![]() ![]() The written rules say that you can disallow it because you determine it IS marked, or because any of the specific rules about alterations. There's absolutely nothing in the written rules that says you should disallow a card because there is paint on the borders that might make it marked. ![]() This, by the way, in my opinion is the problem with these rules. At that point, aren't you left disallowing it based on the rules for marked cards? The marked cards rules specifically call for the cards to actually be marked, there's nothing in there about the potential for being marked being an issue. I have 30-40 alters I've played in grand prix's and SCG Opens, all of which go all the way to the border, none of which obscure the name, mana cost, or any of the text, and I've never had a problem with them going all the way to the border.Ĭould you elaborate on which part of the rule you think a borderless alter violates? If you felt the card, and actually concluded it was too thick or altered the flex, that would make sense to me, but disallowing all borderless alters because they might be a problem seems to go against the spirit of the rule, which says absolutely nothing about thickness or marked stuff. This is the first I've ever heard of this. ![]() If the alter stopped short of the normal border of the card, I'd see no issue. I love the alter, but I wouldn't allow it. It could affect the flex of the card or could show as a discoloration around the edge, otherwise potentially making the card marked. While the art is still recognizable, having full art run all the way to the edge of the card is something I generally disallow. Quote from epeeguyIf you were to ask me, I would say no. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |