Is there a reason to have both of these rules in the comprehensive rulebook for Magic: the Gathering?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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.”', 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?







share|improve this question





















  • 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
    2 days ago










  • @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
    2 days ago














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.”', 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?







share|improve this question





















  • 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
    2 days ago










  • @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
    2 days ago












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.”', 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?







share|improve this question













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.”', 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?









share|improve this question












share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago
























asked 2 days ago









Arthur

1,0331713




1,0331713











  • 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
    2 days ago










  • @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
    2 days ago
















  • 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
    2 days ago










  • @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
    2 days ago















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
2 days ago




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
2 days ago












@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
2 days ago




@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
2 days ago










3 Answers
3






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.






share|improve this answer





















  • I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
    – Arthur
    yesterday


















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:




  1. 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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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
    2 days ago


















up vote
-1
down vote














Is this a mistake?




Disclaimer: I am far from being a MTG expert, but according to my perspective (and my knowledge of MTG and other CG's) these two apparently redundant wordings may have a reason.



We can see that 400.8 says "...is exiled", while 400.7 says "...becomes exiled". In order to be comprehensive on the case were a card was to be "exiled again" two perspectives should be considered: the one from the card itself (the one being exiled), covered by 400.7, and the one from other cards reacting to a card being exiled, covered by 400.8.



The "becomes" word in 400.7 would cover for cards that have effects/costs/etc. activated or that apply when they are exiled. The "is exiled" covers those cards that react to other cards being exiled...



Besides from that I see no other possible interpretation of the rules, so in casi mine were not completely correct chances are this was some typo or similar worth bringing to Wizards in some way.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    I don't understand what you're basing this distinction on. Do you have a source or precedent for this different usage/meaning of "is" and "becomes" (or "is exiled" and "becomes exiled")? Without that, the division you're making seems kind of artificial, and I don't see why both of the cases you describe can't be fully covered by each of the two instances of the rule.
    – murgatroid99♦
    2 days ago










  • @murgatroid99 that was my thought also, as both wordings seems redundant and even equivalent, one should suffice. As other answers states, seems that redundancy is not so rare on those rules, but having two redundant rules next to each other seemed strange... based on the premise that it has a reason (contrary to other valid approaches like saying its a typo) it's that I wrote this interpretation
    – DarkCygnus
    2 days ago










  • Part of what I'm trying to ask is why you chose the particular division that you described. Why does the difference between "is" and "becomes" specifically correspond to the difference between "the perspective of the card itself" and "the perspective of other cards reacting to the card being in exile", as opposed to some other way of splitting things? Is there some usage of the words in the rules or standard card templating that suggests that it would be split this way?
    – murgatroid99♦
    2 days ago










  • @murgatroid99 I chose it because in my experience reading and interpreting card texts across different TCG's and BG's I've noticed similar "odd" wording situations. Like I said, I'm no MTG expert so perhaps I can't provide right now a specific card to illustrate. However, what I learned from one of the answers is that these rules tend to be redundant, which makes it more likely to have a wording reason behind this (and not a typo). "Being" indicates something currently happening, "is exiled" indicates that it already happened... I'd say it's worth to tweet that person to be 100% sure still
    – DarkCygnus
    2 days ago










  • I don't see any semantic difference between "is exiled" and "becomes exiled".
    – ikegami
    2 days ago










Your Answer







StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "147"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















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






























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






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.






share|improve this answer





















  • I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
    – Arthur
    yesterday















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.






share|improve this answer





















  • I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
    – Arthur
    yesterday













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.






share|improve this answer













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.







share|improve this answer













share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer











answered 2 days ago









murgatroid99♦

41.5k798176




41.5k798176











  • I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
    – Arthur
    yesterday

















  • I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
    – Arthur
    yesterday
















I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
– Arthur
yesterday





I have now tweeted mr. Shiffrin (my second tweet ever). Let's see if we can get a definitive answer.
– Arthur
yesterday











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:




  1. 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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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
    2 days ago















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:




  1. 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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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
    2 days ago













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:




  1. 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.






share|improve this answer













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:




  1. 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.







share|improve this answer













share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer











answered 2 days ago









Hackworth

21.7k255102




21.7k255102











  • 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
    2 days ago

















  • 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
    2 days ago
















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
2 days ago





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
2 days ago











up vote
-1
down vote














Is this a mistake?




Disclaimer: I am far from being a MTG expert, but according to my perspective (and my knowledge of MTG and other CG's) these two apparently redundant wordings may have a reason.



We can see that 400.8 says "...is exiled", while 400.7 says "...becomes exiled". In order to be comprehensive on the case were a card was to be "exiled again" two perspectives should be considered: the one from the card itself (the one being exiled), covered by 400.7, and the one from other cards reacting to a card being exiled, covered by 400.8.



The "becomes" word in 400.7 would cover for cards that have effects/costs/etc. activated or that apply when they are exiled. The "is exiled" covers those cards that react to other cards being exiled...



Besides from that I see no other possible interpretation of the rules, so in casi mine were not completely correct chances are this was some typo or similar worth bringing to Wizards in some way.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    I don't understand what you're basing this distinction on. Do you have a source or precedent for this different usage/meaning of "is" and "becomes" (or "is exiled" and "becomes exiled")? Without that, the division you're making seems kind of artificial, and I don't see why both of the cases you describe can't be fully covered by each of the two instances of the rule.
    – murgatroid99♦
    2 days ago










  • @murgatroid99 that was my thought also, as both wordings seems redundant and even equivalent, one should suffice. As other answers states, seems that redundancy is not so rare on those rules, but having two redundant rules next to each other seemed strange... based on the premise that it has a reason (contrary to other valid approaches like saying its a typo) it's that I wrote this interpretation
    – DarkCygnus
    2 days ago










  • Part of what I'm trying to ask is why you chose the particular division that you described. Why does the difference between "is" and "becomes" specifically correspond to the difference between "the perspective of the card itself" and "the perspective of other cards reacting to the card being in exile", as opposed to some other way of splitting things? Is there some usage of the words in the rules or standard card templating that suggests that it would be split this way?
    – murgatroid99♦
    2 days ago










  • @murgatroid99 I chose it because in my experience reading and interpreting card texts across different TCG's and BG's I've noticed similar "odd" wording situations. Like I said, I'm no MTG expert so perhaps I can't provide right now a specific card to illustrate. However, what I learned from one of the answers is that these rules tend to be redundant, which makes it more likely to have a wording reason behind this (and not a typo). "Being" indicates something currently happening, "is exiled" indicates that it already happened... I'd say it's worth to tweet that person to be 100% sure still
    – DarkCygnus
    2 days ago










  • I don't see any semantic difference between "is exiled" and "becomes exiled".
    – ikegami
    2 days ago














up vote
-1
down vote














Is this a mistake?




Disclaimer: I am far from being a MTG expert, but according to my perspective (and my knowledge of MTG and other CG's) these two apparently redundant wordings may have a reason.



We can see that 400.8 says "...is exiled", while 400.7 says "...becomes exiled". In order to be comprehensive on the case were a card was to be "exiled again" two perspectives should be considered: the one from the card itself (the one being exiled), covered by 400.7, and the one from other cards reacting to a card being exiled, covered by 400.8.



The "becomes" word in 400.7 would cover for cards that have effects/costs/etc. activated or that apply when they are exiled. The "is exiled" covers those cards that react to other cards being exiled...



Besides from that I see no other possible interpretation of the rules, so in casi mine were not completely correct chances are this was some typo or similar worth bringing to Wizards in some way.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    I don't understand what you're basing this distinction on. Do you have a source or precedent for this different usage/meaning of "is" and "becomes" (or "is exiled" and "becomes exiled")? Without that, the division you're making seems kind of artificial, and I don't see why both of the cases you describe can't be fully covered by each of the two instances of the rule.
    – murgatroid99♦
    2 days ago










  • @murgatroid99 that was my thought also, as both wordings seems redundant and even equivalent, one should suffice. As other answers states, seems that redundancy is not so rare on those rules, but having two redundant rules next to each other seemed strange... based on the premise that it has a reason (contrary to other valid approaches like saying its a typo) it's that I wrote this interpretation
    – DarkCygnus
    2 days ago










  • Part of what I'm trying to ask is why you chose the particular division that you described. Why does the difference between "is" and "becomes" specifically correspond to the difference between "the perspective of the card itself" and "the perspective of other cards reacting to the card being in exile", as opposed to some other way of splitting things? Is there some usage of the words in the rules or standard card templating that suggests that it would be split this way?
    – murgatroid99♦
    2 days ago










  • @murgatroid99 I chose it because in my experience reading and interpreting card texts across different TCG's and BG's I've noticed similar "odd" wording situations. Like I said, I'm no MTG expert so perhaps I can't provide right now a specific card to illustrate. However, what I learned from one of the answers is that these rules tend to be redundant, which makes it more likely to have a wording reason behind this (and not a typo). "Being" indicates something currently happening, "is exiled" indicates that it already happened... I'd say it's worth to tweet that person to be 100% sure still
    – DarkCygnus
    2 days ago










  • I don't see any semantic difference between "is exiled" and "becomes exiled".
    – ikegami
    2 days ago












up vote
-1
down vote










up vote
-1
down vote










Is this a mistake?




