Costs are usually resources that has to be used up. If your cost is similar to an effect, it might work, but I'm not sure if WotC will ever make one like that. I mean, there's nothing in the rules restricting what the costs have to be... G3.28 - Cost
G3.28a - Playing spells and activated abilities requires paying a cost. Most costs are paid in mana, but costs may also include paying life, tapping or sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. [CompRules 2005/10/01]
G3.28b - A player can't pay a cost unless he or she has the necessary resources to pay it fully. For example, a player with only 1 life can't pay a cost of 2 life, and a permanent that's already tapped can't be tapped to pay a cost. [CompRules 2003/07/01]
Note - Also see Rule 203, "Mana Cost and Color," and Rule 403, "Activated Abilities."
403.1 - An activated ability is written as "[cost]: [effect]." The activation cost is everything before the colon (:). An ability's activation cost must be paid by the player who is playing it. [CompRules 2003/07/01]
Well, the last one isn't so paradoxical. An ability can't target itself, but it can counter itself, especially if you use "all" and no "target".
415.6 - A spell or ability on the stack is an illegal target for itself. [CompRules 2003/07/01]
The ability will be played, you will pay the cost, then it'll be put on the stack. When it resolves, it counters ALL activated abilities on the stack, then it disappears. Simple.
Some effects like gaining life or drawing a card are by their nature somthing you are recieving, not something you are paying. However, if you can design a card that is balanced that utilizes those abilities as costs, probably with mana costs in addition, there is nothing that says it will not work.
EDIT: If you do try and utilize some odd cost that you don't actually pay, you might want to restrict that ability to just once per turn. like Wirewood Symbiote.
Ok, this thread is about the relationship between different X's and Y's and what could be X's and Y's.
For example:
Could a card have this ability?
Draw a card: Discard a card
versus
Discard a card: Draw a card
Theoretically, either could be used. In practice, using a cost that is a replaceable event is a bad idea, and could break the game unless all possible replacements are carefully considered. You have to be able to know that the action is possible before you can play the ability, and that it "actually happened" afterwards. So ones that can be replaced, unless that just rearranges how the event happens (Sacrifice a Serra Avatar) just won't work well.
With a draw, can you "pay" the cost if your library is empty? What if you library is empty, and you have [Obstinate Familiar? Or you are affected by Plagiarize? Who paid the cost?
413 - Resolving Spells and Abilities
413.2a - If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that's removed from play, or from the zone designated by the spell or ability, is illegal. A target may also become illegal if its characteristics changed since the spell or ability was played or if an effect changed the text of the spell. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word "target," are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally, affecting only the targets that are still legal. If a target is illegal, the spell or ability can't perform any actions on it or make the target perform any actions. If the spell or ability needs to know information about one or more targets that are now illegal, it will use the illegal targets' current or last known information. [CompRules 2005/02/01]
Obviously, a spell or ability that is resolving can be countered.
Obviously, a spell or ability that is resolving can be countered.
Well, I'm pretty sure that 413.2a kicks in before "during resolution".
Haunt's wording clarifies this:
502.51a Haunt is a triggered ability. "Haunt" on a permanent means "When this permanent is put into a graveyard from play, remove it from the game haunting target creature." "Haunt" on an instant or sorcery spell means "When this spell is put into a graveyard during its resolution, remove it from the game haunting target creature."
Really. I thought this behavior was undefined because no cards in print could counter a spell/ability during its resolution.
More like "undefinable," since "counter" means, in part "It doesn't resolve and none of its effects occur." I based my statement on the fact that removing a spell card from the stack before it finishes resolving doesn't stop the spell from continuing to resolve, and the rest of the definition of "counter" is already violated.
As for your hypothetical card, of course it will let you draw. The card says to draw, and the only way that can happen is if it continues to resolve after being "countered" by itself. Even if you think the rules say otherwise, the card contradicts that. Golden rule (but then, it only really proves that no such card should be printed).
And yes, 413.2a is "pre-resolution." ("If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally.")
I don't think removing and countering can be treated as same. Although it's undefined for now, I think countering a spell during its resolution should stop the resolution right there. Who knows, we might be going to need this technic in the future.
