|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 8:14AM
#141
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2008
|
Next time try not flaming and just add some useful content to the discussion. If you feel so strongly the way you do then why come on here and comment at all? Just move along.
How about you keep to the standards you request of others? One post of you was deleted about an hour ago because it flamed and didn't add any useful content to the discussion.
Please, mods, have mercy on our souls and close this thread.
DCI L2 Judge "When nothing remains, everything is equally possible." - One With Nothing 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 8:16AM
#142
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2008
|
Well, the analogy still doesn't work, because the game is called "Magic" and not "Agricultural Science". You cannot compare drawing Magic energy from a land with the harvesting of crops and expect to get a well-rounded analogy. The game uses specific rules which just break down when you try to employ them in "Real Life" settings.
Please, for the love of [insert-favored-deity-here], can we stop this pointless bickering? This horse is deader than dead, now, with the advent of the long-sought ruling on Lush Growth  , even more so.
Oh so you are saying that a game called "Magic" simply cannot have the outcome I have supplied? That's the dumbest thing every concocted simply because they can make the card I said tomorrow and then it exists. So all it would take is an official ruling and then it would be so you're right, my analogy DOES work which is why you finally dismissed it as a game and not agriculture.
I think that gaining something from "land" is gaining something from "land" regardless of what you want to call it.
Also the rules of the game have one big hole which is what I was simply trying to explore and that is the golden rule. Which in simple terms means that the card is the final say.
Bottom line like I said tons of times is that there is a ruling now so all of this is a moot point. The card was vaguely written and should have had reminder text on it. I was pointing out the vagueness and looking at a possibility that maybe nobody had ever thought of before.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 8:18AM
#143
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2008
|
Says the person who necroed a month old thread to repeat misconceptions that have already been adressed.
The rules describe with 100% clarity how this card works.
Exactly my point... I don't go on forums very much so I was replying. I didn't realize that it would bring the topic back up. I thought it may just message those who already messaged in the thread.
Also the rules are not 100% like I said. Go back and read everything I've written with an open mind and realize that there is some "gray" area in there which is what I was attempting to see if it would be kosher. There is now a ruling and so it's a moot point.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 8:22AM
#144
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2009
|
Let's say you have Thornling  in play. When you pay  Thornling doesn't gain all haste, trample and indestructible, only one of them. It's the same thing in this. Dot.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 8:23AM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
I don't go on forums very much so I was replying. I didn't realize that it would bring the topic back up. I thought it may just message those who already messaged in the thread.
Threads on forums are almost always sorted by the date of their most recent post. When you reply to a thread, it automatically moves to the top of the forum. When you do this to a thread that has been inactive for a month, it is sometimes referred to as "necroing" a thread, and is usually frowned upon unless you are adding something new. Threads are generally public, and everyone who visits the forum will see the same threads, not just those who have already replied.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 8:34AM
#146
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2008
|
Applying real world logic to Magic simply doesn't work in most cases (how can a wall  use an axe  ?).
Well you could argue that you could put a wall in an axe and when said person tried to climb the wall they were injured. That was simple.
The same goes for the other four basic land types. If you  that land to pay for one of the abilities, you can not it to, at the same time, pay for one of the other abilities, just like you can't an Underground River  for both a colored mana and a colorless mana at the same time, or why Bayou  can only produce one mana at a time, when it follows the same basic concept as Lush Growth .
And let's look at why that is. Well because the card truly reads "you have the ability of X "OR" Y". That is why I say it is 'gray' area because the card states "AND" which could alter the way the rules are read.
Yes, a new or inexperienced player might not know this, but there are a lot of things more complicated than this that are also hard for new or inexperienced players, such as what protection does. Logic would seem to imply that Black Knight  doesn't die to Wrath of God  , but the rules state otherwise. Point being, there are countless cards and abilities out there that require a more than basic understanding of the rules of the game to know how they work, Lush Growth isn't the first and won't be the last, either.
Actually WoG makes perfect sense because protection simply means that you cannot be a "target" and with WoG there are no "targets". No question there.
Regardless there is a ruling now and I already said that I agree to disagree and play by the ruling.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 8:37AM
#147
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2008
|
Let's say you have Thornling in play. When you pay Thornling doesn't gain all haste, trample and indestructible, only one of them. It's the same thing in this. Dot.
No argument there because the card is read as Pay X... "OR" Pay Y... "OR"...
What I am saying is that the land becomes ALL THREE at once so when you "activate" the card you are activating all three abilities because it became ALL THREE.
Moot point, official ruling made, move along now.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 8:38AM
#148
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2008
|
Threads on forums are almost always sorted by the date of their most recent post. When you reply to a thread, it automatically moves to the top of the forum. When you do this to a thread that has been inactive for a month, it is sometimes referred to as "necroing" a thread, and is usually frowned upon unless you are adding something new. Threads are generally public, and everyone who visits the forum will see the same threads, not just those who have already replied.
I guess I thought an old thread wouldn't do that. Not to mention that I requested the dumb thing be locked anyway.
Sorry.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 8:39AM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2007
|
Also the rules are not 100% like I said. Go back and read everything I've written with an open mind and realize that there is some "gray" area in there which is what I was attempting to see if it would be kosher. There is now a ruling and so it's a moot point.
There was never any gray area. The rules can be misunderstood, but with a complete understanding of those rules there is no other possible interpretation except the one described in this thread and in that ruling. The rules have never been the least bit vague on how this card works. The only gray area is whether or not the card should have been printed with reminder text so that the rules are slightly more accessible to the average player.
I suppose that's already been said enough. I would like to add to this thread though, by saying that if you try to apply the same logic you're using in this argument to try to figure out how other cards work, you will just continue to be confused again and again in the future. Please understand that the rules are actually very rigid and internally consistent and hardly ever get bent or broken by the often-quoted "Golden Rule". The rules are designed to support an incredible variety of cards, and 99.9% of those cards (maybe even more) don't require the card to "trump" the rules in order to function. If you know exactly how the rules work, you will know exactly how the card works and there will be no contradiction.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 19, 2009 - 8:41AM
#150
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
Also the rules are not 100% like I said. Go back and read everything I've written with an open mind and realize that there is some "gray" area in there which is what I was attempting to see if it would be kosher. There is now a ruling and so it's a moot point.
Regardless there is a ruling now and I already said that I agree to disagree and play by the ruling.
The ruling changed nothing. It merely explained in a shorter format what we have been saying throughout this thread. There is no "gray" area, and there wasn't prior to the ruling either. Rulings do not define the rules, rulings explain what the rules already say.
If there were multiple valid ways to read the rules, they would change the rules to be unambiguous. In reality though, the rules describe clearly and unambiguously what Lush Growth does, and your analogies and intuitive interpretations do not have any basis in the rules.
|
|
|
