions on cards because of rule loopholes that people like to
exploit on the behalf of some one who wants to play the game for fun. I know
my arguements are weak, I am no god damn lawyer and I got rules that are so
holey in the first place, I could use it for swiss cheese. But I am going to
tell you this right now. About a 1/3 of those cards or more have implied
meaning already. The text in the card explains further that may or maynot
cause questions of when this card should be played.
Lisa Richardson
>>*pokes you* Wrong, 2 instants cannot cancel each other out. You STILL receive
>>3 points of damage... Healing salve may give or prevent 3 points of damaged
>>because it was WRITTEN in the card to do such.
>Ah, no. Healing Salve _prevents_ the 3 points of damage, which cancels
>the Lightning Bolt.
>Your argument about it being written on the card is self defeating,
>because regeneration is written so that it occurs before the target card
>reaches the graveyard, but _after_ it has been told to go there. That's
>the way it is _written_.
Do I have to come over and hit you on the head to get this into your noggin? I
posed your same question to my friend. His response:
WRONG! IT does NOT cancel the lightning bolt. You STILL take the 3 points of
damage. Healing Salve prevents (YEs, I know you underline prevents) 3 points
of damage, but as the dunderhead you are, you FAIL to notice that spells can
also be INTERRUPTED. Therefore, your Healing Salve is NOT an Interrupt. It
does NOT cancel the Lightning bolt because it DID hit you. You may have stoped
the damaged, but it does NOT, I repeat until you can actually understand
english and the grammar with it, DOES NOT cancel a lighting bolt. IT would be
saying that Unholy Strength Enchantment cancels out a Weakness Enchantment.
>>>>Rules of Regeneration: Regneration prevents a creature from going to the
>>>>graveyard (Fine). This ability must be used at the moment the creature would
>>>>normally be removed from play (Discard does not sound like a normal removal of
>>>>play for a creature).
>>>Discarding a card is considered a "normal" removal from play. Most of
>>>the "abnormal" methods of removing a card from play also state that the
>>>card may not be regenerated. (E.g. Swords to Plowshares, Disintegrate,
>>>Terror, et al.)
>>All your rule you are quoting from page 23 is where the card goes. If we
>>follow your logic that disenchant is normal removal from play or discarding is
>>normal removal of play, I should be able to cast Death Ward to prevent any
>>creature I had in my hand from going to the graveyard and to go directly into
>>the game.
>Wrong. Regeneration states, "This ability must be used at the moment
>the creature would normally be removed from play." A card in your hand
>is not in play, therefore you cannot regenerate a card that you are
>discarding from your hand.
However, if you are going to use 'Regeneration prevents a card from going to
the graveyard', I'm going to use it. Because, with all your freaking Legalise,
'IT is a card, it is a creature and I don't care if came from the hand or not.
IT is going to the graveyard and it is open to regeneration by your
half-defined idea of Regeneration. The wall is discarded just like a normal
card. That is what the disenchant means. Discard. IF you want to use the
'before it hits the graveyard', fine, I can death ward my creatures from the
graveyard because you said so. After looking at 2nd edition rules, I noticed
that they are very VAGUE about the Regeneration once again, and now Discard
Pile is called the Graveyard, but Discard all the same. The Ruling, as Bandit
is so quaintly wanting me to say as an excuse instead of an explanation is that
Snark (WotC) ruled that a Living Wall CANNOT regenerate from a disenchant
(Mentioned by another player). I have been trying to explain it for you why,
but you like to quote rules. I tried it your way and you say I don't have
enough to justify it. Well, fine, I'll take the coward's way out of this
arguement by slapping you with an official ruling of it and you can choke on
the rules, because the rules are not done by an impartial and unfamiliar
person. Familiarity with the game tends to leave implied beliefs that you
should know this that and the other thing.
>The rule I quoted on page 23 is the only one which defines discarding
>and destroying. THERE IS NO OTHER DEFINITION. Anything else that you
>attempt to read into the definition of discard is nothing more than your
>own house rule. According to the rules, they are identical.
Uh... No. Discarding is NOT the same as destroying. You are quoting one blurb
of text and making a TREMENDOUS assumption. It says:
When a card is destroyed OR discarded, it is placed into the graveyard....
You are now implying that discard is the same as destroyed. I do not believe
that is true, otherwise I can do what I stated before, death warding a
'destroyed' creature. Sure, it was a spell, but if you are going to assume
that discarding is putting a creature into the graveyard, then I can assume a
spell being discarded is a destroyed creature that can now be ressurrected.
Why? Because you are stating that Discard and Destroy are the same thing
because they go to the same place. BFD. WotC probably don't want to deal with
the bs of having to have 3 or 4 card stacks, each indicating what goes where
and why, simply because it is a lot easier to lump them into 2. Discard is not
the same as taking a destroyed or killed creature ot the graveyard. It goes
without passing go, and does not collect special abilities to work.
