|
12 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 2:35PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2008
|
But regeneration was. Does anyone know how it was ruled with regard to regeneration back in the day?
Bury = Destroy and cannot be regenerated.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 2:39PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2007
|
But regeneration was. Does anyone know how it was ruled with regard to regeneration back in the day?
Bury = Destroy and cannot be regenerated.
Oh, right. Reading is tech.
blah blah metal lyrics
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 5:48PM
#13
|
- Master of the Quiz (Win '09)
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 13, 2012 - 7:39AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2008
|
Seeing as how indestructible wasn't a thing at the time it was printed, it could be argued that the current Oracle wording is retaining the original functionality rather than altering it. It seems reasonable that the intent was to only award the life for artifacts that are actually destroyed.
Incorrect. Indestructible was indeed "a thing" in that it was a concept at the time of the Mirage's Seeds of Innocence  .
Consecrate Land  (Alpha, Beta, Unlimited) on an animated artifact creature land Mishra's Factory  (Antiquities, 4th Edition). (Yes, Seeds of Innocence would not grant any life because the converted mana cost of Mishra's Factory is 0.)
Guardian Beast  (Arabian Nights)
Fair enough, although the argument that this was actually a power-level errata (if that is indeed your supposition) still seems pretty suspect given that the current wording was put in place more than 2 years prior to the first use of the indestructible keyword, and prior to that time there were never any Guardian Beast/Seeds of Innocence decks menacing Type 1 tables to my recollection.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 16, 2012 - 1:26PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2002
|
Added to the list of cards to look at for the next update.
Del Laugel
Senior editor, Magic TCG
|
|
|
