Did you just skip over the parts of my posts where I said we'd be defining a new concept?
No. Did you skip over the points where I said it can't work as a described? You can't define, in general, where in the layer system to look for the toughness you want to compare to. Even if it is a "distinct toughness."
Rule 104.2:
If anything needs to use a number that can’t be determined, either as a result or in a calculation, it uses 0 instead.
And using that would cause your "new concept" to have a decidely un-intended results on, say, Divine Intervention under Opalescence. You'd probably never detect a toughness reduction. That's what happens if you treat it "distinct from toughness." You get similar brokenness with tokens, and copies. If you want to base an effect on alterations to toughness, it has to be actual toughness.
Given the slightly redundant way in which the Comp Rules are written, there'd probably be a rule saying this with more specificity in the section defining printed values.
Um, what section is that? They mention that cards have printing, but not "permanents" in general. You refuse to recognize that a formal system has to have formal limits.
I'm not trying to be contary. I don't like having to say htings won't work. But I don't ignore the possibility, either. I'm trying to tell you that the idea won't work.
I don't want the effect to worry about a creature's printed toughness, only when its toughness is reduced.
I know. Blinking Spirit won't acknowledge that, because it unfortunately is what you CAN'T DO, and he wants everything to be a CAN DO even if he has to change it into something completely different.
Creatures you control get +2/+0 for each -1/-1 counter on them.
This part works.
Whenever the toughness of a creature you control would be reduced by a spell or ability, increase its power by twice that much until end of turn.
This part doesn't. See above for a list of many problems.
But useful when it applies. There is no defined concept of "printed toughness." Some creatures don't even have printing. Some that have printing don't have a "printed" toughness. Think Opalesence. So it is impossible to try to use that concept.
Who said it had to be an "intermediate value"?
Because the earliest point in the layer system (note: this is not "game-time" earliest, it is the sequencing of the rules process by which touhgness is determined) where you can be assured of a creature having its initial toughness is in layer 6, but at the time-stamp postion of an animation effect as it was applied in layer 4. I'd call that an "intermediate value," but if you don't like the term, feel free to call it something else. But it isn't "printed," and it is not seen by an effect at a later point in layer 6.
Many people are under the mistaken idea that "in reposnse" means "Before any action 'happens,' I can play a response that will 'happen' first." They imagine very complex, and very wrong, processes by which this allows them to "do" things before other things "happen." And I'm sorry if this sounds very vague, but if it is true in your case (this is speculation on my part), we can't address what they think is happening if we don't know what that is.
So, for example, they might think that "before the action of my land dying, I can respond by tapping it for mana." In their imagined processes, the land has to still be in play to procdeuce this mana, and it will be since it happens "before" it dies.
If this is indeed the problem, you need to tell them that you can only "respond" to spells and abilities that go on the stack, not to "actions." You have to have priority to respond. The response will resolve before the other spell or ability resolves, not before "the other action happens."
Condor's not quite right. It's easy to do something like this; all you have to do is introduce a new game concept:
Each face-up creature you control with toughness less than its printed toughness gets +X/+0, where X is twice the difference.
Where "printed toughness" is the value that actually appears on the card. Or, in the case of token creatures, the value that appears in the text of the effect that created it.
It is not easy to do that, and in fact is impossible, because effects can only use the characteristics that are the result of the layer system up to the point where they are applied. Intermediate values, including "the printed toughness," are inaccessible. Yes, I know that you (as a human player) can see the two very clearly, but the game becomes indeterminate if it can look at anything else.
"Whenever a creature you control has its toughness reduced, that creature gets +2/+0 for each point of toughness it lost"
How do you distinguish "reducing toughness" because a -0/-1 effect is applied from a +0/+1 effect wearing off? What duration do you apply to the +2/+0 effect?
I know you don't like to hear this, but this type of effect is simply not practical.
Furious Anthem BBRR
Enchantment
Creatures you control get +2/+0 for each -1/-1 counter on them.
Whenever the toughness of a creature you control would be reduced by the effect of a spell or ability, that creature gains twice that much power until end of turn.
It gives permanent bonuses for -1/-1 counters, and gives a temporary bonus for other negative effets (I had to add the "by the effect of a spell or ability" bit because if I didn't, it would get an additional "until end of turn" bonus when a counter was placed on it.
First, you need to decide if you want a trigger ("Whenever <event>, do <effect>") or a replacement ("If <event> would happen, do <other event> instead"). You can't mix "when/whenever" and "would." Second, applying a continuous effect, like "-0/-1," is not an event, so you can't do either. Third, not all -0/-1 effects have the "until end of turn" duration. And static abilities seem to fit your description as well.
I know you don't like to hear this, but this type of effect is simply not practical. And I sorry to repeat myself, but this concept never gets through if I don't.
You may play it for its spellmorph cost by turning it face up.
Besides the fact that you tied the timing of playing a spell into a pretzel, there's Meddling Mage.
Magic has a way of changing anything you try to do into something else. The upshot of this whole debate is that if you allow this card to get into play, you can end up with a permanent that has the ability "Target spell or permanent becomes the color or colors of your choice." That ability can't be interpreted on a permanent. But there are ways tto accomplsh the net efects of what you want, as Valros tried:
Yes He Can! {}
Creature — Weird (R)
0/0
CARDNAME is blue.
Morph (You may play this face down as a 2/2 creature for :3mana:. Turn it face up at any time for its morph cost.) As When CARDNAME is turned face up, you may have target spell or permanent become the color or colors of your choice. (This effect doesn't end at end of turn.)
Or whatever effect. Note! You can do this with Auras, since they're permanents.
Face-Hugger :4mana::symb:
Enchantment — Aura
Enchant nonartifact creature
At the beginning of your upkeep, destroy sacrifice enchanted creature. It can't be regenerated. If you do, put a 2/1 black Horror creature token with fear into play.
Morph :symb:, attach ~ to a creature.
You can't make a replacement effect be targeted. You can include unorthodox elements in a cost.
If I want to have the following two replacement effects happen on a card:
"If a card would be put into a graveyard from anywhere, return that card to its owner's hand instead."
"If ~ would leave play, remove it from the game instead."
How do they interact? I want anything else that would go to the graveyard to go back to hand, but if the card generating the ability would leave play (either to graveyard or hand), it should be removed from the game. Do I need to spell that out in the first ability by saying "other than ~?"
No. The second one will always be applied to your card; the first one won't be applied it the second is applied first.
A recent discourse in this forum on shuffling made me compose this list of points.
"Shuffling" means to take a deck of cards from one order to another in such a way that all cards' positions are unknown.
It is not humanly possible to perfectly shuffle a deck through physical manipulation.
What that means, is that some residual bias from the original order will remain in the final order. Assuming it is gone, or even that it can be made unnoticeable, is the first mistake laypersons make when they try to describe shuffling.
"Bias" does not have to mean "observable pattern." That is the second mistake laypersons make.
"Bias" means many things, depending on what you look at. If you look at two specific cards, it means the probability that the ordered difference in their positions is not equal, for all possible values.
If you look at two pairs, it means that when one difference is lower than average, the other tends to be lower and/or higher than average. This is called correlation.
When you look at a group, such as lands, it means that complex measures of how the group is distributed are not what is expected. The two most interesting are the density in certain subsets of the deck, and the distances between lands. While different, these two measures of land-bias are related. And there are others, that relate to correlation. Most do not appear visible when you look at a deck, and do not affect game play.
By far, the most significant land-bias a deck could have is to place a large number of them together. Every possible measure of land-bias is at its worst. All of the density is in one portion. The distances are minimum in that portion, and maximum elsewhere. The discrepences from expected values are completely correlated.
By comparison, placing them evenly throughout the deck is a very small land-bias, since most (but definitely not all) measures of bias are what is expected. The average density is what is expected. The average distances are what is expected. The bias that does exist is in correlation, but that actually is not as large as in the stacked deck.
"Sufficient shuffling" can not mean all bias is removed, since that is impossible. It means that residual bias does not significantly affect the play of the deck. Assuming it is gone was the first mistake I mentioned above. And residual bias in the realm of correlation is probably quite high, numerically speaking, for most people's shuffles.
In general, the closer a deck starts to being unbiased with respect to a group of cards, such as land, the less bias there will be in the final deck.
Residual land-bias does not have to be the same kind of bias as the original bias. This is the third mistake.
A shuffle that starts with the land all stacked at one end will have the most residual bias. A shuffle that starts with the most significant land-bias measures set to the expected values will have the least.
The statement "If you shuffle sufficiently, you totally remove any effect of weaving" is incorrect. It represents the best starting position, short of an already randomized deck. It will have the least residual land-bias.
The statement "If you think weaving has any effect on the final order, you are counting on an advantage from it and so you are cheating" is incorrect. If you are shuffling honestly, you are counting on not being placed at a disadvantage due to the residual land-bias from stacking.
But I do not recommend weaving. It's not because it isn't a good idea. It's because of the people who think the two weeks they spent on probability theory in High School, and probably misunderstand most of, is sufficient for them to lecture others on the fine details of doctorate-level information theory. Those people will be prejudiced toward any activity they suspect you could to use to cheat, either intentionally or unintentionally. They will look for evidence that you are cheating, valid or invalid, and you will get the maximum penalty if they think they found it.
And to be fair to them, it is possible to cheat that way, both intentionally or unintentionally. But the fallacy in their prejudice is that anybody skilled enough to do it intentionally does not need to weave to do it, and anybody who ends up doing it unintentionally is already not randomizing sufficiently with respect to other kinds of cards. Probably to their disadvantage.
Your shuffling method does not completely randomize your deck, but it doesn't need to. Close is indeed good enough in hand grenades, horseshoes, and shuffling. But if your technique is suspect, you will do better (meaning "get closer to random," not "always get favorable land distribution in general") if you spread any one group of cards out approximately evenly as the first act of shuffling.
What I'd do is take all of the cards that were in use (play, grave, rfg) the game before, and mix them once with whatever you call "one shuffle." This spreads out the various kinds of cards you used, relative to one another, more or less evenly. Then do one shuffle between the cards from play, and the ones in the library. Then proceed with your normal shuffle. This should not be seen as an attempt to cheat, and will accomplish all the same things.
The problem is largely in how delayed triggered abilities are identified and what appears to be the intended functionality in the CR. Delayed triggered abilities trigger on an event, not a game state. So, at a minimum, 404.4b would need adjusting to make this more clear (or possible, depending on how close you want to read the entries).
And we also have:
404.1. A triggered ability begins with the word "when," "whenever," or "at." The phrase containing one of these words is the trigger condition, which defines the trigger event.
404.2. Triggered abilities aren't played. Instead, a triggered ability automatically "triggers" each time its trigger event occurs.
410.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability's trigger event, that ability triggers.
The "trigger event occuring" does not have to be an actual "happening," it can also be the state existing. Although usually, the ability triggers when the state comes to exist. There is no technical problem with combining state triggers and delayed triggers.
As long as Colossal Mindmuddler is tapped, nonland permanents your opponents control have fatigue.
Does the second ability works?
Nope. There are two different ways a "come into play" replacement ability can work. It can be an ability a card has itself as it comes into play, like Abandoned Outpost's; or it can affect other permanents, like Kismet. You are trying to mix the two, by having an effect give the first type of ability to permanents. They won't get it "in time" :
419.6i Some replacement effects modify how a permanent comes into play. (See rules 419.1b-c.) Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come from other sources. To determine how and whether these replacement effects apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist in play, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it comes into play, continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent's characteristics on the stack (see rule 217.1c), and continuous effects from the permanent's own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it.
The odd bits are so that a Vesuva comes into play tapped as an Abandoned Outpost.
You can't really make your effect a keyword. It has to affect other permanents, like Kismet.
Originally Posted by autocard
10/1/2008 Will not counter a spell which would destroy a land only if a choice is made.
10/4/2004 Will not counter a spell that has a random chance of destroying a land.
Why not?
Can you say it would destroy a land, right now? If not, you can't say the condition is met.
When this spell resolves?
Typo - this ability. Isn't it obvious what they meant?
What defines any word used in a card's text? Start with a dictionary. It's the same word, used the way, as on hundreds of replacement effects. The only difference is that replacements keep watching over time.
