Plow Under Question

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

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

Here's the situation:
I'm playing a Green/Black deck in a tournament against a Ravager Affinity
deck. Because it's game 1, I haven't sideboarded out my Plow Unders yet. So,
instead of letting them go to waste, I figure I'll try to cast it. So, I
cast Plow Under, targetting his Seat of the Synod and his Great Furnace. He
responds by sacrificing both lands to his Atog (just as I expected him to
do). However, after the game, I informed him that he didn't have to
sacrifice both of them; he only had to sacrifice one. If one was gone, Plow
Under would fail to resolve. He told me that I was wrong, and he did indeed
have to sacrifice both of them to prevent Plow Under from resolving.

So, who's right here? I was under the impression that Plow Under absolutely
needed two targets to still be valid when it resolves for it to actually
resolve. My opponent claimed that his view of Plow Under worked exactly the
same for Rack and Ruin, which I also debated.

Thanks.

<oracle text>

Plow Under
3GG
Sorcery
Put two target lands on top of their owner's library.


Rack and Ruin
2R
Instant
Destroy two target artifacts.

--

KB

Briscobar AT gmail DOT com
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

"Ken Briscoe" <youcant@sendmespam.com> writes:
> Here's the situation:
> I'm playing a Green/Black deck in a tournament against a Ravager Affinity
> deck. Because it's game 1, I haven't sideboarded out my Plow Unders yet. So,
> instead of letting them go to waste, I figure I'll try to cast it. So, I
> cast Plow Under, targetting his Seat of the Synod and his Great Furnace. He
> responds by sacrificing both lands to his Atog (just as I expected him to
> do). However, after the game, I informed him that he didn't have to
> sacrifice both of them; he only had to sacrifice one. If one was gone, Plow
> Under would fail to resolve. He told me that I was wrong, and he did indeed
> have to sacrifice both of them to prevent Plow Under from resolving.
>
> So, who's right here?

Your opponent is right here. If a spell or ability has targets, and
*all* of them are illegal when it tries to resolve, then the spell or
ability gets countered. Otherwise, the spell or ability does as much
as it can, but it can't affect any illegal targets.

I suspect that your misconception from a more common scenario with
something like "Zap deals 1 damage to target creature or player. Draw
a card.". This has only *one* target, and so if it becomes illegal,
then *all* of its targets are illegal, and thus the whole spell is
countered. But the reasoning is that *all* targets must become illegal
to counter a spell, not *any*.

--
Peter C.
"The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't."
-- Douglas Adams
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Ken Briscoe <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote:

> So, who's right here? I was under the impression that Plow Under absolutely
> needed two targets to still be valid when it resolves for it to actually
> resolve. My opponent claimed that his view of Plow Under worked exactly the
> same for Rack and Ruin, which I also debated.

Your opponent is right. The spell is countered only if ALL targets
become illegal.

413.2. Resolution of a spell or ability may involve several steps. These
steps are followed in the order listed below.

413.2a If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the
targets are still legal. A target that's removed from play, or from the
zone designated by the spell or ability, is illegal. A target may also
become illegal if its characteristics changed since the spell or ability
was played or if an effect changed the text of the spell. If ALL targets
are now illegal, the spell or ability is countered. If the spell or
ability is not countered, it will resolve normally, affecting only the
targets that are still legal. If a target is illegal, the spell or
ability can't perform any actions on it or make the target perform any
actions. If the spell or ability needs to know information about one or
more targets that are now illegal, it will use the illegal targets'
current or last known information.

[emphasis mine]
--
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?)

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Peter Cooper Jr. wrote:

