Multiple Forks on the stack

[Kerz]

This was mentioned as one of the reasons Fork didn't get unrestricted.

How could this pose a rules problem? Does fork copy the target on resolution, or upon casting? Judges, can you anticipate what people would have problems with?

[Tristal]

Text (RV+errata): Put a copy of target instant or sorcery spell onto the stack, except that it copies Fork's color and you may choose new targets for the copy. [Oracle 2001/08/24]

Resolution.

There's nothing terribly complicated about two Forks on the stack, other than if the second Fork targets the first (which can create an arbitrary loop).

Here's how it works:
I cast Lightning Bolt at you.
You Fork (targetting it).  You respond with Fork, targetting the first Fork.
You respond with Counterspell, targetting Lightning Bolt.
Counterspell resolves, removing Lightning Bolt from the stack.
Fork #2 resolves, copying Fork.  You choose the only legal target (Fork #1)
Forkcopy resolves, copying Fork.  You choose the only legal target (Fork #1)
etc.

Besides this weird interaction, there's nothing complex about two Forks.  Nothing more than one Fork, anyway, which I ALWAYS see people playing poorly against.  If someone Fireblasts you and Forks it, counter the Fireblast before Fork resolves!  Fork will be CoR and you won't take anything.

/Judges aren't allowed to coach during matches, but outside of them, I hate mono-red! :)

[Jebus]

Well, actually...

Since Fork 2 will be a copy of Fork 1, then it will have the same target (Lightning Bolt).  You may chose new targets, but can keep the same target.  Since that target is no longer legal, both Forks will eventually be countered on resolution.

So the loop can end, and the player will have to, otherwise they will be stalling.

Really, there are no majore issues created by Fork that would need to keep it restricted as far as the rules are concerned.  Unless you're still playing with rules from 1994 or something.