|
3 years ago ::
May 13, 2010 - 7:17PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
Anybody knows how I can UNSUBSCRIBE from this Thread?
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 13, 2010 - 9:06PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Apr 30, 2010
|
i have never done that before but i think if you go up to the top of this page and hit the tab "how does this work" it will have a unsubscribe button at the top.
thats my guess, good luck!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 14, 2010 - 12:46AM
#43
|
|
|
I think a lot of people actually get confused by not observing an important fact; the first instance of the word target is singular not plural. The very first time I read this card (took really only a cursory glace at its text) and was at a loss as to what it did, prompting me to read it more closely. After doing that it made total sense (though I did grapple some as to whether or not 'with a single target' was a targetting restriction or not, and therefore whether or not targetting something like Incremental Blight  (with all 3 targets still legal) with Swerve  was possible or not) If they had intended for Swerve to effect spells with more than one target, I suspect it would've been worded something like "Change the targets of target spell to a single target." (ignore the monkey wrench this throws into the comp. rules) PS: on a side note, if two of Incremental Blight 's target have become illegal, could you then change the remaining target? (I don't think so as even the illegal targets are still targets none the less)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 14, 2010 - 4:14AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2004
|
PS: on a side note, if two of Incremental Blight 's target have become illegal, could you then change the remaining target? (I don't think so as even the illegal targets are still targets none the less)
Incremental Blight is a spell with three targets, even if two are currently illegal.
113.8b An object that looks for a "[spell or ability] with a single target" checks the number of times any objects, players, or zones became the target of that spell or ability when it was put on the stack, not the number of its targets that are currently legal. If the same object, player, or zone became a target more than once, each of those instances is counted separately.
No, I am not a judge. That's why I like to quote sources such as the rules that trump judges.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 14, 2010 - 5:20AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Sep 18, 2007
|
A Note On Dialects:
English is not as uniform as people think. I think 2goth4u brought up a really VALID point that people failed to see... he is from West Vancouver (Canada).
Just last week my father and I were having dinner and the topic of conversation came up about how he was in Florida changing the eavestrophs on the roof with new ones. Right there I bet there are a lot of confused faces of people wondering was an eavestroph is - though Canadians will likely know. Eavestrophs are "gutters". We call them gutters too up here, but to us, the gutter means the "ditch" on the side of the road.
We spent a good 15 minutes discussing a whole slew of differences between the way WE speak Enlgish and the way people in Florida spoke English.
We have ----> They have:
eavestrophs ----> gutters
gutters ----> ditches
double-doubles ----> two cream-two sugar
cases of beer ----> ????? (a two-four of beer)
two-four of beer ----> ????? (a box of 24 beer bottles... I don't even know if 2goth4u knows that one, as apparently it might just be an Ontario thing)
My point is that, even if people all speak English, what they've been raised to believe as the "correct" way of speaking may differ from country to country, province/state to province/state, or even from city to city.
I was one of the people who misinterpreted the whole "change with" thing on Willbender, Swerve, etc. Why? Because, perhaps, to me it really DOES mean to change the target TO a single target, rather than being a conditional phrase of "only if it HAS a single target".
So, IronMagus, even though for you this is a clear-cut case, you have to remember that the way YOU speak English is not necessarily the correct or only way of speaking English. Regardless of how you justify the present wording, there are whole cultures of people, maybe even whole COUNTRIES (perhaps the majority of "offenders" in this matter are Canadians), that see the other wording as correct.
While the rules are quite clear once you know them, this issue is going to come up again, and again, and again, And Again, And Again, AND AGAIN!
I would STRONGLY recommend that Wizards changes the oracle wordings of these cards, and future wordings of cards like these, to have a more universally understood verb use. The current one is obviously too region-specific of a wording use. To say that your use of english is right and that everyone else's is wrong is like saying that the British drive on the wrong side of the road. Simply because you consider the way you drive in your neck of the woods to be the only right way does not mean that you can convince people there that they're driving wrong.
 You are Red/Blue! Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator. 1000 posts w00t! Jun 17 - 2010 Me as a Planeswalker: Spoiler:
Show
Yarium, Planeswalker   
Planeswalker - Yarium
+1: Each player reveals his or her hand until your next turn.
+3: Each player draws 3 cards.
-9: You receive an emblem that says, "At the beginning of each upkeep, search your library, graveyard, hand, and cards in exile for a card. You may play that card without paying its mana cost."
Loyalty: 2 I am a Rules Advisor as of This Date: Aug 13/2010 Reminder text will tell somebody "(You are stupid. Have less fun.)" -WotC_dlaugel
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 14, 2010 - 9:48AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Apr 29, 2010
|
To further emphasize the point Yarium made, I present to you an animal that has many, many different names depending on your region.
Crawdad, Crayfish, Mudbugs, Yabbies and occasionally, Lobsters.
These are all the same animal depending on your region.
R.I.P. Ronnie James Dio
My Trade Thread:
http://community.wizards.com/marketplace/go/thread/view/94957/24019517/Dereks_Haves_and_Wants?sdb=1&post_num=1#432983357
I attempted HTML but it didn't work so You'll have to copy/paste.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 14, 2010 - 10:42AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Oct 29, 2007
|
indeed, I know what a 2-4 is. I know what a touque is. I know what a chesterfield is. because I am CanadianParodies of link: Shatner's takeI am not Canadian pour les québecois
MtG Rules Advisor &
Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJDJ VortexDCI Certified Rules Advisor from July 14, 2009 to July 14, 2012 DCI #5209514320 Wit found in Rules Q&ARPJesus: "Man, screw the rules, I'll play a game of 2HG Archenemy Planechase Emperor EDH draft yet. Once I figure out the rules for it..." Chaikov: "Of course, casual Magic may be played any way your Pokemon group agrees on..." and "It's not logic. It's Magic!" GainsBanding: "I only play online. The Magic Online shuffler is AWESOME!" Ikegami: "one might think [adult cats] would make excellent tokens. The issue, though, is that they are very hard to exile. They return to the battlefield more often than an undying creature." Astarael7: "Does 121.1 imply that players are supposed to wear their poison counters?" Bimmerbot: "If you move the wrong way and [the poison counters] fall, it's a game rule violation" Helluminatus: "Just remember, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the oracle text says creature - Bunny , then by god, it's a bunny." MadCow21: "Who are you and what have you done with the real Chaikov?" My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 14, 2010 - 12:14PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2005
|
Parodies of link:
Shatner's take
I am not Canadian pour les québecois
AND.... these are NSFW. (At least in the States.)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 16, 2010 - 3:52PM
#49
|
|
|
@IronMagus: the baby example is a bit more evident.
change [this]>{the target of target spell or ability} with [this]>{a single target}
change the target of [this]>{target spell or ability with a single target}
these are both valid interpretations in English (though the latter is the intended interpretation)
but if someone read it as the former, I can see their confusion.
I just found this thread interesting and wanted to figure out what the confusion was. I don't understand this line, -change [this]>{the target of target spell or ability} with [this]>{a single target}. Does it mean that you replace the term target with a single target. I gave it some thought and it didn't make sense to me since target is singular. So what's the point of changing the word into a single target if target is referring to 1 target already?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 16, 2010 - 3:58PM
#50
|
|
|
That's the wrong interpretation of the card you're referring to.
In fact, you have the wrong interpretation of the wrong interpretation; the former example doesn't mean change the text on the card, but the actual target.
Basically, if someone doom blades creature A, you can make it target creature B instead. That's what changing targets is.
I have found the secret of posting sigs! Kablooie's symbol Palette: 
|
|
|
