|
3 years ago ::
Jul 29, 2010 - 7:47AM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Oct 29, 2007
|
The List that you were referencing doesn't officially exist (according to its rules) but it is occasionally referenced in this forum.
(not that it matters but I was the one who submitted the question)
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 ::
Jul 29, 2010 - 8:18AM
#72
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
Well, there was no need to react like that. Firstly I do not know the status of every poster and second, that ruling confirmation came from the official rules mailing list. And two judges' confirmation is still better than one in my book.
So, bite me. :/
My apologies. My reaction was overly harsh; I just tire of people using 'A level 3 judge said so!' as a reason for thinking something works or is true. Even if the L3 judge is correct (as he or she was in this case), the fact that they are an L3 judge is not a good reason to believe it works.
Sorry.
MTG Rules Advisor 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 29, 2010 - 9:35AM
#73
|
|
|
(not that it matters but I was the one who submitted the question)
Funny story; I submitted Natedog's post as answer to the mailing list 
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
