Casting cost of Purify?

[exid]

1. the purify chooses the targeted creature, the enchantments to destroy and pays
2. the enchantment transfusion is revealed and the enchantments go away
3. the purify destroys what is left, but the mooved enchantments are safe (not on the targeted creature anymore, could be out of range too)

doesn't it work?

[Zuberi]

The issue is that the enchantments that were selected for destruction are not targets. That means they don't fall under the normal rules for cancelling an action in progress. You've already selected to destroy them, and there isn't really any rule or check that occurs after that point to cancel that destruction so long as the spell reaches the Resolve Spell step. You never again check that they are in range or line of sight, nor whether they are still attached to the initial creature. Not after the Declare Spell step. People are welcome to double check me on this, as I still haven't gone through things thoroughly, but a quick scan of the documents didn't reveal anything to me to cause their destruction to be affected by moving them.

[exid]

i see your point now... and agree.
(and while the target isn't checked again, it would be the same with a dispel instead of the purify, isn't it?)

could we have an official statement?

[jacksmack]

Moving all enchantments with ET before the resolve step means that you cant follow the text on purify "revealed poison enchantments from the target".

[Zuberi]

Moving all enchantments with ET before the resolve step means that you cant follow the text on purify "revealed poison enchantments from the target".

That restricts what you can select to destroy, but you've already done that before they are moved. You don't check to make sure they are still valid targets when you actually destroy them because they aren't targets at all. There's no rule that I can find that says you double check if they are still attached to the target once they've already been selected for destruction. They don't follow the normal rules for canceling an action in progress because they aren't targets. That includes both checking to see if they've moved, and checking to see if they are still a valid recipient of the effect. The fact that we don't check if they are still valid means we don't care that they are no longer attached to the target. They were when we cast it and that's all that matters.

Dispel does not work the same way though, because it does target the enchantment to be destroyed.

[exid]

Dispel does not work the same way though, because it does target the enchantment to be destroyed.

when do we have to re-check that the target is valid?

[Zuberi]

A spell fails and is canceled, if either of the following occur before the Resolve Spell Step:
1. The target of the spell is no longer a legal target, or
2. The caster or target of the spell moves (e.g. by being Pushed or Teleported away), even if the move was to a location where the spell was still in range. (In the cas of a Teleport, this applies even if the teleport was into the same zone).

Similarly, an attack fails and is canceled, if either of the following occur before the Apply Damage and Effects step of an attack:
1. The target of the attack is no longer a legal target, or
2. The source or target of the attack moves (e.g. by being Pushed or Teleported away), even if the move was to a location where the spell was still in range. (In the case of a Teleport, this applies even if the teleport was into the same zone).

These things are constantly checked for under these rules. And these are the only rules I can find regarding canceling something in progress (other than of course cards/effects that specifically do so), and they apply only to targets. Since the enchantments being destroyed by Purify are not targeted, these rules do not apply to them. However, Dispel does target the enchantment it wants to destroy and thus would be restricted by these rules.

[Laddinfance]

Purify calculates it's cost when it resolves. In this case the X is just there to remind you that the spell could have a variable cost. In this way it also interacts correctly with Enchantment transfusion.

[Zuberi]

The card should not have an X in the casting cost then. Casting costs aren't paid during the resolve spell step, they are paid during the pay costs step. That's not too say that we can't require mana to be paid during the resolve spell step, just that it's not the same thing as a casting cost. Purify should have its actual casting cost printed on it, which I'm assuming is 0.

As it is currently written, we are required to pay an unknown casting cost, not a zero mana casting cost, but an unknown casting cost before we can even get to the resolve spell step. I would really suggest errata on this card to make it align with the intention.

[ringkichard]

(The thing I never noticed, and should have, is that in Purify, the X is never defined.)


Purify seems to be a case of the card over-riding the rules framework, then. The rulebook is pretty explicit that this can happen.

