Icy Assassin

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

We have this debate often here and we could use your help on this one.

So here is what happens:

Both players have Royal Assassins and Player 1 has an Icy Manipulator
and his assassin has summoning sickness. Player 2 takes his turn (he
draws his Icy), now both players have Icy's and Assassins. Player 2
taps player 1's Assassin and then taps his assassin to blow up Player
1's newly summoned Assassin. Player 1 responds by tapping Player 2's
assassin.

Now Player 2 thinks his assassin kills player 1's newly summoned
assassin regardless of it being tapped by player 1's Icy. Player 1
contends that the assassin is tapped so how could it have killed the
newly summoned assassin.


This problem has all stemmed from a passage in the Ice Age rule book; a
battle between "Brett and Keisha" where they say that "if someone lobs
a grenade at you it does you no good to kill the lobber" or something
to that effect.

Which to me means, in a series of fast effects any "fast effect damage"
is dealt first? Is there any priority to this or just the typical LIFO?

I am player 1 btw.

Cheers.

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

In article <ddsem4$q4f$1@pump1.york.ac.uk>, Zoe Stephenson
<zrs1@uk.ac.york.reversed> wrote:

> Slugger <upyer@bumbum.com> sent:
> > We have this debate often here and we could use your help on this one.
>
> > So here is what happens:
>
> > Both players have Royal Assassins and Player 1 has an Icy Manipulator
> > and his assassin has summoning sickness. Player 2 takes his turn (he
> > draws his Icy), now both players have Icy's and Assassins. Player 2
> > taps player 1's Assassin and then taps his assassin to blow up Player
> > 1's newly summoned Assassin. Player 1 responds by tapping Player 2's
> > assassin.
>
> OK, I think I get the picture. I'll call the relevant permanents
> RA1, RA2, IM1, IM2. RA1 is summoning-sick.
>
> The key to this puzzle lies in the difference between a cost and an
> effect, and the way the stack works. The short answer for the above
> passage is "tapping player 2's assassin didn't help, it was already
> tapped", but I'll explain why in a moment.
>
> > Now Player 2 thinks his assassin kills player 1's newly summoned
> > assassin regardless of it being tapped by player 1's Icy.
>
> "it" = RA2, I assume, for this to make sense.
>
> > Player 1
> > contends that the assassin is tapped so how could it have killed the
> > newly summoned assassin.
>
> Yup, definitely a stack/cost/effect question
>
> > This problem has all stemmed from a passage in the Ice Age rule book; a
> > battle between "Brett and Keisha" where they say that "if someone lobs
> > a grenade at you it does you no good to kill the lobber" or something
> > to that effect.
>
> > Which to me means, in a series of fast effects any "fast effect damage"
> > is dealt first? Is there any priority to this or just the typical LIFO?
>
> There's no such thing as "fast effect" any more, and thinking about whether
> something is "fast" or "slow" won't help resolve questions correctly.
> (I noticed a writer on magicthegathering.com using the term "fast effect"
> in an article this week, grr.) The modern term is "activated ability".
>
> There is indeed a system of priority. Think about it as a little marker
> that sits by at most one player at a time. Whoever has priority is the
> only player that can initiate the next action in the game. The other
> player has to wait for that action to be "pass priority" before he or
> she gets a chance to make things happen.
>
> This question involves two activated abilities:
>
> / {T}: Destroy target tapped creature.
> / {1}, {T}: Tap target artifact, creature, or land.
>
> Each of these abilities has a cost and an effect. When the player with
> priority plays one of these abilities, that player loses priority for
> a moment (so nobody has priority), the ability gets added to the stack
> (the zone in the middle of the game where spells and abilities wait to
> resolve) and that player pays the cost. Then, the player who just
> played the ability gets priority back.
>
> The things on the stack only resolve if all players pass priority in
> succession with no intervening actions. When this happens, the top
> of the stack resolves - whichever was most recently added - and then
> the player whose turn it is gets priority again.
>
> So, in your example above, the sequence goes like this:
>
> Player 2's turn, just resolved IM2 spell, gains priority.
> Player 2 plays IM2 ability targeting RA1.
> Player 2 pays cost: play a mana ability for 1, tap IM2, pay 1.
> Player 2 gains priority, passes.
> Player 1 gains, passes.
> IM2 ability resolves, taps RA1.
> Player 2 gains priority. (it's Player 2's turn)
> Player 2 plays RA2 ability targeting RA1 (legal target, it's tapped now)
> Player 2 pays cost: tap RA2.
> Player 2 gains priority, passes.
> Player 1 gains priority.
> Player 1 plays IM1 ability targeting RA2.
> Player 1 pays cost: play a mana ability for 1, tap IM1, pay 1.
> Player 1 gains, passes.
> Player 2 gains, passes.
> IM1 ability resolves, taps the already-tapped RA2.
> Player 2 gains, passes.
> Player 1 gains, passes.
> RA2 ability resolves, destroys RA1.
>
> An alternative sequence, and one which is more useful to Player 1,
> would be:
>
> Player 2's turn, just resolved IM2 spell, gains priority.
> Player 2 plays IM2 ability targeting RA1.
> Player 2 pays cost: play a mana ability for 1, tap IM2, pay 1.
> Player 2 gains priority, passes.
> Player 1 gains priority.
> * Player 1 plays IM1 ability targeting RA2.
> Player 1 pays cost: play a mana ability for 1, tap IM1, pay 1.
> Player 1 gains, passes.
> Player 2 gains, passes. (RA1 is not yet a legal target for RA2 ability)
> IM1 ability resolves, taps RA2.
> Player 2 gains, passes.
> Player 1 gains, passes.
> IM2 ability resolves, taps RA1.
>
> Note point *, where Player 1 responds to Player 2's Icy ability by using
> his own Icy.
>
> > I am player 1 btw.
>
> Hope that helps, and apologies if I misread or got something wrong in
> the sequences.

Thanks Zoe, Thats a lot to digest. I'm not fully certain what it is you
are saying to be honest. But I'll mull it over some more.

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:15:09 GMT, Slugger <upyer@bumbum.com> wrote:
>We have this debate often here and we could use your help on this one.
>
>So here is what happens:
>
>Both players have Royal Assassins and Player 1 has an Icy Manipulator
>and his assassin has summoning sickness. Player 2 takes his turn (he
>draws his Icy), now both players have Icy's and Assassins. Player 2
>taps player 1's Assassin and then taps his assassin to blow up Player
>1's newly summoned Assassin. Player 1 responds by tapping Player 2's
>assassin.

Okay. Not reading further yet because I'm 99.2% certain I know what your
shared misconceptions are.

One must keep track of what taps when.

Notice that both Assassins and the Icy tap -themselves- as part of their
cost (after selecting a target), and the Icy taps its target on resolution.

Player 2 +announces+ the use of his Icy, targetting Player 1's sick Assassin,
and paying the cost - 1, tap Icy #2. That goes on the stack; later, it resolves
and taps Assassin #1. After that's done, player 2 announces the use of his
Assassin, targetting player 1's tapped Assassin (hmm, if you type the word
"Assassin" too much it starts looking really weird), and paying the cost:
tapping Assassin #2. _That_ goes on the stack.

It is waiting to resolve, when player 1 decides to respond (player 2 passed
after adding the Assassin ability to the stack, having nothing more to do
right then). Player 1 announces the use of his Icy, picks its target - the
Assassin #2, which is _already in the tapped position_, which is a perfectly
legal target because Icy doesn't SAY "target UNTAPPED artifact, creature, or
land" - and pays the cost: 1, tap Icy #1. THAT goes on the stack, on top of
Assassin #2's ability.

Player 1 passes; player 2 passes. Top thing on the stack resolves: Icy #1's
ability. Its target is still legal, so it says "I tap you!" to Assassin #2.
Assassin #2 says "That's fine, I'm already tapped, nothing much will change".

This does NOT COUNTER THE ABILITY OF the Assassin. An Icy is NOT A
COUNTERSPELL. All it can do is tap something; all THAT can do, in general,
is a) stop it from attacking later that turn, if it's a creature, or b)
tell the something's controller "use this now because later it'll be tapped
and you won't be able to", if it has an ability with Tap in the cost. Notice
that the Assassin has -already announced- its ability, and is -already tapped-;
the Icy can't "undo" that, can't "untap it and call the ability back off the
stack", can't "tap it before its controller can tap it to pay the cost", or
anything else along those lines.

So: Icy #1 ability resolves, does nothing in particular. Player 2 passes,
player 1 passes. Assassin #2 ability resolves. _Its_ target is still legal
- the tapped Assassin #1. The ability DOES NOT CHECK anything about Assassin
#2, its -source-, at this time; it doesn't say it does, and the rules don't
say it does. The ability destroys Assassin #1.

------

Short version: Player 1 is seriously misinformed about what an Icy Manipulator
can actually DO. It cannot counter a spell or ability (unless the spell or
ability _targets_ an _untapped_ something, which Assassins definitely don't).
It cannot "be used before opponent can do something else that they could do
right now to jump in first and stop them"; that's not possible, in Magic. In
short, it's not a magic stop-this-ability artifact.

What Player 1 needs to do with his Icy is to tap opponent's stuff at a time
when it's either impossible, or inconvenient, for him to use it in response.
(Yes, the Assassin, if it were just sitting there, non-sick, and was suddenly
targetted by the Icy, could respond to the _Icy's_ ability; in this case the
Assassin ability resolves first, then the Icy ability resolves and, again,
taps the already-tapped Assassin, for No Visible Effect.)

>Now Player 2 thinks his assassin kills player 1's newly summoned
>assassin regardless of it being tapped by player 1's Icy.

Correct.

>Player 1
>contends that the assassin is tapped so how could it have killed the
>newly summoned assassin.

Player 1 has his timing way messed up. Player 2 _had already tapped_ the
Assassin, to pay the activation cost. By the time player 1 can respond, the
Assassin is already tapped. Player 1's Icy can't "undo the tapping" and can't
counter the ability; it doesn't SAY it can. And notice that "the assassin
is tapped, how could it work?" isn't good logic: the Assassin will always
have gotten tapped on announcement, which is some time before resolution. You
can't get _to_ the point where the Assassin destroys the tapped creature
without having tapped the Assassin some time previously...

>This problem has all stemmed from a passage in the Ice Age rule book; a
>battle between "Brett and Keisha" where they say that "if someone lobs
>a grenade at you it does you no good to kill the lobber" or something
>to that effect.

Correct. And that example applies here: Player 2 used ("played", "announced" )
his Assassin's ability. He picked the target and paid the cost; the ability
is on the stack. Player 1 _does not have priority_ during this procedure; he
can't do anything at all (and neither can player 2) until the announcement is
done, the ability is on the stack, the target is chosen, the Assassin is
tapped, AND player 2 has passed priority.
At that point he can respond; at that point, though, the Assassin is
already tapped, because that was the COST of the ability. The target is
not destroyed yet, because that will be the EFFECT of the ability. Fiddling
with the source of the ability in response? Does _nothing_ to the ability
on the stack. You have to use something like Stifle or Diplomatic Escort,
which says it COUNTERS the ability ... or something that makes the TARGET
illegal - untaps it, gives it protection from Black, removes it from play,
etc. ... to stop the ability from resolving; fiddling with its source won't
and can't do so.

>Which to me means, in a series of fast effects any "fast effect damage"
>is dealt first? Is there any priority to this or just the typical LIFO?

"Fast effect" isn't a term that's been used for several years now. Both the
Icy and the Assassin have abilities; once they're on the stack they follow
the same rules that everything using the stack (spells, activated nonmana
abilities, triggered nonmana abilities, and combat damage) uses to resolve.
All that's here is LIFO, in effect: the TOPMOST thing on the stack will be
the next thing to resolve, once both players pass in succession. No kind of
spell or ability that uses the stack is "faster than" any other; thinking
of 'different speeds' is a sure way to get wrong answers - it's not a useful
concept, in Magic.
Note that after something resolves off the stack, active player gets
priority... and can add new stuff to the stack, before stuff still waiting
on the stack to resolve gets to do so.

"Priority", in Magic, means "who can do something - add something to the stack,
or take a special action - right now?". If a player has priority, no OTHER
player does... and only that player can do the next thing. Or pass.

>I am player 1 btw.

Oh - apologies, then; you've been misinformed somehow about how things work.
Your Icy can't counter an ability, even if the ability has "tap" in its cost;
all it can do is tap stuff, making it possibly unusable / unable to attack
AFTER that. It can't generally interfere with an ability already in progress,
sitting on the stack. (Similarly, it can't be used to remove from combat a
creature that is ALREADY attacking or blocking ... though you get the time
_before_ attackers are declared, either in step 1 of Combat, beginning-of-
combat step, or before Combat starts at all, to tap a creature with it so
it can't attack LATER that turn, and opponent can't "rush into" their attack
and deny you that chance.)

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.

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

> once they're on the stack they follow
> the same rules that everything using the stack (spells, activated nonmana
> abilities, triggered nonmana abilities, and combat damage)...

This bit confuses me.
Where does mana activated abilities fit into the equation? Does the
tapping of mana go on the stack too?

> >I am player 1 btw.
>
> Oh - apologies, then; you've been misinformed somehow about how things work.
> Your Icy can't counter an ability, even if the ability has "tap" in its cost;
> all it can do is tap stuff, making it possibly unusable / unable to attack
> AFTER that. It can't generally interfere with an ability already in progress,
> sitting on the stack. (Similarly, it can't be used to remove from combat a
> creature that is ALREADY attacking or blocking ... though you get the time
> _before_ attackers are declared, either in step 1 of Combat, beginning-of-
> combat step, or before Combat starts at all, to tap a creature with it so
> it can't attack LATER that turn, and opponent can't "rush into" their attack
> and deny you that chance.)
>
> Dave



Ok I got the bit about the Icy not being able to prevent the assassin's
activated ability. But just so I can clear this up in my simpleton
head, hypothetically If I had responded to the assassin blowing up my
sick assassin with a jandor's saddlebags to untap it, would that have
prevented my assassin's demise? Or does it make more sense to respond
to the Icy by untapping the sick assassin with the saddlebags before he
destroys my tapped sick assassin with his?

Geez I need a new rule book.

Thanks.

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

Slugger <upyer@bumbum.com> wrote:

> > once they're on the stack they follow
> > the same rules that everything using the stack (spells, activated nonmana
> > abilities, triggered nonmana abilities, and combat damage)...
>
> This bit confuses me.
> Where does mana activated abilities fit into the equation? Does the
> tapping of mana go on the stack too?

"T: Add G to your mana pool." is an example of an activated mana
ability, and it does not use the stack.

"W: Honor Guard gets +0/+1 until end of turn." and "1: Look at the top
card of your library." are examples of activated NONmana abilities, and
they do use the stack.

406. Mana Abilities

406.1. A mana ability is either (a) an activated ability that could put
mana into a player's mana pool when it resolves or (b) a triggered
ability that triggers from a mana ability and could produce additional
mana. A mana ability can generate other effects at the same time it
produces mana.

> Ok I got the bit about the Icy not being able to prevent the assassin's
> activated ability. But just so I can clear this up in my simpleton
> head, hypothetically If I had responded to the assassin blowing up my
> sick assassin with a jandor's saddlebags to untap it, would that have
> prevented my assassin's demise?

Yes, because the target of the assassin's ability would be illegal by
the time it resolved.

> Or does it make more sense to respond
> to the Icy by untapping the sick assassin with the saddlebags before he
> destroys my tapped sick assassin with his?

No, because the ability of the Icy Manipulator would still tap the
creature when it resolves.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

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

Plenty of people have explain how it works - I think it might be worth
adding that there is a way for player 1 (you) to save his (your)
assassin.

When player 2 casts his Icy, you get priority before it resolves. At
this point, you tap your Icy to tap his assassin. Your effect resolves
first, and so by the time his Icy hits the table his assassin is tapped
and your assassin is safe.

For extra goodness, you also get to murder his assassin next turn when
you untap.

Phil.

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:03:06 GMT, Slugger <upyer@bumbum.com> wrote:
>> once they're on the stack they follow
>> the same rules that everything using the stack (spells, activated nonmana
>> abilities, triggered nonmana abilities, and combat damage)...
>
>This bit confuses me.
>Where does mana activated abilities fit into the equation? Does the
>tapping of mana go on the stack too?

It does not, which is why both of those things in the list of "what uses
the stack?" say "nonmana" explicitly. Activated mana abilities do not use
the stack; this means they can't be countered, can't be responded to, resolve
immediately after they are announced, and can't be targetted. Triggered mana
abilities work the same way (though a 'triggered mana ability' is a triggered
ability that could produce mana AND which triggered off of a mana ability, not
just any old triggered ability that makes mana).

>> Oh - apologies, then; you've been misinformed somehow about how things work.
>> Your Icy can't counter an ability, even if the ability has "tap" in its cost;
>> all it can do is tap stuff, making it possibly unusable / unable to attack
>> AFTER that. It can't generally interfere with an ability already in progress,
>> sitting on the stack. (Similarly, it can't be used to remove from combat a
>> creature that is ALREADY attacking or blocking ... though you get the time
>> _before_ attackers are declared, either in step 1 of Combat, beginning-of-
>> combat step, or before Combat starts at all, to tap a creature with it so
>> it can't attack LATER that turn, and opponent can't "rush into" their attack
>> and deny you that chance.)
>
>Ok I got the bit about the Icy not being able to prevent the assassin's
>activated ability. But just so I can clear this up in my simpleton
>head, hypothetically If I had responded to the assassin blowing up my
>sick assassin with a jandor's saddlebags to untap it, would that have
>prevented my assassin's demise?

Yes. Why? Because his Assassin's ability says "destroy -target tapped-
creature"; if the creature is untapped when his Assassin ability tries to
resolve, its target isn't legal. And since it's targeted but all its
targets are now illegal, it gets countered, rather than resolving. No effect,
poof.

>Or does it make more sense to respond
>to the Icy by untapping the sick assassin with the saddlebags before he
>destroys my tapped sick assassin with his?

No, that makes less sense. Why? Because now your Saddlebags ability is on
TOP of the Icy ability on the stack ... and will resolve first, untapping
the (untapped) sick assassin, for No Visible Effect. After which the Icy
ability under it will resolve, tapping it. Oops. You want to wait for the
Icy ability to resolve, and tap it, before you announce the Saddlebags
ability to untap it with. (See why?)

>Geez I need a new rule book.

That's easy: ... oh goodness, they've rearranged the whole homepage again.
Okay, links to the rules are now on the RIGHT side, halfway down (instead
of the old "bottom left-hand corner" ); you're looking for
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp [...] rneyplayer
and pick a format at the top of the page.

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.

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

In article <MPG.1d6d6a8c9d42d8ab98a203@news.easynews.com>,
Jeff Heikkinen <no.way@jose.org> wrote:
>
> What I took you to mean is responding to the ASSASSIN with the
> saddlebags - that would work as I described. (If that's what you meant
> in your first paragraph, then THAT is the scenario I should have said
> would work. Sorry for any confusion.)

The other surprising consequence is that in the RA vs. RA duel, a
player can only use his RA safely if he has two Instill
Energy-like effects for it. Suppose Lori has an untapped RA with
two Instill Energy Enchantment (Aura)s upon it, and Rita has an
untapped RA and a tapped BoP.

1. Lori taps her untapped RA targeting Rita's BoP.

Rita should do nothing here, because if she tries

2a Rita taps her untapped RA targeting Lori's tapped RA,

3a Lori invokes IE1 to untap her tapped RA.

Nothing else relevant happens, 3a resolves, 2a is countered for
illegal target, and 1 occurs.

So, now Lori has a tapped RA with two unused IEs on it, and Rita
has an untapped RA. Rita should not do anything now, because,

2b Rita taps her untapped RA targeting Lori's tapped RA,

3b Lori invokes IE1 to untap her tapped RA

Nothing relevant occurs, 3b resolves, 2b is countered for illegal
target, and now Rita's RA is tapped, which leads to

4b Lori taps her untapped RA targetting Rita's tapped RA.

5b Lori invokes IE2 to untap her tapped RA.

The end result is that Lori is left with an untapped RA with both
IEs used for the turn, and Rita has a destroyed RA and BoP.

However, Lori must get her RA untapped before her turn ends; her
IEs don't work during Rita's turn, and Rita will destroy Lori's
RA at her leisure. So,

2c Lori invokes IE1 to untap her tapped RA.

Suppose she only had one IE, not two. Then,

3c Rita taps her untapped RA targetting Lori's tapped RA.

With nothing further, 3c resolves, destroying Lori's RA, and 2c
is countered since Lori's RA is in the graveyard. But, with two
IEs, we get

4c Lori invokes IE2 to untap her tapped RA.

4c resolves, 3c is countered for illegal target, and 2c resolves
but does nothing since Lori's RA is untapped. Lori might even do

5c Lori taps her RA targetting Rita's tapped RA.

Rita should simply let 2c resolve leaving the situation

Lori: untapped RA, 2 IEs, with one unused.
Rita: untapped RA, BoP in graveyard.

Lori can even destroy another tapped creature this turn, but if
she does, Rita can destroy it the next turn.

The scoreboard at the end: with no IEs, Lori's IE can backstab
once, and then it dies immediately. With one IE, Lori's IE
backstabs once, and dies on the next turn. With two IEs, Lori's
RA can backstab and laugh.

Of course, who would put two IEs on a single RA? Any sort of
*ping* effect would put three of Lori's cards in the graveyard.

--
Respectfully,
Eric Jablow

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

In article <1124267840.512894.163130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<phil@ideastakingshape.co.uk> wrote:

> Plenty of people have explain how it works - I think it might be worth
> adding that there is a way for player 1 (you) to save his (your)
> assassin.
>
> When player 2 casts his Icy, you get priority before it resolves. At
> this point, you tap your Icy to tap his assassin. Your effect resolves
> first, and so by the time his Icy hits the table his assassin is tapped
> and your assassin is safe.
>
> For extra goodness, you also get to murder his assassin next turn when
> you untap.
>
> Phil.
>
Good Point Phil!