During the casting process of a Leatherback Baloth, I use Selvala, Explorer Returned's mana ability to add insufficient green mana to my mana pool. This is, obviously, an illegal action, so the game is rewound.
717.1. If a player realizes that he or she can’t legally take an action after starting to do so, the entire action is reversed and any payments already made are canceled. No abilities trigger and no effects apply as a result of an undone action. If the action was casting a spell, the spell returns to the zone it came from. The player may also reverse any legal mana abilities activated while making the illegal play, unless mana from them or from any triggered mana abilities they triggered was spent on another mana ability that wasn’t reversed. Players may not reverse actions that moved cards to a library, moved cards from a library to any zone other than the stack, or caused a library to be shuffled.
But the problem is that the action of activating the ability itself doesn't cause the cards to be drawn. Tapping Selvala as a cost doesn't cause the cards to be drawn. It's the resolution of the ability that causes it, and the resolution of an ability is not an action that a player can perform. Rather, it's the resolution of the ability that instructs players to perform the actions in question. So the only "actions that moved cards to a library, moved cards from a library to any zone other than the stack, or caused a library to be shuffled" would be the "each player draws a card" effect of the ability, rather than the activation of the ability itself. So it should only be this action that is irreversible, rather than the activation of the mana ability itself. Yet why is the activation irreversible, too?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
You can activate the mana ability of Selvala while paying costs.
If you don't end up with enough mana to pay the intended cost, then you get to keep the mana that you got, and everyone gets to keep the cards that they got, but since you can no longer pay the cost, the casting of Leatherback Baloth will be rewound. It will be removed from the stack and go back to your hand.
Keep in mind, you can activate the mana ability of Selvala while you are casting Leatherback Baloth, and if you don't get the required mana when it resolves (immediately, as a special action), then you can activate other mana abilities to finish paying the cost.
EDIT: The rule you quoted doesn't apply here. You can legally activate Selvala's ability while paying costs, because it is a mana ability. This is a very special case, but it is handled in the way that I described above.
Thanks for the response. However, my question doesn't ask whether Selvala, Explorer Returned's ability is a mana ability (I already mention that it is), it asks why the activation of that mana ability can't be reversed even though activating the mana ability didn't cause any cards to be drawn.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The most important thing to keep in mind is that 717.1 is talking about an illegal action (casting a spell without the proper mana) and all mana abilities involved in attempting to cast it, if we've gone that far. Here, Selvala is one of those mana abilities. Now, if the action of activating the mana ability does something we can't easily reverse, we leave that alone. Selvala is one of those, since we're drawing cards.
Selvala has a mana ability, so there are no separate activations and resolutions. It activates, and it immediately resolves. There is no separation.
605.3b An activated mana ability doesn’t go on the stack, so it can’t be targeted, countered, or otherwise responded to. Rather, it resolves immediately after it is activated. (See rule 405.6c.)
This rule is not written with separate activations and resolutions in mind, since the abilities we're working with are mana abilities.
Consider the implications of allowing the activation to be reversed without the effect. You could improperly cast spells using Selvala as mana to generate infinite mana/draw infinite cards/draw out opponents/etc.
Edit: Wow, I type slow. Activating the mana ability did cause cards to be drawn. It's all one ability.
Thanks for the response. However, my question doesn't ask whether Selvala, Explorer Returned's ability is a mana ability (I already mention that it is), it asks why the activation of that mana ability can't be reversed even though activating the mana ability didn't cause any cards to be drawn.
Again, that rule only applies to illegal actions. Using the mana ability of Selvala while paying costs is not an illegal action. It doesn't matter if cards were drawn or not. You activate it as a mana ability, and it does exactly what it describes.
If you no longer have the mana to pay the cost, then the cost isn't paid, and everything else stays the same.
Thanks for the response. However, my question doesn't ask whether Selvala, Explorer Returned's ability is a mana ability (I already mention that it is), it asks why the activation of that mana ability can't be reversed even though activating the mana ability didn't cause any cards to be drawn.
Again, that rule only applies to illegal actions. Using the mana ability of Selvala while paying costs is not an illegal action.
The illegal action in question is the casting of Leatherback Baloth, not necessarily the activation of the ability. Assume that Selvala, Explorer Returned is just my only way of getting green mana at the time, and that I activate his/her/their mana ability in a four-player game in hopes of getting three or more green mana, which I fail to get due to bad luck.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that 717.1 is talking about an illegal action (casting a spell without the proper mana) and all mana abilities involved in attempting to cast it, if we've gone that far. Here, Selvala is one of those mana abilities. Now, if the action of activating the mana ability does something we can't easily reverse, we leave that alone. Selvala is one of those, since we're drawing cards.
Activating the mana ability only means to have it eventually resolve. That's what "activate" means. The process of activating the ability as described in 602.2a-b doesn't involve resolving the ability, so it doesn't involve following any instructions that would be followed upon the ability's resolution. Activating the ability does tap Selvala, but it doesn't draw any players any cards.
Selvala has a mana ability, so there are so separate activations and resolutions. It activates, and it immediately resolves. There is no separation.
The separation I speak of doesn't involve time. I do not mention that there is any time between the activation and the resolution of the ability; one does happen after the other. But because one does happen right after the other, activation and resolution, by definition, have to be different things.
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Thanks for the response. However, my question doesn't ask whether Selvala, Explorer Returned's ability is a mana ability (I already mention that it is), it asks why the activation of that mana ability can't be reversed even though activating the mana ability didn't cause any cards to be drawn.
Again, that rule only applies to illegal actions. Using the mana ability of Selvala while paying costs is not an illegal action. It doesn't matter if cards were drawn or not. You activate it as a mana ability, and it does exactly what it describes.
If you no longer have the mana to pay the cost, then the cost isn't paid, and everything else stays the same.
Note that if you replace the Selvala with a single forest, the tapping of the forest would be reversed even though tapping the forest was legal. What matters isn't that the mana ability by itself is illegal, but rather that it's an reversible portion of an illegal action. Selvala is irreversible, so it's not reversed.
My apologies on my poor choice of words. Replace any instance of me saying activate to activate and resolve. My point is that we can't do partial reverses of abilities. We reverse mana abilities, and we can't reverse actions that draw cards. Since an action within Selvala's ability causes you to draw cards, we cannot reverse the ability, since reversing the ability would cause you to reverse each action within the ability. There may be a technical separation, but not a relevant one.
Selvala also reveals the cards drawn as part of the parley, so keeping the identity of the cards hidden is kind of a moot point (assuming you're talking about CR 401.5).
That reminds me, isn't there a similar rules snafu with Chromatic Sphere? So they have 401.5 to make that reversible, but still say you can't reverse it in 717.1, presumably because of Bog Witch like Warp mentioned. It's interesting.
Edit: 401.5 makes it so you don't gain strategic advice before you finish paying costs. But you could just activate the sphere first anyway... I'm going too far down the rabbit hole here. Back to Selvala.
"The player may also reverse any legal mana abilities activated" note that the whole activation is reversed (cost and effect). it's considered one action.
Except nothing in the rules says it's considered one action. The activation of a mana ability is never said to be the same as the resolution of a mana ability. The two are separate, as denoted by one happening immediately after the other (by 605.3b). If they were the same action, then activation and resolution would happen at the same time. But they happen sequentially, which means they are two separate things. Just because no time elapses between the two doesn't make them one action.
Two players passing priority in succession isn't one action. It's two actions. Just because there is zero elapsed time between the two actions doesn't mean it's one action.
If activating the ability moves cards into my hand from the library, then there must be a step in the process of activating the ability that instructs me to do so. In this case, there isn't; I pay the cost of the mana ability, and that concludes the process of activating the ability.
Similarly, if the resolution of the ability moves cards into my hand from the library, then there must be a step in the process of the resolution of the ability that instructs me to do so. IN this case, there is. According to 608.2c, following the instructions of the mana ability in the order written will eventually cause cards to move from library to hand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
We can't undo the action of drawing the card, so we can't undo the mana ability. It doesn't say we undo the action of activating a mana ability but instead says we reverse the mana ability itself. Which consists of two actions (generally) and in this case one of those actions involved drawing a card. Since we can't undo it all we don't undo any of it.
If I don't know the place in the comp rules where it says what an action is, and If I don't know the part of the rules that says that if you can't undo some actions of the mana ability, than you can't undo the entire thing, then I just can't be satisfied with a ruling
If I don't know the place in the comp rules where it says what an action is, and If I don't know the part of the rules that says that if you can't undo some actions of the mana ability, than you can't undo the entire thing, then I just can't be satisfied with a ruling
Neither of those things are actually relevant to determining the result for the rules question here (which was answered before the thread was even posted, as seen by the link to the previous thread in the OP).
