Quicksilver Elemental and "{T}, unattach ~..." Equipment a..

G

Guest

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

Hello, All!
There were a few posts asking about what happens if Quicksilver
Elemental gains all abilities of, say, Heartseeker-equipped creature.
The explanation was always that once QE has copied the ability it can
use it, unattaching the Heartseeker in question from that creature as a
cost.
Let's suppose I control a creature (say, a Silver Myr) with a
Heartseeker on it and a Quicksilver Elemental, and controlled both
creatures since the beginning of my last turn. Is the following
sequence of events legal?

1. Play QE's ability targeting the Silver Myr.
2. Tap Silver Myr, unattach Heartseeker: destroy target creature.
3. Tap Quicksilver Elemental, unattach Heartseeker (which is not
attached, but does "unattach" require it to be attached? After all, I
can untap an untapped creature...): destroy another target creature.


Quicksilver Elemental
{3}{U}{U}
Creature -- Elemental
3/4
{U}: Quicksilver Elemental gains all activated abilities of target
creature until end of turn. (If any of the abilities use that creature's
name, use this creature's name instead.)
You may spend blue mana as though it were mana of any color to pay the
activation costs of Quicksilver Elemental's abilities.

Heartseeker
{4}
Artifact -- Equipment
Equipped creature gets +2/+1 and has "{T}, Unattach Heartseeker: Destroy
target creature."
Equip {5} ({5}: Attach to target creature you control. Equip only as a
sorcery. This card comes into play unattached and stays in play if the
creature leaves play.)

Regards,
Arkady.
 
G

Guest

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

"Arkady Zilberberg" <arkadyz1@yahoo.com> writes:
> Hello, All!
> There were a few posts asking about what happens if Quicksilver
> Elemental gains all abilities of, say, Heartseeker-equipped creature.
> The explanation was always that once QE has copied the ability it can
> use it, unattaching the Heartseeker in question from that creature as a
> cost.

That is correct.

> Let's suppose I control a creature (say, a Silver Myr) with a
> Heartseeker on it and a Quicksilver Elemental, and controlled both
> creatures since the beginning of my last turn. Is the following
> sequence of events legal?
>
> 1. Play QE's ability targeting the Silver Myr.
> 2. Tap Silver Myr, unattach Heartseeker: destroy target creature.
> 3. Tap Quicksilver Elemental, unattach Heartseeker (which is not
> attached, but does "unattach" require it to be attached? After all, I
> can untap an untapped creature...): destroy another target creature.

No, that isn't legal. The cost does require the Heartseeker to be
attached to *something*, although it doesn't have to be the Myr.

--
Peter C.
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I
didn't know."
-- Mark Twain, "Life on the Mississippi"
 
G

Guest

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

Hello, Peter!
You wrote on Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:42:08 -0400:

>> Let's suppose I control a creature (say, a Silver Myr) with a
>> Heartseeker on it and a Quicksilver Elemental, and controlled both
>> creatures since the beginning of my last turn. Is the following
>> sequence of events legal?

>> 1. Play QE's ability targeting the Silver Myr.
>> 2. Tap Silver Myr, unattach Heartseeker: destroy target creature.
>> 3. Tap Quicksilver Elemental, unattach Heartseeker (which is not
>> attached, but does "unattach" require it to be attached? After
>> all, I
>> can untap an untapped creature...): destroy another target
>> creature.

PCJ> No, that isn't legal. The cost does require the Heartseeker to
PCJ> be
PCJ> attached to *something*, although it doesn't have to be the
PCJ> Myr.

Can you give a rule number confirming it? Nothing in Comprehensive
Rules I've seen so far states that. "Unattach" glossary entry is in
fact about Equipment *becoming unattached* and is clearly there for
Grafted Wargear's sake. There is just no good definition for the *verb*
"unattach" in the rules and FAQs.

Of course, if the cost were written as "Unattach attached Heartseeker"
or similar then I would agree with you. However, the idea behind
Heartseeker seems to be that once it becomes unattached the creature no
longer has that ability - which is not true for the copycat Quicksilver
Elemental.

Regards,
Arkady.
 
G

Guest

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

Arkady Zilberberg <arkadyz1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There were a few posts asking about what happens if Quicksilver
>Elemental gains all abilities of, say, Heartseeker-equipped creature.
>The explanation was always that once QE has copied the ability it can
>use it, unattaching the Heartseeker in question from that creature as a
>cost.
>Let's suppose I control a creature (say, a Silver Myr) with a
>Heartseeker on it and a Quicksilver Elemental, and controlled both
>creatures since the beginning of my last turn. Is the following
>sequence of events legal?

