Wort, the Raidmother and Fling losing conspire after being cast

16 posts / 0 new
Last post

Question 15 from the latest Cranial Insertion article (link)

Q: Can I conspire Fling sacrificing Wort, the Raidmother?

A: You can try, but it won't help. In the "Crazy/Choose" step, you select to conspire. In the "Tried/Total" step, you add "tap two red creatures" as a cost. In the "Pills/Pay" step, you tap two red creatures and sacrifice Wort. Now when you complete the process, Fling no longer has conspire. Wort's dead and gone. There's no ability to trigger, even though you paid the cost, and this is just weird.



Is there a way to change the rules to make conspire stick? Maybe a rule explaining that abilities from static abilities keep existing on the spell even if the static ability is gone?

But then, what about Thrumming Stone ?  We probably don't want ripple to trigger if we sacrifice the stone for Kuldotha Rebirth. Maybe such a rule can be more specific, only applying to keyword abilities who change how the spell is cast.
For that matter, the point in the same article about sacrificing Omnath, Locus of Mana to Momentous Fall is also incredibly bizarre. Why aren't all costs paid simultaneously? Why can you choose to pay the sacrifice "first" and the mana "second"?
Rules Advisor
Change conspire to "As an additional cost to cast this spell, you may tap two untapped creatures you control that each share a color with it. If you do, copy this spell when you cast it. If the spell has any targets, you may choose new targets for the copy."

It would be a delayed triggered ability, and it would not matter if the spell still had conspire only that you chose to pay the cost.
Why aren't all costs paid simultaneously?

Try simultaneously tapping and sacrificing Daring Apprentice.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Why aren't all costs paid simultaneously?

Try simultaneously tapping and sacrificing Daring Apprentice.

It's already possible to construct a situation in which something taps and changes zones at the same time, I'm quite sure.

Admittedly it wouldn't be part of paying a cost, but I don't really see why the game can't support this.
blah blah metal lyrics
Why aren't all costs paid simultaneously?

Try simultaneously tapping and sacrificing Daring Apprentice.


If you're not able to, you should be. The only reason I can think of that costs couldn't all be paid simultaneously is when the cost includes drawing cards, but there are other problems with drawing cards as a cost, so perhaps Psychic Vortex could be errata'd in some way to make it work more nicely. After all, we no longer skip turns as a cost.
Rules Advisor
The only reason I can think of that costs couldn't all be paid simultaneously is when the cost includes drawing cards, but there are other problems with drawing cards as a cost, so perhaps Psychic Vortex could be errata'd in some way to make it work more nicely.


Well you can do this:

Cumulative upkeep m
When you pay ~'s cumulative upkeep, draw a card for each age counter on it. If you can't, sacrifice it.


But I'm not really convinced it's necessary.

It's true that costs intuitively should either be simultaneous or require being paid in the order listed, but does the way it is now cause any weirdness in non-corner cases?
blah blah metal lyrics
Many cards have very complicated costs. Making them all simultaneous is simply not possible.
Change conspire to "As an additional cost to cast this spell, you may tap two untapped creatures you control that each share a color with it. If you do, copy this spell when you cast it. If the spell has any targets, you may choose new targets for the copy."

It would be a delayed triggered ability, and it would not matter if the spell still had conspire only that you chose to pay the cost.

That's a nice and clean solution, I like it.

More discussion on this subject please  (if there's anything more to add)


For that matter, the point in the same article about sacrificing Omnath, Locus of Mana to Momentous Fall is also incredibly bizarre. Why aren't all costs paid simultaneously? Why can you choose to pay the sacrifice "first" and the mana "second"?

If Daring Apprentice's cost would be paid simultaneously, then an opponent's Gideon's Avenger wouldn't trigger since the apprentice is never seen on the battlefield tapped (for similarities, see the Undiscovered Paradise + Wake Thrasher case here).

Personally, I guess I wouldn't mind making costs simultaneous but at the same time changing the infamous " , sacrifice this" to something like "sacrifice this untapped" but then it will break its interaction with things that care about in costs (gatherer) and I do like being allowed to play with the cost to my convenience.  Edit: oh wait, it has to use to account for summoning sickness...

Oh, and it would make Snow Mercy unplayable 


It's true that costs intuitively should either be simultaneous or require being paid in the order listed, but does the way it is now cause any weirdness in non-corner cases?

Mostly corner cases I think, depending on you opinion:
There's the already mentioned Omnath, Locus of Mana with a "flinger" (a spell/ability that involves tapping/sacrificing a creature and that the result cares about its P/T.  see this magiccard search) . I don't think this is a corner case, but it is somewhat negligible.  I don't think anyone would mind if you could only have one possibility (At least not until they print a "mirrored" version of Omnath that gets its P/T reduced by the amount of mana in your mana pool)

There can be a case where you have  Spur Grappler and/or Scoria Cat a swamp and a "flinger" while your opponent has Drought.


Many cards have very complicated costs. Making them all simultaneous is simply not possible.


As long as these kind of costs are not used for playing spells/abilities, they're are somewhat irrelevant here. Only costs for playing spells/abilities are exceptional in allowing players to perfrom actions in any order. Other costs follow the "conventional" way, performing actions in a very specific order, and even simultaneously if need be( basically, any "you may exchange" like Chromeshell Crab)


The only reason I can think of that costs couldn't all be paid simultaneously is when the cost includes drawing cards, but there are other problems with drawing cards as a cost, so perhaps Psychic Vortex could be errata'd in some way to make it work more nicely.

Since it's not a cost for playing spells/abilities, it doesn't count as a reason for allowing the costs be  paid in any order (unless there's actually a card with drawing as a cost for playing something). see my response to evouga's post. But I like Nyktos' idea. Sounds similar to Shah of Naar Isle.

Also, can you farther explain what's  problematic about drawing as a cost?

 
After all, we no longer skip turns as a cost.

I don't understand why not, though. Aside from making the activation cost clean of unique actions, it sounds fine. I think this deserves further inquiry.
Note that even if you don't have any cards that draw cards as a cost directly, replacement effects play havoc with expectations.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Ah, good point. Cast Invigorate and have an opponent who controls Nefarious Lich gain life as additional cost.

Still, I don't think this is one of the reasons for allowing costs to be payed in any order. Cost for playing spells/abilities could've still be made to work in a similar manner- You'd perform all the actions simultaneously except for drawing which would happen sequentially afterwards.

However, a case where a cost for playing spells/abilities is replaced with a set of actions that has to be performed one at time (other than drawing/casting) would be nice to investigate. But I think it could still be made to work like other costs as well. (I'm not sure if there's actually an example for this. If anyone has any ideas it would be nice.)
 
After all, we no longer skip turns as a cost.

I don't understand why not, though. Aside from making the activation cost clean of unique actions, it sounds fine. I think this deserves further inquiry.

Okay, there's a thread about Meditate (link), and one of the arguments there  (link) as to why it's not a cost is that "skip your next turn", while technically possible, is not philosophically acceptable as a cost when it's not verified that you would be taking such a turn in the first place. (Cards like Time Vault allow it as a cost because it happens as soon as you're about to take a turn).

I guess we could argue for Psychic Vortex on somewhat similar grounds. Drawing cards when you don't know if you have enough in your library is technically possible (thanks to a rule that expands its meaning to allow it), but it's philosophically arguable that you actually paid the cost since you didn't draw the amount you're supposed to draw.

However, drawing cards for a cost will still be possible (Invigorate + Nefarious Lich). So it has to be considered acceptable even if we'll attempt to prevent it from the outset. (Whether this should convince you that Psychic Vortex should change or convince you it should stay as it as it is I'll leave to your opinons)
If "fixing" Psychic Vortex won't solve the issue, then I agree it shouldn't change. What I would like to see is an amendment to the rules that makes drawing off an empty library an impossible action.
Rules Advisor
If "fixing" Psychic Vortex won't solve the issue, then I agree it shouldn't change. What I would like to see is an amendment to the rules that makes drawing off an empty library an impossible action.


That would break the rule that makes you lose when you draw from an empty library, since impossible actions are ignored.
 
Right, of course. Surely some resolution is possible?
Rules Advisor
It's kind of hard with all the kinds of replacement effects that can replace draws and the fact that the we don't know how draws would be replaced later on.
If for example we'd try to disallow paying when there are not enogh cards to draw, it won't prevent a replacement effect from doubling one of the draws once the player is allowed to pay. Not to mention, this will be annoying for players who actually want to use dredge or Words and don't really intend to draw.

If it puts your mind at ease, think of the "draw a card" instruction as a shortcut for "attempt to draw a card" or "request a card from the library". This is still somewhat technical, but it's simpler than "create a replacement effect that skips your next turn".