Q: propaganda and Maddening Imp
jjchan
1) I've a Dauthi Slayer (Each turn, Dauthi Slayer attacks if able.) and
another 3/3 creature in play. I have enough mana. Am I forced to pay 2
for the DS to attack, although I don't want to attack at all?
2) If the above answer is no, may I declare an attack, but only pay 2
for the 3/3 creature to attack? (I do not pay for the DS)?
3) Maddening Imp (Flying TAP: All non-Wall creatures target opponent
controls attack this turn if able. At end of turn, destroy each of those
creatures that did not attack. Use this ability only during target
opponent's turn and only before combat.)
If my opponent has a creature with summon sickness, and I use MI's
ability, is it destroy at the end of the turn?
JJ
Andre Engels
>
> My opponent has a propaganda in play.
>
> 1) I've a Dauthi Slayer (Each turn, Dauthi Slayer attacks if able.) and
> another 3/3 creature in play. I have enough mana. Am I forced to pay 2
> for the DS to attack, although I don't want to attack at all?
No, if you don't pay, the Dauthi Slayer is not able to attack, so
'Dauthi Slayer attacks if able' is satisfied by not attacking with it.
> 2) If the above answer is no, may I declare an attack, but only pay 2
> for the 3/3 creature to attack? (I do not pay for the DS)?
Yes, you may.
> 3) Maddening Imp (Flying TAP: All non-Wall creatures target opponent
> controls attack this turn if able. At end of turn, destroy each of those
> creatures that did not attack. Use this ability only during target
> opponent's turn and only before combat.)
>
> If my opponent has a creature with summon sickness, and I use MI's
> ability, is it destroy at the end of the turn?
Yes, it is. When Maddening Imp came out an erratum on this was
expected, but apparently WotC has decided that they like it this
way.
--
Andre Engels, eng...@win.tue.nl, ICQ #6260644
http://www.win.tue.nl/cs/fm/engels/index_en.html
There is no limit to human stupidity and the universe,
although I am not sure about the latter. -- Albert Einstein
David DeLaney
>My opponent has a propaganda in play.
To answer the Subject: header question: if you can't pay the cost
for a creature to attack, and Maddening Imp was used before the attack,
the creature will die at end of turn.
>1) I've a Dauthi Slayer (Each turn, Dauthi Slayer attacks if able.) and
>another 3/3 creature in play. I have enough mana. Am I forced to pay 2
>for the DS to attack, although I don't want to attack at all?
You are _not_ forced to pay to attack. Propaganda slaps a "cannot attack you,
unless this happens" onto each creature; you are _never_ forced to
make something _able_ to attack. If you do pay, then the Slayer must
attack, and the 3/3 must attack if it has no other "cannot attack"
restrictions and has been hit by the Imp's "must attack.
>2) If the above answer is no, may I declare an attack, but only pay 2
>for the 3/3 creature to attack? (I do not pay for the DS)?
Yes. Again, you're not forced to make _anything at all_ able to attack
that is currently "cannot attack", even if it's "cannot attack unless
you do this".
>3) Maddening Imp (Flying TAP: All non-Wall creatures target opponent
>controls attack this turn if able. At end of turn, destroy each of those
>creatures that did not attack. Use this ability only during target
>opponent's turn and only before combat.)
>
>If my opponent has a creature with summon sickness, and I use MI's
>ability, is it destroy at the end of the turn?
Yes. The Imp doesn't say it lets those creatures off the hook.
[However, all your opponent needs to do to stop this is to only
put creatures into play, or steal them, _after_ his attack is over.]
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.
Cory Walker
>> controls attack this turn if able. At end of turn, destroy each of those
>> creatures that did not attack. Use this ability only during target
>> opponent's turn and only before combat.)
>>
>> If my opponent has a creature with summon sickness, and I use MI's
>> ability, is it destroy at the end of the turn?
>
>expected, but apparently WotC has decided that they like it this
>way.
>
>
>--
>Andre Engels, eng...@win.tue.nl, ICQ #6260644
>http://www.win.tue.nl/cs/fm/engels/index_en.html
I disagree.
E.1.5 - These spells and abilities may not be used on a creature which
has summoning sickness.
For this reason I conjecture that creatures with summoning sickness
are exempt from this effect, even if the effect isn't targeted?
Is my reason coherent?
Scork
==========
Scorky Walker
CS student
Webster, NY
Click here to reply >> mailto:jerk...@frontiernet.net
==========
Ingo Warnke
: >> 3) Maddening Imp (Flying TAP: All non-Wall creatures target opponent
: >> controls attack this turn if able. At end of turn, destroy each of those
: >> creatures that did not attack. Use this ability only during target
: >> opponent's turn and only before combat.)
: >>
: >> If my opponent has a creature with summon sickness, and I use MI's
: >> ability, is it destroy at the end of the turn?
: >
: >Yes, it is.
: I disagree.
: E.1.5 - These spells and abilities may not be used on a creature which
: has summoning sickness.
: For this reason I conjecture that creatures with summoning sickness
: are exempt from this effect, even if the effect isn't targeted?
: Is my reason coherent?
No. This is just a case where a new card made something in D'Angelos file
wrong. E.1.5 was never an actual rule. It just happend that for a long
time all the cards that forced creatures to attack (Nettling Imp, Norrit,
Siren's Call) could either not target summoning sick creatures or
didn't affect them.
The Maddening Imp changed that.
Ingo Warnke
David DeLaney
>>> 3) Maddening Imp (Flying TAP: All non-Wall creatures target opponent
>>> controls attack this turn if able. At end of turn, destroy each of those
>>> creatures that did not attack. Use this ability only during target
>>> opponent's turn and only before combat.)
>
>has summoning sickness.
That's a mistake in Stephen's Rulings file; I'll let him know.... Okay,
I've sent him an email.
Maddening Imp does indeed affect summon-sick creatures. Nearly all the
attack-or-die abilities _say on the card_ that they don't... but the Imp
does not, and can do so. [Stephen apparently mis-extrapolated this.]
kunbu
> >controls attack this turn if able. At end of turn, destroy each of those
> >creatures that did not attack. Use this ability only during target
> >opponent's turn and only before combat.)
> >
> >ability, is it destroy at the end of the turn?
>
>
Maarten van Beek
Yes, but if it didn't attack, it is destroyed. It doesn't matter if it
could attack or not. If the creature was enchanted by pacifism or
whatever, it would be destroyed as well. The Imp does two things:
1. All non-wall creatures must attack (if able)
2. At the end of the turn, all of these creatures that for some reason
or another did NOT attack (they were pacifismed, tapped or summoning
sick) are destroyed.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:maddening.isnt.it?@blacklotus.demon.nl
Mike Marcelais
>> >ability, is it destroy at the end of the turn?
>>
>> Yes. The Imp doesn't say it lets those creatures off the hook.
>>
>Why? A creature with summoning-sickness is _unable_ to attack!
The Imp merely states that any creature that didn't attack, except for walls,
is destroyed. It doesn't care /why/ the creature didn't attack, it still kills
it.
If your opponent has an imp out, you should summon your creatures after combat.
============================================================
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 =- ===
Maarten van Beek
>
> The Imp clearly states on the card that the creatures must attack IF ABLE.
Correct
> Creatures who suffer from summoning sickness are NOT ABLE TO ATTACK, nor are they
> able to tap to use any abilities, it's one of the first rules we learned in Magic.
Correct
> The creatures that are suffering from summoning sickness do not die from that, I'm
> surprised at your answers.
Yes they do. The imp does two things:
1. It forces all creatures ABLE to attack to do so (this excludes, as
you pointed out correctly, those creatures who have summoning sickness).
All these creatures MUST attack.
2. At then end of the turn it looks at all the creature that were there
when you used the imps ability, and it destroys ALL creatures that did
NOT attack (and the only reason they did not attack was because they
COULDN'T attack, because if they could have attacked, they would HAVE
HAD TO attack).
Maarten van Beek
mailto:they.W...@blacklotus.demon.nl
David DeLaney
>> >> Yes. The Imp doesn't say it lets those creatures off the hook.
>> >>
>> >Why? A creature with summoning-sickness is _unable_ to attack!
>>
>>The Imp merely states that any creature that didn't attack, except for walls,
>>is destroyed. It doesn't care /why/ the creature didn't attack, it still kills
>>it.
>The Imp clearly states on the card that the creatures must attack IF ABLE.
Yes.
>Creatures who suffer from summoning sickness are NOT ABLE TO ATTACK, nor are they
>able to tap to use any abilities, it's one of the first rules we learned in Magic.
Correct, exactly.
>The creatures that are suffering from summoning sickness do not die from that, I'm
Nope - incorrect. The Imp says it affects _all non-Wall creatures_ target
opponent controls. Not "all non-Wall creatures without summoning sickness
target opponent controls". All those creatures have to attack if able,
-and- all those creatures die at end of turn if they _did not_ attack.
Not if they didn't-attack-but-for-some-reason-other-than-being-sick;
if they _did not attack_. Summoning-sick creatures _cannot attack_. So
the Imp kills them at end of turn, since it quite deliberately does _not_
say it lets them out of dying.
Mike Marcelais
they
>able to tap to use any abilities, it's one of the first rules we learned in
Magic.
Maddening Imp tR Summon Imp 2B 1/1
Flying.
(T): All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls attack this turn if
able. At end of turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not
attack. Use this ability only during target opponent's turn and
only before combat.
All (nonwall) creatures that can attack, must attack. If they cannot attack
(for whatever reason), then they don't. At the end of the turn however, any
creature that didn't attack (for whatever reason) is destroyed. So, summoning
sick creatures are unable to attack, so they don't, so they get destroyed at
the end of the turn.
Nowhere does it say that creatures which are unable to attack aren't destroyed.
[In fact, /only/ creatures that were unable to attack are destroyed, since all
of the others have to attack.]
Ingo Kemper
>> 2. At then end of the turn it looks at all the creature that were there
>> when you used the imps ability, and it destroys ALL creatures that did
>> NOT attack (and the only reason they did not attack was because they
>> COULDN'T attack, because if they could have attacked, they would HAVE
>> HAD TO attack).
>
>But the rest of the text on Maddening Imp says "At end of turn, destroy each of THOSE
>creature that did not attack." The word "those" referrs to the ABLE creatures not the
>unable ones.
No, it doesn't. Read the card. The first sentence refers to "all
non-Wall creatures target opponent controls" (_not_ only those that
are able to attack), so the "each of those" refers to the same set of
creatures.
Ingo Kemper
--
__ _ __ __ __ __
__/ /_/ \/ /_/____/_ |___Sky...@uni-muenster.de___---===> \
/_/ /_/\_/ |__/ |__/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---===>__/
Phaedrus
>[Maarten van Beek said:]
>> 2. At then end of the turn it looks at all the creature that were there
>> when you used the imps ability, and it destroys ALL creatures that did
>> NOT attack (and the only reason they did not attack was because they
>> COULDN'T attack, because if they could have attacked, they would HAVE
>> HAD TO attack).
>But the rest of the text on Maddening Imp says "At end of turn, destroy each
>of THOSE creature that did not attack." The word "those" referrs to the
>ABLE creatures not the unable ones.
It says, "All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls attack this
turn if able. At end of turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not
attack." The "those creatures" refers to "all non-Wall creatures target
opponent controls". Note that it does _not_ say "All non-Wall creatures
target opponent controls that can legally attack must do so this turn. At
end of turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not attack." The effect
applies to all the opponent's non-Wall creatures, not just the ones that can
legally attack. As Maarten said, if it only applied to creatures that can
legally attack, the "destroy the creatures that did not attack" section would
be meaningless, because the only reason that a creature could fail to attack
in the first place is if it were legally unable to do so.
--
\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/
David DeLaney
>> 2. At then end of the turn it looks at all the creature that were there
>> when you used the imps ability, and it destroys ALL creatures that did
>> NOT attack (and the only reason they did not attack was because they
>> COULDN'T attack, because if they could have attacked, they would HAVE
>> HAD TO attack).
>
>But the rest of the text on Maddening Imp says "At end of turn, destroy each
Yes, it does.
> The word "those" referrs to the ABLE creatures not the unable ones.
No, this is incorrect. It refers to the "those creatures" referred to
earlier: "All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls". It doesn't make
any distinction between those that were able to attack and those that
weren't. the Imp's ability affected all of them with the first part, it's
just that some were not able to follow the instruction; it affects all of
them with the second part too.
Mike Marcelais
>> when you used the imps ability, and it destroys ALL creatures that did
>> NOT attack (and the only reason they did not attack was because they
>> COULDN'T attack, because if they could have attacked, they would HAVE
>> HAD TO attack).
>>
>
>But the rest of the text on Maddening Imp says "At end of turn, destroy each
of THOSE
not the
>unable ones.
"THOSE" refers to "all creatures target player controls".
THOSE creatures must attack if able. THOSE creatures that don't (for whatever
reason) are destroyed.
Maarten van Beek
>
> <snip>
>
> > 2. At then end of the turn it looks at all the creature that were there
> > when you used the imps ability, and it destroys ALL creatures that did
> > NOT attack (and the only reason they did not attack was because they
> > COULDN'T attack, because if they could have attacked, they would HAVE
> > HAD TO attack).
> >
>
> But the rest of the text on Maddening Imp says "At end of turn, destroy each of THOSE
> creature that did not attack." The word "those" referrs to the ABLE creatures not the
> unable ones.
Ok, one more time. LEt's go through the lines one by one:
1st: T: All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls attack this
turn if able.
Ok, this is clear. We look at the group of "non-wall creatures target
opponent controls". This doesn't say: "non-summoning-sick creatures" or
"untapped creaures". The only creatures excluded from this group are
Walls. And what does it say about this group of creatures? It says that
they must attack if they can.
2nd: At end of turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not
attack. Use this ability only during target opponent's turn and only
before combat.
So at the end of turn, each of those creatures from the group we just
mentioned, i.e. "non-wall creatures target opponent controls" do
something else. Namely, they are destroyed if they did not attack. But
they _had_ to attack if they were able to. So only those that were _not_
able to attack (and thus didn't have to attack) will be destroyed.
I really hope it's clear to you now....
Carsten Loehn
>
> Maarten van Beek wrote:
>
> > Rob Munda wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > <snip>
> >
> > I really hope it's clear to you now....
> >
>
> card not being intended for CHEAPNESS. I'm saying that the card is mis-worded and gives it a
> cheap ability that it was never intended to have. Quoting the card text and explaining over
> and over is getting us nowhere if you refuse to look at the fact that the designers never
> intended to card to be played in this manner.
>
> Rob.
Let me state two things:
1. You're not a card designer. How do you know what they thought when
they created the card? I think they're trying to make card textes as
easy as possible and there was no need to add extra explanations about
summon sick creatures because in principle there are no problems with
destroying summon-sick creatures as well. So let's play the card as how
it is worded.
2. I think regardless of wording the Imp is no spoiler. You must play
carefully when he is in play but there are a lot of other cards you have
to play carefully with.
So please stop this useless discussion.
Bye,
Carsten
P.S.: I can understand your point. I had some equal feeling about the
Verdant Force discussion. There I _really_ felt that the rules team was
on the way to totally misinterpret the original meaning of the card
because they wanted to avoid some errata. Glad to see that this problem
is fixed (with adjusting the rules)..
Brian Trosko
: I understood it when i read the card, you completely ignored everything i wrote about the
: card not being intended for CHEAPNESS. I'm saying that the card is mis-worded and gives it a
: cheap ability that it was never intended to have. Quoting the card text and explaining over
: and over is getting us nowhere if you refuse to look at the fact that the designers never
: intended to card to be played in this manner.
On the contrary, "attack or die" effects are fairly common, and this is
*exactly* what they are intended to do.
If your interpretation of the card were correct, the part that reads
"Destroy any of those creatures which did not attack" would be entirely
useless text, since it would affect only creatures which could attack but
did not, and all of those creatures were *required* to attack, so there
could be none which did not.
BY the rules of English grammer, the "those creatures" does indeed refer
to the creatures initially mentioned: all of the opponent's non-Wall
creatures.
You are wrong.
David DeLaney
>> No, it doesn't. Read the card. The first sentence refers to "all
>> non-Wall creatures target opponent controls" (_not_ only those that
>> are able to attack), so the "each of those" refers to the same set of
>> creatures.
>
Unfortunately, you're incorrect.
>The exact text, from start to
>finish says, "All non-wall creatures target opponent controls attack this turn
>if able. At the end of the turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not
>attack. Use this ability only during target opponent's turn and only before
>combat." The part that says "destroy each of those creatures that did not
>attack" refers to the entire first sentence, not just part of it.
Nope. It refers to the "those creatures" denoted in the first sentence.
>"Those creatures" = "All non-wall creatures target opponent controls attack
>this turn if able."
No. "Those creatures" = "All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls".
That's the noun phrase in that sentence. The rest of the sentence is a
verb ["attack"] and modifiers for the verb ["this turn", "if able"]. None
of the rest of the sentence is further modifying the noun phrase.
The Imp affects all non_Wall creatures that target opponent controls;
it has two effects on them. It makes them all attack if able; it kills them
at end of turn if it did not attack. We are sorry that you have a different
interpretation somehow, but merely insisting that yours is correct in the
face of _all_ the people here who do actually know what they're talking about
telling you politely that you're wrong is, to put it mildly, not a very
observant behavior pattern...
Dave "several 90-character lines deleted" DeLaney
Maarten van Beek
> > >> when you used the imps ability, and it destroys ALL creatures that did
> > >> NOT attack (and the only reason they did not attack was because they
> > >> COULDN'T attack, because if they could have attacked, they would HAVE
> > >> HAD TO attack).
