explain this ruling ,too, please

[Phil]

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

And another one:

Q: I have Erayo, Soratami Ascendant that is currently being controlled
by my opponents Vedalken Shackles. If it flips, do I get the
enchantment or does my opponent?

A: He will, as he is the controller of this permanent when it flips. If
he loses control of the Shackles or it untaps, you will regain control
of this permanent.


The thing that puzzles me here is that when Erayo flips he is no longer
a creature, so would the shackles be able to keep hold of it?

I can get as far as
- the shackles only check for legal target when you attempt to gain
control of Erayo.
- After that, it only worries about being tapped or not.
- If Erayo flips, the shackles doesn't care, because its only concerned
about being tapped or not.
- Then my brain goes "yeah, but, uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" and gives up.

Will somebody please explain if I'm on the right lines and fill in the
missing bits.

Thnaks.

Phil.

 

[Phil]

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

The 'missing bits' in my reasoning and understanding, rather than in
the original ruling. Perhaps also the missing bits in my ability to
explain myself.

I think I've got the hang of this.

Thanks for posting the ruling

Phil.

 

[Guest]

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

phil@ideastakingshape.co.uk <phil@ideastakingshape.co.uk> wrote:
>And another one:
>
>Q: I have Erayo, Soratami Ascendant that is currently being controlled
>by my opponents Vedalken Shackles. If it flips, do I get the
>enchantment or does my opponent?

>A: He will, as he is the controller of this permanent when it flips. If
>he loses control of the Shackles or it untaps, you will regain control
>of this permanent.

In other words, nothing changes controller of this permanent as it flips,
so there's no reason for the Shackles effect to end or to lose control of
the permanent. It's _the same permanent_; it just starts looking different.

>The thing that puzzles me here is that when Erayo flips he is no longer
>a creature, so would the shackles be able to keep hold of it?

Sure. "target creature with power less than or equal to the number of
Islands you control" is the -targetting- specification. Thus it's only
checked on announcement of the Shackles ability, and again before it can
resolve; it's never again checked after the Shackles ability starts to
resolve. The Shackles effect, "gain control of <that> as long as ~ remains
tapped", cares whether the Shackles remains tapped... but does NOT care
whether <that> remains a creature, or whether its power remains low.

>I can get as far as
>- the shackles only check for legal target when you attempt to gain
>control of Erayo.

No - they check twice: on announcement of the Shackles ability, and again
on resolution.

>- After that, it only worries about being tapped or not.

Right.

>- If Erayo flips, the shackles doesn't care, because its only concerned
>about being tapped or not.

Right. The Shackles don't care what whatever they are holding onto looks
like, while they hold onto it. The last time they care is just _before_
they actually grab it.

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?)

<phil@ideastakingshape.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1121764384.444769.211960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> And another one:
>
> Q: I have Erayo, Soratami Ascendant that is currently being controlled
> by my opponents Vedalken Shackles. If it flips, do I get the
> enchantment or does my opponent?
>
> A: He will, as he is the controller of this permanent when it flips. If
> he loses control of the Shackles or it untaps, you will regain control
> of this permanent.
>
>
> The thing that puzzles me here is that when Erayo flips he is no longer
> a creature, so would the shackles be able to keep hold of it?
>
> I can get as far as
> - the shackles only check for legal target when you attempt to gain
> control of Erayo.
> - After that, it only worries about being tapped or not.
> - If Erayo flips, the shackles doesn't care, because its only concerned
> about being tapped or not.
> - Then my brain goes "yeah, but, uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" and gives up.
>
> Will somebody please explain if I'm on the right lines and fill in the
> missing bits.

Vedalken Shackles
3
Artifact
You may choose not to untap Vedalken Shackles during your untap step.
2, T: Gain control of target creature with power less than or equal to the
number of Islands you control as long as Vedalken Shackles remains tapped.

The part that I think is puzzling you the most is that the target of the
Shackles' ability has to be a creature. Yes, it has to be a creature when
you announce the ability, and yes it has to be a creature when the ability
resolves. BUT! If it becomes a noncreature afterwards, your opponent still
has control of it. The permanent itself has changed form, but it's still the
same permanent that was targetted with the Shackles. So until something
happens like untapping the Shackles, he has an Erayo's Essence that he
fairly and squarely 'stole' from you.

The same rule applies if, for example, you Animate Land an opposing Forest,
and then snag it with the Shackles. Sure, it's no longer a creature at the
end of turn, but the Shackles don't care about it not being a creature ANY
MORE, only as long as it was when the ability was announced AND when it
resolved.

