Unfortunately, the reason why a card is worded one way and not another, especially where one wording is alleged to be ambiguous, is a question only Magic R&D can answer. If you believe the text should change to something like "target spell or ability that has a single target", you should ask the rules manager, Eli Shiffrin. See also this thread ("gains ... and gets ... until end of turn") and this thread ("number of instant and sorcery cards").Quote from tugvarqq »This instills confusion since the text on Bolt Bend (and similar cards) does not have unique meaning. We were under the impression that "Change the target of target spell or ability with a single target" logically means: "Change the target of a [target spell/ability] into (another) single target of your choice". Otherwise it should have read: "Change the target of [target spell/ability that has only a single target]". (Im putting target restrictions in [] brackets)
- tugvarqq
- Registered User
-
Member for 5 years, 1 month, and 26 days
Last active Mon, Sep, 21 2020 06:24:51
- 0 Followers
- 3 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
Dec 5, 2019peteroupc posted a message on Bolt Bend on a spell that don't have targetsPosted in: Magic Rulings
-
1
willdice posted a message on Can I redirect a spell that targets “opponent” back to the caster?Posted in: Magic RulingsQuote from tugvarqq »Scenario 1:
My opponent casts Appetite for Brains, and in response I cast Redirect. Can I target him and redirect spell back at him?
No.
Redirect does not give you control of the spell. Any "you" on its text is from your opponent's point of view, and so on. The new "Target opponent" still needs to be an opponent of that spell's controller.
Scenario 2:
I have a creature enchanted with Snake Umbra. My opponent gains control over my creature through some effect. My opponent attacks me with my creature enchanted with Snake Umbra and deals damage with it. Does he get to draw a card?
He draws.
Snake Umbra gives the ability to the creature. As your opponent controls the creature, he controls the ability when it triggers and resolves.
I would need official rulings to back your claims, please. Thank you so much
This is one of the Comprehensive Rules of the game;
114.7d: If an effect allows a player to "choose new targets" for a spell or ability, the player may leave any number of the targets unchanged, even if those targets would be illegal. If the player chooses to change some or all of the targets, the new targets must be legal and must not cause any unchanged targets to become illegal.
This is from Snake Umbra's rulings on Gatherer:
6/15/2010 Snake Umbra grants the triggered ability to the creature. It triggers whenever the enchanted creature deals damage to an opponent of its controller (who is not necessarily an opponent of the Aura’s controller). In other words, if your Snake Umbra winds up enchanting your opponent’s creature, that opponent will draw a card whenever that creature damages you. -
1
peteroupc posted a message on Craterhoof BehemothPosted in: Magic RulingsQuote from Horseshoe_Hermit »I would like to say,
Continuous effects that aren't from static abilities always have a stated duration. Before the introduction of emblems, this was seen on some cards with "... for the rest of the game." You can infer that Craterhoof's instructions are meant to compound onto the single "until end of turn" because the provision of trample must have a duration.
but effects that change the text of spells or permanents generally have an implicitly indefinite duration. Therefore the general case of figuring out the duration in a compound sentence structure is more arcane.
I know that Magic has established by now a bit of a history of putting the duration of such compound effects first (i.e., "Until end of turn, [decorate a thing] and [decorate also a thing]"). The reason for Craterhoof and Garruk to differ is unclear. peteroupc is right, but cantspeak isn't wrong about the wording choice being mystifying.
Unfortunately, the reason why a card is worded one way and not another, especially where one wording is alleged to be ambiguous, is a question only Magic R&D can answer. Indeed, as of Hour of Devastation, four cards (Fatal Frenzy, Overwhelming Stampede, Appeal to Authority, and Strength in Numbers), do use the form "Until end of turn, ... gains ... and gets ...", but those are the only ones as of that set. Moreover, although the form "gains ... and gets ... until end of turn" occurs in only four other cards (besides the cards already mentioned) I've found as of Hour of Devastation (Dragon Throne of Tarkir, Pathbreaker Ibex, Surge of Strength, and Xenagos, God of Revels), the form "gets ... and gains ... until end of turn", which occurs in many, many more cards, also suffers from this issue.
EDIT (Mar. 22): Correction.
EDIT (Jul. 26): Edited post to account for Hour of Devastation.
EDIT (Dec. 22): Clarification.
EDIT (Sep. 19, 2018): Correction.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1