as long as

G

Guest

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

Hi,

I have a question about this rule:

418.3d Some effects from activated or triggered abilities have
durations worded "as long as . . . ." If the "as long as" duration
ends between the end of playing the activated ability or putting the
triggered ability onto the stack and the moment when the effect would
first be applied, the effect does nothing. It doesn't start and
immediately stop again, and it doesn't last forever.
Example: Endoskeleton is an artifact with an activated ability that
reads "{o2}, {oT}: Target creature gets +0/+3 as long as Endoskeleton
remains tapped." If you play this ability and then Endoskeleton
becomes untapped before the ability resolves, it does nothing, because
its duration-remaining tapped-was over before the effect began.


Will the ability also do nothing if Endoskeleton becomes untapped and
tapped again before the ability resolves (such that it is tapped when
the ability resolves)?
Would I be able to give 2 target creatures +0/+3 by untappen and
activating Endoskeleton in response to its own ability?

--

David
 
G

Guest

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

"David de Kloet" <dskloet@cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:pine.GSO.4.61.0408090906390.21759@keg.cs.vu.nl...
> Hi,
>
> I have a question about this rule:
>
> 418.3d Some effects from activated or triggered abilities have
> durations worded "as long as . . . ." If the "as long as" duration
> ends between the end of playing the activated ability or putting the
> triggered ability onto the stack and the moment when the effect would
> first be applied, the effect does nothing. It doesn't start and
> immediately stop again, and it doesn't last forever.
> Example: Endoskeleton is an artifact with an activated ability that
> reads "{o2}, {oT}: Target creature gets +0/+3 as long as Endoskeleton
> remains tapped." If you play this ability and then Endoskeleton
> becomes untapped before the ability resolves, it does nothing, because
> its duration-remaining tapped-was over before the effect began.
>
>
> Will the ability also do nothing if Endoskeleton becomes untapped and
> tapped again before the ability resolves (such that it is tapped when
> the ability resolves)?
> Would I be able to give 2 target creatures +0/+3 by untappen and
> activating Endoskeleton in response to its own ability?
>
No, this wouldn't work. When the ability resolves, it checks whether the
Endoskeleton remained tapped since it was activated. If it was not, the
ability will do nothing, regardless of whether it's tapped at the time the
ability resolves.

Jasper Overman
 
G

Guest

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

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Jasper Overman wrote:
>
> "David de Kloet" <dskloet@cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
> news:pine.GSO.4.61.0408090906390.21759@keg.cs.vu.nl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a question about this rule:
> >
> > 418.3d Some effects from activated or triggered abilities have
> > durations worded "as long as . . . ." If the "as long as" duration
> > ends between the end of playing the activated ability or putting the
> > triggered ability onto the stack and the moment when the effect would
> > first be applied, the effect does nothing. It doesn't start and
> > immediately stop again, and it doesn't last forever.
> > Example: Endoskeleton is an artifact with an activated ability that
> > reads "{o2}, {oT}: Target creature gets +0/+3 as long as Endoskeleton
> > remains tapped." If you play this ability and then Endoskeleton
> > becomes untapped before the ability resolves, it does nothing, because
> > its duration-remaining tapped-was over before the effect began.
> >
> >
> > Will the ability also do nothing if Endoskeleton becomes untapped and
> > tapped again before the ability resolves (such that it is tapped when
> > the ability resolves)?
> > Would I be able to give 2 target creatures +0/+3 by untappen and
> > activating Endoskeleton in response to its own ability?
> >
> No, this wouldn't work. When the ability resolves, it checks whether the
> Endoskeleton remained tapped since it was activated. If it was not, the
> ability will do nothing, regardless of whether it's tapped at the time the
> ability resolves.

An extra "even if it is tapped again before the ability resolves" here
wouldn't hurt I think. Or did I miss a part of the rules?

--

David
 
G

Guest

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

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:12:11 +0200, David de Kloet <dskloet@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>I have a question about this rule:

As was just discussed a day or two ago for Vedalken Shackles?

>418.3d Some effects from activated or triggered abilities have
>durations worded "as long as . . . ." If the "as long as" duration
>ends between the end of playing the activated ability or putting the
>triggered ability onto the stack and the moment when the effect would
>first be applied, the effect does nothing. It doesn't start and
>immediately stop again, and it doesn't last forever.
>Example: Endoskeleton is an artifact with an activated ability that
>reads "{o2}, {oT}: Target creature gets +0/+3 as long as Endoskeleton
>remains tapped." If you play this ability and then Endoskeleton
>becomes untapped before the ability resolves, it does nothing, because
>its duration-remaining tapped-was over before the effect began.

Correct. Tap-and-hold effects, if the source becomes untapped (or leaves
play) before the ability can resolve, never start at all; they do not "steal
the creature then immediately give it back", causing summoning sickness, for
example. Endoskeleton does not give the target creature a "momentary" toughness
boost that immediately goes away again, in this situation. Etc.

>Will the ability also do nothing if Endoskeleton becomes untapped and
>tapped again before the ability resolves (such that it is tapped when
>the ability resolves)?

That instance of the ability will do nothing, correct. (The _new_ instance of
the ability will resolve and have its effect normally.)

>Would I be able to give 2 target creatures +0/+3 by untappen and
>activating Endoskeleton in response to its own ability?

No, there is no way at all to do this with one Endoskeleton.

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 de Kloet" <dskloet@cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:pine.GSO.4.56.0408091153500.382@blade016.cs.vu.nl...
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Jasper Overman wrote:
> >
> > "David de Kloet" <dskloet@cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
> > news:pine.GSO.4.61.0408090906390.21759@keg.cs.vu.nl...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have a question about this rule:
> > >
> > > 418.3d Some effects from activated or triggered abilities have
> > > durations worded "as long as . . . ." If the "as long as" duration
> > > ends between the end of playing the activated ability or putting the
> > > triggered ability onto the stack and the moment when the effect would
> > > first be applied, the effect does nothing. It doesn't start and
> > > immediately stop again, and it doesn't last forever.
> > > Example: Endoskeleton is an artifact with an activated ability that
> > > reads "{o2}, {oT}: Target creature gets +0/+3 as long as Endoskeleton
> > > remains tapped." If you play this ability and then Endoskeleton
> > > becomes untapped before the ability resolves, it does nothing, because
> > > its duration-remaining tapped-was over before the effect began.
> > >
> > >
> > > Will the ability also do nothing if Endoskeleton becomes untapped and
> > > tapped again before the ability resolves (such that it is tapped when
> > > the ability resolves)?
> > > Would I be able to give 2 target creatures +0/+3 by untappen and
> > > activating Endoskeleton in response to its own ability?
> > >
> > No, this wouldn't work. When the ability resolves, it checks whether the
> > Endoskeleton remained tapped since it was activated. If it was not, the
> > ability will do nothing, regardless of whether it's tapped at the time
the
> > ability resolves.
>
> An extra "even if it is tapped again before the ability resolves" here
> wouldn't hurt I think. Or did I miss a part of the rules?
>
Well, 418.3d kinda says so itself. "if it becomes untapped...". "Becomes
untapped, then becomes tapped again" still invokes the "becomes
untapped"-rule.



--
Ir. J. Overman
Applied Optics group
Faculty of Science and Technology
University of Twente
P.O. Box 217
NL - 7500 AE Enschede

P: +31 53 4893871
F: +31 53 4893511
 
G

Guest

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

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, David DeLaney wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:12:11 +0200, David de Kloet <dskloet@cs.vu.nl>
> wrote:
>> I have a question about this rule:
>
> As was just discussed a day or two ago for Vedalken Shackles?
>
>> 418.3d Some effects from activated or triggered abilities have
>> durations worded "as long as . . . ." If the "as long as" duration
>> ends between the end of playing the activated ability or putting
>> the triggered ability onto the stack and the moment when the effect
>> would first be applied, the effect does nothing. It doesn't start
>> and immediately stop again, and it doesn't last forever. Example:
>> Endoskeleton is an artifact with an activated ability that reads
>> "{o2}, {oT}: Target creature gets +0/+3 as long as Endoskeleton
>> remains tapped." If you play this ability and then Endoskeleton
>> becomes untapped before the ability resolves, it does nothing,
>> because its duration-remaining tapped-was over before the effect
>> began.
>
> Correct. Tap-and-hold effects, if the source becomes untapped (or
> leaves play) before the ability can resolve, never start at all;
> they do not "steal the creature then immediately give it back",
> causing summoning sickness, for example. Endoskeleton does not give
> the target creature a "momentary" toughness boost that immediately
> goes away again, in this situation. Etc.

My problem is that I don't understand how a duration can end before it
even started. Or does it realy start when the ability is activated and
not when it resolves? And does this mean that if I could some how play
the ability without paying the tap-part I could let the duration start
at a later time?
--

David
 
G

Guest

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

David de Kloet <dskloet@cs.vu.nl> wrote:

> My problem is that I don't understand how a duration can end before it
> even started.

The target of Endoskeleton's ability has the +0/+3 bonus at time t if
and only if t is after the resolution of the ability but before the time
Endoskeleton ceased to be tapped. If Endoskeleton becomes untapped
while the ability is on the stack, there can be no such time t.

> Or does it realy start when the ability is activated and
> not when it resolves?

No.

> And does this mean that if I could some how play
> the ability without paying the tap-part

That's a big "if" there.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
 
G

Guest

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

David de Kloet <dskloet@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, David DeLaney wrote:
>>> 418.3d Some effects from activated or triggered abilities have
>>> durations worded "as long as . . . ." If the "as long as" duration
>>> ends between the end of playing the activated ability or putting
>>> the triggered ability onto the stack and the moment when the effect
>>> would first be applied, the effect does nothing. It doesn't start
>>> and immediately stop again, and it doesn't last forever. Example:
>>> Endoskeleton is an artifact with an activated ability that reads
>>> "{o2}, {oT}: Target creature gets +0/+3 as long as Endoskeleton
>>> remains tapped." If you play this ability and then Endoskeleton
>>> becomes untapped before the ability resolves, it does nothing,
>>> because its duration-remaining tapped-was over before the effect began.
>>
>> Correct. Tap-and-hold effects, if the source becomes untapped (or
>> leaves play) before the ability can resolve, never start at all;
>> they do not "steal the creature then immediately give it back",
>> causing summoning sickness, for example. Endoskeleton does not give
>> the target creature a "momentary" toughness boost that immediately
>> goes away again, in this situation. Etc.
>
>My problem is that I don't understand how a duration can end before it
>even started. Or does it realy start when the ability is activated and
>not when it resolves?

It can't start until the effect resolves. However, you can _see_ from
the 'as long as' condition what the -ending- condition is. "as long as ~
remains tapped"; "as long as you control ~ and its power remains greater
than that creature's"; "as long as ~ is in play"; etc.

If that ending condition gets met - if the 'as long as' condition becomes
-false- - in between announcement and resolution, then the effect never
gets to start at all. And such effects will make sure that the condition
has to be true on _announcement_.

There are also static abilities that use 'as long as'; that's different. The
applicability of 418.3d is to abilities that use the stack - activated or
triggered abilities, where it's possible -for- the condition to become false
before resolution.

>And does this mean that if I could some how play
>the ability without paying the tap-part I could let the duration start
>at a later time?

If the Amber Prison, to use one example, never became tapped to start with,
the 'as long as' finds it has never started when you get to resolution time.
So doesn't start. And since this is from a resolving ability, you read in
whether to start it at all -right then-; you can't "save it up for later".
(That would be worded as a delayed triggered ability, along the lines of
"Whenever Amber Prison becomes tapped -this turn-, gain control of target
creature as long as Amber Prison remains tapped"... and even then it would
follow 418.5d if Amber Prison became untapped in response.)

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 (dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com) wrote:
: >My problem is that I don't understand how a duration can end before it
: >even started. Or does it realy start when the ability is activated and
: >not when it resolves?

: It can't start until the effect resolves. However, you can _see_ from
: the 'as long as' condition what the -ending- condition is. "as long as ~
: remains tapped"; "as long as you control ~ and its power remains greater
: than that creature's"; "as long as ~ is in play"; etc.

: If that ending condition gets met - if the 'as long as' condition becomes
: -false- - in between announcement and resolution, then the effect never
: gets to start at all. And such effects will make sure that the condition
: has to be true on _announcement_.

Taken just in this immediate context, this makes perfect sense.

However, when the oft-repeated greater principle is applied that says
doing something to the source of an effect does not stop the effect (as
to stop something outright it has to be countered), this gets confusing.
Using that, the effect *would* happen, albeit very briefly, as the game
would immediately see the "as long as" clause had failed. (kinda like a
second legend coming into play just long enough to realize it shouldn't
be there...)

So, on a larger scale: when do changes to a source (colour, untap, bounce,
destroy, RFG, type, etc.) prevent an otherwise-usable effect launched by
that soucre from occurring, and when do they not? (and if damage is not
treated the same way, why not, for consistency?)


Keith
 
G

Guest

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

Keith Piddington <uj551@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote:

> However, when the oft-repeated greater principle is applied that says
> doing something to the source of an effect does not stop the effect (as
> to stop something outright it has to be countered), this gets confusing.
> Using that, the effect *would* happen, albeit very briefly, as the game
> would immediately see the "as long as" clause had failed. (kinda like a
> second legend coming into play just long enough to realize it shouldn't
> be there...)

This principle, like so many others, is subordinate to the "golden
rule":

103.1. Whenever a card's text directly contradicts these rules, the card
takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that
specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the
game at any time, regardless of what other cards say (see rule 102.7).

> So, on a larger scale: when do changes to a source (colour, untap, bounce,
> destroy, RFG, type, etc.) prevent an otherwise-usable effect launched by
> that soucre from occurring, and when do they not? (and if damage is not
> treated the same way, why not, for consistency?)

Changes to a source prevent an effect from occurring when it says they
do.
Changes to a source do not prevent an effect from occurring when it
doesn't say they do.
And I don't know of any damage with such an explicit restriction.

For example, the activated ability of Frenetic Efreet and the triggered
ability of Myr Servitor require that their respective sources still be
in play when they resolve:

Frenetic Efreet
{1}{U}{R}
Creature -- Efreet
2/1
Flying
{0}: If Frenetic Efreet is in play, flip a coin. If you win the flip,
Frenetic Efreet phases out. If you lose the flip, sacrifice Frenetic
Efreet.

Myr Servitor
{1}
Artifact Creature -- Myr
1/1
At the beginning of your upkeep, if Myr Servitor is in play, each player
returns all cards named Myr Servitor from his or her graveyard to play.

Or to look at it another way:

The player of Endoskeleton's ability doesn't get to say "but it *used*
to be tapped" any more than the player of Empyrial Armor gets to say
"but I *used* to have 7 cards in my hand".

Empyrial Armor
{1}{W}{W}
Enchant Creature
Enchanted creature gets +X/+X, where X is the number of cards in your
hand.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
 
G

Guest

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

Daniel W. Johnson (panoptes@iquest.net) wrote:
: Keith Piddington <uj551@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote:

: > However, when the oft-repeated greater principle is applied that says
: > doing something to the source of an effect does not stop the effect (as
: > to stop something outright it has to be countered), this gets confusing.
: > Using that, the effect *would* happen, albeit very briefly, as the game
: > would immediately see the "as long as" clause had failed. (kinda like a
: > second legend coming into play just long enough to realize it shouldn't
: > be there...)

