Parallel Lives (or Doubling Season) + Living Weapon

59 posts / 0 new
Last post
Parallel Lives:

If an effect would put one or more tokens onto the battlefield under your control, it puts twice that many of those tokens onto the battlefield instead.

Living Weapon:


702.90a Living weapon is a triggered ability. "Living weapon" means "When this Equipment enters the battlefield, put a 0/0 black Germ creature token onto the battlefield, then attach this Equipment to it."

When you combine the two, you get:


When this Equipment enters the battlefield, put two 0/0 black Germ creature tokens onto the battlefield, then attach this Equipment to it.

The last part is not modified by the replacement effect ('it' does not magically become 'them'), so it becomes nonsensical after the replacement.


Since this last part makes no sense, neither Germ will become equipped, and both will die, because of the following rule:

614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can't be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.

I suggest rewording Living Weapon as follows:

702.90a Living weapon is a triggered ability. "Living weapon" means "When this Equipment enters the battlefield, put a 0/0 black Germ creature token onto the battlefield, then attach this Equipment to a token of your choice created this way."

There are other cards which use a similar wording to living weapon, which should also get reworded to get rid of the 'it'

Examples:
Helm of Kaldra, Ajani Goldmane, ...

Either that, or the rules for replacement effects need to change so that such abilities keep working, but that seems very hard to word.

Note:

If you believe that this ability does work, this means that you believe one of the following:
- both tokens get equipped, one after the other
or
- only one token gets equipped

The first option makes no sense to me. 'It' can never refer to multiple permanents.

The second option makes slightly more sense, but the game has no way of knowing which token to attach it to. Which token gets picked might seem irrelevant to the player, but it is not irrelevant from a rules perspective. The game specifically needs to know what to attach to.

Basically, the game interprets it as:

When this Equipment enters the battlefield, put two 0/0 black Germ creature tokens onto the battlefield, then attach this Equipment to [undefined].

Obviously, this statement would be ignored.




I agree, this change needs to be made.  Let me summarize and add some of my immediate thoughts:

- With [/c]Parallel Lives[/c], a Batterskull will bring in two 0/0 Germ tokens; to resolve the Living Weapon ability, you must attach Batterskull to the token created by its ETB effect.  Since that effect has been modified by Parallel Lives to bring in two 0/0 Germ tokens, the wording of the Living Weapon ability to "attach this equipment to it" is impossible to carry out, since there is no designation for which of the two 0/0 Germ tokens is to be equiped.

Thoughts:

1. In casual play, the active player would simply choose one of the tokens and attach the equipment to it, allowing the other token to enter the battlefield unattached.  This is obviously the intent of the ability.

2. In competitive play, rule 614.6 must be carried out, and the Batterskull would enter the battlefield, and the ability to attach would be impossible to resolve, therefore leaving both tokens without the equipment attached.

3. To resolve this issue, either the wording on Living Weapon needs to be altered (as you suggested), or players be instructed to carry out the ability according to my #1 thought above.
56735468 wrote:
Residual energetic and psychic emenations from the spark of planewalkers going in and out of the blind eternities like it was a windmill eventually coalesced into beings named eldrazi who by their very nature could not consume mundane sources of nourishment to sustain their existence.
I would think that one token gets equipped, and the other dies.  At least, that's what my Essence of the Wild deck is depending on.

University of Charleston School of Pharmacy, Class of 2016

My Peasant Cube: A Cube for the Commoners

There seem to be two issues here:

1. How to handle spells and abilities that create a single token, then give instructions that assume only one token was created. For example, if you activate Zektar Shrine Expedition and control Doubling Season, how many of the created tokens will get exiled? I believe the ruling is that both get exiled, but I'm not sure this ruling has comp. rules support.

2. How to handle objects that try to attach to multiple other objects. From glancing at the comp rules, it seems that it is an unwritten assumption that an object can only be attached to at most one object -- nowhere is there a rule stating that an object can't be attached to multiple objects, nor any indication of what to do is a spell or ability tries to attach something to multiple objects simultaneously.
There seem to be two issues here:

1. How to handle spells and abilities that create a single token, then give instructions that assume only one token was created. For example, if you activate Zektar Shrine Expedition and control Doubling Season, how many of the created tokens will get exiled? I believe the ruling is that both get exiled, but I'm not sure this ruling has comp. rules support.

2. How to handle objects that try to attach to multiple other objects. From glancing at the comp rules, it seems that it is an unwritten assumption that an object can only be attached to at most one object -- nowhere is there a rule stating that an object can't be attached to multiple objects, nor any indication of what to do is a spell or ability tries to attach something to multiple objects simultaneously.

Good point on Zektar Shrine. It appears that in most cases, any effects referring to a token should refer to all created tokens when replaced this way. Living Weapon and Shield of Kaldra seem to be the exception so far.

Ajani Goldmane is another example where all tokens should get the ability. Technically, his tokens have no power or toughness under the current rules with Parallel Lives out. (I'm not sure what happens in this case, are they considered 0/0 ?)

This is easily fixed though, by changing his ability to:

Put a white Avatar creature token onto the battlefield with "This creature's power and toughness are each equal to your life total."

I think the solution for most such cards is to grant whatever happens as an ability to the tokens (without using 'it').

Living Weapon could be reworded to:

When this Equipment enters the battlefield, put a 0/0 black Germ creature token onto the battlefield with "As this creature enters the battlefield, attach [this equipment] to it". (assuming this can work as a replacement effect)

The affected player can then order the two replacement effects as he pleases, so one token ends up equipped.
The way I've seen it ruled, any time an effect that creates one token is modified by DS (or now PL) to make multiple, all instances of the single pronoun are treated as multiple.

That is, Ajani effectively reads "those tokens have"; Zektar Shrine says "exile them"; living weapon says "attach ~ to them"; etc. In the case of Living Weapon, this means that you'd attach it to one at a time (though in practice you'd just say one dies and the other lives, since that's the end result), but in the case of Zektar and Ajani, it means all the tokens are affected as if they were the single token created by the effect. 

MTG Rules Advisor
 

The way I've seen it ruled, any time an effect that creates one token is modified by DS (or now PL) to make multiple, all instances of the single pronoun are treated as multiple.

That is, Ajani effectively reads "those tokens have"; Zektar Shrine says "exile them"; living weapon says "attach ~ to them"; etc. In the case of Living Weapon, this means that you'd attach it to one at a time (though in practice you'd just say one dies and the other lives, since that's the end result), but in the case of Zektar and Ajani, it means all the tokens are affected as if they were the single token created by the effect. 



I know it has been ruled as such, but the ruling has no rules support. (in fact, they technically contradict those rulings, and comp rules are a greater authority than any rulings, which are supposed to derive from the comp rules)

So I guess I'm saying that those rulings were wrong even though I agree with their intent.

It would be nice if either the cards or rules were worded to actually work like this.
The way I've seen it ruled, any time an effect that creates one token is modified by DS (or now PL) to make multiple, all instances of the single pronoun are treated as multiple.

That is, Ajani effectively reads "those tokens have"; Zektar Shrine says "exile them"; living weapon says "attach ~ to them"; etc. In the case of Living Weapon, this means that you'd attach it to one at a time (though in practice you'd just say one dies and the other lives, since that's the end result), but in the case of Zektar and Ajani, it means all the tokens are affected as if they were the single token created by the effect. 



I know it has been ruled as such, but the ruling has no rules support. (in fact, they technically contradict those rulings, and comp rules are a greater authority than any rulings, which are supposed to derive from the comp rules)

So I guess I'm saying that those rulings were wrong even though I agree with their intent.

It would be nice if either the cards or rules were worded to actually work like this.



In what way does that ruling contradict any rules? The closest I see is where Living Weapon's 'attach it to them' is impossible since you can't attach to two things simultaneously, but LW's ability doesn't say 'simultaneously,' so it's reasonable to assume you'd attach them to one at a time.

Is there something else I'm missing in which those rulings contradict any rules?

MTG Rules Advisor
 

I know it has been ruled as such, but the ruling has no rules support. (in fact, they technically contradict those rulings, and comp rules are a greater authority than any rulings, which are supposed to derive from the comp rules)

I d0on't agree.

There are plenty of cases, in bith the rules and the wording of cards, which are written with the assumption that normal conditions apply, and the rule or card text must be varied in certain unusual conditions. This policy has been adopted to keep the length of the rules down.

If you apply such a precedent, the singular (attach Batterskull to the token) becomes a choice (attach Batterskull to one of the tokens).

Still blessed by Julia of Hillsdown. M:tG Rules Adviser You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I know it has been ruled as such, but the ruling has no rules support. (in fact, they technically contradict those rulings, and comp rules are a greater authority than any rulings, which are supposed to derive from the comp rules)

I d0on't agree.

There are plenty of cases, in bith the rules and the wording of cards, which are written with the assumption that normal conditions apply, and the rule or card text must be varied in certain unusual conditions. This policy has been adopted to keep the length of the rules down.

If you apply such a precedent, the singular (attach Batterskull to the token) becomes a choice (attach Batterskull to one of the tokens).




Why does "it" become "one of them" for Batterskull, but "all of them" for Zektar Shrine Expedition?

I don't mind a rule that "it" becomes "all of them" as necessary. But a) this is subtle enough it should be in the comp rules, and b) it still doesn't fix Living Weapon.

Secondly, why can't an equipment be attached to multiple creatures?
Secondly, why can't an equipment be attached to multiple creatures?


The rules for attachment (or maybe Auras) used to have an explicit statement to that effect.  I don't know why that is no longer in the rules.

No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.

And the fix does not require lengthy rules anyway (apart from living weapon, nothing changes at all), just some minor rewording of existing cards is required.

Concerning equipping multiple permanents:

604.4. Many Auras, Equipment, and Fortifications have static abilities that modify the object they're attached to, but those abilities don't target that object. If an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification is moved to a different object, the ability stops applying to the original object and starts modifying the new one.

The odd thing is that I can only find this rule for static abilities that 'modify the object they are attached to'.
What about triggered abilities ?
What about activated abilities ?
What about static abilities that affect other creatures or dont modify the creature it equips ?

Also, nowhere does it say the original creature is no longer considered 'equipped' by the equipment.

So technically, you can move a Sword of Feast and Famine around all your creatures, and the sword's triggered ability will happen for each of them, when they deal damage to the opponent.

I must be missing something here.

We need a few simple rules:

First try:

An Aura can only enchant a single object or player.
An Equipment can only equip a single creature.
A Fortification can only fortify a single land.

This is not enough, though, because this only fixes it from the Aura/Equipment/Fortification's point of view.
(whether it is enchanting/equipping/fortifying)

It does not, however, handle the other side's point of view.
(whether it is enchanted/equipped/fortified)

An object or player can only be enchanted by an Aura that's not enchanting another object or player.
A creature can only be equipped by an Equipment that's not equipping another creature.
A land can only be fortified by a Fortification that's not fortifying another land.

These rules do not offer much help, because they do not say how any conflicts should be resolved.

Try 2:

Modifying the action of 'moving' the attached object instead

If an Aura would become attached to another object or player, unattach it from the object or player it is attached to and then attach it to the other object or player instead. The objects or players it was attached to are no longer considered enchanted by that Aura and the Aura is no longer considered to be enchanting it.

If an Equipment would become attached to another creature, unattach it from the creature it is attached to and then attach it to the other creature instead. The creature it was attached to are no longer considered equipped by that Equipment and the Equipment is no longer considered to be equipping it.

If an Fortification would become attached to another land, unattach it from the land it is attached to and then attach it to the other land instead. The land it was attached to are no longer considered fortified by that Fortification and the Fortification is no longer considered to be fortifying it.





What about triggered abilities ?
What about activated abilities ?
What about static abilities that affect other creatures or dont modify the creature it equips ?


What about them?

Also, nowhere does it say the original creature is no longer considered 'equipped' by the equipment.


It's under the rules for attach.
701.3. Attach

701.3a To attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object means to take it from where it currently is and put it onto that object. If something is attached to a permanent on the battlefield, it's customary to place it so that it's physically touching the permanent. An Aura, Equipment, or Fortification can't be attached to an object it couldn't enchant, equip, or fortify, respectively.



So technically, you can move a Sword of Feast and Famine around all your creatures, and the sword's triggered ability will happen for each of them, when they deal damage to the opponent.

I must be missing something here.


Text of the second ability: Whenever equipped creature deals combat damage to a player, that player discards a card and you untap all lands you control.

NOT text of the second ability: Whenever equipped creature or any formerly equipped creature deals combat damage to a player, that player discards a card and you untap all lands you control.


No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.

No doubt "take it from where it currently is" is intended to mean "unattach it from any object to which it is currently attached" but that could certainly be worded more clearly.

Even so, 701.3a doesn't cover the case where an object that's not attached to anything tries to attach itself to multiple objects at once, as in the OP's scenario.

What about triggered abilities ?
What about activated abilities ?
What about static abilities that affect other creatures or dont modify the creature it equips ?


What about them?

Also, nowhere does it say the original creature is no longer considered 'equipped' by the equipment.


It's under the rules for attach.
701.3. Attach

701.3a To attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object means to take it from where it currently is and put it onto that object. If something is attached to a permanent on the battlefield, it's customary to place it so that it's physically touching the permanent. An Aura, Equipment, or Fortification can't be attached to an object it couldn't enchant, equip, or fortify, respectively.



So technically, you can move a Sword of Feast and Famine around all your creatures, and the sword's triggered ability will happen for each of them, when they deal damage to the opponent.

I must be missing something here.


Text of the second ability: Whenever equipped creature deals combat damage to a player, that player discards a card and you untap all lands you control.

NOT text of the second ability: Whenever equipped creature or any formerly equipped creature deals combat damage to a player, that player discards a card and you untap all lands you control.



What you describe is the physical action of equipping. 'take it from where it was' has no game meaning, just like the suggestion to make the permanents touch eachother has no game meaning. If those terms were described in the glossary to actually mean something, things would be different. They aren't.

I put a piece of cheese on my pizza. Is my pizza now equipped ? Is the place my piece of cheese was formerly at no longer equipped ? Just like real life gives no answer to this, the rules are silent concerning the effect on the game of attaching to another permanent. The rule you stated does not mention becoming unequipped.

Provide me with proof that the original is no longer equipped. Yes, the rules need to spell this out. As currently written, the rule you quoted is nonsense (concerning this issue). It tries to implicitly tie a physical action to a logical effect in the game, which fails miserably.

Luckily, the fix is relatively easy. See Try 2 in my post above.
Blizzard, when you "take something from where it was" - it can no longer be there, meaning the effects that the equipment had on its previous target no longer apply.  This is pretty much common sense, and you are confusing the issue here because the wording isn't to your liking.

The attach/equip rules are more than sufficient to explain this.  An equipment cannot be attached to more than one object since the act of attaching involves taking it from where it was and attaching it elsewhere.  And since it can only be attached to one permanent at a time, this leads us to understand the scenario in the OP that the equipment will attempt to attach to each token placed on the battlefield, one at a time, in which only one of the tokens ends up attached.
56735468 wrote:
Residual energetic and psychic emenations from the spark of planewalkers going in and out of the blind eternities like it was a windmill eventually coalesced into beings named eldrazi who by their very nature could not consume mundane sources of nourishment to sustain their existence.
In order to properly research this issue, I have ordered a pizza. I'll let you know how that works out. Needless to say, the box it came in will soon no longer be equipped.
Blizzard, when you "take something from where it was" - it can no longer be there, meaning the effects that the equipment had on its previous target no longer apply.  This is pretty much common sense, and you are confusing the issue here because the wording isn't to your liking.

The attach/equip rules are more than sufficient to explain this.  An equipment cannot be attached to more than one object since the act of attaching involves taking it from where it was and attaching it elsewhere.  And since it can only be attached to one permanent at a time, this leads us to understand the scenario in the OP that the equipment will attempt to attach to each token placed on the battlefield, one at a time, in which only one of the tokens ends up attached.

That makes no sense. The physical action cannot have any effect on the logical action. In fact, it should be the other way around.

You might as well argue that creatures are banded when you put them together. There is nothing in the rules which says this happens, but meh, it is common sense, they are grouped together, are they not ?

People often move lands together. In other words, they take them from where they were, and put them on top of eachother. This exactly mimics how the attach rules above work. This does not mean those lands enchant or equip eachother, because the rules don't say so. The game only does what it says it does.

The rules specifically state that permanents unattach in other cases, like when the permanent it was attached to changed zones. Would it not be common sense there too then to drop that rule as well ?

The answer is no.

The rules need to define what happens in game terms regardless of any preconceptions the players might have about how things are supposed to work, based on what physical actions they take. If the game does not state that an Aura which has lost the permanent it was attached to gets unattached, it stays attached. Period. No matter how far away that permanent now is (you can send it to Mars if you want to)

If you move an object from one place to another, this is purely a physical change. It is the same as moving lands together, and ordering cards in hand. it is irrelevant to the game.

The same deal applies to the attach rules. the rules tell you to move the cards around. Fine. They do not currently tell you what this means in game terms, however.

You need to imagine the game having a bunch of variables which are true or false, or which contain a reference to an object:

'X is enchanting' (true or false)
'X is enchanting Y' (reference)
'Y is enchanted' (true or false)
'Y is enchanted by X' (reference)

If the rules do not tell you to change those variables, they keep that same value.
How this is physically represented is, put bluntly, irrelevant.
Blah blahbity blah blah



You attempt to waste my time by making me read your mess of circular logic.  If you don't understand how the game works because you don't have words to spell-it-out-for-you-word-for-word in the rules then perhaps you should stick to simpler card games like UNO.

Or is the color-changing mechanic in UNO too confusing for you as well, since, I mean, it never says that it UNbecomes the old color, does it?
56735468 wrote:
Residual energetic and psychic emenations from the spark of planewalkers going in and out of the blind eternities like it was a windmill eventually coalesced into beings named eldrazi who by their very nature could not consume mundane sources of nourishment to sustain their existence.
Blah blahbity blah blah



You attempt to waste my time by making me read your mess of circular logic.  If you don't understand how the game works because you don't have words to spell-it-out-for-you-word-for-word in the rules then perhaps you should stick to simpler card games like UNO.

Or is the color-changing mechanic in UNO too confusing for you as well, since, I mean, it never says that it UNbecomes the old color, does it?

That was uncalled for. I am just trying to help here. If you believe improving the rules is a lost cause, just say so. The reason I like magic so much is because of its clear way of structuring rules. The system is not perfect, however, so I try to suggest ways to improve it.

I have even provided the fix for the problem, but you won't hear it.
There are no disadvantages to what I'm proposing here. A few extra rules which can only make things more clear...

Anyway, Matt has read it now, so wizards knows about it. That's good enough for me.
Blah blahbity blah blah



You attempt to waste my time by making me read your mess of circular logic.  If you don't understand how the game works because you don't have words to spell-it-out-for-you-word-for-word in the rules then perhaps you should stick to simpler card games like UNO.

Or is the color-changing mechanic in UNO too confusing for you as well, since, I mean, it never says that it UNbecomes the old color, does it?

That was uncalled for. I am just trying to help here. If you believe improving the rules is a lost cause, just say so. The reason I like magic so much is because of its clear way of structuring rules. The system is not perfect, however, so I try to suggest ways to improve it.

I have even provided the fix for the problem, but you won't hear it.
There are no disadvantages to what I'm proposing here. A few extra rules which can only make things more clear...

Anyway, Matt has read it now, so wizards knows about it. That's good enough for me.



Also, to come back to your UNO example, Magic DOES tell you that it unbecomes the color if it changes color. That's why Magic is awesome and UNO is not.

105.3. Effects may change an object's color or give a color to a colorless object. If an effect gives an object a new color, the new color replaces all previous colors the object had (unless the effect said the object became that color "in addition" to its other colors). Effects may also make a colored object become colorless.

Ajani Goldmane does not need a fix. It is not performing any action on the token or granting it an ability. It is defining the text of the token the same way it defines the token's color.


With Living Weapon, Parallel Lives cannot make make the ability "attach it to one token, then attach it to the other", because the original ability only had one action. It uses the word "attach" once. The ability is telling you to attach it to both tokens. If something tells you to do two or more mutually exclusive things, you pick one. I do not think this is in the rules, but it is supported by other rulings such as this ruling for Lich's Mirror:


If, during a check of state-based actions, you'd lose the game at the same time a creature you own would be put into your graveyard (due to an Earthquake for 10 or combat damage dealt to both you and the creature, for example), that creature's controller has a choice to make. The state-based actions rule is trying to simultaneously (a) shuffle that creature card into your library (due to Lich's Mirror's replacement effect) and (b) put it into your graveyard. Only one of those things can happen. The creature's controller chooses which one. If the creature is put into your graveyard, it isn't shuffled into your library. Abilities that trigger when that creature is put into a graveyard will trigger only if that option is chosen.

Goldmane does need a fix.

While it has been ruled that the 'it' changes to 'they' by judges (or maybe even a wizards netrep, I dunno), the rules do not spell it out.
Rulings are not binding except in the tourneys they were made in, anyway.

The comprehensive rules either need to be adjusted, or Ajani needs a (simple) fix to get rid of any misunderstandings.

There is no reason to not fix this. The new wording is superior in every way.

Put a white Avatar creature token onto the battlefield. It has "This creature's power and toughness are each equal to your life total."
becomes
Put a white Avatar creature token onto the battlefield with "This creature's power and toughness are each equal to your life total."

It is shorter, just as grokkable, and fixes the issue. I don't see anything I do not like.
Goldmane does need a fix.

While it has been ruled that the 'it' changes to 'they' by judges (or maybe even a wizards netrep, I dunno), the rules do not spell it out.
Rulings are not binding except in the tourneys they were made in, anyway.

The comprehensive rules either need to be adjusted, or Ajani needs a (simple) fix to get rid of any misunderstandings.

There is no reason to not fix this. The new wording is superior in every way.

Put a white Avatar creature token onto the battlefield. It has "This creature's power and toughness are each equal to your life total."
becomes
Put a white Avatar creature token onto the battlefield with "This creature's power and toughness are each equal to your life total."

It is shorter, just as grokkable, and fixes the issue. I don't see anything I do not like.

Would you say that Skittering Invasion is broken too? Parallel Lives creates extra tokens with same characteristics as the original. Ajani Goldmane defines the characteristics a certain way, so Parallel Lives creates tokens with those characteristics. They are all white, because Ajani says they are white. They all have the text "This creature's power and toughness are each equal to your life total.", because that's what Ajani says the token looks like.
Goldmane does need a fix.

While it has been ruled that the 'it' changes to 'they' by judges (or maybe even a wizards netrep, I dunno), the rules do not spell it out.
Rulings are not binding except in the tourneys they were made in, anyway.

The comprehensive rules either need to be adjusted, or Ajani needs a (simple) fix to get rid of any misunderstandings.

There is no reason to not fix this. The new wording is superior in every way.

Put a white Avatar creature token onto the battlefield. It has "This creature's power and toughness are each equal to your life total."
becomes
Put a white Avatar creature token onto the battlefield with "This creature's power and toughness are each equal to your life total."

It is shorter, just as grokkable, and fixes the issue. I don't see anything I do not like.

Would you say that Skittering Invasion is broken too? Parallel Lives creates extra tokens with same characteristics as the original. Ajani Goldmane defines the characteristics a certain way, so Parallel Lives creates tokens with those characteristics. They are all white, because Ajani says they are white. They all have the text "This creature's power and toughness are each equal to your life total.", because that's what Ajani says the token looks like.

Skittering Invasion does work. It says 'They' (plural). 'They' can refer to 5 tokens.
Ajani says 'It' (singular). 'It' can NOT refer to 2 tokens.

The replacement effect does not replace 'it' with 'they'. That's what the rules say.
Since impossible instructions are ignored by the rules, this causes problems. That's what I'm trying to fix.
Skittering Invasion does work. It says 'They' (plural). 'They' can refer to 5 tokens.
Ajani says 'It' (singular). 'It' can NOT refer to 2 tokens.

The replacement effect does not replace 'it' with 'they'. That's what the rules say. That's what I'm trying to fix.



Ajani's ability refers to the token he makes.  If he makes two tokens due to Parallel Lives, then his ability refers to each.

Like I said earlier, if you don't understand this, then I'm sorry.  The rules are sufficient because everyone understands how this works except you.
56735468 wrote:
Residual energetic and psychic emenations from the spark of planewalkers going in and out of the blind eternities like it was a windmill eventually coalesced into beings named eldrazi who by their very nature could not consume mundane sources of nourishment to sustain their existence.
Skittering Invasion does work. It says 'They' (plural). 'They' can refer to 5 tokens.
Ajani says 'It' (singular). 'It' can NOT refer to 2 tokens.

The replacement effect does not replace 'it' with 'they'. That's what the rules say. That's what I'm trying to fix.



Ajani's ability refers to the token he makes.  If he makes two tokens due to Parallel Lives, then his ability refers to each.

Like I said earlier, if you don't understand this, then I'm sorry.  The rules are sufficient because everyone understands how this works except you.

Do you remember Bramble Elemental ?

Everyone knew how it was supposed to work.
Everyone played it correctly according to intent.

But it did NOT work.

Was this ignored because noone cared ?
No, it was fixed, as it should be.
Do you remember Bramble Elemental ?

Everyone knew how it was supposed to work.
Everyone played it correctly according to intent.

But it did NOT work.

Was this ignored because noone cared ?
No, it was fixed, as it should be.

In Bramble Elemental's case, the rules explicitly contradicted the way it was intended to work, by explicitly stating that something that enters the battlefield in a specific state does not trigger abilities that look for things that "become" that state.

This isn't a case of explicit contradiction; it's simply a case of incorrect grammar due to an assumption that doesn't hold in all cases--namely, the assumption that the number of tokens the ability is trying to make is the number it will actually make. And frankly, I think 608.2c covers this situation just fine:
608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these actions. In some cases, later text on the card may modify the meaning of earlier text (for example, "Destroy target creature. It can't be regenerated" or "Counter target spell. If that spell is countered this way, put it on top of its owner's library instead of into its owner's graveyard.") Don't just apply effects step by step without thinking in these cases -- read the whole text and apply the rules of English to the text.

So we read the whole text of the ability, note in passing that applying the replacement effect would cause the written pronoun to be incorrect, and apply the rules of English to follow the instructions as though the correct pronoun was used.


There is still an issue with Living Weapon, since the instruction then attempts to attach the Weapon to two different objects simultanously, and the only rule for how to resolve mutually exclusive things is 400.6, which only refers to trying to put an object into two or more different zones at the same time. Extracting and generalizing that part of the rule to apply to any group of simultaneous mutually exclusive actions should do the trick nicely.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

The rules say that when the game instructs you to do something impossible, you have to do as much as possible. The game, in the living weapon situation, instructs you to attach an equipment to do different creatures. You can't attach it to two different creatures. Hence, you only attach it to one.

Is there a problem in the rules?

As for the equipment rule, it's these kind of corner case that may make the rule unclear, but in in that way. It is very clear that when you pay for the equip cost, it moves and is not attached to the other permanent. The rules use a vocabulary that talks about moving, yes, but in an attached way. It's the way it says that you unattach it from where it is (take it from there) and attach it elsewhere (move it there). It's just a way of telling things, and it is crystal clear.

However, I don't know how the rules prevent simultaneously double-attachs. For example, with a doubled living weapon token, I can move it from where it was (say, unattached) and attach it to both token. Nothing prevents it, right?

Rules Advisor

Quotes
76783093 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
58331438 wrote:
56945988 wrote:
Rancor dies to in-response removal.
Yeah... Until next game, where it'll be right back. Seriously, there's no way to deal with Rancor in any format. It should be banned, except Gleemax is a lobbyist for the Rancor party, so that'll never happen.
You can't ban rancor, it just returns to your deck.
58331438 wrote:
57461258 wrote:
You might want to actually talk to the Flavor & Storyline Board people... since, you know, our whole reason for playing Magic is the flavor. I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more interest there than in General.
Indeed, both posters down there would be thrilled.
57817638 wrote:
I think I wasn't direct enough in my last post. I'll try to fix it now. Ahem... NO ONE CARES there you have it.
57471038 wrote:
When talks about banning Jace first started, I was thinking that I would see him banned come June 20th. But as I think more about it, I don't really think that Jace is the problem anymore. Sure his power level leaves very little to the imagination (opening Jace is like opening a refrigerator box with a naked girl on the inside), and sure his price does have a strong impact on what players choose to play (playing Jace is like being intimate with a woman and she doesn't charge you in the morning), but it is not the source of all the problems in Standard.
76973988 wrote:
How do people think saving room to print more abilities on cards is dumbing down the game?

Do you really think, say, Akroma would ever be printed if she said, "Akroma can block by creatures with this ability and cannot be blocked by creatures without this ability.  If a creature without this ability would deal combat damage by Akroma would be destroyed, prevent all combat damage that creature would deal to Akroma this combat.  Attacking does not cause Akroma to tap.  If Akroma is blocked and deals lethal damage, it deals the remainder of its damage to the defending player.  Akroma may attack and use abilities that require tapping in the casting cost the turn it enters the battlefield.  Akroma cannot be damaged, enchanted, equipped, blocked or targeted by black or red sources" rather than her "dumbed down" wording she has?  No freaking way.  Keywording and shorthand allows them to make complicated cards easy to play with, allowing them to be printed in the first place.
57817638 wrote:
The creation of praetors was worth it just because now amoeboid changeling is a praetor.
57140668 wrote:
1. cast frankie peanuts2. ask opponent "will you concede the game this turn"? if they say yes, you win; if they say no, play a staying power
3. subsequently ask "will you attack this turn"? and "will you cast a spell this turn"? (using a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir for the second question if necessary) to ensure they can't disrupt the combo
4. donate them a platinum angel
5. play a mox lotus and braingeyser them for every card in their library. play an opalescence and donate them a glorious anthem and a blacker lotus, then play enchanted evening. play and activate a mindslaver and then donate them a fastbond and the mox lotus (returning one of the donates to your hand with eternal witness or whatever)
6. during their turn, play every permanent in their hand (playing lands with fastbond) then (as yourself) cast mirrorweave on the blacker lotus, so every permanent becomes a copy of it. proceed to tear up every card they control, and hopefully do it before they notice that they aren't bound by staying power's ability anymore and can concede
82423538 wrote:
57471038 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
One part of the statement being true=/=the whole statement true.
Whatever. I'm still here about ten minutes away. Whenever you want to get destroyed in Magic, I'm available.
I would like to get destroyed in Magic, actually. Do you know anybody good enough?
57617478 wrote:
Please format your statements in a way that doesn't look like a baboon hit its face on your keyboard.
57140668 wrote:
why did Garruk Relentless lose a loyalty counter
Show
to get to the other side
89522235 wrote:
You're such an obvious troll that you have hexproof and : Regenerate.
56957928 wrote:
56776038 wrote:
Dark Ritual being overpowered is determined more by what is done with it than the card itself.
True, but the fact that it enables so many ridiculous things is pretty telling. It's like, sure I can use a shotgun as a bludgeoning instrument, but that doesn't make it not a shotgun.
79035425 wrote:
Shortly before Serra died, she transferred her spark into an angel whose full name was Asha Avacyn Bolas. Her dragon father groomed her for her positions in Alara and Innistrad, and she's also been getting help from her uncle Ugin in the form of Urza, who was resurrected as Marit Lage to be the avatar as which she projects herself into material realms. Grieslbrand is a split personality who sometimes wanders the planes disguised as a human woman named Liliana Vess.
97610188 wrote:
Yeah that (Content Removed) really annoys me. Moderated by MY_self right about naahowwww!
93446159 wrote:
Dilleux_Lepaire just won the thread.
57461258 wrote:
And, as usual, Dilleux wins the entire thread. Nice work, sir, nice work.
99113151 wrote:
They need to make 9 layers of zones where cards go when they "die". Much like Hell.
56778328 wrote:
Wow, holy doggy poop, kids, obvious statement is obvious.
56776038 wrote:
122053101 wrote:
i don't think your geting it WotC is trying to kill the comption to make it so that there shity app is the only one left.
I haven't tried the app. How is its use of English grammar? Cheers!
57471038 wrote:
Everyone's life would be easier if players would, instead of coming to the 'net for help with a deck, just netdeck and be done with it. And I'm not talking about some Top 8 lists, for the Casualists, too, can benefit from netdecking. I've netdecked plenty of decks from the Casual Play forums from users such as Mown, Raedien, Floopfoot, and a few others. I snatched straight the heck out of my web browser. Yes, people, your original idea fell victim to a savage netdecker. You have been assimiliated. Suppose I wanted a Zombie deck. Why on earth would I spend time searching Gatherer for a decent list of Zombie cards when Raedien already did it for me? Taking time to be creative or waiting on people on the forums to tell you why your deck sucks or 'go to Casual forums' is a disasterous waste of time (to me).
56957928 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
If WotC started putting $100 bills in packs, the players would complain that they folded them wrong.
No, they just spam them with ban requests. That being said, Magic was ruined back in Alpha when they added all that rules and cards [Debutantes avert your eyes]. My friends and I still like playing it the "pure" way (Basically we go into the woods and hit eachother with wiffle bats while shouting made up obscenities. You know, the way Garfield wanted it to be played).
56957928 wrote:
Don't worry about it. I've come up with a list of changes to fix EDH. -First off, there's no commander. -The minimum deck size is 60 cards, and each deck can have up to four of each card, save basic lands and relentless rats. Also decks have no color identity. -Starting life total is 20. And voila, now things are balanced.
89522235 wrote:
Here's a clever play you can try yourself: -Convince friend to run relentless rats.dec in legacy tournament -Get a deck with lots of mill, yixlid jailer, and humility -Drop humility and jailer, wait for him to dump his hand, mill him out -All his rats now have no abilities. Call a judge because he's playing an illegal deck with more than 4 of a single card. -Get him/her banned from competitive magic play
142055101 wrote:
But how to mark them without making the individual sleeve different! You could buy a skunk and slam it's butt on you deck (pardon the french) Then after the game just sniff at your opponent's pile of cards and you will know if any of your cards are there!!!
141434757 wrote:
In Soviet Russia, Sorin opens You
71235715 wrote:
L, is for the leather gloves you weaaaar. O, is for the organs that guy could spaaaare. V, is very very, extraordinay. E, is for every vagrant i butchered in a wine cellar befooooore.
57052258 wrote:
The outer layer of the Magic: the Gathering box, the carton, or crust, is fairly thin and light, and contains largely aluminosilcates. Within that lies the middle layer, consisting of the familiar booster pack. Although solid, the booster packs' high temperatures allow them to acutally move around within the booster box. This flow, sometimes called convection, is cited by frustrated box mappers as one of WOTC's most genious uses of thermodynamics since the Ravnica block. No one knows what lies at the core of the booster box, but scientists theorize that it must be especially dense in order to make up for the large amount of fluff distributed amongst the booster packs.
58232598 wrote:
88993869 wrote:
Torpor Orb is absolutely godawful against Vexing Devil.
whoever is playing vexing devil is probably losing anyways
56957928 wrote:
I imagine [Ajani 3's] second ability involves him hurling the creature at your opponent Brion Stoutarm style, then the guy is just like "Okay, that may have worked, but don't- GOD DAMN IT!" as he does it again because cats don't give a **** :33.
56957928 wrote:
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Albus Dumbledore, The Lord of the Rings.
89522235 wrote:
68978039 wrote:
Its like that one time Elves broke out in a field of Jund. Elves became a resurgent hit, then died off again once Jund adapted to the rest of the field of G/W that it required mass removal that inherently pooped on Elves too. Submit to the menace. Delver can, and will blot out the sun.
Then we shall play in the shade.
89522235 wrote:
I'm sorry, this forum isn't for getting bad advice on mediocre decks, that's standard deck help. This forum is for starting ****storms.
97820278 wrote:
139359831 wrote:
Your advice would only lead me to make generic, boring, and unworthy content. It's of no use to me.
I just got this image of you as an architect, having finished a building suspended by only a small pole in its southwest corner, saying it's original. Then the building collapses.
56957928 wrote:
I for one love the flavor of legendary lands. "I remember my days as a youth at Tolarian Academy." "Wow, small multiverse, I actually went there too." "WAIT, DON'T- Well ****, there's $200,000 in student loans well spent."
56957928 wrote:
And flavor goes out the window when you cast a second copy of a planeswalker right after the first one dies, so... "Hey Nissa, I need a favor." "You just asked me for a 'favor' like thirty seconds ago, and it turned out to be having Sarkhan Transmogrify my only follower into a dragon like 5 times -which dickery aside also violates some laws of causality - and then you let me get beaten over the head by that hedron crab." "...I'll give you " "...Well all right then."
57150868 wrote:
GM, I don't think Dill is better than you. I KNOW it. Even if he wakes up every morning, clubs a baby seal, steals all the TV remotes from within a block's radius of his house and then robs hungry orphans of their food he'd be better than you, for the simple reason that he learns from his mistakes.
143211137 wrote:
57033358 wrote:
Tamiyo vs. Gideon
What would they have to fight about? Like, all I can think of now is Gideon going "Hey, long-ears! I'm gathering a group of 'Walkers together to fight some tentacle monsters.....you want in?" and Tamiyo going "Ew! Hentai no bakka Gideon-desu desu!" and flying away.
76783093 wrote:
I open 4 packs just to be on the safe side. Not only do I get more cards than everyone else, but I also get to spend the rest of the night off. Win Win.
191752181 wrote:
MaRo has a thing for people opening boosters with bad cards. But since he can only get so many bad cards printed in each set, he has found a devious way of getting more bad cards into circulation: He makes entire print sheets with just bad rares, then puts them onto the assembly line. He proceeds to wring his hands and twirl his evil mustache that he grew for twirling purposes as a lightning bolt strikes in the background. Afterwards, he goes to make sure that the good cards are only opened by everyone's friends, and that we all only get to open bad cards. He does this by memorising each booster, than switching them around accordingly. Whenever someone complains about a card, he immediately jumps out from behind a chair to yell "WELL, IT'S NOT FOR YOU!" before merging back into the shadows in order to devise new ways in which he can screw over players, then claim that he has valid reasons for doing so.
97820278 wrote:
192729031 wrote:
You open a booster pack, and staring back at you from the rare slot is a Lotleth Troll? At least I can stick him in my EDH deck and still have four for my standard constructed.
Because lol troll
56874518 wrote:
It helped that I more or less skipped most of GM_Champion's longer diatribes. I only have so many brain cells I'm willing to sacrifice each day.
192931349 wrote:
Mark Rosewater is sitting in a seemingly innocuous cable TV van, outside of Bankaimastery's house. Sitting nearby are two hardened criminal hackers, fresh out of prison, and filled with resentment at their lack of physical fitness. "Have you managed to hack his brainwaves yet? The set deadline's coming up fast." "We're almost through. It should be coming up on the screen any second." The hacker presses a button, and Kevin's thoughts flash onto the screen. Mark and the hackers stare in amazement at the sheer beauty, the elegance, and the raw truth of what they see. It's like the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Brilliant light shines across the screen, the truth of existence is made clear to them, and they despair at their own foolishness, their own ignorance, their own inadequacy. And then they steal his ideas. As they return back to R&D, Mark sneers at a haggard old man chained to a cast-iron sphere. The man looks up from his laborious task of breaking rocks in the dungeon of Wizards of the Coast headquarters, and asks a question: "Kevin, my greatest student. He - he's all right, isn't he? You didn't hurt him?" Mark deals him a weighty blow with his boot. "Know your place, Richard. Get back to work."
57023768 wrote:
Now show me on the Garruk doll where Zac Hill ruined your enjoyment of Magic...
63711769 wrote:
I'm only opposed to it because it bears so little relation to how people actually play the game. The example of Miracles is actually a much better one then the Clone example I was trying to use. From the game's perspective, the card can move instantly from face down in the library to revealed in the hand and that's fine for the rules. But in real life, we can't actually do that, so the card spends a good bit of time in locations that are neither where that player's library is nor where that player's hand is. And that's fine for real life. What I don't want is the disconnect to be explicitly codified. Along the lines of
183664.697 A game of Magic as laid out by these rules exists only as a pure Platonic ideal, utterly unrealizable by fallible mortals limited by the confines of physicality and the ravages of evil and sin. 183664.698 The cake is a lie, too.
I know it's true, but I don't want the rules to actually straight-up tell me that.
147137503 wrote:
77120821 wrote:
Pfft this cant be serious can it? If it is please delete your account OP. Its not even close to ban worthy, considering what JTMS and stoneforge had to accomplish to get banned i see the WotC selling magic to aquire Pokemon before that ever happens.
I'm trying to imagine sorin markov as a gym leader in one of those pokemon games which you have to beat him to get his badge... somehow I imagine that he would stab you in the chest with his sword before giving you the badge, even if you beat his pokemon....
196239043 wrote:
Personally, I'd be fine with tea time but then I'm not gonna waste the mana summoning Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. He always takes all the sugar, drinks the whole pot of Earl Grey and doesn't even say thank you. SO. RUDE.

 

JustTerrorIt wrote:

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

All I want to do is sit down and play magic, but when I walked in yesterday, (since I didn't talk to anyone) nobody talked to me and I silently bought what I wanted and walked out.


If you don't talk to anyone, that increases the odds that no one will talk to you.

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

So how do I just... introduce myself? "Hi, my name is Adam, wanna play magic with me?" Do I go to the counter and talk to the cashier?


Yeah. Talk to the cashier. Tell him/her that you want a Black Lotus, and if they don't have one tell them that the store isn't on par with what you expected.

 

Reach into your back left pocket. Pull out a deck list that you copied directly from some ChannelFireball top 8 Standard discussion, and ask for all the cards, as is, on that list. Then, ask for some random, probably terrible cards from whatever set is Standard legal. Say it's tech for the upcoming changes in the metagame.

 

Pull out a deck, and tell some random dude you wanna test (you have to use the term "test" for this to work) for Standard. Make sure that deck contains Kitchen Finks and Alluring Siren. Maybe throw in Nyxathid for good measure.

 

Finally, before you leave, spill (make it look like an accident) one hundred singleton, random cards onto the floor. Pick them up, put them in a pile, and say "EEE-DEE-AYCH".

 

I know this sounds dumb at first, but it will work. With the method outlined above, you will draw the attention of players that play older formats by asking for cards that no one on Earth can reasonably afford. You will get the attention of the wanna-be pro, Stomp-n00bz players by pulling out a well known decklist and declare that you have "tech" to make it better. You will get the attention of all the kind, helpful players by seemingly not knowing the most common format by having non-Standard legal cards in a deck that you claim is Standard legal. Finally, you catch all the rest of the Magic players by saying "EEE-DEE-AYCH" (EDH (or Commander)).

And there you have it. You will be talking to more people than you would have wanted to talk to in no time.

 

Smoke_Stack wrote:

EDH is the best format anyway


See, it's starting already.

 

Break the Card
What is Break the Card?
Break the Card is a regular thread in the Cards and Combo Forum. Quite simply, the participants are given a Johnnystatic card (e.g. Xenograft) and are asked to build a deck around it. The winner and honorable mentions are sigged below. Get brewing!
Week 1 : Xenograft
This week's Break the Card was based around Xenograft. Thread : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27681049/Break_the_card_:_Xenograft?pg=1 Winner : Axterix with his Vampdrazi deck. Finalist : Vektor480 with his Ally/Golem/Plant deck. Honorable mentions : Zammm for the Turntimber Ranger combo and TinGorilla for suggesting Sarkhan the Mad.
Week 2 : Mindlock Orb
Here's the link to the Mindlock Orb contest : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27697565/Break_the_Card_:_Mindlock_Orb?sdb=1&pg=last#497536269 Winner : Axterix with his Maralen of the Mornsong deck. Honorable mentions : Void_Elemental.
Week 3 : Bludgeon Brawl
Here's the link to Break the Card : Bludgeon Brawl : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27715169/Break_the_Card_:_Bludgeon_Brawl?sdb=1&pg=last#498208797 Winner : Vektor and his Grab the World deck. Finalist : Crandor with his Awesome Aliteration deck. Honorable mentions : RP Jesus with his Wat deck and Zix200 with his Signet Renewal deck.
Week 4 : Followed Footsteps
This week was Followed Footsteps : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27748677/Break_the_Card_:_Followed_Footsteps?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Exponential Growth deck. Honorable mentions : Zix with his Carbon Copies deck and Escef with his Fungus of Speed and Time deck.
Week 5 : Delaying Shield
This week's card was Delaying Shield : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27790101/Break_the_Card_:_Delaying_Shield Winner : Tevish_Szat. Finalist : Vampire_Bat. Honorable Mention : Zix200.
Week 6 : Painter's Servant
This week's card was Painter's Servant : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27940861/Break_the_Card_:_Painters_Servant?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Paint it Black deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his Tiger, Tiger Painted Bright deck.
Week 7 : Venser, the Sojourner
This week's card was Venser, the Sojourner : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27977489/Break_the_Card_:_Venser,_the_Sojourner Winner : Izzett with her "Venser, Trickster Trader" deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his "Tactical Sojourner Action" deck.
Week 8 : Personal Sanctuary
This week's card was Personal Sanctuary : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28005461/Break_the_card_:_Personal_Sanctuary Winner : MrQuizzles. Honorable mention : Vampire_Bat and UbberSheep
Week 9 : Sundial of the Infinite
This week's card was Sundial of the Infinite : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28038277/Break_the_card_:_Sundial_of_the_Infinite Finalist : Izzett with her "Afterlife Trespassers" deck. Winner : Xeromus with his "Fortune 500" deck.
Week 10 : Jace's Archivist
This week's card was Jace's Archivist : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28063377/Break_the_Card_:_Jaces_Archivist. Finalists : Jentaru with his "Consecration of the Draw" deck and HereticSmitty with his "ADHD: The deck" deck. Winner : JaxsonBateman with his "The Archives Are Endless!" deck.
Week 11 : Search the City
This week's card was Search the City : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29518555/Break_the_Card_:_Search_the_City Finalist : Mown with "A Thousand Footsteps". Winner : Desolation_masticore with "Burn the City".
Week 12 : Fiend Hunter
This week's card was Fiend Hunter : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29530975/Break_the_Card_:_Fiend_Hunter Winner : Yuyu63 with "Carnival Hunting". Honorable mention : Dknowle's "Champion the Fiend".
Week 13 : Clock of Omens
This week's card was Clock of Omens : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29541549/Break_the_Card_:_Clock_of_Omens?pg=1 Winner : Dknowle's "The Myrs Go Marching".
Week 14 : Light of Sanction
This week's card was Light of Sanction : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29607219/Break_the_Card_:_Light_of_Sanction?pg=1 Winner : Zauzich's "Divine Plague".
Week 15 : Assemble the Legion
This week's card was Assemble the Legion : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29662307/Break_the_Card_:_Assemble_the_Legion Winner : JBTM's "Some Assembly Required".
Week 16 : High Tide
This week's cards were High Tide and/or Bubbling Muck : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29760427/Break_the_Card_:_High_Tide Winner : Mown's "Puppet Strings".
Week 17 : Illusionist's Bracers
This week's card was Illusionist's Bracers : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29776943/Break_the_Card_:_Illusionistss_Bracers Winner : Enigma256's "Tezzeret's Bracers"
Week 18 : Savor the Moment
This week's card was Savor the Moment : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29787235/Break_the_Card_:_Savor_the_Moment Winner : POSValkir's "A Savory Filibuster!"
Week 19 : Grinning Ignus
This week's card was Grinning Ignus : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29795547/Break_the_Card_:_Grinning_Ignus Winner : dknowle's "Luren' and Laughin'".
Week 20 : Transcendence
This week's card was Transcendence : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29806481/Break_the_Card_:_Transcendence Winners : Mown's "Transcending Timing Restrictions" and Dknowle's "Blinded by Greed", tied for the win.
Week 21 : Mortus Strider
This week's card was Mortus Strider : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29818471/Break_the_Card_:_Mortus_Strider Winner : SimonGlume's "Mortus Head".
Week 22 : High Priest of Penance
This week's card was High Priest of Penance : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29917231/Break_the_Card_High_Priest_of_Penance Winners : JBTM's "Two Clerics and a Goblin walk into a (Bom)bar(dment)..." and POSValkir1's "Choke Their Rivers with Our Dead!".
Week 23 : False Cure
This week's card was False Cure :http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29964239/Break_the_Card_:_False_Cure Winner : Dknowle's "When Hippos Fly".

Week 24 : Akroan Horse

This week's card was Akroan Horse : http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4024821.

Winner : Dknowle's "Indian Giver".

Week 25 : Leylines

This week saw multiple cards being in the contest : all of the Leylines! http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4067621

Winner : POSValkir1's "Laying the Battle Lines".

Parallel Lives:

If an effect would put one or more tokens onto the battlefield under your control, it puts twice that many of those tokens onto the battlefield instead.

Living Weapon:


702.90a Living weapon is a triggered ability. "Living weapon" means "When this Equipment enters the battlefield, put a 0/0 black Germ creature token onto the battlefield, then attach this Equipment to it."

When you combine the two, you get:


When this Equipment enters the battlefield, put two 0/0 black Germ creature tokens onto the battlefield, then attach this Equipment to it.

The last part is not modified by the replacement effect ('it' does not magically become 'them'), so it becomes nonsensical after the replacement.


Since this last part makes no sense, neither Germ will become equipped, and both will die, because of the following rule:




The issue is that, in this situation, the game tries to attach the equipment to both tokens, which is impossible. All that needs to be cleared up is what happens if somehow an equipment would simultaneously be attached to two creatures at the same time.


