Design Team Rulings: 12/15/94
Thomas R Wylie
<ERRATTA> Nevinyrral's Disk should be have a tap symbol. In the original
version it was a mono artifact, and at some point in the revision it lost its
tapping cost. Future versions will have a tap symbol. Additionally, it is
not a sacrifice. It is destroyed as part of its effect, and can be prevented
from going to the graveyard.
1) If I have six creatures out and my opponent fires off a Catapult for 6, I
can respond to that by activating a Mishra's Factory, and the Catapult will do
6/7 = 0 damage to everything, not 6/6 = 1?
This is correct. You calculate the damage done at resolution.
2) Is the discard for Mindstab Thrull random, or does the defending player
choose which three cards to get rid of?
The defending player gets to choose which cards to discard.
3) If an enchantment's upkeep is dealt with, and the enchantment is then moved
to something else (with Enchantment Alteration) during upkeep, do you need to
deal with its upkeep again?
Yes. Treat it as though it was just cast and must therefore have its
upkeep dealt with again. (Note: My previous answer to this question was
confusing, and so I hope this answer clarifies things.)
4) If I lose a Sea Serpent or whatever due to running out of islands, does a
full damage prevention step ensue? If so, what happens if I Hack the Serpent
during that step to say "plains" or whatever will let it live... does it still
get buried, or does the Hack save it?
A full damage prevention step does occur, however this will not save
the Serpent. The Serpent is buried as soon as there are no islands, and
Hacking it after the fact will not retroactively prevent this occurence. If
this had been a Nightmare that was dying from a lack of swamps, then Hacking
it would save it.
5) When Homarids' "can't target" ability is activated, does this cause
enchantments on them to be destroyed, since they're now an illegal target?
No. The Homarid's ability only applies to spells and effects, and an
enchantment in play is neither.
6) If a Rainbow Value is activated and then covered by a Blood Moon or what
have you, will still wander at end of turn? I think that it should, just as a
Berserked attacker would be destroyed at end of turn even if it stopped being
a creature before then, but am not 100% sure on that.
The Rainbow Vale says "Rainbow Vale passes..." If it is not a Rainbow
Vale (which it isn't if Blood Moon is in play) it will not be passed.
6) By a strict reading of Raiding party, I can tap *anyone's* white creatures
to stop a plains from being destroyed, specifically creatures I don't control.
<ERRATTA> This is a mistake. You can only tap white creatures that you
control.
7) Are the white creatures tapped as a damage prevention effect during the
step in which the plains would go to the graveyard, or during the
resolution of the Raiding Party's effect?
You tap the creatures during resolution.
8) Does tapping Bottomless Vault act as an interrupt, or as an instant?
All of these lands are tapped for mana as interrupts.
9) When does Merseine go away?
Merseine does not make itself go away. If the last counter is removed,
it sits there. You could disenchant it....
10) Is Ferrel's Mantle cumulative with other similar effects?
Yes. You may choose to use the Mantle with the Zealot, for example,
and gain both benefits. However, the Mantle itself is not cumulative.
11) Can you get free mana from a Bottomless Vault if Manaflare is in play?
Yes. If you tap a "land battery" for 0 mana, the mana flare will
produce 1 mana.
12) Suppose a Rainbow Vale is out when Living Plane is brought into play. At
some point, the Vale gets stolen with an Old Man of the Sea (or whatever). If
the Vale is then tapped for mana, does it change controller at end of turn?
Yes. It will wander to the opponent, exactly as a Ghazban Ogre would.
13) Can the Vodalian War Machine allow itself to attack in spite of "summoning
sickness", or is it like Wall of Wonder in that
it's only allowing itself to attack in spite of being a wall?
It cannot override "summoning sickness". It can only attack if it
began the turn in play under your control.
14) What exactly is the definition of "When you lose a land?" When a land you
control leaves play? If a land gets stolen, would that trigger the Dingus
Egg? Specifically, does Rainbow Vale + Dingus Egg mean 2 points of damage
whenever the Vale changes sides?
<Reversal> Dingus Egg will only trigger on a land going to the
graveyard.
15) When making someone cast a spell via Word of Command, can I force them to
sacrifice a Dwarven Ruins or whatever?
Yes. You make all decisions and can draw mana from their lands.
16) Suppose I have a few Bayous out. The Thelonite Druid has been used, and
then a Khormus Bell is cast. The swamps would be converted to 2/3 by the
Druid, and then down to 1/1 by the Bell, right?
Correct. The last effect will apply.
17) What happens if Camoflage is cast after blockers have been declared?
Nothing.
18) What happens if a legend is face-down (Illusionary Mask), and another copy
of that legend is brought into play? Is the second legend immediately buried,
or does it not notice the original?
The second Legend is immediately buried. The person with the face down
Legend must inform the other player of this fact.
19) Will Timetwister be pulled back into the graveyard when it resolves if
something else removes it from play prior to resolution?
No. If it is removed from the graveyard (Tormod's Crypt, Feldon's
Cane) before resolution, it will not jump back to the graveyard.
20) If I cast a spell which requires I sacrifice a land upon resolution
(Mold Demon, Mana Vortex, etc) can I use Equinox to counter that
summoning?
Yes.
21) Suppose I say I'm about to attack, and my opponent uses a bunch of fast
effects. Can I now decide to put off the attack long enough to cast a sorcery
or something, or am I stuck with attacking?
Yes, you can still cast sorceries or whatever. This also applies to
declaration of the end of any phase. If your opponent uses fast effects, you
can back up to cast a legitimate spell.
22) Does Ebony Horse retoractively un-attacks the creature?
Would a nettled creature still die, would Erg Raiders damage their
controller, etc?
It un-attacks the creature. Nettled creatures die, etc.
23) It can be argued that because Tourach's Gate says "If there are no time
counters on Tourach's Gate, bury it", and it always enters play with no
counters, then it's always destroyed as soon as it enters play.
The "during upkeep" clause is supposed to apply to the time you check
for no counters, as well.
24) What was the final decision on Rocket Launcher? Does it sacrifice itself,
or can it be saved by regeneration, Guardian Beast, etc?
It does not sacrifice itself. It can regenerate if animated, etc.
25) Suppose I cast the Farrel's Mantle on an opponent's creature; who decides
whether the Mantle is used, and if so, what gets targetted?
The creature's controller decides all of these. Also the creature may
deal damage and use Farrel's Mantle, if its controller is not the Mantle's
controller. This is because it says "it deals no damage to opponent this
turn", with "opponent" being the opponent of the Mantle's controller, not
the opponent of the creature.
26) Hand of Justice: "tap: Tap three target white creatures you control to
destroy any target creature." Assuming they are tapped as the cost, can they
be tapped in spite of summoning sickness?
Yes. Summoning sickness does not prevent another card from tapping a
creature.
27) If I use Camouflage, my token creatures would be turned "face down", and
my opponent would know which of my creatures were tokens and which were cards,
but not which token creature was which, correct?
No. Your opponent will not know which creatures are token creatures
and which are not. You could be using extra cards as token creatures, after
all.
28) Is Farrel's Mantel's ability used as an instant between blockers and
damage dealing?
Yes. This also applies to Mindstab Thrull, etc.
29) Old Man of the Sea and Preacher stay tapped for their effect, and thus may
choose not to untap as normal. If what they had stolen disappears, can they
still choose to remain tapped?
Yes. This ability is independant of whether they currently control a
creature.
30) Suppose a land of mine gets animated and then stuck into a Safe Haven or
Oubliette or what have you. Later, that land would be sent back into play,
but by that time my opponent has Land Equilibrium out, and less land than I
do. What happens?
For Land Equilibrium, you put the new land into play first, and then
sacrifice a land, which can be the one you just played. Note that there would
not be time to tap it for mana before it entered the graveyard.
31) Suppose a band of creatures A and B attack. Would-be blocker Y can only
block A, and would-be blocker Z can only block B. Can they each make that
blocking decisions, and thereby each block the band, and therefore the Goblin
War Drums are satisfied?
Y and Z each have to be able to block A (or each to block B) to
satisfy the War Drums.
32) Blaze of Glory is used on a creature while Goblin War Drums is out. It
cannot block a given attacker unless something else also blocks that attacker,
correct?
This is correct.
33) Is the form picked as the Primal Clay is announced, or as it enters play?
You pick the form when it is anounced.
34) If a play a storage land when Blood Moon is out, does the land still
enters play tapped?
Yes. It is a tapped mountain.
35) Is the a specific rule about Mind Twist being targeted a general rule abut
"opponent" effects? Specific example: Can I reflect a Drain Power?
Yes. Most effects that say "opponent" are targeted.
36) Frequently a card describes "Instead of drawing a card..." effects (such
as Aladdin's Lamp and Ring of Ma'Ruf) Is this "spending a draw to do
something"?
Yes. If something prevents that effect, you lose the draw you were
going to take.
37) Who has to distribute damage first, the attacker or the defender?
The attacker must distribute damage first.
Crash
> effects. Can I now decide to put off the attack long enough to cast a sorcery
> or something, or am I stuck with attacking?
>
> Yes, you can still cast sorceries or whatever. This also applies to
> declaration of the end of any phase. If your opponent uses fast effects, you
> can back up to cast a legitimate spell.
Does this mean I can declare an attack, let my opponent use fast effects,
UN-DECLARE the attack, cast a sorcery, then declare ANOTHER ATTACK? At
what stage does an attack declaration become final? You're only allowed
ONE attack!
Is the following ludicrous exchange really legitimate?
"I attack you..."
"I Twiddle to untap my wall..."
"Just kidding, I'm not attacking yet. I'll cast Word of Binding to tap
your wall. Now I'm attacking..."
All this and more from...
Never attribute to malice that which could be adequately explained by stupidity.
John O'Callaghan
> 14) What exactly is the definition of "When you lose a land?" When a land you
> control leaves play? If a land gets stolen, would that trigger the Dingus
> Egg? Specifically, does Rainbow Vale + Dingus Egg mean 2 points of damage
> whenever the Vale changes sides?
> <Reversal> Dingus Egg will only trigger on a land going to the
> graveyard.
Just to save ourselves from the question: What Tom meant to say is
"(Reversal) Dingus Egg will only trigger on a land going to the
graveyard from play.
> 18) What happens if a legend is face-down (Illusionary Mask), and another copy
> of that legend is brought into play? Is the second legend immediately buried,
> or does it not notice the original?
> The second Legend is immediately buried. The person with the face down
> Legend must inform the other player of this fact.
If both players are using masks, does this mean we'll have to drag some
innocent bystander over to check every time one of us summons something
and uses the mask?
> 35) Is the a specific rule about Mind Twist being targeted a general rule abut
> "opponent" effects? Specific example: Can I reflect a Drain Power?
> Yes. Most effects that say "opponent" are targeted.
I think I'll go replace all the Black Vises in my deck with Reflecting
Mirrors now....
--
John O'Callaghan
j...@rahul.net
joca...@scudc.scu.edu
Andrew Brecher
Wylie) wrote:
><ERRATTA> Nevinyrral's Disk should be have a tap symbol. In the original
>version it was a mono artifact, and at some point in the revision it lost its
>tapping cost. Future versions will have a tap symbol. Additionally, it is
>not a sacrifice. It is destroyed as part of its effect, and can be prevented
>from going to the graveyard.
First of all, errata has one T. |:^)
Second, does this mean that a Guardian Beast would save the Disk before it
would die? What if it were regenerated, causing it to be tapped- would the
disk stay in play because GB >was< untapped, or does it hit the graveyard
because GB is now tapped? This seems like an ordering thing. What other
ways could it be prevented from going to the graveyard?
I thought part of the reason it was declared to be a sacrifice was to
avoid this problem...
>9) When does Merseine go away?
>
> Merseine does not make itself go away. If the last counter is removed,
>it sits there. You could disenchant it....
They've really gotta do something about cards like this...it's very awkward and
unintuitive.
>14) What exactly is the definition of "When you lose a land?" When a land you
>control leaves play? If a land gets stolen, would that trigger the Dingus
>Egg? Specifically, does Rainbow Vale + Dingus Egg mean 2 points of damage
>whenever the Vale changes sides?
>
> <Reversal> Dingus Egg will only trigger on a land going to the
>graveyard.
Makes sense, for a change.
>20) If I cast a spell which requires I sacrifice a land upon resolution
>(Mold Demon, Mana Vortex, etc) can I use Equinox to counter that
>summoning?
>
> Yes.
Ouch. Never thought of that. Neat.
>21) Suppose I say I'm about to attack, and my opponent uses a bunch of fast
>effects. Can I now decide to put off the attack long enough to cast a sorcery
>or something, or am I stuck with attacking?
>
> Yes, you can still cast sorceries or whatever. This also applies to
>declaration of the end of any phase. If your opponent uses fast effects, you
>can back up to cast a legitimate spell.
Uh, isn't this a (major) reversal? Didn't it used to be the case that an
announcement of end of phase could only be responded to with fast effects?
