Trample, Brawn, and the Phyrexian Splicer

[Guest]

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

Heya folks. This came up last night in a horrid 6 player game and
created quite an argument, since it was a win-determining situation...

Brawn is in the graveyard:

Brawn
{3}{G}
Creature -- Incarnation
3/3
Trample
As long as Brawn is in your graveyard and you control a Forest,
creatures you control have trample.


Phyrexian Splicer (one of my faves, just for the record) and Scion of
Darkness are in play:

Phyrexian Splicer
{2}
Artifact
{2}, {T}: Choose one -- flying; first strike; shadow; or trample.
Target creature with that ability loses it until end of turn and
another target creature gains it until end of turn.

Scion of Darkness
{5}{B}{B}{B}
Creature -- Avatar
6/6
Trample
Whenever Scion of Darkness deals combat damage to a player, you may
put target creature card from that player's graveyard into play under
your control.
Cycling {3} ({3}, Discard this card from your hand: Draw a card.)


Scion attacks. The defender has a 1/1 token, as well as the splicer.
He splices the Scion and his token, taking trample from the Scion and
giving it to the token. The argument ensues.

"He's got trample from Brawn AND on his own!"

"The Brawn trample is continuous! You can't take it!"

"I think the rules say that removing an ability removes ALL copies of
that ability..."

"All your decks are ultra-cheese! I concede! <door slam>"

"Is there any pizza left?"

(Sorry for the extraneous comments. Think of it as flavor text.)

Anyhow, does the splicer successfully remove all copies of trample
from the Scion and give it to the token, enabling the token to block
the Scion without letting him trample?

Thanks,

Rick Kunkel

 

[Guest]

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

"Rick Kunkel" <NOSPAM-kunkel@w-link.net> wrote in message
news:dj5t805ndj76ggt5ql9l2724bnvj2na44k@4ax.com...
<snip>
> Anyhow, does the splicer successfully remove all copies of trample
> from the Scion and give it to the token, enabling the token to block
> the Scion without letting him trample?

I'm no rules guru, so stick around for an official answer. But while you
wait....

I don't think that the Scion (or any other creature) can have Trample twice.
It either has Trample or it doesn't. It's like giving a flying creature
flying. It doesn't fly *higher*. Same thing goes for removing abilities, I
assume. I think that removing the Trample from the Scion *removes all
trample* from the Scion. However, if Scion attacked, and then the Splicer
was activated, it would remove the trample. Then, say, the attacking player
can (somehow, as an instant) discard Brawn, the Scion would have Trample
again. But like I said...I'm just pretty sure this is how it works, but
don't take it as gospel...wait for one of the resident rules gurus to
straighten you out.

--

KB

 

[Guest]

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

Hello, Rick!

RK> Brawn is in the graveyard:

RK> Brawn
RK> {3}{G}
RK> Creature -- Incarnation
RK> 3/3
RK> Trample
RK> As long as Brawn is in your graveyard and you control a Forest,
RK> creatures you control have trample.

Notice the word "have" before trample - it's important.

RK> Phyrexian Splicer (one of my faves, just for the record) and
RK> Scion of
RK> Darkness are in play:

RK> Phyrexian Splicer
RK> {2}
RK> Artifact
RK> {2}, {T}: Choose one -- flying; first strike; shadow; or
RK> trample.
RK> Target creature with that ability loses it until end of turn and
RK> another target creature gains it until end of turn.

RK> Scion of Darkness
RK> {5}{B}{B}{B}
RK> Creature -- Avatar
RK> 6/6
RK> Trample
RK> Whenever Scion of Darkness deals combat damage to a player, you
RK> may
RK> put target creature card from that player's graveyard into play
RK> under
RK> your control.
RK> Cycling {3} ({3}, Discard this card from your hand: Draw a
RK> card.)


RK> Scion attacks. The defender has a 1/1 token, as well as the
RK> splicer.
RK> He splices the Scion and his token, taking trample from the
RK> Scion and
RK> giving it to the token. The argument ensues.

