Issue Tracker

Fri, 07 May 2010

Status

Logged

Summary

Effects refer to themselves by name. This needs to reflect the name of th object that the ability is on, so there are various rules to that effect. The intent is expressed in 201.4, but there are gaps in the implementation. In particular, when a copy effect copies and then adds an ability referring to the same permanent by name. The name changed, but there's no case that covers this:

  • 201.4a might be argued to cover this in an interpretation of its words: "If an ability grants another ability to an object" - the ability causing the copy effect grants the new copy ability to itself. It's not really the original intent of the rule though.
  • 204.b is when a ability refers to itself by name and another effect causes a different object to gain that ability.
  • 706.10 says that effects referring to themselves by name track that permanent even if it changes name. The intent here is for things like delayed triggers that do something to the object.

If one of these cases is intended to cover this situation, it isn't clear. Either way, some further clarification of this case would be useful.

History
  • [2010/05/07] Raised by Dave DeLaney
  • [2010/05/07] Query sent; awaiting response
Actions
  • Zoë to relay response

Thu, 15 Apr 2010

Status

Sent

Summary

None of the available outputs from Oracle are suitable for use in plain text media such as email and usenet.

History
  • [2010/04/15] Raised by Dave DeLaney
  • [2010/04/15] Query sent; awaiting response
Actions
  • Zoë to relay response

Wed, 26 Aug 2009

Status

Query sent

Summary

Why is it that the choice on Capricious Efreet is among the legal targets only, but is allowed to select an indestructible permanent?

History
  • [2009/08/26] Consequence of query asked by Focus
  • [2009/08/26] Logged into tracker
  • [2009/08/26] Query sent
Actions
  • Zoe to relay results