|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 6:33AM
#21
|
- Celestial Teapots are broken!
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2007
|
That ruling is imprecise and should be changed. There are certainly costs that aren't effects, such as those to cast spells or activate abilities. Those are what it means there by "costs". However, the actual definition of costs is much broader and includes some things that are also effects.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 6:47AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
so you can apply it to an effect that is also a cost?
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 6:55AM
#23
|
- Celestial Teapots are broken!
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2007
|
Yes.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 1:38PM
#24
|
|
|
Here is an example of why Library of Leng  should reveal the card. You control Fallow Wurm  , and its ability triggers. You choose to discard a land card, which is legal. Then you apply Library of Leng's effect to the event, which should also be legal. Rule 117.11 says that the cost is still paid. 117.11. The actions performed when paying a cost may be modified by effects. Even if they are, meaning the actions that are performed don't match the actions that are called for, the cost has still been paid.>br>
Example: A player controls Psychic Vortex, an enchantment with a cumulative upkeep cost of "Draw a card," and Obstinate Familiar, a creature that says "If you would draw a card, you may skip that draw instead." The player may decide to pay Psychic Vortex's cumulative upkeep cost and then draw no cards instead of drawing the appropriate amount. The cumulative upkeep cost has still been paid.
Library of Leng should not have its own rule that makes it work strangely. It is an old card, and its templating was off.
Another weird case. If I target my opponent with Psychic Miasma  , my opponent can discard a land card but put it on top of their library with Library of Leng to avoid Psychic Miasma's effect.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 30, 2012 - 2:02PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2012
|
Library of Leng's versatility would slightly increase if you were forced to reveal the card, but it's power level would drop a bit. I find no issue with the way it currently works. Inability to discard cards with certain characteristics is an acceptable drawback to keeping the information private.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 31, 2012 - 8:18AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Apr 26, 2010
|
Why just not make the an option to reveal the discarded card? Seems like a good compromise.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 31, 2012 - 8:34AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
Why just not make the an option to reveal the discarded card? Seems like a good compromise.
Because this is a game that takes thought to play correctly, so when given a choice, each choice should be viable depending on a situation. If there is only one correct play, then that doesn't take thought. I've never understood the desire to remove choices from the game when more choices == more complexity == more fun.
MTG Rules Advisor 
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 31, 2012 - 8:47AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2012
|
Well, in the case of Wrench Mind  , or any "...unless you discard a [characteristic] card" or "equal to the discarded card's [characteristic]" situation, you actually would have an interesting choice. It's probably not that way because that would be a functional change, and if they wanted to rewrite Library of Leng, I'd imagine they'd just give the thing a cleaner template altogether.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 31, 2012 - 10:06AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Apr 26, 2010
|
the problem is that funtional changes happen like on Aladdin's Lamp  x can't be 0. I believe discarding should be revealed. It acts like a replacement effect like leyline of the void  but is different. What s the origal intent of the cards function?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 31, 2012 - 11:07AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2012
|
It's hard to say what the original intent of the card was. If I had to guess, I'd say the designer didn't care or didn't think about interactions pertaining to whether the card is revealed. However, the original text gives us a small clue. The card specifies that you can look at a randomly determined card before deciding whether to apply this effect. That tells me that the card wants you to decide what you're discarding before you actually do it. So, Wrench Mind hits me: 1) Choose whether I'm discarding two or discarding an artifact. 2) Do the discard. 3) Apply Library's effect? Oh wait, maybe I can't! In that light, I can understand why a reveal could be desirable. But I believe that Wizards tries to avoid functional changes at any reasonable cost.
|
|
|
