Hypothetical card

[Jabberwocky]

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

Say there was a card, Foobar's Foo, that said this:


Lose 3 life: Target player pays 5. (If that player cannot, tap all
mana-producing permanents that player controls and empty that player's mana
pool). This ability cannot be responded to by spells or abilities.

How many rules problems would this cause?

 

[Guest]

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

"Jabberwocky" <thunderjedi@theforce.bb> wrote in message
news:NB5rc.44928$Np3.1866790@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Say there was a card, Foobar's Foo, that said this:
>
>
> Lose 3 life: Target player pays 5. (If that player cannot, tap all
> mana-producing permanents that player controls and empty that player's
mana
> pool). This ability cannot be responded to by spells or abilities.
>
> How many rules problems would this cause?

That card would be insanely powerful. It would prevent your opponent from
playing anything. Ever. Of course, you'd have to gain life at some point,
but that's merely a technicality. Having an abilty that cannot be responded
to? Well then how would you ever get rid of it if you were playing against
it?
"I'll Naturalize your Foobar's Foo."
"In response, I'll activate it. Pay 5. In response, I'll activate it again,
pay another 5. Oh, you can't? Tap out."
"Uh.....so that empties my pool, right? So I can't pay for my Naturalize?
Yeah, I'll scoop."

It might not create a rules problem, but IMO, it's severely overpowered, and
I'd hate to see my opponent drop one of these. If it was "Pay 10 life....",
then that might be something printable - but then people would hate it and
it would only get used in lifegain decks I guess.

--

KB

 

[Guest]

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

Jabberwocky <thunderjedi@theforce.bb> wrote:

> Say there was a card, Foobar's Foo, that said this:
>
>
> Lose 3 life: Target player pays 5. (If that player cannot, tap all
> mana-producing permanents that player controls and empty that player's mana
> pool). This ability cannot be responded to by spells or abilities.
>
> How many rules problems would this cause?

Before or after it got errata in the Prerelease FAQ?
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

 

[Guest]

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

Ken Briscoe <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote:

> "I'll Naturalize your Foobar's Foo."

This includes the payment.

409.1. Playing a spell or activated ability follows the steps listed
below, in order. If, at any point during the playing of a spell or
ability, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed
below, the spell was played illegally; the game returns to the moment
before that spell or ability was played (see rule 422, "Handling Illegal
Actions"). Announcements and payments can't be altered after they've
been made.

409.1h The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are
not allowed.
Example: You play Death Bomb, which costs {o3}{oB} and has an additional
cost of sacrificing a creature. You sacrifice Thunderscape Familiar,
whose effect makes your black spells cost {o1} less to play. Because a
spell's total cost is "locked in" before payments are actually made, you
pay {o2}{oB}, not {o3}{oB}, even though you're sacrificing the Familiar.

409.1i Once the steps described in 409.1a-409.1h are completed, the
spell or ability becomes played. Any abilities that trigger on a spell
or ability being played or put onto the stack trigger at this time. The
spell or ability's controller gets priority.

> "In response, I'll activate it. Pay 5. In response, I'll activate it again,
> pay another 5. Oh, you can't? Tap out."
> "Uh.....so that empties my pool, right? So I can't pay for my Naturalize?

The Naturalize was already paid for.

> Yeah, I'll scoop."
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

 

[Guest]

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

Jabberwocky, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Say there was a card, Foobar's Foo, that said this:
>
>
> Lose 3 life: Target player pays 5. (If that player cannot, tap all
> mana-producing permanents that player controls and empty that player's mana
> pool). This ability cannot be responded to by spells or abilities.
>
> How many rules problems would this cause?

Zero - the activated ability is much like Power Sink without the
countering, and I don't see any problems the clause at the end would
add.

However, this would never get past Development. The problem with the
last sentence isn't a rules problem per se, it's that it makes the card
way too powerful for no real reason. The least this card needs is the
"Play this ability only any time you could play a sorcery" clause, which
makes it an anti-control card instead of a your-opponent-can't-play-
anything-but-instants-ever-again card.

 

[Guest]

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

Jabberwocky <thunderjedi@theforce.bb> wrote:
>Say there was a card, Foobar's Foo, that said this:
>
>Lose 3 life: Target player pays 5. (If that player cannot, tap all
>mana-producing permanents that player controls and empty that player's mana
>pool). This ability cannot be responded to by spells or abilities.
>
>How many rules problems would this cause?

It's more a templating/wording problem. To start with, the activation cost
would be "pay 3 life", _especially_ now that Transcendence and Platinum Angel
exist (but even before them, there've always been cards which make you not lose
the game for being at or below 0). Secondly, if an ability uses the stack, it
can be responded to, period; to make it unrespondable-to you'd say "This
ability does not use the stack"... but they don't _make_ activated abilities
that do that, except for mana abilities. And this isn't a mana ability.
Thirdly, you'd never see an effect that just baldly said "<player> pays <amount
of mana>" ... since they always have the option to not -get- that much mana
into their pool when allowed to get mana just before they pay. Fourthly,
the "reminder text" would actually have to be part of the effect, as there
isn't actually any rule about negative things happening if you're told to
pay mana but don't have it handy. And fifth, everyone and their brother would
IMMEDIATELY try to think up combos for this that involved stopping someone
ELSE from using mana that they had just gotten into their pool for paying
for a spell or ability with... which also absolutely can't be done, because
even without the other problems, you can only use THIS ability if you have
priority... and you NEVER have priority in between someone else getting mana
specifically to pay for a spell or ability, and them paying the mana as part
of their next action "playing the spell/ability".

