I have a problem with the rules

51 posts / 0 new
Last post
212.3b When a creature spell resolves, its controller puts it into play under his or her control.

This rule says that I put the creature into play when the spell resolves.

413.2i A spell is put into play from the stack under the control of the spell's controller (for permanents) or is put into its owner's graveyard from the stack (for instants and sorceries) as the final step of the spell's resolution. An ability is removed from the stack and ceases to exist as the final step of its resolution.

And this rule says that I put it into plöay when the spell resolves.

Wouldnt that mean that I have to put it into play twice?
my new deck: Bears with Weapons
The Rules support each other.

When the Creature Spell resolves, it's put into play. Peroid
No. The two rules are simply saying the same thing in different ways; they're there to reinforce one another. They don't act independently.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

No, they are refering to the same thing.

212 is just the rules dealing specifically with creature and 413 with playing in general. A lot of the entries in the Glossary are duplicates too, that doesn't mean you do it twice.

DCI Level 2 Judge

 

"That's what's so stupid about the whole magic thing, you know," Rincewind said. "You spend twenty years learning the spell that makes nude virgins appear in your bedroom, and then you're so poisoned by quicksilver fumes and half-blind from reading old grimoires that you can't remember what happens next."

- Terry Pratchett, The Colour Of Magic

But which rule says that those rules do mean the same "putting into play"?
my new deck: Bears with Weapons
What the heck are you talking about?

They BOTH say to Put the Creature Spell into Play; So, you Put the Creature Spell into Play; What part of this do you NOT understand?
They BOTH say to Put the Creature Spell into Play; So, you Put the Creature Spell into Play; What part of this do you NOT understand?

I'm not sure, but wouldnt that make "come into play"-effects trigger twice?
my new deck: Bears with Weapons
No.

It's merely coming-into-play; Once
Let's say you're trying to go out to a restaurant you've heard about. You ask a friend about it, and he says you go to Main Street, then take a right, and it's about halfway down the street.

Then, later that day, you look up the restaurant website, and there it has directions, and it says to go to Main Street, then take a right, and it's about halfway down the block.

When you actually head out to the restaurant, would you take two right turns?
Let's say you're trying to go out to a restaurant you've heard about. You ask a friend about it, and he says you go to Main Street, then take a right, and it's about halfway down the street.

Then, later that day, you look up the restaurant website, and there it has directions, and it says to go to Main Street, then take a right, and it's about halfway down the block.

When you actually head out to the restaurant, would you take two right turns?

Precisely.

If you get an assemble-it-yourself table from Ikea and it comes with two instruction manuals for some reason, and both instruction manuals tell you to "Put Peg A into Slot B", would you try to put the peg into the slot twice? No--the manuals are not cumulative, they're supplementary.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Let's say you're trying to go out to a restaurant you've heard about. You ask a friend about it, and he says you go to Main Street, then take a right, and it's about halfway down the street.

Then, later that day, you look up the restaurant website, and there it has directions, and it says to go to Main Street, then take a right, and it's about halfway down the block.

When you actually head out to the restaurant, would you take two right turns?

no but if my friend would tell me to turn right, and then again tell me to turn right, I might be confused....
my new deck: Bears with Weapons
wait a moment.....

413.2i A spell is put into play from the stack under the control of the spell's controller (for permanents) or is put into its owner's graveyard from the stack (for instants and sorceries) as the final step of the spell's resolution. An ability is removed from the stack and ceases to exist as the final step of its resolution.

can a spell even be a permanent?
my new deck: Bears with Weapons
Why make the situation hard enough for you to understand?

Some things are as simple as that. Don't make it complicated.

I defended you on your last thread where everyone made the "facepalm" at you but this time, I believe what you are asking is just as plain as that, that it you shouldn't be confused about.

Things don't come into TWICE, just ONCE. Nothing comes into play twice, once it resolves, if you somehow play the same card again, i.e Flashback or you fished it out of your Graveyard, once you played it, it's a new card and not a "copy" of what you've played before.

To make things short, don't make the rules complicated, it's not. There are a few that can confuse you, but this? No, I believe it's nothing to be confused at. Peace.
Can a spell be a permanent while it's a spell? No.

Can a spell resolve and become a permanent? Yes. Anything you play is a spell, but some resolve into the in-play zone and become permanents, while some resolve into the graveyard because they can't enter play (hmmm... sounds familiar).
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Or, as an alternative explanation, once the spell resolves and becomes a permanent, it is no longer a spell, and therefore cannot resolve again and come into play again. I hope that helps.
no but if my friend would tell me to turn right, and then again tell me to turn right, I might be confused....

Brusko651: Which way do I turn from Main Street?
Brusko651's friend: Right.
Brusko651: Which way do I turn from this street (which happens to be Main Street)?
Brusko651's friend: Right.

This would confuse you?
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
Brusko651: Which way do I turn from Main Street?
Brusko651's friend: Right.
Brusko651: Which way do I turn from this street (which happens to be Main Street)?
Brusko651's friend: Right.

This would confuse you?

No because he answered 2 different questions.

But this might confuse me:

Brusko651: How do I get to the bakery?
my friend: You go down a street then you turn right and walk down the next street, but before you do that you have to turn right...

Ok, maybe that is a bad example, because if I turned right twice I would go back to where I came from...

give me some minutes/hours and I'll come up with a good example.
my new deck: Bears with Weapons
No because he answered 2 different questions.

No more different than the two rules you quoted at the start of this thread.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
No more different than the two rules you quoted at the start of this thread.

?

I dont think I asked the rules more than one question
my new deck: Bears with Weapons
?

I dont think I asked the rules more than one question

First you looked up the rule for what happens when a creature spell resolves.

Then you looked up the rule for what happens when any spell other than an instant or sorcery resolves.

That's like trying to follow the instructions from your home to a bakery followed by the instructions from your home to the strip mall that includes the bakery.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
I: Hello
my friend: Hello
I: How are you?
my friend: fine, thx
I: let's go play some magic
my friend: OK.
I: I play a mulldrifter and draw 4 cards because the comp. rules say it comes into play twice.
my friend: OK, you're the boss.


I hope you see what I mean now.
my new deck: Bears with Weapons
I: Hello
my friend: Hello
I: How are you?
my friend: fine, thx
I: let's go play some magic
my friend: OK.
I: I play a mulldrifter and draw 4 cards because the comp. rules say it comes into play twice.
my friend: OK, you're the boss.


I hope you see what I mean now.

No.

The main Wizards web page at http://www.wizards.com/ has the Hasbro logo on it. It also has the text "Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc." at the bottom of the page. Does that webpage say that WotC is part of Hasbro twice?
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
IT DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY TWICE.

The rules say the same thing in two different places, yes, but because one section involves permanent spells and one section involve spells in general.

THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE

[indent]The Comprehensive Rules say twice that the permanent will come into play when the spell resolves.[/indent]

THE FOLLOWING IS NOT TRUE

[indent]The Comprehensive Rules say that the permanent comes into play twice when the spell resolves.[/indent]
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

Does that webpage say that WotC is part of Hasbro twice?

yes, it does say it twice, but that doesnt matter, because it is true.
my new deck: Bears with Weapons
Does that webpage say that WotC is part of Hasbro twice?
yes, it does say it twice, but that doesnt matter, because it is true.

WotC is not two parts of Hasbro.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
WotC is not two parts of Hasbro.

maybe not, but it's still quite an important part!
my new deck: Bears with Weapons
actually,
your hasbro example is a completely different thing

when I say
x=y
and thén say
x=y

x is still y



But when I say
"add 2 to x!"
and then say
"add 2 to x",
you will have added a total of 4 to x and not only 2....
my new deck: Bears with Weapons
...................................................................................................................................................................................................


Okay, exactly. When the rules say resolving permanent == comes into play

and then the rules say resolving permanent == comes into play



IT ONLY COMES INTO PLAY ONCE.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

actually,
your hasbro example is a completely different thing

when I say
x=y
and thén say
x=y

x is still y



But when I say
"add 2 to x!"
and then say
"add 2 to x",
you will have added a total of 4 to x and not only 2....

how about this. rule 412.2i tells you what happens in generel when an item on the stack resolves.

rule 212.3b tells you what happens when, specifically, a creature spell resolves.

so, rule 212.3b is giving you more specific instructions about the event that rule 412.2i covers in general. they are both talking about the same thing, and it only happens once.
Brusko, the rulebook is not some procedure to be followed step-by-step. Some rules do lists "procedures", such as how to spell a play, but the rulebook as a whole is just an arbitrary collection of "laws."

For clarity, some of those laws are duplicated, because the rules are organized by topic, and if a law applies to both topics, it makes sense to state that law in both topics. That doesn't mean that the action described in that law is to be carried out twice.
DCI Level 2 Judge Please use autocard when you ask a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel
Well, technically 413.2i says that it comes into play as the final step of the resolution, and 212.3b says to put it into play when it has resolved, which you'd assume would be after the final step of the resolution... But the spirit of the law is pretty obvious here.
Kedar, I think you should take a breather. I know Brusko is being frustratingly dense, but your shouting is annoying.
DCI Level 2 Judge Please use autocard when you ask a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel
Sorry if it seems like I'm shouting. I'm just trying to post it big enough that he'll actually read it.
MTG Rules Advisor Mirrodin_Loyalty.png

actually,
your hasbro example is a completely different thing

No.

It's completly the same.

The icon halfway down the Wizards home page indicates that WotC is part of Hasbro. The copyright text at the bottom of the Wizards home page indicates that WotC is part of Hasbro. Does the combination of these indicate that WotC is two parts of Hasbro?

Rule 212.3b in the comprehensive rules indcates that putting a creature into play is part of resolving a creature spell. Rule 413.2i in the comprehensive rules indicates that putting a creature into play is part of resolving a creature spell. Does the combination of these indicate that putting a creature into play is two parts of resolving a creature spell?

Why do you keep claiming to get different answers to these questions?
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
In Soviet Russia, the rules have a problem with you.
The World of Eldangard - a three act M:tG block by Fallingman Eldangard Stormfront Ragnarok
I don't usually flame and all. Is the rule THAT hard for YOU to understand how SIMPLE it is?

side question: are you ikt_malaysia or someone that caused some rampant annoyance in the Shadowmoor Block section? You two have some same traits.
just stop posting if you are going to flame, every feasible point has been made, if he chooses to ignore what THE JUDGES, who are more experienced and trained, say, then so be it, just be glad that he more than likely won't pass the Certification

Rule 412.2i is a reprinted clarification of rule 212.3b, because when, at a Professional tournament, you have fifty minutes to play a game, and a rules question comes up that can't immediately be answered by the Judge and must be looked up, would you rather wait while the judge looks up the Rule 400+ part, only to read through it and realize that the rule in question is in the Rule 200+ pages? Especially since the Comp. Rules are over 100 pages long, and the ruling could impact your chances of getting into the Top 8? I know I wouldn't, and I'm pretty sure you'd start to get ticked too after ten precious minutes of your game time is used up because Wizards of the Coast decided not to post relevant rules multiple times WITH clarification to help save Judges and players time when it matters most. Simple as that. And don't use the rules to take advantage of players. Beat them using them, but you sure as **** better be explaining it to them, that or your friend is miserably gullible/has no real interest in the rules.

you can pretty much be sure that if you continue the path your on, you aren't going to get any more of your questions answered. Asking is one thing, but when you receive an explanation and choose to ignore it, well, it really doesn't do much good for you


By the way, Fallingman, you need to put your reply into your signature, its amazing ahah

sorry for long post :D
Note very carefully the subtle, but Very important difference in these two ways of understanding the rules.
THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE

[indent]The Comprehensive Rules say twice that the permanent will come into play when the spell resolves.[/indent]

THE FOLLOWING IS NOT TRUE

[indent]The Comprehensive Rules say that the permanent comes into play twice when the spell resolves.[/indent]

This is the same important difference between (Le Chat)
  • Your friend told you twice to turn right from Main Street.
  • Your friend told you to turn right twice from Main Street.

and (zammm)
  • Your IKEA manual says in two different places that Peg A goes into Slot B.
  • Your IKEA manual says that you put Peg A into Slot B, twice.

and (Argus Panoptes)
  • It says twice on wizards.com that "Wizards of the Coast" is part of Hasbro.
  • It says on wizards.com that "Wizards of the Coast" is two parts of Hasbro.

and (myself (this is new)) : Consider two clauses in court law of some hypothetical country. Rule A states that the minimum prison sentence for any crime is 2 years. Rule B states that the minimum prison sentence for armed assault is 2 years.
  • These rules say twice what the minimum sentence for an armed assault is 2 years.
  • These rules say that the minimum sentence for armed assault is twice 2 years.

and (Brusko651 (that is you))
  • It is stated twice that x = y.
  • It is stated that x is twice y.

In all of these cases, it is the first interpretation that is the valid one. Why? Because...
Brusko, the rulebook is not some procedure to be followed step-by-step. Some rules do lists "procedures", such as how to spell a play, but the rulebook as a whole is just an arbitrary collection of "laws."

For clarity, some of those laws are duplicated, because the rules are organized by topic, and if a law applies to both topics, it makes sense to state that law in both topics. That doesn't mean that the action described in that law is to be carried out twice.

On the first page of the "Comprehensive Rules", it says
This document includes a series of numbered rules followed by a glossary.

So, the rules (a.k.a. laws) are not to be followed as "procedures", but are to be followed just like any set of laws are followed.

Now, there is redundancy in the 'Comprehensive Rules'. This redundancy is present so that making a rules lookup is fast and easy, such as in the midst of a game. This is not uncommon in law. Fortunately (fortunate for players, intentional for "Wizards of the Coast"), these rules do not conflict, but complement each other. When in a given state of the game and considering a particular event, you apply one valid rule to move the game forward. Note that you must apply a rule to move the game forward, and sometimes some rules have to be applied before others (such as "trigger" effects being handled before popping the stack again).

So, considering for instance the two rules quotes you posted in your original post,
212.3b When a creature spell resolves, its controller puts it into play under his or her control.

413.2i A spell is put into play from the stack under the control of the spell's controller (for permanents) or is put into its owner's graveyard from the stack (for instants and sorceries) as the final step of the spell's resolution. An ability is removed from the stack and ceases to exist as the final step of its resolution.

When you pop a creature spell from the stack (resolving the top element of the stack), you can either apply rule 212.3b, or rule 413.2i (there may be others; I have not looked). No matter which of these two rules you apply, the creature comes into play under the control of the controller of the spell. As a creature came into play, rules for handling "comes into play" effects, for instance, must be applied before applying a rule to pop the stack again.

For math buffs (perhaps you are one; I saw you toss in a couple of equations. If not, you can skip the following indented section) :
[indent]The Comprehensive Rules of "Magic the Gathering" is a (fairly complex) axiomatic system, expressing how to perform reductions (transitions) on the current state of the game (expressing how the game moves forward, or "goes on"). There is plenty of redundance in these axioms. This can easily be proven. Consider, for instance, your two quoted rules.
[indent]
Claim 1: Rules 212.3b and 413.2i do not conflict.
Proof: As rule 413.2i considers more spell types than rule 212.3b, we consider only the spells they consider in common (as that is the only event where a conflict can arise). Let C be an arbitrary creature spell resolving. As both rules 212.3b and 413.2i state that the creature comes into play under the control of the controller of the spell, there is no conflict. The result follows as C is arbitrary.
[/indent]
[indent]
Corollary 1: Rule 212.3b is redundant.
Proof: Follows from Claim 1.
[/indent]
[/indent]
In the following, you can ignore my remarks within parentheses for clarity.

While the 'Magic the Gathering Comprehensive Rules' would benefit immensely from a more rigorous semantics (I would recommend formulating the game as a (system of) Pushdown Automata, in a Process Algebra, or any other Language and Semantics with sufficient Turing (computational) power), it would make the rules less accessible to players, as not many players have the patience to study such theory. Also, that way, the rules would not function as well as a reference.

The interesting part of your question is that it is so basic that it is hard to give a satisfying answer to it (like rigorously introducing the natural numbers). Your question directly involves how to interpret rules/laws. In summary, they are not to be handled as "procedures", but as laws are usually applied: one for a given case. While it would be catastrophic to have conflicts in the rules, there (apparently) are none. Thus, the system works, and everyone can play the game happily.

Also, Brusko, I suggest that you write a carefully written suggestion to "Wizards of the Coast" that they include how to interpret the rules in the introduction of the Comprehensive Rules. One sentence would do.

(a sidenote: Why are the rules anthropomorphizing spells?)
Now, there is redundancy in the 'Comprehensive Rules'. This redundancy is present so that making a rules lookup is fast and easy, such as in the midst of a game. This is not uncommon in law. Fortunately (fortunate for players, intentional for "Wizards of the Coast"), these rules do not conflict, but complement each other. When in a given state of the game and considering a particular event, you apply one valid rule to move the game forward. Note that you must apply a rule to move the game forward, and sometimes some rules have to be applied before others (such as "trigger" effects being handled before popping the stack again).

I just thought I'd add a note on this particular redundancy.

Rule 413 covers everything about a resolving spell or ability. Including what to do with it at the end of resolution.

Rule 212 covers the differences between various types, supertypes, and subtypes. Including the differences in where they go at the end of resolution.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
well, it is easy to say that the creature only comes into play once, because we've all played the game and we know how it is supposed to work.

But if we didnt know how often a creature comes into play, it would be absolutely impossible to tell from reading the rules. (even if you use "common sense")

OK, maybe you could guess that rule 413.2 is only describing the order in which the events happen.... But that would still only be guessing.

But what if they just removed rule 212.3b?
Then we would still know when to put a creature into play, and where to put it when it resolves... (into play, lol)



(btw, is it just me or is there a mistake rule 413.2i ?
shouldnt it say "permanent card" instead of permanten?)
my new deck: Bears with Weapons
OK, for everyone else I will post the answer again.

this is the answer:
413.2. Resolution of a spell or ability may involve several steps. These steps are followed in the order
listed below.

rule 413 specifically says that the following rules only tell in which order to do things

so it doesnt really tell us to put the creature into play, it only tells us when to do so.
my new deck: Bears with Weapons