1/28/2014 Feature: "Born of the Gods Update Bulletin"

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's Feature, "Born of the Gods Update Bulletin", which goes live Tuesday morning on magicthegathering.com.

Can somebody explain to me how Burning of Xinye is a functional change?

 

I mean, I get that there is a change in who destroys the opponent's land, but me I'm not versed enough in the rule trivia to figure out a case whre cards care about which player is responsible for destroying something, and I certainly can't fathom why it is specifically "lands with indestructible" (of all things!) that are supposedly the problem...

one would want as strong a mana base as possible

 

but it can leave one a bit sour

Nice to see the "unattach" quality being addressed when it comes to permanents that can attach to others. I might think a broader clarity or subrule on what unattach means other than "unattaching" when moving objects just doesn't count for Bestow cards. It should either fall in line, or have a special rule structure to incorporate it, not some hand-waivy "except it doesn't" note. It's just messy.

 

Circeus wrote:

Can somebody explain to me how Burning of Xinye is a functional change?

 

I mean, I get that there is a change in who destroys the opponent's land, but me I'm not versed enough in the rule trivia to figure out a case whre cards care about which player is responsible for destroying something, and I certainly can't fathom why it is specifically "lands with indestructible" (of all things!) that are supposedly the problem...

 

Sacred Ground, Karmic Justice. If I cause something of yours to get nuked, you get to do stuff, but if you cause that destruction....

"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)

No, those cards both talk about the controller of the spell or ability, not who is doing the destroying. I'm pretty sure the old text lets you choose 4 indestructible lands and then whoops, they can't be destroyed. The current text forces you to actually destroy four of your lands.

 have the opponent choose the lands for you to destroy

 

 

Bloodletter Quill

The "you" should be assumed if not specified by the card

the dropping of you is often used in the command voice

for example:

   Drop it.

EyeballFrog wrote:

No, those cards both talk about the controller of the spell or ability, not who is doing the destroying. I'm pretty sure the old text lets you choose 4 indestructible lands and then whoops, they can't be destroyed. The current text forces you to actually destroy four of your lands.

 

And how does that work? Both effects say "destroy" indestructible say (CR702.12b, emphasis added) "A permanent with indestructible can't be destroyed." How can either wording possibly destroy those lands? The only difference between that wording and traditional wordings for destroy effects is the "you"! How do the rules suddenly cause that pronoun to bypass indestructible?

Under neither wording are the lands with indestructible destroyed. However, there is a difference between "destroy four lands" and "choose four lands and destroy them." Say I control four lands with indestructible and four other lands. Under the first wording, you must destroy the four other lands. Trying to destroy a land with indestructible is an impossible choice, so you must make another legal choice if you can. Under the second wording, I can choose the four lands with indestructible as nothing is stopping me from doing so. Then I try to destroy them, which doesn't work, but I've completed the effect's instructions, so I don't have to destroy anything.

"Choose" must have some erata making it an exception to make imposible choices

 

I understand mtg dependence on words to carry out card interactions

 

but the rules should differ to the mechanics before the words

 

if a conflict results in the translation of the mechanics to words

 

the correction should seek to correct the words not change the mechanic

What's the new wording of 608.2b? Does it affect Luminate Primordial?

WotC_MattT wrote:

Under neither wording are the lands with indestructible destroyed. However, there is a difference between "destroy four lands" and "choose four lands and destroy them." Say I control four lands with indestructible and four other lands. Under the first wording, you must destroy the four other lands. Trying to destroy a land with indestructible is an impossible choice, so you must make another legal choice if you can. Under the second wording, I can choose the four lands with indestructible as nothing is stopping me from doing so. Then I try to destroy them, which doesn't work, but I've completed the effect's instructions, so I don't have to destroy anything.

 

Oh right, that makes total sense now!

evouga wrote:

What's the new wording of 608.2b? Does it affect Luminate Primordial?

 

The new CR isn't finalized yet by the time the update bulletin goes live. We'll know the new wording when the CR is released.

Ah ok, thanks, I thought I had just missed the link somewhere.

 

I always thought it was weird that cards could read characteristics off of illegal targets; it's nice if that's been fixed.

Sign In to post comments