Here’s a really cool card list for 7th edition (the newest basic set), complete with tips on how to use the cards. Hopefully you will find it useful.
http://www.wizards.com/magic/advanced/7e/catalog/catalog.htm
I assume you’re referring here to the enchant creature card “regeneration”, which, in some old versions, has text something like “G: regenerate creature regeneration enchants”.
This is, indeed, confusing, primarily because the word “regeneration” there refers to the name of the card itself. That is, it could just as well read “G: regenerate the creature that this card enchants”, or, as it would read these days “G: regenerate enchanted creature”.
If that’s still confusing, ask more 
Constantly being confused by the game, you mean, huh, Jaakko? 
Thanks for the link.
And thanks, Max. When’s the tour start?
Great site Jaako! It raises a few questions, however.
So we put combat damage on the stack, then boomerang our monster out of play and it still does its damage? Counter-intuitive…
What difference does this make?
Stack tricks feel weird at first, but once you get the hang of it, it’s sooooo cool.
Merfolk is good because of Lord of Atlantis, a creature that gives +1/+1 and Islandwalk to all Merfolk in play. There are similar creatures for other “tribes” - Goblins (+1/+1 and Mountainwalk) and Elves (+1/+1 and Forestwalk) in the basic set, many more in other sets.
Here’s an article on the very subject on the official M:tG site (lots of great stuff here).
Counter-intuitive, yes, but a very important concept:
Removing the source of an ability or damage from play does not prevent that damage or ability from occuring.
Once damage-dealing goes on the stack, nothing can stop it from occuring. (Granted, you can play a card that prevents damage, but the pseudospell of “combat damage-dealing” still occurs).
By the way, the reason regeneration used to be worded that way is to tell you that you can’t use it to regenerate any creature, just the one that the enchantment is on.
For the “Tribal” stuff, there’s also things that say stuff like:
Protection from beasts
Sacrifice a goblin to…
Tap a merfolk to…
I like to play Skyshroud Elves and Tinder Walls in a Green/Red/slightly White deck with Ritual of Subdual, so I’m the one dishing out the mana screw.
For the benefit of the new players: Ritual of Subdual is an enchantment with a cumulative upkeep of 2. The effect is “all mana-producing lands produce colorless mana”. Very difficult for an opponent to get around unless his/her deck is specifically constructed to use largely non-land sources for colored mana. Which Tinder Wall and Skyshroud (et al.) Elves allow you to do.
I never did understand the “all mana-producing lands” part, though. Are there any lands that don’t produce mana? Or is this an overly technical reference to lands which can become other permanents, but still count as lands?
Jerevan: Yes, there are several lands, two of them among the best in the game, IMO, that do not produce mana.
Some examples: Thawing Glaciers (Alliances) Play one colorless and tap to select one basic land from deck. This an awesome card.
Maze of Ith (the Dark): Tap to untap attacking creature. It neither deals or receives damage this turn. These two cards are so good, IMO, that the only land that maybe beats them is Library of Alexandria.
Ice Floes (Ice Age): Tap. As long Ice Floes remains tapped, target non-flying creature remains tapped.
Oasis (4th Edition): Tap to prevent one point of damage to target creature.
Mirage had several non-mana producing lands that allowed you to sacrifice it and search your library for one of two different kinds of lands, i.e., one, I think it was Bad River, allowed you to get out one swamp or one island. This could be pretty cool as you could get a dual land.
Ice Ages had a couple of weird non-mana producing lands that I never saw anybody play. I think their names were Glaciers and Hall of Mist.
There are others like Sorrow’s Path and Island of Wak-Wak, but I can’t remember what they do.
TPC, thanks for the info. I haven’t seen any of the cards you mention. So RoS has to stipulate “all mana-producing lands”, to avoid implying that RoS somehow bestows the ability to produce colorless mana on lands which ordinarily do not produce mana at all.
Do you think that burnt-out lawyers take up jobs writing the copy for new cards? I mean, it takes a special talent.
Thanks guys, for clearing up those two points for me. Nice to see that I wasn’t reading the rule incorrectly. Now it’s just a matter of figuring out how to make that little trick work for me. (Dammit, I think I could’ve used it last night, in a game that I lost.)
And w/ regards to non-mana producing land, the one I have is Safe Haven.
2 colorless and tap, remove a creature you control from play.
Sacrifice SH, return creatures removed in this way to play, as if they were just cast (or words to that effect).
I used this to block some of AudreyK’s monsters, then remove my blockers from play to keep 'em alive. If I understood the combat damage rule we’ve been discussing a little better, I think I could’ve killed her Panther Warriors too… :smack:
You might be surprised. The more recent editions of Magic (6th and on) simplify the rules considerably, believe it or not. If you’re really brave, visit http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ . David Delaney is the usenet netrep for Magic, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of the game, past and present. His site houses rules and ruling of a histroical nature. Dig through them sometime, it’s an enlightening experience. Try NOT to remember them, however, as they will only confuse you about how the game works now.
–
Justin
JSexton, actually, I wasn’t criticizing the rules or the lawyers. I really mean, in a complimentary way, that it must take a special mind-set to write the copy so as to avoid all of the possible misinterpretations. I’m not sure I’d want that job.
Generally speaking I have found the rules for Magic to be relatively easy to follow, because the designers define their terms very clearly and use them consistently. I think most issues can be resolved by referring to the terms used, remembering the basic rules (e.g. “last in, first out”) and stepping through the proposed sequence of events logically.
However, the person who taught me to play wasn’t very good at explaining the rules or the terminology – until it was to his advantage. I remember we had a relatively heated, mid-game argument over whether a global effect like his Evacuation (all creatures return to owners’ hands) could affect creatures like my Pincher Beetles (cannot be the target of spells or abilities), because he hadn’t previously explained the distinct meaning of “target” in the game.
There’s English, and then there’s Magical English!
Here’s a question for the Magical Teemings on this thread: how do you feel about cards which let your opponent pick up your deck/library and somehow dismantle it (e.g. Jester’s Cap)?
I take issue with these cards myself, because part of the fun of the game, for me at least, is constructing a deck and seeing how well it plays, how well my idea flies – win or lose. De-constructing an opponent’s deck strikes me as contrary to the spirit of the game.
I remember when it first came out, a friend of mine had the same reaction. He would just quit when the cap hit the table. But I just don’t see it. How different is that from Mind Twist? Or millstone? Or even Terror, or Disenchant. They all stop you from seeing how well your deck works, albeit in different ways. In my mind, THAT’s the fun of the game, having all kinds of different weird effects that interact with each other. No place is off limits. Graveyard? Things come back from it. Out of the game entirely? Ring of Maruf, or the new Wishes. In your deck? You can tutor for it, I can Cap it out. It’s all part of the fun, IMHO.
And of course, if your deck can be completely shut down if I remove 3 cards that you might not have even got to anyway, it probably wasn’t so great to begin with…
Oh, I didn’t take it as a criticism, rather, as the very accurate observation that it is an extraordinarily complex game, with very little physical room to explain details and nuances.
As for your questions about Cap, Extract, Denying Wind, Lobotomy, etc., I have no problem with it. I agree with your statement about wanting to see how your deck can survive, but I see those cards as just one more form of control to deal with. It’s no different to me than a Swords to Plowshares, Disenchant, Counterspell, Stone Rain, Hymn to Tourach, Nevinyyral’s Disk, Fireball, and other means of attacking your resources. A good deck is built to deal with these things, either by stopping the attack, replacing the resource, or being able to ignore it.
To me, I guess, it’s just one more form of player interaction, and another level of decision making. Generally speaking, I think, these are not even very good cards. Why? They do not affect the game state in any real way. The cost you a card out of your hand and some mana, and do not remove a card from your opponents hand, or affect the permanents on the board, or even your opponent’s life. Unless you can actually hit ALL of their win conditions (which is unlikely), then you aren’t really any closer to winning the game.
–
Justin
The Cap shouldn’t be too much of a problem unless you play control with only one or two win conditions, and in those cases you should have all the control you need against the Cap.
Well, of course this is true, but not really my issue. It’s not that my deck get shut down, or that cards which might never have reached my hand anyway are removed. It’s the idea of someone actually picking up my deck and rifling through it. So to me, yes, there is difference between JC and, say, Millstone.
Of course, this is quite true, too. Which raises an interesting question: why, then, would someone want to use these cards in the first place?
For the two people I know who play them frequently, I’d have to guess that the answer is: insecurity. Neither one seems to enjoy the game just for the interesting combinations of weird effects and how they interact; it’s like they have to win in order to feel good about themselves – so much so that they are threatened by the idea that there might be something in my deck which theirs are totally unable to counter. Ergo, let’s pick up his deck and take out those cards which scare us.
Now I feel better. I still think it’s annoying for these two to pick up my deck and pull out cards, but now I can feel sorry for them.
Idea for a new card: Kindergarten Rules, Blue, enchantment. All players must play nicely with one another and keep their hands off other players’ stuff. Flavor text: “If it ain’t yours, don’t touch it.”
They sound like the type of player that caves in whenever they face something unorthodox. Next time go after them with a blue beatdown, lots of cheapo flyers and alternative casting cost counters/card drawing to support it. I think the deck type was called Skies when people still played it.
Hmm… I think I see it now. My same friend who would quit when he saw Jester’s Cap also had to be convinced that I was allowed to see his graveyard. I guess Cap hatred is a protectiveness thing. I’ll admit to a little bit of protectiveness when I want to surprise someone with a new deck as well. But in general, Once we’re in the game, I stop thinking of it as “my cards” and “your cards” but they’re all “cards in the game.”
Well, I don’t think it’s insecurity for everyone. I just find it kinda fun. Like another place to play the game. Kinda like how Threshold and Flashback make the graveyard a more active participant in the game.
I often play suboptimal cards because they’re fun. And of course, there’s always the recursive Cap deck, where my one goal is to strip out ALL your good stuff. (Or when I’m feeling perverse, all your lands instead.)
No, I don’t think it’s insecurity for everyone either, and I tried to word my last post to indicate that I was referring to my two fellow players.
I am beginning to think that my objection to the Cap (and its ilk) has less to do with the function of the card itself, and more with the attitudes of these particular players.
With whom, I should add, I have not played the game in a very long time.
Yup, I got that. Just giving another spin…
Well there’s the rub… No game is worth playing with people who are no fun to play with.