Nev. Disk Ruling - No Sacrifice?
de...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
no lonnger sacrifices itself and can now be the target of Reconstructions and
Hurkel's recall etc. Is this true??? If so I need to put another one in my
deck.
Thanks. Please e-mail response.
Jeff Deane
Tom Wylie
reminding the user that it's destroyed along with all the other artifacts
in play. This means you can respond to it by yanking it out of play with
Hurkyl's Recall, among other things. It was always possible to Reconstruct
it later.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Michael G Schmahl
: Yes, the ruling on the Disk has reversed, and it is considered to be simply
: reminding the user that it's destroyed along with all the other artifacts
: in play. This means you can respond to it by yanking it out of play with
: Hurkyl's Recall, among other things. It was always possible to Reconstruct
: it later.
Does this apply to Chaos Orb as well?
Lutz Hofmann
>Yes, the ruling on the Disk has reversed,
Is there a reason why Nevinyrral's Disk is treated special, unlike all
other 'self-sacrificing' artifacts?
Bye the way is there a reason why copycards have their own targetrule?
Are these two things ERRATA to the cards, because that was the original
intent or is it a simple ruling?
Yours SIncerely Lutz Hofmann
l...@cs.tu-berlin.de
--
Thunderbolt and lightning, very, very frightning (Bohemian Rhapsody)
Trevor Barrie
>Is there a reason why Nevinyrral's Disk is treated special, unlike all
>other 'self-sacrificing' artifacts?
Because it doesn't specifically say that it is placed in the graveyard when
used. It just says that it's not immune to its' own effect. Subtle difference.
>Bye the way is there a reason why copycards have their own targetrule?
Apparently, somebody on the design team felt that the targetting rules weren't
quite complicayed enough.:\
************************************************************************
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
************************************************************************
David DeLaney
No. Nor does it apply to Lotus, Bottle, etc. It is a specific ruling reversal
for the Disk only. All other tcards from pre-Revised which need to have their
wording changed to "sacrifice card when used" still are sacrifices.
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!!
Jonathan K. Conway
the Disk (i.e. do you have to destroy it as well as stopping
the activation to prevent re-use?)? If so it just became
significantly harder to deal with. Multi-card combos should
still handle it, but the ruling does make life easier for the
Disk/WoG/Safe Haven types.
Anyone have ideas why this particular ruling reversal
was mawa? The only thing that owcurs to me is that the design
team wants to make sure that the "save your ass" uses aren't
blocked quite so easily.
Jonathan Conway
Tom Wylie
> Does this mean that Rust is no longer as useful against
>the Disk (i.e. do you have to destroy it as well as stopping
Rust will be useful against the Disk, but the Disk will still be there
to be used another turn, yes.
> Anyone have ideas why this particular ruling reversal was [made]?
Because we decided the Disk was just reminding everyone that it, too,
would be destroyed.
Tom Wylie
>Is there a reason why Nevinyrral's Disk is treated special, unlike all
>other 'self-sacrificing' artifacts?
Basically because it doesn't specifically say it's destroyed when used;
the text is considered to simply remind the players that the Disk will
be destroyed along with any other artifacts.
>Bye the way is there a reason why copycards have their own targetrule?
Basically because that's how the design team thinks they should work.
>Are these two things ERRATA to the cards, because that was the original
>intent or is it a simple ruling?
It's not errata to the Disk, it's what is now considered the correct
interpretation. Almost any ruling about copy cards is errata and/or
addenda to those cards.