Deflecting a counterspell to itself
Wessler Ira E
is the situation:
Player A Fireballs Player B and Player B responds to it with a
counterspell. Player A responds to that with a deflection, deflecting
the counterspell onto itself.
WotC help line said this creates an unlimited chain of events
that will never resolve (think about it and you will see that that is one
way of looking at things) and the players must decide whether to play the
game over or put both interrupts into the graveyard and play as though
they were not cast. Is this the correct resolution of events?
sj...@lehigh.edu
The way I see it is simple. The target of of the spell being deflected "which
must have a single target, targets a new LEGAL target of your choice". Since
you can't normally have a counterspell counter itself (it isn't a legal
target) this idea doesn't work. The nature of counterspell doesn't allow
this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although it does not | Stacy John Behrens
mindfully keep guard, | *===)-------------
In the small mountain fields | sj...@lehigh.edu
the scarecrow | http://www.lehigh.edu/~sjb3/sjb3.html
does not stand in vain. (Bukkoku) | ft...@cleveland.freenet.edu
s58...@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl
: In article <42b9r9$k...@godot.cc.duq.edu>, WES...@calvin.cc.duq.edu (Wessler Ira
: E) writes:
: > okay people, the question is simple but the answers vary...here
: >is the situation:
: >
: > Player A Fireballs Player B and Player B responds to it with a
: >counterspell. Player A responds to that with a deflection, deflecting
: >the counterspell onto itself.
: >
: > WotC help line said this creates an unlimited chain of events
: >that will never resolve (think about it and you will see that that is one
: >way of looking at things) and the players must decide whether to play the
: >game over or put both interrupts into the graveyard and play as though
: >they were not cast. Is this the correct resolution of events?
: >
: >
: The way I see it is simple. The target of of the spell being deflected "which
: must have a single target, targets a new LEGAL target of your choice". Since
: you can't normally have a counterspell counter itself (it isn't a legal
: target) this idea doesn't work. The nature of counterspell doesn't allow
: this.
Why not? You can counter a counterspell with a counterspell. I can see
what you're trying to say but your explanation is only true if you cast
a counterspell to counter itself (to get rid of cards when the Black
Vise is on you for example). Using a counterspell to counter itself
is illegal because on the moment that you declare the counterspell there
is no legal target: the counterspell has not yet been cast. Now let's look
at deflection. When player A casts deflection in response to player B
casting counterspell there is a legal target for deflection because the
counterspell has already been cast (it's on the fast effects stack). So
the counterspell can legally counter itself because it now has a legal
target.
That's how I think about it and the way we play it here.
Derk
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A Goodwin
s>In article <42b9r9$kbp#godot.cc.duq.edu>, WES...@calvin.cc.duq.edu
s>(Wessler Ira
s> E) writes:
s>> okay people, the question is simple but the answers
s>vary...here >is the situation:
s>>
s>> Player A Fireballs Player B and Player B responds to it with a
s>>counterspell. Player A responds to that with a deflection,
s>deflecting >the counterspell onto itself.
s>>
s>> WotC help line said this creates an unlimited chain of events
s>>that will never resolve (think about it and you will see that that is
s>one >way of looking at things) and the players must decide whether to
s>play the >game over or put both interrupts into the graveyard and play
s>as though >they were not cast. Is this the correct resolution of
s>events? >
s>>
s>The way I see it is simple. The target of of the spell being
s>deflected "which must have a single target, targets a new LEGAL target
s>of your choice". Since you can't normally have a counterspell counter
s>itself (it isn't a legal target) this idea doesn't work. The nature
s>of counterspell doesn't allow this.
Wrong. The counterspell itself was targeting the Fireball (a single
target) and therefore is a legal target itself for deflection. You CAN
counter a counterspell with another counterspell, and in essence, that
is what you are doing. That works fine. The spell stack looks like this:
Fireball is cast
Counterspell is cast
Deflection is cast, Deflecting Counterspell upon legal
target. Counterspell is a legal target so....