: This principle, like so many others, is subordinate to the "golden
: rule":

: 103.1. Whenever a card's text directly contradicts these rules, the card
: takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that
: specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the
: game at any time, regardless of what other cards say (see rule 102.7).

: > So, on a larger scale: when do changes to a source (colour, untap, bounce,
: > destroy, RFG, type, etc.) prevent an otherwise-usable effect launched by
: > that soucre from occurring, and when do they not? (and if damage is not
: > treated the same way, why not, for consistency?)

: Changes to a source prevent an effect from occurring when it says they
: do.
: Changes to a source do not prevent an effect from occurring when it
: doesn't say they do.
: And I don't know of any damage with such an explicit restriction.

: Or to look at it another way:

: The player of Endoskeleton's ability doesn't get to say "but it *used*
: to be tapped" any more than the player of Empyrial Armor gets to say
: "but I *used* to have 7 cards in my hand".

OK, but is there any time between the point at which the status changes
(Endo's tapping, EA's cards-in-hand count) and the resulting effect
changes? In other words, using Empyrial Armor as an example, if you had
4 cards in hand and are forced to discard to one, how long it is before
the game - and thus the Armor - takes a look and figures out you're down
to one card, and adjusts accordingly? Does it happen during resolution of
the discard, or does it happen immediately after before anything else can
occur? (a largely irrelevant distinction here but much more relevant when
the difference in timing makes the difference of whether an effect
momentarily does something or never happens at all)

For the Endoskeleton (getting back to original question) if it's tapped
to launch the effect, then somehow [untapped/destroyed/bounced/etc.] in
response, OK the text says "as long as ..." - and it sounds like what
you're saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the tapped status
is checked on resolution. Well, assuming the effect has not been somehow
countered, and that a launched effect is supposed to occur - or try to -
regardless of what happened to the source, then the tapped-untapped status
should not in theory be checked until just after resolution, when the game
looks and says "oops, that just happened, but the status is now wrong, so
it ceases to happen". Hence, I'm still confused.

I'm not phrasing this very well. I guess what I'm asking is if effects
take place regardless of what happens to their source, why is the source
still looked at, in this case to see if the "as long as ..." is still
true, at any time before the effect has resolved, once launched?

(and is there a better generic term than "launched" that means "an effect
has been announced, its costs have been paid, and it's been sent on its
way to try to do whatever it is supposed to do"?)

: Empyrial Armor
: {1}{W}{W}
: Enchant Creature
: Enchanted creature gets +X/+X, where X is the number of cards in your
: hand.




Keith
 
G

Guest

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

On Wed, 10 Aug 2004, David DeLaney wrote:

> David de Kloet <dskloet@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>> My problem is that I don't understand how a duration can end before it
>> even started. Or does it realy start when the ability is activated and
>> not when it resolves?
>
> It can't start until the effect resolves. However, you can _see_ from
> the 'as long as' condition what the -ending- condition is. "as long as ~
> remains tapped"; "as long as you control ~ and its power remains greater
> than that creature's"; "as long as ~ is in play"; etc.
>
> If that ending condition gets met - if the 'as long as' condition becomes
> -false- - in between announcement and resolution, then the effect never
> gets to start at all. And such effects will make sure that the condition
> has to be true on _announcement_.

Then what about

Cyclopean Tomb
{4}
Artifact
{2}, {T}: Put a mire counter on target land. That land is a Swamp as
long as it has a mire counter on it. Play this ability only during
your upkeep.
When ~this~ leaves play, at the beginning of each of your upkeeps
until the end of the game, remove one of those mire counters.

? Here the condition (mire counter on swamp) doesn't become true until
resolution of the ability.

>
> There are also static abilities that use 'as long as'; that's different. The
> applicability of 418.3d is to abilities that use the stack - activated or
> triggered abilities, where it's possible -for- the condition to become false
> before resolution.
>
>> And does this mean that if I could some how play
>> the ability without paying the tap-part I could let the duration start
>> at a later time?
>
> If the Amber Prison, to use one example, never became tapped to start with,
> the 'as long as' finds it has never started when you get to resolution time.
> So doesn't start. And since this is from a resolving ability, you read in
> whether to start it at all -right then-; you can't "save it up for later".
> (That would be worded as a delayed triggered ability, along the lines of
> "Whenever Amber Prison becomes tapped -this turn-, gain control of target
> creature as long as Amber Prison remains tapped"... and even then it would
> follow 418.5d if Amber Prison became untapped in response.)

I understand that. But I meant to let the duration start between
activation and resolution such that it would be possible to give the
bonus to more than one creature. Would that be possible?
--
thanks for your patience,
David
 
G

Guest

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

Keith Piddington <uj551@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote:

> OK, but is there any time between the point at which the status changes
> (Endo's tapping, EA's cards-in-hand count) and the resulting effect
> changes?

No.

> In other words, using Empyrial Armor as an example, if you had
> 4 cards in hand and are forced to discard to one, how long it is before
> the game - and thus the Armor - takes a look and figures out you're down
> to one card, and adjusts accordingly?

The questions "How many cards do you have in your hand?" and "How much
of a bonus is your Empyrial Armor giving?" have the same answer at all
times. There is no time lag in which one is giving an "old" answer.

> Does it happen during resolution of
> the discard, or does it happen immediately after before anything else can
> occur? (a largely irrelevant distinction here but much more relevant when
> the difference in timing makes the difference of whether an effect
> momentarily does something or never happens at all)

> I'm not phrasing this very well. I guess what I'm asking is if effects
> take place regardless of what happens to their source, why is the source
> still looked at, in this case to see if the "as long as ..." is still
> true, at any time before the effect has resolved, once launched?

Because it says it is.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
 
G

Guest

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

Keith Piddington <uj551@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> sent:
> Daniel W. Johnson (panoptes@iquest.net) wrote:
> : Keith Piddington <uj551@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote:

> : > However, when the oft-repeated greater principle is applied that says
> : > doing something to the source of an effect does not stop the effect (as
> : > to stop something outright it has to be countered), this gets confusing.
> : > Using that, the effect *would* happen, albeit very briefly, as the game
> : > would immediately see the "as long as" clause had failed. (kinda like a
> : > second legend coming into play just long enough to realize it shouldn't
> : > be there...)

> : This principle, like so many others, is subordinate to the "golden
> : rule":

> : 103.1. Whenever a card's text directly contradicts these rules, the card
> : takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that
> : specific situation. The only exception is that a player can concede the
> : game at any time, regardless of what other cards say (see rule 102.7).

> : > So, on a larger scale: when do changes to a source (colour, untap, bounce,
> : > destroy, RFG, type, etc.) prevent an otherwise-usable effect launched by
> : > that soucre from occurring, and when do they not? (and if damage is not
> : > treated the same way, why not, for consistency?)

> : Changes to a source prevent an effect from occurring when it says they
> : do.
> : Changes to a source do not prevent an effect from occurring when it
> : doesn't say they do.
> : And I don't know of any damage with such an explicit restriction.

> : Or to look at it another way:

> : The player of Endoskeleton's ability doesn't get to say "but it *used*
> : to be tapped" any more than the player of Empyrial Armor gets to say
> : "but I *used* to have 7 cards in my hand".

> OK, but is there any time between the point at which the status changes
> (Endo's tapping, EA's cards-in-hand count) and the resulting effect
> changes? In other words, using Empyrial Armor as an example, if you had
> 4 cards in hand and are forced to discard to one, how long it is before
> the game - and thus the Armor - takes a look and figures out you're down
> to one card, and adjusts accordingly?

No time at all - as far as the game is concerned, you're either at the
point just before resolving the spell or ability that tells you to
discard, and you've got 4 cards in hand, or you're just after that point,
and you've got 1 card in hand. For a simple example, imagine a Myr token
with Empyrial Armor, and an Endangered Armodon all under your control:

Empyrial Armor {1}{W}{W} Enchant Creature
/ Enchanted creature gets +X/+X, where X is the number of cards in your
hand.

Endangered Armodon {2}{G}{G} Creature -- Elephant 4/5
/ When you control a creature with toughness 2 or less, sacrifice
Endangered Armodon.

The 'sacrifice Endangered Armodon' triggered ability triggers immediately
after the cards have been discarded, as the Myr goes down to being a
2/2 creature at that point. You still have to wait for a player to
try to gain priority before putting the ability on the stack, though.

> Does it happen during resolution of
> the discard, or does it happen immediately after before anything else can
> occur? (a largely irrelevant distinction here but much more relevant when
> the difference in timing makes the difference of whether an effect
> momentarily does something or never happens at all)

The things that wait until a player tries to gain priority are listed
in the rules - state-based effects, and ordering triggered abilities on
the stack. In general, the effects of continuous abilities like the
Empyrial Armor "update" continually.

> For the Endoskeleton (getting back to original question) if it's tapped
> to launch the effect, then somehow [untapped/destroyed/bounced/etc.] in
> response, OK the text says "as long as ..." - and it sounds like what
> you're saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the tapped status
> is checked on resolution.

Not really on resolution. Let's look at the rule again:

418.3d Some effects from activated or triggered abilities have
durations worded "as long as . . . ." If the "as long as" duration
ends between the end of playing the activated ability or putting the
triggered ability onto the stack and the moment when the effect would
first be applied, the effect does nothing. It doesn't start and
immediately stop again, and it doesn't last forever.

When you get to the point of trying to start the effect, you look back
all the way through from the announcement of the ability with the
duration. If the 'as long as' condition was not true throughout the
whole of that period of time, the effect does nothing.

> Well, assuming the effect has not been somehow
> countered, and that a launched effect is supposed to occur - or try to -
> regardless of what happened to the source, then the tapped-untapped status
> should not in theory be checked until just after resolution, when the game
> looks and says "oops, that just happened, but the status is now wrong, so
> it ceases to happen". Hence, I'm still confused.

The rule tells you that when there's an 'as long as' condition on an
effect from an activated or triggered ability, you look at whether that
condition has always been true between the time the ability was
announced and when it should start. If that condition happens to refer
to the source of the ability, then the effect will indeed be dependent
on the state of its source - simply because it _says_ it is.

> I'm not phrasing this very well. I guess what I'm asking is if effects
> take place regardless of what happens to their source, why is the source
> still looked at, in this case to see if the "as long as ..." is still
> true, at any time before the effect has resolved, once launched?

The source is still looked at, because the effect says (in conjunction
with rule 418.3d) to look at the source. It's as simple as that. It
checks, when the ability resolves, whether some characteristics have
been continually true all the way through from announcement, and those
characteristics just happen to have been attached to the source of the
ability.

> (and is there a better generic term than "launched" that means "an effect
> has been announced, its costs have been paid, and it's been sent on its
> way to try to do whatever it is supposed to do"?)

"Announced" would be the most applicable term.

--
-- zoe
 
G

Guest

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

David de Kloet <dskloet@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>Then what about
>
>Cyclopean Tomb >{4} >Artifact
>{2}, {T}: Put a mire counter on target land. That land is a Swamp as
>long as it has a mire counter on it. Play this ability only during your upkeep.
>When ~this~ leaves play, at the beginning of each of your upkeeps
>until the end of the game, remove one of those mire counters.

The Tomb has _never_ had a good wording, alas. (The problem is more with the
"those mire counters", because the intent is that mire counters are
indistinguishable, but we don't want one Tomb's effect removing another's
counters.)

The intent of the rule you're looking at is that if the duration _ends_
before it starts, it never starts at all. Specifically for stuff where the
duration actually starts before the effect can resolve... and specifically
for stuff where the duration depends on the SOURCE doing stuff... and
specifically BECAUSE players reeatedly ask "Well, if I untap it in response and
then tap it again, can I get the effect twice?". These are generally called
'tap and hold' effects, though the example, Endoskeleton, shows that not all
of them are gain-control-of effects.

Cyclopean Tomb's effect doesn't have its duration depending on something
about _the source_ - the Tomb. For another example, look at Planeswalker's
Mischief: this also has an 'as long as' condition that doesn't depend on
the _enchantment_ doing anything, and which can't become true until
resolution. "Obviously" this duration isn't ABLE to end before it starts,
and neither is the Tomb's in general. (If the land already has mire counters
on it, and AEther Snap removes them all in response to the Tomb's ability,
that doesn't mean the Tomb's ability fails to make the land into a Swamp with
the -new- mire counter, for another example.) Quicksilver Fountain, a variant
on CTomb, has the same thing going on: the "as long as" condition doesn't
depend on the -source- doing anything, so can't be fiddled with by fiddling
with the source... and the latter is what 418.3d is designed to deal with,
where you can end the duration by fiddling with the SOURCE of the ability,
before the ability can resolve.

>? Here the condition (mire counter on swamp) doesn't become true until
>resolution of the ability.

Right, and same for PMischief and QFountain. Rootwater Matriarch also falls
under this. 418.3d is there to prevent "tap-and-hold source abuse", and I
thank you for allowing me to actually put my finger on what the small flaw
in its wording is - it needs to specify that the "as long as" effect involves
something the -source- of the activated or triggered ability is doing. The
game (and the game balance) are fine with "target abuse", so to speak, but
we can't have people trying to give five different things at once a bonus
from the same Endoskeleton, or to steal three different creatures at the same
time with Old Man of the Sea. (Note that some tap-and-hold effects _don't_
wear off when the source untaps - Aladdin will happily hold on to multiple
artifacts, but if he leaves play before the ability can resolve, you don't
get control of that artifact in the first place.) I'll pass this along up.

>> There are also static abilities that use 'as long as'; that's different. The
>> applicability of 418.3d is to abilities that use the stack - activated or
>> triggered abilities, where it's possible -for- the condition to become false
>> before resolution.

....and, as I now have realized, where the condition involves the -source-
of the ability doing something, or remaining someway.

>I understand that. But I meant to let the duration start between
>activation and resolution

Can't. It can't start until resolution, period; effects of resolving spells
or abilities can't ever start applying BEFORE resolution, in any way at all.

>such that it would be possible to give the
>bonus to more than one creature. Would that be possible?

No; 418.3d is there SPECIFICALLY to prevent that from happening in any way for
Endoskeleton, for example.

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?)

Keith Piddington <uj551@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>Daniel W. Johnson (panoptes@iquest.net) wrote:
>: The player of Endoskeleton's ability doesn't get to say "but it *used*
>: to be tapped" any more than the player of Empyrial Armor gets to say
>: "but I *used* to have 7 cards in my hand".

Bad example, because Empyrial Armor isn't an 'as long as' effect from
a resolving spell or ability that depends on something its source does.

>OK, but is there any time between the point at which the status changes
>(Endo's tapping, EA's cards-in-hand count) and the resulting effect
>changes?

No. Continuous effects update _continuously_. There cannot be any point in
time where the bonus EA is giving is different from the number of cards in
your hand.

>In other words, using Empyrial Armor as an example, if you had
>4 cards in hand and are forced to discard to one, how long it is before
>the game - and thus the Armor - takes a look and figures out you're down
>to one card, and adjusts accordingly?

No time at all.

> Does it happen during resolution of the discard,

Yes. If that discard effect is going to do stuff after the discard occurs,
the Armor's bonus is already shrunk before the next part of the effect
can occur.

>or does it happen immediately after before anything else can occur?

No; continuous effects are not state-based effects.

>For the Endoskeleton (getting back to original question) if it's tapped
>to launch the effect, then somehow [untapped/destroyed/bounced/etc.] in
>response,

the effect _from that use of the ability_ can now never start at all, period.

>OK the text says "as long as ..." - and it sounds like what
>you're saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the tapped status
>is checked on resolution.

No. The "remains tapped" status is. Has it remained tapped since announcement?
If not, the effect Does Nothing - it has no effect and resolves without
doing anything.

>I'm not phrasing this very well. I guess what I'm asking is if effects
>take place regardless of what happens to their source,

Most effects do. "As long as Endoskeleton remains tapped" -can't-, by
definition; it checks to see whether Endoskeleton, its source, remains tapped.

>why is the source still looked at,

Because the card -says- to, as part of figuring out whether this particular
duration has ended or not.

>(and is there a better generic term than "launched" that means "an effect
>has been announced, its costs have been paid, and it's been sent on its
>way to try to do whatever it is supposed to do"?)

"Announced" works. The technical term is "played" but that gets bogged down
in confusion with the seven or eight other meanings of "play" for many
players (see, there's one).

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 Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Zoe Stephenson wrote:

>> (and is there a better generic term than "launched" that means "an effect
>> has been announced, its costs have been paid, and it's been sent on its
>> way to try to do whatever it is supposed to do"?)
>
> "Announced" would be the most applicable term.

Announcement is only the first part of playing a spell or ability as
you can read in rule 409.1. The right term would be "played" as by
rule 409.1i.

409.1i Once the steps described in 409.1a-409.1h are completed, the
spell or ability becomes played. Any abilities that trigger on a spell
or ability being played or put onto the stack trigger at this time.
The spell or ability's controller gets priority.

--
David
 
G

Guest

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

David de Kloet <dskloet@cs.vu.nl> sent:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Zoe Stephenson wrote:

>>> (and is there a better generic term than "launched" that means "an effect
>>> has been announced, its costs have been paid, and it's been sent on its
>>> way to try to do whatever it is supposed to do"?)
>>
>> "Announced" would be the most applicable term.

> Announcement is only the first part of playing a spell or ability as
> you can read in rule 409.1. The right term would be "played" as by
> rule 409.1i.

> 409.1i Once the steps described in 409.1a-409.1h are completed, the
> spell or ability becomes played. Any abilities that trigger on a spell
> or ability being played or put onto the stack trigger at this time.
> The spell or ability's controller gets priority.

Mmm, well spotted. Rule 418.3d does state "between the end of playing
the activated ability or putting the triggered ability on the stack..."
This makes me wonder if there are any situations where such a condition
becomes false between 409.1a and 409.1i...

--
-- zoe
 
G

Guest

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

David de Kloet <dskloet@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Zoe Stephenson wrote:
>>> (and is there a better generic term than "launched" that means "an effect
>>> has been announced, its costs have been paid, and it's been sent on its
>>> way to try to do whatever it is supposed to do"?)
>>
>> "Announced" would be the most applicable term.
>
>Announcement is only the first part of playing a spell or ability as
>you can read in rule 409.1. The right term would be "played" as by
>rule 409.1i.

Announcement is the whole thing. Putting the spell or ability on the stack,
before which you have to tell opponent _which_ spell or ability, is 409.1a;
think of 409.1a as using the verb "proclaims" or "tells the world", if you
like.

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?)

Zoe Stephenson <zrs1@uk.ac.york.reversed> wrote:
>> 409.1i Once the steps described in 409.1a-409.1h are completed, the
>> spell or ability becomes played. Any abilities that trigger on a spell
>> or ability being played or put onto the stack trigger at this time.
>> The spell or ability's controller gets priority.
>
>Mmm, well spotted. Rule 418.3d does state "between the end of playing
>the activated ability or putting the triggered ability on the stack..."

Oh dear; it should say "between locking in the cost of playing the
activated ability, or".

>This makes me wonder if there are any situations where such a condition
>becomes false between 409.1a and 409.1i...

Yes, though an actual example doesn't come immediately to mind... Drought or
Brutal Suppression cause a land to be sacrificed as an additional cost of
playing certain activated abilities, so Ice Floe is vulnerable if you
animate it and make it a Mercenary to having to be sacced to help pay for
its own ability; Krark-Clan Ironworks, I think it is, lets you sac artifacts
for mana, so Endoskeleton could be sacced to the Ironworks to get mana to
pay for its own ability. These show that the existing wording is Bad; if
Endoskeleton vanishes after tapping ... no, okay, you have to get mana before
paying any costs, so that's out. But Ice Floe, animated, made a Mercenary,
with Brutal Suppression in play, can vanish _after_ tapping but _before_
the ability is done being played, and the effect should NOT start in that
case. I'll pass that on too.

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?)

Zoe Stephenson <zrs1@uk.ac.york.reversed> sent:
> David de Kloet <dskloet@cs.vu.nl> sent:
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Zoe Stephenson wrote:

>>>> (and is there a better generic term than "launched" that means "an effect
>>>> has been announced, its costs have been paid, and it's been sent on its
>>>> way to try to do whatever it is supposed to do"?)
>>>
>>> "Announced" would be the most applicable term.

>> Announcement is only the first part of playing a spell or ability as
>> you can read in rule 409.1. The right term would be "played" as by
>> rule 409.1i.

>> 409.1i Once the steps described in 409.1a-409.1h are completed, the
>> spell or ability becomes played. Any abilities that trigger on a spell
>> or ability being played or put onto the stack trigger at this time.
>> The spell or ability's controller gets priority.

> Mmm, well spotted. Rule 418.3d does state "between the end of playing
> the activated ability or putting the triggered ability on the stack..."
> This makes me wonder if there are any situations where such a condition
> becomes false between 409.1a and 409.1i...

On further reflection, there are many situations where the condition is
not true on announcement, e.g.:

Vedalken Shackles {3} Artifact
/ You may choose not to untap Vedalken Shackles during your untap step.
/ {2}, {T}: Gain control of target creature with power less than or
equal to the number of Islands you control as long as Vedalken
Shackles remains tapped.

The Shackles only become tapped when the cost of the gain control
ability is paid, a good example of why the rule is phrased as it is and
why counting from announcement would be a bad idea :)

--
-- zoe - still not awake
 
G

Guest

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

David DeLaney (dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com) wrote:
: David de Kloet <dskloet@cs.vu.nl> wrote:
: >On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Zoe Stephenson wrote:
: >>> (and is there a better generic term than "launched" that means "an effect
: >>> has been announced, its costs have been paid, and it's been sent on its
: >>> way to try to do whatever it is supposed to do"?)
: >>
: >> "Announced" would be the most applicable term.
: >
: >Announcement is only the first part of playing a spell or ability as
: >you can read in rule 409.1. The right term would be "played" as by
: >rule 409.1i.

: Announcement is the whole thing. Putting the spell or ability on the stack,
: before which you have to tell opponent _which_ spell or ability, is 409.1a;
: think of 409.1a as using the verb "proclaims" or "tells the world", if you
: like.

Must be my old-time-ness showing again; I remember announcement meaning
to state your intention to do something specific ("I'm going to do
<foo>"), but before you started actually doing anything e.g. gathering
mana to pay costs, etc. Guess that's changed, huh? :)

I think what I was after was more to find a term other than "played" to
indicate something on the stack that is not represented by a card. (this
can include effects, damage, all kinds of things). It's more intuitive,
at least for me, to think of "playing" a card as opposed to ("launching"?)
an effect, though the game somewhat confusingly uses the same term for
both.

Anyone else find this, or am I just hard-of-thinking?


Keith
 
G

Guest

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

Keith Piddington <uj551@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> sent:
> David DeLaney (dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com) wrote:
> : Announcement is the whole thing. Putting the spell or ability on the stack,
> : before which you have to tell opponent _which_ spell or ability, is 409.1a;
> : think of 409.1a as using the verb "proclaims" or "tells the world", if you
> : like.

> Must be my old-time-ness showing again; I remember announcement meaning
> to state your intention to do something specific ("I'm going to do
> <foo>"), but before you started actually doing anything e.g. gathering
> mana to pay costs, etc. Guess that's changed, huh? :)

> I think what I was after was more to find a term other than "played" to
> indicate something on the stack that is not represented by a card. (this
> can include effects, damage, all kinds of things).

Only three kinds of things end up on the stack - spells, abilities, and
combat damage assignments. Only spells get represented by cards.
Effects never go on the stack; for a one-shot effect from a resolving
spell, ability or assignment, it happens when that spell or ability
resolves, and for a continuous effect, it just kind of hangs around and
applies as appropriate.

> It's more intuitive,
> at least for me, to think of "playing" a card as opposed to ("launching"?)
> an effect, though the game somewhat confusingly uses the same term for
> both.

> Anyone else find this, or am I just hard-of-thinking?

Magic tends to use specific words in specific ways, and they're not
always the way people ordinarily use them. The word 'play' is the
example we come across most often on the newsgroup. It's just a matter
of getting into the habit of using the word the same way as the rules
use it.

--
-- zoe
 
G

Guest

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

Keith Piddington <uj551@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>I think what I was after was more to find a term other than "played" to
>indicate something on the stack that is not represented by a card.

?? Whether there's a card there or not has nothing to do with whether it
was played or not. It's true that combat damage and triggered abilities
are not played and have no card, but some spells have no card either, yet
were played, and there's at least one way to get a spell card on the stack
without playing it.

> (this can include effects, damage, all kinds of things).

No, mostly no, no. Only three things use the stack: spells; combat damage;
and activated-or-triggered-nonmana-abilities.

> It's more intuitive,
>at least for me, to think of "playing" a card as opposed to ("launching"?)
>an effect, though the game somewhat confusingly uses the same term for
>both.

My mental lexicon includes "announce" for spells or activated abilities,
"lay" for lands, and I don't have a good one-word for triggered abilities,
"put onto the stack"...

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.