Talk:Magic: The Gathering/Statistics and trivia: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
>LegacymtgsalvationUser1033 (Least Converted Mana Cost) |
>LegacymtgsalvationUser1033 No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
"Only legal card allowing for the breach of rules: Relentless Rats" -- That's not true. There are many breaches of rules around ie. <c>Platinum Angel</c>, and to a lesser extent Kobolds that are red eventhough they cost {0}. As with relentless rats they "break the rules", but are upheld by the "Golden Rule" (e.g. Cards trump CompRules). Otherwise I love this page. :-) --[[User:GWiZ665|GWiZ665]] 19:11, 15 April 2007 (CDT) | "Only legal card allowing for the breach of rules: Relentless Rats" -- That's not true. There are many breaches of rules around ie. <c>Platinum Angel</c>, and to a lesser extent Kobolds that are red eventhough they cost {0}. As with relentless rats they "break the rules", but are upheld by the "Golden Rule" (e.g. Cards trump CompRules). Otherwise I love this page. :-) --[[User:GWiZ665|GWiZ665]] 19:11, 15 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
: Oh... didn't know that. Guess it should be changed. I messed up the card totals a bit... I'll do an actual full count later... or something. --[[User:Xallium|Xallium]] 19:59, 15 April 2007 (CDT) | : Oh... didn't know that. Guess it should be changed. I messed up the card totals a bit... I'll do an actual full count later... or something. --[[User:Xallium|Xallium]] 19:59, 15 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 01:53, 16 April 2007
"Only legal card allowing for the breach of rules: Relentless Rats" -- That's not true. There are many breaches of rules around ie. Platinum Angel, and to a lesser extent Kobolds that are red eventhough they cost {0}. As with relentless rats they "break the rules", but are upheld by the "Golden Rule" (e.g. Cards trump CompRules). Otherwise I love this page. :-) --GWiZ665 19:11, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
- Oh... didn't know that. Guess it should be changed. I messed up the card totals a bit... I'll do an actual full count later... or something. --Xallium 19:59, 15 April 2007 (CDT)