If you absolutely do not want the card to remain in play longer than it has to, you would use a mechanic that puts the card in the graveyard by some means before any other effects can affect it. I cannot see any reason to use a wording that stops the card from staying in play if it changes controllers, but allows the card the be blinked.
And with that said, the mechanic can work in any of several ways; I do not feel the reminder text and one card give enough information to narrow it down to the exact wording. As long as everyone agrees that Evoke is not a special action and does use the stack I shall be content until further info is available.
Whoops. This thread bigger than I thought. If they are making creatures that act like sorcery (and maybe instant) then maybe they will makes spells that act like creature.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't wear your seatbelt, the police will shoot you in the head."
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
Hey check this out! Someone got a Shriekmaw early and is selling it on ebay. Too high of a starting bid, but hey we can see some cooler angles of the card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTG Rules Advisor
Join The Steamflogged
Human Rigger Minions committed to
forcing Contraptions in YMTC4,
and Resisting The Tyranny of the
Hey check this out! Someone got a Shriekmaw early and is selling it on ebay. Too high of a starting bid, but hey we can see some cooler angles of the card.
They are so getting in trouble, I think.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
Evoke will put the creature into play and sacrifice it as part of the resolution of the spell. This does not leave any time when the creature is in play and anyone has priority. The creature will be in the graveyard by the time its CIP trigger is put on the stack.
I think I may have mentioned it before, but no one seemed to notice. Can anyone think of any reason why they would do it any other way?
I feel that this is the only sensible way Evoke could possibly work.
EDIT: Sorry I didn't read the middle of the thread before posting this, I was keeping up with it earlier, and when I read the end, and people were still arguing about the way evoke worked, and I didn't see spell resolution mentioned, I figured no one else had ress'd that argument.
I really do think it will work this way. Actual rules text (as opposed to reminder text) would read something like this:
When a permanent spell is played with its Evoke cost, after it comes into play, it is sacrificed. This is part of the spell resolution and is a new "final step" to resolving the spell.
Evoke will put the creature into play and sacrifice it as part of the resolution of the spell. This does not leave any time when the creature is in play and anyone has priority. The creature will be in the graveyard by the time its CIP trigger is put on the stack.
I think I may have mentioned it before, but no one seemed to notice. Can anyone think of any reason why they would do it any other way?
I feel that this is the only sensible way Evoke could possibly work.
EDIT: Sorry I didn't read the middle of the thread before posting this, I was keeping up with it earlier, and when I read the end, and people were still arguing about the way evoke worked, and I didn't see spell resolution mentioned, I figured no one else had ress'd that argument.
I really do think it will work this way. Actual rules text (as opposed to reminder text) would read something like this:
When a permanent spell is played with its Evoke cost, after it comes into play, it is sacrificed. This is part of the spell resolution and is a new "final step" to resolving the spell.
Reason why it would work different:
The reminder clearly says: when it comes into play it's sacrifisied.
What else could it be than a triggered ability that is put onto the stack the minute it enters play with evoke.
Quote from Comp Rules »
404.4. An effect may create a delayed triggered ability that can do something at a later time. A delayed triggered ability will contain when, whenever, or at, although that word won't usually begin the ability.
404.4a Delayed triggered abilities come from spells or other abilities that create them on resolution. That means a delayed triggered ability won't trigger until it has actually been created, even if its trigger event occurred just beforehand. Other events that happen earlier may make the trigger event impossible.
So it is a delayed triggered ability.
These go on the stack and can be responded to, the only sacrifice you cannot respond to is if it is a cost.
Period.
I think I may have mentioned it before, but no one seemed to notice. Can anyone think of any reason why they would do it any other way?
The fact that there's no good reason to do this (which takes a good amount of rules support and possibly uses new rules technology that hasn't previously existed) when triggered abilities do the job perfectly well?
People are trying to solve a "problem" (a gap between the evoke creature entering play and being sacrificed) that isn't a problem. This gap makes the mechanic simpler under the rules and also introduces many opportunities for interaction and expansion (letting evoke work on creatures with activated abilities, creating an interaction between evoke and blinking, etc.) that simply do not exist with an instantaneous sacrifice.
EDIT: Reminder text doesn't have the force of rules, but it is written to be as clear as possible. It's been acknowledged before that reminder text is often templated with rules-words like "when" or "instead" in order to help rules knowledgeable people who read the reminder text know how the ability works.
