While playing with my buddy, he played Chemister's Insight. He drew his 2 cards and so the spell was resolved. He then switched out one of his mana that he had tapped for Chemister's Insight so that he could play another card. He had tapped all of his blue mana then switched one out for a red after the spell resolved so that he could play a blue card. I called him out for it and he said that the mana still legally payed for Chemister's Insight so it doesnt matter. Does anyone know the official rulings on this?
Once mana is paid for a spell it can't be undone. The cost has been paid and the spell has resolved. There is no point that allowed a backup to tap mana differently.
Two points to this: in a casual, non-tournament game, other players may allow the mana to be tapped differently if they want to allow it. And in some cases, as long as the spell has not resolved, the player is fine to retap their mana differently.
In both of those instances, since they drew a card in this situation, they would be stuck with that choice. Allowing the player to use new information to influence a previous action is not going to fly in a tournament and I wouldn't think most playgroups would allow it either.
I agree but he wants to see an actual rule. I'm having trouble finding it.
How about this one? What "spell, ability, or turn-based action" is he claiming for untapping that land?
110.5. A permanent’s status is its physical state. There are four status categories, each of which has two possible values: tapped/untapped, flipped/unflipped, face up/face down, and phased in/phased out. Each permanent always has one of these values for each of these categories.
110.5c A permanent retains its status until a spell, ability, or turn-based action changes it, even if that status is not relevant to it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Why bother with mere rulings when so many answers can be found in the Rules?
I agree but he wants to see an actual rule. I'm having trouble finding it.
I'm afraid you won't find any rule that says "Players are not allowed to reverse previous actions when they realize they've made bad choices."
(yes, I know about rule 722, but it doesn't apply here)
Rules (mostly) tell what CAN be done.
The rulebook of all the things that CAN'T be done would be very long...
Would CRC 118 not apply here? Specifically 118.3?
118.3. A player can’t pay a cost without having 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. See rule 202, “Mana Cost and Color,” and rule 602, “Activating Activated Abilities.”
And 118.3a
118.3a. Paying mana is done by removing the indicated mana from a player’s mana pool. (Players can always pay 0 mana.) If excess mana remains in that player’s mana pool after making that payment, the player announces what mana is still there.
Specifically, the mana is already removed from the pool. A choice made with the first spell.
The most basic rule of all games* is "You cannot do ANYTHING unless some rule allows it."
There's no rule saying you can't draw a sixth card at poker. There is a rule saying you draw five cards, and that should be enough!
*except for Calvinball, of course!
However, as was pointed out, many Magic rules (uselessly) inform us about things that can't be done. SL gave an excellent example of such pointless rule:
"A player can’t pay a cost without having the necessary resources to pay it fully."
Seriously? Do we really need to tell people they can't buy things they can't afford?
Some of those "can't" rules are bordering ridiculous:
601.2h (...) Unpayable costs can’t be paid.
Really? Some costs are unpayable and, moreover, they can't be paid? Shocking.
Some "can't" rules have been deemed necessary because too many people made unwarranted extrapolations:
115.10a Just because an object or player is being affected by a spell or ability doesn’t make that object or player a target of that spell or ability. (...)
Many beginners would spontaneously identify all affected objects as targets, being unaware of the Magic-specific definition of the word.
Other examples:
120.5. Damage dealt to a creature or planeswalker doesn’t destroy it. (...)
303.4e (...) If an Aura enchants an object, changing control of the object doesn’t change control of the Aura (...)
These would be very tempting false assumptions.
Many other "can't" rules are written as interdiction for ease of comprehension, mostly because of the way we use language. For example;
510.1c (...)However, it can’t assign combat damage to a creature that’s blocking it unless, when combat damage assignments are complete, each creature that precedes that blocking creature in its order is assigned lethal damage.(...)
This rule could easily have been written as a permission (but may not have been so easily understood): "...a creature can only assign damage to a blocker if all previous blockers have been assigned lethal damage..."
I don't really understand why it's such a big issue for the rules to be written that way? We can thank the jackal rules lawyers for the abuse.
For instance, prior to 6th Edition, you didn't die right away if you went to 0 life but at the end of a phase. This meant that you could, conceivably, go to -1 life to pay a cost then use Zuran Orb to stay above 0. It was also easier to force a draw because the player at 0 life still had a chance to kill the other player before the phase ended. This is why rules like 118.3 119.4 and 119.6 (amongst others) are written this way to avoid that kind of intentional misinterpretation.
The current rules with SBA's help to avoid that problem but since the rules still allow life totals to go negative for the purposes of calculating totals, the rules still retain their "0 or less" clause. Stands to reason that the "Unpayable costs can’t be paid" clause still exists to avoid players attempting to pay on credit (a notable occurance in kitchen table Monopoly.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree but he wants to see an actual rule. I'm having trouble finding it.
Two points to this: in a casual, non-tournament game, other players may allow the mana to be tapped differently if they want to allow it. And in some cases, as long as the spell has not resolved, the player is fine to retap their mana differently.
In both of those instances, since they drew a card in this situation, they would be stuck with that choice. Allowing the player to use new information to influence a previous action is not going to fly in a tournament and I wouldn't think most playgroups would allow it either.
(yes, I know about rule 722, but it doesn't apply here)
Rules (mostly) tell what CAN be done.
The rulebook of all the things that CAN'T be done would be very long...
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
How about this one? What "spell, ability, or turn-based action" is he claiming for untapping that land?
Would CRC 118 not apply here? Specifically 118.3?
And 118.3a
Specifically, the mana is already removed from the pool. A choice made with the first spell.
There's no rule saying you can't draw a sixth card at poker. There is a rule saying you draw five cards, and that should be enough!
*except for Calvinball, of course!
However, as was pointed out, many Magic rules (uselessly) inform us about things that can't be done. SL gave an excellent example of such pointless rule:
Seriously? Do we really need to tell people they can't buy things they can't afford?
Some of those "can't" rules are bordering ridiculous:
Really? Some costs are unpayable and, moreover, they can't be paid? Shocking.
Some "can't" rules have been deemed necessary because too many people made unwarranted extrapolations:
Other examples:
303.4e (...) If an Aura enchants an object, changing control of the object doesn’t change control of the Aura (...)
These would be very tempting false assumptions.
Many other "can't" rules are written as interdiction for ease of comprehension, mostly because of the way we use language. For example;
"...a creature can only assign damage to a blocker if all previous blockers have been assigned lethal damage..."
RULES OF MAGIC :
http://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-formats/rules
For instance, prior to 6th Edition, you didn't die right away if you went to 0 life but at the end of a phase. This meant that you could, conceivably, go to -1 life to pay a cost then use Zuran Orb to stay above 0. It was also easier to force a draw because the player at 0 life still had a chance to kill the other player before the phase ended. This is why rules like 118.3 119.4 and 119.6 (amongst others) are written this way to avoid that kind of intentional misinterpretation.
The current rules with SBA's help to avoid that problem but since the rules still allow life totals to go negative for the purposes of calculating totals, the rules still retain their "0 or less" clause. Stands to reason that the "Unpayable costs can’t be paid" clause still exists to avoid players attempting to pay on credit (a notable occurance in kitchen table Monopoly.)