Shoals

[Gabethebabe]

In my local forum there came up this matter:
If I remove F/I to pay for Shoals, do I counter spells of cmc 2 or cmc of 4?

Let´s look at the relevant rules:

505.5. Effects that ask for a particular characteristic of a split card while it’s in a zone other than the stack get an answer that consists of a combination of the split card’s two halves.
Example: Infernal Genesis has an ability that reads, “At the beginning of each player’s upkeep, that player puts the top card from his or her library into his or her graveyard. He or she then puts X 1/1 black Minion creature tokens into play, where X is that card’s converted mana cost.” If the top card of your library is Assault/Battery when this ability resolves, you get five 1/1 creature tokens because Assault’s converted mana cost is 1 and Battery’s is 4, for a total of 5.

505.6. Effects that ask if a split card’s characteristic (in any zone other than the stack) matches a given value get only one answer. This answer is “yes” if either side of the split card matches the given value.
Example: Void reads, “Choose a number. Destroy all artifacts and creatures with converted mana cost equal to that number. Then target player reveals his or her hand and discards all nonland cards with converted mana cost equal to the number.” If a player plays Void and chooses 1 or 4, his or her opponent would discard Assault/Battery. If the player chooses 5, Assault/Battery would be unaffected, because neither half has a converted mana cost of 5.

So which of these two rules apply for Shoals.

My rules answer was: 505.5 applies, Shoals will ask F/I for its CMC and F/I will say "4".

But I´m not 100% sure on this. You could also think that Shoals asks on its resolution: I´m trying to counter a spell of CMC 2, does the removed blue card have a CMC of 2 as well? In that case (505.6) F/I will confirm it has CMC of 2.

The text of Shoals:

Disrupting Shoal XUU
Instant- Arcane
You may remove a blue card in your hand with converted mana cost X from the game rather than pay Disrupting Shoal's mana cost.
Counter target spell if it's converted mana cost is X.

[Toad]

I'd say 505.6 applies there. All Shoal asks you to do is to remove a blue card from your hand. You can target a Force of Will with Shoal even if you removed a Brainstorm from the game.

Upon resolution, Shoal will look if the CMC of the card you removed matches the CMC of the card it is targetting.

So I'd say Fire/Ice would counter Time Walk, but not Disminishing Returns.

I'm pretty sure some rules guidelines will be issued about this in BOK FAQ, as some were issued for Fire/Ice and Isochron Scepter for MRD.

[Tristal]

Fire/Ice's CMC is "2 and 2".  This does NOT make X = 4; X does not depend on the card you remove, rather the other way around - you set X before you remove a card to match it.

[Gabethebabe]

To determine the CMC of a card, add up its mana symbols.
Fire/Ice has 1R + 1U = 2RU => 4.
Therefore, Shoals removing Fire/Ice counters spells of CMC 4.

The FAQ does not address this issue, but I'm 100% sure I'm right.

If it would be that simple, than it would be impossible to imprint F/I on a scepter.
Careful with being 100% sure.

I agree with you though, but I´m far from 100% sure. Toad seems to disagree and AFAIK he is not a rules nitwit

[Toad]

Even if I'm not a rules niwit (level2 judge) my answer is just a personnal opinion, I just made a parallel with Isochron Scepter and Fire/Ice. It *may* be wrong

Actually, there are 3 possibilities for the answer. Fire/Ice is not a good example for this due to the symetry of the CMC, so I'll use Illusion / Reality {G} for this.

Answers :

* You can counter a spell that costs 4, since 1+3=4.
* You can counter a spell that costs 1, since the blue part of the card costs 1.
* You can counter a spell that costs 1 or 3, since Reality also costs 3 (see Isochron Scepter allowing to play Reality after imprinting according to Illusions' CMC).

I'd say the third choice is correct. Once again, personal opinion.

I'm surprised the FAQ does not address this issue though.

[Gabethebabe]

Well, I think the first is correct and if that is not the one: then the third, because the second is surely not correct.

EDIT:
Toad is correct.
I was wrong.
Tristal who said that he was 100% right is wrong.

Split cards have two CMC´s.
You can counter Cunning Wish with Shoal, pitching Illusion/Reality. You can also counter Ancestral doing the same thing.

The rule 505.5, where you get 5 tokens from the converted mana cost of Assault Battery is comparable to Monkey Cage, if two creatures enter play simultaneously, you get an amount of apes equal to the CMC of both creatures added up.

[Tristal]

But I´m not 100% sure on this. You could also think that Shoals asks on its resolution: I´m trying to counter a spell of CMC 2, does the removed blue card have a CMC of 2 as well? In that case (505.6) F/I will confirm it has CMC of 2.

Here's my logic:
Shoals does not ask the question "Does this card have the converted mana cost of the card removed to pay for ~this~?", it asks "Does this card have converted mana cost X?"  X is determined by the CMC of the card removed (or the mana paid for X), and Fire/Ice's CMC is four.

Isochron Scepter asks "Does the imprinted card have a CMC of 2 or less?" The answer is yes, because if you're looking for a CMC (as in 505.6), you can find it.  Shoals isn't looking for a specific CMC on the card you remove, it's asking you what the CMC is.

EDIT: My logic was fine except for figuring out F/I's CMC, which is '2 and 2', not '4'.  Isochron has no problem with Fire/Ice (or Stand/Deliver) because when asking for a CMC of 2 or less, it gets a yes answer (2 and 2, 1 and 3).  Shoals doesn't ask what the CMC of the card you remove is, so 505.5 doesn't apply.

[Khahan]

The 2 rules you quoted do not contradict each other. They both apply in different situations.
505.5 asks, "What is the converted mana cost of that card?" See their infernal genesis example.
In this case, its asking a generic question: What is it. And the answer is both sides added together because nothing tells it to use one or the other.

In 505.6 asks, is this number represented by the card.  Its a yes or no test that is applied.
This is the rule that applies to this question.

If I play Impulse (1U) and you wish to counter it with Shoals, you remove Fire/Ice. The game checks and 'asks this question' Do I see a CMC of 2 on this card.  
The answer to that questions is: Yes.

Lets run through a few other examples:
I cast Moat (2WW) with a converted CC of 4.  You remove Fire/Ice. The game looks and says, "Do I see a converted CC of 4?" The answer is no. It sees a converted CC of 2 and a converted CC of 2.

I cast Moat. You remove Illusion (U) (part of Illusion/Reality. Illusion costs  (U) and Reality costs 2G).  The game asks: Do I see a converted CC of 4? The answer is no. It sees a converted cc of 1 and 3.

I cast Trinisphere (3). You remove Illusion. The game asks, "Do I see a CMC of 3? The answer is Yes.


You must run it through this litmus test (so have plenty of litmus paper on hand). The question you ask is this: Is the game looking for a yes or no answer? If the game is looking for a Y/N answer, then use rule 505.6. If it is not looking for a Y/N answer, then you use rule 505.5

[Jebus]

I've been mulling this over throughout the day and I've come to the conclusion that 505.5 is the relevant rule for this situation.

However, I will look into getting an official answer to this.

[Tristal]

Again, Shoals is not comparing cards, it's comparing the targetted spell with X.  As Shoals resolves it needs no reference to the removed card at all, as X was already locked in on announcement.

[Jacob Orlove]

Removing the card is a cost for paying Shoals, which you'd pay after choosing X.

The targeted spell is irrelevant, because all you do there is compare X to its CMC (if they match, counter it; if not, Shoals does nothing).

[Jebus]

Upon further review of the rules regarding Shoals and after some discussion with my peers, I have come to the conclusion that rule 505.6 is appropriate.

I had been looking at this wrong.

You chose the value for X when playing the spell, then remove the card to match that value to pay the alt cost.

So, if you chose 2 to be your value for X, you must remove a card with CMC of 2.  So, Fire/Ice would work here.

But, if X were 4, it would not work.

[Tristal]

Jebus is completely correct, verified by [O]fficial answer-type people in #mtgjudge.  Editted posts previous to clarify my mistakes.