> "Ken Briscoe" <youcant@sendmespam.com> writes:
>> Here's the situation:
>> I'm playing a Green/Black deck in a tournament against a Ravager Affinity
>> deck. Because it's game 1, I haven't sideboarded out my Plow Unders yet. So,
>> instead of letting them go to waste, I figure I'll try to cast it. So, I
>> cast Plow Under, targetting his Seat of the Synod and his Great Furnace. He
>> responds by sacrificing both lands to his Atog (just as I expected him to
>> do). However, after the game, I informed him that he didn't have to
>> sacrifice both of them; he only had to sacrifice one. If one was gone, Plow
>> Under would fail to resolve. He told me that I was wrong, and he did indeed
>> have to sacrifice both of them to prevent Plow Under from resolving.
>>
>> So, who's right here?
>
> Your opponent is right here. If a spell or ability has targets, and
> *all* of them are illegal when it tries to resolve, then the spell or
> ability gets countered. Otherwise, the spell or ability does as much
> as it can, but it can't affect any illegal targets.
>
> I suspect that your misconception from a more common scenario with
> something like "Zap deals 1 damage to target creature or player. Draw
> a card.". This has only *one* target, and so if it becomes illegal,
> then *all* of its targets are illegal, and thus the whole spell is
> countered. But the reasoning is that *all* targets must become illegal
> to counter a spell, not *any*.

Note that Plow Under must have 2 (different) legal targets at the
moment you play the spell. But as soon as PU is on the stack
it only needs one legal target to resolve. Same thing with Rack and
Ruin.

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

In news😛ine.GSO.4.61.0411292024060.13091@blade016.cs.vu.nl,
David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> rambled:
>
> Note that Plow Under must have 2 (different) legal targets at the
> moment you play the spell. But as soon as PU is on the stack
> it only needs one legal target to resolve. Same thing with Rack and
> Ruin.

Oh yes, I am aware that Plow Under (and Rack and Ruin) needs 2 different
legal targets upon announcement of the spell. However, I was confused by the
rule (maybe not a "rule", but rather something I read somewhere [where that
is, I forget]) that mentions how many times the word "target" is used on a
card. For example, some cards with two targets use the word "target" twice,
whereas Plow Under uses the word "target" once.

Anyone know what I'm referring to here? Is it in the Comp. Rules, did I
infer it from something, or am I just losing my mind?

--

KB

Briscobar AT gmail DOT com
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Ken Briscoe <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote:

> Oh yes, I am aware that Plow Under (and Rack and Ruin) needs 2 different
> legal targets upon announcement of the spell. However, I was confused by the
> rule (maybe not a "rule", but rather something I read somewhere [where that
> is, I forget]) that mentions how many times the word "target" is used on a
> card. For example, some cards with two targets use the word "target" twice,
> whereas Plow Under uses the word "target" once.
>
> Anyone know what I'm referring to here? Is it in the Comp. Rules, did I
> infer it from something, or am I just losing my mind?

That rule has no relevance to resolution if one of the two targets
happens to go away before then. It just insists that Plow Under
actually have two different targets.

409.1c If the spell or ability requires any targets, the player first
announces how many targets he or she will choose (if the spell or
ability has a variable number of targets), then announces the targets
themselves. A spell or ability can't be played unless the required
number of legal targets are chosen. The same target can't be chosen
multiple times for any one instance of the word "target" on the spell or
ability. If the spell or ability uses the word "target" in multiple
places, the same object or player can be chosen once for each instance
of the word "target" (as long as it fits the targeting criteria).

Example: If an ability reads "Tap two target creatures," then the same
target can't be chosen twice; the ability requires two different legal
targets. An ability that reads "Destroy target artifact and target
land," however, can target the same artifact land twice because it uses
the word "target" in multiple places.
--
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?)

Oh no! It's Ken Briscoe!
> So, who's right here? I was under the impression that Plow Under absolutely
> needed two targets to still be valid when it resolves for it to actually
> resolve. My opponent claimed that his view of Plow Under worked exactly the
> same for Rack and Ruin, which I also debated.

In order for a spell to be countered on resolution, ALL of its targets
need to be invalid when it resolves (see numerous other threads here,
most recently "Countered on resolution" from the 24th). Otherwise it
still does as much of its effect as possible. This is the same for Plow
Under, Rack and Ruin or any other spell with multiple targets.

(I'm not sure I follow your last sentence; did you, or did you not,
think Rack and Ruin worked differently than Plow Under in this respect?
If you did, just so that I understand better, what made you think that?)

