Author Topic: Gifts of the Magi (Read 4821 times)

RTSmaniac · « **on:** November 10, 2012, 09:28:03 PM »

If opponent has gifts active and we draw, then opponent negates my draw- is my opponents draw negated also?

Gifts of the Magi (F)
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Each time an opponent draws a card because of a special ability on a character or enhancement, holder may draw a card. • Play As: When an opponent draws because of an ability on a character or enhancement, you may draw up to an equal number of cards. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Matthew 2:11 • Availability: F Deck

dermo4christ · « **Reply #1 on:** November 10, 2012, 10:29:05 PM »

I would think so. Gifts allows you to draw as many cards as your opponent so if he negates your draw that means you drew 0. So, in turn, he draws 0. That's my understanding.

Redoubter · « **Reply #2 on:** November 10, 2012, 10:32:26 PM »

Based on previous rulings, I believe that will be the final ruling. What happens when draws are negated and cards are played or the draws triggered other effects is one of the most complicated parts of the game (and I still haven't seen a definitive ruling on parts of that issue).

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #3 on:** November 10, 2012, 10:42:52 PM »

Based on what I know about cascading negates, it probably undoes the Gifts of the Magi draw. Maybe.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #4 on:** November 10, 2012, 10:47:03 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on November 10, 2012, 10:32:26 PM

What happens when draws are negated and cards are played or the draws triggered other effects is one of the most complicated parts of the game (and I still haven't seen a definitive ruling on parts of that issue).

If I draw a dominant and play it, then that cannot be undone by a negate. Therefore, would the opponent get to keep one of the drawn cards from Gifts (assuming the ruling is as stated)? Obviously this is problematic. The more touchy issue with negating a draw is being sure that the player actually returns the same cards he drew (and in the correct order), rather than make "strategic substitutions" (aka "cheat").

I suggest that we create a list of abilities that can be prevented, but not interrupted. We already effectively do that with reveal and look at opponent's hand abilities. I think we should do the same with draw abilities.

Drrek · « **Reply #5 on:** November 10, 2012, 11:27:36 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on November 10, 2012, 10:47:03 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on November 10, 2012, 10:32:26 PM
What happens when draws are negated and cards are played or the draws triggered other effects is one of the most complicated parts of the game (and I still haven't seen a definitive ruling on parts of that issue).

If I draw a dominant and play it, then that cannot be undone by a negate. Therefore, would the opponent get to keep one of the drawn cards from Gifts (assuming the ruling is as stated)? Obviously this is problematic. The more touchy issue with negating a draw is being sure that the player actually returns the same cards he drew (and in the correct order), rather than make "strategic substitutions" (aka "cheat").

If you draw 4 or more cards, and the draw is negated, you must shuffle. So its rare that the person would have the opportunity to cheat there.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #6 on:** November 10, 2012, 11:44:04 PM »

Most draw abilities are three or less. Besides, that has nothing to do with a player drawing cards, one of which is Samuel, then having the draw be negated, but instead of putting Samuel back in the deck, they put some other card back that was in their hand before the draw (because they really wanted to keep Samuel). The shuffle you are talking about will not prevent that.

I am suggesting to remove the opportunity to cheat by simply making draws CBI by game rule. This rule would more importantly remove the complications that come with negating draws, especially when any of the cards drawn end up being played.

Redoubter · « **Reply #7 on:** November 11, 2012, 08:43:02 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on November 10, 2012, 10:47:03 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on November 10, 2012, 10:32:26 PM
What happens when draws are negated and cards are played or the draws triggered other effects is one of the most complicated parts of the game (and I still haven't seen a definitive ruling on parts of that issue).

If I draw a dominant and play it, then that cannot be undone by a negate. Therefore, would the opponent get to keep one of the drawn cards from Gifts (assuming the ruling is as stated)? Obviously this is problematic. The more touchy issue with negating a draw is being sure that the player actually returns the same cards he drew (and in the correct order), rather than make "strategic substitutions" (aka "cheat").

I suggest that we create a list of abilities that can be prevented, but not interrupted. We already effectively do that with reveal and look at opponent's hand abilities. I think we should do the same with draw abilities.

The current ruling is that even the playing of cards (NOT the Play ability, but playing them such as through an enhancement) can be undone if the draw is negated and the card played was one of the cards drawn. I disagree with this ruling completely, for some of the reasons you mentioned and also for consistency of the rules. However, I have not seen it ruled otherwise yet, and it was pretty clear everyone wanted to keep it the way it was. See this thread and this thread. I will continue to argue that the status quo is ridiculous, a bottom-up ruling that is too complex, inconsistent, and needs to be changed. I have no support, however.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #8 on:** November 11, 2012, 10:45:15 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on November 11, 2012, 08:43:02 AM

I will continue to argue that the status quo is ridiculous, a bottom-up ruling that is too complex, inconsistent, and needs to be changed. I have no support, however.

You have my support.

However, I am not suggesting a ruling change, but rather a game rule change. The Elders have asked for feedback about major changes before the new rulebook gets printed. This would be a big change, but one that I think will simplify the game as we prepare to launch new starter decks.

Another example of my proposed rule would be a card that reveals x cards and places any Lost Souls in play. We can't realistically negate the reveal since we have already seen the cards. We can, however, negate the place ability. The tricky part is usually trying to put the Lost Soul cards back into the deck in the correct order. However, if the reveal ability can not be interrupted by game rule, this would not be an issue. The revealed cards go back to deck as part of the reveal ability, which now completes that ability. If the opponent now plays a negate, that would only negate the place ability, which would now put the Lost Soul cards back on the top of the deck. I am trying to eliminate the need to memorize the order of the cards as they are drawn or revealed, as well as not have to wonder if your opponent really put back the cards they drew.

I realize that this emhasizes my lack of trust in people in general, but I think if we can make the game inherently prevent opportunities to cheat, we will not need to worry about the trust factor anyway. This is akin to showing cards that are searched for when they have to be a specific type. If that is the game rule, then we never have to wonder if the opponent searched for what they really were supposed to.

Redoubter · « **Reply #9 on:** November 11, 2012, 11:27:21 AM »

Thanks for clarifying what it actually is (that is, a rule change proposal). I've made those arguments before and others as well in those two threads I posted, and was told basically 'no', but I really feel that we have an opportunity to introduce consistency to the rule, simplicity in making rulings, and making the rules overall better to understand if we make it so that no cards can be unplayed. Period. Once it hits the table, the act of placing it on the table is CBI. If we can get more support behind that, I think it is a cause definitely worth considering.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #10 on:** November 11, 2012, 01:06:35 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on November 11, 2012, 11:27:21 AM

...if we make it so that no cards can be unplayed. Period. Once it hits the table, the act of placing it on the table is CBI. If we can get more support behind that, I think it is a cause definitely worth considering.

Thank you for clarifying your proposal, since it is different than what I am suggesting. However, I support your idea since it would indeed make rulings more simple in those circumstances. This is definitely the time to make significant changes, both with a new rulebook coming out, and the current upheavel of the REG. We also have a delay in the printing of the new starters, which gives us time to make proposals and hash them out. I am hopeful that these kind of changes will be given serious consideration, rather than just being written off because they will change what has always been done.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #11 on:** November 12, 2012, 07:39:05 PM »

The tradeoff is too high. Yeah, it's more simple, but it'd be more simple if we just made all cards CBN too.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #12 on:** November 12, 2012, 08:09:52 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 12, 2012, 07:39:05 PM

The tradeoff is too high. Yeah, it's more simple, but it'd be more simple if we just made all cards CBN too.

Are you talking about my proposal, or Redoubter's proposal?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #13 on:** November 12, 2012, 08:17:14 PM »

Both.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #14 on:** November 12, 2012, 08:25:53 PM »

Then you'll have to specify what the trade-off is that is so high.

.... for both.

