Which demonstrates that just being on MTGS doesn't make you an expert and even some judges make simple mistakes. Look at the arguments of the people who were wrong. They were pretty much all fundamentally flawed in some absurdly obvious ways.
Also of note, experience often correlates with knowledge/skill, but certainly doesn't guarantee it. Also, I'm saying nothing negative about the skill of people who got it wrong - you don't need to understand the rules anywhere near perfectly to be a fantastic player - you simply need to know the intricacies that impact whatever decks you play. Great players, maybe, but obviously not rules experts.
Just because some random players of unknown rules knowledge, unknown MTG skill and unknown intelligence don't get the rule doesn't mean it's okay to criticize the Wizards guy for not dumbing it down to whatever absurdly simple level everyone alive needs to grasp the very intuitive things this card does.
What happens if you either A) copy the Chain Veil's ability, or B) find a way to untap the Chain Veil (which is simple to figure out)? Can multiple affects be achieved then?
Which demonstrates that just being on MTGS doesn't make you an expert and even some judges make simple mistakes. Look at the arguments of the people who were wrong. They were pretty much all fundamentally flawed in some absurdly obvious ways.
Also of note, experience often correlates with knowledge/skill, but certainly doesn't guarantee it. Also, I'm saying nothing negative about the skill of people who got it wrong - you don't need to understand the rules anywhere near perfectly to be a fantastic player - you simply need to know the intricacies that impact whatever decks you play. Great players, maybe, but obviously not rules experts.
Just because some random players of unknown rules knowledge, unknown MTG skill and unknown intelligence don't get the rule doesn't mean it's okay to criticize the Wizards guy for not dumbing it down to whatever absurdly simple level everyone alive needs to grasp the very intuitive things this card does.
You really don't know how to stop when you're ahead do you? Quit overstating your position. If this many experienced players were in disagreement over it, then it wasn't nearly as clear, "absurdly obvious," or explicit as you're insisting (and I'll still take Hayashi's word over yours, my own, or any other forum member's position until stated otherwise by officials, which is exactly what I did today).
If you want to take some moral victory in being right on a minor disagreement over an internet forum, well, that's your prerogative, but you're going out of your way to insult others in this thread, while at the same time feigning as though you're not. Bad form.
For what it's worth, this subject was being debated across Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, and other forums throughout the day, with a more or less 50/50 split. It's not as though this conversation was isolated to this forum.
No, the ability clearly states you can only do it once per turn. It's like getting an extra lands drop. You can stack "You may play 1 additional lands this turn." as many times as you like, but you don't get extra drops because it clearly states one. This works the same way.
However, if you blink it to exile and back, it forgets everything and resets. I think. Not 100% if blinking it actyually works, but you can def not just untap it keep going.
Actually, you can stack multiples of "1 additional land this turn". Likewise, it seems probable based on my reading that Chain Veil gives you one additional use of a loyalty ability for each time its used. That said, nothing is 100% because this is the first card ever printed that interacts with that particular PW rule. So I guess we'll have to wait and see. However, I'd put my money on these combos working as a mtg player and rules lawyer for something like 20 years
As a magic player of 20 years who read the rules change, you cannot stack instances of extra land drops. Example: If you have Azusa, Lost but Seeking and you use Kiora's -1, you only get 3 land drops, not 4.
Example is Kiora
"The effect of the second ability is cumulative with other effects that let you play additional lands, such as the one from Rites of Flourishing."
but still you activate the ability while the ability is resolving and the "once this turn" is to prevent you to use more than 1 ability while the ability of the veil is resolving ....
get over this .
Just read the card slowly and you may get it....
Problem is: You don't activate the PW's ability on the Chain Veil's resolve. The Chain Veil merely "resets" the PW-limit. That also means that you cannot "stack" PW loyalty-uses but have to use them like:
"From the upcoming M15 Release Notes: Each additional time The Chain Veil’s last ability resolves will allow you to activate a loyalty ability of each planeswalker you control an additional time. For example, if you activate The Chain Veil’s last ability, untap it, then activate it again, you can activate a loyalty ability of a planeswalker you control three times that turn."
Which demonstrates that just being on MTGS doesn't make you an expert and even some judges make simple mistakes. Look at the arguments of the people who were wrong. They were pretty much all fundamentally flawed in some absurdly obvious ways.
Also of note, experience often correlates with knowledge/skill, but certainly doesn't guarantee it. Also, I'm saying nothing negative about the skill of people who got it wrong - you don't need to understand the rules anywhere near perfectly to be a fantastic player - you simply need to know the intricacies that impact whatever decks you play. Great players, maybe, but obviously not rules experts.
Just because some random players of unknown rules knowledge, unknown MTG skill and unknown intelligence don't get the rule doesn't mean it's okay to criticize the Wizards guy for not dumbing it down to whatever absurdly simple level everyone alive needs to grasp the very intuitive things this card does.
Okay, ease down mate.
Off the high horse.
Yes, us in the infinite-group seems to have official backing for our understanding. It doesn't wipe away that the card itself was poorly designed to clarify exactly what it did.
@Kookmeyer: Copying the ability would for my view not work, but that's given that I see the Chain Veil as a PW-loyalty-limitation "reset". However the official rulings given by Tabak seems to lead me on that the Chain Veil provides additional uses of PW-loyalty activations - aka they stack on top of each other, so copying would work.
I guess we'll have to wait for the full explanatory rulings to clarify just exactly how to handle the Chain Veil.
Couple of things; being civil and acting respectfully does matter, even on the internet. Those who were incorrect about whether or not it could go infinite should take a page from Riki's second post on the matter, admit they were mistaken, and move on. Yes, being snarky in your answer makes it harder to admit you were mistaken afterward; do it anyway. Those who were correct on the issue should also try not to crow about it, or be snarky about those who were not; it doesn't help.
I am a Level 2 Judge, and have occasionally been wrong about a ruling; I admit it publicly, explain the correct ruling, and move on. I'd guess that Matt may not have 'leaked' that portion of the FAQ had Riki (and other judges?) not given rulings on the card that players would take as gospel, causing the uproar--but a correction was needed, and would potentially alter pre-sale or trading decisions by players. When I tell players how I'd rule on a question involving a spoiled card, I almost always lead with "This is what I think, but may not be the official ruling; we'll know for sure once the FAQ comes out'--and if I'm wrong/mistaken, I let players know ASAP. Judges don't get the FAQ any earlier than when it's publicly released to everybody.
Part of the fault also goes to Wizards, for the style of the way the card was spoiled--some of the complexity of the card could have been explained after the story + spoil, instead of metaphorically dropping the mic after spoiling the card.
I would like to add and I'm sure none of you have actually read the card but it says and I quote "as though none of its abilities had been activated this turn" this enables the combo and I'm super excited to play this once m15 comes out.
Couple of things; being civil and acting respectfully does matter, even on the internet. Those who were incorrect about whether or not it could go infinite should take a page from Riki's second post on the matter, admit they were mistaken, and move on. Yes, being snarky in your answer makes it harder to admit you were mistaken afterward; do it anyway. Those who were correct on the issue should also try not to crow about it, or be snarky about those who were not; it doesn't help.
I am a Level 2 Judge, and have occasionally been wrong about a ruling; I admit it publicly, explain the correct ruling, and move on. I'd guess that Matt may not have 'leaked' that portion of the FAQ had Riki (and other judges?) not given rulings on the card that players would take as gospel, causing the uproar--but a correction was needed, and would potentially alter pre-sale or trading decisions by players. When I tell players how I'd rule on a question involving a spoiled card, I almost always lead with "This is what I think, but may not be the official ruling; we'll know for sure once the FAQ comes out'--and if I'm wrong/mistaken, I let players know ASAP. Judges don't get the FAQ any earlier than when it's publicly released to everybody.
Part of the fault also goes to Wizards, for the style of the way the card was spoiled--some of the complexity of the card could have been explained after the story + spoil, instead of metaphorically dropping the mic after spoiling the card.
This. I belligerently argued on the internet(because I have no life) from the time it was spoiled until the very minute tabak cleared things up on multiple sites. About 13 hours or so total. And I never had a doubt in my mind that I was wrong. I have said I wasn't sure. But I was lying to myself if I did. I was sure. And I was 100% dead wrong. I was grasping at straws because they were their to grasp I guess.