Quote from Condor »
Even if you think the rules say otherwise, the card contradicts that. Golden rule (but then, it only really proves that no such card should be printed).
None of that card's text "directly" cotradicts the countering, so the Golden Rule is irrelevant here.
I don't think removing and countering can be treated as same.
Correct, just doing that is not the same. But, if you will read all of what I posted rather than commenting on just the part of it you think you can rebut, you will see that that is not the whole reason I gave. The three parts of "counter" are removal, no resolution, and no effect. But the ability has already partially resolved, and had some effect. That reduces "countering" to being just the same as "removing."
But the whole thing is a moot point, for several reasons.
No real card will ever do that, because it isn't clear what would happen (even though I am convinced waht would, and I am about the most knowlegable rules guru who posts on MTGS).
The ability in question resolves completely anyway, so why argue about it?
A spell or ability that went on after it countered itself would have to continue, because of the Golden Rule.
Who knows, we might be going to need this technic in the future.
Why? They'd just write the card (well, it really wouldn't come up) so that countering is the last part, and avoid any confusion. A card with no possibility of confusion is far better than one with almost certain confusion. Don't you agree? Or are you just trying to seek out confusion?
None of that card's text "directly" cotradicts the countering, so the Golden Rule is irrelevant here.
It is quite relevant, and direct. The card's text says it does something. If the rules say it can't do that something, that is a contradiction. One that most definitely has been used in the past. But, if such a card was written, and people doubted that the Golden Rule applied, they'd just write a rule that said it. Which also has happened in in the past.
The Golden Rule used to cover triggers like Nether Shadow before 402.8f was written. It had to be in the graveyard to trigger, so it worked from the graveyard. People didn't always see that, so they wrote 402.8f (it actually was the second rule to help out). And no rule really says Wonder functions in a graveyard. For 402.8b to apply Wonder needs to say "This ability functions in your graveyard." But that is implied through the Golden Rule, by the fact that it has to be there to do anything.
A spell or ability that went on after it countered itself would have to continue, because of the Golden Rule.
Eh, are you saying that every spell or ability contradicts countering, regardless of its text?
Quote from Condor »
Why? They'd just write the card (well, it really wouldn't come up) so that countering is the last part, and avoid any confusion.
The usage of mid-resolution-countering would be similar to "return" in programming languages such as C or Javascript. It can be quite useful in some situation, I think.
Quote from Condor »
It is quite relevant, and direct. The card's text says it does something. If the rules say it can't do that something, that is a contradiction.
Well, if any text that tries to do something contradicted countering, Counterspell would never work.
Quote from Condor »
For 402.8b to apply Wonder needs to say "This ability functions in your graveyard." But that is implied through the Golden Rule, by the fact that it has to be there to do anything.
402.8b doesn't say the ability has to use the phrase "This ability functions in [zone]." Wonder's ability is under 402.8b's intent—it does "state which zones it functions." This is just a matter of English expression, not the Golden Rule thing.
Eh, are you saying that every spell or ability contradicts countering, regardless of its text?
Where did you get that? I'm sayng a spell that says "This spell gets countered, THEN this spell makes you draw a card" has a contradiction. I've said it several times now. Seems pretty obvious to me.
The usage of mid-resolution-countering would be similar to "return" in programming languages such as C or Javascript. It can be quite useful in some situation, I think.
I'm not talking about a conditional countering, like conditinal returns in a programming language. I bet your compiler will even give you a warning message if you put statements after an unconditinal return. It depends on its level of sophistication.
No, I'm talking about he ones where the spell MUST be countered, and then MUST try to do something else. For some reason, you don't want to see that point, and keep ignoring it by offering so-called examples that avoid it.
Well, if any text that tries to do something contradicted countering, Counterspell would never work.
Yes, it would. Good thing I'm not talking about just any text, or external countering. I'm talking about a spell that tries, unconditionally, to counter utself. And then tries to do something else. It'll never happen, for reasons I gave that you are also ignoring, but the Golden Rule would say the spell has to continue to resolve.
402.8b doesn't say the ability has to use the phrase "This ability functions in [zone]."
"402.8b An ability that states which zones it functions in functions only from those zones." It doesn't? What do you think "states" means? Where does Wonder state such a thing?
[Edit: Look at any keyworded ability that is used outside of play. Buyback, Cycling, Kicker, Flashback, Threshold, Madness, Morph, Affinity, Entwine, Scry, Splice, Offering, Ninjutsu, Convoke, Dredge, Transmute, Replicate, Forecast, Recover, and Ripple all make explicit mention of where the abilities function or can be played, in addition to the text's meaning that implies it.]
Wonder's ability is under 402.8b's intent
Yes it is, as I said before. It isn't explicit, like all those keywords, because it makes the text too long. And accomplishing it effect, and functioning, are not the same things. All Wonder's text says it that it accomplishes its effect if it is in the graveyard.
It only falls under the rule because it is a contradiction if it doesn't funcrtion in the only place it accomplishes anything. That contradiction is "The ability does something" when reading the rules literally says it doesn't. Same as the text written after "Counter this spell."
And again, there is no point to this argument, because no cards will do this.
Same as the text written after "Counter this spell."
And if the intent of "Counter this spell." was to stop its further resolving, the fact the text doesn't get countered contradicts "Counter this spell." It's pretty paradoxical like original poster said. Saying "the behavior is undefined." is much safer than saying "resolving ability/spell must continue to resolve."
Quote from Condor »
And again, there is no point to this argument, because no cards will do this.
Agreed. I was just curious about your reasoning of "A resolving ability will continue to resolve."
Is that reasoning still valid? Ie. The Golden Rule lets you draw a card overwrites whatever would happen if such a contradictory event were to happen, so whatever contradiction or unexplained behavior there is does not matter since the card overwrites that.
And if the intent of "Counter this spell." was to stop its further resolving, the fact the text doesn't get countered contradicts "Counter this spell."
No, it does get countered, it just doesn't stop resolving. For example, it would trigger Multani's Presence. It contradicts the rules definition of "counter," not the text itself. (Note: Is Darksteel Colossusnot sacrificed to a Fling just becaue it doesn't go the the graveyard?)
It's pretty paradoxical like original poster said.
I'll agree, IF you think the spell has to stop resolving. That's why the Golden Rule exists, to stop cards from being self-paradoxical. And that's why I think it has to continue.
Darksteel Colossus IS sacrificed. Nothing replaces the sacrifice. Sacrificing isn't contingent on it going to the graveyard or not. The replacement ability replaces the going-to-graveyard, not the sacrifice.
But I don't see how that has anything to do with Swifter Silence.
Darksteel Colossus IS sacrificed. Nothing replaces the sacrifice.
Yes, that was my point. That changing what actually happens as a result of using a defined verb, like "counter" or sacrifice," does not affect whether that action was considered to have happened or not. It is appropriate to Swifter Silence, and in particular, Shimakuma's invalid objection, because "counter this spell" did not get contradicted even if "this spell" continued to resolve. It was still countered, just like Darksteel Colossus was still sacrificed, even though the definitions of those actions didn't exactly happen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For example:
Could a card have this ability?
Draw a card: Discard a card
versus
Discard a card: Draw a card
or
You gain 1 life: Tap a creature you control.
versus
Tap a creature you control: You gain 1 life.
or X's that are so weird...
You lose the game: You win the game
and vice versa?
What about paradoxical abilities?
:1mana:: Counter all activated abilities are on the stack.
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=317475478823307368#overview/src=dashboard
Like reading magic theory?
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2901104710618966704#overview/src=dashboard
Are you a navy Nuke?
http://blueconceptnavynuke.blogspot.com/2012/08/captains-mast-at-nnptc.html
G3.28 - Cost
- G3.28a - Playing spells and activated abilities requires paying a cost. Most costs are paid in mana, but costs may also include paying life, tapping or sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. [CompRules 2005/10/01]
- G3.28b - A player can't pay a cost unless he or she has the necessary resources to pay it fully. For example, a player with only 1 life can't pay a cost of 2 life, and a permanent that's already tapped can't be tapped to pay a cost. [CompRules 2003/07/01]
- Note - Also see Rule 203, "Mana Cost and Color," and Rule 403, "Activated Abilities."
- 403.1 - An activated ability is written as "[cost]: [effect]." The activation cost is everything before the colon (:). An ability's activation cost must be paid by the player who is playing it. [CompRules 2003/07/01]
Well, the last one isn't so paradoxical. An ability can't target itself, but it can counter itself, especially if you use "all" and no "target".- 415.6 - A spell or ability on the stack is an illegal target for itself. [CompRules 2003/07/01]
The ability will be played, you will pay the cost, then it'll be put on the stack. When it resolves, it counters ALL activated abilities on the stack, then it disappears. Simple."[cost]: [effect]" vs "[effect]: [cost]"
There are some effects that can be used as both costs and effects, like returning permanents to hand (Temporal Adept vs Wirewood Symbiote) or putting counters on a permanent (Experiment Kraj vs Bloodletter Quill).
Some effects like gaining life or drawing a card are by their nature somthing you are recieving, not something you are paying. However, if you can design a card that is balanced that utilizes those abilities as costs, probably with mana costs in addition, there is nothing that says it will not work.
EDIT: If you do try and utilize some odd cost that you don't actually pay, you might want to restrict that ability to just once per turn. like Wirewood Symbiote.
Theoretically, either could be used. In practice, using a cost that is a replaceable event is a bad idea, and could break the game unless all possible replacements are carefully considered. You have to be able to know that the action is possible before you can play the ability, and that it "actually happened" afterwards. So ones that can be replaced, unless that just rearranges how the event happens (Sacrifice a Serra Avatar) just won't work well.
With a draw, can you "pay" the cost if your library is empty? What if you library is empty, and you have [Obstinate Familiar? Or you are affected by Plagiarize? Who paid the cost?
Sulfuric Vortex.
What's so paradoxical? A resolving ability will continue to resolve (although this one has finished) after that effect is applied.
Really. I thought this behavior was undefined because no cards in print could counter a spell/ability during its resolution.
So you think this card can let you draw cards?
413.2a - If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that's removed from play, or from the zone designated by the spell or ability, is illegal. A target may also become illegal if its characteristics changed since the spell or ability was played or if an effect changed the text of the spell. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word "target," are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally, affecting only the targets that are still legal. If a target is illegal, the spell or ability can't perform any actions on it or make the target perform any actions. If the spell or ability needs to know information about one or more targets that are now illegal, it will use the illegal targets' current or last known information. [CompRules 2005/02/01]
Obviously, a spell or ability that is resolving can be countered.
Well, I'm pretty sure that 413.2a kicks in before "during resolution".
Haunt's wording clarifies this:
More like "undefinable," since "counter" means, in part "It doesn't resolve and none of its effects occur." I based my statement on the fact that removing a spell card from the stack before it finishes resolving doesn't stop the spell from continuing to resolve, and the rest of the definition of "counter" is already violated.
As for your hypothetical card, of course it will let you draw. The card says to draw, and the only way that can happen is if it continues to resolve after being "countered" by itself. Even if you think the rules say otherwise, the card contradicts that. Golden rule (but then, it only really proves that no such card should be printed).
And yes, 413.2a is "pre-resolution." ("If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally.")
I don't think removing and countering can be treated as same. Although it's undefined for now, I think countering a spell during its resolution should stop the resolution right there. Who knows, we might be going to need this technic in the future.
None of that card's text "directly" cotradicts the countering, so the Golden Rule is irrelevant here.
Correct, just doing that is not the same. But, if you will read all of what I posted rather than commenting on just the part of it you think you can rebut, you will see that that is not the whole reason I gave. The three parts of "counter" are removal, no resolution, and no effect. But the ability has already partially resolved, and had some effect. That reduces "countering" to being just the same as "removing."
But the whole thing is a moot point, for several reasons.
- No real card will ever do that, because it isn't clear what would happen (even though I am convinced waht would, and I am about the most knowlegable rules guru who posts on MTGS).
- The ability in question resolves completely anyway, so why argue about it?
- A spell or ability that went on after it countered itself would have to continue, because of the Golden Rule.
