|
5 years ago ::
Mar 26, 2008 - 5:34PM
#51
|
- Mogic Puzzle Master
- Plays Well With Others
|
I'm sorry, am I the only one able to read this post:
[O] ruling, since it was asked for: No kicker for you. You're putting the card into play. You're no longer resolving the spell, so kicker no longer applies and you get no kicker bonus (and Phage's ability will trigger if you counter her with Desertion).
DCI Level 2 Judge
"That's what's so stupid about the whole magic thing, you know," Rincewind said. "You spend twenty years learning the spell that makes nude virgins appear in your bedroom, and then you're so poisoned by quicksilver fumes and half-blind from reading old grimoires that you can't remember what happens next."
- Terry Pratchett, The Colour Of Magic
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 26, 2008 - 5:39PM
#52
|
|
|
I'm sorry, am I the only one able to read this post:
No. Now the argument is over why it works that way.
Personally, I agree with Nereus that there's no clear way to produce this ruling from the rules as they currently exist. Clearly it should work that way, but there doesn't seem to be any support for the assertion that it does.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 26, 2008 - 5:52PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2001
|
I'm sorry, am I the only one able to read this post:
Yes, that's precisely what the debate is about. Why does it work that way, and in particular, what precisely has resolution got to do with it? People aren't debating whether that's how it works, they're debating whether you can get that result from the comprules. And if you're not going to refer to countering, then frankly I'm starting to agree with many here that the answer is "no". I still prefer my "it's countered then put into play" explanation but apparently that isn't the official one.
Jeff Heikkinen
DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 26, 2008 - 6:06PM
#54
|
|
|
I'm sorry, am I the only one able to read this post:
Admittedly, I had forgotten that we had the [O] answer already, but to be fair, my focus has been on the Why still.
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 26, 2008 - 7:24PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 26, 2008 - 8:45PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
Here's another thing to consider, and one I didn't see posted amongst all the reasonings: This is another example of a 'square-rectangle' (a square is always a rectangle but a rectangle is not always a square) relationship. A spell resolving will always go to the same place, depending on the spell type (permanent types go in play, non-permanent types go to the graveyard) barring any replacement effects (buyback being the first to come to mind for non-perm spells), but going to that place from the stack doesn't mean the spell resolved.
Pure and simple, when a spell is countered, anything connected to the playing of the spell (the paying of a kicker cost) no longer matters. Yes, in the case of Ana Battlemage, the creature is still coming into play. But the creature coming into play did not resolve, because it was never a spell--and thus there was never any kicker connected to it. It doesn't matter whether or not this fits under the exceptions because the Ana Battlemage coming into play from Desertion's ability is not the Ana Battlemage that would have come into play had the spell been allowed to resolve. It's the same card, and it came into play from the stack, but it's not a resolving spell, so no kicker (since you can't pay additional costs when you're not even playing a spell).
(Okay so that wasn't quite so 'pure and simple' like I wanted, but you know what I mean.)
I'm sure this has been said before but I figured I'd reemphasize it.
MTG Rules Advisor 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 26, 2008 - 9:29PM
#57
|
|
|
Pure and simple, when a spell is countered, anything connected to the playing of the spell (the paying of a kicker cost) no longer matters.
Yes, that's how it should work, but that assumption just doesn't seem to be supported by the rules as written. There exists no rule that grants special status to a spell resolving as opposed to a spell being put into play from the stack, and there exists no rule that gives special powers of denial to the act of countering something, so logic dictates that such special status does not currently exist.
Yes, a resolving permanent spell should be considered different than a permanent spell being put into play from the stack. But there currently seems to be nothing that supports that conclusion.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 26, 2008 - 9:49PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
Let me try again.
Countering a spell means the spell never resolves. What this means is that any effects generated by paying additional costs also won't occur, because the additional costs were part of playing the spell, and the spell never resolves. Even if the creature comes into play from the stack, it's not coming into play as a resolving spell because the creature spell that was previously represented by the physical card was countered, including all additional effects (including those that would trigger/apply after the spell has resolved) that were added onto the spell via additional costs.
MTG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 26, 2008 - 9:53PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
And this, too:
While the Ana Battlemage comes into play from the stack, that Ana Battlemage coming into play looks to see if any kicker cost was paid for that Ana Battlemage coming into play; however, that Ana Battlemage was never played as a spell, so it could never have had a paid kicker cost. This is the same reason that playing a second Battlemage without kicker after playing one with a kicker wouldn't trigger the kicker for the second: It doesn't mean 'if the kicker cost for any spell named Ana Battlemage was paid,' it means 'if the kicker cost for this spell was paid.' But the Deserted Battlemage permanent was technically never a spell, so its kicker cost could never be paid.
MTG Rules Advisor
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 26, 2008 - 10:37PM
#60
|
|
|
Let me try again.
Countering a spell means the spell never resolves. What this means is that any effects generated by paying additional costs also won't occur, because the additional costs were part of playing the spell, and the spell never resolves.
Wrong. If a spell with flashback is countered, it's still removed from the game, so obviously additional costs can have some effect even if the spell is countered.
Countering has no meaning in Magic other than 'put the spell from the stack into the graveyard'. The "none of its effects occur" portion that was mentioned is not a definition of some property unique to countering but simply a "plain talk" description of the natural result of the spell not getting the chance to resolve properly. When a spell is removed from the game by Time Stop  or returned to its owner's hand by Venser, Shaper Savant  , the exact same thing happens: "none of its effects occur." Not because it was countered, but because those "effects" would happen as the spell resolved, and it doesn't get the opportunity to do so.
So, since countering currently has no special meaning in Magic, the fact that the spell was countered is completely irrelevant in this matter.
Even if the creature comes into play from the stack, it's not coming into play as a resolving spell because the creature spell that was previously represented by the physical card was countered, including all additional effects (including those that would trigger/apply after the spell has resolved) that were added onto the spell via additional costs.
There is no rule whatsoever that says that a spell being put into play thanks to resolving is in any way different from a spell that is being put into play thanks to some effect. So logically, under the rules as they currently exist, putting the creature into play thanks to Desertion should be exactly the same as putting it into play because it resolved. (Or, if you look at it the other way, putting the creature into play from the stack because it resolves should be treated exactly the same way as putting it into play from the stack because an effect told you to...and therefore Kicker, Evoke, Prowl, and a lot of other things technically don't work.)
Yes, this is silly; yes, the rules should absolutely be made so that they treat these two cases differently. But the point is that they currently don't do so. This needs to be fixed.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
