|
6 years ago ::
Sep 18, 2007 - 1:24PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2005
|
First, I want to start by thanking you. I will be soon taking my level 1 judge test. And easily the hardest part of the rules of magic are the "layers". Your short post made them alot easier to understand thank you.
With the layers, Is it possible to get a "dependancy Loop" example that ends with just using time stamp order?
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 19, 2007 - 1:34AM
#42
|
|
|
I have a suggested question that has come up quite a lot recently, with it being a common Standard interaction:
Q: I control a 2/3 Tarmogoyf  . My opponent plays Lightning Helix  targeting it. There are no instants in the graveyard. Is Tarmogoyf destroyed?
A: No. The destructon of creatures with lethal damage is a state-based effect, which means it is not checked until after the spell completely resolves. Tarmogoyf will be a 2/3 with 3 damage on it briefly during the resolution of Lightning Helix, but since spells are put into the graveyard as the last step of resolution, the Tarmogoyf will become a 3/4 before state-based effects are checked.
I assume this would go in the Specific Cards FAQ. Edit and use it however you like. Thanks, zammm.
Kept trying to come up with some more general answer for this, but couldn't think of one that would be somewhere everyone would be able to find, so I added a Tarmogoyf FAQ entry. Let me know if you think it needs anything. 
First, I want to start by thanking you. I will be soon taking my level 1 judge test. And easily the hardest part of the rules of magic are the "layers". Your short post made them alot easier to understand thank you.
You're most welcome.
With the layers, Is it possible to get a "dependancy Loop" example that ends with just using time stamp order?
Certainly. Multiple Confiscate  s attached to each other in a "ball". (A is enchanting B which is enchanting C which is enchanting D which is enchanting A.) A dependency loop is formed, so things go in timestamp order.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 21, 2007 - 6:33PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2001
|
As was just pointed out in another thread, Coat of Arms could use an entry. On the surface it's a fairly simple card, but questions about it counting creature types rather than distinct permanents are definitely frequently asked (e.g. "two Bird Soldiers give each other +2/+2, right?"). And with a tribal block coming up - and especially considering one particular cycle of cards that's been spoiled elsewhere - this is only going to get more common in the near future.
Jeff Heikkinen
DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2007 - 12:39AM
#44
|
|
|
Entry up for Coat of Arms.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 22, 2007 - 10:36PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2004
|
The first post's links for the "Magic: The Gathering Comprehensive Rules" became out of date earlier this month.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 23, 2007 - 9:49AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Oct 10, 2002
|
It might be time to acknowledge the "official" (but inferior ) Keyword Cheat Sheet
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 23, 2007 - 9:51AM
#47
|
- Celestial Teapots are broken!
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2007
|
Given just how inferior it is, it might be best not to acknowledge it. Reading it could confuse people more than it clears things up.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 29, 2007 - 3:17PM
#48
|
|
|
The Lorwyn keywords have been added to the FAQ.
I think I agree with adeyke as far as the Cheat Sheet goes; the Keyword FAQ covers everything the Sheet does in greater detail, so I don't think there's any need to single it out; it's already on the rules page which is linked to, so that should be good enough.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 02, 2007 - 1:23AM
#49
|
- Mogic Puzzle Master
- Plays Well With Others
|
We need a 'this is how Planeswalkers work' entry. I'd use this as a base line.
DCI Level 2 Judge
"That's what's so stupid about the whole magic thing, you know," Rincewind said. "You spend twenty years learning the spell that makes nude virgins appear in your bedroom, and then you're so poisoned by quicksilver fumes and half-blind from reading old grimoires that you can't remember what happens next."
- Terry Pratchett, The Colour Of Magic
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 02, 2007 - 7:12PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2004
|
In the new changeling entry, the answer about adding or removing abilities should also say something about any attempt to add that ability. Perhaps:
"A hypothetical ability that gives the changeling ability to one or more creatures would have no real effect. The creature subtypes have already been identified before the effect that grants changeling is applied."
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
