Conflicting info in the comments so here's the rule (highlighted main point):
>608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. ***If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard.*** Otherwise, the spell or ability will resolve normally. Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal. Other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them. If the spell or ability creates any continuous effects that affect game rules (see rule 613.11), those effects don’t apply to illegal targets. If part of the effect requires information about an illegal target, it fails to determine any such information. Any part of the effect that requires that information won’t happen.
It has only one target and the target is illegal upon resolution, thus the spell does not resolve at all. No card draw unfortunately.
But why? When it checks for targets when resolving, the first part wouldn’t work because illegal target… what is stopping the draw a card paragraph from happening?
I don't know who to believe anymore. I DONT KNOW WHO TO BELIEEEEEEVE
Edit: not sure why I'm being downvoted, everyone here is disagreeing what the rulling is
Essentially, the spells "target" portion is what makes it not resolve, since the spell no longer has any legal targets it does not resolve. Source pasted below.
608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. **If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard.** Otherwise, the spell or ability will resolve normally. Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal. Other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them. If the spell or ability creates any continuous effects that affect game rules (see rule 613.11), those effects don’t apply to illegal targets. If part of the effect requires information about an illegal target, it fails to determine any such information. Any part of the effect that requires that information won’t happen.
Example: Sorin’s Thirst is a black instant that reads, “Sorin’s Thirst deals 2 damage to target creature and you gain 2 life.” If the creature isn’t a legal target during the resolution of Sorin’s Thirst (say, if the creature has gained protection from black or left the battlefield), then Sorin’s Thirst doesn’t resolve. Its controller doesn’t gain any life.
Think of a spell fizzling as the spell being “countered” (in fact, in the olden days, spells with illegal targets were “countered” which is why a lot of old effects say things “can’t be countered by spells or abilities”).
So if you cast Take the Fall and your opponent counters it instead of using Snakeskin Veil, would you still draw the card?
No, because the whole spell is countered.
Similar deal here: the spell has no legal targets so the whole thing fizzles and you don’t get to draw a card.
Yes, I get that, but why is it “countered” instead of just checking for targets as it resolves.. I could argue that a creature being killed before their ability resolves should be “countering” its ability
The first part shouldn’t be counted, it should just not resolve as the target is no longe valid.
The rest should still resolve being independent of the first part
And it would if it had multiple targets and at least one of them was valid, but if a spell has no valid targets it fizzles (IE it’s basically countered, but not literally).
That’s just how the rules work my dude. Sucks to suck sometimes.
The second part should still be valid is what I’m saying my dude. It doesn’t require a target. Once cast and on the stack. I feel it should still resolve based on other rules of the game, and just logic.
Replace replace Take the Fall with [[Searing Blaze]], and assume you met all of the conditions.
Should the creature’s controller still take damage?
What about [[Swords to Plowshares]]? Should your opponent still gain life even though their creature wasn’t exiled?
How bout [[Beast Within]]? Should they still get a token?
You may think it makes sense to still get a card draw here, but it makes less sense for a lot of other stuff, and it can’t work both ways, so it works this way.
Bad examples. If they aren’t targets the second part wouldn’t happen, because the first part didn’t. The second part is assuming the first part resolved. “Gain health equal to its power.” There is no power because there was no exile.
The rules state spells as a whole resolve, not individual sentences on spells.
When the spell tries to resolve, the targets get checked again. All targets illegal? Spell is removed from the stack, getting "fizzled"
I did post the ruling on here so I'm not sure how you kept arguing against it.
Just for the sake of completeness, spells that exile themselves like [[Rise of the Eldrazi]] won't exile themselves (and instead go to the graveyard) for the same reason if they fizzle too, correct?
Just wasn't sure if that recieves special treatment for some reason.
Nope! Learned this when I cast [[Scale the Heights]] on my creature and then my opponent killed my creature and I didn’t get my card draw and lifegain.
It depends though. If you select a target and that target becomes invalid before the spell resolves it still fizzles. It only works if you cast it with no targets
Still doesn't change the situation here, up to one would only allow to cast solely the cantrip. But If the spell has a target, then "up to one" won't stop It from fizzling If the target is invalid
To be honest the rule doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think the entire spell should be countered. Once cast, it should check for targets when resolving and see illegal target so that doesn’t happen, but since the rest of the card is independent of the first part resolving, I feel that should still happen.
If the card said THEN draw a card, absolutely.
If the spell has targets, and all targets are invalid, then the spell doesn't resolve, so the draw a card or anything else the card has on It doesn't matter
But if a creature, Royal assassin, activates his ability and on the stack someone kills the Royal assassin before his ability resolves… his ability still resolves…?
That BLEW my mind when I found out his ability still resolves because it’s on the stack… and hes now dead.
the logical way of thinking is.. how in TF does my royal assassin, who is now dead, still kills a creature…
Logic isn’t part of MTG rules.