The term "action" doesn't actually need an explicit technical definition because the rules rely on people using the regular definition.
The rules are permissive, so since they don't say you can partially reverse a mana ability, you can't partially reverse a mana ability.
Also, I'm going to echo Todd, here. Thought Criminal, take it to Rules Theory and Templating; MTGS's rulings forum isn't the place to quibble about definitions or debate strange interpretations of rules. You can't reverse Selvala's ability, which is (t, parley, add G*n to your mana pool), since you can't reverse the draw part of the parley (used as shorthand here for the reveal and draw). So if you require a more technical explanation, reversing a mana ability entails reversing a set of actions; if any of the actions can't be reversed, the set of actions (mana ability) can't be reversed. This is basically what you were already toldwas stated in the other thread.
Edit: for accuracy, since the other thread was by MaximumC, not TC.
If I don't know the place in the comp rules where it says what an action is, and If I don't know the part of the rules that says that if you can't undo some actions of the mana ability, than you can't undo the entire thing, then I just can't be satisfied with a ruling
Neither of those things are actually relevant to determining the result for the rules question here (which was answered before the thread was even posted, as seen by the link to the previous thread in the OP).
The term "action" doesn't actually need an explicit technical definition because the rules rely on people using the regular definition.
The rules are permissive, so since they don't say you can partially reverse a mana ability, you can't partially reverse a mana ability.
Also, I'm going to echo Todd, here. Thought Criminal, take it to Rules Theory and Templating; MTGS's rulings forum isn't the place to quibble about definitions or debate strange interpretations of rules. You can't reverse Selvala's ability, which is (t, parley, add G*n to your mana pool), since you can't reverse the draw part of the parley (used as shorthand here for the reveal and draw). So if you require a more technical explanation, reversing a mana ability entails reversing a set of actions; if any of the actions can't be reversed, the set of actions (mana ability) can't be reversed. This is basically what you were already told in the other thread.
In my experience, making assumptions about things, such as what is or is not a "regular definition" without explicitly knowing them to be true from the comp rules, is one of the main causes of incorrect rulings.
In my experience, making assumptions about things, such as what is or is not a "regular definition" without explicitly knowing them to be true from the comp rules, is one of the main causes of incorrect rulings.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here, but I did search through the comp. rules for a technical definition of the word "action" and didn't find one; if you did, please point it out?
Are you suggesting that players need encyclopedic knowledge of the comp. rules in order to figure out what anything in it means?
It's all a moot point because, shortly after they printed Selvala, they issued a judge ruling as to how she works. It was from Nathan Long, and is quoted here.
So, no matter what complaint you may have about how to interpret the Rules in this situation, we already have the equivalent of a Supreme Court opinion telling us the interpretation. No more questions to ask.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here, but I did search through the comp. rules for a technical definition of the word "action" and didn't find one; if you did, please point it out?
Are you suggesting that players need encyclopedic knowledge of the comp. rules in order to figure out what anything in it means?
As Todd pointed out, the rules answer this question
The basic problem is this: suppose there's a word, "floop", that appears on a card. The rules give a definition of "floop".
But now someone will say "all right, but where are the definitions of all the words used in the definition of floop?"
And then "all right, but where are the definitions of all the words used in the definitions of all the words used in the definition of floop?"
And at some point we have to just stop and say -- this is a document written in English. When we need to give a word a different or more specific technical definition as opposed to ordinary English usage, we'll do that. But if we don't, then just read it as normal English.
In this case "action" is one of those words that does not get a special technical definition in the Comprehensive Rules, so you just go by ordinary everyday English usage. Selvala's ability is an action. Since it's not something we can rewind, thanks to it moving cards around, we don't rewind that when it's activated as part of an attempt to cast a spell that ends up being illegal.
The OP seems to want to completely disassociate an action (activating an ability) with the consequences of the action (parley and adding mana)...in mtg. Yet he consistently uses the term "mana ability". This term doesn't even make sense if actions are dissociated with their consequences. In mtg "actions" do track their consequences fairly regularly, if they didn't then the phrase "activated abilities can't be activated unless they are mana abilities" would make absolutely no sense.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here, but I did search through the comp. rules for a technical definition of the word "action" and didn't find one; if you did, please point it out?
Are you suggesting that players need encyclopedic knowledge of the comp. rules in order to figure out what anything in it means?
As Todd pointed out, the rules answer this question
The basic problem is this: suppose there's a word, "floop", that appears on a card. The rules give a definition of "floop".
But now someone will say "all right, but where are the definitions of all the words used in the definition of floop?"
And then "all right, but where are the definitions of all the words used in the definitions of all the words used in the definition of floop?"
And at some point we have to just stop and say -- this is a document written in English. When we need to give a word a different or more specific technical definition as opposed to ordinary English usage, we'll do that. But if we don't, then just read it as normal English.
In this case "action" is one of those words that does not get a special technical definition in the Comprehensive Rules, so you just go by ordinary everyday English usage. Selvala's ability is an action. Since it's not something we can rewind, thanks to it moving cards around, we don't rewind that when it's activated as part of an attempt to cast a spell that ends up being illegal.
The problem is, that it's valid in English to use the word "Action" to for either drawing cards or adding mana to your mana pool, or doing the entire thing. You can't just use the English definition of "Action" because it's ambiguous
You may "reverse any legal mana abilities activated," but you can't "reverse actions" that do certain things. To reverse an ability you must, ipso facto, reverse each and every action in the ability. If you can't reverse one, you can't reverse each and every one, so that ability can't be reversed at all. No matter what definition of action you take here, we arrive at the same result.
You may "reverse any legal mana abilities activated," but you can't "reverse actions" that do certain things. To reverse an ability you must, ipso facto, reverse each and every action in the ability. If you can't reverse one, you can't reverse each and every one, so that ability can't be reversed at all. No matter what definition of action you take here, we arrive at the same result.
That part that I underlined is a reasonable assumption, but reasonable as it might be, nothing in this thread has indicated that it's anything but an assumption.
Another reasonable assumption would be that if you took a 1/1, and then cast a spell that switched it's power and toughness, and then after that you cast a spell that gave it +0/+3, that it would be a 1/4, but that assumption, even though it's reasonable, would not be correct.
here's another example of a reasonable assumption.
Suppose someone knows that if you kill the target of a spell with 1 target, that that entire spell would be countered due to illegal targets.
Knowing that, it would be reasonable to assume that a spell that requires 2 targets, (like prey upon) would be countered if only one of it's targets were removed, since the spell would then not even have enough targets to be legally cast. That would also be an incorrect assumption.
You may "reverse any legal mana abilities activated," but you can't "reverse actions" that do certain things. To reverse an ability you must, ipso facto, reverse each and every action in the ability. If you can't reverse one, you can't reverse each and every one, so that ability can't be reversed at all. No matter what definition of action you take here, we arrive at the same result.
That part that I underlined is a reasonable assumption, but reasonable as it might be, nothing in this thread has indicated that it's anything but an assumption.
Another reasonable assumption would be that if you took a 1/1, and then cast a spell that switched it's power and toughness, and then after that you cast a spell that gave it +0/+3, that it would be a 1/4, but that assumption, even though it's reasonable, would not be correct.
here's another example of a reasonable assumption.
Suppose someone knows that if you kill the target of a spell with 1 target, that that entire spell would be countered due to illegal targets.
Knowing that, it would be reasonable to assume that a spell that requires 2 targets, (like prey upon) would be countered if only one of it's targets were removed, since the spell would then not even have enough targets to be legally cast. That would also be an incorrect assumption.
The only reason those reasonable assumptions are wrong is that they are explicitly contradicted by the rules. If a reasonable assumption is not explicitly contradicted by the rules, it continues to be reasonable and is likely correct.
That part that I underlined is a reasonable assumption, but reasonable as it might be, nothing in this thread has indicated that it's anything but an assumption.
Let's say we accept this and consider it to be merely a "reasonable assumption." So? That something is an assumption doesn't make it wrong. The two example scenarios you gave are both solved by pointing to the section of the rules that contradicts the incorrect conclusion, not saying "that's an assumption."
Moreover, there is something that indicates it's more than just a reasonable assumption: the link to the previous thread posted in the OP, in which official Wizards Net Rep Nate gives a ruling saying exactly that.
What more do you and TC want? Explicit statements in the comp. rules to that effect? Then head on over to Wizards' Rules Theory and Templating forum.
Edit: It appears that TC has done exactly that: the thread is here.
You may "reverse any legal mana abilities activated," but you can't "reverse actions" that do certain things. To reverse an ability you must, ipso facto, reverse each and every action in the ability. If you can't reverse one, you can't reverse each and every one, so that ability can't be reversed at all. No matter what definition of action you take here, we arrive at the same result.
That part that I underlined is a reasonable assumption, but reasonable as it might be, nothing in this thread has indicated that it's anything but an assumption.
Another reasonable assumption would be that if you took a 1/1, and then cast a spell that switched it's power and toughness, and then after that you cast a spell that gave it +0/+3, that it would be a 1/4, but that assumption, even though it's reasonable, would not be correct.
here's another example of a reasonable assumption.
Suppose someone knows that if you kill the target of a spell with 1 target, that that entire spell would be countered due to illegal targets.
Knowing that, it would be reasonable to assume that a spell that requires 2 targets, (like prey upon) would be countered if only one of it's targets were removed, since the spell would then not even have enough targets to be legally cast. That would also be an incorrect assumption.
Other than the fact that your reasonable assumptions are directly countered by the comp rules, they're also not at all similar to this scenario.
That power switching thing is exactly how it would work if there was no later system and we relied completely on time stamps. We have rules written so it doesn't work like this, and if those rules weren't there it would work like this. In the Selvala scenario, the reasonable scenario works because we don't have a rule that explicitly says it doesn't. I don't see what this does for your argument.
The illegal target thing is an example of a scenario with two equally reasonable assumptions. The two target spell has one legal target, so it's reasonable to assume it resolves. It also has one illegal target, so, using in the universe of limited knowledge you give us, it's reasonable to assume it's countered on resolution. Since we have two equally reasonable assumptions, the rules clarify which requirement for countering upon resolution applies.
In this case, it is not at all reasonable to think that you can partially reverse an action when it leads to absurd abusive potential and weird partial reversals.
[quote from="Sam I am »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/571311-what-is-an-action-regarding-selvala-explorer?comment=26"]
In this case, it is not at all reasonable to think that you can partially reverse an action when it leads to absurd abusive potential and weird partial reversals.
Of course that's a reasonable assumption. This is especially so considering that _partially doing things_ is already a pattern in the form of partially resolving spells when not all the actions on that spell can be performed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
717.1. If a player realizes that he or she can’t legally take an action after starting to do so, the entire action is reversed and any payments already made are canceled. No abilities trigger and no effects apply as a result of an undone action. If the action was casting a spell, the spell returns to the zone it came from. The player may also reverse any legal mana abilities activated while making the illegal play, unless mana from them or from any triggered mana abilities they triggered was spent on another mana ability that wasn’t reversed. Players may not reverse actions that moved cards to a library, moved cards from a library to any zone other than the stack, or caused a library to be shuffled.
According to 717.1, the cards that are drawn are not put back into the library, since they can't be reversed. However, why isn't tapping Selvala, Explorer Returned to activate the mana ability reversed either? According to a slightly older thread, "[we] don't just reverse part of the ability, it's all or none."
But the problem is that the action of activating the ability itself doesn't cause the cards to be drawn. Tapping Selvala as a cost doesn't cause the cards to be drawn. It's the resolution of the ability that causes it, and the resolution of an ability is not an action that a player can perform. Rather, it's the resolution of the ability that instructs players to perform the actions in question. So the only "actions that moved cards to a library, moved cards from a library to any zone other than the stack, or caused a library to be shuffled" would be the "each player draws a card" effect of the ability, rather than the activation of the ability itself. So it should only be this action that is irreversible, rather than the activation of the mana ability itself. Yet why is the activation irreversible, too?
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
If you don't end up with enough mana to pay the intended cost, then you get to keep the mana that you got, and everyone gets to keep the cards that they got, but since you can no longer pay the cost, the casting of Leatherback Baloth will be rewound. It will be removed from the stack and go back to your hand.
Keep in mind, you can activate the mana ability of Selvala while you are casting Leatherback Baloth, and if you don't get the required mana when it resolves (immediately, as a special action), then you can activate other mana abilities to finish paying the cost.
EDIT: The rule you quoted doesn't apply here. You can legally activate Selvala's ability while paying costs, because it is a mana ability. This is a very special case, but it is handled in the way that I described above.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Selvala has a mana ability, so there are no separate activations and resolutions. It activates, and it immediately resolves. There is no separation.
This rule is not written with separate activations and resolutions in mind, since the abilities we're working with are mana abilities.
Consider the implications of allowing the activation to be reversed without the effect. You could improperly cast spells using Selvala as mana to generate infinite mana/draw infinite cards/draw out opponents/etc.
Edit: Wow, I type slow. Activating the mana ability did cause cards to be drawn. It's all one ability.
Rules Advisor
Again, that rule only applies to illegal actions. Using the mana ability of Selvala while paying costs is not an illegal action. It doesn't matter if cards were drawn or not. You activate it as a mana ability, and it does exactly what it describes.
If you no longer have the mana to pay the cost, then the cost isn't paid, and everything else stays the same.
The illegal action in question is the casting of Leatherback Baloth, not necessarily the activation of the ability. Assume that Selvala, Explorer Returned is just my only way of getting green mana at the time, and that I activate his/her/their mana ability in a four-player game in hopes of getting three or more green mana, which I fail to get due to bad luck.
Activating the mana ability only means to have it eventually resolve. That's what "activate" means. The process of activating the ability as described in 602.2a-b doesn't involve resolving the ability, so it doesn't involve following any instructions that would be followed upon the ability's resolution. Activating the ability does tap Selvala, but it doesn't draw any players any cards.
The separation I speak of doesn't involve time. I do not mention that there is any time between the activation and the resolution of the ability; one does happen after the other. But because one does happen right after the other, activation and resolution, by definition, have to be different things.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Note that if you replace the Selvala with a single forest, the tapping of the forest would be reversed even though tapping the forest was legal. What matters isn't that the mana ability by itself is illegal, but rather that it's an reversible portion of an illegal action. Selvala is irreversible, so it's not reversed.
Rules Advisor
Rules Advisor
That reminds me, isn't there a similar rules snafu with Chromatic Sphere? So they have 401.5 to make that reversible, but still say you can't reverse it in 717.1, presumably because of Bog Witch like Warp mentioned. It's interesting.
Edit: 401.5 makes it so you don't gain strategic advice before you finish paying costs. But you could just activate the sphere first anyway... I'm going too far down the rabbit hole here. Back to Selvala.
Rules Advisor
Except nothing in the rules says it's considered one action. The activation of a mana ability is never said to be the same as the resolution of a mana ability. The two are separate, as denoted by one happening immediately after the other (by 605.3b). If they were the same action, then activation and resolution would happen at the same time. But they happen sequentially, which means they are two separate things. Just because no time elapses between the two doesn't make them one action.
Two players passing priority in succession isn't one action. It's two actions. Just because there is zero elapsed time between the two actions doesn't mean it's one action.
If activating the ability moves cards into my hand from the library, then there must be a step in the process of activating the ability that instructs me to do so. In this case, there isn't; I pay the cost of the mana ability, and that concludes the process of activating the ability.
Similarly, if the resolution of the ability moves cards into my hand from the library, then there must be a step in the process of the resolution of the ability that instructs me to do so. IN this case, there is. According to 608.2c, following the instructions of the mana ability in the order written will eventually cause cards to move from library to hand.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
If I don't know the place in the comp rules where it says what an action is, and If I don't know the part of the rules that says that if you can't undo some actions of the mana ability, than you can't undo the entire thing, then I just can't be satisfied with a ruling
Neither of those things are actually relevant to determining the result for the rules question here (which was answered before the thread was even posted, as seen by the link to the previous thread in the OP).
The term "action" doesn't actually need an explicit technical definition because the rules rely on people using the regular definition.
The rules are permissive, so since they don't say you can partially reverse a mana ability, you can't partially reverse a mana ability.
Also, I'm going to echo Todd, here. Thought Criminal, take it to Rules Theory and Templating; MTGS's rulings forum isn't the place to quibble about definitions or debate strange interpretations of rules. You can't reverse Selvala's ability, which is (t, parley, add G*n to your mana pool), since you can't reverse the draw part of the parley (used as shorthand here for the reveal and draw). So if you require a more technical explanation, reversing a mana ability entails reversing a set of actions; if any of the actions can't be reversed, the set of actions (mana ability) can't be reversed. This is basically what
you were already toldwas stated in the other thread.Edit: for accuracy, since the other thread was by MaximumC, not TC.
