|
5 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2008 - 12:57PM
#71
|
|
|
Nevermind, I see what was being said...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2008 - 1:02PM
#72
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2001
|
I'm sorry, but where in 103.3 does it say anything of the sort? Why do I have to hunt through the entire rest of the CR looking to see which interpretation is correct or not?
. You insist on going around in circles, don't you?
I never said 103.3 said it explicitly. If you would actually look at what I wrote, you will see I didn't. Quite clearly. But if you want to look at 103.3 alone, you may not get any meaning from it.
Again, using hypotheticals to explore, not assume:
If "it" in 103.3 refers to "action," then it is easy to get the result that 416.3 explicitly says happens. You ignore the action of one discard. (Since many seem to agree that this is the proper interpretaion of "it," I fail to see how you can keep arguing. But whatever.)
If "it" refers to "instruction," then there is an undefined term; and that definition determines whether 103.3 and 416.3 (which is explicit) agree or disagree. Since we can't conclude with absolute certainty what "instruction" means, if we assume "it" refers to "instruction," then we can't get meaning at all from 103.3. There is no "conflict with 416.3," there is a rule that we can't use.
You only get a conflict if you assume "it" means "instruction," AND that you know what "instruction" means without proof.
No, you shouldn't have to search the rules to interpret a rule. But you also cannot ignore an explict rule (416.3) that you know exists, and make an unfounded assumption so that 103.3 contradicts it.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2008 - 1:09PM
#73
|
|
|
No, you shouldn't have to search the rules to interpret a rule. But you also cannot ignore an explict rule (416.3) that you know exists, and make an unfounded assumption so that 103.3 contradicts it.
Why not? I KNOW that there is at least one other area in the Comp Rules that makes no sense and really should have been modified years ago. The only reason it hasn't is because it's an obscure problem in an effectively obsolete area of the rules. (Specifically Ante in multi-player games is either incorrectly supported by the rules or is intentionally trying to provoke fights between players.)
Do YOU see any reason that 103.3 shouldn't be reworded to be clear about what the pronoun refers to? Is there some reason you think the current wording should be left?
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2008 - 2:21PM
#74
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2001
|
Do YOU see any reason that 103.3 shouldn't be reworded to be clear about what the pronoun refers to?
No. But only because it could be seen as ambiguous, not that it is "in conflict with" other rules. Ambigous means there are multiple possible interpretations, not that you get to pick the one you feel contradicts the most other rules.
And if "it's" refers to "actions," as it really should, there is no such ambiguity in 103.3. So, what's your beef?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2008 - 2:38PM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
You don't see a problem with the rulebook containing ambiguous rules? Interesting....
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2008 - 3:30PM
#76
|
|
|
You don't see a problem with the rulebook containing ambiguous rules? Interesting....
QFT
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2008 - 8:03PM
#77
|
Date Joined:
May 10, 2004
|
Okay, I've tried reading this thread, and I admit I've gotten lost. Here's my situation: I control Infernal Denizen  and one swamp  . It is the beginning of my upkeep. I know I'm going to have to tap my ID and offer my opponent control of one of my creatures, but do I sacrifice my one swamp?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2008 - 4:14AM
#78
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2001
|
Okay, I've tried reading this thread, and I admit I've gotten lost.
Some people like to show that WotC has no idea how to write rules. So they look for ways to misinterpret a rule. A rule where they aren't forced, by explicit rules and definitions, to come the to conclusion that they know is right. The meaning that is the obvious meaning of the text, and has been obvious to all players since the beginning of time.
Then they try to claim the rule is ambiguous, when it just seems ambiguous because they are trying so hard to not get the answer they know is right. And that is clearly stated elsewhere in the rules.
I control Infernal Denizen and one swamp . It is the beginning of my upkeep. I know I'm going to have to tap my ID and offer my opponent control of one of my creatures, but do I sacrifice my one swamp?
Yes.
You don't see a problem with the rulebook containing ambiguous rules? Interesting....
Who are you replying to? I keep looking for some statement that says somebody doesn't have a problem with ambiguous rules, and I don't see one. It's almost as though you are looking for a way to start an argument. I wouldn't consider that, except that you have admitted doing exactly that in that "other" thread. It really is a form of trolling, you know.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2008 - 9:12AM
#79
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2007
|
I think the problem here is that you're all assuming that actions and instructions must necessarily be divorced from each other. I don't think this is the case, and here's my reasoning.
Going back to the open heart surgery example. One instruction you must follow is "perform open heart surgery." However, "put in ten stitches" can also be viewed as an instruction; it certainly isn't a single action. I see no reason why "put in the first of ten stitches" can't also be viewed as an instruction.
Therefore, if you can only put in nine stitches, you can't fully complete the instruction "put in ten stitches" let alone "perform open heart surgery." However, all of the other, smaller instructions of "perform open heart surgery" are not impossible.
Back in Magic land, we're presented with the instruction "discard two cards." We've already concluded that this implies two separate actions of "discarding a card." I propose that we can't perform ANY action without being instructed to do so, and thus the action of "discarding a card" must be the result of the instruction "discard a card."
If we had only one card in hand, the instruction "discard two cards" is impossible to follow, and any trigger that checks if we discarded two cards wouldn't trigger. However, the sub-instruction "discard the first of two cards" is completely possible to follow, so you do.
Anyway, my point is CR 103.3 may be ambiguously worded, but I think both interpretations are equivalent.
Gwazman01
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2008 - 10:00AM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
Who are you replying to? I keep looking for some statement that says somebody doesn't have a problem with ambiguous rules, and I don't see one.
I misread your post, and ahylis seems to have as well. Your reply was strangely worded and seemed decidedly like am argument for why not to reword the rule.
|
|
|