<other shit from glenn deleted because it is the same BS over again and beating
me over the head with the same excuses and loopholes that have been pointed
over and over again and has be dubbed 'lamed excuses/arguements' and 'poor
analogies/reading too much of the card' statements>
And yes, once again, I am tired and grouchy. Any e-mail is getting shunted to
/dev/null because I am not going to listen to the same rhetoric tune when I
presented the facts, the reasoning and the truth as it should be, without
trying to hook or crook people from it. If you want to use your 'rule says
this and rules says that' Fine. You failed to see the reasoning of the cards
and you are just punking people who are either tired of the arguement or don't
give a fig about it because they are just as clueless about it as you are.
Lisa Richardson
>So you are saying that Disenchant played against an enchantment or artifact
>of a player with Library of Leng in play does allow them to place the card
>on top of their library? I don't think so. I'm saying that discarding does
>have two different contexts based upon where you are discarding from, which
>is what causes a lot of confusion.
As always, people twist words once again. Discard means Discard. The location
means squat. If the card can alter the effects, it does it. Library of Leng
allows the lplayer to choose where it goes because it states it as such.
Discard does go to the graveyard, but regeneration cannot affect it because
Discard is NOT damage infliction, is not death and is certainly not natural for
a card to be taken out of the game while it is in good health.
tom allison
if you can't handle it.
In article <priss.7...@tcp.com> pr...@tcp.com (Lisa Richardson) writes:
>In <2g38hf$a...@panix.com> g...@panix.com (Badger) writes:
>
>Shatter blows up cards... Dwarven Demolition Team destroys walls, Mesa Pegasus
>are Flying Creatures... These cards are NAMED for what they do.
Does this mean Nevinyrral's Disk is a disk owned by Larry Niven? I'd better
stop using it, I wouldn't want to be accused of stealing. :)
Tom Allison all...@cs.colostate.edu
tom allison
>WRONG! IT does NOT cancel the lightning bolt. You STILL take the 3 points of
>damage. Healing Salve prevents (YEs, I know you underline prevents) 3 points
>of damage, but as the dunderhead you are, you FAIL to notice that spells can
>also be INTERRUPTED. Therefore, your Healing Salve is NOT an Interrupt. It
>does NOT cancel the Lightning bolt because it DID hit you. You may have stoped
>the damaged, but it does NOT, I repeat until you can actually understand
>english and the grammar with it, DOES NOT cancel a lighting bolt. IT would be
>saying that Unholy Strength Enchantment cancels out a Weakness Enchantment.
This same argument works amazingly well toward regeneration:
WRONG! IT does NOT cancel the disenchant . You STILL have a disenchanted
wall . Regeneration prevents (YEs, I know you underline prevents) it from
going to the
graveyard, but as the dunderhead you are, you FAIL to notice that spells can
also be INTERRUPTED. Therefore, your regeneration is NOT an Interrupt. It
does NOT cancel the Disenchant because it DID hit you. You may have stoped
the effect , but it does NOT, I repeat until you can actually understand
english and the grammar with it, DOES NOT cancel a disenchant . IT would be
saying that Unholy Strength Enchantment cancels out a Weakness Enchantment.
>--
>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
Tom Allison all...@cs.colostate.edu
tom allison
>
>As always, people twist words once again. Discard means Discard. The location
>means squat. If the card can alter the effects, it does it. Library of Leng
>allows the lplayer to choose where it goes because it states it as such.
>Discard does go to the graveyard, but regeneration cannot affect it because
>Discard is NOT damage infliction, is not death and is certainly not natural for
>a card to be taken out of the game while it is in good health.
And as I stated way back at the beginning of this mess, the WotC ruled that
destroyed, discarded and killed are all synonyms when refering to a card in
play.
>--
>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
Tom Allison all...@cs.colostate.edu
Lisa Richardson
>Warning: this post contains intentional attempts at humor, skip it now
>if you can't handle it.
>Does this mean Nevinyrral's Disk is a disk owned by Larry Niven? I'd better
>stop using it, I wouldn't want to be accused of stealing. :)
funny you should say that... We got tired of calling it Nev*&*#$*#$&* disk...
I started calling it the N Disk cause I keep forgetting how to spell the damn
name. A friend of mine called it the 'Larry Niven Disk' or the 'Start over
from scratch Disk'. Then there is the Emo Philips card (Beserk), Tim the
Sorceror (The Prodigal Sorceror), Wooly (War Mammoth), Mr. Sexy (Veteran
Bodyguard. :), YEECH! (The Lich), Elvis Archers (Elvish Archers), Swamp Thing
(Force of Nature... Look at the card. :), Smokey (Grizzly Bears)
Music to listen to... Some of the music from Fantasia when whipping out a lot
of Iron Treefolk... Sort of like that broom that kept subdividing.
