|
4 years ago ::
Jan 14, 2009 - 4:25PM
#121
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2001
|
Seriously people, this guy is practically claiming not to understand that ONE does not equal THREE. He's either extremely stupid or trolling, and frankly, I think he's quite intelligent.
Jeff Heikkinen
DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jan 15, 2009 - 12:12PM
#122
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2002
|
Please stop taking sides on one. It's not productive. Lush Growth  is a card that should not have been printed. Despite any arguments to the contrary, what this card does is not sufficiently clear. This card should have been changed to something else, and I deeply regret that it wasn't. It's unlikely that a template like this will appear on future cards. Now that the printed card does exist, there can be only one official interpretation of what that card does. The enchanted land has the subtypes Mountain, Forest, and Plains, and it has the mana abilities intrinsic to those land types. Lush Growth doesn't allow the land to be tapped for more than one mana.
Del Laugel
Senior editor, Magic TCG
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jan 15, 2009 - 2:46PM
#123
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2001
|
Jeff Heikkinen
DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jan 15, 2009 - 4:29PM
#124
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
[FONT="Bell MT"]Really; sure, the card can cause some confusion with new players who think that tapping a land with a basic land type automatically adds the land (as the basic rulebook doesn't explain why it's true that tapping it for the mana ability is going to produce mana; it just says that tapping it will produce mana. Thus, confusion for anyone using just the basic rulebook). But once the answer has been given to this question, and the appropriate simple rules shown, there shouldn't be any confusion. I tend to agree with jeff that noviceuser is just trolling at this point; even if he really is confused, one player showing this much confusion over it even after being told multiple times why it works the way it does doesn't make what the card does unclear to the majority of Magic players.
Lush Growth is only confusing to new players, but then again so is why lands produce mana if they haven't been shown the rule. Once they know the rule that basic land type means having an inherent activated ability to produce the certain type of mana by tapping it for that ability, the logical conclusion should be that one with multiple basic land types means that it will have multiple inherent abilities. I don't mean to be snarky or trollish with this, but someone who can't come to that simple, logical conclusion really shouldn't be playing Magic in the first place, as this isn't a game about instinct and doing stuff however you want; it's a game about strategy, which in turn requires logic.
Now, I'm not saying someone who doesn't get LG should stop playing if they really want to, but I will say that they shouldn't try out any tournaments because it will be nothing but a waste of their money to enter the tournament if they lack such simple skill in the use of logic.[/FONT]
MTG Rules Advisor 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 4:36AM
#125
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2008
|
How come if a card is "not confusing" that everyone ends their posts with "maybe it should have had the text..." or something to that effect? Let me use this quote: Once they know the rule that basic land type means having an inherent activated ability to produce the certain type of mana by tapping it for that ability
So let me put it this way again. My line of thinking exists because I work as a network admin in Active Directory. If I have a user that is in 3 different groups then ALL the permissions for the groups apply and then there are particular rules against that. In AD/Windows environment it means that permissions stack and you end up with the least restrictive permission and explicit denies overrule.
So in my line of thinking if you tell me that a card becomes ALL 3 then when I tap it I am tapping all 3.
Furthermore if you go back to about page 2 you will see that I was discussing this with someone "on staff" and actually this card did cause some scuttle amongst WotC so apparently some people do think differently and possibly read it the way I do.
Finally if you would STFU you would see that I've already said that I don't necessarily agree with what the "ruling" on the card is HOWEVER I am happy to follow the rule. So telling me that I'm trolling... you're a nub.
It's just funny to me that there are a lot of good people that have said (and mostly everyone says this) that the card is either poorly worded or that they could have added reminder text etc. for a card that is "very easy to understand" yet "can be confusing to new players".
So as I've said in the past can someone please lock this thread so it causes no more issues?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 5:05AM
#126
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2008
|
Firstly, you are the one necroing this thread after a month of silence.
DCI L2 Judge "When nothing remains, everything is equally possible." - One With Nothing 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 5:08AM
#127
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2008
|
Here's a post to all those thinking I'm trolling...
I don't have time to come to this forum all the time to argue over a card. Sorry I have a life and work a lot of hours and this is not my life.
Secondly yes without digging through the comprehensive rulebook and bouncing all over the place and reading about 10 different sections you would easily think that the card becomes all three. Let's look at this in a more realistic standpoint.
Lets say I have land and on this land I produce Corn. Right now from the land I can only produce Corn, nothing else. I then take all my corn out and replace it with wheat, soy beans and carrots, my land is now ALL THREE. So when I go to harvest (not taking time of year into effect of course or else I'll go and find three crops that you harvest at the same time) can I only harvest my soy beans from the "one land"?
The answer is no. I would be able to harvest all three at one time. So I would have wheat, soy beans and carrots not ONE of the THREE.
I don't know how many times I can say that. What I am saying makes sense. It's only until you, like I said, jump around the comprehensive rulebook do you actually see that there are 5 different things that combine to somehow put an invisible barrier around your carrots and soy beans if you decide to harvest wheat first.
Now looking at this, it would bring up a new alternative that hasn't really been seen (to my knowledge) and that is that you COULD have this card change the land to produce ONE tri-colored mana. This would vastly change some things simply because of the way that you would change cards that say stuff like "depending on the color used to pay for the ability" and such.
I don't play in tournaments and don't have the time/want to really. I enjoy particular aspects of this game but I'm not a fan of "collectible games" as they create uneven playing fields (due to luck/# of cards printed/$$$) and then it's not about "ability" (although it still does matter).
Lastly to answer a couple of questions that were posed to me... Yes, when you tap a land you get the mana. I understand that there is a deeper level of understanding as to what is ACTUALLY happening however it is a basic land, that's all it does. We can have a whole other argument over how you "pay for things" in real life as well to see if you "choose what you want THEN pay the cost" or "pay and then choose" (for instance tossing the girl at the McDonald's counter a $10 and saying "give me a #4" and she gives you your change etc. I don't want to argue that.
Like I've said I'll follow the rulebook because I respect the rules but that doesn't mean you cannot discuss something and possibly have it looked at for better description, an official ruling or a rulebook change to accommodate things. Sometimes you become so complacent with what you understand that it takes a fresh set of eyes with no prior understanding to possibly find something that may have been overlooked etc. It happens all the time.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 5:09AM
#128
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
How come if a card is "not confusing" that everyone ends their posts with "maybe it should have had the text..." or something to that effect?
Let me use this quote:
So let me put it this way again. My line of thinking exists because I work as a network admin in Active Directory. If I have a user that is in 3 different groups then ALL the permissions for the groups apply and then there are particular rules against that. In AD/Windows environment it means that permissions stack and you end up with the least restrictive permission and explicit denies overrule.
So in my line of thinking if you tell me that a card becomes ALL 3 then when I tap it I am tapping all 3.
Furthermore if you go back to about page 2 you will see that I was discussing this with someone "on staff" and actually this card did cause some scuttle amongst WotC so apparently some people do think differently and possibly read it the way I do.
Finally if you would STFU you would see that I've already said that I don't necessarily agree with what the "ruling" on the card is HOWEVER I am happy to follow the rule. So telling me that I'm trolling... you're a nub.
It's just funny to me that there are a lot of good people that have said (and mostly everyone says this) that the card is either poorly worded or that they could have added reminder text etc. for a card that is "very easy to understand" yet "can be confusing to new players".
So as I've said in the past can someone please lock this thread so it causes no more issues?
[FONT="Bell MT"]No, you don't get the last word because you want to bring up a lot of points that don't actually help you.
Firstly, don't dig up a thread over a month old just because it took you that long to come up with some semblance of an answer.
Secondly, something that is confusing to new players simply because of a basic rulebook causing confusion as to the working of lands in the first place doesn't mean it's confusing enough to warrant being completely reworded. As jeff said, the most it needs is reminder text.
