Originally Posted by Rush_Clasic
If the enchanted creature were to become 0/0 (through an effect like Infest), you'd cause the game to go into a state-based effect loop.
If this were true, it would happen every time an indestructible creature had lethal damage on it.
Incorrect. "Indestructible" prevents the effect "destroy" from applying. "Leaves play" is the result of that effect, not the effect itself. That effect will still have to happen, or at least try to.
And then, think about what would happen in multiplayer if the card's owner loses, if it worked the way you want.
It never worked that way. The original "saboteur" cards came out under pre-6E rules, when there wasn't a difference between "assign" and "deal." For a long time, those cards and those with "super trample" continued to use the word "deal" to mean "how it treats its combat damage in general," not the actual dealing of it. On the super tramplers, it was obvious that it had to be a modification of the assignment process, and eventually they got errata. But the saboteurs were unintentionally left out. The official rulking was always that it mean they ignored the combat damage process altogether.
It really needs no more of an explanation than "this can't work" to be able to say "it isn't a good idea." But since you never accept "it doesn't work" when it doesn't, I didn't feel the need or desire to delve into it.
Whatever happened to rule 103.1?
It means way less than you think it does. In this case, the original effect is still "causing" your ability to do whatever it thinks it is doing. So the card is being exiled "by" both. And that isn't something yuou can change with the golden rule itself, because it isn't part of the event. It is what is causing the event.
Am I correct in thinking that, post Uba Mask rules change, this has the effect of making Oblivion Ring and Flicker effects permanent, hosing suspend, and very stealthily hosing madness?
No.
The original effect is still what is causing the action, even after the replacement.
And from a more general standpoint of design philosophy, should there be a card that does this?
If another spell or ability would exile a card, this ability exiles that card instead. (Effects that would affect a card exiled with that spell or ability don't affect that card. I hate how similar "effect" and "affect" look.)
Sorry, no. The source of the effect remains unchanged.
But why does the spell have to wait for priority in exile? Can't it just wait on the stack?
No. A spell is more than just "a card on the stack." It has to have choices made.
Okay my opponent taps a creature for an ability. can i in response use a card which has tap:tap target creature and prevent the first creature's ability?
Many new players learn the game incorrectly; but the "mistake" they learn gives the right answer 95% of the time, so they find it hard to recognize the problem.
What they learn is that any "action" that would occur can be suspended by saying "in response I...". They learn that the suspended action "waits" to "happen" while the response happens "first," and by then maybe the original "action" can't happen anymore.
Attacking works about the same way. You can't stop them from attacking, but you can alter what they so when the attack is accomplished.
This is completely wrong, but it seems there is only one person in the world who recognizes the mistake for what it is, and explains it. (Guess who? :))
Playing a spell or ability is actually two actions, not one. You (1) play it and it goes on the stack, and then (2) it resolves later. "In response" does not mean you "suspend" anything, it means you play something else in between these two actions. Since the stack resolves LIFO, both parts of your reposnse both happen after the first one gets played, but before it resolves. Anything that happens as part of "playing" the first spell or ability is already accomplished. It is only the parts that happen at resolution that you can alter by your response.
My point is: If an effect says "You may do XXX and YYY," you have to be able to do both XXX and YYY in order to choose the option. It does not matter if there is, or if there is not, and "if you do" clause after it. Similarly, if an effect says "You may do XXX to two (or more) ZZZs," you have to havw the required number of ZZZs that you can do XXX to.
What I said "can't be correct," is that the impossibility rule does not apply when "the entirety of the action isn't illegal, just some of it." It has to apply to all.
Surely that is not correct, Condor. If so, you could have a situation where an ability says "Sacrifice ~this~. If you do..." and another sac effect. As long as you "chose" to sacrifice the creature on the first one, you'd get the effect...even if you, in response, sacrificed the creature to the second effect.
Right - that was my point. That it is not correct. If an effect says "You may XXX," you have to be able to do (all of) XXX, regardless of what comes after it. The "if you do" does not change things.
Obviously, you can't do that. The whole reason that the "if you do" exists is to prevent such actions.
Remember, the "if you do" depends on the choice, not what you actually end up doing. That's why the choice has to be possible, even if it gets replaced. Or even if there is no "if you do."
I should mention that the first ability is worded NOT as a cost, but as part of the effect...otherwise "in response" makes no sense whatsoever.
There is no difference here. The choice, and the action, are both done as part of the effect. There is no reposnding to it. The part I put in red above can't happen.
"If you do" always means "if you choose the option" on such cards. It places no restriction on whether the option is possible, and doesn't care if you actually did the action.
As far as the legality/possibility of the action goes, there is no difference.
Even if "lose an ability" were an event that could be in a replacement, which it isn't, it won't work. If N sources are dealing damage at the same time, that wording would prevent all N sources and add N "lose this ability" effects. That's because "applying" a prevention/replacement just changes the event. The "new" event still happens at the same time the "old" one would have, after all prevention/replacements have been applied to it.
That's because the entirety of the action isn't illegal, just some of it.
This can't be right.
Preferred Selection: "At the beginning of your upkeep, look at the top two cards of your library. You may sacrifice Preferred Selection and pay 2GG. If you do, put one of those cards into your hand. If you don't, put one of those cards on the bottom of your library."
If you can do only one of "sacrifice Preferred Selection" and "pay 2GG", you should not get a card. Now, I'm willing to accept a "play it this way," but you have to be able to do all of what the option is.
My question was whether it is ambiguous under the rules. I take it your answer is "yes"?
And my point is, that there are no rules that define what is or is not "ambiguous." If you suspect it might be, enough to ask here, then surely a player seeing it for the first time would also. Regardless of whether I think any one meaning is indicated, the card needs a better wording.
The "tap-and-hold" rule, 418.3d, isn't one that is explained well. Usually, information that a resolving spell or ability needs is determined at the time of resolution; if the effect describes a relative time, like "the next time FOO happens," ot "this combat," that time is evaluated relative to resolution. "Tap-and-hold" is different, but the rules never explain how.
Ther first question you need to answer, is does copying the ability work at all? The rule makes it clear that the source being in the tapped state is not all of the condition. It has to be in that state because of something. That something - and the rules don't define what it is - is a property of the ability, determiend when you play it much like the choices made when it was played. For the copied ability to work at all, it has to copy that something the same way it copies the choices made when it was played. Which means the copy, if it works at all, must have the exact same duration as what it copied.
I require some help in understanding whether this works as I have intended, if it is possible to template it so it does, and if not, what alternatives would have a similar effect. Just for reference sake, this is not M10 related and does not take the new rules into account
The card in question is a creature, it has this ability: If ~ would be put into a graveyard from play, destroy all other creatures instead.
It is dangerous to create replacement effects. R&D actually limits the kinds of things that they can do, to avoid ambiguous situations.
An example is that any "would be put into a graveyard from play" replacement movesthe samepermanentinto some other zone, and does not transfer to others. That way, there is no ambiguous situation about what happens if the reason the card is leaving play doesn't get removed, or if you apply that replacement effect before, say, regeneration, or what happens if two of your cards are in play.
Now, you may not care about these possible game-breaking interactions, or maybe you think you can always write some new rules to handle every possibility. Many people here do. But R&D avoids it with good reason. They aren't worth it.
I don't know that there is a way (I was talking about the draw, which I also don't know exists). If there were, I would expect the next oracle to change Mornsong to use a "then." But if Mornsong comes into play after you decide you will draw N cards, you have to stop after it gets intto play. The "then" would make the ordering clearer.
Incorrect. "Indestructible" prevents the effect "destroy" from applying. "Leaves play" is the result of that effect, not the effect itself. That effect will still have to happen, or at least try to.
And then, think about what would happen in multiplayer if the card's owner loses, if it worked the way you want.
How spectacularly uninspiring a response.
It really needs no more of an explanation than "this can't work" to be able to say "it isn't a good idea." But since you never accept "it doesn't work" when it doesn't, I didn't feel the need or desire to delve into it.
It means way less than you think it does. In this case, the original effect is still "causing" your ability to do whatever it thinks it is doing. So the card is being exiled "by" both. And that isn't something yuou can change with the golden rule itself, because it isn't part of the event. It is what is causing the event.
No.
The original effect is still what is causing the action, even after the replacement.
No.
Sorry, no. The source of the effect remains unchanged.
No. A spell is more than just "a card on the stack." It has to have choices made.
Many new players learn the game incorrectly; but the "mistake" they learn gives the right answer 95% of the time, so they find it hard to recognize the problem.
What they learn is that any "action" that would occur can be suspended by saying "in response I...". They learn that the suspended action "waits" to "happen" while the response happens "first," and by then maybe the original "action" can't happen anymore.
Attacking works about the same way. You can't stop them from attacking, but you can alter what they so when the attack is accomplished.
This is completely wrong, but it seems there is only one person in the world who recognizes the mistake for what it is, and explains it. (Guess who? :))
Playing a spell or ability is actually two actions, not one. You (1) play it and it goes on the stack, and then (2) it resolves later. "In response" does not mean you "suspend" anything, it means you play something else in between these two actions. Since the stack resolves LIFO, both parts of your reposnse both happen after the first one gets played, but before it resolves. Anything that happens as part of "playing" the first spell or ability is already accomplished. It is only the parts that happen at resolution that you can alter by your response.
What I said "can't be correct," is that the impossibility rule does not apply when "the entirety of the action isn't illegal, just some of it." It has to apply to all.
Right - that was my point. That it is not correct. If an effect says "You may XXX," you have to be able to do (all of) XXX, regardless of what comes after it. The "if you do" does not change things.
Remember, the "if you do" depends on the choice, not what you actually end up doing. That's why the choice has to be possible, even if it gets replaced. Or even if there is no "if you do."
There is no difference here. The choice, and the action, are both done as part of the effect. There is no reposnding to it. The part I put in red above can't happen.
As far as the legality/possibility of the action goes, there is no difference.
This can't be right.
If you can do only one of "sacrifice Preferred Selection" and "pay 2GG", you should not get a card. Now, I'm willing to accept a "play it this way," but you have to be able to do all of what the option is.
And my point is, that there are no rules that define what is or is not "ambiguous." If you suspect it might be, enough to ask here, then surely a player seeing it for the first time would also. Regardless of whether I think any one meaning is indicated, the card needs a better wording.
Ther first question you need to answer, is does copying the ability work at all? The rule makes it clear that the source being in the tapped state is not all of the condition. It has to be in that state because of something. That something - and the rules don't define what it is - is a property of the ability, determiend when you play it much like the choices made when it was played. For the copied ability to work at all, it has to copy that something the same way it copies the choices made when it was played. Which means the copy, if it works at all, must have the exact same duration as what it copied.
Nice try, but youi'll only get two creatures.
It is dangerous to create replacement effects. R&D actually limits the kinds of things that they can do, to avoid ambiguous situations.
An example is that any "would be put into a graveyard from play" replacement moves the same permanent into some other zone, and does not transfer to others. That way, there is no ambiguous situation about what happens if the reason the card is leaving play doesn't get removed, or if you apply that replacement effect before, say, regeneration, or what happens if two of your cards are in play.
Now, you may not care about these possible game-breaking interactions, or maybe you think you can always write some new rules to handle every possibility. Many people here do. But R&D avoids it with good reason. They aren't worth it.