Spiders: can't block ground creatures with Chaosphere in p..

[Guest]

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

Hello, all,
I wonder what happens to the likes of Giant Spider with Chaospere in
play in light of the latest rules change ("can block as though it had
flying" vs. "may block..."). It seems that they are now *always*
considered to have flying when the validity of blocks is checked. Does
it mean that a Giant Spider with Chaosphere in play will no longer be
able to block a ground creature?

Regards,
Arkady.

Oracle wordings (taken today from gatherer.wizards.com):
Chaosphere
2R
World Enchantment
Creatures with flying can't block creatures without flying.
Creatures without flying can block as though they had flying.

Giant Spider
3G
Creature - Spider
2/4
Giant Spider can block as though it had flying.

 

[Guest]

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

Zarin <arkadyz1@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hello, all,
> I wonder what happens to the likes of Giant Spider with Chaospere in
> play in light of the latest rules change ("can block as though it had
> flying" vs. "may block..."). It seems that they are now *always*
> considered to have flying when the validity of blocks is checked. Does
> it mean that a Giant Spider with Chaosphere in play will no longer be
> able to block a ground creature?

No more so than any other non-flying creature; "Giant Spider can block
as though it had flying" will be redundant with "Creatures without
flying can block as though they had flying".

> Regards,
> Arkady.
>
> Oracle wordings (taken today from gatherer.wizards.com):
> Chaosphere
> 2R
> World Enchantment
> Creatures with flying can't block creatures without flying.
> Creatures without flying can block as though they had flying.
>
> Giant Spider
> 3G
> Creature - Spider
> 2/4
> Giant Spider can block as though it had flying.


--
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 31 Jul 2005 12:47:48 -0700, Zarin <arkadyz1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hello, all,
>I wonder what happens to the likes of Giant Spider with Chaospere in
>play in light of the latest rules change ("can block as though it had
>flying" vs. "may block..."). It seems that they are now *always*
>considered to have flying when the validity of blocks is checked. Does
>it mean that a Giant Spider with Chaosphere in play will no longer be
>able to block a ground creature?

Chaosphere has had special wording problems for quite some time, as we can't
find a good way to word it so that its second ability is exempted from what the
first ability does. This is a problem with Chaosphere, NOT with the Spider
wording as such.

(At this point someone is going to suggest "Creatures without flying can block
creatures with flying"; no, as that causes severe problems when you have an
attacker with both flying and ANOTHER evasion ability.)

>Creatures with flying can't block creatures without flying.
>Creatures without flying can block as though they had flying.

Yes, worded like that the first ability makes the second ability make
creatures without flying unable to block creatures without flying. This was
not the intent, really - it was supposed to reverse how flying and nonflying
worked, in essence, not to make EVERYONE unable to block a creature without
flying. I'll re-start a discussion about it elsewhere... We haven't been able
to come up with a wording for this card that actually makes it DO what the
intent was (which is "ground creatures get to block flyers or grounders; flyers
only get to block flyers") in several years.

(Note that even with the "may" wording for Spiders it had this sort of problem,
if you think about 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?)

Daniel W. Johnson <panoptes@iquest.net> wrote:
>Zarin <arkadyz1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hello, all,
>> I wonder what happens to the likes of Giant Spider with Chaospere in
>> play in light of the latest rules change ("can block as though it had
>> flying" vs. "may block..."). It seems that they are now *always*
>> considered to have flying when the validity of blocks is checked. Does
>> it mean that a Giant Spider with Chaosphere in play will no longer be
>> able to block a ground creature?
>
>No more so than any other non-flying creature; "Giant Spider can block
>as though it had flying" will be redundant with "Creatures without
>flying can block as though they had flying".

Look closer: you haven't taken both abilities into account. "Creatures with
flying can't block creatures without flying" is what causes the problem
Zarin is looking at, and DOES affect a Spider blocking 'as though' it had
flying, since it's affecting how a flying creature can block.

>> Chaosphere
>> 2R
>> World Enchantment
>> Creatures with flying can't block creatures without flying.
>> Creatures without flying can block as though they had flying.

