|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 2:21PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
Haste doesn't cure summoning sickness; it just hides the symptoms. The symptoms return if haste disappears.Players like to say "It has summoning sickness". It sure beats the alternative: "It has not been under its controller's control since the begining of its controller's most recent turn." However, the rules claim it's a naugthy term. ("Informal term for ..."). Why is it naughty? Well, I can guess two reasons:
- The very term implies it's only contracted from summoning, a term generally understood to be synonymous with "cast".
- Haste is possibly (but erroneously) believed to "cure" summoning sickness.
I hate using metaphores for explaining rules. They're never accurate. Which leads to explaning exceptions. Which leads to something more complex than if you had just explained the rules directly. And there's probably still some corner cases where they fail after all that. The thing is, we can't get rid of the concept summoning sickness. It's too useful. Wizard realises this by using the term throughout the rules. (In fact, the glossary definition of Haste is «A keyword ability that lets a creature ignore the “summoning sickness” rule.» ) But do we need to?
- We can change the term while keeping the concept.
- We can teach that Haste doesn't cure summoning sickness; it just hides the symptoms. The symptoms return if haste disappears.
Then we could properly codify it. For example, if we used "stunned", it might look like:
- Permanents become stunned as they enter the battlefield.
- Permanents become stunned as they change controller.
- Permanents stop being stunned at the begining of their controller's turn.
- A stunned creature cannot attack.
- A stunned creature cannot use abilities with
 in its cost.
- A stunned creature cannot use abilities with
 in its cost.
- "Haste" means "Can act as though it isn't stunned."
I would prefer that we as a team find these corner cases, fix them, and make the concept formal. Thanks
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 2:43PM
#2
|
|
|
Players do not read the comprehensive rules, so there is no point in changing terminology and creating new rules when the current rules for summoning sickness are already comprehensive. You can explain the rules however you want. Whatever you think is the most understandable. Here is what the basic rulebook says. Unlike other types of permanents, creatures enter the battlefield with "summoning sickness": a creature can't attack, or use an ability that has in its cost, until it has started your turn on the battlefield under your control.
You can attack with a creature only if it's untapped, and only if it was on the battlefield under your control when the turn began.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 3:11PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2011
|
Question: if a creature has an ability that does not require it to tap can it still do this ability even on it's first turn?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 3:58PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 29, 2007
|
Question: if a creature has an ability that does not require it to tap can it still do this ability even on it's first turn?
yes, "summoning sickness" only prevents creatures from activating abilities that have these ( and ) costs.
MtG Rules Advisor &
Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJDJ VortexDCI Certified Rules Advisor from July 14, 2009 to July 14, 2012 DCI #5209514320 Wit found in Rules Q&ARPJesus: "Man, screw the rules, I'll play a game of 2HG Archenemy Planechase Emperor EDH draft yet. Once I figure out the rules for it..." Chaikov: "Of course, casual Magic may be played any way your Pokemon group agrees on..." and "It's not logic. It's Magic!" GainsBanding: "I only play online. The Magic Online shuffler is AWESOME!" Ikegami: "one might think [adult cats] would make excellent tokens. The issue, though, is that they are very hard to exile. They return to the battlefield more often than an undying creature." Astarael7: "Does 121.1 imply that players are supposed to wear their poison counters?" Bimmerbot: "If you move the wrong way and [the poison counters] fall, it's a game rule violation" Helluminatus: "Just remember, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the oracle text says creature - Bunny , then by god, it's a bunny." MadCow21: "Who are you and what have you done with the real Chaikov?" My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 4:35PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
Players do not read the comprehensive rules, so there is no point in changing terminology and creating new rules when the current rules for summoning sickness are already comprehensive.
Quite the opposite. It would allow us who do read the rules to use the same terminology as those who don't without making stuff up (like the text in blue).
You can explain the rules however you want.
That always ends badly. (See the "I hate using metaphores for explaining rules." paragraph.)
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 4:59PM
#6
|
- Celestial Teapots are broken!
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2007
|
There's another reason the term is avoided: the concept of summoning sickness as it applies to the game doesn't make sense.
The rule itself is very simple. A creature can't [do certain things] unless [certain conditions are met]. If people learn and understand that rule, they'll be able to properly apply it to any situation. The metaphor of "summoning sickness" could explain the basic idea behind the rule, but it just doesn't work when it comes to animation effects. Being "sick" or "stunned" is something only living things, i.e. creatures, can do. It's a category error to apply those terms to inanimate objects, much less to enchantments or lands.
Even though "The Keyrune is summoning sick, but it can still tap for mana because it's not a creature. As soon as it becomes a creature, the sickness will manifest and stop it from tapping for mana. As you start your next turn, the sickness will wear off." is a valid way to explain how the Magic rule works, it doesn't at all match up with expectations, so the metaphor there is not actually helpful.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 5:29PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2005
|
There's another reason the term is avoided: the concept of summoning sickness as it applies to the game doesn't make sense.
The rule itself is very simple. A creature can't [do certain things] unless [certain conditions are met]. If people learn and understand that rule, they'll be able to properly apply it to any situation. The metaphor of "summoning sickness" could explain the basic idea behind the rule, but it just doesn't work when it comes to animation effects. Being "sick" or "stunned" is something only living things, i.e. creatures, can do. It's a category error to apply those terms to inanimate objects, much less to enchantments or lands.
Even though "The Keyrune is summoning sick, but it can still tap for mana because it's not a creature. As soon as it becomes a creature, the sickness will manifest and stop it from tapping for mana. As you start your next turn, the sickness will wear off." is a valid way to explain how the Magic rule works, it doesn't at all match up with expectations, so the metaphor there is not actually helpful.
I dunno, it makes sense to me. Especially if you use the "Everything has summoning sickness but only creatures care" interpretation. Like, I put a keyrune into play with Tinker  . I just "summoned" it, so it's still sick, but it's an artifact, so it's not especially affected by the timey-wimey particles still stuck to it. However, if it becomes a creature before those dissipate, it's like "Oh hay, sentience, that's n-*vomits*." I guess control changing effects are a bit of an outlier, but once one understands the basic concept  using the term as a framework, it's easy enough to understand variations  .
Also aplying human characteristics to inanimate objects isn't exactly unusual.
Zammm = Batman. Bronies unite."I'd call you a genius, but I'm in the room." It's my sig in a box
Show
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
Funny story:
InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game.
I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul:
Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?"
Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy."
Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb."
Me: "*Sigh*. Okay."
I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board.
Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious. 
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol. 
I have the same problem with women.
Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
Show
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now.
O' Jesus
Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle.
Amen.
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears  would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic  , giving you time to set up your silly  combo  . Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills 
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 5:54PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
There's another reason the term is avoided: the concept of summoning sickness as it applies to the game doesn't make sense.
It's still a question of name.
The rule itself is very simple. A creature can't [do certain things] unless [certain conditions are met] If people learn and understand that rule, they'll be able to properly apply it to any situation.
Well, until Wizard banishes summoning sickness like it did for "casting cost", that's not gonna be good enough. Also, a name is needed to describe that condition, as I explained in the first paraphraph. I'm not sure Wizard could banish the term even if it wanted to.
The metaphor of "summoning sickness" could explain the basic idea behind the rule, but it just doesn't work when it comes to animation effects. Being "sick" or "stunned" is something only living things, i.e. creatures, can do. It's a category error to apply those terms to inanimate objects, much less to enchantments or lands.
So the issue is that we need a term that's not anthropomorphic when applied to objects. e.g. "In transit", "shifting", ...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 7:30PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2005
|
Haste doesn't cure summoning sickness; it just hides the symptoms. The symptoms return if haste disappears.
Players like to say "It has summoning sickness". It sure beats the alternative: "It has not been under its controller's control since the begining of its controller's most recent turn."
However, the rules claim it's a naugthy term. ("Informal term for ...").
... snip ...
I would prefer that we as a team find these corner cases, fix them, and make the concept formal.
Thanks
It's an informal term. As long as people understand what you're talking about, you don't need an official term for it. "Summoning sickness" has been around for so long that you will never get folks to stop referring to it or asking about it. Case in point: "fizzle" is no longer in the rulebook, but even new players ask about it and lots of folks who answer questions still use it.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 7:49PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
It's an informal term. As long as people understand what you're talking about, you don't need an official term for it.
hum, I'm not sure why you think this is discussion is not about interplayer communcation. It's about rule comprehension. It's about not having to lie to people when explaining the rules. It's about not making errors when explaning the rules.
|
|
|
you loads
