If the creature with the least power has indestructible, the ability does nothing.
If there are multiple creatures tied for least power and some but not all of them have indestructible, the ones with indestructible can’t be chosen.
First of all, I understand that the first bullet results in nothing, but why would the second bullet stop you from targeting something indestructible? You can certainly try to Fatal Push something like Darksteel Myr, why then does this not allow such an action regardless of the result?
First of all, and most importantly, Porphyry Nodes does not target, so don't compare it to spells that do. It forces you to (choose and) destroy the creature with the least power on resolution. Generally speaking, the text of resolving spells and abilities must be followed as much as the game state allows. Because the card instructs you to destroy a creature, which is not optional, you must destroy a creature if there are one or more creatures with the least power that can be destroyed. Having one of those creatures be indestructible does not free you from following through on what the card forces you to do.
It might be worth highlighting that Porphyry Nodes whacks the controllers own creatures if the game state allows it.
For example, you have Nodes and a 1/5 creature like Ancient Crab in play and your opponent has Creepy Doll in play. At the beginning of your upkeep, your Crab must be destroyed, the Doll can't be chosen.
The rules you noted are there to prevent the scenario of choosing the Doll in an attempt to save the Crab.
I suppose the argument for is that choosing an indestrucible creature would be "impossible". (Not that I agree with that)
Destroying a creature with indestructible is an impossible action. In this case, Porphyry Nodes instructs the player to choose between destroying a creature with indestructible, and (presumably) destroying a creature without indestructible. If you choose to destroy a creature with indestructible, you've just chosen to perform an impossible action, which 608.2d doesn't allow.
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
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.
Emphasis added. You are told to destroy a creature with the least power. You must do so. Impossible things are never legal choices, so you can't destroy indestructible permanents. There is nothing exceptional about Drop of Honey.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
This is a really interesting discussion because the rules don't explicitly spell it out. It's perfectly legal to attempt the impossible in Magic. The rules of the game allow you to waste a Counterspell on a Supreme Verdict or to cast Terminate on an indestructible creature but not on a creature with hexproof (which would be an illegal play)
Neither of those examples are relevant. You're taking a rule that only applies to a specific situation and assuming it applies to more than just that specific situation.
You can waste a Counterspell on a spell that can't be countered because Counterspell targets. There are no choices to be made upon resolution on what spell Counterspell will affect. If there were a choice to be made, you wouldn't be able to choose a spell that can't be countered.
You can cast Terminate on a creature with indestructible because Terminate targets. There are no choices to be made upon resolution on what creature Terminate will destroy. If there were, you wouldn't be able to choose a creature with indestructible.
Rule 608.2d only applies to cases where the choice is offered upon resolution. I don't know why you've interpreted it to also apply to cases where the choice isn't offered upon resolution.
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
This is a really interesting discussion because the rules don't explicitly spell it out. It's perfectly legal to attempt the impossible in Magic. The rules of the game allow you to waste a Counterspell on a Supreme Verdict or to cast Terminate on an indestructible creature but not on a creature with hexproof (which would be an illegal play)
The only thing you do with those cards at the time you mention is target something. Objects and players without shroud or hexproof can be targeted just fine. The text of the card does not impact the steps to cast a spell - except for identifying the target nominations.
Casting counterspell in that way is possible, and legal. Countering Supreme Verdict is impossible.
Interestingly, the comp rules both defines and explains how to handle Illegal targets, Illegal Actions and the obsolete term "fizzle" (720) but doesn't define "impossible"
Impossibility is a well-defined English concept, and a logical one - it is whatever is necessarily not the case. But if a companion guide is needed, you may consider 'impossibility' to be defined wherever the word "can't" or "can only" appears.
Drop of Honey tells you to destroy some creature. You must do so. But impossible actions cannot be done, and "a permanent with indestructible cannot be destroyed."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Oreth, your examples are not of a player making a choice, or there being a step inbetween the players choice and the impossible result.
608.2d If an effect of a spell or ability offers any choices other than choices already made as part of casting the spell, activating the ability, or otherwise putting the spell or ability on the stack, 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 a library with no cards in it doesn’t make drawing a card an impossible action.
For Wild Swing, the player isn't making a choice so it isn't covered by this rule.
Cataclysm and friends, the choice you are making is of permanents, not what to sacrifice. Do or Die is the same, you are choosing a pile, then an effect is happening to the pile. An illegal choice is impossible for all of them, you can't choose an enchantment for the creature portion of Cataclysm, and you can't choose a third non existent pile for Do or Die. Don't assume the presence of a choice makes these cards similar in any way.
Nodes and Honey are specifically instructing you to destroy a creature, so you can not choose a creature that can't be destroyed.
Like most things in magic its very clear when you actually read the card without any assumptions.
A very stimulating debate indeed!
