Finalize

[Titanium Dragon]

Finalize
Instant
Target spell resolves.
Draw a card.

A red spell that reflects its impatience. Highly splashy and does what a lot of invitationalist cards try to do, but I think this time without shredding the comprehensive rules - effectively rearranges the stack. Useful for countering counterspells, getting your giant growth to resolve before that lightning bolt, and a wide variety of other situations where you'd like to have the spells on the stack resolve in another order.

While this card is narrow, I think it is cool in its many applications and is rather punchy.

Anusien requested that I open up a seperate thread for discussion of this card, so I did.

Prior discussion:

Finalize
Instant
Target spell resolves.
Draw a card.

Shouldn't this have split second?

No.

Why not?  Without split second it's just basically a less flexible Burnout.

Well:

1) Split Second is a block keyword; it won't be in whatever block the invitational card is printed in, so obviously it can't appear on the card. Many past cards have made these mistakes, and they always end up being changed. Fundamentally, Invitational cards cannot have non-evergreen keywords appear on them.
2) Burnout costs 1 mana more, is a slowtrip, and is not more versatile than Finalize. This card can be used to counter counterspells, but it has a lot of other interesting strategic implications as well. If, for instance, you have a Giant Growth in your hand and your opponent has a Shock, if you cast your giant growth to pump your creature, your opponent can shock your creature in response, killing it; likewise, your opponent cannot just cast Shock on your creature because you'll then giant growth it to save it. Finalize allows you to turn this on its head; you can play your spell first, then when your opponent tries to 2-for-1 you, you Finalize your initial spell, 2-for-1ing them by causing them to waste a spell for nothing. It can also be used to screw up stack tricks, though maybe it should be expanded to "Target spell or ability resolves." to make it even more versatile.

[The Atog Lord]

This is a really cool card, and very much in Red's flavor. I like the fact that even if the card does not do anything in a given match, it at least cycles for R fairly easily.

My only concern is that the card is weakened because it only draws a card if it "works." Having the draw trigger off the spell going to the graveyard from the stack would make it more powerful in a counterwar. However, it would also reduce the elegance of the card -- one of my favorite things about it.

[Shock Wave]

Thumbs up. This is very cool indeed!

[Anusien]

Incidentally, I'm not sure if you can say "Target spell resolves."  If you can't, you may have to RFG and recast it, like Ertai's Meddling.  Something like: "Remove target spell from the game.  If you do, put that card on the stack as a copy of the original spell." (which works).

Incidentally, I feel like this is too limited without Split Second.  Otherwise it's rarely better than Overmaster.

Also, I have to say, this is an awesome card.

[Titanium Dragon]

Incidentally, I'm not sure if you can say "Target spell resolves."  If you can't, you may have to RFG and recast it, like Ertai's Meddling.  Something like: "Remove target spell from the game.  If you do, put that card on the stack as a copy of the original spell." (which works).

Target spell resolves works as far as I know (there's nothing that says it doesn't) but it is weird (as you'll end up having that spell resolve, then leave the stack, then Finalize will leave the stack, which may be slightly counterintuitive) but I don't think it is a real barrier to the card's functionality.

Incidentally, I feel like this is too limited without Split Second.  Otherwise it's rarely better than Overmaster.

Well, it does everything Overmaster does, plus it can affect spells in other ways (the burn/giant growth scenario, for instance, or it could screw up stack tricks like Izzet Guildmage + Reset by causing the reset to be copied to resolve before the copy effect resolves, thus fizzling the combo). Should it be able to force abilities to resolve as well, which would have more implications? (For instance, you could force the Stax player to resolve the abilities in the opposite order from what they want).

[Mr. Nightmare]

I like it as abilities also, sort of like a counter-stifle.

"Target Spell, Activated Ability, or Triggered Ability resolves."

It may have to be recosted with that much oomph, but at least you could call it "Yes."

[bomholmm]

I really like this card, very clean and very powerful.  It can be used to protect your spells as well as pull some really cool stack tricks, for instance you can get sorceries and creatures on top of instants on the stack.

it also allows you to screw up an opponents stack sequence.

It can be used to play around chalice and counterbalance as well.

[Mr. Nightmare]

This question was posted on mtgSalvation in their rules forum:

I have 3 Wall of Roots on table. My opponent plays Wrath of God. Can i cast Chord of Calling in a way to let Wrath of God resolve first and the Chord fo lets say Simic Sky Swallower?

Now, obviously the answer is no, but I did want to point out that Finalize lets you do just that.

Wrath.  In response, convoke out a Chord.  In response, Finalize the Wrath.

This card is like, top 5 coolest cards invented in this forum for sure.