Redoubter · « **Reply #15 on:** November 12, 2012, 08:36:43 PM »

I think he may be saying that the trade-off is too high in that cards can then have their effects stick even if the drawing of the card is negated. Which I don't see as being a problem, and as I've pointed out in previous threads, this is the one case where Pol supports the inertia argument, a bottom-up rule, and inconsistency in a rule. I don't think we'll get very far with him

megamanlan · « **Reply #16 on:** November 12, 2012, 10:23:35 PM »

My opinion: If a player negates a Draw that triggered Gifts, then they are indirectly negating Gifts. Now Im not meaning Negate like how negate tends to be in this game (for the phase) but how Negate is in some games like Yugioh (negating the activation because the trigger requirements are no longer met)

Red Warrior · « **Reply #17 on:** November 13, 2012, 01:01:17 PM »

I am not in favor of expanding Game Rules unless absolutely necessary. As it is I have to explain to my new players that they "broke the rules" by having 17 cards in hand, starting a second side battle, or not showing your opponent which "red enhancement" you searched for... although I accept and understand all of these rules, they are not intuitive in the least.

What is intuitive in this instance is to follow the chain of events back through a negate chain.

About the issue of returning drawn card. I totally understand where you're coming from here... it is quite common for even innocent and honest players to forget what they drew. I think the solution is not in rules but in technique. I always encourage players to keep their hand in "natural" order until the end of their turn. If they drew 3 cards, keep them to the far right... don't sort them by brigade and type. Then when the draw three is later negated, you are able to maintain integrity because your opponent knows that you're returning the proper cards.

If anything needs to be added to the rule book... perhaps just a sentence suggesting players keep track of their drawn cards... I don't even think we need that though.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #18 on:** November 14, 2012, 12:27:04 PM »

It's not inconsistent or bottom-up. Making draws CBI and making all playing of cards (not just play abilities) CBI makes a lot of cards a lot stronger (and not the cards that need to be stronger), for the benefit of what exactly? Making it harder to cheat? Perhaps I'm just not so cynical, but I don't see the value in adding to more inherent CBI (the stickiness of CBI cards and play abilities is more than enough), both because it makes the rules more complicated and because it boosts power in the wrong places.

Redoubter · « **Reply #19 on:** November 14, 2012, 07:23:06 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 14, 2012, 12:27:04 PM

It's not inconsistent or bottom-up.

It's the very definition. "Playing a card can be undone. Except for if they are CBI or CBN. Or if it is a played off of a Play ability." That's bottom-up, not top-down.

And it is not to stop cheating. It's to assist in judging, to have a consistent rule that applies consistently regardless of the card played, and makes the 'chains' of negation less complicated.

LESS complicated. There is nothing in this proposal that is more complicated. It is one blanket rule instead of 2 rules that have exceptions.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #20 on:** November 14, 2012, 07:32:57 PM »

I don't think you understand what bottom-up means. That is a ruling on a specific card or a specific situation. Top-down rules don't have to be free from exceptions or simple in order to be top-down.

What's actually going on here is that you're confused about what rules are in play. There is no such thing as a rule that says the playing of a card can be undone with these exceptions. That'd just be ridiculous. What is happening is that:

1. CBI abilities have a rule that makes them always stay played once played.
2. Play abilities are inherently CBI (along with a couple other abilities).
3. There is a rule that causes negates to cascade, but the previous two rules take precedence over it.

So what you're describing is just made up. You're proposing adding a new rule just to change what the default state of cards are, not changing an existing rule.

The rules are consistent and as simple as they can be without causing broken mechanics such as loops. Adding another rule does not make things less complicated. There are three rules, not two, in play, and none of them have exceptions.

Redoubter · « **Reply #21 on:** November 14, 2012, 07:43:45 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 14, 2012, 07:32:57 PM

I don't think you understand what bottom-up means. That is a ruling on a specific card or a specific situation. Top-down rules don't have to be free from exceptions or simple in order to be top-down.

What's actually going on here is that you're confused about what rules are in play. There is no such thing as a rule that says the playing of a card can be undone with these exceptions. That'd just be ridiculous. What is happening is that:

1. CBI abilities have a rule that makes them always stay played once played.
2. Play abilities are inherently CBI (along with a couple other abilities).
3. There is a rule that causes negates to cascade, but the previous two rules take precedence over it.

So what you're describing is just made up. You're proposing adding a new rule just to change what the default state of cards are, not changing an existing rule.

