Also, I haven't updated the rules yet to make this clear, but starting with this round, if a player would be able to cause a draw by taking infinite turns, that player can't. They'll have to choose a number of turns to take, and then pass instead. Infinite loops involving two players will still end in a draw. This ruling is to address a discussion carried out in the previous ABT thread.
Wait what? Why?
Literally, why are you making this decision - it's not to follow the rules of normal magic as written, and it's not to follow any kind of intuitive 'way things work', so why did you decide to specify extra turns, and ONLY extra turns, work that way?
It's actually 4-1 in my favor as far as I can tell. See my post for the details.
Recalculating...
If you play your lands I have to play mine so I don't get Inkmoth'ed.
When you go first, I have to play Needle naming Nexus. If I hold up mana for Nature's Claim/Path, you cast Din of the Fireherd and that ceases to be an option. I Path Din of the Fireherd, then you cast Ratchet Bomb to kill Needle.
When I go first, I Needle Molten Slagheap and hold up mana for Path.
Literally, why are you making this decision - it's not to follow the rules of normal magic as written, and it's not to follow any kind of intuitive 'way things work', so why did you decide to specify extra turns, and ONLY extra turns, work that way?
It's a provisional ruling. At the time I posted the round, I wasn't satisfied that I had an unambiguous wording for a better rule, so I settled for a ruling that would be clear and similar to what seemed best to me for the long-term.
Long-term, I think the best solution is to say that infinite sequences involving only one player terminate, while infinite sequences involving two players result in a draw. The idea here is that by the regular rules of Magic, both sequences would terminate, but we definitely want the second kind to result in a draw, so an exception is made.
As for whether the long-term rule should be different, that's definitely still open to discussion.
Lastly, I understand that tone can be difficult to convey across the internet, but that also means it's important to consider how a post is likely to be understood. I know that I make a lot of mistakes, and I'm open to criticism, but I don't like to feel accused.
Got an idea for a special month. Instead of a ban-a-thon, you have a nerf-a-thon. Instead of banning cards that were played during the previous week, cards become "nerfed". Cards that are usually banned in ABT are automatically placed on the nerf list during the first week. The following happens to a nerfed card:
If the card is a nonland card, it costs more to cast. (Including alternative casting costs.)
Activated abilities of the card costs more to activate. (Including mana abilities.)
The card starts in the player's library instead of their hand. (To stop Chancellor and Leyline shenanigans.)
If multiple cards start in the library, the player must decide the order when submitting the deck.
Basic lands can't be put on the nerf list. Neither player skips their first draw step of a game.
I like it! However, I think this might work better as a one-round format, like the banathon that Clairval ran with 3CB LR Only White.
Basically, banathons require players to remember a lot, and this version makes them remember even more - since they have to know which cards are on the list, but can't then completely remove them from their consideration. As a result, multiple rounds might be overwhelming.
It's a provisional ruling. At the time I posted the round, I wasn't satisfied that I had an unambiguous wording for a better rule, so I settled for a ruling that would be clear and similar to what seemed best to me for the long-term.
Long-term, I think the best solution is to say that infinite sequences involving only one player terminate, while infinite sequences involving two players result in a draw. The idea here is that by the regular rules of Magic, both sequences would terminate, but we definitely want the second kind to result in a draw, so an exception is made.
As for whether the long-term rule should be different, that's definitely still open to discussion.
Lastly, I understand that tone can be difficult to convey across the internet, but that also means it's important to consider how a post is likely to be understood. I know that I make a lot of mistakes, and I'm open to criticism, but I don't like to feel accused.
You make a very small amount of mistakes. Sorry if it was accusatory to read; it was meant as "bwuh?" - that is, genuine bafflement.
Anywho: stuff involving the number of players gets weird, particularly given round rules can make it so it's you and the round rule forming a loop, plus controller vs. owner shenanigans.
I think "unlike in regular magic, there are no shortcuts. If someone can stall an indefinite number of turns by any means, the match is a draw" + "optimal play when you cannot win or draw plays to maximise the number of turns in a game and minimise the number of actions taken in each turn" makes sense.
Because let's be clear here: by regular rules, Elixir vs. The Rack is the same as Time Vault/Voltaic Key, and by player intuition and long-standing "this is how it has worked", in both cases the result is a draw.
I mean, it's not like infinite time walk decks are unique in being designed to try to get wins but failing that draws; you're singling them out as NOT getting an exception made to a rule that otherwise unintuitively knobbles half the format, and doing so with the kind of vague language that makes it unclear what the point of the rule is and opens up legalistic shenanigans.
Each nonland permanent that doesn't have Fading or Vanishing gains Fading N, where N is that card's converted mana cost.
That does not work properly because of the following rules.
702.31a Fading is a keyword that represents two abilities. "Fading N" means "This permanent enters the battlefield with N fade counters on it" and "At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a fade counter from this permanent. If you can't, sacrifice the permanent."
614.1c Effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ," "As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ," or "[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . " are replacement effects.
614.12. Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. (See rules 614.1c-d.) Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come from other sources. To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent's characteristics on the stack (see rule 400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent's own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it. [emphasis added]
An alternative that does work properly is "Each nonland permanent that doesn't have Fading or Vanishing enters the battlefield with a number of fade counters equal to its converted mana cost and has Fading 0."
That does not work properly because of the following rules.
702.31a Fading is a keyword that represents two abilities. "Fading N" means "This permanent enters the battlefield with N fade counters on it" and "At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a fade counter from this permanent. If you can't, sacrifice the permanent."
614.1c Effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ," "As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ," or "[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . " are replacement effects.
614.12. Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. (See rules 614.1c-d.) Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come from other sources. To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent's characteristics on the stack (see rule 400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent's own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it. [emphasis added]
An alternative that does work properly is "Each nonland permanent that doesn't have Fading or Vanishing enters the battlefield with a number of fade counters equal to its converted mana cost and has Fading 0."
So with the new rule change, DFC and flip cards will still have fading counters but they will lose fading when they flip or transform. I take it that the spirit of the rules is that if it is a permanent it has fading, but Magic is complicated, and the designers never intended for an interaction like that.
So with the new rule change, DFC and flip cards will still have fading counters but they will lose fading when they flip or transform. I take it that the spirit of the rules is that if it is a permanent it has fading, but Magic is complicated, and the designers never intended for an interaction like that.
Why would they lose fading? There's still a rule in effect that says each permanent has fading, and the part of the rule that reads "At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a fade counter from this permanent. If you can't, sacrifice the permanent" doesn't care how the counters were put onto that permanent.
My line of thinking is that when a DFC enters the battlefield, only the sun side would have fading under these rules. When it transforms it becomes a different different card. When a card like Kruin Outlaw transforms, it doesn't re-enter the battlefield as Terror of Kruin Pass.
Because let's be clear here: by regular rules, Elixir vs. The Rack is the same as Time Vault/Voltaic Key, and by player intuition and long-standing "this is how it has worked", in both cases the result is a draw.
The idea here is that by the regular rules of Magic, both sequences would terminate, but we definitely want the second kind to result in a draw, so an exception is made.
Do we definitely want the second kind to result in a draw? It certainly is how we've always done things, and it feels comfortable. But I'm not immediately convinced that the game will be worse if we do things right.
I guess one reason for adding our own rule would be to preserve the legitimacy of the past - we could just say "Oh, well, we hadn't formalized our rules fully yet." instead of "Yeah, all previous XCB results are invalidated."
Quote from "Personman" »
*Shows up suddenly after a year and a half and starts arguing with people*
Oh, right! Hi everyone! I missed you all, and I think I might just start being a little less scarce around these parts, at least for a while. Going to work on my submission for this week now!
My line of thinking is that when a DFC enters the battlefield, only the sun side would have fading under these rules. When it transforms it becomes a different different card. When a card like Kruin Outlaw transforms, it doesn't re-enter the battlefield as Terror of Kruin Pass.
Quote from Comprehensive Rules 711.7 »
When a double-faced permanent transforms, it doesn’t become a new object. Any effects that
applied to that permanent will continue to apply to it after it transforms.
Example: An effect gives Village Ironsmith (the front face of a double-faced card) +2/+2
until end of turn and then Village Ironsmith transforms into Ironfang. Ironfang will continue
to get +2/+2 until end of turn.
The transformation does not make the DFC into a new object, it just changes its characteristics. I think this week's rule as written still works correctly, because the two parts each apply - the first once to each permanent as it enters the battlefield, and the second continuously to each permanent on the battlefield. That said, I think the rule for this week might be more clear if it read:
Each nonland permanent that doesn't have Fading or Vanishing enters the battlefield with a number of fade counters on it equal to its converted mana cost.
Each nonland permanent that doesn't have Fading or Vanishing has Fading 0.
Er... I know that in real magic, both the Elixir of Vitality AND the Time Vault option lose - I read Eli's commentary, he answered both! What I'm saying (and what Eli said - bateleur asked about both options) is that XCB intuition would say both would be a draw. (and by Mogg's suggested rules one option would be a draw and the other a loss with no reason given for why one is prioritised over the other)
Do we definitely want the second kind to result in a draw? It certainly is how we've always done things, and it feels comfortable. But I'm not immediately convinced that the game will be worse if we do things right.
I guess one reason for adding our own rule would be to preserve the legitimacy of the past - we could just say "Oh, well, we hadn't formalized our rules fully yet." instead of "Yeah, all previous XCB results are invalidated."
Oh, right! Hi everyone! I missed you all, and I think I might just start being a little less scarce around these parts, at least for a while. Going to work on my submission for this week now!
And yeah. Codifying "how things work" seems more natural than changing how the rules have traditionally worked - invalidating precedent should require a specific reason for the change (beyond "as written, that's technically not how it works).
Er... I know that in real magic, both the Elixir of Vitality AND the Time Vault option lose - I read Eli's commentary, he answered both!
Oh, sorry - I definitely misunderstood what you were trying to say, it looked like you were just saying "in real magic...they are both draws".
I agree that the distinction between one-player loops and two-player loops is artificial and that they should work the same way.
I strongly disagree that shortcutting across turns is counterintuitive; it's a well-supported part of the normal rules.
I guess I also mildly agree that XCB feels better with a different rule, but I'm worried that that's just out of habit, and I kind of like it better when we don't change Magic rules just for the hell of it (or just because we didn't realize we already did by accident a long time ago). Maybe it's time to try new things?
Most notably, I'm not really seeing any fleshed-out arguments for why we *wouldn't* update our enforcement to be in line with our previously stated rules - seems to me that the burden is on those who want to update the rules instead to show that the game really will be better, and not just more intuitive to those who have always known it a certain way.
And yeah. Codifying "how things work" seems more natural than changing how the rules have traditionally worked - invalidating precedent should require a specific reason for the change (beyond "as written, that's technically not how it works).
It's funny, this is basically the exact same argument as mine, but in the opposite direction. It seems that you value precedent over the written rules; to me, the written rules have always been how the game "really works", and any discrepancies were the fault of us mere mortals. It doesn't make sense to me to keep making a mistake just because you're used to it.
Oh, sorry - I definitely misunderstood what you were trying to say, it looked like you were just saying "in real magic...they are both draws".
I agree that the distinction between one-player loops and two-player loops is artificial and that they should work the same way.
I strongly disagree that shortcutting across turns is counterintuitive; it's a well-supported part of the normal rules.
I guess I also mildly agree that XCB feels better with a different rule, but I'm worried that that's just out of habit, and I kind of like it better when we don't change Magic rules just for the hell of it (or just because we didn't realize we already did by accident a long time ago). Maybe it's time to try new things?
Most notably, I'm not really seeing any fleshed-out arguments for why we *wouldn't* update our enforcement to be in line with our previously stated rules - seems to me that the burden is on those who want to update the rules instead to show that the game really will be better, and not just more intuitive to those who have always known it a certain way.
