Volcanic Eruption - Targeting in general

Discussion in 'Rules Questions' started by BigBlue, Apr 8, 2009.

  1. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Why can't it? It just tries to resolve to the best of its ability... as long as at least one target is legal, that target will be affected...
  2. BigBlue Magic Jones

    This isn't the first instance of this I am aware of.

    Consume Strength targets two creatures - it grants one +2/+2 and gives the other -2/-2 until eot - if either target goes away, it doesn't impact the other.

    Cannibalism - it chooses two target creatures and doesn't care if both are legal upon resolution. Which is great when you target a creature who is sac'd when targeted...
  3. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Same with Fireball, Seeds of Strength, etc... :)
  4. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Blood Crypt too...
  5. Ransac CPA Trash Man

    I dunno... it just seems to me that if a requirement for a spell's resolution isn't altered and deemed illegal, the whole spell shouldn't be able to resolve. Obviously this is not the case, but it just doesn't fit the whole ideal of "illegal" for gameplay to me.


    Ransac, cpa trash man
  6. BigBlue Magic Jones

    In terms of making sense etc... I'm w/ Ransac...

    The thing I've always thought was dumb - is the ability to do something during the endstep... a player shouldn't be able to wait through someone's turn until they say done, and then play spells or abilities (which have nothing to do with the endstep)... Or, if they want to, then it throws it back into main phase - and if there were no combat phase taken, the player could take one. It would curtail the power of Blue - but not make it unplayable.
  7. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Have you guys always thought that way since you've played Magic?

    I've always thought it made sense... before you can cast a spell, you need legal targets, but once it's been cast "and left your hands", so to speak, it'll resolve the best it can...

    The endstep probably got more complicated as time went on... In the beginning with Alpha/Beta, there weren't nearly as many opportunities to do stuff (Tim being the notable example I can think of).
  8. Ransac CPA Trash Man

    I had known about that rule in the past, but just forgotten it. But, I do recall thinking how dumb that idea/rule was way back in the day.

    I don't feel the same way about the end step responses though. The end step is another part of the turn in which particular parts of the game get played. My only issue with it (flavor/sense-wise) is that it's actually CALLED the end/clean-up step. The name gives it a false concept the finality of the turn.

    However, waiting until the last possible priority of a turn to be passed to you before you make your move is simply another part of strategy for this game, imho.


    Ransac, cpa trash man
  9. BigBlue Magic Jones

    While I agree it's "useful"... it just doesn't seem in the flavor of the game - and as mentioned isn't appropriately named. To answer your question Spidey, this has bugged me since day 1... :)

    The other thing - partially effective spells.... I agree with the way the rule works - but I also see the point that it's sorta out of flavor, though not enough to think it shouldn't be that way.

    One more thing my playgroup hated (but I didn't), was that once an ability is on the stack it's a done deal... They always thought they should have a chance to disenchant an untapped disk before it's effect went on the stack... I also recall a brief period where we maybe misunderstood stacking (when it was being changed around 5th/6th) and it seemed you couldn't protect from a Lightning Bolt w/ Giant Growth...
  10. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Well, since it's been around in some form since Day 1, Richard Garfield *had* to think it had to do with the flavor of the game... well, him and the playtesters...

    Yeah, stacking came around that time... before it was LIFO... but you could still protect from a Bolt with a Giant Growth. Since the Growth was the last in, it's the first out to resolve...
  11. EricBess Active Member

    The issue I have with this is that it is a bit inconsistent. What you said Spidey isn't exactly true. It is as long as the only thing involved are the targets, but add other things and it isn't.

    Consider the following hypothetical spell: "Destroy 2 target mountains. Draw a Card".

    If you cast this spell and one of the mountains gets changed to a swamp, the other mountain is destroyed and you draw a card. However, if both get changed to swamps, the spell is "countered on resolution" (fizzles) and you don't get to draw the card.

    Seems to me that in the spirit of "resolves as well as possible" that the card drawing should be independent of whether or not the targets were legal on resolution, but the rules say it is countered and countered is countered.