Disclaimer: I am far from being a MTG expert, but according to my perspective (and my knowledge of MTG and other CG's) these two apparently redundant wordings may have a reason.



We can see that 400.8 says "...is exiled", while 400.7 says "...becomes exiled". In order to be comprehensive on the case were a card was to be "exiled again" two perspectives should be considered: the one from the card itself (the one being exiled), covered by 400.7, and the one from other cards reacting to a card being exiled, covered by 400.8.



The "becomes" word in 400.7 would cover for cards that have effects/costs/etc. activated or that apply when they are exiled. The "is exiled" covers those cards that react to other cards being exiled...



Besides from that I see no other possible interpretation of the rules, so in casi mine were not completely correct chances are this was some typo or similar worth bringing to Wizards in some way.






share|improve this answer














Is this a mistake?




Disclaimer: I am far from being a MTG expert, but according to my perspective (and my knowledge of MTG and other CG's) these two apparently redundant wordings may have a reason.



We can see that 400.8 says "...is exiled", while 400.7 says "...becomes exiled". In order to be comprehensive on the case were a card was to be "exiled again" two perspectives should be considered: the one from the card itself (the one being exiled), covered by 400.7, and the one from other cards reacting to a card being exiled, covered by 400.8.



The "becomes" word in 400.7 would cover for cards that have effects/costs/etc. activated or that apply when they are exiled. The "is exiled" covers those cards that react to other cards being exiled...



Besides from that I see no other possible interpretation of the rules, so in casi mine were not completely correct chances are this was some typo or similar worth bringing to Wizards in some way.







share|improve this answer













share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer











answered 2 days ago









DarkCygnus

1,723122




1,723122







  • 1




    I don't understand what you're basing this distinction on. Do you have a source or precedent for this different usage/meaning of "is" and "becomes" (or "is exiled" and "becomes exiled")? Without that, the division you're making seems kind of artificial, and I don't see why both of the cases you describe can't be fully covered by each of the two instances of the rule.
    – murgatroid99♦
    2 days ago










  • @murgatroid99 that was my thought also, as both wordings seems redundant and even equivalent, one should suffice. As other answers states, seems that redundancy is not so rare on those rules, but having two redundant rules next to each other seemed strange... based on the premise that it has a reason (contrary to other valid approaches like saying its a typo) it's that I wrote this interpretation
    – DarkCygnus
    2 days ago










  • Part of what I'm trying to ask is why you chose the particular division that you described. Why does the difference between "is" and "becomes" specifically correspond to the difference between "the perspective of the card itself" and "the perspective of other cards reacting to the card being in exile", as opposed to some other way of splitting things? Is there some usage of the words in the rules or standard card templating that suggests that it would be split this way?
    – murgatroid99♦
    2 days ago










  • @murgatroid99 I chose it because in my experience reading and interpreting card texts across different TCG's and BG's I've noticed similar "odd" wording situations. Like I said, I'm no MTG expert so perhaps I can't provide right now a specific card to illustrate. However, what I learned from one of the answers is that these rules tend to be redundant, which makes it more likely to have a wording reason behind this (and not a typo). "Being" indicates something currently happening, "is exiled" indicates that it already happened... I'd say it's worth to tweet that person to be 100% sure still
    – DarkCygnus
    2 days ago










  • I don't see any semantic difference between "is exiled" and "becomes exiled".
    – ikegami
    2 days ago












  • 1




    I don't understand what you're basing this distinction on. Do you have a source or precedent for this different usage/meaning of "is" and "becomes" (or "is exiled" and "becomes exiled")? Without that, the division you're making seems kind of artificial, and I don't see why both of the cases you describe can't be fully covered by each of the two instances of the rule.
    – murgatroid99♦
    2 days ago










  • @murgatroid99 that was my thought also, as both wordings seems redundant and even equivalent, one should suffice. As other answers states, seems that redundancy is not so rare on those rules, but having two redundant rules next to each other seemed strange... based on the premise that it has a reason (contrary to other valid approaches like saying its a typo) it's that I wrote this interpretation
    – DarkCygnus
    2 days ago










