Arcane Lighthouse + Asceticism

Asked by CaoJin 6 years ago

Hi Everyone!

I was having a game of commander with my housemates yesterday when we hit a scenario for which we couldn't find a concrete answer.

In my Yisan, the Wanderer Bard deck I have Asceticism and my housemate has the land Arcane Lighthouse in his Temmet, Vizier of Naktamun deck. The card text for asceticism doesn't specifically say my creatures get hexproof or shroud and there is no oracle text for the card that says it, therefore the activated ability of the lighthouse to make my creatures lose shroud or hexproof would not work.

I was happy to state the effect still worked but he insisted that since the text wasn't on the card then it would not work as intended, I would have thought that since Asceticism grants the same effect but just in full text rather than having the keyword it would still be relevant.

More out of curiosity I was wondering what your guys' take on this would be?

Profet93 says... Accepted answer #1

Refer to the following link...

Link

The term "hexproof" is a shorthand way of stating exactly what Asceticism says. Therefore to my knowledge, Arcane Lighthouse should be able to temporarily get around it. Hope this helps

August 17, 2017 1:56 a.m.

CaoJin says... #2

Profet93

Thanks a lot for the help! I thought that would be the case!

it didn't matter too much in the long run as I used Bane of Progress a few turns later but it will be useful to know for the future.

August 17, 2017 2:27 a.m.

A useful tool to use when looking up Oracle Text is the mtg Gatherer website.

Here is the link to Asceticism's page, which shows the update oracle text.

August 17, 2017 3:08 a.m.

Neotrup says... #5

If Asceticism did not use the term hexproof, Arcane Lighthouse would not remove it, but Asceticism does say hexproof. I'm not sure why you said it does not have an oracle text update using the term hexproof though, as that's exactly what the oracle text says.

August 17, 2017 11:55 a.m.

CaoJin says... #6

Neotrup

I wasn't using the correct site, that's been rectified now. like I said, I was under the impression it worked that way anyways.

August 18, 2017 12:32 a.m.

Please login to comment