Instants Timing and Enchantment Priority questions
Gary Bradley
me that is)...
(1) If instants are played, do they HAVE to alternate from player to
player or could it go like this...
(a) Active player casts a Sorcery
(b) Active players declares instant
(c) Passive player declares instant
(d) Active player declares instant
(e) Passive player declines to play instant
(f) Active player plays instant
(g) Active player plays instant
So are all these batch components legal? If so, would it still be legal
to add:
(h) Passive player declares instant
i.e can a player play more instants into the current batch if he has
previously declined to do so at a previous step.
(2) Using the same batch as above, I realise that a permanent's ability
could count as any one of these instants, but can Interrupts be played
in the batch as well?
(3) Assuming the answer to (2) is "yes", if the instant declared at step
(h) in my example was actually a Counterspell (or similar) is it
countering the spell declared in step (g) or the Sorcery declared way
back in step (a). I'm thinking that the appearance of an Interrupt at
step (h) would put the entire batch on hold and start a new one
beginning with step (g). Have I gone mad?
(4) Back done to earth...When multiple Enchant Creature spells
contradict each other, which one takes precedence? I realise that a
Divine Transformation and a Weakness on the same creature gives a net
result of +1/+2; but what if a creature hit by Foul Play (Unglued:
enchanted creature becomes a 1/1 chicken) is then hit by Unholy
Strength? Does the 1/1 chicken enchantment overrule the strength boost
or do I now have a 3/2 chicken. What if the spells hit the other way
around?
(5) When a spell such as Unsummon or Time Ebb returns a creature to its
owner's hand, does the creature lose all abnormal effects that were
previously on it (Enchant Creature spells, +1/+1 counters etc)? The
reason I'm asking this one is that in all the strategy guides I have
read the "return to owner's hand" spells are always shown being used to
sway the result of a combat one way or the other, never to get rid of
abnormalities (which is what I thought their greatest strength was).
Thanx once again,
Gary
Andre Engels
>
> I would very much appreciate the answers to these bafflers (baffling for
> me that is)...
>
> (1) If instants are played, do they HAVE to alternate from player to
> player or could it go like this...
No, they don't have to alternate. What happens is this:
Whenever an Instant window starts, the active player may play an
Instant. If he declines, the passive player may play an Instant. If the
passive player also declines, the batch is ready. If any player plays an
Instant, the Active player is allowed to play an Instant again, if he
declines, the passive player may do so again, etcetera until they both
decline.
> (a) Active player casts a Sorcery
> (b) Active players declares instant
> (c) Passive player declares instant
> (d) Active player declares instant
> (e) Passive player declines to play instant
> (f) Active player plays instant
> (g) Active player plays instant
>
> So are all these batch components legal?
No. To get this order of Instants, you would have to have:
> (a) Active player casts a Sorcery
> (b) Active player declares instant
> (b') Active player declines to play instant
> (c) Passive player declares instant
> (d) Active player declares instant
> (e)
> (f) Active player plays instant
> (g) Active player plays instant
> If so, would it still be legal to add:
>
> (h) Passive player declares instant
>
> i.e can a player play more instants into the current batch if he has
> previously declined to do so at a previous step.
Yes, provided that some Instant was added to the batch after he has
declined. Note that the passive player declining will ALWAYS end the
batch, the active player declining will NEVER end the batch.
> (2) Using the same batch as above, I realise that a permanent's ability
> could count as any one of these instants, but can Interrupts be played
> in the batch as well?
Interrupts can be played whenever a spell or ability is played.
> (3) Assuming the answer to (2) is "yes", if the instant declared at step
> (h) in my example was actually a Counterspell (or similar) is it
> countering the spell declared in step (g) or the Sorcery declared way
> back in step (a). I'm thinking that the appearance of an Interrupt at
> step (h) would put the entire batch on hold and start a new one
> beginning with step (g). Have I gone mad?
Interrupts never enter the Instants batch. What happens is that each
spell has an Interrupt window, in which one or more batches of
Interrupts can be played. If (h) is a Counterspell, then it will target
(g), as all other Instants in the batch already have closed their
Interrupt Window, and cannot be countered anymore. We are now in an
Interrupt batch, which should not be confused with the Instant batch
which is still forming 'in the background'.
> (4) Back done to earth...When multiple Enchant Creature spells
> contradict each other, which one takes precedence? I realise that a
> Divine Transformation and a Weakness on the same creature gives a net
> result of +1/+2; but what if a creature hit by Foul Play (Unglued:
> enchanted creature becomes a 1/1 chicken) is then hit by Unholy
> Strength? Does the 1/1 chicken enchantment overrule the strength boost
> or do I now have a 3/2 chicken. What if the spells hit the other way
> around?
The Enchantments are applied in the order in which they have been
played. If the Foul Play has been played first, the creature is a 3/2
chicken, if the Unholy Strength has been played first, the creature is a
1/1 chicken.
> (5) When a spell such as Unsummon or Time Ebb returns a creature to its
> owner's hand, does the creature lose all abnormal effects that were
> previously on it (Enchant Creature spells, +1/+1 counters etc)? The
> reason I'm asking this one is that in all the strategy guides I have
> read the "return to owner's hand" spells are always shown being used to
> sway the result of a combat one way or the other, never to get rid of
> abnormalities (which is what I thought their greatest strength was).
Yes. All Enchantments, Counters and unfinished Effects on the creature
are removed when the Creature goes to the graveyard, hand or library.
--
Andre Engels, eng...@win.tue.nl, ICQ #6260644
http://www.win.tue.nl/cs/fm/engels/index_en.html
Of my few options this was probably the worst -- Calvin
Ingo Kemper
<ga...@rackwick.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>(1) If instants are played, do they HAVE to alternate from player to
>player or could it go like this...
No. A batch looks like this:
The active player starts the batch with an artifact, enchantment,
instant, sorcery, or summon.
Alternatively the inactive player starts the batch with an instant.
The active player may play any number of instants (including zero)
in response, then yields priority.
The inactive player may play _one_ instant in response. If he/she
doesn't, the batch is completed and starts resolving.
The active player may play any number of instants (including
zero) in response, then yields priority.
The inactive player may play _one_ instant in response. If he/
she doesn't, the batch is completed and starts resolving.
The active player may play any number of instants ...
As you can see, it's possible for both players to play several
instants directly in response to each other. (The inactive player can
only do this if the active player doesn't play anything in between and
yields priority each time the inactive player announced an instant.)
>(a) Active player casts a Sorcery
>(b) Active players declares instant
(Here the active player yields priority.)
>(c) Passive player declares instant
>(d) Active player declares instant
(Here the active player yields priority.)
>(e) Passive player declines to play instant
(Here the batch is finished because both players consecutively yielded
priority.) The batch will now resolve.
>(f) Active player plays instant
>(g) Active player plays instant
No, this doesn't work. If the active player wanted to play these,
he/she should have done so before yielding priority for the second
time (before (e)). (f) and (g) are only possible if the inactive
player announced playing something in (e).
>So are all these batch components legal?
No. (See above.)
> If so, would it still be legal
>to add:
>
>(h) Passive player declares instant
If the inactive player announced something in (e) and we actually had
(f) and (g), yes, the inactive player can still respond to (g) with
(h).
(As stated above,
(h) Passive player declares instant
(i) Passive player declares instant
is not possible. The only way would be
(h) Passive player declares instant
(i) Active player declines playing anything
(j) Passive player declares instant
and if the active player wants to play something in (i), there's
nothing the inactive player can do against it.)
>i.e can a player play more instants into the current batch if he has
>previously declined to do so at a previous step.
Yes for the active player, no for the inactive player (because as soon
as he/she yields priority, the batch is finished and will resolve).
>(2) Using the same batch as above, I realise that a permanent's ability
>could count as any one of these instants, but can Interrupts be played
>in the batch as well?
Well, "real" interrupts can only be played during interrupt windows,
which are not really part of the batch structure. But interrupts are
played as instants when not targeting a spell or ability; interrupts
may be cast in the instant mode like normal instants during a batch.
>(3) Assuming the answer to (2) is "yes", if the instant declared at step
>(h) in my example was actually a Counterspell (or similar) is it
>countering the spell declared in step (g) or the Sorcery declared way
>back in step (a).
No, no, interrupts targeting spells or abilities aren't put onto
instant batches. They are cast and resolve during the original spell's
interrupt window. It's way too late to interrupt (a) because that
sorcery's interrupt window closed before (b) was announced.
> I'm thinking that the appearance of an Interrupt at
>step (h) would put the entire batch on hold and start a new one
>beginning with step (g).
Well, yes, sort of - the game starts an _interrupt_ batch during (g)'s
interrupt window. If (g) is countered, a "new" (g) may now be added.
If (g) was not countered, the instant batch can now be continued with
an instant (h) if desired. The whole interrupt window is dealt with
completely before the instant batch can be added to.
Here's the timing:
Active player announces casting instant (g).
Interrupt window for (g) opens. Active player declines to
interrupt (g).
Inactive player interrupts (g) with interrupt (z).
Interrupt window for (z) opens
Neither player wants to interrupt (z)
Interrupt window for (z) closes, (z) becomes successfully
cast.
Neither player wants to interrupt (g) by responding to (z), the
interrupt batch is completed and starts resolving.
(z) resolves.
If (g) was countered, its interrupt window collapses and we return
to the instant batch. (Now a "new" (g) could be played.)
Otherwise (g) can now be interrupted again. Neither player wants
to do that, though.
Interrupt window for (g) is closed. (g) becomes successfully cast.
Now (g) can be responded to with another instant (h).
...
>(4) Back done to earth...When multiple Enchant Creature spells
>contradict each other, which one takes precedence?
The more recent one.
> I realise that a
>Divine Transformation and a Weakness on the same creature gives a net
>result of +1/+2; but what if a creature hit by Foul Play (Unglued:
>enchanted creature becomes a 1/1 chicken) is then hit by Unholy
>Strength? Does the 1/1 chicken enchantment overrule the strength boost
>or do I now have a 3/2 chicken. What if the spells hit the other way
>around?
If Foul Play entered first, the creature is 3/2. If Unholy Strength
entered play first, Foul Play makes the creature 1/1.
>(5) When a spell such as Unsummon or Time Ebb returns a creature to its
>owner's hand, does the creature lose all abnormal effects that were
>previously on it (Enchant Creature spells, +1/+1 counters etc)?
Yes, it forgets all about its previous life. (All enchantments on it
are buried, for example.)
Ingo Kemper
--
__ _ __ __ __ __
__/ /_/ \/ /_/____/_ |___Sky...@uni-muenster.de___---===> \
/_/ /_/\_/ |__/ |__/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---===>__/
Maarten van Beek
>
> I would very much appreciate the answers to these bafflers (baffling for
> me that is)...
>
> player or could it go like this...
It goes like this
> (a) Active player casts a Sorcery
priority returns to active player
> (b) Active players declares instant
priority returns to active player
active player yields priority
priority goes to non-active player
> (c) Passive player declares instant
priority returns to active player again
> (d) Active player declares instant
priority returns to active player
active player yields priority
priority goes to non-active player
> (e) Passive player declines to play instant
(so he yields priority; batch is complete now and will start to resolve
> (f) Active player plays instant
> (g) Active player plays instant
f and g are not legal anymore after the non-active player has yielded
priority.
> So are all these batch components legal?
No.
> If so, would it still be legal
> to add:
> (h) Passive player declares instant
No.
> i.e can a player play more instants into the current batch if he has
> previously declined to do so at a previous step.
Normally, the active player can play instants, until he yields (or
"declines" in your words). Then the non-active player may play ONE
instant, upon which priority returns to the active player. The active
player may now add as many instants as he wants (after each instant,
priority retuinrs to himself), until he yields again.
As soon as the non-active player also yields, the batch is complete and
will start resolving in LIFO order (last in first out).
> (2) Using the same batch as above, I realise that a permanent's ability
> could count as any one of these instants, but can Interrupts be played
> in the batch as well?
Not really in the batch. Each of the instants in the above batch (be
they instant spells or instants abilities) has its own interrupt window.
This interrupt window happens right after the instant is announced, but
before priority goes back to the active player. During this interrupt
windows interrupts (both interrupt spell and interrupt abilities) can be
played. They are also played in batches, just like the one above, but
priority now returns every time to the caster of the spell whose
interrupt window you are in. Only interrupts can be played in these
batches.
Mana Source spells (dark ritual) and abilities (llanowar elves, forest)
can be played at any time when you have priority, but there are two
special things: Mana Sources do not have an interrupt window, nor can
they be responded to. They resolve right away. This means that after
playing a mana source spell or ability, the player of the Mana Source
still has priority.
> (3) Assuming the answer to (2) is "yes", if the instant declared at step
> (h) in my example was actually a Counterspell (or similar) is it
> countering the spell declared in step (g) or the Sorcery declared way
> back in step (a). I'm thinking that the appearance of an Interrupt at
> step (h) would put the entire batch on hold and start a new one
> beginning with step (g). Have I gone mad?
Since Interrupts are not played as part of the batch, but in seperate
batches after each of these individual spells, the answer is different:
an Interrupt spell or ability can only target the spell whose interrupt
window you are in. So if you played a Counterspell during the interrupt
window for the instant in step C) you would have to counter the instant
from step c).
> (4) Back done to earth...When multiple Enchant Creature spells
> contradict each other, which one takes precedence?
They apply in order.
> I realise that a
> Divine Transformation and a Weakness on the same creature gives a net
> result of +1/+2; but what if a creature hit by Foul Play (Unglued:
> enchanted creature becomes a 1/1 chicken) is then hit by Unholy
> Strength?
Then it will become a 3/2 chicken. The effects apply in the order in
which they came into play.
> Does the 1/1 chicken enchantment overrule the strength boost
> or do I now have a 3/2 chicken. What if the spells hit the other way
> around?
If it hit the other way around, it would be the other way around. You
would have a 1/1 chicken.
> (5) When a spell such as Unsummon or Time Ebb returns a creature to its
> owner's hand, does the creature lose all abnormal effects that were
> previously on it (Enchant Creature spells, +1/+1 counters etc)?
When any cards changes zone (in play -> hand, libraray -> graveyard
etc), it forgets everything that happened to it in its former zone
(exception: phasing). Enchantments on a creature that is unsummoned will
find themselves without a target after the creature left and will
destroy thelself as a rules trigger.
> The reason I'm asking this one is that in all the strategy guides I have
> read the "return to owner's hand" spells are always shown being used to
> sway the result of a combat one way or the other, never to get rid of
> abnormalities (which is what I thought their greatest strength was).
Suggestion: read more strategy guides. Capsize is good against foul
enchantments on your permanents.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:tim...@blacklotus.demon.nl
Jonathan Zissu
> On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:04:39 +0100, Gary Bradley
> <ga...@rackwick.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >(1) If instants are played, do they HAVE to alternate from player to
> >player or could it go like this...
>
> No. A batch looks like this:
>
> The active player starts the batch with an artifact, enchantment,
> instant, sorcery, or summon.
> Alternatively the inactive player starts the batch with an instant.
> The active player may play any number of instants (including zero)
> in response, then yields priority.
> The inactive player may play _one_ instant in response. If he/she
> doesn't, the batch is completed and starts resolving.
> The active player may play any number of instants (including
> zero) in response, then yields priority.
> The inactive player may play _one_ instant in response. If he/
> she doesn't, the batch is completed and starts resolving.
> The active player may play any number of instants ...
Wait a minute, I'm a bit confused on this. Since when is the inactive
player only allowed to cast one spell in a stack, while the active player is
allowed any number? I thought that once the active player yields priority,
the other player could cast *ANY NUMBER* of instants in response.
Is this a new ruling? If so, please let me know the details. Also, it
should be noted that after the other players spell(s), they yield priority
back to the active player, who can again cast any number of instants.
-=> Jonathan <=-
PS. If possible, I'd like a response via e-mail at zi...@kali.pse.umass.edu
- thanks in advance!
Maarten van Beek
>
> Ingo Kemper wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:04:39 +0100, Gary Bradley
> > <ga...@rackwick.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >(1) If instants are played, do they HAVE to alternate from player to
> > >player or could it go like this...
> >
> > No. A batch looks like this:
> >
> > The active player starts the batch with an artifact, enchantment,
> > instant, sorcery, or summon.
> > Alternatively the inactive player starts the batch with an instant.
> > The active player may play any number of instants (including zero)
> > in response, then yields priority.
> > The inactive player may play _one_ instant in response. If he/she
> > doesn't, the batch is completed and starts resolving.
> > The active player may play any number of instants (including
> > zero) in response, then yields priority.
> > The inactive player may play _one_ instant in response. If he/
> > she doesn't, the batch is completed and starts resolving.
> > The active player may play any number of instants ...
>
> player only allowed to cast one spell in a stack, while the active player is
> allowed any number? I thought that once the active player yields priority,
> the other player could cast *ANY NUMBER* of instants in response.
No, that is only in a series. What happens is, that every time someone
casts something, the active player is the one who can announce the next
thing. In the end, both players can play as many things as they like,
but the active player always goes first. It could happen, for instance,
that the active player only plays a sorcery, and the non-active player
wants to play five instants. After playing the sorcery, the active
player yields priority. Then the non-active player plays his first
instant, at which time priority goes back to the active player. He
yields again, and the non-active player plays his second instant.
Priority automatically goes back to the active player, whi tyields again
etc, until the non--active player plays his fifth instant. At this time,
priority passes back to the active player one last time, and he yields
again. Now the non-active player also yields and the batch is complete.
> Is this a new ruling?
No, but it might sounds different from how it is. There is also
something called a "series" insterad of a batch. Triggered abilities,
replacement spells/abilities and beginning and end of phase abilities
are played in series. In a series, the active player anounces an
instant, and resolves it, announces another instant and rersolves it,
until he is done, then he yields priority to the non-active player whi
then plays all his or her instants in the same way. Then the non-active
player also yileds priority and the series is complete.
> If so, please let me know the details. Also, it
> should be noted that after the other players spell(s), they yield priority
> back to the active player, who can again cast any number of instants.
>
No. If the acvtive player yields priority, it goes to the non-active
player. If the non-active player yields priority, the game proceeds to
the next step (e.g. batch resolves) and then the active player gets back
priority (as he always does at the beginning of a new phase or step in
the game).
Maarten van Beek
mailto:bat...@blacklotus.demon.nl
David DeLaney
>Ingo Kemper wrote:
>> The active player starts the batch with an artifact, enchantment,
>> instant, sorcery, or summon.
>> Alternatively the inactive player starts the batch with an instant.
>> The active player may play any number of instants (including zero)
>> in response, then yields priority.
>> The inactive player may play _one_ instant in response. If he/she
>> doesn't, the batch is completed and starts resolving.
>> The active player may play any number of instants (including
>> zero) in response, then yields priority.
>> The inactive player may play _one_ instant in response. If he/
>> she doesn't, the batch is completed and starts resolving.
>> The active player may play any number of instants ...
>
>player only allowed to cast one spell in a stack, while the active player is
>allowed any number?
That's not the case. [Look at the above.] What is the case is that active
player always gets priority when it's time to add another instant to
the batch ... and has to pass to let opponent add one instead. If opponent
adds one, then that one can be responded to by an instant ... and active
player gets priority to do so.
> I thought that once the active player yields priority,
>the other player could cast *ANY NUMBER* of instants in response.
No. Active player _can't_ "yield priority until end of turn"; any yielding
of priority is "I don't want to do anything more _right now_". If opponent
does anything, active player gets priority the next time an instant is
legal to play... not "person who announced the last instant".
>Is this a new ruling? If so, please let me know the details. Also, it
>should be noted that after the other players spell(s), they yield priority
>back to the active player, who can again cast any number of instants.
Yes, though what you're missing is that the priority reverts _each_ time
an instant can be cast; any time an instant can be cast, active player gets
first chance to ... unless he or she has just passed, which makes the only
times opponent can add an instant [when active player passes at the top of
a batch, or when active player says "I want to attack now/I want to end this
phase now"].
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. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Andre Engels
> Wait a minute, I'm a bit confused on this. Since when is the inactive
> player only allowed to cast one spell in a stack, while the active player is
> allowed any number?
No, that's not the case. The inactive player is allowed to cast any
number of spells. However, after EACH spell the inactive player
casts, (s)he has to give the active player to react first.
> I thought that once the active player yields priority,
> the other player could cast *ANY NUMBER* of instants in response.
No. He can play one instant, then priority goes back to the active
player. The active player may then play a spell, or yield priority
again. If the latter, then the other player can cast an instant
again, or decide to end (start) the batch.
> Is this a new ruling? If so, please let me know the details. Also, it
> should be noted that after the other players spell(s), they yield priority
> back to the active player, who can again cast any number of instants.
Correct.
Ingo Kemper
<zi...@kali.pse.umass.edu> wrote:
>> No. A batch looks like this:
>>
>> The active player starts the batch with an artifact, enchantment,
>> instant, sorcery, or summon.
>> Alternatively the inactive player starts the batch with an instant.
>> The active player may play any number of instants (including zero)
>> in response, then yields priority.
>> The inactive player may play _one_ instant in response. If he/she
>> doesn't, the batch is completed and starts resolving.
>> The active player may play any number of instants (including
>> zero) in response, then yields priority.
>> The inactive player may play _one_ instant in response. If he/
>> she doesn't, the batch is completed and starts resolving.
>> The active player may play any number of instants ...
>
>Wait a minute, I'm a bit confused on this. Since when is the inactive
>player only allowed to cast one spell in a stack, while the active player is
>allowed any number? I thought that once the active player yields priority,
>the other player could cast *ANY NUMBER* of instants in response.
Sorry, then you thought wrong.
>Is this a new ruling? If so, please let me know the details.
No, it's not new. This concept of the batch hasn't been changed for
quite some time.
> Also, it
>should be noted that after the other players spell(s),
(Make that "spell (or ability)". The inactive player cannot play more
than _one_ instant without giving the active player the chance to
respond.)
>they yield priority
>back to the active player, who can again cast any number of instants.
Yes, that happens automatically every time the inactive player plays
an instant. (If the inactive player yields without playing anything,
the active player cannot respond because the batch is finished.)
Mike Marcelais
>player or could it go like this...
>
>(g) Active player plays instant
It can't go quite like that...it would have to be something like this.
[Letters correspond to the spells announced in your list.]
1) AP declares Sorcery (a)
2) AP declares Instant (b)
[AP still has priority -- he must do the next thing.]
3) AP declines to play Instant
[AP still has priority -- so he must decline for
the PP to do anything.]
4) PP declares Instant (c)
[PP has gotten priority since AP declined.]
5) AP declares Instant (d)
[AP still has the right to respond first, so priority
goes back to the AP.]
6) AP declares Instant (f)
7) AP declares Instant (g)
8) AP declines to play Instant
[Priority now shifts back to the PP]
9) PP declines to play Instant.
[Both players have "passed", the stack is "complete"
and starts resolving in LIFO order.]
>So are all these batch components legal? If so, would it still be legal
>to add:
>
>(h) Passive player declares instant
>
>i.e can a player play more instants into the current batch if he has
>previously declined to do so at a previous step.
Kind-of. If the AP declines, it merely shifts priority to the PP. If the PP
declines, then the stack is "closed".
If the AP declines, and the PP does something, then priority returns to the AP,
who can either do something or decline again (returning priority to the PP).
The PP really only gets to decline once, because when he does, the batch ends.
>(2) Using the same batch as above, I realise that a permanent's ability
>could count as any one of these instants, but can Interrupts be played
>in the batch as well?
Interrupts aren't really part of the batch. When you declare a spell, you then
deal with all interrupts that people want to use on that spell. If the spell
survives the interrupt window without being countered, it is "sucessfully cast"
and is then added to the batch.
>(3) Assuming the answer to (2) is "yes", if the instant declared at step
>(h) in my example was actually a Counterspell (or similar) is it
>countering the spell declared in step (g) or the Sorcery declared way
>back in step (a). I'm thinking that the appearance of an Interrupt at
>step (h) would put the entire batch on hold and start a new one
>beginning with step (g). Have I gone mad?
No, once a spell is "sucessfully cast" and put in the batch, it can no longer
be countered.
>(4) Back done to earth...When multiple Enchant Creature spells
>contradict each other, which one takes precedence?
You apply the effects of the enchantments in the order that they entered play.
If two are directly contradictory, it is likely that the second one's effect
will completely override the effect of the first one.
>I realise that a
>Divine Transformation and a Weakness on the same creature gives a net
>result of +1/+2; but what if a creature hit by Foul Play (Unglued:
>enchanted creature becomes a 1/1 chicken) is then hit by Unholy
>Strength? Does the 1/1 chicken enchantment overrule the strength boost
>or do I now have a 3/2 chicken. What if the spells hit the other way
>around?
If Foul Play was first, then the critter becomes 1/1 and then gets a +2/+1
bonus (so its 3/2). If US was first, then Fowl Play, the critter gets a +2/+1
bonus and then becomes 1/1 (so its 1/1).
>(5) When a spell such as Unsummon or Time Ebb returns a creature to its
>owner's hand, does the creature lose all abnormal effects that were
>previously on it (Enchant Creature spells, +1/+1 counters etc)?
Yes. Enchantments go to the graveyard, counters and other "effects" merely
vanish.
============================================================
Mike Marcelais mich...@microsoft.com Magic Rules Guru
Visit the Marcelais System, Hughes Quadrant, Argent Sector
[My posts are my own opinions; I don't speak for Microsoft.]
=== -= Moonstone Dragon =- ================== -= UDIC =- ===