|
11 months ago ::
Jul 09, 2012 - 4:45PM
#31
|
|
|
This is where I am confused. If the aura is allowed to enter the battlefield from the stack, why is it not allowed to enter the battlefield from the graveyard? In both cases, the protection and color change do not apply and remove the aura until the aura is on the battlefield.
I agreed with Nylon, and I think that the Aura would enter the battlefield in both cases.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 09, 2012 - 4:49PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2012
|
The problem is the use of the word could. It implies looking into the future, but the game normally can't do that. And it's complex to determine whether an aura could enchant Bruna  . What things do we consider? Which do we ignore? That's not explicitly defined anywhere. Cards that use a similar template have caused problems before ( could produce  ), and at least one actually doesn't work  . It seems to me that if there had to be a "check" coming from Bruna at some point to determine whether you can move an aura onto her, that would be when her attack trigger resolves. At that point, the aura is in the graveyard and it could enchant her. If I'm right, it'd enter the battlefield, its ability would trigger, and a couple state-based actions would put it back in the graveyard. I'd wait on an official response, though.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 09, 2012 - 5:08PM
#33
|
|
|
All the right rules have been quoted here. Divine Favor  could enchant Bruna from the graveyard (satisfying her own rules text), though the Favor never "targets" Bruna. It is coming to Bruna because of her triggered ability alone. It is white while in the graveyard, but it gets to the battlefield attached to her as a black aura enchantment, its ETB ability triggers, and SBA's are performed right after the ability resolves, before players get priority. The order of events right after resolution then, is that the echantment is put into its owner's graveyard due to SBA's, the 3 life is gained by Bruna's controller because that was the top item on the stack, and Bruna remains a black angel with protection from black that's still attacking or blocking. That's my take anyway.
Teachable Level 1 Judge
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 09, 2012 - 5:09PM
#34
|
|
|
The problem is the use of the word could. It implies looking into the future, but the game normally can't do that. And it's complex to determine whether an aura could enchant Bruna . What things do we consider? Which do we ignore? That's not explicitly defined anywhere.
You are right that it is not defined anywhere for this case. Rule 614.12 does define a method to determine what it would look like if it entered the battlefield and, based on that, what it could enchant. If rule 614.12 said, "replacement effects or rules," that would solve the issue.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 09, 2012 - 5:37PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2001
|
The problem is the use of the word could. It implies looking into the future, but the game normally can't do that. And it's complex to determine whether an aura could enchant Bruna . What things do we consider? Which do we ignore? That's not explicitly defined anywhere.
You are right that it is not defined anywhere for this case. Rule 614.12 does define a method to determine what it would look like if it entered the battlefield and, based on that, what it could enchant. If rule 614.12 said, "replacement effects or rules," that would solve the issue.
With this post - if not much earlier - this becomes pretty clearly an RT&T topic...
Jeff Heikkinen
DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 09, 2012 - 5:47PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
It could not be black unless it was on the field.
Correct. It never becomes black. What's your point?
I don't think 701.3b stops it from attaching.
701.3b doesn't stop it from attaching; 702.15c does. 701.3b says what happens when it can't be attached.
702.15c A permanent or player with protection can’t be enchanted by Auras that have the stated quality. Such Auras attached to the permanent or player with protection will be put into their owners’ graveyards as a state-based action. (See rule 704, "State-Based Actions.")
You are asking the game to look into the future to stop something that MIGHT be illegal when it happens.
No, there's no foretelling. You are instructed to change the game state from "in a graveyard, white and unattached" to "on the battlefield, black and attached to a creature with protection from black", but 702.15c forbids you from doing that, and 701.3b tells you what to do instead.
The problem is the use of the word could. It implies looking into the future, but the game normally can't do that.
Where do you see "could"? Neither relevant rules use that word. The explanation given doesn't use "could".
This is where I am confused. If the aura is allowed to enter the battlefield from the stack, why is it not allowed to enter the battlefield from the graveyard?
It's no more allowed to enter the battlefield from the stack than from the graveyard, for exactly the same reason.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 09, 2012 - 6:12PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
That does bring up an interesting question though, if it fails to enter the battlefield from the stack... did the spell fizzle? I'm not sure.
It wasn't countered, if that's what you're asking. Countering a spell or ability is an action one is instructed to take, and nothing instructed the spell to be countered here.
Or was the spell successfully cast?
Most definitely. Casting is putting on the stack, choosing modes, choosing targets, determining costs and paying costs. Casting was completed long before the spell starting resolving.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 09, 2012 - 6:54PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
Both the «does enter Battlefield» and «can't enter Battlefield» sides have strong arguments.
A few years ago, the same situation (with slightly different cards)
was [O]ruled as «the aura enters play, then falls to the Grave».
According to this (somewhat aged) ruling, I would gain the 3 life.
I wonder what the Powers That Be would say about this today...
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 09, 2012 - 7:03PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2005
|
Both the «does enter Battlefield» and «can't enter Battlefield» sides have strong arguments.
A few years ago, the same situation (with slightly different cards)
was [O]ruled as «the aura enters play, then falls to the Grave».
According to this (somewhat aged) ruling, I would gain the 3 life.
I wonder what the Powers That Be would say about this today...
What were the other cards involved? Do you have a link to the previous ruling?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 09, 2012 - 7:24PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
It's older than this Forum; won't be an easy find...
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