In short: you'd probably want to make this much more like Power Sink, to have
it work.

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?)

Ken Briscoe <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote:
>> Lose 3 life: Target player pays 5. (If that player cannot, tap all
>> mana-producing permanents that player controls and empty that player's mana
>> pool). This ability cannot be responded to by spells or abilities.
>>
>> How many rules problems would this cause?
>
>That card would be insanely powerful. It would prevent your opponent from
>playing anything. Ever.

Nope. Nothing on it says you could use the ability when _you don't have
priority_. But that very thinking is why this would be _the_ #1 FAQ for this
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?)

"Jabberwocky"

> Say there was a card, Foobar's Foo, that said this:
>
>
> Lose 3 life: Target player pays 5. (If that player cannot, tap all
> mana-producing permanents that player controls and empty that player's
mana
> pool). This ability cannot be responded to by spells or abilities.
>
> How many rules problems would this cause?

The same effect may be worded like

Pay 3 lifes. Tap all mana producing permanents target player controls and
then empty that paleyrs mana pool. This ability cannot be countered by other
spells or abilties That player can pay 5 to counter this effect.

So the effect allways trigers , and it can only be stopped if the other
player pays 5.
There are no rule problems with this. There may be play problems 🙂

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 21 May 2004 22:19:56 -0300, "SMMT"
<softthundersoftware@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Jabberwocky"
>
>> Say there was a card, Foobar's Foo, that said this:
>>
>> Lose 3 life: Target player pays 5. (If that player cannot, tap all
>> mana-producing permanents that player controls and empty that player's
>mana
>> pool). This ability cannot be responded to by spells or abilities.
>>
>> How many rules problems would this cause?
>
>The same effect may be worded like
>
>Pay 3 lifes. Tap all mana producing permanents target player controls and
>then empty that paleyrs mana pool. This ability cannot be countered by other
>spells or abilties That player can pay 5 to counter this effect.
>
>So the effect allways trigers , and it can only be stopped if the other
>player pays 5.
>There are no rule problems with this. There may be play problems 🙂

Thats not the same card, is it?

"This ability cannot be responded to by spells or abilities." - would
be like "play this as a mana source" or "drop like a land", aka nobody
gets priority to respond to it - it just resolves right away.

"This ability cannot be countered by other spells or abilties" on the
other hand lets the opponent play instants in responce to use his mana
before it gets tapped.

I would call the original broken, but I doubt it would make rule
problems.

--
Regards
Simon Nejmann

 

[Guest]

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

"Simon Nejmann"

Yes, the card has no rule problems. Is a question of wording and a question
of beeing broken or not.
Leaving that issue aside, and focusing on the wording , the wording "this
card cannot be responded to" is not in magic lingo. You can say that we can
introduce a new lingo, yes, but if the current lingo provides the same
effect why should we use a new lingo ?

Lose 3 lifes and Pay 3 lifes are diferente things. Pay is worst for the
payer. Loses can be stoped , payments cannot. Because the card is so good
the payment is more restric making the card less broken.

> >Pay 3 lifes. Tap all mana producing permanents target player controls and
> >then empty that paleyrs mana pool. This ability cannot be countered by
other
> >spells or abilties That player can pay 5 to counter this effect.
> >
> >So the effect allways trigers , and it can only be stopped if the other
> >player pays 5.
> >There are no rule problems with this. There may be play problems 🙂
>
> Thats not the same card, is it?

From my point of view it is.
The ideia being the original card is to produce and effect wich only way to
stop it is to pay 5.
The effect drains all the mana. Why should I drain all the mana ?
If the payer was less than 5 mana sources he can pay the cost, and all mana
is drained. 4 if lucky.
If the player as more than 5 mana sources paying 5 is not bad. A
counterspell cost only 2.
Why shloud you want to drain you opoonets ? so he cannot responde to your
next spell.

So, my version let's you responde to this spell but not to the next. That is
the question.
You may cast things using all the mana, but that is the effect the card
looks for : mana draining.
What is the diference for the next card you play if the mana is drained by
your cards effect or because the opponnet drainned him self ? none.
Also, if he couldn't use all mana, the rest is drained anyway.

> "This ability cannot be responded to by spells or abilities." - would
> be like "play this as a mana source" or "drop like a land", aka nobody
> gets priority to respond to it - it just resolves right away.

drop like a land does not apply here. Only lands are droped like lands.
Play as a mana source doesn't let the oponent do nothing. The mana source is
super-fast effect.

> "This ability cannot be countered by other spells or abilties" on the
> other hand lets the opponent play instants in responce to use his mana
> before it gets tapped.

thats fine. For that he will use the mana. That is what you want. He made
some spell ? Shure, but what you don't what is him responding to your next
effect / ability. Also, if not paying the 5, all remaining mana is drainned.