3 questions
HILL, STEVEN PATRICK
1. Does a Clone or Doppelganger acquire the tokens on a card? If
I Clone a Vampire, for example, does the Clone become a 6/6 Vampire
because it has 2 tokens on it, or just a 4/4 Vampire?
2. When are the number of cards/lands/creatures set on Balance? If
player A (6 cards) plays a Balance, can player B (3 cards) play
Interrupts and/or Instants (Not necessarily on the Balance spell
itself) and cause player A to lose more cards?
3. Will a Circle of Protection Black work on a Black Knight?
Steven
My .sig got unsummoned.
M J Cleaton
sph...@venus.tamu.edu (HILL, STEVEN PATRICK) writes:
>The following questions came up in play...
>
>1. Does a Clone or Doppelganger acquire the tokens on a card? If
>I Clone a Vampire, for example, does the Clone become a 6/6 Vampire
>because it has 2 tokens on it, or just a 4/4 Vampire?
I don't think so. There's an official answer, but I can't remember the
details for sure, so I'll leave this one.
>2. When are the number of cards/lands/creatures set on Balance? If
>player A (6 cards) plays a Balance, can player B (3 cards) play
>Interrupts and/or Instants (Not necessarily on the Balance spell
>itself) and cause player A to lose more cards?
I'd say the numbers of stuff has to be when it actually takes effect. So you
could cast instants or interrupts to shrink your hand, or interrupts to
remove creatures/lands from play, and alter what happens. Removing a creature
from play with an instant wouldn't help, it would be there for both effects
to happen at once.
Disclaimer: This is how I'd play it in a game, but in no way official.
>3. Will a Circle of Protection Black work on a Black Knight?
In a strict reading of 1st edition rules, no. In the forthcoming rules, yes.
The general opinion is that, since the protection rules in the first edition
are broken, it doesn't really matter what a strict reading of them says.
~Cookie
Tom Wylie
>1. Does a Clone or Doppelganger acquire the tokens on a card? If
>I Clone a Vampire, for example, does the Clone become a 6/6 Vampire
>because it has 2 tokens on it, or just a 4/4 Vampire?
Clones and Dopplegangers copy the card, and none of the counters.
This means among other things, that:
A copied Sengir Vampire always starts at 4/4.
A copied Rock Hydra has no heads (so no toughness) and dies.
A copied Clockwork Beast starts totally unwound (i.e. 0/7).
>2. When are the number of cards/lands/creatures set on Balance? If
>player A (6 cards) plays a Balance, can player B (3 cards) play
>Interrupts and/or Instants (Not necessarily on the Balance spell
>itself) and cause player A to lose more cards?
You can respond to Balance with fast effects and interrupts, just like
any other sorcery. Number of cards, etc. are not compared until Balance
actually takes effect. In this case, player B can respond with fast
effects and make A lose more cards (unless A also responds with fast effects).
Also, suppose player A and player B both have six creatures out when
Balance is declared. If player B unsummons 3 of her creatures in response,
player A has to destroy 3 creatures, not 0.
>3. Will a Circle of Protection Black work on a Black Knight?
I posted this in another thread, but here it is again in case you
skipped the other:
The Protection rules have been changed from what is listed in the rulebook.
The new rules, effectively immediately, are:
A creature with protection from <color>:
1. Cannot be damaged by <color> creatures or effects.
2. Cannot be blocked by <color> creatures.
3. Cannot be targetted by <color> creatures or effects.
Note that they are not protected from being "destroyed" by <color>, so
for example a Wrath of God will kill a Black Knight. Also, damage
prevention targets damage, not the creature/effect dealing that damage,
so Simulacrum can redirect damage from a White Knight, for example.
Revised Edition will add a fourth clause, which will go something like:
4. When a creature gains protection from <color>, enchantments of
that color already on the creature are removed.
So if you place a Red Ward on a creature with Firebreathing, the Firebreathing
will go away. Wards will be exempted from this clause.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aa...@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
M J Cleaton
aa...@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
>You can respond to Balance with fast effects and interrupts, just like
>any other sorcery. Number of cards, etc. are not compared until Balance
>actually takes effect. In this case, player B can respond with fast
>effects and make A lose more cards (unless A also responds with fast effects).
Agreed.
>Also, suppose player A and player B both have six creatures out when
>Balance is declared. If player B unsummons 3 of her creatures in response,
>player A has to destroy 3 creatures, not 0.
Is this right? Unsummon is an instant, so, unless there's a contradiction,
it takes place at the same moment as the Balance. There's no contradiction
here, no creatures are being told to go to two different places, so both
spells happen at once. Simultaneously, each player loses zero creatures, and
player B picks three creatures up and puts them back in her hand.
I agree that if player A has 3 creatures and player B 6, unsummon can create
a contradiction and choose to go first, saving the excess creatures, but I
think the case above is wrong.
~Cookie
Tom Wylie
>>Also, suppose player A and player B both have six creatures out when
>>Balance is declared. If player B unsummons 3 of her creatures in response,
>>player A has to destroy 3 creatures, not 0.
>Is this right? Unsummon is an instant, so, unless there's a contradiction,
>it takes place at the same moment as the Balance. There's no contradiction
Sigh, you're right. I fell into the trap of thinking that since Sorceries
and such can't be used in response to fast effects, they wait for fast
effects used in response to them to take effect before being resolved
themselves. Not true.
Tom Wylie | What is the difference between apathy and ignorance?
aa...@hal.com | I don't know, and I don't care.
Dan Harkless
>
>A creature with protection from <color>:
>
> 1. Cannot be damaged by <color> creatures or effects.
> 2. Cannot be blocked by <color> creatures.
> 3. Cannot be targetted by <color> creatures or effects.
>
>Note that they are not protected from being "destroyed" by <color>, so
>for example a Wrath of God will kill a Black Knight.
I'm not familiar with Wrath of God. Does it do its damage without
targetting? Is that why that won't violate rule 3?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dan Harkless | "The sore in my soul |
| d...@cafws1.eng.uci.edu | The mark in my heart -> Front 242, |
| dhar...@bonnie.ics.uci.edu | Her acid reign..." Tragedy >For You< |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Wylie
>>Note that they are not protected from being "destroyed" by <color>, so
>>for example a Wrath of God will kill a Black Knight.
> I'm not familiar with Wrath of God. Does it do its damage without
>targetting? Is that why that won't violate rule 3?
Wrath of God: "All creatures in play are destroyed and cannot regenerate."
You have no choice about which creatures are destroyed, they just all
go away. There are two kinds of effects: targetted or not. Targetted
effects are those in which you normally have a choice of which creature,
land, or whatever is affected. Wrath of God does not give you a choice,
it simply wipes out all creatures, and thus is non-targetting. Note
that non-targetting effects don't care whether they'd actually do anything,
so you can cast Wrath of God if no creatures are in play, cast Living Lands
if no forests are in play, etc. This is unlike a targetted spell which
must be pointed at a valid target when declared (e.g. Terror, Ice Storm).
Christina Callihan
>Wrath of God: "All creatures in play are destroyed and cannot regenerate."
>You have no choice about which creatures are destroyed, they just all
>go away. There are two kinds of effects: targetted or not. Targetted
>effects are those in which you normally have a choice of which creature,
>land, or whatever is affected. Wrath of God does not give you a choice,
>it simply wipes out all creatures, and thus is non-targetting. Note
>that non-targetting effects don't care whether they'd actually do anything,
>so you can cast Wrath of God if no creatures are in play, cast Living Lands
>if no forests are in play, etc. This is unlike a targetted spell which
>must be pointed at a valid target when declared (e.g. Terror, Ice Storm).
So from this I can infer that a White Knight will be damaged by a
Pestilence?
Seems like a somewhat twisted ruling to make just to make Black Knight
vulnerable to WoG. It also takes some of the punch out of Wards, IMHO.
*grump*
_______________________________________________________________________________
If You Know What | Christina M. Callihan | Doing STRANGE THINGS
You're Doing, | AKA C-chan, Bwee, Chrystal- | in the name of ART,
It's Not | Elf & Who Knows What Else | and STRANGER THINGS
Research! | c-c...@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu | in the name of CHOCOLATE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When life gets weird, the weird get a life. :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.C.S.B. doesn't even know that _I_ exist, let alone my opinions!