It's funny, this is basically the exact same argument as mine, but in the opposite direction. It seems that you value precedent over the written rules; to me, the written rules have always been how the game "really works", and any discrepancies were the fault of us mere mortals. It doesn't make sense to me to keep making a mistake just because you're used to it.
The written rules for a long time were casual "not the letter but the spirit" things without strict legalistic wording.
Mogg's codification of rules into numbered, bullet-pointed things that can be rules-lawyered... in my not so humble opinion, was not a good thing. Breaking the format is one thing; breaking the wording of the format is another. "Can I cast a Lightning Bolt?" was the lamest way to win a Pro Tour ever, and something like that would not be allowed these days.
I think trying to rules-lawyer can actually get you sanctioned these days.
I agree that the distinction between one-player loops and two-player loops is artificial and that they should work the same way.
i agree with this on a basic level, but i definitely see the difference. a two player loop consists of both parties not doing anything to win, while a one player loop can involve the winning play not being allowed to happen.
the real problem is that in xcb, we dont have any other ways to change the game state.
theres no new cards to be drawn. no one is gonna mill out. nothing is changing.
that, along with perfect knowledge and optimal play, is why we have so many more draws than paper magic. and i like that difference.
The written rules for a long time were casual "not the letter but the spirit" things without strict legalistic wording.
Mogg's codification of rules into numbered, bullet-pointed things that can be rules-lawyered... in my not so humble opinion, was not a good thing. Breaking the format is one thing; breaking the wording of the format is another.
i agree that stricter rules like this encourage finding loopholes, but i also like the rules being there for the purposes of settling disputes.
The written rules for a long time were casual "not the letter but the spirit" things without strict legalistic wording.
Mogg's codification of rules into numbered, bullet-pointed things that can be rules-lawyered... in my not so humble opinion, was not a good thing.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, unless by "a long time ago" you mean long before I ever played 5CB - I remember the rules being quite precise in 2009, and certainly when I adapted and maintained them for 2CB I did my best to keep them as formal as possible. As I see it, the alternative to precise rules is drawn out flame wars, and the choice is easy.
Quote from WhammWhamme »
Play the game, not the rulebook.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Quote from tomsloger »
the real problem is that in xcb, we dont have any other ways to change the game state.
theres no new cards to be drawn. no one is gonna mill out. nothing is changing.
that, along with perfect knowledge and optimal play, is why we have so many more draws than paper magic. and i like that difference.
I think this is a very good point, and the first compelling positive evidence I've heard for making ("keeping") the change from the Magic rules.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, unless by "a long time ago" you mean long before I ever played 5CB - I remember the rules being quite precise in 2009, and certainly when I adapted and maintained them for 2CB I did my best to keep them as formal as possible. As I see it, the alternative to precise rules is drawn out flame wars, and the choice is easy.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
I think this is a very good point, and the first compelling positive evidence I've heard for making ("keeping") the change from the Magic rules.
I remember playing with you in 3CB not too long after it came in on MTGN.
That was over ten years ago, but I am pretty sure it was during this century...
I think there's an error in the standings - deck 2 (aurorasparrow) vs. deck 8 (me) is reported as 3-3 by aurorasparrow and in the standings, but I'm pretty sure it is 6-0 in his favor. If you look back at his results post, he talks about me playing needle on his boggle, but I don't have a needle in my deck!
Also, cruelshy vs WhammWhamme is listed as 6-0 in WhammWhamme's favor, when it should be the opposite. Details in cruelshy's post, and my post on the first page.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wait what? Why?
Literally, why are you making this decision - it's not to follow the rules of normal magic as written, and it's not to follow any kind of intuitive 'way things work', so why did you decide to specify extra turns, and ONLY extra turns, work that way?
Recalculating...
If you play your lands I have to play mine so I don't get Inkmoth'ed.
When you go first, I have to play Needle naming Nexus. If I hold up mana for Nature's Claim/Path, you cast Din of the Fireherd and that ceases to be an option. I Path Din of the Fireherd, then you cast Ratchet Bomb to kill Needle.
When I go first, I Needle Molten Slagheap and hold up mana for Path.
tl,dr; I agree.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
It's a provisional ruling. At the time I posted the round, I wasn't satisfied that I had an unambiguous wording for a better rule, so I settled for a ruling that would be clear and similar to what seemed best to me for the long-term.
Long-term, I think the best solution is to say that infinite sequences involving only one player terminate, while infinite sequences involving two players result in a draw. The idea here is that by the regular rules of Magic, both sequences would terminate, but we definitely want the second kind to result in a draw, so an exception is made.
As for whether the long-term rule should be different, that's definitely still open to discussion.
Lastly, I understand that tone can be difficult to convey across the internet, but that also means it's important to consider how a post is likely to be understood. I know that I make a lot of mistakes, and I'm open to criticism, but I don't like to feel accused.
I like it! However, I think this might work better as a one-round format, like the banathon that Clairval ran with 3CB LR Only White.
Basically, banathons require players to remember a lot, and this version makes them remember even more - since they have to know which cards are on the list, but can't then completely remove them from their consideration. As a result, multiple rounds might be overwhelming.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
You make a very small amount of mistakes. Sorry if it was accusatory to read; it was meant as "bwuh?" - that is, genuine bafflement.
Anywho: stuff involving the number of players gets weird, particularly given round rules can make it so it's you and the round rule forming a loop, plus controller vs. owner shenanigans.
I think "unlike in regular magic, there are no shortcuts. If someone can stall an indefinite number of turns by any means, the match is a draw" + "optimal play when you cannot win or draw plays to maximise the number of turns in a game and minimise the number of actions taken in each turn" makes sense.
Because let's be clear here: by regular rules, Elixir vs. The Rack is the same as Time Vault/Voltaic Key, and by player intuition and long-standing "this is how it has worked", in both cases the result is a draw.
I mean, it's not like infinite time walk decks are unique in being designed to try to get wins but failing that draws; you're singling them out as NOT getting an exception made to a rule that otherwise unintuitively knobbles half the format, and doing so with the kind of vague language that makes it unclear what the point of the rule is and opens up legalistic shenanigans.
That does not work properly because of the following rules.
702.31a Fading is a keyword that represents two abilities. "Fading N" means "This permanent enters the battlefield with N fade counters on it" and "At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a fade counter from this permanent. If you can't, sacrifice the permanent."
614.1c Effects that read "[This permanent] enters the battlefield with . . . ," "As [this permanent] enters the battlefield . . . ," or "[This permanent] enters the battlefield as . . . " are replacement effects.
614.12. Some replacement effects modify how a permanent enters the battlefield. (See rules 614.1c-d.) Such effects may come from the permanent itself if they affect only that permanent (as opposed to a general subset of permanents that includes it). They may also come from other sources. To determine which replacement effects apply and how they apply, check the characteristics of the permanent as it would exist on the battlefield, taking into account replacement effects that have already modified how it enters the battlefield (see rule 616.1), continuous effects generated by the resolution of spells or abilities that changed the permanent's characteristics on the stack (see rule 400.7a), and continuous effects from the permanent's own static abilities, but ignoring continuous effects from any other source that would affect it. [emphasis added]
An alternative that does work properly is "Each nonland permanent that doesn't have Fading or Vanishing enters the battlefield with a number of fade counters equal to its converted mana cost and has Fading 0."
Good point. I've updated the opening post.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Why would they lose fading? There's still a rule in effect that says each permanent has fading, and the part of the rule that reads "At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a fade counter from this permanent. If you can't, sacrifice the permanent" doesn't care how the counters were put onto that permanent.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Did you read the response bateleur got from Eli Shiffrin in the last thread? It very clearly states that this is not the case in real Magic.
Do we definitely want the second kind to result in a draw? It certainly is how we've always done things, and it feels comfortable. But I'm not immediately convinced that the game will be worse if we do things right.
I guess one reason for adding our own rule would be to preserve the legitimacy of the past - we could just say "Oh, well, we hadn't formalized our rules fully yet." instead of "Yeah, all previous XCB results are invalidated."
Oh, right! Hi everyone! I missed you all, and I think I might just start being a little less scarce around these parts, at least for a while. Going to work on my submission for this week now!
The transformation does not make the DFC into a new object, it just changes its characteristics. I think this week's rule as written still works correctly, because the two parts each apply - the first once to each permanent as it enters the battlefield, and the second continuously to each permanent on the battlefield. That said, I think the rule for this week might be more clear if it read:
Each nonland permanent that doesn't have Fading or Vanishing enters the battlefield with a number of fade counters on it equal to its converted mana cost.
Each nonland permanent that doesn't have Fading or Vanishing has Fading 0.
Er... I know that in real magic, both the Elixir of Vitality AND the Time Vault option lose - I read Eli's commentary, he answered both! What I'm saying (and what Eli said - bateleur asked about both options) is that XCB intuition would say both would be a draw. (and by Mogg's suggested rules one option would be a draw and the other a loss with no reason given for why one is prioritised over the other)
And yeah. Codifying "how things work" seems more natural than changing how the rules have traditionally worked - invalidating precedent should require a specific reason for the change (beyond "as written, that's technically not how it works).
Oh, sorry - I definitely misunderstood what you were trying to say, it looked like you were just saying "in real magic...they are both draws".
I agree that the distinction between one-player loops and two-player loops is artificial and that they should work the same way.
I strongly disagree that shortcutting across turns is counterintuitive; it's a well-supported part of the normal rules.
I guess I also mildly agree that XCB feels better with a different rule, but I'm worried that that's just out of habit, and I kind of like it better when we don't change Magic rules just for the hell of it (or just because we didn't realize we already did by accident a long time ago). Maybe it's time to try new things?
Most notably, I'm not really seeing any fleshed-out arguments for why we *wouldn't* update our enforcement to be in line with our previously stated rules - seems to me that the burden is on those who want to update the rules instead to show that the game really will be better, and not just more intuitive to those who have always known it a certain way.
It's funny, this is basically the exact same argument as mine, but in the opposite direction. It seems that you value precedent over the written rules; to me, the written rules have always been how the game "really works", and any discrepancies were the fault of us mere mortals. It doesn't make sense to me to keep making a mistake just because you're used to it.
The written rules for a long time were casual "not the letter but the spirit" things without strict legalistic wording.
Mogg's codification of rules into numbered, bullet-pointed things that can be rules-lawyered... in my not so humble opinion, was not a good thing. Breaking the format is one thing; breaking the wording of the format is another. "Can I cast a Lightning Bolt?" was the lamest way to win a Pro Tour ever, and something like that would not be allowed these days.
I think trying to rules-lawyer can actually get you sanctioned these days.
Play the game, not the rulebook.
i agree with this on a basic level, but i definitely see the difference. a two player loop consists of both parties not doing anything to win, while a one player loop can involve the winning play not being allowed to happen.
the real problem is that in xcb, we dont have any other ways to change the game state.
theres no new cards to be drawn. no one is gonna mill out. nothing is changing.
that, along with perfect knowledge and optimal play, is why we have so many more draws than paper magic. and i like that difference.
i agree that stricter rules like this encourage finding loopholes, but i also like the rules being there for the purposes of settling disputes.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, unless by "a long time ago" you mean long before I ever played 5CB - I remember the rules being quite precise in 2009, and certainly when I adapted and maintained them for 2CB I did my best to keep them as formal as possible. As I see it, the alternative to precise rules is drawn out flame wars, and the choice is easy.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
I think this is a very good point, and the first compelling positive evidence I've heard for making ("keeping") the change from the Magic rules.
...dang, how long have I been doing this?
*feels old now*
I remember playing with you in 3CB not too long after it came in on MTGN.
That was over ten years ago, but I am pretty sure it was during this century...
No longer staff here.