I usually blindly trust many of those opposing Oreth, but the Porphyry Nodes/Do Or Die contradiction seems like a very strong counter-argument:
Why is 'Choose a creature and then destroy it' treated differently than 'Choose a pile and then destroy the creatures in that pile'?
I must agree with Oreth: the matter cannot be summarily dismissed.
I still agree with your point about the uncertainty of which kind of choices actually are impossible/illegal, but I don't see how Burning of Xinye brings anything new to the subject.
Choose four lands and destroy them
and
You destroy four lands
The rules seem to see those two templates as identical. 'You destroy four lands' simply has an implied choice, and choosing undestructible stuff remains illegal.
As for 'destroy four target lands', there is no choosing, only targeting, so this example is irrelevant.
To me the answer is very simple. The comp rules just needs to add a line to the rules defining the term destroy (701.7) and indestructibility (702.12) explicitly stating that in the case of the last option, it is an illegal action to destroy an indestructible permanent.
Maybe even change the reminder text of indestructible "(Damage and effects that say "destroy" CAN'T destroy it. If its toughness is 0 or less, it's still put into its owner's graveyard.)" instead of "DON'T destroy it" and add reminder text to the very small set of cards that have received this weird templating (Drop of Honey, Prophyry Nodes and Burning Xinye) explicitly stating that choosing indestructible permanents isn't allowed because it is highly unintuitive.
702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).
You're still hung up on making objects the target of spells, when all that matters is if the targeting is legal. I have explained to you why that's wrong and Thought Criminal has explained to you why that's wrong.
Choosing is different from doing. Cataclysm and Do or Die do prove that - a choice is made and the substance of that action is the naming of a game token. Actions are performed according to the objects or piles defined, and then rule 101.3 simply eliminates the impossible actions. Drop of Honey tells you to destroy something. It tells you how to break a tie - that modifies the choosing which is part of doing (608.2d refers to when an "effects offers choices"). It doesn't break out of the basic requirement to do something possible.
Doing something "at random" is exceptional, there are only a handful of cards that do that. But those rulings attach a consistent, if technical, sense to the instruction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Rule 608.2d only applies to cases where the choice is offered upon resolution. I don't know why you've interpreted it to also apply to cases where the choice isn't offered upon resolution.
Agreed, and my only point here was to state that spells and abilities can legally resolve but not generate the effects that they are supposed to.
Any way, let's assume the precedent is set that countering uncounterable spells or destroying an indestructible permanent impossible counts as impossible within the framework of the rules, and bearing 608.2d in mind, I have a couple of follow up questions to help me think it through and see where you're coming from.
Let's suppose I cast Wild Swing choosing my two Darksteel Citadels and my opponents 9/9 creature as targets. My understanding of the rules is there's a 33.3% chance that my opponent's 9/9 will be destroyed, and a 33.3% chance that Wild Swing will fail to destroy Citadel A and 33.3% chance to fail to destroy Citadel B.
But your precedent suggests that since impossible choices can't be made (presumably even if I chose it randomly) that there's a 100% of destroying the 9/9 since I should only consider choices that are possible actions? Is this the correct conclusion? And if not, why is it different from Drop/Nodes.
(Incidentally, the rulings for Wild Swing and Nodes were updated on the 01/07/13 even though they don't agree with with other. Nodes says indestructible things can't be chosen, Wild Swing says they can, but nothing happens )
Wild Swing targets, which means rule 608.2d doesn't apply to it. Upon resolution, the player is not given a choice to destroy anything. The destroy event happens without the player needing to make any choice on which creature to destroy.
Your point of confusion is that you're mixing up "choosing to destroy a creature" and "choosing a creature, then destroy that creature". Porphyry Nodes does the former. If we treat Wild Swing as an untargeted spell, Wild Swing does the latter.
Suppose Porphyry Nodes' ability resolves, and there are N creatures on the battlefield with the least power. Porphyry Nodes gives you a list of choices to make, as follows:
Suppose that creature 1 has indestructible. Destroying a creature with indestructible is an impossible action. Impossible actions can't be chosen, so that eliminates the choice from the list. Your list now looks as follows:
You choose one of the options given to you at this point.
Now, let's take our modified Wild Swing. Suppose we have N nonenchantment permanents. It doesn't target, so our list of choices is as follows:
1) Permanent 1
2) Permanent 2
...
N) Permanent N
Our modified Wild Swing tells us to choose three of these. Note that even if any or all of these permanents have indestructible, it doesn't matter. Why? Because merely choosing a permanent isn't an impossible action, but Wild Swing's list of choices doesn't involve destroying anything. So we can certainly choose permanents with indestructible.
This is the key difference. One of the cards involves choosing to destroy something. The other card involves choosing something, then destroying a subset of the choices made. They are not the same thing, and claiming that they are is the source of your confusion.
Next up, let's look at the card Assault Suit, which says "Equipped creature can't be sacrificed." and conveniently has the following ruling
If an effect instructs you to sacrifice a creature, and you control any creatures other than the creature equipped with Assault Suit, you must sacrifice one of them. You can’t try to sacrifice the equipped creature, fail, and therefore ignore the effect.
Let's say that I cotrol two Serra Angels and one of them is equipped with Assault Suit. My opponent casts Diabolic Edict I would clearly have to Sacrifice the unequipped Angel.
In my understanding of the rules, I could choose to save the unequipped Angel. As the spell resolves the equipped Angel would simply not be sacrificed, leaving me with but both angels but your precedent suggests that I would be forced to choose to save the equipped angel since sacrificing it would be impossible. Is this the correct interpretation?
All three of these provided examples are similar to the modified Wild Swing. The choices you are given in their lists don't involve sacrificing, only the creatures themselves.
Choosing a creature or permanent in this way is not an impossible action, so you are free to choose or not choose to save the equipped creature.
Again, "choose to perform an action X on a permanent P" is different than "choose a permanent P, then performing action X on that permanent".
Finally, for now, let's look at Do or Die. Wrath effects usually just ignore indestructible creatures but going by your definition that "impossible" choices can't be made, it seems that if either pile has an indestructible creature in it, that pile can't be chosen. What happens to the game state if this occurs? Is the caster forced to rearrange the piles until at least one pile contains no creatures that can't be destroyed?
Imagine I cast Do or Die on my opponent who controls two Darksteel Colossuses, and six 4/4 Beast tokens. My understanding of the rules, is that if I split into two piles each containing a Darksteel Colossus and three 4/4 Beast tokens, then I will destroy the remaining three beasts tokens, leaving my opponent with both Colossi and the three remaining beasts but your ruling suggests that my opponent can't choose either pile??
The first choice is the choice of piles, made by the controller of Do or Die:
1) Creature 1
2) Creature 2
...
N) Creature N
The player controlling Do or Die makes up to N choices here on what creature to put into the first pile. Any creatures not chosen as part of this choice are put into the other pile.
The second choice is the choice of pile. This choice is made by the targeted player:
1) Pile 1
2) Pile 2
Then, the destroy action is performed on all creatures in the chosen pile.
Nowhere in either list is there an impossible action. Choosing a creature and choosing a pile themselves aren't impossible actions.
Nodes and Honey are specifically instructing you to destroy a creature, so you can not choose a creature that can't be destroyed.
It's slightly more complicated than this though, because
a) you CAN choose a creature that can't be destroyed and if you do, nothing happens.
and b) It arbitrarily only counts indestructible and not other effects that would prevent a creature being destroyed such as Totem armor.
7/1/2013 If the creature with the least power has indestructible, the ability does nothing.
7/1/2013 If there are multiple creatures tied for least power and some but not all of them have indestructible, the ones with indestructible can’t be chosen.
If there are only two 1/1 indestructible creatures on the battlefield, you may legally choose either, and nothing will happen as Nodes resolves, so you absolutely may choose "impossible" choices. In fact, the only restriction in choice occurs if at least one of the creatures tied for the lowest power doesn't have indestructible.
No. See above.
In your example, the list of choices is as follows:
1) Destroy the first 1/1 creature with indestructible
2) Destroy the second 1/1 creature with indestructible
Destroying a creature with indestructible is an impossible action. This eliminates options 1 and 2 from the list. Since there are no more options in the list from which you can choose, no choice is made.
To confound things further, if one of those permanents has Totem Armor instead of Indestructible then you have to choose that permanent instead.
This is where the ambiguity, and questions of common sense and assumption, and the problems with literally readings arise and is what I think OP refers to. There is nothing in the comp rules that states the previous interaction.
A replacement effect that replaces a creature being destroyed with some other event doesn't make destroying that creature an impossible action.
If the first 1/1 creature has an enchantment with totem armor attached to it, and the second 1/1 creature has indestructible, then the list of legal choices is as follows:
1) Destroy the first 1/1 creature
Totem armor is a replacement effect. A replacement effect looks for an event A, and replaces it with an event B. In order for a replacement effect to apply, event A must be able to happen in the absence of the replacement effect.
If the first 1/1 creature being destroyed were an impossible action, then event A in the replacement effect can't happen. If event A can't happen, the replacement effect can't apply. But you already know the replacement effect can apply, so event A can happen, so destroying the first 1/1 creature is not an impossible action.
This is another point of confusion: A replacement effect that replaces event A with event B doesn't make event A an impossible action.
A very stimulating debate indeed!
I usually blindly trust many of those opposing Oreth, but the Porphyry Nodes/Do Or Die contradiction seems like a very strong counter-argument:
Why is 'Choose a creature and then destroy it' treated differently than 'Choose a pile and then destroy the creatures in that pile'?
I must agree with Oreth: the matter cannot be summarily dismissed.
As mentioned above, if you write out in detail what exactly those two cards do, step by step, you will see that there is no contradiction.
"Choose a permanent, then perform action X on that permanent" is different than "choose to perform action X on a permanent". "Choosing a permanent" is always possible, as specified by the limitations on the card. "Performing action X on [the permanent chosen earlier]" is not always a possible action, but by that point there is no more choice involved. "Choose to perform action X on a permanent" isn't always possible.
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
Fascinating discussion indeed! It seems as though it has all but died, but I wanted to give my two cents anyway! My interpretation of this scenario would be that Tariff forces you to do one action or the other. If you were to choose your equipped Serra Angel, since it cannot be sacrificed due to your Assault Suit, the only possible (and therefore legal) choice would be to pay the mana cost. If you do not have the mana available, I would think that would make your equipped Serra Angel an illegal choice, therefore leaving your unequipped angel as the only valid option. Consider Thought Criminal's list template from earlier. In this situation, Tariff instructs you to choose a creature with the highest converted mana cost from among those you control. In this case we have two options:
1. Angel A (equipped)
2. Angel B (unequipped)
There is nothing at this point to disallow you from choosing Angel A. The second part of Tariff gives us two options as well:
1. Pay mana cost of chosen creature
2. Sacrifice chosen creature
One of these actions must be taken, and since Angel A cannot be sacrificed due to Assault Suit, if this was the chosen creature, we are left with only one option:
1. Pay mana cost of chosen creature
You no longer have a choice at this point of whether to pay it or not. If you do not have the mana available to pay, I would think that would make the equipped Serra Angel an illegal choice.
That being said, I am certainly no judge and am fairly new to Magic (Aether Revolt was my first Fat Pack), so I could very well be wrong. I could actually see the instructions on Tariff being interpreted as two separate actions, similar to the Balancing Act example from previous. I think the difference here would probably be that with Tariff, you are choosing a creature and performing an action on that creature, so the action has to be legal. With Balancing Act, you are choosing permanents and then performing an action on all other permanents.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Anyone that knows more and can confirm or correct any of my statements here, I would be ecstatic to hear from you. GG guys!
Edit: This may be a rookie question, and I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but just for my own edification, if you only had the one Serra Angel equipped with Assault Suit and you were all tapped out, the spell would then have no effect since that player has no way to carry out the specified action on said creature, correct? Sorry, even more off topic from the OP!
so in few words: target creature with indestructible is illegal, not matter the power? wow, secret ninja trick after years is revealed...
Are you asking about Porphyry Nodes here? If so, that's correct, a creature with indestructible is illegal to pick and destroy with it. If it's about anything else, please elaborate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Destroying a creature with Indestructible is impossible, so one cannot choose that creature…
...but if that creature is the only one with the least power, then that creature may be chosen.
Destroying a creature with Totem Armor is impossible, yet that creature may be chosen.
Those two examples (submitted by Oreth the Centaur) illustrates how absurd the present rulings are.
Impossible choices can indeed be made, so rule 608.2d absolutely needs updating.
Destroying a creature with Indestructible is impossible, so one cannot choose that creature…
...but if that creature is the only one with the least power, then that creature may be chosen.
Destroying a creature with Totem Armor is impossible, yet that creature may be chosen.
Those two examples (submitted by Oreth the Centaur) illustrates how absurd the present rulings are.
Impossible choices can indeed be made, so rule 608.2d absolutely needs updating.
While I agree that this ruling should be changed to be consistent with every other situation, I must point out that totem armor and indestructible aren't actually analogous. Totem armor is merely a replacement effect that turns an attempted destruction event into something else; indestructible is a static ability that says "this can't happen" rather than "this will be replaced with something if it does happen."
Destroying a creature with Indestructible is impossible, so one cannot choose that creature…
...but if that creature is the only one with the least power, then that creature may be chosen.
Destroying a creature with Totem Armor is impossible, yet that creature may be chosen.
Those two examples (submitted by Oreth the Centaur) illustrates how absurd the present rulings are.
Impossible choices can indeed be made, so rule 608.2d absolutely needs updating.
Those aren't examples of anything of interest; they're incorrect. Destroying the creature with the least power won't happen if that creature has indestructible, even if it's the only one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I'll agree the first example is flawed and should be dismissed.
The case of Totem Armor remains open, even considering Void_Nothing's comment, and so does Do or Die's.
We need a clearer and more intuitive way to decipher what makes an 'impossible' choice actually legal or not.
The intricate reasonings and the amount of text analysis required to get a solution appear excessive for my comfort.
The rules can potentially be clearer but at the cost of complexity, since they would have to use more mathematical language, or (even more technical) linguistics language - a meta language.
Nodes runs into trouble because it splits up the template of indefinite articles dominated by their action word. Instead of saying "destroy a creature" (with the least power) they give a potential for a tie and instruct the tie is broken according to the controller's choice. It is a controversial card not because of mysteries around impossible choices, but because we disagree on what Nodes is telling you to do - because it is a card with a tie-break instruction.
I reaffirm one of my earlier statements. Nodes and Drop of Honey are not exceptional. Desecrator Hag, Juxtapose, Purging Scythe, and mentioned Tariff, all break ties that come up for an action done to a thing. Other tie breaks are about settling which of some collection of values is the elect for some further simple instruction, with most tie breaks being "merely" the calculation of a parameter in some way, like in yes-no format.
I'm going to call the quality of those cards defined by the underlined phrase the "linguistic structure" of the debated cards.
The trouble is that word, "the" (the definite article).
To apply an effect like "destroy a creature" you have to destroy some creature. You are choosing between "destroy [creature]" possibilities that populate the current game state. To apply an effect like "choose a permanent" you have to choose some permanent. Nothing ever restricts choices of choosings, but that might change with a future printing.
Is the tie-break its own effect that has a "choice being offered", i.e., "choose one (of creatures tied for least power)" ? Or is the tie-break some kind of restriction placed into and under the effect you were told to perform with the definite article that created the tie? When you are told to "sacrifice the creature (with a non-unique quality)", you have the possibility of a tie. The sentence is not apparently having a choice, since the article is definite. Such a sentence operates like one with a target, or where a logical name (identity) is provided. But the tie, or ambiguity, must be resolved by something further written on the card (609.5).
You can be told to break a tie without a choice, of course. Some tying cards aren't about electing an object but instead for specifying a whole effect, like Timesifter or Psychic Battle. In the vein of "later text may modify...", these cards give instructions for the case of a tie that add to and partly supersede the earlier text. They have a clear difference from Nodes, Tariff, and the rest, in that Nodes' last sentence can't stand on its own. Psychic Battle tells you what to do 'from there' with a tie, but of course Nodes doesn't mean for you to just "choose" something inertly.
Because the text clearly can't stand on its own, I submit it's not a choice being offered in that last sentence, it has to be something you're told 'about' the earlier text. I think it's clear, from reviewing Gatherer*, that the linguistic structure (doing an action to an ambiguous thing) determines the fact of these cards using such an implication with their final/tie-breaking sentence.
I believe that it is tie-breaking that has issues, not the rules. If in Nodes and others' text, the "the" were changed to "a", it wouldn't be a tying card at all, and would work correctly. Or if the card properly revisited the instruction it intends for you in the case of a tie, like those other, fewer cards, Loxodon Peacekeeper, Timesifter, Goblin Game, and Psychic Battle, then you would clearly see that you are being told to destroy some creature and not separably choose one.
Hoopla about the possibility of destroying a creature with a totem armor is an easily asked and answered rules question.
[i]Destroying a creature with Indestructible is impossible, so one cannot choose that creature…
...but if that creature is the only one with the least power, then that creature may be chosen.
A creature with Indestructible is never chosen by Porphyry Nodes/Drop of Honey. If the only creature with the least power has Indestructible, it cannot be chosen because it cannot be destroyed. Any other creatures cannot be chosen because they don't have the least power. As the gatherer ruling states, the ability does nothing. It doesn't attempt to choose the creature with Indestructible and fail to destroy it, it does nothing.
[...] Nodes and Drop of Honey are not exceptional. [...] Juxtapose [and] Purging Scythe [...] break ties that come up for an action done to a thing.
This is true. Consider the situation where Juxtapose resolves and—
either Juxtapose's controller or the targeted player (different from each other) controls an untapped Guardian Beast,
both players each control two artifacts, and they all have converted mana cost 1,
of the artifacts in the scenario, one of the artifacts controlled by Juxtapose's controller is an artifact creature, and
the only creature on the battlefield is the artifact creature just mentioned.
Or consider the situation where Purging Scythe's ability resolves and one of the creatures with the least toughness (among two or more) has protection from artifacts and the others don't (C.R. 702.16e).
In these cases,In this case, a similar dilemma occurs as in the scenario with Porphyry Nodes or Drop of Honey.
EDIT: Correctness edit after comment 29 was posted.
EDIT: Further edit after comment 29 was posted.
The same situation occurs. The answer is consistent, being that you must exchange control in a legal way. A Guardian Beast would make some changes of control illegal, so those can't happen. A pair of creatures, such that they have the highest converted mana cost of creatures of each player, exchange control, or no exchange happens. Guardian Beast's effect is statically applied concerning the objects now with the same controller, and Juxtapose goes on to affect the artifacts.
Your choice while applying the effect which must be possible is not where it tells you that you break the tie as you choose. As I previously argued that's not telling you to choose something. It's telling you to break a tie.
You are breaking the tie, in the tied-expression (ambiguous expression) "the creature you control with the highest converted mana cost", in order to arrive at a designation that has been disambiguated enough to apply a verb to it.