>22) Does Ebony Horse retoractively un-attacks the creature?
>Would a nettled creature still die, would Erg Raiders damage their
>controller, etc?
>
> It un-attacks the creature. Nettled creatures die, etc.
A friend of mine has tried to convince me that an Ebony Horse can't be
used on a Juggernaut. What's your take on that, or was there a ruling
a while ago?
>27) If I use Camouflage, my token creatures would be turned "face down", and
>my opponent would know which of my creatures were tokens and which were cards,
>but not which token creature was which, correct?
>
> No. Your opponent will not know which creatures are token creatures
>and which are not. You could be using extra cards as token creatures, after
>all.
What about creatures with enchantments on them? What about Serra Angels? In
the past I thought the ruling was that in each of three cases the special
creatures' characteristics (tokenness, enchantedness, untappedness) would
be visible.
--
- Andrew Brecher (andrew_...@brown.edu) <insert disclaimer here>
JRA...@utcvm.utc.edu
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>18) What happens if a legend is face-down (Illusionary Mask), and another copy
>of that legend is brought into play? Is the second legend immediately buried,
>or does it not notice the original?
>
> The second Legend is immediately buried. The person with the face down
>Legend must inform the other player of this fact.
>
both players have Illusionary Masks in play? Apparantly, either
A. The Mask is useless for legends as the user must announce a "Any
Xira Arien (or whatever) that is cast will be immediately buried"
continuous effect is being generated by the mysterious, face-down
card over there, or
B. We get some knotty problems in this case. Which legend gets buried
when the second-cast copy is first-revealed? Is that burial considered
retroactive (for things such as damage done by Kheldon warlords between
the casting of the invalid legend and it's burial.)
>20) If I cast a spell which requires I sacrifice a land upon resolution
>(Mold Demon, Mana Vortex, etc) can I use Equinox to counter that
>summoning?
>
> Yes.
>30) Suppose a land of mine gets animated and then stuck into a Safe Haven or
>Oubliette or what have you. Later, that land would be sent back into play,
>but by that time my opponent has Land Equilibrium out, and less land than I
>do. What happens?
>
> For Land Equilibrium, you put the new land into play first, and then
>sacrifice a land, which can be the one you just played. Note that there would
>not be time to tap it for mana before it entered the graveyard.
This would trigger a damage-prevention phase during which it could be tapped
for mana, right? Or am I missing something?
Trevor Barrie
>Such a question came up on IRC yesterday. First off to set the stage,
>the Sea Serpent is merely destroyed (not "buried") when its controller
>has no islands in play.
My copy says "buried". Did it change with the Revised or something?
************************************************************************
Trevor Barrie tbarrie@ "If the gods could build me a ladder
87 Kennedy Drive bud.peinet.pe.ca to the heavens, I'd climb up the
West Royalty, PEI ladder and drop a big elbow on the
C1E 1X7 CANADA (902)628-6845 world." - Cactus Jack
************************************************************************
Michael Ronn Marcelais
: > 21) Suppose I say I'm about to attack, and my opponent uses a bunch of fast
: > effects. Can I now decide to put off the attack long enough to cast a sorcery
: > or something, or am I stuck with attacking?
: >
: > Yes, you can still cast sorceries or whatever. This also applies to
: > declaration of the end of any phase. If your opponent uses fast effects, you
: > can back up to cast a legitimate spell.
: Does this mean I can declare an attack, let my opponent use fast effects,
: UN-DECLARE the attack, cast a sorcery, then declare ANOTHER ATTACK? At
"I'm attacking" [This is trying to enter the Attack phase]
Opp: "No wait, I'll twiddle my wall." [This backs you up to the main phase]
"Ok...I'll cast work of binding to tap it."
The following doesn't work:
"I'm attacking" [This is trying to enter the Attack phase]
Opp: "Ok"
"I'm attacking with a Serra, Juggie, and Erg Raiders." [Declare attackers]
"Ok...I'll cast twiddle on my wall." [Fast effects phase between declare
attackers and blockers]
"I'll back up and cast Word of Binding now." [Can't do this...too late.]
+--------------------------+---------------------------+
| Mike Marcelais | mrma...@eos.ncsu.edu |
| The Moonstone Dragon | Fourth Bryan Productions |
| -==(UDIC)==- | Author of ChrHack 2.3 |
+------------------Signature-Virus-Shield-v1.0-enabled-+
Michael Ronn Marcelais
: In article <3cq79l$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
: Wylie) wrote:
: ><ERRATTA> Nevinyrral's Disk should be have a tap symbol. In the original
: Second, does this mean that a Guardian Beast would save the Disk before it
: would die? What if it were regenerated, causing it to be tapped- would the
: disk stay in play because GB >was< untapped, or does it hit the graveyard
: because GB is now tapped? This seems like an ordering thing. What other
: ways could it be prevented from going to the graveyard?
Yes it would because the disk is destroying itself and the GB at the same time.
Regenerating the beast would happen AFTER the disk tries to destroy everything
so it wouldn't matter that GB becomes tapped b/c of regeneration.
Regenerating the disk (if the disk were Xenic'ed), bomerranging the Disk
after activating it, etc would all save the disk.
: >9) When does Merseine go away?
: >
: > Merseine does not make itself go away. If the last counter is removed,
: >it sits there. You could disenchant it....
: They've really gotta do something about cards like this...
: it's very awkward and
: unintuitive.
Why...what should make it go away? I don't see how this unintuitive.
Venerian Gold (?) works the same way.
: > <Reversal> Dingus Egg will only trigger on a land going to the
: >graveyard.
: Makes sense, for a change.
I really hope they meant 'from play'
: >21) Suppose I say I'm about to attack, and my opponent uses a bunch of fast
: > Yes, you can still cast sorceries or whatever. This also applies to
: Uh, isn't this a (major) reversal? Didn't it used to be the case that an
: announcement of end of phase could only be responded to with fast effects?
Nope. You cannot procede to the next phase unless your opponent doesn't have
any more effects to announce. If they announce more effects, then you don't
have to procede to the next phase until you want to.
Note: If your opponent waits until the 'fast effect' stage between naming
blockers and naming attackers, then you can't back up to before the attack.
: >22) Does Ebony Horse retoractively un-attacks the creature?
: > It un-attacks the creature. Nettled creatures die, etc.
: A friend of mine has tried to convince me that an Ebony Horse can't be
: used on a Juggernaut. What's your take on that, or was there a ruling
: a while ago?
The Juggernaut wasn't able to attack. There is no penalty for this, attacking
just wasn't possible.
--
Bob Hearn
> 6) If a Rainbow Value is activated and then covered by a Blood Moon or what
> have you, will still wander at end of turn? I think that it should, just as a
> Berserked attacker would be destroyed at end of turn even if it stopped being
> a creature before then, but am not 100% sure on that.
>
> The Rainbow Vale says "Rainbow Vale passes..." If it is not a Rainbow
> Vale (which it isn't if Blood Moon is in play) it will not be passed.
So you are saying that the effect does not occur because the name of the
card has changed, and the end-of-turn effect that has already been
generated when the Rainbow Vale was tapped fizzles because the card is
no longer called "Rainbow Vale?"
I've always interpreted a card's usage of its own name as equivalent to
"this card." Obviously it can't mean just any card of that name. Does it
mean "this card, which is named X?"
Or is the name the only consideration? Perhaps "this card" is the
correct interpretation, but upon becoming a Mountain, the R.V. changes
identity and is no longer the card the end-of-turn effect targets?
In that case, what other things could change a card's identity?
X-lacing?
--
Bob Hearn
bob_...@qm.claris.com
Mike Arms
>4) If I lose a Sea Serpent or whatever due to running out of islands, does a
>full damage prevention step ensue? If so, what happens if I Hack the Serpent
>during that step to say "plains" or whatever will let it live... does it still
>get buried, or does the Hack save it?
>
> A full damage prevention step does occur, however this will not save
>the Serpent. The Serpent is buried as soon as there are no islands, and
>Hacking it after the fact will not retroactively prevent this occurence. If
>this had been a Nightmare that was dying from a lack of swamps, then Hacking
>it would save it.
Such a question came up on IRC yesterday. First off to set the stage,
the Sea Serpent is merely destroyed (not "buried") when its controller
has no islands in play. If the player could somehow regenerate the
Sea Serpent (e.g. Death Ward, Regeneration enchantment, counter from
Life Matrix, etc.), could the player also Magical Hack the Sea Serpent
to say "plains" so that it will live when it regenerates?
The question on IRC was more convoluted (as always :-). Suppose you
have a Miracle Worker and a 1/1 creature in play. Opponent casts
Weakness on the 1/1 creature. We agreed that the MW could not tap to
remove the Weakness in time to prevent death as the Weakness must
resolve first and that causes a damage prevention step as toughness
is <= 0. There is no damage to prevent, so you go to on to death
prevention. Assume that the creature is to be regenerated somehow.
Can the Miracle Worker be used either before or in the fast effects
stack that includes the regen to remove the Weakness so that when the
creature has regened it will be safe? The MW effect could also be
achieved via Disenchant, Remove Enchantments, Enchantment Alteration, etc.
[I suspect that these instant speed fast effects are not permittable
during the death prevention step, but that the Magical Hack (above)
is permittable as it is an interrupt. - RMA]
>18) What happens if a legend is face-down (Illusionary Mask), and another copy
>of that legend is brought into play? Is the second legend immediately buried,
>or does it not notice the original?
>
> The second Legend is immediately buried. The person with the face down
>Legend must inform the other player of this fact.
Just to re-iterate John O'Callaghan's (j...@rahul.net) concern, what do
you suggest that we do if both players are using Illusionary Masks? The
problem is that the same Legend may be summoned. It is not sufficient
to resolve it when one is finally revealed for several reasons. There
may be contention as to which was summoned first given that numerous
creatures may be in play on both sides. Also some effects count the
number of creatures on a side (e.g. Keldon Warlord) whether revealed or
not. [The answer may be as John suggests for this probably rare case
to bring in an impartial third party to check any summonings. - RMA]
>21) Suppose I say I'm about to attack, and my opponent uses a bunch of fast
>effects. Can I now decide to put off the attack long enough to cast a sorcery
>or something, or am I stuck with attacking?
>
> Yes, you can still cast sorceries or whatever. This also applies to
>declaration of the end of any phase. If your opponent uses fast effects, you
>can back up to cast a legitimate spell.
The real question here is, "Did the opponent use his bunch of fast
effects BEFORE the start of the Attack phase, or did the player
actually start their Attack phase and the opponent uses a bunch of
fast effects AFTER the declaration of the Attack but before any
creatures were declared as attackers?" If the former, then Tom's
answer is of course true. If the latter were meant, then No you may
not back up to before your Attack Phase to cast a non-fast effect spell.
>22) Does Ebony Horse retoractively un-attacks the creature?
>Would a nettled creature still die, would Erg Raiders damage their
>controller, etc?
>
> It un-attacks the creature. Nettled creatures die, etc.
Tom, this seems to be a Reversal from a long standing query that I
had made to you back when Arabian Nights came out. You clearly ruled
then that a nettled creature could be declared as an attacker, Ebony
Horse used on it before damage dealing to remove it from the attack,
and it would not be destroyed as it was considered to has satisfied
the Nettling Imp's requirement to attack. [I disagreed with the
ruling at the time but have abided by it for months. If this is a
Reversal, please state so. - RMA]
>35) Is the a specific rule about Mind Twist being targeted a general rule abut
>"opponent" effects? Specific example: Can I reflect a Drain Power?
>
> Yes. Most effects that say "opponent" are targeted.
To be concrete here, can you use a Reflecting Mirror at the time a
Black Vise is cast to cause the BV to affect a player of your choice
(even the caster of the BV) from then on? Put another way, does the
Black Vise spell target its caster's opponent *as it is being cast*?
Would the same apply to any or all of the following: Disrupting Scepter,
Gaea's Liege, Glasses Of Urza, Illusionary Mask, Lifetap, etc.?
(This list is quite extensive and bring up the larger question of
"which SPELLS are considered targetted on a player when cast?".)
In a similar vein, can a Reflecting Mirror be used at the time YOU
cast a spell that targets yourself to target another player instead?
Does a Circle Of Protection: Puce "target" yourself? If so, can you
use RM when you cast Circle Of Protection: Puce? As you are still
the controller of the enchantment, it would seem that you would have
to pay {1} to prevent all damage against the target player from one
puce source. But then if that puce source did damage to the target
player more than once in a turn, then the target player must pay {1}
mana each time to prevent the damage. Admittedly, this dichotomy
seems odd, but it does seem to be supported if the assumptions made
above are valid. Sorry if I have unearthed a quagmire Tom.
--
Mike Arms
(Editor of Encounter magazine [in limbo], and one of the designers for MCE)
InterNet: ma...@sandia.gov
Andrew Brecher
Ronn Marcelais) wrote:
>Andrew Brecher (Andrew_...@brown.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3cq79l$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
>: Wylie) wrote:
>
>: >9) When does Merseine go away?