Thirdly, in regards to your whole 'permissions' thing... You once again are applying the logic that being a Mountain automatically means that it adds  when tapped. Having a basic land type means nothing of the sort; it means it has an activated ability. Think of it this way: You give someone one dollar every day ( sometimes two dollars  ) and give him or her three choices for what to spend the dollar on. Can that person buy all three things for one dollar if each one costs a dollar each?
Lastly, disagreeing with the ruling of the card is just stupid as hell once the rules have been explained to you. It's not a ruling of the card, it's the ruling of how the whole ****ing game works any time a land has multiple types.[/FONT]
MTG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 5:12AM
#129
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2008
|
Firstly, you are the one necroing this thread after a month of silence.
One would think that 5 pages of attempts to clear this matter up would suffice.
If you really want to continue playing Magic, I suggest you look at the difference between triggered abilities and activated abilities again. Continue to do so until you have understood the difference between
and
And furthermore, I don't know when this ruling has been published, I think it received the date-stamp 10/1/2008 to reflect that this is a Shards-of-Alara related ruling:
So now that this [o]-ruling finally exists, this matter can hopefully be given the peace it deserves.
Thank you I understand all of the above and that ruling was not there when I was writing this earlier. I know it's dated 10/1/2008 however it was not ONLINE when this post was put there. Hence why I mentioned that it SHOULD be added.
It is funny though that there ARE others that would think the same way I do about it to justify a ruling need.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 5:22AM
#130
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2008
|
[FONT="Bell MT"]No, you don't get the last word because you want to bring up a lot of points that don't actually help you.
Firstly, don't dig up a thread over a month old just because it took you that long to come up with some semblance of an answer.
Secondly, something that is confusing to new players simply because of a basic rulebook causing confusion as to the working of lands in the first place doesn't mean it's confusing enough to warrant being completely reworded. As jeff said, the most it needs is reminder text.
Thirdly, in regards to your whole 'permissions' thing... You once again are applying the logic that being a Mountain automatically means that it adds when tapped. Having a basic land type means nothing of the sort; it means it has an activated ability. Think of it this way: You give someone one dollar every day ( sometimes two dollars ) and give him or her three choices for what to spend the dollar on. Can that person buy all three things for one dollar if each one costs a dollar each?
Lastly, disagreeing with the ruling of the card is just stupid as hell once the rules have been explained to you. It's not a ruling of the card, it's the ruling of how the whole ****ing game works any time a land has multiple types.[/FONT]
You'd like to think that it took me that long to "come up with some semblance of an answer" but not quite. I just honestly don't care that much.
And again you are wrong. There is nothing ANYWHER IN ANY RULEBOOK that says that ONLY ONE MANA CAN EVER BE CREATED. Again if a card says: "Tap: Gain W, G, R" (I cannot remember autocard symbol stuff) then what is stopping it from producing all three for "paying the cost"? I understand that the comp rules say that it now has all three abilities and that means that it has three separate abilities because abilities are defined as the "cost:effect".
I UNDERSTAND ALL OF IT... I'm not as dumb as you look.
What I am saying is that the card is poorly worded and is very confusing for new players and reminder text SHOULD have (and easily could have) been added because it can be very simple (again if you didn't read the comp rulebook) to understand it the way I originally did. I agreed a long time ago. What I don't like is morans who think that "YOU CAN'T EVER DO THAT" etc. because even with my networking it is the same as I say. The permissions exist but until you "pay the cost" which would be accessing the resource, then they apply.
Like I've said, you've probably been playing MTG a long time and have become complacent to the rules and grew with the rules and it has a "natural" feeling to YOU. However I played FOREVER ago and knew the rules back then and so coming in now is completely NEW and so some things don't make sense... again without reading the comp rulebook.
|
|
|
, 
or 
but loses all other abilities.)" would do nicely.
