Richard Garfield & lands

[Guest]

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

Hey all,

Rosewater said that one could use Richard Garfield, Ph.D. to play lands
as 0-cost spells.

The comp rules say, though, that lands have no mana cost. Thus, I don't
see how they can have the same mana cost as a 0-cc spell. It's not
"converted mana cost", so IMO the lands should not be playable as 0-cc
spells.

What do y'all think?

TIA,
Deja

 

[Guest]

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

Deja Pinto <dejapinto@netlane.com> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Rosewater said that one could use Richard Garfield, Ph.D. to play lands
> as 0-cost spells.
>
> The comp rules say, though, that lands have no mana cost. Thus, I don't
> see how they can have the same mana cost as a 0-cc spell. It's not
> "converted mana cost", so IMO the lands should not be playable as 0-cc
> spells.
>
> What do y'all think?
>
> TIA,
> Deja

The comp rules (also) say that lands have a mana cost of {0} (and
therefore a converted mana cost of 0).

203.1. The mana cost of a card is indicated by mana symbols printed on
its upper right corner. Tokens and lands have a mana cost of {0} unless
otherwise specified. Paying an object's mana cost requires matching the
color of any colored mana symbols as well as paying the generic mana
cost indicated.
--
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?)

On 26 Apr 2005 22:36:04 -0700, Deja Pinto <dejapinto@netlane.com> wrote:
>Rosewater said that one could use Richard Garfield, Ph.D. to play lands
>as 0-cost spells.

Yes. It says you may play cards as other cards of the same mana cost,
not "you may play spells as though they were...". Land cards are cards, and
have converted mana cost zero.

>The comp rules say, though, that lands have no mana cost. Thus, I don't
>see how they can have the same mana cost as a 0-cc spell. It's not
>"converted mana cost", so IMO the lands should not be playable as 0-cc
>spells.

?? The rules do NOT say that lands "have no mana cost". They say that tokens
and lands have mana cost 0 (203.1). (Which is untrue in the case of tokens that
are copies of something else, but we've been trying to get them to fix that bit
for years now.)

I see that the -glossary entry- for "Colorless" says it incorrectly - it should
say "because they have no colored mana symbols printed in their mana cost of
0" or the like. But the Glossary entry for "Mana Cost" itself gets it right.

So to get the idea you have gotten requires you to look at the glossary entry
for "colorless", and ignore the actual rule about lands' mana costs AND the
Glossary entry for "Mana Cost". You may want to rethink your position,
therefore.

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?)

Thank you all for addressing my screwup. Not sure where I got that idea
- my bad.