Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

We can finally ask multiplayer questions!

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 12:18:24 AM

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

Hi,

Now that multiplayer rules are official let me ask some questions:

About this rule:

600.4a. When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 200.8)
owned by that player leave the game, all spells and abilities
controlled by that player on the stack cease to exist, and any
change-of-control effects which give that player control of any
objects end. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that
player, those objects leave the game. This is not a state-based
effect. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. A player
leaving the game doesn't affect combat damage on the stack.

and this example:

Example: Alex plays Bribery, which reads, "Search target opponent's
library for a creature card and put that card into play under your
control. Then that player shuffles his or her library," targeting
Bianca. Alex puts Wall of Wood into play from Bianca's library. If
Alex leaves the game, Wall of Wood leaves the game. If, instead,
Bianca leaves the game, Wall of Wood still leaves the game.

So taking the Wall of Wood isn't a change-of-control?

Does Wall of the Wood go to the removed-from-the-game zone? Or does it
go where tokens go when they leave play?

If I took a creature with Blatant Thievery it will just return to the
original controller I guess? And what if he also took it from someone
and left the game after I took it from him? It will return to the
controller before him? I guess 600.4b tells me it will just leave play
and not return to the original original controller.


About this rule and example:

600.4c If an object owned by a player who has left the game would be
put into any zone, it leaves the game instead. (This includes
abilities that would be put onto the stack.)

Example: Astral Slide is an enchantment that reads, "Whenever a player
cycles a card, you may remove target creature from the game. If you
do, return that creature to play under its owner's control at end of
turn." During Alex's turn, Bianca uses Astral Slide's ability to
remove Alex's Hypnotic Specter from the game. Before the end of that
turn, Bianca leaves the game. At end of turn, the delayed triggered
ability generated by Astral Slide that would return Hypnotic Specter
to play triggers, but it leaves the game rather than being put on the
stack. Hypnotic Specter never returns to play.

If the triggered ability would still resolve the Hypnotic Specter
wouldn't be there to be returned, right?


What happens when the active player leaves the game? Will there be a
cleanup step without an active player? Will there be mana burn if
players had mana in there mana pool when the active player left the
game?


Conceding could be used in a strategic way to influence the rest of
the game. For example to remove the target of a Capsize. The rules
allow this right? I think that's a pitty. Conceding shouldn't be
`used' for such things, I think.

--
David
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 12:18:25 AM

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

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

> Hi,
>
> Now that multiplayer rules are official let me ask some questions:
>
> About this rule:
>
> 600.4a. When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 200.8)
> owned by that player leave the game, all spells and abilities
> controlled by that player on the stack cease to exist, and any
> change-of-control effects which give that player control of any
> objects end. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that
> player, those objects leave the game. This is not a state-based
> effect. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. A player
> leaving the game doesn't affect combat damage on the stack.
>
> and this example:
>
> Example: Alex plays Bribery, which reads, "Search target opponent's
> library for a creature card and put that card into play under your
> control. Then that player shuffles his or her library," targeting
> Bianca. Alex puts Wall of Wood into play from Bianca's library. If
> Alex leaves the game, Wall of Wood leaves the game. If, instead,
> Bianca leaves the game, Wall of Wood still leaves the game.
>
> So taking the Wall of Wood isn't a change-of-control?

No. "You control that creature" is an example of a change-of-control
EFFECT.

"A permanent's controller is the player who put it into play." is a
RULE.

> Does Wall of the Wood go to the removed-from-the-game zone? Or does it
> go where tokens go when they leave play?

I would say the removed-from-the-game zone.

> If I took a creature with Blatant Thievery it will just return to the
> original controller I guess? And what if he also took it from someone
> and left the game after I took it from him? It will return to the
> controller before him? I guess 600.4b tells me it will just leave play
> and not return to the original original controller.

No, it would return to the original controller; why would it return to
someone whose control effect already ended?

