Discussion Forum

Concerning Stacking

Example:
Pyromancer activated ability goes on stack.
I use doom blade, it goes on stack.
Then doom blade resolves first and pyromancer is destroyed.
So it's activated ability can't resolve anymore, I lose 0 life...

Am I right? This video says i'm not :/ very end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW2eiwvPgqo&feature=relmfu
Posted 13 December 2011 at 05:29

Permalink

Well this is confusing... maybe so yes no! :S
0
Posted 13 December 2011 at 05:35

Permalink

The way I understand it (and I could be wrong) is that destroying the source of an ability already on the stack doesn't remove the ability from the stack.

Scenario:
Pyromancer throws a fireball at you,
You kill the Pyromancer
...there's still a fireball flying through the air at you
0
Posted 13 December 2011 at 05:54

Permalink

[QUOTE=efinmiller]
Pyromancer throws a fireball at you,
You kill the Pyromancer
...there's still a fireball flying through the air at you[/QUOTE]

Yes but the stack's First In Last Out rule makes it so the creature will die before the fireball was sent flying... That's how the stack works...
0
Posted 13 December 2011 at 05:57

Permalink

I always thought of it as 'activation/casting' = 'fireball starts flying through the air' and 'resolution' = 'fireball makes contact with target' so 'time on the stack' = 'time in flight' as it were.

And good news! I found the rule!

112.7a. Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Sorcerer deals 1 damage to target creature or player”) rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.
0
Posted 13 December 2011 at 06:15

Permalink

Amazing, thanks a lot!
0
Posted 13 December 2011 at 07:20

Permalink

Pyromancer activated ability goes on stack.
Doom blade, goes on stack targetting Pyromancer.
Doom blade resolves and pyromancer is destroyed.
Pyromancer ability resolves and deals 1 damage

that's how it works
0
Posted 13 December 2011 at 08:29

Permalink

You cannot stop an activated ability from happening. Once it is on the stack, it is there unless countered by a counterspell that specifically reads "counter target activated ability."

Also, Pyromancer ascension has a Triggered ability, not an Activated ability. There is no way for a Triggered ability to be stopped.

In your example, the Doom Blade is irrelevant. Once Pyromancer Ascension copies a spell, the spell is copied.
0
Posted 13 December 2011 at 20:48

Permalink

they're not talking about Pyromancer Ascension, but rather Prodigal Pyromancer (or one of its variations)
0
Posted 13 December 2011 at 21:13

Permalink

from my understanding with a tap ability destroying the creature will remove the effect from the stack when the the cards states the creature itself will deal the damage but if it merely states deal 1 damage then removing the creature wont stop it because then the effect is independant of the creature but if it sais the creature deals 1 damage then the effect is dependant on the creature being there to perform the action i would think using such an ability in response to the card being destroyed would use the stack to insure it got one last bang before it goes out but in the situation where the ability activates first i would think the stack would overide it in the situation above otherwise it would make alot of the utility in instant destroy cards useless
0
Posted 14 December 2011 at 17:31

Permalink

@me15159

Read rule 112.7a (conviniently posted earlier in the thread). Note the last sentance, "The source can still preform the action even though it no longer exists."
0
Posted 14 December 2011 at 18:20

Permalink