Teferi + Flash effects

[Exuberance]

My opponent controls a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir.
I control a Vedalken Orrery.

Can I cast spells on my opponent's turn? Is this a timestamp thing? Halp

[rufus]

My opponent controls a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir.
I control a Vedalken Orrery.

Can I cast spells on my opponent's turn? Is this a timestamp thing? Halp

Teferi affects spells with flash, so the Orrery's ability doesn't do much. You can't cast spells on your opponent's turn.

[Tammit67]

To be more clear, if you have two contradictory effects, one that allows something to happen and one that explicitly says that something can't happen, the can't is what is more important.

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
Example:
If one effect reads “You may play an additional land this turn” and another reads “You can’t play land cards this turn,” the effect that precludes you from playing lands wins.

[FTW]

To be more clear, if you have two contradictory effects, one that allows something to happen and one that explicitly says that something can't happen, the can't is what is more important.

Yeah but these aren't contradictory effects. Teferi doesn't say you can't cast spells on an opponent's turn. It says you can only cast spells when you could cast a sorcery. Vedalken lets you cast sorceries as instants. Ergo, you should be able to cast spells any time. However, this is from the Gatherer:

The last ability means that in order for an opponent to cast a spell, it must be that opponent's turn, during a main phase, and the stack must be empty. This is true even if the player doesn't have a sorcery he or she is able to cast, or if a rule or effect allows a spell to be cast at another time.

They should keyword "when you could cast a sorcery". Since they don't actually mean when you could cast a sorcery, but on your mainphase when the stack is empty and you have priority. For example, if an effect allowed you to cast sorceries during the draw step, Teferi is not supposed to let you cast anything then although the wording suggests otherwise.

[Tammit67]

Yeah but these aren't contradictory effects. Teferi doesn't say you can't cast spells on an opponent's turn. It says you can only cast spells when you could cast a sorcery. Vedalken lets you cast sorceries as instants. Ergo, you should be able to cast spells any time.

Not quite. "You may cast spells whenever you could cast an instant/sorcery" has a specific rules meaning and is shortcut for the following.

116.1a A player may cast an instant spell any time he or she has priority. A player may cast a noninstant spell during his or her main phase any time he or she has priority and the stack is empty.

304.5. If text states that a player may do something "any time he or she could cast an instant," it means only that the player must have priority. The player doesn't need to have an instant he or she could actually cast. Effects that would prevent that player from casting a spell or casting an instant don't affect the player's capability to perform that action (unless the action is actually casting a spell or casting an instant).


307.5. If a spell, ability, or effect states that a player can do something only "any time he or she could cast a sorcery," it means only that the player must have priority, it must be during the main phase of his or her turn, and the stack must be empty. The player doesn't need to have a sorcery he or she could actually cast. Effects that would prevent that player from casting a spell or casting a sorcery don't affect the player's capability to perform that action (unless the action is actually casting a spell or casting a sorcery).

IE: "Cast when you could cast an instant" means whenever you have priority.
IE: "Cast when you could cast a sorcery" means when you have priority in our main phase and the stack is otherwise empty

This shortcut of rules lingo is important when you consider an interaction like Krosan Grip targeting a Lion's Eye Diamond. With your logic, I cannot activate Lion's eye diamond in response to a krosan grip, while by the rules I cited I can.

So since we have two effects, one saying you can cast things whenever you have priority, and one saying you cannot cast them whenever you have priority but only when you have priority in your main phase and the stack is empty, it is now easier to see why they are contradictory. This is the part in the logic where my previous post applies and Teferi overrules the artifact.

[cdr]

Good answers, Tammit.

[Exuberance]

To be more clear, if you have two contradictory effects, one that allows something to happen and one that explicitly says that something can't happen, the can't is what is more important.

Okay, great! That's what I was pretty sure of, but I wanted to double check. Thanks!

[FTW]

Not quite. "You may cast spells whenever you could cast an instant/sorcery" has a specific rules meaning and is shortcut for the following.

Read my whole post. I said that later.

Rather, I was bringing it up to question why they still call it "whenever you could cast a sorcery". I think they should keyword it because it's nonintuitive and means a specific rules thing instead of what the words say.

EDIT: Good explanation for the OP though

[Tammit67]

Read my whole post. I said that later.

I know you said that later, it just seemed at the time there was a disconnect between your literal translation of the card text in:

Teferi doesn't say you can't cast spells on an opponent's turn. It says you can only cast spells when you could cast a sorcery. Vedalken lets you cast sorceries as instants. Ergo, you should be able to cast spells any time

and your later understanding of what those phrases mean in reference to the rules.

I agree that it could be worded differently, perhaps more cleanly. But at the same time, a judge should know what that phrase means so any confusion gets cleared up immediately. For how non intuitive it is, it certainly can easily fit inside the text box.

[FTW]

I know you said that later, it just seemed at the time there was a disconnect between your literal translation of the card text in:



and your later understanding of what those phrases mean in reference to the rules.

I agree that it could be worded differently, perhaps more cleanly. But at the same time, a judge should know what that phrase means so any confusion gets cleared up immediately. For how non intuitive it is, it certainly can easily fit inside the text box.

True. I probably could have been more clear with that, in case it confused the OP. The disconnect was intentional, to show the separation from literal interpretation of the rules text from the way the game rules are actually played. Wotc has been on a mission to clear up such ambiguities in literal interpretation with their rules changes since M10 (and even the recent "unblockable" and "indestructible" changes) so I'm surprised they haven't tackled this one yet. All they need is one word, something evocative of slowing down, the same way they keyworded "Flash". Maybe if they ever print more cards with similar mechanics they may consider it.

Or, instead of making a new keyword, they could specify that all Instants implicitly have Flash and then reword it to be "your spells lose Flash". That way it's clear that there are two effects in direct contradiction ("your spells gain flash" and "your spells lose flash"), in which case the negative always wins.