Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:45:43 +0000 From: Paul Barclay Subject: [O] NetRep Reply 522 ======================================================================= NetRep Reply number 522 to the Magic: the Gathering List ======================================================================= This reply covers the digests: MTG-L Digest - 29 Feb 2000 to 1 Mar 2000 (#2000-64) MTG-L Digest - 1 Mar 2000 to 2 Mar 2000 (#2000-65) MTG-L Digest - 2 Mar 2000 to 3 Mar 2000 (#2000-66) MTG-L Digest - 3 Mar 2000 to 4 Mar 2000 (#2000-67) MTG-L Digest - 4 Mar 2000 to 5 Mar 2000 (#2000-68) 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 SHORT ANSWERS: ======================================================================= ** White bordered cards with a 1996 copyright date are from the 4th Edition quick-start decks. This is true for various languages. ** If you make a Morphling "untargetable" in response to Crooked Scales' ability, the ability will still resolve (as there is another legal target), but will not do anything to the Morphling, even if the coinflip says that it should. ** If an opponent pays the {2} for Carrionette, neither the Carrionette nor the targeted creature are removed from the game. ** Tiger Claws: The card says that it can be played any time you can play an Instant. LONG ANSWERS: ======================================================================= [Hanno, asking about Legends] >I just read an article on the Dojo by Tom Guevin, where he proposed a change to >the legendary permanent rule. He said, both players should be allowed to have >one of the same Legendary permanent in play at the same time. >He said this would prevent duels from being draw-luck-contests like "who draws >his Academy/Lin Sivvi first?" The player who is lucky then wins the game, if the >other player goes for the same strategy based on a Legendary permanent, like >having happened in PT 1999 with Academy decks. Hmm. Seems like the Dojo haven't found my reply to that yet. Actually, I think that Tom's wrong here. Changing the rule would remove the luck here, but would just move it somewhere else. In a mirror matchup between two players of equal skill, the match is 50/50. So, this proposed rule change will not affect this matchup in the slightest. What we have to think about is the matchup between players of unequal skill - say a 55% to 45% mirror match. The aim of this rules change would be to increase the difference in win percentage to more than 10%. I haven't seen any evidence that this would happen. Next, we have to look at the effect on the rest of the Magic scene - this change would have a major effect on the game, and would confuse many casual players. Now, assume that this proposed rules change does increase the skill difference, doesn't affect casual players too much, and does come into effect. The result will be that PTNY this year would resolve _more_ around Lin Sivvi than without the change. This is definitely not going to happen before Pro Tour New York. ----- [Jeffrey Shaw, asking about Foil Islands] >Speaking of misprint, I recently found a Urza's Saga Foil Island >WITH-OUT the expansion symbol. There is also 1 WITH the symbol. That >is my definition of "Misprint". BTW, Does anyone have any info on how >many islands are like this? It's a misprint. There are 21 Islands with the symbol for every 1 without. ----- [David Bowler, asking some rules questions] >Wizards' sideboard has been doing breakdowns of the Mercadian cards >discussing the relative values of each. I noticed that the discussion of >murderous betrayal says that the card is OK, but could never take out more >than 4 creatues. >The ability to destroy a creature is BB + lose half your life rounded up. >To me, that means that if I have 1 life, pay 2 mana and lose half my life, >then round up, I still have one life. Meaning that I could kill nonblack >creatures all day long. Is this true? No. It says "rounded up". Half of 1 is 0.5, which rounds up to 1, so you pay 1 life, and die. >Traprunner taps and blocks a target unblocked creature. If the unblocked >creature has trample, does ALL damage still get applied to the player? Correct. >A creature has protection from green and has a toughness of 2. A 6/4 trample >attacks and is blocked by the 2/2. Does 4 trample damage go through or, >since trample is intended to kill a creature and keep going, so nothing gets >through since the creature isn't killed? 4 damage will go through. Damage is split between the creature and the opponent when damage is assigned, so the Trample damage never touches the creature. >The card "An Eye for an Eye" targets a single source, right? In other words, >if I am attacked by 3 creatues, can I reflect the total damage I take back >on the other player, or only the damage dealt by one creature... The card affects damage from a single source. It doesn't target anything. ----- [Thomas Burris, asking about MM block rules questions] >1) If my opponent casts Rupture and in response I kill his last creature, is >it countered? We decided yes because the sacrifice happens at resolution, >not announcement. If it was his only creature, then Rupture does nothing. If he had another creature, then that creature must be sacrificed (the sacrifice is not optional). >2) My opponent now tries to cast a volcanic winds, when is X set. Is it on >annoncement or resolution? The situation was something like this: On announcement. You have to divide the damage on announcement as well. > I have a random 2/2 in play and he has two critters. He cast >volcanic wands as a 6 mana thunderclap on my guy. In response, I vendetta >one of his dudes, and tiger claw my guy. Thus making is volcanic >winds into a shock which doesn't kill my new hill giant. > Was that right, or does my guy still take 3? Your creature still takes 3 damage, and dies. >3) I have a crooked scales and a horned troll in play and would like to >abuse this nice combo. To insure my troll survives the scales, must I pu a >regen shield in place before I flip the coin. I think I do. That's correct. ----- [Guldan, asking about Trample] >I attack my friend with an 8/8 red trample creature. He blocks with >Paladian en-Vec (ya know prot red, prot black) Does he still get the 6 >trample damage? Yes, that's correct. Protection is irrelevant when working out Trample damage (the Paladin will live, of course). ----- [Karl Kovaciny, asking about Martyrdom] >Until end of turn, target creature gains, "0: The next 1 damage that would >be dealt to target creature or player this turn is dealt to this creature >instead." Only you may play this ability. > >Shouldn't it say "target creature you control"? I thought Martyrdom was >only good with Saber Ants -- this makes the card kind of like an instant >Pariah. It doesn't need to be. Since the creature gains the ability, only its controller can play the ability. In addition, the card says that only you can play the ability, so the ability can only be played if you are the creature's controller. ----- [Paul Rees, asking about restrictions] >Ok I got a better question that I would like to hagve the DCI or someone >from WOTC answer this one. Why do we now only ban cards in Type II and not >restrict some of them. Cards aren't restricted anymore because that would increase the luck factor involved in the game: "I drew my Balance. I'm so good." 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 -