Lisa Richardson
>This same argument works amazingly well toward regeneration:
>WRONG! IT does NOT cancel the disenchant . You STILL have a disenchanted
>wall . Regeneration prevents (YEs, I know you underline prevents) it from
>going to the
Bzzt. Wrong... The disenchanted wall can't regenerate. You are stating that
you can use regenerating to prevent it from going to the graveyard, but when it
doesn't have the ability to do so as an artifact, you can't bring it back
All you are doing is twisting an argument with my words to justify something
that can't happen. Snark states, and I will keep saying this, that you can not
regenerate an artifact from a disenchant. If you want to knw why the ruling
came about, you will have to look at the analogy I gave about the calculator.
Yes, I know it has NOTHING to do with the rules, or what it says in the card.
And Yes, I know this is reading into the card, however, that is what the card
is for. To remove an artifact's ability to work or an enchantment in play.
You cannot expect an artifact to work if you disenchant its ability.
Here is an idea, to take care of this bs once and for all... We take all the
rulings from the WotC... We take 10 people who are familiar with the game who
are not WotC people and have the make a 3rd edition rules. Have them make an
objective, unbiased rules declaration for every card in existance, definition
of Discard, Graveyard, Dies, Killed, Destroys, Regeneration, the works... This
way, we don't have to get more cards to get the reprints, we don't have people
clawing each other to debate whether this card is right or wrong, because the
rules actually make sense and not have to make more game/rule lawyers to
justify tweaky situations.
Lisa Richardson
>In article <priss.7...@tcp.com> pr...@tcp.com (Lisa Richardson) writes:
>>In <Jan01.090...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> all...@CS.ColoState.EDU (tom allison) writes:
>>
>>As always, people twist words once again. Discard means Discard. The location
>>means squat. If the card can alter the effects, it does it. Library of Leng
>>allows the lplayer to choose where it goes because it states it as such.
>>Discard does go to the graveyard, but regeneration cannot affect it because
>>Discard is NOT damage infliction, is not death and is certainly not natural for
>>a card to be taken out of the game while it is in good health.
>And as I stated way back at the beginning of this mess, the WotC ruled that
>destroyed, discarded and killed are all synonyms when refering to a card in
>play.
NO... You stated, and quoted from page 23 where the card GOES. Then, from
that, you made the assumption that Destroy, Kills and discard are the same
thing. They are not. Discard is not a natural death, as I stated. And I have
stated this over and over again, but with the constant 'Regeneration prevents a
creature from going to the graveyard' business, people assume Discard and
Destroy/kill/die are the same. IF you do that, then the death ward on
discarded creatures from hand, regardless if it is a spell or not, should allow
you to bring in other cretures. This will also mean that your excuse to raise
dead a creature that has been discarded can work to, since it is in your
graveyard. Semantically, that is all true based on YOUR argument for
'discarded and killed are all synonyms'. So if you want to ignore Snark's
rulling on Disenchant does not allow regenerating artifact creatures, then I
can ignore the ruling of not death warding discarded creatures from hand. And
you will scream as loud about that as I would about the disenchant vs
regenerating artifacts. I agree, you can't death ward a creature you discarded
from your hand, but you also cannot regenerate an artifact creature.
Carl da Fuzz and Karen Silver Cravens
>If an official from WotC has supported the interpretation, thats fine.
Wizards of the Coast, and at least one of the others is an official
playtester for Magic.
da Fuzz
Carl da Fuzz and Karen Silver Cravens
>*baps you upside the head* Where have you been for the last 10 days. It was
>pointed out a LONG time ago, yet you idiots insist on say, "Snark's an idiot
>I am getting tired of this because I am swearing and resorting to text physical
>abuse to work it into your head. I KNOW you CANNOT Regenerate from discarding
support your position with logic and well thought out argument, and now
you resort to offensive language because we don't agree with you.
Using "analogies" doesn't work at all, so don't bother trying to use them.
Clear argument is all that works, and you're very unclear when you say things
like, "I talked to a friend and he agrees" or "I know the rules mean this"
when you can't possibly "know" anymore than the rest of us unless you're
a designer and helped write those rules.
You've been arguing with just one of those employees of WotC, although he
hasn't bothered to let on. You accuse others of twisting your words and
putting words in your mouth, but that's exactly what you're doing with
the rules themselves... you have decided on an interpretation of a card and
have been selectivly quoting rules and misinterpreting them, trying to
support your position.
da Fuzz
bi...@its.bldrdoc.gov
> Hey, this is getting out of hand and quite offensive. You obviously cannot
> support your position with logic and well thought out argument, and now
> you resort to offensive language because we don't agree with you.
Yes, I would have to agree. I logged on this morning and found nine
posts from Lisa. Nine! And most of them spouted the same desperate
arguments of, "I know I'm right, therefore I'm right."
Please Lisa, nine messages saying the same thing is too much. If you
can't say what you want, logically, and in one post, maybe you shouldn't
bother posting at all.
Lisa Richardson
Yeah, but on what? Not on the Living Wall vs. Regeneration. I have an
official ruling on that and I am trying to explain that ruling. Some of the
things you people put up as excuses to superceed that ruling makes new excuses
for other things that also superceed other rulings made.
Lisa Richardson
>Hey, this is getting out of hand and quite offensive. You obviously cannot
>support your position with logic and well thought out argument, and now
>you resort to offensive language because we don't agree with you.
It is getting out of hand because what I have to support has no clear rules to
justify it because even the rules contradict or are not even FULLY defined.
And frustrating the person who is trying to calmly explain something by making
more excuses by misinterpreting her explainations by twisting what she says to
say, 'Sorry, you are wrong' at each turn does not help out at all.
>Using "analogies" doesn't work at all, so don't bother trying to use them.
>Clear argument is all that works, and you're very unclear when you say things
>like, "I talked to a friend and he agrees" or "I know the rules mean this"
>when you can't possibly "know" anymore than the rest of us unless you're
>a designer and helped write those rules.
First off, said friend is not on net. Said friend almost agreed with the idea
of regenerating from a disenchant until he looked at the card again without my
lecturing him the way I had to with you people WITH analogies. The problem
here, is that there are people who do not understand the simple idea of the
card. This is an arguement I have been constantly refering to people that you
have simply ignored. There are some cards that are self-explanitory that they
did not even bother put down stuff that should be simple to understand.
Discarding is one. How can you regenerate something you discard from play.
Regeneration states you cannot bring a creature back that is already discarded,
which should have said 'discarded' not 'already discarded'. The problem is,
that, yes, no one can possible know anymore than the rest except the
playertesters and the designer, HOWEVER, th designer is NOT on the net, and we
only have the playtesters that you and several other people are wanking your
way out of some of their rulings.
Here is a clear arguement right now that you can't shoot down:
There are only 2 or 3 references for Discarding in the rule book. One states a
section of play where you discard a card when you have more than seven in your
hand. Another is where does a discarded card goes to. No where does it state
that Discard/Destroyed/Killed are the same thing. The only way
Discard/Destroyed/Killed have in common is that they all go to the same place.
Now, I have seen people state that Discard/Destroyed/Killed are synonomous to
each other. Synonym is saying the same thing with a different word. Discard
is NOT like Destroyed/Killed, because you are loosing a creature/spell that was
not killed by damage or destroyed by a spell.
>You've been arguing with just one of those employees of WotC, although he
>hasn't bothered to let on. You accuse others of twisting your words and
>putting words in your mouth, but that's exactly what you're doing with
>the rules themselves... you have decided on an interpretation of a card and
>have been selectivly quoting rules and misinterpreting them, trying to
>support your position.
After having my words half quoted and twisted around. I did not say that a
troll couldn't regenerate because it was zapped by an instant, yet that is what
he interpretted it from by only listening to half or part of what I was
stating. And I have not selectively quoted rules from the book when most of
them, no matter how half-assed thought out as I read them, where quoted.
Regeneration was quoted exactly which even had 'already discarded' in there. I
could not explain something clear cut because 'already discarded' and the
definition of 'discard' were not adequately explained. And I will continue
saying that you are forcing words into my mouth because at ever turn, the
intention I keep showing you, you immediately use an illegal manuever to
justify it can not work.
tom allison
>(Force of Nature... Look at the card. :), Smokey (Grizzly Bears)
Actually I think the Force of Nature like a lot like the Predator when it's
not invisible...
Tom Allison all...@cs.colostate.edu
Lisa Richardson
>In article <priss.7...@tcp.com> pr...@tcp.com (Lisa Richardson) writes:
>>Bodyguard. :), YEECH! (The Lich), Elvis Archers (Elvish Archers), Swamp Thing
>>(Force of Nature... Look at the card. :), Smokey (Grizzly Bears)
>Actually I think the Force of Nature like a lot like the Predator when it's
>not invisible...
Just need the funky dreadlocks... The other stuff we can forgo. But if you
ever watch that USA series 'Swamp Thing' or look at the Comic, just paint in a
mouth and you have the Swamp Thing.
Dave Howell
Disenchant. I assume this thread is it, :) although I seem to have
missed most of it.
Because Disenchant says "discard," and not "killed," or "destroyed,"
the Living Wall cannot regenerate from a Disenchant. This isn't what
was really intended, but it's what the card says, and to redefine
"discard" would be to throw a pile of other cards out of whack.
If you want to play it the other way, go ahead, but keep in mind it's
not "canon."
Thank you,
Dave Howell, aka Snark sn...@wizards.com
Cyberspace Liaison, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Keeper of the Magic FAQ
Mr M J Cleaton
pr...@tcp.com (Lisa Richardson) writes:
>Many people disagreeing with me? Let's see... I only see 3 or 4 people out of
>40+ people disagreeing on this. I have 2 people for sure who agree with me who
>I haven't lectured the reasoning for it, one of whom is from WotC. I think
>that is a false assumption right now.
I write:
While I don't know what I think about the conclusions (I haven't bothered to
read the cards and think about it yet), in my opinion at least 80% of the
'logic' you've been using in this flamewar is rubbish. Many of the flaws
people have pointed out in your logic have been correct.
Your conclusions being 'correct' or agreed with by nearly everyone isn't the
complete defense you seem to think it is against people who point out the
obvious, huge, gaping flaws in your arguments. Your arguments should now
proceed directly to the graveyard, with no chance for regeneration, and
without passing go. Thank you.
~Cookie
Mr M J Cleaton
>point, all spells TAKE EFFECT SIMULTANEOUSLY...
>Later it speaks about timing on whether it should be done before or AFTER the
>spell it is conflicting with comes into affect. Therefore, your Living wall is
>Toast. Why? Regenerate before the disenchant, "Whoopie. Your wall lives
>before it gets disenchanted and now goes into the graveyard." Regnerate after
>disenchant, "Whoopie, you are trying to regenerate a card that has now ALREADY
>been discarded."
Before or after is for interrupts on the same spell. You just said all fast
effects happen simultaneously. How can they do that AND happen either before
or after each other?
Anyway, I've read enough of this. *PLONK*.
~Cookie
Jonathan Dean
>Disenchant is suppose to work. Snark said it does, and you people don't
>believe him.
I have read the word of Snark.
But, as near as I can tell some of Snarks decisions are not based on
the current set of rules, but on common sense and what will become the
rules (once the second edition is released). And in fact, some of his
decisions either have no support within the current rulebook if not
conflict directly with the rules (his definition of protection for
example).
Snark also has redefined Regeneration as preventing a creature from
being Destroyed. And there is *NO* support for that judgement other
than "Snark said so" (at least according to current rulebook).
Now, if you had said: "You can't regenerate from being discarded
because Snark said so" I would have been perfectly content. Maybe a
little explanation saying that Snark was god would also be in order.
What I am, and have been, complaining about is that you are trying to
justify a ruling where there is no support in the rules. I think that
your justification is weak (because the rules are weak in this area).
Not only that, but your definition of Regeneration, etc. can cause
bizzare twists in areas that would not otherwise be affected by this
debate. And I don't want to see that happen.
BTW, A card is not a creature till after it has been successfully cast.
It is not even a spell until you put mana into it. Thus if you discard
when you have 8 or more cards it enters the graveyard as a card (and
thus is not a legal target for Death Ward).
FOR THE RECORD: I do not allow my opponents (or myself) to regenerate
a creature that has been discarded.
--
Jonathan Dean
Philippe DUCHON
The battle about the Disenchanted Living Wall rages on:
Lisa:
>counter. And you can't say the Living Wall is not powerful. IT is POWERFUL.
>Why? A wall that can't be destroyed easily. Demolition team can't kill it,
>Terror can't kill it, Disintegrate being the only thing for it. However, all
>other regenerating things die by other ways. There is at least 2 ways to kill
>regenerating things besides making sure the person does not have the mana to
>regenerate it.
>
Badger:
...
>Purelace and Terror destroys it.
Me:
Are you sure of that ? Purelace still leaves the Wall as an Artifact, right ?
So it's still immune to Terror...
Now, I may be wrong, that's just my fast (instant) reaction. Your reply is about
to get Discarded. If you have a Death Ward somewhere, we may have to argue :)
Are we going to vote ? Without scanning the rules completely, but after reading
20+ postings about this, I still think the rulebook doesn't state Discarding
a card from play and Killing/Destroying it are different things, so a Living
Wall should be able to regenerate. Now, if a WotC ruling states something
different about Discarding (which I think would be normal, otherwise why use
a different word ?), it can't if you play by the WotC word, and it can if you
play by the rules as written in the little book you get when you buy a Starter.
Once again, this is just my opinion. And my opinion also includes this: you aren't
going to convince each other. This is going to degenerate. Stop arguing.
Please.
---
Philippe Duchon duc...@labri.u-bordeaux.fr
Badger
Philippe DUCHON <duc...@labri.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>
>The battle about the Disenchanted Living Wall rages on:
>
>Lisa:
>>counter. And you can't say the Living Wall is not powerful. IT is POWERFUL.
>>Why? A wall that can't be destroyed easily. Demolition team can't kill it,
>>Terror can't kill it, Disintegrate being the only thing for it. However, all
>>other regenerating things die by other ways. There is at least 2 ways to kill
>>regenerating things besides making sure the person does not have the mana to
>>regenerate it.
>>
>
>Badger:
>...
>>Purelace and Terror destroys it.
>
>Me:
>
>Are you sure of that ? Purelace still leaves the Wall as an Artifact, right ?
>So it's still immune to Terror...
>
Opps.. You are correct, its still an artifact. (I forgot Terror has no
effect on artifacts).
I also was mistaken about using 2 Time Vaults to make a game a draw.
Its an iffy situation as far as the rules go.
>Once again, this is just my opinion. And my opinion also includes this: you aren't
>going to convince each other. This is going to degenerate. Stop arguing.
>Please.
>
Actually, she did convince me based on her arguments that were rule based
and official word based. Its her philosophy based arguments I disagree with.
>---
>
> Philippe Duchon duc...@labri.u-bordeaux.fr
--
-Badger
g...@panix.com
NICHOLAS GOFFENEY
>
>Since it said DISCARD, not Destroyed, it does not follow rules of regeneration
>or goes into the graveyard by normal removal. For further example, I shall
>cite three cards that does mention 'cannot be regenerated' that **I** know of
>with the appropriate word hilited why they placed the word in there.
>
>Terror: ***DESTROYS*** target creature without possibility of regneration.
>Does not affect black creatures and artifact creatures.
>
>Tunnel: ***DESTROYS*** 1 wall. Target wall CANNOT be regenerated.
>
>Disintegrate: Disintegrate does X damage to one target. If target ***DIES*
>this turn, it is removed from game entirely and cannot be regenerated. Return
>target to its owner's deck only when game is over.
>
>Also... Wrath of God: All creatures in play are ***DESTROYED** and cannot
>regenerate.
>
>I do not believe that discard is considered 'normally removed from play',
>considering that there are 4 cards with the words 'DESTROYS', 'DESTROYED' or
>'DIES' that also has the addem of 'Cannot be regenerated' or 'without
>possibility of regeneration'.
>
Sorry Lisa. In the FAQ, it states that Destroyed and Discarded are synonymous.
The FAQ is available on the Wizards ftp site; if you want info on this, let
me know; I don't have the actual address in front of me. Maybe someone else
will post said info in the meantime.
By the way, you should also read the rules on timing conflicts. The last
fast effect used takes effect first. Since regenerate will always be used
in response to imminent destruction, it will usually win in a paradoxical
situation.
Nick (again)
NICHOLAS GOFFENEY
>
>>Actually, I believe the WotC ruled that destroyed, killed and discarded were
>>all synonymous terms when applied to a card in play. This means that it is
>>legal to regenerate a Living Wall when it is disenchanted...
>
>Not if the card is already discarded. Which is what happens. 2 instants
>cannot cancel each other out. Therefore, I put up the pose of 'Sol Ring and
>Shatter'. You can shatter the Sol ring, but at the same time, I can tap it to
>get the 2 colorless mana. I can disenchant your living wall, you can TRY to
>regenerate it, but by then, your wall is ALREADY Discarded.
>
>Rules of Regeneration: Regneration prevents a creature from going to the
>graveyard (Fine). This ability must be used at the moment the creature would
>normally be removed from play (Discard does not sound like a normal removal of
>GRAVEYARD CANNOT BE REGENERATED*** (Please note that Disenchant is an Instant.
>The statement in the card says *You -->MUST<-- discard target artifact or
>enchantment*. Living wall is now DISCARDED. By the time you use the
>Creature's power, it is an Instant, BUT the Living wall is still DISCARDED.)
>
Wow, you're sure taking this matter seriously. What does the fact that
Disenchant is an Instant have to do with anything, or do you not realize that
fast effects on cards are also instants? Again, you should read the rules on
timing conflicts. Read this section carefully, and then keep in mind that
an official ruling was made that Discard and Destroy are synonymous; if you
apply the logic of these two items with the same brutality as your last post,
you will be left with only one conclusion...***DISENCHANT ONLY TAPS A LIVING
WALL***. If this is a valuable strategy to you, I suggest you put a few
Hurr Jackals in your deck.
Nick
P.S. This is not a flame. I just enjoy a good argument. If you feel inclined
to call me a silly name ('pillock', for example) feel free. I get a kick
out of heated debate.
N.
NICHOLAS GOFFENEY
>Sorry Lisa. In the FAQ, it states that Destroyed and Discarded are synonymous.
>The FAQ is available on the Wizards ftp site; if you want info on this, let
>me know; I don't have the actual address in front of me. Maybe someone else
>will post said info in the meantime.
>
>By the way, you should also read the rules on timing conflicts. The last
>fast effect used takes effect first. Since regenerate will always be used
>in response to imminent destruction, it will usually win in a paradoxical
>situation.
>
>Nick (again)
>
feeling like an idiot). I should wait until I read the latest post before
responding. I had no idea that this thread would lead to a keg of dynamite.
I just wanted in on the fun. I haven't laughed so hard at a series of posts
in a while. Lisa, your responses are so amusing it makes people want to
argue with you. Keep this in mind.
Snark's 'official' announcement only serves to confuse things, since it
directly contradicts what Chris Page, the other 'official' person on the
net, has twice stated (i.e. that Disenchant only taps a Living Wall)
I think, after reading this melee, that the real problem is that people on
one side of the argument secretly know they're right based on what they have
heard from Chris Page, and the other side (i.e. Lisa) continue to argue
because they heard entirely different information from a different, but no
less official, source. I think WotC needs to narrow down it's official
rules representatives, or at least get them to agree.
Jesus, if this were only a game, the whole thing wouldn't be that important.
Nick
P.S. Please disregard any and all of my posts concerning Disenchant and the
Living F**cking Wall before and after this one.
Lisa Richardson
>In article <priss.7...@tcp.com>, pr...@tcp.com (Lisa Richardson) writes...
>>
>>Since it said DISCARD, not Destroyed, it does not follow rules of regeneration
>>or goes into the graveyard by normal removal. For further example, I shall
>>cite three cards that does mention 'cannot be regenerated' that **I** know of
>>with the appropriate word hilited why they placed the word in there.
>>
>>Terror: ***DESTROYS*** target creature without possibility of regneration.
>>Does not affect black creatures and artifact creatures.
>>
>>Tunnel: ***DESTROYS*** 1 wall. Target wall CANNOT be regenerated.
>>
>>Disintegrate: Disintegrate does X damage to one target. If target ***DIES*
>>this turn, it is removed from game entirely and cannot be regenerated. Return
>>target to its owner's deck only when game is over.
>>
>>Also... Wrath of God: All creatures in play are ***DESTROYED** and cannot
>>regenerate.
>>
>>I do not believe that discard is considered 'normally removed from play',
>>considering that there are 4 cards with the words 'DESTROYS', 'DESTROYED' or
>>'DIES' that also has the addem of 'Cannot be regenerated' or 'without
>>possibility of regeneration'.
>>
>Sorry Lisa. In the FAQ, it states that Destroyed and Discarded are synonymous.
>The FAQ is available on the Wizards ftp site; if you want info on this, let
>me know; I don't have the actual address in front of me. Maybe someone else
>will post said info in the meantime.
Wait wai wait... I just looked over the FAQ, and noticed that people have this
funny thing about equating Discard and Destroyed being the same when the FAQ
says NOTHING about that. Further more, if you check snarks.answers and
answers.summerized on the ftp site, you will notice, on BOTH of them, there is
a ruling stating this:
An artifact CANNOT regenerate from a disenchant.
Also, they are going to change 'Discard' on disenchant to 'Buried' Which is
'Destroyed WITHOUT possible regeneration'
Dean R Biron
>
>*whips out the rulles and points to page 27* Some creatures have special
>abilities, and any create with the appropriate creature enchantments may aquire
>special abilities... *Flips through the rules to page 37* Special types of
>Fast Effects: Using the special abilites of creatures, using artifacts already
>in play and using enchantments in play are all fast effects. *Flips back to
>page 30...* ...Then, the other player can respond to each one with one or more
>fast effects (instatns, artifacts in play, enchantments in play, or creature
>special abilities). These reactions can be reacted to and so forth, and
>nothing happens until both players have finished taking actions. At this
>point, all spells TAKE EFFECT SIMULTANEOUSLY...
Well, since the rules clearly state that artifact creatures are to be treated
as both creatures and artifacts, I living wall that has been summoned is both
a creature and an ARTIFACT ALREADY IS PLAY. Hmmm... So, thank you Lisa for
your beautiful argument in favor of regenerating a disenchanted living wall.
Also, when the rules state the regeneration is used when the creature would
normally go to the graveyard, you have to use your context clues to understand
what is meant by normally. In this context, normally simply means that,
without regeneration, the card would go to the graveyard. This is a common
colloquial useage and has nothing at all to do with normal means of sending
a creature to the graveyard, whatever that means. About the only abnormal
methods of sending a creature to the graveyard that I can think of involve the
use of teleportation, telekinesis or sleight of hand on the part of a player.
