Community

cyphern wrote:

The ruling changed nothing. It merely explained in a shorter format what we have been repeatedly saying throughout this thread, and highlighted that the "gray area" is a figment of your imagination.

If there were multiple 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.

Why are you still here? Go home.

The ruling did exactly what I said it SHOULD do; clarify what the card says. Why did they make a ruling? Simple because there actually was gray area in there. Why would they make a ruling if there wasn't? You don't make rulings to tell people to read the rulebook.

Like I said go home.

If you think there aren't multiple ways to read anything then take a look at The Bible. How many different religions are there with their own interpretations of the book yet in the beginning of the bible it says NOT TO INTERPRET anything in here; to take it as the word.

Actually my analogies have tons of basis in the rules. You obviously think you know how to read.

Look you've been playing magic for a long time and probably think you mean something to it; like you are a part of it. You're not. You are not the final say, the official ruling is. Without that there is always interpretation as to what a card says. Get over yourself, go outside and play, get a life. Tomorrow you can discuss this thread with your buddies at your FNM but stop wasting time posting on here so I can stop wasting time replying. Fair deal?

It's a moot point now, there is a ruling.

noviceuser wrote:

It's a moot point now, there is a ruling.

That "ruling" isn't new. Its from the FAQ for Shards, which was posted in Sept.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1093393

noviceuser wrote:

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.

That was no flame, it was the obvious reaction to your refusal to even consider others' points of view.

In this case the "opening of the file" is the "payment" and the "ability" is ALL OF THE PERMISSIONS ...

And this is the point you are wrong about. Being able to create a simile does not make the simile true. The simile I wanted was that accessing the file was playing the ability, checking the permission was the cost, and that the other files were the other abilities.

The difference is that my simile is correct, and can be supported by the rules; while yours is wrong, and cannot be supported. If you pigheadedly stick to the wrong simile, you will get the wrong results.

Because it doesn't means that there COULD be some freedom in the interpretation in the card and thus this thread.

There is no such freedom here, because you do not "play the land" to get mana. You play one ability of the land. None of your attempts at boolean logic or network permission comparisons have any bearing in this issue.

You are trying to look at this backwards.

No. Im am trying to point out where your simile is a backwards look at Magic. I understand what you were trying to say, and it is WRONG. I understand your simile, but it does not reflect anything about Magic.

Also I have no argument with what you are saying in your list... my argument (which was settled long ago in this thread) is that by the card text you should not gain three separate abilities ...

And this statement is explicitly incorrect (not that it is your argument; but that it is a valid argument). It is how you are trying to hide your erroneous assumption from yourself and others. There is no way to pretend that the rules say it, yet you do. There is no way to make the "Golden Rule" imply it, yet you try.