    It's not confusing in the sense that there are clear rules. But I do find it to be somewhat inconsistent, which makes it potentially confusing if you play intuitively.
  12. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Is that true? What about that weird situation where a spell is uncounterable, yet you can cast the spell "Counter target spell. Draw a card" on it and still draw a card? Or something like that... Now, *that* situation I didn't understand. But it seems to me that even if the Mountains become illegal targets, you can still draw the card in your example, similiar to the counter example, if I'm remembering it correctly.
  13. BigBlue Magic Jones

    Ahhhh...

    Like EB says, it seems inconsistent - because cards like this have targeted and nontargeted effects - so if the targets become illegal - the untargeted effects are also cancelled.

    An uncounterable spell does not have "Protection from counter-effects" or "shroud"... so, you are targeting the spell, it's a legal target, but the counterspell effect is countered while the other part is not so it doesn't "fizzle".

    It would seem to be similar to another hypothetical situation:

    Library Troll 3/3; G: Regenerate. If ~ is regenerated, draw a card.

    If someone played Incinerate on it (dealing 3 damage and making it so it could not regenerate until eot)... Would you draw a card if you activated it? The troll wouldn't actually regenerate - but it would try to... Like the uncounterable spell - you can try to counter it, it just won't work...

    Now, if there were a card with the ability (~ may not be the target of spells or abilities, regardless of what zone it's in)... "uber-shroud"... then you couldn't play the counter and couldn't draw the card.
  14. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    But EB is saying in his example that you *don't* get to draw a card. Is he incorrect?

    See, I would think an uncounterable spell would have "Pro-Counters" as inherent in its definition. :)
  15. BigBlue Magic Jones

    I think he's right... I was just restating it a different way...

    Those cantrip damage spells would be nulified if the target became illegal... Consider the following...

    Flare - Flare deals 1 damage to target creature or player. Draw a card at the beginning of the next upkeep.

    Player A plays Flare targeting a Mother of Runes controlled by player B.

    Player B activates the Mother of Runes to grant it protection from red until eot.

    So, Flare's only target would be illegal on resolution. All Flare's targets were rendered illegal - so Flare "fizzles" (what is the new word they use for fizzle? I know they don't use that term any longer). As such, Player A does not get to draw a card at the beginning of the next upkeep.

    This is correct, right EB/Modus?
  16. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    "countered on resolution"

    See, I think you still get to draw a card...
  17. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Well, back then creatures didn't die from damage until the end of a phase (or in combat). So you could Lightning Bolt my 1/1 during my main phase and I could play a sorcery and then Giant Growth my creature to save it. Unless I'm getting things confused somehow...
  18. BigBlue Magic Jones

    I don't recall those days you speak of... :)

    I think you're getting confused with life totals...

    Back in the day you could be below 1 life and continue playing until the end of the phase...

    So, if you were at 2 life and someone played Lightning Bolt on you, you could play a Stream of Life (for at least 2) and still be around.

    I think the way it is now is if the stack is empty and you're below 1 life you're dead... So, if you were at 2, played a 5 point Stream of Life and someone played a bolt on you, you wouldn't be dead.
  19. DarthFerret Evil Sith Weasel

    That was also back in the day of the varried speeds and the "stack" (we never actually called it that) was really confusing. Interrupts, being what they were, some pretty heated arguments came up about where an interrupt would be placed in the set of instances that were sitting in LIFO order. It almost made me quit playing when I saw how some people would get so rules involved and try to bully their own opinions into forefront. That is why I pretty much will ask how something goes, then really not debate it much. I am nowhere near knowledgeable about the comprehensive rules to imagine that I would have any logical arguments.
  20. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Yes, BigBlue has the right of it. It was player's life totals that didn't get checked until the end of a phase or combat. Creatures still died after "stacks" resolved and they ended up with 0 or less toughness.

    Interrupts were definitely confusing, I remember a chart in the Duelist trying to explain it. They were like "super instants", in that after a spell was cast, they had "priority" and could be cast first. Then when neither player had any interrupts, the players could respond with instants, which of course opened the window to using interrupts again.

Share This Page