|
5 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 3:58AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2012
|
Jungle Evasionist   Creature - Bear Rogue ~ is treated as if it didn't exist by the effects of spells and abilities that do not target it. 2/3 Evasionist Flame   Creature - Flame Rogue ~ is treated as if it didn't exist by the effects of spells and abilities that do not target it. 3/1 Evasionists Art  Artifact Creature - Rogue ~ is treated as if it didn't exist by the effects of spells and abilities that do not target it. ~ is treated as an artifact and not a creature by spells that would target it. 1/1 Flying Evasionist Artifact Creature - Bird Rogue Flying ~ is treated as if it didn't exist by the effects of spells and abilities that do not target it. 1/1
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 4:21AM
#22
|
|
|
Does this work according to the rules?
Yeah it looks like we've pretty soundly established that the answer is 'no'.
Real talk tho, this is something that has come up a lot and it's never worked out, for better or for worse.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 5:44AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2012
|
I'd say the evationists in this thread have worked out well.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 8:59AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Mar 23, 2006
|
hey, so especially when you're explicitly asking if a given wording works, you really shouldn't edit the wording in the OP after posting it. the first five or so responses in this thread make no sense without that original context, making the whole thread harder to follow for someone jumping in later. if you want to change it, just make a new post being like "how about this wording?" and go from there. don't mess up the flow of the conversation by retroactively changing things to make responses look wrong. that said, yes, the current version works within the rules, although I doubt it's actually printable. 
120.6. Some effects replace card draws.
|
|
|
