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?