If I cast High Tide, I need to pay the mana cost first (e.g. tap an island for one blue mana) BEFORE High Tide resolves as opposed to waiting for High Tide to resolve and THEN paying the mana cost (which would generate an additional blue mana from the tapped island)? Seems obvious, but just wanted to confirm.
To cast High Tide, you have to, among other things, pay its mana cost while you're doing so (C.R. 601.2, 601.2f, 601.2h), not while High Tide resolves, which happens after all players pass in a row while High Tide is on top of the stack (C.R. 116.4). Like any other spell, High Tide has no effect unless and until it resolves (C.R. 609.1, 608.2c; see also this thread).
Yes, costs are always paid before the thing you are paying for resolves. Typically you declare what you are casting, what modes and targets and costs, then you paid said costs. At that point the spell is now on the stack; which means both players have to pass priority before it will resolve and have its effect.
Perhaps you should not rely on 'the obvious' for such complex a game. Many rules of magic are anything but obvious.
May I kindly suggest you rely on the actual rulebook?
601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. (…)
Along similar lines, if I were to cast Snap, and it was countered, I would not be able to untap two lands (the spell's second effect) since it was countered, correct?
Along similar lines, if I were to cast Snap, and it was countered, I would not be able to untap two lands (the spell's second effect) since it was countered, correct?
If a spell is countered, it doesn't resolve and none of its effects happen (C.R. 701.5a). The same is true if a spell has targets and all of them are illegal as it would resolve (e.g., if Snap's only target is no longer on the battlefield at that time) (C.R. 608.2b). See also this thread. If a spell is countered, any costs paid to cast that spell, if any, are not refunded (C.R. 701.5b).
Correct, HandsomeP. When a spell is countered or otherwise fails to resolve (like the targeted creature is an illegal target), none of its effects happen, including the untap.
If a spell is countered, it doesn't resolve and none of its effects happen (C.R. 701.5a).
I've always been somewhat dubious about the way this rule is worded.
Malicious Affliction seems to contradict it. (and not by invoquing the golden rule)
There is no contradiction. The effect of Malicious Affliction's triggered ability is not an effect of the spell itself (C.R. 609.1). The ability, once triggered, will get to resolve no matter what happens to Malicious Affliction (C.R. 112.7a; see also this thread). Moreover, a spell can be copied even if it was countered in the meantime (C.R. 706.10, 608.2g; see also this thread).
I'm fully aware of the way it works. I did say this is about about the way this rule is worded and I did say it seems to contradict.
My quarrel is with the wording chosen for rule 701.5a; one could easily conclude that the triggered ability is part of the effects of the spell, which makes that rule somewhat misleading, IMHO. Wizards always strives to improve the rulebook, and there is room for improvement here.
701.5a To counter a spell or ability means to cancel it, removing it from the stack. It doesn’t resolve and none of its effects occur. (…)
Then what would the "it" mean in rule 701.5a, given that the spell and its triggered ability are two different objects on the stack?
112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source.
Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some
abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to
target creature or player”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any
activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect
needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it
will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the
zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still
perform the action even though it no longer exists.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Why bother with mere rulings when so many answers can be found in the Rules?
The discussion that's going on in the last few posts of this thread is outside the scope of this forum. This is a rules Q&A forum; if you have a quarrel with the way the Comprehensive Rules are written, contact the Rules Manager, Eli Shiffrin. The questions that are meant to be answered here have been answered, so I'm locking this.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
May I kindly suggest you rely on the actual rulebook?
https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
Malicious Affliction seems to contradict it. (and not by invoquing the golden rule)
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
My quarrel is with the wording chosen for rule 701.5a; one could easily conclude that the triggered ability is part of the effects of the spell, which makes that rule somewhat misleading, IMHO. Wizards always strives to improve the rulebook, and there is room for improvement here.
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules