His ability says "Gain control of target creature with power less than or equal to the number of counters removed this way." But wouldn't a creature be an illegal target no matter what you did with his ability (unless you tried to take control of a 0 power creature) because when activating an ability, you choose the targets for it, THEN you pay the cost (which is removing the counters), then the ability resolves.
Since the targeting is conditional on something that occurs after the targeting, wouldn't any creature with power >0 be an illegal target for his ability? For the same reason you can't sacrifice a creature with Recurring Nightmare and return that same creature to the battlefield from your graveyard, you can't choose a creature with power >0 since no counters have been removed yet.
To me, the proper wording would have to be: "Gain control of target creature if its power is less than or equal to the number of counters removed this way."
Did wizards make a blunder or is there something going on here i have overlooked?
601.2b If the spell is modal the player announces the mode choice (see rule 700.2). If the player wishes to splice any cards onto the spell (see rule 702.45), he or she reveals those cards in his or her hand. If the spell has alternative or additional costs that will be paid as it's being cast such as buyback, kicker, or convoke costs (see rules 117.8 and 117.9), the player announces his or her intentions to pay any or all of those costs (see rule 601.2e). A player can't apply two alternative methods of casting or two alternative costs to a single spell. If the spell has a variable cost that will be paid as it's being cast (such as an {X} in its mana cost; see rule 107.3), the player announces the value of that variable. If a cost that will be paid as the spell is being cast includes hybrid mana symbols, the player announces the nonhybrid equivalent cost he or she intends to pay. If a cost that will be paid as the spell is being cast includes Phyrexian mana symbols, the player announces whether he or she intends to pay 2 life or the corresponding colored mana cost for each of those symbols. Previously made choices (such as choosing to cast a spell with flashback from a graveyard or choosing to cast a creature with morph face down) may restrict the player's options when making these choices.
601.2c The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires. A spell may require some targets only if an alternative or additional cost (such as a buyback or kicker cost), or a particular mode, was chosen for it; otherwise, the spell is cast as though it did not require those targets. If the spell has a variable number of targets, the player announces how many targets he or she will choose before he or she announces those targets. The same target can't be chosen multiple times for any one instance of the word "target" on the spell. However, if the spell uses the word "target" in multiple places, the same object, player, or zone can be chosen once for each instance of the word "target" (as long as it fits the targeting criteria). If any effects say that an object or player must be chosen as a target, the player chooses targets so that he or she obeys the maximum possible number of such effects without violating any rules or effects that say that an object or player can't be chosen as a target. The chosen players, objects, and/or zones each become a target of that spell. (Any abilities that trigger when those players, objects, and/or zones become the target of a spell trigger at this point; they'll wait to be put on the stack until the spell has finished being cast.)
Example: If a spell says "Tap two target creatures," then the same creature can't be chosen twice; the spell requires two different legal targets. A spell that says "Destroy target artifact and target land," however, can target the same artifact land twice because it uses the word "target" in multiple places.
You make the choice of how many counters you will remove before choosing the target. You don't actually remove them until after, but the rules do know how many you will be removing.
Did wizards make a blunder or is there something going on here i have overlooked?
Defining the cost (not paying it) is the second part of casting a spell. (Rule 601.2b), followed by the target selection (Rule 601.2c)
Once you decide the cost, it's "locked", and then you make the target selection.
If someone were to respond to this by pumping the creature you target (or their board in general), the ability would be countered due to no legal targets right?
If someone were to respond to this by pumping the creature you target (or their board in general), the ability would be countered due to no legal targets right?
Just to clarify for myself, the copied ability can only target creatures with power 5 or less in this example. I could not hypothetically steal a creature with power/toughness greater than 5.
Everyone is over-thinking things with the card. First the card says "Remove one or more +1/+1 counters from Simic Manipulator." Since there is a period, that effect happens and you then gain control of a creature with power less than or equal to the number of counters you have just removed. You remove the counters FIRST.
In response to Lois96: No-one specified a specific power in the first place. The creature could be of any power so long as you had enough +1/+1 counters to work with and it was not hexproof or in some other way unable to be targeted.
OP: This is different from Recurring Nightmare, because in that situation the creature sacraficed has not yet technically entered the graveyard and is therefor not an eligible target.
His ability says "Gain control of target creature with power less than or equal to the number of counters removed this way." But wouldn't a creature be an illegal target no matter what you did with his ability (unless you tried to take control of a 0 power creature) because when activating an ability, you choose the targets for it, THEN you pay the cost (which is removing the counters), then the ability resolves.
Since the targeting is conditional on something that occurs after the targeting, wouldn't any creature with power >0 be an illegal target for his ability? For the same reason you can't sacrifice a creature with Recurring Nightmare and return that same creature to the battlefield from your graveyard, you can't choose a creature with power >0 since no counters have been removed yet.
To me, the proper wording would have to be: "Gain control of target creature if its power is less than or equal to the number of counters removed this way."
Did wizards make a blunder or is there something going on here i have overlooked?
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
You make the choice of how many counters you will remove before choosing the target. You don't actually remove them until after, but the rules do know how many you will be removing.
Defining the cost (not paying it) is the second part of casting a spell. (Rule 601.2b), followed by the target selection (Rule 601.2c)
Once you decide the cost, it's "locked", and then you make the target selection.
EDIT: Ninja'd
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
That is correct.
There's no reason why that shouldn't work. Was there something more specific that made you unsure about it?
I'm Mike, from The Mana Pool.
Check out my Tapped Out profile and comment on my decks!
In response to Lois96: No-one specified a specific power in the first place. The creature could be of any power so long as you had enough +1/+1 counters to work with and it was not hexproof or in some other way unable to be targeted.
OP: This is different from Recurring Nightmare, because in that situation the creature sacraficed has not yet technically entered the graveyard and is therefor not an eligible target.