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?)

>>No more so than any other non-flying creature; "Giant Spider can block
>>as though it had flying" will be redundant with "Creatures without
>>flying can block as though they had flying".
>
> Look closer: you haven't taken both abilities into account. "Creatures
> with flying can't block creatures without flying" is what causes the
> problem Zarin is looking at, and DOES affect a Spider blocking 'as
> though' it had flying, since it's affecting how a flying creature can
> block.
>

OK, now I'm confused. The Spider doesn't actually become a flying
creature while it's blocking, does it? Could I target it with a
Thunderbolt during its time as a blocker? If not, why would the first
part of Chaosphere affect the Spider at all?

Thunderbolt
1R
Instant
Choose one — Thunderbolt deals 3 damage to target player; or Thunderbolt
deals 4 damage to target creature with flying.

>>> Chaosphere
>>> 2R
>>> World Enchantment
>>> Creatures with flying can't block creatures without flying.
>>> Creatures without flying can block as though they had flying.
>
> Dave

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:43:11 GMT, Dan Bressler <noteven@spamtrap.net> wrote:
>>>No more so than any other non-flying creature; "Giant Spider can block
>>>as though it had flying" will be redundant with "Creatures without
>>>flying can block as though they had flying".
>>
>> Look closer: you haven't taken both abilities into account. "Creatures
>> with flying can't block creatures without flying" is what causes the
>> problem Zarin is looking at, and DOES affect a Spider blocking 'as
>> though' it had flying, since it's affecting how a flying creature can
>> block.
>
>OK, now I'm confused. The Spider doesn't actually become a flying
>creature while it's blocking, does it?

Nope. Not at all. No no no. Except ... it does _for the purposes of blocking_.
Which _is_ what that other ability is ALSO looking at, if you look. So
if the Spider is blocking as though it had flying? It does get to interact
with other things that say things with flying can't block such-and-such.
(Though not with Hurricane, Crosswinds, etc.)

> Could I target it with a
>Thunderbolt during its time as a blocker?

No, because a) it doesn't have flying, b) Thunderbolt doesn't care how it's
blocking, and c) you don't get priority while blockers are being declared
anyway.

>If not, why would the first
>part of Chaosphere affect the Spider at all?

Because it says creatures with flying can't block such-and-such; it's
affecting HOW creatures with flying block. And since the "Spider" ability
means it +blocks+ pretending it had flying? The first ability of Chaosphere
_can_ pick up on that. As can Treetop Rangers, for another example -
"this can't be blocked except by creatures with flying" - or Elven Riders.

The Spider doesn't have flying at all - but pretends it does for blocking
purposes. Both of Chaosphere's abilities fall under "blocking purposes"...

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?)

dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
news:slrndesoph.1hc.dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com:

>>
>>OK, now I'm confused. The Spider doesn't actually become a flying
>>creature while it's blocking, does it?
>
> Nope. Not at all. No no no. Except ... it does _for the purposes of
> blocking_. Which _is_ what that other ability is ALSO looking at, if
> you look. So if the Spider is blocking as though it had flying? It
> does get to interact with other things that say things with flying
> can't block such-and-such. (Though not with Hurricane, Crosswinds,
> etc.)
>

I can accept this, I guess. It's just that I'm only now getting used to
Magic being so literal. It seems odd that
"Giant Spider can block as though it had flying."
really means
"Giant Spider has flying for blocking purposes."
and not
"Giant Spider ignores the fact that it doesn't have flying when you
assign blockers."


>> Could I target it with a
>>Thunderbolt during its time as a blocker?
>
> No, because a) it doesn't have flying, b) Thunderbolt doesn't care how
> it's blocking, and c) you don't get priority while blockers are being
> declared anyway.
>
Regarding answer C) There are times when I do have priority and there
are blocking creatures. I was thinking along the lines of Crossbow
Infantry type timing here.

