Angelic Renewal Question (Part I)

[John A. Tenshaw]

Ingo Warnke wrote:
>
> Keith Plant (kpl...@ms-usa.com) wrote:
> : If Angelic Renewal is in play and somebody Disks or maybe plays an
> : Anarchy and creatures/enchantments, etc. go to the graveyard, can
> : Angelic Renewal(AR) be sacced to bring a creature back? or is Angelic
> : Renewal placed in the graveyard before you can use its ability? Thanks
> : for your time.
>
> Let's asume a Disk goes off. Then all your creatures as well as the Angelic
> Renewal go the graveyard at the same time. However, it has been ruled that
> in such a case where a card triggering of the death of something goes to the
> grave at the same time as that 'somtething', it will still trigger.
>
> So while the Angelic Renewal is in the grave, you still can use it's triggered
> effect on one of the creatures that just died. The part which buries the
> Angelic Renewal will fail, but that doesn't stop the return of the creature.
>
> Ingo Warnke

Wrong, Angelic Renewal is not a triggered effect, you need to bury it to
return the creature. Since AR is already in the graveyard and you can't
play card effects that are in the graveyard, unless they specifically
say so, you can't use the AR effect.

JT

[Phaedrus]

In article <340ED8...@columbiaenergy.e-mail.com>,
John A. Tenshaw <jten...@columbiaenergy.e-mail.com> wrote:

>Ingo Warnke wrote:
>> Let's asume a Disk goes off. Then all your creatures as well as the Angelic
>> Renewal go the graveyard at the same time. However, it has been ruled that
>> in such a case where a card triggering of the death of something goes to the
>> grave at the same time as that 'somtething', it will still trigger.
>>
>> So while the Angelic Renewal is in the grave, you still can use it's triggered
>> effect on one of the creatures that just died. The part which buries the
>> Angelic Renewal will fail, but that doesn't stop the return of the creature.

>Wrong, Angelic Renewal is not a triggered effect, you need to bury it to

>return the creature. Since AR is already in the graveyard and you can't
>play card effects that are in the graveyard, unless they specifically
>say so, you can't use the AR effect.

You know, before calling other people's answers "wrong", you should
generally make sure that you're on solid ground. You're not here.
"Angelic Renewal is not a triggered effect"? It's written as "If this
happens, you may do this." That's the way that optional triggered abilities
are written. Exactly what kind of effect do you believe it is?
"You need to bury it to return the creature": Errr, Ingo just pointed
out exactly why this isn't true. Could you please point out the part of
Angelic Renewal's ability that makes burying the AR a cost? (Hint: Many
cards have "Bury me: Do this" effects, where "Bury me" is a cost. That does
not mean that any part of a card's text that involves burying itself is
automatically a cost.) Or are you under the impression that the "bury Angelic
Renewal" part of the effect is targeted?
"You can't play card effects that are in the graveyard, unless they
specifically say so": So all the "When I go to the graveyard, do this" or
"When I leave play, do this" effects out there are invalid, because they don't
explicitly say "You can use me while I'm not in play"? Again, Ingo just
explained why you're incorrect on this; if Permanent A has an ability that
triggers when Permanent B leaves play, and A and B leave play simultaneously,
A's ability triggers. If A's ability has a cost, you still have to be able to
legally pay it--but that's not a problem with Angelic Renewal, because its
ability has no cost.
--
\o\ If you're interested in books/stories with transformation themes, \o\
/o/ try <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/translist/translist.html>. /o/
\o\ New list entries always appreciated. FC1.21:FC(W/C)p6arw A- C->++ D>++ \o\
/o/ H+ M>+ P R T++++ W** Z+ Sm RLCT a cmn++++$ d e++ f+++ h- i++wf p-- sm# /o/

[Jung, Nai Hoon]

Ingo Warnke wrote:

> Keith Plant (kpl...@ms-usa.com) wrote:
> : If Angelic Renewal is in play and somebody Disks or maybe plays an
> : Anarchy and creatures/enchantments, etc. go to the graveyard, can
> : Angelic Renewal(AR) be sacced to bring a creature back? or is
> Angelic
> : Renewal placed in the graveyard before you can use its ability?
> Thanks
> : for your time.
>

> Let's asume a Disk goes off. Then all your creatures as well as the
> Angelic
> Renewal go the graveyard at the same time. However, it has been ruled
> that
> in such a case where a card triggering of the death of something goes
> to the
> grave at the same time as that 'somtething', it will still trigger.
>
> So while the Angelic Renewal is in the grave, you still can use it's
> triggered
> effect on one of the creatures that just died. The part which buries
> the
> Angelic Renewal will fail, but that doesn't stop the return of the
> creature.
>

> Ingo Warnke

From http://www.wizards.com/Games/Magic/FAQ/Weatherlight_FAQ.html

5) What happens if Angelic Renewal is sent to the graveyard at the same
time as the creatures, say via a Nevinyrral's Disk?

If Angelic Renewal isn't in play after all the creatures go to the
graveyard, then
you cannot bury it to bring a creature back.

Jung Nai Hoon

[Ingo Warnke]

Ruediger Bess (be...@faui57g.informatik.uni-erlangen.de) wrote:
: Could someone explain that in detail?

You did it yourself very well.

: Neninirall's Disk is activated, no further effects.
: Starting resolution
...
: 5) Triggered effects. I choose to bury Angelic Renewal and bring a
: creature back.
: Any spell or permanent that affects itself does so in a non-targeted
: way. [D'Angelo 05/19/95].
: So the bury effect is non targettet. The fail of the bury effect thus
: does not prevent the effect to bring a creature back.

IMO the crux of the problem is if burying the AR is a cost or not. I stated
the question here some ago, with some 'abuse' if it turned out to be an
effect.

I think everyone agreed that the burial was an effect. I stated the same
on MTG-L, where the readers also agreed IIRC.

: Costs can usually include tapping the source of the effect,
: sacrifices,
: mana, payment of life (loss of life on some older cards), or removal
: of
: counters. Generally, if something on the spell or permanent is not
: one
: of these, then it is not a cost. If it is one of these, and the card
: text is not clear as to when this is done, it is probably a cost and
: not
: an effect. [Costs: entry]
: The Angelic Renewal is from Weatherlight, it is clear when the
: Angelic Renewal will be buried and it is not sacrificed.

This cost entry is outdated. Nowadays anything can be a cost. The important
fact is that AR reads '... may bury AR *and* put one ...'. The 'and' makes
it an effect IMO. If the 'and' was a 'to', it would make the burial
a cost.

: So my opinion is that the FAQ is plain wrong. Maybe a sentence is lost?
: And
: it should read:

: "If Angelic Renewal isn't in play after all the creatures go to the

: graveyard, then you cannot bury it to bring a creature back.

: So you just let the Angelic Renewal stay where it is and fetch the
: targeted creature card from the graveyard."

But the answer is for the question 'What happens if a Disk destroys
the AR and my creatures at once?'. In this case there can be only the
answer 'AR can be used', if 'burial is an effect' is true.

Ingo Warnke

[Shan Bell]

In article <340FBF11...@camars.kaist.ac.kr>,

"Jung, Nai Hoon" <nhj...@camars.kaist.ac.kr> writes:
> From http://www.wizards.com/Games/Magic/FAQ/Weatherlight_FAQ.html
>
> 5) What happens if Angelic Renewal is sent to the graveyard at the same
> time as the creatures, say via a Nevinyrral's Disk?
>

> If Angelic Renewal isn't in play after all the creatures go to the
> graveyard, then
> you cannot bury it to bring a creature back.

Unfortunately, while Customer Service is a well-meaning bunch, they
do occasionally make mistakes. I believe this is one of 'em.
The card doesn't say bury AR _to_ put creature into play, it says
bury AR _and_ put creature into play; burying AR isn't any kind of
cost, therefore they're both parts of the effect. Burying AR isn't
targetted, therefore the rules say that the failure of the "bury AR"
part makes no difference to the "return creature" part. Unless there's
errata I've not heard about, AR should have no problem retrieving one
of the creatures that went.

I'm forwarding this to cust...@wizards.com for their review and
comment.

--
Shannon Bell Email: sh...@issl.atl.hp.com
Voice: +1 404 648 9505 Fax: +1 404 648 9516
Hewlett-Packard / 20 Perimeter Center Parkway, Mailstop 1107 / Atlanta GA 30319

[Ingo Warnke]

Ruediger Bess (be...@faui57g.informatik.uni-erlangen.de) wrote:
: Ingo Warnke wrote:
: >
: [...]
: > IMO the crux of the problem is if burying the AR is a cost or not. I stated

: > the question here some ago, with some 'abuse' if it turned out to be an
: > effect.

: Since it is a triggered effect, how can you abuse it?

Mana Sources can be used before dealing with triggered abilities (TA).
You can sacrifice several creatures to Ashnod's Altar *before* the TA for the
first sacrifice actually happens, so you can use the Angelic Renweal for *each*
of the sacrificed creaturesm to bring them all back. I call this 'abuse'.

Ingo Warnke

[Alex Werner]

There's something else fishy going on here... if I have 5 creatures
and angelic renewal in play, and someone disks, what's to stop me,
if the rules gurus are correct about angelic renewal, from bringing
all 5 of my creatures back to life?

[Ingo Kemper]

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997 23:22:16 GMT, awe...@netcom.com (Alex Werner)
wrote:

The answer should probably be "Because Angelic Renewal triggers only
once (because all five creatures are going to the graveyard
simultaneously), and one activation only allows you to resurrect _one_
creature."
Now, Angelic Renewal does not say "use this ability only once per such
event", so the card text seems to be flawed either way...

__ _ __ __ __ __
__/ /_/ \/ /_/____/_ |___Sky...@uni-muenster.de___---===> \
/_/ /_/\_/ |__/ |__/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---===>__/

[Joachim Tabaczek]

In article <5v5b4h$m...@majestix.uni-muenster.de>, "Ingo Kemper" <kem...@uni-muenster.de> writes:
|> On Tue, 9 Sep 1997 23:22:16 GMT, awe...@netcom.com (Alex Werner)
|> wrote:
|>
|> >There's something else fishy going on here... if I have 5 creatures
|> >and angelic renewal in play, and someone disks, what's to stop me,
|> >if the rules gurus are correct about angelic renewal, from bringing
|> >all 5 of my creatures back to life?
|>
|> The answer should probably be "Because Angelic Renewal triggers only
|> once (because all five creatures are going to the graveyard
|> simultaneously), and one activation only allows you to resurrect _one_
|> creature."
|> Now, Angelic Renewal does not say "use this ability only once per such
|> event", so the card text seems to be flawed either way...

In a way, that's what it _does_ say; the wording [`If any
creatures...' and `... one of those creatures...'] implies
that Angelic Renewal triggers only once if several creatures
are put into the graveyard simultaneously. [Okay, it doesn't
say so explicitly, but otherwise the wording wouldn't make
sense.]

Joachim

[David DeLaney]

awe...@netcom.com (Alex Werner) writes:
>There's something else fishy going on here... if I have 5 creatures
>and angelic renewal in play, and someone disks, what's to stop me,
>if the rules gurus are correct about angelic renewal, from bringing
>all 5 of my creatures back to life?

Because the Renewal only triggers once: one event kills all the creatures
at the same time. And since it only triggered once, you can only use it
once, and thus can bury-it-and-bring-back-a-creature only once.

Renewal triggers whenever one or some of your creatures go to the graveyard.
Contrast this with Soul Net, which triggers whenever _one_ of your creatures
goes to the graveyard ... and thus will get triggered several times when
several critters die at once.

[This is what Ingo's Abuse of it is about: if you can get creatures to
die as a triggered ability or a mana source, you can get the Renewal to
trigger _several_ times before its triggered ability is played, and
theoretically can bring several of them back, because the burial of Renewal
is an effect, not a cost. But note that this needs creature-removal done in
series to work right; spells or abilities that work in batches aren't fast
enough to be used between the Renewal's triggering and the playing of the
Renewal's ability.]

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.

[Ryan]

David DeLaney wrote:
>
> awe...@netcom.com (Alex Werner) writes:
> >There's something else fishy going on here... if I have 5 creatures
> >and angelic renewal in play, and someone disks, what's to stop me,
> >if the rules gurus are correct about angelic renewal, from bringing
> >all 5 of my creatures back to life?
>
> Because the Renewal only triggers once: one event kills all the creatures
> at the same time. And since it only triggered once, you can only use it
> once, and thus can bury-it-and-bring-back-a-creature only once.
>
> Renewal triggers whenever one or some of your creatures go to the graveyard.
> Contrast this with Soul Net, which triggers whenever _one_ of your creatures
> goes to the graveyard ... and thus will get triggered several times when
> several critters die at once.
>
> [This is what Ingo's Abuse of it is about: if you can get creatures to
> die as a triggered ability or a mana source, you can get the Renewal to
> trigger _several_ times before its triggered ability is played, and
> theoretically can bring several of them back, because the burial of Renewal
> is an effect, not a cost. But note that this needs creature-removal done in
> series to work right; spells or abilities that work in batches aren't fast
> enough to be used between the Renewal's triggering and the playing of the
> Renewal's ability.]

That would mean that something like Forbidden Ritual
would be a series of Triggered effects, and the creatures
would be put into the grave one at a time, but all during
resolution? If so, this would be a killer combination,
excepting the fact that it is a combo, but most judges
would prolly rule against you anyways.
--
"A good american must practice bad Americanism." -Black Like Me

Ryan Bank O/ Disco Inferno !!
ax...@earthlink.net /\ Burn, baby burn!!!
Laguna Niguel, CA /> Disco all night!

Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, B227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial e-mail sent to this address is subject to a
download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes
acceptance of these terms.

[Ingo Warnke]

Ryan (ax...@earthlink.net) wrote:

: That would mean that something like Forbidden Ritual

: would be a series of Triggered effects, and the creatures
: would be put into the grave one at a time, but all during
: resolution?

There are 2 ways this process can be viewed from the point of
Angelic Renewal:

1) All the death happen 'at once', so the Angelic Renewal triggers
once and can thus only bring back one creature.

or

2) All the death happen one after the other, so Angelic Renewal
triggers once for each sacrificed creature, and can bring back
all of them.

I think 2) is correct. If Angelic Renewal was also sacrificed, in
between the sacrifice of creatures, option 1) looks very strange.

But 2) would mean that even inside events a time order must be estab-
lished. But this isn't anything new, as Wheel of Fortune also needs
such a time order.

Ingo Warnke

[Mike Marcelais]

> There are 2 ways this process can be viewed from the point of

> Angelic Renewal: [with Forbidden Ritual]

>
> 1) All the death happen 'at once', so the Angelic Renewal triggers
> once and can thus only bring back one creature.
>
> or
>
> 2) All the death happen one after the other, so Angelic Renewal
> triggers once for each sacrificed creature, and can bring back
> all of them.
>
> I think 2) is correct. If Angelic Renewal was also sacrificed, in
> between the sacrifice of creatures, option 1) looks very strange.

1 is correct (although the /first/ permanent you sacrifice which is part of
the cost to announce the spell is separate from all of the follow-up
sacrifices during resolution). If more than one permanent moves from one zone
to another during a single "event" (and since there is no 'then' on FR's text,
the entire resolution is one event) they all move together and things like AR
will end up triggering only once.

[If there was a 'then' or each itteration was considered a separate event,
then the answer would be 2, /except/ that you would pause to resolve ARs
triggered effect between each sacrifice so you could only bring one of the
creatures back.]

--
+------------------------+----------------------+
| Mike Marcelais | MS Office Developer |
| mich...@microsoft.com | and Magic Rules Guru |
+------------------------+----------------------+
| Opinions expressed in this post are mine, and |
| do not necessarily reflect those of Microsoft |
+--= Moonstone Dragon =---------------= UDIC =--+

[Jonathan]

David DeLaney wrote:

> [This is what Ingo's Abuse of it is about: if you can get creatures to
> die as a triggered ability or a mana source, you can get the Renewal to
> trigger _several_ times before its triggered ability is played, and
> theoretically can bring several of them back, because the burial of Renewal
> is an effect, not a cost.

