|
11 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 10:23PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Feb 21, 2011
|
To me it seems like Transmute Artifact  should still put the artifact into play briefly if you choose an artifact that costs more than the one you sacrificed, and choose not to pay the difference. This could be important for cases like Myr Battlesphere  with its enters the battlefield triggers, and it seems to more closely follow the original wording of the card. So to avoid the current power-level errata, I'd probably word it like: "Sacrifice an artifact. If you do, search your library for an artifact card, and put it onto the battlefield. If that artifact's converted mana cost is greater than the sacrificed artifact's converted mana cost, you may pay  , where is the difference. If you don't, sacrifice that artifact. Then shuffle your library."
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 05, 2012 - 3:27AM
#32
|
|
|
Transmute Artifact was last touched in September 2010; you can read the interpretation of the word "fails" there.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 4:15PM
#33
|
|
|
Here is my suggestion for Transmute Artifact . Sacrifice an artifact. If you do, search your library for an artifact card and put it onto the battlefield. If its converted mana cost is greater than the sacrificed artifact's converted mana cost, sacrifice it unless you pay {oX}, where X is the difference. Then shuffle your library.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 08, 2012 - 6:37PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Feb 21, 2011
|
The current interpretation of the word "fails" doesn't seem correct - the first sentence of the card indicates that the artifact is searched for and "immediately" put into play. Only further on, when the card is in play, does it bring up "fails." It could also be argued that you should word it so that finding an artifact isn't contingent upon sacrificing an artifact, since the original wording has them in reverse order (though this clearly isn't in line with modern design). Though if you didn't sacrifice an artifact, you'd have to sacrifice your new one as part of the resolution. Something like this is probably closer to the card's wording: Search your library for an artifact card and put it onto the battlefield. Sacrifice an artifact. If that card's converted mana cost is greater than the sacrificed artifact's converted mana cost, sacrifice it unless you pay , where is the difference. Then shuffle your library.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 08, 2012 - 9:32PM
#35
|
|
|
I believe you have to read the card as a whole in order to determine intent and meaning. The idea is not just to translate each sentence one at a time into modern Magic rules terminology.
Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager
Wizards of the Coast
Follow me @TabakRules
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 08, 2012 - 10:46PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Feb 21, 2011
|
I get that you don't just want to translate it word for word, but it seems like the intent was to grab and artifact and put it directly into play and THEN have you deal with the costs. It could have easily been worded in the opposite order when it was printed. Since the intention of "fails" isn't clear (unless you can dig up some Antiquities R&D), I'd fall back to interpreting it closer to how it was printed instead of how it would be designed today.
As a side note, it seems more fun to play with as it's printed :-)
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 08, 2012 - 11:44PM
#37
|
|
|
Any wording that lets you cast it on an empty board, put Sundering Titan  onto the battlefield, then sacrifice it fails on many levels. 
Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager
Wizards of the Coast
Follow me @TabakRules
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 09, 2012 - 10:01AM
#38
|
|
|
Any wording that lets you cast it on an empty board, put Sundering Titan onto the battlefield, then sacrifice it fails on many levels.
Like the change to Flash  allowed?
I don't see why the same wording (Put it onto the battlefield, then sacrifice it if the condition isn't met) has been updated to mean different things on these two cards.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 09, 2012 - 10:14AM
#39
|
|
|
The printed wordings of these two cards are very different. The team is happy with both of them.
Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager
Wizards of the Coast
Follow me @TabakRules
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 09, 2012 - 12:27PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Feb 21, 2011
|
The power level of the wording isn't really relevant to whether the current wording is correct or not. If the correct wording ends up too powerful, it can/should be banned or restricted in the formats it's legal in. Look at Time Vault  - obviously the prior wording made for a more fair card, but it's wording was updated to match how it was designed. I don't see why Transmute Artifact should be any different.
|
|
|