>>If not, why would the first
>>part of Chaosphere affect the Spider at all?
>
> Because it says creatures with flying can't block such-and-such; it's
> affecting HOW creatures with flying block. And since the "Spider"
> ability means it +blocks+ pretending it had flying? The first ability
> of Chaosphere _can_ pick up on that. As can Treetop Rangers, for
> another example - "this can't be blocked except by creatures with
> flying" - or Elven Riders.
>
> The Spider doesn't have flying at all - but pretends it does for
> blocking purposes. Both of Chaosphere's abilities fall under "blocking
> purposes"...
>
> Dave
Thanks for your help here. This topic is more subtle than most.

 

[Guest]

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

One of the voices in my head - or was it Dan Bressler? - just said...
> Regarding answer C) There are times when I do have priority and there
> are blocking creatures. I was thinking along the lines of Crossbow
> Infantry type timing here.

"There are blocking creatures" is not the same thing as "The validity of
blocking assignments is being checked right now". The latter is the only
time the Spider has flying for any purpose, and that only happens at one
point in any given combat phase - a point where no player has priority.

 

[Guest]

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

Dan Bressler <noteven@spamtrap.net> wrote:
>dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
>> Nope. Not at all. No no no. Except ... it does _for the purposes of
>> blocking_. Which _is_ what that other ability is ALSO looking at, if
>> you look. So if the Spider is blocking as though it had flying? It
>> does get to interact with other things that say things with flying
>> can't block such-and-such. (Though not with Hurricane, Crosswinds, etc.)
>
>I can accept this, I guess. It's just that I'm only now getting used to
>Magic being so literal. It seems odd that
>"Giant Spider can block as though it had flying."
>really means
>"Giant Spider has flying for blocking purposes."
>and not
>"Giant Spider ignores the fact that it doesn't have flying when you
>assign blockers."

Well, "ignoring that it doesn't have Foo" wouldn't let it act like it did,
unlike "ignoring that it does have Foo". "Lack of flying" isn't an ability,
it's the absense of one...

If it helps any, think of "as though Foo" as "pretend it does Foo". Yes,
Magic does try to be literal and word-for-word ... so naturally we found
we needed a literal wording for 'pretend this is true even though it isn't'...

>>> Could I target it with a
>>>Thunderbolt during its time as a blocker?
>>
>> No, because a) it doesn't have flying, b) Thunderbolt doesn't care how
>> it's blocking, and c) you don't get priority while blockers are being
>> declared anyway.
>>
>Regarding answer C) There are times when I do have priority and there
>are blocking creatures.

Yes. But by that time you are no longer declaring blockers. Things that
check how something blocks, force things to block, or evasion abilities?
In general onl work while blockers are actually being declared, and are
irrelevant afterwards once you know what is blocking what. [Three very old
cards can cause a new block later, or switch around existing groups of
blockers; IF that happens, blocking-stuff is checked again... but it can't
happen in Type II or Extended, for example.]

>I was thinking along the lines of Crossbow Infantry type timing here.

Right. And there's where the "Spiders don't have flying" comes in. Crossbow
Infantry isn't used while declaring blockers (and can't be) ... and, more
importantly, it doesn't care _how the blocker blocked_. It just checks, as
part of targetting specs, that the target -is- an attacker or blocker, right
then. (See the difference?)

>> The Spider doesn't have flying at all - but pretends it does for
>> blocking purposes. Both of Chaosphere's abilities fall under "blocking
>> purposes"...

>Thanks for your help here. This topic is more subtle than most.

Oh yes. (Isn't this a _marvellous_ game?)

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?)

David DeLaney (dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com) wrote:

: If it helps any, think of "as though Foo" as "pretend it does Foo". Yes,
: Magic does try to be literal and word-for-word ... so naturally we found
: we needed a literal wording for 'pretend this is true even though it isn't'...

I may have missed this in an earlier post, but is the intended
end result to have Giant Spider *always* able to block flyers,
or only able to block flyers when its controller decides so?
In other words, will a Lured flyer force a GS to block or not?

Reason I ask is I'm wondering what is wrong with a simple
and more generic wording:

"[foo] may block creatures with [bar]."

where foo is the creature name and bar is the evasion
ability that may be blocked. (if memory serves, this
wording or very similar appeared at one time on creatures
that could block shadow and forestwalk, but I forget the
exact cards right now)

And if the intent is to force a block in the Lure case
above, substitute "can" for "may" to take away the choice.

So, "Giant Spider may block creatures with flying" follows
the same template...I don't see why flying is any different
than shadow, for example, for this purpose.

This *shouldn't* cause too much confusion where an attacker
has, say both flying and shadow, or flying and a landwalk,
as the second evasion ability still trumps the blocking
anyway. But, if need be, a bit of reminder text could
be added, to the effect of "this ability does not negate
evasion abilities other than [bar]" or similar...hm?


Keith

 

[Guest]

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

One of the voices in my head - or was it Keith Piddington? - just
said...
> I may have missed this in an earlier post, but is the intended
> end result to have Giant Spider *always* able to block flyers,
> or only able to block flyers when its controller decides so?
> In other words, will a Lured flyer force a GS to block or not?

I believe it's now the first one, though it was formerly the second.

> Reason I ask is I'm wondering what is wrong with a simple
> and more generic wording:
>
> "[foo] may block creatures with [bar]."

Well, for one thing, that wording would do absolutely nothing, thanks to
the rule that disallowing something overrides allowing it (often worded
as "'can't' overrides 'can'", but that wording is misleading in this
case). This is the whole reason for using "as though" wordings instead,
since these work within the existing blocking rules instead of
explicitly trying to create an exception to them.

 

[Guest]

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

Keith Piddington <uj551@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>David DeLaney (dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com) wrote:
>: If it helps any, think of "as though Foo" as "pretend it does Foo". Yes,
>: Magic does try to be literal and word-for-word ... so naturally we found
>: we needed a literal wording for 'pretend this is true even though it isn't'...
>
>I may have missed this in an earlier post, but is the intended
>end result to have Giant Spider *always* able to block flyers,

Yes.

>or only able to block flyers when its controller decides so?

No, that was the functionality it had previously.

>In other words, will a Lured flyer force a GS to block or not?

It will.

(Yes, I'm aware that there have been different answers on these simple
questions from various netreps over the last week or so; we apologize, and
believe we've got that much sorted out, at least. There is some Difficult
stuff going on still with them.)

>Reason I ask is I'm wondering what is wrong with a simple
>and more generic wording:
>
>"[foo] may block creatures with [bar]."

(I did say someone would suggest this, did I not?)

In case you haven't noticed, this is giving an ABILITY to block certain
creatures. What does your suggestion do when the green Spider tries to block
an attacker that has both flying and Fear, or both flying and forestwalk? It
says "This can block that". That leads to players getting The Wrong Answer -
"it says it can block it, so that must overrule that it can't block it because
of the other evasion ability".

We don't want to ever say "This -can block- this attacker", because there are
so many ways to make it so the attacker can't be blocked after all, in
other words. "This can block as though it has flying" doesn't specify that it
can block _specific creatures_; instead, it tells you how it blocks, and you
use the rules on flying to discover that, hey, this means it can block a
flying attacker, if nothing ELSE is interfering. Rather than being told "This
can block flyers" with the attendant misinterpretation "no matter what"...

>This *shouldn't* cause too much confusion where an attacker
>has, say both flying and shadow, or flying and a landwalk,

Ah, but it does. And if wording it that way will cause confusion, we'd rather
word it in a way that doesn't have that potential.

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?)

Jeff Heikkinen <no.way@jose.org> wrote:
>One of the voices in my head - or was it Keith Piddington? - just said...
>> Reason I ask is I'm wondering what is wrong with a simple
>> and more generic wording:
>>
>> "[foo] may block creatures with [bar]."
>
>Well, for one thing, that wording would do absolutely nothing, thanks to
>the rule that disallowing something overrides allowing it (often worded
>as "'can't' overrides 'can'", but that wording is misleading in this
>case).

Oh, right - an even better reason, alongside the one I gave. Look at the
definition of "flying" in the rulebook: "A creature with flying can't be
blocked by creatures without flying.". That's saying this can't happen.
And when a rule (or effect) says something can't happen, and another either
says it can, or says to do it, we have another rule - 103.2 - that says the
'can't' effect wins out.

