Discussion in 'Rules Questions' started by Griffion2000, Nov 10, 2000.
If you Fork a counterspell, can you counter the counterspell you Forked?
Since Counterspells are now instants instead of interrupts, I would have to say yes.
I miss Fork...
Ahh... But the real question is if you Fork a Fork, can you Fork the Fork you used to Fork the other fork?
Off to the rules forum with you!
Oh, wait, I don't really have mod powers. I keep forgetting that was only a joke.
[me] exercises his newly granted editor's powers...[/me]
To answer Hawaiian Mage's question, I don't see why not.
Fork B targets Fork A
Fork C targets Fork B.
You would probably end up with four copies of the original sorcery or instant spell played.
Player A casts a fireball for 5.
Player B casts Fork on that Fireball, sending one to A for 5.
Player B responds to his own Fork with Fork, targeting the first Fork.
Player A Misdirects the first fork to target the second fork.
Now we have an infinite silverware loop, right?
Yes. The stack looks like this:
1. Your unnamed spell.
Where "->" means "is a copy of." It resolves lifo and your spell goes off.
1. His Unnamed Spell.
2. Your Fork (1) -> Unnamed Spell.
3. His Fork (2) -> Fork (1) -> Unnamed Spell.
4. Your Fork (3) -> Fork (2) -> Fork (1) -> Unnamed Spell.
It now resolves lifo. You target the first one to resolve (the last cast), he targets the second, you target the third, and he targets the last.
Yup. Stack looks like this:
1. A. Fireball for 5
2. B. Fork (1) -> Fireball for 5
3. B. Fork (2) -> Fork (1) -> Fireball for 5
4. A. Misdirect Fork (1) to Fork (2)
Now it resolves. Misdirect turns a Fork targetting but not yet copying a Fireball for 5 into a Fork targetting but not yet copying a Fork. This is because the text on Fork says it does not copy the spell until resolution:
Text(RV+errata): ~this~ resolves as a copy of target sorcery or instant spell except that it doesn't copy that spell's color and you choose the copy's targets as you play ~this~. [Oracle 99/09/03]
The two forks are still pointing at each other, never themselves so the rule of illegally targetting themselves doesn't come up and they both need to resolve. The result probably invokes the rule about infinite loops that may not be voluntarily ended, and the game becomes a draw. Either that or both "are countered upon resolution" (admit it, Fizzle both sounds better and is easier to write!).
Seeing too many uses of the word Fork at once makes me realize how dumb the word looks. Under more careful consideration, who thought up such an odd looking spelling? Think about it won't you?
Think enough about any word and you'll realize how dumb it is. Take "bus" for example. I've always thought that was just the silliest word...
I don't think there's a problem.
2. Fork1 Fireball
3. Fork2 the Fork1
4. Misdirect Fork1 to Fork2.
Now, Misdirects resolves.
When 3 resolves, it becomes a Fork, Forking itself. Thus illegal target DOES come up. So it probably is countered upon resolution.
When 2 resolves, it finds out its target is illegal so it reverts back to Forking the Fireball (Rule 415.2)
That's my interpretation of it.
I think y'all skipped a step.
Let's go through it again, naming targets this time.
You choose a target for the the copied spell when you announce Fork.
(It can be the same target as what the original copied. It can even be the Fork you're playing, if you're looking for a headache.)
Until it resolves, a Fork is just a Fork.
Each copy of Fireball has a single target. (keep it simple)
There is an army of two Atogs. We will name a new Atog each time we retarget Fireball.
Put on the stack:
Now we must choose a target for the copy of Fork-1. You could choose Fireball, but you want to break something (I can tell) so you choose Fork-2.
So we have:
(In case you're wondering, you don't get to choose a new target for the new Fork-2, because it doesn't know yet that it's copying itself, only that it's copying Fork-1. *snicker*)
Suppose we let this resolve as-is.
Fork-2 resolves as a copy of Fork-1, targetting Fork-2. What Fork-2? There's no Fork-2, only a Fork-1. This copy of Fork-1 will be countered, as it targets a nonexistent spell.
(Another interpretation is that it still knows it's Fork-2, copying Fork-1, in which case it illegaly targets itself. Same result, it's countered.)
Okay, now some malcontent wants to have a little fun with the rules, so he plays Misdirection, targetting Fork-1.
People are getting scared, so they stop playing spells, thank god.
Misdirection resolves and you name Fork-2 as Fork1's new target.
Now the stack looks like this:
When Fork-2 resolves, it's still countered.
When Fork-1 resolves, it's also countered (nonexistent target).
When Fireball resolves, Atog-1 is toast.
The only think Misdirection accomplishes is saving poor little Atog-2, the original target of what would have been the copied Fireball.
Atog-2 rejoices and eats a Tek.
See how easy that was?
Want some real fun?
Here's the stack:
[*]Ertai's Meddling<for 2>(Fork-1)
[*]Deflection(Pyroblast)<plan to name Misdirection as new target>
Now, when Fork-3 resolves, I intend to name Thoughtlace a target for the copied Ertai's Medd...
[me]'s head explodes...[/me]
Separate names with a comma.