01/27/2011 Feature: "February 2011 Update Bulletin"

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's Feature Article, which goes live Thursday morning on magicthegathering.com.
Happy Melvin day, everybody!

*Off to read*
Magic Judge Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Rules Theory and Templating: "They may be crazy, but they're good." --Matt Tabak, Rules Manager*
Changes you want to research, eh? Well, I've got my file of errors I've noticed right here waiting...

(Meanwhile, thank you for pointing out Rules Theory and Templating. Now in case I get something embarassingly wrong (like I did last time with Lobotomy) I can ask them first rather than proposing it here.)

Potential problems I've noticed since last time:

Mogg Flunkies - Going by the original text, it should be able to attack or block so long as another creature you control attacked or blocked that *turn*, which is relevant if there are multiple combat phases that turn.  (Strictly speaking, going by the original text, it seems like it ought to be able to attack alone so long as you later play a card giving you an additional combat phase and attack again, but that's kind of ridiculous and also not really implementable.) Admittedly, this has been reprinted with the newer template in Premium Deck Series: Fire and Lightning, but seeing as how e.g. the Coldsnap theme decks were ignored when deciding which wording to use (look at Bounty of the Hunt), I assume reprint sets like Duel Decks and Premium Deck Series are ignored in general.

Mercenary Informer, Rebel Informer - These cards' activated abilities should only be able to target nontoken permanents.

Phantasmal Sphere - OK, I mentioned this one last time, but at the very end, where chances are nobody noticed it.  As printed, the second ability targets, but the current Oracle wording doesn't.

Also, Kinshala still needs to be added to the list of planar types, since you don't have to appear to have made that change in this CR.  (I assume you did add Germ to the list of creature types but forgot to mention it, right?)

And... that's it, actually.  Meanwhile I await to see how your research affects such cards as Mercenaries, Floral Spuzzem, Brutal Suppression, etc...
I'm about 90% sure that only the third is an actual issue and I would wager it's intentional.
(Meanwhile, thank you for pointing out Rules Theory and Templating. Now in case I get something embarassingly wrong (like I did last time with Lobotomy) I can ask them first rather than proposing it here.)

Yeah, Rules T&T is where all the cool rules goobs hang out. When we're not busy resolving the oxymoron, anyway.

Oh, and Matt, it looks like you forgot to mention 'Germ' being added to the creature type list--hopefully that omission was just in the Update and not in the CR itself.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Great update, Matt & The Rules Team.  Thanks!!

(Sidenote: Matt & The Rules Team = next band name)

Threw my (lame and unhelpful) commentary in the RT&T thread.
Magic Judge Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Rules Theory and Templating: "They may be crazy, but they're good." --Matt Tabak, Rules Manager*
Actually, one note while I'm thinking of it.

I do wish that when introducing a new rule to cover an unknown situation, that you'd always state what the outcome is going to be.  The rules jargon can wait until for the new draft of the Comp Rules, but it'd be more convenient if you gave us the summary with the update.

For example:

701.15e
This rule was created to handle the case where a nonempty set of objects would be shuffled into a library but are instead moved to another zone. This could happen with one of the Fifth Dawn Beacons or Mirrodin Besieged Zeniths cast with flashback. Subsequent rules were renumbered.

Okay, great.  New rule to handle a bizarre scenario.  But uh... what's it going to do?  You don't have to give us the exact rule, I understand it's going through review, editing, etc, etc.  But a little note saying "(The library is still [not] shuffled)" would be helpful.

You do exactly what I'm requesting just a little later for the Copy / CDA interaction, for example.  You explain the rule is changing, describe an affected scenario, and then give us a quick summary of what's to come: "Now, it'll still copy that ability (so Muraganda Petroglyphs doesn't mess anything up), but you won't consider it when determining the Doppelganger's characteristics."

And that's great!

Otherwise I have to remember to actually go and look up the rule when the Comp Rules hit.  And I'm laaaaazy

Just my .02
Magic Judge Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Rules Theory and Templating: "They may be crazy, but they're good." --Matt Tabak, Rules Manager*
So with the color identity change can I now use Memnarch in a blue EDH deck?
IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1205820039/Scorecards/Landscape.png)
So Greater Werewolf is now back to its printed wording?  That seems like call for celebration, except it makes me wonder why it was ever changed at all....
So with the color identity change can I now use Memnarch in a blue EDH deck?



...you always could. Or do you mean "as the general?"
So with the color identity change can I now use Memnarch in a blue EDH deck?



...you always could. Or do you mean "as the general?"



Yes, I meant as a general.  After looking on the EDH site forums it seems like you can but I am not 100% certain.
IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1205820039/Scorecards/Landscape.png)
Now all EDH Commander has left to deal with is the "hybrid problem".
Yes, I meant as a general.  After looking on the EDH site forums it seems like you can but I am not 100% certain.

Yes, Memnarch can now be used as a blue general. The number of people who pile on top of you when you try to play it is up to your playgroup, though.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Actually, one note while I'm thinking of it.

I do wish that when introducing a new rule to cover an unknown situation, that you'd always state what the outcome is going to be.  The rules jargon can wait until for the new draft of the Comp Rules, but it'd be more convenient if you gave us the summary with the update.

For example:

701.15e
This rule was created to handle the case where a nonempty set of objects would be shuffled into a library but are instead moved to another zone. This could happen with one of the Fifth Dawn Beacons or Mirrodin Besieged Zeniths cast with flashback. Subsequent rules were renumbered.

Okay, great.  New rule to handle a bizarre scenario.  But uh... what's it going to do?  You don't have to give us the exact rule, I understand it's going through review, editing, etc, etc.  But a little note saying "(The library is still [not] shuffled)" would be helpful.

You do exactly what I'm requesting just a little later for the Copy / CDA interaction, for example.  You explain the rule is changing, describe an affected scenario, and then give us a quick summary of what's to come: "Now, it'll still copy that ability (so Muraganda Petroglyphs doesn't mess anything up), but you won't consider it when determining the Doppelganger's characteristics."

And that's great!

Otherwise I have to remember to actually go and look up the rule when the Comp Rules hit.  And I'm laaaaazy

Just my .02



Oh, right, duh. You won't shuffle the library in that case.

Empty set of objects shuffled in = shuffle
Nonempty set of objects would be shuffled by going somewhere else instead = no shuffle
Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager Wizards of the Coast Follow me @TabakRules
I just want to know when
www.wizards.com/magic/tcg/Resources.aspx...
will be updated.  The documents there are horribly outdated and it is usually the top link when it comes to searching for magic rules on google.
Should Liliana Vess's third ability receive the Rise from the Grave change; i.e., should it become "-8: Put all creature cards from all graveyards onto the battlefield under your control."?
I just want to know when
www.wizards.com/magic/tcg/Resources.aspx...
will be updated.  The documents there are horribly outdated and it is usually the top link when it comes to searching for magic rules on google.

Pardon? What exactly needs to be updated on that page? The only things that are in any way outdated there are the Set FAQs, and those aren't subject to updating over time...

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Oh, right, duh. You won't shuffle the library in that case.

Empty set of objects shuffled in = shuffle
Nonempty set of objects would be shuffled by going somewhere else instead = no shuffle

Exactly what I was looking for.  Thanks!

Magic Judge Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Rules Theory and Templating: "They may be crazy, but they're good." --Matt Tabak, Rules Manager*
You forgot Gurzigost in the bottom of the library update. 
You forgot Gurzigost in the bottom of the library update. 


Also Goblin Ringleader, which is strange since the rest of the cycle was updated.
Also: I'm assuming people know about the problem with Mitotic Manipulation, Splinter, and Splintering Wind? (I know, I know.  The CR says that if you would put Splinter into play, it'll remain in your library instead.  However it seems in the past people have tried to template things to prevent this from even coming up in the first place.)
Also: I'm assuming people know about the problem with Mitotic Manipulation, Splinter, and Splintering Wind? (I know, I know.  The CR says that if you would put Splinter into play, it'll remain in your library instead.  However it seems in the past people have tried to template things to prevent this from even coming up in the first place.)


This is old news.  In fact, the rule that you mentioned was created when a similar issue came up with Retraced Image.
I knew it was old news, which was I began that post with "I'm assuming people know about...".   But I was not aware of the precedent of Retraced Image not having its template reflect that.  Thanks.
As a reminder, it clarifies what happens when you activate the ability of an Elixir of Immortality you control but don't own. Rule 400.3 answers the question with the printed wording, but as Mark said back in July, we don't like relying on players to know that rule. New wording 
{o2}, {oT}: You gain 5 life. Shuffle Elixir of Immortality and your graveyard into their owner's library.

Still technically works thanks to that rule, but should it not be "owners' libraries" a la Disappear? As-is it still seems to be assuming that Elixir and your graveyard share the same owner.
These two cards were given the same treatment we gave Wild Dogs and friends. This clarifies who ultimately ends up controlling the creature if the player with the most life (or creatures or cards in hand, etc.) when the ability triggers isn't the same player when the ability resolves. New Sokenzan Renegade wording 
Bushido 1 (When this blocks or becomes blocked, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, if a player has more cards in hand than each other player, the player who has the most cards in hand gains control of Sokenzan Renegade.

No, this is less clear to me now. What happens if hand size is adjusted before resolution so that there is a tie for the most cards in hand? Depending on how you define "the player with the most", this dictates two or more players simultaneously gain control of it (all those players have the most), or an undefined player (as no players have the most) gains control of it.
New wording 
Enchant creature
Whenever a player activates an ability of enchanted creature with {oT} in its activation cost that isn't a mana ability, you may pay {o1}. If you do, counter that ability. If you don't, destroy Imprison.
Whenever enchanted creature attacks or blocks, you may pay {o1}. If you do, tap the creature, remove it from combat, and creatures it was blocking that had become blocked by only that creature this combat become unblocked. If you don't, destroy Imprison.

A more minor issue than the above two, but why still use "the creature" here instead of "it"?
1. We still assume that the owner of the Elixir is the one activating it, so we use the singular "owner." Both work, but we use the number most likely to be correct.

2. In that case, the intervening if clause is not satisfied, and the trigger has no effect.

3. Editorial choice. I thought the "enchanted creature" to "the creature" to multiple instances of "it" had a more natural flow.
Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager Wizards of the Coast Follow me @TabakRules
1. We still assume that the owner of the Elixir is the one activating it, so we use the singular "owner." Both work, but we use the number most likely to be correct. 2. In that case, the intervening if clause is not satisfied, and the trigger has no effect. 3. Editorial choice. I thought the "enchanted creature" to "the creature" to multiple instances of "it" had a more natural flow.

1. I see. Makes sense, though I still want to read it "owners'".

2. Oh. Of course.

Thanks for the quick reply.