>This is the whole reason for using "as though" wordings instead,
>since these work within the existing blocking rules instead of
>explicitly trying to create an exception to them.

Yep. "Do this as though Foo were true" is what you have to use to get around a
"can't" wording of a rule, in general. If a "can't" (or a "do this only when")
isn't forbidding you, you can get shorter wordings by saying "do this" or
"this can be done". (The other cases this gets used in: "can attack as though
it didn't have defender" - creatures with defender can't attack; Autumn
Willow's wording, to get around its first ability saying it can't be the
target of spells or abilities; the Crevasse cycle, to get around "creatures
with <land>walk can't be blocked if defending player controls a <land>"; a
use on Celestial Dawn and other 'spend this mana as though it had any color'
cards, to get around an implicit "you can't spend blue mana as anything but
blue mana" etc.; the Rhox ability, to get around "blocked attackers can't
assign combat damage to defending player"; the two shadowblock analogues
of the Spiders; Masako the Humorless, to get around "tapped creatures can't
block"; Richard Garfield, Ph.D.; and Shaman's Trance...)

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?)

David DeLaney (dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com) wrote:
: Jeff Heikkinen <no.way@jose.org> wrote:
: >One of the voices in my head - or was it Keith Piddington? - just said...
: >> Reason I ask is I'm wondering what is wrong with a simple
: >> and more generic wording:
: >>
: >> "[foo] may block creatures with [bar]."
: >
: >Well, for one thing, that wording would do absolutely nothing, thanks to
: >the rule that disallowing something overrides allowing it (often worded
: >as "'can't' overrides 'can'", but that wording is misleading in this
: >case).

: Oh, right - an even better reason, alongside the one I gave. Look at the
: definition of "flying" in the rulebook: "A creature with flying can't be
: blocked by creatures without flying.". That's saying this can't happen.
: And when a rule (or effect) says something can't happen, and another either
: says it can, or says to do it, we have another rule - 103.2 - that says the
: 'can't' effect wins out.

However, isn't there also a fundamental rule that says in some
fashion "card words take precedence over rules", or has that
been abandoned? Thus, if a card says "yes" but the rules
say "no", the card wins out, but if two cards disagree (or
two rules, unlikely) then the "no" always wins.

*If* this is still true, the simple wording could be used...


Keith

 

[Guest]

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

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

> Oh, right - an even better reason, alongside the one I gave. Look at the
> definition of "flying" in the rulebook: "A creature with flying can't be
> blocked by creatures without flying.". That's saying this can't happen.
> And when a rule (or effect) says something can't happen, and another either
> says it can, or says to do it, we have another rule - 103.2 - that says the
> 'can't' effect wins out.

Rule 103.2 says that a "can't" *effect* wins out; it says nothing about
a "can't" *rule*.
--
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?)

Daniel W. Johnson <panoptes@iquest.net> wrote:
>David DeLaney <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, right - an even better reason, alongside the one I gave. Look at the
>> definition of "flying" in the rulebook: "A creature with flying can't be
>> blocked by creatures without flying.". That's saying this can't happen.
>> And when a rule (or effect) says something can't happen, and another either
>> says it can, or says to do it, we have another rule - 103.2 - that says the
>> 'can't' effect wins out.
>
>Rule 103.2 says that a "can't" *effect* wins out; it says nothing about
>a "can't" *rule*.

Are you looking at the 8/05 rulebook, or an earlier one? It did used to say
only "effect"; we got that fixed (otherwise landwalk, flying, and several
other rules that say "can't" wouldn't fall under it).

103.2. When a rule or effect says something can happen and another effect says
it can't, the "can't" effect wins. For example [...]

....Oh, I see what you mean, I was looking at the first mention. Apparently we
only got it HALF fixed... Will take this back on up to them, thanx.

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?)

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

> Are you looking at the 8/05 rulebook, or an earlier one? It did used to say
> only "effect"; we got that fixed (otherwise landwalk, flying, and several
> other rules that say "can't" wouldn't fall under it).
>
> 103.2. When a rule or effect says something can happen and another effect says
> it can't, the "can't" effect wins. For example [...]
>
> ...Oh, I see what you mean, I was looking at the first mention. Apparently we
> only got it HALF fixed... Will take this back on up to them, thanx.

The above change apparently happened in June 2004. The February 2004
rulebook had:

103.2. When one effect says something can happen and another says it
can't, the "can't" effect wins. For example [...]
--
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?)

Keith Piddington <uj551@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>David DeLaney (dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com) wrote:
>: Oh, right - an even better reason, alongside the one I gave. Look at the
>: definition of "flying" in the rulebook: "A creature with flying can't be
>: blocked by creatures without flying.". That's saying this can't happen.
>: And when a rule (or effect) says something can't happen, and another either
>: says it can, or says to do it, we have another rule - 103.2 - that says the
>: 'can't' effect wins out.
>
>However, isn't there also a fundamental rule that says in some
>fashion "card words take precedence over rules", or has that
>been abandoned?

Take precedence over? No. The rules take precedence. The cards can contradict
what a rule says, or say to do something that no rule allows you to do, and
103.1 covers DIRECT contradictions: the card wins - but only over the specific
rule it's contradicting. (Thus, "regenerate this" can win over the rule that
says "destroy lethally damaged creatures" ... but can't do anything to stop
the card being returned to hand, sacrificed, etc. "Indestructible" can't stop
sacrifice. "Can attack as though it doesn't have defender" doesn't allow it
to attack when it's not your turn, or not a Combat phase. Etc.)

103.2 covers the interaction of "do this"/"this can do this" and "this can't
do this"; "can't" wins over "can". (In practice, "do this only under these
conditions" also wins over "do this some other way", and "only" has needed to
get put into 032 for some time now too...)

>Thus, if a card says "yes" but the rules
>say "no", the card wins out, but if two cards disagree (or
>two rules, unlikely) then the "no" always wins.

Nope. If a card says "yes" and the rules say "you can't", the rule wins. If
the _rule_ says "yes" and the card says "nope you can't"? The card wins.
This is what "as though" gets used for - to get around "can't" cards or
rules.

>*If* this is still true, the simple wording could be used...

In the simple sense you mean, that hasn't been true since Unlimited. People
took it to mean WAY too much - the "this says my Wall can attack, so I can
ignore every rule about WHEN it can attack, right?" problem. It got codified
to "only breaks the rule it SAYS it breaks" and "can't overrides can,
regardless", which make things a lot more manageable.

And yes, some cards get designed that are meant to go around a rule that
says something can't be done - Spiders versus flying, to get back to this
thread's original topic. That's where "as though it had flying" comes in...
the Spider doesn't have flying at all - but it can't block a flyer without
it, so it PRETENDS it has it, for blocking purposes only, and the game
plays along...

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?)

David DeLaney wrote:

> >"[foo] may block creatures with [bar]."

> (I did say someone would suggest this, did I not?)

Not quite. What you said was re Chaosphere:

> (At this point someone is going to suggest "Creatures without flying can block
> creatures with flying"; no, as that causes severe problems when you have an
> attacker with both flying and ANOTHER evasion ability.)
>
But close enough for Usenet.

You use (later) the example of a creature with flying and fear. But
then you say,

> Take precedence over? No. The rules take precedence. The cards can contradict what a
> rule says, or say to do something that no rule allows you to do, and 103.1 covers
> DIRECT contradictions: the card wins - ***but only over the specific
> rule it's contradicting.***"

So this seems to eliminate the flying-and-fear thingie -- saying
"~this~ can block creatures with flying" wins over the rule that says
creatures without flying can't etc., but doesn't win over the rule that
says "...fear can't be blocked except by artifact creatures and/or
black creatures. " -- not a DIRECT contradiction. So it would seem a
non-issue.

Be well
James, DCI L2
"Any time i hear someone put the word 'mere' in front of the word
'semantics', i bite my tongue hard and remind myself that i, too,
am greatly ignorant." - Spider Robinson

 

[Guest]

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

On 3 Aug 2005 00:32:45 -0400, dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
wrote:

>Daniel W. Johnson <panoptes@iquest.net> wrote:
>>David DeLaney <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, right - an even better reason, alongside the one I gave. Look at the
>>> definition of "flying" in the rulebook: "A creature with flying can't be
>>> blocked by creatures without flying.". That's saying this can't happen.
>>> And when a rule (or effect) says something can't happen, and another either
>>> says it can, or says to do it, we have another rule - 103.2 - that says the
>>> 'can't' effect wins out.
>>
>>Rule 103.2 says that a "can't" *effect* wins out; it says nothing about
>>a "can't" *rule*.
>
>Are you looking at the 8/05 rulebook, or an earlier one? It did used to say
>only "effect"; we got that fixed (otherwise landwalk, flying, and several
>other rules that say "can't" wouldn't fall under it).
>
>103.2. When a rule or effect says something can happen and another effect says
>it can't, the "can't" effect wins. For example [...]
>
>...Oh, I see what you mean, I was looking at the first mention. Apparently we
>only got it HALF fixed... Will take this back on up to them, thanx.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem. Could you please describe a
situation where it's relevant that rule 103.2 doesn't apply to things
like flying? (I don't think that situation exists...)

 

[Guest]

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

No Way <Not@real.com> wrote:
>dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>103.2. When a rule or effect says something can happen and another effect says
>>it can't, the "can't" effect wins. For example [...]
>>
>>...Oh, I see what you mean, I was looking at the first mention. Apparently we
>>only got it HALF fixed... Will take this back on up to them, thanx.
>
>I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem. Could you please describe a
>situation where it's relevant that rule 103.2 doesn't apply to things
>like flying? (I don't think that situation exists...)

It may not, but only because we've been fairly careful NOT to print any
cards that say, flat-out, "This can block flying creatures" or "This can
block creatures with swampwalk", etc. We've been careful to use the 'as
though' wording. _IF_ such a card existed, the current wording of 103.2
would not -stop- it from overriding the rule (and incidentally causing
confusion if it tried to block something with flying, swampwalk, AND Fear,
for example). Thus 103.2 does need fixed.

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?)

On 3 Aug 2005 05:12:09 -0400, dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
wrote:

>No Way <Not@real.com> wrote:
>>dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>>103.2. When a rule or effect says something can happen and another effect says
>>>it can't, the "can't" effect wins. For example [...]
>>>
>>>...Oh, I see what you mean, I was looking at the first mention. Apparently we
>>>only got it HALF fixed... Will take this back on up to them, thanx.
>>
>>I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem. Could you please describe a
>>situation where it's relevant that rule 103.2 doesn't apply to things
>>like flying? (I don't think that situation exists...)
>
>It may not, but only because we've been fairly careful NOT to print any
>cards that say, flat-out, "This can block flying creatures" or "This can
>block creatures with swampwalk", etc.[/quote]

So? Those wordings won't ever work. If you use them now, a creature
with that ability would be able to circumvent all evasion ability on a
creature (because 103.1 applies). If you change 103.2, those abilities
won't ever work because 103.2 applies... again, what would be the
point?

> We've been careful to use the 'as
>though' wording.

I believe this is a necessity regardless of which 103.2 you want to
use. Am I wrong?

> _IF_ such a card existed, the current wording of 103.2
>would not -stop- it from overriding the rule (and incidentally causing
>confusion if it tried to block something with flying, swampwalk, AND Fear,
>for example). Thus 103.2 does need fixed.

 

[Guest]

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

Hampmeister@gmail.com <Hampmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
>So this seems to eliminate the flying-and-fear thingie -- saying
>"~this~ can block creatures with flying" wins over the rule that says
>creatures without flying can't etc., but doesn't win over the rule that
>says "...fear can't be blocked except by artifact creatures and/or
>black creatures. " -- not a DIRECT contradiction. So it would seem a
>non-issue.

Yes but - if it has to be discussed to this depth to find out it's a non-issue,
that's something they want to avoid too, because players who can't follow the
reasoning that far for whatever reason will not know it's a non-issue. Yes?

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.