Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 22:03:04 +0000 From: Paul Barclay Subject: [O] NetRep Reply 503 ======================================================================= NetRep Reply number 503 to the Magic: the Gathering List ======================================================================= This reply covers the digests: MTG-L Digest - 6 Dec 1999 to 7 Dec 1999 MTG-L Digest - 7 Dec 1999 to 8 Dec 1999 MTG-L Digest - 8 Dec 1999 to 9 Dec 1999 MTG-L Digest - 9 Dec 1999 to 10 Dec 1999 Older replies may be found at: http://www.second-hand.demon.co.uk ftp://ftp.magic.asuka.net http://yavapai.ccgnews.com http://www.en.magic.asuka.net http://www.thedojo.com/backpage-rulesregulations.shtml SHORT ANSWERS: ======================================================================= ** Sumoning Sickness does not prevent you blocking with the creature. ** Opalescences plus Humilities plus Titanias Songs plus Copy Artifiacts: Just do everything in timestamp order, like the Rules Team wants you to. ** The declaration of attackers and of blockers does _not_ go onto the Stack. LONG ANSWERS: ======================================================================= [Echolan, asking about combat] >When you attack with a creature and the opponent blocks, wich of the >following three normally occurs? None of your options, actually. What happens is this: Each creature deals *damage* equal to its Power to the other creature. If either creature has received damage equal to or greater than its toughness, then it dies. (Remember that damage lasts until the end of the turn, and then wears off) Note that this is explained very clearly in all Magic rulebooks. ----- [David Page, asking about combat] >PlayerX has a really big creature (with power greater than my life >total). I have a lowly 1/1. Neither creature has any abilities that >pertain to the situation (i.e. first strike, trample, etc.). PlayerX >attacks me with BigCreature, I block with my 1/1 and automatically bury >it. PlayerX gives his creature protection from my creature's color >after I assigned blockers. According to him, apparently, my creature >dies and so do I. I'm pretty sure that since he waited until after I >assigned blockers to give Pro:color that my creature would take all of >the damage. Can someone verify or correct me on this please. You're correct. Your creature dies, and his will survive. (I like your definition of "big" as "power > life total" :-) >Also, T2 doesn't have a restricted list as of now, right? No, it doesn't. And it never will again. ----- [Jeff Jordan, talking about lands] >Paul gave the >Interim Solution(TM) to remove the ability from the Oracle text and >override this new rule. I'll just note that this means we have to >ignore the literal meaning of a new rule. There are good parts to the >new rules: what is and what isn't a basic land is much clearer, and >some of that good will also get wiped out by Paul's Interim Solution. No, I'm actually saying "this rule is written incorrectly". It basically needs to say that anything that "is a forest" has the {T}:{G} ability, but is _not_ a basic land because of that. >Problem #2: What does Conversion do to a dual land that is part >mountain? Historically, WotC ruled that it only changed half the >land; Badlands would be a swamp and a plains. That changed in 1998 >(I believe), and now it acts just like that PTerrain. Hmm. I must have missed that completely. I'll ask, to make sure. >Conversion finds anything that looks (in part) like a mountain, and >makes it *entirely* a plains. With one exception: It doesn't make it a >basic land. So following the new rules, a Badlands counts only as a >plains, but it is non-basic. I think I'd also better check on this, hadn't I. ----- [Jason Finney, asking about Thorn Elementals] >Does this prevent a Thorn Elemental (or Lone Wolf) from assigning damage if >all the creatures blocking it were removed before step 4 of combat, or does >the card's wording ("as though it weren't blocked") prevent this rule from >applying if the optional ability is used? Thanks! Having no blockers will not prevent you choosing to deal all the Elemental's damage to your opponent. The rule that you quoted (310.1c) doesn't apply to this special case. ----- [Laurie Cheers, asking about Spiders] >(Did we get an answer about how a Spider works with a Chaosphere?) Yes. Chaotically. If you choose to block "as though", then it can't block creatures without flying. If you choose to block normally, then it can block creatures with or without flying. ----- [David Groman, askin two questions] >1) I have a Celestial Dawn, COP White, COP Artifact, and Anhk of Mishra in >play. If I play a land, may I use either COP to prevent the damage from AoM? I >think yes. Yes. >2) I have Nether Void and Temporal Aperture in play. How does the Nether Void >interact with TA's ability? I think I should pay the extra mana. That's correct. The Void has a triggered ability, which will counter the spell when it (the ability) resolves if you don't pay. You'd also have to pay for a Gloom, though. ----- [David Sachs, talking about Humility] >I would suggest that Humility receive errata like: "If Humility becomes a >creature, this ability does not disable itself". This would avoid some of the >more paradoxical effects. Um, if it becomes a creature, it's ability _doesn't_ disable itself (if it ends up wiping itself out, it's because it's just been applied to everything). ----- [Bob Terrell, asking about black enchantment removal] >Okay, we all know that black really sucks at enchantment and artifact >destruction. Is that really fair? Yes. ----- [Jeff Jordan's answer to a question, which is much better] [ than anything that I've got the time to come up with ] >> I've already posted this to .rules, but I was interested to see what >> people here would make of it... >> >> Opalescence, Titania's Song and Humility in play. >> >> Op depends on Song (which can make things artifact creatures, thus >> stopping them from being enchantments). Op doesn't depend on Hu >> because it doesn't animate itself. >> >> Song depends on Op (which can make things enchantment creatures, >> thus stopping them from being artifacts) and on Hu (which can remove >> its abilities). >> >> Hu depends on both Op and Song, which can make things into creatures. > >First comment: I believe the official position is that an interaction >has to be in play and be possible under the timestamping for it to >cause a dependency. That is, Op depends on Song *only* after: > 1) You timestamp-order all effects and start trying to apply them, > 2) You reach Op in this order, > 3) There is an enchantment+artifact+non-creature in play that could > be affected by a Song which is still later in the list. > >Not impossible, but hard to arrange. But I'll assume a Copy Artifact >is in play, copying a non-creature artifact. It enables Song's >dependence on Op as well. > >Second comment: The Rules Team does not follow this method when things >get complex enough to cause a brain cramp. The ruling for Hum and >multiple Ops is that "there is enough dependency to use strict >timestamp order" (I feel the spasms starting in the collective RT >brain). In fact, by the method I outlined, the first Op played can >*never* depend on the Humility because it can never be a creature when >that Humility is applied. Op1 should always be applied *before* Hum1, >and then you stick to strict timestamp order. > >Third comment: Aside from the self contradiction, this case is more >complex than the Hum Op1 Op2 case. There, Op1 and Op2 did not depend >directly on each other. In your case, you have a sub-loop (an eddy?) >within the larger one. Op needs to go before Hum if it can, but you >can't change its order relative to Song. This is possible to do >(ouch, there it goes again) if both Op and Hum have timestamps to >the same side of Song's. > >> Now, Hu depends on Op. Does that mean its effect will be moved to >> after Op's, even though there are some dependancy loops trying to >> "lock" the ordering? > >Looking at my second comment, the RT precedent set by Hum Op1 Op2 is >that nothing will move. Going by the method they supposedly are >following, Op should move before the Hum as you suggest. > >My answer to this question would be: The only move you can make is >to move Op from its timestamp position to just before Hum; but you >can't do it if Song's timestamp is between Op's and Hum's. > >The Rules Team may cramp up and say you can't move the Op even if >it doesn't change position relative to Song. ----- [Jeremy, asking about Silent Assassin] >The text for Silent Assassin reads: >"3B: Destroy target blocking creature at end of combat." > >Does the target creature that is to be destroyed have to be blocking Silent >Assassin, or can SA use this ability even if it is not involved in combat? The Assassin can use the ability even if it's not in combat. It doesn't say "target creature blocking Silent Assassin". Paul. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - Paul Barclay -- paul@second-hand.demon.co.uk -- Mobile: 0958-980180 - - DCI Level III judge -- http://www.second-hand.demon.co.uk/index.htm - - Official MTG-L Network Representative for Wizards of the Coast, Inc -