Help out a poor rumor-mill reader who can't remember stuff like this, and tell me when we should have the rules primer or FAQ (whichever comes first), so we won't need to argue about this anymore?
Many thanks to any who answer.
EDIT: In response to the idea that this alternate play cost would need new rules, why bother, etc., compare it to Flashback (another alt play cost), which has special rules to follow on resolution.
Help out a poor rumor-mill reader who can't remember stuff like this, and tell me when we should have the rules primer or FAQ (whichever comes first), so we won't need to argue about this anymore?
Many thanks to any who answer.
EDIT: In response to the idea that this alternate play cost would need new rules, why bother, etc., compare it to Flashback (another alt play cost), which has special rules to follow on resolution.
We well have it the week before the prerelease, so no help.
Fortunately, depending on how cards with Evoke's abilities are, we may be able to figure it out ourselves before that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
EDIT: In response to the idea that this alternate play cost would need new rules, why bother, etc., compare it to Flashback (another alt play cost), which has special rules to follow on resolution.
I liked your idea here, so I whipped up an example to suit.
Quote from Comp Rules on Flashback »
502.22. Flashback
502.22a Flashback appears on some instants and sorceries. It represents two static abilities: one functions while the card is in a player's graveyard and the other functions while the card is on the stack. "Flashback [cost]" means "You may play this card from your graveyard by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost" and "If the flashback cost was paid, remove this card from the game instead of putting it anywhere else any time it would leave the stack." Playing a spell using its flashback ability follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 409.1b and 409.1f-h.
502.xx. Evoke
502.xxa Evoke appears on some creatures. It represents two static abilities: one functions while the card is in a player's hand and the other functions while the card is on the stack. "Evoke [cost]" means "You may play this card by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost" and "If the evoke cost was paid, put this creature into play then sacrifice it instead of putting it into play." Playing a spell using its evoke ability follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 409.1b and 409.1f-h.
sounds like it works to me.
EDIT: I would like to point out that even though this sounds feasible, i am not saying that this is how it will be implemented. in fact, i hope it is implemented in such a way that would give priorities to players after the creature comes into play but before the creature is sacrificed.
Oh? I untap with my Djinn in play? Then I'll cast High Tide 5 times, let the copies resolve, cast Remand 3 times, the first and second targetting the original High Tide, and the third targetting the first Remand. After the stack empties, I'll cast a Turnabout with 1 replicate, and triple-remand again. Net Effect: Draw 4 cards, Islands all produce 4 extra blue, lands untapped. Repeat until I draw Vision Charm and proceed to deck several hundred players.
"...put this creature into play then sacrifice it instead of putting it into play."
...:raise:?
lol, yea, the wording is goofy, but since it can only replace the effect once, it won't replace itself. this makes it so that the creature is put into play, CIP abilities and triggers are stacked, and then the creature leaves play, all without any player getting priority.
Oh? I untap with my Djinn in play? Then I'll cast High Tide 5 times, let the copies resolve, cast Remand 3 times, the first and second targetting the original High Tide, and the third targetting the first Remand. After the stack empties, I'll cast a Turnabout with 1 replicate, and triple-remand again. Net Effect: Draw 4 cards, Islands all produce 4 extra blue, lands untapped. Repeat until I draw Vision Charm and proceed to deck several hundred players.
EDIT: In response to the idea that this alternate play cost would need new rules, why bother, etc., compare it to Flashback (another alt play cost), which has special rules to follow on resolution.
Flashback has a replacement effect that sends the spell on the stack (zone a) to the removed from game zone (zone c) instead of the graveyard (zone b), like a spell on the stack normally would.
The proposed working of evoke doesn't follow. Instead, it wants to send a creature from the stack (zone a), into play (zone d) and then somehow magically replace (thus the "replacement effect" and SBE kicks in) it from the in play zone to the graveyard (zone b) within the resolution.
To recap:
Flashback sends a spell from zone a (stack) to zone c (rfg) by completely bypassing zone b (graveyard).
"Evoke" would want to send the spell from zone a (stack) to zone b (graveyard) by somehow also putting the creature into zone d (play) at the same time.
So they're not really the same thing.
EDIT: If the flashbacked spell ever actually reached the graveyard, but denied the owner of the card a chance to re-flashback before it was removed from the game by SBE, then you'd have an analogous situation, but flashback doesn't work that way.
