gistfile1.txt

me:  anyway, i think the artifact and the creature get each other's abilities if they have an artifact creature bridge
the rules don't seem super explicit about it, but I take
613.4. The application of continuous effects as described by the layer system is continually and automatically performed by the game. All resulting changes to an object's characteristics are instantaneous.
to mean that we're not done applying a continuous effect until the property it describes is true of all the objects it affects.
psly4mne:  i'm pretty sure that's not how the layer system works
 me:  it's not about layers
its the application of one ability within layer 6
psly4mne:  oh, that is the disagreement
i'm pretty sure the ability only applies once
it looks at the abilities of everything before it applies and copies them as specified
 me:  yeah, that's correct. but the ability isn't "grant all abilities to all cards that share types with the objects they are on"
the ability is "all objects HAVE all abilities on objects they share types with"
there's no iteration involved
you're thinking of it that way because you're a programmer
but really it's more of a constraint satisfaction thing
 Sent at 1:05 AM on Wednesday
psly4mne:  i don't think it is - it is an effect that grants abilities
for each card, it grants that permanent the abilities of all other cards that share a type with it
(not in an order or anything)
 me:  it doesn't say that anywhere though, you totally just made up that for loop
psly4mne:  it's not a loop at all
 me:  i agree it grants abilities
it grants all the abilities it needs to in order to ensure that its condition is met
it grants the set of abilities that cause it to be true that all objects have all abilities of all objects they share types with
psly4mne:  you are familiar with humility/opalescence and similar questions, right?
 me:  yeah, but those actually involve two different effects interacting across layers
this is explicitly no tthat
you're absolutely correct that we don't iteratively apply the layer process
but within the application of a /single effect/, we do whatever we need to do to make it true
psly4mne:  actually, a better example within a single layer is purphuros / opalescence
though maybe that doesn't really help here
 me:  i really don't think any situation that involves two effects can be relevant to this
 Sent at 1:12 AM on Wednesday
psly4mne:  yeah, there is no really good example
 me:  which is why the rules are vague on it; this just doesn't really come up like.. ever
i've been trying to think of a real-magic scenario that brings up the same question and haven't found one yet
psly4mne:  i think a good example would be
 me:  but I just don't see any justification for ending the continuous effect application process in a state that doesn't satisfy the condition
psly4mne:  if there were an enchantment that said "the creature with the greatest power gets -5/-0"
 me:  i think that effect doesn't exist for a reason
as in, it is fundamentally meaningless
psly4mne:  yes, but what if it did
 me:  well
okay, possibly not
at least, that effect works fine when generated by the resolution of a spell or ability
psly4mne:  yeah, that's different
 me:  i think it is meaningless as a static ability
but it might not be
and if it's not
it isn't a counterexample
because the way it would not be is by determining the set of objects it applies to, then applying to them, then ending
if we apply the same process to the example at hand
the set of objects is clearly "all objects"
and we can't end until the condiiton in the effect is true of all of them
psly4mne:  i think you need to break it down more
into determine the set of objects it applies to, determine what it does to them, apply it
 me:  i don't know where you're getting that division from
i think you made it up
the rules actually talk about doing the first thing (for C. Effects that are the results of resolutions of things)
they DON'T talk about doing that for static abilities
psly4mne:  reading that now
 me:  which is why i think your -5/-0 example doesn't work
but if it DOES work, it probably works on the same principle that is in the rules for the other kind
this new division you are proposing doesn't have any support at all, i don't think
psly4mne:  maybe you are right
you mean 611.2c vs. 611.3a
611.3a is rather less detailed
 me:  right
yes
again because i think there may be 0 Real Magic situations where it matters
eh, probably you can construct one
it's probably a fun puzzle ^_^
can I gist this conversation and redact your name and attach it to my post?
psly4mne:  yeah, i'm just seeing if the layer section has anything more helpful
 me:  okay
psly4mne:  it feels like having the ability chain from card A to card B to card C should be equivalent to chaining it from card A to card B back to card A
i'm not sure how you avoid that
 Sent at 1:29 AM on Wednesday
 me:  you avoid it by the constraint already being satisfied
the condition is already true of A so you don't do anything else
psly4mne:  if you have 2 creatures with Flanking, then they should both end up with 2 instances of Flanking
why?
 me:  oh
psly4mne:  isn't the constraint already satisfied?
 me:  yeah i was just realizing this too
i think the rule is broken
i think it probably DOES chain back to A, as written
because yeah they are new abilities
 Sent at 1:25 AM on Wednesday
psly4mne:  it feels like there should be dependent effects, but there really shouldn't