Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Spider Answers

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 3:07:55 PM

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

An interesting post from Russell_Linnemann on the wizards boards:

> Originally Posted by Paraphrased MaGo
>
> > These cards work exactly as "blocks as though it has
> > flying(shadow)" would. Giant Spider can't block Stone Spirit. Wall
> > of Diffusion/Heartwood Dryad/Chaosphere WILL be receiving errata
> > in the next oracle update.
>
> I do not know the exact form or function of the errata, nor do I
> know the date of the next oracle update.

--
David

More about : spider answers

Anonymous
August 29, 2005 6:59:56 PM

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:07:55 +0200, David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>An interesting post from Russell_Linnemann on the wizards boards:
>> Originally Posted by Paraphrased MaGo
>> > These cards work exactly as "blocks as though it has
>> > flying(shadow)" would. Giant Spider can't block Stone Spirit. Wall
>> > of Diffusion/Heartwood Dryad/Chaosphere WILL be receiving errata
>> > in the next oracle update.
>>
>> I do not know the exact form or function of the errata, nor do I
>> know the date of the next oracle update.

Right. Much discussion behind the scenes was done, and the outcome is
essentially the above; "can block as though it had flying", essentially,
can't "turn off", so Spiders can't block anything that says "can't be
blocked by creatures with flying". Wall of Diffusion and Heartwood Dryad
were NOT supposed to be unable to block a nonShadow attacker ... and
Chaosphere is an unbelievable mess to word correctly, but I think we
finally came up with one that actually works and does NOT make the second
ability "interfere with" the first. (It's such a simple -concept-, but
packs of tigers leap out with large pointy teeth whenever you actually try
to write it out correctly...)

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
August 29, 2005 6:59:57 PM

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

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

: Right. Much discussion behind the scenes was done, and the outcome is
: essentially the above; "can block as though it had flying", essentially,
: can't "turn off", so Spiders can't block anything that says "can't be
: blocked by creatures with flying".

To remove the appearance of being able to choose, could it
be reworded to "blocks as though" instead of "can block as
though"; the "can" implies there's a choice.


Keith
Related resources
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 8:42:25 AM

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:
>: Right. Much discussion behind the scenes was done, and the outcome is
>: essentially the above; "can block as though it had flying", essentially,
>: can't "turn off", so Spiders can't block anything that says "can't be
>: blocked by creatures with flying".
>
>To remove the appearance of being able to choose, could it
>be reworded to "blocks as though" instead of "can block as
>though"; the "can" implies there's a choice.

Nowhere in Magic does "can" imply choice; "may" is Magic's word for choices.
Which is a large part of why the "may block as though it had flying" got
changed with 9th Edition to 'can block as though it had flying'.

"can" implies ability-to, not choice-to, if that helps any?

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
August 30, 2005 2:50:08 PM

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

On 29 Aug 2005 14:59:56 -0400, dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:07:55 +0200, David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>An interesting post from Russell_Linnemann on the wizards boards:
>>> Originally Posted by Paraphrased MaGo
>>> > These cards work exactly as "blocks as though it has
>>> > flying(shadow)" would. Giant Spider can't block Stone Spirit. Wall
>>> > of Diffusion/Heartwood Dryad/Chaosphere WILL be receiving errata
>>> > in the next oracle update.
>>>
>>> I do not know the exact form or function of the errata, nor do I
>>> know the date of the next oracle update.
>
>Right. Much discussion behind the scenes was done, and the outcome is
>essentially the above; "can block as though it had flying", essentially,
>can't "turn off", so Spiders can't block anything that says "can't be
>blocked by creatures with flying". Wall of Diffusion and Heartwood Dryad
>were NOT supposed to be unable to block a nonShadow attacker ... and
>Chaosphere is an unbelievable mess to word correctly, but I think we
>finally came up with one that actually works and does NOT make the second
>ability "interfere with" the first. (It's such a simple -concept-, but
>packs of tigers leap out with large pointy teeth whenever you actually try
>to write it out correctly...)
>
>Dave


If Wall of Diffusion was not meant to be able to block normal
creatures wouldn't it be less confusing to just give it shadow? (yes
the two wordings may be subtly different with interactions to cards
that refer to shadow, but that difference would be worth it for less
confusion wouldn't it)
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 2:50:09 PM

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

Gareth Pye <gareth@gpsatsys.com.au> wrote:

> If Wall of Diffusion was not meant to be able to block normal
> creatures wouldn't it be less confusing to just give it shadow? (yes
> the two wordings may be subtly different with interactions to cards
> that refer to shadow, but that difference would be worth it for less
> confusion wouldn't it)

Exactly. It IS meant to block creatures with shadow and/or creatures
without shadow, so its ability needs an odd phrasing.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 2:50:09 PM

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

Gareth Pye <gareth@gpsatsys.com.au> wrote:
>dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>Wall of Diffusion and Heartwood Dryad
>>were NOT supposed to be unable to block a nonShadow attacker ...
>
>If Wall of Diffusion was not meant to be able to block normal
>creatures

....Reread, carefully, what's up there plz. I didn't say it was not supposed
to be ABLE to. I said it was not supposed to be UNABLE to. If it blocks "as
though it had shadow", well, things with shadow can't block things without
shadow. So making it unable to block a nonShadow attacker isn't what needs
to be done...

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
August 30, 2005 8:35:36 PM

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

While thinking about how cool Pat Wilson was, David DeLaney blurted:
>
> "can" implies ability-to, not choice-to, if that helps any?

I think his point is just that in English, saying one "can" do something
doesn't mean that one "must" do something. I can speak, but I can also
choose to remain silent.

/joe
--
14% of Americans surveyed agree that Puerto Rico should not be the 51st
state because "that extra star would make the flag look bad."
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 8:59:12 PM

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

phat_joe <scag@moralminority.org> wrote:
>While thinking about how cool Pat Wilson was, David DeLaney blurted:
>> "can" implies ability-to, not choice-to, if that helps any?
>
>I think his point is just that in English, saying one "can" do something
>doesn't mean that one "must" do something. I can speak, but I can also
>choose to remain silent.

Yes, I do see. But here, the Spider is able to block as though it had flying.
Nothing's saying it's able to block as though it did NOT have flying, so it
doesn't also have that capability... so it has to use the capability it
says it has. (To be able to do either the 'may' wording would be needed; to
be able to do 'both at once' something like "can block as though it had flying
and can block as though it did not have flying" would be needed.)

In other words - the "can block as though it had flying" isn't optional,
'cuz it doesn't say it is. The controller of the Spider can't decide that it
doesn't have, or won't use, that capability. (Unlike an activated ability, say,
that said "0: This turn, ~ blocks as though it had flying", which would always
involve the choice of whether to play the ability or not...)

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.
August 31, 2005 2:38:44 AM

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

David DeLaney sez:

<<
>Yes, I do see. But here, the Spider is able to block as though it had flying.
>Nothing's saying it's able to block as though it did NOT have flying, so it
>doesn't also have that capability... so it has to use the capability it
>says it has. (To be able to do either the 'may' wording would be needed; to
>be able to do 'both at once' something like "can block as though it had flying
>and can block as though it did not have flying" would be needed.)
>
>In other words - the "can block as though it had flying" isn't optional,
>'cuz it doesn't say it is. The controller of the Spider can't decide that it
>doesn't have, or won't use, that capability. (Unlike an activated ability, say,
>that said "0: This turn, ~ blocks as though it had flying", which would always
>involve the choice of whether to play the ability or not...)
>>

Well, I think another good argument is that "blocks as though it had
flying" may confuse new players who think it means it MUST block each
turn, at least until they find a Watchdog or a Razorgrass Screen...
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 6:02:54 AM

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

One of the voices in my head - or was it David DeLaney? - just said...
> Yes, I do see. But here, the Spider is able to block as though it had flying.
> Nothing's saying it's able to block as though it did NOT have flying, so it
> doesn't also have that capability... so it has to use the capability it
> says it has.

<devil's advocate> Don't the general game rules say that? Nothing is
explicitly overriding the fact that it could do so if it were a vanilla
creature; there is a case to be made that this ability is in addition
to, not instead of, being able to do that. </devil's advocate>

In any event, whatever the technicalities of the rules, this makes about
three instances in recent memory [1] where it wouldn't have done any
harm to word the card so that *ordinary English speakers* will see right
away what the card does without going "ugh".

There was no reason NOT to word it as "Giant Spider blocks as though it
has flying"; that is clear, unambiguous and as far as I can tell, works
with the rules at least as well as the current wording, and it's shorter
besides, which may be relevant if WotC wants to do a more complicated
Spider someday. Whereas to the average English speaker, "can" implies a
choice almost as strongly as "may".

