Text referring to what, actually?

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Daniel W. Johnson wrote:

>>Oh, I see. Root Cage's text doesn't talk about creatures *named* Mercenaries
>>but creatures *typed* Mercenaries.
>>
>>Hey, then the original
>>Mercenaries creature from Ice Age is a powerful hoser against Masquerade
>>mercenaries decks! Just pay 3 and ignore all the bigger and smaller
>>Mercenary creatures your opponent is throwing at you.
>
>Well, no. That ability on the Mercenaries card just prevents damage
>from that Mercenaries card.
>
>202.2. Text that refers to the object it's on by name means just that
>particular object and not any other duplicates of it, regardless of any
>name changes caused by game effects.

But how can you *tell* that the text actually refers to the card it's on,
instead of the creature type?

:{3}: Prevent all damage that would be dealt by Mercenaries to you this turn.
:Any player may play this ability.

According to what I was told earlier, this is *exactly* the template the card
would use if it was supposed to refer to creature types. (Like "prevent all
damage that would be dealt by Goblins to you this turn". No card ever says
something like "damage dealt by creatures with creature type Goblin" or the
like.)

I understand how the card is probably intended to work. But just imagine the
card _was_ supposed to affect all creatures with the creature type Mercenary.
How would it be written any different? How can you tell the difference?

 

[Guest]

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

Reinhard Schilmöller <schilmo@uni-muenster.de> wrote:

> I understand how the card is probably intended to work. But just imagine the
> card _was_ supposed to affect all creatures with the creature type Mercenary.
> How would it be written any different? How can you tell the difference?

In that case, it wouldn't be named Mercenaries.
--
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?)

Reinhard Schilmöller, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Daniel W. Johnson wrote:
>
> >>Oh, I see. Root Cage's text doesn't talk about creatures *named* Mercenaries
> >>but creatures *typed* Mercenaries.
> >>
> >>Hey, then the original
> >>Mercenaries creature from Ice Age is a powerful hoser against Masquerade
> >>mercenaries decks! Just pay 3 and ignore all the bigger and smaller
> >>Mercenary creatures your opponent is throwing at you.
> >
> >Well, no. That ability on the Mercenaries card just prevents damage
> >from that Mercenaries card.
> >
> >202.2. Text that refers to the object it's on by name means just that
> >particular object and not any other duplicates of it, regardless of any
> >name changes caused by game effects.
>
> But how can you *tell* that the text actually refers to the card it's on,
> instead of the creature type?
>
> :{3}: Prevent all damage that would be dealt by Mercenaries to you this turn.
> :Any player may play this ability.
>
> According to what I was told earlier, this is *exactly* the template the card
> would use if it was supposed to refer to creature types. (Like "prevent all
> damage that would be dealt by Goblins to you this turn". No card ever says
> something like "damage dealt by creatures with creature type Goblin" or the
> like.)
>
> I understand how the card is probably intended to work. But just imagine the
> card _was_ supposed to affect all creatures with the creature type Mercenary.
> How would it be written any different? How can you tell the difference?

The difference between Root Cage and Mercenaries, in this respect, is
that for Root Cage to only affect the card Mercenaries, it would have to
say "cards named Mercenaries", not just "Mercenaries". As far as I can
tell, the Oracle wordings of all cards that specifically reference
*other* cards by name use this sort of wording.

So....
If a card mentions its own name, you can safely assume it's referring to
itself and 202.2 applies.
If a card mentions another card by name, it will say "cards named so-
and-so" or some similar wording.
Other text on a card that seems to be open to this sort of
interpretation, for example that of Root Cage, will always be referring
to a subtype, not to the name of a card.

I think it's safe to assume that no card whose name and subtype are the
same will ever be given an ability where the sort of confusion you
mention could arise. Mercenaries may appear to be an exception, but
don't forget that it was printed years before Mercadian Masques. I'd
only start worrying if they had appeared in the same set, or even within
a couple of years of each other.