Ninth Edition rules

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

David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> sent:
> Hi,

> The new comprehensive rules are current as of August 1.
> Are there any interesting new rules? Or just some fixes and new
> abilities?

> There are found here:
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp [...] rneyplayer

The big stuff that I remember seeing:

- Local enchantments are now "Enchantment - Aura" with an enchant ability
to restrict what they can target and be attached to.
- Official multiplayer rules for the first time in this edition, with
details for two-headed giant, emperor and melee games but designed to
be applicable to most variants.
- The wording on lots of abilities that add a capability to a creature
without offering a choice got changed from 'may' to 'can' - most notable
the "spider" ability.
- On the 9th Edition cards, the wording "as though" isn't used for being
able to play cards from interesting places, it's only on the "spider"
ability.

Other trivia about 9th Edition -
- some creature types changed, including all the Lords that are in
- there are no walls
- three of the Circle of Protection: ... cards disappeared
....but that's really for discussion on .misc.

I'm about 1/4 of the way through writing a neat little tutorial that
follows along with what I tell new players when I'm teaching the game,
should be ready next week. The newsgroup FAQ should get an overhaul
then as well.

--
-- zoe

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

David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Zoe Stephenson wrote:
> > - The wording on lots of abilities that add a capability to a creature
> > without offering a choice got changed from 'may' to 'can' - most notable
> > the "spider" ability.
>
> Hm, is "can" better than "may"?

We'll probably need some clarification on how that interacts with a
Stone Spirit or a flying creature with Lure. Since Wall of Diffusion
got its ability changed to "Wall of Diffusion can block as though it had
shadow.", my guess would be that the defending player lost the ability
to make a decision on whether a webslinger blocks that way, but it can
still block a Stone Spirit and it will block a Lured flyer.

> > - On the 9th Edition cards, the wording "as though" isn't used for being
> > able to play cards from interesting places, it's only on the "spider"
> > ability.
>
> Ok, so being able to play a card automaticaly means "a though it where
> in your hand"? Fair enough, I guess.

The only thing special about being in the hand is that you can play
cards from there. If an effect states that you can play a card from
somewhere else, that "as though" phrase looks redundant. All that
phrase did was make it tricky to explain "if it was played from your
hand" conditions.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

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

Zoe Stephenson <zrs1@uk.ac.york.reversed> wrote:
>- The wording on lots of abilities that add a capability to a creature
>without offering a choice got changed from 'may' to 'can' - most notable
>the "spider" ability.

Oh yes. Spiders now don't have a choice about whether they're able to block
flying attackers. Other things of this sort that got changed: "may block
an additional creature / a lot of additional creatures" is now "can", and
I know there's a couple other general cases.

>- On the 9th Edition cards, the wording "as though" isn't used for being
>able to play cards from interesting places, it's only on the "spider"
>ability.

Well, that's because "as though it were in your hand" on such play-cards-from-
odd-places abilities was CAUSING a lot of the confusion... partly because,
for all WotC's work, players still aren't particularly sure what the heck
WotC thinks it means when it says to play a spell or play a card. "You may
play this from your graveyard" leaves players less confused about what else
you might be able to do with it from -there-...

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?)

Daniel W. Johnson <panoptes@iquest.net> wrote:
>David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Zoe Stephenson wrote:
>> > - The wording on lots of abilities that add a capability to a creature
>> > without offering a choice got changed from 'may' to 'can' - most notable
>> > the "spider" ability.
>>
>> Hm, is "can" better than "may"?
>
>We'll probably need some clarification on how that interacts with a
>Stone Spirit or a flying creature with Lure.

Clarification: it can't 'turn off' the "I can block flyers"/"I can block as
though I have flying". It's just another special ability, with no choice
involved. However, it still doesn't HAVE flying for any purpose other than
blocking. It can't block a Stone Spirit - because it has to block as though
it has flying. It has to block a Lured flying attacker if it can.

