Heck I'll even give in if you can find the opposite. Just any actual proof that what your claim isn't just your own personal opinion born from a dislike of proper formating.
Even speaking as someone who has put forth this fight (in this thread, no less), what are you really hoping for at this point? All prior evidence indicates that you are going to get a response that includes a “grammar lesson”, a link to a card that uses the word “or” (whether or not it supports Reap’s views), and vague condescension.
At the end of the day, Reap is correct in that, from a purely linguistic standpoint, the language of sun Titan and similar cards is technically ambiguous. The reason that it is not ambiguous to us is due to past rulings on similar cards... and Reap is stating that a similar ruling could make this card work the opposite way.
If you think that having a single wording that can work in two different ways and that requires players to check Gatherer for rulings on a card-by-card basis is a nightmare, I agree. With that said, Reap has previously stated that card complexity should not be limited by consideration for new players, that effects counting turns without counters or other visual reminders is fine, and so forth. If Reap does not see a problem with requiring players to need to check/memorize rulings on a card-by-card basis, there is nothing really left to discuss here. I’m ready to move on with my life.
Heck I'll even give in if you can find the opposite. Just any actual proof that what your claim isn't just your own personal opinion born from a dislike of proper formating.
At the end of the day, Reap is correct in that, from a purely linguistic standpoint, the language of sun Titan and similar cards is technically ambiguous. The reason that it is not ambiguous to us is due to past rulings on similar cards... and Reap is stating that a similar ruling could make this card work the opposite way.
I’m ready to move on with my life.
I'm fairly close to giving up as well but until then I will continue the fight. And to continue it I must point out that linguisticly it isn't ambiguous. When you are describing events that can take place at separate times you will not think "the one happened so I dont care about these others" as I said earlier this is 2nd grade english. I am quite familiar with it having spent multiple years as an assistant in that grade. A practical application of the English language with a not insignificant knowledge of magic's rules leads you to the correct understanding of how cards work. There are no rulings on these cards that say they work that way. The English language says they work that way. Reap's insistence that you can make rulings to change how the rules of the game or english work doesn't make it true. Rulings clarify interactions and misinterpretations. They don't impose functionality.
Heck I'll even give in if you can find the opposite. Just any actual proof that what your claim isn't just your own personal opinion born from a dislike of proper formating.
At the end of the day, Reap is correct in that, from a purely linguistic standpoint, the language of sun Titan and similar cards is technically ambiguous. The reason that it is not ambiguous to us is due to past rulings on similar cards... and Reap is stating that a similar ruling could make this card work the opposite way.
I’m ready to move on with my life.
I'm fairly close to giving up as well but until then I will continue the fight. And to continue it I must point out that linguisticly it isn't ambiguous. When you are describing events that can take place at separate times you will not think "the one happened so I dont care about these others" as I said earlier this is 2nd grade english. I am quite familiar with it having spent multiple years as an assistant in that grade. A practical application of the English language with a not insignificant knowledge of magic's rules leads you to the correct understanding of how cards work. There are no rulings on these cards that say they work that way. The English language says they work that way. Reap's insistence that you can make rulings to change how the rules of the game or english work doesn't make it true. Rulings clarify interactions and misinterpretations. They don't impose functionality.
Oh, you mean actual English?
The language in which a sentence like “People who make nonfunctional cards or refuse criticism annoy me” means the EXACT SAME THING as “People who make nonfunctional cards and/or refuse criticism annoy me?”
The language where “It hurts when I cough or laugh” does not imply that it only hurts when one of those things is happening and not the other?
I fail to see how language would change anything...
The language in which a sentence like “People who make nonfunctional cards or refuse criticism annoy me” means the EXACT SAME THING as “People who make nonfunctional cards and/or refuse criticism annoy me?”
The language where “It hurts when I cough or laugh” does not imply that it only hurts when one of those things is happening and not the other?
I fail to see how language would change anything...
I have no intention of claiming English is perfect. It's actually quite stupid at times. What I am claiming and fighting is that people who read the sentence you wrote will understand what is written. There is no ambiguity in any of the sentences you wrote just as there is no ambiguity in Sun Titan's ability or the various Deus ex abilities Reap has proposed. English can be stupid sometimes(far more often than I like) but it isn't stupid all of the time.
I think the definite context he's talking about, was one fine day, when Mark Rosewater or company wrote a happy little article describing how the card works and is intended to work.
I think the definite context he's talking about, was one fine day, when Mark Rosewater or company wrote a happy little article describing how the card works and is intended to work.
No one has ever written an article about how it works because there is no need. English says how it works and so it works. They continue using it because it works. For some reason you are dead set on insisting it doesn't work that way when multiple people have explained how and why you are wrong. You have given no argument for why you are right other than "I decided I was right and that's what matters."
You have an ability that when different events occur that happen at different times you offer the players the choice to do something. You have no language in your ability to limit them to only getting this choice once so they get the choice each time it is set to be offered. I don't understand how you can read an ability like Sun Titan and come to the conclusion "I got the card back when it entered so I don't get it back when it attacks."
The language in which a sentence like “People who make nonfunctional cards or refuse criticism annoy me” means the EXACT SAME THING as “People who make nonfunctional cards and/or refuse criticism annoy me?”
The language where “It hurts when I cough or laugh” does not imply that it only hurts when one of those things is happening and not the other?
I fail to see how language would change anything...
I have no intention of claiming English is perfect. It's actually quite stupid at times. What I am claiming and fighting is that people who read the sentence you wrote will understand what is written. There is no ambiguity in any of the sentences you wrote just as there is no ambiguity in Sun Titan's ability or the various Deus ex abilities Reap has proposed. English can be stupid sometimes(far more often than I like) but it isn't stupid all of the time.
oh... uh, I was actually trying to support you there. Forgot that sarcasm doesn’t carry well on the internet.
Both of my example sentences were chosen to specifically demonstrate how the use of “or” in sentences using the structure of the Deus Ex rule text does NOT mean “either” as Reap claims it should.
In an ideal world, I would ask Reap to construct another sentence using the same structure as the rule text (AKA: when situation A, or when situation B, do C) to demonstrate that getting “or” to do what he wants it to is a bit unlikely.
I don’t think that the English language agreeing with us will really make a difference in this argument, though.
oh... uh, I was actually trying to support you there. Forgot that sarcasm doesn’t carry well on the internet.
Sarcasm is a fairly high-level skill the requires both parties to be proficient. It does not carry in the written word well and it is even harder outside of large works where you can establish tone in written word. In forums and other casual conversion locations, it has close to a 0% success rate.
Sun Titan and the suite would want to have context added to it to describe this functionality under those conditions.
...
There is no definite context to restrict this. It's open to interpretation unless you add explicit context to prohibit it.
So at this point your contention is that Wizards of the Coast has produced Magic for 25+ years and does not understand how to use the word "or" in a sentence?
The meaning of "or" is different in the context of describing the trigger or the effect.
Consider the following:
"When you eat breakfast, lunch, or dinner, you need to wash your hands."
vs.
"For dinner, lets order Pizza or Chinese food."
In the former context, your theory of "or" means the person would only be supposed to wash their hands once over all three meals. Is that how you interpret it? Do you interpret the latter as reasonably ordering both Pizza and Chinese food?
If you feel this is incorrect, feel free find any card in Magic the Gathering where a ability's trigger condition contains an "or" that functions as you wish it to. As a judge, I can say that such a card does not exist, but you are welcome to look.
I don't understand why this is even a conversation? Having a cast trigger makes the other clauses superfluous. And cutting down the wordiness makes it more streamlined and elegant.
Also, Destiny Bond is not a great name, since the majority of people are going to link it to Pokemon. Maybe something like "Dreamshare" to suggest that it affects all players because their thoughts are bleeding into one another.
I don't understand why this is even a conversation?
Unfortunately the OP is deadset on all of his card filtering mechanics like this having the option to trigger on either casting or resolution, but doesn't want to acknowledge that he's not correctly wording the ability to do so. This has been going on for multiple threads for a while now.
