Author Topic: Possible conflict with the ruling on second sentence abilities for warriors card  (Read 649 times)

Offline Korunks

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
    • -
    • Northeast Region
I'm not sure if these fit under 2), but there are also CBI/P/N (First and Third Seal) and limited use (arts, NJ site) as second sentences.

This question was never answered in the thread that was created.  Does the (proposed/confirmed which is it?) rule about second sentence abilities for all cards warriors and prior take into account the limited use artifacts and access sites?  Seems to me they would not be discarded the way that rule is written.  which best I can find is here:

So, for Warriors and earlier, it appears we have two kinds of multi-sentence abilities:
1) second sentence is not a second ability, but clarifies the first (Prince of this World, Hunger, etc.)
2) second sentence depends on the first completing, and modifies the result of that first ability (set asides, Temptation, Golden Censer, withdraw and keep enhancements, etc.)

Or do these cards "squeeze" into the second point of the rule?  And is this rule in the REG corrections thread, ie. is it official?
In AMERICA!!

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Cannot be negated pretty much always amplifies other abilities on a card, and limited use is a restriction on the number of times an ability can take effect.  Those both seem to fit under number 2.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal