Originally
posted by
Soviet:
Originally
posted by
sigma:
Originally
posted by
Soviet:
..And if you really wanted to be a fluff it could've been seen as a over retal, thus 2:1 retals.
But what do I know. :)
No, whatever policy it is--it should be consistent.
A hits, B retals
A hits, B retals
B hits, A retals
If you're saying it was an overretal, then the 2nd A hit would be an overretal, completely negating Galleri's line of logic.
A Hits B
B Retals A
C Hits B
B Retals C _twice_
If anything Monsters should've retalled A twice to keep consistency with the retals taken on C.
You completely missed the point.
If C's hit on B is not considered a retal, why is B's second hit on A considered one instead of a normal landgrab?
Though to the OP, you're dealing with iMag who generally invent policies out of their ass for the sake of creating conflicts... I remember them trying to continue taking land:land after DHing a retal once. I would probably just drop the issue and leave them to play by themselves, I figure if they hit Monsters they might be killed by someone like SOL for going too far again.
Also an issue here is some crap policy about how a retal is only a retal if a message is attached, otherwise it's a grab. I remember LaF starting this retarded policy "because there isn't enough land" a few sets ago, but a LaF head "disowned" it here?