Purging Scythe can deal damage to something with protection. That damage will be prevented. (Damage prevention can become impossible.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
"Reveal a Dragon"
For example, you have Nodes and a 1/5 creature like Ancient Crab in play and your opponent has Creepy Doll in play. At the beginning of your upkeep, your Crab must be destroyed, the Doll can't be chosen.
The rules you noted are there to prevent the scenario of choosing the Doll in an attempt to save the Crab.
Destroying a creature with indestructible is an impossible action. In this case, Porphyry Nodes instructs the player to choose between destroying a creature with indestructible, and (presumably) destroying a creature without indestructible. If you choose to destroy a creature with indestructible, you've just chosen to perform an impossible action, which 608.2d doesn't allow.
[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
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.
Emphasis added. You are told to destroy a creature with the least power. You must do so. Impossible things are never legal choices, so you can't destroy indestructible permanents. There is nothing exceptional about Drop of Honey.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Neither of those examples are relevant. You're taking a rule that only applies to a specific situation and assuming it applies to more than just that specific situation.
You can waste a Counterspell on a spell that can't be countered because Counterspell targets. There are no choices to be made upon resolution on what spell Counterspell will affect. If there were a choice to be made, you wouldn't be able to choose a spell that can't be countered.
You can cast Terminate on a creature with indestructible because Terminate targets. There are no choices to be made upon resolution on what creature Terminate will destroy. If there were, you wouldn't be able to choose a creature with indestructible.
Rule 608.2d only applies to cases where the choice is offered upon resolution. I don't know why you've interpreted it to also apply to cases where the choice isn't offered upon resolution.
[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 only thing you do with those cards at the time you mention is target something. Objects and players without shroud or hexproof can be targeted just fine. The text of the card does not impact the steps to cast a spell - except for identifying the target nominations.
Casting counterspell in that way is possible, and legal. Countering Supreme Verdict is impossible.
Impossibility is a well-defined English concept, and a logical one - it is whatever is necessarily not the case. But if a companion guide is needed, you may consider 'impossibility' to be defined wherever the word "can't" or "can only" appears.
Drop of Honey tells you to destroy some creature. You must do so. But impossible actions cannot be done, and "a permanent with indestructible cannot be destroyed."
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
For Wild Swing, the player isn't making a choice so it isn't covered by this rule.
Cataclysm and friends, the choice you are making is of permanents, not what to sacrifice. Do or Die is the same, you are choosing a pile, then an effect is happening to the pile. An illegal choice is impossible for all of them, you can't choose an enchantment for the creature portion of Cataclysm, and you can't choose a third non existent pile for Do or Die. Don't assume the presence of a choice makes these cards similar in any way.
Nodes and Honey are specifically instructing you to destroy a creature, so you can not choose a creature that can't be destroyed.
Like most things in magic its very clear when you actually read the card without any assumptions.
I usually blindly trust many of those opposing Oreth, but the Porphyry Nodes/Do Or Die contradiction seems like a very strong counter-argument:
Why is 'Choose a creature and then destroy it' treated differently than 'Choose a pile and then destroy the creatures in that pile'?
I must agree with Oreth: the matter cannot be summarily dismissed.
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
As for 'destroy four target lands', there is no choosing, only targeting, so this example is irrelevant.
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
702.12b A permanent with indestructible can’t be destroyed. Such permanents aren’t destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the state-based action that checks for lethal damage (see rule 704.5g).
You're still hung up on making objects the target of spells, when all that matters is if the targeting is legal. I have explained to you why that's wrong and Thought Criminal has explained to you why that's wrong.
Choosing is different from doing. Cataclysm and Do or Die do prove that - a choice is made and the substance of that action is the naming of a game token. Actions are performed according to the objects or piles defined, and then rule 101.3 simply eliminates the impossible actions. Drop of Honey tells you to destroy something. It tells you how to break a tie - that modifies the choosing which is part of doing (608.2d refers to when an "effects offers choices"). It doesn't break out of the basic requirement to do something possible.
Doing something "at random" is exceptional, there are only a handful of cards that do that. But those rulings attach a consistent, if technical, sense to the instruction.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Wild Swing targets, which means rule 608.2d doesn't apply to it. Upon resolution, the player is not given a choice to destroy anything. The destroy event happens without the player needing to make any choice on which creature to destroy.
Your point of confusion is that you're mixing up "choosing to destroy a creature" and "choosing a creature, then destroy that creature". Porphyry Nodes does the former. If we treat Wild Swing as an untargeted spell, Wild Swing does the latter.
Suppose Porphyry Nodes' ability resolves, and there are N creatures on the battlefield with the least power. Porphyry Nodes gives you a list of choices to make, as follows:
1) Destroy creature 1
2) Destroy creature 2
...
N) Destroy creature N
Suppose that creature 1 has indestructible. Destroying a creature with indestructible is an impossible action. Impossible actions can't be chosen, so that eliminates the choice from the list. Your list now looks as follows:
2) Destroy creature 2
3) Destroy creature 3
...
