Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:32:11 +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 - 5 Mar 2000 to 6 Mar 2000 (#2000-69) MTG-L Digest - 6 Mar 2000 to 7 Mar 2000 (#2000-70) 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: ======================================================================= ** "Only you may play this ability" is a restriction on who can play an ability. "Any player may play this ability" is an addition to the normal group of players that can play abilities. ** There is a difference between "cannot become enchanted by" and "cannot be enchanted by" - the first wording cannot be used, as it doesn't cover the case of Lacing an enchantment while its already in play. That's why we use "cannot be enchanted by". ** Earthcraft is banned in Extended. ** If you have Aluren and a Soul Warden in play, a Shrieking Drake can give you an arbitrarily large amount of life. ** If you have a Wall of Essence with Pariah on it, all combat damage dealt to you will be dealt to the Wall instead, and you'll gain life for all of it. ** Animate Dead: This card is not worded correctly for it to work - its last ability needs to read something along the lines of "When Animate Dead leaves play, if no creature has been enchanted, destroy the chosen creature. Otherwise, destroy enchanted creature. That creature cannot regenerate". I'll pass the comments back to the Rules Team so we can get it fixed. Until then, play the card (and similar cards) as if they had the above wording. ** Pale Moon's mana cost is {1}{U}. LONG ANSWERS: ======================================================================= [Misi, asking about Gilded Drake] >I casted an Oropel Drake, my opponent controlling a Morphling, >and two islands untapped. >The new wording of Drake came to discussion, and we agreed that >for some reason, i would take control of the Morph even if he >make him untargetable in response. So he countered the Drake away :) This isn't actually true. While the ability will not be countered due to an illegal target, it will not do anything to the Morphling. There are two parts of the "illegal targets" rule - one of them talks about what happens to targets that are illegal (nothing), and one talks about what happens to a spell whose targets are all illegal (it is countered). Gilded Drake's ability only overrides the second part of the rule. ----- [Erik Wiseman, talking about luck] >You have *got* to be kidding -- "not affect...in the slightest"!!?? It >changes it from "who goes first" or "who draws X first" to the normal >chance of the draw. So, changing it from "Who draws X first" to "Who draws Y first"? This isn't a change in the grand scale of things - play 1000 mirror matchups, and the number of wins for each player won't change. > Yes, sometimes going first will still make a big >difference, but it won't allow you to just shut down another deck. Having a Lin-Sivvi in play doesn't shut down another Rebel deck. The only thing that it does is mean that you run one mana quicker than your opponent, and you can move up the rebel chain one turn faster. >>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. > >It might be 55%-45% in a NORMAL mirror match, but playing decks depending >upon Legendary permanents under the current rules changes that to "who got >X on the opening draw" again. I think that you're maybe missing the point about probability. ----- [Karl Burlingame, asking about damage] >Damage from any source to a player that has been redirected by "Pariah" to a >"Mother of Runes" would be prevented even if it's Trample damage. Assuming >the Mother can tap to protect. Yes or No. If you give the Mother Protection from the appropriate colour, then yes. "Trample damage" is just damage - there's nothing special at all about it. ----- [Karl Burlingame, asking about Protection] > If a "White Knight" is returned from the graveyard using and >"Animate Dead" does it then return to the graveyard when the Knight >(Protection from Black) returns to play. That's correct. The Protection ability will cause the Animate Dead to be put into the graveyard as a State-Based Effect after the Knight comes into play. This will then kill the Knight too. ----- [Ingo Warnke, talking about Personal Incarnation] >It uses the similiar clause 'Only Personal Incarnation's owner may play this ability.' >for the damage redirection ability. The way this is IMO supposed to work is that it >can be played by its owner even if he doesn't control it. Paul's answer would imply >it can only be used when it is controlled by its owner. I believe that this is true. I'll check that this is the intended result - they may want to fix it. ----- [Ingo Warnke, talking about Animate Dead on a White Knight] >So the Animate Dead comes into play as a global enchantment. The White Knight >is put into play. Now the Animate Dead should become an enchant creature and >enchant the White Knight. But can it? Protection says it can't. So it could be >argued that the Animate Dead isn't put onto the Knight. It is, actually, irrelevant (the Animate Dead _is_ going to the graveyard regardless, as at the very least, it will be an enchant creature with no enchantee). But, it would be nice to know exactly what happens. I'll ask. ----- [Tod Tinlin, replying to my comments about luck] >> 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. >> ----- >> Cards aren't restricted anymore because that would increase the luck >> factor involved in the game: "I drew my Balance. I'm so good." > >To me, the first and second responses are diretly contradictory in logic. In >the first, it seems you are saying that there in no luck factor involved in >drawing the "restricted" or Legendary game breaker, yet in the second, I >believe you are saying that cards were restricted for this very reason. In the first, I was saying that, in a mirror match, the luck factor is always there, regardless of the embodiment of that luck factor. If it's not a Legendary permanent, it might be drawing more Scrolls, or less Islands, or the right Duress/Ritual/Necro/Force of Will combination. Too much luck is a bad thing, but there is always luck in a mirror match. 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 -