Does the translation of Spellsplitter contain the word (or analogous word) instead? If it does, does that mean it creates a replacement effect as per rule 614.1a? Will Spellsplitter's ability then follow rules 114.6a (choosing new targets) or 614.6 (replacing targeting event)?
we only have translations, we dont have exact text due to the language barrier mostly, although our translators have done a fantastic job on translating the cards that we have as of now, none of the texts are 100% confirmed unless we have an english form of the card.
As for Spellsplitter, it reads that it would switch the target to itself, thus being something like a Flagbeaarer type thing, but only if you pay the {PU}. Switching any legal single target to itself.
My question is how will it work alongside Precursor Golem. but until we have english forms of cards. then we're just guessing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ravarshi Kashaku, Ancient Dragon of the Darkened Realms;
The Merciless Lord of Torture, Permanently Bound To: ">[THE PACK] 11/5/63 - 11/25/09 Goodbye mom, i'll always love you...
With Precursor Golem, it will drag a single copy of the spell to itself. Whether you chose the original or a copy shouldn't matter at all. You'll still get all other golems that are legal targets getting blasted by whatever spell was sent the original targets way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge since 01/14/2011
Level 2 Judge since 12/01/2012
Jace bounce was a -1. He could do it 3 times before he would die. Liliana can only do it once before having to do her +1. Overall very disappointed with her unless we get Madness.
Crap, you're right, she's not as good as one of the single most overpowered cards ever printed. Unplayable!
Once again, the result of this interaction is strictly based on whether rule 614 (replacement) or 114 (choosing new targets) are applied. In the case of replacement effects (614 and any action containing instead) the original targeting event never occurs, therefore causing the precursor golem to never trigger. In the case of rule 114 the targeting occurs and then is changed, resulting in all the other golems getting blasted.
Thus my original question stands relevant, and until we can answer that we can only speculate with no definitive answers.
So anyone mind going into detail about how if it is worded by instead?
I am arguing with my roommate about it. He is a kind of a rules guru and he is arguing that even if it says instead, the other golems will still get blasted after the initial target.
he seems to be confusing a replacement with a redirection. So if anyone cares to elaborate how the Instead would stop all the golems from being targeted by the initial spell I would greatly appreciate it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UB - Tezzerator 2.0 - UB
8-3-0
(Decklist and blog updated 4/11/2011)
"Fun fact about me: I home brew my buddies meta deck. He went from having a much lower ranking then me to a significantly higher rating since I started doing this."
Once again, the result of this interaction is strictly based on whether rule 614 (replacement) or 114 (choosing new targets) are applied. In the case of replacement effects (614 and any action containing instead) the original targeting event never occurs, therefore causing the precursor golem to never trigger. In the case of rule 114 the targeting occurs and then is changed, resulting in all the other golems getting blasted.
Thus my original question stands relevant, and until we can answer that we can only speculate with no definitive answers.
The part where you state that the "original targeting effect never occurs" is completely false. As soon as the spell is cast, it must have a legal target, and if Precursor Golem is that target, it immediately puts a trigger on the stack that copies the spell for each golem token. Now, even if you respond to the trigger (before the copies are put onto the stack) and use Spellsplitter's ability to redirect the spell, when that resolves, the original copy of the spell will target the spellsplitter. Then, the copies will still be put onto the stack targeting the golem tokens.
That being said, there is no static ability/replacement effect that would cause the Precursor Golem's triggered ability not to happen, since the copies are being placed on the stack immediately after the spell is cast, and the Precursor Golem is declared as a legal target. The only window of opportunity to do anything is with a triggered ability-countering effect (or any replacement effect, such as a Flagbearer) when the trigger is being placed on the stack.
So, there's no way around it, unless you activate Spellsplitter's ability X times, where X is the number of Golems on the battlefield, to redirect each copy of the spell, there's nothing you can do about the golem tokens being on the receiving end of whatever the original spell was that targeted the Precursor Golem. The only possible way to prevent any of this is to Stifle/Trickbind/Voidslime the Precursor Golem's triggered ability. aside from that, no matter what, the copies will be put onto the stack, and will be forced to target the golem tokens.
It's pretty clear that this will be an activated ability that changes the target of target spell or ability to itself. There's no real way a replacement effect makes any sense here. It would render the ability basically useless. Consider it as a replacement effect: You would have to speculate that your opponent would cast a spell, then there's also the issue of priority. So if you wanted to replace the first spell your opponent might cast during their main phase you'd have to retain priority after their draw? It makes no sense.
It will clearly be an ability like the triggered ability of Muck Drubb.
The part where you state that the "original targeting effect never occurs" is completely false. As soon as the spell is cast, it must have a legal target, and if Precursor Golem is that target, it immediately puts a trigger on the stack that copies the spell for each golem token.
When he talks about a "replacement effect" it's technically possible. It could set up a continuous replacement effect that would force the next spell with a single target to target spellsplitter, similar to the static ability of flagbearers. If this was the case the precursor golem would in fact never get targeted thus never trigger.
However, it would be terrible to do it that way as it would make the ability useless in realistic situations. Thus the ability will target spells/abilities on the stack which, as you said, have long since triggered the golem.
So anyone mind going into detail about how if it is worded by instead?
I am arguing with my roommate about it. He is a kind of a rules guru and he is arguing that even if it says instead, the other golems will still get blasted after the initial target.
he seems to be confusing a replacement with a redirection. So if anyone cares to elaborate how the Instead would stop all the golems from being targeted by the initial spell I would greatly appreciate it.
Sorry about the double-post, and the bad news, but your roomate is correct. You're activating an ability that changes the target of a spell, and as a result, the spell had an original target and the triggered ability on the original target has already been triggered the moment you cast the spell. Even is you use spellsplitter's ability to change the target to itself, the golem's ability still triggered, and even if you use the Spellsplitter's ability while the Golem's copy ability on the stack, it still won't stop it from happening.
Sorry about the double-post, and the bad news, but your roomate is correct. You're activating an ability that changes the target of a spell, and as a result, the spell had an original target and the triggered ability on the original target has already been triggered the moment you cast the spell. Even is you use spellsplitter's ability to change the target to itself, the golem's ability still triggered, and even if you use the Spellsplitter's ability while the Golem's copy ability on the stack, it still won't stop it from happening.
But the key word here is instead which takes the ability into a replacement effect which could change what happens entirely from my understanding.
1. We can't go back in time and change something. Given that, is going back in time something that is only considered when something has resolved? If not, how does it effect the stack when the initial event is replaced.
2. Is the word instead placed wrong? Would it even matter? Sounds like where it is located in the sentence is rather important.
3. Are you confusing a Replacement rule and what it does with a Redirect rule?
I can see where he is right because it was my initial thought until I started going through 614.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UB - Tezzerator 2.0 - UB
8-3-0
(Decklist and blog updated 4/11/2011)
"Fun fact about me: I home brew my buddies meta deck. He went from having a much lower ranking then me to a significantly higher rating since I started doing this."
It's pretty clear that this will be an activated ability that changes the target of target spell or ability to itself. There's no real way a replacement effect makes any sense here. It would render the ability basically useless. Consider it as a replacement effect: You would have to speculate that your opponent would cast a spell, then there's also the issue of priority. So if you wanted to replace the first spell your opponent might cast during their main phase you'd have to retain priority after their draw? It makes no sense.
It will clearly be an ability like the triggered ability of Muck Drubb.
[Edit:]
When he talks about a "replacement effect" it's technically possible. It could set up a continuous replacement effect that would force the next spell with a single target to target spellsplitter, similar to the static ability of flagbearers. If this was the case the precursor golem would in fact never get targeted thus never trigger.
However, it would be terrible to do it that way as it would make the ability useless in realistic situations. Thus the ability will target spells/abilities on the stack which, as you said, have long since triggered the golem.
This does make a lot of sense, to a degree. The only confusing part is that, based on what we've seen from spellsplitter (and where the language barrier comes into effect) is HOW it can create a continuous replacement effect, based on it's ability's speculative rules text. I'm getting the impression from the card, that it works much of the same way as Misdirection or Reiterate, and doesn't really create a continuous effect. I guess we'll find out more in the coming weeks.
This does make a lot of sense, to a degree. The only confusing part is that, based on what we've seen from spellsplitter (and where the language barrier comes into effect) is HOW it can create a continuous replacement effect, based on it's ability's speculative rules text. I'm getting the impression from the card, that it works much of the same way as Misdirection or Reiterate, and doesn't really create a continuous effect. I guess we'll find out more in the coming weeks.
The problem with
Misdirection and Reiterate is that they do not contain the word instead, which causes a replacement effect in which the original even would not take place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UB - Tezzerator 2.0 - UB
8-3-0
(Decklist and blog updated 4/11/2011)
"Fun fact about me: I home brew my buddies meta deck. He went from having a much lower ranking then me to a significantly higher rating since I started doing this."
But the key word here is instead which takes the ability into a replacement effect which could change what happens entirely from my understanding.
1. We can't go back in time and change something. Given that, is going back in time something that is only considered when something has resolved? If not, how does it effect the stack when the initial event is replaced.
2. Is the word instead placed wrong? Would it even matter? Sounds like where it is located in the sentence is rather important.
3. Are you confusing a Replacement rule and what it does with a Redirect rule?
I can see where he is right because it was my initial thought until I started going through 614.
In any case, even if it says the word instead, the trigger has already been placed on the stack, and when the trigger resolves, it won't need to check and see if precursor golem is still the target, I don't think. This is the order of how it will happen, based on what we've seen:
Player A: controls Spellsplitter and Precursor Golem with 2 tokens.
Player B: casts Doom Blade
Scenario 1:
1: Player B casts Doom Blade targeting Precursor Golem.
2: Precursor Golem's Ability Triggers.
3: Two copies of Doom Blade are placed on the stack, each one targeting a golem token.
4: Player A uses Spellsplitter's ability, and causes the original Doom Blade to target it instead.
5: The two doom Blade copies resolve individually, killing the golem tokens.
6: The original Doom Blade destroys spellsplitter
Scenario 2:
1: Player B casts Doom Blade targeting Precursor Golem.
2: Precursor Golem's Ability Triggers.
3: In response to the trigger, Player A uses Spellsplitter's Ability, and causes doom Blade to target it instead. No other effects are placed on the stack, and no one does anything.
4: Precursor's triggered ability resolves. The two copies are made, and each targeting one token each. No one does anything.
5: The doom Blade copies resolve, the golems are dead.
6: The original copy kills Spellsplitter.
I'm 99.99% sure that this is how it'll play out. We'll need to see the trabslation to make 100% sure.
Misdirection and Reiterate is that they do not contain the word instead, which causes a replacement effect in which the original even would not take place.
I'm very well aware, but in this case, you have no time to do anything between casting the spell, and having the precursor golem's ability placed on the stack. So the word instead here, is irrelevant to that.
The Judge on this thread (JarethVarant) is 100% correct, any way you slice it.
the current translation for it is "Target spell or ability that targets only a single creature targets ~ instead." that means it must have a legal target spell or ability already on the stack to be changing the target of. that means that any effects like precursor that are triggered when targeted would already have been triggered and added to the stack. when you activate spellsplitter, you can't say "and that then removes the precursor copies from the stack" the game doesn't work like that e_e
This does make a lot of sense, to a degree. The only confusing part is that, based on what we've seen from spellsplitter (and where the language barrier comes into effect) is HOW it can create a continuous replacement effect, based on it's ability's speculative rules text. I'm getting the impression from the card, that it works much of the same way as Misdirection or Reiterate, and doesn't really create a continuous effect. I guess we'll find out more in the coming weeks.