N) Destroy creature N
You choose one of the options given to you at this point.
Now, let's take our modified Wild Swing. Suppose we have N nonenchantment permanents. It doesn't target, so our list of choices is as follows:
1) Permanent 1
2) Permanent 2
...
N) Permanent N
Our modified Wild Swing tells us to choose three of these. Note that even if any or all of these permanents have indestructible, it doesn't matter. Why? Because merely choosing a permanent isn't an impossible action, but Wild Swing's list of choices doesn't involve destroying anything. So we can certainly choose permanents with indestructible.
This is the key difference. One of the cards involves choosing to destroy something. The other card involves choosing something, then destroying a subset of the choices made. They are not the same thing, and claiming that they are is the source of your confusion.
All three of these provided examples are similar to the modified Wild Swing. The choices you are given in their lists don't involve sacrificing, only the creatures themselves.
Balancing Act's list looks like this:
1) Permanent 1
2) Permanent 2
...
N) Permanent N
Cataclysm's list looks like this for creatures:
1) Creature 1
2) Creature 2
...
N) Creature N
Choosing a creature or permanent in this way is not an impossible action, so you are free to choose or not choose to save the equipped creature.
Again, "choose to perform an action X on a permanent P" is different than "choose a permanent P, then performing action X on that permanent".
Do or Die has two lists of choices involved.
The first choice is the choice of piles, made by the controller of Do or Die:
1) Creature 1
2) Creature 2
...
N) Creature N
The player controlling Do or Die makes up to N choices here on what creature to put into the first pile. Any creatures not chosen as part of this choice are put into the other pile.
The second choice is the choice of pile. This choice is made by the targeted player:
1) Pile 1
2) Pile 2
Then, the destroy action is performed on all creatures in the chosen pile.
Nowhere in either list is there an impossible action. Choosing a creature and choosing a pile themselves aren't impossible actions.
-----
No. See above.
In your example, the list of choices is as follows:
1) Destroy the first 1/1 creature with indestructible
2) Destroy the second 1/1 creature with indestructible
Destroying a creature with indestructible is an impossible action. This eliminates options 1 and 2 from the list. Since there are no more options in the list from which you can choose, no choice is made.
A replacement effect that replaces a creature being destroyed with some other event doesn't make destroying that creature an impossible action.
If the first 1/1 creature has an enchantment with totem armor attached to it, and the second 1/1 creature has indestructible, then the list of legal choices is as follows:
1) Destroy the first 1/1 creature
Totem armor is a replacement effect. A replacement effect looks for an event A, and replaces it with an event B. In order for a replacement effect to apply, event A must be able to happen in the absence of the replacement effect.
If the first 1/1 creature being destroyed were an impossible action, then event A in the replacement effect can't happen. If event A can't happen, the replacement effect can't apply. But you already know the replacement effect can apply, so event A can happen, so destroying the first 1/1 creature is not an impossible action.
This is another point of confusion: A replacement effect that replaces event A with event B doesn't make event A an impossible action.
As mentioned above, if you write out in detail what exactly those two cards do, step by step, you will see that there is no contradiction.
"Choose a permanent, then perform action X on that permanent" is different than "choose to perform action X on a permanent". "Choosing a permanent" is always possible, as specified by the limitations on the card. "Performing action X on [the permanent chosen earlier]" is not always a possible action, but by that point there is no more choice involved. "Choose to perform action X on a permanent" isn't always possible.
[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
1. Angel A (equipped)
2. Angel B (unequipped)
There is nothing at this point to disallow you from choosing Angel A. The second part of Tariff gives us two options as well:
1. Pay mana cost of chosen creature
2. Sacrifice chosen creature
One of these actions must be taken, and since Angel A cannot be sacrificed due to Assault Suit, if this was the chosen creature, we are left with only one option:
1. Pay mana cost of chosen creature
You no longer have a choice at this point of whether to pay it or not. If you do not have the mana available to pay, I would think that would make the equipped Serra Angel an illegal choice.
That being said, I am certainly no judge and am fairly new to Magic (Aether Revolt was my first Fat Pack), so I could very well be wrong. I could actually see the instructions on Tariff being interpreted as two separate actions, similar to the Balancing Act example from previous. I think the difference here would probably be that with Tariff, you are choosing a creature and performing an action on that creature, so the action has to be legal. With Balancing Act, you are choosing permanents and then performing an action on all other permanents.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Anyone that knows more and can confirm or correct any of my statements here, I would be ecstatic to hear from you. GG guys!
Edit: This may be a rookie question, and I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but just for my own edification, if you only had the one Serra Angel equipped with Assault Suit and you were all tapped out, the spell would then have no effect since that player has no way to carry out the specified action on said creature, correct? Sorry, even more off topic from the OP!
...but if that creature is the only one with the least power, then that creature may be chosen.
Destroying a creature with Totem Armor is impossible, yet that creature may be chosen.
Those two examples (submitted by Oreth the Centaur) illustrates how absurd the present rulings are.
Impossible choices can indeed be made, so rule 608.2d absolutely needs updating.
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Those aren't examples of anything of interest; they're incorrect. Destroying the creature with the least power won't happen if that creature has indestructible, even if it's the only one.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
The case of Totem Armor remains open, even considering Void_Nothing's comment, and so does Do or Die's.
We need a clearer and more intuitive way to decipher what makes an 'impossible' choice actually legal or not.
The intricate reasonings and the amount of text analysis required to get a solution appear excessive for my comfort.
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
Nodes runs into trouble because it splits up the template of indefinite articles dominated by their action word. Instead of saying "destroy a creature" (with the least power) they give a potential for a tie and instruct the tie is broken according to the controller's choice. It is a controversial card not because of mysteries around impossible choices, but because we disagree on what Nodes is telling you to do - because it is a card with a tie-break instruction.
I reaffirm one of my earlier statements. Nodes and Drop of Honey are not exceptional. Desecrator Hag, Juxtapose, Purging Scythe, and mentioned Tariff, all break ties that come up for an action done to a thing. Other tie breaks are about settling which of some collection of values is the elect for some further simple instruction, with most tie breaks being "merely" the calculation of a parameter in some way, like in yes-no format.
I'm going to call the quality of those cards defined by the underlined phrase the "linguistic structure" of the debated cards.
The trouble is that word, "the" (the definite article).
Is the tie-break its own effect that has a "choice being offered", i.e., "choose one (of creatures tied for least power)" ? Or is the tie-break some kind of restriction placed into and under the effect you were told to perform with the definite article that created the tie? When you are told to "sacrifice the creature (with a non-unique quality)", you have the possibility of a tie. The sentence is not apparently having a choice, since the article is definite. Such a sentence operates like one with a target, or where a logical name (identity) is provided. But the tie, or ambiguity, must be resolved by something further written on the card (609.5).
You can be told to break a tie without a choice, of course. Some tying cards aren't about electing an object but instead for specifying a whole effect, like Timesifter or Psychic Battle. In the vein of "later text may modify...", these cards give instructions for the case of a tie that add to and partly supersede the earlier text. They have a clear difference from Nodes, Tariff, and the rest, in that Nodes' last sentence can't stand on its own. Psychic Battle tells you what to do 'from there' with a tie, but of course Nodes doesn't mean for you to just "choose" something inertly.
Because the text clearly can't stand on its own, I submit it's not a choice being offered in that last sentence, it has to be something you're told 'about' the earlier text. I think it's clear, from reviewing Gatherer*, that the linguistic structure (doing an action to an ambiguous thing) determines the fact of these cards using such an implication with their final/tie-breaking sentence.
I believe that it is tie-breaking that has issues, not the rules. If in Nodes and others' text, the "the" were changed to "a", it wouldn't be a tying card at all, and would work correctly. Or if the card properly revisited the instruction it intends for you in the case of a tie, like those other, fewer cards, Loxodon Peacekeeper, Timesifter, Goblin Game, and Psychic Battle, then you would clearly see that you are being told to destroy some creature and not separably choose one.
Hoopla about the possibility of destroying a creature with a totem armor is an easily asked and answered rules question.
*query: &text=|["the%20highest"]|["the%20lowest"]+[tie]|["the%20greatest"]|["the%20least"]|["the%20most"]|["the%20fewest"]
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
A creature with Indestructible is never chosen by Porphyry Nodes/Drop of Honey. If the only creature with the least power has Indestructible, it cannot be chosen because it cannot be destroyed. Any other creatures cannot be chosen because they don't have the least power. As the gatherer ruling states, the ability does nothing. It doesn't attempt to choose the creature with Indestructible and fail to destroy it, it does nothing.
[180 classic cube]
This is true. Consider the situation where Juxtapose resolves and—
Or consider the situation where Purging Scythe's ability resolves and one of the creatures with the least toughness (among two or more) has protection from artifacts and the others don't (C.R. 702.16e).In these cases,In this case, a similar dilemma occurs as in the scenario with Porphyry Nodes or Drop of Honey.EDIT: Correctness edit after comment 29 was posted.
EDIT: Further edit after comment 29 was posted.
Your choice while applying the effect which must be possible is not where it tells you that you break the tie as you choose. As I previously argued that's not telling you to choose something. It's telling you to break a tie.
You are breaking the tie, in the tied-expression (ambiguous expression) "the creature you control with the highest converted mana cost", in order to arrive at a designation that has been disambiguated enough to apply a verb to it.
Purging Scythe can deal damage to something with protection. That damage will be prevented. (Damage prevention can become impossible.)
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].