Pointed Discussion

I really like the flavor text. and the fact that it's "Tap target artifact" and not "Tap target creature" or "Tap target permanent"; this ties into what the text says about the plight of those Auriok people living on Mirrodin under the threat of Memnarch and his leveler machines. Otherwise, it is a bit narrow, in terms of the mechanic, but I like the 1/1 for {W}.

3.5/5 for flavor points, which is a big reason when it comes to playing cards for me.

Weak. You have to spend mana to activate it, and most artifacts still function when tapped? I like the old rule about tapped artifacts ceasing to function when tapped. It made them more distinct from enchantments.

Dat underboob

I am try into figure timing out wit this card.... if player 1 tapes an artifact for will say mana, then player 2 pays and taps Auriok to tap the artifact, is it taped by by player 2 or 1. or in ther reverse player 2 pays and tapes Auriok to tap artifact then player 1 tps the articat for the mana, which goes 1st.........
I would think you go by the stack up rules...I.E.
Case #1: stack up rule stated "last in 1st out... the articaft is taped by Auroik.
Case #2: for the same reason the artifact would get the mana.

Am I off base here or not..
PLease help (argument between son and father) ( I am father...lol).

Howling Mine

@Red_Dragonsfire: when you tap something for mana the tap is part of the payment for the ability, therefore only the ability its self can be responded to, so the mana would be produced then the transfixer would tap a tapped artifact

@imsully2: Actually, FYI, if he were tapping the artifact to produce mana it would be a mana ability and wouldn't use the stack. There would be nothing to respond to. If the artifact were being tapped as payment for any other type of ability, then what you said stands. The net result is the same, but there's an important difference.

I'm sure target artifact would like to tap her.

The art and flavour text suggests she is a wizard more than a scout...