@murgatroid99 Could you previously exile Boom and then cast Bust?

Previously if you had something that cared about CMC Boom//Bust would return 2 and 6. So if you were to cast Kari Zev's Expertise you could choose Boom//Bust as the card you were casting because 2 < 3, then when you decide which side to pick just prior to putting it on the stack you could choose Bust even though 6 > 3

@diego Wow. @_@

When the rules change Boom//Bust will have a CMC of 8 except when it is on the stack, then it is which ever side is being cast

That schrodinger's CMC for split cards has been a not-insignificant part of my confusion and difficulty in understanding them, so I don't mind this change personally.

@doppelgreener Yeah, the part of me that likes shenanigans is a little sad with this change. But I think it is mostly for the best because it makes the rules about split card CMC significantly easier to understand

What's the on-stack CMC of Fuse cards with the new ruling?

@JonTheMon I'm pretty sure it is the same as it is now, the CMC of both sides added together

So it's like X cards where it has a set CMC outside the stack, and a stack CMC depending on "modes" / sides chosen?

@JonTheMon Pretty much

The official announcement on split card changes

Lol at this comment argument: boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/34806/6692

Yeah, I probably should have just stopped responding sooner. I'm just really bad at letting someone else get the last word in an argument

If I may try to help you @murgatroid99 understand what ikegami is saying poorly: the point of your last paragraph is that Shroud specifically affects permanents and players. However, while the rule you quoted (702.18a) does say that it affects creatures and players, it does not say that it only affects creatures and players. I think ikegami found a better rule, 604.2, which explains that static abilities only function on the battlefield.

Except that 604.2 actually says that static abilities function "in the appropriate zone".

Huh. Maybe I should have actually read it

Well in that case it doesn't seem any better than the rule you quoted. It seems worse.

It might be better to point at 112.6, but that rule has so many caveats that you can't definitely conclude from it that Shroud works only on the battlefield

I would just stick with the one you have

After one of those arguments, it's always nice to see that at least one other person thinks my side is (relatively) reasonable

But really, my logic is that even if the wording of 702.18a doesn't actually restrict where the ability applies, it's still a statement in the rules of where the ability applies

In other words, they wouldn't write "permanent or player" if the ability applied to other objects

It's kind of a meta reading of the rules, but I think you can still conclude from that wording that the ability does in fact only apply to permanents and players

And because I take the rules in general as permissive, for me, saying what it applies to is enough. It doesn't apply to anything else because the rules don't say it does.

So 702.18a really does have an implied "only" as in "only permanents and players"

That's my take. I realize not everyone reads the rules like that.

The issue, of course, is his claim that "this permanent" really means "this object"

That is such a silly argument (and why I lol'd). You can't shift the burden of proof onto someone else when you say stuff like that. "This permanent" means "this permanent" until someone proves otherwise.

I looked through the rules for that earlier, and I found where card names printed on a card mean "this object"

Couldn't find anything else

@Rainbolt There's also the one where "this [characteristic]" means "this object". But permanentness is not a characteristic

201.5

Okay, I think I understand the frustration now

I've had other arguments with him before, where he basically interprets the rules in a specific way and then argues as though that interpretation was objective fact. It can be frustrating

So I understand why he wants the burden of proof to be on you

But I think it's just generally accepted that the rules are permissive

If they aren't permissive then MTG has a ton of holes

You can't just do stuff, just because the rules didn't disallow it.

Like "I ate your card. Rules didn't say I couldn't, so now your card is gone."

My perspective is that the assumption that "this permanent" really means "this object" is simply unjustified. There's no rules reason to say that in general "this [something]" means "this object".

I agree, it is unjustified. What he is saying is that you need to justify your assumption before he justifies his. I would simply decline. I would not bother to change all of your answers to add an explanation of how the rules cover what you are allowed to do, not what you aren't allowed to do.

I am heading out