if my opponent has Chalice of the Void in play set on 2, and i have Leyline of Lifeforce in play, would the leyline negate the effect of chalice on the creatures that i play (since it suppose to counter anything with casting cost of 2)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks for spiderboy4 of High~Light_Studios for the kick ass avatar.
Thanks for DarkNightCavalier of HotPS for the exceptional signature.
I am convinced that WotC is "dumbing" the game because of all the stupid posts they come across on MTG-related forums
i don't think they would be countered. chalice would attempt to counter when you played a 2cc creature, but it would effectively say "can't be countered" on each creature.
103.2. When a rule or effect says something can happen and another effect says it can’t, the “can’t” effect wins. For example, if one effect reads “You may play an additional land this turn” and another reads “You can’t play land cards this turn,” the effect that keeps you from playing lands wins out. Note that adding abilities to objects and removing abilities from objects don’t fall under this rule; see rule 402.9.
i don't think they would be countered. chalice would attempt to counter when you played a 2cc creature, but it would effectively say "can't be countered" on each creature.
You are correct, the spell can't be countered and as such, won't be.
They won't be countered-there's a rule that says that "can't" effects always win. It's in the latest Cranial Insertion article.
I don't believe that 103.2, the Golden Rule of "can't" beats "can" is applicable here.
Rather, I believe that 103.3 is.
103.3. If an instruction requires taking an impossible action, it's ignored. (In many cases the card will specify consequences for this; if it doesn't, there's no effect.)
Since the actual action of countering a creature spell while Leyline of Lifeforce is in play is impossible, it is simply ignored. There is no effect stating "Creature spells can be countered" because that is already implicit in the rules of the game which define the action of "countering a spell".
With respect to the question in Cranial Insertion which involves a Magma Spray, a Kitchen Finks, Mark of Asylum, and Everlasting Torment, I would very respectfully disagree (since CI is 99.999999% of the time correct) that 103.2 is applicable there for the reasons I stated above. I also believe that 103.3 is the applicable rule since preventing the damage is an impossible action due to Everlasting Torment's ability.
The example given in 103.2 is the interaction of two effects, both of which "modify" the game rules. One says "you may play an additional land this turn" and the other says "you can't play land cards this turn".
When there only exists one effect modifying the game rules and another card attempts to carry out "stock" instructions based on the game rules, but that instruction is forbidden by the aforementioned effect, I believe that 103.3 is the applicable rule to that situation, not 103.2.
It seems to me that 103.2 is quoted perhaps too much, to situations where it doesn't actually apply. Gurus: if I'm wrong...my brain may explode...so be nice
Let me get one thing straight with you. When Condor and an official ruling disagree, 50% of the time the official ruling gets reversed later. The other 50% of the time, the rules get clarified/changed to make the ruling right when it really wasn't before.
Thanks for spiderboy4 of High~Light_Studios for the kick ass avatar.
Thanks for DarkNightCavalier of HotPS for the exceptional signature.
My blog.
You are correct, the spell can't be countered and as such, won't be.
I don't believe that 103.2, the Golden Rule of "can't" beats "can" is applicable here.
Rather, I believe that 103.3 is.
Since the actual action of countering a creature spell while Leyline of Lifeforce is in play is impossible, it is simply ignored. There is no effect stating "Creature spells can be countered" because that is already implicit in the rules of the game which define the action of "countering a spell".
With respect to the question in Cranial Insertion which involves a Magma Spray, a Kitchen Finks, Mark of Asylum, and Everlasting Torment, I would very respectfully disagree (since CI is 99.999999% of the time correct) that 103.2 is applicable there for the reasons I stated above. I also believe that 103.3 is the applicable rule since preventing the damage is an impossible action due to Everlasting Torment's ability.
The example given in 103.2 is the interaction of two effects, both of which "modify" the game rules. One says "you may play an additional land this turn" and the other says "you can't play land cards this turn".
When there only exists one effect modifying the game rules and another card attempts to carry out "stock" instructions based on the game rules, but that instruction is forbidden by the aforementioned effect, I believe that 103.3 is the applicable rule to that situation, not 103.2.
It seems to me that 103.2 is quoted perhaps too much, to situations where it doesn't actually apply. Gurus: if I'm wrong...my brain may explode...so be nice
MTG Rules Adviser/Advisor
Comp Rules, FAQs, and DCI Rules
I absolutely agree. <<"Can't" beats "can">> is all too often cited in situations that are actually <<"Can't" beats "do">> in my opinion.
Please use card tags when you're asking a question about specific cards: [c]Serra Angel[/c] -> Serra Angel.