If an effect used information pertaining to total damage dealt by "cards named X" and the effect didn't refer to a specific zone, would it also include damage dealt by "permanents named X" and "spells named X" as long as they were represented by cards?
I realize that in most cases, "sources named X" would be the norm. I would like to know if replacing the word "sources" with "cards" makes a difference and, if so, how big a difference.
If an effect used information pertaining to total damage dealt by "cards named X" and the effect didn't refer to a specific zone, would it also include damage dealt by "permanents named X" and "spells named X" as long as they were represented by cards?
I realize that in most cases, "sources named X" would be the norm. I would like to know if replacing the word "sources" with "cards" makes a difference and, if so, how big a difference.
Both wordings would account for damage dealt by permanents and spells. It just depends on whether you want tokens or copies to be included as "cards" won't cover copies of spells or tokens while "sources" would.
I realize that in most cases, "sources named X" would be the norm. I would like to know if replacing the word "sources" with "cards" makes a difference and, if so, how big a difference.
Both wordings would account for damage dealt by permanents and spells. It just depends on whether you want tokens or copies to be included as "cards" won't cover copies of spells or tokens while "sources" would.