> > >
> > >But the rest of the text on Maddening Imp says "At end of turn, destroy each of THOSE
> > >creature that did not attack." The word "those" referrs to the ABLE creatures not the
> > >unable ones.
> >
> > non-Wall creatures target opponent controls" (_not_ only those that
> > are able to attack), so the "each of those" refers to the same set of
> > creatures.
> >
>
> -------I really, strongly disagree with you on this one.
Oh no! He is disagreeing with an Ingo......
> The exact text, from start to
> finish says, "All non-wall creatures target opponent controls attack this turn if able. At
> the end of the turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not attack. Use this ability
> only during target opponent's turn and only before combat." The part that says "destroy
> each of those creatures that did not attack" refers to the entire first sentence, not just
> part of it. "Those creatures" = "All non-wall creatures target opponent controls attack
> this turn if able."
Wait. This is logically impossible. "Those creatures" is a noun clause.
But "All non-wall creatures target opponent controls attack this turn if
able." is an enitre sentence. If they were the same, you would be able
to replace one with the other. In your example that would give:
At the end of the turn, destroy each of all non-wall creatures target
opponent
controls attack this turn if able that did not attack.
This makes no sense. I know enough about English grammar to know that
what you suggest can never be gramatically correct.
> In other words it destroys the "able" creatures, not the unable ones.
Apart from the fact that it doesn't say that, if it did say what you
suggest it says, that would be a complete non-statement.
1. All able creatures must attack.
2. All able creatures that did not attack will die (which is impossible,
since all able creatures had to attack).
What the effect basically does is that it forces all creatures to attack
and those which cannot (and thus do not) attack, are destroyed.
> Maybe it isn't written as clearly as it should have been, I'll be the first to agree to
> that. This isn't the first card with confusing text. Look at the original Siren's Call. The
> same thing happened with that and WOTC had to change the text for future printings cause
> people were trying to abuse it, just like they are with the Imp. According to your "logic"
> if any of the opponents creatures are tapped they also die.
Exactly. Precisely. Entirely correct. All tapped creatures die too.
> Are you going to abuse that too
> because it isn't spelled out for you in the text?
Not abusing. It _does_ destroy all tapped creatures, since they did not
attack.
> What you're telling me is that it is a
> cheap way to destroy any creatures that the opponent brings out on that turn (before
> combat) or any tapped creature opponent controls, this card was never intended for that
> purpose and you know it.
It is still what it does. It effectively forces you to summon your
creatures _after_ your combat subphase, since then they will be out of
danger.
> Sure the opponent can bring out creatures after combat, but I
> don't think he/she should be forced to do so by a little 1/1 creature. I bet you argued in
> favor of the Wall of Roots fiasco too, we all knew there was no such thing as "inbetween
> turns", but some of you still argued in favor of it being a legal thing to do. Some people
> just like cheapness I guess. This card is the same thing. The card was never intended to be
> a cheap kill, we all know that. I don't understand why you are arguing that it is.
It does do what it says it does. And I know that what I am going to say
now is a non-argument, so it is not intended as an argument, but if all
the rules gurus and the official NetRep say it is not the way you think
it is, might it be possible that you could be just a little wrong?????
If what
> you say were true, look at this scenario. Player one has a Maddening Imp in play. Player 2
> has Aluren and Recycle in play. By some twist of fate and maybe Gaea's Blessing or
> something all of Player 2's creatures are on top of his library and are all under 3 for
> casting cost (yeah, I know it would never happen in a million years). Player 2 casts 40
> creatures in one turn. Player 1 taps the Maddening Imp and all 40 of Player 2's creatures
> die, from one simple card tap. No additional cost. No penalty to player 1 at all. Nothing.
> Complete annihilation. You're telling me that one single card tap with no cost is a legal
> way to destroy 40 creatures. You know that was never the intention of the card designers.
They never designed the game to bring into play 40 creatures in one turn
either, so that's a non-argument. Cards do not always do what they are
designed to do. And Maddening Imp has proven not to be so unbalanced
that it disrupts play, since it has been played as we say it is played
since the beginning of time (which was when Alpha came out).
> This is just another case of people abusing a card because it wasn't written "anal-ly"
> enough for people. We've all used Siren's Call and we know how that works, this is the same
> thing only it is a creature ability. Stop trying to justify cheapness, there's enough of
> that out there.
My final word: It still kills off all creatures that did not attack, not
caring whether they could have attacked. And in fact, if they could have
attacked, they had had to attack, so they would not have been destroyed
by the effect.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:it.doe...@blacklotus.demon.nl
Maarten van Beek
>
> Maarten van Beek wrote:
>
> > Rob Munda wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > <snip>
> >
> > I really hope it's clear to you now....
> >
>
> card not being intended for CHEAPNESS. I'm saying that the card is mis-worded and gives it a
> cheap ability that it was never intended to have.
Ah, I assume you are of the R&D team then......
> Quoting the card text and explaining over
> and over is getting us nowhere if you refuse to look at the fact that the designers never
> intended to card to be played in this manner.
Ok, there are two possible things:
1. You are an employee with WotC and you do indeed now what the card was
intended to do. In that case, you did a bad job wording it.
2. More likely, you do not work for WotC, and you do not really know for
sure what the card was intended to do.
The card is not overpowered, at least, I haven't seen tourneys where
everyone played with four Imps in their deck. It does complicate the
game a little. I don't see the problem with that.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:r&d.team...@blacklotus.demon.nl
Keith Piddington
: >> when you used the imps ability, and it destroys ALL creatures that did
: >> NOT attack (and the only reason they did not attack was because they
: >> COULDN'T attack, because if they could have attacked, they would HAVE
: >> HAD TO attack).
: >But the rest of the text on Maddening Imp says "At end of turn, destroy each
: >of THOSE creature that did not attack." The word "those" referrs to the
: >ABLE creatures not the unable ones.
: It says, "All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls attack this
: turn if able. At end of turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not
: attack." The "those creatures" refers to "all non-Wall creatures target
: opponent controls". Note that it does _not_ say "All non-Wall creatures
It's the "if able" that is confusing...it appears to read that if for
whatever reason a creature is unable to attack (Pacified, tapped for
another effect, etc.) then it can safely ignore the Imp's call. A
better wording would be "All non-Wall creatures target opponent
controls must attack this turn. At end of turn, destroy each of
those creatures that did not attack. Play this ability only on
that opponent's turn." (I've often wondered what prevents me from
using an Imp on a turn in which the target opponent cannot attack
at all...say on a third player's turn...)
: target opponent controls that can legally attack must do so this turn. At
: end of turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not attack." The effect
: applies to all the opponent's non-Wall creatures, not just the ones that can
: legally attack. As Maarten said, if it only applied to creatures that can
: legally attack, the "destroy the creatures that did not attack" section would
: be meaningless, because the only reason that a creature could fail to attack
: in the first place is if it were legally unable to do so.
This makes the Imp work more like I think it should...in our crew,
we've always played it that using a Tim's ability, for example, and
thus tapping it before the attack phase, made it un-Imp-able as it
could not then legally attack...because it is "unable".
Has any sort of official errate been issued to define what "able"
means in this case? (summon-sick critters, for example...immune
(as the wording would suggest) or not (as I've read in here)?)
Cheers!
Keith
Keith Piddington
Maarten van Beek (webm...@blacklotus.demon.nl) wrote:
: Ok, one more time. LEt's go through the lines one by one:
: 1st: T: All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls attack this
: turn if able.
: Ok, this is clear. We look at the group of "non-wall creatures target
: opponent controls". This doesn't say: "non-summoning-sick creatures" or
: "untapped creaures". The only creatures excluded from this group are
: Walls. And what does it say about this group of creatures? It says that
: they must attack if they can.
: 2nd: At end of turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not
: attack. Use this ability only during target opponent's turn and only
: before combat.
The confusion comes from the "those"...it can easily be read to
mean "those creatures who were able to attack but did not"...as
opposed to meaning all of 'em, able or not.
: So at the end of turn, each of those creatures from the group we just
: mentioned, i.e. "non-wall creatures target opponent controls" do
: something else. Namely, they are destroyed if they did not attack. But
: they _had_ to attack if they were able to. So only those that were _not_
: able to attack (and thus didn't have to attack) will be destroyed.
When put that way, it makes sense...*if* you interpret the "if able"
as only applying to the first clause...if the "if able" applies to
the second clause as well, then creatures which were unable to
attack due to whatever reason would be OK...thus defeating the Imp's
purpose, I know...I'm just trying to point out how easy this is
to misinterpret...
Cheers!
Keith
Maarten van Beek
A creature is able to attack if you could declare it as an attacker. So
creatures are unable to attack when...
1) ...they are tapped
2) ...they are summoning sick
3) ...a creature has landhome and opponent doesn't have the required
land type
4) ...an effect prevents the creature from attacking (e.g.Change of
Heart,
Ensnaring Bridge, Light of Day, Pacifism)
5) ...their card text yields them unable to attack under circumstances
(e.g
Orcish Conscripts, Monstrous Hound, Mogg Flunkies)
By the way, the wording does _not_, I repeat _not_ suggest that Summon
Sick creatures are exempt. Creatures unable to attack cannot attack
(that is what _unable_ means) so they cannot be forced to attack.
Only creatures unable to do so could not have attacked in the first
place, so only they could be destroyed. "Able" creatures could never de
destroyed by this effect, since if they were "able", they must have
attacked.
These effects are usually referred to as "attack or die" effects. This
is the shortest and most intuitive explanantion I can think of.
Creatures either must attack (if they can) and if not, they die. It's as
simple as that.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:maddedin...@blacklotus.demon.nl
Maarten van Beek
>
> Distribution:
>
> Maarten van Beek (webm...@blacklotus.demon.nl) wrote:
>
> : Ok, one more time. LEt's go through the lines one by one:
>
> : turn if able.
>
> : opponent controls". This doesn't say: "non-summoning-sick creatures" or
> : "untapped creaures". The only creatures excluded from this group are
> : Walls. And what does it say about this group of creatures? It says that
> : they must attack if they can.
>
> : 2nd: At end of turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not
> : attack. Use this ability only during target opponent's turn and only
> : before combat.
>
> The confusion comes from the "those"...it can easily be read to
> mean "those creatures who were able to attack but did not"...as
> opposed to meaning all of 'em, able or not.
Even if it could be read like that, it would be a non-statement. There
cannot be any creature that were able to attack but did not, since if
they had been able to attack they were forced to do so.
And I still say that those cannot be read to mean anything but what we
(me, Ingo, David etc) say it means (at least, not in a gramatically
correct way). Of course, people could always interpret it in a different
way, but that's a problem that cannot be so easily solved.
> : So at the end of turn, each of those creatures from the group we just
> : mentioned, i.e. "non-wall creatures target opponent controls" do
> : something else. Namely, they are destroyed if they did not attack. But
> : they _had_ to attack if they were able to. So only those that were _not_
> : able to attack (and thus didn't have to attack) will be destroyed.
>
> When put that way, it makes sense...*if* you interpret the "if able"
> as only applying to the first clause...if the "if able" applies to
> the second clause as well, then creatures which were unable to
> attack due to whatever reason would be OK...thus defeating the Imp's
> purpose, I know...I'm just trying to point out how easy this is
> to misinterpret...
I understand your point. I agree that it is not impossible to
misinterpret "attack or die" cards. Actually, all Magic cards can be
misinterpreted, one more easily than the other. I assume (and with their
"Walls cannot attck"-explanatory text, they even proved it) that WotC is
always trying to word the cards in such a way that they are as clear as
possible on what they do.
I do not believe that the "attack or die" cards are the easiest card to
understand when reading the text. But neither do I believe they are
among the hardest. And I don't think I could come up with a car text
that is much clearer than the one they are using right now, without
making it several lines longer.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:madden...@blacklotus.demon.nl
Bauman Rare Books
>
> It's the "if able" that is confusing...it appears to read that if for
> whatever reason a creature is unable to attack (Pacified, tapped for
> another effect, etc.) then it can safely ignore the Imp's call. A
> better wording would be "All non-Wall creatures target opponent
> controls must attack this turn. At end of turn, destroy each of
> those creatures that did not attack. Play this ability only on
> that opponent's turn."
Better still: "All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls must
attack this turn if able. At end of turn, destroy all non-Wall creatures
target opponent controls that were unable to attack. Play this ability
only on target opponent's turn, before the attack phase."
I agree with Maarten van Beek, by the way, that this is the only
sensible way to interpret the Imp's ability. If the destruction effect
only applied to non-Wall creatures that were able to attack, no
creatures would ever be destroyed.
-- M. Ruff
Phaedrus
Bauman Rare Books <baumanr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Keith Piddington wrote:
>>
>> It's the "if able" that is confusing...it appears to read that if for
>> whatever reason a creature is unable to attack (Pacified, tapped for
>> another effect, etc.) then it can safely ignore the Imp's call. A
>> better wording would be "All non-Wall creatures target opponent
>> controls must attack this turn. At end of turn, destroy each of
>> those creatures that did not attack. Play this ability only on
>> that opponent's turn."
>
>Better still: "All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls must
>attack this turn if able. At end of turn, destroy all non-Wall creatures
>target opponent controls that were unable to attack. Play this ability
>only on target opponent's turn, before the attack phase."
No; that would give it a very different meaning. In that case, if
your opponent summoned a non-Wall creature later in the turn (after the
Imp's ability resolved), it would be destroyed. That's not the way it
works; only creatures in play at the time the Imp's ability resolves can
be affected.
jbeckmon
is unable to attack. Since Maddening Imp says attacks if able the
summoning sickness is a restriction on this clause. It is not ABLE
to attack if it has summoning sickness. I caught the Duelist in
an error on a rule once when I wrote to WOTC and Inquest is in Error
on this question.
Maarten van Beek wrote:
>
> Rob Munda wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > 2. At then end of the turn it looks at all the creature that were there
> > > when you used the imps ability, and it destroys ALL creatures that did
> > > NOT attack (and the only reason they did not attack was because they
> > > COULDN'T attack, because if they could have attacked, they would HAVE
> > > HAD TO attack).
> > >
> >
> > But the rest of the text on Maddening Imp says "At end of turn, destroy each of THOSE
> > creature that did not attack." The word "those" referrs to the ABLE creatures not the
> > unable ones.
>
> Ok, one more time. LEt's go through the lines one by one:
>
> 1st: T: All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls attack this
> turn if able.
>
> Ok, this is clear. We look at the group of "non-wall creatures target
> opponent controls". This doesn't say: "non-summoning-sick creatures" or
> "untapped creaures". The only creatures excluded from this group are
> Walls. And what does it say about this group of creatures? It says that
> they must attack if they can.
>
> 2nd: At end of turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not
> attack. Use this ability only during target opponent's turn and only
> before combat.
>
> So at the end of turn, each of those creatures from the group we just
> mentioned, i.e. "non-wall creatures target opponent controls" do
> something else. Namely, they are destroyed if they did not attack. But
> they _had_ to attack if they were able to. So only those that were _not_
> able to attack (and thus didn't have to attack) will be destroyed.
>
> I really hope it's clear to you now....
>
jbeckmon
them. From the wording on the card it will only destroy the creatures
that are able to attack if they do not attack. So if for some reason a
creature is not able to attack that round then it will not be destroyed.
If a Propaganda is out then the creatures are not able to attack unless
the person decides to pay the extra mana. If they are unable to attack
they will not be destroyed by the Imp.
David DeLaney wrote:
>
> Rob Munda <r...@mwci.net> writes:
> >> No, it doesn't. Read the card. The first sentence refers to "all
> >> non-Wall creatures target opponent controls" (_not_ only those that
> >> are able to attack), so the "each of those" refers to the same set of
> >> creatures.
> >
> >I really, strongly disagree with you on this one.
>
> Unfortunately, you're incorrect.
>
> >The exact text, from start to
> >finish says, "All non-wall creatures target opponent controls attack this turn
> >if able. At the end of the turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not
> >attack. Use this ability only during target opponent's turn and only before
> >combat." The part that says "destroy each of those creatures that did not
> >attack" refers to the entire first sentence, not just part of it.
>
> Nope. It refers to the "those creatures" denoted in the first sentence.
>
> >"Those creatures" = "All non-wall creatures target opponent controls attack
> >this turn if able."
>
David DeLaney
>Phaedrus (phae...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>: It says, "All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls attack this
>: turn if able. At end of turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not
>: attack." The "those creatures" refers to "all non-Wall creatures target
>: opponent controls". Note that it does _not_ say "All non-Wall creatures
>
>we've always played it that using a Tim's ability, for example, and
>thus tapping it before the attack phase, made it un-Imp-able as it
>could not then legally attack...because it is "unable".
That's not correct. The Imp, as I keep having to say for some reason,
affects what? "All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls". Is Tim
controlled by target opponent? Yes. Is he a Wall? No. Then he must attack
if able this turn, _and_ he will be destroyed at end of turn if h -did not-
attack.
Thus, if he wasn't able to attack, he will be destroyed at end of turn. I
honestly don't see what's so confusing about this.
>Has any sort of official errate been issued to define what "able"
>means in this case? (summon-sick critters, for example...immune
>(as the wording would suggest) or not (as I've read in here)?)
The wording suggests nothing of the sort - try reading the card, please.
It says precisely what it affects, and the two things it does to each
creature it affects. It doesn't say anything about not affecting
summon-sick creatures. It _does_ specifically say it can't affect Walls.
[Even if they -can- attack for some reason.]
Dave
Maarten van Beek
>
> If the creatures are not able to attack then the imp will not destroy
> them.
It will destroy "all non-wall creatures target opponent controls" that
did not attack.
> From the wording on the card it will only destroy the creatures
> that are able to attack if they do not attack.
That is not what the card says. And if it did, it would be very strange,
since all creatures able to attack _must_ attack, so there can never be
creatures that are able to attack but do not do so. In that case, it
would be a pretty void statement.
> So if for some reason a
> creature is not able to attack that round then it will not be destroyed.
> If a Propaganda is out then the creatures are not able to attack unless
> the person decides to pay the extra mana. If they are unable to attack
> they will not be destroyed by the Imp.
You are never required to make your creatures able to attack. So if
propaganda is out, all creatures are unable to attack, unless you choose
to make them able to attack.
When you use the maddening imp, it puts an effect on all
non-wall-creatures controlled by a target opponent. This effect says: "I
must attack this turn, if I can. At the end of this turn, destroy me if
I did not attack".
That's what maddening imp does.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:really.a.ma...@blacklotus.demon.nl
Maarten van Beek
>
> No this doesn't work. If a creature has summoning sickness then it
> is unable to attack.
Correct, of course, we all agree on this.
> Since Maddening Imp says attacks if able the
> summoning sickness is a restriction on this clause.
Yes, the creature does not have to attack, since it not able to do so.
We agree on this too.
> It is not ABLE to attack if it has summoning sickness.
I agree. It is not able to attack, so it does not attack, so it is
destroyed since it did not attack.
Please read the card:
"T: All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls attack this turn if
able. At end of turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not
attack. Use this ability only during target opponent's turn and only
before combat."
Let' say we activate Maddening Imp during opponent's upkeep. What is the
subject of the first sentence? It is: "All non-wall creatures target
opponent controls". If you don't agree on this, the discussion ends
here, since that's a grammatical issue.
And whatis the predicate to this sentence (ie.e what is is the subject
does)? It
"attacks". And we have to verbal modifiers to this predicate: "this
turn" (a temporal modifier) and "if able" (a limitating modifier).
Ok, on to the next sentence. "At the end of turn" is a verbal modifier
(temporal), "destroys" is the predicate. There is no subject in this
sentence, since it is in the passive mode. Then "those creatures that
did not attack". It is the direct object of the sentence.
Let's have a closer look into that direct object. The last part, "that
did not attack" is a limiting subclause, and we are not concerned with
that yet. The first part, "those creatures" uses a demonstrative
pronoun. So it must correspond to a grmmatical entity in the last
sentence. The only possible option is the subject of the first sentence:
"all non-wall creatures target opponent controls". So we can substitute
this for "those creatures". That will yield a new sentence: (which is
semantically identical to the original one):
"At the end of turn, destroy all non-wall creatures target opponent
controls that did not attack."
Of course, it can only affect creatures that were in play when the
Maddening Imp's ability resolved. But it does destroy all Summoning-sick
and tapped creatures.
> I caught the Duelist in
> an error on a rule once when I wrote to WOTC and Inquest is in Error
> on this question.
I cannot see the relevance of this to the discussion.
Matt Ruff
>
> In article <35E193...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Bauman Rare Books <baumanr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Keith Piddington wrote:
> >>
> >> It's the "if able" that is confusing...it appears to read that if for
> >> whatever reason a creature is unable to attack (Pacified, tapped for
> >> another effect, etc.) then it can safely ignore the Imp's call. A
> >> better wording would be "All non-Wall creatures target opponent
> >> controls must attack this turn. At end of turn, destroy each of
> >> those creatures that did not attack. Play this ability only on
> >> that opponent's turn."
> >
> >Better still: "All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls must
> >attack this turn if able. At end of turn, destroy all non-Wall creatures
> >target opponent controls that were unable to attack. Play this ability
> >only on target opponent's turn, before the attack phase."
>
> No; that would give it a very different meaning. In that case, if
> your opponent summoned a non-Wall creature later in the turn (after the
> Imp's ability resolved), it would be destroyed. That's not the way it
> works; only creatures in play at the time the Imp's ability resolves can
> be affected.
OK, how about this: "T: Put a Foul Temper counter on each non-Wall
creature target opponent controls. Creatures with Foul Temper counters
must attack this turn if able. At end of turn, destroy all creatures
with Foul Temper counters that did not attack, then remove all Foul
Temper counters. Play this ability only on target opponent's turn,
before the attack."
-- Matt Ruff
Dan Sena
Matt Ruff wrote:
I t shouldn't be that confusing. For example, Juggernaut must attack IF ABLE.
No penalty for not attacking, it just has to happen. So if a creature is
tapped for some reason (like tim) then it's safe.
Dan Sena
bre...@pacific.net
Dan Johnson
Dan Sena <bre...@pacific.net> wrote:
>I t shouldn't be that confusing. For example, Juggernaut must attack IF ABLE.
>No penalty for not attacking, it just has to happen. So if a creature is
>tapped for some reason (like tim) then it's safe.
Except that Maddening Imp EXPLICITLY imposes a penalty on non-wall
opponent-controlled creatures that don't attack.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
pano...@iquest.net
http://www.members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
David DeLaney
>If the creatures are not able to attack then the imp will not destroy
>them.
This is not correct. The Imp affects all non-Wall creatures target
opponent controls. It does two things to them: it makes them attack f
able, and it destroys them at end of turn if they did not attack.
> From the wording on the card it will only destroy the creatures
>that are able to attack if they do not attack.
Nope. Try reading the card, please. "All non-Wall creatures target opponent
controls"; that's what it affects. "attack this turn if able"; that's the
first thing it does to them. "At end of turn"; that's saying the second effect
is delayed. "destroy each of those creatures if it did not attack"; that's
the second part of the effect.
> So if for some reason a
>creature is not able to attack that round then it will not be destroyed.
This is not correct. Please see the Rulings file.
>If a Propaganda is out then the creatures are not able to attack unless
>the person decides to pay the extra mana. If they are unable to attack
>they will not be destroyed by the Imp.
This is also not correct.
I hate to say this, but you really really need to find and read the Rulings
file before posting anything else on this thread. Posting incorrect
answers on this newsgroup simply confuses all the people who are reading it
trying to find correct answers, and your answer is most definitely incorrect,
I fear.
Dave "plus which, learn to snip quoted text before posting again please"
DeLaney
David DeLaney
>No this doesn't work. If a creature has summoning sickness then it
>is unable to attack.
Correct.
> Since Maddening Imp says attacks if able the
>summoning sickness is a restriction on this clause.
?? No. The "attacks if able" has nothing to do with which creatures
are being affected; it is the _effect_ being done to those creatures.
Summon-sick creatures will not attac, because they are not able to;
they will be destroyed by the Imp's ability's second part, because they
are part of 'those creatures': "all non_Wall creatures target opponent
controls".
Dave
Keith Piddington
: >: turn if able. At end of turn, destroy each of those creatures that did not
: >: attack." The "those creatures" refers to "all non-Wall creatures target
: >: opponent controls". Note that it does _not_ say "All non-Wall creatures
: >
: >This makes the Imp work more like I think it should...in our crew,
: >we've always played it that using a Tim's ability, for example, and
: >thus tapping it before the attack phase, made it un-Imp-able as it
: >could not then legally attack...because it is "unable".
: That's not correct. The Imp, as I keep having to say for some reason,
: affects what? "All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls". Is Tim
: controlled by target opponent? Yes. Is he a Wall? No. Then he must attack
: if able this turn, _and_ he will be destroyed at end of turn if h -did not-
: attack.
The "if able" implies the card only affects "All non-Wall creatures
target opponent controls *that are able to attack*"...if they are
able to attack, and for some reason do not (casting Festival, e.g.)
then they get whacked. I agree with you, in fact...I'm just repeat-
ing all the arguments I've heard 'round here, becuase quite frankly
they had me convinced...
: Thus, if he wasn't able to attack, he will be destroyed at end of turn. I
: honestly don't see what's so confusing about this.
: >Has any sort of official errate been issued to define what "able"
: >means in this case? (summon-sick critters, for example...immune
: >(as the wording would suggest) or not (as I've read in here)?)
: The wording suggests nothing of the sort - try reading the card, please.
: It says precisely what it affects, and the two things it does to each
: creature it affects. It doesn't say anything about not affecting
: summon-sick creatures. It _does_ specifically say it can't affect Walls.
: [Even if they -can- attack for some reason.]
The "if able" clause makes it unclear what is affected and how. That
all non-Wall creatures able to attack must attack is clear...it's the
ones unable to attack that are where the confusion comes. Also, when
is "ability to attack" checked; at the time the Imp's effect is launched
and resolves, or at the time of declare-attackers, or both?
Someone's posted idea about using "Bad Temper" counters makes it much
clearer how the thing works...
Cheers!
Keith
Phaedrus
Keith Piddington <uj...@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>David DeLaney (d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu) wrote:
>: That's not correct. The Imp, as I keep having to say for some reason,
>: affects what? "All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls". Is Tim
>: controlled by target opponent? Yes. Is he a Wall? No. Then he must attack
>: if able this turn, _and_ he will be destroyed at end of turn if h -did not-
>: attack.
>
>The "if able" implies the card only affects "All non-Wall creatures
>target opponent controls *that are able to attack*"...if they are
>able to attack, and for some reason do not (casting Festival, e.g.)
>then they get whacked. I agree with you, in fact...I'm just repeat-
>ing all the arguments I've heard 'round here, becuase quite frankly
>they had me convinced...
But, under Festival, no creatures are able to attack--because creatures
can only attack while a combat is in progress, and no combat can take place
while festival is in effect. A tapped creature is not less "able to attack"
then an untapped-creature-with-Festival-in-effect; both creatures are "able
to attack" to exactly the same degree--namely, not at all.
This is the fundamental problem with the argument that Maddening Imp
should only destroy creatures that "could attack but didn't". Under the
current rules, asking "Can this creature attack?", at any time other than
the point where attackers are declared during combat, is a silly and/or
meaningless question; the answer is "Of course not--it's not the right time
to attack." And "Okay, if this _were_ the right time to attack, could this
creature attack?" raises all sorts of rules questions. For example, if a
creature has Propaganda on it, the answer to "Can this creature attack?"--
even when asked at the right time during the attack--is "Well, that depends;
has the attack cost been paid?" If we now want to ask "If this were the right
time, could this creature attack?" earlier in the turn, what should the answer
be? "No, because the cost hasn't been paid, even though it might be paid
later, which makes it pretty meaningless to ask now"? "Well, maybe; let's
make that player decide whether or not to pay the Propaganda cost now, even
though the attack won't happen until later, and might not happen at all"?
What if the creature is an Orcish Conscript; should we look to see what
other creatures might be able to attack as well, even though there might be
more or fewer creatures available when the attack actually takes place? Etc.,
etc., etc...
For this reason, Magic cards simply don't ask this question; there is
no card in the game that cares about "Can this creature attack?", or even
"Could this creature attack if it were the right time?", before the attack
starts. Some cards care about specific factors that might go into that
decision later; for example, Meddling Imp cares about "Is this creature a
Wall?", and the other attack-or-die effects care about "Is this creature
summoning-sick?" But beyond that, they don't care. They just create a
two-part effect on the creature; one part says "This creature must attack
if it can", and the other part says "This creature will die if it does not
attack." If the creature doesn't attack for some reason (because it's
tapped, or because there's a Festival in play, or because an Errantried
Juggernaut attacked instead, or because of any of the other 47,623 reasons
why a must-attack creature might not wind up attacking), then the second part
of the effect destroys the creature at the end of the turn. It doesn't care
about _why_ the creature didn't attack; it just cares that it didn't.
Phaedrus
David DeLaney <d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> wrote:
>phae...@halcyon.com (Phaedrus) writes:
>> This is the fundamental problem with the argument that Maddening Imp
>>should only destroy creatures that "could attack but didn't".
>
>that could have attacked at the time the attack was declared, but which
>did not, you need to look at Season of the Witch. [The Dark] Note please
>that that card does _not_ force any creatures to attack, or make them
>"must attack"; it merely checks at end of turn, and looks back to see
>what -did- attack, and what didn'.
This does lead to questions of its own, of course--questions which the
current rulings don't appear to answer. Suppose I have an Errantried
Juggernaut and a Scryb Sprites. If I don't attack at all, will both
creatures be destroyed? If I do attack with the Scryb Sprites, then will
the Errantried Juggernaut be destroyed? In theory, it _could_ have attacked--
but not as part of the attack I actually declared; I would have had to attack
with the Juggernaut alone. If I have two Orcish Conscripts and a Throat Wolf
with Propaganda on it, and I don't pay the Propaganda cost, then what if
anything is destroyed?
Is the question that Season of the Witch asks "Is there any possible
combination of attackers under which this creature could have attacked?"
(Simple, but very broad.) Or is it "If this creature were 'must attack',
would it have been forced to attack?" (Still relatively simple, but has
some interesting side effects--if each creature is looked at individually
in this way, then if all I have is three Orcish Conscripts, none of them
will be destroyed.) Or is it "If all the creatures that didn't attack were
'must attack', which if any of them would have been forced to attack?"
(Works better in the above example, but still has some interesting side
effects. What if I have six creatures, and there's a Caverns of Despair in
play? If I do attack with two creatures, then presumably none of my other
creatures are destroyed. But what if I don't attack at all? Are all six
of my creatures destroyed, even though only two of them could have actually
attacked? Are only two creatures destroyed--and if so, who picks which two?)
Maarten van Beek
>
> Bauman Rare Books wrote:
>
> > Keith Piddington wrote:
> > >
> > > It's the "if able" that is confusing...it appears to read that if for
> > > whatever reason a creature is unable to attack (Pacified, tapped for
> > > another effect, etc.) then it can safely ignore the Imp's call. A
> > > better wording would be "All non-Wall creatures target opponent
> > > controls must attack this turn. At end of turn, destroy each of
> > > those creatures that did not attack. Play this ability only on
> > > that opponent's turn."
> >
> > Better still: "All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls must
> > attack this turn if able. At end of turn, destroy all non-Wall creatures
> > target opponent controls that were unable to attack. Play this ability
> > only on target opponent's turn, before the attack phase."
> >
> > sensible way to interpret the Imp's ability. If the destruction effect
> > only applied to non-Wall creatures that were able to attack, no
> > creatures would ever be destroyed.
> >
>
> player 2 plays Rootwater Hunter's ability to hit the Imp for one damage. The
> Rootwater Hunter would be destroyed because it was able when the ability of
> the Imp was played but did not attack.
I understand your idea, but the example is bad. If you use the Rootwater
Hunter in response to the activation of the Imp, it will be tapped on
resolution of the Imp's ability and thus unable to attack at the time it
is being affected. (You do not look at the state of the Rootwater Hunter
on _announcement_ of the Imp's ability).
If it was indeed the case that the Imp's ability only targeted creatures
that were able to attack, then it would not affect the Rootwater either,
since it would be an illegal target upon resolution of the Imp's
ability. And spells and abilities check their target twice: once upon
announcement and once upon resolution.
You should activate the Rootwater in a batch after the resolution of the
Imp's ability for this to work. But I still have to point out that that
is not the way the Maddening Imp works.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:illegal...@blacklotus.demon.nl
Maarten van Beek
>
<SNIPPED LOTS OF TEXT>
>
> : The wording suggests nothing of the sort - try reading the card, please.
> : It says precisely what it affects, and the two things it does to each
> : creature it affects. It doesn't say anything about not affecting
> : summon-sick creatures. It _does_ specifically say it can't affect Walls.
> : [Even if they -can- attack for some reason.]
>
> The "if able" clause makes it unclear what is affected and how. That
> all non-Wall creatures able to attack must attack is clear...it's the
> ones unable to attack that are where the confusion comes. Also, when
> is "ability to attack" checked; at the time the Imp's effect is launched
> and resolves, or at the time of declare-attackers, or both?
The ability when to attack is checked upon declaring attackers. All
creatures have a "I must attack if able" sticker on them. So when you
get to your (now mandatory) attack phase, you must declare all creatures
as an attacker that are able to do so now.
Maarten van Beek
>
> Maarten van Beek wrote
>
>
> >
> > Even if it could be read like that, it would be a non-statement. There
> > cannot be any creature that were able to attack but did not, since if
> > they had been able to attack they were forced to do so.
>
> the ability is played.
A note to the side: Whether a creature is able to attack can only be
checked when announcing attackers. During your upkeep, for instance, no
creatures are able to attack. The only time any creatures at all are
able to attack is during your declare attackers step. What you mean to
say is that is that there could be creature whom you could consider able
to attack at the resolution of the Imp's ability, if it had been a
declare attackers step. And those creatures could change their status in
such a wat that they will no longer be able to attack in any upcoming
"declare attackers" step this turn. This may sound a little weird, but
it is impossible to say whether a creature is able to attack outside of
the declare attackers step.
> This works the same with Siren's Call. That is why they
> changed the wording on the card back when. Someone tried to use Siren's Call to
> destroy tapped or summoning sick creatures and the other player would try to use
> a tapping effect to get out of it. As we both know both of those things are
> illegal when the Siren's Call is played. Siren's Call checks when announced and
> checks on resolution and only affects creatures that are able at the time of
> announcement.
But even Siren's Call destroys tapped creatures. It doesn't affect
Summoning sick creatures, because it specifically states it doesn't. It
dopesn't even affect creature who were brought under their controller's
control this turn but who are not summoning sick for some reason (e.g. a
Suqata Lancer).
Siren's Call and Maddening Imp, for instance, also works on a Sea
Serpent if the defending player controls no island, although this
prevents the Serpent from being declared as an attacker.
Actually, Siren's Call is very clear on what it destroys:
"At end of turn, destroy any non-wall creatures that did not attack."
With the limitation:
"Siren's Call does not affect creatures brought under opponent's control
this turn."
This last line includes, but is not limited to, creatures with Summoning
Sickness.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:siren...@blacklotus.demon.nl
Maarten van Beek
mailto:madden...@blacklotus.demon.nl
> If the other player taps a creature in response to that, the
> creature is destroyed because the creature was able at the time of announcement,
> but didn't attack because it was unable at resolution. I feel the Imp works the
> same way.
David DeLaney
>David DeLaney (d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu) wrote:
>: That's not correct. The Imp, as I keep having to say for some reason,
>: affects what? "All non-Wall creatures target opponent controls". Is Tim
>: controlled by target opponent? Yes. Is he a Wall? No. Then he must attack
>: if able this turn, _and_ he will be destroyed at end of turn if h -did not-
>: attack.
>
>The "if able" implies the card only affects "All non-Wall creatures
>target opponent controls *that are able to attack*"...
Your view is not correct. It's as simple as that.
You need to find the most recent version of d'Angelo's Rulings file, and
-read through- it, please, before posting yet another repetition of
your claim without any proof to back it up. Thank you.
>The "if able" clause makes it unclear what is affected and how.
That's a modifier for the verb ["attack"]; it can't possibly modify
the noun clause.
> That
>all non-Wall creatures able to attack must attack is clear...it's the
>ones unable to attack that are where the confusion comes.
They cannot attack. They were affected by "must attack if able"; they
were also affected by "at end of turn destroy if did not attack".
> Also, when
>is "ability to attack" checked; at the time the Imp's effect is launched
>and resolves, or at the time of declare-attackers, or both?
At the time you declare attackers only. That's the only time you ever actually
check if something's able to attack, just like the only time you ever check
to see if creature A can be assigned to block attacker B is in the declare-
blockers step.
David DeLaney
> This is the fundamental problem with the argument that Maddening Imp
>should only destroy creatures that "could attack but didn't".
Let me add here that for an example of a card that _does_ destroy things
that could have attacked at the time the attack was declared, but which
did not, you need to look at Season of the Witch. [The Dark] Note please
that that card does _not_ force any creatures to attack, or make them
"must attack"; it merely checks at end of turn, and looks back to see
what -did- attack, and what didn'.
>And "Okay, if this _were_ the right time to attack, could this
>creature attack?" raises all sorts of rules questions.
Yes; this was the cause of a recent Rulings reversal about ending your
main phase with must-attack creatures in play. [Oh, and now I see that
Season of the Witch needs to fall under this ruling too. Note for summary...]
Ingo Warnke
[about Season of the Witch]
: This does lead to questions of its own, of course--questions which the
: current rulings don't appear to answer. Suppose I have an Errantried
: Juggernaut and a Scryb Sprites. If I don't attack at all, will both
: creatures be destroyed?
I don't think this is a legal option. You can't end your main phase
at all if you have a 'must attack' creature. Declaring the Juggernaut
alone is legal, so declaring 0 attackers is not.
: Is the question that Season of the Witch asks "Is there any possible
: combination of attackers under which this creature could have attacked?"
: (Simple, but very broad.) Or is it "If this creature were 'must attack',
: would it have been forced to attack?"
Good question. Something Dave should definitely inquire about.
Ingo Warnke
Phaedrus
Ingo Warnke <nfa...@cks1.rz.uni-rostock.de> wrote:
>Phaedrus (phae...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>
>[about Season of the Witch]
>
>: This does lead to questions of its own, of course--questions which the
>: current rulings don't appear to answer. Suppose I have an Errantried
>: Juggernaut and a Scryb Sprites. If I don't attack at all, will both
>: creatures be destroyed?
>
>I don't think this is a legal option. You can't end your main phase
>at all if you have a 'must attack' creature. Declaring the Juggernaut
>alone is legal, so declaring 0 attackers is not.
Oops. I just chose Juggernaut because the name was cool; I forgot that
it was "must attack". :-) Make that an Errantried Ovinomancer, then. So I
don't have any "must attack" creatures.
Mike Marcelais
>: combination of attackers under which this creature could have attacked?"
>: (Simple, but very broad.) Or is it "If this creature were 'must attack',
>: would it have been forced to attack?"
>
>Good question. Something Dave should definitely inquire about.
While I think Dave should still ask about it, I think the simplest thing would
be: "Assume that all creatures had a "must attack" effect on them and
"declare" a legal attack that includes your entire /actual/ set of attackers
plus others that you are required to attack with. Any creatures in this
"declaration" are creatures that could have attacked. If they didn't actually
attack, then they are destroyed."
So, if you don't attack with anything, and have two creatures, one of them
errantried; you can decide which one gets eaten by the Witch, but both of them
don't. Similarly, if you have 3 Orcish Conscripts, and don't attack, the Witch
will get them all [which it wouldn't do if it considered each creature
individually].
============================================================
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 =- ===
Mike Marcelais
Phaedrus wrote in message <6s43pp$b0d$1...@halcyon.com>...
>In article <35e53...@news.uni-rostock.de>,
>Ingo Warnke <nfa...@cks1.rz.uni-rostock.de> wrote:
>>Phaedrus (phae...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>>
>>[about Season of the Witch]
>>
>>: This does lead to questions of its own, of course--questions which the
>>: current rulings don't appear to answer. Suppose I have an Errantried
>>: Juggernaut and a Scryb Sprites. If I don't attack at all, will both
>>: creatures be destroyed?
>>
>>I don't think this is a legal option. You can't end your main phase
>>at all if you have a 'must attack' creature. Declaring the Juggernaut
>>alone is legal, so declaring 0 attackers is not.
>
> Oops. I just chose Juggernaut because the name was cool; I forgot that
>it was "must attack". :-) Make that an Errantried Ovinomancer, then. So I
>don't have any "must attack" creatures.
It is a cool name. Anyway, I think you resolve SotW by choosing an attack as
if all creatures were must attack. Anything that would have attacked in this
hypothetical choice, but didn't actually attack, would be destroyed. Hence,
one of your two creatures would be killed by the Witch (your choice), but not
both.
Maarten van Beek
<SNIP>
> i understand what you mean, that is what was trying to say, only i said it much more
> simply and got the sequence slighty mistimed but a creature can be able to attack and
> then tap as a fast effect, correct? then that creature would be destroyed by the Imp
> or the Call at least we agree on something =0)
Well, you state that you say it more simply, but you say it so simply
that it is not correct anymore.
There is only one time that creatures can be considered "able to attack"
namely during th declare attackers step. During any other moment in the
game, creatures are not able to attack. And don't get me wrong: I know
you already understand this. What could happen is that a creature
becomes tapped after the use of the Siren's Call or the Imp, and then
during the declare attackers step is unable to attack while if we look
back, then, it would have been able to attack if it had not become
tapped earlier and nothing else had happened to it either.
> > > This works the same with Siren's Call. That is why they
> > > changed the wording on the card back when. Someone tried to use Siren's Call to
> > > destroy tapped or summoning sick creatures and the other player would try to use
> > > a tapping effect to get out of it. As we both know both of those things are
> > > illegal when the Siren's Call is played. Siren's Call checks when announced and
> > > checks on resolution and only affects creatures that are able at the time of
> > > announcement.
> >
> > But even Siren's Call destroys tapped creatures.
>
> What I meant is that people tried to use Siren's Call to destroy an already tapped
> creature (one that was tapped before Siren's Call was played, and was tapped before
> the combat phase actually arrived) like a Llanowar Elves that was tapped for mana or a
> creature that was tapped because of Paralyze.
And that is completely legal, still. You can use it to kill tapped
creatures.
> I had someone try to do this to me
> because the Revised Edition didn't have the "updated" wording on the card. I had lands
> that counted as creatures and he played Siren's Call after I had tapped almost all of
> my lands for mana and a few of my creatures for effects and he swore up and down that
> they all should be destroyed "because they didn't attack."
They should.
> Siren's Call does not do
> this and neither does the Imp I think you agree with that,
Sorry, I don't. I am positively sure that both the Siren's Call and the
Imp destroy these tapped creatures. They will not force these creatures
to attack, but they will force them to die if they didn't attack. These
two effects are comepletely seperate things. I will even quote you an
official ruling on it: (from Stephen D'Angelo's rulings file).
E.1.Ruling.1 - The creature is destroyed if it does not attack because
it
simply cannot do so legally. For example, a Sea Serpent will be
destroyed if it cannot attack because the opponent has no islands.