What does that mechanic have to do with the rest of the card? Why is it even keyworded at all? (Unless as part of an unusual "future sight, throw 15 hypothetical new mechanics out" situation.) I don't understand why we'd ever want a bunch of cards with this mechanic sitting in the same set together. Or what it has to do with the rest of the card.
Ignoring the wording issues, the mechanic's existence just seems unnecessary to me.
Even speaking as someone who has put forth this fight (in this thread, no less), what are you really hoping for at this point? All prior evidence indicates that you are going to get a response that includes a “grammar lesson”, a link to a card that uses the word “or” (whether or not it supports Reap’s views), and vague condescension.
At the end of the day, Reap is correct in that, from a purely linguistic standpoint, the language of sun Titan and similar cards is technically ambiguous. The reason that it is not ambiguous to us is due to past rulings on similar cards... and Reap is stating that a similar ruling could make this card work the opposite way.
If you think that having a single wording that can work in two different ways and that requires players to check Gatherer for rulings on a card-by-card basis is a nightmare, I agree. With that said, Reap has previously stated that card complexity should not be limited by consideration for new players, that effects counting turns without counters or other visual reminders is fine, and so forth. If Reap does not see a problem with requiring players to need to check/memorize rulings on a card-by-card basis, there is nothing really left to discuss here. I’m ready to move on with my life.
Oh, you mean actual English?
The language in which a sentence like “People who make nonfunctional cards or refuse criticism annoy me” means the EXACT SAME THING as “People who make nonfunctional cards and/or refuse criticism annoy me?”
The language where “It hurts when I cough or laugh” does not imply that it only hurts when one of those things is happening and not the other?
I fail to see how language would change anything...
You have an ability that when different events occur that happen at different times you offer the players the choice to do something. You have no language in your ability to limit them to only getting this choice once so they get the choice each time it is set to be offered. I don't understand how you can read an ability like Sun Titan and come to the conclusion "I got the card back when it entered so I don't get it back when it attacks."
oh... uh, I was actually trying to support you there. Forgot that sarcasm doesn’t carry well on the internet.
Both of my example sentences were chosen to specifically demonstrate how the use of “or” in sentences using the structure of the Deus Ex rule text does NOT mean “either” as Reap claims it should.
In an ideal world, I would ask Reap to construct another sentence using the same structure as the rule text (AKA: when situation A, or when situation B, do C) to demonstrate that getting “or” to do what he wants it to is a bit unlikely.
I don’t think that the English language agreeing with us will really make a difference in this argument, though.
So at this point your contention is that Wizards of the Coast has produced Magic for 25+ years and does not understand how to use the word "or" in a sentence?
The meaning of "or" is different in the context of describing the trigger or the effect.
Consider the following:
"When you eat breakfast, lunch, or dinner, you need to wash your hands."
vs.
"For dinner, lets order Pizza or Chinese food."
In the former context, your theory of "or" means the person would only be supposed to wash their hands once over all three meals. Is that how you interpret it? Do you interpret the latter as reasonably ordering both Pizza and Chinese food?
If you feel this is incorrect, feel free find any card in Magic the Gathering where a ability's trigger condition contains an "or" that functions as you wish it to. As a judge, I can say that such a card does not exist, but you are welcome to look.
Also, Destiny Bond is not a great name, since the majority of people are going to link it to Pokemon. Maybe something like "Dreamshare" to suggest that it affects all players because their thoughts are bleeding into one another.
People like links like that.
Throwbacks and tributes.
Unfortunately the OP is deadset on all of his card filtering mechanics like this having the option to trigger on either casting or resolution, but doesn't want to acknowledge that he's not correctly wording the ability to do so. This has been going on for multiple threads for a while now.
If the reference is intentional, why does it have nothing to do with the original effect?
Destiny Bond would be like, "When this creature dies, destroy all creatures that dealt damage to it this turn."
Ignoring the wording issues, the mechanic's existence just seems unnecessary to me.
Because, this way it does something new and exciting, which can be a tribute to its appearance in a different world (MTG in this case).
This breathes new life into the concept, and allows it to be reflected in a new light that's fun and exciting.
It's certainly a give-and-take, and knowing when to keep it tuned to the original, and when to do something new you just need to feel out.