Premature Counter

[Jenni]

So, the situation is this:
I announce I'l be playing a Green Sun's Zenith, and put the card on the table.
Before I get a chance to say what X is, my opponent says "Counter it" and puts a counterspell on the table, tapping 2 mana.

Is this reversed to before she cast the counter (since she didn't have priority), and is she held to this descision at all? Am I required to play the Zenith still, since now that I know she's going to counter it, playing it may be a poor choice? If she is bound to the counterspell because she announced it (even if prematurely) can I just say X is Zero, since she's volunteered extra information about the spell?

Just something that came up earlier and I haven't been able to find anything specific to this situation looking over the comprehensive rules.

[cdr]

You'd want to look at the Tournament Rules, not the Comp Rules - specifically the Shortcuts section. This is assuming Competitive REL and not Regular.

Technically, as you say, the counterspell declaration is illegal - your opponent does not have priority and you could force them to back it up.

However, it could also be taken as a declaration of a shortcut - "I'm countering it no matter what you pay for X". You would be within reason to accept it, pay 0 for Zenith, and see if that's OK with your opponent. If it's not, be prepared for a messy judge call.

The Zenith was legally announced, nothing is going to let you undo that.

[Jenni]

You'd want to look at the Tournament Rules, not the Comp Rules - specifically the Shortcuts section. This is assuming Competitive REL and not Regular.

Technically, as you say, the counterspell declaration is illegal - your opponent does not have priority and you could force them to back it up.

However, it could also be taken as a declaration of a shortcut - "I'm countering it no matter what you pay for X". You would be within reason to accept it, pay 0 for Zenith, and see if that's OK with your opponent. If it's not, be prepared for a messy judge call.

The Zenith was legally announced, nothing is going to let you undo that.

Okay, thanks.

Just seemed like an exploitable situation, because by illegally announcing the counter, she could then refuse to accept the "I'm countering no matter what" position, taking it back, in which case now I have to cast the spell into a known counter (so, I either go for my original target and hope she reconsiders the counter, or go for x=1 or 0 and fetch a mana dork). Basically, by her refusing the shortcut, it puts me in the position of making her counterspell better, or making my zenith worse. Either way would be in her favour.

[Esper3k]

Okay, thanks.

Just seemed like an exploitable situation, because by illegally announcing the counter, she could then refuse to accept the "I'm countering no matter what" position, taking it back, in which case now I have to cast the spell into a known counter (so, I either go for my original target and hope she reconsiders the counter, or go for x=1 or 0 and fetch a mana dork). Basically, by her refusing the shortcut, it puts me in the position of making her counterspell better, or making my zenith worse. Either way would be in her favour.

Conversely though, your opponent has given away information that they're holding a counterspell and you can use that to -your- advantage (ie, if you have something better than the GSZ you want to protect, you bait them into using the counterspell on your GSZ).

[Kich867]

Okay, thanks.

Just seemed like an exploitable situation, because by illegally announcing the counter, she could then refuse to accept the "I'm countering no matter what" position, taking it back, in which case now I have to cast the spell into a known counter (so, I either go for my original target and hope she reconsiders the counter, or go for x=1 or 0 and fetch a mana dork). Basically, by her refusing the shortcut, it puts me in the position of making her counterspell better, or making my zenith worse. Either way would be in her favour.

It makes her counterspell significantly worse because you know about it. Otherwise it would be permanently beneficial to always announce that you are going to counter something and show the card which is very much not the case. If your spell is going to get countered, it's going to get countered.

Much like naming a card prior to a choice that occurs at resolution, you're stuck with that choice, I would assume that in tournament if someone announced they would counter a spell and tried to put it on the stack that a Judge would force that interaction to occur and you could simply GSZ for 0 and do something else that turn.

[cdr]

Okay, thanks.

Just seemed like an exploitable situation, because by illegally announcing the counter, she could then refuse to accept the "I'm countering no matter what" position, taking it back, in which case now I have to cast the spell into a known counter (so, I either go for my original target and hope she reconsiders the counter, or go for x=1 or 0 and fetch a mana dork). Basically, by her refusing the shortcut, it puts me in the position of making her counterspell better, or making my zenith worse. Either way would be in her favour.

I don't think it's very 'exploitable' - either you get to spend 0 with Zenith and have it countered (instead of more) or you get to choose X knowing your opponent has a counter.


Much like naming a card prior to a choice that occurs at resolution, you're stuck with that choice, I would assume that in tournament if someone announced they would counter a spell and tried to put it on the stack that a Judge would force that interaction to occur and you could simply GSZ for 0 and do something else that turn.

That's not the case - the only related official shortcut defined in the MTR is a player making choices on announcement that should be made on resolution. That is not what happened here, so a judge would have to determine in each specific situation whether a shortcut was intended or there was misunderstanding of the rules.

[Jenni]

I don't think it's very 'exploitable' - either you get to spend 0 with Zenith and have it countered (instead of more) or you get to choose X knowing your opponent has a counter.


Maybe I'm just looking at the situation in an odd way, but, were I the control player in this case, I would be content with the situation because either X is some value I don't care about, and it resolves, and I still have my counterspell I've been representing with UU mana open to counter something later. Or, X is a value I care enough to stop, and I do, and the situation plays out how I was planning anyway.

[Tammit67]

Maybe I'm just looking at the situation in an odd way, but, were I the control player in this case, I would be content with the situation because either X is some value I don't care about, and it resolves, and I still have my counterspell I've been representing with UU mana open to counter something later. Or, X is a value I care enough to stop, and I do, and the situation plays out how I was planning anyway.

That is the same damn thing anyway. You have to announce X and the control player gets to counter if they so choose. The only thing that changes is that you now know that they in fact have the counterspell.

That's what control does. If(X is not a good number) then counter. Else let resolve. That is exactly how the situation would end up if your opponent did not jump the gun and waited for your announcement of X.