In Revised rulebook it was clearly stated that all cost:+x/+y effects wear off at the end of the turn. I still think that effects are not permanent unless the card says so. So first time I saw Stalking Stones I thought that's crap, pay six mana to get a 3/3 land creature for a turn.
Posted By:
tavaritz
(5/8/2011 3:20:51 PM)
No "until end of turn" clause, eh? Herp derp.
...it doesn't even say what recieves the +0/+1 bonus. The enchanted creature? The armor itself? The world may never know.
Posted By:
Kirbster
(8/13/2010 11:05:36 AM)
Fourth edition cleaned up the wording on a lot of auras, though Holy Armor never caused that much confusion. It was simply understood that the pumpable bonuses provided by the Armor were temporary, much like the bonuses provided by Firebreathing or Atog's ability. Back then, if it didn't say "permanently," you had to assume it wasn't. Then again, the +0/+2 bonus provided by the Armor is permanent, and it doesn't mention that. As I read the card now, it seems way more confusing than it ever did back in 1994. WotC's rigid wording has killed my ability to reason deductively!
Posted By:
Eppek_the_Goblin
(10/14/2010 8:05:48 AM)
@tavaritz: The Tempest version of Stalking Stones says it "becomes a 3/3 artifact creature permanently". No confusion there. The Mirrodin version says "(This effect doesn't end at end of turn)". No confusion there. Only the Elspeth vs. Tezzeret version could potentially cause a problem, so I'll assume 2010 or later was the first time you played Magic since Revised.
Posted By:
Adromalath
(9/8/2012 3:55:17 PM)
Man, that guy in the picture is so pumped about his +0/+2.
Posted By:
Aquillion
(3/6/2014 8:32:43 AM)