13

There are a lot of cards that have the effect

Target permanent does not untap during next untap step

For example:Kashi-Tribe Elite and Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger.

Is there a term for this? Because it's kind of a mouthful to say "that permanent is not allowed to untap during the next untap step."

doppelgreener
  • 24,520
  • 15
  • 96
  • 170
SirDuckduck
  • 682
  • 1
  • 7
  • 17
  • The simple answer is no. I'm just not sure if there is really more to add to that. Except maybe a reason from WotC if someone can find it. – SocioMatt Apr 10 '13 at 12:32
  • 1
    Maybe there is an unofficial term like Trollshroud was used before WotC named it hexproof. Or maybe is the SE mtg community big enough to coin the the term! – SirDuckduck Apr 10 '13 at 12:38
  • 6
    If we're going to coin terms, I'm voting for "Exhausted." That creature is exhausted; it doesn't untap because it can't do anything. Alternatives if "Exhausted" is actually under copyright because of Vs.: depleted, crippled, or enervated. – SocioMatt Apr 10 '13 at 12:43
  • You are no allowed to untap that because its Exhausted. Sound good! Although "my mountain is Exhausted sound" a bit odd... Maybe there will be some good input later today, else I'm gonna answer my own question with that. – SirDuckduck Apr 10 '13 at 12:52
  • 1
    I actually wouldn't mind exhausted for lands or other permanents. One of the common uses is "exhausted resources," which is what every card in MtG represents. They are resources that are meant to help you cast spells and defeat your opponents. – SocioMatt Apr 10 '13 at 13:38
  • To throw another (potential) term into the mix (and since I know of at least 1 other game that uses Exhausted): Stuck. Also: Delayed. – cdeszaq Apr 10 '13 at 15:12
  • 1
    If you don't think mountains get exhausted, try being a mountain for a day!! Sure they only move a micrometer a day, but for a mountain, it's a lot of work! – corsiKa Apr 11 '13 at 16:13
  • I always prefered "double tapped"... – aslum Apr 11 '17 at 14:28

4 Answers4

10

Short answer, "no". Long answer, "noooooooooo".

However, in casual games I [personally] tend to use the term "locked" or "locked down" if something doesn't untap during untap phases at all.

As SocioMatt suggested in the comments, "exhausted" would be a good turn for a single-hit of this on creatures. For permanents in general, you could say "delayed" - or for flavour representing disruption of a player's magical link to their permanent, something along the lines of "obscured" or "tangled".

Samthere
  • 9,683
  • 37
  • 77
10

No, there is no official term for it.

If you want a term to use casually, then I suggest Paralyzed (a la Paralyzing Grasp or Paralyze).

I also like the suggested term exhausted (Exhaustion), tangled (Tangle) or sleeping (Sleep).

doppelgreener
  • 24,520
  • 15
  • 96
  • 170
Colin D
  • 5,956
  • 1
  • 28
  • 43
  • The term "exhaustion" seems to be favored as answer as well in the comment section. no sure if i can tag anything as answer since there is no correct answer... – SirDuckduck Apr 11 '13 at 09:09
  • 2
    @SirDuckduck The 'correct' answer is no. You should accept whatever answer contains that and you find most helpful. – Colin D Apr 11 '13 at 12:00
  • The first three are good, because they can be used both as an action and a state, e.g. "I paralyze your creature" "nooooo it's paralyzed". ("Tangle" isn't quite as nice as the other two, but still works.) But sleep is awkward - "I put your creature to sleep"? "I sleep your creature"? In any case, +1, coining names based on existing cards is definitely the de facto convention. – Cascabel Apr 11 '13 at 14:56
  • Another idea appropriated from card effect that I've heard used is "frozen" or "iced" (think Wall of Frost, Frost Titan, Crippling Chill). – ryanyuyu Jul 06 '17 at 14:42
4

I'm not sue of its legality in tournaments, but in casual play, my area usually calls this "Super-tapped" and often turn the card upside down to represent it being essentially "tapped twice". (assuming tapped is turning the card 90 degrees. Super-tapped would mean turning it 180 degrees.)

However I cant think of an official name for this. Also as you can see there are plenty of informal names for this action.

ThunderToes
  • 2,519
  • 5
  • 24
  • 51
  • 2
    I personally turn them 135 degrees to differentiate between flip cards, as well as making it more easy to see at a glance and not to forget about anything while untapping. – TheThirdMan Apr 11 '17 at 14:51
  • @TheThirdMan that is a very valid point however, there are a select few people i play from time to time who forget to untap creatures and artifacts regardless of situation... XD – ThunderToes Apr 11 '17 at 16:46
-2

As of Amonkhet, there is now a mechanic that causes an attacking creature to not untap during its controller's next untap step. It is called exert (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/amonkhet-mechanics-2017-04-03).

However, I usually refered to it as sleeping, freezing or being frozen as those are the flavor effects of the blue cards that inflict this condition in recent sets.

