Rules Q&A - Magic Rules FAQ

228 posts / 0 new
Last post
The gleemax.com redirect is working again.

I noticed it was broken yesterday because the Forums button on wizards.com/Magic is a link to gleemax.com.  :D

You mean I spent all that tedious, time-consuming effort working on updating almost a thousand links...for nothing?

*groans*

Oh, well. At least I hadn't gotten around to actually performing the hundred-odd edits to insert the updated links into each post. I guess they'll just be updated piecemeal as I happen to update each entry in future, then.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Sorry, accidental post.  Also, post 81 was missed.

Here are the fixed versions:



Deja Vu?  Is this different from the previous "fixed" version you posted?
Here are the fixed versions:



Deja Vu?  Is this different from the previous "fixed" version you posted?


I hit Quote instead of Edit
The FAQs have now been updated for Mirrodin Besieged, including the Rules Primer entry and Keyword FAQ entries for Battle cry and Living weapon.

I can't believe how few questions have been asked about these keywords so far--I went to search and there was almost nothing. Are these just the most intuitive keywords in years, or what?

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Apparently so; everyone knows what an attacking creature is, and there are no obscure wrinkles like the whole "they're attacking but never attacked" bit that Nacatl War-Pride has when interacting with something like Exalted, and living weapon makes a goober that wears the equipment, which is equally easy to understand once you get your head around the more general problem of tokens.
ΦΦΦΦΦ
I just read through the Returning Player Rules primer and found some minor things to fix, so i thought i'd list them:


  • For 7th edition, there is a broken link to trample. Also, the link to Morph is functional, but unintentionally says "[/url]".

  • For Mirrodin, it talks about Mindslaver "controlling turns". This should be updated to talk about "controlling players"

  • For Champions of Kamigawa it is stated that instants and sorceries are the only card types to share a list of subtypes. With the existence of Tribals, this is no longer true.

  • For Ravnica, It talks about the SBA that will unattach non-aura, non-equipment, non-fortification permanents (704.5q), but omits mention of fortifications

  • For Dissension, it mentions only three categories of status, omitting phased in/phased out.

  • For Future Sight, a functional link to equipment runs on longer than intended and the text "[/post]" is visible. Additionally, a link to "types, subtypes and supertypes" is broken.

I just read through the Returning Player Rules primer and found some minor things to fix, so i thought i'd list them:


  • For 7th edition, there is a broken link to trample. Also, the link to Morph is functional, but unintentionally says "[/url]".

  • For Mirrodin, it talks about Mindslaver "controlling turns". This should be updated to talk about "controlling players"

  • For Champions of Kamigawa it is stated that instants and sorceries are the only card types to share a list of subtypes. With the existence of Tribals, this is no longer true.

  • For Ravnica, It talks about the SBA that will unattach non-aura, non-equipment, non-fortification permanents (704.5q), but omits mention of fortifications

  • For Dissension, it mentions only three categories of status, omitting phased in/phased out.

  • For Future Sight, a functional link to equipment runs on longer than intended and the text "[/post]" is visible. Additionally, a link to "types, subtypes and supertypes" is broken.




It seems like you are rewriting the past.   Most of those things are accurate for their timeframe (for example, Tribal didn't exist in Kamigawa)

The things that have changed should be mentioned in the timeframe where they changed. For example, M2010 would have the section on controlling players (or whenever that change came in) 
 
It seems like you are rewriting the past.   Most of those things are accurate for their timeframe (for example, Tribal didn't exist in Kamigawa)

I'm merely putting those entries into the same style as all the other entries. Throughout the primer, modern rules are used, even if those rules were not in place at the time of that set.

For example, look at the change to phasing in Ravnica. At the time, the only change was that leaves-play triggers would no longer trigger. It was still a zone change from the In Play zone to the Phased out zone. However, the primer is written to say "the card never leaves the battlefield at all--the game just pretends it doesn't exist." It makes reference to the "battlefield" and to the fact that no zone change is involved, both of which were incorrect at the time of ravnica.

As another example, Mirrodin describes imprint as being an Ability Word, but it was a full-fledged keyword until quite recently.

And yet, this is exactly how these entries should be written. You don't want to tell the reader something that is false, and then hope they later read the part where you correct yourself. The point of the rules primer isn't to bring the reader back in time to when that set was released; the point is to bring the reader forward in time to the present day.
The noted issues should all be corrected; thanks, cyphern!

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Added a reference to Gatherer rulings in the 'Create-a-thread' thread per TranscientMaster's suggestion, and also corrected a few bad links and other minor things while I was at it.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Updated the RPRP as well as the 'Create-a-thread' thread (per jeff's suggestion). I know the mana symbols in the New Phyrexia entry don't work yet--I've sent in the symbols to Michelle already, so they should be working relatively shortly, and I didn't want to have to bother going back into it to change them after just a week or two.

As always, let me know if there are any problems with anything.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

One common question about lands is whether they're permanents. I suggest adding this question to the relevant entry third from the top, and approaching it something like:

Q: Are lands permanents?
A: Yes, everything on the battlefield is a permanent. However, if you're asking this question, chances are you want to know whether, for example, Forests count toward Drove of Elves; so the question you should be asking is...

(Existing question on what colour lands are).
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
How's that?

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Very nice Laughing.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Added the question of whether or not shroud stops Slivers from sharing abilities to the Slivers entry of the Specific Cards FAQ, since I've seen it a number of times now and someone posted it in the Keyword FAQ thread.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Spellskite deserves a spot in the Specific Cards FAQ like no other card in recent memory. Though really, nearly all the questions about it are variations of the same one - "Can I use Spellskite's ability on something Spellskite isn't a legal target for (in the hopes of fizzling it)?" (A: You can try, but nothing will happen.)

About the only question I've seen about the card that wasn't a variation on that theme is whether you can kill an opponent you control via Mindslaver or Sorin Markov with it (A: sure, provided their life total is even and there is at least one spell or ability for it to target, not necessarily one Spellskite's ability would actually do anything against. If their life total is odd, you can leave them at 1 life.)
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Spellskite has been added to the Specific Cards FAQ; I attacked the problem as many ways as I could--hopefully that covers most of them.

However, I didn't include the Mindslaver question, since that seems like something pretty rare.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

The front page, under other issues, refers to "At end of turn" vs "Until end of turn".   Since "At end of turn" doesn't exist anymore, you might want to clean that up.
 

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

I have a question. A friend of mine was talking about playing riku of two reflections and then making a copy of it using quicksilver gargantuan. riku is a legendary creature. If a copy of a legendary creature enters the battlefield, does the legend rule still apply?  


Please make new threads for rules questions, rather than posting in the rules FAQ. Feel free to delete this reply at some point Zammm. ^^

As for your question - the name of an object is a copiable characteristic, and the legend rule cares only about names. So if you copied Riku of Two Reflections with Quicksilver Gargantuan, they'll both be sent to the graveyard due to the legend rule.

You could get away with it by copying it with Sakashima the Impostor though, as she retains her name.
I'm all about super-control in MTG. If you're able to stop my shenanigans, then there aren't enough shenanigans. Lv 1 Judge Current Decklists Sweeping Beauty (Casual) A Vision of Clones (Casual) Coming soon... more decks! :-O
You could get away with it by copying it with Sakashima the Impostor though, as she retains her name.

Sakashima's a he. ;)

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

This has combo become a frequent question:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Can you add this to the FAQ?
 
I'm curious about how -1/-1 counters work and if they can destroy a creature? Who can answer me on that?
I'm curious about how -1/-1 counters work and if they can destroy a creature? Who can answer me on that?

Please create a new thread if you want to ask a question. To do so, go to the Rules Q&A page and click the New Thread button in the top left.
Now that my computer situation is back to normal, I can get to updating the FAQ as I should; I've added Hexproof to the Keyword FAQ and updated the CR text for all the entries, which fixed a couple errors I hadn't noticed before; it also made me notice that the entry for Annihilator has somehow mysteriously vanished, so I'll be contacting CS to try to get it back. The links to the CR in the Keyword FAQ and in the first post here have been updated. Next on the agenda is the Returning Player Rules Primer, and after that gets done it should be about time to get ready for the Innistrad update. Yay for neverending tasks!

