Summoning Sickness Rule
Gavin Arneaux
D'Angelo say this:
G.39.1 - All permanents have "summoning sickness" from the time they
enter
play (or otherwise come under your control), until they start a turn
in
play under your control. [Fifth Edition, Page 28]
The Fifth Edition Rulebook, as referenced in the above rule, does *not*
say that permanents have summoning sickness. Rather, it says that only
one type of permanent has summoning sickness: creatures. It goes so far
as to say that it "applies to all of your creatures," but never it
mentions other permanents. Summoning sickness is also referenced on
page 18. On neither page does it say that all permanents get summoning
sickness. Rather on page 18 it says:
When you gain control of a creature (when you play a spell that
becomes a creature , for example) . . . . This is called summoning
sickness and effects all creatures, including artifact creatures.
So, my question is, how did Rule G.39.1 end up intrepretting
summoning sickness so that it applies to permanents other than
creatures? The answer to this question is very important for this
reason:
If the Fifth Edition rulebook, page 18, is applied *as written*,
sleepers would have summoning sickness when they went from being
enchantments to creatures because only then would they be *creatures*
that I had gained control of. Previously, they were only enchantments
that were under my control.
I need a reference that can clear up this contradiction.
Thanks in advance, Gavin
Gavin Arneaux
pseudo-official source for this is that I am playing with group that
interprets the rules litterally, as written in the rule books. I have
told them that all permanents have summoning sickness. They counter
with the fact that the Fifth Ed. rule book says only creatures have it.
Where do I turn to porve them wrong. Other than this newsgroup. (They
won't take postings on this newsgroup as the rules. They want to see it
in writing or somewhere that looks official.)
Thanks again, Gavin
Gavin Arneaux
other permanents - like Dragon's Blood - the turn the spell is cast.
David DeLaney
> The reason it is so important that I find some kind of published,
>pseudo-official source for this is that I am playing with group that
>interprets the rules litterally, as written in the rule books.
Then they are going to be in a bit of trouble over this point and some
others too.
>I have
>told them that all permanents have summoning sickness. They counter
>with the fact that the Fifth Ed. rule book says only creatures have it.
>Where do I turn to porve them wrong. Other than this newsgroup. (They
>won't take postings on this newsgroup as the rules. They want to see it
>in writing or somewhere that looks official.)
Well, it's in Oracle - check the Wizards of the Coast web page, under
Magic, under "Rules/Variants". There you'll also find Stephen d'Angelo's
long Rulings files, containing answers on a zillion and one questions about
the cards and the rules, and fuller explanations of -everything- than the
rulebooks give.
[I don't have my 5E rulebook with me ... no wait, there's one [several] in
the card. Lemme look. ...Okay, it's not in the 5E rulebook. The Mirage
rulebook, where 5E rules were first introduced, and which has more room to
explain them because it doesn't have 20 pages on the "simple version", notes
on page 14 that it doesn't matter whether the permanent -was- a creature the
whole time, and has an extra example with a Rod of Ruin and an Amulet of
Kroog that animate via Titania's Song. If you can get hold of a Mirage
rulebook this will probably help them believe you.]
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 DeLaney
>It's also important because they want to be able to use the abilities of
>other permanents - like Dragon's Blood - the turn the spell is cast.
Oh, that's fine. If the permanent's not a creature, being summon-sick
doesn't affect it. [There's one exception: Rocket Launcher. But only
because it essentially says so on the card...] Dragon's Blood can be
used while summon-sick _unless_ it becomes a creature first for some reason.
Stewart L. Potter
<366BA98A...@worldnet.att.net>...
: The reason it is so important that I find some kind of published,
: pseudo-official source for this is that I am playing with group that
: told them that all permanents have summoning sickness. They counter
: with the fact that the Fifth Ed. rule book says only creatures have it.
: Where do I turn to porve them wrong. Other than this newsgroup. (They
: won't take postings on this newsgroup as the rules. They want to see it
: in writing or somewhere that looks official.)
I'm not a guru, but if your play group does not take official online rules
sources than you may be out of luck. But, of course, so will they if they
go to a tournament and one of these rules are pulled out on them. Stating
"our play group doesn't go by online sources" is not going to prevent a
knowledgable judge from ruling correctly on the validity of a rule. A lot
of these online rule should be available in writing for the judges.
