Today's Ask Wizards answer

[Guest]

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

Today's Ask Wizards answer strikes me as rather silly. First of all
read the answer from Mark Rosewater from the May 26 column at
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/0501 , then read
my question.

Aside from how they interact with the two cards that specifically
mention Kicker (without having it themselves), is there any difference
at all between

Tooth and Nail
5GG
Sorcery
Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
two creature cards from your hand into play.
Entwine 2 (Choose both if you pay the entwine cost.)

and

Tooth and Nail
5GG
Sorcery
Kicker 2
Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
two creature cards from your hand into play.
Choose both if you paid the kicker cost.

?

I'm thinking the answer is no, which makes MaRo look rather silly, does
it not?

 

[Guest]

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

'Kicker' was developed for 'do A, or do A&B', whereas
'entwine' was developed for 'do A, or do B, or do A&B'.

I agree with you, that it *would be possible* to formulate
entwine-cards with kicker terminology. But that might confuse
players who are used to kicker in the above sense only.

Moreover, I think that R&D maybe realized that 'kicker' isn't
such a great, intuitive keyword and they just want to get rid
of it 🙂

Nuff

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>Today's Ask Wizards answer strikes me as rather silly. First of all
>read the answer from Mark Rosewater from the May 26 column at
>http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/0501 , then read
>my question.
>
>Aside from how they interact with the two cards that specifically
>mention Kicker (without having it themselves), is there any difference
>at all between
>
>Tooth and Nail >5GG >Sorcery
>Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
>them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
>two creature cards from your hand into play.
>Entwine 2 (Choose both if you pay the entwine cost.)
>
>and
>
>Tooth and Nail >5GG >Sorcery
>Kicker 2
>Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
>them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
>two creature cards from your hand into play.
>Choose both if you paid the kicker cost.

Er, yes; they have fairly different keyword abilities, one of which wasn't
used this block. Kicker is an additional cost; entwine is a _mode choice_
that entails an additional cost if used. Nothing exists that allows/lets you
use _kicker_ to determine if a mode is or isn't chosen, as far as I'm aware.

_Functionally_, you choose whether you pick one mode or both first, for
entwine; for your Kicker-like card, you'd have to pick whether to pay the
kicker cost first, and that would determine which mode(s) you could pick.
Modes are chosen in the same step that optional additional cost payments are
announced in, so it's not _much_ of a difference...

....but anything that's "pay extra to choose more modes" will be done with
Entwine, not Kicker. Might as well ask why Taste of Paradise didn't use
"multikicker" rather than the additional cost it -did- have.

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.

 

[Tim]

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

You misquoted the Kicker version.

your version:

> Tooth and Nail
> 5GG
> Sorcery
> Kicker 2
> Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
> them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
> two creature cards from your hand into play.
> Choose both if you paid the kicker cost.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/0501 version:

> "If this was a kicker card, it would read: 'Kicker 2.
> Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal them,
> put them into your hand, then shuffle you library. If you
> paid the kicker cost, put up to two creature cards from your
> hand into play.'

So, based on that, 5GG lets you search for 2 critters, reveal em, put em in
your hand, then shuffle. *Then*, if you paid the kicker, you can put 2
cards into play.

Which is different to

> Tooth and Nail
> 5GG
> Sorcery
> Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
> them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
> two creature cards from your hand into play.
> Entwine 2 (Choose both if you pay the entwine cost.)

Which lets you pay 5GG and put 2 creatures into play from your hand.


Tim

 

[Guest]

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

Tim wrote:
> You misquoted the Kicker version.
>
> your version:
>
>
>>Tooth and Nail
>>5GG
>>Sorcery
>>Kicker 2
>>Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
>>them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
>>two creature cards from your hand into play.
>>Choose both if you paid the kicker cost.
>
>
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/0501 version:
>
>
>>"If this was a kicker card, it would read: 'Kicker 2.
>>Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal them,
>>put them into your hand, then shuffle you library. If you
>>paid the kicker cost, put up to two creature cards from your
>>hand into play.'
>
>
> So, based on that, 5GG lets you search for 2 critters, reveal em, put em in
> your hand, then shuffle. *Then*, if you paid the kicker, you can put 2
> cards into play.
>
> Which is different to
>
>
>>Tooth and Nail
>>5GG
>>Sorcery
>>Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
>>them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
>>two creature cards from your hand into play.
>>Entwine 2 (Choose both if you pay the entwine cost.)
>
>
> Which lets you pay 5GG and put 2 creatures into play from your hand.


Entwine lets you do either one, two, or both.
Kicker lets you do either one, or both.

 

[Guest]

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

Tim, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> You misquoted the Kicker version.

I apologize if I was unclear, but you have completely missed the point
of my post. My point is that MaRo is WRONG in saying that these cards
couldn't be worded properly with kicker, and my intent was to show how.

If my proposed card (which I REALIZE is different from the wording MaRo
used, that was the POINT of it) is functionally the same as the actual
one, then I have succeeded. So far, no-one here or on the WotC boards
has said anything to convince me that it's not, but it's Dave and the
other gurus that I really want to hear from.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Heikkinen wrote:

> Tim, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>
>>You misquoted the Kicker version.
>
>
> I apologize if I was unclear, but you have completely missed the point
> of my post. My point is that MaRo is WRONG in saying that these cards
> couldn't be worded properly with kicker, and my intent was to show how.
>
> If my proposed card (which I REALIZE is different from the wording MaRo
> used, that was the POINT of it) is functionally the same as the actual
> one, then I have succeeded. So far, no-one here or on the WotC boards
> has said anything to convince me that it's not, but it's Dave and the
> other gurus that I really want to hear from.

Kicker was different. It allowed a spell more effects on the game,
depending on what you piad for the spell. Generically, kicker spells where

do this
kicker
if you paid the kicker cost, do this.

sometimes creatures had kicker, (if i can remember properly).

ENtwine, however, is a choose between two effects that cost one price,
or both effects for another.

With kicker you could get both effects from a spell with kicker, but you
could never get the kicker effect without the kicker cost. WIth entwine
you can.

For this reason, your kicker version of tooth and nail is a load of
shite. A good template for that would have been.

Search libary,
kicker,
put creatures into play.

But then the spell would have been less usefull since you would not be
able to just* put creatures into play.

etc

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> sent:
> Tim, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>> You misquoted the Kicker version.

> I apologize if I was unclear, but you have completely missed the point
> of my post. My point is that MaRo is WRONG in saying that these cards
> couldn't be worded properly with kicker, and my intent was to show how.

> If my proposed card (which I REALIZE is different from the wording MaRo
> used, that was the POINT of it) is functionally the same as the actual
> one, then I have succeeded. So far, no-one here or on the WotC boards
> has said anything to convince me that it's not, but it's Dave and the
> other gurus that I really want to hear from.

If there is a difference, then it will be a subtle one based on the
exact definitions of Kicker and Entwine.

502.21a Kicker is a static ability that functions while the spell is
on the stack. The phrase "Kicker [cost]" means "You may pay an
additional [cost] as you play this spell." The phrase "Kicker [cost
1] and/or [cost 2]" means the same thing as "Kicker [cost 1], kicker
[cost 2]." Paying a spell's kicker cost(s) follows the rules for
paying additional costs in rules 409.1b and 409.1f-h.

502.21b Objects with kicker have additional abilities that specify
what happens if the kicker cost is paid. Objects with more than one
kicker cost have abilities that correspond to each kicker cost.

502.32a Entwine is a static ability that functions while the spell is
on the stack. The phrase "Entwine [cost]" means "You may choose to
use all modes of this spell instead of just one. If you do, you pay
an additional [cost]." Using the entwine ability follows the rules
for choosing modes and paying additional costs in rules 409.1b and
409.1f-h.

I suspect the pertinent question would be, "Can a Kicker cost allow the
player to choose both modes of a modal spell in rule 409.1b?" This in
turn depends on what kind of thing an "additional ability that
specifies what happens if the kicker cost is paid" can be. All
existing kicker cards have their kickered effects on resolution, and do
not have any effect on announcement other than to allow the player to
pay the extra cost and to allow that player to choose targets for text
that depends on the kicker cost being paid. Based on this precedent,
it seems that kicker only ever adds to the effect of the spell on
resolution, and can't be used to affect the announcement of a spell
except by virtue of target selection.

--
-- zoe

 

[Guest]

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

The Kicksen, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
>
> > Tim, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> >
> >>You misquoted the Kicker version.
> >
> >
> > I apologize if I was unclear, but you have completely missed the point
> > of my post. My point is that MaRo is WRONG in saying that these cards
> > couldn't be worded properly with kicker, and my intent was to show how.
> >
> > If my proposed card (which I REALIZE is different from the wording MaRo
> > used, that was the POINT of it) is functionally the same as the actual
> > one, then I have succeeded. So far, no-one here or on the WotC boards
> > has said anything to convince me that it's not, but it's Dave and the
> > other gurus that I really want to hear from.
>
> Kicker was different. It allowed a spell more effects on the game,
> depending on what you piad for the spell. Generically, kicker spells where
>
> do this
> kicker
> if you paid the kicker cost, do this.
>
> sometimes creatures had kicker, (if i can remember properly).
>
> ENtwine, however, is a choose between two effects that cost one price,
> or both effects for another.
>
> With kicker you could get both effects from a spell with kicker, but you
> could never get the kicker effect without the kicker cost. WIth entwine
> you can.
>
> For this reason, your kicker version of tooth and nail is a load of
> shite. A good template for that would have been.

1. Please quote the part of the comprehensive rules that gives any
reason why my version doesn't work. The above reasoning is not to be
found anywhere in the rulebook.

2. In most of the other newsgroups I frequent I would ignore the "load
of shite" comment but you'll find that that kind of stuff is VERY
unwelcome here. I didn't insult you, if you want to be taken seriously
here do the same.

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff Heikkinen" <oh@s.if> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b1e25a1a18b0860989d56@news.easynews.com...
> The Kicksen, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
> >
> > > Tim, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > >
> > >>You misquoted the Kicker version.
> > >
> > >
> > > I apologize if I was unclear, but you have completely missed the point
> > > of my post. My point is that MaRo is WRONG in saying that these cards
> > > couldn't be worded properly with kicker, and my intent was to show
how.
> > >
> > > If my proposed card (which I REALIZE is different from the wording
MaRo
> > > used, that was the POINT of it) is functionally the same as the actual
> > > one, then I have succeeded. So far, no-one here or on the WotC boards
> > > has said anything to convince me that it's not, but it's Dave and the
> > > other gurus that I really want to hear from.
> >
> > Kicker was different. It allowed a spell more effects on the game,
> > depending on what you piad for the spell. Generically, kicker spells
where
> >
> > do this
> > kicker
> > if you paid the kicker cost, do this.
> >
> > sometimes creatures had kicker, (if i can remember properly).
> >
> > ENtwine, however, is a choose between two effects that cost one price,
> > or both effects for another.
> >
> > With kicker you could get both effects from a spell with kicker, but you
> > could never get the kicker effect without the kicker cost. WIth entwine
> > you can.
> >
> > For this reason, your kicker version of tooth and nail is a load of
> > shite. A good template for that would have been.
>
> 1. Please quote the part of the comprehensive rules that gives any
> reason why my version doesn't work. The above reasoning is not to be
> found anywhere in the rulebook.
>
Kicker is an ability that can be put on almost any kind of spell, while
Entwine only works on Modal spells. Altough the 'feel' of the effect is a
lot like Kicker, it's still quite different. Tooth&Nail and Journey of
Discovery are almost always played as kicker spells, in the sense that you
almost never choose the second part alone. A card like Grab the Reins does
work differently, both parts of the spell have a chance of being played
seperately.

Even though you asked politely, I won't quote a part of the rulebook for
you. Just accept the explaination offered here, and read the rulebook
yourself. Re-writing Kicker would take more words than adding a new keyword
ability, and it would create a whole lot more confusion. WotC R&D actually
does think quite long and hard on naming abilities, and I'm sure they
thought about 'expanding' kicker. A good reason against it is questions like
"I play my Thornscape Battlemage, tap R, because I only want to play the Red
kicker, not the creature." By making a seperate keyword, you prevent all
these potentional conflicts, and its a lot more elegant this way.

> 2. In most of the other newsgroups I frequent I would ignore the "load
> of shite" comment but you'll find that that kind of stuff is VERY
> unwelcome here. I didn't insult you, if you want to be taken seriously
> here do the same.

And if you want to be taken seriously, think before asking. You asked a
question, and people took the time to write an answer to you. That you can't
understand the answer is YOUR problem, not ours.


Jasper Overman

 

[Guest]

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

David DeLaney, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
> >Today's Ask Wizards answer strikes me as rather silly. First of all
> >read the answer from Mark Rosewater from the May 26 column at
> >http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/askwizards/0501 , then read
> >my question.
> >
> >Aside from how they interact with the two cards that specifically
> >mention Kicker (without having it themselves), is there any difference
> >at all between
> >
> >Tooth and Nail >5GG >Sorcery
> >Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
> >them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
> >two creature cards from your hand into play.
> >Entwine 2 (Choose both if you pay the entwine cost.)
> >
> >and
> >
> >Tooth and Nail >5GG >Sorcery
> >Kicker 2
> >Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
> >them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
> >two creature cards from your hand into play.
> >Choose both if you paid the kicker cost.
>
> Er, yes; they have fairly different keyword abilities, one of which wasn't
> used this block.

Oh, I realize that - my point, and that of the person who originally
posted the question, is that it looks like Entwine could be reworded as
Kicker.

> Kicker is an additional cost; entwine is a _mode choice_
> that entails an additional cost if used. Nothing exists that allows/lets you
> use _kicker_ to determine if a mode is or isn't chosen, as far as I'm aware.
>
> _Functionally_, you choose whether you pick one mode or both first, for
> entwine; for your Kicker-like card, you'd have to pick whether to pay the
> kicker cost first, and that would determine which mode(s) you could pick.
> Modes are chosen in the same step that optional additional cost payments are
> announced in, so it's not _much_ of a difference...

Okay, now that's an objection I can at least understand. I think.

> ...but anything that's "pay extra to choose more modes" will be done with
> Entwine, not Kicker. Might as well ask why Taste of Paradise didn't use
> "multikicker" rather than the additional cost it -did- have.

Well, Taste of Paradise is a different case in that it predates Kicker.

So, let's see if I understand this correctly. If I have followed your
answer, the following are all true. If I have not, please step in and
correct whatever parts of it are wrong!

* There *is* a minor functional difference between the versions,
involving the order in which you technically make your choices on
announcement, though it is rather hard to think of a situation other
than programming MTGO where it would matter. Nevertheless, my proposed
card *would* work, exactly the way I worded it.
* The main objection to wording Entwine the way I did is not a rules
problem, but a philosophical one. They *could* make Entwine a subset of
Kicker, but would prefer not to.
* MaRo's answer therefore *is* incorrect, or at the very least
incomplete.

Is this right? I had thought that a small addition to the rules might
be needed for my card to work, along the lines of the existing 502.21c.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>David DeLaney, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>> Er, yes; they have fairly different keyword abilities, one of which wasn't
>> used this block.
>
>Oh, I realize that - my point, and that of the person who originally
>posted the question, is that it looks like Entwine could be reworded as
>Kicker.

Looking at it, I do like parts of Zoe's answer too: Kicker was all about
different stuff being done at (or after) resolution. Though it could cause
additional -targets- to be needed, and itself needed to be declared in
409.1b at the "declare additional cost use" step, it didn't really have
anything to do with modes... and always caused _additional_ stuff to
happen, or replaced something with something else. And the additional stuff
or replacement stuff couldn't happen without the Kicker.

So yes, it could be modified and twisted to include Entwine as a special case
- but that would give us a whole heap of earlier Kicker stuff that worked one
way, and a whole heap of later Kicker-formerly-Entwine stuff that worked a
different way. Which is generally not that good an idea...

>* There *is* a minor functional difference between the versions,
>involving the order in which you technically make your choices on
>announcement, though it is rather hard to think of a situation other
>than programming MTGO where it would matter. Nevertheless, my proposed
>card *would* work, exactly the way I worded it.

Quite possibly; it's fallen off the top of the thread for me.