Perhaps that is a bit facetious, but I am just trying to point out to you
that anything that happens within the context of the rules is normal for the
game. I am sorry that you feel the need to waste so much bandwith trying to
defend your position. Don't take things so personally. It is fine to express
your opinions, but if people disagree, sometimes you just have to let them.
No matter how many times you post, people are still going to play the way they
want to. So please, why don't we all just agree to disagree and spend our
efforts on something more productive. Thank you for your time.
Dean Biron
d...@christa.unh.edu
--
Dean R Biron, University of New Hampshire Research Computing Center -><-
Prefector of the order of St Gulick, Legion of Dynamic Discord -><-
I'm so tired of all the f-cked up minds of all the terrorist religions and
Jonathan Dean
>'Destroyed WITHOUT possible regeneration'
Actually, there are going to chage 'Discard' to 'Destroy' in the second
edition to be the same as Shatter. But, then again they are going to
redefine 'Destroy' as begin going to the graveyard WITHOUT possibility of
Regenereation.
'Buried' is what they intend to use for cards that are removed from the
game (by Swords to Plowshares, etc.).
--
Jonathan Dean
Lisa Richardson
>Well, since the rules clearly state that artifact creatures are to be treated
>as both creatures and artifacts, I living wall that has been summoned is both
>a creature and an ARTIFACT ALREADY IS PLAY. Hmmm... So, thank you Lisa for
>your beautiful argument in favor of regenerating a disenchanted living wall.
>Also, when the rules state the regeneration is used when the creature would
>normally go to the graveyard, you have to use your context clues to understand
>what is meant by normally. In this context, normally simply means that,
>without regeneration, the card would go to the graveyard. This is a common
>colloquial useage and has nothing at all to do with normal means of sending
>a creature to the graveyard, whatever that means. About the only abnormal
>methods of sending a creature to the graveyard that I can think of involve the
>use of teleportation, telekinesis or sleight of hand on the part of a player.
>Perhaps that is a bit facetious, but I am just trying to point out to you
>that anything that happens within the context of the rules is normal for the
>game. I am sorry that you feel the need to waste so much bandwith trying to
>defend your position. Don't take things so personally. It is fine to express
>your opinions, but if people disagree, sometimes you just have to let them.
>No matter how many times you post, people are still going to play the way they
>want to. So please, why don't we all just agree to disagree and spend our
>efforts on something more productive. Thank you for your time.
Here we go again... Disenchant says DISCARD. Certainly not a normal way to
remove a creature in play. The card is NOT destroyed, the Creature is NOT
killed, it is discarded. Discarded card and Destroyed cards MAY go to the same
place, but Destroyed and Discard is NOT synonomous and, as per ruling, Ask
Chris Page, Dave Howell or Beth, a DISENCHANTED ARTIFACT CREATURE CANNOT
REGENERATE.
Lisa Richardson
>In article <priss.7...@tcp.com> pr...@tcp.com (Lisa Richardson) writes:
>>
>>Also, they are going to change 'Discard' on disenchant to 'Buried' Which is
>>'Destroyed WITHOUT possible regeneration'
>Actually, there are going to chage 'Discard' to 'Destroy' in the second
>edition to be the same as Shatter. But, then again they are going to
>redefine 'Destroy' as begin going to the graveyard WITHOUT possibility of
>Regenereation.
Two of the WotC people told me that Buried will be Destroyed without
possibility of regeneration. But we will have to see when the cards come out
and we will all have to make notes of it for the old set.
Chris Page
GOFFENEY) wrote:
> Snark's 'official' announcement only serves to confuse things, since it
> directly contradicts what Chris Page, the other 'official' person on the
> net, has twice stated (i.e. that Disenchant only taps a Living Wall)
> I think, after reading this melee, that the real problem is that people on
> one side of the argument secretly know they're right based on what they have
> heard from Chris Page, and the other side (i.e. Lisa) continue to argue
> because they heard entirely different information from a different, but no
> less official, source. I think WotC needs to narrow down it's official
> rules representatives, or at least get them to agree.
>
Okay. I have said in the past at least once that Disenchant only taps
a living wall. However, I was wrong those times, and I don't know
if I ever posted a correction.
Right now we're deciding if every instance of discarding should mean
"without regeneration." Until then, stick with the official current
ruling which is the arbitrary "you can't regenerate from disenchant"
for tournament play. For house rules, use whichever variant you want
as long as you all agree.
As far as the other comments about rules reps, unfortunately there's
too high a volume to follow every other reps comments.
-Chris Page
pa...@student.physics.upenn.edu
rec.games.board Network Representative for