> About this rule and example:
>
> 600.4c If an object owned by a player who has left the game would be
> put into any zone, it leaves the game instead. (This includes
> abilities that would be put onto the stack.)
>
> Example: Astral Slide is an enchantment that reads, "Whenever a player
> cycles a card, you may remove target creature from the game. If you
> do, return that creature to play under its owner's control at end of
> turn." During Alex's turn, Bianca uses Astral Slide's ability to
> remove Alex's Hypnotic Specter from the game. Before the end of that
> turn, Bianca leaves the game. At end of turn, the delayed triggered
> ability generated by Astral Slide that would return Hypnotic Specter
> to play triggers, but it leaves the game rather than being put on the
> stack. Hypnotic Specter never returns to play.
>
> If the triggered ability would still resolve the Hypnotic Specter
> wouldn't be there to be returned, right?

No, it is owned by Alex, who is still in the game.

> What happens when the active player leaves the game? Will there be a
> cleanup step without an active player? Will there be mana burn if
> players had mana in there mana pool when the active player left the
> game?

It looks like the turn would proceed without an active player. I see
nothing about the turn ending early. (Of course, the "If the active
player's hand contains more cards than his or her maximum hand size
....." part of the cleanup step won't be interesting.)

--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:04:47 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Daniel W. Johnson wrote:

> David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now that multiplayer rules are official let me ask some questions:
>>
>> About this rule and example:
>>
>> 600.4c If an object owned by a player who has left the game would be
>> put into any zone, it leaves the game instead. (This includes
>> abilities that would be put onto the stack.)
>>
>> Example: Astral Slide is an enchantment that reads, "Whenever a player
>> cycles a card, you may remove target creature from the game. If you
>> do, return that creature to play under its owner's control at end of
>> turn." During Alex's turn, Bianca uses Astral Slide's ability to
>> remove Alex's Hypnotic Specter from the game. Before the end of that
>> turn, Bianca leaves the game. At end of turn, the delayed triggered
>> ability generated by Astral Slide that would return Hypnotic Specter
>> to play triggers, but it leaves the game rather than being put on the
>> stack. Hypnotic Specter never returns to play.
>>
>> If the triggered ability would still resolve the Hypnotic Specter
>> wouldn't be there to be returned, right?
>
> No, it is owned by Alex, who is still in the game.

And what if it was owned by Bianca?

>> What happens when the active player leaves the game? Will there be a
>> cleanup step without an active player? Will there be mana burn if
>> players had mana in there mana pool when the active player left the
>> game?
>
> It looks like the turn would proceed without an active player. I see
> nothing about the turn ending early. (Of course, the "If the active
> player's hand contains more cards than his or her maximum hand size
> ...." part of the cleanup step won't be interesting.)

Hm, never thought of the possibility of having a turn without an
active player :) .

--
David
Related resources
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:04:48 AM

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

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

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Daniel W. Johnson wrote:
> > No, it is owned by Alex, who is still in the game.
>
> And what if it was owned by Bianca?

Then it's in Bianca's backpack.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:30:01 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Daniel W. Johnson wrote:

> David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Daniel W. Johnson wrote:
>>> No, it is owned by Alex, who is still in the game.
>>
>> And what if it was owned by Bianca?
>
> Then it's in Bianca's backpack.


Doesn't this contridict your previous answer?

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Daniel W. Johnson wrote:

> David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now that multiplayer rules are official let me ask some questions:
>>
>> About this rule:
>>
>> 600.4a. When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 200.8)
>> owned by that player leave the game, all spells and abilities
>> controlled by that player on the stack cease to exist, and any
>> change-of-control effects which give that player control of any
>> objects end. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that
>> player, those objects leave the game. This is not a state-based
>> effect. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. A player
>> leaving the game doesn't affect combat damage on the stack.
>>
>> and this example:
>>
>> Example: Alex plays Bribery, which reads, "Search target opponent's
>> library for a creature card and put that card into play under your
>> control. Then that player shuffles his or her library," targeting
>> Bianca. Alex puts Wall of Wood into play from Bianca's library. If
>> Alex leaves the game, Wall of Wood leaves the game. If, instead,
>> Bianca leaves the game, Wall of Wood still leaves the game.
>>
>> Does Wall of the Wood go to the removed-from-the-game zone? Or does it
>> go where tokens go when they leave play?
>
> I would say the removed-from-the-game zone.

It seems to me that when something goes to the removed-from-the-game
zone it didn't really leave the game as in when something went into
Bianca's backpack

--
David
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:30:02 AM

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

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

> Doesn't this contridict your previous answer?
>
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Daniel W. Johnson wrote:
>
> > David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Now that multiplayer rules are official let me ask some questions:
> >>
> >> About this rule:
> >>
> >> 600.4a. When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 200.8)
> >> owned by that player leave the game, all spells and abilities
> >> controlled by that player on the stack cease to exist, and any
> >> change-of-control effects which give that player control of any
> >> objects end. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that
> >> player, those objects leave the game. This is not a state-based
> >> effect. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. A player
> >> leaving the game doesn't affect combat damage on the stack.
> >>
> >> and this example:
> >>
> >> Example: Alex plays Bribery, which reads, "Search target opponent's
> >> library for a creature card and put that card into play under your
> >> control. Then that player shuffles his or her library," targeting
> >> Bianca. Alex puts Wall of Wood into play from Bianca's library. If
> >> Alex leaves the game, Wall of Wood leaves the game. If, instead,
> >> Bianca leaves the game, Wall of Wood still leaves the game.
> >>
> >> Does Wall of the Wood go to the removed-from-the-game zone? Or does it
> >> go where tokens go when they leave play?
> >
> > I would say the removed-from-the-game zone.
>
> It seems to me that when something goes to the removed-from-the-game
> zone it didn't really leave the game as in when something went into
> Bianca's backpack

Whoops, I didn't see that as having two cases. If Alex leaves the game,
it simply goes to the removed-from-the-game zone. If Bianca leaves the
game, it still goes to the removed-from-the-game zone (for anything that
cares about the destination), and soon after it joins all other cards
owned by Bianca in Bianca's backpack (the principle behind having all
such cards leave the game with their owner).
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:27:13 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:18:24 +0200, David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>Now that multiplayer rules are official let me ask some questions:
>
>About this rule:
>
>600.4a. When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 200.8)
>owned by that player leave the game, all spells and abilities
>controlled by that player on the stack cease to exist, and any
>change-of-control effects which give that player control of any
>objects end. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that
>player, those objects leave the game. This is not a state-based
>effect. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. A player
>leaving the game doesn't affect combat damage on the stack.

There was much discussion of the players-leaving-the-game-but-game-doesn't-
end-yet rules...

>and this example:
>
>Example: Alex plays Bribery, which reads, "Search target opponent's
>library for a creature card and put that card into play under your
>control. Then that player shuffles his or her library," targeting
>Bianca. Alex puts Wall of Wood into play from Bianca's library. If
>Alex leaves the game, Wall of Wood leaves the game. If, instead,
>Bianca leaves the game, Wall of Wood still leaves the game.

Alex is the -controller- of the Wall of Wood, and this is because of the
effect of Bribery, which is a control effect (though technically not a
CHANGE-of-control effect, since nobody controls the Wall while it's in
Bianca's library.) Bianca is the -owner- of the Wall of Wood because it
came from her library.

>So taking the Wall of Wood isn't a change-of-control?

To change control, there has to be a controller beforehand.

If Bianca leaves the game, the Wall is removed because she owned it.

If Alex leaves the game, all objects he owns, which doesn't include the Wall,
leave too; all spells and abilities on the stack he controls, which doesn't
include the Bribery by this time, cease to exist; and all change-of-control
effects of his - say, from Debt of Loyalty or Empress Galina or Grab the
Reins, things that would not go away just because all the objects he owns
had vanished - end. Which, again, doesn't include Bribery as far as I can
tell, because Bribery doesn't CHANGE the controller of the Wall - it puts
it into play under Alex's control to start with, it doesn't give it to
Bianca for a moment and then move it over to Alex, and nobody controlled the
Wall before it was in play.
Then you look to see if there's anything still around that says it's
controlled by Alex. Lo, a Wall of Wood is sitting there, controlled by Alex
because he was told to put it into play under his control, not owned by Alex.
So it also gets the boot, and gets told to leave the game - but slightly
after all Alex's normal belongings have done so.

>Does Wall of the Wood go to the removed-from-the-game zone? Or does it
>go where tokens go when they leave play?

It "leaves the game". It does NOT go to the removed-from-game zone - as
far as the game is concerned, it ceases to exist. If it went to the removed-
from-game zone, and WAS owned by Alex, then Alex couldn't take it with him
to the next game until THIS game ended. Basically, it's not in any of the
game's zones; it's still owned by Bianca; as far as I know a Wish, or the
Ring, could get it back for her. (217.1e confirms this ... because it's no
longer in any of the game's zones...)

>If I took a creature with Blatant Thievery it will just return to the
>original controller I guess?

Yep. Well, if Alex did. The Thievery control-change effect will end, and
you recompute using any remaining control/control-change effects.

>And what if he also took it from someone
>and left the game after I took it from him? It will return to the
>controller before him?

Your question is ambiguous. If it reverts to him (C), but he'd taken it from
someone else (D), and after C gets it back C leaves the game? C's
control-change effect ends and D gets it. If C is still in the game but D
has by this time left? And D is the owner of the creature? The creature
will have left the game the same time D did, _even though C (or you)
controlled it at that time_.

If C has left the game but D is still around? _C's_ stealing effect ended
when C left the game, so all that's left after your control-change effect
ends is "D controls this" - so yes, it goes back to D in that case.

And, finally, if E is its owner, C is still in the game, and D has left the
game, and you stole it from C who stole it from D who stole it from E? So
that the creature's not told to leave the game yet because its OWNER is
still in the game? Then when you leave, it goes to C, and when C later leaves
the game, C's control-change effect will end, D's control-change effect ended
some time ago when D left the game, and it goes back to _E_.

Pause for a deep breath at this point...

600.4b doesn't normally apply to "this person used to control it but left the
game and now a higher control-change layer is ending" ... because the player
who left the game had all THEIR control-change effects end already and all
the objects they own have already left. It could apply to "A Briberies the
creature from B, C steals it, A leaves the game, then C leaves the game" -
because in this case the Bribery effect hasn't technically ended, and when
C leaves the game C's stealing effect ends but A isn't there to receive it,
so it stays under C's control momentarily but then is told to leave by "Then,
if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects leave
the game.".
No, what 600.4b is usually going to apply to is things like were mentioned
above - Debt of Loyalty or the like - which set up a future or delayed
control-change, and for which the player that's supposed to be getting control
at some later time leaves the game before the control change can happen. (I'm
leaving out Empress Galina and HER like here, because when her ability's
controller leaves the game in response to her ability? The ability ceases to
exist and vanishes off the stack before it can resolve, and never resolves and
never changes the controller.)

You'll see from these examples that the situations can get complicated <--
understatement. They did try to make them so they covered all the ones anyone
could think of...

>About this rule and example:
>
>600.4c If an object owned by a player who has left the game would be
>put into any zone, it leaves the game instead. (This includes
>abilities that would be put onto the stack.)

Right. This is for things that are being told to go somewhere else at the
_same time_ that player leaves the game ... since all objects that player
OWNS are told to leave the game with him by 600.4a. And also for things that
aren't CREATED until after the player has left the game - tokens, or copies
of spells, or things made by a delayed triggered ability.

>Example: Astral Slide is an enchantment that reads, "Whenever a player
>cycles a card, you may remove target creature from the game. If you
>do, return that creature to play under its owner's control at end of
>turn." During Alex's turn, Bianca uses Astral Slide's ability to
>remove Alex's Hypnotic Specter from the game. Before the end of that
>turn, Bianca leaves the game. At end of turn, the delayed triggered
>ability generated by Astral Slide that would return Hypnotic Specter
>to play triggers, but it leaves the game rather than being put on the
>stack. Hypnotic Specter never returns to play.