[Aahz 1994]
E.1.Ruling.2 - You can use these spells and abilities on a creature
you
know won't be able to attack. For example, you can use them on a
tapped
creature. [Aahz 1994]
> the only thing that we
> don't agree on is if the Imp affects creatures with summoning sickness and it all
> comes down to that word "those" on the card and as Dave Romerstein pointed out (and
> this is only if your interpretation is correct) that the Imp is the only creature
> effect or spell in all of Magic that does affect creatures with summoning sickness.
Yes. Siren's Call specifically excludes creatures that have come under
their controller's control that turn. So this includes creatures with
summoning sickness, but also a creature like Lightning Elemental, if it
were just summoned this turn, even though it doesn't not suffer from
summoning sickness.
> If
> this is true, why would they all of a sudden change their way of doing things. My
> personal opinion is that they didn't and the card is just worded a little vaguely.
> It's not the first card that has been misinterpreted because of vague text, is it?
No, they didn't word it vaguely, they entirely left out the line that
excludes the type of creatures (those who have come under their
controller's control this turn). So they either forgot to add this extra
line, or they specifically wanted the Imp to affect those creatures as
well.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:maddeni...@blacklotus.demon.nl
Maarten van Beek
>
> >
> >
> > 1) The only target Siren's call has is the target opponent. It can only
> > fizzle if its target (opponent) becomes illegal - as long as your
> > opponent is a legal target at announcement and resolution, SC will have
> > an effect.
> >
>
> Not once in this discussion was the word target brought up. I don't understand why you
> brought it up. Neither the Siren's Call nor the Maddening Imp target creatures, so why
> mention this?
But the word "fizzle" was brought up, and "fizzle" and "target" are
closely connected. Only targeted spells can fizzle, because a spell can
only fizzle if all of it's targets have become illegal. So a
non-targeted spell can _never> fizzle.
> >
> > 2) Revised and earlier versions of Siren's Call fall under this Ruling:
> >
> > As errata, the Limited Edition, Unlimited Edition, and Revised Edition
> > cards should have the last part read ``May not be used on creatures which
> > cannot attack because they were not in play on their controller's side at
> > the beginning of the turn.'' [Duelist Magazine #2, Page 68] In other
> > words, it cannot be used on creatures with summoning sickness.
> >
> > This is the only wording change I can find for SC, and it mentions
> > nothing about tapped creatures.
> >
> > 3) Basically, what you've written is horse puckey. Siren's Call does
> > exactly two things:
>
> thanks, it's obvious below that you misread what i wrote, so thanks for insulting me
> in the process
>
> >
> >
> > a) tags all non-Wall, non-summoning sick creatures with a "must attack"
> > flag
> > b) destroys any of those flagged creatures that don't attack.
>
> exactly my point, if a creature become tapped after the effect (Imp) or spell (siren's
> call) is played, then that creature will be destroyed, i was pointing that out because
> someone claimed that no creatures would ever be destroyed with the Imp because no
> creature wouldn't be able to attack, i was pointing out the error they made
But it is also destroyed if it was tapped _before_ the Imp or Siren's
Call did it's thing....
> >
> > If a creature has a "must attack" flag when you enter your attack phase,
> > they *must attack*. If something prevents them from attacking (be it
> > Propaganda, being tapped, Pacifism), they are destroyed. Period. Why is
> > this so difficult to understand?
>
> i never said they wouldn't, i agree with that completely, what i don't agree with is
> that summoning sickness destroys them, that's what this entire discussion is about,
> that specific point
Little nitpick: The summoning sickness doesn't destroy them. They are
destroyed because they did not attack. If you find a way to remove
summoning sickness from a creature after he has been affected by the Imp
(while still being summon sick), it will have to attack as well, since
being "able to attack" cannot be checked until the declare attackers
step of combat.
> > 4) Maddening Imp works *slightly* differently. It doesn't specifically
> > say that summoning-sick creatures are exempt
>
> well that's what is in dispute, some of us think that the Imp's text exempts them and
> some of us think that it say they become destroyed, no one is completely in agreement,
> we've all read the text, so please don't quote it again, i've had it quoted to me many
> times, and i've quoted it right back many times, we just aren't in agreement on the
> interpretation of the word "those" you think it includes all non wall creatures and i
> think it includes only the able creatures so unless we get an official ruling on this
> from WOTC this is getting us nowhere we're just going around in circles because of
> different interpretations of the text
>
> > (and this is the only effect
> > of this type that doesn't exempt summoning-sick creatures)
>
> hmmmm....makes me wonder why this would be the ONLY one since all the other cards that
> have a similar effect (in general) don't effect summoning sick creatures, why doesn't
> it make you wonder if you misinterpreted the text?
It makes you wonder why they worded this card differently? Apart from
that I am convinced that is gramatically impossible to interpret the Imp
in any other way than in the way I explained, the fact that there are
other cards that explicitly say they exempt some groups of creatures
(those brought under their controller's control this turn) only
convinces me more of the fact that it is indeed not the case with the
Imp.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:and.still.the...@blacklotus.demon.nl
David DeLaney
>David DeLaney <d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> wrote:
>>Let me add here that for an example of a card that _does_ destroy things
>>that could have attacked at the time the attack was declared, but which
>>did not, you need to look at Season of the Witch. [The Dark] Note please
>>that that card does _not_ force any creatures to attack, or make them
>>"must attack"; it merely checks at end of turn, and looks back to see
>>what -did- attack, and what didn'.
>
>current rulings don't appear to answer. Suppose I have an Errantried
>Juggernaut and a Scryb Sprites. If I don't attack at all, will both
>creatures be destroyed?
You _can't_ not attack at all. The Juggernaut can perfectly well attack
by itself; the Sprites can attack by themselves. Since the Jugg can attack
by itself, "don't attack at all" isn't legal. [Unless there's something
else you forgot to mention that stops the Juggernaut, like a Propaganda
you didn't pay for, or a Festival, etc.]
> If I do attack with the Scryb Sprites, then will
>the Errantried Juggernaut be destroyed?
No, I believe; for the attack you declared, it was "cannot attack".
> In theory, it _could_ have attacked--
>but not as part of the attack I actually declared; I would have had to attack
>with the Juggernaut alone. If I have two Orcish Conscripts and a Throat Wolf
>with Propaganda on it, and I don't pay the Propaganda cost, then what if
>anything is destroyed?
With Propaganda on the _opponent_, unless you have the Throat Wolf that
can move global enchantments onto itself, which I think was in Homelands. But
I digress. If you don't pay for the Propaganda, none of them can attack, so
Season won't destroy anything. If you pay for the Wolf alone, it can attack
[and must since you paid]; the Conscripts are safe. And if you pay for all
three and attack with them, then obviously none are destroyed. So I think
you're safe all three ways here. [You can't pay a Propaganda cost unless
you can otherwise attack with the creature. Attack costs should combine,
though I admit I haven't seen that explicitly stated anywhere. Feel free to
start another Long Thread about this...]
> Is the question that Season of the Witch asks "Is there any possible
>combination of attackers under which this creature could have attacked?"
>(Simple, but very broad.) Or is it "If this creature were 'must attack',
>would it have been forced to attack?" (Still relatively simple, but has
>some interesting side effects--if each creature is looked at individually
>in this way, then if all I have is three Orcish Conscripts, none of them
>will be destroyed.) Or is it "If all the creatures that didn't attack were
>'must attack', which if any of them would have been forced to attack?"
I think it's "Were there any creatures that were not "cannot attack" which
didn't attack?". I don't think it looks at "must attack" at all - I think
it just checks for what was left out, and also checks to see which ones that
were left out couldn't attack at the time. So Propaganda saves you from it
entirely - as you can't pay for anything that doesn't attack...
[Caverns of Despair]
>If I do attack with two creatures, then presumably none of my other
>creatures are destroyed. But what if I don't attack at all? Are all six
>of my creatures destroyed, even though only two of them could have actually
>attacked? Are only two creatures destroyed--and if so, who picks which two?)
...That's why I said Season quite probably needs to fall under the "cannot
end main phase without declaring an attack" ruling that currently applies
for must-attack creatures in play. If you make it make you attack, then that
lets you see what did or didn't and what could or couldn't; if you can get
away without an attack, then questions like the above arise.
Ricky Walker
>> (and this is the only effect
>> of this type that doesn't exempt summoning-sick creatures)
>
>hmmmm....makes me wonder why this would be the ONLY one since all the other
>cards that
>have a similar effect (in general) don't effect summoning sick creatures, why
>doesn't
>it make you wonder if you misinterpreted the text?
>
it doesn't effect summon-sick creatures. As this one doesn't say that,
could it be you that is reading too much into the card text?
>> , so *they are
>> not exempted*. They *will be destroyed*.
>
>like i said, i interpret it differently
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> New newsreader in search of a .sig
>> TINLC, and I am not member #150.
>> Come see the new baby! http://romer.home.ml.org/
>
>--
>Sorry for my bad English, I was born in America.
>
>
--
Ricky Walker