12月10日の日記
2007年12月7日There are 2 messages totalling 105 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Unofficial observations
2. Guardian Beast + control effect
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun， 2 Dec 2007 12:11:58 -0700
From: Scott Marshall
Subject: Re: Unofficial observations
> On 30 Nov 2007， Scott Marshall wrote:
>
>> And now that we have our [O]fficial answer， I can chime in with an
>> un-[O] observation.
Jason DAquila wrote:
> Is that true? Can the rest of us make "un-[O]" observations after an [O] answer has been given? (Of course the scenario of a correction is covered in the protocol.)
>
Ah， whoops - allow me to introduce myself to those who’ve joined this
list in recent months. I held the position of MTGRules-L NetRep since
this list’s inception， and for DCIJudge-L since November of 2004 (a role
I still serve). In May of this year， Gavin covered for me while I took
a long vacation - and he made it obvious that he belonged in this role，
going forward.
Essentially， I remain an [O]fficial source; while my primary
responsibility remains the judge list， Gavin and I still share both
lists when the topic of any given post matches the other’s role best.
You may see Gavin posting [O]fficial answers on "my" list; you’ll see me
doing the same here.
What I was trying to clarify with my note (quoted， above) is not that
anyone can chime in with un-[O] observations， but rather that I wanted
to add something， in case it helped anyone， but didn’t want to appear to
step on Gavin’s toes and his [O]fficial answer. In short， an [O]fficial
source providing an un-[O]fficial comment. :)
> I have a few things to say about "logic".
In general， opinions and debate topics tend to be of a Judge-list
nature; typically， this list focuses more on absolute rules questions，
and we ask that only [O]fficial sources answer questions. (That’s Gavin
first & foremost， or in some cases other NetReps， Wizards’ employees，
etc.) We feel that， when it comes to rules questions， incorrect
answers， opinions of how things should be， etc.， don’t really serve the
purpose of ensuring correct answers understood by everyone on the list.
If you have opinions you’d like to express on a judging topic， or even
questions in need of an [O]fficial answer， then DCIJudge-L is your
forum. And for those of you who aren’t already a part of that list， let
me encourage you to consider becoming a part of the Judge program by
pursuing certification:
Jason， I see (in the Judge Center) that you’re in the Toronto area;
you’ll be pleased to know there are excellent judge resources in your
area to assist you in this quest. For others considering judge
certification， the Judge Center is a valuable tool， as it can help you
locate mentorship opportunities in your area:
， sign in， click on People， and add Filters to
show your City， Region， Country， etc.
--
Thanks! -- Scott Marshall
DCIJUDGE-L NetRep， L4， Denver
E-mail: scott_j_marshall_jr@yahoo.com
List protocol: http://www.invisiblejuggernaut.org/DCIJUDGEL_protocol.html
(please， read the protocol before you post)
------------------------------
Date: Sun， 2 Dec 2007 23:43:22 -0700
From: Gavin Duggan
Subject: Re: Guardian Beast + control effect
On 26/11/2007， David Vlaminck wrote:
> I have an untapped Guardian Beast in play and a noncreature artifact. My
> opponent has a Memnarch. He activates it and tries to gain control of my
> artifact， which won’t happen because of the Guardian Beast. He then destroys
> the beast. What happens ?
The templating on Guardian Beast is a little antiquated.. so this took
a little digging and discussion with some other rules gurus and
eventually the rules manager. Fortunately， it’s a fairly irrelevant
little card so there’s no huge rush to get it cleaned up.
As it stands， Guardian Beast’s ability prevents changes of control，
but the continuous effect generated by Memnarch continues to exist，
"trying" to change to control. If Guardian Beast’s continuous effect
comes to an end (leaves play， becomes tapped， learns some humility，
etc)... then Memnarch’s effect kicks in and control changes
permanently. Even if Guardian Beast becomes untapped， Memnarch retains
control because Guardian Beast’s effect no longer applies to that
creature.
Aladdin works out the same way， except that change is slightly less permanent.
--
Gavin Duggan， L3 Calgary: MTGRULES-L Netrep
Please read the list protocol before posting to this list:
* http://www.invisiblejuggernaut.org/DCIJUDGEL_protocol.html
------------------------------
End of MTGRULES-L Digest - 2 Dec 2007 to 3 Dec 2007 (#2007-259)
***************************************************************
Topics of the day:
1. Unofficial observations
2. Guardian Beast + control effect
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun， 2 Dec 2007 12:11:58 -0700
From: Scott Marshall
Subject: Re: Unofficial observations
> On 30 Nov 2007， Scott Marshall wrote:
>
>> And now that we have our [O]fficial answer， I can chime in with an
>> un-[O] observation.
Jason DAquila wrote:
> Is that true? Can the rest of us make "un-[O]" observations after an [O] answer has been given? (Of course the scenario of a correction is covered in the protocol.)
>
Ah， whoops - allow me to introduce myself to those who’ve joined this
list in recent months. I held the position of MTGRules-L NetRep since
this list’s inception， and for DCIJudge-L since November of 2004 (a role
I still serve). In May of this year， Gavin covered for me while I took
a long vacation - and he made it obvious that he belonged in this role，
going forward.
Essentially， I remain an [O]fficial source; while my primary
responsibility remains the judge list， Gavin and I still share both
lists when the topic of any given post matches the other’s role best.
You may see Gavin posting [O]fficial answers on "my" list; you’ll see me
doing the same here.
What I was trying to clarify with my note (quoted， above) is not that
anyone can chime in with un-[O] observations， but rather that I wanted
to add something， in case it helped anyone， but didn’t want to appear to
step on Gavin’s toes and his [O]fficial answer. In short， an [O]fficial
source providing an un-[O]fficial comment. :)
> I have a few things to say about "logic".
In general， opinions and debate topics tend to be of a Judge-list
nature; typically， this list focuses more on absolute rules questions，
and we ask that only [O]fficial sources answer questions. (That’s Gavin
first & foremost， or in some cases other NetReps， Wizards’ employees，
etc.) We feel that， when it comes to rules questions， incorrect
answers， opinions of how things should be， etc.， don’t really serve the
purpose of ensuring correct answers understood by everyone on the list.
If you have opinions you’d like to express on a judging topic， or even
questions in need of an [O]fficial answer， then DCIJudge-L is your
forum. And for those of you who aren’t already a part of that list， let
me encourage you to consider becoming a part of the Judge program by
pursuing certification:
Jason， I see (in the Judge Center) that you’re in the Toronto area;
you’ll be pleased to know there are excellent judge resources in your
area to assist you in this quest. For others considering judge
certification， the Judge Center is a valuable tool， as it can help you
locate mentorship opportunities in your area:
， sign in， click on People， and add Filters to
show your City， Region， Country， etc.
--
Thanks! -- Scott Marshall
DCIJUDGE-L NetRep， L4， Denver
E-mail: scott_j_marshall_jr@yahoo.com
List protocol: http://www.invisiblejuggernaut.org/DCIJUDGEL_protocol.html
(please， read the protocol before you post)
------------------------------
Date: Sun， 2 Dec 2007 23:43:22 -0700
From: Gavin Duggan
Subject: Re: Guardian Beast + control effect
On 26/11/2007， David Vlaminck wrote:
> I have an untapped Guardian Beast in play and a noncreature artifact. My
> opponent has a Memnarch. He activates it and tries to gain control of my
> artifact， which won’t happen because of the Guardian Beast. He then destroys
> the beast. What happens ?
The templating on Guardian Beast is a little antiquated.. so this took
a little digging and discussion with some other rules gurus and
eventually the rules manager. Fortunately， it’s a fairly irrelevant
little card so there’s no huge rush to get it cleaned up.
As it stands， Guardian Beast’s ability prevents changes of control，
but the continuous effect generated by Memnarch continues to exist，
"trying" to change to control. If Guardian Beast’s continuous effect
comes to an end (leaves play， becomes tapped， learns some humility，
etc)... then Memnarch’s effect kicks in and control changes
permanently. Even if Guardian Beast becomes untapped， Memnarch retains
control because Guardian Beast’s effect no longer applies to that
creature.
Aladdin works out the same way， except that change is slightly less permanent.
--
Gavin Duggan， L3 Calgary: MTGRULES-L Netrep
Please read the list protocol before posting to this list:
* http://www.invisiblejuggernaut.org/DCIJUDGEL_protocol.html
------------------------------
End of MTGRULES-L Digest - 2 Dec 2007 to 3 Dec 2007 (#2007-259)
***************************************************************
コメント