flickering ward question
Phaedrus
In article <199805300217...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
ApeApe28 <apea...@aol.com> wrote:
>If I have a creature with a pcifism on it, can I get rid of it by putting
>flickering ward on it and give it protection from white, let the pacifism and
>the ward die,
Yes, you certainly can.
> but before it goes into the graveyard, can I pay one mana to
>return it to my hand.
No, you can't.
Like most abilities, the Flickering Ward's "return me to your hand"
ability is an instant. If it wouldn't be legal to announce an instant spell,
it's not legal to announce an instant ability either.
Once a spell (or a batch of spells) has started resolving, you can't
announce instants until that spell (or batch of spells) has finished resolving.
And a spell doesn't finish resolving until all triggered effects, and all
rule checks (also known as "rule triggers"), have been dealt with.
When the Flickering Ward spell resolves, the Ward comes into play. You
can't announce the Ward's "return me to your hand" ability--or any other
instant--yet. First we have to look for rule checks. And, sure enough,
there are two of them; the Pacifism now has an invalid target, and so does
the Flickering Ward. So we have to deal with that now--and the Pacifism and
the Ward are both buried.
Now, all the triggered effects have been dealt with; so now instants
become legal again. But it's too late to return the Ward to your hand; it's
already in the graveyard.
> I heard that you can only return it to your hand if the
>creature dies or if you want to changte creatures, not if the ward itself
>dies.
If the creature dies, it's too late to return the Ward to your hand,
for the same reason.
--
\o\ If you're interested in books and stories with transformation themes, \o\
/o/ please have a look at <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus>. Thanks! /o/
\o\ FC1.21:FC(W/C)p6arw A- C->++ D>++ H+ M>+ P R T++++ W** Z+ Sm RLCT \o\
/o/ a cmn++++$ d e++ f+++ h- i++wf p-- sm# /o/
ApeApe28
If I have a creature with a pcifism on it, can I get rid of it by putting
flickering ward on it and give it protection from white, let the pacifism and
return it to my hand. I heard that you can only return it to your hand if the
Ingo Kemper
On 30 May 1998 02:17:53 GMT, apea...@aol.com (ApeApe28) wrote:
>If I have a creature with a pcifism on it, can I get rid of it by putting
>flickering ward on it and give it protection from white, let the pacifism and
>the ward die,
Yes. Both enchantments will go to the graveyard simultaneously.
> but before it goes into the graveyard, can I pay one mana to
>return it to my hand.
No. You can't respond to the enchantment spell with the "return to
hand" effect because the enchantment is not yet in play and the
ability is not available at all. You have to let the batch resolve,
and when that happened the creature and the ward are already in the
graveyard.
> I heard that you can only return it to your hand if the
>creature dies or if you want to changte creatures, not if the ward itself dies.
Well, you _can_ return it to your hand in response to an effect that
would later destroy the ward (Disenchant), but that's not possible in
the situation you described above because the ward is not yet in play.
Ingo Kemper
--
__ _ __ __ __ __
__/ /_/ \/ /_/____/_ |___Sky...@uni-muenster.de___---===> \
/_/ /_/\_/ |__/ |__/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---===>__/
Lord Black Goblin
>If I have a creature with a pcifism on it, can I get rid of it by putting
>flickering ward on it and give it protection from white, let the pacifism
and
>return it to my hand. I heard that you can only return it to your hand if
the
>creature dies or if you want to changte creatures, not if the ward itself
dies.
No. You won't be able to activate the Ward's "return to hand" effect,
because you are only allowed to play mana sources between the time
Flickering Ward "lands" on th creature and the time Flickering Ward goes to
the graveyard. All you can do afterwards is use some spell or effect to
retrieve the Ward from the discard pile.
You cannot use the Ward's ability as an instant in response to the playing
of the Flickering Ward, because it isn't yet in play. As soon as it enters
play (and upon the creature), it finds itself enchanting an illegal target
and gets buried before you can play anything but a mana source.
+------+-=[ CITE ]=--=[ "C Nonsense in BASIC 0:1" ]
/ Lord +-------------=[ ]
/ Black +-=[ MAIL ]=--=[ ls...@camoes.rnl.ist.utl.pt ]
| Goblin +-=[ HOME ]=--=[ http://camoes.rnl.ist.utl.pt/~lsro/ ]
+--------+-=[ UDIC ]=--=[ Lord Black Dragon ]
Jeremy Albert
As near as I can see your saying that when someone plays a flickering ward &
calls white the flickering ward is discarded...
well it isn't ...
