Trade Agreement

[sobrokenjay]

thanks jw = just wondering

[Arashi]

I think jw means just wondering. ;D

[Deleted]

Cool! Still getting used to the lingo...would you believe I never really spent a lot of time online or at computers for that matter before my ME assignment?

[Arashi]

But computers are so much fun! ;D But, yeah I would believe it.

[Deleted]

thanks, i think.

I'd like to think I catch up quick though. But I don't know...you youngin's make me tired sometimes. rofl. roflcopter.

[Arashi]

So, now we're "youngins" huh? lol.

Anyway, I just meant that you didn't seem like the type of person who would sit in front of a computer all day. ;D

[Deleted]

No, not youngin's at all. Especially not if measured by skill level or maturity.

[sobrokenjay]

oo a compliment i like it lol well im gunna hit the hay i got work at 7 and its 4:54 here lol this game is almost too addicting...............nah =]

[Deleted]

The game is good. It's the people too.

[Arashi]

*Yawn* I'm gonna hit the sack too. I've got some playtesting planned for later today so I need some sleep...T'was nice chatting!

[sojomojo]

I would have to disagree on the trade agreement being removed from play answer but may be wrong.

The card states "Trade remains active so long as Trade Agreement remains Fully Engaged." so as soon as trade agreement isn't engaged any more the effect would wear off. So you’re bound by the trade agreements rules but when the trade is destroyed, there are no more rules other than I own that creature vs. control. So I don't see how you can keep control of the trade. It seems cut in dry that where talking about a trade agreement aka a binding contract only binding as long as its in play, engaged, etc... No contract no agreement..

If owner means nothing then this will introduce issues.

Sojo out!

[Deleted]

sojomojo said:

I would have to disagree on the trade agreement being removed from play answer but may be wrong.

The card states "Trade remains active so long as Trade Agreement remains Fully Engaged." so as soon as trade agreement isn't engaged any more the effect would wear off. So you’re bound by the trade agreements rules but when the trade is destroyed, there are no more rules other than I own that creature vs. control. So I don't see how you can keep control of the trade. It seems cut in dry that where talking about a trade agreement aka a binding contract only binding as long as its in play, engaged, etc... No contract no agreement..

If owner means nothing then this will introduce issues.

Sojo out!

Ooh! Look at Sojo busting out his dancin' shoes! And you hit me right where it hurts.

Explanation: I was just telling Arashi in another thread that when faced with a rules issue, you should try just to read the card, and ask if it conflicts with a rule in the game. Going along with this line of thought, and in agreement with your last point, you are right. The trade should revert.

Warning: Even though we now seem to agree that it should revert, I know it doesn't for a fact. When Keith was last here by us, I was right next to him when a player asked that very question about the Trade Agreement being destroyed, where Keith told that player that it was permanent for sure. (In fact, look up the "Trade Agreement" thread in the QUESTIONS ABOUT MECHANICS thread and you will see Keith's comments to this effect.) That moment has always stuck with me to the point that I never even questioned it. Sojo has reminded me that I should have.

Detail: Yes, Trade Agreement allows for a unique effect of trading permanents, but how can it hope to maintain that effect if it would be destroyed? The Iron Clad rule says that a card wins over regular game rules; but if the card is no longer in play, how can it continue to affect the game? The only way is if the card specifically provided for this type of violation. It would need to say something like "Trades become permanent if Trade Agreement is removed from play." The way it is worded now doesn't literally or actually provide this type of loophole. OR...The only other possiblitily is that the concept of "trading" would have to mean something to the ME Rules in the way that "recruiting" does. (We know what to do when a card asks us to recruit because the Comprehensive Rules define it)*

*This opens up a whole new set of worms. Why is it that we know exactly what we are supposed to do with trading? The card simply tells us to "trade" permanents. The concept of trading isn't defined in the Comprehensive Rules, so we are left with a dictionary definition, which leaves us with questions of whether the card exchanges temporary control or ownership for the rest of the game. Such things should not be left to interpretation and should be clearly defined. IMO, if trading isn't defined in the rules, then Trade Agreement itself must be worded to literally reflect the actions that need to be taken, such as "exchange control of target creature" and so on.

Conclusions: If Trade Agreement is destroyed, it can't be deemed Fully Engaged. The trade should be ruled as reverted under current wording. Keith...please don't kill the messenger. I know I'm always in your face.

[kevmo]

Actually you are creating a situation of wording that is not on the card. The card reads that creatures are returned when trade agreement is disengaged. Facts are facts.If trade agreement dies then the trade stays. I mean it is an Ultra Rare for a reason people. Lets not rape the card any more.

[Deleted]

kevmo said:

Actually you are creating a situation of wording that is not on the card. The card reads that creatures are returned when trade agreement is disengaged. Facts are facts.If trade agreement dies then the trade stays. I mean it is an Ultra Rare for a reason people. Lets not rape the card any more.

I hate to argue, but you are mistaken. I think you're a victim of not being privy to current errata.

Go here... www.mysticalempire.com/images/cards/119.jpg

[sojomojo]

Thanks Q for at least seeing what I'm saying. Lol

I ruled on it as it goes back because thats what I would believe after reading the card and having the experience I do from judging many other CCG games. That one line of text makes the card have an issue. Cards that cause effects that state "do something as long as" has always been rule that once removed its effect is gone. I can see what he would like it to do but to do without the card stating that you take control of target creature and opponent takes control etc.. there is nothing bonding those creature to you other than the trade agreement itself. So if you don't control the creature how can you keep it without your binding trade agreement. ;D I think even if Keith was to rule on it as that they stay it would be argued over and over by more and more competitive players down the road.

Sojo out!