7/11/2011 Feature: "July 2011 Update Bulletin"

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this month's Update Bulletin, which is live now on magicthegathering.com.
You go, Matt! Get just 100 more Rules Manager points and you can cash them in for a free playset of Chimney Imps.

(1000 more Rules Manager points and you can cash them in for no Chimney Imps at all!)

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

I just can't imagine anyone pointing out the flaw in Rally the Horde without getting smacked upside the head by any other nearby players. Is that why it took 8 years to 'fix'?
I'm still not quite clear on the damage assignment. Perhaps additional overly complicated examples are in order?

Example A:
I attack my opponent with a 5/5 Infect creature.
My opponent gang blocks with five 2/2 creatures.

Can I distribute one damage to each of the five creatures (thereby giving them each a -1/-1 counter)?
This is what the rule change is allowing, correct?

Example B: 
I attack my opponent with a 5/5 Deathtouch creature.
My opponent gang blocks with five 2/2 creatures.

I can distribute one damage to each creature, because one damage is enough to kill each one.
This was previously allowed and isn't changing, correct?

Example C:
I attack my opponent with a 5/5 Trample creature.
My opponent gang blocks with five 2/2 creatures.

I cannot assign all the damage to a single creature and say the remaining three damage "tramples through".  This was not previously allowed nor is it allowed now, correct?


Thanks for any clarification!
I'm still not quite clear on the damage assignment. Perhaps additional overly complicated examples are in order?

Example A:
I attack my opponent with a 5/5 Infect creature.
My opponent gang blocks with five 2/2 creatures.

Can I distribute one damage to each of the five creatures (thereby giving them each a -1/-1 counter)?
This is what the rule change is allowing, correct?

No. The change that's being made is an extreme corner-case that only affects situations where more than one blocker is blocking more than one attacker, and the sets of what is being blocked overlap.


Example B: 
I attack my opponent with a 5/5 Deathtouch creature.
My opponent gang blocks with five 2/2 creatures.

I can distribute one damage to each creature, because one damage is enough to kill each one.
This was previously allowed and isn't changing, correct?

Correct.

Example C:
I attack my opponent with a 5/5 Trample creature.
My opponent gang blocks with five 2/2 creatures.

I cannot assign all the damage to a single creature and say the remaining three damage "tramples through".  This was not previously allowed nor is it allowed now, correct?

Correct.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

You probably missed Tember City's subtype because it doesn't exist.
Isn't the change to Serpent Generator actually a functional change? I don't have convenient access to the previous Oracle wording, but the card as printed clearly states 'If any Poison Snake damages any player' - under the old wording it certainly looks like with Serpent Generator on the field, Mistform Ultimus (to pick everyone's favorite example, still) would have given a poison counter to any player it dealt damage to, but this isn't true under the new wording...

EDIT:  D'oh! Got tripped up by the plethora(!) of different wordings on the card.  The Chronicles and 5E versions both say 'if any Poison Snake', but the Legends version pretty clearly specifies 'If this creature damages opponent'.  (On the other hand, it does say 'opponent' rather than 'any player', which means that the current Oracle wording doesn't actually mimic any of the printed versions of the card.)

When resolving Rally the Horde, don't we end up with an unbounded mandatory loop (that causes a draw) if the player's entire library is exiled and the last card exiled was a non-land, since we have to keep on repeating the process? If so, this could potentially be fixed by changing the wording to "repeat this process until the last card exiled is a land or until no cards are exiled" or something similar.

Also, given the confusion that's come up a number of times on these boards when people read Pyramids, it would be nice if we could add reminder text to it that explains that the land is not destroyed. Something like:

{o2}: Choose one — Destroy target Aura attached to a land; or the next time target land would be destroyed this turn, remove all damage marked on it instead. (The land is not destroyed.) 

I'll post this here as well as the threads over in RT&T: 800.4a still needs fixing, if your "solution" is what I'm thinking it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, the new process is "all objects owned by that player leave the game, effects which give the player control of any objects or players end, and spells and abilities controlled by that player cease to exist"? That works for Commandeer, but creates a Bribery-like situation for Memory Plunder. With a Plundered spell on the stack, there's non control-changing effect to end, so it will stay where it is... and cease to exist for the next part of the sequence anyway. Maybe we can get this issue solved in time for the "editing and review" process?

