So, I was sitting in on a match between some roommates. During which one of us argued against the other two over what spell shrivel does.
The way we read it is that spell shrivel counters a target spell unless its player pays 4. If the other player does not pay 4 to negate the counter then that spell is exiled.
However our roommate adamantly argued that paying the 4 cost was the counter referenced in the second part of the spell. So in his view the card is only banished if you pay the four to negate the counter.
I apologize if this has already been answered but nothing I could find would satiate that roommate. I appreciate any and all answers for this as this issue caused an abrupt end to the night and its fun.
Thank you so much for any and all help.
When Spell Shrivel resolves, the controller of the spell can pay 4. If they do, nothing else happens and the Shrivel goes to the graveyard. If they don't pay 4, then the spell is countered, and instead of going to the graveyard, that spell is exiled instead. In short: either they pay 4, or their spell is exiled.
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.
Thank you so much for your reply, unfortunately this roommate has refused to listen to anyone on this. He just keeps saying that "the card doesn't say that". I still appreciate the time you took to read and reply to this though.
He isn't seeing reason. In his mind its over and done, I've shown him the prior opinion and even called someone a friend knows who has served as a judge. Nothing I show him will change his mind at this point. Also we're all fairly casual players so I doubt he'd even know the cards. I don't know why he chose this particular hill to metaphorically die on, but he's chosen it. Thanks for the suggestion though.
He thinks its the second one, at least as I understand it. After a day to think on it this has only become more baffling to me. He seemed to think that by paying the 4 he was "countering" the spell. Ergo in his words "the card doesn't get exiled because I didn't pay 4". At this point I've given up on trying to convince him, I've told him about the response that this thread has given him. I even had someone I know contact a person who has apparently served as a judge in some kind of tournament. His response is simply "that's not what it says on the card, so that's not what it does". I've never met someone stubborn enough to ignore a judges interpretation, and as such I am giving up on him. He can play the game wrong for all I care, I won't play with people who flat ignore card effects. In fact were I in a different forum I'd have some very choice things to say about him. But barring any of those I'm washing my hands of the situation.
Sentences on a spell are essentially consecutive instructions. When Spell Shrivel resolves, it does the following in order:
Counters the targeted spell unless its controller pays 4.
If that spell is countered this way (ie: the spell's controller did not pay 4), exile it instead of putting it into its owner's graveyard (the normal result of countering a spell).
Sentences on a spell are essentially consecutive instructions. When Spell Shrivel resolves, it does the following in order:
Counters the targeted spell unless its controller pays 4.
If that spell is countered this way (ie: the spell's controller did not pay 4), exile it instead of putting it into its owner's graveyard (the normal result of countering a spell).
The first sentence can't be understood until the second one modifies it. This is a self-replacement effect, and a paradigmatic example of how sentences are not merely sequential instructions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
In fact, it's a rule: 608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these actions. In some cases, later text on the card may modify the meaning of earlier text (for example, “Destroy target creature. It can’t be regenerated” or “Counter target spell. If that spell is countered this way, put it on top of its owner’s library instead of into its owner’s graveyard.”) Don’t just apply effects step by step without thinking in these cases—read the whole text and apply the rules of English to the text.
As for that stubborn player, it's pretty obvious no appeal to reason will have any effect. Time and peer pressure may be the only way to bring him back on our plane. Be patient; he simply needs time to grow.
In Spell Shrivel, "Counter target spell unless its controller pays 4" means "Target spell's controller may pay 4. If that player doesn't, counter that spell" (C.R. 117.12a).
The sentence "If that spell is countered this way, exile it instead of putting it into its owner's graveyard" expresses a self-replacement effect; it changes what countering a spell with Spell Shrivel does (C.R. 614.15; see C.R. 701.5 for what countering a spell normally does; another example is Remand).
The way we read it is that spell shrivel counters a target spell unless its player pays 4. If the other player does not pay 4 to negate the counter then that spell is exiled.
However our roommate adamantly argued that paying the 4 cost was the counter referenced in the second part of the spell. So in his view the card is only banished if you pay the four to negate the counter.
I apologize if this has already been answered but nothing I could find would satiate that roommate. I appreciate any and all answers for this as this issue caused an abrupt end to the night and its fun.
Thank you so much for any and all help.
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.
Ask him, why he thinks Dissipate doesn't demand any payments for the exile, and how it could exile the spell at all.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
The first sentence can't be understood until the second one modifies it. This is a self-replacement effect, and a paradigmatic example of how sentences are not merely sequential instructions.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
608.2c The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these actions. In some cases, later text on the card may modify the meaning of earlier text (for example, “Destroy target creature. It can’t be regenerated” or “Counter target spell. If that spell is countered this way, put it on top of its owner’s library instead of into its owner’s graveyard.”) Don’t just apply effects step by step without thinking in these cases—read the whole text and apply the rules of English to the text.
As for that stubborn player, it's pretty obvious no appeal to reason will have any effect. Time and peer pressure may be the only way to bring him back on our plane. Be patient; he simply needs time to grow.
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
The sentence "If that spell is countered this way, exile it instead of putting it into its owner's graveyard" expresses a self-replacement effect; it changes what countering a spell with Spell Shrivel does (C.R. 614.15; see C.R. 701.5 for what countering a spell normally does; another example is Remand).