Community

Dec 25, 2012 -- 2:42PM, adeyke wrote:

We do have an [O] ruling that Maralen of the Mornsong negates the entire effect of Knollspine Dragon . Because it's impossible to draw, you can't choose to "discard and draw".

I think the same would go for Ondu Giant and Mindlock Orb .

Very interesting. Thanks for the info!

So if you have a string of actions under a "may" and can't be perform one, then you can't perform any. Sounds reasonable. This would also mean that Ondu Giant is hosed by Worms of the Earth as well. (Still no different than Farhaven though, since the "may search and put" is also a set of actions, and the shuffling depends on searching).

Dec 25, 2012 -- 3:10PM, FezzHead wrote:

The rule for indestructible is as follows.

"700.4. If a permanent is indestructible, rules and effects can't destroy it."

It doesn't say that costs can't destroy it, and Floral Spuzzem 's Oracle wording uses destruction as a cost (although it may also be an effect in this case).

Doesn't matter. An action can be both a cost and an effect.

Edit:

• 117.1. A cost is an action or payment necessary to take another action or to stop another action from taking place. To pay a cost, a player carries out the instructions specified by the spell, ability, or effect that contains that cost.

Dec 25, 2012 -- 3:26PM, adeyke wrote:

As you'd already pointed out, costs and effects aren't mutually exclusive. The destruction there is both.

If the targeted artifact is indestructible, it's not legal to choose to destroy it, so the Spuzzem will still deal its combat damage.

Floral Spuzzem no longer uses the word "choose" in its oracle text; it only targets. So you can legally target an indestructible artifact. Even the original text actually targets.

Dec 25, 2012 -- 3:57PM, adeyke wrote:

Dec 25, 2012 -- 3:29PM, FezzHead wrote:

Agreed, but there is at least one case (indestructible) where the distinction between something being a cost or an effect matters.

This doesn't make sense. Even though you know that the two aren't mutually exclusive, you're still talking about it as through they're a dichotomy. You're trying to use the fact that things care whether something is an effect to imply that there are also things that care whether something is a cost, but this doesn't follow.

We agree that costs and effects are not mutually exclusive. My previous post was poorly phrased. Something can be a cost, or an effect, or both. There are places in the rules and on cards where costs or effects are explicitly mentioned. My point was that any rule or card that references what effects can do does not necessarily apply to costs, since costs are not (always) effects. I do not know of any situations where this distinction matters, but there are enough strange interactions in Magic that one probably exists.