استریم

برچسب: effect

  • magic the gathering – How does “other than enchanted creature” (and ideally some broader category of effect phrases) use last known information?

    magic the gathering – How does “other than enchanted creature” (and ideally some broader category of effect phrases) use last known information?


    Suppose Player A’s Sporogenic Infection enters enchanting Player B’s Nine-Lives Familiar, and its ETB triggered ability is put onto the stack targeting Player B. Player B responds by casting Back to Nature, destroying Sporogenic Infection. When Sporgenic Infection’s ETB triggered ability resolves, can Player B sacrifice Nine-Lives Familiar?

    The best candidate for relevant rule seems to be…

    608.2h If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself, the effect uses the current information of that object if it’s in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it’s no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object’s last known information. See rule 113.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability.

    I am unclear on the how to apply the phrase “requires information from a specific object.” In my own attempt to arrive at an answer, two distinctions arose…

    • About which object(s) does the effect require information? Does it look at the creature and view “being enchanted by Sporogenic Infection” as information about that creature? Does it look at the enchantment and view “enchanting Nine-Lives familiar” as information about that enchantment? Does it look at both the creature and the enchantment?

    • Does the phrase “other than enchanted creature” refer to whichever object(s) the effect ultimately looks at intensionally or extensionally, for example, in the case that the effect will look at just the creature, does the effect say “hey game, give me information about Nine-Lives Familiar” (intensional) or “hey game, give me information about the creature which has the property of being enchanted by Sporogenic Infection”?

    If the creature is the sole object of query, and if “other than enchanted creature” refers intensionally, then Nine-Lives Familiar is in the public zone it is expected to be in, thus its current information should be used, and as it is no longer enchanted by Sporogenic Infection, it should be legal for Player B to sacrifice Nine-Lives Familiar. If the creature is the sole object of query, but if instead “other than enchanted creature” refers extensionally, then the game will not find any creature which has the property of being enchanted by Sporogenic Infection, and will have to use last known information to find the creature which has that property, and thus it should be illegal for Player B to sacrifice Nine-Lives Familiar. By similar logic, if the enchantment is the object of focus, then regardless of the intensional VS extensional distinction, it should be illegal for Player B to sacrifice Nine-Lives Familiar. If both the creature and the enchantment are objects of query, then more explanation may be warranted.

    What is the right way to interpret and apply this rule? An ideal answer would obviously describe the mechanics which address the broadest category of phrases possible, but if such consistency is not to be found, then at least how does it apply to the phrase “other than enchanted creature” as in the above case?



    Source link

  • How would an effect have to be worded to allow merging multiple Mutate piles?


    I came across multiple questions about Mutate, and I figured that combining multiple Mutate piles into one single Mutate pile could potentially be quite interesting due to allowing for multiple non-Mutate creatures (and maybe even noncreatures that were creatures at the time of their original Mutate) in the pile. Now, the question is, how would an ability be worded to let that happen?

    I’m looking for the wording for one of the following, or both:

    • An effect that’s functionally a "Multi-Mutate N", letting you put a creature with it anywhere on, under or in between N creatures. The creatures can be stacked together in any order, but if any of them are Mutate piles, each pile must remain one continuous block (they can’t be reordered or interleaved with other cards in the pile).
    • An effect that targets 2 Mutate piles and combines them into one pile, with the same ordering restriction. Should only work for Mutate piles – neither non-Mutate creatures nor Mutate creatures should be targetable if they’re not a pile with 2 or more cards.

    Other kinds of effects that interact with Mutate piles (adding or removing cards, or working off of the number of cards in them) might be interesting too, but are probably more of a topic for a separate question.



    Source link

  • Does a card have a keyword if it has the same effect as said keyword?


    I was looking at Contingency Plan and found the effect surprisingly similar to the keyword Surveil. To compare, first the wording of Contingency Plan and then the wording of the Surveil keyword:

    Look at the top five cards of your library. Put any number of them into your graveyard and the rest back on top of your library in any order.

    And

    701.41a To “surveil N” means to look at the top N cards of your library, then put any number of them into your graveyard and the rest on top of your library in any order.

    They quite clearly are the same, so can I assume the card states “Surveil 5” instead? And if so, does it trigger abilities which state “Whenever you surveil …”?



    Source link