Yeah, my point is while there's a convoluted way to make this type of ability a replacement effect (Which would have to be used before the spell to changed is cast) but it's not a good solution and not going to be the actual version.
Misdirection and Reiterate is that they do not contain the word instead, which causes a replacement effect in which the original even would not take place.
You're reading the word "instead" as a very key word from the rules text, similar to "target". However the word instead is only there because of the translation from Japanese. The final card will most likely be worded like Muck Drubb, without "instead".
Looking over the Japanese card and comparing it to the Japanese version of Muck Drubb, it looks like the English wording will be:
"Change one target of target spell or ability to Spellspitter." It certainly doesn't have the instead, which I believe is always clearly spelled as 代わりに.
(Note that it also doesn't have the "single target" restriction.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As for Spellsplitter, it reads that it would switch the target to itself, thus being something like a Flagbeaarer type thing, but only if you pay the {PU}. Switching any legal single target to itself.
My question is how will it work alongside Precursor Golem. but until we have english forms of cards. then we're just guessing.
The Merciless Lord of Torture, Permanently Bound To: ">[THE PACK] 11/5/63 - 11/25/09 Goodbye mom, i'll always love you...
Tibalt & His Devils vs. Avacyn's Inquisitors
My EDH decklists
Level 2 Judge since 12/01/2012
-On Liliana of the Veil
Thus my original question stands relevant, and until we can answer that we can only speculate with no definitive answers.
I am arguing with my roommate about it. He is a kind of a rules guru and he is arguing that even if it says instead, the other golems will still get blasted after the initial target.
he seems to be confusing a replacement with a redirection. So if anyone cares to elaborate how the Instead would stop all the golems from being targeted by the initial spell I would greatly appreciate it.
UB - Tezzerator 2.0 - UB
8-3-0
(Decklist and blog updated 4/11/2011)
"Fun fact about me: I home brew my buddies meta deck. He went from having a much lower ranking then me to a significantly higher rating since I started doing this."
The part where you state that the "original targeting effect never occurs" is completely false. As soon as the spell is cast, it must have a legal target, and if Precursor Golem is that target, it immediately puts a trigger on the stack that copies the spell for each golem token. Now, even if you respond to the trigger (before the copies are put onto the stack) and use Spellsplitter's ability to redirect the spell, when that resolves, the original copy of the spell will target the spellsplitter. Then, the copies will still be put onto the stack targeting the golem tokens.
That being said, there is no static ability/replacement effect that would cause the Precursor Golem's triggered ability not to happen, since the copies are being placed on the stack immediately after the spell is cast, and the Precursor Golem is declared as a legal target. The only window of opportunity to do anything is with a triggered ability-countering effect (or any replacement effect, such as a Flagbearer) when the trigger is being placed on the stack.
So, there's no way around it, unless you activate Spellsplitter's ability X times, where X is the number of Golems on the battlefield, to redirect each copy of the spell, there's nothing you can do about the golem tokens being on the receiving end of whatever the original spell was that targeted the Precursor Golem. The only possible way to prevent any of this is to Stifle/Trickbind/Voidslime the Precursor Golem's triggered ability. aside from that, no matter what, the copies will be put onto the stack, and will be forced to target the golem tokens.
It will clearly be an ability like the triggered ability of Muck Drubb.
[Edit:]
When he talks about a "replacement effect" it's technically possible. It could set up a continuous replacement effect that would force the next spell with a single target to target spellsplitter, similar to the static ability of flagbearers. If this was the case the precursor golem would in fact never get targeted thus never trigger.
However, it would be terrible to do it that way as it would make the ability useless in realistic situations. Thus the ability will target spells/abilities on the stack which, as you said, have long since triggered the golem.
My Altered Art Gallery
Sorry about the double-post, and the bad news, but your roomate is correct. You're activating an ability that changes the target of a spell, and as a result, the spell had an original target and the triggered ability on the original target has already been triggered the moment you cast the spell. Even is you use spellsplitter's ability to change the target to itself, the golem's ability still triggered, and even if you use the Spellsplitter's ability while the Golem's copy ability on the stack, it still won't stop it from happening.
But the key word here is instead which takes the ability into a replacement effect which could change what happens entirely from my understanding.
1. We can't go back in time and change something. Given that, is going back in time something that is only considered when something has resolved? If not, how does it effect the stack when the initial event is replaced.
2. Is the word instead placed wrong? Would it even matter? Sounds like where it is located in the sentence is rather important.
3. Are you confusing a Replacement rule and what it does with a Redirect rule?
I can see where he is right because it was my initial thought until I started going through 614.
UB - Tezzerator 2.0 - UB
8-3-0
(Decklist and blog updated 4/11/2011)
"Fun fact about me: I home brew my buddies meta deck. He went from having a much lower ranking then me to a significantly higher rating since I started doing this."
This does make a lot of sense, to a degree. The only confusing part is that, based on what we've seen from spellsplitter (and where the language barrier comes into effect) is HOW it can create a continuous replacement effect, based on it's ability's speculative rules text. I'm getting the impression from the card, that it works much of the same way as Misdirection or Reiterate, and doesn't really create a continuous effect. I guess we'll find out more in the coming weeks.
The problem with
Misdirection and Reiterate is that they do not contain the word instead, which causes a replacement effect in which the original even would not take place.
UB - Tezzerator 2.0 - UB
8-3-0
(Decklist and blog updated 4/11/2011)
"Fun fact about me: I home brew my buddies meta deck. He went from having a much lower ranking then me to a significantly higher rating since I started doing this."
In any case, even if it says the word instead, the trigger has already been placed on the stack, and when the trigger resolves, it won't need to check and see if precursor golem is still the target, I don't think. This is the order of how it will happen, based on what we've seen:
Player A: controls Spellsplitter and Precursor Golem with 2 tokens.
Player B: casts Doom Blade
Scenario 1:
1: Player B casts Doom Blade targeting Precursor Golem.
2: Precursor Golem's Ability Triggers.
3: Two copies of Doom Blade are placed on the stack, each one targeting a golem token.
4: Player A uses Spellsplitter's ability, and causes the original Doom Blade to target it instead.
5: The two doom Blade copies resolve individually, killing the golem tokens.
6: The original Doom Blade destroys spellsplitter
Scenario 2:
1: Player B casts Doom Blade targeting Precursor Golem.
2: Precursor Golem's Ability Triggers.
3: In response to the trigger, Player A uses Spellsplitter's Ability, and causes doom Blade to target it instead. No other effects are placed on the stack, and no one does anything.
4: Precursor's triggered ability resolves. The two copies are made, and each targeting one token each. No one does anything.
5: The doom Blade copies resolve, the golems are dead.
6: The original copy kills Spellsplitter.
I'm 99.99% sure that this is how it'll play out. We'll need to see the trabslation to make 100% sure.
I'm very well aware, but in this case, you have no time to do anything between casting the spell, and having the precursor golem's ability placed on the stack. So the word instead here, is irrelevant to that.
The Judge on this thread (JarethVarant) is 100% correct, any way you slice it.
Yeah, my point is while there's a convoluted way to make this type of ability a replacement effect (Which would have to be used before the spell to changed is cast) but it's not a good solution and not going to be the actual version.
You're reading the word "instead" as a very key word from the rules text, similar to "target". However the word instead is only there because of the translation from Japanese. The final card will most likely be worded like Muck Drubb, without "instead".
My Altered Art Gallery
"Change one target of target spell or ability to Spellspitter." It certainly doesn't have the instead, which I believe is always clearly spelled as 代わりに.
(Note that it also doesn't have the "single target" restriction.)