Just played some games with some friends and a new guy I've never met before. He's a store owner, has the power nine (2 lotuses) and has been playing and collecting magic since 93. I was expecting him to know everything there was to know about the game and to be a bad a** lol.
Well...a couple games in and my friend had a King Macar, the Gold-Cursed untap and target one of the new guy's creatures. In response, the new guy played some sort of removal on the macar destroying it.
He then went on to say that his creature wouldn't die cause he killed the macar.
I don't usually confront people...ESPECIALLY when I think those people are suppose to know more then I do. But I blurted out that I think that's wrong. That the macar would still exile the new guy's creature.
The new guy argued that because he played his removal in response to the trigger...that the macar would be dead and in the graveyard by the time his ability would play out and since the creature is no longer in play, it's triggered ability fizzles.
He then went further and told me it was pretty much like playing a counterspell.
I told him I'm 95% certain he's wrong...that since he played the removal in response to the ability, that the ability is already on the stack and so it WOULD resolve regardless of where the macar was. It was unattached if you will from the creature at that point and was it's own separate thing.
I also argued that it was NOTHING like countering a spell...because countering a spell prevents the ability from hitting the stack altogether.
But he stuck to his guns and told me he was right...and what's more...I my friend agreed with him that it was correct. That the macar wouldn't exile his creature cause the macar died.
Please tell me I haven't gone completely stupid?
I think I may have annoyed both of these guys by arguing with them on this...and I'm not one to argue often about rulings...but I'm pretty dang sure they're in the wrong here.
Am I just brain dead today?
Can anyone point me to any rulings or anything official one way or another so I can either discover how wrong I was and how stupid I am for arguing...or else take it to them and show them how wrong they were?
It upsets me a bit too...cause the guy is a freaking store owner...lol I expected him to be better then he was (his decks were pretty mediocre too. /sigh).
Thanks guys! And sorry for the long winded post. Just needed to vent :P.
You are entirely correct. Abilities are independent of their sources.
From the Comprehensive Rules:
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.
And in full wordier form involving different wordings which sometimes trip people up:
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.
Just played some games with some friends and a new guy I've never met before. He's a store owner, has the power nine (2 lotuses) and has been playing and collecting magic since 93. I was expecting him to know everything there was to know about the game and to be a bad a** lol.
Well...a couple games in and my friend had a King Macar, the Gold-Cursed untap and target one of the new guy's creatures. In response, the new guy played some sort of removal on the macar destroying it.
He then went on to say that his creature wouldn't die cause he killed the macar.
I don't usually confront people...ESPECIALLY when I think those people are suppose to know more then I do. But I blurted out that I think that's wrong. That the macar would still exile the new guy's creature.
The new guy argued that because he played his removal in response to the trigger...that the macar would be dead and in the graveyard by the time his ability would play out and since the creature is no longer in play, it's triggered ability fizzles.
He then went further and told me it was pretty much like playing a counterspell.
I told him I'm 95% certain he's wrong...that since he played the removal in response to the ability, that the ability is already on the stack and so it WOULD resolve regardless of where the macar was. It was unattached if you will from the creature at that point and was it's own separate thing.
I also argued that it was NOTHING like countering a spell...because countering a spell prevents the ability from hitting the stack altogether.
But he stuck to his guns and told me he was right...and what's more...I my friend agreed with him that it was correct. That the macar wouldn't exile his creature cause the macar died.
Please tell me I haven't gone completely stupid?
I think I may have annoyed both of these guys by arguing with them on this...and I'm not one to argue often about rulings...but I'm pretty dang sure they're in the wrong here.
Am I just brain dead today?
Can anyone point me to any rulings or anything official one way or another so I can either discover how wrong I was and how stupid I am for arguing...or else take it to them and show them how wrong they were?
It upsets me a bit too...cause the guy is a freaking store owner...lol I expected him to be better then he was (his decks were pretty mediocre too. /sigh).
Thanks guys! And sorry for the long winded post. Just needed to vent :P.
From the Comprehensive Rules:
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.
And in full wordier form involving different wordings which sometimes trip people up:
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.
Thank you guys so much! I wasn't sure if I was just going all dumb all the sudden or what. >.<'
REALLY appreciate you finding the official rules for me Vortho. This is exactly what I was hoping for! Thank you