hehehe, my favourite topic.

I was surfing the WoTC site the other day (www.duelmasters.com) and happened to click on the single-card strategies link ... which was all about Three Eyed Dragonfly (who I'm going to call Ted from now on)

The suggestion was that you could sacrifice Mighty Shouter to Ted, and that his inestimable pinkness would both fulfill the condtion for Ted's bonus, and give you mana.

Niceness, thought Johnny.

But, thought the bit of me that's _still_ annoyed by the rulings around Mongrel Man (I want card draw, dammit, without having to splash Matildafancier) doesn't this contradict the whole "replacement effect"

After all, Mighty Shouter is never destroyed ... so you can't destroy it for Ted.

How does this one work, people? Is there going to be some neat sidestepping about the difference between a cost and an effect?

*edit: curses Typo, lord of the internet messageboards*

It seems pretty straightforward to me without any sidestepping. You pick Shouter for destruction and that fulfills Ted's card text. Then you go to Shouter's text and instead of being destroyed it goes elsewhere.
I believe all this Mongrel Man upheaval would have been solved if the text would have read "when a creature is place in the graveyard." Maybe the next printing it will change.

Rick T.

Yeah, it seems pretty straightforward. As you pointed out, when you pick Mighty Shouter for destruction, Mongrel Man's effect triggers ...

Hang on, no it doesn't.

Therefore, neither should Teds.

*edit* OOOOOOH, another wrinkle on the Shouter, from someone from a site that shall remain nameless. The bottom line is: if I play Rothus, then you shouldn't be able to choose the pinkster ... because it's never destroyed and therefore doesn't fulfill Rothus's targeting requirements.

Solutions: 1) errata Mongrel Man (card reads: when a creature is put into the graveyard from the battlezone). Forget the "replacement effect" ... Mighty Shouter IS destroyed, he just goes to the mana zone instead of the grave.

2) Let us draw for Mongrel Man ... for the Shouter, and the Soldier, and if Jack is doing his job ...

Wizards is seriously not caring much about this game apparently, they keep giving contradictory rulings...really, really making me mad.

Bear in mind that the strategy on the site wrt Ted isn't actually a ruling, it's written by the same guy that wrote a deck based around the interaction of Mongrel Man and Jack Viper. If WoTC are sensible, and consistent, they'll rule that Mighty Shouter isn't a legitimate destruction choice for Ted.

And they'll rule that you can't pick the Shouter if someone drops Rothus.

This seems like the most logical way to resolve this issue without contradicting everything.

Unfortunately, it probably does contradict the everything that WoTC R&D are concerned about.

M:tG.

This debate has gone quite hard on the other site that I'm continuing to refrain from mentioning. Someone has emailed WoTC ... and they've ruled "yes, it's destroyed for Ted, but still not destroyed for Mongrel Man"

I'm thinking of drawing glasses on all my Mongrel Men , so they can see what's happening over the other side of the field.

I've come up with another way they could rule, that would remain consistent and still cover all the card effects.

The player owning Mighty Shouter (or Aqua Soldier, or Aqua Knight, or the unkillable water evo that's coming) cannot choose the pink machine (et alia) to fulfill a destroy condition, unless it is the only available target.

Then, it's covered by the "do what you can" rule ... if there's a creature out that _could_ be destroyed, you have to pick that one.

This doesn't prevent the opponent from Terror Pitting or Death Smoking, or Crimson Hammering (or blah, blah, blah kill spell) the Shouter ... they choose the Shouter, you "do what you can" to fulfill the destroy condition.

I'm still waiting to hear what the reasoning behind the ruling is ... my guess: double talk based on dodgy semantics. Which would be cool if they'd just say "it works this way because we said so"

Doenst Rothus's Text say "When Rothus enters the battle zone, an opponent chooses a creature and destroys it, and you choose one of your creatures and destroy it."

if thats the case than you can choose Shouter for Rothus since his ability would be destroying the Shouter so his ability would take effect and he would go to the mana zone instead.

Nope. Read the FAQ. Mighty Shouter is never destroyed, because of the replacement effect. That's why no draw for Mongrel Man when the Shouter is "destroyed"

So, if you had another creature out, you'd have to choose that one, to ensure you were "doing what you could".

The other way they could rule, to remain consistent, is that the Shouter is destroyed but goes to the mana zone instead of the graveyard ... and thus would fulfill Mongrel Man's condition for draw.

They'll probably choose the incosistent, counter-intuitive, and plain old cheatyface ruling, though.

Hmm. Well, with Mongrel Man, there are more than one step involved, more than one effect involved. For Rothus and Ted for example, you choose Mighty Shouter as the target. You fulfill their text, then move onto mighty shouter's effect and send it to mana. But for Mongrel Man and Mighty Shouter, you'll always have more than 2 cards in the chain. You'll need a destruction card like crimson hammer to use on mighty shouter. From there, Mighty Shouter triggers, since the card was used on him, and is sent to mana. Since Mongrel never saw Mighty Shouter go to graveyard, you dont draw.

However, that still leaves the word 'destroyed' in this game unclear. Wizards needs to really to get an official definition of that word.

Another way to think of it is like this; Ted tells Might Shouter to go to the graveyard, thus thinking that mighty shouter is destroyed, and getting its effect. However, Mighty Shouter decides to take as detour and go to the mana, so both cards get their effects.

Hope thats not a horrible explanation, im just trying to be the guy that comes up with a reasonable explanation, lol.

It's funny you mention them needing a definition for destroyed. This may not be exactly what you're looking for but whether this definition of destroy (from the official site) will help or not I don't know:

destroy Destroying a creature means putting it into its owner's graveyard from the battle zone. You can destroy your own creatures or your opponent's creatures. if a card tells you to destroy something, you can only choose a creature,not a shield or a card in the mana zone.

I guess it's really a question of the game's mechanics and how important it is to Wizards (which with all this contradictory stuff it must not be that important).

Kinda like what MO said, Since when Shouter gets destroyed he is send to the Mana Zone instead of the Graveyard, in that case he never touches the graveyard, thus you dont draw for Mongrel Man

At this point, its all up to wizards, since that definition of destroyed isnt clear enough to interpret which effects should be allowed and which ones shouldnt.

Yes, that's the ruling.

But it doesn't make anything even remotely like sense, and it's funadmentally cheating.

Why is Mongrel Man only concerned whether Mighty Shouter goes into the graveyard, and yet Ted is only concerned with whether Shouter was sent towards the graveyard?

Surely, when Ted "destroys" Shouter and gives itself a bonus, a Mongrel Man on the other side of the field should also trigger to the "destroyed" condition?

Read the FAQ for Mighty Shouter ... which specifically says "Mighty Shouter is never destroyed"

Therefore, it shouldn't be eligible to be used for the cost of Ted ... because you didn't destroy a creature, you put one in the mana zone.

How come destroy means a different thing for Ted than it does for Mongrel Man?

Well, i like to think that Ted and Mongrel have different applications of destroyed. Mongrel doesnt get his effect till his graveyard-sensor goes off, while Ted gets his effect as soon as he gives his command of destruction.

That seems the only way to explain it. I agree though, Wizards has made a pretty big mess with the Replacement effect, and needs to fix it.

Thats why i said Wizards need to define destroy more thoroughly, and elaborate on it too.