|
11 months ago ::
Jul 10, 2012 - 12:31PM
#81
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
yes, that should be the same case, it's just a different zone it comes from
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 10, 2012 - 12:32PM
#82
|
|
|
The "intent" of the Rules would seem to be that an object changing zones can only do so if it will be legal in the new Zone. But the Rules covering these interactions are not "general" in language, but specific to certain types or situations.
Apparently, in this case, the literal interpretation of the rules is what is being enforced rather than the less clear "intent" of those rules.
And yes, I know that the "intent" of the rules is open to interpretation, but we HAVE had rulings in the past that followed the intent rather than the literal wording.
*shrugs*
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 10, 2012 - 12:35PM
#83
|
- Niftily helpful
- DCI Level 2 Judge
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2001
|
So, with this ruling... Favor returns then goes away. Is the same true if we're casting Divine Favor with these other cards in play? I assume yes, as we're going from "white Aura spell" to "black Aura permanent" but I've learned to defer to the experts on these odd cases.
Yes. If you're casting the Favor targeting a pro: black creature with the Shifting Sky set to black, it will enter the battlefield, then go to the graveyard.
Wizards.Com Boards Net Rep
DCI Level 2 Judge
Questions don't have to make sense, but answers do.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 10, 2012 - 12:35PM
#84
|
Date Joined:
Mar 10, 2010
|
I think if you go with the "intent" of rules too often, instead of what the rules actually say, you come close to repeating the mistakes of another company that operates a card game... And I much prefer "Because Tabak (or Natedogg, or whoever) Says So" to "Because Konami Says So" ... lol
Sean Stackhouse
Level Two Judge (Yay!)
Maine
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 10, 2012 - 12:36PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Mar 10, 2010
|
Thanks for the ruling and clarifications. Come up with another one Chaikov that was fun! :D
Sean Stackhouse
Level Two Judge (Yay!)
Maine
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 10, 2012 - 12:42PM
#86
|
|
|
I think if you go with the "intent" of rules too often, instead of what the rules actually say, you come close to repeating the mistakes of another company that operates a card game... And I much prefer "Because Tabak (or Natedogg, or whoever) Says So" to "Because Konami Says So" ... lol
I don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out that they HAVE done so in the past in some cases.
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 10, 2012 - 12:43PM
#87
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
And yes, I know that the "intent" of the rules is open to interpretation, but we HAVE had rulings in the past that followed the intent rather than the literal wording.
but the rules have then been updated to reflect that ruling
like recently with the multiple devour
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 10, 2012 - 12:48PM
#88
|
|
|
And yes, I know that the "intent" of the rules is open to interpretation, but we HAVE had rulings in the past that followed the intent rather than the literal wording.
but the rules have then been updated to reflect that ruling
like recently with the multiple devour
Always?
I remember a few years back we were given a ruling based on intent because the wording necessary to put it into the CR was impractical. I wish I could remember the specific case, but I don't. In that case though, there was no plan to update the CR to reflect the intent. Whether that changed between then and now I don't know. I just remember at the time, the ruling was based on intent, not on what the literal interpretation said.
IIRC, this was back around Kamigawa or Ravnica time frame.
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 10, 2012 - 12:49PM
#89
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2012
|
I hesitate to use the phrase "intent of the rules" outside of RT&T, but you bring up a good point. In some way, we are looking to the future to determine whether objects are legal in the new zones. However, I feel that the rules don't intend to verify every possible situation before taking actions like this. In order to determine whether an aura could legally be attached to a permanent, we look only at the intrinsic properties of the aura. That's why Sun Titan  can't put Dead Weight  on Mirran Crusader  . I gave an example before and namedropped a bunch of cards that are frequent flyers around here when the rules get hairy. ( Mycosynth Lattice  / March of the Machines  / Conspiracy  / Life and Limb  ). It would be absurd to say " Divine Favor  doesn't come into play because a creature cannot be attached to another creature."
I think this ruling is well within the intent of the rules, inasmuch as the rules intend to as simple as they can while also allowing for complex interaction.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 10, 2012 - 12:52PM
#90
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
well, not always for example Caged Sun  still doesn't work under the current rules, but there is an [O] ruling saying we should just pretend it does 
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