Why? They'd just write the card (well, it really wouldn't come up) so that countering is the last part, and avoid any confusion. A card with no possibility of confusion is far better than one with almost certain confusion. Don't you agree? Or are you just trying to seek out confusion?It is quite relevant, and direct. The card's text says it does something. If the rules say it can't do that something, that is a contradiction. One that most definitely has been used in the past. But, if such a card was written, and people doubted that the Golden Rule applied, they'd just write a rule that said it. Which also has happened in in the past.
The Golden Rule used to cover triggers like Nether Shadow before 402.8f was written. It had to be in the graveyard to trigger, so it worked from the graveyard. People didn't always see that, so they wrote 402.8f (it actually was the second rule to help out). And no rule really says Wonder functions in a graveyard. For 402.8b to apply Wonder needs to say "This ability functions in your graveyard." But that is implied through the Golden Rule, by the fact that it has to be there to do anything.
Eh, are you saying that every spell or ability contradicts countering, regardless of its text?
The usage of mid-resolution-countering would be similar to "return" in programming languages such as C or Javascript. It can be quite useful in some situation, I think.
Well, if any text that tries to do something contradicted countering, Counterspell would never work.
402.8b doesn't say the ability has to use the phrase "This ability functions in [zone]." Wonder's ability is under 402.8b's intent—it does "state which zones it functions." This is just a matter of English expression, not the Golden Rule thing.
Where did you get that? I'm sayng a spell that says "This spell gets countered, THEN this spell makes you draw a card" has a contradiction. I've said it several times now. Seems pretty obvious to me.
I'm not talking about a conditional countering, like conditinal returns in a programming language. I bet your compiler will even give you a warning message if you put statements after an unconditinal return. It depends on its level of sophistication.
No, I'm talking about he ones where the spell MUST be countered, and then MUST try to do something else. For some reason, you don't want to see that point, and keep ignoring it by offering so-called examples that avoid it.
Yes, it would. Good thing I'm not talking about just any text, or external countering. I'm talking about a spell that tries, unconditionally, to counter utself. And then tries to do something else. It'll never happen, for reasons I gave that you are also ignoring, but the Golden Rule would say the spell has to continue to resolve.
"402.8b An ability that states which zones it functions in functions only from those zones." It doesn't? What do you think "states" means? Where does Wonder state such a thing?
[Edit: Look at any keyworded ability that is used outside of play. Buyback, Cycling, Kicker, Flashback, Threshold, Madness, Morph, Affinity, Entwine, Scry, Splice, Offering, Ninjutsu, Convoke, Dredge, Transmute, Replicate, Forecast, Recover, and Ripple all make explicit mention of where the abilities function or can be played, in addition to the text's meaning that implies it.]
Yes it is, as I said before. It isn't explicit, like all those keywords, because it makes the text too long. And accomplishing it effect, and functioning, are not the same things. All Wonder's text says it that it accomplishes its effect if it is in the graveyard.
It only falls under the rule because it is a contradiction if it doesn't funcrtion in the only place it accomplishes anything. That contradiction is "The ability does something" when reading the rules literally says it doesn't. Same as the text written after "Counter this spell."
And again, there is no point to this argument, because no cards will do this.
And if the intent of "Counter this spell." was to stop its further resolving, the fact the text doesn't get countered contradicts "Counter this spell." It's pretty paradoxical like original poster said. Saying "the behavior is undefined." is much safer than saying "resolving ability/spell must continue to resolve."
Agreed. I was just curious about your reasoning of "A resolving ability will continue to resolve."
No, it does get countered, it just doesn't stop resolving. For example, it would trigger Multani's Presence. It contradicts the rules definition of "counter," not the text itself. (Note: Is Darksteel Colossus not sacrificed to a Fling just becaue it doesn't go the the graveyard?)
I'll agree, IF you think the spell has to stop resolving. That's why the Golden Rule exists, to stop cards from being self-paradoxical. And that's why I think it has to continue.
But I don't see how that has anything to do with Swifter Silence.
Yes, that was my point. That changing what actually happens as a result of using a defined verb, like "counter" or sacrifice," does not affect whether that action was considered to have happened or not. It is appropriate to Swifter Silence, and in particular, Shimakuma's invalid objection, because "counter this spell" did not get contradicted even if "this spell" continued to resolve. It was still countered, just like Darksteel Colossus was still sacrificed, even though the definitions of those actions didn't exactly happen.