In a message dated 12/14/2002 6:04:56 PM Central Standard Time,
tozawa@... writes:


> Question #1 - Citing the following:
>
> 2. I had a flutteryup in play. My opponent had an aerial flist that then
> attacked. It started the attack at 3e, but charge added 1e more to it
> bringing it to 4e. In which order would the effects resolve? Does dodge
> kick in or does the energy added to the aerial flist not count when
> considering effects?
>
> RT - Both Effects have the same trigger in this situation-whenever the
> Flist attacks (the Flutter Yup)/whenever the Flutter Yup is attacked (by
> the Flist)-and would therefore resolve in order of the active player and
> then other players in play order. Since it's your turn, Charge resolves
> first, making it 4E, then Dodge resolves, preventing the Flutter Yup from
> losing any energy in the attack because the Flist has 4E.
>
>
> In the last 'combat detail', there was a step before 'attacks, attacked,
> etc.' triggers where the energy totals on all cards was 'locked in' for
> purposes of pricessing effects during that attack. The answer above seems
> to suggest that this step has been removed. I would like to know exactly
> how this is handled, and how it will afect the game (and if cards which
> say 'began the attack with' were simply reminders, or meant to be
> functionally different from other cards).

A card effect looks at current totals whenever it needs to compare them for
some reason or another.


> Question #2 - regarding the following two answers to questions...
>
> Awakening...
> RT - Any card that remains on the table is in play the entire time it
> remains on the table, including Awakening. Sandswirl (before errata) did
> not stay on the table, and so did not remain in play (meaning that, once
> it resolved, it was unstoppable, leading in part to its change).
> Gia's Tome...
> It was ruled at gen-con that creatures under the tome could be discarded
> for the mat. r creatures under the tome considered in play for purposes of
> the other effects?
> RT - No; these cards are not truly 'in play' and cannot be affected as
> such.
>
> The two statements regarding what is or is not 'in play' do not match up -
> are cards 'under' things (like Imbued Spells or Gia's Tome Creatures)
> treated differently even though they are 'on the table'? I'd assume that
> only cards that are PLAYED can be considered IN PLAY, but I was hoping for
> an official confirmation of that interpretation.

The phrasing of the first answer was implying the wording of Awakening,
Geysers, etc (play this card on the table), as well as cards that "attach".
Cards that are placed under other cards (such as with Gia's Tome) do not
attach and are not in play.


> Question #3 - Discard triggers
>
> 17. if i have great throne of mushrooms in play and someone plays
> cataclysm....do i get to do it's text which is(whenever one of your
> creatures is descarded from play, you may discard one energy from your
> magi to draw a card). or is everything simultaneously discarded
>
> RT - Everything is simultaneously discarded, but the Great Throne
> Mushrooms don't care; you can pay one energy for as many of your
> Creatures as you want and draw a card for each.
>
>
> I read the above and the subsequent reversal; I would like to know if the
> cards Orpus and Furok Guardian are being reclarified to 'as' effects, or
> if the previous rulings allowing you to use them to save things from a
> mass discard (like Cataclysm) are being reversed by the standardizing of
> 'when' triggers. I know that Relic Mirror was reclarified to work in such
> a case; it will make a diffrence if Orpus (and to a lesser degree, Furok
> Guardian and cards like it) are not relcarified so.

The timing words have never really had concrete definitions until now, and
this has caused some wording problems. When the cards were first written, the
idea was that there would be no need for various timing verbs, etc., and so
there was no standardization for them. However, as sets passed and different
design teams with them, some words were used to signify specific timing more
and more often until we have the almost concrete definitions of now. Without
making a large list of clarifications, it's going to have to be a "common
sense" measure, for now; Orpus, for instance, is trying to save the Relic,
so, logically, it would be an 'As' effect if templated now, because otherwise
it would wait until the Relic is discarded then bring it back and trigger all
sorts of nasty little "enter play/discarded from play" effects. Terra
Rebirth, however, does wait for the Creature to get booted out of play, then
bring it back later...So it's not trying to save the Creature, it's just
bringing a new one back into play later on, therefore losing the Guardian at
the same time as the other Creature would prevent it from Rebirthing. If a
Cataclysm discards them both, then no Guardian to bring it back.

Now, don't consider this an 'absolute' guideline for such decisions...Just
like any other ruling, go for 'common sense' when you're stuck (as a
tournament judge, for instance), then bring the question up to us afterward.


> Question #4 - Spirit of Orothe
> RT - Yes, the effect is permanent, no, you cannot Redream an 'any' card;
> when a card refers to affecting based on starting cards, it means only
> named starting cards. Rayje could Redream nothing, Yerthe could only
> Redream a Staff of Hyren, etc.
>
> I am curious as to how permanent such effects are - Interchanging all the
> way around back to the Magi would/would not remove the effetc of the
> spirit (is it 'until the ned of the game' type change). In addition, the
> question applies to all other Spirits which affect your next magi (Spirit
> of the teeth, for example).

They are permanent as long as the card stays active; if you Interchange the
Magi away or otherwise remove it from play (defeating then using Ritual
Spear, for instance), then the rules for card memory will forget the changes
made by the Spirits.


> Question #5 - D'Jarvish
> RT - Correct; d'Jarvish's Effect will return your Burrowed and Illusionary
> Creatures to hand even from opposing energy discard, and even if you
> caused it to happen by attacking an opposing Creature and having yours
> defeated.
>
> I remember that cards that said 'specifically discard' were treated as
> 'discarded while they have energy'. D'Jarvish's effect, Escape, says
> 'specifically' discarded from play... However, the answer above, instead
> of clarifying D'Jarvish the way UMMM..NO! and Colossus have, actually
> changes the nature D'Jarvish's effect (he was never able to eturn
> Creatures defeated in attacks, or 'burned to deat'). Is this answer a
> MRP/Errata, or an error?

It's something we missed; when a card says "specifically discard", it applies
only to being 'discarded while it has energy'. This is the case for
d'Jarvish; the answer kind of blurred the lines of intent. The answer to the
question "if my Creature is defeated in an attack, is it discarded from play
by an opposing card?" is yes, while the question "is it specifically
discarded from play by an opposing card?" is no. Therefore, d'Jarvish's
Illusions and Burrowed Creatures that are beat in a fight are lost.


> Question #6 - Spirits and Costs
> RT - When your Magi is defeated and placed in the defeated Magi pile is
> when you can play those Spirits; Spirit of Rayje is the only exception.
>
> This answer seems to say that the Spirit Spells are played after the magi
> are no longer in play. Where, the answer to the FROZEN SPIRIT question
> was:
>
> RT - Currently, no, as there's no way the Magi could pay the one
> additional cost.
>
> I am curious as to when the Spirits are played in relation to all other
> "When ___ is defeated" events are triggered. If the Spirits are played
> when the Magi is not in play, they would be exceptions to the 'must have
> an active magi to play spells' rule, and if they are played while the magi
> are in play, then would they go before or after defeat triggers, like
> Adis's Effect, Haunt?

The difference is because Spirit of Rayje is different than the other
Spirits; Spirit of Rayje is played while a Magi is still active before defeat
(and therefore would suffer the frozen restriction), and the others happen
after defeat. Additionally, yes, the text of most of the Spirits get around
the requirement of having a Magi to play them. Finally, they were
intentionally worded this way because of the problem with Spirits and defeat
effects; Adis with Spirit of Arderial can quickly lead to a nasty lock, for
example.


> Question #7 - Mowat
> 40. Would a creature using spark to remove 2 from mowat trigger Mowat's
> prickly effect?
>
> RT - Yes; the Creature using Spark is removing energy from the Mowat, and
> so Prickly is triggered, discarding two energy from the Sparking Creature.
>
>
> I am simply curious as to why the Effect, prickly, in the above answer,
> removes two energy from the Sparking Creature. Mowat says one energy, not
> two.
>

Very well; Prickly removes the amount that Prickly designates from the
Sparker.


> Question #8 - Reality Anchor
> 43. If I use Resonate to discard 2 energy off the opposing magi and to
> discard their Reality Anchor from play may the opposing magi use Reality
> Anchor's effect which would prevent the energy discard?
>
> RT - Yes, they may; the energy loss will be prevented and the Resonate
> will not be able to discard a Relic.
>
>
> I'm assuming that, since Reality Anchor can't go back in time to prevent
> anything (which it's 'when' wording would say), that it's preventive
> effect is meant to use the 'As' text, or is this different?

Just like Climbing Staff, it should have 'as' wording, because otherwise it
tries to step back in time and undo what has happened.


> Also, Reality Anchor says that the opposing card does not affect your
> Magi. Why would the Resonate, in the above answer, be prevented from
> discarding a relic from play (or was the answer just that they couldn't
> discard the Reality Anchor from play)?

They couldn't discard the Anchor.

> Question #9 - Cawh
> In a previous rules digest, terms 'do nothing', 'prevent' and 'reduce'
> were defined; I believe it was ruled that things which don't affect' or
> 'do nothing' never would event attempt to discard energy (so that Piercing
> would not allow energy discard in thos cases). Cawh says that your cards
> cannot prevent Cawh from losing energy. My understanding is that cards
> that are affected by piercing (lose _ less enetgy, lose no energy, lose
> no more than _ energy) do not help your Cawh against energy loss, and
> things that piercing doesnt' affect ('does nothing', 'does not affect')
> would - since no energy loss would be attempted, there is nothing to
> prevent (or reduce).
>
> From previous Digest:
> "The Spell, Power, or Effect does nothing." - The effects of the Spell,
> Power, or Effect basically never happen; there is no energy loss to
> reduce, because the Spell, Power, or Effect did not even attempt to
> discard energy to begin with.
>
> Are the defining aspects of 'do not affect' vs. 'cannot prevent' different
> when applied backwards (preventing prevention)? Or is Cawh meant to say
> "Your cards do not affect opposing spells, powers, and effects which would
> discard energy from Cawh" or something like that?
>
> In the interestes of making Cawh semi-protectable, I can at least say
> that, even with the Bubble and Shell and like effects, Cawh isn't likely
> to become 'broken' - still, the clarification is important.

Playtesting lended itself to Cawh's resistance to protection, and such
restrictions are not made arbitrarily. Prevention vs. reduction effects are
defined within the digest, and Cawh's Fearsome does "prevent prevention".

> Finally #10 - Flameplate Armor
> I was recently amazed to find that the Flameplate armor hadn't been
> printed to modify opposing Spells, powers, Effects, and Attacks, but was
> written using the word 'Card'. While past cards like Spectral Shield and
> Greater gargagnor have been officially clarified, this newer one hs not
> (even in this digest). I am assuming that it is not the intent of the card
> to allow energy loss from cards like Baraxin's Crown to be affected by
> Flameplate Armor. If it's not too much trouble, culd you add the change to
> your list of clarifications? Thank you.

Good Offense encompasses energy discard from opposing cards; this extends to
Abraxin's Crown as well.

One last note; these answers are not...How to put it..."Officially official"?
As in, they aren't worded the best way (so no picking through them for
wording loopholes), and they weren't reviewed by RT as a whole, but otherwise
answer the questions. I just wanted to get these issues knocked out because
Storylines are so imminent, and it was predominately my fault the mistakes
were made. Enjoy...

-L. "Law" Sterling
Magi-Nation DUEL Rules Team Director


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]