Damping Engine

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

Hi,

Damping Engine
{4}
Artifact
A player who controls more permanents than any other can't play lands
or artifact, creature, or enchantment spells. That player may
sacrifice a permanent to ignore this effect until end of turn.

Does this apply only to the single one player having the most cards or
to all players except those having the least cards? I know it only
matters in multiplayer but I still like to hear your thoughts on it.

--
David

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

"David de Kloet" <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote in message
newsine.GSO.4.63.0507121109410.28164@keg.few.vu.nl...
> Hi,
>
> Damping Engine
> {4}
> Artifact
> A player who controls more permanents than any other can't play lands
> or artifact, creature, or enchantment spells. That player may
> sacrifice a permanent to ignore this effect until end of turn.
>
> Does this apply only to the single one player having the most cards or
> to all players except those having the least cards? I know it only
> matters in multiplayer but I still like to hear your thoughts on it.

As I understand it..

Player A controls 8 permanents
Player B controls 6 permanents
Player C controls 4 permanents, including Damping Engine (Sol Ring, Tolarian
Academy, Chrome Mox? Whatever.)

Player A will have to sacrifice a permanent to be able to play spells
regardless of interpretation.
Player C will not have to sacrifice regardless of interpretation, until such
point as he passes player A and/or Player B.

The way I see it, Player B will still have to sacrifice permanents because
he controls more than Player C at this point. The reason is that the card
says 'more permanents than ANY OTHER'. To me this means 'more than at least
one other'. If I'm wrong, of course, the judges will correct me.

Erich

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

Erich Leibrock <eleibrock@symDELETETHECAPSpatico.ca> wrote:
>"David de Kloet" <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote in message
>> Damping Engine 4 Artifact
>> A player who controls more permanents than any other can't play lands
>> or artifact, creature, or enchantment spells. That player may
>> sacrifice a permanent to ignore this effect until end of turn.

>As I understand it..
>
>Player A controls 8 permanents
>Player B controls 6 permanents
>Player C controls 4 permanents, including Damping Engine (Sol Ring, Tolarian
>Academy, Chrome Mox? Whatever.)
>
>Player A will have to sacrifice a permanent to be able to play spells
>regardless of interpretation.
>Player C will not have to sacrifice regardless of interpretation, until such
>point as he passes player A and/or Player B.

Correct.

>The way I see it, Player B will still have to sacrifice permanents because
>he controls more than Player C at this point. The reason is that the card
>says 'more permanents than ANY OTHER'. To me this means 'more than at least
>one other'. If I'm wrong, of course, the judges will correct me.

Er: no. If it MEANT "at least one other" it would SAY that. "more than any
other" means exactly that: more than _ANY_ other one. Not "more than a
specified other one" or "more than one other one". B does not have to sacrifice
because B does not control more permanents than A does.

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.

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

David DeLaney wrote:
> Erich Leibrock <eleibrock@symDELETETHECAPSpatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>"David de Kloet" <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote in message
>>
>>>Damping Engine 4 Artifact
>>>A player who controls more permanents than any other can't play lands
>>>or artifact, creature, or enchantment spells. That player may
>>>sacrifice a permanent to ignore this effect until end of turn.
>
>
>>As I understand it..
>>
>>Player A controls 8 permanents
>>Player B controls 6 permanents
>>Player C controls 4 permanents, including Damping Engine (Sol Ring, Tolarian
>>Academy, Chrome Mox? Whatever.)
>>
>>Player A will have to sacrifice a permanent to be able to play spells
>>regardless of interpretation.
>>Player C will not have to sacrifice regardless of interpretation, until such
>>point as he passes player A and/or Player B.
>
>
> Correct.
>
>
>>The way I see it, Player B will still have to sacrifice permanents because
>>he controls more than Player C at this point. The reason is that the card
>>says 'more permanents than ANY OTHER'. To me this means 'more than at least
>>one other'. If I'm wrong, of course, the judges will correct me.
>
>
> Er: no. If it MEANT "at least one other" it would SAY that. "more than any
> other" means exactly that: more than _ANY_ other one. Not "more than a
> specified other one" or "more than one other one". B does not have to sacrifice
> because B does not control more permanents than A does.
>
> Dave

Why not use the word "every" instead of "any" then? That's really what
you mean, isn't it? You must have more than EVERY other player, not
more than any other player. "Any" implies that I am free to choose the
other player, which is the way that Erich (and I) (and probably many
others) are interpretting the card. I ask the question "Does Player B
control more permanents than any one else?" or "Is there any one that
controls fewer permanents than Player B?" and you would answer "yes"
in both cases. However, if I ask "Does Player B control more permanents
than every one else" or "Does every other player control fewer
permanents than Player B?" and the answer would be "no". I understand
that the ruling is your interpretation of the word "any", but please
be aware that there are (probably many) players who would interpret it
in the way that Erich and I would. If you mean "every" other, then
please use that word instead of "any".

Brian

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

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:53:19 +0200, Martin Golm <golm@gmx.de> wrote:
>David DeLaney schrieb:
>> Er: no. If it MEANT "at least one other" it would SAY that. "more than any
>> other" means exactly that: more than _ANY_ other one. Not "more than a
>> specified other one" or "more than one other one". B does not have to sacrifice
>> because B does not control more permanents than A does.
>
>Hm, why is the term "any other player" used instead of "each other
>player"?

There's problems with any way they phrase it, it turns out; all the ways they
have to say it get misinterpreted by players.

>I had my last English unit about 13 years ago, and IIRC "any [other]"
>means "at least one [other]".

But "more than any other" does not mean "more than at least one other". You
can't take part of the phrase and find its meaning, then substitute back in.
"More than any one other" is the meaning you seem to be reaching for, and
that's not what got written (and they would have written it clearly indicating
that if that's what they meant). "More than all others", "more than any other",
and "more than each other" _all_ get misinterpreted by players as meaning
either "more than at least one other", "more than all but one other", or
"more than any other except for the ones I want to not have to count"; we
don't know why, we can't stop them doing it, and there does not seem to be
a way to word it that DOESN'T get misinterpreted. Given that, they word it
correctly - "more than any other" - and correct players who misinterpret it.

>Searching my dictionary for "any". Hm, it has two meanings - "some
>[one]" and "each [one]", depending on the context. Great.

Yep. Welcome to English. (We have tried to make the Magic subdialect of
English a lot more like a programming language ... but players will keep
trying to bring in dictionary definitions to 'prove' that some card means
what they want it to mean rather than what it means in Magic...)

>Well, it seems to me that the people whose native language isn't English
>do have a problem with the wording. This raises my question again: Why
>not use "each other player"?

Because it also gets misinterpreted, basically. Don't ask me WHY it does,
or what they're thinking - all I know is it does.

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.

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

phat_joe <scag@moralminority.org> wrote:
>David DeLaney, doing a poor impression of Old Queen Cole, said:
>> Because it also gets misinterpreted, basically. Don't ask me WHY it does,
>> or what they're thinking - all I know is it does.
>
>What I want to know is what definition of "becomes" they invented to
>make the Genju of the Fields ruling make sense.

???

Genju of the Fields W Enchant Plains
2: Until end of turn, enchanted Plains becomes a 2/5 white Spirit creature
with "Whenever this creature deals damage, you gain that much life.". It's
still a land. / When enchanted Plains is put into a graveyard, you may return
~ from your graveyard to your hand.

The first ability is type-changing, so gets applied in layer 4; since it's
type-changing, all its parts get applied there, rather than the "creature"
and "Spirit" there, the "2/5" in layer 6, and the "white" and "Spirit Link"
in layer 5.

I'm presuming here you're wondering why if it "becomes" this again it gets
the ability a second time? That's because this is a continuous effect (with
a duration, which is irrelevant here), and so gets applied in timestamp
order (since there's no dependency here, since this is from a resolving
effect). And it does NOT SAY "becomes a 2/5 white Spirit creature, loses all
abilities, and gains <Spirit Link>". The Genju effect doesn't make it lose
the land's _mana_ abilities, or any OTHER abilities the land already had;
why then should it make it lose an ability a previous application of the
Genju effect gave it?

(You may be confusing this with copy effects, or with some special effect
that DOES say the land loses all abilities, I'm not sure. But nothing about
the Genju effect wipes out any abilities the land already had; it's just that
this is the only one where it MATTERS if it has the granted ability more
than once - "flying", "B: This creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn", and
"trample" all work the same no matter how many times the land has the ability.)

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.