Does this work with Aby. Gatekeeper, then ???

jjv

[Ingo Warnke]

Mike Marcelais (mich...@microsoft.com) wrote:
: > There are 2 ways this process can be viewed from the point of

: > Angelic Renewal: [with Forbidden Ritual]
: >
: > 1) All the death happen 'at once', so the Angelic Renewal triggers
: > once and can thus only bring back one creature.
: >
: > or
: >
: > 2) All the death happen one after the other, so Angelic Renewal
: > triggers once for each sacrificed creature, and can bring back
: > all of them.
: >
: > I think 2) is correct. If Angelic Renewal was also sacrificed, in
: > between the sacrifice of creatures, option 1) looks very strange.

: 1 is correct (although the /first/ permanent you sacrifice which is part of
: the cost to announce the spell is separate from all of the follow-up
: sacrifices during resolution). If more than one permanent moves from one zone
: to another during a single "event" (and since there is no 'then' on FR's text,
: the entire resolution is one event) they all move together and things like AR
: will end up triggering only once.

But in a recent discussion it was pointed out that even inside a single event
order matters. IIRC, an example with an imaginary spell 'Destroy all artifacts. Des-
troy all creatures.' was used. It was pointed out that a Soul Net could not
be used (unless some artifacts were also creatures), because the Soul Net was not
in play when the creatures died.

You seem to imply that if on resolution of Forbidden Ritual a player first sacrifices
some creatures, then his Angelic Renewal and then more creatures, he can get back
any one creature, no matter if it was sacrificed before or after Angelic Renewal.
IMHO this contradicts the other example.

Ingo Warnke

[Joachim Tabaczek]

In article <3417c...@news.uni-rostock.de>, nfa...@hp1.uni-rostock.de (Ingo Warnke) writes:
|> Ryan (ax...@earthlink.net) wrote:
|>
|> : That would mean that something like Forbidden Ritual
|> : would be a series of Triggered effects, and the creatures
|> : would be put into the grave one at a time, but all during
|> : resolution?
|>

|> There are 2 ways this process can be viewed from the point of
|> Angelic Renewal:
|>

|> 1) All the death happen 'at once', so the Angelic Renewal triggers
|> once and can thus only bring back one creature.
|>
|> or
|>
|> 2) All the death happen one after the other, so Angelic Renewal
|> triggers once for each sacrificed creature, and can bring back
|> all of them.
|>
|> I think 2) is correct. If Angelic Renewal was also sacrificed, in
|> between the sacrifice of creatures, option 1) looks very strange.
|>

|> But 2) would mean that even inside events a time order must be estab-
|> lished. But this isn't anything new, as Wheel of Fortune also needs
|> such a time order.

Unless Forbidden Ritual gets errata, I think 1) is correct, since
there's no `then' in the Ritual's card text and so its whole effect
should be a single event. [If the Renewal is also sacrificed to the
Ritual, it shouldn't trigger at all, since it's not around when the
game checks for triggers after resolving the event.]

Joachim

[Alex Werner]

so let me see if I understand this correctly. If I control an abyssal
gatekeeper and a serra angel and an angelic renewal, and something
kills the gatekeeper, two effects trigger, the renewal and the gatekeeper.
If I choose to deal with the gatekeeper effect first, I'll sac the angel,
which triggers the renewal. Then, nesting, I can activate the renewal,
bury the renewal, and bring serra back to life. Then I can activate the
renewal and bring the gatekeeper back to life... correct?

[David]

On 11 Sep 97 10:08:03 GMT, nfa...@hp1.uni-rostock.de (Ingo Warnke)

wrote:
>: That would mean that something like Forbidden Ritual
>: would be a series of Triggered effects, and the creatures
>: would be put into the grave one at a time, but all during
>: resolution?
>
>There are 2 ways this process can be viewed from the point of
>Angelic Renewal:
>
>1) All the death happen 'at once', so the Angelic Renewal triggers
> once and can thus only bring back one creature.
>
>or
>
>2) All the death happen one after the other, so Angelic Renewal
> triggers once for each sacrificed creature, and can bring back
> all of them.
>
>I think 2) is correct. If Angelic Renewal was also sacrificed, in
>between the sacrifice of creatures, option 1) looks very strange.

No more strange than it dying with a bunch of creatures by a Disk
or something. I don't see the problem with (1). All the deaths
are meant to be simultaneous and in "one step".

If Tom ever bothered to tell us the rules, instead of a bunch of
rulings, we would know the answer of course.

>But 2) would mean that even inside events a time order must be estab-
>lished. But this isn't anything new, as Wheel of Fortune also needs
>such a time order.

What's new is that the things ordered inside the event would have
an order that matters to things outside the event.

david

[David]

On 12 Sep 97 08:22:41 GMT, nfa...@hp1.uni-rostock.de (Ingo Warnke)
wrote:

>But in a recent discussion it was pointed out that even inside a single event

>order matters. IIRC, an example with an imaginary spell 'Destroy all artifacts. Des-
>troy all creatures.' was used. It was pointed out that a Soul Net could not
>be used (unless some artifacts were also creatures), because the Soul Net was not
>in play when the creatures died.

So what? It would trigger any way. Soul Net is rulled to trigger if it
dies at the same time as the creature. Its a totally mad ruling,
with no basis in any rule, but there it is.

>You seem to imply that if on resolution of Forbidden Ritual a player first sacrifices
>some creatures, then his Angelic Renewal and then more creatures, he can get back
>any one creature, no matter if it was sacrificed before or after Angelic Renewal.
>IMHO this contradicts the other example.

That example is incorrect IMO.

However it is an open question as to whether different events within
a single step of a spell's resolution count as at the same time
for purposes of Angelic Renewal. It's all down to conflicting ideas
of what simultaneity is. This sort of thing is just bound to happen.

David

[Mike Marcelais]

> : 1 is correct (although the /first/ permanent you sacrifice which is part
of
> : the cost to announce the spell is separate from all of the follow-up
> : sacrifices during resolution). If more than one permanent moves from one
zone
> : to another during a single "event" (and since there is no 'then' on FR's
text,
> : the entire resolution is one event) they all move together and things like
AR
> : will end up triggering only once.
>

> But in a recent discussion it was pointed out that even inside a single
event
> order matters. IIRC, an example with an imaginary spell 'Destroy all
artifacts. Des-
> troy all creatures.' was used. It was pointed out that a Soul Net could not
> be used (unless some artifacts were also creatures), because the Soul Net
was not
> in play when the creatures died.

In this example, the destroy is all one "event", and (as such) Soul Net could
trigger off the creatures dying. If the text said "Destroy all artifacts,
then destroy all creatures" you'd be right.

While order /may/ matter during a single event, anything that was in play at
the start of the event can trigger on things happening during the event,
regardless of that is happening to the source of the trigger.

>
> You seem to imply that if on resolution of Forbidden Ritual a player first
sacrifices
> some creatures, then his Angelic Renewal and then more creatures, he can get
back
> any one creature, no matter if it was sacrificed before or after Angelic
Renewal.
> IMHO this contradicts the other example.

[IMHO: I think each "I sack-you sack" should be a separate event, but that's
currently not true and beside the point] In this one "event", five cards (4
critters, and AR) go to the graveyard. AR (since it was around at the start
of the event) triggers on the creature's dying (but just once, since AR
doesn't trigger once per creature) and allows you to return any one of those 4
to play.

[David]

On 13 Sep 1997 23:32:12 GMT, "Mike Marcelais" <mich...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>[IMHO: I think each "I sack-you sack" should be a separate event, but that's
>currently not true and beside the point

I think we'll see that reversed before long.

David

[David DeLaney]

As presently understood, this is legal ... because you can deal with the
Gatekeeper's triggered ability, which buried the Angel, before having to
deal with the Angelic Renewal's. The "abuse" is possible only if you're killing
a creature as a mana source or as a triggered ability before the Renewal's
triggered ability kicks in, generally; ordinary instants and batched things
have to wait until after the Renewal would be played.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flowe

It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to se

[David]

On 15 Sep 1997 17:34:38 GMT, "Mike Marcelais" <mich...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>I think simultineaty is fine; the rules just have to be consistant. The only
>time you'd need ordering within an event is when an event is trying to do two
>contradictory things (in which case you decide on an order, and just don't do
>the things that you can't do).

