Mana Prism and Harshforge Plate

[DaveW]

Does the Mana Prism absorb the additional cost of a spell when casting it on a Mage equipped with Harshforge Plate?

The armor talks about increasing a spell's cost. The increased cost doesn't seem to fall under the category of "Mana Transfer," and it isn't related to upkeep. I wonder, however, whether increasing a spell's cost is the same thing as either "losing" or "paying" mana, or might be related to a "Mana Drain" effect.

My thought is that is it is a case of "losing" or "paying" mana... but wanted to be certain.

Mana Prism:

"Whenever a spell or ability an opponent controls causes you to lose or pay mana, including upkeep costs and Mana Drain/Transfer effects, place that mana on Mana Prism instead...."

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

[Lord0fWinter]

From the Codex for mana Prism "This only affects abilities that say “lose”, “pay”, or “transfer” (such as Suppression Orb, Mana Drain, and Mana Transfer), as well as “Upkeep +X” traits granted by effects your opponents control (such as Essence Drain and Mordok’s Obelisk). For example, having a spell countered by Nullify does not count as “losing the mana you spent on the spell” for the purpose of Mana Prism."

There seems to be a bit of ambiguity. The exact wording on HF Plate says that spells just cost 2 additional mana to play. It does not say "lose", "pay", or "transfer". Is innately costing 2 mana more the same as having to pay 2 additional mana when casting a spell? The wording makes it sound like it falls outside the realm of Mana Prism's capabilities.

[BoomFrog]

Hmm interesting... It seems that Armor ward does say "pay" and so does the new anvil throne warlord. So those costs can be placed in the prism?

[mage]Anvil Throne Warlord[/mage]
[mwcard=MWSTX1CKE01]1 x  Armor Ward[/mwcard]

[DaveW]

You would "pay" mana if your opponent controls Armor Ward, so yes... the Mana Prism should gain the four mana in this case.

[Zuberi]

Hmm interesting... It seems that Armor ward does say "pay" and so does the new anvil throne warlord. So those costs can be placed in the prism?

Those costs would definitely be placed on the Prism, but the cost associated with the Plate would not. This is clarified in the Rules Supplement on page 40 under Mana Prism. It only affects spells or abilities that specifically says the word "lose" "pay" or "transfer" or that give an object the Upkeep +X trait. Harshforge Plate doesn't do any of these things.

This is being a bit nit-picky, as my girlfriend who hates that armor has pointed out to me, but it is the official ruling currently. Essentially the Plate is affecting the spell itself, increasing it's cost, rather than affecting the mage to make them pay extra. This makes it kind of similar to, yet distinct from, an Upkeep cost. In both cases, it is actually the friendly card that is making them pay the mana, but Mana Prism specifically mentions that it applies to Upkeep costs that an opponent's spells/abilities add to their stuff. It does not mention applying to increased casting costs that an opponent's spells/abilities add.

[DaveW]

My question now, it seems, has become one of whether the wording on Harshforge Plate should be modified to say "pay" two extra mana instead of the current cost of the spell increases by two (or however it is worded)... or, for example, was Harshforge Plate's text written with the specific intent of avoiding the Mana Prism interaction?

You are "paying" additional mana via the increased spell cost... but the card does not use the word "pay" (etc.) as required by the Codex. Should the Codex be revised?

[Zuberi]

Nobody can answer a question about intent except for the design team. I will say that I like the fact that the Plate doesn't have an easy answer to it like that. It makes it a much more useful tool for a mage who can't depend on having a multitude of Dispels and Nullifies.

The difference in wording though does have other implications as well. Even though it still amounts to you losing mana from your mana pool in order to have the effect you want, it is doing it in a very different way. Abilities that force you to pay for an effect, such as Armor Ward, typically occur during the Resolve Spell Step. Because the Harshforge Plate is increasing the base cost of the spell, this mana has to be paid during the Cast Spell Step. This means that the cost is paid even if it gets nullified, unlike the extra 4 mana for a Dissolve against someone with Armor Ward.

So, I don't know how much thought or intent went into the design of the spell, but as it currently stands it is actually very different from a "pay" mana effect, even though the result is similar, and it would be a bigger errata than I think most people realize. Not a huge game changing errata, I suppose, but it is more than simple word choice.

[Shad0w]

Working as intended.