Okay so quick question, I am sure I won tonights game but just to make sure.
If someone casts Snapcaster mage and targets Mindbreak trap if the conditions for mindbreak trap's 0 are met can it still be cast for 0 or doe steh fact that it is only able to be cast due to flashback (and alternate cost) mean that it cannot be cast for 0?
Nope. You can only use one alternate cost when casting a spell. Flashback is an alternate cost, and so is casting it for 0 if an opponent has searched. You can only cast the Trap in this case for its flashback cost, not its alternate cost.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 2 Judge
Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
Nope. You can only use one alternate cost when casting a spell. Flashback is an alternate cost, and so is casting it for 0 if an opponent has searched. You can only cast the Trap in this case for its flashback cost, not its alternate cost.
thank you, so I won the game, but was too tired to realize it.
I seem to recall a ruling on the Mirrodin block Bringers that that static ability was a rule changing effect (that was active everywhere) that modified the rule for what constitutes full payment of that card's mana cost. It was not an alternative cost. As a result, one could pay RGBUW to something like Flash to keep a Bringer alive.
In support of that argument, compare this ability (which talks in terms of "paying" without restriction) to Fist of Suns or Omniscience abilities (which speak in terms of "paying" only with respect to "playing" or "casting").
Since flashback is an ability with its own cost (in this case the converted mana cost of the targeted spell), it can't be replaced by an alternate cost that requires you to cast a spell.
That's my point, the trap's (and Bringers) ability DOESN'T use the word cast or play. It says that you can pay this rather than pay that, whenever that payment may come up.
Also the flashback cost is NOT determined statically when the mage's ability resolves. Rather it is determined dynamically when you cast the spell. Hence no split spell shenanigans.
Since flashback is an ability with its own cost (in this case the converted mana cost of the targeted spell), it can't be replaced by an alternate cost that requires you to cast a spell.
That's my point, the trap's (and Bringers) ability DOESN'T use the word cast or play. It says that you can pay this rather than pay that, whenever that payment may come up.
Also the flashback cost is NOT determined statically when the mage's ability resolves. Rather it is determined dynamically when you cast the spell. Hence no split spell shenanigans.
That's because they don't need to. Any time you would pay their mana cost, you can instead pay their alternative cost. However, when casting a spell off Snapcaster Mage, after it has been granted flashback, you are not paying the mana cost. It may be the same value, but it is not the same. So, you are not paying the mana cost for the trap to cast it with Flashback. You are paying the Flashback cost. This is why the alternative "free" cost doesn't apply.
These are both alternative costs and you can't use both at the same time. Here are the rules for Alternative costs and Flashback:
117.9. Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell’s text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell’s mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, “You may [action] rather than pay [this object’s] mana cost,” or “You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost.” Note that some alternative costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.
117.9a Only one alternative cost can be applied to any one spell as it’s being cast. The controller of the spell announces his or her intentions to pay that cost as described in rule 601.2b.
702.33. Flashback
702.33a Flashback appears on some instants and sorceries. It represents two static abilities: one that functions while the card is in a player’s graveyard and another that functions while the card is on the stack. “Flashback [cost]” means “You may cast this card from your graveyard by paying [cost] rather than paying its mana cost” and “If the flashback cost was paid, exile this card instead of putting it anywhere else any time it would leave the stack.” Casting a spell using its flashback ability follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h
You can try to pay the alternative cost of 0 from the graveyard but the game won't let you since nothing lets you cast it from the graveyard diectly. Or, you can use the flashback cost of 2UU to cast the spell using flashback. You can't do both.
As mentioned, Jace, Telepath Unbound is a good example that lets you do what you think you can do with Snapcaster Mage.
That's fine. I'm not arguing that Natedog is wrong. I asked if that's a recent change.
Cause I could have sworn 117.9 was different when Mirrodin was out (admittedly quite a while ago). And at that time, a "you may pay this rather than pay its mana cost" ability was not an alternative cost but rather a rule changing effect.
Fair enough. I took a look at the rules from 2003 and it appears to be the same rule so I don't believe this is a change between original Mirrodin and now. I don't want to quote it here as that could cause confusion, but if you want to check, you can Google "MTG Rules 2003" to get the Comprehensive rules from that year and just search for "Alternative Costs".
In any case, this discussion has probably gone as far as it needs to as the original question has been answered. If you still have questions about potential rule changes over the years, please open a new thread.
If someone casts Snapcaster mage and targets Mindbreak trap if the conditions for mindbreak trap's 0 are met can it still be cast for 0 or doe steh fact that it is only able to be cast due to flashback (and alternate cost) mean that it cannot be cast for 0?
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
thank you, so I won the game, but was too tired to realize it.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Is this a recent change?
I seem to recall a ruling on the Mirrodin block Bringers that that static ability was a rule changing effect (that was active everywhere) that modified the rule for what constitutes full payment of that card's mana cost. It was not an alternative cost. As a result, one could pay RGBUW to something like Flash to keep a Bringer alive.
In support of that argument, compare this ability (which talks in terms of "paying" without restriction) to Fist of Suns or Omniscience abilities (which speak in terms of "paying" only with respect to "playing" or "casting").
That's my point, the trap's (and Bringers) ability DOESN'T use the word cast or play. It says that you can pay this rather than pay that, whenever that payment may come up.
Also the flashback cost is NOT determined statically when the mage's ability resolves. Rather it is determined dynamically when you cast the spell. Hence no split spell shenanigans.
These are both alternative costs and you can't use both at the same time. Here are the rules for Alternative costs and Flashback:
You can try to pay the alternative cost of 0 from the graveyard but the game won't let you since nothing lets you cast it from the graveyard diectly. Or, you can use the flashback cost of 2UU to cast the spell using flashback. You can't do both.
As mentioned, Jace, Telepath Unbound is a good example that lets you do what you think you can do with Snapcaster Mage.
Cause I could have sworn 117.9 was different when Mirrodin was out (admittedly quite a while ago). And at that time, a "you may pay this rather than pay its mana cost" ability was not an alternative cost but rather a rule changing effect.
Again, not arguing that Natedog is wrong.
In any case, this discussion has probably gone as far as it needs to as the original question has been answered. If you still have questions about potential rule changes over the years, please open a new thread.