Before even looking further: unattaching the Heartseeker is a cost. If the
Heartseeker isn't attached to anything right then, that cost can't be paid.

>1. Play QE's ability targeting the Silver Myr.
>2. Tap Silver Myr, unattach Heartseeker: destroy target creature.
>3. Tap Quicksilver Elemental, unattach Heartseeker (which is not
>attached, but does "unattach" require it to be attached?

Yes, it does. So this step can't be done.

> After all, I can untap an untapped creature...):

Not to pay a cost you can't, nor can you tap an already-tapped creature to pay
a cost.

>Heartseeker 4 Artifact -- Equipment
> Equipped creature gets +2/+1 and has "Tap,Unattach ~: Destroy target
> creature.". / Equip 5 (*)

See where the "Unattach Heartseeker" is? On the _left_ side of the colon. So
this is part of the activation cost, not part of the effect; if you can't pay
the cost, you can't play the ability.

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.
 
G

Guest

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

Hello, David!
You wrote on 12 Jul 2004 12:23:24 -0400:

DD> Before even looking further: unattaching the Heartseeker is a
DD> cost. If the
DD> Heartseeker isn't attached to anything right then, that cost
DD> can't be paid.

>>1. Play QE's ability targeting the Silver Myr.
>>2. Tap Silver Myr, unattach Heartseeker: destroy target creature.
>>3. Tap Quicksilver Elemental, unattach Heartseeker (which is not
>>attached, but does "unattach" require it to be attached?

DD> Yes, it does. So this step can't be done.

>> After all, I can untap an untapped creature...):

DD> Not to pay a cost you can't, nor can you tap an already-tapped
DD> creature to pay a cost.

Do you mean that Catapult Squad with "untapped" omitted from "Tap two
untapped Soldiers you control:" would play absolutely the same? It is
very logical, of course: however, I'm used to treat the rules and the
Oracle text formally rather than logically.

Regards,
Arkady.
 
G

Guest

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

"Arkady Zilberberg" <arkadyz1@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<40f2b672$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net>...
> Do you mean that Catapult Squad with "untapped" omitted from "Tap two
> untapped Soldiers you control:" would play absolutely the same? It is
> very logical, of course: however, I'm used to treat the rules and the
> Oracle text formally rather than logically.

Under the rules as they currently stand, yes the word "untapped" there
is redundant.

Pay
Playing most spells and activated abilities requires paying costs; see
rule 409, "Playing Spells and Activated Abilities." Declaring
attackers (see rule 308, "Declare Attackers Step") and declaring
blockers (see rule 309, "Declare Blockers Step") can also require
paying costs.
Paying mana is done by removing the indicated amount of mana from
the player's mana pool. Any time a player is asked to pay mana, mana
abilities may be played. Mana abilities must be played before the
costs are paid. Paying life subtracts the indicated amount of life
from the player's life total. A player can't pay more mana than the
amount of mana in his or her mana pool or more life than his or her
life total. Zero life or zero mana can always be paid, even if the
player has less than zero life.
To pay any cost, the player carries out the instructions
specified by the spell, ability, or effect. It's illegal to attempt
paying a cost when unable to successfully follow the instructions. For
example, a player can't pay a cost that requires tapping a creature if
that creature is already tapped.
Each payment applies to only one spell or ability. For example, a
player can't sacrifice just one creature to play the activated
abilities of two permanents that require sacrificing a creature as a
cost. Also, the resolution of a spell or ability doesn't pay another
spell or ability's cost, even if part of its effect is doing the same
thing the other cost asks for.
 
G

Guest

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

Arkady Zilberberg <arkadyz1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>PCJ> No, that isn't legal. The cost does require the Heartseeker to be
>PCJ> attached to *something*, although it doesn't have to be the Myr.
>
>Can you give a rule number confirming it? Nothing in Comprehensive
>Rules I've seen so far states that. "Unattach" glossary entry is in
>fact about Equipment *becoming unattached* and is clearly there for
>Grafted Wargear's sake. There is just no good definition for the *verb*
>"unattach" in the rules and FAQs.

But there is for "paying a cost". Since this is written as an activation cost,
you can't even TRY to pay it if you don't have the resources available: to wit,
one untapped QE and one attached Heartseeker.

>Of course, if the cost were written as "Unattach attached Heartseeker"

Not necessary. You can't successfully unattach something that's not attached
to anything, so you can't pay an activation cost (or an additional cost for
a spell) that requires this. Similarly, you can't pay a cost of 3UU with an
empty mana pool; same reasoning, you can't say "I try to pay this cost ...oops,
nothing happens, well, I _tried_".

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.
 
G

Guest

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

Arkady Zilberberg <arkadyz1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>DD> Before even looking further: unattaching the Heartseeker is a cost. If the
>DD> Heartseeker isn't attached to anything right then, that cost can't be paid.
>
>>>1. Play QE's ability targeting the Silver Myr.
>>>2. Tap Silver Myr, unattach Heartseeker: destroy target creature.
>>>3. Tap Quicksilver Elemental, unattach Heartseeker (which is not
>>>attached, but does "unattach" require it to be attached?
>
>DD> Yes, it does. So this step can't be done.
>
>>> After all, I can untap an untapped creature...):
>
>DD> Not to pay a cost you can't, nor can you tap an already-tapped
>DD> creature to pay a cost.
>
>Do you mean that Catapult Squad with "untapped" omitted from "Tap two
>untapped Soldiers you control:" would play absolutely the same?

Yes; the "untapped" there is, in a way, reminder text ... BECAUSE without
it there the number one FAQ you get, repeated until one feels like becoming
violent about it, is "I can do this with a tapped Soldier, right?". [Answer:
No, because you're paying a cost.]

Costs in Magic include: activation costs; mana costs; additional costs; and
anything that actually says "pay" (restricted in general to life or mana
points). You can't do any of those without actually having the resources
available. [But people will try their best to get around this any way they
can...]

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.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <slrncf64om.lv6.dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

>
> Not necessary. You can't successfully unattach something that's not attached
> to anything, so you can't pay an activation cost (or an additional cost for
> a spell) that requires this. Similarly, you can't pay a cost of 3UU with an
> empty mana pool; same reasoning, you can't say "I try to pay this cost
> ...oops,
> nothing happens, well, I _tried_".

The Heartseeker does not have to be attached to the targeted
Silver Myr, however, does it? This is costly and improbable, but
is it allowed?

Silver Myr has Heartseeker attached.

Quicksilver Elemental targets Silver Myr and gains its abilities.

Tap Silver Myr and unattach Heartseeker to destroy target
creature.

Play Vulshok Battlemaster. Heartseeker becomes attached to
Battlemaster, but Battlemaster cannot tap to pay the Heartseeker
cost yet.

Tap Quicksilver Elemental, unattach Heartseeker from VB to
destroy targetted creature.

Vulshok Battlemaster is still untapped, it has Haste, and
possibly more equipment to use. Total cost: 4RU.

If you have an untap effect available, and the Heartseeker is on
an opponent's creature with summoning sickness, you can still
make this work.

---

Vulshok Battlemaster
{4}{R}
Creature -- Human Warrior
2/2
Haste
When Vulshok Battlemaster comes into play, attach all Equipment
in play to it. (Control of the Equipment doesn't change.)

---

Respectfully,
Eric Jablow

--
Respectfully,
Eric Jablow
 
G

Guest

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

Eric Jablow <ejablow@cox.net> wrote:
> dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> Not necessary. You can't successfully unattach something that's not attached
>> to anything, so you can't pay an activation cost (or an additional cost for
>> a spell) that requires this. Similarly, you can't pay a cost of 3UU with an
>> empty mana pool; same reasoning, you can't say "I try to pay this cost
>> ...oops,
>> nothing happens, well, I _tried_".
>
>The Heartseeker does not have to be attached to the targeted
>Silver Myr, however, does it? This is costly and improbable, but
>is it allowed?

Nothing about Heartseeker's _cost_ targets anything. The -ability- targets
something, but that doesn't have to be (and almost always isn't) the creature
Heartseeker is attached to. And the point here is that _almost_ all the
time, the Heartseeker is giving the ability to the creature it's attached
to, so that "unattach Heartseeker" is the same as "unattach Heartseeker -from
me-". But in the case of the Quicksilver Elemental, it's gotten the ability
from a Heartseeker attached to something _else_ (or from another QE that also
stole the ability, etc.). It still has "Unattach Heartseeker" in the activation
cost - and still knows _which_ Heartseeker is referred to here - but that
Heartseeker isn't usually attached to the QE.

So no, the Heartseeker doesn't still have to be attached to the creature the
QE stole the ability from. It _does_ still have to be 'the same Heartseeker',
and it does have to be attached to _some_ creature.

>Silver Myr has Heartseeker attached.
>Quicksilver Elemental targets Silver Myr and gains its abilities.
>Tap Silver Myr and unattach Heartseeker to destroy target creature.

More precisely: "Tap,Unattach Heartseeker: Destroy target creature". Silver
Myr uses the Tap symbol, it doesn't say "Tap Silver Myr,Unattach...". [And even
if it did, QE's ability would tellyou to use "Quicksilver Elemental" in the
ability in place of "Silver Myr".]

The QE also gains the Myr's "Tap: Add U to your mana pool" activated ability
too, by the way.

>Play Vulshok Battlemaster. Heartseeker becomes attached to
>Battlemaster, but Battlemaster cannot tap to pay the Heartseeker
>cost yet.

Right, because it's still "sick".

>Tap Quicksilver Elemental, unattach Heartseeker from VB to
>destroy targetted creature.

That's fine. But even if Heartseeker was still attached to the Silver Myr,
you'd be able to do this; nothing about the cost says you have to control
_the creature the Heartseeker is attached to_ to pay the cost. [It's just
that ALMOST always you have to because you're playing the ability _because_
you control that creature and you're playing -its- ability. But here you're
playing the QE's copy of the ability; you have to control QE to do so, but
nothing says you have to control Heartseeker to.]

>Vulshok Battlemaster is still untapped, it has Haste, and
>possibly more equipment to use. Total cost: 4RU.
>
>If you have an untap effect available, and the Heartseeker is on
>an opponent's creature with summoning sickness, you can still
>make this work.

To untap the QE with? You usually won't need to, since stealing the abilities
in the first place costs "U", not "U,Tap".

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.
 
G

Guest

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

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:37:15 -0400, Eric Jablow <ejablow@cox.net>
wrote:

Sorry about the copy-paste quoting here, but for some reason David
DeLaney's posts never makes it to my newsserver and I have to read
them on google groups... :(

>Play Vulshok Battlemaster. Heartseeker becomes attached to
>Battlemaster, but Battlemaster cannot tap to pay the Heartseeker
>cost yet.

From: David DeLaney (dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com)
Date: 2004-07-12 19:32:04 PST
**
Right, because it's still "sick".
**

But Vulshok Battlemaster has haste. Dosn't that mean that it _can_ tap
to use Heartseeker?

>Vulshok Battlemaster
>{4}{R}
>Creature -- Human Warrior
>2/2
>Haste
>When Vulshok Battlemaster comes into play, attach all Equipment
>in play to it. (Control of the Equipment doesn't change.)

--
Regards
Simon Nejmann
 
G

Guest

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

In article <m8c7f05mph8tavoims5qg00i6ovddace1k@4ax.com>,
Simon Nejmann <snejmann@worldonline.REMOVETHIS.dk> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:37:15 -0400, Eric Jablow <ejablow@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> Sorry about the copy-paste quoting here, but for some reason David
> DeLaney's posts never makes it to my newsserver and I have to read
> them on google groups... :(
>
> >Play Vulshok Battlemaster. Heartseeker becomes attached to
> >Battlemaster, but Battlemaster cannot tap to pay the Heartseeker
> >cost yet.
>
> From: David DeLaney (dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com)
> Date: 2004-07-12 19:32:04 PST
> **
> Right, because it's still "sick".
> **
>
> But Vulshok Battlemaster has haste. Dosn't that mean that it _can_ tap
> to use Heartseeker?

Oops, you're right. But being able to tap the QE and unattach
the Heartseeker leaving a VB with Haste and some Equipment cards
on it is still a good thing.

--
Respectfully,
Eric Jablow
 
G

Guest

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

Simon Nejmann <snejmann@worldonline.REMOVETHIS.dk> wrote:
>>Play Vulshok Battlemaster. Heartseeker becomes attached to
>>Battlemaster, but Battlemaster cannot tap to pay the Heartseeker
>>cost yet.
>
>From: David DeLaney (dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com)
>Right, because it's still "sick".
>**
>
>But Vulshok Battlemaster has haste. Dosn't that mean that it _can_ tap
>to use Heartseeker?

It does? Okay, then it could. Looks like neither Eric nor I actually looked
at the Battlemaster as part of answering, using it mentally only for its
"steal Equipment" effect. Sorry.

(Doesn't change, really, the rest of the answer... but yes, because of
the Haste, it could immediately use a Heartseeker it had just stolen.)

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.
 