>: >
>: > Merseine does not make itself go away. If the last counter is
removed,
>: >it sits there. You could disenchant it....
>
>: They've really gotta do something about cards like this...
>: it's very awkward and
>: unintuitive.
>Why...what should make it go away? I don't see how this unintuitive.
>Venerian Gold (?) works the same way.
You didn't read my message...the ruling is fine, it's the card that's messed
up. Having cards that sit there and do nothing after their effect is gone
is pointless.
Thomas R Wylie
Crash <cr...@brown.edu> wrote:
>Does this mean I can declare an attack, let my opponent use fast effects,
>UN-DECLARE the attack, cast a sorcery, then declare ANOTHER ATTACK? At
>what stage does an attack declaration become final? You're only allowed
>ONE attack!
True, you only get one attack, but if your opponent uses fast effects before
you declare attackers, then your attack never actually started. There isn't
time for fast effects between the beginning of the attack phase, and
declaring attackers, so any fast effects would have to be used in the
main phase. This is why sorceries would still be legal.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Thomas R Wylie
John O'Callaghan <j...@rahul.net> wrote:
>Just to save ourselves from the question: What Tom meant to say is
>"(Reversal) Dingus Egg will only trigger on a land going to the
>graveyard from play.
That is correct.
>If both players are using masks, does this mean we'll have to drag some
>innocent bystander over to check every time one of us summons something
>and uses the mask?
There are already ten or twenty things the person using the Mask can be
dishonest about if she really wants to. Legends didn't change this, they
just gave another example.
Thomas R Wylie
Andrew Brecher <Andrew_...@brown.edu> wrote:
>Second, does this mean that a Guardian Beast would save the Disk before it
>would die?
Yes.
>What if it were regenerated, causing it to be tapped- would the
>disk stay in play because GB >was< untapped, or does it hit the graveyard
>because GB is now tapped?...
Guardian Beast specifically says that if it and your artifacts would be
destroyed at the same time, it saves them one last time.
>I thought part of the reason it was declared to be a sacrifice was to
>avoid this problem...
No, it was a misreading of the card.
>Uh, isn't this a (major) reversal? Didn't it used to be the case that an
>announcement of end of phase could only be responded to with fast effects?
No, it's always been the case that if I announce my attack, you can make
me wait while use fast effects. This is exactly like my trying to
declare end of phase.
>A friend of mine has tried to convince me that an Ebony Horse can't be
>used on a Juggernaut. What's your take on that, or was there a ruling
>a while ago?
It can be used on a Juggernaut just fine. If a creature is required to attack,
that doesn't make it an invalid target for Ebony Horse.
>> No. Your opponent will not know which creatures are token creatures
>>and which are not. You could be using extra cards as token creatures, after
>What about creatures with enchantments on them? What about Serra Angels?...
The enchantments are also turned face down. Serra Angels would be untapped
face-down cards. Simply being a token does not necessarily make a creature
harder to hide.
Thomas R Wylie
Kyle Nishioka <nk...@uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>: 10) Is Ferrel's Mantle cumulative with other similar effects?
>: Yes. You may choose to use the Mantle with the Zealot, for example,
>: and gain both benefits. However, the Mantle itself is not cumulative.
Behind which?
Putting a Mantle on a Zealot is much like putting Burrowing on
Shanodin Dryads, it gives the creature another ability. Putting a second
Mantle on the Zealot would be like putting another Burrowing on the
Dryads; it doesn't accomplish much of anything.
Kyle Nishioka
: > 21) Suppose I say I'm about to attack, and my opponent uses a bunch of fast
: > effects. Can I now decide to put off the attack long enough to cast a sorcery
: > or something, or am I stuck with attacking?
: >
: > Yes, you can still cast sorceries or whatever. This also applies to
: > declaration of the end of any phase. If your opponent uses fast effects, you
: > can back up to cast a legitimate spell.
: Does this mean I can declare an attack, let my opponent use fast effects,
: UN-DECLARE the attack, cast a sorcery, then declare ANOTHER ATTACK? At
: what stage does an attack declaration become final? You're only allowed
: ONE attack!
: Is the following ludicrous exchange really legitimate?
: "I attack you..."
: "I Twiddle to untap my wall..."
: "Just kidding, I'm not attacking yet. I'll cast Word of Binding to tap
: your wall. Now I'm attacking..."
My guess is that this falls under the "I'm done unless you're doing
something else" rule (you are effectively saying "I'm done w/ my part of
the main phase before my attack phase"). And since its still in
the main phase, you are allowed to use Sorceries, Enchantments etc.
If the defender had waited until after attackers had been declared, then
the attack would have been forced to go through, I think.
--
Kyle
nk...@uhunix3.uhcc.hawaii.edu
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Kyle Nishioka
: 10) Is Ferrel's Mantle cumulative with other similar effects?
: Yes. You may choose to use the Mantle with the Zealot, for example,
: and gain both benefits. However, the Mantle itself is not cumulative.
What was the reasoning behind this?
--
Kyle
nk...@uhunix3.uhcc.hawaii.edu
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Andrew Brecher
Wylie) wrote:
>Andrew Brecher <Andrew_...@brown.edu> wrote:
>>Uh, isn't this a (major) reversal? Didn't it used to be the case that an
>>announcement of end of phase could only be responded to with fast effects?
>
>No, it's always been the case that if I announce my attack, you can make
>me wait while use fast effects. This is exactly like my trying to
>declare end of phase.
Fast effects, yes, but sorceries? Once I declare end of phase (or beginning
of attack), I though only fast effects are allowable, by both sides. This
ruling says otherwise; was I wrong from the beginning or was there a
reversal somewhere?
Thomas R Wylie
Rainbow Vale will not defect at end of turn unless it's considered to be
a Rainbow Vale at that time. It is not simply a "this card" reference.
bi...@its.bldrdoc.gov
> 6) If a Rainbow Value is activated and then covered by a Blood Moon or what
> have you, will still wander at end of turn? I think that it should, just as a
> Berserked attacker would be destroyed at end of turn even if it stopped being
> a creature before then, but am not 100% sure on that.
>
> The Rainbow Vale says "Rainbow Vale passes..." If it is not a Rainbow
> Vale (which it isn't if Blood Moon is in play) it will not be passed.
Does this mean that the Berserk ruling is being reversed? After all,
the Berserk card says, "...target creature is destroyed..." and the
ruling says that the card (Jade Statue) is destroyed even if it is
not a creature when it's time to be destroyed.
So, the Vale should pass along even if it's not a Vale anymore.
Tom, please see that these two ruling are made to be consistant with
each other.
-- Bill
Joseph William Dixon
: >Why...what should make it go away? I don't see how this unintuitive.
: >Venerian Gold (?) works the same way.
: You didn't read my message...the ruling is fine, it's the card that's messed
: up. Having cards that sit there and do nothing after their effect is gone
: is pointless.
It probably doesn't go away because it's a Blue enchantment, and thus
a prime target for one of the more annoying Blue spells in existence -
Enchantment Alteration. [I take it you don't play Blue much, else you
would have realized this point instantly... :]
--
* Check out this URL for some links I like to use. *
* http://www.cfn.cs.dal.ca/~aa343/Profile.html *
David DeLaney
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>5) When Homarids' "can't target" ability is activated, does this cause
>enchantments on them to be destroyed, since they're now an illegal target?
>
> No. The Homarid's ability only applies to spells and effects, and an
>enchantment in play is neither.
An enchantment in play is neither - but the enchantment's continuously-target-
card-it's-on thingy is *something*, If it's not a continuous effect, what is
it? DId the Rulings Team actually answer the question we were asking, or did
they think we were asking if *enchantments* were spells or effects?
>18) What happens if a legend is face-down (Illusionary Mask), and another copy
>of that legend is brought into play? Is the second legend immediately buried,
>or does it not notice the original?
>
> The second Legend is immediately buried. The person with the face down
>Legend must inform the other player of this fact.
If the second Legend is also face-down, an outside observer is necessary...
>27) If I use Camouflage, my token creatures would be turned "face down", and
>my opponent would know which of my creatures were tokens and which were cards,
>but not which token creature was which, correct?
>
> No. Your opponent will not know which creatures are token creatures
>and which are not. You could be using extra cards as token creatures, after
>all.
So token creatures turned face-down must be represented by, say, extra lands
that are lying around, or some other not-being-used cards? Does this mean
(silly question coming up, warning) that in a tournament you cannot turn token
creatures face-down, since that would be "putting cards not in the deck into
play" which would be grounds for instant forfeit?
And oops: it turns out to be the *Heroism* ruling that I was waiting for (can
*any* creature be given back 'does damage as normal' when Heroism activates?).
Oh well.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. Disclaimer: IMHO; VRbeableWIKTHLC
http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ / CanterSiegelKibozeBait!!
David DeLaney
|>20) If I cast a spell which requires I sacrifice a land upon resolution
|>(Mold Demon, Mana Vortex, etc) can I use Equinox to counter that
|>summoning?
|>
|> Yes.
|
|Do I get the land back?
You never lose it; resolution is long after counter-with-interrupts-time.
(More interestingly, you can use Equinox on a sacrifice-land-when-declared-
as-a-spell-cost spell, countering the spell, but in that case the land doesn't
come back any more than the mana paid for the spell does.)
|>30) Suppose a land of mine gets animated and then stuck into a Safe Haven or
|>Oubliette or what have you. Later, that land would be sent back into play,
|>but by that time my opponent has Land Equilibrium out, and less land than I
|>do. What happens?
|>
|> For Land Equilibrium, you put the new land into play first, and then
|>sacrifice a land, which can be the one you just played. Note that there would
|>not be time to tap it for mana before it entered the graveyard.
|
|But, if the land were a creature at the time (due to, say, a Living Plane)
|This would trigger a damage-prevention phase during which it could be tapped
|for mana, right? Or am I missing something?
Sacrifices aren't preventable, and don't trigger damage-prevention steps at
all.
David DeLaney
|Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
|>4) If I lose a Sea Serpent or whatever due to running out of islands, does a
|>full damage prevention step ensue? If so, what happens if I Hack the Serpent
|>during that step to say "plains" or whatever will let it live... does it still
|>get buried, or does the Hack save it?
|>
|> A full damage prevention step does occur, however this will not save
|>the Serpent. The Serpent is buried as soon as there are no islands, and
|>Hacking it after the fact will not retroactively prevent this occurence. If
|>this had been a Nightmare that was dying from a lack of swamps, then Hacking
|>it would save it.
|
|Such a question came up on IRC yesterday. First off to set the stage,
|the Sea Serpent is merely destroyed (not "buried") when its controller
|has no islands in play. If the player could somehow regenerate the
|Sea Serpent (e.g. Death Ward, Regeneration enchantment, counter from
|Life Matrix, etc.), could the player also Magical Hack the Sea Serpent
|to say "plains" so that it will live when it regenerates?
*If* it's only destroyed, and not buried (no Rulings seem to be visible about
Sea Serpent), then you may regenerate it, lifting the "destroy" effect, and
Hack it before the d-p step ends, saving it. But if it's buried, it cannot
be regenerated, and you cannot "lift" a bury effect except by letting the
creature leave play.
|[I suspect that these instant speed fast effects are not permittable
|during the death prevention step, but that the Magical Hack (above)
|is permittable as it is an interrupt. - RMA]
Miracle Worker's effect isn't legal during a d-p step, since it's not
damage prevention, damage redirection, regeneration, an interrupt, or
gain-1-lif-from-triggered-effect-for-player.
|>21) Suppose I say I'm about to attack, and my opponent uses a bunch of fast
|>effects. Can I now decide to put off the attack long enough to cast a sorcery
|>or something, or am I stuck with attacking?
|>
|> Yes, you can still cast sorceries or whatever. This also applies to
|>declaration of the end of any phase. If your opponent uses fast effects, you
|>can back up to cast a legitimate spell.
|
|The real question here is, "Did the opponent use his bunch of fast
|effects BEFORE the start of the Attack phase, or did the player
|actually start their Attack phase and the opponent uses a bunch of
|fast effects AFTER the declaration of the Attack but before any
|creatures were declared as attackers?"
The former. There's only two fast-effects phases in an attack phase, and there
isn't one "between declaring the attack and declaring the attackers"; you are
actually backing up to before the attack was declared to use these fast effects,
since that's a phase-change.
|In a similar vein, can a Reflecting Mirror be used at the time YOU
|cast a spell that targets yourself to target another player instead?
|Does a Circle Of Protection: Puce "target" yourself?
No, it targets damage, as every "prevent damage" or "redirect damage" spell
or effect does.
Red Adept
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
>6) If a Rainbow Value is activated and then covered by a Blood Moon or what
>have you, will still wander at end of turn? I think that it should, just as a
>Berserked attacker would be destroyed at end of turn even if it stopped being
>a creature before then, but am not 100% sure on that.
