Season of the Witch question

[Guest]

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

Season of the Witch
{B}{B}{B}
Enchantment
At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice Season of the Witch unless
you pay 2 life.
At end of turn, destroy all untapped creatures that didn't attack this
turn, except for creatures that couldn't attack.

If this is in play, which creatures "couldn't attack"? Just newly
played creatures without Haste, Walls, and things under effects like
that of Pacifism? For example, if this guy is in play:

Silent Arbiter
{4}
Artifact Creature
1/5
No more than one creature may attack each combat.
No more than one creature may block each combat.

Does Season of the Witch destroy all but one of each player's creatures
at the end of that player's turn? Even if they have an ability such as
"~THIS~ can't attack alone"? What if Peacekeeper is in play?

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>Season of the Witch BBB Enchantment
> At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice ~ unless you pay 2 life. / At end
> of turn, destroy all untapped creatures that didn't attack this turn, except
> for creatures that couldn't attack.
>
>If this is in play, which creatures "couldn't attack"? Just newly
>played creatures without Haste, Walls, and things under effects like
>that of Pacifism? For example, if this guy is in play:

Anything that was unable to be chosen as an attacker -at the time attackers
were declared-.

(If there was no Combat phase this turn, for example, _nothing_ could attack.)

>Silent Arbiter 4 Artifact Creature
>1/5 No more than one creature may attack each combat. / No more than one
> creature may block each combat.
>
>Does Season of the Witch destroy all but one of each player's creatures
>at the end of that player's turn? Even if they have an ability such as
>"~THIS~ can't attack alone"? What if Peacekeeper is in play?

If Silent Arbiter is in play, all creatures active player controls except
the one that -does- attack couldn't attack, so are unaffected later on.
Similarly, all creatures NONactive player controls couldn't attack at all
this turn, because it's not their controller's turn... so SotW never affects
any creature which wasn't under active player's control at declare-attackers
time.

Something that says "~ can't attack alone" is unable to attack with Silent
Arbiter in play; while Peacekeeper is in play, no creatures can attack.

The key here is that SotW isn't asking "can they attack NOW?", because of
course nothing can EVER attack during end of turn step. So it has to be
asking about back when attackers were declared. So anything that is now
untapped, and that couldn't be picked as an attacker when attackers were
declared _for whatever reason_, is unaffected.

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.

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:00:58 GMT, Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:

>Season of the Witch
>{B}{B}{B}
>Enchantment
>At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice Season of the Witch unless
>you pay 2 life.
>At end of turn, destroy all untapped creatures that didn't attack this
>turn, except for creatures that couldn't attack.
>
>If this is in play, which creatures "couldn't attack"? Just newly
>played creatures without Haste, Walls, and things under effects like
>that of Pacifism?

And tapped creatures - yep:

Declare Attackers
To declare attackers, the active player chooses a set of creatures
that will attack and pays any costs they require to attack. Only
creatures can attack, and the following creatures can't attack: tapped
creatures (even those that can attack without tapping), creatures with
creature type "Wall," and creatures the active player didn't control
continuously since the beginning of the turn (except those with
haste). Other effects may also affect whether or not a set of
creatures could attack. See rule 500, "Legal Attacks and Blocks."

In short (and slightly simplified): If it for any reason would be
illegal to declare it an attacker, then it "can't attack". See "500.
Legal Attacks and Blocks" for the full story.

>For example, if this guy is in play:
>
>Silent Arbiter
>{4}
>Artifact Creature
>1/5
>No more than one creature may attack each combat.
>No more than one creature may block each combat.
>
>Does Season of the Witch destroy all but one of each player's creatures
>at the end of that player's turn?

Nope, this isn't a Siren's Call - SotW cares about legality of the
attack.

If one creature did attack, then SotW does nothing - the rest
"couldn't attack".

If none attacked, then ... umm ... all the untapped ones are
destroyed, since they all could have attacked (individually)?? Really
unsure about this one...

>Even if they have an ability such as
>"~THIS~ can't attack alone"? What if Peacekeeper is in play?

Here nothing can attack, and as such SotW leaves them all alone.


Siren's Call
{U}
Instant
Play only during an opponent's turn and only before attackers are
declared.
Creatures the active player controls attack this turn if able.
At end of turn, destroy all non-Wall creatures that player controls
that didn't attack this turn. Ignore this effect for each creature the
player didn't control continuously since the beginning of the turn.

--
Regards
Simon Nejmann

 

[Guest]

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

Simon Nejmann, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> >For example, if this guy is in play:
> >
> >Silent Arbiter
> >{4}
> >Artifact Creature
> >1/5
> >No more than one creature may attack each combat.
> >No more than one creature may block each combat.
> >
> >Does Season of the Witch destroy all but one of each player's creatures
> >at the end of that player's turn?
>
> Nope, this isn't a Siren's Call - SotW cares about legality of the
> attack.
>
> If one creature did attack, then SotW does nothing - the rest
> "couldn't attack".

But they *could* have - if the one that actually attacked had not...
does that not bear on SotW?

--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers

 

[Guest]

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

Simon Nejmann <snejmann@worldonline.REMOVETHIS.dk> wrote:
>>Silent Arbiter >>{4} >>Artifact Creature
>>1/5 >>No more than one creature may attack each combat.
>>No more than one creature may block each combat.
>>
>>Does Season of the Witch destroy all but one of each player's creatures
>>at the end of that player's turn?
>
>Nope, this isn't a Siren's Call - SotW cares about legality of the
>attack.
>
>If one creature did attack, then SotW does nothing - the rest
>"couldn't attack".
>
>If none attacked, then ... umm ... all the untapped ones are
>destroyed, since they all could have attacked (individually)?? Really
>unsure about this one...

Looks good. None of them got a "you can't attack" imposed by Silent Arbiter
because something -did- attack... so all of them _were_ able to attack,
but none of them did.

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.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:13:39 GMT, Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:

>Simon Nejmann, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>> >For example, if this guy is in play:
>> >
>> >Silent Arbiter
>> >{4}
>> >Artifact Creature
>> >1/5
>> >No more than one creature may attack each combat.
>> >No more than one creature may block each combat.
>> >
>> >Does Season of the Witch destroy all but one of each player's creatures
>> >at the end of that player's turn?
>>
>> Nope, this isn't a Siren's Call - SotW cares about legality of the
>> attack.
>>
>> If one creature did attack, then SotW does nothing - the rest
>> "couldn't attack".
>
>But they *could* have - if the one that actually attacked had not...
>does that not bear on SotW?

No, look at § 500. It is not spelled out explicitly, but I believe
that you can read out of it that declaring attackers works like this:

-Select a set of your creatures.
-Attempt to declare them attacking.
-As a part of that check the legality of the attacking and
non-attacking set.*
-If the sets are declared legal, then those in the attacking set are
tapped and actually declared attacking.
-If the sets are not legal, then goto the top and select a new set of
creatures.

* You need to check both sets because of "must attack" creatures like
Juggernaut.


In short: First you select attackers without consideration for
constraints. Then when you have your set, you are able to figure out
which constraints apply, and check legality.
And in this case one of the constraints are Silent Arbiter declaring
all creatures, except for one of the attackers, "unable to attack".

SotW does not care about all possible constraint sets, but only about
the one in use. Otherwise what about Brainwash? Can the creature
attack if its controller could pay the {3}? What if he can't? And what
if he can't because he used the mana to pay for something else?


Brainwash
{W}
Enchant Creature
Enchanted creature can't attack unless its controller pays {3}. (This
cost is paid as attackers are declared.)

--
Regards
Simon Nejmann

 

[peter]

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

Simon Nejmann <snejmann@worldonline.REMOVETHIS.dk> wrote in message
> SotW does not care about all possible constraint sets, but only about
> the one in use. Otherwise what about Brainwash? Can the creature
> attack if its controller could pay the {3}? What if he can't? And what
> if he can't because he used the mana to pay for something else?

> Brainwash
> {W}
> Enchant Creature
> Enchanted creature can't attack unless its controller pays {3}. (This
> cost is paid as attackers are declared.)

Brainwash is a little different. It says right there on the card that
it can't attack.

Silent Arbiter only lets one creature attack, but it could be any
creature. When attackers are declared, every attacker COULD attack,
but only one may be chosen. And with any attack, after attackers are
declared, nobody else can attack.

There's no "steps" where you say, "Okay, since he is attacking, all
these other guys can't attack." Instead, you pick one 'legal' set
from a number of legal sets, each of which consists of one guy
attacking and the others not. Thus, if you were, at the resolution of
Season of the Witches end of turn ability, to ask each creature,
"Could you attack?", the answer is yes.

Unless, there's some other restriction, like the guy who can't attack
alone.

I can see that appararently that's not the intention, but it might be
clearer if the card was worded something like: "except for creatures
that were prevented from attacking". ie: due to restrictions,
creature types, enchantments, additional costs, etc.

In any case, I think that's what they mean.
Peter

 

[Guest]

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

On 26 Aug 2004 07:21:45 -0700, knucklehead000@yahoo.com (Peter) wrote:

>Simon Nejmann <snejmann@worldonline.REMOVETHIS.dk> wrote in message
>> SotW does not care about all possible constraint sets, but only about
>> the one in use. Otherwise what about Brainwash? Can the creature
>> attack if its controller could pay the {3}? What if he can't? And what
>> if he can't because he used the mana to pay for something else?
>
>> Brainwash
>> {W}
>> Enchant Creature
>> Enchanted creature can't attack unless its controller pays {3}. (This
>> cost is paid as attackers are declared.)
>
>Brainwash is a little different. It says right there on the card that
>it can't attack.

No no no! It says right there on the card, that the creature _can_
attack - you just have to pay a little. Just like every creature _can_
attack with Silent Arbiter in play - you just have to not attack with
any other creature.

If you choose _not_ to pay, then the Brainwash'ed creature "can't
attack". Just like if you choose to attack with one creature, then all
the rest "can't attack" - as per Silent Arbiter.

It is the same; the creature can attack - if you just comply with <so
and so>. If you don't - it can't.

>I can see that appararently that's not the intention, but it might be
>clearer if the card was worded something like: "except for creatures
>that were prevented from attacking". ie: due to restrictions,
>creature types, enchantments, additional costs, etc.

But they did - it's in the rules:

Declare Attackers
To declare attackers, the active player chooses a set of creatures
that will attack and pays any costs they require to attack. Only
creatures can attack, and the following creatures can't attack: tapped
creatures (even those that can attack without tapping), creatures with
creature type "Wall," and creatures the active player didn't control
continuously since the beginning of the turn (except those with
haste). Other effects may also affect whether or not a set of
creatures could attack. See rule 500, "Legal Attacks and Blocks."

Important part: "Following creatures can't attack: tapped, walls,
summoning sickness. Other effects may also affect whether or not a set
of creatures could attack."

--
Regards
Simon Nejmann