Sacrificing Evolving Wilds the same turn it was played?
Asked by Phoxly 12 years ago
Can you activate Evolving Wilds the same turn it was played? I thought artifacts/lands that have abilities like this have a summoning sickness equivalent?
Rhadamanthus says... #2
The "summoning sickness" rule only applies to creatures.
July 11, 2012 6:26 p.m.
No. Only creatures have summoning sickness. Lands and artifacts do not. Any land or artifact can be tapped the turn it is played, saying it enters untapped.
Otherwise, basic lands would have summoning sickness. Let's look at an older Mountain , as it's very explicit on what a mountain does:
As you can tell, even basics would have summoning sickness. However, all lands do not have summoning sickness.
July 11, 2012 6:27 p.m.
And technically all permanents have summoning sickness, but only creatures are restricted by it. For example people never activate Gideon Jura 's 0 ability the turn they play him because he'd then be a creature and therefore unless he gets haste he can't attack until summoning sickness leaves.
July 11, 2012 11:57 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... Accepted answer #6
"Technically", no they don't. People keep saying that, but I don't know why. It's probably one of the reasons the person who asked the original question got confused. The "summoning sickness" rule in the CR gives no mention to any card type other than creatures. If a non-creature card becomes a creature, then it immediately becomes subject to the rule, because it's now a creature.
302.6. A creature's activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can't be activated unless the creature has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. A creature can't attack unless it has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the "summoning sickness" rule.
July 12, 2012 9:30 a.m.
Summoning sickness sounds much like something that hits something as it comes into existence, therefore it's easier to tell someone all permanents have it, but only creatures are harmed by it. Stating that something gets summoning sickness if it's turned into a creature on the turn it entered the battlefield under it's current controller's control can also be confusing. Flavorfully lets treat the phyrexian infection as summoning sickness. Karn as a planeswalker had been carrying the infection in him, but since he was a planeswalker it couldn't effect him. When he lost his spark though and in a sense became a creature the infection started to effect him. Now if players of the past or the creators of mtg had been able to come up with a different nickname, one that makes sense for permanents that didn't enter the battlefield as a creature then I wouldn't be dealing with trying to tell someone they can't attack with that man land the turn it entered the battlefield.
July 12, 2012 6:34 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #8
I don't see how "everything has summoning sickness but only one card type actually gets sick" is any better. Calling something technically true when it's actually technically false isn't a good way to help someone learn what the rules are.
July 12, 2012 7:09 p.m.
Litewarior says... #9
I believe the reason people believe that is because in MTGO, when you hover over a card, the text says summoning sick if it came into play that turn, regardless of the card type.
July 12, 2012 11:02 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #10
@Rhadamanthus - One of the main reasons is because if some non-creature permanent becomes a creature before it goes through its controller's untap step, it will be subject to summoning sickness. Therefore, it's easy to say that all permanents "have" summoning sickness but only creatures and permanents that become creatures are affected by it. It can sometimes be less confusing than explaining how something that didn't have summoning sickness before has gained summoning sickness because it became a creature. While the latter is more factually correct, the former is easier to grasp for some reason.
July 13, 2012 2:41 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #11
I've not personally seen any evidence that either explanation is any more or less confusing than the other. In the absence of a difference in that regard, it's best to give the explanation that's actually correct.
akatsukidawn446 says... #1
99.99% sure SS only applies to creatures...so I would say yes.
July 11, 2012 6:26 p.m.