|
11 months ago ::
Jul 31, 2012 - 11:24AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
Drop of Honey does not target. You're being asked to do something impossible immediately. Not later, like casting a targetting spell or ability.
We're getting a bit off topic here, but I don't see that it matters. Or, to be more correct, I don't see that it should matter.
I'm not going to go into whether it should matter or not. I'm simply saying it does matter.
My wording was a bit poor, so let me try again:
You can choose to target Darksteel Colossus  with Shatter  -- it's a legal choice because Darksteel Colossus is an artifact and that's the only condition -- but you can't choose to destroy something indestructible. This is black and white in the rules.
700.4. If a permanent is indestructible, rules and effects can’t destroy it. [...]
608.2d If an effect of a spell or ability offers any choices other than choices already made as part of casting the spell, activating the ability, or otherwise putting the spell or ability on the stack, the player announces these while applying the effect. The player can’t choose an option that’s illegal or impossible, with the exception that having library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action (see rule 120.3). If an effect divides or distributes something, such as damage or counters, as a player chooses among any number of untargeted players and/or objects, the player chooses the amount and division such that at least one player or object is chosen if able, and each chosen player or object receives at least one of whatever is being divided. (Note that if an effect divides or distributes something, such as damage or counters, as a player chooses among some number of target objects and/or players, the amount and division were determined as the spell or ability was put onto the stack rather than at this time; see rule 601.2d.)
I think it's suppose to be like a mandatory cost. (The difference is that the rule/effect continues on even if you can't pay the cost.)
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 31, 2012 - 11:33AM
#32
|
|
|
I'm definitely in the "you're forced to cast twiddle first" camp. It seems a lot like the Drop of Honey  vs. indestructible case.
Which, imo, was an absolutely ridiculous ruling. It is NOT illegal OR impossible to target an indestructible creature with a destroy effect. Casting Shatter with Darksteel Colossus as the target is perfectly legal.
Just because the destroy effect will fail to actually destroy the indestructible object doesn't make it an illegal target. The Drop of Honey ruling is just plain wrong (again, imo).
There is a difference between "choose [a target]" and "choose [what to destroy]". When choosing something, the game only concerns itself with whether or not that specific choice is legal, not whether or not actions that may eventually happen at some later time as a consequence of that choice will be legal.
Imagine a spell that read "Sacrifice target creature." It would be legal to cast this spell targeting an opponent's creature, because an opponent's creature still matches the appropriate target phrase ("creature"). When the spell resolved, it would fail to do anything, because sacrificing something you don't control is impossible. But this fact doesn't mean that when an opponent casts Cruel Edict  on you you can choose to sacrifice one of your opponent's creatures and fail--you can't, because that specific choice is impossible.
Same deal here. You can target a Darksteel Colossus with Shatter for the same reason you can target it with Auriok Transfixer  's ability--because it matches the target phrase ("artifact"). The legality of the target choice is all the game's concerned about at the time you're making the choice of target. But if Drop of Honey 's ability is resolving, you can't choose to destroy an indestructible creature and fail, because that specific choice is impossible--this time the game's concerned about the legality of destroying that creature, and it's not legal.
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
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 31, 2012 - 11:42AM
#33
|
|
|
you can't choose to destroy something indestructible. This is black and white in the rules.
700.4. If a permanent is indestructible, rules and effects can’t destroy it. [...]
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree because I don't see it as black and white in the rules AT ALL.
Yes, it is clear that the effect can't destroy it. It is not clear that it is legal to try if the effect has a target, but not legal if the effect doesn't use the word "target".
Suppose there are only two creatures in play, one indestructible and the other vanilla  . A spell is played with the effect "Destroy a random creature."
According to your (and the Rules team's) interpretation, the vanilla will be destroyed every time. I think that is just plain wrong. but obviously I'm in the minority here.
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 31, 2012 - 11:47AM
#34
|
|
|
But if Drop of Honey 's ability is resolving, you can't choose to destroy an indestructible creature and fail, because that specific choice is impossible--this time the game's concerned about the legality of destroying that creature, and it's not legal.
Nitpick: It most certainly IS "legal", the debate is whether it is "possible". But there's nothing "illegal" about trying to destroy an indestructible object.
Maybe I'm just playing semantics here, but in my head, "impossible" has special meaning within the context of the rules. And while I see the end result being the failure to destroy, I don't see the choice as being "impossible".
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 31, 2012 - 11:53AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2003
|
Oops, sorry. I thought I had answered this. Guess I hadn't >.>
You have to cast the Twiddle first. You can't cast the Dispel first, so you have to cast the spell first. Since there's now a legal target for Dispel, you have to cast it now. It'll probably be covered better in the next Comp Rules update.
Thanks Nate.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 31, 2012 - 11:55AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2002
|
But if Drop of Honey 's ability is resolving, you can't choose to destroy an indestructible creature and fail, because that specific choice is impossible--this time the game's concerned about the legality of destroying that creature, and it's not legal.
Nitpick: It most certainly IS "legal", the debate is whether it is "possible". But there's nothing "illegal" about trying to destroy an indestructible object.
Maybe I'm just playing semantics here, but in my head, "impossible" has special meaning within the context of the rules. And while I see the end result being the failure to destroy, I don't see the choice as being "impossible".
Do you mean the dictionary defintion of legal? The word doesn't just mean allowed by the law and it's clear that Zamm is talking about the defintion used often in the rules, the one that means that something is allowed by the game rules.
I don't see any indication that impossible means something special in the rulebook. It's only used a few times, often in relation to impossible actions like this one.
All Generalizations are Bad
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 31, 2012 - 11:59AM
#37
|
|
|
There are a few places where I simply disagree with the rulings. This is one of them. Doesn't mean I play the game I the way I "want" it to be or that I give people incorrect answers. But I'm entitled to my opinion as much as anyone else. And my opinion on this topic is that it should be ruled differently. No, I don't expect it ever will be, but that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with the ruling.
And with that, I think I'm through with this debate.
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 31, 2012 - 12:04PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2001
|
That's your right, of course, but I'd just like to remind you that postings here do sometimes influence policy. Every comprules update contains something I recognize as stemming from a debate here or on RT&T. However, they have a better chance of doing so if you can do a better job of articulating your reasons for having the views you do. No-one is putting a gun to your head and making you do so, but it might be in your interests since you clearly care about the issue.
(Of course, if you do wish to revisit this, starting an RT&T thread would probably be the way to go.)
Jeff Heikkinen
DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 31, 2012 - 12:11PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
you can't choose to destroy something indestructible. This is black and white in the rules.
700.4. If a permanent is indestructible, rules and effects can’t destroy it. [...]
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree because I don't see it as black and white in the rules AT ALL.
Yes, it is clear that the effect can't destroy it. It is not clear that it is legal to try if the effect has a target, but not legal if the effect doesn't use the word "target".
Whether it's targetting or not has nothing to do with it.
There are two choices being made that leads to casting Shatter :
- The choice to cast Shatter or not. Casting a spell doesn't cause destruction (even if part of its effect does), so the rule I quoted doesn't apply. Absent other restrictions, you can cast Shatter.
- The choice of target. The only constraint on the target is that it must be an artifact. Darksteel Colossus is an artifact, so it's a valid choice of target.
As such, it's legal to cast Shatter targetting Darksteel Colossus. There's simply no rule forbidding it. I'm not sure why think it's unclear.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 31, 2012 - 12:17PM
#40
|
|
|
That's your right, of course, but I'd just like to remind you that postings here do sometimes influence policy. Every comprules update contains something I recognize as stemming from a debate here or on RT&T. However, they have a better chance of doing so if you can do a better job of articulating your reasons for having the views you do. No-one is putting a gun to your head and making you do so, but it might be in your interests since you clearly care about the issue.
(Of course, if you do wish to revisit this, starting an RT&T thread would probably be the way to go.)
A) This issue was debated at length in the past. A new discussion now is unlikely to have an effect.
B) I only mentioned it because someone else brought it up, I didn't mean to start a whole side debate, though perhaps I should have expected it.
C) I brought up an issue once before and it turned into a debacle that is still an unchanged disaster in the Rules. So I don't really feel much desire to try again, especially on something much less clear that it is a problem, ruleswise.
(Ante is still in the Rules without ANY clarification that it is only intended for 1-vs-1 duels and is not in any way shape or form supported in the Rules for multi-player formats. The Ante rules do stay they are an optional way to play, but under those Rules, should you choose to play with them, you can quit the game with lethal damage on the stack and as long as there are still at least two players that will continue the game, you take your Ante card(s) with you while they continue to play for their Ante cards. And that doesn't even begin to touch the problem of multiple players trying to concede "first" so that they keep their Ante cards while the second to last loses his to the winner.)
I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
