Board and Card Games - 2014-08-26

« first day (1393 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3534 days later) »

1:16 AM

Yeah I'm not a fan of the "everything has summoning sickness" explanation either

Creatures have it! And something has it if/when it is a creature. That's pretty much it.

Implying that lands and enchantments have summoning sickness but ignore it is counter-intuitive to me.

It either has summoning sickness, or it doesn't.

It's probably just more accurate to express it along the lines of: "If it's a creature, and you haven't owned it since your untap step, you can't use its tap abilities or attack with it. That counts if you make it a creature through e.g. Ensoul Artifact too."

1 hour later…

2:21 AM

@doppelgreener, Re "Implying that lands and enchantments have summoning sickness but ignore it is counter-intuitive to me." That might be, but that just makes your intuition wrong. The only way summoning sickness can exist is if all permanents gets is. Otherwise, it gets animated permanents wrong, and it gets losing haste wrong.

@ikegami they don't all get it though, and that's not the only way it can exist.

summoning sickness, deflavoured, is just: "creatures can't pay tap costs or attack on their first turn under your control"

nothing requires all permanents to get it

(but permanents that become creatures, like mutavault or an ensouled artifact, will succumb to it when they become creatures)

No, that's just one of the rules behind summoning sickness.

@ikegami well, it is "the summoning sickness rule".

what are the others like?

The haste one also contributes. Neither explains it fully/.

The so-called summoning sickness rule doesn't explain summoning sickness. As the rules say, there is no summoning sickness rule.

@dopplegreener, [edited previous for clarity]

> 302.6. A creature's activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can't be activated unless the creature has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. A creature can't attack unless it has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the "summoning sickness" rule.

I dunno, this seems to explain it pretty clearly.

If it's a creature, it's subject to these restrictions.

if it's not a creature, it's not

2:30 AM

But that's not summoning sickness

What is?

The restrictions you have quoted.

I mean, what is summoning sickness, if it isn't that?

Summoning sickness as I understand it: creatures can't pay {T} and can't attack if you haven't owned them since the beginning of your turn (the untap step). Haste as I understand it: they can do that.

1

A: Do creatures who come into play tapped have summoning sickness?

Yes, it will be unable to attack. Summoning sickness is an informal term describing the restrictions imposed by 302.6. A complete definition of summoning sickness is: Whenever a player gains control of a permanent, it will be affected by summoning sickness whenever the permanent is a creature w...

I'm not seeing anything here that makes 302.6 not a description of summoning sickness. The guy's just confused because he thinks some state which has something to do with that rule has anything to do with it.

and we're telling him "no, that has nothing to do with it"

2:33 AM

Summoning sickness is a metaphore that tries to describe 302.6 and Haste. The metaphore only works if all permanents get it. Otherwise, it gets animated permanents wrong, and it gets losing haste wrong.

Maybe in your view, but it works for me just fine (better in fact) if I look at it as only creatures being subject to it. (Basically, I picture them spending their first turn feeling awful and vomiting. If an artifact gets ensouled, it spends its first turn doing that too.)

"The guy"?

@ikegami the asker

I didn'tlink to the question, I linked to my answer which also answered your question (the bold part)

@ikegami right, i'm just... i'm not sure why this makes 302.6 invalid as an explanation of summoning sickness

I'm finding your statements like "that's not summoning sickness" and "your intuition is wrong" to be odd; it's perfectly fine as summoning sickness.

2:36 AM

Re "Basically, I picture them spending their first turn feeling awful and vomiting." If that were true, then Haste removes summoning sickness, but it doesn't.

I imagine maybe there's something you feel that rule should be saying that isn't, or something?

@ikegami Mm. I guess it's a weird metaphor to see it as 'sickness'.

The two rules are 100% correct in combination. They just don't describe summoning sickness.

Re "I guess it's a weird metaphor to see it as 'sickness'." That's why it's not official.

@ikegami What would describe summoning sickness, in your view?

1

A: Do creatures who come into play tapped have summoning sickness?

Yes, it will be unable to attack. Summoning sickness is an informal term describing the restrictions imposed by 302.6. A complete definition of summoning sickness is: Whenever a player gains control of a permanent, it will be affected by summoning sickness whenever the permanent is a creature w...

Or is it best that they do not, because of summoning sickness being a weird concept?

2:38 AM

"Whenever a player gains control of a permanent, it will be affected by summoning sickness whenever the permanent is a creature without haste, until the player loses control of the permanent, or until the player's next turn (whichever comes first)."

@ikegami ah, now I get what you're saying.

(Yeah, I know that's not proper MTG templating)

You should define "summoning sickness" without using "summoning sickness" in the definition

That's what I did

A complete definition of summoning sickness is:

Whenever a player gains control of a permanent, it will be affected by ***summoning sickness*** whenever the permanent is a creature without haste, until the player loses control of the permanent, or until the player's next turn (whichever comes first).

Quote from that answer

2:40 AM

That says what I'm defining.

A car is a vehicle ...

@ikegami but it doesn't say what summoning sickness does

@murgatroid99 yeah, i just noticed that's missing too

Your answer says: "Summoning sickness means you suffer from summoning sickness under these circumstances. These other ones have nothing to do with it."

oh right

The definition of summoning sickness is Rule 302.6, with the exception of rule 702.10

Might work better as: "Summoning sickness means X. You suffer from it under these circumstances. These other ones have nothing to do with it."

2:42 AM

That is a complete definition

Oh right, it defines "affected by summoning sickness", where summonin sickness would be "can't attack, can't use abilities with {T} or {U} in the cost."

Anyway, I'd say a better definition of summoning sickness is "Creatures cannot attack or use {T} abilities unless you controlled them since the beginning of the turn or they have haste"

No, that doesn't match the usage of the word.

If that definition were correct, all creatures without haste always have summoning sickness (no matter how long you controlled them), since "Creatures cannot attack or use {T} abilities unless you controlled them since the beginning of the turn or they have haste" applies to all creatures without haste (no matter how long ytou controlled them)

OK, fine. How about "can't attack or use {T} abilities. It affects creatures without haste that entered your control since the start of your turn"

That suffers from the smae problem <strike>and adds one</strike>

If that new definition were correct, all creatures always have summoning sickness (no matter how long you controlled them), since the statement is true of all creatures.

(Ignoring errors like forgetting to mention {U})

2:46 AM

The primary problem here is that summoning sickness isn't a real thing. It's a phrase people use to refer to the condition that a creature can't attack or use {T} abilities the turn it entered the battlefield

@ikegami How the heck is "it affects creatures without haste that entered your control since the start of your turn" true of all creatures?

No, i't a phrase people use to refer to the condition a creature can't attack, {T} or {U} because you just just gained control of it.

How is it not?

It's a rule. It's true. Globally. Period.

@ikegami OK, I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore

I'm not trying to say anything at this point. I'm just pointing out the errors in each statments as you make them

It doesn't matter how many creatures summoning sickness affects because it doesn't exist. It's not a real thing. It's a phrase for a transient condition described by rules we both know very well.

No, "summoning sickness" is definitely used.

2:50 AM

@ikegami I didn't say otherwise

@ikegami But it doesn't have rules meaning

That's not the same thing as not existing

I know it's not defined by the rules.

The others are the ones that says it is.

So are you going to fix your answer's definition to actually say what it does?

11 hours later…

1:26 PM

scifi.stackexchange.com/q/66470/19561

Huh. Shouldn't that auto-render?

Anyway, it's a question over on the SF & Fantasy Stack, about Warhammer40K.

While that is on topic in general, the question seems to be about game mechanics rather than the SF background of it.

Would it be a better fit here, and if so, do you want it migrated here?

I think that's mainly a question for @PatLudwig, @mafutrct, and @ire_and_curses.

1:43 PM

Nevermind, it seems to have been removed by the OP.

« first day (1393 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3534 days later) »

Transcript for

Aug '1426

Board and Card Games

General discussion for boardgames.stackexchange.com. Chat abou...

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile