sac Krark-Clan Ironworks to its own activated ability

[sullivan]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Krark-Clan Ironworks (Artifact | 4 | Colorless)
"Sacrifice an artifact: Add {2} to your mana pool."

Is it possible to sacrifice Krark-Clan Ironworks to itself
(i.e. to pay for the cost of its own activated ability)?

I would say that the answer is 'yes'. Reason: the CompRules
say in 409.1a that the activated ability goes onto the stack
first ("without any card associated with it"). Then, you have
to determine the total cost of the ability (409.1f) and it
gets 'locked in'. And finally - as a last step - you have to
pay the total cost (409.1h) (when the ability is already on
the stack for a long, long time

I am the only one in our playgroup who sees it that way and
therefore I am asking here.

Thanks for your help!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Sullivan <sullivan@phreaker.net> wrote:

> Krark-Clan Ironworks (Artifact | 4 | Colorless)
> "Sacrifice an artifact: Add {2} to your mana pool."
>
> Is it possible to sacrifice Krark-Clan Ironworks to itself
> (i.e. to pay for the cost of its own activated ability)?

Yes. It's an artifact (controlled by you), isn't it?

> I would say that the answer is 'yes'. Reason: the CompRules
> say in 409.1a that the activated ability goes onto the stack
> first ("without any card associated with it"). Then, you have
> to determine the total cost of the ability (409.1f) and it
> gets 'locked in'. And finally - as a last step - you have to
> pay the total cost (409.1h) (when the ability is already on
> the stack for a long, long time
>
> I am the only one in our playgroup who sees it that way and
> therefore I am asking here.

What do the others in your playgroup say about sacrificing a Composite
Golem to pay the cost of its own activated ability?
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Sullivan, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Krark-Clan Ironworks (Artifact | 4 | Colorless)
> "Sacrifice an artifact: Add {2} to your mana pool."
>
> Is it possible to sacrifice Krark-Clan Ironworks to itself
> (i.e. to pay for the cost of its own activated ability)?

Yes. It's a perfectly good artifact, and it doesn't say "Sacrifice an
artifact other than Krark-Clan Ironworks or anything like that.

> I would say that the answer is 'yes'. Reason: the CompRules
> say in 409.1a that the activated ability goes onto the stack
> first ("without any card associated with it"). Then, you have
> to determine the total cost of the ability (409.1f) and it
> gets 'locked in'. And finally - as a last step - you have to
> pay the total cost (409.1h) (when the ability is already on
> the stack for a long, long time

I don't think you have to get that complicated. The most relevant rule,
as far as I can see, is 402.6, which used to often be called the Silver
Rule of Magic:

402.6. Once activated or triggered, an ability exists independently of
its source as an ability on the stack. Destruction or removal of the
source after that time won't affect the ability. Note that some
abilities cause a source to do something (for example, "Prodigal
Sorcerer deals 1 damage to target creature or player") rather than the
ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or
triggered ability that references information about the source will
check that information when the ability resolves, or will use the
source's last known information if it's no longer in play.

> I am the only one in our playgroup who sees it that way and
> therefore I am asking here.

It's a fairly common newbie error, but nevertheless is and always has
been wrong, to assume that messing with the source of an ability
counters or otherwise affects the ability.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:27:20 +0200, Sullivan <sullivan@phreaker.net> wrote:
>Krark-Clan Ironworks (Artifact | 4 | Colorless)
>"Sacrifice an artifact: Add {2} to your mana pool."
>
>Is it possible to sacrifice Krark-Clan Ironworks to itself
>(i.e. to pay for the cost of its own activated ability)?

Sure.

>I would say that the answer is 'yes'. Reason: the CompRules
>say in 409.1a that the activated ability goes onto the stack
>first ("without any card associated with it"). Then, you have
>to determine the total cost of the ability (409.1f) and it
>gets 'locked in'. And finally - as a last step - you have to
>pay the total cost (409.1h) (when the ability is already on
>the stack for a long, long time

Yep. And if the K-CI is an artifact at the time you're paying its ability's
cost, you can sacrifice it to pay the (entire) cost. This in no way affects
its ability, already on the stack, or counters it in any way, and the K-CI
doesn't -say- anything about it having to remain in play to get the mana
(compare with Animate Dead or Parallax Nexus).

(Note that this is a mana ability, so doesn't use the stack and can't be
responded to or countered ... but announcement of it is still separate from
resolving it.)

>I am the only one in our playgroup who sees it that way and
>therefore I am asking here.

You are correct, then!

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

"Sullivan" <sullivan@phreaker.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.06.17.20.27.19.477586@phreaker.net...
> Krark-Clan Ironworks (Artifact | 4 | Colorless)
> "Sacrifice an artifact: Add {2} to your mana pool."
>
> Is it possible to sacrifice Krark-Clan Ironworks to itself
> (i.e. to pay for the cost of its own activated ability)?
>
> I would say that the answer is 'yes'. Reason: the CompRules
> say in 409.1a that the activated ability goes onto the stack
> first ("without any card associated with it"). Then, you have
> to determine the total cost of the ability (409.1f) and it
> gets 'locked in'. And finally - as a last step - you have to
> pay the total cost (409.1h) (when the ability is already on
> the stack for a long, long time
>
> I am the only one in our playgroup who sees it that way and
> therefore I am asking here.
>
You are correct.

Jasper Overman
DCI L2 judge

ps.
Contrary to my normal behavior, I included my judge level, since I can't
offer any better quotes from the rulebook or other source to support the
correctness of the answer. The question itself already has all the relevant
rule numbers. Normally, one shouldn't believe the word of a judge over a
rulebook unless during a game of magic, but in this case, more explanation
won't help.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Jasper Overman <nospam@overman.org> wrote:

> Contrary to my normal behavior, I included my judge level, since I can't
> offer any better quotes from the rulebook or other source to support the
> correctness of the answer. The question itself already has all the relevant
> rule numbers.

Well, it now occurs to me that 402.6 might be worth quoting.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Sullivan sez:

<<
>Krark-Clan Ironworks (Artifact | 4 | Colorless)
>"Sacrifice an artifact: Add {2} to your mana pool."
>
>Is it possible to sacrifice Krark-Clan Ironworks to itself
>(i.e. to pay for the cost of its own activated ability)?
>
>>

Yes. Ironworks is an artifact, and can thus be sacced to its own ability (just
like Arcbound Ravager can...)


----
"If President Bush is going to take credit for 'the invisble hand' [of
economics], then he's going to take the blame when 'the hand' gives him the
finger."
--From Fark.com