It says "than any other". Does this mean that only the player with the least permanents is not affected by this, or only the player with the most permanents is affected by this?
It is just unclear wording. It could easily be interpreted either way. Thanks for clearing that up, however. It is a much better card when it hits everyone except the person with the least permanents.
"Than any other" means that the Engine compares each player's permanent count to every other player. If he/she has more permanents than one of them, they can't play any permanents unless they sacrifice a permanent.
Also, I wouldn't really regard that as proper Oracle wording. It's not reworded at all from the original card, so I assume that nobody's bothered to give it an up-to-date wording template.
In this day and age, I'd assume it would say something more like "At the beginning of each upkeep, the player who controls the most permanents sacrifices a permanent. If he or she did not, he or she cannot play artifact, creature, enchantment spells, or lands".
Also, I wouldn't really regard that as proper Oracle wording.
Actuatlly, that is the correct oracle wording...
Quote from Gatherer Card Window »
Rules Text (Oracle): A player who controls more permanents than any other can’t play lands or artifact, creature, or enchantment spells. That player may sacrifice a permanent to ignore this effect until end of turn.
And for rulings, its not upkeep, its whenever you want...
Oct 4, 2004 - Sacrificing a permanent to this card is played as an Instant.
Well, I know it's the wording that Oracle gives. But the fact that it's identical to what's printed on the card raises a few flags for me, and as I said, the templating simply looks off to me. It just looks to me that nobody's bothered to create new wording for it yet. My rewrite of the ability wasn't intended as a be-all, end-all of the thing, just an idea. The whole "ignore this" clause just doesn't look up to snuff with current templating, so I was just trying to brainstorm a way around it.
In this day and age, I'd assume it would say something more like "At the beginning of each upkeep, the player who controls the most permanents sacrifices a permanent. If he or she did not, he or she cannot play artifact, creature, enchantment spells, or lands".
That wording is functionally completely different from the original card in three respects:
1)It forces the player to sacrifice even if they don't want to, whereas it's optional now.
2)The sacrifice is forced during the upkeep, whereas it can currently be done anytime that player can play an instant.
2)It's not at all clear what happens if two people are tied for the most permanents (under the current Oracle wording, if there's a tie, nobody is affected.)
I personally don't see any problem with the card as is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
Yeah, I forgot to put a "may" in there, so sue me. And I already said, that wasn't meant to be the definitive wording, just a quick attempt to reproduce the effect with what I felt to be more up-to-date templating. It's not like I ironed it out to try to make it perfect.
The fact is though, most cards that get Oracle updates were already fairly clear in their intent the way they are printed on the cards, as is Damping Matrix. The vagueness of some of the wordings ("than any other" as opposed to "another"), and the oddly-phrased "ignore" clause just reek of un-updatedness, though, and I feel that as given, it really isn't up to the modern standard of clarity.
It isn't that they would/should reword the ability, it is that they would not currently make the ability. As for how it is an unclear ability, if they wanted it to be the player with the most, than they would say "player controls more permanents than each other player." Currently, it says "any other players." This means, anyone who has more than anyone else.
It says "than any other". Does this mean that only the player with the least permanents is not affected by this, or only the player with the most permanents is affected by this?
Also, I wouldn't really regard that as proper Oracle wording. It's not reworded at all from the original card, so I assume that nobody's bothered to give it an up-to-date wording template.
In this day and age, I'd assume it would say something more like "At the beginning of each upkeep, the player who controls the most permanents sacrifices a permanent. If he or she did not, he or she cannot play artifact, creature, enchantment spells, or lands".
And for rulings, its not upkeep, its whenever you want...
Winner of the Weekly Signature & Avatar Contest Weeks 51, 59, 78, & 118.
I don't care if I was framed for murder if I only got a warning I would let it go.
That wording is functionally completely different from the original card in three respects:
1)It forces the player to sacrifice even if they don't want to, whereas it's optional now.
2)The sacrifice is forced during the upkeep, whereas it can currently be done anytime that player can play an instant.
2)It's not at all clear what happens if two people are tied for the most permanents (under the current Oracle wording, if there's a tie, nobody is affected.)
I personally don't see any problem with the card as is.
The fact is though, most cards that get Oracle updates were already fairly clear in their intent the way they are printed on the cards, as is Damping Matrix. The vagueness of some of the wordings ("than any other" as opposed to "another"), and the oddly-phrased "ignore" clause just reek of un-updatedness, though, and I feel that as given, it really isn't up to the modern standard of clarity.
Extendo
Craven?
My Eternal Cube on CubeTutor| |My Reject Rare Cube on CubeTutor| |My Peasant Cube on CubeTutor
I used to write for MTGS, including Cranial Insertion and cube articles. Good on you if you can find those after the upgrade.