  • Part of what I'm trying to ask is why you chose the particular division that you described. Why does the difference between "is" and "becomes" specifically correspond to the difference between "the perspective of the card itself" and "the perspective of other cards reacting to the card being in exile", as opposed to some other way of splitting things? Is there some usage of the words in the rules or standard card templating that suggests that it would be split this way?
    – murgatroid99♦
    2 days ago










  • @murgatroid99 I chose it because in my experience reading and interpreting card texts across different TCG's and BG's I've noticed similar "odd" wording situations. Like I said, I'm no MTG expert so perhaps I can't provide right now a specific card to illustrate. However, what I learned from one of the answers is that these rules tend to be redundant, which makes it more likely to have a wording reason behind this (and not a typo). "Being" indicates something currently happening, "is exiled" indicates that it already happened... I'd say it's worth to tweet that person to be 100% sure still
    – DarkCygnus
    2 days ago










  • I don't see any semantic difference between "is exiled" and "becomes exiled".
    – ikegami
    2 days ago







1




1




I don't understand what you're basing this distinction on. Do you have a source or precedent for this different usage/meaning of "is" and "becomes" (or "is exiled" and "becomes exiled")? Without that, the division you're making seems kind of artificial, and I don't see why both of the cases you describe can't be fully covered by each of the two instances of the rule.
– murgatroid99♦
2 days ago




I don't understand what you're basing this distinction on. Do you have a source or precedent for this different usage/meaning of "is" and "becomes" (or "is exiled" and "becomes exiled")? Without that, the division you're making seems kind of artificial, and I don't see why both of the cases you describe can't be fully covered by each of the two instances of the rule.
– murgatroid99♦
2 days ago












@murgatroid99 that was my thought also, as both wordings seems redundant and even equivalent, one should suffice. As other answers states, seems that redundancy is not so rare on those rules, but having two redundant rules next to each other seemed strange... based on the premise that it has a reason (contrary to other valid approaches like saying its a typo) it's that I wrote this interpretation
– DarkCygnus
2 days ago




@murgatroid99 that was my thought also, as both wordings seems redundant and even equivalent, one should suffice. As other answers states, seems that redundancy is not so rare on those rules, but having two redundant rules next to each other seemed strange... based on the premise that it has a reason (contrary to other valid approaches like saying its a typo) it's that I wrote this interpretation
– DarkCygnus
2 days ago












Part of what I'm trying to ask is why you chose the particular division that you described. Why does the difference between "is" and "becomes" specifically correspond to the difference between "the perspective of the card itself" and "the perspective of other cards reacting to the card being in exile", as opposed to some other way of splitting things? Is there some usage of the words in the rules or standard card templating that suggests that it would be split this way?
– murgatroid99♦
2 days ago




Part of what I'm trying to ask is why you chose the particular division that you described. Why does the difference between "is" and "becomes" specifically correspond to the difference between "the perspective of the card itself" and "the perspective of other cards reacting to the card being in exile", as opposed to some other way of splitting things? Is there some usage of the words in the rules or standard card templating that suggests that it would be split this way?
– murgatroid99♦
2 days ago












@murgatroid99 I chose it because in my experience reading and interpreting card texts across different TCG's and BG's I've noticed similar "odd" wording situations. Like I said, I'm no MTG expert so perhaps I can't provide right now a specific card to illustrate. However, what I learned from one of the answers is that these rules tend to be redundant, which makes it more likely to have a wording reason behind this (and not a typo). "Being" indicates something currently happening, "is exiled" indicates that it already happened... I'd say it's worth to tweet that person to be 100% sure still
– DarkCygnus
2 days ago




@murgatroid99 I chose it because in my experience reading and interpreting card texts across different TCG's and BG's I've noticed similar "odd" wording situations. Like I said, I'm no MTG expert so perhaps I can't provide right now a specific card to illustrate. However, what I learned from one of the answers is that these rules tend to be redundant, which makes it more likely to have a wording reason behind this (and not a typo). "Being" indicates something currently happening, "is exiled" indicates that it already happened... I'd say it's worth to tweet that person to be 100% sure still
– DarkCygnus
2 days ago












I don't see any semantic difference between "is exiled" and "becomes exiled".
– ikegami
2 days ago




I don't see any semantic difference between "is exiled" and "becomes exiled".
– ikegami
2 days ago












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














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













































































Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Bahrain

Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay