Last night I played, what I thought, was a perfectly reasonable play. I was down to 10 life.
Opponent had two 5/5 creatures in play and I had two 1/1 creatures w/o sickness, no other creatures, Song of Freyalise (Stage 1) and all lands were tapped. Opponent declares attack and I block with both 1/1's. Then, after blockers were declared but before damage step, I tap both creatures for mana then cast Vicious Offering. I paid the kicker by sacrificing one of the creatures in order to kill a 5/5. My opponent attempted to cast Dual Shot after blockers were declared to prevent me from paying the sacrifice.
This caused a bit of an uproar at the LGS, possibly prompting at least another player to leave, since my opponent claimed I couldn't sacrifice my 1/1 since it was already on its way to the graveyard. I pointed out that I had cast Offering before damage and thus it wasn't on its way to the graveyard yet. He countered that since Dual Shot was on top, it would resolve first, killing the creature. I replied this is true but since the kicker was a cost as per rule 702.32a it had to be paid in order to have the spell on the stack.
Yeah, this ticked him off.
So....
Was that play correct? I obviously think so but I can't find the section on costs that related to another player preventing a cost from being paid, such as blowing up a land to prevent a player from tapping it for mana.
Costs can't be responded to, which kicker is. You had to sac as part of paying for the Offering and not as part of an effect, so trying to kill the creature in response is nonsense.
117.8. Some spells and abilities have additional costs. An additional cost is a cost listed in a spell’s rules text, or applied to a spell or ability from another effect, that its controller must pay at the same time they pay the spell’s mana cost or the ability’s activation cost. Note that some additional costs are listed in keywords; see rule 702.
702.32a Kicker is a static ability that functions while the spell with kicker is on the stack. “Kicker [cost]” means “You may pay an additional [cost] as you cast this spell.” Paying a spell’s kicker cost(s) follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.
Costs can't be responded to, which kicker is. You had to sac as part of paying for the Offering and not as part of an effect, so trying to kill the creature in response is nonsense.
Costs can't be responded to, which kicker is. You had to sac as part of paying for the Offering and not as part of an effect, so trying to kill the creature in response is nonsense.
Exactly, but what's the rule? Is it under 116.1d?
If you have priority and cast that spell, then as part of casting a spell, you figure its total cost (which is "1B, Sacrifice up to one creature" for Vicious Betrayal [C.R. 702.32a]), then pay that cost (C.R. 601.2f, 601.2h). In general, while you cast a spell or activate an ability, no player has priority to castpriority, so no other player can cast other spells or activate other abilities (including those that would keep you from paying the spell or ability's costs) (C.R. 601.2a-i and 602.2a-b have no priority window until the spell is cast or ability activated). C.R. 601.2g makes an exception for certain mana abilities. It follows that if you sacrifice a creature as you pay the cost of a spell or ability, that creature will leave the battlefield before any player gets priority again (C.R. 701.16a). See also this thread.
Note, however, that after blockers were declared, the active player (here, your opponent) gets priority first (C.R. 509.4), and your opponent could have used that priority to cast spells, such as Dual Shot (C.R. 116.1a); only if a player passes can the next player in turn order, if any, get priority (C.R. 116.3d). But even if your opponent cast Dual Shot before you cast Vicious Betrayal, you will eventually get priority to cast spells, such as Vicious Betrayal, in response to Dual Shot (C.R. 116.7, 116.3d).
I would mention that it’s utterly impossible to stop a player from tapping their land for mana. Even Split Second can’t stop mana abilities. Blowing up a player’s land in response to it activating any ability wouldn’t stop that ability from going on the stack, and you can tap a land for mana even when you don’t have priority. Mana abilities are weird like that.
Hey guys/gals. I wanted to extend my thanks for the responses. I would've responded sooner but I keep forgetting that the forum doesn't automatically notify you of new responses to threads you create.
On a completely unrelated note, the individual left because they had a ***ty pull on their packs and didn't even know what was going on with my game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Opponent had two 5/5 creatures in play and I had two 1/1 creatures w/o sickness, no other creatures, Song of Freyalise (Stage 1) and all lands were tapped. Opponent declares attack and I block with both 1/1's. Then, after blockers were declared but before damage step, I tap both creatures for mana then cast Vicious Offering. I paid the kicker by sacrificing one of the creatures in order to kill a 5/5. My opponent attempted to cast Dual Shot after blockers were declared to prevent me from paying the sacrifice.
This caused a bit of an uproar at the LGS, possibly prompting at least another player to leave, since my opponent claimed I couldn't sacrifice my 1/1 since it was already on its way to the graveyard. I pointed out that I had cast Offering before damage and thus it wasn't on its way to the graveyard yet. He countered that since Dual Shot was on top, it would resolve first, killing the creature. I replied this is true but since the kicker was a cost as per rule 702.32a it had to be paid in order to have the spell on the stack.
Yeah, this ticked him off.
So....
Was that play correct? I obviously think so but I can't find the section on costs that related to another player preventing a cost from being paid, such as blowing up a land to prevent a player from tapping it for mana.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
Exactly, but what's the rule? Is it under 116.1d?
priority to castpriority, so no other player can cast other spells or activate other abilities (including those that would keep you from paying the spell or ability's costs) (C.R. 601.2a-i and 602.2a-b have no priority window until the spell is cast or ability activated).C.R. 601.2g makes an exception for certain mana abilities.It follows that if you sacrifice a creature as you pay the cost of a spell or ability, that creature will leave the battlefield before any player gets priority again (C.R. 701.16a). See also this thread.Note, however, that after blockers were declared, the active player (here, your opponent) gets priority first (C.R. 509.4), and your opponent could have used that priority to cast spells, such as Dual Shot (C.R. 116.1a); only if a player passes can the next player in turn order, if any, get priority (C.R. 116.3d). But even if your opponent cast Dual Shot before you cast Vicious Betrayal, you will eventually get priority to cast spells, such as Vicious Betrayal, in response to Dual Shot (C.R. 116.7, 116.3d).
EDIT: Clarification after comment 6 was posted.
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
On a completely unrelated note, the individual left because they had a ***ty pull on their packs and didn't even know what was going on with my game.