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