The rules are consistent and as simple as they can be without causing broken mechanics such as loops. Adding another rule does not make things less complicated. There are three rules, not two, in play, and none of them have exceptions.

You could certainly spin it that way, but the way I presented it makes sense as well. Not to you, because you disagree, but you're the one who won't see it. It makes sense to people besides me as well, and you can see that in this thread and the previous one.

The rules you presented are overly complicated and are exceptions. The default state is indeed that a card can be unplayed. The rules you noted are actually exceptions. I can take those three rules and boil it down to one statement: "The playing of a card is CBI." You cannot get more simple, consistent, and top-down than that. It is top-down because it addresses the whole, while what you listed is bottom-up because it takes many parts and combines those different parts to make the whole.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #22 on:** November 14, 2012, 10:16:42 PM »

You can rephrase anything any way you like, but that doesn't mean it's factual. There is no rule that says the playing of cards is negatable, because there's just an overarching game mechanic that allows cards to be negatable in an unaltered state. What there are are the rules I mentioned previously. When combined, they can be equivocated to be exceptions to a redundant, negative rule about playing cards, but no such rule actually exists and they are rules, not exceptions.

CBI cards stick to prevent loops. This is complicated, but not overly complicated as you say because it is necessary. Play abilities are similarly CBI for independent gameplay reasons. Negates cascading is a core tenant of the game, so if that's overcomplicated the whole game will be so.

I do not argue that just making every playing of a card CBI would be simpler, so I don't know why you're trying to reinforce that notion. My disagreement is based on the power boost it will give to speed. While the inertia argument is not a be-all, it is a deal breaker when you propose changing a rule in a way that will make the game worse just to simplify it. Good rule changes always make the game better.

Redoubter · « **Reply #23 on:** November 15, 2012, 07:17:29 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 14, 2012, 10:16:42 PM

My disagreement is based on the power boost it will give to speed. While the inertia argument is not a be-all, it is a deal breaker when you propose changing a rule in a way that will make the game worse just to simplify it. Good rule changes always make the game better.

If it would be so powerful, how? What specifically would make it more powerful? When you responded to YMT, you just said it would. You haven't said how. You insist that it will make the game worse, but have not shown how this could possibly occur. Speed has nothing to do with this discussion at all, so please help me understand your position.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #24 on:** November 16, 2012, 11:40:59 AM »

Making drawing CBI makes it more powerful. That element shouldn't need explanation.

Making all cards sticky makes draw+play abilities more powerful because you can no longer negate the cause. This isn't as big a problem as making drawing CBI, and really factors in much less than the argument against making new rules for no gameplay benefit. New rules should only be added to the game when 1. it would benefit the game or 2. something in the existing rules is broken. Neither is true for these proposals.

Drrek · « **Reply #25 on:** November 16, 2012, 11:45:45 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 16, 2012, 11:40:59 AM

Making drawing CBI makes it more powerful. That element shouldn't need explanation.

Making all cards sticky makes draw+play abilities more powerful because you can no longer negate the cause. This isn't as big a problem as making drawing CBI, and really factors in much less than the argument against making new rules for no gameplay benefit. New rules should only be added to the game when 1. it would benefit the game or 2. something in the existing rules is broken. Neither is true for these proposals.

I don't think Redoubter ever suggested making drawing CBI, just the playing of any cards CBI, which it should be. The only thing that it would power up would be draw play (which often if you were able to negate the draw to stop the card played, you could just negate the card played), and it makes a blanket rule over the playing of all cards, instead of making exceptions for specific types of cards. It makes the rules simpler.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #26 on:** November 16, 2012, 12:02:09 PM »

YMT suggested making drawing CBI.

There are no exceptions. There are three different rules that interact in a way that makes it look like there are exceptions. Accepting this fact, if you can make an argument for adding a "playing of cards cannot be negated" rule, I'll probably get behind it because I do love simple. But you'll make to headway if you keep trying to fudge the numbers on the front end.

