Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (
More info?)
Eric Jablow <ejablow@cox.net> sent:
> In article <cusfim$htv$1@pump1.york.ac.uk>,
> Zoe Stephenson <zrs1@uk.ac.york.reversed> wrote:
>> Jax <IlGreven@hotmail.com> sent:
>> > The current wording on Hull Breach, from Gatherer:
>>
>> > Hull Breach -- RG
>> > Sorcery
>> > Choose one -- Destroy target artifact; or destroy target enchantment;
>> > or destroy target artifact and target enchantment.
>>
>> > Couldn't someone re-word this to take out the modes, like:
>>
>> > Hull Breach -- RG
>> > Sorcery
>> > Destroy up to one target artifact and up to one target enchantment.
>>
>> > Would that affect the card that much at all?
>>
>> It would allow you to play it with no targets, which would be a minor
>> functional change. Any hypothetical interaction with modal spells
>> ("whenever you play a modal spell...", "whenever you choose a mode
>> for a spell...", "counter target modal spell..." etc) wouldn't affect
>> it any more. The card itself would probably no longer be Wordy, in
>> case your Frazzled Editor happens to be an artifact.
>>
>> That's about all that I can think of for now.
> The variant Hull breach would be less vulnerable to the effects
> of Gleemax. The player playing it would choose the mode before
> the player controlling Gleemax would choose the target.
Hrm. Gleemax changes who gets to choose targets, but doesn't say
anything about choosing number of targets. I think they'll both
end up with the same result - The player playing the spell decides
whether it'll affect an artifact, an enchantment or both (either
by choosing numbers of targets of those types or by choosing modes)
and then the controller of Gleemax will choose which ones.
Of course, the intent of Gleemax may be that the controller of
Gleemax also chooses number of targets and how different targets
will be affected, in which case there will be more of a difference.
--
-- zoe
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram