Yamabushi's Storm vs. 1/1 Arcbound creatures

[Guest]

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

Arcbound Worker is in play. Yamabushi's Storm is played. YS's
replacement ability seems to cause Arcbound Worker's "put into a graveyard"
triggered ability's condition not to be met (so AW's counters cannot be put
onto
anything). Right?

Some confusion arises because YS uses the word "is" in its replacement
ability rather than "would be" as we are accustomed to. It is almost as if
YS is telling us to wait until the AW is put into the graveyard, then to go
back in time, and remove it from the game instead.

In CoK, why could Wizards not stick to the tried and true templates?!?!

(searching Oracle text seems to indicate that "would be" is for replacement,
and "is" is for triggered.)

Have the templates themselves changed, or are they just not sticking to the
established templates? And why?

(Anyone who wants to discuss YS as a replacement for Pyroclasm can post on
..strategy... but I doubt anyone will. Pyromaniacs! ATM, I'm considering it
because of Pyroclasm's antisynergy with Furnace Whelp.)

Arcbound Worker
Modular 1 (This comes into play with a +1/+1 counter on it. When it's put
into a graveyard, you may put its +1/+1 counters on target artifact
creature.) 1/1.)

Yamabushi's Storm
Yamabushi's Storm deals 1 damage to each creature. If a creature dealt
damage this way is put into a graveyard this turn, remove it from the game
instead.

 

[Guest]

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

War_Pig5 <dontsendjunk2me@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Arcbound Worker is in play. Yamabushi's Storm is played. YS's
>replacement ability seems to cause Arcbound Worker's "put into a graveyard"
>triggered ability's condition not to be met (so AW's counters cannot be put
>onto anything). Right?

Right. If something gets removed from the the game instead of being put into a
graveyard, anything that would have triggered off it going to the graveyard
won't get to trigger.

>Have the templates themselves changed, or are they just not sticking to the
>established templates? And why?

I notice that in Oracle it says "would be"; does the actual card say "is"
instead?

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?)

"David DeLaney" <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in message
news:slrncmje5r.jm7.dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com...
> War_Pig5 <dontsendjunk2me@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Arcbound Worker is in play. Yamabushi's Storm is played. YS's
>>replacement ability seems to cause Arcbound Worker's "put into a
>>graveyard"
>>triggered ability's condition not to be met (so AW's counters cannot be
>>put
>>onto anything). Right?
>
> Right. If something gets removed from the the game instead of being put
> into a
> graveyard, anything that would have triggered off it going to the
> graveyard
> won't get to trigger.
>
>>Have the templates themselves changed, or are they just not sticking to
>>the
>>established templates? And why?
>
> I notice that in Oracle it says "would be"; does the actual card say "is"
> instead?

Oops!

I was wrong. The wording of YS is indeed as you say:
http://www.wizards.com/magic/autocard.asp?name=Yamabushi%27s+Storm

The error occurred because I was using Apprentice (with Magic-Leagues's CoK
patch) which I assumed was copied straight from Oracle (as I further assumed
that no one in their right mind would retype all the card texts). It turns
out there is typographical error after all! Further implying that someone is

All CoK Oracle texts and actual card texts are currently identical, right?

 

[Guest]

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

War_Pig5 <dontsendjunk2me@hotmail.com> wrote:
>All CoK Oracle texts and actual card texts are currently identical, right?

As far as I -know-, yes. Which reminds me, need to get a list up on my
webpage...

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, 10 Oct 2004, David DeLaney wrote:

> I notice that in Oracle it says "would be"; does the actual card say "is"
> instead?
>
> Dave

Where did you get Oracle? Or are we talking gatherer again?
--

David

 

[Guest]

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

"David de Kloet" <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote in message
newsine.GSO.4.61.0410111023370.22265@keg.cs.vu.nl...
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2004, David DeLaney wrote:
>
>> I notice that in Oracle it says "would be"; does the actual card say "is"
>> instead?
>>
>> Dave
>
> Where did you get Oracle? Or are we talking gatherer again?

There is an "Oracle spoiler view" in gatherer: http://gatherer.wizards.com/
column 4. I think this is what David DeLaney means when he says "Oracle".
[This is just a guess based on the fact that nothing outside of Gatherer
seems to be up-to-date.]

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, War_Pig5 wrote:

> "David de Kloet" <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote in message
> newsine.GSO.4.61.0410111023370.22265@keg.cs.vu.nl...
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2004, David DeLaney wrote:
>>
>>> I notice that in Oracle it says "would be"; does the actual card say "is"
>>> instead?
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> Where did you get Oracle? Or are we talking gatherer again?
>
> There is an "Oracle spoiler view" in gatherer: http://gatherer.wizards.com/
> column 4. I think this is what David DeLaney means when he says "Oracle".
> [This is just a guess based on the fact that nothing outside of Gatherer
> seems to be up-to-date.]

They finaly put the new Oracle online. But the mana symbols are
screwed just like in Gatherer. If this is caused by Gatherer just like
the fact that flavor texts aren't in the text spoiler anymore, I have
to say I hate Gatherer.

--

David

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, David de Kloet wrote:

> They finaly put the new Oracle online. But the mana symbols are
> screwed just like in Gatherer. If this is caused by Gatherer just like
> the fact that flavor texts aren't in the text spoiler anymore, I have
> to say I hate Gatherer.

And what kind of name is Avenger <I>en-</I>Dal?
They've _realy_ neglected Oracle in favor of Gathere

--

David