I disagree that this is a problem with the living weapon rule. It's an issue with the attach rules.


Presumably, the outcome which we want is that the controller of the effect attaching the equipment or aura to the creatures chooses one legal target to attach it to, in which case I suggest modifying rule "701.3. Attach" as follows:


701.3. Attach

/snip


701.3b If an effect tries to attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object it can’t be attached to, the Aura, Equipment, or Fortification doesn’t move. If an effect tries to attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to the object it’s already attached to, the effect does nothing. If an effect tries to attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to multiple objects simultaneously, the controller of the effect chooses a legal object for the Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to be attached to, and attaches it to that object.





M:tG Rules Adviser
I've been saying for some time that the rules for attaching things need to be cleaned up and clarified, or at least that it would be an improvement if they were. I started a thread about it a few months back, and have mentioned it in several others. Here's a new statement, in some ways more and in other ways less detailed, of what I've had to say on those occasions.

It seems to me attachment is based on a small handful of simple, general principles (for instance, creatures can't be attached to things, nor can things the rules don't specifically say can be attached; something can be attached to at most one thing, and never itself; etc). However, for reasons that escape me, those principles, though well understood by most players and especially by regulars in this forum, are nowhere spelled out in the comprules. Instead, the rulebook attempts to comprehensively list the consequences of these principles wherever they apply.

This would be an inferior method in any case - it leads to the rules for attaching stuff being strewn all over hell's half acre rather than all in one place. But the biggest problem with this buckshot approach is that stuff gets missed; there are inevitably going to be gaps in the rules when they're built this way. This isn't just theoretical - two or three times a year, this thread being the latest example, someone comes in here with a question about attaching things that simply does not have a clear answer in the current comprules, but easily could if the rules would only say what they actually mean, or more specifically, spell out all of these general principles in one place rather than having probably dozens of little rules explaining their various consequences.

In the various places I've mentioned this, I have yet to be met with an argument that revising the relevant rules along these lines would be a bad thing. I've had people agree with me and I've had people appear to think it's unnecessary, but I've yet to see anyone actively oppose it. If there's an argument against it (other than "this would be nice, but it's not at the top of the priority list right now", which I understand), I'd love to hear it.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011


There is still an issue with Living Weapon, since the instruction then attempts to attach the Weapon to two different objects simultanously, and the only rule for how to resolve mutually exclusive things is 400.6, which only refers to trying to put an object into two or more different zones at the same time. Extracting and generalizing that part of the rule to apply to any group of simultaneous mutually exclusive actions should do the trick nicely.



Except... Why does trying to attach an Equipment to two things fall under "resolving mutually exclusive things" at all?
Nowhere in the rules does it say an object can't be attached to multiple other objects. There are no cards that do so under normal circumstances, but there also doesn't seem to be any basis under the rules for saying such a thing is impossible.



There is still an issue with Living Weapon, since the instruction then attempts to attach the Weapon to two different objects simultanously, and the only rule for how to resolve mutually exclusive things is 400.6, which only refers to trying to put an object into two or more different zones at the same time. Extracting and generalizing that part of the rule to apply to any group of simultaneous mutually exclusive actions should do the trick nicely.



Except... Why does trying to attach an Equipment to two things fall under "resolving mutually exclusive things" at all?
Nowhere in the rules does it say an object can't be attached to multiple other objects. There are no cards that do so under normal circumstances, but there also doesn't seem to be any basis under the rules for saying such a thing is impossible.




Fair call. All the more reason for the "attach" rule 701.3 to be fixed up.
M:tG Rules Adviser
I've been saying for some time that the rules for attaching things need to be cleaned up and clarified, or at least that it would be an improvement if they were. I started a thread about it a few months back, and have mentioned it in several others. Here's a new statement, in some ways more and in other ways less detailed, of what I've had to say on those occasions.

It seems to me attachment is based on a small handful of simple, general principles (for instance, creatures can't be attached to things, nor can things the rules don't specifically say can be attached; something can be attached to at most one thing, and never itself; etc). However, for reasons that escape me, those principles, though well understood by most players and especially by regulars in this forum, are nowhere spelled out in the comprules. Instead, the rulebook attempts to comprehensively list the consequences of these principles wherever they apply.

This would be an inferior method in any case - it leads to the rules for attaching stuff being strewn all over hell's half acre rather than all in one place. But the biggest problem with this buckshot approach is that stuff gets missed; there are inevitably going to be gaps in the rules when they're built this way. This isn't just theoretical - two or three times a year, this thread being the latest example, someone comes in here with a question about attaching things that simply does not have a clear answer in the current comprules, but easily could if the rules would only say what they actually mean, or more specifically, spell out all of these general principles in one place rather than having probably dozens of little rules explaining their various consequences.

In the various places I've mentioned this, I have yet to be met with an argument that revising the relevant rules along these lines would be a bad thing. I've had people agree with me and I've had people appear to think it's unnecessary, but I've yet to see anyone actively oppose it. If there's an argument against it (other than "this would be nice, but it's not at the top of the priority list right now", which I understand), I'd love to hear it.



I fully agree.
I have too many irons in the fire.
Some useful keyboard shortcuts on Windows
Long dash (em-dash) — Alt+0151 Short dash (en-dash) – Alt+0150 Capital æsc Æ Alt+0198 Lowercase æsc æ Alt+0230 Or you could just copy/paste them from this signature, I guess.
I've been saying for some time that the rules for attaching things need to be cleaned up and clarified, or at least that it would be an improvement if they were. I started a thread about it a few months back, and have mentioned it in several others. Here's a new statement, in some ways more and in other ways less detailed, of what I've had to say on those occasions.

It seems to me attachment is based on a small handful of simple, general principles (for instance, creatures can't be attached to things, nor can things the rules don't specifically say can be attached; something can be attached to at most one thing, and never itself; etc). However, for reasons that escape me, those principles, though well understood by most players and especially by regulars in this forum, are nowhere spelled out in the comprules. Instead, the rulebook attempts to comprehensively list the consequences of these principles wherever they apply.

This would be an inferior method in any case - it leads to the rules for attaching stuff being strewn all over hell's half acre rather than all in one place. But the biggest problem with this buckshot approach is that stuff gets missed; there are inevitably going to be gaps in the rules when they're built this way. This isn't just theoretical - two or three times a year, this thread being the latest example, someone comes in here with a question about attaching things that simply does not have a clear answer in the current comprules, but easily could if the rules would only say what they actually mean, or more specifically, spell out all of these general principles in one place rather than having probably dozens of little rules explaining their various consequences.

In the various places I've mentioned this, I have yet to be met with an argument that revising the relevant rules along these lines would be a bad thing. I've had people agree with me and I've had people appear to think it's unnecessary, but I've yet to see anyone actively oppose it. If there's an argument against it (other than "this would be nice, but it's not at the top of the priority list right now", which I understand), I'd love to hear it.



I fully agree.



+1

Rules Advisor

Quotes
76783093 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
58331438 wrote:
56945988 wrote:
Rancor dies to in-response removal.
Yeah... Until next game, where it'll be right back. Seriously, there's no way to deal with Rancor in any format. It should be banned, except Gleemax is a lobbyist for the Rancor party, so that'll never happen.
You can't ban rancor, it just returns to your deck.
58331438 wrote:
57461258 wrote:
You might want to actually talk to the Flavor & Storyline Board people... since, you know, our whole reason for playing Magic is the flavor. I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more interest there than in General.
Indeed, both posters down there would be thrilled.
57817638 wrote:
I think I wasn't direct enough in my last post. I'll try to fix it now. Ahem... NO ONE CARES there you have it.
57471038 wrote:
When talks about banning Jace first started, I was thinking that I would see him banned come June 20th. But as I think more about it, I don't really think that Jace is the problem anymore. Sure his power level leaves very little to the imagination (opening Jace is like opening a refrigerator box with a naked girl on the inside), and sure his price does have a strong impact on what players choose to play (playing Jace is like being intimate with a woman and she doesn't charge you in the morning), but it is not the source of all the problems in Standard.
76973988 wrote:
How do people think saving room to print more abilities on cards is dumbing down the game?

Do you really think, say, Akroma would ever be printed if she said, "Akroma can block by creatures with this ability and cannot be blocked by creatures without this ability.  If a creature without this ability would deal combat damage by Akroma would be destroyed, prevent all combat damage that creature would deal to Akroma this combat.  Attacking does not cause Akroma to tap.  If Akroma is blocked and deals lethal damage, it deals the remainder of its damage to the defending player.  Akroma may attack and use abilities that require tapping in the casting cost the turn it enters the battlefield.  Akroma cannot be damaged, enchanted, equipped, blocked or targeted by black or red sources" rather than her "dumbed down" wording she has?  No freaking way.  Keywording and shorthand allows them to make complicated cards easy to play with, allowing them to be printed in the first place.
57817638 wrote:
The creation of praetors was worth it just because now amoeboid changeling is a praetor.
57140668 wrote:
1. cast frankie peanuts2. ask opponent "will you concede the game this turn"? if they say yes, you win; if they say no, play a staying power
3. subsequently ask "will you attack this turn"? and "will you cast a spell this turn"? (using a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir for the second question if necessary) to ensure they can't disrupt the combo
4. donate them a platinum angel
5. play a mox lotus and braingeyser them for every card in their library. play an opalescence and donate them a glorious anthem and a blacker lotus, then play enchanted evening. play and activate a mindslaver and then donate them a fastbond and the mox lotus (returning one of the donates to your hand with eternal witness or whatever)
6. during their turn, play every permanent in their hand (playing lands with fastbond) then (as yourself) cast mirrorweave on the blacker lotus, so every permanent becomes a copy of it. proceed to tear up every card they control, and hopefully do it before they notice that they aren't bound by staying power's ability anymore and can concede
82423538 wrote:
57471038 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
One part of the statement being true=/=the whole statement true.
Whatever. I'm still here about ten minutes away. Whenever you want to get destroyed in Magic, I'm available.
I would like to get destroyed in Magic, actually. Do you know anybody good enough?
57617478 wrote:
Please format your statements in a way that doesn't look like a baboon hit its face on your keyboard.
57140668 wrote:
why did Garruk Relentless lose a loyalty counter
Show
to get to the other side
89522235 wrote:
You're such an obvious troll that you have hexproof and : Regenerate.
56957928 wrote:
56776038 wrote:
Dark Ritual being overpowered is determined more by what is done with it than the card itself.
True, but the fact that it enables so many ridiculous things is pretty telling. It's like, sure I can use a shotgun as a bludgeoning instrument, but that doesn't make it not a shotgun.
79035425 wrote:
Shortly before Serra died, she transferred her spark into an angel whose full name was Asha Avacyn Bolas. Her dragon father groomed her for her positions in Alara and Innistrad, and she's also been getting help from her uncle Ugin in the form of Urza, who was resurrected as Marit Lage to be the avatar as which she projects herself into material realms. Grieslbrand is a split personality who sometimes wanders the planes disguised as a human woman named Liliana Vess.
97610188 wrote:
Yeah that (Content Removed) really annoys me. Moderated by MY_self right about naahowwww!
93446159 wrote:
Dilleux_Lepaire just won the thread.
57461258 wrote:
And, as usual, Dilleux wins the entire thread. Nice work, sir, nice work.
99113151 wrote:
They need to make 9 layers of zones where cards go when they "die". Much like Hell.
56778328 wrote:
Wow, holy doggy poop, kids, obvious statement is obvious.
56776038 wrote:
122053101 wrote:
i don't think your geting it WotC is trying to kill the comption to make it so that there shity app is the only one left.
I haven't tried the app. How is its use of English grammar? Cheers!
57471038 wrote:
Everyone's life would be easier if players would, instead of coming to the 'net for help with a deck, just netdeck and be done with it. And I'm not talking about some Top 8 lists, for the Casualists, too, can benefit from netdecking. I've netdecked plenty of decks from the Casual Play forums from users such as Mown, Raedien, Floopfoot, and a few others. I snatched straight the heck out of my web browser. Yes, people, your original idea fell victim to a savage netdecker. You have been assimiliated. Suppose I wanted a Zombie deck. Why on earth would I spend time searching Gatherer for a decent list of Zombie cards when Raedien already did it for me? Taking time to be creative or waiting on people on the forums to tell you why your deck sucks or 'go to Casual forums' is a disasterous waste of time (to me).
56957928 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
If WotC started putting $100 bills in packs, the players would complain that they folded them wrong.
No, they just spam them with ban requests. That being said, Magic was ruined back in Alpha when they added all that rules and cards [Debutantes avert your eyes]. My friends and I still like playing it the "pure" way (Basically we go into the woods and hit eachother with wiffle bats while shouting made up obscenities. You know, the way Garfield wanted it to be played).
56957928 wrote:
Don't worry about it. I've come up with a list of changes to fix EDH. -First off, there's no commander. -The minimum deck size is 60 cards, and each deck can have up to four of each card, save basic lands and relentless rats. Also decks have no color identity. -Starting life total is 20. And voila, now things are balanced.
89522235 wrote:
Here's a clever play you can try yourself: -Convince friend to run relentless rats.dec in legacy tournament -Get a deck with lots of mill, yixlid jailer, and humility -Drop humility and jailer, wait for him to dump his hand, mill him out -All his rats now have no abilities. Call a judge because he's playing an illegal deck with more than 4 of a single card. -Get him/her banned from competitive magic play
142055101 wrote:
But how to mark them without making the individual sleeve different! You could buy a skunk and slam it's butt on you deck (pardon the french) Then after the game just sniff at your opponent's pile of cards and you will know if any of your cards are there!!!
141434757 wrote:
In Soviet Russia, Sorin opens You
71235715 wrote:
L, is for the leather gloves you weaaaar. O, is for the organs that guy could spaaaare. V, is very very, extraordinay. E, is for every vagrant i butchered in a wine cellar befooooore.
57052258 wrote:
The outer layer of the Magic: the Gathering box, the carton, or crust, is fairly thin and light, and contains largely aluminosilcates. Within that lies the middle layer, consisting of the familiar booster pack. Although solid, the booster packs' high temperatures allow them to acutally move around within the booster box. This flow, sometimes called convection, is cited by frustrated box mappers as one of WOTC's most genious uses of thermodynamics since the Ravnica block. No one knows what lies at the core of the booster box, but scientists theorize that it must be especially dense in order to make up for the large amount of fluff distributed amongst the booster packs.
58232598 wrote:
88993869 wrote:
Torpor Orb is absolutely godawful against Vexing Devil.
whoever is playing vexing devil is probably losing anyways
56957928 wrote:
I imagine [Ajani 3's] second ability involves him hurling the creature at your opponent Brion Stoutarm style, then the guy is just like "Okay, that may have worked, but don't- GOD DAMN IT!" as he does it again because cats don't give a **** :33.
56957928 wrote:
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Albus Dumbledore, The Lord of the Rings.
89522235 wrote:
68978039 wrote:
Its like that one time Elves broke out in a field of Jund. Elves became a resurgent hit, then died off again once Jund adapted to the rest of the field of G/W that it required mass removal that inherently pooped on Elves too. Submit to the menace. Delver can, and will blot out the sun.
Then we shall play in the shade.
89522235 wrote:
I'm sorry, this forum isn't for getting bad advice on mediocre decks, that's standard deck help. This forum is for starting ****storms.
97820278 wrote:
139359831 wrote:
Your advice would only lead me to make generic, boring, and unworthy content. It's of no use to me.
I just got this image of you as an architect, having finished a building suspended by only a small pole in its southwest corner, saying it's original. Then the building collapses.
56957928 wrote:
I for one love the flavor of legendary lands. "I remember my days as a youth at Tolarian Academy." "Wow, small multiverse, I actually went there too." "WAIT, DON'T- Well ****, there's $200,000 in student loans well spent."
56957928 wrote:
And flavor goes out the window when you cast a second copy of a planeswalker right after the first one dies, so... "Hey Nissa, I need a favor." "You just asked me for a 'favor' like thirty seconds ago, and it turned out to be having Sarkhan Transmogrify my only follower into a dragon like 5 times -which dickery aside also violates some laws of causality - and then you let me get beaten over the head by that hedron crab." "...I'll give you " "...Well all right then."
57150868 wrote:
GM, I don't think Dill is better than you. I KNOW it. Even if he wakes up every morning, clubs a baby seal, steals all the TV remotes from within a block's radius of his house and then robs hungry orphans of their food he'd be better than you, for the simple reason that he learns from his mistakes.
143211137 wrote:
57033358 wrote:
Tamiyo vs. Gideon
What would they have to fight about? Like, all I can think of now is Gideon going "Hey, long-ears! I'm gathering a group of 'Walkers together to fight some tentacle monsters.....you want in?" and Tamiyo going "Ew! Hentai no bakka Gideon-desu desu!" and flying away.
76783093 wrote:
I open 4 packs just to be on the safe side. Not only do I get more cards than everyone else, but I also get to spend the rest of the night off. Win Win.
191752181 wrote:
MaRo has a thing for people opening boosters with bad cards. But since he can only get so many bad cards printed in each set, he has found a devious way of getting more bad cards into circulation: He makes entire print sheets with just bad rares, then puts them onto the assembly line. He proceeds to wring his hands and twirl his evil mustache that he grew for twirling purposes as a lightning bolt strikes in the background. Afterwards, he goes to make sure that the good cards are only opened by everyone's friends, and that we all only get to open bad cards. He does this by memorising each booster, than switching them around accordingly. Whenever someone complains about a card, he immediately jumps out from behind a chair to yell "WELL, IT'S NOT FOR YOU!" before merging back into the shadows in order to devise new ways in which he can screw over players, then claim that he has valid reasons for doing so.
97820278 wrote:
192729031 wrote:
You open a booster pack, and staring back at you from the rare slot is a Lotleth Troll? At least I can stick him in my EDH deck and still have four for my standard constructed.
Because lol troll
56874518 wrote:
It helped that I more or less skipped most of GM_Champion's longer diatribes. I only have so many brain cells I'm willing to sacrifice each day.
192931349 wrote:
Mark Rosewater is sitting in a seemingly innocuous cable TV van, outside of Bankaimastery's house. Sitting nearby are two hardened criminal hackers, fresh out of prison, and filled with resentment at their lack of physical fitness. "Have you managed to hack his brainwaves yet? The set deadline's coming up fast." "We're almost through. It should be coming up on the screen any second." The hacker presses a button, and Kevin's thoughts flash onto the screen. Mark and the hackers stare in amazement at the sheer beauty, the elegance, and the raw truth of what they see. It's like the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Brilliant light shines across the screen, the truth of existence is made clear to them, and they despair at their own foolishness, their own ignorance, their own inadequacy. And then they steal his ideas. As they return back to R&D, Mark sneers at a haggard old man chained to a cast-iron sphere. The man looks up from his laborious task of breaking rocks in the dungeon of Wizards of the Coast headquarters, and asks a question: "Kevin, my greatest student. He - he's all right, isn't he? You didn't hurt him?" Mark deals him a weighty blow with his boot. "Know your place, Richard. Get back to work."
57023768 wrote:
Now show me on the Garruk doll where Zac Hill ruined your enjoyment of Magic...
63711769 wrote:
I'm only opposed to it because it bears so little relation to how people actually play the game. The example of Miracles is actually a much better one then the Clone example I was trying to use. From the game's perspective, the card can move instantly from face down in the library to revealed in the hand and that's fine for the rules. But in real life, we can't actually do that, so the card spends a good bit of time in locations that are neither where that player's library is nor where that player's hand is. And that's fine for real life. What I don't want is the disconnect to be explicitly codified. Along the lines of
183664.697 A game of Magic as laid out by these rules exists only as a pure Platonic ideal, utterly unrealizable by fallible mortals limited by the confines of physicality and the ravages of evil and sin. 183664.698 The cake is a lie, too.
I know it's true, but I don't want the rules to actually straight-up tell me that.
147137503 wrote:
77120821 wrote:
Pfft this cant be serious can it? If it is please delete your account OP. Its not even close to ban worthy, considering what JTMS and stoneforge had to accomplish to get banned i see the WotC selling magic to aquire Pokemon before that ever happens.
I'm trying to imagine sorin markov as a gym leader in one of those pokemon games which you have to beat him to get his badge... somehow I imagine that he would stab you in the chest with his sword before giving you the badge, even if you beat his pokemon....
196239043 wrote:
Personally, I'd be fine with tea time but then I'm not gonna waste the mana summoning Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. He always takes all the sugar, drinks the whole pot of Earl Grey and doesn't even say thank you. SO. RUDE.

