@blindtherapy said in Lurrus unbanned:

and every Lamborghini I own is neon green.

I understand that mathematically this technically works out, but the rules of language are different than this. I feel like if you made this statement on a legal document for instance and had to go to court over it, it would be deemed misleading if not fraudulent

Also, reread Obosh and Gyruda. They specifically call out lands as an exclusion on Obosh and not on Gyruda because we know that lands are both a card and has a CMC of 0. Now granted that CMC 0 is something that was codified in the rules some time ago for cards without casting costs like lands, but they were very explicit with these wording so you could not wind up with a null value. Likewise Keruga is also this explicit in that it includes lands so you cannot wind up with a null value, and Jegantha in such a way that it is looking for the lack of, not the presence of.

Honestly after rereading them I actually question the way a few of them are worded. Zirda, the Dawnwaker should probably say all instead of EACH because we know all includes 0, each is not as explicit. I realize we use them the way we use them because WOTC can just say by edict that it works this way, but the templating seems sloppy to me.

@protoaddict said in Lurrus unbanned:

Honestly after rereading them I actually question the way a few of them are worded. Zirda, the Dawnwaker should probably say all instead of EACH because we know all includes 0, each is not as explicit. I realize we use them the way we use them because WOTC can just say by edict that it works this way, but the templating seems sloppy to me.

I would say that if Zirda said "All" instead of "Each," that would be ambiguous because it could imply that all cards would have the same activated ability. The use of "each" implies that for each permanent card in your deck, they each have their own activated ability.

If the templating were instead "All permanent cards in your starting deck each have their own activated ability," that would be redundant. The templating, as worded, uses "each" to save space and use fewer words on the card

I used to work in publishing, and it always boiled down ensuring the typesetting and format of a page not only made sense, but looked "as clean as possible."

@horologium said in Lurrus unbanned:

I used to work in publishing, and it always boiled down ensuring the typesetting and format of a page not only made sense, but looked "as clean as possible."

I also used to work in publishing, it is a different Paradigm in a game. There can be no interpretation of how a card works, otherwise you wind up having to issue addendums and clarifications. Better to be slightly redundant and clear than ambiguous and need to clear up something that is not explicit enough.

there isn't any ambiguity in kaheera. it looks at a certain subset of cards in your deck and checks if they meet certain requirements: lurrus, lutri, umori, and zirda are templated in the same manner. lots of problems with companion as a mechanic from a design perspective, but the templating is fine. it's not Hostage Taker, or printing a card that makes '4/4 tokens' that aren't creatures.

my real issue with companion is that you can play jegantha as your companion with an alladin's lamp in your deck, despite the card being printed with a cost of {5}{5}. I believe this constitutes power level errata.

last edited by BlindTherapy

So sad by these changes. Not so much for Lurrus, but because Teferi was a 4x in my pioneer deck and SSG was crucial in my Modern deck (the ones I dumped all my other decks to max out on). Now those 2 decks are essentially dead cardboard :(.

last edited by Thewhitedragon69

So lurrus is unbanned what's is next in the endless crucade?

@botvinik

Back to watching bitcoin and mtg prices

I just realized this is just like Schrodinger's Cat.

  • 20
    Posts
  • 1311
    Views