[1] Others off the top of my head - Reverse the Sands' reminder text,
which I've made snarky comments about a couple of times already, and the
much-mocked "instead" on the new Ravnica duals. I understand why the
latter is there, but it's ugly. What's wrong with "Temple Garden comes
into play tapped unless you pay 2 life as it comes into play"?
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 9:58:37 AM

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

One of the voices in my head - or was it Jax? - just said...
> David DeLaney sez:
>
> <<
> >Yes, I do see. But here, the Spider is able to block as though it had flying.
> >Nothing's saying it's able to block as though it did NOT have flying, so it
> >doesn't also have that capability... so it has to use the capability it
> >says it has. (To be able to do either the 'may' wording would be needed; to
> >be able to do 'both at once' something like "can block as though it had flying
> >and can block as though it did not have flying" would be needed.)
> >
> >In other words - the "can block as though it had flying" isn't optional,
> >'cuz it doesn't say it is. The controller of the Spider can't decide that it
> >doesn't have, or won't use, that capability. (Unlike an activated ability, say,
> >that said "0: This turn, ~ blocks as though it had flying", which would always
> >involve the choice of whether to play the ability or not...)
> >>
>
> Well, I think another good argument is that "blocks as though it had
> flying" may confuse new players who think it means it MUST block each
> turn, at least until they find a Watchdog or a Razorgrass Screen...

If there is really anyone who would do that (which I doubt, that's
certainly not an obvious way to interpret that text) then I can say with
complete confidence that such people are far less numerous than those
who would read "can" as implying a choice.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 6:44:29 PM

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

Mekkis <ti89rules@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jax wrote:
>> Well, I think another good argument is that "blocks as though it had
>> flying" may confuse new players who think it means it MUST block each
>> turn, at least until they find a Watchdog or a Razorgrass Screen...
>
>Wouldn't it be possible to write something like "can block flyers as
>though they didn't have flying". It seems to work in all cases...

With Chaosphere involved? With Dense Canopy involved? Gotta arrange the
wordings so that they cover _all_ the odd cases. (Which for Flying include
Stone Spirit, Treetop stuff, Spiders themselves, Dense Canopy, Chaosphere, and
the "high-flyers" like the Rishadan creatures, though not a lot else.)

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
September 2, 2005 5:23:06 AM

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

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, David DeLaney wrote:

> Mekkis <ti89rules@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't it be possible to write something like "can block flyers as
>> though they didn't have flying". It seems to work in all cases...
>
> With Chaosphere involved? With Dense Canopy involved? Gotta arrange the
> wordings so that they cover _all_ the odd cases. (Which for Flying include
> Stone Spirit, Treetop stuff, Spiders themselves, Dense Canopy, Chaosphere, and
> the "high-flyers" like the Rishadan creatures, though not a lot else.)

And what is the intended effect of a second Chaosphere? Should it
revert everything back to normal? Or should it be redundant? Or maybe
something else...

--
David
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 5:26:20 AM

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

One of the voices in my head - or was it David de Kloet? - just said...
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, David DeLaney wrote:
>
> > Mekkis <ti89rules@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Wouldn't it be possible to write something like "can block flyers as
> >> though they didn't have flying". It seems to work in all cases...
> >
> > With Chaosphere involved? With Dense Canopy involved? Gotta arrange the
> > wordings so that they cover _all_ the odd cases. (Which for Flying include
> > Stone Spirit, Treetop stuff, Spiders themselves, Dense Canopy, Chaosphere, and
> > the "high-flyers" like the Rishadan creatures, though not a lot else.)
>
> And what is the intended effect of a second Chaosphere?

To trash the first, thanks to the fact that it's a world enchantment.
Thank God.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 4:14:34 PM

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

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Jeff Heikkinen wrote:

> One of the voices in my head - or was it David de Kloet? - just said...
>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, David DeLaney wrote:
>>
>>> Mekkis <ti89rules@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it be possible to write something like "can block flyers as
>>>> though they didn't have flying". It seems to work in all cases...
>>>
>>> With Chaosphere involved? With Dense Canopy involved? Gotta arrange the
>>> wordings so that they cover _all_ the odd cases. (Which for Flying include
>>> Stone Spirit, Treetop stuff, Spiders themselves, Dense Canopy, Chaosphere, and
>>> the "high-flyers" like the Rishadan creatures, though not a lot else.)
>>
>> And what is the intended effect of a second Chaosphere?
>
> To trash the first, thanks to the fact that it's a world enchantment.
> Thank God.

Oh, right. Missed that part :) .

--
David
!