In my experience, making assumptions about things, such as what is or is not a "regular definition" without explicitly knowing them to be true from the comp rules, is one of the main causes of incorrect rulings.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here, but I did search through the comp. rules for a technical definition of the word "action" and didn't find one; if you did, please point it out?
Are you suggesting that players need encyclopedic knowledge of the comp. rules in order to figure out what anything in it means?
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/magic-rulings-archives/560724-selvala-explorer-returned
So, no matter what complaint you may have about how to interpret the Rules in this situation, we already have the equivalent of a Supreme Court opinion telling us the interpretation. No more questions to ask.
As Todd pointed out, the rules answer this question
The basic problem is this: suppose there's a word, "floop", that appears on a card. The rules give a definition of "floop".
But now someone will say "all right, but where are the definitions of all the words used in the definition of floop?"
And then "all right, but where are the definitions of all the words used in the definitions of all the words used in the definition of floop?"
And at some point we have to just stop and say -- this is a document written in English. When we need to give a word a different or more specific technical definition as opposed to ordinary English usage, we'll do that. But if we don't, then just read it as normal English.
In this case "action" is one of those words that does not get a special technical definition in the Comprehensive Rules, so you just go by ordinary everyday English usage. Selvala's ability is an action. Since it's not something we can rewind, thanks to it moving cards around, we don't rewind that when it's activated as part of an attempt to cast a spell that ends up being illegal.
----
Lightning Bolts don't kill creatures. State-based actions kill creatures.
The problem is, that it's valid in English to use the word "Action" to for either drawing cards or adding mana to your mana pool, or doing the entire thing. You can't just use the English definition of "Action" because it's ambiguous
Rules Advisor
That part that I underlined is a reasonable assumption, but reasonable as it might be, nothing in this thread has indicated that it's anything but an assumption.
Another reasonable assumption would be that if you took a 1/1, and then cast a spell that switched it's power and toughness, and then after that you cast a spell that gave it +0/+3, that it would be a 1/4, but that assumption, even though it's reasonable, would not be correct.
here's another example of a reasonable assumption.
Suppose someone knows that if you kill the target of a spell with 1 target, that that entire spell would be countered due to illegal targets.
Knowing that, it would be reasonable to assume that a spell that requires 2 targets, (like prey upon) would be countered if only one of it's targets were removed, since the spell would then not even have enough targets to be legally cast. That would also be an incorrect assumption.
Let's say we accept this and consider it to be merely a "reasonable assumption." So? That something is an assumption doesn't make it wrong. The two example scenarios you gave are both solved by pointing to the section of the rules that contradicts the incorrect conclusion, not saying "that's an assumption."
Moreover, there is something that indicates it's more than just a reasonable assumption: the link to the previous thread posted in the OP, in which official Wizards Net Rep Nate gives a ruling saying exactly that.
What more do you and TC want? Explicit statements in the comp. rules to that effect? Then head on over to Wizards' Rules Theory and Templating forum.
Edit: It appears that TC has done exactly that: the thread is here.
Other than the fact that your reasonable assumptions are directly countered by the comp rules, they're also not at all similar to this scenario.
That power switching thing is exactly how it would work if there was no later system and we relied completely on time stamps. We have rules written so it doesn't work like this, and if those rules weren't there it would work like this. In the Selvala scenario, the reasonable scenario works because we don't have a rule that explicitly says it doesn't. I don't see what this does for your argument.
The illegal target thing is an example of a scenario with two equally reasonable assumptions. The two target spell has one legal target, so it's reasonable to assume it resolves. It also has one illegal target, so, using in the universe of limited knowledge you give us, it's reasonable to assume it's countered on resolution. Since we have two equally reasonable assumptions, the rules clarify which requirement for countering upon resolution applies.
In this case, it is not at all reasonable to think that you can partially reverse an action when it leads to absurd abusive potential and weird partial reversals.
Rules Advisor
Of course that's a reasonable assumption. This is especially so considering that _partially doing things_ is already a pattern in the form of partially resolving spells when not all the actions on that spell can be performed.