Is Upkeep +X cumulative?

[somaddict]

If Invisible Stalker and Mordok's Obelisk are in play, does Stalker have upkeep +2?

[Kroko]

Yes, you must pay upkeep for both, Invisible Stalke and Mordok's Obelisk. If you don't pay  Invisible Stalke will be send to discard pile.

[Shad0w]

Sometimes it is cumulative but in this case no. You choose to pay for each upkeep seperately but if you do not pay for botth the upkeeps you will have to get rid of the IS. This is the same reason if I can Mind Control a creature with a Mordok's out and then during the upkeep choose not to pay Mordok upkeep I can get rid of the creature and not worry about the MC. If for some reason you wanted to pay the MC upkeep you could and then choose not to pay for or to pay for the Mordok's

[ACG]

This is the same reason if I can Mind Control a creature with a Mordok's out and then during the upkeep choose not to pay Mordok upkeep I can get rid of the creature and not worry about the MC.

Well...not anymore:

During the Upkeep Phase, the upkeep cost for Mind Control must always be paid first, before any and all of the enchanted creature's upkeep costs. If you cannot pay, or choose not to pay, the upkeep cost for Mind Control, then Mind Control is immediately destroyed and the enchanted creature's control reverts to its owner, and any upkeep costs for that creature (if any) can be paid by the new controller.

[Hedge]

This ruling makes no sense. There is nothing in the rules or the text of mind control that would make it go first.

[Aylin]

This ruling makes no sense. There is nothing in the rules or the text of mind control that would make it go first.

It's likely that Mind Control + Mordok's was something not intended by the dev team, so they've fixed it. Even more reason not to use that combination I suppose.

[Hedge]

That is not enough reason to change the way the rules work for a single card. This follows the same problem I posted in another thread. Casrds should work the way they are written inside the frame work of the rules. I shouldn't have to reference a 50+ page FAQ for interactions that are already defined clearly by the rules. If a card interacts in some manner that is OP it should be errated. Not clarified with a Ruling that is at its simplest  "It doesn't work thay way because we say so."



Now for any card that has an upkeep cost I must search the FAQ to make sure that they have not changed the way it works. When subsequent sets are released  any cards that have upkeep costs must be clarified if they follow the normal rules or are special cases like this one.  Because I cannot know until a ruling is made if the cards will perform as thier text dictates.


Hedge

[aquestrion]

Its is a clarification. And a lot of cards have been clarified and three have errata. Magic did the same thing with older cards.

[Hedge]

Its is a clarification.

No it isn't. it is a complete circumvention of the rules. Why should this one object's upkeep be paid before any one other? I have five object's in play which must i pay first. the standard rule is I get to choose. Why is this one different?

That is one of the problems with the ruling. There is no reason why given.


Also Arcanus ruled on this very question in March of this year and contradicts this ruling.

http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=8757.msg8759#msg8759


Hedge

[aquestrion]

Probably because of it uniquely being a creature that doesn't belong to you. First you either choose to continue controlling the creature or not. Then choose any other upkeep effects in any order. If you choose not to control the creature any longer then the player gets it back and they get to choose any additional upkeep effects... making it unfair to the mind controller is the only way to make it fair for any future controling cards (which of course should have this timing specified).

Why do plants trigger bloodthirsty but they cannot have the bleed condition???

[Hedge]

Probably because of it uniquely being a creature that doesn't belong to you. First you either choose to continue controlling the creature or not. Then choose any other upkeep effects in any order. If you choose not to control the creature any longer then the player gets it back and they get to choose any additional upkeep effects... making it unfair to the mind controller is the only way to make it fair for any future controling cards (which of course should have this timing specified).

Then Mind Control needs an Erratum to make it function the way they want within the rules.

Why do plants trigger bloodthirsty but they cannot have the bleed condition???

Bleed condition is not needed to trigger Bloodthirsty. They just need to be a wounded living creature, Which they are as defined by the RULES.


Hedge

[aquestrion]

Just a point that they did erratum it in the FAQ. And that not all rules make sense...example of how plants DONT bleed but trigger BLOODthirsty. Which is why the rules don't always make sense.

[Hedge]

Just a point that they did erratum it in the FAQ. And that not all rules make sense...example of how plants DONT bleed but trigger BLOODthirsty. Which is why the rules don't always make sense.

The entry for Mind control does not have an erratum.  No where in the FAQ does it change the text of the card. That is what an erratum is. Improper Rulings don't make sense because they don't follow the rules. Rules don't have to make sense. They are the physics that define how the text of the cards interact. You seem to be utterly confused on the definitions of Rules, Rulings/Clarification,  and erratum as they pertain to a customizable card game.


Since Arcanus made a contrary Ruling in March of this year I would like to hear his thoughts on the subject.



Hedge

[aquestrion]

Ouch that hurts.

[Laddinfance]

Since Arcanus made a contrary Ruling in March of this year I would like to hear his thoughts on the subject.

I'm actually talking to him about this today. We have not missed this discussion. As soon as I get to speak to Bryan I'll post for you guys.