[Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays -- Understanding Magic

[Smmenen]

In my Vintage Championship report, I wrote:

I had the opportunity to talk with Richard Garfield this past weekend. A month ago, I wrote an article asking that the Rules Team finally remove power errata from Time Vault and restore its original ruled functionality. A few years ago, I wrote an article with Rich Shay calling on Wizards to remove power errata. Aaron Forsythe agreed, and the result was Flash. However, in the article announcing the removal of power errata, here is what they say about Time Vault:

Time Vault – The big one. Our current wording makes some assumptions about printed intent, that's for sure. The printed text is slightly ambiguous about how untapping Time Vault is supposed to work. The key question we asked ourselves was, “When this card was made, was the intent that it be incredibly easy to skirt the drawback?” We went with “No.” Does that make the card feel weak? Yes, but we feel that initial intent is captured, regardless of how people have been playing the card for the past several years.

Unfortunately, they are wrong. When I asked Forsythe about it at the Magic Invitational last year, Forsythe said that they asked Garfield, but that he couldn’t remember.

I wanted to verify that. Richard Garfield said, unequivocally, that Time Vault was intended to both store turns to untap it, but also work with cards like Twiddle. Here is exactly what he said: “Alpha was designed with as many combinatorial possibilities as they could include.” (Specifically refuting the notion that design intent behind Time Vault was that its drawback couldn’t be skirted easily).

I followed up by saying: “So, Time Vault was supposed work with Twiddle?” I wanted to be crystal clear. Answer: “Yes.” This actually led Mr. Garfield onto an interesting tangent about modern game design (and systems theory principles!) that I’d be happy to share in the forums if readers are interested.

Instead of sharing that conversation in the forums, I decided to turn it into a full length article.   Months later, this is that article.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/16896_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Understanding_Magic.html

Editor's Blurb:

Monday, December 29th - The holiday season continues apace, and what better way to celebrate the approaching New Year that with a meaty Game Theory article from Stephen Menendian. Grab a coffee, pull up a chair, and settle down for a skull-shattering read…

There are already 90 or so replies in the SCG forums.   There is a good chance that I've answered any questions or addressed any comments you have there.   Feel free to browse through those replies to get a full sense of the direction of the conversation.

[LotusHead]

Thanks for the scoop on Garfield's intent on Time Vault.

Any plans to deconstruct Transmute Artifact? It didn't exactly have an awesome combo at the time (other than say, Argivian Archeologist) but the campaign to keep Magic real (as printed) is a good thing.

Now that Time Vault and Flash have been reset, what of Null Rod vs Moxen? I'm not enough of a rules guru to fully argue this, but the "tapping lands for mana don't use the stack" vs "tapping lands for mana is an activated ability" vs "tapping Moxen for mana is an activated ability" always bugged me. I know Trickbind and Stifle specifically prevent disrupting mana abilities, but something seems off still.

[The Atog Lord]

This actually led Mr. Garfield

Doctor Garfield. The man has a PhD.

[IthilanorStPete]

Thanks for the scoop on Garfield's intent on Time Vault.

Any plans to deconstruct Transmute Artifact? It didn't exactly have an awesome combo at the time (other than say, Argivian Archeologist) but the campaign to keep Magic real (as printed) is a good thing.

Now that Time Vault and Flash have been reset, what of Null Rod vs Moxen? I'm not enough of a rules guru to fully argue this, but the "tapping lands for mana don't use the stack" vs "tapping lands for mana is an activated ability" vs "tapping Moxen for mana is an activated ability" always bugged me. I know Trickbind and Stifle specifically prevent disrupting mana abilities, but something seems off still.

Trickbind and Stifle don't actually "specifically" prevent it - note that the bit about how mana abilities can't be targeted is reminder text, not rules text, and thus doesn't actually have any relevance.
Basically, the game gets weird if you make mana abilities use the stack; I think the big problem is paying mana during the resolution of another spell i.e. Mana Leak.

[redmage419]

This actually led Mr. Garfield

Doctor Garfield. The man has a PhD.

The only time one should be addressed by, and/or personally use such titles is while one is currently employed in the field of their degree. I'm not sure what field Mr. Garfield recieved his doctorate in, but it's highly unlikely that he's currently employed in it. 

Edit: I've discovered he earned his Ph.D. in combinatorial mathematics; however, he left the field professionally in 1994; so "Mr. Garfield" would be the proper way to address him.   

[LotusHead]

This actually led Mr. Garfield

Doctor Garfield. The man has a PhD.

The only time one should be addressed by, and/or personally use such titles is while one is currently employed in the field of their degree. I'm not sure what field Mr. Garfield recieved his doctorate in, but it's highly unlikely that he's currently employed in it. 

Edit: I've discovered he earned his Ph.D. in combinatorial mathematics; however, he left the field professionally in 1994; so "Mr. Garfield" would be the proper way to address him.   

I'd call him Ricky.

[redmage419]

I'd call him Ricky.

Lucy? Is that you, or do you merely think he's "so fine he'd blow your mind"?

[The Atog Lord]

The only time one should be addressed by, and/or personally use such titles is while one is currently employed in the field of their degree.

That is not the case at all. From Wikipedia:

In the U.S. it is widely accepted that those who hold a medical degree M.D., M.B.B.S., D.O. or research doctorate Ph.D., or Sc.D., or an applied reasearch doctorate Ed.D, D.B.A., D.P.A., etc are entitled to use the title of "doctor" and prefix their names with "Dr."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_(title)

Having spent most of my life in and around academia, and having a mother with an EdD, I can confirm that this is the case.

[redmage419]

First off, if you've spent most of your life in and around academia, then you should know that citing wiki as a reiable source is dubious at best. "Widely accepted" and "proper" can be, and often are, two very different things.

Second, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree as I'm sure laws, regulations, and practices vary from state to state and field to field (mainly medical vs. others). A close family member who's worked in medicine for 30+ years recently dropped the medically related degree titles from her business cards since she's been promoted beyond a medical position in the Fortune 100 company that she's employed with. The family had this very same discussion over the holidays, and such action is quite common amongst those with higher education in the medical field. Sure there will always be egocentric individuals who cling to their titles no matter what; however, if one is not currently employed in in their field of expertise, then it's not proper for them to continue the use of titles such as "doctor"; it's merely ego stroking.

Specifically, when dealing with medicine, continued use of such titles implies that one has maintained their various certifications and the required continuing education. Such is often not the case when one has prolonged employment outside the medical field; however, renewing various certifications and continuing education is not strictly limited to the medical field, and continued use of such titles implies the same regardless.

[BC]

I agree with The Atog Lord.  I did not spend 5 and a half years in graduate school to be called "Mister".

Also, Wikipedia rules.

[redmage419]

I agree with The Atog Lord.  I did not spend 5 and a half years in graduate school to be called "Mister".

That's fine. It is "widely accepted"; however, in many cases it's not proper. Without people like you it wouldn't be able to maintain its widely accepted status, and you may be one of the group that needs the additional ego stroking (if employed outside your field of study).

That said, I hope your life never depends on a medical "professional" who's failed to maintain their certifications and continuing education, or worse yet... one who's had their certifications stripped.

[mike_bergeron]

First off, if you've spent most of your life in and around academia, then you should know that citing wiki as a reiable source is dubious at best. "Widely accepted" and "proper" can be, and often are, two very different things.

I think that is why Rich also related his personal experience, which I can back up as well with the same.  However, the only time my father drops the Doctor line is when he is making reservations at a restaurant we normally do not go to. 

generally, as a rule of thumb, In grad school I always called my professors "Dr. ____" unless they specifically stated in class they did not want to be referred to that way.

By the way, thanks for sharing your discussion Steve. Sorry for the off topic banter, we should get back on topic- question for the brain trust now....

Since Garfield said this was supposed to be the way Time Vault worked (with twiddle, etc.), is there a possibility some of the older cards like "Word of Command" could be fixed in some way? They were designed for play that did not include the stack in the form it is now, responses and millions of triggers.  Some of those older cards would be great to play with!

Or could they be reprinted in a newer set to reflect these changes?

Word of Command
BB
Mythic Rare
Instant

Split Second

Opponent Reveals his or her hand.  You may play one spell from opponents hand without paying its casting cost, and you choose all targets and make all decisions for this spell.  You can only play Word of Command during your opponents main phase.

[redmage419]

generally, as a rule of thumb, In grad school I always called my professors "Dr. ____" unless they specifically stated in class they did not want to be referred to that way.

While I know nothing of your father's current profession and/or his field of expertise, your comment here is actually in line with my position. Unless you're making the claim that your grad school professors were not employed in their doctoral fields, then addressing them as "Dr. ____" would be entirely fitting.

And I'm sorry as well, Steve. I wasnt aware that Rich's comment and my reply would generate such an ongoing off-topic debate. If anyone wants to continue the discussion it would be best for us to take it to personal messages from here on out.

[benthetenor]

This actually led Mr. Garfield

Doctor Garfield. The man has a PhD.

The only time one should be addressed by, and/or personally use such titles is while one is currently employed in the field of their degree. I'm not sure what field Mr. Garfield recieved his doctorate in, but it's highly unlikely that he's currently employed in it. 

Edit: I've discovered he earned his Ph.D. in combinatorial mathematics; however, he left the field professionally in 1994; so "Mr. Garfield" would be the proper way to address him.   

Are we really discussing this?

If you earn a PhD, the degree confers the title, along with all of the rights and privileges associated with it. Privileges including being called "Dr. _____". In all cases. I've never heard your argument, and I've spent my fair share of time in academia.

From an linguistics point of view (which I think we can agree is the field in question here), there is no such thing as "proper". There is no right or wrong, as long as the words communicate accurately. By calling Richard Garfield "Dr. Garfield", the meaning meant to be conveyed by most people who use the term is that he has earned a PhD in something. Because most people will understand it as such, then as long as that is what Rich meant, then it is linguistically correct. You may have a narrower view of who qualifies as "Dr. _______", but because your meaning is not normative, then you are in the wrong, according to linguistics.

And unless you want to point us towards some more rigorously peer-reviewed journal articles pertaining to the issues, Wikipedia is fine. It is reasonably accurate for our purposes. Unless, of course, you're trying to earn a graduate degree on these forums.

[Smmenen]

The quote everyone is discussing -- where I mistakenly referred to Dr. Garfield as "Mr Garfield -- was composed and published in August.   

[The Atog Lord]

There are some professions which require continual licensing. For example, my mother, a neuropsychologist, must meet certain annual requirements to continue being licensed. However, even if her licensing were to lapse, she would continue to be referred to as "Dr." and not "Mrs." This is because the title refers not to a person's present occupation, but to one's level of education. There are certain degrees which traditionally allow someone to be called "Doctor."

Now, I've said what I had to say on the matter. Steve, I'm sorry that my nitpick has thrown this discussion way off course. It was quite unexpected.

[Diakonov]

Since Garfield said this was supposed to be the way Time Vault worked (with twiddle, etc.), is there a possibility some of the older cards like "Word of Command" could be fixed in some way? They were designed for play that did not include the stack in the form it is now, responses and millions of triggers.  Some of those older cards would be great to play with!

Or could they be reprinted in a newer set to reflect these changes?

Word of Command
BB
Mythic Rare
Instant

Split Second

Opponent Reveals his or her hand.  You may play one spell from opponents hand without paying its casting cost, and you choose all targets and make all decisions for this spell.  You can only play Word of Command during your opponents main phase.

I agree.  This card is tragically awful otherwise, and I honestly don't think they intended it to essentially read "Target opponent must play as many instants in their hand as possible and hopefully they have a sorcery leftover with enough mana for you to play it for some reason."

Although Split Second seems like the most logical way around this, that is quite a heavy block of text to suddenly drop onto an ancient card.  The original text also reads "This spell may not be countered after you have looked at opponent's hand," at the end, which appears to indicate that they did not intend it to be an uncounterable spell while on the stack.  If the original designers realized that Split Second was necessary in order for the card to work "properly," then they might have just preferred it to be terrible, or worse yet, they may not have printed the card in the first place.  Unfortunately, I think that it is just a card that suffers from poor design.

Would the consequences be too dramatic if it did have Split Second?  I can't tell exactly.  Seems pretty powerful.  I think it would be most appropriate also if it retained the text which uses the opponent's lands and mana pool, because the idea is that you are "commanding" that player to play the spell, not stealing it. 

In its current wording, how would that affect Meddling Mage?  Is the "comes into play" ability still considered a "decision" that the card calls for?
Also, it very blatantly reads "...choose a card from it. That player plays that card with his or her own mana..."  Does this mean the spell must still be fully paid for to enter the stack (sort of like Power Sink, where the player must "attempt" to pay for it, even if unsuccessful)?  Or is it considered an illegal play for lack of resources?

[andrewpate]

Sudden Spoiling was the last card put into the set, whipped up when, at the eleventh hour, all of our collective rules-minded people finally gave up - after months of trying - on making a split-second Word of Command work within the rules and fit on a card.

Currently, every split second card ever printed has had reminder text.  Possibly it could fit on a card without it.  Or, then again, they might be willing to give it the Dance of the Dead treatment and word it so that it simply can't be reprinted.  But it seems unlikely that they would make such a major functional change to a card that most people have never heard of and that wouldn't even be as good as Misdirection, a card nobody plays as a 4-of anyway, even if they did.  This quote suggests to me that they tried to make a new card that did it properly, failed, and considered the problem minor enough to leave it there.

Of course, if they do give Word of Command split second, they should have a look at Piracy, also.  That one would fit on a card easily!

[LordHomerCat]

Sudden Spoiling was the last card put into the set, whipped up when, at the eleventh hour, all of our collective rules-minded people finally gave up - after months of trying - on making a split-second Word of Command work within the rules and fit on a card.

Currently, every split second card ever printed has had reminder text.  Possibly it could fit on a card without it.  Or, then again, they might be willing to give it the Dance of the Dead treatment and word it so that it simply can't be reprinted.  But it seems unlikely that they would make such a major functional change to a card that most people have never heard of and that wouldn't even be as good as Misdirection, a card nobody plays as a 4-of anyway, even if they did.  This quote suggests to me that they tried to make a new card that did it properly, failed, and considered the problem minor enough to leave it there.

Of course, if they do give Word of Command split second, they should have a look at Piracy, also.  That one would fit on a card easily!

They don't do power-level errata anymore.  Additionally, they don't just decide to reword and completely change old cards on a whim (Time Vault is the obvious exception, and that is to make it work according to the original wording and stuff).  Adding Split Second is not even close to the same as the TV changes, and is way outside the realm of ever happening.

[andrewpate]

They don't do power-level errata anymore.  Additionally, they don't just decide to reword and completely change old cards on a whim (Time Vault is the obvious exception, and that is to make it work according to the original wording and stuff).  Adding Split Second is not even close to the same as the TV changes, and is way outside the realm of ever happening.

Just in case my previous post was unclear on this point, I agree with this statement 100%.