Rulings for 14 February 2001

Rulings for 9 February 2001

In a message dated Wed, 14 Feb 2001 9:46:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, Jeff Alexander writes:

<< Am I changing the rulebook? Absolutely. I'm the Lead Designer. I can do that. I feel I need to in this case, and I've tried my best here to explain why I need to and why I'm changing it the way I am

Is this an accurate statement. I knew you were the lead designer before the WOTC armageddon, but are you still?

I am moreso than anyone else is. I especially am on this particular issue, since I'm the one with whom Wizards and AEG consulted when they formally incorporated the distinction between "cancel" and "negate" in the first place, and I know what the real rules were that they tried to represent, and I can see that the translation wasn't done as thoroughly as it could have been. (And it doesn't take any official capacity at all to realize that the rulebook says Flee the Darkness produces two mutually exclusive results as things currently stand.)

Am I currently employed as the lead designer? Technically, no. But in all honesty, until such time as a sale is publically announced, all of you have two alternatives:

o) Continue to listen to me. o) Do whatever each of you want on a completely individual basis.

Arguing with me is a de facto indication that you've opted for the first alternative. :)

Rulings for 8 February 2001

Okay, so logically:

You choose in case of a tie.

implies

you do not choose in case there is no tie.

Not true.

"If there's a tie, you choose."

implies

"If you don't choose, there isn't a tie."

(That's called the "contrapositive".) It does NOT imply

"If there isn't a tie, you don't choose."

Furthermore, you're basing your argument off the equally false statement "If you don't choose, the action isn't targeted." Actions can be targeted even if no choice is involved, such as a card explicitly stating it targets or an action which requires a choice under some conditions -- and that's exactly the category RFT is in.

Not directly, but if you chose anyway in case there is no tie, there is no point in including the statement if you also choose in case there is no tie.

There is a point: to clarify that it doesn't work like Breach of Etiquette and affect all the tied Personalities.

Rulings for 8 February 2001

The point is that Return for Training is worded as two different effects, the same way that Whispers of Twilight is worded as two separate effects.

I disagree.

Whispers of Twilight has two effects: "target player bows X of his Personalities" or "target player bows all of his Personalities".

Return for Training has only one effect: "send home a Personality without bowing". Sometimes you have no choice who it is, and sometimes you do. That makes it a targeted action under the "ever targeted = always targeted" rule.