 

JustTerrorIt wrote:

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

All I want to do is sit down and play magic, but when I walked in yesterday, (since I didn't talk to anyone) nobody talked to me and I silently bought what I wanted and walked out.


If you don't talk to anyone, that increases the odds that no one will talk to you.

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

So how do I just... introduce myself? "Hi, my name is Adam, wanna play magic with me?" Do I go to the counter and talk to the cashier?


Yeah. Talk to the cashier. Tell him/her that you want a Black Lotus, and if they don't have one tell them that the store isn't on par with what you expected.

 

Reach into your back left pocket. Pull out a deck list that you copied directly from some ChannelFireball top 8 Standard discussion, and ask for all the cards, as is, on that list. Then, ask for some random, probably terrible cards from whatever set is Standard legal. Say it's tech for the upcoming changes in the metagame.

 

Pull out a deck, and tell some random dude you wanna test (you have to use the term "test" for this to work) for Standard. Make sure that deck contains Kitchen Finks and Alluring Siren. Maybe throw in Nyxathid for good measure.

 

Finally, before you leave, spill (make it look like an accident) one hundred singleton, random cards onto the floor. Pick them up, put them in a pile, and say "EEE-DEE-AYCH".

 

I know this sounds dumb at first, but it will work. With the method outlined above, you will draw the attention of players that play older formats by asking for cards that no one on Earth can reasonably afford. You will get the attention of the wanna-be pro, Stomp-n00bz players by pulling out a well known decklist and declare that you have "tech" to make it better. You will get the attention of all the kind, helpful players by seemingly not knowing the most common format by having non-Standard legal cards in a deck that you claim is Standard legal. Finally, you catch all the rest of the Magic players by saying "EEE-DEE-AYCH" (EDH (or Commander)).

And there you have it. You will be talking to more people than you would have wanted to talk to in no time.

 

Smoke_Stack wrote:

EDH is the best format anyway


See, it's starting already.

 

Break the Card
What is Break the Card?
Break the Card is a regular thread in the Cards and Combo Forum. Quite simply, the participants are given a Johnnystatic card (e.g. Xenograft) and are asked to build a deck around it. The winner and honorable mentions are sigged below. Get brewing!
Week 1 : Xenograft
This week's Break the Card was based around Xenograft. Thread : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27681049/Break_the_card_:_Xenograft?pg=1 Winner : Axterix with his Vampdrazi deck. Finalist : Vektor480 with his Ally/Golem/Plant deck. Honorable mentions : Zammm for the Turntimber Ranger combo and TinGorilla for suggesting Sarkhan the Mad.
Week 2 : Mindlock Orb
Here's the link to the Mindlock Orb contest : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27697565/Break_the_Card_:_Mindlock_Orb?sdb=1&pg=last#497536269 Winner : Axterix with his Maralen of the Mornsong deck. Honorable mentions : Void_Elemental.
Week 3 : Bludgeon Brawl
Here's the link to Break the Card : Bludgeon Brawl : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27715169/Break_the_Card_:_Bludgeon_Brawl?sdb=1&pg=last#498208797 Winner : Vektor and his Grab the World deck. Finalist : Crandor with his Awesome Aliteration deck. Honorable mentions : RP Jesus with his Wat deck and Zix200 with his Signet Renewal deck.
Week 4 : Followed Footsteps
This week was Followed Footsteps : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27748677/Break_the_Card_:_Followed_Footsteps?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Exponential Growth deck. Honorable mentions : Zix with his Carbon Copies deck and Escef with his Fungus of Speed and Time deck.
Week 5 : Delaying Shield
This week's card was Delaying Shield : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27790101/Break_the_Card_:_Delaying_Shield Winner : Tevish_Szat. Finalist : Vampire_Bat. Honorable Mention : Zix200.
Week 6 : Painter's Servant
This week's card was Painter's Servant : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27940861/Break_the_Card_:_Painters_Servant?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Paint it Black deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his Tiger, Tiger Painted Bright deck.
Week 7 : Venser, the Sojourner
This week's card was Venser, the Sojourner : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27977489/Break_the_Card_:_Venser,_the_Sojourner Winner : Izzett with her "Venser, Trickster Trader" deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his "Tactical Sojourner Action" deck.
Week 8 : Personal Sanctuary
This week's card was Personal Sanctuary : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28005461/Break_the_card_:_Personal_Sanctuary Winner : MrQuizzles. Honorable mention : Vampire_Bat and UbberSheep
Week 9 : Sundial of the Infinite
This week's card was Sundial of the Infinite : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28038277/Break_the_card_:_Sundial_of_the_Infinite Finalist : Izzett with her "Afterlife Trespassers" deck. Winner : Xeromus with his "Fortune 500" deck.
Week 10 : Jace's Archivist
This week's card was Jace's Archivist : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28063377/Break_the_Card_:_Jaces_Archivist. Finalists : Jentaru with his "Consecration of the Draw" deck and HereticSmitty with his "ADHD: The deck" deck. Winner : JaxsonBateman with his "The Archives Are Endless!" deck.
Week 11 : Search the City
This week's card was Search the City : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29518555/Break_the_Card_:_Search_the_City Finalist : Mown with "A Thousand Footsteps". Winner : Desolation_masticore with "Burn the City".
Week 12 : Fiend Hunter
This week's card was Fiend Hunter : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29530975/Break_the_Card_:_Fiend_Hunter Winner : Yuyu63 with "Carnival Hunting". Honorable mention : Dknowle's "Champion the Fiend".
Week 13 : Clock of Omens
This week's card was Clock of Omens : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29541549/Break_the_Card_:_Clock_of_Omens?pg=1 Winner : Dknowle's "The Myrs Go Marching".
Week 14 : Light of Sanction
This week's card was Light of Sanction : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29607219/Break_the_Card_:_Light_of_Sanction?pg=1 Winner : Zauzich's "Divine Plague".
Week 15 : Assemble the Legion
This week's card was Assemble the Legion : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29662307/Break_the_Card_:_Assemble_the_Legion Winner : JBTM's "Some Assembly Required".
Week 16 : High Tide
This week's cards were High Tide and/or Bubbling Muck : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29760427/Break_the_Card_:_High_Tide Winner : Mown's "Puppet Strings".
Week 17 : Illusionist's Bracers
This week's card was Illusionist's Bracers : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29776943/Break_the_Card_:_Illusionistss_Bracers Winner : Enigma256's "Tezzeret's Bracers"
Week 18 : Savor the Moment
This week's card was Savor the Moment : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29787235/Break_the_Card_:_Savor_the_Moment Winner : POSValkir's "A Savory Filibuster!"
Week 19 : Grinning Ignus
This week's card was Grinning Ignus : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29795547/Break_the_Card_:_Grinning_Ignus Winner : dknowle's "Luren' and Laughin'".
Week 20 : Transcendence
This week's card was Transcendence : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29806481/Break_the_Card_:_Transcendence Winners : Mown's "Transcending Timing Restrictions" and Dknowle's "Blinded by Greed", tied for the win.
Week 21 : Mortus Strider
This week's card was Mortus Strider : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29818471/Break_the_Card_:_Mortus_Strider Winner : SimonGlume's "Mortus Head".
Week 22 : High Priest of Penance
This week's card was High Priest of Penance : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29917231/Break_the_Card_High_Priest_of_Penance Winners : JBTM's "Two Clerics and a Goblin walk into a (Bom)bar(dment)..." and POSValkir1's "Choke Their Rivers with Our Dead!".
Week 23 : False Cure
This week's card was False Cure :http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29964239/Break_the_Card_:_False_Cure Winner : Dknowle's "When Hippos Fly".

Week 24 : Akroan Horse

This week's card was Akroan Horse : http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4024821.

Winner : Dknowle's "Indian Giver".

Week 25 : Leylines

This week saw multiple cards being in the contest : all of the Leylines! http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4067621

Winner : POSValkir1's "Laying the Battle Lines".

Doesn't seem very likely, in the era of "cast" and "dies".
There's really no reason why a Fortification Equipment shouldn't be possible, other than 301.5 and 301.6 screwing with each-other to the point where it would fall off of pretty much anything that isn't Staking Stones.
Hm? What doesn't seem likely?
Hm? What doesn't seem likely?

An overhaul of attach.

Doesn't seem very likely, in the era of "cast" and "dies".
There's really no reason why a Fortification Equipment shouldn't be possible, other than 301.5 and 301.6 screwing with each-other to the point where it would fall off of pretty much anything that isn't Staking Stones.



301.5. Some artifacts have the subtype "Equipment." An Equipment can be attached to a creature. It can't legally be attached to an object that isn't a creature unless the Equipment also has the subtype "Fortification" and is attached to a land.

301.6. Some artifacts have the subtype "Fortification." A Fortification can be attached to a land. It can't legally be attached to an object that isn't a land unless the Fortification also has the subtype "Equipment" and is attached to a creature. Fortification's analog to the equip keyword ability is the fortify keyword ability. Rules 301.5a-d apply to Fortifications in relation to lands just as they apply to Equipment in relation to creatures, with one clarification relating to rule 301.5c: a Fortification that's also a creature (not a land) can't fortify a land. (See rule 702.65, "Fortify.")

Draiks = ♥Happiness

 

I live in my own little world.


Wouldn't it be easier to unify the attach rules, and check if it can attach to what it's attached to, before falling off?  As is, the Equip/Fort rules are "must attach to".

Hell, we may even get some aura fixes out of the deal (hell if I know what they'd be, offhand).
That is a very good point, but I had to at least try.

Draiks = ♥Happiness

 

I live in my own little world.

Sign In to post comments