|
11 months ago ::
Jul 04, 2012 - 9:06PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2009
|
But how far do we carry that? The only Auras that I am absolutely sure could never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever enchant a creature would be those with "Enchant player" or "Enchant Opponent". All of the others "could", depending on the mix of continuous effects I have out.
Rules Advisor as of 03/01/2013 Zammm = Batman "Ability words are flavor text for Melvins." -- Fallingman
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 05, 2012 - 1:46AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2007
|
I think it's Tallowisp  that should "search your library for a card that could enchant a creature", or something that makes sense.
Hmm... Having it search for something that could enchant a creature would allow it to find "enchant permanent" which is more then its printed wording could imply.
Two possible solutions are:
1) Have it search for something that could enchant a creature but not a non-creature.
2) Define "Enachant [something]" abilities. Expand the rules so that abilities formatted as "enchant [qualities] [something]" and "enchant [something] in [Zone]" All count as an "Enchant [Something]" ability for effects that refer to them.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 05, 2012 - 4:15AM
#13
|
- Celestial Teapots are broken!
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2007
|
I think the most likely interpretation of "that could enchant a creature" is "that could enchant one of the creatures currently on the battlefield". I don't think that would be desired.
I suppose adding a rule to allow it to search for a card with any subset of "enchant creature" could work, but I don't really like the idea of such a rule for only two cards; I don't see them further exploring that design space.
Another possibility could be to just let it fetch any Aura card.
Or it could just be left as is.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 05, 2012 - 11:19AM
#14
|
|
|
The change to 614.13 doesn't seem to address this case--the wording is such that it only stops the replacement effect from affecting the card whose entrance is being modified. In other words, when you cast Exhume  and return The Mimeoplasm  , it stops the Plasm's replacement effect from exiling itself, but it doesn't stop it from exiling, say, the Runeclaw Bear  that your opponent's bringing back.
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
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 05, 2012 - 8:19PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2012
|
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but:
The wording is a little bit confusing, but from what I understand, you cannot go below 7 health while you have Elderscale Wurm under your control.
When cast, if HP < 7, then HP = 7. -this makes sense.
If HP > 7 OR HP = 7 and you take X damage (where X > HP - 7), then HP = 7. -so if I am at 7 life and I take 4 damage, I am now at 7 life. Hmm...
Is this how it is supposed to be? It just seems like an odd, complicated way to say "Your life total cannot go below 7".
If this isn't right, change line 5 of the description from:
"As long as you have 7 or more life,"
to:
"As long as you have more than 7 life,".
Apologies if I misunderstood.
That IS how it's supposed to be so your rewording would change the card significantly.
The key thing to understand about how it's worded is that there are ways to lose life besides damage. Such as Vapor Snag  . If you're at 7 with this guy out and one of your other creatures gets Vapor Snagged, now you're down to 6 and the Wurm's ability is effectively shut off.
Alright, I had a feeling there was a catch. Thanks for clarifying!
Standard Pauper!
(play it on MTGO)
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 05, 2012 - 8:29PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2004
|
I think the most likely interpretation of "that could enchant a creature" is "that could enchant one of the creatures currently on the battlefield". I don't think that would be desired.
I suppose adding a rule to allow it to search for a card with any subset of "enchant creature" could work, but I don't really like the idea of such a rule for only two cards; I don't see them further exploring that design space.
Another possibility could be to just let it fetch any Aura card.
Or it could just be left as is.
Back in the day, "Enchant creature" and "Enchant artifact" and whatnot meant entirely different things. You printed the one or the other, not used a catchall (like "Enchantment"). This allowed cards to refer to a narrow range of objects to which they could specifically refer or, perhaps, be undercosted in order to restrict their applicability. Hence, Tallowisp : He only cares about those pesky Auras that hit creatures, and looking backward that meant only "Enchant creature" cards. Now, we make a more careful delineation with keywords, but Tallowisp still manages to sit in his niche with almost complete access to the cards he had before.
I like it this way, frankly. Sure, it makes him slightly less functional, but his interaction with cards that "could" enchant a creature was already limited before then (e.g., Confiscate  ) and it doesn't seem like it should be altered when, instead of "correcting" the limitation and broadening "just enough," it would massively expand it. Options ar enice, but the current process seems the better of the them (narrow, broad).
Despite the lack of interaction, cards like War's Toll  and Braid of Fire  lost their interaction with mana burn, and in some cases some cards were completely neutered. The same was true for the competitive use of Wishes, and these are entire mechanics that are now lost. The benefit is cleaner rules, and more careful rules heading forward.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count."
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 2:18AM
#17
|
|
|
Despite the lack of interaction, cards like War's Toll and Braid of Fire lost their interaction with mana burn[...]
Huh? War's Toll never had any interaction with mana burn...
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
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 1:14PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Huh? War's Toll never had any interaction with mana burn...
Not explicitly, no.
However, the correct play with a War's Toll on the table is usually to tap everything (before Toll gets to do so), which may involve manaburn if that mana couldn't find a purpose.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 2:37PM
#19
|
- Celestial Teapots are broken!
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2007
|
The correct play would be to tap only those lands whose mana you could actually spend. If your mana-spending options unexpectedly change, this could still result in mana burn, but it's not something War's Toll alone does.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 06, 2012 - 2:40PM
#20
|
|
|
However, the correct play with a War's Toll on the table is usually to tap everything (before Toll gets to do so), which may involve manaburn if that mana couldn't find a purpose.
Huh? No, the correct play is to figure out everything you want to do before you tap anything, and then tap what you need in order to do that. Why would you ever tap something without having a plan for how to spend the mana?
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
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
