I was correct in my interpretation of what actually happens in these events. What I was having a problem with was the explanation of choosing impossible things. I believe that the meaning is that the choice has to be valid ignoring any replacement effects (that would basically be "unknown" to the ability at the time of the choice.)
I was correct in my interpretation of what actually happens in these events. What I was having a problem with was the explanation of choosing impossible things. I believe that the meaning is that the choice has to be valid ignoring any replacement effects (that would basically be "unknown" to the ability at the time of the choice.)
You can't choose to pay impossible cost, anyway, under 424.2 and 424.3.
Quote from CompRules »
424.2. A player can’t pay a cost unless he or she has the necessary resources to pay it fully. For example, a player with only 1 life can’t pay a cost of 2 life, and a permanent that’s already tapped can’t be tapped to pay a cost. See rule 203, “Mana Cost and Color,” and rule 403, “Activated Abilities.”
424.3. Unpayable costs can’t be paid. (See rule 203.1b.)
The better explanation would be as long as you had paid the cost for the effect, the 'if you do' portion would happen, regardless of the final outcome of choosing to pay the said cost.
Surely that is not correct, Condor. If so, you could have a situation where an ability says "Sacrifice ~this~. If you do..." and another sac effect. As long as you "chose" to sacrifice the creature on the first one, you'd get the effect...even if you, in response, sacrificed the creature to the second effect.
Right - that was my point. That it is not correct. If an effect says "You may XXX," you have to be able to do (all of) XXX, regardless of what comes after it. The "if you do" does not change things.
Obviously, you can't do that. The whole reason that the "if you do" exists is to prevent such actions.
Remember, the "if you do" depends on the choice, not what you actually end up doing. That's why the choice has to be possible, even if it gets replaced. Or even if there is no "if you do."
I should mention that the first ability is worded NOT as a cost, but as part of the effect...otherwise "in response" makes no sense whatsoever.
There is no difference here. The choice, and the action, are both done as part of the effect. There is no reposnding to it. The part I put in red above can't happen.
Preferred Selection: "At the beginning of your upkeep, look at the top two cards of your library. You may sacrifice Preferred Selection and pay 2GG. If you do, put one of those cards into your hand. If you don't, put one of those cards on the bottom of your library."
If you can do only one of "sacrifice Preferred Selection" and "pay 2GG", you should not get a card. Now, I'm willing to accept a "play it this way," but you have to be able to do all of what the option is.
Wait, how is it not like this now? I can somehow get a card and do only one of sacrificing the enchantment and paying 2GG?
This thread stopped making sense at about Twistagain's post.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Wait, how is it not like this now? I can somehow get a card and do only one of sacrificing the enchantment and paying 2GG?
According to Gavin's response regarding the original situation:
That said, with Malaren in play it IS legal under the current template for a player to use the dragon's ability (ie: it is legal to choose to discard and draw). That's because the entirety of the action isn't illegal, just some of it.
I think that's the point Condor is angling at when bringing up when he mentions Preferred Selection (and applying this answer to both scenarios).
My point is: If an effect says "You may do XXX and YYY," you have to be able to do both XXX and YYY in order to choose the option. It does not matter if there is, or if there is not, and "if you do" clause after it. Similarly, if an effect says "You may do XXX to two (or more) ZZZs," you have to havw the required number of ZZZs that you can do XXX to.
What I said "can't be correct," is that the impossibility rule does not apply when "the entirety of the action isn't illegal, just some of it." It has to apply to all.
My point is: If an effect says "You may do XXX and YYY," you have to be able to do both XXX and YYY in order to choose the option. It does not matter if there is, or if there is not, and "if you do" clause after it. Similarly, if an effect says "You may do XXX to two (or more) ZZZs," you have to havw the required number of ZZZs that you can do XXX to.
What I said "can't be correct," is that the impossibility rule does not apply when "the entirety of the action isn't illegal, just some of it." It has to apply to all.
your original arguement made sense to me and i agree with it. ie, you can only choose an option when you can legally action all events in that option.
but now, i think this is getting out of hand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am NOT the girl in my avatar. Stop hitting on me. I'm a dude, just like you!
Ryoka: OK, here's basically what Condor wanted to say in his last post...
Quote from CompRules »
424.2. A player can’t pay a cost unless he or she has the necessary resources to pay it fully. For example, a player with only 1 life can’t pay a cost of 2 life, and a permanent that’s already tapped can’t be tapped to pay a cost. See rule 203, “Mana Cost and Color,” and rule 403, “Activated Abilities.”
In Condor's case, both XXX and YYY are the costs you needed to pay to get the 'if you do' effect. Partial payments is not allowed, just like in paying the cost for a spell or activated abilities.
EDIT: After rereading the thread several times, I think I have found out where's our real conflict is.
The real question is: can you choose to do only impartial action (aka discard, but not drawing) when using Knollspire Dragon's ability?
Well, according to CompRules...
Quote from CompRules »
413.2c If an effect offers any choices other than choices already made as part of playing the spell or ability, 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 an empty library doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action (see rule 423.3).
Quote from CompRules »
423.3. If there are no cards in a player’s library and an effect offers that player the choice to draw a card, that player can choose to do so. However, if an effect says that a player can’t draw cards and another effect offers that player the choice to draw a card, that player can’t choose to do so.
If Knollspell's ability only offers a player to draw a card, then it's obvious that he can't choose to do so while Maralen is in play. However, Knollspell also offer player to discard his hand, which is a legal action. That's where the confusion starts. If an option contains both a legal and illegal action, can you choose to do so? 413.2c is not clear when it comes to this.
Something to compound this: What if you played Knollspine Dragon when the opponent had been dealt no damage? Would that change things (since you'd be drawing 0 cards), or would it fall under the same situation?
Something to compound this: What if you played Knollspine Dragon when the opponent had been dealt no damage? Would that change things (since you'd be drawing 0 cards), or would it fall under the same situation?
Well... if Maralen is not in play, then this one is easy: you can play the Dragon's ability. Draw 0 card is a legal action. (Although I personally see no point of doing this)
If Maralen is in play, however, it's a difficult question. From what I understand from the CompRules, Maralen should forbids you to draw any numbers of cards, even if you're drawing zero card.
Knollspine Dragon has a peculiar template and should probably read
"Discard your hand. If you do, draw that many cards." We have
asked the rules manager if it should be errataed to bring it in line
with the normal template (likewise Oath of Scholars).
That said, with Malaren in play it IS legal under the current template
for a player to use the dragon's ability (ie: it is legal to choose to
discard and draw). That's because the entirety of the action isn't
illegal, just some of it.
And here's the correction to the [O] answer:
Quote from Gavin Duggan, L3 Calgary: MTGRULES-L Netrep »
This ruling was incorrect. According to the rules manager, Knollspine Dragon's ability intentionally links the discard with the draw. It's a single compound action, which means if you can't draw you can't discard either.
Again, this is a reversal of my previous ruling (above)... with Malaren in play, you may NOT discard your hand to the Knollspine Dragon trigger because the action "discad and draw" is illegal. This should usually not be used as a precedent though, because MOST abilities are of the form "you may do X. If you do, do Y". That template works very differently than the dragon's "you may do x AND y"
The "if you do" clause is absolutely relevant in several cases. for instance, Grave Peril doesn't say you may sacrifice it. But if you can't sacrifice it (say if an ability said that permanents can't be sacrificed) then you wouldn't get the second portion.
I'm fairly sure, if a replacement effect changed sacrifice into something else, you would still get to destroy the creature.
At any rate, if something says "you may X and Y, if you do, Z" and Y is illegal: You can still choose to do X because it's part of the effect that is legal. However, you didn't do X AND Y so you don't get Z.
The "if you do" clause is absolutely relevant in several cases.
Of course it is. The point is, that Knollspine Dragon doesn't have it.
for instance, Grave Peril doesn't say you may sacrifice it. But if you can't sacrifice it (say if an ability said that permanents can't be sacrificed) then you wouldn't get the second portion.
I'm fairly sure, if a replacement effect changed sacrifice into something else, you would still get to destroy the creature.
That isn't clear, and it is one of the reasons you will never see an effect replace a sacrifice, despite what the YMTC people would like to think.
At any rate, if something says "you may X and Y, if you do, Z" and Y is illegal: You can still choose to do X....
No, you cannot. Did you even read the ruling? The entire action following "you may" and preceding ", if you do" must be legal and possible for you to be able to choose to do it.
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
Of course it is. The point is, that Knollspine Dragon doesn't have it.
That isn't clear, and it is one of the reasons you will never see an effect replace a sacrifice, despite what the YMTC people would like to think.
No, you cannot. Did you even read the ruling? The entire action following "you may" and preceding ", if you do" must be legal and possible for you to be able to choose to do it.
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
How about in my situation then (Maralen in play and 0 damage dealt). Does Maralen allow you to draw 0 cards?
The latest ruling from the magic rules mailing list (MTGRULES-L Digest) says you cant choose to discard your hand, as it would be choosing an illegel option due to Moralen.
Yes, that same message has already been quoted.
Now that we have an official answer for the question, I think this thread is done.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was correct in my interpretation of what actually happens in these events. What I was having a problem with was the explanation of choosing impossible things. I believe that the meaning is that the choice has to be valid ignoring any replacement effects (that would basically be "unknown" to the ability at the time of the choice.)
You can't choose to pay impossible cost, anyway, under 424.2 and 424.3.
The better explanation would be as long as you had paid the cost for the effect, the 'if you do' portion would happen, regardless of the final outcome of choosing to pay the said cost.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Right - that was my point. That it is not correct. If an effect says "You may XXX," you have to be able to do (all of) XXX, regardless of what comes after it. The "if you do" does not change things.
Remember, the "if you do" depends on the choice, not what you actually end up doing. That's why the choice has to be possible, even if it gets replaced. Or even if there is no "if you do."
There is no difference here. The choice, and the action, are both done as part of the effect. There is no reposnding to it. The part I put in red above can't happen.
Wait, how is it not like this now? I can somehow get a card and do only one of sacrificing the enchantment and paying 2GG?
This thread stopped making sense at about Twistagain's post.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
According to Gavin's response regarding the original situation:
That said, with Malaren in play it IS legal under the current template for a player to use the dragon's ability (ie: it is legal to choose to discard and draw). That's because the entirety of the action isn't illegal, just some of it.
I think that's the point Condor is angling at when bringing up when he mentions Preferred Selection (and applying this answer to both scenarios).
What I said "can't be correct," is that the impossibility rule does not apply when "the entirety of the action isn't illegal, just some of it." It has to apply to all.
your original arguement made sense to me and i agree with it. ie, you can only choose an option when you can legally action all events in that option.
but now, i think this is getting out of hand.
In Condor's case, both XXX and YYY are the costs you needed to pay to get the 'if you do' effect. Partial payments is not allowed, just like in paying the cost for a spell or activated abilities.
EDIT: After rereading the thread several times, I think I have found out where's our real conflict is.
The real question is: can you choose to do only impartial action (aka discard, but not drawing) when using Knollspire Dragon's ability?
Well, according to CompRules...
If Knollspell's ability only offers a player to draw a card, then it's obvious that he can't choose to do so while Maralen is in play. However, Knollspell also offer player to discard his hand, which is a legal action. That's where the confusion starts. If an option contains both a legal and illegal action, can you choose to do so? 413.2c is not clear when it comes to this.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Well... if Maralen is not in play, then this one is easy: you can play the Dragon's ability. Draw 0 card is a legal action. (Although I personally see no point of doing this)
If Maralen is in play, however, it's a difficult question. From what I understand from the CompRules, Maralen should forbids you to draw any numbers of cards, even if you're drawing zero card.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
And here's the correction to the [O] answer:
The "if you do" clause is absolutely relevant in several cases. for instance, Grave Peril doesn't say you may sacrifice it. But if you can't sacrifice it (say if an ability said that permanents can't be sacrificed) then you wouldn't get the second portion.
I'm fairly sure, if a replacement effect changed sacrifice into something else, you would still get to destroy the creature.
At any rate, if something says "you may X and Y, if you do, Z" and Y is illegal: You can still choose to do X because it's part of the effect that is legal. However, you didn't do X AND Y so you don't get Z.
Of course it is. The point is, that Knollspine Dragon doesn't have it.
That isn't clear, and it is one of the reasons you will never see an effect replace a sacrifice, despite what the YMTC people would like to think.
No, you cannot. Did you even read the ruling? The entire action following "you may" and preceding ", if you do" must be legal and possible for you to be able to choose to do it.
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
How about in my situation then (Maralen in play and 0 damage dealt). Does Maralen allow you to draw 0 cards?
Drawing 0 cards isn't drawing cards. Sure you can do it.
Yes, that same message has already been quoted.
Now that we have an official answer for the question, I think this thread is done.