Mixing
Is there a reason to have both of these rules in the comprehensive rulebook for Magic: the Gathering?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I have discovered a curious pair of rules in the comprehensive rulebook. Specifically:
400.8. If an object in the exile zone is exiled, it doesn’t change zones, but it becomes a new object that has just been exiled.
406.7. If an object in the exile zone becomes exiled, it doesn’t change zones, but it becomes a new object that has just been exiled.
Section 400 is Zones - General, while 406 is Zones - Exile.
Now, I know that the same rule may be repeated multiple times throughout the comprehensive rulebook. See, for instance, 112.5, 209.2, 306.5d and 606.3 all stating that the loyalty ability of a permanent may only be activated if none of that permanent's loyalty abilities has been activated earlier this turn. However, apart from 606.3, they all say 'See rule 606, “Loyalty Abilities.â€Â', and that's what I find typical for the comprehensive rules; the same rule may be listed several times where it is deemed appropriate, but there is always one "main instance" of the rule, and all other times it is mentioned, the reader is referred to that main instance.
Not so for the "exile an exiled card" rule. It is just stated, almost verbatim, in two different places with no references to one another. Is this a mistake? If so, is there any way (and point) to alert Wizards of the Coast of this? Would they appreciate said feedback?
magic-the-gathering
asked Aug 6 at 11:19
Arthur
1,0581713
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I have discovered a curious pair of rules in the comprehensive rulebook. Specifically:
400.8. If an object in the exile zone is exiled, it doesn’t change zones, but it becomes a new object that has just been exiled.
406.7. If an object in the exile zone becomes exiled, it doesn’t change zones, but it becomes a new object that has just been exiled.
Section 400 is Zones - General, while 406 is Zones - Exile.
Now, I know that the same rule may be repeated multiple times throughout the comprehensive rulebook. See, for instance, 112.5, 209.2, 306.5d and 606.3 all stating that the loyalty ability of a permanent may only be activated if none of that permanent's loyalty abilities has been activated earlier this turn. However, apart from 606.3, they all say 'See rule 606, “Loyalty Abilities.â€Â', and that's what I find typical for the comprehensive rules; the same rule may be listed several times where it is deemed appropriate, but there is always one "main instance" of the rule, and all other times it is mentioned, the reader is referred to that main instance.
Not so for the "exile an exiled card" rule. It is just stated, almost verbatim, in two different places with no references to one another. Is this a mistake? If so, is there any way (and point) to alert Wizards of the Coast of this? Would they appreciate said feedback?
magic-the-gathering
asked Aug 6 at 11:19
Arthur
1,0581713
I don't see this as significantly different from any of the other instances of repeated rules. 400 deals with zones in general, and moving between zones. 406 deals with all the rules about the exile zone specifically.
– GendoIkari
Aug 6 at 13:04
@GendoIkari The significant difference, as pointed out with the loyalty ability rule, is that neither of them refers to the other. It is, as far as I can see, an unintentional duplication. I was wondering whether other people agree with this, or whether there can be a deliberate reason behind it.
– Arthur
Aug 6 at 13:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I have discovered a curious pair of rules in the comprehensive rulebook. Specifically:
400.8. If an object in the exile zone is exiled, it doesn’t change zones, but it becomes a new object that has just been exiled.
406.7. If an object in the exile zone becomes exiled, it doesn’t change zones, but it becomes a new object that has just been exiled.
Section 400 is Zones - General, while 406 is Zones - Exile.
Now, I know that the same rule may be repeated multiple times throughout the comprehensive rulebook. See, for instance, 112.5, 209.2, 306.5d and 606.3 all stating that the loyalty ability of a permanent may only be activated if none of that permanent's loyalty abilities has been activated earlier this turn. However, apart from 606.3, they all say 'See rule 606, “Loyalty Abilities.â€Â', and that's what I find typical for the comprehensive rules; the same rule may be listed several times where it is deemed appropriate, but there is always one "main instance" of the rule, and all other times it is mentioned, the reader is referred to that main instance.
Not so for the "exile an exiled card" rule. It is just stated, almost verbatim, in two different places with no references to one another. Is this a mistake? If so, is there any way (and point) to alert Wizards of the Coast of this? Would they appreciate said feedback?
magic-the-gathering
asked Aug 6 at 11:19
Arthur
1,0581713
I have discovered a curious pair of rules in the comprehensive rulebook. Specifically:
400.8. If an object in the exile zone is exiled, it doesn’t change zones, but it becomes a new object that has just been exiled.
406.7. If an object in the exile zone becomes exiled, it doesn’t change zones, but it becomes a new object that has just been exiled.
Section 400 is Zones - General, while 406 is Zones - Exile.
Now, I know that the same rule may be repeated multiple times throughout the comprehensive rulebook. See, for instance, 112.5, 209.2, 306.5d and 606.3 all stating that the loyalty ability of a permanent may only be activated if none of that permanent's loyalty abilities has been activated earlier this turn. However, apart from 606.3, they all say 'See rule 606, “Loyalty Abilities.â€Â', and that's what I find typical for the comprehensive rules; the same rule may be listed several times where it is deemed appropriate, but there is always one "main instance" of the rule, and all other times it is mentioned, the reader is referred to that main instance.
Not so for the "exile an exiled card" rule. It is just stated, almost verbatim, in two different places with no references to one another. Is this a mistake? If so, is there any way (and point) to alert Wizards of the Coast of this? Would they appreciate said feedback?
magic-the-gathering
asked Aug 6 at 11:19
Arthur
1,0581713
edited Aug 6 at 11:36
asked Aug 6 at 11:19
Arthur
1,0581713
asked Aug 6 at 11:19
Arthur
1,0581713
asked Aug 6 at 11:19
Arthur
1,0581713
1,0581713
I don't see this as significantly different from any of the other instances of repeated rules. 400 deals with zones in general, and moving between zones. 406 deals with all the rules about the exile zone specifically.
– GendoIkari
Aug 6 at 13:04
@GendoIkari The significant difference, as pointed out with the loyalty ability rule, is that neither of them refers to the other. It is, as far as I can see, an unintentional duplication. I was wondering whether other people agree with this, or whether there can be a deliberate reason behind it.
– Arthur
Aug 6 at 13:14
add a comment |Â
I don't see this as significantly different from any of the other instances of repeated rules. 400 deals with zones in general, and moving between zones. 406 deals with all the rules about the exile zone specifically.
– GendoIkari
Aug 6 at 13:04
@GendoIkari The significant difference, as pointed out with the loyalty ability rule, is that neither of them refers to the other. It is, as far as I can see, an unintentional duplication. I was wondering whether other people agree with this, or whether there can be a deliberate reason behind it.
– Arthur
Aug 6 at 13:14
I don't see this as significantly different from any of the other instances of repeated rules. 400 deals with zones in general, and moving between zones. 406 deals with all the rules about the exile zone specifically.
– GendoIkari
Aug 6 at 13:04
I don't see this as significantly different from any of the other instances of repeated rules. 400 deals with zones in general, and moving between zones. 406 deals with all the rules about the exile zone specifically.
– GendoIkari
Aug 6 at 13:04
@GendoIkari The significant difference, as pointed out with the loyalty ability rule, is that neither of them refers to the other. It is, as far as I can see, an unintentional duplication. I was wondering whether other people agree with this, or whether there can be a deliberate reason behind it.
– Arthur
Aug 6 at 13:14
@GendoIkari The significant difference, as pointed out with the loyalty ability rule, is that neither of them refers to the other. It is, as far as I can see, an unintentional duplication. I was wondering whether other people agree with this, or whether there can be a deliberate reason behind it.
– Arthur
Aug 6 at 13:14
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The referenced pair of rules fits as a first class rule in each of the two sections that it appears in. In section 400, it appears right after another rule describing how objects become new objects as a result of zone-change effects. And in section 406, it appears as a rule that is specific to the exile zone. I think it is reasonable to consider neither or both to be the "main instance" of the rule, so it makes sense for each one to not link the other.
In general, I have found that the best way to give feedback about the rules is to contact the rules manager directly on social media. The current rules manager is Eli Shiffrin, and he can be contacted on Twitter under the name @EliShffrn.
answered Aug 6 at 17:44
murgatroid99♦
42.2k7100177
I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
– Arthur
Aug 7 at 12:52
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
No, that rule is not an exception in that regard.
As you noted, the Comprehensive Rules (CR) duplicate a lot of rules for readability. Contrary to your assertion, there are other cases where rules do not refer to each other.
As an example, see the general rule about costs for casting spells and activating abilities:
- Activating Activated Abilities
602.1a The activation cost is everything before the colon (:). An ability’s activation cost must be paid by the player who is activating it.
And the rules about paying for loyalty abilities:
606.4. The cost to activate a loyalty ability of a permanent is to put on or remove from that permanent a certain number of loyalty counters, as shown by the loyalty symbol in the ability’s cost.
606.5. A loyalty ability with a negative loyalty cost can’t be activated unless the permanent has at least that many loyalty counters on it.
If your assertion held true, then 606.5 should have a reference to 602.1a, because it's a special case of activated abilities. Since it doesn't, the rule you quoted is not unique in its lack of mutual reference.
answered Aug 6 at 17:45
Hackworth
22.3k258106
I don't see how any of those rules is fully redundant. I think a better example is that the aforementioned 606.5 is simply an application of 601.2h: "The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid."
– ikegami
Aug 7 at 5:12
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The referenced pair of rules fits as a first class rule in each of the two sections that it appears in. In section 400, it appears right after another rule describing how objects become new objects as a result of zone-change effects. And in section 406, it appears as a rule that is specific to the exile zone. I think it is reasonable to consider neither or both to be the "main instance" of the rule, so it makes sense for each one to not link the other.
In general, I have found that the best way to give feedback about the rules is to contact the rules manager directly on social media. The current rules manager is Eli Shiffrin, and he can be contacted on Twitter under the name @EliShffrn.
answered Aug 6 at 17:44
murgatroid99♦
42.2k7100177
I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
– Arthur
Aug 7 at 12:52
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The referenced pair of rules fits as a first class rule in each of the two sections that it appears in. In section 400, it appears right after another rule describing how objects become new objects as a result of zone-change effects. And in section 406, it appears as a rule that is specific to the exile zone. I think it is reasonable to consider neither or both to be the "main instance" of the rule, so it makes sense for each one to not link the other.
In general, I have found that the best way to give feedback about the rules is to contact the rules manager directly on social media. The current rules manager is Eli Shiffrin, and he can be contacted on Twitter under the name @EliShffrn.
answered Aug 6 at 17:44
murgatroid99♦
42.2k7100177
I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
– Arthur
Aug 7 at 12:52
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
The referenced pair of rules fits as a first class rule in each of the two sections that it appears in. In section 400, it appears right after another rule describing how objects become new objects as a result of zone-change effects. And in section 406, it appears as a rule that is specific to the exile zone. I think it is reasonable to consider neither or both to be the "main instance" of the rule, so it makes sense for each one to not link the other.
In general, I have found that the best way to give feedback about the rules is to contact the rules manager directly on social media. The current rules manager is Eli Shiffrin, and he can be contacted on Twitter under the name @EliShffrn.
answered Aug 6 at 17:44
murgatroid99♦
42.2k7100177
The referenced pair of rules fits as a first class rule in each of the two sections that it appears in. In section 400, it appears right after another rule describing how objects become new objects as a result of zone-change effects. And in section 406, it appears as a rule that is specific to the exile zone. I think it is reasonable to consider neither or both to be the "main instance" of the rule, so it makes sense for each one to not link the other.
In general, I have found that the best way to give feedback about the rules is to contact the rules manager directly on social media. The current rules manager is Eli Shiffrin, and he can be contacted on Twitter under the name @EliShffrn.
answered Aug 6 at 17:44
murgatroid99♦
42.2k7100177
answered Aug 6 at 17:44
murgatroid99♦
42.2k7100177
answered Aug 6 at 17:44
murgatroid99♦
42.2k7100177
answered Aug 6 at 17:44
murgatroid99♦
42.2k7100177
42.2k7100177
I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
– Arthur
Aug 7 at 12:52
add a comment |Â
I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
– Arthur
Aug 7 at 12:52
I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
– Arthur
Aug 7 at 12:52
I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
– Arthur
Aug 7 at 12:52
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
No, that rule is not an exception in that regard.
As you noted, the Comprehensive Rules (CR) duplicate a lot of rules for readability. Contrary to your assertion, there are other cases where rules do not refer to each other.
As an example, see the general rule about costs for casting spells and activating abilities:
- Activating Activated Abilities
602.1a The activation cost is everything before the colon (:). An ability’s activation cost must be paid by the player who is activating it.
And the rules about paying for loyalty abilities:
606.4. The cost to activate a loyalty ability of a permanent is to put on or remove from that permanent a certain number of loyalty counters, as shown by the loyalty symbol in the ability’s cost.
606.5. A loyalty ability with a negative loyalty cost can’t be activated unless the permanent has at least that many loyalty counters on it.
If your assertion held true, then 606.5 should have a reference to 602.1a, because it's a special case of activated abilities. Since it doesn't, the rule you quoted is not unique in its lack of mutual reference.
answered Aug 6 at 17:45
Hackworth
22.3k258106
I don't see how any of those rules is fully redundant. I think a better example is that the aforementioned 606.5 is simply an application of 601.2h: "The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid."
– ikegami
Aug 7 at 5:12
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
No, that rule is not an exception in that regard.
As you noted, the Comprehensive Rules (CR) duplicate a lot of rules for readability. Contrary to your assertion, there are other cases where rules do not refer to each other.
As an example, see the general rule about costs for casting spells and activating abilities:
- Activating Activated Abilities
602.1a The activation cost is everything before the colon (:). An ability’s activation cost must be paid by the player who is activating it.
And the rules about paying for loyalty abilities:
606.4. The cost to activate a loyalty ability of a permanent is to put on or remove from that permanent a certain number of loyalty counters, as shown by the loyalty symbol in the ability’s cost.
606.5. A loyalty ability with a negative loyalty cost can’t be activated unless the permanent has at least that many loyalty counters on it.
If your assertion held true, then 606.5 should have a reference to 602.1a, because it's a special case of activated abilities. Since it doesn't, the rule you quoted is not unique in its lack of mutual reference.
answered Aug 6 at 17:45
Hackworth
22.3k258106
I don't see how any of those rules is fully redundant. I think a better example is that the aforementioned 606.5 is simply an application of 601.2h: "The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid."
– ikegami
Aug 7 at 5:12
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
No, that rule is not an exception in that regard.
As you noted, the Comprehensive Rules (CR) duplicate a lot of rules for readability. Contrary to your assertion, there are other cases where rules do not refer to each other.
As an example, see the general rule about costs for casting spells and activating abilities:
- Activating Activated Abilities
602.1a The activation cost is everything before the colon (:). An ability’s activation cost must be paid by the player who is activating it.
And the rules about paying for loyalty abilities:
606.4. The cost to activate a loyalty ability of a permanent is to put on or remove from that permanent a certain number of loyalty counters, as shown by the loyalty symbol in the ability’s cost.
606.5. A loyalty ability with a negative loyalty cost can’t be activated unless the permanent has at least that many loyalty counters on it.
If your assertion held true, then 606.5 should have a reference to 602.1a, because it's a special case of activated abilities. Since it doesn't, the rule you quoted is not unique in its lack of mutual reference.
answered Aug 6 at 17:45
Hackworth
22.3k258106
No, that rule is not an exception in that regard.
As you noted, the Comprehensive Rules (CR) duplicate a lot of rules for readability. Contrary to your assertion, there are other cases where rules do not refer to each other.
As an example, see the general rule about costs for casting spells and activating abilities:
- Activating Activated Abilities
602.1a The activation cost is everything before the colon (:). An ability’s activation cost must be paid by the player who is activating it.
And the rules about paying for loyalty abilities:
606.4. The cost to activate a loyalty ability of a permanent is to put on or remove from that permanent a certain number of loyalty counters, as shown by the loyalty symbol in the ability’s cost.
606.5. A loyalty ability with a negative loyalty cost can’t be activated unless the permanent has at least that many loyalty counters on it.
If your assertion held true, then 606.5 should have a reference to 602.1a, because it's a special case of activated abilities. Since it doesn't, the rule you quoted is not unique in its lack of mutual reference.
answered Aug 6 at 17:45
Hackworth
22.3k258106
answered Aug 6 at 17:45
Hackworth
22.3k258106
answered Aug 6 at 17:45
Hackworth
22.3k258106
answered Aug 6 at 17:45
Hackworth
22.3k258106
22.3k258106
I don't see how any of those rules is fully redundant. I think a better example is that the aforementioned 606.5 is simply an application of 601.2h: "The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid."
– ikegami
Aug 7 at 5:12
add a comment |Â
I don't see how any of those rules is fully redundant. I think a better example is that the aforementioned 606.5 is simply an application of 601.2h: "The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid."
– ikegami
Aug 7 at 5:12
I don't see how any of those rules is fully redundant. I think a better example is that the aforementioned 606.5 is simply an application of 601.2h: "The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid."
– ikegami
Aug 7 at 5:12
I don't see how any of those rules is fully redundant. I think a better example is that the aforementioned 606.5 is simply an application of 601.2h: "The player pays the total cost in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid."
– ikegami
Aug 7 at 5:12
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43085%2fis-there-a-reason-to-have-both-of-these-rules-in-the-comprehensive-rulebook-for%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
I don't see this as significantly different from any of the other instances of repeated rules. 400 deals with zones in general, and moving between zones. 406 deals with all the rules about the exile zone specifically.
– GendoIkari
Aug 6 at 13:04
@GendoIkari The significant difference, as pointed out with the loyalty ability rule, is that neither of them refers to the other. It is, as far as I can see, an unintentional duplication. I was wondering whether other people agree with this, or whether there can be a deliberate reason behind it.
– Arthur
Aug 6 at 13:14