|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 5:37AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Mar 23, 2005
|
Doesn't the "Discard two cards." Have a similar meaning to the "Draw 3 cards" concept of "Draw a card. Draw a card. Draw a card."?
Now, I know that with "Draw 3 cards." it could have an effect for dredge, etc. But, wouldn't the same (yet opposite) action take place with a "Discard X Cards." I'm not certain that it would have any /real/ issues, but would help explain the difference in the rules?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 7:31AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
Again, it is only by assuming some unstated, Magic definition for "instruction" that leads to being unable to decipher the meaning of the sentence. While "it" can refer to either the direction to take an individual action of drawing a card, or to the individual action itself, it really doesn't matter if you are using the correct meaning for "instruction" in that sentence.
[FONT="Bell MT"]I'll say again that the bold part there is incorrect. Looking at the rules of real English instead of the accommodating rules and using the logic that Wizards uses the real rules instead of the 'accepted' rules, 'it' is referring to the most recent appropriate noun: 'action.' How you view 'instruction' is moot because it's telling you to ignore the impossible action.[/FONT]
MTG Rules Advisor 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 7:46AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2001
|
I'll say again that the bold part there is incorrect.
What I meant by "can" was that "it" could have been meant to refer to either. And, the evidence from the other rule is that it was intended to refer to the instruction. Whoever wrote that rule wasn't being careful to follow the rules that you think are right for such references, whether or not you are, because it doesn't matter in this case. The "instruction" is what causes you to do the the "action" in question. Ignoring either accomplishes the same thing as far as the game is concerned, so it is pedantic to worry about which should be meant by the reference.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 9:53AM
#24
|
|
|
I haven't been on the boards in a couple of months. I come here and find this thread.
I LOVE the types of in depth rules debates/discussions that go on here, I miss them. Everyone here is so exact, I feel at home.
DCI Level 1 Judge Please autocard: [c ]Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon[/c ] = Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon  [ c=Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon]Skittles[/c] = Skittles Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 10:21AM
#25
|
|
|
Doesn't the "Discard two cards." Have a similar meaning to the "Draw 3 cards" concept of "Draw a card. Draw a card. Draw a card."?
Now, I know that with "Draw 3 cards." it could have an effect for dredge, etc. But, wouldn't the same (yet opposite) action take place with a "Discard X Cards." I'm not certain that it would have any /real/ issues, but would help explain the difference in the rules?
I thought there was something specific in the rules that said that "Draw 3 cards." is actually handled as "Draw a card. Draw a card. Draw a card.", but I can't find any reference. Does anyone know whether it is just a ruling that it is handled that way, or if there is any support for that in the CR?
For my way of thinking, if it's just been a ruling, then there's no reason why "Discard 3 cards." wouldn't be treated similarly. If there's actually something in the CR about it, then I'd like to read it.
Being able to separate instructions with multiple actions into their individual parts would solve this whole thing as far as I'm concerned. But in the past, I was under the impression that separating the card drawing into individual actions was an exception, not the rule. It would seem to make sense for it to be the general rule. I just don't recall it being that way. So far though, I have been unable to find anything in the CR one way or the other on this matter.
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 10:24AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
I thought there was something specific in the rules that said that "Draw 3 cards." is actually handled as "Draw a card. Draw a card. Draw a card.", but I can't find any reference. Does anyone know whether it is just a ruling that it is handled that way, or if there is any support for that in the CR?
Here you go:
423.2. Cards may only be drawn one at a time. If a player is instructed to draw multiple cards, that player performs that many individual card draws.
To my knowledge there is no analogous rule for discards.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 10:43AM
#27
|
|
|
[FONT="Bell MT"]I'll say again that the bold part there is incorrect. Looking at the rules of real English instead of the accommodating rules and using the logic that Wizards uses the real rules instead of the 'accepted' rules, 'it' is referring to the most recent appropriate noun: 'action.' How you view 'instruction' is moot because it's telling you to ignore the impossible action.[/FONT]
Is there any particular reason you are against them changing the wording? Regardless of whether you are correct or not, you obviously recognize that modern usage has shifted (whether through laziness or something else is irrelevant). The wording they've chosen is ambiguous to most people. How many players do you really expect to have studied the Old English rules and know that they are what WotC uses when common usage today is different?
