|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 11:08PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2011
|
Suppose i play a land, then cast Azusa, Lost but Seeking  , then play two more lands. then i Unsummon  Azusa, and then cast her again. can i play two more lands or not? (and as always, the explanation of why is requested!).
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 11:13PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2004
|
Suppose i play a land, then cast Azusa, Lost but Seeking , then play two more lands. then i Unsummon Azusa, and then cast her again. can i play two more lands or not?
(and as always, the explanation of why is requested!).
Yes, if you have two Azusas, you can play a total of five lands on your turn, even if they are on the battlefield at the same time somehow  .
305.2. A player may normally play only one land during his or her turn; however, continuous effects may increase this number. If any such effects exist, the player announces which effect, or this rule, applies to each land play as it happens.
In this case, what applied to each land play, in order, were:
- Rule 305.2
- The ability of the first Azusa
- The ability of the first Azusa
- The ability of the second Azusa
- The ability of the second Azusa
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 08, 2013 - 11:22PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2011
|
i looked at that comprehensive rule, too, and i found it a little ambiguous.
to argue for the opposite answer:
===
A player may normally play only one land during his or her turn; however, continuous effects may increase this number.
===
when this sentence talks about "increasing this number", it sounds to me like this sentence is talking about the limit of lands you're allowed to play. so, i can read Azusa's ability as saying "Normally you are allowed a limit of one land; now that limit is three".
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 09, 2013 - 6:08AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2004
|
when this sentence talks about "increasing this number", it sounds to me like this sentence is talking about the limit of lands you're allowed to play. so, i can read Azusa's ability as saying "Normally you are allowed a limit of one land; now that limit is three".
May I ask how you would reconcile this interpretation with the following ruling from the Master's Edition III FAQ?
* If you play a land using Gaea's Touch  's first ability, and then Gaea's Touch leaves the battlefield (because you activated its second ability, for instance), the land you played still counts as an additional land play for the turn. If you haven't already, you can still play a land using your standard land play.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 09, 2013 - 8:03AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
to argue for the opposite answer:
Oracle of Mul Daya  disagrees with you:
«If you control more than one Oracle of Mul Daya, the effects of their first abilities are cumulative. If you control two, for example, you can play three lands on your turn.»
And so does Explore  .
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 09, 2013 - 8:09AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
(and as always, the explanation of why is requested!).
400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence...
When you re-cast Azusa, that new object grants you an additional two land-plays.
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 09, 2013 - 8:31AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2011
|
okay, those specific cards you all brought up (and the Masters Edition 3 FAQ) clearly show how the rule was meant to be interpretted. i kind of wish the comp rule was more clear (ie that i would have come to the correct conclusion when reading /only/ the comp rule), but i'm not sure if it's only me who would get to an incorrect interpretation, or not.
|
|
|