I'm just going to go ahead and mention that this solution proposed on the T&T thread is probably a better solution than the one you seem to have adopted.

(I'm doing so much cross-posting on this issue. It isn't even funny.)

Edit: Woe is us, the Plunder issue is doomed for the next rules update. And we can tentatively confirm that Matt lurks RT&T more than this forum.
Rules Nut Advisor
I don't know the hystory of Oracle changes for Pyramids, but it seems like printed functionality is to prevent destruction of any land, while current (and updated) Oracle only prevent destruction of manlands. In other words, why don't Pyramids stop Stone Rain?
I don't know the hystory of Oracle changes for Pyramids, but it seems like printed functionality is to prevent destruction of any land, while current (and updated) Oracle only prevent destruction of manlands. In other words, why don't Pyramids stop Stone Rain?



It will, since it replaces the destroys effect with the damage removal.  The new wording just makes it more confusing, but luckily pyramids isn't a common card.

I don't know the hystory of Oracle changes for Pyramids, but it seems like printed functionality is to prevent destruction of any land, while current (and updated) Oracle only prevent destruction of manlands. In other words, why don't Pyramids stop Stone Rain?


The wording you're referring to is "the next time target land would be destroyed this turn, remove all damage marked on it instead." I assume what's tripping you up is the fact that non-creature lands won't normally have damage marked on them (it's possible, but doesn't happen in the normal course of events). But even if that were impossible instead of just highly unusual, it still wouldn't limit this effect to creature lands.

I cast Stone Rain on a perfectly normal mountain you control that doesn't have a recent history of having been an indestructible creature or anything like that. In response, you play Pyramids' ability on it (and I kick myself in the head for forgetting you had Pyramids). Stone Rain resolves. Instead of destroying the land, you remove all the points of damage marked on it (all zero of them). Net result: Nothing happens, except for Stone Rain going to the graveyard. Which is exactly the right result.

Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Island Fish Jasconius isn't on Magic Online.  Is this a Masters Edition 5 spoiler?!?!?  You mean there's going to be a Masters 5?!?!  You mean we're getting Power 9?!?!?!  YES!  YES!  YES!
I don't know the hystory of Oracle changes for Pyramids, but it seems like printed functionality is to prevent destruction of any land, while current (and updated) Oracle only prevent destruction of manlands. In other words, why don't Pyramids stop Stone Rain?



It will, since it replaces the destroys effect with the damage removal.  The new wording just makes it more confusing, but luckily pyramids isn't a common card.




The wording you're referring to is "the next time target land would be destroyed this turn, remove all damage marked on it instead." I assume what's tripping you up is the fact that non-creature lands won't normally have damage marked on them (it's possible, but doesn't happen in the normal course of events). But even if that were impossible instead of just highly unusual, it still wouldn't limit this effect to creature lands.

I cast Stone Rain on a perfectly normal mountain you control that doesn't have a recent history of having been an indestructible creature or anything like that. In response, you play Pyramids' ability on it (and I kick myself in the head for forgetting you had Pyramids). Stone Rain resolves. Instead of destroying the land, you remove all the points of damage marked on it (all zero of them). Net result: Nothing happens, except for Stone Rain going to the graveyard. Which is exactly the right result.




Axterix, jeff-heikkinen, thanks for the explanations, I got it now with your help (seems like I missed the word "instead").

In the Magic Tournament Rules (www.wizards.com/wpn/Document.aspx?x=Magi...), concerning Taking notes:
This sentence:

At the beginning of a match, each player’s note sheet must be empty and must remain visible throughout
the match.

Clearly contredict this one:
Between games, players may refer to a brief set of notes made before the match.

I read the first sentence, and i thought "well, that settles the question of sideboarding notes: you can't have them, since your note sheet must be empty".
I read the second one and thought: "what?".

So what is the solution here?
Can you clarify a little bit these sentences?


I'm still not quite clear on the damage assignment. Perhaps additional overly complicated examples are in order?

Example A:
I attack my opponent with a 5/5 Infect creature.
My opponent gang blocks with five 2/2 creatures.

Can I distribute one damage to each of the five creatures (thereby giving them each a -1/-1 counter)?
This is what the rule change is allowing, correct?



I thought that what the article's example was trying to prove, but made overly complicated, was that you still have to assign lethal damage to a blocker before you can roll over damage from one of your attackers to a second blocker, but now you can simply declare your rollover at the beginning, instead of making sure it's the last in the damage assignment order--as long as the math checks out.

However, the example is way too confusing. Is the author saying that something like:

I have a 3/3, a 3/3, and a 4/4 being blocked by two 5/5s.
I can have the 3/3 deal 2, the second 3/3 deal 1, and the 4/4 deal 2 to the first blocker, then deal the rest of their damage to the second blocker.
?

This seems counterintuitive and illegal.

My other question is, what's the point of choosing which creatures get a -1/-1 counter? (Unless one will survive the damage). Doesn't all combat damage get dealt simultaneously, so that a -1/-1 counter dealt to a blocking creature won't prevent it from dealing its full power damage?
I don't know the order of mana symobls. In fact, I often see them contradicted in actual cards' mana costs.
I don't know the order of mana symobls. In fact, I often see them contradicted in actual cards' mana costs.

I think that the necroskitter example was silly. You'd want to deal the 2 necroskitter damage to the 5/5 that survives, making it a 3/3. Better than the current example that leaves you with a 4/4. Unless you're expecting some sort of a trick that would leave one alive (in which case you're better off dealing 6 damage to one 5/5). Either way, the suggest play seems strictly sub-optimal.
You probably missed Tember City's subtype because it doesn't exist.



Ditto.  I've been complaining since Celestine Reef that the extra Planechase planes aren't in gatherer.  Please put planes 42-45 in there!
I think that the necroskitter example was silly. You'd want to deal the 2 necroskitter damage to the 5/5 that survives, making it a 3/3. Better than the current example that leaves you with a 4/4. Unless you're expecting some sort of a trick that would leave one alive (in which case you're better off dealing 6 damage to one 5/5). Either way, the suggest play seems strictly sub-optimal.



The necroskitter has an ability that says when a create that goes to the graveyard with a -1/-1 counter on it, it comes back into play under your control, so I can see the advantage of trying to spread those counters around.

I think I understand the original situation now, thanks for the replies. In the end everything needs to work out to be 'legal', ie enough net damage is killing each creature before being assigned to the next.
What was the reasoning behind making all those "use this ability only during your upkeep" abilities triggered. Does it imply I can only do it once by saying that?

Island Fish could be untapped multiple times with say some ability that managed to give it UUU for tapping (the whole Paralize) delima again. So much for getting the cards as close to printed wording.
I think it's more flavorful for Legendary cards to only refer to their proper name. Higure, the Still Wind referring to itself as Higure just saves card space, while sounding nicer to say out loud.
IMAGE(http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af108/acatan/sigwynzermancopy.png) Signature by IMAGE(http://www.poke-amph.com/heartgoldsoulsilver/sprites/258.png)
I think that the necroskitter example was silly. You'd want to deal the 2 necroskitter damage to the 5/5 that survives, making it a 3/3. Better than the current example that leaves you with a 4/4. Unless you're expecting some sort of a trick that would leave one alive (in which case you're better off dealing 6 damage to one 5/5). Either way, the suggest play seems strictly sub-optimal.



The necroskitter has an ability that says when a create that goes to the graveyard with a -1/-1 counter on it, it comes back into play under your control, so I can see the advantage of trying to spread those counters around.




Whoops. Thanks for pointing that out.
my understanding of how errata was done to older cards is that you go by the most recent printing. in that case, why doesn't island fish jasconius have an activated ability? it was printed three times, in Arabian Nights, Revised, and Fourth Edition. in Arabian Nights and Revised, it had an upkeep trigger that allowed you to pay one time to untap it. however, in fourth edition, it had an ability like marjhan's, which allowed you to do it at any time during the upkeep, and hypothetically do it multiple times. why was this functionality lost?

 
120.6. Some effects replace card draws.