I mean, hell, we're all on a forum for something that most people would describe as a "children's card game"...do what makes you happy. You are never too old to enjoy yourself.
As far as I'm aware, this mechanic first presented itself in Torment where it was first used, and, as Leslak mentioned a couple posts above me, the trick was elaborated within the preconstructed deck's manual. It was clearly intended. Since then, 36 cards have been templated the same way (not even counting every time Oblivion Ring was reprinted). Could it be that this is a new template and they just hadn't decided how to word it as they intended it? Gaea's Liege says no. This had clearly been intended ever since Torment.
It has been suggested that they're fixing the wording because it's unintuitive and that it may discourage new players who are unfamiliar with the rules. Is it unintuitive? Yes. Even if it's intended by WoTC, it does not generally reflect the thematic of the card. As for being discouraging, I wonder how often this comes up. Often times this trick is not a great deal for the person playing it, especially with Oblivion Ring. If you wanted to use that trick, you would need an explicit means to remove Enchantments (or Permanents) at instant speed. Right off the bat, you're generally 2-for-1ing yourself. I haven't played in competitive level magic for some time, but I can't actually personally remember this ever happening to me when it was more than just a cute trick. Oblivion Ring and Fiend Hunter are plenty potent on their own (Fiend Hunter admittedly less-so)
I think this is really just further reducing "confusing options" for people, such as changing "Target player draws two cards" to "Draw two cards." It used to be that giving players options was deemed valuable, but now the philosophy is that if 99% of the time something works one way, then why not remove the confusion?
The reason is that really disenfranchises us Johnnies. We love obscure interactions and effects. It's really enjoyable to find something that most people ignored, and call attention to it. Someone I was speaking with during the last FNM mentioned something along these lines. Consider Evermind. It has recently been adjusted such-that rather than having the text "This is Blue," it instead has a color marker. In most cases, practically the same, right? He reminds me, however, that splicing Evermind onto something like Glacial Ray allowed players to get around Protection from Red.
This, I believe, is valuable interaction. It's clever, innovative play that I feel should be allowed, if not encouraged. Unfortunately, with the NWO things are heading the opposite direction and even though I personally never used this Fiend-Hunter-Stack-Trick, I mourn its loss and I feel the game is lesser for its absence.
No, since it uses an "until" clause. Just like Banisher Priest does.
The ability says until Gaea's Liege leaves play, but if Gaea's Liege has left play before the ability resolves, there's no Gaea's Liege around to leave play to trigger the "until ~ leaves play" part of the ability.
I would think.
Which might mean the until clause makes things work the way they already do, just in a less confusing way. I'm not sure now.
To make it work the way I wanted, and the way you didn't want, I think the wording would have to be "as long as ~ is in play" which I don't know if that even works with the rules of the game.
The ability says until Gaea's Liege leaves play, but if Gaea's Liege has left play before the ability resolves, there's no Gaea's Liege around to leave play to trigger the "until ~ leaves play" part of the ability.
I would think.
Which might mean the until clause makes things work the way they already do, just in a less confusing way. I'm not sure now.
To make it work the way I wanted, and the way you didn't want, I think the wording would have to be "as long as ~ is in play" which I don't know if that even works with the rules of the game.
Banisher Priest's ability causes a zone change with a duration, a new style of ability that's somewhat reminiscent of older cards like Oblivion Ring. However, unlike Oblivion Ring, cards like Banisher Priest have a single ability that creates two one-shot effects: one that exiles the creature when the ability resolves, and another that returns the exiled card to the battlefield immediately after Banisher Priest leaves the battlefield.
If Banisher Priest leaves the battlefield before its enters-the-battlefield ability resolves, the target creature won't be exiled.
Banisher Priest's ability causes a zone change with a duration, a new style of ability that's somewhat reminiscent of older cards like Oblivion Ring. However, unlike Oblivion Ring, cards like Banisher Priest have a single ability that creates two one-shot effects: one that exiles the creature when the ability resolves, and another that returns the exiled card to the battlefield immediately after Banisher Priest leaves the battlefield.
If Banisher Priest leaves the battlefield before its enters-the-battlefield ability resolves, the target creature won't be exiled.
So it's a single ability, in that it's two abilities they call one ability. Fine. They also said evermind didn't make cards it was spliced onto blue to start with (seriously, look it up). Then changed their minds since the rules said they were wrong. Then errataed it to have a color indicator.
Bah. I don't know why I'm trying to argue that the ability works the way I don't want it to work. There is something wrong with me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
@_@
Reprint Misdirection and Dominate . There, now you can you lose to your own cards instead of being mad at blue.
Have you ever taken the time to think about what a "bug" actually is and why they occur?
It occurs when the rules the programmer of the software created are able to cause a situation that he/she didn't intend.
The fiend hunter/flicker interaction most definitely is a bug.
I'm pretty certain that Steve Jobs referred to this kind of situation as a "feature".
Anyway, I've played with a lot of people who've played casually for years, yet have no idea how the stack works nor what goes on it. This will help them some, but they're still in for a surprise that first day in competitive play and after they understand, it's not a problem again.
I'm not a fan of this choice simply because MTG isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a game that caters to the lowest denominator of players who don't want to understand the rules.
To those who talk about making it "intuitive" -- the entire game is not natural. Everything about the game is learned. The only cases that can be made for intuitive are primarily changes to the names of things with similar names, but different effects ( eg. "come into play" vs "put into play" or "at end of turn" vs "until end of turn"). New names change how people percieve them, but not how the game actually functions. Because of this, players using older cards (which includes tons of casual players) only need to learn new definitions (eg. "remove from the game" is now exile). Making a new chard that looks similar, but operates differently is actually HARMFUL to players and the fact that both cards are in the current standard won't prevent these problems, but will instead make them worse.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
10th at SCG: Syracuse (2014), GP:NJ Last-Chance Grinder Winner (2014):: Former Legacy Mod
As far as I'm aware, this mechanic first presented itself in Torment where it was first used, and, as Leslak mentioned a couple posts above me, the trick was elaborated within the preconstructed deck's manual. It was clearly intended. Since then, 36 cards have been templated the same way (not even counting every time Oblivion Ring was reprinted). Could it be that this is a new template and they just hadn't decided how to word it as they intended it? Gaea's Liege says no. This had clearly been intended ever since Torment.
It has been suggested that they're fixing the wording because it's unintuitive and that it may discourage new players who are unfamiliar with the rules. Is it unintuitive? Yes. Even if it's intended by WoTC, it does not generally reflect the thematic of the card. As for being discouraging, I wonder how often this comes up. Often times this trick is not a great deal for the person playing it, especially with Oblivion Ring. If you wanted to use that trick, you would need an explicit means to remove Enchantments (or Permanents) at instant speed. Right off the bat, you're generally 2-for-1ing yourself. I haven't played in competitive level magic for some time, but I can't actually personally remember this ever happening to me when it was more than just a cute trick. Oblivion Ring and Fiend Hunter are plenty potent on their own (Fiend Hunter admittedly less-so)
I think this is really just further reducing "confusing options" for people, such as changing "Target player draws two cards" to "Draw two cards." It used to be that giving players options was deemed valuable, but now the philosophy is that if 99% of the time something works one way, then why not remove the confusion?
The reason is that really disenfranchises us Johnnies. We love obscure interactions and effects. It's really enjoyable to find something that most people ignored, and call attention to it. Someone I was speaking with during the last FNM mentioned something along these lines. Consider Evermind. It has recently been adjusted such-that rather than having the text "This is Blue," it instead has a color marker. In most cases, practically the same, right? He reminds me, however, that splicing Evermind onto something like Glacial Ray allowed players to get around Protection from Red.
This, I believe, is valuable interaction. It's clever, innovative play that I feel should be allowed, if not encouraged. Unfortunately, with the NWO things are heading the opposite direction and even though I personally never used this Fiend-Hunter-Stack-Trick, I mourn its loss and I feel the game is lesser for its absence.
Can't you bounce Gaea's Liege once the ability is on the stack to make something a forest permanently?
Reprint Misdirection and Dominate . There, now you can you lose to your own cards instead of being mad at blue.
No, since it uses an "until" clause. Just like Banisher Priest does.
The ability says until Gaea's Liege leaves play, but if Gaea's Liege has left play before the ability resolves, there's no Gaea's Liege around to leave play to trigger the "until ~ leaves play" part of the ability.
I would think.
Which might mean the until clause makes things work the way they already do, just in a less confusing way. I'm not sure now.
To make it work the way I wanted, and the way you didn't want, I think the wording would have to be "as long as ~ is in play" which I don't know if that even works with the rules of the game.
Reprint Misdirection and Dominate . There, now you can you lose to your own cards instead of being mad at blue.
"Until" is not a separate triggered ability.
If you need official verification, here it is: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/faq/m14
So it's a single ability, in that it's two abilities they call one ability. Fine. They also said evermind didn't make cards it was spliced onto blue to start with (seriously, look it up). Then changed their minds since the rules said they were wrong. Then errataed it to have a color indicator.
Bah. I don't know why I'm trying to argue that the ability works the way I don't want it to work. There is something wrong with me.
Reprint Misdirection and Dominate . There, now you can you lose to your own cards instead of being mad at blue.
I am sure there is a good reason for that, but man, that has got to be a pretty annoying limitation of the rules as far as design goes.
The ability may as well not use the stack at this point.
Reprint Misdirection and Dominate . There, now you can you lose to your own cards instead of being mad at blue.
I'm pretty certain that Steve Jobs referred to this kind of situation as a "feature".
Anyway, I've played with a lot of people who've played casually for years, yet have no idea how the stack works nor what goes on it. This will help them some, but they're still in for a surprise that first day in competitive play and after they understand, it's not a problem again.
I'm not a fan of this choice simply because MTG isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a game that caters to the lowest denominator of players who don't want to understand the rules.
To those who talk about making it "intuitive" -- the entire game is not natural. Everything about the game is learned. The only cases that can be made for intuitive are primarily changes to the names of things with similar names, but different effects ( eg. "come into play" vs "put into play" or "at end of turn" vs "until end of turn"). New names change how people percieve them, but not how the game actually functions. Because of this, players using older cards (which includes tons of casual players) only need to learn new definitions (eg. "remove from the game" is now exile). Making a new chard that looks similar, but operates differently is actually HARMFUL to players and the fact that both cards are in the current standard won't prevent these problems, but will instead make them worse.