|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 10:43PM
#11
|
|
|
If you control Drogskol Reaver  , then play Sphinx's Revelation  for 0, one of the instructions that gets executed is "gain 0 life", which an overly broad interpretation could possibly confuse with "gaining life". Even so, Drogskol Reaver will not trigger from this, and you will not draw any cards.
Likewise, if you pay 0 life, that's not paying any life, and Angel of Jubilation doesn't (and shouldn't) have a problem with that. " " or "Pay 0 life" is certainly a payment, as laid out by rules, but not a payment of any actual resources, and that's the difference.
I don't think "pay" should be the appropriate opposing analogue to "gain." "Lose" should be. If you "Lose 0 life" the game should not consider you to have actually lost life. But if you "Pay 0 life," the game should still consider you to have made a payment.
Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Show
Theora, A World of Modern Science
Show
Build Around This
Show
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 12:02AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2011
|
If you control Drogskol Reaver , then play Sphinx's Revelation for 0, one of the instructions that gets executed is "gain 0 life", which an overly broad interpretation could possibly confuse with "gaining life". Even so, Drogskol Reaver will not trigger from this, and you will not draw any cards.
The difference is that the rulebook states that gaining 0 life doesn't count as a life gain event. It says the same thing about damage and life loss, but not about paying resources. It's true that you don't need to spend resources to pay 0 life or 0 mana, but it's still a payment. What we essentially have is the following two phrases when Jubilation is in play:
Rulebook: Players can pay 0 life.
Angel: Players can't pay (0) life.
And somehow the rulebook wins. For elegance, I will now quote Magic 101:
Whenever a card's text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation.
When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can't happen, the "can't" effect takes precedence.
Rules Advisor Please autocard: [c ]Disenchant[/c ] = Disenchant  .
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 3:39AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2007
|
I'm begining to see your point, Shard_Fenix. A more relevant rule to quote is 117.3b: 117.3b Paying life is done by subtracting the indicated amount of life from a player's life total. (Players can always pay 0 life.)
Paying 0 life still has the name of "life paying" to it. It doesn't matter that it doesn't get interpreted as actual life loss.
Question:
In a multiplayer game with five players, A to E, player A casts Plague of Vermin  and pays some life. Then players B to E choose not to pay any life. When we get back to player A, he doesn't want to pay any life, but one of the previous players, lets say C, regrets not paying life and convinces A to pay life so that the process will continue back to C, but A would rather not to lose any more life.
Can A choose to pay 0 life and have it count as life paying for the process to continue?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 5:48AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2012
|
0 life is certainly a payment. It's even a "life payment." You just don't have to pay any life to fulfill it. So Angel of Jubilation  is happy.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 6:59AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
|
Likewise, if you pay 0 life, that's not paying any life, and Angel of Jubilation doesn't (and shouldn't) have a problem with that. "" or "Pay 0 life" is certainly a payment, as laid out by rules, but not a payment of any actual resources, and that's the difference.
I don't think "pay" should be the appropriate opposing analogue to "gain." "Lose" should be. If you "Lose 0 life" the game should not consider you to have actually lost life. But if you "Pay 0 life," the game should still consider you to have made a payment.
You've made "a payment" for things that care about that (not that there are any). But the payment did not consist of any life, so Angel of Jubilation doesn't mind.
Perhaps Angel of Jubilation ought to be worded slightly differently to clarify here, but I don't think any other changes are needed on this part of the discussion.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 11:35AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Dec 29, 2010
|
I'm begining to see your point, Shard_Fenix. A more relevant rule to quote is 117.3b:
117.3b Paying life is done by subtracting the indicated amount of life from a player's life total. (Players can always pay 0 life.)
Paying 0 life still has the name of "life paying" to it. It doesn't matter that it doesn't get interpreted as actual life loss.
Question:
In a multiplayer game with five players, A to E, player A casts Plague of Vermin and pays some life. Then players B to E choose not to pay any life. When we get back to player A, he doesn't want to pay any life, but one of the previous players, lets say C, regrets not paying life and convinces A to pay life so that the process will continue back to C, but A would rather not to lose any more life.
Can A choose to pay 0 life and have it count as life paying for the process to continue?
Hahaha - and then the game keeps going and going, with each player baiting the others to be the first to pay a nonzero amount of life, by saying "I pay 0 life.", "I pay 0 life.", "I pay 0 life.", and Plague of Vermin 's resolution takes an inordinate amount of time...
In a tournament I cast Plague of Vermin to draw the game - I choose to continuously "Pay 0 life" until we go to time, which is what the effect allows me to do; the process will continue despite my opponent saying "I'll choose to not pay life" since one of the players is still paying life each round. (...I'm pretty sure a judge would be called and said judge would get angry at me for X number of IPG-related reasons and I'd get a stern talking to and Plague of Vermin would be done resolving yesterday)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 12:20PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2007
|
No, infinite loops won't be a problem under the hypothetical conclusion that PoV continues the process because someone paid 0 life (considering how Angel of Jubilation works, PoV won't continue the process for someone who paid 0 life). Players would still have the option of "not paying" so eventually they'll have to choose not to pay and stop this ridiculousness. Additionally, at the very least for the sake of the question, assume the players have no desire to slow or freeze the game, just that player C honestly wanted another round of the process to pay life, and player A honestly wanted to make it happen but would prefer not to pay life if possible.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 6:25AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2012
|
If any player chooses to "pay 0 life," Plague of Vermin will not continue, since it wants to know whether life was actually paid, as opposed to whether a "cost that is categorized as a life payment was paid." I can't think of many instances where it matters that an instruction to "pay 0 of [resource]" counts as a "[resource] payment," but the ones I do know work to make the game sensible. 1) Cards like Memnite  cost , but you are still allowed to cast them. 2) When casting a spell that costs , you are allowed to activate mana abilities.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 14, 2013 - 11:51AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2012
|
As another example of cards that care when a cost of is paid, Shah of Naar Isle  cares whether you pay his Echo cost of .
|
|
|