> The Rainbow Vale says "Rainbow Vale passes..." If it is not a Rainbow
>Vale (which it isn't if Blood Moon is in play) it will not be passed.
I have a gripe about this.
We were told that when a card mentions itself by name in it's text, it's only
being self-referential....just like hacking a Black Vice text to Blue Vice.
It really means, 'This card....' Does this not apply in this case as well?
--Red
.sig under construction
Robert Michaels
: In article <3cq79l$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
: --Red
: .sig under construction
Ok: Logical reason why rainbow vale will not rotate:
Use vale
Blood moon
Blood moon resolves and is in effect
Turn end phase:
Rainbow vale checks it's text. It is now a basic mountain, thus no text
Card stays.
Logical reason why Berzerk kills critter (what was it?)
Critter attacks
Berzerk cast
Berzerk resolves
Critter dies
Dammage resolves
Critter turns back to whatever, but is already gone, card goes to graveyard
I think, anyone have better info? I'm not familliar enough with the
creature mentioned, I believe it was a clay golem or some such.
- Taram
Thomas R Wylie
Mike Arms <ma...@sandia.gov> wrote:
>Such a question came up on IRC yesterday. First off to set the stage,
>the Sea Serpent is merely destroyed (not "buried") when its controller
>has no islands in play. If the player could somehow regenerate the
>Sea Serpent (e.g. Death Ward, Regeneration enchantment, counter from
>Life Matrix, etc.), could the player also Magical Hack the Sea Serpent
>to say "plains" so that it will live when it regenerates?
Yes.
>The question on IRC was more convoluted (as always :-). Suppose you
>have a Miracle Worker and a 1/1 creature in play. Opponent casts
>Weakness on the 1/1 creature. We agreed that the MW could not tap to
>remove the Weakness in time to prevent death as the Weakness must
>resolve first and that causes a damage prevention step as toughness
>is <= 0. There is no damage to prevent, so you go to on to death
>prevention. Assume that the creature is to be regenerated somehow.
>Can the Miracle Worker be used either before or in the fast effects
>stack that includes the regen to remove the Weakness so that when the
>creature has regened it will be safe?...
No. The Worker's effect is illegal during damage prevention, and the
creature will die again as soon as damage prevention etc. ends, before
non-prevention effects can be used again.
>Just to re-iterate John O'Callaghan's (j...@rahul.net) concern, what do
>you suggest that we do if both players are using Illusionary Masks? The
>problem is that the same Legend may be summoned. It is not sufficient
>to resolve it when one is finally revealed for several reasons. There
>may be contention as to which was summoned first given that numerous
>creatures may be in play on both sides. Also some effects count the
>number of creatures on a side (e.g. Keldon Warlord) whether revealed or
>not. [The answer may be as John suggests for this probably rare case
>to bring in an impartial third party to check any summonings. - RMA]
The best way to handle this is: If a person summons a legend face down, and
anyone else has a face down creature, they should say that the legend of that
name is entering play, and should ask whether it should be buried. The
other players should then let them know whether to bury it or let it live.
Note that the player wouldn't ask until the legend was actually entering
play, since the duplicate legend rule doesn't apply until then.
>The real question here is, "Did the opponent use his bunch of fast
>effects BEFORE the start of the Attack phase, or did the player
>actually start their Attack phase and the opponent uses a bunch of
>fast effects AFTER the declaration of the Attack but before any
>creatures were declared as attackers?"...
Assuming the opponent wanted to use fast effects before attackers were
declared, then she must have used them during the main phase, since once
the attack phase begins, there is no time for fast effects before
attackers are declared.
>>22) Does Ebony Horse retoractively un-attacks the creature?
>>Would a nettled creature still die, would Erg Raiders damage their
>>controller, etc?
>> It un-attacks the creature. Nettled creatures die, etc.
>Tom, this seems to be a Reversal from a long standing query that I
>had made to you back when Arabian Nights came out...
Yes, well, design team rulings override the NetReps 8)
>To be concrete here, can you use a Reflecting Mirror at the time a
>Black Vise is cast to cause the BV to affect a player of your choice
>(even the caster of the BV) from then on? Put another way, does the
>Black Vise spell target its caster's opponent *as it is being cast*?
Yes to both. The same applies to other "opponent" permanents.
>In a similar vein, can a Reflecting Mirror be used at the time YOU
>cast a spell that targets yourself to target another player instead?
No. Permanents such as Circles aren't targetting their controller.
Thomas R Wylie
<bi...@its.bldrdoc.gov> wrote:
>> The Rainbow Vale says "Rainbow Vale passes..." If it is not a Rainbow
>> Vale (which it isn't if Blood Moon is in play) it will not be passed.
No. I mentioned Berserk, but they were pretty insistent that the fact
that Rainbow Vale is referring to itself by name is signficant. Berserk
doesn't name the target or anything, so the target doesn't have that "out".
Kernel Mustard
Joseph William Dixon <aa...@cfn.cs.dal.ca> wrote:
// Andrew Brecher (Andrew_...@brown.edu) wrote:
// : >Why...what should make it go away? I don't see how this unintuitive.
// : >Venerian Gold (?) works the same way.
//
// : You didn't read my message...the ruling is fine, it's the card that's messed
// : up. Having cards that sit there and do nothing after their effect is gone
// : is pointless.
//
// It probably doesn't go away because it's a Blue enchantment, and thus
// a prime target for one of the more annoying Blue spells in existence -
// Enchantment Alteration. [I take it you don't play Blue much, else you
// would have realized this point instantly... :]
Don't forget Rabid Wombats... they just love getting VD'd for 0 (ahh,
them slutty Venerians), and make almost any creature enchantment worthwhile
(hey, for +2/+2 I'll parallyse my own wombat... Merseine is rather expensive
for that, but I can always use EA's to steal it from somewhere else).
Besides, If you play with these sort of things it would only serve
you right if your opponent power leaked you to death (at which
point you'd really want to see it go away).
--
Brent Ross // "Skuld is nicer than // "Skuld is nicer than
bwr...@uwaterloo.ca // Medea." -- mlvanbie // mead." -- mtompset
Lutz Hofmann
>Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>>4) If I lose a Sea Serpent or whatever due to running out of islands, does a
>>full damage prevention step ensue? If so, what happens if I Hack the Serpent
>>during that step to say "plains" or whatever will let it live... does it still
>>get buried, or does the Hack save it?
>> A full damage prevention step does occur, however this will not save
>>the Serpent. The Serpent is buried as soon as there are no islands,
>Such a question came up on IRC yesterday. First off to set the stage,
>the Sea Serpent is merely destroyed (not "buried") when its controller
>has no islands in play.
This depends on its edition. Revised Sea Serpents are buried, unlimited and
blackbordered ones are just destroyed.
Yours Sincerely Lutz Hofmann
l...@cs.tu-berlin.de
--
Thunderbolt and lightning, very, very frightning (Bohemian Rhapsody)
Thomas R Wylie
David DeLaney <d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> wrote:
>An enchantment in play is neither - but the enchantment's continuously-target-
>card-it's-on thingy is *something*, If it's not a continuous effect, what is
>it? DId the Rulings Team actually answer the question we were asking, or did
>they think we were asking if *enchantments* were spells or effects?
I specifically asked the original question and presented the argument.
An enchantment already in play is not a spell, and thus is not covered
by Homarid Warrior and so on.
>If the second Legend is also face-down, an outside observer is necessary...
An outside observer is always "necessary", to make sure face down creatures
are interacting with the game honestly, unless you trust each other to be
up front. If a legend enters play face down and other players have face
down creatures, you have to ask whether they have the appropriate legend
out, and bury your legend if so.
>So token creatures turned face-down must be represented by, say, extra lands
>that are lying around, or some other not-being-used cards?...
They can be represented with whatever you feel like, but from the game's
point of view there is no way to tell whether a face-down permanent is
a card or a token.
>And oops: it turns out to be the *Heroism* ruling that I was waiting for (can
>*any* creature be given back 'does damage as normal' when Heroism activates?).
Heroism only allows you to pay to let a creature ignore the Heroism. It
can't let the creature ignore any other effect, and you can't pay for
any creature not affected by the Heroism.
Thomas R Wylie
By the way, delete "Mana Vortex" from the examples in the Equinox ruling.
You sacrifice a land when casting MV, not when putting it into play,
so Equinox didn't apply.
Thomas R Wylie
Andrew Brecher <Andrew_...@brown.edu> wrote:
>Fast effects, yes, but sorceries? Once I declare end of phase (or beginning
>of attack), I though only fast effects are allowable, by both sides. This
>ruling says otherwise; was I wrong from the beginning or was there a
>reversal somewhere?
It was certainly unclear from the beginning. But there is no "phase is
ending but only fast effects are legal" step. If I try to end a phase and
you use fast effects during that phase, then the phase is still in full swing,
and I can use whatever effects I want to. This includes using sorceries
and such, if it was the main phase which didn't end after all.
Thomas R Wylie
David DeLaney <d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> wrote:
>(More interestingly, you can use Equinox on a sacrifice-land-when-declared-
No. Equinox only looks at the effect of the spell it's trying to counter,
not the costs.
Syielvasj Shratdeshm
>35) Is the a specific rule about Mind Twist being targeted a general rule abut
>"opponent" effects? Specific example: Can I reflect a Drain Power?
>
> Yes. Most effects that say "opponent" are targeted.
>
This is abhorrently vague. It seems intuitive that most effects that
say "opponent" are targeted, but the wording makes me wonder which are
not. The thread which has ensued seems to assume that permanents that
say "opponent" are targeted at the time they enter play, which seems utterly
absurd. It's hard to guess which card best exemplifies this; perhaps Arena
or Rainbow Vale. The possibility of using Reflecting Mirror on a creature
is equally inane, though not the focus of my question. Tom Wylie posted
a few days ago that Black Vise was not targetted, then recently reversed
himself. I suppose I need some clarification here; does the Design Team
consider permanents that say "opponent" to be targeted as they enter play?
I can only hope that cards that say "you" are not targeted; then the effects
of the Mirror become not merely ridiculous but abusive.
Syielvasj
Dreyfus
writes:
>
>In article <3csov5$7...@news.sandia.gov>, Mike Arms <ma...@sandia.gov>
wrote:
>>Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>>>4) If I lose a Sea Serpent or whatever due to running out of islands,
does a
>>>full damage prevention step ensue? If so, what happens if I Hack the
Serpent
>>>during that step to say "plains" or whatever will let it live... does
it still
>>>get buried, or does the Hack save it?
>
>>> A full damage prevention step does occur, however this will not
save
>>>the Serpent. The Serpent is buried as soon as there are no islands,
>
>>Such a question came up on IRC yesterday. First off to set the stage,
>>the Sea Serpent is merely destroyed (not "buried") when its controller
>>has no islands in play.
>
>This depends on its edition. Revised Sea Serpents are buried, unlimited
and
>blackbordered ones are just destroyed.
>
It wouldn't make a difference-- it's destroyed/buried _any time_ the
controller has no islands in play, so if this was changed to plains, the
card would be destroyed, then if it was regenerated, it would just be
destroyed again immediately.
--Benjamin W Dreyfus
bi...@its.bldrdoc.gov
> <bi...@its.bldrdoc.gov> wrote:
> >> The Rainbow Vale says "Rainbow Vale passes..." If it is not a Rainbow
> >> Vale (which it isn't if Blood Moon is in play) it will not be passed.
> >Does this mean that the Berserk ruling is being reversed?...
>
> No. I mentioned Berserk, but they were pretty insistent that the fact
> that Rainbow Vale is referring to itself by name is signficant. Berserk
> doesn't name the target or anything, so the target doesn't have that "out".
Well of course the Berserk doesn't mention the target by name! You can
target any creature with it...and most valid targets hadn't even been invented
when Berserk was created.
So, Berserk says the most specific thing it can, "...target creature is
destroyed..." at the end of the turn. As someone started to say in a
previous article, let's look at it logically,
1. Declare Attack Phase.
2. Pay 2 to "Animate" Jade Statue.
3. Declare Statue as attacker.
4. Cast Berserk on Statue.
5. Damage occurs. (Assume Statue survives).
6. Statue reverts to a non-creature.
7. End of turn. Berserk card tries to destroy "target creature."
No creature exists, nothing can be destroyed.
Let me throw out another question about Berserk. If I cast Berserk
and then put the "target creature" in a Safe Haven, is it destroyed
at the end of the turn? This is not much different from the Jade Statue
question...there is no target creature to destroy, so nothing can be
destroyed.
Every other ruling is consistant in that effects don't work on
invalid targets. It's silly to let Berserk destroy a card that is
obviously not a creature. Please change the Jade/Berserk ruling
to be consistant.
-- Bill
James Smith
>>18) What happens if a legend is face-down (Illusionary Mask), and another copy
>>of that legend is brought into play? Is the second legend immediately buried,
>>or does it not notice the original?
