|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 10:20AM
#291
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2002
|
Just like a ninja!
All Generalizations are Bad
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 11:30AM
#292
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2012
|
Blood Frenzy  's functional change has bugged me for a while. Has this been discussed?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 1:17PM
#293
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2006
|
Blood Frenzy 's functional change has bugged me for a while. Has this been discussed?
That's a pretty odd change. Are there any other similar funcitional changes along the same lines?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 1:27PM
#294
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2008
|
Blood Frenzy 's functional change has bugged me for a while. Has this been discussed?
Are you sure it's a functional change rather than errata issued to prevent a functional change? I'm not really sure.
Tempest pre-dates the 6E rules overhaul that established the stack and the modern turn structure. It's possible that prior to 6E there was no point at which an attacking/blocking creature was still an attacking/blocking creature after combat damage was dealt. I cannot confirm this however, as I do not remember and I'm having some difficulty locating a rulebook from that era.
Edit: Berserk  received a similar treatment.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 1:57PM
#295
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2012
|
Are you sure it's a functional change rather than errata issued to prevent a functional change? I'm not really sure.
Edit: Berserk received a similar treatment.
According to my research this errata was issued during the Dissension rules update, so it would have been well after the change to the modern turn structure. Perhaps it was done to bring the Oracle wording in line with Berserk 's, I'm not sure. Unfortunately there isn't a lot of documentation on some of the older oracle changes.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 3:38PM
#296
|
|
|
It looks to me like a restore-original-function errata. One thing to appreciate is that, before the 6th Edition rules change came about, players had only two chances to cast spells and activate abilities during combat (except damage prevention). The strcuture of combat was broadly the same as it is now. Start of Combat. Declaration of attackers. Declaration of blockers. Combat damage. End of Combat. Players could cast spells and activate abilities (except damage prevention and regeneration) after attackers were declared, and again after declaration of blockers, just as they can now. Players were not allowed to cast spells or activate abilities in either the Start of Combat or End of Combat steps. Those steps existed purely to handle triggered abilities (see Thicket Basilisk  for an example.) Neither were they allowed to cast spells or activate abilities after starting to assign damage in the combat damage step, with the exception of spells or abilities that prevented damage or regenerated creatures with lethal damage. If any creatures with First Strike were involved in combat, palyers wren't allowed to cast spells between the two sets of combat damage. Thus, the errata (both to Berserk and Blood Frenzy) exists to restore pre-6th functionality.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 4:45PM
#297
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2008
|
Maze of Ith  has a very similar issue, but it doesn't have original-function errata. It's being frequently used in legacy to untap creatures  after they deal combat damage.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 29, 2012 - 6:58PM
#298
|
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2010
|
That sounds to me more like an argument for errata'ing Maze of Ith rather than unerrata'ing these cards...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 5:19AM
#299
|
|
|
Maze of Ith has a very similar issue, but it doesn't have original-function errata. It's being frequently used in legacy to untap creatures after they deal combat damage.
That's true, isn't it?
The last time R&D set out their policies on how to errata cards, it amounted to "whatever we think best for this card." Since then, they've swung heavily in favour of match printed wording.
It may be that these two cards, because they can be used to destroy creatures, have this timing restriction in order to prevent them becoming cheap, not-damage-based destructiuon with little downside. Maze of Ith can't be used to destroy creatures, so R&D didn't feel enfocing a restriction that didn't appear on the original card wasn't worrth the effort.
I don't see them errataing Maze of Ith any time soon. They're more likely to remove the timing restriction on the other two cards.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 11:56AM
#300
|
|
|
Drain Life  's restriction on life gain should match Soul Burn  's. There is an extra "life" in Drain Life 's text that should be removed. You gain life equal to the damage dealt, but not more than the player's life total
|
|
|