Erich

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, phil@ideastakingshape.co.uk wrote:

> And another one:
>
> Q: I have Erayo, Soratami Ascendant that is currently being controlled
> by my opponents Vedalken Shackles. If it flips, do I get the
> enchantment or does my opponent?
>
> A: He will, as he is the controller of this permanent when it flips. If
> he loses control of the Shackles or it untaps, you will regain control
> of this permanent.
>
>
> The thing that puzzles me here is that when Erayo flips he is no longer
> a creature, so would the shackles be able to keep hold of it?
>
> I can get as far as
> - the shackles only check for legal target when you attempt to gain
> control of Erayo.
> - After that, it only worries about being tapped or not.
> - If Erayo flips, the shackles doesn't care, because its only concerned
> about being tapped or not.
> - Then my brain goes "yeah, but, uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" and gives up.
>
> Will somebody please explain if I'm on the right lines and fill in the
> missing bits.

Why should there be missing bits? The Vedalk Shackles are still tapped
so your opponent keeps control of the permanent. But maybe this rule
makes things easier for you to understand:

202.2a If an ability of an object uses a phrase such as "this
[something]" to identify an object, where [something] is a category or
characteristic, it is referring to that particular object, even if it
isn't the appropriate category or characteristic at the time.
Example: An ability reads "Target creature gets +2/+2 until end of
turn. Destroy that creature at end of turn." The ability will destroy
the object it gave +2/+2 at the end of the turn, even if that object
isn't a creature anymore.

--
David

 

[Dave]

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

"David de Kloet" <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote in message
newsine.GSO.4.63.0507191118340.15287@fluit.few.vu.nl...
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, phil@ideastakingshape.co.uk wrote:
>
>> And another one:
>>
>> Q: I have Erayo, Soratami Ascendant that is currently being controlled
>> by my opponents Vedalken Shackles. If it flips, do I get the
>> enchantment or does my opponent?
>>
>> A: He will, as he is the controller of this permanent when it flips. If
>> he loses control of the Shackles or it untaps, you will regain control
>> of this permanent.
>>
>>
>> The thing that puzzles me here is that when Erayo flips he is no longer
>> a creature, so would the shackles be able to keep hold of it?
>>
>> I can get as far as
>> - the shackles only check for legal target when you attempt to gain
>> control of Erayo.
>> - After that, it only worries about being tapped or not.
>> - If Erayo flips, the shackles doesn't care, because its only concerned
>> about being tapped or not.
>> - Then my brain goes "yeah, but, uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" and gives up.
>>
>> Will somebody please explain if I'm on the right lines and fill in the
>> missing bits.
>
> Why should there be missing bits? The Vedalk Shackles are still tapped
> so your opponent keeps control of the permanent. But maybe this rule
> makes things easier for you to understand:
>
> 202.2a If an ability of an object uses a phrase such as "this
> [something]" to identify an object, where [something] is a category or
> characteristic, it is referring to that particular object, even if it
> isn't the appropriate category or characteristic at the time.
> Example: An ability reads "Target creature gets +2/+2 until end of
> turn. Destroy that creature at end of turn." The ability will destroy
> the object it gave +2/+2 at the end of the turn, even if that object
> isn't a creature anymore.


Would this extend to combat damage as well? For example, my opponent
blocks a creature I'm attacking with, then manages to turn his creature
into an enchantment. Would his now-enchantment be destroyed if he changed
it before the combat damage step? How about changing it after combat
damage has been assigned?

- Dave
Magic: The Gathering card singles
http://www.destinationmtg.com

 

[Guest]

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

Dave <im@not.telling> wrote:
>"David de Kloet" <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote in message
>> 202.2a If an ability of an object uses a phrase such as "this
>> [something]" to identify an object, where [something] is a category or
>> characteristic, it is referring to that particular object, even if it
>> isn't the appropriate category or characteristic at the time.
>> Example: An ability reads "Target creature gets +2/+2 until end of
>> turn. Destroy that creature at end of turn." The ability will destroy
>> the object it gave +2/+2 at the end of the turn, even if that object
>> isn't a creature anymore.
>
>Would this extend to combat damage as well?

Combat damage doesn't use any words at all. It knows what its source is - but
things that ask what the source of damage looks like are always asking what it
looks like _now_. (If the source isn't there any more you use what it looked
like last time it was where it was supposed to be.)