G

Guest

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

David DeLaney, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

> Costs in Magic include: activation costs; mana costs; additional costs; and
> anything that actually says "pay" (restricted in general to life or mana
> points). You can't do any of those without actually having the resources
> available. [But people will try their best to get around this any way they
> can...]

Here's a question that's sort of tangentially related to that. Why,
when writing activation costs, does it always say "Pay 4 life" instead
of simply "4 life"? No other type of cost is treated this way.

Example:
AEther Storm
{3}{U}
Enchantment
Creature cards can't be played.
Pay 4 life: Destroy AEther Storm. It can't be regenerated. Any player
may play this ability.

(Another question that Oracle wording brings to mind, actually - is
there any way to regenerate an enchantment that doesn't have any other
permanent types? I know it could become a creature and so on, so that
text does serve *some* purpose, but it still seems odd.)
 
G

Guest

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

Jeff Heikkinen (oh@s.if) wrote:

: AEther Storm
: {3}{U}
: Enchantment
: Creature cards can't be played.
: Pay 4 life: Destroy AEther Storm. It can't be regenerated. Any player
: may play this ability.

: (Another question that Oracle wording brings to mind, actually - is
: there any way to regenerate an enchantment that doesn't have any other
: permanent types? I know it could become a creature and so on, so that
: text does serve *some* purpose, but it still seems odd.)

Looks like it goes back to when they replaced "bury" with "destroy <foo>.
It can't be regenerated", and they left it on this card for the odd case
where it *does* become a creature...and good thing, too, given how nasty a
regenerating Aether Storm would be in an Opalescence deck... :)



Keith
 
G

Guest

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>David DeLaney, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>> Costs in Magic include: activation costs; mana costs; additional costs; and
>> anything that actually says "pay" (restricted in general to life or mana
>> points). You can't do any of those without actually having the resources
>> available. [But people will try their best to get around this any way they
>> can...]
>
>Here's a question that's sort of tangentially related to that. Why,
>when writing activation costs, does it always say "Pay 4 life" instead
>of simply "4 life"? No other type of cost is treated this way.

Quite probably to distinguish it from "_Lose_ 4 life"... which you can do
no matter what your life total is.

>(Another question that Oracle wording brings to mind, actually - is
>there any way to regenerate an enchantment that doesn't have any other
>permanent types? I know it could become a creature and so on, so that
>text does serve *some* purpose, but it still seems odd.)

I don't see one, on a quick search. Note that if I remember right, the text
_didn't_ serve a purpose when AEther Storm first came out, since that was
before Opalescence (Homelands, to be precise) - but also note that it said
"bury" originally, and only got the "destroy / can't be regenerated" text with
6th Edition. In 5th Edition Oracle it just said "destroy". And Opalescence is
from Masques, several months after 6E rules took effect... so that yes, this
comment did come up at the time about it.

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.
 
G

Guest

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:
> >David DeLaney, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> >> Costs in Magic include: activation costs; mana costs; additional costs; and
> >> anything that actually says "pay" (restricted in general to life or mana
> >> points). You can't do any of those without actually having the resources
> >> available. [But people will try their best to get around this any way they
> >> can...]
> >
> >Here's a question that's sort of tangentially related to that. Why,
> >when writing activation costs, does it always say "Pay 4 life" instead
> >of simply "4 life"? No other type of cost is treated this way.
>
> Quite probably to distinguish it from "_Lose_ 4 life"... which you can do
> no matter what your life total is.

But "lose 4 life" would never appear in a cost anyway. My point is that
"pay" - like the "untapped" that was being discussed earlier in the
thread - is totally redundant in the context of an activation cost.
 
G

Guest

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

David DeLaney, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> nd Opalescence is
> from Masques, several months after 6E rules took effect... so that yes, this
> comment did come up at the time about it.

Urza's Destiny, I think you mean.
 
G

Guest

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>David DeLaney, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>> >Here's a question that's sort of tangentially related to that. Why,
>> >when writing activation costs, does it always say "Pay 4 life" instead
>> >of simply "4 life"? No other type of cost is treated this way.
>>
>> Quite probably to distinguish it from "_Lose_ 4 life"... which you can do
>> no matter what your life total is.
>
>But "lose 4 life" would never appear in a cost anyway.

_You_ know this because you know how the card templates work. (I'm not _quite_
as sure as you that R&D wouldn't try to put such a cost in, however. But it
usually gets caught in templating.)

The _average_ Magic player doesn't know this, so for them "If it says '4 life:
Tap target creature', that means _lose_ 4 life, right? So I can still do this
when I'm at -26 with the Platinum Angel in play, right?" isn't that unnatural
a question.

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.
 
G

Guest

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>David DeLaney, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>> nd Opalescence is
>> from Masques, several months after 6E rules took effect... so that yes, this
>> comment did come up at the time about it.
>
>Urza's Destiny, I think you mean.

?

Okay, I searched down, and saw the Masques delimiter and not the UD delimiter
above it. UD, correct. (But this was still a couple months after 6E rules
first appeared in April 1999.)

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.
 
G

Guest

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

Hello, David!
You wrote on 12 Jul 2004 23:26:37 -0400:

DD> the Heartseeker is giving the ability to the creature it's
DD> attached
DD> to, so that "unattach Heartseeker" is the same as "unattach
DD> Heartseeker -from
DD> me-". But in the case of the Quicksilver Elemental, it's gotten
DD> the ability
DD> from a Heartseeker attached to something _else_ (or from another
DD> QE that also
DD> stole the ability, etc.). It still has "Unattach Heartseeker" in
DD> the activation
DD> cost - and still knows _which_ Heartseeker is referred to here -
DD> but that
DD> Heartseeker isn't usually attached to the QE.

Dave,
I'm not the first to ask about *why* the copying QE knows exactly which
Heartseeker is should unattach. I can see the logic here - QE just
copies the entire ability with all its references still intact, and any
references from that creature to itself are copied as "~", not the
pointer to the original ability's holder (this is covered in the FAQ and
the reminder text). However, the copy rules for permanents are already
in place and are among the most complicated things in there. OTOH,
there are no "copy abilities" rules yet, and the coverage in the FAQs is
far from stellar, to say the least. Can you elevate this question to
have some official reaction on the matter? For me you are official
enough :), but I've already heard judges saying "The copied ability
references a non-existant Heartseeker because there is none attached to
the QE proper" before they learned your answer to it.

Regards,
Arkady.
 
G

Guest

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

Arkady Zilberberg <arkadyz1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>DD> the Heartseeker is giving the ability to the creature it's attached
>DD> to, so that "unattach Heartseeker" is the same as "unattach Heartseeker -from
>DD> me-". But in the case of the Quicksilver Elemental, it's gotten the ability
>DD> from a Heartseeker attached to something _else_ (or from another QE that also
>DD> stole the ability, etc.). It still has "Unattach Heartseeker" in the activation
>DD> cost - and still knows _which_ Heartseeker is referred to here - but that
>DD> Heartseeker isn't usually attached to the QE.
>
>Dave,
>I'm not the first to ask about *why* the copying QE knows exactly which
>Heartseeker is should unattach. I can see the logic here - QE just
>copies the entire ability with all its references still intact,

Right, pretty much.

>and any
>references from that creature to itself are copied as "~", not the
>pointer to the original ability's holder (this is covered in the FAQ and
>the reminder text).

(It's not reminder text, actually; it's written like it should be, but it's
not actually covering anything a rule already notes...)

> However, the copy rules for permanents are already
>in place and are among the most complicated things in there. OTOH,
>there are no "copy abilities" rules yet, and the coverage in the FAQs is
>far from stellar, to say the least. Can you elevate this question to
>have some official reaction on the matter?

More official than the FAQ? ...Hmmm, it wasn't there, in either one, was it,
specifically. I do note the existence of

* "Unattach Heartseeker" means just that -- Heartseeker moves off the creature
it was equipping and remains in play.

- which, read literally, without trying to over-interpret, does mean exactly
that - if QE says "Unattach Heartseeker", and knows which Heartseeker it's
talking to (the source of the ability it copied), then it unattaches _that_
Heartseeker.

I'll pass it on up that the rules for copying an ability that refers to
some other card are, er, deficient at present in untangling references made
by the original ability.

(The question arose before, if I remember right, for cloning a Saproling
token made by Saproling Burst; the original is created with the ability that
refers to its "parent", so the Clone gets that ability too, and also refers
to the same permanent...)

> For me you are official
>enough :), but I've already heard judges saying "The copied ability
>references a non-existant Heartseeker because there is none attached to
>the QE proper" before they learned your answer to it.

Well, it's not exactly an _obvious_ answer before you know what it is, granted.
And the rules are also not as complete as they could be on references made by
objects to other objects (and when to use LKI, when to use current info, and
when no info at all gets returned, in various Really Weird Situations). But
at least if you lay the answer out step by step it's follow-able...

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.