Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:51:41 +0100 From: Paul Barclay Subject: [O] NetRep Reply 547 ======================================================================= NetRep Reply number 547 to the Magic: the Gathering List ======================================================================= This reply covers the digests: MTG-L Digest - 3 Jun 2000 to 4 Jun 2000 (#2000-170) MTG-L Digest - 4 Jun 2000 to 5 Jun 2000 - Special issue (#2000-171) Older replies may be found at: http://www.second-hand.demon.co.uk ftp://ftp.magic.asuka.net http://www.yavapaiopen.com http://www.en.magic.asuka.net http://www.wizards.com/dci/judge/judgelistarchive.asp (note the new Yavapai Open address) LONG ANSWERS: ======================================================================= [Pao Kaoru Yonemura, asking about Pyromancy] >I think the rule "you can play mana-ability whenever you're required to >pay mana"(411.2.) is a good rule to take out many of mana-source problems, >but it makes a few of new mana-problems. And if I wanna ask you to suggest >only one rule to Rules Team. > >"The Player who want to play something must have the play cost ready > before playing." We've tried persuading them to go back to this, but with no success - they want to keep the rule as it is, so that new people can come in easily from Starter and other sets. ----- [Amy Shaw, with a shocking revelation] >On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:45:45 +0900 YONEMURA-Pao-Kaoru writes: >> Hi, Paul. > >My name is not Paul ;) That's Ok. We can't all be called Paul - that would be silly. My name's not Amy, either. ----- [Schwarzie, asking two 20-point burn spell questions] >Redirect Damage says "Redirect all damage dealt by any one source to that >source's controller." >If my opponent casts Hurricane for 5 damage and it hits me, him, and 2 >fliers, if I cast Redirect Damage does it redirect just 5 or does it redirect >all 20? (I had been just doing the 5..but realized today it could be all >20..but want to make sure I'm just not fantasizing hehe) All 20. >Okay now..part of Keldon Battlewagon says "Tap an untapped creature you >control: KB gets +X/+0 until end of turn, where X is the tapped creature's >power." >If I have KB out along with 2 5/5 creatures, can I tap the two 5/5's to make >KB a 10/3, and then tap KB to make it a 20/3? (and then Fling it of course) Yes. ----- [Talon, tapping tapped things] > Situation Example:Player A has an untapped Citanel Flute and untapped mana >available to drive it. Player B has an untapped Relic Barrier in play. >Player A taps a certain amount of mana to utilize the Flute and then taps >it...player B responds by tapping the Relic Barrier targeting the >flute...what happens??? The Barrier taps the already tapped Flute. The Flute's ability resolves and gets out a creature card. This is a completely and utterly pointless play by Player B (not only is the Flute already tapped, even if it wasn't, it could simply be used in response to the Barrier's ability). ----- [Johan Sonck, asking about Goblins] >I just used Goblin Grenade as an example to illustrate what I wanted >to know. If I am not mistaken (and feel free to correct me if I'm >wrong), a Goblin token, which has been Soul Sculpted (IOW, turned into >an echantment, losing its creature type), is still considered "a >Goblin" (except for Goblin Grenade apparently), because that's it's >name. It's not considered to be a Goblin for anything that looks for creature type "Goblin" (And there's nothing that looks for name "Goblin"). >What I really wanted to know is whether a Soul Sculpted "Goblin Hero" >is also still considered "a Goblin". Is it? No. It has name "Goblin Hero" and no creature type. ----- [Jeff Jordan, with a large number of queries] >> ** I'll check to see if the Rules Team want to correct the wording of >> Mirror Strike. > >I mostly want to see a statement that it does work as redirection. >The fact that it is worded differently than all other redirections >makes this unclear, although I'll take your non-statement as >a confirmation, for now. It doesn't need a well-publicized erratum, >but I'd hope the Oracle listing for it is in the proper template. It _definitely_ works as redirection. It's _definitely_ misworded. >>(attacking/blocking costs) >>>(Note that *you* can't necessarily use Rhystic Cave to pay a War Tax, >>>but your *opponent* can use it for a War Cadence, and you can't stop >>>it. The erratum did nothing to stop this.) >> >> Actually, we're fine here, due to the rules for attacking and >> blocking. If you declare an attack or block that becomes illegal, >> you must declare a _different_ attack (one that hasn't yet been >> declared). > >You *could* read the phrase in rule 500.2, "must propose another >attack," as requiring a different set of attackers, but that is a >stretch and I'd disagree with it. It's a required interpretation (just like "another target creature" means "a different one from the first"). > However, it also doesn't apply >here; it covers *illegal* attacks, and War Tax is an additional cost >to attack. If you read rule 309.2, it says *first* you check for >legality, *then* you pay any costs. Not having paid the cost can't >be a cause for "illegality," because otherwise you can't pay them in >time. :) It's still illegal, same as if you don't pay the costs for a spell or ability. The rule basically says that you can't do the same thing over and over again when you're attacking. >> You pay 6BB. The decision whether you're paying the alternative >> costs or not is made at the first step of announcement. So, you need >> to sacrifice the creature before you announce the Avatar. > >Whoa, do you mean it is Modal? Or that this is a "variable mana cost >(indicated by '{X}')"? Neither is true; and besides, these get >identified in the *second* step (and you don't identify variable costs >yet, you identify "X"). The first step is "put it on the stack." :) See the July Rules Team Rulings - Step B has been modified slightly, to cater for all the new cards with alternative play costs. >Paul may have recognized his narcoplexy problem where he drops lines, >but he should watch for those that he writes in his sleep: > >> ** Tapped and untapped creatures deal combat damage regardless of >> whether they're attacking or blocking. > >Um, "Attacking and blocking creatures deal combat damage regardless of >whether they're tapped or untapped?" Otherwise, I'll tap all my >critters before the attack. :) Er, um, yeah. I'll go and hide now. >>|An opponent chooses target card in your graveyard. You may pay G to >>|have that opponent choose a target not already chosen for Forgotten >>|Lore. Repeat this process any number of times. Put the last chosen >>|card in your hand. >> >> Yes, this change was done a long time ago. The stated intent was >> that it would fix the situation by making the payments on >> resolution. I'll check to see that the current Rules Team actually >> think that this is what's happened (because the wording is clearly >> unclear). > >Well, D'Angelo's ruling that accompanies this text says "announcement." >And all the precedent on an opposing player choosing a target seems to >agree. I think you are trying to make it sound like part of the >effect, not the targeting choice, and I don't know what part of this >text would indicate that. I'll check. I may have my wires completely crossed here. ----- [Cris Cardona, asking about Ensnare] >my opponent attacks with 3 creatures. I have weaker creatures and dont >want them to block and die. after he declares he is going to attack i >cast Ensnare. all his creatures tap and therefore no attack. That's legal. You have to do it before he declares the attacking creatures. ----- [Shaun Cranford, asking about Enchantment Alteration] >An Iridescent Drake with Zephid's Embrace, a crunchy frog and a >Devout Witness are in play. The controller of the Witness is active >player. The controller of the Drake and the crunchy frog is the >other player, an Enchantment Alteration in hand and one untapped >island. The controller of the Devout Witness taps out and discards >their last card to destroy the Zephid's Embrace. In response, the >controller of the Drake uses Enchantment Alteration to move the >enchantment to the crunchy frog. Because this spell only moves the >enchantment, it never leaves play and so never fails to be the target >of the Devout Witness' destroy ability, right? That's correct. ----- [Ken Moore, talking about donkeys] >Actually, Paul, if I read the Arabian Nights correctly, the Sorceress >Queen turns her victims into donkeys. It even seems, IIRC, that the >picture on Sorceress Queen shows a few donkeys. No 2000s Sorceress in her right mind would turn people into donkeys. They're smelly, noisy and pretty useless. They're also definitely not cool - donkeys are so 1324. The card picture shows a group of troll-type guards (they have spears - donkeys can't use spears). ----- [Charles Bienvenue, asking about Worship] >Worship prevent the damage when the source of the damage say they can't be >prevent or redirect ??? Worship doesn't prevent damage. It prevents loss of life from damage, so whether damage can be prevented or redirected is irrelevant. Paul. - -------------------------------------------------NEW-PHONE-NUMBER-- - - Paul Barclay -- paul@second-hand.demon.co.uk -- Phone: 07939 081819 - - DCI Level 3 judge ---- http://www.second-hand.demon.co.uk/index.htm - - Official MTG-L Network Representative for Wizards of the Coast, Inc -