Nullifying a Reverse Magic

[Wildhorn]

Still no clarity on when the step ends then. It is just open to whatever whim of the day. IMHO, things in this game need a clear beginning and end. Ping Pong still doesn't make any sense....

It end once everybody allowed to do something into that step are done. It is pretty clear to me.

[Shad0w]

This is an absurd ruling to RM and nullify.

Is this really the intention with the interaction between these 2 cards?


If this is truly how its intended then it would have suited you to add in a a big fat THEN before 'You control that spell'

The FAQ really needs to be updated with this - this is so counter-intuitive.

Going over the FAQ, Core Rules, Codex, and all the cards is a huge project but it is on our to do list. Since my play-test group is not employed by AW it is hard to find time to do a project of that level.



BTW: Jack what is with the curt response?
We have to use the current wording when looking over this interaction.

[Laddinfance]

I appreciate this issue. I'm adding it to my list.

[Wildhorn]

This is an absurd ruling to RM and nullify.

Is this really the intention with the interaction between these 2 cards?


If this is truly how its intended then it would have suited you to add in a a big fat THEN before 'You control that spell'

The FAQ really needs to be updated with this - this is so counter-intuitive.

I don't consider that absurd and it is totally intuitive to me. This is how I understood that spell. And I don't get what a "Then" before "You control" would change...

[sIKE]

This is an absurd ruling to RM and nullify.

Is this really the intention with the interaction between these 2 cards?


If this is truly how its intended then it would have suited you to add in a a big fat THEN before 'You control that spell'

The FAQ really needs to be updated with this - this is so counter-intuitive.

I don't consider that absurd and it is totally intuitive to me. This is how I understood that spell. And I don't get what a "Then" before "You control" would change...

I don't understand where we don't proceed to the next step or we loop back around to the cast spell step we just end up stuck in the counter spell step I would hate to see a half dozen counter spells (the first mandatory and the others non-mandatory) bound to each mage and we just go back and forth until one runs out of mana or counter spells. I know ridiculous but it is what it is....we can just call it Counter Spell Step limbo, just how low can we go with the limbo stick?

[Shad0w]

This is an absurd ruling to RM and nullify.

Is this really the intention with the interaction between these 2 cards?


If this is truly how its intended then it would have suited you to add in a a big fat THEN before 'You control that spell'

The FAQ really needs to be updated with this - this is so counter-intuitive.

I don't consider that absurd and it is totally intuitive to me. This is how I understood that spell. And I don't get what a "Then" before "You control" would change...

I don't understand where we don't proceed to the next step or we loop back around to the cast spell step we just end up stuck in the counter spell step I would hate to see a half dozen counter spells (the first mandatory and the others non-mandatory) bound to each mage and we just go back and forth until one runs out of mana or counter spells. I know ridiculous but it is what it is....we can just call it Counter Spell Step limbo, just how low can we go with the limbo stick?

At worst we currently have RM, Jinx, Mind Shield, and Nullify that have the ability to be used during the counter spell step. If we made a non-mandatory counter that could be used.

If some how we had

Caster A with Jinx and Nullify
Caster B has RM and owns the Jinx on Caster A

Caster A - uses an Incantation targeting Caster B
Caster B - now has 2 mandatory Triggers
Jinx and RM
Caster A now has the chance to reveal (if they have an enchant that can be revealed)
Both Jinx and RM are revealed Caster B can pay for none, Jinx, RM, or both

If Caster B just pays for Jinx the spell is sent to the book.

If Caster B pays for RM the spell is redirected.

If Caster B pays for both they choose what happens first
If they use RM first Jinx fails since B is now the caster
If they use Jinx first the spell has been countered before RM redirects it.

If Caster B pays for nothing the spell continues on.

[Wildhorn]

Maybe it is my programming background that help to understand this easily.

Counter Spell Step is a simple loop.

CastStep();
while CounterIsAvaible() is true then
    CounterTheSpell();
end while;
ResolveStep;

[Shad0w]

Maybe it is my programming background that help to understand this easily.

Counter Spell Step is a simple loop.

CastStep();
while CounterIsAvaible() is true then
    CounterTheSpell();
end while;
ResolveStep;

You and me both 

[Zuberi]

I know I haven't been too active on the forums the past couple of months, and kind of missed the party on this topic, but I wanted to add my 2 cents anyways.

sIKE is correct that there can be a ping pong effect when we allow enchantments to be revealed after one another before concluding or beginning a step or phase. I think it is very clear by the rules that this has been allowed since the game's initial release, however, and I do not feel that it is a bad thing or at all confusing. You go back and forth until everyone is satisfied and then you move on.

Also, as Shad0w pointed out, there's not very many weapons in this ping pong battle currently. The only one that can actually prolong the battle is Reverse Magic, because any others would end the battle by sending the spell to the discard pile or back to the spellbook. You can't even reveal an Enchantment Transfusion to prolong things, because it doesn't have the exemption allowing it to be revealed during a step (although you could use Transfusion before beginning this ping pong match in order to put your pieces in place).

I believe that the entire point of having a Counter Spell Step is to limit this ping pong battle, actually. Otherwise, it's not really necessary. You could just have a Cast Spell step, and then a Resolve Spell Step, and allow people to reveal enchantments in between which might counter the spell. However, by specifically putting an extra step in between and then severely enforcing what can and can't be done during it, they keep very tight reigns on the ping pong match. They prevent most spells from being used at all, force other spells to be used, and in general keep things short and simple.

I do wish they would add a "Then" to the wording on Reverse Magic to make Shad0w's ruling a little more clear, although his ruling makes sense even without that wording due simply to grammatical structure of the spell and the period separating the two effects. Even so, I probably wouldn't have caught the implication right away either that this eliminates the mandatory trigger of spells like Nullify when targeted by a reversed spell. That is certainly an interesting loophole. Overall, I am happy with the current ruling.

[sIKE]

I think that most of these observations are spot on. I think less wording in the card text is needed and more when does the counter-spell step end, or any step when casting cause now that is all grey and murky.

I can see it now: Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that!

(15 minutes later) Crap! What was I trying to do in the first place? I can't even remember!

[Sailor Vulcan]

I think that most of these observations are spot on. I think less wording in the card text is needed and more when does the counter-spell step end, or any step when casting cause now that is all grey and murky.

I can see it now: Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that!

(15 minutes later) Crap! What was I trying to do in the first place? I can't even remember!

No spell is worth such a long counter battle. That would cost a LOT of mana and actions to set up. I highly doubt we would be getting more than three counters per side with any card that isn't really overpowered, if such a "ping pong" were even possible.

But it's not. Let's not forget that counters are MANDATORY enchantments, so ALL counters on the same target are revealed at the same time and only one of them takes effect. The longest "ping pong" you could get is with one reverse magic on each side. The spell would only be redirected twice, and would end up resolving on the original target. There is no annoying 15 minute counter battle.

And even with plenty of pseudo-counters to reveal after the cast spell step but before the counter spell step, only one such enchant would be revealed to pseudo-counter the spell the vast majority of the time. You cast ghoul rot on me? I reveal Regrowth right before the counter spell step. That's it. No long counter battles. They're not possible and they'd only be necessary against a spell so overpowered enough to want to waste so much mana and actions to stop that one spell in the first place.

I reread nullify's text, and realized it would still be mandatory. The timing has not been missed. It says "when this creature is targeted by  an incantation or enchantment controlled by an opponent, you must reveal nullify during the counter spell step."

It does not matter that the target changes before control of the spell changes. The spell continues to target you when your opponent gains control of the spell. You are now being targeted by an incantation or enchantment controlled by an opponent, which satisfies the conditions of nullify, and it is still the counter spell step so you have not missed the timing to reveal it, which according to nullify's text is "during the counter spell step"

[sIKE]

I think that most of these observations are spot on. I think less wording in the card text is needed and more I can see it now: Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am when does the counter-spell step end, or any step when casting cause now that is all grey and murky.

going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that!

(15 minutes later) Crap! What was I trying to do in the first place? I can't even remember!

No spell is worth such a long counter battle. That would cost a LOT of mana and actions to set up. I highly doubt we would be getting more than three counters per side with any card that isn't really overpowered, if such a "ping pong" were even possible.

But it's not. Let's not forget that counters are MANDATORY enchantments, so ALL counters on the same target are revealed at the same time and only one of them takes effect. The longest "ping pong" you could get is with one reverse magic on each side. The spell would only be redirected twice, and would end up resolving on the original target. There is no annoying 15 minute counter battle.

And even with plenty of pseudo-counters to reveal after the cast spell step but before the counter spell step, only one such enchant would be revealed to pseudo-counter the spell the vast majority of the time. You cast ghoul rot on me? I reveal Regrowth right before the counter spell step. That's it. No long counter battles. They're not possible and they'd only be necessary against a spell so overpowered enough to want to waste so much mana and actions to stop that one spell in the first place.

I reread nullify's text, and realized it would still be mandatory. The timing has not been missed. It says "when this creature is targeted by  an incantation or enchantment controlled by an opponent, you must reveal nullify during the counter spell step."

It does not matter that the target changes before control of the spell changes. The spell continues to target you when your opponent gains control of the spell. You are now being targeted by an incantation or enchantment controlled by an opponent, which satisfies the conditions of nullify, and it is still the counter spell step so you have not missed the timing to reveal it, which according to nullify's text is "during the counter spell step"

I think you are missing my point, it is the Counter Spell Step singular. I think that there should be "one counter spell" cast during this step and then it is on to the Resolve Spell Step. Therefore there would be no opportunity for Nullify to trigger as we would no longer be in the Counter Spell Step (singular) but the Resolve spell step.

[Shad0w]

When I last talked to Bryan he did not want 2 opposing Reverse Magics to interact. This is the last known intent.

Both Reverse Magic and Nullify have the same trigger (When Target by a spell that an opponent controls). Therefore both rulings will stand at least till after the Gencon event. Once Gencon is over we will put this up for review to the rules team.

[Sailor Vulcan]

I think that most of these observations are spot on. I think less wording in the card text is needed and more I can see it now: Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am when does the counter-spell step end, or any step when casting cause now that is all grey and murky.

going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that! Oh Yeah? I am going to counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-spell that!

(15 minutes later) Crap! What was I trying to do in the first place? I can't even remember!

No spell is worth such a long counter battle. That would cost a LOT of mana and actions to set up. I highly doubt we would be getting more than three counters per side with any card that isn't really overpowered, if such a "ping pong" were even possible.

But it's not. Let's not forget that counters are MANDATORY enchantments, so ALL counters on the same target are revealed at the same time and only one of them takes effect. The longest "ping pong" you could get is with one reverse magic on each side. The spell would only be redirected twice, and would end up resolving on the original target. There is no annoying 15 minute counter battle.

And even with plenty of pseudo-counters to reveal after the cast spell step but before the counter spell step, only one such enchant would be revealed to pseudo-counter the spell the vast majority of the time. You cast ghoul rot on me? I reveal Regrowth right before the counter spell step. That's it. No long counter battles. They're not possible and they'd only be necessary against a spell so overpowered enough to want to waste so much mana and actions to stop that one spell in the first place.

I reread nullify's text, and realized it would still be mandatory. The timing has not been missed. It says "when this creature is targeted by  an incantation or enchantment controlled by an opponent, you must reveal nullify during the counter spell step."

It does not matter that the target changes before control of the spell changes. The spell continues to target you when your opponent gains control of the spell. You are now being targeted by an incantation or enchantment controlled by an opponent, which satisfies the conditions of nullify, and it is still the counter spell step so you have not missed the timing to reveal it, which according to nullify's text is "during the counter spell step"

I think you are missing my point, it is the Counter Spell Step singular. I think that there should be "one counter spell" cast during this step and then it is on to the Resolve Spell Step. Therefore there would be no opportunity for Nullify to trigger as we would no longer be in the Counter Spell Step (singular) but the Resolve spell step.

Grammar's a rather weak argument. Suppose it WAS called the Counter Spells step. By your logic, that would mean that you would have to reveal counters in plural, and not a singular counter. But suppose you had the choice to reveal 0, 1, or 2 counters. Then would you call it the counter spell step or counter spells step?

I'm really curious about that, because I honestly have no idea.

[Sailor Vulcan]

When I last talked to Bryan he did not want 2 opposing Reverse Magics to interact. This is the last known intent.

Both Reverse Magic and Nullify have the same trigger (When Target by a spell that an opponent controls). Therefore both rulings will stand at least till after the Gencon event. Once Gencon is over we will put this up for review to the rules team.

I don't really see why I can't counter an incantation or enchantment targeting me if I have a nullify or a reverse magic on me, even if my opponent did redirect it first. Did Bryan say why?

Also, what rulings? Where can I read them? I didn't see them in this thread I don't think...