Or maybe someone else decides? The active player? The controller of
<whatever>? Certainly some sort of rule is needed.

David

[David]

>If not, then why can't you use mana sources in between, or counter the
>spell?

Because Tom said so?
As bethmo usually says "I can't comment on the 'whys'..."

I imagine it was just to keep MS's simple.

>I'm under the impression that mana sources are all one event, and
>that makes it impossible for them to be influenced by outside means, like
>Counterspell. If mana sources are several events and can't be interrupted
>by a special, independed rule, than I was wrong, and somebody tell me so.

Ask Paul Barclay - I'm pretty sure that this was exaclty what we
thought happened and Bethmo disagreed and Tom ruled with
her in the end.

>But I can't think they introduced different rules, where one set of rules deals
>with events and what can and can't be done inside them, and other rules that
>say what can and what can't be done inside mana sources, and it turns out that
>bot restrictions are the same.

Can't you?

I don't think it would be much of a coincidence. In any case we
_don't_ know they are the same yet.

David

[David]

On 15 Sep 97 10:52:47 GMT, nfa...@hp1.uni-rostock.de (Ingo Warnke)
wrote:

>: While order /may/ matter during a single event, anything that was in play at

>: the start of the event can trigger on things happening during the event,
>: regardless of that is happening to the source of the trigger.
>

>This is not true.
>It directly contradicts the ruling that Sol-Kanar the Swamp does not trigger
>when it is the victim of a Sacrifice spell. The whole Sacrifice spell is
>one event, due to being a mana source.

I do not think that ruling [which was a bad one IMO] implies that.
I don't think the steps in the MS life cycle are meant to be
simultaneous. They are completely separate events but
various things are banned from happening in between them.

>I think that the idea that one event happens simultaneous is simply not
>true. There is an order, and it might matter to determine if something and
>how it triggers.

Sometimes it is easy to forget that a person is being paid money
by the company we patronise, to make this sort of decision
officially.... what a shame that he doesn't.

David

[Ad Rovers]

Ingo Warnke dares to say...

>
>Mike Marcelais (mich...@microsoft.com) wrote:
>:While order /may/ matter during a single event, anything that was in play at
>:the start of the event can trigger on things happening during the event,
>:regardless of that is happening to the source of the trigger.
>
>This is not true.
>It directly contradicts the ruling that Sol-Kanar the Swamp does not trigger
>when it is the victim of a Sacrifice spell. The whole Sacrifice spell is
>one event, due to being a mana source.

I'm not too sure it is all one event. A mana source can't be interupted,
responded too, etc. But it still has three basic steps:1.Anouncement,
2.succesfully cast, 3.resolve. Sol'Kanar would trigger on 2, but is gone at
the end of 1, so isn't around at the beginning of step 2 and thus doesn't
trigger.

>I think that the idea that one event happens simultaneous is simply not
>true. There is an order, and it might matter to determine if something and
>how it triggers.

I prefer simultaneity during one step. It can give problems how to handle
complicated events, but it preserves order in time by using distinct
time-steps (start of resolution,'then',end of resolution, etc.)

'NS
Ad Rovers

[Ingo Warnke]

Ad Rovers (s33...@stud.tue.nl) wrote:
: Ingo Warnke dares to say...

: >
: >Mike Marcelais (mich...@microsoft.com) wrote:
: >:While order /may/ matter during a single event, anything that was in play at
: >:the start of the event can trigger on things happening during the event,
: >:regardless of that is happening to the source of the trigger.
: >
: >This is not true.
: >It directly contradicts the ruling that Sol-Kanar the Swamp does not trigger
: >when it is the victim of a Sacrifice spell. The whole Sacrifice spell is
: >one event, due to being a mana source.

: I'm not too sure it is all one event.

If not, then why can't you use mana sources in between, or counter the
spell? I'm under the impression that mana sources are all one event, and

that makes it impossible for them to be influenced by outside means, like
Counterspell. If mana sources are several events and can't be interrupted
by a special, independed rule, than I was wrong, and somebody tell me so.

But I can't think they introduced different rules, where one set of rules deals

with events and what can and can't be done inside them, and other rules that
say what can and what can't be done inside mana sources, and it turns out that
bot restrictions are the same.

Ingo Warnke

[Mike Marcelais]

> I'm not too sure it is all one event. A mana source can't be interupted,
> responded too, etc. But it still has three basic steps:1.Anouncement,
> 2.succesfully cast, 3.resolve. Sol'Kanar would trigger on 2, but is gone at
> the end of 1, so isn't around at the beginning of step 2 and thus doesn't
> trigger.

If it is one event, then Ingo is right in that there is a condradiction.
If it is three events, then triggered effects and mana sources have a chance
to be used between the events, which is currently not true for Mana Sources.

[Ingo Warnke]

Mike Marcelais (mich...@microsoft.com) wrote:

: While order /may/ matter during a single event, anything that was in play at
: the start of the event can trigger on things happening during the event,
: regardless of that is happening to the source of the trigger.

This is not true.
It directly contradicts the ruling that Sol-Kanar the Swamp does not trigger
when it is the victim of a Sacrifice spell. The whole Sacrifice spell is
one event, due to being a mana source.

I think that the idea that one event happens simultaneous is simply not

true. There is an order, and it might matter to determine if something and
how it triggers.

Ingo Warnke

[Mike Marcelais]

> : While order /may/ matter during a single event, anything that was in play
at
> : the start of the event can trigger on things happening during the event,
> : regardless of that is happening to the source of the trigger.
>
> This is not true.

"What is truth, man?" [Zaphod Beeblebrox]

> It directly contradicts the ruling that Sol-Kanar the Swamp does not trigger
> when it is the victim of a Sacrifice spell. The whole Sacrifice spell is
> one event, due to being a mana source.

This statement is true. Yet another example where Tom is being
self-contradictory.

>
> I think that the idea that one event happens simultaneous is simply not
> true. There is an order, and it might matter to determine if something and
> how it triggers.

I think simultineaty is fine; the rules just have to be consistant. The only

time you'd need ordering within an event is when an event is trying to do two
contradictory things (in which case you decide on an order, and just don't do
the things that you can't do).

--

[David]

>>>If not, then why can't you use mana sources in between, or counter the
>>>spell?
>>

>>Because Tom said so?
>
>Almost: probably Because The Design Team Said So.

That's exactly what I just said, Dave.

>>>I'm under the impression that mana sources are all one event, and
>>>that makes it impossible for them to be influenced by outside means, like
>>>Counterspell. If mana sources are several events and can't be interrupted
>>>by a special, independed rule, than I was wrong, and somebody tell me so.
>>

>>Ask Paul Barclay - I'm pretty sure that this was exaclty what we
>>thought happened and Bethmo disagreed and Tom ruled with
>>her in the end.

>Mana sources can't be interrupted,

true

>and are one event.

false.
Dave, Bethmo specifically asked Tom about this a while back.
Of course, that was all of a month or so ago so he's probably changed
his mind once or twice by now....

>You can't use one mana source "inside" another,

true

>triggered stuff has to wait until the mana source is finished resolving

true.
But unlike a simultaneous ordered event, the TEs _are_
triggered in between steps. For example in the [is it old by now?]
wording of Wheel of Fortune there is no trigger for Maro's Death
when you have no cards - between sub-steps. However there
is such a trrigger window between the sucessful casting of an
MS spell and its resolution - otherwise things that trigger on
a spell being cast wouldn't, just like they don't trigger on things
that happen between sub-steps.

>rules-triggered stuff does too, etc.

true, but see above.

>>I don't think it would be much of a coincidence. In any case we
>>_don't_ know they are the same yet.
>

>Well, mana sources are a single event ... but single events aren't necessarily
>mana sources. You can use mana sources _between_ events if you want...

Dave, you seem to think that because you cannot play TEs or MS
between two things that must make it "simultaneous". All I can say
is that's not what To said. I know you won't listen to any sense,
but you'll listen to that.

