Impetuous/Memories That Stain Its Armor both respond "after your opponent play an ability on a foundation".

Question is, then: what happens in the following situation?

1. Player A uses an ability commit something in Player B's staging area.
2. Player B responds with Torn Hero, pays cost.
3. Player A responds with Impetuous/Memories to destroy Torn Hero.

Does Torn Hero's static ability go into effect, even though it was never committed? I assume it still takes the place of the card that would have been committed, of course - just wasn't sure about the other.

Those cards will respond when the ability is played, but before it resolves, so in this case, if your opponent responds with Torn Hero, you could destroy it. Torn Hero itself will not be committed so its continuous ability will not trigger, however, its ability was still played, so it still takes the place of the original target of the committal.

Um, I don't think so (but I could be wrong). Unlike Lost Memories, Neither MtStA nor Impetuous cancel the effects of the ability being played, they just destroy the foundation. So the ability resolves, ergo Torn Hero kicks in (Torn Hero controller commits 2 of opponents cards in their staging area) but is then destroyed.

Oh, you cannot cancel Static Abilities either. They are not played so you cannot cancel them.

ROTBI said:

Torn Hero gets destroyed by MtStA or Impetuous after its cost is paid but before the effect resolves. Thus, it's already gone before its R: would make it be committed. Yeah, the effect still resolves but there's no Torn Hero to commit so the static can't possibly resolve - it's no longer in play to become committed.

Tagrineth said:

Ok, my mind is officially blown. If this is true (not saying I'm doubting you, Tag) then I have misjudged these cards. If the foundation played is affected by it's own effects than the ability is "virtually cancelled", but not really? /shakes head vigorously from left to right

I say virtually cancelled because the Torn Hero controller is discarding a momentum and committing Torn Hero (which THEN is destroyed) without any benefit whatsoever.

If however, the card played was say, The Bigger they are..., then you would have to destroy tBTA but still get to draw cards, correct?

ROTBI said:

Torn hero is NOT committed when it gets blown up. It is not commited until it resolves. The "cost" is just to discard 1 momentum.

The effect is for your opponent to commit torn hero INSTEAD....this means it doesn't happen until your opponents commital effect is RESOLVING...NOT when it is played.

There's no 'virtual' cancellation (that's dangerous territory like the old Dead for 1000 Years ruling :b) going on here -- there's simply a block of static text that never happens. You wouldn't commit Torn Hero either, since redirecting a commit is part of the resolution of Hero's effect.

btw, look up Feelings of Friendship -- that's a card that gets 'virtually cancelled' by Impetuous. You Form (no costs), they destroy it, then you try to resolve its effect -- "Add this card from your staging area to your card pool." /sadface

Since it was brought up, does the card that was initially supposed to be committed still get committed since Torn Hero can't commit in place of it?

Yes, it does. o .o

.......wtf why would it.

Because you're trying to commit a non-existant card in its place. >_>;

it redirects the target..if the target isnt there it still tries to hit....

Actually, I think hayamachop is right. The opponent does as much as they can, and tries to commit the TH instead. They do as much as they can, but since they can't commit TH they do nothing.

do A instead of B

If A cannot be done...then it is not done "instead" of B...could go either way, but i could see that since you aren't doing something else "instead", then the whole effect fizzles and the original target is commited.

for now we're waiting for antigoth to respond...