Counterspell gets countered by Deflections Effect
Fireball resolves.
I think that is how WoTC meant it to be.
---
* CMPQwk #1.42-R2* UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
David DeLaney
>is the situation:
>
> Player A Fireballs Player B and Player B responds to it with a
>the counterspell onto itself.
This is legal; the Deflection resolves and retargets the Counterspell-in-
progress; the Counterspell then tries to resolve, and fizzles because it's
trying to counter a resolving spell. The Fireball then proceeds normally.
> WotC help line said this creates an unlimited chain of events
>that will never resolve (think about it and you will see that that is one
>way of looking at things) and the players must decide whether to play the
>game over or put both interrupts into the graveyard and play as though
>they were not cast. Is this the correct resolution of events?
No, not really. [Tom needs to talk to them a bit more, I see.] Deflecting a
countering-spell onto itself is usually legal, and if successful causes the
countering-spell to fizzle when it tries to resolve. Nothing more
complicated than that.
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. Disclaimer: IMHO; VRbeableURLAP
http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Thalin
counterspell, that way the counterspell has no target when it resolves.
Thalin
"I am Cornholio of Borg. Prepare to give me teepee for my bunghole."
Kyle Nishioka
: Forget about targating the counterpell, target the deflection with the
: counterspell, that way the counterspell has no target when it resolves.
You cannot target the Deflection w/ the counterspell. The Counterspell
may only target a spell that has not resolved. When the Deflection
resolves, the Counterspell can no longer target it. The Counterspell may
target itself and if so the Counterspell will fizzle.
Thalin
that the counterspell can be made to target itself and fizzle or end the game
in a paradox. For play considerations, I suggest it be taken as a fizzle.
Thomas R Wylie
You can Deflect a counteraction onto itself, assuming it is a legal target
for itself. For example, you can deflect Counterspell to itself, but not
Red Elemental Blast. This simply causes the counteraction to fizzle with
no effect; for example, deflecting Power Sink to itself results in nobody
having to pay extra mana.
The "paradoxical" situation was a bizarre one in which two different
counteractions were deflected such that they were targeting each other.
In that case, we needed to just tuck them aside, and said that they fizzled,
and the game moved on. But that is not the normal situation at all.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
John Palmer
: Yes. I realized I had errored when I formulated that possibility. WotC states
: that the counterspell can be made to target itself and fizzle or end the game
: in a paradox. For play considerations, I suggest it be taken as a fizzle.
No. If counterspell is deflected to itself, it fizzles, no problem,
no paradox.
You are perhaps thinking of the ruling decision that if a hydroblast
and a pyroblast were targetting each other they would both be unable to
resolve. Neither can resolve because neither is "successfully cast"
because neither has had all interrupts targetting it resolve. In this
case, the suggestion is to toss both spells in the graveyard.
John Palmer
: Fireball is cast
: Counterspell is cast
: Deflection is cast, Deflecting Counterspell upon legal
: target. Counterspell is a legal target so....
: Counterspell gets countered by Deflections Effect
No. Counterspell tries to counter "a spell being cast". Since
counterspell is now resolving, it is not "a spell being cast" anymore.
Therefore, it fizzles due to an invalid target. However, who cares? You
wanted to get rid of the counterspell and you did. . .
M. Mortensen
So, therefore, I have to play my counterspell AS an opponent is laying
down his card? NO!...A spell resolving is still being cast. Yes, I know
that in "real" life (if there is such a thing), a wizard would have to
charge up his or her power, then cast the spell (hence, 2 different states
of spells), but this is Magic, not real life (I don't believe I'm saying
this...)
-PeaBrain
D.J. Green
M. Mortensen <mmort...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>jpa...@infinet.com (John Palmer) wrote:
>>Mark A Goodwin (mark.a....@channel1.com) wrote:
>>
>>
>>: Fireball is cast
>>: Counterspell is cast
>>: Deflection is cast, Deflecting Counterspell upon legal
>>: target. Counterspell is a legal target so....
>>: Counterspell gets countered by Deflections Effect
>>
>> No. Counterspell tries to counter "a spell being cast". Since
>>counterspell is now resolving, it is not "a spell being cast" anymore.
>>Therefore, it fizzles due to an invalid target. However, who cares? You
>>wanted to get rid of the counterspell and you did. . .
>
>So, therefore, I have to play my counterspell AS an opponent is laying
>down his card? NO!...A spell resolving is still being cast.
No. A spell resolving has been successfully cast already. Once a spell
either begins to resolve or is responded to by a non-interrupt fast effect,
it is considered to be "successfully cast" and is no longer "being cast."
You have to play your Counterspell between when the target spell is
announced and when it is successfully cast.
Jason P. Hoggatt
will never hit the graveyard. play on and remove it. any one else think
this is appropriate?
Jason Hoggatt
jhog...@maine.maine.edu
http://maine.maine.edu/~jhogga51/
In article <42b9r9$k...@godot.cc.duq.edu>, WES...@calvin.cc.duq.edu (Wessler Ira
E) says:
>
> Player A Fireballs Player B and Player B responds to it with a
>counterspell. Player A responds to that with a deflection, deflecting
>the counterspell onto itself.
John Palmer
: So, therefore, I have to play my counterspell AS an opponent is laying
: down his card? NO!...
YES. Before the "chance to interrupt window closes."
: A spell resolving is still being cast.
Nope. A spell resolving is successfully cast; the "casting" is done,
and it's only the effects that you're waiting for.
John Palmer
: In article <42jd50$i...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
: Wylie) wrote:
: > The "paradoxical" situation was a bizarre one in which two different
: > counteractions were deflected such that they were targeting each other.
: > In that case, we needed to just tuck them aside, and said that they fizzled,
: > and the game moved on. But that is not the normal situation at all.
: Could you please describe this situation again? I don't see how an
: infinite loop could ever be set up by counteractions targeting each
: other. If Counteraction A targets B, and Counteraction B targets A, and A
: resolves first, then one of two things will happen:
That's the point, though: NEITHER can resolve. A can't resolve.
Why? Because B is interrupting A and hasn't resolved yet, so A's "chance
to interrupt window" hasn't closed yet. B can't resolve. Why? Same
reason; it's targetted by an unresolved interrupt, so it's "chance to
interrupt window" hasn't closed.
*NEITHER* spell can resolve. . . but since they aren't affecting
anything other than themselves, let them "whirl away into the depths of
infinity" (this is probably how a Snark becomes a Boojum).
Mark Phaedrus
> You can Deflect a counteraction onto itself, assuming it is a legal target
> for itself. For example, you can deflect Counterspell to itself, but not
> Red Elemental Blast. This simply causes the counteraction to fizzle with
> no effect; for example, deflecting Power Sink to itself results in nobody
> having to pay extra mana.
>
> The "paradoxical" situation was a bizarre one in which two different
> counteractions were deflected such that they were targeting each other.
> In that case, we needed to just tuck them aside, and said that they fizzled,
> and the game moved on. But that is not the normal situation at all.
Could you please describe this situation again? I don't see how an
infinite loop could ever be set up by counteractions targeting each
other. If Counteraction A targets B, and Counteraction B targets A, and A
resolves first, then one of two things will happen: either A will
succeed, or A will fail (this depends on whether B is "still being cast"
at the time A resolves). If A succeeds, then B is gone, and there's no
loop. If A fails, then when B resolves, it will fail too (since A has
already resolved and gone, and therefore certainly isn't "still being
cast"). Either way, both spells are gone, with no apparent paradox.
--
\o\ If you're interested in books/stories with transformation themes,\o\
\o\please try <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/Menu.html>, or \o\
/o/anonymous-ftp to ftp.halcyon.com in /local/phaedrus/translist. /o/
/o/ Comments and submissions to this list are always welcome. /o/
Chris Dollin
jpa...@infinet.com (John Palmer) wrote:
>Mark A Goodwin (mark.a....@channel1.com) wrote:
>
>
>: Fireball is cast
>: Counterspell is cast
>: Deflection is cast, Deflecting Counterspell upon legal
>: target. Counterspell is a legal target so....
>: Counterspell gets countered by Deflections Effect
>
> No. Counterspell tries to counter "a spell being cast". Since
>counterspell is now resolving, it is not "a spell being cast" anymore.
>Therefore, it fizzles due to an invalid target. However, who cares? You
>wanted to get rid of the counterspell and you did. . .
So, therefore, I have to play my counterspell AS an opponent is laying
down his card? NO!...A spell resolving is still being cast.
This is not true; in Magic, the term ``being cast'' refers to that part of
the spells life between it being announced and no further interruptions to
it. Once that's done it is not ``being cast'', it has *been* cast.
Yes, I know
that in "real" life (if there is such a thing), a wizard would have to
charge up his or her power, then cast the spell (hence, 2 different states
of spells), but this is Magic, not real life (I don't believe I'm saying
this...)
That's right; and in Magic there are several stages; (a) announcement;
(b) interruptability; (c) waiting to resolve; (d) resolving; (e) resolved.
A spell is ``being cast'' only during (b).
--
Regards, | ``"I can't suit myself," said Weinbaum, a little petulantly.
Kers. | "I work for the Government".'' - Blish, "The Quincunx of Time".
David DeLaney
> Could you please describe this situation again? I don't see how an
>infinite loop could ever be set up by counteractions targeting each
>other. If Counteraction A targets B, and Counteraction B targets A, and A
>resolves first,
This is the problem: the interrupt timing rules _specify_ that neither one
can resolve first, because each is itself being targetted by an interrupt
[the other one] and can't resolve before the other one does. Thus, Paradox
and an infinite loop and a "put them both in the graveyard and move on"
ruling.
Mark Phaedrus
>>Mark A Goodwin (mark.a....@channel1.com) wrote:
>>: Fireball is cast
>>: Counterspell is cast
>>: Deflection is cast, Deflecting Counterspell upon legal
>>: target. Counterspell is a legal target so....
>>: Counterspell gets countered by Deflections Effect
>>
>> No. Counterspell tries to counter "a spell being cast". Since
>>counterspell is now resolving, it is not "a spell being cast" anymore.
>>Therefore, it fizzles due to an invalid target. However, who cares? You
>>wanted to get rid of the counterspell and you did. . .
>
>So, therefore, I have to play my counterspell AS an opponent is laying
>down his card? NO!...A spell resolving is still being cast.
Read the rules, PeaBrain. (Since this is your signature, I guess I
can say it without it being an insult. :-) A spell is considered to be
"being cast" during the period after it's announced while it's waiting for
interrupts to be played on it. Once that "chance to interrupt" window
closes (which happens as soon as everyone agrees that nobody wants to play
any more interrupts), then the spell is considered "successfully cast". At
this point (which is before any instant-speed spells or effects can be played),
the spell can no longer be the target of interrupts, which means that it
cannot be countered.
"Being cast" and "successfully cast" are both technical terms in Magic.
It's very dangerous to read too much meaning into the names of technical
terms in Magic; you quickly start running into problems like "But something
that's 'instant' should happen instantly--how can other things happen before
it?" Check the rules, and check the info on www.itis.com and mox.perl.com.
Mark Phaedrus
David DeLaney <d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu> wrote:
>phae...@halcyon.com (Mark Phaedrus) writes:
>> Could you please describe this situation again? I don't see how an
>>infinite loop could ever be set up by counteractions targeting each
>>other. If Counteraction A targets B, and Counteraction B targets A, and A
>>resolves first,
>
>This is the problem: the interrupt timing rules _specify_ that neither one
>can resolve first, because each is itself being targetted by an interrupt
>[the other one] and can't resolve before the other one does. Thus, Paradox
>and an infinite loop and a "put them both in the graveyard and move on"
>ruling.
But if there were an absolute "An interrupt can't resolve while it's
being targeted by an interrupt" rule, then a Counterspell deflected onto
itself would cause a paradox (it can't resolve, because it's being targeted
by an interrupt--Counterspell). If it's okay for an interrupt to target
itself and still resolve, why shouldn't it be okay for an interrupt to be
targeted by another interrupt and still resolve? The rules just say "An
interrupt resolves immediately unless it itself is interrupted"; they don't
say "An interrupt that itself is interrupted always waits around for all
interrupts targeting it to resolve before it does".
"Unless it itself is interrupted" has two possible meanings--"unless
it itself is targeted by an interrupt", and "unless it itself has an
interrupt played during its 'chance to interrupt' window". If you take it
as "unless it itself is targeted by an interrupt", that would make it
impossible to play, say, Counterspell as a counter to an interrupt, unless
you already had the necessary mana in your pool; after all, the first thing
you have to do is tap your island for the mana, and since that doesn't
target your interrupt, it shouldn't prevent it from resolving immediately.
If you interpret "unless it itself is interrupted" as "unless it itself
has an interrupt played during its 'chance to interrupt' window", then
things seem to work just as they do now for all the "normal" cases. And
the circular-targeting paradox goes away. I play Spell A; you play
Counterspell B; I play Counterspell C targeted at Counterspell B; you play
Deflection to retarget Counterspell B to Counterspell C. Nobody has any
more interrupts to play. At this point, all the interrupts played during
Counterspell C's "chance to interrupt" window has resolved; Counterspell B
still targets it, but it doesn't care, since it wasn't played during
Counterspell C's "chance to interrupt" window. So C resolves, and counters
B; B is gone, so it doesn't resolve; A resolves.
The only effect of this interpretation that I can see is that interrupts
can't effectively be Deflected to target other interrupts cast after they
were, as the example above points out.
Have we firmly established that the interrupt rules are broken yet? :-)
John Palmer
: But if there were an absolute "An interrupt can't resolve while it's
: being targeted by an interrupt" rule, then a Counterspell deflected onto
: itself would cause a paradox (it can't resolve, because it's being targeted
: by an interrupt--Counterspell).
No, but if you try to resolve the interrupt that's interrupting it,
you can find that the target will be invalid and say that it's fizzled.
Mark Phaedrus
Palmer) wrote:
But you can't resolve the interrupt that's interrupting it, because
there's an interrupt that's interrupting that--Counterspell. And you
can't resolve the interrupt that's interrupting the interruption of the
interrupt, because there's an interrupt that's interrupting
that--Counterspell. And so on, and so on, and so on. It's still an
infinite loop; by the interpretation of "unless it itself is interrupted"
that everyone seems to be going with, there's no fundamental difference
between a one-card loop and a two-card loop--you've still got a set of
interrupts that can't resolve because all of them have unresolved
interrupts targeting them.
John Palmer
: In article <432veb$5...@horus.infinet.com>, jpa...@infinet.com (John
: Palmer) wrote:
: > No, but if you try to resolve the interrupt that's interrupting it,
: > you can find that the target will be invalid and say that it's fizzled.
: But you can't resolve the interrupt that's interrupting it, because
: there's an interrupt that's interrupting that--Counterspell.
Herm. I think that the ruling goes "You try to resolve the
counterspell, and realize that if you do, it's going to fizzle." In any
case, it's simpler than a "circle of interrupts". . . because "which
interrupt tries to resolve first" is already answered. I'm not sure that
you're wrong, by the way, I'm just saying that there's a way to judge it
more easily.