Re: I'm a huge nerd but...cdwangsJanuary 17 2006, 17:54:15 UTC
Well, I mean, I can see your point, though I could argue that changing a value is simply setting the value to something else.
All of this rant came about because of a provision that allows certain characteristic-setting abilities to exist outside of the normal in-play zone. That's all well and good, except for the fact that the very definition of what is characteristic-setting is completely froggy (in my opinion).
In my mind it just boils down to the fact that they should not have tried to deny reality by saying *this* is "changing"*, while *this* over here is "setting" when in essence they were the same. Instead 402.8 should have been rewritten to explain that the exlusion clause for characteristic-setting abilities applies only when the characteristic-setting ability of a card targets itself. Simple enough.
I'm no longer mad about this, I'm wayyy beyond it, but I wanted to respond. I know the comp rules is written in crazy legalese and I just look for ways to improve it when there's a chance. Would that they would take my advice to heart!
Re: I'm a huge nerd but...frellingdargoJanuary 18 2006, 03:36:53 UTC
It's all good. Those rules are way too buggy most of the time anyway. That was just a ruling that we made because it really is a bit of a catch-22 otherwise, and I thought it might help a bit. But yeah they need t improve the way they word things. It's like puling teeth from a chicken trying to make rulings on some things because of it.
All of this rant came about because of a provision that allows certain characteristic-setting abilities to exist outside of the normal in-play zone. That's all well and good, except for the fact that the very definition of what is characteristic-setting is completely froggy (in my opinion).
In my mind it just boils down to the fact that they should not have tried to deny reality by saying *this* is "changing"*, while *this* over here is "setting" when in essence they were the same. Instead 402.8 should have been rewritten to explain that the exlusion clause for characteristic-setting abilities applies only when the characteristic-setting ability of a card targets itself. Simple enough.
I'm no longer mad about this, I'm wayyy beyond it, but I wanted to respond. I know the comp rules is written in crazy legalese and I just look for ways to improve it when there's a chance. Would that they would take my advice to heart!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment