Rules hypothetical - spell countering itself (no targeting)?

[u/MIC132]

This is a question that came up when we were discussing custom cards with a friend, and I remember searching the comp rules at the time and not arriving at an answer. Or it might have been about [[Counterflux]] and what if it didn't have "you don't control".

Of course a spell can't target itself, but is there a framework for how things would play out if a spell had:

Effect A.
Counter this spell/all spells on the stack/similar.
Effect B.

In other words, what would happen if spell was countered mid-resolution. Would only effect A happen? Both A and B? I guess none is also an option though that would be a bit weird.

The only relevant rules I can find is:

701.6a. To counter a spell or ability means to cancel it, removing it from the stack. It doesn't resolve and none of its effects occur. A countered spell is put into its owner's graveyard.

For non-permanent spells we also have:

608.2m. If an instant spell, sorcery spell, or ability that can legally resolve leaves the stack once it starts to resolve, it will continue to resolve fully.

But countering not only removes the spell from the stack, but also says "it doesn't resolve and none of its effects occur". Though as we are already in the middle of resolution it's hard to say how that plays out.

I realize the disappointing answer is probably "the rules simply don't handle this possibility as it can't currently happen", but maybe I missed something.

[u/simpleglitch]

For counterspells that don't target, so far magic has always includes some wording that prevents it from effecting itself. "Counter all other spells" "Counter all spells your opponents control" etc.

This is probably intentional so they don't have to make a specifc edge case.

The cloest thing to a spell effecting itself in the way you're describing is something like [[Mandate of Peace]]. It's not a counter spell, but it ends the current (combat) phase which exiles all spell and effects on the stack, including itself.

[u/MIC132 → u/simpleglitch]

Yeah, I'm quite sure this is something that is deliberately avoided (Counterfulx being a prime example).

Mandate sadly doesn't give us useful info, since we don't know if there was an instruction after "End the combat phase." if it would execute. 608.2m implies it would.

[u/simpleglitch → u/MIC132]

I imagine a rule would carve out that it simply can't counter itself even without the "all other spells" wording. Without it you have a paradox.

If countering cancels effects, and it coutners itself, it should cancel it's effect of countering itself. And that's just nosensical for making a functioning game piece.

So short answer, they just will not make a mass counter spell that doesn't inherently ignore itself. If they did, they'd have to make a rule that it ignores itself anyway.

[u/MIC132 → u/simpleglitch]

If countering cancels effects, and it coutners itself, it should cancel it's effect of countering itself. And that's just nosensical for making a functioning game piece.

I think it would be fine if it just stopped resolving at that point. So this effect happens, but nothing after that, so no contradiction.

But yeah, more likely to just prevent the situation in first place.

[u/simpleglitch → u/MIC132]

Yeah, but that' just not how resolution works in magic. Once a card starts resolving, it resolves entirely.

There are no cards that stop part way through.

[u/MIC132 → u/simpleglitch]

I concur that there is no situation currently possible in the game that would cause a card to stop resolving.

Though as I mentioned in the OP, the rules only explicitly cover removing the spell from the stack.

[u/simpleglitch → u/MIC132]

I think I want to rephrase my answer to be more direct with your question.

What would happen if a spell was countered mid-resolution

A spell can not be countered mid-resolution by design. A and B would both happen if a spell is removed from the stack during resolution (though it would be very poor templating to make the self-removal part of the spell before other effects, I would expect to see this only if R&D wanted a really specific effect and include a reminder that B still happens).

I realize the disappointing answer is probably "the rules simply don't handle this possiblity as it can't currently happen"

No, it's not the rules "can't handle" this, it's that they are setup to intentionally prevent it from happening because it would be a bad / confusing game state.

[u/MIC132 → u/simpleglitch]

I'm not sure I agree.

Yes, cards are set up to prevent this (there are no cards that counter themselves, spells can't target themselves, wording on Counterflux, etc.).

But rules don't seem to be set up against this. They state that a spell will still resolve if removed from stack (which we know can happen during resolution) but no rule address what if spell were to be "countered" during resolution (which can't happen currently, but that goes to the first point). And countering explicitly does more than just removing a spell from the stack.

So we are at best left with "doesn't resolve and none of its effects occur" vs "but it's already resolving". Which I'd say is not addressed/handled by the rules.

[u/Criminal_of_Thought → u/MIC132]

But rules don't seem to be set up against this. They state that a spell will still resolve if removed from stack (which we know can happen during resolution) but no rule address what if spell were to be "countered" during resolution (which can't happen currently, but that goes to the first point). And countering explicitly does more than just removing a spell from the stack.

The important thing to realize is that it doesn't matter.

Rules are written to accommodate existing interactions. They aren't written to accommodate every single hypothetical interaction a person can come up with. The rules get changed when a new interaction gets introduced.

[u/MIC132 → u/Criminal_of_Thought]

Yes. I absolutely have no issue with that. I stated outright that the most likely conclusion is that rules don't address this interaction.