Do these cards "work." They are an attempt to use the stack as a zone. RFG zone, has kinda lost its meaning, as things come back from there almost as much as they come from the hand. These cards are intended to use the stack as a zone, which it is, for effects like that.
Æther Cat 4WR
Creature- Elemental Cat
Haste, Vigilance
:symwr:: Put ~ on top of the stack. "It flawlessly flows from fancy to form."
4/4
Gaea's ProtectionGG
Enchantment
Split Second GG, put Gaea's Protection on the bottom of the stack: Target creature gains shroud until end of turn. Gaea protects her followers spells as well as their selves.
Sarton, Master Æther Mage 2UU
Legendary Creature- Human Wizard
Flash
Sarton comes into play tapped. t: Place Sarton on top of the stack. UU: Counter target spell. Use this ability only when Sarton is on the stack. "In the Æther my old body matters not; only my knowledge and power."-Sarton
1/2
Freethought2UU
Instant
As Freethought resolves draw a card and put Freethought into play.
If Freethought would be put into play, instead it becomes a 2/1 creature with flying and is put into play. 1UU: Put Freethought on top of the stack. Play this ability while Freethought is in play or on the stack. What can you do to a thought?
Ready for you to tell me they do not work, and why!
Do these cards "work." They are an attempt to use the stack as a zone.
Nope, for that reason. "In-play" and "the stack" are not merely zones, they are places where the cards represent something more than just the card they are on. Spells have targets, X, modes, etc.; both need controllers, and can have additional costs. You have to make sure that all of the "spell stuff" is defined for a spell, and putting a card on the stack directly doesn't do it.
But that isn't all - you will create impossible situations.
Æther Cat 4WR
Creature- Elemental Cat
Haste, Vigilance
:symwr:: Put ~ on top of the stack.
Cytopalsm and Life and Limb. What are you going to do with the forest card you have on the stack?
If you want to do this, remove the card from the game, and let them play it. That is how it would be done.
Freethought2UU
Instant
As Freethought resolves draw a card and put Freethought into play.
If Freethought would be put into play, instead it becomes a 2/1 creature with flying and is put into play. 1UU: Put Freethought on top of the stack. Play this ability while Freethought is in play or on the stack.
Can't get past that, can you?
The rules make it so that where you said "put Freethought into play," it really means "Freethought remains on the stack." Really.
The rule is shortsighted, since it leaves Freethought on the stack. Rule 212.4j (for Auras that couldn't attach to anything) once had the same prroblem - probably written at the same time. It got the same fix 212.5d and 212.7d would - the card would go to its owners graveyard. Really.
If it could work, it would have to be "Freethought comes into play as a...."
This would make it a copy effect, like Primal Clay. That would get around most potential problems that involve soemthing being a copy of it, and trying to use the ability.
Like Izzet Guildmage. What happens when you try to put the copy-spell into play?
Other than that, it is mostly hypothetical problems like "It prevents effects like 'Remove target creature from the game. ~this~ becomes a copy of the card in RFG."
Don't think such an ability couldn't happen. It is a firm design constraint that instant cards cannot be in play. Effects are written based on that assumption.
Cytopalsm and Life and Limb. What are you going to do with the forest card you have on the stack?
You have me sir. With luck maybe in the next rules update, with planeswalker, and all they will change rule 401.7 to say "permanent cards," and i can try again
The rule is shortsighted, since it leaves Freethought on the stack. Rule 212.4j (for Auras that couldn't attach to anything) once had the same problem - probably written at the same time. It got the same fix 212.5d and 212.7d would - the card would go to its owners graveyard. Really. I guess this is true even if i am right since you could pick whether to let it enter play or remain on the stack.
If it could work, it would have to be "Freethought comes into play as a...."
This would make it a copy effect, like Primal Clay. That would get around most potential problems that involve soemthing being a copy of it, and trying to use the ability.
Like Izzet Guildmage. What happens when you try to put the copy-spell into play?
Other than that, it is mostly hypothetical problems like "It prevents effects like 'Remove target creature from the game. ~this~ becomes a copy of the card in RFG." Could this not be fix by a simple "cannot be the target of spells or abilities"
Don't think such an ability couldn't happen. It is a firm design constraint that instant cards cannot be in play. Effects are written based on that assumption.