In the original scenario the flickering ward doesn't destroy the pacafism or
the flickering ward, all the flickering ward does is prevent the creature from
being target of any more white spells or effects.
Phaedrus
In article <3570CD15...@sover.net>,
Jeremy Albert <Wry...@sover.net> wrote:
>As near as I can see your saying that when someone plays a flickering ward &
>calls white the flickering ward is discarded...
>well it isn't ...
>In the original scenario the flickering ward doesn't destroy the pacafism or
>the flickering ward, all the flickering ward does is prevent the creature from
>being target of any more white spells or effects.
Please check the rules before 'correcting' right answers.
Flickering Ward: "When you play Flickering Ward, choose a color.
Enchanted creature gains _protection from_ the chosen color.[...]"
From the general rulings file on protection: "Cannot be targeted by
<-something-> abilities, spells, or enchantments. [...] Not being targeted by
enchantments means that the appropriate local enchantment (Enchant Creature)
cards bury themselves if they are ever on the creature. [Fifth Edition, Page
30]"
From the card rulings file on Flickering Ward: "Does not have the 'does
not destroy itself' text, so if you use it for Protection from White, it will
bury itself. [bethmo 10/09/97]"
David DeLaney
apea...@aol.com (ApeApe28) writes:
>If I have a creature with a pcifism on it, can I get rid of it by putting
>flickering ward on it and give it protection from white, let the pacifism and
>the ward die,
Yes.
>but before it goes into the graveyard, can I pay one mana to
>return it to my hand.
No. The Ward will be buried because the rules say it is, since it finds
itself on a creature that has Protection from White.
You cannot play instants before the rules take effect, in essence.
>I heard that you can only return it to your hand if the
>creature dies or if you want to changte creatures, not if the ward itself dies.
If something else were being cast that was going to destroy the Ward,
like a Disenchant, you could respond to the Disenchant with the instant
ability to pick the Ward up. But what's burying this Ward is the fact that
it's on an illegal target; you don't get a chance to play instants before
enchantments on illegal targets are buried.
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.
Brian Clark
Pacifism reads "Enchanted creature cannot attack or block". Does this mean
that pacifism does not actually target the creature and therefore a prot.
from white will have no effect on it?
Ingo Kemper
No. All local enchantments inherently target their enchantees. (It's in
the word "enchanted".)
A while ago WotC tried to use the word "target" on all targeted cards,
which worked well except for local enchantments. By now they just say
"enchanted something".
Mike Marcelais
Brian Clark <cl...@bainet.com> wrote in message
6kubh8$o0k$1...@esinet2.esinet.net...
>Pacifism reads "Enchanted creature cannot attack or block". Does this mean
>that pacifism does not actually target the creature and therefore a prot.
>from white will have no effect on it?
No.
ALL local enchantments target the creature that they enchant. The phrase
"enchanted creature" means "the creature that this enchantment is sitting on".
They avoid using "target creature", there because of activated abilties on
enchantments: The enchantment continuously targets the creature, but when you
activate the ability, the _ability_ does NOT target the creature. [If the
ability does say "target creature", [excluding old cards], then it means that
you get to pick any creature, you don't have to affect the creature being
enchanted. See Fire Whip for an example.]
============================================================
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 =- ===
David DeLaney
Jeremy Albert <Wry...@sover.net> writes:
>As near as I can see your saying that when someone plays a flickering ward &
>calls white the flickering ward is discarded...
Nope. It comes into play on the creature, then is immediately buried because
it's on a creature that has protection from white and it's a white enchantment.
>well it isn't ...
It's destroyed, yes.
>In the original scenario the flickering ward doesn't destroy the pacafism or
>the flickering ward, all the flickering ward does is prevent the creature from
>being target of any more white spells or effects.
Please read your little rulebook.
Protection from White means a creature cannot be the target of spells,
abilities, _or enchantments_.
David DeLaney
"Brian Clark" <cl...@bainet.com> writes:
>Pacifism reads "Enchanted creature cannot attack or block". Does this mean
>that pacifism does not actually target the creature and therefore a prot.
>from white will have no effect on it?
The -ability- of Pacifism does not target enchanted creature. It simply
affects the creature it enchants. So PfWhite would not interfere with the
creature becoming unable to attack or block, no.
BUT:
The Pacifism _itself_, the _card_, targets the creature it is sitting on;
all local enchantments continuously target the card they sit upon, and
continuously check that that card is still a legal target. Pacifism is
an Enchant Creature card, so it targets a creature as it sits on it. It
doesn't have any other "Play this only on a Foo" text, so it just checks
whether the target is a creautre.
And PfWhite makes the creature, among other things, an illegal target for
spells, abilities, -and enchantments-.
So since the Pacifism is on a card that's not a legal target for the Pacifism
card, you bury the enchantment immedjitly.
hyneman
David DeLaney wrote:
>
> Jeremy Albert <Wry...@sover.net> writes:
> >As near as I can see your saying that when someone plays a flickering ward &
> >calls white the flickering ward is discarded...
>
> Nope. It comes into play on the creature, then is immediately buried because
> it's on a creature that has protection from white and it's a white enchantment.
>
enchantment it means the can't recieve damage from that color. My
cerlean Wyvrn is protection from green but I can put regeneration on it.
> >well it isn't ...
>
>
James G. Wenzel
A few suggestions for future posting, hyneman:
(1) Read the rulebook before posting incorrect answers (this is actually
one of very few rules that has remained consistent for as long as I can
remember) - Protection from ColorX does 3 things:
(a) ColorX creatures can't be assigned to block it
(b) All damage dealt to it by ColorX sources is reduced to zero
(c) It cannot be the target of ColorX spells, abilities, or
enchantments... because the creature can't be the target of ColorX
enchantments, if a ColorX enchantment ever ends up on the creature, the
enchantment is buried. [The reference in the Mirage rulebook is page
21; I'm not sure what the page reference is in 5E, 4E, IA, RV, or UL
rulebooks; and I've never seen an Alpha or Beta rulebook, so I can't
swear that it's in there]
(2) If you are going to contradict the official WotC netrep (Dave
DeLaney), try to be DAMN sure that he is actually mistaken before making
yourself look like a fool,
(3) If you are going to use such an expression as 'Your crazy!', you
should expect flames (especially if you are wrong), and
(4) Even if you *were* correct about the rules (which you are NOT), the
expression would be 'You're crazy!' -- You're is a contraction of 'You
are'; Your is a possessive.
Hopefully this will help to prevent you from making a fool of yourself
TOO often in the future.
--
Blessed Be
--Adilor--
(James Wenzel)
adi...@mindspring.com
Ingo Warnke
hyneman (hyn...@accessatlanta.com) wrote:
: enchantment it means the can't recieve damage from that color. My
: cerlean Wyvrn is protection from green but I can put regeneration on it.
*Please*, get a Magic rulebook and look up at least the part that
handles Protection. There you will see that Protection *also* forbids
you to target the protected creature with enchantments of the respective
color.
Ingo Warnke
Mike Marcelais
>(1) Read the rulebook before posting incorrect answers (this is actually
>one of very few rules that has remained consistent for as long as I can
>remember) - Protection from ColorX does 3 things:
> (a) ColorX creatures can't be assigned to block it
> (b) All damage dealt to it by ColorX sources is reduced to zero
> (c) It cannot be the target of ColorX spells, abilities, or
>enchantments... because the creature can't be the target of ColorX
>enchantments, if a ColorX enchantment ever ends up on the creature, the
>enchantment is buried. [The reference in the Mirage rulebook is page
>21; I'm not sure what the page reference is in 5E, 4E, IA, RV, or UL
>rulebooks; and I've never seen an Alpha or Beta rulebook, so I can't
>swear that it's in there]
Historical note: Pages: 5E: 30; 4E: 38-39; IA: 40-41; RV: 33.
In Alpha/Beta/Unlimimted the rule /was/ different -- the rulebook made the
nebulous statement that the protected creature "cannot be affected by any magic
of those colors", p28, which caused so many rules headaches that Protection was
redefined for RV.
John D. Thomas
James G. Wenzel wrote:
> (2) If you are going to contradict the official WotC netrep (Dave
> DeLaney), try to be DAMN sure that he is actually mistaken before > making yourself look like a fool,
> (3) If you are going to use such an expression as 'Your crazy!', you
> should expect flames (especially if you are wrong), and
> Hopefully this will help to prevent you from making a fool of yourself
> TOO often in the future.
> --
> Blessed Be
> --Adilor--
This whole thing looks like a rather pathetic Troll. Everyone knows
who Dave and Ingo are. When someone starts arguing over such a basic
rules issue I've got to question whether they are intentionally trying
to start a ruckus.