Banning skullclamp and demanding refound, rules Q also

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

I'm really sorry for possible OT, but this seems the right place to ask
because of the high concentration of reasonable, well informed people.
So Skullclamp got banned.
I want to know how will wizards explain that to the thousands of people
playing this game that a card they sold actually cannot be played but it is
there anyway for them to waste money on.
They are actually cheating their customers by selling Darksteel boosters
containing a card that cannot be used. It is a low blow that I feel should
be legally sanctioned if there was a possibility.
I want to know is there a way to demand my money back since now 4
Skullclamps I own are worthless, cannot be played and any additional ones I
happen to open in a booster are a fraud, since it says 15 playable cards and
I get only 14 PLAYABLE cards.
And let's not get into the term playable since if it means casual play, it
can also mean tournment play.
Overall, a great ripoff.

Back on topic, I have a question about the following situation.

player A plays a Mindslaver and activates on the same turn.He's on 4 life.
player B has no responses, since he has only a Pulse Of The Forge in
hand.He's on 20 life.
player A takes the turn over. draws a land, puts it down so he has 6 mana
avaliable frorm player B's lands.Player A proceeds on "pulsing" player B.
Does the Forge return to player's B hand since the card says:
"Pulse of the Forge deals 4 damage to target player. Then if that player has
more life than *you*, return Pulse of the Forge to its owner's hand."
Who is the *you* in this case, since player B is casting it, is he the
*you*?
(the craziest question I ever made)

until then
and may the DCI feel my frustration regarding this ban.

Cheerz,
15 answers Last reply
More about banning skullclamp demanding refound rules also
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

    Griffis <nomail@nosnail.uck.u> wrote:

    > I'm really sorry for possible OT, but this seems the right place to ask
    > because of the high concentration of reasonable, well informed people.
    > So Skullclamp got banned.
    > I want to know how will wizards explain that to the thousands of people
    > playing this game that a card they sold actually cannot be played but it is
    > there anyway for them to waste money on.

    The same way they'll explain it to the people who buy Unhinged cards,
    which (aside from any basic lands) will be banned from tournament play
    from Day 1.

    > They are actually cheating their customers by selling Darksteel boosters
    > containing a card that cannot be used. It is a low blow that I feel should
    > be legally sanctioned if there was a possibility.

    If a pro athlete leaves the sport during a season, do you feel Topps
    should recall all packs of cards that might include that athlete?

    > I want to know is there a way to demand my money back since now 4
    > Skullclamps I own are worthless, cannot be played and any additional ones I
    > happen to open in a booster are a fraud, since it says 15 playable cards and
    > I get only 14 PLAYABLE cards.
    > And let's not get into the term playable since if it means casual play, it
    > can also mean tournment play.

    Would that be Type 1, Type 1.5, Extended, or Onslaught Block
    Constructed?

    > Overall, a great ripoff.
    >
    > Back on topic, I have a question about the following situation.
    >
    > player A plays a Mindslaver and activates on the same turn.He's on 4 life.
    > player B has no responses, since he has only a Pulse Of The Forge in
    > hand.He's on 20 life.
    > player A takes the turn over. draws a land, puts it down so he has 6 mana
    > avaliable frorm player B's lands.Player A proceeds on "pulsing" player B.
    > Does the Forge return to player's B hand since the card says:
    > "Pulse of the Forge deals 4 damage to target player. Then if that player has
    > more life than *you*, return Pulse of the Forge to its owner's hand."
    > Who is the *you* in this case, since player B is casting it, is he the
    > *you*?
    > (the craziest question I ever made)

    It does not return. The "you" in the text of a resolving spell refers
    to the spell's controller. In this case, that's B. You have described
    nothing which might change this.

    You, Your
    The words "you" and "your" on an object refer to the object's controller
    (or its owner if it has no controller). For static abilities, this is
    the current controller of the object it's on. For activated abilities,
    this is the player who played the ability. For triggered abilities, this
    is the controller of the object when the ability triggered. See also
    Controller, Owner.

    507. Controlling Another Player's Turn

    507.1c Only the control of the turn changes. All objects are controlled
    by their normal controllers.
    --
    Daniel W. Johnson
    panoptes@iquest.net
    http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
    039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

    "Griffis" <nomail@nosnail.uck.u> writes:
    > I'm really sorry for possible OT, but this seems the right place to ask
    > because of the high concentration of reasonable, well informed people.
    > So Skullclamp got banned.

    For those confused (which I was), the announcement is at
    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/announce/dci20040601a

    > I want to know how will wizards explain that to the thousands of people
    > playing this game that a card they sold actually cannot be played but it is
    > there anyway for them to waste money on.
    > They are actually cheating their customers by selling Darksteel boosters
    > containing a card that cannot be used. It is a low blow that I feel should
    > be legally sanctioned if there was a possibility.
    > I want to know is there a way to demand my money back since now 4
    > Skullclamps I own are worthless, cannot be played and any additional ones I
    > happen to open in a booster are a fraud, since it says 15 playable cards and
    > I get only 14 PLAYABLE cards.
    > And let's not get into the term playable since if it means casual play, it
    > can also mean tournment play.
    > Overall, a great ripoff.

    Trust me, Wizards does not make decisions like this lightly. They know
    that banning cards annoys an awful lot of their customers. They've
    apparently decided that keeping the Standard and MBC formats
    Skullclamp-free is better overall for the game's health, and long-term
    keeping customers happy. If nobody plays tournaments because every
    deck needs to deal with Skullclamp, then there will be nobody to play.

    There are some useful articles on magicthegathering.com about why they
    make decisions to ban cards:
    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr59
    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/feature/131
    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/rb100
    Plus, the announcement promises a more in-depth explanation in Arron
    Forsythe's column on Friday.

    Note that it's only banned in Standard and Mirrodin Block
    Constructed. Each year, *all* the cards in *3* sets rotate out of
    Standard, essentially banning them from tournament play as much as
    Skullclamp is. So, this card just gets to rotate out a little
    sooner. But if it hadn't been banned, and waited the 2 years before
    rotating out, and then your Skullclamp became "banned" (as Mir. block
    would no longer be in Standard), would you be just as upset?

    Also, Skullclamp will be just as legal in Mirrodin limited formats.

    > Back on topic, I have a question about the following situation.
    >
    > player A plays a Mindslaver and activates on the same turn.He's on 4 life.
    > player B has no responses, since he has only a Pulse Of The Forge in
    > hand.He's on 20 life.
    > player A takes the turn over. draws a land, puts it down so he has 6 mana
    > avaliable frorm player B's lands.Player A proceeds on "pulsing" player B.
    > Does the Forge return to player's B hand since the card says:
    > "Pulse of the Forge deals 4 damage to target player. Then if that player has
    > more life than *you*, return Pulse of the Forge to its owner's hand."
    > Who is the *you* in this case, since player B is casting it, is he the
    > *you*?
    > (the craziest question I ever made)

    Player B is playing it, and is the "you". Player A is just telling
    player B what to do; he actually isn't doing anything himself with
    player B's cards..

    > until then
    > and may the DCI feel my frustration regarding this ban.

    I'm sure they feel a lot of frustration from a lot of customers
    now. Obviously, they must think that it's worth it.

    --
    Peter C.
    "Well, yeah, if you want to look at it from a purely *correct* point
    of view."
    -- Jessi
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

    On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Griffis wrote:

    > I'm really sorry for possible OT, but this seems the right place to ask
    > because of the high concentration of reasonable, well informed people.
    > So Skullclamp got banned.
    > I want to know how will wizards explain that to the thousands of people
    > playing this game that a card they sold actually cannot be played but it is
    > there anyway for them to waste money on.
    > They are actually cheating their customers by selling Darksteel boosters
    > containing a card that cannot be used. It is a low blow that I feel should
    > be legally sanctioned if there was a possibility.
    > I want to know is there a way to demand my money back since now 4
    > Skullclamps I own are worthless, cannot be played and any additional ones I
    > happen to open in a booster are a fraud, since it says 15 playable cards and

    Not to mention 2 preconstructed decks that aren't legal anymore.

    > I get only 14 PLAYABLE cards.
    > And let's not get into the term playable since if it means casual play, it
    > can also mean tournment play.
    > Overall, a great ripoff.
    >
    > Back on topic, I have a question about the following situation.
    >
    > player A plays a Mindslaver and activates on the same turn.He's on 4 life.
    > player B has no responses, since he has only a Pulse Of The Forge in
    > hand.He's on 20 life.
    > player A takes the turn over. draws a land, puts it down so he has 6 mana
    > avaliable frorm player B's lands.Player A proceeds on "pulsing" player B.
    > Does the Forge return to player's B hand since the card says:
    > "Pulse of the Forge deals 4 damage to target player. Then if that player has
    > more life than *you*, return Pulse of the Forge to its owner's hand."
    > Who is the *you* in this case, since player B is casting it, is he the
    > *you*?

    Player B is still doing his entrire turn so he is the "you" for cards
    player A lets him play. Player A is only controlling player B's turn.
    If you control a goblin and let it attack it's also not you attacking
    but the goblin.

    > (the craziest question I ever made)

    Then you ain't seen nothing yet ;)
    --

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

    "Peter Cooper Jr." <pete@cooper.homedns.org> wrote in message
    news:86n03nbmlc.fsf@pcpc.cooper.homedns.org...
    > Trust me, Wizards does not make decisions like this lightly. They know
    > that banning cards annoys an awful lot of their customers. They've
    > apparently decided that keeping the Standard and MBC formats
    > Skullclamp-free is better overall for the game's health, and long-term
    > keeping customers happy. If nobody plays tournaments because every
    > deck needs to deal with Skullclamp, then there will be nobody to play.

    That is true, but how did Skullclamp happen anyway then?
    Was it so hard to see the potential danger in this card?
    Who is responsable for Skullclamp ever seeing play?
    Will that person assume responsability and quit, because it's a bad way to
    do your job if something you work on creates angst and confusion (I'd make
    him commit seppuku, but hey, modern times etc)...
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules,rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

    (crossposted and followups set to .misc, as there's nothing remotely
    resembling a rules question in this branch of the thread anymore)

    "Griffis" <nomail@nosnail.uck.u> writes:
    > "Peter Cooper Jr." <pete@cooper.homedns.org> wrote:
    >> Trust me, Wizards does not make decisions like this lightly. They know
    >> that banning cards annoys an awful lot of their customers. They've
    >> apparently decided that keeping the Standard and MBC formats
    >> Skullclamp-free is better overall for the game's health, and long-term
    >> keeping customers happy. If nobody plays tournaments because every
    >> deck needs to deal with Skullclamp, then there will be nobody to play.
    >
    > That is true, but how did Skullclamp happen anyway then?
    > Was it so hard to see the potential danger in this card?
    > Who is responsable for Skullclamp ever seeing play?
    > Will that person assume responsability and quit, because it's a bad way to
    > do your job if something you work on creates angst and confusion (I'd make
    > him commit seppuku, but hey, modern times etc)...

    There is a large team of people at Wizards that designs, develops, and
    tests cards. Apparently, they didn't realize just how powerful the
    card was. There were several people who thought that it was "probably
    okay". However, the world as a whole has a lot more playtesters than
    Wizards has. Magic R&D has had a very good track record for the past
    several years, but every once in a while something slips by them.

    Creating several hundred cards each year, that all need to work
    together, is very hard work.

    I imagine that they will cover all this, and probably explain it
    better than I ever could (especially as I don't work there), in
    Aaron's column on Friday. I suggest that you try to be patient and
    wait until then.

    --
    Peter C.
    "This document MUST be secured in a locked cabinet to prevent it from
    being disposed off with the trash."
    -- RFC 3251, "Electricity over IP"
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

    Peter Cooper Jr. (pete@cooper.homedns.org) wrote:
    : "Griffis" <nomail@nosnail.uck.u> writes:
    : > I'm really sorry for possible OT, but this seems the right place to ask
    : > because of the high concentration of reasonable, well informed people.
    : > So Skullclamp got banned.

    : For those confused (which I was), the announcement is at
    : http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/announce/dci20040601a

    I thought those announcements got simultaneously posted to this group, too
    - or has that changed? (I ask because this is the first I've heard of any
    bannings for some time now...and I look here first for news of such
    things)


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

    "Griffis" <nomail@nosnail.uck.u> wrote in message news:<c9hrl3$14a$1@ls219.htnet.hr>...
    > "Peter Cooper Jr." <pete@cooper.homedns.org> wrote in message
    > news:86n03nbmlc.fsf@pcpc.cooper.homedns.org...
    > > Trust me, Wizards does not make decisions like this lightly. They know
    > > that banning cards annoys an awful lot of their customers. They've
    > > apparently decided that keeping the Standard and MBC formats
    > > Skullclamp-free is better overall for the game's health, and long-term
    > > keeping customers happy. If nobody plays tournaments because every
    > > deck needs to deal with Skullclamp, then there will be nobody to play.
    >
    > That is true, but how did Skullclamp happen anyway then?
    > Was it so hard to see the potential danger in this card?
    > Who is responsable for Skullclamp ever seeing play?
    > Will that person assume responsability and quit, because it's a bad way to
    > do your job if something you work on creates angst and confusion (I'd make
    > him commit seppuku, but hey, modern times etc)...

    Actually, it's my opinion that WotC release Skullclamp with the
    expectation that it would be banned. After the Urza block debacle,
    they ramped down the power considerably, then slowly began scaling it
    up in every set. Eventually, they knew they would release a card that
    required banning, and at that point, they've learned where the fine
    line is on power level.

    It was immediately obvious to every player how strong Clamp is. It is
    inconceivable that WotC did not know it. Therefore, they released it
    intentionally. This, I think, is the reason Clamp was uncommon instead
    of rare. This way, people are much less unhappy. Can you imagine
    spending $100 bucks for a playset of Clamps, only to have them banned?
    How upset would you be then? Since they'd wreck Draft at common, they
    were placed at uncommon.

    It's an unfortunate necessity, but it promotes the health of the game
    in general. Remember, it's been a very long time since a card was
    banned in Standard or Block. I fully support everything above, by the
    way. I think this has been a valuable lesson for them, and I think it
    will again be some time before bans are necessary, assuming Krark-Clan
    Ironworks isn't as crazy as some say it is. Keep the maindeck artifact
    hate, that's all.

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

    Justin Sexton wrote:

    >
    > Actually, it's my opinion that WotC release Skullclamp with the
    > expectation that it would be banned.

    Heck, the prerelease article on it even heavily hinted that it was a
    terribly broken card once you caught on to some of its subtleties.

    But for references sake:
    Where have they said it was banned?
    And as of when is it banned?
    Is this just in Type II?
    (Not extended, Type I, etc.?)

    And why is it banned?
    It's powerful, but it's an accelerator, not a victory lock.
    I know it's seeing a lot of use, but I fear cards like the Isochron
    and the Soul Foundry more.

    The cards that look to be creating havoc in the tournaments though
    are Ravager and Cloudpost. Skullclamp helps either, but it's not
    the critical component is it?

    And did they actually restrict Chrome Mox?
    That's just in Type I, right?

    > It was immediately obvious to every player how strong Clamp is.

    Not every. ;)
    But certainly a lot!
    I saw its implications for Arcbounds and counter decks quickly.

    > It is
    > inconceivable that WotC did not know it.

    99% agreed.

    > Therefore, they released it
    > intentionally. This, I think, is the reason Clamp was uncommon instead
    > of rare. This way, people are much less unhappy. Can you imagine
    > spending $100 bucks for a playset of Clamps, only to have them banned?
    > How upset would you be then?

    Which brings me to the question of: Is it so broken that it must
    be banned NOW? Instead of once the block rotates out?

    > Since they'd wreck Draft at common, they
    > were placed at uncommon.

    Would it?
    In most cases you won't have the optimal drafts to support the
    best Stupid Skullclamp Tricks (tm). Its main function in Draft looks
    to be, equip creature you know will die from damage or suicide attack
    so that you can draw the cards. Yeah, card advantage cheap, maybe
    it would wreak Draft at common...

    > It's an unfortunate necessity, but it promotes the health of the game
    > in general.

    I prefer an approach that strengthens other decks against aberrations.
    But that's not possible in all cases. It does seem that adding some
    more variations on Artifact killers would go a long way to re-balancing
    the abuses of Mirrodin block.

    > Remember, it's been a very long time since a card was
    > banned in Standard or Block.

    Which is part of why I having trouble seeing a need for it now.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

    Sorcier <sNoErMcOier@cavtel.net> wrote:

    > Heck, the prerelease article on it even heavily hinted that it was a
    > terribly broken card once you caught on to some of its subtleties.
    >
    > But for references sake:
    > Where have they said it was banned?

    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/announce/dci20040601a

    Also, the various links from
    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=judge/resources/banned

    > And as of when is it banned?

    Effective Date: June 20, 2004

    Note that players in tournaments already in progress on that date will
    not change their decks.
    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/0604

    > Is this just in Type II?
    > (Not extended, Type I, etc.?)

    Standard

    Skullclamp is banned

    Mirrodin Block Constructed

    Skullclamp is banned

    Extended

    No changes

    Type 1

    No changes

    Type 1.5

    (All cards on the Type 1 Banned and Restricted Lists are banned in Type
    1.5.)

    > And why is it banned?

    Here is an explanation of the changes from Magic R&D:

    Skullclamp
    Whenever one card appears in the majority of the decks played in major
    tournaments, R&D takes a long hard look at banning it. While the current
    Standard and Mirrodin Block Constructed metagames have room for multiple
    decks to succeed, and there are answers available to Skullclamp, that
    isn't enough to make for a healthy environment. Every deck is required
    to warp itself around this one-mana card, and almost every successful
    deck abuses it. In addition, games that involve Skullclamp simply aren't
    as much fun to play, especially when those are the only kinds of games
    going on.

    For a more in-depth explanation of the reasons behind this bannings,
    tune in to Aaron Forsythe's "Latest Developments" column on
    magicthegathering.com on Friday, June 4.

    > It's powerful, but it's an accelerator, not a victory lock.
    > I know it's seeing a lot of use, but I fear cards like the Isochron
    > and the Soul Foundry more.
    >
    > The cards that look to be creating havoc in the tournaments though
    > are Ravager and Cloudpost. Skullclamp helps either, but it's not
    > the critical component is it?
    >
    > And did they actually restrict Chrome Mox?
    > That's just in Type I, right?

    Chrome Mox is restricted in Type 1 and therefore banned in Type 1.5. It
    shows up on no other banned/restricted lists.
    --
    Daniel W. Johnson
    panoptes@iquest.net
    http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
    039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

    Sorcier <sNoErMcOier@cavtel.net> writes:
    > Where have they said it was banned?

    The quarterly banned/restricted update:
    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/announce/dci20040601a

    > And as of when is it banned?

    June 20, 2004. Same day 5th Dawn rotates in.

    Since it seems to be a FAQ, It is legal throughout US Nationals as
    that tournament starts before the 20th, but side events at Nationals
    that start on or after the 20th will be the
    5th-Dawn-in-and-Skullclamp-out Standard.

    > Is this just in Type II?
    > (Not extended, Type I, etc.?)

    Type II (a.k.a. Standard) and Block Constructed. Other formats have no
    changes.

    > And why is it banned?

    There's a little explanation in the announcement, and a promise of
    more explanation in Aaron's article on magicthegathering.com Friday.

    > And did they actually restrict Chrome Mox?
    > That's just in Type I, right?

    That was quite a while ago, and just in Type I.

    > Which brings me to the question of: Is it so broken that it must
    > be banned NOW? Instead of once the block rotates out?

    Apparently, Wizards thinks so.

    --
    Peter C.
    Any noun can be verbed.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

    On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:22:49 +0200, Griffis <nomail@nosnail.uck.u> wrote:
    >I'm really sorry for possible OT, but this seems the right place to ask
    >because of the high concentration of reasonable, well informed people.
    >So Skullclamp got banned.

    Okay.

    >I want to know how will wizards explain that to the thousands of people
    >playing this game that a card they sold actually cannot be played but it is
    >there anyway for them to waste money on.

    You haven't said anything about 'actually cannot be played'. You only said
    it got Banned, which means it can't be played _in Standard-format DCI
    Constructed tournaments_.

    It's neither Banned nor Restricted in any other Constructed format, and there's
    no such thing as Banned in a Limited format (the closest you'll come is the
    ante cards, which haven't been in print since Homelands).

    You can play this card all you want, EXCEPT in Type II DCI Constructed
    tournaments, where it's too powerful for the format.

    >They are actually cheating their customers by selling Darksteel boosters
    >containing a card that cannot be used. It is a low blow that I feel should
    >be legally sanctioned if there was a possibility.

    You may want to sit down a moment, take a few deep breaths, and consider how
    this impacts your actual -life-, dear. I think you'll find it makes little
    to no difference for your job, your rent payment, fueling your car, any
    legal proceedings you may be involved in, or your alimony, for instance.

    >I want to know is there a way to demand my money back

    Nope.

    >since now 4 Skullclamps I own are worthless,

    Nonsense. They're worth exactly what any other Magic card is: _whatever you
    can convince someone else to pay you for them_. The money you -paid- for
    them, in $US, is $3.90/15 = 23 cents.

    >since it says 15 playable cards and
    >I get only 14 PLAYABLE cards.

    All the cards in your booster are playable.

    >player A plays a Mindslaver and activates on the same turn.He's on 4 life.

    Okay.

    >player B has no responses, since he has only a Pulse Of The Forge in
    >hand.He's on 20 life.

    Player B's probably not too bright then, since there's an _obvious_ response
    here.

    >player A takes the turn over. draws a land, puts it down so he has 6 mana
    >avaliable frorm player B's lands.Player A proceeds on "pulsing" player B.
    >Does the Forge return to player's B hand since the card says:
    >"Pulse of the Forge deals 4 damage to target player. Then if that player has
    >more life than *you*, return Pulse of the Forge to its owner's hand."

    B is its owner, since it started the game in B's deck and came from B's hand;
    you can't have a card you don't own in your library, hand, graveyard, or ante.

    B even controls the spell while it's on the stack, and is the player who
    played it.

    A _made the decision_ to play this spell, and told B to play it.

    >Who is the *you* in this case, since player B is casting it, is he the
    >*you*?

    Yep. He controls the spell, so he's the person who returns the Pulse to its
    owner's hand. He is also the Pulse's owner, so he's the person to whose hand
    it returns.

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

    David DeLaney <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
    >>player B has no responses, since he has only a Pulse Of The Forge in
    >>hand.He's on 20 life.
    >
    >Player B's probably not too bright then, since there's an _obvious_ response
    >here.
    >
    >>player A takes the turn over. draws a land, puts it down so he has 6 mana
    >>avaliable frorm player B's lands.Player A proceeds on "pulsing" player B.
    >>Does the Forge return to player's B hand since the card says:
    >>"Pulse of the Forge deals 4 damage to target player. Then if that player has
    >>more life than *you*, return Pulse of the Forge to its owner's hand."
    >
    >B is its owner, since it started the game in B's deck and came from B's hand;
    >you can't have a card you don't own in your library, hand, graveyard, or ante.
    >
    >B even controls the spell while it's on the stack, and is the player who
    >played it.
    >
    >A _made the decision_ to play this spell, and told B to play it.
    >
    >>Who is the *you* in this case, since player B is casting it, is he the
    >>*you*?
    >
    >Yep. He controls the spell, so he's the person who returns the Pulse to its
    >owner's hand. He is also the Pulse's owner, so he's the person to whose hand
    >it returns.

    Oh, and I realize I forgot to answer the actual question that was ASKED:
    "does it return to hand?". A made the decision to cast it ... and also made
    the decision to have it target _B_. B then cast it, and B chose B as its
    target. This means it does NOT return on resolution... since B, its target,
    does not have more life than B, its controller / "you". (B has the same amount
    of life as B, which isn't good enough.)

    So A only gets to Pulse B once.

    [And B could have Pulsed himself earlier, in response to the Mindslaver's
    use, if B had the mana, but would have been much better off to Pulse A, and
    if the reason B didn't is because B was out of available mana, I'm not sure
    why B didn't Pulse A _before_ that on B's _previous turn_, since it's gonna
    take a good deal of effort to get B down low enough in life that B _would_
    get the Pulse back after Pulsing A _and_ the Pulse would have killed A right
    off, since A was at 4 life if I recall right.]

    Now if A had used Spelljack, or Grinning Totem, or Shared Fate, or
    Planeswalker's Mischief, or Psychic Theft, to actually -cast- the spell B
    owned, so that A was the controller of the spell? Then yes, A would have then
    put the card back into B's hand. But with Mindslaver, A tells _B_ to cast the
    spell, so it compares B's life to its target's life.

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

    David DeLaney <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
    >You haven't said anything about 'actually cannot be played'. You only said
    >it got Banned, which means it can't be played _in Standard-format DCI
    >Constructed tournaments_.
    >
    >It's neither Banned nor Restricted in any other Constructed format, and there's
    >no such thing as Banned in a Limited format (the closest you'll come is the
    >ante cards, which haven't been in print since Homelands).

    Well, now that I look, it's also Banned in Mirrodin-block Constructed DCI play.
    But that's it. It's fine in DCI booster drafts or in DCI sealed-deck.

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

    Sorcier <sNoErMcOier@cavtel.net> wrote:
    >But for references sake:
    >Where have they said it was banned?

    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=judge/resources/banned

    Bottom left corner of the main Magic page, Banned/Restricted lists. (I probably
    have a copy of the announcement in my email, which I haven't read in a day and
    a half because I was very tired Tuesday night.)

    >And as of when is it banned?

    As of June 20th.

    >Is this just in Type II?

    No, it's also in Mirrodin-block Constructed.

    >(Not extended, Type I, etc.?)

    Not any of those.

    >And why is it banned?
    >It's powerful, but it's an accelerator, not a victory lock.

    "1,sacrifice an X/1 token creature: draw 2 cards". Fairly broken ability...

    >And did they actually restrict Chrome Mox?

    Yes.

    >That's just in Type I, right?

    Yes, and banned in 1.5 because of that of course. It's fine in Extended and
    Type II. (Type I probably has too many Moxen anyway, plus it's arguably _more_
    powerful than any of the original five...)

    >Which brings me to the question of: Is it so broken that it must
    >be banned NOW? Instead of once the block rotates out?

    Is it dominating tournament play NOW? Is it a four-in-every-deck card NOW?

    >> Since they'd wreck Draft at common, they
    >> were placed at uncommon.
    >
    >Would it?

    Yes. In Draft you can run _as many as you manage to draft_, remember.

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

    David DeLaney <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
    >http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=judge/resources/banned
    >
    >Bottom left corner of the main Magic page, Banned/Restricted lists. (I probably
    >have a copy of the announcement in my email, which I haven't read in a day and
    >a half because I was very tired Tuesday night.)

    I don't, but it's at
    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/announce/dci20040601a

    and I'll put it here too:

    ------
    June 2004 DCI Banned and Restricted List Announcement -- Magic: the Gathering

    Announcement Date: June 1, 2004
    Effective Date: June 20, 2004

    Standard

    Skullclamp is banned

    Mirrodin Block Constructed

    Skullclamp is banned

    Extended

    No changes

    Type 1

    No changes

    Type 1.5

    (All cards on the Type 1 Banned and Restricted Lists are banned in Type 1.5.)

    Here is an explanation of the changes from Magic R&D:

    Skullclamp
    Whenever one card appears in the majority of the decks played in major
    tournaments, R&D takes a long hard look at banning it. While the current
    Standard and Mirrodin Block Constructed metagames have room for multiple decks
    to succeed, and there are answers available to Skullclamp, that isnt enough to
    make for a healthy environment. Every deck is required to warp itself around
    this one-mana card, and almost every successful deck abuses it. In addition,
    games that involve Skullclamp simply arent as much fun to play, especially when
    those are the only kinds of games going on.

    For a more in-depth explanation of the reasons behind this bannings, tune in to
    Aaron Forsythes Latest Developments column on magicthegathering.com on Friday,
    June 4.
    ------

    David DeLaney
    (R)
    Official Magic: The Gathering Rules Usenet Network Representative for
    Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
    --
    \/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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games