I made (what I beleive to be) an accurate representation of how Evoke could work (and also quoted the rules for flashback). If you don't think they'd work as I have them written, I'd like to know why.
Oh? I untap with my Djinn in play? Then I'll cast High Tide 5 times, let the copies resolve, cast Remand 3 times, the first and second targetting the original High Tide, and the third targetting the first Remand. After the stack empties, I'll cast a Turnabout with 1 replicate, and triple-remand again. Net Effect: Draw 4 cards, Islands all produce 4 extra blue, lands untapped. Repeat until I draw Vision Charm and proceed to deck several hundred players.
Flashback has a replacement effect that sends the spell on the stack (zone a) to the removed from game zone (zone c) instead of the graveyard (zone b), like a spell on the stack normally would.
The proposed working of evoke doesn't follow. Instead, it wants to send a creature from the stack (zone a), into play (zone d) and then somehow magically replace (thus the "replacement effect" and SBE kicks in) it from the in play zone to the graveyard (zone b) within the resolution.
To recap:
Flashback sends a spell from zone a (stack) to zone c (rfg) by completely bypassing zone b (graveyard).
"Evoke" would want to send the spell from zone a (stack) to zone b (graveyard) by somehow also putting the creature into zone d (play) at the same time.
So they're not really the same thing.
EDIT: If the flashbacked spell ever actually reached the graveyard, but denied the owner of the card a chance to re-flashback before it was removed from the game by SBE, then you'd have an analogous situation, but flashback doesn't work that way.
-E
I never said it was _identical_ to flashback. If you take a look at the wording provided by LeadMagnet, you'll see a pretty good illustration of how it would work.
It would replace "put it into play" with "put it into play and sacrifice it", which is fine. There are examples of other replacement effects that add something onto it in magic. For example, Pyromancer's Swath replaces dealing X damage with dealing X+2.
Edit: As usual, I spend too long looking things up and have my post obsoleted by someone faster.
Edit 2: Pyromancer's Swath isn't actually the greatest example. Necropotence and Krark's Thumb are much better. The Oracle wording of Necro says "if you would discard a card, discard it, but remove it from the game instead of putting it into your graveyard".
I made (what I beleive to be) an accurate representation of how Evoke could work (and also quoted the rules for flashback). If you don't think they'd work as I have them written, I'd like to know why.
I'd be more inclined to believe the anti-response position if there were any (any! ) sort of precedent for this sort of thing, but there's not. The only reasons I can tell that people began to think that evoke might work differently was the potentially powerful blink interaction and the slightly different wording on the reminder text.
Well, for whatever it's worth, they're debating the significance of the "Each wolf/wolves" thing in the other thread on Wren's Run Packmaster; it's the nature of magic geeks like us to debate these things endlessly. But I do think the real nail in the coffin is the rules excerpt you provided - the only real way to word that is "put this creature into the graveyard instead of putting it into play", which would not trigger the ability and defeat the entire purpose of the card.
Like Charlequin said, I think this is really a thing of people attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist (the "broken" blink interaction).
Like Charlequin said, I think this is really a thing of people attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist (the "broken" blink interaction).
Exactly. If I'm going to analyze whether the wording being proposed is possible within the rules framework, I first want to be convinced that there's a good reason to even try.
As it stands, using a triggered ability is elegant: it functions within the stack framework that players are familiar with. It's simple: the rules are straightforward and have no special exceptions. It increases design space: it allows for Evoke cards with activated abilities, which could not exist the other way. And it increases interactivity: it allows Evoke creatures to have interesting interactions with effects like Momentary Blink.
Using a replacement ability as qqpq is proposing loses all of those listed benefits: it's inelegant, complicated, has less design space, and is less interactive, and the only benefit listed so far is that it eliminates the interaction with Momentary Blink (an interaction that we have no proof is actually abusive.) Is there any other reason to even consider the possibility that the Rules team chose to proceed in this fashion?
I just want to point out that the design space has both pluses and minuses either way.
If the creature can be Blinked/Saffi'd, etc, then large "fatty" Evoke creatures with low Evoke costs are very unlikely. Such creatures are fine with the replacement ability method.
The only thing the replacement effect stops (AFAIK) in terms of design space, is activated abilities (which will require haste if they require tap--and the odds that you actually want an Evoke creature with a non-tapping activated ability to use that ability are very slim).