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

hey im just wondering about temporary insanity....once my opponent declares attackers can i then untap his creature and make it block its own attack. if so would it result in its own death ( say the creature has more power than toughness)
Quoting the very top of the very first post in this thread (and, to reiterate essentially the same thing that is said just two posts above yours, among many other places):
Please do not post questions of your own here!
You should only post in this thread if you want a question or topic to be added to the list. If you do, please post both question and answer, along with an explanation of why the given answer is the correct one.
Please make your own thread if you want to get a question answered.

One reason for this is that your question will be noticed and answered sooner (minutes instead of hours, typically).
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
hey im just wondering about temporary insanity....once my opponent declares attackers can i then untap his creature and make it block its own attack. if so would it result in its own death ( say the creature has more power than toughness)


no.
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
DD, I decided a while back - and I think a few other regulars independantly came to the same conclusion at various points - that answering rules questions in this thread, though it seems like a nice thing to do, just reinforces the behaviour of posting them here that we're trying to discourage. There's little I hate more than being on the recieving end of mixed signals, so I'd rather not send any of my own.

In any case, this time the response was ambiguous - which part where you saying "no" to?
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
The RPRP has now been updated through Magic 2012, not that there was a lot to add; I've also fixed a couple errors I noticed elsewhere; as always, if you notice any errors, just let me know.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

DD, I decided a while back - and I think a few other regulars independantly came to the same conclusion at various points - that answering rules questions in this thread, though it seems like a nice thing to do, just reinforces the behaviour of posting them here that we're trying to discourage. There's little I hate more than being on the recieving end of mixed signals, so I'd rather not send any of my own.

In any case, this time the response was ambiguous - which part where you saying "no" to?


Mhm, I was trying to teach that he would get an answer, but not a detailed one. I may have been in a bit of a cranky mood at that time.

EDIT:
@ Zamm: The section about sacrifice seems to be missing - it is in the Index, but the links lead to wrong posts...
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
There is no section about sacrifice. That's why the word "sacrifice" is in normal black text rather than a link. The links underneath lead to the places where the relevant questions are answered - for example, "And Indestructibility" leads to the FAQ on indestructible stuff.

Though questions that superficially seem to be about sacrifice get asked a lot, there really isn't much point in giving it an entry of its own, for want of things to put there. As I keep pointing out, as recently as late last night, sacrifice really has next to nothing by way of special rules associated with it. Like some other concepts, e.g. counters, confusion about it mostly takes the form of assuming it must be more complicated than it is.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
if you use an arua on an opponents creature. like arrest. when that creat gets destroied does the enchantment get returnd to hand or sent to the graveyard
The very top of the very first post in this thread reads:
Please do not post questions of your own here!
You should only post in this thread if you want a question or topic to be added to the list. If you do, please post both question and answer, along with an explanation of why the given answer is the correct one.
Please make your own thread if you want to get a question answered.

Moreover, half the discussion on THIS VERY PAGE is about the best way to handle people who do this. So I'm even less inclined than usual to be sympathetic toward this faux pas. Please take this elsewhere.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Hm, drat; double-faced cards definitely want their own entry, but I can't insert another post where I want like I could on the old boards; I guess I'll need to rebuild the thread again.

Maybe I'll talk with the ORCs, see if there's something I can do to avoid constant rebuilds in the future whenever something new comes up.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Hm, drat; double-faced cards definitely want their own entry, but I can't insert another post where I want like I could on the old boards; I guess I'll need to rebuild the thread again.

Maybe I'll talk with the ORCs, see if there's something I can do to avoid constant rebuilds in the future whenever something new comes up.


Shoot! That would be awful!
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
Hm, drat; double-faced cards definitely want their own entry, but I can't insert another post where I want like I could on the old boards; I guess I'll need to rebuild the thread again.

Maybe I'll talk with the ORCs, see if there's something I can do to avoid constant rebuilds in the future whenever something new comes up.



There are a half-dozen or so posts starting at #55 that say "reserved for FAQ expansion".  Can't you edit one of those to be a new FAQ entry?

 
There are a half-dozen or so posts starting at #55 that say "reserved for FAQ expansion".  Can't you edit one of those to be a new FAQ entry?

Yes, but just adding the new entry at the end throws off the organization of the thread. Maintaining the organization requires moving every entry one post down.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Sign In to post comments