Again, I really don't care whether you are technically correct or not. The situation is ambiguous to many and is easily fixable by simply changing the wording without changing any of the meaning in any way.
Here you go:
To my knowledge there is no analogous rule for discards.
Darn. That means it is an exception rather than the norm. Which puts the problem right back there.
What I meant by "can" was that "it" could have been meant to refer to either. And, the evidence from the other rule is that it was intended to refer to the instruction. Whoever wrote that rule wasn't being careful to follow the rules that you think are right for such references, whether or not you are, because it doesn't matter in this case. The "instruction" is what causes you to do the the "action" in question. Ignoring either accomplishes the same thing as far as the game is concerned, so it is pedantic to worry about which should be meant by the reference.
Sorry, given the existence of 423.2, I gotta disagree with you. There's no evidence to suggest that the instruction "discard two cards" can be treated as two separate instances of "Discard a card". And if that's the case, then when you are told to ignore the instruction, you have to ignore the whole thing.
On the other hand, even if the instruction is indivisible, it can still result in two individual "actions" of discarding a card. One of the actions could be possible while the second isn't even though there is only one instruction.
423.2 is what keeps your interpretation from working. While you may be correct that there's no set definition of what an "instruction" is, that it is decided on a case by case basis, can we at least agree that in the example we've been using the instruction is "Discard two cards"? 423.2 sets an exception to what can be inferred to be an underlying rule that you cannot divide other, similar instructions into separate parts.
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 11:01AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Oct 29, 2007
|
so if the instruction "Discard 2 cards" isn't divisible to 2 actions
could I not infer that Megrim does not trigger?
It triggers whenever a card is discarded. "a" meaning one?
So if I discard two cards then it shouldn't trigger.
or alternatively it should only trigger once...
as 2 cards are being discarded as a single instruction
and a card (at least one) is being discarded.
MtG Rules Advisor &
Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJDJ VortexDCI Certified Rules Advisor from July 14, 2009 to July 14, 2012 DCI #5209514320 Wit found in Rules Q&ARPJesus: "Man, screw the rules, I'll play a game of 2HG Archenemy Planechase Emperor EDH draft yet. Once I figure out the rules for it..." Chaikov: "Of course, casual Magic may be played any way your Pokemon group agrees on..." and "It's not logic. It's Magic!" GainsBanding: "I only play online. The Magic Online shuffler is AWESOME!" Ikegami: "one might think [adult cats] would make excellent tokens. The issue, though, is that they are very hard to exile. They return to the battlefield more often than an undying creature." Astarael7: "Does 121.1 imply that players are supposed to wear their poison counters?" Bimmerbot: "If you move the wrong way and [the poison counters] fall, it's a game rule violation" Helluminatus: "Just remember, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the oracle text says creature - Bunny , then by god, it's a bunny." MadCow21: "Who are you and what have you done with the real Chaikov?" My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 11:05AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2001
|
Sorry, given the existence of 423.2, I gotta disagree with you. There's no evidence to suggest that the instruction "discard two cards" can be treated as two separate instances of "Discard a card".
And there is equally no evidence to treat it as one. You are making assumptions to get there. Baseless assumptions.
Read what I said before. The word "instruction" is used in at least three different contexts in the rules. The closest any use comes to "defining" it (what you were assuming was a definition) is "An instruction in an object's text is an ability." That's a one-to-one correspondence between instructions and complete abilities. They also seem to suggest there is a one-to-one correspondence between "instructions" and "effects." So, are you saying that something like Sneak Attack  has one, single "effect" ? As I see it, it has two different kinds of effects, that can't be called "one."
I put to you that the only quantifiable item in all this is an "ability." The others cannot be so quantified; their meaning has to come from context. And you will find no rules support for any other conclusion.
Because they are not intended to be quantized.
And if that's the case, then when you are told to ignore the instruction, you have to ignore the whole thing.
Which violates an example in the rules, so it is obviously wrong. The error was the assumption you made, that "instructions" are quantifiable.
Prove me wrong.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2008 - 11:05AM
#30
|
|
|
so if the instruction "Discard 2 cards" isn't divisible to 2 actions
could I not infer that Megrim does not trigger?
I said it isn't divisible into two instructions, NOT two actions. The rest of your argument fails because this premise isn't true.
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