As far as I'm aware this is one rule that has never changed, except
cosmetically (I.E. some of the terminology used to describe it is
different than it used to be); it was true at least as far back as
Fourth Edition.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Oh no! It's Ken Briscoe!
> In news😛ine.GSO.4.61.0411292024060.13091@blade016.cs.vu.nl,
> David de Kloet <dskloet@few.vu.nl> rambled:
> >
> > Note that Plow Under must have 2 (different) legal targets at the
> > moment you play the spell. But as soon as PU is on the stack
> > it only needs one legal target to resolve. Same thing with Rack and
> > Ruin.
>
> Oh yes, I am aware that Plow Under (and Rack and Ruin) needs 2 different
> legal targets upon announcement of the spell. However, I was confused by the
> rule (maybe not a "rule", but rather something I read somewhere [where that
> is, I forget]) that mentions how many times the word "target" is used on a
> card. For example, some cards with two targets use the word "target" twice,
> whereas Plow Under uses the word "target" once.
>
> Anyone know what I'm referring to here? Is it in the Comp. Rules, did I
> infer it from something, or am I just losing my mind?

It's the new targeting rule they introduced in Champions of Kamigawa.
Basically it says if a card mentions the word target more than once, it
can target the same thing multiple times, once for each instance of the
word "target". (Decimate is one of the best examples of a card that
works differently as a result of this - before it had to target four
distinct permanents, now it can use a Copy Artifact copying Mishra's
Factory and currently animated by its own ability as all four targets if
necessary.) It does not affect the rules for countering things on
resolution in the slightest, except insofar as it makes it somewhat
easier for it to happen to certain spells in some situations.

Decimate (Odyssey rare)
2RG
Sorcery
Destroy target artifact, target creature, target enchantment, and target
land.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (More info?)

Ken Briscoe <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote:
> I'm playing a Green/Black deck in a tournament against a Ravager Affinity
>deck. Because it's game 1, I haven't sideboarded out my Plow Unders yet. So,
>instead of letting them go to waste, I figure I'll try to cast it. So, I
>cast Plow Under, targetting his Seat of the Synod and his Great Furnace. He
>responds by sacrificing both lands to his Atog (just as I expected him to
>do). However, after the game, I informed him that he didn't have to
>sacrifice both of them; he only had to sacrifice one. If one was gone, Plow
>Under would fail to resolve. He told me that I was wrong, and he did indeed
>have to sacrifice both of them to prevent Plow Under from resolving.

>So, who's right here? I was under the impression that Plow Under absolutely
>needed two targets to still be valid when it resolves for it to actually
>resolve. My opponent claimed that his view of Plow Under worked exactly the
>same for Rack and Ruin, which I also debated.

He's correct.

Plow Under 3GG Sorcery
Put two target lands on top of their owner's library.

This is a targetted spell. It must have all its targets legal on announcement,
or it can't be played to start with. If -all- its targets have become illegal
by resolution, it gets countered. If any of its targets are legal on
resolution, it is not countered; it resolves, but does not affect any of its
targets that are now illegal.

So yes, to counter the Plow Under he did have to make both lands into illegal
targets.

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?)

Ken Briscoe <youcant@sendmespam.com> wrote:
>Oh yes, I am aware that Plow Under (and Rack and Ruin) needs 2 different
>legal targets upon announcement of the spell. However, I was confused by the
>rule (maybe not a "rule", but rather something I read somewhere [where that
>is, I forget]) that mentions how many times the word "target" is used on a
>card. For example, some cards with two targets use the word "target" twice,
>whereas Plow Under uses the word "target" once.
>
>Anyone know what I'm referring to here? Is it in the Comp. Rules, did I
>infer it from something, or am I just losing my mind?

This is a new rule, from the time of Champions, about -different- targets.
It used to be that all targets of a spell or ability had to be different.
Now, because Splice wouldn't 'work right' that way, they've changed that to
note that each mention of 'target' in the text that has more than one target
on that mention must have all different targets... but that different
occurrences of 'target' in the text can target the same thing without
difficulty. So Plow Under ("two target lands") or Rack and Ruin ("two target
artifacts") have to pick two separate targets, but Decimate ("target artifact,
target creature, target enchantment, and target land") can choose all four
targets to be the same Copy Artifact of an Assembly Worker that has used its
ability and animated itself so that it is an artifact enchantment creature
land.

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 news:310rqrF30movgU1@uni-berlin.de,
Ken Briscoe <youcant@sendmespam.com> rambled:
<snip Plow Under situation>

Thanks to all. Don't know what confused me there, but I think I got it now.

--

KB

Briscobar AT gmail DOT com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom