FORKING A TIME WALK...PLEASE READ!
Mark Rosewater
<tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu> wrote:
>to why it>To all involved, (or interested for that matter),
> Let us end this thread once and for all! To begin, let us first state
>the fact that all of us are human, and humans make mistakes! (Agreed?) O.K....
>now, let us begin by saying that we believe that Forking a Time Walk does NOT
>give a player 2 extra turns. (And, as the last few weeks have demonstrated,
>MANY of you disagree!) Yet, none of you have given a comprehensive arguement as
would work! Most of you have just quoted past sources and rulings as
>the basis for your arguements. We are not asking for these past rulings. We
>understand that this has been ruled on in the past. We are arguing the fact
>that we do not believe this ruling is correct. Now, let us also say that
>rulings have been revoked, and cards have been corrected in the past. (Like we
>said, we are all only human! ^_^)
> Now, we are not trying to pick a fight with anyone, nor do we disrespect
>any of you, we just want to try and make you all understand our arguement. (We
>do not believe our first few responses to this were adequate.) So here is our
>arguement:
As the old Oriental curse goes, be careful what you ask for. Here for
the record is the logic behind why a Forked Tim Walk works.
>
> Let us say you cast a Time Walk and Fork it. What happens?
> (Oh, before we begin, remember, cards must be read and played
> literally as the card, or appropriate errata, states!)
> First, Time Walk simply states, "Take an extra turn after this
> one."
Let's begin with Time Walk's text. Time Walk states that the caster gets
an extra turn after the current one. Now, as I understand the English
language, this means that before play passes to my opponent, I will
receive an additional turn.
Second, Fork simply states, "Any one sorcery or instant
> spell just cast is duplicated. Treat Fork as an exact copy of
> target spell except that Fork remains red. Caster of Fork
> chooses the copy's target."
Now the Fork, merely says that it becomes a copy of the Time Walk. Okay
" we get an extra turn after this one".
> O.k....now you cast Time Walk and Fork it, thus creating two
> identical Time Walks, (given one is red and one is blue), in
> the same turn.
This is where your logic falls apart. Time Walk does not say that you
get a turn immediately following this one. It says that you get an extra
turn. According to the Random House College Dictionary, extra is defined
as "beyond or more than what is expected or necessary; additional."
This means that the spell gives you an additional turn. And the Fork
gives you another additional turn. The logic to this is simple. If I
have an apple and my friend Mary comes over and gives me an extra apple,
I will have two apples. If my other friend Luke gives me an extra apple,
I have three apples. Extra means additional. Additional (from my
understanding of math) means plus one. Time Walk gives an additional
turn and Fork gives another additional turn (yes, I am aware Fork would
go first.)
Now, read again the wording on Time Walk. There
> is one very important phrase there: "AFTER THIS [TURN]." Thus,
> we now have 2 spells which give us an extra turn, both taking
> place after the current one! It does not state anywhere on
> either card that these effects are cumulative!
And how exactly are they not cummulative? Extra by its very definition
is cummulative. Now if the spell said that you were given a turn that
must immediately follow this one, then well, you might have a leg to
stand on, but following the text as written (and that does seem to be
important to you) this is not the case. To give a parallel in the game.
If a spell gave me an extra life and I Forked it, would I not get two
life. The Fork doesn't care that I got an extra life, it just gives me
one more. (An extra if you will.)
Both spells
> resolve during the current turn, therefore they both accomplish
> the same task: to give an extra turn after THIS one.
> Now many have argued that the effects stack. Well we ask you this,
> HOW?!?! How is it possible for the effects of a spell cast during
> the current turn to carry over to the next one and then resolve,
> when the card does not state this anywhere in the text!? (e.g.
> Mana Drain, which DOES state this.)
What exactly is carrying over? Upon casting Time Walk, you receive an
extra turn. If you would like to take a counter out to represent it,
fine, but the point is that you've been granted something on this turn.
Nothing in Magic says that you have to lose something as turns advance.
If I get life this turn, I get to keep it next turn. So, if I get two
extra turns, why do I lose one when the first one resolves? I actually
have no choice but to use it after the first turn is over. (And
technically, I believe I have to take the Forked Time Walk turn first.)
This is a perfectly valid
> arguement. If this combination were possible, it would have to
> state this somewhere on Time Walk. Becuase it doesn't, both
> spells resolve during the same turn and would take effect on
> turn "after this one"!!! This is all due to the literal reading
> of Time Walk!
One more time, in case you didn't get it above. Time Walk resolves on
the turn you cast it. You don't wait for it to resolve. You cast it,
the spell occurs, and you get an extra turn (once again, take out a
counter to represent it if you like.) The turn is now there. The spell
is over. There is no need to get into how the spell resolves after this
turn, because the spell doesn't wait until after the turn to resolve.
> Some people have even gone as far to
argue with us that you
> can't read the cards literally. Yet, we see people, (everyday),
> including WoTC representatives using the arguement that, "You
> have to read and play the card as it reads". In other words,
> literal interpretation is the main basis for this game! If you
> interpret these two cards literally, then there is no possible
> way to gain 2 cumulative extra turns through these means. The
> only possible way would be to cast Time Walk and during the
> "extra" turn, Regrowth or Recall it and cast it again! (Not
> counting lucky occurences such as Tinmetwistering and redrawing
> Time Walk.)
Reading the cards literally is fine. Literally supports the Forked Time
Walk working. Thus, my answer to you, is please read the cards.
>
> In the past few weeks, we have given this matter alot of thought, and
>we have been unable to find a reasonable explanation as to why this "officially"
>works! Now please understand that we would just like to resolve this matter once
>and for all. We are inviting you all to please EXPLAIN how this works. We do NOT
>want quotes of past rulings! We would just like a cognitive explanation as to
>how it does. Please do not just say, "It works because the effects stack." Tell
>me WHY and/or HOW the effects stack. We have given you a very detailed
>explaination as to why we believe they do NOT. Please, if you are going to reply
>to this thread, do not just flame us or rehash old rulings. Make us feel stupid.
>Prove us wrong through detailed and well thought out debates.
>
>Thank you all,
> Trace Geller Tra...@ufcc.ufl.edu
> Jason Steel Wra...@ufcc.ufl.edu
>
>P.S.- Email is welcome!
I apologize for my haughty tone, but I found your post to be a little
high and mighty and I felt you deserved the same tone in return.
But to drop the mood of above, the crux of the argument is this. Extra
by definition means "additional". "Additional" is clearly cummulative.
Also, the spells resolve right away and thus, there is no problem of a
spell remembering to resolve next turn. I can understand you not liking
Forked Time Walks working, but as my argument shows (and where the
official decision comes from in the first place) it works just fine.
Sincerely,
Mark Rosewater
Christopher Cates
: Let us end this thread once and for all!
It should be over. There have never been any rule reversals or
anything else regarding this card _ever_. Since the game has been
sold, this has been legal.
: now, let us begin by saying that we believe that Forking a Time Walk does NOT
: give a player 2 extra turns. (And, as the last few weeks have demonstrated,
: MANY of you disagree!) Yet, none of you have given a comprehensive arguement as
: to why it would work! Most of you have just quoted past sources and rulings as
: the basis for your arguements.
Why should we bother to explain again, when it's obvious you haven't
been follwoing the threads? In the last two weeks, I have explained
why it works, Dave Delaney has explained why it works, and I believe
even Tom has explained why it works. I'm not talking ruling summaries,
I'm talking about why it makes sense.
: Now, let us also say that rulings have been revoked, and cards have
: been corrected in the past.
But never about this combo. Never.
: Now many have argued that the effects stack. Well we ask you this,
: HOW?!?! How is it possible for the effects of a spell cast during
: the current turn to carry over to the next one and then resolve,
: when the card does not state this anywhere in the text!? (e.g.
: Mana Drain, which DOES state this.) This is a perfectly valid
: arguement.
It isn't valid since one of your premises is false. The card does
say when the effect happens and says so in a way that every rule
of English indicates it can stack. Tell me, do you know what the
word _after_ means, as in "Take an extra turn _after_ this one."?
After: Later in time than. Extra: Additional. If you are drinking
a soda and someone gives you two extra sodas to drink after that one,
unless you're odd, you're probably not going to drink them both at
the same time, but you will consume both _after_ your current one.
: If this combination were possible, it would have to
: state this somewhere on Time Walk. Becuase it doesn't, both
: spells resolve during the same turn and would take effect on
: turn "after this one"!!! This is all due to the literal reading
: of Time Walk!
No that's due to lack of English. Read what you wrote above. You
added text that isn't on the card. It doesn't take effect "on the
turn after this one". It just takes place after this one.
: Some people have even gone as far to argue with us that you
: can't read the cards literally. Yet, we see people, (everyday),
: including WoTC representatives using the arguement that, "You
: have to read and play the card as it reads". In other words,
: literal interpretation is the main basis for this game! If you
: interpret these two cards literally, then there is no possible
: way to gain 2 cumulative extra turns through these means.
We are reading the card literally. Luckily we know how to read
without adding in text that doesn't exist. TW doesn't take effect
"on the turn" after this one or "immediately" after this one, just
_after_ this one.
: We are inviting you all to please EXPLAIN how this works. We do NOT
: want quotes of past rulings! We would just like a cognitive explanation
: as to how it does. Please do not just say, "It works because the effects
: stack." Tell me WHY and/or HOW the effects stack. We have given you a
: very detailed explaination as to why we believe they do NOT.
: Prove us wrong through detailed and well thought out debates.
So tell me, are you going to _read_ the explanations this time? I
didn't quote a single rules summary or timing rule above. I
explained basics of vocabulary available to anyone with a dictionary.
If this article sounds a bit pissed, it is. I get tired of seeing
lengthy explanations of basic English comprehension and Rule
detailings just to have them ignored for posts like this. If
you disagreed with what was being said before, reply to those
specific posts. As it is, you've made sweeping posts about the topic
but given no way of knowing if you really have read all the relevant
articles.
Chris.
c...@wintermute.ucr.edu
tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
Let us end this thread once and for all! To begin, let us first state
the fact that all of us are human, and humans make mistakes! (Agreed?) O.K....
give a player 2 extra turns. (And, as the last few weeks have demonstrated,
MANY of you disagree!) Yet, none of you have given a comprehensive arguement as
to why it would work! Most of you have just quoted past sources and rulings as
understand that this has been ruled on in the past. We are arguing the fact
that we do not believe this ruling is correct. Now, let us also say that
rulings have been revoked, and cards have been corrected in the past. (Like we
said, we are all only human! ^_^)
Now, we are not trying to pick a fight with anyone, nor do we disrespect
any of you, we just want to try and make you all understand our arguement. (We
do not believe our first few responses to this were adequate.) So here is our
arguement:
Let us say you cast a Time Walk and Fork it. What happens?
(Oh, before we begin, remember, cards must be read and played
literally as the card, or appropriate errata, states!)
First, Time Walk simply states, "Take an extra turn after this
one." Second, Fork simply states, "Any one sorcery or instant
spell just cast is duplicated. Treat Fork as an exact copy of
target spell except that Fork remains red. Caster of Fork
chooses the copy's target."
O.k....now you cast Time Walk and Fork it, thus creating two
identical Time Walks, (given one is red and one is blue), in
the same turn. Now, read again the wording on Time Walk. There
is one very important phrase there: "AFTER THIS [TURN]." Thus,
we now have 2 spells which give us an extra turn, both taking
place after the current one! It does not state anywhere on
either card that these effects are cumulative! Both spells
resolve during the current turn, therefore they both accomplish
the same task: to give an extra turn after THIS one.
Now many have argued that the effects stack. Well we ask you this,
HOW?!?! How is it possible for the effects of a spell cast during
the current turn to carry over to the next one and then resolve,
when the card does not state this anywhere in the text!? (e.g.
Mana Drain, which DOES state this.) This is a perfectly valid
arguement. If this combination were possible, it would have to
state this somewhere on Time Walk. Becuase it doesn't, both
spells resolve during the same turn and would take effect on
turn "after this one"!!! This is all due to the literal reading
of Time Walk!
Some people have even gone as far to argue with us that you
can't read the cards literally. Yet, we see people, (everyday),
including WoTC representatives using the arguement that, "You
have to read and play the card as it reads". In other words,
literal interpretation is the main basis for this game! If you
interpret these two cards literally, then there is no possible
way to gain 2 cumulative extra turns through these means. The
only possible way would be to cast Time Walk and during the
"extra" turn, Regrowth or Recall it and cast it again! (Not
counting lucky occurences such as Tinmetwistering and redrawing
Time Walk.)
In the past few weeks, we have given this matter alot of thought, and
we have been unable to find a reasonable explanation as to why this "officially"
works! Now please understand that we would just like to resolve this matter once
and for all. We are inviting you all to please EXPLAIN how this works. We do NOT
want quotes of past rulings! We would just like a cognitive explanation as to
how it does. Please do not just say, "It works because the effects stack." Tell
me WHY and/or HOW the effects stack. We have given you a very detailed
explaination as to why we believe they do NOT. Please, if you are going to reply
to this thread, do not just flame us or rehash old rulings. Make us feel stupid.
Prove us wrong through detailed and well thought out debates.
Thank you all,
David Mishael Green
Well, we've tried, by citing official rulings. Somehow, that hasn't worked.
>now, let us begin by saying that we believe that Forking a Time Walk does NOT
>give a player 2 extra turns. (And, as the last few weeks have demonstrated,
>MANY of you disagree!) Yet, none of you have given a comprehensive arguement as
>to why it would work!
I've seen quite a few arguments as for why it works (i.e., Forking a Time Walk
gives you two extra turns). In fact, I haven't seen an argument *against* it
that makes a whole lot of sense yet, to be honest.
>So here is our
>arguement:
>
> Let us say you cast a Time Walk and Fork it. What happens?
> (Oh, before we begin, remember, cards must be read and played
> literally as the card, or appropriate errata, states!)
> First, Time Walk simply states, "Take an extra turn after this
> one." Second, Fork simply states, "Any one sorcery or instant
> spell just cast is duplicated. Treat Fork as an exact copy of
> target spell except that Fork remains red. Caster of Fork
> chooses the copy's target."
> O.k....now you cast Time Walk and Fork it, thus creating two
> identical Time Walks, (given one is red and one is blue), in
> the same turn. Now, read again the wording on Time Walk. There
> is one very important phrase there: "AFTER THIS [TURN]." Thus,
> we now have 2 spells which give us an extra turn, both taking
> place after the current one! It does not state anywhere on
> either card that these effects are cumulative!
Nor does it state anywhere on either card that these effects are not
cumulative.
> Both spells
> resolve during the current turn, therefore they both accomplish
> the same task: to give an extra turn after THIS one.
> Now many have argued that the effects stack. Well we ask you this,
> HOW?!?! How is it possible for the effects of a spell cast during
> the current turn to carry over to the next one and then resolve,
> when the card does not state this anywhere in the text!? (e.g.
> Mana Drain, which DOES state this.) This is a perfectly valid
> arguement. If this combination were possible, it would have to
> state this somewhere on Time Walk. Becuase it doesn't, both
> spells resolve during the same turn and would take effect on
> turn "after this one"!!!
Beg pardon? It doesn't specify "turn after this one." It specifies "after
this turn." Both of the turns generated by the Fork and the Time Walk take
place "after this turn."
> If you
> interpret these two cards literally, then there is no possible
> way to gain 2 cumulative extra turns through these means.
Not true. Gaea's Touch says "you may put one additional [Forest] into play
during each of your turns." If you have two of them, each one allows you to
put one additional Forest into play. Just because you put the first
additional Forest into play doesn't mean that you've satisfied both of them;
you've only satisfied one and can play an additional Forest to satisfy the
next. In the same way, if you cast two Time Walks, you've put two "take an
additional turn" events onto the pending stack. After you've taken the first
extra turn, there's still another "additional turn" event waiting to happen.
> In the past few weeks, we have given this matter alot of thought, and
>we have been unable to find a reasonable explanation as to why this
>"officially" works!
Tom Wylie, the official net spokesperson for WotC has said that the card has
been ruled to work this way. A reasonable explanation has been posted
several times and apparently ignored. I'm not sure what more you want.
>Please do not just say, "It works because the effects stack." Tell
>me WHY and/or HOW the effects stack. We have given you a very detailed
>explaination as to why we believe they do NOT.
They "stack" because nothing precludes them from doing so. Tell me, why is
the second additional turn not after the original one?
Michael J. Nickoloff
read the card, You cast time walk and then fork it. The fork resolves,
and says, "take an extra turn after the current one.". The time walk
resolves, and the same thing occurs. Now, you do get 2 turns. HOWEVER,
they both come after the current turn. So, the second turn DOES NOT come
after the 1st time walk turn.
Forked turn
/
C. turn
\
Time walk
So, you take you forked turn, and then what you get is an additional turn
right after the end of the c. turn. So, you draw the same card, and you
could play different things, and you would get to choose which path to
follow for the rest of the game. In conclusion, you get 1 additional turn
and 1 copy of that turn (for the most sense). Pretty boring. But
this is what happens according to the card.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Joseph Nickoloff Geek Code 2.1: GE/d H- s++:+ !g po+ au+ a-- w+ v c++
nick...@scf.usc.edu E---- N++ K- W++ M-- !V p0+ Y+ t+ 5- j++ R+ G++ tv+
Computer Engineering: Freshman at USC b++ D++ B--- e v+ h+ f+ r n- y
Beta Tester for Sparcom Software Magic: The Gathering, Jyhad, C programming, AD&D,
Secretary and Webmaster for USC deckmasters Doom II, Final Fantasy III. Fight on Trojans!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Nickoloff
in the dictionary. A forked time walk does give you 2 turns. Sorry.
Mark Lang
On Tue, 4 Apr 1995 08:01:06 GMT Mark Rosewater (wo...@netcom.com) wrote:
:But to drop the mood of above, the crux of the argument is this. Extra
:Also, the spells resolve right away and thus, there is no problem of a
:spell remembering to resolve next turn. I can understand you not liking
:Forked Time Walks working, but as my argument shows (and where the
:official decision comes from in the first place) it works just fine.
There is a precedent for this, too. (Probably a "cocedent," actually, but
that's not a real word as far as I know.) Consider the Howling Mine.
"Each player must draw one extra card during the draw phase of each of his
or her turns." If two of them are in play, players draw three crads, not
just two. Each Howling Mine acts independantly of the other - the Mines
never know or care if there is another Mine in play. A Timewalk doesn't
care if another Timewalk has already been cast. Each one gives an
additional turn, just as each Howling Mine gives an additional card.
--------------------------------------------
<*> Mark Lang | eli...@metronet.com <*>
--------------------------------------------
tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
>tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu wrote:
>: Let us end this thread once and for all!
>It should be over. There have never been any rule reversals or
>anything else regarding this card _ever_. Since the game has been
>sold, this has been legal.
Um...exactly. This doesn't mean it can't happen! It has in the past. Maybe not
with this card or combo, but that is not what we are arguing. We are simply
asking that if our arguement proves to be the more valid one, that this ruling
is changed.
>: Now, let us also say that rulings have been revoked, and cards have
>: been corrected in the past.
>But never about this combo. Never.
Again, exactly. Please see above.
>: Now many have argued that the effects stack. Well we ask you this,
>: HOW?!?! How is it possible for the effects of a spell cast during
>: the current turn to carry over to the next one and then resolve,
>: when the card does not state this anywhere in the text!? (e.g.
>: Mana Drain, which DOES state this.) This is a perfectly valid
>: arguement.
>It isn't valid since one of your premises is false. The card does
>say when the effect happens and says so in a way that every rule
>of English indicates it can stack. Tell me, do you know what the
>word _after_ means, as in "Take an extra turn _after_ this one."?
>After: Later in time than. Extra: Additional. If you are drinking
>a soda and someone gives you two extra sodas to drink after that one,
>unless you're odd, you're probably not going to drink them both at
>the same time, but you will consume both _after_ your current one.
>: If this combination were possible, it would have to
>: state this somewhere on Time Walk. Becuase it doesn't, both
>: spells resolve during the same turn and would take effect on the
>: turn "after this one"!!! This is all due to the literal reading
>: of Time Walk!
>No that's due to lack of English. Read what you wrote above. You
>added text that isn't on the card. It doesn't take effect "on the
>turn after this one". It just takes place after this one.
>: Some people have even gone as far to argue with us that you
>: can't read the cards literally.
>We are reading the card literally. Luckily we know how to read
>without adding in text that doesn't exist. TW doesn't take effect
>"on the turn" after this one or "immediately" after this one, just
>_after_ this one.
