It shouldn't; but then again, it also doesn't "come into play dead" either. It doesn't "continuously update" at all. If it doesn't, neither can Sutured Ghoul. Just like its official ruling says.
Sutured Ghoul's current official ruling, as per Scott Marshall's MTGRULES-L post of May 4th 2007 (which is more recent than the Judgement FAQ and takes the Future Sight rules update into account) is that it will "continuously update".
While I agree with you that it doesn't feel right for the card to work this way, until there is an official statement from a NetRep or WotC overriding Scott's [O]fficial ruling, this really is the way it works.
I hope the WotC rules team can clear this out, but as long as they don't, I will follow the most recent official ruling, which is Scott's.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI L3 Judge.
The imp, unaware of its own odor, paused to catch its breath... and promptly died.
Further confirmation that the Ghoul constantly updates:
Also from MTGRULES-L, this time from today which is the same as Scott Marshall's ruling in May which IMO makes this very much Case Closed.
On 24/08/07, Patrik Linell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Since 208.2 now states that defining the value of * takes place in all
> zones, does this mean that a Sutured Ghoul to whom a Tarmogoyf has
> been removed from the game has its power and toughness constantly
> recalculated depending on the state of the graveyards?
Yes.
Likewise for Duplicant (which is similar, but not exactly the same).
It is already being revisited as we speak, but it's most likely to
stay that way.. possibly with errata to similarly worded cards for
which this doesn't work well. I'll announce those changes here if
they occur.
--
Gavin Duggan, L3 Calgary: MTGRULES-L Netrep
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig banner by Xyre. My MTG Blog (inactive)
GDS1 & GDS2 entrant. Former Rules Advisor & casual-level TO. Semi-lapsed player in general.
As Dracoplasm comes into play, sacrifice any number of creatures.
Dracoplasm's power is equal to the total power of the sacrificed creatures and its toughness is equal to the total toughness of those creatures.
Changes the creature's zone, but references what the creature's P/T was at the time it was sacrificed. It never references them in the graveyard, but rather as "sacrificed creature". Although you can theoretically achieve a pseudo-effect of larger if you had a Mortivore in play and sacrifice that last. (Since it'll get bigger as you sacrifice to Dracoplasm.)
This makes a world of difference when comparing its effects to Sutured Ghoul's text/rulings:
As Sutured Ghoul comes into play, remove any number of creature cards in your graveyard from the game.
Sutured Ghoul's power is equal to the total power of the removed cards and its toughness is equal to their total toughness.
Ghoul keeps track of the cards after they're removed from play. As it states "of the removed cards". Which is indeed kind of tricky to understand entirely. (But only because the rules changes are so recent and they haven't really been used to make a common point, yet.) So, if Dracoplasm as stated above said something like...
"Dracoplasm's power is equal to the total power of the creatures sacrificed this way in all graveyards and its toughness is equal to the total toughness of those creatures."
Then it would track their power and toughness like Ghoul does. As it would look for those cards in your graveyard. Though for the sake of simplicity and sanity we'll never see a card like that for quite a few reasons.
In short, yes. Sutured Ghoul's p/t changes with any changes in the cumulative p/t of the creatures removed from the game under changes to the rules from Future Sight. Pull from Eternity, Maro, etc. can change its values rather quickly.
Oh and as for somebody's suggestion of Feldon's Cane activation. You can use it, but only while Sutured Ghoul is still waiting to resolve. Though, I prefer a nice Tormod's Crypt activation there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yo Mama! UU
Instant
Return target player to its mother's arms crying like a baby about the unfairness of counterspells and how they're never playing Magic again. "Dude, it's just a game."
In short, yes. Sutured Ghoul's p/t changes with any changes in the cumulative p/t of the creatures removed from the game under changes to the rules from Future Sight.
The "changes to the rules from Future Sight" only affect the answer to issue #3. It really has no bearing on the issue in this thread, which is how Sutured Ghoul arrives at an answer. It affects what value that answer gets, but not how we are to arrive at it. So please, don't bring up the rules change again. It is irrelevant.
Duplicant's text contains an explicit answer to issues #1 and #2: "As long as a creature card is imprinted on Duplicant...". So it can't be compared directly to Draco/Ghoul.
Issue #1 is clear for Draco: it looks at creatures. It is unclear for Ghoul. Just because you are not forced to look before, like Draco forces, that does not mean Ghoul is forced to look after. But I must stress, yet again, that this also is also irrelevant, depending on issue #2.
Issue #2: Draco cannot update continuously. To do so, it would either have to look for the value that the creatures have now, or use LKI. Since the creatures do not exist now, that option would mean Draco would always be 0/0. And continuous effects cannnot use LKI, so that option is out. Ergo, Draco cannot update continiuously. It looks at the values at the time of the sacrifice.
Note that while this looks like it is using LKI, it is not, and this is the subtle point that arguments like SG86's ignore. Draco is not continuously updating its power based on the LKI of the creatures, it sets its power once when the creatures are sacrificed and does not change afterwards.
Ghoul has essentially the same words, used in the same way. By that, I mean a seeming-CDA that references objects involved in its CIP-replacement ability. The one difference is "sacrificed creatures" vs. "removed cards." Regardless of the before/after issue (#1), as long as Ghoul is worded the same way as Draco, it has to look at the values at the time of the removal also. Whether they are "looked at" in the garveyard, or RFG, makes no differebce. The value is the same either way.
And, from the FAQ, this is clearly what was intended when the card was printed. This intention may have changed since then. But it will require errata. Based on the oracle wordings of these two cards, even with the Future Sight rules change, they have to work the same.
Any rulings about Sutured Ghoul that predate May 2007 and the release of the Future Sight rules updates are potentially invalid. The way Sutured Ghoul worked and was ruled to work when it came out in Judgement may not be 100% the same as it does now because of the rules changes due to Wild Pair.
The one difference is "sacrificed creatures" vs. "removed cards." Regardless of the before/after issue (#1), as long as Ghoul is worded the same way as Draco, it has to look at the values at the time of the removal also. Whether they are "looked at" in the garveyard, or RFG, makes no differebce. The value is the same either way.
Actually, that's a BIG difference.
A card is a card anywhere. A creature card is only a creature when it's in PLAY. Ergo, you cannot track the P/T of a sacrificed CREATURE because in your graveyard it is NOT a creature it is a CREATURE CARD. But you can track the P/T of a removed card because in the RFG zone it is still a card. If it said "...the removed creatures..." (which it doesn't) then it could not keep tracking them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig banner by Xyre. My MTG Blog (inactive)
GDS1 & GDS2 entrant. Former Rules Advisor & casual-level TO. Semi-lapsed player in general.
Any rulings about Sutured Ghoul that predate May 2007 and the release of the Future Sight rules updates are potentially invalid. The way Sutured Ghoul worked and was ruled to work when it came out in Judgement may not be 100% the same as it does now because of the rules changes due to Wild Pair.
This is not correct, I have the impression that you don't understand where the rules dispute lies. Condor agrees that CDAs work in all zones, he just (correctly) says that the rules change regarding CDAs is not relevant in this discussion. Please read his post (the first part), and try to understand it.
There are three rules issues with these two cards:
Does the CDA refer to the objects before they are sacrificed/removed, or after?
Does the CDA look for them continuously, or just at the moment that the sacrifice/removal occured?
If such an objects power is itself set by a CDA, does Draco/Ghoul use that, or 0?
The "changes to the rules from Future Sight" only affect the answer to issue #3. It really has no bearing on the issue in this thread, which is how Sutured Ghoul arrives at an answer. It affects what value that answer gets, but not how we are to arrive at it. So please, don't bring up the rules change again. It is irrelevant.
Duplicant's text contains an explicit answer to issues #1 and #2: "As long as a creature card is imprinted on Duplicant...". So it can't be compared directly to Draco/Ghoul.
True, but be careful because that logic that can/should not be reversed. If a card does not provide a direct answer, that doesn't mean it can't work the same way as one that does.
Likewise: because certain reasoning leads you to a conclusion for one card, doesn't mean the same reasoning will lead you to the same conclusion for a card that seems related.
Issue #1 is clear for Draco: it looks at creatures. It is unclear for Ghoul. Just because you are not forced to look before, like Draco forces, that does not mean Ghoul is forced to look after. But I must stress, yet again, that this also is also irrelevant, depending on issue #2.
Again, agreed. But keep this logic in mind for later: Draco forces you to look before because it wouldn't work otherwise, Ghoul does not.
Issue #2: Draco cannot update continuously. To do so, it would either have to look for the value that the creatures have now, or use LKI. Since the creatures do not exist now, that option would mean Draco would always be 0/0. And continuous effects cannnot use LKI, so that option is out. Ergo, Draco cannot update continiuously. It looks at the values at the time of the sacrifice.
(Small correction: continuous effects can use LKI as long as their source is not a static ability; only static abilities cannot use LKI. I'm pretty sure that was a lapsus though, and at any rate, it's irrelevant here.)
Other than that, sound logic (with "continuous effects" replaced by "static abilities"). Draco can only work if it works the way you say. Agreed.
Note that while this looks like it is using LKI, it is not, and this is the subtle point that arguments like SG86's ignore. Draco is not continuously updating its power based on the LKI of the creatures, it sets its power once when the creatures are sacrificed and does not change afterwards.
I can see your frustration; I think very few people following this thread have absorbed this.
For those who haven't understood this yet, one way of seeing this is that the power/toughness values are defined in the past, and were defined at the time the creatures were sacrificed. This is the point in time the ability refers to, it doesn't refer to anything later in time, so it doesn't need LKI. Which is good, because it can't use LKI.
I searched for a parallel example to illustrate, but I haven't found any.
Ghoul has essentially the same words, used in the same way. By that, I mean a seeming-CDA that references objects involved in its CIP-replacement ability. The one difference is "sacrificed creatures" vs. "removed cards." Regardless of the before/after issue (#1), as long as Ghoul is worded the same way as Draco, it has to look at the values at the time of the removal also. Whether they are "looked at" in the graveyard, or RFG, makes no difference. The value is the same either way.
This is where I don't agree anymore. I can follow and understand your logic, but I think it is incorrect. Let me try to explain why I disagree.
The cards are worded the same way, but they refer to very different objects. You used a form of logic to deduce the way Draco works that does not apply to Ghoul. You can simply not repeat the steps for the Draco case and come to the same conclusion for Ghoul, because they refer to different objects. In casu, for the first two rules issues: #1 because Ghoul refers to cards and not creatures, it IS able to find them back, unlike Draco, so the conclusion that Draco has only one option to look for its data does not work for Ghoul. And #2 Ghoul does not need LKI to be able to continuously update.
This means the logic for Draco isn't repeatable for Ghoul, which in turn means that your main argument (and in fact, the only one that is disputed, at least by me) is that similar card templating implies similar rulings.
However, these cards come from different sets, and card templating can hardly be assumed to be consistent between the time Draco received its last errata and the time Ghoul was printed. Your argument here stands or falls by the assumption that card templating is a reference / cornerstone to base rulings on.
I honestly don't see that assumption fulfilled, though I can understand that you do. It just makes much more sense to take the logic that led you to the Draco conclusion, and apply that logic to Ghoul, than it makes sense to use card templating from two different ages as a point of comparison.
And the logic that leads to the correct conclusion for Draco seems indecisive for Ghoul. Which means official rulings or errata have to clear things up. (And they did, do and will, regardless of what the final ruling will be.)
And, from the FAQ, this is clearly what was intended when the card was printed. This intention may have changed since then. But it will require errata. Based on the oracle wordings of these two cards, even with the Future Sight rules change, they have to work the same.
The FAQ is indeed not exactly agreeing with the current ruling (well, the two of them are more like fire and ice ;)), and I think the FAQ, which (arguably...) displays the original intent of the card, should be the reference. That is however not my decision, obviously, and this is not the place to discuss this either.
True, but be careful because that logic that can/should not be reversed.
I never tried to reverse it. I said Duplicant can't enter this discussion.
Draco forces you to look before because it wouldn't work otherwise, Ghoul does not.
Read what I wrote. "Before" (issue #1) is not the issue. "Works as a one-shot effect" (issue #2) is.
Dracoplasm does not work as a one-shot effect because it uses the term "sacrificed creatures." It works as a one-shot effect because that is the kind of effect the people who wrote the sentence thought it produced. I'm only using the fact that it says "sacrificed creatures" to prove that its writers meant for it to be a one-shot effect.
Given that it is a one-shot effect, it is one whether the sentence says "sacrificed creatures" or "removed cards." So yes, I can logically say that the wording for Draco and the wording for Ghoul must produce the same one-shot effect. Whether that effect looks before or after is not germaine.
(Small correction: continuous effects can use LKI as long as their source is not a static ability; only static abilities cannot use LKI. I'm pretty sure that was a lapsus though, and at any rate, it's irrelevant here.)
It was not a lapse, it is true. Static abilities are all that are important here, but the only other kind of continuous effects come from resolved splles or abilities. Which are fixed completely when that spell or ability resolves.
The cards are worded the same way, but they refer to very different objects.
Irrelevant. Neither is really referring directly to objects. Both are referring to an event in the past that involved objects. Both fix their values by that event, not the objects.
You can simply not repeat the steps for the Draco case and come to the same conclusion for Ghoul, because they refer to different objects.
I can, because neither refers directly to objects. Draco refers to the act of sacrificing. Ghoul refers to the act of removal. They both have to, because if either refers directly to the objects, that means the sentence structure is what makes it refer directly to the objects. Since it is the same sentence structure on both cards, both do it. And Dracoplasm is then a 0/0.
However, these cards come from different sets, and card templating can hardly be assumed to be consistent between the time Draco received its last errata and the time Ghoul was printed.
Here is where you are completely wrong. Yes, they are from different sets. The original wording when [card=Dracoplasm] was printed was "When you play Dracoplasm, sacrifice any number of creatures.; Dracoplasm comes into play with power equal to the total power of the sacrificed creatures and toughness equal to the total toughness of those creatures." But that was change in Oracle, and at the time Sutured Ghoul was printed, it said "As Dracoplasm comes into play, sacrifice any number of creatures.; Dracoplasm's power is equal to the total power of the sacrificed creatures and its toughness is equal to the total toughness of those creatures."
Both Dracoplasm and Sutured Ghoul have CDAs. A * for the power or toughness is specifically a CDA. That means they are continuously updating static abilities according to 208.2, 402.8a, 405, 405.1, and 405.2. All of these sections are relevant.
Sutured Ghoul is refering to the total P/T of removed creature cards, which you may need a secondary CDA to determine. It continuously updates to that total. If a removed card leaves the RFG zone, it is no longer a removed creature card, and is no longer used.
Dracoplasm is refering to the total P/T of sacrificed creatures, which involves LKI. It continuously updates to that total. Continuously updating to the same number does not make it a one-shot effect.
The only difference is that Sutured Ghoul refers to removed creature cards, and Dracoplasm refers to sacrificed creatures.
I'll argue there is a linguistic ambiguity with "removed" that doesn't exist for "sacrificed." Sacrifice can only be an action. However, remove is both an action and a state. To put something into RFG is to "remove it from the game", but to refer to something sitting in RFG is "removed from the game", and that doesn't make any reference to how it got removed. That makes the word "removed" ambiguous as to whether it is a verb or something closer to an adjective, and there's no way to tell from Ghoul's text which it is. All the more reason they should reconsider a more elegant name for the place then "RFG".
That means they are continuously updating static abilities according to 208.2, 402.8a, 405, 405.1, and 405.2. All of these sections are relevant.
<Sigh.> None of those sections are particularly relevant to the "*," except 208.2. You can't "make" them relevant by starting with what you think the right answer is, and working backwards. They have to say something relevant about the issues. But notice that 412.5 belongs on your list, of rules that describe how static abilities can, and cannot, work in general.
Both of the cards in question DO follow those rules, however. They follow them, just like Minion of the Wastes, by refering to a value determined at a time in the past, and using that value.
Sutured Ghoul is refering to the total P/T of removed creature cards,...
It is supposed to be referring to the value of the cards as you removed them. Almost as if it said "Choose an X. Remove creature cards from the graveyard whose total power is X...."
...which you may need a secondary CDA to determine.
Quite true. They just weren't supposed to do that based on the current CDA. Which is why the Future Sight change still is irrelevant to the underlying issues here. The CDA is only supposed to be used once, ihn teh event. Whether it uses the card-in-graveyard, or the card-in-RFG, at that time does not change any results.
Dracoplasm is refering to the total P/T of sacrificed creatures, which involves LKI.
And this is where 412.5 comes in, and your argument falls flat. "412.5 Unlike spells and other kinds of abilities, static abilities can't use an object's last known information for purposes of determining how their effects are applied." It does continuously update to a total, as you said. But the total is found by looking at the event where the creatures were sacrificed, and finding the total that was determined then.
If Dracoplasm functioned as you claim, it would be a 0/0. It would look for the creatures, find they no longer exist, and use 0/0 just like you claim Sutured Ghould would if its card returned to the game.
The only difference is that Sutured Ghoul refers to removed creature cards, and Dracoplasm refers to sacrificed creatures.
This is true. The intent was that Dracoplasm looks at the event where creatues were sacrificed (not the LKI of the creatures), and Ghoul looks at the event were cards were removed (not the current value on the cards that were removed).
...and there's no way to tell from Ghoul's text which it is.
Which is why the set's FAQ is relevant, since it answers that question. It says that value is set by the card as it was when it was removed; not the current card in RFG or LKI if it is missing.
This is getting repetitive, so it's getting a lock for now.
This is the [O]fficial answer given by Gavin Duggan on the MTGRules list:
> Since 208.2 now states that defining the value of * takes place in all
> zones, does this mean that a Sutured Ghoul to whom a Tarmogoyf has
> been removed from the game has its power and toughness constantly
> recalculated depending on the state of the graveyards?
Yes.
Likewise for Duplicant (which is similar, but not exactly the same).
It is already being revisited as we speak, but it's most likely to
stay that way.. possibly with errata to similarly worded cards for
which this doesn't work well. I'll announce those changes here if
they occur.
Note that the answer is that yes, Sutured Ghoul will change as the graveyards change, and that this is being discussed again and may possibly change in the future.
Also note that this forum is NOT the appropriate place to debate an [O] answer once one is given unless that answer is under reasonable suspicion of being out of date. I will be exceedingly unhappy if this practice continues.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO "I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sutured Ghoul's current official ruling, as per Scott Marshall's MTGRULES-L post of May 4th 2007 (which is more recent than the Judgement FAQ and takes the Future Sight rules update into account) is that it will "continuously update".
While I agree with you that it doesn't feel right for the card to work this way, until there is an official statement from a NetRep or WotC overriding Scott's [O]fficial ruling, this really is the way it works.
I hope the WotC rules team can clear this out, but as long as they don't, I will follow the most recent official ruling, which is Scott's.
The imp, unaware of its own odor, paused to catch its breath... and promptly died.
Also from MTGRULES-L, this time from today which is the same as Scott Marshall's ruling in May which IMO makes this very much Case Closed.
Sig banner by Xyre.
My MTG Blog (inactive)
GDS1 & GDS2 entrant. Former Rules Advisor & casual-level TO. Semi-lapsed player in general.
This makes a world of difference when comparing its effects to Sutured Ghoul's text/rulings:
Ghoul keeps track of the cards after they're removed from play. As it states "of the removed cards". Which is indeed kind of tricky to understand entirely. (But only because the rules changes are so recent and they haven't really been used to make a common point, yet.) So, if Dracoplasm as stated above said something like...
"Dracoplasm's power is equal to the total power of the creatures sacrificed this way in all graveyards and its toughness is equal to the total toughness of those creatures."
Then it would track their power and toughness like Ghoul does. As it would look for those cards in your graveyard. Though for the sake of simplicity and sanity we'll never see a card like that for quite a few reasons.
In short, yes. Sutured Ghoul's p/t changes with any changes in the cumulative p/t of the creatures removed from the game under changes to the rules from Future Sight. Pull from Eternity, Maro, etc. can change its values rather quickly.
Oh and as for somebody's suggestion of Feldon's Cane activation. You can use it, but only while Sutured Ghoul is still waiting to resolve. Though, I prefer a nice Tormod's Crypt activation there.
Instant
Return target player to its mother's arms crying like a baby about the unfairness of counterspells and how they're never playing Magic again.
"Dude, it's just a game."
The "changes to the rules from Future Sight" only affect the answer to issue #3. It really has no bearing on the issue in this thread, which is how Sutured Ghoul arrives at an answer. It affects what value that answer gets, but not how we are to arrive at it. So please, don't bring up the rules change again. It is irrelevant.
Duplicant's text contains an explicit answer to issues #1 and #2: "As long as a creature card is imprinted on Duplicant...". So it can't be compared directly to Draco/Ghoul.
Issue #1 is clear for Draco: it looks at creatures. It is unclear for Ghoul. Just because you are not forced to look before, like Draco forces, that does not mean Ghoul is forced to look after. But I must stress, yet again, that this also is also irrelevant, depending on issue #2.
Issue #2: Draco cannot update continuously. To do so, it would either have to look for the value that the creatures have now, or use LKI. Since the creatures do not exist now, that option would mean Draco would always be 0/0. And continuous effects cannnot use LKI, so that option is out. Ergo, Draco cannot update continiuously. It looks at the values at the time of the sacrifice.
Note that while this looks like it is using LKI, it is not, and this is the subtle point that arguments like SG86's ignore. Draco is not continuously updating its power based on the LKI of the creatures, it sets its power once when the creatures are sacrificed and does not change afterwards.
Ghoul has essentially the same words, used in the same way. By that, I mean a seeming-CDA that references objects involved in its CIP-replacement ability. The one difference is "sacrificed creatures" vs. "removed cards." Regardless of the before/after issue (#1), as long as Ghoul is worded the same way as Draco, it has to look at the values at the time of the removal also. Whether they are "looked at" in the garveyard, or RFG, makes no differebce. The value is the same either way.
And, from the FAQ, this is clearly what was intended when the card was printed. This intention may have changed since then. But it will require errata. Based on the oracle wordings of these two cards, even with the Future Sight rules change, they have to work the same.
Actually, that's a BIG difference.
A card is a card anywhere. A creature card is only a creature when it's in PLAY. Ergo, you cannot track the P/T of a sacrificed CREATURE because in your graveyard it is NOT a creature it is a CREATURE CARD. But you can track the P/T of a removed card because in the RFG zone it is still a card. If it said "...the removed creatures..." (which it doesn't) then it could not keep tracking them.
Sig banner by Xyre.
My MTG Blog (inactive)
GDS1 & GDS2 entrant. Former Rules Advisor & casual-level TO. Semi-lapsed player in general.
This is not correct, I have the impression that you don't understand where the rules dispute lies. Condor agrees that CDAs work in all zones, he just (correctly) says that the rules change regarding CDAs is not relevant in this discussion. Please read his post (the first part), and try to understand it.
Then.
I fully agree with these points.
True, but be careful because that logic that can/should not be reversed. If a card does not provide a direct answer, that doesn't mean it can't work the same way as one that does.
Likewise: because certain reasoning leads you to a conclusion for one card, doesn't mean the same reasoning will lead you to the same conclusion for a card that seems related.
Again, agreed. But keep this logic in mind for later: Draco forces you to look before because it wouldn't work otherwise, Ghoul does not.
(Small correction: continuous effects can use LKI as long as their source is not a static ability; only static abilities cannot use LKI. I'm pretty sure that was a lapsus though, and at any rate, it's irrelevant here.)
Other than that, sound logic (with "continuous effects" replaced by "static abilities"). Draco can only work if it works the way you say. Agreed.
I can see your frustration; I think very few people following this thread have absorbed this.
For those who haven't understood this yet, one way of seeing this is that the power/toughness values are defined in the past, and were defined at the time the creatures were sacrificed. This is the point in time the ability refers to, it doesn't refer to anything later in time, so it doesn't need LKI. Which is good, because it can't use LKI.
I searched for a parallel example to illustrate, but I haven't found any.
This is where I don't agree anymore. I can follow and understand your logic, but I think it is incorrect. Let me try to explain why I disagree.
The cards are worded the same way, but they refer to very different objects. You used a form of logic to deduce the way Draco works that does not apply to Ghoul. You can simply not repeat the steps for the Draco case and come to the same conclusion for Ghoul, because they refer to different objects. In casu, for the first two rules issues: #1 because Ghoul refers to cards and not creatures, it IS able to find them back, unlike Draco, so the conclusion that Draco has only one option to look for its data does not work for Ghoul. And #2 Ghoul does not need LKI to be able to continuously update.
This means the logic for Draco isn't repeatable for Ghoul, which in turn means that your main argument (and in fact, the only one that is disputed, at least by me) is that similar card templating implies similar rulings.
However, these cards come from different sets, and card templating can hardly be assumed to be consistent between the time Draco received its last errata and the time Ghoul was printed. Your argument here stands or falls by the assumption that card templating is a reference / cornerstone to base rulings on.
I honestly don't see that assumption fulfilled, though I can understand that you do. It just makes much more sense to take the logic that led you to the Draco conclusion, and apply that logic to Ghoul, than it makes sense to use card templating from two different ages as a point of comparison.
And the logic that leads to the correct conclusion for Draco seems indecisive for Ghoul. Which means official rulings or errata have to clear things up. (And they did, do and will, regardless of what the final ruling will be.)
The FAQ is indeed not exactly agreeing with the current ruling (well, the two of them are more like fire and ice ;)), and I think the FAQ, which (arguably...) displays the original intent of the card, should be the reference. That is however not my decision, obviously, and this is not the place to discuss this either.
The imp, unaware of its own odor, paused to catch its breath... and promptly died.
I never tried to reverse it. I said Duplicant can't enter this discussion.
Read what I wrote. "Before" (issue #1) is not the issue. "Works as a one-shot effect" (issue #2) is.
Dracoplasm does not work as a one-shot effect because it uses the term "sacrificed creatures." It works as a one-shot effect because that is the kind of effect the people who wrote the sentence thought it produced. I'm only using the fact that it says "sacrificed creatures" to prove that its writers meant for it to be a one-shot effect.
Given that it is a one-shot effect, it is one whether the sentence says "sacrificed creatures" or "removed cards." So yes, I can logically say that the wording for Draco and the wording for Ghoul must produce the same one-shot effect. Whether that effect looks before or after is not germaine.
It was not a lapse, it is true. Static abilities are all that are important here, but the only other kind of continuous effects come from resolved splles or abilities. Which are fixed completely when that spell or ability resolves.
Irrelevant. Neither is really referring directly to objects. Both are referring to an event in the past that involved objects. Both fix their values by that event, not the objects.
I can, because neither refers directly to objects. Draco refers to the act of sacrificing. Ghoul refers to the act of removal. They both have to, because if either refers directly to the objects, that means the sentence structure is what makes it refer directly to the objects. Since it is the same sentence structure on both cards, both do it. And Dracoplasm is then a 0/0.
Here is where you are completely wrong. Yes, they are from different sets. The original wording when [card=Dracoplasm] was printed was "When you play Dracoplasm, sacrifice any number of creatures.; Dracoplasm comes into play with power equal to the total power of the sacrificed creatures and toughness equal to the total toughness of those creatures." But that was change in Oracle, and at the time Sutured Ghoul was printed, it said "As Dracoplasm comes into play, sacrifice any number of creatures.; Dracoplasm's power is equal to the total power of the sacrificed creatures and its toughness is equal to the total toughness of those creatures."
Sutured Ghoul is refering to the total P/T of removed creature cards, which you may need a secondary CDA to determine. It continuously updates to that total. If a removed card leaves the RFG zone, it is no longer a removed creature card, and is no longer used.
Dracoplasm is refering to the total P/T of sacrificed creatures, which involves LKI. It continuously updates to that total. Continuously updating to the same number does not make it a one-shot effect.
The only difference is that Sutured Ghoul refers to removed creature cards, and Dracoplasm refers to sacrificed creatures.
<Sigh.> None of those sections are particularly relevant to the "*," except 208.2. You can't "make" them relevant by starting with what you think the right answer is, and working backwards. They have to say something relevant about the issues. But notice that 412.5 belongs on your list, of rules that describe how static abilities can, and cannot, work in general.
Both of the cards in question DO follow those rules, however. They follow them, just like Minion of the Wastes, by refering to a value determined at a time in the past, and using that value.
It is supposed to be referring to the value of the cards as you removed them. Almost as if it said "Choose an X. Remove creature cards from the graveyard whose total power is X...."
Quite true. They just weren't supposed to do that based on the current CDA. Which is why the Future Sight change still is irrelevant to the underlying issues here. The CDA is only supposed to be used once, ihn teh event. Whether it uses the card-in-graveyard, or the card-in-RFG, at that time does not change any results.
And this is where 412.5 comes in, and your argument falls flat. "412.5 Unlike spells and other kinds of abilities, static abilities can't use an object's last known information for purposes of determining how their effects are applied." It does continuously update to a total, as you said. But the total is found by looking at the event where the creatures were sacrificed, and finding the total that was determined then.
If Dracoplasm functioned as you claim, it would be a 0/0. It would look for the creatures, find they no longer exist, and use 0/0 just like you claim Sutured Ghould would if its card returned to the game.
This is true. The intent was that Dracoplasm looks at the event where creatues were sacrificed (not the LKI of the creatures), and Ghoul looks at the event were cards were removed (not the current value on the cards that were removed).
Which is why the set's FAQ is relevant, since it answers that question. It says that value is set by the card as it was when it was removed; not the current card in RFG or LKI if it is missing.
This is the [O]fficial answer given by Gavin Duggan on the MTGRules list:
Note that the answer is that yes, Sutured Ghoul will change as the graveyards change, and that this is being discussed again and may possibly change in the future.
Also note that this forum is NOT the appropriate place to debate an [O] answer once one is given unless that answer is under reasonable suspicion of being out of date. I will be exceedingly unhappy if this practice continues.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO
"I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.