|
3 years ago ::
May 20, 2010 - 12:17PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
Again I am not saying 'a combination of colors' is 'a color,'
What I am saying is that "a combination of colors' is a form of color (or 'color') in Magic.
It looks to me like you are contradicting yourself. Is there a difference between "a color" and "a form of color (or color)"?
Also I do not speak of quantities of color, I'm not saying a specific amount of colors is a color word. I am however saying that whenever a word tells you something about the color of a card it is a color word, and yes, that does include "multicolored."
Do you agree that all of the following are referring to a quantity of colors, and not to the colors themselves: Colorless (which means "having zero colors"), Monocolored ("having exactly one color"), Multicolored ("having more than one color").
By the way, do you understand my point of view, eventhough it differs very much from yours?
I believe I understand what your position is, but i don't understand how you justify it. How did you decide that "color word" is a meta-term, which refers to all things related to color, rather than being a direct term about the colors themselves?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 20, 2010 - 12:45PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2010
|
Again I am not saying 'a combination of colors' is 'a color,'
What I am saying is that "a combination of colors' is a form of color (or 'color') in Magic.
It looks to me like you are contradicting yourself. Is there a difference between "a color" and "a form of color (or color)"?
Form
2b. The mode in which a thing exists, acts, or manifests itself; kind: a form of animal life; a form of blackmail.
So yes, 'colorless' is a form of color since non-existance is a mode of existance. Or when color manifests itself as multiple colors, it is still color.
Also I do not speak of quantities of color, I'm not saying a specific amount of colors is a color word. I am however saying that whenever a word tells you something about the color of a card it is a color word, and yes, that does include "multicolored."
Do you agree that all of the following are referring to a quantity of colors, and not to the colors themselves: Colorless (which means "having zero colors"), Monocolored ("having exactly one color"), Multicolored ("having more than one color").
quantity [ˈkwɒntɪtɪ]n pl -ties1.
a. a specified or definite amount, weight, number, etc.
So, no. The words do refer to the presence of either a single color, more than one color or no color at all but they do not represent the quantity of colors. (Okay, okay, monocolored and colorless actually do, according to this logic but you catch my drift.)
By the way, do you understand my point of view, eventhough it differs very much from yours?
I believe I understand what your position is, but i don't understand how you justify it. How did you decide that "color word" is a meta-term, which refers to all things related to color, rather than being a direct term and about the colors themselves?
It is a direct term about the colors themselves. It can state whether one of the colors is present, which one of the colors is present, whether more than one of the colors is present and whether none of the colors are present.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 20, 2010 - 12:53PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
May 15, 2001
|
So how would you propose wording Sleight of Mind  without using the phrase "color word" and without changing it's existing functionality?
MTG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 20, 2010 - 1:09PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2010
|
So how would you propose wording Sleight of Mind without using the phrase "color word" and without changing it's existing functionality?
If I were to change the text on Sleight of Mind so it only changes one color to one other color it would state:
Change the text of target permanent or spell by replacing all written occurences of one color with another. (For example, you may change "nongreen creature" to "nonred creature." If this spell targets a permanent, play it as an instant.)
Simple enough as I see it.
***Additional note***
Personally, I would rather not see this card changed as it has a very rare ability. If the functionality however would change due to a change in the comprehensive rules I wouldn't mind.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 20, 2010 - 1:21PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
Well, this has been a lovely chat, but when it comes to the point where you claim that "colorless" "monocolored" and "multicolored" are not about quantities, despite them being explicitly defined that way in the rulebook, i really see no point in continuing. I will not be posting further in this thread. quantity [ˈkwɒntɪtɪ]n pl -ties1.
a. a specified or definite amount
105.2a A monocolored object is exactly one of the five colors.
105.2b A multicolored object is two or more of the five colors.
105.2c A colorless object has no color.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 20, 2010 - 2:08PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2010
|
Well, this has been a lovely chat, but when it comes to the point where you claim that "colorless" "monocolored" and "multicolored" are not about quantities, despite them being explicitly defined that way in the rulebook, i really see no point in continuing. I will not be posting further in this thread. quantity [ˈkwɒntɪtɪ]n pl -ties1.
a. a specified or definite amount
105.2a A monocolored object is exactly one of the five colors.
105.2b A multicolored object is two or more of the five colors.
105.2c A colorless object has no color.
Then I was wrong about that particular part. I don't see how this cancels out my entire point though. So these words describe the quantity of color, a word describing the quantity of color present in/on a card can still be a color word, I already said:
It can state whether one of the colors is present, which one of the colors is present, whether more than one of the colors is present and whether none of the colors are present.
If you really are to not post again in this thread just because I made ONE error (and not even an error that would change the point I'm trying to make in the end) in a discussion covering 3 pages now, that's just because you now see you can not prove me wrong and you have an excuse to leave the discussion entirely.
I had thought more of you.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 20, 2010 - 2:11PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Apr 30, 2010
|
Cyphern isn't leaving this thread because of an error...he is leaving because there isn't a point to this thread.
This forums is to discuss how the current rulings are....not why the wording isn't "correct" to a select few players. If you want to be picky about wording and not accept the ruling as it is, go to the Rules Theory and Templating forums.
DCI Level 1 Judge
Katy, Texas
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 20, 2010 - 2:18PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2004
|
Click here, make a thread, state your problem, and disscuss.
This forum isn't for disscussing the rules, it's to answerer them.
… and then, the squirrels came.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 20, 2010 - 2:27PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
Change the text of target permanent or spell by replacing all written occurences of one color with another. (For example, you may change "nongreen creature" to "nonred creature." If this spell targets a permanent, play it as an instant.)
Writing it this way would allow you to use Sleight of Mind to change the payment required by Quenchable Fire  to avoid the second burn. Since  is in the text of the spell, and is an occurence of the color (although it is not a word).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 20, 2010 - 2:41PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2010
|
1. I do not question the rules, if it's a rule I accept it as is
2. I do not think a current rule should be changed
3. All I want is to know, with 100% certainty, whether Sleight of Mind can be interpreted as I interpret it or not, according to the current rules.
That is what this forum is for, is it not?
@ forty2j: It is an occurance, yes, however it is not written.
|
|
|