>* The main objection to wording Entwine the way I did is not a rules
>problem, but a philosophical one. They *could* make Entwine a subset of
>Kicker, but would prefer not to.
>* MaRo's answer therefore *is* incorrect, or at the very least
>incomplete.

I'd probably go with "incomplete" if anything. The full details behind
_anything_ the rules team, or R&D, does generally don't get made public.
(Partly because portions of them would bore the readers to death, or make
their brains explode, and Magic doesn't really _want_ to reduce its player
base that way...)

>Is this right? I had thought that a small addition to the rules might
>be needed for my card to work, along the lines of the existing 502.21c.

It's probably more like "Kicker works this way, though it could be twisted
slightly to include what's now Entwine. Entwine works +that+ way, though it
could be twisted slightly to include what's now _Kicker_. Let's keep the two
separate because they do different things and have different purposes."...

Dave, still hasn't read the actual article that started this
--
\/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, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> It's probably more like "Kicker works this way, though it could be twisted
> slightly to include what's now Entwine. Entwine works +that+ way, though it
> could be twisted slightly to include what's now _Kicker_. Let's keep the two
> separate because they do different things and have different purposes."...

Now that's interesting - I'm not sure how Entwine could be made to
encompass Kicker, especially on permanents. The other way around seems
like the natural way to do it to me.

In any event, consider me tentatively convinced that the distinction is
worth preserving.

 

[Guest]

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

David DeLaney <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> sent:
> Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:

>>* The main objection to wording Entwine the way I did is not a rules
>>problem, but a philosophical one. They *could* make Entwine a subset of
>>Kicker, but would prefer not to.
>>* MaRo's answer therefore *is* incorrect, or at the very least
>>incomplete.

> I'd probably go with "incomplete" if anything. The full details behind
> _anything_ the rules team, or R&D, does generally don't get made public.
> (Partly because portions of them would bore the readers to death, or make
> their brains explode, and Magic doesn't really _want_ to reduce its player
> base that way...)

Notwithstanding that some of those details might involve things that
R&D are planning to do in the future - maybe the perceived missing
part of the puzzle here is something that will see light a few years
down the road, when MaRo goes over the old files a few more times and
pulls out some Cunning Idea from earlier discussions.

--
-- zoe

 

[Guest]

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

David DeLaney, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

[I had asked Dave to clarify whether the following was true:]
> >* There *is* a minor functional difference between the versions,
> >involving the order in which you technically make your choices on
> >announcement, though it is rather hard to think of a situation other
> >than programming MTGO where it would matter. Nevertheless, my proposed
> >card *would* work, exactly the way I worded it.
>
> Quite possibly; it's fallen off the top of the thread for me.

It was actually quoted in the message you were replying to :-D.
Nevertheless, here it is again. Just to be absolutely clear, consider
the following hypothetical card:

Tooth and Nail (Alternate)
5GG
Sorcery
Kicker 2
Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
two creature cards from your hand into play.
Choose both if you paid the kicker cost.

Which of the following statements about this wording is true?

1. It would work, and it would function exactly like the existing Tooth
and Nail does (except for some details of how the announcement would be
handled which you were kind enough to point out)
2. It would not work unless there was an addition to rule 502.21c (or a
new rule similar to that one), and/or the card were given an ugly
rewording along the lines of

Tooth and Nail (Second Alternate)
5GG
Sorcery
Kicker 2
Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
two creature cards from your hand into play.
If you paid the kicker cost, instead search your library for up to two
creature cards, reveal them, and put them into your hand, then put up to
two creature cards from your hand into play, then shuffle your library.

3. It would not work for some much deeper reason.

I believe that statement #1 is true; I can read your comments as
supporting statement #1 or #2, and the only response on the WotC message
boards that I felt displayed any understanding of the rules explicitly
endorsed #2; a few people seem to be saying #3 though they have been
vague as to their reasons.

I want to make it completely clear that this question is TOTALLY
SEPERATE from all philosophical questions about whether they would WANT
to do this, and I point out that I did already concede the existence of
some semi-compelling reasons not to fold Entwine into Kicker even if
statement #1 is the correct one.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>Tooth and Nail (Alternate) >5GG >Sorcery
>Kicker 2
>Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
>them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
>two creature cards from your hand into play.
>Choose both if you paid the kicker cost.
>
>Which of the following statements about this wording is true?
>
>1. It would work, and it would function exactly like the existing Tooth
>and Nail does (except for some details of how the announcement would be
>handled which you were kind enough to point out)

Hmmm. Actually, looking at this? There's a possibility that the wording
you give would be interpreted as "choose one or the other without kicker;
with kicker, choose one or the other _and_ choose both, so that you do one
of them twice and the other once".

>2. It would not work unless there was an addition to rule 502.21c (or a
>new rule similar to that one), and/or the card were given an ugly
>rewording along the lines of
>
>Tooth and Nail (Second Alternate)
>5GG
>Sorcery
>Kicker 2
>Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
>them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
>two creature cards from your hand into play.
>If you paid the kicker cost, instead search your library for up to two
>creature cards, reveal them, and put them into your hand, then put up to
>two creature cards from your hand into play, then shuffle your library.

This is much closer to how the cards that actually have kicker are worded
in such cases; the kicker adds something, or replaces part of the existing
effect. It doesn't "overwrite" the nonkicker part unless it -says- it does
so with 'instead'.

>I want to make it completely clear that this question is TOTALLY
>SEPERATE from all philosophical questions about whether they would WANT
>to do this, and I point out that I did already concede the existence of
>some semi-compelling reasons not to fold Entwine into Kicker even if
>statement #1 is the correct one.

Fair enough.

Also, if you're expecting me to have some sort of line on what Mark Rosewater
is actually thinking at any given time? I'm afraid I haven't yet managed that
(and am _still_ annoyed at him for some of the stuff WotC collectively did
to our poor old cards when 6E templates/rules appeared...).

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 sez:

<<
>Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
>>Tooth and Nail (Alternate) >5GG >Sorcery
>>Kicker 2
>>Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
>>them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
>>two creature cards from your hand into play.
>>Choose both if you paid the kicker cost.
>>
>>Which of the following statements about this wording is true?
>>
>>1. It would work, and it would function exactly like the existing Tooth
>>and Nail does (except for some details of how the announcement would be
>>handled which you were kind enough to point out)
>
>Hmmm. Actually, looking at this? There's a possibility that the wording
>you give would be interpreted as "choose one or the other without kicker;
>with kicker, choose one or the other _and_ choose both, so that you do one
>of them twice and the other once".
>
>>

How about:

Tooth and Nail (Alternate) 5GG Sorcery
Kicker 2
Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
two creature cards from your hand into play. If you paid the kicker cost,
instead do both of those effects.

This is functionally different than TaN (you have to choose modes), but not
practically different (the choice will be overridden if you pay kicker).


----
"If President Bush is going to take credit for 'the invisble hand' [of
economics], then he's going to take the blame when 'the hand' gives him the
finger."
--From Fark.com

 

[Guest]

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

David DeLaney, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Jeff Heikkinen <oh@s.if> wrote:
> >Tooth and Nail (Alternate) >5GG >Sorcery
> >Kicker 2
> >Choose one -- Search your library for up to two creature cards, reveal
> >them, put them into your hand, then shuffle your library; or put up to
> >two creature cards from your hand into play.
> >Choose both if you paid the kicker cost.
> >
> >Which of the following statements about this wording is true?
> >
> >1. It would work, and it would function exactly like the existing Tooth
> >and Nail does (except for some details of how the announcement would be
> >handled which you were kind enough to point out)
>
> Hmmm. Actually, looking at this? There's a possibility that the wording
> you give would be interpreted as "choose one or the other without kicker;
> with kicker, choose one or the other _and_ choose both, so that you do one
> of them twice and the other once".

Oh, good point. Needs an "instead" in there. Can't believe I missed
that.

> Also, if you're expecting me to have some sort of line on what Mark Rosewater
> is actually thinking at any given time? I'm afraid I haven't yet managed that
> (and am _still_ annoyed at him for some of the stuff WotC collectively did
> to our poor old cards when 6E templates/rules appeared...).

My personal view is that MaRo is, in fact, Gleemax.

Having said that, though, that seems like on odd thing to be annoyed
with him specifically for.