Momentary Blink is already so powerful that several different decks have been built around it--I don't think it needs any more help. Whether WotC foresaw that, I have no idea...
On the other hand, I agree that it is simpler and more "grokkable" if it uses a triggered ability. I will just be very sad if it is, because it makes it far less likely that we will see a card like this:
Some Creature 4GGG
Creature -- Elemental
Trample
When ~ CIP, you may search your library for a basic land card and put it into play. Shuffle your library afterwards.
Evoke GG
7/6
And with that said, the mechanic can work in any of several ways; I do not feel the reminder text and one card give enough information to narrow it down to the exact wording. As long as everyone agrees that Evoke is not a special action and does use the stack I shall be content until further info is available.
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
The Steamflogged
Human Rigger Minions committed to
forcing Contraptions in YMTC4,
and Resisting The Tyranny of the
Viva La Assembly!
Quotes:
Cheers,
Austin
They are so getting in trouble, I think.
Twitter
Evoke will put the creature into play and sacrifice it as part of the resolution of the spell. This does not leave any time when the creature is in play and anyone has priority. The creature will be in the graveyard by the time its CIP trigger is put on the stack.
I think I may have mentioned it before, but no one seemed to notice. Can anyone think of any reason why they would do it any other way?
I feel that this is the only sensible way Evoke could possibly work.
EDIT: Sorry I didn't read the middle of the thread before posting this, I was keeping up with it earlier, and when I read the end, and people were still arguing about the way evoke worked, and I didn't see spell resolution mentioned, I figured no one else had ress'd that argument.
I really do think it will work this way. Actual rules text (as opposed to reminder text) would read something like this:
When a permanent spell is played with its Evoke cost, after it comes into play, it is sacrificed. This is part of the spell resolution and is a new "final step" to resolving the spell.
Reason why it would work different:
The reminder clearly says: when it comes into play it's sacrifisied.
What else could it be than a triggered ability that is put onto the stack the minute it enters play with evoke.
So it is a delayed triggered ability.
These go on the stack and can be responded to, the only sacrifice you cannot respond to is if it is a cost.
Period.
The fact that there's no good reason to do this (which takes a good amount of rules support and possibly uses new rules technology that hasn't previously existed) when triggered abilities do the job perfectly well?
People are trying to solve a "problem" (a gap between the evoke creature entering play and being sacrificed) that isn't a problem. This gap makes the mechanic simpler under the rules and also introduces many opportunities for interaction and expansion (letting evoke work on creatures with activated abilities, creating an interaction between evoke and blinking, etc.) that simply do not exist with an instantaneous sacrifice.
EDIT: Reminder text doesn't have the force of rules, but it is written to be as clear as possible. It's been acknowledged before that reminder text is often templated with rules-words like "when" or "instead" in order to help rules knowledgeable people who read the reminder text know how the ability works.
Help out a poor rumor-mill reader who can't remember stuff like this, and tell me when we should have the rules primer or FAQ (whichever comes first), so we won't need to argue about this anymore?
Many thanks to any who answer.
EDIT: In response to the idea that this alternate play cost would need new rules, why bother, etc., compare it to Flashback (another alt play cost), which has special rules to follow on resolution.
We well have it the week before the prerelease, so no help.
Fortunately, depending on how cards with Evoke's abilities are, we may be able to figure it out ourselves before that.
Twitter
I liked your idea here, so I whipped up an example to suit.
502.xx. Evoke
502.xxa Evoke appears on some creatures. It represents two static abilities: one functions while the card is in a player's hand and the other functions while the card is on the stack. "Evoke [cost]" means "You may play this card by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost" and "If the evoke cost was paid, put this creature into play then sacrifice it instead of putting it into play." Playing a spell using its evoke ability follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 409.1b and 409.1f-h.
sounds like it works to me.
EDIT: I would like to point out that even though this sounds feasible, i am not saying that this is how it will be implemented. in fact, i hope it is implemented in such a way that would give priorities to players after the creature comes into play but before the creature is sacrificed.
...:raise:?
lol, yea, the wording is goofy, but since it can only replace the effect once, it won't replace itself. this makes it so that the creature is put into play, CIP abilities and triggers are stacked, and then the creature leaves play, all without any player getting priority.
Have you ever sat down and read the Comprehensive Rules?
It's full of stuff like that.
You could probably make a whole comedy routine based on lines in the comp-rules.
I hope your audience is full of MTG Judges and Rules Advisers, though.
Flashback has a replacement effect that sends the spell on the stack (zone a) to the removed from game zone (zone c) instead of the graveyard (zone b), like a spell on the stack normally would.
The proposed working of evoke doesn't follow. Instead, it wants to send a creature from the stack (zone a), into play (zone d) and then somehow magically replace (thus the "replacement effect" and SBE kicks in) it from the in play zone to the graveyard (zone b) within the resolution.
To recap:
Flashback sends a spell from zone a (stack) to zone c (rfg) by completely bypassing zone b (graveyard).
"Evoke" would want to send the spell from zone a (stack) to zone b (graveyard) by somehow also putting the creature into zone d (play) at the same time.
So they're not really the same thing.
EDIT: If the flashbacked spell ever actually reached the graveyard, but denied the owner of the card a chance to re-flashback before it was removed from the game by SBE, then you'd have an analogous situation, but flashback doesn't work that way.
-E
I made (what I beleive to be) an accurate representation of how Evoke could work (and also quoted the rules for flashback). If you don't think they'd work as I have them written, I'd like to know why.
I never said it was _identical_ to flashback. If you take a look at the wording provided by LeadMagnet, you'll see a pretty good illustration of how it would work.
It would replace "put it into play" with "put it into play and sacrifice it", which is fine. There are examples of other replacement effects that add something onto it in magic. For example, Pyromancer's Swath replaces dealing X damage with dealing X+2.
Edit: As usual, I spend too long looking things up and have my post obsoleted by someone faster.
Edit 2: Pyromancer's Swath isn't actually the greatest example. Necropotence and Krark's Thumb are much better. The Oracle wording of Necro says "if you would discard a card, discard it, but remove it from the game instead of putting it into your graveyard".
I'd be more inclined to believe the anti-response position if there were any (any! ) sort of precedent for this sort of thing, but there's not. The only reasons I can tell that people began to think that evoke might work differently was the potentially powerful blink interaction and the slightly different wording on the reminder text.
Well, for whatever it's worth, they're debating the significance of the "Each wolf/wolves" thing in the other thread on Wren's Run Packmaster; it's the nature of magic geeks like us to debate these things endlessly. But I do think the real nail in the coffin is the rules excerpt you provided - the only real way to word that is "put this creature into the graveyard instead of putting it into play", which would not trigger the ability and defeat the entire purpose of the card.
Like Charlequin said, I think this is really a thing of people attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist (the "broken" blink interaction).
-E
Exactly. If I'm going to analyze whether the wording being proposed is possible within the rules framework, I first want to be convinced that there's a good reason to even try.
As it stands, using a triggered ability is elegant: it functions within the stack framework that players are familiar with. It's simple: the rules are straightforward and have no special exceptions. It increases design space: it allows for Evoke cards with activated abilities, which could not exist the other way. And it increases interactivity: it allows Evoke creatures to have interesting interactions with effects like Momentary Blink.
Using a replacement ability as qqpq is proposing loses all of those listed benefits: it's inelegant, complicated, has less design space, and is less interactive, and the only benefit listed so far is that it eliminates the interaction with Momentary Blink (an interaction that we have no proof is actually abusive.) Is there any other reason to even consider the possibility that the Rules team chose to proceed in this fashion?
I just want to point out that the design space has both pluses and minuses either way.
If the creature can be Blinked/Saffi'd, etc, then large "fatty" Evoke creatures with low Evoke costs are very unlikely. Such creatures are fine with the replacement ability method.
The only thing the replacement effect stops (AFAIK) in terms of design space, is activated abilities (which will require haste if they require tap--and the odds that you actually want an Evoke creature with a non-tapping activated ability to use that ability are very slim).
Momentary Blink is already so powerful that several different decks have been built around it--I don't think it needs any more help. Whether WotC foresaw that, I have no idea...
On the other hand, I agree that it is simpler and more "grokkable" if it uses a triggered ability. I will just be very sad if it is, because it makes it far less likely that we will see a card like this:
Some Creature 4GGG
Creature -- Elemental
Trample
When ~ CIP, you may search your library for a basic land card and put it into play. Shuffle your library afterwards.
Evoke GG
7/6
Forgive me if this was covered before you created this theoretical rule, but how about just saying:
"...If the evoke cost is paid, put this creature into play and then sacrifice it."