February 2011 Update Bulletin

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
New rules update is up.

Nothing shocking, we got a nice shout out (which is nice).
… and then, the squirrels came.
That should be our new motto: "We may be crazy, but we're good."

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Oops, found a problem:

204.3k
Gremlin is lovingly welcomed back to the list of creature types.

He forgot to include Germ (The new creature type introduced for living weapon). Hopefully this is an oversight in the bulletin and not in the actual comp rulebook.


Also Bosh is a he, he's a male golem. (Don't see many female golems)

… and then, the squirrels came.
That should be our new motto: "We may be crazy, but we're good."

+1.

(And hooray for shout outs! )

Commentary:

I like how the Duel Deck version of Invigorate already has the new wording.  Was it printed with new wording, but Oracle was never updated? 

Yaaaay 613.7c!!  Dependency becomes significantly more clear

(Yeah, we'd already figured it out, but it's nice to have it spelled out in the rule book! )

The new 706.8d will make Quicksilver Gargantuan copying Darksteel Juggernaut be a 7/7, right?  (I assume that was the impetus for the change.)

Magic Judge Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Rules Theory and Templating: "They may be crazy, but they're good." --Matt Tabak, Rules Manager*
The new 706.8d will make Quicksilver Gargantuan copying Darksteel Juggernaut be a 7/7, right?

Right.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Possible omission?

I got a response from Daniel K. ([O] of MTGRULES-L) that rule 510.1e isn't supposed to be in the comp. rules, and should be removed.

510.1e


510.1e Each creature’s damage must be assigned fully before another creature’s damage may be assigned.

 

I don't see a mention of this change. Accidental omission, or change of heart?
Nice shoutout, good fixes. However, Whiteout still needs to be fixed.

Sig
Disclaimers
My initial responses to rules questions are usually just answers. If you want an explanation as to why, say so. Just because it says I'm there, I'm not necessarily there. I leave my browser open so I don't have to reload ~30 tabs. Anyone who wants to text duel me through either PM or chat can just PM me with a format (and a time if playing through chat). I don't play standard.
# Card Blind Hall of Fame
3CB
3CB #1 (1/30/11): Won by silasw, with Mishra's Factory, Orzhov Basilica, Vindicate. 3CB #2 (2/13/11): Won by Vektor480, with Mishra's Workshop, Ensnaring Bridge, Scalding Tongs 3CB #3(2/20/11): Joint win between defuse, with Saprazzan Skerry, Scalding Tongs, Energy Field; and Mown, with The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, Inkmoth Nexus, Sheltered Valley 3CB #4(3/13/11): Won by Mown, with Keldon Megaliths, The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, Boros Garrison 3CB #5(3/20/11): Won by silasw, with Black Lotus, Channel, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
5CB
5CB 1 (3/6/11): Won by Maraxus-of-Keld, with Tropical Island, Thallid, Nether Spirit, Daze, Foil
quotes
56819178 wrote:
So, how would I use a card that has a large in the top half and "sui?l? -- pu?? ?is?q" across the middle?
57031358 wrote:
99113151 wrote:
Winning is not important if: 1. You win by a blowout. 2. You pay billions of dollars in cards to win. If you like wasting money just to win one game, while you could have saved it to lose a few and end up winning more in the future, then it is fine by me.
what? do you ceremonially light your deck on fire after a win?
57169958 wrote:
Or did no one notice Transmogrifying Licid before. (And by not notice, I mean covered their ears and shouted LA LA LA LA )
57193048 wrote:
57169958 wrote:
Hmmm... I think the most awkward situation at the moment is simply the Myr Welder / Equipment / Licid / Aura craziness, but I'm pretty sure he's aware of it.
If the most awkward thing going on right now involves Licids, I declare victory.
56287226 wrote:
We regret to inform you of Trevor Kidd's untimely demise in an unfortunate accident involving a mysteriously blown breaker box and a photophobic creature of unknown origin at his home near Renton, Washington. We at the Wizards Community apologize for any inconvenience or delay, and assure you we'll be preparing a replacement to assume his duties as soon as we finish warming up the cloning vats.
[02:47:46] It doesn't merely "come out of suspend" - you take the last time counter off, and then suspend triggers and say "now cast that! CAST IT NOOOOOW!" [02:47:49] Because suspend has no indoors voice
[10:11:33] !opalescence [10:11:33] Opalescence {2WW} |Enchantment| Each other non-Aura enchantment is a creature with power and toughness each equal to its converted mana cost. It's still an enchantment. · Reserved,UD-R,Vin,Leg,Cla,USBC [10:11:51] *sigh* [10:12:10] Otecko: Do you have a question about Opalescence? [10:12:17] sure [10:12:23] $10 on humility interaction [10:12:25] :P [10:12:29] :D [10:12:47] humility + opalescence put into play by replenish
Ego
58325628 wrote:
Mage is awesome, BTW.
56967858 wrote:
Dear Mage24365, You are totally awesome. Thank you so much. I hope you are able to dine in Paradise without kicking the bucket to actually get there, and that every dollar you ever make magically becomes two more.
58158398 wrote:
56761258 wrote:
I don't think there are any cards like that. There are things that prevent you from activating activated abilities, things that increase their cost, and things that counter them, but I don't think anything triggers from them specifically. There are things that trigger from targeting, so that might be relevant, but I can't think of anything that triggers from targeting a player. I'm almost positive there's nothing that triggers from damage being prevented.
Rings of Brighthearth; Dormant Gomazoa; Samite Ministration.
56761258 wrote:
Well played.