So don't do it.
But i really want to!
Freethought :2mana::symu::symu:
Instant
As Part of ~'s resolution draw a card, remove ~ from the game and then put it into play.
If Freethought would be put into play, instead it becomes a 2/1 creature with flying and is put into play.
~ can't be the target of spells or abilities.
:1mana::symu::symu:: Put Freethought on top of the stack. Play this ability while Freethought is in play.
But your right.. seems like i am trying waaaay to hard
Freethought :2mana::symu::symu:
Instant
As Part of ~'s resolution draw a card, remove ~ from the game and then put it into play.
If Freethought would be put into play, instead it becomes a 2/1 creature with flying and is put into play.
~ can't be the target of spells or abilities.
:1mana::symu::symu:: Put Freethought on top of the stack. Play this ability while Freethought is in play.
But your right.. seems like i am trying waaaay to hard
Freethought, without causing headaches 2UU
Creature - Lemming
Flash, flying, shroud.
When Freethought without causing headaches comes into play, draw a card 1UU: Remove Freethought without causing headaches from the game. You may play it without paying its mana cost.
2/1
With luck maybe in the next rules update, with planeswalker, and all they will change rule 401.7 to say "permanent cards,"...
And why would that make a difference? Instants are not "permanent cards." And there are reasons (involving copy spells) why they can't be, in that rule.
Rule 212.5d is worded EXACTLY like a replacement effect.
So it is. So are (parts of) 104.1b, 104.2, 212.4j, 216.4, 217.1a, 406.6, and I'm sure lots of others. That doesn't make them replacement [I]effects[/I], because thay are not [/i]effects[/i]. They are [I]rules[/I]. Many of those coud create broken situations if you were allowed to order them like replacement effects.
Could this not be fix by a simple "cannot be the target of spells or abilities"
Um, are you trying to give morphs abilities again? But rthe same things can happen with untargeted effects ("Whenever a creature attacks you, you may pay <cost>. If you do, remove that creature...").
But i really want to!
That is obvious. It is not reasonable to try.
Hvirfilvindr, Soron isn't interested in just the strategic result. He wants to get a card that says "instant" on it in play.
And why would that make a difference? Instants are not "permanent cards." And there are reasons (involving copy spells) why they can't be, in that rule.
This is about to the creatures that go on the stack. If rule 401.7 said "As the final part of an permanent card's resolution, the card becomes a permanent and is put into the in-play zone under the control of the spell's controller. If any spell is countered, the card is put into its owner's graveyard as part of the resolution of the countering spell or ability."
Then when a land went on the stack, it would be a spell(401.1) and then would resolve, and there would be no problems with a creature going from in play to on the stack. (as far as i can see)
So it is. So are (parts of) 104.1b, 104.2, 212.4j, 216.4, 217.1a, 406.6, and I'm sure lots of others. That doesn't make them replacement [I]effects[/I], because thay are not [/i]effects[/i]. They are [I]rules[/I]. Many of those coud create broken situations if you were allowed to order them like replacement effects.
Well if rules are rules then the card text just trumps them and i do not even have to include the "if ~ would..." I can just say "as..." as you said.
Um, are you trying to give morphs abilities again? But rthe same things can happen with untargeted effects ("Whenever a creature attacks you, you may pay <cost>. If you do, remove that creature...").
I am not referring to morphs on this thread, this is about the cards in post one. The untargetablty is to stop copy effects, but i guess your right it does not matter because of panoptic mirror.
And one should aways try. That does not mean one will aways succeed, but one should try.
[edit] And it seems you succeed where i had failed! ]: )
[reedit]
I am going to try and put all of the cards i have been submitting to the DCC into a set, so if i ever post that set i will have to right "and i am changing rule 401.7, and when a spell copy enters play, it becomes a token that is a copy of that spell" or something of that nature.
This is about to the creatures that go on the stack. If rule 401.7 said "As the final part of an permanent card's resolution, the card becomes a permanent and is put into the in-play zone under the control of the spell's controller.
Right - did you notice that cards don't resolve, spells do? That currently, that rule has one option for "instant or sorcery spells" and another for "artifact, creature, or enchantment spells" ? So even if the wording of the rule changed, somehow, to say "permanent cards" that it would still refer to "permanent cards that are spells?" And, that rule 212.6a says "A land card isn't a spell card, and at no time is it a spell" ? And so...
Then when a land went on the stack, it would be a spell.
... can never be true?
Well if rules are rules then the card text just trumps them
<Sigh.> Have you learned yet that I know the rules far better than you do?
The so-called "Golden Rules" are the most misunderstood, and mis-applied, rules in Magic." A card has to directly contradict the rules to "trump" them. That doesn't happen here - and in fact, it would make many rules that define what card text means pointless, if it did happen here.
so if i ever post that set i will have to right "and i am changing rule 401.7, and when a spell copy enters play, it becomes a token that is a copy of that spell" or something of that nature.
I said before, you can do whatever you wwant to in a set you call your own. But don't think it is "right," or that the game is "Magic" anymore. You will create broken situations that you aren't trying to imagine exist. They do.
Right - did you notice that cards don't resolve, spells do? That currently, that rule has one option for "instant or sorcery spells" and another for "artifact, creature, or enchantment spells" ? So even if the wording of the rule changed, somehow, to say "permanent cards" that it would still refer to "permanent cards that are spells?" And, that rule 212.6a says "A land card isn't a spell card, and at no time is it a spell" ? And so...
... can never be true?
Rule 401.1 clearly states that ANY card on the stack is a spell.[edit] right right rule 212.6a[/edit]
The so-called "Golden Rules" are the most misunderstood, and mis-applied, rules in Magic." A card has to directly contradict the rules to "trump" them. That doesn't happen here - and in fact, it would make many rules that define what card text means pointless, if it did happen here.
Right and saying "put this instant into play" Is a direct contradiction to the rule baring instants from coming into play. BUT if one was to make said card, then one has to make sure all of the other rules will make sense
I said before, you can do whatever you want to in a set you call your own. But don't think it is "right," or that the game is "Magic" anymore. You will create broken situations that you aren't trying to imagine exist. They do.
When TS came out there was a MAJOR overhaul to the rules and wording of magic cards. Do you feel that the game, as its played now, is not magic? Certainly is not the game I learned(and unless you started playing in TS its not the game you learned either).
Almost EVERY time wizards releases a set they make changes to the rules to allow the cards they have just made to work.
Of course that is not your point though. Your saying that any game that differs from the way wizards says we are to play magic, is not magic. and again you are right.
But it does seem that all that would be needed to make all of the cards in the first post to make sense would be to change rule 401.7 to say "artifact, creature, land, or enchantment spell's" and delete that line in 212.6a. This, it seems would make the creatures make sense.
But that is not the case. The rules make them nonsensical, and so they are nonsensical.
Freethought does seem to work though, as the rules are now.
Freethought2UU
Instant
As Part of ~'s resolution draw a card, and put it into play.
As ~ comes into play it becomes a 2/1 creature with flying. 1UU: Put Freethought on top of the stack. Play this ability while Freethought is in play or on the stack.
The first line goes directly against a rule, so the card wins. The second line is like Primal Clay and makes it so its never in play as an instant. (and if you make any copies of it they go bye bye when trying to change zones)
Rule 401.1 clearly states that ANY card on the stack is a spell. right right rule 212.6a
And 212.6a says it CAN'T be a spell. Conclusion: a land card CAN'T be put on the stack, by any means. One of the ways that design constraint is "enforced," is that you have to PLAY a card to get it on the stack; but PLAYing a land card won't do that.
While this clearly is a true statement it does not mean that you are always right. For example you missed rule 420.5j, which answers the 5rd point in your first post.
And once again, you are forgetting timing. I have told you repeatedly that "put-a-wrong-thing-in-play-but-immediately-remove-it" is not an acceptable solution. The copy of a spell can't ever BE in play. I was fully aware of 420.5j, which does not answer point 5.