Redoubter · « **Reply #27 on:** November 16, 2012, 01:37:35 PM »

Yeah, my suggestions had 0 to do with draw being CBI.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 16, 2012, 12:02:09 PM

There are no exceptions. There are three different rules that interact in a way that makes it look like there are exceptions. Accepting this fact, if you can make an argument for adding a "playing of cards cannot be negated" rule, I'll probably get behind it because I do love simple. But you'll make to headway if you keep trying to fudge the numbers on the front end.

Really, you're going to say that the reason you aren't behind the suggestion is because you feel I'm being dishonest about the background?

I'm very confused, because as far as I can see it, nothing is being 'fudged'. I already said I understand your side, I'm asking you to see that it makes sense this way, too.

But fine, no matter how you want to refer to it, there are three different situations regarding play, and I want to simplify them. However, I wouldn't go to CBN status like you mentioned in the post (not sure if that was intentional), instead I would simply say "the playing of a card cannot be interrupted". Can we all agree that would be better?

STAMP · « **Reply #28 on:** November 16, 2012, 01:46:41 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on November 16, 2012, 01:37:35 PM

I already said I understand your side, I'm asking you to see that it makes sense this way, too.

Absolutely! That's why there's a small faction of players like me who are dissatisfied with the ENTIRETY of negates, prevents, interrupts, CBN, CBP, CBI, etc., and understand both of your arguments.

(Now when I say "small faction", there are currently three members: me, myself and I.

)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #29 on:** November 16, 2012, 06:58:48 PM »

I know you didn't, I was responding to both your and YMT's proposals.

I initially like your suggestion on the grounds of simplicity (although it would have to be playing of cards from hand), but consider this: currently, if a blocker plays a banding card, bands in a Horsed blocker and then plays something off it, negating the band will negate everything that came after it. With your proposed rule, the card that was played off Horses would remain played even though the band, draw, and any SA on the character were negated. That sounds more complicated to me than the normal cascade chain.

Redoubter · « **Reply #30 on:** November 18, 2012, 08:24:11 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 16, 2012, 06:58:48 PM

I initially like your suggestion on the grounds of simplicity (although it would have to be playing of cards from hand), but consider this: currently, if a blocker plays a banding card, bands in a Horsed blocker and then plays something off it, negating the band will negate everything that came after it. With your proposed rule, the card that was played off Horses would remain played even though the band, draw, and any SA on the character were negated. That sounds more complicated to me than the normal cascade chain.

Actually, it already is going to stay played. That's the current rule: Play abilities are CBI. Therefore, the card that was played would not be unplayed, period. A cascade by the current rules would have that card remain played. So it would actually simplify that rule, and resolve inconsistency, to go with my suggestion.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #31 on:** November 19, 2012, 01:39:31 AM »

Ah, you're right. My example was wrong because it doesn't change anything. Better example:

Hero attacks and bands to someone in hand. That band is now CBI. That's an enormous leap in power.

Drrek · « **Reply #32 on:** November 19, 2012, 07:22:00 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 19, 2012, 01:39:31 AM

Ah, you're right. My example was wrong because it doesn't change anything. Better example:

Hero attacks and bands to someone in hand. That band is now CBI. That's an enormous leap in power.

Actually if I remember correctly, when Redoubter first suggested the change, this exact situation was brought up and he pointed out that the band would NOT be CBI, since only the playing of the card was. You could negate the band, and the character would go to territory (since that was the default spot for the character to be once in play).

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #33 on:** November 19, 2012, 10:48:12 AM »

That just doesn't work. You can't partially negate a card: nothing allows the card to go to territory if it was banded in from hand and the band was negated. If it was played, then its SA activated.

Josh · « **Reply #34 on:** November 19, 2012, 12:24:33 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on November 19, 2012, 07:22:00 AM

Actually if I remember correctly, when Redoubter first suggested the change, this exact situation was brought up and he pointed out that the band would NOT be CBI, since only the playing of the card was. You could negate the band, and the character would go to territory (since that was the default spot for the character to be once in play).

Playing of characters to territory is not allowed per game rule during the battle phase, and no exception should be made so that "played cards are CBI always and forever". I agree with Pol on this one.

