As a reminder, this thread is for Oracle or ruling content only. Technical errors should continue to be reported using the "Providing Feedback" entry under the Help section of Gatherer.
Does anyone actually read or reply to those? I've sent the same text-related bug reports multiple times over at least a year without getting any sort of followup (no acknowledgement on the list of bugs, no questions emailed to me, no replies saying "this is not a bug, please stop submitting it").
I submitted it again, just to be sure. :/
This is really frustrating to me, because it's the kind of thing I would have been able to fix myself in 5 minutes.
Does anyone actually read or reply to those? I've sent the same text-related bug reports multiple times over at least a year without getting any sort of followup (no acknowledgement on the list of bugs, no questions emailed to me, no replies saying "
Here's one concerning one of the most famous cards in the game. By its printed wording, Ancestral Recall should only be able to affect its caster or an opponent of that player. But its current wording can affect teammates where these exist, too.
(Having it target is iffy too, but I'm willing to accept "targeting was often implied on older cards, and Oracle wordings reflect that".)
Here's one concerning one of the most famous cards in the game. By its printed wording, Ancestral Recall should only be able to affect its caster or an opponent of that player. But its current wording can affect te
In the current rules, two-player is still the default, but multiplayer variants are officially supported and all cards are worded to work in multiplayer games, whether that means multiple opponents or opponents and teammates. In the early days of Magic, this wasn't the case. Magic was a two-player game, so "any player" could be expressed as "you or the opponent". Later on, those cards were reworded to be multiplayer-compatible, and I think that's a good thing.
And I especially don't think it's a good idea to give such an iconic card as that hideous wording in an attempt to better match the printed wording from before they invented templating.
In the current rules, two-player is still the default, but multiplayer variants are officially supported and all cards are worded to work in multiplayer games, whether that means multiple opponents or opponents and teammates. In the early days of Ma
Lots of cards from back then said "target player" or "any player" or even things like "any target". This was an unusual wording even by 1993 standards, and it seems noteworthy just how explicitly it rules out teammates, even by comparison to other cards that are just as old. I don't know if this was intentional, but it's certainly striking.
Also, I saw and occasionally particiapted in team games - I don't know just how early, but certainly less than a year after MtG came out. I don't know when it was first contemplated but I'd be surprised if it were any later than the end of the convention Magic was released at.
Lots of cards from back then said "target player" or "any player" or even things like "any target". This was an unusual wording even by 1993 standards, and it seems noteworthy just how explicitly it rules out teammates, even by comparison to other ca
Lots of cards from back then said "target player" or "any player" or even things like "any target". This was an unusual wording even by 1993 standards, and it seems noteworthy just how explicitly it rules out teammates, even by comparison to other cards that are just as old. I don't know if this was intentional, but it's certainly striking.
I'd say this is irrelevant.
I seriously doubt, at the time Ancestral Recall was being written, that the concept that there could be a player who was neither you nor your opponent had even been thought of. Therefore no thought was given to whether Ancetral Recall should affect a teammate.
As soon as the question was asked, a definitive answer was given. It has not changed since, and I see no reason to change it now.
I'd say this is irrelevant.I seriously doubt, at the time Ancestral Recall was being written, that the concept that there could be a player who was neither you nor your opponent had even been thought of. Therefore no thought was given to whether Ance
Here is a very old announcement that issued errata to many cards for multiplayer games and set the current text for Ancestral Recall. The date is January 10, 1995.
Many of the cards have been changed after that, but I don't think it would be right to change Ancestral Recall.
While Wizards of the Coast is not releasing any rules for multiplayer play, we recognize that several multiplayer variants exist, and it is unclear how to interpret certain cards in such a context, notably those cards which say "opponent". To help solve disputes, we are releasing the following set of rulings on how to interpret certain cards in multiplayer play; these rulings also extend to normal two-player play. Future printings of these cards will be rewritten to accomodate multiplayer play, most likely using the rulings below. While we don't want to issue strong rulings on team play at this point, we recommend that "opponent" never include one's teammates.
Special Cases Aladdin : Targets an artifact not controlled by you. Ghazban Ogre : Add "If you are tied for highest life total, Ghazban Ogre does not change controller. If other players are tied for highest life total and you or not, choose randomly which player gets control of Ghazban Ogre." Nettling Imp : Targets a creature not controlled by you. Forces that player to attack and may only be used during that player's turn. It does not target that player. Remove Enchantments : Read the second sentence as "If cast while an opponent is attacking you..." Scarwood Bandits : Can take control of any artifact not controlled by you. The controller of that artifact would be the one to pay to counter the effect. Shahrazad : Whoever wins the subgame loses no life. Each other player loses half of his or her life. If a draw, everyone loses life. Sorrow's Path : Only usable if you are not the defending player. Wall of Dust : Read "your opponent" as "their controller".
Here is a very old announcement that issued errata to many cards for multiplayer games and set the current text for Ancestral Recall. The date is January 10, 1995.Many of the cards have been changed after that, but I don't think it would be right to
Desolation should say "For each Plains sacrificed this way, Desolation deals 2 damage to that Plains's controller." It is not just a yes or no check. The card deals more than 2 damage if multiple Plains are sacrificed.
Desolation should say "For each Plains sacrificed this way, Desolation deals 2 damage to that Plains's controller." It is not just a yes or no check. The card deals more than 2 damage if multiple Plains are sacrificed.
Desolation should say "For each Plains sacrificed this way, Desolation deals 2 damage to that Plains's controller." It is not just a yes or no check. The card deals more than 2 damage if multiple Plains are sacrificed.
Desolation will only ever make each player sacrifice one land, so it can't deal more than 2 damage to one player.
Desolation will only ever make each player sacrifice one land, so it can't deal more than 2 damage to one player.
At the end of each turn, each player who tapped a land for mana during that turn sacrifices a land. If a plains is sacrificed in this way, Desolation deals 2 damage to that plains' controller.
At the end of each turn, each player who tapped a land for mana during that turn sacrifices a land. If a plains is sacrificed in this way, Desolation deals 2 damage to that plains' controller.
You're right that it says "a" both times, but you quoted the printed text twice. Here's the Oracle wording:
At the beginning of each end step, each player who tapped a land for mana this turn sacrifices a land. If a Plains is sacrificed this way, Desolation deals 2 damage to that Plains's controller.
You're right that it says "a" both times, but you quoted the printed text twice. Here's the Oracle wording:
I assume PirateAmmo's point is that there might be multiple players all sacrificing a land in the middle of that triggered ability, and so Desolation might be dealing 2 damage to each of several players simultaneously. The Oracle wording is pretty oddly phrased for something trying to deal 2 damage to several players at once.
I assume PirateAmmo's point is that there might be multiple players all sacrificing a land in the middle of that triggered ability, and so Desolation might be dealing 2 damage to each of several players simultaneously. The Oracle wording is pretty od
To me the printed and Oracle versions of the Gargolyle do the same thing. Can you explain how they are different?
The last ability of the printed text mentions cards, which would mean the activated ability of noncards (ie, tokens and copies of spells) could still be played. The last ability of the oracle text oracle text mentions sources, and thus shut down the abilities of tokens and copies.
It's exceedingly rare that a token outside the battlefield can activate an ability, but mage24365 gave an example: target a token elvish spirit guide and some other creature with withdraw. The token goes to your hand, then you are offered a chance to pay . Since you are asked to pay a cost, you are permitted to play mana abilities at this time, including the ability of that token elvish spirit guide in your hand.
It's also very rare for a copy of a spell to have activated abilities, but a twincasted lightning storm would fit the bill.
----------
Note: i'm just explaning what the differenceis. I don't think that this explanation is sufficient justification to reword voidstone gargoyle.
The last ability of the printed text mentions cards, which would mean the activated ability of noncards (ie, tokens and copies of spells) could still be played. The last ability of the oracle text oracle text mentions sources, and thus shut down the
Tokens that leave the battlefield now cannot change zones at all.
110.5g A token that has left the battlefield can’t move to another zone or come back onto the battlefield. If such a token would change zones, it remains in its current zone instead. It ceases to exist the next time state-based actions are checked; see rule 704.
Therefore, paying the cot of the ESG ability is an impossible action, and you cannot activate the ability.
There isn't one.Tokens that leave the battlefield now cannot change zones at all.Therefore, paying the cot of the ESG ability is an impossible action, and you cannot activate the ability.
The term card doesn't apply to spells on the stadk so you don't actually need for Lightning Storm to be a copy for this to apply. However it can't be castif there is a Voidstone Gargoyle and i don't think there is a way to create a copy spell without casting that copy or copying a spell already on the stack, so this can only come up if you flash in a copy of the gargoyle with Vedalken Orrery or similar. That said, I'm not sure if there is a compelling reason not to use the printed version of the gargoyle's text. It's wordier then the current oracle text but it seems to be functional. Rule 108.2aShow
108.2a In the text of spells or abilities, the term "card" is used only to refer to a card that's not on the battlefield or on the stack, such as a creature card in a player's hand. For more information, see section 4, "Zones."
The term card doesn't apply to spells on the stadk so you don't actually need for Lightning Storm to be a copy for this to apply. However it can't be castif there is a Voidstone Gargoyle
The term card doesn't apply to spells on the stadk so you don't actually need for Lightning Storm to be a copy for this to apply. However it can't be castif there is a Voidstone Gargoyle and i don't think there is a way to create a copy spell without casting that copy or copying a spell already on the stack, so this can only come up if you flash in a copy of the gargoyle with Vedalken Orrery or similar.
I have a Villagers of Estwald that is Cytoshape d into a copy of Soul Seizer . I deal damage with it and the trigger goes on the stack targetting my opponent's bear. I choose to transform it (which I can do because the copy is also double-faced, see 711.3 second example) so that it's now a Howlpack of Estwald that's still a copy of Soul Seizer. Now I'm supposed to attach it to my opponent's bear. There's no definition of what happens here; should it be clarified that "attach" does nothing to a non-aura/equipment/fortification?
I have a Villagers of Estwald that is Cytoshape d into a copy of Soul Seizer . I deal damage with it and the trigger goes on the stack targetti
I have a Villagers of Estwald that is Cytoshape d into a copy of Soul Seizer . I deal damage with it and the trigger goes on the stack targetting my opponent's bear. I choose to transform it (which I can do because the copy is also double-faced, see 711.3 second example) so that it's now a Howlpack of Estwald that's still a copy of Soul Seizer. Now I'm supposed to attach it to my opponent's bear. There's no definition of what happens here; should it be clarified that "attach" does nothing to a non-aura/equipment/fortification?
Since creatures cannot be attached to anything, an instruction to attach a creature is impossible, and as such the action is not taken.
Since creatures cannot be attached to anything, an instruction to attach a creature is impossible, and as such the action is not taken.
Artifact Possession could worded to be a little less confusing. This is not a functional change.
Whenever enchanted artifact becomes tapped and/or an activated ability of enchanted artifact is activated, Artifact Possession deals 2 damage to that artifact's controller.
Magus of the Unseen and Ray of Command both said "if you lose control of it at end of this turn." They should have the "this turn" clause added to their delayed trigger ability.
When you lose control of the artifact this turn, tap it.
When you lose control of the creature this turn, tap it.
Artifact Possession could worded to be a little less confusing. This is not a functional change. Magus of the Unseen and Ray of Command both said "
Since creatures cannot be attached to anything, an instruction to attach a creature is impossible, and as such the action is not taken.
Is that actually accurate? Is it impossible for creatures to be attached to anything? Or is it just a state of affairs that's tidied up by SBAs (704.5q) when SBAs happen? You wouldn't say "it's impossible for a creature to have 0 toughness".
I don't see anything in the rules saying "creatures cannot be attached to anything", unless we're inferring from 701.3a which only defines what "to attach" means in the cases of an Aura, Equipment and Fortification. (Note 701.3a only defines the verb "to attach"; there's no definition in the rules of the state of "being attached", and as we're all aware from the similarly-spelled verb "to attack", there's a world of difference between "to attack" and "attacking", as Hero of Bladehold and Crawlspace among others will testify.)
Is that actually accurate? Is it impossible for creatures to be attached to anything? Or is it just a state of affairs that's tidied up by SBAs (704.5q) when SBAs happen? You wouldn't say "it's impossible for a creature to have 0 toughness". I don't
Since creatures cannot be attached to anything, an instruction to attach a creature is impossible, and as such the action is not taken.
Is that actually accurate? Is it impossible for creatures to be attached to anything? Or is it just a state of affairs that's tidied up by SBAs (704.5q) when SBAs happen? You wouldn't say "it's impossible for a creature to have 0 toughness".
I don't see anything in the rules saying "creatures cannot be attached to anything", unless we're inferring from 701.3a which only defines what "to attach" means in the cases of an Aura, Equipment and Fortification. (Note 701.3a only defines the verb "to attach"; there's no definition in the rules of the state of "being attached", and as we're all aware from the similarly-spelled verb "to attack", there's a world of difference between "to attack" and "attacking", as Hero of Bladehold and Crawlspace among others will testify.)
Here are the rules for that:
301.5c An Equipment that’s also a creature can’t equip a creature. An Equipment that loses the subtype “Equipment” can’t equip a creature. An Equipment can’t equip itself. An Equipment that equips an illegal or nonexistent permanent becomes unattached from that permanent but remains on the battlefield. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.) An Equipment can’t equip more than one creature. If a spell or ability would cause an Equipment to equip more than one creature, the Equipment’s controller chooses which creature it equips.
301.6. Some artifacts have the subtype “Fortification.” A Fortification can be attached to a land. It can’t legally be attached to an object that isn’t a land. Fortification’s analog to the equip keyword ability is the fortify keyword ability. Rules 301.5a–d apply to Fortifications in relation to lands just as they apply to Equipment in relation to creatures, with one clarification relating to rule 301.5c: a Fortification that’s also a creature (not a land) can’t fortify a land. (See rule 702.65, “Fortify.” )
303.4d An Aura can’t enchant itself. If this occurs somehow, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard. An Aura that’s also a creature can’t enchant anything. If this occurs somehow, the Aura becomes unattached, then is put into its owner’s graveyard. (These are state-based actions. See rule 704.) An Aura can’t enchant more than one object or player. If a spell or ability would cause an Aura to become attached to more than one object or player, the Aura’s controller chooses which object or player it becomes attached to.
Is that actually accurate? Is it impossible for creatures to be attached to anything? Or is it just a state of affairs that's tidied up by SBAs (704.5q) when SBAs happen? You wouldn't say "it's impossible for a creature to have 0 toughness". I don't
Heh. Indeed, none of those rules actually apply, because the Cytoshaped Seizer isn't an Aura, an Equipment or a Fortification; it's just a creature.
If anyone was in any doubt that the attachment rules needed sorting out, I defy them to still be after this discussion...
Heh. Indeed, none of those rules actually apply, because the Cytoshaped Seizer isn't an Aura, an Equipment or a Fortification; it's just a creature.If anyone was in any doubt that the attachment rules needed sorting out, I defy them to still be after
It is sorted out by SBA's. Perhaps it can attach, then gets unattached the next time SBA's are checked?
Rules 704.5q. Just doing that cuz I'm looking at the tezxt document and don't want to mess up formatting.
It is sorted out by SBA's. Perhaps it can attach, then gets unattached the next time SBA's are checked?Rules 704.5q. Just doing that cuz I'm looking at the tezxt document and don't want to mess up formatting.
Such a rule already exists, it's a state-based effect:
704.5q If a creature is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield. Similarly, if a permanent that’s neither an Aura, an Equipment, nor a Fortification is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield.
However, it is correct to say that "attach" is undefined for non-Aura, non-Equipment, non-Fortification permanents, as 701.3 defines it only in the context of those three subtypes:
701.3a To attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object means to take it from where it currently is and put it onto that object.
This means that the Cytoshaped creature will either become attached until SBAs are evaluated, at which point it becomes unattached; or it will not become attached at all. Perhaps the definition of attached should be expanded to say nothing happens outside of these cases.
Additionally,
701.3d To “unattach” an Equipment from a creature means to move it away from that creature so the Equipment is on the battlefield but is not equipping anything.
seems like it should also include Fortification (even if nothing currently uses the term "unattach" with respect to Fortifications).
Such a rule already exists, it's a state-based effect:However, it is correct to say that "attach" is undefined for non-Aura, non-Equipment, non-Fortification permanents, as 701.3 defines it only in the context of those three subtypes:This means that
The attach rules have gotten better over the last few updates, but I second the call for a complete rewrite, which would doubtlessly resolve many of these corner-case issues.
The attach rules have gotten better over the last few updates, but I second the call for a complete rewrite, which would doubtlessly resolve many of these corner-case issues.
Such a rule already exists, it's a state-based effect:
704.5q If a creature is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield. Similarly, if a permanent that’s neither an Aura, an Equipment, nor a Fortification is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield.
This would still trigger "Becomes attached" and "becomes unattached" Triggered Abilities, so it is not ideal at all.
[/quote]This would still trigger "Becomes attached" and "becomes unattached" Triggered Abilities, so it is not ideal at all.
There are similar cards like Brainstorm that say simply "Draw 3 cards".
If it needs to target, can't it just target other players?
"Choose one - Draw 3 cards or target other player draws 3 cards."
It seems counterintuitive that Ivory Mask lets me draw with Brainstorm, but not with Ancestral Recall.
Why does Ancestral Recall target at all?There are similar cards like Brainstorm that say simply "Draw 3 cards".If it needs to target, can't it just target other players?"Choose o
Such a rule already exists, it's a state-based effect:
704.5q If a creature is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield. Similarly, if a permanent that’s neither an Aura, an Equipment, nor a Fortification is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield.
This would still trigger "Becomes attached" and "becomes unattached" Triggered Abilities, so it is not ideal at all.
The only "becomes attached" triggered ability I can find is Bramble Elemental 's, and that one will only trigger if the creature being attached is also an aura, which means that the process for attaching it is defined by the rules and that ability should trigger. I see no problem there.
The 2 "becomes unattached" triggered abilities (Grafted Wargear /Grafted Exoskeleton ) do trigger when SBA's unattach them, but that's perfectly appropriate so long as they were attached using a method defined by the rules. Note that 301.5c prevents these cards from being attached via equipping if they cease being equipments, so I don't really see how this is much of a problem either.
301.5c An Equipment that's also a creature can't equip a creature. An Equipment that loses the subtype "Equipment" can't equip a creature.
I suppose if there were some method of granting one of those abilities to an object that has never been an equipment and then attaching it to an object without making it into an aura/equipment/fortification, then there would be a problem. I wonder...
[/quote]This would still trigger "Becomes attached" and "becomes unattached" Triggered Abilities, so it is not ideal at all.[/quote]The only "becomes attached" triggered ability I can find is Bramble Elemental 's, a
There are similar cards like Brainstorm that say simply "Draw 3 cards".
If it needs to target, can't it just target other players?
"Choose one - Draw 3 cards or target other player draws 3 cards."
It seems counterintuitive that Ivory Mask lets me draw with Brainstorm, but not with Ancestral Recall.
That's completely inane.
We're talking about a card from Alpha. The entire concept of templating didn't exist yet. Consider Disenchant , Stone Rain , and Shatter . They're all just "destroy target [something]", but their printed wording is completely different. That doesn't mean that we need to somehow introduce rules that allows permanents to be discarded to restore Disenchant or that we need to make Stone Rain untargeted. It just means that Alpha cards were worded badly.
We already have a way to allow a spell to either affect you or affect another player: just let it target any player. That's the standard, obvious way to do it, and any deviation needs a really good reason. The fact that an Alpha card had bad wording isn't one.
And Ivory Mask ? That was first printed in Mercadian Masques, years after Ancestral Recall . Do you think that Ancestral Recall was designed specfically to circumvent a card that didn't exist yet? For that matter, do you think they'd given any thought back then to what should count as "targeting" and what shouldn't?
And then you dare to call its current functionality counterintuitive while suggesting something that works differently from every other card, a "you or target other player" modal card. You think people will expect it to immune to Redirect if you use it on yourself but Redirect able in other cases (just not to you)? Even in the situation you mention, you think players expect a spell that can target other players to go through Ivory Mask ?
Who are you suggesting this for? Are there players so new that they don't know how targetting normally works, so old that they have access to Ancestral Recall , so naive that they they take Alpha wording at face value, and so experienced that they know the implications of your "you or target other player" modal card idea?
I was going to say that you can't be serious, but the sad thing is, you probably are.
That's completely inane.We're talking about a card from Alpha. The entire concept of templating didn't exist yet. Consider Disenchant , Stone Rain , and Shatter
I suppose if there were some method of granting one of those abilities to an object that has never been an equipment and then attaching it to an object without making it into an aura/equipment/fortification, then there would be a problem. I wonder...
There's several such methods; the easiest is Myr Welder .
There's several such methods; the easiest is Myr Welder .
There are similar cards like Brainstorm that say simply "Draw 3 cards".
If it needs to target, can't it just target other players?
"Choose one - Draw 3 cards or target other player draws 3 cards."
It seems counterintuitive that Ivory Mask lets me draw with Brainstorm, but not with Ancestral Recall.
That's completely inane.
We're talking about a card from Alpha. The entire concept of templating didn't exist yet. Consider Disenchant , Stone Rain , and Shatter . They're all just "destroy target [something]", but their printed wording is completely different. That doesn't mean that we need to somehow introduce rules that allows permanents to be discarded to restore Disenchant or that we need to make Stone Rain untargeted. It just means that Alpha cards were worded badly.
As far as I can see the Alpha wording on Shatter is nearly identical to is Oracle wording, so it's probably not a good example.
That's completely inane.We're talking about a card from Alpha. The entire concept of templating didn't exist yet. Consider Disenchant , Stone Rain , and Shatter
I suppose if there were some method of granting one of those abilities to an object that has never been an equipment and then attaching it to an object without making it into an aura/equipment/fortification, then there would be a problem. I wonder...
There's several such methods; the easiest is Myr Welder .
Myr Welder can get the equip ability, but it can't get the "when [this] becomes unattached" triggered abilities. As far as Myr Welder goes, there seems to be no difference between it being impossible to attach it to something and it becoming attached but then becoming unattached again as SBA.
As far as I can see the Alpha wording on Shatter is nearly identical to is Oracle wording, so it's probably not a good example.
Shatter 's original printed text specifies that Shatter destroys the artifact, instead of being an imperative sentence instructing you to destroy the artifact. However, my point there wasn't that all three of them are different from their current wording so much as that all three of them are different from each other.
One of the basic principles of templating is that cards that work the same way should be worded the same way. If this principle is consistently applied, we can know that cards that are worded differently work differently. However, the three examples I gave show that this principle really wasn't applied in Alpha. This then means that it's pointless to look at the subtle distinctions between the printed wording of Alpha cards, since they might not mean anything at all.
There's several such methods; the easiest is Myr Welder .[/quote] Myr Welder can get the equip ability, but it can't get the "when [this] becomes unattached" triggered abilities.
Plus, Ancestral Recall recieved Erratta pretty early to work better in Multiplayer/Team Games, and the Erratta was "Target Player draws 3 Cards". So, for the vast Majority of teh Lifetime of Magic, even before the 6th Edition Rules Overhaul, Ancestral Recall targeted. Trying to "restrore" a functionality that never was intended (Shroud for Players was not invented back then) based on a bad wording, but ignoring the precedent set by nearly everything that came after is pretty bad.
Plus, Ancestral Recall recieved Erratta pretty early to work better in Multiplayer/Team Games, and the Erratta was "Target Player draws 3 Cards". So, for the vast Majority of teh Lifetime of Magic, even before the 6th Edition Rules Overhaul, Ancestra
I was merely pointing out that the original wording of Ancestral Recall seems to pose an either/or choice: Draw 3 cards or have opponent draw 3 cards. Whether or not it should target is speculative, but the fact remains that there are numerous cards that simply have the player draw cards without targeting: Brainstorm , Abeyance , Afflict , Brilliant Plan ,,,, usw and the wording seems to be one of those the fact that it also offers a choice to allow an opponent to be affected means that perhaps it should target opponents and the ruling allows it to target teammates, but it doesn't strictly follow that it has to target its controller.
If the goal of the Rules Team is to conserve the printed wording where possible while following modern templating, then Ancestral Recall seems to be a viable candidate.
I was merely pointing out that the original wording of Ancestral Recall seems to pose an either/or choice: Draw 3 cards or have opponent draw 3 cards. Whether or not it should target is speculative, but the fact remains that there are numerous cards
Adeyke has a point. The goal of Oracle isn't to have all cards follow their printed wording; it's to have all cards function as players would normally expect them to function. Part of the reason a card's printed wording is deemed important is because players expect the current functionality to follow the printed wording, but the exact functionality implied by a strict interpretation of the printed wording under modern templating rules isn't always how players actually expect the card to work--just look at Quicksilver Fountain or Ley Line . Show those cards to someone and ask who selects the target, and you'll almost certainly been told that the player performing the action makes the decision, despite the fact that that contradicts the strict interpretation of the printed wording.
Who looks at an Alpha card and expects the wording to be interpreted literally under modern templating rules?
Adeyke has a point. The goal of Oracle isn't to have all cards follow their printed wording; it's to have all cards function as players would normally expect them to function. Part of the reason a card's printed wording is deemed important is because
Also, Afflict and such are a complete red herring. Those don't involve any choice in who does the drawing, so they obviously don't target (there's never a "target you" or other targeting restriction that can only ever have a single choice).
Also, Afflict and such are a complete red herring. Those don't involve any choice in who does the drawing, so they obviously don't target (there's never a "target you" or other targeting restriction that can only
I was merely pointing out that the original wording of Ancestral Recall seems to pose an either/or choice: Draw 3 cards or have opponent draw 3 cards. Whether or not it should target is speculative, but the fact remains that there are numerous cards that simply have the player draw cards without targeting: Brainstorm , Abeyance , Afflict , Brilliant Plan ,,,, usw and the wording seems to be one of those the fact that it also offers a choice to allow an opponent to be affected means that perhaps it should target opponents and the ruling allows it to target teammates, but it doesn't strictly follow that it has to target its controller.
If the goal of the Rules Team is to conserve the printed wording where possible while following modern templating, then Ancestral Recall seems to be a viable candidate.
Dude, did you read my post? For 90% + of the Game's Lifetime, Recall targeted. From all of Alpha's 290 Cards, only ONE Card - Stream of Life - can even be interpreted meaningful in the Context of modern Rules. Arguing from Alpha printings is a bit like arguing from old Holy Texts or Birdwatching or what have you - it is pure Speculation (except that we can sometimes ask the Creators for intent, and that there is a long History of precedents).
Who looks at an Alpha card and expects the wording to be interpreted literally under modern templating rules?
Especially as there is only one Card that can even be interpreted under modern Rules (Stream of Life ). Christ, not even the Basic Lands work.
Re: usw
Sprichst du deutsch?
I was merely pointing out that the original wording of Ancestral Recall seems to pose an either/or choice: Draw 3 cards or have opponent draw 3 cards. Whether or not it should target is speculative, but the fact remains that there are numerous cards
I can't clearly articulate all the goals of the Rules Team. They change all the time. But I can tell you changing Ancestral Recall has never been one of them.
I can't clearly articulate all the goals of the Rules Team. They change all the time. But I can tell you changing Ancestral Recall has never been one of them. :)
as it happens ja, ein bischen und Französisch auch
though I'm not sure why I used und so weiter even though it is correct *brain twitch*
I'm a native English speaker, but I learned some French and German at school.
as it happensja, ein bischen und Französisch auchthough I'm not sure why I used und so weiter even though it is correct *brain twitch*I'm a native English speaker, but I learned some French and German at school.
as it happens ja, ein bischen und Französisch auch
though I'm not sure why I used und so weiter even though it is correct *brain twitch*
I'm a native English speaker, but I learned some French and German at school.
Ah, okay. It was just funny to see...
as it happensja, ein bischen und Französisch auchthough I'm not sure why I used und so weiter even though it is correct *brain twitch*I'm a native English speaker, but I learned some French and German at school.[/quote]Ah, okay. It was just funn
From all of Alpha's 290 Cards, only ONE Card - Stream of Life - can even be interpreted meaningful in the Context of modern Rules.
That's not true. Giant Growth was printed with its current Oracle wording in Alpha. The basic lands are fine (just not basic, and without land subtypes). And I'm sure there are more examples.
That's not true. Giant Growth was printed with its current Oracle wording in Alpha. The basic lands are fine (just not basic, and without land subtypes). And I'm sure there are more examples.
That's not true. Giant Growth was printed with its current Oracle wording in Alpha. The basic lands are fine (just not basic, and without land subtypes). And I'm sure there are more examples.
Actually, that's also not true. Giant Growth 's Alpha printing said 'gains' rather than 'get', and the basic lands used the outdated "Tap to add..." template.
There are other cards that can be meaningfully interpreted in modern rules, but those aren't among them. I count two more in addition to Stream of Life : Time Walk and Obsianus Golem . The latter would be missing the creature type its Oracle text uses, but the printed card text would function.
Everything else is written in a way that isn't used in modern templating; Death Ward is the closest to working, but it's in the wrong tense.
Actually, that's also not true. Giant Growth 's Alpha printing said 'gains' rather than 'get', and the basic lands used the outdated "Tap to add..." template.There are other cards that can be meaningfully interprete
However, relying on Alpha templating because about 1.03% of all Cards use correct templating (and Time Walk is a RetCon - it had a different wording in between, while Stream of Life's wording never changed) is just not realistic. Claiming that Ancestral Recall should be a modal Spell just so it can somehow be a bit closer to it's printed wording in a few Corner cases is just... I don't know what it is, but sensible it ain't.
However, relying on Alpha templating because about 1.03% of all Cards use correct templating (and Time Walk is a RetCon - it had a different wording in between, while Stream of Life's wording never changed) is just not realistic. Claiming that Ancest
I think the "as you cast ~" on Jaws of Stone is effectively reminder text. It's already handled by rule 601.2d, which also applies to Magmatic Core 's triggered ability (due to 603.3d). So Magmatic Core doesn't actually need that text. It could still be beneficial if it clarifies it, but there's the risk that putting "as you put this triggered ability on the stack" would actually make it more confusing.
I think the "as you cast ~" on Jaws of Stone is effectively reminder text. It's already handled by rule 601.2d, which also applies to Magmatic Core 's triggered ability (due to 6
It's not "effectively reminder text". It takes care of the case where the amount of damage to be distributed (Mountains on Jaws of Stone, age counters on Magmatic Core) changes between announcement and resolution. As it's printed now, it's unclear what Magmatic Core does if it gets Hexmaged in response.
Edit: ...and what if it gets Clockspun in response?
It's not "effectively reminder text". It takes care of the case where the amount of damage to be distributed (Mountains on Jaws of Stone, age counters on Magmatic Core) changes between announcement and resolution. As it's printed now, it's unclear wh
112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won't affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, "Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player") rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it's expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.
Since the Core divides the damage, we check the number of counters on it when the ability is put on the stack. Changing the amount of counters on it after the ability has trigged won't do anything to the ability, so Clockspinning cannot be used to change the amount of damage done once the ability is on the stack.
That's taken care of by this rule:Since the Core divides the damage, we check the number of counters on it when the ability is put on the stack. Changing the amount of counters on it after the ability has trigged won't do anything to the ability, so
Fair enough, that rule seems to make it work correctly. Still, I can't help but wonder if the wording on Magmatic Core (and a new challenger: Living Inferno) could be clarified to make sure everyone understands that the damage dealt by the ability is not variable after it's been announced. Living Inferno is even more of a puzzle because the damage the Inferno deals is locked in at announcement time, but the damage it receives is determined upon resolution...
Fair enough, that rule seems to make it work correctly. Still, I can't help but wonder if the wording on Magmatic Core (and a new challenger: Living Inferno) could be clarified to make sure everyone understands that the damage dealt by the ability is
110.5g A token that has left the battlefield can't move to another zone or come back onto the battlefield. If such a token would change zones, it remains in its current zone instead. It ceases to exist the next time state-based actions are checked;
It could say that, but it's not needed. 110.5g prevents Auras that are tokens from returning to the battlefield. Spoiler:
Show
110.5g A token that has left the battlefield can't move to another zone or come back onto the battlefield. If such a
This isn't a case of cards-vs.-tokens, but rather cards-vs.-permanents. Flickerform needs to return them from exile, at which point they're properly referred to as "Aura cards"--"Auras" refers only to permanents. Cards like Sudden Disappearance do properly mention "cards" when returning them.
This isn't a case of cards-vs.-tokens, but rather cards-vs.-permanents. Flickerform needs to return them from exile, at which point they're properly referred to as "Aura cards"--"Auras" refers only to permanents. Cards like Sudden Disappearance
This isn't a case of cards-vs.-tokens, but rather cards-vs.-permanents. Flickerform needs to return them from exile, at which point they're properly referred to as "Aura cards"--"Auras" refers only to permanents. Cards like Sudden Disappearance do properly mention "cards" when returning them.
The word "Auras" in this case refers to neither Aura cards nor Aura permanents but rather any objects that were exiled by the exile Auras portion of the effect regardless of what those objects happen to be once they are in exile.
Ex.: If a licid is removed by the effect, it will be returned despite being neither an Aura nor an Aura card while in exile.
The word "Auras" in this case refers to neither Aura cards nor Aura permanents but rather any objects that were exiled by the exile Auras portion of the effect regardless of what those objects happen to be once they are in exile. Ex.: If a licid is
The word "Auras" in this case refers to neither Aura cards nor Aura permanents but rather any objects that were exiled by the exile Auras portion of the effect regardless of what those objects happen to be once they are in exile.
The whole way that zone changes work is that they aren't even the same objects when they're in exile.
The whole way that zone changes work is that they aren't even the same objects when they're in exile.
To clarify some stuff: -I know tokens don't return, but cards are always refered to as such when they return from exile. Fiend Hunter doesn't return "the exiled creature" for example. -I'm saying what SadisticMystic is saying. The objects that return should be "cards". MadCow21 is right that they don't have to be Aura cards in exile, but (if they are returning) they are most definitely "cards".
Now that I think about it, though, I'm not sure if there's a way of referencing to the exiled Auras (that may not be Aura cards later) correctly. Maybe "all other cards exiled with [this]"? Not sure about the implications with linked abilities but I think there's none.
PD: By the way, is it clear enough that "Exile enchanted creature and all Auras attached to it. Return that card..." refers to the card that was enchanted creature?
To clarify some stuff:-I know tokens don't return, but cards are always refered to as such when they return from exile. Fiend Hunter doesn't return "the exiled creature" for example.-I'm saying what SadisticMystic
At the beginning of the next end step, return that creature card to the battlefield under its owner's control. If you do, return those Aura cards to the battlefield under their owners' control attached to that creature.
This is a nonfunctional change because of rule 603.7c.
Edit: It does have to say "card" because of this rule.
109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn't include the word "card," "spell," "source," or "scheme," it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.
Flickerform should sayThis is a nonfunctional change because of rule 603.7c.Edit:It does have to say "card" because of this rule.
I can see no logical line of reasoning that would require the addition of the word "cards" without also requiring the removal of the word "Auras", and that would just result in a wording that is even more confusing.
It's more a question of grammar and choosing what is effectively a pronoun that most clearly referrences its antecedent. Since "Auras" is precisely the word used to refer to those objects initially, it makes sense to use that same word to refer to those objects the second time they are referrenced by the ability. For other abilities, like Sudden Disappearance and Fiend Hunter, there is less possibility for confusion of antecedents so they are more free to choose pronouns that are more descriptively accurate.
But don't think that because those 2 examples use the words "card/cards" that they are not actually attempting (and failing) to return to play any tokens that were exiled by those effects, because they are. The mock-pronouns used to referrence moved objects in these type of effects is in no way a restriction on which of those objects can be found by the effect that is tracking them.
I can see no logical line of reasoning that would require the addition of the word "cards" without also requiring the removal of the word "Auras", and that would just result in a wording that is even more confusing. It's more a question of grammar an
Suppose my Grizzly Bears's Flickerform gets activated and exiles Grizzly Bears, Flickerform, Copy Enchantment, and Phyrexian Metamorph (all of which are copying Flickerform). At end of turn, what should come back? I'd think that they should all come back (and Copy Enchantment could choose another Aura to copy - in fact, it couldn't copy the Flickerform because it's ETBing at the same time as it; and if it chooses a global enchantment, it promptly becomes detached... and if I choose an Equipment for Sculpting Steel, then it arrives equipping the creature that it was formerly enchanting).
In other words, I agree with MadCow21 when he says "The mock-pronouns used to referrence moved objects in these type of effects is in no way a restriction on which of those objects can be found by the effect that is tracking them." But I nonetheless think that it'd be more proper to use the word "cards" in the delayed trigger.
The situation gets even more confusing if you have Copy Enchantment copying an Aura and attached to the Flickerform ed creature, or even more so Sculpting Steel
The word "Auras" in this case refers to neither Aura cards nor Aura permanents but rather any objects that were exiled by the exile Auras portion of the effect regardless of what those objects happen to be once they are in exile.
The whole way that zone changes work is that they aren't even the same objects when they're in exile.
While true, I'm not sure that's particularly relevant. The objects that were placed in the Exile zone by the "Exile [...] all Auras attached to it" portion of Flickerform 's activated ability are still in Exile as the same objects when the delayed trigger attempts to move them to the Battlefield. There's no need for the delayed trigger to refer to the objects that used to exist on the Battlefield - just to the objects in Exile that were put there as "[those] Auras"...
The whole way that zone changes work is that they aren't even the same objects when they're in exile.[/quote]While true, I'm not sure that's particularly relevant. The objects that were placed in the Exile zone by the "Exile [...] all Auras attached
If ~ is on the battlefield, it fights target attacking creature.
No, that would be a functional change.
When creatures fight, they deal damage simultaneously. Durkwoood Tracker (and a few other cards that didn't get errata to say "fight") has the creatures deal damage sequentially, with the tracker dealing damage first. This could make a significant difference if the tracker gains wither or infect.
No, that would be a functional change.When creatures fight, they deal damage simultaneously. Durkwoood Tracker (and a few other cards that didn't get errata to say "fight") has the creatures deal damage sequentially, with the tracker dealing damage f
It can't be given "fight" errata for the reason cyphern gave, but I wanted to point out that if it did use fight wording, the "if ~ is on the battlefield" wording wouldn't be needed. A fight only happens if everything involved is a creature that's still on the battlefield.
It can't be given "fight" errata for the reason cyphern gave, but I wanted to point out that if it did use fight wording, the "if ~ is on the battlefield" wording wouldn't be needed. A fight only happens if everything involved is a creature that's s
If ~ is on the battlefield, it fights target attacking creature.
Durkwoood Tracker (and a few other cards that didn't get errata to say "fight") has the creatures deal damage sequentially, with the tracker dealing damage first. This could make a significant difference if the tracker gains wither or infect.
Really? Why? If that were true, shouldn't Durkwood Tracker say:
"If Durkwood Tracker is on the battlefield, it deals damage equal to its power to target attacking creature. Then, that creature deals damage equal to its power to Durkwood Tracker."
A Durkwood Tracker with infect (against an equal-sized enemy) just automatically wins? Despite both "half-fight" mechanics being all within one ability resolution?
Durkwoood Tracker (and a few other cards that didn't get errata to say "fight") has the creatures deal damage sequentially, with the tracker dealing damage first. This could make a significant difference if the tracker gains wither or infect.[/quote]
Really? Why? If that were true, shouldn't Durkwood Tracker say:
"If Durkwood Tracker is on the battlefield, it deals damage equal to its power to target attacking creature. Then, that creature deals damage equal to its power to Durkwood Tracker."
While the word "then" makes it more obvious that two instructions are sequential, it is not necessary. Basically, if you want to find out whether two things are sequential or simultaneous, count the number of verbs. 1 verb = 1 simultaneous instruction. 2 verbs = 2 sequential instructions.
A Durkwood Tracker with infect (against an equal-sized enemy) just automatically wins? Despite both "half-fight" mechanics being all within one ability resolution?
Yep. Damage from a source with infect puts the counters on right away, so when the return damage is dealt, the power has already been diminished.
While the word "then" makes it more obvious that two instructions are sequential, it is not necessary. Basically, if you want to find out whether two things are sequential or simultaneous, count the number of verbs. 1 verb = 1 simultaneous instructio
702.47a Ninjutsu is an activated ability that functions only while the card with ninjutsu is in a player’s hand. “Ninjutsu [cost]” means “[Cost], Reveal this card from your hand, Return an unblocked attacking creature you control to its owner’s hand: Put this card onto the battlefield from your hand tapped and attacking.”
702.47b The card with ninjutsu remains revealed from the time the ability is announced until the ability leaves the stack.
702.47c A ninjutsu ability may be activated only while a creature on the battlefield is unblocked (see rule 509.1h). The creature with ninjutsu is put onto the battlefield unblocked. It will be attacking the same player or planeswalker as the creature that was returned to its owner’s hand.
The actual definition of ninjutsu (702.47a) isn't clear that it is attacking the same player/planeswalker. The way it's worded makes it seem like you can choose who to attack. If you added "the same player or planeswalker." onto the end of the definition it would make it much more clear.
This isn't an Oracle change, it's a CR change (wasn't sure where else to put it).Full rules for Ninjutsu:Spoiler:
Show
702.47a Ninjutsu is an activated ability that functions only while the card with ninjutsu is in a player’s hand. &ldqu
702.47a Ninjutsu is an activated ability that functions only while the card with ninjutsu is in a player’s hand. “Ninjutsu [cost]” means “[Cost], Reveal this card from your hand, Return an unblocked attacking creature you control to its owner’s hand: Put this card onto the battlefield from your hand tapped and attacking.”
702.47b The card with ninjutsu remains revealed from the time the ability is announced until the ability leaves the stack.
702.47c A ninjutsu ability may be activated only while a creature on the battlefield is unblocked (see rule 509.1h). The creature with ninjutsu is put onto the battlefield unblocked. It will be attacking the same player or planeswalker as the creature that was returned to its owner’s hand.
The actual definition of ninjutsu (702.47a) isn't clear that it is attacking the same player/planeswalker. The way it's worded makes it seem like you can choose who to attack. If you added "the same player or planeswalker." onto the end of the definition it would make it much more clear.
Agreed - especially considering this:
508.4. If a creature is put onto the battlefield attacking, its controller chooses which defending player or which planeswalker a defending player controls it's attacking as it enters the battlefield (unless the effect that put it onto the battlefield specifies what it's attacking). (...)
Is there a ruling that requires the Ninja enter the field attacking the same player/planeswalker?
Ninja's are sneaky afterall, so it seems like they should be able to enter the field attacking a different player/planeswalker if they so desire.
edit: ah, the third rule says they can't
Is there a ruling that requires the Ninja enter the field attacking the same player/planeswalker?Ninja's are sneaky afterall, so it seems like they should be able to enter the field attacking a different player/planeswalker if they so desire.edit: ah
Huh. I thought the word "then" actually made a difference. Nevermind then, my mistake.
Makes me wonder why they bothered with "thens" at all then. Or why not always use it. Oh well.
Huh. I thought the word "then" actually made a difference. Nevermind then, my mistake.Makes me wonder why they bothered with "thens" at all then. Or why not always use it. Oh well.
What about situations where, if the creature returned via Ninjutsu was attacking a planeswalker, said planeswalker leaves play with the Ninjutsu ability on the stack? What does the Ninja attack, then?
Edit: Found the answer myself! Sorry!
What about situations where, if the creature returned via Ninjutsu was attacking a planeswalker, said planeswalker leaves play with the Ninjutsu ability on the stack? What does the Ninja attack, then?Edit: Found the answer myself! Sorry!
Addressing the peculiarity of the way that Ninjutsu interacts with planeswalkers, I believe that, philosophically speaking, the reason that this was added was that effects like Preeminent Captain make new attacking creatures in the declare attackers step, where the defending player/planeswalker is traditionally chosen. The defending player still has an opportunity to block.
Compare Ninjutsu, which is the only way of creating a new attacking creature after blockers are declared. The ability to 'side-step' to attack another player / planeswalker is not intended and would be a larger functional change to Ninjutsu than the current rule was.
Addressing the peculiarity of the way that Ninjutsu interacts with planeswalkers, I believe that, philosophically speaking, the reason that this was added was that effects like Preeminent Captain make new attacking
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.
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 the
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.
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
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.
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 st
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.
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.
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.
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
Wouldn't it be so much nicer to say: "Choose one or both -- Destroy target artifact; and/or destroy target enchantment."?
Hull Breach seemed convoluted in a commander game the other day and I finally remembered this card: Soul Manipulation Wouldn't it be so much nicer to say: "Choose one or both -- Destro
They actually gave Hull Breach exactly that errata back in January 2009. Then it was pointed out that this was a functional change, so they reverted it in April 2009. The problem is that if you make it a modal spell and choose both modes, the destruction will be sequential. The printed text has the destruction simultaneous.
For an example where this makes a difference: A player controls Dingus Staff and Lucent Liminid . Hull Breach is then cast targetting both of them. With the printed text, dingus staff will trigger and the player will take 2 damage. If the spell was modal, dingus staff is destroyed first and cannot trigger when lucent liminid is destroyed.
They actually gave Hull Breach exactly that errata back in January 2009. Then it was pointed out that this was a functional change, so they reverted it in April 2009. The problem is that if you make it a modal spel
I take it they didn't like the idea of just making it so that modal spells (when you choose more than one mode) effectively add an "and" in between all sets of modes, thus making them all simultaneous?
Cursed thwarting enchantment creature... :PI take it they didn't like the idea of just making it so that modal spells (when you choose more than one mode) effectively add an "and" in between all sets of modes, thus making them all simultaneous?
I take it they didn't like the idea of just making it so that modal spells (when you choose more than one mode) effectively add an "and" in between all sets of modes, thus making them all simultaneous?
First, the inclusion of an "and" would not make it simultaneous. It's the number of verbs that matter, not the conjunctions used. Second, they wouldn't want to make modes simultaneous, at least not by default, because some cards are deliberately make use of the fact that modes are sequential. For example, it is no accident that Primal Command has the "shuffle a graveyard into the library" mode before the "search your library for a creature card" mode.
First, the inclusion of an "and" would not make it simultaneous. It's the number of verbs that matter, not the conjunctions used. Second, they wouldn't want to make modes simultaneous, at least not by default, because some cards are deliberately mak
A lot of entwine spells would work really unintuitively if that change were made, too: Grab the Reins wouldn't let you sac the creature you steal, Plunge into Darkness wouldn't let you pay the life you gain, Promise of Power wouldn't count the cards draw toward the demon's P/T, and Tooth and Nail more or less wouldn't work at all for its main purpose.
A lot of entwine spells would work really unintuitively if that change were made, too: Grab the Reins wouldn't let you sac the creature you steal, Plunge into Darkness wouldn't l
Thanks everyone for their suggestions and discussion. It's time to start working on the AVR update, so this thread will be closed as soon as I can someone to do that.
Have fun!
Thanks everyone for their suggestions and discussion. It's time to start working on the AVR update, so this thread will be closed as soon as I can someone to do that. :)Have fun!
