The Wall/Stasis/Mine Combo: For those of you who don't understand English. =(

92 views
Skip to first unread message

Jeremy Fuller

unread,
Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98
to

Here's a short explanation for everyone who thinks that 'once a turn'
means 'none outside of turns.' It's just about the worst reason ever,
and everyone who's mentioned it probably has Downes Syndrome. =(

'Use this ability only once each turn.'

Ok, I'm not an English major (well, I'm an 11th grader and I'm not even
taking any English classes) so I may make a few mistakes here. Break
down the sentence. Wall of Roots is the implied subject. 'Use' is the
predicate. 'this ability' is the object. 'only once' is an adverb, and
'per turn' is a prepositional phrase. The modified verb is 'use only
once.' When can you use only once? Per turn. 'Per turn' doesn't
modify the verb at all. It merely states when the modified verb can be
used. If the adverb 'only once' were taken out and it only said, "You
may use this ability during turns," it says no limits on using it
outside of turns.

I don't know if this makes sense, so try another example. "I slept
only three hours on Tuesday." Does that mean that I didn't sleep on
Wednesday? "Eat meals only twice each weekday." Does that mean you
have to starve on the weekends?

There may be something I don't see, but judges should be able to CITE
WHY this combo does not work. Making up their own errata saying that
you can't use the combo outside of turns doesn't work. If they can come
up with a workable reason why the combo doesn't work, that's great, but
otherwise, it should.
----
Jeremy Fuller
TheWurm on #mtgpro EFnet
jfu...@olywa.net
DCI rated #37 in the world and #1 in WA state in sealed!
DCI rated #27 in the world and #2 in WA state in extended!
DCI rated #1108 in the world in T2! I need this combo to raise my
rating! =(
----
BTW, e-mail me with responses and stuff please! I probably won't read
this group


xradxzonex

unread,
Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98
to

huh?,
When is their not a turn. Mine ends as yours begins. There is never a
non-turn time that is in the game of magic:tg.
When I say I'm done. Yours begins (except if you want me to still be in my
turn and say just before the end of your turn I...) and I untap at the
beginning of my turn. Enlighten us all on the time that a turn doesn't
exist, if that is what you are implying.

And don't post this to .misc when it clearly belongs in .strategy or
in .rules

Scott
--
x-------------------------------x--------------------------------x
|Email:nels...@isu.edu | Homepage:www.isu.edu/~nelstheo |
|creator:Pew People Comic Strip | MTG m-player FUN deck recipes |
x-------------------------------x--------------------------------x

Tolun

unread,
Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98
to

nels...@cwis.isu.edu (xradxzonex) wrote:

>huh?,
>When is their not a turn. Mine ends as yours begins. There is never a
>non-turn time that is in the game of magic:tg.
>When I say I'm done. Yours begins (except if you want me to still be in my
>turn and say just before the end of your turn I...) and I untap at the
>beginning of my turn. Enlighten us all on the time that a turn doesn't
>exist, if that is what you are implying.

Read D'Angelo's rules summaries.

Tolun


Robert Blackman

unread,
Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98
to Jeremy Fuller

On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Jeremy Fuller wrote:

> Here's a short explanation for everyone who thinks that 'once a turn'
> means 'none outside of turns.' It's just about the worst reason ever,
> and everyone who's mentioned it probably has Downes Syndrome. =(
>

That's totally uncalled for. You should apologize to the judges _and_ to
the victims of Downes Syndrome.


> 'Use this ability only once each turn.'

[snip]


>
> Wednesday? "Eat meals only twice each weekday." Does that mean you
> have to starve on the weekends?
>

You've got a point here... but it's not the right point. You are correct
when you say that "use this ability only once each turn" doesn't imply
what
you can do when there is no turn. It's the _rules_ that do that. There is
some ambiguity there, so one has to ask the head judge what to do.
Frankly, the initial errata to Time Vault is at fault, which created an
implied "between the turns" where none had existed previously... and which
was a huge mistake even then. Dan Gray has stated that there is, as far as
he is concerned, no "in between turns" in which to try this, and that
means that this combo doesn't work. Nice try, though :)

> There may be something I don't see, but judges should be able to CITE
> WHY this combo does not work. Making up their own errata saying that
> you can't use the combo outside of turns doesn't work. If they can come
> up with a workable reason why the combo doesn't work, that's great, but
> otherwise, it should.

Agreed. Just saying "it doesn't work" isn't sufficient.

rhbl...@uci.edu


Russell K Bulmer

unread,
Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98
to

xradxzonex wrote in message <6a2v5t$1...@cwis.isu.edu>...


>huh?,
>When is their not a turn. Mine ends as yours begins. There is never a
>non-turn time that is in the game of magic:tg.
>When I say I'm done. Yours begins (except if you want me to still be in my
>turn and say just before the end of your turn I...) and I untap at the
>beginning of my turn. Enlighten us all on the time that a turn doesn't
>exist, if that is what you are implying.
>
>

I could just write "Read D'Angelo's rules summaries."... but what use would
that be to you?

The problem arises from Time Vault. This has a replacement ability that has
you replace having a turn with untapping the mana vault.

Replacement abilities are always played just before the event they are
replacing occurs. Thus just before the turn you are about to take... This
time is thus between turns. As you can play a replacement abilities between
turns, you must be able to play mana sources.

This is why the combo 'worked'.


Other ways to abuse this involve sands of time. Tap all your lands between
turns, and then at the start of your turn, SoT will untap them all... thus
you have some mana to spend during your upkeep, and your lands are all
untapped.


>And don't post this to .misc when it clearly belongs in .strategy or
> in .rules
>
>Scott
>--
> x-------------------------------x--------------------------------x
> |Email:nels...@isu.edu | Homepage:www.isu.edu/~nelstheo |
> |creator:Pew People Comic Strip | MTG m-player FUN deck recipes |
> x-------------------------------x--------------------------------x

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Russell K Bulmer - russell...@3com.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/8511/

Choose life... Choose a job... Choose a career...
Choose a family... ...I chose not to choose life...
...I chose something else... I chose Magic.

Uno

unread,
Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98
to

Jeremy Fuller <jfu...@olywa.net> wrote:
>outside of turns.
>
> I don't know if this makes sense, so try another example. "I slept
>only three hours on Tuesday." Does that mean that I didn't sleep on
>Wednesday? "Eat meals only twice each weekday." Does that mean you
>have to starve on the weekends?
>
>There may be something I don't see, but judges should be able to CITE
>WHY this combo does not work. Making up their own errata saying that
>you can't use the combo outside of turns doesn't work. If they can come
>up with a workable reason why the combo doesn't work, that's great, but
>otherwise, it should.
>----
>Jeremy Fuller

For someone with such high DCI rankings you sure don't know much.
The interpretation of that sentence has to be made based on the
contextual arrangement of the sentence. There is a prohibition in the
Text of Wall of Roots which states that you can use this ability once
_Each_ turn. Therefore it should follow that it cannot be used in this
in between turn time period.

Your example of eating meals is only made ridiculous by the context
you've chosen.

If the sentence were, "Work only 8 hours each weekday"
Then you would have a logically constructed sentence with a very real
prohibition. You purposely made an example which automatically makes
anyone look ridiculous that tries to defend the counter-argument.
Well done but faulty logic.


Cenneth Lööf

unread,
Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98
to

Jeremy Fuller wrote:

> I don't know if this makes sense, so try another example. "I slept
> only three hours on Tuesday." Does that mean that I didn't sleep on
> Wednesday? "Eat meals only twice each weekday." Does that mean you
> have to starve on the weekends?

Try to ask yourself how much you eat "between" weekdays. Not much, I
gather.
You are trying to explain something that does not occur on our world.
There is no "between time", and Time Vault is a very special case with a
very
special rule. Leave it alone.

/Cenneth

Matt Franklin

unread,
Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98
to Uno

Easy there big fella. Maybe you could cut the aggression to leave room
to explain your point. Your "therefore" doesn't actually follow.

(i.e. "I swim only five laps each Tuesday" conveys a far different
meaning from "I only swim on Tuesdays;" the presence of something else
to modify-- in this case, the "once" or "five"-- can drastically change
the meaning of a sentence.)

Jeremy Fuller

unread,
Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98
to


Robert Blackman wrote:

> That's totally uncalled for. You should apologize to the judges _and_ to
> the victims of Downes Syndrome.

You're right. I apologize to all judges and to you as well. =(

> You've got a point here... but it's not the right point. You are correct
> when you say that "use this ability only once each turn" doesn't imply
> what
> you can do when there is no turn. It's the _rules_ that do that. There is
> some ambiguity there, so one has to ask the head judge what to do.

Ok, there are cards (I believe) that say 'you may not use this ability after
blocking is declared' or something like that. It only gives a restriction for
after blocking. Does that mean you can't use it before blocking is declared?
It's the exact same thing. It doesn't matter if it says 0 times, 1 time or
unlimited times. If it restricts one time period and doesn't restrict another
time period, you can't just arbitrarily make a restriction up just because you
don't like a combo.

> Frankly, the initial errata to Time Vault is at fault, which created an
> implied "between the turns" where none had existed previously... and which
> was a huge mistake even then. Dan Gray has stated that there is, as far as
> he is concerned, no "in between turns" in which to try this, and that
> means that this combo doesn't work. Nice try, though :)

Nice try though?! First, just because someone's name is Dan Gray doesn't mean
they're right. Second, it doesn't matter if the errata was a mistake. It's
there. Sorry dude, you're not the one who can make decisions on re-errataing
things. Until the rules team does (if they haven't already), it's irrelavent.

> Agreed. Just saying "it doesn't work" isn't sufficient.

Let me append my first statement. Just saying "it doesn't work" isn't
sufficient and just saying "it wasn't supposed to work that way" isn't
sufficent.

Jeremy Fuller

unread,
Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98
to

Uno wrote:

> For someone with such high DCI rankings you sure don't know much.
> The interpretation of that sentence has to be made based on the
> contextual arrangement of the sentence. There is a prohibition in the
> Text of Wall of Roots which states that you can use this ability once
> _Each_ turn. Therefore it should follow that it cannot be used in this
> in between turn time period.

What?! I just wrote a page long explanation and you just ignore all of
it. First, before you try to use long words, you should learn what they
mean. "Contextual arrangement of the sentence" means nothing whatsoever,
especially nothing to do with what 'each' prohibits. 'Each turn' prohibits
the modified verb, which is 'use only once.' If there were no adverb and it
said 'You may use this ability each turn' is the sentence simple enough for
you to understand it? It's prohibiting what can be done DURING the turn. It
does NOT prohibit what can be done outside of the turn. If I say "I drive to
work each Monday," it gives no prohibitions on where I drive on Tuesday.

> Your example of eating meals is only made ridiculous by the context
> you've chosen.

What?! Again, you're using words you don't know the meanings of. My example
had no context, and on Wall of Roots the only context is 'Add one green mana
to your mana pool," if somehow that changes the rules of the English
language.

> If the sentence were, "Work only 8 hours each weekday"
> Then you would have a logically constructed sentence with a very real
> prohibition. You purposely made an example which automatically makes
> anyone look ridiculous that tries to defend the counter-argument.

DUDE. You just gave an example which proves MY point, not yours. If it
said, 'work only 8 hours each weekday,' even though it isn't a good
comparison, does that mean I can't work on sunday!? If I only work 8 hours
on monday, I sure can work 10 hours or 6 hours or no hours on Sunday.

Anyway, again, as to why your example is wrong, the modified verb on your
example is 'work only,' while on wall of roots it's 'use only once.' My
examples have all the parts of the sentence exactly the same as the card.
The only difference is sleeping instead of adding, and I don't think the
rules of the English language change themselves because a verb is 'sleep'
instead of 'add.'

I'm sure you can't find another example using the same words as Wall of
Roots. In fact, I know you can't, because if you did you'd be changing the
English language.

Also, yes, I DID purposely make an example which automatically makes anyone
look ridiculous who tries to defend the counter-argument. Anyone who doesn't
know English in this country OUGHT to look ridiculous.


Jeremy Fuller

unread,
Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98
to


Cenneth Lööf wrote:

> Jeremy Fuller wrote:
>
> > I don't know if this makes sense, so try another example. "I slept
> > only three hours on Tuesday." Does that mean that I didn't sleep on
> > Wednesday? "Eat meals only twice each weekday." Does that mean you
> > have to starve on the weekends?
>
> Try to ask yourself how much you eat "between" weekdays. Not much, I
> gather.

I eat a lot on weekends. The noun on Wall of Roots is 'turn.' In that
example it's 'weekday.' If there happens to be a time between weekdays
where you can eat, that sentence doesn't prohibit you from eating there.
Between Monday and Tuesday there is no time. Between Tuesday and Wednesday
there is no time. However, during Friday and Monday there is plenty of
time, and according to that sentence you could eat a million meals, two
meals, one meal, or not eat at all.


> You are trying to explain something that does not occur on our world.

Between periods of time happens a whole darn lot on our world.

> There is no "between time", and Time Vault is a very special case with a
> very
> special rule. Leave it alone.

Time Vault is a special case in Magic. That doesn't mean it is the only
thing that could access a period of time.


ANYWAY, I've been informed that WotC has ruled that no effects may take
place between turns. So now there's a very good reason to rule against the
combo. However, that still doesn't mean that judges were right for ruling
against the combo before the ruling. As far as the rules went, most of
these judges just made up their own erratas because they didn't like how the
combo worked. A few judges also did this with Abeyance before, and I think
WotC should inform new judges that a major rule for judging should be: ONLY
rule against something if you can cite why it doesn't work.


George W. Bayles

unread,
Jan 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/22/98
to

Jeremy Fuller (jfu...@olywa.net) wrote:
[snip]
: ANYWAY, I've been informed that WotC has ruled that no effects may take

: place between turns. So now there's a very good reason to rule against the
: combo. ...

I haven't seen that ruling, but as you stated it, it's not a good
reason to rule against the combo. As long as a Wall of Roots has a
mana source ability and mana sources are legal between turns you
can't prohibit using the Wall's mana source ability between turns.

Where WotC went wrong was allowing _anything_ to happen between the
end of one turn and the start of the next.

: ... However, that still doesn't mean that judges were right for ruling
: against the combo before the ruling. ...

The argument that the restriction "once each turn" meant you could only
play the ability during a turn has merit. The analogies with common
english usage just don't matter. We tolerate a lot of ambiguity in
everyday language that we can't tolerate in law, computer programming,
and game rules.

There is enough ambiguity here for the judges to justify a ruling
consistent with the cards obvious intent.

: ... As far as the rules went, most of


: these judges just made up their own erratas because they didn't like
: how the combo worked. A few judges also did this with Abeyance before,
: and I think WotC should inform new judges that a major rule for judging
: should be ONLY rule against something if you can cite why it doesn't
: work.

Hmm. I can construct a "proof" that 2+2=5, are you suggesting that
a judge should accept that as fact because he/she can't spot the
flaw in the logic?

ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca

unread,
Jan 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/22/98
to

Jeremy Fuller (jfu...@olywa.net) wrote:

(Snip)
: > Try to ask yourself how much you eat "between" weekdays. Not much, I
: > gather.

: I eat a lot on weekends. The noun on Wall of Roots is 'turn.' In that
: example it's 'weekday.' If there happens to be a time between weekdays
: where you can eat, that sentence doesn't prohibit you from eating there.

No. But it also doesn't specifically allow you to eat there.
Having finally figured out what's going on here, this sounds like "Cursed
Scroll Syndrome." You're using a technicality caused by lack of
appropriate text to create a combo that should not be. Much like Cursed
Scroll was wrecked by people lawyering up the rules-technicalities.

: Between Monday and Tuesday there is no time. Between Tuesday and Wednesday


: there is no time. However, during Friday and Monday there is plenty of
: time, and according to that sentence you could eat a million meals, two
: meals, one meal, or not eat at all.

And you prove my point here. You're using his term "weekday" by a
definition he forgot to consider.

: ANYWAY, I've been informed that WotC has ruled that no effects may take
: place between turns. So now there's a very good reason to rule against the

: combo. However, that still doesn't mean that judges were right for ruling


: against the combo before the ruling.

Doesn't mean they were wrong, either. In the absence of an official
ruling, it's up to the judge.
That's why Cursed Scroll still works the way it's expected most of the
time.

: As far as the rules went, most of


: these judges just made up their own erratas because they didn't like how the
: combo worked. A few judges also did this with Abeyance before, and I think
: WotC should inform new judges that a major rule for judging should be: ONLY
: rule against something if you can cite why it doesn't work.

There was nothing for them to cite in this case, either way.

--
Randomness is not hypocrisy, if done with honesty.
In chaos, all is possible.

Ingo Warnke

unread,
Jan 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/22/98
to

ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: : example it's 'weekday.' If there happens to be a time between weekdays

: : where you can eat, that sentence doesn't prohibit you from eating there.

: No. But it also doesn't specifically allow you to eat there.

Why should it? Is a LLanowar Elf useless because it doesn't say 'You
may use this ability whenever you want.'?
In my opinion the restriction on the Wall of Roots limits only
its uses during turns, and says nothing about other times.

: Having finally figured out what's going on here, this sounds like "Cursed


: Scroll Syndrome." You're using a technicality caused by lack of
: appropriate text to create a combo that should not be. Much like Cursed
: Scroll was wrecked by people lawyering up the rules-technicalities.

It are not the rules lawyers that created the Cursed Scroll problem. It were the
people that made the card text, unaware of a certain rule. Similiarly, it
were not the rules lawyers that made the Sands of Time a problem in its
original wording. What is clever play and what is rules lawyering is mainly
a question of a different viewpoint. To a new player standard moves might look
'wrong'.

The question if Wall of Roots could be used during turns was long known and had
been raised before. As usual, the outcry now comes as somebody actually made
a good deck from that idea. Just like Channelball is considered by most players
an undesireable first turn kill, it was nevertheless legal some time ago.
While I think (probably in agreement with many players) that the Stasis/Magma
Mine/Wall of Roots combo is undesirable, the question if it is legal is
something completely different.

Ingo Warnke

Shaft

unread,
Jan 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/22/98
to


Jeremy Fuller <jfu...@olywa.net> wrote in article
<34C7B4F8...@olywa.net>...
>
>
> George W. Bayles wrote:
>
> > Jeremy Fuller (jfu...@olywa.net) wrote:

> > Hmm. I can construct a "proof" that 2+2=5, are you suggesting that
> > a judge should accept that as fact because he/she can't spot the
> > flaw in the logic?
>

> I didn't say construct a proof. 2+2 = 5 is common knowledge. It's
proven by
> simple math. If you DON'T prove rulings before you make them, you're
just making
> up rules as you go along, and/or making up your own rules, which should
never
> happen

Is is just me, or does this bring up disturbing images of a certain book by
George Orwell book?

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

especially that last one. Methinks some WotC employees and quite a few
judges should take some time and read 1984. There are quite a few
parallels here.

-Jason

Jeremy Fuller

unread,
Jan 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/22/98
to

ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:

> : I eat a lot on weekends. The noun on Wall of Roots is 'turn.' In that

> : example it's 'weekday.' If there happens to be a time between weekdays
> : where you can eat, that sentence doesn't prohibit you from eating there.
>
> No. But it also doesn't specifically allow you to eat there.

Does it say you can specifically cast a counterspell between declaring blockers
and damage dealing? No!? Then I guess you can't do it!

The rules say you can use mana sources any time an effect can be played. Effects
are (well, were) played between phases, so so could wall of roots be used.

> Having finally figured out what's going on here, this sounds like "Cursed
> Scroll Syndrome." You're using a technicality caused by lack of
> appropriate text to create a combo that should not be. Much like Cursed
> Scroll was wrecked by people lawyering up the rules-technicalities.

Except Cursed Scroll never worked according to the rules. WAll of Roots did. If
I was a judge and someone played the Wall of Roots combo, there's no rule that
stops it, so I'd allow it. If someone said Cursed Scroll didn't target things
twice, I'd just say both targetting effects are seperate effects. Firestorm is
one effect. It's completely different dude.

> : Between Monday and Tuesday there is no time. Between Tuesday and Wednesday
> : there is no time. However, during Friday and Monday there is plenty of
> : time, and according to that sentence you could eat a million meals, two
> : meals, one meal, or not eat at all.
>
> And you prove my point here. You're using his term "weekday" by a
> definition he forgot to consider.

What!? Well if he doesn't know what a weekday is, then there are problems far
more important than Magic here..And go back to Abeyance. It doesn't matter how
something was 'intended' to be used. If the R&D staff could think of everything
each card could do, they could take the Magic scene by storm. They're not
omniscient, however, so if there's something broken they didn't think of, they
have to wait until a ruling. Abeyance was never meant to stop tapping for mana,
and it was ruled so that it stopped mana for a long while until it was ruled
against.

> : ANYWAY, I've been informed that WotC has ruled that no effects may take
> : place between turns. So now there's a very good reason to rule against the
> : combo. However, that still doesn't mean that judges were right for ruling
> : against the combo before the ruling.
>
> Doesn't mean they were wrong, either. In the absence of an official
> ruling, it's up to the judge.

That doesn't mean they can't be wrong.

> There was nothing for them to cite in this case, either way.

Sure there was. There's a ruling that you could play mana sources in between
turns. And Wall of Roots doesn't say anything specifically against that. If you
want to know why again, read my original post.


tkrzywicki

unread,
Jan 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/22/98
to

There is no ambiguity anymore w/this ruling. There is no "between the
turns" crap. Because of Time Vault, Phase 0 or the Beginning of turn
phase was created. This phase was also created due to the change in
cantrips where now you draw at the beginning of the turn rather then at
the beginning of the upkeep. I talked w/David Doust earlier today and
the DCI Rules Team has officially said that this combo does not work due
to the lack of the "between the turn" area. I hope this clears this up
for everybody. THIS COMBO OFFICIALLY SUCKS THE BIG ONE!!!!!!!!!

Tim Krzywicki
Level II Judge

Stanley Nowak

unread,
Jan 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/22/98
to

Attached below is the rules summary from Stephen D'Angelo (bless 'em).
This rules summary is about as far as the typical player is going to
get. Undoing the mess is going to be more than further erratum on Time
Vault.

Phase 0 "isn't really a phase" - then don't call it one.

"There are a FEW cards that actually do something BEFORE the beginning
of untap" - Break all these cards.

"Continuous abilities are dealt with prior to actual 'beginning of turn'
effects" - Egad, there's a phase before Phase 0?

"Summoning sickness is removed after all beginning of turn effects" -
Why is this comment here and not in the Untap phase? Let's remove
summoning sickness in first real phase.

"Phase skipping can require mana..." - Break the cards that require mana
between turns (and which cards are they?).

"Mana sources...do not cause mana burn" Why?

This problem has roots deeper than Time Vault and there'll be a lot of
wailing and gnashing of teeth before it's fixed.

My version of Time Vault (Time in a Bottle?):

If Time Vault is Untapped at the beginning of your Untap phase and does
not have a time counter, put two time counters on it and skip the rest
of your turn. Tap: Remove a time counter from Time Vault to take an
additional turn immediately after your next normal turn. If no counters
remain on Time Vault, Untap it.

Your turn 1: Play Time Vault
Opp. turn 1: Somethin'
Your turn 2: Place two counters on Time Vault.
Opp. tunr 2: More somethin' - Opponent gets two turns in a row.
Your turn 3: Remove two counters and Untap Time Vault.
Your Special Turn A
Your Special Turn B

Oppponent gets two turns in row and then you get three. There's no need
to add strategic element to MTG by creating card that tries to exploit
void between turns.

Thanks,
Stanley Nowak.

Phase 0: Beginning of Turn
This isn't really a phase, but there is a "beginning of turn" effects
and
abilities time before untap that works just like other beginning of
phase
effects and abilities times.
There are a few cards that actually do something before the beginning
of
untap. These are ones that say they happen at the "beginning of
turn",
such as the change in power/toughness due to Vibrating Sphere, or
the
control change from Wellspring. [D'Angelo 11/06/96]
Continuous abilities, such as Vibration Sphere, are dealt with prior
to
actual "beginning of turn" effects and abilities like Wellspring.
[Aahz 01/14/97]
Summoning sickness is removed from permanents after all beginning of
turn
effects and abilities finish resolving. [Duelist Magazine #17, Page
24]
As usual, when choosing to skip a phase/turn, you make the choice just
before you would start that phase/turn. In the case of skipping
turns,
that choice is made before this step. [D'Angelo 11/06/96]
You can use mana sources before this step (which is effectively
between
turns). [Aahz 07/22/97] This is allowed because phase skipping can
require mana, even if you have no Time Vault or other phase skipping
thing available. Note that use of mana sources may cause the normal
sets of triggered abilities, damage preventions, and so on.
Mana sources which are used during this step do not cause mana burn
until
the end of the first phase that you play. Normally this is the
untap
phase, but if you skip your untap it could be the upkeep phase.
[Aahz 04/07/97]

ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca

unread,
Jan 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/23/98
to

Jeremy Fuller (jfu...@olywa.net) wrote:
: ka...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:

: > : I eat a lot on weekends. The noun on Wall of Roots is 'turn.' In that
: > : example it's 'weekday.' If there happens to be a time between weekdays
: > : where you can eat, that sentence doesn't prohibit you from eating there.
: >
: > No. But it also doesn't specifically allow you to eat there.

: Does it say you can specifically cast a counterspell between declaring blockers
: and damage dealing? No!? Then I guess you can't do it!

Lesse... you're specifically allowed to use interrupts in response to any
spell (unless directly prohibited), and you're specifically allowed to
use instant effects and spells during that point.

: The rules say you can use mana sources any time an effect can be played. Effects


: are (well, were) played between phases, so so could wall of roots be used.

By worded technicality, not by intent.

: > Having finally figured out what's going on here, this sounds like "Cursed


: > Scroll Syndrome." You're using a technicality caused by lack of
: > appropriate text to create a combo that should not be. Much like Cursed
: > Scroll was wrecked by people lawyering up the rules-technicalities.

: Except Cursed Scroll never worked according to the rules.

That's not relevant to the point I was trying to make. Cursed Scroll
doesn't work (as intended) according to wording technicalities; Wall of
Roots is being used here to violate it's intended use by, once again,
wording technicalities.


: WAll of Roots did. If


: I was a judge and someone played the Wall of Roots combo, there's no rule that
: stops it, so I'd allow it. If someone said Cursed Scroll didn't target things
: twice, I'd just say both targetting effects are seperate effects. Firestorm is
: one effect. It's completely different dude.

How so? The targetting effects are worded as a single effect on Cursed
Scroll, and you just admitted that you'd violate the intended effects of
one card due to nothing more than a minor technicality that someone forgot
to consider, but ignore the technicality on another card to allow it to
work as intended.
Same thing.

: > And you prove my point here. You're using his term "weekday" by a


: > definition he forgot to consider.

: What!? Well if he doesn't know what a weekday is, then there are problems far
: more important than Magic here..

"weekday" - six letters of the english language put in sequence with one
repetition.
(Hey, it's accurate.)

(Snip)
: > Doesn't mean they were wrong, either. In the absence of an official


: > ruling, it's up to the judge.

: That doesn't mean they can't be wrong.

This is true; however, at the specific time he makes the ruling, he is
Right.

: > There was nothing for them to cite in this case, either way.

: Sure there was. There's a ruling that you could play mana sources in between
: turns. And Wall of Roots doesn't say anything specifically against that. If you
: want to know why again, read my original post.

My server never recieved it. If you still have a copy and would be
willing to forward it to me...

Ingo Warnke

unread,
Jan 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/23/98
to

tkrzywicki (tkrzy...@prodigy.net) wrote:
: There is no ambiguity anymore w/this ruling. There is no "between the
: turns" crap. Because of Time Vault, Phase 0 or the Beginning of turn
: phase was created.

You misunderstand. The beginning of a turn (or Phase 0 as called by some)
is *not* the issue here. It has nothing to do with Time Vault. Time Vault
is used *before* the beginning of turn, because it is supposed to get
rid of the whole turn, including anything that might happen at the beginning
of turn.

Ingo Warnke

Walter Goodwin

unread,
Jan 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/23/98
to

In article <34C6639C...@olywa.net>,
Jeremy Fuller <jfu...@olywa.net> wrote:

>Ok, there are cards (I believe) that say 'you may not use this ability after
>blocking is declared' or something like that. It only gives a restriction for
>after blocking. Does that mean you can't use it before blocking is declared?
>It's the exact same thing. It doesn't matter if it says 0 times, 1 time or
>unlimited times. If it restricts one time period and doesn't restrict another
>time period, you can't just arbitrarily make a restriction up just because you
>don't like a combo.

Umm, there is a difference between giving a restriction so that it can
only be used before blockers are declared, and giving a restriction about
only using it once per turn. Would you say I could use an ability that
says it can only be used once per upkeep, I could use it as many times
as I wanted to during the draw phase? (as someone else pointed out)

To be frank, a simple "It doesn't work" is all that is needed.
We've had worse rulings with less reason :) Besides, there is
a difference between "Letter of the law" and "Spirit of the law"
Since the letter is so often extremely confused, we must depend
on the spirit. For instance, remember the Do-Combat-Damage-Twice
combo? There was no technical rule against it, just that sometimes
certain things break down in un-defined areas and an arbitrary
ruling must be given.

John D. Thomas

unread,
Jan 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/23/98
to

Look, I'll quote Dave Delaney again.
In a post titled
Subject : RE: Mana Sources in between turn
1/20/98
....
...
'...At present, there is (a space between turns).
It is only there because Time Vault is, at present, used at that time.
But it is there. No normal instants can be played then at all.
And I will note, quite severely, that Wall of Roots _cannot_ be used
unlimited times between turns. It can be used at most _once_, and that
only if you didn't use it the turn that just ended. It is _not_ an
infinite mana generator in combination with Stasis....'

Any questions?

Stanley Nowak

unread,
Jan 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/23/98
to

John D. Thomas wrote:
>
> Ingo Warnke wrote:
> >
> > tkrzywicki (tkrzy...@prodigy.net) wrote:
> > : There is no ambiguity anymore w/this ruling. There is no "between the
> > : turns" crap. Because of Time Vault, Phase 0 or the Beginning of turn
> > : phase was created.
> >
> > You misunderstand. The beginning of a turn (or Phase 0 as called by some)
> > is *not* the issue here. It has nothing to do with Time Vault. Time Vault
> > is used *before* the beginning of turn, because it is supposed to get
> > rid of the whole turn, including anything that might happen at the beginning
> > of turn.
> >
> > Ingo Warnke
>
> Look, I'll quote Dave Delaney again.
> '...At present, there is (a space between turns).
> It is only there because Time Vault is, at present, used at that time.
> But it is there. No normal instants can be played then at all.
> And I will note, quite severely, that Wall of Roots _cannot_ be used
> unlimited times between turns. It can be used at most _once_, and that
> only if you didn't use it the turn that just ended. It is _not_ an
> infinite mana generator in combination with Stasis....'
>
> Any questions?

The first rule says: "Occasionally, a card contradicts the rules. In
these cases, the card text always takes precedence." Why wasn't this
entire messed solved by making Time Vault a contradiction that take
precedence rather than adding a new rule? Regular Time-Honored Rule As
Laid Down by our Ancestors: There is NO space between turns. So nothing
can happen. Time Vault is errated to specifically create a 'rift'
between turns for it's specific purpose.

Use the rule for breaking rules (i.e., include exception on card), don't
create another rule that affects every card.

Stanley.

Mudslide

unread,
Jan 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/23/98
to

Jeremy Fuller wrote in message <34C45AFF...@olywa.net>...

>DCI rated #37 in the world and #1 in WA state in sealed!
>DCI rated #27 in the world and #2 in WA state in extended!
>DCI rated #1108 in the world in T2! I need this combo to raise my
>rating! =(


Here is what I think is the problem. Mr. cool guy here decides that since he
sucks to much at building a good deck he's just gonna have to get a combo.
Of course the lack of creativity which he exhibited in general deckbuilding
screws him over in coming up with a combo. He goes on the net and finds one.
But then, the people who keep up with the rules decide that his stupid-assed
unoriginal little pissant combo isn't legal. If you've ever had it played on
you then you know just how illegal it feels. If you could take half as much
energy as what you're using to defend your crappy little cheater combo then
you could make a decent deck. Of course that would require a little more
than no creativity and a mastery of the art of making yourself look like an
ass in many different ways. Downs Syndrome, that was completley uncalled for
you dickless wonder. Do you enjoy making fun of people who can't fight back
you insecure little prick.

Chris Byler

unread,
Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98
to

On 23 Jan 1998 03:58:39 GMT, wgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Walter
Goodwin) wrote:

>In article <34C6639C...@olywa.net>,
>Jeremy Fuller <jfu...@olywa.net> wrote:

I wish someone hadn't deleted the combo in question, because I can't
for the life of me think *why* you would want to draw mana from a wall
of roots (or anything else) between turns, since the mana would only
burn you at the beginning of the next turn's untap. The only things
(other than mana sources, apparently) legal between turns are
specialized between-turns abilities like Time Vault, and AFAIK none of
those use mana anyway.

>>Ok, there are cards (I believe) that say 'you may not use this ability after
>>blocking is declared' or something like that. It only gives a restriction for
>>after blocking. Does that mean you can't use it before blocking is declared?
>>It's the exact same thing. It doesn't matter if it says 0 times, 1 time or
>>unlimited times. If it restricts one time period and doesn't restrict another
>>time period, you can't just arbitrarily make a restriction up just because you
>>don't like a combo.

>Umm, there is a difference between giving a restriction so that it can
>only be used before blockers are declared, and giving a restriction about
>only using it once per turn. Would you say I could use an ability that
>says it can only be used once per upkeep, I could use it as many times
>as I wanted to during the draw phase? (as someone else pointed out)

Yes, as a matter of fact you *could* use it as many times as you
wanted during any other phase. Of course, most cards which are
actually printed say something more like "Use this ability only during
your upkeep and only once each turn", which is actually *two*
restrictions, both of which are necessary. "Use this ability only
once per upkeep" by itself only restricts how many times it can be
used during upkeep; it doesn't say anything about using the ability
any time other than upkeep.

>To be frank, a simple "It doesn't work" is all that is needed.
>We've had worse rulings with less reason :) Besides, there is
>a difference between "Letter of the law" and "Spirit of the law"
>Since the letter is so often extremely confused, we must depend
>on the spirit. For instance, remember the Do-Combat-Damage-Twice
>combo? There was no technical rule against it, just that sometimes
>certain things break down in un-defined areas and an arbitrary
>ruling must be given.

What was that? Something involving losing first strike as a triggered
or continuous effect between first strike damage dealing and non-first
strike DD? (An escaped shapeshifter could do it, I think...) Unless
there's a specific rule that a creature doesn't deal combat damage
during non-first-strike damage dealing if it already dealt combat
damage during this attack, it would work (but be extremely rare).
Normally, the only reason a creature deals damage during exactly one
of the two damage-dealing steps is that it either has first strike or
doesn't. If that somehow changed, then it would be possible for the
creature to deal damage during both damage dealing steps (or neither,
although I can't think of a way to do that off the top of my head -
the creature would have to gain first strike as a triggered or
continuous result of something that happened in the first strike DD
step).

Chris

--
Chris Byler cby...@okra.deltast.edu
"The end justifies the means. What do I care if I rule over
the dead rather than over the living? The dead ask fewer
questions." -- Kaervek, from Kaervek's Spite

David DeLaney

unread,
Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98
to

jfu...@olywa.net writes:
>There may be something I don't see, but judges should be able to CITE
>WHY this combo does not work. Making up their own errata saying that
>you can't use the combo outside of turns doesn't work. If they can come
>up with a workable reason why the combo doesn't work, that's great, but
>otherwise, it should.

Because the card is not meant to be a source of infinite mana, that's
why. It would need to cost infinite mana to case, if it were.

The card is meant to give you no _more_ than one mana per turn ... and
trying to "break" that restriction by saying "I'm using it between turns"
will simply cause the judges to, as you note, tell you on the spot that
that's not allowed.

In fact, until we hear from above [since I _have_ passed this on to above,
and they've heard of it from other directions as well], play Wall of Roots
as being able to be used only once _between_ turns. Not infinite times
simply because you're not in a turn. And furthermore play it as not being
usable at all if you used it in the turn that's just ended. [Again, until
we hear from above how they want to fix it.] Yes, this is an extension of
"only once a turn" to "only once a turn-plus-following-between-turns-time".
Deal with it.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

David DeLaney

unread,
Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98
to

tkrzy...@prodigy.net writes:
>There is no ambiguity anymore w/this ruling. There is no "between the
>turns" crap.

Currently, there is; currently, that's when Time Vault is used.

>Because of Time Vault, Phase 0 or the Beginning of turn
>phase was created.

No. Time Vault was _never_ used then.

> This phase was also created due to the change in

>cantrips where now you draw at the beginning of the turn rather then at
>the beginning of the upkeep.

This is what created that step. It had nothing to do with Time Vault.

> I talked w/David Doust earlier today and
>the DCI Rules Team has officially said that this combo does not work due
>to the lack of the "between the turn" area. I hope this clears this up
>for everybody. THIS COMBO OFFICIALLY SUCKS THE BIG ONE!!!!!!!!!

Well, they have _not_ actually said that officially, and I -can- officially
say that.

[_Yet_.]

Dave
(R)
Official Magic: The Gathering Rules Usenet Network Representative for
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

David DeLaney

unread,
Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98
to

cby...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.vt.edu (Chris Byler) writes:
>I wish someone hadn't deleted the combo in question, because I can't
>for the life of me think *why* you would want to draw mana from a wall
>of roots (or anything else) between turns, since the mana would only
>burn you at the beginning of the next turn's untap.

Why would it burn you at the _beginning_ of a phase?

[The combo, by the way, was Wall of Roots/Stasis/somewhere to put lots of
mana during upkeep, like Iceberg.]

>What was that? Something involving losing first strike as a triggered
>or continuous effect between first strike damage dealing and non-first
>strike DD? (An escaped shapeshifter could do it, I think...) Unless
>there's a specific rule that a creature doesn't deal combat damage
>during non-first-strike damage dealing if it already dealt combat
>damage during this attack, it would work (but be extremely rare).

There is a specific rule noting this.

[Yes, because this was possible even before the Unstable Shapeshifter was
around. As far back as Unlimited, in fact, though for different reasons
as you go back.]

