Verdeloth the Ancient gives other treefolk and saprolings +1/+1. My understanding is that a creature with all creature types (is both a treefolk and saproling), such as Mutavault, will only get +1/+1 instead of +2/+2.
I have been told that this limitation is due to the fact that the bonus to both creature types is given in one line of text. (Unlike Tolsimir Wolfblood that has two.)
Lovisa Coldeyes gives Warriors, Barbarians, and Berserkers +2/+2 and haste, and it has been ruled to only give a creature with all creature types +2/+2. However, (a) Wizards has errata-ed the oracle to say "and/or"; and (b) No actual rule is cited to explain why this kind of restriction is in place.
I have two questions. One, does Verdeloth the Ancient only give creatures with all creature types +1/+1? Two, if one line of text makes a difference, then where in the rules does it state this limitation?
Please see the Rulings forum rules regarding the use of card tags, especially when you're talking about very specific differences in card wordings.--Binary
Okay, you really need to read the rules. Especially the one that forbids you from editing a post after a moderator edits it. -Woap
7/15/2006 Each creature with at least one of those subtypes gets +2/+2 from Lovisa Coldeyes' ability, regardless of how many of those subtypes it has. For example, a 3/3 Mistform Ultimus would become 5/5, not 9/9.
so when verdeloth powers out a changeling, there is only one static ability, once that has been fulfilled it no longer applies any extra buffs. tolsimir on the other hand, has two static abilities, green creatures get +1/+1, and white creatures get +1/+1. a green and white creature is checked first to see if it is green, and then the second static ability check to see if its white.
im pretty sure thats how it works, but id wait for a real judge to come in here and answer it
Lovisa Coldeyes gives Warriors, Barbarians, and Berserkers +2/+2 and haste, and it has been ruled to only give a creature with all creature types +2/+2. However, (a) Wizards has errata-ed the oracle to say "and/or"; and (b) No actual rule is cited to explain why this kind of restriction is in place.
a) The change is more than just the and/or, and it had nothing to do with changing which creatures Lovisa affects. The change was made when Tribal was introduced and suddenly non-Creature permanents could have creature subtypes. Wizards changed Lovisa (and other cards that should only affect creatures) to explicitly affect only creatures, since giving an Enchantment +2/+2 would be weird.
b) There can be no rule cited, because there is no rule, other than that a card does exactly what its rules text says it does. A single ability never does multiple things unless it explicitly says that it does multiple things. Lovisa's ability does not state that creatures with matching creature types get +2/+2 for each matching creature type, does it? It only gives a creature +2/+2 for having any matching creature type at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.
The change has nothing (directly) to do with the fact that non-Creature permanents could have creature subtypes, although that precipitated the actual cause. It has more to do with how connecting words like "or" and "and" require context more than rote memorization to understand how they work; and the tendency of rules lawyers ignore the possibility that context matters, and insist that what they memorized in one context has to apply to all.
In this case, context means what parts of speech the connecting words are used to connect. For example, the following phrases have strange-seeming inconsistencies:Black and Blue spells cost an additional 1 to play.
Black or Blue spells cost an additional 1 to play.
Black spells and Blue spells cost an additional 1 to play.
The difference is that in #1 and #2, the connecting word links two adjectives (Black and Blue), but in #3 it links two nouns (spells and spells). #1 means that spells with both colors cost extra; while #2 and #3 mean that a spell with either one, or both, colors cost extra. This leads some rules lawyers to summarize that "and" really means "or" in #3 (and in fact, "or" could be used in #3 as well). That isn't true. In #1 and #2 the criteria for including a spell in the set are linked, while in #3 it is the spells that fit the criteria that are linked.
How does this apply to Lovisa Coldeyes? Before tribal was introduced, the creature types Warrior, Berserker, and Barbarian were used on the card as nouns. "And" was used to connect them, as in my example #3, to include them all in the set. But when tribal was introduced, and this effect needed to restrict itself to creatures, the same words became adjectives on the card. It had to be worded as my example #2, with "or" linking the criteria for being in the set.
Finally, rules lawyers play one last role in this fiassco. They have another tendency: to insist that "or" can't mean "more than one at a time." (Mathematicians call it an "exclusive OR" when it can't mean more than one, and an "inclusive OR" when it can.) As in "You can have cherry pie OR chocalate cake, not both." English doesn't mean "exclusive OR" except in very specific contexts, but rules lawyers won't accept that the context doesn't need to be defined in the rules. So WotC has started to use "and/or" in cases where they want to stress it is an inclusive or.
And no, the rules don't define this. English does.
Condor, it sounds like you say this has nothing to do with "English" considering that it is quite clear that the English would have Verdeloth do something completely different.
It has to do with "interpretation," and this is a very counter-intuitive kind of interpretation.
Verdeloth should say: "Each other creature gets +1/+1 if it is either a Treefolk or a Saproling and this gets +1/+1 if it is a Saproling."
There is no reason for it to say something completely different if this isn't what it does. However, I am still wondering exactly how we are supposed to know what it does.
CarstenHaese, you said that there is a rule that, a "single ability never does multiple things unless it explicitly says that it does multiple things." Where is this rule?
Condor, so players have to be a rules lawyer to know what this card does? How does Wizards expect rules lawyers to prove their rulings when dealing with Verdeloth the Ancient?
CarstenHaese, you said that there is a rule that, a "single ability never does multiple things unless it explicitly says that it does multiple things." Where is this rule?
I don't know of a specific rule like this myself, other than that there are certain standards that are followed for the purposes of templating the wording of abilities. Really though, an ability does just what it says it does, no more and no less. The game is inherently designed so that you can read the card and will be able to play the game (albeit missing some of the finer points and intracicies). Perhaps that's what Carsten is referring to.
Condor, so players have to be a rules lawyer to know what this card does? How does Wizards expect rules lawyers to prove their rulings when dealing with Verdeloth the Ancient?
Condor is actually saying quite the opposite. And I find myself nodding my head when reading what he wrote, because it's something I occassionally find myself doing from time to time. Truthfully, I think knowing the Comprehensive Rules better (and therefore in some ways being a "rules lawyer", because you read the letter of the Comprehensive Rules) makes actually understanding the Comprehensive Rules a bit harder. In that respect, at a certain point in a person's knowledge of the Comprehensive Rules, you want the Comprehensive Rules to be able to answer every single question about how cards function.
The Comprehensive Rules, most of the time, explain how certain things function as it is specific to the game. But there are a number of things that have no special meaning in the Comprehensive Rules, and simply fall to their normal English meaning. Which is to say, "If you read this normally, what does it mean?" Verdeloth the Ancient's ability is quite concise and straightforward, unless you decide to parse it with some kind of "special CR meaning" that just doesn't exist. While the wording you suggest works just fine, and would remove the ambiguity for you, it means the same thing as the current wording of the ability.
*Other Treefolk creatures* and *Saproling creatures* get +1/+1. That's it. There's no special reading that needs to be done here.
While by no means an official ruling, this is how I have always interpreted such effects:
Example: Verdeloth the Ancient
Other Treefolk creatures and Saproling creatures get +1/+1.
I break it down into objects affected, and the effect:
[Other Treefolk creatures and Saproling creatures] (get +1/+1).
[objects] (effect).
Anything that fits in the Object category gets the Effect, regardless of how many times it fits, as there is only the one effect.
Example: Lovisa Coldeyes
Warrior, Berserker, and/or other Barbarian creatures get +2/+2 and have haste.
Broken down into [objects] and (effect)
[Warrior, Berserker, and/or other Barbarian creatures] (get +2/+2 and have haste.)
Any instances of and, or, and/or, etc. serve only to match game mechanics and the English language, not to define the mechanics.
There is no instance in the game (that I have yet found) where this strategy does not match the official ruling.
Condor, it sounds like you say this has nothing to do with "English"...
Quite the oppposite. The English meaning is the intended meaning. What I'm saying is that rules lawyers try to avoid looking for the English meaning, in favor of what an individual word "must" mean based upon what it does in a different context.
In English, you need to look at the context of connecting words to decipher how they apply. Rules lawyers try to force them to have the same "result" (and I put the quotes there, because "results" can't be divorced from "context") in all situations.
Verdeloth should say: "Each other creature gets +1/+1 if it is either a Treefolk or a Saproling and this gets +1/+1 if it is a Saproling."
Verdeloth already says exactly what it means. It doesn't need to complicate things like you did.
I am still wondering exactly how we are supposed to know what it does.
Creatures in the set it descibes (other Treefolk creatures and Saproling creatures) get the bonus. This isn't rocket science. (And I'm not a rocket scientist, although sometimes I've played one for my employers. Really.)
CarstenHaese, you said that there is a rule that, a "single ability never does multiple things unless it explicitly says that it does multiple things." Where is this rule?
Common sense. Effects only do what they say.
Condor, so players have to be a rules lawyer to know what this card does?
No, rules lawyers tend to over-think what a card does. They should use common sense.
1. Black and Blue spells cost an additional to play.
#1 means that spells with both colors cost extra
This made sense to me, but when poking through gatherer I found Mana Matrix.
The oracle text says "Instant and enchantment spells you play cost up to less to play." This may just be an oversight on WOTC's part, but in a way it does seem like it works as it's written. Granted, they should probably update it to fit with how they've been writing these kinds of abilities now, but I don't think anybody would think that this card only works on Enchantments that are Instants as well.
If WOTC wanted to make sure the spell was both blue and black, I would hope they wrote it as "Spells that are both blue and black cost an additional 1 to play."
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
Everyone, thank you for the help with this situation. The first question has been answered well, but I'm still a bit fuzzy about the second. It seems that the justification is, "cards with similar text have already had rulings (have already been interpreted." Of course, it would be nice if somewhere Wizards would explain how interpretation works to help justify Verdeloth's correct interpretation.
It has been mentioned that an ability can only apply to each thing once. Is this a rule or just interpretation of card text?
Some of you have defended Wizards of the Coast's wording of the card. This might be somewhat off-topic, but I don't see this as a situation "where the card does what it says." Many players will read "Other treefolk and saprolings get +1/+1" to mean "Other treefolk get +1/+1. Other Saproings get +1/+1." In fact, I would guess most players would read it this way.
Additionally, I think logic supports this interpretation. In a logic class you have to take apart a sentence to find out the content. This is how this would work here:
"Other treefolk and saprolings get +1/+1" would be separated into two statements, "Other treefolk get +1/+1" and "saprolings get +1/+1." Here we have merely realized that the word "and" signifies the presence of two statements. These two statements would give Mutavault +2/+2 under the current rules.
The logical statements required for the current interpretation is:
"Other treefolk get +1/+1" and "Saprolings get +1/+1" and "A creature that is both a treefolk and a saproling only gets +1/+1 once with this card."
Condor, your argument seems to be that a disambiguation would end up with overly-complex wording. It could have been phrased quite simply as: "Each other creature gets +1/+1 if it is either a Treefolk or a Saproling." I must admit that this changes what the card does because Verdeloth as a Saproling would no longer matter, but I think it is overly complex for Verdeloth to ever make himself bigger anyway.
It has been mentioned that an ability can only apply to each thing once. Is this a rule or just interpretation of card text?
It's an interpretation that is officially supported. For that is indeed how it works. For that is how you evaluate sentences with compound subjects.
Some of you have defended Wizards of the Coast's wording of the card. This might be somewhat off-topic, but I don't see this as a situation "where the card does what it says." Many players will read "Other treefolk and saprolings get +1/+1" to mean "Other treefolk get +1/+1. Other Saproings get +1/+1." In fact, I would guess most players would read it this way.
It's unfortunate. There are cards that say "Other Xs and other Ys do Z." If you've seen them it makes Verdeloth quite understandable.
Additionally, I think logic supports this interpretation. In a logic class you have to take apart a sentence to find out the content. This is how this would work here:
"Other treefolk and saprolings get +1/+1" would be separated into two statements, "Other treefolk get +1/+1" and "saprolings get +1/+1." Here we have merely realized that the word "and" signifies the presence of two statements. These two statements would give Mutavault +2/+2 under the current rules.
Except it says "Other Treefolk creatures and Saproling creatures," not what you wrote.
Consider the following statement, which I am uttering with a salient steel katana in front of me:
"Other swords and iron implements melt in dragon fire."
I might go on to say my katana does not melt in dragon fire. (Sorry for the extreme example; I struggled to work 'other' into the sentence). Now realize the meaning you got from that sentence.
There's no reason other swords could not also be iron implements. However they need not necessarily be iron - they could be some even lower quality metal. Yet the interpretation here is clear: those things which are other swords, and those things which are iron implements, satisfy that they melt in dragon fire.
Now you might say "melts in dragon fire" is a predicate that it doesn't make sense in the first place something could satisfy twice. Here's the problem: there's no such thing. "gets +1/+1" looks like something you could get twice, but it is impossible to get that to happen in one sentence.* Language just doesn't let you use it that way.
So when Verdeloth (or any card) writes an ability like this, where it says Xs and Ys are Z, you know it means that Xs are Z, and Ys are Z, and while some things are X and Y, all you have is two ways to say each of those things is Z. Saying it twice doesn't mean anything different from just saying it's true.
*Again, I have to bring Linguistics into this to avoid saying something easily falsifiable: you can't get it to happen with a sentence that doesn't have a conjunction that co-ordinates two VP categories or two S categories - which is something that effectively turns one sentence (something ending with one period) into two statements.
"Each other creature gets +1/+1 if it is either a Treefolk or a Saproling."
Sorry, even I think that's a complex sentence. It's complex in that it's expensive in terms of space.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Each other creature gets +1/+1 if it is either a Treefolk or a Saproling.
Sorry, even I think that's a complex sentence. It's complex in that it's expensive in terms of space.
Don't forget, it is also incorrect because it would mean that even if verdoloth became part saproling, he still wouldn't get his own bonus, which is not true. For example, an equipped runed stalactite would make him a 6/9, esentially (hope that's the right word) giving him +2/+2 (+1/+1 from the stalactite and +1/+1 from verdoloth himself).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig credited to my basic GIMP skills.
There's something about a homemade avvy that makes you feel proud no matter how much it sucks.
This made sense to me, but when poking through gatherer I found Mana Matrix.
The oracle text says "Instant and enchantment spells you play cost up to less to play." This may just be an oversight on WOTC's part, but in a way it does seem like it works as it's written. Granted, they should probably update it to fit with how they've been writing these kinds of abilities now, but I don't think anybody would think that this card only works on Enchantments that are Instants as well.
If WOTC wanted to make sure the spell was both blue and black, I would hope they wrote it as "Spells that are both blue and black cost an additional 1 to play."
That's because an "instant spell" is redundant. If it's not on the stack (and thus a spell) it's an instant card. Just like a "creature in play" is the same as a "creature"... otherwise it's a "creature card" or "creature spell".
The default for instant is a spell, whereas the default for enchantment is in play. This is why you have to qualify the enchantment with spell.
"Anything that is either an instant and/or an enchantment spell costs you up to less to play" is what that means. Instant cards don't cost less to play, and enchantments (in play) don't cost less to play. They can't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Freunleven, if you have a serious complaint about the wording of the card, then I would suggest contacting Wizards directly. I would suggest sending feedback to the team that maintains Gatherer:
Lots of these types of questions cropping up lately.
Wizards uses certain templating to differentiate cards that give double bonuses from those who only give one, and its pretty simple: one bonus per sentence.
Consider the following statement, which I am uttering with a salient steel katana in front of me:
"Other swords and iron implements melt in dragon fire."
I might go on to say my katana does not melt in dragon fire. (Sorry for the extreme example; I struggled to work 'other' into the sentence). Now realize the meaning you got from that sentence.
There's no reason other swords could not also be iron implements. However they need not necessarily be iron - they could be some even lower quality metal. Yet the interpretation here is clear: those things which are other swords, and those things which are iron implements, satisfy that they melt in dragon fire.
Now you might say "melts in dragon fire" is a predicate that it doesn't make sense in the first place something could satisfy twice. Here's the problem: there's no such thing. "gets +1/+1" looks like something you could get twice, but it is impossible to get that to happen in one sentence.* Language just doesn't let you use it that way.
It is impossible to have a sentence that predicates two groups that can be satisfied twice? How about the following:
Each other creature gets +1/+1 if it is a treefolk or saproling, and this bonus is applied twice if a creature is both.
That is one sentence and it makes it clear that the predicate can be satisfied twice, but you might argue that it doesn't match Verdeloth's actual text. If Verdeloth's actual text is ambiguous, then there has to be other sentences that would be interpreted differently. Consider this example that looks more like Verdeloth's actual text, and keep in mind that the actual truth of the sentences is not in question. Only the content is in question.):
"Stealing and forgery are punishable by 4 years imprisonment."
This does not mean that if you commit both stealing and forgery you will only get 4 years imprisonment rather than 8.
Also: "Doctors and Lawyers have to spend and additional 4 years in college."
If X is both a Doctor and a lawyer, X would have had to spend an additional 8 years in college.
One reason that I don't agree that one sentence can have any limitation of this kind is because we can say an unlimited number of statements in a sentence. In logic we find out that any sentence with the word "and" in it can be turned into two statements. In other words we can say "Treefolk and Saprolings get +1/+1" and that has the same meaning as "Treefolk get +1/+1", and "Saprolings get +1/+1." This is entirely consistent with how the word "and" functions.
Well this is the way they have done the card effect and how it works. The whole 2 lines vs. one line thing is easy to understand once it is given.
You can easily look at the card and not get lost in the oddities of the English language.
Two lines for two effects and one line for one effect makes sense period.
I personally would rip my hair out, if they actually had a small way to signify something like wilt-lief liege or grand arbiter being two bonuses not one but on one line.
This is the most simplistic way to handle these card bonuses period.
It is impossible to have a sentence that predicates two groups that can be satisfied twice? How about the following:
Each other creature gets +1/+1 if it is a treefolk or saproling, and this bonus is applied twice if a creature is both.
That is one sentence and it makes it clear that the predicate can be satisfied twice, but you might argue that it doesn't match Verdeloth's actual text.
Asterisk. See my asterisk. You have an 'and' co-ordinating two S categories - that's actually two sentences you wrote there. The S category identifies all things called sentences, but identifies some things as being "sentences" (S categories) that are composed of two "sentences."
"Stealing and forgery are punishable by 4 years imprisonment."
This does not mean that if you commit both stealing and forgery you will only get 4 years imprisonment rather than 8.
But you do realize there is no such thing as is simultaneously the commission of stealing and the commission of forgery. I have to do something which is stealing, and do something which is forgery, and by definition not the same thing can be both. Sure, I can do both on one occasion, but the two classes of actions are mutually independent.
When it works out to be true that I get 8 years imprisonment by stealing and forging, it's not at all because of anything like the sentence on Verdeloth. Something I did has the property of getting me 4 years imprisonment. It's true that something else I did got me 4 years imprisonment. The meaning of "4 years imprisonment" though contains that it is to be added onto any prison term to which I have already been sentenced, so you've actually snuck an "additional" in there, in the guise of a law term (well, I mean, probably not on purpose).
Also: "Doctors and Lawyers have to spend and additional 4 years in college."
If X is both a Doctor and a lawyer, X would have had to spend an additional 8 years in college.
. . . unless you somehow took both courses to certification simultaneously. And again, the subjects are mutually exclusive categories. But before all that, you're being fooly with words in an important way here - doctors don't spent additional years in college. People spend additional years in college to become doctors. They're not doctors before that. If you modify the sentence to fix that, then you'll see it again doesn't look like Verdeloth's ability.
One reason that I don't agree that one sentence can have any limitation of this kind is because we can say an unlimited number of statements in a sentence. In logic we find out that any sentence with the word "and" in it can be turned into two statements. In other words we can say "Treefolk and Saprolings get +1/+1" and that has the same meaning as "Treefolk get +1/+1", and "Saprolings get +1/+1." This is entirely consistent with how the word "and" functions.
But Logic also says that I can take such sentences and make them with OR:
(For all x) (If (x is an other Treefolk creature or x is a Saproling creature) then x gets +1/+1).
Cats and dogs have four legs. You can take what I say as being that cats have four legs and dogs have four legs, or that everything which is a cat or a dog has four legs.
Now, what I wrote clearly doesn't have a double meaning. But what you wrote, to you, seems to. But if they were drawn from the same sentence, something must be going wrong.
What's going wrong is that "gets +1/+1" is steering you wrong. In Magic, there is an "additional" cached in the term of getting +1/+1. In fact, a whole host of complications are cached in every sentence about power and toughness boosting, since the layer rules decide what these sentences mean relative to each other.
I'm going to say this: Yes, you're right, it's true that "Treefolk get +1/+1" and "Saprolings get +1/+1." However, what those sentences are asserting, is referring to the same getting of +1/+1. You can skip to the next paragraph, or you can withstand yet another "natural language" example. Still here? It's like me saying that "the females and the children in my family got a bicycle from someone this holiday season." Suppose I live with an extended family (you don't know if I don't :sneaky:; I do use the word 'females' like that, though). I don't mean to say the girls in my family got two bicycles, but I finally found an example where the predicate is something that's possibly cumulative. All my sentence means is that the people who are the females in my family, and the people who are the children in my family, if you gather up that group of people (it's a union of sets), each of those people got a bicycle. If I rephrased in two sentences with an 'and' (not spontaneously, but if asked), people will get that I am not allowing for doubling up on getting a bicycle. It's 'the same source' in that if a person counts to get a bicycle, they can't "count again" for the other sentence - people will get that.
For "gets +1/+1," I really, honestly wish I could cache out the ability explicitly, so that the complete meaning is imminent rather than referring to layer rules. However, I think it would take time, obsession, and genius to unfold the layering rules in such an expansion. Sadly, I don't have time.
I can only point back to natron77's post (and Condor's hearty approval of it) to say that this ability is just signalling something to the rules, which the layers puzzle out. This ability is saying "there's a continuous effect of the static-ability-modifying-but-not-setting-power-or-toughness kind, in the measure of +1/+1, and it exists for Saprolings and [other] Treefolk."
You could conceive this effect as it being said that "other Treefolk [are getting] [a bonus which can be quickly roughed over as "+1/+1"]" and "Saprolings [are getting] [a bonus which can be quickly roughed over as "+1/+1"]", but only if you recognize that the parts in blue are the same, identical bonus - not just categorical identity, but 'numerical' identity - identity of being actually the same thing. And clearly then you can't get the same bonus twice (the same kind of bonus, but not the same bonus; it's an absurd statement). It's just what Magic has its abilities mean, it's all I can say. I swear that caching out the layering rules would make this work, but it's an impossible project (you know, that's pretty much why the layer rules exist, because rules for generating answers are simpler than a handbag of specific interactions).
*~*~*~
Just so you know, there is a format for writing an effect which would work like you say Verdeloth's should: Kaervek's Hex/Tropical Storm. And yes, black green creatures are dealt 1 damage by the first spell. In this model, I could write "Other Treefolk creatures get +1/+1 and Saproling creatures get an additional +1/+1," and that would mean that Saproling Treefolk creatures that are 'other' than the card they're on get +2/+2.
Strength of Night is a pump spell, but these two spells show that 'additional' doesn't need to mean "those guys already hit by something."
EDIT: Oh darn. . . I think Monopoman is going to rip his hair out. I'm sorry.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
This made sense to me, but when poking through gatherer I found Mana Matrix.
And again, context plays a part. Yes, it should mean "spells that are both instant and enchantment." But in the context of Magic, we know that the combination is impossible. So it doesn't mean that on that card.
... but I'm still a bit fuzzy about the second. ...
Not sure what you mean - your second question was about "lines of text." That is well answered. The two lines of text on Tolsimir are two different abilities. Rule 402.7. says "each paragraph break in a card's text marks a separate ability."
I don't see this as a situation "where the card does what it says." Many players will read "Other treefolk and saprolings get +1/+1" to mean "Other treefolk get +1/+1. Other Saproings get +1/+1." In fact, I would guess most players would read it this way.
And the difference between that and the actual wording of Veredeloth is that it says "Other treefolk creatures and saproling creatures..." You can't move the first modifier - "other" - to the second noun unless you can move all of the modifiers, which you obvioulsy can't do because the second noun has it's own set. "Sailing ships and sealing wax" can't mean that the wax sails. "Sailing ships and boats" would.
And no, you can't logically separate one clause, with one verb, into two independent statements. It is a single statement with a compound subject.
Asterisk. See my asterisk. You have an 'and' co-ordinating two S categories - that's actually two sentences you wrote there. The S category identifies all things called sentences, but identifies some things as being "sentences" (S categories) that are composed of two "sentences."
You are using the word "sentence" differently than the ordinary usage of the word. You are using it similarly to how I use the word "statement," which is the actual truth content of a sentence, if it has any. However, any sentence with an "and" in it can be turned into two statements.
But you do realize there is no such thing as is simultaneously the commission of stealing and the commission of forgery. I have to do something which is stealing, and do something which is forgery, and by definition not the same thing can be both. Sure, I can do both on one occasion, but the two classes of actions are mutually independent.
You have stated the fact that "a sentence cannot modify two different kinds of creatures twice." How do you know this is a fact? Is this a current theory in linguistics?
Apperantly you are saying something more complecated than I thought because you don't like my example. Perhaps I entirely misunderstood what you said.
This is how I see it: There are sets (groups). Saprolings and Treefolk are two different sets and these sets overlap. People who steal and people who commit forgery are both in sets and they overlap. Anything can be considered to be a "property." In fact, being in any particular set is a "property." You can say that people who steal and commit forgery will both be modified by a second property, which is "getting 4 years in prison." This can end up modifying the a person who committed both crimes twice.
Verdeloth does someting to two different kinds of creatures. Those creatures could have been "creatures that have attacked this game or blocked this game." i.e. actions could have been involved and I don't think that changes anything.
Then he could say, "Other creatures that have attacked and creatures that have blocked get +1/+1." I don't think the text would have to change.
But Logic also says that I can take such sentences and make them with OR:
(For all x) (If (x is an other Treefolk creature or x is a Saproling creature) then x gets +1/+1).
Cats and dogs have four legs. You can take what I say as being that cats have four legs and dogs have four legs, or that everything which is a cat or a dog has four legs.
Now, what I wrote clearly doesn't have a double meaning. But what you wrote, to you, seems to. But if they were drawn from the same sentence, something must be going wrong.
Of course I have to admit that some properties do not get applied twice. What I disagreed with was the fact that it is impossible for the opposite to happen. Logic might be indifferent to the fact that some properties can apply twice or more.
The logical structure for the example I presented might end up being different than the one you present here. One English sentence can have ambiguous logical form.
Can +1/+1 be a property that is applied twice? Yes, and you admit this. (That is why two separate sentences is treated that way on a Magic card.)
What's going wrong is that "gets +1/+1" is steering you wrong. In Magic, there is an "additional" cached in the term of getting +1/+1. In fact, a whole host of complications are cached in every sentence about power and toughness boosting, since the layer rules decide what these sentences mean relative to each other.
I'm going to say this: Yes, you're right, it's true that "Treefolk get +1/+1" and "Saprolings get +1/+1." However, what those sentences are asserting, is referring to the same getting of +1/+1. You can skip to the next paragraph, or you can withstand yet another "natural language" example. Still here? It's like me saying that "the females and the children in my family got a bicycle from someone this holiday season." Suppose I live with an extended family (you don't know if I don't :sneaky:; I do use the word 'females' like that, though). I don't mean to say the girls in my family got two bicycles, but I finally found an example where the predicate is something that's possibly cumulative. All my sentence means is that the people who are the females in my family, and the people who are the children in my family, if you gather up that group of people (it's a union of sets), each of those people got a bicycle. If I rephrased in two sentences with an 'and' (not spontaneously, but if asked), people will get that I am not allowing for doubling up on getting a bicycle. It's 'the same source' in that if a person counts to get a bicycle, they can't "count again" for the other sentence - people will get that.
The layer rules point is an interesting one and it might clear things up to a great extent. Does this mean that Verdeloth's ability could be explained by the rules after all?
I agree that "other x and y get z" could sometimes have the meaning you are giving it. My point was only that it can also have a different meaning, and that I certainly expected that different meaning when reading the card. I suspect that many others do as well. When Wizards gives a card that no one will ever play with and make it even less powerful than we thought it was given our reading, then we will be disappointed and somewhat confused.
Just so you know, there is a format for writing an effect which would work like you say Verdeloth's should: Kaervek's Hex/Tropical Storm. And yes, black green creatures are dealt 1 damage by the first spell. In this model, I could write "Other Treefolk creatures get +1/+1 and Saproling creatures get an additional +1/+1," and that would mean that Saproling Treefolk creatures that are 'other' than the card they're on get +2/+2.
Strength of Night is a pump spell, but these two spells show that 'additional' doesn't need to mean "those guys already hit by something."
Interesting point. There is a one sentence way of doing it as long as it adds a special clarification.
Not sure what you mean - your second question was about "lines of text." That is well answered. The two lines of text on Tolsimir are two different abilities. Rule 402.7. says "each paragraph break in a card's text marks a separate ability."
I got different answers about how the two lines of text makes a difference and the main one seems to be that this is merely how it has been interpreted in the past on similar cards. Some people seemed to say that there might be a little more to it than that.
If it makes a sperate ability, then the question is, "Does Verdeloth give +1/+1 to Mutavault specifically because it is only one ability?" That would be a seperate rule that could be mentioned somewhere.
AYou can't move the first modifier - "other" - to the second noun unless you can move all of the modifiers, which you obvioulsy can't do because the second noun has it's own set. "Sailing ships and sealing wax" can't mean that the wax sails. "Sailing ships and boats" would.
Right, Wizards meant, "Verdeloth isn't a saproling, so it doesn't make sense to say 'other saprolings.'" The "other" ambiguity wasn't my point. My point was the ambiguity about whether or not a creature can get +1/+1 twice. That is what I read it as saying and I think many others do as well.
If it makes a sperate ability, then the question is, "Does Verdeloth give +1/+1 to Mutavault specifically because it is only one ability?" That would be a seperate rule that could be mentioned somewhere.
Yes, it's because of it being one ability. Verdeloth has one (relevant) ability which says "other Treefolk and Saproling creatures get +1/+1" The ability grants a certain bonus (+1/+1) to a certain group of permanents (other Treefolk and Saprolings) If a creature is in the set "other Treefolk and Saprolings" then it gets the bonus. If it is not, it doesn't.
Let's compare this to Tolsimir Wolfsblood.
Tolsimer has two abilities:
Other green creatures you control get +1/+1.
and
Other white creatures you control get +1/+1.
The first ability grants a bonus (+1/+1) to a group or creatures (other green creatures). If a creature is green, it gets the bonus.
The second ability grants a bonus (+1/+1) to a group or creatures (other white creatures). If a creature is white, it gets the bonus.
If a creature is monogreen, it gets +1/+1 from the first ability, and no bonus from the second ability. So it gets +1/+1.
If a creature is monoblue, it gets no bonus from the first ability, and no bonus from the second ability. so it gets +0/+0.
If a creature is both green and white, it gets +1/+1 from the first ability, and +1/+1 from the second ability. So it gets +2/+2 total.
Let's try an analogy...
Lets say Verdeloth thows a huge party and invites everyone he knows. He announces that he has won the lottery, and says that he wants to share his newfound wealth. He decalres "I'm going to give all my friends and family a new car!"
Verdeloth's mother, Nemata, gets a car, because she is family.
Verdeloth's buddy, the Saproling token, gets a car, because he's a friend.
Verdeloth's distant cousin, Woodland Changeling, who also happens to be a good friend, gets a car. Not two cars. One.
All of his friends (Saprolings) and all of his family (other Treefolk) get a new car (+1/+1). But Woodland Changeling, who is both, still gets just one car. Inclusion in the group "friends and family" qualifies you to get one car, regardless of how many of the subgroups you might belong to.
Tolsimir has recently recieved a large inheritance, and wishes to share it with those less fortunate than himself. He says "I'm going to give tents to the homeless". He then goes on to say "I'm going to give hot food to the hungry"
In this case, someone who is both homeless and hungry will recieve both a tent and hot food.
Verdeloth was giving out one thing (cars). Everyone in the group he specified got a car. Tolsimir was seperately giving out two things (tents and food) to different, but potentially overlapping, groups. Homeless people got tents, hungry people got food. Hungry homeless people got both tents AND food.
I believe you're getting confused by trying to slit up Verdeloth's ability into two parts; "other Treefolk get +1/+1" and "Saprolings get +1/+1". At this point, you have two statements. Both of these statements are true, but that doesn't mean that you can treat them like they were printed as seperate abilities.
Look at Wizened Cenn. It's ability says "Other Kithkin creatures you control get +1/+1." You can make the statment that "Other kinthkin creatures you control get +1/+1." - this is clearly a true statement. You can also say that "Other blue kinthkin creatures you control get +1/+1." - still a true statement, since blue kithkin you control are still kithkin you control. But surely you see that if the Cenn was printed saying "Other kinthkin creatures you control get +1/+1." AND "Other blue kinthkin creatures you control get +1/+1.", then it would work differently?
So just because you can logically split up statements about the game state caused by an ability, DOES NOT mean that you can treat those statements as though they were abilities on the card instead.
Perhaps this will make it easier to understand. We'll make a statement: "other Treefolk and Saprolings get +1/+1 from Verdeloth's ability". This is, I hope you can agree, true.
We can, logically, derive two new statements from this: "other Treefolk get +1/+1 from Verdeloth's ability" and "Saprolings get +1/+1 from Verdeloth's ability".
Because Woodland Changeling is an (other) Treefolk, we can come to the conclusion that "Woodland Changeling gets +1/+1 from Verdeloth's ability".
Because Woodland Changeling is a Saproling, we can (seperately) come to the conclusion that "Woodland Changeling gets +1/+1 from Verdeloth's ability". I have tried to highlight how these two (matching) statements we have reached are referring to the same bonus (as Horseshoe Hermit pointed out). We cannot conclude from these two statements that "Woodland Changeling gets +2/+2 from Verdeloth's ability". In fact, this statement contradicts the statements which said it got only +1/+1.
If I have one more dollar than I did yesterday, then I can say "I have one more dollar that I did yesterday" and that will be true. I can say it ten times, and it will still be true. each of the ten different times I say the statement, it will be true. but that doesn't mean that since it was true 10 times I actually have 10 more dollars than yesterday. No matter how much I might wish otherwise.
Compare this again to Tolsimir.
"Green creatures get +1/+1 from Tolsimir's first ability" and
"White creatures get +1/+1 from Tolsimir's second ability" are true statements.
Since Tolsimir's buddy Voja is both green and white, we can conlude that:
"Voja gets +1/+1 from Tolsimir's first ability" and
"Voja gets +1/+1 from Tolsimir's second ability" are both true.
Since both of Tolsimir's abilities are in effect, we know that Voja is getting two +1/+1 bonuses. So in this case, we conclude that these two seperate bonuses combine to give Voja +2/+2 total.
My point was the ambiguity about whether or not a creature can get +1/+1 twice. That is what I read it as saying and I think many others do as well.
I'm not a judge, but I'm pretty much the most rules-savvy player in my (admittedly small, about 10 people max) casual playgroup, and the one people come to for rules questions, and I don't think I've ever encounted anyone who thought Verdeloth's ability (or other similar abilities) gave the bonus twice to creatures with both types. so I'm inclined to think this line of thinking isn't so common as you seem believe among players in general. I don't mean this as an attack, I'm just making an observation based on my own experience.
codgodthegreat, I understand that two lines of text will allow creatures to get more than one bonus, but my question is what justifies this fact. How this fact can be proven to someone.
I was wondering if there was a rule that stated this fact, but I currently understand that it is merely a form of interpretation. Cards with similar text (on one line) will not allow a creature to get a bonus twice. Cards with text on two lines do.
I can see where both sides are coming from. We all know or at least should know that Richard Garfield has a Mathematics Ph.D and WotC are all Computer Wiz's. MTG is broken up mathematically and logically.
Consider the statement:
"Other Treefolk and Saprolings get +1/+1"
Now let:
P = Other Treefolk
Q = Saprolings
R = +1/+1
Therefore (PnQ)->R
This can also be expanded to (P->R) u (Q->R).
With can be formaluted as follows: IF P THEN R ELSEIF Q THEN R END
Which in plain english means that a creature will run through this formula to check if its Another Treefolk, if so, it get +1/+1 and then the formula ends or if it isnt, it will check to see if its a saproling, if so, it get +1/+1 and ends, or if that is also not the case, then no bonus is given.
So in Mathematics, it makes 100% perfect sense...but its abit more ambiguous in the english language....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am NOT the girl in my avatar. Stop hitting on me. I'm a dude, just like you!
codgodthegreat, I understand that two lines of text will allow creatures to get more than one bonus, but my question is what justifies this fact. How this fact can be proven to someone.
I was wondering if there was a rule that stated this fact, but I currently understand that it is merely a form of interpretation. Cards with similar text (on one line) will not allow a creature to get a bonus twice. Cards with text on two lines do.
In the end though, isn't everything you do in this card game a "mere" interpretation?
I read Fear on a card and know that creatures we we have deemed "Black" or "Artifact" can't block it. Hell, even the act of blocking an attacker is my interpretation of my pushing a card in front of another random card that has been turned sideways.
Now then, that case is actually explained in the rules. However, you must realize that you have the rules to guide your interpretation. The rules can't possibly cover everything...The people that made them are human afterall (Right? We can only assume). When the rules need to be more clearly interpreted, you have the judges to fill in the blanks. While the judges are merely providing their own interpretation of the rules, there has to come a point where you have appealed to the highest authority on the matter and the case is closed.
In order to further guide your interpretation, Wizards releases FAQs with each set. Given that there's a similar case in the Shards FAQ (Death Baron) that to me basically says "That's just how it is," I'd say if asked...that's just how it is. It may not be in the actual rules (I'm not sure because I'm not as up on the rules as others here, but I assume that it isn't, given the responses on this topic, and I assume they make the FAQs to clarify things that they can't do just throw into the rules).
However, Wizards, who if I am not mistaken would have to be the highest authority on this game...They themselves have addressed this issue multiple times in the FAQs they have made (It's in the Coldsnap FAQ for Lovisa Coldeyes, Invasion for the Familiar Cycle, et cetera...).
I'd assume that this would establish some sort of precedent. And if your problem is that you need to explain this to someone, you can pull up the FAQs. Frankly, in my opinion, the game doesn't need to justify itself...It's like a dictator. It just needs to tell you what to do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have been told that this limitation is due to the fact that the bonus to both creature types is given in one line of text. (Unlike Tolsimir Wolfblood that has two.)
Lovisa Coldeyes gives Warriors, Barbarians, and Berserkers +2/+2 and haste, and it has been ruled to only give a creature with all creature types +2/+2. However, (a) Wizards has errata-ed the oracle to say "and/or"; and (b) No actual rule is cited to explain why this kind of restriction is in place.
I have two questions. One, does Verdeloth the Ancient only give creatures with all creature types +1/+1? Two, if one line of text makes a difference, then where in the rules does it state this limitation?
Please see the Rulings forum rules regarding the use of card tags, especially when you're talking about very specific differences in card wordings.--Binary
Okay, you really need to read the rules. Especially the one that forbids you from editing a post after a moderator edits it. -Woap
Lovisa Coldeyes
Tolsimir Wolfblood
Mutavault
from gather's entry into lovisa coldeyes
so when verdeloth powers out a changeling, there is only one static ability, once that has been fulfilled it no longer applies any extra buffs. tolsimir on the other hand, has two static abilities, green creatures get +1/+1, and white creatures get +1/+1. a green and white creature is checked first to see if it is green, and then the second static ability check to see if its white.
im pretty sure thats how it works, but id wait for a real judge to come in here and answer it
a) The change is more than just the and/or, and it had nothing to do with changing which creatures Lovisa affects. The change was made when Tribal was introduced and suddenly non-Creature permanents could have creature subtypes. Wizards changed Lovisa (and other cards that should only affect creatures) to explicitly affect only creatures, since giving an Enchantment +2/+2 would be weird.
b) There can be no rule cited, because there is no rule, other than that a card does exactly what its rules text says it does. A single ability never does multiple things unless it explicitly says that it does multiple things. Lovisa's ability does not state that creatures with matching creature types get +2/+2 for each matching creature type, does it? It only gives a creature +2/+2 for having any matching creature type at all.
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.
In this case, context means what parts of speech the connecting words are used to connect. For example, the following phrases have strange-seeming inconsistencies:
Black and Blue spells cost an additional 1 to play.
- Black or Blue spells cost an additional 1 to play.
- Black spells and Blue spells cost an additional 1 to play.
The difference is that in #1 and #2, the connecting word links two adjectives (Black and Blue), but in #3 it links two nouns (spells and spells). #1 means that spells with both colors cost extra; while #2 and #3 mean that a spell with either one, or both, colors cost extra. This leads some rules lawyers to summarize that "and" really means "or" in #3 (and in fact, "or" could be used in #3 as well). That isn't true. In #1 and #2 the criteria for including a spell in the set are linked, while in #3 it is the spells that fit the criteria that are linked.How does this apply to Lovisa Coldeyes? Before tribal was introduced, the creature types Warrior, Berserker, and Barbarian were used on the card as nouns. "And" was used to connect them, as in my example #3, to include them all in the set. But when tribal was introduced, and this effect needed to restrict itself to creatures, the same words became adjectives on the card. It had to be worded as my example #2, with "or" linking the criteria for being in the set.
Finally, rules lawyers play one last role in this fiassco. They have another tendency: to insist that "or" can't mean "more than one at a time." (Mathematicians call it an "exclusive OR" when it can't mean more than one, and an "inclusive OR" when it can.) As in "You can have cherry pie OR chocalate cake, not both." English doesn't mean "exclusive OR" except in very specific contexts, but rules lawyers won't accept that the context doesn't need to be defined in the rules. So WotC has started to use "and/or" in cases where they want to stress it is an inclusive or.
And no, the rules don't define this. English does.
It has to do with "interpretation," and this is a very counter-intuitive kind of interpretation.
Verdeloth should say: "Each other creature gets +1/+1 if it is either a Treefolk or a Saproling and this gets +1/+1 if it is a Saproling."
There is no reason for it to say something completely different if this isn't what it does. However, I am still wondering exactly how we are supposed to know what it does.
CarstenHaese, you said that there is a rule that, a "single ability never does multiple things unless it explicitly says that it does multiple things." Where is this rule?
Condor, so players have to be a rules lawyer to know what this card does? How does Wizards expect rules lawyers to prove their rulings when dealing with Verdeloth the Ancient?
I don't know of a specific rule like this myself, other than that there are certain standards that are followed for the purposes of templating the wording of abilities. Really though, an ability does just what it says it does, no more and no less. The game is inherently designed so that you can read the card and will be able to play the game (albeit missing some of the finer points and intracicies). Perhaps that's what Carsten is referring to.
Condor is actually saying quite the opposite. And I find myself nodding my head when reading what he wrote, because it's something I occassionally find myself doing from time to time. Truthfully, I think knowing the Comprehensive Rules better (and therefore in some ways being a "rules lawyer", because you read the letter of the Comprehensive Rules) makes actually understanding the Comprehensive Rules a bit harder. In that respect, at a certain point in a person's knowledge of the Comprehensive Rules, you want the Comprehensive Rules to be able to answer every single question about how cards function.
The Comprehensive Rules, most of the time, explain how certain things function as it is specific to the game. But there are a number of things that have no special meaning in the Comprehensive Rules, and simply fall to their normal English meaning. Which is to say, "If you read this normally, what does it mean?" Verdeloth the Ancient's ability is quite concise and straightforward, unless you decide to parse it with some kind of "special CR meaning" that just doesn't exist. While the wording you suggest works just fine, and would remove the ambiguity for you, it means the same thing as the current wording of the ability.
*Other Treefolk creatures* and *Saproling creatures* get +1/+1. That's it. There's no special reading that needs to be done here.
Example: Verdeloth the Ancient
Other Treefolk creatures and Saproling creatures get +1/+1.
I break it down into objects affected, and the effect:
[Other Treefolk creatures and Saproling creatures] (get +1/+1).
[objects] (effect).
Anything that fits in the Object category gets the Effect, regardless of how many times it fits, as there is only the one effect.
Example: Lovisa Coldeyes
Warrior, Berserker, and/or other Barbarian creatures get +2/+2 and have haste.
Broken down into [objects] and (effect)
[Warrior, Berserker, and/or other Barbarian creatures] (get +2/+2 and have haste.)
Any instances of and, or, and/or, etc. serve only to match game mechanics and the English language, not to define the mechanics.
There is no instance in the game (that I have yet found) where this strategy does not match the official ruling.
Quite the oppposite. The English meaning is the intended meaning. What I'm saying is that rules lawyers try to avoid looking for the English meaning, in favor of what an individual word "must" mean based upon what it does in a different context.
In English, you need to look at the context of connecting words to decipher how they apply. Rules lawyers try to force them to have the same "result" (and I put the quotes there, because "results" can't be divorced from "context") in all situations.
Verdeloth already says exactly what it means. It doesn't need to complicate things like you did.
Creatures in the set it descibes (other Treefolk creatures and Saproling creatures) get the bonus. This isn't rocket science. (And I'm not a rocket scientist, although sometimes I've played one for my employers. Really.)
Common sense. Effects only do what they say.
No, rules lawyers tend to over-think what a card does. They should use common sense.
And you get an A+ for common sense.
The oracle text says "Instant and enchantment spells you play cost up to less to play." This may just be an oversight on WOTC's part, but in a way it does seem like it works as it's written. Granted, they should probably update it to fit with how they've been writing these kinds of abilities now, but I don't think anybody would think that this card only works on Enchantments that are Instants as well.
If WOTC wanted to make sure the spell was both blue and black, I would hope they wrote it as "Spells that are both blue and black cost an additional 1 to play."
MTG Rules Adviser/Advisor
Comp Rules, FAQs, and DCI Rules
It has been mentioned that an ability can only apply to each thing once. Is this a rule or just interpretation of card text?
Some of you have defended Wizards of the Coast's wording of the card. This might be somewhat off-topic, but I don't see this as a situation "where the card does what it says." Many players will read "Other treefolk and saprolings get +1/+1" to mean "Other treefolk get +1/+1. Other Saproings get +1/+1." In fact, I would guess most players would read it this way.
Additionally, I think logic supports this interpretation. In a logic class you have to take apart a sentence to find out the content. This is how this would work here:
"Other treefolk and saprolings get +1/+1" would be separated into two statements, "Other treefolk get +1/+1" and "saprolings get +1/+1." Here we have merely realized that the word "and" signifies the presence of two statements. These two statements would give Mutavault +2/+2 under the current rules.
The logical statements required for the current interpretation is:
"Other treefolk get +1/+1" and "Saprolings get +1/+1" and "A creature that is both a treefolk and a saproling only gets +1/+1 once with this card."
Condor, your argument seems to be that a disambiguation would end up with overly-complex wording. It could have been phrased quite simply as: "Each other creature gets +1/+1 if it is either a Treefolk or a Saproling." I must admit that this changes what the card does because Verdeloth as a Saproling would no longer matter, but I think it is overly complex for Verdeloth to ever make himself bigger anyway.
It's an interpretation that is officially supported. For that is indeed how it works. For that is how you evaluate sentences with compound subjects.
It's unfortunate. There are cards that say "Other Xs and other Ys do Z." If you've seen them it makes Verdeloth quite understandable.
Except it says "Other Treefolk creatures and Saproling creatures," not what you wrote.
Consider the following statement, which I am uttering with a salient steel katana in front of me:
"Other swords and iron implements melt in dragon fire."
I might go on to say my katana does not melt in dragon fire. (Sorry for the extreme example; I struggled to work 'other' into the sentence). Now realize the meaning you got from that sentence.
There's no reason other swords could not also be iron implements. However they need not necessarily be iron - they could be some even lower quality metal. Yet the interpretation here is clear: those things which are other swords, and those things which are iron implements, satisfy that they melt in dragon fire.
Now you might say "melts in dragon fire" is a predicate that it doesn't make sense in the first place something could satisfy twice. Here's the problem: there's no such thing. "gets +1/+1" looks like something you could get twice, but it is impossible to get that to happen in one sentence.* Language just doesn't let you use it that way.
So when Verdeloth (or any card) writes an ability like this, where it says Xs and Ys are Z, you know it means that Xs are Z, and Ys are Z, and while some things are X and Y, all you have is two ways to say each of those things is Z. Saying it twice doesn't mean anything different from just saying it's true.
*Again, I have to bring Linguistics into this to avoid saying something easily falsifiable: you can't get it to happen with a sentence that doesn't have a conjunction that co-ordinates two VP categories or two S categories - which is something that effectively turns one sentence (something ending with one period) into two statements.
Sorry, even I think that's a complex sentence. It's complex in that it's expensive in terms of space.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Don't forget, it is also incorrect because it would mean that even if verdoloth became part saproling, he still wouldn't get his own bonus, which is not true. For example, an equipped runed stalactite would make him a 6/9, esentially (hope that's the right word) giving him +2/+2 (+1/+1 from the stalactite and +1/+1 from verdoloth himself).
That's because an "instant spell" is redundant. If it's not on the stack (and thus a spell) it's an instant card. Just like a "creature in play" is the same as a "creature"... otherwise it's a "creature card" or "creature spell".
The default for instant is a spell, whereas the default for enchantment is in play. This is why you have to qualify the enchantment with spell.
"Anything that is either an instant and/or an enchantment spell costs you up to less to play" is what that means. Instant cards don't cost less to play, and enchantments (in play) don't cost less to play. They can't.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
http://www.wizards.com/company/emailtoauthor.asp?author=Gatherer+Team
Outside of that, the best that anyone on this forum can do is to help you to understand how the templating actually works.
Wizards uses certain templating to differentiate cards that give double bonuses from those who only give one, and its pretty simple: one bonus per sentence.
Compare the one bonus guys:
Death Baron,
Stonybrook Banneret, or
Verdeloth the Ancient;
To the two bonus guys:
Wilt-leaf Liege,
Tolsimir Wolfblood, or
Grand Arbiter Augustin IV.
That's probably the easiest way to spot when more than one bonus is intended.
Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc
I agree and I mentioned this difference earlier.
It is impossible to have a sentence that predicates two groups that can be satisfied twice? How about the following:
Each other creature gets +1/+1 if it is a treefolk or saproling, and this bonus is applied twice if a creature is both.
That is one sentence and it makes it clear that the predicate can be satisfied twice, but you might argue that it doesn't match Verdeloth's actual text. If Verdeloth's actual text is ambiguous, then there has to be other sentences that would be interpreted differently. Consider this example that looks more like Verdeloth's actual text, and keep in mind that the actual truth of the sentences is not in question. Only the content is in question.):
"Stealing and forgery are punishable by 4 years imprisonment."
This does not mean that if you commit both stealing and forgery you will only get 4 years imprisonment rather than 8.
Also: "Doctors and Lawyers have to spend and additional 4 years in college."
If X is both a Doctor and a lawyer, X would have had to spend an additional 8 years in college.
One reason that I don't agree that one sentence can have any limitation of this kind is because we can say an unlimited number of statements in a sentence. In logic we find out that any sentence with the word "and" in it can be turned into two statements. In other words we can say "Treefolk and Saprolings get +1/+1" and that has the same meaning as "Treefolk get +1/+1", and "Saprolings get +1/+1." This is entirely consistent with how the word "and" functions.
It is about as simple as I can think of to avoid ambiguity, but you are right that it takes more space.
You can easily look at the card and not get lost in the oddities of the English language.
Two lines for two effects and one line for one effect makes sense period.
I personally would rip my hair out, if they actually had a small way to signify something like wilt-lief liege or grand arbiter being two bonuses not one but on one line.
This is the most simplistic way to handle these card bonuses period.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
Asterisk. See my asterisk. You have an 'and' co-ordinating two S categories - that's actually two sentences you wrote there. The S category identifies all things called sentences, but identifies some things as being "sentences" (S categories) that are composed of two "sentences."
But you do realize there is no such thing as is simultaneously the commission of stealing and the commission of forgery. I have to do something which is stealing, and do something which is forgery, and by definition not the same thing can be both. Sure, I can do both on one occasion, but the two classes of actions are mutually independent.
When it works out to be true that I get 8 years imprisonment by stealing and forging, it's not at all because of anything like the sentence on Verdeloth. Something I did has the property of getting me 4 years imprisonment. It's true that something else I did got me 4 years imprisonment. The meaning of "4 years imprisonment" though contains that it is to be added onto any prison term to which I have already been sentenced, so you've actually snuck an "additional" in there, in the guise of a law term (well, I mean, probably not on purpose).
. . . unless you somehow took both courses to certification simultaneously. And again, the subjects are mutually exclusive categories. But before all that, you're being fooly with words in an important way here - doctors don't spent additional years in college. People spend additional years in college to become doctors. They're not doctors before that. If you modify the sentence to fix that, then you'll see it again doesn't look like Verdeloth's ability.
But Logic also says that I can take such sentences and make them with OR:
(For all x) (If (x is an other Treefolk creature or x is a Saproling creature) then x gets +1/+1).
Cats and dogs have four legs. You can take what I say as being that cats have four legs and dogs have four legs, or that everything which is a cat or a dog has four legs.
Now, what I wrote clearly doesn't have a double meaning. But what you wrote, to you, seems to. But if they were drawn from the same sentence, something must be going wrong.
What's going wrong is that "gets +1/+1" is steering you wrong. In Magic, there is an "additional" cached in the term of getting +1/+1. In fact, a whole host of complications are cached in every sentence about power and toughness boosting, since the layer rules decide what these sentences mean relative to each other.
I'm going to say this: Yes, you're right, it's true that "Treefolk get +1/+1" and "Saprolings get +1/+1." However, what those sentences are asserting, is referring to the same getting of +1/+1. You can skip to the next paragraph, or you can withstand yet another "natural language" example. Still here? It's like me saying that "the females and the children in my family got a bicycle from someone this holiday season." Suppose I live with an extended family (you don't know if I don't :sneaky:; I do use the word 'females' like that, though). I don't mean to say the girls in my family got two bicycles, but I finally found an example where the predicate is something that's possibly cumulative. All my sentence means is that the people who are the females in my family, and the people who are the children in my family, if you gather up that group of people (it's a union of sets), each of those people got a bicycle. If I rephrased in two sentences with an 'and' (not spontaneously, but if asked), people will get that I am not allowing for doubling up on getting a bicycle. It's 'the same source' in that if a person counts to get a bicycle, they can't "count again" for the other sentence - people will get that.
For "gets +1/+1," I really, honestly wish I could cache out the ability explicitly, so that the complete meaning is imminent rather than referring to layer rules. However, I think it would take time, obsession, and genius to unfold the layering rules in such an expansion. Sadly, I don't have time.
I can only point back to natron77's post (and Condor's hearty approval of it) to say that this ability is just signalling something to the rules, which the layers puzzle out. This ability is saying "there's a continuous effect of the static-ability-modifying-but-not-setting-power-or-toughness kind, in the measure of +1/+1, and it exists for Saprolings and [other] Treefolk."
You could conceive this effect as it being said that "other Treefolk [are getting] [a bonus which can be quickly roughed over as "+1/+1"]" and "Saprolings [are getting] [a bonus which can be quickly roughed over as "+1/+1"]", but only if you recognize that the parts in blue are the same, identical bonus - not just categorical identity, but 'numerical' identity - identity of being actually the same thing. And clearly then you can't get the same bonus twice (the same kind of bonus, but not the same bonus; it's an absurd statement). It's just what Magic has its abilities mean, it's all I can say. I swear that caching out the layering rules would make this work, but it's an impossible project (you know, that's pretty much why the layer rules exist, because rules for generating answers are simpler than a handbag of specific interactions).
*~*~*~
Just so you know, there is a format for writing an effect which would work like you say Verdeloth's should: Kaervek's Hex/Tropical Storm. And yes, black green creatures are dealt 1 damage by the first spell. In this model, I could write "Other Treefolk creatures get +1/+1 and Saproling creatures get an additional +1/+1," and that would mean that Saproling Treefolk creatures that are 'other' than the card they're on get +2/+2.
Strength of Night is a pump spell, but these two spells show that 'additional' doesn't need to mean "those guys already hit by something."
EDIT: Oh darn. . . I think Monopoman is going to rip his hair out. I'm sorry.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
And again, context plays a part. Yes, it should mean "spells that are both instant and enchantment." But in the context of Magic, we know that the combination is impossible. So it doesn't mean that on that card.
Not sure what you mean - your second question was about "lines of text." That is well answered. The two lines of text on Tolsimir are two different abilities. Rule 402.7. says "each paragraph break in a card's text marks a separate ability."
And the difference between that and the actual wording of Veredeloth is that it says "Other treefolk creatures and saproling creatures..." You can't move the first modifier - "other" - to the second noun unless you can move all of the modifiers, which you obvioulsy can't do because the second noun has it's own set. "Sailing ships and sealing wax" can't mean that the wax sails. "Sailing ships and boats" would.
And no, you can't logically separate one clause, with one verb, into two independent statements. It is a single statement with a compound subject.
You are using the word "sentence" differently than the ordinary usage of the word. You are using it similarly to how I use the word "statement," which is the actual truth content of a sentence, if it has any. However, any sentence with an "and" in it can be turned into two statements.
You have stated the fact that "a sentence cannot modify two different kinds of creatures twice." How do you know this is a fact? Is this a current theory in linguistics?
Apperantly you are saying something more complecated than I thought because you don't like my example. Perhaps I entirely misunderstood what you said.
This is how I see it: There are sets (groups). Saprolings and Treefolk are two different sets and these sets overlap. People who steal and people who commit forgery are both in sets and they overlap. Anything can be considered to be a "property." In fact, being in any particular set is a "property." You can say that people who steal and commit forgery will both be modified by a second property, which is "getting 4 years in prison." This can end up modifying the a person who committed both crimes twice.
Verdeloth does someting to two different kinds of creatures. Those creatures could have been "creatures that have attacked this game or blocked this game." i.e. actions could have been involved and I don't think that changes anything.
Then he could say, "Other creatures that have attacked and creatures that have blocked get +1/+1." I don't think the text would have to change.
