I have a question about Oppressive Rays. From what I gather (from people talking about the card) the controller of the enchanted creatures has to pay 3each time he wants to attack or block with that creature. But when I first read the card, I thought it just meant that you could pay 3 and then attack/block like normal for the rest of the game.
How do I know, from reading the card, that the cost applies to each time that I want to attack/block?
I have a question about Oppressive Rays. From what I gather (from people talking about the card) the controller of the enchanted creatures has to pay 3each time he wants to attack or block with that creature. But when I first read the card, I thought it just meant that you could pay 3 and then attack/block like normal for the rest of the game.
How do I know, from reading the card, that the cost applies to each time that I want to attack/block?
The same way you know it for the 3 additional cost on activated abilities.
508.1g If any of the chosen creatures require paying costs to attack, the active player determines the total cost to attack. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. Once the total cost is determined, it becomes “locked in.” If effects would change the total cost after this time, ignore this change.
508.1h If any of the costs require mana, the active player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, “Mana Abilities”).
508.1i Once the player has enough mana in his or her mana pool, he or she pays all costs in any order. Partial payments are not allowed.
Pays all costs means "pays all cost", not "reminisces about payments on previous turns".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Why bother with mere rulings when so many answers can be found in the Rules?
Just take a look at what the card says, and think of how it would play out. The creature can not attack or block, unless it's controller pays three. Meaning for the creature to attack or block, there is now an extra cost of 3. So think, when you attack or block with it, you look for any extra costs that need to be paid. Every time, you're going to see that cost. It doesn't go away once you pay it, and if it did, it would say so.
Would if make more sense to you if about why you need to pay it every time if it read "Attacking or blocking with enchanted creature costs 3 more"? Because they mean the same thing, just the printing of it the way it is makes it read a lot smoother and nicer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whats the big deal about black lotus you ask? Well you see, there is no big deal about it. It IS the big deal.
This is one of those things that seems obvious once you know the right answer, but if you are new to the game it's not really something that you can intuitively work out. I guess I took the card to mean "Enchanted creature doesn't have the ability to attack/block unless you pay 3, and if you do then you can attack/block like normal." I know I'm going to get a lot of sarcastic replies about how stupid I am for thinking that, but I'm just trying to demonstrate where it might just be possible to be confused. Sorry. I deeply apologize for everybody I have offended.
I guess the real key is that the phrase "loses the ability to attack or block" is not the same as "can't attack or block." To somebody who is not familiar with Magic-speak, these two phrases sound the same. But functionally they are totally different.
Don't worry, you're not an idiot. Just once you start really getting into it and playing, you'll have a more intuitive understanding on how these effects work, and why they work that way.
The reason it isn't phrased the way i said it, is because a creature doesn't really have a cost to attack or block. They have to tap to attack, and they have to be untapped to block, usually, but there aren't any true costs to it.
Basically, the game works that if it tells you something has an addition cost or a payment attached to it, that payment will be required each time you want to make that action. If it doesn't work that way, then the card will tell you that it doesn't work that way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whats the big deal about black lotus you ask? Well you see, there is no big deal about it. It IS the big deal.
"can't attack" really means "can't be declared as an attacker"
Thanks for the reply. This still doesn't tell me that the cost is repetitive (each time you attack or block) rather than a one time deal.
Let's say I get barred from attacking because the creature "can't be declared as an attacker." Then I pay 3. Now my creature can be declared as an attacker. There is nothing in that statement that indicates that the creature can be declared an attacker this time.
I'm definitely not arguing that any of you are wrong. I know I was wrong. I'm just saying that I don't know how I was supposed to have figured this out just by reading the card and thinking it through. Honestly it's kinda frustrating.
This is even more frustrating because I know that the obvious reply to my misconception is "There is no reason to believe that the cost is a one time thing." But in response I have to say "there is no reason to believe that the cost is reoccurring". So far I haven't been able to find a good explanation as to how I could have reasoned this out just from reading the card.
"can't attack" really means "can't be declared as an attacker"
Thanks for the reply. This still doesn't tell me that the cost is repetitive (each time you attack or block) rather than a one time deal.
Let's say I get barred from attacking because the creature "can't be declared as an attacker." Then I pay 3. Now my creature can be declared as an attacker. There is nothing in that statement that indicates that the creature can be declared an attacker this time.
I'm definitely not arguing that any of you are wrong. I know I was wrong. I'm just saying that I don't know how I was supposed to have figured this out just by reading the card and thinking it through. Honestly it's kinda frustrating.
This is even more frustrating because I know that the obvious reply to my misconception is "There is no reason to believe that the cost is a one time thing." But in response I have to say "there is no reason to believe that the cost is reoccurring". So far I haven't been able to find a good explanation as to how I could have reasoned this out just from reading the card.
I believe the phrasing is a holdover from cards like Sphere of Safety where the fact that the cost must be paid each time is much more obvious.
But Sphere of safety is worded just like oppressive rays, so that doesn't make it any more obvious.
The best way i can explain it i think, is to say that the card is an enchantment. So, in magic, before you perform any action, you check to make sure that action is legal. In the case of oppressive rays, you want to declare an attack with your creature, so you check the requirements. You see a requirement of 3, pay it, and declare your attack. All done. You didn't remove the enchantment, and nothing you did altered the enchantment.
Next turn comes around. You want to declare attack with that creature. You look for any restrictions on that. You see oppressive rays wants you to pay 3. You say to yourself "wait, i already paid three for this. Didn't i already fulfill this, so i shouldn't have to pay three?" And the answer is no, because the last turn you attacked and paid the cost for it, but the enchantment hasn't gone anywhere. Nothing has changed about it.
Basically, the card makes it so that you have to pay 3each turn you want to attack with the creature. I think the each turn clause would make it a lot easier for you to understand, but the reason it isn't printed is to save space, because the way magic works, it is the kind of thing that goes without saying on a lot of cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whats the big deal about black lotus you ask? Well you see, there is no big deal about it. It IS the big deal.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How do I know, from reading the card, that the cost applies to each time that I want to attack/block?
The same way you know it for the 3 additional cost on activated abilities.
Pays all costs means "pays all cost", not "reminisces about payments on previous turns".
"When a creature becomes enchanted by Oppressive Rays, its controller may pay 3. If he or she doesn't, enchanted creature can't attack or block."
or
"At any time, enchanted creature's controller may pay 3. Unless he or she has, enchanted creature can't attack or block."
In other words, one-time costs always mention at what time they are paid.
Would if make more sense to you if about why you need to pay it every time if it read "Attacking or blocking with enchanted creature costs 3 more"? Because they mean the same thing, just the printing of it the way it is makes it read a lot smoother and nicer.
I guess the real key is that the phrase "loses the ability to attack or block" is not the same as "can't attack or block." To somebody who is not familiar with Magic-speak, these two phrases sound the same. But functionally they are totally different.
This is good to know. But I'm still wondering why it doesn't mention the time that the cost is paid if it has to be paid everytime.
That would make it totally obvious for an idiot like me.
oh ok. I was planning to sit there and reminisce.
The reason it isn't phrased the way i said it, is because a creature doesn't really have a cost to attack or block. They have to tap to attack, and they have to be untapped to block, usually, but there aren't any true costs to it.
Basically, the game works that if it tells you something has an addition cost or a payment attached to it, that payment will be required each time you want to make that action. If it doesn't work that way, then the card will tell you that it doesn't work that way.
Thanks for the reply. This still doesn't tell me that the cost is repetitive (each time you attack or block) rather than a one time deal.
Let's say I get barred from attacking because the creature "can't be declared as an attacker." Then I pay 3. Now my creature can be declared as an attacker. There is nothing in that statement that indicates that the creature can be declared an attacker this time.
I'm definitely not arguing that any of you are wrong. I know I was wrong. I'm just saying that I don't know how I was supposed to have figured this out just by reading the card and thinking it through. Honestly it's kinda frustrating.
This is even more frustrating because I know that the obvious reply to my misconception is "There is no reason to believe that the cost is a one time thing." But in response I have to say "there is no reason to believe that the cost is reoccurring". So far I haven't been able to find a good explanation as to how I could have reasoned this out just from reading the card.
I believe the phrasing is a holdover from cards like Sphere of Safety where the fact that the cost must be paid each time is much more obvious.
The best way i can explain it i think, is to say that the card is an enchantment. So, in magic, before you perform any action, you check to make sure that action is legal. In the case of oppressive rays, you want to declare an attack with your creature, so you check the requirements. You see a requirement of 3, pay it, and declare your attack. All done. You didn't remove the enchantment, and nothing you did altered the enchantment.
Next turn comes around. You want to declare attack with that creature. You look for any restrictions on that. You see oppressive rays wants you to pay 3. You say to yourself "wait, i already paid three for this. Didn't i already fulfill this, so i shouldn't have to pay three?" And the answer is no, because the last turn you attacked and paid the cost for it, but the enchantment hasn't gone anywhere. Nothing has changed about it.
Basically, the card makes it so that you have to pay 3 each turn you want to attack with the creature. I think the each turn clause would make it a lot easier for you to understand, but the reason it isn't printed is to save space, because the way magic works, it is the kind of thing that goes without saying on a lot of cards.