I still don't understand why exactly it works the way it does or why it is worded so, vague. If that is the right word for it. But I accept that i made a bad call and was, lets call it less than polite about it. Maybe more on select sites. But next time I will try a little harder to not fit my entire foot in my mouth so firmly.
What bugs me is that Tabak doesn't explain why the answers he gives are "yes" or "no"; he just states them for the most part (including for the "retroactive effect" question). It makes it seem like he's just saying it to calm people down and to block future confusion by forcing people to have to accept it just because a guy with a fancy title happened to say it ("willy-nilly", if you will) rather than genuinely trying to explain why the answer is what it is to make people try to understand the question at hand.
Yeah it's not like Tabak writes up a FAQ for every single set that explains how and why any potentially confusing cards work. I wish he would do that.
"For each planeswalker you control," is a prepositional phrase that is the direct object of "its" as it appears later in the text. With the understanding that "its" refers to planeswalkers you control, this phrase can be removed from the text and not impact the meaning.
"This" (as it appears in 'this turn') is a demonstrative adjective that describes specifically the quality of the noun, "turn." (i.e. Not THAT turn, but THIS turn; the turn that is currently happening.)
"This turn" appears in both the independent clause and the subordinating clause that appears after the subordinating conjunction "as though" (i.e. you may activate one of its loyalty abilities once THIS TURN ~as though~ none of its abilities have been activated THIS TURN.)
Because that demonstrative adjective appears in both halves, and with the understanding the the ability is limited to the turn in which it is activated, we may eliminate it from the text without changing the essential meaning of the action. It is only a limiter of WHEN the action may be performed, not HOW MANY TIMES the action my be performed.
That leaves us with an Independent Clause describing the action taking place and an Adverbial Subordinating Clause that modifies and adds information to the action. So, the base wording of this taking out all modifiers that do not impact the action, is:
"You may activate one of its loyalty abilities once as though none of its loyalty abilities have been activated."
"Once," in this case, is an adverb that modifies "activate." How many activations of one loyalty ability do you get? One. However, the Adverbial Subordinating Clause "as though none of its loyalty abilities have been activated" also modifies "activate one of its loyalty abilities" to mean that this one activation of one loyalty ability is happening under the now inherently true condition that none of its loyalty abilities have been activated.
This is an activation of one loyalty ability under the true statement "none of its loyalty abilities have been activated," which ignores any previous times you have activated any loyalty abilities of that planeswalker earlier in the turn.
According to the rules of planeswalkers, you may only activate one loyalty ability of a planeswalker per turn. However, under activation of the Chain Veil, it becomes true that "none of its loyalty abilities have been activated." This would be true every time you activate the Chain Veil.
We can therefore assume that every activation of the Chain Veil allows the use of one loyalty ability one time as though no loyalty abilities had been activated that turn.
Hence the ruling from Wizards, I'm guessing. Whatever the case, infinite is real, dawgz.
Yes, I was referencing that at the end of the post. I was simply trying to explain the possible avenue of thought that Tabak might have had in deciding the ruling. There were several people who were asking about an explanation, so I thought I'd take a crack at it.
"For each planeswalker you control," is a prepositional phrase that is the direct object of "its" as it appears later in the text. With the understanding that "its" refers to planeswalkers you control, this phrase can be removed from the text and not impact the meaning.
"This" (as it appears in 'this turn') is a demonstrative adjective that describes specifically the quality of the noun, "turn." (i.e. Not THAT turn, but THIS turn; the turn that is currently happening.)
"This turn" appears in both the independent clause and the subordinating clause that appears after the subordinating conjunction "as though" (i.e. you may activate one of its loyalty abilities once THIS TURN ~as though~ none of its abilities have been activated THIS TURN.)
Because that demonstrative adjective appears in both halves, and with the understanding the the ability is limited to the turn in which it is activated, we may eliminate it from the text without changing the essential meaning of the action. It is only a limiter of WHEN the action may be performed, not HOW MANY TIMES the action my be performed.
That leaves us with an Independent Clause describing the action taking place and an Adverbial Subordinating Clause that modifies and adds information to the action. So, the base wording of this taking out all modifiers that do not impact the action, is:
"You may activate one of its loyalty abilities once as though none of its loyalty abilities have been activated."
"Once," in this case, is an adverb that modifies "activate." How many activations of one loyalty ability do you get? One. However, the Adverbial Subordinating Clause "as though none of its loyalty abilities have been activated" also modifies "activate one of its loyalty abilities" to mean that this one activation of one loyalty ability is happening under the now inherently true condition that none of its loyalty abilities have been activated.
This is an activation of one loyalty ability under the true statement "none of its loyalty abilities have been activated," which ignores any previous times you have activated any loyalty abilities of that planeswalker earlier in the turn.
According to the rules of planeswalkers, you may only activate one loyalty ability of a planeswalker per turn. However, under activation of the Chain Veil, it becomes true that "none of its loyalty abilities have been activated." This would be true every time you activate the Chain Veil.
We can therefore assume that every activation of the Chain Veil allows the use of one loyalty ability one time as though no loyalty abilities had been activated that turn.
Hence the ruling from Wizards, I'm guessing. Whatever the case, infinite is real, dawgz.
If the forums had the ability to like/+1 or whatever this should have every like/+1 possible.
I get grammar is not everyone's strong suite but you legitimately had to just read the card.
How many times have people argued about rulings and forget the most basic rule of: If card is overriding a ruling, the card wins?
Main problem is people think something is 'reset'. No, that's not how the phrase 'as though' in this game works. Nothing is reset since 'as though' doesn't do anything. It's there to tell you to ignore something.
Second, it's an activated ability, which like most other activated abilities, do stack.
Third, it doesn't matter when you activate the ability, I.e. Before or after you use the planeswalker's abilities. You can activate the veil as many times before you even activate a single planeswalker, and you'll get all the free uses for each time you activated the veil. This complies with both ruling #2 and #5 in the FAQ (quoted below).
M15 RELEASE NOTES for the Chain Veil
For the first ability, it doesn't matter whether the planeswalker is still on the battlefield as your end step begins. If you activated one of its loyalty abilities that turn, The Chain Veil's triggered ability won't trigger.
Because the last ability modifies the rules of the game, it affects not only planeswalkers you control when it resolves, but also planeswalkers that come under your control later in the turn.
After the last ability resolves, you'll essentially be able to activate a loyalty ability of each planeswalker you control a total of twice during your turn. The timing rules for when you can activate loyalty abilities apply each time; it must be your main phase and the stack must be empty.
The second loyalty ability you activate doesn't have to be the same as the first ability. For example, you could activate a planeswalker's first ability twice, or you could activate a planeswalker's first ability, then activate its second ability.
Each additional time The Chain Veil's last ability resolves will allow you to activate a loyalty ability of each planeswalker you control an additional time. For example, if you activate The Chain Veil's last ability, untap it, then activate it again, you can activate a loyalty ability of a planeswalker you control three times that turn.
No, the ability clearly states you can only do it once per turn. It's like getting an extra lands drop. You can stack "You may play 1 additional lands this turn." as many times as you like, but you don't get extra drops because it clearly states one. This works the same way.
However, if you blink it to exile and back, it forgets everything and resets. I think. Not 100% if blinking it actyually works, but you can def not just untap it keep going.
If you had a card that said "Tap: You may play 1 additional land this turn" and you found a way of untapping and tapping it repeatedly you would indeed be able to play as many lands as you wanted. Alternatively you could have a way of producing infinite copies of exploration to the same effect.
I do not however, know if chain veil will allow for infinite planeswalker activations, as the wording is very ambiguous. Edit - Read release notes, well hot damn. We did not need a infinite planes-walker combo, in any format, thanks wizards.
Wizards print good rares, players complain about cash grab. They print underwhelming rares, players complain that the cards suck. They spoil the best cards first, players complain about the insane prices of preorders. They spoil the meh cards first, players complain that this is the worst set ever.
So. I think I understand now.
As far as these forums are concerned, WotC can never do anything good because:
Card that is new and probably good = "pushed"
Card that is new and probably bad = "EDH/casual fodder"
Card that is a reprint = "lazy"
Card that is a better version of an older card = "power creep"
Card that is a weaker version of an older card = "worthless"
the order is;activate planes walkers, activate chain veil, activate planes walkers, activate chain veil, etc. because the text that says "as if it had not used an ability" wipes the record of it using an ability that turn. this is how they oracle ruled it. the condition is that you have to activate planes walkers in between chain veil activations.
the order is;activate planes walkers, activate chain veil, activate planes walkers, activate chain veil, etc. because the text that says "as if it had not used an ability" wipes the record of it using an ability that turn. this is how they oracle ruled it. the condition is that you have to activate planes walkers in between chain veil activations.
Actually that is incorrect,the rulings actually state you can activate chain veil multiple times before playing a planeswalker -if you have the method- that turn and still get all the extra uses. Although it would be less confusing to do it as you suggest.
Also of note, experience often correlates with knowledge/skill, but certainly doesn't guarantee it. Also, I'm saying nothing negative about the skill of people who got it wrong - you don't need to understand the rules anywhere near perfectly to be a fantastic player - you simply need to know the intricacies that impact whatever decks you play. Great players, maybe, but obviously not rules experts.
Just because some random players of unknown rules knowledge, unknown MTG skill and unknown intelligence don't get the rule doesn't mean it's okay to criticize the Wizards guy for not dumbing it down to whatever absurdly simple level everyone alive needs to grasp the very intuitive things this card does.
This one seems doable actually
You really don't know how to stop when you're ahead do you? Quit overstating your position. If this many experienced players were in disagreement over it, then it wasn't nearly as clear, "absurdly obvious," or explicit as you're insisting (and I'll still take Hayashi's word over yours, my own, or any other forum member's position until stated otherwise by officials, which is exactly what I did today).
If you want to take some moral victory in being right on a minor disagreement over an internet forum, well, that's your prerogative, but you're going out of your way to insult others in this thread, while at the same time feigning as though you're not. Bad form.
For what it's worth, this subject was being debated across Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, and other forums throughout the day, with a more or less 50/50 split. It's not as though this conversation was isolated to this forum.
Standard: I, for one, welcome our new rhinoceros overlords
Modern: Pod's dead, Bob's back.
Legacy: Lands, Deathblade, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD
Retired Legacy: Merfolk, Goblins, Jund, Delver, Reanimator
http://magiccards.info/bng/en/149.html
Please go there and look at the rulings...
For the lazy ones:
"The effect of the second ability is cumulative with other effects that let you play additional lands, such as the one from Rites of Flourishing."
Edit to fill only one post:
Problem is: You don't activate the PW's ability on the Chain Veil's resolve. The Chain Veil merely "resets" the PW-limit. That also means that you cannot "stack" PW loyalty-uses but have to use them like:
PW-activation -> Chain Veil -> PW-activation.
Thx for sharing the final ruling.
No offense meant
http://i.imgur.com/vB9B5.gif
Okay, ease down mate.
Off the high horse.
Yes, us in the infinite-group seems to have official backing for our understanding. It doesn't wipe away that the card itself was poorly designed to clarify exactly what it did.
@Kookmeyer: Copying the ability would for my view not work, but that's given that I see the Chain Veil as a PW-loyalty-limitation "reset". However the official rulings given by Tabak seems to lead me on that the Chain Veil provides additional uses of PW-loyalty activations - aka they stack on top of each other, so copying would work.
I guess we'll have to wait for the full explanatory rulings to clarify just exactly how to handle the Chain Veil.
Untapping works perfectly.
I am a Level 2 Judge, and have occasionally been wrong about a ruling; I admit it publicly, explain the correct ruling, and move on. I'd guess that Matt may not have 'leaked' that portion of the FAQ had Riki (and other judges?) not given rulings on the card that players would take as gospel, causing the uproar--but a correction was needed, and would potentially alter pre-sale or trading decisions by players. When I tell players how I'd rule on a question involving a spoiled card, I almost always lead with "This is what I think, but may not be the official ruling; we'll know for sure once the FAQ comes out'--and if I'm wrong/mistaken, I let players know ASAP. Judges don't get the FAQ any earlier than when it's publicly released to everybody.
Part of the fault also goes to Wizards, for the style of the way the card was spoiled--some of the complexity of the card could have been explained after the story + spoil, instead of metaphorically dropping the mic after spoiling the card.
In other words, here's to hoping khans can continue some type of infinite loop in easier ways.
This. I belligerently argued on the internet(because I have no life) from the time it was spoiled until the very minute tabak cleared things up on multiple sites. About 13 hours or so total. And I never had a doubt in my mind that I was wrong. I have said I wasn't sure. But I was lying to myself if I did. I was sure. And I was 100% dead wrong. I was grasping at straws because they were their to grasp I guess.
I still don't understand why exactly it works the way it does or why it is worded so, vague. If that is the right word for it. But I accept that i made a bad call and was, lets call it less than polite about it. Maybe more on select sites. But next time I will try a little harder to not fit my entire foot in my mouth so firmly.
Yeah it's not like Tabak writes up a FAQ for every single set that explains how and why any potentially confusing cards work. I wish he would do that.
"For each planeswalker you control," is a prepositional phrase that is the direct object of "its" as it appears later in the text. With the understanding that "its" refers to planeswalkers you control, this phrase can be removed from the text and not impact the meaning.
"This" (as it appears in 'this turn') is a demonstrative adjective that describes specifically the quality of the noun, "turn." (i.e. Not THAT turn, but THIS turn; the turn that is currently happening.)
"This turn" appears in both the independent clause and the subordinating clause that appears after the subordinating conjunction "as though" (i.e. you may activate one of its loyalty abilities once THIS TURN ~as though~ none of its abilities have been activated THIS TURN.)
Because that demonstrative adjective appears in both halves, and with the understanding the the ability is limited to the turn in which it is activated, we may eliminate it from the text without changing the essential meaning of the action. It is only a limiter of WHEN the action may be performed, not HOW MANY TIMES the action my be performed.
That leaves us with an Independent Clause describing the action taking place and an Adverbial Subordinating Clause that modifies and adds information to the action. So, the base wording of this taking out all modifiers that do not impact the action, is:
"You may activate one of its loyalty abilities once as though none of its loyalty abilities have been activated."
"Once," in this case, is an adverb that modifies "activate." How many activations of one loyalty ability do you get? One. However, the Adverbial Subordinating Clause "as though none of its loyalty abilities have been activated" also modifies "activate one of its loyalty abilities" to mean that this one activation of one loyalty ability is happening under the now inherently true condition that none of its loyalty abilities have been activated.
This is an activation of one loyalty ability under the true statement "none of its loyalty abilities have been activated," which ignores any previous times you have activated any loyalty abilities of that planeswalker earlier in the turn.
According to the rules of planeswalkers, you may only activate one loyalty ability of a planeswalker per turn. However, under activation of the Chain Veil, it becomes true that "none of its loyalty abilities have been activated." This would be true every time you activate the Chain Veil.
We can therefore assume that every activation of the Chain Veil allows the use of one loyalty ability one time as though no loyalty abilities had been activated that turn.
Hence the ruling from Wizards, I'm guessing. Whatever the case, infinite is real, dawgz.
If the forums had the ability to like/+1 or whatever this should have every like/+1 possible.
I get grammar is not everyone's strong suite but you legitimately had to just read the card.
How many times have people argued about rulings and forget the most basic rule of: If card is overriding a ruling, the card wins?
Second, it's an activated ability, which like most other activated abilities, do stack.
Third, it doesn't matter when you activate the ability, I.e. Before or after you use the planeswalker's abilities. You can activate the veil as many times before you even activate a single planeswalker, and you'll get all the free uses for each time you activated the veil. This complies with both ruling #2 and #5 in the FAQ (quoted below).
........................
I was wrong.
the judge level 3 is wrong after all.
i am so happy because even i am not a judge, i can guess correctly of the ruling, and i want the chain veil to be able to goes infinite.
Actually that is incorrect,the rulings actually state you can activate chain veil multiple times before playing a planeswalker -if you have the method- that turn and still get all the extra uses. Although it would be less confusing to do it as you suggest.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