Eye for an Eye; Volrath's Shapeshifter

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Does Eye for an Eye let you choose a sorcery / instant that has damaged
you this turn as a source (barring ridiculous circumstances)? It seems
that it doesn't, as it must be played after you are damaged at which
point the sorcery / instant is no longer on the stack. Is there a way
to word the effect to restore original functionality or come close?

Volrath's Shapeshifter is currently "not-copying" Riptide Mangler.
VS-Mangler uses the ability to copy Razormane Masticore's power and is
now a 5/3. Is the Mangler effect always going to be applied over the VS
"not-copy" so its power will be 5 irrespective of the top card of the
graveyard? I was thinking it should as they are both layer 6 effects
and the "set power" has a later timestamp, "not-copy"'s timestamp would
not change when the graveyard order changes would it? And slightly
related, is Mangler's ability considered characteristic-setting? Since
it's the Mangler's ability affecting itself, I think it is but I'm not
100% in this area.

Thanks,

Rahul Chandra

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:27:43 GMT, Rahul Chandra <mathie_uw@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>Does Eye for an Eye let you choose a sorcery / instant that has damaged
>you this turn as a source (barring ridiculous circumstances)?

Yes, and it does because there isn't a way to word it so it applies to such
things using the regular definition of 'source', unless you twist its wording
to resemble Backdraft's. And it's been told to me that They are Not Interested
At All in rewording old unreprinted cards in ways that take them -away- from
their actual last-printed wording, so agitating for this probably would not
produce much of a result.

>Volrath's Shapeshifter is currently "not-copying" Riptide Mangler.
>VS-Mangler uses the ability to copy Razormane Masticore's power and is
>now a 5/3. Is the Mangler effect always going to be applied over the VS
>"not-copy"

Yes. The Mangler's applies in layer 6, changing power/toughness (and is a
char-setting effect, since it only changes the power of what it's written on).
There's debate over what layer VS' effect "actually" goes in, but it's
certainly not layer 6.

>I was thinking it should as they are both layer 6 effects

Er: no. VS' effect: changes the text of VS; can change the -type- of VS; and
in general does things OTHER than setting power/toughness.

And even if it 'divides up' so that the p/t-setting part of VS' effect is up
in layer 6, as you note, the Mangler's effect is timestamped after VS' effect.

>"not-copy"'s timestamp would
>not change when the graveyard order changes would it?

Right. What text the ability's effect grants may change; the ability's effect
itself doesn't change.

> And slightly related, is Mangler's ability considered characteristic-setting?

Yes, as far as I know.
Hmmm. Maybe not, since it's not a _static_ ability. Will ask.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

David DeLaney wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:27:43 GMT, Rahul Chandra <mathie_uw@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>Does Eye for an Eye let you choose a sorcery / instant that has damaged
>>you this turn as a source (barring ridiculous circumstances)?
>
>
> Yes, and it does because there isn't a way to word it so it applies to such
> things using the regular definition of 'source', unless you twist its wording
> to resemble Backdraft's.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand this answer. Yes it does let you because
there isn't a way to word it to apply to such things? Could you
restate that?

Thanks for the Shapeshifter answer and layer clarification -- I seem to
have a mental block on layers.

Rahul Chandra

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Rahul Chandra <mathie_uw@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>David DeLaney wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:27:43 GMT, Rahul Chandra <mathie_uw@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>Does Eye for an Eye let you choose a sorcery / instant that has damaged
>>>you this turn as a source (barring ridiculous circumstances)?
>>
>> Yes, and it does because there isn't a way to word it so it applies to such
>> things using the regular definition of 'source', unless you twist its wording
>> to resemble Backdraft's.
>
>I'm sorry, I didn't understand this answer. Yes it does let you because
> there isn't a way to word it to apply to such things? Could you
>restate that?

It's Ruled to work that way. The wording could be changed a medium amount to
make it worded that way, and not use 'source'. It's already been changed
away from the actual card wording at least once; WotC editing is fairly
reluctant to move older cards further away from their card wordings, whether
or not it actually needs to be done because of rules updates. Further, EfoE
has had a variety of wordings:

Eye for an Eye Instant WW
Can be cast only when a creature or spell does damage to you. ~ does an equal
amount of damage to the controller of that creature or spell. If some spell or
effect reduces the amount of damage you receive, it does not reduce the damage
dealt by ~. [AN]
Eye for an Eye Instant WW
Can be cast only when a creature, spell, or effect does damage to you. ~ does
an equal amount of damage to the controller of that creature, spell, or
effect. If some spell or effect reduces the amount of damage you receive, it
does not reduce the damage dealt by ~. [RV]
Eye for an Eye Instant WW
You may cast ~ only when a creature, spell, or effect deals damage to you. ~
deals an equal amount of damage to the controller of that creature, spell, or
effect. If another spell or effect reduces the amount of damage you receive,
it does not reduce the damage dealt by ~. [4E]
Eye for an Eye Instant WW R1
Play only when a creature, spell, or effect assigns damage to you. ~ deals an
equal amount of damage to that source's controller. [5E]
Eye for an Eye WW Instant
~ deals X damage to the controller of the source of your choice that dealt
damage to you this turn, where X is the damage dealt to you by that source
this turn. [current Oracle]

In other words: it started using 'source' a good while before the current
definition of 'source' came into being, and they're probably not going to
change it away from that word even though it's not the right one. Alas. And
at this point I'm fairly well burnt out, after 5 years of trying since 6E
Oracle, on jumping back into the fight to get another old card wording
updated knowing in advance about what my chances are...

Does that help any? (And possibly reveal more than you wanted to know about
the innards of what gets shaken around to appear as Oracle text?)

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

David DeLaney wrote:

> Rahul Chandra <mathie_uw@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>David DeLaney wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:27:43 GMT, Rahul Chandra <mathie_uw@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Does Eye for an Eye let you choose a sorcery / instant that has damaged
>>>>you this turn as a source (barring ridiculous circumstances)?
>>>
>>>Yes, and it does because there isn't a way to word it so it applies to such
>>>things using the regular definition of 'source', unless you twist its wording
>>>to resemble Backdraft's.
>>
>>I'm sorry, I didn't understand this answer. Yes it does let you because
>> there isn't a way to word it to apply to such things? Could you
>>restate that?
>
>
> It's Ruled to work that way.

<snip>
> In other words: it started using 'source' a good while before the current
> definition of 'source' came into being

> Does that help any? (And possibly reveal more than you wanted to know about
> the innards of what gets shaken around to appear as Oracle text?)
>
Yes it does, thank you very much. I hope there aren't too many other
cards that only work by decree.

Rahul Chandra