« first day (1732 days earlier)   

1:50 PM
Tis funny how confusing 'enters the battlefield' can be for people.
 
I sympathize (with the people who are confused)
I tried once to explain to someone that enters means "It wasn't on the battlefield, and then it was."
 
How'd that go?
 
They said "Den Protector wasn't on the battlefield. Now it is."
I facepalmed
 
XD
 
But I sympathize with the rules as well
 
2:00 PM
MTG is so literal of a game for the most part
 
Let's pretend for a moment that an object was a new object every time it changed
I try to destroy your Mutavault and you animate it.
 
Yep
 
Now my spell gets countered because its a new object
That would just make removal spells dumb pretty much all of the time
Maybe there is a middle ground
 
How so?
 
How is there maybe a middle ground?
 
2:04 PM
Mmhmm
 
Well, that's just the default assumption until someone either proves to me that there is or is not a middle ground. There might be a middle ground.
Maybe certain characteristics could make it a new object
Characteristics other than zone changes
 
Fair enough. Am personally of the opinion that MTG rules are rather well designed, but of course I'm biased XD
 
I believe that they are well designed in the sense that someone who understands them all could play the game with very few problems.
And of course I understand that if you make one aspect of the game simpler, some other aspect probably just got a lot more complex
The actual flaws in the rules don't seem to get much publicity. I see them in the rules updates, and that is generally the first time I hear about it
 
Mmhmm, cause usually they're extreme edge cases.
 
Or old mechanics that haven't seen competitive or casual play in a decade
 
2:11 PM
Also true
 
By the way, I noticed at a recent Sealed Grand Prix for Magic Origins that there were actually more Commander side events than any other format, including draft
 
Not surprising
 
Of course, they only needed four players to fire one off, but I think they were on Commander Pod 210 or something and draft was only on pod number 140.
 
Commander is a great format, aside from the design of the ban list from the rules committee.
 
Is it possible that Commander could ever be anything more than a casual format?
 
2:14 PM
French commander already is
 
You can only play it at Regular REL though
Unless the French have a different IPG than we do
I'm trying to decide if I should speculate on some Commander Staples and get ready for it to blow up. I was thinking about buying right after Commander 2015 gets spoiled
 
Oh, you're talking about actually being run at GP's and such? Definitely not.
 
Why not? 1v1 Commander is just as playable as standard at a GP
 
Except french commander ban list and rule set isn't something Wizards has touched at all, correct?
And to be fair, it's better designed than non-french commander ban list, but still.
 
Well I don't think it could be GP playable in it's current state
 
2:22 PM
Also, I don't think Wizards wants to sanction another format that runs cards like dual lands and other cards on the reserve list
They already support legacy very little.
 
But with WotC involvement, it could be tailored to be GP playable
If they ban everything on the reserve list from Commander, then they could quietly phase out Legacy in favor of a new format
Get that skeleton out of their closet
 
>< You say that like that's a small thing XD
 
The banning would cause an uproar
 
Banning everything on the reserve list is huge
And many people would quit magic
 
Well, I don't agree with that
Commander is a casual format. People can still play with their banned cards casually
People already house rule commander to death
 
2:25 PM
People who have thousands of dollars in cards on the ban list who play legacy regularly wouldn't quit magic if their thousands of dollars became near worthless?
*on the new ban list
 
Oh, you misread what I proposed
Ban the reserve list from Commander
 
Mmhmm
 
Quietly phase out Legacy (hold less and less tournaments)
 
But you also said quietly phase out legacy
Which would cause an uproar
 
They wouldn't put a sign on their heads like "Goodbye Legacy"
 
2:26 PM
Again, they already barely support it
 
I don't understand how that is a counterpoint
If they barely support it, it should be easy to forget about
 
Not true at all.
If they stop actually sanctioning events, that's a huge deal
 
Do I have to go into extreme detail as to what quietly and slowly means or can you just use your imagination
 
If that's not what you're proposing, then Wizards have absolutely zero control over it.
Because at that point, its on a local card shop level
 
Okay, you want to go down that road so I will walk with you. Let's assume for a moment that they ran 10 Legacy Grand Prixs this year. Next year, maybe they run 8. Then 6. Then 5. Then 3.
 
2:30 PM
They already only ran 2 in 2014 : p
 
Explain to me how this would cause an uproar. Do you count the number of Legacy Grand Prixs in a year? I certainly don't.
Okay, so run 1 next year.
Nevermind, it seems like you only want to resist and not actually walk down this road with me.
 
I disagree that that would be 'phasing out' legacy at all
'Only want to resist'. What? Me disagreeing with you does not mean 'I don't want to walk down this road', it's just that I think you over-evaluate the ability of Wizards to control what formats are played.
The control that Wizards has is sanctioning vs not sanctioning events, and printing cards for a certain format versus not doing so.
For instance Modern.
Wizards has been heavily pushing that the last couple years.
 
No, the fact that you force a direction in the discussion only so you can get the chance to repeat yourself.
I hate it when people do that
 
I haven't repeated myself at all.
And I haven't forced a direction at all.
Thus not sure what you're talking about.
 
You claim that WotC has zero control over it. It would be more accurate to say that WotC has extremely little control over it, because they do control Grand Prixs and they can reduce the number of them. Your entire argument is based on squashing mine with hyperbole. And you did it twice.
Wizards have absolutely **zero** control over it.
I disagree that that would be 'phasing out' legacy **at all**
 
2:35 PM
Are we seriously arguing semantics now?
The difference between 'Zero control' and 'extremely little control' is negligible.
 
We are, because you are using semantics to drive the discussion in the direction you want it without conceding that I have even the tiniest point.
 
That's because I disagree that your point is valid. I don't think that reducing the number of GP's will change how many people play Legacy at all. Especially when they already only ran 2 in 2014.
2015 has 3, however, I doubt that has had any influence on the number of people playing legacy.
 
Well, I think that if WotC went from two to zero, that at least one person somewhere in the world would not play Legacy that would have otherwise.
 
Perhaps
So it might influence the number of new people playing legacy
That's probably the most likely influencable point.
 
Well you didn't qualify your earlier statement with "non-new people"
 
2:40 PM
True
However, legacy is sorta already hampered for new players by the reserve list anyways.
 
Also true
Apparently the plural of Grand Prix is Grand Prix
 
 
1 hour later…
4:09 PM
Yep XD
 
5:05 PM
Hrm... the comp rules aren't actually very helpful when it comes to 'uniquely identifying' cards when having to name a card.
 
@Waterseas I know, I could have sworn that there were explicit rules for that if not in the CR then at least in the MTR. But it looks like you have to infer if from the rule that lets you get the Oracle text of a card that you can uniquely identify.
 
@Diego
Oops
@Diego Yeah, dunno why I didn't think to go there.
 
If you're not in a tournament, you can always just pull up Gatherer
What I mean is, the CR doesn't need a rule that lets you get the name from a description because you can just look it up anyway
 
True
Also, the issue isn't this simple.
Competitive REL and Regular REL differ due to derived information vs free information
 
Did you look at the rule reference in diego's answer?
> The official text of any card is the Oracle text corresponding to the name of the card. Players have the right to request access to the official wording of a card only if they can uniquely identify that card, although the card does not necessarily have to be identified by name. That request will be honored if logistically possible.
 
5:16 PM
Nevermind then XD
That's strange that it's considered Derived information then
 
Your opponent is not obligated to help you
But judges do not follow exactly the same rules as opponents
 
I know
but the other derived information isn't something that a judge would help you with
Also specifically this: "Judges are encouraged to help players in determining free information, but must avoid assisting players with
derived information about the game state. "
 
Key words: about game state
 
Hmmmmm, true again
Then it seems that that part of derived information behaves differently from the rest of derived information, which is why its still strange that it's considered derived.
 
If it was free information, you could ask your opponent and they would be obligated to respond. But how do they know?
 
5:20 PM
They're obligated to respond if able.
"If a player is ever unable or unwilling to provide free information to an opponent that has
requested it, he or she should call a judge and explain the situation. "
Feel like this could be considered free information, and just fall into the unable part most of the time XD
But meh, tis nitpick since the rules still make it work, albeit in an odd manner
 
Also, you could probably dig for information by seeing how long it takes for your opponent to respond
 
That's possible
 
Like, if they answer immediately, they might have it in hand, and if they only take a couple of seconds, they're more likely to have it in their deck
 
Although you can sorta already do that kind of thing regardless, depending on just how experienced your opponent is
Ahh, no, that's a good reason
 
There's also the fact that as it stands, the person who wants to know has to call over the judge, but with free information, the player who chooses not to say is the one who has to call the judge
 
5:25 PM
Although I think either can do so XD
 
The point is that you can say "Hey, what's the name of the card that does X?" and make your opponent call a judge. And that's weird
 
Mmhmm, that is weird
 
Basically, making it derived puts the responsibility on the player who wants to know the name
 
Makes sense
 
You know, now that I look, the actual bullet point for derived information is "Game Rules, Tournament Policy, Oracle content and any other official information pertaining to the current tournament. Cards are considered to have their Oracle text printed on them. "
> Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine
 
5:32 PM
Mmhmm
 

« first day (1732 days earlier)