Alternatively to CarstenHaese's answer, 'would destroy a land' here means
"in the set of all possible game states that would arise from the immediate resolution of that ability, all of them are such that the ability destroys some land you control."
Add "If all can be determined by public information, and situations that actually exist." If it is conditioned on an event (like looking at the top card of your library), that event doesn't actually happen while Equinox's ability is resolving. Even if you know with ice-cold certainty what the event would do, the event doesn't actually happen.
Say I play Magma Jet during my opponent's turn, and leave a land on top. My opponent then plays Killland on my land. Is there "random chance"? No, I know what will happen.
Bully for you. The game does not, and can not, recognize it. No correction is needed.
Actually, the ability "protection from colorless" isn't even possible.
Correct. Protection normally applies only to characteristic values. If a description is used, it applies individually to any characteristics (or sets thereof) that make that description fit. The lone exception is "protection from everything," which requires a rule to allow it to apply to the total lack of characteristics.
I attack with Lord of Atlantis and a Cursecatcher and deals 4 damage to my opponent. In main phase 2 I play Sygg, River Cutthroat. Will I get to draw a card even tough Sygg was not in play when the damage was dealt?
Can I mind-control the Shunt to not change targets - in other words, change the target from D to D?
Unfortunately, no. The target has to change, if possible. Still, you are the one who chooses it, when Shunt resolves. You can pick any creature (subject to things like protection, of course) , or any player except D.
A better way to think of the team's life total is "a total that is not itself a life total, but is used to determine each head's individual life." Here's what I mean, blocked out into steps that will almost never need to be this complicated:
Team life is at 13.
Each player's life total is 7 (half of 13, rounded up).
Each player's life total went down by 4. Life-loss conditions see this amount (i.e., it is affected by Worship). It is also how each individual's life-change will affect the team total.
Their team total goes down by 4+4=8. It becomes 5.
I know that looks like a complicated wasy to say "8 damage reduces 13 to 5." Any detail that is important to some other effect is included, and sometimes the math gets wonky.
No. Did you skip over the points where I said it can't work as a described? You can't define, in general, where in the layer system to look for the toughness you want to compare to. Even if it is a "distinct toughness."
And using that would cause your "new concept" to have a decidely un-intended results on, say, Divine Intervention under Opalescence. You'd probably never detect a toughness reduction. That's what happens if you treat it "distinct from toughness." You get similar brokenness with tokens, and copies. If you want to base an effect on alterations to toughness, it has to be actual toughness.
Um, what section is that? They mention that cards have printing, but not "permanents" in general. You refuse to recognize that a formal system has to have formal limits.
I'm not trying to be contary. I don't like having to say htings won't work. But I don't ignore the possibility, either. I'm trying to tell you that the idea won't work.
[Edit]
I know. Blinking Spirit won't acknowledge that, because it unfortunately is what you CAN'T DO, and he wants everything to be a CAN DO even if he has to change it into something completely different.
This part works.
This part doesn't. See above for a list of many problems.
But useful when it applies. There is no defined concept of "printed toughness." Some creatures don't even have printing. Some that have printing don't have a "printed" toughness. Think Opalesence. So it is impossible to try to use that concept.
Because the earliest point in the layer system (note: this is not "game-time" earliest, it is the sequencing of the rules process by which touhgness is determined) where you can be assured of a creature having its initial toughness is in layer 6, but at the time-stamp postion of an animation effect as it was applied in layer 4. I'd call that an "intermediate value," but if you don't like the term, feel free to call it something else. But it isn't "printed," and it is not seen by an effect at a later point in layer 6.
So, for example, they might think that "before the action of my land dying, I can respond by tapping it for mana." In their imagined processes, the land has to still be in play to procdeuce this mana, and it will be since it happens "before" it dies.
If this is indeed the problem, you need to tell them that you can only "respond" to spells and abilities that go on the stack, not to "actions." You have to have priority to respond. The response will resolve before the other spell or ability resolves, not before "the other action happens."
You might want to direct them to this explanation.
It is not easy to do that, and in fact is impossible, because effects can only use the characteristics that are the result of the layer system up to the point where they are applied. Intermediate values, including "the printed toughness," are inaccessible. Yes, I know that you (as a human player) can see the two very clearly, but the game becomes indeterminate if it can look at anything else.
You wouldn't. The game does not "see" the individual continuous effects in the way you want. All you can "see" is the fact that the creature is 1/1.
How do you distinguish "reducing toughness" because a -0/-1 effect is applied from a +0/+1 effect wearing off? What duration do you apply to the +2/+0 effect?
I know you don't like to hear this, but this type of effect is simply not practical.
First, you need to decide if you want a trigger ("Whenever <event>, do <effect>") or a replacement ("If <event> would happen, do <other event> instead"). You can't mix "when/whenever" and "would." Second, applying a continuous effect, like "-0/-1," is not an event, so you can't do either. Third, not all -0/-1 effects have the "until end of turn" duration. And static abilities seem to fit your description as well.
I know you don't like to hear this, but this type of effect is simply not practical. And I sorry to repeat myself, but this concept never gets through if I don't.
Sudden Spoiling, then Break Open
Besides the fact that you tied the timing of playing a spell into a pretzel, there's Meddling Mage.
Magic has a way of changing anything you try to do into something else. The upshot of this whole debate is that if you allow this card to get into play, you can end up with a permanent that has the ability "Target spell or permanent becomes the color or colors of your choice." That ability can't be interpreted on a permanent. But there are ways tto accomplsh the net efects of what you want, as Valros tried:
You can't make a replacement effect be targeted. You can include unorthodox elements in a cost.
No. The second one will always be applied to your card; the first one won't be applied it the second is applied first.
- "Shuffling" means to take a deck of cards from one order to another in such a way that all cards' positions are unknown.
- It is not humanly possible to perfectly shuffle a deck through physical manipulation.
- What that means, is that some residual bias from the original order will remain in the final order. Assuming it is gone, or even that it can be made unnoticeable, is the first mistake laypersons make when they try to describe shuffling.
- "Bias" does not have to mean "observable pattern." That is the second mistake laypersons make.
- "Bias" means many things, depending on what you look at. If you look at two specific cards, it means the probability that the ordered difference in their positions is not equal, for all possible values.
- If you look at two pairs, it means that when one difference is lower than average, the other tends to be lower and/or higher than average. This is called correlation.
- When you look at a group, such as lands, it means that complex measures of how the group is distributed are not what is expected. The two most interesting are the density in certain subsets of the deck, and the distances between lands. While different, these two measures of land-bias are related. And there are others, that relate to correlation. Most do not appear visible when you look at a deck, and do not affect game play.
- By far, the most significant land-bias a deck could have is to place a large number of them together. Every possible measure of land-bias is at its worst. All of the density is in one portion. The distances are minimum in that portion, and maximum elsewhere. The discrepences from expected values are completely correlated.
- By comparison, placing them evenly throughout the deck is a very small land-bias, since most (but definitely not all) measures of bias are what is expected. The average density is what is expected. The average distances are what is expected. The bias that does exist is in correlation, but that actually is not as large as in the stacked deck.
- "Sufficient shuffling" can not mean all bias is removed, since that is impossible. It means that residual bias does not significantly affect the play of the deck. Assuming it is gone was the first mistake I mentioned above. And residual bias in the realm of correlation is probably quite high, numerically speaking, for most people's shuffles.
- In general, the closer a deck starts to being unbiased with respect to a group of cards, such as land, the less bias there will be in the final deck.
- Residual land-bias does not have to be the same kind of bias as the original bias. This is the third mistake.
- A shuffle that starts with the land all stacked at one end will have the most residual bias. A shuffle that starts with the most significant land-bias measures set to the expected values will have the least.
- The statement "If you shuffle sufficiently, you totally remove any effect of weaving" is incorrect. It represents the best starting position, short of an already randomized deck. It will have the least residual land-bias.
- The statement "If you think weaving has any effect on the final order, you are counting on an advantage from it and so you are cheating" is incorrect. If you are shuffling honestly, you are counting on not being placed at a disadvantage due to the residual land-bias from stacking.
But I do not recommend weaving. It's not because it isn't a good idea. It's because of the people who think the two weeks they spent on probability theory in High School, and probably misunderstand most of, is sufficient for them to lecture others on the fine details of doctorate-level information theory. Those people will be prejudiced toward any activity they suspect you could to use to cheat, either intentionally or unintentionally. They will look for evidence that you are cheating, valid or invalid, and you will get the maximum penalty if they think they found it.And to be fair to them, it is possible to cheat that way, both intentionally or unintentionally. But the fallacy in their prejudice is that anybody skilled enough to do it intentionally does not need to weave to do it, and anybody who ends up doing it unintentionally is already not randomizing sufficiently with respect to other kinds of cards. Probably to their disadvantage.
Your shuffling method does not completely randomize your deck, but it doesn't need to. Close is indeed good enough in hand grenades, horseshoes, and shuffling. But if your technique is suspect, you will do better (meaning "get closer to random," not "always get favorable land distribution in general") if you spread any one group of cards out approximately evenly as the first act of shuffling.
What I'd do is take all of the cards that were in use (play, grave, rfg) the game before, and mix them once with whatever you call "one shuffle." This spreads out the various kinds of cards you used, relative to one another, more or less evenly. Then do one shuffle between the cards from play, and the ones in the library. Then proceed with your normal shuffle. This should not be seen as an attempt to cheat, and will accomplish all the same things.
And we also have:
The "trigger event occuring" does not have to be an actual "happening," it can also be the state existing. Although usually, the ability triggers when the state comes to exist. There is no technical problem with combining state triggers and delayed triggers.
Nope. There are two different ways a "come into play" replacement ability can work. It can be an ability a card has itself as it comes into play, like Abandoned Outpost's; or it can affect other permanents, like Kismet. You are trying to mix the two, by having an effect give the first type of ability to permanents. They won't get it "in time" :
The odd bits are so that a Vesuva comes into play tapped as an Abandoned Outpost.
You can't really make your effect a keyword. It has to affect other permanents, like Kismet.
Can you say it would destroy a land, right now? If not, you can't say the condition is met.
Typo - this ability. Isn't it obvious what they meant?
Then it would not get destroyed.
What defines any word used in a card's text? Start with a dictionary. It's the same word, used the way, as on hundreds of replacement effects. The only difference is that replacements keep watching over time.
Add "If all can be determined by public information, and situations that actually exist." If it is conditioned on an event (like looking at the top card of your library), that event doesn't actually happen while Equinox's ability is resolving. Even if you know with ice-cold certainty what the event would do, the event doesn't actually happen.
Bully for you. The game does not, and can not, recognize it. No correction is needed.
"If a hen and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many pancakes does it take to shingle a doghouse?"
Or
"What is the point of asking questions based on impossible hypotheticals?"
This question doesn't need an answer because it is impossible. Which is good. Because there is no answer.
But there is always the possibility that everything I say is untrue. Isn't there?
Correct. Protection normally applies only to characteristic values. If a description is used, it applies individually to any characteristics (or sets thereof) that make that description fit. The lone exception is "protection from everything," which requires a rule to allow it to apply to the total lack of characteristics.
Sure. It doesn't say "while Sygg was in play."
Um, no he doesn't. He may announce that he is playing Shock, but you get to choose the target instead of him, not after him. You choose...
No, he casts Shunt, targeting Shock. What to change isn't decided yet. And...
... this is not true. Spell's can never target themselves. You technically choose the target for Shunt, but there was only one spell you could choose.
Unfortunately, no. The target has to change, if possible. Still, you are the one who chooses it, when Shunt resolves. You can pick any creature (subject to things like protection, of course) , or any player except D.
Team life is at 13.
- Each player's life total is 7 (half of 13, rounded up).
- Heartless Hidetsugu's ability resolves.
- Each player takes 4 damage (half of 7, rounded up). Damage triggers see this amount.
- Damage causes a player to lose that much life.
- Each player loses 4 life.
- Losing 4 life, from 7 life, puts each life total at 3. This isn't always a pure subtraction, but I couldn't work that into my example easily.
- Each player's life total went down by 4. Life-loss conditions see this amount (i.e., it is affected by Worship). It is also how each individual's life-change will affect the team total.
- Their team total goes down by 4+4=8. It becomes 5.
I know that looks like a complicated wasy to say "8 damage reduces 13 to 5." Any detail that is important to some other effect is included, and sometimes the math gets wonky.