|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:43 am
I was sitting down to ask a question that I've had in my head for a long time now when suddenly I realised a bit of reading I did the other day answers my question, but I'm going to go ahead and make mention of my problem just in case I'm tottally wrong.
I wanted to make it easier to play Confiscate and Take Possesion so I thought I'd use a Show and Tell to do this but I was left wondering if I could take the card that my opponent played with the effects of Show and Tell by targeting it with the Confiscate that I was putting into play with Show and Tell.
The answer I stared with was a yes but I've eventually come to think that the answer is a big, No Way Jose.
Having finaly become aware of the "Active Player, Nonactive Player (APNAP) order" rule. I now think my little sceam could never work.
So I guess the normal way this could pan out is that I play Show and Tell then I play my Confiscate on some target perminent then they use show and tell to play an artifact, creature, enchantment, or land card to finish it all off.
The idea still seems fun enough and wildly risky to try out in a deck but really I can't see how I can rely on just Show and Tell alone to make such a deck flow well especially if I'm going to fill it up with high cost cards. It's still worth a try for something a bit more crazy then I'm used to.
I'm still not 100% about this because even with all this happening simultaniously after each player has made their choice of card to play does that make it so that I choose a target for Confiscate after both cards are in play and does that mean I can take the card that my opponent has played ?
Okay now I'm confused again and really haven't figured this out at all. *laughs*
Well that's why I came to post in the first place.
I also have a question about equipment.
If a creature is equiped with for example a Bonespliter this is considered targeting the creature with the equipment effect, can I just keep paying the equipment cost to effectively target the creature multiple times in order to take advantage of certain cards like Daru Speritualist?
Would a Healer's Headdress be a better option?
I would then use something like Worthy Cause to gain life from sac'ing the Daru Speritualist....hypothetically speaking.
Or is this combo complete bunk?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:25 am
Wow long post. Ok the first scenario works like this. Show and Tell follows APNAP to a point. All cards however are put into play simultaneously. So you will not be able to Confiscate or Take Possession of any card they're trying to Show and Tell. What happens is the active player chooses a card and reveals it, then the non active player chooses a card and reveals it. Then both cards are placed into play simultaneously. If both cards are say, Clone (or any other card where you have to pick a target or choose something) then the APNAP applies. The active player picks what hes going to target/choose first. Then the non active player does the same. Then both are put into play simultaneously as part of Show and Tell's resolution.
Equipment Question: No. You have to target a different creature. It's just like spells being unable to target itself, equipment cant equip itself to a creature its already attached too. You can however bounce it back and forth between two creatures as you like and have the mana to do.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:30 pm
Lord Yawgmoth Equipment Question: No. You have to target a different creature. It's just like spells being unable to target itself, equipment cant equip itself to a creature its already attached too. You can however bounce it back and forth between two creatures as you like and have the mana to do. Hmm, I'm not sure Yawg, I'll have to check on it, but I do not believe that anything stops you from simply, 're-equoping' an equipment to a creature it is already attacthed to. It's not quite like a spell targeting itself. The reminder text does not say anything about the target not being already equiped with the equipment. [edit] Q: Is it possible to pay the equipment cost to move an equipment to where it already is in order to prevent mana burn? A: Yes. Re-equipping a creature is an allowable mana dump. I found this in a ruling page for equipment affects and abilities
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:23 pm
So I see. I planned on double checking my answers today like I always do but guess you got to it before me. You know I'm wondering why you haven't applied yet, I figured of all people you'd be the first one xp
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:15 pm
Maybe it's the idea of using Lightning Greaves in this combo is what could be confusing the matter because you would have to obviously use another creature in order to be able to move the Greaves back and forth but then with the mana cost being zero you could choose to do this a whole lot of times.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:56 pm
Moleje Maybe it's the idea of using Lightning Greaves in this combo is what could be confusing the matter because you would have to obviously use another creature in order to be able to move the Greaves back and forth but then with the mana cost being zero you could choose to do this a whole lot of times. Yeah, that is one of the few cases where the idea doesn't work. There are a few other equipments you have to watch for with that, like whispersilk cloak and a few others. Also, Yawg, I'll look into that.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 2:02 pm
whenever you regenerate a creature, you remove it from combat right? does that mean it doesn't deal it's combat damage?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:24 pm
Activating regeneration doesn't remove it from combat but rather it creates a shield. Since all combat damage is dealt at the same time if the creature you regenerate would've died, then it should've already dealt it's damage. If, however, you have a 2/2 regenerating monster and they have a 2/2 first strike. When you regenerate the 2/2 after first strike damage if its untapped it taps, and it gets removed from combat. So it will not get to deal its 2 damage to the 2/2 first strike if you regenerate it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:36 am
A big congrats to Ramar E. Mana for being the first person to pass the apprentice test. Good job! Four more rules savvy people are wanted so if you think you have what it takes apply today 3nodding be sure and read the first post to find out how.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:19 am
Ok, I've got a question about everyones favorite creature type....SLIVERS...ahem. Anyways, if you play a Ward Sliver, and give Slivers protection from red or any other color, then play another ward Sliver and choose white, would that cancel out the effect of the other Ward Sliver and make the protection from red or whichever color useless? Or would it retain the effect of the protection of the color chosen for the Slivers out at the moment, but from now on out all your Slivers would then be unaffected by white now?
I hope that made sense, if not then let me know and I'll try to sense it up a bit.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:56 am
All Slivers would then have protection from Red and White.
It would not cancel out the first Ward Sliver because the first one was never targeting anything that protection would stop. (Being targeted by spells, or abilities.) They're all static abilities that the Slivers 'inherit' as state-based effects are checked.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:06 am
Ramar E. Mana All Slivers would then have protection from Red and White. It would not cancel out the first Ward Sliver because the first one was never targeting anything that protection would stop. (Being targeted by spells, or abilities.) They're all static abilities that the Slivers 'inherit' as state-based effects are checked. Ah ok, thanks a lot, you've just ended a 3 hour argument. My thanks. xd
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:53 pm
Forgot to put this here but congrats to String_Theory for being the second person to pass the apprentice test. Three slots left to go. 3nodding
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:39 pm
Ok this one's a little tricky: If I play a spell, and my opponent has a draining whelk in play, and he bounces it back to his hand with boomerang, can he use the draining whelk to counter my spell?
Hope that makes sense.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:56 pm
Nosada_the_Stealth Ok this one's a little tricky: If I play a spell, and my opponent has a draining whelk in play, and he bounces it back to his hand with boomerang, can he use the draining whelk to counter my spell? Hope that makes sense. Yes. With each spell players gain priority to play a spell 'in response' to that spell. Example; Player A plays spell 1 Player B gains priority and plays spell 2 (His boomerang) which will resolve before spell 1. Player A gains priority to respond to this spell, but lets it resolve. Spell 1 will be then be the next in line to resolve, but each player again gains priority to do something in response to it. (Which is where he can replay the draining whelk as a counter spell)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|