Um...what text did we add? I believe we quoted the cards and didn't add
anything!? (I wrote the quote with the card in my hand) Now, having said that,
I will point out an intrinsic flaw in YOUR arguement. You quoted, "After:
Later in time than. Extra: Additional." Now, due to this loose definition, if
I cast a Time Walk, (even without Forking it), I could choose, at any time
after the current turn, when it would take effect. Thus, say ten turns further
into the game, I could say, "O.K...I am going to use the Time Walk's extra turn
now, even though I cast it ten turns ago." Now, please accept that we
understand your explaination very well, but, you have now only confused the
issue even more. Now we have only two very different outcomes for this
arguement. Either Time Walk takes effect on the turn immediately following this
one, (in which case our arguement is the correct one), OR, it takes effect at
any time after the current turn when the player chooses, (in which case your
arguement is correct, but completely alters how Time Walk is to be played!) To
use your example about the soda...you said, "...unless you are odd...you will
consume both _after_ your current one." WHEN is just a matter of
interpretation.
>: We are inviting you all to please EXPLAIN how this works. We do NOT
>: want quotes of past rulings! We would just like a cognitive explanation
>: as to how it does. Please do not just say, "It works because the effects
>: stack." Tell me WHY and/or HOW the effects stack. We have given you a
>: very detailed explaination as to why we believe they do NOT.
>: Prove us wrong through detailed and well thought out debates.
>So tell me, are you going to _read_ the explanations this time?
Um...we have been reading all of the explanations over the past few weeks.
What encouraged us to write this post was the fact that we hadn't seen an
explaination which, for us, proved without a reasonable doubt that this combo
is possible. (Maybe we are just stupid, eh? ^_^)
>I didn't quote a single rules summary or timing rule above. I
>explained basics of vocabulary available to anyone with a dictionary.
And we appreciate this, thank you.
>If this article sounds a bit pissed, it is. I get tired of seeing
>lengthy explanations of basic English comprehension and Rule
>detailings just to have them ignored for posts like this.
Well, as we stated, we weren't trying to piss anyone off, or "disrespect" any-
one. We just wanted an explaination. We appologize if you missed the rather
light-hearted nature in which we meant our above statements to read. But as you
have stated, (in so many words), English is an imperfect language and things
are lost in the interpretation. ^_^ Please accept that there is really no
reason to get all worked up over a _game_.
Thanks for the response,
Gooseman Allison
> Actually, this make perfect sense. However, you do get two turns. Just
> read the card, You cast time walk and then fork it. The fork resolves,
> and says, "take an extra turn after the current one.". The time walk
> resolves, and the same thing occurs. Now, you do get 2 turns. HOWEVER,
> they both come after the current turn. So, the second turn DOES NOT come
> after the 1st time walk turn.
> Forked turn
> /
> C. turn
> \
> Time walk
>
> So, you take you forked turn, and then what you get is an additional turn
> right after the end of the c. turn. So, you draw the same card, and you
> could play different things, and you would get to choose which path to
> follow for the rest of the game. In conclusion, you get 1 additional turn
> and 1 copy of that turn (for the most sense). Pretty boring. But
> this is what happens according to the card.
>
Wrong, nowhere does it say on a Time Walk that the turn you take must be
IMMEDIATELY after the current turn. It just says that you get another
turn after this one. So if you fork it, you have TWO turns after this
one, but not DIRECTLY after. You take one, then the other.
Honk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gooseman Allison
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"My power is as vast as the plains,
my stregnth is that of the mountains.
Each wave that crashes upon the shore
thunders like blood in my veins."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
>>I will point out an intrinsic flaw in YOUR arguement. You quoted, "After:
>>Later in time than. Extra: Additional." Now, due to this loose definition, if
>>I cast a Time Walk, (even without Forking it), I could choose, at any time
>>after the current turn, when it would take effect.
And what are the arguements proving this point wrong? You can not have it both
ways. Either the extra turn(s) follows immediately after the current turn, in
which case we are correct in our logic, or, the extra turn can be taken at any
time after casting Time Walk. In either case the current ruling is, to some
extent, incorrect.
>Any "extra turn" one gets is inserted immediately after the current turn. (Yes,
>this may cause other "extra turns" to be "pushed further down the stack".)
If this is true, and the extra turn is inserted immediately after the current
one, then our arguement can only be true.
>>Well, as we stated, we weren't trying to piss anyone off, or "disrespect" any-
>>one. We just wanted an explaination.
>I hope we have provided one, collectively, which answers all your questions
>and/or objections.
Frankly, you haven't. The best debate we have seen yet has been from Chris at
C...@wintermute.ucr.edu. He provided a well thought out, detailed riposte to our
original posting, yet still left some major questions unanswered. (He also
prompted some new ones in our minds! See article 14744 and our reply to it.)
>> Trace Geller Tra...@ufcc.ufl.edu
>> Jason Steel Wra...@ufcc.ufl.edu
>
>Oh. Okay. (Perhaps you could change your name-ID to read "Trace and Jason"
>when both of you are posting as one? It might lessen future confusion amongst
>your readers - if you're on a Unix system, check out the "chfn" command...)
Well, we would but we are on an ancient VAX/VMS system that doesn't even let us
post responses to some of your posts. So please do not think that we have not
been reading all the relative postings in this thread and simply ingorning
them. We have tried to respond to some of them, but to no avail.
Thanks for the response,
Trace and Jason
TraceG or Wraith @ufcc.ufl.edu
^_^ :) ^_- :P
tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
>
>On Tue, 4 Apr 1995 08:01:06 GMT Mark Rosewater (wo...@netcom.com) wrote:
>:Also, the spells resolve right away and thus, there is no problem of a
>:spell remembering to resolve next turn. I can understand you not liking
>:Forked Time Walks working, but as my argument shows (and where the
>:official decision comes from in the first place) it works just fine.
>
>that's not a real word as far as I know.) Consider the Howling Mine.
>"Each player must draw one extra card during the draw phase of each of his
>or her turns." If two of them are in play, players draw three crads, not
>just two. Each Howling Mine acts independantly of the other - the Mines
>never know or care if there is another Mine in play. A Timewalk doesn't
>care if another Timewalk has already been cast. Each one gives an
>additional turn, just as each Howling Mine gives an additional card.
>
during the same phase, the draw phase...so that arguement isn't all that
relevant in this particular case. The biggest point in our discussion is that
the Time Walks resolve in the same phase, and due to the WORDING on the TW,
you can only gain 1 extra turn, (i.e. they both accomplish the same thing),
after the current turn. (Or, as stated in the current thread, maybe whenever
you want to after casting!? ^_^ [See latest rebuttal]). Becuase of the wording
of the Howling Mine, being "Each player must draw one extra card during the
draw phase of each of his or her turns.", are the effect cumulative. The only
way this would be relative would be to replace the word "during" with "after",
making the Howling Mine state, "Each player must draw one extra card _after_
the draw phase of each of his or her turns." The biggest question in this
discussion right now is WHEN exactly do you take the extra turn from TW!? If it
is immediately following the current turn, our arguement is the valid one. If
everyone else's theory is correct, then you could take the extra turn at any
time after casting the TW! (Once again...see latest rebuttal. ^_^)
Thanks for responding,
David DeLaney
[snip]
>So, you take you forked turn, and then what you get is an additional turn
>right after the end of the c. turn. So, you draw the same card, and you
>could play different things, and you would get to choose which path to
>follow for the rest of the game.
Er, no. Nowhere on Time Walk, or in the rules, does it say "if you have already
had at least one extra turn, getting another extra turn makes you retroactively
undo the first and re-do it again". You're mistaking "makes an exact copy
of the *spell*" with "makes an exact copy of the spell's *effect on player*";
taking one extra turn, then another extra turn, does *not* mean the
second extra turn starts off in the exact same state of being as the first
extra turn.
Dave "You get points for creative misinterpretation though" DeLaney
--
\/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. Disclaimer: IMHO; VRbeableURLAP
http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>c...@wintermute.ucr.edu (Christopher Cates) writes:
>>tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu wrote:
>>: Let us end this thread once and for all!
>>It should be over. There have never been any rule reversals or
>>anything else regarding this card _ever_. Since the game has been
>>sold, this has been legal.
>
>Um...exactly. This doesn't mean it can't happen! It has in the past.
True. But for it to happen, *someone* has to a) come up with a valid
reason for it and b) defend it against those who ask "Why should this
change", instead of just saying "Well, I think it should be this way"
and ignoring people who say "Hey, look, the words mean *this* - you're
misinterpreting them".
Maybe not
>with this card or combo, but that is not what we are arguing. We are simply
>asking that if our arguement proves to be the more valid one, that this ruling
>is changed.
"We"? Who is/are/be "we"? Are you an autonomous collective, perchance?
>Now, having said that,
>I will point out an intrinsic flaw in YOUR arguement. You quoted, "After:
>Later in time than. Extra: Additional." Now, due to this loose definition, if
>I cast a Time Walk, (even without Forking it), I could choose, at any time
>after the current turn, when it would take effect.
Other people than you have tried this interpretation on for size before. Any
"extra turn" one gets is inserted immediately after the current turn. (Yes,
this may cause other "extra turns" to be "pushed further down the stack".)
>Well, as we stated, we weren't trying to piss anyone off, or "disrespect" any-
>one. We just wanted an explaination.
I hope we have provided one, collectively, which answers all your questions
and/or objections.
> Trace Geller Tra...@ufcc.ufl.edu
> Jason Steel Wra...@ufcc.ufl.edu
Oh. Okay. (Perhaps you could change your name-ID to read "Trace and Jason"
when both of you are posting as one? It might lessen future confusion amongst
your readers - if you're on a Unix system, check out the "chfn" command...)
Dave
Jeff Mullins
I cast timewalk. I cast fork. Timewalk reads "Take another turn after this one." Fork copies the spell (except it's red).
Interpretation 1 ) Both spells go off on that turn. By the wording on the card, you take another turn after the current one. Twice. Timewalk does not say "directly after", just "after." By the Timewalk and fork being cast this turn, it allows you to take another turn twice (one for each spell) after the current one.
Interpretation 2 is what interpretation 1 will be twisted into by those who steadfastly disagree with me:
Expanding on the point in interpretation 1 regarding 'after,' one could argue that you can cast it, and 3 turns later, decide to take your extra turn, as it IS after the turn you cast the spell in. I don't know what the official ruling is on this, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if WotC ruled that legal, as it does coincide with the wording on the card. However, I don't think you can actually legally do that (I could be mistaken).
These are my opinions, and I hope that I have worded them in such a way that the argument is understandable, but not offensive.
Thanx-
Jeff Mullins
jkmu...@comp.uark.edu
tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
>In article <3lqimm$p...@cutter.clas.ufl.edu>,
> <tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
Well, that is one of our points. We don't want official rulings quoted because
that is what we are disputing. Basically, when everyone says, "It works because
that is the official ruling", it doesn't change anything for us. What we are
requesting is a closer examination of this combination and the CURRENT rulings.
It is rather frustrating to keep requesting a comprehensive explaination as to
why it has been ruled that you can gain two extra turns in this manner, only to
have everyone circumvent the issue by nit-picking at us for our non-conformist
views. Once again, let us state the fact that card rulings HAVE been changed in
the past. Therefore, we are not requesting an explaination as to the current
rulings, we in fact DO KNOW the current rulings. So PLEASE don't touch on this
part of our original posting, it is irrelevant at this point in the discussion!
>>So here is our
>>arguement:
>>
>> It does not state anywhere on either card that these effects
>> are cumulative!
>Nor does it state anywhere on either card that these effects are not
>cumulative.
So basically it is a matter of interpretation, AND, if you had read our current
thread, you would see that we have conceded that your current ruling is correct
IF, AND ONLY IF, you could take the extra turn(s) from the Time Walk at any
time after casting it, during the current game. However, IF you rule that the
extra turn must be taken immediately following the current one, then our
original arguement has to be correct! Thus, what it boils down to now is
deciding which of the two options is correct. BUT, once again, this is all only
a matter of interpretation. (If you think about it carefully, under either
circumstance, an opponent Forking a Time Walk would still counter it. If you
would like a detailed explaination as to why, please EMAIL one of us.)
>> In the past few weeks, we have given this matter alot of thought, and
>>we have been unable to find a reasonable explanation as to why this
>>"officially" works!
>
>Tom Wylie, the official net spokesperson for WotC has said that the card has
>been ruled to work this way. A reasonable explanation has been posted
>several times and apparently ignored. I'm not sure what more you want.
Well, as a matter of fact, I have been emailing Tom about this and he has yet
to respond to the detailed explaination, or one of the postings in this current
thread, with a full explaination as to why it _does_ work. The only response I
have received from him, (and I have emailed him 3 times now), has just been
quotes of past rulings, yet again! (No offense Tom. Please understand that we
know your job isn't easy and that you are a busy person.)
I think one of the main problems here is the fact that most of you do not
understand our arguement still! Granted, this thread has deviated from the
original arguement to some extent, but, the facts still remain the same. From
all the current arguements in this thread, we can find only two possible
outcomes to Forking a Time Walk. Regardless, the current ruling is incorrect to
some extent!
Thanks for the response ^_^,
David Mishael Green
<tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu> wrote:
>>Any "extra turn" one gets is inserted immediately after the current turn. (Yes,
>>this may cause other "extra turns" to be "pushed further down the stack".)
>
>one, then our arguement can only be true.
No, that's not what it proves at all. Did you read the whole sequence you
quoted? It says, quite explicitly, "This may cause other 'extra turns' to be
'pushed further down the stack." That is the way that extra turns have been
ruled to work. The rule book doesn't *deal* with them any other way. It
doesn't address them at all, in fact, so other rulings had to be made to
clarify how they work. If you're going to ask why those rulings exist, you
may as well ask why you can only cast Enchantments during the main phase of
your turn. It's because that was the way the game was designed. At some
point, there is no objective reason for the rules other than "this is the
way we, as the creators of the game, think it should work."
Christopher Cates
: In article <3lqvcb$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, c...@wintermute.ucr.edu (Christopher Cates) writes:
: >tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu wrote:
: >: state this somewhere on Time Walk. Becuase it doesn't, both
: >: spells resolve during the same turn and would take effect on the
: >: turn "after this one"!!! This is all due to the literal reading
: >: of Time Walk!
