Search results

So, you're not done then? As for facts, who's spinning? The Pinkertons did retrieve the merchandise, like I said; I'm not the one saying they were merely investigating...come on. Please note: I haven't yet said WotC did anything wrong...just that if there's confusion legally over who owns the...

So you're really done this time? Words mean things. You know this, presumably, since you are choosing the words that make what WotC did be seen in the best possible light. Which you are allowed to do, of course...but maybe own it, just as the people who only see WotC in a negative light...

Dude, they hired them to retrieve the property, not this "track down" stuff. Probably good that you are done; starting to sound like alternate facts are being thrown around on both sides.

It's really not like that, I'm afraid.

This is what the lawyers would be for: to determine what the person is entitled to, legally, and what (in this case) WotC can do, legally. As many people point out above, the issue is with the store that sold them; as far as the buyer is concerned, he bought them fair and square.

I genuinely don't feel anything about what happened. If something belongs to you, sure. Collect. Ownership of the cards here was in question though,...hence why I assumed lawyers would be more useful than Pinkertons. "I get you're associating Pinkerton with some sort of militaristic, 'boot...

Well, the title of the article you linked to is Magic publishers sent Pinkerton agents to a YouTuber’s house to retrieve leaked cards "Retrieve" =/= "investigate." 🤷‍♂️

Not sure, but whatever the outcome is, it should probably involve lawyers more than Pinkertons, no?

Wow...that's something.

Post # 195 is doing the bolded part, no?

Neither is Tito; he has one.

Agreed. Comparing the two is silly.

But if that's a thought that comes about from a natural reading of the rules... I dunno. I expect people coming to play to try to be creative, and it doesn't really seem like a huge stretch to come up with the dragging thing.

How do you know what "typical table play" is?

Yeah, if "moving into a square" and "entering a square" mean different things then the design is stupid.

I remember "barber," but I don't remember "Mad" in front of it. It was like a rogue who could also kinda heal.

Was it unpopular? I don't know that I've heard anyone say anything bad about the Al-Qadim line.

You might be right...but maybe Snarf simply didn't like the self-appointed thread police coming in. Not sure why people like doing that.

Agreed. I would rule "no" as well. Then, when the player argues that the rules as they are printed allows for it, is there anything other than "I'm the DM, and I say no" to point to for my reasonable ruling? If yes, what is it? If no, why aren't the printed rules supporting a reasonable take...

Post #377, the bolded part.