Consecrate Land
Christian Knittel
Does anyone know the current rules for consecrate land on a
mishra's factory (or other 'creaturable' land) ?
AFAIK the (activated) land can be removed from the game
(e.g.by Swords to Plowshares) or buried (by Dark banishing,
Pillage, Fissure...), but land destruction like Wasteland,
Strip Mine, Stone rain... or creature destruction/combat
damage will have no effect.
However, the new dark banishing does not say bury anymore,
have they abolished that concept ?
Thanks,
Christian
Laurie Cheers
> Does anyone know the current rules for consecrate land on a
> mishra's factory (or other 'creaturable' land) ?
CONSECRATE LAND W
Enchant Land
When Consecrate Land comes into play, destroy all other enchantments
enchanting enchanted land.
Enchanted land can't be the target of enchantment spells.
If a spell would destroy enchanted land, that spell has no effect on
enchanted land.
> AFAIK the (activated) land can be removed from the game
> (e.g.by Swords to Plowshares)
Yes, because that's not a "destroy" effect.
> or buried (by Dark banishing, Pillage, Fissure...),
No, it's protected against those- burial is now worded as "destroy".
> but land destruction like Wasteland, Strip Mine, Stone rain... or
> creature destruction/combat damage will have no effect.
Yes. (In the case of Mishra's Factory, artifact destruction- like
Shatter- will also have no effect.)
> However, the new dark banishing does not say bury anymore,
> have they abolished that concept ?
They have. All burial effects are now "destroy, can't regenerate"
effects, because (apparently) some people found the terms confusing.
FISSURE 3RR
Instant
Destroy target creature or land. It can't be regenerated.
--
Laurie Cheers (lrc...@york.ac.uk)
Feelings of unimportance are often caused by a lack of importance.
Banish these feelings by becoming President of the United States.
-- Alistair Beaton, the little book of Complete Bollocks.
Philip Schulz
>
> Christian Knittel wrote:
> > Does anyone know the current rules for consecrate land on a
> > mishra's factory (or other 'creaturable' land) ?
>
> CONSECRATE LAND W
> Enchant Land
> When Consecrate Land comes into play, destroy all other enchantments
> enchanting enchanted land.
> Enchanted land can't be the target of enchantment spells.
> If a spell would destroy enchanted land, that spell has no effect on
> enchanted land.
>
> > AFAIK the (activated) land can be removed from the game
> > (e.g.by Swords to Plowshares)
>
> Yes, because that's not a "destroy" effect.
>
> > or buried (by Dark banishing, Pillage, Fissure...),
>
> No, it's protected against those- burial is now worded as "destroy".
>
> > but land destruction like Wasteland, Strip Mine, Stone rain... or
> > creature destruction/combat damage will have no effect.
>
> Yes. (In the case of Mishra's Factory, artifact destruction- like
> Shatter- will also have no effect.)
No. Wasteland or Strip Mine do destroy a Mishra's Factory, they are not
_spells_. Combat damage will destroy Mishra's Factory as well, for the
same reason.
A follow up question. What about direct damage. Let's say an enchanted
Mishra's Factory was activated and the Assembly Worker was targetted by a
Ligning Bolt. The Ligning Bolt would deal lethal damage to the Assembly
Worker. Lethal damage would cause the Assembly Worker to be destroyed. Is
this prevented by Consecrate Land?
> --
> Laurie Cheers (lrc...@york.ac.uk)
> Feelings of unimportance are often caused by a lack of importance.
> Banish these feelings by becoming President of the United States.
> -- Alistair Beaton, the little book of Complete Bollocks.
--
"Everything starts somewhere, although many physicists disagree."
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
*****************************************
****
*** http://www.tu-harburg.de/~seps0903
**
*
David DeLaney
>Does anyone know the current rules for consecrate land on a
>mishra's factory (or other 'creaturable' land) ?
>Pillage, Fissure...), but land destruction like Wasteland,
>Strip Mine, Stone rain... or creature destruction/combat
>damage will have no effect.
CONSECRATE LAND W Enchant Land
When ~ comes into play, destroy all other enchantments enchanting enchanted
land. / Enchanted land can't be the target of enchantment spells. / If a spell
would destroy enchanted land, that spell has no effect on enchanted land.
(Arguably this should instead of the first two abilities say "Enchanted land
can't be enchanted by other enchantments"...)
>However, the new dark banishing does not say bury anymore,
>have they abolished that concept ?
Yes, back when Tempest first came out a few years ago. All the old "bury"
stuff now says "destroy; it can't be regenerated". And Consecrate Land
_will_ prevent the destruction - since it's _not_ doing it by regenerating the
land. (It won't stop the land from dying from lethal damage, though, if
it's animated. Also, arguably the Oracle -should- say "if the effect of a spell
or ability would destroy enchanted land, instead it has no effect on that
land"...)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "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.
David DeLaney
>No. Wasteland or Strip Mine do destroy a Mishra's Factory, they are not
>_spells_. Combat damage will destroy Mishra's Factory as well, for the
>same reason.
As currently worded, you're correct.
>A follow up question. What about direct damage. Let's say an enchanted
>Mishra's Factory was activated and the Assembly Worker was targetted by a
>Ligning Bolt. The Ligning Bolt would deal lethal damage to the Assembly
>Worker. Lethal damage would cause the Assembly Worker to be destroyed. Is
>this prevented by Consecrate Land?
No; this is not a spell destroying the land. This is a spell damaging the
land; the -rules- then destroy the land. (A state-based effect does, to
be precise.) Consecrate Land doesn't protect the land from damage of any
sort.
Christian Knittel
news:slrn8c4ed...@gatekeeper.vic.com...
> Christian Knittel <christia...@stud.man.ac.uk>
wrote:
> >Does anyone know the current rules for consecrate land on
a
> >mishra's factory (or other 'creaturable' land) ?
would also be much more in line with the ruling on pyramids
(which used to do the same thing consecrate land did...).
Well, apparently it doesn't...
I think it actually -should- stop the land from dying from
lethal damage as well (because of the original wording), but
since wizards have a different opinion, this is another
'used-to-be-nice-card' that now is worthless...
Christian
Ingo Warnke
[about Consecrete Land]
> Also, arguably the Oracle -should- say "if the effect of a spell
> or ability would destroy enchanted land, instead it has no effect on that
> land"...)
Are state-based effects considered abilities? I think not, and this
would imply the above wording does not protect from destruction by
lethal damage. How about:
"If enchanted land would be destroyed, do nothing instead",
or even
"Prevent any destruction of enchanted land" ?
That would be the first 'destruction prevention' in the game, similiar
to damage prevention.
Ingo Warnke
Laurie Cheers
> David DeLaney wrote:
> > Also, arguably the Oracle -should- say "if the effect of a spell
> > or ability would destroy enchanted land, instead it has no effect on
> > that land"...)
>
> or even
> "Prevent any destruction of enchanted land" ?
It could (more intuitively) be made a Forsaken Wastes-type effect,
whatever Forsaken Wastes actually ends up counting as.
"Enchanted land can't be destroyed".
Brian Bowlby
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com writes:
(speaking of Consecrate Land)
>Also, arguably the Oracle -should- say "if the effect of a spell
>or ability would destroy enchanted land, instead it has no effect on that
>land"...)
Why the effect of a spell or ABILITY? Consecrate Land has never said
anything about abilities before. Is this just a typo, or is Consecrate
Land supposed to protect against abilities as well as spells?
Ingo Warnke
> Ingo Warnke wrote:
> > David DeLaney wrote:
> > > Also, arguably the Oracle -should- say "if the effect of a spell
> > > or ability would destroy enchanted land, instead it has no effect on
> > > that land"...)
> >
> > "If enchanted land would be destroyed, do nothing instead",
> > or even
> > "Prevent any destruction of enchanted land" ?
>
> It could (more intuitively) be made a Forsaken Wastes-type effect,
> whatever Forsaken Wastes actually ends up counting as.
>
> "Enchanted land can't be destroyed".
But *first* we need rules for those 'replacement disguised as CEs'. The
discussion on Forsaken Wastes vs. Skyshroud Cutter shows that there are
problems with this concept. Unless they are ironed out, I'd rather use a
template that actually has rules which explain it.
Ingo Warnke
Ingo Warnke
> In article <slrn8c4ed...@gatekeeper.vic.com> David DeLaney,
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com writes:
>
> (speaking of Consecrate Land)
> >or ability would destroy enchanted land, instead it has no effect on that
> >land"...)
>
> anything about abilities before. Is this just a typo, or is Consecrate
> Land supposed to protect against abilities as well as spells?
This is from a spoiler that supposedly lists actual card text. Hopefully
someone with the real card can confirm/correct me.
White Consecrate Land gU--- W
Enchant Land
All enchantments on target land are destroyed. Land cannot be destroyed
or further enchanted until Consecrate Land has been destroyed.
This doesn't single out spells from abilities, it just mentions 'cannot
be destroyed', no matter why it is destroyed.
Ingo Warnke
David DeLaney
>> or ability would destroy enchanted land, instead it has no effect on that
>> land"...)
>
Nope.
>I think not, and this
>would imply the above wording does not protect from destruction by
>lethal damage.
Correct; this seems to be the intent. It's not supposed to protect against
lethal damage, just against plain old destruction-because-this-says-to-
destroy-it, is the impression I get. (They're taking something of a "try to
go by original card wording, modifying only as necessary to get it into 6E
templates, where there's no actual Errata involved" approach, as far as I can
tell, to the oldest few sets... and the original card wording only mentions
destroying the land. The ability never has been 'regenerate this'; it's
always been "it stops the land from going to the graveyard, though it isn't
actually -regenerating- it".)
>"Prevent any destruction of enchanted land" ?
>
>That would be the first 'destruction prevention' in the game, similiar
>to damage prevention.
It could also be phrased like that, but that -would- prevent destruction
through lethal damage, which I'm not sure they want to keep as part of the
effect. (For much the same reason they didn't want to keep "0-toughness
Consecrated animated land lives" from 5E - it's a corner case...)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
Ingo Warnke
> >I think not, and this
> >would imply the above wording does not protect from destruction by
> >lethal damage.
>
> Correct; this seems to be the intent. It's not supposed to protect against
> lethal damage, just against plain old destruction-because-this-says-to-
> destroy-it, is the impression I get.
I have never played with or against it, but from what I remember reading
in my early days in magic newsgroups ('95), it seems a Consecrated
Mishra was a commonplace. It was immune to Armageddon and was an
unkillable blocker. The last part seems to imply that it was immune to
destruction caused by lethal damage, though I'm not sure how detailed
the 'lethal damage --> go to graveyard' chain of events was defined in
that time.
Ingo Warnke
David DeLaney
>David DeLaney wrote:
>> Correct; this seems to be the intent. It's not supposed to protect against
>> lethal damage, just against plain old destruction-because-this-says-to-
>> destroy-it, is the impression I get.
>
>I have never played with or against it, but from what I remember reading
>in my early days in magic newsgroups ('95), it seems a Consecrated
>Mishra was a commonplace. It was immune to Armageddon and was an
>unkillable blocker.
Yes, it was...
>The last part seems to imply that it was immune to
>destruction caused by lethal damage, though I'm not sure how detailed
>the 'lethal damage --> go to graveyard' chain of events was defined in
>that time.
"Was" being the operative word here. Way back then this -was- the intent (even
though the card didn't actually quite say this). However, after the repeated
rules problems with Equinox's wording, and after it became apparent that
"continuously having to re-check rules-triggered effects/state-based effects"
would be Bad if we could just leave a lethally damaged creature in play this
way, I believe the intent shifted to "this would be a Bad Thing to leave in the
system". 6E rules in particular tried to close all the older loopholes that
left 0-toughness or lethally damaged creatures in play...
This is as I see it, of course; the -actual- intent may possibly turn out to be
something quite different from either of these positions, if I ask. Would
you like me to?
Ingo Warnke
[about a Mishra with Consecrate Land and lethal damage]
> "Was" being the operative word here. Way back then this -was- the intent (even
> though the card didn't actually quite say this). However, after the repeated
> rules problems with Equinox's wording, and after it became apparent that
> "continuously having to re-check rules-triggered effects/state-based effects"
> would be Bad if we could just leave a lethally damaged creature in play this
> way,
Oh, I didn't think about that. After the Consecrated Mishra took lethal
damage, the game would check state-based effects, find the Mishra and
try to destroy it. This would be prevented. The next check for state
based effect would also try to do that, ad infinitum.
> I believe the intent shifted to "this would be a Bad Thing to leave in the
> system". 6E rules in particular tried to close all the older loopholes that
> left 0-toughness or lethally damaged creatures in play...
0 toughness special treatment took care of the Clergy of the Holy
Nimbus, and Ogre Enforcer was reworded. Maybe one could change the rules
in such a way as to have checks for state-based effects only repeating
if the previous instance actually did something. So a lethally damaged
Consecrated Mishra will have a destroy effect issused against it by a
state based effect. Upon resolution this is changed into 'do nothing'.
Then the game would procede with adding triggered abilities, if
appropriate.
> This is as I see it, of course; the -actual- intent may possibly turn out to be
> something quite different from either of these positions, if I ask. Would
> you like me to?
Do you have any idea what the actual proceedings should be for
non-extended cards? Are they working on it? Initially this discussion
started with the observation that the current wording does not prevent
destruction by an ability, which *does* seem to go against the initial
intent (Strip Mine was a commonly used card at that time).
Ingo Warnke
David Welsh
d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu (David DeLaney) wrote:
To confirm for Ingo, the original text of Consecrate Land,
looking at the card: "All enchantments on target land are
destroyed. Land cannot be destroyed or further enchanted until
Consecrate Land has been destroyed."
>(They're taking something of a "try to
>go by original card wording, modifying only as necessary to get
it into 6E
>templates, where there's no actual Errata involved" approach, as
far as I can
>tell, to the oldest few sets... and the original card wording
only mentions
>destroying the land.
IIRC, for 5E errata to CL was "does not prevent it from
destroying itself" and lethal combat damage was allowed to
destroy the land. When are errata from previous rules sets
incorporated into the Oracle and when are they ignored entirely?
Are they following any set guidelines?
The current Oracle text seems entirely divorced from the intent
of the card and all previous versions of its functionality. "If
a spell would destroy enchanted land, that spell has no effect on
enchanted land."
Would it be better worded as "If enchanted land would be
destroyed, regenerate it instead"? This would solve the problem
of auto-draw from state-based vs. continuous, and would take it
back to all forms of destruction instead of only that from
spells, although currently "burial" effects do not affect it and
this way they would.
David Welsh
---
"For, spite of his fine theoretic positions,
Mankind is a science defies definitions."
Robert Burns
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
David DeLaney
>Do you have any idea what the actual proceedings should be for
>non-extended cards? Are they working on it?
I _am_ quite sure they're working on it; they hired a whole new netrep,
Collin Jackson, specifically to coordinate Oracle wording stuff, and also to be
the person keeping track of "Dave said <this card> needs to be worded a
different way because of <this problem>" and "Paul said <this rule> has
a problem which might need to be fixed like <this>" and the other stuff
we send in in our weekly summaries.
I don't know when the revamping for UL/AN/AQ/LG/DK/FE is due to -appear-;
I _am_ sure, because of the amount of complaining abou various wordings in
those sets, that -something- is going to be done. I just dunno how long it
will end up taking. ... A check shows that those sets, plus 4E and RV, still
are dated "last updated September 1999". Though since the last time I checked,
they say Nemesis got added into the three Big Files (Standard, Extended,
Type I).
Oh, another thing I know: they are working on getting the card wordings all
into a -database-, so that they won't have the annoying "Power Sink has
five different wordings spread over eight different Oracle files" problem
any more. This might be part of what's delaying these last few files....
David DeLaney
>IIRC, for 5E errata to CL was "does not prevent it from
>destroying itself" and lethal combat damage was allowed to
>destroy the land. When are errata from previous rules sets
>incorporated into the Oracle and when are they ignored entirely?
> Are they following any set guidelines?
Not sure, and not sure. However, I _do_ know that now that Collin's in
place they are at least checking to see what the Errata from previous sets
-was-, and what previous rulings -were-. (Looking at the Oracle/6E that's
-currently- up for Unlimited, for example, shows that this, unfortunately,
wasn't done very well the first time around...)
>The current Oracle text seems entirely divorced from the intent
>of the card and all previous versions of its functionality. "If
>a spell would destroy enchanted land, that spell has no effect on
>enchanted land."
That's from, basically, the "first attempt at" a 6E Oracle for that whole
set. (There -wasn't any- 6E Oracle for Unlimited through Fallen Empires
the whole summer of 1999; that's why "protoOracle" came into existence - Paul
& I wrote it so there would be -something- Extended and Type I tournaments
could use, even if it wasn't an Official something. The 6E Oracle files
for UL through FE really are the 'first version' that got put out; they
haven't yet been updated to fix any of the stuff that got pointed out as
incorrect, or Weird, or simply typo-ed, in them.)
>Would it be better worded as "If enchanted land would be
>destroyed, regenerate it instead"?
That -does- go against a whole host of history; it's been long accepted
that whatever Consecrate Land, Pyramids, and Guardian Beast -were- doing,
it -wasn't- regenerating them. (There's no -rules- problem with that; you're
allowed to have things that aren't creatures regenerate, under 6E rules. It's
just that there isn't anything existing that -creates- a regeneration shield
for something that's not currently a creature ...)
If they go by history-and-intent, it probably won't end up regenerating
the land; it may end up as "Whenever enchanted land would be destroyed,
prevent that destruction", or it may end up as "Whenever a spell or ability
would destroy enchanted land, instead it has no effect on that land" to
preserve the 'the rules can destroy the land, say if it has lethal damage for
instance'. I simply don't know, from here, which it will end up as.
Nusrat Faria
π΄ALL>Moviesβ πΊ π± π» β ALL>Moviesπ΄
β βΆοΈβΆοΈ CLICK HERE Full HDβ 720pβ 1080pβ 4Kβ
WATCH β π»πΊπ±πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺ β πΊπ±π»πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄π±WATCH>>αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺ>>HERE>πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
β π»WATCH>>αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺ>>HERE>πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
ππΊWATCH>>αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺ>>HERE>πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄π±ALL>Movies>ALL>TIME>Save>LINKπhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄πΊALL>Movies>ALL>TIME>Save>LINKπhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄π»πππππ πππ₯π ππ¨ππ π π’π©ππ πͺππ§ππ β€β€πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄π±πππππ πππ₯π ππ¨ππ π π’π©ππ πͺππ§ππ β€β€πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄πΊπππππ πππ₯πβ€ππ¨ππ π π’π©ππβ€πͺππ§ππ β€πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄π±πππππ πππ₯π ππ¨ππ π π’π©ππ αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺβ€β€πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄π»πππππ πππ₯π ππ¨ππ π π’π©ππ αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺβ€β€πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄πΊπππππ πππ₯π ππ¨ππ π π’π©ππ αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺβ€β€πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄π»ALL>Movies>WATCH>αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺ>LINK>πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄π±ALL>Movies>WATCH>αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺ>LINK>πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄πΊALL>Movies>WATCH>αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺ>LINK>πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄π±πππππ πππ₯π ππ¨ππ π π’π©ππ πͺππ§ππ β€β€πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄π»πππππ πππ₯π ππ¨ππ π π’π©ππ πͺππ§ππ β€β€πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄πΊπππππ πππ₯π ππ¨ππ π π’π©ππ πͺππ§ππ β€β€πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄π±πππππ πππ₯π ππ¨ππ π π’π©ππ αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺβ€β€πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄π»πππππ πππ₯π ππ¨ππ π π’π©ππ αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺβ€β€πhttps://co.fastmovies.org
π΄πΊπππππ πππ₯π ππ¨ππ π π’π©ππ αͺOα―ααͺOα©αͺβ€β€πhttps://co.fastmovies.org