Hi,
We have an ongoing dispute about the correct interpretation of the role of self-replacement effects in this interaction: Memory Lapse + Guile.

We know that Guile “wins”, but we have two different arguments that lead to the same result.

1) Guile's effect replaces the “counter” keyword action of Memory Lapse. Then the self-replacememt effect of Memory Laps would try to apply by changing the destination zone of the “spell countered this way”, but it will fail because it's not appliable any more.

2) Memory Lapse's self-replacement effect is applied first, modifying the very definition of the keyword action “to counter”, which counts still as “to counter”, but moves the object to the top of the library. Then, while Memory Lapse is resolving, Guile sees a spell that is going to be countered (regardless of its destination) and exiles the spell.

The difference is very subtle, I hope to have been clear. The focus is on the correct order in processing the two effects.

Thank you very much for your help,
Donato

Neither answer is fully correct, but 1 is the closest.

Memory Lapse is looking for the spell to be countered to see if its self-replacement effect applies. But Guile replaces countering the spell with exiling it instead and letting you play it. So Memory Lapse resolves, and the Lapse would counter the spell, but Guile steps in and replacing countering the spell with its effect. Since the spell is not countered by the Lapse, you don't apply the self-replacement effect at all.

The net result of resolving Memory Lapse while controlling Guile is that you exile the spell and you can play it, and the Lapse never tries to put it on top of the library since we never get to apply the self-replacement effect of the Lapse.

Nathan Long
Wizard.Com Boards NetRep