Yep. Bianca had a delayed triggered ability waiting around to trigger;
nothing in 600.4a told it to Go Away, since it's not an object, isn't
owned by anyone, isn't on the stack, and isn't controlled by anyone while it's
waiting to trigger. (It isn't really anywhere, it's just a sticky note with a
will-trigger-later triggered ability written on it, in no particular game zone,
not attached to any particular object...) This rules says that once it DOES
trigger and tries to put its ability onto the stack, that ability says "I
am an object, owned by Bianca (200.7a, plus last-known information, since this
is a delayed triggered ability generated by an ability whose source was an
Astral Slide controlled by Bianca some time ago), and I am trying to go onto
the stack! ... Oops, Bianca's not here. Guess I'm leaving the game instead..."

>If the triggered ability would still resolve the Hypnotic Specter
>wouldn't be there to be returned, right?

Right - the HS in the RFG zone is a card, so is an object by 200.8, so would
have left the game when Bianca did by 600.4a . The delayed triggered ability
does not resolve, however, because it never even gets onto the stack in
the first place, by 600.4c . (Are you dizzy yet flipping back and forth in
the rulebook following this? Because I sure am from FINDING it all...)

>What happens when the active player leaves the game? Will there be a
>cleanup step without an active player? Will there be mana burn if
>players had mana in there mana pool when the active player left the game?

Nothing about a player leaving the game changes who is or isn't active player.
If active player leaves the game, but there are other players still in it
(and notice 102.2a DOES still apply in multiplayer - so if there's only one
player still in the game, and everyone else has left, that player wins),
the current turn does finish normally, except there's no active player in
the game. If the active player is told to get priority but isn't in the game,
the next player in line gets priority (much as though, but not exactly like,
the active player had gotten priority but had been forced to pass). If the
rules tell active player to actually DO something but there is no active
player, the something doesn't get done, and the game proceeds (the something
does NOT get done by the next player in line). (And, looking, I can't believe
this stuff got left out...)

The steps and phases will proceed normally. A cleanup step without an active
player means nobody has to discard down to max_hand_size, but all else is
normal. A phase that ends without an active player still checks every existing
player for manaburn; manaburn is NOT something that ONLY active player checks
for, it's something EVERY player checks for as EVERY phase ends.

If active player leaves the game at a time other than the exact end of a
phase, there can't be manaburn right then, because manaburn only happens as
a phase ends.

>Conceding could be used in a strategic way to influence the rest of
>the game. For example to remove the target of a Capsize. The rules
>allow this right? I think that's a pitty. Conceding shouldn't be
>`used' for such things, I think.

You're allowed to concede at any time. If doing so removes some stuff, then
it does so. You're not allowed to come back into the game after leaving it,
so that's the LAST influence you're going to have on that particular game;
if it's important enough to remove that Capsize target to you, why should
you not be allowed to conceded in order to do so? (This might have
consequences OUTSIDE the game, or in another subsequent game, but not from
the game rules...)

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.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:30:04 AM

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:
>> Does Wall of the Wood go to the removed-from-the-game zone? Or does it
>> go where tokens go when they leave play?
>
>I would say the removed-from-the-game zone.

No. If that were the case, the rules would SAY it was removed from the game.
If you look, they are very carefully NOT saying that about any of this.
"Leaves the game" means it's gone (and is free to go with its owner to the
next table to start a new game, if you want to think of it that way; it's not
trapped in THIS game's RFG zone until this game ends).

>> Example: Astral Slide is an enchantment that reads, "Whenever a player
>> cycles a card, you may remove target creature from the game. If you
>> do, return that creature to play under its owner's control at end of
>> turn." During Alex's turn, Bianca uses Astral Slide's ability to
>> remove Alex's Hypnotic Specter from the game. Before the end of that
>> turn, Bianca leaves the game. At end of turn, the delayed triggered
>> ability generated by Astral Slide that would return Hypnotic Specter
>> to play triggers, but it leaves the game rather than being put on the
>> stack. Hypnotic Specter never returns to play.
>>
>> If the triggered ability would still resolve the Hypnotic Specter
>> wouldn't be there to be returned, right?
>
>No, it is owned by Alex, who is still in the game.

Oh, missed that. Bah. Correct.

>> What happens when the active player leaves the game? Will there be a
>> cleanup step without an active player? Will there be mana burn if
>> players had mana in there mana pool when the active player left the
>> game?
>
>It looks like the turn would proceed without an active player. I see
>nothing about the turn ending early. (Of course, the "If the active
>player's hand contains more cards than his or her maximum hand size
>...." part of the cleanup step won't be interesting.)

Neither would the "Active player draws a card" part of draw step. I see no
way for a player to leave the game AFTER a turn starts but BEFORE we do
untap-step stuff, so it usually won't matter there... If there's no
active player when declare-attackers step starts, no attackers get declared,
and the usual compressing of Combat phase for a null attack occurs.

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.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:31:00 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:04:47 +0200, David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>> If the triggered ability would still resolve the Hypnotic Specter
>>> wouldn't be there to be returned, right?
>>
>> No, it is owned by Alex, who is still in the game.
>
>And what if it was owned by Bianca?

Then it left the game when Bianca did, and wouldn't be there to be returned
- but the delayed triggered ability itself isn't going to resolve either,
because it's vanishing as it tries to go on the stack, because Bianca owns
_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.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:31:57 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Daniel W. Johnson wrote:

> David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't this contridict your previous answer?
>>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Daniel W. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Now that multiplayer rules are official let me ask some questions:
>>>>
>>>> About this rule:
>>>>
>>>> 600.4a. When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 200.8)
>>>> owned by that player leave the game, all spells and abilities
>>>> controlled by that player on the stack cease to exist, and any
>>>> change-of-control effects which give that player control of any
>>>> objects end. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that
>>>> player, those objects leave the game. This is not a state-based
>>>> effect. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. A player
>>>> leaving the game doesn't affect combat damage on the stack.
>>>>
>>>> and this example:
>>>>
>>>> Example: Alex plays Bribery, which reads, "Search target opponent's
>>>> library for a creature card and put that card into play under your
>>>> control. Then that player shuffles his or her library," targeting
>>>> Bianca. Alex puts Wall of Wood into play from Bianca's library. If
>>>> Alex leaves the game, Wall of Wood leaves the game. If, instead,
>>>> Bianca leaves the game, Wall of Wood still leaves the game.
>>>>
>>>> Does Wall of the Wood go to the removed-from-the-game zone? Or does it
>>>> go where tokens go when they leave play?
>>>
>>> I would say the removed-from-the-game zone.
>>
>> It seems to me that when something goes to the removed-from-the-game
>> zone it didn't really leave the game as in when something went into
>> Bianca's backpack
>
> Whoops, I didn't see that as having two cases. If Alex leaves the game,
> it simply goes to the removed-from-the-game zone. If Bianca leaves the
> game, it still goes to the removed-from-the-game zone (for anything that
> cares about the destination), and soon after it joins all other cards
> owned by Bianca in Bianca's backpack (the principle behind having all
> such cards leave the game with their owner).

So there are to different ways of leaving the game?
In a backpack or just to the rfg-zone...
The rfg-zone is just another zone inside the game right? While the
backpack really is outside the game.

--
David
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:31:58 AM

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

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

> So there are to different ways of leaving the game?
> In a backpack or just to the rfg-zone...
> The rfg-zone is just another zone inside the game right? While the
> backpack really is outside the game.

My answer might have been a little glib.

217.1e An object is outside the game if it's in the
removed-from-the-game zone, or if it isn't in any of the game's zones.
All other objects are inside the game. Outside the game is not a zone.

As far as leaves-play triggers that care about the destination are
concerned, the cards owned by the departing player go to the
removed-from-the-game zone. (Although leaves-play triggers that care
are probably going to consider that zone "none of the above" anyway.)
After that, such cards are as outside the game as cards left at home or
owned by someone who didn't play any Magic today.

The point of "When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule
200.8) owned by that player leave the game" is that Bianca can pack up
her cards right away, without sticking around for the end of a game that
no longer involves her.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:33:04 AM

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:
>> >> 600.4a. When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 200.8)
>> >> owned by that player leave the game, all spells and abilities
>> >> controlled by that player on the stack cease to exist, and any
>> >> change-of-control effects which give that player control of any
>> >> objects end. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that
>> >> player, those objects leave the game. This is not a state-based
>> >> effect. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. A player
>> >> leaving the game doesn't affect combat damage on the stack.

Note that NONE of this says "removed from the game".

>> >> Example: Alex plays Bribery, which reads, "Search target opponent's
>> >> library for a creature card and put that card into play under your
>> >> control. Then that player shuffles his or her library," targeting
>> >> Bianca. Alex puts Wall of Wood into play from Bianca's library. If
>> >> Alex leaves the game, Wall of Wood leaves the game. If, instead,
>> >> Bianca leaves the game, Wall of Wood still leaves the game.
>> >>
>> >> Does Wall of the Wood go to the removed-from-the-game zone? Or does it
>> >> go where tokens go when they leave play?
>> >
>> > I would say the removed-from-the-game zone.
>>
>> It seems to me that when something goes to the removed-from-the-game
>> zone it didn't really leave the game as in when something went into
>> Bianca's backpack
>
>Whoops, I didn't see that as having two cases. If Alex leaves the game,
>it simply goes to the removed-from-the-game zone.

Nope. It's told to leave the game, NOT to be removed from the game. It does
not go to the RFG zone in either case.

>If Bianca leaves the
>game, it still goes to the removed-from-the-game zone (for anything that
>cares about the destination), and soon after it joins all other cards
>owned by Bianca in Bianca's backpack (the principle behind having all
>such cards leave the game with their owner).

Again, no; it does not touch the RFG zone at all. It leaves the game - gets
beamed up like Scotty, poof - straight from wherever it is. A Wish or the
Ring could get it back, if used by owner (say Alex left the game and Bianca
was still in 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.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:36:59 AM

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:
>> So there are to different ways of leaving the game?
>> In a backpack or just to the rfg-zone...
>> The rfg-zone is just another zone inside the game right? While the
>> backpack really is outside the game.
>
>My answer might have been a little glib.
>
>217.1e An object is outside the game if it's in the
>removed-from-the-game zone, or if it isn't in any of the game's zones.
>All other objects are inside the game. Outside the game is not a zone.
>
>As far as leaves-play triggers that care about the destination are
>concerned, the cards owned by the departing player go to the
>removed-from-the-game zone.

No they do NOT. They are not going ANYWHERE NEAR that zone. If they did they
would still be in a game zone, and would have to stay there while the player
went elsewhere. That's not the intent.

The rules do NOT SAY that leaving the game means "going to the removed from
game zone, then checking whether their owner is still in the game, then
ceasing to exist entirely and going to owner's backpack if owner has left the
game". If they meant that they would say it; they do not, and do not have
leaving the game involve the removed-from-game zone at ALL.

>The point of "When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule
>200.8) owned by that player leave the game" is that Bianca can pack up
>her cards right away, without sticking around for the end of a game that
>no longer involves her.

Yes, exactly. And that doesn't involve those cards going to the removed-from-
game zone IN THAT GAME and sitting there for an undetermined amount of time
while Bianca fumes...

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.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 3:53:18 AM

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

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

> No they do NOT. They are not going ANYWHERE NEAR that zone. If they did they
> would still be in a game zone, and would have to stay there while the player
> went elsewhere. That's not the intent.

Okay. I read too much into the fact that stuff has never evaporated
directly from the in-play zone before. I personally feel that the
glossary or something should define what it means for an object to leave
the game. Rule 600.4 (and a few other rules later on) adequately cover
the case of a player leaving the game.

The definition of "leaves play" includes "A permanent leaves play when
it moves from the in-play zone to any other zone." Does this mean that
when a typical Nightmare (e.g., Faceless Butcher) leaves the game, its
leaves-play ability won't trigger?
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 6:07:29 AM

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:
>
>> No they do NOT. They are not going ANYWHERE NEAR that zone. If they did they
>> would still be in a game zone, and would have to stay there while the player
>> went elsewhere. That's not the intent.
>
>Okay. I read too much into the fact that stuff has never evaporated
>directly from the in-play zone before.

Fair enough. And in two-player it's never come up, because the game ends when
one player loses...

>I personally feel that the
>glossary or something should define what it means for an object to leave
>the game. Rule 600.4 (and a few other rules later on) adequately cover
>the case of a player leaving the game.

I'd like this to be in there too.

>The definition of "leaves play" includes "A permanent leaves play when
>it moves from the in-play zone to any other zone." Does this mean that
>when a typical Nightmare (e.g., Faceless Butcher) leaves the game, its
>leaves-play ability won't trigger?

....Even if it did, what would happen? 600.4c would cause the ability to leave
the game instead of being put onto the stack, so the ability wouldn't even get
to the point of choosing targets. I can ask, though I'd think the answer would
be "no it doesn't trigger", given that definition...

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.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:32:45 PM

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

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

> ...Even if it did, what would happen? 600.4c would cause the ability to leave
> the game instead of being put onto the stack, so the ability wouldn't even get
> to the point of choosing targets. I can ask, though I'd think the answer would
> be "no it doesn't trigger", given that definition...

Good point. I should have asked about something like Dual Nature or
Traveling Plague that triggers on somebody else's permanent leaving
play. Although Traveling Plague would also run into 600.4b and/or
600.4d.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:39:00 PM

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

On Wed, 26 Jul 2005, David DeLaney wrote:

> Neither would the "Active player draws a card" part of draw step. I see no
> way for a player to leave the game AFTER a turn starts but BEFORE we do
> untap-step stuff, so it usually won't matter there...

What about conceding ;-).

--
David
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 2:41:08 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, David DeLaney wrote:

> Daniel W. Johnson <panoptes@iquest.net> wrote:
>
>> The definition of "leaves play" includes "A permanent leaves play when
>> it moves from the in-play zone to any other zone." Does this mean that
>> when a typical Nightmare (e.g., Faceless Butcher) leaves the game, its
>> leaves-play ability won't trigger?
>
> ...Even if it did, what would happen? 600.4c would cause the ability to leave
> the game instead of being put onto the stack, so the ability wouldn't even get
> to the point of choosing targets. I can ask, though I'd think the answer would
> be "no it doesn't trigger", given that definition...

Well, if Alex Briberied the FB from Bianca and then Alex left the
game, the FB leaves the game but the ability could still go on the
stack since Bianca is still in the game.

--
David
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:16:52 PM

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

David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, David DeLaney wrote:
>>...Even if it did, what would happen? 600.4c would cause the ability to leave
>>the game instead of being put onto the stack, so the ability wouldn't even get
>>to the point of choosing targets. I can ask, though I'd think the answer would
>>be "no it doesn't trigger", given that definition...
>
>Well, if Alex Briberied the FB from Bianca and then Alex left the
>game, the FB leaves the game

Right. It's not put into the removed-from-game zone...

>but the ability could still go on the
>stack since Bianca is still in the game.

But this is the opposite of the situation that was asked about for the
above answer. (I think. My head hurts now.) Which means it IS important to
note that the ability doesn't even get to trigger, if in fact it doesn't.
Will be checking on the intent of that...

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.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 5:17:28 PM

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:39:00 +0200, David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2005, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Neither would the "Active player draws a card" part of draw step. I see no
>> way for a player to leave the game AFTER a turn starts but BEFORE we do
>> untap-step stuff, so it usually won't matter there...
>
>What about conceding ;-).

It's a fair cop.

Dave "society is DEFINITELY to blame" 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.
!