 

It's good to see so many things I reported getting fixed .
That should be our new motto: "We may be crazy, but we're good."

Eh?  Ohh, never mind.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
Rule that I would change: 204.1b
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.

Yay! They fixed the typo I noticed on Transmute Artifact.

Xweetoks = ♥Happiness

Nice shoutout, good fixes. However, Whiteout still needs to be fixed.

What's the difference between the printed and oracle?  How would the "with flying" make a difference?
Magic Judge Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Rules Theory and Templating: "They may be crazy, but they're good." --Matt Tabak, Rules Manager*
Nice shoutout, good fixes. However, Whiteout still needs to be fixed.

What's the difference between the printed and oracle?  How would the "with flying" make a difference?


A static ability that conditionally grants flying has a functional interaction change that can easily be fixed. For example, Auriok Sunchaser is out, and I don't have metalcraft. Whiteout resolves, and later in the turn I get metalcraft. Should the Sunchaser have flying? According to the printed wording, no; according to the current Oracle wording, yes. Changing it to "Each creature with flying loses flying until end of turn" fixes this.

Sig
Disclaimers
My initial responses to rules questions are usually just answers. If you want an explanation as to why, say so. Just because it says I'm there, I'm not necessarily there. I leave my browser open so I don't have to reload ~30 tabs. Anyone who wants to text duel me through either PM or chat can just PM me with a format (and a time if playing through chat). I don't play standard.
# Card Blind Hall of Fame
3CB
3CB #1 (1/30/11): Won by silasw, with Mishra's Factory, Orzhov Basilica, Vindicate. 3CB #2 (2/13/11): Won by Vektor480, with Mishra's Workshop, Ensnaring Bridge, Scalding Tongs 3CB #3(2/20/11): Joint win between defuse, with Saprazzan Skerry, Scalding Tongs, Energy Field; and Mown, with The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, Inkmoth Nexus, Sheltered Valley 3CB #4(3/13/11): Won by Mown, with Keldon Megaliths, The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, Boros Garrison 3CB #5(3/20/11): Won by silasw, with Black Lotus, Channel, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn
5CB
5CB 1 (3/6/11): Won by Maraxus-of-Keld, with Tropical Island, Thallid, Nether Spirit, Daze, Foil
quotes
56819178 wrote:
So, how would I use a card that has a large in the top half and "sui?l? -- pu?? ?is?q" across the middle?
57031358 wrote:
99113151 wrote:
Winning is not important if: 1. You win by a blowout. 2. You pay billions of dollars in cards to win. If you like wasting money just to win one game, while you could have saved it to lose a few and end up winning more in the future, then it is fine by me.
what? do you ceremonially light your deck on fire after a win?
57169958 wrote:
Or did no one notice Transmogrifying Licid before. (And by not notice, I mean covered their ears and shouted LA LA LA LA )
57193048 wrote:
57169958 wrote:
Hmmm... I think the most awkward situation at the moment is simply the Myr Welder / Equipment / Licid / Aura craziness, but I'm pretty sure he's aware of it.
If the most awkward thing going on right now involves Licids, I declare victory.
56287226 wrote:
We regret to inform you of Trevor Kidd's untimely demise in an unfortunate accident involving a mysteriously blown breaker box and a photophobic creature of unknown origin at his home near Renton, Washington. We at the Wizards Community apologize for any inconvenience or delay, and assure you we'll be preparing a replacement to assume his duties as soon as we finish warming up the cloning vats.
[02:47:46] It doesn't merely "come out of suspend" - you take the last time counter off, and then suspend triggers and say "now cast that! CAST IT NOOOOOW!" [02:47:49] Because suspend has no indoors voice
[10:11:33] !opalescence [10:11:33] Opalescence {2WW} |Enchantment| Each other non-Aura enchantment is a creature with power and toughness each equal to its converted mana cost. It's still an enchantment. · Reserved,UD-R,Vin,Leg,Cla,USBC [10:11:51] *sigh* [10:12:10] Otecko: Do you have a question about Opalescence? [10:12:17] sure [10:12:23] $10 on humility interaction [10:12:25] :P [10:12:29] :D [10:12:47] humility + opalescence put into play by replenish
Ego
58325628 wrote:
Mage is awesome, BTW.
56967858 wrote:
Dear Mage24365, You are totally awesome. Thank you so much. I hope you are able to dine in Paradise without kicking the bucket to actually get there, and that every dollar you ever make magically becomes two more.
58158398 wrote:
56761258 wrote:
I don't think there are any cards like that. There are things that prevent you from activating activated abilities, things that increase their cost, and things that counter them, but I don't think anything triggers from them specifically. There are things that trigger from targeting, so that might be relevant, but I can't think of anything that triggers from targeting a player. I'm almost positive there's nothing that triggers from damage being prevented.
Rings of Brighthearth; Dormant Gomazoa; Samite Ministration.
56761258 wrote:
Well played.

 

What's the difference between the printed and oracle?  How would the "with flying" make a difference?


I control Auriok Sunchaser and only two artifacts. My opponent casts Whiteout. After whiteout resolves, i acquire a third artifact. Does Auriok Sunchaser have flying?


  • Following the oracle text of whiteout, auriok sunchaser does not have flying. The sunchaser has a "gains flying" effect and a "loses flying" effect. These are applied in timestamp order, and the later effect (whiteout) wins.

  • If whiteout said "All creatures with flying lose flying until end of turn", then auriok sunchaser will have flying. At the time whiteout resolved, my creature did not have flying, and thus no "loses flying" effect is applied to it. 

Ahhh, okay.  I didn't think about a creature swapping flying/not flying without a new timestamp.  Thanks for the explanation.

(BTW, Mage, I think you flipped your example around.)
Magic Judge Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Rules Theory and Templating: "They may be crazy, but they're good." --Matt Tabak, Rules Manager*
I'm still waiting for this Oraccle update to go live so I can check if Epochrasite's reminder text will still have a typo. I found it a while back, but had no idea how to report it, so I've just been hoping someone else found it and reported it (not that a reminder text typo affects the game in the slightest).
Rules Nut Advisor
I'm still waiting for this Oraccle update to go live so I can check if Epochrasite's reminder text will still have a typo. I found it a while back, but had no idea how to report it, so I've just been hoping someone else found it and reported it (not that a reminder text typo affects the game in the slightest).



Lacking telepathy and having no reason to ever look at Epochrasite, I somehow missed this one. ;-P I'll throw it in the pile for the "Action" update.
Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager Wizards of the Coast Follow me @TabakRules
I'm still waiting for this Oraccle update to go live so I can check if Epochrasite's reminder text will still have a typo. I found it a while back, but had no idea how to report it, so I've just been hoping someone else found it and reported it (not that a reminder text typo affects the game in the slightest).



Lacking telepathy and having no reason to ever look at Epochrasite, I somehow missed this one. ;-P I'll throw it in the pile for the "Action" update.


The Oracle update was supposed to go live on the 27th, according to the update bulletin.

Can you tell us when it will actually go live?
 
I suspect my being out sick last week may have had something to do with the delay. I'll check on Monday. Sorry about that!
Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager Wizards of the Coast Follow me @TabakRules
I just noticed a typo in 713.2; it says "except as specified in rules 713.2a-c", but it should be "713.2a-d". There's four now: Vanguards, Commanders, Planes, and Schemes.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Possible omission?

I got a response from Daniel K. ([O] of MTGRULES-L) that rule 510.1e isn't supposed to be in the comp. rules, and should be removed.

510.1e


510.1e Each creature’s damage must be assigned fully before another creature’s damage may be assigned.

 

I don't see a mention of this change. Accidental omission, or change of heart?



Yep, 510.1e is still there...

How is this treated [O]fficially? Play with the rule as written, or with the rule absent as intended? 
Possible omission?

I got a response from Daniel K. ([O] of MTGRULES-L) that rule 510.1e isn't supposed to be in the comp. rules, and should be removed.

510.1e


510.1e Each creature’s damage must be assigned fully before another creature’s damage may be assigned.

 

I don't see a mention of this change. Accidental omission, or change of heart?



Yep, 510.1e is still there...

How is this treated [O]fficially? Play with the rule as written, or with the rule absent as intended? 


It doesn't affect which way you can assign damage, only the procedure for assigning it.  For example, if two 6/4 Two-Headed Dragons are blocking three  Air Elementals such that the same Air Elemental is first in the damage assignment order of each Two-Headed Dragon, you can assign two damage to that Air Elemental then skip to the second Air Elemental, assigning four damage to it.  Then, you can assign the second Two-Headed Dragon's damage: two to the Air Elemental both dragons are blocking and then four to the last Air Elemental.

The rule prevents you from assigning two damage from one dragon, then two from the other, then the other four from the first, then the other four from the second.  You have to assign all of a creature's damage at once, and only the final assignment of all the damage has to obey the rules for damage assignment.

The rule prevents you from assigning two damage from one dragon, then two from the other, then the other four from the first, then the other four from the second.  You have to assign all of a creature's damage at once, and only the final assignment of all the damage has to obey the rules for damage assignment.



Ok.. that's an odd result. I see that in the example in 510.1c. But if legality of assignment isn't checked until all damage is assigned, then 510.1e is accomplishing literally nothing anyway.
That's what I said when M10 came out   I was told at the time that it helps avoid memory issues (i.e., did I assign all this creature's damage yet?), but it really just shifts the memory issue (has this creature been assigned lethal damage yet?).


Wanted to bring this to the forefront while there's still time to affect the M12 rules update, and see if we can't get a meaningless rule removed.
 
I'd imagine Matt's already finishing up on the new Comp. Rulebook by now.

But there's nothing stopping them from making changes for Innistrad.
… and then, the squirrels came.
I'd imagine Matt's already finishing up on the new Comp. Rulebook by now.

But there's nothing stopping them from making changes for Innistrad.



Still over a month before M12 launches. I can hope.
 
It's on the list for probable M12 changes. (I only say probable because delays could always happen.) Rereading that section in detail, I believe the fix is slightly more extensive than just axing 510.1e, but the results will match how we've all assumed things should work anyway.

Thanks!
Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager Wizards of the Coast Follow me @TabakRules