Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:35:45 +0000 From: Paul Barclay Subject: [O] NetRep Reply 505 ======================================================================= NetRep Reply number 505 to the Magic: the Gathering List ======================================================================= This reply covers the digests: MTG-L Digest - 15 Dec 1999 to 16 Dec 1999 MTG-L Digest - 16 Dec 1999 to 17 Dec 1999 (#1999-1) MTG-L Digest - 17 Dec 1999 to 18 Dec 1999 (#1999-2) MTG-L Digest - 18 Dec 1999 to 19 Dec 1999 (#1999-3) MTG-L Digest - 19 Dec 1999 to 20 Dec 1999 (#1999-4) 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 FOLLOWUP TO PREVIOUS REPLIES: ======================================================================= ** We have an official DCI ruling on Home Improvement: While it is utter Pants, it's not the worst sitcom on TV. LONG ANSWERS: ======================================================================= [Jeffrey Shaw, asking about Unglued 2] >This implies that there is/will be an unglued 2! Any word when it will >be available? No idea when it will be available, but it is all ready to go. >Also, Any word on furture sets after Nemisis? The next two sets will be Prophecy (a small set, in May/June), then Invasion (a standalone, in October) ----- [Jeff Jordan, asking more about Banding] >The modifications made by the Banding ability are made to rule 310.1c. >If that rule does not apply to Thorn Elemental, then why should a >blocking bander get to decide if TE uses its special ability? You misunderstand. Rule 310.1c doesn't apply to the special case of a Thorn Elemental's blockers being removed, if the TE decides to deal damage to the defending player. In this case, the Thorn Elemental can still choose to deal damage as if it were unblocked. Rule 310.1c has two parts - one stating how to assign combat damage, and one stating what happens if you can't assign combat damage. Banding alters the first part, and TE's ability allows you to ignore the second part. Banding allows you to make _all_ choices about the division of combat damage from opposing creatures and this includes the choice of whether to use the TE's ability or not. >Question: does Mountainwalk enable you to walk over a land of *name* >Mountain or of *type* Mountain (or both)? You say *name* here, but >the precedent from dual lands and Blanket of the Night is type. Possibly both. Definitely type, but possibly name as well. I'll ask. >And to really complicate this issue, consider Celestial Dawn, Magical >Hack, and a 6E Forest (which has no mana symbols in its text box). >The Hacked Celestial Dawn makes this Forest a swamp (or is it a >Swamp, which implies it is also a swamp?). Being a swamp (by your >overruling) makes it *have* the ability "Tap: add B to your mana pool," >but AFAIK it *still* is not a part of the land's text box. So there >are no symbols for CDawn to change to W (which, btw, happens after the >change to Swamp or swamp). You know what I'm going to say here, don't you. I'll ask. ----- [Shaun Cranford, asking about Misdirection] >First, did I remember that it was decided that a Misdirection can change the >target of a Counterspell to the Misdirection that is being cast? Yes, that's correct (well, it's changing the target to the Misdirection that's currently resolving, as you choose the target on resolution). >Of course, a Misdirection cannot target a spell such >as Arc Lightning if the player chooses more than one target, right? Correct. >Third, if I try to cast Rancor targeting a crunchy frog and the frog is Shock'd >in response, is the Rancor "countered upon resolution?" If that is the case, >would I draw a card if I had Multani's Presence in play? Yes, and yes. ----- [Jeremy, asking about playing activated abilities] >1. Primeval Shambler's text says that if you pay 1 swamp, it gets +1/+1 until >the end of the turn. Is there a limit to how many swamps I could play, or could >I pay, for example, 4 swamps and make PS +4/+4 until the end of the turn? No, there's no limit. Note that you don't "pay swamps". You pay black mana, which is produced by tapping swamps. >I figure the limit is one, because otherwise the variable "X" would be >used in the text instead of "1B." "{X}:" means that you can choose how much mana you spend when you announce the ability, so you can pay more mana all at once. Crypt Rats has this type of ability. "{B}:" means that you can only pay one mana each time you play the ability. Note that you can play any ability with a colon (":") as many times as you want per turn. These are called activated abilities. >2. Does summoning sickness affect only a creature's ability to attack, or does >it also affect its special abilities? It prevents a creature from being declared as an attacker, and it prevents you using the ability of the creature with the {Tap} symbol in its activation cost. ----- [James Lee, talking about overruling the rules] >I think that it is a very bad precedent for judges to have to second >guess the rules as written - especially in such times of change. I agree completely. However, errors will always creep in, and won't always be quickly discovered and corrected. Head Judges have to have the ability to deal with any errors that are discovered. >I had the chance to bounce the matter off of Collin and Beth in Chicago >a couple of weeks back and it seems reasonable for judges to rule as if >the "the intended wording" were there. Paul, I wonder if you might get >an Official [TM] word to put here from the applicable Powers [TM]? The official position will come back when WotC get back from their Christmas holidays. But, the NetRep position is unanimous on this, so it's safe to take that as the official word. > I, for one, would feel much better having to rule >without having to tell the players that "I know" the >rule does not really mean what it says. Thanks. This is the overall aim. The process for the Oracle will become greatly improved over the next couple of months - Brady Dommermuth is taking over as Oracle manager, and is going to be doing a lot of work on controlling the wordings (he's at least as picky as any of the NetReps about errors and miswordings, as he's a professional editor). >By the way - hope that you are feeling much recovered. I am. Back to 100% (ignoring the hangover:-) ----- [Bob Terrell, following up my replies] >> It needs to say that anything that "is a forest" has the {T}:{G} >> ability, but is _not_ a basic land because of that. > >Isn't that the way it's always been? At least for a few editions? Yes, but the rulebook needs to actually say this. >How is it that you quote me on the irrelevant stuff and ignore what the post >is really about? ;) The irrelevant stuff was far more fun, and the relevant stuff didn't need an answer. >If cards can tell from the text whether an ability has an activation >cost, why can't they tell what it does? In theory, they can. It's just how to word the ability so that it works, isn't confusing and doesn't take up a tree's worth of paper. >No, that's not, true, and so far I don't think anyone has caught on yet. I >wanted a card that would prevent creature abilities such as Prodigal >Sorcerer's from ever being played in the first place. It was not intended to >prevent upkeep damage such as Lord of the Pit and Force of Nature. Makes things harder, but not impossible. "All creatures lose all activated abilities that cause that creature to deal damage." Less robust wording, of course, but the more restrictive you get, the harder it is to word the ability. ----- [Hanno, asking about bannings] >Why I asked was Zuran Orb. It is banned in all formats except T 1, and I just >wondered why it was considered to be so strong. It's banned because it's incredibly unbalancing - it's basically an extra 20 or more life with no mana cost. >Another thing Id like to mention is the restricting of Stroke of Genius >in T 1. I always thought it was supposed to be a "fixed" Braingeyser >(like Time Warp - Time Walk), and thus it should not be restricted. Braingeyser is Restricted in Type 1 too. It's a "different" Braingeyser, not a "fixed" one. >I personally think to remove Mind/Academy decks from the evironment it >had been sufficient to ban Mind over Matter and restrict Tolarian >Academy. And Voltaic Key, perhaps. The restrictions on Grim Monolith >and Lotus Petal (if Im correctly informed) are IMO not necessary. These are vital to stop the format degenerating completely. The only reason they're not banned is because the philosophy of Type 1 is to allow people to play with as many cards as possible. ----- [Jacek Malinowski, asking about Humble] >This is easy question but I cannot find answer in usual sources. >Do Humility/Humble remove such abilities as flying, landwalk, trample etc. >(I know that e.g 'counts as' is not removed) Humble removes all abilities, including keywords such as Flying etc. ----- [BC Laminack, asking about Starter and other cards] >My son and I are just getting into MTG and I understand pretty much >everything I have read and seen thus far, however I am confused as to what >can be played with what. Basically, you can play any cards with any other cards, except in a DCI sanctioned tournament. In a DCI tournament, you have to follow the DCI's deck construction rules. >If you don't mind, one other question, when we decide to move up a level, >are the cards we have now obsolete or are they used in the higher levels of >the game as well? A lot of them can be used in the future, as they appear in sets such as Classic Edition. In the future, it is possible that cards from Starter will all be DCI tournament legal, although this is not certain, and has not been officially confirmed. It's nice to welcome new people to the game. Merry Christmas, and a happy new year. 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 -