This is especially so considering that _partially doing things_ is already a pattern in the form of partially resolving spells when not all the actions on that spell can be performed.
Taken from the Infraction Procedure Guide:
the judge should leave the game state as it is after applying state-based actions and not attempt any form of partial ‘fix’ – either reverse all actions or none
We don't reverse things partially. This is an official policy that every judge should know.
The end-all-be-all of this would be the ruling, supported by an explanation based solely within the rules of how the game functions as to why the ruling is, and why any other reasonable interpretations of the rule are incorrect despite the fact that a person with that interpretation and a person with the "correct" interpretation both are reading the exact same words on the exact same page; as well as a fix to the CR so that ambiguity with "reasonable" and "unreasonable" interpretations and applications of the rule need not be discussed.
This is especially so considering that _partially doing things_ is already a pattern in the form of partially resolving spells when not all the actions on that spell can be performed.
Taken from the Infraction Procedure Guide:
the judge should leave the game state as it is after applying state-based actions and not attempt any form of partial ‘fix’ – either reverse all actions or none
We don't reverse things partially. This is an official policy that every judge should know.
That is acceptable -- that is, if the game being played is a game being governed under the IPG. But the fact is that not all games are conducted under the rules of the IPG. To a person who wants to know how the game works, they shouldn't have to read a document that has no relevance to them (perhaps because that person is a casual-only player and does not intend to join IPG-covered games) to know how the game works with regards to what they are confused about. Saying "Oh, it's casual anyway so they can house-rule whatever they're confused about" is a terrible way to go about the situation, because clearly, casual games are as important to the genuineness of the CR as tournament games are. Otherwise, rule section 900 (and to an extent, 800) wouldn't even have existed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
But isn't that only an issue if the casual player is also the kind of person who requires the CR to have been written by Bertrand Russel? I mean addition and subtraction are never defined in the CR either, they could mean anything. Any reasonable person reading 717.1 will come up with an interpretation and move on.
I mean addition and subtraction are never defined in the CR either, they could mean anything.
Words that are not explicitly defined in the CR to mean something else in the game carry their English meaning.
Any reasonable person reading 717.1 will come up with an interpretation and move on.
That's the problem. Reading the rule and coming up with an "interpretation" isn't what the CR is supposed to do. The CR is supposed to be definitive and provide exact rules that apply definitively and 100% of the time to whatever they describe. Allowing for "interpretations" that can be validly arrived at by reading the words in a rule and then moving on is the very source of ambiguity, which is by definition not definitive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The end-all-be-all of this would be the ruling, supported by an explanation based solely within the rules of how the game functions as to why the ruling is, and why any other reasonable interpretations of the rule are incorrect despite the fact that a person with that interpretation and a person with the "correct" interpretation both are reading the exact same words on the exact same page; as well as a fix to the CR so that ambiguity with "reasonable" and "unreasonable" interpretations and applications of the rule need not be discussed.
Any reasonable person reading 717.1 will come up with an interpretation and move on.
That's the problem. Reading the rule and coming up with an "interpretation" isn't what the CR is supposed to do. The CR is supposed to be definitive and provide exact rules that apply definitively and 100% of the time to whatever they describe. Allowing for "interpretations" that can be validly arrived at by reading the words in a rule and then moving on is the very source of ambiguity, which is by definition not definitive.
Nothing read and written by humans is safe from misreading, and everything read is interpreted. If the rules functioned as you read them, Selvala would be able to deck everyone at will. A rule meant to prevent the abuse of irreversable actions and illegal casting of spells would reward that same behavior. It's a reading that disagrees with every bit of rules philosophy expressed in Magic rules documents. A clarification in the CR would be nice, but completely unnecessary.
This is especially so considering that _partially doing things_ is already a pattern in the form of partially resolving spells when not all the actions on that spell can be performed.
Taken from the Infraction Procedure Guide:
the judge should leave the game state as it is after applying state-based actions and not attempt any form of partial ‘fix’ – either reverse all actions or none
We don't reverse things partially. This is an official policy that every judge should know.
That is acceptable -- that is, if the game being played is a game being governed under the IPG. But the fact is that not all games are conducted under the rules of the IPG. To a person who wants to know how the game works, they shouldn't have to read a document that has no relevance to them (perhaps because that person is a casual-only player and does not intend to join IPG-covered games) to know how the game works with regards to what they are confused about. Saying "Oh, it's casual anyway so they can house-rule whatever they're confused about" is a terrible way to go about the situation, because clearly, casual games are as important to the genuineness of the CR as tournament games are. Otherwise, rule section 900 (and to an extent, 800) wouldn't even have existed.
That quote is an explanation of rules philosophy that defends the correct reading on a technical level. An explanation that deep is unnecessary for a casual player. I doubt many casual players have read or applied CR 717.1. It's usually intuitive for casual players to understand that actions like Selvala cannot be undone, and if not a simple explanation of its abusive potential usually settles it.
A clarification in the CR would be nice, but completely unnecessary.
Here's an example that shows why I think that is false:
Rules entries for the new prowess and outlast would not be needed either, as players would just use the information they have available to them (the printed text of the cards that have those abilities), interpret them as they will, and move on.
Yes, most cards with prowess and outlast have reminder text that tells players what the abilities do. But to a player familiar with the CR rule that says reminder text has no gameplay effect, coupled with the hypothetical omitted rules entries for prowess and outlast, they are then left confused as to whether the reminder text denotes the word's meaning or not. Players are then left to go one way or the other and just carry on.
Just because most people would go one way with that problem and just because someone with official authority states that that way is the right way to deal with the problem doesn't make it correct in the basis of the CR. This is the reason why the CR rule should be fixed with this small addition to that rule, so that the CR and the [O] ruling can actually match.
I don't see a plausible reason, other than laziness, to not clarify the rule so that [O] and the CR match.
That quote is an explanation of rules philosophy that defends the correct reading on a technical level. An explanation that deep is unnecessary for a casual player. I doubt many casual players have read or applied CR 717.1. It's usually intuitive for casual players to understand that actions like Selvala cannot be undone, and if not a simple explanation of its abusive potential usually settles it.
Exactly. For those who fit into the description you provide, the explanation would probably suffice to show the abusive potential of not reversing the activation. But it is better to include that explanation in the CR rather than to not include it and let people be confused and ask about it when the problem arises.
It doesn't matter that the problem in question almost never occurs. Doubting that many players have even needed to apply 717.1 the way described in this thread and then going on to say that the rule shouldn't be updated because of its infrequency of happening doesn't help anybody. Wild Evocation + Disaster Radius doesn't happen often, either, yet a rule was added recently that clarified this. That "'Wild Radius' arguably happens more often than this problem does" isn't grounds for not adding the rule, because the issue is that the problem can happen with a nonzero frequency, rather than the problem happening with a frequency above a certain threshold of probability.
---
In the end, the conclusion fortunately is that the rules clarification is welcome, rather than that the rules clarification is unwelcome due to the "reasonability" of interpretations, a term whose meaning changes from person to person based on their familiarity with the rules and their methods of applying common sense.
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
That's the problem. Reading the rule and coming up with an "interpretation" isn't what the CR is supposed to do. The CR is supposed to be definitive and provide exact rules that apply definitively and 100% of the time to whatever they describe.
No, it is not. From the introduction of the Comprehensive Rules:
We at Wizards of the Coast recognize that no matter how detailed the rules, situations will arise in which the interaction of specific cards requires a precise answer.
The CR specifically acknowledges that it will not cover every possible situation.
A clarification in the CR would be nice, but completely unnecessary.
Here's an example that shows why I think that is false:
Rules entries for the new prowess and outlast would not be needed either, as players would just use the information they have available to them (the printed text of the cards that have those abilities), interpret them as they will, and move on.
Yes, most cards with prowess and outlast have reminder text that tells players what the abilities do. But to a player familiar with the CR rule that says reminder text has no gameplay effect, coupled with the hypothetical omitted rules entries for prowess and outlast, they are then left confused as to whether the reminder text denotes the word's meaning or not. Players are then left to go one way or the other and just carry on.
Just because most people would go one way with that problem and just because someone with official authority states that that way is the right way to deal with the problem doesn't make it correct in the basis of the CR. This is the reason why the CR rule should be fixed with this small addition to that rule, so that the CR and the [O] ruling can actually match.
I don't see a plausible reason, other than laziness, to not clarify the rule so that [O] and the CR match.
Except your example is at a whole different level of explanation. CR additions for new keywords are to give people who need to understand the rules at a technical level the ability to understand the mechanic. Consider flashback. We can preserve the idea of flashback by having "exile this spell" be added to the card text instead of creating a replacement effect, or even by creating a delayed trigger that exiles it. These would have the cards function completely differently. All of these scenarios do not contradict the reminder text ("You may cast this card from your graveyard for its flashback cost. Then exile it."). The CR make this specification, and tell you exactly how it works.
As of right now, there is no debate on the actual rules. There are no players left to "go one way or the other." We have an official ruling that one interpretation is correct. The other interpretation is nitpicking definitions of words, ignoring the obvious intent of the rules, and contradicting fundamental rules and policy philosophies in order to create an ambiguity that only exists in the strictest sense of the word. I say that it would be preferable to clarify because there's never anything wrong with clarifying. I say it's unnecessary because the CR isn't meant to be read in a vacuum of rules philosophy and common sense. It's not trying to prove it's rules from first principles. It's telling you how the game works.
That quote is an explanation of rules philosophy that defends the correct reading on a technical level. An explanation that deep is unnecessary for a casual player. I doubt many casual players have read or applied CR 717.1. It's usually intuitive for casual players to understand that actions like Selvala cannot be undone, and if not a simple explanation of its abusive potential usually settles it.
Exactly. For those who fit into the description you provide, the explanation would probably suffice to show the abusive potential of not reversing the activation. But it is better to include that explanation in the CR rather than to not include it and let people be confused and ask about it when the problem arises.
It doesn't matter that the problem in question almost never occurs. Doubting that many players have even needed to apply 717.1 the way described in this thread and then going on to say that the rule shouldn't be updated because of its infrequency of happening doesn't help anybody. Wild Evocation + Disaster Radius doesn't happen often, either, yet a rule was added recently that clarified this. That "'Wild Radius' arguably happens more often than this problem does" isn't grounds for not adding the rule, because the issue is that the problem can happen with a nonzero frequency, rather than the problem happening with a frequency above a certain threshold of probability.
---
In the end, the conclusion fortunately is that the rules clarification is welcome, rather than that the rules clarification is unwelcome due to the "reasonability" of interpretations, a term whose meaning changes from person to person based on their familiarity with the rules and their methods of applying common sense.
I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be addressed because it doesn't come up. I'm saying that when it does come up, nobody is going to assume that improperly casting a card is purely beneficial, because that's the outcome of your interpretation. In my experience, casual players aren't worried about the technical details of the rules, they're worried about the outcome, and in this case the outcome of your interpretation is absurd. Citing casual players as a reason to tighten up slightly ambiguous wording in a technical document seems a bit off to me.
This isn't about different methods of applying common sense. Would you really suggest that anyone considers letting players get free draws/reveals/etc off of improperly casting spells reasonable, or that a variation on common sense would allow you to reach that conclusion without doubting it's legitimacy?
This thread has drifted a bit too far into arguing semantics.
If you're concerned about clarifications to rules and/or templating, please direct your question to Wizards' Rules Theory and Templating forum on the mothership.
Taken from the Infraction Procedure Guide:
We don't reverse things partially. This is an official policy that every judge should know.
Rules Advisor
The end-all-be-all of this would be the ruling, supported by an explanation based solely within the rules of how the game functions as to why the ruling is, and why any other reasonable interpretations of the rule are incorrect despite the fact that a person with that interpretation and a person with the "correct" interpretation both are reading the exact same words on the exact same page; as well as a fix to the CR so that ambiguity with "reasonable" and "unreasonable" interpretations and applications of the rule need not be discussed.
That is acceptable -- that is, if the game being played is a game being governed under the IPG. But the fact is that not all games are conducted under the rules of the IPG. To a person who wants to know how the game works, they shouldn't have to read a document that has no relevance to them (perhaps because that person is a casual-only player and does not intend to join IPG-covered games) to know how the game works with regards to what they are confused about. Saying "Oh, it's casual anyway so they can house-rule whatever they're confused about" is a terrible way to go about the situation, because clearly, casual games are as important to the genuineness of the CR as tournament games are. Otherwise, rule section 900 (and to an extent, 800) wouldn't even have existed.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Words that are not explicitly defined in the CR to mean something else in the game carry their English meaning.
