culling the weak

[Phil]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Hi,

Here's a card from the past an opponent was playing last week which we
had a little dispute about.
He wanted to keep this card in play and get 4 mana everytime he
sacrificed a creature I said no its an instant. His counter arguement
was that it did not say it was, it just says mana source, which he is
right thats what it does say. Which one of us is correct ?
Does it say in play (but then it should say enchantment) ?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

phil@giltharn.demon.co.uk (Phil) writes:
> Here's a card from the past an opponent was playing last week which we
> had a little dispute about.
> He wanted to keep this card in play and get 4 mana everytime he
> sacrificed a creature I said no its an instant. His counter arguement
> was that it did not say it was, it just says mana source, which he is
> right thats what it does say. Which one of us is correct ?
> Does it say in play (but then it should say enchantment) ?

It does not stay in play; it can only be used once. Using the rules at
the time it was printed, it was very similar to an instant or
interrupt. Under current rules, it's a plain old instant. Either way,
it can only be used once.

See the Oracle for the most current wordings of cards.

,----[ Oracle (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/oracle) ]
| Culling the Weak
| {B}
| Instant
| As an additional cost to play Culling the Weak, sacrifice a
| creature.
| Add {B}{B}{B}{B} to your mana pool.
`----

--
Peter C.
"The Boston cream pie shall be the official dessert or dessert emblem
of the commonwealth."
-- Mass. General Law, Chapter 2, Section 41.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Phil wrote:

> He wanted to keep this card in play and get 4 mana everytime he
> sacrificed a creature I said no its an instant. His counter arguement
> was that it did not say it was, it just says mana source, which he is
> right thats what it does say. Which one of us is correct ?

As you already know, you are correct. But here's a little help for your
friend: tell him to imprint the card on an Isochron Scepter or Panoptic
Mirror.

--
Gravity: it's not just a good idea, it's the law.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Phil, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Hi,
>
> Here's a card from the past an opponent was playing last week which we
> had a little dispute about.
> He wanted to keep this card in play and get 4 mana everytime he
> sacrificed a creature I said no its an instant. His counter arguement
> was that it did not say it was, it just says mana source, which he is
> right thats what it does say. Which one of us is correct ?
> Does it say in play (but then it should say enchantment) ?

Mana Source was a type of "one-shot" card similar to an Instant that
existed for a while in the late 90s, specifically from the release of
Mirage to the release of Sixth Edition. Dark Ritual was a Mana Source
for a while, for example. The difference between Instants and Mana
Sources isn't important anymore (if you're interested, it was much like
the difference between mana abilities and normal activated abilities
now) because as of Sixth Edition, all the former Mana Sources are now
Instants.

You might have noticed that the card in question is worded in a way that
makes it very clear that it could only be, in today's terms, an instant
or a sorcery; even if it were an enchantment, your opponent's reading of
it would make absolutely no sense! The closest wording that would make
sense for an enchantment would come into play and have its effect once,
then sit there and do nothing.

You always play older cards like this according to the latest version of
their Oracle text:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/oracle

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

"Zaxx" <bogus@cox.net> writes:
> Phil wrote:
>
>> He wanted to keep this card in play and get 4 mana everytime he
>> sacrificed a creature I said no its an instant. His counter arguement
>> was that it did not say it was, it just says mana source, which he is
>> right thats what it does say. Which one of us is correct ?
>
> As you already know, you are correct. But here's a little help for your
> friend: tell him to imprint the card on an Isochron Scepter or Panoptic
> Mirror.

I suspect that that question might not help in this case, as the
confusion probably comes from the wording of the card as printed. (The
(wrong) answer you'd be likely to get would just be that you can't, as
it's a mana source, not an instant.)

,----[ Culling the Weak, Original Wording ]
| Mana Source
| {B}
| Sacrifice a creature: Add {B}{B}{B}{B} to your mana pool
`----

If people were familiar with today's rules, it's easy to not know the
old rules and read it as an activated ability on a new & different
type of permanent (like a land with a cost), instead of an old type of
card which has new Oracle text showing it to be an instant with an
additional cost.

This type of confusion is probably why they changed things in Sixth
Edition to be more explicit and use different notation for additional
costs and activated abilities... As well as simplify the
instant/interrupt/mana-source confusion. However, I was not yet
introduced to the game at that point, so I probably shouldn't be
making too many assumptions about why they did what.

--
Peter C.
"I'm not trying to hack into the system! Or again!"
-- imets

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Phil <phil@giltharn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Here's a card from the past an opponent was playing last week which we
>had a little dispute about.
>He wanted to keep this card in play and get 4 mana everytime he
>sacrificed a creature I said no its an instant. His counter arguement
>was that it did not say it was, it just says mana source, which he is
>right thats what it does say. Which one of us is correct ?

You are. "Mana source" type cards only existed under 5E rules. All the ones
that were printed with that type are now Instant cards.

>Does it say in play (but then it should say enchantment) ?

No, it does not; it did not under the 5E rules when "mana source" was an
actual card and spell type, and it does not now that it is no longer valid.
From the Glossary:

Mana Source (Obsolete)
Some older cards were printed with the type "mana source". All mana source
cards are now instant cards. Abilities that read "Play this ability as a mana
source" are now mana abilities.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>You might have noticed that the card in question is worded in a way that
>makes it very clear that it could only be, in today's terms, an instant
>or a sorcery; even if it were an enchantment, your opponent's reading of
>it would make absolutely no sense! The closest wording that would make
>sense for an enchantment would come into play and have its effect once,
>then sit there and do nothing.

Well, to be fair, the wording as printed IS fairly unclear for people used
to today's templates.

Culling the Weak Mana Source B
Sacrifice a creature: Add BBBB to your mana pool. [as printed in Exodus]

The template used here was discontinued after only a few expansions, precisely
BECAUSE it got players confused about whether you could sacrifice _several_
creatures all at once to it (you could not, and cannot), or more than one
sequentially somehow (ditto). It was replaced by a much clearer template, as
evidenced in today's Oracle's version:

Culling the Weak B Instant
As an additional cost to play ~, sacrifice a creature. / Add BBBB to your mana
pool.

The "cost: effect" template on _instants, sorceries, and mana sources_ meant
exactly the same as today's "as an additional cost to play this, <cost>", but
confused scads of people.

So I'm not surprised that the original questioner's friend was confused by it
nowadays, as it was confusing even when originally printed.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

David DeLaney, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
> >You might have noticed that the card in question is worded in a way that
> >makes it very clear that it could only be, in today's terms, an instant
> >or a sorcery; even if it were an enchantment, your opponent's reading of
> >it would make absolutely no sense! The closest wording that would make
> >sense for an enchantment would come into play and have its effect once,
> >then sit there and do nothing.
>
> Well, to be fair, the wording as printed IS fairly unclear for people used
> to today's templates.
>
> Culling the Weak Mana Source B
> Sacrifice a creature: Add BBBB to your mana pool. [as printed in Exodus]

Oh, geez. THAT thing.

I always wondered why WotC resisted "As an additional cost to..." for so
long. (The successor to the above horror-inducing template was, if I
recall, "At the time you play..." which is better but still raised a lot
of questions).