|
4 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 3:25AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2007
|
We also have rules talking about spell cards becoming permanents: 608.3. If the object that's resolving is a permanent spell, its resolution involves a single step (unless it's an Aura). The spell card becomes a permanent and is put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell's controller.
608.3a If the object that's resolving is an Aura spell, its resolution involves two steps. First, it checks whether the target specified by its enchant ability is still legal, as described in rule 608.2b. (See rule 702.5, "Enchant.") If so, the spell card becomes a permanent and is put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell's controller attached to the object it was targeting.
I don't think that the sub-game rules is supposed to use the term, though:
715.5. ... First, the spell or ability that created the subgame finishes resolving, even if it was created by a spell card that's no longer on the stack. Then, ...
Seems to me like it should just say spell.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 6:38AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2012
|
The "spell = instant or sorcery" thing is mainly in colloquial language and deck lists. In terms of the actual rules, the only thing even hinting at that is the term "spell types".
Cipher (Then you may exile this spell card encoded on a creature you control.)
As worded, that would work on any non-land card. We'll have to wait for the rules update to see if its limited to a certain spell type.
It is.
702.97a Cipher appears on some instants and sorceries.(...)
"Spell card" means "spell which is also a card". It's worded like that because you don't exile the spell if it's just a copy.
It happens that cipher wouldn't make sense on non-instant, non-sorcery cards, but that doesn't mean that "spell card" means "instant or sorcery card".
I get that. My point is that it's ambiguous. Whether the rules say it or not, fact of the matter is that 'spell' is commonly used to mean 'non-permanent', and that's the most intuitive interpretation — in other words, it's how most new players will interpret it.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 10:19AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2007
|
Where do you feel there's ambiguity K9? Can you give some examples?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 21, 2013 - 2:42PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2012
|
Where do you feel there's ambiguity K9? Can you give some examples?
Sure. The Orzhov mechanic, extort, triggers whenever you cast a spell. If a player doesn't know that casting a spell really means playing any card other than a land, they may neglect to pay  and miss out on a lot of life drain.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 2:09AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2007
|
Okay, I understand your point better now. Two points on the matter however: 1) We have many effects that mention spells, but also show the distinction that any nonland card can be a spell. Especially anything that says "creature spell" or "noncreature spell" show that. Standard currently has 12 such cards. Essence Scatter  and Negate  are currently among the basic cards players encounter. 2) Learning what is a spell is one of the basic things a player learns. The section for spells in the basic rulebook starts with "Now that you can make mana, you’ll want to use it to cast spells. All cards except lands are cast as spells.". And even if a player never read the rulebook but was taught how to play from other players, they'd have likely explained to him that countering spells, one of the basic actions in the game, work on any nonland card being played. So, it seems that players have enough information and hints to know what a spell really is.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 7:47AM
#26
|
|
|
If creatures don't count as spells Cancel  is terrible and Negate[c] redundant and [c]Remove Soul  nonsensical. I have never encountered difficulty parsing between spell/creature except on Guided Passage  where telling people to search my deck for a land a creature and a spell makes more sense.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 7:58AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Mar 10, 2003
|
I started Magicing with my teenage brother's play-group, and using that example alone, I can say that it's difficult to drill into their heads this idea of non-land, non-instant/sorcery cards being spells. The weirder thing is that it changes case to case: they all assume that Cancel should work on everything, but don't think the same way with Intimidator Initiate  and other such mechanics. I have no idea why it splits like that.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 8:32AM
#28
|
|
|
Because Taurean Mauled  is obviously red? It is a weird phenomenon.
|
|
|
