|
1 year ago ::
Mar 17, 2012 - 12:55AM
#271
|
|
|
Flickerform  should say 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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 18, 2012 - 7:04AM
#272
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 19, 2012 - 4:11AM
#273
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
|
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  or Phyrexian Metamorph  (after an Aura got hit by Argent Mutation  ). 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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 19, 2012 - 9:24AM
#274
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2004
|
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"...
M:tG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2012 - 10:55AM
#275
|
Date Joined:
Dec 29, 2010
|
Should Durkwood Tracker  be: If ~ is on the battlefield, it fights target attacking creature.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2012 - 11:03AM
#276
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
Should Durkwood Tracker be:
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2012 - 12:12PM
#277
|
- Celestial Teapots are broken!
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2007
|
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 26, 2012 - 11:48AM
#278
|
Date Joined:
Dec 29, 2010
|
Should Durkwood Tracker be:
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?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 26, 2012 - 12:10PM
#279
|
|
|
Really? Why?
Yes, because you follow the instructions of a spell or ability in the order they're written. The Tracker has two separate instructions, not just one.
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
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 26, 2012 - 12:12PM
#280
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
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.
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
