|
4 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2009 - 9:52AM
#61
|
|
|
If people would take the time to try and understand what other people are saying, this thread would be much shorter and more productive.
There are several pages on the "Whatever Happened to Barry's Land" where a few of us have been trying repeatedly to understand what Qamar is saying - which would be effective if he stuck to it. The reason this discussion was brought here at all was Qamar's assertion that if WotC printed Cave as it appeared in the article (Not Barry's Land, but Cave), WotC wouldn't update the CR to include the new basic land type. That's it. The discussion is still continuing over in that thread, if anyone is interested. It's not very interesting, though.
This forum shouldn't have been made active until it was finished. There's just no excuse for this piece of garbage.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2009 - 10:42AM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2003
|
The problem here isn't card legality, but card availability.
I've wrote about it only because I've based my previous argumentation on the statement that if they would add new basic land type they would have only two options from which neither is acceptable. Becouse I sow third option whichat least isn't that unacceptable like others I've mention it in order to be honest. I see this as lesser evil. I still don't think Wizards would chose to go this route and other reasons against new basic land type still exsist.
But c'mon...
Imagine they changed the floor rules to say that Black Lotus was legal in standard.
... Black Lotus? I still have multiple copies of basics from sets since Oddysey and have singles of every versions of basics from older sets like Mirage or even older. Maybe with few versions missing. Anyway I agree that it still would be some availability problem.
of course, they could reprint it whenever they print a card that cares about it - in which case the rules change is rendered pointless.
This also isn't acceptable solution They would need to print basic land with this subtype in large set even if the planed card would be in 2'nd or 3'rd set. This would reveal some information about future sets months before its release and they would need to know that they will want to print such card few months earlier. Alternatively thay could print nonbasic land in smaler set with this subtype but then it would mean that designing such card cost two cards slots. Hefty cost.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2009 - 11:48AM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2003
|
@Qamar: No, I cannot stop talking about intent since that is my entire question? For everything else there is the original thread about the article.
Ok. My intention wasn't deny you right to talk about what you want, I just think that it have no sense.
You have expectation that rules intent meet your expectations. 
I know that you understant this because you made it clear that you know that this is only your assumption. I just wanted to point it for the sake of argument. Rules doesn't meet your expectations so it's more comfortable to create concept of rules intent which do, then live without it. Rules doesn't have intent. Persons have. So who's intent the rules intent should be? Orginal creator's of the rules? Autor's of 6'th E rules (lets say that person which can be called autor of 6'th E rules exist)? Rules Manager's who last changed particular rule? Curent Rules Manager's? Of cours every of these persons had some rules intent but this is in constant flux. We can speak about them if you realy, realy want.
Now we got a design for a new land. Its typeline is "Basic Land - Foobar," where Foobar is a new subtype. This design has the premise to not violate the intent of any rule. If this premise is true for Barry's Land or not is a discussion for the other thread, not this one.
Would that design satisfy that premise without turning Foobar into a basic land type? In other words, wouldn't that design violate the current intent of some rule, specifically 212.6g, if not done so?
I give you another question. We've all agree that introduction of the new basic land type would cause multiple problems for the game, some rather severe. Lets say that R&D see needs of land with typeline "Basic Land - Foobar" in the set. What would they chose? Make Foobar basic land type and run into all these problems, or violate some hiphotetical rules intent?
There are several pages on the "Whatever Happened to Barry's Land" where a few of us have been trying repeatedly to understand what Qamar is saying - which would be effective if he stuck to it. The reason this discussion was brought here at all was Qamar's assertion that if WotC printed Cave as it appeared in the article (Not Barry's Land, but Cave), WotC wouldn't update the CR to include the new basic land type. That's it. The discussion is still continuing over in that thread, if anyone is interested. It's not very interesting, though.
Kyrna. I'm sure of two things. If someone in orginal thread was trying to understand me it wasn't you. And, some person in that thread was unable to stuck to own words but it wasn't me.
Pleas spare yourself trouble of interpretation what I was saying. Discusion with Qilong is best ilustration what I was trying to explain and in orginal thread he wasn't most vocal herald of this opinion.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2009 - 11:52AM
#64
|
|
|
Kyrna. I'm sure of two things. If someone in orginal thread was trying to understand me it wasn't you.
Yes, because my attempt to find someone to translate into Polish wasn't me trying find a way to understand, nor was my breaking things down into individual numbered questions in order to make them clear, and me bringing the question here to try and clear it up wasn't an attempt to understand, either. Yep, I'm sure those were all just me trying to pull the wool over your eyes with clarity. 
This forum shouldn't have been made active until it was finished. There's just no excuse for this piece of garbage.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2009 - 12:36PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2004
|
Qamar, do you understand what asking for a second opinion is or what? xD If both you and me are discussing this, and I come here asking for clarification from a higher authority, why are you the one talking to me about it? We already know we don't agree! xD Rules have intent precisely because people create them with it, so that they perform a certain function. Function not being performed = intent compromised. Semantics... Whose intent should the rules reflect? That's easy: whatever WoTC-affiliated group oversees the rules at any given time. And no, we do not need to talk about them. My question is especific enough. Besides, the notion that the intent of each rule is in constant flux is very relative. The layer rules cover the interaction of continous effects today, but tomorrow they don't?
Lets say that R&D see needs of land with typeline "Basic Land - Foobar" in the set. What would they chose? Make Foobar basic land type and run into all these problems, or violate some hiphotetical rules intent?[/quote]
They would nix that Foobar design unless they think the need for it is worth suffering the other problems. Is that even a question?
This a trap or something? xD
EDIT: cleaned up
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2009 - 12:40PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2003
|
Yes, because my attempt to find someone to translate into Polish wasn't me trying find a way to understand
Haw translating my words into Polish could help you to understand them?
Personally I doesn't need translation. As I've told you I understand your words perfectly. I know that my English is awful, but I don't think that it can explain why you don't understand me. It isn't that bad. At most you can make some fun of me because of my spealling or use of some forms.
nor was my breaking things down into individual numbered questions in order to make them clear
You have also problems with memory. I was trying to break my stand into points to make it easier. Twice. Here and here. Qilong also presented in points in what he belive. I've also put into points what you can do to make me agree that there exist some rule which would force designers to automaticaly make basic land's subtype a basic land type:
You have three ways of making me to believe this:
[LIST=1]
You can point me at rule which force this. You don't have to quote it. Number would be enough.
You can give me example of bad thing that would happen if this rule would be broken.
You can quote a fragment of article which imply this.
But you've wrote something into points only once:
OK, I fully understand what's happening.
1. You don't believe that WotC would just automatically update the CR to include a new basic land type just because they printed a card with the Basic Land supertype that had a subtype that isn't currently listed in the CR.
2. You don't understand why I don't want Cave printed.
It's hard to call this a questions and it's hard to call this a presentation of your pointFirst is presentation of my point and another isn't conected to this discussion at all, regaldless off being false.
and me bringing the question here to try and clear it up wasn't an attempt to understand, either. Yep, I'm sure those were all just me trying to pull the wool over your eyes with clarity.
You created this thread to show me that rule, you expected to exist, exist.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2009 - 12:52PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2003
|
Qamar, do you understand what asking for a second opinion is or what? xD
If both you and me are discussing this, and I come here asking for clarification from a higher authority, why are you the one talking to me about it? We already know we don't agree! xD
Rules have intent precisely because people create them with it, so that they perform a certain function. Function not being performed = intent compromised. Semantics...
Whose intent should the rules reflect? That's easy: whatever WoTC-affiliated group oversees the rules at any given time. And no, we do not need to talk about them. My question is especific enough.
I just wanted to show you what kind of being rules intent is and haw much they are set in stone. If you want to know what current rules intent is you will not find answer here. You will need to write to MaGo.
They would nix that Foobar design unless they think the need for it is worth suffering the other problems. Is that even a question?
This a trap or something? xD
Or...
"They would make it a nonbasic land type unles they would think that set doesn't need it that much. Then thay wouldn't print it at all."
In fact these are two ways to say this same thing, but it's easier for you to say it your way. Right?
Anyway both are oposition of statement that it would automaticaly become basic land type.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2009 - 1:11PM
#68
|
|
|
Qamar, you might be good at playing word games in Polish, but you're awful at doing so in English. That's perfectly understandable as English isn't your native language but it's something you should accept.
This forum isn't supposed to be used for personal attacks, it's supposed to be used for discussion of the rules-related question at hand. Please stop quoting people out of context from the other thread to try and muddy the issue. Ask rules related questions or post your off-topic comments somewhere more appropriate.
This forum shouldn't have been made active until it was finished. There's just no excuse for this piece of garbage.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2009 - 1:13PM
#69
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2004
|
you will not find answer here. You will need to write to MaGo.[/quote]
You already know that's my opinion too, but if I'm here asking, I expect either that or an answer from a higher authority, not from you. Patience.
what you can do to make me agree that there exist some rule which would force designers to automaticaly make basic land's subtype a basic land type[/quote]
There isn't a rule as per the CR. There is... here it comes wait for it... a rule's intent.
Or... "They would make it a nonbasic land type unles they would think that set doesn't need it that much. Then thay wouldn't print it at all."[/quote]
Except, no they wouldn't do that unless they wanted to add "violation of current intent of the rule that defines what a basic land type is" to their list of problems. Aaand welcome to the first page of the thread again! How was the time travel, pal? xD
Will you just wait for an answer...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 15, 2009 - 1:21PM
#70
|
|
|
You already know that's my opinion too, but if I'm here asking, I expect either that or an answer from a higher authority, not from you. Patience.
There isn't a rule as per the CR. There is... here it comes wait for it... a rule's intent.
Except, no they wouldn't do that unless they wanted to add "violation of current intent of the rule that defines what a basic land type is" to their list of problems. Aaand welcome to the first page of the thread again! How was the time travel, pal? xD
Will you just wait for an answer...
You know it won't matter what answer you receive. He already both believes that the CR would be updated if they printed Cave, and believes it wouldn't because there's no rule in the CR that says they'll update the CR. What do answers mean to a man who tailors his beliefs to suit what he's trying to argue about and is never consistent except in his inconsistency?
Frankly, I'm embarrassed that I thought Qamar wasn't being understood because of a language barrier. It should have been plain to me when I re-read all of his posts that it wasn't a misunderstanding, he was just changing his stance back and forth routinely.
This forum shouldn't have been made active until it was finished. There's just no excuse for this piece of garbage.
|
|
|
