Forum:Pyro Clock of Destiny question redux

I've read the now archived ruling forum for this card that was created and last edited in 2008: (Forum:Pyro Clock of Destiny qestion). I can't edit this apparently resolved thread so I've decided to begin it anew. I'm still somewhat confused about the dynamic of the decided ruling for this card and I cannot locate a currently active official source of evidence to back the logic behind it. The concluding argument in the original forum was cited to an external link which I cannot access, most likely because it no longer exists. My understanding of the "turn count" as well as how it applies to cards like "Final Countdown" are fairly solid. The only thing that seems to require clarification is how "Pyro Clock of Destiny" modifies the process. The issue is how official rulings explain the distortion that this unique trap card creates between the actual turn count and the considered turn count. I am very much interested in constructing a Duel-Winner deck so I hope this will lead to some sort of indefinite resolution. The ruling in question is basically that if each player uses a card which implements an effect that takes the turn count into regard (such as "Final Countdown") and the turn player activates "Pyro Clock of Destiny", the turn player's effect would consider their turn count to have advanced by 1 and the opponent's would not. Hence, if player A activates "Final Countdown" and player B activates the same card on their turn and also activates "Pyro Clock", the two countdowns would now have a synchronized turn count. In theory the duel would end in a draw after the end phase of player B's 10th turn after the first countdown is activated by player A; in other words the 20th actual turn overall for the first countdown and the 19th actual turn overall for the second. Apparently this means that both countdowns are considered to be on the 20th turn by this time. This scenario implies that player A's countdown would apply the actual count while player B's countdown would apply the considered count. Apparently it is suggested that the distortion in the turn count created by clock's effect only affects one player and not the other. From what I can tell, there's no reason that this scenario makes any sense. As you can see from the original forum, User:DarkMastero disputed this ruling as well and User:TwoTailedFox agreed. Their argument was the same as mine: That both Final Countdowns would apply the advanced turn count. It is important to remember that there are 3 different values which may qualify as a "turn count": player A's turns, player B's turns, and the total number of turns in the duel overall. From what the text suggests, Pyro Clock creates a distortion in the overall turn count of the duel by advancing the considered count ahead of the actual count by 1. Perhaps the source of the confusion is that there is no mention in the clock's effect that specifies which player's turn count is advanced. Due to the count advancing by a value of merely 1, it is obvious that only one player's turn count receives the increase. Because the card is a normal trap card, it can be safe to presume that the turn player's turn count receives the advance, regardless of the clock's controller. The reason this distinction is significant is because not every 'turn count' related card applies the overall turn count. There's nothing in "Pyro Clock's" text to suggest that there's any correlation to the turn player and/or the controller of the clock with the controller of the 'turn count' card(s) or effect(s) in play, but there are different 'turn count' cards which refer each of the 3 different types of turn values. There are several card effects which describe something resembling a "passing of time" which can be represented by counting player turns or phases of player turns. To prevent further confusion, card effects which refer to the passing of "phases" are not affected by this card. There are cards like "Swords of Revealing Light" which states that it remains active "for 3 of your opponent's turns". Cards like the various stages of the Moth series can each be special summoned when their respective requirements are met depending on the number of "your turns" that the controller has waited. Cards such as these would only be affect by "Pyro Clock" if it were activated during the respective player's turn. Regardless, cards like "Final Countdown" do not specify the turn count to a specific player. This means that the considered count would apply to any and all cards which observe the total count of turns by either player. It stands to reason that only the 'total turn count' cards which are activated after or have concluded its/their respective count-related effect(s) before the clock resolves would not be affected by altered count. With that in mind, even though "Pyro Clock" only advances the turn count of 1 player, each "Final Countdown" should accept the new considered count for all of the turns in the duel which pass from when they are respectively activated. In the case with the above example where each player activates their own copy of "Final Countdown" before "Pyro Clock" is activated, that means they both finish 1 turn sooner than normally. In short, whichever player successfully activates "Final Countdown" first would be automatically declared the victor that much sooner than the opponent's "Final Countdown" (as long as no other victory conditions are met beforehand). It should not matter how many "Pyro Clocks" are activated by either player, which player's turn it/they is/are activated in, or even how the clock's counting advance is interpreted. The only way the "Pyro Clock(s)" can affect one countdown as opposed to the other, is if said clock(s) were activated and resolved after the first and before the second one is activated (in which case the first countdown would be even further ahead). Basically there's no way that anything, not even the Pyro Clock, can make a later activated countdown synchronize with or otherwise resolve sooner overall than a previously activated one. Back in the original thread, User:Dragon Slayer initially supported the dispute but then deemed the albeit unofficial ruling "correct" on account of what appears to be an online statement by Upper Deck Entertainment. As I have mentioned, I cannot reach this link, so I'm not sure what the logic behind the opposing argument is. Since the ruling is still technically unofficial, I'd like to ask that it be properly clarified. I also think it's best that any and all supporting evidence not only be cited if possible, but also copied to a page(s) within this website to ensure that it can be reviewed again in the future. --Dragonking (talk • contribs) 21:27, January 12, 2016 (UTC)