Stubborn Denial

[TsumiBand]

Stubborn Denial

Instant

Counter target noncreature spell unless its controller pays an additional .

Ferocious - If you control a creature with power 4 or greater, counter that spell instead.

Since this is a replacement effect, does it straight-up replace "counter target noncreature spell" with "counter target spell" or does the targeting restriction still apply regardless of Ferocious?

My guess is that it does not affect the targeting restriction but I am not altogether certain - a replacement effect does, after all, replace the original event with its own action.

[Megadeus]

Read more carefully. It never says, "Counter target spell". It says "counter target non creature unless ~". Then if power 4 or greater "counter THAT (implying the noncreature spell) spell"

[apple713]

Stubborn Denial

Instant

Counter target noncreature spell unless its controller pays an additional .

Ferocious - If you control a creature with power 4 or greater, counter that spell instead.

Since this is a replacement effect, does it straight-up replace "counter target noncreature spell" with "counter target spell" or does the targeting restriction still apply regardless of Ferocious?

My guess is that it does not affect the targeting restriction but I am not altogether certain - a replacement effect does, after all, replace the original event with its own action.

you should read the replacement effect as, "counter that spell instead", what spell? That non creature spell... it is important to determine what words are modifying other parts of the sentence.

i believe they could have worded it much better.

im not a judge but i think it is more than likely the way they would interpret it as well.

[TsumiBand]

Read more carefully

Well, fft

See here's why it's weird, is because there are a few different precedents for spells that have their own replacement effects printed on them. Like, Kirtar's Wrath doesn't just tack on an additional effect if you have Threshold; it replaces the entire effect with a similar effect and then puts two tokens into play.

It does seem like most targeted effects tend to just use the 'that [object]' wording, so it would seem as though it just replaces the rest of the effect and doesn't touch the targeting restriction.

I realize it doesn't say "counter target spell" but it doesn't say "counter that noncreature spell" either, and honestly in my looking through Gatherer I didn't see a whole lot of specific instances of spells with possible replacement effects (Kicker, Threshold, etc) that did appear to overwrite their own targeting restrictions, but there aren't a whole lot of super specific ones either -- usually if it's like a burn spell, it will say "If [condition] this deals X to that creature or player" so in other words, it goes through the trouble of explicitly repeating itself. Since Stubborn Denial doesn't do that (it doesn't say "counter that noncreature spell instead"), it causes me to wonder what the restriction actually is.

The more I think about it, I don't think Ferocious can even apply during the casting of the spell, so regardless of whether or not the text is as explicit as other cards the rules of the game prevent it from targeting a noncreature spell during announcement because it can't have had its effect replaced yet. I think. That would make the most sense.

[iamajellydonut]

Piss and moan all you want, the card is worded correctly, and there is precedence to work off of. The only counterspell that has a kicker-esque effect is Prohibit, and it says "counter that spell" just like Stubborn Denial does. Saying "that noncreature spell" instead is unnecessary since it the card has already designated what "that" card is. It's the noncreature spell you targeted earlier when you cast the spell.

Also, there's no possible way that Stubborn Denial could ever target a creature spell since the Ferocious ability is conditional. If they killed whatever creature with power of 4 or greater you controlled while Stubborn Denial was on the stack targeting Gray Ogre, you'd be in a world of complications and fizzled spells.

[cdr]

"That spell" means the spell referenced in the targeting restriction. If they wanted to change what the spell can counter, they'd word it like Prohibit which has no targeting restriction. Like iamajellydonut says, self-replacement happens on resolution, so you can't have self-replacement change targeting restrictions.

[TsumiBand]

Piss and moan all you want, the card is worded correctly, and there is precedence to work off of. The only counterspell that has a kicker-esque effect is Prohibit, and it says "counter that spell" just like Stubborn Denial does. Saying "that noncreature spell" instead is unnecessary since it the card has already designated what "that" card is. It's the noncreature spell you targeted earlier when you cast the spell.

Also, there's no possible way that Stubborn Denial could ever target a creature spell since the Ferocious ability is conditional. If they killed whatever creature with power of 4 or greater you controlled while Stubborn Denial was on the stack targeting Gray Ogre, you'd be in a world of complications and fizzled spells.

Who's pissing and moaning? I was under the impression that questions about card interactions and rulings could be asked in the Card Interactions and Rulings forum, so I asked a question.

The comparison to Threshold was preferred to Kicker in general because it's in the same camp - Kicker is a static ability that functions with the spell on the stack, while Threshold and Ferocious are ability words.

At any rate, I got my answer, thanks everybody.

[iamajellydonut]

The comparison to Threshold was preferred to Kicker in general because it's in the same camp - Kicker is a static ability that functions with the spell on the stack, while Threshold and Ferocious are ability words.

There aren't counterspells with Threshold, but there are plenty of other comparable cards that come up with a search for "o:that o:threshold".

[Ace/Homebrew]

Who's pissing and moaning?

In before a donut says he's bored at work and something about bumps on his ass.

[Fox]

I think the key interaction that has been missed is winning counter wars through hive mind when one player lacks ferocious; it shouldn't arise much but when it does is quite entertaining.