As to your summoning sickness question:
from Angel Grep of the rules postings:
G.39.1 - All permanents have ``summoning sickness'' from the time they
enter play (or otherwise come under your control), until they start a turn
in play under your control. [Fifth Edition, Page 28]
G.39.2 - Creatures with ``summoning sickness'' cannot attack, and they
cannot use any of their own abilities which have a tap symbol in the
activation cost. Non-creatures are unaffected by summoning sickness. [Fifth
Edition, Page 28]
this is a good source. Check the page numbers cited above and see if you
can find the wordings. You will notice that while all _permanents_ have
summoning sickness, Non-creatures (_permanents_) are unaffected by
summoning sickness. So, non-creature artifacts, like Dragon's Blood, with
tap abilities can be used the turn they enter play, but an creature
(Llanowar Elf) could not use it's ability the turn it came into play (on
your side).
To make things a bit more confusing, keep in mind that while Non-creature
permanents are not affected by summoning sickness if they BECOMES creature
permanents (animated lands or artifacts) the turn they come into play on
your side, they ARE NOW affected by summoning sickness.
Hope this helps
-------
Stu
Gavin Arneaux
Mirage rulebook. It does indeed, on page 14, say that it is important
whether the *permanent* (not the creature itself) was under my control.
It even gives the example using a Rod of Ruin and an Amulet of Kroog.
The card shop owner, who runs the little tournements, basically
replied this way:
"That's all fine and dandy, but the Mirage rulebook was superceded
by the Fifth Ed. rule book. The Fifth Ed. rule book does not say all
permanents get summoning sickness. It says creatures do. The D'Angelo
rule references the Fifth Ed. rulebook, too. And that ain't what it
says."
What do I do? Is there a source out since the Fifth Ed. rule book
that will give an example like the one in the Mirage rule book?
Confused (and looking for a new place to play), Gavin
Gavin Arneaux
Brian Trosko
: "That's all fine and dandy, but the Mirage rulebook was superceded
: by the Fifth Ed. rule book. The Fifth Ed. rule book does not say all
: permanents get summoning sickness. It says creatures do. The D'Angelo
: rule references the Fifth Ed. rulebook, too. And that ain't what it
: says."
Print out the entire D'Angelo ruling summary file. All of it. Take it to
the shop, and plop it down in front of him. Maybe a copy of Oracle, too.
Tell him "These are the rules of the game of Magic: The Gathering. If the
local rules for the tournaments are different from these, kindly inform
all players of those differences before we pay our tournament entry fees.
Then go play for fun with some friends.
Ingo Kemper
<Gavin-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> If the Fifth Edition rulebook, page 18, is applied *as written*,
>sleepers would have summoning sickness when they went from being
>enchantments to creatures because only then would they be *creatures*
>that I had gained control of.
No, because you didn't _gain_ control of them. You _kept_ control of
them, they just changed their type.
> Previously, they were only enchantments that were under my control.
Correct.
Ingo Kemper
--
__ _ __ __ __ __
__/ /_/ \/ /_/____/_ |___Sky...@uni-muenster.de___---===> \
/_/ /_/\_/ |__/ |__/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---===>__/
G.Travis Blake
>
> The card shop owner, who runs the little tournements, basically
> replied this way:
>
> by the Fifth Ed. rule book. The Fifth Ed. rule book does not say all
> permanents get summoning sickness. It says creatures do. The D'Angelo
> rule references the Fifth Ed. rulebook, too. And that ain't what it
> says."
>
> that will give an example like the one in the Mirage rule book?
>
Ask your Cardshop Owner, if the 5th Ed. rulebook were typo'd to
say no spells may be played, and that is then corrected in the
D'Angelo rulings, would your Cardshop Owner then tell everyone
that "no one can play any spells" because that is what is said
in the 5th Ed. rulebook?
Besides, if he were that interested in being a good judge for
his players, he would either check this newsgroup, get ahold of
the D'Angelo rulings and Oracle, or (at worst) have the WotC
Rules line handy...
This may sound extreme, but I feel if one wants to take the
responsibility of interpreting rules, one should know where to
find the most current form those rules exist in...
