Considering the recent release of Ruxa, Patient Professor, it was suggested that it would interact nicely with Asceticism, protecting the creatures from being targeted as well as giving the possibility to regenerate them. It was then pointed out that Asceticism grants the creatures Hexproof, thereby making them have an ability and thus not being affected by Ruxa anymore. (The same principle applies to Privileged Position, as the "other permanents" may be creatures.)
I acknowledge this is fully correct. Muraganda Petroglyphs works on the same principles as the Bear Professor, and here we find the ruling:
"If an effect says that an affected creature “has” or “gains” an ability, Muraganda Petroglyphs won’t apply to that creature because it has gained an ability. If an effect simply says that something is true of an affected creature (such as “target creature can’t be blocked this turn”) then that effect isn’t causing the creature to gain an ability."
Now, my issue is that while the Oracle states that Asceticism and Privileged Position grant creatures/other permanents Hexproof (and the Guild Pack version of PP even has this text in print), this represents a functional erratum to how these cards are played, one that should not occur and be reversed.
Both originally stated "Creatures/Other permanents [let's call it "Stuff"] you control can't be the targets of spells or abilities your opponents control."
Yes, that is essentially Hexproof BUT to me, this is "simply saying that something is true of affected Stuff" and therefore, said Stuff should NOT gain the rules text "Hexproof" in their textbox, and vanilla creatures with Asceticism/Privileged Position in play remain without abilities and gain benefits from the Petroglyphs and the Patient Professor.
I realize the printing of PP with the Hexproof wording pretty much cements this rules change... But it still feels wrong to me.
You should post this thread on the Magic General forum rather than on the Magic Rulings forum. There appears to be nothing in your post that you don't seek a clarification for in terms of the rules.
Questions asking why certain cards are worded one way rather than another, especially where the other wording is claimed to be "better", are out of scope for the Magic Rulings forum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I acknowledge this is fully correct. Muraganda Petroglyphs works on the same principles as the Bear Professor, and here we find the ruling:
"If an effect says that an affected creature “has” or “gains” an ability, Muraganda Petroglyphs won’t apply to that creature because it has gained an ability. If an effect simply says that something is true of an affected creature (such as “target creature can’t be blocked this turn”) then that effect isn’t causing the creature to gain an ability."
Now, my issue is that while the Oracle states that Asceticism and Privileged Position grant creatures/other permanents Hexproof (and the Guild Pack version of PP even has this text in print), this represents a functional erratum to how these cards are played, one that should not occur and be reversed.
Both originally stated "Creatures/Other permanents [let's call it "Stuff"] you control can't be the targets of spells or abilities your opponents control."
Yes, that is essentially Hexproof BUT to me, this is "simply saying that something is true of affected Stuff" and therefore, said Stuff should NOT gain the rules text "Hexproof" in their textbox, and vanilla creatures with Asceticism/Privileged Position in play remain without abilities and gain benefits from the Petroglyphs and the Patient Professor.
I realize the printing of PP with the Hexproof wording pretty much cements this rules change... But it still feels wrong to me.
Questions asking why certain cards are worded one way rather than another, especially where the other wording is claimed to be "better", are out of scope for the Magic Rulings forum.