>Since Wall of Diffusion
>got its ability changed to "Wall of Diffusion can block as though it had
>shadow.",

Oh dear. That one WAS supposed to be optional, as was Heartwood Dryad -
because blocking as though you had shadow STOPS you from blocking a non-
Shadow attacker, unlike the situation with flying. I'll email them...

>my guess would be that the defending player lost the ability
>to make a decision on whether a webslinger blocks that way, but it can
>still block a Stone Spirit and it will block a Lured flyer.

Yes, no, and yes. It will always block as though it had flying. Since a
flyer CAN block a nonflyer, this doesn't stop it from blocking most non-
flyers ... but it WILL now stop it from blocking a Stone Spirit. In exchange,
it does allow it to block an Elven Riders like it could before...

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?)

Daniel W. Johnson <panoptes@iquest.net> wrote:
>David DeLaney <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
>> Well, you could read through them yourself, and the two fairly large changes
>> ought to leap out at you: local enchantments are now Auras, and say in their
>> text box what they will enchant, but otherwise work pretty much the same as
>> before. And there are now multiplayer rules for several variants included.
>
>One question about Auras:
>
>The rules state that multiple enchant restriction all apply. So
>"enchant artifact; enchant creature" would work like Domineer's "enchant
>artifact creature". And "enchant creature; enchant permanent you
>control" would work like Fire Whip's "enchant creatyre you control".
>But would either of those count as an "Aura card with enchant creature"
>for things like Tallowisp or Rootwater Shaman?

It should, as far as I know. The first should also count as an "Aura card with
enchant artifact", right? And since all of them apply it should ALSO count
as an Aura card with 'enchant artifact creature', I would think.

In other words, Tallowisp ought to be able to find anything that has
enchant creature as -part- of its enchant restriction, I'd think - "enchant
red creature", for example, or 'enchant swamp creature'...

Dave "burning at the touch of the new rules" DeLaney
--
\/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?)

Daniel W. Johnson <panoptes@iquest.net> wrote:
>David DeLaney <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
>> In other words, Tallowisp ought to be able to find anything that has
>> enchant creature as -part- of its enchant restriction, I'd think - "enchant
>> red creature", for example, or 'enchant swamp creature'...
>>
>> Dave "burning at the touch of the new rules" DeLaney
>
>I thought that was "Man Thing", not "Swamp Thing".

Eh - Marvel, DC, what's the difference? Different icon, is all. Big green
vegetation-composed beast formed around a skeleton from a swamp...

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 <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:

> No. If it can block as though it had flying, then it can't block 'as though
> it did not have flying'; it always blocks as though it had flying. You
> don't get to 'choose' any more, and it can't 'turn it off'. "It can do this"
> == "it's able to do this", not "it can choose to do this or not do this".

I'm thinking that the difference between "can block" and a hypothetical
"can only block" is going to turn out to be like the difference between
"if" and "only if".

Poking around, there are some "can block only" cards (which don't feel
the need for an "as though" clause).
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

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

David DeLaney <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:

> That's a separate issue; "only", it turns out, is used on cards as a
> restriction that's not supposed to be get-around-able, much like "can't"
> trumps "can". Something that "can only be blocked by Foo" isn't supposed to
> have anything able to override that... but yes, "can" and "can only" work
> differently...

Anyway, if their goal is for a Giant Spider whose controller has High
Ground in play to be able to simultaneously block a Stone Spirit and a
random flying creature, the differing answers from NetReps indicates at
a minimum that the wording needs some work.

If that is their intent, perhaps they could consider an alternate
wording like "Giant Spider can also block as though it had flying"
(still kinda ambiguous) or "Giant Spider can block creatures with flying
as though they didn't have flying" (lengthy and loses the possibility of
blocking Treetop Rangers).
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

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

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Daniel W. Johnson wrote:

> If that is their intent, perhaps they could consider an alternate
> wording like "Giant Spider can also block as though it had flying"
> (still kinda ambiguous) or "Giant Spider can block creatures with flying
> as though they didn't have flying" (lengthy and loses the possibility of
> blocking Treetop Rangers).

That could be fixed by wording the Treetop Rangers like
" ~ attacks as though it has flying.", correct?

--
David

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

David DeLaney <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:

> In other words, Tallowisp ought to be able to find anything that has
> enchant creature as -part- of its enchant restriction, I'd think - "enchant
> red creature", for example, or 'enchant swamp creature'...

Whoops. The answer to this just showed up, and that's not it. Oh,
well.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af77
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

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

David DeLaney <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:

> Discussion is ongoing. That appears to not be the goal, though. Will keep
> this place informed once things gel better.

I just had a thought. Unfortunately, full implementation would probably
have to wait for Tenth Edition.

Over the years, they seem to have printed 41 cards that would be
affected by this spider issue. They've created keywords for less (e.g.,
fear). They'd still have a similar problem writing the reminder text
for the core set, but reminder text doesn't need to be strictly
accurate. (Consider the reminder text on Hunter Sliver, which looks
like a triggered ability with Hunter Sliver as its source.)

> I had actually suggested an analogue of the latter to re-fix Heartwood Dryad
> and Wall of Diffusion, "~ {can block / blocks} as though attacking creatures
> did not have shadow".

They'd probably still have to go with this for shadow, but shadow
doesn't have anything comparable to Stone Spirit or Treetop Rangers.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

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

On 29 Jul 2005 11:39:35 -0700, Jax <IlGreven@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David DeLaney sez:
>>It should, as far as I know. The first should also count as an "Aura card with
>>enchant artifact", right? And since all of them apply it should ALSO count
>>as an Aura card with 'enchant artifact creature', I would think.
>>
>>In other words, Tallowisp ought to be able to find anything that has
>>enchant creature as -part- of its enchant restriction, I'd think - "enchant
>>red creature", for example, or 'enchant swamp creature'...
>
>Well, that is exactly NOT what MaGo said today on MTG.com...in fact he
>said the opposite, that Tallowisp CAN'T fetch a Coral Net ("Enchant red
>or green creature" )...

Right, see my other post in this thread today. How I thought it would work
turns out to be not how it works; I went and asked, and got the answer
yesterday and hadn't gotten it back here yet. Follow what MaGo said.

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?)

Erich Leibrock <eleibrock@symDELETETHECAPSpatico.ca> wrote:
>"David DeLaney" <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in message
>> (Note that his "NO. Not even a little." isn't actually correct; since the
>> enchant restriction is now an ability in the text box, things that remove
>> abilities can remove it. Russell Linnemann has already broken things using
>> a Licid, Humble, and one of the enchantment-moving effects... But for
>> anything a
>> +normal+ player wants to do, it's correct. One of the fun things about
>> having a
>> new Rules Manager is introducing them to all the horrible little things
>> hiding in the corners of the rulebook...)
>
>Dave.. do you think at some point you could show me some of the stuff you're
>talking about hiding in there.. I know, I'm asking for trouble, aren't I?
>I'm talking about Things That Don't Behave How Would Make Sense. Feel free
>to email me if you'd like

Well, it's basically a) the corner cases of the rules - some of the stuff
having to do with copy cards, and/or continuous effect interaction, and/or
phasing, plus b) the corner-case cards; there's a -reason- Volrath's
Shapeshifter or Humble or the Licids pop to mind as tools to use when trying
to construct things that ain't supposed to work that way, whatever 'that way'
is. Some of it is because we have older cards which are supposed to work
a certain way, which either never DID get a good wording - Cyclopean Tomb -
or which don't quite fit with how things work today. Some of it is because
parts of the rules were partly written so that certain test cases would come
out right, or because we never did get good wordings and/or rules to cover
certain things. Don't get me wrong - the 6E-9E rules are better than any
previous version, and easier to understand. But there's still crud in the
corners. The 'loop' rules, and the rules about legal sets of attackers /
blockers, also come to mind...

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.