But Logic also says that I can take such sentences and make them with OR:
Of course I have to admit that some properties do not get applied twice. What I disagreed with was the fact that it is impossible for the opposite to happen. Logic might be indifferent to the fact that some properties can apply twice or more.
The logical structure for the example I presented might end up being different than the one you present here. One English sentence can have ambiguous logical form.
Can +1/+1 be a property that is applied twice? Yes, and you admit this. (That is why two separate sentences is treated that way on a Magic card.)
The layer rules point is an interesting one and it might clear things up to a great extent. Does this mean that Verdeloth's ability could be explained by the rules after all?
I agree that "other x and y get z" could sometimes have the meaning you are giving it. My point was only that it can also have a different meaning, and that I certainly expected that different meaning when reading the card. I suspect that many others do as well. When Wizards gives a card that no one will ever play with and make it even less powerful than we thought it was given our reading, then we will be disappointed and somewhat confused.
Interesting point. There is a one sentence way of doing it as long as it adds a special clarification.
I got different answers about how the two lines of text makes a difference and the main one seems to be that this is merely how it has been interpreted in the past on similar cards. Some people seemed to say that there might be a little more to it than that.
If it makes a sperate ability, then the question is, "Does Verdeloth give +1/+1 to Mutavault specifically because it is only one ability?" That would be a seperate rule that could be mentioned somewhere.
Right, Wizards meant, "Verdeloth isn't a saproling, so it doesn't make sense to say 'other saprolings.'" The "other" ambiguity wasn't my point. My point was the ambiguity about whether or not a creature can get +1/+1 twice. That is what I read it as saying and I think many others do as well.
Let's compare this to Tolsimir Wolfsblood.
Tolsimer has two abilities:
Other green creatures you control get +1/+1.
and
Other white creatures you control get +1/+1.
The first ability grants a bonus (+1/+1) to a group or creatures (other green creatures). If a creature is green, it gets the bonus.
The second ability grants a bonus (+1/+1) to a group or creatures (other white creatures). If a creature is white, it gets the bonus.
If a creature is monogreen, it gets +1/+1 from the first ability, and no bonus from the second ability. So it gets +1/+1.
If a creature is monoblue, it gets no bonus from the first ability, and no bonus from the second ability. so it gets +0/+0.
If a creature is both green and white, it gets +1/+1 from the first ability, and +1/+1 from the second ability. So it gets +2/+2 total.
Let's try an analogy...
Lets say Verdeloth thows a huge party and invites everyone he knows. He announces that he has won the lottery, and says that he wants to share his newfound wealth. He decalres "I'm going to give all my friends and family a new car!"
Verdeloth's mother, Nemata, gets a car, because she is family.
Verdeloth's buddy, the Saproling token, gets a car, because he's a friend.
Verdeloth's distant cousin, Woodland Changeling, who also happens to be a good friend, gets a car. Not two cars. One.
All of his friends (Saprolings) and all of his family (other Treefolk) get a new car (+1/+1). But Woodland Changeling, who is both, still gets just one car. Inclusion in the group "friends and family" qualifies you to get one car, regardless of how many of the subgroups you might belong to.
Tolsimir has recently recieved a large inheritance, and wishes to share it with those less fortunate than himself. He says "I'm going to give tents to the homeless". He then goes on to say "I'm going to give hot food to the hungry"
In this case, someone who is both homeless and hungry will recieve both a tent and hot food.
Verdeloth was giving out one thing (cars). Everyone in the group he specified got a car. Tolsimir was seperately giving out two things (tents and food) to different, but potentially overlapping, groups. Homeless people got tents, hungry people got food. Hungry homeless people got both tents AND food.
I believe you're getting confused by trying to slit up Verdeloth's ability into two parts; "other Treefolk get +1/+1" and "Saprolings get +1/+1". At this point, you have two statements. Both of these statements are true, but that doesn't mean that you can treat them like they were printed as seperate abilities.
Look at Wizened Cenn. It's ability says "Other Kithkin creatures you control get +1/+1." You can make the statment that "Other kinthkin creatures you control get +1/+1." - this is clearly a true statement. You can also say that "Other blue kinthkin creatures you control get +1/+1." - still a true statement, since blue kithkin you control are still kithkin you control. But surely you see that if the Cenn was printed saying "Other kinthkin creatures you control get +1/+1." AND "Other blue kinthkin creatures you control get +1/+1.", then it would work differently?
So just because you can logically split up statements about the game state caused by an ability, DOES NOT mean that you can treat those statements as though they were abilities on the card instead.
Perhaps this will make it easier to understand. We'll make a statement: "other Treefolk and Saprolings get +1/+1 from Verdeloth's ability". This is, I hope you can agree, true.
Because Woodland Changeling is an (other) Treefolk, we can come to the conclusion that "Woodland Changeling gets +1/+1 from Verdeloth's ability".
Because Woodland Changeling is a Saproling, we can (seperately) come to the conclusion that "Woodland Changeling gets +1/+1 from Verdeloth's ability". I have tried to highlight how these two (matching) statements we have reached are referring to the same bonus (as Horseshoe Hermit pointed out). We cannot conclude from these two statements that "Woodland Changeling gets +2/+2 from Verdeloth's ability". In fact, this statement contradicts the statements which said it got only +1/+1.
"Green creatures get +1/+1 from Tolsimir's first ability" and
"White creatures get +1/+1 from Tolsimir's second ability" are true statements.
Since Tolsimir's buddy Voja is both green and white, we can conlude that:
"Voja gets +1/+1 from Tolsimir's second ability" are both true.
Since both of Tolsimir's abilities are in effect, we know that Voja is getting two +1/+1 bonuses. So in this case, we conclude that these two seperate bonuses combine to give Voja +2/+2 total.
I'm not a judge, but I'm pretty much the most rules-savvy player in my (admittedly small, about 10 people max) casual playgroup, and the one people come to for rules questions, and I don't think I've ever encounted anyone who thought Verdeloth's ability (or other similar abilities) gave the bonus twice to creatures with both types. so I'm inclined to think this line of thinking isn't so common as you seem believe among players in general. I don't mean this as an attack, I'm just making an observation based on my own experience.
I was wondering if there was a rule that stated this fact, but I currently understand that it is merely a form of interpretation. Cards with similar text (on one line) will not allow a creature to get a bonus twice. Cards with text on two lines do.
Consider the statement:
"Other Treefolk and Saprolings get +1/+1"
Now let:
P = Other Treefolk
Q = Saprolings
R = +1/+1
Therefore (PnQ)->R
This can also be expanded to (P->R) u (Q->R).
With can be formaluted as follows:
IF P
THEN R
ELSEIF Q
THEN R
END
Which in plain english means that a creature will run through this formula to check if its Another Treefolk, if so, it get +1/+1 and then the formula ends or if it isnt, it will check to see if its a saproling, if so, it get +1/+1 and ends, or if that is also not the case, then no bonus is given.
So in Mathematics, it makes 100% perfect sense...but its abit more ambiguous in the english language....
In the end though, isn't everything you do in this card game a "mere" interpretation?
I read Fear on a card and know that creatures we we have deemed "Black" or "Artifact" can't block it. Hell, even the act of blocking an attacker is my interpretation of my pushing a card in front of another random card that has been turned sideways.
Now then, that case is actually explained in the rules. However, you must realize that you have the rules to guide your interpretation. The rules can't possibly cover everything...The people that made them are human afterall (Right? We can only assume). When the rules need to be more clearly interpreted, you have the judges to fill in the blanks. While the judges are merely providing their own interpretation of the rules, there has to come a point where you have appealed to the highest authority on the matter and the case is closed.
In order to further guide your interpretation, Wizards releases FAQs with each set. Given that there's a similar case in the Shards FAQ (Death Baron) that to me basically says "That's just how it is," I'd say if asked...that's just how it is. It may not be in the actual rules (I'm not sure because I'm not as up on the rules as others here, but I assume that it isn't, given the responses on this topic, and I assume they make the FAQs to clarify things that they can't do just throw into the rules).
However, Wizards, who if I am not mistaken would have to be the highest authority on this game...They themselves have addressed this issue multiple times in the FAQs they have made (It's in the Coldsnap FAQ for Lovisa Coldeyes, Invasion for the Familiar Cycle, et cetera...).
I'd assume that this would establish some sort of precedent. And if your problem is that you need to explain this to someone, you can pull up the FAQs. Frankly, in my opinion, the game doesn't need to justify itself...It's like a dictator. It just needs to tell you what to do.