|
2 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2011 - 3:17PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
Still, the original OP's question has not been satisfactorily answered:
Will Dandan trigger?
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2011 - 4:10PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
Still, the original OP's question has not been satisfactorily answered:
Will Dandan trigger?
If we're taking a poll, I vote yes. I find the argument that the replacement effect creates independent, sequential actions compelling.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2011 - 4:27PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2011 - 4:45PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2011
|
I find the argument that the replacement effect creates independent, sequential actions compelling.
I find it leads to ambiguous situations.
I cast Genesis Wave  with X=2. The two cards i reveal are Forest  and Ankh of Mishra  . Since the two cards entered the battlefield at the same time, the ankh will "see" the forest and trigger for it.
I again cast Genesis Wave with X = 2. The two revealed cards are Heart of Yavimaya  and Ankh of Mishra . Assuming heart's instructions are sequential, do the two cards both enter the battlefield at the same time? If "no", then Ankh of Mishra may not trigger (depending on which one enters first), but why should this scenario function differently from the previous one? If "yes", then presumably the sacrifice of the forest does not coincide with Ankh of mishra entering the battlefield, and i'm wondering how one would determine that to be the case.
But making the actions created by the replacement effect simultaneous doesn't solve that problem, because we still have these cards:
Land Equilibrium 
Lich's Mirror 
Primal Growth  (this one is even weirder, because the replacement effect is applying to two sequential events, and changing them for two new events)
On top of that, it would be counterintuitive for it to work differently than the same wording on non replacement effects.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2011 - 4:55PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2011
|
704.6. If multiple state-based actions would have the same result at the same time, a single replacement effect will replace all of them.
Example: You control Lich's Mirror, which says "If you would lose the game, instead shuffle your hand, your graveyard, and all permanents you own into your library, then draw seven cards and your life total becomes 20." There's one card in your library and your life total is 1. A spell causes you to draw two cards and lose 2 life. The next time state-based actions are checked, you'd lose the game due to rule 704.5a and rule 704.5b. Instead, Lich's Mirror replaces that game loss and you keep playing.
704.4. Unlike triggered abilities, state-based actions pay no attention to what happens during the resolution of a spell or ability.
Example: A player controls a creature with the ability "This creature's power and toughness are each equal to the number of cards in your hand" and casts a spell whose effect is "Discard your hand, then draw seven cards." The creature will temporarily have toughness 0 in the middle of the spell's resolution but will be back up to toughness 7 when the spell finishes resolving. Thus the creature will survive when state-based actions are checked. In contrast, an ability that triggers when the player has no cards in hand goes on the stack after the spell resolves, because its trigger event happened during resolution.
Again, I am a newbee, so be gentle, but how do these two rules about state based actions apply here?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2011 - 5:04PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2011
|
Again, I am a newbee, so be gentle, but how do these two rules about state based actions apply here?
Well, there are no state-based actions in these Heart of Yavimaya and Dandan situations, so they don't apply.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2011 - 5:45PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
But making the actions created by the replacement effect simultaneous doesn't solve that problem, because we still have these cards:
Land Equilibrium
Lich's Mirror
Could you clarify what problem those cards have that Heart of Yavimaya does not?
Primal Growth (this one is even weirder, because the replacement effect is applying to two sequential events, and changing them for two new events)
Self replacement effects are always applied before any other replacement effects. If you kicked Primal growth, than its resolution is indistinguishable from the resolution of Harrow  . If you didn't kick it, then its resolution is indistinguishable from the resolution of Untamed Wilds  .
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2011 - 7:24PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
just as a side note, that ruling is 7 years old, since the game has evolved to allow when triggered effects, like Stormfront Riders  which can target itself when it enters the field, maybe this card should return to its original print on the card, and enter the field and then sacrifice a forest
Heart of Yavimaya and similar cards like Lotus Vale  , Lake of the Dead  , and Scorched Ruins  , were printed at a time when you had to resolve the triggered ability before you could play any mana abilities of the card. Under modern rules, triggered abilities can be responded to, which means that if cards like Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins still had triggered abilities, they would essentially be variants of Black Lotus  , which was never their intent.
The closest way to replicate the original functionality of these cards in the modern rules is for them to be worded as replacement effects, which is exactly what the oracle text does. It is misguided to suggest that they be turned back into triggered abilities, since doing so is a large step away from their original functionality.
But why do we ned to maintina original functionality at all cost? I'd rather see cards have an Oracly wording that matches their printed wording as closely as possible; if that changes their functionality, then so be it. I don't have a problem with rules changes changing functionality of cards. I'd much rather have cards that I can look at the printed text and figure out what they do; without having to look up Oracle, or knowing how they were (likely) intended to function 15 years ago. If that makes a card too unbalanced, ban it in relevant formats.
Heart of Yavimaya could work perfectly well as printed.
(Well, obviously you'd need to translate "bury" to modern templating, and then there are corner cases imaginable where you would need to check Oracle to see whether Heart was sacrificed or destroyed, but in the vast majority of cases you could just look at the card and figure out how it works.)
/off-topic
DCI Lvl 2 Judge
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 11, 2011 - 7:42PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
But why do we ned to maintina original functionality at all cost?
"At all cost"? We don't. Maintaining original functionality is just one of many criteria that weigh in when determining how to errata cards. But for these particular cards, maintaining the original functionality gains a huge boost to its priority because of the severe degree to which their functionality would be changed.
For an example of the threshold at which it becomes worth it to prioritize maintaining functionality, look at Master of Arms  . It would probably get by alright without the damage-prevention clause, but they decided it was enough of a difference that they should keep the original functionality.
Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins would undergo a much more dramatic change. As they were when they were printed and as they are currently worded, they can be useful cards, especially in combination with untap effects, but their vulnerability to cards like Wasteland  and Stripmine  makes them not often worth it. If they were to be turned into triggered abilities, they would instantly acquire a similar use and similar power level to Black Lotus .
Heart of Yavimaya suffers guilt by association here. It isn't nearly as powerful as Lotus Vale and Scorched ruins, but if those two need to be changed, it makes sense to be consistant for identical effects.
I'd rather see cards have an Oracly wording that matches their printed wording as closely as possible
That is indeed one of the criteria that enters the decision, and often times it wins out. Not here though.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Mar 12, 2011 - 8:05AM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
Multiple actions ARE sometimes peformed simultaneously in Magic; there's no discussing that. Multiple actions precribed by the resolution of ONE spell/ability sometimes have to be accomplished sequentilly, as demonstrated earlier. The whole conundrum here is: are the two actions prescribed by Heart of Yavimaya to be accomplished sequentially or simultaneously? I cast Genesis Wave with X=2. The two cards i reveal are Forest and Ankh of Mishra . Since the two cards entered the battlefield at the same time, the ankh will "see" the forest and trigger for it.
I again cast Genesis Wave with X = 2. The two revealed cards are Heart of Yavimaya and Ankh of Mishra . Assuming heart's instructions are sequential, do the two cards both enter the battlefield at the same time? If "no", then Ankh of Mishra may not trigger (depending on which one enters first), but why should this scenario function differently from the previous one? If "yes", then presumably the sacrifice of the forest does not coincide with Ankh of mishra entering the battlefield, and i'm wondering how one would determine that to be the case.
1) Let's assume the NO case (sequential HoY actions):
Resolution of Genesis Wave is replaced by...
-Put Ankh on Field + Sacrifice a Forest (simultaneous)
then
-Put HoY on Field
Ankh does not trigger
2) Let's assume the YES case (simultaneous HoY actions):
Resolution of Genesis Wave is replaced by...
-Put Ankh on Field + Sacrifice a Forest + Put HoY on Field (simultaneous)
Ankh does trigger
Which scenario is the correct one?
I don't have Wizards' authority to impose a choice,
and I most certainly do not attribute the slightliest value to a popular vote.
We need O.R.!
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
