Necromancy - I understand that it has been errata'd to have flash with a situational stipulation. But was there ever a time when the original wording of the card: "You may choose to play Necromancy as an instant, if you do, bury it at end of turn," was taken literally, allowing one to reanimate a creature with protection from Black? For example, would the stack be played in which Akroma, Angel of Wrath being targeted by Necromancy as an instant, she comes into play, the Aura attempts to stick to her, but she can't be targeted, so the Aura bounces and Akroma can stay without the "if Necromancy leaves play" clause triggering?
Your question is not a good fit for this forum, which generally deals with current rules, not issues on how a card might have worked under older rules. Try asking this question in the Magic General forum instead.
Necromancy - I understand that it has been errata'd to have flash with a situational stipulation. But was there ever a time when the original wording of the card: "You may choose to play Necromancy as an instant, if you do, bury it at end of turn," was taken literally, allowing one to reanimate a creature with protection from Black? For example, would the stack be played in which Akroma, Angel of Wrath being targeted by Necromancy as an instant, she comes into play, the Aura attempts to stick to her, but she can't be targeted, so the Aura bounces and Akroma can stay without the "if Necromancy leaves play" clause triggering?
Your question is somewhat odd and I can't answer for historical purposes, but the interaction you described is how it works now. You can reanimate a protection from black card but the aura cannot be attached because the creature has protection from black. State based actions are checked and the aura is put into the GY because it isn't attached to anything. Then it's sacrifice ability will be triggered causing whatever was reanimated to be sacrificed.
Necromancy - I understand that it has been errata'd to have flash with a situational stipulation. But was there ever a time when the original wording of the card: "You may choose to play Necromancy as an instant, if you do, bury it at end of turn," was taken literally, allowing one to reanimate a creature with protection from Black? For example, would the stack be played in which Akroma, Angel of Wrath being targeted by Necromancy as an instant, she comes into play, the Aura attempts to stick to her, but she can't be targeted, so the Aura bounces and Akroma can stay without the "if Necromancy leaves play" clause triggering?
Your question is somewhat odd and I can't answer for historical purposes, but the interaction you described is how it works now. You can reanimate a protection from black card but the aura cannot be attached because the creature has protection from black. State based actions are checked and the aura is put into the GY because it isn't attached to anything. Then it's sacrifice ability will be triggered causing whatever was reanimated to be sacrificed.
You're correct under the current rules. However, that's not the interaction the OP described. In the very last sentence, he's asking if Necromancy failing to attach a creature with protection from black effectively "fizzles" the sacrifice clause. Specifically, he's looking for the old ruling on that card, so not in this forum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
Your question is somewhat odd and I can't answer for historical purposes, but the interaction you described is how it works now. You can reanimate a protection from black card but the aura cannot be attached because the creature has protection from black. State based actions are checked and the aura is put into the GY because it isn't attached to anything. Then it's sacrifice ability will be triggered causing whatever was reanimated to be sacrificed.
You're correct under the current rules. However, that's not the interaction the OP described. In the very last sentence, he's asking if Necromancy failing to attach a creature with protection from black effectively "fizzles" the sacrifice clause. Specifically, he's looking for the old ruling on that card, so not in this forum.