counter target spell....
AL
a creature.«
May i counter Contagion
»Alliances (Uncommon) 66/198
Instant
You may pay 1 life and remove a black card in your hand from the game
instead of paying Contagion's casting cost. Effects that prevent or
redirect damage cannot be used to counter this loss of life. Put two
-2/-1 counters, distributed any way you choose, on any number of target
creatures. «
My friend believes, that this interrupt may couner a spell that targets
at least one creature...give reasons , like i do..
thanx
Ingo Kemper
>if i have the counterspell intervene »Counter target spell that targets
>a creature.«
>May i counter Contagion
>»Alliances (Uncommon) 66/198
>Instant
>You may pay 1 life and remove a black card in your hand from the game
>instead of paying Contagion's casting cost. Effects that prevent or
>redirect damage cannot be used to counter this loss of life. Put two
>-2/-1 counters, distributed any way you choose, on any number of target
>creatures. «
Yes, you can. (Note the "any number of _target_ creatures" phrase.)
>My friend believes, that this interrupt may couner a spell that targets
>at least one creature...give reasons , like i do..
Your friend is correct. Intervene can counter any spell that targets
at least one creature.
Ingo Kemper
--
__ _ __ __ __ __
__/ /_/ \/ /_/____/_ |___Sky...@uni-muenster.de___---===> \
/_/ /_/\_/ |__/ |__/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---===>__/
Rvv
>if i have the counterspell intervene »Counter target spell that targets
>a creature.«
>May i counter Contagion
>»Alliances (Uncommon) 66/198
>Instant
>You may pay 1 life and remove a black card in your hand from the game
>instead of paying Contagion's casting cost. Effects that prevent or
>redirect damage cannot be used to counter this loss of life. Put two
>-2/-1 counters, distributed any way you choose, on any number of target
>creatures. «
>
ok
>My friend believes, that this interrupt may couner a spell that targets
>at least one creature...give reasons , like i do..
he's correct
It means "targeting at least one creature" not "exactly one creature".
[D'Angelo 03/12/99]
>thanx
>
Rvv
magic is a fun
game were all
players act
like serial killers
David DeLaney
>if i have the counterspell intervene »Counter target spell that targets
>a creature.«
>May i counter Contagion
>»Alliances (Uncommon) 66/198
>Instant
>You may pay 1 life and remove a black card in your hand from the game
>instead of paying Contagion's casting cost. Effects that prevent or
>redirect damage cannot be used to counter this loss of life. Put two
>-2/-1 counters, distributed any way you choose, on any number of target
>creatures. «
Yes, you may. Contagion must target either one or two creatures; you _cannot_
choose to target zero creatures with it, since you have two counters to
distribute. You can choose one creature as the target, and put both counters
on it; you can choose two separate creatures, and put one counter on each.
Intervene doesn't care whether the spell targets _only_ one creature or not;
it just checks to see whether the spell targets any creature.
>My friend believes, that this interrupt may couner a spell that targets
>at least one creature...give reasons , like i do..
It doesn't say "Counter target spell that targets _only_ one creature" or
"Target spell that targets a single creature" or "Target spell, with a single
target creature,". It simply checks, when you announce Intervene and again
when Intervene resolves, that the spell Intervene targets is targetting
something that's currently a creature; it doesn't check whether all the
targets are creatures, whether there is more than one target, whether the
creature targetted on Intervene's announcement is the _same_ one the
spell targets on Intervene's resolution, etc.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Walker
> choose to target zero creatures with it, since you have two counters to
> distribute. You can choose one creature as the target, and put both counters
> on it; you can choose two separate creatures, and put one counter on each.
Hmm...
Well what happens if you cast the Contagion targetting an Opal Acrolith,
then opponent responds by Intervening, and you respond by turning the
Acrolith into an enchantment. The Contagion would fizzle if it
survived, but would it be countered? It's target is now an enchantment,
and not a creature, so it's an illegal target for the Intervene, so the
Intervene should fizzle...
It's sort of pointless, but I was just wondering... (Well maybe you've
got a Multani's Presence and an empty library ;-))
> Dave
-Walker
Walker
Forgot that Intervene is an Interrupt, and Acrolith's ability is an
instant, and therefore you couldn't use it... ;-)
*Hits head against the wall*
-Walker
Maarten van Beek
> if i have the counterspell intervene »Counter target spell that targets
> a creature.«
> May i counter Contagion
> »Alliances (Uncommon) 66/198
> Instant
> You may pay 1 life and remove a black card in your hand from the game
> instead of paying Contagion's casting cost. Effects that prevent or
> redirect damage cannot be used to counter this loss of life. Put two
> -2/-1 counters, distributed any way you choose, on any number of target
> creatures. «
>
> My friend believes, that this interrupt may couner a spell that targets
> at least one creature...give reasons , like i do..
Yes, you can. Intervene just requires that the spell you atrget with it targets
at least a creature. It may alos target a player as well, or an artifact, or
some more creatures. But is must at least target a creature.
Maarten van Beek
mailto:cont...@blacklotus.demon.nl
David DeLaney
>> Yes, you may. Contagion must target either one or two creatures; you _cannot_
>> choose to target zero creatures with it, since you have two counters to
>> distribute. You can choose one creature as the target, and put both counters
>> on it; you can choose two separate creatures, and put one counter on each.
>
>Well what happens if you cast the Contagion targetting an Opal Acrolith,
>then opponent responds by Intervening,
Intervene counters the spell, under 5E rules.
>and you respond by turning the Acrolith into an enchantment.
This must be under 6E rules. _Please_, people, _specify_ if you're asking
about 6E rules or not; they _aren't_ yet publicly released, and won't be
in force in tournaments for a month and a half yet.
If you only targetted the Acrolith, then it will not be a creature when the
Intervene resolves; the Intervene will check what the Contagion is targetting,
find that none of the targets are creatures, and will itself fizzle for illegal
target. [The Contagion will fizzle later if the Acrolith has not become
a creature again in the meantime.]
David Chapman
--
sent...@globalnet.co.uk
Walker <d...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3710CDB5...@prodigy.net...
> Oops... Never mind that...
>
> Forgot that Intervene is an Interrupt, and Acrolith's ability is an
> instant, and therefore you couldn't use it... ;-)
>
> *Hits head against the wall*
> -Walker
Not so hard, not so hard. You'll hurt the wall <grin>.
Seriously, this does raise a point under 6E rules, where this will be
possible. Would someone mind answering Walker's question (left below) under
6E rules?
My own thoughts are at the bottom, but of course I could be wrong.
>
> > Hmm...
> > Well what happens if you cast the Contagion targetting an Opal Acrolith,
> > then opponent responds by Intervening, and you respond by turning the
> > Acrolith into an enchantment. The Contagion would fizzle if it
> > survived, but would it be countered? It's target is now an enchantment,
> > and not a creature, so it's an illegal target for the Intervene, so the
> > Intervene should fizzle...
> >
> > It's sort of pointless, but I was just wondering... (Well maybe you've
> > got a Multani's Presence and an empty library ;-))
> >
The Contagion re-checks its' targets on resolution and would fizzle then -
but it's already been countered by Intervene, so it never gets to re-check.
Ingo Warnke
: Seriously, this does raise a point under 6E rules, where this will be
: possible. Would someone mind answering Walker's question (left below) under
: 6E rules?
: >
: > > Hmm...
: > > Well what happens if you cast the Contagion targetting an Opal Acrolith,
: > > then opponent responds by Intervening, and you respond by turning the
: > > Acrolith into an enchantment. The Contagion would fizzle if it
: > > survived, but would it be countered? It's target is now an enchantment,
: > > and not a creature, so it's an illegal target for the Intervene, so the
: > > Intervene should fizzle...
: > >
: > > It's sort of pointless, but I was just wondering... (Well maybe you've
: > > got a Multani's Presence and an empty library ;-))
: > >
The exact result depends on wether Contagion targeted *only* the Opal
Acrolith (so it was supposed to get both -2/-1 counters) or the Opal Acrolith
and some other random creature. The question leaves this option open.
In the former case, the stack resolves the following way (assuming nothing
else was added):
Opal Acrolith ability resolves, making itself an enchantment.
Intervene checks its target. Contagion only targets an enchantment, so
Intervine has an illegal target and fizzles.
Contagion checks its target(s). It sees an enchantment as its only target and
fizzles.
Stack is empty.
In the latter case (Contagion targets a random creature in addition to the
Acrolith) the stack resolves this way:
Opal Acrolith ability resolves, making itself an enchantment
Intervene checks its target. The Contagion is still targeting a creature
(the random creature), so Intervene has a legal target and counters the
Contagion.
Stack is empty.
In both cases, the Contagion is 'nullified', although it was countered only
in the second case.
Ingo Warnke
David Chapman
--
sent...@globalnet.co.uk
Ingo Warnke <nfa...@cks1.rz.uni-rostock.de> wrote in message
news:3713...@news.uni-rostock.de...
> The exact result depends on wether Contagion targeted *only* the Opal
> Acrolith (so it was supposed to get both -2/-1 counters) or the Opal
Acrolith
> and some other random creature. The question leaves this option open.
>
> In the former case, the stack resolves the following way (assuming nothing
> else was added):
>
> Opal Acrolith ability resolves, making itself an enchantment.
> Intervene checks its target. Contagion only targets an enchantment, so
> Intervine has an illegal target and fizzles.
> Contagion checks its target(s). It sees an enchantment as its only target
and
> fizzles.
> Stack is empty.
Are you sure? I definitely recall hearing that spells & abilities fizzle in
this way only when they recheck targets before resolution - which would mean
that the Intervene would counter Contagion before it fizzles.
David Wintheiser
<sent...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
Intervene would counter Contagion if it used the last-known targeting
state of Contagion to determine its own targeting. In other words (and for
those of you just joining us, this is 6th Edition timing), the stack loads
this way:
Player casts Contagion, targeting a single Opal Acrolith which is
currently a creature.
Opponent casts Intervene, targeting Contagion.
Acrolith's controller activates its ability to turn into an enchantment.
The stack resolves as Ingo said it does. But the key is where Intervene
gets the information about what Contagion is targeting.
If Intervene asks Contagion what it is targeting (as David Chapman
implies), Contagion would reply, "I'm targeting an Opal Acrolith that's a
creature, of course. Otherwise I couldn't have even been announced." In
this case, Contagion would be countered.
If Intervene checks Contagion's targeting itself (as Ingo implies, since
that is part of Intervene's own targeting restriction), it notices (before
the Contagion does) that Contagion now targets an enchantment. Intervene
says, "That's funny; that thing was a creature just a bit ago," and
fizzles. Then Contagion says the same thing and also fizzles.
I'm going with Ingo on this one, but I can see where you got the idea, David.
David "Evil Triplet" Wintheiser
dwin...@isd.net
David DeLaney
>Ingo Warnke <nfa...@cks1.rz.uni-rostock.de> wrote in message
>news:3713...@news.uni-rostock.de...
>> Intervene checks its target. Contagion only targets an enchantment, so
>> Intervine has an illegal target and fizzles.
>> Contagion checks its target(s). It sees an enchantment as its only target and
>> fizzles.
>> Stack is empty.
>
>Are you sure? I definitely recall hearing that spells & abilities fizzle in
>this way only when they recheck targets before resolution - which would mean
>that the Intervene would counter Contagion before it fizzles.
Um, David - read Intervene please. It _targets_ something... so it -rechecks
its target before it can resolve_. _All_ targetted spells and abilities
do this.
Ingo Warnke
: "David Chapman" <sent...@globalnet.co.uk> writes:
: >Ingo Warnke <nfa...@cks1.rz.uni-rostock.de> wrote in message
: >news:3713...@news.uni-rostock.de...
: >> Opal Acrolith ability resolves, making itself an enchantment.
: >> Intervene checks its target. Contagion only targets an enchantment, so
: >> Intervine has an illegal target and fizzles.
: >> Contagion checks its target(s). It sees an enchantment as its only target and
: >> fizzles.
: >> Stack is empty.
: >
: >Are you sure? I definitely recall hearing that spells & abilities fizzle in
: >this way only when they recheck targets before resolution - which would mean
: >that the Intervene would counter Contagion before it fizzles.
: Um, David - read Intervene please. It _targets_ something... so it -rechecks
: its target before it can resolve_. _All_ targetted spells and abilities
: do this.
Followup question [still under 6E rules]: Player A casts Terror on creature X.
Player B casts Intervene on A's Terror as response. Player A responds to that
with another Terror on creature X.
The last Terror resolves and kills X. Does Intervene now fizzle or not? Does
it use the 'last recently known' rule to see that the Terror's target was a
creature when it died? Or does it use the current state (no legal target), like
other target checks?
If 6E does differentiate between a spell being countered and a spell fizzling,
this makes a difference with Multani's Presence in play.
Ingo Warnke
David DeLaney
nfa...@cks1.rz.uni-rostock.de (Ingo Warnke) says:
>Followup question [still under 6E rules]: Player A casts Terror on creature X.
>Player B casts Intervene on A's Terror as response. Player A responds to that
>with another Terror on creature X.
Under 6E rules, when the Intervene resolves, the creature the Terror it's
targetting was targetting is dead [... yes, that parses...], so the Terror
it's targetting does not currently target a creature ... so the Intervene
gets countered ["fizzles", in 5E terms].
>The last Terror resolves and kills X. Does Intervene now fizzle or not? Does
>it use the 'last recently known' rule to see that the Terror's target was a
>creature when it died? Or does it use the current state (no legal target), like
>other target checks?
Terror's target is currently missing ... so it's not a creature. Terror isn't
telling the former creature to _do_ something ... and neither is the Intervene.
So neither of them needs to know what its "characteristics as a source
of some ability" are/were ... so there's no reason for Intervene to look back
and say "this target -was- a creature, last we saw of it. It's currently missing
so Terror has no legal target, but Terror +was targetting+ a creature".
Intervene just asks "Are you, my target spell, now targetting a creature?",
without the "or have you ever been?".
>If 6E does differentiate between a spell being countered and a spell fizzling,
>this makes a difference with Multani's Presence in play.
If it does, it will make a difference. As far as I know right _now_ it
won't ... but that's one of the things I'll want to look at/for when the actual 6E rules appear...
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flowe
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to se
Alison Cheers
David DeLaney wrote in message <7f3kmi$e2o$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>...
>
>nfa...@cks1.rz.uni-rostock.de (Ingo Warnke) says:
>>Followup question [still under 6E rules]: Player A casts Terror on
creature X.
>>Player B casts Intervene on A's Terror as response. Player A responds to
that
>>with another Terror on creature X.
>
>[some answers...]
>Terror's target is currently missing ... so it's not a creature. Terror
isn't
>telling the former creature to _do_ something ... and neither is the
Intervene.
>So neither of them needs to know what its "characteristics as a source
>of some ability" are/were ... so there's no reason for Intervene to look
back
>and say "this target -was- a creature, last we saw of it. It's currently
missing
>so Terror has no legal target, but Terror +was targetting+ a creature".
>Intervene just asks "Are you, my target spell, now targetting a creature?",
>without the "or have you ever been?".
>
>>If 6E does differentiate between a spell being countered and a spell
fizzling,
>>this makes a difference with Multani's Presence in play.
>
>If it does, it will make a difference. As far as I know right _now_ it
>won't ... but that's one of the things I'll want to look at/for when the
actual 6E rules appear...
Well, how about a fairly similar situation where it definitely will make a
difference:
I cast Giant Growth on my creature. You Intervene my Giant Growth. In
response, I cast Reality Ripple on it and it phases out. Intervene fizzles
(I think). Then I cast Time And Tide, and my creature comes back- and Giant
Growth gives it +3/+3 as if it had never left...
Would that work?
And- something I'm less sure on- if I just make a spell's creature target an
illegal one- e.g. Vertigo(targets only a creature with flying) a Mist
Dragon, Intervene the Vertigo, and make Mist Dragon lose flying- would that
fizzle Intervene?
--
Laurie Cheers
David DeLaney
>David DeLaney wrote in message <7f3kmi$e2o$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>...
>fizzling,
>>>this makes a difference with Multani's Presence in play.
>>
>>If it does, it will make a difference. As far as I know right _now_ it
>>won't ... but that's one of the things I'll want to look at/for when the
>actual 6E rules appear...
What I'm saying above is as far as I know it won't make a difference _because_
as far as I know spells and abilities won't "fizzle" in 6E rules, they'll
just be countered right when they try to resolve if all their targets are
illegal, if they were targetted.
>Well, how about a fairly similar situation where it definitely will make a
>difference:
>I cast Giant Growth on my creature. You Intervene my Giant Growth. In
>response, I cast Reality Ripple on it and it phases out. Intervene fizzles
>(I think).
Yes. If what I know is correct, which of course it may not be, under 6E
rules this is actually "Intervene is countered when it tries to resolve".
>Then I cast Time And Tide, and my creature comes back- and Giant
>Growth gives it +3/+3 as if it had never left...
That's fine - it is "the same creature", and Giant Growth recognizes it
as such, and is still targetting it. [This -only- works for things that
phase out and in again - Time and Tide, Tawnos' Coffin, and Oubliette
are the _only_ ways to do this, because they're the _only_ ways to bring
something in the phased-out zone back at some other time than "beginning
of untap".]
>And- something I'm less sure on- if I just make a spell's creature target an
>illegal one- e.g. Vertigo(targets only a creature with flying) a Mist
>Dragon, Intervene the Vertigo, and make Mist Dragon lose flying- would that
>fizzle Intervene?
No - Intervene only checks to see if its target spell _is targetting_
a creature. It doesn't check to see whether the creature _is a legal target
for_ the spell, right now; it just says "What are your targets? Yes.. yes,
I see. Are any of them creatures right now? ... Yes? Good."
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David Wintheiser
DeLaney) wrote:
> "Alison Cheers" <Ally....@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> >And- something I'm less sure on- if I just make a spell's creature target an
> >illegal one- e.g. Vertigo(targets only a creature with flying) a Mist
> >Dragon, Intervene the Vertigo, and make Mist Dragon lose flying- would that
> >fizzle Intervene?
>
> No - Intervene only checks to see if its target spell _is targetting_
> a creature. It doesn't check to see whether the creature _is a legal target
> for_ the spell, right now; it just says "What are your targets? Yes.. yes,
> I see. Are any of them creatures right now? ... Yes? Good."
So let's say I want to drop an Unholy Strength on my Transmogrifying Licid:
The following would then be legal under 6th edition rules?
I announce Unholy Strength targeting Transmo Licid
In response, opponent announces Intervene targeting Unholy Strength
In response, I turn Transmo Licid into an enchantment on another creature
Licid ability resolves
Intervene 'fizzles' (or is countered, depending on rulings)
After Intervene finishes, I respond to Unholy Strength by paying to
end Transmo Licid's ability's effect
Transmo Licid's ability's effect ends
Unholy Strength successfully enchants (tapped) Transmo Licid.
If there were an easy way to change a permanent from one type to another
and back again at will and as often as desired in a single turn, that
would make this example a Dangerous Thing. (Replace 'Intervene' with 'Dark
Banishing', or any other spell that affects a specific type of permanent,
and you'll see.)
David DeLaney
>d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> "Alison Cheers" <Ally....@btinternet.com> writes:
>> >And- something I'm less sure on- if I just make a spell's creature target an
>> >illegal one- e.g. Vertigo(targets only a creature with flying) a Mist
>> >Dragon, Intervene the Vertigo, and make Mist Dragon lose flying- would that
>> >fizzle Intervene?
>>
>> No - Intervene only checks to see if its target spell _is targetting_
>> a creature. It doesn't check to see whether the creature _is a legal target
>> for_ the spell, right now; it just says "What are your targets? Yes.. yes,
>> I see. Are any of them creatures right now? ... Yes? Good."
>
>So let's say I want to drop an Unholy Strength on my Transmogrifying Licid:
>The following would then be legal under 6th edition rules?
Let's see...
>I announce Unholy Strength targeting Transmo Licid
> In response, opponent announces Intervene targeting Unholy Strength
> In response, I turn Transmo Licid into an enchantment on another creature
> Licid ability resolves
> Intervene 'fizzles' (or is countered, depending on rulings)
Yes. Its target is no longer legal; the Unholy Strength does not, right now,
target a creature.
> After Intervene finishes, I respond to Unholy Strength by paying to
> end Transmo Licid's ability's effect
> Transmo Licid's ability's effect ends
>Unholy Strength successfully enchants (tapped) Transmo Licid.
That should be fine. Unholy Strength, as a spell, only checks _its_ target
for legality at the start and end, and doesn't care what shenanigans it
pulls in the middle ... as long as it didn't leave play. [The only exception:
if it went to phased-out zone, and came back, before the spell resolved,
the Unholy Strength would still be targetting it. As far as I know, from the
last time this was asked about (I'm checking on this particular bit this
week).]
>If there were an easy way to change a permanent from one type to another
>and back again at will and as often as desired in a single turn, that
>would make this example a Dangerous Thing.
Um-hm. Moving around an Animate Artifact, for instance. Most of the ways to
turn lands into creatures are permanent or "until end of turn", luckily. And
there's still no general way to animate an enchantment... The ways to
make a creature into an artifact are also either permanent or "until end of
turn".
>(Replace 'Intervene' with 'Dark
>Banishing', or any other spell that affects a specific type of permanent,
>and you'll see.)
Soul Sculptor works well against "target creature" spells, because most of
them cannot _also- target an enchantment... however, it's a bit
more difficult to _end_ that transformation mid-stack, without Aluren
or Winding Canyons or one of several "play as an instant" creature spells.