Tom Wylie
>So from this I can infer that a White Knight will be damaged by a
>Pestilence?
The Protection rules have been changed from what is listed in the rulebook.
The new rules, effectively immediately, are:
A creature with protection from <color>:
1. Cannot be damaged by <color> creatures or effects.
2. Cannot be blocked by <color> creatures.
3. Cannot be targetted by <color> creatures or effects.
Note that they are not protected from being "destroyed" by <color>, so
for example a Wrath of God will kill a Black Knight. Also, damage
prevention targets damage, not the creature/effect dealing that damage,
so Simulacrum can redirect damage from White Knight... but not to a
White Knight, since that would target the Knight. Note than any
any damage-all-things will be warded off by virtue of clause 1,
even though they don't target the creature.
Revised Edition will add a fourth clause, which will go something like:
4. When a creature gains protection from <color>, enchantments of
that color already on the creature are removed.
So if you place a Red Ward on a creature with Firebreathing, the Firebreathing
will go away. Wards will be exempted from this clause.
>Seems like a somewhat twisted ruling to make just to make Black Knight
>vulnerable to WoG. It also takes some of the punch out of Wards, IMHO.
>*grump*
So far as I know the changes weren't made just to kill Blackie with the
Wrath of God. They were made because the rules in the book caused
a lot of ambiguities, and/or led to interactions the designers
didn't like. It does seem that a lot of the scenarios which change
involve the Black Knight somehow :) but I don't think that means
he was singled out, particularly. People just seem to talk about
scenarios with innately protected creatures and non-laced effects is all.
While these rules do take some of the punch out of Wards, they do give
a fair amount back. By the book, a Purelaced Black Knight won't benefit
from a Crusade; by these rules, he will. These rules let in some of the
bad, but they also let in some of the good. As for why the new rules don't
keep out "destroy" effects, I don't know.
Christina Callihan
[snip]
>Note than any
>any damage-all-things will be warded off by virtue of clause 1,
>even though they don't target the creature.
Actually, Pestilence isn't a damage-all-things. It's a damage-_each_-thing.
At least, that's how I answered my own question......
Geez, but these interpretations are getting twisted. Seems that every time
they try to fix a rules incongruity, a dozen more rear their ugly heads.
>Revised Edition will add a fourth clause, which will go something like:
> 4. When a creature gains protection from <color>, enchantments of
> that color already on the creature are removed.
>So if you place a Red Ward on a creature with Firebreathing, the Firebreathing
>will go away. Wards will be exempted from this clause.
?????? Is it just me, or do the above two sentences contradict themselves?
And how would a creature gain protection from a color, if not by a ward?
(I'm not talking about critters that already have it).
>While these rules do take some of the punch out of Wards, they do give
>a fair amount back. By the book, a Purelaced Black Knight won't benefit
>from a Crusade; by these rules, he will. These rules let in some of the
>bad, but they also let in some of the good. As for why the new rules don't
>keep out "destroy" effects, I don't know.
I think this will have to be another agree-to-disagree point between me and
WotC. B) I've always played Wards as if they were Ziplocs: Anything
that was already on the card when the Ward is played goes in with it, and
afterwards the creature cannot be affected by _anything_ of that color.
Much simpler, to my way of thinking.
Just my NSHO. ^_^
Christina Callihan
>In <woo> aa...@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
>> 4. When a creature gains protection from <color>, enchantments of
>> that color already on the creature are removed.
>>So if you place a Red Ward on a creature with Firebreathing, the Firebreathing
>>will go away. Wards will be exempted from this clause.
>?????? Is it just me, or do the above two sentences contradict themselves?
Okay, I went back and read that one again. What you mean is that a creature
can have more than one ward on it, even if it is White Warded. I see.
Hasta,
Christina M. Callihan c-c...@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu
When life gets weird, the weird get a life. :)
U.C. Santa Barbara doesn't know that _I_ exist, let alone my opinions!
Lisa Richardson
>>In <2l0o9d$j...@perv.hal.COM> aa...@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
>>>While these rules do take some of the punch out of Wards, they do give
>>>a fair amount back. By the book, a Purelaced Black Knight won't benefit
>>>from a Crusade; by these rules, he will. These rules let in some of the
>>>bad, but they also let in some of the good. As for why the new rules don't
>>>keep out "destroy" effects, I don't know.
>Sorry to follow up to my own post, but I just noticed something. How the
>heck would you Purelace a Black Knight in the first place?! Is it just
>because he wouldn't be damaged that you can do this?
>Sorry, but I _still_ think my way is simpler. :)
Sleight of Mind and a Lace. :)
--
Lisa Richardson (aka Priss on about a half dozen MUCKs)
pr...@glia.biostr.washington.edu and/or pr...@anime.tcp.com
"Live fast, Die young, and make hearts melt as you go away" - Lisa Richardson
Priss the MUF Wizard of _AnimeMUCK_ at anime.tcp.com (128.95.10.106) 2035
Christina Callihan
>Christina Callihan <c-c...@mcl.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>>I think this will have to be another agree-to-disagree point between me and
>>WotC. B) I've always played Wards as if they were Ziplocs: Anything
>That's fine :)
>>that was already on the card when the Ward is played goes in with it, and
>>afterwards the creature cannot be affected by _anything_ of that color.
>So if I place a Red Ward on your Firebreathing critter, are you allowed to pump
>up the Firebreathing? After all, it's red effect, so it shouldn't be
>able to affect the Warded creature, right?
Sorry, bad wording there. What I should have said was that the creature
cannot be affected by _any cards_ of that color. Mea culpa......
Thomas Doehne
[Official Netrep (TM) Response, concerning Protection and Wrath
of God card omitted for brevity]
>So from this I can infer that a White Knight will be damaged by a
>Pestilence?
Sorry, Protection prevents damage, but not destruction, according
to the Official Revised Rules. So the White Knight cannot be
damaged by Pestilence.
>Seems like a somewhat twisted ruling to make just to make Black Knight
>vulnerable to WoG. It also takes some of the punch out of Wards, IMHO.
>*grump*
If you don't like the Official Rulings, don't play with them. I
don't play Ars Magica with the 3rd Edition Rules, and I'm
not playing Magic with the new more-complex-so-rules-lawyers-
don't-find-loopholes-and-argue-at-tournaments Revised rules.
Here is an alternative Protection:
-- Puce warded creatures cannot be damaged or destroyed by puce
creatures, spells, or effects.
-- Puce warded creatures cannot be blocked by puce creatures.
-- Puce spells and effects cannot alter a puce warded creature.
[Cannot change power/toughness, cannot add or remove or alter
evasion abilities, can't change the color, can't confer or
remove any special ability, even momentarily. If it's
something written on any creature's card, it's covered.]
Of course, this may make wards too strong.... :)
--
Tom Doehne
doe...@cse.ogi.edu
Thomas Doehne
>>In <2l0o9d$j...@perv.hal.COM> aa...@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
>
>>>While these rules do take some of the punch out of Wards, they do give
>>>a fair amount back. By the book, a Purelaced Black Knight won't benefit
>>>from a Crusade; by these rules, he will. These rules let in some of the
>>>bad, but they also let in some of the good. As for why the new rules don't
>>>keep out "destroy" effects, I don't know.
Probably because they felt Wards were too strong. And so they made
white weaker. And then stronger again, with the AN creatures....
>Sorry to follow up to my own post, but I just noticed something. How the
>heck would you Purelace a Black Knight in the first place?!
You Purelace a Black Knight by casting a Camouflage spell, so that
you can now target the Black Knight with the Purelace. Then,
you cast the Purelace, and interrupt the spell with a Lifelace,
Deathlace, Chaoslace, or Thoughtlace so that the Purelace is
now a non-white spell. That way, it doesn't fizzle when the
Black Knight gets 'revealed'.
Or, you can junk the Official Clarified Spell Targetting Rules,
cast the Purelace at the Knight, and Interrupt it with another
-Lace to change the Purelace's color. Which is what I do.
(But that lets your opponent use the Evil BEB/SoM combination.)
--
Tom Doehne
doe...@cse.ogi.edu
Dan Johnson
>Pestilence?
Damage-causing effects, even if not targeted, will also be stopped by
protection/wards.
--
Daniel W. Johnson Applied Computing Devices, Inc.
Home: 7152...@CompuServe.COM Work: d...@acd.com
Dani...@aol.com 39 25 02 N / 87 19 55 W
- this space unintentionally left blank -
Varis Carey
You don't have to go through that rigamarole to purelace the black knight.
You just have to interrupt it while it is being cast, while it is still
a spell.
varis
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
|"Kojiro had put his confidence in the sword of strength and skill. Musashi |
| trusted in the sword of the spirit. That was the only difference between |
| them." From Eiji Yoshikawa's "The Way of Life and Death" |
| KILLER CLOWN |
| email: va...@wilbur.ae.utexas.edu |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darrin Bright
>
> 1. Cannot be damaged by <color> creatures or effects.
> 2. Cannot be blocked by <color> creatures.
> 3. Cannot be targetted by <color> creatures or effects.
>
>Note that they are not protected from being "destroyed" by <color>, so
>for example a Wrath of God will kill a Black Knight. Also, damage
>prevention targets damage, not the creature/effect dealing that damage,
>so Simulacrum can redirect damage from White Knight... but not to a
>White Knight, since that would target the Knight. Note than any
>any damage-all-things will be warded off by virtue of clause 1,
>even though they don't target the creature.
>
>Revised Edition will add a fourth clause, which will go something like:
>
> 4. When a creature gains protection from <color>, enchantments of
> that color already on the creature are removed.
>
>So if you place a Red Ward on a creature with Firebreathing, the Firebreathing
>will go away. Wards will be exempted from this clause.
By this I assume you mean that a "White Ward" will not cause itself to be
removed, correct?
Thomas Doehne
>Christina Callihan <c-c...@mcl.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>>Geez, but these interpretations are getting twisted. Seems that every time
>>they try to fix a rules incongruity, a dozen more rear their ugly heads.
>The new Protection rules are much simpler than the old. Sure, a lot of
>people don't like the effect that they don't keep out "destroy" effects
>like they do damage effects (for example), but that doesn't mean they
>aren't *simpler*. Take an uninitiated player, and I suspect they'll have
>a much easier time with the new rules than they would with the old.
I disagree that the new rules are *much* simpler. First, they
require that players know the difference between damage and
destroy. Second, they have to learn the subtle distinction
between cards that 'target' and cards that do not. The latter is
especially annoying because two very similar cards (Siren's Call
and Nettling Imp for example) are not both blocked by
protection. Take an uninitiated player, and they'll get
hours of aggravation from this. (Good luck if they're
dealing with a Basilisk vs. Protection from Green or
Abu Jafar vs. Prot. form White: the answer is unintuitive,
and took an official ruling to determine.)
Not that tho old rules were unbroken, mind...but the new
ones aren't simple and straightforward.
--
Tom Doehne
doe...@cse.ogi.edu
Tom Wylie
> I disagree that the new [protection] rules are *much* simpler. First, they
>destroy. Second, they have to learn the subtle distinction
>between cards that 'target' and cards that do not. The latter is
>especially annoying because two very similar cards (Siren's Call
>and Nettling Imp for example) are not both blocked by
>protection.
They have to learn the damage/destroy distinction anyway, so that they
know they can't use a Healing Salve against a simple "destroy" effect.
They have to learn the distinction between targetting and non-targetting
anyway, so that they know there has to be a land in play to use a Stone
Rain, but there don't have to be any plains in play to use Flashfires.
I'll concede that the fact Clause 1 helps against damaging effects but
not destroy effects would probably take a little getting used to, but
there are any number of things in Magic that take a little getting
used to (e.g. the timing rules, the fact that a Firebreathing Grizzly
just does green damage). But I don't think it's particularly *complex*.
>hours of aggravation from this. (Good luck if they're
>dealing with a Basilisk vs. Protection from Green or
>Abu Jafar vs. Prot. form White: the answer is unintuitive,
>and took an official ruling to determine.)
And there are a lot of aggravating questions under the old rules which
are easily answered by the new ones. The new ones probably cause an
aggravating blip here and there, but overall the new rules are a big
win... *complexity* wise. I'm not going to sit around and argue over
specific cases, like whether it's a win that Wrath of God can kill the
Black Knight under the new rules.