--
G. Travis (Yes, I own a Cardshop) Blake!
*** Visit the Stellar Operations Command Homepage ***
<*> http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/4162 <*>
***Find out more about Interactive Fiction Writing***
Mike Marcelais
> pseudo-official source for this is that I am playing with group that
> interprets the rules litterally, as written in the rule books. I have
> told them that all permanents have summoning sickness. They counter
> with the fact that the Fifth Ed. rule book says only creatures have it.
That's not what the 5E book says: It says that creatures with summoning
sickness can't attack or use (T) abilities. However, what the rulebook doesn't
say anywhere is (specifically) what summoning sickness is, or how changing
permanent types affects it.
Anyway, one very good reference is the D'Angelo rulings fules (which can be
gotten from ftp://ftp.activesw.com/pub/sdangelo/magic/rule-general.txt, and
rule-cards.txt). This is an official collection of rulings made by WotC,
attributed and cross referenced. The only caveat is that sometimes an older,
obsolete ruling will be left behind because it was missed when the file was
updated.
Among other things you'll find in that file:
G.39 - Summoning Sickness
G.39.1 - All permanents have "summoning sickness" from the time they enter
play (or otherwise come under your control), until they start a turn in
play under your control. [Fifth Edition, Page 28]
--
============================================================
Mike Marcelais mich...@microsoft.com Magic Rules Guru
(ma-serei maiku) Anime otaku in training
[My posts are my own opinions; I don't speak for Microsoft.]
=== -= Moonstone Dragon =- ================== -= UDIC =- ===
Gavin Arneaux
Thanks, Gavin
Gavin Arneaux
beat him. Could be, hmmm?
Thanks, Gavin
Gavin Arneaux
David DeLaney
> This helps me a bit. Here is what happened. I showed them the
>Mirage rulebook. It does indeed, on page 14, say that it is important
>whether the *permanent* (not the creature itself) was under my control.
>It even gives the example using a Rod of Ruin and an Amulet of Kroog.
>replied this way:
>
> "That's all fine and dandy, but the Mirage rulebook was superceded
>by the Fifth Ed. rule book. The Fifth Ed. rule book does not say all
>permanents get summoning sickness. It says creatures do. The D'Angelo
>rule references the Fifth Ed. rulebook, too. And that ain't what it says."
Tell the card shop owner to _read_ the d'Angelo Rulings file if he wants
to use it in his arguments. If they are going to use the 5E rulebook and
-only- that rulebook as their Holy Source ... well, then, they're not going
to be playing the current version of Magic.
[And this is all well and good, as long as they only play in their little
group. However, if they want to run sanctioned tournaments there ... or if
any of them ever want to _play in_ a sanctioned tournament ... they'll have
to know the rules as they are _today_, not the rules as they were two years
ago when 5th Edition came out.]
> What do I do? Is there a source out since the Fifth Ed. rule book
>that will give an example like the one in the Mirage rule book?
the d'Angelo Rulings file, for one. [Which you seem to have shown him and
he seems to have dismissed.] Oracle, for another.
If he's bound and determined to only play by the 5E-rules-as-given-in-the-
rulebook, there's not going to be much you can do to stop him. However, he
_does_ need to know that the Mirage rulebook was _not_ "a first draft
superceded by 5E", and that things that the 5E rulebook leaves out _for lack
of space_ were _not_ discarded simply because they didn't have room to appear
in that rulebook.
Ingo Warnke
: [And this is all well and good, as long as they only play in their little
: group. However, if they want to run sanctioned tournaments there ... or if
: any of them ever want to _play in_ a sanctioned tournament ... they'll have
: to know the rules as they are _today_, not the rules as they were two years
: ago when 5th Edition came out.]
I don't think that's a good argument. The rules regarding summoning sickness
at the time 5E was published were AFAIK the same as now. You can't argue 'this
are old rules', you have to argue 'the rulebook doesn't correctly spell out
the rules'. You surely remember the big discussion about the '0-toughness
fairy' with respect to a ?/0 Ogre Enforcer and how the Mirage rulebook was
wording misleading on page 13. I haven't checked yet, but it seems the same
happens here.
Ingo Warnke
Stewart L. Potter
: I agree. It may very well be that he was upset that a newbie like me
: beat him. Could be, hmmm?
Now that explains a lot ... I couldn't understand why a player would be so
adamant to not accept D'Angelo rulings online. I guess you hurt his pride.
Sounds like he's just being an ass.
------
Stu