If its any consolation we all said it was a bad ruling.

David

[David DeLaney]

dav...@msol.u-net.com (David) writes:
>>If not, then why can't you use mana sources in between, or counter the
>>spell?
>
>Because Tom said so?

Almost: probably Because The Design Team Said So.

>I imagine it was just to keep MS's simple.

I imagine so. And to end the endless stream of questions about "Can I
Rust his Mox?" "Can I _Sleight_ his Mox after he uses it but before he
gets the mana, and if so, can he Sleight it back before he gets the mana?",
"What happens if I put creatures in the graveyard during a Songs of the
Damned with an interrupt?", etc., questions about "doing stuff while
getting mana". [Remember they used to be at least a low-level FAQ...]

>>I'm under the impression that mana sources are all one event, and
>>that makes it impossible for them to be influenced by outside means, like
>>Counterspell. If mana sources are several events and can't be interrupted
>>by a special, independed rule, than I was wrong, and somebody tell me so.
>
>Ask Paul Barclay - I'm pretty sure that this was exaclty what we
>thought happened and Bethmo disagreed and Tom ruled with
>her in the end.

Mana sources can't be interrupted, and are one event. You can't use one
mana source "inside" another, triggered stuff has to wait until the mana
source is finished resolving, rules-triggered stuff does too, etc.

>I don't think it would be much of a coincidence. In any case we
>_don't_ know they are the same yet.

Well, mana sources are a single event ... but single events aren't necessarily
mana sources. You can use mana sources _between_ events if you want...

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.

[David]

On 20 Sep 1997 19:26:22 GMT, if...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>mich...@microsoft.com (Mike Marcelais) says:
>>While order /may/ matter during a single event, anything that was in play at
>>the start of the event can trigger on things happening during the event,
>>regardless of that is happening to the source of the trigger.
>

>This isn't correct at all.

It is as far as I know Dave. Are you about to make up a new
ruling here? Otherwise please quote the rule. There have been
no rulings on sub-simultaneous steps. Tom hasn't even bothered
to define when they happen - or if they happen [as opposed to
a number of steps being trully simultaneous]. But you think you
have the rule already? What are you keeping it secret for
then?

>Triggered abilites are an exception to the second rule, by the way" character-
>istics of a triggered ability's source _and_ whatever it affects are read in
>_when it triggers_, not later when it's played or later than that when it
>resolves.

Is that so?
That's amazing Dave. How does a TE that targets something even
know what it will affect to "read in" its characteristics. Presumably
this means that the Man o' War cannot target itself with its own CIP
effect, since it remembers that it was not a creature when the effect
triggered....

Is this a new reversal by you then, Dave?

>>[IMHO: I think each "I sack-you sack" should be a separate event, but that's

>>currently not true and beside the point] In this one "event", five cards (4
>>critters, and AR) go to the graveyard.
>

>Yes, in a specific order, since _both_ players have to wait each time to see
>what happens next.

AR's stuff may not even _be_ sub-simultaneous steps.

>> AR (since it was around at the start
>>of the event) triggers on the creature's dying (but just once, since AR
>>doesn't trigger once per creature) and allows you to return any one of those 4
>>to play.
>

>No. AR triggers once on each separate creature death, since they're not
>happening at the same time [even though they're happening inside the same event
>and no mana sources or triggered abilities can be _played_ between them], but
>only for deaths that happen while AR is in play [since AR doesn't say its
>ability can be used from the graveyard].

Dave, again, this isn't currently true, so are you making an official
ruling here? You know it reverses a ruling by Tom, I suppose? [and
one by Bethmo for all its worth...]

David

[David DeLaney]

mich...@microsoft.com (Mike Marcelais) says:
>While order /may/ matter during a single event, anything that was in play at
>the start of the event can trigger on things happening during the event,
>regardless of that is happening to the source of the trigger.

This isn't correct at all. I think you may have this confused with the "Targets
are checked at the beginning of a resolution" rule, or the "Characteristics of
a source of an ability/a spell are read in at the start of resolution" rule.

Triggered abilites are an exception to the second rule, by the way" character-
istics of a triggered ability's source _and_ whatever it affects are read in
_when it triggers_, not later when it's played or later than that when it
resolves.

>[IMHO: I think each "I sack-you sack" should be a separate event, but that's

>currently not true and beside the point] In this one "event", five cards (4
>critters, and AR) go to the graveyard.

Yes, in a specific order, since _both_ players have to wait each time to see
what happens next.

> AR (since it was around at the start

>of the event) triggers on the creature's dying (but just once, since AR
>doesn't trigger once per creature) and allows you to return any one of those 4
>to play.

No. AR triggers once on each separate creature death, since they're not
happening at the same time [even though they're happening inside the same event
and no mana sources or triggered abilities can be _played_ between them], but
only for deaths that happen while AR is in play [since AR doesn't say its
ability can be used from the graveyard].

Dave

--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flowe

It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to se

[David DeLaney]

dav...@msol.u-net.com (David) says:
>On 13 Sep 1997 23:32:12 GMT, "Mike Marcelais" <mich...@microsoft.com>
>wrote:
>

>>[IMHO: I think each "I sack-you sack" should be a separate event, but that's
>>currently not true and beside the point
>

>I think we'll see that reversed before long.

I hope so also. What gets _me_ is the "You can sac a multiply-enchanted
permanent, then go on to sac each separate enchantment on it, because
rules-triggered effects wait until the entire event's over before they can
even trigger" aspect of Forbidden Ritual abuse.

[David DeLaney]

dav...@msol.u-net.com (David) says:
>On 12 Sep 97 08:22:41 GMT, nfa...@hp1.uni-rostock.de (Ingo Warnke)
>wrote:

>>But in a recent discussion it was pointed out that even inside a single event
>>order matters. IIRC, an example with an imaginary spell 'Destroy all artifacts. Des-
>>troy all creatures.' was used. It was pointed out that a Soul Net could not
>>be used (unless some artifacts were also creatures), because the Soul Net was not
>>in play when the creatures died.
>

>So what? It would trigger any way. Soul Net is rulled to trigger if it
>dies at the same time as the creature.

_At the same time as_, David. You of all people know the difference between
"A dies simultaneously with B" and "A dies, then B dies, both within a single
event so that you aren't allowed to use mana sources between them to make C
die, or use triggered effects between them to put D into play, or get damage-
prevention between them to sac Q to your Circle of Despair".

If two things _leave_ play at the same time, they do so _at the same time_ ...
and one can trigger off the leaving play of the other, because both are still
in play when the trigger happens. [There's no "I am in the process of leaving
play" zone that they have to go to to make the "If this leaves play, do that"
events trigger, any more than there's an "I am coming into play" zone between
Limbo/graveyard/hand/wherever and in-play.]

>That example is incorrect IMO.

IMO too.

>However it is an open question as to whether different events within
>a single step of a spell's resolution count as at the same time
>for purposes of Angelic Renewal.

Why would they? Angelic Renewal's ability can't be _played_ until after the
whole step is over. But I see nothing anywhere to suggest that Angelic Renewal's
ability can't _trigger_ until the step's over; Angelic Renewal is _not_
rule-triggered, so it doesn't wait and look at the state after the event is
done before it triggers.

[Walter Goodwin]

In article <6018pf$9...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
David DeLaney <if...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>
>No; I finally have proof, which unfortunately I can't exhibit yet because it
>involves things that they're planning to do with 6E rules so I can't tell you
>yet.

Urgg, now thats playing unfair Dave :) (BTW, I have proof that Tom's an alien,
but I can't show it until the CIA declassifies it would be similarly bad)

Besides, everyone who has studied consiracy theories in detail could tell you
that it's Tom behind the idiotic changes so he can publically denounce them
and throw people off the scent that he is indeed the secret mastermind behind
WOTC ;)

> But one of the proposed changes is of such _blinding_ idiocy that it
>would produce storms of rules questions from anyone who'd been playing the
>game more than a month, aimed in a direction that they _don't_ want to have
>happen ... and Tom's just as unhappy about it, he says, as bethmo and I have
>shown ourselves to be. If there were only Tom on the Design Team, I believe
>you'd admit that he wouldn't be planning to make changes that _he_ highly
>didn't approve of...

Eventually, you're going to have to tell us what this is, I'm dieing of curiousity.
(do it, and I'll tell you the secret behind more than one MMX applications' speed
increase when run on a MMX chip :)

>True. They are one event.

Did you ask Tom?

> There is no ruling I know of that says
>specifically "Mana sources behave exactly as if they were one event, but that
>are not one event, for reasons A and B"; mana sources are an event which
>happens to contain three separate steps in order - playing the mana source,
>having the mana source become successfully cast, and resolving the mana source.
>[There's no interrupt window, because that _is_ specifically ruled for mana
>soruces, and there's no chance to respond, ditto.]

As anyone that has played ill-defined games as CE, I can tell you that this logic
is wrong. Absence of proof that you can't do something, doesn't mean that you
can do something. I see no rule in the rulebook that doesn't say you can't shuffle
your library when it theoretically doesn't make a difference either, but we both
know you can't. Until it's specifically asked and answered, it is not a safe
assumption that MS are an event.

>_EXACTLY_. That's what I've been trying to get through to various people
>[different ones at different points in this thread]. One event may have several
>things happen during it in a specific order; an event is not a simultaneous
>mish-mash of everything that happens inside it. [It is _allowed_ to be, but
>it doesn't have to be.]

Thank god, after reading mike's post, I was having headaches just thinking about
the inferences.

>Maro's death's a bit different - _rules_-triggered things _do_ wait until
>an entire event's over before they can even trigger. Triggered things can
>trigger in the middle of an event, though they have to wait to be played until
>the event is over.

Hmm, come to think of it, it might be an interesting system to have all things
that trigger, trigger after the event, in any case, it's not consistant, TE's
and RT's should be mirrors IMHO.

>Things can _trigger_ in the middle of one event; they can't _rules_-trigger.
>If a mana source brought a legend into play and destroyed the already-in-play
>copy of that same legend, the rules-trigger to bury the new legend just plain
>would not go off. Regardless of which order inside the mana source the bringing
>into play and the destruction happened; rules triggers can't "see" things going
>on insde an event, they only see the state each time an event ends. [So you
>can't die from being poison-countered inside an event either, and landhome
>burial can't happen inside an event, etc.]

And you can bring a clone out under a eureka, and then drop an oubliette on
the copied legend.....

[David DeLaney]

dav...@msol.u-net.com (David) says:
>>Almost: probably Because The Design Team Said So.
>

>That's exactly what I just said, Dave.

No; I finally have proof, which unfortunately I can't exhibit yet because it

involves things that they're planning to do with 6E rules so I can't tell you

yet. But one of the proposed changes is of such _blinding_ idiocy that it

would produce storms of rules questions from anyone who'd been playing the
game more than a month, aimed in a direction that they _don't_ want to have
happen ... and Tom's just as unhappy about it, he says, as bethmo and I have
shown ourselves to be. If there were only Tom on the Design Team, I believe
you'd admit that he wouldn't be planning to make changes that _he_ highly
didn't approve of...

>>and are one event.
>
>false.

True. They are one event. There is no ruling I know of that says

specifically "Mana sources behave exactly as if they were one event, but that
are not one event, for reasons A and B"; mana sources are an event which
happens to contain three separate steps in order - playing the mana source,
having the mana source become successfully cast, and resolving the mana source.
[There's no interrupt window, because that _is_ specifically ruled for mana
soruces, and there's no chance to respond, ditto.]

>But unlike a simultaneous ordered event, the TEs _are_
>triggered in between steps.

_EXACTLY_. That's what I've been trying to get through to various people

[different ones at different points in this thread]. One event may have several
things happen during it in a specific order; an event is not a simultaneous
mish-mash of everything that happens inside it. [It is _allowed_ to be, but
it doesn't have to be.]

>For example in the [is it old by now?]

>wording of Wheel of Fortune there is no trigger for Maro's Death
>when you have no cards - between sub-steps.

Maro's death's a bit different - _rules_-triggered things _do_ wait until

an entire event's over before they can even trigger. Triggered things can
trigger in the middle of an event, though they have to wait to be played until
the event is over.

>However there

>is such a trrigger window between the sucessful casting of an
>MS spell and its resolution - otherwise things that trigger on
>a spell being cast wouldn't, just like they don't trigger on things
>that happen between sub-steps.

Things can _trigger_ in the middle of one event; they can't _rules_-trigger.

If a mana source brought a legend into play and destroyed the already-in-play
copy of that same legend, the rules-trigger to bury the new legend just plain
would not go off. Regardless of which order inside the mana source the bringing
into play and the destruction happened; rules triggers can't "see" things going
on insde an event, they only see the state each time an event ends. [So you
can't die from being poison-countered inside an event either, and landhome
burial can't happen inside an event, etc.]

>Dave, you seem to think that because you cannot play TEs or MS

>between two things that must make it "simultaneous".

Actually, no; I think exactly the opposite. [You may be confusing me with
another participant in this multiplayer thread... which granted it's fairly
easy to do since everyone's views are mutating as the thread advances.]

[David]

On 20 Sep 1997 19:28:11 GMT, if...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>
>dav...@msol.u-net.com (David) says:
>>On 13 Sep 1997 23:32:12 GMT, "Mike Marcelais" <mich...@microsoft.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>[IMHO: I think each "I sack-you sack" should be a separate event, but that's
>>>currently not true and beside the point
>>
>>I think we'll see that reversed before long.
>
>I hope so also. What gets _me_ is the "You can sac a multiply-enchanted
>permanent, then go on to sac each separate enchantment on it, because
>rules-triggered effects wait until the entire event's over before they can
>even trigger" aspect of Forbidden Ritual abuse.

I think the problem is over-use of words like "immidiately" and
"simultaneous" and "event" to mean "really really quickly" in a
very naive way. Over-use by Tom I mean. If he was forced
to explain himself once in a while then he'd realise that there
are lots of "realy realy quick" things out there now, and we'd
avoid this sort of mess more often.

david

[David]

On 22 Sep 1997 16:37:33 GMT, "Mike Marcelais" <mich...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>Speaking of 6E rules...here's a wild idea. It seems that sometimes the design
>team is a little too close to the rules when it makes revisions for the next
>edition and something blindingly obvious always gets missed when the next
>edition gets published. Why not select a few good people from the newsgroup
>(maybe six or so...I, the Ingos, maybe even David, etc), put us under NDA and
>let us preview the 6E rule changes; giving you feedback before the sh-t hits
>the public fan. :-)
>
>At least have /someone/ outside the design team cadre go over the 6E rules
>with a fine toothed Atog.

I think one of the reasons I easily spot problems with Tom's rulings
is that we _don't_ think the same way. IMO it is always worth getting
the outsider's view when hunting for problems.

I must say I was both suprised and delighted to hear that Dave had
been allowed to proof-read some of the Oracle, but I still can't see
Tom asking for help off anyone else. And if WotC has the general
idea that non-judges shouldn't get to even _see_ Oracle _after_
its published, because they haven't paid enough, or whatever,
I can't see them ever allowing a non-employee to see the 6E
rules early. Maybe Dave is half-counted as an employee because
of his contract.

David

[David]

On 20 Sep 1997 19:21:54 GMT, if...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>>So what? It would trigger any way. Soul Net is rulled to trigger if it
>>dies at the same time as the creature.
>
>_At the same time as_, David. You of all people know the difference between
>"A dies simultaneously with B" and "A dies, then B dies, both within a single
>event so that you aren't allowed to use mana sources between them to make C
>die, or use triggered effects between them to put D into play, or get damage-
>prevention between them to sac Q to your Circle of Despair".

Dave, unless you are just making stuff up, or relying on stuff you've
heard but aren't allowed to tell us, there is no such ruling.

There has been nothing said at all about how these sub-simultaneous
steps are meant to be dealt with, or even recognised.

One thing has been said - that a trigger won't set between two
sub-steps. This one ruling you have chosen to ignore.

So if you have something to report please do so, otherwise the
situation is that these things both happened within the same
event and so the Soul Net is dying at the same time as the
other creature. I mean, what is it supposed to mean to say
that it is all one event if the things that happen in the one event
don't happen simultaneously?

>>However it is an open question as to whether different events within
>>a single step of a spell's resolution count as at the same time
>>for purposes of Angelic Renewal.
>
>Why would they? Angelic Renewal's ability can't be _played_ until after the
>whole step is over. But I see nothing anywhere to suggest that Angelic Renewal's
>ability can't _trigger_ until the step's over; Angelic Renewal is _not_
>rule-triggered, so it doesn't wait and look at the state after the event is
>done before it triggers.

Maro doesn't die in the middle of Wheel of Fortune. You know the
ruling. Triggers don't spot these between-sub-steps things.

Why do you assume that rules trigger in different ways to the
way cards trigger? Why would they?

David

[David DeLaney]

wgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Walter Goodwin) writes:

>David DeLaney <if...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>>
>>No; I finally have proof, which unfortunately I can't exhibit yet because it
>>involves things that they're planning to do with 6E rules so I can't tell you
>>yet.
>

>Urgg, now thats playing unfair Dave :) (BTW, I have proof that Tom's an alien,
>but I can't show it until the CIA declassifies it would be similarly bad)

I _am_ sorry. I'd _like_ to tell you, 'cuz I know you'd all scream in much
the same manner. But until the actual changes get publicly released I can't,
much like I can't tell a couple details I know about Tempest yet.

I realize this sounds stonewallish. But...

>Eventually, you're going to have to tell us what this is, I'm dieing of curiousity.

Eventually, I will, I hope, be able to. Either a) when they implement it
[shudder] or, more hopefully, b) when they decide that it Wouldn't Be A Good
Idea After All and we get told they're not gonna do it for 6E...

>And you can bring a clone out under a eureka, and then drop an oubliette on
>the copied legend.....

At present, yes. I don't know if Eureka will become N separate events for
Oracle; I don't know if Forbidden Ritual will, either. I _hope_ they both
will, because it will "undo" several possible kinds of abuse for each one ...
but I don't know yet.

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.

[Mike Marcelais]

> No; I finally have proof, which unfortunately I can't exhibit yet because it
> involves things that they're planning to do with 6E rules so I can't tell
you

> yet. But one of the proposed changes is of such _blinding_ idiocy that it
> would produce storms of rules questions from anyone who'd been playing the
> game more than a month, aimed in a direction that they _don't_ want to have
> happen ... and Tom's just as unhappy about it, he says, as bethmo and I have
> shown ourselves to be. If there were only Tom on the Design Team, I believe
> you'd admit that he wouldn't be planning to make changes that _he_ highly
> didn't approve of...

Speaking of 6E rules...here's a wild idea. It seems that sometimes the design

team is a little too close to the rules when it makes revisions for the next
edition and something blindingly obvious always gets missed when the next
edition gets published. Why not select a few good people from the newsgroup
(maybe six or so...I, the Ingos, maybe even David, etc), put us under NDA and
let us preview the 6E rule changes; giving you feedback before the sh-t hits
the public fan. :-)

At least have /someone/ outside the design team cadre go over the 6E rules
with a fine toothed Atog.

--

[Alex Werner]

In article <6017oi$6...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,

David DeLaney <if...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>
>Why would they? Angelic Renewal's ability can't be _played_ until after the
>whole step is over. But I see nothing anywhere to suggest that Angelic Renewal's
>ability can't _trigger_ until the step's over; Angelic Renewal is _not_
>rule-triggered, so it doesn't wait and look at the state after the event is
>done before it triggers.

so the kick-ass forbiddn ritual-angelic renewal combo works? (If
I have 10 creatures and angelice renewal, I can sac 11 permanents
and get 10 of them back?)

[Chris Byler]

David DeLaney <if...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote in article
<60184c$7...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>...
>
> dav...@msol.u-net.com (David) says:
> >On 13 Sep 1997 23:32:12 GMT, "Mike Marcelais" <mich...@microsoft.com>
> >wrote:

> >>[IMHO: I think each "I sack-you sack" should be a separate event, but

that's
> >>currently not true and beside the point

> >I think we'll see that reversed before long.

> I hope so also. What gets _me_ is the "You can sac a multiply-enchanted
> permanent, then go on to sac each separate enchantment on it, because
> rules-triggered effects wait until the entire event's over before they
can
> even trigger" aspect of Forbidden Ritual abuse.

How is that different from saccing the enchantments first, then the
permanent, which you could do even if it were separate events?

I just don't see that as an "abuse". You are, after all, still sacrificing
multiple permanents.

Unless you mean that you can sac enchantments on a permanent your
*opponent* has just sacced.. but only a fool would fail to realize that the
enchanted permanent is likely to be the first thing sacced anyway.

> Dave

Chris

[Kyle Nishioka]

Mike Marcelais (mich...@microsoft.com) wrote:
: At least have /someone/ outside the design team cadre go over the 6E rules

: with a fine toothed Atog.

Incidently, when is 6E supposed to be released?

--
Kyle
nk...@hawaii.edu

#include <std_disclaimer.h>
#include <blue_ribbon>

[David]

>: other creature. I mean, what is it supposed to mean to say

>: that it is all one event if the things that happen in the one event
>: don't happen simultaneously?
>

>David, stop right here and ask yourself: Who is saying that things inside one
>event are supposed to happen simultaneously?

>You will find that nothing from Tom/Rules Team indictes that.

That's not a criticism though. Tom never bothers to indicate anything
about anything. If that was a reasonable criticism nothing in the
rules would work.

> It was an idea that
>persisted among the rules gurus here and in MTG-L, but which is IMHO false.
>The problem of simultaneity is not related to the concept of events.

Well what is an event then?

>: Maro doesn't die in the middle of Wheel of Fortune. You know the

>: ruling. Triggers don't spot these between-sub-steps things.
>

>That ruling is there specifically for rules triggers (probably meant for
>state driven triggers, though).

To borrow a phrase, Ingo, "You will find that nothing from Tom/Rules
Team indictes that."

>: Why do you assume that rules trigger in different ways to the

>: way cards trigger? Why would they?
>

>Because, as I tried to explain some times, rules triggers are up to now
>only state drive triggers, while most 'normal' triggers are event driven.

But I don't think that Tom recognises any difference. There has
never been any hint that there are two types of trigger that have
different timing occording to what sort of thing they trigger on.

The whole system works fine with just one type of trigger. I
don't see the need for inventing another type. Isn't the game
complex enough?

david

[Ingo Warnke]

David (dav...@msol.u-net.com) wrote:
: other creature. I mean, what is it supposed to mean to say
: that it is all one event if the things that happen in the one event
: don't happen simultaneously?

David, stop right here and ask yourself: Who is saying that things inside one
event are supposed to happen simultaneously?

You will find that nothing from Tom/Rules Team indictes that. It was an idea that

persisted among the rules gurus here and in MTG-L, but which is IMHO false.
The problem of simultaneity is not related to the concept of events.

: >>However it is an open question as to whether different events within

: >>a single step of a spell's resolution count as at the same time
: >>for purposes of Angelic Renewal.

: >
: >Why would they? Angelic Renewal's ability can't be _played_ until after the

: >whole step is over. But I see nothing anywhere to suggest that Angelic Renewal's
: >ability can't _trigger_ until the step's over; Angelic Renewal is _not_
: >rule-triggered, so it doesn't wait and look at the state after the event is
: >done before it triggers.

: Maro doesn't die in the middle of Wheel of Fortune. You know the

: ruling. Triggers don't spot these between-sub-steps things.

That ruling is there specifically for rules triggers (probably meant for
state driven triggers, though).

: Why do you assume that rules trigger in different ways to the

: way cards trigger? Why would they?

Because, as I tried to explain some times, rules triggers are up to now
only state drive triggers, while most 'normal' triggers are event driven.

Ingo Warnke

[Mike Marcelais]

Kyle Nishioka <nk...@Hawaii.Edu> wrote in article
<606iop$6...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...

> Mike Marcelais (mich...@microsoft.com) wrote:
> : At least have /someone/ outside the design team cadre go over the 6E rules
> : with a fine toothed Atog.
>
> Incidently, when is 6E supposed to be released?

Well, since Wizards will never give an official answer to that kind of
question:

3rd Ed released: 4/94
4th Ed released: 5/95
5th Ed released: 3/97
6th Ed released? 3/99

[Ingo Warnke]

David (dav...@msol.u-net.com) wrote:
: >: other creature. I mean, what is it supposed to mean to say
: >: that it is all one event if the things that happen in the one event
: >: don't happen simultaneously?
: >
: >David, stop right here and ask yourself: Who is saying that things inside one
: >event are supposed to happen simultaneously?

: >You will find that nothing from Tom/Rules Team indictes that.

: That's not a criticism though. Tom never bothers to indicate anything

: about anything. If that was a reasonable criticism nothing in the
: rules would work.

I think you make the mistake to take one interpretaion of what is unclear in what
Tom says and develop that ad absurdum.

: Well what is an event then?

I think it is an entity that defines by its boundaries were mana sources,
triggers etc. can happen.

: >That ruling is there specifically for rules triggers (probably meant for
: >state driven triggers, though).

: To borrow a phrase, Ingo, "You will find that nothing from Tom/Rules
: Team indictes that."

Right. That is my personal interpretation, which I still don't think is flawed.
But I think your interpretation of what 'event' means (that it encapsulates
things that happen simultaneously) is flawed. I think many disagreements
among us rules gurus come from the fact that each has his own interpretation
of some rule. When there is a disagreement, at least I try do 'defend' my point
of view, probably by using a more and more complicated set of definitions.

It is somehow analog to the astronomers using a geocentric view of the universe
that invented more and more 'cycles in cylces' that the planets were supposedly
doing on their general rotation about earth. The heliocentric view is much simpler
and (most importantly) true.

I'm currently in the similiar situation with CIP effects. I agree with you that
a theory that considers cards like Aether Flash etc. work on the condition of the
cards once they are in play is nice,simple and working. But I try to defend the
'old' view by inventing concepts of a 'card just about to enter play', because
the intuitive ideas behind that approach please me. But in contrast to the
astronomers, we don't have a true state to find out, the game designers can
create the 'nature' themselves.

Ingo Warnke

[David DeLaney]

dav...@msol.u-net.com (David) writes:
>>Why would they? Angelic Renewal's ability can't be _played_ until after the
>>whole step is over. But I see nothing anywhere to suggest that Angelic Renewal's
>>ability can't _trigger_ until the step's over; Angelic Renewal is _not_
>>rule-triggered, so it doesn't wait and look at the state after the event is
>>done before it triggers.
>
>Maro doesn't die in the middle of Wheel of Fortune. You know the
>ruling. Triggers don't spot these between-sub-steps things.

Maro's death is rules-triggered. Where on the card Maro does it say "Maro
dies whenever its toughness becomes 0", please? Angelic Renewal's ability
is plain old triggerd. I've let you know this before.

>Why do you assume that rules trigger in different ways to the
>way cards trigger? Why would they?

Because they _do_. Triggered abilities may trigger inside an event, though
they must wait until an event is over before they can be _played_; rules-
triggered effects can't trigger at all inside an event, but wait and look
at the state of the game after the event is over before they trigger ... and
if rules-triggered effects and triggered abilities both need to be played
after the same event, you play the rules-triggered effects _first_, and play
them all at once as one event. [This is what _started_ the thread, remember?
Or have you forgotten what set you off this time - the questions about "If
rules-triggered stuff _is_ played simultaneously, what happens when yadda
yadda yadda?"?]

Are you still lacking a list of what the rules-triggered situations that
exist _are_? Or are you simply trying to pretend that _you_ can define what's
rules-triggered and what's just triggerd, based on your likes and dislikes
for the rules?

[David DeLaney]

dav...@msol.u-net.com (David) says:
>> It was an idea that
>>persisted among the rules gurus here and in MTG-L, but which is IMHO false.
>>The problem of simultaneity is not related to the concept of events.
>

>Well what is an event then?

There's several things that are "events". In a spell or ability's resolution,
it's everything that happens up to each "then", for instance; if there are no
"then"s at all, there's only one event in the resolution. Becoming successfully
cast is an event; so is playing a spell or ability. [And I _believe_ using
a mana source is, and am currently asking about this, since if it's not, then
there's something that's made up of more than one event that _behaves_ exactly
as if it were only one for unspecified-as-yet reasons.] Declaring attackers and
declaring blockers are both events. [As far as I know, changing a phase is
_not_ an event, nor is declaring "I want to attack now please".]

Events can't have mana sources happen "inside" them, or triggered abilities
played "inside" them [though they can trigger then], or rules-triggered
abilities happening "inside" them. Spells and abilities _normally_ can't be
played inside one [though Word of Command breaks _that_ rule]; you simply do
whatever's going to happen in the event, in the order given or chosen, and
then go to the series after the event...

["Events" started off, essentially, as a reaction to _someone's_ incessant
harping about how it wasn't possible to tell what was faster than what
because everything needed to be Codified To Death Dammit, and about how it
was totally paradoxical to be able to use mana sources inside certain
resolutions. And now you're not happy with the result, either...]

>>That ruling is there specifically for rules triggers (probably meant for
>>state driven triggers, though).
>
>To borrow a phrase, Ingo, "You will find that nothing from Tom/Rules
>Team indictes that."

August rules-team rulings. I'm surprised, David - usually when you conveniently
"forget" a ruling to make one of your cases it's one that hasn't just recently
appeared ...

>But I don't think that Tom recognises any difference. There has
>never been any hint that there are two types of trigger that have
>different timing occording to what sort of thing they trigger on.

August rules-team Rulings, David.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flowe

It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to se

[Vincent Navarino]

>No; I finally have proof, which unfortunately I can't exhibit yet because it
>involves things that they're planning to do with 6E rules so I can't tell you
>yet.

Hehe, then since it's a change for 6e and 6e hasn't occured so the rules
aren't in use yet, how is this proof, Dave<g>?

> But one of the proposed changes is of such _blinding_ idiocy that it
>would produce storms of rules questions from anyone who'd been playing the
>game more than a month, aimed in a direction that they _don't_ want to have
>happen ... and Tom's just as unhappy about it, he says, as bethmo and I have
>shown ourselves to be.

This continued trend is alarming. I mean the "rules team" has so cleared
up the game since 5e with rules-triggered effects, damage prevention
reworks, triggered effects, mana sources, old card rewording that don't
match what the card always did, etc., it seems at times that the "rules
team" doesn't even know how to play the game. Or want anyone else to know
how to play it<g>.

> If there were only Tom on the Design Team, I believe
>you'd admit that he wouldn't be planning to make changes
> that _he_ highly didn't approve of...

I think the real thing here is what changes are really necessary and what
changes aren't. What changes would have more dire consequences for the
simplicity (laughing) of the game or which ones would cause so many
problems as not to be worth a change. I really think at this point that
these are considerations by the "rules team" that they haven't bothered to
care about. Another real problem is it seems even the people who know
better that comprise the "rules team" Bethmo and Tom are easily ignored
(well maybe not easy but ignored never the less) to the detriment of the
game and that's just plain silly.

I personally love all this between turns and resolution/sentences with mana
sources that just made the whole concept of mana sources entirely too
complicated and silly to justify the change to having mana sources. Well,
enough for that if the "rules team" can't take a good look back and realize
the effect they're having in complicating and not simplifying the game then
I guess this post and others won't have any effect either and the trend
will continue *sigh*.

Vincent

[David DeLaney]

vn...@frontiernet.net writes:
>>No; I finally have proof, which unfortunately I can't exhibit yet because it
>>involves things that they're planning to do with 6E rules so I can't tell you
>>yet.
>
>Hehe, then since it's a change for 6e and 6e hasn't occured so the rules
>aren't in use yet, how is this proof, Dave<g>?

Well, the question wasn't "What is the answer to this rules question?" ... it
was, instead, "Are Tom Wylie and the Design Team one and the same, inseparable,
and identical?". _That_ I can now disprove but not in public yet.

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.