And in response to Redoubter's earlier post about negating a band that brought in a mounted EC - if the played enhancement was drawn via Horses, it actually does get unplayed and goes back to deck if the Horses are negated.

Redoubter · « **Reply #35 on:** November 19, 2012, 06:35:34 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on November 19, 2012, 12:24:33 PM

And in response to Redoubter's earlier post about negating a band that brought in a mounted EC - if the played enhancement was drawn via Horses, it actually does get unplayed and goes back to deck if the Horses are negated.

That's not true, as Pol also acknowledged. Any card played via a 'Play' ability cannot be unplayed. Play abilities are CBI, and therefore the card would remain played.

And as far as the band being negated, Drrek pointed out my response already. It only doesn't make sense because you aren't thinking in terms of the way the rule would be handled. The card cannot be unplayed, but that never stops the band from occurring. The ability can still be negated, and nothing is changing that. However, the character still hit the table, and would remain there. Again, if you don't actually approach it from the new perspective, and only from the current system, then it seems to be a problem when it isn't.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #36 on:** November 20, 2012, 12:38:47 AM »

Actually, in my haste to be accommodating I was too much so. My initial example would indeed result in the "unplaying" of the card if it were drawn by 2kH as Hartz reminded me.

Redoubter · « **Reply #37 on:** November 20, 2012, 06:57:06 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 20, 2012, 12:38:47 AM

Actually, in my haste to be accommodating I was too much so. My initial example would indeed result in the "unplaying" of the card if it were drawn by 2kH as Hartz reminded me.

I would disagree with that based on precedent, and this post:

Quote from: Professoralstad on July 11, 2011, 03:23:59 PM

Play abilities (i.e. You may play the next enhancement, holder may play the next enhancement, etc.) are inherently CBI. So if I attack with Ethiopian Treasurer and play an enhancement, and you block with King of Tyrus, the enhancement is negated if it can be, but it doesn't go back to hand, since KoT can't negate ET's play ability.

Draw abilities are not inherently CBI. So if I attack with Matthew and draw 3, and you block with King of Tyrus, the drawn cards go back to where they came from. This is true even if the card drawn was already played, unless the card played is CBN/CBI. What this means if you block my Matthew with Herod the Great, and I play Preaching the Truth which I drew with Matthew, then you play Mask of Fear, then PtT goes back on top of the deck, along with the other drawn cards.

The confusing part is cards like Reach of Desperation or the various Horsey weapons, which have both draw and play abilities. In those cases, the two abilities are separate abilities on the same card, and are treated separately along the above guidelines.

Prof may need to clear that up, but from how it reads, drawn cards would return except those played using a Play ability (per the bold part). So that point still stands, and shows another problem with the current rules when consistency is considered.

Also, just in case anyone still thinks otherwise, my proposal is "Playing a card is CBI", and has nothing to do with drawing. I know you know where I am now, Pol, but in this and all previous threads people thought I was referring to draw at various points, so just want to make sure that stays clear

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #38 on:** November 20, 2012, 10:39:31 PM »

I don't know how you're getting that from his post, but it would definitely be unplayed.

Redoubter · « **Reply #39 on:** November 22, 2012, 10:13:34 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 20, 2012, 10:39:31 PM

I don't know how you're getting that from his post, but it would definitely be unplayed.

I can sort of see where you would get that idea from his post, but that is definitely not how it reads to me. How about instead of arguing about what someone else said, we just ask?

I'll PM the Prof and ask if he can clarify. I will post here if/when I get clarification so we can discuss it further

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #40 on:** November 22, 2012, 10:23:15 PM »

Mr. Underwood always tells us that cards that are played cannot be unplayed.if they qre played because of a play ability that is negated, they stay out, but the other cards you drew go back.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #41 on:** November 22, 2012, 11:17:59 PM »

While you're at it, PM a few more Elders so you can get an overturn if it's true.

PapaSmurf · « **Reply #42 on:** November 24, 2012, 12:42:16 PM »

I think you would have to have a card that negates an artifact, wouldnt you? because i think negating an artifacts and negating draw is different because it is the artifact that is making you draw.

News:

Author Topic: Gifts of the Magi (Read 4821 times)