Magician's Circle Rulings

P

paulb91085

New Member
I was running my magician deck and somebody told me that to get the effect of Magician's Circle Both player's must have a spellcaster 2000 attact when my spellcaster attacks. So to get to the point does players have to special summ to get the card to work.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
The effect does not Disappear if no one summoned, it just resolves as nothing being summoned. Of course that means the Decks will still have to be shuffled given the fact we are looking through our Decks and then verifying that our opponents Deck has no suitable Spellcaster-Type to summon.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jason_C said:
Both vs Each. In The Shallow Grave, BOTH players summon a monster, indicating that the summoning is ONE event. In Magician's Circle, EACH player summons a monster, indicating two seperate summonings occurring simultaneously.

It's so simple, yet it makes no sense at all. How can both statements be true? When Konami makes the rules, of course.
Click to expand...
The wording of "each" vs. "both" has no relevance in this case, that is merly reading too much into it. It is simply because one summons from the Graveyard, and the other summons from the Deck, as masterwooO pointed out.

Tiso has the right idea in terms of resolution.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
The wording of "each" vs. "both" has no relevance in this case, that is merly reading too much into it. It is simply because one summons from the Graveyard, and the other summons from the Deck, as masterwooO pointed out.

Tiso has the right idea in terms of resolution.
Click to expand...

The wording is important, being how EACH and BOTH are two different things in the game. Unless of course Konami does another:

We say so that it works this way so niyah
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't think we should look too closely at "each" vs. "both" as there are only 2 players playing against one another. Each = both if there are only 2 parties invovled.

The more important thing to take from this is that the Deck isn't public knowledge, but the Graveyard (and RFP pile) is.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jathro, while that may be true, it does not change the fact wording problems arise because of Konami. Two words with the exact same meaning will do two different things, I.E. Discard and Send. Each and Both are also the same. The wording is not dependent on whether whatever you are trying to do is public knowledge, it is just the fact Konami continues to make their own game confusing when two words, meaning the same thing, can do completely different things. I know there are cards that have Each or Both on them that work in this same fashion. Hopefully The Grave of Enkindling will be a card with Each instead of Both, but I think they wanted it to be the Trap Card of The Shallow Grave, which has both.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tiso said:
The wording is important, being how EACH and BOTH are two different things in the game. Unless of course Konami does another:

We say so that it works this way so niyah
Click to expand...
...and sometimes wording is important.. but in this case, it doesn't matter.

One is a Deck search, the other being a Graveyard search.

btw, where is the world did you guys get this idea that "both" and "each" indicates this? are there any other examples to compare with?... because it just seems like a straw pick.

Even though they are different words, the real mechanics show us that a Deck search is never targeted, the wording could be indentical (either both or each) and the outcome would be the same.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It makes difference. If a card says: 'Each' player, then they search individually (alright, they already do) through their Decks, making it INDIVIDUAL or there are cards available.
However, both suggests they must 'work together'. If one of them has no card, the effect just fizzles away.
The effect of Magician's Circle would continue, following what I just said.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Right. See, "both" means two acting as a unit. It is one event when "both" people do something. "Each" means all different events, even when they occur simultaneously.

Creature Swap = not bringing that up...

Resolving as much as possible vs fizzling is key to this wording. When confronted with the fact that one of the mandated events on a card cannot occur, some cards continue to do what they can with the other event, while other cards just quit trying. The card that does what it can knows that "each" of its effects must resolve. The card that quits knows that "both" of its effects must resolve.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
masterwoo0 said:
Well, in the case of Magician's Circle, neither player having a eligible Spellcaster would mean that the effect should Disappear because it has already resolved, and shuffling isnt an effect, it's part of the mechanics of searching your Deck.
Click to expand...

Which people do not remember or really do not care, which causes problems later on. The game mechanics makes you shuffle the Deck. No changing that. If you were looking through your Deck and saw you had some good cards coming to you, too bad, shuffle.

As for the terms both and each, there are a few cards that operate under those cirumstances. The Shallow Grave being the no. 1 card that I will point out. It has the word both and both have to be able to Special Summon a monster. Magician's Circle is each, meaning a slightly different thing in Konami's eyes. There are other cards that work like this, but I cannot think of them at the moment unless I search them for them. But mark my words they exist and it is really annoying how the game can have words mean the same thing and do different things.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, see, what I did there was show someone an example in which their generalization did not apply.

What YOU did was different.

Edit: I KNEW there was something wrong. I spelled "generalization" wrong.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What I was showing was the normal way you would chain in that situation, although your way is acceptable, but a lot of people do not know about game states, such as chaining Magic Cylinder after you activate Mirror Force for example. Either way shown is fine. Also the declaring an attack does not have to be you declaring an attack.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Slight problem there Tiso. The way of resolving is getting disturbed. In Raijinili's example, first Magician's Circle resolves, Special Summoning the Spellcasters. Then Mystic Wok resolves, offering the Spellcaster.
However, in your case Mystic Wok resolves first, KILLING the (only?) Spellcaster, and if it was the only Spellcaster, then Magician's Circle has no Spellcaster to be based on...
At last, I thought it will go that way. Someone correct me if it is not...
Greetings,
BenjaminMS
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The activation requirement is that it must have been a spellcaster that was making the attack, not that there is still one on the field when you activate it so either way should still be valid.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
daivahataka said:
The activation requirement is that it must have been a spellcaster that was making the attack, not that there is still one on the field when you activate it so either way should still be valid.
Click to expand...

Oh ok :D My mistake. Sorry Tiso...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
BenjaminMS said:
Slight problem there Tiso. The way of resolving is getting disturbed. In Raijinili's example, first Magician's Circle resolves, Special Summoning the Spellcasters. Then Mystic Wok resolves, offering the Spellcaster.
However, in your case Mystic Wok resolves first, KILLING the (only?) Spellcaster, and if it was the only Spellcaster, then Magician's Circle has no Spellcaster to be based on...
At last, I thought it will go that way. Someone correct me if it is not...
Greetings,
BenjaminMS
Click to expand...
Tributing a spellcaster for Mystik Wok is in fact a cost, which will occur at activation. In Raijinili's example, there is no spellcaster on the field, yet Magician's Circle is still legally activated.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top