Petr Hudeček
  • 202
  • 1
  • 7
  • 3
    Exert doesn't seem relevant, as I'm unlikely refer to these effects as having "exerted" a card -- it doesn't seem intuitive and it confuses with an entirely separate mechanic. – doppelgreener Apr 10 '17 at 08:19
  • 1
    I'm positive that "exert" will be the exact keyword the OP is looking for. For me "Exert target permanent" is bot intuitive and natural. Limiting the "exert " keyword only to creatures or only to attackers would be just that - limiting with no upsides. If we can regenerate any permanent and not just creatures, than we should be able to exert any permanent and not just creatures. – tsuma534 Apr 11 '17 at 09:53
  • 2
    @tsuma534 and PetrHudeček: The problem is that exerting is an action, while a permanent not untapping is a "status" of the permanent. Furthermore, exerting refers to specifically choosing not to have the permanent untap while declaring it as an attacker. Using exerting as a synonym for a creature not untapping could lead to false assumptions in both directions. – TheThirdMan Apr 11 '17 at 14:55
  • 2
    I agree that this doesn't make sense. Exert has more to it, in flavour and mechanics. Exert is a choice to make when attacking, and the use of "exert" as a word is there to convey the creature pushing itself to get a bit more. The word has to do with putting in effort, and exhaustion is a consequence. If you're gonna start "exerting" my creatures, I'm gonna ask what I get from it. – Samthere Apr 11 '17 at 16:13
  • @TheThirdMan "exerting refers to specifically choosing not to have the permanent untap while declaring it as an attacker" - where do you got this information from? – tsuma534 Apr 12 '17 at 10:58
  • 1
    @Samthere and Thirdman it's possible that you're right. But in the version you're proposing exert is very limited. in the version I hope for, exert works identically for the previewed cards as in your version BUT it can also be used in any situation where a permanent doesn't untap during it's controller's next untap step. The exert mechanics you're proposing have no upsides over the exert mechanics I hope for. I don't see why Wizards would limit themselves when they can introduce a new evergreen keyword for a status that's around for years. Time will tell who guessed right. – tsuma534 Apr 12 '17 at 11:08
  • @tsuma534: The Amonkhet Mechanics post states that "You make the decision whether to exert a creature as you declare it as an attacker. If you choose to have it exert, an ability will trigger and grant you some bonus. As a trade-off, the creature won't untap during your next turn." From the phrasing alone, you can tell that the creature not untapping is more of a side-effect or cost than the core element of the mechanic. – TheThirdMan Apr 12 '17 at 11:50
  • 1
    @TheThirdMan That's only an explanation how exert works in this particular set. It's not a rules text. – tsuma534 Apr 12 '17 at 12:46
  • @tsuma534: Then I guess it's my time now to ask you where you get that information from; after all, there is no official rules text from (and this is a new keyword that's introduced), and while it's not impossible that the keyword could be used otherwise, the section I quoted certainly doesn't seem to be an example, but a generalized statement. Could it be you're confusing "mechanics in Amonkhet" with "the way mechanics are used in Amonkhet"? – TheThirdMan Apr 12 '17 at 13:08
  • 1
    @TheThirdMan Which information? That it's not a rules text? Well, it's not. Magic Comprehensive Rules is the place to look for the rules text and it doesn't say anything about "exert" yet. And the article haven't quoted the exact mechanics it just explained them in layman terms. I fully understand your interpretation ant it may be correct. But mine can also be correct. When Magic Comprehensive Rules will update I will return here and update my vote or the answer. I just hope that if the update somehow proves that I was right, that others will be kind enough to retract their downvotes. – tsuma534 Apr 13 '17 at 07:33
  • 1
    The new comp rules definition is "701.37a To exert a permanent, you choose to have it not untap during your next untap step." As others have suggested, that "choose" seems pretty important. If someone else locks down your creature, you didn't choose. – Cascabel Apr 14 '17 at 15:56
  • I've thought about this again and I think the way they've set it up could make sense. There's a ruling on all AKH exert cards saying that "all AKH exerts are on-attack", which means they may start using exert in general. However, because there are on-exert triggers, I don't expect them to change this to a keyword or change any old cards that do the same thing. It's feasible that you could exert target creature, but my guess is that they're going to keep it as an ability used to get an extra benefit. The mechanism of getting that benefit might be different in HoD. – Samthere Apr 26 '17 at 15:48
  • @TheThirdMan And there it is. Kefnet's Monument has "Whenever you cast a creature spell, target creature an opponent controls doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step." when it could have simple "Whenever you cast a creature spell, exert target creature an opponent controls." With the introduction of "died" and "create" keywords I was under impression that Wizards became fond of new evergreen keywords for old effects. And "doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step" has been around for a long time. The keyword for this is long overdue. "Exert" was perfect candidate. – tsuma534 Apr 30 '17 at 16:51
  • @tsuma: Again, it never was from the start. Even if you take into account that in the future, permanents might be exerted at other times than when they're attacking, it's still an action. The rule reads "701.37a To exert a permanent, you choose to have it not untap during your next untap step.", indicating that it will only ever be used as a choice, and for your own permanents. The closest you could've gotten with the Monument would be "Whenever you cast a creature spell, the controller of target creature an opponent controls may exert it.", which obviously doesn't do anything great for you. – TheThirdMan Apr 30 '17 at 17:21
  • @TheThirdMan I well understand the rule, that's where my sorrow comes from. It's an action only because Wizards made it so. It wasn't the only way to implement it. It could be a status just like tapped, flipped, transformed, etc. As a status it could be ruled like "An exerted permanent doesn't untap during it's controller's untap step. Instead it stops being exerted at that time." Done. And than we could have "Tap and exert target permanent". In my opinion it's a lost opportunity. – tsuma534 May 01 '17 at 18:54