>For example, my opponent
>blocks a creature I'm attacking with, then manages to turn his creature
>into an enchantment. Would his now-enchantment be destroyed if he changed
>it before the combat damage step? How about changing it after combat
>damage has been assigned?

Damage can't be dealt to anything that isn't a creature or a player, period.
And turning some attacker or blocker into a non-creature removes it from
combat, also - but that won't do anything to stop combat damage that's
already been -assigned-. Bearing those in mind:

If your opponent Soul Sculptors his blocker _before_ combat damage goes onto
the stack? Then his enchantment is no longer a blocking creature, and is not
in combat; the attacker is still blocked of course, but has no blockers left.

If the attacker doesn't have Trample, no combat damage will get assigned at
all from anything (since those were the only two creatures in this combat).
If the attacker does have Trample, it will have to assign all its combat
damage straight to your opponent, the defending player, since that's a legal
place for it to assign damage in this case and it has to assign it SOMEWHERE
if it can. The enchantment won't get to assign combat damage because it's not
a creature and isn't in combat.

If your opponent waits until combat damage is on the stack, then Soul Sculptors
his blocker? The combat damage has already been assigned, and its amounts and
destinations don't change. But: the damage FROM the attacker won't get dealt,
because you can't deal damage to a noncreature enchantment. The damage FROM
the blocker, which is now a nonblocking noncreature enchantment, will get
dealt, and if anything asks what its source looks like - say the attacker
has Protection from Creatures, so that it would prevent all damage from
creatures to the attacker - it uses the current appearance of the source,
which in this case is 'noncreature'. It's still the same color and has the
same name; it doesn't have a creature type any more and isn't a creature.

In contrast, in this second case: if opponent had Unsummoned his creature
without enchantifying it, in response to combat damage? Then again the
damage from the attacker can't get dealt (and can't get "redirected to
defending player", it already knows where it was assigned), and again the
damage from the now-missing blocker gets dealt to attacker, and now its
source looks like "how the blocker looked as it left play".

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?)

Dave (58.032% quality rating):
>
> Would this extend to combat damage as well? For example, my opponent
> blocks a creature I'm attacking with, then manages to turn his creature
> into an enchantment. Would his now-enchantment be destroyed if he changed
> it before the combat damage step? How about changing it after combat
> damage has been assigned?

Damage is never dealt to non-creatures. Even if the damage has been
assigned and is on the stack, if the creatures loses the creature type,
it will not take damage. Plus, even if it somehow did, what would
happen? It doesn't have a toughness at that point.

/joe
--
39% of Americans believe that guns are not "as dangerous as they say."

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, David DeLaney wrote:

> Damage can't be dealt to anything that isn't a creature or a player, period.

I remember reading that in the rules but I can't find it anymore.
The closest thing I found was (in the Glossary):

A noncreature permanent isn't affected by damage (but if it becomes a
creature again before the damage is removed, the creature may be
destroyed).

which seesm to be saying the opposite... Which rule am I missing?

--
David

 

[Guest]

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

David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Damage can't be dealt to anything that isn't a creature or a player, period.
>
>I remember reading that in the rules but I can't find it anymore.
>The closest thing I found was (in the Glossary):
>
>A noncreature permanent isn't affected by damage (but if it becomes a
>creature again before the damage is removed, the creature may be destroyed).

That's for permanents which were a damaged creature, and became a noncreature.
While they are not a creature, the damage just sits on them and doesn't do
anything; the state-based effect about damaged creatures doesn't apply to
noncreatures. 212.1b also goes over this in more detail.

>which seesm to be saying the opposite... Which rule am I missing?

Let's see what I can find... 310.4c says this for combat damage to creatures;
....I see the first line of the Damage entry in the Glossary says "Damage can
be dealt to creatures and/or players.". However, what I don't see anywhere
in the rules? Is anything saying you CAN deal damage to something that's not
a creature or player. Therefore you can't. And we don't have any cards that
specifically say they try to deal damage to a noncreature nonplayer object.
(Some of them may end up in situations where they are trying to deal damage
to such a thing; that doesn't by itself let them do so, if they don't SAY
that's what they are doing.)

So: The rules say damage can be dealt to creatures and/or players. Nowhere do
the rules say it can b dealt to anything else, nor do we have any cards that
say they do this ... so you don't have any way to deal damage to something
that's not a creature or player. So you can't do it. Not because something
specifies "you can't do this" - it would be totally impossible for the rulebook
to cover every single thing you are NOT allowed to do in a game - but because
nothing says you CAN do this, anywhere. The only things that the rules say
you can deal damage to are: creatures, and/or players.

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.