RK> "He's got trample from Brawn AND on his own!"

RK> "The Brawn trample is continuous! You can't take it!"

Here are two relevant rules:
407.2. An effect that sets an object's characteristic, or simply states
a quality of that object, is different from an ability granted by an
effect. When an object "gains" or "has" an ability, that ability can be
removed by another effect. If an effect defines a characteristic of the
object ("[permanent] is [characteristic value]"), it's not granting an
ability. (See rule 405.2.)

Example: An effect reads, "Enchanted creature has 'This creature is an
artifact creature.'" This effect grants an ability to the creature that
can be removed by other effects. Another effect reads, "Enchanted
creature is an artifact creature." This effect simply defines a
characteristic of the creature. It doesn't grant an ability, so effects
that would cause the creature to lose its abilities wouldn't cause the
enchanted creature to stop being an artifact.



407.3. Effects that remove an ability remove all instances of it.

Example: If a creature with flying is enchanted with Flight, it has two
instances of the flying ability. A single effect that reads "Target
creature loses flying" will remove both.

According to 407.2, Trample given by Brawn in the graveyard is an
ability of Scion (since it's written as "have trample"), just as Scion's
own Trample from rules text. According to 407.3, both abilities are
removed with the Splicer.

Regards,
Arkady.

 

[Guest]

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

Ken Briscoe, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> I don't think that the Scion (or any other creature) can have Trample twice.
> It either has Trample or it doesn't. It's like giving a flying creature
> flying. It doesn't fly *higher*.

Well, it can, but multiple instances of trample, or flying for that
matter, are redundant, and anything that removes either ability removes
all instances of it. So it *can* have such an ability more than once,
but the rules are written so that functionally, it's as though it
couldn't.

(Is there any special reason for that? I don't see the difference
between the way the rules are currently worded, and the way Ken thought
they worked. The only reason I can see is that it creates a consistency
of sorts with the way abilities like flanking work (where multiple
instances are *not* redundant), but I'm not really sure whether anything
is gained by that.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:

> (Is there any special reason for that? I don't see the difference
> between the way the rules are currently worded, and the way Ken thought
> they worked. The only reason I can see is that it creates a consistency
> of sorts with the way abilities like flanking work (where multiple
> instances are *not* redundant), but I'm not really sure whether anything
> is gained by that.

Whether it is redundant or cumulative depends on what it is. Absolute
statements ("is 0/1", "is white", "may be played any time you could play
an instant", etc.) are inherently redundant. Relative statements ("gets
+3/+3", "may block an additional creature", "costs {1} less to play",
etc.) are inherently cumulative.

418.5h One continuous effect can override another. Sometimes the results
of one effect determine whether another effect applies or what another
effect does.
Example: Two enchantments are played on the same creature: "Enchanted
creature gains flying" and "Enchanted creature loses flying." Neither of
these depends on the other, since nothing changes what they affect or
what they're doing to it. Applying them in timestamp order means the one
that was generated last "wins." It's irrelevant whether an effect is
temporary (such as "Target creature loses flying until end of turn") or
global (such as "All creatures lose flying").
Example: One effect reads, "White creatures get +1/+1," and another,
"Enchanted creature is white." The enchanted creature gets +1/+1 from
the first effect, regardless of its previous color.

Consider three effects timestamped in the following order:

A) "Trample" (printed on the creature)
B) "As long as <yaddayaddayadda> have trample" (Brawn static ability)
C) "loses trample" (Phyrexian Splicer activated ability)

C overrides A. C overrides B. Therefore, no trample.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

 

[Guest]

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

Rick Kunkel <NOSPAM-kunkel@w-link.net> wrote:
>Brawn is in the graveyard:
>
>Brawn 3G Creature -- Incarnation
>3/3 Trample As long as ~ is in your graveyard and you control a Forest,
> creatures you control have trample.
>
>Phyrexian Splicer (one of my faves, just for the record) and Scion of
>Darkness are in play:
>
>Phyrexian Splicer 2 Artifact
> 2,Tap: Choose one -- flying; first strike; shadow; or trample.
> Target creature with that ability loses it until end of turn and
> another target creature gains it until end of turn.

Before reading further: the timestamp of Brawn's "they have trample"
ability is the time Brawn enters your graveyard, regardless of when you
get control of Forests. If the Splicer is used on something that already
has Trample because of Brawn, it can suppress that Trample until end of
turn; if the Splicer _already has_ suppressed Trample on something of yours
and _then_ Brawn goes into your graveyard, the something will get Trample
back. (Also notice this is a modal activated ability.)

>Scion of Darkness 5BBB Creature -- Avatar
>6/6 Trample Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, you may put target
> creature card from that player's graveyard into play under your control. /
> Cycling 3 (*)

Also before reading further: Whether SoD has trample is usually ONLY relevant
as combat damage is going _ONTO_ the stack. It doesn't have to check again
whether it still has Trample while combat damage resolves, for the damage to
get dealt to wherever it was assigned to.

(Simply trying to guess what the question is before actually coming across
it, here.)

>Scion attacks. The defender has a 1/1 token, as well as the splicer.
>He splices the Scion and his token, taking trample from the Scion and
>giving it to the token. The argument ensues.

Okay. If he waits until -after- combat damage is in the stack, the Scion
has already split up its combat damage between its blocker(s) and defending
player; if not, the Scion doesn't have Trample as combat damage goes on the
stack.

The only way Brawn can make a difference here is if Brawn goes to the
graveyard _after the Splicer ability resolves_.

>"He's got trample from Brawn AND on his own!"

Doesn't matter; 407.3 says that "loses trample" will take away any and all
instances of Trample the Scion already has. He does NOT have to lose trample
"once for each trample ability he has from various sources" - losing it
suppresses all of it.

>"The Brawn trample is continuous! You can't take it!"

So is the "loses that ability until end of turn"; it's a continuous effect
with a duration, from a resolving ability. It doesn't and can't depend on
anything, so uses just timestamp to determine when to apply the effect; in
this case, _after_ applying the "I have Trample" from the Scion's own ability
and the "He has Trample" from the Brawn already in the graveyard.

>"I think the rules say that removing an ability removes ALL copies of
>that ability..."

Yes.

>"All your decks are ultra-cheese! I concede! <door slam>"

Wah.

>"Is there any pizza left?"

Yay!

>(Sorry for the extraneous comments. Think of it as flavor text.)
>
>Anyhow, does the splicer successfully remove all copies of trample
>from the Scion and give it to the token, enabling the token to block
>the Scion without letting him trample?

Yes, and yes, provided the Splicer gets used before combat damage goes
onto the stack. (Doesn't matter whether it's used before or after blockers
are declared, but since it's been in play since before Combat started,
attacking player does sort of have to have had a mental blind spot to not
see this coming...)

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?)

Ken Briscoe <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote:
>I don't think that the Scion (or any other creature) can have Trample twice.

It can have it twice (or more times).

Having Trample more than once isn't any DIFFERENT from having it just once,
though; having it twice doesn't do you any good, really. Trample means "you
can add defending player in to the list of places combat damage from this
attacking creature can be assigned IF every one if its blockers has lethal
damage assigned at the time"; saying that twice is no different from saying
it once, just like having flying (== "can't be blocked except by creatures with
flying") multiple times doesn't accumulate any more benefits.

>It either has Trample or it doesn't. It's like giving a flying creature
>flying. It doesn't fly *higher*.

It gets the benefits of Trample/flying/landwalk for having it once or multiple
times, correct.

(Some keyword abilities _do_ accumulate; Rampage and flanking are examples. The
rulebook generally tells you which give accumulating effects.)

>Same thing goes for removing abilities, I
>assume. I think that removing the Trample from the Scion *removes all
>trample* from the Scion.

Correct.

>However, if Scion attacked, and then the Splicer
>was activated, it would remove the trample. Then, say, the attacking player
>can (somehow, as an instant) discard Brawn, the Scion would have Trample
>again.

That's correct also, though it turns out this wasn't the idea behind the
question in the end.

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?)

Rick Kunkel sez:

<<
>>setup: Brawn in GY, Phyrexian Splicer and Scion of Darkness in play<<
>
>Scion attacks. The defender has a 1/1 token, as well as the splicer.
>He splices the Scion and his token, taking trample from the Scion and
giving it to the token. The argument ensues.
>
>"He's got trample from Brawn AND on his own!"
>
>"The Brawn trample is continuous! You can't take it!"
>
>"I think the rules say that removing an ability removes ALL copies of
that ability..."
>
>"All your decks are ultra-cheese! I concede! <door slam>"
>
>"Is there any pizza left?"
>
>(Sorry for the extraneous comments. Think of it as flavor text.)
>
>Anyhow, does the splicer successfully remove all copies of trample
>from the Scion and give it to the token, enabling the token to block
>the Scion without letting him trample?
>

>>

Yes it does. There is a rule somewhere (someone better at keeping the rules
intact than I will most definitely quote it) that says anything that removes an
ability removes all instances of the ability. So, in this game, redundancy is
not a good defense. (Though I can understand confusion in this day and age,
where in some cases, redundancy is a great defense...)


----
"I remember back in the day we'd stay up all night...during the summer playing
DnD. Just us, a 12 pack of mtn. dew, a pizza, and alot of sacrificing newborns
on the altar to the lord Satan. good times, good times."
--From Fark.com

 

[Guest]

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

Daniel W. Johnson, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>
> > (Is there any special reason for that? I don't see the difference
> > between the way the rules are currently worded, and the way Ken thought
> > they worked. The only reason I can see is that it creates a consistency
> > of sorts with the way abilities like flanking work (where multiple
> > instances are *not* redundant), but I'm not really sure whether anything
> > is gained by that.
>
> Whether it is redundant or cumulative depends on what it is. Absolute
> statements ("is 0/1", "is white", "may be played any time you could play
> an instant", etc.) are inherently redundant. Relative statements ("gets
> +3/+3", "may block an additional creature", "costs {1} less to play",
> etc.) are inherently cumulative.
>
> 418.5h One continuous effect can override another. Sometimes the results
> of one effect determine whether another effect applies or what another
> effect does.
> Example: Two enchantments are played on the same creature: "Enchanted
> creature gains flying" and "Enchanted creature loses flying." Neither of
> these depends on the other, since nothing changes what they affect or
> what they're doing to it. Applying them in timestamp order means the one
> that was generated last "wins." It's irrelevant whether an effect is
> temporary (such as "Target creature loses flying until end of turn") or
> global (such as "All creatures lose flying").
> Example: One effect reads, "White creatures get +1/+1," and another,
> "Enchanted creature is white." The enchanted creature gets +1/+1 from
> the first effect, regardless of its previous color.
>
> Consider three effects timestamped in the following order:
>
> A) "Trample" (printed on the creature)
> B) "As long as <yaddayaddayadda> have trample" (Brawn static ability)
> C) "loses trample" (Phyrexian Splicer activated ability)
>
> C overrides A. C overrides B. Therefore, no trample.

I understand all that, in fact, I think I said most of it myself. My
question was, why are the rules written the way they are as opposed to
the way Ken thought they worked, and is there a *practical* difference
between the two?

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:

> I understand all that, in fact, I think I said most of it myself. My
> question was, why are the rules written the way they are as opposed to
> the way Ken thought they worked, and is there a *practical* difference
> between the two?

I do not understand your question. Rule 502.9f doesn't actually create
a redundancy for multiple instances of trample, it just notes it.

502.9f Multiple instances of trample on the same creature are redundant.

Whenever the rules check whether a given creature has trample (or some
other ability redundant in multiples), they ask a yes/no question, not a
"how many times" question.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:

> I understand all that, in fact, I think I said most of it myself. My
> question was, why are the rules written the way they are as opposed to
> the way Ken thought they worked, and is there a *practical* difference
> between the two?

On second thought, I think I see what you are asking.

If a creature with Flight has Jump played on it, and then the Flight is
removed, a wording based on Ken's post might be ambiguous.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

 

[Guest]

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

Daniel W. Johnson, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>
> > I understand all that, in fact, I think I said most of it myself. My
> > question was, why are the rules written the way they are as opposed to
> > the way Ken thought they worked, and is there a *practical* difference
> > between the two?
>
> I do not understand your question.

As simply as I can make it (and without all the extra "clarification"
that apparenly wasn't):

Part I: What is the functional difference, if any, between

"Multiple instances of trample are redundant" plus "If something removes
trample, it removes all instances of it"

and

"A permanent can't have more than one instance of Trample. If something
would give a permanent more than one instance of Trample, ignore all but
one of them"

Part II: If the answer to part I is "There is no difference", is there
any special reason to prefer the first version (which I already
understand perfectly well is the one in the rules) over the second,
which is arguably more intuitive?

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>As simply as I can make it (and without all the extra "clarification"
>that apparenly wasn't):
>
>Part I: What is the functional difference, if any, between
>
>"Multiple instances of trample are redundant" plus "If something removes
>trample, it removes all instances of it"
>
>and
>
>"A permanent can't have more than one instance of Trample. If something
>would give a permanent more than one instance of Trample, ignore all but
>one of them"

The latter would also forbid permanents to have multiple instances of flanking
or rampage, and might cause confusion about whether something could have
both forestwalk and islandwalk, or both protection from red and protection
from artifacts. This would be a Big Change for -those- abilities. And we can't
say "Well, this is the group of abilities that you can have more than one
copy of, and this is the other group that you can't, everybody please
memorize both lists, we'll be adding to them with each expansion".

So there is a great big difference between "This says 'Trample' seven times
but that doesn't do anything more for it than saying it once" and "This can't
say 'Trample' more than once".

(In addition, how do _you_ think the latter would work with effects that
remove Trample? Given that dependency comes before timestamp when evaluating
what order you apply continuous effects in...)

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:

> Part I: What is the functional difference, if any, between
>
> "Multiple instances of trample are redundant" plus "If something removes
> trample, it removes all instances of it"
>
> and
>
> "A permanent can't have more than one instance of Trample. If something
> would give a permanent more than one instance of Trample, ignore all but
> one of them"
>
> Part II: If the answer to part I is "There is no difference", is there
> any special reason to prefer the first version (which I already
> understand perfectly well is the one in the rules) over the second,
> which is arguably more intuitive?

If you think the second is more intuitive, use it to explain what
happens if a creature with two Primal Frenzy (or similar) enchantments
loses the first one it got. (I'm not talking about losing the ability
directly to something like Walking Sponge.)
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

 

[Guest]

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

Daniel W. Johnson, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>
> > Part I: What is the functional difference, if any, between
> >
> > "Multiple instances of trample are redundant" plus "If something removes
> > trample, it removes all instances of it"
> >
> > and
> >
> > "A permanent can't have more than one instance of Trample. If something
> > would give a permanent more than one instance of Trample, ignore all but
> > one of them"
> >
> > Part II: If the answer to part I is "There is no difference", is there
> > any special reason to prefer the first version (which I already
> > understand perfectly well is the one in the rules) over the second,
> > which is arguably more intuitive?
>
> If you think the second is more intuitive, use it to explain what
> happens if a creature with two Primal Frenzy (or similar) enchantments
> loses the first one it got. (I'm not talking about losing the ability
> directly to something like Walking Sponge.)

Very simple. It still has a Primal Frenzy on it, and nothing, including
the proposed rule, suggests that its ability doesn't apply.

 

[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:
> >As simply as I can make it (and without all the extra "clarification"
> >that apparenly wasn't):
> >
> >Part I: What is the functional difference, if any, between
> >
> >"Multiple instances of trample are redundant" plus "If something removes
> >trample, it removes all instances of it"
> >
> >and
> >
> >"A permanent can't have more than one instance of Trample. If something
> >would give a permanent more than one instance of Trample, ignore all but
> >one of them"
>
> The latter would also forbid permanents to have multiple instances of flanking
> or rampage, and might cause confusion about whether something could have
> both forestwalk and islandwalk, or both protection from red and protection
> from artifacts.

Where does it mention those abilities? I was talking about Trample
(and, earlier, flying).

> This would be a Big Change for -those- abilities. And we can't
> say "Well, this is the group of abilities that you can have more than one
> copy of, and this is the other group that you can't, everybody please
> memorize both lists, we'll be adding to them with each expansion".

Okay, *that* makes a certain amount of sense. It still seems reasonably
obvious which ones can and can't be cumulative, but I can see where
you're coming from - better to have one rule for all of them, if for no
other reason then in case a confusing borderline case does arise at some
point. (I can't, however, think of one among the current keyword
abilities.)

> So there is a great big difference between "This says 'Trample' seven times
> but that doesn't do anything more for it than saying it once" and "This can't
> say 'Trample' more than once".

I'm stil having trouble seeing the *functional*, rather than ease-of-
learning, difference.

> (In addition, how do _you_ think the latter would work with effects that
> remove Trample? Given that dependency comes before timestamp when evaluating
> what order you apply continuous effects in...)

Hmm. If I'm thinking this through correctly, that means that anything
that removed Trample would also, in effect, prevent regaining it for the
rest of that turn (or whatever the duration of the effect was), assuming
it was from something other than a permanent in play. And in the latter
case, the permanent in question would have to be destroyed in order to
give the creature back the ability - for example, playing Jump with
Gravity Sphere in play would do nothing. Okay, *now* I'm satisfied that
it would make a difference - assuming that I've navigated the CE maze
correctly (please let me know if I haven't!).

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:

> Very simple. It still has a Primal Frenzy on it, and nothing, including
> the proposed rule, suggests that its ability doesn't apply.

The proposed rule explicitly says to ignore the second Primal Frenzy (or
a Stampede or Sylvan Might played while a Primal Frenzy is on it).
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

 

[Guest]

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

Daniel W. Johnson, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>
> > Very simple. It still has a Primal Frenzy on it, and nothing, including
> > the proposed rule, suggests that its ability doesn't apply.
>
> The proposed rule explicitly says to ignore the second Primal Frenzy (or
> a Stampede or Sylvan Might played while a Primal Frenzy is on it).

Two Primal Frenzies - ignore one, doesn't matter which.

One Primal Frenzy - no redundant effect, so no reason to ignore
anything.

I've already conceded this argument, but this isn't why. At worst, the
problem you point out, if it exists at all, could be sorted out by a
trivial rewording of my suggested rule - it's not a problem with the
*concept*, only with (if anything at all) the semantics of the off-the-
cuff wording I suggested. Dave, on the other hand, was able to show
much deeper problems with it.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>Daniel W. Johnson, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>> The proposed rule explicitly says to ignore the second Primal Frenzy (or
>> a Stampede or Sylvan Might played while a Primal Frenzy is on it).
>
>Two Primal Frenzies - ignore one, doesn't matter which.
>
>One Primal Frenzy - no redundant effect, so no reason to ignore
>anything.
>
>I've already conceded this argument, but this isn't why. At worst, the
>problem you point out, if it exists at all, could be sorted out by a
>trivial rewording of my suggested rule -

Not trivial. Trust me on this one...

Dave "after all, you -can't- assume while writing rules that the readers will
know what you -meant- to have them do" DeLaney
--
\/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.