[Anusien]

This card is like, top 5 coolest cards invented in this forum for sure.

I agree.

Incidentally, since I'm the only one pushing for Split Second, I'm willing to let it pass (especially since it probably has to cost 1R for Split Second, or not cantrip).

Keep it as is.

[bomholmm]

This thing is pretty awesome on isochron scepter.

[Anusien]

This thing is pretty awesome on isochron scepter.

*Shrug* Remand is probably better, or even Chant.

[Venven]

Nice card, it suits red perfectly. I could see this being viable in quite a few Standard environments, because it isn't overly restricted like Overmaster.

There are technical issues that would make actually printing this card difficult, but I think it could be done with fewer rules changes than Mindslaver required, for instance. I'd like to see this card added to the Master List, so don't misconstrue the following analysis as disparaging, it's just an assessment of the card's interaction with the rules.

Objects on the stack resolve in a linear, immutable direction. As the Reader (the thing at the 'top' of the stack) descends, it passes effects to the Rules structure. The Reader can't change positions on the stack without resolving whatever is next on the stack. Objects can't exist on the back end of the Reader. So the other option is to reorder the stack, and that is where things get bloated. At the moment there are no effects that simply move an effect within the stack without changing zones. I don't know why, but it seems like a fundamental property of the stack, so I don't think it would be wise to mess with it directly. You could, alternatively, use effects which functionally rearrange the stack so that the target spell is next to resolve. To retain functionality similar to your original card, the spell would need to gain split second as well, or have "~This~ can't be countered..."

So, the nuts and bolts version would look something like:

Copy target spell, then counter that spell. You may play that copy.

However, the line "You may choose new targets for the copy" is absent because it needs to retain functionality similar to your original. That line isn't necessary for the card to function within the rules, but there should be reminder text showing how this card differs from normal copy cards. Also, the countering and copying are probably unnecessary, don't work with Last Word and others, and could cause unwanted coincidental triggered abilities to, well, trigger.

So, after some refinement:

Remove target spell you control from the game. You may play that spell without paying its mana cost. If you do, that spell gains split second.

The problem here is that there is still a necessary pass of priority after the spell is put back on top of the stack where players can respond with morphs, etc. The fundamental issue is how it is currently impossible to feed the first bit of information into the Reader without players passing priority. That's the reason why split second works the way it does. This card is roughly analogous to split second in that light; the portrayal of the effect to the player needs to be painted with flavour to cover the mechanical guts of the Magic Rules. The disparity between the player's perception of how the rules work, or should work, and the reality of the machine need to be smoothed over. So, as mentioned above, with the addition of a few rules or even keywords this card could be a reality.

[parallax]

I see no problem with "Target spell resolves." under the current rules. Objects can be removed from the stack in any order, Counterspell and Remand already remove spells from the stack out of order. Having a spell resolve out of order is not a problem.

[Titanium Dragon]

Objects on the stack resolve in a linear, immutable direction. As the Reader (the thing at the 'top' of the stack) descends, it passes effects to the Rules structure. The Reader can't change positions on the stack without resolving whatever is next on the stack. Objects can't exist on the back end of the Reader. So the other option is to reorder the stack, and that is where things get bloated. At the moment there are no effects that simply move an effect within the stack without changing zones. I don't know why, but it seems like a fundamental property of the stack, so I don't think it would be wise to mess with it directly. You could, alternatively, use effects which functionally rearrange the stack so that the target spell is next to resolve. To retain functionality similar to your original card, the spell would need to gain split second as well, or have "~This~ can't be countered..."

So, the nuts and bolts version would look something like:

Copy target spell, then counter that spell. You may play that copy.

However, the line "You may choose new targets for the copy" is absent because it needs to retain functionality similar to your original. That line isn't necessary for the card to function within the rules, but there should be reminder text showing how this card differs from normal copy cards. Also, the countering and copying are probably unnecessary, don't work with Last Word and others, and could cause unwanted coincidental triggered abilities to, well, trigger.

So, after some refinement:

Remove target spell you control from the game. You may play that spell without paying its mana cost. If you do, that spell gains split second.

The problem here is that there is still a necessary pass of priority after the spell is put back on top of the stack where players can respond with morphs, etc. The fundamental issue is how it is currently impossible to feed the first bit of information into the Reader without players passing priority. That's the reason why split second works the way it does. This card is roughly analogous to split second in that light; the portrayal of the effect to the player needs to be painted with flavour to cover the mechanical guts of the Magic Rules. The disparity between the player's perception of how the rules work, or should work, and the reality of the machine need to be smoothed over. So, as mentioned above, with the addition of a few rules or even keywords this card could be a reality.

The thing is that there is no "reader"; it simply doesn't exist under the rules. Currently, the only way for a spell or ability to resolve is for it to be on top of the stack; however, resolution is not dependent on being on top of the stack under the rules. Resolution can, in fact, occur at any time, including during the resolution of other spells or abilities; there's nothing in the comprehensive rules preventing it, it is simply that (to my knowledge) up to this point in time nothing has allowed for it to occur. Rule 413.2 clearly spells out how resolution works; note that rule 413.1 simply states when under the current rules a spell resolves but doesn't say that a spell can't resolve any other way. Indeed the rules are written in such a way that Finalize doesn't even require the Comprehensive Rules to be amended. Rearranging the stack -would- require it, but because Finalize doesn't actually rearrange the stack, merely simulates a rearrangement, it doesn't matter. Resolution is fully covered under the rules, and there's no reason a card couldn't cause a spell to resolve via rule 413.2.

I looked at the comprehensive rules after I thought up this card months ago because I wanted to see if it actually worked; there's absolutely nothing within the rules that says it wouldn't. Indeed, the game handles it quite well. Let's say that I played Shock targeting a Grizzly Bears my opponent controlled, and my opponent, in response, cast Giant Growth targeting those same Grizzly Bears. I then cast Finalize in response, targeting my own Shock. My opponent doesn't have any response, so the following actions occur:

Finalize begins resolution
Finalize checks that its target is still there, and finds it.
Reading from top to bottom, the first step of Finalize says that its target, Shock, resolves.
Shock begins resolution.
Shock deals 2 damage to the Grizzly Bears.
Shock is done resolving, and goes to my graveyard.
Finalize tells me to draw a card, so I draw a card.
Finalize is done resolving, and goes to my graveyard.
State-based effects are checked, and the 2/2 Grizzly Bears have taken 2 points of damage, and thus are put into the graveyard from play.
We each pass priority.
Giant Growth begins resolution.
Giant Growth looks for its target, fails to find it, and is countered, putting it into its owner's graveyard, on top of the Grizzly Bears.

None of this doesn't work under the current comprehensive rules. It may seem a bit wierd, but it doesn't really matter; it still works just fine and dandy, and the way you'd expect it to work under the rules. The only real potential source of confusion is the order of Finalize and Shock in your own graveyard, but that never matters anywhere other than Legacy and Vintage, and hardly ever matters there either, and in any event, if you're playing Legacy and Vintage, there are far more confusing cards around that work in far less intuitive ways. Finalize works pretty much exactly as you'd think it would.

EDIT: As an aside, I'm glad everyone likes this card and like to see that it has created discussion.

[Harlequin]

I think we have to re-order the wording, and possibly add the word "next"

Draw a Card.
Target spell resolves next (no player has priority between this spell and the targeted spell).

I'm just concerned that we be ending up in a situation where one spells is resolving in the middle of another spell.  I can't think of any situations where this matters - but It seems like one of the unbreakable rules of magic is that two spells cannot simultaniously resolve, in that one spell must fully* resolve before another spell can begin to resolve.  For referance, look at the way Splice into Arcane is worded... its a completely differant mechanic - but it seems like they deliberatly avoided causing situations where two spells were resolving at the same time.

[Anusien]

When you play Flash, Protean Hulk comes into play and is sacrificed during Flash's resolution.  Madness allows spells to be played during the resolution of another spell.  I'd submit it as-is and if they have to tweak the rules, they have to tweak the rules.  It's 100x cleaner and more easy to understand this way.

[Harlequin]

I don't think either of that is true....

Flashing in hulk instructs you to do certain actions, and any triggers resolve outside of flash's resolution.  For example, I flash in Flame Tounge Kavu.  Kavu enters play, and then leaves play.  I don't think Kavu is a legal target for the 4 damage because it's in the graveyard even before the trigger goes on the stack.  I may not be correct on this, but certainly flashing in the Kavu does not "resolve" a Kavu.

Also Madness is replacement ability tied to a triggered ability - that then turns into a spell on the stack.  While you are in the middle of say - mindtwist, the discard effect is replaced by an RFG effect, that in turn triggers a "you may pay the madness cost"  Then after mindtwist has fully resolve, and the trigger resolves (and is paid) the spell then goes on the stack and then resolves independant of the mind twist.

EDIT: Also, I cannot get access to the C.R.s  but I think theres a rule that says:  The active player get's priority -after- every spell or ability that resolves off the stack.  If thats true then under the current card text players would gain priority in the middle of Finalizes resolution after the target spell finishes resolveing but before the card is drawn.  This would mean that players could play additional instants and abilitys in the middle of Finalize before the card is drawn.

The more I think about this, the more I feel Finalize would most correctly be worded with:

Target spell resolves next, and gains Split Second.
Draw a card.

[Venven]

"217.1b The order of objects in a library, in a graveyard, or on the stack can't be changed except when effects or rules allow it. Objects in other zones can be arranged however their owners wish, although who controls those objects, whether they're tapped or flipped, and what other objects are attached to them must remain clear to all players."

"413.1. Each time all players pass in succession, the object (a spell, an ability, or combat damage) on top of the stack resolves. (See rule 416, "Effects.")"

So you definitely can rearrange the order of the stack with an effect, it's just a bit odd, like rearranging graveyard order would be. Based on these rules, the actual way that this card would be programmed into Magic Online would be to move the target spell to the top of the stack and force all players to pass priority. I have no idea if that functionality is possible in Magic Online, but the design of split second suggests that it isn't possible or ideal to override player priority.

All cards are abstract representations to some degree, and there are cards with text that doesn't reflect the actual way the card is programmed in Magic Online, so appearance not matching function is not an issue. That statement seems painfully obvious after writing it. The issue that's still bothering me is forcing all players to pass priority, but that's really a question of how priority was implemented. That makes me wonder how they coded Mindslaver, but that's too much work to figure out.

In the end, I think the initial card is worded perfectly, I'm just not sure if it's possible at the moment.

[Titanium Dragon]

I'm just concerned that we be ending up in a situation where one spells is resolving in the middle of another spell.  I can't think of any situations where this matters - but It seems like one of the unbreakable rules of magic is that two spells cannot simultaniously resolve, in that one spell must fully* resolve before another spell can begin to resolve.

It isn't an unbreakable rule, and indeed, as I pointed out above, it doesn't matter in the slightest; the rules handle it just fine.

EDIT: Also, I cannot get access to the C.R.s  but I think theres a rule that says:  The active player get's priority -after- every spell or ability that resolves off the stack.  If thats true then under the current card text players would gain priority in the middle of Finalizes resolution after the target spell finishes resolveing but before the card is drawn.  This would mean that players could play additional instants and abilitys in the middle of Finalize before the card is drawn.

Incorrect. The rule for priority is 408.1c:

408.1c The active player gets priority at the beginning of most phases and steps, after any game actions are dealt with and abilities that trigger at the beginning of that phase or step go on the stack.

You wouldn't gain priority in the middle of resolution because game actions were still going on.

I have no idea if that functionality is possible in Magic Online, but the design of split second suggests that it isn't possible or ideal to override player priority.

Split Second works the way it does so that it can be answered, plain and simple. This spell can be responded to, so it isn't non-interactive either. It is entirely about interactivity.

The issue that's still bothering me is forcing all players to pass priority, but that's really a question of how priority was implemented.

There is no "forcing all players to pass priority"; that's not how the card works. It works like any other spell does. It goes on the stack, can be responded to as normal, and only when it resolves does it cause the other spell to resolve - nothing really unusual save that it causes another spell to resolve as well. It works just fine under the game rules, which means MTGO should be able to handle it.

[parallax]

The second relevant part of rule 408.1c is

If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the top object on the stack resolves, then the active player receives priority.

Note it doesn't say that whenever a spell resolves, someone receives priority. What happens is, every player passes priority, allowing Finalize to resolve. While Finalize is resolving, the targeted spell resolves. Then, Finalize finishes resolving and the active player receives priority.

We don't (and shouldn't) take MODO into account when designing cards. It's the job of the Magic Online programmers to implement the cards, and they seem to be better at it than you give them credit for.

[Anusien]

I think the simplest approach is best.  We don't have to print the card, just give a mandate to Wizards.  If they have to tweak the wording, that's fine.  However, I'd rather start with the simplest wording imaginable and let the WotC people get the meaning, rather than try and give them a fixed version that may not be optimal.  Stick with "Target spell resolves."

[Mr. Nightmare]

I'm upping this thread just to say that I've made this a card for my T4 stack.  Here's a pic if you'd like to do the same:

[Matt]

Removing a spell from the stack and returning it has problems with remembering if additional costs have been paid, such as kicker, buyback, and Fireball. It also has unpleasant interactions with flashback. If "target spell resolves" doesn't work, it could forcibly rearrange the stack (put target spell on top of the stack. That spell gains Split Second).

In fact, this would be a fun card:

2RR
Instant
Rearrange all objects on the stack in a random order.

[Norm4eva]

Isochron Scepter broke the "no doing stuff while other things are resolving" rule a long time ago.  The rules text @ gatherer basically just say, "This card breaks a rule.  Meh."  So there's really no reason at all to consider an alternative wording.  Relevant linkage: http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=46741
At any rate, this card is great.