: >: can't read the cards literally.
: >We are reading the card literally. Luckily we know how to read
: >without adding in text that doesn't exist. TW doesn't take effect
: >"on the turn" after this one or "immediately" after this one, just
: >_after_ this one.
: Um...what text did we add? I believe we quoted the cards and didn't add
: anything!? (I wrote the quote with the card in my hand) Now, having said that,
You added text before your quoted text you said:
would take effect on the turn "after this one"
^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, "after this one" is from the card, but it doesn't say on the turn
after this one or even mean that. Due to the effect of a Time Walk
it really can't take effect _on_ a turn. So no, the added text wasn't
what you quoted as being on the card, but you did say it in your
explanation, leaving two possabilities: 1) you were trying to snowball
us into thinking that's what it meant (I find that unlikely), or 2)
that was how you were mentally interpeting the card. I find the second
likely, but it's a false premise to use for any argument.
: I will point out an intrinsic flaw in YOUR arguement. You quoted, "After:
: Later in time than. Extra: Additional." Now, due to this loose definition, if
: I cast a Time Walk, (even without Forking it), I could choose, at any time
: after the current turn, when it would take effect. Thus, say ten turns further
: into the game, I could say, "O.K...I am going to use the Time Walk's extra turn
: now, even though I cast it ten turns ago." Now, please accept that we
: understand your explaination very well, but, you have now only confused the
: issue even more. Now we have only two very different outcomes for this
: arguement. Either Time Walk takes effect on the turn immediately following this
: one, (in which case our arguement is the correct one), OR, it takes effect at
: any time after the current turn when the player chooses, (in which case your
: arguement is correct, but completely alters how Time Walk is to be played!) To
: use your example about the soda...you said, "...unless you are odd...you will
: consume both _after_ your current one." WHEN is just a matter of
: interpretation.
That is correct, but you were referring to literal interpetation of
the card text as written, and I'm pretty sure what I stated is closest
to the wording without adding any text. Right now, everyone plays
those turns right away, and I'm willing to bet that if it went to
the rules team, they would probably rule that they must be taken
before your opponent's turn, but you're right, _to my knowledge_,
nothing says the turn must be taken right away. But like I said,
if it was put to issue, I imagine a ruling would come down pretty
fast. Might be fun to abuse in the meantime though. :) But even
with that added ambiguity, it's still a much more literal
interpetaion of the card, and still much closer to how the card
is currently played.
Cheers,
Chris.
c...@wintermute.ucr.edu
David DeLaney
>>>I will point out an intrinsic flaw in YOUR arguement. You quoted, "After:
>>>Later in time than. Extra: Additional." Now, due to this loose definition, if
>>>I cast a Time Walk, (even without Forking it), I could choose, at any time
>>>after the current turn, when it would take effect.
>
They are long since beaten to death, that is what they are. The ruling
which came out of *that* particular fray, many months ago, is that they
truly do intend the card to add in an extra turn immediately after the
current one, possibly displacing other extra turns already waiting to
"next-to-immediately-after" or "scond-next-to-etc." or whatever.
You can not have it both
>ways. Either the extra turn(s) follows immediately after the current turn, in
>which case we are correct in our logic, or, the extra turn can be taken at any
>time after casting Time Walk. In either case the current ruling is, to some
>extent, incorrect.
The extra turn is *inserted* into the turn order immediately after the current
one. Inserting this extra turn "moves back" the normal turns there, which
even you cannot deny, and also "moves back" any other extra turns which
happen to already be waiting to happen there, much like "pushing" another
pointer onto a stack in a computer program. The extra turns "pop" off the
stack one by one when the current turn ends, then you go back to the "natural"
turns forming and being taken.
It's not a matter of "placing this extra turn *here* means no other turns
can ever be placed at exactly this spot"; if this were how it worked, Time
Walk and Time Vault _could not work at all_, because there is *already* a
turn scheduled for the spot the extra turn is being inserted at.
>If this is true, and the extra turn is inserted immediately after the current
>one, then our arguement can only be true.
Each inserted extra turn "pushes back" any turns which are waiting there
already. Time Walk does *not* say "Take an extra turn after this one; this
turn must come immediately after the current turn or else it cannot happen
at all", now does it?
tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
>>And what are the arguements proving this point wrong?
>They are long since beaten to death, that is what they are. The ruling
>which came out of *that* particular fray, many months ago, is that they
>truly do intend the card to add in an extra turn immediately after the
>current one, possibly displacing other extra turns already waiting to
>"next-to-immediately-after" or "scond-next-to-etc." or whatever.
First, as we have stated over and over, we are not trying to make anyone upset.
We, obivously, now know that this is happening. (Several people have sent us
email which I wouldn't even repost to this group.) But we refuse to, and I
quote, "Roll over and die" about this subject. We are sorry if there are those
of you who find it difficult to deal with people who might challenge the
accepted norms. (Please note that this is in no way directed towards Dave! I
just happened to have received an email when I checked my mail today and felt I
had to address this!)
>>Either the extra turn(s) follows immediately after the current turn, in
>>which case we are correct in our logic, or, the extra turn can be taken at any
>>time after casting Time Walk. In either case the current ruling is, to some
>>extent, incorrect.
>The extra turn is *inserted* into the turn order immediately after the current
>one. Inserting this extra turn "moves back" the normal turns there, which
>even you cannot deny, and also "moves back" any other extra turns which
>happen to already be waiting to happen there, much like "pushing" another
>pointer onto a stack in a computer program. The extra turns "pop" off the
>stack one by one when the current turn ends, then you go back to the "natural"
>turns forming and being taken.
Alright, perhaps making an anology will help everyone to see our
viewpoint, no? This is the way in which we perceive the example of Time Walk,
as opposed to other spells. Suppose you are on a track team, and the head
coach tells the whole team to sprint a lap. Now, before you do your lap, an
assistant coach comes up to you, and says, "Look, you are one of our best
sprinters. I want you to run an extra lap after this one." He then goes off
to give another athlete a pep talk, and you are approached by another assistant
coach. He too says, "Being one of our best sprinters, I want you to run an
extra lap after this one." Now, both these coaches are independant sources,
and both wish you to run an extra lap. They don't want you to run 2 extra
laps, they are merely giving you the same instructions at seperate times. So,
of course, you go and run one extra lap. This anaolgy ONLY works for Time Walk
in the game, because of the fact that the results of the spell are taken into
consideration after the current turn is finished. Any other spell would use an
anology of: You are approached by a gunman, and he shoots you. Then, another
gunman after the first is gone, who shoots you as well. You now have two
bullets in you. Thus does the the Fireball/Fork, etc combos work. Now, we
sincerely hope this anology helps to clear up any misunderstandings about our
quite valid, and well thought out argument (trust us, we took a great deal of
time with EACH OTHER arguing and forming our opinion).
Thanks for the response ^_^,
Christopher Cates
: They are long since beaten to death, that is what they are. The ruling
: which came out of *that* particular fray, many months ago, is that they
: truly do intend the card to add in an extra turn immediately after the
: current one, possibly displacing other extra turns already waiting to
: "next-to-immediately-after" or "scond-next-to-etc." or whatever.
: The extra turn is *inserted* into the turn order immediately after the current
: one. Inserting this extra turn "moves back" the normal turns there, which
: even you cannot deny, and also "moves back" any other extra turns which
: happen to already be waiting to happen there, much like "pushing" another
: pointer onto a stack in a computer program. The extra turns "pop" off the
: stack one by one when the current turn ends, then you go back to the "natural"
: turns forming and being taken.
Wow, somehow I missed that when it happened. That should be added to
the rulings summary. It would take away even the amiguity of when
after could be. I like that. It makes a lot of sense.
Cheers,
Chris.
c...@wintermute.ucr.edu
Christopher Cates
: Alright, perhaps making an anology will help everyone to see our
: as opposed to other spells. Suppose you are on a track team, and the head
: coach tells the whole team to sprint a lap. Now, before you do your lap, an
: assistant coach comes up to you, and says, "Look, you are one of our best
: extra lap after this one." Now, both these coaches are independant sources,
: and both wish you to run an extra lap. They don't want you to run 2 extra
: laps, they are merely giving you the same instructions at seperate times. So,
: of course, you go and run one extra lap. This anaolgy ONLY works for Time Walk
: in the game, because of the fact that the results of the spell are taken into
: consideration after the current turn is finished. Any other spell would use an
Your example here is really flawed since it falls prey to one of the
classic errors of Magic thinking. You used intuition, and made a
decision based on the theme of a card rather than the literal instructions.
Unholy and Holy Strength stack just fine, and your argument doesn't work.
Why? Translate your analagy to cards. Both assisstant coaches tell
you to run an extra lap after this one. Now this is _magic_ and not
real life, so you have to use the rules and not real life intuition.
Both cards are basically telling you to do the same thing after the
current thing. Magic already has a provision for stacking in it's
rules, so they can stack up. (This is out of the base rules, and so is
rock solid.) In the revised rules _nothing_ can happen simultaneusly.
Before revised there was a lot of confusion, so WotC added that rule.
These are both actual rules of the game and if you want to argue them,
your moving beyond the card to debate how the game itself works.
Given that, how _could_ the two Time Walks or Assitant Coach cards
resolve at the same time?
Yes, flavor wise, you know the two coaches wouldn't normally want
you to run two extra laps, but ignore that. There's no rule in
the book for intuition based on game setting. All the game is
concerned with is what the effect of the card is. The fact
that something is a Hurloon Minotaur doesn't matter to the game.
All that matters to the game is that it's a 2/3 red creature.
To us, it's a cool looking minotaur with facial tatoos, but the
game doesn't recognize any of that.
Cheers,
Chris.
c...@wintermute.ucr.edu
mtindall
>post responses to some of your posts. So please do not think that we have not
>Thanks for the response,Ok, here's a simple visual aid for t&j.
Visualize game flow as a series of turns alternating between players A & B
A -> B -> A -> B .....
(Each turn is comprised of several subphases).
Now, say player A casts a Time Walk on turn i. This may be viewd as
"creating" an extra turn object and inserting it into the series of turns
following the current turn. Thus:
Ai -> Bi -> A(i+1) -> B(i+1) ...
becomes
Ai -> A(tw) -> Bi -> A(i+1) ...
where A(tw) is the extra turn from the Time Walk.
Now, Player A casts a fork (or a second Time Walk). This creates another
extra turn object and inserts it into the series of turns following the
current turn. Thus:
Ai -> A(tw) -> Bi -> A(i+1) ...
becomes
Ai -> A(tw2) -> A(tw) -> Bi -> A(i+1) ...
Where A(tw2) is the extra turn from the second Time Walk.
Note that the ordering of A(tw2) and A(tw) may actually be reversed
eg. A(tw) -> A(tw2) depending on the resolution order of the Time Walk &
the Fork (sorry, remember the proper order right now.)
Now, Player A finishes turn Ai, then takes turn A(tw2), then takes turn
A(tw), then player B takes turn Bi.
Clear enough for you two?
Latter,
mike
Thomas R Wylie
Multiple extra turns do not overwrite each other, but are additive.
If you Fork your own Time Walk, you get two extra turns. If you Fork
your opponent's Time Walk, the extra turns effectively cancel out.
These rulings are final and show no signs of being reversed.
That is all.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
David DeLaney
>David DeLaney (d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu) wrote:
>:The extra turn is *inserted* into the turn order immediately after the current
>:one. Inserting this extra turn "moves back" the normal turns there, which
>:even you cannot deny, and also "moves back" any other extra turns which
>:happen to already be waiting to happen there, much like "pushing" another
>:pointer onto a stack in a computer program. The extra turns "pop" off the
>:stack one by one when the current turn ends, then you go back to the "natural"
>:turns forming and being taken.
>
>Wow, somehow I missed that when it happened. That should be added to
>the rulings summary. It would take away even the amiguity of when
>after could be. I like that. It makes a lot of sense.
Erg. Unfortunately I said it exactly backwards. The "extra turns are taken
in the order they resolve in" rule means that I should have said "is
*inserted* into the turn order immediately before the next 'natural' turn,
after any already-resolved 'extra turns' already inserted". It's not
"inserted" directly after the current turn *unless* no-one else has already
inserted an extra turn after the current one.
Example, for clarity:
1) B casts Time Walk.
2) A Forks Time Walk.
NMFE.
3) A gets an extra turn.
4) B gets an extra turn.
5) C decides to use his Time Vault.
NMFE.
6) C gets an extra turn.
The turns after this one go "A, B, C", then whoever normally goes after B (Time
Walk is a Sorcery). To do this, A's has to be inserted, then B's has to
be inserted after A's, then C's has to be inserted after B's.
Christopher Cates
: Erg. Unfortunately I said it exactly backwards. The "extra turns are taken
: in the order they resolve in" rule means that I should have said "is
: *inserted* into the turn order immediately before the next 'natural' turn,
: after any already-resolved 'extra turns' already inserted". It's not
: "inserted" directly after the current turn *unless* no-one else has already
: inserted an extra turn after the current one.
Ok, that's why I don't remember that ruling, and that's why I shouldn't
post on my way to classes. If I had thought about it, I would have
realized what you said the first time was incorrect anyway. ;) Oh well,
I think I'll start reading news after class anyway, since my math prof
is getting annoyed with me walking in late.
I notice I still don't have a response after two days from trace
and co about my last rebuttal of their argument. Are you two
still out there?
Cheers,
Chris.
c...@wintermute.ucr.edu
tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
O.K....It is more than obvious that noone is going to see our side of this with
an open mind and not just look at the current rules. Many who have responded
have only re-stated the current ruling over and over again with little or no
information explaining why this ruling is as it is! (Some have given reasons,
yet we have been able to find faults in their arguements as easily as they find
faults in ours.) Therefore, we are sure that everyone is going to be elated to
hear that we are going to concede this arguement, even though we still do NOT
feel this ruling is correct! However, Tom...due to your extremely ambigous
statement, we would like a formal ruling as to when you can take your extra
turn(s)! If you read every arguement that people feel justify this ruling, then
the extra turn(s) can be taken at any time! (This is because of the
"Dictionary's definition of the words 'extra' and 'after'"....extra= additional
and after= later than.) Thus, NOONE, by the current ruling can refute this
fact!
Thanks for the response (Even if it is not entirely adequate ^_^),
Trace Geller and Jason Steel
Tra...@ufcc.ufl.edu Wra...@ufcc.ufl.edu
Paul Mcnaughton
unless the card SPECIFICALLY says so, resolves as soon as possible.
We have already established over and over that EXTRA means more than, so
if you have an extra turn then get another you in fact get TWO more turns.
Now, the soonest it's possible to take one, is right after your
current turn ends. The soonest it's possible to take the other, is after
the first extra turn ends. So the offical ruling is perfectly consistent,
please shut the hell up now.
tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu wrote:
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
>In article <3lv9mp$q...@cutter.clas.ufl.edu>,
> <tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu> wrote:
>>>Any "extra turn" one gets is inserted immediately after the current turn. (Yes,
>>>this may cause other "extra turns" to be "pushed further down the stack".)
>>
>>If this is true, and the extra turn is inserted immediately after the current
>>one, then our arguement can only be true.
>No, that's not what it proves at all. Did you read the whole sequence you
>quoted? It says, quite explicitly, "This may cause other 'extra turns' to be
>'pushed further down the stack." That is the way that extra turns have been
>ruled to work. The rule book doesn't *deal* with them any other way. It
>doesn't address them at all, in fact, so other rulings had to be made to
>clarify how they work. If you're going to ask why those rulings exist, you
>may as well ask why you can only cast Enchantments during the main phase of
>your turn. It's because that was the way the game was designed. At some
>point, there is no objective reason for the rules other than "this is the
>way we, as the creators of the game, think it should work."
The problem is that they don't 'push' other extra turns before them the way it
is currently ruled. If they did, the last 'extra turn' effect to resolve would
get it's extra turn first. As it is now, it comes last ('in the order they
resolved'). I believe (and has said so before) that the rules-persons decided
consciously to reverse the order to make a Fork of a Time Walk 'counter' it.
It's all a matter of interpretation, but no interpretation (I've seen 3 now)
matches the rulings.
Spot
--
Spot / l...@daimi.aau.dk
Triangle 3532 - The solution to your confuzion
'Faith without Judgment merely degrades the Spirit Divine..'
tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
>unless the card SPECIFICALLY says so, resolves as soon as possible.
Ummm...where exactly did you get this from? If this were true, then you could
never cast instants and interrupts to empty your hand and take less damage from
a Black Vise. The Vise doesn't state that damage must be taken at the end of
your upkeep, therefore, if what you have said is true, you would have to
immediately resolve the damage for the Vise the moment your upkeep began!
The entire Upkeep phase alone is enough to refute this statement!
>We have already established over and over that EXTRA means more than, so
>if you have an extra turn then get another you in fact get TWO more turns.
And we have established that "after" just means some time later than now!
Nowhere on the Time Walk does it say that the turn must be taken as soon as
possible! What we are now asking is whether-or-not you can take the extra turn
whenever you would like to "after" Time Walk is cast.
>Now, the soonest it's possible to take one, is right after your
>current turn ends. The soonest it's possible to take the other, is after
>the first extra turn ends. So the offical ruling is perfectly consistent,
>please shut the hell up now.
Why don't you read all the articles in a thread before you reply! Look, SEVERAL
days ago we conceded this arguement due to the fact that noone has looked at
this with an open mind! It is really pretty pathetic that some people like
yourself feel this upset over a challenge to an accepted ruling! This kind of
crap is unneccessary and should stay off the newsgroup! If you feel that you
must flame us for some reason or other, I think you will find that we posted
our email addresses after EVERY reply to EVERY post! If, for some reason you
feel that you must do this over the newsgroup to feel "cool" or as a way of
handling some kind of insecurity or something, then understand that you are the
one that needs to "Shut the hell up now"! We have been very patient with all
the flames and email responses that have been less than kind, but this is
getting ridiculous! If any of you have any further comments for us personally,
then email us! Otherwise, keep your "witty" comments to yourselves and only
post information relative to this thread!
>: O.K....It is more than obvious that noone is going to see our side of this with
>: an open mind and not just look at the current rules. Many who have responded
>: have only re-stated the current ruling over and over again with little or no
>: information explaining why this ruling is as it is! (Some have given reasons,
>: yet we have been able to find faults in their arguements as easily as they find
>: faults in ours.) Therefore, we are sure that everyone is going to be elated to
>: hear that we are going to concede this arguement, even though we still do NOT
>: feel this ruling is correct! However, Tom...due to your extremely ambigous
>: statements, we would like a formal ruling as to when you can take your extra
>: turn(s)! If you read every arguement that people feel justify this ruling, then
>: the extra turn(s) can be taken at any time! (This is because of the
>: "Dictionary's definition of the words 'extra' and 'after'"....extra= additional
>: and after= later than.) Thus, NOONE, by the current ruling can refute this
>: fact!
>
>: Thanks for the response (Even if it is not entirely adequate ^_^),
>: Trace Geller and Jason Steel
>: Tra...@ufcc.ufl.edu Wra...@ufcc.ufl.edu
I can't believe this was posted with this part of the thread attached!? When I
was writing the above, I hadn't read all the way through the article yet. I
was just kind of upset with the constant crap we have had to deal with since we
started this post! Is it just me, or did we state rather clearly that we had
conceded this arguement!?!?!? I believe that it is quite clear that we are no
longer contesting the fact that you can get two extra turns by Forking a Time
Walk. The attached part of this thread more than states this! All we are asking
for now is an official ruling as to when you can take your extra turn, period!
(And as of yet, we had heard nothing futher on this from anyone!?)
Thanks for the response,
Paul Mcnaughton
The reason vice damage doesn't resolve immediately is that there is a RULE
that says on your own turn you are allowed to set
the order of upkeep effects.... so to put my first statement more
accurately, everything in magic resolves as soon as possible unless
the card OR the rules specifically say otherwise. You can not cast
a balance but say 'I want this to resolve after I cast 3 more sorceries.'
you can not fork a timewalk and say 'i want this to resolve 3 turns from
now.' There are NO rules that allow you to put off resolving a sorceries
effect once it's time to resolve it, unlike upkeep where there ARE
rules... if you stopped comparing apples and oranges you might
get somewhere... the rules for upkeep and the rules for spell
resoltuion are completely different.
The reason people are being a tad hostile toward you is because they
have explained, at the reading level of a 5 year old, why you are wrong
a dozen times, and you still try and argue the point.
But, let's review... spells take effect as soon as possible unless
there are specific rules otherwise... no such rules exist in relation
to timewalk....the soonest an extra turn can resolve it right after
your current turn, the soonest a second extra turn can resolve is
right after your first extra turn. Your arguement fails, it is wrong,
end of story.
tra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu wrote:
: >Want to know WHY you're wrong? fine.... Everything in magic,