Dave

christopher lee dinkins

unread,
Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98
to


On 24 Jan 1998, David DeLaney wrote:

> jfu...@olywa.net writes:
> >There may be something I don't see, but judges should be able to CITE
> >WHY this combo does not work. Making up their own errata saying that
> >you can't use the combo outside of turns doesn't work. If they can come
> >up with a workable reason why the combo doesn't work, that's great, but
> >otherwise, it should.
>
> Because the card is not meant to be a source of infinite mana, that's
> why. It would need to cost infinite mana to case, if it were.
>

I can't believe I'm getting involved in this discusssion, but the above
seems to me to be very dangerous reasoning. Can't similar reasoning be
applied to lots of other cards? For example, can't someone argue that
Enduring Renewal was meant to keep creatures in play, not to generate
infinite damage combos (and that it would cost an infinite amount of mana
if that were the case)?

Having said that, I certainly agree that I hate this latest abuse of the
game mechanics and I hope it's resolved soon.


--Chris


Paul Miller

unread,
Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98
to

On 24 Jan 1998 04:15:00 GMT, d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu (David DeLaney) wrote:


>In fact, until we hear from above [since I _have_ passed this on to above,
>and they've heard of it from other directions as well], play Wall of Roots
>as being able to be used only once _between_ turns.

So Mana Sources are legal between turns now?

Walter Goodwin

unread,
Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98
to

In article <34c91e30...@news.vt.edu>,

Chris Byler <cby...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.vt.edu> wrote:
>
>I wish someone hadn't deleted the combo in question, because I can't

Well, from reading the subject line, my guess is that the combo is
to get infinite mana, then use stasis to avoid that nasty mana burn
at the end of your untap phase, then use it during your upkeep.

>Yes, as a matter of fact you *could* use it as many times as you
>wanted during any other phase.

That's debatable. I'll dig for a more appropriate example whenever
I have enough time. I'll make sure to rant about why this is a very
silly argument a little later on though.

>What was that? Something involving losing first strike as a triggered
>or continuous effect between first strike damage dealing and non-first
>strike DD?

Yes. And we didn't have an official response other than "That's silly"
for close to two years if my memory serves right. The Infinite-
Doppleganger combo's were also killed without a single "rule" just another
that's silly response. The examples do go on and on.

> (An escaped shapeshifter could do it, I think...) Unless
>there's a specific rule that a creature doesn't deal combat damage
>during non-first-strike damage dealing if it already dealt combat
>damage during this attack, it would work (but be extremely rare).

NOW there is a rule, but when it was first brought up, there wasn't
a rule. Everyone just realized that it was completely silly and
Knew it wouldn't work. We didn't know why, we just knew it didn't.


The rest is snipped since it's more wondering as to how it could lose
first strike.

(Here's a hint, the shapeshifter can do it, but one of the original's
was to sacrifice a lance to an oath of Lim Dul because of city of brass
damage :) (BTW, there was also an inverse case where a creature could
do no combat damage by gaining first strike in between first strike
damage dealing and normal damage dealing. See if you can find it :)


As a more general rant, the _only_ reason this is being argued is that
there is a K00L combo involved. If this was nearly as useless as the
infinity-ganger or double damage dealer combos, everyone would agree
that its stupid and we'd be done with it. (not that that's a good
thing though. This really does need to be worked out and "in-between"
turns really does need to be removed. It is possible to argue that
even with the current wording of time vault (which is hideous in
oracle, despite what the notes says, it only has to be untapped to
get a turn. Note that the cost is to "remove all time counters",
ie. it doesn't say there is a minimum.))

For instance, the same people arguing for a rules technicality to allow
the wall to produce mana, are the exact same people arguing against
a rules technicality that is hosing cursed scroll.

It all goes back to that quote from oracle, the one about how people
wanted certain card interactions to happen, with no concern for the
actual rules. If allowing the wall to produce infinite mana would
"ruin" it (just bear with me), we'd see the exact same people arguing
the opposite way. To have balance, we must go with the spirit of
the rules, not how we want the cards to act together, and worry about
bringing the rules in line with each other to prevent such atrocities.


Kai Rode

unread,
Jan 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/24/98
to

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 00:58:41 GMT, Chris Byler wrote:

>I wish someone hadn't deleted the combo in question, because I can't

>for the life of me think *why* you would want to draw mana from a wall
>of roots (or anything else) between turns, since the mana would only
>burn you at the beginning of the next turn's untap.

That's what Stasis is for: no untap phase so you can use the mana in the
upkeep phase.

Kai
--
PGP public key available from keyservers
"To err is human. To really screw it up takes a computer."

David DeLaney

unread,
Jan 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/25/98
to

They currently are, and have been for quite a while. Because there is one
[and as far as I can tell only one] ability that is played between turns,
at present.

David DeLaney

unread,
Jan 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/25/98
to

wgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Walter Goodwin) writes:
>It is possible to argue that
>even with the current wording of time vault (which is hideous in
>oracle, despite what the notes says, it only has to be untapped to
>get a turn. Note that the cost is to "remove all time counters",
>ie. it doesn't say there is a minimum.))

It does, however, say "Use this ability [the get-a-turn one] only if there
are any time counters on Time Vault", so there does have to be at least one.

Luskan

unread,
Jan 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/25/98
to

Stanley Nowak wrote:
>
> Attached below is the rules summary from Stephen D'Angelo (bless 'em).
> This rules summary is about as far as the typical player is going to
> get. Undoing the mess is going to be more than further erratum on Time
> Vault.
>
> Phase 0 "isn't really a phase" - then don't call it one.

I agree.



> "There are a FEW cards that actually do something BEFORE the beginning
> of untap" - Break all these cards.

Break all these cards? I'd would rather just errata them. This way
WotC can make ANOTHER Oracle. :)



> "Continuous abilities are dealt with prior to actual 'beginning of turn'
> effects" - Egad, there's a phase before Phase 0?
>
> "Summoning sickness is removed after all beginning of turn effects" -
> Why is this comment here and not in the Untap phase? Let's remove
> summoning sickness in first real phase.

My problem with this is Stasis. The first real phase is Untap, and
Stasis would skip this, and thus summoning sickness removal, which
IMHO would make blue WAY too strong. Not way, but WAY. :)



> "Phase skipping can require mana..." - Break the cards that require mana
> between turns (and which cards are they?).
>
> "Mana sources...do not cause mana burn" Why?
>
> This problem has roots deeper than Time Vault and there'll be a lot of
> wailing and gnashing of teeth before it's fixed.
>
> My version of Time Vault (Time in a Bottle?):
>
> If Time Vault is Untapped at the beginning of your Untap phase and does
> not have a time counter, put two time counters on it and skip the rest
> of your turn. Tap: Remove a time counter from Time Vault to take an
> additional turn immediately after your next normal turn. If no counters
> remain on Time Vault, Untap it.
>
> Your turn 1: Play Time Vault
> Opp. turn 1: Somethin'
> Your turn 2: Place two counters on Time Vault.
> Opp. tunr 2: More somethin' - Opponent gets two turns in a row.
> Your turn 3: Remove two counters and Untap Time Vault.
> Your Special Turn A
> Your Special Turn B
>
> Oppponent gets two turns in row and then you get three. There's no need
> to add strategic element to MTG by creating card that tries to exploit
> void between turns.
>

This is not what the card was designed for. It's just there as an
option of the controller to skip a turn to get 2 turns in a row.
It's not a 'I have to do this as it's in play as long as it's in
play' type of card.

--
Luskan
lus...@better.net

David Linder

unread,
Jan 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/26/98
to

"John D. Thomas" <jth...@mcare2.med.umich.edu.ANTISPAM> wrote:
>Look, I'll quote Dave Delaney again:

>'...At present, there is (a space between turns).
>It is only there because Time Vault is, at present, used at that time.
>But it is there. No normal instants can be played then at all.
>And I will note, quite severely, that Wall of Roots _cannot_ be used
>unlimited times between turns. It can be used at most _once_, and that
>only if you didn't use it the turn that just ended. It is _not_ an
>infinite mana generator in combination with Stasis....'

Umm... DeLaney isn't very clear with the reasons here, he's merely
stating his opinion. He says that even if the Wall is used *in
between* the turns it still matters wether you used it the previous
turn or not. Come on, when the turn has ended it's not the same turn
anymore, the restrictions shouldn't apply!
The only argument against the use of the Wall this way would be, as I
see it, that the wall say "each TURN" and thus cannot be used outside
a turn... but I don't know.


---
David Linder
ICQ# 6285188

<<< Visit the Deck Lab for the best decks >>>
<<< http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-44674/thelab >>>


Luke Somers

unread,
Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98
to

Nowak said,

> My version of Time Vault (Time in a Bottle?):
>
> If Time Vault is Untapped at the beginning of your Untap phase and does
> not have a time counter, put two time counters on it and skip the rest
> of your turn. Tap: Remove a time counter from Time Vault to take an
> additional turn immediately after your next normal turn. If no counters
> remain on Time Vault, Untap it.
>
> Your turn 1: Play Time Vault
> Opp. turn 1: Somethin'
> Your turn 2: Place two counters on Time Vault.
> Opp. tunr 2: More somethin' - Opponent gets two turns in a row.
> Your turn 3: Remove two counters and Untap Time Vault.
> Your Special Turn A
> Your Special Turn B
>
> Oppponent gets two turns in row and then you get three. There's no need
> to add strategic element to MTG by creating card that tries to exploit
> void between turns.
>
Then Luskan said,

>This is not what the card was designed for. It's just there as an
>option of the controller to skip a turn to get 2 turns in a row.
>It's not a 'I have to do this as it's in play as long as it's in
>play' type of card.

But Did you see that word, "TAP" in the card definition above? Starting
the process is voluntary. Finishing it is not (as under the current
wording, since untapping is not voluntary)

Luke

Luke Somers

unread,
Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98
to

>> This phase was also created due to the change in
>>cantrips where now you draw at the beginning of the turn rather then at
>>the beginning of the upkeep.
>
> This is what created that step. It had nothing to do with Time Vault.


Now that cantrips occur immediately, why not abolish phase 0? It's sole
purpose has been errata-ed out of existence.

Luke

Ingo Kemper

unread,
Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98
to

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 01:34:37 -0500, Luke Somers
<LSo...@haverford.edu> wrote:

>Now that cantrips occur immediately, why not abolish phase 0? It's sole
>purpose has been errata-ed out of existence.

Sorry, but that's plain wrong. _Cantrips_ still let you draw a card at
the beginning of the next turn. There are some spells that let you
draw a card immediately (Twitch, for example), but this doesn't mean
that the class of cantrip spells was mass-errataed again. (If this
would be the case, Twitch would have been called Jolt.)

Ingo Kemper
--
__ _ __ __ __ __
__/ /_/ \/ /_/____/_ |___Sky...@uni-muenster.de___---===> \
/_/ /_/\_/ |__/ |__/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---===>__/

Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin

unread,
Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98
to

Ingo Kemper wrote in rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules:

>On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 01:34:37 -0500, Luke Somers
><LSo...@haverford.edu> wrote:
>
>>Now that cantrips occur immediately, why not abolish phase 0? It's sole
>>purpose has been errata-ed out of existence.
>
>Sorry, but that's plain wrong. _Cantrips_ still let you draw a card at
>the beginning of the next turn. There are some spells that let you
>draw a card immediately (Twitch, for example), but this doesn't mean
>that the class of cantrip spells was mass-errataed again. (If this
>would be the case, Twitch would have been called Jolt.)

Jolt. 2UU
Instant.
Tap all of target player's lands, then put that player's mana pool
three colorless mana for each land tapped by Jolt.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.

Ingo Kemper

unread,
Jan 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/29/98
to wa...@blarg.net

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:

> Jolt. 2UU
> Instant.
> Tap all of target player's lands, then put that player's mana pool
> three colorless mana for each land tapped by Jolt.

???

Jolt is a blue Mirage cantrip instant for 2U that reads
"Tap or untap target artifact, creature, or land. Draw
a card at the beginning of the next turn's upkeep."
(Of course the cantrip part has been errataed to read
"at the beginning of the next turn".)

Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin

unread,
Jan 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/30/98
to

Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote in rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules:

>Ingo Kemper wrote in rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 01:34:37 -0500, Luke Somers
>><LSo...@haverford.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Now that cantrips occur immediately, why not abolish phase 0? It's sole
>>>purpose has been errata-ed out of existence.
>>
>>Sorry, but that's plain wrong. _Cantrips_ still let you draw a card at
>>the beginning of the next turn. There are some spells that let you
>>draw a card immediately (Twitch, for example), but this doesn't mean
>>that the class of cantrip spells was mass-errataed again. (If this
>>would be the case, Twitch would have been called Jolt.)
>

>Jolt. 2UU
>Instant.
>Tap all of target player's lands, then put that player's mana pool
>three colorless mana for each land tapped by Jolt.

Sorry, folks, I forgot that there is a real "Jolt" card.

I was trying to figure out a "Jolt" card based on the carbonated
beverage of that name.

willia...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 24, 2016, 1:30:28 AM7/24/16
to
holy fuck. is this email addy legit?

Willaim Hilts,
Blue Knight
etc...

willia...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 23, 2018, 6:58:22 PM9/23/18
to
Jeremy fuller.
Wtf.
Thewurm.

willia...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 23, 2018, 7:00:35 PM9/23/18
to
Wtf
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages