Soulbond

[Claym0re]

I wasnt sure where to ask so I decided to post it here.

While reading the cards and soulbond creatures I noticed they use different wordings describing the effect of the soulbond.

Example

Silverblade Paladin - both creatures have double strike

Wolfir Silverheart - each of those creatures gets +4/+4

Since english isnt my maternal language these wordings really bug me. Does this mean Silverheart gives +4/+4 only to the creature it is attached to, or both creatures (including Silverheart) get the bonus?

[LadyLuck]

For pretty much all the soulbound cards, both creatures get the bonus (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

[moogie]

The reason is that the Wolfir deals with +X/+X, the wording for power/toughness pumping is different than granting abilities. Trusted Forcemage amd Druid's Familiar are worded the same.

For reference, all Soulbound creatures give their bonuses to themselves when they are paired.

[Claym0re]

Originally Posted by moogie

The reason is that the Wolfir deals with +X/+X, the wording for power/toughness pumping is different than granting abilities. Trusted Forcemage amd Druid's Familiar are worded the same.

Except for Galvanic Alchemist which grants an ability and uses the "each of these creatures" wording. Which makes it even more confusing.

[kyuenjin]

The "both creatures have" clause is for keyworded abilities such as double strike, hexproof, flying, etc.

The "each of those creatures has" clause is for things that aren't keyworded.

I didn't notice it before and am not quite sure as to the reason of the different wording.

[Esc7]

Oh man. You got us. As you may very well know from learning it, English is a crazy language driven by mob rule (at least here in America) The rules don't need to make sense, and if you continually don't follow them, they cease to be rules!

Anyways let me shine some light on the subject. There are two verbs that are being used here: "Get" and "Have" used in conjunction with "each" and "both"

"Get" is used for obtaining discrete objects. I can get a cookie, get a raise, get 6 packs of Avacyn restored, get six MORE packs of Avacyn restored, and so on.

"Have" is about defining more internal characteristics. I have a pain in my stomach, he has a good job, she has nice hair, my local game store has a midnight prerelease.

Take a look at a card like skillful lunge and others and you'll start to understand wizards grammar formatting. There are two things happening on that card, a creature "gets +2/+0" and "gains first strike" Wizards uses "gets" for all pump effects. This is most likely because additional pump effects compound on each other, so you can "get +1/+1 and then get +1/+1(again)". They're using a different verb "gains" for binary properties and keywords like first strike or flying.

This has an added side effect. Using "get" with multiple recipients is slightly ambiguous. If I say "You and I both...get a cookie" what do I mean? Do I mean there are two cookies given to each of us? Or are we given a single cookie to share? In Magic, there is no way to make this mistake, +X/+X boosts can't in any way be shared, but they follow the more correct grammar anyway: "You and I each get a cookie, each creature gets +X/+X". This way each creature gets it own individual +X/+X boost. Now if they are describing properties of two creatures, they say "both have flying, both have hexproof, both of those guys have shirts on, both gain trample"

So the long and short of it is "each gets" is proper grammar for discrete individual objects handed out, like P/T boosts and new abilities, and gains/haves is for all intrinsic properties, like keywords.

By the way, this is just my own inference, I'm hardly an English major and I butcher the language on a daily basis. Wizards is just really consistent about everything, to the point soulbond seems inconsistently worded.

[bateleur]

The confusion isn't helped by the Salvation spoiler still having the wrong wordings for some cards (eg. Trusted Forcemage).

The reason for the difference is wordings is that abilities like Deathtouch are a continuous property of the card. "Both creatures have Deathtouch" is like saying "these apples are red". By contrast, +4/+4 is a bonus which is applied once and is more like saying "the kids were given $1 each". In English we prefer to avoid the construction "the kids were both given $1" because it's technically ambiguous even though we can guess the intended meaning. Compare with "the kids were both allowed to watch television" where it's likely to be the same TV they're watching.

(This is essentially the same point Esc7 makes above.)

Originally Posted by Esc7

As you may very well know from learning it, English is a crazy language driven by mob rule (at least here in America)

Whereas over here in the UK we don't have anything as coordinated as a mob.

[ashtonvanhelsing]

I have a question on how Soulbond works. Suppose I have a Lightning Mauler in play bonded to a Wandering Wolf. If I then play a Kruin Striker at a later time while I still have the Mauler and the Wolf in play under my control, can I then bond the Mauler to the Striker when the Striker comes into play?

[ThoughtXRiot]

Originally Posted by ashtonvanhelsing

I have a question on how Soulbond works. Suppose I have a Lightning Mauler in play bonded to a Wandering Wolf. If I then play a Kruin Striker at a later time while I still have the Mauler and the Wolf in play under my control, can I then bond the Mauler to the Striker when the Striker comes into play?

No. You can only bond unpaired creatures. The Mauler's soulbond will not trigger upon a new creature entering the battlefield unless it is unpaired.

[Rootbreaker]

No, the lightning mauler is paired with the wolf, so it isn't an unpaired creature. As such, it can't soulbond with any other creatures.

[Mootastic]

Cards stay bonded until one leaves play. It can happen a number of ways, but until a card leaves play, the bond doesn't end.

I wish there was an instant card that changed/broke a bond. It would be awesome. I know bounce spells break the bond, but I mean straight up the player of the spell can rebond the creature. Attacker, changes bond mid attack for profit. Defender changes or breaks a bond mid attack to hurt the attacker. I think that would have been a really fun card. Most likely useless in standard even as a sideboard card, but would be fun in limited.

[Rootbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mootastic

Cards stay bonded until one leaves play. It can happen a number of ways, but until a card leaves play, the bond doesn't end.

The actual condition is that they stay bonded as long as they're both on the battlefield, both under your control, and both are still creatures.

I wish there was an instant card that changed/broke a bond. It would be awesome. I know bounce spells break the bond, but I mean straight up the player of the spell can rebond the creature. Attacker, changes bond mid attack for profit. Defender changes or breaks a bond mid attack to hurt the attacker. I think that would have been a really fun card. Most likely useless in standard even as a sideboard card, but would be fun in limited.

The blink spells are designed to do that. It will remove the blinked creature from combat, but it can rebind a soulbond creature with another creature that's in combat.

[Mootastic]

Yes but they can't be used on an opponent's creature, remove the creature from combat, and must be used on the soulbond creature. I just want to change the bond at instant speed. I like the defensive aspects, and making the opponent have to worry about how you might turn their advantage against them by removing the soulbound all together, or forcing something like elgaud shieldmate onto some 1/1 creature and removing the hexproof from there bomb. Blink spells are only used on your own creatures, I want to be able to do it in reverse .

[ThoughtXRiot]

Originally Posted by Mootastic

Yes but they can't be used on an opponent's creature, remove the creature from combat, and must be used on the soulbond creature. I just want to change the bond at instant speed. I like the defensive aspects, and making the opponent have to worry about how you might turn their advantage against them by removing the soulbound all together, or forcing something like elgaud shieldmate onto some 1/1 creature and removing the hexproof from there bomb. Blink spells are only used on your own creatures, I want to be able to do it in reverse .

I think that type of effect being in this set would harm the flavor of soulbond. It's meant to convey the sense of teaming up to defeat the enemy. The enemy going "Nope, you're working with that guy instead," wouldn't make much sense flavor-wise.

[ashtonvanhelsing]

That is funny, because MaRo essentially said that any time a new creature enters the battlefield under your control, it triggers ALL soulbond abilities on your board. I guess that just because it triggers them, doesn't mean that pairing can take place if the creature that got triggered is already paired. I also just read the AVR FAQ which explicitly says only unpaired creatures may be paired by a triggered soulbond ability. Too bad about that. I was thinking of using Lighting Mauler to speed out a bunch of Birds of Paradise and Llanowar Elves on the second turn, haha. I bet that is exactly why the must stay paired thing applies. Now, if I could just find something that lets me do a blink when a creature enters the battlefield..... Any ideas on something like that in standard?