That's the problem. Reading the rule and coming up with an "interpretation" isn't what the CR is supposed to do. The CR is supposed to be definitive and provide exact rules that apply definitively and 100% of the time to whatever they describe. Allowing for "interpretations" that can be validly arrived at by reading the words in a rule and then moving on is the very source of ambiguity, which is by definition not definitive.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Nothing read and written by humans is safe from misreading, and everything read is interpreted. If the rules functioned as you read them, Selvala would be able to deck everyone at will. A rule meant to prevent the abuse of irreversable actions and illegal casting of spells would reward that same behavior. It's a reading that disagrees with every bit of rules philosophy expressed in Magic rules documents. A clarification in the CR would be nice, but completely unnecessary.
That quote is an explanation of rules philosophy that defends the correct reading on a technical level. An explanation that deep is unnecessary for a casual player. I doubt many casual players have read or applied CR 717.1. It's usually intuitive for casual players to understand that actions like Selvala cannot be undone, and if not a simple explanation of its abusive potential usually settles it.
Rules Advisor
Here's an example that shows why I think that is false:
Rules entries for the new prowess and outlast would not be needed either, as players would just use the information they have available to them (the printed text of the cards that have those abilities), interpret them as they will, and move on.
Yes, most cards with prowess and outlast have reminder text that tells players what the abilities do. But to a player familiar with the CR rule that says reminder text has no gameplay effect, coupled with the hypothetical omitted rules entries for prowess and outlast, they are then left confused as to whether the reminder text denotes the word's meaning or not. Players are then left to go one way or the other and just carry on.
Just because most people would go one way with that problem and just because someone with official authority states that that way is the right way to deal with the problem doesn't make it correct in the basis of the CR. This is the reason why the CR rule should be fixed with this small addition to that rule, so that the CR and the [O] ruling can actually match.
I don't see a plausible reason, other than laziness, to not clarify the rule so that [O] and the CR match.
Exactly. For those who fit into the description you provide, the explanation would probably suffice to show the abusive potential of not reversing the activation. But it is better to include that explanation in the CR rather than to not include it and let people be confused and ask about it when the problem arises.
It doesn't matter that the problem in question almost never occurs. Doubting that many players have even needed to apply 717.1 the way described in this thread and then going on to say that the rule shouldn't be updated because of its infrequency of happening doesn't help anybody. Wild Evocation + Disaster Radius doesn't happen often, either, yet a rule was added recently that clarified this. That "'Wild Radius' arguably happens more often than this problem does" isn't grounds for not adding the rule, because the issue is that the problem can happen with a nonzero frequency, rather than the problem happening with a frequency above a certain threshold of probability.
---
In the end, the conclusion fortunately is that the rules clarification is welcome, rather than that the rules clarification is unwelcome due to the "reasonability" of interpretations, a term whose meaning changes from person to person based on their familiarity with the rules and their methods of applying common sense.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Except your example is at a whole different level of explanation. CR additions for new keywords are to give people who need to understand the rules at a technical level the ability to understand the mechanic. Consider flashback. We can preserve the idea of flashback by having "exile this spell" be added to the card text instead of creating a replacement effect, or even by creating a delayed trigger that exiles it. These would have the cards function completely differently. All of these scenarios do not contradict the reminder text ("You may cast this card from your graveyard for its flashback cost. Then exile it."). The CR make this specification, and tell you exactly how it works.
As of right now, there is no debate on the actual rules. There are no players left to "go one way or the other." We have an official ruling that one interpretation is correct. The other interpretation is nitpicking definitions of words, ignoring the obvious intent of the rules, and contradicting fundamental rules and policy philosophies in order to create an ambiguity that only exists in the strictest sense of the word. I say that it would be preferable to clarify because there's never anything wrong with clarifying. I say it's unnecessary because the CR isn't meant to be read in a vacuum of rules philosophy and common sense. It's not trying to prove it's rules from first principles. It's telling you how the game works.
I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be addressed because it doesn't come up. I'm saying that when it does come up, nobody is going to assume that improperly casting a card is purely beneficial, because that's the outcome of your interpretation. In my experience, casual players aren't worried about the technical details of the rules, they're worried about the outcome, and in this case the outcome of your interpretation is absurd. Citing casual players as a reason to tighten up slightly ambiguous wording in a technical document seems a bit off to me.
This isn't about different methods of applying common sense. Would you really suggest that anyone considers letting players get free draws/reveals/etc off of improperly casting spells reasonable, or that a variation on common sense would allow you to reach that conclusion without doubting it's legitimacy?
Rules Advisor
If you're concerned about clarifications to rules and/or templating, please direct your question to Wizards' Rules Theory and Templating forum on the mothership.