On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> The scam? As I said in an earlier email, the articles and clauses >> are a little unclearly placed but hardly strongly supporting comex's >> interpretation, and you'd need very strong support as the intended >> reading is abundantly clear. > > The intent is irrelevant. The actual text is that "If a card has an > Exploit, a player CAN play a card in eir possession, by announcing that > e plays the card". By R217, the text takes precedence. Therefore, if > (any card has an exploit) then (a player CAN play a card in eir > possession). I don't think you can interpret this any differently. It > may have failed due to no card with Presto! existing, but the text of > the rules wins, even when badly worded.
You're half right, but you're missing my point. What I'm saying is that the second mention of the "exploit" refers to the exploit on the card in the player's hand. So right now, it reads that "If a card has an exploit" (which is true, I agree with you, as long as any card exists that is defined with an exploit) a player can play a card *in eir possession* and activate an exploit on the card *in eir possession*. So what I'm saying is that what the second "exploit" refers to is unclear. So, when you have an *unclear* text, and plausible interpretations, *then* you can in fact use intent, because it's a "where the rules are unclear" case and not a "what the text says" case, because the text is unclear. -G.