>>
>> The second Legend is immediately buried. The person with the face down
>>Legend must inform the other player of this fact.
>
> Just to re-iterate John O'Callaghan's (j...@rahul.net) concern, what do
> you suggest that we do if both players are using Illusionary Masks? The
> problem is that the same Legend may be summoned. It is not sufficient
> to resolve it when one is finally revealed for several reasons. There
> may be contention as to which was summoned first given that numerous
> creatures may be in play on both sides. Also some effects count the
> number of creatures on a side (e.g. Keldon Warlord) whether revealed or
> not. [The answer may be as John suggests for this probably rare case
> to bring in an impartial third party to check any summonings. - RMA]
I would suggest that both Legends would remain in play until one was
turned up, at which time the other player would have to reveal that
he also had one in play. Then the players could either agree as to which
entered play first, in which case the other would be buried, or they
could not, in which case both would be buried. That seems the sensible
way around the problem.
Jim
--
James J Smith | One of the biggest obstacles to the future
School of Engineering | of computing is C. C is the last attempt
Newcastle University | of the high priesthood to control the
en...@cc.newcastle.edu.au | computing business. It's like the scribes
--------------------------+ and the Pharisees who did not want the
masses to learn to read and write. -- Jerry Pournelle
James Smith
> Putting a Mantle on a Zealot is much like putting Burrowing on
> Shanodin Dryads, it gives the creature another ability. Putting a second
> Mantle on the Zealot would be like putting another Burrowing on the
> Dryads; it doesn't accomplish much of anything.
Or like putting two Unholy Strengths on the Dryads.
I think the heart of the problem is, if you play two enchantments that give
a creature the same ability, does the creature have the ability twice,
or is the second enchantment having no effect? If the latter, the second
Unholy Strength should be redundant and thus have no effect. If the former,
then two Mantles should let a creature do two lots of damage. Or is the
rules team just being inconsistent again?
Michael Ronn Marcelais
: Tom Wylie writes:
: > Putting a Mantle on a Zealot is much like putting Burrowing on
: I think the heart of the problem is, if you play two enchantments that give
: a creature the same ability, does the creature have the ability twice,
It gives it the ability twice. The difference is in the ability.
Having 'mountainwalk' twice isn't any better than having it once.
Having '+2/+1' twice is different from having it once. (total +4/+2)
With the Mantle, your giving the creature the ability to:
if attacking and not blocked, deal X+2 damage to a creature.
This gives you a choice; it does not let you make the choice twice.
--
+--------------------------+---------------------------+
| Mike Marcelais | mrma...@eos.ncsu.edu |
| The Moonstone Dragon | Fourth Bryan Productions |
| -==(UDIC)==- | Author of ChrHack 2.3 |
+------------------Signature-Virus-Shield-v1.0-enabled-+
Michael Ronn Marcelais
: In article <3d07ls$q...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> writes:
: So, Berserk says the most specific thing it can, "...target creature is
: destroyed..." at the end of the turn. As someone started to say in a
: previous article, let's look at it logically,
: 1. Declare Attack Phase.
: 2. Pay 2 to "Animate" Jade Statue.
: 3. Declare Statue as attacker.
: 4. Cast Berserk on Statue.
: 5. Damage occurs. (Assume Statue survives).
: 6. Statue reverts to a non-creature.
: 7. End of turn. Berserk card tries to destroy "target creature."
: No creature exists, nothing can be destroyed.
When a permanent is scheduled for destruction at a specific time, it will
be destroyed, even if is no longer the right kind of 'permanent' when it is
being destroyed.
Beserk schedules the destruction of the Jade Statue at the end of turn
turn. It will destroy the Statue even if it isn't a creature at the end
of the turn.
: Let me throw out another question about Berserk. If I cast Berserk
: and then put the "target creature" in a Safe Haven, is it destroyed
: at the end of the turn? This is not much different from the Jade Statue
: question...there is no target creature to destroy, so nothing can be
: destroyed.
Here, the permanent is out of play and cannot be affected by anything. Beserk
wouldn't be able to destroy it once it was put into the safe haven.
Michael Ronn Marcelais
: Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: : 32) Blaze of Glory is used on a creature while Goblin War Drums is out. It
: : cannot block a given attacker unless something else also blocks that attacker,
: : correct?
: : This is correct.
: If I remember it right, the text was: ... target creature can and must block
: any attacking creature ...
Blaze of Glory White abuR Instant (W)
Target defending creature can and must block all attacking creatures
it can legally block. For example, a normal non-flying target
defender can and must block all normal non-flying attackers at once,
but it cannot block any flying attackers.
Controller of target defender may distribute damage among attackers
as desired. Play before defense is chosen.
The key phrase is on the second line ...can legally block.
The creature cannot legally block anything unless something else joins in.
Two BoG would work though.
Michael Ronn Marcelais
: In article <3cq79l$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
: >6) If a Rainbow Value is activated and then covered by a Blood Moon or what
: >have you, will still wander at end of turn? I think that it should, just as a
: >Berserked attacker would be destroyed at end of turn even if it stopped being
: >a creature before then, but am not 100% sure on that.
: > The Rainbow Vale says "Rainbow Vale passes..." If it is not a Rainbow
: >Vale (which it isn't if Blood Moon is in play) it will not be passed.
: We were told that when a card mentions itself by name in it's text, it's only
: being self-referential....just like hacking a Black Vice text to Blue Vice.
: It really means, 'This card....' Does this not apply in this case as well?
You can't hack/sleight card names.
Steven E Barnes
>> graveyard.
>
>Just to save ourselves from the question: What Tom meant to say is
>"(Reversal) Dingus Egg will only trigger on a land going to the
>graveyard from play.
>
I guess this means my Dingus Egg / Time Elemental deck will no longer
work...
-steve
David DeLaney
>>(More interestingly, you can use Equinox on a sacrifice-land-when-declared-
>>as-a-spell-cost spell, countering the spell...
>
>No. Equinox only looks at the effect of the spell it's trying to counter,
>not the costs.
Okay. So it's actually "counters a spell that *will* destroy a land you
control", effectively? Fair enough. Exact wording sez "destroys", but I'll
accept that the intent was "is gonna destroy".
Dave "Future tense" DeLaney
David DeLaney
>>An enchantment in play is neither - but the enchantment's continuously-target-
>>card-it's-on thingy is *something*, If it's not a continuous effect, what is
>>it? DId the Rulings Team actually answer the question we were asking, or did
>>they think we were asking if *enchantments* were spells or effects?
>
>I specifically asked the original question and presented the argument.
>An enchantment already in play is not a spell, and thus is not covered
>by Homarid Warrior and so on.
... That's *still* not the question I'm *asking*. So: the continuously-targets-
the-permanent-it's-on trick of an enchantment *isn't* an effect, and thus
isn't a continuous effect. Fine. My question *now* is, what *is* that trick
called, if not "effect", and how *can* you make something "not a legal target
for spells or effects" and yet have it remain a legal target for the
enchantment that's on it?
And yes, I _know_ an enchantment in play isn't a spell or effect. You keep
leaving out the "or effect" from Priest when you answer, you see, which
makes me think you or the Team either isn't noticing it's there or isn't
applying it to enchantments-falling-off-their-target-card, and I wanna know
which & why.
Michael Constant
)>To be concrete here, can you use a Reflecting Mirror at the time a
)>Black Vise is cast to cause the BV to affect a player of your choice
)>(even the caster of the BV) from then on? Put another way, does the
)>Black Vise spell target its caster's opponent *as it is being cast*?
)
)Yes to both. The same applies to other "opponent" permanents.
Will future printing of Black Vise, etc. be reworded to say "target
player" instead of "oppponent"?
--
Michael Constant (mco...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu)
Thomas R Wylie
<JRA...@utcvm.utc.edu> wrote:
>Well, that's all well and good, but my original question was this: What if
>both players have Illusionary Masks in play?...
If you summon a legend and anyone else has face down creatures when the legend
enters play, then you must ask them if they have that legend in play. If they
do, then your copy is buried.
>>20) If I cast a spell which requires I sacrifice a land upon resolution
>>(Mold Demon, Mana Vortex, etc) can I use Equinox to counter that
>>summoning?
>> Yes.
>Do I get the land back?
The key here is that the land would have been sacrificed upon resolution,
not as the cost of the spell or ability. So you would keep the land, yes.
Note that Mana Vortex is a bad example, as the land is sacrificed when the
enchantment is played; the ruling does not apply to it.
>But, if the land were a creature at the time (due to, say, a Living Plane)
>This would trigger a damage-prevention phase during which it could be tapped
>for mana, right? Or am I missing something?
Wrong. Sacrifices never trigger damage prevention steps (but will trigger
a "death event" step as normal).
Thomas R Wylie
There is no "+2/+1" ability. Modifying something's stats repeatedly is
not the same thing as giving a creature an ability repeatedly. Unholy
Strengths are cumulative, Flights are redundant, Farrel's Mantles are
redundant.
Thomas R Wylie
Michael Constant <mco...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>Will future printing of Black Vise, etc. be reworded to say "target
>player" instead of "oppponent"?
Maybe.
Owen Reynolds
>>of attack), I though only fast effects are allowable, by both sides. This
>>ruling says otherwise; was I wrong from the beginning or was there a
>>reversal somewhere?
Yes. This is a reversal.
>It was certainly unclear from the beginning. But there is no "phase is
>ending but only fast effects are legal" step. If I try to end a phase and
>you use fast effects during that phase, then the phase is still in full swing,
>and I can use whatever effects I want to. This includes using sorceries
>and such, if it was the main phase which didn't end after all.
There _used_ to be such a thing, which was made up out of the blue
by the design team a few months ago. I'm glad it's gone. What is was was
the ruling that you were allowed to "respond" to a declaration of a phase
change with any number of fast effects sequences.
This was my question at the time and the answer I got:
--Suppose I've my opponent has a Sorceror out and is saving it to 'poke'
me at the end of all of my turns. Further, I've got a revised Library
of Leng, so he pokes me in response to my declaring "my main phase is
done." Can I declare my phase is done, wait for him to poke me, and
then summon my 2 Prodigal Sorcerors (one of which will survive to kill
his)?
The answer I got was "no -- only fast effects are legal after you've
announced you are done."
I'm glad that ruling is gone.
Thomas R Wylie
<bi...@its.bldrdoc.gov> wrote:
>Let me throw out another question about Berserk. If I cast Berserk
>and then put the "target creature" in a Safe Haven, is it destroyed
>at the end of the turn? This is not much different from the Jade Statue
>question...
It's very different from the Jade Statue question. In the Jade Statue
scenario, the permanent which was targetted by Berserk is still in play.
In the Safe Haven scenario, the permanent has left play, and more to the
point has left the game entirely, so nothing more can happen to it.
When a permanent gets stuck into Safe Haven (or Oubliette), all "at end of
turn" and "until end of turn" effects wear off.
Thomas R Wylie
As someone pointed out, Blaze of Glory actually specifies that all legal
blocking decisions must be made. Blocking an attacker with just the Blazed
creature would not be a legal blocking decision if the attacker has
Goblin War Drums out, so the creature can't block everything on its own.
Another blocker would also be assigned to an attack, which would make the
block legal, and if two other creature are assigned to block something, the
Blazed creature will be forced to block as well (if it can).
David DeLaney
>Or is the name the only consideration? Perhaps "this card" is the
>correct interpretation, but upon becoming a Mountain, the R.V. changes
>identity and is no longer the card the end-of-turn effect targets?
I'd say this was what they're trying to say. The effect will move that
particular Rainbow Vale - but it's no longer a RV.
>In that case, what other things could change a card's identity?
>X-lacing?
Nope. The other things that could do it are anything which changes a land
to a basic land (Evil Presence, Phant. Terrain, Gaea's Liege, etc.), or
Mishra's Factory, which turns itself into Assembly Worker when it powers
up (but keeps the same text). Just changing the color of a card doesn't
change its name or class.
Trevor Barrie
>Or like putting two Unholy Strengths on the Dryads.
>I think the heart of the problem is, if you play two enchantments that give
>a creature the same ability, does the creature have the ability twice,
>or is the second enchantment having no effect? If the latter, the second
>Unholy Strength should be redundant and thus have no effect. If the former,
>then two Mantles should let a creature do two lots of damage. Or is the
>rules team just being inconsistent again?
But Unholy Strength doesn't "give an ability"; it simply modifies the
creature's stats. A subtle difference, perhaps, but I think it's still
a difference.
bi...@its.bldrdoc.gov
> When a permanent is scheduled for destruction at a specific time, it will
> be destroyed, even if is no longer the right kind of 'permanent' when it is
> being destroyed.
>
> Beserk schedules the destruction of the Jade Statue at the end of turn
> turn. It will destroy the Statue even if it isn't a creature at the end
> of the turn.
That brings us back to the original point. If Rainbow Vale is scheduled
for transfer at the end of the turn, and it is no longer the right kind
of land, why is the transfer cancelled?
The two rulings are inconsistant and one of them should change. I don't
really care which, as long as they become consistant.
-- Bill
Rainer Dittmann
: 32) Blaze of Glory is used on a creature while Goblin War Drums is out. It
: cannot block a given attacker unless something else also blocks that attacker,
: correct?
: This is correct.
If I remember it right, the text was: ... target creature can and must block
any attacking creature ...
Doesn't this overwrite the Goblin War Drum effect, since Blaze of Glory is
the latest played effect, allowing explicitely the target creature to block
any attacking creature?
--
Rainer Dittmann Institute of Computer Science
Tel.: (+49)-931/888-5512 University of Wuerzburg
Fax.: (+49)-931/888-4601 Am Hubland
E-mail: ditt...@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de D-97074 Wuerzburg, F.R. Germany
Tom Christiansen
:Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
:
:
:: 32) Blaze of Glory is used on a creature while Goblin War Drums is out. It
:: cannot block a given attacker unless something else also blocks that attacker,
:: correct?
:
:: This is correct.
:
: If I remember it right, the text was: ... target creature can and must block
: any attacking creature ...
:
: Doesn't this overwrite the Goblin War Drum effect, since Blaze of Glory is
: the latest played effect, allowing explicitely the target creature to block
: any attacking creature?
My, but that does sound right to me!
--tom
--
Tom Christiansen Perl Consultant, Gamer, Hiker tch...@mox.perl.com
I am Ornithopter of Borg: I am futile...
Trevor Barrie
>The rules team have said that if you cast a Mantle on a Farrel's Zealot
>(or other similar creature), then you get to deal damage both for the Mantle
>and the Zealot. Thus the choice is not a cost but a trigger, and so two
>Mantles should allow two lots of damage.
But the ability that Farrel's Mantle grants is not the same as the ability
that the Farrel's Zealot possesses. Very similar, yes, but not the same.
Putting a Mantle on a Zealot gives you a creature with two similar abilities;
putting two Mantles on a creature gives it the same ability twice, which is
redundant.
Trevor Barrie
>> But Unholy Strength doesn't "give an ability"; it simply modifies the
>> creature's stats. A subtle difference, perhaps, but I think it's still
>> a difference.
>Burrowing modifies the creature so that it can Mountainwalk.
Yes, it modifies it by giving it a special ability.
>Unholy Strength
>gives the creature the ability to do two more points of damage.
OTOH, having a power score is _not_ a special ability.
>It's hard to find examples that aren't stat modifiers, but...
>If you play two Paralyses on the same creature, is the untap cost 4 or 8?
Eight. Paralyze doesn't grant an ability, it imposes an untap cost, and untap
costs are cumulative.
>If you play two Backfires on the same creature, does the creature do twice
>as much damage to its controller?
Don't know, I've never seen a Backfire. Does it really cause a creature to
damage the controller, or does it damage the creature's controller itself?
>If you play two Brainwashes on the same
>creature, does it's controller have to pay 3 or 6 to have it attack?
Six. Attack costs are pretty much the same as untap costs.
>If you
>play two Spirit Links on the same creature, do you get twice the life?
Yes. Spirit Link doesn't give an ability to a creature, it gives you life when
the creature does damage. Note that it's the Spirit Link giving the life, not
the creature.
Trevor Barrie
>Yeah ... I don't know about the "why" of it ... but I thought any
>artifact that destroyed itself was declared (by ruling) to be
>sacrificing itself. Is this previous ruling now reversed?
As I understand it, any card that specifically destroys itself should be
considered to sacrifice itself. However, the Disk doesn't say to discard it
when used or anything like that; it simply has a global effect which just
happens to destroy itself more often than not.
Think of it as being like an animated Rocket Launcher shooting itself; it is
destroying itself, but it's not considered a sacrifice.
noone
Michael Ronn Marcelais <mrma...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>Crash (cr...@brown.edu) wrote:
>: > 21) Suppose I say I'm about to attack, and my opponent uses a bunch of fast
>: > effects. Can I now decide to put off the attack long enough to cast a sorcery
>: > or something, or am I stuck with attacking?
>: >
>: > Yes, you can still cast sorceries or whatever. This also applies to
>: > declaration of the end of any phase. If your opponent uses fast effects, you
>: > can back up to cast a legitimate spell.
>
>: Does this mean I can declare an attack, let my opponent use fast effects,
>: UN-DECLARE the attack, cast a sorcery, then declare ANOTHER ATTACK? At
>
>"I'm attacking" [This is trying to enter the Attack phase]
>Opp: "No wait, I'll twiddle my wall." [This backs you up to the main phase]
No it doesn't. Twiddle is an instant, fast effects can be cast
in response to declare attack, declare blockers, end of turn and
other such "phase changes". How does the instant back you out
of the attack?
Once the attack is declared, Sorceries and Enchantments are
verboten (or so I understood). You can cast your own instant or
interrupt in response to the Twiddle, but you can't say that
the Twiddle un-declares the attack!
That is ... before this ruling ... personally I think that they
really ought to recall this ruling as a misteak. At the least
they ought to just say that you can cast Sorceries and Enchantments
during the attack sub-phase. As it is, you can declare an attack
the BACK UP once you see your opponent's choice of defenders and
re-select your attackers!!!
The Design Team must've been drinking the hard stuff when they
came up with this one...
-rmh
Thomas R Wylie
If I say "I'm attacking with these creatures", and you say "wait, I want to
do this before they attack", then the turn backs up to the main phase while
you use fast effects. Because it is still the main phase, I can cast
Sorceries or whatever before actually beginning the attack. This is just
like trying to end a phase; the other person can make me back up, and then
use fast effects during that phase.
Thomas R Wylie
David DeLaney <d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> wrote:
>That's *still* not the question I'm *asking*. So: the continuously-targets-
>the-permanent-it's-on trick of an enchantment *isn't* an effect, and thus
>isn't a continuous effect. Fine. My question *now* is, what *is* that trick
>called, if not "effect", and how *can* you make something "not a legal target
>for spells or effects" and yet have it remain a legal target for the
>enchantment that's on it?
Any enchantment on the creature is:
-> A permanent targetting that creature
-> An enchantment targetting that creature
It is not an "effect" targetting it, and certainly isn't a "spell" targetting
it. Therefore the Priest's ability doesn't make the creature an invalid
target for the enchantment. The enchantment provides some effect, and if that
effect is targetted then the enchantment will be dormant for the duration of
the Priest's effect, but the enchantment itself is neither a spell nor
an effect.
Evan Simpson
>>Will future printing of Black Vise, etc. be reworded to say "target
>>player" instead of "oppponent"?
>
I like this ruling a lot, but I have serious worries about how players
can decide, on a case by case basis, whether a permanent targets a player
as it is being cast as well as during play. In other words, is there a
simple rule of thumb for this? All cards which can only target a single
player, for instance?
More specifically, can Reflecting Mirror be used on the Cursed Rack?
Underworld Dreams? Wanderlust? Cursed Land?
How about Howling Mine? Copper Tablet? Winter Orb?
Please consider carefully... this may determine whether several of my
decks suddenly get 4 RMs :-)
Michael G Schmahl
: In article <3csgi7$f...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>,
: Michael Ronn Marcelais <mrma...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:
: >Crash (cr...@brown.edu) wrote:
: >: > 21) Suppose I say I'm about to attack, and my opponent uses a bunch of fast
: >: > effects. Can I now decide to put off the attack long enough to cast a sorcery
: >: > or something, or am I stuck with attacking?
: >: >
: >: > Yes, you can still cast sorceries or whatever. This also applies to
: >: > declaration of the end of any phase. If your opponent uses fast effects, you
: >: > can back up to cast a legitimate spell.
: >
: >: Does this mean I can declare an attack, let my opponent use fast effects,
: >: UN-DECLARE the attack, cast a sorcery, then declare ANOTHER ATTACK? At
: >
: >"I'm attacking" [This is trying to enter the Attack phase]
: >Opp: "No wait, I'll twiddle my wall." [This backs you up to the main phase]
: No it doesn't. Twiddle is an instant, fast effects can be cast
: in response to declare attack, declare blockers, end of turn and
: other such "phase changes". How does the instant back you out
: of the attack?
You're misunderstanding what is being said here. Phases don't
change unless both players are ready for it. There is no "phase
is about to end" step wherein only fast effects are legal. The
closest you get it "you were talking too fast changing phases before
I was ready." If you declare that you are about to attack and I
respond by casting Twiddle on your Lord of the Pit, the attack
phase never actually started. This means you can continue casting
Enchantments and Sorceries and other so-called "slow" effects.
"I'm attacking" really means "Are you ready for the attack to
begin?"
: Once the attack is declared, Sorceries and Enchantments are
: verboten (or so I understood). You can cast your own instant or
: interrupt in response to the Twiddle, but you can't say that
: the Twiddle un-declares the attack!
If the twiddle is cast before the attack actually begins, yes.
Normally, I might as well just wait until the first fast-effects
phase after declaring attackers, but if I want to fiddle around
with your creatures before they attack, this is what happens. If
I wait until the attack actually begins, Twiddling your Lord of
the Pit won't have any effect except to give you an extra defender
when my turn rolls around.
: That is ... before this ruling ... personally I think that they
: really ought to recall this ruling as a misteak. At the least
You did this on purpose, right? ^^^^^^^
: they ought to just say that you can cast Sorceries and Enchantments
: during the attack sub-phase. As it is, you can declare an attack
: the BACK UP once you see your opponent's choice of defenders and
: re-select your attackers!!!
NO! This won't work. What the design team is saying is that if
your opponent does something before you declare attackers, then
you never started the attack in the first place.
: The Design Team must've been drinking the hard stuff when they
: came up with this one...
: -rmh
--
Insert witty saying here.
AGLA | Michael Schmahl (fx...@acf-lab.alaska.edu)
M:tG | Math / CS / Theater / Philosophy
James Buster
Andrew Brecher <Andrew_...@brown.edu> wrote:
>You didn't read my message...the ruling is fine, it's the card that's messed
>up. Having cards that sit there and do nothing after their effect is gone
>is pointless.
Hardly. You can still Power Leak or Feedback the enchantment. It still pumps
up a Wombat.
--
James Buster
bit...@netcom.com
Owen Reynolds
>> be destroyed, even if is no longer the right kind of 'permanent' when it is
>> being destroyed.
>That brings us back to the original point. If Rainbow Vale is scheduled
>for transfer at the end of the turn, and it is no longer the right kind
>of land, why is the transfer cancelled?
Here's a related question -- what about the Elvish Hunters and Spore
Clouds? They both say the targt creature does not untap as normal during
it's next untap phase. What if you used these on, say, a Mishra's factory?
This and Berserk are very similar in that they act on something and
sort of leave a reminder behind -- either "this creature does XXX" or
"this card does XXX."
The Rainbow Vale _could_ be a different case in that it acts on itself
and so needs no 'reminder.' It seems that the design team is thinking that
at the end of the turn, the Rainbow Vale's text kicks in and it moves itself
over if it was tapped for manna. In that case, no text means no transfer.
James Smith
> James Smith (en...@wombat.newcastle.edu.au) wrote:
> : Tom Wylie writes:
> : > Putting a Mantle on a Zealot is much like putting Burrowing on
> : Or like putting two Unholy Strengths on the Dryads.
> : I think the heart of the problem is, if you play two enchantments that give
> : a creature the same ability, does the creature have the ability twice,
>
> It gives it the ability twice. The difference is in the ability.
>
> Having 'mountainwalk' twice isn't any better than having it once.
> Having '+2/+1' twice is different from having it once. (total +4/+2)
>
> With the Mantle, your giving the creature the ability to:
> if attacking and not blocked, deal X+2 damage to a creature.
>
> This gives you a choice; it does not let you make the choice twice.
The rules team have said that if you cast a Mantle on a Farrel's Zealot
(or other similar creature), then you get to deal damage both for the Mantle
and the Zealot. Thus the choice is not a cost but a trigger, and so two
Mantles should allow two lots of damage.
Jim
--
James J Smith | One of the biggest obstacles to the future
School of Engineering | of computing is C. C is the last attempt
Newcastle University | of the high priesthood to control the
en...@cc.newcastle.edu.au | computing business. It's like the scribes
--------------------------+ and the Pharisees who did not want the
masses to learn to read and write. -- Jerry Pournelle
David Wilson
>>That's *still* not the question I'm *asking*. So: the continuously-targets-
>>the-permanent-it's-on trick of an enchantment *isn't* an effect, and thus
>>isn't a continuous effect. Fine. My question *now* is, what *is* that trick
>>called, if not "effect", and how *can* you make something "not a legal target
>>for spells or effects" and yet have it remain a legal target for the
>>enchantment that's on it?
>
>
>-> A permanent targetting that creature
>-> An enchantment targetting that creature
>
>It is not an "effect" targetting it, and certainly isn't a "spell" targetting
>it. Therefore the Priest's ability doesn't make the creature an invalid
>target for the enchantment. The enchantment provides some effect, and if that
>effect is targetted then the enchantment will be dormant for the duration of
>the Priest's effect, but the enchantment itself is neither a spell nor
>an effect.
>
>
>Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
>aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
>
So the enchantment doesn't fall off, but its effect temporarily disappears.
So if you're attacked by a Craw Worm (6/4) with Holy Armor (+0/+2) and
you block with your Juggernaut, and subsequently in that turn the Worm's
controller uses the Priest to protect the Craw Worm from some other
effect (a Lightning Bolt, say), the +0/+2 from the Holy Armor disappears,
killing the Craw Worm because it reverts to a 6/4 creature with 5 points
of damage from the Juggernaut.
So you could use the Priest on an opponent's Black Warded creature, and then
Terror it (assuming the creature isn't either black or an artifact).
Gee, maybe this card is more powerful than I thought.
Dave
--
Dave Wilson
dawi...@netcom.com
--My thoughts, my ideas; no one else would admit to wanting them.
(Sometimes I'm not sure *I* do.)
James Smith
Burrowing modifies the creature so that it can Mountainwalk. Unholy Strength
gives the creature the ability to do two more points of damage. This is just
terminology.
It's hard to find examples that aren't stat modifiers, but...
If you play two Paralyses on the same creature, is the untap cost 4 or 8?
If you play two Backfires on the same creature, does the creature do twice
as much damage to its controller? If you play two Brainwashes on the same
creature, does it's controller have to pay 3 or 6 to have it attack? If you
play two Spirit Links on the same creature, do you get twice the life?
Jim
Trevor Barrie
>The point I am making is that 'gives an ability' is just terminology,
>and means exactly the same thing as 'modifies' or 'makes a change to
>the underlying creature.'
No it doesn't. I know sitting here posting "yes it does" "no it doesn't"
doesn't accomplish much, but I really can't come up with a better argument; it
just strikes me as being so obvious. "Special abilities" are things like
flying, landwalking, etc.; I really don't see how power and toughness can be
considered "special abilities".
>Saying that Burrowing 'gives an ability' whereas
>Unholy Strength 'modifies' is a null argument, especially when you are
>making up the terminology to try and justify the argument.
I'm not making up the terminology simply for this argument at all, it's the
terminology I've always used, and so does everybody else I know of.
>It's like trying
>to say that a Wall of Stone is inanimate and thus is not a creature, and
>so cannot be Terrored.
Hardly the same; the rules are quite clear on walls being creatures. Nowhere,
however, do they address the issue of whether multiple Farrel's Mantles are
cumulative, except in the very ruling which you're disputing.
>Most other attributes are just flags, and for example having
>mountainwalk twice does not make any real difference to the game. But
>having the ability bestowed by Farrel's Mantle twice does make a real
>difference.
You're using circular reasoning here. "Having the ability granted by Farrel's
Mantle twice makes a real difference, therefore having two Farrel's Mantle
allows a creature to use its' ability twice." The _reason_ why having
Mountainwalk twice doesn't make any real difference is because that's the way
the game is designed; Farrel's Mantle is no different.
To put it another way, based on the card there's no reason to believe that
Farrel's Mantle isn't just setting a flag as well.
>I don't think there's any justification for dividing
>enchantments into those for which a second enchantment counts and those
>for which it doesn't count, but if you choose to then there is more reason
>to group Farrel's Mantle with the former rather than the latter.
Why? Given that you don't accept the distinction between special abilities and
modified stats, what is it about Farrel's Mantle that makes you see it as
similar to Unholy Strength and not Flight?
>I've gone though the card list looking for similar enchantments, that is
>enchantments that modify the underlying creature and for which having two
>is better or worse than having one. There are none that aren't power/toughness
>modifiers. The four I suggested were some of the few examples of enchantments
>other than power/toughness modifiers for which having more than one makes
>a difference, and you agree that in each case the two count as separate
>effects.
Yes, but since none of the enchantments gave abilities to creatures, that's
not terribly relevant.
har...@ulogic.com
>NO! This won't work. What the design team is saying is that if
>your opponent does something before you declare attackers, then
>you never started the attack in the first place.
>
Oh. That's different. They're just making an explicit
case out of what is already a general case: the "courtesy
backup" that happens when one player moves too fast. Is
that it?
I think they are causing more confusion with this than they
are curing...
-rmh
har...@ulogic.com
>Wylie) wrote:
>
>><ERRATTA> Nevinyrral's Disk should be have a tap symbol. In the original
>>version it was a mono artifact, and at some point in the revision it lost its
>>tapping cost. Future versions will have a tap symbol. Additionally, it is
>>not a sacrifice. It is destroyed as part of its effect, and can be prevented
>>from going to the graveyard.
>
>First of all, errata has one T. |:^)
>
>Second, does this mean that a Guardian Beast would save the Disk before it
>would die? What if it were regenerated, causing it to be tapped- would the
>disk stay in play because GB >was< untapped, or does it hit the graveyard
>because GB is now tapped? This seems like an ordering thing. What other
>ways could it be prevented from going to the graveyard?
>
>I thought part of the reason it was declared to be a sacrifice was to
>avoid this problem...
Yeah ... I don't know about the "why" of it ... but I thought any
artifact that destroyed itself was declared (by ruling) to be
sacrificing itself. Is this previous ruling now reversed?
-rmh
noone
>Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>>of that legend is brought into play? Is the second legend immediately buried,
>>or does it not notice the original?
>>
>> The second Legend is immediately buried. The person with the face down
>>Legend must inform the other player of this fact.
>
>Just to re-iterate John O'Callaghan's (j...@rahul.net) concern, what do
>you suggest that we do if both players are using Illusionary Masks? The
>problem is that the same Legend may be summoned. It is not sufficient
>to resolve it when one is finally revealed for several reasons. There
>may be contention as to which was summoned first given that numerous
>creatures may be in play on both sides. Also some effects count the
>number of creatures on a side (e.g. Keldon Warlord) whether revealed or
>not. [The answer may be as John suggests for this probably rare case
>to bring in an impartial third party to check any summonings. - RMA]
Perhaps the solution is to rule that Illusionary masks can not
mask Legends, as their personalies (or egos) are to strong and
they just plain refuse to be masked or disguised in any way?
-rmh
noone
Evan Simpson <ev...@access3.digex.net> wrote:
>In article <3d52tc$k...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,
>More specifically, can Reflecting Mirror be used on the Cursed Rack?
>Underworld Dreams? Wanderlust? Cursed Land?
>How about Howling Mine? Copper Tablet? Winter Orb?
>
>Please consider carefully... this may determine whether several of my
>decks suddenly get 4 RMs :-)
I don't know about the others, but...
- doesn't Howling Mine just say that you draw an extra card?
Similarly, Winter Orb has to do w/ untapping lands ... RM
deals with damage ... doesn't it?
- Wanderlust targets a creature (and damages it's controller),
it does not itself target a player for damage.
-rmh
har...@ulogic.com
>
>I would suggest that both Legends would remain in play until one was
>turned up, at which time the other player would have to reveal that
>he also had one in play. Then the players could either agree as to which
>entered play first, in which case the other would be buried, or they
>could not, in which case both would be buried. That seems the sensible
>way around the problem.
How about the first one turned face up is considered to be
the first one to enter play, the other one (even if still
masked) immediately self-destructs upon seeing that it is not
who it thinks it is.
This would add an element of risk when choosing to mask a
Legend -- the risk being that the opponent might turn up the
same Legend before you unmask, making _your_ Legend self-destruct.
-rmh
har...@ulogic.com
>are interacting with the game honestly, unless you trust each other to be
>up front. If a legend enters play face down and other players have face
>down creatures, you have to ask whether they have the appropriate legend
doesn't announcing the card you are bringing into play kind
of negate the purpose of using the mask in the first place?
-rmh
har...@ulogic.com
>: I think the heart of the problem is, if you play two enchantments that give
>: a creature the same ability, does the creature have the ability twice,
>
>
>Having 'mountainwalk' twice isn't any better than having it once.
>Having '+2/+1' twice is different from having it once. (total +4/+2)
How about Flying?
If I cast a Flight on a creature that already has it,
then (by your logic) an Earthbind cancels only one
Flight ability, and my creature can still fly?
note: I'm not talking about Flight/Earthbind/Flight
which _restores_ flying, but Flight/Flight/Earthbind,
what is the result?
-rmh
har...@ulogic.com
Robert Michaels <rm3...@cutter.ship.edu> wrote:
>Red Adept (reda...@cris.com) wrote:
>: In article <3cq79l$n...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
>: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
>
>: >have you, will still wander at end of turn? I think that it should, just as a
>: >Berserked attacker would be destroyed at end of turn even if it stopped being
>: >a creature before then, but am not 100% sure on that.
>
>: > The Rainbow Vale says "Rainbow Vale passes..." If it is not a Rainbow
>: >Vale (which it isn't if Blood Moon is in play) it will not be passed.
>
>: I have a gripe about this.
>
>: We were told that when a card mentions itself by name in it's text, it's only
>: being self-referential....just like hacking a Black Vice text to Blue Vice.
>: It really means, 'This card....' Does this not apply in this case as well?
>
>: --Red
>: .sig under construction
>
>Ok: Logical reason why rainbow vale will not rotate:
>
>Use vale
>Blood moon
>Blood moon resolves and is in effect
>Turn end phase:
>Rainbow vale checks it's text. It is now a basic mountain, thus no text
>Card stays.
This is the same logic that people tried to use on
the Black Vise.
Slight the text of the Black Vise, not the name, the text
so that it says "...Blue Vise causes damage..."
Upkeep phase, Vise counts the cards in opponent's hand,
according to it's text, then sees "Blue Vise damages"
and says "Oh, I'm a Black Vise, not a Blue Vise, so I
don't cause any damage..."
This is the _same_thing_ as saying the Rainbow Vale does
not transfer even if, by the end of the turn, it thinks
it is a Mountain because of a Blood Moon.
Likewise the Berserker schedules it's target for destruction
that still occurs even if it's target is no longer the same
type of card and non longer a valid target (see other postings
for specifics)
We have _major_ inconsistancies here. This "Vale does not
transfer" ruling conflicts with both the Berserker and the
Black Vise.
Spike it. The Vale should transfer, even if it is a Mountain
by the end of the turn. It will not transfer if it is tapped
when it thinks it is a Mountain, but if it was a Vale whn it
was tapped, it gets scheduled for transfer at EOT, regardless
of what happens to it afterwards.
-rmh
Evan Simpson
[stuff about clarifying which spells target at casting time]
>More specifically, can Reflecting Mirror be used on the Cursed Rack?
>Underworld Dreams? Wanderlust? Cursed Land?
>How about Howling Mine? Copper Tablet? Winter Orb?
Sorry, sorry, I was Sleepy, Dopey, and perhaps several other Dwarves when
I wrote this. A good night's sleep has straightened me out.
A bit of thought reveals that we have a perfectly good criterion for
deciding which spells target a player when they are cast: Just imagine
that the spell is being cast in a Melee Magic style multi-player game,
then ask yourself whether the caster has to make a decision *at casting
time* about which player to target. By this standard:
Spells which can (or must) target a player at casting time:
Black Vise, The Rack, Cursed Rack, and Underworld Dreams
Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc.
Mind Twist, Drain Power
Spells which can target a player, but not at casting time:
Prodigal Sorceror, Disrupting Scepter, Witch Hunter, etc.
Spells which affect players, but never target them:
Siphon Soul, Pestilence, Mind Bomb, Copper Tablet, Erg Raiders, etc.
Spells like Cursed Land and Wanderlust certainly don't target a player at
casting time, and I am unsure whether they do so when they deal their
damage (or whether it matters). This probably follows the same reasoning
as whether Drop of Honey targets creatures.
Still, the ability to redirect stuffy doll and dream damage significantly
enhances the Reflecting Mirror in my eyes.
Evan
Joseph W. DeVincentis
>
>-> A permanent targetting that creature
>-> An enchantment targetting that creature
>
>It is not an "effect" targetting it, and certainly isn't a "spell" targetting
>it. Therefore the Priest's ability doesn't make the creature an invalid
>target for the enchantment. The enchantment provides some effect, and if that
>effect is targetted then the enchantment will be dormant for the duration of
>the Priest's effect, but the enchantment itself is neither a spell nor
>an effect.
This is what I was hoping you were going to say. I'm sure a lot of
people will question this, but it seems to mean this can happen:
You cast Unstable Mutation on your Homarid Warrior (now 6/6) and attack.
I block with my Hill Giant (3/3), which dies.
I then attempt to Lightning Bolt your Homarid.
If you let it go, the Warrior will have 6 points of damage and die.
If you respond by powering up its ability, the lightning bolt fizzles,
but the Mutation is also no longer active, so it becomes a 3/3 with 3
damage, and dies.
Andrew Brecher
Dixon) wrote:
>Andrew Brecher (Andrew_...@brown.edu) wrote:
>: >Why...what should make it go away? I don't see how this unintuitive.
>: >Venerian Gold (?) works the same way.
>
>: You didn't read my message...the ruling is fine, it's the card that's messed
>: up. Having cards that sit there and do nothing after their effect is gone
>: is pointless.
>
> It probably doesn't go away because it's a Blue enchantment, and thus
>a prime target for one of the more annoying Blue spells in existence -
>Enchantment Alteration. [I take it you don't play Blue much, else you
>would have realized this point instantly... :]
...which would be a completely useless thing to do when it has no counters
on it. Using EA on it doesn't suddenly replenish the counters.
--
- Andrew Brecher (andrew_...@brown.edu) <insert disclaimer here>
Andrew Brecher
wrote:
Those are all external effects, not caused by the card. The card itself
does nothing after the counters are used up, and there's no reason for it
to still be around; it just makes the game area more confusing.
Tom Christiansen
:>It gives it the ability twice. The difference is in the ability.
:>Having 'mountainwalk' twice isn't any better than having it once.
:>Having '+2/+1' twice is different from having it once. (total +4/+2)
:How about Flying?
:If I cast a Flight on a creature that already has it,
:then (by your logic) an Earthbind cancels only one
:Flight ability, and my creature can still fly?
:
:note: I'm not talking about Flight/Earthbind/Flight
:which _restores_ flying, but Flight/Flight/Earthbind,
:what is the result?
The last effect wins. Your creature is earthbound.
--tom
--
Tom Christiansen Perl Consultant, Gamer, Hiker tch...@mox.perl.com
I am Kird Ape of Borg: Resistance is futile. Forests are helpful...
Dennis F. Hefferman
|But the ability that Farrel's Mantle grants is not the same as the ability
|that the Farrel's Zealot possesses. Very similar, yes, but not the same.
|Putting a Mantle on a Zealot gives you a creature with two similar abilities;
|putting two Mantles on a creature gives it the same ability twice, which is
|redundant.
This does open up a real can of worms, though. Is putting two Spirit
Links on a creature of any use now?
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: FuzyLogic heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"They feed you on the guilt to keep you humble, keep you low/Some man and myth
they made up a thousand years ago." -- "Silent Legacy", Melissa Etheridge
Dennis F. Hefferman
|So the enchantment doesn't fall off, but its effect temporarily disappears.
|So if you're attacked by a Craw Worm (6/4) with Holy Armor (+0/+2) and
|you block with your Juggernaut, and subsequently in that turn the Worm's
|controller uses the Priest to protect the Craw Worm from some other
|effect (a Lightning Bolt, say), the +0/+2 from the Holy Armor disappears,
|killing the Craw Worm because it reverts to a 6/4 creature with 5 points
|of damage from the Juggernaut.
The +0/+2 wouldn't disappear, as I understand it, but the Holy Armor
could not then be pumped up. Any previous pumping would still be effective,
though.
Since the Priest can be only used during your upkeep, though, what you
describe would be pretty tough to pull off....
|So you could use the Priest on an opponent's Black Warded creature, and then
|Terror it (assuming the creature isn't either black or an artifact).
Not sure if this would work, either.
Dennis F. Hefferman
|This is the same logic that people tried to use on
|the Black Vise.
|Slight the text of the Black Vise, not the name, the text
|so that it says "...Blue Vise causes damage..."
|Upkeep phase, Vise counts the cards in opponent's hand,
|according to it's text, then sees "Blue Vise damages"
|and says "Oh, I'm a Black Vise, not a Blue Vise, so I
|don't cause any damage..."
|This is the _same_thing_ as saying the Rainbow Vale does
|not transfer even if, by the end of the turn, it thinks
|it is a Mountain because of a Blood Moon.
Except that the ruling in this case was that you can't Sleight the Vise
in the first place.
|Likewise the Berserker schedules it's target for destruction
|that still occurs even if it's target is no longer the same
|type of card and non longer a valid target (see other postings
|for specifics)
Ah, but the Berserk is what is doing the destroying, and _it's_ text is
unchanged. It will destroy the card it was played upon, creature or no.
|We have _major_ inconsistancies here. This "Vale does not
|transfer" ruling conflicts with both the Berserker and the
|Black Vise.
No we don't.
Thomas R Wylie
James Smith <en...@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>Burrowing modifies the creature so that it can Mountainwalk. Unholy Strength
>gives the creature the ability to do two more points of damage. This is just
>terminology.
Unholy Strength confers a bonus. Burrowing confers an ability. There *is*
a difference.
>If you play two Paralyses on the same creature, is the untap cost 4 or 8?
>If you play two Backfires on the same creature, does the creature do twice
>as much damage to its controller? If you play two Brainwashes on the same
>creature, does it's controller have to pay 3 or 6 to have it attack? If you
>play two Spirit Links on the same creature, do you get twice the life?
But none of these are the same as putting two Burrowings on a creature.
Costs are always cumulative. Spirit Link and Backfire are just counting
the damage the creature does and doing something; the effect is purely a
property of the enchantment, and not an ability of the creature.
Thomas R Wylie
<har...@ulogic.com> wrote:
>How about Flying?
>If I cast a Flight on a creature that already has it,
>then (by your logic) an Earthbind cancels only one
>Flight ability, and my creature can still fly?
>note: I'm not talking about Flight/Earthbind/Flight
>which _restores_ flying, but Flight/Flight/Earthbind,
>what is the result?
The creature doesn't fly. The first Flight gives it flying, the second
gives it an ability it already has, and the Earthbind takes that ability away.
Thomas R Wylie
<har...@ulogic.com> wrote:
>>An outside observer is always "necessary", to make sure face down creatures
>>are interacting with the game honestly, unless you trust each other to be
>>up front. If a legend enters play face down and other players have face
>>down creatures, you have to ask whether they have the appropriate legend
>doesn't announcing the card you are bringing into play kind
>of negate the purpose of using the mask in the first place?
Yes. Some creatures just aren't very easy to hide with the mask. For example,
you wouldn't ever be able to hide Stangg: "Gee, a Stangg twin just entered
play. I wonder what creature you just summoned?" As a class of creatures,
the legends are impossible to hide completely.
Thomas R Wylie
Owen Reynolds <reyn...@cs.iastate.edu> wrote:
> Here's a related question -- what about the Elvish Hunters and Spore
>Clouds? They both say the targt creature does not untap as normal during
>it's next untap phase. What if you used these on, say, a Mishra's factory?
Then the Factory would not untap as normal on its next untap phase.
The effect has a finite duration, so doesn't wear off just because the
target becomes invalid.
Thomas R Wylie
David Wilson <dawi...@netcom.com> wrote:
>So the enchantment doesn't fall off, but its effect temporarily disappears.
The +0/+2 is a continuous effect and doesn't target anything, so wouldn't shut
down while the Homarid Warrior's ability was in effect. Whether you would
be able to pump up the Holy Armor is under discussion, but it looks like that
part of the Holy Armor *is* targetted, so would be unusable. That is not a
final ruling, however.
>So you could use the Priest on an opponent's Black Warded creature, and then
>Terror it (assuming the creature isn't either black or an artifact).
Again, the protection is not targetted, so would not shut off.
James Smith
> en...@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (James Smith) writes:
>
>>(or other similar creature), then you get to deal damage both for the Mantle
>>and the Zealot. Thus the choice is not a cost but a trigger, and so two
>>Mantles should allow two lots of damage.
>
> that the Farrel's Zealot possesses. Very similar, yes, but not the same.
> Putting a Mantle on a Zealot gives you a creature with two similar abilities;
> putting two Mantles on a creature gives it the same ability twice, which is
> redundant.
Playing two Unholy Strengths on the creature gives it the same ability
twice. Is the second Unholy Strength redundant? A second Burrowing is
redundant because having mountainwalk twice is not particularly useful,
but it doesn't mean that the creature only has mountainwalk once. The
second Farrel's Mantle does give the creature a useful ability, ie. it
lets it do a second lot of damage, so it is not redundant.
James Smith
>>Having 'mountainwalk' twice isn't any better than having it once.
>>Having '+2/+1' twice is different from having it once. (total +4/+2)
>
> How about Flying?
>
> If I cast a Flight on a creature that already has it,
> then (by your logic) an Earthbind cancels only one
> Flight ability, and my creature can still fly?
Earthbind doesn't cancel one Flight, it removes all flying ability. There's
a difference. If you cast Flight on a Mesa Pegasus and then Earthbound it,
the Mesa Pegasus would not still be able to fly.
James Smith
>>: We were told that when a card mentions itself by name in it's text, it's only
>>: being self-referential....just like hacking a Black Vice text to Blue Vice.
>>: It really means, 'This card....' Does this not apply in this case as well?
The Black Vice trick doesn't work because the Black in Black vice is not a
colour word, it's part of the name of the card, and therefore can't be
changed with a Hack. The Hack goes on meaning, not just appearance. This
isn't a rule from the book, though, just a ruling.
James Smith
>>> But Unholy Strength doesn't "give an ability"; it simply modifies the
>>> creature's stats. A subtle difference, perhaps, but I think it's still
>>> a difference.
>
>>Burrowing modifies the creature so that it can Mountainwalk.
>
> Yes, it modifies it by giving it a special ability.
>
>>Unholy Strength
>>gives the creature the ability to do two more points of damage.
>
> OTOH, having a power score is _not_ a special ability.
The point I am making is that 'gives an ability' is just terminology,
and means exactly the same thing as 'modifies' or 'makes a change to
the underlying creature.' Saying that Burrowing 'gives an ability' whereas
Unholy Strength 'modifies' is a null argument, especially when you are
making up the terminology to try and justify the argument. It's like trying
to say that a Wall of Stone is inanimate and thus is not a creature, and
so cannot be Terrored.
The question becomes is modifying the power or toughness of a creature
in some way different to modifying it in other ways? Yes it is. Power and
toughness are numbers, and changing them multiple times makes a difference
to the game. Having two Holy Strengths gives you +2/+4, which is better than
+1/+2. Most other attributes are just flags, and for example having
mountainwalk twice does not make any real difference to the game. But
having the ability bestowed by Farrel's Mantle twice does make a real
difference. I don't think there's any justification for dividing
enchantments into those for which a second enchantment counts and those
for which it doesn't count, but if you choose to then there is more reason
to group Farrel's Mantle with the former rather than the latter.
I've gone though the card list looking for similar enchantments, that is
enchantments that modify the underlying creature and for which having two
is better or worse than having one. There are none that aren't power/toughness
modifiers. The four I suggested were some of the few examples of enchantments
other than power/toughness modifiers for which having more than one makes
a difference, and you agree that in each case the two count as separate
effects.
Jim
David Wilson
Andrew Brecher <Andrew_...@brown.edu> wrote:
>In article <bitbugD1...@netcom.com>, bit...@netcom.com (James Buster)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <Andrew_Brecher-...@king-61.king.brown.edu>,
>>Andrew Brecher <Andrew_...@brown.edu> wrote:
>>>You didn't read my message...the ruling is fine, it's the card that's messed
>>>up. Having cards that sit there and do nothing after their effect is gone
>>>is pointless.
>>
>>Hardly. You can still Power Leak or Feedback the enchantment. It still pumps
>>up a Wombat.
>
>Those are all external effects, not caused by the card. The card itself
>does nothing after the counters are used up, and there's no reason for it
>to still be around; it just makes the game area more confusing.
>
>--
>
>- Andrew Brecher (andrew_...@brown.edu) <insert disclaimer here>
Sure there's a reason for it to be around: Power Leak and Feedback victim.
Makes Merseine a little less desirable to cast. "Do I Merseine my opponent's
Obsianus Golem (would be nice; it has a pretty big casting cost)? But what
if he feedback's it? Hmm..."
Of course, if you're gonna follow the Merseine with a Siren's Call, it
doesn't make much of a difference now, does it :)
Dave
--
Dave Wilson
dawi...@netcom.com
--My thoughts, my ideas; no one else would admit to wanting them.
(Sometimes I'm not sure *I* do.)
Thomas R Wylie
<uwfh...@cc.memphis.edu> wrote:
>In your next turn, can you put two more mana into the elvish hunter and keep
>whatever target creature was tapped before tapped again? In other words, can
>the Elvish hunter's effect be used indefinitely?
Sure. Basically you're tying up one of your creatures to shut down one
of theirs.
David DeLaney
>...which would be a completely useless thing to do when it has no counters
>on it. Using EA on it doesn't suddenly replenish the counters.
["it" == Merseine]
Sure it does; EA specifically says to treat it, when moved, as if it had just
been re-cast, in which case it gets three counters put on it (regardless
of how many were already there).
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. Disclaimer: IMHO; VRbeableWIKTHLC
http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ / CanterSiegelKibozeBait!!