The rules can handle a deferred casting cost just fine, as long as we know that's what's happening. It's a potential corner case if there's ever a spell that triggers e.g. during the Counter Spell step dependent on the casting cost of the spell, but the actual process to follow seems clear enough.

For example, if there were a Nullify that triggered only on spells of casting cost 10 or greater, and if it were worded like this:

When this creature is targeted by an incantation or enchantment spell, controlled by an opponent, with a mana cost of 10 or greater, you must reveal FILTER SPELL during the Counter Spell Step....

Purify could never trigger it, that's all.

[exid]

Purify calculates it's cost when it resolves. In this case the X is just there to remind you that the spell could have a variable cost. In this way it also interacts correctly with Enchantment transfusion.

it breaks a normal rulle.
it's no problem but it should be clearly written on the card ("X is calculate and payed during the resolve step").

a few questions about how it will work:
1) with nulify
a nulify costs 0 to counter a purify?

2) with transfusion
purify decides to destroys an enchantement (and adds its cost to its own cost) / it's an event, so the other player can reveal transfusion and save a few other enchantements / purify chooses some other enchantements if thers's somme left?

[Zuberi]

It is certainly possible for it to break the normal rules and defer the casting cost. You are correct. However:

A. It does not clearly communicate that such is what it is doing.

B. It would be a lot simpler to just write the casting cost as 0 and then write that the destruction effects require extra mana to be paid at the time of the destruction, like it is currently written, than it is to explain that the casting cost is paid at a different time than normal.

C. Inconsistent use of variable casting costs can cause confusion. Which spells pay this variable during the Pay Costs step and which ones pay it during the Resolve Spell Step? A confused soul could easily assume that spells like [mwcard=MW1I07]Dissolve[/mwcard] also work like Purify, and thus you don't lose any mana if it gets Nullified.

I'm okay with it breaking the normal rules and behaving how Laddinfance stated, but it is horribly written currently and needs errata to clarify how it works.

@Exid:
[mwcard=MW1E29]Nullify[/mwcard] always costs 2 to cast and 2 to reveal regardless of what it counters. With the transfusion, previously I would have stated that you can't reveal it during the Resolve Spell Step, but with the discussion currently going on here I am unable to say that with certainty. You might be able to reveal it  after they've removed things with Purify.

[exid]

@Exid:
[mwcard=MW1E29]Nullify[/mwcard] always costs 2 to cast and 2 to reveal regardless of what it counters.

 
sorry for that question... it's very early on a sunday morning here...

[Laddinfance]

Purify calculates it's cost when it resolves. In this case the X is just there to remind you that the spell could have a variable cost. In this way it also interacts correctly with Enchantment transfusion.

it breaks a normal rulle.
it's no problem but it should be clearly written on the card ("X is calculate and payed during the resolve step").

a few questions about how it will work:
1) with nulify
a nulify costs 0 to counter a purify?

2) with transfusion
purify decides to destroys an enchantement (and adds its cost to its own cost) / it's an event, so the other player can reveal transfusion and save a few other enchantements / purify chooses some other enchantements if thers's somme left?

No you cannot reveal enchantment transfusion during the resolution step of casting a spell. You'll have to pull the enchantments off before then.

[jacksmack]

Purify calculates it's cost when it resolves. In this case the X is just there to remind you that the spell could have a variable cost. In this way it also interacts correctly with Enchantment transfusion.

it breaks a normal rulle.
it's no problem but it should be clearly written on the card ("X is calculate and payed during the resolve step").

a few questions about how it will work:
1) with nulify
a nulify costs 0 to counter a purify?

2) with transfusion
purify decides to destroys an enchantement (and adds its cost to its own cost) / it's an event, so the other player can reveal transfusion and save a few other enchantements / purify chooses some other enchantements if thers's somme left?

No you cannot reveal enchantment transfusion during the resolution step of casting a spell. You'll have to pull the enchantments off before then.

According to your other post in another thread *barkskin and poisoned blood* you can if the situation is right.

After the caster of purify selects and pays for 1 or more poison conditions - BAM! step/event! - you can reveal enchantment transfusion.