And the reason for saying that is not that I'm always right, or know every rule (but I pretty much do). It's that when I tell you you are misinterpreting a rule, you indeed are.
Right and saying "put this instant into play as a creature" Is a direct contradiction to the rule baring instants from coming into play.
Nope. The rule tells you what to do in case such an effect exists. If the rule only said "Instants can't come into play," you'd have a incorrectly-argued, weak case. Since the rule actually adds "If an instant would come into play, it remains in its previous zone instead," you are completely wrong.
And, the case is "incorrectly-argued" because saying "do X" is not contradicting "X can't be done." For example, sometimes effects tell you to sacrifice something you don't control. The rules say you can't sacrifice something you don't control. Result: such effects fail.
When TS came out there was a MAJOR overhaul to the rules and wording of magic cards.
Sure. WotC can do it. They keep design constraints in mind. You don't, and can't. And more precisely, WotC adds to the rules; they very seldom go back and "undo" existing rules.
Freethought does seem to work though, as the rules are now. Freethought2UU
Instant
As Part of ~'s resolution draw a card, and put it into play.
As ~ comes into play it becomes a 2/1 creature with flying.
Not that the first sentence works, but it stops working right here. Since the instant would not get put into play.
My version had it change before it came into play, to get around that; but then, the copy effect would not "follow" it into play. See rule 217.1c.
The first line goes directly against a rule, so the card wins. The second line is like Primal Clay and makes it so its never in play as an instant.
No. It does not "goes directly against a rule." See above.
And 212.6a says it CAN'T be a spell. Conclusion: a land card CAN'T be put on the stack, by any means. One of the ways that design constraint is "enforced," is that you have to PLAY a card to get it on the stack; but PLAYing a land card won't do that.
And once again, you are forgetting timing. I have told you repeatedly that "put-a-wrong-thing-in-play-but-immediately-remove-it" is not an acceptable solution. The copy of a spell can't ever BE in play. I was fully aware of 420.5j, which does not answer point 5.
If the instant could enter play, the yes it does tell you what would happen, The copy would come into play and stop existing as fast as a token in your hand would. But it does not come into play because you say the card does not work.
No. It does not "goes directly against a rule." See above.
Well I am sure I have already lost this fight(as everyone surly knows), but i am going to try one more wording of FreeThought. When you tare it apart, I will not post any more foolish attempts.
Freethought2UU
Instant
As the final part of ~'s resolution it becomes a creature, is put it into play and you draw a card.
As ~ comes into play it becomes a 2/1 creature with flying. 1UU: Put Freethought on top of the stack. Play this ability while Freethought is in play or on the stack.
Freethought2UU
Instant
As the final part of ~'s resolution it becomes a creature, is put it into play and you draw a card.
As ~ comes into play it becomes a 2/1 creature with flying.
You are making it "change" into a creature twice, so that it both is a creature card when the "put into play" instruction comes, and gets as "new" effect for being in-play? Outside of the "final part of resolution" part that would never be used (it needs to replace the "final part" it would have had, and that also can't really be worded in an acceptable way), it seems to work.
You have made an instant card that has no reason to be an instant card, but will get put into play. As a creature card, not an "instant-in-play," because you changed it. So you'll have to pardon me, but I still call it "nonsensical." You have an effect on the card that says, essentially, "It may look like a FOO, but it is really a BAR" and want to claim "look what I did with a FOO!"
And the activated ability still cannot be used that way. You have to play cards to put them on the stack. Period.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Æther Cat 4WR
Creature- Elemental Cat
Haste, Vigilance
:symwr:: Put ~ on top of the stack.
"It flawlessly flows from fancy to form."
4/4
Gaea's Protection GG
Enchantment
Split Second
GG, put Gaea's Protection on the bottom of the stack: Target creature gains shroud until end of turn.
Gaea protects her followers spells as well as their selves.
Sarton, Master Æther Mage 2UU
Legendary Creature- Human Wizard
Flash
Sarton comes into play tapped.
t: Place Sarton on top of the stack.
UU: Counter target spell. Use this ability only when Sarton is on the stack.
"In the Æther my old body matters not; only my knowledge and power."-Sarton
1/2
Freethought 2UU
Instant
As Freethought resolves draw a card and put Freethought into play.
If Freethought would be put into play, instead it becomes a 2/1 creature with flying and is put into play.
1UU: Put Freethought on top of the stack. Play this ability while Freethought is in play or on the stack.
What can you do to a thought?
Ready for you to tell me they do not work, and why!
Nope, for that reason. "In-play" and "the stack" are not merely zones, they are places where the cards represent something more than just the card they are on. Spells have targets, X, modes, etc.; both need controllers, and can have additional costs. You have to make sure that all of the "spell stuff" is defined for a spell, and putting a card on the stack directly doesn't do it.
But that isn't all - you will create impossible situations.
Cytopalsm and Life and Limb. What are you going to do with the forest card you have on the stack?
If you want to do this, remove the card from the game, and let them play it. That is how it would be done.
Can't get past that, can you?
Freethought :2mana::symu::symu:
Instant
As Part of ~'s resolution draw a card, remove ~ from the game and then put it into play.
If Freethought would be put into play, instead it becomes a 2/1 creature with flying and is put into play.
~ can't be the target of spells or abilities.
:1mana::symu::symu:: Put Freethought on top of the stack. Play this ability while Freethought is in play.
But your right.. seems like i am trying waaaay to hard
Freethought, without causing headaches
2UU
Creature - Lemming
Flash, flying, shroud.
When Freethought without causing headaches comes into play, draw a card
1UU: Remove Freethought without causing headaches from the game. You may play it without paying its mana cost.
2/1
And why would that make a difference? Instants are not "permanent cards." And there are reasons (involving copy spells) why they can't be, in that rule.
So it is. So are (parts of) 104.1b, 104.2, 212.4j, 216.4, 217.1a, 406.6, and I'm sure lots of others. That doesn't make them replacement [I]effects[/I], because thay are not [/i]effects[/i]. They are [I]rules[/I]. Many of those coud create broken situations if you were allowed to order them like replacement effects.
Um, are you trying to give morphs abilities again? But rthe same things can happen with untargeted effects ("Whenever a creature attacks you, you may pay <cost>. If you do, remove that creature...").
That is obvious. It is not reasonable to try.
Hvirfilvindr, Soron isn't interested in just the strategic result. He wants to get a card that says "instant" on it in play.
Then when a land went on the stack, it would be a spell(401.1) and then would resolve, and there would be no problems with a creature going from in play to on the stack. (as far as i can see)
Well if rules are rules then the card text just trumps them and i do not even have to include the "if ~ would..." I can just say "as..." as you said.
I am not referring to morphs on this thread, this is about the cards in post one. The untargetablty is to stop copy effects, but i guess your right it does not matter because of panoptic mirror.
And one should aways try. That does not mean one will aways succeed, but one should try.
[edit] And it seems you succeed where i had failed! ]: )
[reedit]
I am going to try and put all of the cards i have been submitting to the DCC into a set, so if i ever post that set i will have to right "and i am changing rule 401.7, and when a spell copy enters play, it becomes a token that is a copy of that spell" or something of that nature.
Right - did you notice that cards don't resolve, spells do? That currently, that rule has one option for "instant or sorcery spells" and another for "artifact, creature, or enchantment spells" ? So even if the wording of the rule changed, somehow, to say "permanent cards" that it would still refer to "permanent cards that are spells?" And, that rule 212.6a says "A land card isn't a spell card, and at no time is it a spell" ? And so...
... can never be true?
<Sigh.> Have you learned yet that I know the rules far better than you do?
The so-called "Golden Rules" are the most misunderstood, and mis-applied, rules in Magic." A card has to directly contradict the rules to "trump" them. That doesn't happen here - and in fact, it would make many rules that define what card text means pointless, if it did happen here.
I said before, you can do whatever you wwant to in a set you call your own. But don't think it is "right," or that the game is "Magic" anymore. You will create broken situations that you aren't trying to imagine exist. They do.
Clearly you do, but that does mean that you are always right. For example you missed rule 420.5j, which answers the 5th point in your first post.
Right and saying "put this instant into play" Is a direct contradiction to the rule baring instants from coming into play. BUT if one was to make said card, then one has to make sure all of the other rules will make sense
When TS came out there was a MAJOR overhaul to the rules and wording of magic cards. Do you feel that the game, as its played now, is not magic? Certainly is not the game I learned(and unless you started playing in TS its not the game you learned either).
Almost EVERY time wizards releases a set they make changes to the rules to allow the cards they have just made to work.
Of course that is not your point though. Your saying that any game that differs from the way wizards says we are to play magic, is not magic. and again you are right.
But it does seem that all that would be needed to make all of the cards in the first post to make sense would be to change rule 401.7 to say "artifact, creature, land, or enchantment spell's" and delete that line in 212.6a. This, it seems would make the creatures make sense.
But that is not the case. The rules make them nonsensical, and so they are nonsensical.
Freethought does seem to work though, as the rules are now.
Freethought 2UU
Instant
As Part of ~'s resolution draw a card, and put it into play.
As ~ comes into play it becomes a 2/1 creature with flying.
1UU: Put Freethought on top of the stack. Play this ability while Freethought is in play or on the stack.
The first line goes directly against a rule, so the card wins. The second line is like Primal Clay and makes it so its never in play as an instant. (and if you make any copies of it they go bye bye when trying to change zones)
I would just like to say that if this was your goal, you succeeded in your first post. And i am sure anyone reading this would agree with you.
And 212.6a says it CAN'T be a spell. Conclusion: a land card CAN'T be put on the stack, by any means. One of the ways that design constraint is "enforced," is that you have to PLAY a card to get it on the stack; but PLAYing a land card won't do that.
And once again, you are forgetting timing. I have told you repeatedly that "put-a-wrong-thing-in-play-but-immediately-remove-it" is not an acceptable solution. The copy of a spell can't ever BE in play. I was fully aware of 420.5j, which does not answer point 5.
And the reason for saying that is not that I'm always right, or know every rule (but I pretty much do). It's that when I tell you you are misinterpreting a rule, you indeed are.
Nope. The rule tells you what to do in case such an effect exists. If the rule only said "Instants can't come into play," you'd have a incorrectly-argued, weak case. Since the rule actually adds "If an instant would come into play, it remains in its previous zone instead," you are completely wrong.
And, the case is "incorrectly-argued" because saying "do X" is not contradicting "X can't be done." For example, sometimes effects tell you to sacrifice something you don't control. The rules say you can't sacrifice something you don't control. Result: such effects fail.
Sure. WotC can do it. They keep design constraints in mind. You don't, and can't. And more precisely, WotC adds to the rules; they very seldom go back and "undo" existing rules.
Not that the first sentence works, but it stops working right here. Since the instant would not get put into play.
My version had it change before it came into play, to get around that; but then, the copy effect would not "follow" it into play. See rule 217.1c.
No. It does not "goes directly against a rule." See above.
If the instant could enter play, the yes it does tell you what would happen, The copy would come into play and stop existing as fast as a token in your hand would. But it does not come into play because you say the card does not work.
Well I am sure I have already lost this fight(as everyone surly knows), but i am going to try one more wording of FreeThought. When you tare it apart, I will not post any more foolish attempts.
Freethought 2UU
Instant
As the final part of ~'s resolution it becomes a creature, is put it into play and you draw a card.
As ~ comes into play it becomes a 2/1 creature with flying.
1UU: Put Freethought on top of the stack. Play this ability while Freethought is in play or on the stack.
You are making it "change" into a creature twice, so that it both is a creature card when the "put into play" instruction comes, and gets as "new" effect for being in-play? Outside of the "final part of resolution" part that would never be used (it needs to replace the "final part" it would have had, and that also can't really be worded in an acceptable way), it seems to work.
You have made an instant card that has no reason to be an instant card, but will get put into play. As a creature card, not an "instant-in-play," because you changed it. So you'll have to pardon me, but I still call it "nonsensical." You have an effect on the card that says, essentially, "It may look like a FOO, but it is really a BAR" and want to claim "look what I did with a FOO!"
And the activated ability still cannot be used that way. You have to play cards to put them on the stack. Period.