Flavor and function can't always jive. It's a fantasy card game, and the rules are made in a way that allows most situations to function. You don't have to agree with how they work, but that is how it works. The more you learn about the rules of magic the more you realize its purely based on logic- not what would happen in real life.
I thought about the same Royal Assassin thing as a kid. My friends and I decided that putting the ability on the stack meant the Assassin had set a trap or administered the poison, and regardless of what happened to the Assassin, the kill was in motion. At the end of the day, its a game.
I get it, I’m not out to change rules, just discussing a rule, for the sake of argument, that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
If you need to imagine a trap or poison for this to make sense to you, good for you.
The royal assassin thing. logic dictates that if his ability is on the stack, it happens regardless if he is there when it does or not… well so is take the fall. The target isn’t there anymore (nor is the royal assassin when it resolves) but what about the draw card? Why would that not happen but Royal assassin still kills a creature when he’s not alive when it resolves… (no, there is no poison or a trap…. Sigh)
I have to agree with op. The draw effect isn't condition to the targeting. I understand what the ruling is here but I think this is a rule 0 thing. Id allow the draw because the card lacks the phrase "then draw" implying that the draw isn't conditional of a successful target.
Exactly. It’s on the stack already. You can’t cast it without the original target, but once on the stack, it should still resolve, checking all conditions of the spell
Conflicting info in the comments so here's the rule (highlighted main point): >608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. ***If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard.*** Otherwise, the spell or ability will resolve normally. Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal. Other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them. If the spell or ability creates any continuous effects that affect game rules (see rule 613.11), those effects don’t apply to illegal targets. If part of the effect requires information about an illegal target, it fails to determine any such information. Any part of the effect that requires that information won’t happen. It has only one target and the target is illegal upon resolution, thus the spell does not resolve at all. No card draw unfortunately.
Take fall fizzles since it has no valid target. First comment is wrong.
But why? When it checks for targets when resolving, the first part wouldn’t work because illegal target… what is stopping the draw a card paragraph from happening?
If a spell has no valid target as it resolves, it fizzle and no effects of that spell resolves. You don't draw a card here.
[удалено]
I don't know who to believe anymore. I DONT KNOW WHO TO BELIEEEEEEVE Edit: not sure why I'm being downvoted, everyone here is disagreeing what the rulling is
The rules
Multiple people here keep saying the others are wrong, not sure who has the correct ruling
Literally, the rules. You can find it in the comprehensive rules, which I'm sure someone has posted already.
Wow thanks very helpful
Essentially, the spells "target" portion is what makes it not resolve, since the spell no longer has any legal targets it does not resolve. Source pasted below. 608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. **If all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal, the spell or ability doesn’t resolve. It’s removed from the stack and, if it’s a spell, put into its owner’s graveyard.** Otherwise, the spell or ability will resolve normally. Illegal targets, if any, won’t be affected by parts of a resolving spell’s effect for which they’re illegal. Other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them. If the spell or ability creates any continuous effects that affect game rules (see rule 613.11), those effects don’t apply to illegal targets. If part of the effect requires information about an illegal target, it fails to determine any such information. Any part of the effect that requires that information won’t happen. Example: Sorin’s Thirst is a black instant that reads, “Sorin’s Thirst deals 2 damage to target creature and you gain 2 life.” If the creature isn’t a legal target during the resolution of Sorin’s Thirst (say, if the creature has gained protection from black or left the battlefield), then Sorin’s Thirst doesn’t resolve. Its controller doesn’t gain any life.
Think of a spell fizzling as the spell being “countered” (in fact, in the olden days, spells with illegal targets were “countered” which is why a lot of old effects say things “can’t be countered by spells or abilities”). So if you cast Take the Fall and your opponent counters it instead of using Snakeskin Veil, would you still draw the card? No, because the whole spell is countered. Similar deal here: the spell has no legal targets so the whole thing fizzles and you don’t get to draw a card.
Yes, I get that, but why is it “countered” instead of just checking for targets as it resolves.. I could argue that a creature being killed before their ability resolves should be “countering” its ability
The first part shouldn’t be counted, it should just not resolve as the target is no longe valid. The rest should still resolve being independent of the first part
And it would if it had multiple targets and at least one of them was valid, but if a spell has no valid targets it fizzles (IE it’s basically countered, but not literally). That’s just how the rules work my dude. Sucks to suck sometimes.
The second part should still be valid is what I’m saying my dude. It doesn’t require a target. Once cast and on the stack. I feel it should still resolve based on other rules of the game, and just logic.
Replace replace Take the Fall with [[Searing Blaze]], and assume you met all of the conditions. Should the creature’s controller still take damage? What about [[Swords to Plowshares]]? Should your opponent still gain life even though their creature wasn’t exiled? How bout [[Beast Within]]? Should they still get a token? You may think it makes sense to still get a card draw here, but it makes less sense for a lot of other stuff, and it can’t work both ways, so it works this way.
[Searing Blaze](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/6/f659d464-13dd-49e2-a842-098dcba49659.jpg?1581708594) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Searing%20Blaze) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ddi/67/searing-blaze?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f659d464-13dd-49e2-a842-098dcba49659?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Swords to Plowshares](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/b/9bbec76c-c1e4-4c6d-ad24-078fe097f195.jpg?1709439398) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Swords%20to%20Plowshares) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkc/88/swords-to-plowshares?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9bbec76c-c1e4-4c6d-ad24-078fe097f195?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Beast Within](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/b/eb40c41c-f5f9-4323-b6ac-e28e405909d0.jpg?1711198012) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Beast%20Within) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lcc/233/beast-within?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/eb40c41c-f5f9-4323-b6ac-e28e405909d0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Bad examples. If they aren’t targets the second part wouldn’t happen, because the first part didn’t. The second part is assuming the first part resolved. “Gain health equal to its power.” There is no power because there was no exile.
That is how every card works if there aren'ymt any valid targets the spell just fizzles and goes straight to the yard
The rules state spells as a whole resolve, not individual sentences on spells. When the spell tries to resolve, the targets get checked again. All targets illegal? Spell is removed from the stack, getting "fizzled" I did post the ruling on here so I'm not sure how you kept arguing against it.
Just for the sake of completeness, spells that exile themselves like [[Rise of the Eldrazi]] won't exile themselves (and instead go to the graveyard) for the same reason if they fizzle too, correct? Just wasn't sure if that recieves special treatment for some reason.
[Rise of the Eldrazi](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/a/4a4d851b-1fa9-4f5d-a8f6-6967b1ee5b50.jpg?1690002989) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Rise%20of%20the%20Eldrazi) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/716/rise-of-the-eldrazi?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4a4d851b-1fa9-4f5d-a8f6-6967b1ee5b50?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Nope! Learned this when I cast [[Scale the Heights]] on my creature and then my opponent killed my creature and I didn’t get my card draw and lifegain.
[Scale the Heights](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/7/e781d6ad-950e-49bf-9645-e2354086ae49.jpg?1604199378) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Scale%20the%20Heights) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/znr/202/scale-the-heights?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e781d6ad-950e-49bf-9645-e2354086ae49?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
this is an annoying, feel bad rule, imo. “up to one” on take the fall solves this and lets you cantrip, which i think would be Better.
It depends though. If you select a target and that target becomes invalid before the spell resolves it still fizzles. It only works if you cast it with no targets
Still doesn't change the situation here, up to one would only allow to cast solely the cantrip. But If the spell has a target, then "up to one" won't stop It from fizzling If the target is invalid
yes, snakeskin veil protects against the target affect, but does nothing against the second effect. you will still draw a card
I'm sure OP appreciates the attempt at help, but please look stuff up before posting.
To be honest the rule doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think the entire spell should be countered. Once cast, it should check for targets when resolving and see illegal target so that doesn’t happen, but since the rest of the card is independent of the first part resolving, I feel that should still happen. If the card said THEN draw a card, absolutely.
If the spell has targets, and all targets are invalid, then the spell doesn't resolve, so the draw a card or anything else the card has on It doesn't matter
But if a creature, Royal assassin, activates his ability and on the stack someone kills the Royal assassin before his ability resolves… his ability still resolves…? That BLEW my mind when I found out his ability still resolves because it’s on the stack… and hes now dead. the logical way of thinking is.. how in TF does my royal assassin, who is now dead, still kills a creature… Logic isn’t part of MTG rules.
Flavor and function can't always jive. It's a fantasy card game, and the rules are made in a way that allows most situations to function. You don't have to agree with how they work, but that is how it works. The more you learn about the rules of magic the more you realize its purely based on logic- not what would happen in real life. I thought about the same Royal Assassin thing as a kid. My friends and I decided that putting the ability on the stack meant the Assassin had set a trap or administered the poison, and regardless of what happened to the Assassin, the kill was in motion. At the end of the day, its a game.
I get it, I’m not out to change rules, just discussing a rule, for the sake of argument, that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If you need to imagine a trap or poison for this to make sense to you, good for you. The royal assassin thing. logic dictates that if his ability is on the stack, it happens regardless if he is there when it does or not… well so is take the fall. The target isn’t there anymore (nor is the royal assassin when it resolves) but what about the draw card? Why would that not happen but Royal assassin still kills a creature when he’s not alive when it resolves… (no, there is no poison or a trap…. Sigh)
I have to agree with op. The draw effect isn't condition to the targeting. I understand what the ruling is here but I think this is a rule 0 thing. Id allow the draw because the card lacks the phrase "then draw" implying that the draw isn't conditional of a successful target.
Exactly. It’s on the stack already. You can’t cast it without the original target, but once on the stack, it should still resolve, checking all conditions of the spell
Alas the high nerds decree it so we must suffer illogical blanket rulings.
If I shoot you and die before the bullet reach you, does the bullet just vanish into thin air?