04/25/2012 Feature: "April 2012 Update Bulletin"

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this weeks's Feature Article, which goes live Wednesday morning on magicthegathering.com.
I'm pretty sure that Stalking Yeti should be clarified as well so to why it doesn't fight (that the damage being done is one way first, then the other). This is relevant mainly for infect/wither

Compare Vein Drinker:
R, T: Vein Drinker deals damage equal to its power to target creature. That creature deals damage equal to its power to Vein Drinker. 

which is clearly two sentences and ordered to Stalking Yeti:
When Stalking Yeti enters the battlefield, if it's on the battlefield, it deals damage equal to its power to target creature an opponent controls and that creature deals damage equal to its power to Stalking Yeti. 

It feels like:
When Stalking Yeti enters the battlefield, if it's on the battlefield, it deals damage equal to its power to target creature an opponent controls, then that creature deals damage equal to its power to Stalking Yeti. 

would be a clearer reading, under the assumption that the yeti was not meant to fight in the first place.
Am I correct that the article on the Oracle Update keeps referencing rules that aren't available to be viewed yet??
The section on 303.4 seems to imply a change in how an Aura with multiple enchant abilities would work. Currently such Auras can only be attached to something that matches both abilities, but making it permissive seems to imply that after the change, such an Aura could enchant anything that matched either of them. Is that true?

Am I correct that the article on the Oracle Update keeps referencing rules that aren't available to be viewed yet??

Yes; the changes it lists haven't been implemented yet. We can't see the exact wording until the new CR goes up.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

The section on 303.4 seems to imply a change in how an Aura with multiple enchant abilities would work. Currently such Auras can only be attached to something that matches both abilities, but making it permissive seems to imply that after the change, such an Aura could enchant anything that matched either of them. Is that true?


I can't say for sure without seeing the actual rule, but I believe it is.  Time to build that Mycosynth Lattice + Mizzium Transreliquat + random Licid + Betrayal + Aphetto Alchemist deck.

Am I correct that the article on the Oracle Update keeps referencing rules that aren't available to be viewed yet??

Yes; the changes it lists haven't been implemented yet. We can't see the exact wording until the new CR goes up.



Why would they do that?? Isn't that rather idiotic?
I must register my disappointment in how few changes were made.
I'm very glad to hear that more work is being done on the Aura / Attachment rules. I can well believe that the proper overhaul that section needs would take some time to assemble, but I'm looking forward to seeing the results.
No, an Aura with multiple enchant abilities must still be attached to an object or player that satisfies all of them. I try to avoid being idiotic when possible. When possible. ;-P
Honestly what's the point of the Granger Guildmage update? How does this change actually affect anything? Seems like something to justify saying, "See I did some work last quarter."

I understand it's to bring the card in line with Wizards' policy on the order abilities are printed, but really this does not affect anybody as far as I can tell and seems like needless errata.
It's about standardized Templating. Yes, it does not change anything, but Erratta without functional changes are fairly common.
[c]Forest[/c] gives you Forest
I must register my disappointment in how few changes were made.

If I had to guess, I'd say Miracle took up a significant amount of time, and with both Planechase 2 and M13 coming up in short order, I'd assume there wasn't a big push to get things into this update when there'd be another in just a month, and a third a month and a half after that.

Honestly what's the point of the Granger Guildmage update? How does this change actually affect anything? Seems like something to justify saying, "See I did some work last quarter."

I understand it's to bring the card in line with Wizards' policy on the order abilities are printed, but really this does not affect anybody as far as I can tell and seems like needless errata.

*shrugs* You're right that it doesn't really affect anyone. But since it was brought to Matt's attention in the first place and it's incredibly easy to fix, why not fix it?

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

The section on 303.4 seems to imply a change in how an Aura with multiple enchant abilities would work. Currently such Auras can only be attached to something that matches both abilities, but making it permissive seems to imply that after the change, such an Aura could enchant anything that matched either of them. Is that true?

Matt already posted to say this wasn't true, but I just thought I'd clarify the point of the update.

There was a situation involving Soul Seizer where you could wind up with an Aura with no "enchant" abilities.  Is it illegally attached?  This rule clarifies that it is.
Magic Judge Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Rules Theory and Templating: "They may be crazy, but they're good." --Matt Tabak, Rules Manager*
No, an Aura with multiple enchant abilities must still be attached to an object or player that satisfies all of them. I try to avoid being idiotic when possible. When possible. ;-P



Hm, I would have thought that being able to use either of them actually made more sense.
Since Astral Slide was changed, should Sudden Disappearance be changed to "Exile all nonland permanents target player controls. Return those cards to the battlefield under their owner's control at the beginning of the next end step."?

Also, should Ghostway start "Exile all creatures you control." to be in line with Sudden Disappearance? (I mentioned this before, but nothing happened, so I'm mentioning it again.)