On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Warrigal <ihope12...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note that "class" isn't actually defined by the rules. It could just
> as easily be "type", or even "set". If the rules state that something
> is a class of asset, that doesn't really tell us anything we didn't
> already know.
Here's a question.
An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contest
(hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because
its backing document defines its existence.
If oblique references from other rules are enough to allow an 'asset'
to exist, it's not an asset.
