Timing of Interrupts vs. Effects
John Palmer
: In article <45eo3i$p...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> ho...@sal.cs.uiuc.edu (Charles Hoot) writes:
: >Suppose that my opponent has an untapped tim and it is my turn.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >If he tries to tim a creature of mine, I can back him up, play
: >my REB, (which he can only respond to with interrupts) and
: >destroy the tim before it can go off.
: Tim will die, but the 'prick' will still go off. Destroying the source
: of an effect does not stop the effect. (Except for the bizarre exception of
: the Chaos Orb)
Actually, you're wrong, depending. If, out of the blue, the
controller of Tim says "I'm launching the poke", you can say "No, I'm not
letting you start a spell stack right now.", and then REB the Tim.
If the Tim poke is done in response to something, or is done at a
"change of phase" announcement, then the opponent can't be "backed up"
because the opponent had a right to start a stack.
: >Finally, suppose there is some spell that is an instant on the stack. I
: >interrupt the spell with a chaoslace. As long as the other person does
: >not respond with an interrupt, can I let the lace resolve and then
: >interupt with a BEB (countering the instant)?
: Actually you cast the Blue Elemental Blast first, then interrupt it with
: the Chaoslace on the target spell.
No. Interrupts occur in FIFO order! Plus, you can't target a
non-red spell or effect with a BEB.
Scott D Bradburn
|> What do the rules say about the following (standard assumption
|> is that my opponent has no interrupts of his own.):
|> Suppose that my opponent has an untapped tim and it is my turn.
|> If he tries to tim a creature of mine, I can back him up, play
|> my REB, (which he can only respond to with interrupts) and
|> destroy the tim before it can go off.
|>
|> Same situation but instead, I back him up and chaoslace the tim.
|> Now he still wants to fire off the tim, but I back him up and
|> BEB it. (Essentially, do I get as many interrupt sequences as
|> I want in my turn before he can do an instant?)
Yes to both of these. You can start all spell stacks on your turn. Your
opponent is only allowed to declare something if it is a legal response
to something you're doing.
|> It's his turn and he has an untapped tim. He fires it off and in
|> response I REB it. Now tim is going to be destroyed, but will the
|> ping happen? (I.E. is the effect non-stopable once it has been
|> paid for, or once the interupts have been taken care of.)
You can not stop any properly declared effect unless you have a way to counter
it. Since it's your opponent's turn, it's legal for him to start the stack
and you can't prevent it by destroying the source at any speed.
|> Finally, suppose there is some spell that is an instant on the stack. I
|> interrupt the spell with a chaoslace. As long as the other person does
|> not respond with an interrupt, can I let the lace resolve and then
|> interupt with a BEB (countering the instant)?
Yes. Interrupts don't make stacks. And any number of interrupts can
be cast and resolve in response to any spell on a stack before any new
instant can be added to the stack.
Jerry Cullingford
>
>>Finally, suppose there is some spell that is an instant on the stack. I
>>interrupt the spell with a chaoslace. As long as the other person does
>>not respond with an interrupt, can I let the lace resolve and then
>>interupt with a BEB (countering the instant)?
>
>the Chaoslace on the target spell.
Hmm. I could (easily! :-) ) be wrong, but don't you have to have a valid
target when you _cast_ the BEB, not just when it resolves? Which would make
the original method correct.
--
_|_
/ | Jerry Cullingford j...@crosfield.co.uk (Work)
\_|_ j...@selune.demon.co.uk (Home)
\__/ Hemel Hempstead, UK je...@shell.portal.com (alternate)
John Palmer
: In article <45eo3i$p...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, ho...@sal.cs.uiuc.edu (Charles
: Hoot) wrote:
: > BEB it. (Essentially, do I get as many interrupt sequences as
: > I want in my turn before he can do an instant?)
: Yep. You could even interrupt the Chaoslace with the BEB.
Interrupts are FIFO.
Ooof. If you were saying "Hydroblast" you'd be correct, but since
you said BEB, you're wrong. The Chaoslace has to resolve before the
Blinking Spirit is red, and thus a legal target for BEB.
David DeLaney
>Mike Wood (kume...@usit.net) wrote:
>: Tim will die, but the 'prick' will still go off. Destroying the source
>: of an effect does not stop the effect. (Except for the bizarre exception of
>: the Chaos Orb)
>
> Actually, you're wrong, depending. If, out of the blue, the
>controller of Tim says "I'm launching the poke", you can say "No, I'm not
>letting you start a spell stack right now.", and then REB the Tim.
>
> If the Tim poke is done in response to something, or is done at a
>"change of phase" announcement, then the opponent can't be "backed up"
>because the opponent had a right to start a stack.
Not quite. If the Tim poke is done in response to something *and* no chance
to interrupt the something was given, *either* player can back things up
and say "Wait, I wanted to interrupt that <something>". There's no time
that something on a stack can be responded to by instants without being
_first_ interruptable to, _except_ for the copy of a spell created by Fork
[and even then the Fork itself can be interrupted before it resolves and
creates the copy].
But yes, if the active player gives up his "right of way" by trying to
change the phase, opponent can use an instant without being "back-uppable"
to an interrupt because active player has already declared his intent to do
something that fast effects are faster than and that fast effects can go
before.
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.