I found a more extreme answer to prove that you can indeed do what we've been stating. Look at the second ruling for parallel thoughts, it's a very similar situation, but instead you are replacing the cards with cards exiled. It states that even after all the cards you put asside in exile are gone you can still choose that option and in essence skip your draw. It's the same with the ascension, your searching a zone, whether you find anything or not doesn't matter. What matters is that you are able to search the zone, since that's not impossible the draw is replaced.
101.3. Any part of an instruction that’s impossible to perform is ignored. (In many cases the card will specify consequences for this; if it doesn’t, there’s no effect.)
614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can’t be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.
101.3. Any part of an instruction that’s impossible to perform is ignored. (In many cases the card will specify consequences for this; if it doesn’t, there’s no effect.)
614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can’t be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.
Uhm, not to be dense, but I'm not certain how either of these apply here. 101.3 isn't relavent because one cannot choose an impossible action as part of a choice. 614.6 doesn't seem to apply to this either. Why is it that you think it would?
Uhm, not to be dense, but I'm not certain how either of these apply here. 101.3 isn't relavent because one cannot choose an impossible action as part of a choice.
I agree. But one chooses a possible action: searching the library. Putting a non-existent card into player's hand is impossible so it is skipped due to 101.3
614.6 doesn't seem to apply to this either. Why is it that you think it would?
modified event may contain instructions that can’t be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored - putting non-existent card into hand is impossible. Impossible instruction is ignored.
I might want to choose to go into a forest searching for an invisible purple unicorn. This is choosing a possible action, right? I think that the fact that I will never be able to find one is irrelevant. I decided to do something possible.
I found a more extreme answer to prove that you can indeed do what we've been stating. Look at the second ruling for parallel thoughts, it's a very similar situation, but instead you are replacing the cards with cards exiled. It states that even after all the cards you put asside in exile are gone you can still choose that option and in essence skip your draw. It's the same with the ascension, your searching a zone, whether you find anything or not doesn't matter. What matters is that you are able to search the zone, since that's not impossible the draw is replaced.
Paralleel Thoughts' second ruling clearly sounds as if it allows you to choose an impossible action. Perhaps it's outdated and should have been deleted long ago?
If this ruling is valid, then it certainly covers the current situation: Archmage ing on an empty Library would be allowed. (I believe not, but hey! that's just me!)
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Maybe we've been looking at this the wrong way. We've been looking at it whether or not the replacement effect's effect is possible or not and trying to determine if you can choose the replacement effect in that case. The issue is that if there is a choice that you can not choose an impossible choice. However the choice seems to be in the case of the archmage ascension is whether to draw a card or replace the draw. Regardless on what the replacement effect is, it is possible to replace the draw. If it there was not a may in the ability no one would question that it is legal to replace the draw, even if the replacement effect yields an imposible action.
Abundance seems to agree with this interpretation.
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
I agree. But one chooses a possible action: searching the library. Putting a non-existent card into player's hand is impossible so it is skipped due to 101.3
If that is how its interpretated then with a card that read "Lose 10 life or pay 2 life and sacrifice 2 creatures", you'd be able to choose the second option even if you didn't have two creatures to sacrifice. You could pay two life and then "fail to carry out the rest of the instructions".
The way I read it, the enitre choice must be legal, not just the first part of it. Obviously there are some rulings that go against what I'm saying, but if we're to infer that only the first part must be carried out then cards like the one above would play very very different than they currently do.
As the rules stand now, I'd still say you can't choose such an action. Either these rulings need to fall in line with the current comp rules or the comp rules need to be adjusted slightly to allow for exceptions. The current situation illustrates that the rule applies in some situations but not others.
How to autocard (do this to specify a card in your posts): Type [c]Black Lotus[/c] to get Black Lotus . Type [c=Black Lotus]The Overpowered One[/c] to get The Overpowered One .
