The player could not have cast force of will because there would not have been a legal target. Since he could not cast it the cards would return to his hand as opposed to go to the other said zones
The player could not have cast force of will because there would not have been a legal target. Since he could not cast it the cards would return to his hand as opposed to go to the other said zones
this is not true, cards that "cant be countered" are legal targets for counterspells. what would happen here is that force of will would resolve, but the lord cannot be countered, therefore the lord would then resolve
There is nothing stopping a player from casting a force of will or any other counterspell that can target creatures onto the stack targeting an uncounterable spell. Uncounterable does not mean untargetable by countermagic. It's a perfectly legal play to dispel an abrupt decay for example, sure all it does is put a dispel into the graveyard while abrupt decay still destroys whatever permanent it targeted, but you can still make that play.
In competitive REL and above the force of will would go to the graveyard and the card exiled to it would remain exiled as well as losing 1 life. In regular REL I'm not entirely sure if the force of will would stay in the graveyard or not, but I'd lean towards yes it would stay in the graveyard, the card exiled to it would remain exiled, and they would lose 1 life. Lord of atlantis would of course resolve.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
There is nothing stopping a player from casting a force of will or any other counterspell that can target creatures onto the stack targeting an uncounterable spell. Uncounterable does not mean untargetable by countermagic. It's a perfectly legal play to dispel an abrupt decay for example, sure all it does is put a dispel into the graveyard while abrupt decay still destroys whatever permanent it targeted, but you can still make that play.
In competitive REL and above the force of will would go to the graveyard and the card exiled to it would remain exiled as well as losing 1 life. In regular REL I'm not entirely sure if the force of will would stay in the graveyard or not, but I'd lean towards yes it would stay in the graveyard, the card exiled to it would remain exiled, and they would lose 1 life. Lord of atlantis would of course resolve.
While regular REL is geared towards players learning and having fun they don't allow for changing a decision after it has been made. The Force of Will would resolve completely (doing nothing) and go to the GY with the exiled card remaining and 1 life lost.
The player could not have cast force of will because there would not have been a legal target. Since he could not cast it the cards would return to his hand as opposed to go to the other said zones
As others have noted, being uncounterable does not make a spell untargetable by counterspells. Sometimes it comes up that you want to target something for another reason. The most common example is Remanding an uncounterable spell just to cycle it for another card that can actually deal with whatever spell is coming in (like a removal spell for an uncounterable creature for instance).
One example a friend of mine and local grinder told me from when Cavern was in Standard -- he deliberately "tried to counter" an uncounterable Loxodon Smiter with two counterspells just to move them to his graveyard. He flashed in a Restoration Angel EOT, untapped and played Runechanter's Pike, equipped it to Resto and attacked for exact lethal, which was his only reasonable out to win the game (he had no other cards but two dead counters, Angel and Pike in hand, drew land for turn, and was at 4 life -- so he was otherwise going to have to chump the Smiter and somehow draw a game-winning spell next turn).
Corner cases like these actually play right into why takebacks are frowned upon so much, even in regular REL. Judges are there to ensure that the rules are arbitrated fairly and that neither player gains an advantage as the result of their interactions with the rules, and with the rules' enforcers. Because of the existence of corner cases where players make ostensibly-suboptimal plays which turn out to be good for them in the end, it cannot be left to the subjective evaluation of a judge whether or not the player "misplayed" as opposed to making a strategically-sound decision that simply looks bad on the front end -- regardless of the player's acknowledgment of the misplay or insistence that they didn't want to do that. The prospect is all-or-nothing: you can either require judges to make these evaluations, or make a flatline rule that takebacks are or are not allowed. If you require them to make these evaluations, you significantly increase the chances that some number of players gain an advantage in their game due to outside-of-game interactions with the rule enforcers (allowing takebacks or not allowing them on an inconsistent basis). You should therefore favor not allowing them to make the decision, and therefore deciding by rule whether or not takebacks are okay.
You should therefore favor not allowing them to make the decision, and therefore deciding by rule whether or not takebacks are okay.
That's where the problem always seems to stem from, which brings back to main issue addressed.
What happens when takebacks aren't allowed and, in this instance, the opponent refuses to put the Force Of Will in their graveyard, exile the blue card, and lose a life?
Isn't that pretty much cheating, especially after you let them know that it was an illegal move and that there are no takebacks?
You should therefore favor not allowing them to make the decision, and therefore deciding by rule whether or not takebacks are okay.
That's where the problem always seems to stem from, which brings back to main issue addressed.
What happens when takebacks aren't allowed and, in this instance, the opponent refuses to put the Force Of Will in their graveyard, exile the blue card, and lose a life?
Isn't that pretty much cheating, especially after you let them know that it was an illegal move and that there are no takebacks?
If takebacks aren't allowed and the player still insists on taking back that is very clearly cheating. It is no different from casting emrakul without paying for it or ahving a sol ring in your standard deck ("It is legal in EDH which I also play so I should be able to play it here aswell").
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
What you should do is call a judge. If the TO (Tournament Organizer) has not designated a HJ (Head Judge), then it defaults to him/her.
The FOW was cast and needs to go to the graveyard. The blue card remains exiled and the player lost 1 life. As previous posts indicated, the casting of FOW was not illegal, he simply made a bad play. If he continues to refuse, he is Cheating at this point. That's a DQ.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
If in such a case the judge wouldn't allow a takeback because I misread something, I would simply walk away from the game not to return to the store. - So be careful with doing that, some people don't like the attitude "it's your fault for misreading".
Sure maybe the rules state it can't be done - and I can understand and fully accept why the rules say so. But I'm not going to an FNM to play truly competitive: I wish to have fun and test my new made brew with cards I haven't ever used before, against things I've never seen before. That's when I have fun. Misreads are bound to happen in such a scenario, and winning or losing due to a misreading of a public information is just not fun, and there is no honour to be gained.
Heck I'm annoyed if I *WIN* due to the opponent getting manascrewed/making mistakes. It means I paid money for the FNM without being able to actually truly test my newest deck. - I'm often just suggesting "hey just take 7 new cards instead of 6 or 5, so we can have a good game".
So I will keep walking off when shops do this kind of judging - if you wish to keep an environment where "winning is everything", sure create it. But remember some people don't care about that and are bound to leave the local scene.
Allowing a takeback or not here is entirely at the opponent's discretion. Doing so certainly is sporting and commendable, but it can't be enforced. The Head Judge should not, in any case, force the opponent to accept a takeback of a legal play. No matter the level, Magic is a PvP game where games are won by players making mistakes. Omitting to read or misreading something that was accessible to them can lead players to make mistakes, and it is their opponents' choice whether to be lenient or to use that to their advantage. This is official policy, not just some shops' "kind of judging".
Maybe you do not like this policy, but this isn't the place to discuss our opinions about it. The Rulings forum is to answer questions about game rules, and questions as to what tournament policy is and how it's applied. The question here has been answered, so I'm locking this thread.
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yet another scenario where I cast a Lord Of Atlantis from an Island and a Cavern Of Souls (named Merfolk).
It was put on the stack, the opponent thought for a few seconds...
Then casted a Force Of Will by exiling a blue card, paying 1 life, and targeting the Lord Of Atlantis
(so he actually went through the full process of playing it so that it was on the stack).
I let him know that it couldn't be countered, so the Lord Of Atlantis would resolve and the Force Of Will would just go to the graveyard.
He didn't like that, so he put the Force Of Will back in his hand, along with the card he exiled.
Unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure that's an illegal move seeing he actually fully casted Force Of Will and it was on the stack.
From there he continued to refuse to put the cards in the necessary spots.
What happens when a person does this?
this is not true, cards that "cant be countered" are legal targets for counterspells. what would happen here is that force of will would resolve, but the lord cannot be countered, therefore the lord would then resolve
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
In competitive REL and above the force of will would go to the graveyard and the card exiled to it would remain exiled as well as losing 1 life. In regular REL I'm not entirely sure if the force of will would stay in the graveyard or not, but I'd lean towards yes it would stay in the graveyard, the card exiled to it would remain exiled, and they would lose 1 life. Lord of atlantis would of course resolve.
Currently Playing:
Retired
While regular REL is geared towards players learning and having fun they don't allow for changing a decision after it has been made. The Force of Will would resolve completely (doing nothing) and go to the GY with the exiled card remaining and 1 life lost.
As others have noted, being uncounterable does not make a spell untargetable by counterspells. Sometimes it comes up that you want to target something for another reason. The most common example is Remanding an uncounterable spell just to cycle it for another card that can actually deal with whatever spell is coming in (like a removal spell for an uncounterable creature for instance).
One example a friend of mine and local grinder told me from when Cavern was in Standard -- he deliberately "tried to counter" an uncounterable Loxodon Smiter with two counterspells just to move them to his graveyard. He flashed in a Restoration Angel EOT, untapped and played Runechanter's Pike, equipped it to Resto and attacked for exact lethal, which was his only reasonable out to win the game (he had no other cards but two dead counters, Angel and Pike in hand, drew land for turn, and was at 4 life -- so he was otherwise going to have to chump the Smiter and somehow draw a game-winning spell next turn).
Corner cases like these actually play right into why takebacks are frowned upon so much, even in regular REL. Judges are there to ensure that the rules are arbitrated fairly and that neither player gains an advantage as the result of their interactions with the rules, and with the rules' enforcers. Because of the existence of corner cases where players make ostensibly-suboptimal plays which turn out to be good for them in the end, it cannot be left to the subjective evaluation of a judge whether or not the player "misplayed" as opposed to making a strategically-sound decision that simply looks bad on the front end -- regardless of the player's acknowledgment of the misplay or insistence that they didn't want to do that. The prospect is all-or-nothing: you can either require judges to make these evaluations, or make a flatline rule that takebacks are or are not allowed. If you require them to make these evaluations, you significantly increase the chances that some number of players gain an advantage in their game due to outside-of-game interactions with the rule enforcers (allowing takebacks or not allowing them on an inconsistent basis). You should therefore favor not allowing them to make the decision, and therefore deciding by rule whether or not takebacks are okay.
GW ~ Angels ~ WG
Modern:
RBW ~ Shadowmancer ~ WBR
Legacy:
BUG ~ Shadow Delver ~ GUB
What happens when takebacks aren't allowed and, in this instance, the opponent refuses to put the Force Of Will in their graveyard, exile the blue card, and lose a life?
Isn't that pretty much cheating, especially after you let them know that it was an illegal move and that there are no takebacks?
If takebacks aren't allowed and the player still insists on taking back that is very clearly cheating. It is no different from casting emrakul without paying for it or ahving a sol ring in your standard deck ("It is legal in EDH which I also play so I should be able to play it here aswell").
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
The FOW was cast and needs to go to the graveyard. The blue card remains exiled and the player lost 1 life. As previous posts indicated, the casting of FOW was not illegal, he simply made a bad play. If he continues to refuse, he is Cheating at this point. That's a DQ.
Cards do what they say they do. No more. No less.
Maybe you do not like this policy, but this isn't the place to discuss our opinions about it. The Rulings forum is to answer questions about game rules, and questions as to what tournament policy is and how it's applied. The question here has been answered, so I'm locking this thread.