Less "Cannot be Regenerated"

[Crackdown]

Q: "How come all of the Kamigawa black kill spells are lacking the clause 'cannot be regenerated'?"
--Miguel
Davis, California, USA

A: From Brian Schneider, Magic R&D:

"I believe that you'll be seeing less of 'cannot be regenerated' going forward. It's been an issue in R&D for a while now to let regeneration actually matter. After all, what's the point of having regeneration if all of the kill spells get around it?"

Hmmm . . .

 

[Killer Joe]

Many years ago (circa 1998) I was playing in a local tournament at Fat Cats Book Store in Binghamton, NY. I was playing my first viable tournarment deck "Señor Stompy" a mono-green beasty of a deck with River Boa; a 2/1 Islandwalk creature with regeneration for {G}. Anyway, my opponent (Rory) was playing Mono-Blue Control with Rainbow Effreet' and Nevy's Disk. So I'm starting to put the beat-down on him when plops a disk down. I figure I'm gonna go out in a blaze of glory and I "Alpha Strike" but not enough to kill him. So he waits until I attack again when he "pops" the disk. Mind you, I have 2 River Boa's out and plenty of mana. But I scoop all of my creatures and put them into the graveyard.

What's this story about? That still today I find myself (rarely though) putting creatures in the graveyard with regeneration after being targeted by a spell that doesn't have the dreaded text "Creatures destroyed this way cannot be regenerated." If I'M still doing that then maybe others are too. It's not the responsibility of the opponent to overtly point out to the other player about what choices they have.

I don't think it's such a bad idea to make "spot removal" spells a little weaker. Mass removal spells like Wrath of God should remain the same, IMO.

 

[Nightstalkers]

Remember folks: Bury is the same as "Cannot be regenerated"

That's an issue with a lot of the older cards and the new players not knowing about the older wording. Me, I'm wordy and try to inform players of these things as I'm playing them; of course I don't do that to older players. Why can't we return "bury" then?

 

[Limited]

Yes, bring back BURY!

Don't get why that was ever removed. It was like, "we don't like this word, lets just describe what it does" and in a year or two they'll be like "The text doesn't fit on the cards anymore.. maybe we should introduce a keyword for this 'really destroy' ability"

 

[Mikeymike]

Good, I like regeneration. And I love River Boa.

 

[Nightstalkers]

And how do you guys explain the "tougness to zero, can't regenerate" rule?

Basically I let them go through a quick thing of regenerating. They regenerate the 0/0, it comes back, dies, they regenerate, it comes back, dies, they regenerate... etc. etc. Until they're out of mana.

About that time I tell them to go back, recover their mana, and play on. Interesting how some people don't grasp that old rule, but it was made after they figured out people would stall.

 

[Limited]

Regenerating is not preventing stuff from being put into the graveyard, it removes all damage from a creature. Unfortunately for the */0, it needs no damage to qualify as dying and therefor is put into the graveyard as part of the effect that caused it to become 0/0.

So letting them regenerate the creature is not a good example of showing what happens to it; explain that regeneration is not applicable here..

 

[jorael]

I'm not 100% sure but I believe this is how it is:

If a creature gets a toughness of 0 or less, it is put into the graveyard when state-based effects are checked. You do not even get to respond to that by even trying to regenerate the creature.

 

[Spiderman]

I think that's the way it is now, with the 6th onward rules. What Nightstalkers described I think was applicable before then.

 

[Killer Joe]

420.5. The state-based effects are as follows:
420.5a A player with 0 or less life loses the game.
420.5b A creature with toughness 0 or less is put into its owner’s graveyard. Regeneration can’t replace this event.

 

[Nightstalkers]

Yeah, before they had the rule they could regenerate till they ran out of whatever. Basically stalling a game.

New players always ask me why they couldn't regenerate the creature and all that. basically, it doesn't go away. So either show them through example in a game you are playing then and there, or kinda work it around.

Damage is removed from critters regenerating, but not how weak it is. If the creature is too weak to even breathe, then regenerating that just lets it die again.

 

[Oversoul]

Wouldn't it matter with Clergy of the Holy Nimbus (I think that is the card that I am thinking of)?

 

[Spiderman]

I don't think so if this is the one:

Clergy of the Holy Nimbus

Color= White
Type= Creature - Priest
Cost= W
LG(C2)
Text (LG+errata): 1/1. ; If ~this~ would be destroyed, regenerate it. ; {1}: ~this~ can't be regenerated this turn. Only any opponent may play this ability. [Oracle 2001/08/24]

If the Clergy are reduced to below one toughness (by such as Weakness), then they get put into the graveyard as normal. Being put into the graveyard for zero or less toughness is not a "destroy" effect. [D'Angelo 2000/03/14]

 

[Oversoul]

I know that's what they say now. I was wondering if the text originally read differently (I don't have an English copy of the card). I should have specified that I was talking about "back then" (like Nightstalkers was talking about) before the card had an erratum on it.

 

[Nightstalkers]

I think that it would have been given over to the "Handling Endless Loop" rules then...

But situations like that were most probably the reason for the change.

 

[Spiderman]

Here's the original text (I have one, although I used CrystalKeep's original wording

When Clergy are destroyed or take lethal damage, unless opponent pays 1 Clergy are regenerated.

So it still says "destroy". So the next question is if D'Angelo's comment that "having 0 toughness or put into the graveyard is not a 'destroy' effect" still applied then, before 2000 when he made the ruling.

 

[Oversoul]

I think (actually, I would be surprised if it didn't) it still applied. But I never really saw anyone use the card enough to wonder about it...

 

[Spiderman]

I do too, but you never know with the many "rules reversals" that have come up in the past 10 or so years of Magic