Ward Stone and Nullify

[FruchtYogurt]

Hi!

Assume Mage A has a Ward Stone and Mage B has a Nullify placed on himself.

Now Mage A cast an enchantment on Mage B, does Mage B have to pay 2 mana for revealing Nullify and 2 mana for the Ward Stones effect, in order to counter that enchantment?

[ringkichard]

[mwcard=MWSTX1CKJ01] Enchanter's Wardstone[/mwcard]

 [mwcard=MW1E29] Nullify[/mwcard]

I'd say no. B only has to pay the 2 to reveal Nullify. Wardstone triggers if an ability controlled by your opponent would destroy your enchantment. The Nullify doesn't directly destroy the enchantment, it counters it.

The codex says

Counter (Game Term) A spell which has been countered does not resolve. It is destroyed and goes to the discard pile. All costs and actions spent to cast the spell are lost, unless otherwise noted.

Countering includes destroying, but since the Enchantment never gets a chance to resolve, and it's the game rules destroying the enchantment, not the Nullify, I don't think the Wardstone gets to trigger.

I'm on my phone, can anyone else research this one?

[Zuberi]

They did include the word "destroyed" when writing the definition of Counter in the Codex, but I don't believe they truly meant to link the two mechanics. Destroying something removes it from Play. Countering something prevents it from entering play in the first place. Thus, my interpretation is that they would not benefit from the Enchanter's Wardstone in this scenario.

[Zuberi]

If we were to argue that Enchanter's Wardstone did come into play, and your opponent decided not to pay the 2 extra mana for it, then that would prevent the Enchantment from being destroyed, but it still would not be allowed to resolve. Thus it could not enter play. You might be able to make an argument for this to allow you to keep the spell...but the rules don't cover such a scenario. Would it go back to your prepared spells? Back to your spellbook? I'm thinking not. It would still be discarded.

[sIKE]

If we were to argue that Enchanter's Wardstone did come into play, and your opponent decided not to pay the 2 extra mana for it, then that would prevent the Enchantment from being destroyed, but it still would not be allowed to resolve. Thus it could not enter play. You might be able to make an argument for this to allow you to keep the spell...but the rules don't cover such a scenario. Would it go back to your prepared spells? Back to your spellbook? I'm thinking not. It would still be discarded.

This is very confusing here. If Mage B pays for the Reveal cost but not the Ward Stone cost then I would rule that the Enchantment would be attached. Why? My thinking is that during the Counter Spell Step the onus is on Mage B to meet both requirements Reveal Cost + Ward Stone to successfully counter the spell. Otherwise it is Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

The first part is yes you have to reveal the Nullify when the object it is attached to is targeted by an Enchantment or Incantation. Now the question becomes if I pay the 2 mana for the Nullify does it affect the Enchantment that is being cast and attempting to be attached to Mage B. The codex on "Counter" is clear that the spell is "Destroyed". Therefore, I am inclined to think that yes you have to pay 2 more mana for the Ward Stone.

I am surprised at you Zuberi with (for you) your atypical intent argument. Not a jab just an observation...

This is very interesting from the aspect that most of the time we think Dispel or Seeking Dispel which happens after the Enchantment has been attached is what triggers Ward Stone.

[Zuberi]

I still don't think that the Game Terms of "Counter" and "Destroy" have anything to do with one another. However, if I was to concede that they did, it would only be to say that according to the definition of Counter, Destroy is a part of countering the spell. It is not the whole thing, only a small part of it.

First, the spell is not allowed to resolve. Then it is destroyed and sent to the discard pile. If you refuse to pay the Wardstone's cost, you still counter it, you just aren't able to do the destroy part of the Counter. So the spell fails to resolve and enter play, but it also doesn't get destroyed. Mass hysteria does indeed ensue, lol.

I think it just makes the most logical sense that Wardstone does not affect Countering a spell.

[sIKE]

I think this needs to go on to your list and request a ruling on intent here....

[jacksmack]

Im not sure the card is "in play" to recieve the "benefit" from Warding Stone before it is countered.

Imo this could go both ways.

Personally i hope its in favour of the warding stone for balancing reasons.
(imo the card needs this.)

[Laddinfance]

This is another odd question I'll be bringing up to Bryan.

However, as it sits Enchanter's Wardstone protects Enchantments you control. From the definition of control, you can control objects. From the definition of Objects, a card becomes  an object after it is cast.

All of that to say, I don't think the Wardstone protects enchantments you're casting.

Regardless, it's on my list now and I'll bring it up with Bryan.

[Zuberi]

Sorry if I was rambling or incoherent last night. I was kind of teetering on the edge of sleep, lol. I'm kind of in agreement with jacksmack on this. I think Enchanter's Wardstone could use the boost of affecting Nullify, but I do not feel that it does so under the current rules in place. There is definitely room for disagreement, however, and we do need things clarified. I have put this in my list as suggested by sIKE.

[Shad0w]

Back when making the Stone I wanted to fix that section of the rules because I knew this would come up. It is nice it took this long for people to notice.

IMO I would remove the section about counter spells "destroying" and says that it is placed in the discard. I would also state that objects like wardstone only effect cards in play unless stated on the object.

[Laddinfance]

A countered spell does not resolve. So, enchanter's wardstone cannot help it because it was countered and never resolved. I apologize for the confusion involving the term "Destroyed". I'll see if we an get that fixed in future printings.

[FruchtYogurt]

Ok, thanks for clearing that

[DaveW]

A countered spell does not resolve. So, enchanter's wardstone cannot help it because it was countered and never resolved. I apologize for the confusion involving the term "Destroyed". I'll see if we an get that fixed in future printings.

I think this also makes sense in relation to the ruling on the Nullification of Decoy spells. The Decoy never resolves, so the mana is not returned to the casting mage. Maybe this doesn't add a lot to the conversation, but it does seem to show a bit of inherent consistency in the rulings.